From kadie Mon Oct 28 09:24:29 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 09:23:33 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:
rmtodd@uokmax.ecn. : Re: USENET censorship strikes University of Washington!
bzs@world.std.com : Re: () An inside look at Prodigy's standard' (Spector, RIS
entropy@wintermute : Re: USENET censorship strikes University of Washington!
chapin@cbnewsc.cb. : Re: YAHWEH is good!
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: YAHWEH is good! (instead of quoting reams, lets look
lang@cs.tulane.edu : Re: Dave (The Stud) Duke likes Republicans!
tbetz@panix.com (T : Re: Repr. Sullivan wants to fire prof. Hill because of po
lang@cs.tulane.edu : Re: Dave (The Stud) Duke likes Republicans!
nwickham@triton.un : Re: Credit where credit is due (but not elsewhere)
bev@opusc.csd.scar : Change Subject Line (was 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
-------------------
Xref: eff alt.censorship:2311 alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1620 alt.sex:22759
From: rmtodd@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu (Richard Michael Todd)
Subject: Re: USENET censorship strikes University of Washington!
Message-ID: <1991Oct27.233800.7842@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu>
Date: 27 Oct 91 23:38:00 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>
fischer@iesd.auc.dk (Lars P. Fischer) writes:
>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
The problem is a lot of old machines out there which those cheap 600K disks
won't work on. I should know, this machine's one of them. You can't put
any disks in this machine except the ones the manufacturer makes, and said
manufacturer wants on the order of $50,000 for a 1G disk. Needless to say,
this University doesn't have the money to plunk down on one of those just
for news. Hell, they don't have the money to *fix* the two dead disk
drives that are in the machine right now. It's an open question every year
whether they can find the money to pay the sysadmin; *buying* major pieces
of hardware is pretty much out of the question. You might argue that the
University should buy a more modern computer for which disk space is
cheaper (and wouldn't be as massively overloaded as the current system--a
Multimax with 120 users on it all the time is *not* a pretty sight); the
staff at this place would probably agree, but alas the higher-ups who
actually could provide large sums of money don't.
>When a university computing center or whatever starts restricting new
>because of "disk space problems" it's time to suspicious.
Some university computing centers are in the position of having to make
bricks without straw. Life's a bitch, ain't it?
Disclaimer: I'm just a student here. Whatever the opinions of the University
of Oklahoma are, these probably ain't it.
--
Richard Todd rmtodd@chinet.chi.il.us or rmtodd@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu
-------------------
From: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
Subject: Re: [] An inside look at Prodigy's `double standard' (Spector, RISKS-12.55)
In-Reply-To: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu's message of 27 Oct 91 05:25:21 GMT
Message-ID:
Sender: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
References: <9110271725.AA24051@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1991 00:39:39 GMT
>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
That's not inconsistent, once Prodigy chose to elide that which they
believed to be offensive then they naturally left themselves open to
be criticized for their choices. The issue is not whether they edit
for content or not, the issue is what they edit for content.
Your comment is analogous to a cop saying "first they criticize us for
arresting people they like, then they criticize us for not arresting
those they don't!" Of course both criticisms could well be valid and
not inconsistent or hypocritical as you seem to imply.
That acting as a net.cop is becoming somewhat dangerous and not the
simple deliverance of "all which is wholesome and good" (tm) according
to some imagined standard is, to my mind, a wonderful result, albeit
painful, call it growing pains.
--
-Barry Shein
Software Tool & Die | bzs@world.std.com | uunet!world!bzs
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD
-------------------
Xref: eff alt.censorship:2312 alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1622 alt.sex:22767
From: entropy@wintermute.WPI.EDU (Lawrence C. Foard)
Subject: Re: USENET censorship strikes University of Washington!
Message-ID: <1991Oct28.003732.18070@wpi.WPI.EDU>
Date: 28 Oct 91 00:37:32 GMT
References: <1991Oct23.235848.24117@iitmax.iit.edu>> <1991Oct27.233800.7842@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu>
Sender: news@wpi.WPI.EDU (News)
Nntp-Posting-Host: wintermute.wpi.edu
In article <1991Oct27.233800.7842@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu> rmtodd@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu (Richard Michael Todd) writes:
>fischer@iesd.auc.dk (Lars P. Fischer) writes:
>>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
>The problem is a lot of old machines out there which those cheap 600K disks
>won't work on. I should know, this machine's one of them. You can't put
>any disks in this machine except the ones the manufacturer makes, and said
>manufacturer wants on the order of $50,000 for a 1G disk.
I've got a bridge to sell you ;)
>Needless to say,
>this University doesn't have the money to plunk down on one of those just
>for news. Hell, they don't have the money to *fix* the two dead disk
>drives that are in the machine right now.
This maybe a bit off the topic, but has it ever passed through there minds
that they could buy a cheap workstation to put news on? Around $5000 or less
should get you a 486 with loads of memory (16-32 megs), BSD unix, and 1gig or
more of disk space.
>It's an open question every year
>whether they can find the money to pay the sysadmin; *buying* major pieces
>of hardware is pretty much out of the question. You might argue that the
>University should buy a more modern computer for which disk space is
>cheaper (and wouldn't be as massively overloaded as the current system--a
>Multimax with 120 users on it all the time is *not* a pretty sight); the
>staff at this place would probably agree, but alas the higher-ups who
>actually could provide large sums of money don't.
I don't hold you responsible, but the institution as a whole can't disclaim
responsibility, if they wanted $5000 would get them a news server.
>>When a university computing center or whatever starts restricting new
>>because of "disk space problems" it's time to suspicious.
>Some university computing centers are in the position of having to make
>bricks without straw. Life's a bitch, ain't it?
So maybe the blame doesn't fall on you, but as a whole the excuse is pathetic.
This is like a library claiming that they don't carry "offensive" books
because they are forced to buy military spec bookshelves costing $100,000 per
foot.
This makes me laugh, your institution is saying, "We arn't censoring, no
really we are just incompetent.", fortunitly economics tends to weed out gross
stupidity, so I won't complain to much.
--
Disclaimer: Opinions are based on logic rather than biblical "fact". ------
Hackers do it for fun. | First they came for the drug users, I said \ /
"Profesionals" do it for money. | nothing, then they came for hackers, \ /
Managers have others do it for them. | I said nothing... STOP W.O.D. \/
-------------------
Xref: eff alt.sex:22768 soc.women:10135 alt.censorship:2313 alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1623
From: chapin@cbnewsc.cb.att.com ( Tom Chapin )
Subject: Re: YAHWEH is good!
Message-ID: <1991Oct28.005802.2713@cbnewsc.cb.att.com>
Date: 28 Oct 91 00:58:02 GMT
Article-I.D.: cbnewsc.1991Oct28.005802.2713
References: <1991Oct24.151301.25921@tc.cornell.edu>
Melinda Shore writes:
>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.
Wonder how long Melinda would preach that principle if soc.women
were in danger of being removed from the Net instead of merely
being censored to her particular preference...
--
tom chapin tjc@hrccb.att.com
-------------------
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: YAHWEH is good! (instead of quoting reams, lets look at cases)
Message-ID: <1991Oct28.010313.424@eff.org>
References:
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1991 01:03:13 GMT
SKAPUR@ccmail.sunysb.edu (Sanjay Kapur) writes:
[...]
>I did not know that the San Diego case involved computers, can someone resend
>me information on the San Diego case?
Send email to archive-server@eff.org. Include the line:
send acad-freedom san-diego
[...]
>Electronic forums are sufficiently different from forums that existed before
>for a simple extension of old laws.
[...]
>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.
[...]
I won't suggest that the whole computer is necessarily a public forum.
But I think that things like Netnews services and email services (as
they are typically run) are. The Public Forum Doctrine is very broad.
It covers everything from campus mail systems to student newspapers.
It doesn't require much of a leap to apply to, say, the Netnews
facilities at public university.
If I hear of any cases that make this explict, I'll of course
post. (The recent Federal district case that overturned the
U. of Wisconsin's student speech code may be such a case; some
of the speech was via email.).
- 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: lang@cs.tulane.edu (Raymond Lang)
Subject: Re: Dave (The Stud) Duke likes Republicans!
Message-ID: <9598@cs.tulane.edu>
Date: 28 Oct 91 02:03:54 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.9598
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 ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy) writes:
> nwickham@triton.unm.edu (Neal C. Wickham) writes:
> 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.
Just for the record, Buddy Roemer is the outgoing governor who came in
third place in the recent primary. He was a squeaky clean reform governor
who had been Bush's tennis partner when they were both in Congress.
Despite strong backing from Bush, Roemer did not make it to the run off.
The "indictable" candidate you're thinking of is Edwin Edwards, who finished
first in the primary and is favored to win the run-off. Edwards has strong
backing in the black community, which represents about 35%-40% of the vote
in this state. Duke has to pull in something like 80% of the white vote
to beat Edwards, since Duke clearly cannot count on any black support.
Fortunately, Duke does not enjoy anything near 80% white support. He made
it into the runoff with less than a third of the vote, which was split
almost evenly among Edwards, Duke, and Roemer (in that order), with about
5% or so of the votes going to other candidates.
> I can't help wondering if there aren't some 3rd party
> candidates out there?
There were in the primary. The next election is a run-off.
> 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.
Wrong again. Edwards is more the modern day Long. The secret to their
success was they knew how to cut in as many people as possible on
whatever deal they had going. That's the real problem here: when the
average Joe on the street in Louisiana finds out about corruption in
a public official, he doesn't want to know how to stop it, he wants to
know how he can get in on it.
In Long's defense, despite his seedy reputation, he did bring this
state into the 20th century. I could go into specifics on his
accomplishments, but I don't really think anyone is that interested.
Ray
lang@rex.cs.tulane.edu
-------------------
Xref: eff alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1626 alt.censorship:2315 alt.society.civil-liberties:792 talk.politics.misc:22261
From: tbetz@panix.com (Tom Betz)
Subject: Re: Repr. Sullivan wants to fire prof. Hill because of political opinions
Keywords: Republican, embarrassing!
Message-ID: <1991Oct27.232447.18358@panix.com>
Date: 27 Oct 91 23:24:47 GMT
References: <1991Oct23.202225.27745@engage.pko.dec.com> <1991Oct25.204640.3053@agora.uucp>
trifid@agora.uucp (Roadster Racewerks) writes:
|
|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?
Do what so many others did in 1976 when Nixon embarassed them;
join the Libertarian Party.
--
Tom Betz -- 114 Woodworth Avenue - Yonkers, NY 10701-2509 -- (914) 375-1510
tbetz@panix.com | marob!upaya!tbetz@phri.nyu.edu | upaya!tbetz@panix.com
---------
"I wouldn't say it if I didn't know it wasn't true." -- Emmanuel Transmission
-------------------
Xref: eff alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1627 alt.society.civil-liberties:793 talk.politics.misc:22262 alt.censorship:2316
From: lang@cs.tulane.edu (Raymond Lang)
Subject: Re: Dave (The Stud) Duke likes Republicans!
Message-ID: <9599@cs.tulane.edu>
Date: 28 Oct 91 02:11:32 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 ts2a+@andrew.cmu.edu (Thomas Omar Smith) writes:
>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.
Roemer is already a lame-duck. He came in third in the primary.
>The only bright spot is that his hopes of achieving anything outside of
>Louisianna are nil.
Well, Duke's hopes of achieving anything inside Louisiana aren't too
bright either. For the last two years, he's been a state legislator.
Any bill that had his name on it was as good as dead. Few of the other
legislators wanted to be associated with him. Many would not even shake
his hand. If in the unlikely event he wins the runoff, he'll have even
less success dealing with the legislature than Roemer.
Ray
lang@rex.cs.tulane.edu
-------------------
Xref: eff alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1628 alt.society.civil-liberties:794 talk.politics.misc:22263 alt.censorship:2317
From: nwickham@triton.unm.edu (Neal C. Wickham)
Subject: Re: Credit where credit is due (but not elsewhere)
Message-ID: <-5cdwp+@lynx.unm.edu>
Date: 28 Oct 91 01:40:27 GMT
Article-I.D.: lynx.-5cdwp+
References: <5=cd1-k@lynx.unm.edu> <1991Oct27.123348.4559@athena.mit.edu>
In article jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:
>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.
Yeah... you have to give credit where credit is due. And the "Great
Communicator" with his entourage from the Hollywood advertising
industry probably knew how to psychologically manipulate the people of
Eastern Europe as well as any. Reagan knew how to play the "strong
father figure" role very well and was a master at nonverbal communcation.
I'm sure the speach you mentioned, was full of symbolism so strong that
it easily passed through the translation. The Hollywood entourage are
with out doubt, the world's most skilled people in conducting polls,
interviewing focus groups, interpreting and corelating psychological
data, and creating ways to manipulate people. You have to give Reagan
that. And you have to give those skills the credid they deserve as well.
>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.
It is too bad that Reagan's government was not legitimate.
NCW
-------------------
Xref: eff alt.sex:22769 soc.women:10138 alt.censorship:2318 alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1629
From: bev@opusc.csd.scarolina.edu (Beverly Huntsberger)
Subject: Change Subject Line (was Re: YAHWEH is good!)
Message-ID: <1991Oct27.192018.4178@opusc.csd.scarolina.edu>
Date: 27 Oct 91 19:20:18 GMT
Article-I.D.: opusc.1991Oct27.192018.4178
References: <15046@scolex.sco.COM> <1991Oct24.220928.18690@eff.org> <195552@unix.cis.pitt.edu> <1991Oct26.233836.28187@spool.cs.wisc.edu>
In <1991Oct26.233836.28187@spool.cs.wisc.edu> rawdon@cabrales.cs.wisc.edu (Michael Rawdon) writes:
>In <195552@unix.cis.pitt.edu> tjw@unix.cis.pitt.edu (TJ Wood WA3VQJ) writes:
>>In article <1991Oct24.220928.18690@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>>>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.
>standard "free speech vs. pornography-is-bad" line of reasoning. (More the
>feminist pornography-is-bad school of thought than the fundamentalist one.)
Time to call it what it is!
--
--
Bev Huntsberger / bev@grover.csd.scarolina.edu / (803) 777-9336
From kadie Mon Oct 28 09:25:52 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 09:24:38 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:
tonyd@lclark.edu ( : Re: YAHWEH is good!
jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyr : Re: Credit where credit is due (but not elsewhere)
robinson@mtsu.edu : Re: Repr. Sullivan wants to fire prof. Hill because of pol
szabo@techbook.com : Re: Online
Brady Woodward
Date: 28 Oct 91 02:26:13 GMT
Article-I.D.: lclark.1991Oct28.022613.5031
References: <1991Oct22.231334.9723@tc.cornell.edu> <1991Oct24.080923.16277@techbook.com> <1991Oct24.151301.25921@tc.cornell.edu>
In article <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.
>--
> Software longa, hardware brevis
>Melinda Shore - Cornell Information Technologies - shore@tc.cornell.edu
that's kinda wacky
-------------------
Xref: eff alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1631 alt.society.civil-liberties:796 talk.politics.misc:22272 alt.censorship:2323
From: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Subject: Re: Credit where credit is due (but not elsewhere)
Message-ID: <1991Oct28.034551.12323@nntp.hut.fi>
Date: 28 Oct 91 03:45:51 GMT
References: <5=cd1-k@lynx.unm.edu> <1991Oct27.123348.4559@athena.mit.edu> <-5cdwp+@lynx.unm.edu>
Sender: usenet@nntp.hut.fi (Usenet pseudouser id)
Followup-To: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
In-Reply-To: nwickham@triton.unm.edu (Neal C. Wickham)
Nntp-Posting-Host: sauna.cs.hut.fi
In article <-5cdwp+@lynx.unm.edu>, nwickham@triton (Neal C. Wickham) writes:
>Reagan knew how to play the "strong
>father figure" role very well and was a master at nonverbal communcation.
Hmm - how come he didn't have more success at the area of show
business known as movies then? Or is the area of show business known
as politics less demanding or perhaps less dependent on the actor's
skills?
//Jyrki
-------------------
From: robinson@mtsu.edu (David Robinson)
Subject: Re: Repr. Sullivan wants to fire prof. Hill because of political opinions
Message-ID:
Sender: knuth!robinson@uunet.UU.NET
References: <1991Oct25.204640.3053@agora.uucp>
Date: 28 Oct 91 06:06:14 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
>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.
>>>>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>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
Before you start your own political party, you might consider an
alternative I discovered recently; the Libertarian Party. As an
inadvertent result of a posting to another group, I was introduced to
the Libernet mailing list. I subscribed to see what was going on, and
found myself intrigued by some of the ideas presented there. The Thomas/
Hill issue, indeed the entire sexual harrassment issue, has been
discussed in excruciating detail over the past couple of weeks. I
certainly don't claim to subscribe to all their ideas, some correspondents
are somewhere to the right of Ayn Rand; still there are a number of the
ideas expressed there that are very interesting. The primary focus seems
to be a literal interpretation of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of
Rights. The expression of this philosophy seems to be toward discussion
of the real powers of the federal government as described in the
Constitution, and a general acknowledgement that the federal government
has long since exceeded it's Constitutional powers. The Libertarian
Party advocates a drastic reduction of the power of the federal
bureaucracy... a return to the Constitutional limitations as proscribed
by our founding fathers.
One caveat: The Libertarians are against the idea of coercive funding
of 'public' libraries. They believe that libraries should be funded by
interested subscribers... they are against the idea of coercive funding
of *any* public enterprise. This puts the burden of performance on the
librarians, and the communities that fund them. You should know, that
they are also against the idea of coercive funding of 'public' schools.
George Bush and Lamar Alexander's voucher plan is nothing new among
Libertarian circles. Many home-schoolers (a philosophy to which I and
my family subscribe,) are libertarians (not necessarily capital
'L'ibertarians). The libertarians' primary motivation seems to be the
preservation of personal liberties as defined in the U.S. Constitution,
and the abhorrence of governmental coercion. This seems to me to be
completely consistent with the ideals of academic freedom.
If anyone is interested in investigating the libernet, send an e-mail
message asking to be subscribed to:
libernet-request@dartmouth.edu
Be aware, that the text of your message asking to be subscribed will be
read by a real person not a computer program, although the list owner,
Barry Fagin, is really an easy-going sort of fellow and doesn't take
umbrage to the laconic 'SUB LIBERNET your-name-here' type of request.
Also be aware, that the libernet is an unmoderated discussion list that
will reflect opinions from one end of the political spectrum to the
middle... There are remarkably few proponents of Big Government
presenting their side of the argument on the libernet, a situation that
I find somewhat sad. It's also a situation that I've noticed on most of
these e-mail based interest groups. We all find ourselves essentially
preaching to the choir. While we may squabble among ourselves, we all
generally agree on the basic premise, else we probably wouldn't expend
the effort to participate in the discussion, knowing that there will be
a torrent of abuse immediately flung in the objector's general
direction.
At any rate, I hope the ideas I've brought up here serve to open up some
new threads to this discussion list. Really, I'm getting cordially sick
of reading about 'Yahweh' ... :-)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
David Robinson robinson@mtsu.edu
Automation Librarian
Middle Tennessee State University
Murfreesboro, Tennessee 37132
Disclaimer: Nothing above in any way reflects the opinions or public
positions of the Staff or Management of Middle Tennessee State
University or the Tennessee State Board of Regents. While I work here,
and consequently accept culpability insofar as my job description
obligates me to, I refuse to accept any responsibility for any management
decisions made without my participation.
-------------------
From: szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo)
Subject: Re: Online disclaimers?
Message-ID: <1991Oct28.055731.5015@techbook.com>
References: <1991Oct23.210321.283@ms.uky.edu>
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1991 05:57:31 GMT
In article <1991Oct23.210321.283@ms.uky.edu> morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
>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:
This strikes me as an _excellent_ idea. What do the sysadmins out
there think?
>----------------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?
>
--
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
-------------------
Xref: eff soc.women:10147 alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1634
Subject: Notice this--Yahweh is STILL POSTING
Supersedes: <91300.103759U45458@uicvm.uic.edu>
Date: Sunday, 27 Oct 1991 19:35:54 CST
From: Brady Woodward
Message-ID: <91300.193554U45458@uicvm.uic.edu>
Folks, I just thought I would throw this into the dabate: YAHWEH is
STILL posting. He/she has posted two notes (Oct. 24 & 25) on the soc.women
group and no one has seemed to notice it. Obviously the account has
not been suspended. Is the conversation of censorship a red herring?
While his/her recent notes claim someone else commandeered his/her account,
in addition, he/she is still posting (and promising more disturbed
rantings for next week) on alt.evil. Seems as if the debate is now
off the mark a bit given these developments. (And I am not saying that
the censorship/pornography issue is not a valid one in general.)
Just thought I'd mention it...although I hate to give the germ more
attention.
--Brady
--My thoughts are my own--the university just loans me the space.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"No man is wholly free. He is a slave to wealth, or to fortune, or the
laws, or the people restrain him from acting according to his will alone."
--Euripides
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
-------------------
Xref: eff alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1635 alt.society.civil-liberties:799 talk.politics.misc:22282 alt.censorship:2326
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 18:04:09 GMT
Message-ID:
Sender: art@world.std.com (Al Thompson)
References: <5=cd1-k@lynx.unm.edu>
<-rcdyyn@lynx.unm.edu>
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1991 10:00:55 GMT
In article <-rcdyyn@lynx.unm.edu> nwickham@triton.unm.edu (Neal C. Wickham) writes:
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.
You can say the same thing about the Berlin and Hungarian uprisings in
the 1950's.
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.
Funny I don't remember any liberals saying any such thing.
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.
Far behind?? Haha. They've been behind, but far? They have a pretty
big nuclear missle force and damn good inventory of war planes.
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?
Relaxation of Communism in China? Have you ever heard of Tiannanmen
Square? That was some relaxation.
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.
Oh pure crap. The less pressure on them the easier it is to hang on.
>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.
Oh yeah? Have a look at a MIG-29 someday and tell me that.
>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.
Those negotiations had nothing to do with the dismantling of the Wall.
There are negotiations going on with the East Bloc all the time.
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.
How are they going to pay for it? Besides, we are picking up a rather
large chunk of the trade that does exist. Who are they trying to buy
computers from? Whose wheat are they buying?
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.
Tell that to McDonalds, Kentucky Fried Chicken, Pizza Hut, DEC and IBM.
Of course I do expect the Germans to conquer the chemical weapons factory
market the way they did in Libya and Iraq.
The
EEC is distancing itself from the US and our anti-communist delusions.
Until the last few years the communist threat was very real. Whether
they could have prevailed in what they saw as the "inevitible conflict"
between capitalism and communism we'll thankfully (hopefully) never know.
Have you ever heard of the Comintern, Stalin, the Brezhnev Doctrine, "we
will bury you"? I thought not.
>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.
No, it didn't scare them into submission, it spent them into submission.
When I was in the USSR in 1987 many of the younger people told me that
they knew the US wasn't going to attack. They wanted to know why, in
view of that, the USSR kept spending so much on the military and so
little on consumers.
We gave 'em hell in Iraq though. I'll bet those damn Iraqis never invade
Kuwait again! :)
With luck, no.
-------------------
Xref: eff alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1636 alt.society.civil-liberties:803 talk.politics.misc:22286
From: kfree@pnet12.rfengr.com (Kenneth Freeman)
Subject: David Duke, Fear Monger
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 91 07:56:17 GMT
Message-ID: <1991Oct28.075617.27640@rfengr.com>
Sender: root@rfengr.com (Superuser)
les@dec-lite.stanford.edu (Les Earnest) writes:
>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.
Not _that_ is as accurate as it is chilling. David Duke's appeal is as
much economic as racist, if not more so, and it's pure vitriol. It would
be a grave error to dismiss him as an extremist, when he is an extremist
who says aloud what people don't admit to pollsters, and when these
disenfranchised have become his _constituents_...
---
If people did not sometimes do silly things,
nothing intelligent would ever get done. -Wittgenstein
INET: kfree@pnet12.rfengr.com UUCP: ucsd!serene!pnet12!kfree
-------------------
Xref: eff alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1637 soc.women:10149 alt.sex:22804 alt.censorship:2327
From: zane@infopls.chi.il.us (Sameer Parekh)
Subject: Re: yahweh is good posting
Message-ID:
Date: 26 Oct 91 13:34:21 GMT
Article-I.D.: infopls.yJFFaB2w164w
References: <1991Oct23.011457.9149@milton.u.washington.edu>
lamontg@milton.u.washington.edu (Lamont Granquist) writes:
> byrnes@milton.u.washington.edu (Nicholas Byrnes) writes:
> >Carl, porn of this degree of virulence may or may not be protected by the 1s
> >Amend. (although I doubt it) when posted to alt.sex rooms. HOWEVER intention
> >exposing children to it (as occured in alt.kid) is NOT protected as free spe
> >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.
"as occured in alt.kid" I don't know of any group called
alt.kid--I will assume you meant alt.kids-talk.
No posting of sexual materials has appeared on that newsgroup.
We DID have a discussion about access to sexual materials by minors on
that group. This was because one of our active posters suggested that
we talk about more than just "girlfriends, etc." He posted in jest that
he didn't want it to turn into alt.teen.sextalk.
No porn postings were made.
---
Sameer Parekh zane@ddsw1.MCS.COM zane@infopls.chi.il.us
Ask me about the Mail Your Congressperson Through the Net Project!
Apple IIGS Forever! Ask me about the GNO multitasking project!
-------------------
From: nwickham@triton.unm.edu (Neal C. Wickham)
Subject: Re: Credit where credit is due (but not elsewhere)
Message-ID:
Date: 28 Oct 91 10:07:37 GMT
Article-I.D.: lynx.nbddsfr
References: <-5cdwp+@lynx.unm.edu> <1991Oct28.034551.12323@nntp.hut.fi>
In article <1991Oct28.034551.12323@nntp.hut.fi> jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala) writes:
>Hmm - how come he didn't have more success at the area of show
>business known as movies then? Or is the area of show business known
>as politics less demanding or perhaps less dependent on the actor's
>skills?
>
>//Jyrki
His politcal success was the success of his entourage. His acting career
was shot and I believe he'd even taken a mortgage out on his house when
his bother Neal Reagan, the advertising mogul, got him into politics. He
has been with many of the same people since. It was quite the american
coup. Frank Sinatra, one of Reagan's "friends" became one of the most
powerful men in Hollywood and Head of the Nevada Gaming Commission just
after Reagan became president. There is a lot of Mafia in Nevada in case
you didn't know. One of Reagan's other good "freinds" was Paul Laxalt
(sp?) who was the governor of Nevada.
NCW
-------------------
From: szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo)
Subject: Re: YAHWEH is good! (instead of quoting reams, lets look at cases)
Message-ID: <1991Oct28.075000.6729@techbook.com>
References: <199110271314.AA18809@eff.org>
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1991 07:50:00 GMT
In article <199110271314.AA18809@eff.org> FFDMG@ALASKA.bitnet (Dean Gottehrer) writes:
>...
>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.
>...
I would like to second that. We owe the freedoms we have now to people like
Carl Kadie who put in the effort to apply them to new situations as society
progresses. He has my deep respect, admiration, and thanks.
--
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
-------------------
Xref: eff alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1640 soc.culture.china:9198 soc.culture.misc:487
From: szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo)
Subject: Re: Stanford anthropology student silenced?
Message-ID: <1991Oct28.065029.5743@techbook.com>
References: <199110250442.AA28856@eff.org>
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1991 06:50:29 GMT
In article <199110250442.AA28856@eff.org> ALILESTE@idbsu.idbsu.edu (Dan Lester) writes:
>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
> 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.
Why is a foreign government and the University President deciding what are
proper and improper anthropology research procedures? Isn't this the
responsbility of the thesis committee (a group of anthropology professors)?
--
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: szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo)
Subject: Re: [comp.org.eff.talk] Net.freedom.of.expression [Yahweh is Good]
Message-ID: <1991Oct28.070519.5904@techbook.com>
References: <9110252012.AA16928@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1991 07:05:19 GMT
>Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
>From: bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris)
>Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1991 16:56:49 GMT
>
>Was this post 'sexual harassment'? Did the posts create an 'intimidating,
>hostile, or offensive working environmen'? Is a net.environment a working
>environment?
Usenet is in not a "working environment" (just ask my boss :-).
Certainly the newsgroups involved in the YAHWEH post (including soc.women)
are not used to accomplish job-related tasks.
>Also, the alleged poster has also just recently denied posting the offending
>material.
This is more serious than I thought. What actions have been taken against
this person? What process, if any, was used?
The thought of sysadmins accusing whomever they don't like of posting
anonymous obscene messages is a very scary one. I hope that is not
one of the lessons of the Anita Hill case -- that if you really don't
like somebody, it's open season to make up lies to destroy them.
--
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: szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo)
Subject: Re: YAHWEH is good!
Message-ID: <1991Oct28.072908.6221@techbook.com>
References: <1991Oct24.151301.25921@tc.cornell.edu> <1991Oct25.200824.28492@eff.org> <3179@aldebaran.cs.nps.navy.mil>
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1991 07:29:08 GMT
In article <3179@aldebaran.cs.nps.navy.mil> schweige@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil (Jeffrey M. Schweiger) writes:
>|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.
How old is Netnews? How about its antecedent digests and notesfiles?
I suspect a very good case can be made that a long tradition, in
existence since the formation of Usenet, exists of having forums "devoted
to assembly and debate" where the limiting of expressive activity has
been "sharply circumscribed" by Usenet semi-officialdom and popular pressure.
Among other things, the documents in net.announce.newusers and other postings
for similar purposes since the creation of Netnews and/or Usenet would serve
to demonstrate this.
--
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: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Steven Brack found Guilty
Message-ID: <1991Oct28.135044.18831@eff.org>
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1991 13:50:44 GMT
[Email, posted with the author's permission - Carl]
Subject: The Verdict
From: sbrack@bluemoon.rn.com (Steven S. Brack)
I am guilty! I have been dismissed from the university, with no
possibility of reentry until 1/93!
The hearing lasted 4 hrs, we heard fr. 3 witnesses: the chair of
Engineering Graphics, the Engineering Workstation Facility manager, &
ACS's security chief. TThe other three witnesses didn't show up,
and neither did the two people I wanted to be witnesses (it didn't matter
because I was told that I had to give 24 hrs notice of any witnesses).
The hearing was pretty fair, although I was blocked from exploring
some areas of ACS policymaking. The hearing is decided by proponderance
of evidence, not by reasonable doubt, so my lack of witnesses really
hurt me.
Anyway, it looks liek I'm in Toledo to stay.
PS: Will EFF help me now?
-- Steve
As always, feel free to post all or part of this msg.
_________________________________________________________________________
|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 |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
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 21 11:39:16 1991
To: warnold@eff.org
Status: RO
>From Postmaster@RIGEL.TAMU.EDU Mon Oct 21 11:32:10 1991
Received: from RIGEL.TAMU.EDU by eff.org with SMTP id AA15676
(5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for ); Mon, 21 Oct 1991 11:31:41 -0400
Message-Id: <199110211531.AA15676@eff.org>
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 1991 10:31:26 -0500 (CDT)
From: Postmaster@ZEUS.TAMU.EDU
Subject: Undeliverable Mail
To:
Comment: Bad address --
Comment: %MAIL-E-NOSUCHUSR, no such user JDB1145 at node ZEUS
Status: R
Start of returned message
Received: from eff.org by ZEUS.TAMU.EDU with SMTP;
Mon, 21 Oct 1991 10:30:49 -0500 (CDT)
Received: by eff.org id AA15336
(5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for cafb-list@eff.org); Mon, 21 Oct 1991 11:22:59 -0400
Reply-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org
From: comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org
Precedence: bulk
To: comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org
Errors-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk-request@eff.org
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 1991 11:22:52 -0400
X-Digest-Sender: "Carl M. Kadie"
Message-Id: <199110211522.AA15331@eff.org>
Subject: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Mon Oct 21 11:21:44 EDT 1991
[For information on how to get a much smaller edited version of the
list, send email to archive-server@eff.org. Include the line:
send acad-freedom caf
- Carl ]
In this issue:
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: Library Bill of Rights (rerun)
kadie@eff.org (Car : What really happened at
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: Library Bill of Rights (rerun)
kadie@eff.org (Car : Abstract of "Computers and Academic Freedom News" 1.31
lamontg@milton.u.w : Re: (alt.sex) Re: UW, Seattle P-I, and alt.sex.pictures
byrnes@milton.u.wa : The first amend.
fxjwk@acad3.alaska : Re: The first amend.
lamontg@milton.u.w : Re: The first amend.
jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyr : Re: The first amend.
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: The first amend.
russotto@eng.umd.e : Re: The first amend.
szabo@techbook.com : Re: USENET censorship strikes University of Washington!
-- Computer Science Depts. important anti-censorship allies?
jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyr : Re: The first amend.
kadie@eff.org (Car : How to contact me anonymously
The addresses for the list are now:
comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org - for contributions to the list
or caf-talk@eff.org
listserv@eff.org - for automated additions/deletions
(send email with the line "help" for details.)
caf-talk-request@eff.org - for administrivia
-------------------
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Library Bill of Rights (rerun)
Message-ID: <1991Oct20.133629.13941@eff.org>
References: <1991Oct20.131247.13162@eff.org>
Date: Sun, 20 Oct 1991 13:36:29 GMT
Here is what I got when I rewrote the Library Bill of Rights so that
it would directly address Netnews service:
(This is also mostly a rerun; I've changed a couple of words.)
-------------
Hypothetical Netnews-Service Bill of Rights
All computers offering Netnews are forums for information and ideas,
and that the following basic policies should guide their services.
1. Newsgroups and other Netnews resources should be provided
for the interest, information, and enlightenment of all people of the
community the Netnews provider serves. Materials should not be
excluded because of the origin, background, or views of those
contributing to their creation.
2. Computers offering Netnews should provide materials and
information presenting all points of view on current and historical
issues. Materials should not be proscribed or removed because of
partisan or doctrinal disapproval.
3. Netnews providers should challenge censorship in the
fulfillment of their responsibility to provide information and
enlightenment.
4. Netnews providers should cooperate with all persons and
groups concerned with resisting abridgment of free expression and free
access to ideas.
5. A person's right to use a Netnews service should not be
denied or abridged because of origin, age, background, or views.
6. Netnews providers which provide resources for user
expression or assembly should make such resources available on an
equitable basis, regardless of the beliefs or affiliations of
individuals or groups requesting their use.
-------------
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
-------------------
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: What really happened at CWU?
Message-ID: <1991Oct20.143808.14776@eff.org>
Date: Sun, 20 Oct 1991 14:38:08 GMT
Does anyone know what really happened at Central Washington University?
Although the controversy has pruriently focused on sex, early
newspaper and other reports suggest that auditor was just as concerned
about game playing and classified ads.
I doubt there is a state law that bans all game playing and classified
ads from campus. So what was it about the situation at CWU that made
games, classifieds, and recreational discussions so bad?
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
-------------------
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Library Bill of Rights (rerun)
Message-ID: <1991Oct20.145204.15060@eff.org>
References: <1991Oct20.131247.13162@eff.org> <1991Oct20.133629.13941@eff.org>
Date: Sun, 20 Oct 1991 14:52:04 GMT
The American Library Association's Diversity Statement seems germane
to the State of Washington controversy. It even mentions words
"sexual" and "sexist".
- Carl
---------------------------------------
DIVERSITY IN COLLECTION DEVELOPMENT
An Interpretation of the LIBRARY BILL OF RIGHTS
Throughout history, the focus of censorship has fluctuated from generation to
generation. Books and other materials have not been selected or have been
removed from library collections for many reasons, among which are prejudicial
language and ideas, political content, economic theory, social philosophies,
religious beliefs, sexual forms of expression, and other topics of a
potentially controversial nature.
Some examples of censorship may include removing or not selecting materials
because they are considered by some as racist or sexist; not purchasing
conservative religious materials; not selecting materials about or by
minorities because it is thought these groups or interests are not represented
in a community; or not providing information on or materials from non-
mainstream political entities.
Librarians may seek to increase user awareness of materials on various social
concerns by many means, including, but not limited to, issuing bibliographies
and presenting exhibits and programs.
Librarians have a professional responsibility to be inclusive, not exclusive,
in collection development and in the provision of interlibrary loan. Access
to all materials legally obtainable should be assured to the user, and
policies should not unjustly exclude materials even if they are offensive to
the librarian or the user. Collection development should reflect the
philosophy inherent in Article II of the LIBRARY BILL OF RIGHTS: "Libraries
should provide materials and information presenting all points of view on
current and historical issues. Materials should not be proscribed or removed
because of partisan or doctrinal disapproval." A balanced collection reflects
a diversity of materials, not an equality of numbers. Collection development
responsibilities include selecting materials in the languages in common use in
the community which the library serves. Collection development and the
selection of materials should be done according to professional standards and
established selection and review procedures.
There are many complex facets to any issue, and variations of context in which
issues may be expressed, discussed, or interpreted. Librarians have a
professional responsibility to be fair, just, and equitable and to give all
library users equal protection in guarding against violation of the library
patron's right to read, view, or listen to materials and resources protected
by the First Amendment, no matter what the viewpoint of the author, creator,
or selector. Librarians have an obligation to protect library collections
from removal of materials based on personal bias or prejudice, and to select
and support the access to materials on all subjects that meet, as closely as
possible, the needs and interests of all persons in the community which the
library serves. This includes materials that reflect political, economic,
religious, social, minority, and sexual issues.
Intellectual freedom, the essence of equitable library services, provides for
free access to all expressions of ideas through which any and all sides of a
question, cause, or movement may be explored. Toleration is meaningless
without tolerance for what some may consider detestable. Librarians cannot
justly permit their own preferences to limit their degree of tolerance in
collection development, because freedom is indivisible.
Adopted July 14, 1982; amended January 10, 1990, by the ALA Council.
[Made available by permission of the American Library Association.]
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
-------------------
Xref: eff alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1342 comp.admin.policy:1043 comp.org.eff.talk:4671 alt.censorship:2061 soc.college:1117
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Abstract of "Computers and Academic Freedom News" 1.31
Message-ID: <1991Oct20.173627.17190@eff.org>
Date: Sun, 20 Oct 1991 17:36:27 GMT
This is an abstract for the most recent "Computers and Academic
Freedom News" (CAF-news). Information about CAF-news followings the
abstract. The full CAF-news is available via email. Send email
to archive-server@eff.org. Include the line:
send caf-news cafv01n31
--- begin abstract 1.31 ---
[Week of September 30 to October 6, 1991
The first notes this week are about the NSFnet's AUP (National Science
Foundation Net's Acceptable Use Policy). The first note traces the
evolution of NSFnet from a platform for doing research about
networking to its (almost, but not quite) common-carrier function
today<1991Oct4.180750.3733@eff.org>. The second note asserts that the
Net is legally a "limited public forum". Such status means that the
government cannot, for example, practice viewpoint
discrimination.<1991Oct4.055552.19960@eff.org> The third note says
that the Supreme Court's Public Forum Doctrine is already broad enough
to cover the Net; the doctrine does not need to be
extended.<1991Oct4.151847.29603@eff.org>
The next note is an observation and reply. The observation is that
NFSnet is not the same as Usenet. Thus, Usenet may be a free-speech
limited public forum while NFSnet is constrained by its Acceptable Use
Policy. The reply points out that the NFSnet AUP is very broad and
that actual practice, not just formal policy, is
important.<1991Oct4.165949.2146@eff.org> The fifth note interprets
recent NSF actions to mean that "anyone transmitting material across
the NSFnet had better be prepared to explain how it furthers NSFnet's
stated goals". Alternatively, NSF users can ask a research library to
vouch for them.<1991Oct5.183000.37@sdg.dra.com> The next note says
that the NSF's rules are unclear but that the rules should recognize
that the NSF has created an on-line electronic library system. The
note includes a copy of the American Library Association's Diversity
Statement (a statement that discusses both sexual and sexist
material).<1991Oct2.225512.3857@eff.org>
The last NSF-related note is a discussion about the power of users and
sys admins to influence (or resist) NSF
policy.<1991Oct4.134400.2052@ms.uky.edu>
The next two notes are about material that seems nonacademic. The
first note reports that magazines such as Playboy and Penthouse cover
serious topics such as arms control and
censorship.<1991Oct1.133036.8510@ousrvr.oulu.fi> The second note
excerpts a UPI report on an academic pornography
conference.<1991Oct4.203547.6378@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
The next note is an excerpt from the Supreme Court's recent Rust v.
Sullivan decision (the so-called abortion gag-rule decision). That
decision explicitly recognizes that "the university is a traditional
sphere of free expression so fundamental to the functioning of our
society that the Government's ability to control speech within that
sphere by means of conditions attached to the expenditure of
Government funds is restricted ..."<1991Oct2.001031.1159@eff.org>
The last two note report the end of the University of Waterloo's ban
on newsgroups "from alt.sex.bondage to rec.humor.funny". The first
note gives the history<1991Oct3.172138.338@eff.org>. The second note
is the official announcement of the new policy. The new policy
recognizes that each user is responsible for what he or she writes. It
says that all available newsgroup will be carried without screening or
censorship. It establishes a procedure for dealing with bad (illegal?)
notes posted from off-campus.<1991Oct4.153000.29957@eff.org>
- Carl]
--- end abstract 1.31 ---
CAF-news is a weekly digest of notes from CAF-talk.
CAF-news is available as newsgroup alt.comp.acad-freedom.news or via
email. If you read newsgroups but your site doesn't get
alt.comp.acad-freedom.news, (politely) ask your sys admin to
subscribe. For info on email delivery, send email to listserv@eff.org.
Include the lines "help" and "longindex".
Back issues of CAF-news are available via anonymous ftp or via email.
Ftp to ftp.eff.org. The directory is pub/academic/news. For
information about email access to the archive, send an email note to
archive-server@eff.org. Include the lines "help" and "index".
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
-------------------
From: lamontg@milton.u.washington.edu (Lamont Granquist)
Subject: Re: [alt.sex] Re: UW, Seattle P-I, and alt.sex.pictures
Message-ID: <1991Oct20.181152.21958@milton.u.washington.edu>
References: <199110162251.AA26271@eff.org> <9110200048.AA17059@bottom.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>
Date: Sun, 20 Oct 1991 18:11:52 GMT
jangerma@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Jake O Angerman) writes:
>>lcs.mit.edu in the /news/alt/sex/pictures directory.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>I tried but it said, "permission denied." Any clues?
Either they got deluged with ftp requests, and shut it down, or our
administration talked with their administration, and shut it down.
--
Lamont Granquist HALLUCINATION IN PROGRESS:
lamontg@u.washington.edu Stay tuned for further information
-------------------
From: byrnes@milton.u.washington.edu (Nicholas Byrnes)
Subject: The first amend.
Keywords: Censorship, Free speech
Message-ID: <1991Oct20.225205.5648@milton.u.washington.edu>
Date: 20 Oct 91 22:52:05 GMT
Article-I.D.: milton.1991Oct20.225205.5648
I've noticed in several groups lately much talk about freedom of speech,
and due to the nature of those posts I feel a reality check is in order.
There are many conditions under which it is against the law communicate.
For example: if the content of the communication is slanderous, libelous,
or copyrighted and you are using it without permission (check out the
sci fi groups for talk of the person who committed a copyright violation
against Larry Niven).
Another no-no, and this one is far more vague, is the problem of harm.
If a person's communication causes someone else harm, that person may be
held responsible. A recent case where song lyrics were implicated in a suicide
for example. Another example of this is the distribution of literature
advocating genocide. While it is true that the U.S. leagal system appears to be
leaning in a more conservative direction on this score, it still amazes me what
some people DO manage to comunicate (if you're interested in this, one
wonderful source is the book "High Wierdness By Mail").
The problem faced by BB's
Traditional media (newspapers, T.V., etc.) have a person or persons who serve as
the final word on the subject of legality. Their job is to avoid content that
exposes that media to liability. In addition, because they are usually in
business to make money, they also try to avoid offending their customers. This
tends to result in an editorial policy that is more conservative than the law
would allow. For example, most magazines may leagally run photos of women with
exposed breasts, while in fact these photos are confined to "mens magazines"
ann occassional ads in the back of Cosmopolitan and its ilk. Newsweek could,
but don't bother looking.
BB's are not traditional media. They are, to greater and lesser extent, consumer
controlled. It is possible to post a communication to a very large audience
without anyone accepting responsibility along the way. Consequently, the user
has the power to get into a lot of trouble. Say for example you harbored
slanderous feelings toward your neighbor. You would have a very hard time
convincing the local newspaper to print your stuff, and a harder time convincing
NBC to air your gripes, luckily high technology provides the answer, just post
it to this BB.
My little example may seem trite, but consider this: There is a wako out there
in BB land that likes to write porn of the most vile type, advocating the
torture and murder of children while having sex with them. This person's
thoughts are not illeagal, the writing is not illeagal, posting it might be
illeagal (these waters are untested by the courts). However, this person has
posted this sort of stuff to groups intended for children, this is against the
law. This person willfully attempted to expose children to virulent porn.
I've read some comments to the effect of "we are forced to tollerate people like
this in the name of free speech" this is hog wash. These people are not
exercising their right to free speech, they are breaking the law.
But what do we do? If legal attention is brought to these transgressions the
entire BB might be at risk. If my child had been exposed to that porn I would be
first in line with a multi-million dollar law suit. And remember, the
administers of the BB provided the pornographer with the opportunity,
consequently they assume some of the liability. The first time something like
this happens you can be assured that the BB is history, even if the case does'nt
go to court, because who wants to expose themselves to that level of liability.
It's going to happen sooner or later.
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). If you decode a picture that you think is
copyrighted (i.e. most of the pictures on BB's) send a nasty E-mail to the
originator. If they respond or continue to post then send a copy of the
offending item to the copyright holder along with the e-mail address of the
person who posted it. 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.
-------------------
From: fxjwk@acad3.alaska.edu
Subject: Re: The first amend.
Message-ID: <1991Oct20.160908.1@acad3.alaska.edu>
Date: 20 Oct 91 20:09:08 GMT
Article-I.D.: acad3.1991Oct20.160908.1
References: <1991Oct20.225205.5648@milton.u.washington.edu>
Sender: news@raven.alaska.edu (USENET News System)
Nntp-Posting-Host: acad3.alaska.edu
In article <1991Oct20.225205.5648@milton.u.washington.edu>, byrnes@milton.u.washington.edu (Nicholas Byrnes) writes:
>
> This person willfully attempted to expose children to virulent porn.
>
> I've read some comments to the effect of "we are forced to tollerate people like
> this in the name of free speech" this is hog wash. These people are not
> exercising their right to free speech, they are breaking the law.
>
If posted to a kids' group, possibly...
>
> But what do we do? If legal attention is brought to these transgressions the
> entire BB might be at risk. If my child had been exposed to that porn I would be
> first in line with a multi-million dollar law suit. And remember, the
> administers of the BB provided the pornographer with the opportunity,
> consequently they assume some of the liability.
Nonsense; were this the case, then every phone company whose lines were used
to transmit the stuff would be just as liable. (I am assuming by "BB", you
mean "the net" and "netnews".) The only liability resides with the perpetrator
of the crime, if crime has been committed. I'll toss out another analogy: how
many postal carriers have been arrested for complicity in murder after unknow-
ingly delivering a "letter bomb"? Neither the phone companies nor the postal
service may act as censors.
> 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). If you decode a picture that you think is
> copyrighted (i.e. most of the pictures on BB's) send a nasty E-mail to the
> originator. If they respond or continue to post then send a copy of the
> offending item to the copyright holder along with the e-mail address of the
> person who posted it. 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.
This seems to be going way overboard, but perhaps my ACLU card is showing....
I personally am not going to worry about copyright infringement; the owners of
the copyrights can do this well enough on their own. (I rather suspect those
publishers who are familiar with the practice may find it all quite amusing---
they're getting all this free advertising at no cost!)
As far as the FBI, you probably needn't bother there, either---I'm sure they
already know; information is their business, after all!
And lastly, regarding the kids' groups; if "harmful" postings happen, the
groups will become moderated; end of problem.
jo
-------------------
From: lamontg@milton.u.washington.edu (Lamont Granquist)
Subject: Re: The first amend.
Message-ID: <1991Oct21.002901.20509@milton.u.washington.edu>
Keywords: Censorship, Free speech
References: <1991Oct20.225205.5648@milton.u.washington.edu>
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 1991 00:29:01 GMT
byrnes@milton.u.washington.edu (Nicholas Byrnes) writes:
>I've noticed in several groups lately much talk about freedom of speech,
>and due to the nature of those posts I feel a reality check is in order.
>There are many conditions under which it is against the law communicate.
>For example: if the content of the communication is slanderous, libelous,
>or copyrighted and you are using it without permission (check out the
>sci fi groups for talk of the person who committed a copyright violation
>against Larry Niven).
>Another no-no, and this one is far more vague, is the problem of harm.
>If a person's communication causes someone else harm, that person may be
>held responsible. A recent case where song lyrics were implicated in a suicide
>for example.
What recent case?
Anyway, I think what should happen is that universities should make it
their policy that they will not be held responsible for the content of posts
made at other sites, in potentially other countries. Therefore, the only
people they have to police is the ones at their own sites.
This may be letting the universities be wide open to lawsuits. Good. I'd
like to see a university implement and defend this policy to stop the kind
of crap that happened with the E911 incident.
Of course the university should make sure that *public* traffic on the net
originating from the university does not violate any laws. Even there,
though, the university should not be held responsible, and there's going to
have to be a much more liberal interpretation of the copywrite laws pretty
soon. You're going to have Joe Average idiot capable of essentially
publishing thousands of pages of copywrite violations. I'm not a lawyer
and I seriously doubt I understand "fair use" enough to know when I do or
do not violate any copywrite laws. Laws are going to start having to
deal with these realities, and the universities should take a step to
specifically implement these in thier policies so that all the f***ing
lawyers know that someone doesn't agree with the way they think everything
should be run.
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.
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 ****)
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.
probably alt.sex.pictures passes all of the above points, however,
alt.binaires.pictures doesn't.
--
Lamont Granquist HALLUCINATION IN PROGRESS:
lamontg@u.washington.edu Stay tuned for further information
-------------------
From: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Subject: Re: The first amend.
Keywords: Censorship, Free speech
Message-ID: <1991Oct21.011328.7222@nntp.hut.fi>
Date: 21 Oct 91 01:13:28 GMT
References: <1991Oct20.225205.5648@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 <1991Oct20.225205.5648@milton.u.washington.edu>, byrnes@milton (Nicholas Byrnes) writes:
>If a person's communication causes someone else harm, that person may be
>held responsible. A recent case where song lyrics were implicated in a suicide
>for example.
What crazy laws some people have - is this really true?
Who knows, some bozo somewhere might be offended because I call the
laws crazy and call him/her a bozo - say that he/she then decide to go
shoots the President of the U.S. of A. because he/she gets so angry.
I'll be held responsible for that, right?
//Jyrki
-------------------
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: The first amend.
Message-ID: <1991Oct21.025651.27824@eff.org>
Keywords: Censorship, Free speech
References: <1991Oct20.225205.5648@milton.u.washington.edu>
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 1991 02:56:51 GMT
byrnes@milton.u.washington.edu (Nicholas Byrnes) writes:
[...]
>Another no-no, and this one is far more vague, is the problem of harm.
>If a person's communication causes someone else harm, that person may be
>held responsible. A recent case where song
>lyrics were implicated in a suicide
>for example. Another example of this is the distribution of literature
>advocating genocide. While it is true
>that the U.S. leagal system appears to be
>leaning in a more conservative direction
>on this score, it still amazes me what
>some people DO manage to comunicate (if you're interested in this, one
>wonderful source is the book "High Wierdness By Mail").
The suicide case you are thinking of was probably the case against the
band Judas Priest. The band won. The court (jury?) decided that the
men who kill themselves were responsible for their own actions.
[This is a repost of a note I last posted July 11 in alt.censorship
concerning the right to speech that advocates violence. My response is
based on U.S. law. It is a summary of the ACLU's Bill of Rights
Briefing Paper #10: Freedom of Expression. - Carl]
In 1919 the Court agreed that speech that advocated violence could be
banned. Indeed, it want even farther saying that any speech that had a
'tendency' to cause a volation of the law could be punished. This
principle was used to convict a Socialist for mailing antiwar
leaflets.
In 1925 the Court established stronger speech protections, stating
that speech could not be punished unless it presented 'a clear a
present danger' of imminent harm. In 1931, this was used to overturn a
conviction based on a California law. That law make it illegal to
publically salute a red flag -- the symbol of (violent) revolution.
In 1950's during the second Red Scare, the Court backtracked saying
that the clear-and-present-danger principle did not apply to speakers
who advocated overthrowing the government, no matter how remote the
danger of such an occurrence might be. (This paved the way for jailing
policitial activists, loyalty oaths, etc).
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.
- 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: <1991Oct21.024053.19799@eng.umd.edu>
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 91 02:40:53 GMT
References: <1991Oct20.225205.5648@milton.u.washington.edu>
Keywords: Censorship, Free speech
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.
>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
-------------------
Xref: eff alt.censorship:2076 alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1350 alt.sex:22038
From: szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo)
Subject: Re: USENET censorship strikes University of Washington!
Message-ID: <1991Oct20.070839.26299@techbook.com>
Summary: Computer Science Depts. important anti-censorship allies?
References: <1991Oct17.190610.4623@milton.u.washington.edu> <1991Oct17.213916.2091@ms.uky.edu>
Date: Sun, 20 Oct 1991 07:08:39 GMT
In article jeff@fozzie.cc.wwu.edu (Jeff Wandling) writes:
>I am happy to relay that the chances of getting the "alt.sex" groups back
>are starting to improve. We (the people trying to get the groups back) are
>being helped out by people in the Computer Science Dept. The Computer Science
>Dept has been instrumental in this effort.
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?
--
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: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Subject: Re: The first amend.
Keywords: Censorship, Free speech
Message-ID: <1991Oct21.031221.8528@nntp.hut.fi>
Date: 21 Oct 91 03:12:21 GMT
References: <1991Oct20.225205.5648@milton.u.washington.edu> <1991Oct21.002901.20509@milton.u.washington.edu>
Sender: usenet@nntp.hut.fi (Usenet pseudouser id)
In-Reply-To: lamontg@milton.u.washington.edu (Lamont Granquist)
Nntp-Posting-Host: sauna.cs.hut.fi
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
-------------------
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: How to contact me anonymously
Message-ID: <1991Oct21.144018.13868@eff.org>
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 1991 14:40:18 GMT
If you would like to send email to me without me knowing who you are,
send email to "ap.4352@hri.com".
Machine hri.com offers an anonymous contact service (ACS). The service
*gives those who sign up* the ability to communicate anonymously
*with each other*. IT DOES NOT provide the ability to communicate
anonymously with people who have not signed up.
Here are some useful addresses:
Test path/get alias: ap.ping@hri.com
Anonymous reply: @hri.com
ACS administrator: ap.admin@hri.com (non anonymous)
ACS administrator: ap.0@hri.com (anonymous, no replies)
Some Disclaimers:
* The ACS service is free and offers no warrantees.
* This is not a scheme for automatic anonymous posting to caf-talk.
* This is an experiment. I will cancel my anonymous address at my pleasure.
* I don't have a monopoly on receiving anonymous email. Anyone willing
to get and then disclose their ACS alias can do it.
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
End of returned message
From warnold Mon Oct 28 20:44:38 1991
Received: by eff.org id AA12119
(5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for cafb-list@eff.org); Mon, 28 Oct 1991 20:21:47 -0500
Reply-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk
From: comp-academic-freedom-talk
Precedence: bulk
To: comp-academic-freedom-talk
Errors-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk-request
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1991 20:21:41 -0500
X-Digest-Sender: "William W. Arnold"
Message-Id: <199110290121.AA12114@eff.org>
Subject: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Status: RO
Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Mon Oct 28 20:20:33 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
- Billy ]
In this issue:
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (alt.censorship, et al.) Re: USENET censorship strikes Uni
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (alt.censorship) Re: Usenet censorship
shore@theory.TC.Co : Re: YAHWEH is good!
morgan@ms.uky.edu : Re: Draft Statement on Computers and Academic Freedom (CAF
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: Draft Statement on Computers and Academic Freedom (CA
chicken@maria.wust : Re: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch ed
morgan@ms.uky.edu : Re: USENET censorship strikes University of Washington!
kadie@eff.org (Car : (eff.mail.ethics-l) Re: Ucla's Use Policies
nwickham@triton.un : Re: Dave (The Stud) Duke likes Republicans!
kadie@eff.org (Car : (eff.mail.ethics-l) Re: Ucla's Use Policies
art@world.std.com : Re: Dave (The Stud) Duke likes Republicans!
morgan@ms.uky.edu : Re: USENET censorship strikes University of Washington!
nbc2134@dsacg2.dsa : Re: Draft Statement on Computers and Academic Freedom
nadeau@bcrka404.bn : Re: Repr. Sullivan wants to fire prof. Hill because of po
edguer@alpha.ces.c : Re: Draft Statement on Computers and Academic Freedom
morgan@ms.uky.edu : Re: Draft Statement on Computers and Academic Freedom (CAF
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@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.censorship, et al.] Re: USENET censorship strikes University of Washington!
Message-ID: <9110281417.AA28593@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 28 Oct 91 02:17:50 GMT
From: smith@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (John W. Smith)
Date: 28 Oct 91 13:32:38 GMT
cos@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu (Ofer Inbar) writes:
>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.
...
> -- 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
At next Week's ACM SIGUCCS User Services Conference we're doing a
panel on, "The Practical Management of Computer Ethics: Computer
Center and Computer Science Department Approaches". It will include
people from Indiana University and Central Washington University
computer centers and computer science departments (this was all
planned and in place *before* the Seattle Post-Intelligencer article).
The paper lists some of the differences in the two cultures,
describes some of the real world phenomena of computer ethics
problems, and goes into some of the ways we have found (through hard,
painfull experience in some cases) to manage problems in computer
ethics.
As is often the case in trying to understand complex issues,
exploring two contrasting approaches can be very helpfull in getting a
better understanding of the underlying problems. I won't give away
the show, but I think the paper clearly demonstrates differences
between the center and departmental approaches. It also shows that
there are good reasons for this. If the cultural differences and areas
of responsibility are taken into account, however, the two approaches
can result in a win-win situation for the campus, rather than create
tension and divisiveness (althought the centers to tend to push it at
times :-)
-------------------
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.censorship] Re: Usenet censorship
Message-ID: <9110281420.AA28607@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 28 Oct 91 02:20:15 GMT
From: sean@sdg.dra.com
Date: 27 Oct 91 17:32:23 CDT
In article , bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) writes:
> You can only accomplish this so long as you have control over what is
> being posted in entirety, and that it's properly identified.
True, libraries already have to do this identification for inventory
and reporting purposes. Of course even if you can control how things
are classified, you get into weird situations. For example, libraries
generally classify things by their "intended audience." This obviously
fails when dealing with propaganda. How do you handle a KKK children's
reader? "See Dick run, run Dick run, see the Klan catch Dick...."
Information filters are a curious thing. When they match your expectations
they are editors, or moderators. When they don't match, they are called
censors. The censor/moderator functions in the same way, perhaps even comes
to the same decision. The difference is if your point of view matches theirs.
For example, I outlined some functionality libraries want to add to their
computer catalogs. The response I received was extremely varied. The generic
term for this functionality is location-based searching. Location-based
searching has been used in libraries for a long time by having separate card
catalogs. In an academic setting this same functionality is used in catalogs
in the "Reserve Room," rather than the childrens' room. The reserve room
computer catalog will only show you that material available in the reserve
room, and block out any material available elsewhere.
As Mr. Shein points out if you agree to do content-based censorship you almost
always lose. However you can often achieve the same effect by calling it by
a different name.
--
Sean Donelan, Data Research Associates, Inc, St. Louis, MO
Domain: sean@sdg.dra.com, Voice: (Work) +1 314-432-1100
All the news that is fit to print.
-------------------
Xref: eff alt.sex:22814 soc.women:10150 alt.censorship:2329 alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1646
From: shore@theory.TC.Cornell.EDU (Melinda Shore)
Subject: Re: YAHWEH is good!
Message-ID: <1991Oct28.142825.27451@tc.cornell.edu>
Date: 28 Oct 91 14:28:25 GMT
Article-I.D.: tc.1991Oct28.142825.27451
References: <1991Oct24.151301.25921@tc.cornell.edu> <1991Oct28.005802.2713@cbnewsc.cb.att.com>
Sender: news@tc.cornell.edu
Nntp-Posting-Host: theory.tc.cornell.edu
In article <1991Oct28.005802.2713@cbnewsc.cb.att.com> chapin@cbnewsc.cb.att.com ( Tom Chapin ) writes:
>Wonder how long Melinda would preach that principle if soc.women
>were in danger of being removed from the Net instead of merely
>being censored to her particular preference...
You really haven't been following this discussion at all,
have you?
And for what it's worth, I have always held the position
that it is up to the administrators (systems and otherwise)
to carry whichever newsgroups they see fit. I certainly
wouldn't receive soc.women (among many others) on my home
machine, myself.
--
Software longa, hardware brevis
Melinda Shore - Cornell Information Technologies - shore@tc.cornell.edu
-------------------
From: morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan)
Subject: Re: Draft Statement on Computers and Academic Freedom (CAF)
Message-ID: <1991Oct28.144805.20903@ms.uky.edu>
References: <1991Oct26.210722.29271@eff.org>
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1991 14:48:05 GMT
kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>
>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]
>
I would explicitly append "user files and/or data" to the list of exceptions.
In many instances, the danger affects user's files/data more than their "safety
and well-being", and those files/data are not, in many cases, "university
property".
>Interpretation: Computer sites that offer newsgroups should select
>newsgroups the way that traditional libraries select magazines and
>books.
I would append "In some cases, the physical resources available may
preclude the application of these selection criteria." After all,
if I only have 250MB of disk space for news, the binaries
groups are going to get shafted, regardless of the user demand for
them. There is a precedent in library science for a resource-based
criterion; the library here at UK has been forced to store rarely-used
volumes in a cave outside of the area, due to space considerations.
>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].
Add "However, the mission of each facility should be paramount; this may
affect the selection criteria." If I manage a news system for a research
lab, I may only wish to support the comp.* and sci.* hierarchies. This
would be well within my rights as an administrator and the mission of the
facility. After all, the mere existence of news service does not imply
an obligation to carry every newsgroup users may desire.
>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]
Add "This means that 'electronic publishers' are pursing an individual
interest; their actions will be neither supported nor curtailed by the
facility on an arbitrary basis." I think that many users unconsciously
assume some level of support from the administration that does not exist.
The volume of "He's a jerk, cancel his account" email sent to administrators
is an indication of that misconception.
I would also add something like this:
Premise: Many different elements of society participate in electronic
media. Every effort should be made to ensure the peaceful coexistence
of the different objectives and policies of these elements.
Interpretation: Electronic media can reach almost every level of society.
There are particpants from all areas; the corporate, academic, and inter-
national sectors are all represented en masse. What is acceptable, protected
speech in an academic environment may not be appropriate in a commercial
environment. Users and administrators at academic sites should work together
to recognize this, tailoring their actions accordingly. This is not intended
as any restriction or curtailment of academia; it it simply a societal fact of
life. User education is essential in this area; that is the obligation of
the adminstrative staff at each site.
--
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: Draft Statement on Computers and Academic Freedom (CAF)
Message-ID: <1991Oct28.155055.24308@eff.org>
References: <1991Oct26.210722.29271@eff.org> <1991Oct28.144805.20903@ms.uky.edu>
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1991 15:50:55 GMT
morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
draft>Interpretation: "Pending action on the charges, the status of a [user]
draft>should not be altered, or his [or her] right to be present on the
draft>campus and to attend classes [and use computers] suspended, except for
draft>reasons relating to his physical or emotional safety and well being,
draft>or for reasons relating to the safety and well-being of students,
draft>faculty, or university property." [Joint Statement]
>I would explicitly append "user files and/or data" to the list of exceptions.
>In many instances, the danger affects
>user's files/data more than their "safety
>and well-being", and those files/data are not, in many cases, "university
>property".
I think this is a good suggestion.
---------------------------
draft>Interpretation: Computer sites that offer newsgroups should select
draft>newsgroups the way that traditional libraries select magazines and
draft>books.
[...]
>I would append "In some cases, the physical resources available may
>preclude the application of these selection criteria."
[...]
I don't think this addition is necessary. Library selection criteria
include direct and indirect costs.
---------------------------
draft>Interpretation: "Materials should not be proscribed or removed because
draft>of partisan or doctrinal disapproval" [Article 2, Library Bill of
draft>Rights].
[..]
>Add "However, the mission of each facility should be paramount; this may
>affect the selection criteria."
[...]
I don't think this addition is necessary. Library selection criteria
include the relevence of material to the library's missions.
---------------------------
draft>Interpretation: "All university published and financed [user]
draft>publications should explicitly state [...] that the opinions there
draft>expressed are not necessarily those of the college, university, or
draft>student body. [Joint Statement]
>Add "This means that 'electronic publishers' are pursing an individual
>interest; their actions will be neither supported nor curtailed by the
>facility on an arbitrary basis." I think that many users unconsciously
>assume some level of support from the administration that does not exist.
>The volume of "He's a jerk, cancel his account" email sent to administrators
>is an indication of that misconception.
Maybe we need something just for complaints about email.
---------------------------
>I would also add something like this:
>Premise: Many different elements of society participate in electronic
>media. Every effort should be made to ensure the peaceful coexistence
>of the different objectives and policies of these elements.
[...]
Beyond user education what would this mean? Can you given an example
of a situation were it would apply?
The only similar policy I can think of is the U. of Illinois rule that
prohibits demonstrations that substantially interfer with the rights
of others. (That policy, however, is not in the "academic freedom"
part of the Student Code.)
- 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: chicken@maria.wustl.edu (Mike Ezrine)
Subject: Re: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Message-ID: <9110281001.aa25985@maria.wustl.edu>
Sender: chicken@maria.wustl.edu
References: <199110281413.AA20013@eff.org>
Date: 28 Oct 91 16:01:00 GMT
Please remove me from this list.
Mike
-------------------
Xref: eff alt.censorship:2330 alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1650 alt.sex:22817
From: morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan)
Subject: Re: USENET censorship strikes University of Washington!
Message-ID: <1991Oct28.152854.28951@ms.uky.edu>
Date: 28 Oct 91 15:28:54 GMT
Article-I.D.: ms.1991Oct28.152854.28951
References: <1991Oct23.011804.34839@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> <1991Oct23.235848.24117@iitmax.iit.edu>
fischer@iesd.auc.dk (Lars P. Fischer) writes:
>
>When a university computing center or whatever starts restricting new
>because of "disk space problems" it's time to suspicious.
>
This is not necessarily the case. On our systems, disk space usage
follows a bell curve. At the peak of the curve, which usually occurs
in late October and lasts until early December, our disk space usage runs
at 90% or more. When that happens, news could easily be the straw that
breaks the proberbial back. Since the usage tapers off radically in the
spring semester, we don't have the "year-round" usage to justify the addi-
tion of extra disk space.
I wish people would stop screaming "censorship" at every shadow, especially
if they don't know the full story.
--
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: [eff.mail.ethics-l] Re: Ucla's Use Policies
Message-ID: <199110281638.AA25437@eff.org>
Sender: kadie
Date: 28 Oct 91 06:38:57 GMT
From: richard@CHOPIN.UDEL.EDU (Richard Gordon)
Date: 28 Oct 91 05:59:11 GMT
Carl (and fellow ETHICS-L readers),
A lot of the sections you are concerned about were adapted from or are
similar to langauge in our draft guidelines for responsible computing
at the U. of D. (Yes, sports fans--we are STILL waiting for final
faculty senate approval! Our staff do take some ironic satisfaction
from seeing certain phrases turning up in other places whilst our
esteemed faculty debate them :)! )
Re: the issue of "innocent until proven guilty" vs. "suspend or restrict
computing privileges": In a time-sharing environment, a sysadmin
needs to be able to take steps to protect all users of the system.
That is, if a sysadmin sees that johndoe@xyz.udel.edu's account is, as
has happened here, running a job that crashes the entire mail system on
xyz.udel.edu, he has to take steps to restore the service pronto. Now
the issue of whether or not the incident involved malicious intent or
an accident is an issue for due process. (In our case here, it turned
out to be an accident [or so the user said and we belived
him]--computing privileges were restored to the user in a matter of
minutes--we tracked him down and had an informal chat with him--the
problem has not reoccurred!) We have also, in at least one case I can
think of, allowed one person charged with a computer-related offense
(and later found guilty via Univ. due process) to make arrangements to
use the computers in one micro lab to do his homework--under
supervision--while his case was being heard.
Re: Game-playing:
This activity may or may not be deemed to have "educational" benefits
depending on which faculty member you consult with! SEASNET's policy
seems to strike a pretty good balance in this area, respecting both
views on games.
Re: Confidentiality vs. System Integrity:
This is, without a doubt, one of the thorniest issues confronting all
of us. Carl draws an analogy in his response between computer files
and "personal files in university-assigned space in an office or
dormitory space (for example, files in a graduate student's desk)."
What we have found our faculty are willing to buy is that if a computer
file has had to be inspected, its owner or its owner's supervisor must
be notified. I guess the analogous situation would be if my supervisor
needed to locate something in my office while I was out of town....in
that case, I'd hope my supervisor would send me e-mail that she had
rummaged about to find what she needed!
But there are points at which the analogy breaks down--e.g., a search
for stolen property or marijuana in a dorm or office is quite a
different situation from an IBM 3090 grinding to a halt as a result of
a string of jobs that appear to be started by userid NVT00666. If you
want to try to apply Carl's analogy, the hallway is filling with smoke
from room 317--what should you do?
On the University of Delaware's campus, our draft policy has received
user input--and has been much improved as a result. I suspect, based
on some of the language in the SEASNET document, that UCLA also had
some user input.
Well, that's enough rambling from me. Later this week, if people would
like, I'll put the most recent draft of UD's guidelines out on
zebra.cns.udel.edu for ftping....
Best,
Richard
--
Richard Gordon richard@brahms.udel.edu
CNS User Services (formerly ACS) or gordon@udel.edu
Smith Hall, University of Delaware or acs02244@udelvm.bitnet
Newark, DE 19716 (302-451-1717) or richard.gordon@mvs.udel.edu
-------------------
Xref: eff alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1652 alt.society.civil-liberties:811 talk.politics.misc:22305 alt.censorship:2333
From: nwickham@triton.unm.edu (Neal C. Wickham)
Subject: Re: Dave (The Stud) Duke likes Republicans!
Message-ID:
Date: 28 Oct 91 15:44:58 GMT
Article-I.D.: lynx.hmdd+8a
References: <-rcdyyn@lynx.unm.edu>
In article art@world.std.com (Al Thompson) writes:
>Funny I don't remember any liberals saying any such thing.
I do.
