From kadie Wed Oct 23 15:01:13 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 23 14:59:26 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:
byrnes@milton.u.wa : Re: The first amend.
byrnes@milton.u.wa : Re: The first amend.
byrnes@milton.u.wa : Re: The first amend.
byrnes@milton.u.wa : Re: The first amend.
yergeau@outpost.St : Re: The first amend.
byrnes@milton.u.wa : Re: The first amend.
n9110620@henson.cc : Seattle Times/PI stories
-- Dates the Times/PI stories ran?
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: Seattle Times/PI stories
russotto@eng.umd.e : Re: The first amend.
n9141932@henson.cc : Censorship at Western Washington University
lamontg@milton.u.w : Re: The first amend.
lamontg@milton.u.w : Re: The first amend.
lamontg@milton.u.w : Re: The first amend.
lamontg@milton.u.w : Re: The first amend.
lamontg@milton.u.w : Re: Seattle Times/PI stories
lamontg@milton.u.w : Re: The first amend.
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: byrnes@milton.u.washington.edu (Nicholas Byrnes)
Subject: Re: The first amend.
Keywords: Censorship, Free speech
Message-ID: <1991Oct21.161643.26147@milton.u.washington.edu>
Date: 21 Oct 91 16:16:43 GMT
References: <1991Oct20.225205.5648@milton.u.washington.edu> <1991Oct21.002901.20509@milton.u.washington.edu>
Thanks for your considered response. I agree with most of what you have to say.
I would, however, like to clarify one point: I am not particularly concerned
with what liability universities might be accepting, my worry is for the BB's
themselves. One expensive law suit, defensible or not, would likely be the end
of something like this BB. Sometime in the future our legal system will catch
up to the problems of this technology (In my opinion our legal system seems to
be consistently 20 or so years behind). In the mean time, as you and I appear to
agree, we need to protect the BB's. The only question is how...
-------------------
From: byrnes@milton.u.washington.edu (Nicholas Byrnes)
Subject: Re: The first amend.
Message-ID: <1991Oct21.164429.6317@milton.u.washington.edu>
Keywords: Censorship, Free speech
References: <1991Oct20.225205.5648@milton.u.washington.edu> <1991Oct21.024053.19799@eng.umd.edu>
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 1991 16:44:29 GMT
russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) writes:
>In article <1991Oct20.225205.5648@milton.u.washington.edu> byrnes@milton.u.washington.edu (Nicholas Byrnes) writes:
>>
>>The only way to protect the BB's is to get legal, and the only way that is going
>>to happen is if everyone takes a hand at policing (if you can read this you can
>>get a good job as a CENSOR).
>Then they win, and we destroy ourselves in order to prevent being destroyed by
>them. No thanks. If the authorities want to censor us, they will have to do
>it themselves.
I want to hear you say that it is O.K. to post violent porn to groups intended
for children.
>>If you find porn in the .kid rooms send it to the FBI
>>(remember, this is a federal interstate crime) along with identifying info. In
>>any event complain long and loud to the administrators of the BB. Suggest that
>>they be able to "outlaw" users who put the BB at risk. All our talk of the
>>freedom this wonderous technology provides will be pointless when liability or
>>the courts force it off the air.
>All the freedom this wonderous technology provides will be pointless if we do
>to ourselves what we so fear they will do to us.
>Liability FEARS like this caused one sysop in my area to start requiring
>all users to sign a form promising to not upload copyrighted software and
>that sort of thing. He also required under-18 users to have their parents
>sign the form (this was a TECHNICAL BBS, not an adult BBS). I left rather
>then subject myself to having to ask my parents which BBSs I might call.
>While _I_ might merely be a whiner and complainer in the eyes of many on this
>board, I'm sure there are lots of other people who would also leave in the face
>of this sort of situation-- do we really want to restrict BBsing (or UseNet)
>to the same set who can legally call 900 lines? What does that say about our
>legitimacy?
>--
>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
We largely agree, however I don't believe this is an all or nothing situation.
It should be possible to clean things up in such a way that the only people left
complaining are the ones who were breaking the law anyway. These BB's are far to
fagile an environment for the testing of legal issues. Lets do that elsewhere
and keep the good thing going here.
Nick
-------------------
From: byrnes@milton.u.washington.edu (Nicholas Byrnes)
Subject: Re: The first amend.
Keywords: Censorship, Free speech
Message-ID: <1991Oct21.163051.1546@milton.u.washington.edu>
Date: 21 Oct 91 16:30:51 GMT
Article-I.D.: milton.1991Oct21.163051.1546
References: <1991Oct20.225205.5648@milton.u.washington.edu> <1991Oct21.011328.7222@nntp.hut.fi>
Jyrki, I agree it's a crazy world. And yes my statement was true, but allow
me to elaborate.
The case involved a juvenile suicide and the band Judis Priest (sp?). While the
court in fact decided in favor of the band, we must remember that this is only
an example of what could happen. As I have mentioned elsewhere, one case like
this, right or wrong, defensible or not, would likely spell the end of this
delightful manifestation of computer thechnology. If you were the judge how
would you rule on the issue of children intentionally exposed to rancid
pornography?
-------------------
From: byrnes@milton.u.washington.edu (Nicholas Byrnes)
Subject: Re: The first amend.
Message-ID: <1991Oct21.170332.12882@milton.u.washington.edu>
Keywords: Censorship, Free speech
References: <1991Oct20.225205.5648@milton.u.washington.edu> <1991Oct21.025651.27824@eff.org>
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 1991 17:03:32 GMT
Carl, As I have mentioned in some of my other replies it is not the legitimacy
of potential legal claims but rather their likelyhood. This is not legal
interpretation but risk assesment. Time-Warner would only need sue over one
questionable picture, and regardless of the outcome a diverse BB like this one
would, at best, only continue in a much more conservative form. I believe that
all other media accept responsibility for their content. The fact that this
medium is user interactive is not a defense that has been proven in court. And
while it might be a defensible stance, who's going to try?
BB's like this one have a sort of "nobody's in charge" feel to them. When the
police come knocking who's going to stand up? And are they ready?
In the mean time is anyone working to reduce the risk? I'd rather have no porn
in the .kid rooms and no copyrighted photos than no BB at all.
-------------------
From: yergeau@outpost.Stanford.EDU (Dan Yergeau)
Subject: Re: The first amend.
Message-ID: <1991Oct21.171531.8208@EE.Stanford.EDU>
Keywords: Censorship, Free speech
Sender: usenet@EE.Stanford.EDU (Usenet)
References: <1991Oct20.225205.5648@milton.u.washington.edu> <1991Oct21.002901.20509@milton.u.washington.edu>
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 91 17:15:31 GMT
In article <1991Oct21.002901.20509@milton.u.washington.edu>,
lamontg@milton.u.washington.edu (Lamont Granquist) writes:
|> Also, I think there should be the following guidelines towards censoring
|> newsgroups:
|>
|> 1. The traffic in question should be deemed to be against the state or
|> federal law.
Which state? The state of origin of the post, or the state which has
the most restrictive laws where the traffic may eventually end up.
Liability may be partially on both ends. What's legal in your state
may be illegal in another state, and posts coming from you site make
make you liable. Now, if you are only talking about copyright
violations, then it's a different story.
|> 2. It should be judged that the first amendment does not apply (ie it
|> should be the universities responsibility to defend the freedom of
|> speech if it thinks the laws are full of ****)
By whom? There are not clear definitions of what is and is not protected
free speech.
free
|> 3. It should be judged that the clear majority of the traffic being removed
|> is the traffic which violates 1 and 2 above.
|> 4. It should be judged that the remaining traffic is of little use to the
|> community, or alternate methods of spreading that information should
|> be provided.
Again, by whom? It is difficult to be impartial to the remaining
traffic when you believe that the majority of the traffic is against
the law (for whatever reason). This looks like a "feel good"
rationalization. "Gee, we don't want to have this `trash' coming
into/going out of our site, and there are occasionally some relevant
points discussed here. But hey, those points can be discussed equally
well elsewhere."
Dan Yergeau
yergeau@gloworm.Stanford.EDU
#include
The speed of light. It's not just a good idea, it's the law.
-------------------
From: byrnes@milton.u.washington.edu (Nicholas Byrnes)
Subject: Re: The first amend.
Message-ID: <1991Oct21.172031.18871@milton.u.washington.edu>
Keywords: Censorship, Free speech
References: <1991Oct20.225205.5648@milton.u.washington.edu> <1991Oct21.002901.20509@milton.u.washington.edu> <1991Oct21.031221.8528@nntp.hut.fi>
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 1991 17:20:31 GMT
jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala) writes:
>In article <1991Oct21.002901.20509@milton.u.washington.edu>, lamontg@milton (Lamont Granquist) writes:
>>Of course the university should make sure that *public* traffic on the net
>>originating from the university does not violate any laws.
>I think this is a very bad idea. The only way this could be
>implemented would be to pre-screen any public traffic like Usenet
>postings and as it'd be a terrible waste of effort and money it
>wouldn't be sensible to implement pre-screening public traffic would
>just be rightly stopped. Some people have also indicated that if an
>organization takes such responsibility (to make sure anything is not
>illegal) it implies responsibility for other things such as the
>correctness of the information.
>What's wrong with the simple idea of just holding the individual
>posting the traffic responsible?
>//Jyrki
Basically your idea is a good one, but not without problems. Many rooms allow
for anonymous posts. Anonymity is a strong and valuable tool, unfortunately it
is easily exploited by the kind of people who are causing much of the harm. It
is also an easy thing at many places to get someone elses computer account (this
is very true here at the U. of Washington). It is also possible for the computer
talented to hide their tracks.
The person who posts something clearly holds some of the responsibility,
unfortunately so does the medium. Suppose NBC allowed some whaco on the air
who's sole intention was to destroy your life. NBC would not be able to fall
back on the refrain that it was only the whako at work. NBC provided the access,
the forum, the exposure. Without NBC the whako would have had a hard time
slandering your name. With NBC it would be an easy thing to do.
Nick
-------------------
From: n9110620@henson.cc.wwu.edu (Sutton Robert)
Subject: Seattle Times/PI stories
Message-ID: <1991Oct21.185322.23387@henson.cc.wwu.edu>
Summary: Dates the Times/PI stories ran?
Keywords: censorship seattle uw times pi article media
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 1991 18:53:22 GMT
Can anyone tell me what days exactly the stories ran in the Seattle Times an PI
about the UW 'computer pornogrophy' incident?
Thanks Rob
--
-----------------------------------------------+--------------------------------
Something Shakespeare never said was, | Robert L. Sutton
"You've got to be kidding!" |
-Robyn Hitchcock | n9110620@henson.cc.wwu.edu
-------------------
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Seattle Times/PI stories
Message-ID: <1991Oct21.194710.23371@eff.org>
Keywords: censorship seattle uw times pi article media
References: <1991Oct21.185322.23387@henson.cc.wwu.edu>
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 1991 19:47:10 GMT
n9110620@henson.cc.wwu.edu (Sutton Robert) writes:
>Can anyone tell me what days exactly the stories ran in the Seattle
>Times an PI about the UW 'computer pornogrophy' incident?
Here are the first two:
"Pornography files in UW computer"
Seattle Post-Intelligencer. Front page. Oct. 15, 1991. By Jane Hadley.
"State Probing Porn files in UW computer"
Seattle Times. Oct. 15, 1991(?)
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
-------------------
From: russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto)
Subject: Re: The first amend.
Message-ID: <1991Oct21.204135.28603@eng.umd.edu>
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 91 20:41:35 GMT
References: <1991Oct20.225205.5648@milton.u.washington.edu> <1991Oct21.024053.19799@eng.umd.edu> <1991Oct21.164429.6317@milton.u.washington.edu>
Keywords: Censorship, Free speech
In article <1991Oct21.164429.6317@milton.u.washington.edu> byrnes@milton.u.washington.edu (Nicholas Byrnes) writes:
>russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) writes:
>
>>In article <1991Oct20.225205.5648@milton.u.washington.edu> byrnes@milton.u.washington.edu (Nicholas Byrnes) writes:
>>>
>>>The only way to protect the BB's is to get legal, and the only way that is going
>>>to happen is if everyone takes a hand at policing (if you can read this you can
>>>get a good job as a CENSOR).
>
>>Then they win, and we destroy ourselves in order to prevent being destroyed by
>>them. No thanks. If the authorities want to censor us, they will have to do
>>it themselves.
>
>I want to hear you say that it is O.K. to post violent porn to groups intended
>for children.
I'm sure you would-- it would destroy my credibility. Thus, I'm not going to
say it.
>We largely agree, however I don't believe this is an all or nothing situation.
>It should be possible to clean things up in such a way that the only people left
>complaining are the ones who were breaking the law anyway. These BB's are far to
>fagile an environment for the testing of legal issues. Lets do that elsewhere
>and keep the good thing going here.
The "Good Thing" is free exchange of information/debate, without censorship.
Censoring BBs to protect them from the threat of legal action is destroying
the thing in order to save it.
--
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: n9141932@henson.cc.wwu.edu (douglas auerbach)
Subject: Censorship at Western Washington University
Message-ID: <1991Oct21.235740.10295@henson.cc.wwu.edu>
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 1991 23:57:40 GMT
Here is the contents of a post I sent to a local newsgroup here
at WWU in response to the recent censoring of the "alt.sex" newsfeeds.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Banned groups
Keywords: alt.sex groups taken off the systems at WWU
Distribution: wwu
References: <1991Oct16.214652.10008@henson.cc.wwu.edu>
Status: R
I'm a new transfer student here, and one of the main reasons I decided
to come to Western is because of the open Internet connection with
the accompanying Usenet feed.
I'm greatly distressed and dismayed that the free exchange of information
I came to expect in a university as academically distinguished as Western
has been seriously jeopardized with the censoring of newsgroups.
I'm offended that my access to information through the university
computer resources that *I PAY FOR WITH MY TUITION* is being limited
because ONE person decided ON THE BASIS OF A SENSATIONAL NEWSPAPER ARTICLE
that certain information is considered "JUNK"! I don't receive
financial assistance, I don't receive funding from the state, I pay for
100% of the cost to educate me here; I'm paying out of state tuition.
I am deeply ashamed that part of my tuition money is funding a censored
computer system, as well as a portion of the salary of the staff member
who did the censoring.
Censoring newsgroups, regardless of the nature of their content, is
in direct contradiction to the purpose of a university, namely, the
FREE EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION. Arbitrarily deciding that information
of a sexually explicit nature is "inappropriate" or "junk mail" is
a dangerous precedent. Would the staff member who ordered the censoring
of the alt.sex newsgroups also ban sexually explicit books from the
library?
I urge the University administration to revoke this policy of
censorship. I didn't come to Western to have my access to information
restricted by political entanglements or beaurocracy.
Doug Auerbach Western Washington University
-------------------
From: lamontg@milton.u.washington.edu (Lamont Granquist)
Subject: Re: The first amend.
Keywords: Censorship, Free speech
Message-ID: <1991Oct22.012826.8795@milton.u.washington.edu>
Date: 22 Oct 91 01:28:26 GMT
References: <1991Oct20.225205.5648@milton.u.washington.edu> <1991Oct21.002901.20509@milton.u.washington.edu> <1991Oct21.031221.8528@nntp.hut.fi>
jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala) writes:
>In article <1991Oct21.002901.20509@milton.u.washington.edu>, lamontg@milton (Lamont Granquist) writes:
>>Of course the university should make sure that *public* traffic on the net
>>originating from the university does not violate any laws.
>I think this is a very bad idea. The only way this could be
>implemented would be to pre-screen any public traffic like Usenet
Actually, what I had in mind was after-the-fact censorship by taking whatever
action it deemed necessary against the person that posted it. Really, what
I'm talking about is just that the university does not take any responsiblity
at all for the shit other sites put on the net.
BTW, I mentioned earlier that the "action" will probably have to be toned down
from the "5 years or $50,000" FBI punishment for copywrite violations.
--
Lamont Granquist HALLUCINATION IN PROGRESS:
lamontg@u.washington.edu Stay tuned for further information
-------------------
From: lamontg@milton.u.washington.edu (Lamont Granquist)
Subject: Re: The first amend.
Keywords: Censorship, Free speech
Message-ID: <1991Oct22.013428.10374@milton.u.washington.edu>
Date: 22 Oct 91 01:34:28 GMT
References: <1991Oct20.225205.5648@milton.u.washington.edu> <1991Oct21.011328.7222@nntp.hut.fi> <1991Oct21.163051.1546@milton.u.washington.edu>
byrnes@milton.u.washington.edu (Nicholas Byrnes) writes:
>The case involved a juvenile suicide and the band Judis Priest (sp?). While the
>court in fact decided in favor of the band, we must remember that this is only
>an example of what could happen. As I have mentioned elsewhere, one case like
>this, right or wrong, defensible or not, would likely spell the end of this
>delightful manifestation of computer thechnology. If you were the judge how
>would you rule on the issue of children intentionally exposed to rancid
>pornography?
"children intentionally exposed to rancid pornography?"
Well, I downloaded about 10 megs of pictures off of alt.sex.pictures and I
didn't find any "rancid pornography". The stuff with the horses and dogs
didn't really turn me on, but there wasn't anything rancid about it (actually
looking a pictures of other people having sex doesn't do much for me either,
but I'm digressing). And how was that child "intentionally exposed"? And
who "intentionally" did it? The person who posted the message... NOT! About
the only person that could be held liable for this is the person who let them
have access to it -- in this case probably the sysop of a PC BBS.
The political crap might scare NSF into shutting down the net, but I doubt
that the courts would be able to order them to do it. The *vast* majority
of people on the Internet are over 18 or damn close.
--
Lamont Granquist HALLUCINATION IN PROGRESS:
lamontg@u.washington.edu Stay tuned for further information
-------------------
From: lamontg@milton.u.washington.edu (Lamont Granquist)
Subject: Re: The first amend.
Keywords: Censorship, Free speech
Message-ID: <1991Oct22.014104.12432@milton.u.washington.edu>
Date: 22 Oct 91 01:41:04 GMT
References: <1991Oct20.225205.5648@milton.u.washington.edu> <1991Oct21.024053.19799@eng.umd.edu> <1991Oct21.164429.6317@milton.u.washington.edu>
byrnes@milton.u.washington.edu (Nicholas Byrnes) writes:
>I want to hear you say that it is O.K. to post violent porn to groups intended
>for children.
Groups intendent for children are going to be moderated. And I doubt your
average child would be turn into a satan-loving rapist just from reading one
story. Probably be good for them to know there are some true idiots with
sick imaginations in the world... Anyway, thats just my opinion of course.
>We largely agree, however I don't believe this is an all or nothing situation.
>It should be possible to clean things up in such a way that the only people left
>complaining are the ones who were breaking the law anyway. These BB's are far to
>fagile an environment for the testing of legal issues. Lets do that elsewhere
>and keep the good thing going here.
STOP CALLING IT A BB ITS THE BLOODY NET!
Admittedly, public BBS systems should be considered, but you are clearly
talking about the net in general and not BBS systems. Its confusing, annoying
and its not "politically correct" terminology, so THPF!
I think you have a point, but I doubt that a suit over children being exposed
to that EEEEEEVIL pornography will be what shuts the net down. Now, posting
entire copywrited books could shut the net down...
--
Lamont Granquist HALLUCINATION IN PROGRESS:
lamontg@u.washington.edu Stay tuned for further information
-------------------
From: lamontg@milton.u.washington.edu (Lamont Granquist)
Subject: Re: The first amend.
Keywords: Censorship, Free speech
Message-ID: <1991Oct22.020715.18530@milton.u.washington.edu>
Date: 22 Oct 91 02:07:15 GMT
References: <1991Oct20.225205.5648@milton.u.washington.edu> <1991Oct21.002901.20509@milton.u.washington.edu> <1991Oct21.171531.8208@EE.Stanford.EDU>
Bleah, let me start over... I think I may have hashed this out in e-mail
yergeau@outpost.Stanford.EDU (Dan Yergeau) writes:
>Which state? The state of origin of the post, or the state which has
>the most restrictive laws where the traffic may eventually end up.
>Liability may be partially on both ends. What's legal in your state
>may be illegal in another state, and posts coming from you site make
>make you liable. Now, if you are only talking about copyright
>violations, then it's a different story.
And how about things travelling Internationally? For example, discussion of
certain cryptographic methods should be legal in the usa, but illegal if
it gets distributed elsewhere (does anyone read sci.crypt to tell us if this
is really a problem?). Anyway, if this isn't a true example, I'm sure that
stuff similar to this will come up.
I simply don't know.
Personally, what I'd say is that stuff *COMING* into UW would have to be
illegal by the laws of washington state or the laws of the US. I'm not a
lawyer, however, and this *ISNT* really what my post was about...
to censor or not to censor? that is the question.
I think that if a newsgroup is carrying 100% copywrite violations, and no
discussion that it shouldn't be carried at UW.
I think that if someone wants to have UW carry
alt.sex.bestiality, however, then it should not be
censored.... how do we make a determination of what stays and what goes?
First I think its got to be judged by someone to be illegal to start making
a case. Its got to be more that Joe Stick-up-his-ass is offended, its gotta
be illegal (essentially this means that *LOTS* of Joe and Jane Sticks-up-their-
asses are going to be offended).
Next, the University of Washington should either adopt a form of the Library
Bill of Rights which contains a pointer to the First Amendment, and a
obligation to defend against censorship, AND/OR the University should state
that it belives that the net is a limited public forem, and should be covered
under the First, and will defend it against censorship. Either way, the U
is defending against censorship.
Unfortunately, this leaves us with the immovable object and the irresistable
force, because no newsgroup is going to be 100% copywrite violations. Thus,
there will most likely always be some content that that university will be
obligated to defend. So, what I was doing was throwing out some ideas to
get a discussion going on if there can be a fuzzy definition of legitimate
censorship, or if it should just be the responsiblity of the person who posts
it, and essentially Sombody Elses Problem (SEP).
The only problem with having it be SEP is that if "UNIVERSITY PIRATING RING
UNCOVERED -- THOSANDS OF $$$ IN COPYWRITE VIOLATIONS" ever hits the press, it
could get really, really, really, really ugly. Because, the lawyers will want
*SOMEONE* responsible. Preferibly someone they can sue for $$$, and if there's
no one they can sue, then their going to get pissed and try to shut down
everyone elses fun. I have this theory that lawyers don't get laid nearly as
often as its protrayed on LA LAW.
Anyway, my point is that if you just hold with this "someone else is
responsible for it -- I didn't post it on the Internet" attitude, it may come
back to haunt you. I have a theory that UW took down alt.sex.pictures,
and alt.biniries.pictures because it didn't want the local press looking *past*
the sex issue. They may actually have been trying to protect the net...
Disclaimer: Of course the lawyers on the *NET* get laid... :-) (never insult
someone publicly that can screw you over good)
Sorry, with all this discussion of rancid pornography I can't get sex off of
my mind.
--
Lamont Granquist HALLUCINATION IN PROGRESS:
lamontg@u.washington.edu Stay tuned for further information
-------------------
From: lamontg@milton.u.washington.edu (Lamont Granquist)
Subject: Re: Seattle Times/PI stories
Keywords: censorship seattle uw times pi article media
Message-ID: <1991Oct22.021646.20671@milton.u.washington.edu>
Date: 22 Oct 91 02:16:46 GMT
References: <1991Oct21.185322.23387@henson.cc.wwu.edu>
n9110620@henson.cc.wwu.edu (Sutton Robert) writes:
>Can anyone tell me what days exactly the stories ran in the Seattle Times an PI
>about the UW 'computer pornogrophy' incident?
PI was on Tuesday the 15th, Times was an editorial on the 16th I believe.
There was supposedly a followup in the PI on Thu or Fri, but I don't have a
clue about that.
Disc: not 100% positive about anything.
--
Lamont Granquist HALLUCINATION IN PROGRESS:
lamontg@u.washington.edu Stay tuned for further information
-------------------
From: lamontg@milton.u.washington.edu (Lamont Granquist)
Subject: Re: The first amend.
Keywords: Censorship, Free speech
Message-ID: <1991Oct22.021043.19437@milton.u.washington.edu>
Date: 22 Oct 91 02:10:43 GMT
References: <1991Oct20.225205.5648@milton.u.washington.edu> <1991Oct21.002901.20509@milton.u.washington.edu> <1991Oct21.031221.8528@nntp.hut.fi> <1991Oct21.172031.18871@milton.u.washington.edu>
byrnes@milton.u.washington.edu (Nicholas Byrnes) writes:
>Basically your idea is a good one, but not without problems. Many rooms allow
>for anonymous posts. Anonymity is a strong and valuable tool, unfortunately it
>is easily exploited by the kind of people who are causing much of the harm. It
>is also an easy thing at many places to get someone elses computer account (this
>is very true here at the U. of Washington). It is also possible for the computer
>talented to hide their tracks.
Anonymity is a potential issue. Forged messages is not an issue.
You are *NEVER* going to be able to eliminate forged messages -- its silly to
even bring it up.
--
Lamont Granquist HALLUCINATION IN PROGRESS:
lamontg@u.washington.edu Stay tuned for further information
From kadie Wed Oct 23 15:05:10 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 23 15:03:06 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:
lamontg@milton.u.w : Re: Seattle Times/PI stories
billd@fps.com (Bil : Re: USENET censorship strikes University of Washington!
ALILESTE@idbsu.idb : Re: The first amend.
jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyr : Re: The first amend.
jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyr : Re: The first amend.
jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyr : Repr. Sullivan wants to fire prof. Hill because of politi
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: Seattle Times/PI stories
kadie@eff.org (Car : Digression: radio spectrum capacity (was The first amend.
bstring@mainz-emh2 : Re: Seattle Times/PI stories
jcn@rice.edu (Jeff : Re: Repr. Sullivan wants to fire prof. Hill because of po
ALILESTE@idbsu.idb : Re: Seattle Times/PI stories
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: Seattle Times/PI stories
kadie@eff.org (Car : Seattle Times/PI stories
jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyr : Re: Digression: radio spectrum capacity (was The first am
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: Seattle Times/PI stories
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (alt.censorship) Re: USENET censorship strikes University
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (soc.women, et al.) yahweh is good posting
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: yahweh is good posting
kadie@herodotus.cs : Re: yahweh is good posting
edguer@alpha.ces.c : Re: yahweh is good posting
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: lamontg@milton.u.washington.edu (Lamont Granquist)
Subject: Re: Seattle Times/PI stories
Message-ID: <1991Oct22.021828.21212@milton.u.washington.edu>
Keywords: censorship seattle uw times pi article media
References: <1991Oct21.185322.23387@henson.cc.wwu.edu> <1991Oct21.194710.23371@eff.org>
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1991 02:18:28 GMT
kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>"State Probing Porn files in UW computer"
>Seattle Times. Oct. 15, 1991(?)
I've got sec A of that issue in front of me. I think what you're referring
to was that Editorial that appeared in the Times the next day.
Disc: The only thing I'm sure of is that article isn't in sec A of Oct 15.
--
Lamont Granquist HALLUCINATION IN PROGRESS:
lamontg@u.washington.edu Stay tuned for further information
-------------------
Xref: eff alt.censorship:2109 alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1371 alt.sex:22149
From: billd@fps.com (Bill Davidson)
Subject: Re: USENET censorship strikes University of Washington!
Message-ID: <21387@celit.fps.com>
Date: 21 Oct 91 19:24:27 GMT
References: <1991Oct17.213916.2091@ms.uky.edu> <1991Oct20.070839.26299@techbook.com>
Followup-To: alt.censorship
In article <1991Oct20.070839.26299@techbook.com> szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo) writes:
>John McCarthy earlier stated that the Stanford Computer Science Dept. was
>the main group at Stanford that refused to censor rec.humor.funny. Is
>the oppostion of computer science departments to censorship a general
>phenomenon?
It makes sense that educated people in general are more likely to
oppose censorship. Educated people are more likely to realize the
danger that censorship presents (or the oportunity it presents if you
are a major politician). In societies where censorship is extreme,
those people that are educated and creative are the first up against
the wall when the dictator gets pissed off (China is one of the more
notable and extreme examples but there are many).
The censorship of material that is considered "offensive" due to sexual
content brings us a little closer to the censorship of material that is
offensive because of political or religious content.
The next thing you know, people will have their lives destroyed for
saying that the earth revolves around the sun rather than the other
way around.
--Bill Davidson
--
If trees could scream, would we be so cavalier about cutting them down?
We might, if they screamed all the time for no reason. -- Jack Handy
-------------------
From: ALILESTE@idbsu.idbsu.edu (Dan Lester)
Subject: Re: The first amend.
Message-ID: <199110220554.AA12668@eff.org>
Sender: ALILESTE@idbsu.idbsu.edu
References:
Date: 22 Oct 91 06:50:38 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
Just as several have pointed out that the discussion is about "the net"
and not "BBS" systems, folks should learn that the law under discussion
is "copyright" not "copywrite" (or copywrong, either)
dan
************************************************************************
* Dan Lester Bitnet: alileste@idbsu
* Associate University Librarian Internet: alileste@idbsu.idbsu.edu
* Boise State University
* Boise, Idaho 83725 You can be sure these ideas are my
* 208-385-1234 own; no one else would have them.
************************************************************************
-------------------
From: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Subject: Re: The first amend.
Keywords: Censorship, Free speech
Message-ID: <1991Oct22.062936.617@nntp.hut.fi>
Date: 22 Oct 91 06:29:36 GMT
References: <1991Oct20.225205.5648@milton.u.washington.edu> <1991Oct21.011328.7222@nntp.hut.fi> <1991Oct21.163051.1546@milton.u.washington.edu>
Sender: usenet@nntp.hut.fi (Usenet pseudouser id)
In-Reply-To: byrnes@milton.u.washington.edu (Nicholas Byrnes)
Nntp-Posting-Host: sauna.cs.hut.fi
In article <1991Oct21.163051.1546@milton.u.washington.edu>, byrnes@milton (Nicholas Byrnes) writes:
>If you were the judge how
>would you rule on the issue of children intentionally exposed to rancid
>pornography?
Intentionally exposed, as in what? Them reading alt.sex? I suppose
not, since if so the kids themselves are themselves doing the
exposing.
If you mean something like someone mailing kids stuff from alt.sex
uninvited, I don't know. It might or might not be illegal here, and I
don't think it's a very bright idea, but I'm not sure I feel it should
be illegal. It should be illegal if there's some gain/profit for the
people sending the stuff, that I'll grant.
//Jyrki
-------------------
From: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Subject: Re: The first amend.
Keywords: Censorship, Free speech
Message-ID: <1991Oct22.063704.813@nntp.hut.fi>
Date: 22 Oct 91 06:37:04 GMT
References: <1991Oct20.225205.5648@milton.u.washington.edu> <1991Oct21.002901.20509@milton.u.washington.edu> <1991Oct21.031221.8528@nntp.hut.fi> <1991Oct21.172031.18871@milton.u.washington.edu>
Sender: usenet@nntp.hut.fi (Usenet pseudouser id)
In-Reply-To: byrnes@milton.u.washington.edu (Nicholas Byrnes)
Nntp-Posting-Host: sauna.cs.hut.fi
In article <1991Oct21.172031.18871@milton.u.washington.edu>, byrnes@milton (Nicholas Byrnes) writes:
>The person who posts something clearly holds some of the responsibility,
>unfortunately so does the medium. Suppose NBC allowed some whaco on the air
>who's sole intention was to destroy your life. NBC would not be able to fall
>back on the refrain that it was only the whako at work. NBC provided the access,
>the forum, the exposure. Without NBC the whako would have had a hard time
>slandering your name. With NBC it would be an easy thing to do.
You appear to advocate central control for all media. How about
phones, should the phone company be held responsible for what people
talk?
With NBC it's a different thing - the resource (radio spectrum) is
restricted, so it's necessary to have some limits on who can get the
air. And because of these limits there must be some kind of a policy
to choose who gets the bandwith. It's because this policy that NBS is
responsible - it chooses what to show.
If we applied the same policy - choosing what's 'appropriate' - to
this media, it would cease to exist. If I can do anything about it, I
sure won't let it happen.
//Jyrki
-------------------
Xref: eff alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1375 alt.censorship:2111 alt.society.civil-liberties:456 talk.politics.misc:21747
From: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Subject: Repr. Sullivan wants to fire prof. Hill because of political opinions
Message-ID: <1991Oct22.073615.1607@nntp.hut.fi>
Date: 22 Oct 91 07:36:15 GMT
Sender: usenet@nntp.hut.fi (Usenet pseudouser id)
Nntp-Posting-Host: sauna.cs.hut.fi
Forwarded from another newsgroup:
From: LANFRAN@VM1.YORKU.CA (Sam Lanfranco)
Subject: Oklahoma state rep wants Anita Hill fired
Date: 21 Oct 91 22:07:44 GMT
Oklahoma State Representative Leonard E. Sullivan, Republican of Oklahoma
City is seeking to have Prof. Anita Hill ousted from her tenured position.
In a letter to University president, Richard Van Horn, Sullivan said, "We
must get left wing extremist influence off the campus before it spreads
further. We can't afford to have a high profile professor on campus that
millions of Americans, according to polls and national talk shows, believe
is a fantasizing liar." [NYT 10/16/91 p.A21]
Write to President Van Horn at: University of Oklahoma
300 Timberdell Road
Norman, OK 73019
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I [Sam L.] hope that Van Horn hears from more than the idiot right on this
one.
-------------------
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Seattle Times/PI stories
Message-ID: <1991Oct22.130021.22004@eff.org>
Keywords: censorship seattle uw times pi article media
References: <1991Oct21.185322.23387@henson.cc.wwu.edu> <1991Oct21.194710.23371@eff.org> <1991Oct22.021828.21212@milton.u.washington.edu>
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1991 13:00:21 GMT
The American Library Assocation has a bimonthly newsletter that
reports on censorship (of all kinds). To report censorship to them
send a copy of a newspaper articles that documents the censorship to:
Newsletter on Intellectual Freedom
Office for Intellectual Freedom
American Library Association
50 East Huron Street
Chicago, IL 60611
If the censorship involves academic computers, I'd also love to get a
copy of relevant newspapers articles. Send me email for mailing
information.
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu, or (anonymous) ap.4352@hri.com
I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
-------------------
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Digression: radio spectrum capacity (was The first amend.)
Message-ID: <1991Oct22.132336.22484@eff.org>
Keywords: Censorship, Free speech
References: <1991Oct20.225205.5648@milton.u.washington.edu> <1991Oct21.002901.20509@milton.u.washington.edu> <1991Oct21.031221.8528@nntp.hut.fi> <1991Oct21.172031.18871@milton.u.washington.edu> <1991Oct22.063704.813@nntp.hut.fi>
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1991 13:23:36 GMT
jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala) writes:
[...]
>With NBC it's a different thing - the resource (radio spectrum) is
>restricted, so it's necessary to have some limits on who can get the
>air. And because of these limits there must be some kind of a policy
>to choose who gets the bandwith. It's because this policy that NBS is
>responsible - it chooses what to show.
[...]
Radio spectrum scarcity *is* the justification given by governments
when then censor the airwaves. Many believe that this justification is
bogus.
Pool, Ithiel de Sola, 1917-
Technologies of freedom / Ithiel de Sola Pool. Cambridge, Mass. :
Belknap Press, 1983.
299 p. ; 24 cm.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 0674872320
1. Telecommunication--Law and legislation--United States. 2.
Freedom of speech--United States. 3. Liberty of the press--United
States. 4. Technology--Social aspects--United States. 5. Mass media--
Law and legislation--United States. I. Title.
ocm09-153957
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu, or (anonymous) ap.4352@hri.com
I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
-------------------
From: bstring@mainz-emh2.army.mil (BOB STRINGFIELD)
Subject: Re: Seattle Times/PI stories
Message-ID: <199110221439.AA23872@eff.org>
Sender: bstring@mainz-emh2.army.mil
Date: 22 Oct 91 21:58:28 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
Carl - How does one get on the mailing list for "Newsletter on
Intellectual Freedom"?
thanks.
--bob
-------------------
Xref: eff alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1379 alt.censorship:2116 alt.society.civil-liberties:462 talk.politics.misc:21760
From: jcn@rice.edu (Jeff C. Nichols)
Subject: Re: Repr. Sullivan wants to fire prof. Hill because of political opinions
Message-ID:
Date: 22 Oct 91 13:31:12 GMT
References: <1991Oct22.073615.1607@nntp.hut.fi>
Sender: news@rice.edu
jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala) writes:
>Oklahoma State Representative Leonard E. Sullivan, Republican of Oklahoma
>City is seeking to have Prof. Anita Hill ousted from her tenured position.
>In a letter to University president, Richard Van Horn, Sullivan said, "We
>must get left wing extremist influence off the campus before it spreads
>further. We can't afford to have a high profile professor on campus that
>millions of Americans, according to polls and national talk shows, believe
>is a fantasizing liar." [NYT 10/16/91 p.A21]
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>I [Sam L.] hope that Van Horn hears from more than the idiot right on this
>one.
Idiot right? Oh, such put downs!
I hope he doesn't go through with it either, but not because it should
be done. If he is sucessful, then I can't wait to hear another "claim"
from her acussing him of _____________________ (fill in the blank with
any unsubstantiated acussation).
--
- Jeff Nichols | I'm a lumberjack and I'm okay.
- DoD#0402 AMA#568571 | Ride: GS500E
- I mean, if I went around saying I was emporer just because a
- moistened bitch had lobbed a scimitar at me, they'd put me away.
-------------------
From: ALILESTE@idbsu.idbsu.edu (Dan Lester)
Subject: Re: Seattle Times/PI stories
Message-ID: <199110221549.AA25788@eff.org>
Sender: ALILESTE@idbsu.idbsu.edu
References:
Date: 22 Oct 91 16:43:46 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
On Tue, 22 Oct 91 14:58:28 MST BOB STRINGFIELD said:
>Carl - How does one get on the mailing list for "Newsletter on
>Intellectual Freedom"?
>thanks.
There is a subscription cost for the Newsletter. Currently $30 a year.
Send a check to address previously posted. Very worthwhile and
interesting.
dan
************************************************************************
* Dan Lester Bitnet: alileste@idbsu
* Associate University Librarian Internet: alileste@idbsu.idbsu.edu
* Boise State University
* Boise, Idaho 83725 You can be sure these ideas are my
* 208-385-1234 own; no one else would have them.
************************************************************************
-------------------
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Seattle Times/PI stories
Message-ID: <1991Oct22.160555.26351@eff.org>
References: <199110221439.AA23872@eff.org>
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1991 16:05:55 GMT
bstring@mainz-emh2.army.mil (BOB STRINGFIELD) writes:
>Carl - How does one get on the mailing list for "Newsletter on
>Intellectual Freedom"?
>thanks.
>--bob
I've enclosed excerpts from the ALA OIF order form. The whole order form
is available on-line. Send email to archive-server@eff.org. Include the line:
send library-policies order.form.ala
- Carl
--------------
OFFICE FOR INTELLECTUAL FREEDOM
PRICE LIST AND ORDER FORM FOR MATERIALS
[...]
NEWSLETTER ON INTELLECTUAL FREEDOM
0028-9485 ____ NEWSLETTER ON INTELLECTUAL FREEDOM (bimonthly, $30.00 per year;
includes annual index; single copies and back issues, $6.00 each)
9000-0416-9 ____ NEWSLETTER ON INTELLECTUAL FREEDOM subscription brochures (no
charge)
[...]
Send order to: Office for Intellectual Freedom
American Library Association
50 East Huron Street
Chicago, IL 60611
PREPAYMENT IS REQUIRED ON ALL ORDERS LESS THAN $20.00 - U.S. FUNDS ONLY
SHIP TO:
Name __________________________________________________________________________
Address _______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
7/91
[ISBN 9000-0418-5]
[pricelst.791]
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu, or (anonymous) ap.4352@hri.com
I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
-------------------
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Seattle Times/PI stories
Message-ID: <199110221611.AA26634@eff.org>
Sender: kadie
References: <199110221439.AA23872@eff.org>
Date: 22 Oct 91 08:11:33 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
I've enclosed excerpts from the ALA OIF order form. The whole order form
is available on-line. Send email to archive-server@eff.org. Include the line:
send library-policies order.form.ala
- Carl
--------------
OFFICE FOR INTELLECTUAL FREEDOM
PRICE LIST AND ORDER FORM FOR MATERIALS
[...]
NEWSLETTER ON INTELLECTUAL FREEDOM
0028-9485 ____ NEWSLETTER ON INTELLECTUAL FREEDOM (bimonthly, $30.00 per year;
includes annual index; single copies and back issues, $6.00 each)
9000-0416-9 ____ NEWSLETTER ON INTELLECTUAL FREEDOM subscription brochures (no
charge)
[...]
Send order to: Office for Intellectual Freedom
American Library Association
50 East Huron Street
Chicago, IL 60611
PREPAYMENT IS REQUIRED ON ALL ORDERS LESS THAN $20.00 - U.S. FUNDS ONLY
SHIP TO:
Name __________________________________________________________________________
Address _______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
7/91
[ISBN 9000-0418-5]
[pricelst.791]
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu, or (anonymous) ap.4352@hri.com
I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
-------------------
From: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Subject: Re: Digression: radio spectrum capacity (was The first amend.)
Keywords: Censorship, Free speech
Message-ID: <1991Oct22.161517.10381@nntp.hut.fi>
Date: 22 Oct 91 16:15:17 GMT
References: <1991Oct20.225205.5648@milton.u.washington.edu> <1991Oct21.002901.20509@milton.u.washington.edu> <1991Oct21.031221.8528@nntp.hut.fi> <1991Oct21.172031.18871@milton.u.washington.edu> <1991Oct22.063704.813@nntp.hut.fi> <1991Oct22.132336.22484@eff.org>
Sender: usenet@nntp.hut.fi (Usenet pseudouser id)
In-Reply-To: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Nntp-Posting-Host: sauna.cs.hut.fi
In article <1991Oct22.132336.22484@eff.org>, kadie@eff (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>Radio spectrum scarcity *is* the justification given by governments
>when then censor the airwaves. Many believe that this justification is
>bogus.
I wasn't talking about exactly that - what I tried to say was that
because radio waves are scarce, _somebody_ must do some choosing on
what gets into the air (or at least some kind of cooperation is good
to have, otherwise all people would set up transmitters and the
quality of service would be low), and because of this choosing the one
who does the choosing (most often the radio/tv company) can be
reasonable held at least somewhat responsible the same way a newspaper
editor can be held responsible. But on netnews only the reader
chooses, so the responsibility should not reside on the carrier (like
with newspapers I don't think it'd be reasonable to hold your local
mail drop responsible for polluting your mind if somebody mailed you
anti-government propaganda).
//Jyrki
-------------------
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Seattle Times/PI stories
Message-ID: <1991Oct22.190242.2257@eff.org>
Keywords: censorship seattle uw times pi article media
References: <1991Oct21.185322.23387@henson.cc.wwu.edu> <1991Oct21.194710.23371@eff.org>
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1991 19:02:42 GMT
kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>"Pornography files in UW computer"
>Seattle Post-Intelligencer. Front page. Oct. 15, 1991. By Jane Hadley.
>"State Probing Porn files in UW computer"
>Seattle Times. Oct. 15, 1991(?)
I take back my second reference. I looked in the Seattle Times for Oct
14, 15, and 16, and was only able to find their editorial (Oct 15th,
P. A6, "Stop Computer Porn").
The libraries here only get the Seattle Times. Does anyone have a
reference to a relevant news article it it?
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu, or (anonymous) ap.4352@hri.com
I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
-------------------
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.censorship] Re: USENET censorship strikes University of Washington!
Message-ID: <9110221905.AA27301@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 22 Oct 91 09:05:13 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
From: cnh5730@calvin.tamu.edu (Charles N. Herrick)
Date: 22 Oct 91 18:26:19 GMT
In article <21387@celit.fps.com> billd@fps.com (Bill Davidson) writes:
It makes sense that educated people in general are more likely to
oppose censorship. Educated people are more likely to realize the
danger that censorship presents (or the oportunity it presents if you
are a major politician). In societies where censorship is extreme,
those people that are educated and creative are the first up against
the wall when the dictator gets pissed off (China is one of the more
notable and extreme examples but there are many).
As a counter-example to disprove this theorem, I point out that in the
1930's, during Hitler's rise to power, during the infamous "book
burnings," it was the students and professors who organized and led
the burning of books with content the Nazi's found offensive.
Any well-stocked video-rental store will carry tapes of the TV series
"World War II," and you can rent the ones which cover the years during
which the Nazi's rose to power to access verification of this. The
films contain footage showing the students and professors throwing
books into large burning piles.
The fact is that there is no correlation between education and
intelligence. The first people lined up against the wall by
neo-fascists have always been from the intelligent segment of the
population, while many of those who order and manage
censorship have been highly educated.
In other words, trust the person, not the PhD.
--
<-> My personal opinion, speaking only as myself, an individual :-) <->
<-> Not an official document of anyone <->
<-> from: a SUN SPARC1+ w/ SUNos 4.1 <->
Charles N. Herrick
-------------------
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [soc.women, et al.] yahweh is good posting
Message-ID: <9110221943.AA27573@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 22 Oct 91 09:43:33 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
Date: Monday, 21 Oct 1991 16:22:01 CDT
From: Barry Grau
I'm sorry about the "yahweh is good posting". I have discussed the posting
with its author, explained to him why it was inappropriate for him to post
it where he did, taken action to prevent his posting such articles in the
short term and informed him that if he continues we will take longer term
action.
While I support freedom of speech, an individual's right to use his own
resources to publish pornography and individuals' rights to read pornography,
using University resources to publish pornography in a forum in which it
can be considered as a generalized form of sexual harrassment is certainly
not a protected freedom of speech.
Barry Grau
Interim Manager of User Services
Computer Center
Univ of Illinois - Chicago
U42054@UICVM - Bitnet
U42054@UICVM.CC.UIC.EDU - Internet
312/996-6798 - Phone
312/996-6834 - FAX
-------------------
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: yahweh is good posting
Message-ID: <1991Oct22.211259.5178@eff.org>
Followup-To: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,soc.women,alt.sex,alt.censorship
References: <9110221943.AA27573@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1991 21:12:59 GMT
Mr. Grau,
I realize that you received many complaints about the yahwey article.
While, I do not support the ideas in the article, but I do support the
right of the author to post it. I think you overstepped the bounds of
your authority when you punished the student for his expression.
You write:
>I'm sorry about the "yahweh is good posting". I have discussed the posting
>with its author, explained to him why it was inappropriate for him to post
>it where he did, taken action to prevent his posting such articles in the
>short term and informed him that if he continues we will take longer term
>action.
>While I support freedom of speech, an individual's right to use his own
>resources to publish pornography and individuals' rights to read pornography,
>using University resources to publish pornography in a forum in which it
>can be considered as a generalized form of sexual harrassment is certainly
>not a protected freedom of speech.
Please review your contractual and Constitutional obligations as an
agent of the University.
You are contractually constrained by your "Code on Campus Affairs". I
don't know exactly what yours says, but at the Urbana campus, where I
am a student, it says:
"STATEMENT ON INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS
I. Preamble
A student at the University of Illinois at the Urbana-Champaign campus
is a member of the University community of which all members have at
least the rights and responsibilities common to all citizens, free from
institutional censorship;"
...
"III. Campus Expression
A. Discussion and expression of all views is permitted within the
University subject only to requirements for the maintenance of order.
[...]
B. Members and organizations in the University community may invite
and hear any persons of their own choosing, subject only to reasonable
requirements on time, place, and manner for use of University facilities.
C. The campus press and media are to be free of censorship. The editors
and managers shall not be arbitrarily suspended because of student,
faculty, administration, alumni, or community disapproval of editorial
policy or content."
...
"VI. Student Affairs
[...]
B. Freedom of Inquiry and Expression
1. Students and student organizations should be free to examine and to
discuss all questions of interest to them, and to express opinions
publicly and privately. [...]
2. Students should be allowed to invite and hear any person of their
own choosing. [...] The University's control of campus facilities should
not be used as a device of censorship. It should be made clear to the
academic and larger community that sponsorship of guest speakers
does not necessarily imply approval or endorsement of the views expressed
either by the sponsoring group or the institution."
Constiutionally, you are also constrained by the First (and 14th)
Amendments. The University's newsgroup facility (like the student
newspaper) is a "limited public forum" under the Supreme Court'
Public-Forum Doctrine (alt.sex and soc.women are limited in the sense
that only people with computer accounts can access it.)
Here are is the law for limited public forums:
[Quotes are from the decision "San Diego Committee v. Governing Bd.,
790 F.2d 1471 (1986)". Quotes within quotes are from the Supreme
Court.]
'"[C]ontent-based prohibition must be narrowly drawn to effectuate a
compelling state interest."'
"Having established a limited public forum [the school] cannot, absent
a compelling governmental interest, exclude speech otherwise within
the boundaries of the forum ...."
"Thus the identical broad free speech rights attach to [traditional]
and [limited] 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."
For more details see the "Computers and Academic Freedom News" (vol.
1, no. 25). It is available via anonymous ftp it from
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/news/cafn01n25. Or send email to
archive-server@eff.org. Include the line:
send caf-news cafn01n25
Finally, concerning the justification that you are enforcing
University rules against sexual harassment. First, I do not think that
statements in a free-speech forum such as soc.women can constitute
sexual harassment. I note that the Supreme Court overturned such
campus speech restrictions at the Univerisity of Michigan. Second, if
the rules for the Chicago campus are anything like the rules for the
Urbana-Champaign campus, you have no authority to punish students who
sexually harass. Such punishment can occur only after a due process
as spelled out in documents such as "Administrative Procedures for
Complaints and Grievances of Discrimination and of Sexual Harassment
-- Students"
Please withdraw your punishment and your threat of further
punishments.
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu, or (anonymous) ap.4352@hri.com
I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
-------------------
Xref: eff soc.women:9907 alt.sex:22219 alt.censorship:2128 alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1388
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: yahweh is good posting
Message-ID:
Sender: news@m.cs.uiuc.edu (News Database (admin-Mike Schwager))
References: <91294.162201U42054@uicvm.uic.edu> <91295.020331U45301@uicvm.uic.edu>
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1991 21:02:15 GMT
In <91295.020331U45301@uicvm.uic.edu> Mary Jacobs writes:
>I agree that universities have the right to limit abusive misuse of
>the nets; I agree that the general rules of freedom of speech
>do not apply in extreme cases of abuse of a university computer
>account. There are rules of etiquette that each user must abide by
>as part of the contract when a computer user ID is issued. I believe
>that the YAHWEH notes cleraly violated this contract between user
>and university. I do not think that one need to generalize to
>polaristic fears of a police state as a result.
The contract between the user and the university says things like:
"A student [...shall be ...] free of institutional censorship."
The contract the poster violated was a social contract not a legal
contract.
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
-------------------
From: edguer@alpha.ces.cwru.edu (Aydin Edguer)
Subject: Re: yahweh is good posting
Message-ID: <9110222133.AA19045@sentinel.CES.CWRU.Edu>
Sender: edguer@alpha.ces.cwru.edu
References: <1991Oct22.211259.5178@eff.org>
Date: 22 Oct 91 21:33:45 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
> I think you overstepped the bounds of your authority when you punished
> the student for his expression.
...
> Please review your contractual and Constitutional obligations as an
> agent of the University.
>
> You are contractually constrained by your "Code on Campus Affairs". I
> don't know exactly what yours says, but at the Urbana campus, where I
> am a student, it says:
Carl, don't you even bother to read your own postings?
In your very own Code of Campus Affairs it states:
> B. Members and organizations in the University community may invite
> and hear any persons of their own choosing, subject only to reasonable
> requirements on time, place, and manner for use of University facilities.
It says - "subject ... to reasonable requirements ... on place...."
The administrator you berate was doing his job by pointing out that the
_place_ that this student was using was inappropriate and could in fact
[in some states and Canada] be grounds for legal problems [sexual harassment].
If the user had posted to a different newsgroup, the administrators actions
_might_ not have been appropriate.
Get a clue. No one should be _forced_ to view material. If a person does
not wish to view pornography they should not read alt.sex.* but they also
should not have to avoid USENET altogether.
Aydin Edguer
From kadie Wed Oct 23 15:08:41 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 23 15:07:04 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:
machman@milton.u.w : Re: Seattle Times/PI stories
kadie@herodotus.cs : Re: YAHWEH is good!
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: yahweh is good posting
edguer@alpha.ces.c : Re: yahweh is good posting
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: yahweh is good posting
shore@theory.TC.Co : Re: YAHWEH is good!
byrnes@milton.u.wa : Re: yahweh is good posting
edguer@alpha.ces.c : Re: yahweh is good posting
nwickham@triton.un : Re: Repr. Sullivan wants to fire prof. Hill because of po
byrnes@milton.u.wa : Re: The first amend.
byrnes@milton.u.wa : Re: The first amend.
byrnes@milton.u.wa : Re: The first amend.
byrnes@milton.u.wa : Re: The first amend.
byrnes@milton.u.wa : Re: The first amend.
byrnes@milton.u.wa : Re: The first amend.
jmc@SAIL.Stanford. : Re: Repr. Sullivan wants to fire prof. Hill because of po
jbrown@milton.u.wa : Re: Repr. Sullivan wants to fire prof. Hill because of po
dege@cs.umn.edu (D : Re: Repr. Sullivan wants to fire prof. Hill because of po
pas@kepler.unh.edu : Re: Repr. Sullivan wants to fire prof. Hill because of po
lamontg@milton.u.w : Re: yahweh is good posting
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: machman@milton.u.washington.edu (The Machman)
Subject: Re: Seattle Times/PI stories
Keywords: censorship seattle uw times pi article media
Message-ID: <1991Oct22.204920.10559@milton.u.washington.edu>
Date: 22 Oct 91 20:49:20 GMT
Article-I.D.: milton.1991Oct22.204920.10559
References: <1991Oct21.185322.23387@henson.cc.wwu.edu> <1991Oct21.194710.23371@eff.org> <1991Oct22.190242.2257@eff.org>
kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>>"Pornography files in UW computer"
>>Seattle Post-Intelligencer. Front page. Oct. 15, 1991. By Jane Hadley.
>>"State Probing Porn files in UW computer"
>>Seattle Times. Oct. 15, 1991(?)
>I take back my second reference. I looked in the Seattle Times for Oct
>14, 15, and 16, and was only able to find their editorial (Oct 15th,
>P. A6, "Stop Computer Porn").
>The libraries here only get the Seattle Times. Does anyone have a
>reference to a relevant news article it it?
>- Carl
the second reference is accurate; the story was buried somewhere in the
Northwest section, i think. but didn't the editorial appear on the 16th?
--
/''' The Machman machman@milton.u.washington.edu david c carroll
c-OO
\ "one hand on the handle of the mad/sane door"
-
-------------------
Xref: eff alt.sex:22224 soc.women:9908 alt.censorship:2130 alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1391
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: YAHWEH is good!
Message-ID:
Sender: news@m.cs.uiuc.edu (News Database (admin-Mike Schwager))
References: <1991Oct19.013841.10590@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> <1991Oct19.133559.24072@tc.cornell.edu> <1991Oct22.200240.29087@tc.cornell.edu>
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1991 21:18:58 GMT
In article
kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>If the student code for any university says something like
>"institutional control of resources shall not be used as a device of
>censorship", then free expression is has contractual protection.
In <1991Oct22.200240.29087@tc.cornell.edu> shore@theory.TC.Cornell.EDU (Melinda Shore) writes:
[...]
>That's a very big if. I have yet to be at a university
>where this policy was stated explicitly. In the meantime,
>I'll just contact the NCSA and demand time on their Crays
>to play nethack. After all, my tax dollars helped pay for
>them, so I should have unrestricted access.
[...]
As far as playing Nethack on a supercomputer; I don't think that
counts as a speech activity.
The prohibition against institutional censorship, however, is
fundemental to student academic freedom and is explicit in many
student codes. To take your example, the National Center for
Supercomputer Applications (NCSA) is part of the University of
Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (UIUC). The UIUC "Code on Campus Affairs
and Handbook of Policies and Regulations Applying to All Students"
says:
I. Preamble
A student at the University of Illinois at the Urbana-Champaign campus
is a member of the University community of which all members have at
least the rights and responsibilities common to all citizens, free from
institutional censorship;"
[...]
B. Freedom of Inquiry and Expression
[... about getting University facilities for a guest speaker ...]
The University's control of campus faciliteis should not be used as
a device of censorship.
The Joint Statment on Rights and Freedoms of Students says:
[... about getting University facilities for a guest speaker ...]
The institutional control of campus facilities should not
be used as a device of censorship. It should be made clear to the
academic and larger community that sponsorship of guest speakers does
not necessarily imply approval or endorsement of the views expressed,
either by the sponsoring group or the institution.
- Carl
p.s. The Supreme Court has said that public universities can require
disclaimers on university-sponsered student publications.
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
-------------------
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: yahweh is good posting
Message-ID: <1991Oct22.220532.6768@eff.org>
References: <1991Oct22.211259.5178@eff.org> <9110222133.AA19045@sentinel.CES.CWRU.Edu>
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1991 22:05:32 GMT
Time, place, and manner regulations cannot be used to restrict
content.
edguer@alpha.ces.cwru.edu (Aydin Edguer) writes:
[...]
>The administrator you berate was doing his job by pointing out that the
>_place_ that this student was using was inappropriate and could in fact
>[in some states and Canada] be grounds for legal problems [sexual harassment].
Posting the note to the net did not consitute sexual harassment in the
United States, Illinois, or the U. of Illinois at Chicago. Its
legality in other jurisdictions is not the reponsibility of the sys
admin in at UIC.
>If the user had posted to a different newsgroup, the administrators actions
>_might_ not have been appropriate.
>Get a clue. No one should be _forced_ to view material. If a person does
>not wish to view pornography they should not read alt.sex.* but they also
>should not have to avoid USENET altogether.
In my opinion, all the unmoderated usenet groups are free-speech
forums. While it was very rude for the poster to post to soc.women, it
was not an actionable offence.
The price of free expression is that you will sometimes be offended.
The amount of offence can be lessened by having someone screen notes
for you (moderated newsgroups) or by stopping your reading as soon as
you realize that you are offended.
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu, or (anonymous) ap.4352@hri.com
I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
-------------------
From: edguer@alpha.ces.cwru.edu (Aydin Edguer)
Subject: Re: yahweh is good posting
Message-ID: <9110222229.AA19108@sentinel.CES.CWRU.Edu>
Sender: edguer@alpha.ces.cwru.edu
References: <1991Oct22.220532.6768@eff.org>
Date: 22 Oct 91 22:29:14 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
> Time, place, and manner regulations cannot be used to restrict content.
I am so glad to hear that. I think I will walk into your classroom, while
class is in progress, with a BIG boom-box and let it play the national
anthem at 110 db for 15 minutes. After all, we cannot use time, place,
or manner to restrict content.
Can you see a problem with that?
Oh, that's right, it would disrupt the "maintenance of order".
Just like posting trash to a valid, active newsgroup is a disruption.
Re-read your own posts, Carl!
You have argued that each newsgroup is a limited forum.
You have stated legal precedants for the use of limited forums.
You quoted one in your own article, which states quite explictly that
speech may be excluded when it falls outside the boundaries of a forum.
"Having established a limited public forum [the school] cannot, absent
a compelling governmental interest, exclude speech otherwise within
the boundaries of the forum ...."
The trash that was posted to soc.woman falls far outside the boundaries
of the forum.
"soc.women - Issues related to women, their problems & relationships."
Thus the state did have the right to limit the speech.
The point is that UIC does provide a forum for a user to discuss pornography
(and thus they are not censoring the user). This is all that is required
and because of it they do not have to tolerate disruptions of other resources.
Aydin Edguer
-------------------
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: yahweh is good posting
Message-ID: <1991Oct22.232112.9182@eff.org>
References: <1991Oct22.220532.6768@eff.org> <9110222229.AA19108@sentinel.CES.CWRU.Edu>
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1991 23:21:12 GMT
I wrote:
>> Time, place, and manner regulations cannot be used to restrict content.
edguer@alpha.ces.cwru.edu (Aydin Edguer) writes:
>I am so glad to hear that. I think I will walk into your classroom, while
>class is in progress, with a BIG boom-box and let it play the national
>anthem at 110 db for 15 minutes. After all, we cannot use time, place,
>or manner to restrict content.
Boombox playing at 110 db should not be restricted because of the
content of what is played. It will likely be restricted for
noncontent reasons.
[...]
>You have argued that each newsgroup is a limited forum.
>You have stated legal precedants for the use of limited forums.
>You quoted one in your own article, which states quite explictly that
>speech may be excluded when it falls outside the boundaries of a forum.
> "Having established a limited public forum [the school] cannot, absent
> a compelling governmental interest, exclude speech otherwise within
> the boundaries of the forum ...."
[...]
The newsgroup facilites at a public university are limited in the
sense that only people with computer accounts can use them. Within
that limit I think that they are free-speech forums.
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu, or (anonymous) ap.4352@hri.com
I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
-------------------
Xref: eff alt.sex:22239 soc.women:9917 alt.censorship:2132 alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1395
From: shore@theory.TC.Cornell.EDU (Melinda Shore)
Subject: Re: YAHWEH is good!
Message-ID: <1991Oct22.231334.9723@tc.cornell.edu>
Date: 22 Oct 91 23:13:34 GMT
References: <1991Oct22.200240.29087@tc.cornell.edu>
Sender: news@tc.cornell.edu
Nntp-Posting-Host: theory.tc.cornell.edu
In article kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>As far as playing Nethack on a supercomputer; I don't think that
>counts as a speech activity.
I don't either - that's the point. We do not have a
license to use publicly funded computing facilities as we
see fit. Policies regarding computer access are
established on a per-site or organisational basis,
*regardless of the source of operating funds.* Those who
argue that there is a constitutionally-protected right to
post anything anywhere from any publicly funded system are
arguing an irrelevancy.
Apparently UIUC has a clause prohibiting institutional
censorship in its student policies. This certainly is not
universal, nor, in my experience, is it the norm. I fully
support Yahweh's right to buy a computer and a uunet feed
and do as he sees fit with it. I do not, however, have any
objection to site administrators exercising their rights to
control the machines for which they are responsible nor
seeing them apply the use guidelines in force at their
sites.
--
Software longa, hardware brevis
Melinda Shore - Cornell Information Technologies - shore@tc.cornell.edu
-------------------
Xref: eff alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1396 soc.women:9918 alt.sex:22240 alt.censorship:2133
From: byrnes@milton.u.washington.edu (Nicholas Byrnes)
Subject: Re: yahweh is good posting
Message-ID: <1991Oct22.232533.2754@milton.u.washington.edu>
Date: 22 Oct 91 23:25:33 GMT
Article-I.D.: milton.1991Oct22.232533.2754
References: <9110221943.AA27573@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu> <1991Oct22.211259.5178@eff.org>
kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>Mr. Grau,
>I realize that you received many complaints about the yahwey article.
>While, I do not support the ideas in the article, but I do support the
>right of the author to post it. I think you overstepped the bounds of
>your authority when you punished the student for his expression.
>You write:
>>I'm sorry about the "yahweh is good posting". I have discussed the posting
>>with its author, explained to him why it was inappropriate for him to post
>>it where he did, taken action to prevent his posting such articles in the
>>short term and informed him that if he continues we will take longer term
>>action.
>>While I support freedom of speech, an individual's right to use his own
>>resources to publish pornography and individuals' rights to read pornography,
>>using University resources to publish pornography in a forum in which it
>>can be considered as a generalized form of sexual harrassment is certainly
>>not a protected freedom of speech.
>Please review your contractual and Constitutional obligations as an
>agent of the University.
>You are contractually constrained by your "Code on Campus Affairs". I
>don't know exactly what yours says, but at the Urbana campus, where I
>am a student, it says:
>"STATEMENT ON INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS
> I. Preamble
> A student at the University of Illinois at the Urbana-Champaign campus
> is a member of the University community of which all members have at
> least the rights and responsibilities common to all citizens, free from
> institutional censorship;"
> ...
>"III. Campus Expression
> A. Discussion and expression of all views is permitted within the
> University subject only to requirements for the maintenance of order.
> [...]
> B. Members and organizations in the University community may invite
> and hear any persons of their own choosing, subject only to reasonable
> requirements on time, place, and manner for use of University facilities.
> C. The campus press and media are to be free of censorship. The editors
> and managers shall not be arbitrarily suspended because of student,
> faculty, administration, alumni, or community disapproval of editorial
> policy or content."
> ...
>"VI. Student Affairs
> [...]
> B. Freedom of Inquiry and Expression
> 1. Students and student organizations should be free to examine and to
> discuss all questions of interest to them, and to express opinions
> publicly and privately. [...]
> 2. Students should be allowed to invite and hear any person of their
> own choosing. [...] The University's control of campus facilities should
> not be used as a device of censorship. It should be made clear to the
> academic and larger community that sponsorship of guest speakers
> does not necessarily imply approval or endorsement of the views expressed
> either by the sponsoring group or the institution."
>Constiutionally, you are also constrained by the First (and 14th)
>Amendments. The University's newsgroup facility (like the student
>newspaper) is a "limited public forum" under the Supreme Court'
>Public-Forum Doctrine (alt.sex and soc.women are limited in the sense
>that only people with computer accounts can access it.)
>Here are is the law for limited public forums:
>[Quotes are from the decision "San Diego Committee v. Governing Bd.,
>790 F.2d 1471 (1986)". Quotes within quotes are from the Supreme
>Court.]
>'"[C]ontent-based prohibition must be narrowly drawn to effectuate a
>compelling state interest."'
>"Having established a limited public forum [the school] cannot, absent
>a compelling governmental interest, exclude speech otherwise within
>the boundaries of the forum ...."
>"Thus the identical broad free speech rights attach to [traditional]
>and [limited] 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."
>For more details see the "Computers and Academic Freedom News" (vol.
>1, no. 25). It is available via anonymous ftp it from
>ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/news/cafn01n25. Or send email to
>archive-server@eff.org. Include the line:
> send caf-news cafn01n25
>Finally, concerning the justification that you are enforcing
>University rules against sexual harassment. First, I do not think that
>statements in a free-speech forum such as soc.women can constitute
>sexual harassment. I note that the Supreme Court overturned such
>campus speech restrictions at the Univerisity of Michigan. Second, if
>the rules for the Chicago campus are anything like the rules for the
>Urbana-Champaign campus, you have no authority to punish students who
>sexually harass. Such punishment can occur only after a due process
>as spelled out in documents such as "Administrative Procedures for
>Complaints and Grievances of Discrimination and of Sexual Harassment
>-- Students"
>Please withdraw your punishment and your threat of further
>punishments.
>Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu, or (anonymous) ap.4352@hri.com
>I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
Carl, porn of this degree of virulence may or may not be protected by the 1st
Amend. (although I doubt it) when posted to alt.sex rooms. HOWEVER intentionally
exposing children to it (as occured in alt.kid) is NOT protected as free speech.
It is against the law, furthermore, it crossed state boundaries, making it a
federal crime.
If you need more detailed information on this particular felony I strongly
advise you to call the FBI.
Nick
-------------------
From: edguer@alpha.ces.cwru.edu (Aydin Edguer)
Subject: Re: yahweh is good posting
Message-ID: <9110222356.AA19197@sentinel.CES.CWRU.Edu>
Sender: edguer@alpha.ces.cwru.edu
References: <1991Oct22.232112.9182@eff.org>
Date: 22 Oct 91 23:55:59 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
> >> Time, place, and manner regulations cannot be used to restrict content.
>
> >I am so glad to hear that. I think I will walk into your classroom, while
> >class is in progress, with a BIG boom-box and let it play the national
> >anthem at 110 db for 15 minutes. After all, we cannot use time, place,
> >or manner to restrict content.
>
> Boombox playing at 110 db should not be restricted because of the
> content of what is played. It will likely be restricted for
> noncontent reasons.
But by not permitting me to play the tape at that time, place, and manner
you have restricted the content of your class.
Or you should understand that the administrator has not restricted what can
be discussed on the computer [when done in an appropriate place].
> The newsgroup facilites at a public university are limited in the
> sense that only people with computer accounts can use them. Within
> that limit I think that they are free-speech forums.
This is not what you stated previously:
<1991Aug30.020328.25653@eff.org>
- These might include email, IRC, newsgroups, etc. (Likewise, forums exist
- within the University e.g. newspapers, the Quad, bulletin boards,
- campus cable channels etc.)
<1991Aug30.000103.22898@eff.org> [emphasis mine]
- Likewise, sites that allow users to post to Netnews have probably
- established a series of limited public forums (limited to users,
- SOME NEWSGROUPS MAY HAVE LIMITED TOPICS).
<1991Aug29.234538.22350@eff.org>
- Individual Netnews newsgroups might each be considered a distinct
- forums. Each forum might be limited in different ways. For example,
- any topic might be allowed in email, while the "uiuc.hazards"
- newsgroup might be restricted to official notes (as approved by a
- newsgroup moderator) related to toxic hazards on campus.
Are you now changing your story and saying that Public Universities
cannot pick and choose newsgroups (limited public forums) but must
either carry all or none?
Or are you saying that schools must allow students to post their opinions
on administrative bulletin boards? Something _you_ disagreed with in
<1991Aug20.183745.8709@eff.org>. You see, there are bulletin boards
open to the students to post their trash to, they don't have to litter
the soc.women bulletin board.
Aydin
-------------------
Xref: eff alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1398 alt.censorship:2135 alt.society.civil-liberties:496 talk.politics.misc:21795
From: nwickham@triton.unm.edu (Neal C. Wickham)
Subject: Re: Repr. Sullivan wants to fire prof. Hill because of political opinions
Message-ID: <-2+dr+a@lynx.unm.edu>
Date: 22 Oct 91 23:26:38 GMT
Article-I.D.: lynx.-2+dr+a
References: <1991Oct22.073615.1607@nntp.hut.fi>
In article <1991Oct22.073615.1607@nntp.hut.fi> jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala) writes:
>Oklahoma State Representative Leonard E. Sullivan, Republican of Oklahoma
>City is seeking to have Prof. Anita Hill ousted from her tenured position.
>In a letter to University president, Richard Van Horn, Sullivan said, "We
>must get left wing extremist influence off the campus before it spreads
>further. We can't afford to have a high profile professor on campus that
>millions of Americans, according to polls and national talk shows, believe
>is a fantasizing liar." [NYT 10/16/91 p.A21]
...some want to try and convince me that this in *not* a Nazi tactic??
NCW
-------------------
From: byrnes@milton.u.washington.edu (Nicholas Byrnes)
Subject: Re: The first amend.
Keywords: Censorship, Free speech
Message-ID: <1991Oct22.160405.2703@milton.u.washington.edu>
Date: 22 Oct 91 16:04:05 GMT
References: <1991Oct20.225205.5648@milton.u.washington.edu> <1991Oct21.011328.7222@nntp.hut.fi> <1991Oct21.163051.1546@milton.u.washington.edu> <1991O
ct22.013428.10374@milton.u.washington.edu>
Lamont, I'm sorry I did not make myself clear. There is a pornographer out there
who posts to this BB. Goes by the name YAWHEW or some such. Writes stuff that
advocates the torture and murder of children WHILE having sex with them. If you
would like to read some of this stuff look for that name in alt.sex.bondage.
This person has also posted to rooms on this BB that are intended for children's
uses. If you want to find out more about this I suggest you post your questions
in alt.kid and/or related rooms.
A BB is a communication media just like the mails, telephone, newspapers, T.V,
radio, etc. If your child got a copy of Ranger Rick magazine with some of this
porn in it who's responsible? Are you trying to tell me that the magazine is
not responsible for it's content? Or, conversely, are you saying that the BB's
deserve some special exemption from responsibility? Either way, the real risk
in my eyes is that the first law suit will cause this BB to fold up and die.
defending would simply be too expensive.
-------------------
From: byrnes@milton.u.washington.edu (Nicholas Byrnes)
Subject: Re: The first amend.
Keywords: Censorship, Free speech
Message-ID: <1991Oct22.160610.3497@milton.u.washington.edu>
Date: 22 Oct 91 16:06:10 GMT
References: <1991Oct20.225205.5648@milton.u.washington.edu> <1991Oct21.024053.19799@eng.umd.edu> <1991Oct21.164429.6317@milton.u.washington.edu> <1991
Oct22.014104.12432@milton.u.washington.edu>
Or lots and lots of copyrighted photos...
-------------------
From: byrnes@milton.u.washington.edu (Nicholas Byrnes)
Subject: Re: The first amend.
Keywords: Censorship, Free speech
Message-ID: <1991Oct22.161420.6186@milton.u.washington.edu>
Date: 22 Oct 91 16:14:20 GMT
References: <1991Oct20.225205.5648@milton.u.washington.edu> <1991Oct21.002901.20509@milton.u.washington.edu> <1991Oct21.171531.8208@EE.Stanford.EDU> <
1991Oct22.020715.18530@milton.u.washington.edu>
Nice to hear at least one other person that advocates cleaning things up rather
than losing it altogether. Unfortunately I don't think it will take "lots of
offended sensibilities", it will only take one with a lawyer.
-------------------
From: byrnes@milton.u.washington.edu (Nicholas Byrnes)
Subject: Re: The first amend.
Keywords: Censorship, Free speech
Message-ID: <1991Oct22.161741.7305@milton.u.washington.edu>
Date: 22 Oct 91 16:17:41 GMT
References: <1991Oct20.225205.5648@milton.u.washington.edu> <1991Oct21.002901.20509@milton.u.washington.edu> <1991Oct21.031221.8528@nntp.hut.fi> <1991
Oct21.172031.18871@milton.u.washington.edu> <1991Oct22.021043.19437@milton.u.washington.edu>
lamontg@milton.u.washington.edu (Lamont Granquist) writes:
>byrnes@milton.u.washington.edu (Nicholas Byrnes) writes:
>>Basically your idea is a good one, but not without problems. Many rooms allow
>>for anonymous posts. Anonymity is a strong and valuable tool, unfortunately it
>>is easily exploited by the kind of people who are causing much of the harm. It
>>is also an easy thing at many places to get someone elses computer account (this
>>is very true here at the U. of Washington). It is also possible for the computer
>>talented to hide their tracks.
>Anonymity is a potential issue. Forged messages is not an issue.
>You are *NEVER* going to be able to eliminate forged messages -- its silly to
>even bring it up.
If you bothered to read the whole post you would discover that we agree.
>--
>Lamont Granquist HALLUCINATION IN PROGRESS:
>lamontg@u.washington.edu Stay tuned for further information
-------------------
From: byrnes@milton.u.washington.edu (Nicholas Byrnes)
Subject: Re: The first amend.
Keywords: Censorship, Free speech
Message-ID: <1991Oct22.162048.8385@milton.u.washington.edu>
Date: 22 Oct 91 16:20:48 GMT
References: <1991Oct20.225205.5648@milton.u.washington.edu> <1991Oct21.011328.7222@nntp.hut.fi> <1991Oct21.163051.1546@milton.u.washington.edu> <1991O
ct22.062936.617@nntp.hut.fi>
See my respons to Lamont above.
-------------------
From: byrnes@milton.u.washington.edu (Nicholas Byrnes)
Subject: Re: The first amend.
Keywords: Censorship, Free speech
Message-ID: <1991Oct22.162941.11231@milton.u.washington.edu>
Date: 22 Oct 91 16:29:41 GMT
References: <1991Oct20.225205.5648@milton.u.washington.edu> <1991Oct21.002901.20509@milton.u.washington.edu> <1991Oct21.031221.8528@nntp.hut.fi> <1991
Oct21.172031.18871@milton.u.washington.edu> <1991Oct22.063704.813@nntp.hut.fi>
jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala) writes:
>In article <1991Oct21.172031.18871@milton.u.washington.edu>, byrnes@milton (Nicholas Byrnes) writes:
>>The person who posts something clearly holds some of the responsibility,
>>unfortunately so does the medium. Suppose NBC allowed some whaco on the air
>>who's sole intention was to destroy your life. NBC would not be able to fall
>>back on the refrain that it was only the whako at work. NBC provided the access,
>>the forum, the exposure. Without NBC the whako would have had a hard time
>>slandering your name. With NBC it would be an easy thing to do.
>You appear to advocate central control for all media. How about
>phones, should the phone company be held responsible for what people
>talk?
Yes, the phone company is responsible. Check out all of the law suits concerning
the 900 number services.
>With NBC it's a different thing - the resource (radio spectrum) is
>restricted, so it's necessary to have some limits on who can get the
>air. And because of these limits there must be some kind of a policy
>to choose who gets the bandwith. It's because this policy that NBS is
>responsible - it chooses what to show.
>If we applied the same policy - choosing what's 'appropriate' - to
>this media, it would cease to exist. If I can do anything about it, I
>sure won't let it happen.
>//Jyrki
I very much don't want to see the net go away. I hope I can do something too.
-------------------
Xref: eff alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1405 alt.censorship:2138 alt.society.civil-liberties:501 talk.politics.misc:21799
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: Repr. Sullivan wants to fire prof. Hill because of political opinions
Message-ID:
Date: 22 Oct 91 22:50:31 GMT
Article-I.D.: SAIL.JMC.91Oct22175031
References: <1991Oct22.073615.1607@nntp.hut.fi>
Sender: news@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU
In-Reply-To: jkp@cs.HUT.FI's message of 22 Oct 91 07:36:15 GMT
Sullivan will doubtless cool off shortly.
--
Self-righteousness has killed more people than smoking.
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
-------------------
Xref: eff alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1406 alt.censorship:2139 alt.society.civil-liberties:506 talk.politics.misc:21805
From: jbrown@milton.u.washington.edu (Jeffery Brown)
Subject: Re: Repr. Sullivan wants to fire prof. Hill because of political opinions
Message-ID: <1991Oct23.003831.27942@milton.u.washington.edu>
Date: 23 Oct 91 00:38:31 GMT
References: <1991Oct22.073615.1607@nntp.hut.fi> <-2+dr+a@lynx.unm.edu>
In article <-2+dr+a@lynx.unm.edu> nwickham@triton.unm.edu (Neal C. Wickham) writes:
>In article <1991Oct22.073615.1607@nntp.hut.fi> jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala) writes:
>
>>Oklahoma State Representative Leonard E. Sullivan, Republican of Oklahoma
>>City is seeking to have Prof. Anita Hill ousted from her tenured position.
>> [ ... }
>
>...some want to try and convince me that this in *not* a Nazi tactic??
My suspicion is that a State House member, even a Republican one in Oklahoma,
wouldn't have stooped to this had it not been less than a month before the
general election. That is, the Hon. Rep. Sullivan is trying to grab some
cheap publicity a couple of weeks before his constituents hit the polls.
---
--
Jeff Brown jbrown@milton.u.washington.edu
Astronomy Dept. jbrown@phast.phys.washington.edu
U. of Washington
-------------------
Xref: eff alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1407 alt.censorship:2140 alt.society.civil-liberties:507 talk.politics.misc:21806
From: dege@cs.umn.edu (Dege Jeffrey Charles)
Subject: Re: Repr. Sullivan wants to fire prof. Hill because of political opinions
Message-ID: <1991Oct23.011142.7165@cs.umn.edu>
Date: 23 Oct 91 01:11:42 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.1991Oct23.011142.7165
References: <1991Oct22.073615.1607@nntp.hut.fi>
In <1991Oct22.073615.1607@nntp.hut.fi> jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala) writes:
>Forwarded from another newsgroup:
>From: LANFRAN@VM1.YORKU.CA (Sam Lanfranco)
>Newsgroups: misc.activism.progressive,alt.activism
>Subject: Oklahoma state rep wants Anita Hill fired
>Date: 21 Oct 91 22:07:44 GMT
>Oklahoma State Representative Leonard E. Sullivan, Republican of Oklahoma
>City is seeking to have Prof. Anita Hill ousted from her tenured position.
>In a letter to University president, Richard Van Horn, Sullivan said, "We
>must get left wing extremist influence off the campus before it spreads
>further. We can't afford to have a high profile professor on campus that
>millions of Americans, according to polls and national talk shows, believe
>is a fantasizing liar." [NYT 10/16/91 p.A21]
>Write to President Van Horn at: University of Oklahoma
> 300 Timberdell Road
> Norman, OK 73019
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>I [Sam L.] hope that Van Horn hears from more than the idiot right on this
>one.
Just about the time I convince myself that the greatest danger comes from
the fanatical left, we get this crap from the fanatical right. Just a
couple of points:
1. I don't want the government, state or federal, determining who does and
who doesn't get tenure.
2. There was no conclusive evidence one way or the other as to who was
lying. If Thomas gets the benefit of the doubt, so should Hill.
3. God save us from true believers, of either ilk.
-------------------------------------
-------------------
Xref: eff alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1408 alt.censorship:2141 alt.society.civil-liberties:508 talk.politics.misc:21807
From: pas@kepler.unh.edu (Paul A Sand)
Subject: Re: Repr. Sullivan wants to fire prof. Hill because of political opinions
Message-ID: <1991Oct23.011617.27666@nic.unh.edu>
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Sender: news@nic.unh.edu (USENET News System)
References: <1991Oct22.073615.1607@nntp.hut.fi> <-2+dr+a@lynx.unm.edu>
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1991 01:16:17 GMT
In article <-2+dr+a@lynx.unm.edu> nwickham@triton.unm.edu (Neal C. Wickham) writes:
[Okie state rep wants to file Anita Hill]
>...some want to try and convince me that this in *not* a Nazi tactic??
Sure. The Commies used to do it too. The proper label is "moronic".
-------------------
Xref: eff alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1409 soc.women:9925 alt.sex:22258 alt.censorship:2142
From: lamontg@milton.u.washington.edu (Lamont Granquist)
Subject: Re: yahweh is good posting
Message-ID: <1991Oct23.011457.9149@milton.u.washington.edu>
Date: 23 Oct 91 01:14:57 GMT
Article-I.D.: milton.1991Oct23.011457.9149
References: <9110221943.AA27573@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu> <1991Oct22.211259.5178@eff.org> <1991Oct22.232533.2754@milton.u.washington.edu>
byrnes@milton.u.washington.edu (Nicholas Byrnes) writes:
>Carl, porn of this degree of virulence may or may not be protected by the 1st
>Amend. (although I doubt it) when posted to alt.sex rooms. HOWEVER intentionally
>exposing children to it (as occured in alt.kid) is NOT protected as free speech.
>It is against the law, furthermore, it crossed state boundaries, making it a
>federal crime.
>If you need more detailed information on this particular felony I strongly
>advise you to call the FBI.
You keep using the phrase "intentionally exposing children to it". This
is the *NET*, there may very well be children reading alt.sex.bestiality.
Likewise, you could argue that anyone posting anything remotely have anything to
do with sex anywhere on the net would be "intentionally exposing them to it".
However, I think that posters should not be held responsible for determining
what their audience is. That is the responsiblity of the site where the
readers are located.
Now, back to all your assertions that this could shut the net down. I REALLY
DOUBT IT!!! It could have some serious consequences for local BBS systems
run on PCs, but I seriously doubt that anyone could get USENET shut down
over this. WHY? because the backbone of USENET is carried over the Internet.
The very fact that its carried on Internet almost automatically insures that
the readers are going to be over (or damn close) 18 years old. I would like
to hear a hypothetical (and reasonably realistic) legal senario where the
entire net is shut down over a porno text.
Now, there are some issues over access to children, etc. The answer of this
is reasonably simple: moderated groups and limited access for minors. This
would most likely be the result of any "offended sensibilities" legal case
against USENET. In fact the most likely defendant in such a case would
not be NSF but the owner of the BBS where the child got access.
In my mind the worse case senario would be that Internet sites would shut
off all their uucp links -- of course still leaving WWIVnet, Fidonet, etc
still alive and kicking... Computer networks will most certainly survive
through such an attack.
The greater issue, to me, is the copywright infringement one. The way that
you are babbling on about "pornography" is turning this into a "moral"
discussion, and I have an extreme allergy to those types of discussion. I
do not actually see any harm in posting violent pornography to alt.kid. The
legality is not an issue in my eyes (see my .plan file for quotes on when
laws should and should not be followed). The result is that any healthy
child is not going to have any kind of lasting psychological scars from
reading such tripe. It may cause some parental concern which is probably
good -- they should learn that they can't "protect" their children from shit
like this, and start educating them to identify it on their own. Everyone
slings around the word "pornography" like its some kind of evil hell spawned
creation -- Its totally ludicrous -- most children probably wouldn't be able
to understand Yaweh, much less be able to come up with the imagery necessary
to form a lasting psychological impression.
Meanwhile, however, if the site in question where this garbage was
originating from would like to draw up a policy that blantant violations
of nettiquette will not be tolerated, I don't see a problem with it. It
eliminates that headaches that sysadmins have to go through when people
post material innappropriately, and a very good case can be made for it
interfering with the functioning of the site (i.e. too much garbage in
the /usr/spool/mail/root file).
--
Lamont Granquist "If the principle were to prevail of a common law [ie.
lamontg@u.washington.edu a single government] being in force in the United
States...it would become the most corrupt government
on the Earth" -- Thomas Jefferson to G Granger (1800)
From kadie Wed Oct 23 15:10:59 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 23 15:09:13 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:
lamontg@milton.u.w : Re: Seattle Times/PI stories
lamontg@milton.u.w : Re: yahweh is good posting
SKAPUR@ccmail.suny : Re: The first amend.
SKAPUR@ccmail.suny : Re: The first amend.
bzs@world.std.com : Re: YAHWEH is good!
cs121es@ux1.cso.ui : The Net as a "scholarly" source.
emv@msen.com (Ed V : Re: yahweh is good posting
karl@One.NeoSoft.c : Re: USENET censorship strikes University of Washington!
tgt33358@uxa.cso.u : Re: yahweh is good posting
kudwarf@kuhub.cc.u : Re: USENET censorship strikes University of Washington!
kudwarf@kuhub.cc.u : Re: USENET censorship strikes University of Washington!
lmann@jjmhome.UUCP : Re: yahweh is good posting
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: The first amend.
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: The first amend.
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: YAHWEH is good!
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: yahweh is good posting
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: yahweh is good posting
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: yahweh is good posting
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: USENET censorship strikes University of Washington!
kadie@herodotus.cs : Re: yahweh is good posting
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: lamontg@milton.u.washington.edu (Lamont Granquist)
Subject: Re: Seattle Times/PI stories
Keywords: censorship seattle uw times pi article media
Message-ID: <1991Oct23.004219.29095@milton.u.washington.edu>
Date: 23 Oct 91 00:42:19 GMT
References: <1991Oct21.185322.23387@henson.cc.wwu.edu> <1991Oct21.194710.23371@eff.org> <1991Oct22.190242.2257@eff.org>
kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>I take back my second reference. I looked in the Seattle Times for Oct
>14, 15, and 16, and was only able to find their editorial (Oct 15th,
>P. A6, "Stop Computer Porn").
>The libraries here only get the Seattle Times. Does anyone have a
>reference to a relevant news article it it?
To my knowledge the only thing published in the Times was the editorial
you cited.
--
Lamont Granquist "If the principle were to prevail of a common law [ie.
lamontg@u.washington.edu a single government] being in force in the United
States...it would become the most corrupt government
on the Earth" -- Thomas Jefferson to G Granger (1800)
-------------------
From: lamontg@milton.u.washington.edu (Lamont Granquist)
Subject: Re: yahweh is good posting
Message-ID: <1991Oct23.005310.2834@milton.u.washington.edu>
Date: 23 Oct 91 00:53:10 GMT
References: <1991Oct22.220532.6768@eff.org> <9110222229.AA19108@sentinel.CES.CWRU.Edu>
edguer@alpha.ces.cwru.edu (Aydin Edguer) writes:
>I am so glad to hear that. I think I will walk into your classroom, while
>class is in progress, with a BIG boom-box and let it play the national
>anthem at 110 db for 15 minutes. After all, we cannot use time, place,
>or manner to restrict content.
A classroom is not a limited public forem. You can't compare that to
USENET.
[...]
>You have argued that each newsgroup is a limited forum.
>You have stated legal precedants for the use of limited forums.
>You quoted one in your own article, which states quite explictly that
>speech may be excluded when it falls outside the boundaries of a forum.
> "Having established a limited public forum [the school] cannot, absent
> a compelling governmental interest, exclude speech otherwise within
> the boundaries of the forum ...."
>The trash that was posted to soc.woman falls far outside the boundaries
>of the forum.
> "soc.women - Issues related to women, their problems & relationships."
>Thus the state did have the right to limit the speech.
There are no legal defintions of what is the boundary of soc.women. In
fact to my knowledge soc.women has not been established to exist as
a distinct legal entity seperate from USENET as a whole. You're forgetting
that the guidelines of soc.women are only enacted by the "ettitique"
suggestions.
>The point is that UIC does provide a forum for a user to discuss pornography
>(and thus they are not censoring the user). This is all that is required
>and because of it they do not have to tolerate disruptions of other resources.
I agree with Carl, that all the unmoderated groups are essentially legally
open to any discussion.
--
Lamont Granquist "If the principle were to prevail of a common law [ie.
lamontg@u.washington.edu a single government] being in force in the United
States...it would become the most corrupt government
on the Earth" -- Thomas Jefferson to G Granger (1800)
-------------------
From: SKAPUR@ccmail.sunysb.edu (Sanjay Kapur)
Subject: Re: The first amend.
Message-ID: <429019067A20BD3C@ccmail.sunysb.edu>
Sender: SKAPUR@ccmail.sunysb.edu
Date: 23 Oct 91 01:55:00 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
>The "Good Thing" is free exchange of information/debate, without censorship.
>Censoring BBs to protect them from the threat of legal action is destroying
>the thing in order to save it.
>
>Matthew T. Russotto russotto@eng.umd.edu russotto@wam.umd.edu
An analogy:
Sometimes trees need pruning.
Sometimes a diseased limb has to be amputated to save a patient.
Sometimes a diseased organ (e.g. gall bladder) has to be removed to reduce
pain.
A cancerous tumor that is not removed can be fatal.
There is destruction in this but also the saving of life.
Destroying a small part of something is not destroying the whole. Sometimes
destroying a small part may be essential if the destruction of the whole is to
be avoided.
Sanjay Kapur |Internet: Sanjay.Kapur@sunysb.edu
Systems Staff, Computing Services, |Bitnet: SKAPUR@USB
State University of New York, |SPAN/HEPnet: 44132::SKAPUR
Stony Brook, NY 11794-2400 |Phone:(516)632-8029, FAX:(516)632-8046
-------------------
From: SKAPUR@ccmail.sunysb.edu (Sanjay Kapur)
Subject: Re: The first amend.
Message-ID: <49112131BA20BD3C@ccmail.sunysb.edu>
Sender: SKAPUR@ccmail.sunysb.edu
Date: 23 Oct 91 02:42:00 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
>From: lamontg@milton.u.washington.edu (Lamont Granquist)
>Next, the University of Washington should either adopt a form of the Library
>Bill of Rights which contains a pointer to the First Amendment, and a
>obligation to defend against censorship, AND/OR the University should state
>that it belives that the net is a limited public forem, and should be covered
>under the First, and will defend it against censorship. Either way, the U
>is defending against censorship.
>
>--
>Lamont Granquist HALLUCINATION IN PROGRESS:
>lamontg@u.washington.edu Stay tuned for further information
If you have any experience with beaurocracies you will realize that they hate
taking a stand or position on anything.
Just what incentive do the beaurocrats at UW have to take any of the actions
you recommend above? They can and most probably will get away with doing
nothing.
Sanjay Kapur |Internet: Sanjay.Kapur@sunysb.edu
Systems Staff, Computing Services, |Bitnet: SKAPUR@USB
State University of New York, |SPAN/HEPnet: 44132::SKAPUR
Stony Brook, NY 11794-2400 |Phone:(516)632-8029, FAX:(516)632-8046
-------------------
Xref: eff alt.sex:22276 soc.women:9936 alt.censorship:2148 alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1414
From: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
Subject: Re: YAHWEH is good!
In-Reply-To: shore@theory.TC.Cornell.EDU's message of 22 Oct 91 23:13:34 GMT
Message-ID:
Sender: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
References:
<1991Oct22.200240.29087@tc.cornell.edu>
<1991Oct22.231334.9723@tc.cornell.edu>
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1991 04:39:16 GMT
From: shore@theory.TC.Cornell.EDU (Melinda Shore)
>I fully
>support Yahweh's right to buy a computer and a uunet feed
>and do as he sees fit with it. I do not, however, have any
>objection to site administrators exercising their rights to
>control the machines for which they are responsible nor
>seeing them apply the use guidelines in force at their
>sites.
I'm going to disagree.
The issue really is whether or not using the same resources would be
ok but for the content. And whether or not that content restriction is
done on some rational and consistent basis.
For example, limiting to only technical and/or scholarly activities
related to (whatever) seems fair enough, if not a lot of fun. We
certainly do that with libraries and science laboratories.
[I realize this will spark nihilistic comments from some on this list,
"who has the right to judge what is scholarly", well, I have no
problem with that, it can be judged and I've done such judging myself
(with others), particularly in domains where resources were dear.]
But if we tolerate one person posting silly jokes to talk.bizarre but
stop someone else (or the same person for that matter) who posts a
message of questionable value or taste to talk.politics.misc (eg) then
the resources or their use are not the issue at all, it is the
content, and hiding behind an "appropriate use of resources" policy is
disingenuous at best.
A student who sees a peer's flippant behavior (eg. talk.bizarre)
tolerated while his or her politically inflammatory note not tolerated
has a legitimate gripe.
It is possible to make policies which are fair and get the desired
result, but it's not derived solely from resource arguments, not when
the resources are so arbitrarily valued based upon content and whim.
--
-Barry Shein
Software Tool & Die | bzs@world.std.com | uunet!world!bzs
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD
-------------------
From: cs121es@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Benjamin Gross)
Subject: The Net as a "scholarly" source.
Message-ID: <1991Oct23.040256.24572@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
Sender: cs121es@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu
Date: 23 Oct 91 04:02:56 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
I'm not actually sure if this ammounts to censorship, but it has plagued me
more than once. I have a research paper due and I would like to use some
sources off of the Net: including the EFF's server, various FTP sites and
others. The case has always been where the teacher has said either there is
no standard format for documenting misc sources off the Net. So I can't use it
(what a dumb excuse...) Or the other common and harder to argue one: There is
no was to prove that these are equivalent to any "scholarly journal." I do
believe that there are experts who publish their documents on the Net or at
least have copies avaliable. I need concreat proof. Please send me any
information or suggestions you may have.
Thanks in advance. Ben
--
! No matter where you go, there you are. ! Emacs is the future, VI will !
! -Buckaroo Bonzai ! continue in the tradition of Rome. !
! mail preferred: b-gross@uiuc.edu ! or at: bmg50042@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu !
! <<-- Reality is only for those who lack imagination.-->> !
-------------------
Xref: eff alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1416 soc.women:9939
From: emv@msen.com (Ed Vielmetti)
Subject: Re: yahweh is good posting
Message-ID:
Date: 23 Oct 91 02:07:15 GMT
Article-I.D.: cato.EMV.91Oct22220715
References: <1991Oct22.211259.5178@eff.org>
<9110222133.AA19045@sentinel.CES.CWRU.Edu>
<1991Oct22.220532.6768@eff.org>
NNTP-Posting-Host: cato.aa.ox.com
In-reply-to: kadie@eff.org's message of 22 Oct 91 22:05:32 GMT
In article <1991Oct22.220532.6768@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
Posting the note to the net did not consitute sexual harassment in the
United States, Illinois, or the U. of Illinois at Chicago.
That's a very hard position to justify. Certainly if I would have
received that message in my mailbox as personal mail addressed to me I
would have been harrassed by it. If it had been left on my desk or
tacked up on the bulletin board in the cafeteria I would have been
harrassed by it. If it were printed out and posted at the local
firehouse, or posted on the door of the shelter, you can be sure that
it would be grounds for action.
Is posting it to soc.women all that different?
Oh, I know, "boys will be boys", and "academic freedom". Ptui.
--Ed
-------------------
Xref: eff alt.censorship:2150 alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1417 alt.sex:22282
From: karl@One.NeoSoft.com (Karl Lehenbauer)
Subject: Re: USENET censorship strikes University of Washington!
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1991 15:52:47 GMT
Message-ID: <1991Oct22.155247.25492@One.NeoSoft.com>
References: <1991Oct17.152408.25384 <1991Oct17.183822.25287@eff.org> <1991Oct17.192431.10962@milton.u.washington.edu>
People find sex fascinating. Alt.sex, despite its lame content, is the
most popular newsgroup on the net. The entertainment media pushes sex
constantly.
The government, churches, and some of the more straight-ahead news media
seem to want to suppress peoples' interest in sex.
The irony is that the people at the forefront, or likely to be at the
forefront, of this suppression are themselves fascinated by sex. Jimmy
Swaggart, a moral crusader and self-confessed pornography addict, has
been caught once again consorting with prostitutes. Jim Bakker, another
moral and religious crusader, resigned amongst allegations that he
raped Jessica Hahn, engaged in homosexual sexual practices, and so forth.
Wilbur Mills, Barney Frank, that senator from somewhere up north (Minnesota?)
who lost his bid for re-election after stories surfaced that he'd tried to
pork a couple of high school girls, and many others whose stories never became
public because of their power and position (see also _Boss_, by Mike Royko)
showed a great deal of interest in sex, while simultaneously tacitly or
actively supporting the suppression of many aspects of it by governmental
means.
Judge Thomas, if the allegations made against him are true, despite his
Catholic upbringing and strong religious beliefs (or perhaps because of
them) viewed pornographic movies and apparently enjoyed them very much.
So, to not put too fine a point on it, everybody's thinking about it, talking
about it and/or doing it, but there are a lot of hypocrites out there who
find it convenient/profitable to take a moral stand against it.
William Shakespeare wrote a play over four hundred years ago, called
"Measure for Measure", which is so relevant to today that it's chilling.
(A friend remarks, "What, you think people have changed since then?")
In the play, a crusading moralist who becomes in charge of the government
of a city-state (Venice?) decides to enforce an old law that's been on the
books forever and hasn't been enforced for a hundred years (sound familiar?),
and have a fornicator put to death. When the victim's beautiful, innocent
sister pleads for her brother's life, the man in charge offers to free him --
if she'll consent to have sex with him.
"Good literature is about Love and War. Trash fiction is about Sex and
Violence."
-- Author Unknown
"I turn on my television set. I see a young lady who goes under the guise
of being a Christian, known all over the nation, dressed in skin-tight
leather pants, shaking and wiggling her hips to the beat and rhythm of the
music as the strobe lights beat their patterns across the stage and the
band plays the contemporary rock sound which cannot be differentiated from
songs by the Grateful Dead, the Beatles, or anyone else. And you may try
to tell me this is of God and that it is leading people to Christ, but I
know better."
-- Jimmy Swaggart, "Two points of view: 'Christian' rock and roll.",
The Evangelist, 17(8): 49-50.
"Sex education classes in our public schools are promoting incest."
-- Jimmy Swaggart
"We find that the sexual instinct, when disappointed and unappeased,
frequently seeks and finds a substitute in religion."
-- Baron Richard Von Krafft-Ebing
--
-- uunet!sugar!karl public Usenet access: 713-684-5900, 2400-8-N-1
-- "Eeny meenie, jelly beanie, the spirits are about to speak." -- Bullwinkle
-------------------
Xref: eff alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1418 soc.women:9942 alt.sex:22292 alt.censorship:2157
From: tgt33358@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Deus Imperator)
Subject: Re: yahweh is good posting
Message-ID: <1991Oct23.060112.11174@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
Sender: usenet@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (News)
References: <9110221943.AA27573@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu> <1991Oct22.211259.5178@eff.org> <1991Oct22.232533.2754@milton.u.washington.edu>
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1991 06:01:12 GMT
In article <1991Oct22.232533.2754@milton.u.washington.edu> byrnes@milton.u.washington.edu (Nicholas Byrnes) writes:
>It is against the law, furthermore, it crossed state boundaries, making it a
>federal crime.
>If you need more detailed information on this particular felony I strongly
>advise you to call the FBI.
>
In my lurking time on this newsgroup, I have read many zany and wondrous
things, some of which I agree with. However, the above statement has
really raised the hackles on my neck. Do you realize the enormity of this
statement? It basically implies that if you submit pornography over the net,
you are breaking Federal law. That means ANYONE, from yahweh to Elf.
The basic problem, as I see it, is that Internet (and Usenet) cannot be
constrained by laws predating the age of computers. I guess my question is:
what do you people think? Where does Internet "dwell?" Can someone be
blasted for posting on an international medium? If I read someone porn over
the phone (like on a party line), perhaps to someone in another state,
am I breaking this law? If not, cannot Usenet be seen as a similar media?
What's going on here? I think hard questions like this must be answered
NOW, while the Net is still in infancy, to prevent hassles later on.
--
Thanatos, DeathUrge, Master of Unknown Time and Space (Slightly Arrogant)
tgt33358@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
"Silhouette's right, Thrashman! 'Sides, we know in our hearts it's not
who does the fighting that counts --It's who gets the good press and the
Babes!"
-Speedball, Prophet of Our Times
-------------------
Xref: eff alt.censorship:2161 alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1419 alt.sex:22308
From: kudwarf@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
Subject: Re: USENET censorship strikes University of Washington!
Message-ID: <1991Oct23.011804.34839@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu>
Date: 23 Oct 91 01:18:04 CDT
References: <7FyV01w164w@halcyon.com> <1991Oct16.180613.19161@eff.org> <1991Oct16.220601.1230@zip.eecs.umich.edu> <1991Oct17.061020.16114@wpi.WPI.EDU>
In article <1991Oct17.061020.16114@wpi.WPI.EDU>, entropy@wintermute.WPI.EDU (Lawrence C. Foard) writes:
> 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.
>
Here's a question for you:
About how much would it cost to open another USENET node? An idea has been
floating around Lawrence that another source besides the University is needed
to access USENET, simply due to the kind of repressive actions taken against
academic freedom that have been described as happening at other Universities.
However, as simple students we would need to discover exactly how much it would
cost to run a similar service through another oncampus computer.
Basically, we need to know: what kind of system will be required, any initial
start up costs, running costs, how big the service will need to be to be
fairly comprehensive (we'd like to leave out the more complex ones that make
up our University's NEWS, and include mostly general discussion groups) and
other elements of that nature. One more system that is unfinanced by the
University except in the most minor of cases, will work wonders with keeping
the general level of academic and information freedom high. Also, there has
been talk that, should we be able to afford such a system, and keep it going,
that the University would be able to finance us to take over their USENET
access system (i.e., their NEWS access that is so much of a load on their
system at this time) so that they could devote more of their resources to
other academic pursuits.
If there is a newsgroup to ask on, please mention it.
> --
> 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. \/
Leo
-------------------
Xref: eff alt.censorship:2162 alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1420 alt.sex:22311
From: kudwarf@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
Subject: Re: USENET censorship strikes University of Washington!
Message-ID: <1991Oct23.015624.34844@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu>
Date: 23 Oct 91 01:56:24 CDT
References: <7FyV01w164w@halcyon.com> <1991Oct16.180613.19161@eff.org> <1991Oct16.220601.1230@zip.eecs.umich.edu>
In article , jsaker@unomaha.edu (Jamie Saker) writes:
>
> baillod@sparky.eecs.umich.edu (Brad Baillod) writes:
>
>>In article <1991Oct16.180613.19161@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>>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!
>
Should such disclaimers not cause any backlash against the signing parties
(i.e., students signing disclaimers granting access to the alt.* groups, let
alone all news access; then getting harassed as "porno freaks" and such) and
should such requirements not cause a potential removal of the information
(i.e., a group of people become nasty, a large number of people who use alt.*
groups are from the previous group, therefore the alt.* groups are removed and
deemed offensive simply because some offensive group uses the alt.* groups
often (look at the restrictions placed on gay bars in some cities for an
analogous situation)) then I am fully in favor of such a system to make
Universities fairly free from lawsuits over the material they carry.
Since on occasion people need to perform research on, say, the topic of sex,
yet do not wish to view such stories and posts similar to "The Beaver Meets Mr.
Ed" and "Cindy's Torment", make it clear on the disclaimer that one is signing
to read the alt.* groups, and to make no complaints should any unforeseen
explicit material be accidentally viewed due to a fault in the subject header
or through other means.
>>Brad Baillod baillod@eecs.umich.edu
>
> . Jamie Saker jsaker@odin.unomaha.edu .
Leo
kudwarf@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
-------------------
Xref: eff alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1421 soc.women:9949
From: lmann@jjmhome.UUCP (Laurie Mann)
Subject: Re: yahweh is good posting
Message-ID: <11125@jjmhome.UUCP>
Date: 23 Oct 91 10:02:12 GMT
References: <1991Oct22.211259.5178@eff.org>
Followup-To: soc.women
In article , emv@msen.com (Ed Vielmetti) writes:
> In article <1991Oct22.220532.6768@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
> Posting the note to the net did not consitute sexual harassment in the
> United States, Illinois, or the U. of Illinois at Chicago.
> That's a very hard position to justify. Certainly if I would have
> received that message in my mailbox as personal mail addressed to me I
> would have been harrassed by it. If it had been left on my desk or
> tacked up on the bulletin board in the cafeteria I would have been
> harrassed by it. If it were printed out and posted at the local
> firehouse, or posted on the door of the shelter, you can be sure that
> it would be grounds for action.
>
> Is posting it to soc.women all that different?
>
> Oh, I know, "boys will be boys", and "academic freedom". Ptui.
When I read it, I felt harrassed.
In theory, with all this "freedom" comes "responsibility." Postings like
the "Yahweh" posting demonstrate a callous disregard for most of the
audience.
Look at it this way. Since I have free speech, that, in theory, gives me
the right to walk into a synagogue and start talking about what a great
bunch of people the Nazis were. Since I have free speech, that gives me
the right to go to an NAACP meeting and extol the virtues of the KKK. And
so on. But such activities would be completely irresponsible. (Not to
mention, stupid) With his posting, the Yahweh poster did the moral
equivalent of this type of activity in soc.women. I don't believe any
anti-censorship rule should support such behavior.
Carl Kadie has missed the point completely. He complains about "punishment."
The "Yahweh" poster got his wrists slapped, he wasn't thrown off the net.
He got a mild correction. We can only hope that he'll learn from the
experience.
**** Laurie_MannVOS@vos.stratus.com ** lmann@jjmhome.uucp ****
**** NeXT mail: lmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com ** GEnie: L.MANN4 ****
*** A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by ***
*** little statesmen and philosophers and divines. Ralph Waldo Emerson ***
-------------------
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: The first amend.
Message-ID: <1991Oct23.131441.2263@eff.org>
Keywords: Censorship, Free speech
References: <1991Oct20.225205.5648@milton.u.washington.edu> <1991Oct21.002901.20509@milton.u.washington.edu> <1991Oct21.031221.8528@nntp.hut.fi> <1991 <1991Oct22.162941.11231@milton.u.washington.edu>
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1991 13:14:41 GMT
jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala) writes:
[...]
>You appear to advocate central control for all media. How about
>phones, should the phone company be held responsible for what people
>talk?
[...]
byrnes@milton.u.washington.edu (Nicholas Byrnes) writes:
[...]
>Yes, the phone company is responsible. Check out all
>of the law suits concerning
>the 900 number services.
[...]
(Yikes! I hate these vague references to lawsuits.)
The only lawsuits I've hear of were over the bills resulting from 900
number calls. Phone companies are common carriers and are generally
not responsible for the content of messages on their medium.
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu, or (anonymous) ap.4352@hri.com
I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
-------------------
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: The first amend.
Message-ID: <1991Oct23.135557.3199@eff.org>
Keywords: Censorship, Free speech
References: <1991Oct20.225205.5648@milton.u.washington.edu> <1991Oct21.011328.7222@nntp.hut.fi> <1991Oct21.163051.1546@milton.u.washington.edu> <1991O <1991Oct22.160405.2703@milton.u.washington.edu>
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1991 13:55:57 GMT
byrnes@milton.u.washington.edu (Nicholas Byrnes) writes:
>Lamont, I'm sorry I did not make myself clear.
>There is a pornographer out there
>who posts to this BB.
[...]
>A BB is a communication media just like the mails, telephone,
>newspapers, T.V,
>radio, etc. If your child got a copy of Ranger Rick magazine
>with some of this
>porn in it who's responsible? Are you trying to tell me that the magazine is
>not responsible for it's content?
I think the basic question for admins of a BBSs is whether they want
to be like newspaper publishers or a librarians. Newspaper publishers
take pains not to offend their readers. Librarians take pains "not
[to] unjustly exclude materials even if they are offensive to the
librarian or the user." [ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/library/diversity.ala].
No word appears in a newspaper (or in Ranger Rick Magaazine) that has
not been screened by the newspaper publisher or his or her
representatives.
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu, or (anonymous) ap.4352@hri.com
I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
-------------------
Xref: eff alt.sex:22344 soc.women:9950 alt.censorship:2165 alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1424
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: YAHWEH is good!
Message-ID: <1991Oct23.141040.3565@eff.org>
References: <1991Oct22.200240.29087@tc.cornell.edu> <1991Oct22.231334.9723@tc.cornell.edu>
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1991 14:10:40 GMT
shore@theory.TC.Cornell.EDU (Melinda Shore) writes:
[...]
>Apparently UIUC has a clause prohibiting institutional
>censorship in its student policies. This certainly is not
>universal, nor, in my experience, is it the norm.
[...]
I think the no-censorship policy is the norm. Have you looked at
Cornell's Student Code?
For public universities the policy is essentially the law. It is also
an important part of academic freedom; it is in the Joint Statement on
Rights and Freedoms of Students, a statement that has been endorsed by
almost every academic association.[ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/student.rights]
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu, or (anonymous) ap.4352@hri.com
I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
-------------------
Xref: eff alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1425 soc.women:9951 alt.sex:22345 alt.censorship:2166
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: yahweh is good posting
Message-ID: <1991Oct23.141633.3777@eff.org>
References: <9110221943.AA27573@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu> <1991Oct22.211259.5178@eff.org> <1991Oct22.232533.2754@milton.u.washington.edu>
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1991 14:16:33 GMT
byrnes@milton.u.washington.edu (Nicholas Byrnes) writes:
[...]
>Furthermore, it crossed state boundaries, making it a
>federal crime.
[...]
The book _American Psycho_ is transported across state lines,
apparently under the protection of the First Amdendment.
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu, or (anonymous) ap.4352@hri.com
I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
-------------------
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: yahweh is good posting
Message-ID: <1991Oct23.143050.4291@eff.org>
References: <1991Oct22.232112.9182@eff.org> <9110222356.AA19197@sentinel.CES.CWRU.Edu>
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1991 14:30:50 GMT
I wrote:
>> >> Time, place, and manner regulations cannot be used to restrict content.
edguer@alpha.ces.cwru.edu (Aydin Edguer) writes:
>But by not permitting me to play the tape [at 110 DB in class] at
>that time, place, and manner you have restricted the content of your
>class.
True, but the hypothetical restiction was not based on content; the
restiction of the yahweh posting was.
(Also, I'm not sure that classrooms count as limited public forums.)
I wrote:
>> The newsgroup facilites at a public university are limited in the
>> sense that only people with computer accounts can use them. Within
>> that limit I think that they are free-speech forums.
But previously, I wrote:
[...]
>- SOME NEWSGROUPS MAY HAVE LIMITED TOPICS).
and
>- Individual Netnews newsgroups might each be considered a distinct
>- forums. Each forum might be limited in different ways. For example,
>- any topic might be allowed in email, while the "uiuc.hazards"
>- newsgroup might be restricted to official notes (as approved by a
>- newsgroup moderator) related to toxic hazards on campus.
edguer@alpha.ces.cwru.edu (Aydin Edguer) asks:
>Are you now changing your story and saying that Public Universities
>cannot pick and choose newsgroups (limited public forums) but must
>either carry all or none?
I take back the statement I wrote yesterday. Here is a rewrite:
> The newsgroup facilites at a public university are limited in the
> sense that only people with computer accounts can use them. Within
> that limit I think that that unmoderated Usenet and Altnet
> newsgroups are free-speech forums.
>Or are you saying that schools must allow students to post their opinions
>on administrative bulletin boards? Something _you_ disagreed with in
><1991Aug20.183745.8709@eff.org>. You see, there are bulletin boards
>open to the students to post their trash to, they don't have to litter
>the soc.women bulletin board.
[...]
I think that soc.women (unlike, say, soc.femisim) is a free-speech
forum.
