Newsgroups: eff.mail.cosndisc Path: eff!eff-gate!usenet From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) Subject: Re: CORE Acceptable Use Policy Message-ID: <199305080131.AA27988@eff.org> Originator: daemon@eff.org Sender: owner-cosndisc@BITNIC.EDUCOM.EDU Nntp-Posting-Host: eff.org Reply-To: Consortium for School Networking Discussion Forum List Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation Distribution: eff Date: Sat, 8 May 1993 01:28:46 GMT Approved: usenet@eff.org Lines: 59 mrosema@EIS.CALSTATE.EDU (Mel Roseman) writes: [...] >GUIDELINE II: Unacceptable uses of the network include [...] >2. Using profanity, obscenity, or other language which may be >offensive to another user; [...] [...] >GUIDELINE VI: Conference moderators are responsible for monitoring the >content and tone of posted messages and for taking steps to delete >offensive material and return it to its author for revision. [...] I don't believe that this is the legal way to censor offensive material. For hints on how to legally censor at least some offensive material see the Supreme Court's decision in _Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 108 S. Ct._. Also see _Bethel School District No. 403 v. Frasher_, 106 S. Ct. 3159. For information on when censorship is not allowed see _Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District_, 393 U.S. 503 (1969). I notice you are in California. This may also make censorship of merely offensive material more difficult. According to the Student Press Law center's "Hazelwood Packet", California has a state law on the books that makes the Supreme Court's _Hazelwood_ decision virtually irrelevant: "The rights students had been presumed to have under the First Amendment before _Hazelwood_ were provided by the California Education Code as well. So even though the Supreme Court had the final say on student First Amendment rights, the California law could provide equal or greater rights without any legal problems." In summary, if you want to censor offensive material you need to get legal advice on how to do it properly. - Carl Kadie For more information: The Student Press Law Center is at 1735 Eye Street, N.W., Suite 504 Washington, DC 20006, (202) 466-5242 The Computers and Academic Freedom Law subarchive is an on-line collection collection of law related to computers and academic freedom (mostly at universities but some K12 and general stuff, too). It includes both case law and legislation. For information, email to archive-server@eff.org. Include the line: send acad-freedom/law README Also of possible interest, the library archive and the main archive. Add the lines: send acad-freedom/library README send acad-freedom README -- Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me. =kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu = Newsgroups: eff.mail.cosndisc Path: eff!eff-gate!usenet From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) Subject: Re: CORE Acceptable Use Policy Message-ID: <199305101624.AA00411@eff.org> Originator: daemon@eff.org Sender: owner-cosndisc@BITNIC.EDUCOM.EDU Nntp-Posting-Host: eff.org Reply-To: Consortium for School Networking Discussion Forum List Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation Distribution: eff Date: Mon, 10 May 1993 16:06:27 GMT Approved: usenet@eff.org Lines: 31 cfarmer@NCSA.UIUC.EDU (Charles S. Farmer) writes: >How can I not be legal. This computer equipment is not a right nor public. >It is a privelage for the students of the school. In order to use the >equipment, they must submit to all of the posted guidelines associated with >the equipment. [...] I'm under the impression that CORE is publically-owned. There are limits to rights that the government can ask you to sign away as a condition of service. In _Keyishian v. Board of Regents_ (1967), the Court addressed the question of what kind of loyalty oaths government employees (specially SUNY faculty members) could be required to sign as a condition of employment. The Court said: "Thus [the New York laws] suffer from impermissible 'overbreadth'. They seek to bar employment both for association which legitimately may be sanctioned and for association which may not be sanctioned consistently with First Amendment rights. [The laws] are [therefore] invalid insofar as they sanction mere knowing membership without any showing of specific intent to further the unlawful aims of [the Communist Party]." [This is the case referenced in the university-free-expression-is- fundamental-to-society part of the recent _Rust v. Sullivan_.] - Carl -- Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me. =kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu = Newsgroups: eff.mail.cosndisc Path: eff!eff-gate!usenet From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) Subject: Re: CORE Acceptable Use Policy Message-ID: <199305102350.AA09861@eff.org> Originator: daemon@eff.org Sender: owner-cosndisc@BITNIC.EDUCOM.EDU Nntp-Posting-Host: eff.org Reply-To: Consortium for School Networking Discussion Forum List Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation Distribution: eff Date: Mon, 10 May 1993 23:11:34 GMT Approved: usenet@eff.org Lines: 84 cfarmer@NCSA.UIUC.EDU (Charles S. Farmer) writes: [...] >What about the army? All government sites and secret materials should be >freely accessable according the statute you have applied. The Supreme Court ruled in _Greer v. Spock_, 424 U.S. 828 (1974) that military bases and installations are not public forums because the serve specialized functions. [...] >go into the Public Library and direct profane comments toward the employees >and other patrons and see how long you get to use the facility. That is my >point. [...] Repeated unwanted comments directed at a person are harassment and can be forbidden. Disruptive activity can also be forbidden. But, for example, wearing a jacket that says "Fuck the Draft" to a court house can not be forbidden. - Carl ANNOTATED REFERENCES (All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.) ================= law/cohen-v-california.1 ================= * Expression -- Offensive -- Cohen v. California -- 1 Definition of "fighting words"; why no right not to be offended The definition of fighting words from _Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire_ and then _Cohen v. California_. Also, says quotes the Supreme Court saying that there is no universal right to not hear offensive expression. ================= law/cohen-v-california.2 ================= * Expression -- Offensive -- Cohen v. California -- 2 Netnews article with reference _Cohen v. California_, "in which the court ruled that Cohen's jacket, which stated "Fuck the Draft" was a protected form of free speech, even though he wore it in a county courthouse." ================= law/cohen-v-california.3 ================= * Expression -- Offensive -- Cohen v. California -- 3 Here are excerpts from several Supreme Court decisions inclusing _Cohen v. Calfiornia_. They say that offensive public expression is protected if those offended can "effectively avoid further bombardment of their sensibilities simply by averting their eyes." ================= ================= If you have gopher, you can browse the CAF archive with the command gopher gopher.eff.org These document(s) are also available by anonymous ftp (the preferred method) and by email. To get the file(s) via ftp, do an anonymous ftp to ftp.eff.org (192.77.172.4), and get file(s): pub/academic/law/cohen-v-california.1 pub/academic/law/cohen-v-california.2 pub/academic/law/cohen-v-california.3 To get the file(s) by email, send email to archive-server@eff.org. Include the line(s) (be sure to include the space before the file name): send acad-freedom/law cohen-v-california.1 send acad-freedom/law cohen-v-california.2 send acad-freedom/law cohen-v-california.3 -- Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me. =kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =