From kadie Wed Oct 16 15:37:40 1991
To: cafb-mail
Subject: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Status: R
Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Wed Oct 16 15:36:15 EDT 1991
[For information on how to get a much smaller edited version of the
list, send email to archive-server@eff.org. Include the line:
send acad-freedom caf
- Carl ]
In this issue:
zane@ddsw1.MCS.COM : Mail Your Congressperson Through the Net
gl8f@fermi.clas.Vi : Re: The rules that Ohio State U. alleges that Steven Brac
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: The rules that Ohio State U. alleges that Steven Brac
gl8f@fermi.clas.Vi : Re: The rules that Ohio State U. alleges that Steven Brac
pomeranz@dccs.upen : An idea and request for assistance
kadie@eff.org (Car : What is a
nbc2134@dsacg2.dsa : Re: Electronic Privacy Precedents
mf2x+@andrew.cmu.e : It could make you rich though...
kadie@eff.org (Car : (alt.censorship) USENET censorship strikes University of
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: USENET censorship strikes University of Washington!
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: USENET censorship strikes University of Washington!
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: USENET censorship strikes University of Washington!
orpheus@reed.edu ( : Re: Newsgroups selection
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.activism:9543 alt.censorship:1900 alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1246 alt.conspiracy:4536 ba.politics:807
From: zane@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Sameer Parekh)
Subject: Mail Your Congressperson Through the Net
Message-ID: <1991Oct14.054137.27700@ddsw1.MCS.COM>
Date: 14 Oct 91 05:41:37 GMT
Mail Your Congressperson Through the Net
I realized that congresspeople should be on the net so
that they are closer to their constituency. Of course, I
mailed my congressperson asking him to look into it. Of
course, he didn't.
Therefore, I thought that people on the net should
still be able to mail their congressperson through the net.
I got the idea from the Cleveland Free-Net's Mail Your
Congressperson thing. (I am not sure of the exact name.) I
was excited by the name and looked into it. Unfortunately,
all it does is give you the address of a congressperson. It
is a good service, but not worthy of the name.
So I got this idea. Mail me at zane@ddsw1.MCS.COM
with the subject "MAIL CONGRESS." (If you don't have that
subject it will be harder for me.) In the letter you should
tell me the name, house (Senate or HoR), and state that you
want to write to. Due to a slight problem in my list, I have only
the initial of the last name and the first name for many of the names.
(The last name has been blurred.) Therefore, I would need
the first name of the person too.
The rest of the letter should be the letter you want
sent to the congressperson. This should be completely
formatted, except for page breaks. I will place the headers
on the letter. (That which states your name, address, date,
and the congressperson's name and address.) I don't have a
laser printer, so it will be printed at only 160 X 72 dpi.
(If someone is willing to give me a laser printer, or even
an inkjet printer, I would gladly accept. :-)
Someone had pointed out to me that some may think that I would only
send those letters with which I agree with. I see no way I can prove to you
that I am not filtering the letters, but I don't.
After your signature (if the mail you send me contains
a usenet sig, I will delete that.) I will append a small
note saying:
---
The Mail Your Congressperson Through the Net Project
Call (708)-362-9659 and ask for Sameer Parekh,
or send electronic mail to zane@ddsw1.MCS.COM for more information.
(From CompuServe -- mail INTERNET:zane@ddsw1.MCS.COM)
Hopefully, many letters to congresspeople will invoke
their curiosity.
I am a student with a student's money, so I would go broke if I didn't
ask for money. If you think my service deserves to continue, I would
appreciate a donation of any amount.
Please send the check to:
Sameer Parekh
829 Paddock Lane
Libertyville, IL 60048-3743
Thanks.
--
Sameer Parekh -- zane@ddsw1.MCS.COM zane@infopls.chi.il.us
Ask me about the Mail Your Congressperson Through the Net projectb
Apple IIGS Forever! Ask me about the GNOmultitasking project!
-------------------
From: gl8f@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl)
Subject: Re: The rules that Ohio State U. alleges that Steven Brack violated
Message-ID: <1991Oct14.160214.1689@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
Sender: usenet@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU
References: <1991Oct13.140940.14103@eff.org> <1991Oct13.150613.14818@eff.org>
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 91 16:02:14 GMT
In article <1991Oct13.150613.14818@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
> "6. It was confirmed that you used another student's account to
> access a computer system at the University of Denver [sic]. This
> was in direct opposition to your instructions not to use the
> University's system to access national networks."
>
>The other student accessed Mr. Brack's account at the University of
>Denver. This violates no Ohio State rules (or rules of the University
>of Denver system).
Is it my imagination, or are you blatantly not reading this one yet
again? You say "other student" where they say "Mr. Brack". If you want
to make the point that they can't easily tell who was sitting at the
keyboard, you should make that point.
-------------------
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: The rules that Ohio State U. alleges that Steven Brack violated
Message-ID: <1991Oct14.172308.16360@eff.org>
References: <1991Oct13.140940.14103@eff.org> <1991Oct13.150613.14818@eff.org> <1991Oct14.160214.1689@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 1991 17:23:08 GMT
Ohio State U. wrote (addressed to Steven Brack):
>> "6. It was confirmed that you used another student's account to
>> access a computer system at the University of Denver [sic]. This
>> was in direct opposition to your instructions not to use the
>> University's system to access national networks."
Carl Kadie wrote:
>>The other student accessed Mr. Brack's account at the University of
>>Denver. This violates no Ohio State rules (or rules of the University
>>of Denver system).
gl8f@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl) writes:
>Is it my imagination, or are you blatantly not reading this one yet
>again? You say "other student" where they say "Mr. Brack". If you want
>to make the point that they can't easily tell who was sitting at the
>keyboard, you should make that point.
I think both sides agree that another student's account at OSU
accessed Steven Brack's account at U. of D.
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
-------------------
From: gl8f@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl)
Subject: Re: The rules that Ohio State U. alleges that Steven Brack violated
Message-ID: <1991Oct14.195056.4498@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
Sender: usenet@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU
References: <1991Oct13.150613.14818@eff.org> <1991Oct14.160214.1689@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> <1991Oct14.172308.16360@eff.org>
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 91 19:50:56 GMT
In article <1991Oct14.172308.16360@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>Carl Kadie wrote:
>I think both sides agree that another student's account at OSU
>accessed Steven Brack's account at U. of D.
Good, so why don't you make it clear in your letter, instead of
talking past the point? It's difficult to follow your argument when
you don't make things clear.
-------------------
Xref: eff comp.society.development:160 comp.unix.misc:959 alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1250
From: pomeranz@dccs.upenn.edu (Hal Pomeranz)
Subject: An idea and request for assistance
Message-ID: <53432@netnews.upenn.edu>
Date: 15 Oct 91 14:40:49 GMT
Sender: news@netnews.upenn.edu
Followup-To: comp.society.development
Nntp-Posting-Host: isis.dccs.upenn.edu
Originator: pomeranz@isis.dccs.upenn.edu
For many years now, I have had the dream of starting a non-profit UNIX
Laboratory which would provide computing resources to the community.
Primarily, I would enjoy having an arena to pursue my own interests
without some of the commercial and/or political constraints present at
many organizations. However, I also feel that such a Laboratory
(depending upon its success in garnering funding and equipment) could
provide a valuable resource to both the local and the general
community.
First, since I forsee that any equipment will necessarily be cobbled
together from a variety of sources, such a Laboratory would provide an
extremely heterogenous test environment for hardware and software.
Certainly, the environment would consist of less expensive or outdated
equipment. Still, the problems of operating on a shoestring are just
as valid (and perhaps less formally researched) as the problems of
getting your new massively parallel box to talk to your IBM mainframe.
Second, the Laboratory could provide access and training to members of
the community who would otherwise never have experience with
computers. I was fortunate enough to do my undergraduate work at a
time when my college Computer Science program had just obtained a new
network of workstations, and I gained valuable experience running the
network. I would like to make a "payback" by providing similar
opportunities to others.
Finally, I would like to see a place where ideas and research can
flourish. Such research need not be limited to hardware and software
design, development, and integration, but could encompass
philosophical and sociological issues as well. What are the
implications of varying levels of freedom of information? What are
the ethical responsibilites of system managers, system administrators,
system owners, and system users?
While this is all still very nebulous, I would like to begin by
soliciting the following (by email please-- no need to clutter
these newsgroups):
1) Contact persons at various organizations which
might donate equipment.
2) Information on possible sources of funding, either
organizations or individuals.
3) Information on people or organizations who might
be willing to donate space for such a Lab.
4) Offers of support, whether it be in the form of time,
expertise, money, equipment, food, shelter, or anything
else that might be remotely useful.
5) Ideas for research projects (in any area) that could
be undertaken at such a Lab.
6) Warnings, "gotchas", or anything else you think it
might be useful for me to know when embarking upon
such a venture.
7) Well-wishings, good luck messages, moral support.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Hal Pomeranz
pomeranz@isis.dccs.upenn.edu
pomeranz@cs.swarthmore.edu
or c/o sjuphil!esasse@uu.psi.com
-------------------
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: What is a library?
Message-ID: <1991Oct15.173626.17199@eff.org>
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 1991 17:36:26 GMT
Just as computers are becoming more library like, libraries are
becoming computer like. Here is a description of the library at the
Beckman Institute, a new building at the University of Illinois. It
is (almost) a library without books.
I thing that this was written by the library staff.
- Carl
----
The Electronic Library
Libraries have traditionally accumulated and preserved
books, journals, and other information resources. They
have served as repositories for the cumulative knowledge
gathered by humanity.
However, the basic role of the library has changed
dramatically in order to deal with the exponential growth
of information in the last century. Since 1939, the number
of scientific journals alone has increased by more than
900 percent. More periodical articles, technical reports,
and theses have been published since 1970 than in all
earlier times. Librarians have turned to computer
technologies to provide enhanced access to the rapidly
growing knowledge base. This has resulted in an increased
emphasis on providing access to information, in addition to
storing and making available the source documents.
The Beckman Institute Library subscribes to only
approximately eighty journals, and it contains few books.
Rather, it emphasizes the use of new information
technologies to improve access to information. The Beckman
Institute Library employes sophisticated information
retrieval tools to access the vast collections housed in
the University Library system and other libraries connected
by statewide and national computer catalog networks.
The Beckman Institute Library is developing a Library
Information Workstation that features software allowing
users to access and link multiple information resources
from a user-friendly microcomputer workstation. This
software provides access to the statewide online catalog,
remote and local periodical index databases, campus and
regional information networks, and customized databases
stored locally on the microcomputer. The workstation
software assists users with the formulation of effective
search strategies and attempts to mimic the actions of a
trained librarian in assisting users with their information
needs.
In the future, more and varied information resources
will be available and accessible by electronic means. The
Beckman Institute Library will be at the forefront in the
investigation of new and sophisticated information
technologies.
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
-------------------
From: nbc2134@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil (Robert F Solon)
Subject: Re: Electronic Privacy Precedents
Message-ID: <9110151843.AA04668@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil>
Sender: nbc2134@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil
Date: 15 Oct 91 10:43:48 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
In reply to the mail from ...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>comrade@uniwa.uwa.oz.au (Peter Cooper) writes:
>
>>I am currently preparing a policy submission for the Guild of
>>Undergraduates at the University of Western Australia that will be
>>tabled at the UWA senate's information technology subcommittee.
>[...]
>>What we need are some references to electronic privacy provisions at
>>other institutes of higher education to use as appropriate guidelines.
>[...]
>
>We talk about these issues in alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk. For
>information on the mailing list version of the newsgroup, send email
>to archive-server@eff.org. Include the line: send acad-freedom caf
>
[stuff from Joint Statement, U. of Illinois handbooks, and U.S. Constitution
deleted.]
I would caution researchers from the Commonwealth from basing argument too
heavily on U.S. Constitutional law, for several reasons. Although U.S. law is
in many ways based on British common law, there are significant differences
that come into play because of our reliance on written documents. (The
British system is much more reliant on custom; it has no constitution per se.)
Although we in the U.S. can and do look to British common law (except in
Loiusiana, which uses French common law), the inverse is not true:
Commonwealth citizens should not neccesarily look to U.S. law for help.
Also, simply referring to the U.S. Constitution is not always enough. There
have been a great number of cases in which various limitations on and procedures
for using the Fourth Amendment (for example, _Miranda_) have been applied;
the Rehnquist Supreme Court is also in the process of redefining Fourth
Amendment rights away from the accused. So although I agree with Carl's
recommendations, I would also suggest that you look A) in a very recent U.S.
Constitutional law textbook for a complete discussion of U.S. rights and
priveleges, and B) within the British legal system for rights and guarantees
that may be cross-applied.
Bob
Bob Solon, rsolon@dsac.dla.mil
Administrative Information Branch -- "We Code, You Explode!!"
Directorate of Resource Management Systems (APCAPS)
DLA Systems Automation Center, DSAC-BCC (614) 238-8256 AV 850-8256
-------------------
Xref: eff alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1253 alt.sex:21616 alt.censorship:1939
From: mf2x+@andrew.cmu.edu (Michael Raymond Feely)
Subject: It could make you rich though...
Message-ID:
Date: 14 Oct 91 21:29:57 GMT
References: <4137@uqcspe.cs.uq.oz.au>
Distribution: na
In-Reply-To:
orpheus@reed.edu (P. Hawthorne) writes...
> This may or may not be germaine to the discussion, but here goes:
> Last I heard, Mormons bought and immediately closed every pornographic
>movie house in Salt Lake City. Legal censorship by virtue of possession,
>you might say.
That is not to say that their method is without liabilities. From the
sounds of it, all I need to do is get myself a rundown dump on the
outskirts of Salt Lake, show porn movies, and, when the Mormon
authorities show up, demand a selling price two or three times what I
bought the property for. Careful timing, and moving from area to area,
might allow one to get away with that a few times before they got peeved
enough to really go after you...
=======------======------======------
Michael - rational romantic mystic cynical idealist
"She's pretty tied up hanging upside down / She's pretty tied up
and you can ride her / She's pretty tied up hanging upside down /
And I can't tell you she's the right one" (GnR does BnD)
CMU did make me this way, but they'll never admit it.
Michael Feely, PO Box 4602, 5115 Margaret Morrison, Pittsburgh, PA 15213
-------------------
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.censorship] USENET censorship strikes University of Washington!
Message-ID: <199110161801.AA18995@eff.org>
Sender: kadie
Date: 16 Oct 91 10:01:02 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
From: elf@halcyon.com
Date: 16 Oct 91 01:10:29 GMT
According to a news article published 10/15/91 Morning in the
Seattle Post-Intelligncer, the University of Washington had "Pornography
Files in it's Computer." Not less than eight hours later, a news bite on
the radio reports that the Comptroller of the State of Washington has
decided that the material is pornographic and the staff at the UW
Computer Center was arrested en masse.
More to come...
Elf !!!
--
The 23:00 News and Mail Service - +1 206 292 9048 - Seattle, WA USA
PEP, V.32, V.42bis
+++ A Waffle Iron, Model 1.64 +++
-------------------
Xref: eff alt.censorship:1943 alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1255 alt.sex:21631
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: USENET censorship strikes University of Washington!
Message-ID: <1991Oct16.180613.19161@eff.org>
References: <7FyV01w164w@halcyon.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 1991 18:06:13 GMT
elf@halcyon.com writes:
> According to a news article published 10/15/91 Morning in the
>Seattle Post-Intelligncer, the University of Washington had "Pornography
>Files in it's Computer."
I'll going to call the newspaper and ask permission to post the
articles.
> Not less than eight hours later, a news bite on
>the radio reports that the Comptroller of the State of Washington has
>decided that the material is pornographic and the staff at the UW
>Computer Center was arrested en masse.
The report of a mass arrest doesn't seem to be true. According
to two folks in Seattle, alt.sex is still available.
If anyone has more information, please post.
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
-------------------
Xref: eff alt.censorship:1944 alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1256 alt.sex:21635
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: USENET censorship strikes University of Washington!
Message-ID: <1991Oct16.183417.19910@eff.org>
References: <7FyV01w164w@halcyon.com> <1991Oct16.180613.19161@eff.org>
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 1991 18:34:17 GMT
elf@halcyon.com writes:
> According to a news article published 10/15/91 Morning in the
>Seattle Post-Intelligncer, the University of Washington had "Pornography
>Files in it's Computer."
I've sent a postcard to the paper asking for permission to post the
articles to USENET. Because I'm in Illinois, it will take a least a
week to get a response. If someone in the Seattle area would like to
ask permission, sent a note to:
J.D. Alexander
Seattle Post-Intelligencer
P.O. 1909
Seattle, WA 98111
The gist of my note was:
"May I have permission to post your recent article
about computer material (Oct 15, p.1) to USENET,
the network mentioned in the article. This
is a nonprofit activity."
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
-------------------
Xref: eff alt.censorship:1945 alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1257 alt.sex:21636
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: USENET censorship strikes University of Washington!
Message-ID: <1991Oct16.184802.20247@eff.org>
References: <7FyV01w164w@halcyon.com> <1991Oct16.180613.19161@eff.org>
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 1991 18:48:02 GMT
Here is a summary of the Settle Post-Intelligencer article [Stuff in
single quotes are fair-use quotes from the article.]:
Headline: Pornography files in UW computer
Seattle Post-Intelligencer. Front page. Oct. 15, 1991. By Jane Hadley.
A computer center manager at Central Washington University was demoted
after a state auditor criticized pornorgraphic USENET material.
The assistant chief examiner in the state auditor's office said
that he would ask an auditor to check the University of Washington.
Illegal practices, according to the state auditor, also include
playing games and advertising personal items. According to the
auditor, USENET services are for "official (university) business
activities as required".
UW officials say that a ban might not be 'wise, legal or proper'.
'Assistant Attorney General Carol Niccolls said First Amendment protections
of free expression were involved.'
'The university could allow "expressive speech" on [some] computers. First
Amendment rights would protect much of the speech, she said.'
'Such "expressive speech" is appropriate in a university environment, Niccolls
said. "The whole point is to have a broad arena for the learning environment.'
'One UW employee, who asked not to be named, said he did not believe disk
space should be taken up by the "alt.sex" material and that the computers
should be run on the same principles as a university library.'
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
-------------------
Xref: eff alt.censorship:1898 alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1245 alt.sex:21356
From: orpheus@reed.edu (P. Hawthorne)
Subject: Re: Newsgroups selection
Message-ID:
Sender: nobody@reed.edu (anonymous NFS user)
References: <4137@uqcspe.cs.uq.oz.au>
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 1991 01:12:10 GMT
gritton@irvine.ee.byu.edu (Jamie Gritton) writes:
. I worked hard to get news running here. I don't want to lose it. Being
. a rather moral person myself, I don't miss alt.sex.*, and I am quite
. willing to sacrifice it. Cest la vie.
What are you reading this group for?
Tips on creative censorship methods or something?
kadie@eff.org writes:
. I assert that many moral people read alt.sex*. Discussion of sex is
. inherently not immoral. Moreover, reading material that advocates
. immorality, say Mein Kampf, is not inhearently immoral.
To most conservative people I have met, immoral means just about anything
that they think other conservative people might consider immoral. It's a
prime recipe for neurosis and tyranny, if you ask me.
This may or may not be germaine to the discussion, but here goes:
Last I heard, Mormons bought and immediately closed every pornographic
movie house in Salt Lake City. Legal censorship by virtue of possession,
you might say.
Also more or less relevant:
A couple of days after the coup in the Soviet Union was put down, one of
the Russians who had been posting throughout the crisis asked that the
hindsight analysis stop, and that somebody begin to crosspost articles from
rec.arts.erotica.
One repressive climate is much like any other, I guess.
Theus
orpheus@reed.edu
--
From kadie Thu Oct 17 09:47:56 1991
To: cafb-mail
Subject: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Status: R
Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Thu Oct 17 09:47:06 EDT 1991
[For information on how to get a much smaller edited version of the
list, send email to archive-server@eff.org. Include the line:
send acad-freedom caf
- Carl ]
In this issue:
russotto@eng.umd.e : Re: USENET censorship strikes University of Washington!
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: USENET censorship strikes University of Washington!
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: USENET censorship strikes University of Washington!
kadie@eff.org (Car : (alt.sex) Re: UW, Seattle P-I, and alt.sex.pictures
kadie@eff.org (Car : (alt.sex) Re: UW, Seattle P-I, and alt.sex.pictures
baillod@sparky.eec : Re: USENET censorship strikes University of Washington!
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: USENET censorship strikes University of Washington!
olt@sparc1 (Scott : Re: USENET censorship strikes University of Washington!
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: USENET censorship strikes University of Washington!
ALILESTE@idbsu.idb : Re: USENET censorship strikes University of Washington!
PDERR@vax.clarku.e : Re: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch ed
lamontg@milton.u.w : Re: USENET censorship strikes University of Washington!
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.censorship:1948 alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1258
From: russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto)
Subject: Re: USENET censorship strikes University of Washington!
Message-ID: <1991Oct16.203757.7195@eng.umd.edu>
Date: 16 Oct 91 20:37:57 GMT
References: <7FyV01w164w@halcyon.com> <1991Oct16.180613.19161@eff.org>
In article <1991Oct16.180613.19161@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>>the radio reports that the Comptroller of the State of Washington has
>>decided that the material is pornographic and the staff at the UW
>>Computer Center was arrested en masse.
>
>The report of a mass arrest doesn't seem to be true. According
>to two folks in Seattle, alt.sex is still available.
If the second statement is supposed to support the first, it doesn't---- were
the mass arrest to have taken place, who would be left to cut the feed?
--
Matthew T. Russotto russotto@eng.umd.edu russotto@wam.umd.edu
"We do not need any characterizations like "Shame" from the Senator from
Massachusetts" --- Sen. Arlan Specter
-------------------
Xref: eff alt.censorship:1949 alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1259
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: USENET censorship strikes University of Washington!
Message-ID: <1991Oct16.213434.24088@eff.org>
References: <7FyV01w164w@halcyon.com> <1991Oct16.180613.19161@eff.org> <1991Oct16.203757.7195@eng.umd.edu>
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 1991 21:34:34 GMT
In article <1991Oct16.180613.19161@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl M.
Kadie) writes:
>The report of a mass arrest doesn't seem to be true. According
>to two folks in Seattle, alt.sex is still available.
russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) writes:
>If the second statement is supposed to support the first, it doesn't---- were
>the mass arrest to have taken place, who would be left to cut the feed?
Good point. Let me try again. Neither of the people I've talked to
has today heard anything about any arrests.
If you know anyone at the effected schools, it would be great if they
could report what they know to the net.
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
-------------------
Xref: eff alt.censorship:1951 alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1260
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: USENET censorship strikes University of Washington!
Message-ID: <1991Oct16.215230.24764@eff.org>
Followup-To: alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.sex
References: <7FyV01w164w@halcyon.com> <1991Oct16.180613.19161@eff.org> <1991Oct16.203757.7195@eng.umd.edu> <1991Oct16.213434.24088@eff.org>
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 1991 21:52:30 GMT
Someone has posted the full article has been posted to alt.sex.
- 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: [alt.sex] Re: UW, Seattle P-I, and alt.sex.pictures
Message-ID: <199110162251.AA26198@eff.org>
Sender: kadie
Date: 16 Oct 91 14:51:18 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
From: john@lupine.botany.washington.edu (john bishop)
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 1991 01:22:25 GMT
In article <1991Oct16.005853.3899@milton.u.washington.edu>
machman@milton.u.washington.edu (The Machman) writes:
> the article in question (printed without permission):
>
> Pornography files in UW computer
> Seattle Post-Intelligencer. Front page. Oct. 15, 1991. By Jane Hadley.
>
So is this why the alt.sex.pictures groups were eliminated yesterday from
usenet here at UW? And alt.fractals.pictures? Did they axe the latter make it
not look like censorship? Or were all of these deleted because of the
resources they take up?
-------------------
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.sex] Re: UW, Seattle P-I, and alt.sex.pictures
Message-ID: <199110162251.AA26271@eff.org>
Sender: kadie
Date: 16 Oct 91 14:51:41 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
From: lamontg@milton.u.washington.edu (Lamont Granquist)
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 1991 02:18:58 GMT
john@lupine.botany.washington.edu (john bishop) writes:
>So is this why the alt.sex.pictures groups were eliminated yesterday from
>usenet here at UW? And alt.fractals.pictures? Did they axe the latter make it
>not look like censorship? Or were all of these deleted because of the
>resources they take up?
Based on the disk space situation on milton, I can fully believe that axeing
all the pictures groups was genuinely to free up disk space. For anyone
who wants to access them, you can get them via anonymous FTP from
lcs.mit.edu in the /news/alt/sex/pictures directory.
--
Lamont Granquist HALLUCINATION IN PROGRESS:
lamontg@u.washington.edu Stay tuned for further information
-------------------
Xref: eff alt.censorship:1952 alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1263 alt.sex:21652
From: baillod@sparky.eecs.umich.edu (Brad Baillod)
Subject: Re: USENET censorship strikes University of Washington!
Message-ID: <1991Oct16.220601.1230@zip.eecs.umich.edu>
Date: 16 Oct 91 22:06:01 GMT
Article-I.D.: zip.1991Oct16.220601.1230
References: <7FyV01w164w@halcyon.com> <1991Oct16.180613.19161@eff.org>
Sender: usenet@zip.eecs.umich.edu (Mr. News)
In article <1991Oct16.180613.19161@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>elf@halcyon.com writes:
>
>> According to a news article published 10/15/91 Morning in the
>>Seattle Post-Intelligncer, the University of Washington had "Pornography
>>Files in it's Computer."
> ...
It seems to me that USENET(*) should be hidden from the media as long
as possible. Enough media attention would be enough to make most
universities drop every alt.* newsgroup, especially ones like alt.evil,
alt.sex.bestiality, and other alt.sex.* groups where stories might
be posted about torture, etc.
As soon as USA Today runs a story about USENET, universities will scramble
to get questionable groups off their systems. Congress will pass a law
requiring them to do so. And merely subscribing to an alt newsgroup will
be grounds for forfeiting your possessions to the government (with half
going to the informant(s):-).
I think the rule should be, if a reporter asks about your system, show them
the good, clean, wholesome newsgroups and not any of the dirty, bad,
tasteless ones. The content of USENET should not be debated in the media.
As soon as it starts to be, say goodbye to freedom of expression.
(*) USENET=ALTNET here.
Brad Baillod baillod@eecs.umich.edu
-------------------
Xref: eff alt.censorship:1953 alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1264 alt.sex:21654
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: USENET censorship strikes University of Washington!
Message-ID: <1991Oct16.232211.27745@eff.org>
References: <7FyV01w164w@halcyon.com> <1991Oct16.180613.19161@eff.org>
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 1991 23:22:11 GMT
In email, writing to someone at the University of Washington,
I wrote:
> I am very distressed to hear that a state auditor is trying to censor
> academic computers.
My correspondent replied (posted with permission):
>This hasn't happened *yet*. The incident at CWU was apparently did not
>involve any issues of free speech, but of misuse of university computers that
>was expressly prohibited. The incident at CWU does not have anything to do
>with whats happening at UW, but naturally, the Seattle PI neglected to
>mention that to the general public.
BTW, my correspondent is not in UCS (University Computer
Services?) but has been following events closely.
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
-------------------
Xref: eff alt.censorship:1955 alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1265 alt.sex:21661
From: olt@sparc1 (Scott Olt)
Subject: Re: USENET censorship strikes University of Washington!
Message-ID: <1991Oct16.232250.23487@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
Date: 16 Oct 91 23:22:50 GMT
References: <7FyV01w164w@halcyon.com> <1991Oct16.180613.19161@eff.org> <1991Oct16.220601.1230@zip.eecs.umich.edu>
Sender: usenet@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (News)
Distribution: na
In <1991Oct16.220601.1230@zip.eecs.umich.edu> baillod@sparky.eecs.umich.edu (Brad Baillod) writes:
]It seems to me that USENET(*) should be hidden from the media as long
]as possible. Enough media attention would be enough to make most
]universities drop every alt.* newsgroup, especially ones like alt.evil,
]alt.sex.bestiality, and other alt.sex.* groups where stories might
]be posted about torture, etc.
]I think the rule should be, if a reporter asks about your system, show them
]the good, clean, wholesome newsgroups and not any of the dirty, bad,
]tasteless ones. The content of USENET should not be debated in the media.
]As soon as it starts to be, say goodbye to freedom of expression.
Uh-oh...the local student rag here at Univ. of Illinois is going to be
running a story about the net (soon?). The reporter posted to several of
the local newsgroups, soliciting net.anecdotes. One can only hope she uses
discretion...watch this space for "USENET Censorship at University of Illi-
nois!"
](*) USENET=ALTNET here.
]Brad Baillod baillod@eecs.umich.edu
--
Scott Olt ISGS/Oil & Gas Section olt@sili.isgs.uiuc.edu
GEAUX SAINTS!!!!
-------------------
Xref: eff alt.censorship:1956 alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1266 alt.sex:21663
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: USENET censorship strikes University of Washington!
Message-ID: <1991Oct17.001001.28746@eff.org>
References: <7FyV01w164w@halcyon.com> <1991Oct16.180613.19161@eff.org> <1991Oct16.220601.1230@zip.eecs.umich.edu> <1991Oct16.232250.23487@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 1991 00:10:01 GMT
The Seattle Times article was posted to alt.sex.motss (which almost
nobody gets). Anyway, here is a summary of the article (stuff in
single quotes is fair-use quotes):
Headline: STATE PROBING PORN FILES IN UW COMPUTER
'Ivan Dansereau, assistant chief examiner, said he plans to
investigate whether the entries in computer networks violate federal
or state laws against pornography. The investigation may be expedited
by reports at the University of Washington concerning the ease with
which computer users can look at the material.'
After an audit at Central Washington University a 'computer-center
manager was demoted for allowing pornographic material on the school's
electronic bulletin boards.'
'Officials at the UW say they are trying to determine whether the
material is protected by the Constitution.'
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
-------------------
From: ALILESTE@idbsu.idbsu.edu (Dan Lester)
Subject: Re: USENET censorship strikes University of Washington!
Message-ID: <199110170031.AA29128@eff.org>
Sender: ALILESTE@idbsu.idbsu.edu
References:
Date: 17 Oct 91 01:27:35 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
On Wed, 16 Oct 1991 21:52:30 GMT Carl M. Kadie said:
>Someone has posted the full article has been posted to alt.sex.
>
Since some of us don't have Usenet accounts, and are reading this on the
Internet crosspost, it would be useful if the entire posting to alt.sex
could be crossposted here.
thanks
dan
-------------------
From: PDERR@vax.clarku.edu (Department of Philosophy)
Subject: Re: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Message-ID: <842F2E0800C0BA66@vax.clarku.edu>
Sender: PDERR@vax.clarku.edu
Date: 17 Oct 91 02:02:00 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
unsubscribe comp-academic-freedom-talk
-------------------
Xref: eff alt.censorship:1958 alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1269 alt.sex:21667
From: lamontg@milton.u.washington.edu (Lamont Granquist)
Subject: Re: USENET censorship strikes University of Washington!
Message-ID: <1991Oct17.002734.23300@milton.u.washington.edu>
References: <7FyV01w164w@halcyon.com> <1991Oct16.180613.19161@eff.org>
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 1991 00:27:34 GMT
kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>The report of a mass arrest doesn't seem to be true. According
>to two folks in Seattle, alt.sex is still available.
Mass arrests? shit, I always miss the good stuff.
Well, essentially the PI ran a front page story yesterday on alt.sex.pictures
etc... The day before that the "pictures" groups were all removed from UCS
computer systems. The reason given for removing alt.binaries.pictures,
alt.sex.pictures, etc was that they use up more computing resources than
anything else.
I can actually believe that this is a coincidence. Ever since school started
the main local computer for news and e-mail has been one large experiment to
discover what breaks when a Sequent gets completely saturated. The answer is
apparently everything. Thus there is a reasonable chance their motives were
genuine.
However, I would appreciate knowing why the pictures groups just didn't get
their expire times trimmed down to 24 or 48 hours? Or why the files can't
be dumped to the IBM 3090 that has something like 17 gigabytes of storage
free (at least thats whats available under the AIX O/S). Its possible that
the cycles taken up by uudecoding, ftping etc were significant enough to
warrant the removal from all the UCS systems, but this is a claim that has
not been made by the UCS staff.
Anyway, we obviously still receive alt.sex.
Meanwhile here is my critique of the PI article. The stuff quoted is actually
text from the article. However, I haven't reproduced the article entirely.
I know there was at least three paragraphs that discussed the "freedom of
speech" issue that was in total contrast to the rest of the article.
This is what you call a liberal interpretation of "fair use" :-)
Just feeling a little bored, so I thought I'd pull this apart bit by bit
and flame it.
>Seattle Post-Intelligencer. Front page. Oct. 15, 1991. By Jane Hadley.
^^^^^^^^^^^
Don't they have anything better to do? Some college students look at porno
pictures, and it makes the front page. They apparently think this is more
important than reporting on what a pathetic job our illustrious leader has been
doing in running the country.
>A wide selection of pornographic pictures and stories that change daily
>is available to students, faculty and staff on University of Washington
>computers.
Censorship
----------
"I cannot convince myself that there is anyone so wise, so universally
comprehensive in his judgment, that he can be trusted with the power to tell
others: 'You shall not express yourself thus, you shall not describe your
own experiences; or depict the fantasies which your mind has created; or
laugh at what others set up as respectable; or question old beliefs; or
contradict the dogmas of the church, of our society, our economic systems, and
our political orthodoxy.'"
-- Jake Zeitlin
>Yet, a state auditor severely criticized a computer center manager at Central
>Washington University for allowing pornographic material on electronic
>bulletin boards there, and the manager subsequently was demoted.
Yay, so CWU is run by fascists...
>Ivan Dansereau, assistant chief examiner in the state auditor's office, said
>the same rules would apply at the UW as at Central. He said he planned to
>ask an auditor to check into what was happening at the UW.
Seig Heil!
>Other computer practices the state auditor said were illegal at Central also
>apparently are routine at the UW and many other universities.
>
>These include using electronic bulletin boards to play video games and to
>advertise personal items, such as skis, cars and stereo equipment, for sale.
This is something that I completely don't understand. Game play is limited
to off-hours, and the advertisement of personal items goes on daily in the
HUB.
>The bulletin board service was supposed to be for "official (university)
>business activities as required," the auditor's report on Central said.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't bb written by students, for students, and
this generally doesn't apply at all [to UW]?
[bb BTW is the local UW BBS system]
>"I'm surprised the UW would be having pornographic material and actually
>encouraging the use of computers with that kind of data in storage,"
>Dansereau said.
Since UW is on NSF net, not only are they encouraging the use of computers
that have porno material in *storage*, but encouraging the use of computers
that can access porno material *worldwide*, and not only that but THEY ARE
ENCOURAGING THE USE OF PROGRAMS USED TO DOWNLOAD THESE PORNO FILES!!!!!!!!!
Of course the fact that these programs are used to download just about any
form of data, not just porn, and that they are fundamental to the net,
completely escapes them.
>But UW officials said they weren't sure it would be wise, legal or proper
>to ban or control the pornographic material and other activities.
Someone with at least half a brain! Amazing!
>UW officials referred calls to each other and expressed confusion on
>computer policies at the university, saying the issue hadn't been resolved
>yet.
>
>Sandy Moy, UW director of computer services, said she didn't know what kind
>of material was on the UW's system.
>
>UW Executive Vice President Tallman Trask said he went to a UW assistant
>attorney general for advice after an employee complained about pornographic
>material in the system.
I just wish someone would tell them how to "unsubscribe" and let other people
live in peace.
>Ernest Morris, UW vice president for student affairs,
>said he also asked for legal advice after an employee complained about having
>received sexually harassing messages on the computer.
Is this relevant *AT* *ALL*? I would hope that the person who sent the mail
learned first hand about the disuser shell, and I expect that was the result.
[...]
>A recent sampling of the sexual files in the UW computer system showed
>frontal views of nude males, close-up views of female genitalia, views of
>two men engaging in sexual intercourse with a woman, a picture of a nude
>girl who appeared to be a minor and a sketch of a nude woman bound in chains.
>Most were sharp, clear, color pictures. The system also contains soft-
>pornographic stories written by users at universities all over the world.
Can someone point out what is fundamentally wrong or immoral with any of
this?
>One recent story was a detailed description of acts of physical, sexual
>torture on a woman.
And everyone on the net knows that it was done specifically to get a rise
in blood pressure out of people with their assess tied in a knot (for instance
the writers of this P-I article).
>The system also contains personal sex ads. One recent message from a woman
>solicited "erotic E-mail" and gave her computer address. Another said,
>"Bereft master seeks very special slave," while another was an ad from a
>man saying he and his wife were seeking a mistress for him.
Someone should introduce this person to the phenomenon of stolen accounts or
terminals left logged on.
And even if they were serious, there's nothing fundamentally wrong with it.
>Students may build collections of the photos and stories by copying them
>onto disks.
Heaven forbid their little minds might get corrupted! (most of us are over
18 I think... something the PI seems to have forgotten to mention...)
>One [tightass], who asked not to be named, said he did not believe disk
>space should be taken up by the "alt.sex" material and that the computers
>should be run on the same principles as a university library.
So, NFS mount a few more disks to byron where there's 14 gigabytes of disk
space lying around unused.
>[...]
Also, I'd love it if the same principles were applied to computers as the
University library. We have a subscription to Playboy here...
--
Lamont Granquist HALLUCINATION IN PROGRESS:
lamontg@u.washington.edu Stay tuned for further information
From kadie Thu Oct 17 09:49:34 1991
To: cafb-mail
Subject: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Status: R
Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Thu Oct 17 09:48:28 EDT 1991
[For information on how to get a much smaller edited version of the
list, send email to archive-server@eff.org. Include the line:
send acad-freedom caf
- Carl ]
In this issue:
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: USENET censorship strikes University of Washington!
elrose@well.sf.ca. : Re: USENET censorship strikes University of Washington!
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: USENET censorship strikes University of Washington!
olson1@husc8.harva : Re: USENET censorship strikes University of Washi
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: USENET censorship strikes University of Washington
lamontg@milton.u.w : Re: USENET censorship strikes University of Washington!
lamontg@milton.u.w : Re: USENET censorship strikes University of Washington!
paulf@hacks.arizon : Re: USENET censorship strikes University of Washington!
entropy@wintermute : Re: USENET censorship strikes University of Washington!
legrady@ug.cs.dal. : Re: USENET censorship strikes University of Washington!
praetzel@sunee.wat : Re: USENET censorship strikes University of Washington!
rivard@claude.ma30 : Re: USENET censorship strikes University of Washi
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: USENET censorship strikes University of Washington!
kadie@eff.org (Car : (eff.mail.com-priv) Re: So what is the
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.censorship:1959 alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1270 alt.sex:21669
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: USENET censorship strikes University of Washington!
Message-ID: <1991Oct17.021516.851@eff.org>
References: <7FyV01w164w@halcyon.com> <1991Oct16.180613.19161@eff.org> <1991Oct17.002734.23300@milton.u.washington.edu>
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 1991 02:15:16 GMT
According to a correspondent at Western Washington University (WWU)
alt.sex has been removed by "administrative request".
If you accept the principle that computer sites should select
newsgroups the way that (traditional) libraries select magazine
subscriptions, then the removal violates the Library Bill of Rights.
This American Library Association document says: "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."
[ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/library/bill-of-rights.ala]
The procedure used to remove the material also violates academic
freedom. Here is an excerpt from the American Library Association's
"Workbook for Selection Policy Writing":
--- ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/library/selection-workbook.ala ---
POLICIES ON CONTROVERSIAL MATERIALS. Here, or in another place
in your policy you should include a statement on intellectual
freedom and why it is important to maintain. You may wish to
include the test of the First Amendment to the United States
Constitution - "Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise
thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or
the right of the people peaceable to assemble, and to petition
the Government for a redress of grievances," and the LIBRARY BILL
OF RIGHTS. (A copy is included at the end of this booklet.)
Sample Statement on intellectual freedom:
o The school board subscribes in principle to the
statements of policy on library philosophy as expressed
in the American Library Association LIBRARY BILL OF
RIGHTS, a copy of which is appended to and made a part
of this policy.
RECONSIDERATION. Occasional objections to instructional
materials will be made despite the quality of the selection
process; therefore, the procedure for handling reconsideration of
challenged materials in response to questions concerning their
appropriateness should be stated. This procedure should
establish the framework for registering a complaint that provides
for a hearing with appropriate action while defending the
principles of freedom of information, the student's right to
access of materials, and the professional responsibility and
integrity of the school faculty. The principles of intellectual
freedom are inherent in the First Amendment of the Constitution
of the United States and are expressed in the LIBRARY BILL OF
RIGHTS adopted by the Council of the American Library
Association. In the event instructional materials are
questioned, the principles of intellectual freedom should e
defended rather than the materials.
List here the specific steps that will be taken when you are
asked to reconsider materials in your collection. These steps
should include:
--asking the complainant to fill out a written complaint
form. (See attached form as an example.)
--assigning a review committee to examine the material in
question.
--requesting that the committee report their findings to the
school board.
The procedure for handling complaints should describe every
step from the initial response to the complaint through the
highest appeal.
o Procedure for handling complaints
No duly selected materials whose appropriateness is
challenged shall be removed from the school except upon
the recommendation of a review committee (as provided
for below) with the concurrence of the Superintendent
or, upon the Superintendent's recommendation, the
concurrence of the Board of Education, or upon formal
action of the Board of Education when a recommendation
of a review committee is appealed to it.
Procedures to be observed.
a. All complaints to staff members shall be reported
to the building principal involved, whether
received by telephone, letter, or in personal
conversation.
b. The principal shall contact the complainant to
discuss the complaint and attempt to resolve it
informally by explaining the philosophy and goals
of the school district and/or the library media
center.
c. If the complaint is not resolved informally, the
complainant shall be supplied with a packet of
materials consisting of the District's
instructional goals and objectives, materials
selection policy statement, and the procedure for
handling objections. This packet will also
include a standard printed form which shall be
completed and returned before consideration will
be given to the complaint.
d. If the formal request for reconsideration has not
been received by the principal within two weeks,
it shall be considered closed. If the request is
returned, the reasons for selection of the
specific work shall be reestablished by the
appropriate staff.
e. In accordance with statement of philosophy, no
questioned materials shall be removed from the
school pending a final decision. Pending the
outcome of the request for reconsideration,
however, access to questioned materials can be
denied to the child (or children) of the parents
making the complaint, if they so desire.
f. Upon receipt of a completed objection form, the
principal in the building involved will call
together a committee of five to consider the
complaint. This committee shall consist of the
curriculum director and from the school involved:
the principal, the library media center director,
a teacher, and a PTA representative.
g. The committee shall meet to discuss the material,
following the guidelines set forth in Instructions
to Evaluation Committee and shall prepare a report
on the material containing their recommendations
on disposition of the matter.
h. The principal shall notify complainant of the
decision and send a formal report and
recommendation to the Superintendent. In
answering the complainant, the principal shall
explain the book selection system, give the
guidelines used for selection, and cite
authorities used in reaching decisions. If the
committee decides to keep the work that caused the
complaint, the complainant shall be given an
explanation. If the complaint is valid, the
principal will acknowledge it and make recommended
changes .
i. If the complainant is still not satisfied, he/she
may ask the Superintendent to present an appeal to
the Board of Education which shall make a final
determination of the issue. The Board of
Education may seek assistance from outside
organizations such as the American Library
Association, the Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development, etc., in making its
determination.
----------------------------------------------------
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
-------------------
Xref: eff alt.censorship:1960 alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1271 alt.sex:21670
From: elrose@well.sf.ca.us (Lance Rose)
Subject: Re: USENET censorship strikes University of Washington!
Message-ID: <27947@well.sf.ca.us>
Date: 17 Oct 91 01:07:50 GMT
References: <7FyV01w164w@halcyon.com> <1991Oct16.180613.19161@eff.org> <1991Oct16.184802.20247@eff.org>
kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>Here is a summary of the Settle Post-Intelligencer article [Stuff in
>single quotes are fair-use quotes from the article.]:
>Headline: Pornography files in UW computer
>Seattle Post-Intelligencer. Front page. Oct. 15, 1991. By Jane Hadley.
>A computer center manager at Central Washington University was demoted
>after a state auditor criticized pornorgraphic USENET material.
So what's being done now? Any hue and cry?
- Lance sans handle
-------------------
Xref: eff alt.censorship:1961 alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1272 alt.sex:21671
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: USENET censorship strikes University of Washington!
Message-ID: <1991Oct17.024352.1449@eff.org>
References: <7FyV01w164w@halcyon.com> <1991Oct16.180613.19161@eff.org> <1991Oct16.184802.20247@eff.org> <27947@well.sf.ca.us>
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 1991 02:43:52 GMT
elrose@well.sf.ca.us (Lance Rose) writes:
>>A computer center manager at Central Washington University was demoted
>>after a state auditor criticized pornorgraphic USENET material.
>So what's being done now? Any hue and cry?
I would like to make contact with the folks at Central WU to tell them
about the CAF archive, but I don't know anyone there. I think they are
on bitnet, not the Internet. If anyone has contacts at Central, please
send me email.
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
-------------------
Xref: eff alt.censorship:1964 alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1273 alt.sex:21681
From: olson1@husc8.harvard.edu (Charles Olson)
Subject: Re: USENET censorship strikes University of Washi
Message-ID: <1991Oct16.233913.4303@husc3.harvard.edu>
Date: 17 Oct 91 03:39:12 GMT
References: <1991Oct16.180613.19161@eff.org> <1991Oct16.220601.1230@zip.eecs.umich.edu> <1991Oct16.232250.23487@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
Distribution: na
Nntp-Posting-Host: husc8.harvard.edu
In article <1991Oct16.232250.23487@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> olt@sili.isgs.uiuc.edu writes:
>In <1991Oct16.220601.1230@zip.eecs.umich.edu> baillod@sparky.eecs.umich.edu (Brad Baillod) writes:
>
>]It seems to me that USENET(*) should be hidden from the media as long
>]as possible. Enough media attention would be enough to make most
>]universities drop every alt.* newsgroup, especially ones like alt.evil,
>]alt.sex.bestiality, and other alt.sex.* groups where stories might
>]be posted about torture, etc.
>
> Uh-oh...the local student rag here at Univ. of Illinois is going to be
>running a story about the net (soon?). The reporter posted to several of
>the local newsgroups, soliciting net.anecdotes. One can only hope she uses
>discretion...watch this space for "USENET Censorship at University of Illi-
>nois!"
Something like this happened at my old alma mater of the University of Mass-
achusetts at Amherst-- there were several sex-related public notesfiles on
our local mail system, similar to alt.sex and rec.arts.erotica. They'd been
there for *many* years and several system changes. An ambitious reporter from
that sterling repository of journalistic excellence _The UMass Daily Collegian_
got wind of this through a friend who had an account on the system, did some
minimal research and talked to a couple users, and it was blared in banner
headlines on the front page, "SYSTEM FLOODED BY SEX STORIES". Needless to
say, the readership of those files skyrocketed 500% the two days following
the article. UMass Computing Services rolled its eyes, pulled the files until
the (fairly minor) uproar had ceased, and quietly reinstated them after a few
public meetings on the matter. At the time, in fact, the owner of the largest
and oldest of these notesfiles was none other than the Assistant Operations
Manager of UCS (purely in his off-time, of course), but I took that one over
after this happened. The story made the Boston Globe and the New York Times,
but nothing realy came of it as far as I know. Any current UMies reading
this (since when does UMass get alt.sex??), feel free to correct any inacc-
uracies herein.
Incidentally, when UCC pulled those files, they determined that they took up
less than .002% of the system's disk space-- "flooded" indeed.
--
Feed your lust for life!
-Chip Olson. "Relax... It's only 1's and 0's."
-------------------
Xref: eff alt.censorship:1965 alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1274 alt.sex:21683
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: USENET censorship strikes University of Washington
Message-ID: <1991Oct17.052710.4363@eff.org>
References: <1991Oct16.180613.19161@eff.org> <1991Oct16.220601.1230@zip.eecs.umich.edu> <1991Oct16.232250.23487@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> <1991Oct16.233913.4303@husc3.harvard.edu>
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 1991 05:27:10 GMT
I've received in encouraging note from an U. of Washington administrator.
In summary:
---------
The TV stations and the student newspaper have done a better job with
the story than the big city newspapers. [Can someone summarize the
student newspaper's story or get permission to post it? - Carl]
The auditor was after misuse for private gain, not after alt.sex.
U. of Washington has been working on computer-material selection
policy for almost a year. One idea is to have librarians do the
selection.
The usenet picture groups were removed before the story broke as part
of an effort to reduce the overload on a machine. (They've been moving
other stuff from that machine for weeks.)
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
-------------------
Xref: eff alt.censorship:1968 alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1275 alt.sex:21686
From: lamontg@milton.u.washington.edu (Lamont Granquist)
Subject: Re: USENET censorship strikes University of Washington!
Message-ID: <1991Oct17.054918.3453@milton.u.washington.edu>
References: <7FyV01w164w@halcyon.com> <1991Oct16.180613.19161@eff.org> <1991Oct17.002734.23300@milton.u.washington.edu>
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 1991 05:49:18 GMT
lamontg@milton.u.washington.edu (Lamont Granquist) writes:
>Anyway, we obviously still receive alt.sex.
I'd also like to point out, that based on e-mail conversations I've had with
the people in charge of the computers here at UW, I expect we will continue
to recieve alt.sex. I don't believe that the elimination of the "pictures"
newsgroups was in response to any moral judgement upon the traffic in
alt.sex.pictures. While political pressure may have played a significant
role in the desicion to trim down the newsfeed by eliminating the pictures
newsgroup, I believe that there is a line which will not be crossed by the
UCS staff (ie. I'm sure we can have fun getting into flame wars about
the "pictures" newsgroup, but I not believe that the UCS is the "bad guy"
in this situation, or that they are out to control and censor the net)
--
Lamont Granquist HALLUCINATION IN PROGRESS:
lamontg@u.washington.edu Stay tuned for further information
-------------------
Xref: eff alt.censorship:1969 alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1276 alt.sex:21687
From: lamontg@milton.u.washington.edu (Lamont Granquist)
Subject: Re: USENET censorship strikes University of Washington!
Message-ID: <1991Oct17.060137.5509@milton.u.washington.edu>
References: <7FyV01w164w@halcyon.com> <1991Oct16.180613.19161@eff.org> <1991Oct17.002734.23300@milton.u.washington.edu> <1991Oct17.021516.851@eff.org>
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 1991 06:01:37 GMT
kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>According to a correspondent at Western Washington University (WWU)
>alt.sex has been removed by "administrative request".
everyone send flames to root@unicorn.wwu.edu!
--
Lamont Granquist HALLUCINATION IN PROGRESS:
lamontg@u.washington.edu Stay tuned for further information
-------------------
Xref: eff alt.censorship:1970 alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1277 alt.sex:21690
From: paulf@hacks.arizona.edu (Paul Frankenstein, M.D.)
Subject: Re: USENET censorship strikes University of Washington!
Message-ID: <16OCT91222412@hacks.arizona.edu>
Date: 17 Oct 91 05:24:12 GMT
Article-I.D.: hacks.16OCT91222412
References: <7FyV01w164w@halcyon.com> <1991Oct16.180613.19161@eff.org> <1991Oct16.184802.20247@eff.org>
Distribution: world,local
Nntp-Posting-Host: tiamat.hacks.arizona.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-a4
In article <1991Oct16.184802.20247@eff.org>, kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes...
>Here is a summary of the Settle Post-Intelligencer article [Stuff in
>single quotes are fair-use quotes from the article.]:
>
>Headline: Pornography files in UW computer
>Seattle Post-Intelligencer. Front page. Oct. 15, 1991. By Jane Hadley.
>
>A computer center manager at Central Washington University was demoted
>after a state auditor criticized pornorgraphic USENET material.
Hmm.... could be quite illegal; the cc manager should contact the local
chapter of the ACLU, as well as the EFF and see about filing a suit...
>The assistant chief examiner in the state auditor's office said
>that he would ask an auditor to check the University of Washington.
>
>Illegal practices, according to the state auditor, also include
>playing games and advertising personal items. According to the
>auditor, USENET services are for "official (university) business
>activities as required".
And is not the free exchange of ideas an offical university activity?
>UW officials say that a ban might not be 'wise, legal or proper'.
Hear, hear! (actually, that should be 'wise, legal, and proper')
> [stuff deleted]
>'One UW employee, who asked not to be named, said he did not believe disk
>space should be taken up by the "alt.sex" material and that the computers
>should be run on the same principles as a university library.'
As others out there no doubt have and will point out, the ideas behind
alt.sex.* are _the same as_ the basic principles of a university library.
Anyway, too bad the guy wasn't named -- no overflowing mailboxes... :p}
>--
>Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
>I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
A few general thoughts....
The Houston Chron. article was obviously a extremely well researched article
by an excellent reporter. The bulk of the article did not deal at all with
the "Computer Porn" non-issue. Speaking as a journalism major, it really
looked like half-way through the project, his editor told him to add the
sex angle. The tone of the piece was very positive when it was talking about
the marketplace of ideas and "democratic anarchy."
And standing in complete contrast, we have the P-I article, which was written
by someone who thinks that a computer is what sits on her desk and has
virtually _no_ comprehension of the massive computing infrastructure <*>
that exists out the in world. Probably Jane Hadely is just a general reporter
who did no research on the subject to meet deadline.
More thoughts:
If the bluenoses think that alt.sex.* is bad, they haven't been to France
lately... where all kinds of interesting things go on over the lines of
the MiniTel (sp?)......
<*> anyone here read Arthur C. Clarke's "Dial F for Frankenstein"?
----no .sig, too busy flunking classes
-------------------
Xref: eff alt.censorship:1971 alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1278 alt.sex:21692
From: entropy@wintermute.WPI.EDU (Lawrence C. Foard)
Subject: Re: USENET censorship strikes University of Washington!
Message-ID: <1991Oct17.061020.16114@wpi.WPI.EDU>
Date: 17 Oct 91 06:10:20 GMT
Article-I.D.: wpi.1991Oct17.061020.16114
References: <7FyV01w164w@halcyon.com> <1991Oct16.180613.19161@eff.org> <1991Oct16.220601.1230@zip.eecs.umich.edu>
Sender: news@wpi.WPI.EDU (News)
Nntp-Posting-Host: wintermute.wpi.edu
In article <1991Oct16.220601.1230@zip.eecs.umich.edu> baillod@sparky.eecs.umich.edu (Brad Baillod) writes:
>In article <1991Oct16.180613.19161@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>>elf@halcyon.com writes:
>>
>>> According to a news article published 10/15/91 Morning in the
>>>Seattle Post-Intelligncer, the University of Washington had "Pornography
>>>Files in it's Computer."
>> ...
>
>It seems to me that USENET(*) should be hidden from the media as long
>as possible. Enough media attention would be enough to make most
>universities drop every alt.* newsgroup, especially ones like alt.evil,
>alt.sex.bestiality, and other alt.sex.* groups where stories might
>be posted about torture, etc.
>
>As soon as USA Today runs a story about USENET, universities will scramble
>to get questionable groups off their systems. Congress will pass a law
>requiring them to do so. And merely subscribing to an alt newsgroup will
>be grounds for forfeiting your possessions to the government (with half
>going to the informant(s):-).
>
>I think the rule should be, if a reporter asks about your system, show them
>the good, clean, wholesome newsgroups and not any of the dirty, bad,
>tasteless ones. The content of USENET should not be debated in the media.
>As soon as it starts to be, say goodbye to freedom of expression.
No we need people who are willing to stand up for freedom of speech. USENET is
not government sponsored, NFS net is, we need a commitment to keep USENET
running with or without government help.
--
Disclaimer: Opinions are based on logic rather than biblical "fact". ------
Hackers do it for fun. | First they came for the drug users, I said \ /
"Profesionals" do it for money. | nothing, then they came for hackers, \ /
Managers have others do it for them. | I said nothing... STOP W.O.D. \/
-------------------
Xref: eff alt.censorship:1974 alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1279 alt.sex:21711
From: legrady@ug.cs.dal.ca (Tom Legrady)
Subject: Re: USENET censorship strikes University of Washington!
Message-ID: <1991Oct17.112613.3510@cs.dal.ca>
Sender: usenet@cs.dal.ca (USENET News)
Nntp-Posting-Host: ug.cs.dal.ca
References: <1991Oct16.220601.1230@zip.eecs.umich.edu> <1991Oct16.232250.23487@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> <1991Oct17.001001.28746@eff.org>
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 91 11:26:13 GMT
Too bad they didn't look at alt.sex! There's nothing immoral here;
all the postings discuss guns (2nd Amendment), jurisprudence and forms
of government (Thomas Hearings), and the media (censorship strikes U of W).
You could let your babysitter read this newsgroup, except that (s)he would
fall asleep.
Tom
-------------------
Xref: eff alt.censorship:1975 alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1280 alt.sex:21717
From: praetzel@sunee.waterloo.edu (Eric Praetzel)
Subject: Re: USENET censorship strikes University of Washington!
Message-ID: <1991Oct17.120931.9575@sunee.waterloo.edu>
Date: 17 Oct 91 12:09:31 GMT
Article-I.D.: sunee.1991Oct17.120931.9575
References: <1991Oct16.220601.1230@zip.eecs.umich.edu> <1991Oct16.232250.23487@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> <1991Oct17.001001.28746@eff.org>
Distribution: na
In article <1991Oct17.001001.28746@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>Headline: STATE PROBING PORN FILES IN UW COMPUTER
>After an audit at Central Washington University a 'computer-center
>manager was demoted for allowing pornographic material on the school's
>electronic bulletin boards.'
This is crazy. Should a sys-op check every piece of mail comming onto his
system? Better get the mail men/persons/creatures/entities to do the same.
We had all alt.* groups censored from campus but sanity returned and the
groups are now re-instated. We must fight for common carrier status for
computer sites and the right to privicy of our e-mail. As for porn files if
you don't like them don't look.
Eric
-------------------
Xref: eff alt.censorship:1976 alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1281 alt.sex:21719
From: rivard@claude.ma30.bull.com (Dennis Rivard)
Subject: Re: USENET censorship strikes University of Washi
Message-ID: <1991Oct17.125612.13410@mips2.ma30.bull.com>
Date: 17 Oct 91 12:56:12 GMT
References: <1991Oct16.220601.1230@zip.eecs.umich.edu> <1991Oct16.232250.23487@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> <1991Oct16.233913.4303@husc3.harvard.edu>
Sender: news@mips2.ma30.bull.com (Usenet News Manager)
Distribution: na
In article <1991Oct16.233913.4303@husc3.harvard.edu> olson1@husc8.harvard.edu (Charles Olson) writes:
>but nothing realy came of it as far as I know. Any current UMies reading
>this (since when does UMass get alt.sex??), feel free to correct any inacc-
>uracies herein.
Well, UMASS-Lowell gets it on the cs systems... I'm not sure about
UMASS-Amherst though...
--
School:drivard@cs.ulowell.edu | Those who know/What's best for us/|
Work: rivard@claude.ma30.bull.com | Must rise and save us from |
My opinions are my own. | ourselves. - "Witch Hunt" Rush |
-------------------
Xref: eff alt.censorship:1977 alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1282 alt.sex:21720
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: USENET censorship strikes University of Washington!
Message-ID: <1991Oct17.133242.17424@eff.org>
References: <7FyV01w164w@halcyon.com> <1991Oct16.180613.19161@eff.org> <1991Oct17.002734.23300@milton.u.washington.edu> <1991Oct17.021516.851@eff.org> <1991Oct17.060137.5509@milton.u.washington.edu>
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 1991 13:32:42 GMT
kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>According to a correspondent at Western Washington University (WWU)
>alt.sex has been removed by "administrative request".
lamontg@milton.u.washington.edu (Lamont Granquist) writes:
>everyone send flames to root@unicorn.wwu.edu!
Please don't send email just to harass.
I think there is still hope. We can point to universities like
Stanford and (hopefully) U. of Washington as places where library
policy has been successfully applied computer-material selection.
I'm enclosing the Stanford story.
- Carl
------------
From: jmc@Gang-of-Four.usenet (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: Censorship on the USENET
Message-ID:
Date: 2 Nov 90 05:38:32 GMT
References:
<1990Oct21.141502.26557@hoss.unl.edu>
<1990Oct31.141646.25350@ifi.uio.no>
<1990Nov01.064916.19218@looking.on.ca>
Sender: news@Neon.Stanford.EDU (USENET News System)
Distribution: comp
In-Reply-To: bzs@world.std.com's message of 2 Nov 90 00:51:46 GMT
In 1989 rec.humor.funny was suppressed in some of the Stanford
University computers. After a campaign it was re-installed
in those computers. It was never suppressed in the Computer
Science Department's computers. There follow two relevant
documents. The first is self-explanatory, and the second
came about through the following sequence of events.
(1) Donald Kennedy, Stanford's President, told the Academic
Senate that he supported the suppression but would defer to
the Senate.
(2) The Senate Steering Committee asked the Committee on Libraries
for a general policy recommendation on how to treat electronic
newsgroups. Referring the issue to the Committee on Libraries
indicated what kind of issue the Steering Committee thought was
involved.
(3) The Committee on Libraries made the statement given below.
(4) The Steering Committee asked the Vice-President for Information
Resources (i.e. the boss of the computer centers) whether
he preferred to back down and re-establish rec.humor.funny
or have the matter discussed by the full Senate.
(5) He backed down somewhat grumpily.
The following statement was passed unanimously at a meeting
of the Computer Science Department faculty of Stanford
University on Tuesday, Feb 21, 1989.
Statement of Protest about the AIR Censorship of rec.humor.funny.
Computer scientists and computer users have been involved in
making information resources widely available since the 1960s.
Such resources are analogous to libraries. The newsgroups
available on various networks are the computer analog of
magazines and partial prototypes of future universal computer
libraries. These libraries will make available the information
resources of the whole world to anyone's terminal or personal
computer.
Therefore, the criteria for including newsgroups in computer
systems or removing them should be identical to those for
including books in or removing books from libraries. For this
reason, and since the resource requirements for keeping
newsgroups available are very small, we consider it contrary to
the function of a university to censor the presence of newsgroups in
University computers. We regard it as analogous to removing a
book from the library. To be able to read anything subject only
to cost limitations is an essential part of academic freedom.
Censorship is not an appropriate tool for preventing or dealing
with offensive behavior.
We therefore think that AIR and SDC should rescind the purge of
rec.humor.funny. The Computer Science Department has also decided
not to censor Department Computers.
*****
Here's something else - a statement by the Stanford faculty
committee on libraries.
Office Memo, Stanford University Libraries
~date: April 12, 1989
~From: Joan Krasner, Secretary, C-Lib
The following is an excerpt from the minutes of the April 10th meeting
of C-Lib which considered the matter of computer bulletin boards on campus.
The Preamble to the Statement on Academic Freedom (1974) states that
``Expression of the widest range of viewpoints should be encouraged, free
from institutional orthodoxy and from internal or external coercion.''
It is the view of the Academic Council Committee on Libraries that this
statement pertains to materials received on computer bulletin boards on
campus. Acquisition and access to information in new forms should be
subject only to financial limits and other standard criteria of collection
such as the useful life of the materials, storage capacity, etc.
- approved by Academic Council Commmittee on Libraries, April 10, 1989.
XC: Gerald Gillespie
=======
From: jmc@Gang-of-Four.usenet (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: Censorship on the USENET
Message-ID:
Date: 21 Oct 90 18:56:43 GMT
References: <21282@well.sf.ca.us>
Sender: news@Neon.Stanford.EDU (USENET News System)
Distribution: comp
In-Reply-To: mnemonic@well.sf.ca.us's message of 21 Oct 90 15:07:08 GMT
The cost saving in suppressing a particular newsgroup are trivial.
At Stanford they were probably negative, since personnel time went
into it.
We won the restoration by the following means:
1. There were faculty and student petitions on the subject, mostly
from computer science people.
2. There was only one strong-minded bad guy and he was rather
perfunctory in his "off with its head" decree.
3. The Academic Senate Steering Committee was persuaded to refer
the issue to the faculty committee on libraries. This committee
came up with a statement to the effect that the policy of an
electronic library should be the same as that of a print library -
universality tempered only by cost.
--
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: [eff.mail.com-priv] Re: So what is the answer?
Message-ID: <199110171337.AA17490@eff.org>
Sender: kadie
Date: 17 Oct 91 05:37:38 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
From: Janet.Murray@f23.n105.z1.fidonet.org (Janet Murray)
Date: 17 Oct 91 03:38:23 GMT
* Original to Uucp @ 1:105/42 in netmail
* Forwarded Wed Oct 16 1991 20:37:59 by Janet Murray @ 1:105/23
Hello, Joe -
* * * * * * * B A C K G R O U N D * * * * * * *
I have been _deeply_ reluctant to post in response
to this thread, but as one of the parties involved
in "the incident", I feel that clarification is
needed. Please note that this is provided as
"background" material, and that I do _not_ expect
to be quoted. You may, however, call me for more
information if you wish.
U>Robert Carlitz writes:
> smear the Texas network, citing what you call a
> "major porno incident."
[Joe Abernathy responds:]
U>That's a direct quote from a user or administrator of the Texas
U>Education Network . . .
U>Let's open discussion on whether this was a "major incident." The
U>statewide Texas educational network shut down usenet access
U>within days of turning it on, because of what was described as "awful,
In _fact_ (and _just_ the facts):
Jack Crawford and I were invited to (and attended) a meeting of the
Consortium for School Networking in Austin, Texas, August 15-16,
1991, because we are co-founders of K12Net, a voluntary collaboration
among FidoNet System Operators interested in K-12 education.
K12Net features conferences (called "echoes" on FidoNet) which are
dedicated to curricular issues (in math, science, language arts,
social studies, art, business, etc. education), foreign languages
(French, German, Russian, Spanish), and classroom-to-classroom
projects (in rotating "channels" designated for specified periods
of time). K12Net also offers "chat" areas for elementary, middle
(or junior high), and high school students. The K12Net echoes
are also available as USENET newsgroups in the hierarchy k12.*
Two things happened while we were in Texas: TENET
began collecting the k12.* newsgroups, and a _rogue_ user at the
U of Washington (with a stolen account) transposted a series of
messages from alt.sex to k12.chat.* By the time I arrived home,
the Postmaster at the U of Washington had already been made
aware of "the incident" and closed out the account which
originated the messages.
* * * In _my OPINION_ * * *
The fact that this single incident has become an issue _two months
later_ is a mystery. K12Net has been operating for more than a
year, and this has been the _only_ incident of its kind. The
"coincidence" <"within two days"> was _truly_ a coincidence.
U>The disclaimer that I was gathering material for an article was
U>included as a matter of journalistic ethics. It's revealing to
REMINDER: this is "background" material!!
U>posts did include such a disclaimer, offering him a reminder that
U>he was dealing with a reporter, and offering him a chance to go
U>on background.
REMINDER: this is "background" material!!
> net. In extreme cases, where there is willful abuse of the privilege of
> net access, universities suspend the privilege of access.
Which is _exactly_ what happened in this case.
Quoting Robert Carlitz:
> You should realize that your broadcast of such an aggressive letter of
> inquiry to multiple newsgroups and the personal mailboxes of several
> individuals must be viewed as an aggressive and hostile act by all those
> of us who receive the brunt of its impact.
I intend to transpost this message to cosndisc, com-priv, and
K12.sysop.
U>My query was posted only to the groups pertinent to the
U>discussion;
Quite a few - but it looks like you "missed" eff.talk
U>see my mailbox as a result of the post.)
More for your mailbox.
U>But I don't think there were any "perpetrators" in this thing.
There _was_ a perpetrator - who _deliberately_ used a
stolen account on a University system.
U>That they immediately found material so
U>controversial
U>that entire portions of network access were shut down seems to me
U>to be a topic most worthy of reasoned discussion.
There were _no_ school children on TENET at the time.
U>I'm not trying to get a cheap ride off of sensationalistic
U>material.
_Really?_
U>I'm trying to approach a tough subject that needs to be
U>approached. I've had two directors of regional NSF networks tell
U>me
U>that they consider "appropriate use" to be THE most significant
U>issue
U>facing this community today.
It is a tough subject, and "appropriate use" is a significant issue.
However, I believe that if you scanned _all_ the messages in
_all_ 37 K12Net echo areas, you would discover that significant,
appropriate, educational material _far_ outweighs the occasional
inappropriate message, and that K-12 teachers and students are
enthusiastically using telecommunications to broaden their
educational environment.
U>people always start shouting.
I'm _not_ SHOUTING; but I do believe your focus has been
somewhat narrow.
U>that way, but we're not going to get anywhere by ignoring
U>reality.
The _reality_ is that there are significant attempts to connect
K-12 teachers and students through telecommunications in a _wide_
variety of projects involving a large number of students and
teachers, and an _insignificant_ percentage of inappropriate
messages.
| Janet Murray, Librarian System Operator
| Wilson High School HI TECH TOOLS for Librarians BBS
| 1151 S.W. Vermont St. FidoNet 1:105/23
| Portland, OR 97219 (503) 245-4961
| (503) 280-5280 x450 K12Net Council of Coordinators
| jmurray@psg.com
--
uucp: uunet!m2xenix!puddle!23!Janet.Murray
Internet: Janet.Murray@f23.n105.z1.fidonet.org
From kadie Fri Oct 18 13:28:43 1991
To: cafb-mail
Subject: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Status: R
Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Fri Oct 18 13:27:33 EDT 1991
[For information on how to get a much smaller edited version of the
list, send email to archive-server@eff.org. Include the line:
send acad-freedom caf
- Carl ]
In this issue:
russotto@eng.umd.e : Re: USENET censorship strikes University of Washington!
jones@pyrite.cs.ui : USENET and the press
snow@netcom.COM (T : Re: USENET censorship strikes University of Washi
aeba-im-o-e2@berli : Re: An idea and request for assistance
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: USENET censorship strikes University of Washington
tdowling@lib.washi : Re: USENET censorship strikes University of Washington!
kadie@eff.org (Car : What is good about Netnews/Usenet
kadie@eff.org (Car : Campus newsgroup
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: USENET censorship strikes University of Washington!
jsaker@unomaha.edu : Re: USENET censorship strikes University of Washington!
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: USENET censorship strikes University of Washington!
jsaker@unomaha.edu : Re: USENET censorship strikes University of Washington!
jones@pyrite.cs.ui : Re: What is good about Netnews/Usenet
lamontg@milton.u.w : Re: USENET censorship strikes University of Washington!
lamontg@milton.u.w : Re: Campus newsgroup
billyk@biostat.was : Re: USENET censorship strikes University of Washington!
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.censorship:1979 alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1284 alt.sex:21722
From: russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto)
Subject: Re: USENET censorship strikes University of Washington!
Message-ID: <1991Oct17.133310.11924@eng.umd.edu>
Date: 17 Oct 91 13:33:10 GMT
References: <1991Oct16.180613.19161@eff.org> <1991Oct16.184802.20247@eff.org> <16OCT91222412@hacks.arizona.edu>
Distribution: world,local
In article <16OCT91222412@hacks.arizona.edu> paulf@hacks.arizona.edu writes:
>A few general thoughts....
>
><*> anyone here read Arthur C. Clarke's "Dial F for Frankenstein"?
So when will USENet or Internet wake up? And will it decide to play with
users, sysadmins, or politicians first?
--
Matthew T. Russotto russotto@eng.umd.edu russotto@wam.umd.edu
"We do not need any characterizations like "Shame" from the Senator from
Massachusetts" --- Sen. Arlan Specter
-------------------
From: jones@pyrite.cs.uiowa.edu (Douglas W. Jones,201H MLH,3193350740,3193382879)
Subject: USENET and the press
Message-ID: <8653@ns-mx.uiowa.edu>
Date: 17 Oct 91 15:08:13 GMT
Sender: news@ns-mx.uiowa.edu
In the wake of the events in the state of Washington, I have seen
suggestions that the solution to avoiding these problems is to avoid
mentioning USENET to the press -- to hide it in order to protect it.
I've taken the opposite tack for a year (since I first dealt with the
press on this issue a year ago). Whenever I mention USENET to a
reporter, and I've done so a number of times, I start by trying to
describe how it grew anarchically, with no central administrative
body. Then, I show them the thousand-or-so-lines of my .newsrc
file -- pointing out the huge comp... hierarchy, stopping off in
sci.physics.fusion and talk.politics.abortion, and I usually mention
alt.sex.
I've mentioned USENET in this way in talking to the local AP reporter,
I've mentioned it to a local feature writer, to a reporter for the local
NBC affiliate, to a radio talk-show host on WHO in Des Moines, to a
producer for CBS News, and to a reporter for Newsday (among these, the
latter is on the net at newsday.com). In all cases, the mention of
alt.sex was met with a chuckle.
In the wake of the original Houston Chronical vs alt.sex flap (U. S.
Government funds High Tech Porno Ring), I talked to my congressman
about it. He sits on the Space, Science and Technology subcommittee
in the house, the group that oversees NSF and NASA and their networks,
and he also chuckled.
I should note that all of my contacts with the press about USENET have
been in the context of the penetration of the USS (ex USSR) by the
Internet and USENET. In this context, the fact that the Internet and
USENET are forums for free exchange of information, without any
censorship, is a very positive thing, and the presence of alt.sex
is strong evidence of this lack of censorship. In dealing with the
press in the US, when they start wondering about the frewheeling anarchy
of USENET, the role of this unregulated anarchy during the failed coup
in Russia might even be worth mentioning.
Doug Jones
jones@cs.uiowa.edu
the right medicine
One thing worth noting in this context
-------------------
Xref: eff alt.censorship:1981 alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1286 alt.sex:21739
From: snow@netcom.COM (Tim Szeliga)
Subject: Re: USENET censorship strikes University of Washi
Message-ID: <1991Oct17.150752.3670snow@netcom.COM>
Date: 17 Oct 91 15:07:52 GMT
References: <1991Oct16.232250.23487@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> <1991Oct16.233913.4303@husc3.harvard.edu> <1991Oct17.125612.13410@mips2.ma30.bull.com>
Followup-To: alt.sex
Distribution: na
Treat this the way Sexually Oriented Businesses treat Pre-Election Cleanups.
Lay low for a while, accept a few losses,
try not to be obvious,
clean you asp archive off your discs (you've been meaning to do this anyway),
and wait for the furor to die down.
Don't talk to the press.
Don't scream about your first amendment rights to transmit
enormous files around the world at taxpayer's expense.
Thats the way grown-ups do things here at Akbar'n'Jeff's Porno-Hut.
-------------------
From: aeba-im-o-e2@berlin-emh1.army.mil (IM EMAIL ASST SYS ADMIN)
Subject: Re: An idea and request for assistance
Message-ID: <9110171205.aa02593@SEM.BRL.MIL>
X-Unparseable-Date: Thu, 17 Oct 91 17:03:41 CET
Sender: aeba-im-o-e2@berlin-emh1.army.mil
Date: 17 Oct 91 16:14:55 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
> 2) Information on possible sources of funding, either
> organizations or individuals.
You might consider fund-raising projects as well as just plain asking
for donations from people. As in:
1. A BBS system that you charge for and use the funds to support
your venture.
Example- other non-profit orgs sell candles, peanuts etc... to
raise funds; as well as, asking for $$.
Other projects could be PC repair. If a volunteer(s) would
support you with a few hours you might be able to take on repair
jobs and charge $$. Or, like the auto shops at high schools do
with cars; people bring their cars in and get cheaper repair work
done from students. Your "students" could do something similar
with PCs. The Girl Scouts sell cookies; you could offer PC services.
People might also be able to write off (their taxes) the cost
of donating hardware to you. You would get stuck with many XTs, but...
> 7) Well-wishings, good luck messages, moral support.
Don't give up your dream!
Sincerely,
SGT Gibson
_______________________________________________________________________
| SGT Kendrick J. Gibson aeba-im-o-e2@berlin-emh1.army.mil |
| E-mail System Administrator; U.S. Army Berlin Electronic-mail Host |
| I'd rather be telecommuting. ETS/AUTOVON: 332-6714 |
-------------------
Xref: eff alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1288 alt.censorship:1982 alt.sex:21740
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: USENET censorship strikes University of Washington
Message-ID: <1991Oct17.161819.21609@eff.org>
References: <1991Oct16.232250.23487@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> <1991Oct16.233913.4303@husc3.harvard.edu> <1991Oct17.125612.13410@mips2.ma30.bull.com> <1991Oct17.150752.3670snow@netcom.COM>
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 1991 16:18:19 GMT
In case you wonder what we are fighting for, I think the answer
is intellectual freedom. The American Library Association's
Intellectual Freedom Statement speaks to this very eloquently.
- Carl
-----------------------------------------------------------------
INTELLECTUAL
FREEDOM
STATEMENT
An Interpretation of the
LIBRARY BILL OF RIGHTS
The heritage of free men is ours.
In the Bill of Rights to the United States Constitution, the founders
of our nation proclaimed certain fundamental freedoms to be essential
to our form of government. Primary among these is the freedom of
expression, specifically the right to publish diverse opinions and the
right to unrestricted access to those opinions. As citizens committed
to the full and free use of all communications media and as
professional persons responsible for making the content of those media
accessible to all without prejudice, we, the undersigned, wish to
assert the public interest in the preservation of freedom of
expression. Through continuing judicial interpretations of the First
Amendment to the United States Constitution, freedom of expression has
been guaranteed. Every American who aspires to the success of our
experiment in democracy -- who has faith in the political and social
integrity of free men -- must stand firm on those Constitutional
guarantees of essential rights. Such Americans can be expected to
fulfill the responsibilities implicit in those rights.
We, therefore, affirm these propositions:
1. We will make available to everyone who needs or desires them the
widest possible diversity of views and modes of expression, including
those which are strange, unorthodox or unpopular.
Creative thought is, by its nature, new. New ideas are always
different and, to some people, distressing and even threatening. The
creator of every new idea is likely to be regarded as unconventional
-- occasionally heretical -- until his idea is first examined, then
refined, then tested in its political. social or moral applications.
The characteristic ability of our governmental system to adapt to
necessary change is vastly strengthened by the option of the people to
choose freely from among conflicting opinions. To stifle nonconformist
ideas at their inception would be to end the democratic process. Only
through continuous weighing and selection from among opposing views
can free individuals obtain the strength needed for intelligent,
constructive decisions and actions. In short, we need to understand
not only what we believe, but why we believe as we do.
2. We need not endorse every idea contained in the materials we
produce and make available.
We serve the educational process by disseminating the knowledge and
wisdom required for the growth of the mind and the expansion of
learning. For us to employ our own political, moral, or esthetic views
as standards for determining what materials are published or
circulated conflicts with the public interest. We cannot foster true
education by imposing on others the structure and content of our own
opinions. We must preserve and enhance the people's right to a broader
range of ideas than those held by any librarian or publisher or church
or government. We hold that it is wrong to limit any person to those
ideas and that information another believes to be true, good, and
proper.
3. We regard as irrelevant to the acceptance and distribution of any
creative work the personal history or political affiliations of the
author or others responsible for it or its publication.
A work of art must be judged solely on its own merits. Creativity
cannot flourish if its appraisal and acceptance by the community is
influenced by the political views or private lives of the artists or
the creators. A society that allows blacklists to be compiled and used
to silence writers and artists cannot exist as a free society.
4. With every available legal means, we will challenge laws or
governmental action restricting or prohibiting the publication of
certain materials or limiting free access to such materials.