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu, or (anonymous) ap.4352@hri.com
I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
-------------------
Xref: eff alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1427 soc.women:9952
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: yahweh is good posting
Message-ID: <1991Oct23.153321.5720@eff.org>
References: <1991Oct22.211259.5178@eff.org> <9110222133.AA19045@sentinel.CES.CWRU.Edu> <1991Oct22.220532.6768@eff.org>
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1991 15:33:21 GMT
In article <1991Oct22.220532.6768@eff.org> kadie@eff.org
(Carl M. Kadie) writes:
Posting the note to the net did not constitute sexual harassment in the
United States, Illinois, or the U. of Illinois at Chicago.
emv@msen.com (Ed Vielmetti) writes:
>That's a very hard position to justify.
The justification is that, in the United States, speech is by default
protected. This protection can only be overriddened for a compelling
state interest and even then, it can be overridden in the way that is
least injurious to free speech.
There is no general law prohibiting hateful or offensive speech.
>Certainly if I would have
>received that message in my mailbox as personal mail addressed to me I
>would have been harassed by it.
If you student or staff at the University of Illinois at Chicago, you
could file a grievance. If you were somewhere else on the net, you
could set your email to bounce the offenders notes back to him.
>If it had been left on my desk or
>tacked up on the bulletin board in the cafeteria I would have been
>harassed by it.
If it was on your desk, you could file a grievance.
I'm not sure about the BB in the cafeteria. Here at UIUC we have a
free-speech BB next to, and visible from, the cafeteria in the student
union. Topics on the board have included so-called pro-choice and
so-called right to life and hemp legalization.
> If it were printed out and posted at the local
>firehouse, or posted on the door of the shelter, you can be sure that
>it would be grounds for action.
Who is being sexually harassed? Where would be the complaint be
filed? The only crimes I can think of would be tresspassing or vandalism.
Do you think these situations constitute illegal sexual harassment:
* The University library buys _American Psycho_ (At least 30 libraries
in Illinois have; UIUC is one of them).
* A speaker, invited to campus by a student organization, reads
the material outloud.
* A quad preacher says that all sorority women are fornicating whores.
* A column in a student newspaper says that going co-ed was a bad idea.
>Is posting it to soc.women all that different?
Soc.women is an international unmoderated publication. As far as I
know, no one is required to read every note posted to it. (If someone
is so required, the person who makes that requirement might very well
be guilty of sexual harassment.) Anyone who is offended by something
written there can stop reading and go on to the next note. He or she
can also add the author and the title to his or her kill file. He or
she can also post a response, telling why offending article is bad.
the author's right to post and the right of others to read it, not
because I look forward to seeing more such articles. I defend the
author's and reader's rights because I do not want university to get
into the business of deciding what is too objectionable for a
particular free-speech forum.
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu, or (anonymous) ap.4352@hri.com
I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
-------------------
Xref: eff alt.censorship:2167 alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1428 alt.sex:22351
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: USENET censorship strikes University of Washington!
Message-ID: <1991Oct23.154733.6233@eff.org>
References: <7FyV01w164w@halcyon.com> <1991Oct16.180613.19161@eff.org> <1991Oct16.220601.1230@zip.eecs.umich.edu> <1991Oct17.061020.16114@wpi.WPI.EDU> <1991Oct23.011804.34839@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu>
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1991 15:47:33 GMT
kudwarf@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu writes:
[...]
>About how much would it cost to open another USENET node? An idea has been
>floating around Lawrence that another source besides the University is needed
>to access USENET, simply due to the kind of repressive actions taken against
>academic freedom that have been described as happening at other Universities.
>However, as simple students we would need to
>discover exactly how much it would
>cost to run a similar service through another oncampus computer.
This is kind of what UC Berkeley does. To get copies of the Open
Computing Facility bylaws and constitution send email to
archive-server@eff.org. Include the lines:
send academic-freedom ocf.constitution
send academic-freedom ocf.bylaws
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu, or (anonymous) ap.4352@hri.com
I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
-------------------
Xref: eff alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1429 soc.women:9960 alt.sex:22359 alt.censorship:2168
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: yahweh is good posting
Message-ID:
Date: 23 Oct 91 16:00:43 GMT
Article-I.D.: herodotu.kadie.688233643
References: <91294.162201U42054@uicvm.uic.edu> <1991Oct22.210104.4938@eff.org> <1991Oct23.040337.16881@yenta.alb.nm.us>
Sender: news@m.cs.uiuc.edu (News Database (admin-Mike Schwager))
In <1991Oct23.040337.16881@yenta.alb.nm.us> lazlo@yenta.alb.nm.us
(Lazlo Nibble) writes:
[...]
>While I don't much like the idea of someone getting kicked off the net
>for a first offense, I have to point out that the "YAHWEH Is Good!"
>message was posted to *several* groups that it was inappropriate for,
>most notably soc.women, soc.men, and the kids' group. That's pretty
>obviously *not* speech "within the boundaries of the forum". If he
>had kept it to alt.sex I doubt that anyone would have given a damn.
[...]
I don't think the university should be deciding what's inappropriate
for unmoderated Usenet newsgroup. Between email to the author and kill
files, I think that we, the readers, can handle the problem of
off-topic notes ourselves.
By giving the universities the authority to label our articles with
the official appropriate newsgroup(s), we are giving them the
authority to censor our articles.
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From kadie Wed Oct 23 15:14:23 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 23 15:12:55 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 : (eff.mail.cnidir) Re: Internet Access
kadie@eff.org (Car : (eff.mail.cnidir) Re: Internet Access
kadie@eff.org (Car : (eff.mail.cnidir) Internet Access
kadie@herodotus.cs : Re: yahweh is good posting
jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyr : Re: The first amend.
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (alt.sex, et al.) Re: make NBC News
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (alt.sex, et al.) Re: make NBC News
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (alt.sex) Re: Usenet censorship
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (soc.women) Re: yahweh is good posting
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (soc.women) Re: yahweh is good posting
russotto@eng.umd.e : Re: yahweh is good posting
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (misc.legal, et al.) Harassment via Email
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: [eff.mail.cnidir] Re: Internet Access
Message-ID: <199110231728.AA09709@eff.org>
Sender: kadie
Date: 23 Oct 91 09:28:11 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
From: PMW1@PSUVM.BITNET (Peter M. Weiss +1 814 863 1843)
Date: 23 Oct 91 11:04:00 GMT
> Is there someone (or some group) somewhere that is concerned with
> who gets access to the Internet? If you have a system that is set up
> as a node on the Internet, is there a policy that dictates how far
> you can go in offering Internet access to individuals and organizations
> through your system?
(deleted for brevity)
The Internet is a network of networks, and thus has both regional
policies, NSFNET policies, as well as various site policies. You might
even run across national (import/export) policies.
Here are some references to documents available via Anonymous FTP
from nis.nsf.net (password: guest). These are in subdirectory NSFNET:
FILE: CRENUSE.TXT
CREN acceptable use policy.
FILE: JVNCUSE.TXT
JvNCnet Acceptable Use Policy May, 1991
FILE: NETUSE.TXT
NSFNET acceptable use policy
FILE: NWNETUSE.TXT
NorthWestNet acceptable use policy
FILE: PASSWORD.TXT (21 lines)
NSFNET Backbone Node Log-In Policy
Also, for some USA import/export policies, send a RFC-822 note
to: listserv@bitnic.educom.edu with body of text:
get LEGAL GTDA
get LEGAL COUNSEL
get LEGAL COMMERCE
/Pete
--
Peter M. Weiss | pmw1 @ PSUADMIN | psuvm.psu.edu|psuvm
31 Shields Bldg - PennState Univ. | not affiliated with psuvm.psu.edu|psuvm
University Park, PA USA 16802-1202 | A hexadecimal kindof guy in a decimal world
-------------------
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [eff.mail.cnidir] Re: Internet Access
Message-ID: <199110231729.AA09878@eff.org>
Sender: kadie
Date: 23 Oct 91 09:29:43 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
From: HBTLIB1@UCONNVM.BITNET (james estrada)
Date: 23 Oct 91 12:39:12 GMT
I was intrigued by Bernie Sloan's hypothetical setting of providing access
to the Internet for those libraries (individuals?; end-users?) who do not
have a regular connection. Aside from the issue of charging for the service
and aside from the mechanical issues in providing access, I have been thinking
about the same hypothesis but with a different twist.
My concern or wrinkle in this case would be who or what organization is
ultimately responsible? For example, a number of networks, ranging from JVNCnet
to CREN to our local university computer center have adopted and posted
policies which outline "acceptable use" of the network. Having read several
of these brief policy statements, it is clear that the individual who is issued
a computer account is ultimately responsible for complying with these various
codes of behavior. If libraries or other organizations were to offer Internet
access, would the individual or the library be ultimately responsible for the
actions of their new clients?
The analogy with our current interlibrary loan system is interesting in that
interlibary loans are based on agreements between libraries and not specific
borrowers or individuals. If some material is damaged the borrowing
library must replace the material and then determine whether to fine the
individual involved.
Please note that I'm not suggesting the creation of any unit such as the
"network police" who monitor network uses and abuses. However, in thinking
about how we might offer these services, the answer to the question I pose
will help determine whether our future service will be librarian-mediated
or a direct end-user service. From a practical point of view I don't see how
we could possibly offer access to Internet without requiring potential users
to first attend some Internet training sessions. In light of the fact that
these clients would be utilizing potentially scarce computer resources both
locally and remotely, I would want to make sure that they first received some
training equivalent to bibliographic instruction (BI). Assuming that this was
deriguer, and assuming we had the staff and equipment for such a service, I
still think our computer center would raise their eyebrows about guest-use of
the internet.
I'd be very interested in hearing from not only those of you who have gone
to the next step and have considered such services but also the network
administrators who would be called upon to issue guest-IDs.
james estrada
H.B. Trecker Library
Univ. of Connecticut
-------------------
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [eff.mail.cnidir] Internet Access
Message-ID: <199110231730.AA09953@eff.org>
Sender: kadie
Date: 23 Oct 91 09:30:26 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
From: USERLE66@UMICHUM.BITNET (glee Cady)
Date: 23 Oct 91 16:20:44 GMT
The Internet is the set of interconnected networks (MILNET,
DRI(Defense Research Internet), NSI (NASA Science Internet), NSFNET
(National Science Foundation Network), etc). They mostly run the
TCP/IP protocol suite (some run Decnet and are turning to OSI).
The larger backbone, the NSFNET, has a use policy which was sited
earlier. It is a joint project of ANS, Merit, MCI, IBM, the State
of Michigan, and, of course, the NSF. There is no policy about
individual users; the policy is that the network should be aware and conform
to the acceptable use policy.
The mid-level connected networks have varying policies about who they will
connect. Some of the policies are restrictive, some aren't.
Some networks are subsidized by external agencies, some aren't. Some
are for profit, some aren't. All these factors can affect how a
mid-level forms its own appropriate use policies. Each network
will have its own set of rules about whose traffic will be carried.
It is, of course, possible to have traffic WITHIN a network that
would not be permissable on the NSFNET. That traffic is then,
not "let out" onto the the NSFNET.
Remember, we are talking networking networks here, not
individual hosts or individual users. The Internet is a RESEARCH
AND EDUCATION NETWORK. Networks of individual commercial institutions
are connected when there is something to be gained by the Research
and Education community by doing so. For the NSFNET, those policy
decisions are made by NSF. Note, again, this is at the network level.
The network promises to abide by the policies.
There is a long running discussion on the commercialization
and/or privatization of the Internet. (for those interested,
it is com.priv@psi.com) Most of the discussion does not address
individual users, but that of corporate entities. Nevertheless,
it can be very interesting. (also, hot and heavy)
So, it would seem that as long as the users are identifiable
and acknowledge the acceptable use policies of the nets they may
be using, there is no policy reason why such a service could not
be offered. In fact, a number of mid-levels do offer such a service.
CERFNet and JVNCNet, both NSFNET backbone nodes offer dial in services.
So does Merit's MichNet. PSInet and Alternet in the more commercial
arena do, too. The limiting factor would seem to be host and
network resources at the local level. For that you would need
to work with your local network and computing service provider.
-------------------
Xref: eff alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1433 soc.women:9964 alt.sex:22371 alt.censorship:2173
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: yahweh is good posting
Message-ID:
Sender: news@m.cs.uiuc.edu (News Database (admin-Mike Schwager))
References: <91294.162201U42054@uicvm.uic.edu> <1991Oct22.210104.4938@eff.org> <1991Oct22.235516.17183@news.media.mit.edu> <1991Oct23.001023.17303@news.media.mit.edu>
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1991 16:35:27 GMT
In <1991Oct23.001023.17303@news.media.mit.edu> gorin@media.mit.edu
(Amy Gorin) writes:
[...]
>Can someone at Chicago describe how to file such a grievance (and tell
>me where to get a complete copy of the documents mentioned above)?
>Are there any other readers of soc.women who wish to join in filing?
[...]
Will you also file a grievance against Bret Ellis, the author of
_American Psycho_? His book may well be in the Institute Library. It
might even be in the women's studies library. (I've seen other violent
and sexually explicit books there.)
The only way that the article could have been involved in a case of
sexual harassment is if you were required to read it. Even in that
case, it would be the person who made you read the article and
not the author of the article is your harasser.
>Is someone accused of harassment prevented from having further contact
>with the victim(s) until the case is decided?
I don't know if personal contact can be forbidden or not. I suppose
you could ask a judge for a restraining order. I'm sure that their
right to appear on TV or in publications like newspapers and
newsgroups cannot not be curtailed.
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
-------------------
From: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Subject: Re: The first amend.
Keywords: Censorship, Free speech
Message-ID: <1991Oct23.165848.4566@nntp.hut.fi>
Date: 23 Oct 91 16:58:48 GMT
References: <1991Oct20.225205.5648@milton.u.washington.edu> <1991Oct21.011328.7222@nntp.hut.fi> <1991Oct21.163051.1546@milton.u.washington.edu> <1991O <1991Oct22.160405.2703@milton.u.washington.edu>
Sender: usenet@nntp.hut.fi (Usenet pseudouser id)
In-Reply-To: byrnes@milton.u.washington.edu (Nicholas Byrnes)
Nntp-Posting-Host: sauna.cs.hut.fi
In article <1991Oct22.160405.2703@milton.u.washington.edu>, byrnes@milton (Nicholas Byrnes) writes:
>Lamont, I'm sorry I did not make myself clear. There is a pornographer out there
>who posts to this BB.
Do you mean Usenet? By the way, what is a 'pornographer'?
>Goes by the name YAWHEW or some such. Writes stuff that
>advocates the torture and murder of children WHILE having sex with them.
So? Many people do all kinds of weird things - as long as they don't
harm others, it's not my business or anyone else's to force their
ethics on them.
>If you
>would like to read some of this stuff look for that name in alt.sex.bondage.
I don't happen to be interested in the material in alt.sex.bondage.
If you are, feel free to read it but don't blame others for your
interest and don't start shouting that it should be outlawed so you
wouldn't have to read it - you _don't_ have to read it, as simple as that.
>This person has also posted to rooms on this BB that are intended for children's
>uses. If you want to find out more about this I suggest you post your questions
>in alt.kid and/or related rooms.
What has he posted to those newsgroups? If that's material
inappropriate to the intended topic of the group, it's quite rude and
inappropriate for the others participating in the forum. Still, I
don't think he should be punished by law for it or something.
>A BB is a communication media just like the mails, telephone, newspapers, T.V,
>radio, etc. If your child got a copy of Ranger Rick magazine with some of this
>porn in it who's responsible?
Responsible for what? Most kids I've seen tend to do forbidden things
and read some so called 'men's magazines' at one point or other - and
I haven't seen them to turn into some kind of Evil Monsters or
something. Interest in sexual matters is a natural part of human
life, and with kinds another natural part of life is interest in
'finding the limits' and doing 'forbidden' things.
>Are you trying to tell me that the magazine is
>not responsible for it's content?
I don't understand at all what you mean by 'responsible' here.
And no, I don't think that if I read some postings advocating all
kinds of censorship and get so aggressive and pissed off at all the
people out there that I go and kill the first guy I happen to see the
author of those censorship articles should be held responsible
(neither ethically nor in a court of law) for manslaughter.
If the party imposing the insane ideas on me has some _power_ on me to
make me behave according to the ideas or force me to read them ten
hours a day (as in a parent forcing his religious or sexual opinions
on children), then it could be argued that perhaps it could be argued
that it had some responsibility in the ethical sense but still legal
responsibility should be applied only after very careful scrutiny.
>Either way, the real risk
>in my eyes is that the first law suit will cause this BB to fold up and die.
>defending would simply be too expensive.
I'm not sure what you mean by 'BB' here, but if you're talking about
Usenet it sure won't die because of some insane people somewhere
imposing their morals on personal matters of other people, even if the
legal system in some country happened to be screwed up enough to
support the crazy ideas and/or function as a harassment tool against
differing opinions. Usenet is a pretty large international network
for exhange of information and opinions.
//Jyrki
-------------------
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.sex, et al.] Re: alt.sex.* make NBC News
Message-ID: <9110231819.AA03347@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 23 Oct 91 08:19:50 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
From: icedtea@hubcap.clemson.edu (steven b afrin)
Date: 22 Oct 91 22:57:22 GMT
> In article <1991Oct22.065715.11844@solbourne.com> kucharsk@solbourne.com (William Kucharski) writes:
>>Our local NBC affiliate (KCNC) ran a story today from NBC about how students
>>at the University of Washington have been "accessing pornography via a
>>computer network called Usenet."
>>It went on to talk a bit about alt.sex.pictures and went on to say "recent
>>pictures included a nude man and a nude woman in chains." It also covered
>>how the Washington Attorney General was looking into it, etc., etc.
>
> Well this isn't the first time and it won't be the last time. They have
> looked into and sometimes even tried to shut down the alt.sex hierarchy.
> The problem usually ends up being some minor got ahold of adult oriented
> material. They never look at the fact that we discuss adult oriented
> topics and not just stories and pictures. I guess the relevance of
> adults discussing topics such as rape, birth control, STD transmission
> and the like isn't as important as the fact that some 'pornography' goes
> across the net as well. Although I wouldn't mind seeing
> alt.sex.pictures.* go away to lessen the load, I will not go out of my
> way to get rid of it. Unfortunately there are people in the world that
> will go out of there way. Too bad this society hasn't progressed to the
> point where human sexuality is openly discussed and accepted. I hope
> that day is my lifetime. Til then, let's enjoy the people that are
> willing to discuss and accept it!
>
Hear! Hear! I couldn't have said it better myself. For a country of
people that promotes freedom so much, I find way too many judgemental,
puritans trying to control open discussions of the (oh my god!)
"forbidden" topics! God forbid should someone happen to learn something
new they didn't know before, or understand the sexual functions or the
human condition of sexuality better than before. We just can't have
that! And people wonder in what ways can we help reduce STD's and
unwanted pregnancies. Open discussion and sharing information may not
get rid of these problems, but they sure are a great start.
Steve
-------------------
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.sex, et al.] Re: alt.sex.* make NBC News
Message-ID: <9110231820.AA03361@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 23 Oct 91 08:20:14 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
From: nagy@moria.endor.cs.psu.edu (Gregory G Nagy)
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1991 07:43:36 GMT
The Alt.sex.* heirarchy was killed on PSUVM, Penn State's main
general purpose computer. (The CS computers still get it, obviously :)
It was said that they were removed as a cost-cutting measure but
may also be due to the fact of certain postings originating from that
machine (eg The Jim Whitehead and BIFF posts.)
--
Greg Nagy "...Barq's doesn't bite.. Barq's HAS
nagy@endor.cs.psu.edu bite!" -Barq's ad
ggn100@psuvm.psu.edu
-------------------
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.sex] Re: Usenet censorship
Message-ID: <9110231820.AA03370@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 23 Oct 91 08:20:52 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
From: lamontg@milton.u.washington.edu (Lamont Granquist)
Date: 23 Oct 91 01:52:04 GMT
vanderj@ux.acs.umn.edu (Jon-Mikel Van Der Wege) writes:
>What about those parents who don't care and let their kids have access to
> everything.
>Can't these kids then give the same materials (be it in password, book , tap
>or whatever) to other kids who HAVE had their rights parentally revoked?
>The institution providing the material seems to need SOME way to restrict usage
>if the individual using the material should NOT have it, even though it wa
>given by someone who CAN have it.
>Am I making any sense?
Not really. If I understand your point, what about parents who have playboys
lying around? What if their child should pick them up and give them to
another child? We need to do something about this! NOT! If their that
damn insistent about it, trying to stop them is going to be extremely
counter productive.
I really don't get it.... I saw my first playboy when I was... eight?....
possibly sooner than that... Contrary, to what popular opinion about
pornography would have you believe I'm not out raping little girls right
now.
ps. parents don't have the RIGHT to have the state protect their children
from that material. Its impossible to do that without revoking the right
for those materials to exist in the first place. Not to mention that
any parent relying on the government to be a babysitter is negligent.
--
Lamont Granquist "If the principle were to prevail of a common law [ie.
lamontg@u.washington.edu a single government] being in force in the United
States...it would become the most corrupt government
on the Earth" -- Thomas Jefferson to G Granger (1800)
-------------------
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [soc.women] Re: yahweh is good posting
Message-ID: <9110231825.AA03402@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 23 Oct 91 08:25:38 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
From: stricher@masig3.ocean.fsu.edu (Char Aznabul)
Date: 23 Oct 91 14:52:24 GMT
Ed Vielmetti writes
+ In article <1991Oct22.220532.6768@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
writes:
+
+ Posting the note to the net did not consitute sexual harassment in the
+ United States, Illinois, or the U. of Illinois at Chicago.
+
+ That's a very hard position to justify. Certainly if I would have
+ received that message in my mailbox as personal mail addressed to me I
+ would have been harrassed by it. If it had been left on my desk or
+ tacked up on the bulletin board in the cafeteria I would have been
+ harrassed by it. If it were printed out and posted at the local
+ firehouse, or posted on the door of the shelter, you can be sure that
+ it would be grounds for action.
+
+ Is posting it to soc.women all that different?
+
+ Oh, I know, "boys will be boys", and "academic freedom". Ptui.
Ah, so if you don't like it, it's wrong? Should be banned? Maybe I
don't like your posting. It insults my intelligence - it says that
I have to be protected from myself, that I'm too *stoopid* to figure
out what is trash and what is not. You're harrassing me and many other
readers of soc.women. Are YOU to be the final arbriter? Perhaps we
can get Andrea Dworkin or Susan Brownmiller? Or perhaps ME? Yea, yea
that's the ticket! You may no longer post here. [sarcasm impaired
people need not reply]
You perpetuate the myth that these poor women can't fend for
themselves. I think they can.
How often do you get junk mail? Chain letters? see obnoxious flyers
up? Do you know what *I* do with these? I crumple them up and pitch
them into the trash. If I feel less violent, I stick 'em in the
recycle bin.
Char
-------------------
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [soc.women] Re: yahweh is good posting
Message-ID: <9110231825.AA03416@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 23 Oct 91 08:25:55 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
From: stricher@masig3.ocean.fsu.edu (Char Aznabul)
Date: 23 Oct 91 15:07:02 GMT
Laurie Mann writes
+ Carl Kadie has missed the point completely. He complains about "punishment."
+ The "Yahweh" poster got his wrists slapped, he wasn't thrown off the net.
+ He got a mild correction. We can only hope that he'll learn from the
+ experience.
No, you missed Carl's point: we live under the rule of law, and as such,
the rules must be followed. Mr. Poster was punished improperly in that
the rules that determine what, if any, punishment was circumvented.
If you want to live under the rule of the mob, go somewhere else, please.
I kinda like the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and 'Equal protection
under the law'.
Unless I'm mistaken, this is getting a bit away from soc.women. Set
followups as desired.
Char
-------------------
Xref: eff soc.women:9969 alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1440
From: russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto)
Subject: Re: yahweh is good posting
Message-ID: <1991Oct23.182731.17656@eng.umd.edu>
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 91 18:27:31 GMT
References: <1991Oct22.211259.5178@eff.org> <11125@jjmhome.UUCP>
[why this was redirected away from a.c-af.talk, I don't know]
In article <11125@jjmhome.UUCP> lmann@jjmhome.UUCP (Laurie Mann) writes:
>
>When I read it, I felt harrassed.
So what? You could feel harassed reading a cornflakes box. Harassment is
an action directed against an individual.
>In theory, with all this "freedom" comes "responsibility." Postings like
>the "Yahweh" posting demonstrate a callous disregard for most of the
>audience.
>
>Look at it this way. Since I have free speech, that, in theory, gives me
>the right to walk into a synagogue and start talking about what a great
>bunch of people the Nazis were.
You certainly can-- and the only thing those inside could do is throw you out.
If you were to stand on the sidewalk outside the synagogue, they could legally
do absolutely nothing.
>And
>so on. But such activities would be completely irresponsible. (Not to
>mention, stupid) With his posting, the Yahweh poster did the moral
>equivalent of this type of activity in soc.women. I don't believe any
>anti-censorship rule should support such behavior.
That depends-- is soc.women a nonpublic forum, such as a synagogue? If so,
who controls it? Or is it a public forum, in which case there can be no
control short of stopping activity which is intended to and likely to cause
commission of a crime (I believe that is the most recent test Carl posted)
>Carl Kadie has missed the point completely. He complains about "punishment."
>The "Yahweh" poster got his wrists slapped, he wasn't thrown off the net.
>He got a mild correction. We can only hope that he'll learn from the
>experience.
Got his wrists slapped because of the contents of his post. That is
censorship.
--
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: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [misc.legal, et al.] Harassment via Email
Message-ID: <9110231905.AA03782@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 23 Oct 91 09:05:24 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
From: ts@cup.portal.com (Tim W Smith)
Date: 23 Oct 91 14:15:52 GMT
replaced with "..." in an attempt to not be too blatent about
copyright violations...):
"A Seattle judge has agreed that ...Bill Gates has been the
victim of harassment. ...In what may be one of the first cases
of high-tech harassment, a former Microsoft saleswoman Monday
was ordered to stay from Microsoft -- and Gates -- both physically
and electronically. Microsoft said Joan Brewer had been sending
Gates a steady stream of unwelcome messages over an electronic
mail system. Brewer earlier had claimed that she...was the
victim of harassment,...EEOC dismissed her complaint. Now
King County District Judge William Roarty has told Brewer any
contact she makes with Microsoft must be through the company's
legal department."
Tim Smith
From kadie Thu Oct 24 13:19:16 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 24 13:17:11 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:
edguer@alpha.ces.c : Re: yahweh is good posting
jmanos@cca.PUE.UDL : What if she is a fantasizing was: Sullivan wants to fire
sean@sdg.dra.com : Re: The first amend.
thakur@zerkalo.har : Re: What if she is a fantasizing was: Sullivan wants to f
weyand@getafix.cs. : Re: yahweh is good posting
jeff@henson.cc.wwu : Re: Seattle Times/PI stories
kadie@herodotus.cs : Re: yahweh is good posting
kadie@eff.org (Car : Official punishment of off-topic posts (was yahweh is goo
morgan@ms.uky.edu : Online
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: yahweh is good posting
russotto@eng.umd.e : Re: yahweh is good posting
galt@dsd.es.com (G : Re: yahweh is good posting
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (alt.sex) Re: YAHWEH Posting
garys@cs.tamu.edu : Re: What if she is a fantasizing was: Sullivan wants to fi
edguer@alpha.ces.c : Re: yahweh is good posting
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (talk.politics.misc, et al.) Re: The Dirty Pictures Librar
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: yahweh is good posting
edguer@alpha.ces.c : Re: yahweh is good posting
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: edguer@alpha.ces.cwru.edu (Aydin Edguer)
Subject: Re: yahweh is good posting
Message-ID: <9110231918.AA20269@sentinel.CES.CWRU.Edu>
Sender: edguer@alpha.ces.cwru.edu
References: <1991Oct23.182731.17656@eng.umd.edu>
Date: 23 Oct 91 19:18:31 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
> >Carl Kadie has missed the point completely. He complains about "punishment."
> >The "Yahweh" poster got his wrists slapped, he wasn't thrown off the net.
> >He got a mild correction. We can only hope that he'll learn from the
> >experience.
>
> Got his wrists slapped because of the contents of his post. That is
> censorship.
NO!! NO!! A thousand times, NO!!
The user got his wrist slapped not because of the content but where the
content was placed. If the content had been placed in an appropriate
place, no one would even have noticed. It would have been no "better" to
post a question about sendmail in soc.women. It is outside the scope
of the limited public forum. And yes, I do send mail to users who make
this type of mistake.
You and Carl have both said that unmoderated groups are public forums.
What neither of you have realized is that even public forums have rules.
No, there are no net-police to arrest you for disturbing the peace, no,
there are no jails to put you in for creating a public nuisance, but
make no mistake that there are rules agreed to by consensus and there
are and should be consequences for violating this social contract.
The "defenders" in this group refuse to deal with the reality that children
do have access to USENET. Children who's parents may or may not feel that
their children are ready to deal with the issues of pornography. Parents
who may, even while taking steps to make sure that their children are aware
of pornography, profanity, and foul language, not want their children
exposed un-necessarily. Parents who are responsible by trying to help
expose their children to new ideas in the security of their home and who
try to help select what their children view on TV, in books and magazines,
and newsgroups. What you are now telling them is, don't bother trying.
Remove your child's access completely from USENET because you will never
be able block out the "dirty" channels. Forget the education they could
receive because, hey, who cares if people post trash in important groups.
It's their right, huh? If it was important, the newsgroup would be moderated.
Well I disagree! I think USENET is great. I think that adults should
be able to discuss whatever they want. I think that parents should be able
to permit their children to view Maplethorpe or Walt Disney.
But I don't that abuse of USENET should be tolerated as Freedom-of-Speech.
Because it isn't - any more than shouting "Fire" in a crowded theatre.
Aydin Edguer
-------------------
Xref: eff alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1443 alt.censorship:2175 alt.society.civil-liberties:546 talk.politics.misc:21901
From: jmanos@cca.PUE.UDLAP.MX (Jose Manuel Roberto Manos)
Subject: What if she is a fantasizing liar? was: Sullivan wants to fire prof
Message-ID:
Date: 23 Oct 91 18:00:38 GMT
References: <1991Oct22.073615.1607@nntp.hut.fi>
Sender: usenet@tamsun.TAMU.EDU
Followup-To: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
In-reply-to: jkp@cs.HUT.FI's message of 22 Oct 91 07:36:15 GMT
In article <1991Oct22.073615.1607@nntp.hut.fi> jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala) writes:
Oklahoma State Representative Leonard E. Sullivan, Republican of Oklahoma
City is seeking to have Prof. Anita Hill ousted from her tenured position.
[...]
"We can't afford to have a high profile professor on campus that
millions of Americans, according to polls and national talk shows, believe
is a fantasizing liar."
What if she is a fantasizing liar? If so, she should be prosecuted for
gender harrassment of men. Men should unite, we may be being persecuted
by unscrupulous women who can besmirch our reputation and then walk
away leaving us without recourse. If someone accuses a man of sexual
harrassment and can not prove that he is guilty, that person should do
hard time in prison for slander.
--
Yo no soy manineiro, soy capitain :-)
Jose Manuel Roberto Manos
-------------------
From: sean@sdg.dra.com
Subject: Re: The first amend.
Message-ID: <1991Oct23.133056.45@sdg.dra.com>
Date: 23 Oct 91 13:30:56 CDT
References: <1991Oct20.225205.5648@milton.u.washington.edu> <1991Oct23.131441.2263@eff.org>
In article <1991Oct23.131441.2263@eff.org>, kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
> jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala) writes:
>>Yes, the phone company is responsible. Check out all
>>of the law suits concerning
>>the 900 number services.
> [...]
>
> (Yikes! I hate these vague references to lawsuits.)
>
> The only lawsuits I've hear of were over the bills resulting from 900
> number calls. Phone companies are common carriers and are generally
> not responsible for the content of messages on their medium.
Generally these cases haven't been settled on content grounds. Rather most
of these types of information providers have found it very difficult to
prove that they had an enforcable contract to collect the money. Making
contracts with minors isn't something for the faint of heart. This is true
whether it is 1-900-MORE-SEX, or 1-900-SANTA-CLAUS.
Likewise, the phone companies would say they are dropping those services
not because of content, but rather because of "collection problems." Namely,
they aren't being paid.
--
Sean Donelan, Data Research Associates, Inc, St. Louis, MO
Domain: sean@sdg.dra.com, Voice: (Work) +1 314-432-1100
-------------------
From: thakur@zerkalo.harvard.edu (Manavendra K. Thakur)
Subject: Re: What if she is a fantasizing liar? was: Sullivan wants to fire prof
Message-ID: <9110232039.AA12589@zerkalo.harvard.edu>
Sender: thakur@zerkalo.harvard.edu
References:
Date: 23 Oct 91 20:39:23 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
>>>>> On 23 Oct 91 18:00:38 GMT, jmanos@cca.PUE.UDLAP.MX (Jose Manuel Roberto Manos) said:
> What if she is a fantasizing liar? If so, she should be prosecuted
> for gender harrassment of men. Men should unite, we may be being
> persecuted by unscrupulous women who can besmirch our reputation and
> then walk away leaving us without recourse. If someone accuses a man
> of sexual harrassment and can not prove that he is guilty, that
> person should do hard time in prison for slander.
> --
> Yo no soy manineiro, soy capitain :-)
> Jose Manuel Roberto Manos
There already exist slander laws in the US. If Clarence Thomas wishes
to sue Anita Hill in civil court for slander, he already has that
option.
There simply isn't any need for absurdly draconian measures of the
sort you advocate.
If anything, the legal system needs to be reformed to make it more
*easy*, not more difficult, for alleged victims of harrassment to file
legal complaints. Every study on the subject that I've heard of
concludes that the official statistics are way too low, because a
large percentage of victims do not report or prosecute their
complaint.
And in any event, whether Judge Thomas wishes to file suit against
Hill for slaner is an entirely separate issue from Prof. Hill's rights
under academic freedom to be free of political pressure.
Oklahoma State Representative Sullivan is resorting to McCarthyist
tactics in attempting to get Prof. Hill fired. And the strange thing
is, he's simply wrong in calling Prof. Hill an "extreme leftist."
Hill is a conservative who supported Robert Bork for the Supreme
Court! Accusing her of being an extreme leftist is so far off the
mark that it seems clear that Sullivan's letter is just a publicity
stunt.
What scares me, though, is that seemingly innocuous publicty stunts
like Sullivan's tend to legitimize other extremists as they come out
of the woodwork to advocate extremist polcies. And as the paragraph
quoted above points out, this has already started...
Manavendra K. Thakur Internet: thakur@zerkalo.harvard.edu
Systems Programmer, High Energy Division BITNET: thakur@cfa.BITNET
Harvard-Smithsonian Center for DECNET: CFA::thakur
Astrophysics UUCP: ...!uunet!mit-eddie!thakur
-------------------
Xref: eff alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1446 soc.women:9976
From: weyand@getafix.cs.uoregon.edu (Christopher Scott Weyand)
Subject: Re: yahweh is good posting
Message-ID:
Date: 23 Oct 91 21:15:29 GMT
References: <1991Oct22.211259.5178@eff.org> <9110222133.AA19045@sentinel.CES.CWRU.Edu>
<1991Oct22.220532.6768@eff.org>
Sender: news@cs.uoregon.edu (Netnews Owner)
In-Reply-To: emv@msen.com's message of 23 Oct 91 02:07:15 GMT
In article emv@msen.com (Ed Vielmetti) writes:
In article <1991Oct22.220532.6768@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
Posting the note to the net did not consitute sexual harassment in the
United States, Illinois, or the U. of Illinois at Chicago.
That's a very hard position to justify. Certainly if I would have
received that message in my mailbox as personal mail addressed to me I
would have been harrassed by it. If it had been left on my desk or
But we're talking about the case of this being posted to a newsgroup.
Personal mail is an entirely different matter.
I'm not so sure that you could build a strong case that recieving such
material by mail constitutes harassment. What if the sender genuinely
believed that the reciever would enjoy the mailing? For example, some
people may be very offended to get something in the mail allowing them to
subscribe to Playboy magazine. Is this harassment? Or does it only become
harassment when the reciever has made it clear (to a reasonable person's
satisfaction, note that the sender may not qualify) that they do not desire
such mailings? I'm not taking any stand on this particular matter but
I'm curious about what the law says. This brings up lots of questions
regarding harassment and junk mail but that's another topic...
tacked up on the bulletin board in the cafeteria I would have been
harrassed by it. If it were printed out and posted at the local
firehouse, or posted on the door of the shelter, you can be sure that
it would be grounds for action.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I certainly hope not, at least not action based on content.
The only action that could be taken would be based only on lack of
permission to post, not the content of the posting. However you seem
to imply that the grounds for action would be the content of the posting.
Those that believe this do not believe in the concept of Freedom of Speech.
Chris Weyand
weyand@cs.uoregon.edu
-------------------
From: jeff@henson.cc.wwu.edu (Jeff Wandling)
Subject: Re: Seattle Times/PI stories
Message-ID: <1991Oct23.190924.15905@henson.cc.wwu.edu>
Keywords: censorship seattle uw times pi article media
References: <1991Oct21.185322.23387@henson.cc.wwu.edu> <1991Oct21.194710.23371@eff.org> <1991Oct22.190242.2257@eff.org> <1991Oct22.204920.10559@milton.u.washington.edu>
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1991 19:09:24 GMT
machman@milton.u.washington.edu (The Machman) writes:
>kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>>kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>>>"Pornography files in UW computer"
>>>Seattle Post-Intelligencer. Front page. Oct. 15, 1991. By Jane Hadley.
>>>"State Probing Porn files in UW computer"
>>>Seattle Times. Oct. 15, 1991(?)
>>I take back my second reference. I looked in the Seattle Times for Oct
>>14, 15, and 16, and was only able to find their editorial (Oct 15th,
>>P. A6, "Stop Computer Porn").
>>The libraries here only get the Seattle Times. Does anyone have a
>>reference to a relevant news article it it?
>>- Carl
>the second reference is accurate; the story was buried somewhere in the
>Northwest section, i think. but didn't the editorial appear on the 16th?
>--
Like the NYT, there may be different flavors of the same newspaper for
a given part of the country.
The article in question appeared in the October 15th issue. Section A,
second half of the front page.
--
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.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1448 soc.women:9979 alt.sex:22395 alt.censorship:2179
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: yahweh is good posting
Message-ID:
Sender: news@m.cs.uiuc.edu (News Database (admin-Mike Schwager))
References: <91294.162201U42054@uicvm.uic.edu> <1991Oct22.210104.4938@eff.org> <1991Oct22.235516.17183@news.media.mit.edu> <1991Oct23.014136.19825@nntp.hut.fi> <1991Oct23.165615.22002@ecs.comm.mot.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1991 20:09:28 GMT
In <1991Oct23.165615.22002@ecs.comm.mot.com> bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris) writes:
[...]
>This statue has been very broadly interpreted to
>ban (in some cases) Playboy pictures, 'girly' calendars, etc - as they create
>an 'unpleasant working environment' for women and/or 'protected minorities'.
>Not all cases that went to court found pictures, etc. to be offensive and
>part of concerted harassment - but in some cases the court has decided
>that these were harassment of women and protected minorities and violating
>this statue.
[...]
The display of the newspaper ad for "Whore",a new movie, in the
workplace might very well be illegal sexual harassment.
I don't think that the presence of a newspaper containing the ad in
lab or the library is illegal sexual harassment.
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
-------------------
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Official punishment of off-topic posts (was yahweh is good posting)
Message-ID: <1991Oct23.210725.19475@eff.org>
References: <1991Oct23.182731.17656@eng.umd.edu> <9110231918.AA20269@sentinel.CES.CWRU.Edu>
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1991 21:07:25 GMT
Aydin Eduer raises an important question: What can/should university
sys admins do to encourage on-topic posts.
[I'll address other issues in Aydin Eduer's note, in a second
article.]
edguer@alpha.ces.cwru.edu (Aydin Edguer) writes:
>The user got his wrist slapped not because of the content but where the
>content was placed. If the content had been placed in an appropriate
>place, no one would even have noticed. It would have been no "better" to
>post a question about sendmail in soc.women. It is outside the scope
>of the limited public forum. And yes, I do send mail to users who make
>this type of mistake.
>You and Carl have both said that unmoderated groups are public forums.
>What neither of you have realized is that even public forums have rules.
>No, there are no net-police to arrest you for disturbing the peace, no,
>there are no jails to put you in for creating a public nuisance, but
>make no mistake that there are rules agreed to by consensus and there
>are and should be consequences for violating this social contract.
I see the unmoderated Usenet and Altnet newsgroups as free-speech
forums. Their charters state the intended focus of the forum, not the
legal boundaries. The penalty for moving too far from the focus,
should, in my opinion, be social disapproval, not official punishment.
Authors should have the final word on which free-speech forum(s) they
post to. The university should not be in the business of labeling
articles with the officially appropriate newsgroups. Such labeling is
a form of censorship.
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu, or (anonymous) ap.4352@hri.com
I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
-------------------
From: morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan)
Subject: Online disclaimers?
Message-ID: <1991Oct23.210321.283@ms.uky.edu>
Date: 23 Oct 91 21:03:21 GMT
Article-I.D.: ms.1991Oct23.210321.283
We've discussed some ramifications, both legal and ethical, of carrying
Usenet news. Many people have spoken of "news contracts", documents
signed by each Usenet participant at a given site which would explain
the obligations incurred (or not incurred) by both the user and the
site itself.
Since most of us don't really want to float more paperwork into the
bureaucratic morass, what about an online disclaimer? I was thinking
about something like this, which would be displayed every time the
news reading/posting software is invoked:
----------------sample online disclaimer--------------------
This program accesses Usenet, a worldwide news and information system.
This system is one of tens of thousands participating in Usenet.
Usenet consists of discussion areas, or "newsgroups", covering a wide
range of topics. You will find newsgroups for almost every topic you
can name. Each newsgroup has participants from around the world.
Sometimes, you may find material in Usenet newsgroups that offends you.
That is a personal matter, and this site is not responsible in any way
for the material you read here.
Your contributions to Usenet are your own responsibility. This site
assumes no resposibility for the material you post. If you post any
information that violates the law, you are responsible; this site will
not support you.
This site will not prevent you from reading Usenet, nor will it prevent
you from contributing. The responsibility is yours.
By executing this program and participating in Usenet, you acknowledge
that you bear the responsibility for your actions.
----------------------end online disclaimer--------------------------
Would something such as this help defuse the "outraged user" syndrome,
at least from an administrator's viewpoint?
--
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: Re: yahweh is good posting
Message-ID: <1991Oct23.214311.20647@eff.org>
References: <1991Oct23.182731.17656@eng.umd.edu> <9110231918.AA20269@sentinel.CES.CWRU.Edu>
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1991 21:43:11 GMT
edguer@alpha.ces.cwru.edu (Aydin Edguer) writes:
[...]
>The user got his wrist slapped not because of the content but where the
>content was placed. If the content had been placed in an appropriate
>place, no one would even have noticed. It would have been no "better" to
>post a question about sendmail in soc.women.
[...]
According to the sys admin who administered the punishment, the
poster's offense was "generalized sexual harassment". As far as I can
tell, the sys admin had no authority to enforce even official sexual
harassment rules.
[...]
>The "defenders" in this group refuse to deal with the reality that children
>do have access to USENET. Children who's parents may or may not feel that
>their children are ready to deal with the issues of pornography. Parents
>who may, even while taking steps to make sure that their children are aware
>of pornography, profanity, and foul language, not want their children
>exposed un-necessarily. Parents who are responsible by trying to help
>expose their children to new ideas in the security of their home and who
>try to help select what their children view on TV, in books and magazines,
>and newsgroups. What you are now telling them is, don't bother trying.
>Remove your child's access completely from USENET because you will never
>be able block out the "dirty" channels. Forget the education they could
>receive because, hey, who cares if people post trash in important groups.
>It's their right, huh? If it was important, the newsgroup would be moderated.
Any person or group is welcome to start a service that labels articles
any way they want (for example, "dirty"/"nondirty"). They can also
started their own moderated and/or private-access discussion groups.
They should not, however, try to compel others to apply or use these
labels. I'm enclosing the ALA statement on labeling.
[...]
>But I don't that abuse of USENET should be tolerated as Freedom-of-Speech.
>Because it isn't - any more than shouting "Fire" in a crowded theatre.
Yelling fire in a crowded theatre is not allowed because people might
be inured in the mad rush to the door. [Evan Ravitz, alt.censorship,
March 30, 1991]
------
STATEMENT ON LABELING
An Interpretation of the LIBRARY BILL OF RIGHTS
Labeling is the practice of describing or designating materials by affixing a
prejudicial label and/or segregating them by a prejudicial system. The
American Library Association opposes these means of predisposing people's
attitudes toward library materials for the following reasons:
1. Labeling is an attempt to prejudice attitudes and as such, it is a
censor's tool.
2. Some find it easy and even proper, according to their ethics, to
establish criteria for judging publications as objectionable. However,
injustice and ignorance rather than justice and enlightenment result
from such practices, and the American Library Association opposes the
establishment of such criteria.
3. Libraries do not advocate the ideas found in their collections. The
presence of books and other resources in a library does not indicate
endorsement of their contents by the library.
A variety of private organizations promulgate rating systems and/or review
materials as a means of advising either their members or the general public
concerning their opinions of the contents and suitability or appropriate age
for use of certain books, films, recordings, or other materials. For the
library to adopt or enforce any of these private systems, to attach such
ratings to library materials, to include them in bibliographic records,
library catalogs, or other finding aids, or otherwise to endorse them would
violate the LIBRARY BILL OF RIGHTS.
While some attempts have been made to adopt these systems into law, the
constitutionality of such measures is extremely questionable. If such
legislation is passed which applies within a library's jurisdiction, the
library should seek competent legal advice concerning its applicability to
library operations.
Publishers, industry groups, and distributors sometimes add ratings to
material or include them as part of their packaging. Librarians should not
endorse such practices. However, removing or obliterating such ratings -- if
placed there by or with permission of the copyright holder -- could constitute
expurgation, which is also unacceptable.
The American Library Association opposes efforts which aim at closing any path
to knowledge. This statement, however, does not exclude the adoption of
organizational schemes designed as directional aids or to facilitate access to
materials.
Adopted July 13, 1951. Amended June 25, 1971; July 1, 1981; June 26, 1990, by
the ALA Council.
[Made available by permission of the American Library Association.]
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu, or (anonymous) ap.4352@hri.com
I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
-------------------
From: russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto)
Subject: Re: yahweh is good posting
Message-ID: <1991Oct23.213447.25351@eng.umd.edu>
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 91 21:34:47 GMT
References: <1991Oct23.182731.17656@eng.umd.edu> <9110231918.AA20269@sentinel.CES.CWRU.Edu>
In article <9110231918.AA20269@sentinel.CES.CWRU.Edu> edguer@alpha.ces.cwru.edu (Aydin Edguer) writes:
>> >Carl Kadie has missed the point completely. He complains about "punishment."
>> >The "Yahweh" poster got his wrists slapped, he wasn't thrown off the net.
>> >He got a mild correction. We can only hope that he'll learn from the
>> >experience.
>>
>> Got his wrists slapped because of the contents of his post. That is
>> censorship.
>
>NO!! NO!! A thousand times, NO!!
>
>The user got his wrist slapped not because of the content but where the
>content was placed. If the content had been placed in an appropriate
>place, no one would even have noticed. It would have been no "better" to
>post a question about sendmail in soc.women. It is outside the scope
>of the limited public forum. And yes, I do send mail to users who make
>this type of mistake.
Posting a message about sendmail in soc.women certainly wouldn't have gotten
dire warnings about 'violation of rules' or 'further action'. The reason
>You and Carl have both said that unmoderated groups are public forums.
>What neither of you have realized is that even public forums have rules.
>No, there are no net-police to arrest you for disturbing the peace, no,
>there are no jails to put you in for creating a public nuisance, but
>make no mistake that there are rules agreed to by consensus and there
>are and should be consequences for violating this social contract.
Sure-- you get mail from the annoyed users. When someone appoints themself
'enforcer' of the 'social contract', they are appointing themselves
'net.police'.
>The "defenders" in this group refuse to deal with the reality that children
>do have access to USENET.
The issue of children is brought up to support all sorts of censorship.
The rationale seems to be 'parents can't keep children from seeing this stuff,
so this stuff should be banned'
>Children who's parents may or may not feel that
>their children are ready to deal with the issues of pornography.
A content based standard-- I thought you said this wasn't censorship on
the basis of censorship.
>Parents
>who may, even while taking steps to make sure that their children are aware
>of pornography, profanity, and foul language, not want their children
>exposed un-necessarily.
It is necessary to free speech that children be exposed to this stuff on a
truly uncensored forum. Once we give some official the power to censor based
on content, the freedom of the forum is lost.
> Parents who are responsible by trying to help
>expose their children to new ideas in the security of their home and who
>try to help select what their children view on TV, in books and magazines,
>and newsgroups. What you are now telling them is, don't bother trying.
>Remove your child's access completely from USENET because you will never
>be able block out the "dirty" channels.
USEnet is unlike all those other things in that it is unedited-- nothing
goes on TV unless it goes through the appropriate people at the stations, and
they control the content. Nothing goes in books and magazines without
the consent of the editor and/or publisher. With newsgroups, everything
submitted goes in-- there is no way a parent can select what their children
will see because the content of a newsgroup is determined only by what
people post. It is an advantage, and disadvantage, of USENet.
>Forget the education they could
>receive because, hey, who cares if people post trash in important groups.
>It's their right, huh? If it was important, the newsgroup would be moderated.
>
>Well I disagree! I think USENET is great. I think that adults should
>be able to discuss whatever they want.
This goal is incompatible with your goal of having all but a few newsgroups
"suitable for children"N.
>I think that parents should be able
>to permit their children to view Maplethorpe or Walt Disney.
>But I don't that abuse of USENET should be tolerated as Freedom-of-Speech.
>Because it isn't - any more than shouting "Fire" in a crowded theatre.
The case of shouting "Fire" in a crowded theatre was to illustrate an example
of the 'clear and present danger' test-- what is the clear and present danger
of foul language/pornography?
--
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.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1453 soc.women:9983 alt.sex:22402 alt.censorship:2181
From: galt@dsd.es.com (Greg Alt - Perp)
Subject: Re: yahweh is good posting
Message-ID: <1991Oct23.213823.25272@dsd.es.com>
Followup-To: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,soc.women,alt.sex,alt.censorship
Sender: usenet@dsd.es.com
Nntp-Posting-Host: 130.187.85.107
References: <91294.162201U42054@uicvm.uic.edu> <1991Oct22.210104.4938@eff.org> <1991Oct22.235516.17183@news.media.mit.edu> <1991Oct23.001023.17303@news.media.mit.edu>
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 91 21:38:23 GMT
I was thinking... This should be handled as a person posting something
to an inappropriate newsgroup to annoy people. He should be handled as
if he was posting snoopy .gifs to alt.activism.
While I don't think the school would have a case against him if he posted
to alt.tasteless or alt.evil, he did post to an inappropriate group. If
he continues to do this to annoy people, it would not be censorship to
pull his net access.
--
/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)
"I speak only for myself" -me ) "But if someone came for you one night
_ _ _ _ ___ ) and dragged you away, do you really
( ` D L ( ` /_\ | | ) think your neighbors would even care?"
\7 |\ L \7 | | L_ | ) --Jello Biafra,
(galt@dsd.es.com) ) _Last Scream of the Missing Neighbors_
-------------------
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.sex] Re: YAHWEH Posting
Message-ID: <9110232202.AA04970@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 23 Oct 91 12:02:38 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
From: GOOSE@VTVM1.CC.VT.EDU
Date: 23 Oct 91 20:40:24 GMT
I join those who think this was a sick posting by a disturbed writer.
He may have the right to post it where he pleases, but I think it was a bit
indiscriminate and very misleading. Most people who post stories on
alt.sex have the decency to preface the post with a warning/disclaimer that
the material may be offensive to some. However, this post was a set-up to
suck people into reading it and that is what bothers me. I don't appreciate
being led into reading something that started out as an innocent (relative to
alt.sex) story and all of a sudden being grossed out by the sudden shift
from erotica to wretched violence. It is one thing to post items like this
with a warning, but it is irresponsible to post a contrived method to shock
people.
-------------------
From: garys@cs.tamu.edu (Gary Wayne "Pooh" Smith)
Subject: Re: What if she is a fantasizing liar? was: Sullivan wants to fire prof
Message-ID: <5127@tamsun.TAMU.EDU>
Date: 23 Oct 91 21:27:18 GMT
References: <1991Oct22.073615.1607@nntp.hut.fi>
Sender: usenet@tamsun.TAMU.EDU
In article jmanos@cca.PUE.UDLAP.MX (Jose Manuel Roberto Manos) writes:
> If someone accuses a man of sexual
>harrassment and can not prove that he is guilty, that person should do
>hard time in prison for slander.
In October, 1991, my supervisor Jose Manuel Roberto Manos made sexual
advances towards me. I repeatedly asked him to stop. He continued to
make these advances. He would tell me about pornographic movies he
had seen. He would also tell me about his exploits and the size of his organ.
The most unusual incident was one in which Jose Manuel Roberto Manos walked
over to get his drink and remarked 'who put this worm in my tequilla'.
- gary (what a real man) smith
-------------------
From: edguer@alpha.ces.cwru.edu (Aydin Edguer)
Subject: Re: yahweh is good posting
Message-ID: <9110232215.AA20526@sentinel.CES.CWRU.Edu>
Sender: edguer@alpha.ces.cwru.edu
References: <1991Oct23.214311.20647@eff.org>
Date: 23 Oct 91 22:15:37 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
> Any person or group is welcome to start a service that labels articles
> any way they want (for example, "dirty"/"nondirty"). They can also
> started their own moderated and/or private-access discussion groups.
Carl, you really don't get it, do you?
I am not asking for labeling. I am asking for common sense.
I am asking for following the "rules" of USENET. You can make
all the fancy speeches you want about how unmoderation means anything
is okay but this is flat out wrong! If you make disturb a group that is
legitimately meeting in a public area, security will ask you to leave.
There don't have to be any moderators. There just has to be sufficient
annoyance at your behavior.
Try it sometime. Try to distrupt a student group meeting in a school.
You won't last long. The point is Free-Speech can be take place without
having it all take place at the same time and place. If a school refuses to
provide a forum then you have a legit grievance with your school. But when
the school grants you a forum and you refuse to use it, just so you can
disrupt someone elses forum, you are out of line and should be prevented
from disrupting the other forum.
Aydin Edguer
-------------------
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [talk.politics.misc, et al.] Re: The Dirty Pictures Library
Message-ID: <9110232220.AA05071@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 23 Oct 91 12:20:16 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
From: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1991 21:06:28 GMT
(quoted from The Seattle Times)
>Taxpayers are presented with a vivid image: faculty, staff and students
>on a leisurely scroll through the latest electronic erotica. Too many
>people with too much time on their hands.
...
>Let the computer Cupids get their titillation on their own time, on
>their own computers at home or elsewhere off the job; not on the state's
>payroll, or at state expense.
>
>Taxpayers are under no obligation to provide a salacious entertainment
>medium for bored UW faculty, staff and students. The public keeps
>hearing that money is tight.
It will be interesting to see if, when some bluenose terrorizes
someone about having such material on a private computer with no tax
funding, the Seattle Times and their ilk remember that they thought
this was "ok" and it was (according to them) the tax aspect which
irked them. Or was that a bit of hypocritical self-righteousness, a
convenient bludgeon?
I'll save the quote.
--
-Barry Shein
Software Tool & Die | bzs@world.std.com | uunet!world!bzs
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD
-------------------
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: yahweh is good posting
Message-ID: <1991Oct23.223138.22750@eff.org>
References: <1991Oct23.214311.20647@eff.org> <9110232215.AA20526@sentinel.CES.CWRU.Edu>
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1991 22:31:38 GMT
edguer@alpha.ces.cwru.edu (Aydin Edguer) writes:
[...]
>If you make disturb a group that is
>legitimately meeting in a public area, security will ask you to leave.
>There don't have to be any moderators. There just has to be sufficient
>annoyance at your behavior.
>Try it sometime. Try to distrupt a student group meeting in a school.
>You won't last long.
[...]
Posting a note to the net is not a disturption. Disruptions would be
things like forging cancel messages.
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu, or (anonymous) ap.4352@hri.com
I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
-------------------
From: edguer@alpha.ces.cwru.edu (Aydin Edguer)
Subject: Re: yahweh is good posting
Message-ID: <9110232257.AA20567@sentinel.CES.CWRU.Edu>
Sender: edguer@alpha.ces.cwru.edu
References: <1991Oct23.223138.22750@eff.org>
Date: 23 Oct 91 22:57:18 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
> Posting a note to the net is not a disruption. Disruptions would be
> things like forging cancel messages.
I think you are being deliberately obtuse. If you don't think messages
that fall well outside a newgroups charter disrupt newsgroups, you haven't
been reading the USENET long enough.
Some people agree with you Carl, that moderation of a newsgroup runs the
_risk_ of censorship. Thus to preserve the open forum, they use
self-moderation. They do not do this so that an uneducated user can
abuse their newsgroup. They do not welcome off-charter topics, and
they should not have to put up with them!
If you really feel this way then I can assume you would welcome someone
posting 100K articles to this newsgroup every 5 minutes. Each article
will be a random RFC, or other document. Each one will come from a
different site and user and have a different title so you cannot filter
them. Within one day I bet you would see a bit of a disruption. Within
two weeks, I bet it would have progressed to the point of you more than
politely asking it to stop.
But all that would be happening is someone expressing their right to
free speech....
Aydin Edguer
From kadie Thu Oct 24 13:39:22 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 24 13:37:21 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:
galt@dsd.es.com (G : Re: What if she is a fantasizing was: Sullivan wants to f
jjs@acd4.acd.com ( : Re: Repr. Sullivan wants to fire prof. Hill because of po
kadie@eff.org (Car : off-topic notes (was yahweh is good posting)
gerry@cs.cmu.edu ( : Re: What if she is a fantasizing was: Sullivan wants to f
chron!magic322!edt : Just spoke with Jane Hadley
edguer@alpha.ces.c : Re: off-topic notes (was yahweh is good posting)
ALILESTE@idbsu.idb : Re: yahweh is good posting
stanley@verga.enet : Re: Repr. Sullivan wants to fire prof. Hill because of po
lamontg@milton.u.w : Re: The first amend.
lamontg@milton.u.w : Re: yahweh is good posting
lamontg@milton.u.w : Re: (alt.sex, et al.) Re: make NBC News
lamontg@milton.u.w : Re: (alt.sex) Re: YAHWEH Posting
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: off-topic notes (was yahweh is good posting)
lamontg@milton.u.w : Re: Seattle Times/PI stories
technews@iitmax.ii : Re: USENET censorship strikes University of Washington!
schweige@taurus.cs : Re: Official punishment of off-topic posts (was yahweh is
jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyr : Re: Repr. Sullivan wants to fire prof. Hill because of po
lamontg@milton.u.w : Re: USENET censorship strikes University of Washington!
ph111-bx@violet.be : Re: USENET censorship strikes University of Washington!
stark@saturn.sdsu. : Re: yahweh is good posting
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: galt@dsd.es.com (Greg Alt - Perp)
Subject: Re: What if she is a fantasizing liar? was: Sullivan wants to fire prof
Message-ID: <1991Oct23.220731.25651@dsd.es.com>
Followup-To: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Sender: usenet@dsd.es.com
Nntp-Posting-Host: 130.187.85.107
References: <1991Oct22.073615.1607@nntp.hut.fi>
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 91 22:07:31 GMT
In article , jmanos@cca.PUE.UDLAP.MX (Jose Manuel Roberto Manos) writes:
> In article <1991Oct22.073615.1607@nntp.hut.fi> jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala) writes:
> Oklahoma State Representative Leonard E. Sullivan, Republican of Oklahoma
> City is seeking to have Prof. Anita Hill ousted from her tenured position.
> [...]
> "We can't afford to have a high profile professor on campus that
> millions of Americans, according to polls and national talk shows, believe
> is a fantasizing liar."
>
> What if she is a fantasizing liar? If so, she should be prosecuted for
> gender harrassment of men. Men should unite, we may be being persecuted
> by unscrupulous women who can besmirch our reputation and then walk
> away leaving us without recourse. If someone accuses a man of sexual
> harrassment and can not prove that he is guilty, that person should do
> hard time in prison for slander.
First, the whole idea of innocent till proven guilty means that even if
someone is guilty, they are found innocent if there is not enough evidence
against them. The fact that they are found innocent does not prove the
accuser is a liar (although it migh be interesting to see police officers
going to jail for arresting someone who is later found innocent. :) )
Second, Thomas was never found innocent. He was never put on trial. What
did happen is the Senate decided that he was good enough to be put on the
Supreme Court.
Third, you don't go to jail for slander.
If Thomas wanted to, he could sue Hill for slander. He would have to prove
that she knowingly lied to destroy his reputation. He would also have to
prove that her lies have hurt him in some way. Since he was approved by
the Senate, it would be difficult to show any damages.
It is funny how conservatives only care about the rights of the accused
when it is a powerful conservative in government.
--
/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)
"I speak only for myself" -me ) "But if someone came for you one night
_ _ _ _ ___ ) and dragged you away, do you really
( ` D L ( ` /_\ | | ) think your neighbors would even care?"
\7 |\ L \7 | | L_ | ) --Jello Biafra,
(galt@dsd.es.com) ) _Last Scream of the Missing Neighbors_
-------------------
Xref: eff alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1461 alt.censorship:2183 alt.society.civil-liberties:572 talk.politics.misc:21930
From: jjs@acd4.acd.com ( James J. Song )
Subject: Re: Repr. Sullivan wants to fire prof. Hill because of political opinions
Message-ID: <1991Oct23.211030.25297@acd4.acd.com>
References: <1991Oct22.073615.1607@nntp.hut.fi> <-2+dr+a@lynx.unm.edu>
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 91 21:10:30 GMT
In article <-2+dr+a@lynx.unm.edu> nwickham@triton.unm.edu (Neal C. Wickham) writes:
>In article <1991Oct22.073615.1607@nntp.hut.fi> jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala) writes:
>
>>Oklahoma State Representative Leonard E. Sullivan, Republican of Oklahoma
>>City is seeking to have Prof. Anita Hill ousted from her tenured position.
>>In a letter to University president, Richard Van Horn, Sullivan said, "We
>>must get left wing extremist influence off the campus before it spreads
>>further. We can't afford to have a high profile professor on campus that
>>millions of Americans, according to polls and national talk shows, believe
>>is a fantasizing liar." [NYT 10/16/91 p.A21]
>
>
>
>...some want to try and convince me that this in *not* a Nazi tactic??
>
>
> NCW
And this explains very well why she waited so long. Once got a tenure,
nobody can fire her based on the charges Sullivan presented.
___
-------------------
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: off-topic notes (was yahweh is good posting)
Message-ID: <1991Oct23.233034.24688@eff.org>
References: <1991Oct23.223138.22750@eff.org> <9110232257.AA20567@sentinel.CES.CWRU.Edu>
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1991 23:30:34 GMT
edguer@alpha.ces.cwru.edu (Aydin Edguer) writes:
>I think you are being deliberately obtuse. If you don't think messages
>that fall well outside a newgroups charter disrupt newsgroups, you haven't
>been reading the USENET long enough.
Ok, ok, off-topic notes *are* slightly disruptive. There are not,
however, as disruptive as yelling down a speaker at a talk.
>Some people agree with you Carl, that moderation of a newsgroup runs the
>_risk_ of censorship. Thus to preserve the open forum, they use
>self-moderation. They do not do this so that an uneducated user can
>abuse their newsgroup. They do not welcome off-charter topics, and
>they should not have to put up with them!
I'll modify my stand slightly. If the user is still seriously
disruptive even with the use of social pressure and kill files,
for example, if the user is
[...]
>posting 100K articles to this newsgroup every 5 minutes. Each article
>will be a random RFC, or other document. Each one will come from a
>different site and user and have a different title so you cannot filter
>them.
[...]
then I'd agree that university could step in.
What I don't want is a policy like:
1) the first time that the university determines that you posted
to an inappropriate group, you will receive a warning.
2) the second time that the university determines that you posted
to an inappropriate group, you will lose access to netnews
for one day and posting rights to the inappropriate newsgroup for
one week
3) the third time that the university determines that you posted
to an inappropriate group, you will loose all access to netnews
for one week and all posting rights for the reminders of the semester
...
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu, or (anonymous) ap.4352@hri.com
I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
-------------------
From: gerry@cs.cmu.edu (Gerry Roston)
Subject: Re: What if she is a fantasizing liar? was: Sullivan wants to fire prof
Message-ID:
Date: 23 Oct 91 23:57:51 GMT
References: <1991Oct22.073615.1607@nntp.hut.fi>
Followup-To: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Nntp-Posting-Host: onion.frc.ri.cmu.edu
In-Reply-To: jmanos@cca.PUE.UDLAP.MX's message of 23 Oct 91 18:00:38 GMT
In article jmanos@cca.PUE.UDLAP.MX (Jose Manuel Roberto Manos) writes:
What if she is a fantasizing liar? If so, she should be prosecuted for
gender harrassment of men. Men should unite, we may be being persecuted
by unscrupulous women who can besmirch our reputation and then walk
away leaving us without recourse. If someone accuses a man of sexual
harrassment and can not prove that he is guilty, that person should do
hard time in prison for slander.
Assuming this is a serious post, have you thought about what you had
written? What you are saying is that if person A accuses person B of
something and for whatever reason, the court find person B not guilty,
then person a goes to jail.
Get a life.
--
Gerry Roston (gerry@cs.cmu.edu) | The study of theology, as it stands in the
Field Robotics Center, | Christian churches, is the study of
Carnegie Mellon University | nothing; it is founded on nothing; it rests
Pittsburgh, PA, 15213 | on no principles; it proceeds by no
(412) 268-6557 | authority; it has no data; it can
| demonstrate nothing; and it admits of no
The opinions expressed are mine | conclusion. Thomas Paine
and do not reflect the official |
position of CMU, FRC, RedZone, |
or any other organization. |
-------------------
From: chron!magic322!edtjda@uunet.UU.NET (Joe Abernathy)
Subject: Just spoke with Jane Hadley
Message-ID: <9110232326.AA05292@magic322.chron.com>
Sender: chron!magic322!edtjda@uunet.UU.NET
Date: 23 Oct 91 23:26:13 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
Jane, you may recall, wrote the Seattle P-I article regarding
the state auditor's report on the University of Central
Washington.
She was fairly dismayed by the perception of some that she
somehow opposes free speech. "Pornography isn't my issue,"
said she. "The First Amendment is my issue."
Anyway, I let her know about the interesting discussion here
and elsewhere on the net recently regarding these topics,
so she's out looking for an account now.
She's fairly clued in, too, and wishes that people could
see the pains she had gone to to try to balance her
article. She's very sympathetic to the views being
expressed by Carl and others here. As am I.
Regards,
Joe Abernathy edtjda@chron.com
Special Projects P.O. Box 4260
The Houston Chronicle Houston, Texas 77210
(800) 735-3820 (713) 526-9711
-------------------
From: edguer@alpha.ces.cwru.edu (Aydin Edguer)
Subject: Re: off-topic notes (was yahweh is good posting)
Message-ID: <9110240013.AA20625@sentinel.CES.CWRU.Edu>
Sender: edguer@alpha.ces.cwru.edu
References: <1991Oct23.233034.24688@eff.org>
Date: 24 Oct 91 00:13:57 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
> I'll modify my stand slightly. If the user is still seriously
> disruptive even with the use of social pressure and kill files,
>...
> then I'd agree that university could step in.
Okay, we have set a lower bound of 1 article and an upper bound of
100K/5 minutes as disruptive enough to "censor" a user. Now try to
write a fair regulation....
Administrators around the world await eagerly for your response.
I am reminded of the old joke about a person who said yes for a million
dollars...
Aydin Edguer
-------------------
From: ALILESTE@idbsu.idbsu.edu (Dan Lester)
Subject: Re: yahweh is good posting
Message-ID: <199110240050.AA26869@eff.org>
Sender: ALILESTE@idbsu.idbsu.edu
References:
Date: 24 Oct 91 01:37:58 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
On Wed, 23 Oct 91 18:57:18 EDT Aydin Edguer said:
>If you really feel this way then I can assume you would welcome someone
>posting 100K articles to this newsgroup every 5 minutes. Each article
After all the stuff passing through this group today, it seems that
this is indeed what has been happening.
If someone would at least come up with a different angle or thought
instead of just yelling the same phrases back and forht at each other,
it would at least be a bit more interesting.
I happen to be a librarian who completely, and without exception,
supports the first amendment, freedom to read, elimination of censorship,
and so on. Even the pederasts out there have the right to read their
stuff, even when I find it incredibly offensive and indecent that the
slogan of one of their organizations is "After eight its too late".
They are referring not to the time of day, but the age of first man-boy
sexual contact.
But, even though they are advocating actions that are illegal in every
state, and probably all foreign countries, they have the right to
promulgate their beliefs, no matter how disgusted I am.
And what about the mail (Snail Mail, US type) that I get from the
Remain Intact Organ-Ization, a one man outfit saying that circumcision
should be illegal since the child didn't consent and that it is just
legalized child abuse. He has pictures of the surgery, bumper stickers
showing a male infant tied down for the surgery, and so on. If you wanna
put one on your car, go ahead. Same for one that says Shit Happens.
I find them both kind of stupid, offensive, and unnecessary, but you have
that right. btw, the mail from this remain intact guy, has red "blood"
on e ach envelope in the appropriate spot on the cover, over the penis of
the infant. Must be legal...it appears in my PO Box every month or so.
So, if we can't figure out where to draw the line....
maybe we shouldn't draw one....
And snuff flicks:??
As you can perhaps tell, I have taught the censorship part of an
"Oxymoron class" called Politics and Morality before....
Well, now you got me started....
Lets at least hear something different on here....
Should anything be legal in US mail that isn't legal on here?
Why or why not?
dan
-------------------
Xref: eff alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1467 alt.censorship:2185 alt.society.civil-liberties:578 talk.politics.misc:21935
From: stanley@verga.enet.dec.com
Subject: Re: Repr. Sullivan wants to fire prof. Hill because of political opinions
Message-ID: <1991Oct23.202225.27745@engage.pko.dec.com>
Date: 23 Oct 91 23:42:49 GMT
Sender: newsdaemon@engage.pko.dec.com (USENET News Daemon)
In article , jcn@rice.edu (Jeff C. Nichols) writes...
>jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala) writes:
>
>>Oklahoma State Representative Leonard E. Sullivan, Republican of Oklahoma
>>City is seeking to have Prof. Anita Hill ousted from her tenured position.
>>In a letter to University president, Richard Van Horn, Sullivan said, "We
>>must get left wing extremist influence off the campus before it spreads
>>further. We can't afford to have a high profile professor on campus that
>>millions of Americans, according to polls and national talk shows, believe
>>is a fantasizing liar." [NYT 10/16/91 p.A21]
>
>>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anita Hill is a Conservative Republican. What an idiot!
---
Mary Stanley
(INTERNET,UUCP) stanley@verga.enet.dec.com
(UUCP) ...!decwrl!verga.enet!stanley
(INTERNET) stanley%verga.enet@decwrl.dec.com
---
-------------------
From: lamontg@milton.u.washington.edu (Lamont Granquist)
Subject: Re: The first amend.
Message-ID: <1991Oct24.010513.931@milton.u.washington.edu>
Keywords: Censorship, Free speech
References: <1991Oct20.225205.5648@milton.u.washington.edu> <1991Oct21.011328.7222@nntp.hut.fi> <1991Oct21.163051.1546@milton.u.washington.edu> <1991O <1991Oct22.160405.2703@milton.u.washington.edu> <1991Oct23.135557.3199@eff.org>
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1991 01:05:13 GMT
kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>I think the basic question for admins of a BBSs is whether they want
>to be like newspaper publishers or a librarians.
For a BBS system, its more like you are inviting someone into your home
to browse through your personal libraries. While, there might be some
legitimacy to limiting access for minors, I think the rules should
probably be broader than those for libraries, if that is at all possible.
--
Lamont Granquist "If the principle were to prevail of a common law [ie.
lamontg@u.washington.edu a single government] being in force in the United
States...it would become the most corrupt government
on the Earth" -- Thomas Jefferson to G Granger (1800)
-------------------
Xref: eff alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1469 soc.women:9994 alt.sex:22428 alt.censorship:2186
From: lamontg@milton.u.washington.edu (Lamont Granquist)
Subject: Re: yahweh is good posting
Message-ID: <1991Oct24.010822.1669@milton.u.washington.edu>
References: <91294.162201U42054@uicvm.uic.edu> <1991Oct22.210104.4938@eff.org> <1991Oct22.235516.17183@news.media.mit.edu> <1991Oct23.001023.17303@news.media.mit.edu> <1991Oct23.213823.25272@dsd.es.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1991 01:08:22 GMT
galt@dsd.es.com (Greg Alt - Perp) writes:
>While I don't think the school would have a case against him if he posted
>to alt.tasteless or alt.evil, he did post to an inappropriate group. If
>he continues to do this to annoy people, it would not be censorship to
>pull his net access.
Exactly, the issue is not what was IN the posts, but where the posts
WERE.
An I can't think of any Library, Newspaper, or Public Speech analogies,
unfortunately. This may be something quite unique to the net...
--
Lamont Granquist "If the principle were to prevail of a common law [ie.
lamontg@u.washington.edu a single government] being in force in the United
States...it would become the most corrupt government
on the Earth" -- Thomas Jefferson to G Granger (1800)
-------------------
From: lamontg@milton.u.washington.edu (Lamont Granquist)
Subject: Re: [alt.sex, et al.] Re: alt.sex.* make NBC News
Message-ID: <1991Oct24.011031.2315@milton.u.washington.edu>
References: <9110231820.AA03361@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1991 01:10:31 GMT
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>It was said that they were removed as a cost-cutting measure but
>may also be due to the fact of certain postings originating from that
>machine (eg The Jim Whitehead and BIFF posts.)
Wasn't that in response to the BIFF post that was posted to every single
newsgroup (even the moderated ones)? That happened roughly at the same
time as I discovered the net, and I can't remember the details...
--
Lamont Granquist "If the principle were to prevail of a common law [ie.
lamontg@u.washington.edu a single government] being in force in the United
States...it would become the most corrupt government
on the Earth" -- Thomas Jefferson to G Granger (1800)
-------------------
From: lamontg@milton.u.washington.edu (Lamont Granquist)
Subject: Re: [alt.sex] Re: YAHWEH Posting
Message-ID: <1991Oct24.011407.3192@milton.u.washington.edu>
References: <9110232202.AA04970@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1991 01:14:07 GMT
I think this was copied from somewhere else:
>...but it is irresponsible to post a contrived method to shock
>people.
Some people need a shock.
More to the point, even if it is irresponsible, what are you going to
do about it?
--
Lamont Granquist "If the principle were to prevail of a common law [ie.
lamontg@u.washington.edu a single government] being in force in the United
States...it would become the most corrupt government
on the Earth" -- Thomas Jefferson to G Granger (1800)
-------------------
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: off-topic notes (was yahweh is good posting)
Message-ID: <1991Oct24.014633.28623@eff.org>
References: <1991Oct23.233034.24688@eff.org> <9110240013.AA20625@sentinel.CES.CWRU.Edu>
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1991 01:46:33 GMT
edguer@alpha.ces.cwru.edu (Aydin Edguer) writes:
[...]
>Okay, we have set a lower bound of 1 article and an upper bound of
>100K/5 minutes as disruptive enough to "censor" a user. Now try to
>write a fair regulation....
[...]
The U. of Illinois at UC has rules against disruptive and coercive
action. (I think these are Trustee's rules. If so, they apply at U. of
Illinois at Chicago, too.)
The standard is substantial interference with the rights of others.
Penalties can be imposed after (and only after) a disciplinary
process.
If a user does not post many more notes than other users and if his or
her posts can be killed with kill files, I do not think that off-topic
posts constitute substantial interference with the rights of others.
Here are the potentially relevant parts of the rules:
---start quote---
Conduct for which students are subject to discipline or expulsion
include, without limitation, knowingly engaging in disruptive or
coercive action. Disruptive or coercive action include the following:
(1) Participation in a disruptive or coercive demonstration. A
demonstration is disruptive or coercive if it substantially impedes
University operations, or substantially interferes with the rights of
others, or takes place on premises or at times where students are not
authorized to be. There is no requirement that University authorities
order students to cease participation in a disruptive or coercive
demonstration.
[... (2) use of force or violence ...]
(3) Unauthorized entry to or use of property or facilities owned or
controlled by the University.
[... (4) physical abuse ...]
[... (5) endangering the safety or health of others ...]
[... (6) Theft and vandalism ...]
(7) Failure to comply with direction of a member or agent of the
University acting in the performance of her or his duty in connection
with a potential or actual disorder.
(8) Any conduct which substantially threatens or interferes with the
maintainence of appropriate order and discipline in the operation of
the University, or any conduct on University property or in connection
with a University activity which invades the rights of others. Without
excluding other situation, examples include shouting, noisemaking,
obstruction and other disruptive actions designed or intended to
interfere with or prevent meetings, assemblies, classes or other
scheduled or routine University operations or activities.
(9) Inciting, aiding, or encouraging others to engage in a disruptive
or coercive action.
When, through the disciplinary process, a student is found to have
knowingly engage in a disruptive or coercive action, as above defined,
the penalty will be dismissal or, upon a finding that substantial
mitigating circumstances exist, suspended dismissal or other sanctions
or coercive actions.
[....]
-----end quote---
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu, or (anonymous) ap.4352@hri.com
I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
-------------------
From: lamontg@milton.u.washington.edu (Lamont Granquist)
Subject: Re: Seattle Times/PI stories
Keywords: censorship seattle uw times pi article media
Message-ID: <1991Oct24.011805.4137@milton.u.washington.edu>
Date: 24 Oct 91 01:18:05 GMT
References: <1991Oct21.185322.23387@henson.cc.wwu.edu> <1991Oct21.194710.23371@eff.org> <1991Oct22.190242.2257@eff.org> <1991Oct22.204920.10559@milton.u.washington.edu> <1991Oct23.190924.15905@henson.cc.wwu.edu>
jeff@henson.cc.wwu.edu (Jeff Wandling) writes:
>The article in question appeared in the October 15th issue. Section A,
>second half of the front page.
In the *PI* not the *Times*. I've got the Seattle Times sitting in front
of me, and there is no such article on the front page.
--
Lamont Granquist "If the principle were to prevail of a common law [ie.
lamontg@u.washington.edu a single government] being in force in the United
States...it would become the most corrupt government
on the Earth" -- Thomas Jefferson to G Granger (1800)
-------------------
Xref: eff alt.censorship:2189 alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1474 alt.sex:22440
From: technews@iitmax.iit.edu (Kevin Kadow)
Subject: Re: USENET censorship strikes University of Washington!
Message-ID: <1991Oct23.235848.24117@iitmax.iit.edu>
Date: 23 Oct 91 23:58:48 GMT
References: <1991Oct16.220601.1230@zip.eecs.umich.edu> <1991Oct17.061020.16114@wpi.WPI.EDU> <1991Oct23.011804.34839@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu>
The total traffic for USENET is around 100,000,000 Bytes per day (100Megs)
however the alt.* groups are a fraction of this, so it wouldn`t be prohibitively
expensive to set up an alternate machine just to carry these groups.
--
The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits.
technews@iitmax.iit.edu kadokev@iitvax (bitnet)
My Employer Disagrees.
-------------------
From: schweige@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil (Jeffrey M. Schweiger)
Subject: Re: Official punishment of off-topic posts (was yahweh is good posting)
Message-ID: <3166@aldebaran.cs.nps.navy.mil>
Date: 24 Oct 91 01:47:10 GMT
References: <1991Oct23.182731.17656@eng.umd.edu> <9110231918.AA20269@sentinel.CES.CWRU.Edu> <1991Oct23.210725.19475@eff.org>
In article <1991Oct23.210725.19475@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>edguer@alpha.ces.cwru.edu (Aydin Edguer) writes:
>
>>The user got his wrist slapped not because of the content but where the
>>content was placed. If the content had been placed in an appropriate
>>place, no one would even have noticed. It would have been no "better" to
>>post a question about sendmail in soc.women. It is outside the scope
>>of the limited public forum. And yes, I do send mail to users who make
>>this type of mistake.
>
>>You and Carl have both said that unmoderated groups are public forums.
>>What neither of you have realized is that even public forums have rules.
>>No, there are no net-police to arrest you for disturbing the peace, no,
>>there are no jails to put you in for creating a public nuisance, but
>>make no mistake that there are rules agreed to by consensus and there
>>are and should be consequences for violating this social contract.
>
>I see the unmoderated Usenet and Altnet newsgroups as free-speech
>forums. Their charters state the intended focus of the forum, not the
>legal boundaries. The penalty for moving too far from the focus,
>should, in my opinion, be social disapproval, not official punishment.
>
>Authors should have the final word on which free-speech forum(s) they
>post to. The university should not be in the business of labeling
>articles with the officially appropriate newsgroups. Such labeling is
>a form of censorship.
Carl -
With respect to your above comment about seeing "the unmoderated Usenet and
Altnet newsgroups as free-speech forums," I'd like your reaction to Gene
Spafford's "Rules for Posting to Usenet", specifically, the following:
"Posting of information on Usenet is to be viewed as similar to
publication. Because of this, do not post instructions for how to do
some illegal act (such as jamming radar or obtaining cable TV service
illegally); also do not ask how to do illegal acts by posting to the
net."
I do want to note that Spaf does not consider the alt.* groups to be part
of Usenet, at least as far as the 'rules' go. In this regard USENET is
regarded as the seven broad classifications distributed worldwide: "news",
"soc", "talk", "misc", "sci", "comp" and "rec".
Just to stir up the pot a bit more (though I don't think this topic needs
much fuel), let me add a couple more excerpts from the news.announce.newusers
postings:
"4. Usenet is not a right.
Some people misunderstand their local right of "freedom of speech"
to mean that they have a legal right to use others' computers to
say what they wish in whatever way they wish, and the owners of
said computers have no right to stop them.
Those people are wrong. Freedom of speech also means freedom not
to speak. If I choose not to use my computer to aid your speech,
that is my right. Freedom of the press belongs to those who own
one."
Now with respect to this quote, I want to separate the ideas of freedom of
speech, from academic freedom. I do not believe that freedom of speech
guarantees anyone complete uncensored access to USENET. However, on
university machines, the principals of academic freedom may be of more
importance with respect to USENET and censorship.
Now for a quote that might annoy people on both sides of this issue, also
from "WHAT IS USENET?":
"IF YOU ARE UNHAPPY...
---------------------
Property rights being what they are, there is no higher authority on
Usenet than the people who own the machines on which Usenet traffic is
carried. If the owner of the machine you use says, "We will not carry
alt.sex on this machine," and you are not happy with that order, you
have no Usenet recourse. What can we outsiders do, after all?
That doesn't mean you are without options. Depending on the nature of
your site, you may have some internal political recourse. Or you
might find external pressure helpful. Or, with a minimal investment,
you can get a feed of your own from somewhere else. Computers capable
of taking Usenet feeds are down in the $500 range now, and
UNIX-capable boxes are going for under $2000, and there are at least
two UNIX lookalikes in the $100 price range.
No matter what, though, appealing to "Usenet" won't help. Even if
those who read such an appeal are sympathetic to your cause, they will
almost certainly have even less influence at your site than you do.
By the same token, if you don't like what some user at another site is
doing, only the administrator and owner of that site have any
authority to do anything about it. Persuade them that the user in
question is a problem for them, and they might do something -- if they
feel like it, that is.
If the user in question is the administrator or owner of the site from
which she posts, forget it; you can't win. If you can, arrange for
your newsreading software to ignore articles from her; and chalk one
up to experience."
Now to close this post off, I like the perspective offered by the closing
quotes given in WHAT IS USENET:
"WORDS TO LIVE BY #1:
USENET AS SOCIETY
--------------------
Those who have never tried electronic communication may not be aware
of what a "social skill" really is. One social skill that must be
learned, is that other people have points of view that are not only
different, but *threatening*, to your own. In turn, your opinions may
be threatening to others. There is nothing wrong with this. Your
beliefs need not be hidden behind a facade, as happens with
face-to-face conversation. Not everybody in the world is a bosom
buddy, but you can still have a meaningful conversation with them.
The person who cannot do this lacks in social skills.
-- Nick Szabo
WORDS TO LIVE BY #2:
USENET AS ANARCHY
--------------------
Anarchy means having to put up with things that really piss you off.
-- Unknown"
Jeff Schweiger
--
*******************************************************************************
Jeff Schweiger Standard Disclaimer CompuServe: 74236,1645
Internet (Milnet): schweige@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil
*******************************************************************************
-------------------
Xref: eff alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1476 alt.censorship:2191 alt.society.civil-liberties:589 talk.politics.misc:21941
From: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Subject: Re: Repr. Sullivan wants to fire prof. Hill because of political opinions
Message-ID: <1991Oct24.023228.13143@nntp.hut.fi>
Date: 24 Oct 91 02:32:28 GMT
References: <1991Oct22.073615.1607@nntp.hut.fi> <-2+dr+a@lynx.unm.edu> <1991Oct23.211030.25297@acd4.acd.com>
Sender: usenet@nntp.hut.fi (Usenet pseudouser id)
In-Reply-To: jjs@acd4.acd.com ( James J. Song )
Nntp-Posting-Host: sauna.cs.hut.fi
In article <1991Oct23.211030.25297@acd4.acd.com>, jjs@acd4 ( James J. Song ) writes:
>>>further. We can't afford to have a high profile professor on campus that
>>>millions of Americans, according to polls and national talk shows, believe
>>>is a fantasizing liar." [NYT 10/16/91 p.A21]
>And this explains very well why she waited so long. Once got a tenure,
>nobody can fire her based on the charges Sullivan presented.
Are you suggesting in forums for civil liberties and academic freedom
that it's perfectly all right and acceptable to fire University
employees because they are not popular in national talk shows and
opinion polls?
//Jyrki
-------------------
Xref: eff alt.censorship:2192 alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1477 alt.sex:22455
From: lamontg@milton.u.washington.edu (Lamont Granquist)
Subject: Re: USENET censorship strikes University of Washington!
Message-ID: <1991Oct24.032616.2287@milton.u.washington.edu>
References: <1991Oct16.220601.1230@zip.eecs.umich.edu> <1991Oct17.061020.16114@wpi.WPI.EDU> <1991Oct23.011804.34839@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> <1991Oct23.235848.24117@iitmax.iit.edu>
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1991 03:26:16 GMT
technews@iitmax.iit.edu (Kevin Kadow) writes:
>The total traffic for USENET is around 100,000,000 Bytes per day (100Megs)
>however the alt.* groups are a fraction of this, so it wouldn`t be prohibitively
>expensive to set up an alternate machine just to carry these groups.
Uh, not. Check out the recently posted data in news.lists. There was
280Megs pushed through in the past two weeks, with an average of 20megs/day
or 24megs/day including the headers.
--
Lamont Granquist "If the principle were to prevail of a common law [ie.
lamontg@u.washington.edu a single government] being in force in the United
States...it would become the most corrupt government
on the Earth" -- Thomas Jefferson to G Granger (1800)
-------------------
Xref: eff alt.censorship:2196 alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1478 alt.sex:22460
From: ph111-bx@violet.berkeley.edu (;;;;7202)
Subject: Re: USENET censorship strikes University of Washington!
Message-ID: <1991Oct24.055309.10895@agate.berkeley.edu>
Sender: usenet@agate.berkeley.edu (USENET Administrator)
References: <1991Oct17.061020.16114@wpi.WPI.EDU> <1991Oct23.011804.34839@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> <1991Oct23.235848.24117@iitmax.iit.edu>
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1991 05:53:09 GMT
In article <1991Oct23.235848.24117@iitmax.iit.edu> technews@iitmax.iit.edu (Kevin Kadow) writes:
>The total traffic for USENET is around 100,000,000 Bytes per day (100Megs)
>however the alt.* groups are a fraction of this, so it wouldn`t be prohibitively
>expensive to set up an alternate machine just to carry these groups.
Actually, one reason given for not carrying alt.sex.pictures is the
disproportionate amount of traffic generated. A set of postings for
just one picture can easily run a half meg.
-------------------
Xref: eff alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1479 soc.women:10007 alt.sex:22465 alt.censorship:2198
From: stark@saturn.sdsu.edu (Brian D. Stark)
Subject: Re: yahweh is good posting
Message-ID: <1991Oct24.065044.7112@sciences.sdsu.edu>
Date: 24 Oct 91 06:50:44 GMT
Article-I.D.: sciences.1991Oct24.065044.7112
References: <1991Oct23.014136.19825@nntp.hut.fi> <1991Oct23.165615.22002@ecs.comm.mot.com>
Sender: news@sciences.sdsu.edu (News Dude)
Nntp-Posting-Host: saturn
In article kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>
>The display of the newspaper ad for "Whore",a new movie, in the
>workplace might very well be illegal sexual harassment.
>
>I don't think that the presence of a newspaper containing the ad in
>lab or the library is illegal sexual harassment.
>
Whoever posted the article didn't just leave it lying around,
he wrote it and deliberately posted it to newsgroups where he
would quite likely offend someone. Sounds like the actual scenerio
is more like your first hypothetical one, that you claim is "illegal
sexual harassment", then it is like the second one.
Anyhow, I don't think he should be censored, except by my kill file.
but I would feel better if I knew he was in therapy.
brian
From kadie Thu Oct 24 13:46:36 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 24 13:44:52 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:
sbrack@bluemoon.rn : Re: (alt.sex) Re: UW, Seattle P-I, and alt.sex.pictures
fister@DEMING.DEC. : Re: What if she is a fantasizing was: Sullivan wants to f
nwickham@triton.un : Re: What if she is a fantasizing was: Sullivan wants to f
szabo@techbook.com : Re: YAHWEH is good!
case@diku.dk (Stev : Re: (alt.sex) Re: YAHWEH Posting
d9bertil@dtek.chal : Re: yahweh is good posting
SKAPUR@ccmail.suny : Re: YAHWEH is good!
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (comp.org.eff.news, et al.) Prodigy stumbles again as a fo
russotto@eng.umd.e : Re: yahweh is good posting
SKAPUR@ccmail.suny : Re: yahweh is good posting
SKAPUR@ccmail.suny : Re: yahweh is good posting
nbc2134@dsacg2.dsa : (none)
edguer@alpha.ces.c : Re: yahweh is good posting
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (soc.motss) Prodigy hypocrisy
1k1mgm@kuhub.cc.uk : Re: Online
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: sbrack@bluemoon.rn.com (Steven S. Brack)
Subject: Re: [alt.sex] Re: UW, Seattle P-I, and alt.sex.pictures
Message-ID:
Sender: nstar!bluemoon!sbrack@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu
References: <9110200048.AA17059@bottom.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>
Date: 24 Oct 91 03:47:17 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
Jake -
Did MAGGOT say that, or lcs.mit? It's possible that the ACS
brownshirts have limited access if the latter is the case,
otherwise, you may have tried at the wrong time. Try connecting
late @ night.
- Steve
_________________________________________________________________________
|Steven S. Brack | sbrack%bluemoon@nstar.rn.com |
|Jacob E. Taylor Honors Tower | sbrack@bluemoon.uucp |
|The Ohio State University | sbrack@nyx.cs.du.edu |
|50 Curl Drive | sbrack@isis.cs.du.edu |
|Columbus, Ohio 43210-1112 USA | brack@ewf.eng.ohio-state.edu |
|+1 614 293 7383 or 419 474 1010 | Steven.S.Brack@osu.edu |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------
Xref: eff alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1481 alt.censorship:2199 alt.society.civil-liberties:600 talk.politics.misc:21958
From: fister@DEMING.DEC.COM (Les Fister)
Subject: Re: What if she is a fantasizing liar? was: Sullivan wants to fire prof
Message-ID: <1991Oct24.022357.14620@ryn.mro4.dec.com>
Sender: news@ryn.mro4.dec.com (USENET News System)
Date: 23 OCT 91 22:03:17 EST
>What if she is a fantasizing liar? If so, she should be prosecuted for
>gender harrassment of men. Men should unite, we may be being persecuted
>by unscrupulous women who can besmirch our reputation and then walk
>away leaving us without recourse. If someone accuses a man of sexual
>harrassment and can not prove that he is guilty, that person should do
>hard time in prison for slander.
I recall hearing a very recent (yesterday?) news story of a female
Naval cadet who accused six male cadets of something akin to harassment.
The male cadets were punished for their actions...and the woman recently
retracted her story, claiming that it never happened (anyone with the proper
details?).
-------------------
Xref: eff alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1482 alt.censorship:2201 alt.society.civil-liberties:602 talk.politics.misc:21966
From: nwickham@triton.unm.edu (Neal C. Wickham)
Subject: Re: What if she is a fantasizing liar? was: Sullivan wants to fire prof
Message-ID:
Date: 24 Oct 91 10:01:53 GMT
Article-I.D.: lynx.zb=dq9=
References: <1991Oct24.022357.14620@ryn.mro4.dec.com>
In article <1991Oct24.022357.14620@ryn.mro4.dec.com> fister@DEMING.DEC.COM (Les Fister) writes:
> I recall hearing a very recent (yesterday?) news story of a female
>Naval cadet who accused six male cadets of something akin to harassment.
>The male cadets were punished for their actions...and the woman recently
>retracted her story, claiming that it never happened (anyone with the proper
>details?).
>
I saw this story. I think it was that she retracted her accusation but
all of the witnesses stood by their account. At least one of the
conclusions I drew was that she *might* have retracted it in fear of
retaliation even though her witnesses stood firm in their testimony. There
weren't many details. The story I heard emphasized that the witnesses
(I think it was 3) were all standing behind their original stories. I
thought that was the point of the report.
As I said, however, there were no details so it may have been false
accusation.
NCW
-------------------
Xref: eff alt.sex:22481 soc.women:10011 alt.censorship:2203 alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1483
From: szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo)
Subject: Re: YAHWEH is good!
Message-ID: <1991Oct24.080923.16277@techbook.com>
References: <1991Oct22.200240.29087@tc.cornell.edu> <1991Oct22.231334.9723@tc.cornell.edu>
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1991 08:09:23 GMT
In article <1991Oct22.231334.9723@tc.cornell.edu> shore@theory.TC.Cornell.EDU (Melinda Shore) writes:
>Policies regarding computer access are
>established on a per-site or organisational basis,
>*regardless of the source of operating funds.* Those who
>argue that there is a constitutionally-protected right to
>post anything anywhere from any publicly funded system are
>arguing an irrelevancy.
If the site choses to become a public forum, for example by carrying
Usenet, then the use of that forum is constitutionally protected as
well as protected by the guidelines of most schools regarding academic
free speech. There is nothing "irrelevent" about these protections,
any more you would find the censorship of your current posts to be
irrelevent.
(I am offended by the way Melinda disagrees with me! Terminate her
account! She can buy her own machine! :-)
>I do not, however, have any
>objection to site administrators exercising their rights to
>control the machines for which they are responsible
Usenet postings in no way impact control over the functioning of the
machine, except in cases where resource usage is a serious problem,
for example the various .binaries and .pictures groups. That
is not the case in this incident.
>nor
>seeing them apply the use guidelines in force at their
>sites.
Sysadmins do not have the right to censor material in public forums
that they choose to carry, and sysadmins have no right to punish users
without following due process. The job of a sysadmin is to maintain
computing machines, not arbitrate public morals.
--
szabo@techbook.COM ...!{tektronix!nosun,uunet}techbook!szabo
Public Access UNIX at (503) 644-8135 (1200/2400) Voice: +1 503 646-8257
Public Access User --- Not affiliated with TECHbooks
-------------------
From: case@diku.dk (Steven Snedker)
Subject: Re: [alt.sex] Re: YAHWEH Posting
Message-ID: <1991Oct24.110730.26473@odin.diku.dk>
Date: 24 Oct 91 11:07:30 GMT
References: <9110232202.AA04970@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: case@freja.diku.dk
>From: GOOSE@VTVM1.CC.VT.EDU
>Newsgroups: alt.sex
>Date: 23 Oct 91 20:40:24 GMT
...
>suck people into reading it and that is what bothers me. I don't appreciate
>being led into reading something that started out as an innocent (relative to
>alt.sex) story and all of a sudden being grossed out by the sudden shift
>from erotica to wretched violence. It is one thing to post items like this
>with a warning, but it is irresponsible to post a contrived method to shock
>people.
Just to start another thread in this brilliant discussion: Suppose the yahew
stuff was posted to a more appropriate forum than soc.women, say alt.sex (I
mean, it *did* contain some sex, though non-vanilla), should it then be
labelled 'Warning: wretched violence ahead' and should this 'rule' be
applied to all material posted? Should it be part of the netiquette to,
for example in alt.sex to label your posts 'Stoolsucking sex ahead',
'Heavy S&M ahead' or 'Fellatio ahead'? 'Sex performed by unwed ahead'?
I see a problem here...
This is an excerpt from the BEE interview in Rolling Stone:
Bret Easton Ellis on the violence in Brian de Palmas 'Body Double':
I saw it. Yes, I was shocked. But I wasn't offended. People like those in the
National Organisation of Women coalition can't seem to divide the two things:
being shocked and being offended. People seem to think that shock equals outrage
- that if something shocks you, then you should be outraged. Being shocked by
cultural artifact - movies, poems, songs, photography - more often than not,
can be a healthy, liberating experience.
Steven Snedker
case@diku.dk
-------------------
Xref: eff alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1485 soc.women:10013 alt.sex:22496 alt.censorship:2208
From: d9bertil@dtek.chalmers.se (Bertil Jonell)
Subject: Re: yahweh is good posting
Message-ID: <5952@chalmers.se>
Date: 24 Oct 91 11:34:19 GMT
Article-I.D.: chalmers.5952
References: <1991Oct22.211259.5178@eff.org> <1991Oct22.232533.2754@milton.u.washington.edu> <1991Oct23.060112.11174@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
Sender: news@chalmers.se
In article <1991Oct23.060112.11174@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> tgt33358@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Deus Imperator) writes:
>>It is against the law, furthermore, it crossed state boundaries, making it a
>>federal crime.
>>If you need more detailed information on this particular felony I strongly
>>advise you to call the FBI.
>>
>In my lurking time on this newsgroup, I have read many zany and wondrous
>things, some of which I agree with. However, the above statement has
>really raised the hackles on my neck. Do you realize the enormity of this
>statement?
Always remember that the Internet is resident in more countries than the
U. S of A. Countries with vastly different societies and/or legal systems.
I'd like to see the FBI try to get a Swedish or Finnish citizen extradited
to the US for breaking a US law by something they did in Sweden or Finland(*)
where it is perfectly legal.
What are they going to do about it? Kidnap the offenders and carry them to
the states to 'justice'? Invade and arrest like in Panama? :)
>Where does Internet "dwell?" Can someone be
>blasted for posting on an international medium?
We haven't seen the last of this kind of things yet. Imagine when other
countries more prudish than the US get net.access....
>If I read someone porn over
>the phone (like on a party line), perhaps to someone in another state,
>am I breaking this law?
Not being a US lawyer, I'd guess that having a steamy phonecall with your
SO in another state would mean a federal crime.
>Thanatos, DeathUrge, Master of Unknown Time and Space (Slightly Arrogant)
>tgt33358@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
(*) I mention Finland because that was the site of the last gif archives on
this planet. They were finally shut down when hordes of gif-starved
americans invaded them after the sites in the US had been bombed.
-bertil-
--
'Det a"r oo"versa"ttbart...'
-------------------
From: SKAPUR@ccmail.sunysb.edu (Sanjay Kapur)
Subject: Re: YAHWEH is good!
Message-ID: <676421DF3A20D59F@ccmail.sunysb.edu>
Sender: SKAPUR@ccmail.sunysb.edu
Date: 24 Oct 91 12:51:00 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
>From: szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo)
>Sysadmins do not have the right to censor material in public forums
>that they choose to carry, and sysadmins have no right to punish users
>without following due process. The job of a sysadmin is to maintain
>computing machines, not arbitrate public morals.
You are correct in writing that it is not the "right" of Systems Administrators
to do all the above. Actually most often they are "responisble" for all the
above.
Normally computing machines are maintained for a purpose. It is most
definitely the responsibility of the System Administrator to make sure that
machines are used for that purpose and that purpose alone.
The definition of the purpose of the machine is not normally upto the system
administrator.
Sanjay Kapur |Internet: Sanjay.Kapur@sunysb.edu
Systems Staff, Computing Services, |Bitnet: SKAPUR@USB
State University of New York, |SPAN/HEPnet: 44132::SKAPUR
Stony Brook, NY 11794-2400 |Phone:(516)632-8029, FAX:(516)632-8046
-------------------
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.org.eff.news, et al.] Prodigy stumbles again as a forum
Message-ID: <9110241340.AA08175@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 24 Oct 91 03:40:25 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
From: rita@eff.org (Rita Marie Rouvalis)
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1991 23:10:02 GMT
PRODIGY STUMBLES AS A FORUM ... AGAIN
By Mike Godwin
On some days, Prodigy representatives tell us they're running "the Disney
Channel of online services." On other days the service is touted as a
forum for "the free expression of ideas." But management has missed the
conflict between these two missions. And it is just this unperceived
conflict that has led the B'nai B'rith's Anti-Defamation League to launch
a protest against the online service..
On one level, the controversy stems from Prodigy's decision to censor
messages responding to claims that, among other things, the Holocaust
never took place. These messages--which included such statements as
"Hitler had some valid points" and that "wherever Jews exercise influence
and power, misery, warfare and economic exploitation ... follow"--were the
sort likely to stir up indignant responses among Jews and non-Jews alike.
But some Prodigy members have complained to the ADL that when they tried
to respond to both the overt content of these messages and their implicit
anti-Semitism, their responses were rejected by Prodigy's staff of
censors.
The rationale for the censorship? Prodigy has a policy of barring messages
directed at other members, but allows messages that condemn a group. The
result of this policy, mechanically applied, is that one member can post a
message saying that "pogroms, 'persecutions,' and the mythical holocaust"
are things that Jews "so very richly deserve" (this was an actual
message). But another member might be barred from posting some like
"Member A's comments are viciously anti-Semitic." It is no wonder that the
Anti-Defamation League is upset at what looks very much like unequal
treatment.
But the problem exposed by this controversy is broader than simply a badly
crafted policy. The problem is that Prodigy, while insisting on its Disney
Channel metaphor, also gives lip service to the notion of a public forum.
Henry Heilbrunn, a senior vice president of Prodigy, refers in the Wall
Street Journal to the service's "policy of free expression," while Bruce
Thurlby, Prodigy's manager of editorial business and operations, invokes
in a letter to ADL "the right of individuals to express opinions that are
contrary to personal standards or individual beliefs."
Yet it is impossible for any free-expression policy to explain both the
allowing of those anti-Semitic postings and the barring of responses to
those postings from outraged and offended members. Historically, this
country has embraced the principle that best cure for offensive or
disturbing speech is more speech. No regime of censorship--even of the
most neutral and well-meaning kind--can avoid the kind of result that
appears in this case: some people get to speak while others get no chance
to reply. So long as a board of censors is in place, Prodigy is no public
forum.
Thus, the service is left in a double bind. If Prodigy really means to be
taken as a computer-network version of "the Disney Channel"--with all the
content control that this metaphor implies--then it's taking
responsibility for (and, to some members, even seeming to endorse) the
anti-Semitic messages that were posted. On the other hand, if Prodigy
really regards itself as a forum for free expression, it has no business
refusing to allow members to respond to what they saw as lies,
distortions, and hate. A true free-speech forum would allow not only the
original messages but also the responses to them.
So, what's the fix for Prodigy? The answer may lie in replacing the
service's censors with a system of "conference hosts" of the sort one sees
on CompuServe or on the WELL. As WELL manager Cliff Figallo conceives of
his service, the management is like an apartment manager who normally
allows tenants to do what they want, but who steps in if they do something
outrageously disruptive. Hosts on the WELL normally steer discussions
rather than censoring them, and merely offensive speech is almost never
censored.
But even if Prodigy doesn't adopt a "conference host" system, it
ultimately will satisfy its members better if it does allow a true forum
for free expression. And the service may be moving in that direction
already: Heilbrunn is quoted in the Wall Street Journal as saying that
Prodigy has been loosening its content restrictions over the past month.
Good news, but not good enough--merely easing some content restrictions is
likely to be no more successful at solving Prodigy's problems than
Gorbachev's easing market restrictions was at solving the Soviet Union's
problems. The best solution is to allow what Oliver Wendell Holmes called
"the marketplace of ideas" to flourish--to get out of the censorship
business.
--
Rita Marie Rouvalis rita@eff.org
Electronic Frontier Foundation | EFF administrivia to: office@eff.org
155 Second Street | Flames to:
Cambridge, MA 02141 617-864-0665 | women-not-to-be-messed-with@eff.org
-------------------
From: russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto)
Subject: Re: yahweh is good posting
Message-ID: <1991Oct24.134815.29358@eng.umd.edu>
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 91 13:48:15 GMT
References: <1991Oct23.214311.20647@eff.org> <9110232215.AA20526@sentinel.CES.CWRU.Edu>
In article <9110232215.AA20526@sentinel.CES.CWRU.Edu> edguer@alpha.ces.cwru.edu (Aydin Edguer) writes:
>
>I am not asking for labeling. I am asking for common sense.
>I am asking for following the "rules" of USENET. You can make
>all the fancy speeches you want about how unmoderation means anything
>is okay but this is flat out wrong! If you make disturb a group that is
>legitimately meeting in a public area, security will ask you to leave.
>There don't have to be any moderators. There just has to be sufficient
>annoyance at your behavior.
Security will just stand there unless a fight erupts, or one of the people
in charge of the group has you thrown out. Those people are the moderators.
--
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: SKAPUR@ccmail.sunysb.edu (Sanjay Kapur)
Subject: Re: yahweh is good posting
Message-ID: <7C0EFAA8BA20D21D@ccmail.sunysb.edu>
Sender: SKAPUR@ccmail.sunysb.edu
Date: 24 Oct 91 15:19:00 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
>The display of the newspaper ad for "Whore",a new movie, in the
>workplace might very well be illegal sexual harassment.
>
>I don't think that the presence of a newspaper containing the ad in
>lab or the library is illegal sexual harassment.
>Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Are you by any chance arguing that labs and libraries are not workplaces?
Are you by any change arguing that sexual harassment is limited to the
workplace?
Sanjay Kapur |Internet: Sanjay.Kapur@sunysb.edu
Systems Staff, Computing Services, |Bitnet: SKAPUR@USB
State University of New York, |SPAN/HEPnet: 44132::SKAPUR
Stony Brook, NY 11794-2400 |Phone:(516)632-8029, FAX:(516)632-8046
-------------------
From: SKAPUR@ccmail.sunysb.edu (Sanjay Kapur)
Subject: Re: yahweh is good posting
Message-ID: <7CB8E3AB1A20D21D@ccmail.sunysb.edu>
Sender: SKAPUR@ccmail.sunysb.edu
Date: 24 Oct 91 15:24:00 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
>
>I'm not so sure that you could build a strong case that recieving such
>material by mail constitutes harassment. What if the sender genuinely
>believed that the reciever would enjoy the mailing?
What if Justice Clarence Thomas believed that Prof. Anita Hill would enjoy the
descriptions that he was accused of?
>
> tacked up on the bulletin board in the cafeteria I would have been
> harrassed by it. If it were printed out and posted at the local
> firehouse, or posted on the door of the shelter, you can be sure that
> it would be grounds for action.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>I certainly hope not, at least not action based on content.
>The only action that could be taken would be based only on lack of
>permission to post, not the content of the posting. However you seem
>to imply that the grounds for action would be the content of the posting.
>Those that believe this do not believe in the concept of Freedom of Speech.
>
There is a case in New York City where a woman Firefighter has filed
a complaint and is suing the city. One of her complaints is that sexually
harassing material was placed on the firehouse bulletin board. All but one
male firefighter in that firehouse have now requested transfers.
>
>Chris Weyand
>weyand@cs.uoregon.edu
Sanjay Kapur |Internet: Sanjay.Kapur@sunysb.edu
Systems Staff, Computing Services, |Bitnet: SKAPUR@USB
State University of New York, |SPAN/HEPnet: 44132::SKAPUR
Stony Brook, NY 11794-2400 |Phone:(516)632-8029, FAX:(516)632-8046
-------------------
From: nbc2134@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil (Robert F Solon)
Subject: (none)
Message-ID: <9110241518.AA02340@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil>
Sender: nbc2134@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil
Date: 24 Oct 91 07:18:48 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
From: ntm1169@dsacg3.dsac.dla.mil (Mott Given)
Subject: Conference on EDI and the law
Keywords: EDI
Message-ID: <4211@dsacg3.dsac.dla.mil>
Date: 24 Oct 91 14:50:19 GMT
Distribution: dla
From: imc%uk.ac.aber@vax.nsfnet-relay.ac.uk
--------
THIRD NATIONAL CONFERENCE ON LAW, COMPUTERS AND ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
MAIN THEME - THE LEGAL IMPLICATIONS OF ELECTRONIC DATA INTERCHANGE
VENUE - UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF WALES, ABERYSTWYTH, UNITED KINGDOM
DATE - 30TH MARCH 1992 - 1ST APRIL 1992
Papers are especially invited on, but not restricted to, the following areas:
- The impact of EDI in the commercial world and the resulting implications
for law and traditional legal concepts.
- The restrictions of the existing legal framework on further developments in
EDI
- Computer use and misuse and related liability issues
- Evidential issue, both criminal and civil
- Intellectual Property issues
- Security and methods of detection and prevention
It is stressed that contributions from prospective authors in other areas
of law, computers and Artificial Intelligence such as computer representations
of law, implications of legal expert systems, will also be considered.
Further details can be obtained from:
Dr I M Carr, Centre for Computers and Law, Department of Law, Hugh Owen
Building, UCW, Aberystwyth SY23 3DY Tel: (0970)622712; Fax (0970)622729
e-mail imc @ uk.ac.aber
NOTE: The address which the AIL list has successfully used to reach Dr. Carr
is imc%uk.ac.aber@vax.nsfnet-relay.ac.uk. _DRW
-------------------
From: edguer@alpha.ces.cwru.edu (Aydin Edguer)
Subject: Re: yahweh is good posting
Message-ID: <9110241550.AA21007@sentinel.CES.CWRU.Edu>
Sender: edguer@alpha.ces.cwru.edu
References: <1991Oct24.134815.29358@eng.umd.edu>
Date: 24 Oct 91 15:50:45 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
> >I am not asking for labeling. I am asking for common sense.
> >I am asking for following the "rules" of USENET. You can make
> >all the fancy speeches you want about how unmoderation means anything
> >is okay but this is flat out wrong! If you make disturb a group that is
> >legitimately meeting in a public area, security will ask you to leave.
> >There don't have to be any moderators. There just has to be sufficient
> >annoyance at your behavior.
>
> Security will just stand there unless a fight erupts, or one of the people
> in charge of the group has you thrown out. Those people are the moderators.
An interesting definition of moderation. Then I guess soc.women is
moderated by your definition. One of the people involved complained
to security (the sysadmin) and the provocateur was cast out.
Aydin Edguer
-------------------
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [soc.motss] Prodigy hypocrisy
Message-ID: <9110241600.AA08815@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 24 Oct 91 06:00:49 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
From: michael@resonex.uucp (Michael Bryan)
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1991 14:24:27 GMT
Well, remember the story some time ago regarding Prodigy
censoring a discussion group regarding gay issues? Anybody
remember the *final* resolution of that? I'm extremely curious,
having just read an article in today's San Jose Mercury News
(page 1D).
Basically, the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith claims
that anti-Semitic messages were posted on Prodigy's bulletin board,
and that all readers could see these messages. They are
accusing Prodigy of condoning anti-Semitism by failing to stop
it.
Prodigy officials are claiming that the messages in question were
never on the public boards at all, that they were apparently
private messages between two individuals, and one of them
got upset and sent the message to ADL, who then complained
to Prodigy. The only text quoted in the newspaper article
is "Hitler had some valid points too. ... Remove the Jews and
we will go a long ways toward avoiding much trouble."
