[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: "Remailers can't afford to be choosy"
At 7:03 PM 9/13/96, E. Allen Smith wrote:
>From: IN%"[email protected]" 13-SEP-1996 04:33:21.66
>>By the way, today's remailers appear to be primarily _experiments_ or
>>_casual services_, not altruistic services for some nebulous idea of "free
>>speech." (Besides, if it's illegal for "spammers" to use remailers, so much
>>for "free speech.")
> Umm.... freedom of the press is freedom for he who owns the press.
>The remailer operators own the presses; why shouldn't they use whatever means
>they see fit to determine how they can be used? I encourage people not to
>discriminate on the basis of the political orientation of what's going
>through... but spam isn't political speech. (I agree that the government
>should not be in the business of determining what is spam and what is
>political speech - all speech should be protected - but remailer operators
>are not governments.)
There are many nuanced definitions of "free speech." I was replying to
someone who used in connection with his belief that remailers primarily
exist as a service to enable "free speech." Hence my comment.
I'm fully aware of the rights of remailers to limit what they pass on. I
just don't think it wise, nor do I think it fits with pious calls for "free
We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed.
Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
[email protected] 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
Higher Power: 2^1,257,787-1 | black markets, collapse of governments.
"National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."