From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: shenoy@iastate.edu (Shivanand Shenoy)
Subject: Account on Wylbur
Message-ID:
Sender: news@news.iastate.edu (USENET News System)
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1991 00:00:42 GMT
For the benefit of those who want to get an account on Wylbur to
access some of the restricted groups:
login to CCVAX using the userid 'REGISTER'
password: REGISTER
You will get an account on both VAX and WYLBUR free of cost:-)
Limits: CCVAX - cpu limit of 6mins per session, disk 3000blocks
Wylbur- $250 per semester, Laser-$20 per semester.
Exercise your rights to free speech. Get a Wylbur account. Sign up a
sheet saying you are responsible for everything in this world :-).
Transfer the pictures/etc. to Vincent using ftp. Sure, it is a pain,
but isn't it worth it, or is it ?
--
Shiva Shenoy | e-mail: shenoy@iastate.edu
2066 Black, | Office: (515)-294-0082
Dept. of Aero. Engg. & Engg. Mechanics | Home : (515)-296-7640
Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50010 |
Article 193 of isu.talk.politics:
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: shenoy@iastate.edu (Shivanand Shenoy)
Subject: Re: Newsgroups
Message-ID:
Sender: news@news.iastate.edu (USENET News System)
References: <1991Dec15.144730.2812@news.iastate.edu>
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1991 00:10:18 GMT
In goldberg@iastate.edu (Adam Goldberg) writes:
>>At the end of the next semester, you really should consider becoming
>>a member of the Comp. Advisory Committee.
>I am. So what, it made no difference.
For the record, the three students, John Hascall, Dan Coy, and yours
truly, who did serve on the subcommittee did oppose this vehemently.
We have not voted on this as yet. On a side note, it is not enough to
just serve on a committee, one should also attend the meetings where
such policies are voted on. I am ashamed to say, a lot of the students
don't show up.
--
Shiva Shenoy | e-mail: shenoy@iastate.edu
2066 Black, | Office: (515)-294-0082
Dept. of Aero. Engg. & Engg. Mechanics | Home : (515)-296-7640
Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50010 |
Article 124 of isu.talk.misc:
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: shenoy@iastate.edu (Shivanand Shenoy)
Subject: Re: The new netnews policy
Message-ID:
Sender: news@news.iastate.edu (USENET News System)
References: <1991Dec15.060838.23868@news.iastate.edu> <1991Dec15.064637.25183@news.iastate.edu> <1991Dec15.202210.12585@news.iastate.edu>
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1991 00:19:50 GMT
In <1991Dec15.202210.12585@news.iastate.edu> vencill@iastate.edu (John A Vencill) writes:
>Just out of curiousity, why is an AE EM grad student from India _DEFENDING_
>this policy? As stated, it's not gonna stop the pictures that you don't like.
>If you don't want to read it, don't subscribe. But don't prohibit me from
For the record, the three student representatives, (namely John
Hascall, Dan Coy, and yours truly) in the subcommittee, did oppose this
vehemently. I am not, I REPEAT, NOT for this policy. I only felt it
the responsible thing to put forth both sides of the picture. By
suggesting that I am infringing on your rights, you are in fact
infringing on my rights to speak out. It does work both ways.
Incidentally, my being from a foriegn country has nothing to do with
this. You have to remember that my country INDIA is and always has
been the largest Democracy in the world, yes, even larger than the
US.
Anyway, lets stop this infighting among the students and get back to
the real issue of what we can do about this PROPOSED new policy. It
has not been voted on as yet.
--
Shiva Shenoy | e-mail: shenoy@iastate.edu
2066 Black, | Office: (515)-294-0082
Dept. of Aero. Engg. & Engg. Mechanics | Home : (515)-296-7640
Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50010 |
Article 668 of isu.cc.general:
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: tjlee@iastate.edu (Tom Lee)
Subject: Re: Account on Wylbur
Message-ID:
Originator: tjlee@pv7428.vincent.iastate.edu
Sender: news@news.iastate.edu (USENET News System)
References:
Distribution: isu
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1991 00:46:57 GMT
Shivanand Shenoy writes:
>Exercise your rights to free speech. Get a Wylbur account. Sign up a
>sheet saying you are responsible for everything in this world :-).
>Transfer the pictures/etc. to Vincent using ftp. Sure, it is a pain,
>but isn't it worth it, or is it ?
Someone told me how to get a WYLBUR account, and I have one now.
What I want to know is, how is this any different? Specifically, how is
it any better? Think about it.
Before the new policy, someone could sue the University, and
ISU's lawyers could say, "Well, Jack figured out how to read news and
subscribed to alt.sex on his own; no ISU policy, employee, or class
forced him to."
Now, ISU's lawyers can say all that AND hold up a little card,
saying, "He also went through all this extra trouble to get a WYLBUR
account -- he even signed this card here, saying that we're not
responsible for anything he read."
Now if Jack was found hanged in his closet, dead by autoerotic
asphyxiation, and his parents were suing ISU, do you really think that a
little card would make a difference? ISU still provided access to news.
Hell, ISU could still get sued about it even if he hadn't ever read a
newsgroup. Remember the case where the kid fell and broke his neck
while trying to burglarize his high school, and his parents sued the
school? THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS COMPLETE PROTECTION. Anybody can sue
ISU for any injury, real or imaginary, at any time; why restrict access
when it isn't going to do any good WHATSOEVER?
-- Tom Lee, 206 Physics, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa, (515)294-5266 --
Internet: tjlee@iastate.edu | My computer center administrators are about to
or: tab47@ccvax.iastate.edu | become my Big Brothers, and protect me from
Bitnet: tab47@isuvax.BITNET | groups that might offend me! Nice of 'em, hmm?
Article 196 of isu.talk.politics:
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: spam@IASTATE.EDU (Michael L Begley)
Subject: Re: The new netnews policy
Message-ID: <1991Dec15.185532@IASTATE.EDU>
Sender: news@news.iastate.edu (USENET News System)
References: <1991Dec15.060838.23868@news.iastate.edu> <1991Dec15.064637.25183@news.iastate.edu> <1991Dec15.202210.12585@news.iastate.edu>
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1991 00:55:32 GMT
In article , shenoy@iastate.edu
(Shivanand Shenoy) writes:
> Anyway, lets stop this infighting among the students and get back to
> the real issue of what we can do about this PROPOSED new policy. It
> has not been voted on as yet.
Yeah, I agree. I think the people of this country need a bit more
compassion and respect for our foriegn guests. But this is not the
issue here.
But what do you mean by "It has not been voted on as yet.? From what
I understood earlier, this is not up for a vote. I thought it was
soon-to-be-enacted policy. When's the vote? Who has the ultimate say?
--
mike begley "I will not waste network bandwidth"
spaz@iastate.edu "I will not waste network bandwidth"
hz101@ccvax.iastate.edu "I will not waste network bandwidth"
Article 669 of isu.cc.general:
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: edsall@iastate.edu (David M Edsall)
Subject: Re: New Usenet News Policy on 1/6/92
Message-ID:
Sender: news@news.iastate.edu (USENET News System)
References: <1991Dec14.011244.14246@news.iastate.edu> <1991Dec14.231933.10786@news.iastate.edu>
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1991 01:32:16 GMT
In shenoy@iastate.edu (Shivanand Shenoy) writes:
>You do not have to pay anything to get a Wylbur account. You computer
>fee takes care of accounts on all machines. Just go to durham and
>sign up. You can probable also do this on line.
This is great! We are told what we can't read and then we are told
where we can go to read what we can't read! A perfect example of
circular logic if I ever saw one.
dave
*** ---- +--------------------------+---------------------------+
'0 *` e+ |David M. Edsall | INTERNET: |
< _*/ *` \ |Research Assistant | edsall@iastate.edu |
`* *` |CERN DELPHI Collaboration | BITNET: edsall@alisuvax |
`* *` / |Ames Group \|/ HEPNET: isuhep::edsall |
| `*-*-****| | +--------------------------+---------------------------+
\ |Physics Department /|\ "Gravity is not |
|Iowa State University | responsible for people |
\ / |Ames, IA 50010 | falling in love" |
e- |(515) 294-4110 | - "Big Al" Einstein - |
--- +--------------------------+---------------------------+
Article 670 of isu.cc.general:
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: edsall@iastate.edu (David M Edsall)
Subject: Re: The new netnews policy
Message-ID:
Sender: news@news.iastate.edu (USENET News System)
References: <1991Dec14.230519@IASTATE.EDU> <1991Dec15.060838.23868@news.iastate.edu> <1991Dec15.064637.25183@news.iastate.edu>
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1991 01:37:11 GMT
In shenoy@iastate.edu (Shivanand Shenoy) writes:
>>Perhaps you ought to reread my original article. The policy is not about dirty
>>pictures. really. It's about ISU filtering my exposure. Piss on that.