The real kicker of the article is the following, quoted directly:
Messages containing obcenities are automatically
deleted by computer. Prodigy relies on customers to
notify it about other unwanted messages such as
advertisments or libel, and deletes slurs against
individuals, but has a different policy regarding
groups, said Henry Heilbrunn, senior vice president.
"Prodigy condemns anti-Semitism. It is repugnant and
we would never encourage it. What we do encourage
is the free expression of ideas," company president
Ted Papes said. "The fact that some of the ideas
expressed are not correct as defined by any one group
does not mean that they should be denied a forum."
Sounds more than just a little hypocritical to me!!!
--
Michael Bryan resonex!michael@netcom.com ..!netcom!resonex!michael
W: 408/720-8600 x325 H: 408/738-2479
"Does this sentence remind you of Agatha Christie?"
-------------------
From: 1k1mgm@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
Subject: Re: Online disclaimers?
Message-ID: <1991Oct24.101738.34886@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu>
Date: 24 Oct 91 10:17:38 CDT
References: <1991Oct23.210321.283@ms.uky.edu>
In article <1991Oct23.210321.283@ms.uky.edu>, morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
> We've discussed some ramifications, both legal and ethical, of carrying
> Usenet news. Many people have spoken of "news contracts", documents
> signed by each Usenet participant at a given site which would explain
> the obligations incurred (or not incurred) by both the user and the
> site itself.
> Since most of us don't really want to float more paperwork into the
> bureaucratic morass, what about an online disclaimer? I was thinking
> about something like this, which would be displayed every time the
^^^^^^^^^^
> news reading/posting software is invoked:
I personally hate having inflicted on me the electronic equivalents
of form letters (most Mac and PC programs seem to have them now); I
think when you invoke a program, it should do what you want, not natter
at you with nifty logos, copyright notices, legal threats, etc. The
world hardly needs more of this. As a sys. manager (who leaves
the Usenet stuff to the central Comp. Center, by the way), I try
not to inflict any of this on my users if I can help it.
However, if the same sort of thing were implemented as a one-shot, it
might not be too bad. On the VAX/VMS news reader in use here, it would
seem easy enough to have users somehow 'sign off' on a disclaimer when
they initially caused creation of the new.resource file that keeps
track of items read, newsgroups registered, etc. Such a functionality
could even keep a global log of such acknowledgements for protection
of administrators who worry about such things.
But don't pay any attention to me. I've become so filled with
loathing over the way the world is being run by lawyers, Republicans
and anal-retentives that I'll buy a case of the first consumer
product labeled "No Safe-T-Seal! Probably contains cyanide!"
Disgusted by disclaimers, I remain,
Christopher Gunn Molecular Graphics and Modeling Lab
SPAN--KUPHSX::GUNN Department of Medicinal Chemistry, Malott Hall
913-864-4428 or -4495 University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS 66045
From kadie Fri Oct 25 10:37:03 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 25 10:35:47 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: yahweh is good posting
casseres@apple.com : Re: What if she is a fantasizing was: Sullivan wants to f
goehring@mentor.cc : Re: USENET censorship strikes University of Washington!
edguer@alpha.ces.c : Re: yahweh is good posting
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (comp.org.eff.talk) S516 text (230 lines)
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (alt.society.civil-liberties, et al.) Prodigy and the Anti
tanyas@sco.COM (Ta : Re: YAHWEH is good!
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: Official punishment of off-topic posts (was yahweh is
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: yahweh is good posting
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: yahweh is good posting
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: yahweh is good posting
arromdee@cs.jhu.ed : Re: What if she is a fantasizing was: Sullivan wants to f
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: YAHWEH is good!
rickert@cs.niu.edu : Re: (comp.org.eff.talk) S516 text (230 lines)
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: off-topic notes (was yahweh is good posting)
phz@cadence.com (P : Re: What if she is a fantasizing was: Sullivan wants to f
SKAPUR@ccmail.suny : Re: yahweh is good posting
lw24lag@rs1.tcs.tu : Re: What if she is a fantasizing was: Sullivan wants to f
usenet@swbatl.sbc. : Re: Repr. Sullivan wants to fire prof. Hill because of po
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: russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto)
Subject: Re: yahweh is good posting
Message-ID: <1991Oct24.171706.8389@eng.umd.edu>
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 91 17:17:06 GMT
References: <1991Oct24.134815.29358@eng.umd.edu> <9110241550.AA21007@sentinel.CES.CWRU.Edu>
In article <9110241550.AA21007@sentinel.CES.CWRU.Edu> edguer@alpha.ces.cwru.edu (Aydin Edguer) writes:
>> >I am not asking for labeling. I am asking for common sense.
>> >I am asking for following the "rules" of USENET. You can make
>> >all the fancy speeches you want about how unmoderation means anything
>> >is okay but this is flat out wrong! If you make disturb a group that is
>> >legitimately meeting in a public area, security will ask you to leave.
>> >There don't have to be any moderators. There just has to be sufficient
>> >annoyance at your behavior.
>>
>> Security will just stand there unless a fight erupts, or one of the people
>> in charge of the group has you thrown out. Those people are the moderators.
>
>An interesting definition of moderation. Then I guess soc.women is
>moderated by your definition. One of the people involved complained
>to security (the sysadmin) and the provocateur was cast out.
Security is accepting requests for ejection from those with no standing to
submit such requests. On unmoderated groups, no one has any standing to do so.
--
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.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1496 alt.censorship:2215 alt.society.civil-liberties:619 talk.politics.misc:21997
From: casseres@apple.com (David Casseres)
Subject: Re: What if she is a fantasizing liar? was: Sullivan wants to fire prof
Message-ID: <17169@goofy.Apple.COM>
Date: 24 Oct 91 17:09:11 GMT
References: <1991Oct22.073615.1607@nntp.hut.fi>
Sender: usenet@Apple.COM
In article , jmanos@cca.PUE.UDLAP.MX
(Jose Manuel Roberto Manos) writes:
> What if she is a fantasizing liar? If so, she should be prosecuted for
> gender harrassment of men. ...If someone accuses a man of sexual
> harrassment and can not prove that he is guilty, that person should do
> hard time in prison for slander.
> --
> Yo no soy manineiro, soy capitain :-)
> Jose Manuel Roberto Manos
Hard time in prison for slander, eh? So what should we do to someone who
posts from a Mexican university, and has a Spanish name, and uses correct
English but cannot even come close to spelling a few words in Spanish?
David Casseres
-------------------
Xref: eff alt.censorship:2216 alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1497 alt.sex:22514
From: goehring@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Scott Goehring)
Subject: Re: USENET censorship strikes University of Washington!
Message-ID:
Date: 24 Oct 91 17:58:02 GMT
Article-I.D.: mentor.GOEHRING.91Oct24125802
References: <1991Oct17.061020.16114@wpi.WPI.EDU>
<1991Oct23.011804.34839@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu>
<1991Oct23.235848.24117@iitmax.iit.edu>
<1991Oct24.055309.10895@agate.berkeley.edu>
Sender: news@mentor.cc.purdue.edu
Followup-To: alt.censorship
In-reply-to: ph111-bx@violet.berkeley.edu's message of 24 Oct 91 05:53:09 GMT
ph111-bx@violet.berkeley.edu (;;;;7202) writes:
>Actually, one reason given for not carrying alt.sex.pictures is the
>disproportionate amount of traffic generated. A set of postings for
>just one picture can easily run a half meg.
If I was administrating news, odds are that I wouldn't carry
alt.sex.pictures. Not because I object to the material; I have
nothing at all against it, and in fact find some of it (admittedly not
much, but some) interesting. I wouldn't carry it because it's too
damn huge. By eliminating one newsgroup I can make room for a good
hunk more news from the other 1000+ and bump my expire up a few days.
--
You all look like happy campers to me. Happy campers you are, happy
campers you have been, and, as far as I am concerned, happy campers you
will always be.
-- Vice President Dan Quayle
-------------------
From: edguer@alpha.ces.cwru.edu (Aydin Edguer)
Subject: Re: yahweh is good posting
Message-ID: <9110241851.AA21067@sentinel.CES.CWRU.Edu>
Sender: edguer@alpha.ces.cwru.edu
References: <1991Oct24.171706.8389@eng.umd.edu>
Date: 24 Oct 91 18:51:16 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
> > > > There don't have to be any moderators. There just has to be sufficient
> > > > annoyance at your behavior.
> > >
> > > Security will just stand there unless a fight erupts, or one of the
> > > people in charge of the group has you thrown out. Those people are
> > > the moderators.
> >
> > An interesting definition of moderation. Then I guess soc.women is
> > moderated by your definition. One of the people involved complained
> > to security (the sysadmin) and the provocateur was cast out.
>
> Security is accepting requests for ejection from those with no standing to
> submit such requests. On unmoderated groups, no one has any standing to do
> so.
Oh, so if a group of students secure a room for a legitimate reason
(ex: having a study session) but no one in charge of the group (i.e.
they are a cooperative) then security cannot remove people who disrupt
the group because no one is in charge! Wow! Neat :-( :-(
I obviously think you are wrong. Security should intervene.
Aydin Edguer
-------------------
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.org.eff.talk] S516 text (230 lines)
Message-ID: <9110241919.AA10039@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 24 Oct 91 09:19:58 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
From: tk0jut1@mp.cs.niu.edu (jim thomas)
Date: 24 Oct 91 17:46:07 GMT
Following is the text of Simon's Electronic privacy bill:
B
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
102d CONGRESS
1st SESSION S. 516
To prevent potential abuses of electronic monitoring in the workplace.
______________________________
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
February 27 (Legislative day, February 6) 1991
Mr. Simon introduced the following bill; which was read twice and
referred to the
Committee on Labor and Human Resources
______________________________
A BILL
To prevent potential abuses of electronic monitoring in the
workplace
_Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of American assembled,_
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the "Privacy for Consumers
and Workers Act".
SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.
As used in this Act--
(1) the term "electronic monitoring" means the collection,
storage, analysis, and reporting of information concerning an
employee's activities by means of a computer, electronic observation
and supervision,
- 2 -
remote telephone surveillance telephone call accounting, or other form
of visual, auditory, or computer-based surveillance conducted by any
transfer of sings, signals, writing, images, sounds, data, or
intelligence of any nature transmitted in whole or in part by a wire,
radio, electromagnetic, photoelectronic, or photo-optical system;
(2) the term "employee" means any current or former employee
of an employer;
(3) the term "employer" means any person who employs
employees, and includes any individual, corporation, partnership,
labor organization, unincorporated association, or any other leal
business, the Federal Government, any State (or political subdivision
thereof), and any agent of the employer.
(4) the term "personal data" means any information
concerning an employee which, because of name, identifying number,
mark, or description, can be readily associated with a particular
individual, and such term includes information contained in printouts,
forms, or written analyses or evaluations;
(5) the term "prospective employee" means an individual who
has applied for a position of employment with an employer and
- 2 -
(6) the term "Secretary" means the Secretary of Labor.
SEC.3.NOTICE
(a) IN GENERAL.--Each employer who engages in electronic
monitoring shall provide each affected employee with prior written
notice describing the following regarding the electronic monitoring
directly affecting the employee:
(1) The forms of electronic monitoring used.
(2) The personal data to be collected.
(3) The frequency of each form of electronic monitoring
which will occur.
(4) The use of personal data collected.
(5) Interpretation of printouts of statistics or other
records of information collected through electronic
monitoring.
(6) Existing production standards and work performance
expectations.
(7) Methods for determining production standards and
work performance expectations based on electronic
monitoring statistics.
(b) NOTICE CONCERNING EXISTING FORMS OF ELECTRONIC
MONITORING.--(1) Each employer shall notify a prospective employee at
any personal interview or meeting of existing forms of electronic
monitoring which may directly
- 3 -
affect the prospective employee if such employee is hired by the
employer.
(2) Each employer, upon request by a prospective employee, shall
provide the prospective employee with the written notice described in
subsection (a) regarding existing forms of electronic monitoring which
may directly affect the prospective employee if such employee is hired
by the employer.
(3) Each employer who engages in electronic monitoring shall
provide the affected employee with a signal light, beeping tone,
verbal notification, or other form of visual or aural notice, at
periodic intervals, that indicates that electronic monitoring is
taking place. If the electronic monitoring is conducted on a
continuous basis during each of the employee's shift, such notice need
not be provided at periodic intervals.
(4) An employer who engages in telephone service observation
shall provide the affected customer with a signal light, beeping tone,
verbal notification, or other form of visual or aural notice, at
periodic intervals, indicating that the telephone service observation
is taking place.
(c) NOTICE TO CURRENTLY AFFECTED EMPLOYEES.--Notwithstanding
subsection (a), an employer who is engaged in electronic monitoring on
the effective date of this Act shall have 90 days after such date to
provide each affected employee with the required written notice.
- 4 -
SEC.4.ACCESS TO RECORDS.
Each employer shall permit an employee (or the employee's
authorized agent) to have access to all personal data obtained
by electronic monitoring of the employee's work.
SEC.5.PRIVACY PROTECTIONS.
(a) RELEVANCY REQUIRED.--An Employer shall not collect personal
data on an employee through electronic monitoring which is not
relevant to the employee's work performance.
(b) DISCLOSURE LIMITED.--An employer shall not disclose personal
data obtained by electronic monitoring to any person or busness entity
except to (or with the prior written consent of) the individual
employee to whom the data pertains, unless the disclosure would be--
(1) to officers and employees of the employer who have a
legitimate need for information in the performance of
their duties;
(2) to a law enforcement agency in connection with a
criminal investigation or prosecution; or
(3) pursuant to the order of a court of competent
jurisdiction.
SEC.6.USE OF DATA COLLECTED BY ELECTRONIC MONITORING.
(a) DATA MAY NOT BE USED AS A SOLE BASIS FOR EVALUATION.--An
employer shall not use personal data obtained by electronic monitoring
as the exclusive basis for indi-
- 5 -
vidual employee performance evaluation or disciplinary action, unless
the employee is provided with an opportunity to review the personal
data with a reasonable time after such data is obtained.
(b) DATA MAY NOT BE USED AS SOLE BASIS FOR PRODUCTION QUOTAS.--An
employer shall not use personal data or collective data obtained by
electronic monitoring data as the sole basis for setting production
quotas or work performance expectations.
(c) DATA MAY NOT DISCLOSE EMPLOYEE'S EXERCISE OF CONSTITUTIONAL
RIGHTS.--An employer shall not maintain, collect, use, or disseminate
personal data obtained by electronic monitoring which describes how an
employee exercises rights guaranteed by the First Amendment unless
such use is expressly authorized by statute or by the employee to whom
the data relates or unless pertinent to and within the scope of, an
authorized law enforcement activity.
SEC.7.ENFORCEMENT PROVISIONS.--(1) Subject to paragraph (2), any
employer who violates any provision of this Act may be assessed a civil
penalty of not more that $10,000.
(2) In determining the amount of any penalty under paragraph (1),
the Secretary shall take into account the previous record of the
person in terms of compliance with this Act and the gravity of the
violation.
- 6 -
(3) Any civil penalty assessed under this subsection shall be
collected in the same manner as is required by subsections (b) through
(e) of section 503 of the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker
Protection Act (29 U.S.C. 1853) with respect to civil penalties
assessed under subsection (a) of such section.
(b) INJUNCTIVE ACTIONS BY THE SECRETARY.--The Secretary may bring
an action under this section to restrain violations of this Act. The
Solicitor of Labor may appear for and represent the Secretary in any
litigation brought under this Act. In any action brought under this
section, the district courts of the United States shall have
jurisdiction, for cause shown, to issue temporary or permanent
restraining orders and injunctions to require compliance with this
Act, including such legal or equitable relief incident thereto as may
be appropriate, including employment, reinstatement, promotion, and
the payment of lost wages and benefits.
(c) PRIVATE CIVIL ACTIONS.--(1) An employer who violates this Act
shall be liable to the employee or prospective employee affected by
such violation. Such employer shall be liable for such legal or
equitable relief as may be appropriate, including employment,
reinstatement, promotion, and the payment of lost wages and benefits.
(2) An action to recover the liability prescribed in paragraph
(1) may be maintained against the employer in any
- 7 -
Federal or State court of competent jurisdiction by an employee or
prospective employee for or on behalf of such employee, prospective
employee, and for other employees or prospective employees similarly
situated. No such action may be commenced more than 3 years after the
date of the alleged violation.
(3) The court, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing (other
than the United States) reasonable costs, including attorney's fees.
(d) WAIVER OF RIGHTS PROHIBITED.--The rights and procedures
provided by this Act may not be waived by contract or otherwise,
unless such a waiver is part of a written settlement agreed to and
signed by the parties to the pending action or complaint under this
Act.
SEC.8.REGULATIONS.
The Secretary shall, within 6 months after the date of the
enactment of this Act, issue rules and regulations to carry out the
provisions of this Act.
SEC.8.INAPPLICABLE TO MONITORING CONDUCTED BY LAW ENFORCEMENT
AGENCIES.
This At shall not apply to electronic monitoring administered by
law enforcement agencies as may otherwise be permitted in criminal
investigations.
-- end S516 --
-------------------
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.society.civil-liberties, et al.] Prodigy and the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai Brith
Message-ID: <9110241937.AA10153@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 24 Oct 91 09:37:36 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
From: yee@mipgsun.mipg.upenn.edu (Conway Yee)
Date: 24 Oct 91 17:15:20 GMT
Excerpts from the New York Times 10/24/91 (page A21):
The Anti-Defamation Lauge of B'nai B'rith has charged that the
Services Company, the nation's largest computer information
service has allowed its electronic bulletin boards to be used
as a high-technology pathway for the spread of anti-Semitism.
[...]
Some of the messages characterized the Holocaust as a myth.
Others declared Jews were the source of most of the world's
economic and political problems.
[...]
Niehter Prodigy nor the league provided an estimate of the
frequency with wich anti-Semitic material had been posted.
But most of the examples offered came from one person.
Prodigy said that it did not condone anti-Semitism and
appreciated the concerns of the Anti-Defamation League but
that it would not retreat from a policy developed this
spring of loosening restrictions on the content of messages
on its bulletin boards. That policy was adopted after
strong criticism of censorship from groups like the American
Civil Liberties Union and some Prodigy customers.
Noting that there are 30,000 electronic bulletin boards in the
country, Jerry Berman, director of the A.C.L.U.'s Information
Technology Project in Washington, said, "To try to censor them
would be a mistake."
[...]
Prodigy said yesterday that the most virulent of the anti-Semitic
diatribes that the league had publicized this week had actually
been a private electronic mail message between two individuals,
which the company merely delivered and is barred by law from even
reading. When the recipient tried to get the message posted on
one of Prodigy's nine electronic bulletin boards last October,
Prodigy refused.
That statement linked Jewish influence to warfare and economic
exploitation around the world, described the Holocaust as
"mythical" and concluded by suggesting that a "real and this
time worldwide holocaust" might be "a good idea." The
revisionist claim that the Holocaust never occured was a repeated
theme in the examples cited.
==========================================================
My comments:
1) While I generally deplore the policies of Prodigy due to its
tendency to censor messages, I applaud them in refusing to
increase its censorship under pressure from the Anti-Defamation
League.
2) I find that the attempts of the Anti-Defamation League to censor
private mail incredibly offensive and a violation of 1st
amendment rights.
3) If the Anti-Defamation League finds anti-Semitic remarks offensive
it should defend itself with facts. To mandate PC speech by
censoring opposing views demeans us all. If revisionist history
is false, it should be easy to debunk it with facts. Censorship
merely strengthens the belief that the censored material has merit
which harms the censoring party.
--
Conway Yee, N2JWQ
yee@ming.mipg.upenn.edu (preferred) 231 S. Melville St.
cy5@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (forwarded to above) Philadelphia, Pa 19139
yee@bnlx26.nsls.bnl.gov (rarely checked) (215) 386-1312
-------------------
Xref: eff alt.sex:22519 soc.women:10041 alt.censorship:2217 alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1501
From: tanyas@sco.COM (Tanya Swartz)
Subject: Re: YAHWEH is good!
Message-ID: <15046@scolex.sco.COM>
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 91 16:17:10 GMT
References: <1991Oct22.231334.9723@tc.cornell.edu>
Sender: news@sco.COM
I dont see anything wrong with the university choosing to
excersize some control over what is written WITH THEIR
NAME ON IT. Any student/faculty who posts from the university
owned machine represents the university. the university
has a right to limit what their name appears on.
also, i know of several students who have lost
computer priviledges due to various transgressions.
just as the instructers have the right to drop a student
from a class for inappropriate behavior so do the
system administrators have the right to lock
students out of the computer system.
and that posting was definately inapropriate.
i do feel that it was deliberate harassment-
why else post that in such an inapropriate place?
And dont tell me that the poster didnt know better
as the names of soc.women and soc.kids(or whatever
it was) are quite clear. As for my not being
**forced** to read it, without a disclaimer
in the header how am I to be warned to skip
that article?
TO the administrator who took such appropriate
action (IMHO), my sincere thanks.
-------------------
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Official punishment of off-topic posts (was yahweh is good posting)
Message-ID: <1991Oct24.212447.17221@eff.org>
References: <1991Oct23.182731.17656@eng.umd.edu> <9110231918.AA20269@sentinel.CES.CWRU.Edu> <1991Oct23.210725.19475@eff.org> <3166@aldebaran.cs.nps.navy.mil>
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1991 21:24:47 GMT
schweige@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil (Jeffrey M. Schweiger) writes:
[...]
>With respect to your above comment about seeing "the unmoderated Usenet and
>Altnet newsgroups as free-speech forums," I'd like your reaction to Gene
>Spafford's "Rules for Posting to Usenet", specifically, the following:
> "Posting of information on Usenet is to be viewed as similar to
> publication. Because of this, do not post instructions for how to do
> some illegal act (such as jamming radar or obtaining cable TV service
> illegally); also do not ask how to do illegal acts by posting to the
> net."
While this is generally good advice, but it is not the law. In the
United States, the _Anarchist Handbook_ is legal.
In the 1969 case of Brandenberg v. Ohio, the Supreme Court struck down
the conviction of a Ku Klux Klan member under a criminal syndicalism
law and established a new standard: Speech may not be suppressed or
punished unless it is intended to produce 'imminent lawless action'
and it is 'likely to produce such action.' Otherwise, the First
Amendment protects even speech that advocates violence. The
Brandenberg test is the law today.
[...]
>Just to stir up the pot a bit more (though I don't think this topic needs
>much fuel), let me add a couple more excerpts from the news.announce.newusers
>postings:
[...]
> "
> Those people are wrong. Freedom of speech also means freedom not
> to speak. If I choose not to use my computer to aid your speech,
> that is my right. Freedom of the press belongs to those who own
> one."
[...]
> "IF YOU ARE UNHAPPY...
> ---------------------
> Property rights being what they are, there is no higher authority on
> Usenet than the people who own the machines on which Usenet traffic is
> carried. If the owner of the machine you use says, "We will not carry
> alt.sex on this machine," and you are not happy with that order, you
> have no Usenet recourse. What can we outsiders do, after all?
[...]
I agree. I note, however, that when government is the owner of the
machine it must act within its charter, the Constitution. Also when
the government is the owner, the internal procedures for appeal go all
the way to the Supreme Court.
> WORDS TO LIVE BY #2:
> USENET AS ANARCHY
> --------------------
> Anarchy means having to put up with things that really piss you off.
> -- Unknown"
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu, or (anonymous) ap.4352@hri.com
I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
-------------------
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: yahweh is good posting
Message-ID: <1991Oct24.213320.17522@eff.org>
References: <7C0EFAA8BA20D21D@ccmail.sunysb.edu>
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1991 21:33:20 GMT
I wrote:
>The display of the newspaper ad for "Whore",a new movie, in the
>workplace might very well be illegal sexual harassment.
>I don't think that the presence of a newspaper containing the ad in
>lab or the library is illegal sexual harassment.
SKAPUR@ccmail.sunysb.edu (Sanjay Kapur) writes:
>Are you by any chance arguing that labs and libraries are not workplaces?
No, I'm saying that the publication of material in an international
medium is not harassment by the author of the material.
>Are you by any change arguing that sexual harassment is limited to the
>workplace?
I know of no general laws against sexual harassment.
E.g. Tapeing the ad for "Whore" to a park bench does not
violate any laws.
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu, or (anonymous) ap.4352@hri.com
I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
-------------------
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: yahweh is good posting
Message-ID: <1991Oct24.213843.17665@eff.org>
References: <7CB8E3AB1A20D21D@ccmail.sunysb.edu>
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1991 21:38:43 GMT
SKAPUR@ccmail.sunysb.edu (Sanjay Kapur) writes:
[...]
>There is a case in New York City where a woman Firefighter has filed
>a complaint and is suing the city. One of her complaints is that sexually
>harassing material was placed on the firehouse bulletin board. All but one
>male firefighter in that firehouse have now requested transfers.
[...]
I misunderstood your example. I thought you meant the material was
placed by a nonfirefighter and that it offended a nonfirefighter and
were asking if the offender had committed illegal sexual harassment of
the offendee. My answer was that the offender may have comitted
trespass, but did not commit illegal sexual harassment.
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu, or (anonymous) ap.4352@hri.com
I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
-------------------
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: yahweh is good posting
Message-ID: <1991Oct24.214134.17890@eff.org>
References: <1991Oct24.171706.8389@eng.umd.edu> <9110241851.AA21067@sentinel.CES.CWRU.Edu>
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1991 21:41:34 GMT
edguer@alpha.ces.cwru.edu (Aydin Edguer) writes:
[...]
>Oh, so if a group of students secure a room for a legitimate reason
>(ex: having a study session) but no one in charge of the group (i.e.
>they are a cooperative) then security cannot remove people who disrupt
>the group because no one is in charge! Wow! Neat :-( :-(
[...]
I agree that students have a right to private meetings. I think the
Net analogy to this is moderated newsgroups and private mailing lists.
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu, or (anonymous) ap.4352@hri.com
I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
-------------------
Xref: eff alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1506 alt.censorship:2223 alt.society.civil-liberties:643 talk.politics.misc:22021
From: arromdee@cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: What if she is a fantasizing liar? was: Sullivan wants to fire prof
Message-ID: <50166@cs.jhu.edu>
Date: 24 Oct 91 21:16:03 GMT
References: <17169@goofy.Apple.COM>
In article <17169@goofy.Apple.COM> casseres@apple.com (David Casseres) writes:
>In article , jmanos@cca.PUE.UDLAP.MX
>(Jose Manuel Roberto Manos) writes:
>> Yo no soy manineiro, soy capitain :-)
>Hard time in prison for slander, eh? So what should we do to someone who
>posts from a Mexican university, and has a Spanish name, and uses correct
>English but cannot even come close to spelling a few words in Spanish?
>David Casseres
Why, post a Spanish spelling flame, of course, carefully ignoring the presence
of the smiley face he put at the end of the sentence.
--
"Halvah? What kind of fish is that?" --grocer, to my grandfather, many
years ago....
Kenneth Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
INTERNET: arromdee@cs.jhu.edu)
-------------------
Xref: eff alt.sex:22533 soc.women:10047 alt.censorship:2224 alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1507
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: YAHWEH is good!
Message-ID: <1991Oct24.220928.18690@eff.org>
References: <1991Oct22.231334.9723@tc.cornell.edu> <15046@scolex.sco.COM>
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1991 22:09:28 GMT
tanyas@sco.COM (Tanya Swartz) writes:
>I dont see anything wrong with the university choosing to
>excersize some control over what is written WITH THEIR
>NAME ON IT. Any student/faculty who posts from the university
>owned machine represents the university. the university
>has a right to limit what their name appears on.
This is the argument some universities made when they tried to ban gay
student organizations, censorship student publications, and prohibit
progressive (and regressive) speakers from appearing on campus.
According to _Public Schools Law: Teachers' and Students' Rights_ (2nd
Ed. by Martha M. McCarthy and Nelda H. Cambron-McCabe, published in
1987 by Allyn and Bacon, Inc.), the courts have said that public
universities can't censor students, but they "stamp copies of student
publications to disclaim responsibility from the content."
The Student Code at the U. of Illinois at UC says:
"At the same time, it should be made clear to the academic and the
larger community that in their public expressions or demonstrations,
students or student organizations speak only for themselves."
>also, i know of several students who have lost computer priviledges
>due to various transgressions. just as the instructers have the right
>to drop a student from a class for inappropriate behavior so do the
>system administrators have the right to lock students out of the
>computer system. [...]
Students should not, and legally cannot, be punished capaciously.
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu, or (anonymous) ap.4352@hri.com
I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
-------------------
From: rickert@cs.niu.edu (Neil W Rickert)
Subject: Re: [comp.org.eff.talk] S516 text (230 lines)
Message-ID: <23274.688342428@mp.cs.niu.edu>
Sender: rickert@cs.niu.edu
References: <9110241919.AA10039@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: 24 Oct 91 12:13:48 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
In article <9110241919.AA10039@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu> tk0jut1@mp.cs.niu.edu (jim thomas) writes:
>Following is the text of Simon's Electronic privacy bill:
Well we've seen the wording.
This is an incredibly bad piece of legislation. I urge EFF to vigorously
oppose it. This constitutes a gross intrusion by the government into
employer/employee relations.
> This Act may be cited as the "Privacy for Consumers
>and Workers Act".
Perhaps it should more properly be called "The Luddite Manifesto".
> (1) the term "electronic monitoring" means the collection,
>storage, analysis, and reporting of information concerning an
>employee's activities by means of a computer, electronic observation
>and supervision,
>remote telephone surveillance telephone call accounting, or other form
>of visual, auditory, or computer-based surveillance conducted by any
>transfer of sings, signals, writing, images, sounds, data, or
>intelligence of any nature transmitted in whole or in part by a wire,
>radio, electromagnetic, photoelectronic, or photo-optical system;
To be only slightly flippant, the last time I looked, light was
electromagnetic, so purely visual observation and surveillance is included
within this bill even when no technology other than paper and pencil is
involved.
Jim,
I am not an employer, and you are not my employee, so your use of this
unix computer would not be covered. But pretend for a moment that it is
covered.
Try using the command 'last'. That produces a list of all your
recent logins. That would be covered by this bill.
Try the command "lastcomm". That will give a list of commands
used recently. That would be covered by the bill.
Look in /usr/spool/mqueue/syslog . That file contains a record of
email to or from you. That would be covered by the bill.
Look in /usr/lib/news/log. That contains a list of all news articles
processed today. The entries corresponding to news articles
posted locally can easily be extracted with a 'grep' command, allowing
an easy determination of which articles you posted. That is covered
by the bill.
There are other places where information is logged, but which is
not visible to you. For examle failed login attempts are logged
in /var/adm/sulog, but I keep that unreadable since a user may
inadvertently type his password at the wrong time, and that would
be logged.
The amount of information logged here is trivial compared to the extensive
logs kept on the MVS system you commonly use. Much of it would be covered
by the Simon bill.
By the way, I suggest you check with your department chairman. I think you
will find he gets a regular accounting of phone calls made from your office
'phone, and that is clearly covered in the Simon bill.
Now it is true that most of the records I mention are not done with any
intention of exerting pressure on users. They are really intended to
monitor problems in the computer system. Perhaps it was not really
Simon's intention to cover these, but it is difficult to come up with a
good definition of monitoring which would exclude necessary record keeping
on the computer, yet cover key stroke counts in word processing pools.
I know you are going to try telling me that the employer need only inform
employees about all these forms of monitoring. But that would miss the point.
There is monitoring going on in many computers that even the owners of those
computers may not be aware of. The only sure ways for an employer to deal
with the situation are to either refuse to provide telephone and computer
access to employees, or to require all employees to sign away all their
rights to receive notice under this bill as a precondition to employment.
I know Senator Simon means well. Nobody likes the idea of concealed
video cameras in bathrooms. But I suspect many of the true abuses of
monitoring are already covered under existing law, or under collective
bargaining agreements.
We don't need this kind of legislation.
--
=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=
Neil W. Rickert, Computer Science
Northern Illinois Univ.
DeKalb, IL 60115 +1-815-753-6940
-------------------
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: off-topic notes (was yahweh is good posting)
Message-ID: <1991Oct24.222935.19366@eff.org>
References: <1991Oct23.233034.24688@eff.org> <9110240013.AA20625@sentinel.CES.CWRU.Edu>
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1991 22:29:35 GMT
My turn to ask Aydin Edguer (and anyone else) some questions.
You that the University should enforce the charters of unmoderated
Netnews newgroups.
* Does every newsgroups have a charter?
* Do your users have access to the charters of every newsgroup you carry?
* How are charters officially decided?
* If a charter calls for viewpoint discrimination, would you enforce
it? (e.g. If the alt.astrology charter says that articles expressing
skeptism are not welcome, will you punish skeptical posters?)
* If a charter calls for sexual discrimination (remember
soc.women.only?), will you enforce it?
* If a charter says that a person can be barred from posting
by a majority vote, will you enforce such a vote?
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu, or (anonymous) ap.4352@hri.com
I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
-------------------
From: phz@cadence.com (Pete Zakel)
Subject: Re: What if she is a fantasizing liar? was: Sullivan wants to fire prof
Message-ID: <1991Oct24.194352.10183@cadence.com>
Sender: usenet@cadence.com (USENET News)
References: <1991Oct22.073615.1607@nntp.hut.fi>
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 91 19:43:52 GMT
In article jmanos@cca.PUE.UDLAP.MX (Jose Manuel Roberto Manos) writes:
>If someone accuses a man of sexual
>harrassment and can not prove that he is guilty, that person should do
>hard time in prison for slander.
Unfortunately, you misunderstand laws against libel and slander. If a
person believes what s/he says, and has sufficient reason for believing
it, that person is not guilty of slander. One can only be guilty of
slander if one believes that what one is saying about another is untrue.
In the case of Anita Hill and Clarence Thomas, I believe that Professor
Hill believed what she was saying, and the fact that four witnesses
testified that she had informed them years ago of the purported harassment
is sufficient proof of that. Therefore, Anita Hill is not guilty of
slander.
In Clarence Thomas's case, we only have his word that he didn't, and the
word of others that Judge Thomas probably wouldn't lie about it. Most people
who knew both didn't think that either would lie about it. Personally, I
believe that what Anita Hill described actually did happen and that Clarence
Thomas has either over time convinced himself it didn't, or is lying.
In either case, Anita Hill made her deposition under the condition that it
would not be made public, and someone leaked it. Had the leak not occured,
we would not have known about the charges, since they had been dismissed
by the committee for lack of evidence, so Anita Hill cannot even be
technically guilty of slander or libel since her action, by itself, did
not harm Clarence Thomas.
-Pete Zakel
(phz@cadence.com or ..!uunet!cadence!phz)
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Benjamin Franklin
Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759
-------------------
From: SKAPUR@ccmail.sunysb.edu (Sanjay Kapur)
Subject: Re: yahweh is good posting
Message-ID:
Sender: SKAPUR@ccmail.sunysb.edu
Date: 24 Oct 91 23:29:00 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
>SKAPUR@ccmail.sunysb.edu (Sanjay Kapur) writes:
>
>>Are you by any change arguing that sexual harassment is limited to the
>>workplace?
>
>I know of no general laws against sexual harassment.
>E.g. Tapeing the ad for "Whore" to a park bench does not
>violate any laws.
>Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu, or (anonymous) ap.4352@hri.com
In this particular instance, I am more interested in what society percieves to
be sexual harassment, not what the laws say.
Sanjay Kapur |Internet: Sanjay.Kapur@sunysb.edu
Systems Staff, Computing Services, |Bitnet: SKAPUR@USB
State University of New York, |SPAN/HEPnet: 44132::SKAPUR
Stony Brook, NY 11794-2400 |Phone:(516)632-8029, FAX:(516)632-8046
-------------------
From: lw24lag@rs1.tcs.tulane.edu (peter lavallee)
Subject: Re: What if she is a fantasizing liar? was: Sullivan wants to fire prof
Message-ID: <9580@cs.tulane.edu>
Date: 24 Oct 91 23:09:56 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.9580
References: <1991Oct22.073615.1607@nntp.hut.fi>
Sender: news@cs.tulane.edu
In article jmanos@cca.PUE.UDLAP.MX (Jose Manuel Roberto Manos) writes:
>
>What if she is a fantasizing liar? If so, she should be prosecuted for
>gender harrassment of men. Men should unite, we may be being persecuted
>by unscrupulous women who can besmirch our reputation and then walk
>away leaving us without recourse. If someone accuses a man of sexual
>harrassment and can not prove that he is guilty, that person should do
>hard time in prison for slander.
No way, Jose. If you want evidence in a harrassment case, you damn well
better require it in a slander case!
> Jose Manuel Roberto Manos
pjl
--
Peter J. Lavallee : "Wake up and smell the collective
lw24lag@rs1.tcs.tulane.edu : coffee, if you know what I'm saying."
-------------------
Xref: eff alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1513 alt.censorship:2229 alt.society.civil-liberties:655 talk.politics.misc:22032
From: usenet@swbatl.sbc.com
Subject: Re: Repr. Sullivan wants to fire prof. Hill because of political opinions
Message-ID: <1991Oct23.154151.7336@swbatl.sbc.com>
References: <1991Oct22.073615.1607@nntp.hut.fi> <-2+dr+a@lynx.unm.edu>
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 91 15:41:51 GMT
In article <-2+dr+a@lynx.unm.edu> nwickham@triton.unm.edu (Neal C. Wickham) writes:
>In article <1991Oct22.073615.1607@nntp.hut.fi> jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala) writes:
>
>>Oklahoma State Representative Leonard E. Sullivan, Republican of Oklahoma
>>City is seeking to have Prof. Anita Hill ousted from her tenured position.
>>In a letter to University president, Richard Van Horn, Sullivan said, "We
>>must get left wing extremist influence off the campus before it spreads
>>further. We can't afford to have a high profile professor on campus that
>>millions of Americans, according to polls and national talk shows, believe
>>is a fantasizing liar." [NYT 10/16/91 p.A21]
>
>
>
>...some want to try and convince me that this in *not* a Nazi tactic??
>
>
> NCW
Neal, I'm convinced you consider anyone to the right of
Eugene McCarthy a nazi.
*********************************************************************
Joe Spencer What the Hell is the world
Southwestern Bell coming to?
Network Engineering
Sheriff Buford T. Justice
********************************************************************
From kadie Fri Oct 25 10:38:33 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 25 10:37:05 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:
gds@oahu.cs.ucla.e : Re: YAHWEH is good!
schweige@aldebaran : Re: Official punishment of off-topic posts (was yahweh is
mt@mahler.media.mi : Stanford anthropology student
wjb5106@summa.tamu : Re: What if she is a fantasizing was: Sullivan wants to f
ALILESTE@idbsu.idb : Warning! contains words heard in R-rated films.
wjb5106@summa.tamu : Re: What if she is a fantasizing was: Sullivan wants to f
ALILESTE@idbsu.idb : Re: Stanford anthropology student
graham@venus.iucf. : Re: yahweh is good posting
dks@athena.mit.edu : Re: Repr. Sullivan wants to fire prof. Hill because of po
pollock@milton.u.w : Re: YAHWEH is good!
nwickham@triton.un : Re: What if she is a fantasizing was: Sullivan wants to f
mf2x+@andrew.cmu.e : Re: yahweh is good posting
dhartung@chinet.ch : Re: What if she is a fantasizing was: Sullivan wants to f
dhartung@chinet.ch : Re: Repr. Sullivan wants to fire prof. Hill because of po
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (alt.acad.freedom.talk, et al.) Re: yahweh is good posting
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (alt.censorship) Re: Usenet censorship
nbc2134@dsacg2.dsa : Sexual Harassment Standards (Was: Re: Yahweh is good post
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (alt.society.civil-liberties) Re: Stanford anthropology st
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.sex:22554 soc.women:10055 alt.censorship:2230 alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1514
From: gds@oahu.cs.ucla.edu (Greg Skinner)
Subject: Re: YAHWEH is good!
Message-ID: <1991Oct25.001642.9495@cs.ucla.edu>
Originator: gds@oahu.cs.ucla.edu
Sender: usenet@cs.ucla.edu (Mr. News Himself)
Nntp-Posting-Host: oahu.cs.ucla.edu
References: <1991Oct22.231334.9723@tc.cornell.edu> <15046@scolex.sco.COM>
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 91 00:16:42 GMT
In article <15046@scolex.sco.COM> tanyas@sco.COM (Tanya Swartz) writes:
>and that posting was definately inapropriate.
Agreed.
>As for my not being
>**forced** to read it, without a disclaimer
>in the header how am I to be warned to skip
>that article?
In general, I don't look at the text of an article if they header
contains something that looks like it has absolutely nothing to do
with the context of the groups it was posted to. In this case, I
looked at the header and decided it was probably trash, and ignored
it. (Thought about putting it in the kill file, too, but decided not
to.) It was only after reading all these responses that I decided to
go back and read it, to see what had caused all the fuss.
--gregbo
-------------------
From: schweige@aldebaran.cs.nps.navy.mil (Jeffrey M. Schweiger)
Subject: Re: Official punishment of off-topic posts (was yahweh is good posting)
Message-ID: <3171@aldebaran.cs.nps.navy.mil>
Date: 25 Oct 91 01:55:11 GMT
Article-I.D.: aldebara.3171
References: <1991Oct23.182731.17656@eng.umd.edu> <9110231918.AA20269@sentinel.CES.CWRU.Edu> <1991Oct23.210725.19475@eff.org> <3166@aldebaran.cs.nps.navy.mil> <1991Oct24.212447.17221@eff.org>
In article <1991Oct24.212447.17221@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
|schweige@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil (Jeffrey M. Schweiger) writes:
|[...]
|>Just to stir up the pot a bit more (though I don't think this topic needs
|>much fuel), let me add a couple more excerpts from the news.announce.newusers
|>postings:
|[...]
|> "
|> Those people are wrong. Freedom of speech also means freedom not
|> to speak. If I choose not to use my computer to aid your speech,
|> that is my right. Freedom of the press belongs to those who own
|> one."
|
|[...]
|
|> "IF YOU ARE UNHAPPY...
|> ---------------------
|> Property rights being what they are, there is no higher authority on
|> Usenet than the people who own the machines on which Usenet traffic is
|> carried. If the owner of the machine you use says, "We will not carry
|> alt.sex on this machine," and you are not happy with that order, you
|> have no Usenet recourse. What can we outsiders do, after all?
|[...]
|
|I agree. I note, however, that when government is the owner of the
|machine it must act within its charter, the Constitution. Also when
|the government is the owner, the internal procedures for appeal go all
|the way to the Supreme Court.
I agree here also. But I also note that the courts have held that there
can be limits on freedom of speech. For example, demonstrators can be banned
from peaceably demonstrating on a military base. Also, active duty members
of the military are barred from running for political office or from actively
taking part in most areas of partisan politics. Another example is the FCC,
and the 'Seven Naughty Words' that can't be broadcast. I think reviewing
limitations that have been placed on other forms of electronic communications
may have more applicability to USENET than the printed or spoken word, as
I don't believe that precedents have been set that completely apply to the
newsgroups.
I would hold that if reasonable limits to what can or cannot be posted to
USENET and/or particular newsgroups are will publicized in advance, these
rules might very well stand up in court. As such, I'm not totally convinced
that the postings that were the genesis of this thread are necessarily
protected under freedom of speech to be posted where they were. I'm not sure
where the theshold is, these posts may very well be protected. What I object
to is a blanket implication that USENET postings are totally protected by
reason of 'freedom of speech' - I think limitations are possible. Whether or
not the author is protected from punishment under other rules/procedures
(violation of due process, university rules, etc.), is another issue.
Jeff Schweiger
--
*******************************************************************************
Jeff Schweiger Standard Disclaimer CompuServe: 74236,1645
Internet (Milnet): schweige@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil
*******************************************************************************
-------------------
Xref: eff alt.society.civil-liberties:663 alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1516
From: mt@mahler.media.mit.edu (Michael Travers)
Subject: Stanford anthropology student silenced?
Message-ID:
Date: 25 Oct 91 03:22:22 GMT
Sender: news@news.media.mit.edu (USENET News System)
[warning: this isn't about a computer-related academic freedom issue]
A campus paper here at MIT published an item here about a Stanford
anthropology student who was denied the right to a thesis defense
under pressure from the Chinese government. This seemed a little hard
to believe, so I would appreciate if somebody from Stanford could
confirm, deny, or expand upon this.
Here's the item in its entirety:
"Stanford Unversity Student Steven W. Mosher was recently prepared to
defend his PhD thesis in anthropology. Unfortunately, his topic was
the forced abortion policy in rural China, and so when the Chinese
government protested, Stanford President Donald Kennedy capitulated ot
the Chinese government's wishes. Mr. Mosher's defense was denied."
Thanks for any info.
-------------------
Xref: eff alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1517 alt.censorship:2234 alt.society.civil-liberties:667 talk.politics.misc:22068
From: wjb5106@summa.tamu.edu (Walter Barnett)
Subject: Re: What if she is a fantasizing liar? was: Sullivan wants to fire prof
Message-ID: <5179@tamsun.TAMU.EDU>
Date: 25 Oct 91 03:42:12 GMT
References: <1991Oct24.022357.14620@ryn.mro4.dec.com>
Sender: usenet@tamsun.TAMU.EDU
Followup-To: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4
In article , nwickham@triton.unm.edu (Neal C. Wickham) writes...
>In article <1991Oct24.022357.14620@ryn.mro4.dec.com> fister@DEMING.DEC.COM (Les Fister) writes:
>
>> I recall hearing a very recent (yesterday?) news story of a female
>>Naval cadet who accused six male cadets of something akin to harassment.
>>The male cadets were punished for their actions...and the woman recently
>>retracted her story, claiming that it never happened (anyone with the proper
>>details?).
>>
>
>I saw this story. I think it was that she retracted her accusation but
>all of the witnesses stood by their account. At least one of the
There is some concern that her recantation is due to fear of
retaliation. The campus cops here, however, could not get a consistent
story out of her on the second alleged assault. Furthermore, she
refused to file charges and refused a medical examination. Under
questioning about inconsistencies in her second report she admitted both
stories were complete fabrications. The most disgusting result of all
this is that, even though she admits to a vicious lie intended
(successfully) to injure others, the university has announced that no
disciplinary action will be taken against her. Never mind that an
entire unit of the corps of cadets has been disbanded. Never mind that
three students were almost expulsed from the university. Just for the
record, I have never been in the corps and hold no special affinity for
it. I am just disgusted by the blatant double-standard approach taken
by the administration of this university.
_______________________________________________________________________
Walter Barnett Aerospace Engineering Texas A&M University
-------------------
From: ALILESTE@idbsu.idbsu.edu (Dan Lester)
Subject: Warning! contains words heard in R-rated films.
Message-ID: <199110250438.AA28738@eff.org>
Sender: ALILESTE@idbsu.idbsu.edu
References:
Date: 25 Oct 91 05:29:36 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
On 25 Oct 91 01:55:11 GMT Jeffrey M. Schweiger said:
>In article <1991Oct24.212447.17221@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
> writes:
>|schweige@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil (Jeffrey M. Schweiger) writes:
>
>taking part in most areas of partisan politics. Another example is the FCC,
>and the 'Seven Naughty Words' that can't be broadcast. I think reviewing
However, at least two of those....piss and shit....ahve been broadcast...
and on national tv, later at night, as on carson and lettermen shows...
and tits too....so the "big four" may not have been, though a local TV
news show, at 6pm, showed an extensive video on "deteriorating bridges"
that was shot under a bridge....and half the screen was filled with the
words painted under the bridge....."fuck" and "cunt".....
Unmistakeable....big red letters on the news, about six inches high
on my tv....some folks were pretty pissed...but nothing could be done.
I will say that it did NOT appear on the 10pm news.
They did, however, miss broadcasting the longest two of the seven.
dan
-------------------
Xref: eff alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1519 alt.censorship:2235 alt.society.civil-liberties:671 talk.politics.misc:22069
From: wjb5106@summa.tamu.edu (Walter Barnett)
Subject: Re: What if she is a fantasizing liar? was: Sullivan wants to fire prof
Message-ID: <5180@tamsun.TAMU.EDU>
Date: 25 Oct 91 03:59:40 GMT
References: <1991Oct24.022357.14620@ryn.mro4.dec.com>
Sender: usenet@tamsun.TAMU.EDU
Followup-To: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4
In article , nwickham@triton.unm.edu (Neal C. Wickham) writes...
>In article <1991Oct24.022357.14620@ryn.mro4.dec.com> fister@DEMING.DEC.COM (Les Fister) writes:
>
>> I recall hearing a very recent (yesterday?) news story of a female
>>Naval cadet who accused six male cadets of something akin to harassment.
It was Texas A&M University
>all of the witnesses stood by their account. At least one of the
>conclusions I drew was that she *might* have retracted it in fear of
>retaliation even though her witnesses stood firm in their testimony. There
>weren't many details. The story I heard emphasized that the witnesses
>(I think it was 3) were all standing behind their original stories. I
>thought that was the point of the report.
There is some concern that her recantation is due to fear of
retaliation. The campus cops here, however, could not get a consistent
story out of her on the second alleged assault. Furthermore, she
refused to file charges and refused a medical examination. Under
questioning about inconsistencies in her second report she admitted both
stories were complete fabrications. The most disgusting result of all
this is that, even though she admits to a vicious lie intended
(successfully) to injure others, the university has announced that no
disciplinary action will be taken against her. Never mind that an
entire unit of the corps of cadets has been disbanded. Never mind that
three students were almost expulsed from the university. Just for the
record, I have never been in the corps and hold no special affinity for
it. I am just disgusted by the blatant double-standard approach taken
by the administration of this university.
_______________________________________________________________________
Walter Barnett Aerospace Engineering Texas A&M University
-------------------
From: ALILESTE@idbsu.idbsu.edu (Dan Lester)
Subject: Re: Stanford anthropology student silenced?
Message-ID: <199110250442.AA28856@eff.org>
Sender: ALILESTE@idbsu.idbsu.edu
References:
Date: 25 Oct 91 05:36:08 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
On 25 Oct 91 03:22:22 GMT Michael Travers said:
>[warning: this isn't about a computer-related academic freedom issue]
>
>A campus paper here at MIT published an item here about a Stanford
>anthropology student who was denied the right to a thesis defense
>under pressure from the Chinese government. This seemed a little hard
Well, this happened long ago....unless it has somehow re-surfaced.
It is true...and it was about five or more years ago.
Basically, the basis, which was pointed out by the Chinese, was that
he used very improper research procedures, which were VERY biased.
From memory, and from moderate knowledge of this type of research,
he probably was out of line.
But it probably is off-topic, and is definitely OLD news.
> the Chinese government's wishes. Mr. Mosher's defense was denied."
I suppose this could be the fourteenth appeal, or something, that
is still active, but I think it is ALL long past. Check it out in your
library....in Readers Guide, even....
dan
-------------------
Xref: eff alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1521 soc.women:10070 alt.sex:22576 alt.censorship:2238
From: graham@venus.iucf.indiana.edu (JIM GRAHAM)
Subject: Re: yahweh is good posting
Message-ID: <1991Oct25.024804.14636@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu>
Date: 25 Oct 91 01:45:36 GMT
Article-I.D.: bronze.1991Oct25.024804.14636
References: <9110221943.AA27573@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu> <1991Oct22.211259.5178@eff.org> <1991Oct22.232533.2754@milton.u.washington.edu> <1991Oct23.011457.9149@milton.u.washington.edu>
Sender: news@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (USENET News System)
Distribution: na
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4
Nntp-Posting-Host: venus.iucf.indiana.edu
In article <1991Oct23.011457.9149@milton.u.washington.edu>, lamontg@milton.u.washington.edu (Lamont Granquist) writes...
>DOUBT IT!!! It could have some serious consequences for local BBS systems
>run on PCs, but I seriously doubt that anyone could get USENET shut down
No way! The only way they'll get my bbs is to pry it from my cold, dead
fingers.
:-) :-)
>Lamont Granquist "If the principle were to prevail of a common law [ie.
Jim Graham
-> ->Disclaimer: I do not speak for my company. <- <-
Neither do they speak for me.
______________________________________________________________________
| Internet: graham@venus.iucf.indiana.edu |
| UUCP: dolmen!graham@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu |
| BBS: The PORTAL DOLMEN BBS/ParaNet ALPHA-GAMMA (sm) (9:1012/13) |
| (812) 334-0418, 24hrs. |
|______________________________________________________________________|
-------------------
Xref: eff alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1522 alt.censorship:2240 alt.society.civil-liberties:681 talk.politics.misc:22078
From: dks@athena.mit.edu (Dhanesh K Samarasan)
Subject: Re: Repr. Sullivan wants to fire prof. Hill because of political opinions
Message-ID: <1991Oct25.053614.8852@athena.mit.edu>
Sender: news@athena.mit.edu (News system)
Nntp-Posting-Host: e40-008-5.mit.edu
References: <1991Oct22.073615.1607@nntp.hut.fi> <1991Oct23.011142.7165@cs.umn.edu>
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1991 05:36:14 GMT
In article <1991Oct23.011142.7165@cs.umn.edu> dege@cs.umn.edu (Dege Jeffrey Charles) writes (in part):
[...]
>3. God save us from true believers, of either ilk.
Of any ilk. Two is not a sacred number.
Cheers,
Dhanesh
-------------------
Xref: eff alt.sex:22579 soc.women:10071 alt.censorship:2241 alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1523
From: pollock@milton.u.washington.edu (Joe Pollock)
Subject: Re: YAHWEH is good!
Message-ID: <1991Oct25.054056.28593@milton.u.washington.edu>
References: <15046@scolex.sco.COM> <1991Oct24.220928.18690@eff.org>
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1991 05:40:56 GMT
In article <1991Oct24.220928.18690@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>tanyas@sco.COM (Tanya Swartz) writes:
>
>>I dont see anything wrong with the university choosing to
>>excersize some control over what is written WITH THEIR
>>NAME ON IT. Any student/faculty who posts from the university
>>owned machine represents the university. the university
>>has a right to limit what their name appears on.
>
>This is the argument some universities made when they tried to ban gay
>student organizations, censorship student publications, and prohibit
>progressive (and regressive) speakers from appearing on campus.
>
>According to _Public Schools Law: Teachers' and Students' Rights_ (2nd
>Ed. by Martha M. McCarthy and Nelda H. Cambron-McCabe, published in
>1987 by Allyn and Bacon, Inc.), the courts have said that public
>universities can't censor students, but they "stamp copies of student
>publications to disclaim responsibility from the content."
>
>The Student Code at the U. of Illinois at UC says:
>
>"At the same time, it should be made clear to the academic and the
>larger community that in their public expressions or demonstrations,
>students or student organizations speak only for themselves."
Might as well open myself to some flames here, too...
I do not know exactly what the sysadmin of the poster actually did, and
what due process alternatives are open to the individual involved, but:
It would appear that the individual made a concerted effort to avoid
responsibility for his? actions by an anonymous posting or forged mail
header. This is, at my institution, a clear violation of the social
contract which states that "an individual accepts responsibility for their
actions." The manner of posting implies as well an attempt to avoid the
peer pressure which would likely result, as well.
>
>>also, i know of several students who have lost computer priviledges
>>due to various transgressions. just as the instructers have the right
>>to drop a student from a class for inappropriate behavior so do the
>>system administrators have the right to lock students out of the
>>computer system. [...]
>
>Students should not, and legally cannot, be punished capaciously.
>
>- Carl
Has this, in fact, occured here? Was the account summarily terminated,
or was the individual told, say, "respond by --- or your account will be
closed"? Does the individual have recourse through due process at the
individual in question? I'm not saying that there are no circumstances
where an immediate account shutdown is not appropriate - should an
individual be monopolizing resources or denying others access to a system,
a sysadmin may well have to take immediate actions. But there should be
due-process recourse available in the very near term, say 1-3 business
days.
I'm not in favor of content-based censorship. I do feel that standards of
social conduct are appropriate and necessary. The question arises, however,
of where to enforce them. At the net level, the alternatives seem to be a
combination of kill files, e-mail barrages and endless flame wars. This
strikes me as counterproductive for a very large community. A Darwinian
anarchy favoring the strong and thick-skinned with infinite time on their
hands. I believe it is appropriate for institutions and organizations to
set standards of ethical behavior for members, and to hold them to those
standards. Those standards, of course, apply as well to those in power,
a point frequently overlooked.
