[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Detweiler blocking
Perry E. Metzger wrote:
> No one has proposed censoring his Usenet postings. What
> people have proposed is that they deny him the use of the
> remailers that they set up on their hardware. This is very
> different. Its the difference between saying
> "Detweiler can't live" and "Detweiler can't live IN MY
> LIVING ROOM". Its the difference between saying "I
> advocate the right of people to discuss any topic they
> want" and saying "I adovacate the right of people to
> discuss any topic they want IN MY BEDROOM AT FOUR AM WHILE
> I'M TRYING TO SLEEP."
>
I've seen this analogy before and I think it is a poor analogy and
should not be used. I don't mean for this to be a flame, just a
comment. The problem with this analogy is that you are comparing a
publicly available service that is being abused with a private
residence that is being abused.
It is the difference between "Everybody can use this remailer except
Detweiler" and "Nobody is allowed to shout in my bedroom at 4 AM, and
that includes Detweiler". Do you see the difference. The analogy is
comparing a service with a non-service.
Since remailers are services, the analogies used to discuss them
should compare remailers with other services. For example:
"Detweiler is a disruptive client and I am within my rights to
prevent him from using my service."
Right now, remailer services are free, and that generates the
impression in some that they are public resources that *must* be
available to all. If remailers charged even a small amount for their
service, it might make it easier to justify denying service to
specific individuals. It's not logical, but people are seldom
persuaded by logic alone.
> I see nothing wrong with remailer operators taking steps
> to prevent Detweiler from using their equipment against
> their will. This is not censorship. Mr. Detweiler is
> still free to use Usenet any way he sees fit. It is simp
y
> the act of saying "Mr. Detweiler can't use MY REMAILER any
> way he sees fit."
>
> Perry
>
>From this I can see that you agree that remailer operators should be
able to refuse specific users, when possible. My point with this
post is to recommend abandoning the "bedroom" analogy.
[email protected]