Re: THOUGHT: International Electronic Declaration of Rights

[tcmay@netcom.com (Timothy C. May)]

Robert Hayden writes:

(I've elided material to shorten the article, never to misrepresent
his remarks.)

> Unfortunately, I don't think the anarchy of the net will work for much 
> longer.  Sooner or later, cryptography issues aside, somebody is going to 
> regulate access or content or both.

The "anarchy of ideas," as manifested in the free market for books,
records, movies, food, lifestyles, etc., has worked pretty well for a
very long time. Most of our lives is not yet under regulated access,
and the burden of proof is clearly on Robert to explain why he thinks
cypberspace _should_ be regulated (I'm not saying he thinks it
_should_ be, but he is claiming it likely _will_ be and that
Cypherpunks should therefore help to develop the laws that will be
used).

Freedom from coercion works pretty well. 

> > person's labor and ingenuity.....well, why not a right declaring
> > access to shelter and transportation, etc., shall not be denied based
> > on an inability to pay? And so on.
> 
> I'll re-qualify that below.  I didn't fully explain my position.

This underscores the danger with most such utopian ideals. I submit
that only a minimalist set of postulates will work, and even that
causes endless problems (witness the constant debate about the meaning
of each and every clause of the U.S. Constitution).
...
> > detweilering, I have no recourse? I can't "retaliate" because that
> > would violate your rights?
> 
> Ok, I should have qualified this as well.  It also has to do with the proper 
> 'forum' as well (and I didn't want to get into specific examples in my 
> original posting).  The old idea that you can't yell "fire" in a crowded 
> theatre.  Not because 'Fire' is a censored word, or yelling 'fire' is bad 
> in all cases, but because a crowded theatre is an improper forum.

The proper solution to the "improper forum" problem is to not have
communally owned resources when privately owned facilities work. This
list, for example, is *not* a "public good*, and sufficiently
disruptive folks can be denied access. With crypto, it's much easier.

By the way, the Justice who made the "shouting 'fire'"" argument later
said he regretted ever using this line of reasoning.

> example from LSTOWN-L), that is an improper forum.  You are "retaliating" 
> not because of the speech itself, but because this specific forum does not 
> exist FOR that speech.

A distinction without a difference. Think about it.

> I meant, I guess, that I have a right to, for example, criticize my 
> government, religion, boss, etc without being fearful of real-world 
> retaliation.  Why did I say this?  Because I can imagine the U.S. 

Well, no. You don't have such a right. Imagine that I have hired you
to represent me in court. You do "your job" well enough, but then
badmouth me on the Oprah Winfrey show. I fire you. Have I violated
your right to free speech? Of course not.

Empoyees are free to leave, indentured servitude not being legal
(though it should be, but that's another debate, for another time).
Employers are free to fire employees...that's how I see things (the
courts have decided otherwise. Again, another debate_).


> My initial concern, and this stems mostly from where I have encountered 
> the networks, in an educational setting.  It is very common to 
> arbitrarily remove a student from access with neither hearing nor even
> informing of the student of why his/her access was cut.  Yes, it may have 
> been justified, but it is still my opinion that a person shoudl be given 
> not only a reason for denial of access, but also a chance to address 
> those reasons.

Most universities are scared shitless, for good reason, that a comment
like "Lesbians are pigs" will get them sued for multiple millions of
dollars. That the Womyn's Studies Department will boycott the computer
network. That the campus newspaper will denounce the university as a
hotbed of right-wing assault speech. Hence, universities adopt "speech
codes" which is a topic unto itself (cf. alt.censorship,
*.*.academic-freedom, comp.org.eff.talk, etc.).

For-profit companies, like Netcom, mostly don't _care_ what
subscribers say. Prodigy does, and Prodigy is losing.

Mandating that a network service _must be_ like Netcom, and not
allowing it to be like Prodigy or MormonNet or PeaceNet, is a cure
that is much more frightening than the disease.

> it, you shoudl get it.  If you cannot pay for it, you don't get it.  But, 
> if you can pay for it, you shoud NOT(!!!) be denied access.

If I want only Catholics to be able to use my service, what's wrong
with that? Or only crypto supporters on Cypherpunks? 

Remember, the incoming and outgoing physical lines to one's home may
presently be a potential for monopoly--potentially--but _places_ and
_channels_ in cyberspace cannot be monopolized....if you don't like
Prodigy or Compuserve, switch to Panix or Netcom. In the future,
absent government's interference, a zillion more channels will arise.

> I think fundamentally you and I agree much more that it seems, so I hope 
> not to start a flamewar. :-)

Nope, I think we're in rather sharp disagreement. 

Still, I never considered this to be any kind of flame war. (I think
too many people are using the term "flame war" loosely. Debate is not
a flame war. A flame war is when personal insults replace attention to
points, when epithets are hurled, when mailbombs are used, and when
the flamers go outside the normal channels, such as Detweiler did when
he attached my signature block to his garbage and then posted it
widely.)

Robert is right, vis-a-vis his comment about flame wars, in that I
expect to see at least several postings of the form "This is not what
I joined Cypherpunks to hear about. I joined to hear about PGP and
other K00l warez." To those who do not wish to read political
commentary, be it about Clipper or a "Cypherpunks Bill of Rights"
(ugh!), then just hit "delete" and move on.

The structures in cyberspace, and the methods for avoiding repetition
of the statist control so beloved by governments, is my main interest
in these topics, and has been for half a dozen years. I don't plan to
stop talking about these issues.

--Tim May


-- 
..........................................................................
Timothy C. May         | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,  
tcmay@netcom.com       | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
408-688-5409           | knowledge, reputations, information markets, 
W.A.S.T.E.: Aptos, CA  | black markets, collapse of governments.
Higher Power: 2^859433 | Public Key: PGP and MailSafe available.
"National borders are just speed bumps on the information superhighway."