>--
>Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu, or (anonymous) ap.4352@hri.com
>I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
Joe Pollock The Evergreen State College
pollock@u.washington.edu
-------------------
From: nwickham@triton.unm.edu (Neal C. Wickham)
Subject: Re: What if she is a fantasizing liar? was: Sullivan wants to fire prof
Message-ID:
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 91 06:40:35 GMT
References: <1991Oct24.022357.14620@ryn.mro4.dec.com> <5180@tamsun.TAMU.EDU>
In article <5180@tamsun.TAMU.EDU> wjb5106@summa.tamu.edu writes:
>There is some concern that her recantation is due to fear of
>retaliation. The campus cops here, however, could not get a consistent
>story out of her on the second alleged assault. Furthermore, she
>refused to file charges and refused a medical examination. Under
>questioning about inconsistencies in her second report she admitted both
>stories were complete fabrications.
The report I heard was only ...15 seconds long. I'm pretty sure it said
there were witnesses who stood by their stories. Do you know what the
story is on them?
I am afraid it was just a sensational story in the news and I'll never
know what the outcome was.
NCW
-------------------
Xref: eff alt.sex:22584 alt.censorship:2247 alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1525
From: mf2x+@andrew.cmu.edu (Michael Raymond Feely)
Subject: Re: yahweh is good posting
Message-ID:
Date: 24 Oct 91 21:07:44 GMT
References: <9110221943.AA27573@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu> <1991Oct22.211259.5178@eff.org> <1991Oct22.232533.2754@milton.u.washington.edu>
<1991Oct23.060112.11174@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
In-Reply-To: <1991Oct23.060112.11174@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
tgt33358@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Deus Imperator) writes...
>really raised the hackles on my neck. Do you realize the enormity of this
>statement? It basically implies that if you submit pornography over the net,
>you are breaking Federal law. That means ANYONE, from yahweh to Elf.
Bearing in mind that the manufacturers of pornographic videotapes,
magazines, books, records, and so on have been transporting the stuff
across state lines for years, even before the Net came into existence,
I'm not tremendously worried.
>What's going on here? I think hard questions like this must be answered
>NOW, while the Net is still in infancy, to prevent hassles later on.
I hesitate to call a computer network with nodes in several
countries, sites in hundreds of academic facilities, corporate centers,
businesses, and public acess facilities, and a subscribership which is
sufficiently large to defy accurate count to be "in its infancy"
=======------======------======------
Michael - rational romantic mystic cynical idealist
"It's been so long since I had sex, I don't remember who gets tied up!"
CMU did make me this way, but they'll never admit it.
Michael Feely, PO Box 4602, 5115 Margaret Morrison, Pittsburgh, PA 15213
-------------------
Xref: eff alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1526 alt.censorship:2250 alt.society.civil-liberties:694 talk.politics.misc:22087
From: dhartung@chinet.chi.il.us (Dan Hartung)
Subject: Re: What if she is a fantasizing liar? was: Sullivan wants to fire prof
Message-ID: <1991Oct25.054945.8209@chinet.chi.il.us>
References: <1991Oct24.022357.14620@ryn.mro4.dec.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1991 05:49:45 GMT
fister@DEMING.DEC.COM (Les Fister) writes:
>
> I recall hearing a very recent (yesterday?) news story of a female
>Naval cadet who accused six male cadets of something akin to harassment.
>The male cadets were punished for their actions...and the woman recently
>retracted her story, claiming that it never happened (anyone with the proper
>details?).
She has retracted her claims. However, because they were never proven,
punishment was only given for other, proven claims.
--
MOST DISTURBING FOLLOW-UP NEWS STORY: | Dan Hartung
"K-9 units are being used to search | dhartung@chinet.chi.il.us
for the body's still-missing arm." | Birch Grove Software
Biden: "Is it possible, Ms. Berry, that there is life on other planets?"
-------------------
Xref: eff alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1527 alt.censorship:2251 alt.society.civil-liberties:695 talk.politics.misc:22088
From: dhartung@chinet.chi.il.us (Dan Hartung)
Subject: Re: Repr. Sullivan wants to fire prof. Hill because of political opinions
Message-ID: <1991Oct25.055718.8514@chinet.chi.il.us>
References: <1991Oct22.073615.1607@nntp.hut.fi>
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1991 05:57:18 GMT
jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala) writes:
>Forwarded from another newsgroup:
>
>From: LANFRAN@VM1.YORKU.CA (Sam Lanfranco)
>
>Oklahoma State Representative Leonard E. Sullivan, Republican of Oklahoma
>City is seeking to have Prof. Anita Hill ousted from her tenured position.
>In a letter to University president, Richard Van Horn, Sullivan said, "We
>must get left wing extremist influence off the campus before it spreads
>further. We can't afford to have a high profile professor on campus that
>millions of Americans, according to polls and national talk shows, believe
>is a fantasizing liar." [NYT 10/16/91 p.A21]
>
>I [Sam L.] hope that Van Horn hears from more than the idiot right on this
>one.
That's right! Mr. Sullivan is obviously tapping into the American
competitive spirit. Let's make the legal system a lot more like that
popular program, _American Gladiators_.
If your charges are substantiated by a judge or jury, the defendant
goes to jail and you are hailed as a winner.
If, however, the defendant is not found guilty, _you_ go to jail!
This should make trials much more exciting.
--
MOST DISTURBING FOLLOW-UP NEWS STORY: | Dan Hartung
"K-9 units are being used to search | dhartung@chinet.chi.il.us
for the body's still-missing arm." | Birch Grove Software
Biden: "Is it possible, Ms. Berry, that there is life on other planets?"
-------------------
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.acad.freedom.talk, et al.] Re: yahweh is good posting
Message-ID: <9110251337.AA14080@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 25 Oct 91 03:37:29 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
From: bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris)
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1991 18:29:13 GMT
Note: Due to a request to 'PLEASE TAKE THIS THREAD OFF SOC WOMEN' [yep -just
like that - all caps] I have taken the liberty of adding soc.men to the stew
(I mean, newsgroups line) and taking out soc.women in the followups. [Of
course, you are free to change it back if you want to.] It has drifted a bit
from the original topic. [I don't get the alt groups, so I won't see it if
you don't include soc.* in the reply]
In article <1991Oct24.024240.8278@wpi.WPI.EDU> entropy@wintermute.WPI.EDU (Lawrence C. Foard) writes:
)In article <1991Oct23.165615.22002@ecs.comm.mot.com> bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris) writes:
)>Nope. Not unless you are a woman or a 'protected minority'. As near as I can
)>figure out, 'sexual harassment' goes back to the Civil rights act of 1964
)>which gives women and 'protected minorities' rights not to be discriminated
)>against in the workplace.
)
)You mean I can sexually harass Straight White Males to my hearts content since
)White men are not a protected class? Women and gay/bi men do get in trouble if
)they harass men, sexual harassment has nothing to do with so called 'protected
)classes'.
My impression is that the 'unpleasant working environment' clause of sexual
harassment does apply only to protected classes. I'm quite willing to be
proven wrong. I'd agree that sexual harassment in the more serious sense
(sexual submission as a condition of employment or promotion) is illegal
regardless of class.
)You mean I can put pictures of naked men having sex with each other on my door
)and not have any problem because men arn't "protected"?
My impression is that your problem would most likely be with your employer,
and that if the employer refused to take action you wouldn't have much luck
going through the EEOC unless you were a member of a 'protected class'.
I believe that the grounds for the suit against the employer is actually one
of discrimination against a protected class, and that there isn't much basis
for legally overriding the employer's decision as to what they allow their
employees to display otherwise.
)>It's amazing how much less employers and universities are concerned about the
)>contents of usenet postings, employees workspaces, etc. when the right of
)>someone disgruntled by them to sue (especially their right to have a
)>government agency bring the suit for them at no expense) is removed. :-)
)You seem to have missed something here. USENET posting are not harassment
)period, it doesn't matter if you are in a "protected" group or not. Reading
Tell it to the attorneys at our site - they don't seem to agree, at least
thats what I infer from the Offical Policy statement about net.use (which
prohibits 'sexual harassment'). Fortunately, if this ever becomes an issue,
there are public access sites availilble as an alternative to doing it
through my employer, at least here in Chicago.
)>Not being actually illegal (there are no issues of slander, copyright
)>violation, etc. here) I don't think that it (yaweh) should be banned from the
)>net - but there needs to be some mechanism (IMO) to allow administrators to
)>discourage people from posting disruptive and offensive articles to
)>inappropriate newsgroups - especially as the net gets bigger. I don't
)>think kill files are the entire answer here.
)
)I agree with this, however the judgement shouldn't be based on offensiveness,
)but should be based on subject. Posting star trek reviews to comp.arch is
)inappropriate, and if done after repeated warnings should result in the loss
)of net access. Posting revisionist BS to politics news groups should not be
)punished even though the material is extremely offensive. Of course if someone
)is posting libel,slander, death threats etc. then that is no longer a matter of
)free speech.
I agree mostly with this. I think on the whole that we are off better
allowing individual site administrators to make their own decisions about
annoying / inappropriate postings than we are by tying their hands in the
name of freedom of expression. In part I think this works because there
are 'wide open' sites, so people who really feel strongly about something
can, with some effort, get their message out.
-------------------
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.censorship] Re: Usenet censorship
Message-ID: <9110251338.AA14092@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 25 Oct 91 03:38:17 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
From: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1991 22:04:05 GMT
>I don't think the Chronicle was questioning the existence of such groups. I
>think they were asking whether Mr. and Mrs. J. Q. Public knew that taxpayer
>dollars went toward the transport of said newsgroups.
Ah, but have they done a cost-analysis on what expenses might be
incurred by having staff assigned to monitoring the 20+MB of material
per day rather than just letting it thru blindly?
Or is this the same sort of mentality that always assumes that
policing expense is somehow free or not to be counted?
I am quite sure (based on other postings by him) that Abernathy
doesn't care about taxpayer dollars except inasmuch as it makes a
convenient and self-righteous bludgeon to use in his articles. The
last thing he told us all to worry about was the Baptists, which is
hardly a tax-funding issue.
Actually, what Abernathy (the Chronicle reporter) is after is yellow
journalism and getting people's emotions flowing. He'll tweak any hot
spot he can think of to get that effect.
It's an old tradition among mediocre journalists seeking notoriety.
--
-Barry Shein
Software Tool & Die | bzs@world.std.com | uunet!world!bzs
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD
-------------------
From: nbc2134@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil (Robert F Solon)
Subject: Sexual Harassment Standards (Was: Re: Yahweh is good postin
Message-ID: <9110241323.AA24573@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil>
Sender: nbc2134@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil
Date: 24 Oct 91 05:23:30 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
In reply to the mail from ...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl writes,
>
>I know of no general laws against sexual harassment.
>E.g. Tapeing the ad for "Whore" to a park bench does not
>violate any laws.
>
>- Carl
The Federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has established guidelines
defining sexual harassment that are enforceable in Federal court. I
paraphrase here, bu generally there are two types: overt and subtle. Overt
harassment is that where a person in authority requests or demands sexual
favors in return for some work-related advantage; this is the so-called
_quid pro quo_ type of harassment. The more subtle form of harassment occurs
when persons in authority create an atmosphere that tends to interfere with
the work environment and which a resonable person of the same sex would find
offensive. This includes such things as telling sex-related jokes, putting up
pinups, touching, patting, or other physical contact, repeated requests for
dates, etc. These rules were unanimously affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court
in 1986. I refer interested readers to Time Magazine; two issues ago it ran
a comprehensive story on the topic, and if I can find it, I'll restate the
regulations more correctly.
As to Carl's specific example: if the park bench were part of some work
environment (e.g., for park or sanitation workers), and a female employee
found it offensive and tending to interfere with work, then the action may be
sexual harassment under the EEO guidelines.
Personally, I think that the standard is weighed too heavily against the
complainant, and tends to shift presumption away from the accused. Basically,
anything that a complainant might find offensive and unwanted may be
actionable. I'm not even sure that the accused need be warned before a
complaint is filed. In such cases, the accused may not even know that what he
or she is doing is wrong. Thus it seems to me that the guidelines are to
vague to be very effective. I understand that some sort of rules are probably
necessary; I'm not sure that the _status quo ante_ is the correct approach.
And now for the ubiquitous disclaimer: The above is my own opinion only, and
does not represent the official or unofficial policy of the United States, the
U.S. Department of Denfense, the U.S. Defense Logistics Agency, nor any
subpart thereof.
Bob
Bob Solon, DSAC-BCC
Administrative Information Branch -- APCAPS
"We Code, You Explode!!"
-------------------
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.society.civil-liberties] Re: Stanford anthropology student silenced?
Message-ID: <9110251354.AA14189@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 25 Oct 91 03:54:36 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Date: 25 Oct 91 00:56:56
In article mt@mahler.media.mit.edu (Michael Travers) writes:
[warning: this isn't about a computer-related academic freedom issue]
A campus paper here at MIT published an item here about a Stanford
anthropology student who was denied the right to a thesis defense
under pressure from the Chinese government. This seemed a little hard
to believe, so I would appreciate if somebody from Stanford could
confirm, deny, or expand upon this.
Here's the item in its entirety:
"Stanford Unversity Student Steven W. Mosher was recently prepared to
defend his PhD thesis in anthropology. Unfortunately, his topic was
the forced abortion policy in rural China, and so when the Chinese
government protested, Stanford President Donald Kennedy capitulated ot
the Chinese government's wishes. Mr. Mosher's defense was denied."
Thanks for any info.
There is lots of controversy, but in my opinion, the item is essentially
correct. Here are some relevant facts.
1. The Anthropology Department charged Mosher with something like
behavior unbecoming an anthropologist, because he published the
material about forced abortions in a newspaper in Taiwan.
2. They had received communications from the Chinese government and
were anxious to keep good relations so that they could send more
students to China.
3. The law professor who took part in a 3 man committee, Thomas Gray,
has since shown himself to take very one sided views on freedom
of speech issues.
4. While Mosher was suspended, the University hired detectives and
came up with entirely different charges concerning whether expenditures
on a camera were properly accounted for.
5. There was a real anti-Mosher atmosphere among anthropology graduate
students. It amounted to a feeling that he was a bad guy and had
to be got somehow.
6. Mosher didn't ultimately suffer too much. He became head of
a research organization at Claremont University, has written two
or three good books about China and is now quite well known.
7. I was told by the head of the Anthropology Department and
also by a Stanford legal counsel that Mosher could have remained
had he been a bit less stiff-necked.
--
Self-righteousness has killed more people than smoking.
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
From kadie Mon Oct 28 09:13:11 1991
To: cafb-mail
Subject: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Status: R
Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Mon Oct 28 09:11:47 EST 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@herodotus.cs : Re: yahweh is good posting
rjc@devo.unify.com : Re: What if she is a fantasizing was: Sullivan wants to f
rjc@devo.unify.com : Re: What if she is a fantasizing was: Sullivan wants to f
jackson@daimler.uc : Re: Repr. Sullivan wants to fire prof. Hill because of po
chapin@cbnewsc.cb. : Re: yahweh is good posting
baba@Tymnet.COM (D : Re: yahweh is good posting
cmgrawbu@eos.ncsu. : New BBS
shore@theory.TC.Co : Re: YAHWEH is good!
nwickham@triton.un : Dave (The Stud) Duke likes Republicans!
BANGELL@CC.UTAH.ED : Re: Dave (The Stud) Duke likes Republicans!
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (alt.censorship) Re: Usenet censorship
shore@theory.TC.Co : Re: YAHWEH is good!
lamontg@milton.u.w : Re: Seattle Times/PI stories
lamontg@milton.u.w : Re: (alt.censorship) Re: Usenet censorship
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: YAHWEH is good!
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (alt.censorship) Re: Usenet censorship
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (comp.org.eff.talk) Net.freedom.of.expression (Yahweh is G
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: Official punishment of off-topic posts (was yahweh is
The addresses for the list are now:
comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org - for contributions to the list
or caf-talk@eff.org
listserv@eff.org - for automated additions/deletions
(send email with the line "help" for details.)
caf-talk-request@eff.org - for administrivia
-------------------
Xref: eff alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1532 alt.sex:22593 alt.censorship:2254 soc.men:6079
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: yahweh is good posting
Message-ID:
Sender: news@m.cs.uiuc.edu (News Database (admin-Mike Schwager))
References: <1991Oct22.235516.17183@news.media.mit.edu> <1991Oct23.014136.19825@nntp.hut.fi> <1991Oct23.165615.22002@ecs.comm.mot.com> <1991Oct24.024240.8278@wpi.WPI.EDU> <1991Oct24.182913.5347@ecs.comm.mot.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1991 13:29:20 GMT
In <1991Oct24.182913.5347@ecs.comm.mot.com> bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris) writes:
>Note: Due to a request to 'PLEASE TAKE THIS THREAD OFF SOC WOMEN' [yep -just
>like that - all caps] I have taken the liberty of adding soc.men to the stew
>(I mean, newsgroups line) and taking out soc.women in the followups. [Of
>course, you are free to change it back if you want to.] It has drifted a bit
>from the original topic. [I don't get the alt groups, so I won't see it if
>you don't include soc.* in the reply]
[...]
The first newsgroup in the list was suppose to be Computers and
Academic Freedom Talk ("alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk"), but way, way,
way back, I mistyped it as "alt.acad.freedom.talk". If you don't get
alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk, you may want to politely ask your sys
admin to subscribe. If that doesn't work, you can read it as a mailing
list. For info, send email to archive-server@eff.org. Include the
line:
send academic-freedom caf
We're in the middle of a discussion about how far a university should
go in enforcing newsgroup charters.
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
-------------------
From: rjc@devo.unify.com (Ronald Cole)
Subject: Re: What if she is a fantasizing liar? was: Sullivan wants to fire prof
In-Reply-To: jmanos@cca.PUE.UDLAP.MX's message of 23 Oct 91 18:00:38 GMT
Message-ID:
Followup-To: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Sender: news@Unify.Com (news admin)
References: <1991Oct22.073615.1607@nntp.hut.fi>
Date: 24 Oct 91 11:38:32
In article jmanos@cca.PUE.UDLAP.MX (Jose Manuel Roberto Manos) writes:
What if she is a fantasizing liar? If so, she should be prosecuted for
gender harrassment of men. Men should unite, we may be being persecuted
by unscrupulous women who can besmirch our reputation and then walk
away leaving us without recourse. If someone accuses a man of sexual
harrassment and can not prove that he is guilty, that person should do
hard time in prison for slander.
Unless, of course, the state has passed legislation that makes the accuser
a Mandated Reporter! I consider California's Mandated Reporter laws a
moral blight and a travasty.
--
Ronald Cole +----------------------+ internet: rjc@unify.com
Software Engineer II | This space for rent. | uucp: uunet!unify!rjc
Unify Corporation +----------------------+ voice: +1 916 928 6238
"THE BILL OF RIGHTS --- Void where prohibited by law"
-------------------
From: rjc@devo.unify.com (Ronald Cole)
Subject: Re: What if she is a fantasizing liar? was: Sullivan wants to fire prof
In-Reply-To: jmanos@cca.PUE.UDLAP.MX's message of 23 Oct 91 18:00:38 GMT
Message-ID:
Followup-To: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Sender: news@Unify.Com (news admin)
References: <1991Oct22.073615.1607@nntp.hut.fi>
Date: 24 Oct 91 15:05:59
In article jmanos@cca.PUE.UDLAP.MX (Jose Manuel Roberto Manos) writes:
What if she is a fantasizing liar? If so, she should be prosecuted for
gender harrassment of men. Men should unite, we may be being persecuted
by unscrupulous women who can besmirch our reputation and then walk
away leaving us without recourse. If someone accuses a man of sexual
harrassment and can not prove that he is guilty, that person should do
hard time in prison for slander.
Unless, of course, the state has passed legislation that makes the accuser
a Mandated Reporter! I consider California's Mandated Reporter laws a
moral blight and a travasty.
--
Ronald Cole +----------------------+ internet: rjc@unify.com
Software Engineer II | This space for rent. | uucp: uunet!unify!rjc
Unify Corporation +----------------------+ voice: +1 916 928 6238
"THE BILL OF RIGHTS --- Void where prohibited by law"
-------------------
Xref: eff alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1535 alt.censorship:2255 alt.society.civil-liberties:705 talk.politics.misc:22110
From: jackson@daimler.ucs.indiana.edu (Jeff Jackson)
Subject: Re: Repr. Sullivan wants to fire prof. Hill because of political opinions
Message-ID: <1991Oct25.153843.1672@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu>
Sender: jackson@daimler (Jeff Jackson)
Nntp-Posting-Host: daimler.ucs.indiana.edu
References: <1991Oct22.073615.1607@nntp.hut.fi> <1991Oct25.055718.8514@chinet.chi.il.us>
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 91 15:38:43 GMT
dhartung@chinet.chi.il.us writes:
If your charges are substantiated by a judge or jury, the defendant
goes to jail and you are hailed as a winner.
If, however, the defendant is not found guilty, _you_ go to jail!
This should make trials much more exciting.
And I add:
with your lawyer! :-)
-------------------
Xref: eff alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1536 alt.sex:22598 alt.censorship:2256 soc.men:6082
From: chapin@cbnewsc.cb.att.com ( Tom Chapin )
Subject: Re: yahweh is good posting
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1991 15:57:53 GMT
Message-ID: <1991Oct25.155753.11673@cbnewsc.cb.att.com>
References:
Carl M. Kadie writes:
>For info, send email to archive-server@eff.org. Include the line:
> send academic-freedom caf
Carl, I tried it this way and got an error message. Perhaps:
send acad-freedom caf
--
tom chapin tjc@hrccb.att.com
-------------------
Xref: eff alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1537 alt.sex:22600 alt.censorship:2257 soc.men:6083
From: baba@Tymnet.COM (Duane Hentrich)
Subject: Re: yahweh is good posting
Message-ID: <840@tymix.Tymnet.COM>
Date: 25 Oct 91 16:34:24 GMT
References: <1991Oct22.235516.17183@news.media.mit.edu> <1991Oct23.014136.19825@nntp.hut.fi> <1991Oct23.165615.22002@ecs.comm.mot.com> <1991Oct24.024240.8278@wpi.WPI.EDU> <1991Oct24.182913.5347@ecs.comm.mot.com>
Sender: usenet@tymix.Tymnet.COM
Followup-To: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Nntp-Posting-Host: samadhi
In article , kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
|> We're in the middle of a discussion about how far a university should
|> go in enforcing newsgroup charters.
They should probably handle it as tho someone posted the original story
on a bulletin board in the Student Union building.
This seems to me to be a question of etiquette, not legal or moral rights.
You say a dirty word at your parents dinner table, get you mouth washed
out with soap. You disrupt a club meeting with inappropriate business
and you get the floor taken away and possibly some coments from the
club membership. You smear feces around a conversation pit and you get sent
to either the toilet or your room, after cleaning it up.
You post to the wrong(by etiquette, not law) newsgroup, you get about
the same. I say let the guy post. If he proves his bad manners by
posting something similar or equally inflammatory, restrict his postings
from getting into soc.women or whatever group is compromised. (I know,
it ain't that simple a thing to do without new code. Might be of use to
be able to restrict a single user from or to certain newsgroups.)
The learning of proper manners is also education. It is never too late
to learn what you should have at 5 years.
--
d'baba Duane M. Hentrich ...!hplabs!oliveb!tymix!baba
baba@Tymnet.Com
Men have an inate advantage, two heads are better than one.
-------------------
Xref: eff alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1538 comp.admin.policy:1046 comp.org.eff.talk:4774 alt.censorship:2259 soc.college:1206
From: cmgrawbu@eos.ncsu.edu (CHRISTOPHER M GRAWBURG)
Subject: New BBS
Keywords: New BBS
Message-ID: <1991Oct25.160346.8319@ncsu.edu>
Date: 25 Oct 91 16:03:46 GMT
References: <1991Oct20.173627.17190@eff.org>
Sender: news@ncsu.edu (USENET News System)
**ATTENTION***
Beginning during the week of Nov. 9, a new BBS will be opening in Raleigh, NC.
Please try to get onto the system and write me back to let me know if
everything is working!! There won't be alot at first, but we are growing!!
Thanx,
Chris cmgrawbu@eos.ncsu.edu
BBS # (919) 755-3875
-------------------
Xref: eff alt.sex:22610 soc.women:10075 alt.censorship:2262 alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1539
From: shore@theory.TC.Cornell.EDU (Melinda Shore)
Subject: Re: YAHWEH is good!
Message-ID: <1991Oct23.143524.19097@tc.cornell.edu>
Date: 23 Oct 91 14:35:24 GMT
References: <1991Oct22.231334.9723@tc.cornell.edu>
Sender: news@tc.cornell.edu
Nntp-Posting-Host: theory.tc.cornell.edu
In article bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) writes:
>The issue really is whether or not using the same resources would be
>ok but for the content. And whether or not that content restriction is
>done on some rational and consistent basis.
Limited agreement here. In this individual case I
would have done the same as Yahweh's site administrator -
sat the guy down and have a talk with him. The content
of the article most probably would not have been an
issue if it hadn't been posted to soc.women, something
which is clearly in violation of the newsgroup charter,
netiquette, and which some consider to be sexual
harassment.
The thing I'm seeing that I find objectionable is the
notion that anything goes (or should go) at a site that
receives public funding. Wrong. Publicly funded sites
are bound by policies internal to that site, just as
private sites are. Uneven application of those policies
is a reason for concern. Policies saying "don't post
porn to soc.women" are not.
--
Software longa, hardware brevis
Melinda Shore - Cornell Information Technologies - shore@tc.cornell.edu
-------------------
Xref: eff alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1540 alt.censorship:2264 alt.society.civil-liberties:715 talk.politics.misc:22118
From: nwickham@triton.unm.edu (Neal C. Wickham)
Subject: Dave (The Stud) Duke likes Republicans!
Message-ID: <+qad!h_@lynx.unm.edu>
Date: 25 Oct 91 17:17:13 GMT
Article-I.D.: lynx.+qad!h_
References: <1991Oct22.073615.1607@nntp.hut.fi> <1991Oct25.055718.8514@chinet.chi.il.us> <1991Oct25.153843.1672@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu>
Anyone see "The Man" David Duke on CNN's Crossfire last night? Geese... !
If this man gets any real political power, I'm leaving the country and
will build a fallout shelter where ever I move too.
That guy is clearly a sociopath. He's got the "look" of one. He sat there
with that half dead smiling face all night mouthing the "Duke" rhetoric
until Michael Kinsley pressed him about his cosmetic surgery when Duke
flashed his hate and anger calling Kinsley a "little worm" and said that
Kinsley is the one who could use some plastic surgery.
...right! Let's give this man some politcal power so he can flash that
hatred and hostility on a mass of people.
He likes the Republicans! When Novak ask why he wanted to be a Republican,
Duke said: "because the Republican Party most accurately reflects his own
views". Well... that is not hard to understand. Republicans do have an
enormous interest in cosmetic appearences and "have ways" of dealing with
"little worms" and other liberals who can see through it.
NCW
-------------------
From: BANGELL@CC.UTAH.EDU
Subject: Re: Dave (The Stud) Duke likes Republicans!
Message-ID: <4E5079E3A003D57F@CC.UTAH.EDU>
Sender: BANGELL@CC.UTAH.EDU
Date: 25 Oct 91 19:24:00 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
After seeing the distancing by the White House....what does it take to become
a sanctioned member of either party?
-Bob-
-------------------
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.censorship] Re: Usenet censorship
Message-ID: <9110251843.AA16212@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 25 Oct 91 08:43:09 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
From: sean@sdg.dra.com
Date: 25 Oct 91 12:33:24 CDT
In article , bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) writes:
> Ah, but have they done a cost-analysis on what expenses might be
> incurred by having staff assigned to monitoring the 20+MB of material
> per day rather than just letting it thru blindly?
>
> Or is this the same sort of mentality that always assumes that
> policing expense is somehow free or not to be counted?
I think it is a bad idea to make this argument on a cost-basis (pro or con),
since computers make censorship very cheap. Imagine if it was reported that a
university had hired someone to cut out the crossword puzzles, and cigarette
ads from the New York Times because an state auditor said spending state
money on such material was inappropriate. That the state shouldn't be paying
money for games (the crossword puzzle), or promoting smoking (the tobacco ad).
But a few changes to your sys file, and the computer takes it from there.
Computers make censorship too painless (and too invisible). What does it
mean for a work to be "taken as a whole," when a computer can slice and dice
it an infinite number of ways. Newspapers and magazines already have dozens
of "regional" editions. Record companies create different albums for Walmart,
changing artwork, and lyrical content. Perhaps what we need is "reverse-
censorship" labeling? The newspapers did this in South Africa by printing
blanked out sections of the paper where a censored story was to have appeared.
This really ticked off the government, and it then banned "blank areas" in
papers.
For example, my company is working on a feature for computer catalogs in the
children's section of public libraries. With this feature the library will
be able to have special "children's" computer catalog terminals that will
block access to any "non-juvenile" material. It will also hide any cross-
references to that adult material, and close up the gaps (no blacked out
sections on a computer). If we do it right, it will be very difficult to
tell that the computer isn't showing everything in the database.
Since we started demonstrating this feature, we've gotten several inquiries
from government agencies that would like to use our system for their on-line
catalogs. [followups to alt.conspiracy only please.]
--
Sean Donelan, Data Research Associates, Inc, St. Louis, MO
Domain: sean@sdg.dra.com, Voice: (Work) +1 314-432-1100
-------------------
Xref: eff alt.sex:22618 soc.women:10085 alt.censorship:2268 alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1543
From: shore@theory.TC.Cornell.EDU (Melinda Shore)
Subject: Re: YAHWEH is good!
Message-ID: <1991Oct24.151301.25921@tc.cornell.edu>
Date: 24 Oct 91 15:13:01 GMT
References: <1991Oct22.231334.9723@tc.cornell.edu> <1991Oct24.080923.16277@techbook.com>
Sender: news@tc.cornell.edu
Nntp-Posting-Host: theory.tc.cornell.edu
In article <1991Oct24.080923.16277@techbook.com> szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo) writes:
|If the site choses to become a public forum, for example by carrying
|Usenet, then the use of that forum is constitutionally protected as
|well as protected by the guidelines of most schools regarding academic
|free speech
The net is not a public forum.
--
Software longa, hardware brevis
Melinda Shore - Cornell Information Technologies - shore@tc.cornell.edu
-------------------
From: lamontg@milton.u.washington.edu (Lamont Granquist)
Subject: Re: Seattle Times/PI stories
Message-ID: <1991Oct25.185004.5885@milton.u.washington.edu>
Keywords: censorship seattle uw times pi article media
References: <1991Oct21.185322.23387@henson.cc.wwu.edu>
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1991 18:50:04 GMT
okay, I think I've got it...
"Pornography files in UW computer"
Seattle Post-Intelligencer. Front page. Oct. 15, 1991. By Jane Hadley.
"State Probing Porn files in UW computer"
Seattle Times. B2. Oct. 15, 1991 (author unk.) *EVENING EDITION ONLY*
"Stop Computer Porn"
Seattle Times. A6. Oct. 16, 1991. by Dickey.
And then there was a followup in the PI on the 18th or 19th I believe...
--
Lamont Granquist "If the principle were to prevail of a common law [ie.
lamontg@u.washington.edu a single government] being in force in the United
States...it would become the most corrupt government
on the Earth" -- Thomas Jefferson to G Granger (1800)
-------------------
From: lamontg@milton.u.washington.edu (Lamont Granquist)
Subject: Re: [alt.censorship] Re: Usenet censorship
Message-ID: <1991Oct25.185231.6809@milton.u.washington.edu>
References: <9110251338.AA14092@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1991 18:52:31 GMT
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>>I don't think the Chronicle was questioning the existence of such groups. I
>>think they were asking whether Mr. and Mrs. J. Q. Public knew that taxpayer
>>dollars went toward the transport of said newsgroups.
>Ah, but have they done a cost-analysis on what expenses might be
>incurred by having staff assigned to monitoring the 20+MB of material
>per day rather than just letting it thru blindly?
Not only that, but have they summed up the total cost of whatever material
they consider to be "offensive" and compared it with the total traffic
pushed through, say, rutgers in one day (including ftp, etc).
What would it come out to? .0000001% or so?
--
Lamont Granquist "If the principle were to prevail of a common law [ie.
lamontg@u.washington.edu a single government] being in force in the United
States...it would become the most corrupt government
on the Earth" -- Thomas Jefferson to G Granger (1800)
-------------------
Xref: eff alt.sex:22624 soc.women:10089 alt.censorship:2271 alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1546
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: YAHWEH is good!
Message-ID: <1991Oct25.200824.28492@eff.org>
References: <1991Oct22.231334.9723@tc.cornell.edu> <1991Oct24.080923.16277@techbook.com> <1991Oct24.151301.25921@tc.cornell.edu>
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1991 20:08:24 GMT
Warning: I'm going to post an excerpt from San Diego Committee v.
Governing Bd. again.
shore@theory.TC.Cornell.EDU (Melinda Shore) writes:
>The net is not a public forum.
The Netnews facilities at public universities, like student
newspapers, seem to be limited public forums.
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.
---end quote---
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu, or (anonymous) ap.4352@hri.com
I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
-------------------
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.censorship] Re: Usenet censorship
Message-ID: <9110252009.AA16894@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 25 Oct 91 10:09:40 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
From: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1991 20:06:19 GMT
>From: sean@sdg.dra.com [responding to me]
>> Or is this the same sort of mentality that always assumes that
>> policing expense is somehow free or not to be counted?
>
>I think it is a bad idea to make this argument on a cost-basis (pro or con),
>since computers make censorship very cheap.
...
>But a few changes to your sys file, and the computer takes it from there.
Although you are certainly correct in the specific, this actually
won't work.
Say you do agree to remove alt.sex.* from your sys file due to
pressure from moralistic bean counters, does that mean the problem is
solved? What happens when someone, as recently occurred, decides to
send something potentially offensive to another group who's intention
is innocuous? Happens all the time. In some cases it's not even that
inappropriate. For example, what if someone posted a computer game
with heavy sexual content to one of the software groups and you found
this being played suddenly on all the kids' PC's at the local
elementary school? I don't think that's any big deal personally, but
someone might, and trimming the sys file won't avoid it.
Would you be confident to argue that because the sys file has been
trimmed the duty has been fulfilled? Of course not, the bean counter
will look at you like you are a martian and say "get the filth off the
computer, I don't know what a sys file is and I don't care".
In fact, unless you can define the rules (and you generally can't),
computers are terrible information filters (thus far.) Merely trimming
the sys file will not be satisfactory once you've agreed to limit
content. It's a slippery slope, any offensive note which might be
printed out and sent to the moral police is a potential catastrophe
and admission of failure to do what was promised.
>For example, my company is working on a feature for computer catalogs in the
>children's section of public libraries. With this feature the library will
>be able to have special "children's" computer catalog terminals that will
>block access to any "non-juvenile" material. It will also hide any cross-
>references to that adult material, and close up the gaps (no blacked out
>sections on a computer). If we do it right, it will be very difficult to
>tell that the computer isn't showing everything in the database.
You can only accomplish this so long as you have control over what is
being posted in entirety, and that it's properly identified.
A few months ago someone posted a lurid story to one of the KIDSNET
groups. It was removed almost immediately, but...
My feeling is that in some cases moderators are a necessary evil
(perhaps not so evil, but a necessity.) If we insist in our minds that
we must have this zero-cost (roughly) network with no people ever
being paid as moderators where appropriate (e.g. a KIDSNET) then we're
doomed to frustration.
In other cases we can have that "zero-cost network", but it will take
a lot of tolerance and acceptance of the inevitability of something
getting through.
The day will come when "Electronic Discussion Moderator" will be a
bona-fide career (and it won't be a "censor" in any negative sense,
any more than refusing to publish crop reports in a sports magazine
would be considered "censorship".)
--
-Barry Shein
Software Tool & Die | bzs@world.std.com | uunet!world!bzs
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD
-------------------
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.org.eff.talk] Net.freedom.of.expression [Yahweh is Good]
Message-ID: <9110252012.AA16928@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 25 Oct 91 10:12:07 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
From: bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris)
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1991 16:56:49 GMT
Over on soc.women, we've had an interesting real life example of some of
the usenet freedom of expression and censorship issues that have been
discussed here.
Initially, someone allegedly crossposted a story of a boy raping, torturing,
and murdering his sistor to soc.women and alt.sex. Unfortunately, I
didn't save a copy of the post, so I can't provide any of the juicy details
:-(. [I wish I had a few quotes just to show how gross the post was, but
I don't.]
A little later, a response apparently came from the system administrator,
which I do have a copy of:
---
I'm sorry about the "yahweh is good posting". I have discussed the posting
with its author, explained to him why it was inappropriate for him to post
it where he did, taken action to prevent his posting such articles in the
short term and informed him that if he continues we will take longer term
action.
While I support freedom of speech, an individual's right to use his own
resources to publish pornography and individuals' rights to read pornography,
using University resources to publish pornography in a forum in which it
can be considered as a generalized form of sexual harrassment is certainly
not a protected freedom of speech.
Barry Grau
Interim Manager of User Services
---
Other side issues arising from this post were:
Was this post 'sexual harassment'? Did the posts create an 'intimidating,
hostile, or offensive working environmen'? Is a net.environment a working
environment?
What are the University's legal obligations for 'free speech'?
How do they compare with their obligations on the issue of 'sexual
harassment'?
Also, the alleged poster has also just recently denied posting the offending
material.
There has been some discussion of this on some of the alt groups, which I
don't get (but I've seen some of the xposts to soc.women). I think it would
be an interesting topic for the EFF group, as well.
-------------------
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Official punishment of off-topic posts (was yahweh is good posting)
Message-ID: <1991Oct25.211259.241@eff.org>
References: <1991Oct23.182731.17656@eng.umd.edu> <9110231918.AA20269@sentinel.CES.CWRU.Edu> <1991Oct23.210725.19475@eff.org> <3166@aldebaran.cs.nps.navy.mil> <1991Oct24.212447.17221@eff.org> <3171@aldebaran.cs.nps.navy.mil>
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1991 21:12:59 GMT
schweige@aldebaran.cs.nps.navy.mil (Jeffrey M. Schweiger) writes:
[...]
>I agree here also. But I also note that the courts have held that there
>can be limits on freedom of speech. For example, demonstrators can be banned
>from peaceably demonstrating on a military base.
Under the Supreme Court's Public Forum doctrine a militrary base
is either not a forum at all or it is a "nonpublic forum".
> Also, active duty members
>of the military are barred from running for political office or from actively
>taking part in most areas of partisan politics. Another example is the FCC,
>and the 'Seven Naughty Words' that can't be broadcast. I think reviewing
>limitations that have been placed on other forms of electronic communications
>may have more applicability to USENET than the printed or spoken word, as
>I don't believe that precedents have been set that completely apply to the
>newsgroups.
[...]
I don't think First Amendment rights become obsolete just because
technology advances. I note that telephone, cable, and cellular phone
are not content regulated like the TV and radio airwaves.
In fact, I have seen, on my TV, in the afternoon, an FCC commissioner
use the word "fuck". The trick? He was on CSPAN, on cable rather than
on the TV or radio airwaves.
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu, or (anonymous) ap.4352@hri.com
I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
From kadie Mon Oct 28 09:16:36 1991
To: cafb-mail
Subject: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Status: R
Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Mon Oct 28 09:15:58 EST 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:
ooi@mace.cc.purdue : (none)
mingmar@cs.mcgill. : Re: yahweh is good posting -- KILL THREAD!
dsc@gemini.tmc.edu : Re: Repr. Sullivan wants to fire prof. Hill because of po
thakur@zerkalo.har : Does Usenet == public (Was: YAHWEH is good!)
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (alt.sex, et al.) I didn't do it.
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (soc.women, et al.) Yahweh is gone!
tjw@unix.cis.pitt. : Re: YAHWEH is good!
chron!magic322!edt : Re: (alt.censorship) Re: Usenet censorship
k080093@hobbes.kzo : Re: your mail
ataylor@nmsu.edu ( : Re: Dave (The Stud) Duke likes Republicans!
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: ooi@mace.cc.purdue.edu (Jim Porter)
Subject: (none)
Message-ID: <9110252116.AA08677@mace.cc.purdue.edu>
Sender: ooi@mace.cc.purdue.edu
Date: 25 Oct 91 11:16:06 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
signoff comp-academic-freedom-talk
-------------------
Xref: eff alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1551 alt.sex:22627 soc.men:6096
From: mingmar@cs.mcgill.ca (Ming MAR)
Subject: Re: yahweh is good posting -- KILL THREAD!
Message-ID: <1991Oct25.201807.6034@cs.mcgill.ca>
Date: 25 Oct 91 20:18:07 GMT
References: <1991Oct24.024240.8278@wpi.WPI.EDU> <1991Oct24.182913.5347@ecs.comm.mot.com>
Sender: news@cs.mcgill.ca (Netnews Administrator)
Followup-To: alt.censorship
This yahweh thread has absolutely nothing to do with alt.sex. Note that
the Followup-To: is pointed elsewhere. The original article was
calculated to provoke trouble. It was posted by a trouble-maker. The
trouble-maker has had his usenet privileges justifiably revoked.
If you wish to comment, followup to alt.censorship or email me.
Whatever you do, keep it out of alt.sex. Let's cut this thread. Your
cooperation is appreciated.
-------------------
Xref: eff alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1552 alt.censorship:2272 alt.society.civil-liberties:731 talk.politics.misc:22131
From: dsc@gemini.tmc.edu (Doug S. Caprette Bldg. 28 W191 x3892)
Subject: Re: Repr. Sullivan wants to fire prof. Hill because of political opinions
Message-ID: <1991Oct25.210142.12306@nsisrv.gsfc.nasa.gov>
Date: 25 Oct 91 21:01:42 GMT
References: <1991Oct22.073615.1607@nntp.hut.fi>
Sender: usenet@nsisrv.gsfc.nasa.gov (Usenet)
Distribution: usa
Nntp-Posting-Host: gemini.gsfc.nasa.gov
In article <1991Oct22.073615.1607@nntp.hut.fi> jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala) writes:
>Forwarded from another newsgroup:
>
>From: LANFRAN@VM1.YORKU.CA (Sam Lanfranco)
>Newsgroups: misc.activism.progressive,alt.activism
>Subject: Oklahoma state rep wants Anita Hill fired
>Date: 21 Oct 91 22:07:44 GMT
>
>Oklahoma State Representative Leonard E. Sullivan, Republican of Oklahoma
>City is seeking to have Prof. Anita Hill ousted from her tenured position.
>(deleted for brevity)
>Write to President Van Horn at: University of Oklahoma
> 300 Timberdell Road
> Norman, OK 73019
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
Excuse me, but where can we write to State Representative L. E. Sullivan?
-------------------
From: thakur@zerkalo.harvard.edu (Manavendra K. Thakur)
Subject: Does Usenet == public forum? (Was: YAHWEH is good!)
Message-ID: <9110252131.AA02820@zerkalo.harvard.edu>
Sender: thakur@zerkalo.harvard.edu
References: <1991Oct24.151301.25921@tc.cornell.edu>
Date: 25 Oct 91 21:31:08 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
>>>>> On 24 Oct 91 15:13:01 GMT, shore@theory.TC.Cornell.EDU (Melinda Shore) said:
> In article <1991Oct24.080923.16277@techbook.com> szabo@techbook.com
> (Nick Szabo) writes: |If the site choses to become a public forum,
> for example by carrying |Usenet, then the use of that forum is
> constitutionally protected as |well as protected by the guidelines
> of most schools regarding academic |free speech
> The net is not a public forum.
> --
> Software longa, hardware brevis
> Melinda Shore - Cornell Information Technologies - shore@tc.cornell.edu
Melinda,
Carl Kadie and others have argued in this newsgroup that the net is a
"limited public forum", as defined in Supreme Court decisions.
When you say that "The net is not a public forum," are you
specifically disagreeing with the arguments for the net as a limited
public forum? Or were you making an off-the-cuff remark (i.e. not
directly responding to the limited forum arguments)?
In either case, I would like to hear more about the reasoning behind
your assertion. The arguments in favor of describing the net as a
limited public forum are (IMHO) strong and convincing. If you have
compelling arguments to the contrary, I would be most interested in
hearing them.
Manavendra K. Thakur Internet: thakur@zerkalo.harvard.edu
Systems Programmer, High Energy Division BITNET: thakur@cfa.BITNET
Harvard-Smithsonian Center for DECNET: CFA::thakur
Astrophysics UUCP: ...!uunet!mit-eddie!thakur
P.S. If you're not familiar with the arguments about the net as a
limited public forum, you can access the caf-talk archives. Look in
ftp.eff.org:/pub/academic/news/cafv01n25.
-------------------
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.sex, et al.] I didn't do it.
Message-ID: <9110252158.AA17812@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 25 Oct 91 11:58:23 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
From: U53482@uicvm.uic.edu
Date: 24 Oct 91 23:47:14 GMT
Sorry about the posting, but my subject line says it all. I did NOT post that
article. I got off work after 10:00, (left school @ 3:30 or thereabouts) and
got home around 11:00. I ate dinner, took a shower, went to bed, got up, went
to school, and found out that my account was suspended because I sent to you!
Maybe it was a breakin,a forgery,or I left my terminal unattended, but I DIDN'T
POST IT!!! So don't flame me no more. Also, I don't know why my account was
opened, could someone please tell me why?
-------------------
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [soc.women, et al.] Yahweh is gone!
Message-ID: <9110252158.AA17821@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 25 Oct 91 11:58:38 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
From: U53482@uicvm.uic.edu
Date: 25 Oct 91 15:36:30 GMT
Look, stop posting already. I didn't do it (see article 'I Didn't do it').
I understand (from several sources) that it is possible to forge a header.
Apparently, someone wanted to get me in trouble and did so. Either that or
I have a very unusual case of amnesia. I am sorry, and I didn't even do it!
Please, leave me alone, if you like it, go to alt.evil or alt.tasteless or
somewhere, but no more hate mail, please.
-------------------
Xref: eff alt.sex:22638 soc.women:10094 alt.censorship:2275 alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1556
From: tjw@unix.cis.pitt.edu (TJ Wood WA3VQJ)
Subject: Re: YAHWEH is good!
Message-ID: <195552@unix.cis.pitt.edu>
Date: 25 Oct 91 21:47:38 GMT
References: <15046@scolex.sco.COM> <1991Oct24.220928.18690@eff.org>
In article <1991Oct24.220928.18690@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>>has a right to limit what their name appears on.
>This is the argument some universities made when they tried to ban gay
>student organizations, censorship student publications, and prohibit
>progressive (and regressive) speakers from appearing on campus.
They sometimes try to stop young women from posing for PLAYBOY with the
same reason. When they are unable to do that, they sometimes expel them.
Terry
--
INTERNET: tjw@pitt.edu BITNET: TJW@PITTVMS UUCP: uunet!unix.cis.pitt.edu!tjw
Laugh while you can, Monkey Boy!
-------------------
From: chron!magic322!edtjda@uunet.UU.NET (Joe Abernathy)
Subject: Re: [alt.censorship] Re: Usenet censorship
Message-ID: <9110252146.AA00437@magic322.magichron-c>
Sender: chron!magic322!edtjda@uunet.UU.NET
Date: 25 Oct 91 21:46:16 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
Barry Shein writes:
>I don't think the Chronicle was questioning the existence of such groups. I
>think they were asking whether Mr. and Mrs. J. Q. Public knew that taxpayer
>dollars went toward the transport of said newsgroups.
Ah, but have they done a cost-analysis on what expenses might be
incurred by having staff assigned to monitoring the 20+MB of material
per day rather than just letting it thru blindly?
Or is this the same sort of mentality that always assumes that
policing expense is somehow free or not to be counted?
This narrows down a complex and many-faceted issue to a simple
"yes or no we'll fund it" undertaking. I don't think that does the
subject matter justice. And no, I don't care to debate it with you.
I am quite sure (based on other postings by him) that Abernathy
doesn't care about taxpayer dollars except inasmuch as it makes a
convenient and self-righteous bludgeon to use in his articles. The
last thing he told us all to worry about was the Baptists, which is
hardly a tax-funding issue.
Actually, what Abernathy (the Chronicle reporter) is after is yellow
journalism and getting people's emotions flowing. He'll tweak any hot
spot he can think of to get that effect.
I'm sorely tempted when I read rags like this. Why don't you be honest
with the people, Barry: You perceive any discussion of alt.sex.* to be
an attack on a community which you care deeply about, and you apparently
don't feel that alt.sex.* can survive such examination. Yours are the
emotions that are flowing, and you're projecting onto others.
It's an old tradition among mediocre journalists seeking notoriety.
--
-Barry Shein
Software Tool & Die | bzs@world.std.com | uunet!world!bzs
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD
Joe Abernathy edtjda@chron.com
Special Projects P.O. Box 4260
The Houston Chronicle Houston, Texas 77210
(800) 735-3820 (713) 526-9711
-------------------
From: k080093@hobbes.kzoo.edu (Josh N. Vander Berg)
Subject: Re: your mail
Message-ID: <9110252314.AA21280@hobbes.kzoo.edu>
Sender: k080093@hobbes.kzoo.edu
References: <9110252116.AA08677@mace.cc.purdue.edu>
Date: 25 Oct 91 23:14:50 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
>
> signoff comp-academic-freedom-talk
>
Diddo, This is just getting to be too much for my mailbox.
-------------------
Xref: eff alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1559 alt.censorship:2277 alt.society.civil-liberties:736 talk.politics.misc:22145
From: ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy)
Subject: Re: Dave (The Stud) Duke likes Republicans!
Message-ID:
Date: 25 Oct 91 23:01:52 GMT
Article-I.D.: gauss.ATAYLOR.91Oct25170152
References: <1991Oct22.073615.1607@nntp.hut.fi>
<1991Oct25.055718.8514@chinet.chi.il.us>
<1991Oct25.153843.1672@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> <+qad!h_@lynx.unm.edu>
Sender: news@NMSU.Edu
Followup-To: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
In-reply-to: nwickham@triton.unm.edu's message of 25 Oct 91 17:17:13 GMT
nwickham@triton.unm.edu (Neal C. Wickham) writes:
< Anyone see "The Man" David Duke on CNN's Crossfire last night? Geese... !
No, but since I read more than "Dissent" and "The Nation",
Duke is no stranger to me. He's a political opportunist
and hatemonger from the fringe; rather similar in some ways
to certain posters to talk.politics.misc, in that respect.
Mr. Winston? ARF? You guys got your "David Duke For President"
buttons, yet?
< If this man gets any real political power, I'm leaving the country and
< will build a fallout shelter where ever I move too.
Promise? Is that a promise? Can we "take that to the bank"?
< That guy is clearly a sociopath. He's got the "look" of one. He sat there
< with that half dead smiling face all night mouthing the "Duke" rhetoric
< until Michael Kinsley pressed him about his cosmetic surgery when Duke
< flashed his hate and anger calling Kinsley a "little worm" and said that
< Kinsley is the one who could use some plastic surgery.
That sounds about right. Bear in mind that Duke has been
involved with both the Ku Klux Klan and the American
Nazi Party; neither group is exactly known for encouraging
patience or "give and take" in social interactions. Duke
has smoothed his delivery from the podium a lot since
the 1970's, but he's still the same guy.
On the other hand, Little Mikey Kinsley IS rather "a
little worm" from time to time; I recall once on "Crossfire"
when he spent over 10 minutes yammering and interrupting
a Mormon with questions about polygamy. It became pathetically
obvious that Mikey was jealous...or maybe worried that the
Mormons were going to "get all the girls".
(Note: polygamy has been against the law in Utah for over
100 years. Not only is it a felony, but members of the LDS
who practice it are excommunicated.)
< ...right! Let's give this man some politcal power so he can flash that
< hatred and hostility on a mass of people.
Since you don't appear to be posting from Louisiana, I doubt
that you get to take part in the election, along with the vast
majority of net.readers. Therefore, "we" don't get to decide
diddly with respect to Duke and the Louisiana governors race.
On the other hand, if he somehow succeeds, Duke will be
under the media microscope. Since he's the wrong kind of
hatemonger, he can expect his every move & speech to be
examined minutely. As such, he would probably be frustrated
in the governors office..at least, I HOPE so.
< He likes the Republicans! When Novak ask why he wanted to be a Republican,
< Duke said: "because the Republican Party most accurately reflects his own
< views". Well... that is not hard to understand. Republicans do have an
< enormous interest in cosmetic appearences and "have ways" of dealing with
< "little worms" and other liberals who can see through it.
Oh, boy, here's the good old Neal C. Wickham we all know....
Neal, you are a lot closer to David Duke in your political
philosophy than George Herbert Walker "Country Club" Bush
or most other members of the Republican Party. Probably
that's why he scares you; you already KNOW what YOU would
do with "some politcal power" (or even POLITICAL power)
and projecting that onto Duke likely terrifies you.
Note that the Republican political establishment is doing
everything it can to repudiate Duke; it wouldn't be a big
surprise to see them endorse Buddy "Indictable" Romer.
The people of Louisiana truly have a lousy choice to make.
I can't help wondering if there aren't some 3rd party
candidates out there?
Some folks like to brag about how corrupt & dirty their
local politicians are; Louisiana puts most such braggarts
in the shade....Huey Long is merely the most famous
of the Louisiana "Kings". David Duke is cut from similar
cloth to Gov. Long, with all the unpleasantness that
implies.
From kadie Mon Oct 28 09:17:34 1991
To: cafb-mail
Subject: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Status: R
Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Mon Oct 28 09:16:39 EST 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:
thakur@zerkalo.har : Re: Dave (The Stud) Duke likes Republicans!
schweige@taurus.cs : Re: YAHWEH is good!
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (comp.dcom.telecom) How Does The Law Handle Crank
stricher@masig3.oc : Re: Dave (The Stud) Duke likes Republicans!
nwickham@triton.un : Re: Dave (The Stud) Duke likes Republicans!
FFDMG@ALASKA.bitne : Re: Dave (The Stud) Duke likes Republicans!
trifid@agora.uucp : Re: Repr. Sullivan wants to fire prof. Hill because of pol
trifid@agora.uucp : Re: Repr. Sullivan wants to fire prof. Hill because of pol
trifid@agora.uucp : Re: Repr. Sullivan wants to fire prof. Hill because of pol
kadie@eff.org (Car : (eff.mail.ethics-l) Ucla's Use Policies
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: thakur@zerkalo.harvard.edu (Manavendra K. Thakur)
Subject: Re: Dave (The Stud) Duke likes Republicans!
Message-ID: <9110260022.AA03179@zerkalo.harvard.edu>
Sender: thakur@zerkalo.harvard.edu
References:
Date: 26 Oct 91 00:22:37 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
Please, people, unless Duke has something to do with academic freedom
as pertaining to computers, take the discussion of David Duke to
talk.politics or another, more appropriate, newsgroup.
Some of us receive alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk not as a newsgroup but
as email (the caf-talk) mailing list. Please don't clutter up our
personal mailboxes with inappropriate articles.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Manavendra K. Thakur Internet: thakur@zerkalo.harvard.edu
Systems Programmer, High Energy Division BITNET: thakur@cfa.BITNET
Harvard-Smithsonian Center for DECNET: CFA::thakur
Astrophysics UUCP: ...!uunet!mit-eddie!thakur
-------------------
From: schweige@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil (Jeffrey M. Schweiger)
Subject: Re: YAHWEH is good!
Message-ID: <3179@aldebaran.cs.nps.navy.mil>
Date: 26 Oct 91 02:32:07 GMT
Article-I.D.: aldebara.3179
References: <1991Oct22.231334.9723@tc.cornell.edu> <1991Oct24.080923.16277@techbook.com> <1991Oct24.151301.25921@tc.cornell.edu> <1991Oct25.200824.28492@eff.org>
In article <1991Oct25.200824.28492@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
|Warning: I'm going to post an excerpt from San Diego Committee v.
|Governing Bd. again.
Since it's the basis for much of the discussion on this topic, it's not a
bad idea to post it one more time.
|shore@theory.TC.Cornell.EDU (Melinda Shore) writes:
|
|>The net is not a public forum.
|
|The Netnews facilities at public universities, like student
|newspapers, seem to be limited public forums.
I grant that this is a reasonable statement, and that Netnews might eventually
be granted this status. I state, though, that this status has not yet been
granted, and, in addition, may not ever be granted.
|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...]