>>ISU is not my mother, father, or my Big Brother.
>....but it sure is the entity that purchased and owns the machines.
>Student money did not pay for it. :-)
>--
HEY FUCKHEAD!!!! Try removing that. Student money didn't buy the
machines but it is OUR FUCKING MONEY that supports your job and the
people who work in the Censorship Center. If not, tell me please what
the hell the $100 a semester does go to?
dave
*** ---- +--------------------------+---------------------------+
'0 *` e+ |David M. Edsall | INTERNET: |
< _*/ *` \ |Research Assistant | edsall@iastate.edu |
`* *` |CERN DELPHI Collaboration | BITNET: edsall@alisuvax |
`* *` / |Ames Group \|/ HEPNET: isuhep::edsall |
| `*-*-****| | +--------------------------+---------------------------+
\ |Physics Department /|\ "Gravity is not |
|Iowa State University | responsible for people |
\ / |Ames, IA 50010 | falling in love" |
e- |(515) 294-4110 | - "Big Al" Einstein - |
--- +--------------------------+---------------------------+
Article 671 of isu.cc.general:
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: edsall@iastate.edu (David M Edsall)
Subject: Re: The new netnews policy
Message-ID:
Sender: news@news.iastate.edu (USENET News System)
References: <1991Dec14.230519@IASTATE.EDU> <1991Dec15.194642.10763@news.iastate.edu>
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1991 01:41:24 GMT
In <1991Dec15.194642.10763@news.iastate.edu> john@iastate.edu (John Hascall) writes:
>There is plenty of "R-rated" material on open shelves.
>It is not the job of the library to act "in loco parentis".
Nor is it the job of the Censorship Center to act as my LOCO
parents.
dave
*** ---- +--------------------------+---------------------------+
'0 *` e+ |David M. Edsall | INTERNET: |
< _*/ *` \ |Research Assistant | edsall@iastate.edu |
`* *` |CERN DELPHI Collaboration | BITNET: edsall@alisuvax |
`* *` / |Ames Group \|/ HEPNET: isuhep::edsall |
| `*-*-****| | +--------------------------+---------------------------+
\ |Physics Department /|\ "Gravity is not |
|Iowa State University | responsible for people |
\ / |Ames, IA 50010 | falling in love" |
e- |(515) 294-4110 | - "Big Al" Einstein - |
--- +--------------------------+---------------------------+
Article 673 of isu.cc.general:
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: edsall@iastate.edu (David M Edsall)
Subject: Re: The new netnews policy
Message-ID:
Sender: news@news.iastate.edu (USENET News System)
References: <1991Dec14.230519@IASTATE.EDU> <1991Dec15.060838.23868@news.iastate.edu>
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1991 01:51:42 GMT
In moore@iastate.edu (Brian J Moore) writes:
>Restricting newsgroups will not stop people from displaying whatever they want
>in the labs. The idea that it will is 'missing the point'. If that is the
>problem as you suggest, we need a labs policy not a news policy.
Here, here! This is what I said in a post about a month ago. If the
Censorship Center people don't like to have GIF's on the displays in
the public areas ( maybe that should be pubic areas ( CENSOR THIS GUYS )
then they should have the hired lab supervisors go around and make a
statement. I just want you Censorship Center people to tell me of ONE
case that has gone to court over what has been posted on USENET. Just
one.
dave
*** ---- +--------------------------+---------------------------+
'0 *` e+ |David M. Edsall | INTERNET: |
< _*/ *` \ |Research Assistant | edsall@iastate.edu |
`* *` |CERN DELPHI Collaboration | BITNET: edsall@alisuvax |
`* *` / |Ames Group \|/ HEPNET: isuhep::edsall |
| `*-*-****| | +--------------------------+---------------------------+
\ |Physics Department /|\ "Gravity is not |
|Iowa State University | responsible for people |
\ / |Ames, IA 50010 | falling in love" |
e- |(515) 294-4110 | - "Big Al" Einstein - |
--- +--------------------------+---------------------------+
Article 674 of isu.cc.general:
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: edsall@iastate.edu (David M Edsall)
Subject: Re: Newsgroups
Message-ID:
Sender: news@news.iastate.edu (USENET News System)
References: <1991Dec15.144730.2812@news.iastate.edu>
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1991 02:01:00 GMT
In shenoy@iastate.edu (Shivanand Shenoy) writes:
> The irony of it is people like you find it so easy to sit
>in your comfortable little offices and talk of censorship, what the
>comp.center is not doing, and so on. Where were you when there was a
>call to get student representatives to serve on the committee? We
>literally had to force students to join the decision making process.
I was never informed that I could join any committee. If so, I
would have. You people are poor at getting any information out to the
users at all. There was no input asked for from the readers that I
remember.
>To get back to the talk of censorship: No one is preventing you from
>reading or subscribing to any newsgroup. All they are doing is asking
>you to take the responsibility. The only way to do this is sign a
>piece of paper which explicitly transfers responsibility. Just get a
>wylbur account and read/subscribe to your heart's content. This is
>currently not available on Vincent due to purely technological
>reasons.
BULLSHIT!!!! The Wylber accounts cost me money eventually. I have
already paid the goddamned computer fee and I want the services
promised to me for paying said fee, unaltered, uncensored and
unwatched. I am not taking this lightly. I am sitting in my cushy
office but I am not taking this lightly. I am going to let you know
what my actions will be.
dave
*** ---- +--------------------------+---------------------------+
'0 *` e+ |David M. Edsall | INTERNET: |
< _*/ *` \ |Research Assistant | edsall@iastate.edu |
`* *` |CERN DELPHI Collaboration | BITNET: edsall@alisuvax |
`* *` / |Ames Group \|/ HEPNET: isuhep::edsall |
| `*-*-****| | +--------------------------+---------------------------+
\ |Physics Department /|\ "Gravity is not |
|Iowa State University | responsible for people |
\ / |Ames, IA 50010 | falling in love" |
e- |(515) 294-4110 | - "Big Al" Einstein - |
--- +--------------------------+---------------------------+
Article 127 of isu.talk.misc:
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: edsall@iastate.edu (David M Edsall)
Subject: ACTION. WE NEED TO ORGANIZE
Message-ID:
Summary: We need to get together
Keywords: activism,censorship,rights
Sender: news@news.iastate.edu (USENET News System)
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1991 02:19:51 GMT
We need to get organized here,people. I personally am
contacting the ACLU tomorrow and I urge others to do so as well. I am
also in the process of informing the media about this. I am risking
the possible loss of my Vincent account ( call me paranoid but it is
possible, considering they have already decided to take one thing away
from me). Who here is interested in getting together sometime this
week to do something about this? I am leaving on Wednesday for a week
and a half but I would like to get something started. Discussing this
in the newsgroups is okay, but it is not enough. We need to do
something to let these people as well as the general public who
pays for some of this know what is happening to us. If anyone is
interested, please email me at
edsall@iastate.edu
dave
*** ---- +--------------------------+---------------------------+
'0 *` e+ |David M. Edsall | INTERNET: |
< _*/ *` \ |Research Assistant | edsall@iastate.edu |
`* *` |CERN DELPHI Collaboration | BITNET: edsall@alisuvax |
`* *` / |Ames Group \|/ HEPNET: isuhep::edsall |
| `*-*-****| | +--------------------------+---------------------------+
\ |Physics Department /|\ "Gravity is not |
|Iowa State University | responsible for people |
\ / |Ames, IA 50010 | falling in love" |
e- |(515) 294-4110 | - "Big Al" Einstein - |
--- +--------------------------+---------------------------+
--------------------
--
Helen C. O'Boyle | Co-moderator, Computers and Academic Freedom list
helen@eff.org | << insert usual disclaimer here... my opinions
isy5hob@cabell.vcu.edu | are mine alone, not EFF's or VCU's, etc. >>
From helen Mon Dec 16 13:45:13 1991
Received: by eff.org id AA02018
(5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for cafb-list@eff.org); Mon, 16 Dec 1991 18:45:30 -0500
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: edsall@iastate.edu (David M Edsall)
Subject: Apologies to John and others
Message-ID:
Summary: I'm sorry
Keywords: language, misconceptions
Sender: news@news.iastate.edu (USENET News System)
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1991 02:59:00 GMT
It has been brought to my attention that I misjudged John Hascall's
position on this matter. So, John, I publicly apologize.
