From: joemays@bsu-cs.bsu.edu (Joseph F. Mays)
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 15:59:08 GMT
Organization: Dept of CS Ball State University Muncie In

In article <1992Jul27.145132.21496@Princeton.EDU> egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:
>     *  I disbelieve in the existence of a hard and fast boundary
>        between censorship and other forms of behavior, including
>        using "kill" files.

I believe you, Ed.  Nonetheless, the boundary exists, regardless of your
belief or lack of belief.  There is a fundamental difference between 
choosing not to hear or see something and keeping someone else from 
saying it or printing it.  Damn near everyone else who posts here under-
stands that (actually, everyone I have seen post here does, but I don't
know, someone may have agreed with you at some point in the past without
my knowledge).  The most common comment of people who oppose censorship 
is "If you don't want to hear it, don't listen."  I have no problem with
Starr putting you in his kill file.  This is not censorship.  I do have
a problem with him trying to prevent you from posting.  That would be
censorship.

Since you remain blind to the difference, let me try to open your
eyes.  I believe that you, I, and Mr. Starr all have a basic right
to control what passes through our mouths, eyes and ears.  Mr. Starr
has a right to decide what he says and hears.  By putting you in his
kill file he is exercising that right.  His decision in no way inter-
feres with your right to speak or mine to hear, so it's fine.  However,
should he attempt to prevent you from posting, he is interfering with
your right to speak and (consequently) my right to hear you speak (if you
want to).

You are obviously very well educated.  Probably better educated than I
am, I have to admit.  Yet you seem to misunderstand things in very basic
ways.  I'm puzzled by this.

>     *  I believe that libertarians engage in "censorship" all the
>        time; they don't admit it, but they do.

Perhaps.  No one is perfect.  I have, on occasion, told people to shut
up.  I have no right to do this, so it was wrong of me.  I try to do
better.  I don't think this is what you mean however.  I note that
you place the term censorship in quotation marks.  This indicates to me
that you question the meaning of the term.  I think you have merely confused
yourself as to its meaning.  I haven't a dictionary with me, but I think
everyone else here will agree that the term refers to actively preventing
another person from expressing him- or herself, where such expression does
not infringe on any other basic right.  This has been an unwavering factor
in every post against you throughout this entire thread.  Yet you fail
to comprehend it.

I note that you failed to respond to my earlier posting about the shooting
in Indianapolis, a week ago.  Your original issue with the Supreme Court
and Viktora was based in your feeling that the government should have the
right to suppress freedom of expression when groups or individuals feel
that the sentiment expressed incites violence against them.

A cop was shot at for no apparent reason by a man who had been listenting to
the Ice-T song "cop-killer".

The Indianapolis police feel that this demonstrates that the song incites
violence against them.  They would like the song banned.

This fits all your criterion for an appropriate situation in which to
suppress freedom of expression.  Therefore, I assume that you feel that
the police should be granted their wish, and this song should be banned.
Am I correct?  Please respond.

Joe