Did anyone else understand what I was trying to say here? I am just trying to check whether I am writing poorly, or if most people understood what I was trying to say. The point was that a person can cause someone to not express themselves freely without directly impeding their emails. This is done by having a person with power over another making direct or indirect threats, with a related example being that a bank robber can get someone to do what they want (give them money) without actually carrying out their threat (shooting anyone).
On Fri, Feb 01, 2002 at 04:30:44PM +0100, J. van Baardwijk wrote: > At 09:21 1-2-02 -0500, Erik Reuter wrote: > > >And it would be incredibly naive to say that it is not censorship for > >the listowners to threaten JDG (or anyone else). > > But it is not censorship. Censoring him means we would make it impossible > for him to post something we disagree with. There are only two ways we > could accomplish that: moderate his posts, or unsubscribe him. We did > neither; the first one is even impossible as Brin-L is an unmoderated list. > > > >I can hear Jeroen now, > >"but JDG wasn't banned, just warned". So said the man pointing the gun > >at the bank teller, "I didn't shoot her, I just politely asked for the > >money". > > But I am only a co-listowner of Brin-L, not a bank robber. > > When I draw a parallel with a police officer giving you a warning instead > of a ticket, people start yelling "but you are not the police". I wonder if > those same people will now start yelling "but Jeroen is not a bank robber". > Probably not... :-( > > > Jeroen > > _________________________________________________________________________ > Wonderful World of Brin-L Website: http://www.Brin-L.com > Tom's Photo Gallery: http://tom.vanbaardwijk.com > -- "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.erikreuter.com/
