Computers and Academic Freedom (news version) October 6, 1991 Vol. 1, No. 31 [Week of September 30 to October 6, 1991 The first notes this week are about the NSFnet's AUP (National Science Foundation Net's Acceptable Use Policy). The first note traces the evolution of NSFnet from a platform for doing research about networking to its (almost, but not quite) common-carrier function today<1991Oct4.180750.3733@eff.org>. The second note asserts that the Net is legally a "limited public forum". Such status means that the government cannot, for example, practice viewpoint discrimination.<1991Oct4.055552.19960@eff.org> The third note says that the Supreme Court's Public Forum Doctrine is already broad enough to cover the Net; the doctrine does not need to be extended.<1991Oct4.151847.29603@eff.org> The next note is an observation and reply. The observation is that NFSnet is not the same as Usenet. Thus, Usenet may be a free-speech limited public forum while NFSnet is constrained by its Acceptable Use Policy. The reply points out that the NFSnet AUP is very broad and that actual practice, not just formal policy, is important.<1991Oct4.165949.2146@eff.org> The fifth note interprets recent NSF actions to mean that "anyone transmitting material across the NSFnet had better be prepared to explain how it furthers NSFnet's stated goals". Alternatively, NSF users can ask a research library to vouch for them.<1991Oct5.183000.37@sdg.dra.com> The next note says that the NSF's rules are unclear but that the rules should recognize that the NSF has created an on-line electronic library system. The note includes a copy of the American Library Association's Diversity Statement (a statement that discusses both sexual and sexist material).<1991Oct2.225512.3857@eff.org> The last NSF-related note is a discussion about the power of users and sys admins to influence (or resist) NSF policy.<1991Oct4.134400.2052@ms.uky.edu> The next two notes are about material that seems nonacademic. The first note reports that magazines such as Playboy and Penthouse cover serious topics such as arms control and censorship.<1991Oct1.133036.8510@ousrvr.oulu.fi> The second note excerpts a UPI report on an academic pornography conference.<1991Oct4.203547.6378@m.cs.uiuc.edu> The next note is an excerpt from the Supreme Court's recent Rust v. Sullivan decision (the so-called abortion gag-rule decision). That decision explicitly recognizes that "the university is a traditional sphere of free expression so fundamental to the functioning of our society that the Government's ability to control speech within that sphere by means of conditions attached to the expenditure of Government funds is restricted ..."<1991Oct2.001031.1159@eff.org> The last two note report the end of the University of Waterloo's ban on newsgroups "from alt.sex.bondage to rec.humor.funny". The first note gives the history<1991Oct3.172138.338@eff.org>. The second note is the official announcement of the new policy. The new policy recognizes that each user is responsible for what he or she writes. It says that all available newsgroup will be carried without screening or censorship. It establishes a procedure for dealing with bad (illegal?) notes posted from off-campus.<1991Oct4.153000.29957@eff.org> - Carl] In this issue: Bernie Cosell 87 >Government restriction of net information Carl M. Kadie 124 > Carl M. Kadie 27 > Carl M. Kadie 50 > sean@sdg.dra.com 41 >Acceptable Use Policies (Was Re: Bill's... ) Carl M. Kadie 105 > Wes Morgan 39 > Foxvog Douglas 72 >Academic Privacy Question Carl M. Kadie 11 Academic Porn Conference Carl M. Kadie 58 Rust v. Sullivan Funny Guy 85 Waterloo ban on rec.humor.funny finally lifted Carl M. Kadie 211 >[repost] Waterloo ban on rec.humor.funny finally lifted Computers and Academic Freedom News Editor: Carl M. Kadie (kadie@eff.org) Circulation: William W. Arnold (caf-talk-request@eff.org, warnold@eff.org) Publication: Helen C. O'Boyle (helen@eff.org) To contribute to the list, send email to "caf-talk@eff.org". Your note will appear immediately on the caf-talk mailing list and in the alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk newsgroup. Back issues are available via anonymous ftp to eff.org. The directory is pub/academic/news. Abstracts of CAF-news are in file pub/academic/abstracts. The CAF archive is also available via email. For information, send email to archive-server@eff.org. Include the lines "help" and "index". Disclaimer: This CAF-news was compiled by me, Carl M. Kadie. It is not an EFF publication. The views I express and editorial decisions I make are my own. The addresses for the list are: comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org - for contributions to the list or caf-talk@eff.org listserv@eff.org - for automated additions/deletions (send email with the line "help" for details.) caf-talk-request@eff.org - for administrivia Also, if you read newsgroups, look for alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk and alt.comp.acad-freedom.news. From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) Subject: Re: Acceptable Use Policies (Was Re: Bill's... ) Message-ID: <1991Oct4.180750.3733@eff.org> References: <1991Oct03.204416.24141@eng.umd.edu> <1991Oct4.144225.13879@ms.uky.edu> Date: Fri, 4 Oct 1991 18:07:50 GMT [I'm reposting this email note with the permission of the author. - Carl] >Date: Fri, 4 Oct 91 13:10:25 EDT >From: Bernie Cosell >Subject: Re: Government restriction of net information Thanks for the SC quote... I have been suspect about NSF net ever since it first started and seemed to be VERY policy-deficient. I may have mentioned in the note to you that the line of reasoning you follow might become 'true' not by actual adminstrative decision, but by a funny cyberspace version of 'adverse possession'. Basically, by allowing things like email and usenet links to use the NFSnet backbone, they may have -implicitly_ made themselves a limitiedpublic forum, whether they wanted to be [or were chartered to be] one or not. I wonder what NSF believes their role to be these days. If they have really drifted into the 'common carrier' business, that'd be a pretty sneaky way to get that funded [since I doubt that Congress would authorize appropriations directly for a common carrier service to be provided free to a privileged few, especially when that would compete with legitimate business trying to make a go of it in the same market. [consider the analog of allowing every university phone to connect to AutoVON and let folks call their friends in Japan for free. They might provide a WATS line for a specific project, but they'd never authorize unrestricted wholesale undercutting of the real long distance carriers. --- continuing the analogy, for the random, idle [non research] chatter that occupies so much of our bandwidth [including our email exchange, of course...:-)], wouldn't