This would imply that Netnews could indeed be granted 'public forum' status.
| ... 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 ...]
This would imply that there are cases where something like Netnews/USENET
need not be granted 'public forum' status.
|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
Netnews does not enjoy this tradition, IMHO. I also don't think that
anyone is stating this, either. The next type of public forum is what
Carl has stated applies.
[deleted]
|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.
It would appear that Netnews might indeed qualify as a 'limited public
forum' under this ruling, depending on how 'public' is defined.
|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.
Two points here:
1) "Reasonable" regulation of a limited public forum appears to be
acceptable under this ruling.
2) There appears to be no requirement to keep a limited public forum
available. As such, I would interpret the above to me that a 'limited
public forum' status for Netnews/USENET at a public institution would not
prevent that institution from shutting Netnews/USENET down completely at
that location for whatever reason is desired. Free speech standards only
would apply while the forum remained open. This might even lead to a
less desirable situation than the occasional admonishing of someone who
'stepped out of line'.
|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]
This establishes that being public property does not always require designation
as a public or limited public forum.
[rest of quote deleted]
Thanks, Carl, for posting this again. My personal opinion, based on reading
this decision, it that Netnews at a public institution probably would enjoy
limited public forum status, if this issue ever makes it to the courts (or,
at least, to the same court that issued this decision). It would seem, though,
(IMHO) that limited public forums can be subject to some regulation.
As this has not yet either been decided in the courts, or been made explicit
by Congress, I think there is still considerable room for honest disagreement
on the subject.
Jeff Schweiger
--
*******************************************************************************
Jeff Schweiger Standard Disclaimer CompuServe: 74236,1645
Internet (Milnet): schweige@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil
*******************************************************************************
-------------------
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.dcom.telecom] How Does The Law Handle Crank Calls?
Message-ID: <9110260402.AA18917@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 25 Oct 91 18:02:27 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
From: well!rchao@well.sf.ca.us (Robert Chao)
Date: 24 Oct 91 06:12:34 GMT
I'm looking for info on how the law handles crank calls. If someone
places crank calls that do not contain profanity, threats, or abusive
language, and do not come at an unreasonable hour, and the calls are
not placed very often, what laws are applicable against him? What
kind of sentence is involved? What evidence would be required?
Suppose the calls do contain language that implies that the caller is
watching and/or following the receiver? How would the laws change in
that case? In the first example, I am referring to calls that contain
silly or garbled language. Thanks to anyone who can help.
Robert Chao Oakland, California
[Moderator's Note: Obscene language is not required. If you read the
tariffs on this you'll see they refer to 'repeatedly causing the bell
to ring on another's telephone ... ' as harassment, whether or not the
caller speaks up when answered or what is said. The usual techniques
(trap and trace, etc) would provide the evidence required, and Illiois
law, to cite but one example says that such behavior is a misdemeanor
crime punishable by time in jail. There is no reference to the Tucker
Telephone as a method to obtain the confession of the suspected
harasser. :) PAT]
-------------------
From: stricher@masig3.ocean.fsu.edu (Char Aznabul)
Subject: Re: Dave (The Stud) Duke likes Republicans!
Message-ID: <4927@sun13.scri.fsu.edu>
Date: 25 Oct 91 21:13:15 GMT
References: <+qad!h_@lynx.unm.edu>
Sender: news@sun13.scri.fsu.edu
Distribution: na
Neal C. Wickham writes
+ That guy is clearly a sociopath. He's got the "look" of one. He sat there
+ with that half dead smiling face all night mouthing the "Duke" rhetoric
+ until Michael Kinsley pressed him about his cosmetic surgery when Duke
+ flashed his hate and anger calling Kinsley a "little worm" and said that
+ Kinsley is the one who could use some plastic surgery.
Kinsley *is* a little worm.
+ He likes the Republicans! When Novak ask why he wanted to be a Republican,
+ Duke said: "because the Republican Party most accurately reflects his own
+ views". Well... that is not hard to understand. Republicans do have an
+ enormous interest in cosmetic appearences and "have ways" of dealing with
+ "little worms" and other liberals who can see through it.
He likes the Republican Party because it is currently the most likely
avenue for sucess. Even Hitler and Stalin liked each other...for a little
bit, anyway...
Char
-------------------
From: nwickham@triton.unm.edu (Neal C. Wickham)
Subject: Re: Dave (The Stud) Duke likes Republicans!
Message-ID: <_#bd!#n@lynx.unm.edu>
Date: 26 Oct 91 05:56:43 GMT
Article-I.D.: lynx._#bd!#n
References: <1991Oct25.153843.1672@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> <+qad!h_@lynx.unm.edu>
In article ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy) writes:
>< If this man gets any real political power, I'm leaving the country and
>< will build a fallout shelter where ever I move too.
>
> Promise? Is that a promise? Can we "take that to the bank"?
You sure can... the relief of not have to be "nice" to people like you in
itself is almost worth while. :)
> On the other hand, Little Mikey Kinsley IS rather "a
> little worm" from time to time; I recall once on "Crossfire"
> when he spent over 10 minutes yammering and interrupting
> a Mormon with questions about polygamy. It became pathetically
> obvious that Mikey was jealous...or maybe worried that the
> Mormons were going to "get all the girls".
>
> (Note: polygamy has been against the law in Utah for over
> 100 years. Not only is it a felony, but members of the LDS
> who practice it are excommunicated.)
Uh... I grew up in a community which was over 70% mormon. I don't have
much sympathy for them. They are RUTHLESS to any non-mormons in areas
where they prodominate. And mormon boys are losers when it comes to sex
and women. Momon girlfriends were always getting "knocked off" by the
non mormons even though they would end up marrying their mormon boyfriend.
Joseph Smith, the mormon profit, had something like 35 (?) wives, four or
five of which were 16 years of age or younger. He would sometimes marry
a girl and "consumate" the marriage without the knowledge of her parents.
It nearly cost him his life a couple of times when the girls told thier
fathers.
And the mormons only gave up the right of polygamy after bitter strugles
with the fedral government. Salt Lake City was actually marched on by
fedral troops at one point and the capitol was occupied by these troops
and Brigam Youngs was deposed from his governorship and replaced with a
fedral appointee. This occupation was not over just polygamy, but it
was a big part of it.
There are colonies of mormon polygimists around the world. Two are not
far from here. There is one in Arizona City and another just accross the
boarder in Mexico.
And Kinsley, has no corner on the market of being an asshole on that
program.
>< He likes the Republicans! When Novak ask why he wanted to be a Republican,
>< Duke said: "because the Republican Party most accurately reflects his own
>< views". Well... that is not hard to understand. Republicans do have an
>< enormous interest in cosmetic appearences and "have ways" of dealing with
>< "little worms" and other liberals who can see through it.
>
> Oh, boy, here's the good old Neal C. Wickham we all know....
> Neal, you are a lot closer to David Duke in your political
> philosophy than George Herbert Walker "Country Club" Bush
> or most other members of the Republican Party. Probably
> that's why he scares you; you already KNOW what YOU would
> do with "some politcal power" (or even POLITICAL power)
> and projecting that onto Duke likely terrifies you.
...awh, your mother wears army bootes! :)
> Note that the Republican political establishment is doing
> everything it can to repudiate Duke; it wouldn't be a big
> surprise to see them endorse Buddy "Indictable" Romer.
> The people of Louisiana truly have a lousy choice to make.
> I can't help wondering if there aren't some 3rd party
> candidates out there?
He still likes Republicans... wants to be one real bad! You can almost
see his mouth water. ...all that power and glory! A man of his stature
could not settle for less. I heard the women are calling him Long Duke
Silver!
> Some folks like to brag about how corrupt & dirty their
> local politicians are; Louisiana puts most such braggarts
> in the shade....Huey Long is merely the most famous
> of the Louisiana "Kings". David Duke is cut from similar
> cloth to Gov. Long, with all the unpleasantness that
> implies.
I am not sure exactly which race they were refering to, but on Crossfire
they mentioned that Duke got 60% of the white vote.
Duke might fare pretty well in a national race away from the south. It
may be like after the Watergate scandle and Reagan where the Republicans
came to Reagan rather than Reagan comming to the Republicans.
NCW
-------------------
From: FFDMG@ALASKA.bitnet (Dean Gottehrer)
Subject: Re: Dave (The Stud) Duke likes Republicans!
Message-ID: <199110260800.AA19525@eff.org>
Sender: FFDMG%ALASKA.BITNET@CORNELLC.cit.cornell.edu
Date: 25 Oct 91 14:57:10 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
Seems to me that this has nothing to do with computers and academic
freedom. Perhaps those who feel strongly about the subject could take it
to a more appropriate forum or news group and remove the clutter from
the mail boxes of those of us who joined this forum to discuss computers
and academic freedom.
Dean Gottehrer
Anchorage, Alaska
-------------------
Xref: eff alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1566 alt.censorship:2283 alt.society.civil-liberties:750 talk.politics.misc:22192
From: trifid@agora.uucp (Roadster Racewerks)
Subject: Re: Repr. Sullivan wants to fire prof. Hill because of political opinions
Message-ID: <1991Oct25.203721.2704@agora.uucp>
References: <1991Oct22.073615.1607@nntp.hut.fi>
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1991 20:37:21 GMT
I don't suppose anyone has an email address for Pres. Van Horn?
Suze Hammond
trifid@agora.rain.com
-------------------
Xref: eff alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1567 alt.censorship:2284 alt.society.civil-liberties:751 talk.politics.misc:22193
From: trifid@agora.uucp (Roadster Racewerks)
Subject: Re: Repr. Sullivan wants to fire prof. Hill because of political opinions
Message-ID: <1991Oct25.203946.2782@agora.uucp>
References: <1991Oct22.073615.1607@nntp.hut.fi> <-2+dr+a@lynx.unm.edu> <1991Oct23.003831.27942@milton.u.washington.edu>
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1991 20:39:46 GMT
Better yet, does Rep(rehensible) Sullivan have an email address?
Suze Hammond
trifid@agora.rain.com
-------------------
Xref: eff alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1568 alt.censorship:2285 alt.society.civil-liberties:752 talk.politics.misc:22194
From: trifid@agora.uucp (Roadster Racewerks)
Subject: Re: Repr. Sullivan wants to fire prof. Hill because of political opinions
Message-ID: <1991Oct25.204640.3053@agora.uucp>
Keywords: Republican, embarrassing!
References: <1991Oct23.202225.27745@engage.pko.dec.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1991 20:46:40 GMT
In article <1991Oct23.202225.27745@engage.pko.dec.com> stanley@verga.enet.dec.com writes:
>
>In article , jcn@rice.edu (Jeff C. Nichols) writes...
>>jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala) writes:
>>
>>>Oklahoma State Representative Leonard E. Sullivan, Republican of Oklahoma
>>>City is seeking to have Prof. Anita Hill ousted from her tenured position.
>>>In a letter to University president, Richard Van Horn, Sullivan said, "We
>>>must get left wing extremist influence off the campus before it spreads
>>>further. We can't afford to have a high profile professor on campus that
>>>millions of Americans, according to polls and national talk shows, believe
>>>is a fantasizing liar." [NYT 10/16/91 p.A21]
>>
>>>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>Anita Hill is a Conservative Republican. What an idiot!
>
>
>---
>Mary Stanley
> (INTERNET,UUCP) stanley@verga.enet.dec.com
> (UUCP) ...!decwrl!verga.enet!stanley
> (INTERNET) stanley%verga.enet@decwrl.dec.com
>---
I've been a Republican and a political conservative (but not a modern-day Neo-
Conservative Republican!) for my whole life, and BOY, IS IT EVER GETTING TO BE
EMBARRASSING....
Is there *any* hope for the Republican Party, or should all us old-line members
start another party altogether?
Suze Hammond
trifid@agora.rain.com
-------------------
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [eff.mail.ethics-l] Ucla's Use Policies
Message-ID: <199110261353.AA23039@eff.org>
Sender: kadie
Date: 26 Oct 91 05:53:00 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
From: ygoland@SEAS.UCLA.EDU (Yaron Y. Goland)
Date: 26 Oct 91 07:20:55 GMT
Chapter 1-SEASnet General Information 10/23/90
1.5. USER RESPONSIBILITIES AND SYSTEM SECURITY
1.5.1 General User Responsibilities
When you have an account on a multi-user computer system
like SEASnet, you must be especially considerate of your fellow
users; on a multi-user system, unlike single-user systems, you
are a member of a community, and your actions affect other
people. You must not annoy people by sending things to their
terminal screen or disrupting their work. And of course you may
not attempt to capture or use other users' passwords or accounts,
not even for fun or as a joke.
* Account Privacy
SEASnet accounts are issued solely for the use of the
individual to whom they have been assigned. Use of any
other user's account or loaning account privileges to
another is prohibited and will result in loss of
privileges with SEASnet.
Report unauthorized use of your account immediately to a
SEASnet staff member.
* Illegal Copying
SEASnet operates its software under various licenses and
copyrights. Unless explicitly stated in the
documentation (for example, see the online Kermit
documentation), users are not permitted to make copies
of the software for use on non-SEASnet machines.
Conversely, SEASnet does not permit illegally copied
software to be used on its machines.
* Use of SEASnet's Computing Facilities
Use of SEASnet's computing facilities, including
hardware, software, and networks is restricted to the
purposes for which SEASnet accounts are assigned. These
uses are limited to research and educational purposes.
Any personal or commercial use of SEASnet equipment is
prohibited.
* Password Security
Guessed passwords still form the most common method by
which outsiders penetrate an account. The following
guidelines will help minimize the possibility of anyone
discovering your password and gaining access to your
account privileges.
a.Do not give your password to any other
individual.
b.Do not type your password while someone is
watching you work.
c.Change your password frequently by using the
command passwd. It will ask for your existing
password and then the new one (Note:this command
is only available when using UNIX
interactively--AADU users should login to UNIX to
use this and Macintosh users should use the
Command Shell mentioned in the chapter called
Using the SEASnet Macintoshes).
Note:the password files on the Macintoshes, RTs and AIX machines
are completely different files from each other. If you have
accounts on all three operating systems, you will need to change
your password on each of the different systems.
d.Avoid passwords that reference personal data
for you, your friends or your family (names,
birthdates, etc).
e.Avoid using words that are contained in the
dictionary or that are popular in this
environment (i.e., UCLA or bruins).
f.Use passwords that have lower and upper case
letters, as well as numbers or other special
characters.
h.(sic) Here are some examples of some easy to
remember but hard to guess passwords [Note:do
not use these because printing them in this
document has made them easy to guess]:
1)asits9 (abbr. for the phrase a
stitch in time saves
nine)
2)girLfriend (capitalize 1 letter)
3)bi!ker (add strange punctuation
to a word)
* Cooperation With System Administrator
Cooperate with the system administrator's
request for information about computing
activities (see SEASnet System Administrator
Responsibilities section below).
* Report Security Flaws
All multi-user computer systems have security
flaws. Of course you may not exploit such flaws
in any way. The acceptable, ethical course of
action when you notice such a flaw is to report
it to the system management (by sending email to
bugs). Trying to explore the flaw on your own,
testing it out to see its extent or effect, is
unethical and unacceptable because the system
management has no way to distinguish curious
exploration from malicious exploitation. If you
wish to help the system management track down
bugs, contact them and volunteer your services.
* Game Playing
Various games are available on the system.
however, you must not play games when other
users need a terminal for any other activity. If
you are playing games, you must log out whenever
users are waiting, and offer them your terminal.
it is not ethical or polite to stay logged in
until the person waiting asks you to log out, or
to expect a waiting user to wait for you to
finish playing.
1.5.2 Misuse of Computing Resources and Privileges
Misuse of computing resources and privileges includes,
but is not restricted to, the following:
* attempting to modify or remove computer
equipment, software, or peripherals without proper
authorization
* accessing computers, computer software, computer
data or information, or networks without proper
authorization, regardless of whether the
computer, software, data, information, or
network in question is owned by the University
(That is, if you abuse the networks to which the
University belongs or the computers at other
sites connected to those networks, the
University will treat this matter as an abuse of
your SEASnet computing privileges.)
* sending fraudulent computer mail or breaking
into another user's electronic mailbox.
* violating any software license agreement or
copyright, including copying or redistributing
copyrighted computer software, data, or reports
without proper, recorded authorization
* harassing or threatening other users or
interfering with their access to the University's
computing facilities
* taking advantage of another user's naivete or
negligence to gain access to any computer
account, data, software, or file other than your
own
* encroaching on others' use of the University's
computers (e.g., sending frivolous or excessive
messages, either locally or off-campus; printing
excess copies of documents, files, data, or
programs; running grossly inefficient programs
when efficient alternatives are available;
modifying system facilities, operating systems,
or disk partitions; attempting to crash or tie
up a University computer; damaging or
vandalizing University computing facilities,
equipment, software, or computer files)
* disclosing or removing proprietary information,
software, printed output or magnetic media
without the explicit permission of the owner
* reading other users' data, information, files,
or programs on a display screen, as printed
output, or via electronic means, without the
owner's explicit permission.
In addition, some of the above actions may constitute
criminal computer abuse, which is a crime in the state
of California. Individuals who abuse University
computing resources may be subject to prosecution under
California Penal Code Section 502.
Unless specifically authorized by a class
instructor, all of the follwoing uses of a computer are
violations of the University's guidelines for academic
honesty and are punishable as acts of plagiarism:
* copying a computer file that contains another
student's assignement and submitting it as your
own work
* copying a computer file that contains another
student's assignment and using it as a model for
your own assignment
* working together on an assignment, sharing the
computer files and to submit that file, or a
modification thereof, as his or her individual work.
1.5.3. SEASnet System Administrator Responsibilities
A SEASnet system administrator's use of the University's
computing resources is governed by the same guidelines
as any other user's computing acitivty. However a system
administrator has additional responsibilities ot the
users of the network, site, system, or systems he or she
administers:
* A system administrator ensures that all users
of the systems, networks, and servers that he or
she administers have access to the appropriate
software and hardware required for their
University computing.
* A system administrator is responsible for the
security of a system, network, or server.
* A system administrator must make sure that all
hardware and software license agreements are faithfully
executed on all systems, networks, and servers for which
he or she has responsibility.
* A system administrator must take reasonable
precautions to guard against corruption of data
or software or damage to hardware or
facilities.
* A system administrator must treat information
about and information stored by the system's
users as confidential.
In very unusual circumstances when system
response, integrity or security is threatened, as outlined
above, a system administratoris authorized to access files and
information necessary to find and resolve the situation.
1.5.4. Consequences of Misuse of Computing Privileges
Abuse of computing privileges is subject to disciplinary
action. If system administrators of SEASnet have strong evidence
of misuse of computing resources, and if that evidence points to
the computing activities or the computer files of an individual,
they have the obligation to pursue any or all of the following
steps to protect the user community:
* Notify the user's instructor, department chair,
or supervisor of the investigation.
* Suspend or restrict the user's computing
privileges during the investigation. A user may
appeal such a suspension or restriction and
petition for reinstatement of computing
privileges through the SEAS Associate Dean of
Student Affairs or the SEAS Associate Dean of
Computing.
* Inspect the user's files, diskettes, and/or
tapes. System administrators must be certain that the
trail of evidence leads to the user's computing
activities or computing files before inspecting
the user's files.
* Refere the matter for processing through the
appropriate University department. This would be
the Dean of Student's Office in the case of
student abuse and the UCLA personnel office in
the case of staff or faculty abuse.
Referring a case to the Dean of Students is the
most common course of action. For one thing, it ensures that
similar offenses earn similar punishments, from quarter to
quarter and instructor to instructor. For another, it enables
the Dean to detect repeat violators and punish second offenses
more severely. Finally, it protects students from unfair actions
on the part of their instructor, since an impratial third party
hears the case.
Disciplinary action may include the loss of
computing privileges and other disciplinary actions. In some
cases, an abuser of the University's computing resources may
also be liable for civil or criminal prosecution (California
Penal Code Section 502 makes it a crime to misuse a computer).
It should be understood that these regulations
do not preclude enforcement under the laws and regulations of
the State of California, any municipality or county therein,
and/or the United States of America.
1.5.5. Acknowledgements
Many of these policies are adapted from those of the
Columbia University Computer Science Department, the
California Institute of Technology, the UCLA department of
Computer Science Academic Honesty Policy, the University of
Delaware's Guide to Responsible Computering, and comments from
SUNY-Albany, University of Washington, Washington University
(St. Louis), Indiana University, Michigan State University, the
University of New Mexico and the Smithsonian Institue.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
I am sure there are errors in this file. I typed it quite late
and I don't have a spell checker but I re-read it so anything
flagrant has been removed and I doubt there are any mis-quotes.
I hope this is useful to y'all.. even though I type 80wpm it
took me at least 20 or so minutes to type the damn thing up! So
party on dudes and remember:BE EXCELENT TO EACH OTHER
The Jester-President of the Hacker Conference
"Freedom isn't Free"-The U.S. Army
"Nothing is too wonderful to be true"-Faraday
"If I knew it all, what would I be doing HERE?"-The Jester
From kadie Mon Oct 28 09:18:51 1991
To: cafb-mail
Subject: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Status: R
Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Mon Oct 28 09:17:36 EST 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 : (eff.mail.ethics-l) Re: Ucla's Use Policies
kadie@eff.org (Car : README file for Computer Policy and Critiques Archive
romero@csseq.cs.ta : Re: What if she is a fantasizing was: Sullivan wants to f
kadie@eff.org (Car : Draft Statement on Computers and Academic Freedom (CAF)
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: your mail
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: YAHWEH is good!
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (alt.acad.freedom.talk, et al.) Re: YAHWEH is good! (inste
ts2a+@andrew.cmu.e : Re: Dave (The Stud) Duke likes Republicans!
russotto@eng.umd.e : Re: Dave (The Stud) Duke likes Republicans!
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (comp.org.eff.talk) Re: Net.freedom.of.expression (Yahweh
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: [eff.mail.ethics-l] Re: Ucla's Use Policies
Message-ID: <199110261528.AA24204@eff.org>
Sender: kadie
Date: 26 Oct 91 07:28:43 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
It seems like a pretty good policy. I especially like that it covers
both users and sys admins. Also, it lays out clear rules and
disciplinary procedures. And, it acknowledges the user's privacy.
I think it could be improved (perhaps with the participation of users)
by clarifying the prohibition against noncommercial personal use.
Also, procedure by which a sys admin is authorized to search user
files should be made clear and it should be made consistent with the
University's general search procedures (or its telephone search
procedures). Finally, users should not be punished for rule
infractions until and unless it is determined such infractions have
occurred.
I will discuss each of these points in turn.
1. The policy says:
>* Use of SEASnet's Computing Facilities
> Use of SEASnet's computing facilities, including
> hardware, software, and networks is restricted to the
> purposes for which SEASnet accounts are assigned. These
> uses are limited to research and educational purposes.
> Any personal or commercial use of SEASnet equipment is
> prohibited.
But then:
> * Game Playing
> Various games are available on the system.
> however, you must not play games when other
> users need a terminal for any other activity. If
> you are playing games, you must log out whenever
> users are waiting, and offer them your terminal.
> it is not ethical or polite to stay logged in
> until the person waiting asks you to log out, or
> to expect a waiting user to wait for you to
> finish playing.
Isn't game playing an example of personal use? Isn't much email use
personal? If the members of a student organization (say, the sailing
club) keep the the club roster on-line, isn't that a personal use?
How about if someone accesses the library computer to find a book on
bicycle repair?
The policy could be improved by applying the "game policy" to all
noncommercial personal use.
2. The policy says:
> In very unusual circumstances when system
>response, integrity or security is threatened, as outlined
>above, a system administrator is authorized to access files and
>information necessary to find and resolve the situation.
And:
>1.5.4. Consequences of Misuse of Computing Privileges
> Abuse of computing privileges is subject to disciplinary
>action. If system administrators of SEASnet have strong evidence
>of misuse of computing resources, and if that evidence points to
>the computing activities or the computer files of an individual,
>they have the obligation to pursue any or all of the following
>steps to protect the user community:
...
> * Inspect the user's files, diskettes, and/or
> tapes. System administrators must be certain that the
> trail of evidence leads to the user's computing
> activities or computing files before inspecting
> the user's files.
Faculty and student files on university's computers should have the
same privacy protection as personal files in university-assigned space
in an office or dormitory space (for example, files in a graduate
student's desk).
I don't know what the exact rules are at UCLA, but the Joint Statement
on Rights and Freedoms of Students, the main statement of academic
freedom for students says:
"B. Investigation of Student Conduct
1. Except under extreme emergency circumstances, premises occupied
by students and the personal possessions of students should not be
searched unless appropriate authorization has been obtained. For
premises such as residence halls controlled by the institution, an
appropriate and responsible authority should be designated to whom
application should be made before a search is conducted. The
application should specify the reasons for he search and the objects
or information sought. The student should be present, if possible,
during the search. For premises not controlled by the institution,
the ordinary requirements for lawful search should be followed."
[ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/student.rights]
The policy could be improved by making the computer search procedure
consistent the University's general search procedure. This will likely
mean having sys admins get search authorization from a higher
authority.
3. The policy also authorizes sys admins to:
> * Suspend or restrict the user's computing
> privileges during the investigation. A user may
> appeal such a suspension or restriction and
> petition for reinstatement of computing
> privileges through the SEAS Associate Dean of
> Student Affairs or the SEAS Associate Dean of
> Computing.
This is inconsistent with the principle of innocent until found guilty.
It is most likely inconsistent with the general policies of UCLA.
The Joint Statement says:
"C. Status of Student Pending Final Action
Pending action on the charges, the status of a student should not be
altered, or his right to be present on the campus and to attend
classes suspended, except for reasons relating to his physical or
emotional safety and well being, or for reasons relating to the safety
and well-being of students, faculty, or university property."
The policy could be improved by authorizing summary computer
suspension only "for reasons relating to the safety of ... university
property." Perhaps, such computer suspensions should be authorized
by a higher authority.
I hope the UCLA community will work together to improve the policy. I
hope faculty and student users are given a chance to participate in
policy making. As the Joint Statement says: "The responsibility to
secure and to respect general conditions conductive to the freedom to
learn is shared by all members of the academic community. Each college
and university has a duty to develop policies and procedures which
provide and safeguard this freedom. Such policies a procedures should
be developed at each institution within the framework of general
standards and with the broadest possible participation of the members
of the academic community."
RESOURCES
Every University has a Student Code that spells out the University's
general policies. This Code is not just a document; it is a legal
contract between students and the University. New policies must be
consistent with the Code.
The Computers and Academic Freedom Archive is available via anonymous
ftp from ftp.eff.org. It is in directory pub/academic. The archive is
also available via email. For information on email access, send email
to archive-server@eff.org. Include the lines "help" and "index".
The Computers and Academic Freedom on-line discussion is available as
newsgroups alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk and alt.comp.acad-freedom.news.
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
- Carl Kadie
-------------------
Xref: eff alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1571 comp.admin.policy:1047 soc.college:1219
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: README file for Computer Policy and Critiques Archive
Message-ID: <1991Oct26.175424.26881@eff.org>
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 1991 17:54:24 GMT
=================
README
-----------------
Computer Policy and Critiques Archive
[part of the Computers and Academic Freedom (CAF) Archive
[part of the Electronic Freedom Foundation (EFF) Archive]]
This is a collection of the computer policies of many schools. The
collection also includes critiques of some of the policies.
The archive is accessible via anonymous ftp and email. Ftp to
ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.3). It is in directory "pub/academic/policies".
For email access, send email to archive-server@eff.org. Include the
line:
send other-comp-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
contact Carl Kadie (kadie@eff.org). Directory "widener" contains
additional policies (but not critiques).
=================
acs.ohio-state.edu.critique
-----------------
Critique of "Policy on Abuse of Computers and Networks for The Office
of Academic Computing at The Ohio State University"
=================
acs.ohio-state.edu
-----------------
Policy on Abuse of Computers and Networks for The Office of Academic
Computing at The Ohio State University (Critiqued)
=================
bostonu.edu.critique
-----------------
Critique of the ethics policy for Boston University Information Technology
=================
bostonu.edu
-----------------
Ethics policy for Boston University Information Technology
(Critiqued)
=================
cc.columbia.edu
-----------------
The old policy for Columbia University's Center for Computing
Activities. They are working on a new policy.
=================
cis.ohio-state.edu.critique
-----------------
Critique for the appropriate use, mail (and netnews), disk, and
printer policy for the computers labs of OSU's Computer and
Information Science Department
=================
cis.ohio-state.edu
-----------------
The appropriate use, mail (and netnews), disk, and printer
policy for the computers labs of OSU's Computer and Information
Science Department (Critiqued)
=================
cleveland.freenet.edu.critique
-----------------
Critique of the Cleveland Freenet's "adult netnews" policy.
=================
cleveland.freenet.edu
-----------------
From: morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan)
[...]
'In light of the long discussion about "adult" netnews material, I
thought it informative to let you know how the Cleveland Freenet (at
Case Western Reserve University) is handling the situation. The
following is the new policy for access to "adult" discussion groups.'
[...]
(Critiqued)
=================
cmich.edu.critique
-----------------
Critique of "Everything You Ever Wanted To Know About Computing
Services At Central Michigan University (And Were Afraid To Ask)"
=================
cmich.edu
-----------------
Excerpts from "Everything You Ever Wanted To Know About Computing
Services At Central Michigan University (And Were Afraid To Ask)",
Computer Services Document No. CSVD0092. It is given to new users.
(Critiqued)
=================
dal.ca
-----------------
Guide to responsible computing at Dalhousie University (in Halifax,
NS, Canada)
=================
ncsa.uiuc.edu.critique
-----------------
Critique of the email policy for the National Center for Supercomputer
Applications, a department of the University of Illinois at
Urbana-Champaign
=================
ncsa.uiuc.edu
-----------------
Email policy for the National Center for Supercomputer Applications,
a department of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
(Critiqued)
=================
pitt.edu
-----------------
The University of Pittsburgh Guidelines for Ethical Use from "User's
Guide to Academic Computing" and Computer Access and Use policy
=================
seas.ucla.edu.critique
-----------------
Critique of computer policy for UCLA's SEASnet
=================
seas.ucla.edu
-----------------
Computer policy for UCLA's SEASnet (Critiqued)
=================
staff.cc.purdue.edu
-----------------
Staff policy for Purdue University's Computing Center
=================
watmath.waterloo.edu
-----------------
Policy of the University of Waterloo's Mathematics Faculty Computing Facility
=================
=================
Last update
Sat Oct 26 13:51:48 EDT 1991
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu, or (anonymous) ap.4352@hri.com
I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
-------------------
From: romero@csseq.cs.tamu.edu (Ron Romero)
Subject: Re: What if she is a fantasizing liar? was: Sullivan wants to fire prof
Message-ID: <5239@tamsun.TAMU.EDU>
Date: 26 Oct 91 18:21:13 GMT
References: <1991Oct22.073615.1607@nntp.hut.fi>
Sender: usenet@tamsun.TAMU.EDU
jmanos@cca.PUE.UDLAP.MX (Jose Manuel Roberto Manos) writes:
>...If someone accuses a man of sexual
>harrassment and can not prove that he is guilty, that person should do
>hard time in prison for slander.
Just becuz she can not prove the man's guilt does not make her guilty
of an offense. Due to the principle of presumed innocent until proven
guilty, we are left with a situation where *both* parties are presumed
innocent, because nothing was proven. Therefore, Justice Thomas is
innocent of harassment, but Ms. Hill is also innocent of submitting a
false claim. Locking up people for making accusations they can not
prove is as bad as locking up people for being accused of crimes that
are not proven.
If someone robs me at gunpoint and I press charges against him/her and
can not *prove* that s/he did the crime, should I go to jail? That is
basically what you're suggesting for sexual harrassment cases.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ron Romero
romero@csseq.cs.tamu.edu
--
--
Ron Romero
romero@photon
-------------------
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Draft Statement on Computers and Academic Freedom (CAF)
Message-ID: <1991Oct26.210722.29271@eff.org>
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 1991 21:07:22 GMT
This is an attempt to codify the application of academic freedom to
academic computers. It reflects our seven months of on-line discussion
about computers and academic freedom. It is made up of two kinds of
statements. The first, labeled as principles, are premises. The
second, labeled as interpretations, are conclusions drawn from the
principles.
The two kinds of statements can be thought of as axioms and theorems.
An axiom (principle) is most likely to be criticized for being
unreasonable. A theorem (interpretation) is mostly likely to be
criticized for not following from the principles.
Comments and suggestions are very welcome (especially when posted to
CAF-talk). On the documents referenced are available on-line. Access
information is at the end of this note.
- Carl
-------------------------------------------
I. General
Principle: The principles of academic freedom apply to academic
computer systems. Computer polices should be consistent with general
university codes and widely accepted statements on academic freedom
such as the Joint Statement on Rights and Freedoms of Students.
II. Policy Formulation
Interpretation: "The institution has an obligation to clarify those
standards of behavior which it considers essential to its educational
mission and its community life. These general behavioral expectations
and the resultant specific regulations should represent a reasonable
regulation of [user] conduct, but the [user] should be as free as
possible from imposed limitations that have no direct relevance to his
education. Offenses should be as clearly defined as possible and
interpreted in a manner consistent with the aforementioned principles
of relevance and reasonableness. Disciplinary proceedings should be
instituted only for violations of standards of conduct formulated with
significant [user] participation and published in advance through such
means as a [user] handbook or a generally available body of
institutional regulations." [Joint Statement]
II. Student and Faculty Discipline
Principle: Suspension or expulsion from a computer is a serious
penalty. Users facing these penalties should be given due process
protection similar to that given to those facing other serious
penalties such as a formal disciplinary warning, a failing grade for
cheating, or suspension from class.
Interpretation: "Pending action on the charges, the status of a [user]
should not be altered, or his [or her] right to be present on the
campus and to attend classes [and use computers] suspended, except for
reasons relating to his physical or emotional safety and well being,
or for reasons relating to the safety and well-being of students,
faculty, or university property." [Joint Statement]
III. Privacy
Principle: Personal files on university's computers (for example,
files in a user's home directory) should have the same privacy
protection as personal files in university-assigned space in an
office, lab, or dormitory (for example, files in a graduate student's
desk). Private communications via computer should have the same
protections as private communications via telephone.
IV. Computer Expression
Interpretation: "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." [Joint Statement]
Principle: The principles of intellectual freedom developed by
libraries should be applied to the administration of information
material on computers. These principles are explained in such American
Library Association documents as the Library Bill of Rights, the
Freedom to Read Statement, and the Intellectual Freedom Statement.
Interpretation: Computer sites that offer newsgroups should select
newsgroups the way that traditional libraries select magazines and
books.
Interpretation: "Every [academic computer] system should have a
comprehensive policy on the selection of [information] materials."
[ALA Workbook for Selection Policy Writing]
Interpretation: "Materials should not be proscribed or removed because
of partisan or doctrinal disapproval" [Article 2, Library Bill of
Rights].
Principle: The principles of academic freedom applicable to student
and faculty publication in traditional media, apply to student and
faculty publication in computer media.
Interpretation: An article or note posted by a student to a newsgroup
is a student publication.
Interpretation: "Student publications [and the publications of other
users] 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 [...]
concerns to the attention of the faculty and the institutional
authorities and of formulating [...] opinion on various issues on the
campus and in the world at large." [Joint Statement]
Interpretation: "The institutional control of campus facilities should
not be used as a device of censorship." "[User publications] should be
free of censorship and advance approval of copy ..." [Joint Statement]
Interpretation: "All university published and financed [user]
publications should explicitly state [...] that the opinions there
expressed are not necessarily those of the college, university, or
student body. [Joint Statement]
-----------------------
References
Documents may be accessed via ftp (see the first line after the
document title). They may also be accessed via email. Send email to
archive-server@eff.org. In the body of your note include the second
line after the document title.
Joint Statement on Rights and Freedom of Students
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/student.rights
send acad-freedom student.rights
Library Bill of Rights
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/library/bill-of-rights.ala
send library-policies bill-of-rights.ala
Freedom to Read Statement
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/library/freedom-to-read.ala
send library-policies freedom-to-read.ala
Intellectual Freedom Statement
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/library/int-freedom.ala
send library-policies int-freedom.ala
CAF Archive's README file
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/README
send acad-freedom README
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu, or (anonymous) ap.4352@hri.com
I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
-------------------
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: your mail
Message-ID: <1991Oct26.211126.29436@eff.org>
References: <9110252116.AA08677@mace.cc.purdue.edu> <9110252314.AA21280@hobbes.kzoo.edu>
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 1991 21:11:26 GMT
k080093@hobbes.kzoo.edu (Josh N. Vander Berg) writes:
>> signoff comp-academic-freedom-talk
>Diddo, This is just getting to be too much for my mailbox.
For information on how to getting a less frequent and smaller versions
of the list, send email to archive-server@eff.org. Include the line:
send acad-freedom caf
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu, or (anonymous) ap.4352@hri.com
I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
-------------------
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: YAHWEH is good!
Message-ID: <1991Oct26.211812.29583@eff.org>
References: <1991Oct22.231334.9723@tc.cornell.edu> <1991Oct24.080923.16277@techbook.com> <1991Oct24.151301.25921@tc.cornell.edu> <1991Oct25.200824.28492@eff.org> <3179@aldebaran.cs.nps.navy.mil>
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 1991 21:18:12 GMT
schweige@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil (Jeffrey M. Schweiger) writes:
[...]
>2) There appears to be no requirement to keep a limited public forum
> available. As such, I would interpret the above to me that a 'limited
> public forum' status for Netnews/USENET at a public institution would not
> prevent that institution from shutting Netnews/USENET down completely at
> that location for whatever reason is desired. Free speech standards only
> would apply while the forum remained open. This might even lead to a
> less desirable situation than the occasional admonishing of someone who
> 'stepped out of line'.
[...]
[From Public School Law: Teachers' and Students' Rights by Martha M.
McCarthy and Nelda H. Cambron-McCabe:]
----- begin quote----
School Sponsorship of Student Publications
[...]
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, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu, or (anonymous) ap.4352@hri.com
I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
-------------------
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.acad.freedom.talk, et al.] Re: YAHWEH is good! (instead of quoting reams, lets look at cases)
Message-ID: <9110262137.AA21310@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 26 Oct 91 11:37:08 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
From: gorin@media.mit.edu (Amy Gorin)
Date: 26 Oct 91 01:43:23 GMT
In article <4926@sun13.scri.fsu.edu> stricher@masig3.ocean.fsu.edu (Char Aznabul) writes:
>Stacy Johnson writes
>+ That's fine, but the KKK and the Nazi Party do not seize African
>+ American and Jewish newsletters, print their stories in them anonymously,
>+ and then distribute them to the AA and Jewish readers. And I would
>+ think they would be sued if they did.
>
>Mixing apples and oranges is fine if you're mixing fruit juices.
>However, this makes no sense to me at all. Perhaps you can explain
>to me how soc.women is even remotely similar to a newsletter. I
>can see making that analogy with soc.feminisim or any other
>moderated newsgroup, but an *unmoderated* newsgroup???
According to my legal advisors, there are two ways in which the courts have
handled questions like this---1 - by applying or extending laws regarding
private mail between individuals (in which case the sysadmin is considered
the postmaster), and 2 - by applying the laws regarding publications (in
which case the sysadmin is considered the publisher). These cases have
been largely in regards private bbs's. However, sysops HAVE been sued
successfully, and they do have the right to control the content of postings.
Universities are a different type of legal entity, but e-mail laws have been
applied, and there is no reason to think publication laws wouldn't be.
People have decried the pulling of an account without due process as
censorship. When I offered to provide due process they said it would
never fly. I'm not sure why they didn't just say that in first place.
In spite of the reams of legal paperwork posted to the net in the last
few days, I don't think we are going to be able to determine the
legality of the actions without a test case. As I have said before,
I'm willing to file one. Leave it to the courts to decide.
Personally, to the people who use the kill-file arguement: Readers of
soc.women had already used News technology to choose the topics they wished
to see---by subscribing to soc.women and not alt.evil. There was no
indication in the header of the article that its topic would be offensive,
and, (unless SHe has a better ai parser than state-of-the-art), the only
way a reader of soc.women would have known not to read that article was
to read it. The author used the News system to deliberately target readers
who were most likely to find the article offensive, just as much as someone
who parses a kill-file and then sends its owner articles on the subjects
listed there.
Please don't respond by posting excerpts from policy statements. If you
wish to provide full xerox copies to my lawyer, write me for an address.
It would be lovely if the democratically determined newsgroup charters
(listed in news.announce-newusers, last time I checked), finally had
some teeth.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"There's always 'hang around the fort' Indians" - Native American protester at
Atlanta Braves game, asked about Indians who manufacture souveneir tomahawks.
-------------------
Xref: eff alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1577 alt.society.civil-liberties:760 talk.politics.misc:22201 alt.censorship:2287
From: ts2a+@andrew.cmu.edu (Thomas Omar Smith)
Subject: Re: Dave (The Stud) Duke likes Republicans!
Message-ID:
Date: 26 Oct 91 21:23:54 GMT
References: <1991Oct22.073615.1607@nntp.hut.fi>
<1991Oct25.055718.8514@chinet.chi.il.us>
<1991Oct25.153843.1672@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> <+qad!h_@lynx.unm.edu>
In-Reply-To:
Man, just when it was really feeling good to be a Republican. The Bush
agenda was moving forward, four more years in the bag, Communism
crushed, Iraq munched, and a mid-east peace conference thanks to Baker,
and then DAVE DUKE comes along and ruins my whole day.
The sad part is, I can believe that Duke will win. After all, his
record may be racist, but it isn't actively criminal, as opposed to his
opponent. And it looks like Roemer is hopeless despite the Bush
endorsement. I just wish he didn't have to be a Republican.
The only bright spot is that his hopes of achieving anything outside of
Louisianna are nil.
Tom the non hacker
-------------------
Xref: eff alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1578 talk.politics.misc:22202
From: russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto)
Subject: Re: Dave (The Stud) Duke likes Republicans!
Message-ID: <1991Oct26.214428.17534@eng.umd.edu>
Date: 26 Oct 91 21:44:28 GMT
References: <+qad!h_@lynx.unm.edu> <4927@sun13.scri.fsu.edu>
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Distribution: na
[alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk removed from followups, as this topic has nothing
to do with it]
In article <4927@sun13.scri.fsu.edu> stricher@masig3.ocean.fsu.edu (Char Aznabul) writes:
>Neal C. Wickham writes
>+ That guy is clearly a sociopath. He's got the "look" of one. He sat there
>+ with that half dead smiling face all night mouthing the "Duke" rhetoric
>+ until Michael Kinsley pressed him about his cosmetic surgery when Duke
>+ flashed his hate and anger calling Kinsley a "little worm" and said that
>+ Kinsley is the one who could use some plastic surgery.
>
>Kinsley *is* a little worm.
AND, could use some plastic surgery :-)
>He likes the Republican Party because it is currently the most likely
>avenue for sucess. Even Hitler and Stalin liked each other...for a little
>bit, anyway...
Hitler and Stalin liked each other because there was so little they disagreed
with-- their worldviews differed in only one respect: Who would be boss.
--
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: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.org.eff.talk] Re: Net.freedom.of.expression [Yahweh is Good]
Message-ID: <9110262223.AA21417@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 26 Oct 91 12:23:18 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
From: IZZYCY1@MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU (The Jester)
Date: 26 Oct 91 05:01:00 GMT
There is never a time when censoring a post is appropriate on a public
group. If you dont' want to read the post, skip it, delete it, whatever.
But it is better that we withstand such horrific material than we start
censorship.
I wouldn't even burn mein kampf. If that helps you understand my
attitude..
The Jester
There was a man who made us dream. Who gave us hope. Who lifted us up.
Never before has death hit me so hard. Never before has it been so
real as when someone I didn't know and had never met died. There is
a void in my life and an unpayable debt of gratitude. Thank you
Gene Rodenbury.
From kadie Mon Oct 28 09:19:42 1991
To: cafb-mail
Subject: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Status: R
Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Mon Oct 28 09:18:54 EST 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:
schweige@taurus.cs : Re: YAHWEH is good!
kadie@herodotus.cs : Re: YAHWEH is good! (instead of quoting reams, lets look
les@dec-lite.stanf : Re: Dave (The Stud) Duke likes Republicans!
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: YAHWEH is good!
rawdon@cabrales.cs : Re: YAHWEH is good!
ndchamps@ccwf.cc.u : Does racism still
galt@dsd.es.com (G : Re: Dave (The Stud) Duke likes Republicans!
MCNAB PD@DARWIN.NT : Ethics-L newsgroup
SKAPUR@ccmail.suny : Re: YAHWEH is good!
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: schweige@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil (Jeffrey M. Schweiger)
Subject: Re: YAHWEH is good!
Message-ID: <9110262259.AA29071@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil>
Sender: schweige@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil
References: <1991Oct26.211812.29583@eff.org>
Date: 26 Oct 91 22:59:30 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
In article <1991Oct26.211812.29583@eff.org> Carl Kadie writes:
>schweige@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil (Jeffrey M. Schweiger) writes:
>
>[...]
>>2) There appears to be no requirement to keep a limited public forum
>> available. As such, I would interpret the above to me that a 'limited
>> public forum' status for Netnews/USENET at a public institution would not
>> prevent that institution from shutting Netnews/USENET down completely at
>> that location for whatever reason is desired. Free speech standards only
>> would apply while the forum remained open. This might even lead to a
>> less desirable situation than the occasional admonishing of someone who
>> 'stepped out of line'.
>[...]
>
>[From Public School Law: Teachers' and Students' Rights by Martha M.
>McCarthy and Nelda H. Cambron-McCabe:]
>
>----- begin quote----
>School Sponsorship of Student Publications
>[...]
>
>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 -
It seems to me that above quote could be narrowly interpreted to apply
only where the forum was explicitly "created as a free speech forum", which i
s probably not the case at many cites where Netnews/USENET is available.
Jeff Schweiger
--
*******************************************************************************
Jeff Schweiger Standard Disclaimer CompuServe: 74236,1645
Internet (Milnet): schweige@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil
*******************************************************************************
-------------------
Xref: eff alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1581 soc.women:10114 alt.censorship:2288
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: YAHWEH is good! (instead of quoting reams, lets look at cases)
Message-ID:
Sender: news@m.cs.uiuc.edu (News Database (admin-Mike Schwager))
References: <39487@hydra.gatech.EDU> <4926@sun13.scri.fsu.edu> <1991Oct26.014323.14716@news.media.mit.edu>
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 1991 21:37:01 GMT
In article <4926@sun13.scri.fsu.edu> stricher@masig3.ocean.fsu.edu
(Char Aznabul) writes:
>Mixing apples and oranges is fine if you're mixing fruit juices.
>However, this makes no sense to me at all. Perhaps you can explain
>to me how soc.women is even remotely similar to a newsletter. I
>can see making that analogy with soc.feminisim or any other
>moderated newsgroup, but an *unmoderated* newsgroup???
In <1991Oct26.014323.14716@news.media.mit.edu> gorin@media.mit.edu
(Amy Gorin) writes:
>According to my legal advisors, there are two ways in which the courts have
>handled questions like this---1 - by applying or extending laws regarding
>private mail between individuals (in which case the sysadmin is considered
>the postmaster), and 2 - by applying the laws regarding publications (in
>which case the sysadmin is considered the publisher). These cases have
>been largely in regards private bbs's. However, sysops HAVE been sued
>successfully, and they do have the right to control the content of postings.
Can you provide references to these cases? Such references would make
your legal arguments more use useful (and more convincing).
>Universities are a different type of legal entity, but e-mail laws have been
>applied, and there is no reason to think publication laws wouldn't be.
There is every reason to believe that a publication originating from a
public university is different from one originating from a private
organziation. I suggest that you and your legal advisor review the law
with respect to the Supreme Court's Public Forum Doctrine. The
Doctrine is quite clear. It already covers everything from student
newspapers to campus mail systems. It does not need to be expanded to
cover newsgroup facilities at a public univeristy, merely applied.
For references and a summary of the law, send email to archive-server@eff.org.
Include the line:
send caf-news cafv01n25
>People have decried the pulling of an account without due process as
>censorship. When I offered to provide due process they said it would
>never fly. I'm not sure why they didn't just say that in first place.
>In spite of the reams of legal paperwork posted to the net in the last
>few days, I don't think we are going to be able to determine the
>legality of the actions without a test case. As I have said before,
>I'm willing to file one. Leave it to the courts to decide.
Exactly what law do you and your legal advisor think was broken? Who
do you think broke it? (There is no general law in this country
against offensive speech.)
>Personally, to the people who use the kill-file arguement: Readers of
>soc.women had already used News technology to choose the topics they wished
>to see---by subscribing to soc.women and not alt.evil. There was no
>indication in the header of the article that its topic would be offensive,
>and, (unless SHe has a better ai parser than state-of-the-art), the only
>way a reader of soc.women would have known not to read that article was
>to read it. The author used the News system to deliberately target readers
>who were most likely to find the article offensive, just as much as someone
>who parses a kill-file and then sends its owner articles on the subjects
>listed there.
There is no general law in this country against offensiveness. There
is no legal requirment that the author of material that you find
offensive label his or her work.
[...]
>It would be lovely if the democratically determined newsgroup charters
>(listed in news.announce-newusers, last time I checked), finally had
>some teeth.
[...]
In this Constitutional democracy, the majority cannot exclude the
minority from speaking in a public (or limited public) forum.
If you want discipline in your on-line discussion groups, create your
own moderated newsgroup and/or private mailing list.
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
-------------------
Xref: eff alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1582 alt.society.civil-liberties:763 talk.politics.misc:22204
From: les@dec-lite.stanford.edu (Les Earnest)
Subject: Re: Dave (The Stud) Duke likes Republicans!
Message-ID: <1991Oct26.230004.4086@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>
Sender: news@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU
References: <+qad!h_@lynx.unm.edu>
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 1991 23:00:04 GMT
Commenting on the Duke campaign, Thomas Omar Smith writes:
>The only bright spot is that his hopes of achieving anything outside of
>Louisianna are nil.
That is what was said about Nixon and Reagan with respect to
California during their gubernatorial campaigns here.
--
Les Earnest Phone: 415 941-3984
Internet: Les@cs.Stanford.edu USMail: 12769 Dianne Drive
UUCP: . . . decwrl!cs.Stanford.edu!Les Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
-------------------
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: YAHWEH is good!
Message-ID: <1991Oct27.003746.2725@eff.org>
References: <1991Oct26.211812.29583@eff.org> <9110262259.AA29071@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil>
Date: Sun, 27 Oct 1991 00:37:46 GMT
schweige@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil (Jeffrey M. Schweiger) writes:
>Carl -
>It seems to me that above quote could be narrowly interpreted to apply
>only where the forum was explicitly "created as a free speech forum", which i
>s probably not the case at many cites where Netnews/USENET is available.
Whether a limited public forum is (or should be) a free-speech forum
is an important question. We are addressing the "should be" part of
this question in the "off-topic notes" thread.
A forum does not have to be explicted created as a free-speech forum
to legally be a free-speech forum. In San Deigo v. Governing Bd, a
high school newspaper was found to be a de facto free-speech forum.
[ftp as ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/san-diego or send email to
archive-server@eff.org, including the line:
send acad-freedom san-diego
]
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu, or (anonymous) ap.4352@hri.com
I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
-------------------
Xref: eff alt.sex:22694 soc.women:10115 alt.censorship:2289 alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1584
From: rawdon@cabrales.cs.wisc.edu (Michael Rawdon)
Subject: Re: YAHWEH is good!
Message-ID: <1991Oct26.233049.28064@spool.cs.wisc.edu>
Sender: news@spool.cs.wisc.edu (The News)
References: <1991Oct22.231334.9723@tc.cornell.edu> <1991Oct24.080923.16277@techbook.com> <1991Oct24.151301.25921@tc.cornell.edu>
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 1991 23:30:49 GMT
In <1991Oct24.151301.25921@tc.cornell.edu> shore@theory.TC.Cornell.EDU (Melinda Shore) writes:
>In article <1991Oct24.080923.16277@techbook.com> szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo) writes:
>|If the site choses to become a public forum, for example by carrying
>|Usenet, then the use of that forum is constitutionally protected as
>|well as protected by the guidelines of most schools regarding academic
>|free speech
>The net is not a public forum.
I think I agree with you more than I disagree with you. But this then brings
two questions to mind, neither of which I can answer to my own satisfaction:
1) What sort of forum IS a public forum?
2) What sort of forum is the net?
--
Michael Rawdon rawdon@cabrales.cs.wisc.edu
University of Wisconsin Computer Sciences Department, Madison, WI
"I am a cat, and I keep my own counsel."
- "A Dream Of A Thousand Cats"
-------------------
Xref: eff alt.sex:22698 soc.women:10118 alt.censorship:2291 alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1586
From: ndchamps@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (shawn orrange)
Subject: Does racism still exist?
Message-ID: <60286@ut-emx.uucp>
Date: 27 Oct 91 00:46:19 GMT
References: <15046@scolex.sco.COM> <1991Oct24.220928.18690@eff.org>
Sender: news@ut-emx.uucp
Followup-To: alt.sex
Do you all remember what happened around March 25, 1991 in Los Angeles.?
If you said the beating of Rodney King, you are correct. In a magazine
article I was reading, the TIME magazine, I came across this interesting
piece of information. This article was briefly about the beating or you
may say slaying of Rodney King. Because of this incident, tension has
risen in all parts of Los Angeles because most of the black community is
mad and scared. They are mad because Daryl Gates was still in charge of
the police force and they were scared because they did not want the same
thing happening to them. From a survey given by TIME and CNN, 43% of the
public said this was a racist incident and only 20% said it was not. I
know this article is old and this story is old, but if anyone wants to
respond to my question please feel free to. My question is: Were these
police officers racists and if they were please explain why you feel this
way. My belief is that they were because no matter how fast his car was
supposedly going, they said 115 mph, there is no excuse to beat a man.
-------------------
From: galt@dsd.es.com (Greg Alt - Perp)
Subject: Re: Dave (The Stud) Duke likes Republicans!
Message-ID: <1991Oct27.025628.15365@dsd.es.com>
Followup-To: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Sender: usenet@dsd.es.com
Nntp-Posting-Host: 130.187.85.107
References: <1991Oct22.073615.1607@nntp.hut.fi>
Date: Sun, 27 Oct 91 02:56:28 GMT
In article , ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy) writes:
> (Note: polygamy has been against the law in Utah for over
> 100 years. Not only is it a felony, but members of the LDS
> who practice it are excommunicated.)
Two clarifications... First, the law has not been enforced in Utah for a
very long time, and I have heard there are about 30,000 practicing polygamists
in Utah. In fact, the legislature considered (and decided against) removing
the ban on polygamy since it is never enforced.
Second, the LDS church does not like polygamy ON EARTH; it is perfectly ok
in heaven. In fact, if a man has a temple marriage, and his wife dies,
he can re-marry and have both wives in heaven. Supposedly a woman is not
allowed to do this, though she can have a non-temple marriage which is not
considered eternal.
--
/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)
"I speak only for myself" -me ) "But if someone came for you one night
_ _ _ _ ___ ) and dragged you away, do you really
( ` D L ( ` /_\ | | ) think your neighbors would even care?"
\7 |\ L \7 | | L_ | ) --Jello Biafra,
(galt@dsd.es.com) ) _Last Scream of the Missing Neighbors_
-------------------
From: MCNAB_PD@DARWIN.NTU.EDU.AU (Mark Neely)
Subject: Ethics-L newsgroup
Message-ID: <911027132357.20e0165b@DARWIN.NTU.EDU.AU>
Sender: MCNAB_PD@DARWIN.NTU.EDU.AU
Date: 27 Oct 91 13:23:57 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
Could someone please tell me about the newsgroup eff.mail.ethics-l averted
to in a recent posting?
Mark N.
-------------------
From: SKAPUR@ccmail.sunysb.edu (Sanjay Kapur)
Subject: Re: YAHWEH is good!
Message-ID: <83CE45333AA00556@ccmail.sunysb.edu>
Sender: SKAPUR@ccmail.sunysb.edu
Date: 27 Oct 91 05:20:00 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
>[From Public School Law: Teachers' and Students' Rights by Martha M.
>McCarthy and Nelda H. Cambron-McCabe:]
>
>----- begin quote----
>School Sponsorship of Student Publications
>[...]