>Far behind?? Haha. They've been behind, but far? They have a pretty
>big nuclear missle force and damn good inventory of war planes.
Al... buddy... stick to thing you at least have a clue about!
>Relaxation of Communism in China? Have you ever heard of Tiannanmen
>Square? That was some relaxation.
China is opening itself up as an american market. It is much more free
market oriented that in the past and you hero, George the Crusader has
fought to keep China in "most favored nation status" in spite of
Teannanmen Square and inspite of human rights abuses in Tibet.
>Oh pure crap. The less pressure on them the easier it is to hang on.
You've got the Nazi delusion don't you Al? :)
>Oh yeah? Have a look at a MIG-29 someday and tell me that.
Al... you don't know how stupid you're sounding, do you?
>Those negotiations had nothing to do with the dismantling of the Wall.
>There are negotiations going on with the East Bloc all the time.
Al... I am not even responding to this one.
>How are they going to pay for it? Besides, we are picking up a rather
>large chunk of the trade that does exist. Who are they trying to buy
>computers from? Whose wheat are they buying?
Yeah... we are the leader in computers. Europe has a surplus of food.
>Tell that to McDonalds, Kentucky Fried Chicken, Pizza Hut, DEC and IBM.
>Of course I do expect the Germans to conquer the chemical weapons factory
>market the way they did in Libya and Iraq.
You're a funny guy Al. You might leave some four-year-old with the
impression that you knew what you were talking about.
>Until the last few years the communist threat was very real. Whether
>they could have prevailed in what they saw as the "inevitible conflict"
>between capitalism and communism we'll thankfully (hopefully) never know.
>Have you ever heard of the Comintern, Stalin, the Brezhnev Doctrine, "we
>will bury you"? I thought not.
...yup. Big red rats in space.
And we were totally defensless until that big tall rancher got in the
White House. It is a good thing your daddy payed his taxes so Ed Meese
could get rich off from Wedtech Corp.
>No, it didn't scare them into submission, it spent them into submission.
>When I was in the USSR in 1987 many of the younger people told me that
>they knew the US wasn't going to attack. They wanted to know why, in
>view of that, the USSR kept spending so much on the military and so
>little on consumers.
I think everyone knows that Reagan was going to spend defense money until
their little heads spun. The military contractors were amoung the
largest contributers to the Reagan campaigns.
>With luck, no.
NCW
-------------------
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [eff.mail.ethics-l] Re: Ucla's Use Policies
Message-ID: <199110281716.AA26312@eff.org>
Sender: kadie
Date: 28 Oct 91 07:16:26 GMT
richard@CHOPIN.UDEL.EDU (Richard Gordon) writes:
>Re: the issue of "innocent until proven guilty" vs. "suspend or restrict
>computing privileges": In a time-sharing environment, a sysadmin
>needs to be able to take steps to protect all users of the system.
[...]
A good policy must distinguish administrative actions taken to punish
and administrative actions taken to protect the system. For a public
university (and most private universities) is not just a matter of
academic freedom and ethics, it is a matter of law (specifically the
requirement for due process.)
Punishment should not (and legally, can not) be inflicted
arbitrarily.
As the Joint Statement on Rights and Freedoms of Students says
(emphasis added):
"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.*"
>Re: Game-playing:
>This activity may or may not be deemed to have "educational" benefits
>depending on which faculty member you consult with! SEASNET's policy
>seems to strike a pretty good balance in this area, respecting both
>views on games.
[...]
I have no problem with the game policy. The noncommercial-personal-use
policy is vague and unclear. A policy should not require a student to
keep consulting faculty until he or she founds one that thinks an
activity is educational.
[...]
>But there are points at which the analogy breaks down--e.g., a search
>for stolen property or marijuana in a dorm or office is quite a
>different situation from an IBM 3090 grinding to a halt as a result of
>a string of jobs that appear to be started by userid NVT00666. If you
>want to try to apply Carl's analogy, the hallway is filling with smoke
>from room 317--what should you do?
(I would kill or suspend the jobs and contact user NVT00666. I would
not start looking through the users's file without his or her
permission.)
I don't think the analogy breaks down at all. Your university's
general privacy policy almost certainly distinguishs between entry for
emergency and maintenance and entry as part of an investigation.
Computer policies should make this same distinction.
As the Joint Statement says (emphasis added):
"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."
- Carl
-------------------
Xref: eff alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1654 alt.society.civil-liberties:812 talk.politics.misc:22311 alt.censorship:2335
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 28 Oct 91 15:44:58 GMT
Message-ID:
Sender: art@world.std.com (Al Thompson)
References: <-rcdyyn@lynx.unm.edu>
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1991 17:05:06 GMT
In article nwickham@triton.unm.edu (Neal C. Wickham) writes:
In article art@world.std.com (Al Thompson) writes:
>Funny I don't remember any liberals saying any such thing.
I do.
Care to cite them?
>Far behind?? Haha. They've been behind, but far? They have a pretty
>big nuclear missle force and damn good inventory of war planes.
Al... buddy... stick to thing you at least have a clue about!
And you do?
>Relaxation of Communism in China? Have you ever heard of Tiannanmen
>Square? That was some relaxation.
China is opening itself up as an american market. It is much more free
market oriented that in the past and you hero, George the Crusader has
fought to keep China in "most favored nation status" in spite of
Teannanmen Square and inspite of human rights abuses in Tibet.
It's one thing to open up markets its quite another to relax a
totaliarian regime.
>Oh pure crap. The less pressure on them the easier it is to hang on.
You've got the Nazi delusion don't you Al? :)
What are you talking about.
>Oh yeah? Have a look at a MIG-29 someday and tell me that.
Al... you don't know how stupid you're sounding, do you?
The MIG-29 is a bad plane?
>Those negotiations had nothing to do with the dismantling of the Wall.
>There are negotiations going on with the East Bloc all the time.
Al... I am not even responding to this one.
Why, because you can't refute. Come on Neal tell us how the west
negotiated the dismantling of the wall.
>How are they going to pay for it? Besides, we are picking up a rather
>large chunk of the trade that does exist. Who are they trying to buy
>computers from? Whose wheat are they buying?
Yeah... we are the leader in computers. Europe has a surplus of food.
So do we.
>Tell that to McDonalds, Kentucky Fried Chicken, Pizza Hut, DEC and IBM.
>Of course I do expect the Germans to conquer the chemical weapons factory
>market the way they did in Libya and Iraq.
You're a funny guy Al. You might leave some four-year-old with the
impression that you knew what you were talking about.
Exactly what's wrong? Are you telling me those places don't exist in the
USSR, or the German's didn't sell those chemical plants?
>Until the last few years the communist threat was very real. Whether
>they could have prevailed in what they saw as the "inevitible conflict"
>between capitalism and communism we'll thankfully (hopefully) never know.
>Have you ever heard of the Comintern, Stalin, the Brezhnev Doctrine, "we
>will bury you"? I thought not.
...yup. Big red rats in space.
And we were totally defensless until that big tall rancher got in the
White House. It is a good thing your daddy payed his taxes so Ed Meese
could get rich off from Wedtech Corp.
No, we were not defenseless, but a threat did in fact exist. Whether
they could have been victorious or not is an experiment we never had to
conduct.
Ed Meese was exonerated of taking any money in the Wedtech affair.
>No, it didn't scare them into submission, it spent them into submission.
>When I was in the USSR in 1987 many of the younger people told me that
>they knew the US wasn't going to attack. They wanted to know why, in
>view of that, the USSR kept spending so much on the military and so
>little on consumers.
I think everyone knows that Reagan was going to spend defense money until
their little heads spun. The military contractors were amoung the
largest contributers to the Reagan campaigns.
When you consider that in 1961, when JFK took office, defense spending
was 52% of the federal budget, and in 1986, at the height of the Reagan
buildup, it was 26% your charges of spending "until their little heads
spun" is revealed as the hollow rhetoric it is.
-------------------
Xref: eff alt.censorship:2336 alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1655 alt.sex:22830
From: morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan)
Subject: Re: USENET censorship strikes University of Washington!
Message-ID: <1991Oct28.171510.21293@ms.uky.edu>
Date: 28 Oct 91 17:15:10 GMT
References: <1991Oct27.233800.7842@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu> <1991Oct28.003732.18070@wpi.WPI.EDU>
entropy@wintermute.WPI.EDU (Lawrence C. Foard) writes:
>
>This maybe a bit off the topic, but has it ever passed through there minds
>that they could buy a cheap workstation to put news on? Around $5000 or less
>should get you a 486 with loads of memory (16-32 megs), BSD unix, and 1gig or
>more of disk space.
>
Yes, it should. Now, go convince the purseholders that they should give
you $5000 to fund a system whose sole purpose (news) is tangenital to the
misison of your facility (in my case, supporting an engineering college).
Now convince them to spend the money for administrative time, maintenance
contracts, software upgrades, and the like. It's far more than $5000, my
friend.
>I don't hold you responsible, but the institution as a whole can't disclaim
>responsibility, if they wanted $5000 would get them a news server.
Ah, but *do they want it*? On many systems, news was just "added" on an
ad hoc basis; the disk space was just sitting there, the networking support
was already there, and the news software is free. Can you really imagine,
for instance, trying to convince a computer science department that they
need to spend thousands of dollars on a machine whose exclusive use would
have very little to do with their CS mission? Good luck.
--
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: nbc2134@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil (Robert F Solon)
Subject: Re: Draft Statement on Computers and Academic Freedom
Message-ID: <9110281737.AA22428@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil>
Sender: nbc2134@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil
Date: 28 Oct 91 07:37:37 GMT
[Original Draft Statement deleted]
After looking over the Draft Statement on Computers and Academic Freedom, I
must say I'm fairly pleased with its principles and interpretations. I think
that most of the conclusions are solid, and I look forward to reading the
ensuing discussion. However, at first glance, I do have a problem with Part
IV, Principle 2 (BTW, Carl, you may want to apply a numbering system to the
principles and interpretations for ease of reference). The principle reads,
"The principles of academic freedom applicable to student and faculty
publication in traditional media, apply to student and faculty publication in
computer media."
Some initial thoughts and objections about Interpretation 1 of the above
principle:
A. Traditional media are usually edited. Faculty publication often goes
to a peer review board before published by a professional journal;
"traditional" student publications, especially at private institutions, are
often reviewed prior to publication. In fact, most of the editorial staff of
_The Lantern_, OSU's student daily, has just resigned or been fired over this
very topic.
Since traditional publications are often/usually edited, I wouldn't want
to apply this standard to electronic communication, thus opening the door for
review by various authorities.
B. I really don't think that Usenet articles are publications per se.
We've already agreed that they probably are protected by the free speech
clause of the First Amendment; I'm not sure that they're protected by the free
press clause. Rather, I see articles as akin to announcements on kiosks or
bulletin boards: opportunities to read and be read, but not necessarily
protected as publications.
C. Treating Usenet articles as student publications may require
universities to continue funding Usenet even when not fiscally sound, under
the doctrine that the state is not the unfettered master of all it creates.
Usenet is not a right; like driving a car or swilling a beer, it's a
privelege.
D. It seems that the protections desired under this principle can be
gained under application of other more compelling principles, such as
Principle 1 ("The principles of academic fredom apply...") and Principle 4
("The principles of intellectual freedom apply...").
I think the other principles are well stated, and the interpretations stemming
therefrom are valid and reasonable.
(BTW #2 - Carl, is the first interpretation listed under Part IV supposed to
go with the principle listed under Part III?)
Bob
Bob Solon, rsolon@dsac.dla.mil
Administrative Information Branch -- "We Code, You Explode!!"
Directorate of Resource Management Systems (APCAPS)
DLA Systems Automation Center, DSAC-BCC (614) 238-8256 AV 850-8256
-------------------
Xref: eff alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1657 alt.censorship:2337 alt.society.civil-liberties:815 talk.politics.misc:22318
From: nadeau@bcrka404.bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau)
Subject: Re: Repr. Sullivan wants to fire prof. Hill because of political opinions
Message-ID: <1991Oct28.162426.23937@bnr.ca>
Date: 28 Oct 91 16:24:26 GMT
References: <1991Oct25.055718.8514@chinet.chi.il.us> <1991Oct22.073615.1607@nntp.hut.fi>
Sender: nadeau@bcrka404
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]
>
Hmm, turn the statement around: "We can't affort to have a high profile
politician in government that millions of Americans believe is a right-wing,
anti-freedom bigot." So of course, Rep. Sullivan should be impeached,
and prevented from ever holding any responsible office again.
Or does the opinion of millions of Americans only count when they agree
with him?
--
Rhealist (Rheal Nadeau) | Bell-Northern Research
Internet: nadeau@bnr.ca | Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
BNR neither endorses nor censors my views | (613) 763-4266
-------------------
From: edguer@alpha.ces.cwru.edu (Aydin Edguer)
Subject: Re: Draft Statement on Computers and Academic Freedom
Message-ID: <9110281749.AA22397@sentinel.CES.CWRU.Edu>
Sender: edguer@alpha.ces.cwru.edu
References: <9110281737.AA22428@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil>
Date: 28 Oct 91 17:49:13 GMT
> B. I really don't think that Usenet articles are publications per se.
> We've already agreed that they probably are protected by the free speech
> clause of the First Amendment;
No, this has not been agreed on. This has never been decided by a court of
law. Many people feel that the press model is more appropriate.
Aydin Edguer
-------------------
From: morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan)
Subject: Re: Draft Statement on Computers and Academic Freedom (CAF)
Message-ID: <1991Oct28.172859.23708@ms.uky.edu>
Date: 28 Oct 91 17:28:59 GMT
References: <1991Oct26.210722.29271@eff.org> <1991Oct28.144805.20903@ms.uky.edu> <1991Oct28.155055.24308@eff.org>
kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>>I would append "In some cases, the physical resources available may
>>preclude the application of these selection criteria."
>[...]
>
>I don't think this addition is necessary. Library selection criteria
>include direct and indirect costs.
Yes, but it's a much more amorphous concept when applied to online
services. Disk space usage, for instance, can vary widely on a daily
basis. Libraries do not usually have to consider the available shelf
space on a daily basis.
>draft>Interpretation: "All university published and financed [user]
>draft>publications should explicitly state [...] that the opinions there
>draft>expressed are not necessarily those of the college, university, or
>draft>student body. [Joint Statement]
>
>>Add "This means that 'electronic publishers' are pursing an individual
>>interest; their actions will be neither supported nor curtailed by the
>>facility on an arbitrary basis." I think that many users unconsciously
>>assume some level of support from the administration that does not exist.
>>The volume of "He's a jerk, cancel his account" email sent to administrators
>>is an indication of that misconception.
>
>Maybe we need something just for complaints about email.
>
I wasn't talking about "complaints about email". I'm talking about the
people who see a Usenet posting which they find offensive, and then flood
the administration at that site with email demanding the poster's restriction.
That is a direct result of the identification of a user's relationship with
his host system, and the misconception that that host system can restrict
or remove his ability to post.
>>Premise: Many different elements of society participate in electronic
>>media. Every effort should be made to ensure the peaceful coexistence
>>of the different objectives and policies of these elements.
>[...]
>
>Beyond user education what would this mean? Can you given an example
>of a situation were it would apply?
>
Sure. Several commerical sites prohibit political discussions on their
systems. Some government facilities (notably the military) prohibit their
employees from participating in political activities *as employees* (i.e.,
no campaigning in uniform). Well, Usenet stamps a big, bright header line
that explicitly associates the poster with his organization. That, in
some opinions, might violate the "no politics regulation".
Some companies may want only the sales staff to provide third parties
with product information. Suppose that someone posts some incredibly
incorrect information about another poster's product. That employee
may find himself on the horns of a dilemma with regards to "how to handle
this situation on the net".
Of course, we're all familiar with nondisclosure agreements. I've seen
several of those broken on the net; I've seen posters disseminate infor-
mation which they could only have received *after* signing nondisclosure
agreements. That's certainly a potential problem area.
I'm not attempting to address specific, known problems here; I'm just
trying to lay the groundwork for dealing with potential problem areas
in the future.
--
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
--------------------
--
| 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 warnold Mon Oct 28 20:57:57 1991
Received: by eff.org id AA12876
(5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for cafb-list@eff.org); Mon, 28 Oct 1991 20:42:54 -0500
Reply-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk
From: comp-academic-freedom-talk
Precedence: bulk
To: comp-academic-freedom-talk
Errors-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk-request
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1991 20:42:49 -0500
X-Digest-Sender: "William W. Arnold"
Message-Id: <199110290142.AA12871@eff.org>
Subject: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Status: RO
Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Mon Oct 28 20:41:47 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
- Billy ]
In this issue:
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: Draft Statement on Computers and Academic Freedom
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: Draft Statement on Computers and Academic Freedom (CA
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: YAHWEH is good!
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: off-topic notes (was yahweh is good posting)
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: off-topic notes (was yahweh is good posting)
kadie@herodotus.cs : Re: YAHWEH is good!
fischer@iesd.auc.d : Re: USENET censorship strikes University of Washington!
lw24lag@rs1.tcs.tu : Re: Dave (The Stud) Duke likes Republicans!
morgan@ms.uky.edu : Re: Draft Statement on Computers and Academic Freedom (CAF
wdstarr@athena.mit : Wrong newsgroup... (wss: Credit where credit is due)
les@SAIL.Stanford. : Re: (comp.org.eff.talk) Net.freedom.of.expression (Yahweh
consp04@bingsuna.b : The MIG-29
The addresses for the list are now:
comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org - for contributions to the list
or caf-talk@eff.org
listserv@eff.org - for automated additions/deletions
(send email with the line "help" for details.)
caf-talk-request@eff.org - for administrivia
-------------------
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Draft Statement on Computers and Academic Freedom
Message-ID: <1991Oct28.184413.28676@eff.org>
References: <9110281737.AA22428@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil>
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1991 18:44:13 GMT
nbc2134@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil (Robert F Solon) writes:
draft>"The principles of academic freedom applicable to student and faculty
draft>publication in traditional media, apply to student
draft> and faculty publication in
draft>computer media."
> A. Traditional media are usually edited. Faculty publication often goes
>to a peer review board before published by a professional journal;
>"traditional" student publications, especially at private institutions, are
>often reviewed prior to publication. In fact, most of the editorial staff of
>_The Lantern_, OSU's student daily, has just resigned or been fired over this
>very topic.
Some faculty publications are reviewed and some aren't. (Some
newsgroups are moderated some are not.) The important thing is that
it is not university that does the reviewing-for-publiction.
The Joint statement explictly says that student publications should
not be subject to prior review. I think most universities, even
private ones, respect this element of academic freedom.
> Since traditional publications are often/usually edited, I wouldn't want
>to apply this standard to electronic communication, thus opening the door for
>review by various authorities.
Some are edited some are not (I include flyers and pamphlets at
sutdent publications). Again the important think is that it
should not be the univeristy doing the editing.
> B. I really don't think that Usenet articles are publications per se.
I think it is reasonable to call usenet articles publications. Here is
the OED2 definition:
--------------start------------
publication (p&revv.blI'keIS&schwa.n). Also 5 pupplicacion. The action of
publishing, or that which is published.
1 a The action of making publicly known; public notification or announcement;
promulgation.
b spec. in Law. Notification or communication to those concerned, or to a
limited number regarded as representing the public. Cf. PUBLISH v. 1 b.
2 a The issuing, or offering to the public, of a book, map, engraving,
photograph, piece of music, or other work of which copies are multiplied by
writing, printing, or any other process; also, the work or business of
producing and issuing copies of such works.
b A work published; a book or the like printed or otherwise produced and
issued for public sale.
The first quotation may belong to 2.
c attrib., as publication date, day.
3 The making of a thing public or common property; confiscation. (A
Latinism.) Obs. rare.
---------------------end-------------------
>We've already agreed that they probably are protected by the free speech
>clause of the First Amendment; I'm not sure that they're protected by the free
>press clause.
Legally, it doesn't matter. The Supreme Court has merged both clauses
into the Pubilc Forum Doctrine.
> Rather, I see articles as akin to announcements on kiosks or
>bulletin boards: opportunities to read and be read, but not necessarily
>protected as publications.
I consider kiosk notices publications.
> C. Treating Usenet articles as student publications may require
>universities to continue funding Usenet even when not fiscally sound, under
>the doctrine that the state is not the unfettered master of all it creates.
>Usenet is not a right; like driving a car or swilling a beer, it's a
>privelege.
Traditional student publications can be shutdown when not fiscally
sound. In fact they be can shutdown for any but a few proscribed
reasons.
- Carl
>Bob Solon, rsolon@dsac.dla.mil
>Administrative Information Branch -- "We Code, You Explode!!"
>Directorate of Resource Management Systems (APCAPS)
>DLA Systems Automation Center, DSAC-BCC (614) 238-8256 AV 850-8256
--
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: Draft Statement on Computers and Academic Freedom (CAF)
Message-ID: <1991Oct28.185302.29101@eff.org>
References: <1991Oct26.210722.29271@eff.org> <1991Oct28.144805.20903@ms.uky.edu> <1991Oct28.155055.24308@eff.org> <1991Oct28.172859.23708@ms.uky.edu>
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1991 18:53:02 GMT
morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
draft>publications should explicitly state [...] that the opinions there
draft>expressed are not necessarily those of the college, university, or
draft>student body. [Joint Statement]
>I wasn't talking about "complaints about email". I'm talking about the
>people who see a Usenet posting which they find offensive, and then flood
>the administration at that site with email demanding the poster's restriction.
How about telling them that the opinions are not necessarily those of
the university and that univeristy policy prohibits censorship.
wes>Premise: Many different elements of society participate in electronic
wes>media. Every effort should be made to ensure the peaceful coexistence
wes>of the different objectives and policies of these elements.
[examples:]
>Sure. Several commerical sites prohibit political discussions on their
>systems. Some government facilities (notably the military) prohibit their
>employees from participating in political activities *as employees* (i.e.,
>no campaigning in uniform). Well, Usenet stamps a big, bright header line
>that explicitly associates the poster with his organization. That, in
>some opinions, might violate the "no politics regulation".
>Some companies may want only the sales staff to provide third parties
>with product information. Suppose that someone posts some incredibly
>incorrect information about another poster's product. That employee
>may find himself on the horns of a dilemma with regards to "how to handle
>this situation on the net".
>Of course, we're all familiar with nondisclosure agreements. I've seen
>several of those broken on the net; I've seen posters disseminate infor-
>mation which they could only have received *after* signing nondisclosure
>agreements. That's certainly a potential problem area.
But what do any of these restictions have to do with an academic computer
system?
- 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: <1991Oct28.185753.29494@eff.org>
References: <83CE45333AA00556@ccmail.sunysb.edu>
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1991 18:57:53 GMT
SKAPUR@ccmail.sunysb.edu (Sanjay Kapur) writes:
[...]
>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.
[...]
Most of the paper press decisions where made in the context of the
Public Forum Doctrine. They should be applicable to other public (and
limited public) 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.
-------------------
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: off-topic notes (was yahweh is good posting)
Message-ID: <1991Oct28.201114.1986@eff.org>
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1991 20:11:14 GMT
Aydin,
May I post your email response on this topic?
- 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: off-topic notes (was yahweh is good posting)
Message-ID: <1991Oct28.202620.2996@eff.org>
References: <1991Oct28.201114.1986@eff.org>
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1991 20:26:20 GMT
kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>Aydin,
[...]
Whoops, that was suppose to be email to Aydin, not a general posting.
- 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@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: <91297.004451U45301@uicvm.uic.edu> <1991Oct25.172916.3519@rosevax.rosemount.com> <39487@hydra.gatech.EDU>
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1991 19:47:08 GMT
In <39487@hydra.gatech.EDU> stacy@comlab.gatech.edu (Stacy Johnson) writes:
[...]
>What is the difference between offensive and harrassing?
[...]
Here is the definition of discriminatory harassment offered by Thomas
Grey, a professor of law at Stanford who favors campus restrictions:
"The Stanford regulation establishes a campus offensive with three
elements. First, the speaker must intend to insult or degrade an
individual or small group of individuals on the basis of their race,
sex, or other characteritic mentioned in the university's general
antidiscrimination policy. This predicate protects insensitive by
unintetional slurs, and also protects 'group defamation' as
traditionally understood) from punishment as harassment. Second, the
speech must be directly adressed to the individuals or individuals.
This caveat resticts the offense to the face-to-face or 'I-thou'
situtation. Third, the speech must use 'insulting or ''fighting''
words,' a requirement that quotes the Supreme Court's language from
_Chaplinsky_. In the context of antidiscrimination policy, these words
are defined as those that are 'commonly understood to convey direct
and visceral hatred or contempt for human beings on the basis of their
sex, race,' and so on."
Here is a reference to the article:
SO HARVARD-JOURNAL-OF-LAW-AND-PUBLIC-POLICY.
1991 WIN V14 N1.
AR
P157 - P164
DISCRIMINATORY HARASSMENT AND FREE SPEECH. (English). Article.
GREY-TC.
STANFORD UNIV, SCH LAW, STANFORD, CA, USA, 94305 (Reprint).
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
-------------------
From: fischer@iesd.auc.dk (Lars P. Fischer)
Subject: Re: USENET censorship strikes University of Washington!
Message-ID:
Date: 28 Oct 91 20:47:25 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>
<1991Oct27.233800.7842@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu>
Sender: news@iesd.auc.dk
In-Reply-To: rmtodd@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu's message of 27 Oct 91 23:38:00 GMT
Richard> You can't put any disks in this
Richard> machine except the ones the manufacturer makes, and said
Richard> manufacturer wants on the order of $50,000 for a 1G disk.
Richard> Needless to say, this University doesn't have the money to
Richard> plunk down on one of those just for news.
The solution, of course, is to get another machine. No, wait, I'm
serious. News service, via NNTP if possible, is a fine candidate for a
special-purpose server. Let's see, a Sun SPARCstation ELC with 1G disk
and 32 MByte RAM should be less than $10k, including operating system,
licenses, manual set, etc, etc.. This will easily take operating
system, a few application, and everything needed to run news. The CPU
power is more than enough to run a news server, and so is the SCSI-2
disk system. In fact, it will easily server as a workstation for the
news administrator, too.
We have a SPARCstation 1+ (slower than the ELC) for mail, news, and
ftp server, serving a 100+ workstation network with 350+ users. Works
like a charm.
Several other types of UNIX boxes could be substituted for the Sun.
It's just what we happen to have and what I positively *know* will
work. You might even get away with a PC as server for a real cheapo
solution.
Richard> Some university computing centers are in the position of
Richard> having to make bricks without straw. Life's a bitch, ain't
Richard> it?
Yes, I know. Still, $10k is not that much. I do believe that the way
to get away from these horribly slow and troublesome do-it-all central
machines is to load tasks off one by one. News is a good candidate.
/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: lw24lag@rs1.tcs.tulane.edu (peter lavallee)
Subject: Re: Dave (The Stud) Duke likes Republicans!
Message-ID: <9609@cs.tulane.edu>
Date: 28 Oct 91 22:36:57 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.9609
References: <+qad!h_@lynx.unm.edu>
Sender: news@cs.tulane.edu
In article ts2a+@andrew.cmu.edu (Thomas Omar Smith) writes:
>opponent. And it looks like Roemer is hopeless despite the Bush
>endorsement. I just wish he didn't have to be a Republican.
Why do people keep mentioning Roemer? Roemer was *eliminated* in the
election, leaving Duke and Edwin Edwards to compete for votes in the
run-off election.
>The only bright spot is that his hopes of achieving anything outside of
>Louisianna are nil.
No, actually, the truly bright spot is that many people who never have
voted (and very likely never would have) queued up in line stretching
around the block to vote against Duke. Let's hope that these new voters
will realize the power they can wield and continue to vote.
> Tom the non hacker
pjl
(Voting absentee in his home state of New Hampshire)
--
Peter J. Lavallee : Louisiana uber alles.
lw24lag@rs1.tcs.tulane.edu : I DON'T vote in this state.
-------------------
From: morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan)
Subject: Re: Draft Statement on Computers and Academic Freedom (CAF)
Message-ID: <1991Oct28.205404.2462@ms.uky.edu>
References: <1991Oct28.155055.24308@eff.org> <1991Oct28.172859.23708@ms.uky.edu> <1991Oct28.185302.29101@eff.org>
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1991 20:54:04 GMT
kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
>
>wes>Premise: Many different elements of society participate in electronic
>wes>media. Every effort should be made to ensure the peaceful coexistence
>wes>of the different objectives and policies of these elements.
>
>But what do any of these restictions have to do with an academic computer
>system?
Most universites reach into every sector of society. For instance,
the most widely-known service of UK is the College of Agriculture's
Cooperative Extension Service. Most Kentuckians get their understanding
of UK from their County Agricultural Agent. Since this service reaches
into private farms, manufacturing concerns, and corporate agriculture on
an equal basis, they have been forced to adjust their policies and prac-
tices to respect the different needs and goals (and rights) of the peo-
ple and businesses they serve. There are some services available only
to particular groups; there are some research activities only open to
particular groups. They have adjusted themselves to their audience,
even though they operate under the academic umbrella of the University.
Usenet news reaches into every sector of
society. Most media which have such a wide reach tend to "adjust them-
selves to their audience"; Usenet should be no different. There are
situations which affect these different areas in different ways; Usenet
can certainly be a catalyst for those situations. Since Usenet serves
(by default, not by any intention) as a bridge between the academic and
private sectors, it is natural that we concern ourselves with this inter-
action.
Scenario: A graduate student involved in research funded by a private com-
pany uses his *academic* computer system to post a problem or question to
Usenet. His description of his problem gives a competing company a view
of his research, and they start implementing it as well. Suddenly, all
involved parties are fighting in a lawsuit, and the news site, as the medium
involved, is in the thick of it. In a scaled-down version of this scenario,
the university loses the research grant, due to that student's indiscretion,
and looks for a scapegoat. Usenet would be a likely candidate for such
service as a scapegoat.
I'm not say that this has happened, nor that it will happen. I'm only saying
that Usenet, as an electronic bridge between the academic and private sectors,
may have to make adjustments.
Of course, this may just be a "cover your butt" perspective......but then,
again, I've seen some of the ill-informed, closed-minded decisions to which
bureaucrats are susceptible.
--
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: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Subject: Wrong newsgroup... (wss: Credit where credit is due)
In-Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Message-ID: <1991Oct28.224942.19030@athena.mit.edu>
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Sender: news@athena.mit.edu (News system)
Nntp-Posting-Host: e40-008-13.mit.edu
References: <5=cd1-k@lynx.unm.edu> <1991Oct27.123348.4559@athena.mit.edu>
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1991 22:49:42 GMT
In article ,
jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU said:
> Rightly or wrongly, many Eastern Europeans give Reagan a lot of credit
> in the collapse.
Maybe, maybe not, but one thing is pretty close to certain: this
thread doesn't really belong in any of the newsgroups it's in
anymore except for talk.politics.misc...
-- William December Starr
-------------------
From: les@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Les Earnest)
Subject: Re: [comp.org.eff.talk] Net.freedom.of.expression [Yahweh is Good]
Message-ID: <1991Oct28.234132.4591@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>
Sender: news@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU
References: <9110252012.AA16928@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu> <1991Oct28.070519.5904@techbook.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1991 23:41:32 GMT
Nick Szabo writes:
. . .
>The thought of sysadmins accusing whomever they don't like of posting
>anonymous obscene messages is a very scary one. I hope that is not
>one of the lessons of the Anita Hill case -- that if you really don't
>like somebody, it's open season to make up lies to destroy them.
That would be a plausible "lesson" only if you know that Anita Hill
was lying. To reach that conclusion you must either let political
considerations take precedence over rational judgement or be mentally
defective or both.
--
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: consp04@bingsuna.bingsuns.cc.binghamton.edu (Dan Boyd)
Subject: The MIG-29
Message-ID:
Date: 29 Oct 91 00:04:12 GMT
References: <-rcdyyn@lynx.unm.edu>
Sender: usenet@newserve.cc.binghamton.edu (Mr News)
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Distribution: usa
In-Reply-To: art@world.std.com's message of 28 Oct 91 17: 05:06 GMT
Nntp-Posting-Host: bingsuna.cc.binghamton.edu
In article art@world.std.com
(Al Thompson) writes:
> In article nwickham@triton.unm.edu
> (Neal C. Wickham) writes:
> > In article art@world.std.com
> >(Al Thompson) writes:
> >
> > Oh yeah? Have a look at a MIG-29 someday and tell me that.
> Al... you don't know how stupid you're sounding, do you?
> The MIG-29 is a bad plane?
One of you apparently thinks the MIG-29 sucks, while the other
thinks it's a fearsome opponent.
The consensus over on sci.military seems to be the following:
The MIG-29's flight characteristics are pretty good; they are
about on a par with those of the F-18 or F-16. It turns well, it's
pretty maneuverable, and the acceleration is pretty good. Top speed,
by the way, isn't something that's a major factor -- most
dogfight-type engagements take place below Mach 1.
The avionics and the radar aren't as good as the F-14, F-15,
or F-18. The electronics are about on a par with a Vietnam-era F-4
Phantom, which isn't much good nowadays.
It has an IR sensor; our fighters don't.
All in all, the MIG-29 is a good try, but not
state-of-the-art.
So you're both wrong.
-- Dan
--
"Tonight, my son," he said with great
reluctance, "tonight, you are a dog fisher."
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel F. Boyd -- consp04@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu
--------------------
--
| 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 comp-academic-freedom-talk Tue Oct 29 15:10:30 1991
Reply-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk
From: comp-academic-freedom-talk
Precedence: bulk
To: comp-academic-freedom-talk
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1991 13:02:42 -0500
X-Digest-Sender: "William W. Arnold"
Subject: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Status: R
Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Tue Oct 29 13:02:36 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
- Billy ]
In this issue:
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: YAHWEH is good! (instead of quoting reams, lets look
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
-------------------
[part 1 of {Meritor Savings Bank FSB v. Vinson}]
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: YAHWEH is good! (instead of quoting reams, lets look at cases)
Message-ID: <1991Oct29.044042.16891@eff.org>
References: <39487@hydra.gatech.EDU> <4926@sun13.scri.fsu.edu> <1991Oct26.014323.14716@news.media.mit.edu> <1991Oct29.014134.12586@eff.org> <1991Oct29.015534.13179@eff.org>
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1991 04:40:42 GMT
This is Meritor Savings Bank FSB v. Vinson. This is the Supreme Court
decision that recognized illegal sexual harassment in the form of a
"hostile environment" at the work place. It is referenced in the two
university speech code decisions.
----------------------start--------------------------------------
(Cite as: 477 U.S. 57, *57, 106 S.Ct. 2399, **2401)
MERITOR SAVINGS BANK, FSB, Petitioner
v.
Mechelle VINSON et al.
No. 84-1979.
Argued March 25, 1986.
Decided June 19, 1986.
**2400 Syllabus [FN*]
FN* The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has
been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the
reader. See United States v. Detroit Lumber Co., 200 U.S. 321, 337, 26
S.Ct. 282, 287, 50 L.Ed. 499.
*57 Respondent former employee of petitioner bank brought an action against
the bank and her supervisor at the bank, claiming that during her employment at
the bank she had been subjected to sexual harassment by the supervisor in
violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and seeking injunctive
relief and damages. At the trial, the parties presented conflicting testimony
about the existence of a sexual relationship between respondent and the
supervisor. The District Court denied relief without resolving the conflicting
testimony, holding that if respondent and the supervisor did have a sexual
relationship, it was voluntary and had nothing to do with her continued
employment at the bank, and that therefore respondent was not the victim of
sexual harassment. The court then went on to hold that since the bank was
without notice, it could not be held liable for the supervisor's alleged sexual
harassment. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded. Noting that a
violation of Title VII may be predicated on either of two types of sexual
harassment--(1) harassment that involves the conditioning of employment
benefits on sexual favors, and (2) harassment that, while not affecting
economic benefits, creates a hostile or offensive working environment--the
Court of Appeals held that since the grievance here was of the second type and
the District **2401 Court had not considered whether a violation of this type
had occurred, a remand was necessary. The court further held that the need for
a remand was not obviated by the fact that the District Court had found that
any sexual relationship between respondent and the supervisor was a voluntary
one, a finding that might have been based on testimony about respondent's
"dress and personal fantasies" that "had no place in the litigation." As to
the bank's liability, the Court of Appeals held that an employer is absolutely
liable for sexual harassment by supervisory personnel, whether or not the
employer knew or should have known about it.
Held:
1. A claim of "hostile environment" sexual harassment is a form of sex
discrimination that is actionable under Title VII. Pp. 2404-2407.
(a) The language of Title VII is not limited to "economic" or "tangible"
discrimination. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission guidelines fully
support the view that sexual harassment leading to noneconomic *58 injury
can violate Title VII. Here, respondent's allegations were sufficient to state
a claim for "hostile environment" sexual harassment. Pp. 2404-2406.
(b) The District Court's findings were insufficient to dispose of
respondent's "hostile environment" claim. The District Court apparently
erroneously believed that a sexual harassment claim will not lie absent an
economic effect on the complainant's employment, and erroneously focused on
the "voluntariness" of respondent's participation in the claimed sexual
episodes. The correct inquiry is whether respondent by her conduct indicated
that the alleged sexual advances were unwelcome, not whether her participation
in them was voluntary. Pp. 2406.
(c) The District Court did not err in admitting evidence of respondent's
sexually provocative speech and dress. While "voluntariness" in the sense of
consent is no defense to a sexual harassment claim, it does not follow that
such evidence is irrelevant as a matter of law in determining whether the
complainant found particular sexual advances unwelcome. Pp. 2406-2407.
2. The Court of Appeals erred in concluding that employers are always
automatically liable for sexual harassment by their supervisors. While common-
law agency principles may not be transferable in all their particulars to Title
VII, Congress' decision to define "employer" to include any "agent" of
an employer evinces an intent to place some limits on the acts of employees for
which employers under Title VII are to be held responsible. In this case,
however, the mere existence of a grievance procedure in the bank and the bank's
policy against discrimination, coupled with respondent's failure to invoke that
procedure, do not necessarily insulate the bank from liability. Pp. 2407-2408.
243 U.S.App.D.C. 323, 753 F.2d 141, affirmed and remanded.
REHNQUIST, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BURGER, C.J., and
WHITE, POWELL, STEVENS, and O'CONNOR, JJ., joined. STEVENS, J., filed a
concurring opinion. MARSHALL, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment,
in which BRENNAN, BLACKMUN, and STEVENS, JJ., joined.
F. Robert Troll, Jr., Hyattsville, Md., for petitioner.
Patricia J. Barry, Grover City, Cal., for respondents.
*59 Justice REHNQUIST delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case presents important questions concerning claims of workplace "sexual
harassment" brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 78 Stat.
253, as amended, 42 U.S.C. s 2000e et seq.
I
In 1974, respondent Mechelle Vinson met Sidney Taylor, a vice president of
what is now petitioner Meritor Savings Bank **2402 (the bank) and manager of
one of its branch offices. When respondent asked whether she might obtain
employment at the bank, Taylor gave her an application, which she completed and
returned the next day; later that same day Taylor called her to say that she
had been hired. With Taylor as her supervisor, respondent started as a teller-
trainee, and thereafter was promoted to teller, head teller, and
assistant *60 branch manager. She worked at the same branch for four years,
and it is undisputed that her advancement there was based on merit alone. In
September 1978, respondent notified Taylor that she was taking sick leave for
an indefinite period. On November 1, 1978, the bank discharged her for
excessive use of that leave.
Respondent brought this action against Taylor and the bank, claiming that
during her four years at the bank she had "constantly been subjected to sexual
harassment" by Taylor in violation of Title VII. She sought injunctive relief,
compensatory and punitive damages against Taylor and the bank, and attorney's
fees.
At the 11-day bench trial, the parties presented conflicting testimony about
Taylor's behavior during respondent's employment. [FN*] Respondent testified
that during her probationary period as a teller-trainee, Taylor treated her in
a fatherly way and made no sexual advances. Shortly thereafter, however, he
invited her out to dinner and, during the course of the meal, suggested that
they go to a motel to have sexual relations. At first she refused, but out of
what she described as fear of losing her job she eventually agreed. According
to respondent, Taylor thereafter made repeated demands upon her for sexual
favors, usually at the branch, both during and after business hours; she
estimated that over the next several years she had intercourse with him some 40
or 50 times. In addition, respondent testified that Taylor fondled her in
front of other employees, followed her into the women's restroom when she went
there alone, exposed himself to her, and even forcibly raped her on several
occasions. These activities ceased after 1977, respondent stated, when she
started going with a steady boyfriend.
FN* Like the Court of Appeals, this Court was not provided a complete
transcript of the trial. We therefore rely largely on the District Court's
opinion for the summary of the relevant testimony.
Respondent also testified that Taylor touched and fondled other women
employees of the bank, and she attempted to *61 call witnesses to support
this charge. But while some supporting testimony apparently was admitted
without objection, the District Court did not allow her "to present wholesale
evidence of a pattern and practice relating to sexual advances to other female
employees in her case in chief, but advised her that she might well be able to
present such evidence in rebuttal to the defendants' cases." Vinson v. Taylor,
22 EPD P 30708, pp. 14688-14689, 23 FEP Cases 37, 38-39, n. 1 (D DC 1980).
Respondent did not offer such evidence in rebuttal. Finally, respondent
testified that because she was afraid of Taylor she never reported his
harassment to any of his supervisors and never attempted to use the bank's
complaint procedure.
Taylor denied respondent's allegations of sexual activity, testifying that he
never fondled her, never made suggestive remarks to her, never engaged in
sexual intercourse with her and never asked her to do so. He contended instead
that respondent made her accusations in response to a business-related
dispute. The bank also denied respondent's allegations and asserted that any
sexual harassment by Taylor was unknown to the bank and engaged in without its
consent or approval.
The District Court denied relief, but did not resolve the conflicting
testimony about the existence of a sexual relationship between respondent and
Taylor. It found instead that
"If [respondent] and Taylor did engage in an intimate or sexual relationship
during the time of [respondent's] employment **2403 with [the bank], that
relationship was a voluntary one having nothing to do with her continued
employment at [the bank] or her advancement or promotions at that
institution." Id., at 42 (footnote omitted).
The court ultimately found that respondent "was not the victim of sexual
harassment and was not the victim of sexual discrimination" while employed at
the bank. Id., 43.
*62 Although it concluded that respondent had not proved a violation of
Title VII, the District Court nevertheless went on to address the bank's
liability. After noting the bank's express policy against discrimination, and
finding that neither respondent nor any other employee had ever lodged a
complaint about sexual harassment by Taylor, the court ultimately concluded
that "the bank was without notice and cannot be held liable for the alleged
actions of Taylor." Id., at 42.
The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reversed. 243
U.S.App.D.C. 323, 753 F.2d 141 (1985). Relying on its earlier holding in Bundy
v. Jackson, 205 U.S.App.D.C. 444, 641 F.2d 934 (1981), decided after the trial
in this case, the court stated that a violation of Title VII may be predicated
on either of two types of sexual harassment: harassment that involves the
conditioning of concrete employment benefits on sexual favors, and harassment
that, while not affecting economic benefits, creates a hostile or offensive
working environment. The court drew additional support for this position from
the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's Guidelines on Discrimination
Because of Sex, 29 CFR s 1604.11(a) (1985), which set out these two types of
sexual harassment claims. Believing that "Vinson's grievance was clearly of
the [hostile environment] type," 243 U.S.App.D.C., at 327, 753 F.2d, at 145,
and that the District Court had not considered whether a violation of this type
had occurred, the court concluded that a remand was necessary.
The court further concluded that the District Court's finding that any sexual
relationship between respondent and Taylor "was a voluntary one" did not
obviate the need for a remand. "[U]ncertain as to precisely what the
[district] court meant" by this finding, the Court of Appeals held that if the
evidence otherwise showed that "Taylor made Vinson's toleration of sexual
harassment a condition of her employment," her voluntariness "had no
materiality whatsoever." *63 Id., at 328, 753 F.2d, at 146. The court then
surmised that the District Court's finding of voluntariness might have been
based on "the voluminous testimony regarding respondent's dress and personal
fantasies," testimony that the Court of Appeals believed "had no place in this
litigation." Id., at 328, 336, 753 F.2d, at 146, n. 36.
As to the bank's liability, the Court of Appeals held that an employer is
absolutely liable for sexual harassment practiced by supervisory personnel,
whether or not the employer knew or should have known about the misconduct.
The court relied chiefly on Title VII's definition of "employer" to include
"any agent of such a person," 42 U.S.C. s 2000e(b), as well as on the EEOC
guidelines. The court held that a supervisor is an "agent" of his employer for
Title VII purposes, even if he lacks authority to hire, fire, or promote,
since "the mere existence--or even the appearance--of a significant degree of
influence in vital job decisions gives any supervisor the opportunity to impose
on employees." 243 U.S.App.D.C., at 332, 753 F.2d, at 150.
In accordance with the foregoing, the Court of Appeals reversed the judgment
of the District Court and remanded the case for further proceedings. A
subsequent suggestion for rehearing en banc was denied, with three judges
dissenting. 245 U.S.App.D.C. 1330, 760 F.2d 1330 (1985). We granted
certiorari, 474 U.S. ----, 106 S.Ct. 57, 88 L.Ed.2d 46 (1985), and now affirm
but for different reasons.
**2404 II
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 makes it "an unlawful employment
practice for an employer ... to discriminate against any individual with
respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment,
because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin."
42 U.S.C. s 2000e-2(a)(1). The prohibition against discrimination based on sex
was added to Title VII at the last minute on the floor of the House of
Representatives. 110 Cong.Rec. 2577-2584 (1964). The principal argument in
opposition *64 to the amendment was that "sex discrimination" was
sufficiently different from other types of discrimination that it ought to
receive separate legislative treatment. See id., at 2577 (Statement of Rep.
Celler quoting letter from United States Department of Labor); id., at 2584
(statement of Rep. Green). This argument was defeated, the bill quickly passed
as amended, and we are left with little legislative history to guide us in
interpreting the Act's prohibition against discrimination based on "sex."
Respondent argues, and the Court of Appeals held, that unwelcome sexual
advances that create an offensive or hostile working environment violate Title
VII. Without question, when a supervisor sexually harasses a subordinate
because of the subordinate's sex, that supervisor "discriminate[s]" on the
basis of sex. Petitioner apparently does not challenge this proposition. It
contends instead that in prohibiting discrimination with respect to
"compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges" of employment, Congress was
concerned with what petitioner describes as "tangible loss" of "an economic
character," not "purely psychological aspects of the workplace environment."
Brief for Petitioner 30-31, 34. In support of this claim petitioner observes
that in both the legislative history of Title VII and this Court's Title VII
decisions, the focus has been on tangible, economic barriers erected by
discrimination.
We reject petitioner's view. First, the language of Title VII is not limited
to "economic" or "tangible" discrimination. The phrase "terms, conditions, or
privileges of employment" evinces a congressional intent " 'to strike at the
entire spectrum of disparate treatment of men and women' " in employment. Los
Angeles Department of Water and Power v. Manhart, 435 U.S. 702, 707, n. 13, 98
S.Ct. 1370, 1375, n. 13, 55 L.Ed.2d 657 (1978), quoting Sprogis v. United Air
Lines, Inc., 444 F.2d 1194, 1198 (CA7 1971). Petitioner has pointed
to nothing in the Act to suggest that Congress contemplated the
limitation urged here.
*65 Second, in 1980 the EEOC issued guidelines specifying that "sexual
harassment," as there defined, is a form of sex discrimination prohibited by
Title VII. As an "administrative interpretation of the Act by the enforcing
agency," Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424, 433-434, 91 S.Ct. 849, 855, 28
L.Ed.2d 158 (1971), these guidelines, " 'while not controlling upon the courts
by reason of their authority, do constitute a body of experience and informed
judgment to which courts and litigants may properly resort for guidance,' "
General Electric Co. v. Gilbert, 429 U.S. 125, 141-142, 97 S.Ct. 401, 410-11,
50 L.Ed.2d 343 (1976), quoting Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U.S. 134, 140, 65
S.Ct. 161, 164, 89 L.Ed.124 (1944). The EEOC guidelines fully support the view
that harassment leading to noneconomic injury can violate Title VII.
In defining "sexual harassment," the guidelines first describe the kinds of
workplace conduct that may be actionable under Title VII. These include
"[u]nwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or
physical conduct of a sexual nature." 29 CFR s 1604.11(a) (1985). Relevant to
the charges at issue in this case, the guidelines provide that such sexual
misconduct constitutes prohibited "sexual harassment," whether or not it is
directly linked to the grant or denial of an economic quid pro quo, where "such
conduct has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an
individual's work performance or creating an intimidating, **2405 hostile, or
offensive working environment." s 1604.11(a)(3).
In concluding that so-called "hostile environment" (i.e., non quid pro quo )
harassment violates Title VII, the EEOC drew upon a substantial body of
judicial decisions and EEOC precedent holding that Title VII affords employees
the right to work in an environment free from discriminatory intimidation,
ridicule, and insult. See generally 45 Fed.Reg. 74676 (1980). Rogers v. EEOC,
454 F.2d 234 (CA5 1971), cert. denied, 406 U.S. 957, 92 S.Ct. 2058, 32 L.Ed.2d
343 (1972), was apparently the first case to recognize a cause of action based
upon a discriminatory work environment. In Rogers, the Court of Appeals for
the Fifth *66 Circuit held that a Hispanic complainant could establish a
Title VII violation by demonstrating that her employer created an offensive
work environment for employees by giving discriminatory service to its Hispanic
clientele. The court explained that an employee's protections under Title VII
extend beyond the economic aspects of employment:
"[T]he phrase 'terms, conditions or privileges of employment' in [Title VII]
is an expansive concept which sweeps within its protective ambit the practice
of creating a working environment heavily charged with ethnic or racial
discrimination.... One can readily envision working environments so heavily
polluted with discrimination as to destroy completely the emotional and
psychological stability of minority group workers...." 454 F.2d, at 238.
Courts applied this principle to harassment based on race, e.g., Firefighters
Institute for Racial Equality v. St. Louis, 549 F.2d 506, 514-515 (CA8), cert.
denied sub nom. Banta v. United States, 178 U.S.App.D.C. 91, 98, 434 U.S. 819,
98 S.Ct. 60, 54 L.Ed.2d 76 (1977); Gray v. Greyhound Lines, East, 178
U.S.App.D.C. 91, 98, 545 F.2d 169, 176 (1976), religion, e.g., Compston v.
Borden, Inc., 424 F.Supp. 157 (SD Ohio 1976), and national origin, e.g.,
Cariddi v. Kansas City Chiefs Football Club, 568 F.2d 87, 88 (CA8 1977).
Nothing in Title VII suggests that a hostile environment based on
discriminatory sexual harassment should not be likewise prohibited. The
guidelines thus appropriately drew from, and were fully consistent with, the
existing caselaw.
--------------------
--
| 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 comp-academic-freedom-talk Tue Oct 29 15:10:30 1991
Reply-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk
From: comp-academic-freedom-talk
Precedence: bulk
To: comp-academic-freedom-talk
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1991 13:00:33 -0500
X-Digest-Sender: "William W. Arnold"
Subject: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Status: R
Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Tue Oct 29 13:00:03 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
- Billy ]
In this issue:
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: YAHWEH is good! (instead of quoting reams, lets look
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
-------------------
[part 2 of {UWM POST v. U. of Wisconsin}]
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: YAHWEH is good! (instead of quoting reams, lets look at cases)
Message-ID: <1991Oct29.041514.16218@eff.org>
References: <39487@hydra.gatech.EDU> <4926@sun13.scri.fsu.edu> <1991Oct26.014323.14716@news.media.mit.edu> <1991Oct29.014134.12586@eff.org> <1991Oct29.015534.13179@eff.org>
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1991 04:15:14 GMT
(2) WHETHER THE BALANCING TM SET FORTH IN CHAPLINSKY LEAVES THE SPEECH
REGULATED BY THE UW RULE UNPROTECTED.
The Board of Regents next argues that the UW Rule is in harmony with the First
Amendment because it only regulates speech with minimum social value and which
has harmful effects. The Board asserts that this balancing approach is
consistent with the Supreme Court's holding in Chaplinsky. In support of this
assertion, the Board notes that while the Chaplinsky Court created a per se
rule with respect to fighting words, it used a balancing approach to reach this
result. See Defendant's Combined Brief at 19-20 (citing Rutzick, "Offensive
Language and the Evolution of First Amendment Protection," 9 Harv. C.R.--C.L.
L.Rev. 1. 2 (1974)).
*11 The Board apparently believes that the Supreme Court referred to its
balancing approach when it stated:
It has been well observed that ("fighting words") are no essential part of
any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth
that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the
social interest in order and morality."
See Chaplinsky at 572. The Board is correct that the ChaR'insIM Court
employed a balancing approach to determine that "certain well-defined and
narrowly limited classes of speech," such as fighting words, do not deserve
First Amendment protection. However, the Chaplinsky court did not state that
lower courts should employ a balancing approach to identify additional
categories of speech undeserving of protection.
Moreover, the Seventh Circuit has stated that a balancing approach is
appropriate only for content-neutral speech regulation. See American
Bookseller Ass'n. Inc, v. Hudnut, 771 F.2d 323 (7th Cir.1985). In American
Booksellers, the Seventh Circuit stated:
The Court sometimes balances the value of speech against the costs of its
restriction, but it does this by category of speech and not by the content of
partic ular works." See id, at 331-332. In support of this assertion, the
American B ooksellers court cited John Hart Ely, "Flag Desecration: A Case
Study in the R oles of Categorization and Balancing in First Amendment
Analysis," 88 Harv. L.R ev. 1482 (1975), and Geoffrey R. Stone,, "Restrictions
of Speech Because of its Content: The Peculiar Case of Subject-Matter
Restrictions," 46 U. Chi. L.Rev. 81 (1978).
Professor Stone's article identifies two categories of governmental
restrictions of expression: content-neutral restrictions and content-based
restrictions. Professor Stone defined content-neutral restrictions as those
which "restrict communication without regard to the message conveyed." See id.
at 81. Examples of these restrictions include ' '[l]aws prohibiting noisy
speeches near a hospital, banning the erection of any billboards in residential
communities, or requiring disclosure of the names of leafletteers." Id. "In
judging the constitutionality of such restrictions, the Supreme Court engages
in a balancing of first amendment interests against competing government
concerns." Id.
Content-based restrictions, on the other hand, "restrict communication because
of the message conveyed." Id. Professor Stone listed as examples of these
types of restrictions "[l]aws prohibiting the publication of specific types of
'confidential' information, forbidding the hiring of teachers who advocate
violent overthrow of the government, or banning the display of the swastika in
certain neighborhoods." Id. The supreme Court has been especially wary of this
sort of regulation and has upheld content-based restrictions of speech only
when they fall within one of the well-defined, narrow classes of unprotected
speech. As Professor Stone noted:
*12 The Court has, to be sure, permitted content-based restrictions when
the speech at issue has fallen within one of those special and limited
categories of expression, such as obscenity, false statements of fact, or
fighting words, that the Court has found to be of such low value in terms of
the historical, philosophical, and political purposes of the amendment as to be
entitled to less than full Constitutional protection. Outside this "low value"
realm, however, the Court has embraced a stringently speech-protective set of
standards, sustaining content-based restrictions of "fully 'protected"
expression in only the most extraordinary circumstances.
Id. at 82 (footnotes omitted).
Given the American Booksellers court's clear statement [FN9] and its reference
to Professor Stone's article, it is evident that this Court may employ a
balancing approach to determine the constitutionality of the UW Rule only if it
is content neutral. It is clear, however, that the UW Rule regulates speech
based on its content. The rule disciplines students whose comments, epithets
or other expressive behavior demeans their addressees' race, sex, religion,
etc. See UW Rule s 2(a)(1). However, the rule leaves unregulated comments,
epithets and other expressive behavior which affirms or does not address an
individual's race, sex, religion, etc.
Since the UW Rule regulates speech based upon its content, it is not proper
for this Court to apply a balancing test to determine the constitutionality of
the rule. Moreover, this Court finds that, even under the balancing test
proposed by the Board of Regents, the rule is unconstitutional.
(a) BENEFITS SIDE OF BALANCING TEST
On the benefits side of its proposed balancing test, the Board of Regents
argues that the discriminatory speech proscribed by the UW Rule has little or
no social value since it does not serve as a "step to the truth." The Board
states that the proscribed speech lacks social utility because it: (1) is not
intended to inform or convince the listener; (2) is not likely to form any
part of a dialogue or exchange of views; (3) does not provide an opportunity
for reply; (4) constitutes a kind of verbal assault on the person to whom it
is directed and (5) is likely to incite reaction.
The Board first asserts that the speech proscribed by the UW Rule is not
intended to inform or convince its listener. The Court disagrees with this
assertion. Most students punished under the rule are likely to have employed
comments, epithets or other expressive behavior to inform their listeners of
their racist or discriminatory views. In addition, nothing in the UW Rule
prevents it from regulating speech which is intended to convince the listener
of the speaker's discriminatory position. Accordingly, the rule may cover a
substantial number of situations where students are attempting to convince
their listeners of their positions. [FN10]
Moreover, even if the UW Rule did not regulate speech intended to inform or
convince the listener, the speech the rule prohibits would be protected for its
expression of the speaker's emotions. The Supreme Court has held that the
Constitution protects speech for its emotive function as well as its cognitive
content. See Cohen at 26. "We cannot sanction the view that the constitution,
while solicitous of the cognitive content of individual speech, has little or
no regard for that emotive function which, practically speaking, may often be
the more important element of the overall message sought to be communicated."
Id. Most, if not all, of the cases covered by the UW Rule are likely to involve
speech which expresses the speaker's feelings regarding persons of a different
race, sex, religion, etc.
*13 The Board next asserts that the regulated speech lacks First Amendment
value because it is unlikely to form any part of a dialogue or exchange of
views and because it does not provide an opportunity for a reply. In American
Booksellers, the Seventh Circuit addressed and rejected these arguments.
Much of [defendant's] argument rests on the belief that when speech is
"unanswerable," and the metaphor that there is a "marketplace of ideas" does
not apply, the First Amendment does not apply either. The metaphor is time
honored; Milton's Aeropagitica and John Stewart Mill's On Liberty defend
freedom of speech on the ground that the truth will prevail, and many of the
most important cases under the First Amendment recite this position. The
Framers undoubtedly believed it. As a general matter it is true. But the
Constitution does not make the dominance of truth a necessary condition of
freedom of speech. To say that it does would be to confuse an outcome of free
speech with a necessary condition for the application of the amendment.
American Booksellers at 330; see also Mills v. Alabama, 384 U.S. 214 (1966).
Thirdly, the Board states that the prohibited speech constitutes a kind of
verbal assault on the addressee. However, the Supreme Court has already
performed a balancing test with respect to speech which inflicts injury and has
found it to be worthy of First Amendment protection. Accordingly, it would be
improper for this Court to find the speech regulated by the UW Rule unprotected
based upon its assaultive characteristics.
Finally, the Board argues that the prohibited discriminatory speech lacks
First Amendment value because of its tendency to incite reaction. While the
Board is correct that the discriminatory speech prohibited by the UW Rule may
in many circumstances tend to incite violent reaction, the rule prohibits
speech regardless of its tendency to do this. See supra at 20. The Supreme
Court has clearly defined the category of speech which is unprotected due to
its tendency to incite violent reaction. This category of speech is limited to
speech which by its very utterance tends to incite an immediate breach of the
peace. It would be improper for this Court to expand the Supreme Court's
definition of fighting words to include speech which does and speech which does
not tend to incite violent reaction.
(b) COSTS SIDE OF BALANCING TEST
On the costs side of the balance, the Board of Regents asserts that speech
regulated under the UW Rule inflicts great harm since it prevents the
universities from meeting several "compelling interests": (1) increasing
minority representation; (2) assuring equal educational opportunities; (3)
preventing interruption of educational activities; and (4) preserving an
orderly and safe campus environment. Each of these asserted compelling
interests has substantial difficulties. Accordingly, the costs side, like the
benefits side, of the Board's balancing equation fails to support the
constitutionality of the UW Rule.
*14 The Board's first asserted compelling interest is increasing minority
representation to add to the diversity of University of Wisconsin System
campuses. Increasing diversity is "clearly a constitutionally permissible goal
for an institution of higher education." University of California Regents v.
Bakke, 438 U.S. 265, 311-312 (1978). However, the UW Rule does as much to hurt
diversity on Wisconsin campuses as it does to help it. By establishing
content-based restrictions on speech, the rule limits the diversity of ideas
among students and thereby prevents the "robust exchange of ideas" which
intellectually diverse campuses provide. See id. at 313.
The Board's second asserted compelling interest is the provision of equal
educational opportunities in accordance with the Fourteenth Amendment. The
Board notes that the Supreme Court has stated: "The opportunity for an
education, where the state has undertaken to provide it, is a right which must
be made available to all on equal terms." See Brown v. Board of Education, 347
U.S. 483, 493 (1954). However, the Board of Regents presents no evidence that
it is not already providing education on equal terms. Any inequality in
educational opportunities addressed by the Uw Rule is due to the discriminatory
activity of students, not University of Wisconsin System employees. Since
students are generally not state actors, the Board's Fourteenth Amendment equal
protection argument is inapplicable to this case .
The Board's third asserted compelling interest is preventing interruption of
educational activities. In support of this assertion, the Board cites a series
of Supreme Court cases which permit schools to control the activities of
students which interfere with the opportunity of other students to obtain an
education. See Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. Community School Dist., 393 U.S.
503 (1969); Healy v. James, 408 U.S. 169 (1972); Widmar v. Vincent, 454 U.S.
263 (1981). However, these cases allow time, place and manner restrictions on
speech, not restrictions based upon the speech's content. See Tinker at 513
("conduct by the student, in class or out of it, which f or any reason--whether
it stems from time, p1ace or type of behavior--materially disrupts class work
or involves substantial disorder or invasion of the rights of others is, of
course, not immunized by the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech"
(emphasis added and citation omitted)).
Moreover, the Board's argument under this asserted compelling interest is
inconsistent with the limits of the fighting words doctrine. In its briefs,
the Board has argued that the UW Rule does not cover speech within the
classroom. See, e.g., Defendant's Combined Brief at 43. Accordingly, it has
been forced to argue that discriminatory speech interrupts educational
opportunities because of its negative psychological effects on students.
However, this argument is inconsistent with the fighting words doctrine which
leaves protected words which inflict injury.
*15 Finally, the Board asserts that it has a compelling interest in
maintaining safety and order on its campuses. In support of this assertion,
the Board again argues that speech regulated by the UW Rule is likely to
provoke violent reaction. However, as'stated above, a substantial portion of
the speech regulated by the rule is not likely to provoke such a reaction.
Accordingly, this Court must find that the Boards' final proposed interest is
not compelling.
Because the UW Rule fails under both the fighting words doctrine and the UW
System's proposed balancing test, this Court must find the rule overbroad and
therefore in violation of the First Amendment.
(3) PARALLEL TO TITLE VII LAW
The Board of Regents argues that this Court should find the UW Rule
constitutional because its prohibition of discriminatory speech which creates a
hostile environment has parallels in the employment setting. The Board notes
that, under Title VII, an employer has a duty to take appropriate corrective
action when it learns of pervasive illegal harassment. See Meritor Savings
Bank v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57, 72 (1986).
The Board correctly states Title VII law. However, its argument regarding
Title VII law has at least three difficulties. First, Title VII addresses
employment, not educational, settings. Second, even if Title VII governed
educational settings, the Meritor holding would not apply to this case. The
Meritor Court held that courts should look to agency principles when
determining whether an employer is to be held liable for its employee's
actions. See id. Since employees may act as their employer's agents, agency
law may hold an employer liable for its employees actions. In contrast, agency
theory would generally not hold a school liable for its students' actions since
students normally are not agents of the school. Finally, even if the legal
duties set forth in Meritor applied to this case, they would not make the UW
Rule constitutional. Since Title VII is only a statute, it cannot supersede
the requirements of the First Amendment.
(4) THE BOARD'S PROPOSED LIMITING CONSTRUCTION
The Board of Regents requests that this Court apply a limiting construction to
the UW Rule if it finds the rule overbroad as written. The Board states that
' '[t]he Court [may] hold, if necessary, that the Rule is constitutional to the
extent that it sanctions discriminatory epithets, insults and personally
abusive comments but unconstitutional to the extent that it may be applied to
discriminatory opinions [with some intellectual basis [FN11]].' 'See
Defendant's Reply Brief at 7.
Plaintiffs argue that this Court must decline the Board's invitation to
interpret the UW Rule. In support of this assertion, plaintiffs cite Boos v.
Barry, 485 U.S. 312, 330 (1988). The Boos Court cited Grayned v. Rockford, 408
U.S. 104, 110 (1972) and Gooding at 520-521 (1972) for the proposition that
"federal courts are without power to adopt a narrowing construction to a state
statute unless such a construction is reasonable and readily apparent." See
Boos at 330.
*16 This Court finds that the Boos decision does not prevent the Court from
adopting the limiting construction offered by the Board of Regents. The
Board's proposed construction is reasonable and readily apparent since the
guide circulated with the UW Rule indicates that the expression of
discriminatory opinions and ideas is not prohibited by the Rule.See
Discriminatory Harassment: Prohibited Conduct Under Chapter UWS 17 Revisions,
Questions 1 and 5.
This Court, nonetheless, refuses to adopt the limiting construction offered by
the Board of Regents since that construction fails to solve the UW Rule's
overbreadth difficulties. The Board's construction does not prevent the Rule
>from reaching a substantial amount of speech outside the traditional definition
of fighting words. Under the proposed construction, student speech violates
the UW Rule if it: (1) is discriminatory; (2) is directed at an individual;
(3) demeans the race, sex, religion, etc. of that person; (4) creates an
intimidating, hostile or demeaning environment and (5) lacks an intellectual
basis. As stated above, the first four elements do not ensure that the rule
covers only speech which tends to incite violent reaction. See supra, PP18-
20. Likewise, the fifth requirement does not prevent the rule from reaching
protected speech. Much speech which meets the first four elements of the UW
Rule and lacks intellectual support is unlikely to cause an immediate breach of
the peace. For example, the comment "you're just a dumb black, woman, or
homosexual," does not necessarily tend to incite violent reaction even if it
demeans the addressee and creates an intimidating, hostile or demeaning
environment.
In addition, the proposed limiting construction does not solve the UW Rule's
difficulties under the Board's proposed balancing test. The proposed
construction fails to aid the Board's arguments with respect to the benefits
side of the balancing test. The construction may reduce the number of
situations where the rule is applied to speech which is intended to inform or
convince the listener. However, as stated above, the First Amendment protects
speech for its emotive function even if it lacks cognitive value. The
construction may also tend to limit the reach of the rule to speech which is
unanswerable and constitutes a verbal assault on the person addressed.
Nonetheless, as mentioned to above, these considerations do not affect the
protected status of speech. Finally, the limiting construction may increase
the probability that the rule will be applied where a student's speech tends to
cause an immediate breach of the peace. Nevertheless, as stated above, the
rule will still cover many situations in which there is little likelihood of
violent reaction.
The Board's limiting construction also fails to make persuasive their
arguments with respect to the harms side of the balancing test. The
construction will ensure that the rule does not limit the diversity of opinions
on University of Wisconsin System campuses which have intellectual bases.
However, the First Amendment protects speech regardless of its intellectual
support. See Collin at 1203 ("[u]nder the First Amendment there is no such
thing as a false idea" (quoting Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 339
(1974)).
*17 The limiting construction also fails to aid the Board's equal
protection argument since even under the proposed construction, the UW Rule
does not address discrimination caused by state actors. The construction also
does little to help the Board's argument based on its interest in preventing
interruption of educational opportunities since: (1) even under the limiting
construction, the rule amounts to more than a time, place and manner
restriction on speech and (2) as stated above, the Board's basis for this
argument is inconsistent with the fighting words doctrine. Finally, the
limiting construction fails to make the Board's interest in preserving orderly
and safe campuses a compelling one. As stated above, even under the
construction, the UW Rule will cover much speech which does not tend to incite
an immediate breach of the peace.
B. VAGUENESS
A statute is unconstitutionally vague when "men of common intelligence must
necessarily guess at its meaning." Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 603, 607
(1973). A statute must give adequate warning of the conduct which is to be
prohibited and must set out explicit standards for those who apply it. Id.
These concerns apply with particular force where the challenged statute affects
First Amendment rights. Village of Hoffmann Estates v. The Flipside, Hoffmann
Estates, Inc., 455 U.S. 489, 499 (1982). Nonetheless, the chilling effect
caused by an overly broad statute must be real and substantial and a narrowing
construction must be unavailable before a court will set it aside. See Young
v. American Mini Theaters, 427 U.S. 50, 60 (1976).
In our case, plaintiffs argue that the UW Rule is unconstitutionally vague for
two reasons: (1) the phrase "discriminatory comments, epithets or other
expressive behavior" and the term "demean" are unduly vague and (2) the rule
does not make clear whether the prohibited speech must actually create a
hostile educational environment or whether speaker must merely intend to create
such an environment. Upon review, it appears that the phrase and term referred
to by plaintiff are not unduly vague. However, the rule is ambiguous since it
fails to make clear whether the speaker must actually create a hostile
educational environment or if he must merely intend to do so.
(1) "DisCRIMINATORY COMMENTS EPITHETS AND ABUSIVE LANGUAGE' ' AND ' 'DEMAN' '
Plaintiffs first argue that the phrase "discriminatory comments, epithets or
other expressive behavior" is unduly vague. In determining the clarity of this
phrase, it is helpful first to examine the definitions of its key terms. The
term "discriminatory" means "[marked by or showing prejudice; biased." i" The
American Heritage Dictionary, p. 404. "Comment" as used in the Rule, means
"[a) brief statement of fact or opinion, esp. a remark that expresses a
personal reaction or attitude: made a comment on the governor's speech." See
id., p. 297 (emphasis in original). "Epithet" is "[a] term used to
characterize a person or thing," "[a) term used as a descriptive substitute for
the name or title of a person," or ' '[a]n abusive or contemptuous word or
phrase." See id., p. 460. "Expressive" means ' '[s]erving to express or
indicate."
*18 These key terms appear to have reasonably clear meanings in the context
of the phrase "discriminatory comments, epithets or expressive behavior."
Plaintiff argues, however, that the mere recitation of dictionary definitions
does not show that the rule is reasonably clear since every word has a
definition. Plaintiff's argument would have force if the definitions of the
key terms were ambiguous in the context of the phrase in question or the UW
Rule. However, the meanings of the terms appear clear and definite in the
context of the phrase and the rule.
Plaintiffs also argue that the phrase is vague based upon the University of
Wisconsin--Parkside's failure to apply the UW Rule after a student called
another a "redneck." A University of Wisconsin--Parkside Associate Dean, Roger
Howard, found that "it would be very difficult to show that the term "redneck"
is by itself the equivalent of a discriminatory epithet." See Kassell Aff. Ex.
17.