It has also been brought to my attention that I am using language
that some people find offensive. I wish to explain my position on
this. I am trying to exercise my right to free speech in the same way
that Lenny Bruce did in the 1960's. He, too, was trying to fight the
same type of censorship that has recently been imposed on us and did
so by using as much foul language and talking about as many touchy
topics as possible. If you don't use your rights, you lose them. I
publicly apologize to those I have offended with my speech and I will
try not to use such language in the future. I do hope that my point
was made.
dave
*** ---- +--------------------------+---------------------------+
'0 *` e+ |David M. Edsall | INTERNET: |
< _*/ *` \ |Research Assistant | edsall@iastate.edu |
`* *` |CERN DELPHI Collaboration | BITNET: edsall@alisuvax |
`* *` / |Ames Group \|/ HEPNET: isuhep::edsall |
| `*-*-****| | +--------------------------+---------------------------+
\ |Physics Department /|\ "Gravity is not |
|Iowa State University | responsible for people |
\ / |Ames, IA 50010 | falling in love" |
e- |(515) 294-4110 | - "Big Al" Einstein - |
--- +--------------------------+---------------------------+
Article 676 of isu.cc.general:
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: s2cws@isuvax.iastate.edu (Chris Schweda)
Subject: Re: Newsgroups
Message-ID: <1991Dec16.031504.26059@news.iastate.edu>
Sender: news@news.iastate.edu (USENET News System)
References: <1991Dec15.144730.2812@news.iastate.edu> ,
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1991 03:15:04 GMT
In article , edsall@iastate.edu (David M Edsall) writes:
>In shenoy@iastate.edu (Shivanand Shenoy) writes:
>
>
>
>
> I was never informed that I could join any committee. If so, I
>would have. You people are poor at getting any information out to the
>users at all. There was no input asked for from the readers that I
>remember.
>
>
Yeah, this is what I'm saying: this whole things smacks of some kind of
conspiracy. I didn't see any postings on any of the newgroups that some major
policy change is in effect. What the hell am I supposed to do? Case the comp
center until I hear of some news? So come on comp center people, don't try to
the lay the blame on me. I woulda spoken had I known. Ths university is too big
to know every godamned thing that goes on in every goddamned department. I
dunno, I mean: what the fuck? I read the news daily. I pay my fees. Pay my
tuition. Don't tell me it's too late to speak my mind. And don't try to say I
failed in my democratic duty to participate. That's as much bullshit as
censoring my news in the first place. You tell me where to be and I'll show
up.
Chris
-----
>
Chris Schweda, Graduate Assistant, English Department
Iowa State University, 206 Ross Hall, Ames, Iowa 50010
---------------------------------------------------------
++ I used to have a .sig file until someone filched it ++
---------------------------------------------------------
Article 192 of isu.talk.politics:
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [ia.newsgroups, et al.] Re: What to do about the new Newsgroup Censorship Policy at ISU
Message-ID: <9112161524.AA23252@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 16 Dec 91 03:24:40 GMT
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [ia.newsgroups, et al.] Re: What to do about the new Newsgroup Censorship Policy at ISU
Message-ID: <9112161524.AA22171@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 16 Dec 91 03:24:47 GMT
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.org.eff.talk] New news censorship policy at Iowa State University
Message-ID: <9112161530.AA08722@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 16 Dec 91 03:30:48 GMT
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: vencill@iastate.edu (John A Vencill)
Subject: Re: The new netnews policy
Message-ID: <1991Dec16.035131.27045@news.iastate.edu>
Sender: news@news.iastate.edu (USENET News System)
References: <1991Dec15.202210.12585@news.iastate.edu>
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1991 03:51:31 GMT
My apologies to Shiva Shenoy. You're right, being from India has nothing
whatsoever to do with this situation. I shouldn't have mentioned it. But I
was truly interested in why you seemed to be supporting the policy. I didn't
agree with your arguements and the Black address you were throwing around in
your sig file made me think you were a professor at first. However, the post
wasn't meant as a flame and I do apologize.
If I'm hearing right, the Comp Center committee(s) did not approve this policy.
And it sounds like it got quite a fight in GSS, whatever the heck that has to
do with the comp center. So where did this gem come from? And if it's up for
a vote then who's voting and how do we influence them? I dunno about the
Daily... I think we'd see "Grass cutting stops due to snow" before we'd see
"Censorship in ISU Comp Center". But let's all write to the people the John
Hascall mentioned and let's try to influence this vote and maybe we can stomp
this thing. Who knows... maybe GSB could pass a resolution! :)
John Vencill vencill@iastate.edu
Article 678 of isu.cc.general:
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: shenoy@iastate.edu (Shivanand Shenoy)
Subject: Crime and Punishment
Message-ID:
Sender: news@news.iastate.edu (USENET News System)
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1991 04:38:13 GMT
Dear David Edsall,
It is often said that the bearer of bad news should be hanged. So
here goes:
I AM A STUDENT
I AM A STUDENT
I AM A STUDENT
I AM NOT BEING PAID BY THE COMP. CENTER
i AM NOT BEING PAID BY THE COMP.CENTER
I AM NOT BEING PAID BY THE COMP. CENTER
I DO NOT APPROVE OF THIS CENSORSHIP/INCONVENIENCE.
I DO NOT APPROVE OF THIS CENSORSHIP/INCONVENIENCE.
I DO NOT APPROVE OF THIS CENSORSHIP/INCONVENIENCE.
I was only attemptimg to present their (The Center's) case. Why? In
the hope that when they give you the same reasoning they gave me, I
hope you have a very convincing case to the contrary. I assume you
will present it with ration arguments, using diplomatic language, because
that is the only way to get things done. Foul language has never
helped anyone anywhere other than a barfight maybe.
--
Shiva Shenoy | e-mail: shenoy@iastate.edu
2066 Black, | Office: (515)-294-0082
Dept. of Aero. Engg. & Engg. Mechanics | Home : (515)-296-7640
Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50010 |
Article 198 of isu.talk.politics:
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: john@iastate.edu (John Hascall)
Subject: Re: Apologies to John and others
Message-ID: <1991Dec16.050142.29795@news.iastate.edu>
Keywords: language, misconceptions
Sender: news@news.iastate.edu (USENET News System)
References:
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1991 05:01:42 GMT
edsall@iastate.edu (David M Edsall) writes:
} It has been brought to my attention that I misjudged John Hascall's
}position on this matter. So, John, I publicly apologize.
Did I miss something? I didn't see anything which I felt warranted
an apology (of course, I didn't consider remarks about the Comp Ctr
directed at me).
} It has also been brought to my attention that I am using language
}that some people find offensive. I wish to explain my position on...
I don't find it offensive, but I do think that the more even-tempered
postings will have more of an effect. Also, everyone please *read*
carefully (esp. the policy posting) as there are a lot of misconceptions
out there -- and a posting based on such is likely to have a diminished
impact.
John
Article 679 of isu.cc.general:
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: tjlee@iastate.edu (Tom Lee)
Subject: Re: Crime and Punishment
Message-ID:
Originator: tjlee@pv7428.vincent.iastate.edu
Sender: news@news.iastate.edu (USENET News System)
References:
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1991 05:30:54 GMT
Shivanand Shenoy writes to David Edsall:
>I was only attemptimg to present their (The Center's) case. Why? In
>the hope that when they give you the same reasoning they gave me, I
>hope you have a very convincing case to the contrary. I assume you
>will present it with ration arguments, using diplomatic language, because
>that is the only way to get things done. Foul language has never
>helped anyone anywhere other than a barfight maybe.
I have been trying to present a convincing case to the contrary,
using carefully written, diplomatic arguments, but I have received few
responses. Viewed in this light, it certainly seems that profanity and
anger are the only way to be listened to around here.
-- Tom Lee, 206 Physics, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa, (515)294-5266 --
Internet: tjlee@iastate.edu | My computer center administrators are about to
or: tab47@ccvax.iastate.edu | become my Big Brothers, and protect me from
Bitnet: tab47@isuvax.BITNET | groups that might offend me! Nice of 'em, hmm?
Article 199 of isu.talk.politics:
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: john@iastate.edu (John Hascall)
Subject: Re: Crime and Punishment
Message-ID: <1991Dec16.060754.2057@news.iastate.edu>
Sender: news@news.iastate.edu (USENET News System)
References:
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1991 06:07:54 GMT
tjlee@iastate.edu (Tom Lee) writes:
} I have been trying to present a convincing case to the contrary,
}using carefully written, diplomatic arguments, but I have received few
}responses. Viewed in this light, it certainly seems that profanity and
}anger are the only way to be listened to around here.
