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

[Dale Thorn <dthorn@gte.net>]

snow wrote:
> > [This is a rebuttal to a misguided news article.]
> > > Cypher-Censored
> > > By Declan McCullagh (declan@well.com)

[snip, snip]

> > Notice how, once the opposition is admitted to, the rationalization
> > begins. Suddenly this is not a matter of censorship, but of ownership.
> > 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?)

> It still isn't censorship. Censorship, at least in my dictionary,
> refers to censor, which uses the word "Official" several times. Mr.
> Gilmore is not an "Official" in a government sense, he maybe in the EFF
> sense, but this is not an "Official" EFF organ, so that doesn't count.

We *are* talking about the cypherpunks list, yes?  Then, in terms of the
list, John Gilmore *is* the official, hence a censor, plying his skills.

Why all the denial and repeated (redundant) blathering about John's
*right* to something he allegedly owns?  Simple.  The folks who put this
stuff out want desperately to believe that this list they spend so much
time on is "really OK", and not a censored medium.  Denial is the key.