It appears that Mr. Howard misapplied the phrase "discriminatory comments,
epithets or other expressive behavior." The Random House Dictionary defines
"redneck" as a "disparaging" name for "an uneducated white farm laborer." See
Random House Dictionary of the English Language (unabridged ed.1986), p. 1203.
In addition, The American Heritage Dictionary describes "redneck" as:
Slang. A member of the white rural laboring class, esp. in the southern
United States. 2. Offensive Slang. A person who advocates a provincial,
conservative, often bigoted socio-political attitude considered characteristic
of a redneck. See The American Heritage Dictionary, p. 1037 (emphasis in
original). Given these definitions of "redneck," Mr. Howard probably should
have found the student's use of the term constituted a discriminatory epithet.
However, this single improper application of a portion.of the UW Rule does not
make the rule vague. Thus, given the clear dictionary definitions of the key
terms in the phrase "discriminatory comments, epithets and other expressive
behavior," this Court finds that the phrase does not have vagueness
difficulties.
Plaintiffs next argue that the term "demean" is unduly vague. As stated above
to demean means to debase in dignity or stature. Thus, a student's speech can
violate the UW Rule only if it debases the race, sex, religion, etc. of the
addressee. This requirement appears reasonably clear and therefore should
provide adequate warning of the conduct prohibited by the UW Rule and should
set forth explicit standards for those who apply it.
Plaintiffs argue, however, that the requirement of an intent to "demean"
presents vagueness problems because it causes discriminatory comments, epithets
or other expressive behavior to violate the rule in one context and not in
another. To demonstrate this "problem, " plaintiff cites the application of
the UW Rule at the University of Wisconsin--Stout and the nonapplication of the
rule at the University of Wisconsin--Whitewater. The University of Wisconsin--
Stout applied the rule where a student called another a "nigger" during an
altercation. See Kassel Aff., Ex. 23, p. 2." In contrast, the University of
Wisconsin--Whitewater found that a white student had not violated the UW Rule
where he called a black student "nigger" as part of a verbal exchange which led
to a physical confrontation,. See id., Ex. 25. The University explained that
there was no violation because:
*19 .[The student charged) was raised in a racially mixed neighborhood in
Chicago. It was common for both blacks and whites in this environment to refer
to blacks who were not respected, liked or appreciated as "nigger." As [the
student] stated, "it's like calling someone an ass or names like that.["] [The
student addressed] agreed and stated that this kind of language/name calling
exists in his neighborhood as well. [He] also stated that he did not think
[the] intent [of the student charged) was to demean him personally or racially.
Id.
Although different results were reached in the above cases, those results were
not inconsistent. In the first case, the University of Wisconsin--Stout found
that the student's comments demeaned his addressee on the basis of her race.
See Kassel Aff., Ex. 23, p. 3. In contrast, the University of Wisconsin--
Whitewater reasonably found that the student charged did not demean the race of
his addressee.
The differing results in the two cases were not due to any vagueness in the
term "demean. " Rather, they arose from the high standard of proof required
by s 2(a)(1) of the UW Rule. Since the rule requires that a student must
intentionally demean his or her addressee's race, sex, religion, etc. in order
to violate the rule, it is likely that the rule is inapplicable in many
instances where students use discriminatory language.
Thus, the phrase "discriminatory comments, epithets and expressive behavior"
and the term "demean" do not appear to have vagueness difficulties.
Nonetheless, as stated above, these terms fail to solve the UW Rule's
overbreadth difficulties. The rule clearly reaches beyond the narrow confines
of the fighting words doctrine. Although the above terms give students
adequate notice of the speech which the rule prohibits and provides explicit
standards f or those who apply the rule, the terms nevertheless allow the rule
to prohibit protected speech.
(2) AMBIGUITY
The Court concurs with plaintiffs that the UW Rule is unduly vague because it
is ambiguous as to whether the regulated speech must actually demean the
listener and create an intimidating, hostile or demeaning environment for
education or whether the speaker must merely intend to demean the listener and
create such an environment. As plaintiffs note, the rule itself suggests that
prohibited speech must actually demean the addressee and create an
intimidating, hostile or demeaning environment. See UW Rule s 2(a). However,
the illustrative examples published with the rule in the Wisconsin
Administrative Code suggest that there is no need to prove that a student' s
speech had any effect on the listener or the educational environment. See UWS
17. 06(2)(c). In addition, the UW-Milwaukee has interpreted the rule to
require only the intent to demean or to create a hostile environment. Kassel
Aff., Ex. 31.
This Court could correct this ambiguity in the UW Rule by interpreting it to
require either: (1) the intent to demean the listener and to create an
intimidating, hostile or demeaning educational environment or (2) the intent to
and effect of demeaning the listener and creating such an environment.
However, neither interpretation of the UW Rule saves the rule from its
overbreadth difficulties. Accordingly, this Court will not interpret section
(2)(a) of the rule.
III. CONCLUSION
*20 The founding fathers of this nation produced a remarkable document in
the Constitution but it was ratified only with the promise of the Bill of
Rights. The First Amendment is central to our concept of freedom. The God-
given "unalienable rights" that the infant nation rallied to in the Declaration
of Independence can be preserved only if their application is rigorously
analyzed.
The problems of bigotry and discrimination sought to be addressed here are
real and truly corrosive of the educational environment. But freedom of speech
is almost absolute in our land and the only restriction the fighting words
doctrine can abide is that based on the fear of violent reaction. Content-
based prohibitions such as that in the UW Rule, however well intended, simply
cannot survive the screening which our Constitution demands.
Based on the above, this Court GRANTS plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment
and DENIES the Board of Regents' motion for summary judgment. Accordingly,
this Court ORDERS: (1) that a declaratory judgment be entered that the UW Rule
on its face violates the overbreadth doctrine and is unduly vague; (2) that
the Board of Regents and its agents and employees are permanently enjoined from
enforcing the UW Rule and (3) that the Board of Regents is required to vacate
the disciplinary action taken against plaintiff John Doe under the UW Rule and
to expunge from his file all records related to that action.
The Court requests that the parties submit brief ing on plaintiffs' request
for reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. Plaintiffs should submit its brief
and affidavits within twenty (20) days of the entering of this Decision and
Order. The UW System shall have an additional ten (10) days to file a response
and plaintiffs another seven (7) days to file a reply.
S0 ORDERED this day of October, 1991, at Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
FN1. Concerns regarding discriminatory harassment are not unique to the
University of Wisconsin System. At least fifteen colleges and
universities, including nine state institutions, have adopted or are
considering restrictions on discriminatory hate speech directed at members
of historically disadvantaged groups. 103 Harv. L. Rov. 1397 (1990)(citing
Wilson, "Colleges" Anti-Harassment Policies Bring Controversy over Free-
Speech Issues,1 Chronicle of Higher Educ., Oct. 4, 1989, at A I, Col. I)
FN2. At oral argument on the parties' motions, the Board's counsel
stressed that the University of Wisconsin System does not rely solely upon
the UW Rule to combat the problem of discriminatory harassment among
students. Counsel stated that the UW Rule is morely a "two percent
solution." He noted that the system also set and articulated community
standards, a "thirty percent solution," and increased education regarding
diversity and racism, a "sixty-eight percent solution."
FN3. The Supreme Court employed the term loongibilities, in Street v. New
York, 394 U.S. 576 (1969). The Street Court stated that the state had:
an interest in preventing appellant from uttering wordo so inflammatory
that they would provoke others to retaliate physically against him, thereby
causing a breach of the peace; [and) an interest in protecting the
sensibilities of passers-by who might be shocked by appellant's words about
the American flag....
Id. at 591 (emphasis added).
FN4. The Board concurs that the first half of the fighting words
definition now constitutes protected speech. See Defendant's Combined
Brief at 4.
FN5. Likewise, in Lewis v. City of New Orleans, 415 U.S. 130 (1974), the
Supreme Court hold that Now Orleans ordinance 828 M.C.S. s 49-7 had a
broader sweep than the definition of 'fighting words.' Section 49-7
provided:
It shall be unlawful and a breach of the peace for any person wantonly to
curse or revile or to use obscene or opprobrious language toward or with
reference to any member of the city police while in actual performance of
his duty.
See id. at 132. The Supreme Court previously remanded this case to the
Louisiana Supreme Court for reconsideration in light of Gooding. See id.
at 131. The Louisiana Supreme Court did not ' 'refine or narrow [the words
of s 49-71, but took them as they stood: 'The prescriptions are narrow and
specific wantonly cursing, reviling, and using obscene or opprobrious
language.' " See id. at 132 (citations omitted). The Supreme Court found
that 'nothing in the opinion of the Louisiana Supreme Court ... [made) any
meaningful attempt to limit or properly define--an limited by Chaplinsky
and Gooding--opprobrious,' or indeed any other term in s 497.' ' See id.
at 133.
More recently, in Texas v. Johnson, the Supreme Court hold that the act of
flag burning does not fall within the class of fighting words' because it
is unlikely to incite an immediate breach of the peace. 109 S.Ct. 2533,
2S42 (1989).
Nor does Johnson's expressive conduct fall within that class of "fighting
words" that are likely to provoke the average person to retaliation, and
thereby cause a breach of the peace." No reasonable onlooker would have
regarded Johnson's generalized expression of dissatisfaction with the
policies of the Federal Government an a direct personal insult or an
invitation to exchange fisticuffs.
Id. (citations omitted).
FN6. Section 1415 prohibits 'maliciously and willfully disturbing) the
peace or quiet of any neighborhood or person ... by. offensive conduct. at
1Id.
FN7. The Board notes that discriminatory harassment has harmful effects on
its victims. "The negative effects of hate messages are real and immediate
for the victims.' Matsuda, at 2336. Studies show that victims of
discriminatory harassment have experienced physiological symptoms and
emotional distress ranging from fear, rapid pulse rate, difficulty in
breathing, nightmares, post-traumatic stress disorder, hypertension,
psychosis and simmediateuicide. Id.
The injuries to victims of discriminatory harassment demonstrate the high
costs to society which such speech imposes. However, an stated above, the
Supreme Court has determined that speech does not lose its protected status
merely because it inflicts injury or disgrace onto its addressees.
FN8. The American Heritage Dictionary defines the adjective "hostile'
as: "(1) of or pertaining to an enemy. (2) Fooling or showing enmity;
antagonistic. (3) Not hospitable.' These definitions of hostile are
likely to cover speech which does not invite violent response.
FN9. The American Booksellers court' s reluctance to apply a balancing
approach to content-based restrictions is well founded. The First
Amendment' s protection of speech constitutes a pro-commitment by the
government to refrain from restricting the expression of ideas. This pro-
commitment ensures the ' 'continued building of our politics and culture'
as well an ' 'self-fulfillment for each individual.' '
This commitment to free expression must be unwavering, because there exist
many situations where, in the short run, it appears advantageous to limit
speech to solve pressing social problems, such an discriminatory
harassment. If a balancing approach In applied, these pressing and
tangible short run concerns are likely to outweigh the more amorphous and
long run benefits of free speech. However, the suppression of speech, even
where the speech's content appears to have little value and great costs,
amounts to governmental thought control. An individual instance of thought
control may not appear to impose great costs on society. However, if a
balancing tent is used there are likely to be many such instances. Taken
an a whole, theme instances will work to dissolve the great benefits which
free speech affords.
FN10. For example, it in likely that the University of Wisconsin--Oshkosh
student disciplined for his comments to an Asian-American student wished to
convince his listener that he did not belong in America. See supra, p. 8.
FN11. Presumedly, the Board's proposed limitation is intended to remove
only discriminatory opinions with intellectual bases from the reach of the
UW Rule. The term 'opinion' means '[a] belief or conclusion hold with
confidence, but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof.' ' See
The American Heritage Dictionary, p. 872. This definition of opinion would
appear to reach all beliefs or conclusions, regardless of their
intellectual bases. However, if this definition of opinion in used in the
Board's limiting construction, the construction swallows the rule. The
comment 'you're just a dumb black, woman or homosexual, and the epithets
' 'nigger,' ' ' 'bitch,' ' and ' 'fag' ' all express a speaker's opinion
regarding a characteristic of his or her addresses. Yet this comment and
these epithets are among the most base speech addressed by the UW Rule.
Accordingly, unless the Board's proposed limitation on the Rule in confined
to opinions with some intellectual basis, the limitation will defeat the
rule.
FN12. The student actually called his addressee a "piece of shit nigger,
and later stated ' 'fuck you nigger.' ' See id.
E.D.Wis.,1991.
The UWM POST, INCORPORATED, Lafi Abdalla, Stephanie Bloomingdale, Kent
Farnsworth, Theresa Flynn, Richard D. Leonard, Michael J. Mathias, Marcia
Meyer, Ron Novy, Robin Pharo, Carrie Worthen and John Doe, Plaintiffs, v. BOARD
OF REGENTS OF the UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN SYSTEM, Defendant.
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu, or (anonymous) ap.4352@hri.com
I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
--------------------
--
| 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 comp-academic-freedom-talk Tue Oct 29 15:10:31 1991
Reply-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk
From: comp-academic-freedom-talk
Precedence: bulk
To: comp-academic-freedom-talk
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1991 13:05:32 -0500
X-Digest-Sender: "William W. Arnold"
Subject: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Status: R
Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Tue Oct 29 13:04:31 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
- Billy ]
In this issue:
ALILESTE@idbsu.idb : Re: The MIG-29
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: YAHWEH is good! (instead of quoting reams, lets look
THARPER@hamp.hamps : Re: (comp.org.eff.talk) Net.freedom.of.expression (Yahweh
fischer@iesd.auc.d : Re: USENET censorship strikes University of Washington!
fischer@iesd.auc.d : Re: USENET censorship strikes University of Washington!
jkollin@milton.u.w : Re: Dave (The Stud) Duke likes Republicans!
buckaroo@medisg.St : Re: USENET censorship strikes University of Washington!
nwickham@triton.un : Re: Dave (The Stud) Duke likes Republicans!
bstring@mainz-emh2 : Re: Seattle Times/PI stories
art@world.std.com : Re: Dave (The Stud) Duke likes Republicans!
art@world.std.com : Re: Dave (The Stud) Duke likes Republicans!
catone@dmark.whart : Electronic session logging at the University of Pennsylva
morgan@ms.uky.edu : Re: USENET censorship strikes University of Washington!
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: Electronic session logging at the University of Penns
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: ALILESTE@idbsu.idbsu.edu (Dan Lester)
Subject: Re: The MIG-29
Message-ID: <199110290147.AA12926@eff.org>
Sender: ALILESTE@idbsu.idbsu.edu
References:
Date: 29 Oct 91 01:47:47 GMT
On 29 Oct 91 00:04:12 GMT Dan Boyd said:
>In article art@world.std.com
>(Al Thompson) writes:
>
> So you're both wrong.
>
And you are both wrong to be carrying this discussion of military
hardware on a group dealing with academic freedom. Maybe on
alt.mig.fighters.suck ???
dan
-------------------
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: YAHWEH is good! (instead of quoting reams, lets look at cases)
Message-ID: <1991Oct29.015534.13179@eff.org>
References: <39487@hydra.gatech.EDU> <4926@sun13.scri.fsu.edu> <1991Oct26.014323.14716@news.media.mit.edu> <1991Oct29.014134.12586@eff.org>
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1991 01:55:34 GMT
kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>Following Amy Gorin's suggestion I've been looking at cases. Enclosed
>is the full text of UWM POST v. U. of Wisconsin. This recent district
>court ruling goes in to detail about the difference betwen protected
>offensive expression and illegal harassment. It even mentions email.
>----------------------start--------------------------------------
>(Cite as: 1991 WL 206819 (E.D.Wis.))
[...]
I meant to post the similar of U. of Michigan decision separately
but in a rush to get home to watch Murphy Brown, I posted
it together with the Wisconsin decision. Also included was
the Supreme Court "Hostile Environment" decision.
- 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: THARPER@hamp.hampshire.edu
Subject: Re: [comp.org.eff.talk] Net.freedom.of.expression [Yahweh is Good]
Message-ID:
Sender: THARPER@hamp.hampshire.edu
Date: 29 Oct 91 02:15:00 GMT
>That would be a plausible "lesson" only if you know that Anita Hill
>was lying. To reach that conclusion you must either let political
>consideration take precedence over rational judgement or be mentally
>defective or both.
Another possibility is looking at it from the other side.
What if the various statements that were used to discredit Anita Hill's testimony were contrived and invented in order to ruin her plausibility and indirectly,
her career?
T. Harper
-------------------
From: fischer@iesd.auc.dk (Lars P. Fischer)
Subject: Re: USENET censorship strikes University of Washington!
Message-ID:
Date: 29 Oct 91 01:35:59 GMT
References: <1991Oct23.011804.34839@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu>
<1991Oct23.235848.24117@iitmax.iit.edu>
<1991Oct28.152854.28951@ms.uky.edu>
Sender: news@iesd.auc.dk
In-Reply-To: morgan@ms.uky.edu's message of 28 Oct 91 15:28:54 GMT
>>>>> On 28 Oct 91 15:28:54 GMT, morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) said:
Wes> This is not necessarily the case. On our systems, disk space usage
Wes> follows a bell curve. [...]
Another good reason to keep news on a partition of its own. Set 600
Mbyte aside for news once and for all, and you can pretty much forget
about it. Making news dependend on variations in user space is asking
for lots of administrative work.
Actually, running with too little disk space leads to endless
administrative hassles, ending up costing more (in manpower) than the
extra disk would.
Wes> I wish people would stop screaming "censorship" at every shadow,
Wes> especially if they don't know the full story.
Ah, but I don't. I just said that I'm suspicious, and that I don't
consider "disk space" a very good reason to get rid of alt.sex.*.
We're talking 30 - 40 Mbyte with a 14 day expire time.
/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: fischer@iesd.auc.dk (Lars P. Fischer)
Subject: Re: USENET censorship strikes University of Washington!
Message-ID:
Date: 29 Oct 91 01:47:52 GMT
References:
<1991Oct27.233800.7842@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu>
<1991Oct28.003732.18070@wpi.WPI.EDU>
<1991Oct28.171510.21293@ms.uky.edu>
Sender: news@iesd.auc.dk
In-Reply-To: morgan@ms.uky.edu's message of 28 Oct 91 17:15:10 GMT
>>>>> On 28 Oct 91 17:15:10 GMT, morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) said:
Wes> Can you really imagine, for instance, trying to convince a
Wes> computer science department that they need to spend thousands of
Wes> dollars on a machine whose exclusive use would have very little
Wes> to do with their CS mission? Good luck.
Oh, dear. I'd say that news is certainly *critical* to CS department!
For one thing, teaching you students to use electronic communication
for getting information is *damn* important. Second, most faculty and
system administrators would have a few groups they consider essential
-- I, for one, can name quite a few technical groups that a critical
to my "mission".
No, news is serious stuff, and should be handled as such. Any
university, and *especially* a CS department, should take electronic
communication seriously and be prepared to allocate the resource for
it. All else is folly. And, considering that news, email, electronic
conferencing, etc, are among the few things that need support from
outside by office, I can thin of few things that are more appropriate
for allocating shared resources and as task for university computing
center. Note that a single news server will more often than not be
enough for an entire campus.
Once you start taking this stuff seriously, it follows that 500 Mbyte
of 2 Gbyte for news is not what matters, so you might at well get it
all. Far better than putting someone in the position to judge what is
good and what is bad. This is rarely a healthy thing for a human to
do.
/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: jkollin@milton.u.washington.edu (Annoyer of HUMAN Sheep)
Subject: Re: Dave (The Stud) Duke likes Republicans!
Keywords: Flameage
Message-ID: <1991Oct29.031920.12468@milton.u.washington.edu>
Date: 29 Oct 91 03:19:20 GMT
References: <5=cd1-k@lynx.unm.edu>
Hope I attribute these things right...
>In article art@world.std.com (Al Thompson) writes:
>>> In article ts2a+@andrew.cmu.edu (Thomas Omar Smith) writes:
>>>Man, just when it was really feeling good to be a Republican.
whoa, baby! Nothin' like a bank failure to really get my juices goin'!
>>> The Bush agenda was moving forward
Huh? You mean the rich getting richer..
>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).
Try closer to 6%, more when you factor in the Reagan-era buildup deficits.
(Now, admittedly, they are caused more by S&L/Bank Bailouts. I wonder
how many 'bankrupt' former S&L owners drive to gov't relief offices in
their welfare cadillacs ;-)
Oh, don't forget the Dept. of Energy and NASA in those estimates like the
mainstream press will. After all, both were heavily militarized during the
Raygun years...and it will take 30-100 BILLION dollars just to clean up
the nuclear waste from Hanford, Savannah River, and Rocky Flats.
So, I bet you can get an estimate of 10% for real military expenditures.
The real tragedy is how many engineers work for the M-I complex -
the reason why this country can't produce any consumers goods anymore.
>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.
One down, one to go. How long can a nation bankrupt its infrastructure
and human assets. What will happen to the 1 out of 4 children who grow up in
poverty? The significant fraction who can't read? The malnourished?
More young black men are in jail than in college...
A little disparity here too, it seems...
Why don't you ever see these stats on TV? The 'intellegensia' (those
who can read Sci Am or The Economist) know of these things but let's
face it - how many of us will bite the hand that feeds us?
Certainly TIME-LIFE Inc won't.
Someone criticising my previous posting thought that boycotts were a form
of censorship. How about when those who own the "free press" would rather
not upset the powers that be? (especially when they are one and the same).
We are not so far away from the edge as you might think...it only took
the USSR 10 years to fall apart economically. The first step is concentration
of political and economic power into the hands of the unaccountable (ie
the tenured Senate, the Republocratic 'consensus' gov't that brought us
the S&L scandal and hundreds of billions in totally ridiculous defense
projects). This can obviously happen in a top-down, centralized capitalist
economy as well as a socialist one.
As far as I'm concerned, the main thing that separates us from the USSR
is a free press and small business. Both seem to be fading lately...
-------------------
From: buckaroo@medisg.Stanford.EDU (Matthew N. Petach)
Subject: Re: USENET censorship strikes University of Washington!
Message-ID: <1991Oct29.063746.18185@medisg.Stanford.EDU>
Followup-To: Kestrel
Sender: Kestrel
References: <1991Oct27.233800.7842@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu> <1991Oct28.003732.18070@wpi.WPI.EDU>
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 91 06:37:46 GMT
The only words I will post regarding the student in Oklahoma,
who cannot get newsfeeds due to limited computer resources:
SparcStation IPC price, at educational discount: $3795
Maxtor 1.2Gig SCSI-2 drive for IPC: $2175
O.K., for $6000 you've got a kick-ass news server.
'nuf said.
--
************************************************************************
Alaric Morgan Kestrel |buckaroo@isg, mpetach@portia (.stanford.edu)
"For every problem, there exists a simple and elegant solution which is
absolutely wrong." -- J. Wagoner, U.C.B. Mathematics
-------------------
From: nwickham@triton.unm.edu (Neal C. Wickham)
Subject: Re: Dave (The Stud) Duke likes Republicans!
Keywords: Flameage
Message-ID: <1!fdwal@lynx.unm.edu>
Date: 29 Oct 91 05:56:44 GMT
References: <5=cd1-k@lynx.unm.edu> <1991Oct29.031920.12468@milton.u.washington.edu>
In article <1991Oct29.031920.12468@milton.u.washington.edu> jkollin@milton.u.washington.edu (Annoyer of HUMAN Sheep) writes:
>Why don't you ever see these stats on TV? The 'intellegensia' (those
>who can read Sci Am or The Economist) know of these things but let's
>face it - how many of us will bite the hand that feeds us?
>Certainly TIME-LIFE Inc won't.
About the first thing Reagan and the Hollywood entourage did was
deregulate the FCC. (You don't hear this on TV either.) This has
had many important ramifications. Anyone who is old enough to
remember what news and politics were like before Reagan can surely
attest to the fact that there has been a dramatic change since the
early eighties. The "level" is much lower and sleezier. Much more
of politics is mud slinging and personal attacks and sensationalism.
The voter turnouts are getting lower and lower and the Republicans
have stolen the ...dare I say "show".
This deregulation of the FCC was a very imortant politcal move that
few understand. ...how could they since most people get the bulk
of their information from TV.
>As far as I'm concerned, the main thing that separates us from the USSR
>is a free press and small business. Both seem to be fading lately...
Oh... the press is still free. It's that no one reads anymore! And
three networks... that is a lot of power in just a few hands. The
"liberal press" dogma is a creation, and often refers to the old print
media establishment.
NCW
-------------------
From: bstring@mainz-emh2.army.mil (BOB STRINGFIELD)
Subject: Re: Seattle Times/PI stories
Message-ID: <199110291005.AA29142@eff.org>
X-Unparseable-Date: Tue, 29 Oct 91 10:48:17 CET
Sender: bstring@mainz-emh2.army.mil
Date: 29 Oct 91 10:05:25 GMT
Thanks Dan...
--bob
-------------------
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 29 Oct 91 05:56:44 GMT
Message-ID:
Sender: art@world.std.com (Al Thompson)
References: <5=cd1-k@lynx.unm.edu>
<1991Oct29.031920.12468@milton.u.washington.edu> <1!fdwal@lynx.unm.edu>
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1991 10:12:46 GMT
In article <1!fdwal@lynx.unm.edu> nwickham@triton.unm.edu (Neal C. Wickham) writes:
In article <1991Oct29.031920.12468@milton.u.washington.edu> jkollin@milton.u.washington.edu (Annoyer of HUMAN Sheep) writes:
>Why don't you ever see these stats on TV? The 'intellegensia' (those
>who can read Sci Am or The Economist) know of these things but let's
>face it - how many of us will bite the hand that feeds us?
>Certainly TIME-LIFE Inc won't.
About the first thing Reagan and the Hollywood entourage did was
deregulate the FCC.
How do you deregulate a government agency?
(You don't hear this on TV either.)
Funny I saw it reported and discussed at some length on TV and in the
print media.
This has
had many important ramifications. Anyone who is old enough to
remember what news and politics were like before Reagan can surely
attest to the fact that there has been a dramatic change since the
early eighties. The "level" is much lower and sleezier. Much more
of politics is mud slinging and personal attacks and sensationalism.
The voter turnouts are getting lower and lower and the Republicans
have stolen the ...dare I say "show".
Where does this idea that politics are dirtier now than before? In 1960
JFK insisted on the reality of a "missile gap" even when told by the
government that no such gap existed. As soon as he was elected we heard
not another word on the topic. LBJ ran that commercial of that adorable
little girl picking daisies and then vanishing in a mushroom cloud. In
1864 McClellan's campaign reffered to Lincoln as an "ape". Do some
research. Go to the library dig out some newspapers from the nineteenth
century. Next read up on twentieth century politics in Chicago and New
York. Then, let us know how much dirtier politics are today. Of course
"dirty politics" is always the cry of the loser.
This deregulation of the FCC was a very imortant politcal move that
few understand. ...how could they since most people get the bulk
of their information from TV.
You would prefer the government to control the information flow?
>As far as I'm concerned, the main thing that separates us from the USSR
>is a free press and small business. Both seem to be fading lately...
Oh... the press is still free. It's that no one reads anymore! And
three networks... that is a lot of power in just a few hands.
I assume you don't get cable TV. Cable has broken the network monopoly
once and for all.
-------------------
From: art@world.std.com (Al Thompson)
Subject: Re: Dave (The Stud) Duke likes Republicans!
In-Reply-To: jkollin@milton.u.washington.edu's message of 29 Oct 91 03:19:20 GMT
Message-ID:
Sender: art@world.std.com (Al Thompson)
References: <5=cd1-k@lynx.unm.edu>
<1991Oct29.031920.12468@milton.u.washington.edu>
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1991 10:55:35 GMT
In article <1991Oct29.031920.12468@milton.u.washington.edu> jkollin@milton.u.washington.edu (Annoyer of HUMAN Sheep) writes:
Hope I attribute these things right...
>In article art@world.std.com (Al Thompson) writes:
[...]
>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).
Try closer to 6%, more when you factor in the Reagan-era buildup deficits.
(Now, admittedly, they are caused more by S&L/Bank Bailouts. I wonder
how many 'bankrupt' former S&L owners drive to gov't relief offices in
their welfare cadillacs ;-)
If you get to factor in the DoD portion of the interest on the debt then
I get to factor out the pensions to retired military. About twenty
percent of the DoD budget goes to pensions.
Oh, don't forget the Dept. of Energy and NASA in those estimates like the
mainstream press will. After all, both were heavily militarized during the
Raygun years...and it will take 30-100 BILLION dollars just to clean up
the nuclear waste from Hanford, Savannah River, and Rocky Flats.
The DoE and NASA have always been highly militarized. The DoE grew out
of the old AEC whose purpose was to nuclear weapons. NASA's original
purpose was the military exploitation of space. It was NOT to put up
communication sattelites to send Jerry Lewis reruns to France.
So, I bet you can get an estimate of 10% for real military expenditures.
The real tragedy is how many engineers work for the M-I complex -
the reason why this country can't produce any consumers goods anymore.
Even at 10% it's still far below what it was in the Kennedy/Johnson era.
>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.
One down, one to go. How long can a nation bankrupt its infrastructure
and human assets. What will happen to the 1 out of 4 children who grow up in
poverty? The significant fraction who can't read? The malnourished?
More young black men are in jail than in college...
A little disparity here too, it seems...
True, but a lot less here than there. BTW, these figures are not new,
they have been part of us from way way back.
Why don't you ever see these stats on TV? The 'intellegensia' (those
who can read Sci Am or The Economist) know of these things but let's
face it - how many of us will bite the hand that feeds us?
Certainly TIME-LIFE Inc won't.
What are you talking about? I see things like that on TV all the time.
I also read about them in magazines and newspapers all the time too.
Someone criticising my previous posting thought that boycotts were a form
of censorship. How about when those who own the "free press" would rather
not upset the powers that be? (especially when they are one and the same).
We are not so far away from the edge as you might think...it only took
the USSR 10 years to fall apart economically.
It took the USSR a lot longer than ten years. It just accelerated in the
last ten.
The first step is concentration
of political and economic power into the hands of the unaccountable (ie
the tenured Senate, the Republocratic 'consensus' gov't that brought us
the S&L scandal and hundreds of billions in totally ridiculous defense
projects). This can obviously happen in a top-down, centralized capitalist
economy as well as a socialist one.
There is nothing tenured about the Senate and you know it. All you have
to do is convince a majority of those voting to throw the rascals out,
and out they go. Birch Bayh, Frank Church and Chuck Percy (to name a
couple who come quickly to mind) were all kicked out by the voters.
The DoD budget is under three hundred billion. Fifty percent of the
budget goes to personnel, both active and retired. So, it is impossible
to spend hundreds (plural) of billions on "ridiculous defense projects".
Sophistry such as this does not strengthen your argument.
As far as I'm concerned, the main thing that separates us from the USSR
is a free press and small business. Both seem to be fading lately...
Free press fading? What about cable TV? Small businesses fading? Not
the one I'm involved in. True, the failure rate for small business is
high, something like 80-90% fail in the first year, but that's been going
on since day one.
-------------------
From: catone@dmark.wharton.upenn.edu (Tony Catone)
Subject: Electronic session logging at the University of Pennsylvania
Message-ID: <54609@netnews.upenn.edu>
Date: 29 Oct 91 07:00:36 GMT
Sender: news@netnews.upenn.edu
Nntp-Posting-Host: dmark.wharton.upenn.edu
A disturbing situation has come to light at the University of
Pennsylvania. This past summer, the University's Data Communications
Dept. began electronic monitoring and logging of users' annex terminal
sessions. The monitoring was limited to those sessions which connected
to non-Penn hosts directly from our (open) terminal servers. Local
logins were not recorded apparently due to disk space limitations
(logging entire sessions generates megs of data). The logs were
scanned, at first exclusively by human readers, later by computer
programs which filtered keywords and identified sections containing
these keywords to be read. Logs of sessions containing "improper
activities" (Penn was being used as a pass through site by some
crackers) were kept; the logs of "proper" sessions were deleted.
This action was approved by the management of the Data Communications
Dept., who did not consult with any larger University body. In
particular, the faculty was not consulted and remains largely unaware of
these actions. Data Communications admits they impinged on legitimate
users, but argue they did not and would not do so maliciously. Many sys
admins on campus seem to accept this as justification, arguing that
surveillance is the (acceptable) price one pays for security.
Are there legal arguments one can raise against this policy of
surveillance? I have scanned the Electronic Communications Privacy Act
of 1986 and the other files archived at eff.org, but am uncertain how
these may apply as Penn is a private institution.
Feel free to respond via posts or email. I will collect replies and
post a summary to the group. Thanks much.
- Tony
catone@dmark.wharton.upenn.edu
-------------------
From: morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan)
Subject: Re: USENET censorship strikes University of Washington!
Message-ID: <1991Oct29.133657.9852@ms.uky.edu>
Date: 29 Oct 91 13:36:57 GMT
Article-I.D.: ms.1991Oct29.133657.9852
References: <1991Oct28.152854.28951@ms.uky.edu>
fischer@iesd.auc.dk (Lars P. Fischer) writes:
>
>Wes> This is not necessarily the case. On our systems, disk space usage
>Wes> follows a bell curve. [...]
>
>Another good reason to keep news on a partition of its own. Set 600
>Mbyte aside for news once and for all, and you can pretty much forget
>about it. Making news dependend on variations in user space is asking
>for lots of administrative work.
>
Lars,
How many people have to say it? *Many* sites do NOT have the
luxury of "setting aside" 600 Mb for news. *Most* sites do NOT have
the luxury of purchasing/supporting a separate machine for news.
I'm glad that your site has the resources to do these things;
we have been trying for 3 years to get the funding for a workstation
lab, to no avail. Not everyone has the resources you seem to have.
Until we do, we will have to fudge, kludge, and hack our way into
services such as news on an extremely "ad hoc" basis.
>Wes> I wish people would stop screaming "censorship" at every shadow,
>Wes> especially if they don't know the full story.
>
>Ah, but I don't. I just said that I'm suspicious,
What's the difference?
--
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: Electronic session logging at the University of Pennsylvania
Message-ID: <1991Oct29.134931.2706@eff.org>
References: <54609@netnews.upenn.edu>
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1991 13:49:31 GMT
catone@dmark.wharton.upenn.edu (Tony Catone) writes:
>A disturbing situation has come to light at the University of
>Pennsylvania. This past summer, the University's Data Communications
>Dept. began electronic monitoring and logging of users' annex terminal
>sessions.
If you accecpt the premise that private communications via computer
should have the same protections as private communications via
telephone, their policy is unethical. They would be adding insult to
injury if they did not warn users of the monitoring every time the
user signed in.
I don't know if the ECPA speaks to your situtation, but I think the
Constitution and perhaps your Student (and Faculty) Code does.
At my university, the University of Illinois, telephones can not be
tapped nor offices searched without a search warrent from a judge. A
committee is working on a disk space and email policy. The draft of
the policy that I've seen would require an OK for the head of a
college (the College of Education, the Colledge of Engineering, etc)
before a search could be conducted.
Here is the U. of Illinois office space policy:
"IV. Privacy
A. Members of the University community have the same rights of
privacy as other citizens and surrender none of those rights by
becoming members of the academic community. These rights of privacy
extend to residence hall living. Nothing in University regulations or
contracts shall give University officials authority to consent to a
search by police or other government officials of offices assigned or
living quarters leased to individuals except in response to a properly
executed search warrant or search incident to an arrest.
B. When the University seeks access to an office assigned or living
quarters leased to an individual to determine compliance with
provisions of applicable multiple-dwelling unit laws, ordinances, and
regulations, or for improvement or repairs, the occupant shall be
notified of such action not less that twenty-four hours in advance.
There may be entry without notice in emergencies where imminent
danger to life, safety, health, or property is reasonably feared and
for custodial service.
C. The University may not conduct or permit a search of an office
assigned or living quarters leased to an individual except in
response to a properly executed search warrant or search incident to
an arrest."
Here is the US Constituion (which applies to public universities):
"The right of the people to be secure in
their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable
searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall
issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and
particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons
or things to be seized."
And finally, the Joint Statement on Rights and Freedoms of Students:
" 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."
The complete Joint Statement and U.S. Constitution, as well as more
excerpts from the U. of Illinois code are available via anonymous ftp
to ftp.eff.org. See file pub/academic/README. The material is also
available via email. For information on email access, send email to
archive-server@eff.org. Include the lines "help" and "index".
- 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.
--------------------
--
| 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 comp-academic-freedom-talk Tue Oct 29 15:10:31 1991
Reply-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk
From: comp-academic-freedom-talk
Precedence: bulk
To: comp-academic-freedom-talk
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1991 13:03:00 -0500
X-Digest-Sender: "William W. Arnold"
Subject: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Status: R
Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Tue Oct 29 13:02:54 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
- Billy ]
In this issue:
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: YAHWEH is good! (instead of quoting reams, lets look
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
-------------------
[part 2 of {Meritor Savings Bank FSB v. Vinson}]
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: YAHWEH is good! (instead of quoting reams, lets look at cases)
Message-ID: <1991Oct29.044042.16891@eff.org>
References: <39487@hydra.gatech.EDU> <4926@sun13.scri.fsu.edu> <1991Oct26.014323.14716@news.media.mit.edu> <1991Oct29.014134.12586@eff.org> <1991Oct29.015534.13179@eff.org>
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1991 04:40:42 GMT
[1] Since the guidelines were issued, courts have uniformly held, and we
agree, that a plaintiff may establish a violation of Title VII by proving that
discrimination based on sex has created a hostile or abusive work
environment. As the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit wrote in Henson
v. Dundee, 682 F.2d 897, 902 (1982):
*67 "Sexual harassment which creates a hostile or offensive environment
for members of one sex is every bit the arbitrary barrier to sexual equality at
the workplace that racial harassment is to racial equality. Surely, a
requirement that a man or woman run a gauntlet of sexual abuse in return for
the privilege of being allowed to work and make a living can be as demeaning
and disconcerting as the harshest of racial epithets."
Accord, Katz v. Dole, 709 F.2d 251, 254-255 (CA4 1983); Bundy v. Jackson, 205
U.S.App.D.C. 444, 641 F.2d, at 934-944 (1981); Zabkowicz v. West Bend Co., 589
F.Supp. 780 (ED Wisc.1984).
[2][3] Of course, as the courts in both Rogers and Henson recognized, not all
workplace conduct that may be described as "harassment" affects a "term,
condition, or privilege" of employment within the meaning of Title VII. See
Rogers v. EEOC, supra, at 238 ("mere utterance of an ethnic or racial epithet
which engenders offensive feelings in an employee" would not affect the
conditions of employment to sufficiently significant degree to violate Title
VII); Henson, supra, at 904 (quoting same). For sexual harassment to be
actionable, it must be sufficiently severe or pervasive "to alter the
conditions of [the victim's] employment and create an abusive working
environment." Ibid. Respondent's allegations in this case--which include not
only pervasive harassment but **2406 also criminal conduct of the most
serious nature--are plainly sufficient to state a claim for "hostile
environment" sexual harassment.
[4][5] The question remains, however, whether the District Court's ultimate
finding that respondent "was not the victim of sexual harassment," 22 EPD P
30708, at 14692-14693, 23 FEP Cases, at 43, effectively disposed of
respondent's claim. The Court of Appeals recognized, we think correctly, that
this ultimate finding was likely based on one or both of two erroneous views of
the law. First, the District Court apparently believed that a claim for sexual
harassment will not lie *68 absent an economic effect on the complainant's
employment. See ibid. ("It is without question that sexual harassment of
female employees in which they are asked or required to submit to sexual
demands as a condition to obtain employment or to maintain employment or to
obtain promotions falls within protection of Title VII.") (emphasis added).
Since it appears that the District Court made its findings without ever
considering the "hostile environment" theory of sexual harassment, the Court of
Appeals' decision to remand was correct.
[6] Second, the District Court's conclusion that no actionable harassment
occurred might have rested on its earlier "finding" that "[i]f [respondent] and
Taylor did engage in an intimate or sexual relationship ..., that relationship
was a voluntary one." Id., at 14692, 23 FEP cases, at 42. But the fact that
sex-related conduct was "voluntary," in the sense that the complainant was not
forced to participate against her will, is not a defense to a sexual harassment
suit brought under Title VII. The gravamen of any sexual harassment claim is
that the alleged sexual advances were "unwelcome." 29 CFR s
1604.11(a) (1985). While the question whether particular conduct was indeed
unwelcome presents difficult problems of proof and turns largely on credibility
determinations committed to the trier of fact, the District Court in this case
erroneously focused on the "voluntariness" of respondent's participation in the
claimed sexual episodes. The correct inquiry is whether respondent by her
conduct indicated that the alleged sexual advances were unwelcome, not whether
her actual participation in sexual intercourse was voluntary.
[7][8] Petitioner contends that even if this case must be remanded to the
District Court, the Court of Appeals erred in one of the terms of its
remand. Specifically, the Court of Appeals stated that testimony about
respondent's "dress and personal fantasies," 243 U.S.App.D.C. at 328, n. 36,
753 F.2d, at 146, n. 36, which the District Court apparently admitted *69
into evidence, "had no place in this litigation." Ibid. The apparent ground
for this conclusion was that respondent's voluntariness vel non in submitting
to Taylor's advances was immaterial to her sexual harassment claim. While
"voluntariness" in the sense of consent is not a defense to such a claim, it
does not follow that a complainant's sexually provocative speech or dress is
irrelevant as a matter of law in determining whether he or she found particular
sexual advances unwelcome. To the contrary, such evidence is obviously
relevant. The EEOC guidelines emphasize that the trier of fact must determine
the existence of sexual harassment in light of "the record as a whole" and "the
totality of circumstances, such as the nature of the sexual advances and the
context in which the alleged incidents occurred." 29 CFR s 1604.11(b) (1985).
Respondent's claim that any marginal relevance of the evidence in question was
outweighed by the potential for unfair prejudice is the sort of argument
properly addressed to the District Court. In this case the District Court
concluded that the evidence should be admitted, and the Court of Appeals'
contrary conclusion was based upon the erroneous, categorical view that
testimony about provocative dress and publicly expressed sexual fantasies "had
no place in this litigation." 243 U.S.App.D.C., at 328, n. 36, 753 F.2d, at
146, n. 36. While the District Court must carefully weigh the
**2407 applicable considerations in deciding whether to admit evidence of
this kind, there is no per se rule against its admissibility.
III
Although the District Court concluded that respondent had not proved a
violation of Title VII, it nevertheless went on to consider the question of the
bank's liability. Finding that "the bank was without notice" of Taylor's
alleged conduct, and that notice to Taylor was not the equivalent of notice to
the bank, the court concluded that the bank therefore could not be held liable
for Taylor's alleged actions. The Court of Appeals took the opposite view,
holding that an employer is *70 strictly liable for a hostile environment
created by a supervisor's sexual advances, even though the employer neither
knew nor reasonably could have known of the alleged misconduct. The court held
that a supervisor, whether or not he possesses the authority to hire, fire, or
promote, is necessarily an "agent" of his employer for all Title VII purposes,
since "even the appearance" of such authority may enable him to impose himself
on his subordinates.
The parties and amici suggest several different standards for employer
liability. Respondent, not surprisingly, defends the position of the Court of
Appeals. Noting that Title VII's definition of "employer" includes any "agent"
of the employer, she also argues that "so long as the circumstance is work-
related, the supervisor is the employer and the employer is the supervisor."
Brief for Respondent 27. Notice to Taylor that the advances were unwelcome,
therefore, was notice to the bank.
Petitioner argues that respondent's failure to use its established grievance
procedure, or to otherwise put it on notice of the alleged misconduct,
insulates petitioner from liability for Taylor's wrongdoing. A contrary rule
would be unfair, petitioner argues, since in a hostile environment harassment
case the employer often will have no reason to know about, or opportunity to
cure, the alleged wrongdoing.
The EEOC, in its brief as amicus curiae, contends that courts formulating
employer liability rules should draw from traditional agency principles.
Examination of those principles has led the EEOC to the view that where a
supervisor exercises the authority actually delegated to him by his employer,
by making or threatening to make decisions affecting the employment
status of his subordinates, such actions are properly imputed to the
employer whose delegation of authority empowered the supervisor to undertake
them. Brief for United States and Equal Employment Opportunity Commission as
Amicus Curiae 22. Thus, the courts have consistently held employers liable for
the discriminatory discharges of employees by supervisory personnel, *71
whether or not the employer knew, should have known, or approved of the
supervisor's actions. E.g., Anderson v. Methodist Evangelical Hospital, Inc.,
464 F.2d 723, 725 (CA6 1972).
The EEOC suggests that when a sexual harassment claim rests exclusively on a
"hostile environment" theory, however, the usual basis for a finding of agency
will often disappear. In that case, the EEOC believes, agency principles lead
to
"a rule that asks whether a victim of sexual harassment had reasonably
available an avenue of complaint regarding such harassment, and, if available
and utilized, whether that procedure was reasonably responsive to the
employee's complaint. If the employer has an expressed policy against sexual
harassment and has implemented a procedure specifically designed to resolve
sexual harassment claims, and if the victim does not take advantage of that
procedure, the employer should be shielded from liability absent actual
knowledge of the sexually hostile environment (obtained, e.g., by the filing of
a charge with the EEOC or a comparable state agency). In all other cases, the
employer will be liable if it has actual knowledge of the harassment or if,
considering all the facts of the case, the victim in question had no reasonably
available avenue for making his or her complaint known to appropriate **2408
management officials." Brief for United States and Equal Opportunity
Employment Commission as Amici Curiae, 26.
As respondent points out, this suggested rule is in some tension with the EEOC
guidelines, which hold an employer liable for the acts of its agents without
regard to notice. 29 CFR s 1604.11(c) (1985). The guidelines do require,
however, an "examin[ation of] the circumstances of the particular employment
relationship and the job [f]unctions performed by the individual in determining
whether an individual acts in either a supervisory or agency capacity." Ibid.
*72 This debate over the appropriate standard for employer liability has a
rather abstract quality about it given the state of the record in this case.
We do not know at this stage whether Taylor made any sexual advances toward
respondent at all, let alone whether those advances were unwelcome, whether
they were sufficiently pervasive to constitute a condition of employment, or
whether they were "so pervasive and so long continuing ... that the employer
must have become conscious of [them]," Taylor v. Jones, 653 F.2d 1193, 1197-
1199 (CA8 1981) (holding employer liable for racially hostile working
environment based on constructive knowledge).
[9][10] We therefore decline the parties' invitation to issue a definitive
rule on employer liability, but we do agree with the EEOC that Congress wanted
courts to look to agency principles for guidance in this area. While such
common-law principles may not be transferable in all their particulars to Title
VII, Congress' decision to define "employer" to include any "agent" of an
employer, 42 U.S.C. s 2000e(b), surely evinces an intent to place some limits
on the acts of employees for which employers under Title VII are to be held
responsible. For this reason, we hold that the Court of Appeals erred in
concluding that employers are always automatically liable for sexual harassment
by their supervisors. See generally Restatement (Second) of Agency ss 219-237
(1958). For the same reason, absence of notice to an employer does not
necessarily insulate that employer from liability. Ibid.
[11] Finally, we reject petitioner's view that the mere existence of a
grievance procedure and a policy against discrimination, coupled with
respondent's failure to invoke that procedure, must insulate petitioner from
liability. While those facts are plainly relevant, the situation before us
demonstrates why they are not necessarily dispositive. Petitioner's general
nondiscrimination policy did not address sexual harassment in particular, and
thus did not alert employees to their employer's *73 interest in correcting
that form of discrimination. App. 25. Moreover, the bank's grievance
procedure apparently required an employee to complain first to her supervisor,
in this case Taylor. Since Taylor was the alleged perpetrator, it is not
altogether surprising that respondent failed to invoke the procedure and report
her grievance to him. Petitioner's contention that respondent's failure should
insulate it from liability might be substantially stronger if its procedures
were better calculated to encourage victims of harassment to come forward.
IV
In sum, we hold that a claim of "hostile environment" sex discrimination is
actionable under Title VII, that the District Court's findings were
insufficient to dispose of respondent's hostile environment claim, and that the
District Court did not err in admitting testimony about respondent's sexually
provocative speech and dress. As to employer liability, we conclude that the
Court of Appeals was wrong to entirely disregard agency principles and impose
absolute liability on employers for the acts of their supervisors, regardless
of the circumstances of a particular case.
Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals reversing the judgment of
the District Court is affirmed, and the case is remanded for further
proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
*74 **2409 Justice MARSHALL, with whom Justice BRENNAN, Justice BLACKMUN,
and Justice STEVENS join, concurring in the judgment.
I fully agree with the Court's conclusion that workplace sexual harassment is
illegal, and violates Title VII. Part III of the Court's opinion, however,
leaves open the circumstances in which an employer is responsible under Title
VII for such conduct. Because I believe that question to be properly before
us, I write separately.
The issue the Court declines to resolve is addressed in the EEOC Guidelines on
Discrimination Because of Sex, which are entitled to great deference. See
Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424, 433-434, 91 S.Ct. 849, 854-55, 28
L.Ed.2d 158 (1971) (EEOC Guidelines on Employment Testing Procedures of 1966);
see also ante, at 2404. The Guidelines explain:
"Applying general Title VII principles, an employer ... is responsible for
its acts and those of its agents and supervisory employees with respect to
sexual harassment regardless of whether the specific acts complained of were
authorized or even forbidden by the employer and regardless of whether the
employer knew or should have known of their occurrence. The Commission will
examine the circumstances of the particular employment relationship and the job
functions performed by the individual in determining whether an individual acts
in either a supervisory or agency capacity.
"With respect to conduct between fellow employees, an employer is responsible
for acts of sexual harassment in the workplace where the employer (or its
agents or supervisory employees) knows or should have known of the conduct,
unless it can show that it took immediate and appropriate corrective action."
29 CFR ss 1604.11(c), (d) (1985).
The Commission, in issuing the Guidelines, explained that its rule was "in
keeping with the general standard of employer *75 liability with respect to
agents and supervisory employees.... [T]he Commission and the courts have held
for years that an employer is liable if a supervisor or an agent violates the
Title VII, regardless of knowledge or any other mitigating factor." **2410
45 Fed.Reg. 74676 (1980). I would adopt the standard set out by the
Commission.
An employer can act only through individual supervisors and employees;
discrimination is rarely carried out pursuant to a formal vote of a
corporation's board of directors. Although an employer may sometimes adopt
company-wide discriminatory policies violative of Title VII, acts that may
constitute Title VII violations are generally effected through the actions of
individuals, and often an individual may take such a step even in defiance of
company policy. Nonetheless, Title VII remedies, such as reinstatement and
backpay, generally run against the employer as an entity. [FN1] The question
thus arises as to the circumstances under which an employer will be held liable
under Title VII for the acts of its employees.
FN1. The remedial provisions of Title VII were largely modeled on those of
the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). See Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody,
422 U.S. 405, 419, and n. 11, 95 S.Ct. 2362, 2372, and n. 11 (1975); see
also Franks v. Bowman Transportation Co., 424 U.S. 747, 768-770, 96 S.Ct.
1251, 1266-67, 47 L.Ed.2d 444 (1976).
The answer supplied by general Title VII law, like that supplied by federal
labor law, is that the act of a supervisory employee or agent is imputed to the
employer. [FN2] Thus, **2410 for example, when a supervisor discriminatorily
fires or refuses to promote a black employee, that act is, without more,
considered the act of the employer. The courts do not stop to consider whether
the employer otherwise had "notice" of the action, or even whether the
supervisor had actual authority to act as he did. E.g., Flowers v. Crouch-
Walker Corp., *76 552 F.2d 1277, 1282 (CA7 1977); Young v. Southwestern
Savings and Loan Assn., 509 F.2d 140 (CA5 1975); Anderson v. Methodist
Evangelical Hospital, Inc., 464 F.2d 723 (CA6 1972). Following that approach,
every Court of Appeals that has considered the issue has held that sexual
harassment by supervisory personnel is automatically imputed to the employer
when the harassment results in tangible job detriment to the subordinate
employee. See Horn v. Duke Homes, Inc., Div. of Windsor Mobile Homes, 755 F.2d
599, 604-606 (CA7 1985); Vinson v. Taylor, 243 U.S.App.D.C. 323, 329-334, 753
F.2d 141, 147-152 (1985); Craig v. Y & Y Snacks, Inc., 721 F.2d 77, 80-81 (CA3
1983); Katz v. Dole, 709 F.2d 251, 255, n. 6 (CA4 1983); Henson v. City of
Dundee, 682 F.2d 897, 910 (CA11 1982); Miller v. Bank of America, 600 F.2d
211, 213 (CA9 1979).
FN2. For NLRA cases, see, e.g., Graves Trucking, Inc. v. NLRB, 692 F.2d
470 (CA7 1982); NLRB v. Kaiser Agricultural Chemical, Division of Kaiser
Aluminum & Chemical Corp., 473 F.2d 374, 384 (CA5 1973); Amalgamated
Clothing Workers of America v. NLRB, 124 U.S.App.D.C. 365, 377, 365 F.2d
898, 909 (1966).
The brief filed by the Solicitor General on behalf of the EEOC in this case
suggests that a different rule should apply when a supervisor's harassment
"merely" results in a discriminatory work environment. The Solicitor General
concedes that sexual harassment that affects tangible job benefits is an
exercise of authority delegated to the supervisor by the employer, and thus
gives rise to employer liability. But, departing from the EEOC Guidelines, he
argues that the case of a supervisor merely creating a discriminatory work
environment is different because the supervisor "is not exercising, or
threatening to exercise, actual or apparent authority to make personnel
decisions affecting the victim." Brief for United States and EEOC as Amici
Curiae 24. In the latter situation, he concludes, some further notice
requirement should therefore be necessary.
The Solicitor General's position is untenable. A supervisor's
responsibilities do not begin and end with the power to hire, fire, and
discipline employees, or with the power to recommend such actions. Rather, a
supervisor is charged with the day-to-day supervision of the work environment
and with ensuring a safe, productive, workplace. There is no reason why abuse
of the latter authority should have different consequences than abuse of the
former. In both cases it is the authority *77 vested in the
supervisor by the employer that enables him to commit the wrong: it is
precisely because the supervisor is understood to be clothed with the
employer's authority that he is able to impose unwelcome sexual conduct on
subordinates. There is therefore no justification for a special rule, to be
applied only in "hostile environment" cases, that sexual harassment does not
create employer liability until the employee suffering the discrimination
notifies other supervisors. No such requirement appears in the statute, and no
such requirement can coherently be drawn from the law of agency.
Agency principles and the goals of Title VII law make appropriate some
limitation on the liability of employers for the acts of supervisors. Where,
for example, a supervisor has no authority over an employee, because the two
work in wholly different parts of the employer's business, it may be improper
to find strict employer liability. See 29 CFR s 1604.11(c) (1985). Those
considerations, however, do not justify the creation of a special "notice" rule
in hostile environment cases.
Further, nothing would be gained by crafting such a rule. In the "pure"
hostile environment case, where an employee files an EEOC complaint alleging
sexual harassment in the workplace, the employee seeks not money damages but
injunctive relief. See Bundy v. Jackson, 205 U.S.App.D.C. 444, 446, 641 F.2d
934, 936, n. 12 (1981). Under Title VII, the EEOC must notify an employer of
charges made against it within 10 days after receipt of the complaint. 42
U.S.C. s 2000e-5(b). If the charges appear to be based on "reasonable cause,"
the EEOC must attempt to **2411 eliminate the offending practice through
"informal methods of conference, conciliation, and persuasion." Ibid. An
employer whose internal procedures assertedly would have redressed the
discrimination can avoid injunctive relief by employing these procedures after
receiving notice of the complaint or during the conciliation period. Cf. Brief
for United *78 States and EEOC as Amici Curiae 26. Where a complainant, on
the other hand, seeks backpay on the theory that a hostile work environment
effected a constructive termination, the existence of an internal complaint
procedure may be a factor in determining not the employer's liability but the
remedies available against it. Where a complainant without good reason
bypassed an internal complaint procedure she knew to be effective, a court may
be reluctant to find constructive termination and thus to award reinstatement
or backpay.
I therefore reject the Solicitor General's position. I would apply in this
case the same rules we apply in all other Title VII cases, and hold that sexual
harassment by a supervisor of an employee under his supervision, leading to a
discriminatory work environment, should be imputed to the employer for Title
VII purposes regardless of whether the employee gave "notice" of the offense.
Justice STEVENS, concurring.
Because I do not see any inconsistency between the two opinions, and because I
believe the question of statutory construction that Justice MARSHALL has
answered is fairly presented by the record, I join both the Court's opinion and
Justice MARSHALL's opinion.
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu, or (anonymous) ap.4352@hri.com
I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
--------------------
--
| 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 comp-academic-freedom-talk Tue Oct 29 15:10:32 1991
Reply-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk
From: comp-academic-freedom-talk
Precedence: bulk
To: comp-academic-freedom-talk
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1991 13:01:21 -0500
X-Digest-Sender: "William W. Arnold"
Subject: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Status: R
Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Tue Oct 29 13:01:14 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
- Billy ]
In this issue:
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: YAHWEH is good! (instead of quoting reams, lets look
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
-------------------
[part 1 of {Doe v. U. of Michigan}]
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: YAHWEH is good! (instead of quoting reams, lets look at cases)
Message-ID: <1991Oct29.042705.16435@eff.org>
References: <39487@hydra.gatech.EDU> <4926@sun13.scri.fsu.edu> <1991Oct26.014323.14716@news.media.mit.edu> <1991Oct29.014134.12586@eff.org> <1991Oct29.015534.13179@eff.org>
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1991 04:27:05 GMT
This is Doe v. Univesity of Michigan. In this widely referenced
decision, the district judge down struck the University's rules
against discrimatory harassment because the rules were found to be too
broad and too vague.
----------------------start--------------------------------------
(Cite as: 721 F.Supp. 852)
John DOE, Plaintiff,
v.
UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN, Defendant.
Civ. No. 89-71683.
United States District Court,
E.D. Michigan,
Southern Division.
Sept. 22, 1989.
OPINION
COHN, District Judge.
[T]aking stock of the legal system's own limitations, we must realize
that judges, being human, will not only make mistakes but will sometimes
succumb to the pressures exerted by the government to allow restraints [on
speech] that ought not to be allowed. To guard against these possibilities we
must give judges as little room to maneuver as possible and, again, extend the
boundary of the realm of protected speech into the hinterlands of speech in
order to minimize the potential harm from judicial miscalculation and misdeeds.
L. Bollinger, The
Tolerant Society 78
(1986).
I. INTRODUCTION
It is an unfortunate fact of our constitutional system that the ideals of
freedom and equality are often in conflict. The difficult and sometimes
painful task of our political and legal institutions is to mediate the
appropriate balance between these two competing values. Recently, the
University of Michigan at Ann Arbor (the University), a state-chartered
university, see Mich. Const. art. VIII, adopted a Policy on Discrimination and
Discriminatory Harassment of Students in the University Environment (the
Policy) in an attempt to curb what the University's governing Board of Regents
(Regents) viewed as a rising tide of racial intolerance and harassment on
campus. The Policy prohibited individuals, under the penalty of sanctions,
>from "stigmatizing or victimizing" individuals or groups on the basis of race,
ethnicity, religion, sex, sexual orientation, creed, national origin, ancestry,
age, marital status, handicap or Vietnam-era veteran status. However laudable
or appropriate an effort this may have been, the Court found that the Policy
swept within its scope a significant amount of "verbal conduct" or "verbal
behavior" which is unquestionably protected speech under the First Amendment.
Accordingly, the Court granted plaintiff *854 John Doe's (Doe) [FN1] prayer
for a permanent injunction as to those parts of the Policy restricting speech
activity, but denied the injunction as to the Policy's regulation of physical
conduct. The reasons follow. [FN2]
FN1. Plaintiff proceeded under the pseudonym "John Doe" to preserve his
privacy and protect himself from any adverse publicity arising from this
case. The University did not contest plaintiff's right to proceed
anonymously.
Doe was represented by counsel provided by the American Civil Liberties
Union. His attorneys are to be commended for the consistently high quality
of the representation they provided Doe in this case.
FN2. The reasons for the Court's decision were stated on the record at a
hearing held on August 25, 1989. At that time, the Court stated that it
would issue a more detailed written opinion at a later date. To the extent
that this opinion is at variance with the Court's August 25, 1989 bench
opinion, it is the written opinion which controls. See Schmidt v. Plains
Electric Inc., 281 N.W.2d 794 (N.D.1979).
II. FACTS GENERALLY
According to the University, in the last three years incidents of racism and
racial harassment appeared to become increasingly frequent at the University.
For example, on January 27, 1987, unknown persons distributed a flier
declaring "open season" on blacks, which it referred to as "saucer lips, porch
monkeys, and jigaboos." On February 4, 1987, a student disc jockey at an on-
campus radio station allowed racist jokes to be broadcast. At a demonstration
protesting these incidents, a Ku Klux Klan uniform was displayed from a
dormitory window. These events and others prompted the University's President
on February 19, 1987 to issue a statement expressing outrage and reaffirming
the University's commitment to maintaining a racially, ethnically, and
culturally diverse campus. The University was unable to identify any of the
perpetrators. It is unknown whether the culprits were students. Likewise,
there was no evidence to suggest that these were anything other than isolated
and purposeless acts.
On March 5, 1987, the Chairperson of the State House of Representatives
Appropriations Subcommittee on Higher Education held a public hearing on the
problem of racism at the University in Ann Arbor. Forty-eight speakers
addressed the subcommittee and an audience of about 600. The speakers were
uniformly critical of the University's response to racial incidents and accused
it of generally ignoring the problems of minority students. At the close of
the hearing, the Chairperson was quoted as stating
Michigan legislators will not tolerate racism on the campus of a state
institution ... Racism has no place in this day and age.... [The
subcommittee] will make our decision [on appropriations for the University]
during their budget discussions of the next few weeks.... Some things have to
change. The committee members want to meet with [the University's President].
Holding up funds as a club may be part of our response, but that will predicate
on how the university responds.
Following the hearing, the United Coalition Against Racism (UCAR), a campus
anti-discrimination group, announced that it intended to file a class action
civil rights suit against the University "for not maintaining or creating a
non-racist, non-violent atmosphere" on campus. Following discussions with a
national civil rights leader in March of 1987, the University adopted a six-
point action plan to remedy the racial problems on campus. This included the
adoption of "[a]n anti-racial harassment policy ... as a component of the
University's rules and regulations with appropriate sanctions specified."
On September 22, 1987, the University's President issued a memorandum to the
various schools of the University directing them to refer complaints of
discriminatory harassment to the Affirmative Action Office in the Office of the
President for monitoring and evaluation. An analysis of the complaints which
were filed reflects that the University had neither independently verified the
accuracy of the complaints nor identified a specific perpetrator for most of
the incidents described. Likewise, there is no way by which it can be
determined whether such incidents occur more frequently *855 at the
University than other comparable institutions.
In December 1987, the University President resigned and a former University
president was temporarily appointed to the post until a permanent successor was
chosen. On December 14, 1987, the Acting President circulated a confidential
memorandum to the University's executive officers detailing a proposal for an
anti-discrimination disciplinary policy. The proposed policy prohibited
"[h]arassment of anyone through word or deed or any other behavior which
discriminates on the basis of inappropriate criteria." The Acting President
recognized at the time that the proposed policy would engender serious First
Amendment problems, but reasoned that
just as an individual cannot shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater and then
claim immunity from prosecution for causing a riot on the basis of exercising
his rights of free speech, so a great many American universities have taken the
position that students at a university cannot by speaking or writing
discriminatory remarks which seriously offend many individuals beyond the
immediate victim, and which, therefore detract from the necessary educational
climate of a campus, claim immunity from a campus disciplinary proceeding. I
believe that position to be valid.
The other "American universities" to which the President referred to
were not identified at any time. Nor was any document presented to the Court
in any form which "valid[ates]" this "position."
At the January 15, 1988 meeting of the Regents, the Acting President informed
the Board that he been working on a proposed policy on student discipline
dealing with racial harassment pursuant to his general authority under Regents'
Bylaw 2.01. [FN3] He stated that he was taking this action in response to
widespread complaints that the University could not or would not enforce its
existing regulations concerning racial harassment. Adoption of a policy, he
noted, "would enable the University to take the position that it was willing to
do something about this issue." [FN4] The Acting President conceded that any
proposed policy would implicate serious civil liberties questions, but he
expressed a commitment to pursue the problem nevertheless.
FN3. Regents' By-law 2.01 provides that in addition to other duties and
functions, the President of the University shall exercise such general
powers as to
general oversight of teaching and research programs; the libraries,
museums, and other supporting services; the general welfare of the faculty
and supporting staffs; the business and financial welfare of the
University; and the maintenance of health, diligence, and order among the
students.
FN4. Regents' By-law 7.02, adopted in 1985, established the University
Council, a formal body composed of faculty, students, and administrators,
charged with the responsibility for drafting uniform regulations governing
the conduct of members of the community. As of January, 1988, the
University Council had failed to act. This was apparently the reason why
the Regents bypassed the University Council in formulating the Policy.
Following the January meeting, the Acting President appointed the Director of
the University Office of Affirmative Action (Director) to draft a policy. The
proposed policy went through twelve drafts. Throughout this process, the
Director consulted with a lawyer in the Office of University Counsel and
perhaps several University of Michigan Law School professors. [FN5] On
February 29, 1988, a proposed policy was published in the University Record and
faculty, students, and staff were invited to comment. A public hearing on the
proposed policy was held on March 16, 1988 at which numerous speakers commented
and suggested various changes and refinements. The next day, the Acting
President introduced the draft policy for consideration at the monthly Regents
meeting. In the ensuing discussion, one Regent expressed concern that the
policy would unduly restrict students' free speech rights. A second Regent
criticized the policy on the grounds that it failed to address the problem of
students heckling outside speakers *856 who came to the campus. The Regents
agreed that the final draft incorporating the suggested changes would be
presented at the next meeting. University officers also promised that an
interpretive guide with examples of sanctionable conduct would be issued as an
authoritative guide for the benefit of the University community. At the April
14, 1988 Regents meeting, the Policy was unanimously adopted. It became
effective on May 31, 1988 and was set to expire on December 31, 1989 unless
reenacted.
FN5. This equivocation is attributable to the fact that consultations with
law professors were unaccompanied by the exchange of any formal
correspondence or memoranda.
III. THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN POLICY ON DISCRIMINATION AND DISCRIMINATORY
HARASSMENT
A. The Terms of the Policy
The Policy established a three-tiered system whereby the degree of regulation
was dependent on the location of the conduct at issue. The broadest range of
speech and dialogue was "tolerated" in variously described public parts of the
campus. Only an act of physical violence or destruction of property was
considered sanctionable in these settings. Publications sponsored by the
University such as the Michigan Daily and the Michigan Review were not subject
to regulation. The conduct of students living in University housing is
primarily governed by the standard provisions of individual leases, however the
Policy appeared to apply in this setting as well. [FN6] The Policy by its
terms applied specifically to "[e]ducational and academic centers, such as
classroom buildings, libraries, research laboratories, recreation and study
centers[.]" In these areas, persons were subject to discipline for:
FN6. The constitutionality of the Policy as it relates to verbal conduct
and verbal behavior in University housing is not raised in the complaint.
The standard provisions of the University housing lease are not part of the
record.
1. Any behavior, verbal or physical, that stigmatizes or victimizes an
individual on the basis of race, ethnicity, religion, sex, sexual orientation,
creed, national origin, ancestry, age, marital status, handicap or Vietnam-era
veteran status, and that
a. Involves an express or implied threat to an individual's academic efforts,
employment, participation in University sponsored extra-curricular activities
or personal safety; or
b. Has the purpose or reasonably foreseeable effect of interfering with an
individual's academic efforts, employment, participation in University
sponsored extra-curricular activities or personal safety; or
c. Creates an intimidating, hostile, or demeaning environment for educational
pursuits, employment or participation in University sponsored extra-curricular
activities.
2. Sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and verbal or physical
conduct that stigmatizes or victimizes an individual on the basis of sex or
sexual orientation where such behavior:
a. Involves an express or implied threat to an individual's academic efforts,
employment, participation in University sponsored extra-curricular activities
or personal safety; or
b. Has the purpose or reasonably foreseeable effect of interfering with an
individual's academic efforts, employment, participation in University
sponsored extra-curricular activities or personal safety; or
c. Creates an intimidating, hostile, or demeaning environment for educational
pursuits, employment or participation in University sponsored extra-curricular
activities.
On August 22, 1989, the University publicly announced, without prior notice to
the Court or Doe, that it was withdrawing section 1(c) on the grounds that "a
need exists for further explanation and clarification of [that section] of the
policy." No reason was given why the analogous provision in paragraph 2(c) was
allowed to stand.
The Policy by its terms recognizes that certain speech which might be
considered in violation may not be sanctionable, stating: "The Office of the
General Counsel *857 will rule on any claim that conduct which is the
subject of a formal hearing is constitutionally protected by the first
amendment."
B. Hearing Procedures
Any member of the University community could initiate the process leading to
sanctions by either filing a formal complaint with an appropriate University
office or by seeking informal counseling with described University officials
and support centers. The Policy states that it is the preference of the
University to employ informal mechanisms for mediation and resolution of
complaints whenever possible and in fact most complainants have chosen to
proceed informally. University officers are authorized to act as mediators and
employ educational sanctions, community service, disciplinary warnings, and
restitution in attempting to reach a settlement acceptable to both the victim
and the perpetrator. None of the records relating to enforcement of the Policy
are to be included in a student's academic files, and the records so generated
are to be maintained in accordance with applicable privacy laws.
Where a negotiated settlement proves impossible, a formal complaint
would be filed with the Administrator of Complaints of Discriminatory Behavior
in the Office of Vice-President of Student Services (Policy Administrator).
The Policy Administrator would then undertake an independent investigation of
the alleged incident to determine whether there is sufficient evidence of a
violation to warrant the initiation of a formal hearing. If a hearing were
necessary, a panel consisting of four students and one tenured faculty member
would be convened to pass on the merits. The accused student would then be
notified that a complaint had been filed against him or her, the specific
charges, the identity of the complaining witness, and the facts of the
complaint and investigation. At the hearing, the Policy Administrator would be
responsible for presenting the charges against the accused student. Both the
accused student and the complainant had the right to call and cross-examine
witnesses and give testimony. The accused student had the right to have an
attorney present at the hearing, but the attorney could not participate fully
in the hearing unless suspension or expulsion were likely sanctions. If a
majority of the hearing panel found by clear and convincing evidence that the
Policy had been violated, they were to recommend an appropriate sanction. If
the accused student was dissatisfied with the panel's decision, he or she had
the right to have an appellate tribunal consisting of two students and the
Vice-President for Student Services independently review the conviction and
sanction.
