From: jon@MITRE.org (J. E. Shum)
Subject: Re: Using killfiles is a form of censorship
Originator: jon@cyclone
Organization: The MITRE Corporation
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 19:59:03 GMT


In article <1992Jul25.180444.14954@Princeton.EDU>, egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:
> In article <1992Jul25.162656.15672@athena.mit.edu> wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr) writes:
> >In article <1992Jul23.231011.12863@hsv3.lsil.com>, 
> >mvp@hsv3.lsil.com (Mike Van Pelt) said:
> >> What you want is the following:
> >> /egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU/a:=:j
> >By the way, apropos to alt.censorship, I posted my original "modest
> >request" with motives that were about 90% utilitarian and 10%
> >experimental -- in addition to wanting to cut down on the time that I
> >spend manually skipping reply-to-Nigles articles, I also wanted to see
> >whether I'd get any negative "using killfiles is a form of censorship"
> >feedback... I'm gratified to report that I didn't.  Maybe things are
> >getting a little more sane around here.
> >
> >-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>

Apparently you spoke too soon, Bill.  Ed managed to "make a liar 
of you" with his comments below.  Did you set him up or what? :)

> Using kill files IS a form of censorship.

Bullshit, Ed.  Censorship is denying others the opportunity to 
read and watch what they want when they want.  Using a personal 
kill-file in no way interferes with that.

> 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.
> 
> First of all, a metaphorical reference to murder is made in the
> description "kill" file, showing a suppressed rage and desire to "kill"
> one's opponent when one, like Starr, is bested in argument.  This
> suppressed rage is confirmed by the intemperate language used by
> discussants like Starr.  The very title of this thread, "A Modest
> Request" is an (unconscious?) reference to Jonathan Swift's "Modest
> Proposal" that the children of the 17th century Irish poor be fed to the
> English.  Partially Irish, I assure Mr. Starr that he will have to catch
> me and (non-metaphorically) kill me first.

Jeeez...  I've heard of stretching a point, but you take it 
beyond the breaking point.  You're obviously well-read.  Why 
don't apply a little logic to your vast knowledge base?

> 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.

So?  Just because someone doesn't want to take part in a 
discussion with you and they don't even want to read your 
arguments does not make them a censor.  Only when they would deny 
others the opportunity to read your arguments would they become 
censors.  That they have done anything of the kind HAS NOT BEEN 
SHOWN.

> 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.

A contract can only be made between or amoung consenting parties.  
This libertartian has no amnesia re the so-called social contract.  
You seem to use it as a convenient excuse for imposing your own 
views and restrictions on others.

And kill-files are a privately employed filtering device whose 
results (when used effectively) are not unlike unsubscribing 
from a specific newsgroup.  Still no censorship since the users of 
kill-files to avoid reading your material are still not denying 
anyone else the opportunity to read it. 

> 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.

You hope in vain, since there was not a whit of reason or logic 
in your arguements.

>   And someone might want to pass the word to Mr.
> Starr that:
> 
>      *  It's "Nilges", not "Nigles"                 
> 
>      *  It's "rn", not "RN"

Thanks for the spelling lesson though.

Now, Ed, I don't expect that you will be able to respond in such 
a manner as to warrant any further comment from me, unless of 
course you review your Aristotle first.  But I will glance at 
your postings from time to time to see if you come up with 
anything new or worthy of comment. 


-- 
<jon@mitre.org>|--------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------| Libertarian Party  
  Andre Marrou    Nancy Lord for  | 1528 Pennsylvania Avenue SE  (202)543-1988
  for President   Vice-President  | Washington, DC 20003         (800)682-1776  
Xref: sparky alt.censorship:6387 soc.culture.british:10814