Our society has no place for legislative efforts to coerce the taste
of its members, to restrict adults to reading matter deemed suitable
only for children, or to inhibit the efforts of creative persons in
their attempts to achieve artistic perfection. When we prevent serious
artists from dealing with truth as they see it, we stifle creative
endeavor at its source. Those who direct and control the intellectual
development of our children -- parents, teachers, religious leaders,
scientists, philosophers, statesman -- must assume the responsibility
for preparing young people to cope with life as it is and to face the
diversity of experience to which they will be exposed as they mature.
This is an affirmative responsibility that cannot be discharged
easily, certainly not with the added burden of curtailing one's access
to art, literature, and opinion. Tastes differ. Taste, like morality,
cannot be controlled by government, for governmental action, devised
to suit the demands of one group, thereby limits the freedom of all
others.
5. We oppose labeling any work of literature or art, or any persons
responsible for its creation, as subversive, dangerous, or otherwise
undesirable.
Labeling attempts to predispose users of the various media of
communication, and to ultimately close off a path to knowledge.
Labeling rests on the assumption that persons exist who have a special
wisdom, and who, therefore, can be permitted to determine what will
have good and bad effects on other people. But freedom of expression
rests on the premise of ideas vying in the open marketplace for
acceptance, change, or rejection by individuals. Free men choose this
path.
6. We. as guardians of intellectual freedom oppose and will resist
every encroachment upon that freedom by individuals or groups, private
or official.
It is inevitable in the give-and-take of the democratic process that
the political, moral and esthetic preferences of a person or group
will conflict occasionally with those of others. A fundamental premise
of our free society is that each citizen is privileged to decide those
opinions to which he will adhere or which he will recommend to the
members of a privately organized group or association. But no private
group may usurp the law and impose its own political or moral concepts
upon the general public. Freedom cannot be accorded only to selected
groups for it is then transmuted into privilege and unwarranted
license.
7. Both as citizens and professionals. we will strive by all
legitimate means open to us to be relieved of the threat of personal,
economic, and legal reprisals resulting from our support and defense
of the principles of intellectual freedom.
Those who refuse to compromise their ideals in support of intellectual
freedom have often suffered dismissals from employment, forced
resignations, boycotts of products and establishments, and other
invidious forms of punishment. We perceive the admirable, often
lonely, refusal to succumb to threats of punitive action as the
highest form of true professionalism: dedication to the cause of
intellectual freedom and the preservation of vital human and civil
liberties.
In our various capacities, we will actively resist incursions against
the full exercise of our professional responsibility for creating and
maintaining an intellectual environment which fosters unrestrained
creative endeavor and true freedom of choice and access for all
members of the community.
We state these propositions with conviction, not as easy
generalizations. We advance a noble claim for the value of ideas,
freely expressed, as embodied in books and other kinds of
communications. We do this in our belief that a free intellectual
climate fosters creative endeavors capable of enormous variety,
beauty, and usefulness. and thus worthy of support and preservation.
We recognize that application of these propositions may encourage the
dissemination of ideas and forms of expression that will be
frightening or abhorrent to some. We believe that what people read,
view, and hear is a critically important issue. We recognize, too,
that ideas can be dangerous. It may be, however, that they are
effectually dangerous only when opposing ideas are suppressed.
Freedom, in its many facets, is a precarious course. We espouse it
heartily.
Adopted by the ALA Council,
June 25, 1971
Endorsed by the FREEDOM TO READ FOUNDATION.
Board of Trustees
June 18, 1971
[Made available by permission of the American Library Association.]
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
-------------------
Xref: eff alt.censorship:1983 alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1289 alt.sex:21743
From: tdowling@lib.washington.edu (Thomas Dowling)
Subject: Re: USENET censorship strikes University of Washington!
Message-ID: <1991Oct17.152408.25384@milton.u.washington.edu>
Date: 17 Oct 91 15:24:08 GMT
References: <7FyV01w164w@halcyon.com> <1991Oct16.180613.19161@eff.org> <1991Oct17.002734.23300@milton.u.washington.edu> <1991Oct17.021516.851@eff.org> <1991Oct17.060137.5509@milton.u.washington.edu> <1991Oct17.133242.17424@eff.org>
Sender: news@milton.u.washington.edu (News)
Distribution: na
In article <1991Oct17.133242.17424@eff.org>, kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
> I think there is still hope. We can point to universities like
> Stanford and (hopefully) U. of Washington as places where library
> policy has been successfully applied computer-material selection.
>
As a librarian at the University of Washington, I'm relatively
confident in saying that the University Libraries have not developed
or been asked to develop a collection policy for computer files
available on the campus-wide Uniform Access machines. I am not even
aware that anyone has even mentioned the idea to our head of collection
development.
The debate on campus the last few days has suggested such a policy,
though. Thanks for posting the very helpful information from Stanford.
Thomas Dowling
University of Washington Natural Sciences Library
-------------------
Xref: eff alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1290 alt.censorship:1984
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: What is good about Netnews/Usenet
Message-ID: <1991Oct17.173839.23730@eff.org>
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 1991 17:38:39 GMT
I was asked what I would would say to a reporter who asked what is
good about Netnews (aka Usenet). I'm enclosing my reply. I'm not
completely happy with it. If you can offer a better answer (using part
of my answer, if you wish), please post it.
---
The best thing about the Net is its diversity. Newsgroups cover almost
every possible topic. For example, a dozen newsgroup cover different
aspects of the Macintosh computer. The Chinese students studying in
North American and Europe used the Net organize the resistance. For
example, they exchanged fax numbers over the Net. There is a newsgroup
just for the discussion of the the arabidopsis genome
(bionet.genome.arbidopsis). There are newsgroups for discussion of
controversial issues such as gun control, abortion, and
evolution/creationism.
Participants on the Net come from every continent (even Antarctica).
The Net instantiates the ideal of a marketplace of ideas. It is a free
forum, perhaps the broadest and most accessable ever to exists.
- 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: Campus newsgroup
Message-ID: <1991Oct17.175158.24068@eff.org>
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 1991 17:51:58 GMT
One of the post important newsgroups at my university (the University
of Illinois U-C) is uiuc.general. It is used to discuss everything
from new computer services to the University mascot/symbol.
The Joint Statement on Rights and Freedoms of Students says:
"Student publications and the student press are a valuable aid in
establishing and maintaining an atmosphere of free and responsible
discussion and of intellectual exploration on the campus. They are a
means of bringing student concerns to the attention of the faculty and
the institutional authorities and of formulating student opinion on
various issues on the campus and in the world at large."
This is exactly the function of uiuc.general.
If your university lacks a campus newsgroup, I suggest
working to create one.
- Carl
p.s. Do U. of Washington and Western Washington U. have campus
newsgroups?
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
-------------------
Xref: eff alt.censorship:1985 alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1292 alt.sex:21747
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: USENET censorship strikes University of Washington!
Message-ID: <1991Oct17.175852.24323@eff.org>
References: <7FyV01w164w@halcyon.com> <1991Oct16.180613.19161@eff.org> <1991Oct17.002734.23300@milton.u.washington.edu> <1991Oct17.021516.851@eff.org> <1991Oct17.060137.5509@milton.u.washington.edu> <1991Oct17.133242.17424@eff.org> <1991Oct17.152408.25384@milton.u.washington.edu>
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 1991 17:58:52 GMT
tdowling@lib.washington.edu (Thomas Dowling) writes:
> Thanks for posting the very helpful information from Stanford.
It's been a while since this was posted and this seems like a good
time. Here is a description of the computers and academic freedom
archives including the library policy archives.
- Carl
---
=================
README
-----------------
Computers and Academic Freedom (CAF) Archive
This is an electronic library of information about computers and
academic freedom.
It is available via anonymous ftp to ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.3) in
directory "pub/academic". It is also available 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".
For more information, to make contributions, or to report typos
contract Carl Kadie (kadie@eff.org).
=================
abstracts
-----------------
These are abstracts to the Computers and Academic Freedom News
(CAF-news). Referenced issues of CAF-news are available via anonymous
ftp to eff.org in directory "academic/news".
=================
batch
-----------------
This is a directory of notes that have been sent over the
comp-academic-freedom mailing list. Each file is a list
of one week's notes (in batch form). Also, see "news".
=================
batchin
-----------------
This is a list of all notes that have been sent over the
comp-academic-freedom mailing list. The notes are in the batch
(digest) format.
=================
caf
-----------------
A discription to the comp-academic-freedom-talk mailing list.
=================
civics
-----------------
Directory of general documents related to government. It includes the
U.S. Constitution and mailing addresses for U.S. Senators and
Representatives.
=================
ecpa.1986
-----------------
Portions of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 (ECPA) related
to e-mail privacy.
=================
editorial.policy
-----------------
This note tries to answer questions about the editorial policy
of CAF-news.
=================
eff.rights
-----------------
An overview of the electronic frontier and the U.S Bill of Rights
=================
email.privacy.essay
-----------------
"Computer Electronic Mail and Privacy", an edited version of a law
school seminar paper by Ruel T. Hernadex
=================
glossary
-----------------
A glossary of terms used in the CAF discussion that may be unfamiliar
to some.
=================
jmcabstract
-----------------
Professor John McCarthy lead the effort to restore "rec.humor.funny"
at Stanford. In March of 1991, he travelled to the University of
Waterloo, a place where "rec.humor.funny" was (and still is) banned.
At Waterloo, he gave one talk on a new computer language and a second
talk on "Network Publication and Free Expression". This is the
abstract of that talk. (Also, see "stanford.statements")
=================
k12.networks.survey
-----------------
Results of a survey by EDUCOM and IBM on the status of
computer networking in K12 education.
=================
library
-----------------
Library Policy Archive
[part of the Computers and Academic Freedom (CAF) Archive
[part of the Electronic Freedom Foundation (EFF) Archive]]
This is an on-line collection of library policy statements. It
includes the American Library Associations's Freedom To Read statement
and the ALA Library Bill of Rights. (The ALA material is made
available by permission of the American Library Association.)
The archive is accessible via anonymous ftp and email. Ftp to
ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.3). It is in directory "pub/academic/library".
For email access, send email to archive-server@eff.org. Include the
line:
send library-policies
where is a list of the files that you want. File README is
a detailed description of the items in the directory.
For more information, to make contributions, or to report typos
contract Carl Kadie (kadie@eff.org).
=================
library.porn
-----------------
A parody of a real newpaper article published in the Houston Chronicle. The
parody is by Carl Kadie. It was published in rec.humor.funny.
=================
library.porn.real
-----------------
A real newpaper article published in the Houston Chronicle. The
parody is in file library.porn.
=================
listserv.tar
-----------------
Listserv code for Unix
We got the code from UCSD. We improved it (mostly with modifications
to the Makefile). Sadly, there is no real documention.
=================
listserv2.shar
-----------------
A better version of listserv from A. E. Mossberg,
aem@mthvax.cs.miami.edu.
=================
listserv3.txt
-----------------
Info on how to get a super-duper version of listserv for unix.
=================
members.ps
-----------------
A plot of the number of mailing list members over time. The plot shows
the membership of each version of the list (talk, batch, and news).
The plot goes from April 10, 1991 to June 7, 1991. On June 7th there
were 300 mailing list members. (The newsgroup readership is unknown.)
To see the plot, print the file on a postscript printer.
=================
ncsa.email
-----------------
The National Center for Supercomputer Applications (NCSA) is a department
in the University of Illinois' Graduate College. On April 1, 1991
the NCSA set down a new e-mail policy. The policy was cleared by the
University's legal counsel and the Graduate College. Faculty, students,
and researchers, however, were not consulted.
This note has three parts. The first is a critique of the policy. The
critique concludes that the policy is inconsistant with the
Consitution, Academic Freedom, and University policy. The second part
of this notes is the text of the policy. The third part is notes from
a conversation with an NCSA Administrator.
[On of April 23, 1991 (14 hours after this information was distributed),
the NCSA as decided to revise its policy.]
=================
news
-----------------
This is a directory of all issues of the Computers and Academic
Freedom News. A full list of abstracts is avilable in file
"abstracts". The special best-of-the-month issues are named with their
month, for example, "June".
=================
newsin
-----------------
This is a list of all issues of the Computers and Academic Freedom News.
=================
nsf
-----------------
The tentative statement by the National Science Foundation on
acceptable use of the backbone networks.
=================
ocf.bylaws
-----------------
These are the bylaws of Berkeley's Open Computing Facility, an
organization that democratically manages computer resources for
thousands of users.
=================
ocf.constitution
-----------------
This is the Constitution of Berkeley's Open Computing Facility, an
organization that democratically manages computer resources for
thousands of users.
=================
ohio-state
-----------------
All the notes from CAF-talk related to Steven Brack and Ohio State.
=================
policies
-----------------
It is a collection of the computer polices of many schools. Also see
directory "widener".
=================
reg2rights
-----------------
The history of student regulations at the University of Illinois
from 1904 to present. Shows how policies evolve.
=================
rfc1244.txt
-----------------
This FYI RFC is a first attempt at providing Internet users guidance
on how to deal with security issues in the Internet. As such, this
document is necessarily incomplete.
=================
stanford.statements
-----------------
"In 1989 rec.humor.funny was suppressed in some of the Stanford
University computers. After a campaign it was re-installed in those
computers."
This file contains
1) the "Statement of Protest about the AIR Censorship of rec.humor.funny"
2) a statement by the Stanford faculty committee on libraries
3) Notes from Professor John McCarthy on how censorship was fought at Stanford
(also see "jmcabstract")
=================
student.freedoms
-----------------
Joint Statement on Rights and Freedoms of Students -- This is the main
statement on student academic freedom.
=================
u.washington.edu
-----------------
(Warning: This file is temporary)
All the caf-talk articles related to Netnews censorship at state
universities in Washington State.
=================
uiuc.code.excerpts
-----------------
Excerpts from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign's Code on
Campus Affairs and Regulations Applying to All Students (Aug. 1985)
=================
widener
-----------------
This directory is a mirror of ftp.cs.widener.edu:pub/cud/schools/*.
It is a collection of the computer polices of many schools. For a
description of the file see file "widener/Index". Also see directory
"policies".
=================
=================
Last update
Wed Oct 16 23:00:45 EDT 1991
--------
=================
README
-----------------
Library Policy Archive
[part of the Computers and Academic Freedom (CAF) Archive
[part of the Electronic Freedom Foundation (EFF) Archive]]
This is an on-line collection of library policy statements. It
includes the American Library Associations's Freedom To Read statement
and the ALA Library Bill of Rights. (The ALA material is made
available by permission of the American Library Association.)
The archive is accessible via anonymous ftp and email. Ftp to
ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.3). It is in directory "pub/academic/library".
For email access, send email to archive-server@eff.org. Include the
line:
send library-policies
where is a list of the files that you want. File README is
a detailed description of the items in the directory.
For more information, to make contributions, or to report typos
contract Carl Kadie (kadie@eff.org).
=================
access.children.nonprint.ala
-----------------
"Access for Children and Young People to Videotapes and Other Nonprint
Formats"
An interpretation by the American Library Association of the "Library
Bill of Rights"
=================
access.minors.ala
-----------------
"Free Access to Libraries for Minors"
An interpretation by the American Library Association of the "Library
Bill of Rights"
=================
access.policies.ala
-----------------
"Regulations, policies, and Procedures Affecting Access to Library
Resources and Services"
An interpretation by the American Library Association of the "Library
Bill of Rights"
=================
access.restrictions.ala
-----------------
"Restricted Access to Library Materials"
An interpretation by the American Library Association of the "Library
Bill of Rights"
=================
bill-of-rights.ala
-----------------
The Library Bill of Rights from the American Library Association.
=================
bulletin-boards.ala
-----------------
"Exhibit Spaces and Bulletin Boards"
An interpretation by the American Library Association of the "Library
Bill of Rights"
=================
censorship.def.ala
-----------------
The American Library Assocation's definition of "censorship" and related
terms.
=================
challenged-materials.ala
-----------------
"Challenged Materials"
An interpretation by the American Library Association of the "Library
Bill of Rights"
=================
confidentiality.1.ala
-----------------
The American Library Association's "Policy on Confidentiality of
Library Records"
=================
confidentiality.2.ala
-----------------
The American Library Association's "Statement Concerning
Confidentiality of Personally Identifiable Information about Library
Users"
=================
diversity.ala
-----------------
"Diversity in Collection Development"
An interpretation by the American Library Association of the "Library
Bill of Rights"
=================
elec.rights1-4
-----------------
This is the ASCII version of a printed booklet distributed at the
American Library Association conference in July 1991. The program was
sponsored by the Library and Information Technology Association.
Details follow on ordering the full print monograph.
[From ftp.apple.com:alug/rights/elec.rights1-4]
=================
evaluating-collections.ala
-----------------
"Evaluating Library Collections"
An interpretation by the American Library Association of the "Library
Bill of Rights"
=================
expurgation.ala
-----------------
"Expurgation of Library Materials"
An interpretation by the American Library Association of the "Library
Bill of Rights"
=================
free-expression.ala
-----------------
"The Universal Right to Free Expression"
An interpretation by the American Library Association of the "Library
Bill of Rights"
=================
freedom-to-read.ala
-----------------
The "Freedom to Read Statement" of the American Library Association
and Association of American Publishers.
=================
int-freedom.ala
-----------------
"Intellectual Freedom Statement"
An interpretation by the American Library Association of the "Library
Bill of Rights"
=================
int-freedom.can
-----------------
Canadian Library Association Statement on Intellectual Freedom
=================
labeling.ala
-----------------
"Statement on Labeling"
An interpretation by the American Library Association of the "Library
Bill of Rights"
=================
library-programs.ala
-----------------
"Library Initiated Programs as a Resource"
An interpretation by the American Library Association of the "Library
Bill of Rights"
=================
meeting-rooms.ala
-----------------
"Meeting Rooms"
An interpretation by the American Library Association of the "Library
Bill of Rights"
=================
order.form.ala
-----------------
Information on how to order intellectual freedom material from the
American Library Association. Much of the material is free.
=================
school-libraries.ala
-----------------
"Access to Resources And Services in the School Library Media Program"
An interpretation by the American Library Association of the "Library
Bill of Rights"
=================
selection-workbook.ala
-----------------
The American Library Association's "Workbook on Selection Policy
Writing". Although aimed at textbook and library book selection in
grade and high schools, it also seems applicable to newsgroup
selection. It includes information about how create a selection policy
and how to handle complaints. It also includes a sample selection
policy.
=================
=================
Last update
Wed Oct 16 10:59:49 EDT 1991
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
-------------------
Xref: eff alt.censorship:1986 alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1293 alt.sex:21752
From: jsaker@unomaha.edu (Jamie Saker)
Subject: Re: USENET censorship strikes University of Washington!
Message-ID:
Sender: news@news.unomaha.edu (UNO Network News Server)
References: <7FyV01w164w@halcyon.com> <1991Oct16.180613.19161@eff.org> <1991Oct16.184802.20247@eff.org>
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 1991 17:36:02 GMT
kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>Here is a summary of the Settle Post-Intelligencer article [Stuff in
>single quotes are fair-use quotes from the article.]:
>'One UW employee, who asked not to be named, said he did not believe disk
>space should be taken up by the "alt.sex" material and that the computers
>should be run on the same principles as a university library.'
I wonder if that same employee would advocate book-burning when she
discovers that the library contains equally explicit materials.
What's hard for me to understand is how any journalist could ethically
justify writing such a story. Granted, it's sensationalistic journalism
that titilates readers, but violates the very principles that allow
free journalistic expression in the first place. Such journalists are
doing a -major- disservice to not only their profession and the people
they are supposed to inform, but to the Constitution.
When will our country get sick and tired of all of these special interest
groups cramming their ideologies down our throats? Perhaps it's time
for the "silent majority" to speak out against this new fascism.
>--
>Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
>I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. Jamie Saker jsaker@odin.unomaha.edu .
. .
. "No red beads until .
. The Penny Network Foundation further notice. Failure .
. P.O. Box 138 to comply will result in .
. Blair, NE 68008-0138 immediate termination." .
. Disclaimer: The opinions expressed here are only my own. (Don't you wish.
. the special interest groups would say that as well?) .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
-------------------
Xref: eff alt.censorship:1987 alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1294 alt.sex:21754
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: USENET censorship strikes University of Washington!
Message-ID: <1991Oct17.183822.25287@eff.org>
References: <7FyV01w164w@halcyon.com> <1991Oct16.180613.19161@eff.org> <1991Oct17.002734.23300@milton.u.washington.edu> <1991Oct17.021516.851@eff.org> <1991Oct17.060137.5509@milton.u.washington.edu> <1991Oct17.133242.17424@eff.org> <1991Oct17.152408.25384@milton.u.washington.edu>
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 1991 18:38:22 GMT
tdowling@lib.washington.edu (Thomas Dowling) writes:
[...]
>As a librarian at the University of Washington, I'm relatively
>confident in saying that the University Libraries have not developed
>or been asked to develop a collection policy for computer files
>available on the campus-wide Uniform Access machines. I am not even
>aware that anyone has even mentioned the idea to our head of collection
>development.
[...]
Even when the academic computers in question are not administered by
the University Library, libraries have a special responsibility to
fight censorship. As the ALA Intellectual Freedom Statement says:
"6. We. as guardians of intellectual freedom oppose and will resist
every encroachment upon that freedom by individuals or groups, private
or official."
The Library might also be important in helping the computer
administration and users created a good selection policy for computer
material.
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
-------------------
Xref: eff alt.censorship:1988 alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1295 alt.sex:21755
From: jsaker@unomaha.edu (Jamie Saker)
Subject: Re: USENET censorship strikes University of Washington!
Message-ID:
Sender: news@news.unomaha.edu (UNO Network News Server)
References: <7FyV01w164w@halcyon.com> <1991Oct16.180613.19161@eff.org> <1991Oct16.220601.1230@zip.eecs.umich.edu>
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 1991 18:28:37 GMT
baillod@sparky.eecs.umich.edu (Brad Baillod) writes:
>In article <1991Oct16.180613.19161@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>>elf@halcyon.com writes:
>>
>>> According to a news article published 10/15/91 Morning in the
>>>Seattle Post-Intelligncer, the University of Washington had "Pornography
>>>Files in it's Computer."
>> ...
>It seems to me that USENET(*) should be hidden from the media as long
>as possible. Enough media attention would be enough to make most
>universities drop every alt.* newsgroup, especially ones like alt.evil,
>alt.sex.bestiality, and other alt.sex.* groups where stories might
>be posted about torture, etc.
I disagree. I personally volunteer my time to show any interested reporter
piles of explicit sexual language, pictures and "unmoral" activities
(such as beastiality, homosexuality, etc.) - which is readily available
to minors and other folks. All we'll do is take a walk to our campus
library (or any University library).
If they write a trashy, sensationalistic story which generates mobs of
people (sans brain) who demand our libraries remove all material of that
nature, then perhaps our country is in worse shape than previously
thought:-( (Anyone remember the beginning of the Third Reich, the book
burnings, raiding of libraries, purging of intellectuals, destruction
of "unacceptable art", persecution of composers of "vulgar and obscene
music", etc.?)
>I think the rule should be, if a reporter asks about your system, show them
>the good, clean, wholesome newsgroups and not any of the dirty, bad,
>tasteless ones. The content of USENET should not be debated in the media.
>As soon as it starts to be, say goodbye to freedom of expression.
To reduce this discussion to "just removing a few nasty pictures from
a computer" is to trivialize our Constitution. Furthermore, Universities
who are considering restricting "just the nasty groups" take note:
By censoring selected newsgroups, you may be acting as a guarantor of
the information. Therefore, if a user reads any material which offends
them in the available groups (say a article accidently crossposted to
rec.equestrian from alt.sex.beastiality), the University may now be
liable since they were guaranteeing the non-offensive nature of the
newsgroups by their censorship.
Best all around policy: disclaimer news. Require acceptance of a disclaimer
to view news. Even consider requiring a second disclaimer to get access
to any and all alt.* groups. Therefore, any individual who is offended
is offended at their own risk. Not suit-proof, but a much better position
legally!
>Brad Baillod baillod@eecs.umich.edu
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. Jamie Saker jsaker@odin.unomaha.edu .
. .
. "No red beads until .
. The Penny Network Foundation further notice. Failure .
. P.O. Box 138 to comply will result in .
. Blair, NE 68008-0138 immediate termination." .
. .
. DISCLAIMER: The opinions listed above are only mine! But you're entitled.
. to share them at your own risk! .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
-------------------
Xref: eff alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1296 alt.censorship:1989
From: jones@pyrite.cs.uiowa.edu (Douglas W. Jones,201H MLH,3193350740,3193382879)
Subject: Re: What is good about Netnews/Usenet
Message-ID: <8661@ns-mx.uiowa.edu>
Date: 17 Oct 91 18:38:36 GMT
References: <1991Oct17.173839.23730@eff.org>
Sender: news@ns-mx.uiowa.edu
Followup-To: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
by kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie):
>
> The best thing about the Net is its diversity. ...
> ... The Chinese students studying in North America and Europe used the
> Net [to] organize the resistance ...
I'd suggest adding to this the following: Users of the net in the USSR
used the network to coordinate the resistance to the failed soviet
coup of August 1991 (the record of this is in the archives of
talk.politics.soviet and allied newsgroups -- it's very impressive
reading!)
>
> The Net instantiates the ideal of a marketplace of ideas. It is a free
> forum, perhaps the broadest and most accessable ever to exists.
I'd suggest adding the following: When compared to other free forums,
from the Forum in Rome to the editorial pages of a modern newspaper,
USENET (and similar electronic conference media such as EIES (?) and
PLATO Notesfiles) have the immense advantage of allowing a multitude
of simultaneous users to express their ideas without drowning each other
out.
Thus, for example, the discussions in talk.politics.abortion and in
talk.politics.middle-east are both very heated, but they only occasionally
spill over into other newsgroups, disrupting other discussions. A USENET
user who wants to concentrate on data compression (in comp.compression)
or physics (in sci.physics) is free to concentrate on these subjects
without being bothered by intrusions from these raging discussions.
Doug Jones
jones@cs.uiowa.edu
-------------------
Xref: eff alt.censorship:1991 alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1297 alt.sex:21759
From: lamontg@milton.u.washington.edu (Lamont Granquist)
Subject: Re: USENET censorship strikes University of Washington!
Message-ID: <1991Oct17.190610.4623@milton.u.washington.edu>
References: <7FyV01w164w@halcyon.com> <1991Oct16.180613.19161@eff.org> <1991Oct17.002734.23300@milton.u.washington.edu> <1991Oct17.021516.851@eff.org> <1991Oct17.060137.5509@milton.u.washington.edu>
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 1991 19:06:10 GMT
lamontg@milton.u.washington.edu (Lamont Granquist) writes:
>kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>>According to a correspondent at Western Washington University (WWU)
>>alt.sex has been removed by "administrative request".