C. Sanctions
The Policy provided for progressive discipline based on the severity of the
violation. It stated that the University encouraged hearing panels to impose
sanctions that include an educational element in order to sensitize the
perpetrator to the harmfulness of his or her conduct. The Policy provided,
however, that compulsory class attendance should not be imposed "in an attempt
to change deeply held religious or moral convictions." Depending on the intent
of the accused student, the effect of the conduct, and whether the accused
student is a repeat offender, one or more of the following sanctions may be
imposed: (1) formal reprimand; (2) community service; (3) class
attendance; (4) restitution; (5) removal from University housing; (6)
suspension from specific courses and activities; (7) suspension; (8)
expulsion. The sanctions of suspension and expulsion could only be imposed for
violent or dangerous acts, repeated offenses, or a willful failure to comply
with a lesser sanction. The University President could set aside or lessen any
sanction.
D. Interpretive Guide
Shortly after the promulgation of the policy in the fall of 1988, the
University Office of Affirmative Action issued an interpretive guide (Guide)
entitled What Students Should Know about Discrimination and Discriminatory
Harassment by Students in the University Environment. The Guide purported to
be an authoritative *858 interpretation of the Policy and provided examples
of sanctionable conduct. These included:
A flyer containing racist threats distributed in a residence hall.
Racist graffiti written on the door of an Asian student's study carrel.
A male student makes remarks in class like "Women just aren't as good in this
field as men," thus creating a hostile learning atmosphere for female
classmates.
Students in a residence hall have a floor party and invite everyone on their
floor except one person because they think she might be a lesbian.
A black student is confronted and racially insulted by two white students in
a cafeteria.
Male students leave pornographic pictures and jokes on the desk of a female
graduate student.
Two men demand that their roommate in the residence hall move out and be
tested for AIDS.
In addition, the Guide contained a separate section entitled "You are a
harasser when ..." which contains the following examples of discriminatory
conduct:
You exclude someone from a study group because that person is of a different
race, sex, or ethnic origin than you are.
You tell jokes about gay men and lesbians.
Your student organization sponsors entertainment that includes a comedian who
slurs Hispanics.
You display a confederate flag on the door of your room in the residence
hall.
You laugh at a joke about someone in your class who stutters.
You make obscene telephone calls or send racist notes or computer messages.
You comment in a derogatory way about a particular person or group's physical
appearance or sexual orientation, or their cultural origins, or religious
beliefs.
It was not clear whether each of these actions would subject a student to
sanctions, although the title of the section suggests that they would. It was
also unclear why these additional examples were listed separately from those in
the section entitled "What is Discriminatory Harassment."
According to the University, the Guide was withdrawn at an unknown date in the
winter of 1989, because "the information in it was not accurate." The
withdrawal had not been announced publicly as of the date this case was filed.
[FN7]
FN7. The Policy was published in pamphlet form with a blue cover and a
yellow slash down the center. The Guide was published in pamphlet form
with the opposite color scheme. The University's colors are maize and
blue. The graphic layout of the Policy and Guide pamphlets served to
reinforce the Court's view that the two statements were integrally
related. Indeed, at the hearing on August 25, 1989, the Court observed
that the withdrawal of the Guide while retaining the Policy was like taking
the maize out of the "maize and blue."
IV. STANDING
[1] Doe is a psychology graduate student. His specialty is the field of
biopsychology, which he describes as the interdisciplinary study of the
biological bases of individual differences in personality traits and mental
abilities. Doe said that certain controversial theories positing biologically-
based differences between sexes and races might be perceived as "sexist" and
"racist" by some students, and he feared that discussion of such theories might
be sanctionable under the Policy. He asserted that his right to freely and
openly discuss these theories was impermissibly chilled, and he requested that
the Policy be declared unconstitutional and enjoined on the grounds of
vagueness and overbreadth.
The University in response questioned Doe's standing to challenge the Policy,
saying that it has never been applied to sanction classroom discussion of
legitimate ideas and that Doe did not demonstrate a credible threat of
enforcement as to himself. The University also asserts that Doe could not base
his claim on the free speech interests of unspecified third parties. These
arguments served only to diminish the credibility of the University's argument
on the merits because it appeared that it *859 sought to avoid coming to
grips with the constitutionality of the Policy.
Article III of the Constitution limits the judicial power of federal
courts to live cases and controversies. Traditionally, federal courts have
interpreted this limitation to bar a party from maintaining a lawsuit unless
the party had a sufficient stake in the outcome "as to assure that concrete
adverseness which sharpens the presentation of issues upon which the Court so
largely depends for illumination of difficult constitutional questions." Baker
v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 204, 82 S.Ct. 691, 1703, 7 L.Ed.2d 663 (1962). To
establish such an interest, a litigant must show that he or she has personally
suffered some actual or threatened injury from the putatively illegal conduct
of the defendant, that the injury could fairly be traced to the illegal
conduct, and that it would be redressed by a favorable decision. Valley Forge
Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church and State, 454
U.S. 464, 472, 102 S.Ct. 752, 758, 70 L.Ed.2d 700 (1982). The challenged
conduct must cause or threaten to cause a direct injury, Laird v. Tatum, 408
U.S. 1, 14, 92 S.Ct. 2318, 2326, 33 L.Ed.2d 154 (1972), which is distinct and
palpable, Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 751, 104 S.Ct. 3315, 3324, 82 L.Ed.2d
556 (1984). Doe clearly met this standard.
[2][3] It is well settled that an individual has standing to challenge the
constitutionality of a penal statute if he or she can demonstrate a realistic
and credible threat of enforcement. Steffel v. Thompson, 415 U.S. 452, 94
S.Ct. 1209, 39 L.Ed.2d 505 (1974). The mere possibility that a person might be
subject to the sanctions of a statute is insufficient. United Presbyterian
Church in the U.S.A. v. Reagan, 738 F.2d 1375 (D.C.Cir.1984). Rather, the
threat of enforcement must be specific and direct and against a particular
party. Houston v. Hill, 482 U.S. 451, 459 n. 7, 107 S.Ct. 2502, 2508 n. 7, 96
L.Ed.2d 398 (1987). It is not necessary, however, that an individual first be
exposed to prosecution in order to have standing to challenge a statute which
is claimed to deter the exercise of constitutional rights. Doe v. Bolton, 410
U.S. 179, 188, 93 S.Ct. 739, 745, 35 L.Ed.2d 201 (1973).
Were the Court to look only at the plain language of the Policy, it might have
to agree with the University that Doe could not have realistically alleged a
genuine and credible threat of enforcement. The Policy prohibited conduct
which "stigmatizes or victimizes" students on the basis of "race, ethnicity,
religion, sex, sexual orientation" and other invidious factors. However, the
terms "stigmatize" and "victimize" are not self defining. [FN8] These words
can only be understood with reference to some exogenous value system. What one
individual might find victimizing or stigmatizing, another individual might
not. Accordingly, the likelihood of a complaint being filed in response to
Doe's anticipated classroom comments would be speculative at best. In
addition, even if a complaint was filed, the Policy requires that
considerations of freedom of speech and academic freedom be given due
consideration by the Policy Administrator in determining whether a formal
hearing is warranted. Even if a student were to find Doe's views victimizing
or stigmatizing, the Policy Administrator might well conclude that his speech
was protected by the First Amendment and refuse to take any action. Thus, if
the plain language of the policy were all the Court had before it, it would
probably conclude that Doe had failed to demonstrate a reasonable probability
that the Policy would be construed to cover his anticipated speech.
FN8. "Stigmatize" is defined in The American Heritage Dictionary 1266
(1978) as "1. To characterize or brand as disgraceful or ignominious mark
with stigma or brand. 2. To brand or mark with a stigma or stigmata. 3.
To cause stigmata to appear on." "Victimize" is defined as "1. To subject
to swindle or fraud; to cause discomfort or suffering to. 2. To make a
victim of as if by slaying." Id. at 1428.
The slate was not so clean, however. The Court had before it not only
the terms of the Policy, but also its legislative history, the Guide, and
experiences gleaned from a year of enforcement. The record clearly shows that
there existed a realistic *860 and credible threat that Doe could be
sanctioned were he to discuss certain biopsychological theories.
The legislative history demonstrated that the Policy was originally conceived
as a remedy for racially insensitive and derogatory remarks which students
found offensive. The Acting President's December 14, 1987 memorandum to the
University's Executive Officers stated that the proposed anti-harassment policy
would sanction any "remarks which seriously offend many individuals beyond the
immediate victim, and which, therefore detract from the necessary educational
climate of a campus." The University pointed out that the December 14
Memorandum was simply a tentative starting point for discussion and the Policy
went though numerous drafts before it reached its final form. This may have
well been so. However, the Memorandum nevertheless illustrated the intent,
never subsequently contradicted, underlying the Policy and the University's
general approach to the problems it perceived. Nothing in the legislative
materials filed with the Court suggested that the Acting President's
theoretical approach was substantially altered as the Policy developed. On the
contrary, as late as February 2, 1988, the University attorney who researched
the law and assisted in the drafting of the Policy, wrote a memorandum in which
he conceded that merely offensive speech was constitutionally protected, but
declared that
[w]e cannot be frustrated by the reluctance of the courts and the common law
to recognize the personal damage that is caused by discriminatory speech, nor
should our policy attempt to conform to traditional methods of identifying
harmful speech. Rather the University should identify and prohibit that speech
that causes damage to individuals within the community.
The record before the Court thus indicated that the drafters of the policy
intended that speech need only be offensive to be sanctionable.
The Guide also suggested that the kinds of ideas Doe wished to discuss would
be sanctionable. The Guide was the University's authoritative interpretation
of the Policy. It explicitly stated that an example of sanctionable conduct
would include:
A male student makes remarks in class like "Women just aren't as good in this
field as men," thus creating a hostile learning atmosphere for female
classmates.
Doe said in an affidavit that he would like to discuss questions relating to
sex and race differences in his capacity as a teaching assistant in Psychology
430, Comparative Animal Behavior. He went on to say:
An appropriate topic for discussion in the discussion groups is sexual
differences between male and female mammals, including humans. [One] ...
hypothesis regarding sex differences in mental abilities is that men as a group
do better than women in some spatially related mental tasks partly because of a
biological difference. This may partly explain, for example, why many more men
than women chose to enter the engineering profession.
Doe also said that some students and teachers regarded such theories as
"sexist" and he feared that he might be charged with a violation of the Policy
if he were to discuss them. In light of the statements in the Guide, such
fears could not be dismissed as speculative and conjectural. The ideas
discussed in Doe's field of study bear sufficient similarity to ideas denounced
as "harassing" in the Guide to constitute a realistic and specific threat of
prosecution.
The University argued that it had withdrawn the Guide on the grounds that it
contained some "inaccuracies." However, at best, this decision was conveyed
only to department heads and other responsible officials and, as noted, had not
been announced to the general University community at the time this lawsuit was
filed. For the purposes of determining Doe's standing, the University's action
came too late to render Doe's fear of enforcement illusory. See United States
v. W.T. Grant & Co., 345 U.S. 629, 73 S.Ct. 894, 97 L.Ed. 1303 (1953).
*861 Finally, the record of the University's enforcement of the Policy over
the past year suggested that students in the classroom and research setting who
offended others by discussing ideas deemed controversial could be and were
subject to discipline. A review of the University's discriminatory harassment
complaint files suggested that on at least three separate occasions, students
were disciplined or threatened with discipline for comments made in a classroom
setting. These are discipline files 88-12-21, 88-9-05, and 88-9-07, discussed
infra. At least one student was subject to a formal hearing because he stated
in the context of a social work research class that he believed that
homosexuality was a disease that could be psychologically treated. As will be
discussed below, the Policy was enforced so broadly and indiscriminately, that
plaintiff's fears of prosecution were entirely reasonable. Accordingly, the
Court found that Doe had standing to challenge the policy. [FN9]
--------------------
--
| 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 comp-academic-freedom-talk Tue Oct 29 15:10:32 1991
Reply-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk
From: comp-academic-freedom-talk
Precedence: bulk
To: comp-academic-freedom-talk
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1991 12:57:54 -0500
X-Digest-Sender: "William W. Arnold"
Subject: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Status: R
Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Tue Oct 29 12:57:41 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
- Billy ]
In this issue:
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: YAHWEH is good! (instead of quoting reams, lets look
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
-------------------
[part 1 of {UWM POST v. U. of Wisconsin}]
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: YAHWEH is good! (instead of quoting reams, lets look at cases)
Message-ID: <1991Oct29.041514.16218@eff.org>
References: <39487@hydra.gatech.EDU> <4926@sun13.scri.fsu.edu> <1991Oct26.014323.14716@news.media.mit.edu> <1991Oct29.014134.12586@eff.org> <1991Oct29.015534.13179@eff.org>
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1991 04:15:14 GMT
[I've cancelled the posting with the three decisions. I will repost
each by itself. - Carl]
Enclosed is the full text of UWM POST v. U. of Wisconsin. This recent
district court ruling goes into detail about the difference betwen
protected offensive expression and illegal harassment. It even
mentions email.
----------------------start--------------------------------------
(Cite as: 1991 WL 206819 (E.D.Wis.))
The UWM POST, INCORPORATED, Lafi Abdalla, Stephanie Bloomingdale, Kent
Farnsworth, Theresa Flynn, Richard D. Leonard, Michael J. Mathias, Marcia
Meyer, Ron Novy, Robin Pharo, Carrie Worthen and John Doe, Plaintiffs,
v.
BOARD OF REGENTS OF the UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN SYSTEM, Defendant.
90-C-328.
United States District Court,
E.D. Wisconsin.
Oct. 11, 1991.
ORDER
WARREN
*1 On March 29, 1990, the UWM Post, Inc. and others ("plaintiffs") filed
this action seeking that this Court enter a declaratory judgment that Wis.
Admin. Code s UWS 17.06(2) (the "UW Rule") on its face violates: (1)
plaintiffs' right of free speech guaranteed by the First Amendment to the
United States Constitution and by Article I, Section 3 of the Wisconsin
Constitution and (2) plaintiffs' right to due process and equal protection of
the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment and by Article I, Section 1 of
the Wisconsin Constitution. In addition, plaintiffs request that this Court:
(1) enter a permanent injunction prohibiting the Board of Regents of the
University of Wisconsin System (the "Board of Regents" or the "Board") and its
agents and employees from enforcing the UW Rule; (2) order the Board of
Regents to vacate the disciplinary action taken against plaintiff John Doe
under the UW Rule and expunge from his files all records related to that action
and (3) award plaintiffs their reasonable attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to
42 U.S.C. s 1988.
Now before Court are the parties' cross motions for summary judgment.
I. BACKGROUND
A. DEVELOPMENT OF THE UW RULE
In May of 1988, the Board of Regents adopted "Design for Diversity, " a plan
to increase minority representation, multi-cultural understanding and greater
diversity throughout the University of Wisconsin System's 26 campuses. Design
for Diversity responded to concerns over an increase in incidents of
discriminatory harassment. [FN1] For example, several highly publicized
incidents involving fraternities occurred at the University of Wisconsin--
Madison. In May of 1987, a fraternity erected a large caricature of a black
Fiji Islander at a party theme. Later that year, there was a fight with racial
overtones between members of two fraternities. In October of 1988, a
fraternity held a "slave auction" at which pledges in black face performed
skits parroting black entertainers. See the Capitol Times, Nov. 17, 1988, p.
25.
Design for Diversity directed each of the UW System's institutions to prepare
non-discriminatory conduct policies. In addition, pursuant to the plan, the
Board of Regents approved its "Policy and Guidelines on Racist and
Discriminatory Conduct," which stated the Board's general policy against
discrimination and provided guidance to the individual campuses in developing
their own non-discrimination policies. Finally, the Board established a
working group to draft amendments to the student conduct code, Chapter UWS 17,
to implement its policy system-wide. [FN2] With the help of UW-Madison Law
School Professors Gordon Baldwin, Richard Delgado and Ted Firiman, the group
developed a proposed rule based, in part, on a policy being developed
simultaneously at the UW-Madison. The professors agreed that the proposed rule
would likely withstand attack on First Amendment grounds if it included a
requirement that the speaker intended to make the educational environment
hostile for the individual being addressed.
*2 At its April 7, 1989 meeting, the Board of Regents discussed issuing the
proposed rule on an emergency basis in light of the increasing number of
incidents of racial and discriminatory harassment. By a 8 to 7 vote, the Board
decided not to promulgate the rule on an emergency basis. Instead, the Board
advanced the proposal through the regular administrative rule-making
procedure. On June 8, 1989, the Board held a public hearing to provide an
opportunity for interested persons to comment on the proposed rule. On June 9,
1989, the Board adopted the UW Rule by 12 to 5 vote.
B. THE UW RULE
The UW Rule provides:
UWS 17.06 Offenses defined. The university may discipline a student in non-
academic matters in the following situations.
* * *
(2)(a) For racist or discriminatory comments, epithets or other expressive
behavior directed at an individual or on separate occasions at different
individuals, or for physical conduct, if such comments, epithets or other
expressive behavior or physical conduct intentionally:
1. Demean the race, sex, religion, color, creed, disability, sexual
orientation, national origin, ancestry or age of the individual or
individuals; and
2. Create an intimidating, hostile or demeaning environment for education,
university-related work, or other university-authorized activity.
(b) Whether the intent required under par. (a) is present shall be determined
by consideration of all relevant circumstances.
(c) In order to illustrate the types of conduct which this subsection is
designed to cover, the following examples are set forth. These examples are
not meant to illustrate the only situations or types of conduct intended to be
covered.
1. A student would be in violation if:
a. He or she intentionally made demeaning remarks to an individual based on
that person's ethnicity, such as name calling, racial slurs, or "jokes"; and
b. His or her purpose in uttering the remarks was to make the educational
environment hostile for the person to whom the demeaning remark was addressed.
2. A student would be in violation if:
a. He or she intentionally placed visual or written material demeaning the
race or sex of an individual in that person's university living quarters or
work area; and
b. His or her purpose was to make the educational environment hostile for the
person in whose quarters or work area the material was placed.
3. A student would be in violation if he or she seriously damaged or
destroyed private property of any member of the university community or guest
because of that person's race, sex, religion, color, creed, disability, sexual
orientation, national origin, ancestry or age.
4. A student would not be in violation if, during a class discussion, he or
she expressed a derogatory opinion concerning a racial or ethnic group. There
is no violation, since the student's remark was addressed to the class as a
whole, not to a specific individual. Moreover, on the facts as stated, there
seems no evidence that the student's purpose was to create a hostile
environment.
*3 Wis. Admin. Code s UWS 17.06(2).
Thus, in order to be regulated under the UW Rule, a comment, epithet or other
expressive behavior must:
(1) Be racist or discriminatory;
(2) Be directed at an individual;
(3) Demean the race, sex, religion, color, creed, disability, sexual
orientation, national origin, ancestry or age of the individual addressed; and
(4) Create an intimidating, hostile or demeaning environment for education,
university-related work, or other university-authorized activity.
In addition to the rule, the UW System issued and circulated to its students
and faculty a brochure which explains the rule and provides guidance as to its
scope and application. See Discriminatory Harassment: Prohibited Conduct
Under Chapter UWS 17 Revisions. This guide provides some illustrations of
situations where the UW Rule applies and does not apply:
Question 1. In a class discussion concerning women in the workplace, a male
student states his belief that women are by nature better equipped to be
mothers than executives, and thus should not be employed in upper level
management positions. Is this statement actionable under proposed UWS
17.06(2)?
Answer: No. The statement is an expression of opinion, contains no epithets,
is not directed to a particular individual, and does not, standing alone,
evince the requisite intent to demean or create a hostile environment.
Question 2. A student living in the University dormitory continually calls a
black student living on his floor "nigger" whenever they pass in the hallway.
May the university take action against the name-caller?
Answer: Yes. The word "nigger" is an epithet, and is directed specifically
at an individual. Its use and continuous repetition demonstrate the required
intent on the part of the speaker to demean the individual and create a hostile
living environment for him.
Question 3. Two university students become involved in an altercation at an
off-campus bar. During the fight one student used a racial epithet to prolong
the dispute. May the university invoke a disciplinary action?
Answer: Perhaps. Use of the epithet, and its direction to an individual
suggests a potential violation of proposed s. UWS 17.06(2); however, because
the episode occurred off campus, the intent to create a hostile environment for
university-authorized activities would be difficult to demonstrate. Additional
facts would have to be developed if disciplinary action were to be pursued.
Question 4. A group of students disrupts a university class shouting
discriminating epithets. Are they subject to disciplinary action under the
provisions related to regulation of expressive behavior?
Answer: Perhaps. It is clear that the students are subject to disciplinary
action for disrupting a class under existing s. UWS 17.06(1)(c)3. The question
is whether they also violated the newly created provision concerning expressive
behavior, because they shouted epithets while in the course of other
misconduct. If the epithets were directed to individuals within class, and
were intending to demean them and create an intimidating environment, then the
behavior might also be in violation of the provision concerning expressive
misconduct.
*4 Question 5. A faculty member, in a genetics class discussion, suggests
that certain racial groups seem to be genetically pre-disposed to alcoholism.
Is this statement subject to discipline under Chapter UWS 17?
Answer: No. faculty member is in no case subject to discipline under Chapter
UWS 17, since that chapter applies only to students. This situation would not
warrant disciplinary action under any other policy, either, since it is
protected expression of an idea.
C. ENFORCEMENT OF THE UW RULE
To date, at least nine students have been sanctioned under the UW Rule:
(1) The University of Wisconsin--Parkside found that a student used
inappropriate language when he called another student "Shakazulu." See Kassel
Aff., Ex. 19. The university found that the student entered the other
student's bedroom area as an uninvited guest and proceeded to use inappropriate
language and that later there was a confrontation between the student and
residents of the apartment. See id. The student was placed on probation and
required to consult with an alcohol abuse counselor and to "plan a project in
conjunction with the Center for Education and Cultural Advancement to help
sensitize [himself] to the issues of diversity." See id.
(2) The University of Wisconsin--Eau Claire found that plaintiff John Doe
violated the UW Rule by yelling epithets loudly at a woman for approximately
ten minutes, calling her a "fucking bitch' and "fucking cunt." See id., Ex.
20. Plaintiff John Doe was responding to statements the woman made in a
university newspaper about the athletic department. Id. The university placed
the student on probation for a semester and required him to perform twenty
hours of community service at a shelter for abused women. See id.
(3) The University of Wisconsin--Oshkosh disciplined a student for angrily
telling an Asian-American student: "It's people like you--that's the reason
this country is screwed up" and "you don't belong here." Ex. 21. The student
also stated that "Whites are always getting screwed by minorities and some day
the Whites will take over." Id. The University placed the student on probation
for seven months and required him to participate in alcohol abuse assessment
and treatment.
(4) The University of Wisconsin--Stevens Point found that a student harassed a
Turkish-American student by impersonating an immigration official and demanding
to see immigration documents. See id. Ex. 22. The student signed a "No
Contest Agreement" admitting violations of the rule as well as violations of
UWS 17.06(4) (conduct obstructing a university official) and his university
housing contract. See id. The university placed the student on probation for
eight months.
(5) The University of Wisconsin--Stout charged a student involved in a
physical altercation with two residence hall staff members with calling one of
them a "piece of shit nigger" and the other a "South American immigrant." See
id., Ex. 23. The university also charged the student with misidentifying
himself to an investigating officer. See id.. The student was alleged to have
violated the UW Rule as well as UWS 17.06(1) (endangering personal safety) and
17. 06(4) (obstructing a university official). Id. The student waived a formal
hearing and accepted a seven-month suspension.
*5 (6) The University of Wisconsin--Eau Claire disciplined a student under
the UW Rule for sending a message that stated, "Death to all Arabs ! Die
Islamic scumbagsl" on a university computer system to an Iranian faculty
member. & W Stipulation of Additional Facts, Ex. A. The university formally
reprimanded the student and placed him on probation for the remainder of the
semester. See id.
(7) The University of Wisconsin--Stevens Point brought a disciplinary action
under the UW Rule against a student who stole a TYME automatic bank teller card
and access number belonging to his dormitory roommate, who is Japanese. See
id., Ex. B. The student acknowledged that he had stolen the TYME card, that he
had twice intercepted and opened the Japanese student's correspondence from the
bank and that he had successfully withdrawn $60.00 from the Japanese student's
bank account using the TYME card and personal identification number he had
stolen. Id. The student also admitted that he was motivated by his resentment
that his roommate is Japanese and does not speak, English well. Id. The
student signed a no contest agreement, acknowledging that he had violated the
UW Rule as well as other provisions of the student conduct code. The student
was placed on probation through December 31, 1991 and required to take a course
in ethics or East Asian history and to make restitution. Id.
(8) The University of Wisconsin--Oshkosh disciplined a female student under
the UW Rule for referring to a black female student as a "fat-ass nigger"
during an argument. See id., Ex. C. The university found that the student
violated the rule and another provision of the student code. See id. The
student, who was already on disciplinary probation, was required to view a
video on racism and write an essay and a letter of apology and was reassigned
to another residence hall. See id.
(9) The University of Wisconsin--River Falls disciplined a male student under
the UW Rule for yelling at a female student in public, "you've gotnicetits.''
See id., Ex. D. The university placed the student on probation for the
remainder of his enrollment at the university and required him to apologize to
the female student, to refrain from any further contact with her and to obtain
psychological counseling. See id.
II. DiscussioN
Plaintiffs argue that this Court should strike down the UW Rule because it
violates the overbreadth and vagueness doctrines.
A. OVERBREADTH
Plaintiffs first argue that the UW Rule is invalid because it is facially
overbroad. It is fundamental that statutes regulating First Amendment
activities must be narrowly drawn to address only the specific evil at hand.
Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601, 611 (1973). "Because First Amendment
freedoms need breathing space to survive, government may regulate in the area
only with narrow specificity." NAACP v. Button, 371 U.S. 4151 433 (1963).
*6 In spite of the above, the Supreme Court has held that "the overbreadth
doctrine is 'strong medicine" ' and that it should be employed "with
hesitation, and then 'only as a last resort.' " See New York v. Ferber, 458
U.S. 747, 769 (1982) (quoting from Broadrick at 613). only a statute that is
substantially overbroad may be invalidated on its face. Ferber at 769. A
statute should not be "held invalid on its face merely because it is possible
to conceive of a single impermissible application ... ' 'Houston v. Hill, 482
U.S. 451, 458 (1987) (quoting from Broadrick, 630 (Brennan, J. dissenting)).
Plaintiffs argue that the UW Rule has overbreadth difficulties because it is a
content-based rule which regulates a substantial amount of protected speech.
In Police Department of Chicago v. Mosley, the Supreme Court explained the
great import of protecting speech from content-based regulation.
[A]bove all else, the First Amendment means that government has no power to
restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or
its content. To permit the continued building of our politics and culture, and
to assure self-fulfillment for each individual, our people are guaranteed the
right to express any thought, free from government censorship. The essence of
this forbidden censorship is content control. Any restriction on expressive
activity because of its content would completely undercut the "profound
national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be
uninhibited, robust, and wide-open."
408 U.S. 92, 95-96 (1972) (citations omitted).
Although the First Amendment generally protects speech from content-based
regulation, it does not protect all speech. The Supreme Court has removed
certain narrowly limited categories of speech from First Amendment protection.
These categories of speech are considered to be of such slight social value
that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by their
costs to order and morality. Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568, 572
(1942). The categories include fighting words, obscenity and, to a limited
extent, libel. Collin v. Smith, 578 F.2d 1197, 1202 (7th Cir.1978), cert.
denied, 439 U.S. 916 (1978).
The Board of Regents argues that the UW Rule falls within the category of
fighting words. In the alternative,, the Board asserts that, the balancing
test set forth in Chapinsky leaves the speech regulated by the UW Rule
unprotected by the First Amendment. The Board also argues that the Court
should find the UW Rule constitutional because its prohibition of
discriminatory speech parallels Title VII law. Finally, the Board asserts
that, even if the Court finds the rule, as written, unconstitutional, it may
apply a narrowing construction which limits the rule's reach to unprotected
speech.
(1) WHETHER THE SPEECH REGULATED BY THE UW RULE FALLS WITHiN THE FiGHTING
WORDS DOCTRINE.
*7 (a) The Fighting Words Doctrine
The Supreme Court in Chapinsky set out the fighting words doctrine. The
Chapinsky Court stated:
There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the
prevention and punishment of which has never been thought to raise any
Constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the
libelous, and the insulting or "fighting' ' words--those which by their very
utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace.
Chaplinsky at 571-72 (emphasis added and footnotes omitted).
Thus, the Chaplinsly Court set out a two-part definition for fighting words:
(1) words which by their very utterance inflict injury and (2) words which by
their very utterance tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. The two
parts of the fighting words definition correspond to different concerns
regarding reactions to offensive expressions. See Rutzick, "Offensive Language
and the Evolution of First Amendment Protection," 9 Harv. C.R.-C.L.L.Rev. 1, 6
(1974). The first half relates to the prevention of psychological injury,
primarily in the form of emotional upset and injury to the ' 'sensibilities' '
[FN3] of addressees. The second half addresses the prevention of physical
retaliation likely to cause a breach of the peace.
While the Chaplinsky Court set forth a two-part definition for fighting words,
it applied only the second half. The Court did this because the statute in
question had been construed to regulate only language which tends to incite an
immediate breach of the peace. The statute involved in Chaplinsky, Chapter
378, s 2; of the Public Laws of New Hampshire, provided:
No person shall address any offensive, derisive or annoying word to any other
person who is lawfully in any street or other public place, nor call him any
offensive or derisive name, nor make any noise or exclamation in his presence
and hearing with the intent to deride, offend or annoy him, or to prevent him
>from pursuing his lawful business or occupation.
See Chaplinsky at 569. The New Hampshire. Supreme Court construed Chapter
378 s 2 such that "no words [are] 'forbidden except such as have a direct
tendency to cause acts of violence by the person to whom, individually, the
remark is addressed.' " See id. at 573 (citing State v. Brown, 68 N.H. 200, 38
A. 731; State v. McConnell, 70 N.H. 294, 47 A. 267). The Chaplinsky court
held that the limited scope of Chapter 378 s 2, as construed by the New
Hampshire Supreme Court, did not-contravene the constitutional right of free
expression. See id.
Since Chaplinsky, the Supreme Court has narrowed and clarified the scope of
the fighting words doctrine in at least three ways. First, the Court has
limited the fighting words definition so that it now only includes its second
half. [FN4] Second, the Court has stated that in order for words to meet the
second half of the definition they must "naturally tend to provoke violent
resentment." Finally, the Court has held that fighting words must be "directed
at the person of the hearer."
*8 The Supreme Court has reduced the scope of fighting words to include
only words which tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. In Gooding
v. Wilson, the Supreme Court held that Georgia Code Ann. s 26-6303 was
overbroad because "the Georgia appellate decisions [had] not construed s 26-
6303 to be limited in application, as in Chapinsky, to words that 'have a
direct tendency to cause acts of violence by the person to whom, individually,
the remark is addressed." ' 405 U.S. 518, 524 (1972). Thus, the Court held
that s 266303 was unconstitutional because it failed to meet the second half of
the fighting words doctrine.
Section 26-6303 provided: "Any person who shall, without provocation, use to
or of another, and in his presence ... opprobrious words or abusive language,
tending to cause a breach of the peace ... shall be guilty of a misdemeanor."
Id. at 519. The Court examined the dictionary definitions of the terms
"opprobrious" and "abusive' ' and found that they have greater reach than
"fighting" words.
Webster's Third New International Dictionary (1961) defined "opprobrious" as
"conveying or intended to convey disgrace" and "abusive" as including "harsh
insulting language." Georgia appellate decisions have construed s 26-6303 to
apply to utterances that, although within these definitions, are not "fighting"
words as Chaplinsky defines them.
Id. at 525 (citations omitted). Thus, even though, s 26-6303 regulated only
language which inflicts injury or affects the "sensibilities" of the hearer,
the Supreme Court held that it did not meet the requirements of the fighting
words doctrine because it was not limited to words which "tend to cause an
immediate breach of the peace.' ' [FN5]
In Collin v. Smith, the Seventh Circuit demonstrated its understanding that
the definition of fighting words now encompasses only words which tend to
incite an immediate breach of the peace. The court stated that "[a] conviction
for less than words that at least tend to incite an immediate breach of the
peace cannot be justified under Chaplinsky." See Collin 578 F.2d at 1203
(citing Gooding at 524-27). The Collin court held that three Village of Skokie
ordinances failed under the fighting words doctrine because the Village did not
rely on a fear of responsive violence to justify the ordinance. See id.
In addition to limiting the scope of fighting words to words which tend to
incite an immediate breach of the peace, the Supreme Court has also set forth a
stringent definition of "breach of peace." In Gooding, the Court stated that s
26-6303 failed to meet the requirements of the fighting words doctrine because,
among other things, the "appellate decisions construing the reach of 'tending
to cause a breach of peace' underscore that s 26-6303 (was] not limited. to
words that 'naturally tend to provoke violent resentment. ' ' ' See Gooding at
525 (citations omitted). The Court noted that a Georgia Court of Appeals, in
applying another statute, adopted the common law definition of "breach of
peace."
*9 "The term 'breach of peace' is generic, and includes all violations of
the public peace or order or decorum; in other words, it signifies the offense
of disturbing the public peace or tranquility enjoyed by the citizens of the
community.... By 'peace' as used in this connection, is meant the tranquility
enjoyed by the citizens of a municipality or a community where good order
reigns among its members."
Id. at 527 (quoting Samuels v. State, 103 Ga.App. 66, 67, 118 S. E.2d 231;
232 (1961)). The Gooding Court held that this definition of breach of peace
sweeps too broadly. See id. Thus, in order to constitute fighting words,
speech must not merely breach decorum but also must tend to bring the addressee
to fisticuffs. Texas v. Johnson, 109 S.Ct. 2533, 2542 (1989).
Finally, in Cohen v. California, the Supreme Court held that fighting words
must be directed at the person of the addressee. 403 U.S. 15 (1971). In
Cohen, the petitioner was convicted under California Penal Code s 1415 [FN6]
for wearing a jacket bearing the words "Fuck the Draft" in the corridor of the
Los Angeles Courthouse. The Court held that Mr. Cohen's conduct did not fall
within the fighting words doctrine because his statement "was clearly not
'directed to the person of the hearer.' ' 'See Cohen at 20 (quoting Cantwell v.
Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 309 (1940)).
(b) APPLICATION OF THE FIGHTING WPRDS DOCTRINE To THE UW RULE,
As stated above, in order to be regulated by the rule which the UW has
adopted, a comment, epithet or other expressive behavior must:
(1) be racist or discriminatory;
(2) be directed at an individual;
(3) demean the race, sex, religion, color, creed, disability, sexual
orientation, national origin, ancestry or age of the individual; and
(4) create an intimidating, hostile or demeaning environment for education,
university-related work, or other university-authorized activity.
Since the elements of the UW Rule do not require that the regulated speech, by
its very utterance, tend to incite violent reaction, the rule goes beyond the
present scope of the fighting words doctrine.
The first element of the UW Rule, which requires that the speech be racist or
discriminatory, describes the content of the speech regulated but does not
state that the speech must tend to cause a breach of the peace. The second
element, which requires that the speech be directed at an individual, meets the
requirement set forth in Cohen that the speech be "directed to the person of
the hearer." In addition, the second element makes it likely that the rule
will cover some speech which tends to incite violent reaction. Nevertheless,
this element does not require that the regulated speech alwaysl tend to incite
such reaction and is likely to allow the rule to apply to many situations where
a breach of the peace is unlikely to occur.
The third element of the UW Rule requires that the regulated speech demean an
individual's race, sex, religion, etc. This element addresses the concerns of
the now defunct first half of the fighting words definition. Words which
demean a person's race, sex, religion, etc. are likely to inflict injury and
affect a person's sensibilities. [FN7] Nonetheless, the third element of the
UW Rule does not address the concerns of the second half of the fighting words
definition. Speech may demean an individual's characteristics without tending
to incite that individual or others to an immediate breach of the peace.
*10 The fourth element of the UW Rule requires that the prohibited speech
create an intimidating, hostile or demeaning environment. An intimidating,
hostile or demeaning environment certainly I'disturb(s) the public peace or
tranquility enjoyed by the citizens of (a university] community. " However, it
does not necessarily tend to incite violent reaction. The creation of a
hostile environment may tend to incite an immediate breach of peace under some
circumstances. Nevertheless, the term "hostile" covers non-violent as well as
violent situations. [FN8] Moreover, an intimidating or demeaning environment
is unlikely to incite violent reaction. To "intimidate' ' means to "make
timid; threaten" or to "discourage or inhibit by or as if by threats." See
The American Heritage Dictionary (2nd College Ed.1976), p. 672. To "demean" is
to "debase in dignity or stature." See id. at 376. Given these definitions
of "intimidate' ' and "demean," this Court cannot properly f ind that an
intimidating or demeaning environment tends to incite an immediate breach of
the peace.
The Board of Regents argues, nonetheless, that it is "understandable to expect
a violent response to discriminatory harassment, because such harassment
demeans an immutable characteristic which is central to the person's
identity. " See Defendant's Combined Brief, p. 27. The Board states that "the
victim will feel compelled to respond, not just for his own dignity, but for
the dignity of his brothers and sisters of like color, national origin or
creed. " See id. The Board asserts, for example, that calling a black student
a "God damn nigger" is very likely to provoke a violent response. See id.
While the Board is correct that the language regulated by the UW Rule is
likely to cause violent responses in many cases, the rule regulates
discriminatory speech whether or not it is likely to provoke such a response.
It is unlikely that all or nearly all demeaning, discriminatory comments,
epithets or other expressive behavior which creates an intimidating, hostile or
demeaning environment tends to provoke a violent response. Since the UW Rule
covers a substantial number of situations where no breach of the peace is
likely to result, the rule fails to meet the requirements of the fighting words
doctrine.
--------------------
--
| 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 comp-academic-freedom-talk Tue Oct 29 15:10:33 1991
Reply-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk
From: comp-academic-freedom-talk
Precedence: bulk
To: comp-academic-freedom-talk
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1991 13:01:56 -0500
X-Digest-Sender: "William W. Arnold"
Subject: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Status: R
Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Tue Oct 29 13:01:45 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
- Billy ]
In this issue:
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: YAHWEH is good! (instead of quoting reams, lets look
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
-------------------
[part 2 of {Doe v. U. of Michigan}]
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: YAHWEH is good! (instead of quoting reams, lets look at cases)
Message-ID: <1991Oct29.042705.16435@eff.org>
References: <39487@hydra.gatech.EDU> <4926@sun13.scri.fsu.edu> <1991Oct26.014323.14716@news.media.mit.edu> <1991Oct29.014134.12586@eff.org> <1991Oct29.015534.13179@eff.org>
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1991 04:27:05 GMT
FN9. In view of the fact that there was a substantial probability that the
Policy might be enforced against Doe, there was no need to consider whether
he has standing to assert the rights of third parties, see, e.g., Barrows
v. Jackson, 346 U.S. 249, 73 S.Ct. 1031, 97 L.Ed. 1586 (1953), or whether
the mere existence of the Policy has sufficiently "chilled" the
intellectual atmosphere of the University as to make out a concrete injury-
in-fact, see, e.g., Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727, 92 S.Ct. 1361, 31
L.Ed.2d 636 (1972).
V. VAGUENESS AND OVERBREADTH.
Doe initially moved for a preliminary injunction against the Policy on the
grounds that it was unconstitutionally vague and overbroad and that it chilled
speech and conduct protected by the First Amendment. The University in
response said that the Policy has never been applied to reach protected speech
and a preliminary injunction should therefore be denied. At the August 25,
1989 hearing on Doe's motion, the Court, without objection, consolidated the
hearing on the motion with the trial on the merits pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P.
65(a)(2). [FN10] This obviated the need to consider whether Doe had made the
requisite showing to warrant the issuance of a preliminary injunction. See
Mason County Medical Association v. Knebel, 563 F.2d 256 (6th Cir.1977).
FN10. The University reserved the right to supplement the record to
clarify any disputed factual issues, which it subsequently did. Doe chose
not to respond. Nothing in the University's clarification papers
materially changed any of the facts the Court relied upon in reaching its
decision.
A. Scope of Permissible Regulation
Before inquiring whether the policy is impermissibly vague and overbroad, it
would be helpful to first distinguish between verbal conduct and verbal acts
that are generally protected by the First Amendment and those that are not. It
is the latter class of behavior that the University may legitimately regulate.
Although the line is sometimes difficult to draw with precision, the
Court must distinguish at the outset between the First Amendment protection of
so-called "pure speech" and mere conduct. See L. Tribe, Constitutional Law
sec. 12-7 (2d Ed.1988). As to the latter, it can be safely said that most
extreme and blatant forms of discriminatory conduct are not protected by the
First Amendment, and indeed are punishable by a variety of state and federal
criminal laws and subject to civil actions. Discrimination in employment,
education, and government benefits on the basis of race, sex, ethnicity, and
religion are prohibited by the constitution and both state and federal
statutes. [FN11] See, e.g., U.S. Const. amends. V, XIV; Mich Const. art. I,
sec. 2; 42 U.S.C. sec. 2000e-16 (employment); Mich.Stat.Ann. sec. 3.548(202)
[M.C.L.A. sec. 37.2202] (employment); 42 U.S.C. sec. 2000c (education); Mich.
Const. art. VIII, sec. 2 (education); 42 U.S.C. sec. 2000d *862 (government
benefits). In addition, the state provides criminal penalties and civil
remedies for assault and battery, Mich.Stat.Ann. secs. 28.276-28.278 [M.C.L.A.
secs. 750.81-750.83]; Mich.Stat.Ann. sec. 28.344(2) [M.C.L.A. sec. 750.1476]
(physical assault for purposes of ethnic intimidation). [FN12] Tinkler v.
Richter, 295 Mich. 396, 295 N.W. 201 (1940) (civil action for assault and
battery), and vandalism and property damage, Mich.Stat.Ann. 28.609(1) [M.C.L.A.
sec. 750.377a]; Mich.Stat.Ann. sec. 28.344(2) [M.C.L.A. sec. 750.1476]
(property damage and destruction for purposes of ethnic intimidation); Thoma
v. Tracy Motor Sales, 360 Mich. 434, 104 N.W.2d 360 (1960) (civil action for
property destruction). Federal law imposes civil and criminal sanctions
against persons depriving or conspiring to deprive others of rights guaranteed
by the United States constitution. 42 U.S.C. secs. 1983, 1985 (civil); 18
U.S.C. secs. 241-242 (criminal).
FN11. There are no federal statutory or constitutional provisions against
discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or Vietnam Veteran
status. See Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186, 106 S.Ct. 2841, 92 L.Ed.2d
140 (1986). This hiatus does not mean that the University may not adopt
regulations more protective than existing law, provided, of course, such
regulation does not otherwise offend the state or federal constitutions.
FN12. Recently, the Michigan legislature enacted a law making it a
criminal offense to commit an act of "ethnic intimidation," which is
defined as the causing of physical contact with another, the damaging of
real or personal property, or making a credible threat to do so with the
specific intent to "intimidate or harass another person because of that
person's race, color, religion, gender, or national origin
[.]" Mich.Stat.Ann. sec. 28.344(2) [M.C.L.A. sec. 750.1476]. The statute
prescribes a maximum penalty of not more than two years imprisonment or
$5,000 fine or both. It also establishes a civil remedy for such conduct
entitling a successful plaintiff to treble damages or $2,000, whichever is
greater, and attorney's fees.
For a survey of similar anti-hate crime legislation in other states, see
Anti-Defamation League, Hate Crimes Statutes: A Response to Anti-Semitism,
Vandalism, and Violent Bigotry (1988).
Many forms of sexually abusive and harassing conduct are also sanctionable.
These would include abduction, Mich.Stat.Ann. secs. 28.201-28.202 [M.C.L.A.
secs. 750.11-750.12], rape, and other forms of criminal sexual conduct,
Mich.Stat.Ann. sec. 28.788; Totten v. Totten, 172 Mich. 565, 138 N.W. 257
(1912) (civil action for rape). The dissemination of legally obscene materials
is also a crime under state law. Mich.Stat.Ann. sec. 28.579 [M.C.L.A. sec.
750.347]. In addition, a civil remedy exists for women who are subjected to
demands for sexual favors by employers as an express or implied quid pro quo
for employment benefits. Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57, 106
S.Ct. 2399, 91 L.Ed.2d 49 (1986). Minorities or women who are exposed to such
extreme and pervasive workplace harassment as to create a hostile or offensive
working environment are also entitled to civil damages. Id. (and cases cited
therein). The First Amendment presents no obstacle to the establishment of
internal University sanctions as to any of these categories of conduct, over
and above any remedies already supplied by state or federal law.
While the University's power to regulate so-called pure speech is far more
limited, see United States v. O'Brien, 391 U.S. 367, 376-77, 88 S.Ct. 1673,
1679, 20 L.Ed.2d 672 (1968), certain categories can be generally described as
unprotected by the First Amendment. It is clear that so-called "fighting
words" are not entitled to First Amendment protection. Chaplinsky v. New
Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568, 62 S.Ct. 766, 86 L.Ed. 1031 (1942). These would
include "the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or
'fighting words'--those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to
incite an immediate breach of the peace." Id. at 572, 62 S.Ct. at 769. Under
certain circumstances racial and ethnic epithets, slurs, and insults might fall
within this description and could constitutionally be prohibited by the
University. In addition, such speech may also be sufficient to state a claim
for common law intentional infliction of emotional distress. Ledsinger v.
Burmeister, 114 Mich.App. 12, 18-19, 318 N.W.2d 558 (1982). Credible threats
of violence or property damage made with the specific intent to harass or
intimidate the victim because of his race, sex, religion, or national origin is
punishable both criminally and civilly under state law. Mich.Stat.Ann. sec.
28.344(2) [M.C.L.A. sec. 750.1476]. Similarly, speech which has the effect of
inciting imminent lawless action and which is likely to incite such action may
also be lawfully punished. *863 Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444, 89 S.Ct.
1827, 23 L.Ed.2d 430 (1969). Civil damages are available for speech which
creates a hostile or abusive working environment on the basis of race or sex.
Meritor, supra. Legally obscene speech is unprotected by the First Amendment,
Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15, 22, 93 S.Ct. 2607, 2613, 37 L.Ed.2d 419
(1973), as are materials involving the sexual exploitation of children. New
York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747, 102 S.Ct. 3348, 73 L.Ed.2d 1113 (1982).
Similarly, speech which is "vulgar," "offensive," and "shocking" is not
entitled to absolute constitutional protection in all circumstances. Bethel
School District No. 403 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675, 106 S.Ct. 3159, 92 L.Ed.2d
549 (1986); FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, supra. Certain kinds of libel and
slander are also not protected. Dun & Bradstreet v. Greenmoss Builders, 472
U.S. 749, 105 S.Ct. 2939, 86 L.Ed.2d 593 (1985), including possibly group
libel, Beauharnais v. Illinois, 343 U.S. 250, 72 S.Ct. 725, 96 L.Ed. 919
(1952). Finally, the University may subject all speech and conduct to
reasonable and nondiscriminatory time, place, and manner restrictions which are
narrowly tailored and which leave open ample alternative means of
communication. Heffron v. International Society for Krishna Consciousness, 452
U.S. 640, 101 S.Ct. 2559, 69 L.Ed.2d 298 (1981). If the Policy had the effect
of only regulating in these areas, it is unlikely that any constitutional
problem would have arisen.
What the University could not do, however, was establish an anti-
discrimination policy which had the effect of prohibiting certain speech
because it disagreed with ideas or messages sought to be conveyed. Texas v.
Johnson, --- U.S. ----, ----, 109 S.Ct. 2533, 105 L.Ed.2d 342, 360 (1989);
Chicago Police Department v. Mosley, 408 U.S. 92, 95, 92 S.Ct. 2286, 2289-90,
33 L.Ed.2d 212 (1972); Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15, 24, 91 S.Ct. 1780,
1787, 29 L.Ed.2d 284 (1971); NAACP v. Button, 371 U.S. 415, 445, 83 S.Ct. 328,
852, 9 L.Ed.2d 405 (1963); Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U.S. 1, 4, 69 S.Ct.
894, 895, 93 L.Ed. 1131 (1949). As the Supreme Court stated in West Virginia
State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 642, 63 S.Ct. 1178, 1187,
87 L.Ed. 1628 (1943):
If there is any star fixed in our constitutional constellation, it is that no
official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics,
nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess
by word or act their faith therein.
Nor could the University proscribe speech simply because it was found to be
offensive, even gravely so, by large numbers of people. Texas v. Johnson,
supra, --- U.S. at ----, 109 S.Ct. at 2544-45, 105 L.Ed.2d at 360; Hustler
Magazine v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46, 55-56, 108 S.Ct. 876, 882, 99 L.Ed.2d 41
(1988); City Counsel of Los Angeles v. Taxpayers for Vincent, 466 U.S. 789,
804, 104 S.Ct. 2118, 2128, 80 L.Ed.2d 772 (1984); Federal Communications
Commission v. Pacifica Foundation, 438 U.S. 726, 745-46, 98 S.Ct. 3026, 3038-
39, 57 L.Ed.2d 1073 (1978); Collin v. Smith, 578 F.2d 1197, 1205-07 (7th
Cir.), cert. denied 439 U.S. 916, 99 S.Ct. 291, 58 L.Ed.2d 264 (1978). As the
Supreme Court noted in Street v. New York, 394 U.S. 576, 592, 89 S.Ct. 1354,
1365, 22 L.Ed.2d 572 (1969):
It is firmly settled that under our Constitution the public expression of
ideas may not be prohibited merely because the ideas are themselves offensive
to some of their hearers. See e.g. Cox v. Louisiana (I), [379 U.S. 536 [85
S.Ct. 453, 13 L.Ed.2d 471] (1965) ]; Edwards v. South Carolina, [372 U.S. 229,
83 S.Ct. 680, 9 L.Ed.2d 697 (1963) ]; Terminiello v. Chicago, [337 U.S. 1, 69
S.Ct. 894, 93 L.Ed. 1131 (1949) ]; cf. Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296,
60 S.Ct. 900, 84 L.Ed. 1213 (1940).
These principles acquire a special significance in the university setting,
where the free and unfettered interplay of competing views is essential to the
institution's educational mission. Keyishian v. Board of Regents, 385 U.S.
589, 603, 87 S.Ct. 675, 683, 17 L.Ed.2d 629 (1967); Sweezy v. New Hampshire,
354 U.S. 234, 250, 77 S.Ct. 1203, 1211-12, 1 L.Ed.2d 1311 (1957). With these
general rules in mind, the Court can now consider *864 whether the Policy
sweepswithin its scope speech which is otherwise protected by the First
Amendment.
B. Overbreadth
1.
[4] Doe claimed that the Policy was invalid because it was facially
overbroad. It is fundamental that statutes regulating First Amendment
activities must be narrowly drawn to address only the specific evil at hand.
Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601, 611, 93 S.Ct. 2908, 2915, 37 L.Ed.2d 830
(1973). "Because First Amendment freedoms need breathing space to survive,
government may regulate in the area only with narrow specificity." NAACP v.
Button, supra 371 U.S. at 433, 83 S.Ct. at 845-46. A law regulating speech
will be deemed overbroad if it sweeps within its ambit a substantial amount of
protected speech along with that which it may legitimately regulate. Id. 413
U.S. at 612, 93 S.Ct. at 2915; Houston v. Hill, 482 U.S. 451, 458-60, 107
S.Ct. 2502, 2507-08, 96 L.Ed.2d 398 (1985); Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352,
359 n. 8, 103 S.Ct. 1855, 1859 n. 8, 75 L.Ed.2d 903 (1983); Gooding v. Wilson,
405 U.S. 518, 521-22, 92 S.Ct. 1103, 1105-06, 31 L.Ed.2d 408 (1972).
The Supreme Court has consistently held that statutes punishing speech
or conduct solely on the grounds that they are unseemly or offensive are
unconstitutionally overbroad. In Houston v. Hill, supra, the Supreme Court
struck down a City of Houston ordinance which provided that "[i]t shall be
unlawful for any person to assault or strike or in any manner oppose, molest,
and abuse or interrupt any policeman in the execution of his duty." The
Supreme Court also found that the ordinance was overbroad because it forbade
citizens from criticizing and insulting police officers, although such conduct
was constitutionally protected. Id. 482 U.S. at 460-65, 107 S.Ct. at 2508-10.
The fact that the statute also had a legitimate scope of application in
prohibiting conduct which was clearly unprotected by the First Amendment was
not enough to save it. In Gooding v. Wilson, supra, the Supreme Court struck
down a Georgia statute which made it a misdemeanor for "[a]ny person [to],
without provocation, use to or of another, and in his presence ... opprobrious
words or abusive language, tending to cause a breach of the peace." The
Supreme Court found that this statute was overbroad as well, because it
punished speech which did not rise to the level of "fighting words," as defined
in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, supra. The Supreme Court struck down a similar
ordinance in Lewis v. New Orleans, 415 U.S. 130, 94 S.Ct. 970, 39 L.Ed.2d 214
(1974), on the same grounds. In Papish v. University of Missouri, 410 U.S.
667, 93 S.Ct. 1197, 35 L.Ed.2d 618 (1973), the Supreme Court ordered the
reinstatement of a university student expelled for distributing an underground
newspaper sporting the headline "Motherfucker acquitted" on the grounds that
"the mere dissemination of ideas--no matter how offensive to good taste--on a
state university campus may not be shut off in the name alone of conventions of
decency." Id. at 670, 93 S.Ct. at 1199. Although the Supreme Court
acknowledged that reasonable restrictions on the time, place, and manner of
distribution might have been permissible, "the opinions below show clearly
that [plaintiff] was dismissed because of the disapproved content of the
newspaper." Id. Most recently, in Texas v. Johnson, supra, the Supreme Court
invalidated a Texas statute prohibiting burning of the American flag on the
grounds that there was no showing that the prohibited conduct was likely to
incite a breach of the peace. These cases stand generally for the proposition
that the state may not prohibit broad classes of speech, some of which may
indeed be legitimately regulable, if in so doing a substantial amount of
constitutionally protected conduct is also prohibited. This was the
fundamental infirmity of the Policy.
2.
The University repeatedly argued that the Policy did not apply to speech that
is protected by the First Amendment. It urged the Court to disregard the Guide
as "inaccurate" and look instead to "the manner in which the Policy has been
interpreted and applied by those charged with its *865 enforcement."
However, as applied by the University over the past year, the Policy was
consistently applied to reach protected speech.
On December 7, 1988, a complaint was filed against a graduate student
in the School of Social Work alleging that he harassed students based on sexual
orientation and sex. The basis for the sexual orientation charge was
apparently that in a research class, the student openly stated his belief that
homosexuality was a disease and that he intended to develop a counseling plan
for changing gay clients to straight. See Discipline File 88-12-21, described
supra. He also related to other students that he had been counseling several
of his gay patients accordingly. The student apparently had several heated
discussions with his classmates over the validity and morality of his theory
and program. On January 11, 1989, the Interim Policy Administrator wrote to
the student informing him that following an investigation of the complaints,
there was sufficient evidence to warrant a formal hearing on the charges of sex
and sexual orientation harassment. [FN13] A formal hearing on the charges was
held on January 28, 1989. The hearing panel unanimously found that the student
was guilty of sexual harassment but refused to convict him of harassment on the
basis of sexual orientation. The panel stated:
FN13. The letter stated in part:
One type of complaint alleges that you have engaged in discrimination
and/or discriminatory harassment on the basis of sexual orientation.
Specifically the complaints allege the following:
1. You have made harassing statements in class and in classroom buildings
to other students and/or faculty that are intimidating, hostile, and
demeaning on the basis of sexual orientation. Specifically --------
complains that you have stated repeatedly that homosexuality is an illness
that needs to be "cured".
2. You have made several anti-gay comments to other students, specifically
to -------- stating that homosexuality is abnormal and unnatural.
Although the Policy required identification of the complainants, these
names were withheld from the Court to protect their privacy.
In a divided decision the hearing panel finds that the evidence available to
the panel indicates that -------- did not harass students on the basis of
sexual orientation under the strict definition of "The University of Michigan
Policy on Discrimination and Discriminatory Harassment by Students in the
University Environment." In accordance with First Amendment rights to free
speech and the University's policy of academic freedom, -------- did not
violate the policy by discussing either the origins or "curability" of
homosexuality in the School of Social Work.
Although the student was not sanctioned over the allegations of sexual
orientation harassment, the fact remains that the Policy Administrator--the
authoritative voice of the University on these matters--saw no First Amendment
problem in forcing the student to a hearing to answer for allegedly harassing
statements made in the course of academic discussion and research. Moreover,
there is no indication that had the hearing panel convicted rather than
acquitted the student, the University would have interceded to protect the
interests of academic freedom and freedom of speech.
A second case, which was informally resolved, also demonstrated that the
University did not exempt statements made in the course of classroom academic
discussions from the sanctions of the policy. On September 28, 1988, a
complaint was filed against a student in an entrepreneurship class in the
School of Business Administration for reading an allegedly homophobic limerick
during a scheduled class public-speaking exercise which ridiculed a well known
athlete for his presumed sexual orientation. Complaint No. 88-9-05. The
Policy Administrator was able to persuade the perpetrator to attend an
educational "gay rap" session, write a letter of apology to the Michigan Daily,
and apologize to his class and the matter was dropped. No discussion of the
possibility that the limerick was protected speech appears in the file or in
the Administrator's notes.
A third incident involved a comment made in the orientation session of
a preclinical *866 dentistry class. The class was widely regarded as one of
the most difficult for second year dentistry students. To allay fears and
concerns at the outset, the class was broken up into small sections to
informally discuss anticipated problems. During the ensuing discussion, a
student stated that "he had heard that minorities had a difficult time in the
course and that he had heard that they were not treated fairly." Complaint No.
88-9-07. A minority professor teaching the class filed a complaint on the
grounds that the comment was unfair and hurt her chances for tenure. Following
the filing of the complaint, the student was "counseled" about the existence of
the policy and agreed to write a letter apologizing for making the comment
without adequately verifying the allegation, which he said he had heard from
his roommate, a black former dentistry student. [FN14]
FN14. Only a single complaint involving allegedly harassing remarks made
in the context of a classroom discussion was dismissed because of First
Amendment concerns. A complaint of anti-semitic harassment was filed on
March 27, 1989, by a Jewish student in a class on the Holocaust who was
offended by another student's suggestion that Jews cynically used the
Holocaust to justify Israel's policies toward the Palestinians. Complaint
No. 89-3-2. Accordingly to the Administrator's notes, the perpetrator
refused to apologize for the comment. The Administrator phoned the
complainant and informed her that the comment was protected speech, not
covered by the policy.
The manner in which these three complaints were handled demonstrated that the
University considered serious comments made in the context of classroom
discussion to be sanctionable under the Policy. The innocent intent of the
speaker was apparently immaterial to whether a complaint would be pursued.
Moreover, the Administrator generally failed to consider whether a comment was
protected by the First Amendment before informing the accused student that a
complaint had been filed. The Administrator instead attempted to persuade the
accused student to accept "voluntary" sanctions. Behind this persuasion was,
of course, the subtle threat that failure to accept such sanctions might result
in a formal hearing. There is no evidence in the record that the Administrator
ever declined to pursue a complaint through attempted mediation because the
alleged harassing conduct was protected by the First Amendment. Nor is there
evidence that the Administrator ever informed an accused harasser during
mediation negotiations that the complained of conduct might be protected. The
Administrator's manner of enforcing the Policy was constitutionally
indistinguishable from a full blown prosecution. The University could not
seriously argue that the policy was never interpreted to reach protected
conduct. It is clear that the policy was overbroad both on its face and as
applied. [FN15]
FN15. The Court's finding that the University interpreted the Policy to
reach constitutionally protected speech makes it unnecessary to consider
whether the Policy was susceptible to a saving construction. See Brockett
v. Spokane Arcades, Inc., 472 U.S. 491, 493-503, 105 S.Ct. 2794, 2796-2801,
86 L.Ed.2d 394 (1985).
C. Vagueness
Doe also urges that the policy be struck down on the grounds that it is
impermissibly vague. A statute is unconstitutionally vague when "men of common
intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning." Broadrick, supra 413 U.S.
at 607, 93 S.Ct. at 2913. A statute must give adequate warning of the conduct
which is to be prohibited and must set out explicit standards for those who
apply it. Id. "No one may be required at the peril of life, liberty or
property to speculate as to the meaning of penal statutes. All are entitled to
be informed as to what the State commands or forbids." Lanzetta v. New Jersey,
306 U.S. 451, 453, 59 S.Ct. 618, 619, 83 L.Ed. 888 (1939). These
considerations apply with particular force where the challenged statute acts to
inhibit freedoms affirmatively protected by the constitution. Smith v. Goguen,
415 U.S. 566, 573, 94 S.Ct. 1242, 1247, 39 L.Ed.2d 605 (1974). However, the
chilling effect caused by an overly vague statute must be both real and
substantial, Young v. American Mini-Theatres, 427 U.S. 50, 96 S.Ct. 2440, 49
L.Ed.2d 310 (1976), and a narrowing construction must be unavailable before a
court will set it *867 aside, Screws v. United States, 325 U.S. 91, 98, 65
S.Ct. 1031, 1033, 89 L.Ed. 1495 (1945).
[5] Looking at the plain language of the Policy, it was simply
impossible to discern any limitation on its scope or any conceptual distinction
between protected and unprotected conduct. The structure of the Policy was in
two parts; one relates to cause and the other to effect. Both cause and
effect must be present to state a prima facie violation of the Policy. The
operative words in the cause section required that language must "stigmatize"
or "victimize" an individual. However, both of these terms are general and
elude precise definition. Moreover, it is clear that the fact that a statement
may victimize or stigmatize an individual does not, in and of itself, strip it
of protection under the accepted First Amendment tests.
The first of the "effects clauses" stated that in order to be sanctionable,
the stigmatizing and victimizing statements had to "involve an express or
implied threat to an individual's academic efforts, employment, participation
in University sponsored extra-curricular activities or personal safety." It is
not clear what kind of conduct would constitute a "threat" to an individual's
academic efforts. It might refer to an unspecified threat of future
retaliation by the speaker. Or it might equally plausibly refer to the threat
to a victim's academic success because the stigmatizing and victimizing speech
is so inherently distracting. Certainly the former would be unprotected
speech. However, it is not clear whether the latter would.
Moving to the second "effect clause," a stigmatizing or victimizing comment is
sanctionable if it has the purpose or reasonably foreseeable effect of
interfering with an individual's academic efforts, etc. Again, the question is
what conduct will be held to "interfere" with an individual's academic
efforts. The language of the policy alone gives no inherent guidance. The one
interpretive resource the University provided was withdrawn as "inaccurate," an
implicit admission that even the University itself was unsure of the precise
scope and meaning of the Policy.
During the oral argument, the Court asked the University's counsel how he
would distinguish between speech which was merely offensive, which he conceded
was protected, and speech which "stigmatizes or victimizes" on the basis of an
invidious factor. Counsel replied "very carefully." The response, while
refreshingly candid, illustrated the plain fact that the University never
articulated any principled way to distinguish sanctionable from protected
speech. Students of common understanding were necessarily forced to guess at
whether a comment about a controversial issue would later be found to be
sanctionable under the Policy. The terms of the Policy were so vague that its
enforcement would violate the due process clause. See Cramp v. Board of Public
Instruction, 368 U.S. 278, 285-88, 82 S.Ct. 275, 279-281, 7 L.Ed.2d 285 (1961).
VI. CONCLUSION.
A.
The foregoing constitutes the Court's findings of fact and conclusions of
law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 52. However, at this juncture, a few additional
observations of a general nature would seem to be in order. As the Court noted
at the hearing on August 25, 1989, there is nothing in the record to suggest
that the University looked at the experience of any other university in
developing its approach to the problem of discriminatory harassment. Had it
done so, it might have discovered that Yale University, a private institution
not subject to the strictures of the First Amendment, faced a similar dilemma
pitting its efforts to promote equality against its commitment to free speech.
In 1986, a sophomore at Yale was put on probation for two years by a University
discipline board for disseminating a malicious flier intended to ridicule the
homosexual community. The board eventually reversed the sanction, but only
after a second hearing was held at which the student was represented by
historian C. Vann Woodward, author of the University's 1975 report on free
speech. N.Y. *868 Times, Oct. 15, 1986, at A27. That report concluded
that "freedom of expression is a paramount value, more important than civility
or rationality." N.Y. Times, Sept. 22, 1986, at B4. Writing about the case,
Professor Woodward observed:
It simply seems unnatural to make a fuss about the rights of a speaker
who offends the moral or political convictions passionately held by a
majority. The far more natural impulse is to stop the nonsense, shut it up,
punish it--anything but defend it. But to give rein to that inclination would
be to make the majority the arbiters of truth for all. Furthermore, it would
put the universities into the business of censorship.
New York Times, Oct. 15, 1986, at A27.
While the Court is sympathetic to the University's obligation to ensure equal
educational opportunities for all of its students, such efforts must not be at
the expense of free speech. Unfortunately, this was precisely what the
University did. From the Acting President's December 14 memorandum forward to
the adoption of the Policy and continuing through the August 25 hearing, there
is no evidence in the record that any officials at the University ever
seriously attempted to reconcile their efforts to combat discrimination with
the requirements of the First Amendment. The apparent willingness to dilute
the values of free speech is ironic in light of the University's previous
statements of policy on this matter. In 1977, the Regents adopted the
"Statement on Freedom of Speech and Artistic Expression: The Rights and
Obligations of Speakers, Performers, Audience Members, and Protesters at the
University of Michigan" (Statement) which "reaffirm[ed] formally [the
University's] deep and lasting commitment to freedom of speech and artistic
expression." The Statement provides in part that
freedom of speech must not ordinarily be restricted, governed or curtailed in
any way by content except where the law, as interpreted by the Supreme Court of
Michigan or the Supreme Court of the United States, holds that such an
expression does not fall within constitutionally protected free speech. In all
instances, the University authorities should act with maximum constraint, even
in the face of obvious bad taste or provocation. The belief that some opinion
is pernicious, false, or in any other way detestable cannot be grounds for its
suppression. [FN16]
FN16. The Statement was redrafted by the University's Civil Liberties
Board in 1988. The new Statement, substantially identical to the old, was
formally re-enacted by the Regents at their July 1988 meeting.
Needless to say, the philosophy expressed in the Statement is diametrically
opposed to that reflected in the Acting President's December 14 Memorandum.
Apparently, no one involved in the drafting process noted the apparent
inconsistency with the Regents' views as expressed in the Statement.
Throughout the case, the University's counsel strenuously urged that First
Amendment concerns held a top priority in the development and administration of
the Policy. Counsel repeatedly argued that the University interpreted the
Policy to reach conduct such as racial slurs and epithets in the classroom
directed at an individual victim. However, as the Court observed in its August
25, 1989 bench opinion,
what we have heard here this morning ... from University counsel is a
revisionist view of the Policy on Discrimination and Discriminatory Harassment
by Students in the University Environment, and it is a view and interpretation
of the Policy that was not in the minds of the legislators when it was
adopted. And there is nothing in the record that has been presented to the
Court which suggests that this was an appropriate interpretation of the policy.
Not only has the administrative enforcement of the Policy been wholly
inconsistent with counsel's interpretation, but withdrawal of the Guide, see
supra at 13, and the eleventh hour suspension of section 1(c), see supra at 8,
suggests that the University had no idea what the limits of the Policy were and
it was essentially making up the rules as it went along.
*869 B.
In his famous treatise on constitutional law, Thomas Cooley, Justice of the
Michigan Supreme Court and Professor of Law at the University's Law School,
came out as an early and forceful proponent of an expansive interpretation of
the First Amendment. He reasoned that even if speech
exceed[s] all the proper bounds of moderation, the consolation must be that
the evil likely to spring from the violent discussion will probably be less,
and its correction by public sentiment more speedy, than if the terrors of the
law were brought to bear to prevent the discussion.
T. Cooley, A Treatise on the Constitutional Limitations 429 (Da Capo ed.
1972) (1st ed. 1868). This observation appears as compelling today as when it
was first written over one hundred and twenty years ago.
ADDENDUM
Inexplicably the Court did not become aware of a conference on legal story
telling at the University's Law School in April 1989 until after its Opinion
was docketed. Important for consideration of a broader perspective of the
issues put by the Policy and the Court's holding of unconstitutionality under
the First Amendment is a paper delivered at the conference by Mari J. Matsuda,
an associate professor of law at the William S. Richardson School of Law at the
University of Hawaii: Public Response To Racist Speech: Considering the
Victim's Story, 87 Mich.L.Rev. 2320, August 1989. [FN*] Professor Matsuda's
description of her purpose amply describes the significance of the paper:
FN* The Opinion was signed and filed around noon on September 22, 1989.
The August 1989 issue of the Law Review, while delivered by mail to
chambers that morning, was not first read by the Court until that evening.
An earlier awareness of Professor Matsuda's paper certainly would have
sharpened the Court's view of the issues.
This Article attempts to begin a conversation about the first amendment that
acknowledges both the civil libertarian's fear of tyranny and the victims'
experience of loss of liberty in a society that tolerates racist speech. It
suggests criminalization of a narrow, explicitly defined class of racist hate
speech, to provide public redress for the most serious harm, while leaving many
forms of racist speech to private remedies.... This is not an easy legal or
moral puzzle, but it is precisely in these places where we feel conflicting
tugs at heart and mind that we have the most work to do and the most knowledge
to gain.
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu, or (anonymous) ap.4352@hri.com
I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
--------------------
--
| 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 warnold Tue Oct 29 16:55:19 1991
Received: by eff.org id AA20250
(5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for cafb-list@eff.org); Tue, 29 Oct 1991 16:36:45 -0500
Reply-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk
From: comp-academic-freedom-talk
Precedence: bulk
To: comp-academic-freedom-talk
Errors-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk-request
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1991 16:36:27 -0500
X-Digest-Sender: "William W. Arnold"
Message-Id: <199110292136.AA20240@eff.org>
Subject: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Status: RO
Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Tue Oct 29 16:34:17 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
- Billy ]
In this issue:
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: Draft Statement on Computers and Academic Freedom (CA
morgan@ms.uky.edu : Re: USENET censorship strikes University of Washington!
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: off-topic notes (was yahweh is good posting)
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: Draft Statement on Computers and Academic Freedom (CA
kadie@eff.org (Car : README file for Civics Archive
kadie@eff.org (Car : README file for CAF law archive
nbc2134@dsacg2.dsa : I Move the Previous Question
nbc2134@dsacg2.dsa : Re: Draft Statement on Computers and Academic Freedom
morgan@ms.uky.edu : Re: Draft Statement on Computers and Academic Freedom (CAF
morgan@ms.uky.edu : Re: Draft Statement on Computers and Academic Freedom (CAF
SKAPUR@ccmail.suny : Re: YAHWEH is good!
