Re: [REBUTTAL] Censorship on cypherpunks?, from The Netly News

[Dave Hayes <dave@kachina.jetcafe.org>]

Mark M. writes:
> On Wed, 13 Nov 1996, Dave Hayes wrote:
> > Logically, we must conclude that those who frequently and repeatedly
> > cry for the censorship or removal of any source of input from
> > cyberspace are either:
> > 
> > 	-quite clueless about the tools at their disposal
> > 	-ideologically or personally opposed to the source of input
> > or	-in need of large amounts of attention from others
> You are misinformed.  Vulis was _not_ prevented from posting to cpunks, thus
> no source of input was removed.  He was simply removed from the distribution
> list.  He can still read and post to the list.

Go back and reread at this time. Notice that I didn't mention *who*
was censored. The error of interpretation was the initial story's 
slant on censorship. I merely expounded on the *story's* slant. 

> The messages were, in addition to being "nasty", extremely off-topic.
> "Off-topic" is much less subjective than "nasty".

But still subjective, and hence still subject to political
availability should the need to criticize Vulis arise.

> > Just as suddenly, the classic anti-free-speech arguments of "if you
> > don't like it, start yer own" begin to surface. (Anyone ever notice
> > how this resembles the "love it or leave it" mentality of certain
> > American patriotic organizations?)
> Governments maintain a monopoly on land, so the "love it or leave it" mentality
> is flawed.  Virtual space does not have the same limitations as physical
> space.  Starting your own mailing list is relatively easy.

For me, yes. Not for most people. I take it you expect *everyone* to
have a UNIX machine connected to the net to ensure free speech? 

> > Notice that the net is compared to a home or private club. Actually
> > the net is neither, however that would not serve the purposes of this
> > analogy, so this fact is convienently forgotton. 
> Is the net analogous to a country?  If not, then why did you compare starting
> a mailing list to moving to a different country?

I didn't. (and here we go...)

> > Mr. Gilmore, and other like minded parties, might want to consider
> > what would happen if one parent company owned *all* communications
> > media. Would they they be so supportive of the ideology of ownership
> > and communciation they espouse?
> And just how plausible do you think this is?  

The plausibility is not in question, the example is meant to
illustrate the ludicrousness of the "ownership" concept when applied
to public mailing lists (and by extension *any* public media).

Are you saying "since this is implausible, the point is invalid"? 
We'll both have fun with that one. 

> I believe it is next to impossible, unless it is the result of
> government regulation.

AT&T tried it. They were just unlucky. 
------
Dave Hayes - Altadena CA, USA - dave@jetcafe.org 
Freedom Knight of Usenet - http://www.jetcafe.org/~dave/usenet

       Self justification is worse than the the original transgression.