Re: Censorship on cypherpunks?, from The Netly News

At  9:33 AM 11/12/96 -0800, Declan McCullagh wrote:
>The Netly News
>http://www.netlynews.com/
>November 11, 1996
>
>Cypher-Censored
>By Declan McCullagh (declan@well.com)
>...
>       That is, until recently, when Dimitri Vulis was given the boot.
>   After he refused to stop posting flames, rants and uninspired personal
>   attacks, Vulis was summarily removed from the mailing list.
>   
>...
>   
>       Thus began a debate over what the concept of censorship means in a
>   forum devoted to opposing it. Did Gilmore have the right to show Vulis
>   the virtual door? Or should he have let the ad hominem attacks
>   continue, encouraging people to set their filters accordingly? The
>   incident raises deeper questions about how a virtual community can
>   prevent one person from ruining the forum for all and whether only
>   government controls on expression can be called "censorship."

There is a serious error here.  Gilmore did nothing to prevent Vulis from
posting to the list.  He only prevented Vulis from receiving the list under
his own name.  And, the as hominem attacks continue.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Tue, 12 Nov 1996, Bill Frantz wrote:
> There is a serious error here.  Gilmore did nothing to prevent Vulis from
> posting to the list.  He only prevented Vulis from receiving the list under
> his own name.  And, the as hominem attacks continue.

Yes, I understand this. It's quite obvious; being removed from the
subscriber list hasn't slowed Vulis at all. When I was writing the piece
Vulis seemed to have slowed his ad hominem attacks and instead was talking
about censorship (something that is within the charter of the list), but
perhaps the reprieve was only temporary. 

The point I was trying to make at the end and that I may not have done
very successfully is that it would be very difficult to prevent Vulis from
*posting* to the list under his name; he then could do it through
remailers. And blocking remailers is unacceptable. So how does one kick
someone else out of a forum where anonymous speech is allowed?

-Declan


> At  9:33 AM 11/12/96 -0800, Declan McCullagh wrote:
> >The Netly News
> >http://www.netlynews.com/
> >November 11, 1996
> >
> >Cypher-Censored
> >By Declan McCullagh (declan@well.com)
> >...
> >       That is, until recently, when Dimitri Vulis was given the boot.
> >   After he refused to stop posting flames, rants and uninspired personal
> >   attacks, Vulis was summarily removed from the mailing list.
> >   
> >...
> >   
> >       Thus began a debate over what the concept of censorship means in a
> >   forum devoted to opposing it. Did Gilmore have the right to show Vulis
> >   the virtual door? Or should he have let the ad hominem attacks
> >   continue, encouraging people to set their filters accordingly? The
> >   incident raises deeper questions about how a virtual community can
> >   prevent one person from ruining the forum for all and whether only
> >   government controls on expression can be called "censorship."
> 

> 
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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 Wed, 13 Nov 1996, Declan McCullagh wrote:

> Yes, I understand this. It's quite obvious; being removed from the
> subscriber list hasn't slowed Vulis at all. When I was writing the piece
> Vulis seemed to have slowed his ad hominem attacks and instead was talking
> about censorship (something that is within the charter of the list), but
                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
		    
Actually, Declan, it's not.  "info cypherpunks" in the body of a message to
majordomo@toad.com yields the welcome message to the list -- the closest
thing to a charter available.  The subjects of censorship and free speech
are neither mentioned nor alluded to anywhere within that document.

The subjects of censorship & free speech do bear some relationship to the
list's expressed subject and are certainly near and dear to most cypherpunk
hearts.  The government cannot prevent us from discussing the implications 
of privacy enabled by strong crypto.  

Free speech & censorship may even be interesting, entertaining, & important
topics -- hence their consistent recurrance in discussions.  But the above 
assertion is factually wrong.



_______________________________________________________________
 Omegaman <mailto:omega@bigeasy.com> 
  PGP Key fingerprint = 6D 31 C3 00 77 8C D1 C2
                        59 0A 01 E3 AF 81 94 63 
 Send e-mail with "get key" in the "Subject:" 
 field to get a copy of my public key
_______________________________________________________________

Declan McCullagh wrote:
> 
> On Tue, 12 Nov 1996, Bill Frantz wrote:
> > There is a serious error here.  Gilmore did nothing to prevent Vulis 
> > from posting to the list.  He only prevented Vulis from receiving 
> > the list under his own name.  And, the as hominem attacks continue.[...]
> The point I was trying to make at the end and that I may not have done
> very successfully is that it would be very difficult to prevent Vulis 
> from *posting* to the list under his name; he then could do it through
> remailers. And blocking remailers is unacceptable. So how does one 
> kick someone else out of a forum where anonymous speech is allowed?

Simple. Filter by content without admitting that you are doing so. Libel 
people. Suppress discussion.

In short, do precisely the opposite of what Gilmore has done.

I had been assuming, incorrectly, that the fight-censorship list was 
still down because of the hard drive crash on vorlon. As a matter of 
fact, I see that volume 2, issue 4 of the fight-censorship digest 
contains a message from me, though without credit.

If you have a problem with the below, please discuss the matter 
publicly, as Gilmore has discussed Vulis publicly.

|>>>> subscribe fight-censorship
|Your request to Majordomo@vorlon.mit.edu:
|
|        subscribe fight-censorship Richard Charles Graves 
|<llurch@networking.stanford.edu>
|
|has been forwarded to the owner of the "fight-censorship" list for 
|approval.

-rich