>
>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, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu, or (anonymous) ap.4352@hri.com
>I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
The above would apply to facilities like the OCF at Berkeley but in my opinion
it is totally inapplicable to USENET/NETNEWS/ALTNEWS etc. when the computer is
run by University Employees rather than by Students themselves.
The clause "Financial or other school board support", in my opinion is
applicable only to student run organizations receiving funding and equipment
but is not applicable to University run computers.
We have been trying to extrapolate free speech/free press laws. I have a
feeling that when this issue goes to trial, if ever, a whole new body of law
will emerge and precedents from the "paper" press will have no standing.
Sanjay Kapur |Internet: Sanjay.Kapur@sunysb.edu
Systems Staff, Computing Services, |Bitnet: SKAPUR@USB
State University of New York, |SPAN/HEPnet: 44132::SKAPUR
Stony Brook, NY 11794-2400 |Phone:(516)632-8029, FAX:(516)632-8046
From kadie Mon Oct 28 09:21:16 1991
To: cafb-mail
Subject: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Status: R
Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Mon Oct 28 09:19:45 EST 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:
SKAPUR@ccmail.suny : Re: YAHWEH is good! (instead of quoting reams, lets look
tjw@unix.cis.pitt. : Advice from My Legal Advisors: Dewey, Cheatum & Howe
fischer@iesd.auc.d : Re: USENET censorship strikes University of Washington!
stricher@masig3.oc : Re: Does racism still
jmason2@gpu.utcs.u : Re: USENET censorship strikes University of Washington!
nwickham@triton.un : Re: Dave (The Stud) Duke likes Republicans!
dks@athena.mit.edu : Credit where credit is due (but not elsewhere)
sobleski@sol4.cs.p : Re: Does racism still
FFDMG@ALASKA.bitne : Re: YAHWEH is good! (instead of quoting reams, lets look
art@world.std.com : Re: Dave (The Stud) Duke likes Republicans!
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: SKAPUR@ccmail.sunysb.edu (Sanjay Kapur)
Subject: Re: YAHWEH is good! (instead of quoting reams, lets look at cases)
Message-ID: <86A8E6AC6AA00556@ccmail.sunysb.edu>
Sender: SKAPUR@ccmail.sunysb.edu
Date: 27 Oct 91 05:40:00 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
>There is every reason to believe that a publication originating from a
>public university is different from one originating from a private
>organziation. I suggest that you and your legal advisor review the law
>with respect to the Supreme Court's Public Forum Doctrine. The
>Doctrine is quite clear. It already covers everything from student
>newspapers to campus mail systems. It does not need to be expanded to
>cover newsgroup facilities at a public univeristy, merely applied.
>
Carl,
Since you want cases cited when an argument is made and you disagree with it,
let me ask you to cite cases now:
Can you cite a case, any case, involving a public university owned and
operated electronic system (mail, bbs, news, etc.) which came to trial
and where the Public Forum Doctrine was applied succesfully?
I seriously doubt the Doctrine's applicability to University owned
and operated computing systems.
>--
>Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Sanjay Kapur |Internet: Sanjay.Kapur@sunysb.edu
Systems Staff, Computing Services, |Bitnet: SKAPUR@USB
State University of New York, |SPAN/HEPnet: 44132::SKAPUR
Stony Brook, NY 11794-2400 |Phone:(516)632-8029, FAX:(516)632-8046
-------------------
Xref: eff alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1591 soc.women:10121 alt.censorship:2293
From: tjw@unix.cis.pitt.edu (TJ Wood WA3VQJ)
Subject: Advice from My Legal Advisors: Dewey, Cheatum & Howe
Message-ID: <195962@unix.cis.pitt.edu>
Date: 27 Oct 91 05:32:45 GMT
Distribution: na
>In <1991Oct26.014323.14716@news.media.mit.edu> gorin@media.mit.edu
>(Amy Gorin) writes:
>>According to my legal advisors, there are two ways in which the courts have
>>handled questions like this
There was a fascinating discussion about a situation that is occurring on
"the nation's largest computer network" on NPR's Saturday evening news.
Someone on "Prodigy" posted a note denying that the Holocaust ever happened.
Well this caused quite a stir and people are demanding that Prodigy censor
the particular user in question. The piece included a spokesman for the ACLU
discussing the differences between a bbs and print medium.
Maybe they will replay this segment again.
Terry
--
INTERNET: tjw@pitt.edu BITNET: TJW@PITTVMS UUCP: uunet!unix.cis.pitt.edu!tjw
Laugh while you can, Monkey Boy!
-------------------
Xref: eff alt.censorship:2295 alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1592 alt.sex:22710
From: fischer@iesd.auc.dk (Lars P. Fischer)
Subject: Re: USENET censorship strikes University of Washington!
Message-ID:
Date: 26 Oct 91 23:04:48 GMT
References: <1991Oct16.220601.1230@zip.eecs.umich.edu>
<1991Oct17.061020.16114@wpi.WPI.EDU>
<1991Oct23.011804.34839@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu>
<1991Oct23.235848.24117@iitmax.iit.edu>
Sender: news@iesd.auc.dk
In-Reply-To: technews@iitmax.iit.edu's message of 23 Oct 91 23:58:48 GMT
>>>>> On 23 Oct 91 23:58:48 GMT, technews@iitmax.iit.edu (Kevin Kadow) said:
Kevin> The total traffic for USENET is around 100,000,000 Bytes per
Kevin> day (100Megs) however the alt.* groups are a fraction of this,
Kevin> so it wouldn`t be prohibitively expensive to set up an
Kevin> alternate machine just to carry these groups.
orange$ df /home/local/sys/news/spool/
Filesystem 1024-blocks used available capacity Mounted on
iesd.auc.dk:/priv/iesd_news
581069 393288 129674 75% /tmp_mnt/net/iesd_news
We get everything that reaches these far shores, and we have as a
minimum 14 days expire. As a rule, we *increase* expire time for a
group if someone asks and can provide a good reason for doing so. We
will *not* lower expire time, simply because we will not get on a high
horse pretend to be able to judge what is "good" and what is "bad".
When technology gives you a power you did not have before (i.e. easy
censorship) it's time to be *very* careful about your morals.
Anyway, 600k disk is at most $2000. I fail to see that this could be a
problem for a larger institution. A small private company is something
else -- but then it's no problem, because you can just ask around the
office to find the groups no-one cares about.
When a university computing center or whatever starts restricting new
because of "disk space problems" it's time to suspicious.
/Lars
--
Lars Fischer, fischer@iesd.auc.dk | It takes an uncommon mind to think of
CS Dept., Univ. of Aalborg, DENMARK. | these things. -- Calvin
-------------------
Xref: eff alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1593 soc.women:10122
From: stricher@masig3.ocean.fsu.edu (Char Aznabul)
Subject: Re: Does racism still exist?
Message-ID: <4937@sun13.scri.fsu.edu>
Date: 27 Oct 91 06:02:48 GMT
References: <60286@ut-emx.uucp>
Sender: news@sun13.scri.fsu.edu
Followup-To: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Distribution: na
shawn orrange writes
+ respond to my question please feel free to. My question is: Were these
+ police officers racists and if they were please explain why you feel this
+ way. My belief is that they were because no matter how fast his car was
+ supposedly going, they said 115 mph, there is no excuse to beat a man.
Depends: why *did* they beat him?
If they did it soley because of his skin color, that's racism. On the
flip side of the coin, if a bunch of black cops give me the same treatment,
that probably would never, ever be thought of as racism.
*Charcasm=on*
Of course, he *deserved* to be beaten. Everyone knows that all men are
potential rapists, child molestors, death-dealers and murderers. It just
may have been a bit preemptive.
*Charcasm=off*
Char
-------------------
From: jmason2@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca (Jamie Mason)
Subject: Re: USENET censorship strikes University of Washington!
Message-ID: <1991Oct27.065538.25959@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca>
References: <1991Oct16.220601.1230@zip.eecs.umich.edu> <1991Oct17.061020.16114@wpi.WPI.EDU> <1991Oct23.011804.34839@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> <1991Oct23.235848.24117@iitmax.iit.edu>
Date: Sun, 27 Oct 1991 06:55:38 GMT
In article fischer@iesd.auc.dk (Lars P. Fischer) writes:
>When technology gives you a power you did not have before (i.e. easy
>censorship) it's time to be *very* careful about your morals.
Well said. I have to agree. But I DON'T think lowering expire
times on high-volume, low-content groups (like, say alt.sex.picuures
and news.groups) and raising them on groups with low-volume,
high-readership groups (like rec.humor.funny) is unfair. It is an
attempt to balance disk usage of a group with perceived interest in it.
On this system, I seem to be able to find EVERY newsgroup that
isn't local to some site.
gpu.utcs% wc /usr/lib/news/active
2378 9512 86504 /usr/lib/news/active
gpu.utcs% df /news
Filesystem kbytes used avail capacity Mounted on
/dev/id001d 314415 193444 89529 68% /news
Looking in our expire list, it looks like the average is about
5-6 days, with some groups longer, and some shorter. Most of the expire
times depend on volume and s/n ratio (in they eye of whoever maintains
news here). I have NO COMPLAINT about the setup here: We manage to get
EVERY GROUP I could EVER want to read, and then some. And I have never
missed an article because it expired before I got to it -- except when
first subscribing to a group, of course.
I think that expire should normally expire groups by amount of disk space
used, rather number of days. Eg. "I want to keep 100k of rec.humor.funny,
400k of comp.unix.wizards and 4700k of alt.sex.picures" rather than
"14 days of r.h.f, 7 days of c.u.wiz and 2 days of a.s.p" (these are the
expires and approximate sizes here...). Suddenly, a 2 day expire looks
like a COMPLIMENT to a.sex.pic rather than censorship. It gets 4700k,
for gods sake! Rec.humor.funny could have a TWO YEAR expire time
with that much disk space!
>When a university computing center or whatever starts restricting new
>because of "disk space problems" it's time to suspicious.
I'm afraid disks AREN'T FREE. Alt.sex.picutes takes up 4700k
for 2 days. Rec.humor.funny takes up 100k for 2 weeks. I think it would
be unreasonable to give them equivalent expire times. I also think it
would be unfair if alt.sex.picutures were REMOVED arbitrarily, despite
the fact that I don't read it. I'm not suspicious of our news
administraiton. They are doing a fine job of making the MOST news
possible available as LONG as possible for the people who want to read
it.
Disk space problems are REAL. As processing power grows, people
have to wait shorter and shorter times for their computing to finish.
Some of the Unix boxes I use are lovely fast machines. But one thing has
remained the same in computing since I used to run my own BBS on a
Commodore 64, and that is that there is NEVER enough disk space. Of all
the 'resources' that have to be allocated in a multi-user system
(console/connect-time, cpu time, i/o bandwidth, memory use, disk space,
printer use, etc...), THE MOST SCARCE on almost EVERY system is disk
space. Administrators who speak of lack of disk space are talking about
a very real problem, not an excuse to justify expring news. Would you be
prepared to buy a new garage because you filled your garage up with old
newspapers, you need space for more newspapers, and your kid won't let
you throw them out?
Our /homes disk is CONSTANTLY filling up. About once a month,
usage hits 100%, and we are asked to compress/remove/archive anything
we don't need online. Effectively, we are asking users to do to their
personal disk space what expire does to news.
Unless you have REALLY BIG DISKS FROM HELL, you can't win. You
are going to run out of disk space. And personally, I'd rather be running
out of space in the /news tree than the /homes tree, wouldn't you?
I would certainly not mind having newsgroups (especially high-volume
ones) occupy less space so that some of that space in /news could
be re-alloctated to /homes. Would that be restricting news due to 'disk
space'? Yes. Would it be cause for 'suspicion'? No, not unless
some groups were unfairly removed. Would it be responsible use of THE
MOST LIMITING RESOURCE on the computer? Definitely.
-------------------
Xref: eff alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1595 alt.society.civil-liberties:772 talk.politics.misc:22214 alt.censorship:2300
From: nwickham@triton.unm.edu (Neal C. Wickham)
Subject: Re: Dave (The Stud) Duke likes Republicans!
Message-ID: <5=cd1-k@lynx.unm.edu>
Date: 27 Oct 91 09:02:28 GMT
Article-I.D.: lynx.5=cd1-k
References: <+qad!h_@lynx.unm.edu>
In article ts2a+@andrew.cmu.edu (Thomas Omar Smith) writes:
>Man, just when it was really feeling good to be a Republican. The Bush
>agenda was moving forward, four more years in the bag, Communism
>crushed, Iraq munched, and a mid-east peace conference thanks to Baker,
>and then DAVE DUKE comes along and ruins my whole day.
...out of curiousity, how do you give conservatives credit for the collaps
of communism? The story is that many of the events in easter europe took
the White House by surprise as we were digging is for many more years of
cold war and were trying to rationalize military action against communist
exapansion especially in Central America.
The falling of the Berline Wall, I heard, came as a complete surprize to
us americans becasue we were intentially left out of any of the
negotiations because of Washingtons bias and unrealistic views. I am
sure the conservatives will take credit for it all, I just want to hear
what the reasons will be.
>The sad part is, I can believe that Duke will win. After all, his
>record may be racist, but it isn't actively criminal, as opposed to his
>opponent. And it looks like Roemer is hopeless despite the Bush
>endorsement. I just wish he didn't have to be a Republican.
>
>The only bright spot is that his hopes of achieving anything outside of
>Louisianna are nil.
>
> Tom the non hacker
...I don't know, a lot of people are quite deluded in this country and
we've got a bumping economic road ahead. I am sensing panic.
NCW
-------------------
Xref: eff alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1596 alt.society.civil-liberties:774 talk.politics.misc:22219 alt.censorship:2302
From: dks@athena.mit.edu (Dhanesh K Samarasan)
Subject: Credit where credit is due (but not elsewhere)
Message-ID: <1991Oct27.123348.4559@athena.mit.edu>
Sender: news@athena.mit.edu (News system)
Nntp-Posting-Host: e40-008-5.mit.edu
References: <5=cd1-k@lynx.unm.edu>
Date: Sun, 27 Oct 1991 12:33:48 GMT
In article <5=cd1-k@lynx.unm.edu> nwickham@triton.unm.edu (Neal C. Wickham) writes:
[...]
>...out of curiousity, how do you give conservatives credit for the collaps
>of communism? The story is that many of the events in easter europe took
>the White House by surprise as we were digging is for many more years of
>cold war and were trying to rationalize military action against communist
>exapansion especially in Central America.
>
>The falling of the Berline Wall, I heard, came as a complete surprize to
>us americans becasue we were intentially left out of any of the
>negotiations because of Washingtons bias and unrealistic views. I am
>sure the conservatives will take credit for it all, I just want to hear
>what the reasons will be.
Reasons? Who needs reasons when it's so much easier to wave the
flag, bash the Congress, and praise the Lord?
Dhanesh, shuddering at the thought of Bush/Quayle '92.
-------------------
From: sobleski@sol4.cs.psu.edu (Mark Sobolewski)
Subject: Re: Does racism still exist?
Message-ID:
Date: 27 Oct 91 12:50:26 GMT
References: <60286@ut-emx.uucp> <4937@sun13.scri.fsu.edu>
Sender: news@cs.psu.edu (Usenet)
Distribution: na
Nntp-Posting-Host: sol4.cs.psu.edu
stricher@masig3.ocean.fsu.edu (Char Aznabul) writes:
>*Charcasm=on*
>
>Of course, he *deserved* to be beaten. Everyone knows that all men are
>potential rapists, child molestors, death-dealers and murderers. It just
>may have been a bit preemptive.
>
>*Charcasm=off*
Does anyone remember the treatment Zsa-Zsa received for slapping
a police officer? An assaulting a police officer charge along with
a few months probation and community service.
I'm not the only man, I think, who _cringes_ at the thought of the
treatment I'd receive if I'd done the same thing...
--
Mark Sobolewski sobleski@cs.psu.edu *!psuvax1!sobleski
-------------------
From: FFDMG@ALASKA.bitnet (Dean Gottehrer)
Subject: Re: YAHWEH is good! (instead of quoting reams, lets look at cases)
Message-ID: <199110271314.AA18809@eff.org>
Sender: FFDMG%ALASKA.BITNET@CORNELLC.cit.cornell.edu
Date: 26 Oct 91 15:23:45 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
Sanjay seems to want to take a vote on Carl's interpretations of case law.
Without giving us any clear reasoning from the cases Carl has been presenting,
Sanjay votes against them. Well, I for one, vote in favor of them and the
work Carl has been doing. He has done an excellent job of searching out case
law and reasoning from published court opinions showing how they would apply
to the facts of situations that have not yet been decided in court. In our
legal system the only thing one can do when a specific situation has not yet
arisen in the courts is to look to previous court opinion and reason from it
how the courts might be likely to decide when the case comes before them.
In a number of posts to this forum a while back, I attempted to show how
various models of law that have been used to regulate press, broadcast media,
common carriers, etc., had shortcomings when applied to newsgroups or forums
and e-mail. The conclusion I reached was that the public forum and common
carrier models were the best ones and that the courts were most likely to rule
in that direction when the cases came before them. Carl has looked for cases
that define public forum and with the San Diego case has shown how it applies
to the use of computers at public universities when they are used as public
forums. Carl has given us case law. The burden to support the position that
it doesn't apply is now on your shoulders Sanjay. Carl has done a fine job of
showing how it does apply. We have nothing from you yet other than your
serious doubt that the public forum model would apply. Carl has shown the
reasoning that indicates it would apply. What is your line of reasoning,
Sanjay, that it would not apply?
Once again, I would like to express a vote of confidence in Carl's work. He
has done a great deal of research and brought item after item of original
source documentation to what otherwise has tended to be off the cuff remarks.
It is easy to assert, but it requires more time and research to document from
precedent. Carl has been our prime documentor. He is correct in asking
others to cite specific cases when they make assertions not backed by specific
case law citations.
Assertions without case law cloud the debate and debase it. Interpretations
of case law advance the debate and will get us closer to a well-reasoned
position based on legal precedent. If you have the well-reasoned argument and
can show how the San Diego case does not apply to computers at public
universities that look like public forums, I'd like to hear it Sanjay.
Dean Gottehrer
Anchorage, Alaska
-------------------
Xref: eff alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1599 alt.society.civil-liberties:775 talk.politics.misc:22227 alt.censorship:2303
From: art@world.std.com (Al Thompson)
Subject: Re: Dave (The Stud) Duke likes Republicans!
In-Reply-To: nwickham@triton.unm.edu's message of 27 Oct 91 09:02:28 GMT
Message-ID:
Sender: art@world.std.com (Al Thompson)
References: <+qad!h_@lynx.unm.edu>
<5=cd1-k@lynx.unm.edu>
Date: Sun, 27 Oct 1991 15:18:48 GMT
In article <5=cd1-k@lynx.unm.edu> nwickham@triton.unm.edu (Neal C. Wickham) writes:
In article ts2a+@andrew.cmu.edu (Thomas Omar Smith) writes:
>Man, just when it was really feeling good to be a Republican. The Bush
>agenda was moving forward, four more years in the bag, Communism
>crushed, Iraq munched, and a mid-east peace conference thanks to Baker,
>and then DAVE DUKE comes along and ruins my whole day.
...out of curiousity, how do you give conservatives credit for the collaps
of communism? The story is that many of the events in easter europe took
the White House by surprise as we were digging is for many more years of
cold war and were trying to rationalize military action against communist
exapansion especially in Central America.
You are confusing causing the fall with an explicit plan for it's fall.
The fall was caused by the intense economic pressure of the arms race.
The USSR spends between 17% and 35% of its GNP on defense (depending on
whose figures you read) while we spend just a bit over 5% (and, it
appears, we get more bang for the buck). The citizens of the East Bloc
lived lives of near poverty. Basic things like soap, toilet paper, tooth
paste and medicines simply cannot be had. You should take a trip to
Russia someday, it's an eye popper.
The falling of the Berline Wall, I heard, came as a complete surprize to
us americans becasue we were intentially left out of any of the
negotiations because of Washingtons bias and unrealistic views. I am
sure the conservatives will take credit for it all, I just want to hear
what the reasons will be.
What negotiations? The fall of the wall preceded any negotiations. In
fact, the fall was a surprise to the East German leadership too.
The main reason for the fall was economic disparity. That coupled with
TV, which showed the easterners a vastly different life both in terms of
economics and personal freedom.
From kadie Mon Oct 28 09:22:22 1991
To: cafb-mail
Subject: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Status: R
Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Mon Oct 28 09:21:24 EST 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:
warnold@eff.org (W : Re: Ethics-L newsgroup
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (alt.censorship, et al.) Re: USENET censorship strikes Uni
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (alt.censorship, et al.) Re: USENET censorship strikes Uni
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (alt.censorship) Re: USENET censorship strikes University
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (misc.legal) Re: How does the law handle crank
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : () Prodigy (RISKS-12.55)
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : () An inside look at Prodigy's standard' (Spector, RISKS-1
jmc@SAIL.Stanford. : Re: Credit where credit is due (but not elsewhere)
wcswt2@alfred.carl : Communications Technology & the University Campus
-- What effect has email had on the university community?
stricher@masig3.oc : Re: Dave (The Stud) Duke likes Republicans!
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: warnold@eff.org (William W. Arnold)
Subject: Re: Ethics-L newsgroup
Message-ID: <199110271628.AA21065@eff.org>
Sender: warnold
References: <911027132357.20e0165b@DARWIN.NTU.EDU.AU>
Date: 27 Oct 91 16:28:32 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
Mark Neely writes:
>
>Could someone please tell me about the newsgroup eff.mail.ethics-l averted
>to in a recent posting?
>
>Mark N.
>
It's a local redistribution of the listserv mailing list "ethics-l" available
from listserv@polygraf.bitnet
--
| William W. Arnold | warnold@eff.org | has8wwa@cabell.vcu.edu |
| Co-moderator: Computers and Academic Freedom Mailing list |
| I speak for myself, not {him, her, it, eff}. |
-------------------
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.censorship, et al.] Re: USENET censorship strikes University of Washington!
Message-ID: <9110271715.AA23981@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 27 Oct 91 05:15:01 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
From: cos@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu (Ofer Inbar)
Date: 27 Oct 91 05:51:55 GMT
In article <1991Oct20.070839.26299@techbook.com> szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo) writes:
>John McCarthy earlier stated that the Stanford Computer Science Dept. was
>the main group at Stanford that refused to censor rec.humor.funny. Is
>the oppostion of computer science departments to censorship a general
>phenomenon?
It holds here at Brandeis University. I don't think it's
specifically computer science departments that are against censorship
of Usenet; just the way most universities structure the administration
of computers makes it that way.
I think Brandeis is a typical example of something that is quite
common: The university runs a central 'computing center' or similarly
named establishment, to provide computing services to the university
as a whole. This computing center is staffed and run by
administrators, and is generally tight on control of computer access.
Censorship fits their attitude very well.
However, some academic departments have a need to run their own
computing facilities. These academic departments consist mostly of
faculty and students, so the atmosphere is quite different.
Here at Brandeis, the computer science department runs its own
computing facilities. Until last summer, we ran news; then our disk
died, and the computing center took over running the campus news
server. Due to disk space limitations, alt.* was set to a 4-day
expire.
Over the past few weeks, the computing center has moved the
following groups to 1-day expire: alt.sex.pictures, alt.sex.sounds,
and alt.binaries.images.erotica. All other binaries groups, including
those in the alt.* hierarchy, are untouched and remain at 4 days.
alt.sex.sounds isn't even a very large group...
From what I heard from friends at Purdue, over there the computer
science department runs the university's general computing facilities.
So it is computer science which is tight on control, while the
engineering department is a much more enlightened attitude about their
own computer system. So being a computer science department seems not
to be the deciding factor.
Note: I added comp.admin.policy to the newsgroups line, take note.
-- Cos (Ofer Inbar) -- cos@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu
-- WBRS (BRiS) -- WBRS@binah.cc.brandeis.edu WBRS@brandeis.bitnet
FidoNet: Ofer Inbar on 1:101/310 -- Ofer.Inbar@f310.n101.z1.fidonet.org
The Boston Computer Society IBM PC User Group TBBS, (617) 332-5584
-------------------
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.censorship, et al.] Re: USENET censorship strikes University of Washington!
Message-ID: <9110271715.AA23997@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 27 Oct 91 05:15:45 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
From: rsk@chestnut.circ.upenn.edu (Rich Kulawiec)
Date: 27 Oct 91 15:54:28 GMT
In article <1991Oct27.055155.6684@news.cs.brandeis.edu> cos@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu (Ofer Inbar) writes:
> From what I heard from friends at Purdue, over there the computer
>science department runs the university's general computing facilities.
This is completely wrong -- and I should know, since I worked for
PUCC (Purdue University Computing Center) from 1983 to 1989. PUCC,
when formed back the mid-sixties, had some ties to the CS department
(for instance, the long-time head of the center had an appointment as
a professor in the CS department) but those ties were largely incidental.
PUCC runs the general facilities for the university, and ECN (Engineering
Computer Network) runs the facilities for the school of engineering.
Both organizations are roughly the same size in terms of staff, machines,
users, and between them, they serve much of the campus. Other smaller
organizations such as ACN (Agriculture Computer Network) serve other
divisions of the university, and, finally, some departments (such as CS,
Psychology, and English) have their own departmental-level networks.
The policies of these organizations and their interactions are probably
far too complex to be covered in a short article, so I'll say that they
differ on issues such as network access and appropriate usage.
--
---Rsk
rsk@gynko.circ.upenn.edu
-------------------
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.censorship] Re: USENET censorship strikes University of Washington!
Message-ID: <9110271716.AA24006@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 27 Oct 91 05:16:13 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
From: fischer@iesd.auc.dk (Lars P. Fischer)
Date: 26 Oct 91 23:09:12 GMT
>>>>> On 24 Oct 91, goehring@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Scott Goehring) said:
Scott> If I was administrating news, odds are that I wouldn't carry
Scott> alt.sex.pictures. Not because I object to the material; I have
Scott> nothing at all against it, and in fact find some of it (admittedly not
Scott> much, but some) interesting. I wouldn't carry it because it's too
Scott> damn huge. By eliminating one newsgroup I can make room for a good
Scott> hunk more news from the other 1000+ and bump my expire up a few days.
orange$ du /home/local/sys/news/spool/alt/sex/pictures/
999 /home/local/sys/news/spool/alt/sex/pictures/d/
1 /home/local/sys/news/spool/alt/sex/pictures/male/
4329 /home/local/sys/news/spool/alt/sex/pictures/female/
23452 /home/local/sys/news/spool/alt/sex/pictures/
That's with 14 days expire time. I, for one, wouldn't care to go
through any trouble to save 25M in a complete news setup. Not even
50M. Have you checked the disk prices lately?
If I was getting news through a modem it would be different -- but
disk really is cheap these days.
/Lars
--
Lars Fischer, fischer@iesd.auc.dk | It takes an uncommon mind to think of
CS Dept., Univ. of Aalborg, DENMARK. | these things. -- Calvin
-------------------
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [misc.legal] Re: How does the law handle crank calls?
Message-ID: <9110271721.AA24027@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 27 Oct 91 05:21:54 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
From: jwoodman@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Jonathan A Woodman)
Date: 27 Oct 91 03:45:03 GMT
In article <28078@well.sf.ca.us> rchao@well.sf.ca.us (Robert Chao) writes:
>I'm looking for info on how the law handles crank calls.
Well, the laws are on the books, but the cops are pretty lame at enforcing
them very well. (At least in Ohio.)
>If someone places crank calls that do not contain profanity, threats,
>or abusive language, and do not come at an unreasonable hour, and the
>calls are not placed very often, what laws are applicable against him?
In Ohio, there is a law against using the telephone to harass and
specifically says that the harassment may be a single phone call, and that
no words need be spoken nor any sounds made.
>What kind of sentence is involved?
Again in Ohio, the crime is a misdemeanor, and if memory serves, the sentence
is up to $1,000 and/or six months in jail.
>What evidence would be required?
Enough to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the person accused made the
call(s). As for the intent to harass, the facts are given to the jury and
they decide if the calls were intended to harass.
>Suppose the calls do contain language that implies that the caller is
>watching and/or following the receiver? How would the laws change in
>that case?
There may well be separate laws about threatening someone not using the
telephone, but at least in Ohio the more menacing nature of the call does
not alter the application of the law.
(And from what I have seen with people threatening others with bodily
harm, it seems that there are rarely if ever laws against this.)
>In the first example, I am referring to calls that contain silly or
>garbled language.
Such a call would fit within the Ohio statute, but you would have to check
the law in your jurisdiction to know for sure.
Jonathan Woodman
--
Jonathan Woodman \ On being a lawyer: "It's a tough job, but
jwoodman@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu / at the end of the day, when you lay your
The Ohio State University \ head on the pillow, there's a warm feeling
College of Law / knowing you tore someone's heart out."
-------------------
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [] Prodigy (RISKS-12.55)
Message-ID: <9110271725.AA24042@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 27 Oct 91 05:25:16 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 91 13:43:59 PDT
From: quail!fred (Fred Gilham)
Someone has posted a message explaining the situation; apparently Prodigy will
not post attacks on individual subscribers. Thus a subscriber can say, ``Jews
deserved Hitler's treatment,'' and that's OK because Prodigy doesn't censor
ideas, but if someone says, ``That was an anti-semitic sentiment,'' that's not
OK because it is an attack on a subscriber.
-------------------
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [] An inside look at Prodigy's `double standard' (Spector, RISKS-12.55)
Message-ID: <9110271725.AA24051@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 27 Oct 91 05:25:21 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1991 15:08 EDT
From: Ronald Hale-Evans
My wife is a Prodigy editor (probably known to you as a "censor"), and she
gives me the following information. The incident in question happened about a
year ago. First, the bulletin in question was not posted; it was private email.
The receiver of the bulletin tried to post the email in full some fifteen times
in order to open discussion and it was rejected as inappropriate by the editors
every time. I suggest you read more recent news releases.
>Some of the messages _advocate_ "another holocaust", etc, etc...
My wife says messages advocating "another holocaust" are not posted. Perhaps
you are again confusing email and bulletin board messages.
>The ADL (Anti-Defamation League) has protested to the PRODIGY management who
>responded that they "oppose anti-semitism", but they "encourage the free
>expression of ideas".
This is in keeping with Prodigy practice; controversial ideas may be posted to
the boards, but not personal insults. My wife tells me that what happened in
this case was that some Holocaust Revisionists (people who believe the
Holocaust never happened) were posting to the bulletin boards. Many people were
angered and tried to reply, but their responses were usually rejected because
they called the Holocaust Revisionists "Nazi *ssh*l*s" and so on (I don't know
the exact language, but the Prodigy editors understood it to be personally
insulting).
>Is this the same PRODIGY that makes decisions about what
>acceptable "free expression" is when it comes to use of electronic mail, and
>what are "acceptable" topics in their Health forums? Hmmm.. sees like a pretty
>scary double standard to me....
Prodigy editors do not and cannot read private email between members. If a
member complains that another member is harrassing them through email, Prodigy
will often warn the harrasser and sometimes remove them from the service. By
the way, Prodigy no longer has a Health forum.
As for the "double standard", the editors find it both disturbing and amusing
that they are usually criticised for censorship, and now they are criticised
for lack of it. If Prodigy had caved to the demands of the ADL in the first
place, none of this would have happened, and the ACLU would not have to step
forward and speak for Prodigy, as they now are doing.
Ron Hale-Evans, Brandeis University, evans@binah.cc.brandeis.edu
-------------------
Xref: eff alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1607 alt.society.civil-liberties:776 talk.politics.misc:22231 alt.censorship:2305
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: Credit where credit is due (but not elsewhere)
In-Reply-To: dks@athena.mit.edu's message of Sun, 27 Oct 1991 12:33:48 GMT
Message-ID:
Sender: news@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU
References:
<5=cd1-k@lynx.unm.edu> <1991Oct27.123348.4559@athena.mit.edu>
Date: 27 Oct 91 09:09:18
In article <1991Oct27.123348.4559@athena.mit.edu> dks@athena.mit.edu (Dhanesh K Samarasan) writes:
In article <5=cd1-k@lynx.unm.edu> nwickham@triton.unm.edu (Neal C. Wickham) writes:
[...]
>...out of curiousity, how do you give conservatives credit for the collaps
>of communism? The story is that many of the events in easter europe took
>the White House by surprise as we were digging is for many more years of
>cold war and were trying to rationalize military action against communist
>exapansion especially in Central America.
>
>The falling of the Berline Wall, I heard, came as a complete surprize to
>us americans becasue we were intentially left out of any of the
>negotiations because of Washingtons bias and unrealistic views. I am
>sure the conservatives will take credit for it all, I just want to hear
>what the reasons will be.
Reasons? Who needs reasons when it's so much easier to wave the
flag, bash the Congress, and praise the Lord?
Dhanesh, shuddering at the thought of Bush/Quayle '92.
Rightly or wrongly, many Eastern Europeans give Reagan a lot of credit
in the collapse. When Reagan visited East Berlin right after the
first free East German elections, the mayor of East Berlin said
something like, "We owe you a debt we can never repay." Since
Reagan didn't do anything very concrete except re-arm to a small
degree, I suppose it was his speech about the evil empire and
and its impending collapse that had a psychological effect.
Previous Western statesmen had gotten around to recognizing the
legitimacy of communist rule. Of course, Reagan's brave words
would have had no effect at the time of Stalin when the failure
and evil of communism could still be excused in various ways.
--
There's not a woman in his book, the plot hinges on unkindness to
animals, and the black characters mostly drown by chapter 29.
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
-------------------
From: wcswt2@alfred.carleton.ca (Pugwash -- Michael Gifford)
Subject: Communications Technology & the University Campus
Message-ID:
Summary: What effect has email had on the university community?
Keywords: Cencorship, University, Email, Newsgroups, FTP
Sender: news@cunews.carleton.ca
Date: Sun, 27 Oct 1991 17:54:14 GMT
Hello....
I would like to know how this technology has effected
the university campuses that have email.. Censorship is
a big issue for libraries, and for info technology, but
how is information technology censorship any different
from that of any other form of censorship?
Thanks...
Mike
**
/
\_/
-------------------
From: stricher@masig3.ocean.fsu.edu (Char Aznabul)
Subject: Re: Dave (The Stud) Duke likes Republicans!
Message-ID: <4942@sun13.scri.fsu.edu>
Date: 27 Oct 91 16:28:31 GMT
References: <5=cd1-k@lynx.unm.edu>
Sender: news@sun13.scri.fsu.edu
Followup-To: alt.flame
Distribution: na
Neal C. Wickham writes
+ In article ts2a+@andrew.cmu.edu (Thomas
Omar Smith) writes:
+
+ >Man, just when it was really feeling good to be a Republican. The Bush
+ >agenda was moving forward, four more years in the bag, Communism
+ >crushed, Iraq munched, and a mid-east peace conference thanks to Baker,
+ >and then DAVE DUKE comes along and ruins my whole day.
+
+
+ ....out of curiousity, how do you give conservatives credit for the collaps
+ of communism? The story is that many of the events in easter europe took
+ the White House by surprise as we were digging is for many more years of
+ cold war and were trying to rationalize military action against communist
+ exapansion especially in Central America.
+
That's easy...the demoncats would have lent the soviets $$$$, and given
them our grains at firesale prices, and then lent them the $$$$ to buy
their food. They would have had sufficient working capital to keep
new weapons rolling out, and enough to keep the population reasonably
happy.
Or do you not remember how the demoncats moaned and bitched about Raygun
calling them an 'evil empire', and not really talking to them, etc?
Char
From kadie Mon Oct 28 09:23:30 1991
To: cafb-mail
Subject: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Status: R
Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Mon Oct 28 09:22:25 EST 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:
nwickham@triton.un : Re: Dave (The Stud) Duke likes Republicans!
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (soc.motss) Re: Prodigy hypocrisy
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (soc.women) Re: YAHWEH is good! (instead of quoting reams,
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (alt.sex) Re: Usenet censorship
ckd@eff.org (Chris : Re: Ethics-L newsgroup
SKAPUR@ccmail.suny : Re: YAHWEH is good! (instead of quoting reams, lets look
dks@athena.mit.edu : Re: Credit where credit is due (but not elsewhere)
jmc@SAIL.Stanford. : Re: Credit where credit is due (but not elsewhere)
jmc@SAIL.Stanford. : Re: Dave (The Stud) Duke likes Republicans!
bzs@world.std.com : Re: (alt.censorship) Re: Usenet censorship
The addresses for the list are now:
comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org - for contributions to the list
or caf-talk@eff.org
listserv@eff.org - for automated additions/deletions
(send email with the line "help" for details.)
caf-talk-request@eff.org - for administrivia
-------------------
Xref: eff alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1610 alt.society.civil-liberties:779 talk.politics.misc:22234 alt.censorship:2306
From: nwickham@triton.unm.edu (Neal C. Wickham)
Subject: Re: Dave (The Stud) Duke likes Republicans!
Message-ID: <-rcdyyn@lynx.unm.edu>
Date: 27 Oct 91 18:04:09 GMT
Article-I.D.: lynx.-rcdyyn
References: <5=cd1-k@lynx.unm.edu>
In article art@world.std.com (Al Thompson) writes:
> ...out of curiousity, how do you give conservatives credit for the collaps
> of communism? The story is that many of the events in easter europe took
> the White House by surprise as we were digging is for many more years of
> cold war and were trying to rationalize military action against communist
> exapansion especially in Central America.
>
>You are confusing causing the fall with an explicit plan for it's fall.
>The fall was caused by the intense economic pressure of the arms race.
It is no secret that Reagan was trying to bust their (and maybe our)
economy with the the arms race, but the strikes in Poland started just
before Reagan got in. Reagan, at that time, can be quoted as saying that
the strikes in Poland were the "first cracks" and the beginning of the
end for communism in eastern europe. However, he seemed to believe that
we were going to have to launch a massive arms race into space in order
to force a collaps while liberals argued that communism would fail by
its own short-comings. Again, Washington has been utterly surprized
by the recent events in eastern europe. I doubt very much that
the Soviets have spent more on the military in recent years as they have
always been far behind and have always spent as much as they could on
the military.
Even if you explain the communist decline in eastern europe to the
economic grit of Reaganomics, how do you explain the relaxation of
communism in China and its decline elsewhere in the world? Why is the
"forced into submission" fantasy so appealing to conservative. I think
the collaps was inevitalbe and the bellicose rhetoric from Reagan only
helped the communist right wing hang on for a few extra years.
>The USSR spends between 17% and 35% of its GNP on defense (depending on
>whose figures you read) while we spend just a bit over 5% (and, it
>appears, we get more bang for the buck).
True but it has been like that for a long time. They have always been
very primitive next to the US.
>The citizens of the East Bloc
>lived lives of near poverty. Basic things like soap, toilet paper, tooth
>paste and medicines simply cannot be had. You should take a trip to
>Russia someday, it's an eye popper.
>
>
>What negotiations? The fall of the wall preceded any negotiations. In
>fact, the fall was a surprise to the East German leadership too.
No... there were negotiations between the EEC and East Germans and Soviets.
The US was purposely left out. The US has been left out of many things
lately. The truth is that the increase in trade between western and eastern
Europe is going to be very bad for the US. The EEC will have a closer
market for its food, manufactured goods, and and high tech while,
eastern Europe and soviet Asia will have a close market for their oil,
raw materials, and cheap labor. Much of the trade that once flowed between
Europe and the US will now be confined to Europe and soviet Asia. The
EEC is distancing itself from the US and our anti-communist delusions.
>The main reason for the fall was economic disparity. That coupled with
>TV, which showed the easterners a vastly different life both in terms of
>economics and personal freedom.
It was the countries closest to the EEC which couldn't wait to shake off
the communist yoke. I'm sure that most americans are going to believe
that Rancher Ron and his strong military posture scared those soviets
into submission but as with the whole of the Reagan Revolution, it is
removed from reality and we will pay the price.
We gave 'em hell in Iraq though. I'll bet those damn Iraqis never invade
Kuwait again! :)
NCW
-------------------
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [soc.motss] Re: Prodigy hypocrisy
Message-ID: <9110271859.AA24710@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 27 Oct 91 06:59:04 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
From: elaine@hplvec.LVLD.HP.COM (Elaine May)
Date: 24 Oct 91 18:10:10 GMT
Yes, I saw a quick blurb on the business page of the Denver Post about
this. I figure that Prodigy is just your basic all-American good 'ol boy
redneck kind of information service. Seems consistent with their actions
to date.
GEnie, on the other hand, supports both a public gay forum & a private
gay forum on their $4.95 a month/unlimited access service.
-------------------
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [soc.women] Re: YAHWEH is good! (instead of quoting reams, lets look at cases)
Message-ID: <9110271907.AA24778@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 27 Oct 91 07:07:32 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
From: stricher@masig3.ocean.fsu.edu (Char Aznabul)
Date: 26 Oct 91 17:43:23 GMT
Amy Gorin writes
+ According to my legal advisors, there are two ways in which the courts have
+ handled questions like this---1 - by applying or extending laws regarding
+ private mail between individuals (in which case the sysadmin is considered
+ the postmaster), and 2 - by applying the laws regarding publications (in
+ which case the sysadmin is considered the publisher). These cases have
+ been largely in regards private bbs's. However, sysops HAVE been sued
+ successfully, and they do have the right to control the content of postings.
+ Universities are a different type of legal entity, but e-mail laws have been
+ applied, and there is no reason to think publication laws wouldn't be.
There is a vast difference between a *private* bbs that one may join
or refuse to join because of the rules, and a univeristy that has a
written policy of allowing the free exchange of ideas. Even if they
are totally repugnent.
Applying publication laws would appear to be stretching the imagination.
For instance, *who* publishes soc.women? I mean, when I go out and
print up 5000 copies of "Char's guide to FSU's women", it's my name on
the beast, my money in the hole.
Netnews falls between the two, and at the moment, IMHO, falls between
the cracks. It isn't *private* email and it isn't published (by a
single entity) either.
+ legality of the actions without a test case. As I have said before,
+ I'm willing to file one. Leave it to the courts to decide.
Oh, well, so much for netnews...
+ Personally, to the people who use the kill-file arguement: Readers of
+ soc.women had already used News technology to choose the topics they wished
+ to see---by subscribing to soc.women and not alt.evil. There was no
+ indication in the header of the article that its topic would be offensive,
+ and, (unless SHe has a better ai parser than state-of-the-art), the only
+ way a reader of soc.women would have known not to read that article was
+ to read it. The author used the News system to deliberately target readers
+ who were most likely to find the article offensive, just as much as someone
+ who parses a kill-file and then sends its owner articles on the subjects
+ listed there.
*chortle*chortle*chortle* This is rich! You were forced to read the
*whole* thing? *smirk* Amy, I never saw the original article! Why?
I saw "Yahweh" and assumed it was a religious posting. I don't read
those outside of .christian groups. I read enuff to know I didn't
want to keep reading it. You decided to read it and you should have
stopped when you'd read enuff to know what it is. And then flamed
it, and set your followups to alt.flame or /dev/null.
+ It would be lovely if the democratically determined newsgroup charters
+ (listed in news.announce-newusers, last time I checked), finally had
+ some teeth.
Look out folks, here come the net.police. Note the followup.
Char - the price one pays for having the government insure your saftey at
all times is your freedom.
-------------------
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.sex] Re: Usenet censorship
Message-ID: <9110271908.AA24787@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 27 Oct 91 07:08:55 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
From: fischer@iesd.auc.dk (Lars P. Fischer)
Date: 26 Oct 91 23:16:34 GMT
>>>>> On 23 Oct 91, lamontg@milton.u.washington.edu (Lamont Granquist) said:
Lamont> Not really. If I understand your point, what about parents
Lamont> who have playboys lying around? What if their child should
Lamont> pick them up and give them to another child? We need to do
Lamont> something about this! NOT! If their that damn insistent
Lamont> about it, trying to stop them is going to be extremely counter
Lamont> productive.
Very true. It's a common fallacy to believe that you can "protect" you
children from influence of "wrong" things by simply pretending it's
not there and hiding it away from the child. But, children are not
that stupid! They will always find out, will always find some way get
access to whatever it is you want to hide.
Much better to keep your children informed, to be willing to discuss
things with them, so that they may learn to make their own choices.
Not that you should encourage them to read this stuff, of course, but
you should accept the world and especially the kids world as it is and
be prepared to handle it.
/Lars
--
Lars Fischer, fischer@iesd.auc.dk | It takes an uncommon mind to think of
CS Dept., Univ. of Aalborg, DENMARK. | these things. -- Calvin
-------------------
From: ckd@eff.org (Christopher Davis)
Subject: Re: Ethics-L newsgroup
In-Reply-To: warnold@eff.org's message of 27 Oct 91 16:28:32 GMT
Message-ID:
Sender: ckd@eff.org (Christopher Davis)
References: <911027132357.20e0165b@DARWIN.NTU.EDU.AU>
<199110271628.AA21065@eff.org>
Date: Sun, 27 Oct 1991 19:20:17 GMT
WA> == William W. Arnold
WA> [...] the listserv mailing list "ethics-l" available from
WA> listserv@polygraf.bitnet
polygraf.bitnet is also known as graf.poly.edu, which is probably a
better address to use unless you're really right on BITNET yourself.
To subscribe, mail listserv@graf.poly.edu with the line
sub ethics-l Fullname Here
[replace "Fullname Here" with your full name, of course]
--
Christopher Davis | WEIRD QUOTES OF THE WEEK:
System Manager & Postmaster | "Carpe grepem."
Electronic Frontier Foundation | "Seize the WAIS?"
+1 617 864 0665 NIC: [CKD1] | -- two overworked technodweebs
-------------------
From: SKAPUR@ccmail.sunysb.edu (Sanjay Kapur)
Subject: Re: YAHWEH is good! (instead of quoting reams, lets look at cases)
Message-ID:
Sender: SKAPUR@ccmail.sunysb.edu
Date: 27 Oct 91 19:52:00 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
>
>Sanjay seems to want to take a vote on Carl's interpretations of case law.
>Without giving us any clear reasoning from the cases Carl has been presenting,
>Sanjay votes against them. Well, I for one, vote in favor of them and the
>work Carl has been doing. He has done an excellent job of searching out case
>law and reasoning from published court opinions showing how they would apply
>to the facts of situations that have not yet been decided in court. In our
>legal system the only thing one can do when a specific situation has not yet
>arisen in the courts is to look to previous court opinion and reason from it
>how the courts might be likely to decide when the case comes before them.
I also agree that Carl has been doing an excellent job.
Also, I am not asking for a vote, just further examples of case-law.
>
>In a number of posts to this forum a while back, I attempted to show how
>various models of law that have been used to regulate press, broadcast media,
>common carriers, etc., had shortcomings when applied to newsgroups or forums
>and e-mail. The conclusion I reached was that the public forum and common
>carrier models were the best ones and that the courts were most likely to rule
>in that direction when the cases came before them.
You are welcome to your conclusions. However your conclusions are your
conclusions and I reserve my right to disagree with your conclusions.
>Carl has looked for cases
>that define public forum and with the San Diego case has shown how it applies
>to the use of computers at public universities when they are used as public
>forums.
I did not know that the San Diego case involved computers, can someone resend
me information on the San Diego case?
> Carl has given us case law. The burden to support the position that
>it doesn't apply is now on your shoulders Sanjay.
Old law has to be modified to fit new technology. I do not believe that a
simple extrapolation of old law is a good idea.
>Carl has done a fine job of
>showing how it does apply. We have nothing from you yet other than your
>serious doubt that the public forum model would apply.
I doubt it because it has not been applied yet.
> Carl has shown the
>reasoning that indicates it would apply. What is your line of reasoning,
>Sanjay, that it would not apply?
>
Electronic forums are sufficiently different from forums that existed before
for a simple extension of old laws.
>Once again, I would like to express a vote of confidence in Carl's work. He
>has done a great deal of research and brought item after item of original
>source documentation to what otherwise has tended to be off the cuff remarks.
I know that, and that is the reason Iwant him to find me one more example.
>It is easy to assert, but it requires more time and research to document from
>precedent. Carl has been our prime documentor. He is correct in asking
>others to cite specific cases when they make assertions not backed by specific
>case law citations.
I agree, I just want Carl to do the same one more time.
>
>Assertions without case law cloud the debate and debase it.
The above statement is an assertion without case law citations and is
therefore a debased statement :-)
Seriuosly speaking, assertions are based on beliefs, not what a government or
judicial body decides is good for you.
>Interpretations
>of case law advance the debate and will get us closer to a well-reasoned
>position based on legal precedent. If you have the well-reasoned argument and
>can show how the San Diego case does not apply to computers at public
>universities that look like public forums, I'd like to hear it Sanjay.
>
Dean, both you and Carl have made the assumption that computers at public
universities when owned by the University and operated by full time
professional staff can be Public Forums. That point has not been decided by
case law or legislation to my knowledge. Therefore if you make this point, it
is not an interpretaion but an assertion without case law. By your own
standard you are "clouding and debasing" the debate. I would very much like
to see real cases cited involving both Public University Computers and Public
Forum Doctrine in one case.
I agree that Carl has done an excellent job of documenting the law. He has
also done his best to interpret the law as he views it from his viewpoint. I
find myself sharing that viewpoint most of the time, but not all the time.
>Dean Gottehrer
>Anchorage, Alaska
Sanjay Kapur |Internet: Sanjay.Kapur@sunysb.edu
Systems Staff, Computing Services, |Bitnet: SKAPUR@USB
State University of New York, |SPAN/HEPnet: 44132::SKAPUR
Stony Brook, NY 11794-2400 |Phone:(516)632-8029, FAX:(516)632-8046
-------------------
Xref: eff alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1616 alt.society.civil-liberties:784 talk.politics.misc:22242 alt.censorship:2307
From: dks@athena.mit.edu (Dhanesh K Samarasan)
Subject: Re: Credit where credit is due (but not elsewhere)
Message-ID: <1991Oct27.201733.21490@athena.mit.edu>
Sender: news@athena.mit.edu (News system)
Nntp-Posting-Host: e40-008-5.mit.edu
References: <5=cd1-k@lynx.unm.edu> <1991Oct27.123348.4559@athena.mit.edu>
Date: Sun, 27 Oct 1991 20:17:33 GMT
In article jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:
[after quoting me]
>
>Rightly or wrongly, many Eastern Europeans give Reagan a lot of credit
>in the collapse. When Reagan visited East Berlin right after the
>first free East German elections, the mayor of East Berlin said
>something like, "We owe you a debt we can never repay." Since
>Reagan didn't do anything very concrete except re-arm to a small
>degree, I suppose it was his speech about the evil empire and
>and its impending collapse that had a psychological effect.
>Previous Western statesmen had gotten around to recognizing the
>legitimacy of communist rule. Of course, Reagan's brave words
>would have had no effect at the time of Stalin when the failure
>and evil of communism could still be excused in various ways.
I think we agree that illegitimate rule is unjust. I think
the (apparent) fall of communist dictatorships and oligarchies
is a good thing.
I see many Russian friends walking a thin line between
opportunism and what they inwardly believe to be moral
principles of more lasting value. The relationship between
economic rights on the one hand and civil liberties and
responsibilities on the other hand is a complex one. While
we can learn much by observing the newly liberated societies,
we are also obliged to help them evaluate objectively the merits
and short-comings of the institutions they seek to adopt from us.
Cheers,
Dhanesh
-------------------
Xref: eff alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1617 alt.society.civil-liberties:785 talk.politics.misc:22245 alt.censorship:2308
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: Credit where credit is due (but not elsewhere)
In-Reply-To: dks@athena.mit.edu's message of Sun, 27 Oct 1991 20:17:33 GMT
Message-ID:
Sender: news@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU
References: <5=cd1-k@lynx.unm.edu> <1991Oct27.123348.4559@athena.mit.edu>
<1991Oct27.201733.21490@athena.mit.edu>
Date: 27 Oct 91 12:53:54
I think there is little chance that the newly liberated countries will
stop much short of the brand of capitalism identified with Reagan and
Thatcher. Proposals to do so will be identified with attempts by the
communist bureaucracy to retain as much power as possible. Only after
they have achieved what capitalism has to offer will they be ready to
tinker with the formula again.
--
There's not a woman in his book, the plot hinges on unkindness to
animals, and the black characters mostly drown by chapter 29.
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
-------------------
Xref: eff alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1618 alt.society.civil-liberties:786 talk.politics.misc:22246 alt.censorship:2310
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: Dave (The Stud) Duke likes Republicans!
In-Reply-To: nwickham@triton.unm.edu's message of 27 Oct 91 18:04:09 GMT
Message-ID:
Sender: news@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU
References: <5=cd1-k@lynx.unm.edu>
<-rcdyyn@lynx.unm.edu>
Date: 27 Oct 91 13:14:53
To show that Reagan busted the Soviet economy with an arms race,
you would have to show that the Soviets substantially increased
the fraction of their GNP going into the military after he took
office. I haven't read anything one way or the other. The very
large fraction of the GNP and manpower going into the Soviet
military has been true since World War II. It is estimated at
between 25 and 35 percent. This bought them continued innovation
in military equipment, e.g. more new and specialized kinds of
airplane and armed forces more than twice as large as ours.
Reagan succeeded in raising the fraction of our GNP going into the
military from 5 percent to 5.8 percent. His goal may have been 7
percent. This compares with 10 percent in 1960 and 55 percent towards
the end of World War II. The idea that 5.8 percent could bust our
economy is just rhetoric.
I don't think many conservatives adhere to the "forced into submission"
theory.
On the other hand, the Reagan rhetoric about the illegitimacy of the
Soviet Empire helped collapse it, as many Eastern Europeans have
testified. For the first time last week, I saw the phrase "Soviet
Empire" used (nonironically and without reference to Reagan) in the
Nation, so Reagan's concept has penetrated very far to the left by
now.
Everyone was surprised by the collapse of communism, except the
ghost of the late Anatoly Amalrik who wrote in the 1970s a book
entitled, "Will the Soviet Union Survive until 1984?".
The only negotiations preceding the fall of the wall that I have read
about were some between Hungary and West Germany about Hungary opening
its border to Austria which would let East Germans vacationing in
Hungary escape. Opening this border, coupled with Gorbachev's
semi-announced decision not to use Soviet troops to suppress
demonstrations in East Germany led to the collapse of the Honecker
regime, but I don't believe anyone predicted it would have that
effect.
--
There's not a woman in his book, the plot hinges on unkindness to
animals, and the black characters mostly drown by chapter 29.
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
-------------------
From: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
Subject: Re: [alt.censorship] Re: Usenet censorship
In-Reply-To: chron!magic322!edtjda@uunet.UU.NET's message of 25 Oct 91 21:46:16 GMT
Message-ID:
Sender: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
References: <9110252146.AA00437@magic322.magichron-c>
Date: Sun, 27 Oct 1991 22:48:48 GMT
Joe Abernathy responds to me...
>
> Actually, what Abernathy (the Chronicle reporter) is after is yellow
> journalism and getting people's emotions flowing. He'll tweak any hot
> spot he can think of to get that effect.
>
>
>I'm sorely tempted when I read rags like this. Why don't you be honest
>with the people, Barry: You perceive any discussion of alt.sex.* to be
>an attack on a community which you care deeply about, and you apparently
>don't feel that alt.sex.* can survive such examination. Yours are the
>emotions that are flowing, and you're projecting onto others.
Joe, the same apparently holds for your "journalism", it can't survive
the examination we're giving it.
If you think the problem with that "examination" is that it's being
conducted with a jaundiced eye, well, then perhaps we're making
progress in understanding each other.
>Tax-funded research link also home to the sexually explicit
>
>By JOE ABERNATHY
>(C) 1990 Houston Chronicle
>
>Westbury High School student Jeff Noxon's homework was rudely
>interrupted recently when he stumbled across the world's most
>sophisticated pornography ring.
>
>After musing at the novelty of seeing sexually explicit material,
>he went on to other studies.
>
>Noxon glimpsed only part of an electronic catalog of erotic art
>and literature that grows daily, offering titles such as Cindy's
>Torment and The Education of Rachel.
>
>It's supported by taxes and brought into town by the brightest
>lights of higher education.
>
>The purveyor of Jeff's surprise and Cindy's slavery is a grand
>undertaking called the Internet. It is the world's most capable
>research tool, but it is an equally efficient conduit for
>pornography and a tempting target for computer hackers.
>
> ...
--
-Barry Shein
Software Tool & Die | bzs@world.std.com | uunet!world!bzs
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD
