Re: Detweiler abuse again

[dmandl@lehman.com (David Mandl)]

> From: Derek Atkins <warlord@mit.edu>
> 
> tcmay said:
> 
> > I support Hal's proposal that as many remailer operators as possible
> > attempt to filter Detweiler's postings. All it will take for Detweiler
> > to get through is one who doesn't filter, and who supports encryption,
> > but this will still make it harder for folks like Detweiler to abuse
> > the system.
> 
> I disagree.  While I can honestly say that I don't like most Detweiler
> posts, I feel that he is showing us the possibility of how remailers
> can (and are) being abused.  I think censorship is the wrong answer.
> I think there needs to be some accountability, even if it is anonymous
> accountability.

I disagree that this is censorship.  This is an issue that comes up
again and again in anarchist circles.  Censorship is understandably
a thorny issue, especially among anti-authoritarians.  However, I'm
certain that this isn't it.  Anarchy is all about decentralization (I'm
trying to give a definition that all the different types of @'s on this
list can agree with).  When some central authority like the state tells
you you can't publish something or say something in public, that's
censorship.  When I as a small publisher say "You're a Nazi, and I'm not
going to publish your stuff" (something like this came up with a book I
recently edited), that's me telling you that I'm not going to let you
use my resources to print your shit.  In a free, decentralized "economy"
people get to decide how they want to make use of their own facilities.

We are not obligated to let any lunatic in the world use the network that
we've painstakingly set up and nurtured to trash that network or smear
our names.  We can argue among ourselves about policies, etc., but I
don't think we need to show how anti-authoritarian we are by putting out
a welcome mat for saboteurs, provocateurs, or whoever.

All in all, I think people have been pretty tolerant of LD.

   --Dave.