[NOISE] Censorship of Dr. Vulius

[Joe Robinson <joe@connect.ab.ca>]

I regret that after lurking for so long my first post is related to this....

Sandy Sandfort <sandfort@crl.com> wrote:
>
> The short answer is, No.  More specifically, we constantly have
> a stream of new readers sampling Cypherpunks.  Some are 
> technically sophisticated; some are not.  In either case, new
> readers do not have the historical perspective not to fall for
> Dimitri's big lies.  Nor do they have any way of know what an
> abberation his sort of behavior is on this list.  "So this is
> what Cypherpunks are like," would be a sad, but understandable
> misinterpretation of what we're all about.  What John did was 
> appropriate.

        While it is true that Cypherpunks IS a much sampled list, it's my
opinion that the distribution in the level of education among subscribers is
rather skewed.  I therefore believe that the "average" subscriber to this
list would be intelligent and competent enough to form their own conclusions
regarding the validity of the opinions expressed by anyone.
        I like to believe that the labels I assign to groups are based on a
representative sampling of the given population, not by the sampling a
select few.  It's again my opinion that if others can't do that, and
<cliche>judge books by their covers</cliche>, it's their loss.

and Greg Broiles <gbroiles@netbox.com> mentioned:
> [relevant, well thought-out stuff snipped]
>
>Given that John Gilmore is the source of the oft-repeated "The net sees
>censorship as damage and routes around it" quote, it strikes me as unlikely
>that he took the steps he did without some reflection on their meaning,
>consequences, and chances of success.

        I'm sure that the decision wasn't made hastily or lightly.  It
doesn't change anything though - the damage is done.  If even one person
doubts the credibility or integrity of either John or the list, then Dr.
Vulius has won.

and finally, Declan McGullagh <declan@eff.org> said:
>
>With the right to speak freely comes the right to decline to speak. John, 
>as the owner of the computer maintaining the cypherpunks list, has the 
>right to decline to speak and to kick off a user who violates the 
>covenant of the mailing list.
>
>The kicked-off user has the right to start his own mailing list with
>different standards. If he likes, he can establish the rules as a type of
>contract to which participants must agree. And observers can criticize
>either or both of them. 
>
>Is this censorship, double standards, and hypocrisy? I think not.

        The problem lies in determining who defines the protocols and
punishments, especially on a list such as this.  For someone who espouses
freedom of speech to arbitrarily censor someone is indeed hypocritical.  

        I'm not defending Dr. Vulius - for some time now, he and a number of
others have been filtered into my Humour mailbox.  I'm just spewing off
about having the _choice_ to ignore him or not, as _I_ see fit, you know - 

"... and then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak out."



JR