Did you really think that Comp Ctr Administrators hang around on the
weekend to read net-news?
John
--
John Hascall An ill-chosen word is the fool's messenger.
Project Vincent
Iowa State University Computation Center john@iastate.edu
Ames, IA 50011 515/294-9551 [fax -1717]
Article 201 of isu.talk.politics:
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: edsall@iastate.edu (David M Edsall)
Subject: Re: Crime and Punishment
Message-ID:
Sender: news@news.iastate.edu (USENET News System)
References:
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1991 06:24:40 GMT
I say what I feel. I am a passionate man and I speak my feelings
as they come to me. I never once, until now, had the impression that
you were against this policy. Every statement you made seemed to
suggest to me that I should live with the policy that has been put
forth. Thank you for clearly stating your position on this matter.
dave
*** ---- +--------------------------+---------------------------+
'0 *` e+ |David M. Edsall | INTERNET: |
< _*/ *` \ |Research Assistant | edsall@iastate.edu |
`* *` |CERN DELPHI Collaboration | BITNET: edsall@alisuvax |
`* *` / |Ames Group \|/ HEPNET: isuhep::edsall |
| `*-*-****| | +--------------------------+---------------------------+
\ |Physics Department /|\ "Gravity is not |
|Iowa State University | responsible for people |
\ / |Ames, IA 50010 | falling in love" |
e- |(515) 294-4110 | - "Big Al" Einstein - |
--- +--------------------------+---------------------------+
Article 202 of isu.talk.politics:
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: mds@iastate.edu (Mark D. Smucker)
Subject: Re: What to do about the new Newsgroup Censorship Policy at ISU
Message-ID: <1991Dec16.062521.2567@news.iastate.edu>
Summary: Email addresses
Sender: news@news.iastate.edu (USENET News System)
References: <1991Dec15.163311.4917@news.iastate.edu>
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1991 06:25:21 GMT
I have added the computer addresses to these names.
In article <1991Dec15.163311.4917@news.iastate.edu> john@iastate.edu (John Hascall) writes:
>If you have a opinion on the new policy, speak up! Encourage others to
>speak up! The policy definitely will not change if you sit there like sheep.
>
>In addition to posting news, here are some people to write
>to express your opinion on this matter.
>
> Richard Seagrave
> Acting Director, Comp Ctr
> 291 Durham Ctr
---> e-mail: seagrave@iastate.edu
> George Covert
> Associate Director, Comp Ctr
> 291 Durham Ctr
---> e-mail: covert@iastate.edu
>
> David Hopper
> Chair, University Computation Advisory Cmte
> Vet Diag Lab, 1541 Vet Med
---> e-mail: dlhopper@iastate.edu
>
> Bob Boston
> Chair, UCAC (Comp Ctr Advisory Sub-Cmte)
> English, 353 Ross
---> e-mail: S2.RSB@isumvs.iastate.edu
>
> Patrica Swan
> Interim Provost
> 107 Beardshear
Mark D. Smucker --- mds@iastate.edu
Article 680 of isu.cc.general:
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: edsall@iastate.edu (David M Edsall)
Subject: Re: Crime and Punishment
Message-ID:
Sender: news@news.iastate.edu (USENET News System)
References: <1991Dec16.060754.2057@news.iastate.edu>
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1991 06:28:38 GMT
In <1991Dec16.060754.2057@news.iastate.edu> john@iastate.edu (John Hascall) writes:
>Did you really think that Comp Ctr Administrators hang around on the
>weekend to read net-news?
I know this was a joke, but it brings up a more serious matter: Do
they read news at all? I will once again state the fact that no one
who reads news here, as far as I know, was ever informed of the
process by which this came about and other than Bob Boston's post, was
never asked for any input.
dave
*** ---- +--------------------------+---------------------------+
'0 *` e+ |David M. Edsall | INTERNET: |
< _*/ *` \ |Research Assistant | edsall@iastate.edu |
`* *` |CERN DELPHI Collaboration | BITNET: edsall@alisuvax |
`* *` / |Ames Group \|/ HEPNET: isuhep::edsall |
| `*-*-****| | +--------------------------+---------------------------+
\ |Physics Department /|\ "Gravity is not |
|Iowa State University | responsible for people |
\ / |Ames, IA 50010 | falling in love" |
e- |(515) 294-4110 | - "Big Al" Einstein - |
--- +--------------------------+---------------------------+
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu, or (anonymous) ap.4352@hri.com
I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
--------------------
--
Helen C. O'Boyle | Co-moderator, Computers and Academic Freedom list
helen@eff.org | << insert usual disclaimer here... my opinions
isy5hob@cabell.vcu.edu | are mine alone, not EFF's or VCU's, etc. >>
From helen Mon Dec 16 13:44:34 1991
Received: by eff.org id AA01909
(5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for cafb-list@eff.org); Mon, 16 Dec 1991 18:44:40 -0500
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: edsall@iastate.edu (David M Edsall)
Subject: ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING FOR THOSE OPPOSED TO USENET POLICY
Message-ID:
Keywords: censorship
Sender: news@news.iastate.edu (USENET News System)
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1991 06:52:24 GMT
There will be an organizational meeting of people opposed to the newsgroup
policy on Tuesday, Dec 17. Send mail to edsall@iastate.edu or spam@iastate.edu
for more information such as the yet-to-be determined place.
Thank you
Article 681 of isu.cc.general:
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [ia.newsgroups, et al.] Re: What to do about the new Newsgroup Censorship Policy at ISU
Message-ID: <9112162159.AA24308@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 16 Dec 91 09:59:06 GMT
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [ia.newsgroups, et al.] Re: What to do about the new Newsgroup Censorship Policy at ISU
Message-ID: <9112162159.AA20934@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 16 Dec 91 09:59:42 GMT
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [soc.singles] Re: Sexual Harassment at work
Message-ID: <9112162218.AA08747@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 16 Dec 91 10:18:46 GMT
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.org.eff.talk] Re: New news censorship policy at Iowa State University
Message-ID: <9112162305.AA04599@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 16 Dec 91 11:05:34 GMT
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: bull@iastate.edu (Troy E Bull)
Subject: Re: Bboard Guidelines
Message-ID:
Sender: news@news.iastate.edu (USENET News System)
References: <1991Nov28.012422.3080@news.iastate.edu> <1991Dec1.132538@IASTATE.EDU>
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1991 11:52:49 GMT
In <1991Dec1.132538@IASTATE.EDU> djreed@IASTATE.EDU (Dennis J Reed) writes:
[good serious stuff deleted]
>should be available to everyone 24 hours a day. For one of my classes,
>important announcements are available in the newsgroup. I like being able to
>find out what changes and clarifications are made to programming assignments as
>they happen.
But Mr Reed would you not agree that isu.coms.342 could easily be
offensive and needs to be stopped:
Lisp: possibly offensive to people with a speaking problem.
Scheme: People schemeing to overthrow the government.
SASL: S.ex A.nd S.tuff L.ike that.
SmallTalk: People saying bad things about one another.
PROLOG: Offensive to amature logs that couldn't quite cut the
buck.
CLU: Anyone that wants to remove any newsgroups from project
vincent should get one and leave the news groups alone.
;-)
+------------------+-------------------------+-----------------------+
| Troy E Bull | bull@iastate.edu | Computer Science |
+------------------+-------------------------+-----------------------+
| A message from the lunatic fringe .................. |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
--
bull@iastate.edu Iowa State University Just Say No to Pascal
Greetings from the luntic fringe........
Article 682 of isu.cc.general:
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: dwalling@term2.cnde.iastate.edu (Dick Wallingford)
Subject: Re: What to do about the new Newsgroup Censorship Policy at ISU
Message-ID: <1991Dec16.142003.10737@news.iastate.edu>
Sender: news@news.iastate.edu (USENET News System)
References: <1991Dec15.163311.4917@news.iastate.edu>
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1991 14:20:03 GMT
In article <1991Dec15.163311.4917@news.iastate.edu>, john@iastate.edu (John Hascall) writes:
|> Here are some facts not mentioned in the posting about the policy.
|>
|> 1) The policy was not developed by the Comp Ctr committee which
|> developed the original "open learning environment" policy.
|>
|> 2) The policy was brought to the Comp Ctr Newsgroup committee
|> who did not approve it.
|>
|> 3) The policy was brought to the University Computation Advisory
|> Committee (Computation Center Advisory Sub-Committee) who
|> did not approve it.
So who did approve it?
