From: sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart)
Subject: Re: Using killfiles is a form of censorship (was: Re: A Modest Request
Keywords: egnilges
Organization: my opinions only
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 00:25:29 GMT

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

>Using kill files IS a form of censorship.

Not according to any definition I know.  If X prevents Y from reading
something, that's censorship.  If X decides not to read something,
that's judgement.  A killfile is used by a single person to decide not
to read some articles; it's no more censorship than unsubscribing to a
newsgroup.

>  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.

No, it shows that someone involved in the design of netnews tended to
use words that were excessively graphic.  I have a killfile for
alt.peeves that kills some automatically-generated postings; does that
show a desire to kill some machine?  The faq for alt.hackers suggests
putting the faq into your killfile; is it trying to commit suicide?

>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.

You have the right to say whatever you want.  They have the right not
to listen.

>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.

No, "force" would be involved in cancelling other people's articles.
Refusing to read them (whether by use of a killfile, the "n" key, or
the "u" key) is just an individual's judgement.

>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.
>Starr that:

If my killfile prevented someone else from reading an article, then it
would be censorship.  Since it (by its nature) doesn't, it isn't
censorship.

Unless:  Ed, do you define "censorship" as anything that causes
somebody not to read an Ed Nilges article?  (Like, say, having a
deadline at work and therefore not wasting any time reading the net.)

Seth		sethb@fid.morgan.com
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.censorship,talk.politics.misc