a more prudent policy be to allow funding for folks to use commercial nets [and encourage competition to ensure sensible costs] --- basically budget telecom services the way they budget for phone service, workstations, etc --- instead of virtually killing the marketplace by making a non-cost-sensitive competitor to the real carriers]. When I was talking about policy, I was talking about the pre-NSF policy. As far as I can tell, NSF is just beginning [a bit late in the game actually] to try to sort out just what they ARE going to do about this mess they've inherited from DCA/DARPA. I think that the whole matter of overall and regional-net administrative policies was under-planned, and so a bunch of hard issues were put off and are just beginning to surface. A bit of history: in order to be connected to the network at all, you had to petition DARPA [or DCA] and your site had to have a legitimate need to use the network [and, for example, if it was work on a specific contract, when the contract was completed you net connection could go away unless you could invent some new need for it]. If you received approval for connection to the network, you still didn't get carte blanche to play with your new toy: part of the conditions of the connect were that network use was limited to gov't business. There were *explicit* policies to that effect up until the day the arpanet was turned off [and those policies are still in place on the less-visible networks that the DoD is still funding]. The site administrators were expected to put procedures in place to ensure compliance. Now, originally, the network was built [and made available to researchers] to support *network* research [and it did: work on satellite links, sending real-time speech [and much later, real-time video], queueing and modeling theory, routing algorithms, lots of other net-based experiments [e.g., distributing weather maps via the net, instead of by US mail [this before the days of omnipresent fax]. The first chink in the armor came because the network quickly proved to be useful to *support* research, rather than just to *do* research. This prompted the first change in policy: to allow almost unrestricted use of the network *for*approved*gov't*business*. Email, of course, was a incredibly addictive drug and the use of the net for other than net-research grew. The next chink --- which, given your analysis, is _probably_ the one that leds direct to the current situation --- is when the network moves >from being adminstered by DARPA to being adminstered by DCA. This, in essence, meant that DARPA *admitted* that the network had stopped being a research vehicle and, instead, had become an operation tool in its own right. Still limited to 'official business', but the dam was breached: It *was* a "common carrier" in the usual sense of the word. With NSFNET's VERY relaxed rules and nonexistent policies as ti allowed folks to connect willy-nilly, you're probably right: it is easy to show that it is really a carrier, and all you needed was the "limited public" part, and NSF bumbled into making THAT happen, and so LONG in advance of any actual policy decisions [which are, apparently, just being sorted out now], much of it is already a fait accompli. Interesting... I wonder where it will all lead. /bernie\ -- Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu I do not represent EFF; this is just me. Xref: eff comp.org.eff.talk:4234 alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1069 From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) Subject: Re: Government restriction of net information Message-ID: <1991Oct4.055552.19960@eff.org> Keywords: NSFNET Acceptable Use References: <199110031637.AA29047@eff.org> <2956@aldebaran.cs.nps.navy.mil> Distribution: usa Date: Fri, 4 Oct 1991 05:55:52 GMT schweige@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil (Jeffrey M. Schweiger) writes: [...] >Now, to get back to the topic at hand. The public, through their elected >representatives, authorized the creation of ARPANet/Internet/NSFNet to >accomplish a specific purpose. From a draft of the NSFNet Acceptable Use >Policy this purpose is "to support research and other scholarly activities in >the U.S. by providing access to unique resources and the opportunity for >collaborative work." Net use that runs counter to the approved policy has >not been authorized by the public, and it could be considered the >responsibililty of government officials to ensure that such usage not take >place. The way that a member of the public 'demands' a change is via his or >her elected representatives. [...] Legally, the Net is a limited public forum; this is in contrast with a traditional public forum such as a public plaza and a nonpublic forum, such a prison. A limited public forum is created by the government and may, according to the Supreme Court, be limited in two ways. First, access to the forum may be limited. In the case of the Net, access is limited to those with accounts on computers on the Net. Second, the topics for discussion may be limited. For example, access to a public college's student newspaper is limited to the students staff but a college newspaper usually has no limit on topics. Access to a campus (paper) mail system is often limited to staff and students and it's topics are often limited those related to official business. Unlike the owner of private property, the government "is not necessarily the unfettered master of all it creates" [Supreme Court in ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/news/cafv01n25]. For example, it can not practice viewpoint discrimination within its forums. In other words, if it allows one view of a topic to be expressed, then all views must be allowed. Also, the government cannot withdraw support from a limited-public forum simply because of displeasure with the content. For example, "[a]lthough school boards are not obligated to support student papers, if a given publication was originally created as a free speech forum, removal of financial or other school board support can be construed as an unlawful effort to stifle free expression." [From Public School Law: Teachers' and Students' Rights by Martha M. McCarthy and Nelda H. Cambron-McCabe] I think these restrictions on the government's authority are a good thing. This democracy is predicated on an informed electorate. New forums such as the Net help to create such an electorate. I think this leaves two questions: What are the topic restrictions for use of the Net? and What topic restrictions *should* there be for use of the Net? The first question cannot be answered authoritatively. There are several indications that it is a de facto free-speech forum. First, the tentative acceptable use policy is vague (except about commercial use.) Second, topic restrictions are not consistently enforced. Email, IRC, Netnews, etc all