From: egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.censorship,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Using killfiles is a form of censorship (was: Re: A Modest Request
Date: 27 Jul 92 22:17:40 GMT
Organization: Princeton University
Originator: news@ernie.Princeton.EDU

In article <1992Jul27.200123.6569@nocusuhs.nnmc.navy.mil> perez@mgr.hjf.org (Charles Perez) writes:
>>
>>
>>     1.  Those folks have felt the shock and hurt of the metaphorical
>>         murder of the "kill" file after attempting to join what they
>>         thought was a dialogue (in this connection, Lyotard defines
>>         terrorism, in The Postmodern Condition, as dialogue termina-
>>         tion.)
>
>Oh no ... oh no, I can't resist ... bwa ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!

Did you soil yourself, just now?

>
>Metaphorical murder??? The things that are being "killed" are
>*messages*! Computer people use lots of animistic metaphors in the
>course of their trades - that doesn't mean they think that computers
>are living things. Go back to kindergarten and learn how to use
>metaphors, Ed. You crack me up.

All or most of language is metaphorical but there's a reason for
metaphor.  It's well known that computers can become a substitute for
real-life, and surely the satisfaction one takes in a kill file is
related to the satisfaction one feels in destructive behavior (there! I
showed him, he's in my kill file.)  The true silliness is in denying
this fact.

>
>"Metaphorical murder"? What a clown!

You mean there's no such thing as metaphorical murder, no play acting,
no "cutting people off at the knees" in business, no killing bugs in
testing software?  I feel sorry for your apparent lack of imagination.

>
>>
>>     2.  Those folks know that free speech is neither the free discourse
>>         of power (that's French for "shut up the boss is talkin")
>>         nor the random speech which is ineffectual because it is
>>         it is equated with all other forms of random speech, but
>>         instead free speech has much to do with free EXCHANGE of
>>         views.  Which of course kill files prevent.
>
>Free exchange of views does not mean forced listening. You do not own
>another's time or his life, despite your attempts to lay claim on same.

Oh?  Now if I speak at all, I lay claim on "owning" another's time.
Sounds like an excellent way to deprive people of free speech while
granting formal, absolute free speech; for I have this wonderful free
speech yet I cannot "force" (your word, nota bene) you to listen to me.
I was not forcing Starr to listen, only pointing out that his use of a
kill file was an act of microcensorship.  I did not disapprove of
Starr's microcensorship, for I myself did the same to Henry Schaffer
because Henry Schaffer lies.  I only pointed out that it CONTRADICTS
Starr's professed dedication to free speech.

New York's Penn Station is full of homeless people with "free speech",
for these people hold conversations (some quite animated) with
themselves.  Nobody listens.  I suggest that part of a vigorous support
for freedom of speech is the willingness to listen and (although I
confess that my own willingness stops when I am lied-to) this is what
Starr did not display.
>
>
>Maybe those people you "distrust" see no difference between banning
>the speech of "pornographers and punks" and having their own speech
>controlled (same principles involved in each - just the details are
>different)? Just a thought. :-)

No, the same principles are NOT involved.  How dare you compare Martin
Luther King to Viktora?  How dare you compare Bob Guccione to Thomas
Jefferson?  Some of the entities enjoying "free speech" are only persons
in the legal sense of the word, where legal personhood was introduced in
19th century American law after the founders; it was not part of their
intent.

This is just nihilism in Constitutional robes.  I can make distinctions,
I can see to it that the speech of pornographers and punks is allocated
its due.  The value of money can be destroyed by running the printing
presses at top speed, giving everybody the "freedom" of a million dollar
income.  I suggest you nihilistically inflate the first amendment in the
same way.

Indeed, your posts are a reflection of your attitude.  You want the net
to equate your childish "bwa ha ha ha" with what remains a serious
questioning of the direction of the Supreme Court.  You know you are at
the level, with your silly post, of a Viktora and you want therefore to
ensure that everyone else is at your low level, by law if necessary.

>
>>So I think
>>good faith is on display when anyone who's been selected for
>>metaphorical murder fights for her own free speech.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>You got me again ... bwa ha ha ha ha!!!

You need a towel?