--
Dick
Article 683 of isu.cc.general:
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: shenoy@iastate.edu (Shivanand Shenoy)
Subject: Re: ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING FOR THOSE OPPOSED TO USENET POLICY
Message-ID:
Keywords: censorship
Sender: news@news.iastate.edu (USENET News System)
References:
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1991 15:19:05 GMT
In edsall@iastate.edu (David M Edsall) writes:
>There will be an organizational meeting of people opposed to the newsgroup
>policy on Tuesday, Dec 17. Send mail to edsall@iastate.edu or spam@iastate.edu
>for more information such as the yet-to-be determined place.
Now this is definitely a better, more productive way of getting
things done than using foul language to display your anger and
disagreement. This being finals week, I am not sure how many people
could make it. Could you post the minutes of this meeting? The policy
is probably going into effect during the first week of January, so we
still have some time. I still have the feeling that all the
discussions we have had over the weekend on the net are useless
because other than the 10-15 regular net junkies like us students, no
one in a position of authority subscribes to this group, let alone
reads it; maybe Prof. Boston, but we have not heard from him so
far.
--
Shiva Shenoy | e-mail: shenoy@iastate.edu
2066 Black, | Office: (515)-294-0082
Dept. of Aero. Engg. & Engg. Mechanics | Home : (515)-296-7640
Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50010 |
Article 685 of isu.cc.general:
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: i1neal@exnet.iastate.edu (Neal Rauhauser -- )
Subject: Re: What to do about the new Newsgroup Censorship Policy at ISU
Message-ID: <1991Dec16.152546.14765@news.iastate.edu>
Sender: news@news.iastate.edu (USENET News System)
References: <1991Dec15.163311.4917@news.iastate.edu> <1991Dec16.142003.10737@news.iastate.edu>
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1991 15:25:46 GMT
>|> 1) The policy was not developed by the Comp Ctr committee which
>|> developed the original "open learning environment" policy.
>|>
>|> 2) The policy was brought to the Comp Ctr Newsgroup committee
>|> who did not approve it.
>|>
>|> 3) The policy was brought to the University Computation Advisory
>|> Committee (Computation Center Advisory Sub-Committee) who
>|> did not approve it.
>
> So who did approve it?
>
>--
>Dick
Absolutely necessary information! Who drafted this plan? Who approved
it? If someone reading this knows but can't say directly because of
employment considerations, my phone number is 233 - 5164, the answering
machine (with my girlfriends voice on it, don't be fooled) will listen politely
to whatever you have to say :-)
I think the following steps ought to be taken:
1. organizational meeting, I know most of you, but we need
a good (unmonitored) meeting about this :-)
2. some sort of press, beyond the Daily, covering this censorship.
I know the nice AP lady here in town, I'm sure all of you
have similar ideas - "Censorship @ state university - page 3
of Today section in the register"
3. Identification of parties involved. I want to know who
picked the groups to be blocked, and I want to know who
approved this.
4. Contact the Gay etc etc, whatever the acronym is this month,
and let them know that a.s.motss is going to be cut -
I'd say this is grounds for a discrimination suit.
5. Start a student organization dedicated to the protection
of ISU students from impure influences ... and my choice
for first target is going to be removal of all copies of
the bible from the library - someone please track down
a list of the erotic parts (yes, really, I think some are
in the song of solomon). I mean really, if we're gonna
have censorship, lets get everything in one fell swoop,
right ;-)
Well, that'll do for a start. Looking forward to Tuesday :-)
--
Neal i1neal@exnet.iastate.edu
"A poor fool indeed is he who adopts a manner of thinking (meant) for others!"
- Donatien-Alphonse-Francois de Sade
"Despite the sunrise, the darkness never goes from some men's eyes"
Article 684 of isu.cc.general:
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: A1.JLJ@isumvs.iastate.edu (**Think Twice**)
Subject: Re: New Usenet News Policy on 1/6/92
Message-ID: <1991Dec16.153811.15547@news.iastate.edu>
Sender: news@news.iastate.edu (USENET News System)
Distribution: isu
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1991 15:38:11 GMT
Ahem...
If I may add my $0.02 worth to the arguments around UseNet..
I recall that a BBS operated by N.Carolina (Chapell Hill) requires
the users to sign and mail (snail mail!!) a registration form before
a subscriber can add or read articles from the BBS. Would such
"restrictive" subscription to UseNet be an option?
(For those of you who don't know that I'm talking about, Telnet to
ACS.UNC.Edu and login as BBS. General help for username/password
will lead you through.)
---AR
Article 686 of isu.cc.general:
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: New news censorship policy at Iowa State University
Message-ID: <1991Dec16.154149.15030@eff.org>
Keywords: bogus!
References: <1991Dec15.164750@IASTATE.EDU>
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1991 15:41:49 GMT
spam@IASTATE.EDU (Michael L Begley) writes:
>Hi. I'm a staudent at Iowa State University, and the university
>just recently unveiled a policy designed to censor the following
>groups from virtually every student and most faculty.
...
>Could
>someone with more experience with this issue please point me to some
>of the most relevent information regarding htis issue on eff.com
>and any other source? Thanks.
----------------ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/faq/newsgroups.read-------
q: Should my university remove Netnews newsgroups because some
people find them offensive? If it doesn't have the resources
to carry all newsgroups, how should newsgroups be selected?
a: In 1989, Stanford University banned rec.humor.funny. The ban was
lifted after a university committee recommended that newsgroups be
selected according to library policy. In other words, removing a
newsgroup is equivalent to banning a magazine from an academic
library.
The principles of intellectual freedom developed by libraries can (and
should, in my opinion) be applied to the administration of information
material on computers. These principles are explained in such American
Library Association documents as the Library Bill of Rights, the
Freedom to Read Statement, and the Intellectual Freedom Statement.
With the permission of the American Library Assocation, these
documents and others are avaiable on-line. Many of these documents
deal with controversial material and material selection policy. For
example, article 2 of the Library Bill of Rights says: "Materials
should not be proscribed or removed because of partisan or doctrinal
disapproval". The ALA Workbook for Selection Policy Writing tells how
to create a formal policy.
- Carl M. Kadie
ANNOTATED REFERENCES
(All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.)
=================
stanford.statements
=================
"In 1989 rec.humor.funny was suppressed in some of the Stanford
University computers. After a campaign it was re-installed in those
computers."
This file contains
1) the "Statement of Protest about the AIR Censorship of rec.humor.funny"
2) a statement by the Stanford faculty committee on libraries
3) Notes from Professor John McCarthy on how censorship was fought at Stanford
(also see "jmcabstract")
=================
jmcabstract
=================
Professor John McCarthy lead the effort to restore "rec.humor.funny"
at Stanford. In March of 1991, he traveled to the University of
Waterloo, a place where "rec.humor.funny" and "alt.sex" was banned.
At Waterloo, he gave one talk on a new computer language and a second
talk on "Network Publication and Free Expression". This is the
abstract of that talk. (In May 1991, an advisory committee said the
ban should be lifted. In October 1991, the ban was lifted.)
(Also, see "stanford.statements")
=================
caf-statement
=================
This is an attempt to codify the application of academic freedom to
academic computers. It reflects our seven months of on-line discussion
about computers and academic freedom.
Comments and suggestions are very welcome (especially when posted to
CAF-talk). All the documents referenced are available on-line.
=================
library/bill-of-rights.ala
=================
The Library Bill of Rights from the American Library Association.
=================
library/selection-workbook.ala
=================
The American Library Association's "Workbook on Selection Policy
Writing". Although aimed at textbook and library book selection in
grade and high schools, it also seems applicable to newsgroup
selection. It includes information about how create a selection policy
and how to handle complaints. It also includes a sample selection
policy.
=================
library/int-freedom.ala
=================
"Intellectual Freedom Statement"
An interpretation by the American Library Association of the "Library
Bill of Rights"
=================
library/README
=================
Library Policy Archive
[part of the Computers and Academic Freedom (CAF) Archive
[part of the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) Archive]]
This is an on-line collection of library policy statements. It
includes the American Library Association's Freedom To Read statement
and the ALA Library Bill of Rights. (The ALA material is made
available by permission of the American Library Association.)
The archive is accessible via anonymous ftp and email. Ftp to
ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.3). It is in directory "pub/academic/library".
For email access, send email to archive-server@eff.org. Include the
line:
send library-policies
where is a list of the files that you want. File README is
a detailed description of the items in the directory.
For more information, to make contributions, or to report typos
contact Carl Kadie (kadie@eff.org).
=================
faq/netnews.writing
=================
q: Should my university allow students to post to Netnews?
=================
=================
To get these documents by email, send email to archive-server@eff.org.
Include the line(s):
send acad-freeedom stanford.statements
send acad-freeedom jmcabstract
send acad-freeedom caf-statement
send library-policies bill-of-rights.ala
send library-policies selection-workbook.ala
send library-policies int-freedom.ala
send library-policies README
send caf-faq netnews.writing
The files are also available via anonymous ftp from ftp.eff.org
(191.88.144.3) as file(s):
pub/academic/stanford.statements
pub/academic/jmcabstract
pub/academic/caf-statement
pub/academic/library/bill-of-rights.ala
pub/academic/library/selection-workbook.ala
pub/academic/library/int-freedom.ala
pub/academic/library/README
pub/academic/faq/netnews.writing
--
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 helen Mon Dec 16 13:28:00 1991
Received: by eff.org id AA01271
(5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for cafb-list@eff.org); Mon, 16 Dec 1991 18:28:04 -0500
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: i1neal@exnet.iastate.edu (Neal Rauhauser -- )
Subject: Whos responsible
Message-ID: <1991Dec16.154947.16044@news.iastate.edu>
Sender: news@news.iastate.edu (USENET News System)
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1991 15:49:47 GMT
> Who drafted this plan?
Kunz & Covert
> Who approved this plan?
Covert & Seagrave
Got this is my mailbox today :-) I'd like to show you the header,
most amusing, but there might be a shred of info as to who the real
sender was, so it must remain in my own personal collection of cute
internet scribbles. I know Kunz (for shame, Steve, censoring our feed)
and Covert, who is Seagrave?
--
Neal i1neal@exnet.iastate.edu
"A poor fool indeed is he who adopts a manner of thinking (meant) for others!"
- Donatien-Alphonse-Francois de Sade
"Despite the sunrise, the darkness never goes from some men's eyes"
Article 687 of isu.cc.general:
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: michael@iastate.edu (Michael M Huang)
Subject: Re: New Usenet News Policy on 1/6/92
Message-ID:
Sender: news@news.iastate.edu (USENET News System)
References: <1991Dec16.153811.15547@news.iastate.edu>
Distribution: isu
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1991 15:53:04 GMT
In <1991Dec16.153811.15547@news.iastate.edu> A1.JLJ@isumvs.iastate.edu (**Think Twice**) writes:
>Ahem...
>If I may add my $0.02 worth to the arguments around UseNet..
>I recall that a BBS operated by N.Carolina (Chapell Hill) requires
>the users to sign and mail (snail mail!!) a registration form before
>a subscriber can add or read articles from the BBS. Would such
>"restrictive" subscription to UseNet be an option?
Yes, a lot of BBS's do require that the users register -- since the users
mostly are calling in from a remote site. And in order to make sure that
you are what you say you are (but we know this is not a fool-prove way of
doing it, but there is no other way other than having the person trek down
to the BBS site and present him/herself in person -- and that is simply
not possible), the system requires a signed statement from you. There is
no question here since the remote user is a guest on that system and the
people operating the system have all rights over the guidelines for access.
But, this problem involves local users, at a local site -- which, IMHO, is
different from a remote-access BBS.
-michael
--
Michael M. Huang MAC Slave at High Tc Update
(michael@IAState.Edu) Superconductivity Info. Center
Opinions are my own & noone else's. Ames Labs, ISU, Ames, Iowa, USA
"If train stations are where trains stop, how 'bout 'em workstations?"
Article 302 of isu.newsgroups:
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: New news censorship policy at Iowa State University
Message-ID: <1991Dec16.172922.18519@eff.org>
Keywords: bogus!
References: <1991Dec15.164750@IASTATE.EDU> <1991Dec16.154149.15030@eff.org>
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1991 17:29:22 GMT
Here is the tread of conversations from Iowa State.
Warning: It is long.
- Carl
[ This is the fourth of five parts ... Helen ]
-----------------
Article 675 of isu.cc.general:
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: comp-academic-freedom-talk
Reply-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk
Precedence: bulk
To: comp-academic-freedom-talk
Errors-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk-request
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1991 18:13:13 -0500
X-Digest-Sender: "Helen C. O'Boyle"
Message-Id: <199112162313.AA00699@eff.org>
Subject: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Mon Dec 16 18:12:50 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:
kadie@eff.org (Car : RE: Abstract of "CAF-News cafv01n41"
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (ia.newsgroups, et al.) What to do about the new Newsgroup
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (ia.newsgroups, et al.) Re: What to do about the new Newsg
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (ia.newsgroups, et al.) Re: What to do about the new Newsg
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (comp.org.eff.talk) New news censorship policy at Iowa Sta
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: New news censorship policy at Iowa State University
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 cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: comp-academic-freedom-talk
Reply-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk
Precedence: bulk
To: comp-academic-freedom-talk
Errors-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk-request
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1991 18:28:00 -0500
X-Digest-Sender: "Helen C. O'Boyle"
Message-Id: <199112162328.AA01266@eff.org>
Subject: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Mon Dec 16 18:27:55 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 ]
[ Special Issue: thread of conversations from Iowa State; reposted
by Kadie; this is part 1 of 5
- Helen ]
In this issue:
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: New news censorship policy at Iowa State University
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 cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: comp-academic-freedom-talk
Reply-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk
Precedence: bulk
To: comp-academic-freedom-talk
Errors-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk-request
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1991 18:41:14 -0500
X-Digest-Sender: "Helen C. O'Boyle"
Message-Id: <199112162341.AA01746@eff.org>
Subject: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Mon Dec 16 18:41:07 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 ]
[ Special Issue: thread of conversations from Iowa State; reposted
by Kadie; this is part 2 of 5
- Helen ]
In this issue:
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: New news censorship policy at Iowa State University
-- Don't try to be my mother
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 cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: comp-academic-freedom-talk
Reply-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk
Precedence: bulk
To: comp-academic-freedom-talk
Errors-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk-request
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1991 18:42:42 -0500
X-Digest-Sender: "Helen C. O'Boyle"
Message-Id: <199112162342.AA01808@eff.org>
Subject: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Mon Dec 16 18:42:37 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 ]
[ Special Issue: thread of conversations from Iowa State; reposted
by Kadie; this is part 3 of 5
- Helen ]
In this issue:
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: New news censorship policy at Iowa State University
-- We need to get together
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 cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: comp-academic-freedom-talk
Reply-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk
Precedence: bulk
To: comp-academic-freedom-talk
Errors-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk-request
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1991 18:43:13 -0500
X-Digest-Sender: "Helen C. O'Boyle"
Message-Id: <199112162343.AA01843@eff.org>
Subject: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Mon Dec 16 18:43:11 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 ]
[ Special Issue: thread of conversations from Iowa State; reposted
by Kadie; this is part 4 of 5
- Helen ]
In this issue:
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
--------------------
--
Helen C. O'Boyle | Co-moderator, Computers and Academic Freedom list
helen@eff.org | << insert usual disclaimer here... my opinions
isy5hob@cabell.vcu.edu | are mine alone, not EFF's or VCU's, etc. >>
From helen Mon Dec 16 13:41:14 1991
Received: by eff.org id AA01751
(5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for cafb-list@eff.org); Mon, 16 Dec 1991 18:41:22 -0500
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: comp-academic-freedom-talk
Reply-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk
Precedence: bulk
To: comp-academic-freedom-talk
Errors-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk-request
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1991 18:44:34 -0500
X-Digest-Sender: "Helen C. O'Boyle"
Message-Id: <199112162344.AA01902@eff.org>
Subject: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Mon Dec 16 18:44:29 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 ]
[ Special Issue: thread of conversations from Iowa State; reposted
by Kadie; this is part 4 of 5
- Helen ]
In this issue:
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: New news censorship policy at Iowa State University
-- I'm sorry
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 cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: comp-academic-freedom-talk
Reply-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk
Precedence: bulk
To: comp-academic-freedom-talk
Errors-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk-request
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1991 18:45:13 -0500
X-Digest-Sender: "Helen C. O'Boyle"
Message-Id: <199112162345.AA01956@eff.org>
Subject: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Mon Dec 16 18:45:05 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 ]
[ Special Issue: thread of conversations from Iowa State; reposted
by Kadie; this is part 5 of 5
- Helen ]
In this issue:
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: New news censorship policy at Iowa State University
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 cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: comp-academic-freedom-talk
Reply-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk
Precedence: bulk
To: comp-academic-freedom-talk
Errors-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk-request
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1991 18:46:28 -0500
X-Digest-Sender: "Helen C. O'Boyle"
Message-Id: <199112162346.AA02081@eff.org>
Subject: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Mon Dec 16 18:46:20 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:
U15289@UICVM.uic.e : Public employment and privacy
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: New news censorship policy at Iowa State University
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 cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: comp-academic-freedom-talk
Reply-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk
Precedence: bulk
To: comp-academic-freedom-talk
Errors-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk-request
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1991 18:48:13 -0500
X-Digest-Sender: "Helen C. O'Boyle"
Message-Id: <199112162348.AA02289@eff.org>
Subject: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Mon Dec 16 18:47:23 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: New news censorship policy at Iowa State University
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: New news censorship policy at Iowa State University
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: New news censorship policy at Iowa State University
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: New news censorship policy at Iowa State University
spam@iastate.edu ( : Re: New news censorship policy at Iowa State University
U15289@UICVM.uic.e : Re: writing to senators on the ISU Usenet policy
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 cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: comp-academic-freedom-talk
Reply-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk
Precedence: bulk
To: comp-academic-freedom-talk
Errors-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk-request
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1991 18:49:06 -0500
X-Digest-Sender: "Helen C. O'Boyle"
Message-Id: <199112162349.AA02433@eff.org>
Subject: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Mon Dec 16 18:48:47 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: New news censorship policy at Iowa State University
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (ia.newsgroups, et al.) Re: What to do about the new Newsg
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (ia.newsgroups, et al.) Re: What to do about the new Newsg
spam@iastate.edu ( : Re: New news censorship policy at Iowa State University
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (soc.singles) Re: Sexual Harassment at work
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (comp.org.eff.talk) Re: New news censorship policy at Iowa
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 cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: U15289@UICVM.uic.edu
Subject: Public employment and privacy
Message-ID: <199112161913.AA21345@eff.org>
Sender: U15289@UICVM.uic.edu
Date: 16 Dec 91 19:12:57 GMT
In article <3587@aldebaran.cs.nps.navy.mil>,
schweige@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil (Jeffrey M. Schweiger) writes:
>Public employees, in addition to assuming a responsibility to the public trust,
>also appear to give up at least a small measure of the privacy they might
>enjoy if they were instead employed in the private sector.
> [...]
>
>If you are a public employee, you have assumed certain duties and
>responsibilities, and under some circumstances a decrease in your privacy.
>If you don't like it, leave the public sector of employment (or get the
>laws changed).
> [...]
>It my very well be public information (a matter of public record) as defined
>by law in a particular state. That an individual feels that the information
>should be private may not matter if its release is required by law.
For employees of state universities to have less latitude than those
of private ones in terms of controlling the release of directory infor-
mation is inequitable at the very least. It may also raise issues in
relation to the Fourteenth Amendment.
>It appears that this discussion has hit upon one of the conflicts of this
>information age - freedom of information vs. protection of individual privacy.
>What one individual feels should be public knowledge and publicly accessible
>is considered privileged and private by another. I don't know that this
>issue will ever be resolved.
I agree unequivocally.
Mitch Pravatiner
U15289@uicvm.uic.edu
-------------------
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: New news censorship policy at Iowa State University
Message-ID: <1991Dec16.191620.21567@eff.org>
Keywords: bogus!
References: <1991Dec15.164750@IASTATE.EDU> <1991Dec16.154149.15030@eff.org>
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1991 19:16:20 GMT
The Iowa State University policy should, in my opinion, be changed to
better respect intellectual freedom by more accurately reflecting
library policy (and the law).
> *** ISU Usenet Access Policy ***
> The following policy regarding news service from "news.iastate.edu" will be
> placed into effect on January 6, 1992. If you wish
> to opt for a different level
> of service than Standard (as described in the policy statement),
> the forms are
> available now in the Computation Center administrative office, 291 Durham
> Center.
I believe that the requirement that one sign a form to get access to
controversial newsgroups is a violation of the Library Bill of Rights.
Here is an excerpt from the American Library Association's policy
statement "Regulations, Policies, and Procedures Affecting Access to
Library Resources and Services":
[The full text of this statement is appended]
---------start--------
Libraries serve the function of making ideas and information available to all
members of the society, without discrimination. Publicly supported libraries
provide access to information for all without imposing barriers which limit or
prevent library users, including the indigent or the economically
disadvantaged, from exercising their full constitutional rights. Publicly
supported libraries' traditional commitment to free public service is integral
to their nature and function. Publicly supported libraries, like public
schools and universities, are supported in part from a recognition that
information and education are essential components of informed self-
government.
The right of free access to information for all individuals is basic to all
library service. The central thrust of the LIBRARY BILL OF RIGHTS is to
protect and encourage the free flow of information and ideas. Article 5
protects the rights of an individual to use a library regardless of origin,
age, background, or views. The American Library Association urges all
libraries to set policies and procedures that reflect the basic tenets of the
LIBRARY BILL OF RIGHTS, within the framework of Constitutional imperatives and
limitations.
Many libraries adopt administrative policies and procedures to govern their
order and use, the comfort and safety of patrons and staff, and the protection
of resources, services, and facilities. Such policies and procedures affect
access, and must not become a convenient means for removing or restricting
access to controversial materials, limiting access to facilities, programs, or
exhibits, or for discriminating against specific individuals or groups of
library patrons. Administrative policies and procedures which infringe on
equitable access to library buildings, services, and resources, the privacy of
the individual, or the right to read, violate the LIBRARY BILL OF RIGHTS.
Further, if such policies have the effect of impermissible discrimination
against individuals or particular groups of library users, they are likely to
violate First Amendment rights. The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized that
"`the right to receive ideas follows ineluctably from the sender's First
Amendment right to send them. . . . More importantly, the right to receive
ideas is a necessary predicate to the recipient's meaningful exercise of his
own rights such as speech, press, and political freedom' (emphasis in
original) Board of Education, Island Trees Union Free School District No. 26
v. Pico, 457 U.S. 853, 866-67 (1982) (plurality opinion)."5 Respect for
these rights is central to the function of any government supported library
for these rights define the library's purpose."
----------end----------
> A document describing Usenet News and the development of this policy is
> available via anonymous ftp from "ftp.iastate.edu". Simply establish an ftp
> session using the user name "anonymous" and any password and get the document
> "/netinfo/news/usenet-news-policy". Also in that directory,
> you will find the
> list of newsgroups excluded from the Standard offering in the file
> "/netinfo/news/usenet-news-std-list".
> (As noted below, this list will also be
> posted to "isu.newsgroups" each month.
>
> Usenet News Policy
>
> The Computation Center maintains a news server offering Usenet News lists for
> the Iowa State University community. This offering of service
> must comply with
> federal, state, and local laws; policies of the Iowa Board of
> Regents and Iowa
> State University;
This is of course a truism. What is the policy of Iowa State
University? The policy of most universities (as expressed in their
student codes) prohibits institutional censorship. Which laws are you
referring to? How do these laws affect the University Library?
> and be within the guidelines of any agreements between the
> university and local, regional, national, or international computer networks.
> The Usenet News Administrator is responsible for the day-to-day
> management of the
> service on the Iowa State University campus. Any material, particularly
> locally-posted material, which could be harmful to
> a specific individual(s) may
> be removed by the Usenet News Administrator.
What kind of harm? If the answer is mere offensive, this assertion of
authority violates library policy and likely the law.
Article two of the Library Bill of Rights says: "Materials should not
be proscribed or removed because of partisan or doctrinal
disapproval." [full statement enclosed].
The American Library Association statement on "Diversity in Collection
Development" says "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." [full statement enclosed]
American Library Association Policy also prohibits the removal of
material on the say-so on one person. For information on how material
should be selected (and deselected) see the ALA Workbook for Selection
Policy Writing. Although aimed at textbook and library book selection
in grade and high schools, it also seems applicable to newsgroup
selection (and deselection). It includes information about how create
a selection policy and how to handle complaints. It also includes a
sample selection policy. The full text of the Workbook is available
on-line via anonymous ftp as
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/library/selection-workbook.ala. Or send
email to archive-server@eff.org. Include the line
send library-policies selection-workbook.ala
The removal of an offensive note would also violate the law. Just as a
state university generally can not remove an article from the student
newspaper, it (likely) generally can not remove a student's article
from a newsgroups.
Like any organization, Iowa State University must work within its
charter. Part of this charter is the U.S. Constitution. The Supreme
Court has said that the Constitution limits the government's authority
to control the media that owns and controls. The rational is that it
would be dangerous for a Government that is elected by the people to
have too much control on what the people can say and read.
