Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.censorship
Subject: Pyscho-ClapTrap: NilgeSpeak in Flight...
From: kmcvay@oneb.almanac.bc.ca (Ken Mcvay)
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 92 19:40:02 GMT
Followup-To: alt.censorship
Organization: The Old Frog's Almanac, Vancouver Island, CANADA
Summary: See Subject

In article <1992Jul25.180444.14954@Princeton.EDU> egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:

>Using kill files IS a form of censorship.  At the very least, it
>contradicts the professed dedication of discussants in the "Hate Speech
>Okay" thread like Mr. Starr to free and open debate.  Here's why.

Nonsense. (I think I believe in free and open debate, but have ignored the
thread simply because it clearly degenerated into ad hominem bullshit.
That's not censorship either, Ed, just good practice.)

>First of all, a metaphorical reference to murder is made in the
>description "kill" file, showing a suppressed rage and desire to "kill"

I think you spend too much time around the PC<tm> crowd - that sort of
psychoclaptrap is common to the breed. To label a kill file 'censorship'
under _any_ circumstances is about as valid as accusing someone of
censorship because they haven't professed an interest in reading every book
in print... specious bullshit. The gibberish you've attempted to inject into
the file name is just that - gibberish.

>Discussants in the "hate speech" thread have professed dedication to
>free and to open debate, even when people from Viktora's victims to Kim
>Pring (harmed by Hustler) to Anita Hill (decried as a lunatic for
>bringing needed information re a Supreme Court nominee to the attention
>of the Senate Judiciary Committee) are all harmed.  Yet discussants
>including Starr themselves feel entitled to take refuge in "kill" files
>rather than participate in debate.  I suggest that no such refuge was
>open to Viktora's victims, Kim Pring, or Anita Hill.

"Open debate" does not preclude omitting an individual or group of
individuals from one's discussion group - carrying your foolishness to the
ultimate limit suggests that your refusal to discuss the issue with every
living being on the earth is "censorship." Right.

>Now, "kill" files are a form of privatised censorship and they do not
>use a government mechanism.  However, this is merely an example of the
>libertarian illusion that if force (including the electronic,
>metaphorical use of force implicit in a kill file) is deregulated and
>privatised, it will disappear, and the libertarian amnesia re the social
>contract that gave government a monopoly (with restrictions) on force.

See comment above re "pyschoclaptrap"

>Anyway, I hope to have shown the the kill file is a form of censorship
>that gives the lie to the professed dedication to "freedom" that we so
>often see on boysnet.  And someone might want to pass the word to Mr.

Sorry, no banana. You have only shown your thinking to be incapable of
making the intellectual reach required to rise above your shallow
comprehension of "censorship." The rest is smoke and mirrors.
-- 
"The mass killings by shooting proved cumbersome and expensive. Too many
people were needed to shoot 33,711 Jews on September 29 and 30, 1941, at
Babi Yar near Kiev. Eventually, close to 100,000 corpses filled that
ravine, mostly of Jews, but also of partisans and saboteurs." [Laska]
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.censorship,talk.politics.misc