[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Censorship on cypherpunks [RANT]
On Mon, 04 Nov 1996 07:20:15 -0800, Dale Thorn wrote:
>> > I'm quite upset about this. Up to now I was able to tell
>> >people that "there is at least one mailing list on the net that
>> >functions in a completely open manner". No more.
>> This has been taken far too seriously. Cypherpunks is a *PRIVATE* list.
>> There is no obligation to accept anyone.
>Isn't this the same argument used by the state whenever they want to differentiate
>between your "rights" and your "privileges"? Can they reject one of your privileges
>whenever they want to, at their discretion? No.
>So if c-punks is really "private", how does it decide (arbitrarily?) who to include
>and who to reject?
It's a big difference. Can you set up your own mailing list? Yes. Can you
go elsewhere? Yes. Can Mr. Vulis send email directly to list-members anyway?
Yes.
Can you do the same if the government runs it? No. Can you set up your own
list/printing press* if the state won't publish your ideas? No.
One could apply a similar rationale to socialism - after all, it may seem
like an extension of "love your neighbor" to take care of their needs, which
is certainly a laudable goal. That's not the problem. The problem is when
it becomes mandated *with no alternatives*.
# Chris Adams <[email protected]> | http://www.io-online.com/adamsc/adamsc.htp
# <[email protected]> | send mail with subject "send PGPKEY"
"That's our advantage at Microsoft; we set the standards and we can change them."
--- Karen Hargrove, Microsoft (quoted in the Feb 1993 Unix Review editorial)