SKAPUR@ccmail.suny : Re: USENET censorship strikes University of Washington!
nwickham@triton.un : The Hollywood Political Entourage and the FCC (was Dave t
john@iastate.edu ( : Re: USENET censorship strikes University of Washington!
lcarp@casbah.acns. : Re: Dave (The Stud) Duke likes Republicans!
thakur@zerkalo.har : Re: Draft Statement on Computers and Academic Freedom (CA
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: Draft Statement on Computers and Academic Freedom (CA
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: I Move the Previous Question
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: Draft Statement on Computers and Academic Freedom
trifid@agora.uucp : 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: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Draft Statement on Computers and Academic Freedom (CAF)
Message-ID: <1991Oct29.135647.3152@eff.org>
References: <1991Oct28.155055.24308@eff.org> <1991Oct28.172859.23708@ms.uky.edu> <1991Oct28.185302.29101@eff.org> <1991Oct28.205404.2462@ms.uky.edu>
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1991 13:56:47 GMT
morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
[...]
>Scenario: A graduate student involved in research funded by a private com-
>pany uses his *academic* computer system to post a problem or question to
>Usenet. His description of his problem gives a competing company a view
>of his research, and they start implementing it as well. Suddenly, all
>involved parties are fighting in a lawsuit, and the news site, as the medium
>involved, is in the thick of it. In a scaled-down version of this scenario,
>the university loses the research grant, due to that student's indiscretion,
>and looks for a scapegoat. Usenet would be a likely candidate for such
>service as a scapegoat.
[...]
The grad student might also violate his nondisclosure agreement over
the phone or at the coffeebreak of a conference. I don't think
University telecommunications, the conference organizers, or the
Netnews administrator need to get involved with the enforcement of
nondisclosure agreements.
- 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: Re: USENET censorship strikes University of Washington!
Message-ID: <1991Oct29.134316.10936@ms.uky.edu>
References: <1991Oct28.003732.18070@wpi.WPI.EDU> <1991Oct28.171510.21293@ms.uky.edu>
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1991 13:43:16 GMT
fischer@iesd.auc.dk (Lars P. Fischer) writes:
>
>Oh, dear. I'd say that news is certainly *critical* to CS department!
Critical? Hardly.
>For one thing, teaching you students to use electronic communication
>for getting information is *damn* important.
So, they use email, services such as WAIS, and "real-time" facilities
such as IRC, Forumnet, or BITNET RELAY.
>Second, most faculty and
>system administrators would have a few groups they consider essential
>-- I, for one, can name quite a few technical groups that a critical
>to my "mission".
So, news is truly *critical* to you? You are incapable of functioning
without it? I doubt it.
As a systems administrator, I certainly reap benefits from Usenet. It is
not, nor has it ever been, critical to my work. If Usenet went away to-
morrow, most of us would just keep on plugging away. Apparently, your
effectiveness would shrivel up and die without Usenet.
>Note that a single news server will more often than not be
>enough for an entire campus.
Oh? I'd like to see a configuration for a news server that can support
25,000 students and 1500 faculty/staff. If I remember correctly, you
were saying that this could be accomplished with a workstation costing
less than $10,000.
Let's take this one to electronic mail; the subject has strayed from
academic freedom just a bit. 8)
--
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: off-topic notes (was yahweh is good posting)
Message-ID: <1991Oct29.150556.5266@eff.org>
References: <1991Oct23.233034.24688@eff.org> <9110240013.AA20625@sentinel.CES.CWRU.Edu> <1991Oct24.222935.19366@eff.org>
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1991 15:05:56 GMT
[Here is an anonymous response to my query about how far a sys admin
should go to enforce a newsgroups charter. The lines marked with ">"
are from my previous note. - Carl
> * Does every newsgroups have a charter?
Yes and no. Each newsgroup does have a short [one line] description.
Some also have one page [or longer] charters that were either agreed
upon when the group was created or later by votes.
> * Do your users have access to the charters of every newsgroup you carry?
Yes. Unfortunately the software used does not make it possible to
access the charters upon demand with a single keystroke.
> * How are charters officially decided?
By votes of those interested in the group.
> * 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?)
Yes. I would enforce any charter, _if_ I was notified of a violation.
I do not try to watch all the newsgroups but if someone sends me a
complaint I will investigate it.
I have yet, in the last 5 years, "punished" someone by removing their
privileges. In every case, the act was not malicious (as I think the
recent one was) but due to ignorance. As soon as the problem was described
to the student, they _voluntarily_ took action to remove the article.
In most cases they tried to take action even before I was notified.
(me puzzled - "what article xyz in pdq? It's not there.")
I honestly think this is true 95% of the time which is why I send mail
to the user before sending mail to a sysadmin.
> * If a charter calls for sexual discrimination (remember
> soc.women.only?), will you enforce it?
Yes. If the group was approved by USENET rules. I would also support
a soc.men.only though. I do believe in free-speech. I just don't think
that people using their rights to free-speech should have to deal with
harrassment. I think the shouting down of speakers is wrong. But I have
no problems with protesting a speaker outside the meeting hall.
> * If a charter says that a person can be barred from posting
> by a majority vote, will you enforce such a vote?
If you can show me a group that would agree... I will give you an answer.
As a personal preference, I would be opposed to instituting such a policy.
--
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: Draft Statement on Computers and Academic Freedom (CAF)
Message-ID: <1991Oct29.151912.5910@eff.org>
References: <1991Oct26.210722.29271@eff.org>
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1991 15:19:12 GMT
Here is a possible interpretation for confidentiality:
draft> Principle: The principles of intellectual freedom developed by
draft> libraries should be applied to the administration of information
draft> material on computers. These principles are explained in such American
draft> Library Association documents as the Library Bill of Rights, the
draft> Freedom to Read Statement, and the Intellectual Freedom Statement.
Interpretation: 'The ethical responsibilities of [sys admins] ...
protect the privacy of [computer] users. Confidentiality extends to
"information sought or received, and materials consulted, borrowed or
acquired"... .'
[To see the ALA statements on confidentiality send email to
archive-server@eff.org. Include the lines:
send library-policies confidentiality.1.ala
send library-policies confidentiality.2.ala
send acad-freedom README
]
- 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: README file for Civics Archive
Message-ID: <1991Oct29.155314.7193@eff.org>
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1991 15:53:14 GMT
=================
README
-----------------
Directory of general documents related to government. It includes the
U.S. Constitution and mailing addresses for U.S. Senators and
Representatives.
The archive is accessible via anonymous ftp and email. Ftp to
ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.3). It is in directory "pub/academic/civics".
For email access, send email to archive-server@eff.org. Include the
line:
civics
where is a list of the files that you want. File README is
a detailed description of the items in the directory.
=================
administration.address
-----------------
Addresses for writing to the President, the Vice-President, and
cabinet members.
=================
congress.address
-----------------
A list of U.S. Senators and Represenatives. The list includes
name, party, hometown, DC telephone, and committee assignements.
=================
constitution.us
-----------------
The Constitution of the United States
=================
dec_of_ind
-----------------
The Declaration of Independence
=================
judiciary.fax
-----------------
The fax numbers of the members of the Senate judiciary committee.
=================
=================
Last update
Tue Oct 29 10:47:58 EST 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: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: README file for CAF law archive
Message-ID: <1991Oct29.155502.7300@eff.org>
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1991 15:55:02 GMT
=================
README
-----------------
CAF Law Archive
[part of the Computers and Academic Freedom (CAF) Archive
[part of the Electronic Freedom Foundation (EFF) Archive]]
This is an on-line collection of law related to computers and academic
freedom. It includes both case law and legislation.
The archive is accessible via anonymous ftp and email. Ftp to
ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.3). It is in directory "pub/academic/law".
For email access, send email to archive-server@eff.org. Include the
line:
caf-law
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 or to make contributions, contact Carl Kadie
(kadie@eff.org).
=================
doe-v-u-of-michigan
-----------------
This is Doe v. Univesity of Michigan. In this widely referenced
decision, the district judge down struck the University's rules
against discrimatory harassment because the rules were found to be too
broad and too vague.
=================
ecpa.1986
-----------------
Portions of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 (ECPA) related
to e-mail privacy.
=================
email.privacy.essay
-----------------
"Computer Electronic Mail and Privacy", an edited version of a law
school seminar paper by Ruel T. Hernadex
=================
meritor-v-vinson
-----------------
This is Meritor Savings Bank FSB v. Vinson. This is the Supreme Court
decision that recognized illegal sexual harassment in the form of a
"hostile environment" at the work place. It is referenced in the two
university speech code decisions.
=================
san-diego-committee-v-gov-bd
-----------------
Excerpts from San Diego Committee v. Governing Bd., 790 F.2d 1471
(1986). A decision by an appellate court that applied the Supreme
Court's Public Forum Doctrine.
=================
uwm-post-v-u-of-wisconsin
-----------------
The full text of UWM POST v. U. of Wisconsin. This recent district
court ruling goes into detail about the difference betwen protected
offensive expression and illegal harassment. It even mentions email.
=================
=================
Last update
Tue Oct 29 10:48:40 EST 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: nbc2134@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil (Robert F Solon)
Subject: I Move the Previous Question
Message-ID: <9110291603.AA10127@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil>
Sender: nbc2134@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil
Date: 29 Oct 91 06:03:47 GMT
In reply to the mail from ...
> ---------------------------
>draft>Interpretation: Computer sites that offer newsgroups should select
>draft>newsgroups the way that traditional libraries select magazines and
>draft>books.
>
>[...]
>>I would append "In some cases, the physical resources available may
>>preclude the application of these selection criteria."
>[...]
>
>I don't think this addition is necessary. Library selection criteria
>include direct and indirect costs.
>
Why not? Many university libraries function in such a way that departments
get money to spend for library acquisitiions; the library itself merely
becomes the physical repository for the data selected by someone else. I
would specifically include something about physical limitation, as well as a
clause addressing who does the selction, i.e., libraries or dpeartments/users.
> ---------------------------
>draft>Interpretation: "Materials should not be proscribed or removed because
>draft>of partisan or doctrinal disapproval" [Article 2, Library Bill of
>draft>Rights].
>
>[..]
>>Add "However, the mission of each facility should be paramount; this may
>>affect the selection criteria."
>[...]
>
>I don't think this addition is necessary. Library selection criteria
>include the relevence of material to the library's missions.
>
A. Would you quote the relevant document, please?
B. See above; a library's mission may simply be the central storage/retrieval
of data selected by some other entity. Such a mission would certainly affect
selection criteria.
On a general note: will the final draft of the CAF Statement be put to a vote
of readers? Or do the EFF moguls get to make the final determination of
content, no matter how much the readers of CAF* complain? In other words,
does it matter what we say about the draft before it is "promulgated?" Will
we, as users, have the option of "signing" the document? I see this as sort
of like a Declaration of Computer Independence, with the readers of CAF* as
a modern-day equivalent of the Second Continental Congress. Although we're
conducting our business via e-mail/Usenet, we're still acting as a
deliberative body that is debating and modifying a document that we hope we
can adopt. What we need is the following:
A. A chair to coordinate motions and resolve disputes.
B. A method of determining what constitutes a passing vote. One
suggestion would be a relative standard: a motion passes if it carries by a
majority; each vote will have a time limit, with ballots promulgated by the
chair and counted by a seperate secretary or counting software independent of
the chair.
C. An agenda. Perhaps each part of the document could be debated in
turn, with one final vote to ratify at the end. either way, we need some
orderly way to determine the order of business.
Bob Solon, DSAC-BCC
Administrative Information Branch -- APCAPS
"We Code, You Explode!!"
-------------------
From: nbc2134@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil (Robert F Solon)
Subject: Re: Draft Statement on Computers and Academic Freedom
Message-ID: <9110291610.AA11110@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil>
Sender: nbc2134@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil
Date: 29 Oct 91 06:10:05 GMT
In reply to the mail from ...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> C. Treating Usenet articles as student publications may require
>>universities to continue funding Usenet even when not fiscally sound, under
>>the doctrine that the state is not the unfettered master of all it creates.
>>Usenet is not a right; like driving a car or swilling a beer, it's a
>>privelege.
>
>Traditional student publications can be shutdown when not fiscally
>sound. In fact they be can shutdown for any but a few proscribed
>reasons.
>
>- Carl
>
Then you are explicitly extending the ability to show down Usenet or a subset
thereof for the same reasons that "traditional" student publications are shut
down, right?
What are these reasons? Are there any documents that would purport to list
some or all of them?
Bob Solon, rsolon@dsac.dla.mil
Administrative Information Branch -- "We Code, You Explode!!"
Directorate of Resource Management Systems (APCAPS)
DLA Systems Automation Center, DSAC-BCC (614) 238-8256 AV 850-8256
-------------------
From: morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan)
Subject: Re: Draft Statement on Computers and Academic Freedom (CAF)
Message-ID: <1991Oct29.160350.8232@ms.uky.edu>
Date: 29 Oct 91 16:03:50 GMT
References: <1991Oct28.185302.29101@eff.org> <1991Oct28.205404.2462@ms.uky.edu> <1991Oct29.135647.3152@eff.org>
In article <1991Oct29.135647.3152@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>
>The grad student might also violate his nondisclosure agreement over
>the phone or at the coffeebreak of a conference. I don't think
>University telecommunications, the conference organizers, or the
>Netnews administrator need to get involved with the enforcement of
>nondisclosure agreements.
>
I agree completely that these people do not NEED to get involved.
In this litigation-happy world, however, they may be FORCED to
get involved. Subpoenas are difficult to ignore. Did the University
of Missouri "get involved in" the Craig Neidorf case? (I don't know
if they did or not; I'm just asking)
As I've said in every posting on this thread, I'm not suggesting that
these things will happen, or even that they should happen. I just think
that we should recognize that, in this imperfect network world, these
are potential problems that we should address.
--
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: morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan)
Subject: Re: Draft Statement on Computers and Academic Freedom (CAF)
Message-ID: <1991Oct29.163743.15765@ms.uky.edu>
Date: 29 Oct 91 16:37:43 GMT
Article-I.D.: ms.1991Oct29.163743.15765
References: <1991Oct26.210722.29271@eff.org> <1991Oct29.151912.5910@eff.org>
In article <1991Oct29.151912.5910@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>Here is a possible interpretation for confidentiality:
>
>Interpretation: 'The ethical responsibilities of [sys admins] ...
>protect the privacy of [computer] users. Confidentiality extends to
>"information sought or received, and materials consulted, borrowed or
>acquired"... .'
>
This may be difficult to implement. Certain types of information may, by
default, require public dissemination. For instance, if a system
provides database services via NFS to an individual's workstation, the
fact that he is using a particular database is available to all users
(via perusal of the mount tables or the /etc/exports file). This infor-
mation *must* be publicly accessible; this is a requirement of
the NFS software.
In fact, any user of a Unix system can easily log the actions of any other
user. Any user could, for instance, track my usage of telnet and ftp,
building a log of the sites to which I connected. This could be done with
a 10-line shell script by any user.
Many online resources automatically keep logs of their usage as well;
that's a completely separate issue. These automatic logs should be
protected, to insure the user's privacy. I don't think that
administrators can effectively prevent other users from performing such
monitoring.
--
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: SKAPUR@ccmail.sunysb.edu (Sanjay Kapur)
Subject: Re: YAHWEH is good!
Message-ID: <6FEFACD4E04018B1@ccmail.sunysb.edu>
Sender: SKAPUR@ccmail.sunysb.edu
Date: 29 Oct 91 17:03:00 GMT
>Most of the paper press decisions where made in the context of the
>Public Forum Doctrine. They should be applicable to other public (and
>limited public) forums.
>
Carl, it YOUR presumption that Computers at a public University when owned by
the University and run by professional staff can have public forums on them.
It is a bit like asking the University public relations/publications office to
run your student paper press.
>- 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.
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: USENET censorship strikes University of Washington!
Message-ID: <71B5C7E6504018B1@ccmail.sunysb.edu>
Sender: SKAPUR@ccmail.sunysb.edu
Date: 29 Oct 91 17:15:00 GMT
>Yes, I know. Still, $10k is not that much. I do believe that the way
>to get away from these horribly slow and troublesome do-it-all central
>machines is to load tasks off one by one. News is a good candidate.
Lars, the problems are essentially political. The senior people at a
computing center who hold the pursetrings do not understand nor do they want
to understand Unix systems. They are accustomed to the "horribly slow
and troublesome do-it-all central machines" and have grown to like and love
them. They feel very threatened by the existence of small, powerful, easy to
use and program machines that are also inexpensive and do not want
one near them.
>
>/Lars
>--
>Lars Fischer, fischer@iesd.auc.dk | It takes an uncommon mind to think of
>CS Dept., Univ. of Aalborg, DENMARK. | these things. -- Calvin
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: nwickham@triton.unm.edu (Neal C. Wickham)
Subject: The Hollywood Political Entourage and the FCC (was Dave the Stud)
Message-ID: <6pfdrm=@lynx.unm.edu>
Date: 29 Oct 91 17:25:49 GMT
Article-I.D.: lynx.6pfdrm=
References: <1991Oct29.031920.12468@milton.u.washington.edu> <1!fdwal@lynx.unm.edu>
In article art@world.std.com (Al Thompson) writes:
>How do you deregulate a government agency?
>
> (You don't hear this on TV either.)
>
>Funny I saw it reported and discussed at some length on TV and in the
>print media.
Oh yeah? ...then maybe you can give us some specifics on exactly what was
deregulated and what effect it has had on the news and politics.
>Where does this idea that politics are dirtier now than before? In 1960
>JFK insisted on the reality of a "missile gap" even when told by the
>government that no such gap existed. As soon as he was elected we heard
>not another word on the topic. LBJ ran that commercial of that adorable
>little girl picking daisies and then vanishing in a mushroom cloud. In
>1864 McClellan's campaign reffered to Lincoln as an "ape". Do some
>research. Go to the library dig out some newspapers from the nineteenth
>century. Next read up on twentieth century politics in Chicago and New
>York. Then, let us know how much dirtier politics are today.
Come on Al. If you are going to dispute basic well accepted facts, what
is even the point of me discussing anything with you.
> Of course
>"dirty politics" is always the cry of the loser.
Is this why you conservatives are having the "leak" witch hunt?
>You would prefer the government to control the information flow?
No... I want honorable meritorious Hollywood types like Frank Sinatra
who have proven thier ethical behavior in respectable appointments such
as Head of the Nevada Gaming Commission.
And the government didn't control the flow before. You do not understand
what the deregulation of the FCC did.
>I assume you don't get cable TV. Cable has broken the network monopoly
>once and for all.
You miss the point and don't understand what I am getting at. You, again,
do not know what was deregulated and what has changed. And in the specific
case of news, we still only have ABC, CBS, NBC, and the new one of CNN.
We have a little bit from the Christian Science Monitor and from things
like the 700 club. The number of TV news sources is not what has changed
dramatically. It is something else.
NCW
-------------------
From: john@iastate.edu (John Hascall)
Subject: Re: USENET censorship strikes University of Washington!
Message-ID: <1991Oct29.174354.20191@news.iastate.edu>
Sender: news@news.iastate.edu (USENET News System)
References: <1991Oct28.171510.21293@ms.uky.edu> <1991Oct29.134316.10936@ms.uky.edu>
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1991 17:43:54 GMT
}fischer@iesd.auc.dk (Lars P. Fischer) writes:
}>Oh, dear. I'd say that news is certainly *critical* to CS department!
morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
}Critical? Hardly.
If it isn't it should be! I've learned more from reading comp.arch
than I ever did in any computer architecture course. If you want to
know what's happening in your field NOW you read newsgroups -- if you
want to know what happened 5 years ago (might as well be forever in
the computer industry) read a textbook. (Or 2 years ago in journals).
}Oh? I'd like to see a configuration for a news server that can support
}25,000 students and 1500 faculty/staff. If I remember correctly, you
}were saying that this could be accomplished with a workstation costing
}less than $10,000.
We have 25,000 students & 7000 Faculty/Staff -- we use a DECstation 3100
& a RZ57 (1GB) -- about $7-8,000 at current prices.
John
Grad Student in ComSci and ...
--
John Hascall An ill-chosen word is the fool's messenger.
Project Vincent
Iowa State University Computation Center john@iastate.edu
Ames, IA 50011 (515) 294-9551
-------------------
From: lcarp@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Lee Carpenter)
Subject: Re: Dave (The Stud) Duke likes Republicans!
Message-ID: <1991Oct28.145842.10094@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
Date: 28 Oct 91 14:58:42 GMT
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.
>
>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.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Is that so? With the festering racism that is suddenly rearing its ugly head
all over this country, I wouldn't consider a Duke for President bid altogether
hopeless. If he makes it to the convention, I wouldn't bet that he gets the
nomination, but he could, very well, make an indelible mark on the Republican
Party.
Lee Carpenter
lcarp@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
The above opinions are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of
Northwestern University, Harvard Community Unit School District 50, or anybody
else for that matter.
-------------------
From: thakur@zerkalo.harvard.edu (Manavendra K. Thakur)
Subject: Re: Draft Statement on Computers and Academic Freedom (CAF)
Message-ID: <9110291908.AA07692@zerkalo.harvard.edu>
Sender: thakur@zerkalo.harvard.edu
References: <1991Oct28.205404.2462@ms.uky.edu>
Date: 29 Oct 91 19:08:36 GMT
>>>>> On Mon, 28 Oct 1991 20:54:04 GMT, morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) said:
> Scenario: A graduate student involved in research funded by a
> private com- pany uses his *academic* computer system to post a
> problem or question to Usenet. His description of his problem gives
> a competing company a view of his research, and they start
> implementing it as well. Suddenly, all involved parties are
> fighting in a lawsuit, and the news site, as the medium involved, is
> in the thick of it. In a scaled-down version of this scenario, the
> university loses the research grant, due to that student's
> indiscretion, and looks for a scapegoat. Usenet would be a likely
> candidate for such service as a scapegoat.
Nope, this is completely wrong. If the university has any halfway
decent sense of responsibility, it would never agree to accept funding
from a source that either didn't want to reveal itself (e.g. CIA
funding to political scientists) or didn't want the results of the
research to be published.
If the research being done is truly one where the funders don't want
to give "a competing company a view of his research" then the funders
should have the research performed in their own R&D lab, not in an
academic university setting.
I would submit that if any university administrator accepts funding
with these kinds of absurd conditions, then they are undercutting
their own academic freedom and destroying the mission of the
university as a marketplace of ideas where the free exchange of
information is strongly encouraged.
Note that in real life, professors do sign non-disclosure agreements
(NDAs) but I have never heard of a case in academia where a corporate
sponsor insisted that the very existence of the research project be
kept secret. Most likely, NDAs cover specific implementation details
that are propietary technology of the corporate sponsor (as opposed to
the overall research goals that require use of the propietary
technology).
And if a grad student *were* to reveal information covered by an NDA,
it is unlikely that a huge lawsuit would develop. Most corporate
sponsors of research want to maintain good working relationships with
universities, and vice versa. Launching a massive lawsuit would be
very counterproductive, and indeed the corporate sponsors might lose
more than they gain.
Finally, public dissemination of corporate "family jewels" are perhaps
the only thing that would trigger the type of massive lawsuit that you
describe. And it is highly unlikely that any corporate sponsor is
going to be willing to give out their most secretive family jewels to
university researchers, at least not without the most stringent
safeguards on them. And if the safeguards are that stringent, it is
likely that the safeguards will impinge on academic freedom. It would
behoove the university provost or other high ranking official to
reject out of hand any such constraints on the free exchange of ideas
in an academic setting.
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: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Draft Statement on Computers and Academic Freedom (CAF)
Message-ID: <1991Oct29.191507.14564@eff.org>
References: <9110291603.AA10127@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil>
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1991 19:15:07 GMT
draft>Interpretation: Computer sites that offer newsgroups should select
draft>newsgroups the way that traditional libraries select magazines and
draft>books.
wes>>[...]
wes>>I would append "In some cases, the physical resources available may
wes>>preclude the application of these selection criteria."
wes>>[...]
carl>>I don't think this addition is necessary. Library selection criteria
carl>>include direct and indirect costs.
nbc2134@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil (Robert F Solon) writes:
>Why not? Many university libraries function in such a way that departments
>get money to spend for library acquisitiions; the library itself merely
>becomes the physical repository for the data selected by someone else. I
>would specifically include something about physical limitation, as well as a
>clause addressing who does the selction, i.e., libraries or dpeartments/users.
I don't object so just to a clause about "physical limitation", but I
do object to the notion that such limitations might "preclude the
application of the selection criteria". They should not preclude the
selection criteria; they should be part of the selection criteria.
The ALA selection policy guidelines go into detail
about how to authorize the selector.
If a department, research group, or user is using disk space to store
data, that should be independent of the machine selection policy.
If anyone can suggest a better way to phrase:
draft> Principle: The principles of intellectual freedom developed by
draft> libraries should be applied to the administration of information
draft> material on computers. These principles are explained in such American
draft> Library Association documents as the Library Bill of Rights, the
draft> Freedom to Read Statement, and the Intellectual Freedom Statement.
To make this clear, please do.
---------------------
>A. Would you quote the relevant document [about releveance], please?
---quote---
CRITERIA. In terms of the subject matter covered, your policy
will include criteria, and the application of criteria, relevant
to your objectives, excellence (artistic, literary, etc.),
appropriateness to level of user, superiority in treatment of
controversial issues, and ability to stimulate further
intellectual and social development. Consider authenticity,
appropriateness, interest, content, and circumstances of use.
--end quote---
To get the whole selection handbook, send email to archive-server@eff.org.
Include the line:
send library-policies selection-workbook.ala
Or ftp to ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/library/selection-workbook.ala.
- 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: I Move the Previous Question
Message-ID: <1991Oct29.191922.14652@eff.org>
References: <9110291603.AA10127@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil>
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1991 19:19:22 GMT
nbc2134@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil (Robert F Solon) writes:
>On a general note: will the final draft of the CAF Statement be put to a vote
>of readers? Or do the EFF moguls get to make the final determination of
>content, no matter how much the readers of CAF* complain? In other words,
>does it matter what we say about the draft before it is "promulgated?" Will
>we, as users, have the option of "signing" the document? I see this as sort
>of like a Declaration of Computer Independence, with the readers of CAF* as
>a modern-day equivalent of the Second Continental Congress. Although we're
>conducting our business via e-mail/Usenet, we're still acting as a
>deliberative body that is debating and modifying a document that we hope we
>can adopt. What we need is the following:
No plans have been made for creation or promulgation.
Anyone interested in organizing the effort should maybe post a
statement of interest. Lurkers welcome.
- 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: Draft Statement on Computers and Academic Freedom
Message-ID: <1991Oct29.192533.14910@eff.org>
References: <9110291610.AA11110@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil>
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1991 19:25:33 GMT
nbc2134@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil (Robert F Solon) writes:
[...]
>Then you are explicitly extending the ability to show down Usenet or a subset
>thereof for the same reasons that "traditional" student publications are shut
>down, right?
>What are these reasons? Are there any documents that would purport to list
>some or all of them?
[...]
I don't expect extra rights for netnews authors.
Here are some documents:
=================
CAF Law Archive
[...]
The archive is accessible via anonymous ftp and email. Ftp to
ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.3). It is in directory "pub/academic/law".
For email access, send email to archive-server@eff.org. Include the
line:
caf-law
where is a list of the files that you want. File README is
[...]
=================
stanley-v-magrath
-----------------
Comments from _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. It says, in part, "[a]lthough school
boards are not obligated to support student papers, if a given
publication was originally created as a free speech forum, removal of
financial or other school board support can be construed as an
unlawful effort to stifle free expression."
=================
student-publications.control
-----------------
Comments from _School Law: Teachers' and Students' Rights_ by Martha
M. McCarthy and Nelda H. Cambron-McCabe. It says, in part, "school
authorities cannot withdraw support from a student publication simply
because of displeasure with the content" and "the content of a
school-sponsored paper that is established as a medium for student
expression cannot be regulated more closely than a nonsponsored
paper".
=================
constraints.constitutional
-----------------
Comments from _A Practical Guide to Legal Issues Affecting College
Teachers_ by Partrica A. Hollander, D. Parker Young, and Donald D.
Gehring. (College Administration Publication, 1985). Discusses the
constitutional constraints on public univeristies including the
requires for freedom of expression, freedom against unreasonable
searches and seizures, due process, specific rules.
=================
constraints.contractual
-----------------
Comments from _A Practical Guide to Legal Issues Affecting College
Teachers_. Explains that University Code is part of the contract
between the student and school. The University can be liable for a
breach of the contract (i.e. for not following its own rules).
=================
rust-v-sullivan
-----------------
The decision and decent for the so-called abortion information gag
rule case. The decision explictly mentions universities as a place
where free expression is so important that gag rules would not be
allowed.
=================
san-diego-committee-v-gov-bd
-----------------
Excerpts from San Diego Committee v. Governing Bd., 790 F.2d 1471
(1986). A decision by an appellate court that applied the Supreme
Court's Public Forum Doctrine.
=================
student-publications.libel
-----------------
McCarthy and Nelda Cambron-McCabe on what to do about libel in student
publications.
=================
uwm-post-v-u-of-wisconsin
-----------------
The full text of UWM POST v. U. of Wisconsin. This recent district
court ruling goes into detail about the difference betwen protected
offensive expression and illegal harassment. It even mentions email.
=================
=================
Last update
Tue Oct 29 13:54:16 EST 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: trifid@agora.uucp (Roadster Racewerks)
Subject: Re: Dave (The Stud) Duke likes Republicans!
Message-ID: <1991Oct29.085228.7893@agora.uucp>
References: <1991Oct25.153843.1672@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> <+qad!h_@lynx.unm.edu>
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1991 08:52:28 GMT
I dunno....
I've been a republican for years (and it's getting very embarrassing!) and you
can't tell me "the Republican party has been doing everything" it can to get
rid of David the Disgusting Duke. Why in the world can't they have the guts to
send the Louisanna branch of the party a stiff note saying "D. Duke is *not*
one of us, tell the state elections board to remove the designation `Republican'
from his name on the ballot"? As I remember it, a political party requires the
participation of both the party and the prospective member.
DUMP DUKE, before he dumps on us!
Suze
--------------------
--
| 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 comp-academic-freedom-talk Wed Oct 30 11:16:19 1991
Reply-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk
From: comp-academic-freedom-talk
Precedence: bulk
To: comp-academic-freedom-talk
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 1991 10:46:35 -0500
X-Digest-Sender: "William W. Arnold"
Subject: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Status: RO
Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Wed Oct 30 10:45:38 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
- Billy ]
In this issue:
jones@pyrite.cs.ui : Promulgating the CAF statement
cmartin@yoda.eecs. : Is USENET (was USENET censorship strikes U of Washington)
jones@pyrite.cs.ui : Events at the University of Iowa
nbc2134@dsacg2.dsa : Re: I Move the Previous Question
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: Steven Brack found Guilty
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (alt.acad.freedom.talk, et al.) Re: YAHWEH is good! (inste
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (alt.censorship, et al.) No comment...
alyoung@silver.ucs : Re: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch ed
alyoung@silver.ucs : (none)
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: I Move the Previous Question
SKAPUR@ccmail.suny : Re: YAHWEH is good!
SKAPUR@ccmail.suny : Re: I Move the Previous Question
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (talk.politics.misc, et al.) Re: The Dirty Pictures Librar
SNTEF@ALASKA.bitne : (none)
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: YAHWEH is good!
k080093@hobbes.kzo : Re: Dave (The Stud) Duke likes Republicans!
rmtodd@uokmax.ecn. : Re: USENET censorship strikes University of Washington!
russotto@eng.umd.e : Re: I Move the Previous Question
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: jones@pyrite.cs.uiowa.edu (Douglas W. Jones,201H MLH,3193350740,3193382879)
Subject: Promulgating the CAF statement
Message-ID: <8856@ns-mx.uiowa.edu>
Date: 29 Oct 91 21:09:33 GMT
References: <1991Oct29.191922.14652@eff.org>
Sender: news@ns-mx.uiowa.edu
by kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie):
> nbc2134@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil (Robert F Solon) writes:
>
>>On a general note: will the final draft of the CAF Statement be
>>put to a vote of readers?
>
> No plans have been made for creation or promulgation.
The ultimate success of the Computers and Academic Freedom document depends
on whether or not the principles it advocates are adopted by the academic
institutions on the net. A vote of the readership of this forum could be
useful in convincing reluctant university computer center administrators of
the degree of consensus behind the CAF document, but that is about all such
a vote would accomplish.
I have already forwarded a copy of the CAF Statement to the Director of
Academic Computer Services at the University of Iowa, with my personal
recommendation that we adopt something like it as policy. I told him about
the recent flap in Washington, and said that having a policy in place in
advance would be a wise idea just in case such a flap comes up here.
I would recommend that others interested in these kinds of matters take
similar unilateral action instead of worrying about USENET votes and
similar ventures.
Doug Jones
jones@cs.uiowa.edu
-------------------
From: cmartin@yoda.eecs.wsu.edu (Charles Martin)
Subject: Is USENET vital? (was USENET censorship strikes U of Washington)
Message-ID: <1991Oct29.194208.27419@serval.net.wsu.edu>
Sender: news@serval.net.wsu.edu (USENET News System)
References: <1991Oct28.171510.21293@ms.uky.edu> <1991Oct29.134316.10936@ms.uky.edu> <1991Oct29.174354.20191@news.iastate.edu>
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 91 19:42:08 GMT
In article <1991Oct29.174354.20191@news.iastate.edu> john@iastate.edu (John Hascall) writes:
>}fischer@iesd.auc.dk (Lars P. Fischer) writes:
>}>Oh, dear. I'd say that news is certainly *critical* to CS department!
>
>morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
>}Critical? Hardly.
>
>If it isn't it should be! I've learned more from reading comp.arch
>than I ever did in any computer architecture course. If you want to
>know what's happening in your field NOW you read newsgroups -- if you
>want to know what happened 5 years ago (might as well be forever in
>the computer industry) read a textbook. (Or 2 years ago in journals).
>
[discussion of workstation prices deleted]
I agree. I program MS Windows and I have used it to both pose and answer ques-
tions in comp.windows.ms.programmer. What does this have to do with banning
high-bandwidth newsgroups, you ask? The answer is that c.w.m.p covers my
particular field, and I have no idea which newsgroups are suitable for other
disciplines. Since workstations are so cheap, disk space (IMHO) is a flimsy
excuse for banning *any* newsgroup. Abstract knowledge (read data) can lie
fallow for years, until somebody discovers it and puts it to a new use. For
instance, George Boole invented a type of algebra in the 18th century which
did not become "useful" until the digital computer was invented.
On the other hand, if the bean counters insist that workstations will be used
only for "serious" subjects, you have two alternatives. The first is to con-
vince those people that you do need the banned group. If that fails, you can
spend your own money to obtain a feed on your personal machine. Personally, I
am doing the latter because my university is fed by the UW, and so we at WSU are
not seeing the banned binary groups.
Well, here's hoping I don't get flamed too badly. Naturally, this is only my
opinion and nobody else's.
--
Chuck Martin
cmartin@yoda.eecs.wsu.edu
One of these days, I'll think of something clever to put in here.
-------------------
From: jones@pyrite.cs.uiowa.edu (Douglas W. Jones,201H MLH,3193350740,3193382879)
Subject: Events at the University of Iowa
Message-ID: <8859@ns-mx.uiowa.edu>
Date: 29 Oct 91 21:33:33 GMT
Sender: news@ns-mx.uiowa.edu
In the last few weeks, an interesting non-computer-related academic freedom
event has arisen here at the University of Iowa.
One of the German classes on campus has a regular film series associated
with it. The films shown range from modern German experimental works to
classic German movies. One of the films shown involved explicit depiction
of a homosexual encounter in Berlin. Students were told, in advance, about
the film and they were not required to watch it. Someone in the audience
complained, vehemently and publically.
The result was a newspaper story implying that students in the class had
been forced to watch a pornographic film. The initial published reports
made the University look very bad, and only in followup stories was the
instructor's position well reported.
In the ensuing muckraking, people in state government were quoted as saying
that the University made a mistake in showing this film, and the president
of the University has said things that indicated that showing the film was
a mistake.
The film in question is, of course, in the collection of the University of
Iowa Library. The library has had to defend having such a film in its
collection, and apparently, the county attourny has checked out the film
to investigate the case and determine if it is pornographic (my guess is
that he will eventually find that it is not).
This story has been convered in detail in the Des Moines Register, starting
around September 30.
There seem to be many parallels between this story and the recent mess
in Washington -- in both cases, the newspapers have served as a conduit
through which pressure is put on the University to impose some kind of
censorship. In both cases, I would imagine that the newspaper reporters
involved would say that they oppose censorship, but in each case, the
story itself, the sensationalistic way that it was treated, and the rush
to print before all the facts are in combine into a product that almost
demands censorship.
Doug Jones
jones@cs.uiowa.edu
-------------------
From: nbc2134@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil (Robert F Solon)
Subject: Re: I Move the Previous Question
Message-ID: <9110292146.AA10609@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil>
Sender: nbc2134@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil
References: <1991Oct29.205315.17917@eff.org>
Date: 29 Oct 91 20:46:52 GMT
>
> >Carl Kadie writes:
>
> >> No plans have been made for creation or promulgation.
> >>
> >> Anyone interested in organizing the effort should maybe post a
> >> statement of interest. Lurkers welcome.
>
> nbc2134@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil (Robert F Solon) writes:
>
> >So what's the point? Why did you put a draft togethor, why are you
> >asking for comments, and what will happen to this document?
>
> I don't mean to suggest that I don't want a policy created or
> promugated. I'm just reporting that no plans have been made. It's up
> to us to make such plans.
Who is "us"? Does "us" refer to EFF, or the readers of CAF-*?
>
> >I'd be
> >willing to act as chair of a deliberative review, but only after
> >we're told what the Statement is going to be used for.
>
> >Bob
>
> Bob, what is your experience with academic computing? Are you a member
> of an academic community (student, faculty, staff, administration,
> etc) now?
>
> - Carl
>
Appointing oneself the selection committee seems a little
presumptous, but I'll answer anyway.
I have been formally associated with Capital University in Columbus
since the fall of 1985, either as a student (until Dec. 88) or a
part-time faculty member (until August of this year). I am a data
systems engineer working for the U.S. Defense Logistics Agency.
While in school I was active in the departments of my majors
(Computer science and political science) and served as an officer in
the undergraduate Student Government, as Commissioner of
Publications, Commissioner of Academic Affairs (which includes
academic computing), and Executive Secretary. I'm very familiar
with Robert's Rules of Order, since my duties in Student Government
required my participation in faculty and University governing
bodies. Currently, my affiliation with Capital continues, as I just
served as stage manager and lighting designer for our fall operetta,
and am lighting designer for our next production, currently in
rehearsal.
References are available upon request.
I would note, however, that there seems no basis for requiring that
the moderator/chair/* of a discussion of the CAF Statement be
formally associated with the academic community at the time he or
she serves. There is no reason why any interested and committed
individual should not be chair, whether that person is a _current_
member of an academic community or not. The chair of an
organization typically does not vote and cannot speak on the motion
on the floor, except to announce rulings from the chair. The key
criterion for selection should be impartiality, not familiarity.
Bob Solon, rsolon@dsac.dla.mil
DSAC-BCC - "We Code -- You explode!!"
-------------------
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Steven Brack found Guilty
Message-ID: <1991Oct29.222032.21754@eff.org>
References: <1991Oct28.135044.18831@eff.org>
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1991 22:20:32 GMT
I was asked who is Steve Brack? For some details see the July
CAF-News. Send email to archive-server@eff.org. Include the line:
send caf-news cafv01n20
- 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.acad.freedom.talk, et al.] Re: YAHWEH is good! (instead of quoting reams, lets look at cases)
Message-ID: <9110292224.AA08355@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 29 Oct 91 10:24:36 GMT
From: bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris)
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1991 17:47:22 GMT
In article <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.
)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.
I'd rather see dozens of posters like 'yahweh' than "real teeth" in the
newsgroup charters. [And I'd rather not see dozens of posters like yahweh,
one is quite enough].
I like the current informal system just fine, though it may not be able to
be maintained in the face of the growth of the net.
Lawsuits about xxxx posting yyyy to newsgroup zzzz would not be good for
freedom of expression or much else, IMO.
If it gets down to it, though, the ACLU and EFF will both probably take an
interest in any such lawsuits.
[I've added comp.org.eff.talk to the newsgroup list, BTW]
-------------------
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.censorship, et al.] No comment...
Message-ID: <9110292225.AA08380@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 29 Oct 91 10:25:06 GMT
From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1991 23:34:04 GMT
"Everyone seems more concerned about the theoretical abridgment of
First Amendment rights than about the real abridgment of rights
based on racial harassment."
-- James E. Sutton, University of Wisconsin Special Assistant to
the President for Minority Affairs, October 1991, bemoaning a
Federal District Court ruling striking down the University's
"Hate Speech" code as unconstitutional.
-------------------
From: alyoung@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (amy young)
Subject: Re: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Message-ID: <199110292230.AA22232@eff.org>
Sender: alyoung@silver.ucs.indiana.edu
References: <199110291802.AA11856@eff.org>
Date: 29 Oct 91 22:29:28 GMT
help
-------------------
From: alyoung@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (amy young)
Subject: (none)
Message-ID: <199110292230.AA22236@eff.org>
Sender: alyoung@silver.ucs.indiana.edu
Date: 29 Oct 91 22:30:00 GMT
help
-------------------
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: I Move the Previous Question
Message-ID: <1991Oct29.224609.22772@eff.org>
References: <1991Oct29.205315.17917@eff.org> <9110292146.AA10609@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil>
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1991 22:46:09 GMT
Carl Kadie writes:
>> I don't mean to suggest that I don't want a policy created or
>> promugated. I'm just reporting that no plans have been made. It's up
>> to us to make such plans.
nbc2134@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil (Robert F Solon) writes:
[...]
>Who is "us"? Does "us" refer to EFF, or the readers of CAF-*?
[...]
I was refering to the readers of the CAF mailinglist/newsgroups.
Thanks for the information about academic computering experience.
- 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: SKAPUR@ccmail.sunysb.edu (Sanjay Kapur)
Subject: Re: YAHWEH is good!
Message-ID: <9B952F3A404018B1@ccmail.sunysb.edu>
Sender: SKAPUR@ccmail.sunysb.edu
Date: 29 Oct 91 22:15:00 GMT
>So you are asserting that University *can't* run the hardware for a
>public forum? Do you think those high school students in San Diego
>[ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/law/san-diego-committee-v-gov-bd] owned and
>ran their printing press?
Let me repeat: Public University owned and professionally operated computing
system. Not high school, not paper press. Printing presses at high schools
may have been operated by the students, but let me repeat, I am talking
University, not high school, computers, not paper press.
>To you think campus mail systems are run by the students and faculty.
>
Campus mail systems are NOT public forums of any sort.
>>It is a bit like asking the University public relations/publications
>>office to run your student paper press.
>
>No university office is obliged to run the hardware for student
>publications.
You seem to have implied before that a "good" university is obliged to provide
these facilities.
> A university may however choice to provide hardware for
>a public (or limited public) forum.
And then again, the University may choose to provide a read-only forum limited
to certain topics.
This may sound cynical: Can it ever be a truly public forum when the
system administrator is paid by the state?
This is the main reason I strongly support the concept of facilities
like OCF at Berkeley where state control is minimal.
Having a student government or student operated and owned news system with
some subsidy (in the the form of initial equipment, electricity, floor space,
phone bills, network connections etc.) from the University is the best way of
avoiding all the problems that come up. This removes the argument that the
University is responsible for any posting. This would be totally covered by
the "freedom of the press" clause of the constitution for a public university
since technically the press is owned by the student government rather the
university.
If the news system is operated in this manner, there would be little need for a
confrontational "computing academic freedom bill of rights" for news. The
bill of rights may still be needed for other reasons (e.g. privacy).
>Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu, or (anonymous) ap.4352@hri.com
>I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
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: I Move the Previous Question
Message-ID: <9C2BD44A804018B1@ccmail.sunysb.edu>
Sender: SKAPUR@ccmail.sunysb.edu
Date: 29 Oct 91 22:19:00 GMT
>>
>So what's the point? Why did you put a draft togethor, why are you
>asking for comments, and what will happen to this document? I'd be
>willing to act as chair of a deliberative review, but only after
>we're told what the Statement is going to be used for.
It seems quite obvious what the purpose of such a statement would be:
It will be used as a club to bash system administrators.
--------
Disclaimer: I am in a dark mood today.
>
>Bob
>
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: [talk.politics.misc, et al.] Re: The Dirty Pictures Library
Message-ID: <9110292250.AA08670@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 29 Oct 91 10:50:39 GMT
From: das@voodoo.boeing.com (Deb Schwartz)
Date: 28 Oct 91 23:35:39 GMT
In article <10189@crackers.clearpoint.com> martillo@clearpoint.com (Martillo) writes:
>I hope this isn't old news but from The Seattle Times, Tuesday, October
>15, 1991, p. B2:
>
[description of National Inquirer type story about 'dirty pictures' on the
University of Washington's computer]
Seattle's other newspaper, The Post-Intelligencer, ran an equally uninformed
sensationalistic story.
In yesterday's (Sunday) edition of the Seattle Times/Post-Intelligencer,
the first, largest letter to the editor was from someone at the University
of Washington. It was an extremely well-written, intelligent letter
explaining what the situation really is: that the pictures were on Usenet,
not a local bulletin board, that Usenet is an extremely valuable tool used
to exchange information and opinions on a world-wide basis, that in order
to even see the dirty pictures, you have to have equipment and software that
can decode and display them, that you have to actively subscribe to the groups
that get them, etc.
Don't know what the end result will be, but at least the truth was finally
published.
--
Debbie Schwartz // das@voodoo.boeing.com // or uw-beaver!bcsaic!voodoo!das
-------------------
From: SNTEF@ALASKA.bitnet (THOMAS FRANK, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR)
Subject: (none)
Message-ID: <199110292328.AA24150@eff.org>
Sender: SNTEF%ALASKA.BITNET@CORNELLC.cit.cornell.edu
Date: 29 Oct 91 05:28:09 GMT
Please remove me from this list
-------------------
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: YAHWEH is good!
Message-ID: <1991Oct30.013128.27768@eff.org>
References: <9B952F3A404018B1@ccmail.sunysb.edu>
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 1991 01:31:28 GMT
SKAPUR@ccmail.sunysb.edu (Sanjay Kapur) writes:
[...]
>Campus mail systems are NOT public forums of any sort.
Campus mail systems (and other school facilities) can be limited public
forums. From the ACLU Handbook _The Rights of _Teachers_:
---start quote-
[Question] Does a policy of school authorities that denies use of
school facilities by teacher organizations dedicated to organizing
school employees for collective bargaining but permits use of
facilities by other teacher organizations violates the free-speech
clause of the First Amendment?
[Answer] Yes. A Missouri federal district court held that a university
policy which allowed use of university facilities, including campus
mail and campus meeting rooms, by the AAUP but not be groups, such as
the NEA affiliate on campus, deemed to be labor organizations or which
has as their goal the organization of university employees for
collective bargaining, violated the free-speech clause of the First
Amendment in addition to the equal protection clause of the 15th
Amendment.{254} However, if school authorities do not permit other
teacher organizations to use school facilities, then, because schools
are not considered [traditional -cmk] public forums,{255} school
officials could constitutionally deny use of such facilities to a
teacher' union.{256} If school authorities open up school facilities
such as classrooms or auditorium to one teacher's group to such a
degree that they can be considered public forums, the school
authorities then have to open them up on the same terms to any
teacher's group that request use of the facilities, because the First
Amendment prohibits government officials from favoring one speaker
over another.{257}
{254} University of Missouri v. Dalton, 456 F.Supp 985 (W.D. Mo. 1978)
{255} Connecticut State Federation of Teachers v. Board of Education
Members, 538 F.2d 471, 478 (2d Cir. 1976)
{256} Perry Educational Association v. Perry Local Educators's Association,
-------U.S.-------,-----,103 S. Ct. 948, 955-57 (1983) [...]
{257} [Perry v. Perry]
----end quote----------
Perry v. Perry was about an interschool mail system. It was one of the
cases that defined the Public Forum Doctrine. In the decision, the
mail system was found not to be a traditional public forum; rather it
was found to be what we've been calling a limited public forum. To
quote the recent _Rust v. Sullivan_ decision:
'Government-owned property, does not justify the restriction of speech
in areas that [...] have been "expressly dedicated to speech
activity." Kokinda, supra, 110 S. Ct., at 3119; Perry Education Assn.
v. Perry Local Educators' Assn., 460 U. S. 37, 45 (1983).''
[...]
>This may sound cynical: Can it ever be a truly public forum when the
>system administrator is paid by the state?
Legally, yes.
>This is the main reason I strongly support the concept of facilities
>like OCF at Berkeley where state control is minimal.
[...]
I think you are right that financial independence means fewer
headaches, but financial dependence is not a license to censor. (By
way of analogy, if professors were financially independent of the
university they would not need to worry about their academic freedom
so much, but their financially dependence doesn't mean that their
academic freedom can be ignored.
- 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: k080093@hobbes.kzoo.edu (Josh N. Vander Berg)
Subject: Re: Dave (The Stud) Duke likes Republicans!
Message-ID: <9110300213.AA12023@hobbes.kzoo.edu>
Sender: k080093@hobbes.kzoo.edu
References: <1991Oct29.085819.7999@agora.uucp>
Date: 30 Oct 91 02:13:00 GMT
I have no idea how to get off of this list, but PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE get me
off...
Thanks,
Josh Vander Berg
-------------------
From: rmtodd@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu (Richard Michael Todd)
Subject: Re: USENET censorship strikes University of Washington!
Message-ID: <1991Oct30.021407.22743@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu>
Date: 30 Oct 91 02:14:07 GMT
References: <1991Oct27.233800.7842@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu> <1991Oct28.003732.18070@wpi.WPI.EDU> <1991Oct28.171510.21293@ms.uky.edu>
morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
>entropy@wintermute.WPI.EDU (Lawrence C. Foard) writes:
>>This maybe a bit off the topic, but has it ever passed through there minds
>>that they could buy a cheap workstation to put news on? Around $5000 or less
>>should get you a 486 with loads of memory (16-32 megs), BSD unix, and 1gig or
>>more of disk space.
Yes, it has passed through their mind that one can buy a cheap workstation
and make use of its disk space over the network. In fact, that will probably
be the long-term solution to the disk space problems here. And yes,
I'm well aware that one can set up a pretty nice news-handling system for
a few thousand bucks; in fact, that's one of the main reasons I bought a
MacIIx for home use a couple years back. However, as Wes Morgan says,
>Yes, it should. Now, go convince the purseholders that they should give
>you $5000 to fund a system whose sole purpose (news) is tangenital to the
>mission of your facility (in my case, supporting an engineering college).
Things are pretty similar here. There simply ain't no way a machine whose
sole purpose is news is going to fly here, even if it is only $5000. At
best, there'll be fileservers which will relieve the general space crunch,
and allow some of the existing disk space on uokmax to go to news. News
just isn't that critical to the mission of the Engineering Computer
Network, or at least it isn't seen as such. (*I* think Usenet is fairly
important; as I mentioned, I own my own Usenet node, and paid a goodly sum
for it. Alas, the powers-that-be at the University don't share this view.
For that matter, I'd suspect the majority of the student users don't share
this view, either. There are 2416 currently active accounts on this
system; according to arbitron, 78 of them are newsreaders. Yes, 78. If
one put to a vote of the user population whether $5000 should be spent on
buying a news server as opposed to, say, putting 3 more Mac SE/30s in the
public labs or buying another laser printer, I suspect news would lose by
an overwhelming margin.)
>Ah, but *do they want it*? On many systems, news was just "added" on an
>ad hoc basis; the disk space was just sitting there, the networking support
>was already there, and the news software is free. Can you really imagine,
Exactly. At least at this place, and I gather at most Universities, Usenet
was never something that was officially requested; it just sorta appeared.
And the amount of disk space that is "just sitting there" is rarely the
600M our friend in Denmark feels ideal for /usr/spool/news. Here, we've
got 100M, and thus we can't really spare the space to keep everything as
long as one would like. Alt.sex.pictures is on 1 day expire, compared to
2-3 days for most other groups. Is this "censorship"? Depends on what you
call censorship. There's currently ~4M of gifs in alt.sex.pictures; that's
about the same space as is taken up by the *entire* soc. heirarchy. Taking
up as much space as is taken up by an entire heirarchy is not what I'd call
censored. The other alt.sex groups do *not* get special treatment in the
explist file, they get expired the same as other newsgroups.
As an aside, much is made in this newsgroup of the analogy between a
library subscribing to Playboy and a Usenet site subscribing to
alt.sex.pictures. Fortunately for those libraries, Playboy takes up about
the same amount of shelf space as any other magazine. If Playboy was as
much bigger than a "standard" magazine as alt.sex.pictures is compared to
most newsgroups, we'd have librarians trying to put 3-foot-thick copies of
Playboy on the shelf, and I suspect the enthusiasm for keeping lots of back
issues would fade rapidly. IMHO, treating alt.sex.pictures differently
>from other newsgroups vis-a-vis expire time is not a matter of censorship;
it's a matter of survival. Now, giving "alt.sex" special treatment, that
would be censorship, IMHO.
And as for the guy who believes that CS departments should be promoting
more use of computer communication: Maybe this is true in an ideal world,
but not here. The CS people here don't have *any* Unix workstations.
None. Nada. Zero. The aerospace/mechanical engr people have their own
workstations, and so do the EE guys, but the CS people seem to be far
behind. Fortunately, I'm an EE student :-). First convince them to
buy some workstations, and *then* maybe we can have the CS people promoting
electronic communications for all...
Disclaimer: I'm a student here. These are my opinions, not OU's.
--
Richard Todd rmtodd@chinet.chi.il.us or rmtodd@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu
-------------------
From: russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto)
Subject: Re: I Move the Previous Question
Message-ID: <1991Oct30.050017.8234@eng.umd.edu>
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 91 05:00:17 GMT
References: <9C2BD44A804018B1@ccmail.sunysb.edu>
In article <9C2BD44A804018B1@ccmail.sunysb.edu> Sanjay Kapur writes:
>>>
>>So what's the point? Why did you put a draft togethor, why are you
>>asking for comments, and what will happen to this document? I'd be
>>willing to act as chair of a deliberative review, but only after
>>we're told what the Statement is going to be used for.
>
>It seems quite obvious what the purpose of such a statement would be:
>
>It will be used as a club to bash system administrators.
>
> 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
System Administrator: n. 1) One who wishes to exercise arbitrary and
capricious absolute power over the system he controls, but be able to point
to anonymous and/or unavailable 'higher ups' when he makes or implements an
unpopular decision, or when his users challenge his actions.
2) A bureaucrat in charge of a computer system
--
Matthew T. Russotto russotto@eng.umd.edu russotto@wam.umd.edu
.sig continuing construction after a brief lull due to budget cuts
Just say NO to police searches and seizures. Make them use force.
(not responsible for bodily harm resulting from following above advice)
--------------------
--
| 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 comp-academic-freedom-talk Wed Oct 30 11:16:20 1991
Reply-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk
From: comp-academic-freedom-talk
Precedence: bulk
To: comp-academic-freedom-talk
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 1991 10:41:59 -0500
X-Digest-Sender: "William W. Arnold"
Subject: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Status: RO
Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Wed Oct 30 10:40:44 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
- Billy ]
In this issue:
trifid@agora.uucp : Re: Dave (The Stud) Duke likes Republicans!
trifid@agora.uucp : Re: Repr. Sullivan wants to fire prof. Hill because of pol
art@world.std.com : Re: The Hollywood Political Entourage and the FCC (was Dav
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: Draft Statement on Computers and Academic Freedom (CA
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: Draft Statement on Computers and Academic Freedom (CA
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: YAHWEH is good!
nbc2134@dsacg2.dsa : Re: I Move the Previous Question
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: I Move the Previous Question
cromar@math.rutger : Re: The Hollywood Political Entourage and the FCC
kadie@eff.org (Car : Updated README file for CAF law subarchive
jmc@SAIL.Stanford. : Re: Dave (The Stud) Duke likes Republicans!
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: Electronic session logging at the University of Penns
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: trifid@agora.uucp (Roadster Racewerks)
Subject: Re: Dave (The Stud) Duke likes Republicans!
Message-ID: <1991Oct29.085819.7999@agora.uucp>
References: <+qad!h_@lynx.unm.edu>
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1991 08:58:19 GMT
I don't know, Tom... why does Duke "have to be a Republican"? Seems to me if
enough of us sent nasty notes to our party's committee to re-elect, and screamed
bloody murder about this, they just might find *some* way to get the word
"Republican" removed from Duke's slot on the ballot somehow...
How about it folks? If you are a Republican, send mail and demand Duke be kicked
so far out of the party his KKK cronies have to take him back!
Suze
-------------------
From: trifid@agora.uucp (Roadster Racewerks)
Subject: Re: Repr. Sullivan wants to fire prof. Hill because of political opinions
Message-ID: <1991Oct29.090819.8140@agora.uucp>
Keywords: Republican, embarrassing!
References: <1991Oct23.202225.27745@engage.pko.dec.com> <1991Oct25.204640.3053@agora.uucp> <1991Oct27.232447.18358@panix.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1991 09:08:19 GMT
In article <1991Oct27.232447.18358@panix.com> tbetz@panix.com (Tom Betz) writes:
>trifid@agora.uucp (Roadster Racewerks) writes:
>|
>|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?
>
>Do what so many others did in 1976 when Nixon embarassed them;
>join the Libertarian Party.
>
>--
>Tom Betz -- 114 Woodworth Avenue - Yonkers, NY 10701-2509 -- (914) 375-1510
> tbetz@panix.com | marob!upaya!tbetz@phri.nyu.edu | upaya!tbetz@panix.com
> ---------
>"I wouldn't say it if I didn't know it wasn't true." -- Emmanuel Transmission
I'm sorry, I don't know what your local branch of the Libertarian Party is like,
but ours is so full of nuts it looks like a jar of Skippy's.... I can't vote
for about 90% of these people. And the other 10% don't stand a chance because
the first 90% drive the voters away.
Suze
-------------------
From: art@world.std.com (Al Thompson)
Subject: Re: The Hollywood Political Entourage and the FCC (was Dave the Stud)
In-Reply-To: nwickham@triton.unm.edu's message of 29 Oct 91 17:25:49 GMT
Message-ID:
Sender: art@world.std.com (Al Thompson)
References: <1991Oct29.031920.12468@milton.u.washington.edu>
<1!fdwal@lynx.unm.edu>
<6pfdrm=@lynx.unm.edu>
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1991 19:12:03 GMT
In article <6pfdrm=@lynx.unm.edu> nwickham@triton.unm.edu (Neal C. Wickham) writes:
In article art@world.std.com (Al Thompson) writes:
>How do you deregulate a government agency?
>
> (You don't hear this on TV either.)
>
>Funny I saw it reported and discussed at some length on TV and in the
>print media.
Oh yeah? ...then maybe you can give us some specifics on exactly what was
deregulated and what effect it has had on the news and politics.
The fairness doctrine. I had notice it had any effect of politics or the
news. Both were pretty bad for openers. BTW I still don't know how you
deregualte a government agency.
>Where does this idea that politics are dirtier now than before? In 1960
>JFK insisted on the reality of a "missile gap" even when told by the
>government that no such gap existed. As soon as he was elected we heard
>not another word on the topic. LBJ ran that commercial of that adorable
>little girl picking daisies and then vanishing in a mushroom cloud. In
>1864 McClellan's campaign reffered to Lincoln as an "ape". Do some
>research. Go to the library dig out some newspapers from the nineteenth
>century. Next read up on twentieth century politics in Chicago and New
>York. Then, let us know how much dirtier politics are today.
Come on Al. If you are going to dispute basic well accepted facts, what
is even the point of me discussing anything with you.
The trouble with "well accepted facts" is that they are often wrong.
Politics has always been a dirty business. Instead of relying on "well
accepted facts" why don't you check up on some of the things I suggested.
> Of course
>"dirty politics" is always the cry of the loser.
Is this why you conservatives are having the "leak" witch hunt?
Witch hunt? For a law breaker? Besides, the instigator of search for
the criminal was Sen. George Mitchell, hardly a conservative.
>You would prefer the government to control the information flow?
No... I want honorable meritorious Hollywood types like Frank Sinatra
who have proven thier ethical behavior in respectable appointments such
as Head of the Nevada Gaming Commission.
Is this the same Sinatra who was JFK's good buddy?
And the government didn't control the flow before. You do not understand
what the deregulation of the FCC did.
Just what did it do?
>I assume you don't get cable TV. Cable has broken the network monopoly
>once and for all.
You miss the point and don't understand what I am getting at. You, again,
do not know what was deregulated and what has changed. And in the specific
case of news, we still only have ABC, CBS, NBC, and the new one of CNN.
We have a little bit from the Christian Science Monitor and from things
like the 700 club. The number of TV news sources is not what has changed
dramatically. It is something else.
We have CSPAN, we have dozens of local access channels and we have Court
TV. Just what has changed about TV news other than more talking heads
who are hired for what's on their heads rather than what is in their
heads?
-------------------
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Draft Statement on Computers and Academic Freedom (CAF)
Message-ID: <1991Oct29.193843.15406@eff.org>
References: <1991Oct28.185302.29101@eff.org> <1991Oct28.205404.2462@ms.uky.edu> <1991Oct29.135647.3152@eff.org> <1991Oct29.160350.8232@ms.uky.edu>
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1991 19:38:43 GMT
morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
>I agree completely that these people do not NEED to get involved.
>In this litigation-happy world, however, they may be FORCED to
>get involved. Subpoenas are difficult to ignore. Did the University
>of Missouri "get involved in" the Craig Neidorf case? (I don't know
>if they did or not; I'm just asking)
I think subpoena are covered.
draft> III. Privacy
draft> Principle: Personal files on university's computers (for example,
draft> files in a user's home directory) should have the same privacy
draft> protection as personal files in university-assigned space in an
draft> office, lab, or dormitory (for example, files in a graduate student's
draft> desk). Private communications via computer should have the same
draft> protections as private communications via telephone.
Your campus code certainly has rules for subponea. If not,
here is the Joint Statment:
---start quote--
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,
---end quote--
>As I've said in every posting on this thread, I'm not suggesting that
>these things will happen, or even that they should happen. I just think
>that we should recognize that, in this imperfect network world, these
>are potential problems that we should address.
I think the CAF Statement will be better if it is concise and refering
to a larger body of policy and law.
- 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: Draft Statement on Computers and Academic Freedom (CAF)
Message-ID: <1991Oct29.194237.15771@eff.org>
References: <1991Oct26.210722.29271@eff.org> <1991Oct29.151912.5910@eff.org> <1991Oct29.163743.15765@ms.uky.edu>
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1991 19:42:37 GMT
>In article <1991Oct29.151912.5910@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl M.
Kadie) writes:
>>Here is a possible interpretation for confidentiality:
>>
>>Interpretation: 'The ethical responsibilities of [sys admins] ...
>>protect the privacy of [computer] users. Confidentiality extends to
>>"information sought or received, and materials consulted, borrowed or
>>acquired"... .'
morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
>This may be difficult to implement. Certain types of information may, by
>default, require public dissemination. For instance, if a system
>provides database services via NFS to an individual's workstation, the
>fact that he is using a particular database is available to all users
>(via perusal of the mount tables or the /etc/exports file). This infor-
>mation *must* be publicly accessible; this is a requirement of
>the NFS software.
I think Wes has found a flaw in the library policy. Taken literally it
would require librarians to put your book in a plain-brown wrapper so
that no one could see what you borrowed.
Can anyone suggest a more reasonble (or constrained) confidentialy
policy?
--
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: <1991Oct29.201912.16888@eff.org>
References: <6FEFACD4E04018B1@ccmail.sunysb.edu>
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1991 20:19:12 GMT
SKAPUR@ccmail.sunysb.edu (Sanjay Kapur) writes:
[...]
>Carl, it YOUR presumption that Computers at a public University when owned by
>the University and run by professional staff can have public forums on them.
This is true, as the Draft said:
draft> Principle: The principles of academic freedom applicable to student
draft> faculty publication in traditional media, apply to student and
draft> faculty publication in computer media.
So you are asserting that University *can't* run the hardware for a
public forum? Do you think those high school students in San Diego
[ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/law/san-diego-committee-v-gov-bd] owned and
ran their printing press? To you think campus mail systems are run by
the students and faculty.
>It is a bit like asking the University public relations/publications
>office to run your student paper press.
No university office is obliged to run the hardware for student
publications. A university may however choice to provide hardware for
a public (or limited public) 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.
-------------------
From: nbc2134@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil (Robert F Solon)
Subject: Re: I Move the Previous Question
Message-ID: <9110292030.AA27450@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil>
Sender: nbc2134@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil
References: <1991Oct29.191922.14652@eff.org>
Date: 29 Oct 91 19:30:25 GMT
[Call for formal deliberative review deleted]
Carl Kadie writes:
>
> No plans have been made for creation or promulgation.
>
> Anyone interested in organizing the effort should maybe post a
> statement of interest. Lurkers welcome.
>
> - Carl
>
>
So what's the point? Why did you put a draft togethor, why are you
asking for comments, and what will happen to this document? I'd be
willing to act as chair of a deliberative review, but only after
we're told what the Statement is going to be used for.
Bob
-------------------
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: I Move the Previous Question
Message-ID: <1991Oct29.205315.17917@eff.org>
References: <1991Oct29.191922.14652@eff.org> <9110292030.AA27450@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil>
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1991 20:53:15 GMT
>Carl Kadie writes:
>> No plans have been made for creation or promulgation.
>>
>> Anyone interested in organizing the effort should maybe post a
>> statement of interest. Lurkers welcome.
nbc2134@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil (Robert F Solon) writes:
>So what's the point? Why did you put a draft togethor, why are you
>asking for comments, and what will happen to this document?
I don't mean to suggest that I don't want a policy created or
promugated. I'm just reporting that no plans have been made. It's up
to us to make such plans.
>I'd be
>willing to act as chair of a deliberative review, but only after
>we're told what the Statement is going to be used for.
>Bob
Bob, what is your experience with academic computing? Are you a member
of an academic community (student, faculty, staff, administration,
etc) now?
- 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: cromar@math.rutgers.edu (Scott Cromar)
Subject: Re: The Hollywood Political Entourage and the FCC
Message-ID:
Date: 29 Oct 91 20:15:53 GMT
References: <1991Oct29.031920.12468@milton.u.washington.edu> <1!fdwal@lynx.unm.edu> <6pfdrm=@lynx.unm.edu>
Followup-To: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
nwickham@triton.unm.edu (Neal C. Wickham) writes:
> art@world.std.com (Al Thompson) writes:
> >Where does this idea that politics are dirtier now than before?
(several good specific examples deleted)
> Come on Al. If you are going to dispute basic well accepted facts, what
> is even the point of me discussing anything with you.
Actually, I think that Al is right. I can see no evidence that
campaigning is any dirtier now than it was in the past. If you want
to convince me, you're going to have to back up your assertion with
something concrete, not just an assertion that you're stating a "well
accepted fact."
--
--Scott Cromar SUPPORT CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM
"Are you sure there are no hidden cameras up there?"
--Arizona Rep. Don Kinney, while stuffing $55,000 into a gym bag
-------------------
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Updated README file for CAF law subarchive
Message-ID: <1991Oct29.210145.18387@eff.org>
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1991 21:01:45 GMT
=================
README
-----------------
CAF Law Archive
[part of the Computers and Academic Freedom (CAF) Archive
[part of the Electronic Freedom Foundation (EFF) Archive]]
This is an on-line collection of law related to computers and academic
freedom. It includes both case law and legislation.
The archive is accessible via anonymous ftp and email. Ftp to
ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.3). It is in directory "pub/academic/law".
For email access, send email to archive-server@eff.org. Include the
line:
caf-law
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 or to make contributions, contact Carl Kadie
(kadie@eff.org).
=================
access.minors
-----------------
Comment from the ACLU's Handbook on the _Rights of Authors and
Artists_ (1984). It says that protecting minors was held to be an
inadequate justification for such a severe interference with adults'
First Amendment rights.
=================
brandenberg-v-ohio
-----------------
In e-mail, a correspondent expressed the view that there was no right
to speech that advocated violence. This response is based on U.S. law.
It is a summary of the ACLU's Bill of Rights Briefing Paper #10:
Freedom of Expression. The Supreme Court's standard is that speech may
not be suppressed or punished unless it is intended to produce
'imminent lawless action' and it is 'likely to produce such action.'
=================
constraints.constitutional
-----------------
Comments from _A Practical Guide to Legal Issues Affecting College
Teachers_ by Partrica A. Hollander, D. Parker Young, and Donald D.
Gehring. (College Administration Publication, 1985). Discusses the
constitutional constraints on public univeristies including the
requires for freedom of expression, freedom against unreasonable
searches and seizures, due process, specific rules.
=================
constraints.contractual
-----------------
Comments from _A Practical Guide to Legal Issues Affecting College
Teachers_. Explains that University Code is part of the contract
between the student and school. The University can be liable for a
breach of the contract (i.e. for not following its own rules).
=================
doe-v-u-of-michigan
-----------------
This is Doe v. Univesity of Michigan. In this widely referenced
decision, the district judge down struck the University's rules
against discrimatory harassment because the rules were found to be too
broad and too vague.
=================
ecpa.1986
-----------------
Portions of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 (ECPA) related
to e-mail privacy.
=================
gillard-v-schmidt
-----------------
Description of an appellate court ruling that the school board could
not search the desk of a school counselor without a warrant.
=================
goss
-----------------
Comments from _Teacher's and the Law_, 3rd edition, by Louis Fischer,
et al. Published in 1991 by Longman. It reports that the Supreme
Court says that some modicum of due process is necessary unless
the matter is trivial or there is an emergency.
=================
meritor-v-vinson
-----------------
This is Meritor Savings Bank FSB v. Vinson. This is the Supreme Court
decision that recognized illegal sexual harassment in the form of a
"hostile environment" at the work place. It is referenced in the two
university speech code decisions.
=================
privacy.email
-----------------
"Computer Electronic Mail and Privacy", an edited version of a law
school seminar paper by Ruel T. Hernadex
=================
privacy.workplace
-----------------
Comments from and about _The new hazards of the high technology
workplace_ see (1991) 104 _Harvard Law Review_ 1898. Talks about email
and other electronic monitoring.
=================
rust-v-sullivan
-----------------
The decision and decent for the so-called abortion information gag
rule case. The decision explictly mentions universities as a place
where free expression is so important that gag rules would not be
allowed.
=================
san-diego-committee-v-gov-bd
-----------------
Excerpts from San Diego Committee v. Governing Bd., 790 F.2d 1471
(1986). A decision by an appellate court that applied the Supreme
Court's Public Forum Doctrine.
=================
stanley-v-magrath
-----------------
Comments from _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. It says, in part, "[a]lthough school
boards are not obligated to support student papers, if a given
publication was originally created as a free speech forum, removal of
financial or other school board support can be construed as an
unlawful effort to stifle free expression."
=================
student-publications.control
-----------------
Comments from _School Law: Teachers' and Students' Rights_ by Martha
M. McCarthy and Nelda H. Cambron-McCabe. It says, in part, "school
authorities cannot withdraw support from a student publication simply
because of displeasure with the content" and "the content of a
school-sponsored paper that is established as a medium for student
expression cannot be regulated more closely than a nonsponsored
paper".
=================
student-publications.libel
-----------------
McCarthy and Nelda Cambron-McCabe on what to do about libel in student
publications.
=================
student-publications.sharp
-----------------
A paraphrase from an ACLU handbook _The Rights of Teachers_. It says
that generally, speech, if otherwise shielded from punishment by the
First Amendment, does not lose that protection because its tone is
sharp.
=================
uwm-post-v-u-of-wisconsin
-----------------
The full text of UWM POST v. U. of Wisconsin. This recent district
court ruling goes into detail about the difference betwen protected
offensive expression and illegal harassment. It even mentions email.
=================
=================
Last update
Tue Oct 29 15:40:31 EST 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: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: Dave (The Stud) Duke likes Republicans!
In-Reply-To: lcarp@casbah.acns.nwu.edu's message of 28 Oct 1991 14:58:42 GMT
Message-ID:
Sender: news@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU
References: <+qad!h_@lynx.unm.edu>
<1991Oct28.145842.10094@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
Date: 29 Oct 91 12:55:20
In article <1991Oct28.145842.10094@casbah.acns.nwu.edu> lcarp@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Lee Carpenter) writes:
In article ts2a+@andrew.cmu.edu (Thomas Omar Smith) writes:
[omission]
>
>The only bright spot is that his hopes of achieving anything outside of
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Louisianna are nil.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Is that so? With the festering racism that is suddenly rearing its ugly head
all over this country, I wouldn't consider a Duke for President bid altogether
hopeless. If he makes it to the convention, I wouldn't bet that he gets the
nomination, but he could, very well, make an indelible mark on the Republican
Party.
Lee Carpenter
lcarp@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
The above opinions are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of
Northwestern University, Harvard Community Unit School District 50, or anybody
else for that matter.
What are the forms that this festering racism takes? Why do you
think Duke might be attractive to Republicans? What forms of racism
do you think might be attractive to Republicans?
--
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: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Electronic session logging at the University of Pennsylvania
Message-ID: <1991Oct29.211738.19125@eff.org>
References: <54609@netnews.upenn.edu> <1991Oct29.134931.2706@eff.org>
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1991 21:17:38 GMT
kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>Here is the US Constitu[t]ion (which applies to public universities):
>"The right of the people to be secure in
>their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable
>searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall
>issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and
>particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons
>or things to be seized."
I was asked via email for supporting references.
================================================================
From _A Practical Guide to Legal Issues Affecting College Teachers_ by
Partrica A. Hollander, D. Parker Young, and Donald D. Gehring.
(College Administration Publication, 1985).
[Freedom of Expression]
"The institution has a right, on the other hand, to reasonably
regulate this expression as to time, place, and manner of expression
so as to prevent disruption of the educationally process or
interference with the rights of others, and prevent placing persons or
property in danger."
"Student newspapers at public institutions generally cannot be
censored prior to publication. Student editors usually are permitted
to publish and take the risk of allegations of libel or obscenity.
The student press at public institutions is subject to restrictions
only where college official can 'reasonable forecast substantial
disruption of material interference' with educational activities, or
that the material is clearly libelous or obscene."
[Freedom Against Unreasonable Searches and Seizures]
"Teachers and administrators at public institutions generally are
considered to be public officials, so, in most instances, they should
search only with a warrant. Under emergency conditions, a search
without a warrant possibly would be permitted."
[Due Process]
"The Fourteenth Amendment requires due process before a governmental
entity, such as a public institution, may deprive one of life,
liberty, or property. In a college setting, a student's good name and
reputation arm considered a 'liberty' right, and a student's right to
attend college is considered a 'property' right. Due process would be
required before a student is deprived of either at a public
institution."
"Substantive processes requires, essentially, that policies and rules
must be related to the basic government purpose at hand that basic
fairness be employed. For instance, college rules should be related to
educational matters and applied fairly. Procedural due process
generally refers to the requirement of notice and hearing before being
deprived of a right. For example, before being expelled for
misconduct, students should have notice of what they have done wrong
and a chance to tell their side of the story."
[Rules]
"[T]he degree of specificity required [in codes of conduct] is that
which would allow a student to adequately prepare a defense against the
charge. Teachers should make plain the prohibited conduct, the
procedure for determining whether a student engaged in such conduct,
and what the penalty is."
================================================================
Gillard v. Schmidt, 579 F.2d 825, 828 (3rd Cir.)
The ACLU Handbook on the Rights of Teachers:
"An anonymous cartoon had appeared in a local newspaper ridiculing the
financial and personnel policies of the Fair Lawn, New Jersey, Board of
Education by depicting the board members a poker players, apparently
gambling away emplyees' salaries and jobs. Suspecting the guidance
counselor as the offending cartoonist, a board member entered the
guidance counselor's school at night, found a janitor with a pass key,
directed him to unlook the door to the guidance counselor's suite, and
observing a slightly opened drawer in the guidance counselor's disk,
pulled it completely open, revealing copies of the cartoon. The court
ruled that this action violated the guidance counselor's Fourth
Amendment rights."
================================================================
From: MCNAB_PD@DARWIN.NTU.EDU.AU (Mark Neely)
Subject: Re: What is a library?
Message-ID: <910919001657.20205765@DARWIN.NTU.EDU.AU>
Sender: MCNAB_PD@DARWIN.NTU.EDU.AU
Date: 19 Sep 91 00:16:57 GMT
Whilst thumbing through the recent offerings of the _Harvard Law Review_ I
stumbled across an interesting note entitled:
_Addressing the new hazards of the high technology workplace_
see (1991) 104 _Harvard Law Review_ 1898
The author of the note looks at three main areas:
"This Note argues that in the absence of legislative solutions,
electronic performance monitoring and electronic mail intercept-
ion are regulated by a system of free market and common law
mechanisms that fails to protect workers from abusive practices.
It then proposes legislation to ensure that new technology in
the workplace enhances rather than degrades the quality of
worklife."
The note discusses various aspect of computerisation in the workplace,
such as computer crime and corporate vulnerability; electronic performance
monitoring; and the practice of monitoring e-mail.
Whilst I was particularly interested in the article because of its
discussion of the recent cases against Epson and Nissan by employees
who had had their e-mail monitored and read, the article is worth reading
for its treatment of the other issues as well.
I want to take some time to quote some material from the note (which is
almost of article length). Unfortunately the authors' name is not
mentioned (though I assume it is one of the _Harvard Law Journal_'s
editors). In any event, the note encompasses a well balanced and
indepth treatment of the aplication of laws in CyberSpace (and the
workplace).
The note is neither too legalistic, nor is it superficial. As such
I would recommend it to anyone who is interested in this area.
NB:- All the typos are mine :)
Mark Neely
Research Student
Northern Territory Univ. Law School
Darwin, NT Australia
------Begin Quotes
Introduction
...
...the advent of computer technology in the workplace has created
new opportunities for abuse for which existing legal catagories have
been inadequate. The new hazards involve computer crime, which arises
>from corporate computer systems' vulnerability to intruders; electronic
performance monitoring, which subjects employees to extensive and some-
times intrusive supervision by their employers; and electronic mail
interception, which exposes employees' electronic mail messages to their
employers' scrutiny. Each of these hazards presents serious public policy
concerns.
...
Computer crime - Corporate Vulnerability
...
Compared with traditional thefts, in which the loss is limited to the
amount a thief can carry off corporate premises, sophisticated computer
crimes have the potential for much greater damage and face a much lower
chance of detection.
...
The legal definitions of "property", "theft", and "damages" were often
too narrow to encompass the new generation of crimes involving computer-
based information.
...
Electronic Performance Monitoring - Supervised Employees
...
Electronic monitoring allows supervisors to monitor continuously, to
monitor everything, and to monitor in secret, none of which is possible
with strictly human observation.
...
Electronic monitoring consists of at least three different practices:
computer-based monitoing, service observation, and telephone call accounting.
...
In a 1987 report to Congress, the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA)
found that electronic monitoring raised serious concerns because it "can
be abused and...has potential for invasions of employee privacy, as well
as assaults on their autonomy, personal dignity, and health."
...
Due to electronic monitoring's detrimental efects on workers, several
critics of the practice have argued that monitoring ultimately will
impose costs on employers in the form of high turnover, low morale,
and rising health care costs attibutable to stress-related disorders.
...
No statutes specficially address workplace electronic monitoring.
...
Under the common law tort of invasions of privacy, "intrusion into
seclusion" has been the one cause of action considered possibly
applicable to the case of electronic monitoring. The tort requires
an intrusion into a private place that would be highly offensive to
a reasonable person.
[Note - The author goes on to say that the public nature of the
workplace would seem to make such a claim laudible. But this is not
so in the case of e-mail monitoring: electronic mail between employees
is something that cannot be seen by other employees (at least, not in
the ordinary course of office affairs), and has - by its very nature -
an air of privacy surrounding it. Such an argument is enhanced by the
fact that an employee must first log onto his account by entering
a username and *password* before being able to read his e-mail.]
...
Some union contracts regualting the use of electronic monitoring
have been negotiated.
...
Electronic Mail - The Ambiguous Status of Electronic Mail
...
Conflict arises mostly because employees' and employers'
expectations of electronic mail differ. Employees often consider
electronic mail to be their private property, as they do their
personal letters. They use it to write private notes to their co-
workers, sometimes about their personal lives or reflecting their
negative opinions of their supervisors. The password requirement of
their electronic mail accounts foster the belief that their mail is
not available for others to read. Employers, by contrast, argue that
electronic mail is a business resource to be used for business
purposes. Electronic mail message become part of the company computer
system and therefore, emplyers assert, are company property. Employers
also claim legitimate business reasons for reading their employees'
electronic mail, including the need to ensure that employees do not
use the system for personal communications.
...
In a 1985 study, OTA observed that "when mail is sent in electronic
form, the existing protections are weak, ambiguous, or non-existent."
OTA noted that legal claims, if any, could arise only from unauthorized
goverment interception of messages or under computer theft laws.
...
In the absence of a statutory directive, workers may invoke the
common law tort of invasion of privacy to contest the interception
of electronic mail messages. Because it pertains to the workplace,
such a claim suffers from the same limitations as it does in the
electronic monitoring context. [See my note above] Even if employees
could succeed in establishing that their messages were private and not
merely their employers' property, they would still need to prove that
their expectations of privacy were reasonable and that their
employers' interceptions were not excused as legitimate business practises.
-----Close quote
If anyone has any information regarding this new area of law, please
feel free to pass it on :)
Mark N.
================
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu, or (anonymous) ap.4352@hri.com
I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
--------------------
--
| 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 comp-academic-freedom-talk Wed Oct 30 11:16:21 1991
Reply-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk
From: comp-academic-freedom-talk
Precedence: bulk
To: comp-academic-freedom-talk
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 1991 10:49:39 -0500
X-Digest-Sender: "William W. Arnold"
Subject: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Status: RO
Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Wed Oct 30 10:48:42 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
- Billy ]
In this issue:
n8810182@henson.cc : Forget UW, let's talk about Western Washington U!
falk@peregrine.Sun : Re: Advice from My Legal Advisors: Dewey, Cheatum & Howe
FFDMG@ALASKA.bitne : Re: Draft Statement on Computers and Academic Freedom (CA
jeff@henson.cc.wwu : Re: Forget UW, let's talk about Western Washington U!
cromar@math.rutger : Success of Containment (was Re: Dave Duke likes Republica
nwickham@triton.un : Re: The Hollywood Political Entourage and the FCC
nwickham@triton.un : Re: The Hollywood Political Entourage and the FCC (was Da
lcarp@casbah.acns. : Re: Dave (The Stud) Duke likes Republicans!
art@world.std.com : Re: Success of Containment (was Re: Dave Duke likes Republ
SKAPUR@ccmail.suny : Re: I Move the Previous Question
art@world.std.com : Re: The Hollywood Political Entourage and the FCC (was Dav
SKAPUR@ccmail.suny : Re: Forget UW, let's talk about Western Washington U!
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: Draft Statement on Computers and Academic Freedom (CA
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: n8810182@henson.cc.wwu.edu (LittleOne)
Subject: Forget UW, let's talk about Western Washington U!
Message-ID: <1991Oct30.040844.8212@henson.cc.wwu.edu>
Date: 30 Oct 91 04:08:44 GMT
Sender: n8810182@henson.cc.wwu.edu (LittleOne)
FOr those of you who do not know.... due to the article in the Seattle
Post-Intelligencer of October 15, 1991, Western Washington University
banned roughly 15 news groups. Among these groups were the entire
alt.sex* heirarchy and most the alt.binary groups. As I understand it
the UW still has at least alt.sex. As some of you may find it amusing,
we still have rec.arts.erotica. *weak smile*
Anyhow, I find it appalling that a university should ban such news groups
simply because a state auditor (from the PI article) got his nose out of
joint due to some, shall we say colorful, newsgroups. I am waiting for
permission to post 2 news articles in our own campus paper, the Western
Front. Until I get this permission, I can say this much... the banner
of the groups, Jerry Boles, Vice Provost of Intformation and
Telecommunications, seems to know little about how USENET works; the
writer of the articles in the Front (our campus newspaper) doesn't seem
to have the WHOLE story; and lastly, the sysadmin of henson doesn't seem
to have the qualifications of restoration of the groups acurate.
To elaborate: Jerry Boles has labeled the alt.sex* newsgroups as
'junk mail' and sees fit to "'throw out' the mail they (the people)
don't want." (The Western Front, October 29, 1991)
The writer for the Front has misquoted people. (Information given to
me by Jeff Wandling, ex WWU news manager who's quote was misquoted)
"If any faculty member feels it necessary to bring these files back
for academic reasons, the files will be brought back, he (Bent Faber,
henson sysadmin) said." (The Western Front, October 22, 1991). On
relable rumour (substanciated off the record by the news manager) a
faculty member from the CS department asked that the news groups be
reinstated. That was last Friday and they have not reappeared, but
according to the quote given by Jerry Boles in the article in The
Western Front of October 29, 1991, "If an instructor requests the
files for academic reasons, the request will be evaluated on equal
ground whether it's an alt.sex group or some other group, he (Jerry
Boles) said." Now which statement is correct? I'm personally going
to be hot on the trail of some psychology prof. ;)
Any suggestions on how to fight this?
--
/) / /~~\ * Vickie Hoover
/ * _/__/_ / _ / ) __ _ * n8810182@henson.cc.wwu.edu
/ / / / / / ) ( /-// ) / ) * 8810182@nessie.cc.wwu.edu
(_____ (_/(_/(_/ /_ (_/_/ \__/ / /_(_/_/ * VickieH@nessie.cc.wwu.edu
-------------------
From: falk@peregrine.Sun.COM (Ed Falk)
Subject: Re: Advice from My Legal Advisors: Dewey, Cheatum & Howe
Message-ID: <22385@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM>
Date: 30 Oct 91 05:47:20 GMT
References: <195962@unix.cis.pitt.edu>
Sender: news@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM
Followup-To: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Distribution: na
In article <195962@unix.cis.pitt.edu> tjw@unix.cis.pitt.edu (TJ Wood WA3VQJ) writes:
>
>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.
What I heard was that people were demanding that Prodigy *stop* censoring
the rebuttals.
-ed falk, sun microsystems
sun!falk, falk@corp.sun.com
card-carrying ACLU member.
-------------------
From: FFDMG@ALASKA.bitnet (Dean Gottehrer)
Subject: Re: Draft Statement on Computers and Academic Freedom (CAF)
Message-ID: <199110300740.AA12030@eff.org>
Sender: FFDMG%ALASKA.BITNET@CORNELLC.cit.cornell.edu
Date: 29 Oct 91 13:40:35 GMT
Personally I like the library brand of confidentiality. Circulation records
are confidential. No one is entitled to know what books I borrow. Similarly,
no one should know what newsgroups I read, what information I retrieve, etc.
That said, if there are places where a record of my use must be made public as
a condition of using the software or the database or whatever, the model I
would use to deal with that is one used in gathering information for the
government. Put a notice on it. Tell the user that a record is being made of
the user's use and that record will be public. Tell the user in advance of
the use and then the user can decide whether or not to go ahead and use under
those conditions. To be safe, you probably want a signed acknowledgement from
the user of the conditions of the use. Also tell the user that those who do
not agree with the policy in adance will not be able to use the software or
database.
As for what to do with the computers and academic freedom document developed
on CAF, I suggest that we pass it along to the folks at the American
Association of University Professors and ask them to consider adopting a
policy that will speak to computers and academic freedom. They are the
authors of the Joint Statement and they have been the guardians of academic
freedom at American universities for more than a few decades. A statement by
them would also carry more punch than anything we could figure out how to
adopt through this group. The difference is that they have a procedure to
censure universities that violate academic freedom. Rather than attempt to
come to any decision where a vote is taken, I would urge Carl to keep the
draft and the notes posted in response to it until we finish this thread
(assuming that we ever will) and pass all of that along to the AAUP people for
their benefit in drafting a policy the AAUP could adopt.
Best,
Dean Gottehrer
Anchorage, Alaska
-------------------
From: jeff@henson.cc.wwu.edu (Jeff Wandling)
Subject: Re: Forget UW, let's talk about Western Washington U!
Message-ID: <1991Oct30.081419.20125@henson.cc.wwu.edu>
Date: 30 Oct 91 08:14:19 GMT
References: <1991Oct30.040844.8212@henson.cc.wwu.edu>
Distribution: usa
There is a plain and simple truth that has not yet been realized by the
people in the Computer Center and by Mr. Jerry Boles.
They talk about how the groups would be re-installed if there was
a request submitted by the faculty. This is complete bullshit.
The fact that we even have USENET to begin with is because the faculty
of the Computer Science (among other departments) wanted it. It's already
been requested and approved. It's mere existance... (err past tense) It's
existance was made possible by the faculty. They got all the feeds they
asked for and NOTHING we get is unsolicited. We REQUEST in very specific
detail what groups we do not want.
Since it can be proven that the status of the USENET system (with all the
*naughty* groups included) was already requested by the Computer Science
department (among others), why do we have to go through this bullshit again?
Why do we have to be second guessed and request AGAIN to get the news feed
that we already had by request of the before mentioned faculty.
Talk about "the dog chasing it's tail." This is ridiculous!
The Computer Center spent more money on paper and laser printing (remember,
it's 10 whole cents per page now) with their whiney memos regarding this
fiasco than it cost to keep alt.sex.* and the binaries groups on disk.
We can blow over 250 thousand dollars on a fiber optic network but they bitch
and moan about some silly groups that makes their pulse a little quicker.
The Computer Center has no right to go back on it's pledge to provide
USENET service. The groups existed before we even got a single USENET
feed and the groups were requested by the faculty when the feed was
first installed.
If you (the Computer Center employee) can't figure this out then clean out
your desk. You're in the wrong line of work.
-jeff
--
---
Jeff Wandling
disclaimer: "I don't disclaim nuthin!"- me quote: "Ooh, you're an icky
student-thing! No wonder you keep such funny hours! :-)" -bill trost
-------------------
From: cromar@math.rutgers.edu (Scott Cromar)
Subject: Success of Containment (was Re: Dave Duke likes Republicans!)
Message-ID:
Date: 30 Oct 91 09:26:09 GMT
References: <5=cd1-k@lynx.unm.edu> <-rcdyyn@lynx.unm.edu>
Followup-To: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
art@world.std.com (Al Thompson) writes:
> nwickham@triton.unm.edu (Neal C. Wickham) writes:
> liberals argued that communism would fail by
> its own short-comings.
> Funny I don't remember any liberals saying any such thing.
Containment was a policy objective supported by almost every major
politician on both sides of the aisle. The fundamental idea behind
the containment philosophy was that the Communist empire would
eventually fail of internal contradictions if it was prevented from
expanding.
As far as I can see, the real argument between the mainstream left and
the mainstream right was how much pressure should be applied in
addition to simple containment. Liberals tended to support the idea
that containment was sufficient; conservatives generally believed that
additional pressure should be applied. Now, the argument is over
whether the Reagan/Carter defense buildup applied pressure on the
Communists in a way that accelerated or decelerated the collapse of
the Soviet empire.
(btw, I know that it's not patriotically correct to remember that
Carter started the arms buildup, but history is history. Carter's
"missile gap" rhetoric was a major factor in his victory over Ford.)
--
--Scott Cromar SUPPORT CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM
"Are you sure there are no hidden cameras up there?"
--Arizona Rep. Don Kinney, while stuffing $55,000 into a gym bag
-------------------
From: nwickham@triton.unm.edu (Neal C. Wickham)
Subject: Re: The Hollywood Political Entourage and the FCC
Message-ID:
Date: 30 Oct 91 09:31:19 GMT
Article-I.D.: lynx.gagdtsg
References: <6pfdrm=@lynx.unm.edu>
In article cromar@math.rutgers.edu (Scott Cromar) writes:
>Actually, I think that Al is right. I can see no evidence that
>campaigning is any dirtier now than it was in the past. If you want
>to convince me, you're going to have to back up your assertion with
>something concrete, not just an assertion that you're stating a "well
>accepted fact."
OK... pollsters have stated that the reason most often given of why people
do not register to vote is because politics have become so negative.
Voter turnout is at an all time low and is getting lower.
And I have seen it. I am 34 years old. I was 24 when Reagan got in and
was 19 or 20 when Carter got in. I saw Ford once at Vail when I was 18.
I can remember the Johnson vs Goldwater campaign.
NCW
-------------------
From: nwickham@triton.unm.edu (Neal C. Wickham)
Subject: Re: The Hollywood Political Entourage and the FCC (was Dave the Stud)
Message-ID:
Date: 30 Oct 91 10:45:34 GMT
Article-I.D.: lynx.dcgd#dr
References: <6pfdrm=@lynx.unm.edu>
In article art@world.std.com (Al Thompson) writes:
>The fairness doctrine. I had notice it had any effect of politics or the
>news. Both were pretty bad for openers. BTW I still don't know how you
>deregualte a government agency.
No... sorry. ...Bzzzzt, wrong answer, the fairness doctrine had nothing to
do with Reagan deregulating the FCC. It was around several years before
that big tall rancher got in there.
> No... I want honorable meritorious Hollywood types like Frank Sinatra
> who have proven thier ethical behavior in respectable appointments such
> as Head of the Nevada Gaming Commission.
>
>Is this the same Sinatra who was JFK's good buddy?
Frank may have been a JFK friend. I don't know. But he is one of Reagan's
*closest* friends and visited the big tall rancher on a regular basis. He
also gained much power and got his appointment as Head of the Nevada
Gaming Commission just after Reagan was swept in.
> And the government didn't control the flow before. You do not understand
> what the deregulation of the FCC did.
>
>Just what did it do?
I didn't think you were ever going to ask Al...
#1
He deregulated network profits making them unlimmited. This made TV the
pawn of big business and provided incentives for contol of the industry.
The original regulation of profits was to prevent any monopolies from
forming in such a socially and politically important business. I can't
see where we have any monopolies forming, what we do see is much more
emphasis on "sensationalism". TV has thrown off all responsibility to
the public and exploits TV sex and TV violence in its mad scramble for
profit. We also have the full time commercial where entire programs are
made explicity to sell things. The exploitation of children has been
especially ruthless in cartoons such as Master's of the Universe which
are in reality long commercial for the program's toys and are full of
subliminal content which prays on anything which might sell.
#2
He deregulated the number and length of comercials which could be run
during any given program. This is what really gave rise to cable TV
and independent TV stations. It is also what made Ted Turner and CNN.
This, with other deregulations, put a premium on the "entertainment
value" of news which the big tall rancher fully exploited. He was after
all a professional actor with a Hollywood entourage. They knew that
they could best manipulate the american people if they first "got rid
of" any resoponsibility in the FCC and the deregulations did just that.
They removed or modified regulations which were put in place to avoid
such manipulation.
#3
He removed some of the requirements that stations freely broadcast
programing "in the public interest". I'm not sure about specifics,
but the reasoning has always been that if business was to use the
public airwaves, the FCC was going to require them to do things in
the public interest. Much of that is still in place and that is why
we have the Emergency Broadcast System and other such things. But
he made some changes which put much more emphasis on profits especially
for newscasts and news specials. This in turn put the emphasis in
TV reporting on sensationalism and also made news the pawns of their
advertisers and therefore business and the Hollywood power establish-
ment.
So we don't really have news as news anymore... not on TV. We have
sensational entertainment controlled by a power establishment and by
the entertainment value of politicians and thier entourage. And my
guess is that the power establishment and the entourages of the last
two presidents have many of the same players. All that liberal press
dogma was cooked up by the Reagan Hollywood entourage. No one had
heard of the liberal press unitl the Hollywood entourage took over.
NCW
-------------------
From: lcarp@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Lee Carpenter)
Subject: Re: Dave (The Stud) Duke likes Republicans!
Message-ID: <1991Oct29.214224.10346@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
Date: 29 Oct 91 21:42:24 GMT
References: <1991Oct28.145842.10094@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
Sender:lcarp@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
In article jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:
>In article <1991Oct28.145842.10094@casbah.acns.nwu.edu> lcarp@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Lee Carpenter) writes:
>
> In article ts2a+@andrew.cmu.edu (Thomas Omar Smith) writes:
> [omission]
> >
> >The only bright spot is that his hopes of achieving anything outside of
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >Louisianna are nil.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> Is that so? With the festering racism that is suddenly rearing its ugly head
> all over this country, I wouldn't consider a Duke for President bid altogether
> hopeless. If he makes it to the convention, I wouldn't bet that he gets the
> nomination, but he could, very well, make an indelible mark on the Republican
> Party.
>
> Lee Carpenter
> lcarp@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
> The above opinions are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of
> Northwestern University, Harvard Community Unit School District 50, or anybody
> else for that matter.
>
>What are the forms that this festering racism takes? Why do you
>think Duke might be attractive to Republicans? What forms of racism
>do you think might be attractive to Republicans?
>
Well, we have:
1. Willie Horton ad.
2. The prevailing wisdom among small-town, redneck Republicans (trust me, I
live with them) is that minorities are stealing jobs.
3. This in mind, there was an attack against migrant Hispanic workers in my
hometown. It has become increasingly acceptable for people to bash
minorities.
4. The recent increase of KKK activity.
5. The fact that fully one third of Duke's supporters would still support him
even if he was openly racist.
These are only a few of the ways racism has shown itself. I don't think that
Duke is attractive to most Republicans. The problem is that he has a knack
for getting otherwise apathetic people to come out & vote for him. He also
has a knack for getting people to forgive him for the "indecretions of his
youth". This could get Duke to the convention in '96 (or maybe '92, but I
*really* doubt it).
The forms racism is attractive: job discrimination (I don't
want any nigger workin' here); housing discrimination (once those niggers
start movin' in, the neighborhood goes to hell), etc.
Please understand that I am not referring to *all* Republicans here. The
majority of Republicans are good people (I've even supported a few for
President), but there is, and if you don't believe me come out to my house &
I'll show you, an attitude that minorities are ruining the country.
I should also say that most people I know agree with George Bush that Duke is
not the party's candidate.
Lee Carpenter
lcarp@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
see above disclaimer - I need it this time
-------------------
From: art@world.std.com (Al Thompson)
Subject: Re: Success of Containment (was Re: Dave Duke likes Republicans!)
In-Reply-To: cromar@math.rutgers.edu's message of 30 Oct 91 09:26:09 GMT
Message-ID:
Followup-To: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Sender: art@world.std.com (Al Thompson)
References: <5=cd1-k@lynx.unm.edu>
<-rcdyyn@lynx.unm.edu>
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 1991 14:01:21 GMT
In article cromar@math.rutgers.edu (Scott Cromar) writes:
art@world.std.com (Al Thompson) writes:
> nwickham@triton.unm.edu (Neal C. Wickham) writes:
> liberals argued that communism would fail by
> its own short-comings.
> Funny I don't remember any liberals saying any such thing.
Containment was a policy objective supported by almost every major
politician on both sides of the aisle. The fundamental idea behind
the containment philosophy was that the Communist empire would
eventually fail of internal contradictions if it was prevented from
expanding.
Nice, except the discussion was not about containment. It was about
whether or not liberals were saying communism would fall due to its own
internal inconsistencies. As I said, I don't remember any such thing.
-------------------
From: SKAPUR@ccmail.sunysb.edu (Sanjay Kapur)
Subject: Re: I Move the Previous Question
Message-ID: <240C90EA7E4040AE@ccmail.sunysb.edu>
Sender: SKAPUR@ccmail.sunysb.edu
Date: 30 Oct 91 14:32:00 GMT
>From: russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto)
>In article <9C2BD44A804018B1@ccmail.sunysb.edu> Sanjay Kapur writes:
>>>>
>>>So what's the point? Why did you put a draft togethor, why are you
>>>asking for comments, and what will happen to this document? I'd be
>>>willing to act as chair of a deliberative review, but only after
>>>we're told what the Statement is going to be used for.
>>
>>It seems quite obvious what the purpose of such a statement would be:
>>
>>It will be used as a club to bash system administrators.
>>
>> Sanjay Kapur |Internet: Sanjay.Kapur@sunysb.edu
>
>System Administrator: n. 1) One who wishes to exercise arbitrary and
>capricious absolute power over the system he controls, but be able to point
>to anonymous and/or unavailable 'higher ups' when he makes or implements an
>unpopular decision, or when his users challenge his actions.
>2) A bureaucrat in charge of a computer system
>
>--
>Matthew T. Russotto russotto@eng.umd.edu russotto@wam.umd.edu
As Matthew's remarks above confirm, the bashing I fear has already started.
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: art@world.std.com (Al Thompson)
Subject: Re: The Hollywood Political Entourage and the FCC (was Dave the Stud)
In-Reply-To: nwickham@triton.unm.edu's message of 30 Oct 91 10:45:34 GMT
Message-ID:
Sender: art@world.std.com (Al Thompson)
References: <6pfdrm=@lynx.unm.edu>
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 1991 14:41:53 GMT
In article nwickham@triton.unm.edu (Neal C. Wickham) writes:
In article art@world.std.com (Al Thompson) writes:
>The fairness doctrine. I had notice it had any effect of politics or the
>news. Both were pretty bad for openers. BTW I still don't know how you
>deregualte a government agency.
No... sorry. ...Bzzzzt, wrong answer, the fairness doctrine had nothing to
do with Reagan deregulating the FCC. It was around several years before
that big tall rancher got in there.
Well, why don't you enlighten us? And, while you're at it please explain
how it is one "deregualtes" a government agency?
> No... I want honorable meritorious Hollywood types like Frank Sinatra
> who have proven thier ethical behavior in respectable appointments such
> as Head of the Nevada Gaming Commission.
>
>Is this the same Sinatra who was JFK's good buddy?
Frank may have been a JFK friend. I don't know.
He was a very good buddy of JFK. In fact JFK was once scheduled to spend
a week at his place in Palm Springs. Bobby Kennedy intervened because it
would look bad if JFK was so closely associated with a figure who had
ties to organized crime. The episode spoiled the relationship and earned
Bobby the undying hatred of Ole Blue Eyes.
But he is one of Reagan's
*closest* friends and visited the big tall rancher on a regular basis. He
also gained much power and got his appointment as Head of the Nevada
Gaming Commission just after Reagan was swept in.
Sinatra was never on the Nevada Gaming Commission. That is the same
commission that denied him a gaming license a few years earlier. The
denial was based on his association with organized crime figures.
> And the government didn't control the flow before. You do not understand
> what the deregulation of the FCC did.
>
>Just what did it do?
I didn't think you were ever going to ask Al...
#1
He deregulated network profits making them unlimmited. This made TV the
pawn of big business and provided incentives for contol of the
industry.
TV was always the pawn of big business.
The original regulation of profits was to prevent any monopolies from
forming in such a socially and politically important business.
Do you mean preventing monopolies like RCA and CBS from controlling the
airwaves?
I can't
see where we have any monopolies forming, what we do see is much more
emphasis on "sensationalism". TV has thrown off all responsibility to
the public and exploits TV sex and TV violence in its mad scramble for
profit.
In 1961 Newton Minow, JFK's Chairman of the FCC, made a speech
excoriating TV as a "vast wasteland" that exploited sex and violence at
the expense of public service.
We also have the full time commercial where entire programs are
made explicity to sell things.
I remember these things from the late 1940's and early 1950's. There was
a particularly amusing half hour commericial for a hair product called
"Charles Antell's Formula No. 9". It was a lanolin product and featured
a pitchman who would coat a piece of paper with it. He would then dunk
the coated paper in a glass of water. Presto, the paper would instantly
form a tight curl. He would smile and tell us that would happen to our
hair if we used it. It was hilarious, but it sold a lot of hair goop.
There was another in which a guy was pitching slicers and choppers and
such for the kitchen. I bugged my mother relentlessly until she finally
sent for the package. It was fun to sit around and cut cucumbers into
curlicues and slice up tons of french fries.
The only difference between then and now is one of production values. In
the old days you had a guy standing behind a plain old table in front of
a crude sign. Now you have living color and special effects. The looks
are different but the message is the same.
The exploitation of children has been
especially ruthless in cartoons such as Master's of the Universe which
are in reality long commercial for the program's toys and are full of
subliminal content which prays on anything which might sell.
When I was a kid, late 1940's and early 1950's, I was treated to any
number of kid's shows that always said, "Kids go out there and tell your
mom to buy brand X". I hate to tell you how many different kinds of
horrid cereals I ate because of this. BTW I'm still in good health.
#2
He deregulated the number and length of comercials which could be run
during any given program. This is what really gave rise to cable TV
and independent TV stations.
What a marvelous result. Free enterprise in action. Or, do you object
to the rise of cable? I think it's the healthiest thing to hit mass
communications since the invention of movable type.
It is also what made Ted Turner and CNN.
Good, competition for the big three.
This, with other deregulations, put a premium on the "entertainment
value" of news which the big tall rancher fully exploited. He was after
all a professional actor with a Hollywood entourage. They knew that
they could best manipulate the american people if they first "got rid
of" any resoponsibility in the FCC and the deregulations did just that.
They removed or modified regulations which were put in place to avoid
such manipulation.
Yes sir, that good old American public is just so stupid they can't
resist manipulation.
#3
He removed some of the requirements that stations freely broadcast
programing "in the public interest". I'm not sure about specifics,
but the reasoning has always been that if business was to use the
public airwaves, the FCC was going to require them to do things in
the public interest.
There are any number of documentaries on the networks on a regular basis.
In addition there are a couple of cable channels devoted to
documentaries, e.g. Arts and Entertainment and The Discovery Channel.
Much of that is still in place and that is why
we have the Emergency Broadcast System and other such things. But
he made some changes which put much more emphasis on profits especially
for newscasts and news specials. This in turn put the emphasis in
TV reporting on sensationalism and also made news the pawns of their
advertisers and therefore business and the Hollywood power establish-
ment.
So we don't really have news as news anymore... not on TV. We have
sensational entertainment controlled by a power establishment and by
the entertainment value of politicians and thier entourage.
I don't think the coverage of Desert Storm was all that bad. Of course
if you only get your news from TV then you deserve what you get.
And my
guess is that the power establishment and the entourages of the last
two presidents have many of the same players. All that liberal press
dogma was cooked up by the Reagan Hollywood entourage. No one had
heard of the liberal press unitl the Hollywood entourage took over.
I sometimes get the impression you think world history began the year you
were born. I remember grumblings about the "liberal press" during the
Goldwater campaign.
NCW
-------------------
From: SKAPUR@ccmail.sunysb.edu (Sanjay Kapur)
Subject: Re: Forget UW, let's talk about Western Washington U!
Message-ID: <2655F7BD4E4040AE@ccmail.sunysb.edu>
Sender: SKAPUR@ccmail.sunysb.edu
Date: 30 Oct 91 14:48:00 GMT
>From: jeff@henson.cc.wwu.edu (Jeff Wandling)
> They got all the feeds they
>asked for and NOTHING we get is unsolicited. We REQUEST in very specific
>detail what groups we do not want.
>
You seem to be saying the opposite i.e. nothing that is on news is solicited.
>Since it can be proven that the status of the USENET system (with all the
>*naughty* groups included) was already requested by the Computer Science
>department (among others), why do we have to go through this bullshit again?
You mean with all the naughty groups not excluded. There is a differenece
between excluding some groups on request and soliciting some groups on
request. It is not boolean. There is an inbetween state.
>
>Why do we have to be second guessed and request AGAIN to get the news feed
>that we already had by request of the before mentioned faculty.
>
What was requested according to you as a list of exclusions, not inclusions.
>Talk about "the dog chasing it's tail." This is ridiculous!
>
>The Computer Center spent more money on paper and laser printing (remember,
>it's 10 whole cents per page now) with their whiney memos regarding this
>fiasco than it cost to keep alt.sex.* and the binaries groups on disk.
They charge 10cents which is way too high. Reasonable printing costs are more
like 4 cents per laser printed side.
>
>We can blow over 250 thousand dollars on a fiber optic network but they bitch
>and moan about some silly groups that makes their pulse a little quicker.
Spending $250,000 on a fiber optic network does not make auditors upset.
>
>The Computer Center has no right to go back on it's pledge to provide
>USENET service. The groups existed before we even got a single USENET
>feed and the groups were requested by the faculty when the feed was
>first installed.
>
>If you (the Computer Center employee) can't figure this out then clean out
>your desk. You're in the wrong line of work.
>
A prime example of systems administrator bashing.
If you do not like the computing center employee who is carrying out the
orders of the administration of the University, I strongly advise you to leave
the University yourself because you very obviously disagree with its policies.
>-jeff
>--
>---
>Jeff Wandling
>disclaimer: "I don't disclaim nuthin!"- me quote: "Ooh, you're an icky
>student-thing! No wonder you keep such funny hours! :-)" -bill trost
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@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Draft Statement on Computers and Academic Freedom (CAF)
Message-ID: <1991Oct30.150340.19350@eff.org>
References: <199110300740.AA12030@eff.org>
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 1991 15:03:40 GMT
On confidentiality
FFDMG@ALASKA.bitnet (Dean Gottehrer) writes:
>Personally I like the library brand of confidentiality. Circulation records
>are confidential. No one is entitled to know what books I borrow. Similarly,
>no one should know what newsgroups I read, what information I retrieve, etc.
Should/can confientiality extend to what programs you run? To
whether you are signed on or not.
Here is a list of information that is available about others on a
typical Unix computer.
Does the xxx have an account?
(finger, passwd file, .../home/xxx directory)
How long has xxx been signed on?
(finger, w)
What programs is xxx runing?
(ps -aux, w, top)
Who has been running "cat" lately?
(lastcomm)
How much mail does xxx have in his or her incoming mailbox?
When was it last read?
(l- /var/spool/mbox/xxx)
I'm sure there are many others.
I don't want to see finger closed down. Programs such as "top" and "ps
-aux" are very useful at finding out who is hogging the system. On the
other hand, I don't want people to know what Netnews material I read
or who my email correspondents are.
On the third hand, I can't think of a good simple rule.
- 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.
--------------------
--
| 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 comp-academic-freedom-talk Thu Oct 31 10:38:20 1991
Reply-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk
From: comp-academic-freedom-talk
Precedence: bulk
To: comp-academic-freedom-talk
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 1991 19:44:17 -0500
X-Digest-Sender: "William W. Arnold"
Subject: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Status: R
Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Wed Oct 30 19:42:36 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
- Billy ]
In this issue:
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: Draft Statement on Computers and Academic Freedom (CA
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (uk.misc, et al.) Re: More anonymous censorship at ukc
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (uk.misc, et al.) Re: More anonymous censorship at ukc
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (uk.misc, et al.) Re: More anonymous censorship at ukc
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: I Move the Previous Question
ccm014@pollux.ucda : Re:
nwickham@triton.un : Re: The Hollywood Political Entourage and the FCC (was Da
nwickham@triton.un : Re: Success of Containment (was Re: Dave Duke likes Repub
draughn@iitmax.iit : Re: USENET censorship strikes University of Washington!
SKAPUR@ccmail.suny : Re: I Move the Previous Question
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: I Move the Previous Question
russotto@eng.umd.e : Re: I Move the Previous Question
jpgorrono@ucdavis. : Re: Re:
kadie@eff.org (Car : Abstract of "Computers and Academic Freedom News" 1.32
jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyr : Re: Draft Statement on Computers and Academic Freedom (CA
russotto@eng.umd.e : Re: The Hollywood Political Entourage and the FCC (was Da
drg@bubba.ma30.bul : Re: The Hollywood Political Entourage and the FCC (was Da
The addresses for the list are now:
comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org - for contributions to the list
or caf-talk@eff.org
listserv@eff.org - for automated additions/deletions
(send email with the line "help" for details.)
caf-talk-request@eff.org - for administrivia
-------------------
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Draft Statement on Computers and Academic Freedom (CAF)
Message-ID: <1991Oct30.153518.19993@eff.org>
References: <199110300740.AA12030@eff.org>
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 1991 15:35:18 GMT
FFDMG@ALASKA.bitnet (Dean Gottehrer) writes:
[...]
>As for what to do with the computers and academic freedom document developed
>on CAF,
I concur with a previous post that we should develop it using
parliamentary procedure. I would think the best procedure would be
modified for use on the net. On the plus side, the net allows many to
"speak" at once. You can even have votes in parallel. On the minus
side, it will take days for minor votes to be taken and (if Usenet
tradition is followed) a month for a major vote to be taken. Has
anyone had experience with complicated email decision making?
I assume that the final vote will be a major vote on the finished CAF
Statement. If a majority votes for the Statement, I suggest reporting
this as "A majority of CAF discussion participants endorse the
Statement" rather than "The CAF discussion participants endorse the
Statement." In other words, even a majority of participants should not
claim to speak for everyone. I don't want anyone to feel that they
should quit the list because they didn't support the Statement.
> I suggest that we pass it along to the folks at the American
>Association of University Professors and ask them to consider adopting a
>policy that will speak to computers and academic freedom.
[...]
I've been in contact with one AAUP official. I'm trying to
get on-line copies of more of their statments.
>Rather than attempt to
>come to any decision where a vote is taken, I would urge Carl to keep the
>draft and the notes posted in response to it until we finish this thread
>(assuming that we ever will) and pass all of that along to the AAUP people for>their benefit in drafting a policy the AAUP could adopt.
[...]
The notes from this thread are available via email. Send email to
archive-server@eff.org. Include the line:
send acad-freedom caf-statement
If the AAUP gets involved, I'd rather give them a finished statement.
(They, of course, may choose to modify it, but at least they'd
have a good starting place.)
- 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: [uk.misc, et al.] Re: More anonymous censorship at ukc ?
Message-ID: <9110301618.AA12312@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 30 Oct 91 04:18:28 GMT
From: ccs7@aber.ac.uk (Christopher Samuel)
Date: 29 Oct 91 12:35:06 GMT
In article <14044@castle.ed.ac.uk>, rwb@castle.ed.ac.uk (Richard Bingham)
writes:
> They don't seem to be censoring everything, as alt.binaries.pictures
> and alt.binaries.pictures.d get through (unless they get here via a
> different route), but I've not seen any other alt.binary groups. So
> perhaps some selectivity is being exercised already. I agree with you
> about the absence of the .sounds group: censoring this seems
> unreasonable. Actually I think it is unreasonable to censor any
> groups: violation of academic freedom, etc. However I'm sure this
> topic has been thrashed to death here on previous occasions...
Also in article
conway@cstr.ed.ac.uk (Steve Conway) doodled:
> Binaries are big, the *.binary.* groups make up a large part of the
> whole Usenet news traffic - look at the figures in whatever newsgroup
> they get posted in. Maybe there is censorship going on here, maybe
> there is just selection on the basis of keeping traffic inside
> reasonable bounds. If the *.d groups get posted (where, if I remember
> correctly, there should be announcements of what is going in the
> binary newsgroups, you might be able to get the binaries direct from
> the poster, or by FTP from archives.
>
> Steve.
Yup, this topic has been thrashed to death in here, and elicited the
follwing posting from Ian Harding at UKC.
However, this was posted before the *.pictures and *.sounds renamings
occured. My bet is that [not having followed the discussion in
alt.config] the new *.binaries.* groups include the old *.sex.* groups,
and UKC have decided not to carry them for the same reasons.
- Chris
-----
]> From: ih@ukc.ac.uk (I.Harding)
]> Newsgroups: uk.misc
]> Subject: News
]> Message-ID: <3136@ukc>
]> Date: 2 Aug 91 18:22:34 GMT
]> Organization: Computing Lab, University of Kent at Canterbury, UK.
]>
]> As several people have asked recently, here, as we've announced before in
]> the news and in newsletters, are the newsgroups that we do not carry (and
]> have never carried):
]>
]> rec.arts.erotica
]> alt.drugs
]> alt.evil
]> alt.personals
]> alt.personals.bondage
]> alt.sex
]> alt.sex.bestiality
]> alt.sex.bondage
]> alt.sex.motss
]> alt.sex.pictures
]> alt.sex.pictures.d
]> alt.sex.sounds
]> alt.tasteless
]>
]> Reason we do not carry them is simply that we cannot, dare not, carry them.
]>
]> If we did carry them we would face attacks from the press and legal action.
]>
]> A tall order this I know, but change society and the law, reform public
]> morality and the way the press behaves and we'll have no problem carrying
]> the above.
]>
]> Sorry, but that really is how things are.
]>
]> Regards,
]>
]> Ian.
]> --
]> Ian Harding
]> UKnet Backbone
--
Christopher Samuel| RFC: ccs7@aber.ac.uk ALTERNATE: csamuel@nyx.cs.du.edu
c/o Physics Dept.,| JNT: ccs7@uk.ac.aber UUCP: *!mcsun!ukc!aber!ccs7
UCW Aberystwyth, +----------------------------------------------------------
Aberystwyth, WALES| Disclaimer: I mean nothing I say, and say nothing I mean.
-------------------
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [uk.misc, et al.] Re: More anonymous censorship at ukc ?
Message-ID: <9110301618.AA12321@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 30 Oct 91 04:18:49 GMT
From: smee@bristol.ac.uk (Paul Smee)
Date: 29 Oct 91 16:04:05 GMT
In article <1991Oct29.123506.1730@aber.ac.uk> ccs7@aber.ac.uk (Christopher Samuel) writes:
>However, this was posted before the *.pictures and *.sounds renamings
>occured. My bet is that [not having followed the discussion in
>alt.config] the new *.binaries.* groups include the old *.sex.* groups,
>and UKC have decided not to carry them for the same reasons.
One point which Ian's response doesn't mention, but which is a real
issue, is that for UK academic sites, both the means of transmission
(JANET) and (probably) the news machines are funded with public --
taxpayers -- money.
Regardless of what you may or may not believe about 'censorship' and
'academic freedom', it doesn't take much imagination to work out what
the tabloids would say (and the public, and thus funding body, reaction
would be) to the groups under discussion being paid for by public
money.
One obvious answer, of course, would be to develop the sort of
infrastructure of public-access, privately-funded, Unix systems that
exists in the States. I'd like to see that, myself. Would, I suspect,
require gettng Telecom to change their pricing structures in order to
make it truly viable.
-------------------
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [uk.misc, et al.] Re: More anonymous censorship at ukc ?
Message-ID: <9110301619.AA12330@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 30 Oct 91 04:19:05 GMT
From: smee@bristol.ac.uk (Paul Smee)
Date: 29 Oct 91 17:01:05 GMT
Coincidentally and apropos this question, my newsagent just pointed out
a little article in the back of today's local newsrag. Police in
Bolton have raided a house there and seized a computer and a number of
disks, as part of a 'drive against pornographic software'. Any bets as
to the status of Usenet news in UK universities if some Uni had its
mainframe impounded on similar grounds?
-------------------
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: I Move the Previous Question
Message-ID: <1991Oct30.170419.23217@eff.org>
References: <9C2BD44A804018B1@ccmail.sunysb.edu> <1991Oct30.050017.8234@eng.umd.edu>
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 1991 17:04:19 GMT
In article <9C2BD44A804018B1@ccmail.sunysb.edu> Sanjay Kapur
writes:
[...]
>>It seems quite obvious what the purpose of such a statement would be:
>>
>>It will be used as a club to bash system administrators.
[...]
russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) writes:
>System Administrator: n. 1) One who wishes to exercise arbitrary and
>capricious absolute power over the system he controls,
[...]
I hope that a good policy will be helpful in reducing conflict between
users and sys admins.
- 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: ccm014@pollux.ucdavis.edu
Subject: Re:
Message-ID: <9110301638.AA27301@pollux.ucdavis.edu>
Sender: ccm014@pollux.ucdavis.edu
Date: 30 Oct 91 00:38:53 GMT
hey just YOU!!!!!!!
take the time to mail this stuff!!!1 You ate up ten dollars of my account with
this long !?&****!!!!!?$#@!.......
please don't do this again. Quite frankly I don't care whether you agree or dis
or disagree with them. Get a therapist the next time you want to "talk" this long on someone elses time.
MM (Mad Mama).
-------------------
From: nwickham@triton.unm.edu (Neal C. Wickham)
Subject: Re: The Hollywood Political Entourage and the FCC (was Dave the Stud)
Message-ID: <5ngdbla@lynx.unm.edu>
Date: 30 Oct 91 16:50:22 GMT
Article-I.D.: lynx.5ngdbla
References:
In article art@world.std.com (Al Thompson) writes:
>Well, why don't you enlighten us? And, while you're at it please explain
>how it is one "deregualtes" a government agency?
BTW, you keep trying to make fun of this terminology but it is not mine.
I think the meaning behind deregulate the FCC is pretty clear.
>He was a very good buddy of JFK. In fact JFK was once scheduled to spend
>a week at his place in Palm Springs. Bobby Kennedy intervened because it
>would look bad if JFK was so closely associated with a figure who had
>ties to organized crime. The episode spoiled the relationship and earned
>Bobby the undying hatred of Ole Blue Eyes.
Well Reagan didn't have any problems with his ties to organized crime
but of course "the great communicator" and the Hollywood entourage could
white wash just about anything. Sinatra was such a regular visitor to
the White House that it led Kitty Kelly to allude that he was having an
affair with Nancy. Now I don't believe that (for certain anyway) but
she has many interviews with White House staff who say Frank was a
regular at the White House who was often sneaked in the back. I don't
think you can deny the close relationship between Sinatra and Reagan.
>Sinatra was never on the Nevada Gaming Commission.
Where have you been? He was confirmed Head of the Nevada Gaming
Commission in 1980, just after Reagan took office. There were hearings
about the alleged ties to the Mafia, but they were apparently shaken
off. I watched some of the hearings on TV and I had the clear impression
that they were fixed and were a media event staged to trivialize
Sinatra's Mafia ties.
>That is the same
>commission that denied him a gaming license a few years earlier. The
>denial was based on his association with organized crime figures.
I wouldn't doubt it but they had changed their minds after the Reagan
landslide political victory of 1980. Paul Laxault, another good Reagan
friend was then the Governor of Nevada.
> He deregulated network profits making them unlimmited. This made TV the
> pawn of big business and provided incentives for contol of the
> industry.
>
>TV was always the pawn of big business.
No... it was more like your local power company subjet to a lot of
regulation much of which insured that it acted in the public interest,
or at least not to the public detriment.
> The original regulation of profits was to prevent any monopolies from
> forming in such a socially and politically important business.
>
>Do you mean preventing monopolies like RCA and CBS from controlling the
>airwaves?
I can't answer specifics. But it prevented CBS from crass exploitation
and the outrageous profits which it earned throughout the eighties.
>In 1961 Newton Minow, JFK's Chairman of the FCC, made a speech
>excoriating TV as a "vast wasteland" that exploited sex and violence at
>the expense of public service.
Boy... I'll bet he turned over in his grave when Reagan was swept into
office.
>I remember these things from the late 1940's and early 1950's. There was
>a particularly amusing half hour commericial for a hair product called
>"Charles Antell's Formula No. 9". It was a lanolin product and featured
>a pitchman who would coat a piece of paper with it. He would then dunk
>the coated paper in a glass of water. Presto, the paper would instantly
>form a tight curl. He would smile and tell us that would happen to our
>hair if we used it. It was hilarious, but it sold a lot of hair goop.
Well I don't know what regulations started when and I don't know the
specifics of exactly what Reagan deregulated.
>There was another in which a guy was pitching slicers and choppers and
>such for the kitchen. I bugged my mother relentlessly until she finally
>sent for the package. It was fun to sit around and cut cucumbers into
>curlicues and slice up tons of french fries.
TV was more innocent in the early days. You might like to read some
of Dr. Wilson Bryan Key's books on subliminal advertising and subliminal
manipulation by the media. Although, I's suspect that they'd be too
Freudian and too deep for you and you'd dismiss them as some kind of
...conspiracy against americanism or something.
>The only difference between then and now is one of production values. In
>the old days you had a guy standing behind a plain old table in front of
>a crude sign. Now you have living color and special effects. The looks
>are different but the message is the same.
I assert that you are very credulous and naive and I understand now why
you're so taken in by that big tall rancher who rode in to Washinton
in 1980!
Now that Ollie is running around blabbing on that big tall rancher, do
you believe that he knew about Iran-Contra? Did you believe he knew
before when he flatly denied that he did? Do you believe he was part
of the arms-for-hostages scandal?
> The exploitation of children has been
> especially ruthless in cartoons such as Master's of the Universe which
> are in reality long commercial for the program's toys and are full of
> subliminal content which prays on anything which might sell.
>
>When I was a kid, late 1940's and early 1950's, I was treated to any
>number of kid's shows that always said, "Kids go out there and tell your
>mom to buy brand X". I hate to tell you how many different kinds of
>horrid cereals I ate because of this. BTW I'm still in good health.
I'll bet nearly all the cereals around when you were a kid were much
better nutritionally that 2/3 of the crap they sell now. And again,
you are very naive of the subliminal content in advertisements today.
> #2
>
> He deregulated the number and length of comercials which could be run
> during any given program. This is what really gave rise to cable TV
> and independent TV stations.
>
>What a marvelous result. Free enterprise in action. Or, do you object
>to the rise of cable? I think it's the healthiest thing to hit mass
>communications since the invention of movable type.
Oh... I love Amazing Discoveries ...that car wax with space aged
polymers which protects you car from fire. Gee, car wax like that is
worth more than $50!
Cable is fine, but I think the commercials should be limmited again
even if it means less TV.
> It is also what made Ted Turner and CNN.
>
>Good, competition for the big three.
...you bet, Turner TV, the empire built on Veg-o-Matic and a Psychic
Reading of Your Past Lives.
> This, with other deregulations, put a premium on the "entertainment
> value" of news which the big tall rancher fully exploited. He was after
> all a professional actor with a Hollywood entourage. They knew that
> they could best manipulate the american people if they first "got rid
> of" any resoponsibility in the FCC and the deregulations did just that.
> They removed or modified regulations which were put in place to avoid
> such manipulation.
>
>Yes sir, that good old American public is just so stupid they can't
>resist manipulation.
You are very naive to subliminal manipulation. You could sell just about
anything if you got the right people and enough money behind it. I would
againg suggest a reading of any of Key's books.
> #3
>
> He removed some of the requirements that stations freely broadcast
> programing "in the public interest". I'm not sure about specifics,
> but the reasoning has always been that if business was to use the
> public airwaves, the FCC was going to require them to do things in
> the public interest.
>
>There are any number of documentaries on the networks on a regular basis.
>In addition there are a couple of cable channels devoted to
>documentaries, e.g. Arts and Entertainment and The Discovery Channel.
They are still much more entertainment oriented. And what really took
the deregulation in the shorts was the news.
> Much of that is still in place and that is why
> we have the Emergency Broadcast System and other such things. But
> he made some changes which put much more emphasis on profits especially
> for newscasts and news specials. This in turn put the emphasis in
> TV reporting on sensationalism and also made news the pawns of their
> advertisers and therefore business and the Hollywood power establish-
> ment.
>
> So we don't really have news as news anymore... not on TV. We have
> sensational entertainment controlled by a power establishment and by
> the entertainment value of politicians and thier entourage.
>
>I don't think the coverage of Desert Storm was all that bad. Of course
>if you only get your news from TV then you deserve what you get.
It had high entertainment value. God... it was like a big video game
where the networks had the video game graphics and the whole nine yards.
It was just a little frightening to me. I can't wait to see what we
won't want to annihilate next. Desert Storm was just a little too fun
and exiciting. We all got to particpate and be part of the big game
every evening by simply flipping the tube on. It was better than
monday night football.
God save any other Arabs who are stupid enough to provoke us. They are
over there in a part of the world where a new day of war breaks just as
we get home from work and are ready to watch the show.
> And my
> guess is that the power establishment and the entourages of the last
> two presidents have many of the same players. All that liberal press
> dogma was cooked up by the Reagan Hollywood entourage. No one had
> heard of the liberal press unitl the Hollywood entourage took over.
>
>I sometimes get the impression you think world history began the year you
>were born. I remember grumblings about the "liberal press" during the
>Goldwater campaign.
I did not even hear the term before 1980 and have heard it on a regular
basis since.
NCW
-------------------
From: nwickham@triton.unm.edu (Neal C. Wickham)
Subject: Re: Success of Containment (was Re: Dave Duke likes Republicans!)
Message-ID:
Date: 30 Oct 91 17:02:37 GMT
Article-I.D.: lynx.apgd4df
References: <-rcdyyn@lynx.unm.edu>
In article cromar@math.rutgers.edu (Scott Cromar) writes:
>(btw, I know that it's not patriotically correct to remember that
>Carter started the arms buildup, but history is history. Carter's
>"missile gap" rhetoric was a major factor in his victory over Ford.)
Oh yeah... but that big tall rancher's missiles were the missiles of a
real man with a strong defense posture! The ranch was in danger of
attack and the hands were slacking off under that coward from the South.
It took a man who rode tall in the saddle to whoop them there renagades.
Why... I have ta smile right along with miss Nancy everytime I think
of how the ranch was saved.
NCW
-------------------
From: draughn@iitmax.iit.edu (Mark Draughn)
Subject: Re: USENET censorship strikes University of Washington!
Message-ID: <1991Oct30.163017.13315@iitmax.iit.edu>
Date: 30 Oct 91 16:30:17 GMT
References: <1991Oct28.003732.18070@wpi.WPI.EDU> <1991Oct28.171510.21293@ms.uky.edu> <1991Oct30.021407.22743@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu>
In article <1991Oct30.021407.22743@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu> rmtodd@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu (Richard Michael Todd) writes:
>morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
>>entropy@wintermute.WPI.EDU (Lawrence C. Foard) writes:
>>>This maybe a bit off the topic, but has it ever passed through there minds
>>>that they could buy a cheap workstation to put news on? Around $5000 or less
>>>should get you a 486 with loads of memory (16-32 megs), BSD unix, and 1gig
>>>or more of disk space.
[...]
>>Yes, it should. Now, go convince the purseholders that they should give
>>you $5000 to fund a system whose sole purpose (news) is tangenital to the
>>mission of your facility (in my case, supporting an engineering college).
>
>Things are pretty similar here. There simply ain't no way a machine whose
>sole purpose is news is going to fly here, even if it is only $5000.
[...]
>For that matter, I'd suspect the majority of the student users don't share
>this view, either. There are 2416 currently active accounts on this
>system; according to arbitron, 78 of them are newsreaders. Yes, 78. If
>one put to a vote of the user population whether $5000 should be spent on
>buying a news server as opposed to, say, putting 3 more Mac SE/30s in the
>public labs or buying another laser printer, I suspect news would lose by
>an overwhelming margin.)
Precisely. We have our news feed on a system that has a total of
1600MB. Of this, 113MB is dedicated to news. News also eats up a
fair amount of CPU time and staff time. There are quite a few people
who'd be willing to trade all of news for a couple of good laser
printers.
It's an opportunity cost. The question is not "is $5000 a reasonable
price for news?" The question is "what else could we have instead?"
Regarding "only $5000": Our entire new equipment budget in the
computer center this year was only $30,000.
>>Ah, but *do they want it*? On many systems, news was just "added" on an
>>ad hoc basis; the disk space was just sitting there, the networking support
>>was already there, and the news software is free. Can you really imagine,
>
>Exactly. At least at this place, and I gather at most Universities, Usenet
>was never something that was officially requested; it just sorta appeared.
You know it. I put up news on our system because *I* liked it. As
other people found out about it, I was able to justify committing more
resources. Right now, we're expiring news in 2 days. We do get
alt.sex.pictures, but it's the first thing to go when the news
partition fills up. (You know, nobody ever asked me to install news,
but people sure complain when it doesn't work.)
> As an aside, much is made in this newsgroup of the analogy between a
>library subscribing to Playboy and a Usenet site subscribing to
>alt.sex.pictures. Fortunately for those libraries, Playboy takes up about
>the same amount of shelf space as any other magazine. If Playboy was as
>much bigger than a "standard" magazine as alt.sex.pictures is compared to
>most newsgroups, we'd have librarians trying to put 3-foot-thick copies of
>Playboy on the shelf, and I suspect the enthusiasm for keeping lots of back
>issues would fade rapidly.
Sure. Alt.sex.pictures arguably has one of the lowest usefulness to
volume ratios on the net. Even the flamefest groups like
talk.abortion, alt.atheism, and talk.origins are at least discussions
of current issues, and therefore somewhat related to this school's
goals.
>Disclaimer: I'm a student here. These are my opinions, not OU's.
Actually, I'm the system manager here, so until someone else speaks
up, these _are_ IIT's opinions regarding Usenet.
--
Mark Draughn | or on BITNET
----------------+ Academic Computing Center, Illinois Institute of Technology
+1 312 567 5962 | 10 W. 31st Street, Chicago, Illinois 60616
-------------------
From: SKAPUR@ccmail.sunysb.edu (Sanjay Kapur)
Subject: Re: I Move the Previous Question
Message-ID: <42C2F521FE4018B1@ccmail.sunysb.edu>
Sender: SKAPUR@ccmail.sunysb.edu
Date: 30 Oct 91 18:12:00 GMT
>I hope that a good policy will be helpful in reducing conflict between
>users and sys admins.
>Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu, or (anonymous) ap.4352@hri.com
It will not be good policy unless it also limits what a "user" can do and
puts down simple rules like:
1) The user will not attempt to break security. If the user discovers
security holes, the user will report such holes immediately to the system
administrator.
2) The user will act "responsibily" so as to allow maximum use of
the machine by a maximum number of authorized users i.e. one user will
not hog the system.
An example of acting responsibily is that if the machine is slow,
and the user wants to play a computer game, the user will lower the cpu
run time priority before playing the game e.g. by using the "nice"
command in unix.
An example of irresponsibility is hogging disk space on a system without
disk quotas.
Another example of irresponsibility is using a terminal/workstation to play
games while there is a queue of users waiting to use the machine for
projects/home works etc.
The above two rules would cover the main areas of conflicts between "users"
and "system administrators" and a policy is not "good" unless these two
issues are dealt with properly.
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@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: I Move the Previous Question
Message-ID: <1991Oct30.190136.26359@eff.org>
References: <42C2F521FE4018B1@ccmail.sunysb.edu>
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 1991 19:01:36 GMT
Carl Kadie wrote:
>I hope that a good policy will be helpful in reducing conflict between
>users and sys admins.
SKAPUR@ccmail.sunysb.edu (Sanjay Kapur) writes:
[...]
>It will not be good policy unless it also limits what a "user" can do and
>puts down simple rules like:
>1) The user will not attempt to break security. If the user discovers
> security holes, the user will report such holes immediately to the system
> administrator.
>2) The user will act "responsibily" so as to allow maximum use of
> the machine by a maximum number of authorized users i.e. one user will
> not hog the system.
[...]
I would expect a school's computer policy would have rules such as
these (maybe a little more detailed). Nothing in the Draft preclude
creation of such rules.
Speaking for myself, I'm not especially interested in creating a
complete model policy. I'm more interested in concisely expressing the
principles of academic freedom as they apply to computers. Such a
Statement should be very useful to policy makers, but it will be
comprehensive in the sense that it will tell them exactly what rules
to created.
In this way the CAF Statement would be like the Library Bill of
Rights, the Joint Statement on Rights and Freedom of Students, and the
U.S. Bill of 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.
-------------------
From: russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto)
Subject: Re: I Move the Previous Question
Message-ID: <1991Oct30.193352.5477@eng.umd.edu>
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 91 19:33:52 GMT
References: <240C90EA7E4040AE@ccmail.sunysb.edu>
In article <240C90EA7E4040AE@ccmail.sunysb.edu> Sanjay Kapur writes:
>>>It seems quite obvious what the purpose of such a statement would be:
>>>
>>>It will be used as a club to bash system administrators.
>>>
>>> Sanjay Kapur |Internet: Sanjay.Kapur@sunysb.edu
>>
>>System Administrator: n. 1) One who wishes to exercise arbitrary and
>>capricious absolute power over the system he controls, but be able to point
>>to anonymous and/or unavailable 'higher ups' when he makes or implements an
>>unpopular decision, or when his users challenge his actions.
>>2) A bureaucrat in charge of a computer system
>>
>As Matthew's remarks above confirm, the bashing I fear has already started.
Since I play no part in the drafting of the statement, your claim is
unsupported. As for the bashing: You asked for it, you got it.
--
Matthew T. Russotto russotto@eng.umd.edu russotto@wam.umd.edu
.sig continuing construction after a brief lull due to budget cuts
Just say NO to police searches and seizures. Make them use force.
(not responsible for bodily harm resulting from following above advice)
-------------------
From: jpgorrono@ucdavis.edu (Jon Gorrono)
Subject: Re: Re:
Message-ID: <9110302000.AA24556@othello.ucdavis.edu>
Sender: jpgorrono@ucdavis.edu
Date: 30 Oct 91 04:00:36 GMT
> hey just YOU!!!!!!!
> take the time to mail this stuff!!!1 You ate up ten dollars of my account with
> this long !?&****!!!!!?$#@!.......
> please don't do this again. Quite frankly I don't care whether you agree or dis
> or disagree with them. Get a therapist the next time you want to "talk" this long on someone elses time.
> MM (Mad Mama).
>
Mia
What is the meaning of this?
Jon
-------------------
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Abstract of "Computers and Academic Freedom News" 1.32
Message-ID: <1991Oct30.202854.28406@eff.org>
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 1991 20:28:54 GMT
This is an abstract for the most recent "Computers and Academic
Freedom News" (CAF-news). Information about CAF-news followings the
abstract. The full CAF-news is available via email. Send email
to archive-server@eff.org. Include the line:
send caf-news cafv01n32
--- begin abstract 1.32 ---
[Week ending October 13, 1991
The first five notes are about grade and high school connected to the
net. In the first two notes Houston Chronicle reporter Joe Abernathy
asks how we can keep sexual material out of such schools. He says the
library model won't work. He refers to a case in Peoria, Kansas.
(There is no Peoria, Kansas. He may be thinking of an (unlitigated?)
satellite-TV obscenity case in Florida or Alabama.)
<9110081829.AA13951@magic322.chron.com><199110090244.AA14553@eff.org>
The next note says that net access and use should be supervised by an
instructor.<199110090401.AA17108@eff.org> The fourth notes defends the
library model. It says that "[j]ust as a grade or high school does not
subscribe to all magazines, it will not subscribe to all
newsgroups".<1991Oct8.210210.4733@eff.org> The fifth note says that
schools do not need direct access to the Internet to get many of its
benefits. The note advocates a more controllable Fidonet-type
system.<199110091909.AA12324@eff.org>
The next four notes cover a variety of topics. The first note is a
comment on the Cleveland Freenet's policy of giving minors access to
the so-called adult sections of the BBS only after getting parental
permission. The note says the the American Library Association
suggests that the default be access to library material, but that
parents be allowed to restrict access.<1991Oct9.150014.4570@eff.org>
The next note is a report of banned computer material at Penn
State<1991Oct9.031615.16024@eff.org>. The third note explains that
disclaimer on Netnews notes helps make clear that an individual is
speaking for his or herself.<1991Oct7.150934.15231@ms.uky.edu> The
fourth note is a revised critique of Ohio State's accusations against
Steven Brack. Among the accusations: "You allegedly posted an obscene
message on a bulletin board and copied it to several other networks"
(i.e. he wrote "Fuck You" in a newsgroup note.). (After the deadline
for this issue of CAF-News, Steven Brack reported that he has been
suspended for one year from Ohio State
University.)<1991Oct13.150613.14818@eff.org>
The last two notes grew out of a discussion about the NSFnet's
acceptable use policy. The first note reports that the purpose of a
interlibrary loan system (which might be considered analogous to
NSFnet) is to obtain library materials for "research and serious
study".<1991Oct7.115649.39@sdg.dra.com> The last note says that just
as all books are protected by academic freedom, so all newsgroups are
protected. That does mean, however, that a university must acquire all
books and newsgroups.<1991Oct7.164246.7991@eff.org>
- Carl]
--- end abstract 1.32 ---
CAF-news is a weekly digest of notes from CAF-talk.
CAF-news is available as newsgroup alt.comp.acad-freedom.news or via
email. If you read newsgroups but your site doesn't get
alt.comp.acad-freedom.news, (politely) ask your sys admin to
subscribe. For info on email delivery, send email to listserv@eff.org.
Include the lines "help" and "longindex".
Back issues of CAF-news are available via anonymous ftp or via email.
Ftp to ftp.eff.org. The directory is pub/academic/news. For
information about email access to the archive, send an email note to
archive-server@eff.org. Include the lines "help" and "index".
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
--
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: Draft Statement on Computers and Academic Freedom (CAF)
Message-ID: <1991Oct30.193547.9113@nntp.hut.fi>
Date: 30 Oct 91 19:35:47 GMT
References: <199110300740.AA12030@eff.org> <1991Oct30.150340.19350@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 <1991Oct30.150340.19350@eff.org>, kadie@eff (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>Does the xxx have an account?
>How long has xxx been signed on?
>What programs is xxx runing?
>Who has been running "cat" lately?
>How much mail does xxx have in his or her incoming mailbox?
>I'm sure there are many others.
>-aux" are very useful at finding out who is hogging the system. On the
>other hand, I don't want people to know what Netnews material I read
>or who my email correspondents are.
I don't really mind people looking at /usr/spool/mail/* or the mail
logs to see if the mail they sent has gone thru, or watching what
newsgroups I read - as long as they do that for their own curiosity or
statistical purposes, not for some company's or government's agenda or
to collect information on lots of people.
I think the Finnish law is quite reasonable on this - it is not
permitted for organizations to collect data on individuals unless
there's a need to collect it - and the individual has a right to check
what is collected about him.
//Jyrki
-------------------
From: russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto)
Subject: Re: The Hollywood Political Entourage and the FCC (was Dave the Stud)
Message-ID: <1991Oct30.201222.7320@eng.umd.edu>
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 91 20:12:22 GMT
References: <5ngdbla@lynx.unm.edu>
In article <5ngdbla@lynx.unm.edu> nwickham@triton.unm.edu (Neal C. Wickham) writes:
>>Do you mean preventing monopolies like RCA and CBS from controlling the
>>airwaves?
>
>
>I can't answer specifics. But it prevented CBS from crass exploitation
>and the outrageous profits which it earned throughout the eighties.
CBS? CBS nearly went belly-up a few times during the 80's!
>>
>>I don't think the coverage of Desert Storm was all that bad. Of course
>>if you only get your news from TV then you deserve what you get.
>
>
>It had high entertainment value. God... it was like a big video game
>where the networks had the video game graphics and the whole nine yards.
>It was just a little frightening to me. I can't wait to see what we
>won't want to annihilate next. Desert Storm was just a little too fun
>and exiciting. We all got to particpate and be part of the big game
>every evening by simply flipping the tube on. It was better than
>monday night football.
You mean news is only news when it is boring?
--
Matthew T. Russotto russotto@eng.umd.edu russotto@wam.umd.edu
.sig continuing construction after a brief lull due to budget cuts
Just say NO to police searches and seizures. Make them use force.
(not responsible for bodily harm resulting from following above advice)
-------------------
From: drg@bubba.ma30.bull.com (Daniel R Guilderson)
Subject: Re: The Hollywood Political Entourage and the FCC (was Dave the Stud)
Message-ID:
Date: 30 Oct 91 23:42:02 GMT
References:
<5ngdbla@lynx.unm.edu>
Sender: news@mips2.ma30.bull.com (Usenet News Manager)
In-Reply-To: nwickham@triton.unm.edu's message of 30 Oct 91 16:50:22 GMT
In article <5ngdbla@lynx.unm.edu> nwickham@triton.unm.edu (Neal C. Wickham) writes:
Cable is fine, but I think the commercials should be limmited again
even if it means less TV.
I don't watch much TV but what I do watch, I like. I would rather not
have you monkeying around with it. I can judge for myself.
You are very naive to subliminal manipulation. You could sell just about
anything if you got the right people and enough money behind it. I would
againg suggest a reading of any of Key's books.
Hmm. Could I sell people on (stay out of my life) not monkeying
around with (go away) other people's lives?
---Subliminal Guy
--------------------
--
| 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 comp-academic-freedom-talk Thu Oct 31 10:38:21 1991
Reply-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk
From: comp-academic-freedom-talk
Precedence: bulk
To: comp-academic-freedom-talk
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1991 09:58:42 -0500
X-Digest-Sender: "William W. Arnold"
Subject: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Status: R
Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Thu Oct 31 09:57:51 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
- Billy ]
In this issue:
pas@wayne.unh.edu : Re: The Hollywood Political Entourage and the FCC (was Dav
morgan@ms.uky.edu : Re: Draft Statement on Computers and Academic Freedom (CAF
jones@pyrite.cs.ui : Re: Events at the University of Iowa
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (soc.women) Re: yahweh is good posting
dsc@gemini.tmc.edu : Re: Does racism still
dsc@gemini.tmc.edu : Re: Does racism still
SKAPUR@ccmail.suny : Re: I Move the Previous Question
rob@uokmax.ecn.uok : Re: USENET censorship strikes University of Washington!
usenet@swbatl.sbc. : Re: Dave (The Stud) Duke likes Republicans!
russotto@eng.umd.e : Re: I Move the Previous Question
lamontg@milton.u.w : Re: I Move the Previous Question
brack@uoftcse.cse. : Re: (alt.censorship, et al.) No comment...
n8810182@henson.cc : Here's the articles from the Western Front
n8810182@henson.cc : Here's another article from the Western Front
ts2a+@andrew.cmu.e : Re: The Hollywood Political Entourage and the FCC (was Da
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: pas@wayne.unh.edu (Paul A Sand)
Subject: Re: The Hollywood Political Entourage and the FCC (was Dave the Stud)
Message-ID: <1991Oct30.211732.25556@nic.unh.edu>
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Sender: news@nic.unh.edu (USENET News System)
References: <5ngdbla@lynx.unm.edu>
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 1991 21:17:32 GMT
at> == Al Thompson
nw> == Neal C. Wickham
at> Sinatra was never on the Nevada Gaming Commission.
nw> Where have you been? He was confirmed Head of the Nevada Gaming
Commission in 1980, just after Reagan took office. There were
hearings about the alleged ties to the Mafia, but they were
apparently shaken off. I watched some of the hearings on TV and I
had the clear impression that they were fixed and were a media event
staged to trivialize Sinatra's Mafia ties.
Neal manages yet again to be simultaneously (a) totally wrong and (b)
obnoxious about it. Sinatra was applying for restoration of his gaming
license in 1980, which was before Reagan took office, not after. His
gaming license had been revoked in 1956 because he hung around with one
too many mobsters. The notion that he was, is, or will be "Head of the
Nevada Gaming Commission" is pure hallucination.
-------------------
From: morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan)
Subject: Re: Draft Statement on Computers and Academic Freedom (CAF)
Message-ID: <1991Oct30.215917.656@ms.uky.edu>
References: <199110300740.AA12030@eff.org> <1991Oct30.150340.19350@eff.org>
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 1991 21:59:17 GMT
kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>
>Here is a list of information that is available about others on a
>typical Unix computer.
>
>Does the xxx have an account?
> (finger, passwd file, .../home/xxx directory)
>How long has xxx been signed on?
> (finger, w)
>What programs is xxx runing?
> (ps -aux, w, top)
>Who has been running "cat" lately?
> (lastcomm)
>How much mail does xxx have in his or her incoming mailbox?
>When was it last read?
> (l- /var/spool/mbox/xxx)
>
>I'm sure there are many others.
Indeed there are; here are a few, more potentially damaging cases:
To/from whom has xxx sent email lately?
(the log files from sendmail, which many sites leave open)
What has xxx been doing all day today?
(acctcom, under System V Unix, which any user can usually run)
To/from where is xxx running telnet and/or ftp?
(netstat)
What Usenet newsgroups does xxx read?
(His .newsrc file, which is, by default, world readable)
(This may not be true on all news systems; it is the case here)
>On the third hand, I can't think of a good simple rule.
I don't think that there is a simple rule. If, for instance, I prevent
users from running the "acctcom" command, an enterprising user can easily
write a shell script to achieve the same functionality. Since I refuse to
arbitrarily examine user files, I would have to review the output of acctcom
periodically, looking for users running ps a zillion times a day. This would
quickly turn into another cat and mouse game between users (whether malicious
or just curious) and admins.
(FYI, acctcom only retrieves data for the current day; each day's accounting
is stored until the end of the month, when it is compiled into the monthly
accounting report. Users do not have access to the historical accounting
files or the monthly reports)
I think that it boils down to yet another judgement call for the admin.
I don't restrict ps or acctcom, but I do restrict access to the sendmail
log files. Each sysadmin will have to draw the lines; personally, my
line stops at email logs and cumulative usage reports.
Of course, there are also several PD programs that will turn your networked
PC into a 'packet collector'; you can collect every packet coming from a
specific address and reconstruct the session. This could result in stolen
passwords, perusal of email, and many other problems.
--
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: jones@pyrite.cs.uiowa.edu (Douglas W. Jones,201H MLH,3193350740,3193382879)
Subject: Re: Events at the University of Iowa
Message-ID: <8886@ns-mx.uiowa.edu>
Date: 30 Oct 91 22:24:01 GMT
References: <8859@ns-mx.uiowa.edu>
Sender: news@ns-mx.uiowa.edu
I have been asked for details about the events I reported here at Iowa,
so I called around and got the details. Here they are, interpolated into
bits of my original posting:
by jones@pyrite.cs.uiowa.edu (Douglas W. Jones,201H MLH,3193350740,3193382879):
> One of the German classes on campus has a regular film series associated
> with it. The films shown range from modern German experimental works to
> classic German movies. One of the films shown involved explicit depiction
> of a homosexual encounter in Berlin. Students were told, in advance, about
> the film and they were not required to watch it. Someone in the audience
> complained, vehemently and publically.
The film in question was Taxi Vum Klo, directed by Frank Ripploh,
dated 1981.
The first newspaper coverage of this was Friday Sept 27 in the Des Moines
Register, initiated by a complaint from someone in the class. On Monday,
October 7, David Yepsen wrote an editorial that came down rather hard on
the University for showing the film. (David Yepsen is the Register's
political editor, and is well known around the state as something of a
liberal.) The Sunday Oct 13 Register contained many letters to the editor
on the subject, many of which called for strong action against the
University for allowing such a film to be shown.
The Sept 30 Daily Iowan carried the story on the front page.
The Eastern Edition of the NY Times carried the story on Sunday Oct 20.
The film remains on the library shelves but is on reserve. The librarian
in charge of the film collection said that they weren't allowing it out
of the building for fear that if someone checked it out, the film might
well never be returned. The library does, however, have adequate viewing
facilities in-house and available to library patrons.
> There seem to be many parallels between this story and the recent mess
> in Washington -- in both cases, the newspapers have served as a conduit
> through which pressure is put on the University to impose some kind of
> censorship. In both cases, I would imagine that the newspaper reporters
> involved would say that they oppose censorship, but in each case, the
> story itself, the sensationalistic way that it was treated, and the rush
> to print before all the facts are in combine into a product that almost
> demands censorship.
Doug Jones
jones@cs.uiowa.edu
-------------------
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [soc.women] Re: yahweh is good posting
Message-ID: <9110302333.AA15985@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 30 Oct 91 11:33:18 GMT
From: stricher@masig3.ocean.fsu.edu (Char Aznabul)
Date: 30 Oct 91 18:33:18 GMT
familant writes
+ The author of this posting has committed a speech act that, I consider
+ to be equivalent to one of the three listed above. I found his posting
+ so horrific that it makes me a little reluctant to be so reckless in my
+ reading on the net. That is, his posting has a chilling effect on my
+ reading. So, in a way, his posting has the effect of censoring what I
+ can read. Now, you might say, that is my problem. But if the posting
+ has the same effect on many people (and from my reading of other
+ posters, it does) it is the problem of many users of the net. So, here
Yea, it IS your problem. Do you cringe when you open the mailbox and
retrieve your mail? How do you handle junk mail?
+ we have an instance where the rights of many are being infringed upon by
+ one individual. The standard utilitarian rule under these
+ circumstances is the greatest good for the greatest number. I wonder if
+ the author's right to post pornography is more important, than my right
+ not to be fearful, everytime I start reading a post from someone I don't
+ know.
My, my. By the same arguments, we can go back to the old Jim Crow laws.
Care for that? After all, blacks *are* a minority, so what's good for
the majority is good for them too.
And since you want to use the 'greater good' argument, and most of the
readership in soc.women are *men*, we might as well rmgroup soc.women.
It's totally unnecessary - all discussion can be held in soc.men.
How's them apples?
No, the Constitution and BOR's are there to protect the *minority* against
the tyranny of the majority. It's just in this case that *you* are a part
of the majority, and so trimming someone else's right doesn't worry you
too much. Just remember that when you become part of the minority...
Char
-------------------
From: dsc@gemini.tmc.edu (Doug S. Caprette Bldg. 28 W191 x3892)
Subject: Re: Does racism still exist?
Message-ID: <1991Oct30.231434.24180@nsisrv.gsfc.nasa.gov>
Date: 30 Oct 91 23:14:34 GMT
Article-I.D.: nsisrv.1991Oct30.231434.24180
References: <60286@ut-emx.uucp> <4937@sun13.scri.fsu.edu>
Sender: usenet@nsisrv.gsfc.nasa.gov (Usenet)
Distribution: na
Nntp-Posting-Host: gemini.gsfc.nasa.gov
In article sobleski@sol4.cs.psu.edu (Mark Sobolewski) writes:
>
> 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...
>
Well, I daresay that if you or I were to hit a police officer HE would also
be a lot worse off than if a little old lady hit him.
-------------------
From: dsc@gemini.tmc.edu (Doug S. Caprette Bldg. 28 W191 x3892)
Subject: Re: Does racism still exist?
Message-ID: <1991Oct30.232910.24701@nsisrv.gsfc.nasa.gov>
Date: 30 Oct 91 23:29:10 GMT
References: <60286@ut-emx.uucp> <4937@sun13.scri.fsu.edu>
Sender: usenet@nsisrv.gsfc.nasa.gov (Usenet)
Distribution: na
Nntp-Posting-Host: gemini.gsfc.nasa.gov
In article <4937@sun13.scri.fsu.edu> stricher@masig3.ocean.fsu.edu (Char Aznabul) writes:
>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
>
>Depends: why *did* they beat him?
>
>If they did it soley because of his skin color, that's racism. On the
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I disagree. It's racism if their perception
(correct or not) of the victim's race contributed
in any way to his treatment.
>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.
>
It would be though of as racism by myself if I had any reason to believe
that their treatment of yourself was in any way motivated by their perception
regarding your race.
E.g. If blacks beat you because they think you're black, it's racism.
If whites beat you because they think you're black, it's racism.
If blacks beat you because they think you're white, it's racism.
If whites beat you because they think you're white, it's racism.
In other words, I contend that a crime is racially motivated if the
perpetrator is influenced in their commission of the crime by their
perception concerning the race of the victim.
Similarly, when women discriminate against other women in hiring and
promotion it is sexual discrimination. I am astonished that some do not
see it this way.
-------------------
From: SKAPUR@ccmail.sunysb.edu (Sanjay Kapur)
Subject: Re: I Move the Previous Question
Message-ID: <86B542DFEE405407@ccmail.sunysb.edu>
Sender: SKAPUR@ccmail.sunysb.edu
Date: 31 Oct 91 02:18:00 GMT
>Since I play no part in the drafting of the statement, your claim is
>unsupported. As for the bashing: You asked for it, you got it.
That is the language a rapist uses: "She was asking for or she would not wear
those tight clothes"
No one ever "asks" to be bashed. If you think otherwise, you need help.
>--
>Matthew T. Russotto russotto@eng.umd.edu russotto@wam.umd.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: rob@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu (Robert K Shull)
Subject: Re: USENET censorship strikes University of Washington!
Message-ID: <1991Oct31.001327.5959@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu>
References: <1991Oct27.233800.7842@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu> <1991Oct28.003732.18070@wpi.WPI.EDU> <1991Oct29.063746.18185@medisg.Stanford.EDU>
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1991 00:13:27 GMT
buckaroo@medisg.Stanford.EDU (Matthew N. Petach) writes:
>The only words I will post regarding the student in Oklahoma,
>who cannot get newsfeeds due to limited computer resources:
Sorry. I just can't let this go by.
>SparcStation IPC price, at educational discount: $3795
>Maxtor 1.2Gig SCSI-2 drive for IPC: $2175
>O.K., for $6000 you've got a kick-ass news server.
If you're buying, I'll spring for the drop-cable.
For $6000 you can also get:
15 additional modems (2400 bps) and phone lines for a year for a modem
pool that's overloaded, or
3 additional PCs for a lab that's packed at 2:00 AM, or
6 additional printers for that same lab, to reduce the wait for a
printout to below 1 hour, or
$6000 worth of new software or upgrades (the software we put out
is limited to the number of legal copies), or
$6000 worth of hardware upgrades (say, RAM or coprocessors), or
the same server, for NFS, so that our users could have more online
space than fits on a floppy, or...
Now, keeping in mind that purchases are reviewed, which do you think is easier
to justify to someone who doesn't know what news is, and doesn't care, but HAS
heard complaints about all of the above? If we HAD a SparcStation IPC, we'd
put it out in the lab so that students could actually USE (or even SEE) a
workstation, and maybe even see X-Windows run.
Anyway, my solution to the "censorship" problem has been to shorten the
amount of time we keep things, roughly by amount of traffic, but to keep
all of the hierarchies.
>'nuf said.
Indeed.
Oh, BTW, I'm sure the university accepts donations. :-)
>Alaric Morgan Kestrel |buckaroo@isg, mpetach@portia (.stanford.edu)
Robert
--
Robert K. Shull
rob@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu
Disclaimer: OU has no opinions, so these must be mine.
-------------------
From: usenet@swbatl.sbc.com
Subject: Re: Dave (The Stud) Duke likes Republicans!
Message-ID: <1991Oct30.174724.6656@swbatl.sbc.com>
References: <+qad!h_@lynx.unm.edu> <1991Oct29.085819.7999@agora.uucp>
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 91 17:47:24 GMT
In article <1991Oct29.085819.7999@agora.uucp> trifid@agora.uucp (Roadster Racewerks) writes:
>
>
>I don't know, Tom... why does Duke "have to be a Republican"? Seems to me if
>enough of us sent nasty notes to our party's committee to re-elect, and screamed
>bloody murder about this, they just might find *some* way to get the word
>"Republican" removed from Duke's slot on the ballot somehow...
>
>How about it folks? If you are a Republican, send mail and demand Duke be kicked
>so far out of the party his KKK cronies have to take him back!
Oh, I see. Diversity has its limits, eh???
David Duke's popularity is not confined to Louisiana. Having
just returned from a week-end in the Dallas area, I spotted
many Texas cars with Duke bumper stickers. The emergence of
David Duke as a political figure to be reckoned with is a
direct result of failed liberal policies having been stuffed
down the throat of productive, working Americans, and the rising
threat of the growing welfare underclass.
The great majority of Americans do not embrace school busing,
third and fourth generation welfare deadbeats, affirmitive
action, the decline of public schools, college entrance
quotas, current immigration policy, rampant crime, bleeding
heart judges, loss of property owners rights, federal
intervention in local issues, rewarding unwed mothers with
an increase in her welfare check, penalizing the financially
successful, and most all other failed policies of the
ill advised Kennedy-Johnson Great Society debacle of which
we are still paying for today. After over 30 years, Americans
are finally beginning to realize what has slowly and deceivingly
been stolen from them by the liberals who promised so much.
To put the matter in the mildest terms possible, Joe Average
American has had it up to his ass with the federal government
sucking up to special interest groups at his financial expense,
at his freedoms expense, and at the expense of his own heritage.
>
>Suze
*********************************************************************
Joe Spencer What the Hell is the world
Southwestern Bell coming to?
Network Engineering
Sheriff Buford T. Justice
********************************************************************
-------------------
From: russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto)
Subject: Re: I Move the Previous Question
Message-ID: <1991Oct31.041102.17462@eng.umd.edu>
Date: 31 Oct 91 04:11:02 GMT
References: <86B542DFEE405407@ccmail.sunysb.edu>
In article <86B542DFEE405407@ccmail.sunysb.edu> Sanjay Kapur writes:
>>Since I play no part in the drafting of the statement, your claim is
>>unsupported. As for the bashing: You asked for it, you got it.
>
>That is the language a rapist uses: "She was asking for or she would not wear
>those tight clothes"
>
>No one ever "asks" to be bashed. If you think otherwise, you need help.
>
>>--
>>Matthew T. Russotto russotto@eng.umd.edu russotto@wam.umd.edu
Wow, you really are paranoid, comparing me to a rapist, when all I did is
post a cynical definition of 'system administrator'. Your message was
the electronic equivalent of taping a "kick me" sign to your own back-- if
you think otherwise, you need help.
--
Matthew T. Russotto russotto@eng.umd.edu russotto@wam.umd.edu
.sig continuing construction after a brief lull due to budget cuts
Just say NO to police searches and seizures. Make them use force.
(not responsible for bodily harm resulting from following above advice)
-------------------
From: lamontg@milton.u.washington.edu (Lamont Granquist)
Subject: Re: I Move the Previous Question
Message-ID: <1991Oct31.043703.24252@milton.u.washington.edu>
Date: 31 Oct 91 04:37:03 GMT
References: <42C2F521FE4018B1@ccmail.sunysb.edu>
SKAPUR@ccmail.sunysb.edu (Sanjay Kapur) writes:
>It will not be good policy unless it also limits what a "user" can do and
>puts down simple rules like:
>1) The user will not attempt to break security. If the user discovers
> security holes, the user will report such holes immediately to the system
> administrator.
Agreed. however, you may need to realize that your average user on a
university mainframe may not know a security hole when it hits them over
the head. I had such a thing happen to me last year, and I managed to take
down one of the UW mainfraimes twice (it was complicated by my ignorance of
some aspects of unix...)
>2) The user will act "responsibily" so as to allow maximum use of
> the machine by a maximum number of authorized users i.e. one user will
> not hog the system.
> An example of acting responsibily is that if the machine is slow,
> and the user wants to play a computer game, the user will lower the cpu
> run time priority before playing the game e.g. by using the "nice"
> command in unix.
> An example of irresponsibility is hogging disk space on a system without
> disk quotas.
> Another example of irresponsibility is using a terminal/workstation to play
> games while there is a queue of users waiting to use the machine for
> projects/home works etc.
If you're going to propose that users have to act "reponsibly" then you
had better write out and post in an extremely accessable place,
(with a sufficient number of notices which would point the user to this
place), EXACT, DETAILED instructions on what is considered to be
"irresponsible use" of the computers.
Unless such a thing is posted, then its the system adminstrators responsiblity
to make sure that they have a secure system which is immune to user
ignorance. This will, naturally, be impossible, and of course listing out
every "irresponsible" activity would be impossible too. Therefore, you are
going to have to deal with the fact that you are not only going to have to
deal with idiotic hardware problems, but idiotic users, too.
I, however, completely agree that chronic idiots should have their
priveledges revoked. You're "rules" however, are much too simple, and give
system administrators much to wide a range of options, and potential for
abuse.
--
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)
-------------------
Subject: Re: [alt.censorship, et al.] No comment...
Message-ID: <1991Oct31.002907.5163@uoft02.utoledo.edu>
From: brack@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu (Brack)
Date: 31 Oct 91 00:29:06 EST
References: <9110292225.AA08380@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Nntp-Posting-Host: uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>
> Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.society.civil-liberties,talk.politics.misc
> From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
> Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1991 23:34:04 GMT
>
>
> "Everyone seems more concerned about the theoretical abridgment of
> First Amendment rights than about the real abridgment of rights
> based on racial harassment."
>
> -- James E. Sutton, University of Wisconsin Special Assistant to
> the President for Minority Affairs, October 1991, bemoaning a
> Federal District Court ruling striking down the University's
> "Hate Speech" code as unconstitutional.
Carl -
It is so infrequen that I disagree with you, but now, that happens to
be the case. The fact that I use a word someone else doesn't like
should never be grounds for judicial action. I've gone round & round
on this very point w/ one of my more PC professors.
Students do have some right to protection, but from physical danger,
not impolitic language. It would be the penultimate hypocrisy to punish a student's violation of the rights of another, and to have that
punishment violate his/her rights.
-------------------
From: n8810182@henson.cc.wwu.edu (LittleOne)
Subject: Here's the articles from the Western Front
Message-ID: <1991Oct31.083154.18311@henson.cc.wwu.edu>
Sender: n8810182@henson.cc.wwu.edu (LittleOne)
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1991 08:31:54 GMT
Pornographic files removed from Western's USENET system
(Western Front, October 22, 1991)
By George Tharalson
A wide selection of pronographic material available over the
UNIX computer system at Western has been eliminated. The pornographic
material is available through a service called USENET, a system where
information is exchanged among universities and other organizations.
According to a Seattle Post-Intelligencer article (Oct. 15) these
files were available on the UW system. The article also reports that
a manager at Central Washington University was demoted after being severly
critcized by a state auditor for allowing pronography on its electronic
bulletin boards.
Jeremy Your from the UNIX lab at the UW posted a statement on the
system that said the demotion actually occurred because of a "collection
of copyrighted software and scanned pornography images and did not seem to
affect USENET that much."
The auditor was quoted as saying he planned to have the situation
at the UW checked into.
The UW decided to elminate files with the name ::alt.binary.pictures,"
said Jeff Wandling, student intern at Western's UNIX computer lab in Bond
Hall.
Item under "alt.binary.pictures" could be a "sailboat or a house
or some nude woman," he said.
Western eliminated "alt.binary.pictures" and any file with
"alt.sex" in the name, Wandling said. The UW did not eliminate the
"alt.sex" files, he said.
The UW eliminated its questionable file after Western did.
Originally, the UW decided not to eliminate their files.
The issue here is not the contenet but the flow of information,
Wandling said. "The information should not be abridged.
"Never before in the history of mankind has there been a forum
of communication more open than USENET," he said.
"USENET is an electronic newspaper that the readers write, " said
Scott Williams, systems programmer at Western's UNIX lab. To keep it
operating, everybody writes something.
"No one is hold a gun to (people's) heads and telling them to
read 'alt.sex....' files, but if people start thinking its o.k. to start
censoring these groups, I can see myself hold a gun to somebody's head
telling them to read something," Wandling said.
Wandling manages the USENET system at Western and installed it on
the machines where it currently can be accessed. He removed the question-
able files, after being ordered to do so.
"This is a form of censorship," said Gary Rutledge, an employee at
Western's computer center. "If you describe this group (information) as
unreasonable, what's to stop other groups from being described as unreason-
able... and then eliminated."
"I don't think this is censorship," said Bent Faber, systems manager
at the Bond Hall lab. If any faculty memeber feels it necessary to bring
these files back for academic reasons, the files will be brought back, he
said.
"We're not outlawing it, " Faber said. "We don't necessarily
support some aspects of USENET." The games and prn that come over the
system are two examples of groups not supported, he said.
"We don't have a place to store everything, " Williams said. What
is appropriate for the system is in the eye of the beholder, he said.
The decision to eliminate the questionable news groups was made
by Western Vice Provost for Information and Communication Jerry Boles.
Boles could not be reached for comment.
--
/) / /~~\ * Vickie Hoover
/ * _/__/_ / _ / ) __ _ * n8810182@henson.cc.wwu.edu
/ / / / / / ) ( /-// ) / ) * 8810182@nessie.cc.wwu.edu
(_____ (_/(_/(_/ /_ (_/_/ \__/ / /_(_/_/ * VickieH@nessie.cc.wwu.edu
-------------------
From: n8810182@henson.cc.wwu.edu (LittleOne)
Subject: Here's another article from the Western Front
Message-ID: <1991Oct31.083245.18425@henson.cc.wwu.edu>
Sender: n8810182@henson.cc.wwu.edu (LittleOne)
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1991 08:32:45 GMT
Western Front, October 29, 1991
Written by: George Tharalson
Pronographic computer files 'junk mail,' says vice provost
(Editor's note: Because an important source could not be reached for a
previous artticle on the removal of pornographic material from Western's
computer system, the followin article was written to cluear any confusion
over the issue)
Jerry Boles, Vice Provost of Information and Telecommunications services
at Western, said he did not know that certain news groups containing porno-
graphic material existed on Western's UNIX computer sysytem until he read an
article in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer which reported that these groups
were available on the UW's USENET system
"I asked our staff if these files existed on our system too, and they said
yes," Boles said. The news groups were then removed. An important point
is the news groups come over the system "unsolicited," Boles said.
Boles said part of the reason there news groups were removed was they
contained pornographic material. He compared this situation to receiving
mail at home, where people "throw out" mail they don't want.
"This is a form of censorship," Physics Department employee Gary Rutledge.
Rutledge has an account on the UNIX system. If one group is considered
unreasonable, what will stop other groups from being considered unreason-
able and then eliminated, he said.
"The issue here is not the content, but the flow of information," said Jeff
Wandling, student intern at the UNIX labb and manager of the USENET system.
"The information should not be abridged. The news has been running here
for a year and a half with no complaints, no problems."
Student Rob Sutton said, "It's a form of censorship depending on why the
news groups were removed. If they were removed because one of the 'higher-
ups' was offended by the material, that's censorship. If they were removed
due to the lack of space or maybe they weren't used enough, and if those were
the reasons, I can accept that," he said.
Boles said he doesn't think this is an issue of censorship. "If people
have a reason to receive this... the technical staff has said it's possible."
If an instructor requests the files for academic reasons, the request will
be evaluated on equal grounds whether it's an alt.sex news group or some
other group, he said.
Not all requests can be granted, he said, " We don't have the capability
to respond to everything."
The computers on campus are for academic use only, Boles said. The news
groups in question are the elcectron equivalent of junk mail. "We have no
obligation to accept junk mail, " he said.
Boles also cited financial reasons for eliminating the news groups. "Should
we be spending money, time and storage space on (these news groups)?" he
said. "If (the news groups) are being used for non-academinc reasons, why
should we spend money on it?"
"If the news groups are not being requested and not part of the academic
program at the university, why have them in the first place?" Boles asked.
The purpose of the computer center is to "support the academic activities
of the University," he said.
Western's system take a feed from the UW system, Wandling said. "Western
takes a standard feed from the UW system--the feed 98 percent of the other
schools get."
--
/) / /~~\ * Vickie Hoover
/ * _/__/_ / _ / ) __ _ * n8810182@henson.cc.wwu.edu
/ / / / / / ) ( /-// ) / ) * 8810182@nessie.cc.wwu.edu
(_____ (_/(_/(_/ /_ (_/_/ \__/ / /_(_/_/ * VickieH@nessie.cc.wwu.edu
-------------------
From: ts2a+@andrew.cmu.edu (Thomas Omar Smith)
Subject: Re: The Hollywood Political Entourage and the FCC (was Dave the Stud)
Message-ID:
Date: 31 Oct 91 03:22:41 GMT
References: <5ngdbla@lynx.unm.edu>
<1991Oct30.211732.25556@nic.unh.edu>
In-Reply-To: <1991Oct30.211732.25556@nic.unh.edu>
I can't see what Mr. Wickham has to complain about. The 80s saw massive
diversification of the airwaves. The "big 3" went from 80-90% market
shares to 40-50% (note these are rough guesses, I don't have solid
figures. I've just been catching numbers from the news). Maybe the
news is "more sensational", but so what. The facts are still reported,
and now people are more interested in observing them. And most of those
advertising documentaries have been relegated to 2:00am. Bad news for
bad horror movies, but not anyone else.
Mr. Wickham seems to be intensely jealous of Reagan's accomplishments.
Reagan did manipulate the media. Any intelligent politician does. It
is no discredit to him that he learned to manipulate it well. It was
this ability to communicate with the public that let him drive a hard
and often somewhat unpopular agenda through the congress for most of his
time in office. And if that isn't the true sign of successful politics,
what is. Add to that that his goals of collapsing communism, getting
elections in Nicaragua, rebuilding the navy, and pushing America's
economy into a boom all have come to pass, and Reagan begins to look
quite good. And if you can add to that that Reagan helped TV to vastly
expand its horizons, better serve the publics wants, and make a profit
doing it, then hurray for Ronald Reagan.
Tom the non hacker
--------------------
--
| 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 warnold Thu Oct 31 16:55:14 1991
Received: by eff.org id AA08911
(5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for cafb-list@eff.org); Thu, 31 Oct 1991 16:34:15 -0500
Reply-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk
From: comp-academic-freedom-talk
Precedence: bulk
To: comp-academic-freedom-talk
Errors-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk-request
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1991 16:34:08 -0500
X-Digest-Sender: "William W. Arnold"
Message-Id: <199110312134.AA08906@eff.org>
Subject: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Status: RO
Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Thu Oct 31 16:32:50 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
- Billy ]
In this issue:
tjw@unix.cis.pitt. : Re: Advice from My Legal Advisors: Dewey, Cheatum & Howe
szabo@techbook.com : Re: Dave (The Stud) Duke likes Republicans!
JTUCKER@VAX2.CSTP. : Re: Computers and Academic Freedom (news version) 1.32
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: Abstract of "Computers and Academic Freedom News" 1.3
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: (alt.censorship, et al.) No comment...
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (alt.acad.freedom.talk, et al.) Re: yahweh is good posting
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : () Student Bill of Rights at St. Mary's
kadie@herodotus.cs : Re: yahweh is good posting
kadie@eff.org (Car : Making users sign things
gerry@cs.cmu.edu ( : Re: Dave (The Stud) Duke likes Republicans!
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (soc.women) Re: yahweh is good posting
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (none)
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (none)
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (none)
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (soc.women) 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: tjw@unix.cis.pitt.edu (TJ Wood WA3VQJ)
Subject: Re: Advice from My Legal Advisors: Dewey, Cheatum & Howe
Message-ID: <197436@unix.cis.pitt.edu>
Date: 31 Oct 91 04:57:35 GMT
References: <195962@unix.cis.pitt.edu> <22385@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM>
Distribution: na
In article <22385@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> falk@peregrine.Sun.COM (Ed Falk) writes:
>In article <195962@unix.cis.pitt.edu> tjw@unix.cis.pitt.edu (TJ Wood WA3VQJ) writes:
>>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.
>What I heard was that people were demanding that Prodigy *stop* censoring
>the rebuttals.
There are apparently 2 controversies, with Prodigy caught in the middle.
One group is outraged that they are censoring postings (and perhaps e-mail?).
The other group is outraged that they are NOT censoring postings about the
Holocaust.
Sheesh! What ever happened to the "Prodigy's stealing my data" controversy?
Terry "I brake for AFU" Wood
--
INTERNET: tjw@pitt.edu BITNET: TJW@PITTVMS UUCP: uunet!unix.cis.pitt.edu!tjw
Laugh while you can, Monkey Boy!
-------------------
From: szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo)
Subject: Re: Dave (The Stud) Duke likes Republicans!
Message-ID: <1991Oct31.063214.19508@techbook.com>
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
References: <1991Oct28.145842.10094@casbah.acns.nwu.edu> <1991Oct29.214224.10346@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1991 06:32:14 GMT
In article <1991Oct29.214224.10346@casbah.acns.nwu.edu> lcarp@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Lee Carpenter) writes:
>>[John McCarthy writes]
>>What are the forms that this festering racism takes? Why do you
>>think Duke might be attractive to Republicans? What forms of racism
>>do you think might be attractive to Republicans?
>>
>Well, we have:
>
>1. Willie Horton ad.
Willie Horton was discovered by one of Mario Cuomo's aides, and first
used by Al Gore against Michael Dukakis. Willie Horton is another
bit of "Cuomogaugery", as is Cuomo's hypocritical portrayal of the Horton
ads as racist.
>2. The prevailing wisdom among small-town, redneck Republicans (trust me, I
>live with them) is that minorities are stealing jobs.
Many voters of all races and political persuasions believe that quotas are
discriminatory. I notice you don't hesitate to use a nasty ethnic
stereotype ("redneck") yourself.
>3. This in mind, there was an attack against migrant Hispanic workers in my
>hometown. It has become increasingly acceptable for people to bash
>minorities.
What does this have to do with Republicans?
>4. The recent increase of KKK activity.
The KKK has traditionally been Democrat. Democrat Senator Byrd,
for example, is a former Klansman.
>5. The fact that fully one third of Duke's supporters would still support him
>even if he was openly racist.
Where do you get this figure?
Fact is, David Duke is addressing an important issue, job discrimination
via government fiat, that most Republicans and Democrats are ignoring.
It is sad that the choice is between quotas and the Klan, but that is what
your patronizing diatribe against "redneck" reaction to quotas leaves most
Lousianans -- and if it continues, most Americans -- faced with. Is that
the choice you really want us to have?
--
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: JTUCKER@VAX2.CSTP.UMKC.EDU
Subject: Re: Computers and Academic Freedom (news version) 1.32
Message-ID:
Sender: JTUCKER@VAX2.CSTP.UMKC.EDU
Date: 31 Oct 91 13:36:00 GMT
Please unsubscribe me from this list.
Thank You
Joseph Tucker
-------------------
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Abstract of "Computers and Academic Freedom News" 1.32
Message-ID: <1991Oct31.155406.29130@eff.org>
References: <1991Oct30.202854.28406@eff.org>
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1991 15:54:06 GMT
kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
[...]
>The fourth note is a revised critique of Ohio State's accusations against
>Steven Brack. Among the accusations: "You allegedly posted an obscene
>message on a bulletin board and copied it to several other networks"
>(i.e. he wrote "Fuck You" in a newsgroup note.). (After the deadline
>for this issue of CAF-News, Steven Brack reported that he has been
>suspended for one year from Ohio State
>University.)<1991Oct13.150613.14818@eff.org>
[...]
Correction:
Steven Brack was _dismissed_ from OSU, with no ability to reapply
until Winter Qtr, 1993. There is no guarantee that he will be
accepted when he reapply, as Judicial Affairs has to pass on his
application.
- 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: [alt.censorship, et al.] No comment...
Message-ID: <1991Oct31.160157.29568@eff.org>
References: <9110292225.AA08380@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu> <1991Oct31.002907.5163@uoft02.utoledo.edu>
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1991 16:01:57 GMT
>kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>>
>> Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.society.civil-liberties,talk.politics.misc
>> From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
>> Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1991 23:34:04 GMT
>>
>>
>> "Everyone seems more concerned about the theoretical abridgment of
>> First Amendment rights than about the real abridgment of rights
>> based on racial harassment."
>>
>> -- James E. Sutton, University of Wisconsin Special Assistant to
>> the President for Minority Affairs, October 1991, bemoaning a
>> Federal District Court ruling striking down the University's
>> "Hate Speech" code as unconstitutional.
brack@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu (Brack) writes:
>Carl -
> It is so infrequen that I disagree with you, but now, that happens to
> be the case.
[...]
I expect everyone disagrees with me on something. In this case,
however, these were not my words. I reposted a note by Starr. But
there were not his words either. He was quoting James E. Sutton.
- 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.acad.freedom.talk, et al.] Re: yahweh is good posting
Message-ID: <9110311613.AA19250@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 31 Oct 91 04:13:50 GMT
From: eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler)
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 91 03:08:10 GMT
In <1991Oct22.210104.4938@eff.org>, kadie@eff.org stated:
>
>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."
Since nobody else has bothered to point it out, I'll note for the
benefit of a fuller record that the above caselaw in fact justifies a
warning (or worse) to the Yahweh poster by his sysadmin.
Note the repeated references to the "boundaries of the specific
forum." I may very well be an accomplished classicist, and may indeed
have wonderfully informed things to say about the orations of
Demosthenes, but I can damn sure be stifled in class -- public
university or not -- if I start declaiming on the virtues of _Peri tou
stephanou_ in the middle of an organic chemistry lecture.
No-one is claiming that the Yahweh poster can't publish his puerile
fantasies in any number of appropriate newsgroups. What *is* being
asserted (by yours truly, anyhow) is that given the structure of the
Usenet hierarchy, it's perfectly fitting to demand some semblance of
adherence to the charters of the various groups.
If you disagree, you've got your work cut out for you. As a first
Herculean labor, I suggest calling for and achieving the elimination
of all moderated newsgroups.
--
Hey, who put this pubic hair on my Court?
Mark Eckenwiler eck@panix.com ...!cmcl2!panix!eck
-------------------
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [] Student Bill of Rights at St. Mary's
Message-ID: <9110311721.AA19582@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 31 Oct 91 05:21:37 GMT
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1991 11:18:00 CST
From: 203RUDY@stmarytx.bitnet
Statement on Student Rights and Responsibilities
"Motivated by the Christion conviction of the unity of truth, a tenet that
has characterized Catholic universities fron their foundation, St. Mary's
University seek to provide an academic environment in which the many
branches of human knowledge encounter one another so that truth emerges in
its own right." It is from this mission statement that the rights and
responsiblities of students of St. Mary's University are derived and the
standard by which they must be judged.
I. Students, all created equal in the eyes of God, share fundamental
human rights and responsibilities in order to create and sustain an
I. Students, all created equal in the eyes of God, share fundamental
human rights and responsibilities that are intrinsic to these rights.
A Catholic Marianist university recognizes these basic rights and
responsibilities in order tocreate and sustain an atmosphere conducive
to learning and teachingin thecontex ofa community of faith.
II. Students within such an academic environment enjoy the same basic
rights and are bound by the same reponsibilities to respect these
rights of others within the University community.
A. It is assumed that the student has the rights of freedom of speech,
freedom of the press, freedom of peaceful assembly and association,
freedom of political beliefs, freedom from personal coercion and
violence, and threats of violence and personal abuse, and the
responsibility to respect and maintain these rights of all others.
B. Students have the right to expect academic honesty from fellow
students and the responsibility to uphold that honesty in one's
own academic endeavors.
C. Each student has the freedom to teach and learn from one another,
to conduct research and publish findings in the spirit of free
inquiry, and the responsibility to participate in and to respect
the freedom of those inquiries.
D. Students have the right to pursue academic and extracurricular
activities and the responsibility to respect the pursuit of those
freedoms.
E. Students have the right to expect that personal and academic
records contain only information which is reasonably related to
the educational purposes and procedures or health and safety to
the individual. Furthermore, it is assumed that the student has
the right of protection from unauthorized disclosure of confidential
material contained in University record; therefore, it is the
responsibility of all students to uphold the privacy of fellow
students.
F. Students have the right to reasonable and impartially applied rules
designed to reflect the educational purposes of the instutution and
to protect the safety of the campus, both its community and itsphysica
and its physical surroundings, and the responsibility to respect
those rules.
G. Students have the right to expect that procedures shall be
structured so as to facilitate a reliable determination of the
accuracy of alleges violations of an individual or group; to
provide a fundamentalfairness to the parties; and to be effective
as instrument of order; and theresponsibility to maintain the
confidentiality of the process.
H. Students have the right to know in advance the range of penalties
for violations of University regualations, students, both
individuals and groups, alleged to have violated university policy,
maintain the right to appeal. All students are held responsible to
respect and uphold University regulations for the maintenance of order
.
I. Students who hold opinions about basic policy matters of direct
concern to them have the right to have them heard and considered
at appropriate levels of the responsibility of students to
initiate dialogues in areas of concern and torespect the process of
decision-making.
III. It is held that St. Mary's University is no sactuary from the general
law and futhermore,that the campus is a community ofgrowth and ful-
fillment for all, rather than a setting described in the concept of
"in loco parentis."
A. The University has the right to expect honesty from the members of
its community in all their University endeavors and the responsibility
to maintain that environment.
B. The University has an obligation to provide the opportunity and to
strongly encourage an open forum to presentand debate public issues
of University and student concern in the spirit oif academic inquiry.
C. The University has the right to protect its property from damage and
unauthorized use, and its academic and administrative processes from
interruption, and the reponsibility to reasonably protect students,
other members of the University community and their visitors from
physical harm and threats of harm or abuse.
D. The University maintains the right to establish rules of conduct and
procedures to uphold the academic atmosphere and the physical safety
of the campus, and the responsibility to design such rules and
procedures with respect to the rights of the University community
and its right Catholic Marianist heritage.
IV. It is understood that both students and the University have a strong
obligation to maintain an environment conducive to education and
supportive of others' rights. Furthermore, there exists a reasonable
expectation that these rights and responsibilies shall be recognized
and practice by each party.
Rudy Villareal
SGA President
Saint Mary's University
203RUDY @ St. Mary TX.BITNET
-------------------
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: yahweh is good posting
Message-ID:
Date: 31 Oct 91 16:14:05 GMT
Article-I.D.: herodotu.kadie.688925645
References: <91294.162201U42054@uicvm.uic.edu> <1991Oct22.210104.4938@eff.org> <1991Oct30.030810.13193@panix.com>
Sender: news@m.cs.uiuc.edu (News Database (admin-Mike Schwager))
In <1991Oct30.030810.13193@panix.com> eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler) writes:
[...]
>No-one is claiming that the Yahweh poster can't publish his puerile
>fantasies in any number of appropriate newsgroups. What *is* being
>asserted (by yours truly, anyhow) is that given the structure of the
>Usenet hierarchy, it's perfectly fitting to demand some semblance of
>adherence to the charters of the various groups.
>If you disagree, you've got your work cut out for you. As a first
>Herculean labor, I suggest calling for and achieving the elimination
>of all moderated newsgroups.
[...]
I think that unmoderated Netnews newsgroups facilities offered by most
universities are free-speech forums. The charters of the newsgroups
(if any) defines the focus of the forum, not the government-enforced
boundary of the forum.
I offer three justifications for this opinion.
First, the unmoderated newsgroups at most universities are in practice
free-speech forums. No university that I know of consistently enforces
newsgroup charters. If the charter is enforced at all, it is enforced
as a way to punish the poster of an offensive note. This kind of
selective enforcement is exactly what was prohibited in _San Diego
Committee v. Governing Bd_[1]. I think that one reason that most
universities treat unmoderated newsgroups as free-speech forums is
that Usenet (and altnet, etc) offer no way to enforce the charters of
unmoderated newsgroups on posters from other sites.
Second, moderated newsgroups (and mailing lists) offer a popular and
well-accepted alternative to the free-speech forums of unmoderated
newsgroups. In practice, forging an approval for an unmoderated
newsgroup is not tolerated, no matter what the content of the article.
Third, charters are not written to be legally enforceable documents. A
charter can say almost anything. It could say that this newsgroup is
only for people of a certain religion; it could say expressions of
skepticism are not allowed; it could say that offensive articles are
prohibited. None of these restrictions could be legally enforced by a
state university.
So, if the charters of newsgroups are not enforceable by the
government does that mean the end of the Net as we know it? I don't
think so. Newsgroup charters are explicit parts of social contracts.
Experience shows government policing is not necessary; the charters
can be and are enforced with social pressure. Such enforcement is not
perfect, but as Gene Spafford quotes in "What is Usenet?": "Anarchy
means having to put up with things that really piss you off."
- Carl
[1] Excerpts from this case are available via anonymous ftp as
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/law/san-diego-committee-v-gov-bd or send
email to archive-server@eff.org. Include the lines:
send academic-law san-diego-committee-v-gov-bd
send acad-freedom README
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
-------------------
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Making users sign things
Message-ID: <1991Oct31.180550.2631@eff.org>
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1991 18:05:50 GMT
There are legal limits to what a (public) school can ask its teachers
to sign. I imagine some of these same limits apply to what a school
can ask a user to sign as a condition of getting (or keeping) a
computer account.
by David Rubin, 1984, p.92:
---------begin quote---------
[Question:] May a teacher be required as a condition of employment
to subscribe to a loyalty oath?
[Answer:] It depends on the oath. Neither the federal nor state
government may condition employment on taking an oath that impinges on
rights guaranteed by the First and 14th Amendments, such as rights
relating to political beliefs. Nor may such employment be conditioned
on an oath that on has not engaged, nor will not engage, in protected
speech activities, such as criticizing institutions of government,
discussing political doctrines that approve the overthrow of certain
forms of government, or supporting candidates for political
office.{300} Public employment may not be conditioned upon an oath
denying past, or abjuring future, associational activities that are
constitutionally protected, including membership in organizations have
an illegal purpose, unless one knows of that purpose and has specific
intent to promote it.{301} Finally, an oath imposed as a condition of
public employment may not be so vague that "men of common intelligence
must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application,
(because such an oath) violates the first essential of due process of
law."{302}.
{300} Cole v. Richardson, supra; Keyishian v. Board of Regents, 385
U.S. 589 (1967); Baggett v. Bullitt, 377 U.S. 360 (1964); Cramp v.
Board of Public Instruction, 368 U.S. 278 (1961)
{301} Cole v. Richardson, supra; Whitehill v. Elkins, 389 U.S. 54
(1967); Law Students Civil Rights Research Council, Inc. V. Wadmond,
supra; Keyishian V. Board of Regents, supra; Elfbrandt v. Russell,
384 U.S. 11 (1966); Wieman v. Updegraff, 344 U.S. 183 (1954)
{302} Cole v. Richardson, supra; Cramp v. Board of Public Instruction
368 U.S. 278, 287 (1961)
--
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: Dave (The Stud) Duke likes Republicans!
Message-ID:
Date: 31 Oct 91 16:53:09 GMT
References: <+qad!h_@lynx.unm.edu> <1991Oct29.085819.7999@agora.uucp> <1991Oct30.174724.6656@swbatl.sbc.com>
Nntp-Posting-Host: onion.frc.ri.cmu.edu
In-Reply-To: usenet@swbatl.sbc.com's message of 30 Oct 91 17:47:24 GMT
Sorry to waste bandwidth quoting all of this, but...
In article <1991Oct30.174724.6656@swbatl.sbc.com> usenet@swbatl.sbc.com writes:
David Duke's popularity is not confined to Louisiana. Having
just returned from a week-end in the Dallas area, I spotted
many Texas cars with Duke bumper stickers. The emergence of
David Duke as a political figure to be reckoned with is a
direct result of failed liberal policies having been stuffed
down the throat of productive, working Americans, and the rising
threat of the growing welfare underclass.
The great majority of Americans do not embrace school busing,
third and fourth generation welfare deadbeats, affirmitive
action, the decline of public schools, college entrance
quotas, current immigration policy, rampant crime, bleeding
heart judges, loss of property owners rights, federal
intervention in local issues, rewarding unwed mothers with
an increase in her welfare check, penalizing the financially
successful, and most all other failed policies of the
ill advised Kennedy-Johnson Great Society debacle of which
we are still paying for today. After over 30 years, Americans
are finally beginning to realize what has slowly and deceivingly
been stolen from them by the liberals who promised so much.
To put the matter in the mildest terms possible, Joe Average
American has had it up to his ass with the federal government
sucking up to special interest groups at his financial expense,
at his freedoms expense, and at the expense of his own heritage.
Although I strongly agree with this post, this does NOT mean that hate
mongers such as Duke are the appropriate answer. Our government has
the habit of attacking the symptoms of problems, not the problems
themselves. This artcile is proof of that. I don't claim to know the
answers, but slime such as Duke and his cronies are not it.
--
Gerry Roston (gerry@cs.cmu.edu) | Liberty is to faction what air is to fire,
Field Robotics Center, | an aliment without which it instantly ex-
Carnegie Mellon University | pires. But it could not be a less folly to
Pittsburgh, PA, 15213 | abolish liberty, which is essential to pol-
(412) 268-3856 | itical life, because it nourishes faction
| than it would be to wish the annihilation
The opinions expressed are mine | of air, which is essential to animal life,
and do not reflect the official | because it imparts to fire its destructive
position of CMU, FRC, RedZone, | agency. James Madison
or any other organization. |
-------------------
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [soc.women] Re: yahweh is good posting
Message-ID: <9110311808.AA19875@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 31 Oct 91 06:08:17 GMT
From: lamontg@milton.u.washington.edu (Lamont Granquist)
Date: 31 Oct 91 04:20:51 GMT
efam@nvuxr.UUCP (familant) writes:
>Let me inject some reality into the situation.
Oh this is good. I *REALLY* need something good to flame tonight...
>First, the idea that free speech is totally free is a myth. Virtually,
>all outlets for speech have editors (or moderators) that censor or edit
>articles, flames, speeches, etc. This is simply a fact. The net is
>somewhat unique in that there are boards that have no moderators. The
>result is that postings like the pornography of the Yahweh is good
>article occasionally occur.
You're assuming the analogy that USENET is like a library or newspaper
publishing company. It most definitely is not. The only analogy which
holds down to considering the individual users, is that USENET is like
Hyde Park in London -- people get up on soapboxes and talk. I do not
believe that this kind of speech should be controlled in any way.
>Second, I want to come right out and say that this regulated free
>speech is good.
I disagree -- its very simple, who are you going to choose to do the
censorship for you? I'll volunteer -- first of all lets axe everything
besides alt.sex, alt.drugs and alt.rock-n-roll.metal -- its quick easy,
and no headaches for me. What, you don't like that? well, come up with
better guidelines...
>It is an infringement of my rights as a net user to
>have to read such disturbing pieces as the posting in question.
Fucking come back to reality -- YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS AS A NET READER! If you
do, please show me the legally binding contract which states such.
>True, noone
>made me read it (in fact I found it so revolting that I stopped reading
>it after a few sentences)
Congratulations! This is what everyone else did, its just a few uptight
idiots like yourself that have had their morals "offended" and have a stick
up their ass about this kind of thing who perpetuate bullshit like this.
>, but the article was found on a board where
>this kind of posting is not expected.
>Furthermore, its title was
>deceptive. Yahweh is the ancient Hebrew name for God, a name so sacred
>that religious Jews, even today, do not speak the name out loud. The
>author of the posting suckered users down a path and then slammed them
>with a horrific article. In a way, the article was a cruel trick on the
>readers of this board.
(I do *TRUELY* feel sorry for you)
>Now you might say that censorship is wrong and
>that even if one person is censored, then we are all in danger of losing
>our free speech. But consider this, there are many instances in which
>unbridled freedom of speech infringes on my rights and even my freedom
>of speech. Some examples:
AND NONE OF WHICH APPLY!!!!!!!!!
>1. The classic example of yelling fire in a crowded theatre. The
>Supreme Court ruled this is not part of our rights of speech.
its "clear and present danger", there is no such clear and present danger
in the yahweh posting.
>2. This situation, you say something, and everytime you do, I shout or
>yell or screem, making your statements inaudible. I am prventing you
>from speaking by exercising my freedom of speech.
You're grasping at straws -- this isn't even close to being applicable
>3. Or this electronic version. I create a Bulletin Board that can
>contain a limited number of messages during any 24 hour period. You
>post numerous messages to the board. So many in fact, that no one can
>post to the board. Your freedom of speech, postings, now infringes on
>anyone else who wants to post.
A variant of #2 or maliciously interfering in the operations of the BBS --
again not a damn thing applies.
>The author of this posting has committed a speech act that, I consider
>to be equivalent to one of the three listed above. I found his posting
>so horrific that it makes me a little reluctant to be so reckless in my
>reading on the net. That is, his posting has a chilling effect on my
>reading.
Oh, so you're *OFFENDED*. You're *OFFENDED* so you want to censor him.
Well, tell you what idiot, you offend me, so lets censor you. Alternately,
lets just get some forceps and pull that stick out of your ass.
>So, in a way, his posting has the effect of censoring what I
>can read.
Complete pathetic bullshit.
>Now, you might say, that is my problem.
*EXACTLY*
>But if the posting
>has the same effect on many people (and from my reading of other
>posters, it does) it is the problem of many users of the net.
Which is why there are moderated newsgroups and mailing lists...
>So, here
>we have an instance where the rights of many are being infringed upon by
>one individual.
Guess again. You still have no rights, certainly not the "right not to
be offended reading news". Get a clue, please.
>The standard utilitarian rule under these
>circumstances is the greatest good for the greatest number.
Look boys and girls, its Stalin!
>I wonder if
>the author's right to post pornography is more important, than my right
>not to be fearful, everytime I start reading a post from someone I don't
>know.
If you're fearful everytime you start reading a post from someone you don't
know, then you need to see a bloody psychologist.
>One final note, a little off the topic, but one that should be
>mentioned. As I wrote above, Yahweh is a sacred name of God to many people,
>including individuals who use the net. I find it a little odd, that
>people, when responding to the author of the porno posting, refer to him
>as Yahweh. In a way, it is a cruel and antisemetic joke that the author
>is playing on all of us. By calling the author Yahweh, you are saying
>that he is God. Is this what you intend? I doubt it.
Oh good, so calling him Yahweh *OFFENDS* you? I'll be *CERTAIN* to use this
in the future now that you've pointed it out.
>Elliott
And i'm sorry if any of my insults have *OFFENDED* you -- learn how to
use a kill file, learn how to use the 'n' or 'j' key, and finally realize that
*WHENEVER* you make a statement in front of thousands of people, someone will
invairably tell you to "PLEASE FUCK OFF AND GET A LIFE". It happens to
public speakers, it happens to rock bands, it happens to newspaper reporters,
and it just happened to you.
--
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: (none)
Message-ID: <9110311809.AA19894@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 31 Oct 91 06:09:33 GMT
-------------------
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: (none)
Message-ID: <9110311810.AA19915@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 31 Oct 91 06:10:09 GMT
-------------------
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: (none)
Message-ID: <9110311812.AA19941@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 31 Oct 91 06:12:16 GMT
-------------------
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [soc.women] Re: yahweh is good posting
Message-ID: <9110311814.AA19975@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 31 Oct 91 06:14:54 GMT
From: shore@theory.TC.Cornell.EDU (Melinda Shore)
Date: 31 Oct 91 14:39:47 GMT
In article <1991Oct31.042051.21663@milton.u.washington.edu> lamontg@milton.u.washington.edu (Lamont Granquist) writes:
>You're assuming the analogy that USENET is like a library or newspaper
>publishing company. It most definitely is not. The only analogy which
>holds down to considering the individual users, is that USENET is like
>Hyde Park in London -- people get up on soapboxes and talk. I do not
>believe that this kind of speech should be controlled in any way.
Neither do I, but almost everybody here is using somebody
else's very costly soapbox yet seems to be unwilling to
let the soapbox owner set the soapbox access policy. We
are not, in fact, talking about "this kind of speech."
>Fucking come back to reality -- YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS AS A NET READER! If you
>do, please show me the legally binding contract which states such.
Let's be absolutely clear about this - you are asserting that
posters have unlimited rights and readers have no rights. Is
that an accurate representation of your position?
>Oh good, so calling him Yahweh *OFFENDS* you? I'll be *CERTAIN* to use this
>in the future now that you've pointed it out.
Say, this is useful.
--
Software longa, hardware brevis
Melinda Shore - Cornell Information Technologies - shore@tc.cornell.edu
--------------------
--
| 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 warnold Fri Nov 1 12:54:52 1991
Received: by eff.org id AA08838
(5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for cafb-list@eff.org); Fri, 1 Nov 1991 12:38:43 -0500
Reply-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk
From: comp-academic-freedom-talk
Precedence: bulk
To: comp-academic-freedom-talk
Errors-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk-request
X-Digest-Sender: "William W. Arnold"
Message-Id: <199111011738.AA08833@eff.org>
Subject: no subject (file transmission)
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 91 12:38:39 EST
Status: RO
~s Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
~r date.txt
[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
- Billy ]
In this issue:
~r contents.txt
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
~r body.txt
--------------------
--
| 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 warnold Fri Nov 1 12:58:06 1991
Received: by eff.org id AA08848
(5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for cafb-list@eff.org); Fri, 1 Nov 1991 12:39:01 -0500
Reply-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk
From: comp-academic-freedom-talk
Precedence: bulk
To: comp-academic-freedom-talk
Errors-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk-request
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 1991 12:38:56 -0500
X-Digest-Sender: "William W. Arnold"
Message-Id: <199111011738.AA08843@eff.org>
Subject: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Status: RO
Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Fri Nov 1 12:28:08 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
- Billy ]
In this issue:
bzs@world.std.com : Re: Dave (The Stud) Duke likes Republicans!
kadie@eff.org (Car : Abstract of "Computers and Academic Freedom News" 1.33
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: yahweh is good posting
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (soc.women) Re: yahweh is good posting
SKAPUR@ccmail.suny : Re: yahweh is good posting
kadie@herodotus.cs : Re: yahweh is good posting
russotto@eng.umd.e : Re: Dave (The Stud) Duke likes Republicans!
russotto@eng.umd.e : Re: (soc.women) Re: yahweh is good posting
bader@Xerox.com (L : 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: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
Subject: Re: Dave (The Stud) Duke likes Republicans!
In-Reply-To: usenet@swbatl.sbc.com's message of Wed, 30 Oct 91 17:47:24 GMT
Message-ID:
Sender: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
References: <+qad!h_@lynx.unm.edu>
<1991Oct29.085819.7999@agora.uucp>
<1991Oct30.174724.6656@swbatl.sbc.com>
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1991 22:06:20 GMT
You people are showing your naivete. George Wallace, then Governor of
Alabama, ran for President of the USA in 1968 on a segregationist
platform and got about 15% of the national, popular vote. And he was
already a governor.
So what? You speak as if there's some deep lesson in this.
There isn't, there are too many racists in this country, and far too
many who vote south of the Mason-Dixon. I view that about the same as
I view a disease epidemic, a human scourge that needs to be
eliminated, not as a reality check as you seem to see it.
--
-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: Abstract of "Computers and Academic Freedom News" 1.33
Message-ID: <1991Nov1.034011.16097@eff.org>
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 1991 03:40:11 GMT
This is an abstract for the most recent "Computers and Academic
Freedom News" (CAF-news). Information about CAF-news followings the
abstract. The full CAF-news is available via email. Send email
to archive-server@eff.org. Include the line:
send caf-news cafv01n33
--- begin abstract ---
[Week ending October 20, 1991
I'm using a new format this week for the abstract. The format is based
on a design by Tad Guy. THE WORDS AFTER THE NUMBERS are a short
paraphrase of the article, not necessarily my opinion.
Notes 1-10 are related to the brouhaha in the State of Washington.
Notes 1-2 are about what happened.
1. A state auditor's criticism of game playing and pictures of naked
people on computers at Central Washington University (CWU) lead to
a demotion at CWU, newspaper criticism of the University of Washington
(UW), and newsgroup removal at Western Washington University (WWU).
<199110180040.AA04264@eff.org>
2. (Student at WWU:) Alt.sex was removed on the order of one person,
the Vice Provost for "information and communication".
<1991Oct17.181138.9478@henson.cc.wwu.edu>
Notes 3-4 express disapproval of the newsgroup censorship.
3. The removal of alt.sex sets a precedent that could lead to the
removal of other controversial newsgroups (e.g. talk.abortion). The
removal is a blow against the freedom of intellectual discourse.
<17OCT199119542932@misvax.mis.arizona.edu>
4. If you accept the principle that computer sites should select
newsgroups the way that (traditional) libraries select magazine
subscriptions, then the removal and the procedure that led to the
removal violate the Library Bill of Rights.
<1991Oct17.021516.851@eff.org>
Notes 5-6 are about the legality of newsgroup bans.
5. Public school authorities cannot withdraw support from a student
publication simply because of displeasure with the content.
<1991Oct19.151904.20184@eff.org>
6. Courts are reluctant to endorse prior restraints, but do allow
removal of libelous material.
<1991Aug26.213202.23932@eff.org>
Notes 7-8 Tell how other schools have fought efforts to suppress newsgroups.
7. (Reposted from the CAF Archive:) Stanford overturned a ban on
rec.humor.funny by referring the issue to the Committee on Libraries.
The Committee said that "the criteria for including newsgroups in
computer systems or removing them should be identical to those for
including books in or removing books from libraries."
8. (Computer administrator at Iowa State:) Having a selection policy
based on Library policy is the proverbial ounce of prevention.
<1991Oct18.025306.11694@news.iastate.edu>
Notes 9-10: Other notes related to the brouhaha.
9. What good is Usenet? The Net instantiates the ideal of a
marketplace of ideas. Unlike other free forums, it allows users to
express their ideas without drowning each other out. It even helped in
the fight against the Soviet coup.
<8661@ns-mx.uiowa.edu>
10. Some say that Usenet should be hidden from the press as long as
possible. This is wrong; it is like hiding the University Library from
reporters for fear that they will discover that it contains explicit
material. Also, to avoid complaints from offended Usenet readers,
computer sites should warn users that they might find some material
offensive and that they read at their own risk.
Note 11 is a continuation of last week's thread about grade and high
schoolers getting sexual material from the net.
11. (Janet Murray, an organizer of the Texas K-12 net): Reporter Joe
Abernathy's report of a "major porno incident" was inaccurate. No
Texas students did see or could have seen the "porno" article.
<199110171337.AA17490@eff.org>
Note 12 is a repost from comp.admin.policy.
12. 260 people replied to a survey about undergrad access to the Net.
Most of the sites reported that undergrads have full net access.
<9110191524.AA07825@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
- Carl]
--- end abstract ---
CAF-news is a weekly digest of notes from CAF-talk.
CAF-news is available as newsgroup alt.comp.acad-freedom.news or via
email. If you read newsgroups but your site doesn't get
alt.comp.acad-freedom.news, (politely) ask your sys admin to
subscribe. For info on email delivery, send email to listserv@eff.org.
Include the lines "help" and "longindex".
Back issues of CAF-news are available via anonymous ftp or via email.
Ftp to ftp.eff.org. The directory is pub/academic/news. For
information about email access to the archive, send an email note to
archive-server@eff.org. Include the lines "help" and "index".
--
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: <1991Nov1.040337.16719@eff.org>
References: <91294.162201U42054@uicvm.uic.edu> <1991Oct22.210104.4938@eff.org> <1991Oct30.030810.13193@panix.com> <1991Oct31.222812.2593@ecs.comm.mot.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 1991 04:03:37 GMT
bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris) writes:
[...]
>There are a couple of different comments I have here. If a university
>doesn't act to enforce (valid & non-discriminatory) newsgroup charters unless
>it receives complaints about inappropriate postings that seems like a
>reasonable, and even desirable, policy. Would this be considered to be an
>objectionable form of 'selective enforcement'? I hope not. Especially if
>there is a required cycle of discussion, then warnings, before any more
>severe action is taken. I think a reluctance to get involved in all but
>the most severe and/or prolonged issues of mis-posting is a Good Thing,
>overall, as is a slowness and reluctance to take any administrative action.
Responding only to complaints would, in my opinion, be a legal problem
if the effect was that only offensive posters were punished.
>Secondly, it seems to me that the problems with the Yahweh post are more
>basic than just being off-charter. I think it relates to the issue
>of obscenity. I think it is both reasonable and desirable to prohibit
>sexually explicit posts like Yahweh from general newsgroups.
[...]
If _American Psycho_ is not legally obscene, I doubt "yahweh" is.
[...]
> However, this broad-mindedness should not prohibit the
>restriction of such materials to appropriate groups (IMO).
I don't trust the government to judge appropriateness.
- 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: [soc.women] Re: yahweh is good posting
Message-ID: <9111010410.AA21673@dante.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 31 Oct 91 16:10:21 GMT
From: ellis@daffodil.LABS.TEK.COM (Cynthia Ward)
Date: 31 Oct 91 20:05:46 GMT
In article <1991Oct31.023838.11098@news.media.mit.edu> crl!zephyr.ens.tek.com!uunet!wupost!micro-heart-of-gold.mit.edu!news.media.mit.edu!gorin gorin@media.mit.edu (Amy Gorin) writes:
>In article <4995@sun13.scri.fsu.edu> stricher@masig3.ocean.fsu.edu (Char Aznabul) writes:
>
>>Yea, it IS your problem. Do you cringe when you open the mailbox and
>>retrieve your mail? How do you handle junk mail?
I know what is and what isn't junk mail. Junk mail gets ripped in two
and tossed out without the envelopes' ever being opened.
>How many of the people supporting the absolute right of 'yaweh's author to
>post are female?
I read just enough of the 'Yahweh' posting to decide that the posting
was really sick and inappropriately posted. The 'Yahweh' poster had a
right to post his sick story ... to alt.evil, to alt.tasteless, even to
alt.sex. If he had, I (and I suspect most people who read this newsgroup)
would never have seen it. His posting to soc.women was either totally
thoughtless or deliberately rude; it should have (and it sounds like it
has) been treated like a post to an inappropriate newsgroup.
I am NOT advocating censorship. I feel the same way about the 'Yahweh'
poster that I do about the person who recently posted 4MB of GIF files
to alt.tv.twin-peaks. Or the people who keep posting commercial ventures
(particularly multi-level-marketing schemes and crap like the David
Rhoades scam) to misc.forsale. And people who have posted MLM scams to the
net have gotten their logins pulled (unlike 'Yahweh', BTW). Is _this_
censorship? _I_ don't think so ... it's just enforcement of netiquette,
which is nothing more than common courtesy if you think about it.
>Of the ones who are male, how many have recieved an
>obscene phone call every night at 3am for an entire week?
Amy, if I were getting 3am obscene phone calls, I'd take the phone off
the hook for a week or get my phone number changed. I am in no way
minimizing how absolutely scary getting these phone calls can be. We
occasionally get wrong numbers and obscene phone calls at 2 or 3 am,
and I have a hard time getting back to sleep because my heart is
beating so hard.
>It is becoming increasingly clear to me that few if any men in this society
>have any clue at all as to what it's like to be female.
I agree, but I think some really try. And you and I don't probably have
much of a clue about what it's like to be male, either :-<
Cindy
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"It may be a dream come true, it may be poetry in motion, it may be a dream
come true, but when it all comes down - it's an awful lot to do." - Amy Grant
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cynthia (Ellis) Ward, Computer Research Lab, Tektronix Laboratories
P.O. Box 500, M/S 50-662, Beaverton, OR 97077 ellis@crl.LABS.TEK.COM
Disclaimer: Tektronix has enough opinions of its own; it doesn't need mine!
-------------------
From: SKAPUR@ccmail.sunysb.edu (Sanjay Kapur)
Subject: Re: yahweh is good posting
Message-ID: <5F8C2C54EE405E36@ccmail.sunysb.edu>
Sender: SKAPUR@ccmail.sunysb.edu
Date: 1 Nov 91 04:10:00 GMT
>I think that unmoderated Netnews newsgroups facilities offered by most
>universities are free-speech forums. The charters of the newsgroups
>(if any) defines the focus of the forum, not the government-enforced
>boundary of the forum.
I disagree.
>
>I offer three justifications for this opinion.
>
>First, the unmoderated newsgroups at most universities are in practice
>free-speech forums.
But not proven in court to be and therefore the above assertion lacks
validity.
> No university that I know of consistently enforces
>newsgroup charters. If the charter is enforced at all, it is enforced
>as a way to punish the poster of an offensive note. This kind of
>selective enforcement is exactly what was prohibited in _San Diego
>Committee v. Governing Bd_[1].
As I have stated several times in this forum, I do not believe the San Diego
decision is applicable to Usenet.
>I think that one reason that most
>universities treat unmoderated newsgroups as free-speech forums is
>that Usenet (and altnet, etc) offer no way to enforce the charters of
>unmoderated newsgroups on posters from other sites.
>
What if the Univeristy disagrees with the charter itself?
>Second, moderated newsgroups (and mailing lists) offer a popular and
>well-accepted alternative to the free-speech forums of unmoderated
>newsgroups. In practice, forging an approval for an unmoderated
>newsgroup is not tolerated, no matter what the content of the article.
I have a suspicion that parties that do not tolerate forging approvals but do
not mind the forging of the posters address are folloing an illegal double
standard and are guilty of censorship. (this is a an unsubstantaited
suspicision only, but I believe it can be shown that moderaters are censors
just as much as system administrators and are covered by the same laws. Just
what legal authority do you think moderators have? If a moderator is employed
by a public university or any other government supported site and does the
moderation incidental to his duties and declines to approve certain postings,
is it not censorship? For legal purposes it should not matter if the
government official is in another state or employed by an organization with
whom the poster has not contact)
Let us accept it, under certain circumstances, moderation is censorship.
>
>Third, charters are not written to be legally enforceable documents. A
>charter can say almost anything. It could say that this newsgroup is
>only for people of a certain religion; it could say expressions of
>skepticism are not allowed; it could say that offensive articles are
>prohibited. None of these restrictions could be legally enforced by a
>state university.
>
administartor to take is to shut down Usenet all together.
>So, if the charters of newsgroups are not enforceable by the
>government does that mean the end of the Net as we know it? I don't
>think so. Newsgroup charters are explicit parts of social contracts.
>Experience shows government policing is not necessary; the charters
>can be and are enforced with social pressure. Such enforcement is not
>perfect, but as Gene Spafford quotes in "What is Usenet?": "Anarchy
>means having to put up with things that really piss you off."
In other words, the majority rules and the minority is silenced by this social
contract?
>
>- Carl
>
>[1] Excerpts from this case are available via anonymous ftp as
>ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/law/san-diego-committee-v-gov-bd or send
>email to archive-server@eff.org. Include the lines:
> send academic-law san-diego-committee-v-gov-bd
> send acad-freedom README
>--
>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
-------------------
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: yahweh is good posting
Message-ID:
Date: 1 Nov 91 04:10:56 GMT
Article-I.D.: dante.kadie.688968656
References: <164@nvuxr.UUCP> <4995@sun13.scri.fsu.edu> <1991Oct31.023838.11098@news.media.mit.edu> <1991Oct31.182753.1649@ecs.comm.mot.com>
Sender: news@m.cs.uiuc.edu (News Database (admin-Mike Schwager))
Distribution: na
In <1991Oct31.182753.1649@ecs.comm.mot.com> bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris) writes:
[...]
>) Of the ones who are male, how many have recieved an
>)obscene phone call every night at 3am for an entire week?
>Of the ones who are female, how many have received an obscene phone call
>every night at 3am for an entire week?
[...]
I imagine that an obscene phone call is worse than an article in an
international publication, for there is a significant chance that the
caller is targeting you individually.
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
-------------------
From: russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto)
Subject: Re: Dave (The Stud) Duke likes Republicans!
Message-ID: <1991Nov01.055937.10996@eng.umd.edu>
Date: 1 Nov 91 05:59:37 GMT
References: <1991Oct29.085819.7999@agora.uucp> <1991Oct30.174724.6656@swbatl.sbc.com>
Followup-To: alt.censorship,alt.society.civil-liberties,talk.politics.misc
[a.c.acad-freedom.talk removed from followup list]
In article bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) writes:
>
>You people are showing your naivete. George Wallace, then Governor of
>Alabama, ran for President of the USA in 1968 on a segregationist
>platform and got about 15% of the national, popular vote. And he was
>already a governor.
>
>So what? You speak as if there's some deep lesson in this.
>
>There isn't, there are too many racists in this country, and far too
>many who vote south of the Mason-Dixon. I view that about the same as
>I view a disease epidemic, a human scourge that needs to be
>eliminated, not as a reality check as you seem to see it.
You would be willing to eliminate 15% of the population simply because their
views differ from yours?
--
Matthew T. Russotto russotto@eng.umd.edu russotto@wam.umd.edu
.sig continuing construction after a brief lull due to budget cuts
Just say NO to police searches and seizures. Make them use force.
(not responsible for bodily harm resulting from following above advice)
-------------------
From: russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto)
Subject: Re: [soc.women] Re: yahweh is good posting
Message-ID: <1991Nov01.060651.11358@eng.umd.edu>
Date: Fri, 01 Nov 91 06:06:51 GMT
References: <9111010410.AA21673@dante.cs.uiuc.edu>
In article <9111010410.AA21673@dante.cs.uiuc.edu> kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>
>I am NOT advocating censorship. I feel the same way about the 'Yahweh'
>poster that I do about the person who recently posted 4MB of GIF files
>to alt.tv.twin-peaks. Or the people who keep posting commercial ventures
>(particularly multi-level-marketing schemes and crap like the David
>Rhoades scam) to misc.forsale. And people who have posted MLM scams to the
>net have gotten their logins pulled
The difference between 'MLM scams' (actually, pyramid schemes-- there are a few
legal MLMs out there) and the others is that the scams are clearly against
federal criminal law, with no real First Amendment issues-- they are fraud,
plain and simple.
>(unlike 'Yahweh', BTW). Is _this_
>censorship? _I_ don't think so ... it's just enforcement of netiquette,
>which is nothing more than common courtesy if you think about it.
"Enforcement" of netiquette implies that there are enforcers who define what
netiquette is. I don't trust anyone to decide that-- local sysadmins least
of all-- they are likely to take the path of least resistance if net.idiots
start complaining about a person.
--
Matthew T. Russotto russotto@eng.umd.edu russotto@wam.umd.edu
.sig continuing construction after a brief lull due to budget cuts
Just say NO to police searches and seizures. Make them use force.
(not responsible for bodily harm resulting from following above advice)
-------------------
From: bader@Xerox.com (Lars Bader)
Subject: Re: Dave (The Stud) Duke likes Republicans!
Message-ID: <1991Nov1.000702.18436@parc.xerox.com>
Sender: news@parc.xerox.com
References: <1991Oct29.085819.7999@agora.uucp> <1991Oct30.174724.6656@swbatl.sbc.com> <42165@mimsy.umd.edu>
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 1991 00:07:02 GMT
In article <42165@mimsy.umd.edu>, tms@cs.umd.edu (Tom Swiss (the demolition man)) writes:
> In article <1991Oct30.174724.6656@swbatl.sbc.com> joe@okepyr.UUCP (Joe Spencer) writes:
> > The great majority of Americans do not embrace school busing,
> > third and fourth generation welfare deadbeats, affirmitive
> > action, the decline of public schools, college entrance
> > quotas, current immigration policy, rampant crime, bleeding
> > heart judges, loss of property owners rights, federal
> > intervention in local issues, rewarding unwed mothers with
> > an increase in her welfare check, penalizing the financially
> > successful, and most all other failed policies of the
> > ill advised Kennedy-Johnson Great Society debacle of which
> > we are still paying for today. After over 30 years, Americans
> [.... more ranting deleted ....]
>
> How is this the fault of liberals? Lets see, since 1970 there's only
> been four years when there was a Democrat in the White House. If the
But you have to control Congress to get your program through. And the
Republicans never did. So they weren't in a position to do so.
You're probably right, though, to say they wouldn't have fixed it even
if they could have.
> Republican conservatives wanted to stop it, they certainly were in a
> position to do so. The problem is that government officals spend more time
> doing politics - accusing each other of being bleeding heart liberal or
> icy-hearted conservatives - that there's very little time left over to
> do any actual governing. Joe Average American has been exposed to this
> screaming and yelling for so long that he doesn't know who to belive anymore.
> ===============================================================================
> Tom Swiss/tms@flubber.cs.umd.edu| "Born to die" | Keep your laws off my brain!
> "What's so funny 'bout peace, love and understanding?" - Nick Lowe
> "But as records of courts and justice are admissible, it can easily be proved
> that powerful and malevolent magicians once existed....The evidence...is still
> unimpeachable. The judges' decisions...were sound in logic and in law. Nothing
> in any existing court was ever more thoroughly proved than the charges of
> witchcraft and sorcery for which so many suffered death. If there were no
> witches, human testimony and human reason are alike destitute of value."
> -- Ambrose Bierce
--
Lars E. Bader
Email: leb@athena.mit.edu, bader@parc.xerox.com
Disclaimer: My views may not reflect those of MIT,
Xerox, or any other organization (and probably don't).
-------------------
From: morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan)
Subject: Rights for readers/posters?
Message-ID: <1991Nov1.133901.5950@ms.uky.edu>
Date: 1 Nov 91 13:39:01 GMT
References: <9110311808.AA19875@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
>From: lamontg@milton.u.washington.edu (Lamont Granquist)
>Newsgroups: soc.women
>
>Fucking come back to reality -- YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS AS A NET READER! If you
>do, please show me the legally binding contract which states such.
>
Um, how do you think newsgroups are created? How do new hierarchies (on a
net-wide level) begin? How do groups move from moderated to unmoderated
status (or vice versa)? How do hierarchies get reorganized? All these
things happen through a vote of the READERS. Many votes for/against the
creation of a particular newsgroup are from people who will never post to
that newsgroup.
Net readers have no rights, yet you claim full rights for posters? Friend,
you need to think about what you're saying. One of the major obligations
of the legal system is the determination of points at which individual rights
become secondary, in favor of group or "societal" rights. The most common
analogy is the "shouting 'fire' in a crowded theatre" maxim. Your rights to
free assembly/speech stop at the other person's doorstep. While the "right
to privacy" has never been explicitly given (it has been constructed from a
broad range of decisions), it most certainly exists, even in an arbitrary
state.
Your earlier comparision of Usenet to Hyde Park is somewhat valid; many
Usenet sites are public institutions, such as universities and government
agencies. Many more, however, are private concerns, such as corporations
and small businesses. Still more sites are personal; many sites are nothing
more than someone's PC, sitting in their den or study. You cannot compare
all of these to Hyde Park.
Based on earlier discussions in this newsgroup, many of us have come to
define Usenet as a "limited public forum". In such a forum, the maintainers
of the forum can dictate the topics to be discussed in that forum. They
cannot regulate the discussion of a topic (once it is selected), but they
can certainly enforce their choice of topic.
This definition of Usenet is not flawless by any means. By its very nature,
Usenet seems to evade concrete definition. We cannot globally apply current
laws and/or regulations to it; we must modify and, in some cases, radically
change the current perspectives when we try to apply them to Usenet.
The reader of Usenet news certainly DOES have some rights, as does the Usenet
poster. One of the major purposes of this discussion (newsgroup) is to deter-
mine those rights and their interaction.
>>, but the article was found on a board where
>>this kind of posting is not expected.
>
>
If you paid for news, would you be making these comments? Those sites which
pay for their news feed (through download fees or modem time) have a certain
right to expect feeds that conform to their requests. Wildly inappropriate
posts, such as this one, certainly do not belong; consider the "limited public
forum" definition I mentioned above. The responses and followups generated
by that message certainly increased the bills for paying sites.
>Guess again. You still have no rights, certainly not the "right not to
>be offended reading news". Get a clue, please.
Actually, I've always thought that posters AND readers have a certain
level of equality. Any of us can work to create new groups, remove old
ones, establish moderation, or change moderators. We can't do any of
these by ourselves, of course; there are usually votes involved, in which
all interested parties are treated equally.
One of the rights of the "consumer" is the right to work for change, as
I metioned in the last paragraph. In the "real world", this can take many
forms. If, for instance, one is displeased with an editorial in the New
York Times, one can simply stop reading that newspaper. One could also
write a letter to the NYT editorial staff, organize a letter-writing cam-
paign, or organize a boycott of the newspaper. The people who have com-
plained about this posting (and other postings as well) obviously do not
wish to stop reading the news. Since Usenet has no editorial board per se,
they are making their opinions known through postings to the rest of us.
This is all well and good, since any changes would be effected only after
a vote was taken among the readers.
Readers are equal to posters,
whether you like it or not. There is a point at which the reader's rights
can override those of the poster.
I am not commenting on this particular incident, nor am I saying that the
"reader's rights" are preeminent in this case. I just wanted to point out
that readers DO have rights, within the context of Usenet.
--
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
--------------------
--
| 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 comp-academic-freedom-talk Fri Nov 1 14:23:39 1991
Reply-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk
From: comp-academic-freedom-talk
Precedence: bulk
To: comp-academic-freedom-talk
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 1991 12:14:40 -0500
X-Digest-Sender: "William W. Arnold"
Subject: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Status: R
Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Fri Nov 1 12:12:20 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
- Billy ]
In this issue:
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (soc.women) Re: yahweh is good posting
greeny@top.cis.syr : Re: Abstract of "Computers and Academic Freedom News" 1.3
ALILESTE@idbsu.idb : Re: Dave (The Stud) Duke likes Republicans!
bader@Xerox.com (L : Re: Success of Containment (was Re: Dave Duke likes Repub
tms@cs.umd.edu (To : Re: Dave (The Stud) Duke likes Republicans!
amorgan@Neon.Stanf : Re: (soc.women) Re: yahweh is good posting
nwickham@triton.un : Re: Dave (The Stud) Duke likes Republicans!
russotto@eng.umd.e : Re: (soc.women) Re: yahweh is good posting
holzman@fnalno.fna : Re: What if she is a fantasizing was: Sullivan wants to f
kadie@eff.org (Car : Letter to the Times
SECD001@UNLVM.UNL. : (none)
entropy@wintermute : Re: USENET censorship strikes University of Washington!
bhv@areaplg2.corp. : 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: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [soc.women] Re: yahweh is good posting
Message-ID: <9110311815.AA19999@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 31 Oct 91 06:15:38 GMT
From: gorin@media.mit.edu (Amy Gorin)
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1991 02:38:38 GMT
In article <4995@sun13.scri.fsu.edu> stricher@masig3.ocean.fsu.edu (Char Aznabul) writes:
>Yea, it IS your problem. Do you cringe when you open the mailbox and
>retrieve your mail? How do you handle junk mail?
I wonder---
How many of the people supporting the absolute right of 'yaweh's author to
post are female? Of the ones who are male, how many have recieved an
obscene phone call every night at 3am for an entire week?
It is becoming increasingly clear to me that few if any men in this society
have any clue at all as to what it's like to be female.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"There's always 'hang around the fort' Indians" - Native American protester at
Atlanta Braves game, asked about Indians who manufacture souveneir tomahawks.
-------------------
From: greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (Jonathan Greenfield)
Subject: Re: Abstract of "Computers and Academic Freedom News" 1.32
Message-ID: <1991Oct31.122954.11261@rodan.acs.syr.edu>
References: <1991Oct30.202854.28406@eff.org> <1991Oct31.155406.29130@eff.org>
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 91 12:29:53 EST
In article <1991Oct31.155406.29130@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>Correction:
>
>Steven Brack was _dismissed_ from OSU, with no ability to reapply
>until Winter Qtr, 1993. There is no guarantee that he will be
>accepted when he reapply, as Judicial Affairs has to pass on his
>application.
I read the response in caf.news regarding this case. All I have to say is,
how does this happen?? It's like a nightmare.
Frankly, I'm amazed that OSU was so brave in taking this action. Doesn't
Steve Brack have a lawyer? If events are as was described in caf.news, it
would seem that OSU is very vulnerable to civil action regarding this case.
greeny greeny@top.cis.syr.edu
"What's the difference between an orange?"
-------------------
From: ALILESTE@idbsu.idbsu.edu (Dan Lester)
Subject: Re: Dave (The Stud) Duke likes Republicans!
Message-ID: <199110311846.AA04347@eff.org>
Sender: ALILESTE@idbsu.idbsu.edu
References:
Date: 31 Oct 91 18:45:49 GMT
On 31 Oct 91 16:53:09 GMT Gerry Roston said:
>Sorry to waste bandwidth quoting all of this, but...
ME TOO!!! Especially since David Duke, Ronald Reagan, and so on have
shit to do with comp.acad.freedom
Can't SOMEONE show their common sense of professionals or hopefully-
intelligent students and keep stuff in the right newsgroups? It would
ALMOST make me vote for censorship.....
dan
-------------------
From: bader@Xerox.com (Lars Bader)
Subject: Re: Success of Containment (was Re: Dave Duke likes Republicans!)
Message-ID: <1991Oct31.004545.27733@parc.xerox.com>
Sender: news@parc.xerox.com
References: <5=cd1-k@lynx.unm.edu> <-rcdyyn@lynx.unm.edu>
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1991 00:45:45 GMT
In article , cromar@math.rutgers.edu (Scott Cromar) writes:
> (btw, I know that it's not patriotically correct to remember that
> Carter started the arms buildup, but history is history. Carter's
Yes. If you'd stopped here, I would have thought you knew history.
> "missile gap" rhetoric was a major factor in his victory over Ford.)
But the missile gap was a 1960 issue (a fiction) brought up by Kennedy.
Carter did start the build up, but only in 1979. Initially, he cut
defense, and he was perceived in the 1976 election as less hawkish than
Ford.
> --
> --Scott Cromar SUPPORT CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM
>
> "Are you sure there are no hidden cameras up there?"
> --Arizona Rep. Don Kinney, while stuffing $55,000 into a gym bag
--
Lars E. Bader
Email: leb@athena.mit.edu, bader@parc.xerox.com
Disclaimer: My views may not reflect those of MIT,
Xerox, or any other organization (and probably don't).
-------------------
From: tms@cs.umd.edu (Tom Swiss (the demolition man))
Subject: Re: Dave (The Stud) Duke likes Republicans!
Message-ID: <42165@mimsy.umd.edu>
Date: 31 Oct 91 19:30:21 GMT
References: <1991Oct29.085819.7999@agora.uucp> <1991Oct30.174724.6656@swbatl.sbc.com>
Sender: news@mimsy.umd.edu
Followup-To: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
In article <1991Oct30.174724.6656@swbatl.sbc.com> joe@okepyr.UUCP (Joe Spencer) writes:
> The great majority of Americans do not embrace school busing,
> third and fourth generation welfare deadbeats, affirmitive
> action, the decline of public schools, college entrance
> quotas, current immigration policy, rampant crime, bleeding
> heart judges, loss of property owners rights, federal
> intervention in local issues, rewarding unwed mothers with
> an increase in her welfare check, penalizing the financially
> successful, and most all other failed policies of the
> ill advised Kennedy-Johnson Great Society debacle of which
> we are still paying for today. After over 30 years, Americans
[.... more ranting deleted ....]
How is this the fault of liberals? Lets see, since 1970 there's only
been four years when there was a Democrat in the White House. If the
Republican conservatives wanted to stop it, they certainly were in a
position to do so. The problem is that government officals spend more time
doing politics - accusing each other of being bleeding heart liberal or
icy-hearted conservatives - that there's very little time left over to
do any actual governing. Joe Average American has been exposed to this
screaming and yelling for so long that he doesn't know who to belive anymore.
So let's look at some of the issue you bring up. School bussing is
largely an anachronism, necessary perhaps to bring some degree of integration
at the start of the civil rights movement; but it's really not necessary now.
But our government - liberal and conservatives alike - hasn't noticed.
The problems with the welfare system have the same cause - the politicians
don't care about crafting a system that actuall _works_, that provides a
safety net and helps people become self-sufficient. They're only worrried
about duping the voters.
The same goes for affirmative action. Current policy is a obvious
failure. But it won't be fixed while politicing takes priority over
governing.
===============================================================================
Tom Swiss/tms@flubber.cs.umd.edu| "Born to die" | Keep your laws off my brain!
"What's so funny 'bout peace, love and understanding?" - Nick Lowe
"But as records of courts and justice are admissible, it can easily be proved
that powerful and malevolent magicians once existed....The evidence...is still
unimpeachable. The judges' decisions...were sound in logic and in law. Nothing
in any existing court was ever more thoroughly proved than the charges of
witchcraft and sorcery for which so many suffered death. If there were no
witches, human testimony and human reason are alike destitute of value."
-- Ambrose Bierce
-------------------
From: amorgan@Neon.Stanford.EDU (Crunchy Frog)
Subject: Re: [soc.women] Re: yahweh is good posting
Message-ID: <1991Oct31.200324.23881@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>
Sender: news@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU
References: <9110311815.AA19999@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1991 20:03:24 GMT
In article <9110311815.AA19999@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu> kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>
>Newsgroups: soc.women
>From: gorin@media.mit.edu (Amy Gorin)
>Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1991 02:38:38 GMT
>
>In article <4995@sun13.scri.fsu.edu> stricher@masig3.ocean.fsu.edu (Char Aznabul) writes:
>
>>Yea, it IS your problem. Do you cringe when you open the mailbox and
>>retrieve your mail? How do you handle junk mail?
>
>I wonder---
>
>How many of the people supporting the absolute right of 'yaweh's author to
>post are female? Of the ones who are male, how many have recieved an
>obscene phone call every night at 3am for an entire week?
>
>It is becoming increasingly clear to me that few if any men in this society
>have any clue at all as to what it's like to be female.
>
Agreed. How do you expect us to understand what it is like to be female?
We aren't female. Females don't understand what it is like to be male.
I personally think that yahweh should be allowed to post. I think it is
reasonable to bust him for posting to the *wrong* groups, where such material
would be considered inappropriate. I would say the same about someone who
posted a 'Christians are right and all others will burn in hell' to
talk.religion.moslem, someone who posted a pornographic gif to
rec.climbing, even someone who flooded comp.lang.c with fortran questions.
There *are* groups which exist for people like yahweh, alt.evil for one.
Yes, I am male. I am also white and straight. My opinions come from that
background. You can't have it any other way.
Alan Morgan
amorgan@cs.stanford.edu
-------------------
From: nwickham@triton.unm.edu (Neal C. Wickham)
Subject: Re: Dave (The Stud) Duke likes Republicans!
Message-ID:
Date: 31 Oct 91 19:56:50 GMT
Article-I.D.: lynx.wthd=kj
References: <1991Oct29.085819.7999@agora.uucp> <1991Oct30.174724.6656@swbatl.sbc.com>
>In article <1991Oct30.174724.6656@swbatl.sbc.com> usenet@swbatl.sbc.com writes:
>
> The emergence of
> David Duke as a political figure to be reckoned with is a
> direct result of failed liberal policies having been stuffed
> down the throat of productive, working Americans, and the rising
> threat of the growing welfare underclass.
Grrreat! Blame David Duke onto the liberals. Have conservatives ever
done a damn thing wrong in their entire lives? David Duke is only a
clear expression of where conservative perfection fantasies lead, and
confronted with his "undeniable" evil, you even blame him on a
convinient scapegoat. He is just a more extreme, more hostile, more
desperate version of a typical conservative. He is just a little
harder on his scapegoats, that's all. He blames the failings of
conservative policy all on the liberals too. ...and the blacks and
the Jews etc. etc.
NCW
PS
You make me sick.
>answers, but slime such as Duke and his cronies are not it.
>
>--
>Gerry Roston (gerry@cs.cmu.edu) | Liberty is to faction what air is to fire,
>Field Robotics Center, | an aliment without which it instantly ex-
>Carnegie Mellon University | pires. But it could not be a less folly to
>Pittsburgh, PA, 15213 | abolish liberty, which is essential to pol-
>(412) 268-3856 | itical life, because it nourishes faction
> | than it would be to wish the annihilation
>The opinions expressed are mine | of air, which is essential to animal life,
>and do not reflect the official | because it imparts to fire its destructive
>position of CMU, FRC, RedZone, | agency. James Madison
>or any other organization. |
-------------------
From: russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto)
Subject: Re: [soc.women] Re: yahweh is good posting
Message-ID: <1991Oct31.213746.19854@eng.umd.edu>
Date: 31 Oct 91 21:37:46 GMT
References: <9110311815.AA19999@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
In article <9110311815.AA19999@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu> kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>
>In article <4995@sun13.scri.fsu.edu> stricher@masig3.ocean.fsu.edu (Char Aznabul) writes:
>
>>Yea, it IS your problem. Do you cringe when you open the mailbox and
>>retrieve your mail? How do you handle junk mail?
>
>I wonder---
>
>How many of the people supporting the absolute right of 'yaweh's author to
>post are female? Of the ones who are male, how many have recieved an
>obscene phone call every night at 3am for an entire week?
>
>It is becoming increasingly clear to me that few if any men in this society
>have any clue at all as to what it's like to be female.
If I'm to read between the lines of this message, it means that to women,
being wakened at 3am to listen to heavy breathing or other obscene phone
calls is equivalent to having some obscene words appear on a computer screen.
I reject the analogy-- and I have recieved annoying (though not obscene)
phone calls-- it's the interruption factor that bothers me about those.
--
Matthew T. Russotto russotto@eng.umd.edu russotto@wam.umd.edu
.sig continuing construction after a brief lull due to budget cuts
Just say NO to police searches and seizures. Make them use force.
(not responsible for bodily harm resulting from following above advice)
-------------------
From: holzman@fnalno.fnal.gov
Subject: Re: What if she is a fantasizing liar? was: Sullivan wants to fire prof
Message-ID: <1991Oct31.155346.1@fnalno.fnal.gov>
Followup-To: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Sender: usenet@ctr.columbia.edu (The Daily Lose)
References: <1991Oct22.073615.1607@nntp.hut.fi>
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1991 21:53:46 GMT
In article , jmanos@cca.PUE.UDLAP.MX
(Jose Manuel Roberto Manos) writes:
> What if she is a fantasizing liar?
To believe that Judge Thomas is lying, you must believe that he would lie to
be appointed Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States.
To believe that Anita Hill is lying, you must believe that she is psychotic.
Apply Ocam's Razor.
>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.
Funny, I hadn't noticed that many women besmirching my reputation and then
walking away leaving me without recourse. Perhaps you should examine your
personal habits around women a little more closely?
> 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.
> --
The last time I checked, slander was a civil, not criminal offense.
--
Daniel B. Holzman | Eight Words the Witch's Rede Fufill:
HOLZMAN@FNAL.BITNET | An It Harm None, Do What You Will
HOLZMAN@FNALC.FNAL.GOV.INTERNET |
| All Acts of Love and Pleasure are
Love doesn't subtract, it multiplies. | Her Rituals
- Heinlein |
TEAM STAR Charter Member |
Disclaimer: Fermilab's far too large to have an opinion, let alone mine.
-------------------
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Letter to the Times
Message-ID: <1991Oct31.222017.10140@eff.org>
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1991 22:20:17 GMT
[This was the unedited letter that Lawrence Burns send to the Seattle
Time. It appeared, edited in last Sunday's Times. I'm posting it with
the author's permission. - Carl]
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1991 14:04:02 -0800 (PST)
From: Lawrence Burns
The Seattle Times
P.O. Box 70
Seattle, WA. 98111
Editor:
The Lance Dickie editorial on computer pornography at the U.W. is an
outrageous and gratuitous insult to UW employees, and demands a
response. To read his witless remarks (and those of similarly uninformed
members of the pulp media), one would think that we do nothing at all
except sit around drooling at dirty pictures at taxpayer expense.
Personally, I doubt that anyone, with the possible exception of medical
professionals, works longer or harder than computer people. 70-80 hour
work weeks are not at all uncommon for people in our profession, as are
long stretches of work without food or sleep, large amounts of stress, and
resultant stress-related illnesses. I should also mention that, as exempt
staff, we are usually not compensated for overtime; it is merely expected
of us as professionals.
I would like to point out that what the media are erroneously referring
to as "the University's electronic bulletin board" is, in actuality,
Usenet, a world-wide computer network containing articles of interest on
literally thousands of topics. The UW, along with most other major
universities, government agencies and many large corporations, has access
to this network and many others. It can control which of Usenet's topics
are available to students, faculty, and staff. Each user then
"subscribes" to whichever of the available topics he/she wishes to view.
No one is compelled to subscribe to articles on topics he/she may find
offensive. I would also like to point out that the picture files (which
have been removed, by the way) were encrypted, and required special effort
to view. No one could see them inadvertently.
Electronic networks such as Usenet are very useful for sharing
information about computer-related matters among professional peers at
computer installations around the world. They are also used to share
opinions about political and social issues, hobbies, popular culture, and,
yes, sexual issues (men/women relationships, homosexuality, and so on).
There is nothing at all wrong with this. It is a way of exchanging ideas,
opinions, and viewpoints among one's peers, at odd moments during the day
(or, most often, late at night), when work is not pressing. Does Mr.
Dickey really believe that no one in the private sector was discussing the
Hill/Thomas controversy this week; or that we taxpayer-supported peons
should have kept our mouths shut and our opinions to ourselves? Should we
have the state auditor's office on our necks because we share "For
Sale/Wanted" information on our taxpayer-supported computer network?
Should we bar all discussion of sexual issues among state employees, so
that no one is offended? Should we demolish the student activities
centers and Husky stadium, since activities not strictly related to state
business are conducted there?
Whether Mr. Dickie and the rest of the media choose to believe this or
not, we are not "bored and salacious" loafers getting our titillation at
taxpayer expense. We are hard-working professionals who insist on the
right to share information, opinions, and viewpoints among our peers.
Being on the state payroll (which, by the way, pays us a good deal less
than we could make in private industry), does not negate our right to free
speech. And, contrary to Mr. Dickie's opinion, the right to free speech
is not a trivial and unimportant issue. Taking the dirty pictures off the
computer hurts no one, really. But taking away the right to engage in any
conversation not strictly related to state business is a serious and
dangerous matter. It represents an intolerable intrusion on the rights of
individuals to be more than serfs and wage-slaves, keeping their hands on
the plow and their eyes on the ground. State employees (and students) are
also human beings, with the same opinions, wishes, and aspirations as
anyone else.
Mr. Dickie, Jane Hadley of the P-I, and all the other graduates of the
Geraldo Rivera School of Salacious Journalism should make at least a
minimal effort to get both sides of the story, and all the facts, before
rushing their misconceptions into print.
Sincerely,
Larry Burns
University of Washington
Information Systems
--
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: SECD001@UNLVM.UNL.EDU (John Maag)
Subject: (none)
Message-ID: <199110312332.AA11817@eff.org>
Sender: SECD001@UNLVM.UNL.EDU
Date: 31 Oct 91 23:32:38 GMT
Please remove me from your list. Thanks.
John Maag
SECD001@UNLVM
-------------------
From: entropy@wintermute.WPI.EDU (Lawrence C. Foard)
Subject: Re: USENET censorship strikes University of Washington!
Message-ID: <1991Oct31.230141.16449@wpi.WPI.EDU>
Date: 31 Oct 91 23:01:41 GMT
References: <1991Oct27.233800.7842@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu> <1991Oct28.003732.18070@wpi.WPI.EDU> <1991Oct28.171510.21293@ms.uky.edu>
Sender: news@wpi.WPI.EDU (News)
Nntp-Posting-Host: wintermute.wpi.edu
In article <1991Oct28.171510.21293@ms.uky.edu> morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
>entropy@wintermute.WPI.EDU (Lawrence C. Foard) writes:
>>This maybe a bit off the topic, but has it ever passed through there minds
>>that they could buy a cheap workstation to put news on? Around $5000 or less
>>should get you a 486 with loads of memory (16-32 megs), BSD unix, and 1gig or
>>more of disk space.
>Yes, it should. Now, go convince the purseholders that they should give
>you $5000 to fund a system whose sole purpose (news) is tangenital to the
>misison of your facility (in my case, supporting an engineering college).
I get much more information about new developments in the computer field off
the net than I get from all the journals in the library. The library
certainly is paying in excess of $5000/year for them. Net news is one of the
most valuable sources of information there is, I would stronly advice someone
against attending an engineering school that lacked it.
>Now convince them to spend the money for administrative time, maintenance
>contracts, software upgrades, and the like. It's far more than $5000, my
>friend.
Unlike mainframes, PC's and workstations will generally stay up for many
months without operator intervention, and generally go for a year or more
without hardware failures, no matter what part you have to replace it will
cost <$1000. Why bother with software upgrades, if your news server is working
ok let it be :)
>>I don't hold you responsible, but the institution as a whole can't disclaim
>>responsibility, if they wanted $5000 would get them a news server.
>
>Ah, but *do they want it*? On many systems, news was just "added" on an
>ad hoc basis; the disk space was just sitting there, the networking support
>was already there, and the news software is free. Can you really imagine,
>for instance, trying to convince a computer science department that they
>need to spend thousands of dollars on a machine whose exclusive use would
>have very little to do with their CS mission? Good luck.
Maybe it should come out of general funds, after all News is of use to all
students not just CS's? I really think the value of News is underestimated,
there is no other way to keep up with what is really going on in the computer
world. Journals are several months behind, mainstream magazines are only
interested in pushing the latest gimmicks, and you can't ask journal and
magazine authors questions.
--
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. \/
-------------------
From: bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris)
Subject: Re: yahweh is good posting
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1991 22:28:12 GMT
Message-ID: <1991Oct31.222812.2593@ecs.comm.mot.com>
References: <91294.162201U42054@uicvm.uic.edu> <1991Oct22.210104.4938@eff.org> <1991Oct30.030810.13193@panix.com>
Sender: news@ecs.comm.mot.com (net news)
Nntp-Posting-Host: 129.188.133.41
If soc.women readers who aren't interested in this topic haven't put this
in their kill-file by now, I'm sorry, but there doesn't seem to be any
better place to discuss this that all the principals are able and willing
to use.
In article kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
)I think that unmoderated Netnews newsgroups facilities offered by most
)universities are free-speech forums. The charters of the newsgroups
)(if any) defines the focus of the forum, not the government-enforced
)boundary of the forum.
...
)So, if the charters of newsgroups are not enforceable by the
)government does that mean the end of the Net as we know it? I don't
)think so. Newsgroup charters are explicit parts of social contracts.
)Experience shows government policing is not necessary; the charters
)can be and are enforced with social pressure. Such enforcement is not
)perfect, but as Gene Spafford quotes in "What is Usenet?": "Anarchy
)means having to put up with things that really piss you off."
)
)- Carl
There are a couple of different comments I have here. If a university
doesn't act to enforce (valid & non-discriminatory) newsgroup charters unless
it receives complaints about inappropriate postings that seems like a
reasonable, and even desirable, policy. Would this be considered to be an
objectionable form of 'selective enforcement'? I hope not. Especially if
there is a required cycle of discussion, then warnings, before any more
severe action is taken. I think a reluctance to get involved in all but
the most severe and/or prolonged issues of mis-posting is a Good Thing,
overall, as is a slowness and reluctance to take any administrative action.
Secondly, it seems to me that the problems with the Yahweh post are more
basic than just being off-charter. I think it relates to the issue
of obscenity. I think it is both reasonable and desirable to prohibit
sexually explicit posts like Yahweh from general newsgroups.
Quoting from your UWM posts:
>
> Although the First Amendment generally protects speech from content-based
>regulation, it does not protect all speech. The Supreme Court has removed
>certain narrowly limited categories of speech from First Amendment protection.
>These categories of speech are considered to be of such slight social value
>that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by their
>costs to order and morality. Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568, 572
>(1942). The categories include fighting words, obscenity and, to a limited
>extent, libel.
I think it is quite reasonable to include the Yahweh post in the obscenity
category.
At least until Yahweh and his lawyer challenge the classification in court
:-)
It is broad-minded and reasonable, I think, to allow some newsgroups to carry
speech that may not be covered under the First Ammendment or is very marginal
and questionable in being covered by the 1st in the interests of freedom of
expression. However, this broad-mindedness should not prohibit the
restriction of such materials to appropriate groups (IMO).
--------------------
--
| 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 warnold Sun Nov 3 11:31:11 1991
Received: by eff.org id AA20469
(5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for cafb-list@eff.org); Sun, 3 Nov 1991 11:19:47 -0500
Reply-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk
From: comp-academic-freedom-talk
Precedence: bulk
To: comp-academic-freedom-talk
Errors-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk-request
Date: Sun, 3 Nov 1991 11:19:38 -0500
X-Digest-Sender: "William W. Arnold"
Message-Id: <199111031619.AA20464@eff.org>
Subject: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Status: RO
Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Sun Nov 3 11:18:49 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
- Billy ]
In this issue:
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: yahweh is good posting
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: Rights for
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: Making users sign things
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (soc.women) Re: yahweh is good posting
kadie@herodotus.cs : CompuServe Not Liable for Vendor's Newsletter
SKAPUR@ccmail.suny : Re: CompuServe Not Liable for Vendor's Newsletter
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: CompuServe Not Liable for Vendor's Newsletter
stevem@solbourne.c : Re: Dave (The Stud) Duke likes Republicans!
sean@sdg.dra.com : Re: CompuServe Not Liable for Vendor's Newsletter
kadie@eff.org (Car : CompuServe Isn't Liable for Contents of its Network
lamontg@milton.u.w : Re: Rights for
bhv@areaplg2.corp. : Re: yahweh is good posting
kadie@eff.org (Car : (alt.config) Re: prostitution
kadie@eff.org (Car : (alt.config) Re: prostitution
lamontg@milton.u.w : Re: (alt.config) Re: prostitution
learn@ddsw1.MCS.CO : Re: Abstract of "Computers and Academic Freedom News" 1.3
The addresses for the list are now:
comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org - for contributions to the list
or caf-talk@eff.org
listserv@eff.org - for automated additions/deletions
(send email with the line "help" for details.)
caf-talk-request@eff.org - for administrivia
-------------------
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: yahweh is good posting
Message-ID: <1991Nov1.145037.3207@eff.org>
References: <5F8C2C54EE405E36@ccmail.sunysb.edu>
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 1991 14:50:37 GMT
Carl Kadie writes:
cmk>I think that unmoderated Netnews newsgroups facilities offered by most
cmk>universities are free-speech forums. The charters of the newsgroups
cmk>(if any) defines the focus of the forum, not the government-enforced
cmk>boundary of the forum.
SKAPUR@ccmail.sunysb.edu (Sanjay Kapur) writes:
sk >I disagree.
cmk>I offer three justifications for this opinion.
cmk>First, the unmoderated newsgroups at most universities are in practice
cmk>free-speech forums.
sk >But not proven in court to be and therefore the above assertion lacks
sk >validity.
An untested assertion is not necessarily invalid. What are your
reasons for thinking that unmoderated newsgroups as provided by most
universities are not limited public forums and free-speech forums?
Can you suggest an alternative analysis?
cmk> No university that I know of consistently enforces
cmk>newsgroup charters. If the charter is enforced at all, it is enforced
cmk>as a way to punish the poster of an offensive note. This kind of
cmk>selective enforcement is exactly what was prohibited in _San Diego
cmk>Committee v. Governing Bd_[1].
sk >As I have stated several times in this forum,
sk >I do not believe the San Diego
sk >decision is applicable to Usenet.
Why? If campus mail is a limited public forum at most places (but not
a free-speech forum), why aren't Usenet facilities at least a limited
public forum?
cmk>I think that one reason that most
cmk>universities treat unmoderated newsgroups as free-speech forums is
cmk>that Usenet (and altnet, etc) offer no way to enforce the charters of
cmk>unmoderated newsgroups on posters from other sites.
sk >What if the Univeristy disagrees with the charter itself?
I'm sorry, I don't understand the question.
cmk>Second, moderated newsgroups (and mailing lists) offer a popular and
cmk>well-accepted alternative to the free-speech forums of unmoderated
cmk>newsgroups. In practice, forging an approval for an unmoderated
cmk>newsgroup is not tolerated, no matter what the content of the article.
sk >I have a suspicion that parties that do not
sk >tolerate forging approvals but do
sk >not mind the forging of the posters address are folloing an illegal double
sk >standard and are guilty of censorship. (this is a an unsubstantaited
sk >suspicision only, but I believe it can be shown that
sk >moderaters are censors
sk >just as much as system administrators and are covered
sk >by the same laws. Just
sk >what legal authority do you think moderators have?
sk >If a moderator is employed
sk >by a public university or any other government supported site and does the
sk >moderation incidental to his duties and declines
sk >to approve certain postings,
sk >is it not censorship? For legal purposes it should not matter if the
sk >government official is in another state or
sk > employed by an organization with
sk >whom the poster has not contact)
sk >Let us accept it, under certain circumstances, moderation is censorship.
[all this assumes a public university]
If all the moderator(s)/editor(s) of an edited publication are not on
your campus, then the edited publication is not a public forum at all.
It is just a publication that you subscribe to. Your school's
subscription to Playboy is like this.
If some of the moderator(s)/editor(s) of an edited publication are on
your campus and the publication is a student publication (in the sense
that it is supported in part by the university but controlled by
student(s)), then the publication is a limited public forum that is
limited to the moderator(s)/editor(s). Most student newspaper
are like this.
So, could a university declare that it is the editor of everything
posted to the Net that comes from its campus? (This is similar to what
Ohio State is trying to do with the _Lantern_ newspaper.) Call this
the Prodigy model.
Legally, this might work. From an academic freedom viewpoint, such
action would, in my opinion, be an abomination. Such action would also
be expensive and make the University legally and morally liable for
everything it let out.
cmk>Third, charters are not written to be legally enforceable documents. A
cmk>charter can say almost anything. It could say that this newsgroup is
cmk>only for people of a certain religion; it could say expressions of
cmk>skepticism are not allowed; it could say that offensive articles are
cmk>prohibited. None of these restrictions could be legally enforced by a
cmk>state university.
sk >From your postings, it seems that the safest course for a University
sk >administrator to take is to shut down Usenet all together.
The *safest* course is to shut down the whole University. A reasonable
course is to do follow the policy of many universities that "in their
public expressions, [users] speak only for themselves".
Maybe its time for a reality check. What is the experience of sys
admin who have tried to follow a "users speak only for themsleves"
policy?
cmk>So, if the charters of newsgroups are not enforceable by the
cmk>government does that mean the end of the Net as we know it? I don't
cmk>think so. Newsgroup charters are explicit parts of social contracts.
cmk>Experience shows government policing is not necessary; the charters
cmk>can be and are enforced with social pressure. Such enforcement is not
cmk>perfect, but as Gene Spafford quotes in "What is Usenet?": "Anarchy
cmk>means having to put up with things that really piss you off."
sk >In other words, the majority rules and the
sk >minority is silenced by this social
sk >contract?
The Netnews social contract is usually enforced by persuasion (and
sometimes by shunning), not force.
- 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: Rights for readers\posters?
Message-ID: <1991Nov1.151535.3928@eff.org>
References: <9110311808.AA19875@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu> <1991Nov1.133901.5950@ms.uky.edu>
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 1991 15:15:35 GMT
morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
[...]
>Um, how do you think newsgroups are created? How do new hierarchies (on a
>net-wide level) begin? How do groups move from moderated to unmoderated
>status (or vice versa)? How do hierarchies get reorganized? All these
>things happen through a vote of the READERS. Many votes for/against the
>creation of a particular newsgroup are from people who will never post to
>that newsgroup.
[...]
Here is some additional info.
The votes only apply to the Usenet groups. Alt groups such as
alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk and alt.comp.acad-freedom.news, for
example, were never subject to a vote.
Also, votes are meant to persuade; they are advisory. As "What is
Usenet?" says:
----quote---------
If you follow the guidelines, it is probable that your group will be
created and will be widely propagated.
HOWEVER: Because of the nature of Usenet, there is no way for any user
to enforce the results of a newsgroup vote (or any other decision, for
that matter). Therefore, for your new newsgroup to be propagated
widely, you must not only follow the letter of the guidelines; you
must also follow its spirit. And you must not allow even a whiff of
shady dealings or dirty tricks to mar the vote. In other words, don't
tick off system administrators; they will get their revenge.
-----------end-------------
- 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: Making users sign things
Message-ID: <1991Nov1.151817.4024@eff.org>
References: <1991Oct31.180550.2631@eff.org> <1991Nov1.135703.8862@ms.uky.edu>
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 1991 15:18:17 GMT
morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
[...]
>Is this statement too vague?
> "Usenet is organized as a collection of newsgroups. Each news-
> group is dedicated to a particular topic or group of topics.
> By particpating in Usenet, you agree to keep your contributions
> within the topical scope of each newsgroup. For instance, a
> posting about parakeets is not usually appropriate in rec.pets.cats.
> This site will not interfere in your participation; however, you
> are expected to abide by the general organization of Usenet news.
> There are certainly exceptions to this general policy; you are
> expected to use your own judgement in those instances."
> -----and-----
> "This site will not arbitrarily restrict your access to Usenet.
> However, we may suggest that some of your postings are inappro-
> priate. If you receive such a suggestion, it is not required
> that you follow that suggestion; however, we do ask that you
> consider the thousands of Usenet particpants around the world
> before you post. No one will attempt to tell you what to post."
[...]
Sound good to me.
- 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: [soc.women] Re: yahweh is good posting
Message-ID: <9111011548.AA23689@dante.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 1 Nov 91 03:48:56 GMT
From: nancyg@thumper..bellcore.com (Nancy Griffeth)
Date: 31 Oct 91 22:53:04 GMT
In article <1991Oct31.182753.1649@ecs.comm.mot.com> bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris) writes:
>
>)How many of the people supporting the absolute right of 'yaweh's author to
>)post are female?
>
>How many people opposing the absolute right of y's author to post are male?
>How many supporting are female (it's not zero)? How many opposed are female?
>How many people wish we'd get this discussion off soc.women :-) What are
>their genders, and how many of them discriminate on the basis of the sex of
>the poster (it's OK for a women to post about this issue to soc.women, but
>it's not OK for a man to post about the same issue to the same group)?
>
>) Of the ones who are male, how many have recieved an
>)obscene phone call every night at 3am for an entire week?
>
>Of the ones who are female, how many have received an obscene phone call
>every night at 3am for an entire week?
>
>)It is becoming increasingly clear to me that few if any men in this society
>)have any clue at all as to what it's like to be female.
>
>How many women have any clue to what it's like to be male? Does the ratio
>change for the population at large compared to posters to soc.women?
I'd like to thank the author of the "yahweh is good" posting for
sparking an interesting discussion of women, feminism, and censorship.
No, I take that back. I'd like to thank all the people who turned
such garbage into an interesting discussion.
My personal reaction to the original posting was disgust, but I support
his right to put it anywhere except a moderated news group. Incidentally
(this seems of interest to the above posters, but there are more
important things to know about me) I'm a woman.
I'm of the sticks-and-stones school: being hit hurts, but words only
hurt if the recipient lets them. Anyway, words mean different things
to different people, especially in a culture as diverse as ours. Whenever
possible, why not just make a generous assumption that the intention
was good even if the expression was not? (That's a little hard to
apply to yahweh -- let's see, he was really
trying to expose a serious problem of incest in this society...
No, I give up).
A related question, that bothers me but not my husband and we usually
agree on politics, so I wonder if I'm nuts, but anyway --
Why is talking about sex in the office not protected by the first amendment
... that is, as long as it doesn't go beyond talk.
Threatening people with losing their jobs if they don't do -x- is clearly wrong.But why is -x- worse if it's sexual?
Creating an environment in which people can't work is wrong too,
and companies should definitely fire the people that do it
(oh, boy, the US unemployment rate might go up, but our productivity
would be unbelievable!).
It should also be possible for employees to sue the harassers
for lost wages or whatever results from the harassment, but
what difference does it make if the harassment is sexual?
I mean this as a question, not a position. I don't know what I think.
It is truly unpleasant to feel that someone is demanding something
from you that you don't want to give, and he is both physically
bigger and stronger than you, and socially and financially
in a more powerful position. But if it's just words, not demands,
what the heck? Ignore the guy, or use words back at him.
Why should offensive comments having to do with sex
be prohibited, but not offensive comments having to do with politics?
I may be peculiar, but I'm more likely to be offended by the latter.
Or by interminable discussions of football.
I just have trouble understanding the need to limit speech that
isn't connected to any other undesirable behavior.
Nancy Griffeth
nancyg@bellcore.com
-------------------
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: CompuServe Not Liable for Vendor's Newsletter
Message-ID:
Sender: news@m.cs.uiuc.edu (News Database (admin-Mike Schwager))
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 1991 16:03:27 GMT
Quoting from clari.nb.telecom,clari.nb.top:
"NEW YORK, NEW YORK, U.S.A., 1991 OCT 31 (NB) -- U.S. District Judge
Peter Leisure ruled that CompuServe cannot be held liable for
information in a newsletter it did not originally publish. His
decision, the first of its kind, held that computer databases are the
equivalent of newsstands or book stores, whose owners cannot be held
liable for the content of the papers they sell unless they know
beforehand that the stories are false."
The case is "Cubby vs. CompuServe"
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
-------------------
From: SKAPUR@ccmail.sunysb.edu (Sanjay Kapur)
Subject: Re: CompuServe Not Liable for Vendor's Newsletter
Message-ID:
Sender: SKAPUR@ccmail.sunysb.edu
Date: 1 Nov 91 17:35:00 GMT
>Quoting from clari.nb.telecom,clari.nb.top:
>
>"NEW YORK, NEW YORK, U.S.A., 1991 OCT 31 (NB) -- U.S. District Judge
>Peter Leisure ruled that CompuServe cannot be held liable for
>information in a newsletter it did not originally publish. His
>decision, the first of its kind, held that computer databases are the
>equivalent of newsstands or book stores, whose owners cannot be held
>liable for the content of the papers they sell unless they know
>beforehand that the stories are false."
>
>The case is "Cubby vs. CompuServe"
>
>--
>Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Would Compuserve be liable if the newsletter was published by a Compuserve
Staff member?
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@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: CompuServe Not Liable for Vendor's Newsletter
Message-ID: <1991Nov1.185137.10700@eff.org>
References:
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 1991 18:51:37 GMT
SKAPUR@ccmail.sunysb.edu (Sanjay Kapur) writes:
[...]
>Would Compuserve be liable if the newsletter was published by a Compuserve
>Staff member?
If it was work for hire, I assume Compuserve would be responsible.
- 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: stevem@solbourne.com (Stephen Matson)
Subject: Re: Dave (The Stud) Duke likes Republicans!
Message-ID: <1991Nov1.183408.1820@solbourne.com>
References: <1991Oct29.085819.7999@agora.uucp> <1991Oct30.174724.6656@swbatl.sbc.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 1991 18:34:08 GMT
bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) writes:
>
>There isn't, there are too many racists in this country, and far too
>many who vote south of the Mason-Dixon. I view that about the same as
>I view a disease epidemic, a human scourge that needs to be
>eliminated, not as a reality check as you seem to see it.
>
How do you propose we "eliminate" it?
--
THE BILL OF RIGHTS --- Void where prohibited by law
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<*LIVE FREE OR DIE*>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Steve Matson (The original Rocky Mountain nationalist) **COLORADO**
-------------------
From: sean@sdg.dra.com
Subject: Re: CompuServe Not Liable for Vendor's Newsletter
Message-ID: <1991Nov1.130051.53@sdg.dra.com>
Date: 1 Nov 91 13:00:51 CST
References:
In article , SKAPUR@ccmail.sunysb.edu (Sanjay Kapur) writes:
> Would Compuserve be liable if the newsletter was published by a Compuserve
> Staff member?
Depends if they were acting as an "Agent" of Compuserve when publishing such
a newsletter. Many Compuserve staff members also have private accounts, like-
wise many telephone company employees also have phones at home.
Why don't Universities have the same worries about liability of providing
telephone service to student dorms? Many universities operate their own
PBX phone service, but don't file the proper paperwork to be called common
carriers. This doesn't seem to increase the university's liability for
students making harrassing phone calls, or arranging drug deals using
university owned telephones.
In most cities you can just look at the phone number and "know" it is a
university phone since they usually buy a whole telephone prefix or two.
--
Sean Donelan, Data Research Associates, Inc, St. Louis, MO
Domain: sean@sdg.dra.com, Voice: (Work) +1 314-432-1100
-------------------
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: CompuServe Isn't Liable for Contents of its Network
Message-ID: <1991Nov1.195246.13037@eff.org>
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 1991 19:52:46 GMT
[Short excerpts from a Doe Jones News Retrieval story:]
[...]
"CompuServe has no more editorial control over such a pubiication
than does a public library, bookstore or newsstand, and it would be
no more feasible for CompuServe to examine every publication it
carries for potentially defamatory statements than it would be for
any other distributor to do so," wrote Judge Leisure.
[...]
The decision won't necessarily have the same direct benefits for
the Prodigy network, a joint venture of International Business
Machines Corp. and Sears, Roebuck & Co. That's because Prodigy has
an unusual policy of pre-screening its members' public notes. Thus, a
plaintiff could conceivably argue that Prodigy knew in advance about
any defamatory or offensive message.
[...]
The new decision could be influential because it tackles free
speech on an electronic network. But it's unclear how the ruling,
which involves "publications," would affect bulletin boards on which
users add comments to an in-house forum.
[...]
--
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: Rights for readers\posters?
Message-ID: <1991Nov1.202142.3629@milton.u.washington.edu>
References: <9110311808.AA19875@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu> <1991Nov1.133901.5950@ms.uky.edu>
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 1991 20:21:42 GMT
morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
>>From: lamontg@milton.u.washington.edu (Lamont Granquist)
>>Newsgroups: soc.women
>>Fucking come back to reality -- YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS AS A NET READER! If you
>>do, please show me the legally binding contract which states such.
>
>Um, how do you think newsgroups are created? How do new hierarchies (on a
>net-wide level) begin? How do groups move from moderated to unmoderated
>status (or vice versa)? How do hierarchies get reorganized? All these
>things happen through a vote of the READERS. Many votes for/against the
>creation of a particular newsgroup are from people who will never post to
>that newsgroup.
This isn't a right. As is pointed out in the intro to the net, USENET is
a pseudo-anarchy run by the sysadmins. You really only have the illusion
of having a "right" to vote on newsgroups, create moderated newsgroups,
etc.
>Net readers have no rights, yet you claim full rights for posters?
Let me clarify myself. I don't think that an individual on any site has any
"rights" wrt what comes over the net, and what other people on other sites
do. Thus, you don't have the "right" not to be offended, or the "right"
not to have to read innapropriate posts (as a *READER*), etc.
The only right I think you should have on USENET is the right to freedom
of speech, and thus only posters have rights, not readers. Just like the
readers of a newspaper have only the right to pitch the thing or write a
letter into the editor (and thereby become a "poster"...)
Friend,
>you need to think about what you're saying. One of the major obligations
>of the legal system is the determination of points at which individual rights
>become secondary, in favor of group or "societal" rights. The most common
>analogy is the "shouting 'fire' in a crowded theatre" maxim. Your rights to
>free assembly/speech stop at the other person's doorstep. While the "right
>to privacy" has never been explicitly given (it has been constructed from a
>broad range of decisions), it most certainly exists, even in an arbitrary
>state.
There is a very clear analogy in the net to the shouting "fire" exemption
to the First Amend. That is like the bazillion mkgroup messages that went
out from psuvm, and the BIFF cross-post to every single newsgroup. Those
are clearly postings that pose a "clear and present danger" to the operations
of the net. I have not yet found a post on the net which I consider to be
"clear and present danger" based solely on content alone.
>Your earlier comparision of Usenet to Hyde Park is somewhat valid; many
>Usenet sites are public institutions, such as universities and government
>agencies. Many more, however, are private concerns, such as corporations
>and small businesses. Still more sites are personal; many sites are nothing
>more than someone's PC, sitting in their den or study. You cannot compare
>all of these to Hyde Park.
Right, but I don't think that those sites should be able to dictate the
content coming out of the "Hyde Park" public institutions. They can prune
their newsfeed as much as they like, past that I'd fight any attempt to
apply what *THEY* think is appropriate to the rest of the net.
>Based on earlier discussions in this newsgroup, many of us have come to
>define Usenet as a "limited public forum". In such a forum, the maintainers
>of the forum can dictate the topics to be discussed in that forum. They
>cannot regulate the discussion of a topic (once it is selected), but they
>can certainly enforce their choice of topic.
The keyword here is "the maintainers of the forum *CAN* dictate the topic"
the question is, should them? IMHO no. I'd rather not see the net turn
into another Prodigy, I'd just rather users learn how to use Kill files.
>This definition of Usenet is not flawless by any means. By its very nature,
>Usenet seems to evade concrete definition. We cannot globally apply current
>laws and/or regulations to it; we must modify and, in some cases, radically
>change the current perspectives when we try to apply them to Usenet.
Bingo.
>>>, but the article was found on a board where
>>>this kind of posting is not expected.
>>
>>
>If you paid for news, would you be making these comments?
The correct question is: If the original poster payed for a news feed, would
I make these comments? Ans: No. However, coming from a reader, I find that
an extremely whiney remark to make.
>whether you like it or not. There is a point at which the reader's rights
>can override those of the poster.
>I am not commenting on this particular incident, nor am I saying that the
>"reader's rights" are preeminent in this case. I just wanted to point out
>that readers DO have rights, within the context of Usenet.
Currently, they really don't. They have the right to express their opinion,
but thats about it (and of course, they have the right to change the system,
but then then we wouldn not be considering the current situation). IMHO,
this shouldn't change much. Right now USENET is an absolutely free forum
to express any idea that you wish, and I would rather that didn't change
-- if that means we have to deal with a few idiots like Yahweh, then thats
the price we have to pay...
--
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: bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris)
Subject: Re: yahweh is good posting
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 1991 18:49:33 GMT
Message-ID: <1991Nov1.184933.12782@ecs.comm.mot.com>
References: <164@nvuxr.UUCP> <4995@sun13.scri.fsu.edu> <1991Oct31.023838.11098@news.media.mit.edu> <1991Oct31.182753.1649@ecs.comm.mot.com>
Sender: news@ecs.comm.mot.com (net news)
Nntp-Posting-Host: 129.188.133.41
In article kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
)
)I imagine that an obscene phone call is worse than an article in an
)international publication, for there is a significant chance that the
)caller is targeting you individually.
Yep. I don't know of any obscene phone caller who has tried to use the
first ammendment right to 'free speech' to get acquitted, and I doubt that
anyone has tried such a thing. :-)
I thought the 'obscene call' was a bit of a digression, but I believe there
a lot of practical remedies for them nowadays - its easy to do a wiretrace
nowadays.
-------------------
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.config] Re: prostitution group?
Message-ID: <199111012155.AA16467@eff.org>
Sender: kadie
Date: 1 Nov 91 11:55:12 GMT
From: okunewck@psuvax1.cs.psu.edu (Phil OKunewick)
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 1991 19:36:15 GMT
kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>okunewck@psuvax1.cs.psu.edu (Phil OKunewick) writes:
>
>> Naively assuming it isn't [ a bogus call for a new group], this group
>>will support an activity that
>>is illegal in almost every state and providence and is morally offensive
>>to many people. In addition, the newsgroup itself will probably violate
>>several laws, from the U.S. FCC on down.
>
>Date: Fri, 26 Apr 91 16:12:40 -0400
>From: kadie (Carl Kadie)
>Message-Id: <9104262012.AA12000@eff.org>
>Subject: FYI: Re: Self-censorship (was ++>><< SCUMBAG HOMOPHOBES)
>
>In e-mail, a correspondent expressed the view that there was no right
>to speech that advocated violence.
>
>(My response is based on U.S. law. It is a summary of the ACLU's Bill
>of Rights Briefing Paper #10: Freedom of Expression.)
>
> [ ... ]
>
>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.
The U.S. FCC prohibits obscene material on several public
communication channels. I don't know whether this is one of them. I
believe the 2-Live-Crew trial also may have some precedence here. I
know of no legal actions against netnews yet, but give it time...
However, there's also the issue of what people who are offended by
this will do to system administrators.
Brad Templeton's newsfeed was cut for a period of time, because he
reposted a joke offensive to a minority group. One person brought the
posting to the attention of the local newspaper, and his newsfeed cut
him off to save face. An overwhelming barrage of support for him from
the entire network got it turned back on.
James Whitehead posted an article in which he tried to justify
violent actions against gay people. His college computer account was
promptly removed by the administration.
In 1985, Playboy was openly sold through the PSU bookstore. In '86
or '87, a protest march had it removed from the shelves. It was still
quietly carried (part of a distribuitor's magazine package), but there
was no advertising done that they had it. Almost all issues got returned
to the distribuitor. Still, when a group of women found out that Playboy
was available, another protest march was organized.
In other words, if you a newsgroup to exist on your system which is
offensive to enough people, be prepared for the consequences. Your
administration just might use _you_ as the scapegoat when they clear
their image.
-------------------
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.config] Re: prostitution group?
Message-ID: <199111012155.AA16536@eff.org>
Sender: kadie
Date: 1 Nov 91 11:55:38 GMT
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 1991 21:34:44 GMT
kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>>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.
okunewck@psuvax1.cs.psu.edu (Phil OKunewick) writes:
> The U.S. FCC prohibits obscene material on several public
>communication channels. I don't know whether this is one of them. I
>believe the 2-Live-Crew trial also may have some precedence here. I
>know of no legal actions against netnews yet, but give it time..
The FCC prohibition is indecency, not obscenity. It applies only to
broadcast TV and Radio. I have personally heard an FCC comminsioner
use the word "fuck" on cable TV. Moreover, discussions of prositution
are not inherently obscene.
> However, there's also the issue of what people who are offended by
>this will do to system administrators.
Librarians have the same problem. They have discovered that a policy
based on principle works better than one based on appeasement. Their
principles are expressed in statements such as the Library Bill of
Rights. For more information send email to archiver-server@eff.org.
Include the lines:
send library-policies bill-of-rights.ala
send library-policies README
send acad-freedom README
> Brad Templeton's newsfeed was cut for a period of time, because he
>reposted a joke offensive to a minority group. One person brought the
>posting to the attention of the local newspaper, and his newsfeed cut
>him off to save face. An overwhelming barrage of support for him from
>the entire network got it turned back on.
The University of Waterloo, Brad's original feed, banned
rec.humor.funny for almost three years. (Brad found new feeds right
after the Waterloo cut off). The University of Waterloo restored
rec.humor.funny (and alt.sex) just a few weeks ago after a university
committee recommended that the University should not make decisions
about what people can and can't read on campus based on offensiveness.
For details, send email to archive-server@eff.org. Include the lines:
get caf-news cafv01n31
get acad-freedom README
Stanford and Iowa State also have written newsgroup selection
policies. The Stanford policy says: "the criteria for including
newsgroups in computer systems or removing them should be identical to
those for including books in or removing books from libraries."
For information, send email to archive-server@eff.org. Include
the lines:
get caf-news cafv01n33
get acad-freedom README
> James Whitehead posted an article in which he tried to justify
>violent actions against gay people. His college computer account was
>promptly removed by the administration.
The administration likely broke the law. For details, see the recent
U. of Wisconsin case (which, in part, involved email). Send email to
archive-server@eff.org. Include the lines:
get caf-law uwm-post-v-u-of-wisconsin
get caf-law README
get acad-freedom README
> In 1985, Playboy was openly sold through the PSU bookstore. In '86
>or '87, a protest march had it removed from the shelves. It was still
>quietly carried (part of a distribuitor's magazine package), but there
>was no advertising done that they had it. Almost all issues got returned
>to the distribuitor. Still, when a group of women found out that Playboy
>was available, another protest march was organized.
Most university libraries subscribe to Playboy. Ohio State gets
Hustler. The Chicago Theological Seminary owns _The Joy of Lesbian
Sex_.
> In other words, if you a newsgroup to exist on your system which is
>offensive to enough people, be prepared for the consequences. Your
>administration just might use _you_ as the scapegoat when they clear
>their image.
If you do not stand up for the principles of academic and intellectual
freedom, they can not stand up for you. By appeasing those who call
for censorship, you merely encourage more censorship.
This issues are focus of discussion in alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
and alt.cmp.acad-freedom.news.
- 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: lamontg@milton.u.washington.edu (Lamont Granquist)
Subject: Re: [alt.config] Re: prostitution group?
Message-ID: <1991Nov1.224649.17991@milton.u.washington.edu>
References: <199111012155.AA16467@eff.org>
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 1991 22:46:49 GMT
>>okunewck@psuvax1.cs.psu.edu (Phil OKunewick) writes:
>>
>>> Naively assuming it isn't [ a bogus call for a new group], this group
>>>will support an activity that
>>>is illegal in almost every state and providence and is morally offensive
>>>to many people. In addition, the newsgroup itself will probably violate
>>>several laws, from the U.S. FCC on down.
This guy should drop by alt.drugs.
--
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: learn@ddsw1.MCS.COM (William Vajk)
Subject: Re: Abstract of "Computers and Academic Freedom News" 1.32
Message-ID: <1991Nov1.095655.29495@ddsw1.MCS.COM>
References: <1991Oct30.202854.28406@eff.org> <1991Oct31.155406.29130@eff.org>
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 91 09:56:55 GMT
In article <1991Oct31.155406.29130@eff.org> Carl M. Kadie writes:
>Steven Brack was _dismissed_ from OSU, with no ability to reapply
>until Winter Qtr, 1993. There is no guarantee that he will be
>accepted when he reapply, as Judicial Affairs has to pass on his
>application.
We see the full range of response for net.infractions.
On one hand, we have this ultraconservative response, on the other,
we see Clay Bond postings which make Brack's offense pale by comparison,
with support for Bond by the administration of his institution extending
over a period of years.
Seems to me there's more politics than justice.
Bill Vajk
--------------------
--
| 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 warnold Sun Nov 3 11:32:13 1991
Received: by eff.org id AA20833
(5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for cafb-list@eff.org); Sun, 3 Nov 1991 11:21:17 -0500
Reply-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk
From: comp-academic-freedom-talk
Precedence: bulk
To: comp-academic-freedom-talk
Errors-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk-request
Date: Sun, 3 Nov 1991 11:21:12 -0500
X-Digest-Sender: "William W. Arnold"
Message-Id: <199111031621.AA20828@eff.org>
Subject: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Status: RO
Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Sun Nov 3 11:20:06 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
- Billy ]
In this issue:
wcs@cbnewsh.cb.att : Re: USENET censorship strikes University of Washington!
wcs@cbnewsh.cb.att : Re: USENET censorship strikes University of Washington!
wcs@cbnewsh.cb.att : Re: USENET censorship strikes University of Washington!
bzs@world.std.com : Re: Dave (The Stud) Duke likes Republicans!
MCNAB PD@DARWIN.NT : re: Compuserv not liable for Vendor's Newsletter
MCNAB PD@DARWIN.NT : re: Making users sign things
lae@unislc.uucp (L : Re: Dave (The Stud) Duke likes Republicans!
nwickham@triton.un : Re: Dave (The Stud) Duke likes Republicans!
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: Making users sign things
nbc2134@dsacg2.dsa : Re: Rights for
nbc2134@dsacg2.dsa : Re: (alt.censorship, et al.) No comment...
brack@uoftcse.cse. : Re: Making users sign things
MCNAB PD@DARWIN.NT : Re: Making users sign things
MCNAB PD@DARWIN.NT : re: making users sign things
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: making users sign things
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (misc.headlines, et al.) Re: Holocaust revisionists and Pr
usenet@swbatl.sbc. : Re: Dave (The Stud) Duke likes Republicans!
brack@uoftcse.cse. : (was Re: sex.pic)
MCNAB PD@DARWIN.NT : Re: making users sign things
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: wcs@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (Bill Stewart 908-949-0705 erebus.att.com!wcs)
Subject: Re: USENET censorship strikes University of Washington!
Date: Sat, 2 Nov 1991 01:24:50 GMT
Message-ID: <1991Nov2.012450.6282@cbnewsh.cb.att.com>
References: <1991Oct17.061020.16114@wpi.WPI.EDU> <1991Oct23.011804.34839@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> <1991Oct23.154733.6233@eff.org>
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.
There are a number of costs. The hardware is only the beginning.
You can keep the newsfeed costs much lower if you only carry the
censored groups, and leave support of the non-censored groups to the Uni,
but it's still a lot of bits. If you can get away with using the
University's Internet feed to obtain your bits over, so it's only a
local phone call, then the ongoing costs are less unreasonable.
If there are other newsfeeds in town, you're better off.
But one of the real problems is access to your system.
If students are logging on from their own PCs by modem, it's ok, but
if they're USING THE TERMINALS AT THE UNIVERSITY TO ACCESS PORNOGRAPHY,
you've still got a censorship risk when the newspapers hear,
even if the machine is located at the local ACLU office.
As for volume, news typically doubles every 1-2 years.
It's currently about 25 MB/day total; I'm not sure how big the
popularly-censored-or-ignored subset is. It's always worth having a
disk just for news, with space for about 1 month's news,
just to accommodate the occasional peaks and glitches.
--
Pray for peace; Bill
#Bill Stewart +1-908-949-0705 erebus.att.com!wcs AT&T Bell Labs 4M312 Holmdel NJ
# The government borrowed another billion dollars today - like every day.
# That's >$4 they'll steal from you later. How much did you spend on lunch?
-------------------
From: wcs@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (Bill Stewart 908-949-0705 erebus.att.com!wcs)
Subject: Re: USENET censorship strikes University of Washington!
Message-ID: <1991Nov2.014226.6567@cbnewsh.cb.att.com>
Date: 2 Nov 91 01:42:26 GMT
References: <1991Oct23.235848.24117@iitmax.iit.edu>> <1991Oct27.233800.7842@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu>
In article <1991Oct27.233800.7842@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu> rmtodd@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu (Richard Michael Todd) writes:
]>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
]
]The problem is a lot of old machines out there which those cheap 600K
]disks won't work on. I should know, this machine's one of them.
]You can't put any disks in this machine except the ones the manufacturer
]makes, and said manufacturer wants on the order of $50,000 for a 1G disk.
]Needless to say, this University doesn't have the money to plunk down
You're a prime candidate for this exciting new technology called NFS!
I assume your MultiMax has TCP/IP, and has a generation of software
new enough to support NFS? If so, you don't need any $50K disk -
get a SparcStation ELC for about $3K at academic discounts,
get a couple of SCSI shoeboxes for ~$2K/GB, and wire it up.
The performance won't be blazingly fast, but NFS is the next best
thing to being there, and the extra 4GB of data storage for $10K
will immensely simplify your administrative situation and let you
rearrange things so the need-to-be-fast things are on the fastest disks
and the larger-but-slower things are on the slower-but-larger drives.
You probably won't be able to get RAM for your old box at reasonable
prices (i.e. $50/MB), but get lots for the Sun instead, and use it
as disk cache. You may even find USERS migrating over to the Sun,
but you may want to prevent that and keep it as a pure server.
Trust me :-) I've run large systems on antique hardware - if your
administrators are paid, the savings in administration and downtime
alone will pay for the hardware, after a certain initial amount of pain :-)
And tell them you got the idea from the wonderful service of Usenet,
so they'd better spare you a few megabytes in return :-)
--
Pray for peace; Bill
#Bill Stewart +1-908-949-0705 erebus.att.com!wcs AT&T Bell Labs 4M312 Holmdel NJ
# The government borrowed another billion dollars today - like every day.
# That's >$4 they'll steal from you later. How much did you spend on lunch?
-------------------
From: wcs@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (Bill Stewart 908-949-0705 erebus.att.com!wcs)
Subject: Re: USENET censorship strikes University of Washington!
Message-ID: <1991Nov2.014949.6786@cbnewsh.cb.att.com>
Date: 2 Nov 91 01:49:49 GMT
Article-I.D.: cbnewsh.1991Nov2.014949.6786
References: <1991Oct23.235848.24117@iitmax.iit.edu> <1991Oct28.152854.28951@ms.uky.edu>
In article <1991Oct28.152854.28951@ms.uky.edu> morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
]This is not necessarily the case. On our systems, disk space usage
]follows a bell curve. At the peak of the curve, which usually occurs
]in late October and lasts until early December, our disk space usage runs
]at 90% or more. When that happens, news could easily be the straw that
]breaks the proberbial back. Since the usage tapers off radically in the
]spring semester, we don't have the "year-round" usage to justify the addi-
]tion of extra disk space.
First of all, one $2000 1GB disk is all you really need for news,
which gives you 1-2 MONTHS worth of storage; many places carry 1-2 weeks.
(Yeah, I know, in a University environment that's real money.)
Second, you can use that news disk as a spare slice, available if
you need to trash it for backup when one of your regular disks goes down,
available for people to store stuff on when they need temporary space,
and you can cut your expire times really short during the
later half of the fall semester, when people are theoretically doing
more schoolwork anyway, and relax it during the off-peak months.
--
Pray for peace; Bill
#Bill Stewart +1-908-949-0705 erebus.att.com!wcs AT&T Bell Labs 4M312 Holmdel NJ
# The government borrowed another billion dollars today - like every day.
# That's >$4 they'll steal from you later. How much did you spend on lunch?
-------------------
From: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
Subject: Re: Dave (The Stud) Duke likes Republicans!
In-Reply-To: stevem@solbourne.com's message of Fri, 1 Nov 1991 18:34:08 GMT
Message-ID: 