seem to be free-speech forums. Third, because of the Nets academic nature, the courts may find topic restrictions unacceptable. As the Supreme Court said it's recent so-called abortion gag-rule decision: "This is not to suggest that funding by the Government, even when coupled with the freedom of the fund recipients to speak outside the scope of the Government-funded project, is invariably sufficient to justify government control over the content of expression. For example, this Court has recognized that the existence of a Government ``subsidy,'' in the form of Government-owned property, does not justify the restriction of speech in areas that have ``been traditionally open to the public for expressive activity,'' United States v. Kokinda, 110 S. Ct. 3115, 3119 (1990); Hague v. CIO, 307 U. S. 496, 515 (1939)(opinion of Roberts, J.), or have been ``expressly dedicated to speech activity.'' Kokinda, supra, 110 S. Ct., at 3119; Perry Education Assn. v. Perry Local Educators' Assn., 460 U. S. 37, 45 (1983). Similarly, we have recognized that the university is a traditional sphere of free expression so fundamental to the functioning of our society that the Government's ability to control speech within that sphere by means of conditions attached to the expenditure of Government funds is restricted by the vagueness and overbreadth doctrines of the First Amendment, Keyishian v. Board of Regents, 385 U. S. 589, 603, 605-606 (1967)." [uunet.uu.net:opinions/supreme-court/89-1391] I think the second question is more important. In my opinion, an academic network should respect academic freedom. This means that institutional control of facilities should not be used as a device of censorship [ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/student.rights]. It should respect intellectual freedom. This means that "[m]aterials should not be proscribed or removed because of partisan or doctrinal disapproval" [ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/library/bill-of-rights.ala]. It's time to create a new Acceptable Use Policy that unambiguously supports academic and intellectual freedom. - Carl M. Kadie, editor Computers and Academic Freedom News -- Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu I do not represent EFF; this is just me. >From kadie Sat Oct 5 11:03:54 1991 To: cafb-mail ~Subject: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition) Status: R Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition) Sat Oct 5 11:03:10 EDT 1991 In this issue: nbc2134@dsacg2.dsa : Re: Government restriction of net information morgan@ms.uky.edu : Re: Acceptable Use Policies (Was Re: Bill's... ) morgan@ms.uky.edu : Re: Acceptable Use Policies (Was Re: Bill's... ) kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: Government restriction of net information kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: (repost) Waterloo ban on rec.humor.funny finally lift morgan@ms.uky.edu : Re: Government restriction of net information kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: Government restriction of net information russotto@eng.umd.e : Re: Acceptable Use Policies (Was Re: Bill's... ) morgan@ms.uky.edu : Re: (repost) Waterloo ban on rec.humor.funny finally lifte schweige@taurus.cs : Re: Government restriction of net information The addresses for the list are now: comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org - for contributions to the list or caf-talk@eff.org listserv@eff.org - for automated additions/deletions (send email with the line "help" for details.) caf-talk-request@eff.org - for administrivia From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) Subject: Re: Government restriction of net information Message-ID: <1991Oct4.151847.29603@eff.org> References: <9110040722.AA26286@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil> Date: Fri, 4 Oct 1991 15:18:47 GMT In reply to the mailing list from ... [...] >Legally, the Net is a limited public forum; this is in contrast with a [...] nbc2134@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil (Robert F Solon) writes: [...] >I don't recall any court case that has conclusively and directly determined >that Internet, Usenet, or any subpart thereof is a "limited public forum." I should have said, "In my untrained opinion, legally, the Net is a limited public forum." >It seems the best we can do is say that it _seems_ to be so withut a court >case or legislative action that would extend the definition of limited public >forum to Usenet or Internet. In my legally untrained opinion, it is not necessary to *extend* the definition of a limited public forum. It suffices to apply the current definition (as layed out by the Supreme Court and explained in cases like San Diego Committee v. Governing Bd., 790 F.2d 1471 (1986). - Carl -- Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu I do not represent EFF; this is just me. From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) Subject: Re: Government restriction of net information Message-ID: <1991Oct4.165949.2146@eff.org> References: <9110040722.AA26286@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil> <1991Oct4.151847.29603@eff.org> <1991Oct4.154153.28186@ms.uky.edu> Date: Fri, 4 Oct 1991 16:59:49 GMT morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes: [...] >*NETNEWS* is, for all intents and purposes, a "limited public forum"; >I think most of us can agree on that. However, that collection of >backbones known as "the Net" is not, nor has it ever been, a forum for >free expression. "The Net" is actually many networks, operating under >many jurisdictions. One particular network, NSFnet, was explicitly >created for "research and education". We can make the argument that >NSFnet is a limited public forum FOR THOSE TOPICS. We cannot, however, >arbitrarily create a "subforum", or expand the current forum; this is >the current relationship between Netnews and "the Net". >>In my legally untrained opinion, it is not necessary to *extend* the >>definition of a limited public forum. It suffices to apply the current >>definition (as layed out by the Supreme Court and explained in cases >>like San Diego Committee v. Governing Bd., 790 F.2d 1471 (1986). >That definition gives the State (or its agents) the right to determine >which topics may be discussed in a particular forum; this point has already >been discussed in great detail. Since the limited public forum known as >"NSFnet" has determined which topics are suitable, they would have the >right to cease the transmission of netnews traffic, since it was never >really "approved" in the first place. [...] Actual practice counts as much a policy. The government must be consistent; it can not pick and choose when it will enforce restrictions. If the Net carries (unrestricted) Netnews and email, then that least the Netnews and email part of the Net are de facto free-speech forums. Also, the NSFNet Acceptable Use Policy is says that the net has a very broad academic purpose: "to support research and education in and among academic institutions in the U.S. by providing access to unique resources and the opportunity for collaborative work." The NSF has always been as much about education (developing the next generation of researchers) as about research. Given the NSF's broad academic mandate, it is appropriate and perhaps inevitable that the NSF is, de facto, following the principles of academic freedom. - Carl -- Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu I do not represent EFF; this is just me. From: sean@sdg.dra.com Subject: Re: Acceptable Use Policies (Was Re: Bill's... ) Message-ID: <1991Oct5.183000.37@sdg.dra.com> Date: 5 Oct 91 18:30:00 CDT References: <1991Oct03.204416.24141@eng.umd.edu> <1991Oct4.144225.13879@ms.uky.edu> <1991Oct04.164130.540@eng.umd.edu> In article <1991Oct04.164130.540@eng.umd.edu>, russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) writes: > Me? Convince the umd.edu sysadmins? Come now, some of those people attempted > to get me expelled, and to the others, I'm just some anonymous student. My > thoughts count for nothing. I have no authority, and am no threat to their > position. Ignoring me costs them nothing. If you're a US citizen you can have a very large effect. They may be slow, but ignoring a citizen is not a recommended method for career advancement in government. Stephen S. Wolff National Science Foundation 1800 G Street, NW Room 533 Washington, DC 20550 Write up a research proposal that is within NSF's congressional mandate and submit it. After NSF received the complaint about those GIFs, they asked that anyone using those GIFs for formal research or education to write up a report on their work. The response was rather underwhelming. With no evidence that the consumption of NSFnet resources by transmitting those GIFs was furthering any of the stated goals of the NSFnet, it was a summary judgement for the plaintiff (the defense never showed up). I've talked to people at NSF about delivery of a variety of materials across the Internet. I think it would be fairer to characterize NSF's position as anyone transmitting material across the NSFnet had better be prepared to explain how it furthers NSFnet's stated goals. This is true regardless of the content. In particular, I was told delivery of subscribed material via NSFnet to a U.S. university library for their research collection was acceptable. It seems that collection policies for research libraries get approved somewhere else, so if you meet those standards, NSF will also accept them. I didn't ask about delivery to end users, but you may have to go to the interlibrary-loan department and ask them to FTP the files for you (assuming you meet your university's requirements for ILL). -- Sean Donelan, Data Research Associates, Inc, St. Louis, MO Domain: sean@sdg.dra.com, Voice: (Work) +1 314-432-1100 Xref: eff comp.org.eff.talk:4186 alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1057 alt.censorship:1721 From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) Subject: Re: Acceptable Use Policies (Was Re: Bill's... ) Message-ID: <1991Oct2.225512.3857@eff.org> References: <199110021650.AA23508@eff.org> Date: Wed, 2 Oct 1991 22:55:12 GMT In article <1991Oct1.153519.18849@ucunix.san.uc.edu> owenstm@ucunix.san.uc.edu (Cygnus X-1) writes: [...] >Well, the discussion could hold relavent if one was to involve Gif's >files, some "hard-line" religious people had them removed from the Mars >Hotel if you remember (Mars.ee.msstate.edu)... And the NSF has declared >it against their "rules" to transmit pornographics material. [...] I don't know that the NSF has made this declaration officially. I think it merely responded to some complaints by expressing some concern and the sys op at Mars decided to avoid any hassles by deleting the files. I think it's time to move beyond expendency to principled policies. Anonymous FTP archives are a new type of library. The Internet is the delivery medium for these libraries. The NSF should adopt policies based on long-standing library and academic experience. These polices should embrace free expression and renounce content restrictions. The Library Bill of Rights says: " 2. Libraries should provide materials and information presenting all points of view on current and historical issues. Materials should not be proscribed or removed because of partisan or doctrinal disapproval." Also, here is the American Library Association's statement on diversity: -------------------begin------------------------------------ DIVERSITY IN COLLECTION DEVELOPMENT An Interpretation of the LIBRARY BILL OF RIGHTS Throughout history, the focus of censorship has fluctuated from generation to generation. Books and other materials have not been selected or have been removed from library collections for many reasons, among which are prejudicial language and ideas, political content, economic theory, social philosophies, religious beliefs, sexual forms of expression, and other topics of a potentially controversial nature. Some examples of censorship may include removing or not selecting materials because they are considered by some as racist or sexist; not purchasing conservative religious materials; not selecting materials about or by minorities because it is thought these groups or interests are not represented in a community; or not providing information on or materials from non- mainstream political entities. Librarians may seek to increase user awareness of materials on various social concerns by many means, including, but not limited to, issuing bibliographies and presenting exhibits and programs. Librarians have a professional responsibility to be inclusive, not exclusive, in collection development and in the provision of interlibrary loan. Access to all materials legally obtainable should be assured to the user, and policies should not unjustly exclude materials even if they are offensive to the librarian or the user. Collection development should reflect the philosophy inherent in Article II of the LIBRARY BILL OF RIGHTS: "Libraries should provide materials and information presenting all points of view on current and historical issues. Materials should not be proscribed or removed because of partisan or doctrinal disapproval." A balanced collection reflects a diversity of materials, not an equality of numbers. Collection development responsibilities include selecting materials in the languages in common use in the community which the library serves. Collection development and the selection of materials should be done according to professional standards and established selection and review procedures. There are many complex facets to any issue, and variations of context in which issues may be expressed, discussed, or