IP: Re: Censorship on cypherpunks?, from The Netly News

[Dave Farber <farber () cis upenn edu>]

I agree with Danny completely especially the statement at the end of the
following paragraph djf


Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 18:36:59 -0500
To: Dave Farber <farber () cis upenn edu>
From: "Daniel J. Weitzner" <djw () cdt org>




Dave & Declan:  There's been a lot of talk about "censorship" by private
parties on the net.  I believe that it's a big distraction from the real
problems of government censorship that the net faces from openly repressive
and allegedly open governments all around the world.  The net community has
got to get clear on the difference between repressive government actions,
on the one hand, and private acts of editorial discretion, on the other
hand.  The former are pernicious threats to the free flow of information
online.  The later are, in my view, constitutionally-protected editorial
choices which actually go a long way toward contributing to the diversity
of discource and community on the net.  Any suggestion that exercise of
editorial control (which is what Gilmore did, as far as I can tell from
Declan's story) be a basis for legal liability is a disaster for the net.


At 8:45 PM -0500 11/12/96, Dave Farber wrote:
> Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 09:33:27 -0800 (PST)
> From: Declan McCullagh <declan () well com>
>
> The Netly News
> http://www.netlynews.com/
> November 11, 1996
>
> Cypher-Censored
> By Declan McCullagh (declan () well com)
>
>       The cypherpunks mailing list, so legend goes, coalesced around two
>   principles: the dissemination of strong encryption and an absolute
>   commitment to free speech.
[snip]
>       Now, normally, when someone gets evicted from a mailing list, it
>   excites little attention. But here was an ironic -- some would say
>   momentous -- event: The list is run, after all, by John Gilmore, the
>   EFF cofounder, a cypherpunk god who is famous for having once said
>   that the Internet interprets censorship as damage and routes around
>   it. And it was none other than Gilmore who gave Vulis the boot. The
>   shunning of Vulis was "an act of leadership," Gilmore said.
>
>       Thus began a debate over what the concept of censorship means in a
>   forum devoted to opposing it. Did Gilmore have the right to show Vulis
>   the virtual door? Or should he have let the ad hominem attacks
>   continue, encouraging people to set their filters accordingly? The
>   incident raises deeper questions about how a virtual community can
>   prevent one person from ruining the forum for all and whether only
>   government controls on expression can be called "censorship."


> From a free expression standpoint, I'm just not worried about what Gilmore
did.  (If I were an active part of the cypherpunk community, I might be
worried for other reasons, but not on First Amendment grounds.)


As Gilmore and others have long explained, one of the great things about
the architecture of the Internet is that if you don't like "censorious"
behavior of Gilmore, you can go and start another list or another
discussion somewhere else.  Unlike traditional media, there is a virtually
unlimited abundance of communication and associational opportunities.  The
federal government justifies its content control of radio & TV with the
argument that the putatively scarce number of channels have to be regulated
to assure that they are used in the public interest and that there is a
true diversity of information sources available.  And, as we see with the
case of the v-chip, in scarce-spectrum, limited access media like TV,
radio, where the limited number of channels are controlled by monopoly or
quasi monopoly gatekeepers and high cost barriers to entry, the line
between government and private censorship is more complicated.


But, the net does not have the spectrum limitations problems of
broadcasting which restrict the number of voices available.  Keeping the
legislature and courts out of the business of regulating content online is
an important part of maintaining the openness and abundance of the net.
(That's why a lot of us opposed the Communications Decency Act.)


[snip]


>       The flap comes at a time when other prominent cypherpunks are
>   leaving, citing too many flames and too little content. Perry Metzger,
>   another longtime member, announced last month he would start his own,
>   moderated mailing list.


[snip]


This is exactly what should happen on the net, and why we should not have
our First Amendment sabres rattling about censorship in this case.  Again,
it may spell problems for the cypherpunk community, but communities have
lots of problems that the First Amendment doesn't and shouldn't solve.


The confusion between private editorial discretion and government
censorship is, for the net community, like a snake eating its tail.  If
anyone succeeded in argue that Gilmore, or another forum operator, be
liable for all postings bacause of an effort to control the forum, then no
one would be willing to run such forums with any standards or slant.  Lots
of us may be frustrated when the newspaper refuses to print a Letter to the
Editor, but we wouldn't say that the paper has violated our First Amendment
rights.


============================================================================
Daniel J. Weitzner, Deputy Director                       <djw () cdt org>
Center for Democracy and Technology                       202.637.9800 (v)
1634 Eye St., NW Suite 1100                               202-637.0968 (f)
Washington, DC 20006                                      http://www.cdt.org/