>everyone send flames to root@unicorn.wwu.edu!
Confirmed. WWU is in fact blatantly censoring newsgroups. I got an e-mail
message back from the person there who is in charge of News, and he was ordered
to remove the alt.sex groups and pictures groups by some Admin types. I don't
know if root@unicorn.wwu.edu is the appropriate account to flame or not. I'll
see if I can get more details.
--
Lamont Granquist HALLUCINATION IN PROGRESS:
lamontg@u.washington.edu Stay tuned for further information
-------------------
From: lamontg@milton.u.washington.edu (Lamont Granquist)
Subject: Re: Campus newsgroup
Message-ID: <1991Oct17.191314.6925@milton.u.washington.edu>
References: <1991Oct17.175158.24068@eff.org>
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 1991 19:13:14 GMT
kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>p.s. Do U. of Washington and Western Washington U. have campus
>newsgroups?
UW has campus newsgroups, and a campus BBS system that is separate from
USENET run by students.
--
Lamont Granquist HALLUCINATION IN PROGRESS:
lamontg@u.washington.edu Stay tuned for further information
-------------------
Xref: eff alt.censorship:1992 alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1299 alt.sex:21761
From: billyk@biostat.washington.edu (Billy Kreuter)
Subject: Re: USENET censorship strikes University of Washington!
Message-ID: <1991Oct17.192431.10962@milton.u.washington.edu>
Date: 17 Oct 91 19:24:31 GMT
References: <1991Oct17.133242.17424@eff.org> <1991Oct17.152408.25384 <1991Oct17.183822.25287@eff.org>
Sender: news@milton.u.washington.edu (News)
The late-evening news on KING-5 on Tuesday night had a lengthy
item about the "pornography on campus". It had pretty much the
same tone as the P-I article. They had Sandy Moy on defending
having Usenet at all, and they had a closeup of a terminal in the
ACC public-access area displaying someone's .newsrc with alt.sex
listed. Guess that's about as indecent as they were willing to
get. The anchor started out by saying, "It is now possible to
get pornographic stories and pictures by computer at the UW."
Scuse me, but at the time the feature was aired, it had just
become *not* possible to get via newsreader what had been
available for years.
Billy
--
BILLYK@UWAVM.ACS.WASHINGTON.EDU | "I'm melting! You've ruined
standard disclaimer | all my beautiful wickedness!"
--------------------------------| -- the last words of the
Wicked Witch of the West, commenting on global warming
From kadie Fri Oct 18 13:36:54 1991
To: cafb-mail
Subject: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Status: R
Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Fri Oct 18 13:35:06 EDT 1991
[For information on how to get a much smaller edited version of the
list, send email to archive-server@eff.org. Include the line:
send acad-freedom caf
- Carl ]
In this issue:
jeff@henson.cc.wwu : alt.sex
-- I don't understand how this can be allowed to happen
jeff@henson.cc.wwu : Re: Campus newsgroup
morgan@ms.uky.edu : Re: USENET censorship strikes University of Washington!
lamontg@milton.u.w : USENET censorship strikes Western Washington University
-- Bloody plague isn't it?
mrc@Tomobiki-Cho.C : Re: USENET censorship strikes University of Washington!
jeff@fozzie.cc.wwu : Re: USENET censorship strikes University of Washington!
kadie@eff.org (Car : USENET censorship strikes University of Washington
kadie@eff.org (Car : U of Washington Summary
john@iastate.edu ( : Re: USENET censorship strikes University of Washington!
lamontg@milton.u.w : Re: U of Washington Summary
dmittleman@misvax. : Re: alt.sex
-- I don't understand how this can be allowed to happen
morgan@ms.uky.edu : What's good about Usenet
graham@cs.washingt : Re: USENET censorship strikes University of Washington!
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: USENET censorship strikes University of Washington!
kadie@eff.org (Car : (alt.censorship) Censorship also hits Washington State U
kadie@eff.org (Car : (alt.censorship,alt.sex.pictures.d) Re: Censorship also h
kadie@eff.org (Car : Selection and Removal
kadie@eff.org (Car : "You shouldn't defend stuff"
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (alt.config,news.groups,comp.org.eff.talk) U of Washington
sw009@monmouth-emh : Re: An idea and request for assistance
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: jeff@henson.cc.wwu.edu (Jeff Wandling)
Subject: alt.sex
Summary: I don't understand how this can be allowed to happen
Keywords: alt.sex censorship
Message-ID: <1991Oct17.181138.9478@henson.cc.wwu.edu>
Date: 17 Oct 91 18:11:38 GMT
Distribution: alt
Recently at Western Washington University, alt.sex groups and
alt.binary.pictures.erotica groups were removed from our USENET database.
This was precipitated by events at the University of Washington (Seattle). It
seems that the local newspaper (Seattle PI) reported that "pornographic" files
existed on UofW computer equipment. The article went on to describe what kinds
of files there were (list included color pictures, and soft-porn stories).
Earlier at Central Washington University, a director of some sort was demoted
because of a similar situation (where porn files existed on Computer Center
equipment).
UofW seemed to stand firm to the situation and gave the signal that it would
find it neither "wise, legal, or proper to ban or control the pornographic
material and other activites"
Western Washington University on the other hand found it quite easy to ban and
control the "alt.sex" material. And the Vice Provost for "information and
communication" made the decision that such material would not be allowed on
campus. Paraphrasing, he said it was regarded as "junk mail" and we won't
accept it.
As of this writing, access to these newsgroups is not provided by the
University. But, if just one professor states that he or she needs the groups
for any reason then they will be re-instated. This to me is a crock because
not one group we do carry is there by request of any professor here.
It just doesn't make any sense. No one is pointing a gun to our heads
and forcing us to read anything.
Any comments?
--
Jeff Wandling
disclaimer: "I don't disclaim nuthin!"- me quote: "Ooh, you're an icky
student-thing! No wonder you keep such funny hours! :-)" -bill trost
-------------------
From: jeff@henson.cc.wwu.edu (Jeff Wandling)
Subject: Re: Campus newsgroup
Message-ID: <1991Oct17.200055.14855@henson.cc.wwu.edu>
Date: 17 Oct 91 20:00:55 GMT
References: <1991Oct17.175158.24068@eff.org>
kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>One of the post important newsgroups at my university (the University
>of Illinois U-C) is uiuc.general. It is used to discuss everything
>from new computer services to the University mascot/symbol.
>"Student publications and the student press are a valuable aid in
>establishing and maintaining an atmosphere of free and responsible
>discussion and of intellectual exploration on the campus. They are a
>means of bringing student concerns to the attention of the faculty and
>the institutional authorities and of formulating student opinion on
>various issues on the campus and in the world at large."
*clap*
>This is exactly the function of uiuc.general.
>- Carl
>p.s. Do U. of Washington and Western Washington U. have campus
>newsgroups?
Here's the list of WWU groups we have:
wwu.cs.acm
wwu.cs.general
wwu.cs.grads
wwu.cs.systems
wwu.general
wwu.test
wwu.test.cnews
to.wwu
wwu.hackers
-jeff
--
Jeff Wandling
disclaimer: "I don't disclaim nuthin!"- me quote: "Ooh, you're an icky
student-thing! No wonder you keep such funny hours! :-)" -bill trost
-------------------
Xref: eff alt.censorship:1995 alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1302 alt.sex:21780
From: morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan)
Subject: Re: USENET censorship strikes University of Washington!
Message-ID: <1991Oct17.213916.2091@ms.uky.edu>
References: <1991Oct17.021516.851@eff.org> <1991Oct17.060137.5509@milton.u.washington.edu> <1991Oct17.190610.4623@milton.u.washington.edu>
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 1991 21:39:16 GMT
lamontg@milton.u.washington.edu (Lamont Granquist) writes:
>lamontg@milton.u.washington.edu (Lamont Granquist) writes:
>>kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>>>According to a correspondent at Western Washington University (WWU)
>>>alt.sex has been removed by "administrative request".
>
>>everyone send flames to root@unicorn.wwu.edu!
>
>Confirmed. WWU is in fact blatantly censoring newsgroups. I got an e-mail
>message back from the person there who is in charge of News, and he was ordered
>to remove the alt.sex groups and pictures groups by some Admin types. I don't
>know if root@unicorn.wwu.edu is the appropriate account to flame or not. I'll
>see if I can get more details.
I can tell you right now that root@unicorn.wwu.edu is NOT the place to send
flames (or constructive criticism, for that matter). The news admin there
has already stated that he was ordered to remove those groups by "some Admin
types". Find out who those people are, and get in touch with them. In a
situation such as this, random off-the-cuff flames won't get us anywhere.
Wes
--
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
-------------------
Xref: eff alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1303 alt.censorship:1996 alt.sex:21789
From: lamontg@milton.u.washington.edu (Lamont Granquist)
Subject: USENET censorship strikes Western Washington University
Message-ID: <1991Oct17.230721.26500@milton.u.washington.edu>
Summary: Bloody plague isn't it?
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 1991 23:07:21 GMT
The following is a bit of e-mail correspondence I had with
jeff@henson.cc.wwu.edu (apparently there is no longer a "unicorn"
machine at WWU)
jeff@henson.cc.wwu.edu:
> Unofficial response to your mail to root@unicorn.cc.wwu.edu
>
> Hi, I'm the USENET manager at WWU. I was told by my managers to delete
> all of the "alt.sex" groups and "alt.binaries.pictures.erotica"
> groups.
>
> I was also told to request that all of the sites that send us "alt" do
> not even send us the articles from "alt.sex" ,etc.. that would have
> been junked anyway!
>
> I'm also a student here at WWU.
>
> Did the Computer Center censor us? They sure f*king did!
And he also sent the following....
>The email address of the system administrator is "bent@henson.cc.wwu.edu"
>
>You may post anything I send to you word-for-word. I hope that you do.
>
>You can also post this (which I posted to our local wwu.general group)
>
>Enjoy!
>
>Date: Thu, 17 Oct 1991 18:11:38 GMT
>Lines: 35
>
>Recently at Western Washington University, alt.sex groups and
>alt.binary.pictures.erotica groups were removed from our USENET database.
>
>This was precipitated by events at the University of Washington (Seattle). It
>seems that the local newspaper (Seattle PI) reported that "pornographic" files
>existed on UofW computer equipment. The article went on to describe what kinds
>of files there were (list included color pictures, and soft-porn stories).
>
>Earlier at Central Washington University, a director of some sort was demoted
>because of a similar situation (where porn files existed on Computer Center
>equipment).
>
>UofW seemed to stand firm to the situation and gave the signal that it would
>find it neither "wise, legal, or proper to ban or control the pornographic
>material and other activities"
>
>Western Washington University on the other hand found it quite easy to ban and
>control the "alt.sex" material. And the Vice Provost for "information and
>communication" made the decision that such material would not be allowed on
>campus. Paraphrasing, he said it was regarded as "junk mail" and we won't
>accept it.
>
>As of this writing, access to these newsgroups is not provided by the
>University. But, if just one professor states that he or she needs the groups
>for any reason then they will be re-instated. This to me is a crock because
>not one group we do carry is there by request of any professor here.
>
>It just doesn't make any sense. No one is pointing a gun to our heads
>and forcing us to read anything.
>
>Any comments?
>
>---
>Jeff Wandling
>disclaimer: "I don't disclaim nuthin!"- me quote: "Ooh, you're an icky
>student-thing! No wonder you keep such funny hours! :-)" -bill trost
--
Lamont Granquist HALLUCINATION IN PROGRESS:
lamontg@u.washington.edu Stay tuned for further information
-------------------
Xref: eff alt.censorship:1997 alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1304 alt.sex:21790
From: mrc@Tomobiki-Cho.CAC.Washington.EDU (Mark Crispin)
Subject: Re: USENET censorship strikes University of Washington!
Message-ID: <1991Oct17.232501.2595@milton.u.washington.edu>
Date: 17 Oct 91 23:25:01 GMT
References: <1991Oct17.133242.17424@eff.org> <1991Oct17.152408.25384 <1991Oct17.183822.25287@eff.org> <1991Oct17.192431.10962@milton.u.washington.edu>
Sender: news@milton.u.washington.edu (News)
I'm a bit confused. It seems that the only newsgroups which were
removed were `pictures' newsgroup. This included groups which had no
relationship to anyone's definition of `pornography'. However, groups
such as alt.sex are still available -- or at least they appear to be,
I don't read them. For lack of further evidence, it seems reasonable
to take UCS at their word that disk resources, rather than censorship,
is the motivation.
I would like to see a definite policy made and posted on what UCS
considers to be `appropriate' newsgroups. Last July, there was a
movement afoot for UCS to carry the fj.* news hierarchy (Japanese
USENET news), as several students and faculty had requested it. I
wasted a good deal of time in early August building the Japanese
X-terminal support software at a UCS staffer's request to support this
effort. I was chagrined to learn that UCS had subsequently decided
that it would be `a waste of disk space' to carry fj.*. It seemed
rather ironic to me at the time that this was a concern when dozens of
megabytes of disk space were tied up in the `pictures' newsgroups.
I hope that this results in a serious dialog of what UCS' charter
should be in terms of newsgroups instead of `us' vs `them' bashing. I
don't think censorship is right. I find it hard to understand people
who want to look at bitmaps of dirty pictures, but I have a strong
moral objection against interference in personal choice and even more
against self-appointed guardians of morality.
Personally, I feel that the fj.* hierarchy is more germaine to the
university's purpose than alt.sex.pictures, but someone disinterested
in Japan may have a different opinion. A conservative viewpoint would
be to punt on the question and carry all the newsgroups the available
resources can support.
I hope these questions get serious thought rather than knee-jerk
reactions on either side.
-+-+- | -++- --|-- /__ Mark ("Gaijin") Crispin "Gaijin! Gaijin!"
+-|-|-+ -+-++++ +-|-+ / / R90/6 pilot; DoD #0105 "Chigau. Gaijin ha omae."
+-+-+-+ |\|||| |===| / / Atheist & Proud "Boku nihonjin da mo."
--|-- /| |/\| -+===+- /\ (206) 842-2385/543-5762 "Sora. Yappari gaijin da"
/|\ | |__| / \ / \ FAX: (206) 543-3909
Hee, dakedo UNIX nanka wo tsukatte, umaku ikanakute mo shiranai yo.
-------------------
Xref: eff alt.censorship:2000 alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1305 alt.sex:21794
From: jeff@fozzie.cc.wwu.edu (Jeff Wandling)
Subject: Re: USENET censorship strikes University of Washington!
Message-ID:
Sender: news@henson.cc.wwu.edu (USENET-WWU)
References: <1991Oct17.021516.851@eff.org> <1991Oct17.060137.5509@milton.u.washington.edu> <1991Oct17.190610.4623@milton.u.washington.edu> <1991Oct17.213916.2091@ms.uky.edu>
Date: 17 Oct 91 23:31:02 GMT
morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
>lamontg@milton.u.washington.edu (Lamont Granquist) writes:
>>>kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>>>>According to a correspondent at Western Washington University (WWU)
>>>>alt.sex has been removed by "administrative request".
>I can tell you right now that root@unicorn.wwu.edu is NOT the place to send
>flames (or constructive criticism, for that matter). The news admin there
>has already stated that he was ordered to remove those groups by "some Admin
>types". Find out who those people are, and get in touch with them. In a
>situation such as this, random off-the-cuff flames won't get us anywhere.
>Wes
Nod.
You can express your concerns to bent@henson.cc.wwu.edu. This person is
the system administrator of henson.cc.wwu.edu. Unicorn.cc.wwu.edu
has been dismantled and is sitting cold in the basement.. ;-)
Overfilling our mail spool would only compound the problem. "Caustic mail"
would not help at this time. Cool heads will prevail.
I am happy to relay that the chances of getting the "alt.sex" groups back
are starting to improve. We (the people trying to get the groups back) are
being helped out by people in the Computer Science Dept. The Computer Science
Dept has been instrumental in this effort.
I expect the groups to be restored soon thanks to their effort.
>--
> 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: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: USENET censorship strikes University of Washington
Message-ID: <199110180034.AA04152@eff.org>
Sender: kadie
Date: 17 Oct 91 16:34:51 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
[These are excerpts from my response to a private email note.]
[...]
I take no position on whether newsgroup selection should be done by
the University Library. I feel strongly, however, that the principles
of good library selection should be applied to newsgroup selection.
I would note that while the U. of W. library may not subscribe to
Penthouse Letters, it does subscribe to Playboy. Ohio State subscribes
to Hustler. Many libraries carry the Joy of Sex and Lady
Chatterly(sp?)'s Lover. The Chicago Theological Seminary carries the
Joy of Lesbian Sex.
[...]
Stanford banned rec.humor.funny because some people found it offense.
The ban was conducted without a formal complaint and without a formal
hearing.
[...]
I hope that most people at UW are for intellectual freedom. My goal
is to provide the tools to allow them to fight for it.
[...]
I would like to see the computer administrators protected the way that
academic librarians are. I would note that a formal selection policy
offers some protection because it make your authority to select
material explicit. If nothing else works, the campus should form a
committee of faculty, admin, and students to decide what to do.
[...]
Most sexual material is Consitutionally protected. The exceptions
are materials that are legally obscene or made by abusing childern.
Moreover, in my opinion, a newsgroup is a "limited public forum", like
a student newspaper. Quoting from _Public School Law: Teachers' and
Student' Rights_ by Martha McCarthy and Nelda Cambron-McCabe, p. 124:
"While courts are reluctant to endorse prior restrains on the content
of student publicaitons, they are more inclined to support
disciplinary action after distribution has begun. [High-school- Carl]
Students can be punished and publications confiscated if the material
distributed forsters a disruption of the educational process, is
libelous or obscene, or encourages others to engage in dangerous or
unlawful activity."
In other words, if you have good reason to think that particular item
is illegal, no one would fault you for deleting it.
[More information (and references) about the Supreme Court's Public
Forum Doctrine can be found via anonymous ftp to
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/news/cafv01n25.]
[Or send email to archive-server@eff.org. Include the line:
send caf-news cafv01n25
]
[...]
I speak for no one by myself. As a university student I am fully
competent to speak out for academic freedom, especially the academic
freedom of students. For more information about the academic freedom
of students, I recommend the "Joint Statement on Rights and Freedom of
Students". It is available via anonymous ftp as
ftp.eff.org:pub/student.freedoms.
[Or send email to archive-server@eff.org. Include the line:
send acad-freedom student.freedoms
]
[...]
As a major univeristy I hope you aspire to more. To quote the preable
of the Joint Statement:
"Academic institutions exist for the transmission of knowledge, the
pursuit of truth, the development of students, and the general
well-being of society. Free inquiry and free expression are
indispensable to the attainment of these goals its members of the
academic community, students should be encouraged to develop the
capacity for critical judgment and to engage in a sustained and
independent search for truth."
- Carl
-------------------
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: U of Washington Summary
Message-ID: <199110180040.AA04264@eff.org>
Sender: kadie
Date: 17 Oct 91 16:40:16 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
For those who arrived late, here is a summary (written for the EFFector
Online) and information about getting back notes. If anyone can
offer corrections or more details (like what really happened
at CWU?), please post them.
During a state audit of Central Washington University, an auditor
reportedly found that an employee was using the machine for private
gain. The use may have involved graphics files of naked people on an
administrative machine. The employee was demoted.
While investigating the story, the Seattle newspapers discovered that
the topic of sex is not banned at state universities. The headline of
the Seattle Post-Intelligencer article on page 1 was "Pornography
files in UW [University of Washington] computer". The Seattle Times
headline was "State Probing Probing Porn Files in UW Computer".
In the aftermath of the newspaper articles, the alt.sex newsgroup has
been removed from Western Washington University by "administrative
request". The University of Washington has so far resisted pressure to
censor computer material. According to an official at U. of
Washington, the University is developing a selection policy for
computer material. The policy may be based on library selection
policy. (Aside: The U. of Washington library, like most academic
libraries, subscribes to Playboy).
An archive file of (some of) the Usenet articles about the situation
is available. Send email to archive-server@eff.org. Include the line:
send acad-freedom u.washington.edu
- Carl
-------------------
Xref: eff alt.censorship:2002 alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1308 alt.sex:21800
From: john@iastate.edu (John Hascall)
Subject: Re: USENET censorship strikes University of Washington!
Message-ID: <1991Oct18.025306.11694@news.iastate.edu>
Sender: news@news.iastate.edu (USENET News System)
References: <1991Oct17.060137.5509@milton.u.washington.edu> <1991Oct17.133242.17424@eff.org> <1991Oct17.152408.25384@milton.u.washington.edu>
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 1991 02:53:06 GMT
tdowling@lib.washington.edu (Thomas Dowling) writes:
}kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
}> I think there is still hope. We can point to universities like
}> Stanford and (hopefully) U. of Washington as places where library
}> policy has been successfully applied computer-material selection.
}>
}As a librarian at the University of Washington, I'm relatively
}confident in saying that the University Libraries have not developed
}or been asked to develop a collection policy for computer files
}available on the campus-wide Uniform Access machines. I am not even
}aware that anyone has even mentioned the idea to our head of collection
}development.
I am sure that the much more likely case is the various University
Computation Centers (and their ilk) have used their Library policies
as the basis for their Newsgroup policy -- I know we have because
I served on the committee which wrote it. If your site has not done
this I strongly recommend it -- having a policy which we have on hand
to give to a `complainant' has surely proved to be the proverbial
ounce of prevention.
John
--
John Hascall An ill-chosen word is the fool's messenger.
Project Vincent
Iowa State University Computation Center john@iastate.edu
Ames, IA 50011 (515) 294-9551
-------------------
From: lamontg@milton.u.washington.edu (Lamont Granquist)
Subject: Re: U of Washington Summary
Message-ID: <1991Oct18.023444.25352@milton.u.washington.edu>
References: <199110180040.AA04264@eff.org>
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 1991 02:34:44 GMT
kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>During a state audit of Central Washington University, an auditor
[...]
>While investigating the story, the Seattle newspapers discovered that
>the topic of sex is not banned at state universities. The headline of
I'm not sure if "the Seattle newspapers discovered that the topic of sex
is not banned at state universities" is what happened.
The reason why the shit hit the fan is that the UW Daily ran a story on
a social activity (midnight football) that grew out of the local BBS on
UW machines. This article casually mentioned something like: "...there
are various discussions ranging from physics to sex..."
That one word... "SEX"... is what led the reporters on the hunt to
expose the evil computer porno ring, thats corrupting the minds of our
children.
--
Lamont Granquist HALLUCINATION IN PROGRESS:
lamontg@u.washington.edu Stay tuned for further information
-------------------
From: dmittleman@misvax.mis.arizona.edu (Daniel Mittleman)
Subject: Re: alt.sex
Summary: I don't understand how this can be allowed to happen
Keywords: alt.sex censorship
Message-ID: <17OCT199119542932@misvax.mis.arizona.edu>
Date: 18 Oct 91 02:54:00 GMT
References: <1991Oct17.181138.9478@henson.cc.wwu.edu>
Distribution: alt,local
Nntp-Posting-Host: misvax.mis.arizona.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41
My concern is where all this (banning of alt.sex in Washington)
might lead.
I wonder where campuses will draw the line between what they
consider constructive discussion and what they consider
pornography. Someday very soon some Jesse Helms type character is
going to find out that there is a newsgroup called talk.abortion
and he is going to say, "They may have the freedom of speech to
talk about abortion all they want, but the federal government
surely doesn't have to pay for it." And he is going to do his
level best to see that the federal government puts no money
towards a USENET environment where abortion is discussed.
At the point that such actions are seriously considered - and I
see this alt.sex controversy a large step towards it - the
freedom of intellectual discourse on college campuses is
significantly diminished - and that is to the detriment of us all.
===========================================================================
daniel david mittleman - danny@arizona.edu - (602) 621-2932
"Have your people call my people and we'll do lunch."
-------------------
From: morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan)
Subject: What's good about Usenet
Message-ID: <1991Oct18.133235.6026@ms.uky.edu>
Date: 18 Oct 91 13:32:35 GMT
Article-I.D.: ms.1991Oct18.133235.6026
In article <1991Oct17.173839.23730@eff.org> Carl Kadie writes:
>
>The best thing about the Net is its diversity. Newsgroups cover almost
>every possible topic. For example, a dozen newsgroup cover different
>aspects of the Macintosh computer. The Chinese students studying in
>North American and Europe used the Net organize the resistance. For
>example, they exchanged fax numbers over the Net. There is a newsgroup
>just for the discussion of the the arabidopsis genome
>(bionet.genome.arbidopsis). There are newsgroups for discussion of
>controversial issues such as gun control, abortion, and
>evolution/creationism.
>
>Participants on the Net come from every continent (even Antarctica).
>
>The Net instantiates the ideal of a marketplace of ideas. It is a free
>forum, perhaps the broadest and most accessable ever to exists.
>
A few suggestions:
1) For clarity's sake, please explicitly discuss "Usenet" or "Netnews",
specifically mentioning that it is NOT part of the "network hierarchy"
of NSFNet and the like; it is network-independent. That's an impor-
tant point that many media mavens miss, since "Netnews" is a bit am-
biguous.
2) I'd mention that it encompasses everything from Cray supercomputers
to PCs in individual homes. It is available to almost anyone with
a PC and a telephone line.
3) It spans the academic, corporate, private, and governmental worlds. In
fact, those different perspectives form the basis of Usenet's "diversity".
4) It is helping to create "global citizens". The discussions in Usenet
tend to encompass *all* perspectives, be they nationalistic, geographic,
political, or any others you care to name. Almost every point of view
is available in every discussion.
--
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
-------------------
Xref: eff alt.censorship:2008 alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1312 alt.sex:21841
From: graham@cs.washington.edu (Stephen Graham)
Subject: Re: USENET censorship strikes University of Washington!
Message-ID: <1991Oct18.142025.13453@beaver.cs.washington.edu>
Date: 18 Oct 91 14:20:25 GMT
Article-I.D.: beaver.1991Oct18.142025.13453
References: <1991Oct17.183822.25287@eff.org> <1991Oct17.192431.10962@milton.u.washington.edu> <1991Oct17.232501.2595@milton.u.washington.edu>
Sender: news@beaver.cs.washington.edu (USENET News System)
In article <1991Oct17.232501.2595@milton.u.washington.edu> mrc@Tomobiki-Cho.CAC.Washington.EDU (Mark Crispin) writes:
>
>Personally, I feel that the fj.* hierarchy is more germaine to the
>university's purpose than alt.sex.pictures, but someone disinterested
>in Japan may have a different opinion. A conservative viewpoint would
>be to punt on the question and carry all the newsgroups the available
>resources can support.