interpreted. Librarians have a professional responsibility to be fair, just, and equitable and to give all library users equal protection in guarding against violation of the library patron's right to read, view, or listen to materials and resources protected by the First Amendment, no matter what the viewpoint of the author, creator, or selector. Librarians have an obligation to protect library collections from removal of materials based on personal bias or prejudice, and to select and support the access to materials on all subjects that meet, as closely as possible, the needs and interests of all persons in the community which the library serves. This includes materials that reflect political, economic, religious, social, minority, and sexual issues. Intellectual freedom, the essence of equitable library services, provides for free access to all expressions of ideas through which any and all sides of a question, cause, or movement may be explored. Toleration is meaningless without tolerance for what some may consider detestable. Librarians cannot justly permit their own preferences to limit their degree of tolerance in collection development, because freedom is indivisible. Adopted July 14, 1982; amended January 10, 1990, by the ALA Council. [Made available by permission of the American Library Association.] ----------------------------end-------------------- [The library-policy archive is accessible via anonymous ftp to ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.3). It is in directory "pub/academic/library". File README is a detailed description of the items in this directory. The archive is also accessible via email. For information on email access send email to archive-server@eff.org. In the body of your note include the lines "help" and "index".] -- Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu I do not represent EFF; this is just me. From: morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) Subject: Re: Acceptable Use Policies (Was Re: Bill's... ) Message-ID: <1991Oct4.134400.2052@ms.uky.edu> References: <75ED8DF13A204D22@ccmail.sunysb.edu> <1991Oct03.030549.19866@eng.umd.edu> Date: Fri, 4 Oct 1991 13:44:00 GMT russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) writes: >Sanjay Kapur writes: > >>I would suggest writing to the people who run the NSF or to Congress. The >>poor system admin is in no position to set or even seriously challenge >>the policies of the government of these United States. > >And, once again, Mr. Kapur shows us his dedication to free expression by >passing the buck and being ever willing to bow to the express, implied, or >even worried-about threat of Those In Charge. > >Writing to NSF and/or Congress will do nothing. Direct challenge by systems >administrators may. Of course, this is a more risky course of action, >and we wouldn't want you sticking your neck out one little inch, would we? Would you have the same sarcastic attitude if you were a user on Sanjay's system? Suppose that he did, indeed, "stick his neck out" and get slapped down? Suppose that, in response, the administration at SUNY-SB removed news completely; would you rally to his support? Somehow, I doubt it. Would you be happy to go without news for a long period of time, while Sanjay (and presumably others) fought the administration to restore it? As an example, it took almost three years for Waterloo to lift their ban on rec.humor.funny. Would you be willing to support Sanjay for that much time? Would you just find access to some other news site and leave him to fight his own battle? Would you just graduate and forget about it? Would you even worry about the hundreds of other users on his systems? There is a time and place to be a visionary/activist; it's up to every individual to decide if he is in that time and/or place. If you don't know the full picture at his site, you really don't have any reason to condemn him. -- morgan@ms.uky.edu |Wes Morgan, not speaking for| ....!ukma!ukecc!morgan morgan@engr.uky.edu |the University of Kentucky's| morgan%engr.uky.edu@UKCC morgan@ie.pa.uky.edu |Engineering Computing Center| morgan@wuarchive.wustl.edu From: dfo@tko.vtt.fi (Foxvog Douglas) Subject: Re: Academic Privacy Question Message-ID: <1991Oct1.133036.8510@ousrvr.oulu.fi> Date: 1 Oct 91 13:30:36 GMT References: <398CF0EE5E401E65@ccmail.sunysb.edu> Sender: news@ousrvr.oulu.fi In article robinson@mtsu.edu (David Robinson) writes: >As a matter of fact, here at MTSU, we *DO* keep Time magazine behind the >counter for the primary reason that it tends to a) go walkies, or b) get >chopped by enterprising students with razor blades but no money for the >photocopier. This is also one of the reasons that we have chosen not to >subscribe to Playboy, Penthouse, or Hustler. When I was at the >University of Alabama, they subscribed to Playboy, they kept it behind >the desk, and it *still* was so quickly mutilated beyond recognition that >they had to have 2 subscriptions to make it through the month. Even the >*MICROFILM* got chopped! This is a very good reason to keep such magazines behind the shelves. However, unless the magazines are checked for clipped sections after they are returned, the restrictions are not that useful. I would hate for a record to be kept of access to try to ascertain who is doing the clipping, as the information might be used for other purposes. However, these arguments certainly have no parallels with the Netnews case. I remember one time when I wanted to look up a reference to an Arms Control article in Penthouse and I had to buy it as the University library did not stock it. Any university which teaches history, public affairs, military strategy, or similar subjects should subscribe to Playboy and Penthouse as they print articles on such topics often by top players in the field (e.g. former CIA chief Turner). They also cover censorship (for obvious reasons). [Maybe the magazine could be weighed on a sufficiently sensitive scale to detect the possiblity -- of course this would be a significant one-time charge.] >Another reason for not subscribing to those particular titles is that >they are not indexed in the traditional sources. I'm thinking >specifically of _Reader's_Guide_to_Periodical_Literature_ which, for >general interest type magazines, is still considered by many librarians >as *the* indexing source. (I'm sure someone will quickly point out a >very good, very popular index that *does* index Playboy ... like IAC's >_Magazine_Index_ for instance, but I don't know a single source that >indexes Hustler ... ) I agree that lack of indexing makes the publications less valuable. However, if the content includes covered topics the magazines should be purchased. After all, the books are not indexed. >I realize that this sounds like a bunch of pretty lame excuses. However, >combined with the budgetary arguments that have been presented by other >postings, you can begin to see a picture of the complexities that are >involved in decisions of this kind. Unfortunately, there is more to it >than simply a matter of intellectual freedom. >David Robinson robinson@mtsu.edu >Automation Librarian >Middle Tennessee State University >Murfreesboro, Tennessee 37132 I see that a library can validly be topic oriented and subscribe to publications that address only the covered topics. A SIGNIFICANT charge for a publication can be a valid reason for not subscribing. For Netnews, a site can appropriately restrict it self to comp.*, sci.*, and so on if the users of the site are restricted to computations on those topics. It may also not subscribe to high cost groups (e.g. high volume binaries), or be very selective in such subscriptions. Selected subscription to appropriate groups in other hierarchies is also reasonable. However, if a site picks up talk.* and alt.*, it should pick up the full hierarchies (with the exception of "unneeded" binaries if there is a memory concern). To do otherwise would be to engage in unwarrented censorship. IMHO. doug foxvog dfo@tko.vtt.fi Xref: eff alt.sex:20659 alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1088 From: kadie@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) Subject: Academic Porn Conference Message-ID: <1991Oct4.203547.6378@m.cs.uiuc.edu> References: <1991Oct4.183808.23118@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> Date: Fri, 4 Oct 1991 20:35:47 GMT PHILADELPHIA (UPI) -- A group of academians snatched pornography out of the sleazy booskstores and X-rated theaters Friday and put it in a more respectable setting -- a college campus [U. of Pennsylvania]. [...] The conference, which is titled ``The Origins of Pornography,'' was expected to draw up to 200 professors, researchers and other experts from across the country for two days of intellectual discussion. [...] -- Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) Subject: Rust v. Sullivan Message-ID: <1991Oct2.001031.1159@eff.org> Date: Wed, 2 Oct 1991 00:10:31 GMT Some posters have wondered what effect the Supreme Court's recent "abortion gag rule" decision has on public-university free speech. I've looked the decision. (It is available via anonymous ftp from uunet.uu.net:opinions/supreme-court/89-1391.) It explictly gives universities as an example of a place where free speech is fundamental. So, at least for now, free speech at universities is safe. - Carl ------------------- 89-1391 & 89-1392 -- OPINION RUST v. SULLIVAN [...] This is not to suggest that funding by the Government, even when coupled with the freedom of the fund recipients to speak outside the scope of the Government-funded project, is invariably sufficient to justify government control over the content of expression. For example, this Court has recognized that the existence of a Government ``subsidy,'' in the form of Government-owned property, does not justify the restriction of speech in areas that have ``been traditionally open to the public for expressive activity,'' United States v. Kokinda, 110 S. Ct. 3115, 3119 (1990); Hague v. CIO, 307 U. S. 496, 515 (1939)(opinion of Roberts, J.), or have been ``expressly dedicated to speech activity.'' Kokinda, supra, 110 S. Ct., at 3119; Perry Education Assn. v. Perry Local Educators' Assn., 460 U. S. 37, 45 (1983). Similarly, we have recognized that the university is a traditional sphere of free expression so fundamental to the functioning of our society that the Government's ability to control speech within that sphere by means of conditions attached to the expenditure of Government funds is restricted by the vagueness and overbreadth doctrines of the First Amendment, Keyishian v. Board of Regents, 385 U. S. 589, 603, 605-606 (1967). It could be argued by analogy that traditional relationships such as that between doctor and patient should enjoy protection under the First Amendment from government regulation, even when subsidized by the Government. We need not resolve that question here, however, because the Title X program regulations do not significantly impinge upon the doctor-patient relationship. Nothing in them requires a doctor to represent as his own any opinion that he does not in fact hold. Nor is the doctor-patient relationship established by the Title X program sufficiently all-encompassing so as to justify an expectation on the part of the patient of comprehensive medical advice. The program does not provide post-conception medical care, and therefore a doctor's silence with regard to abortion cannot reasonably be thought to mislead a client into thinking that the doctor does not consider abortion an appropriate option for her. The doctor is always free to make clear that advice regarding abortion is simply beyond the scope of the program. In these circumstances, the general rule that the Government may choose not to subsidize speech applies with full force. [...] ------------ -- Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu I do not represent EFF; this is just me. Xref: eff alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1064 alt.censorship:1741 From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) Subject: [repost] Waterloo ban on rec.humor.funny finally lifted Message-ID: <1991Oct3.172138.338@eff.org> Date: Thu, 3 Oct 1991 17:21:38 GMT From: funnyr@looking.on.ca (Funny Guy) Subject: Waterloo ban on rec.humor.funny finally lifted >Message-ID: <1991Oct03.060346.5082@looking.on.ca> Date: 3 Oct 91 06:03:46 GMT Those of you familar with the history of this newsgroup will know that in December of 1988, due to the efforts of an MIT grad student named Jonathan Richmond, a ban was placed on possibly offensive jokes in this newsgroup at the University of Waterloo. At the time, this newsgroup went into the net only via that site, and Richmond's goal was to control the content of the group by putting pressure on the University through the daily newspapers. [It didn't work of course. RHF quickly became fed out through a wide variety of other paths, and only Waterloo folk and downstream nodes were affected.] To many people's surprise, the Douglas Wright (President) and J. Alan George (Provost) supported and implemented the ban. Later groups such as alt.sex were also removed. Pressure from the community, with vigourous effort by some students and an invited talk by Dr. John McCarthy of the Stanford AI Lab (Dr. McCarthy had played a pivotal role in reversing a shorter-lived ban at Stanford) resulted in the appointment of a committee to study the question of newsgroup availability. In May 1991, this committee reported what you would expect them to report -- that, to paraphrase, a University administration should not make non-financial decisions about what people can and can't read on campus. The recommended restoration of all banned newsgroups. Today, Dr. Johnny