Re: [NOISE] Censorship of Dr. Vulius

At 10:00 AM 11/4/96 -0500, you wrote:
>someone abuses that priveledge they may lose it. Plain and simple.  It is
>also worthy to note that the Right to Free Speech, etc. applies to the
>government (IOW, the government can not hinder the right to free speech so
>long as that speech does not infringe upon someone else's right.  Since when
>is this list government run?  The decision was apparently a personal one.

I don't think anyone has argued that the owner of the list doesn't have the
right to remove people from it.  However, simply because he has the right to
doesn't mean he should, and it also doesn't mean other members can't or
shouldn't argue that he made a bad decision (unless, of course, the dissenting
members are removed as well.)  Many, if not most, members believe the list
should be run in a non-authoritarian manner (whoever argued that the term
authoritarian applies only to governments is wrong.  the difference is a person
has the right to act in an authoritarian manner over his own property whereas
a government doesn't have that right over it's citizens.  Again, however,
having 
the right doesn't necessarily make it "okay").  
//cerridwyn//

Cerridwyn Llewyellyn <ceridwyn@wolfenet.com> writes:
> I don't think anyone has argued that the owner of the list doesn't have the
> right to remove people from it.  However, simply because he has the right to
> doesn't mean he should, and it also doesn't mean other members can't or
> shouldn't argue that he made a bad decision (unless, of course, the dissentin
> members are removed as well.)  Many, if not most, members believe the list
> should be run in a non-authoritarian manner (whoever argued that the term
> authoritarian applies only to governments is wrong.  the difference is a pers
> has the right to act in an authoritarian manner over his own property whereas
> a government doesn't have that right over it's citizens.  Again, however,
> having
> the right doesn't necessarily make it "okay").

I wholeheartedly concur. I happen to own a lot of books. I disagree with a lot
that's said in those books. I have the right to burn my books, but I don't. :-)

---

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

Cerridwyn Llewyellyn <ceridwyn@wolfenet.com> writes:

> At 10:00 AM 11/4/96 -0500, you wrote:
> >someone abuses that priveledge they may lose it. Plain and simple.  It is
> >also worthy to note that the Right to Free Speech, etc. applies to the
> >government (IOW, the government can not hinder the right to free speech so
> >long as that speech does not infringe upon someone else's right.  Since when
> >is this list government run?  The decision was apparently a personal one.
> 
> I don't think anyone has argued that the owner of the list doesn't have the
> right to remove people from it.  However, simply because he has the right to
> doesn't mean he should, and it also doesn't mean other members can't or
> shouldn't argue that he made a bad decision (unless, of course, the dissentin
> members are removed as well.)  Many, if not most, members believe the list
> should be run in a non-authoritarian manner (whoever argued that the term
> authoritarian applies only to governments is wrong.  the difference is a pers
> has the right to act in an authoritarian manner over his own property whereas
> a government doesn't have that right over it's citizens.  Again, however,
> having 
> the right doesn't necessarily make it "okay").  

John has the right to practice censorship on his mailing list, and he's just
exercised his right. He also has the right to burn all the books he owns.

Someone mentioned the speech codes at private universities as examples of 
censorship. Again, they have the right to do that, and they may or may not
jeopardise their credibility. As Alan Derschowitz pointed out, when Harvard
claims to be a bastiod of academic freedom while at the same time outlawing
"politically correct" speech, it's neither a criminal act nor a tort, they
simply lose their credibility. Likewise Brigham Young University claims to
follow the teachings of ASmith & Young, not John Stuart Mills. They would
damage their credibility if they did _not restrict certain kinds of speech
and activities, such as gay-and-lesbian organizations paid for with student
activity fees.

BYU's words and actions are consistent, while John Gilmore's are not.

---

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