I have to agree with Mark. There are a number of hierarchies we could
carry. There's no particular reason, other than disk space, not to
carry any of them, whether they be fj.* or *.pictures.
Personally, I'd like to see the can.* hierarchy carried.
--
Stephen Graham
graham@cs.washington.edu uw-beaver!june!graham
(206) 543-8115
-------------------
Xref: eff alt.censorship:2009 alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1313 alt.sex:21843
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: USENET censorship strikes University of Washington!
Message-ID: <1991Oct18.145819.23034@eff.org>
References: <7FyV01w164w@halcyon.com> <1991Oct16.180613.19161@eff.org> <1991Oct16.184802.20247@eff.org>
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 1991 14:58:19 GMT
jsaker@unomaha.edu (Jamie Saker) writes:
[...]
>What's hard for me to understand is how any journalist could ethically
>justify writing such a story. Granted, it's sensationalistic journalism
>that titilates readers, but violates the very principles that allow
>free journalistic expression in the first place. Such journalists are
>doing a -major- disservice to not only their profession and the people
>they are supposed to inform, but to the Constitution.
[...]
Here is an excerpt from "The First Amendment Book: Celebrating 200
Years of Freedom of the Press and Freedom of Speech". The author of
the book is Robert J. Wagman.
----begin excerpt----
An Introductory Note
[by Loren Ghiglione, Editor, The _News_, Southbridge, Massachusetts,
Immediate Past President, American Society of Newspaper Editors]
[...] Signs point to future generations of Americans, even more than
this one, devaluing a free press and accepting -- no, demanding -- a
more 'responsible,' less robust journalism:
* The number of high school newspapers declines. School
administrators, emboldened by the U.S. Supreme Court's _Hazelwood v.
Kuhlmeir_ decision (1988), make sure that many remaining student
papers shun controversy and print only bulletin-board tidbits -- honor
rolls, club news, and sports. Dorothy McPhilips, past president of the
Journalism Education Association, laments, 'What we are teaching the
students about censorship and control is that censorship is OK ....'
[...]
* The next generation of journalism -- print, computer, and television
merged into what some call interactive electronic journalism -- could
make it more difficult to preserve press freedom. Print, broadcast
and other media have traditionally been accorded different degrees of
First Amendment freedom, But when those media are no longer
distinct, new hybrid electronic publishers, says Congress's Office of
Technology Assessment, "may be forced to censor.'
[...]
But the ultimate irony may be that insofar as the public chooses to
restrict journalists' freedom, the public restricts its own freedom.
[...]
------------end of excerpt---
I think it is even more ironic that the press is encouraging the
public to restrict freedom of expression.
- 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: [alt.censorship] Censorship also hits Washington State U
Message-ID: <199110181537.AA24152@eff.org>
Sender: kadie
Date: 18 Oct 91 07:37:51 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
From: cmartin@yoda.eecs.wsu.edu (Charles Martin)
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 91 22:24:11 GMT
Normally, WSU is not affected by happenings at the U of Washington, but our
news feed to alt.sex.pictures was cut also. I have sent a polite note to our
sysadmin, asking whose decision it was and what the justifcation was. When I
get a response, I'll let you know.
--
Chuck Martin
cmartin@yoda.eecs.wsu.edu
One of these days, I'll think of something clever to put in here.
-------------------
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.censorship,alt.sex.pictures.d] Re: Censorship also hits Washington State U
Message-ID: <199110181538.AA24225@eff.org>
Sender: kadie
Date: 18 Oct 91 07:38:13 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
From: cmartin@yoda.eecs.wsu.edu (Charles Martin)
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 91 22:51:55 GMT
In article <1991Oct17.222411.5693@serval.net.wsu.edu> cmartin@yoda.eecs.wsu.edu (Charles Martin) writes:
>Normally, WSU is not affected by happenings at the U of Washington, but our
>news feed to alt.sex.pictures was cut also. I have sent a polite note to our
>sysadmin, asking whose decision it was and what the justifcation was. When I
>get a response, I'll let you know.
>
It turns out that we receive our Usenet feed from the U of Washington, so we are
being censored by them.
--
Chuck Martin
cmartin@yoda.eecs.wsu.edu
One of these days, I'll think of something clever to put in here.
-------------------
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Selection and Removal
Message-ID: <199110181611.AA24967@eff.org>
Sender: kadie
Date: 18 Oct 91 08:11:30 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
Controversial material should never be withdrawn on the say-so one
person. That is one piece of policy from the American Library
Association's "Workbook for Selection Policy Writing". The Workbook is
aimed at grade and high schools, but when the need arises it is
applicable to Universities. The full workbook is available via email.
Send email to archive-server@eff.org. Include the line:
send library-policies selection-workbook.ala
Here are some quotes from the Workbook:
---start---
Every school system should have a comprehensive policy on the
selection of instructional materials. It should relate to and include
all materials, e.g., textbooks, library books, periodicals, films,
video cassettes, records, cassettes, and CDs.
...
A comprehensive policy on the selection of instructional materials
will also enable school professionals to rationally explain the school
program to the community. And, most important in a crisis, when there
are complaints about social studies texts, human development materials
in the media center, or fiction in the English class, the use of the
"objectionable" item can more easily be explained.
A good policy on the selection of instructional materials
will include basic sections on objectives, responsibility,
criteria, procedures for selection, reconsideration of materials,
policies on controversial materials and other special areas of
concern to your particular system.
...
RESPONSIBILITY FOR SELECTION. Your policy should name by
professional position those persons who will have responsibility
for selection of textbooks and other instructional materials.
...
CRITERIA. In terms of the subject matter covered, your policy
will include criteria, and the application of criteria, relevant
to your objectives, excellence (artistic, literary, etc.),
appropriateness to level of user, superiority in treatment of
controversial issues, and ability to stimulate further
intellectual and social development. Consider authenticity,
appropriateness, interest, content, and circumstances of use.
...
The selection of learning resources on controversial
issues will be directed towards maintaining a diverse
collection representing various views.
...
POLICIES ON CONTROVERSIAL MATERIALS. Here, or in another place
in your policy you should include a statement on intellectual
freedom and why it is important to maintain. You may wish to
include the test of the First Amendment to the United States
Constitution - "Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise
thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or
the right of the people peaceable to assemble, and to petition
the Government for a redress of grievances," and the LIBRARY BILL
OF RIGHTS. (A copy is included at the end of this booklet.)
Sample Statement on intellectual freedom:
o The school board subscribes in principle to the
statements of policy on library philosophy as expressed
in the American Library Association LIBRARY BILL OF
RIGHTS, a copy of which is appended to and made a part
of this policy.
RECONSIDERATION. Occasional objections to instructional
materials will be made despite the quality of the selection
process; therefore, the procedure for handling reconsideration of
challenged materials in response to questions concerning their
appropriateness should be stated. This procedure should
establish the framework for registering a complaint that provides
for a hearing with appropriate action while defending the
principles of freedom of information, the student's right to
access of materials, and the professional responsibility and
integrity of the school faculty. The principles of intellectual
freedom are inherent in the First Amendment of the Constitution
of the United States and are expressed in the LIBRARY BILL OF
RIGHTS adopted by the Council of the American Library
Association. In the event instructional materials are
questioned, the principles of intellectual freedom should e
defended rather than the materials.
List here the specific steps that will be taken when you are
asked to reconsider materials in your collection. These steps
should include:
--asking the complainant to fill out a written complaint
form. (See attached form as an example.)
--assigning a review committee to examine the material in
question.
--requesting that the committee report their findings to the
school board.
The procedure for handling complaints should describe every
step from the initial response to the complaint through the
highest appeal.
o Procedure for handling complaints
No duly selected materials whose appropriateness is
challenged shall be removed from the school except upon
the recommendation of a review committee (as provided
for below) with the concurrence of the Superintendent
or, upon the Superintendent's recommendation, the
concurrence of the Board of Education, or upon formal
action of the Board of Education when a recommendation
of a review committee is appealed to it.
Procedures to be observed.
a. All complaints to staff members shall be reported
to the building principal involved, whether
received by telephone, letter, or in personal
conversation.
b. The principal shall contact the complainant to
discuss the complaint and attempt to resolve it
informally by explaining the philosophy and goals
of the school district and/or the library media
center.
c. If the complaint is not resolved informally, the
complainant shall be supplied with a packet of
materials consisting of the District's
instructional goals and objectives, materials
selection policy statement, and the procedure for
handling objections. This packet will also
include a standard printed form which shall be
completed and returned before consideration will
be given to the complaint.
d. If the formal request for reconsideration has not
been received by the principal within two weeks,
it shall be considered closed. If the request is
returned, the reasons for selection of the
specific work shall be reestablished by the
appropriate staff.
e. In accordance with statement of philosophy, no
questioned materials shall be removed from the
school pending a final decision. Pending the
outcome of the request for reconsideration,
however, access to questioned materials can be
denied to the child (or children) of the parents
making the complaint, if they so desire.
f. Upon receipt of a completed objection form, the
principal in the building involved will call
together a committee of five to consider the
complaint. This committee shall consist of the
curriculum director and from the school involved:
the principal, the library media center director,
a teacher, and a PTA representative.
g. The committee shall meet to discuss the material,
following the guidelines set forth in Instructions
to Evaluation Committee and shall prepare a report
on the material containing their recommendations
on disposition of the matter.
h. The principal shall notify complainant of the
decision and send a formal report and
recommendation to the Superintendent. In
answering the complainant, the principal shall
explain the book selection system, give the
guidelines used for selection, and cite
authorities used in reaching decisions. If the
committee decides to keep the work that caused the
complaint, the complainant shall be given an
explanation. If the complaint is valid, the
principal will acknowledge it and make recommended
changes .
i. If the complainant is still not satisfied, he/she
may ask the Superintendent to present an appeal to
the Board of Education which shall make a final
determination of the issue. The Board of
Education may seek assistance from outside
organizations such as the American Library
Association, the Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development, etc., in making its
determination.
SAMPLE LETTER TO COMPLAINT
Dear _______________ :
We appreciate your concern over the use of _________________
in our school district. The district has developed procedures
for selecting materials, but realize that not everyone will
agree with every selection made.
To help you understand the selection process, we are sending
copies of the district's:
1. Instructional goals and objectives
2. Materials Selection Policy statement
3. Procedure for Handling Objections
If you are still concerned after you review this material,
please complete the Request for Reconsideration of Material form
and return it to me. You may be assured of prompt attention to
your request. If I have not heard from you within two weeks, we
will assume you no longer wish to file a formal complaint.
Sincerely,
Principal
INSTRUCTIONS TO EVALUATING COMMITTEE
Bear in mind the principles of the freedom to learn and to
read and base your decision on these broad principles rather than
on defense of individual materials. Freedom of inquiry is vital
to education in a democracy.
Study thoroughly all materials referred to you and read
available reviews. The general acceptance of the materials
should be checked by consulting standard evaluation aids and
local holdings in other schools.
Passages or parts should not be pulled out of context. The
values and faults should be weighed against each other and the
opinions based on the materials as a whole.
Your report, presenting both majority and minority opinions,
will be presented by the principal to the complainant at the
conclusion of our discussion of the questioned material.
STATEMENT OF CONCERN ABOUT
LIBRARY/MEDIA CENTER RESOURCES
This is where you identify who in your own structure, has
authorized use of this form - Director, Board of Trustees, Board
of Education, etc. and to whom to return form.
Name ___________________________________________ Date ____________
Address ________________________________________
City ___________________ State ______ Zip ______ Phone # _________
1. Resources on which you are commenting:
___ Book ___ Audiovisual Resource
___ Magazine ___ Content of Library Program
___ Newspaper ___ Other
Title _______________________________________________________
Author/Producer ______________________________________________
2. What brought this title to your attention?
3. Please comment on the resource as a whole as well as being
specific on those matters which concern you. (Use other
side if needed.)
Comment:
Optional:
4. What resource(s) do you suggest to provide additional
information on this topic?
Revised by the ALA Intellectual Freedom Committee, January 12,
1983
------end-----
-------------------
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: "You shouldn't defend *that* stuff"
Message-ID: <199110181635.AA25534@eff.org>
Sender: kadie
Date: 18 Oct 91 08:35:21 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
Via email two people have expressed the opinion that some material
should not be defended.
I agree; there is no reason to defend particular pictures or erotic
stories. Rather we should defend the principles of academic freedom
(including the freedom to read and freedom of expression).
A university can certainly prohibit illegal activity on its campus. A
university should, however, act even handedly. Remember a scanned
picture of Calvin and Hobbs is just as bad (with respect to copyright)
as a scanned picture from Playboy.
- Carl
-------------------
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.config,news.groups,comp.org.eff.talk] U of Washington drops groups (was Re: Leave us alone [in alt.config])
Message-ID: <9110181703.AA03030@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 18 Oct 91 07:03:19 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
From: jeremy@milton.u.washington.edu (Jeremy York)
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 1991 06:25:02 GMT
**NOTE : please note the cross-posting of this article before you followup**
**My apologies if this is redundant, but I've seen no mention of this **
**outside of some local newsgroups until now. **
In article <1474@tau-ceti.isc-br.com> bobk@tau-ceti.isc-br.com (Bob Kirkpatrick
(Spokane)) writes:
>
>I've received e-mail from friends at the U of Washington. All of the
>binaries groups (regardless of name) have been dropped. this as a
>result of pressure from the administration. The change caused notice,
>and the notice caused politics, and now there's a site out there that
>is going totally without.
What happened was, all of the *pictures* groups were dropped. The reason
given by the sysadmins was that one of our universal access machines
has been overloaded for the past few months, and they've been looking
for ways to speed it up (moving mail processing to a different machine,
etc). Pictures groups, relative to others, are resource hogs, but I doubt
they actually chew up much CPU time.
Around the same time(14 Oct 91), a front page article in the morning paper
(Seattle Post-Intelligencer) broke the news that, gasp, pornographic pictures
and text were being stored and transmitted on university computers.
UW officials were quoted as saying that no action was planned, as they had
been advised free speech issues were involved. However, the state auditor's
office will be investigating.
A related incident at another state university was described (Central
Washington, I think), in which a computer admin had been demoted after
an investigation of this sort of thing by the state auditors office.
They neglected to say that the demotion had occurred more because of
a collection of copyrighted software and scanned pornography images,
and did not seem to involve Usenet that much. This was described in
the student newspaper shortly afterwards.
So, it would seem that the UW sysadmins had no love for the pictures
groups to begin with, and they had a wheezing machine providing usenet.
The political pressure was enough for them to decide to remove the
pictures groups. Or, it is within the realm of possibility that it was
coincidence that the decision and the article came so close together.
Anyway, I'm posting this because it's of interest to those concerned
about "the death of the net (tm)". I don't know if it has any
bearing to discussions of a pictures hierarchy, nor do I care.
I also don't mourn the pictures groups in the least, but it is
important to keep up with this thing so that it doesn't snowball.
--
jeremy@stat.washington.edu
-------------------
From: sw009@monmouth-emh1.army.mil (ASQM-SWM)
Subject: Re: An idea and request for assistance
Message-ID: <199110181702.AA26289@eff.org>
Sender: Sw009@monmouth-emh1.army.mil
Date: 18 Oct 91 17:03:21 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
After receiving this message at least fifteen times, I wonder if the distribution of it is congesting the system and hinering the flow of real traffic.
-Stan Berinstein
From kadie Sun Oct 20 09:22:32 1991
To: cafb-mail
Subject: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Status: R
Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Sun Oct 20 09:21:24 EDT 1991
[For information on how to get a much smaller edited version of the
list, send email to archive-server@eff.org. Include the line:
send acad-freedom caf
- Carl ]
In this issue:
kadie@eff.org (Car : (alt.censorship) Principles of free journalistic expressi
scott@oscws29.NoSu : Re: Newsgroups selection
yergeau@leland.Sta : Re: USENET censorship strikes University of Washington!
gordon@Sugar.NeoSo : Re: USENET censorship strikes University of Washington!
-- A sad state of affairs.
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: USENET censorship strikes University of Washington!
n8810182@beaker.cc : Re: State of Washington Censorship Summary
dave@bradley.bradl : Re: USENET censorship strikes University of Washington!
n8810182@beaker.cc : Re: Campus newsgroup
jburke@ocelot.csc. : Re: State of Washington Censorship Summary
chron!magic322!edt : Re: USENET censorship strikes University of Washington!
yergeau@leland.Sta : Re: USENET censorship strikes University of Washington!
paul@xcluud.sccsi. : Re: USENET censorship strikes University of Washington!
lamontg@milton.u.w : Re: "You shouldn't defend stuff"
orpheus@reed.edu ( : Re: Newsgroups selection
byron@archone.tamu : Re: USENET censorship strikes University of Washington!
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: [alt.censorship] Principles of free journalistic expression (was Re: USENET ...)
Message-ID: <199110181742.AA28393@eff.org>
Sender: kadie
Date: 18 Oct 91 09:42:34 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
From: yergeau@leland.Stanford.EDU (Dan Yergeau)
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 91 17:13:07 GMT
In article , jsaker@unomaha.edu (Jamie Saker) writes:
|> What's hard for me to understand is how any journalist could ethically
|> justify writing such a story. Granted, it's sensationalistic journalism
|> that titilates readers, but violates the very principles that allow
|> free journalistic expression in the first place. Such journalists are
|> doing a -major- disservice to not only their profession and the people
|> they are supposed to inform, but to the Constitution.
So, what you seem to be saying is that it is OK for journalists to report the
facts (i.e. that type of reporting is Constitutionally protected), but it is
not OK for a journalist to present an opinion or only one side of the story.
Hell, that alone would be a justification for closing down all of those liberal
rags professing more freedom.
Sorry, but we have to live with the bad if we are to have any freedom at all.
If you have a solution to this, please let me know.
|> When will our country get sick and tired of all of these special interest
|> groups cramming their ideologies down our throats?
Never, and I hope it never happens. 'Cuz that would mean that everyone would
apparently have the same ideology (or only minor variations of one). Is that
the something you could accept?
|> . Jamie Saker jsaker@odin.unomaha.edu .
Dan Yergeau
yergeau@gloworm.Stanford.EDU
#include
#include
-------------------
Xref: eff alt.censorship:2015 alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1321 alt.sex:21871
From: scott@oscws29.NoSubdomain.NoDomain (Scott Harding)
Subject: Re: Newsgroups selection
Message-ID: <1991Oct17.123644.15273@sunstone.uucp>
Date: 17 Oct 91 12:36:44 GMT
References: <4137@uqcspe.cs.uq.oz.au>
Sender: news@sunstone.uucp
Distribution: na
Nntp-Posting-Host: oscws29
In article , orpheus@reed.edu (P. Hawthorne) writes:
|>
|> gritton@irvine.ee.byu.edu (Jamie Gritton) writes:
|> . I worked hard to get news running here. I don't want to lose it. Being
|> . a rather moral person myself, I don't miss alt.sex.*, and I am quite
|> . willing to sacrifice it. Cest la vie.
|>
|> What are you reading this group for?
|> Tips on creative censorship methods or something?
|>
|>
|> kadie@eff.org writes:
|> . I assert that many moral people read alt.sex*. Discussion of sex is
|> . inherently not immoral. Moreover, reading material that advocates
|> . immorality, say Mein Kampf, is not inhearently immoral.
|>
|> To most conservative people I have met, immoral means just about anything
|> that they think other conservative people might consider immoral. It's a
|> prime recipe for neurosis and tyranny, if you ask me.
|>
|>
|> This may or may not be germaine to the discussion, but here goes:
|> Last I heard, Mormons bought and immediately closed every pornographic
|> movie house in Salt Lake City. Legal censorship by virtue of possession,
|> you might say.
HEY P! get a clue! The movie houses were shut down by Brent Ward, US
Attourney for Utah by virture of a plea bargain. Under the agreement,
The places would shut down and therefore would not be prosecuted under
pornography laws. The owners all agreed that the home video market was running
them out of business anyway and they felt that they could not afford the high
cost of the litigation.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
sdh | My opinions do not |
| necessarily reflect | Can You Whistle 300 baud?
Scott Harding | those of my employer. |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-------------------
Xref: eff alt.censorship:2016 alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1322
From: yergeau@leland.Stanford.EDU (Dan Yergeau)
Subject: Re: USENET censorship strikes University of Washington!
Message-ID: <1991Oct18.174544.2601@leland.Stanford.EDU>
Sender: news@leland.Stanford.EDU (Mr News)
References: <7FyV01w164w@halcyon.com> <1991Oct16.180613.19161@eff.org> <1991Oct16.184802.20247@eff.org> <1991Oct18.145819.23034@eff.org>
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 91 17:45:44 GMT
In article <1991Oct18.145819.23034@eff.org>, kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
|> Here is an excerpt from "The First Amendment Book: Celebrating 200
|> Years of Freedom of the Press and Freedom of Speech". The author of
|> the book is Robert J. Wagman.
Good book.
|> ----begin excerpt----
|> An Introductory Note
|>
|> [by Loren Ghiglione, Editor, The _News_, Southbridge, Massachusetts,
|> Immediate Past President, American Society of Newspaper Editors]
|>
|> [...]
|> But the ultimate irony may be that insofar as the public chooses to
|> restrict journalists' freedom, the public restricts its own freedom.
|>
|> [...]
|> ------------end of excerpt---
|>
|> I think it is even more ironic that the press is encouraging the
|> public to restrict freedom of expression.
Unfortunately, freedom of "expression" is not a right granted by the
Constitution. The only enumerated rights are freedom of speech, freedom
of the press, freedom of religion (at least in the "Hebrew-derived faiths"
realm), and freedom of assembly. The Supreme Court has given a limited
extension to other forms of expression, but they have not extended it
to all forms of expression.
What is really disgusting to me is that although text in electronic form
is protected under US copyright laws, it may not be a protected under
the Constitution as free speech. This has to change.
|> Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Dan Yergeau
yergeau@gloworm.Stanford.EDU
#include
#include
-------------------
Xref: eff alt.censorship:2017 alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1323 alt.sex:21874
From: gordon@Sugar.NeoSoft.com (Gordon Niessen)
Subject: Re: USENET censorship strikes University of Washington!
Message-ID: <1991Oct18.172406.6945@Sugar.NeoSoft.com>
Summary: A sad state of affairs.
References: <7FyV01w164w@halcyon.com> <1991Oct16.180613.19161@eff.org> <1991Oct16.220601.1230@zip.eecs.umich.edu>
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 1991 17:24:06 GMT
In article <1991Oct16.220601.1230@zip.eecs.umich.edu>, baillod@sparky.eecs.umich.edu (Brad Baillod) writes:
> In article <1991Oct16.180613.19161@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>
> It seems to me that USENET(*) should be hidden from the media as long
> as possible. Enough media attention would be enough to make most
> universities drop every alt.* newsgroup, especially ones like alt.evil,
> alt.sex.bestiality, and other alt.sex.* groups where stories might
> be posted about torture, etc.
>
> As soon as USA Today runs a story about USENET, universities will scramble
> to get questionable groups off their systems. Congress will pass a law
> requiring them to do so. And merely subscribing to an alt newsgroup will
> be grounds for forfeiting your possessions to the government (with half
> going to the informant(s):-).
>
> I think the rule should be, if a reporter asks about your system, show them
> the good, clean, wholesome newsgroups and not any of the dirty, bad,
> tasteless ones. The content of USENET should not be debated in the media.
> As soon as it starts to be, say goodbye to freedom of expression.
>
> (*) USENET=ALTNET here.
>
> Brad Baillod baillod@eecs.umich.edu
It is sad when in the U.S. of A. we have to worry about censorship. And
it is not something that we can fight. The people who will do the
censoring will probably never even look at USENET. They will read a story
in the paper, or see it on TV, and condem it. Maybe we should read a few
newspapers and pick out stories that we find offensive and condemn them on
USENET. But thenthey would just use that as another thing to censor
(unofficially).
I wonder if Judge Thomas would vote for or against alt.sex.beastiality?
--
/-------------------------------------------------------------------------\
| Gordon Niessen | My opinions are none of your business. |
| gordon@sugar.hackercorp.com | "Never underestimate a users stupidity" |
\-------------------------------------------------------------------------/
-------------------
Xref: eff alt.censorship:2018 alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1324
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: USENET censorship strikes University of Washington!
Message-ID: <1991Oct18.190602.822@eff.org>
References: <7FyV01w164w@halcyon.com> <1991Oct16.180613.19161@eff.org> <1991Oct16.184802.20247@eff.org> <1991Oct18.145819.23034@eff.org> <1991Oct18.174544.2601@leland.Stanford.EDU>
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 1991 19:06:02 GMT
yergeau@leland.Stanford.EDU (Dan Yergeau) writes:
[...]
>Unfortunately, freedom of "expression" is not a right granted by the
>Constitution. The only enumerated rights are freedom of speech, freedom
>of the press, freedom of religion (at least in the "Hebrew-derived faiths"
>realm), and freedom of assembly. The Supreme Court has given a limited
>extension to other forms of expression, but they have not extended it
>to all forms of expression.
[...]
The Court, even recently, has said that "expressive activity" at
public universities is Constitutionally protected. In what some will
see as another irony, here is a quote from the so-called abortion
gag-rule decision. (The decision is available via anonymous ftp from
uunet.uu.net:opinions/supreme-court/89-1391.)
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.
-------------------
From: n8810182@beaker.cc.wwu.edu (LittleOne)
Subject: Re: State of Washington Censorship Summary
Message-ID: <1991Oct18.190548.6783@henson.cc.wwu.edu>
Sender: news@henson.cc.wwu.edu (USENET-WWU)
References: <199110180040.AA04264@eff.org> <1991Oct18.153719.24096@eff.org>
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 1991 19:05:48 GMT
Subject: Re: State of Washington Censorship Summary
In-Reply-To: <1991Oct18.153719.24096@eff.org>
References: <199110180040.AA04264@eff.org>
Cc:
Bcc:
In article <1991Oct18.153719.24096@eff.org> you write:
>[Followup to alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk.]
>
>This is a summary of the situation and information about how to get
>more information. If anyone can offer corrections or more details
>(like what really happened at CWU?), please post them.
>
>SUMMARY:
>
>During a state audit of Central Washington University, an auditor
>reportedly found that an employee was using the machine for private
>gain. The use may have involved graphics files of naked people on an
>administrative machine. The employee was demoted.
>
>While investigating the story, the Seattle newspapers discovered that
>the topic of sex is not banned at state universities. The headline of
>the Seattle Post-Intelligencer article on page 1 was "Pornography
>files in UW [University of Washington] computer". The Seattle Times
>headline was "State Probing Probing Porn Files in UW Computer".
>
>In the aftermath of the newspaper articles, the alt.sex newsgroup has
>been removed from Western Washington University by "administrative
>request". The University of Washington has so far resisted pressure to
You better bet they banned us... for more info,
please read below!
