From: morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
Subject: Re: Using killfiles is a form of censorship (was: Re: A Modest 
    Request
Date: 27 Jul 92 14:24:40 GMT
    <1992Jul25.162656.15672@athena.mit.edu> 
    <1992Jul25.180444.14954@Princeton.EDU>
Organization: The Puzzle Palace, UKentucky

[...misc.legal and talk.politics.misc removed from Newsgroups: line.....]

egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:
>Using kill files IS a form of censorship.  

An individual kill file, acting upon that individual's reading preferences,
is hardly censorship; in fact, it's the epitome of personal choice.

>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.  

Regardless of context, the kill file refers solely to your postings;
asserting a connection between a "posting killer" and open murder is,
at best, an exercise in rhetoric.

>Yet discussants
>including Starr themselves feel entitled to take refuge in "kill" files
>rather than participate in debate.  

Of course, the definition of "debate" implies a certain civilization in
discussion; Usenet tends to become rather uncivilized, seemingly at a toss
of the proverbial hat.  This tends to affect both parties in any debate; 
in this particular example, both sides have exhibited uncivilized tendencies.

Departing from a discussion does not necessarily indicate that one has
been "bested in debate", especially in a forum such as Usenet.  In many
instances, it is merely a reflection of the deterioration of the discussion.
Think about it; if civilized, rational debate were still proceeding, neither
side would wish to retire.  Do you *enjoy* participating in the exchange of
insults?  I do not; if a discussion degenerates into such a morass, that
discussion stands a better-than-average chance of joining those in my kill-
file.

>Now, "kill" files are a form of privatised censorship 

"Privatised censorship"?  You'll have to explain this concept to me.
Are you suggesting that the exercise of one's discretion in an open
forum is really "self-censorship"?  Using that argument, I would be
required to read every word in my daily newspaper; otherwise, I'd be
censoring myself!

Do you read every single newsgroup carried by phoenix.princeton.edu?
If not, you're every bit as guilty of "privatised censorship" as any-
one else!  Just think; you've unsubscribed to dozens, if not hundreds,
of newsgroups!  

>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.

How can placing the decision(s) in the hands of each individual result
in a monopoly of "electronic....use of force"?

>Anyway, I hope to have shown the the kill file is a form of censorship

I don't think so; others may disagree with me.  As far as I'm concerned,
you can (and should) continue to post to this forum; I (and others) res-
pect your right, within this forum, to state your opinions.  However, 
shouldn't you also respect our right, within this forum, to refuse to
listen to your opinions?

>     *  It's "rn", not "RN"

As long as we understood the meaning, the capitalization is hardly relevant.
Of course, this may just be another indication of the deterioration of this
discussion.

Sooner or later, I'm going to develop a formula which determines the half-
life of any Usenet discussion..........

-- 
MORGAN@UKCC         |       Wes Morgan       |        ...!ukma!ukecc!morgan 
morgan@ms.uky.edu   | Engineering  Computing |   morgan@wuarchive.wustl.edu
morgan@engr.uky.edu | University of Kentucky | JWMorgan@dockmaster.ncsc.mil
  Mailing list for AT&T StarServer S/E  - starserver-request@engr.uky.edu
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk