Re: Detweiler blocking

["Perry E. Metzger" <pmetzger@lehman.com>]

wisej says:
> In a society where anonymity were commonly available, I would agree
> with you, but sadly we do not live in such a society.  As
> cypherpunks we are trying to rectify this, to make anonymity
> available for _all_, pricks like Detweiler included.

My goal is not to make anonymity available for all. My goal is to keep
it LEGAL for all. Mr. Detweiler and the rest can pay for their
anonymity on their own dime -- I give my services to people I like and
people who pay me, not to anyone and everyone. Just because I feel the
American Nazi Party should be legal does not give me the personal urge
to give them money.

Detweiler is indeed a prick. As such, I feel no obligation to make his
life easy. I see nothing wrong with individuals deciding who they wish
to give service to and who they don't. Just because I feel something
should be legal does not mean I wish to supply it. I think it should
be legal for Detweiler to be anonymous if he wishes. I see no
obligation for anyone who dislikes him to supply him with the
mechanisms to exercise his rights, however.

> I am merely pointing out that I think it would set a dangerous
> precedent, and would in the long run be detrimental to all we are
> working for.

I think the opposite. I believe that suicidally deciding to make his
life easy regardless of how much of a pain in the buttocks he is is
the bad precedent -- it gives people the wrong idea about what these
services are about. Julf kicked him off -- but to this day refuses to
confirm if it was really Detweiler using an12070. That is the sort of
ethical precedent I like -- Julf kept his word about anonymity but
refused to allow his dime to be used to fund further abuse. Its bad
precedent for people to feel muzzy headed about the distinction
between wanting something legal and wanting to supply it.

Perry