Re: [REBUTTAL] Censorship on cypherpunks?, from The Netly News

aga <aga@dhp.com> wrote:
>Let's stay on topic here -- John Gilmore is a censorous asshole
>for pulling Vulis's plug.  The topic has nothing to do with
>the Freedom-Knights.

At 12:19 AM 11/15/96 -0600, snow wrote:
>> [This is a rebuttal to a misguided news article.]
>> > Cypher-Censored
>> > By Declan McCullagh (declan@well.com)
>> >    The list is on Gilmore's machine and he can do what he wants with
>> >    it; he can moderate the postings, he can censor material, he can
>> >    shut the whole thing down. By kicking off an offending user, a
>> >    list owner merely exercises his property right. There's no
>> >    government involvement, so the First Amendment doesn't apply. And
>> >    the deleted, disgruntled user is free to start his own mailing
>> >    list with different rules.
>> 
>> Notice how, once the opposition is admitted to, the rationalization
>> begins. Suddenly this is not a matter of censorship, but of ownership.
>> Just as suddenly, the classic anti-free-speech arguments of "if you
>> don't like it, start yer own" begin to surface. (Anyone ever notice
>> how this resembles the "love it or leave it" mentality of certain
>> American patriotic organizations?)
>
>     It still isn't censorship. Censorship, at least in my dictionary, 
>refers to censor, which uses the word "Official" several times. Mr. 
>Gilmore is not an "Official" in a government sense, he maybe in the EFF
>sense, but this is not an "Official" EFF organ, so that doesn't count. 

Even more important is the fact that Mr. Gilmore did not prevent Mr. Vulis
from speaking.  No restraint on speech implies no censorship.  Therefor Mr.
Vulis was not censored.  Q.E.D.

You all are perfectly free to like or not like what Mr. Gilmore did. 
However, don't call it censorship because it wasn't.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Frantz       | The lottery is a tax on    | Periwinkle -- Consulting
(408)356-8506     | those who can't do math.   | 16345 Englewood Ave.
frantz@netcom.com |       - Who 1st said this? | Los Gatos, CA 95032, USA

On Fri, 15 Nov 1996, Bill Frantz wrote:

> Date: Fri, 15 Nov 1996 13:02:04 -0800
> From: Bill Frantz <frantz@netcom.com>
> To: snow <snow@smoke.suba.com>, Dave Hayes <dave@kachina.jetcafe.org>,
>     aga <aga@dhp.com>
> Cc: declan@well.com, cypherpunks@toad.com
> Subject: Re: [REBUTTAL] Censorship on cypherpunks?, from The Netly News
> 
> aga <aga@dhp.com> wrote:
> >Let's stay on topic here -- John Gilmore is a censorous asshole
> >for pulling Vulis's plug.  The topic has nothing to do with
> >the Freedom-Knights.
> 
> At 12:19 AM 11/15/96 -0600, snow wrote:
> >> [This is a rebuttal to a misguided news article.]
> >> > Cypher-Censored
> >> > By Declan McCullagh (declan@well.com)
> >> >    The list is on Gilmore's machine and he can do what he wants with
> >> >    it; he can moderate the postings, he can censor material, he can
> >> >    shut the whole thing down. By kicking off an offending user, a
> >> >    list owner merely exercises his property right. There's no
> >> >    government involvement, so the First Amendment doesn't apply. And
> >> >    the deleted, disgruntled user is free to start his own mailing
> >> >    list with different rules.
> >> 
> >> Notice how, once the opposition is admitted to, the rationalization
> >> begins. Suddenly this is not a matter of censorship, but of ownership.
> >> Just as suddenly, the classic anti-free-speech arguments of "if you
> >> don't like it, start yer own" begin to surface. (Anyone ever notice
> >> how this resembles the "love it or leave it" mentality of certain
> >> American patriotic organizations?)
> >
> >     It still isn't censorship. Censorship, at least in my dictionary, 
> >refers to censor, which uses the word "Official" several times. Mr. 
> >Gilmore is not an "Official" in a government sense, he maybe in the EFF
> >sense, but this is not an "Official" EFF organ, so that doesn't count. 
> 
> Even more important is the fact that Mr. Gilmore did not prevent Mr. Vulis
> from speaking.  No restraint on speech implies no censorship.  Therefor Mr.
> Vulis was not censored.  Q.E.D.
> 
> You all are perfectly free to like or not like what Mr. Gilmore did. 
> However, don't call it censorship because it wasn't.
> 

Yes it WAS!!  He censored the mode and manner of the speaker.
He censored the personal attacks and the rants and the racial
diatribes!  And that SUCKS!  Gilmore was a fucking asshole for
doing it!  And Gilmore is the WORST kind of censor that there
can be, one who censors a person's "style."

-aga.admin
InterNet Freedom Council

aga <aga@dhp.com> writes:
[quoting some jerk]
> > >     It still isn't censorship. Censorship, at least in my dictionary,
> > >refers to censor, which uses the word "Official" several times. Mr.
> > >Gilmore is not an "Official" in a government sense, he maybe in the EFF
> > >sense, but this is not an "Official" EFF organ, so that doesn't count.

This is bullshit on several counts. First, censorship does not have to be
government-sponsored. Second, John Gilmore's dishonorable actions were
carried out in his official capacity as the list owner. That's how they're
different, e.g., from the dishonorable actions by the lying shyster Jim Ray.

> > Even more important is the fact that Mr. Gilmore did not prevent Mr. Vulis
> > from speaking.  No restraint on speech implies no censorship.  Therefor Mr.
> > Vulis was not censored.  Q.E.D.

This is bullshit. John Gilmore "panalized" me because he didn't like what
I was saying. First he tried to be sneaky about it, then he openly boasted
of his actions.

> > You all are perfectly free to like or not like what Mr. Gilmore did.
> > However, don't call it censorship because it wasn't.
> >
>
> Yes it WAS!!  He censored the mode and manner of the speaker.
> He censored the personal attacks and the rants and the racial
> diatribes!  And that SUCKS!  Gilmore was a fucking asshole for
> doing it!  And Gilmore is the WORST kind of censor that there
> can be, one who censors a person's "style."

I agree. Moreover John Gilmore pulls plugs in an arbitrary and capricious
manner. He did not pull Timmy May's plug for personal attacks, non-crypto-
related rants, racial diatribes about "crazy Russians", religous attacks
on Mormons, and general ignorance and stupidity.

---

Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM
Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps