Zero Powers wrote:
> >From: Brian Atkins <email@example.com>
> >"Eliezer S. Yudkowsky" wrote:
> > > advanced filtering software that doesn't exist yet. And, oh yeah, the
> > > five messages from new posters should be vetted before hitting the lists
> >- but
> > > vet messages, instead of asking posters for physical addresses.
> >Won't work- think like a black hat: they send 5 innocuous posts that make
> >past the moderator, then when they get unmoderated they flame away.
> >Any other suggestions?
> How about realizing that it's OK if a screw-ball says screwy things every
> once and a while. Does anybody here believe that Max is a sexual deviant
> just become some troll says so? Of course not. Either you want a free
> society or you don't. Don't spew libertarian rhetoric and then turn around
> and act like a censor. "Some animals are more equal than others"? If you
> don't like what people post either (a) rebut it; (b) ignore it; or (c)
> killfile them.
> So, in short, let me know when you start limiting access to the list so I
> can promptly unsubscribe.
There is nothing in libertarian philosophy that is against private individuals
controlling the speech communicated on their private systems. Its only
government and other public organizations that cannot limit freedom of speech.
Max can censor the list all he pleases. If he says nobody can say 'raspberry',
and so long as it is in the list rules, then by dog, he can do it. If he doesn't
want unidentifiable whackjobs, scientologists, luddites, greens, or other
oppositionists to say unsubstantiated things about people or things, he has a
right to. Just as life loses value when everyone refuses to stand up to defend
it in general, and every individual one in particular (in quality as well as
quantity), speech loses its value when it is degraded to the lowest common
denominator. A list is destroyed when you allow it to be caved in by a garbage
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:50:19 MDT