Wong, Associate Provost for Computing at UW, announced that he would follow the recommendations of the committee. The result is the restoration of all banned newsgroups there, from alt.sex.bondage to rec.humor.funny. I take particular satisfaction in this. The banning of my publication at my alma mater has been a thorn in my side for years, and I have helped and encouraged the efforts to reverse it. I did not wish to concede any victory for the forces of thought-control and political correctness. Even though the ban never stopped any determined reader (after all, the groups could be read remotely with RRN and NNTP) it is good to see it gone. My thanks go out to all who worked to make this happen. More detailed accounts of these events can be found in the prefaces to the Jokebooks. This year's jokebook may be delayed a bit because I am moving at the end of this month. Will tell you where later. --------------- Other notes: I am keeping busy and am a fair bit behind in the joke queue. Only 600 entries to go. Please have patience. RHF is no longer USENET's most popular group. Alt.sex now easily holds that distinction -- perhaps being banned at UW is the first step for success in any USENET group. Misc.jobs.offered is also currently above, but fluctuating. Statistics are posted in the group news.lists. -- Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu I do not represent EFF; this is just me. >From kadie Sat Oct 5 11:02:37 1991 To: cafb-mail ~Subject: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition) Status: R Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition) Sat Oct 5 11:02:18 EDT 1991 In this issue: NMETRO@ricevm1.ric : Re: Censorship or NMETRO@ricevm1.ric : Re: Censorship or russotto@eng.umd.e : Re: Acceptable Use Policies (Was Re: Bill's... ) kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: Censorship or kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: Government restriction of net information The addresses for the list are now: comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org - for contributions to the list or caf-talk@eff.org listserv@eff.org - for automated additions/deletions (send email with the line "help" for details.) caf-talk-request@eff.org - for administrivia Xref: eff alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1074 alt.censorship:1755 From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) Subject: Re: [repost] Waterloo ban on rec.humor.funny finally lifted Message-ID: <1991Oct4.153000.29957@eff.org> References: <1991Oct3.172138.338@eff.org> Date: Fri, 4 Oct 1991 15:30:00 GMT [This is the announcement and report from Dr. Johnny Wong, Associate Provost (Computing and Information Systems). - Carl] After reviewing the report of the Advisory Committee on Network News, and the comments that I've received, I am proceeding in accordance with the recommendations of that committee. Newsgroups that are currently not supported will be reinstated as soon as possible, and Roger Watt of the Department of Computing Services (ext. 2491; email: rwwatt@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca) has been appointed as a liaison person with respect to complaints related to the contents of electronic mail messages and news articles. - - - - - - - - - - REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON NETWORK NEWS MAY 30, 1991 INTRODUCTION A. Universities have a long tradition of investigating all areas of human activity and of sharing the results of those inquiries with others inside and outside the University who may be interested. The recent growth of communication networks for computers have made the sharing much more rapid and efficient. Arguably, the two most effective means for making these results available, and thus potentially for advancing the works of many other members of the University community, are electronic mail (E-mail) to individuals and network newsgroups, the latter functioning rather like collective mailboxes to which faculty, staff, and students may choose to subscribe. Thus, the Committee believes that it is entirely appropriate that the University of Waterloo, which has a strong reputation for the constructive use of computers, continue to allocate resources to receiving, storing, and transmitting items of E-mail and news. B. Further, the Committee believes that it is important that the University of Waterloo consult its user community when decisions must be made about the use of resources which are committed to E-mail and news. C. Most importantly, the Committee believes that it is the users of the computing systems who must be held responsible for their decisions to take advantage of the resources which the University of Waterloo maintains for the general use of its community. The Committee notes that in some cases items have been posted which contain lengthy and verbatim excerpts from newspapers, books, and magazines. Even when the source is fully acknowledged, the Committee believes that this acknowledgement is not a substitute for a formal release from the holder of the copyright in the material, usually the publisher if not the author of the cited words. Thus, in advising users of the responsibility they bear for what they post, the Committee considers it important that a warning that the University will not be held liable for breach of copyright be made plain. D. Although the University of Waterloo is not under an obligation to distribute news across campus, once the key role of the user is recognized, the Committee sees no role for the institution `in loco parentis'. In particular, we see no need for a Committee, even of one, to monitor the contents of items, noting that the current daily volume of approximately 11 megabytes arriving at the University makes such monitoring impractical. E. Again, once the key role of the users of computing resources is established, the Committee is of the opinion that the University of Waterloo already has a number of mechanisms in place for handling queries or complaints should they arise. The Committee sees no need to duplicate these mechanisms. The Committee believes that complaints should be dealt with in the same manner whether the offending items originate from UW or from a remote site. It is clear that a user may reply directly to a poster and may make a more formal complaint under UW policies in parallel. In either case, the channels normally used for handling complaints from UW accounts should be used for those arising from off-campus posting. However, the nature of electronic communication is such that action often needs to be more rapid than in dealing with, for example, printed material. The Committee, therefore, suggests one addition to the existing mechanisms. In its background documents, Usenet identifies users as responsible for their actions just as the Committee has suggested the University of Waterloo should. As a consequence, it is natural for one user who objects to an item posted by another to reply directly and outline his or her complaint. Such direct reply is often effective, but does assume enough familiarity with the reply mechanism of newsgroups or with E-mail on the part of the offended user. A simple description of each of these processes should be a standard part of the introduction to computing provided to each new user, whose responsibility it must be to assimilate the information; the University of Waterloo already provides very substantial consulting advice, widely distributed across campus, to assist users in making effective use of the University's computing resources. It seems clear that users should retain copies of both the item which was the source of the objection and of the reply. Such electronic copies carry date and time 'stamps' which may be useful should a more extensive discussion of the item prove necessary. Where the initial item originates from a member of the University of Waterloo, then the provisions of existing policies should, of course, be available. The Committee notes that the authors of the report from the Ad Hoc Committee to Review UW Policy 33 on Ethical Behavior, chaired by Lois Claxton, already anticipated the extension of the provisions of Policy 33 to cover the area of computing (IV Recommendations, page 10, first paragraph). However, electronic items may originate from other sites and it may be impractical for a user to object directly; furthermore, direct reply may be ineffective. Only in such situations can the Committee foresee the desirability of there being a person, designated by the University of Waterloo, to whom application may be made for assistance. In recommending such an appointment, the Committee does not envisage such an official being responsible for dealing with objections from one member of the University about the actions of another. Nor does it see the official acting as the 'agent' of an aggrieved user. RECOMMENDATIONS On the question of the use of resources and the responsibility of users, the Committee recommends that: 1. The principles which are adopted by the University of Waterloo governing the use of its computing facilities for storing, retrieving and transmitting information, be widely disseminated and be included in all introductions to computing for new users. Particular emphasis should be placed on the principles which concern such direct methods of communication as E-mail and network news. 2. The University of Waterloo adopt and widely publicize the principle that, in sending E-mail or in posting an article to a newsgroup, it is the user and not the University, who assumes responsibility for its contents. 3. The University adopt and widely publicize the principle that it is the user, not the University, who is responsible for his or her decision to read a mail message or an article posted to an electronic newsgroup. 4. The University's primary news-server continue to receive all newsgroups generated internally and all newsgroups which arrive over the networks to which the University is connected. 5. The contents of these newsgroups continue to be made available to all lower level servers. 6. When decisions are to be made re the consumption of computing resources for newsgroups, those responsible for such decisions should widely and formally consult with the full user community. In the case of the primary server, it should be the responsibility of the University Computing Committee to see that such consultation takes place. In the case of lower level servers, a well-defined consultative process, approved by the University Computing Committee, should exist. On the question of responding to particular items of mail or news, the Committee recommends that: 1. The University of Waterloo advise its user community that in the first instance it is the responsibility, not of the University, but of a user who objects to an item, to reply directly to the poster, making clear the nature of the objection. 2. A person knowledgeable, particularly about electronic news and mail, but also well-versed in the general provisions of UW policies, be appointed with the following general terms of reference: He or she should: (A) Be able to identify a suitable authority at a remote site to whom a request for action might be addressed, when he or she is convinced that the normal methods for registering an objection have been ineffective. An obvious example would be the continued posting of objectionable items. (B) Be able to identify the most suitable authority at the University of Waterloo to which objections from other sites about material generated at the University of Waterloo might be referred. Examples of such authorities are the Ethics Committee, the University Computing Committee, the Dean of a Faculty; these examples clearly do not exhaust the possibilities. 3. Such an official should report at least once a year on his or her activity in this area to the University Computing Committee through the Associate Provost, Computing and Information Systems. 4. The responsibility for the removal of any item from a UW machine, as a result of an investigation into a complaint, should reside with the Associate Deans of Computing in each Faculty for machines under their control, and with the corresponding officers responsible for non-Faculty machines, and with the Associate Provost, Computing and Information Systems. The Committee presumes that investigations and decisions will be carried out under University of Waterloo policies and that where review by a Committee is called for, such review will be carried out keeping in mind the short retention time for items in newsgroups. 5. The University of Waterloo's principles or policies in this area clearly identify the officers who are able to make such decisions. 6. At least once a year actions taken under this authority should be reported to the University Computing Committee. The Committee has not made suggestions about how the recommendations should be implemented in any unit, academic or non-academic. The Committee presumes that the University of Waterloo will continue to publicize its policies and procedures which, in turn, will continue to be developed after careful consultation with the University community. However, the Committee wishes to point out that if the University of Waterloo appoints an official to assist users in responding to particular items as has been recommended, then that official should not also be asked to be responsible for removing items from circulation; in the Committee's view the two functions conflict directly. Submitted by: Greg Bennett, Chair Paul Check Ian Gibson Anil Goel John Moore Vic Neglia Roger Watt, Resource Person Bud Walker Nancy Zinatelli -- Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu I do not represent EFF; this is just me.