>censor computer material. According to an official at U. of
>Washington, the University is developing a selection policy for
>computer material. The policy may be based on library selection
>policy. (Aside: The U. of Washington library, like most academic
>libraries, subscribes to Playboy).
>
>HOW TO GET MORE INFORMATION
>
>An archive file of (some of) the Usenet articles about the situation
>is available. Send email to archive-server@eff.org. Include the line:
> help
> send acad-freedom u.washington.edu
>
>Much of the discussion has taken place in the Computers and Academic
>Freedom (CAF) group. This group is available as newsgroup
>alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk. It is also available in mailing list form.
>For information on the mailing list, send email to
>archive-server@eff.org. Include the line:
> send acad-freedom caf
>If crossposting to alt.sex and alt.censorship decreases, the CAF
>discussion group will be the best place to follow the story.
>
>Finally, all kinds of information is available in the CAF
>archive. It is accessible via anonymous ftp from ftp.eff.org.
>Look at files pub/academic/README and pub/academic/library/README.
>The material is also available via email. For information on email
>access, send email to archive-server@eff.org. Include the lines:
> help
> indexn
> send acad-freedom README
> send library-policies README
>
>- Carl
>
>
>--
>Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
>I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
If you or any of your friends are interested
in fighting back, please send me a note! I'm
mad as hell and I'm not going to stand for it.
If you have any suggestions on how to battle
this or wish to address the originator of the
requested ban please let me know. I may need
all the help I can get.
To contact me, try n8810182@henson.cc.wwu.edu
Please, do NOT send mail to Vickieh@nessie
(which is in my sig) unless it is a LAST
resort. I am a consultant and do not wish
to be reprimanded for using that account for
this purpose. I am acting on my OWN behalf
and do not wish to be affliated with the
Computer Center of WWU in this circumstance.
--
/) / /~~\ * Vickie Hoover
/ * _/__/_ / _ / ) __ _ * n8810182@henson.cc.wwu.edu
/ / / / / / ) ( /-// ) / ) * 8810182@nessie.cc.wwu.edu
(_____ (_/(_/(_/ /_ (_/_/ \__/ / /_(_/_/ * VickieH@nessie.cc.wwu.edu
-------------------
Xref: eff alt.censorship:2019 alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1326
From: dave@bradley.bradley.edu (David Vessell)
Subject: Re: USENET censorship strikes University of Washington!
Message-ID: <1991Oct18.190037.12467@bradley.bradley.edu>
References: <7FyV01w164w@halcyon.com> <1991Oct16.180613.19161@eff.org> <1991Oct16.184802.20247@eff.org> <1991Oct18.145819.23034@eff.org> <1991Oct18.174544.2601@leland.Stanford.EDU>
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 91 19:00:37 GMT
yergeau@leland.Stanford.EDU (Dan Yergeau) writes:
>Unfortunately, freedom of "expression" is not a right granted by the
>Constitution. The only enumerated rights are freedom of speech, freedom
>of the press, freedom of religion (at least in the "Hebrew-derived faiths"
>realm), and freedom of assembly. The Supreme Court has given a limited
>extension to other forms of expression, but they have not extended it
>to all forms of expression.
Haazavaa? I'm no Constitution scholar or anything, but I thought the
Constitution imposed limits on the government, not the other way around.
The Bill of Rights was added so that specific rights would receive special
protection, but that was not to suggest that we were limited to only those
rights. Certainly someone versed in Constitutional history can elaborate
on this more eloquently than I can.
We shouldn't be asking "Do we have Right X?". What it seems we *should* be
doing is asking "What justifies the goverment in limiting Right X?".
This seems like a bit of an obvious point, so I apologize if I've just
added to a cascade of identical responses....
--
========*davE*.....making the world safe for intelligent dance music.========
"It's gilt-edged, it's glamourous and sleek by design, you know it's jealous
by nature, false and unkind......It's hard to restrain and it's totally cruel,
It touches and it teases as you stumble in the debris...." -- Eurythmics
-------------------
From: n8810182@beaker.cc.wwu.edu (LittleOne)
Subject: Re: Campus newsgroup
Message-ID: <1991Oct18.191320.7250@henson.cc.wwu.edu>
Date: 18 Oct 91 19:13:20 GMT
References: <1991Oct17.175158.24068@eff.org> <1991Oct17.191314.6925@milton.u.washington.edu>
Sender: news@henson.cc.wwu.edu (USENET-WWU)
In article <1991Oct17.191314.6925@milton.u.washington.edu> lamontg@milton.u.washington.edu (Lamont Granquist) writes:
>kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>>p.s. Do U. of Washington and Western Washington U. have campus
>>newsgroups?
yes, wwu.general if ya wish to post there.
>
>UW has campus newsgroups, and a campus BBS system that is separate from
>USENET run by students.
>
>--
>Lamont Granquist HALLUCINATION IN PROGRESS:
>lamontg@u.washington.edu Stay tuned for further information
What you guys have heard about the pulling of those news groups is correct.
The Vice Provost, who knows little or nothing about computers demanding
that they be removed. I plan on fighting this every step of the way.
-------------------
From: jburke@ocelot.csc.wsu.edu (John Burke)
Subject: Re: State of Washington Censorship Summary
Message-ID: <1991Oct18.181539.27263@serval.net.wsu.edu>
Sender: news@serval.net.wsu.edu (USENET News System)
References: <199110180040.AA04264@eff.org> <1991Oct18.153719.24096@eff.org>
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 91 18:15:39 GMT
They haven't begun censoring yet? BALONEY! We have not been getting any
thing from the alt.sex.pictures or alt.binaries.erotica for about a week now.
They are DEFINITELY censoring these newsgroups. Since our newsfeed comes
from the UW, we are being censored. Anybody know how I can get an alternate
newsfeed?????
Don't you just love living in a FREE country?????
--
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
| John Burke | burke@ocelot.csc.wsu.edu | Home of something, but I haven't |
| | burke@yoda.eecs.wsu.edu | come up with a better .signature |
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
-------------------
From: chron!magic322!edtjda@uunet.UU.NET (Joe Abernathy)
Subject: Re: USENET censorship strikes University of Washington!
Message-ID: <9110182357.AA00568@magic322.chron.com>
Sender: chron!magic322!edtjda@uunet.UU.NET
Date: 18 Oct 91 23:57:56 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
Gordon Niessen writes:
It is sad when in the U.S. of A. we have to worry about censorship. And
it is not something that we can fight. The people who will do the
censoring will probably never even look at USENET. They will read a story
in the paper, or see it on TV, and condem it. Maybe we should read a few
newspapers and pick out stories that we find offensive and condemn them on
USENET.
Been done.
:-)
-------------------
Xref: eff alt.censorship:2024 alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1330
From: yergeau@leland.Stanford.EDU (Dan Yergeau)
Subject: Re: USENET censorship strikes University of Washington!
Message-ID: <1991Oct18.235359.17006@leland.Stanford.EDU>
Sender: news@leland.Stanford.EDU (Mr News)
References: <7FyV01w164w@halcyon.com> <1991Oct16.180613.19161@eff.org> <1991Oct16.184802.20247@eff.org> <1991Oct18.145819.23034@eff.org> <1991Oct18.174544.2601@leland.Stanford.EDU> <1991Oct18.190037.12467@bradley.bradley.edu>
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 91 23:53:59 GMT
In article <1991Oct18.190037.12467@bradley.bradley.edu>, dave@bradley.bradley.edu (David Vessell) writes:
|> yergeau@leland.Stanford.EDU (Dan Yergeau) writes:
|>
|> >Unfortunately, freedom of "expression" is not a right granted by the
|> >Constitution. The only enumerated rights are freedom of speech, freedom
|> >of the press, freedom of religion (at least in the "Hebrew-derived faiths"
|> >realm), and freedom of assembly. The Supreme Court has given a limited
|> >extension to other forms of expression, but they have not extended it
|> >to all forms of expression.
|>
|> Haazavaa? I'm no Constitution scholar or anything, but I thought the
|> Constitution imposed limits on the government, not the other way around.
|> The Bill of Rights was added so that specific rights would receive special
|> protection, but that was not to suggest that we were limited to only those
|> rights. Certainly someone versed in Constitutional history can elaborate
|> on this more eloquently than I can.
Even though the Bill of Rights does limit the powers of the government, it does
not provide for punitive means to help to supress those who try hard to restrict
these rights. Otherwise over half of congress and the president would be serving
time for trying to make flag burning illegal.
The Bill of Rights, however, is not absolute, nor is it well defined. Some of
the more notable holes in our "guaranteed" rights are (summarized from "The First
Amendment Book: Celebrating 200 Years of Freedom of the Press and Freedom of
Speech" by Robert J. Wagman).
"Congress" - Does this mean the Federal Government or the sum of all governing bodies?
It wasn't until after the 14th Amendment that this was supposedly able to be applied
to state and local laws. Even after the 14th Amendment, it was still several years
before it was applied consistantly. Now, the Supreme Court is returning to allowing
"Community Standards" laws which restrict 1st Amendment rights. For a history lesson,
one of the original proposed amendments dealt with making these same right apply to
states, as well as the central government. This was quickly shot down. It wasn't
until the post-Civil War abuses by the states that it considered necessary to extend
the meaning of "Congress."
"Speech, press, religion, assembly, and petition" - These are the only enumerated
rights regarding expression. Art, dance, and actions have all been challenged.
The Supreme Court does not seem to want to give blanket protection (to the degree
of speech or press) to expression in other forms.
"No law" - Of course, that can't mean "NO law," since some of the rights may be
in conflict with other guaranteed rights, or with the "right" of the government
to preserve itself (and, hence, be able to further guarantee the righs of
individuals), or even with accepted English-style common law. This has been
held to mean "no unreasonable law." There was once a time in this country,
under the Constitution, when you could not speak out against a government
official without fear of being punished by the government (because an overly
criticized government cannot effectively keep order and preserve itself).
|> We shouldn't be asking "Do we have Right X?". What it seems we *should* be
|> doing is asking "What justifies the goverment in limiting Right X?".
Agreed. I wasn't really asking "Do we have Right X". It was more along
the lines of "Is X Constitutionally protected." This country has come a long
way in increasing freedom since the Constitution and BOR have been ratified.
But, along with the increased freedoms have also come exceptions (for a
variety of reasons, some justifiable, other obscenely unexcusable).
|> This seems like a bit of an obvious point, so I apologize if I've just
|> added to a cascade of identical responses....
Obvious, but a bit simplistic. The above book gives some very good insight
into the complexity of the issues, as well as providing a history of the
highlights concerning FA rights.
Dan Yergeau
yergeau@gloworm.Stanford.EDU
#include
-------------------
Xref: eff alt.censorship:2026 alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1331 alt.sex:21902
From: paul@xcluud.sccsi.com (Paul Hutmacher)
Subject: Re: USENET censorship strikes University of Washington!
Message-ID: <1991Oct18.044752.20250@xcluud.sccsi.com>
References: <7FyV01w164w@halcyon.com> <1991Oct16.180613.19161@eff.org> <1991Oct16.220601.1230@zip.eecs.umich.edu>
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 91 04:47:52 GMT
In article <1991Oct16.220601.1230@zip.eecs.umich.edu> baillod@sparky.eecs.umich.edu (Brad Baillod) writes:
>It seems to me that USENET(*) should be hidden from the media as long
>as possible. Enough media attention would be enough to make most
>universities drop every alt.* newsgroup, especially ones like alt.evil,
>alt.sex.bestiality, and other alt.sex.* groups where stories might
>be posted about torture, etc.
Too late. They already are here. Most of the major dailies have their own
newsfeeds.
>As soon as USA Today runs a story about USENET, universities will scramble
>to get questionable groups off their systems. Congress will pass a law
>requiring them to do so. And merely subscribing to an alt newsgroup will
>be grounds for forfeiting your possessions to the government (with half
>going to the informant(s):-).
It hasn't happened yet.
>I think the rule should be, if a reporter asks about your system, show them
>the good, clean, wholesome newsgroups and not any of the dirty, bad,
>tasteless ones. The content of USENET should not be debated in the media.
>As soon as it starts to be, say goodbye to freedom of expression.
If a reporter asks to see my system I guess he'll get to see it. I already
have one on my system with access to everything.
Not that it makes a whole lot of difference. The media is on the net and
have been reading you already. Hiding things or trying to hide things only
makes it worse.
--
paul@xcluud.sccsi.com | "The name of an array points to the first element
nuchat!xcluud!paul | of an array. The name of an array is an address."
-------------------
From: lamontg@milton.u.washington.edu (Lamont Granquist)
Subject: Re: "You shouldn't defend *that* stuff"
Message-ID: <1991Oct19.004233.26330@milton.u.washington.edu>
References: <199110181635.AA25534@eff.org>
Date: Sat, 19 Oct 1991 00:42:33 GMT
kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>Via email two people have expressed the opinion that some material
>should not be defended.
>
>I agree;
Sorry to disagree Carl, but I just defended every single post I've seen made
to alt.sex.pictures (based on "moral" content alone).
--------------- great*sex #955 (21 lines) ---------------
Date: Fri Oct 18 16:57:38 1991
From: In madness you dwell
Subject: the "really raunchy stuff"
Yeah, I looked through a few of them about a month back. Everything from
reasonably tasteful shots of nudes, to apparently a sequence of pictures
with horses involved. The really fun thing to do is to get some of the totally
rediculous ones (ie. 63EEE or the horse) and see if you can find if the
picture had been altered, and if it was airbrushed or done with a computer...
I found a few that were missing certain anatomical features that I'm sure
should have been there, and others that the shadows, lights, etc just didn't
look quite right.
(Likewise I took apart a XXX animation package for a PC and discovered that
it was based on an simple page-flipping animation engine, and that presumably
any pictures, in the correct format, could be substituted -- I don't limit
my curiosity by anyone else's "morality").
However, I agree with removing alt.sex.pictures due to the blantant copywrite
infringement which goes on there. However, I would like to see
alt.binaries.pictures restored with a 24 or 48 hour expire time. Although
there are copywrite infringements there are also ray-tracings which are most
certainly original.
[No more messages in this room.]
bb-great*sex:35/35>
--
Lamont Granquist HALLUCINATION IN PROGRESS:
lamontg@u.washington.edu Stay tuned for further information
-------------------
Xref: eff alt.censorship:2031 alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1333 alt.sex:21919
From: orpheus@reed.edu (P. Hawthorne)
Subject: Re: Newsgroups selection
Message-ID:
Date: 19 Oct 91 04:36:12 GMT
References: <1991Oct17.123644.15273@sunstone.uucp>
Sender: nobody@reed.edu (anonymous NFS user)
Distribution: na
[I tried to respond to this by mail, but not surprisingly, it bounced.]
scott@oscws29.NoSubdomain.NoDomain (Scott Harding) writes:
. HEY P! get a clue! The movie houses were shut down by Brent Ward, US
. Attourney for Utah by virture of a plea bargain. Under the agreement,
. The places would shut down and therefore would not be prosecuted under
. pornography laws. The owners all agreed that the home video market was
. running them out of business anyway and they felt that they could not
. afford the high cost of the litigation.
I was visiting Salt Lake City, my home town, when that happened. What I
mentioned in passing was what KSL reported that afternoon. Perhaps the
report was preliminary, or I may be going senile.
So, it would seem that they were legislated out rather than bought out.
Gee, that seems even more sinister, doesn't it?
Maybe Senator Hatch could set up an amusement park to compete with that
Sodom of amusement parks, Lagoon.
The horror rides could have freedom of expression and equality between
people pop out at you when you were least expecting it, but kiddies could
only ride if accompanied by a brood mare at least 24 inches tall.
The thrill rides could be running over teenage mothers in steam engines
and leaving toddlers in a room with someone who doesn't want them around
for twenty years.
The Canal of Love could be a monument to modern surveillance gear,
where you would ride past one-way mirrors and tungsten lights in little
boats, single file by race and gender of course.
I sure am glad I don't live in Utah any more, beautiful though the
terrain may be.
scott@oscws29.NoSubdomain.NoDomain (Scott Harding) puts in his .sig:
. Can You Whistle 300 baud?
Not for long. But I've seen people whistle ^D right off the bat.
''True and Unbiased News -- the highest original moral concept ever
developed in America and given the world.''
Kent Cooper, _Barriers Down_
Theus
orpheus@reed.edu
--
-------------------
Xref: eff alt.censorship:2035 alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1334 alt.sex:21937
From: byron@archone.tamu.edu (Byron Rakitzis)
Subject: Re: USENET censorship strikes University of Washington!
Message-ID: <4976@tamsun.TAMU.EDU>
Date: 19 Oct 91 08:21:10 GMT
Article-I.D.: tamsun.4976
References: <1991Oct16.180613.19161@eff.org> <1991Oct16.220601.1230@zip.eecs.umich.edu> <1991Oct16.232250.23487@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
Sender: usenet@tamsun.TAMU.EDU
Followup-To: alt.censorship
Distribution: na
In article <1991Oct16.232250.23487@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> olt@sili.isgs.uiuc.edu writes:
>In <1991Oct16.220601.1230@zip.eecs.umich.edu> baillod@sparky.eecs.umich.edu (Brad Baillod) writes:
>]It seems to me that USENET(*) should be hidden from the media as long
>]as possible. Enough media attention would be enough to make most
>]universities drop every alt.* newsgroup, especially ones like alt.evil,
>]alt.sex.bestiality, and other alt.sex.* groups where stories might
>]be posted about torture, etc.
>]I think the rule should be, if a reporter asks about your system, show them
>]the good, clean, wholesome newsgroups and not any of the dirty, bad,
>]tasteless ones. The content of USENET should not be debated in the media.
>]As soon as it starts to be, say goodbye to freedom of expression.
> Uh-oh...the local student rag here at Univ. of Illinois is going to be
>running a story about the net (soon?). The reporter posted to several of
>the local newsgroups, soliciting net.anecdotes. One can only hope she uses
>discretion...watch this space for "USENET Censorship at University of Illi-
>nois!"
I just want to point out one thing: according to what I heard recently
from a journalism professor specializing in first amendment rights,
if a state institution (such as Texas A&M or the University of Illinois)
sets up a forum for exchange of information, then the law prevents
the institution from closing down that forum based on its CONTENT. They
may close it down e.g., due to lack of funds.
I know this has been covered well w.r.t. printed material. For example,
a case where a student publication devoted to creative writing which was
shut down by university officials because of sexually explicit content
has appeared before the 5th district courts. The courts have invariably
come down on the side of free expression.
Now, I do not know how this extends to electronic media, and I am definitely
not a lawyer or a scholar of the US Constitution. But it seems to me that
a state university cannot drop an alt.* group just because the administrators
think its content is risque.
I would like to see something like this go to court to see what happens.
--
Byron Rakitzis | Member of the League for Programming Freedom
byron@archone.tamu.edu | (league@prep.ai.mit.edu)
From kadie Sun Oct 20 09:23:21 1991
To: cafb-mail
Subject: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Status: R
Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Sun Oct 20 09:23:00 EDT 1991
[For information on how to get a much smaller edited version of the
list, send email to archive-server@eff.org. Include the line:
send acad-freedom caf
- Carl ]
In this issue:
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: USENET censorship strikes University of Washington!
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (comp.admin.policy) SUMMARY: Undergrad Internet Access
jangerma@magnus.ac : Re: (alt.sex) Re: UW, Seattle P-I, and alt.sex.pictures
kadie@eff.org (Car : Library Bill of Rights (rerun)
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.censorship:2038 alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1335
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: USENET censorship strikes University of Washington!
Message-ID: <1991Oct19.151904.20184@eff.org>
References: <1991Oct16.180613.19161@eff.org> <1991Oct16.220601.1230@zip.eecs.umich.edu> <1991Oct16.232250.23487@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> <4976@tamsun.TAMU.EDU>
Date: Sat, 19 Oct 1991 15:19:04 GMT
byron@archone.tamu.edu (Byron Rakitzis) writes:
>I just want to point out one thing: according to what I heard recently
>from a journalism professor specializing in first amendment rights,
>if a state institution (such as Texas A&M or the University of Illinois)
>sets up a forum for exchange of information, then the law prevents
>the institution from closing down that forum based on its CONTENT. They
>may close it down e.g., due to lack of funds.
Here is a reference and a quote:
[From Public School Law: Teachers' and Students' Rights by Martha M.
McCarthy and Nelda H. Cambron-McCabe:]
----- begin quote----
School Sponsorship of Student Publications
School authorities often have claimed that they exert more control
over school-sponsored publications than over nonschool material, but
the judiciary has recognized that constitutional protections apply to
both types of student literature. Mere school affiliation does not
remove student literature from first amendment protection. The
judiciary has reasoned that a governmental body "is not necessarily
the unfettered master of all it creates." Thus, the content of a
school-sponsored paper that is established as a medium for student
expression cannot be regulated more closely than a nonsponsored paper.
For example, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals [Connecticut, New
York, Vermont - Carl] affirmed a decision in which the federal
district court held that a [high school] principle could not prohibit
the distribution of a school-sponsored newspaper in which students
placed a four-page supplement with information about contraception and
abortion. The court noted that the articles in the supplement were
intended to convey information and that the subjects were treated in a
serious manner. While recognizing that the supplement might create
some controversy, the court reasoned that it did not threaten a
disruption in the educational environment.
Although 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. In essence, school
authorities cannot withdraw support from a student publication simply
because of displeasure with the content. [...]
---- end of quote---
>I know this has been covered well w.r.t. printed material. For example,
>a case where a student publication devoted to creative writing which was
>shut down by university officials because of sexually explicit content
>has appeared before the 5th district courts. The courts have invariably
>come down on the side of free expression.
The Supreme Court's Public Forum Doctrine is based on function, not
medium. It already covers everything from campus mail systems, to
traditional bulletin boards, to student newspapers. In my opinion, it
doesn't need to be extended to apply to campus BBS and Usenet
facilities, merely applied.
In San Diego Committee v. Governing Bd., 790 F.2d 1471 (1986), the
appellate court applied the principles set down by the Supreme Court
saying:
-- begin quote ---
III. THE PUBLIC FORUM DOCTRINE AND THE FIRST AMENDMENT
[...]
The values embodied in the First Amendment require the state, under
certain circumstances, to provide members of the public with access to
its facilities for purpose of speech. Certain state facilities, which
may be appropriately used for communication, enjoy special
constitution status as "public forums." [...references...] In these
public forums, the First Amendment narrowly circumscribes the
government's power to exclude or regulate speech. Of course, a state's
mere ownership or control of a facility does not, in itself, guarantee
access under the First Amendment. [... references ...] Similarly,
merely permitting public access to a government facility does not
necessarily open it for use as a public forum. [... references ...]
However, even with respect to nonpublic forums, the state may not act
unreasonably. _Cornelius_, 105 S.Ct at 3448.
In _Perry_ and _Cornelius_, the Supreme Court identified three types of
forums to which the public's right to access varies, as does the type
of limitations the state may impose upon the right. The Court first
focused on "places which by long tradition or by government fiat have
been devoted to assembly and debate," such as streets and parks, where
"the rights of the state to limit expressive activity are sharply
circumscribed. [...references...] The Court stated that
"{i}n these quintessential public forums, the government may not
prohibit all communicative activity. For the state to enforce a
content-based exclusion it mush show that its regulation is necessary
to serve a compelling state interest and that it is narrowly drawn to
achieve that end. The state may also enforce regulations of the time,
place and manner of expression which are content-neutral, are narrowly
tailored to serve a significant government interest, and leave open
amble alternative channels for communcations. _Perry_
[...reference...]"
The second type of public forum on which the Court focused consists of
"public property which the State has opened for use by the public as a
place for expressive activity." [refs] The courts have come to call
this type of public forum a "limited public forum" or a "public forum
by designation." In such a forum, "{t}he Constitution forbids a state
to enforce certain exclusions from a forum generally open to the
public even if it was not required to create the forum in the first
place." [refs] A limited public forum may, depending on its nature and
the nature of the state's actions, be open to the general public for
the discussion of all topics, or there may be limitations on the
groups allowed to use the forums or the topics that can be discussed.
Thus, a limited public forum may be open to certain groups for the
discussion if any topic, [ref] or to the entire public for the
discussion of certain topics, [ref] or some combination of the two.
Once the state has created a limited public forum, its ability to
impose further constraints on the type of speech permitted in that
forum is quite restricted:
"{a}lthough a State is not required to indefinitely retain the open
character of the facility, as long as it does so it is bound by the
same standards as apply in a traditional public forum. Reasonable
time, place, and manner regulations are permissible, and a
content-based prohibition must be narrowly drawn to effectuate a
compelling state interest." [refs]
"Thus the identical broad free speech rights attach to the first and
second types of public forums, [ref]although in the latter type of
forums those broad rights apply only within the particular boundaries
of the specific forum that has been established.
The third type of forum is "{p}ublic property ... which is not by
tradition or designation a forum for public communications," [ref]
such as a military base or jail. The Court recognized that this type of forum is governed by standard different from those applicable to the first two. The
Court stated that
"{i}n addition to time, place, and manner regulations, the state may
reserve the forum for its intended purposes, communicative or
otherwise, as long as that regulation on speech is _reasonable_". [ref]
"The existence of reasonable grounds for limiting access to a
nonpublic forum, however, will not save a regulation that is in
reality a facade for viewpoint-based discrimination." _Cornelius_,
105 S.Ct. at 3454.
IV. SCHOOL NEWSPAPERS AS A LIMITED PUBLIC FORUM
The Board first contends that the school newspaper falls into the
third category of forums, nonpublic forums. We disagree, and hold that
the newspapers fall into the second category, limited pubic forums.
In deciding whether a particular forum is a limited public forum or a
nonpublic forum, we must determine what type of forum the government
intended to created. [ref] The government's intent is evidenced by
"{its} policy and practice ... {as well as} the nature of the property
and its compatibility with expressive activity." [ref]
In the case before use, the evidence clearly indicates an intent to
create a limited public forum. Newspapers, including the Board's are
devoted entirely to expressive activity. Everything that appears in a
newspaper is speech, whether commercial, political, artistic, or some
other type. It is difficult to think of any other kind of property that
is more compatible with expressive activity. In addition, the admitted
policy and practice of the Board is to allow a particular group -- the
students -- to discuss any topic in the newspapers, subject only to
certain conditions not relevant to the issues before us. Thus, under
the test enumerated in _Cornelius_, the Board's newspapers, like most
other school papers constitute, at a minimum, a limited public forum of
the type found in _Widmar_. [ref]
[...]
