Re: Does John Gilmore...

[Black Unicorn <unicorn@schloss.li>]

On Tue, 19 Nov 1996, Dave Hayes wrote:

> Date: Tue, 19 Nov 1996 12:41:23 -0800
> From: Dave Hayes <dave@kachina.jetcafe.org>
> To: freedom-knights@jetcafe.org
> Cc: cypherpunks@toad.com
> Subject: Re: Does John Gilmore... 
> 
> Black Unicorn writes:
> > Dave Hayes writes:
> 
> > > > Again, you confuse free speech with free broadcast.
> > > Isn't broadcast a subset of speech, especially in this culture?
> > That which is broadcast is certainly speech.
> > Trying to draw some kind of "right to be broadcast" as a result is
> > stupidity or ignorance, or both.
> 
> Then I suppose you want to control all mailing lists, USENET groups,
> and web pages. These are broadcasts, and of course they have no rights
> other than what you seem to want to give them.

If I owned it, of course I would control it.  Many groups are moderated.
And no university is compelled to carry a group by any law or ethical
principal that I can think of.

You are simply exhibiting the symptoms of a spoiled brat because you have
been fortunate enough, thus far, to rely on the benevolance of whoever is
providing you your newsfeed.  The fact that control is not exercised, does
not mean it doesn't exist.  In reality control is exercised in many ways.

Thus your attempt to demonize me merely exposes your ire for the system as
it now exists, your fanciful dreams of how it should be aside.

> > Anyone has the right to, e.g., start a mailing list, or a newsletter.
> > No one has the right to compell ABC or FOX or John Gilmore or anyone
> > else to broadcast their speech.  (The rarest exceptions, like equal time
> > rules, exist in election contexts).
> 
> But what about this letter? It is cc'd to two mailing lists. I own the
> Freedom Knights one, John Gilmore owns the cyperpunks one. Does that
> mean that both of us have to approve it before it gets sent? Do we
> both own it?

Those bits which go to your list you clearly have the right to regulate.
Those that go to Mr. Gilmore's, likewise.

This is where you fail, with the basic inability to distinguish ownership
of intellectual content and the right to compell its broadcast by whomever
might control the medium.
 
> > Learn the difference.  Go to law school before you argue free speech
> > concepts in any detail.  
> 
> "Laws" do not cover the net's "multicast" technology.

>Snort<  I suppose you live in the only true anarchy?

> Distinguishing communication types so as to control those who use them
> is not going to solve your problem. You are much better off, from a
> practical standpoint, learning to control what you see and hear rather
> than attempting to control others. 

I'm not sure what the above babble means.  I'm not sure you are either.

> One does not need a school to see this, it sits under one's nose like
> a milk moustache.

This is the uneducated man's excuse.

--
Forward complaints to : European Association of Envelope Manufactures
Finger for Public Key   Gutenbergstrasse 21;Postfach;CH-3001;Bern
Vote Monarchist         Switzerland