Thus, the Board has allowed certain members of the public -- various
military recruiters -- to use its newspapers to engage in speech that
is not essentially commercial in nature but that combines elements of
political and commercial speech. As a result, the Board's _actual_
policy and practice leads, under _Cornelius_, to the conclusion that
the Board has established the school newspapers as a limited public
forum in which students can discuss any topic, and in which
non-students can engage in commercial speech generally and in speech
which is both political and commercial with respect to at least on
important and highly controversial topic -- military service. Because
the Board on a number of occasions permitted the publication of
advertisements advocating military service, there can be no question
by that the Board intended to open the newspapers for advertisements
on this topic -- at least by one side to the debate.
[...]
B. Viewpoint-Based Discrimination
Furthermore, it appears that the Board was engaging in viewpoint-based
discrimination. By allowing the publication of the military
recruitment advertisements, the Board allowed the presentation of one
side of a highly controversial issue. The Board provided a forum to
those who advocated military service. The Board then refused, without
a valid reason, to allow those who oppose military service to use the
same forum. The only reasonable inference is that the Board was
engaging in viewpoint discrimination. As the Supreme Court has stated,
"{t}o permit one side of a debatable public question to have a
monopoly in expressing its views ... is the antithesis of
constitutional guarantees." _City of Madison_ [refs] In other words,
"the First Amendment means that the government has no power to
restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject
matter, or its content. _Bolger v. Youngs Drug Products Corp_ [ref].
Viewpoint-based discrimination is not permitted even in a non-public
forum. _Cornelius_ [ref]. Accordingly, the Board's viewpoint
discrimination provides a second ground for holding that even if the
school newspapers do not constitute a public forum, the Board violated
the First Amendment in excluding CARD's advertisement.
--
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: Toward a taxonomy of arguments for censorship of alt.sex
Message-ID: <1991Aug29.162832.11923@eff.org>
References: <2B4DC7B358804D3E@ccmail.sunysb.edu>
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 1991 16:28:32 GMT
SKAPUR@ccmail.sunysb.edu (Sanjay Kapur) writes:
>>1. "Any price for freedom is too high."
>> If I carry alt.sex, someone might object, and this would be
>> an inconvenience to me. I or my university might even get sued,
>> and if so, the bad guys might win.
>An inconvenience to me is a loss of MY freedom. I am thoroughly convinced that
>people are confusing the freedom of the press with freedom of speech. Freedom
>of press, the current model for Usenet, is the freedom of the owner of the
>press, i.e. the owner of the hardware. Just as a magazine or newspaper
>publisher publishes what they want according to their convenience, so does a
>Usenet computer owner.
[...]
[From Public School Law: Teachers' and Students' Rights by Martha M.
McCarthy and Nelda H. Cambron-McCabe:]
----- begin quote----
School Sponsorship of Student Publications
School authorities often have claimed that they exert more control
over school-sponsored publications than over nonschool material, but
the judiciary has recognized that constitutional protections apply to
both types of student literature. mere school affiliation does not
remove student literature from first amendment protection. The
judiciary has reasoned that a governmental body "is not necessarily
the unfettered master of all it creates." Thus, the content of a
school-sponsored paper that is established as a medium for student
expression cannot be regulated more closely than a nonsponsored paper.
For example, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals [Connecticut, New
York, Vermont - Carl] affirmed a decision in which the federal
district court held that a [high school] principle could not prohibit
the distribution of a school-sponsored newspaper in which students
placed a four-page supplement with information about contraception and
abortion. The court noted that the articles in the supplement were
intended to convey information and that the subjects were treated in a
serious manner. While recognizing that the supplement might create
some controversy, the court reasoned that it did not threaten a
disruption in the educational environment.
Although 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. In essence, school
authorities cannot withdraw support from a student publication simply
because of displeasure with the content. [...]
---- end of quote---
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
>From comp-academic-freedom-talk-request@eff.org Mon Aug 26 17:41:52 1991
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 1991 21:32:02 GMT
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Message-Id: <1991Aug26.213202.23932@eff.org>
From: comp-academic-freedom-talk-request@eff.org
References: <475E3B736880119D@ccmail.sunysb.edu>
Subject: Re: Netnews censorship at U. of Kentucky
Status: OR
>> In an
>>illustrative case, the Eight Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a
>>university could not change its funding policy for a student paper
>>based on the 'hue and cry' of the public objecting to a particular
>>issue {78}.
SKAPUR@ccmail.sunysb.edu (Sanjay Kapur) writes:
[...]
>But what if the reason is any one of:
>1) Fear of a libel suit
>2) Anti-pornography laws
>3) Running out of funds due to budget cuts
>4) Not one issue but all issues cause a "hue and cry", something not addressed
> in your article.
I've some info on the libel question (that may also
apply to "Anti-pornography" laws).
>From _Public School Law: Teachers' and Student' Rights_ by Martha
McCarthy and Nelda Cambron-McCabe:
---start quote---
[p.124]
Permissible and Impermissible Content
While courts are reluctant to endorse prior restrains on the content
of student publicaitons, they are more inclined to support
disciplinary action after distribution has begun. [High-school- Carl]
[s]tudents can be punished and publications confiscated if the
material distributed forsters a disruption of the educational process,
is libelous or obscene, or encourages others to engage in dangerous or
unlawful activity.
[...]
Courts also have ruled that the mere discussion of controversial
issues cannot be barred from student publications. The judiciary has
recognized that material dealing with war, drugs, abortion, and birth
control information is not too controversial for high school students.
[...]
--- end quote---
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
-------------------
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.admin.policy] SUMMARY: Undergrad Internet Access
Message-ID: <9110191524.AA07825@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 19 Oct 91 05:24:51 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
From: rbl@maria.wustl.edu (Robert B Larkington)
Date: 19 Oct 91 06:23:32 GMT
Last month I posted a survey about undergrad internet access for
cs majors. As alot of people were curious, I am posting the results.
First here is what was asked:
--------------------------------------------------
What is the name of your university?
Does your university allow undergrad CS students access to these internet
features:
Local Mail?
Global Mail?
Reading usenet news?
Posting news?
Local FTP?
Global FTP?
Local telnet?
Global telnet?
If the answer to any of the above is "no", what are the reasons for that
decision?
--------------------------------------------------
I received about 260 replies to the survey. Most of the sites answered
"yes" to all the questions and they are marked "FULL ACCESS". A few
sites limited access to local hosts only and they are marked "LOCAL ACCESS".
Anything else I marked "LIMITED ACCESS". I also included any additional
comments I received (such as the fact that the answers to the survey applied
to all undergrads, not just CS majors).
Most of the sites that restricted access seem to be outside of the US.
To answer a few questions I received about the situation here at Washington
University in St Louis MO:
first:
At the time of the posting, the Center for Engineering Computing (CEC)
here had installed a cisco router which blocked all outbound connections
to off campus sites. It also blocked all telnet/rlogin connections to
non-CEC hosts on the campus network. USENET reading and posting and
global and local mail were still allowed.
Currently all restrictions imposed by the cisco router have been removed.
This was due to:
1. a change in directors at the CEC
2. strong lobbying from the Engineering Council (engineering student govt.)
3. data from this summary
second:
Yes, this is the same school which provides wuarchive.wustl.edu.
The difference in attitude is due to the fact that wuarchive is
run by the Office of the Network Coordinator (ONC) and the undergrad
CS/engineering class machines are run by CEC -- two totally separate groups.
third:
There was a question as to why "finger rbl@maria.wustl.edu" returned
"guest account". This is because maria.wustl.edu is not a CEC machine.
It is part of a research group (CCRC) and I am just posting from here
because there is more disk space to store replies than on a CEC account
(disk quotas).
lastly:
I'd like to thank everyone who took the time to reply to the survey!!!
I've tried to present the results in a compact table for easy
reference (rather than simply posting all the replies directly).
Basically I list the school name, its access, any comments and then
the number of people from that school who replied to the survey.
RBL
school access/comments
--------------- -------------------------------------------------------------
ANU LOCAL ACCESS (limited # of USENET groups, no posting,
no global e-mail)
Australian National University, Computer Science Department
Due to swamped Internet link
1 Answer
Appalachian St FULL ACCESS
1 Answer
Arizona State U ???
CMS machine has global mail. VAX has global telnet, but
can't access CMS machine(??).
1 Answer
Bates College FULL ACCESS (just started with USENET though)
Access open to all students.
1 Answer
Brigham Young FULL ACCESS
1 Answer
Brown FULL ACCESS (for any student)
2 Answers
Brunel U LOCAL ACCESS (see below)
local mail ok. Global mail and USENET only for 4th
year students. Local ftp/telnet ok. No global ftp/telnet,
unless pre-arranged.
Due to: costs, distractions, security, etc..
1 Answer
Boston U FULL ACCESS
1 Answer
Cal State Chico ???
1 Answer
Cal. polytech FULL ACCESS (for any student)
2 Answers
Caltech FULL ACCESS (for any undergrad, accounts are free)
[cs dept may place restrictions on telnet?]
5 Answers
Calvin College FULL ACCESS (some machines have limited USENET feed)
9600baud link to Internet
1 Answer
Case Western FULL ACCESS
3 Answers
Chalmers U FULL ACCESS (computer engineering)
Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg, Sweden
2 Answers
Chemnitz U FULL ACCESS
Chemnitz University of Technology, Germany
1 Answer
Clemson U FULL ACCESS
1 Answer
CMU FULL ACCESS (for any undergrad - see below)
Global Mail/News is turned off by default, but can
be turned on by reading a help file [with USENET
rules, et al] which tells you how to turn it on.
5 Answers
Columbia FULL ACCESS (to all students, not just CS undergrads)
3 Answers
Cornell U FULL ACCESS
3 Answers
Curtin U LOCAL ACCESS (local mail and reading news only)
1 Answer
dekin.oz.au LOCAL ACCESS (global mail ok, see below)
Can get full access if you are an honors or grad student
or with lecture's permission
1 Answer
Delft U of Tech FULL ACCESS (with unix account)
Delft University of Technology (Holland)
2 Answers
Drexel U FULL ACCESS (except for some global telnet)
1 Answer
Duke U FULL ACCESS (USENET not on academic computing systems,
but is on CS)
2 Answers
Eindhoven U FULL ACCESS
Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands
1 Answer
ETH Zurich #1 FULL ACCESS (see below)
Global access restricted on systems without authentication
methods (e.g. terminal servers, PC's), and public access
student workstations (due to bad experiences). Other
student machines have full internet access.
1 Answer
ETH Zurich #2 LOCAL ACCESS (news posting, global mail ok)
Due to a cracking attempt.
1 Answer
[Not sure why there is a difference between #1 and #2?? -rbl]
Florida State U FULL ACCESS
1 Answer
G. Wash. U FULL ACCESS
limit on local disk space
1 Answer
Harvard U FULL ACCESS
Has free Scienec Center accounts. Access from some dorms as
well.
1 Answer
Helsinki U of T FULL ACCESS
Helsinki University of Technology
Users instructed not to waste resources and to respect
other sites and people on the net.
3 Answers
IFI.UIO.NO LOCAL (inside norway) ACCESS (news reading/posting ok)
Global mail ok.
Global ftp is disallowed to save disk space and bandwidth.
Global telnet is disallowed to avoid breakin attempts.
(policy is only partially enforced)
2 Answers
INRS Telecom. FULL ACCESS (restricted incomming due to security concerns)
[Note: Graduate degrees only here]
1 Answer
Iowa State U FULL ACCESS (for any student)
1 Answer
Johns Hopkins FULL ACCESS (for any student)
1 Answer
Kansas State U FULL ACCESS (for all students)
1 Answer
KTH FULL ACCESS
Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden
1 Answer
Linkopings U FULL ACCESS (even to non-cs types)
Linkopings Universitet
Linkopings Tekniska Hogskola (LiTH)
1 Answer
LIU LOCAL ACCESS (full USENET, global mail ok)
Linkoping University and Institute of Technology, Sweden
To save bandwidth and prevent abuse
note: Computer-club "Lysator" has TELNET/FTP access to
internet (can join it to get access).
1 Answer
Loughborough U LIMITED FULL ACCESS (see below)
Loughborough University of Technology
On JANET. Can access Internet ftp via NIFTP gateway.
Global telnet is possible now (wasn't before due to
congestion).
1 Answer
McGill U FULL ACCESS
1 Answer
Melbourne U LOCAL ACCESS (usenet reading/posting, global mail ok)
1 Answer
Michigan StateU FULL ACCESS (but you have to pay for an account)
1 Answer
Michigan Tech U FULL ACCESS (for any student)
1 Answer
Mississippi St. FULL ACCESS (for CS undergrad and people taking CS classes)
disk quota 15 MB.
1 Answer
MIT FULL ACCESS
4 Answers
Monash U FULL ACCESS (global access from "centralized" server machines)
Monash University, Australia
2 Answers
NAU FULL ACCESS (see below)
Northern Arizona University.
Posting to USENET allowed after reading ettiquette etc...
1 Answer
NCSU FULL ACCESS
(some services need to be initiated from the Eos system)
network games not allowed due to bandwidth problems
1 Answer
ND State U LIMITED FULL ACCESS
(no telnet to ports > 1000)
North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND
2 Answers
New Mexico Tech LOCAL ACCESS (global mail, news ok)
Administration said that network "police" refused to
allow undergrads access and would remove school from
network if it didn't comply. [might be changing?]
2 Answers
NIU FULL ACCESS (see below)
Northern Illinois University
No network access from PC's. The VM system has all except
for global mail and USENET. The Unix systems have
full access. Was a problem a year ago with students
tying up stations playing games (muds?). Was resolved
by removing telnet access for part of one semester.
1 Answer
NJIN FULL ACCESS except USENET (see below)
Kean College of New Jersey
main machines are PRIMES and they don't support USENET
1 Answer
NLUUG UUCP SITE, LOCAL ACCESS OK
AHA-TMF, Polytechnical Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
1 Answer
Northwestern U FULL ACCESS (for any student)
2 Answers
Oberlin College FULL ACCESS (even for non-cs types)
1 Answer
Ohio-State FULL ACCESS (even for non-cis types)
Full access is on general access machines. CIS dept
policy is that undergrads have local access only
but it isn't strictly enforced (the policy is from
the old days when access was expensive and slow).
3 Answers
Oregon State U FULL ACCESS (for "_anybody_" student or not)
2 Answers
Penn State U FULL ACCESS
(limited time per day?)
1 Answer
Phillip Inst. LIMITED LOCAL ACCESS (E-Mail, read USENET (no posting),
no ftp/telnet)
Phillip Institute of Technology in Melbourne Australia
1 Answer
Polimi #1 LOCAL ACCESS (news posting/reading, global mail ok)
Polytechnic of Milan, Italy
Reason for policy: costs?
1 Answer
#2 FULL ACCESS
1 Answer
[not sure why we have two different reports from the
same machine? -rbl]
Princeton U FULL ACCESS (for any member of staff, faculty, or student body)
3 Answers
Purdue FULL ACCESS
6 Answers
Reed College FULL ACCESS
computing environment is extremely open, no disk quotas
or time limits are used. The only charge is for laserprinting.
1 Answer
Rice FULL ACCESS (see below)
Must first get a basic account, this gives you local access.
Then you must fill out a form requesting global access.
This form must be signed by a professor. The form is
review and the request is usually granted. [the process
is a little less formal than it sounds] Possible reason
for process: Rice's large endowment. Also, note that
Rice doesn't get any alt.sex* groups due to the article
in the Chronicle a while back.
4 Answers
RMIT FULL ACCESS (access for all students)
Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology (RMIT)
1 Answer
RPI FULL ACCESS (for all students, at all levels)
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute: undergrads, grads,
faculty and staff all have equal access.
4 Answers
Rutgers U FULL ACCESS
1 Answer
San Diego St. FULL ACCESS
San Diego State University
1 Answer
St Joseph's U FULL ACCESS
1 Answer
Stanford U FULL ACCESS (for any student)
3 Answers
Stevens Inst. FULL ACCESS / No USENET
Stevens Institute of Technology
No USENET due to lack of disk space.
1 Answer
SUNY Buffalo FULL ACCESS (for all students)
1 Answer
SUNY SB FULL ACCESS (for any student)
SUNY Stony Brook
1 Answer
Syracuse U FULL ACCESS
2 Answers
Tampere U FULL ACCESS (but not anonymous access from terminal servers)
Tampere University of Technology Finland
1 Answer
TU-Berlin FULL ACCESS
Technische University at Berlin
2 Answers
TU-Wien LOCAL ACCESS (no global mail too)
Technische Universitaet Wien
Institut fuer technische Informatik
Abteilung fuer Softwaretechnologie und Echtzeitsysteme.
To prevent "cracking" on the net. Students doing research
have global access.
1 Answer
TUFTS FULL ACCESS
1 Answer
Tulsa U FULL ACCESS
1 Answer
U Akron FULL ACCESS (but not from PCs and Mac's)
1 Answer
U Arizona FULL ACCESS
1 Answer
U Bordeaux LIMITED ACCESS: local mail, global mail, ftp: ok. no usenet
University of Bordeaux (France)
1 Answer
U Mass FULL ACCESS (cs lab)
(boston) 1 Answer
U Mass FULL ACCESS
(Lowell) was restricted to CS-types, but is now open to everyone.
1 Answer
U of Aalborg FULL ACCESS
University of Aalborg
1 Answer
U of Calgary LOCAL ACCESS (no news posting, no email from mailservers)
Limited access due to previous abuse. If student
*really* needs access he can try to get access to grad
machines. [uses permissions system see file
/pub/sysadm/permissions/permissions.tar.Z on
cpsc.ucalgary.ca for details]
2 Answers
U of Canterbury LOCAL ACCESS (local news posting, no global mail)
University of Canterbury (Christchurch, New Zealand)
Limits due to slow link to internet.
1 Answer
U of Chicago FULL ACCESS (for any student)
3 Answers
U of Cologne FULL ACCESS
University of Cologne, Germany
Institute of Nuclear Physics
Student grops get an old and no longer used machine (microvax)
to play with (the computer is connected to the net).
1 Answer
U of Colorado FULL ACCESS (to all students)
(boulder) 1 Answer
U of Delaware FULL ACCESS
1 Answer
U of Florida FULL ACCESS
2 Answer
U of Georgia FULL ACCESS
1 Answer
U of Helsinki FULL ACCESS (see below)
for studying purposes but not strictly enforced
(helsinki.fi domain)
3 Answers
U of Houston FULL ACCESS (after signing form saying you know net.policies)
3 Answers
U of Idaho FULL ACCESS
1 Answer
U of Iowa FULL ACCESS (see below)
Per-semester fee for some computer access. Also, there
is a student run organization which which gives "free"
telnet access to U of I students.
1 Answer
U of Jyvaskyla FULL ACCESS
University of Jyvaskyla, Finland
1 Answer
U of Manitoba FULL ACCESS (although not sure about global telnet)
1 Answer
U of Maryland FULL ACCESS (for any student)
3 Answers
U of Michigan FULL ACCESS (for any student)
5 Answers
U of Milano FULL ACCESS
Universita' di Milano (Italy)
1 Answer
U of Minnesota FULL ACCESS
1 Answer
U of N Iowa FULL ACCESS
University of Northern Iowa
added 4 months ago, must sign responsibility document.
2 Answers
U of Nebraska FULL ACCESS
(omaha) 1 Answer
U of New Mexico FULL ACCESS (for any student)
1 Answer
U of Newcastle LIMITED ACCESS
Currently full access (have to ask for global mail),
but global ftp/telnet may be removed in the coming
academic year (due to bandwidth limits)
1 Answer
U of North FULL ACCESS
Queensland 1 Answer
U of NT FULL ACCESS (for any student)
University of North Texas
2 Answers
U of Oklahoma FULL ACCESS
1 Answer
U of Pacific FULL ACCESS
1 Answer
U di Padova LIMITED FULL ACCESS (see below)
Universita` di Padova - Italy
news posting and global ftp restricted.
No IRC or MUD on global telnet.
1 Answer
U of Regina FULL ACCESS
University of Regina, Regina, Saskatchewan
1 Answer
U of Rochester FULL ACCESS
via univ. computing center sun3/280, also some deparmental
support.
4 Answers
U of Scranton FULL ACCESS
1 Answer
U of Toronto LOCAL ACCESS (no news posting, global mail ok)
comp.* is only USENET on systems used by CS undergrads.
Access is limited due to congeston of network connections
with rest of world, although it isn't clear if the access
would be allowed if the school had the bandwidth.
Can pay for an account on the computing services main
system to get full access, but it is expensive.
2 Answers
U of Trondheim FULL ACCESS
University of Trondheim, Norway.
1 Answer
U of Vermont FULL ACCESS (for all students)
1 Answer
U of Virginia FULL ACCESS (to all students, at no cost)
2 Answers
U of Washington FULL ACCESS (any student can get an account)
Campus mainframes have full access. Some departments
have varying levels of access.
Restricted access to Internet phased out in 1988.
Prior to 1988: onsite telnet/ftp and read-only news.
5 Answers
U of Waterloo FULL ACCESS (except for global mail/global news posting)
Restrictions are usually not enforced. Reason for
restriction: typical undergrad doesn't have any academic
need to contact anyone else outside of his/her own
university.
2 Answers
U Penn FULL ACCESS (engineering school students)
1.5MB disk qouta
5 Answers
U Texas FULL ACCESS (for any student)
(austin) 3 Answers
U Wisconsin FULL ACCESS
1 Answer
UC Berkeley FULL ACCESS (for any student)
conditions like "class accounts should be used only for
classes" exsist but are usually not enforced
Upper-division students can get an account for $15/semester.
7 Answers
UC Davis FULL ACCESS
2 Answers
UC Riverside FULL ACCESS
1 Answer
UC SantaBarbara FULL ACCESS (must use gateway machine for global telnet/ftp)
1 Answer
UC Santa Cruz FULL ACCESS (for any student)
1 Answer
UCQ LIMITED ACCESS
University of Central Queensland
Local mail is provided. Global mail and global ftp are
not allow unless it is for a specific project. Reading
news is ok, but postings must be local. Local ftp,
local telnet, and global telnet are not allowed.
Policy is based on AARNET policy and the illegal activities
of some students. There are some local mirrors of ftp
sites that can be accessed. For the vast majority
of students network access is unnecessary and thus a waste
of resources.
1 Answer
UIUC FULL ACCESS
Account limited by cpu+disk quota
2 Answers
UNC-A FULL ACCESS
University of North Carolina - Asheville
USENET via departmental machines
2 Answers
UNC-CH FULL ACCESS
university of north carolina-chapel hill
1 Answer
UNI-BIELEFELD LOCAL ACCESS (news posting, global mail ok)
Due to: security and bandwidth limits
1 Answer
FULL ACCESS (dept of Math)
1 Answer
UNI-ERLANGEN LOCAL ACCESS (usenet post/read, global mail ok)
Friedrich-Alexander-University of Erlangen-Nuernberg
Global telnet/ftp only for special guys.
1 Answer
UNI-SB FULL ACCESS (for any student)
Universitaet des Saarlandes D-W-6600 Saarbruecken, Germany
main problem would be bandwidth limits
1 Answer
UT Knoxville FULL ACCESS
1 Answer
UTAS LOCAL ACCESS
University of Tasmania at Launceston
No global mail (but hard to stop) or news posting (reading ok).
No global telnet, global ftp ok only for specific subjects.
Policy due to bandwidth considerations and resource allocation.
2 Answers
Utrecht U LOCAL ACCESS (posting news, global mail ok) (see below)
Utrecht University, the Netherlands
Glocal ftp restricted due to 64KB internet line saturation,
however, some workstations have access. Local-telnet access
to workstations is limited due to students messing up each
others X-window displays. Global telnet is limited due
to the 64KB line, and some cracking attempts to other systems.
The school would like to offer more networking services.
1 Answer
UW-Madison FULL ACCESS IF TAKING CS CLASS USING MACHINE
1 Answer
UW-Milwaukee FULL ACCESS (any undergrad can get an account)
1 Answer
UWA FULL ACCESS (CS 3 and 4th years - need access to unix)
University of Western Australia
also student run vax on network
1 Answer
Victoria Coll. LOCAL ACCESS, global mail and USENET posting ok.
Australia
1 Answer
Victoria U FULL ACCESS (see below)
First and second year students spend most of their
time on PCs which are not on the network, but they
can apply for an account on the unix boxes.
1 Answer
Virginia Tech FULL ACCESS
via student run machine...
computing center also provides local telnet.
SLIP is widespread.
1 Answer
Vrije U FULL ACCESS
Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
1 Answer
Warwick U FULL ACCESS
1 Answer
Washington St U FULL ACCESS
1 Answer
Widener U FULL ACCESS
1 Answer
WPI FULL ACCESS (for any student)
Worcester Polytechnic Institute
1 Answer
WWU FULL ACCESS (all students)
Western Washington University, Bellingham, Washington.
1 Answer
Yale U FULL ACCESS
(standard issue accounts on IBM3090)
1 Answer
-------------------
From: jangerma@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Jake O Angerman)
Subject: Re: [alt.sex] Re: UW, Seattle P-I, and alt.sex.pictures
Message-ID: <9110200048.AA17059@bottom.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>
Sender: jangerma@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu
References: <199110162251.AA26271@eff.org>
Date: 19 Oct 91 16:48:05 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
In article <199110162251.AA26271@eff.org> you write:
> [......]
>Based on the disk space situation on milton, I can fully believe that axeing
>all the pictures groups was genuinely to free up disk space. For anyone
>who wants to access them, you can get them via anonymous FTP from
>lcs.mit.edu in the /news/alt/sex/pictures directory.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I tried but it said, "permission denied." Any clues?
- Jake
-------------------
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Library Bill of Rights (rerun)
Message-ID: <1991Oct20.131247.13162@eff.org>
Date: Sun, 20 Oct 1991 13:12:47 GMT
This is a rerun of the American Library Association's Bill of Rights.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LIBRARY BILL OF RIGHTS
The American Library Association affirms that all libraries are forums for
information and ideas, and that the following basic policies should guide
their services.
1. Books and other library resources should be provided for the
interest, information, and enlightenment of all people of the community the
library serves. Materials should not be excluded because of the origin,
background, or views of those contributing to their creation.
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.
3. Libraries should challenge censorship in the fulfillment of their
responsibility to provide information and enlightenment.
4. Libraries should cooperate with all persons and groups concerned
with resisting abridgment of free expression and free access to ideas.
5. A person's right to use a library should not be denied or abridged
because of origin, age, background, or views.
6. Libraries which make exhibit spaces and meeting rooms available to
the public they serve should make such facilities available on an equitable
basis, regardless of the beliefs or affiliations of individuals or groups
requesting their use.
Adopted June 18, 1948; amended February 2, 1961, and January 23, 1980, by the
ALA Council.
[Made available by permission of the American Library Association.]
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