The Supreme Court calls created forums, like a student newspaper or
campus mail systems, limited public forums. It says that the
government can limited who may access these forums and/or what topics
may be discussed. But otherwise, "it is bound by the same standards as
apply in a traditional public forum"; "content-based prohibition must
be narrowly drawn to effectuate a compelling state interest." For
example, viewpoint-based discrimination is forbidden.
[annotated references enclosed]
> News lists which have large
> resource requirements which adversely affect general use of
> Usenet News may be
> restricted in some form by the Usenet News Administrator.
> Any news list may contain material which is unfamiliar,
> unorthodox or unpopular
> to some. Occasionally, even ordinary news lists may contain material which a
> reader finds objectionable. Members of the university
> community have the right
> to request a review of particular material by contacting the Usenet News
> Administrator in writing. An alternative consistent with the Intellectual
> Freedom Statement (as adopted by the American Library Association Council on
> June 25, 1971) would be to recognize that each item available within Usenet
> News is a view or mode of expression of the person posting the
> material. The presentation of such material in Usenet News does not
> imply any endorsement by those providing the news service or by those
> subscribing to it. This suggested alternative does not apply to the
> public display of offensive materials, only to the presence of
> material within Usenet. A separate policy governs the public display
> of material.
> Three variations of Usenet News lists are offered. These are called
> the Focused News List, the Standard News List, and the Full News List.
>
> The purpose of the Focused News List is to provide an alternative to
> those who want their computer to only access news lists which appear
> to be focused on academic information directly rather than hobby,
> recreational, or undefined areas. The Focused News List contains all
> news lists except the alternative and recreational hierarchies (i.e.,
> "alt" and "rec"). Other hierarchies may also be excluded in the
> future if their primary focus appears to be away from academic
> information.
>
> The purpose of the Standard News List is to provide access to the
> lists which are unlikely to evoke questions regarding access, use or
> distribution of the material. Hence, the Standard News List offering
> will explicitly exclude some news groups. The Standard offering will
> be the default for campus use. The excluded lists are those which by
> their name and accompanying description appear to offer potential
> conflicts with law, (particularly with child protection and
> pornography law) or with policies such as the sexual harassment
> policy. A list of the excluded news lists will be posted monthly to
> the newsgroup "isu.newsgroups" with the subject heading "Monthly
> Posting -- ISU Usenet Access Policy - Standard List". If other news
> lists are created which appear to offer these same potential
> conflicts, they will be added to the excluded list.
Here is what the American Library Association has to say in
their Statement on Labeling:
--------start----(full statement)
STATEMENT ON LABELING
An Interpretation of the LIBRARY BILL OF RIGHTS
Labeling is the practice of describing or designating materials by affixing a
prejudicial label and/or segregating them by a prejudicial system. The
American Library Association opposes these means of predisposing people's
attitudes toward library materials for the following reasons:
1. Labeling is an attempt to prejudice attitudes and as such, it is a
censor's tool.
2. Some find it easy and even proper, according to their ethics, to
establish criteria for judging publications as objectionable. However,
injustice and ignorance rather than justice and enlightenment result
from such practices, and the American Library Association opposes the
establishment of such criteria.
3. Libraries do not advocate the ideas found in their collections. The
presence of books and other resources in a library does not indicate
endorsement of their contents by the library.
A variety of private organizations promulgate rating systems and/or review
materials as a means of advising either their members or the general public
concerning their opinions of the contents and suitability or appropriate age
for use of certain books, films, recordings, or other materials. For the
library to adopt or enforce any of these private systems, to attach such
ratings to library materials, to include them in bibliographic records,
library catalogs, or other finding aids, or otherwise to endorse them would
violate the LIBRARY BILL OF RIGHTS.
While some attempts have been made to adopt these systems into law, the
constitutionality of such measures is extremely questionable. If such
legislation is passed which applies within a library's jurisdiction, the
library should seek competent legal advice concerning its applicability to
library operations.
Publishers, industry groups, and distributors sometimes add ratings to
material or include them as part of their packaging. Librarians should not
endorse such practices. However, removing or obliterating such ratings -- if
placed there by or with permission of the copyright holder -- could constitute
expurgation, which is also unacceptable.
The American Library Association opposes efforts which aim at closing any path
to knowledge. This statement, however, does not exclude the adoption of
organizational schemes designed as directional aids or to facilitate access to
materials.
Adopted July 13, 1951. Amended June 25, 1971; July 1, 1981; June 26, 1990, by
the ALA Council.
[Made available by permission of the American Library Association.]
---------end------
>
> The purpose of the Full News List is to offer full access to all news
> lists to anyone in the Iowa State community who requests it and
> acknowledges their responsibility in accessing, using, and
> distributing material from it. Some material in the full news feed
> may not be appropriate for general distribution. It is the
> responsibility of those receiving the material to comply with
> appropriate law and policy.
>
> All computers served by the Computation Center news server will
> receive the Standard News List as the default. Those persons in
> charge of computers (time-sharing systems, workstations, or
> microcomputers) may request either the Focused List or the Full list
> by filling out the appropriate form obtained from the Computation
> Center administrative office, 291 Durham Center. The form for the
> Focused News List acknowledges that certain material may not be
> available to the specified computer. The form for the Full News List
> acknowledges responsibility for access, use, and distribution of all
> Usenet material via that specific computer via either console or
> remote use. Once either Full or Focused access has been requested,
> the requester may revert to the Standard offering by filling out a
> form.
>
> All publicly-accessible computers in the Computation Center, with the
> exception of the HDS WYLBUR time-sharing system, will offer the
> Standard News List only. University users of WYLBUR may request
> access to the Full or Focused News Lists by filling out the
> appropriate form obtained from 291 Durham Center. The form
> acknowledges individual responsibility of the user-id owner for
> access, use, and distribution of Usenet material. Some material in
> the full news feed may not be appropriate for general distribution.
> It is the responsibility of those receiving the material to comply
> with appropriate law and policy.
> --
> Steven L. Kunz
> Networking & Communications | Usenet News Admin.
> Iowa State University Computation Center, Iowa State University, Ames IA
> INET: skunz@iastate.edu BITNET: gr.slk@isumvs.bitnet
I urge Iowa State University to more faithfully apply the principles
of intellectual freedom developed by libraries to the administration
of information material on computers.
- Carl Kadie
============ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/library/access.policies.ala======
REGULATIONS, POLICIES, AND PROCEDURES AFFECTING
ACCESS TO LIBRARY RESOURCES AND SERVICES
An Interpretation of the LIBRARY BILL OF RIGHTS
American libraries exist and function within the context of a body of law
derived from the United States Constitution, defined by statute, and
implemented by regulations, policies, and procedures established by their
governing bodies and administrations. These regulations, policies, and
procedures reflect the function and character of the library, define its
operations, and protect its mission and the rights of its users.
"The library is one of the great symbols of our democracy. It is a living
embodiment of the First Amendment because it includes voices of dissent."1
Libraries of all types adhere to this ideal. Publicly supported libraries
serve as traditional public forums, open to the collection, use, and
dissemination of all forms of recorded human expression that are expressly
dedicated to the unfettered competition of the marketplace of ideas. It is
essential to this purpose that the library function as neutral ground in that
marketplace. Viewpoint-based discrimination has no place in publicly
supported library collections or services; for the library to espouse partisan
causes or favor particular viewpoints violates its mission.
"A public library is not only a designated public forum, but also a
quintessential, traditional public forum whose accessibility affects the
bedrock of our democratic system. A place where ideas are communicated freely
through the written word"2 and other means of recorded expression "is as
integral to a democracy and to First Amendment rights as an available public
space where citizens can communicate their ideas through the spoken word."3
The fact of public sponsorship of a library in no way implies endorsement of
any of the myriad viewpoints contained within a library's collection. Nor
should a funding source dictate its contents. The United States Supreme Court
has recognized that "the university is a traditional sphere of free
expression so fundamental to the functioning of our society that the
Government's ability to control speech within that sphere by means of
conditions attached to the expenditures of Government funds, is restricted by
the vagueness and overbreadth doctrines of the First Amendment. . . ."4 The
same principles apply with equal force to publicly supported libraries. These
principles restrict any attempt to control expression within a publicly
supported library or to dictate or limit the contents of its collections,
programs, displays, or publications through conditions attached to funding.
Libraries serve the function of making ideas and information available to all
members of the society, without discrimination. Publicly supported libraries
provide access to information for all without imposing barriers which limit or
prevent library users, including the indigent or the economically
disadvantaged, from exercising their full constitutional rights. Publicly
supported libraries' traditional commitment to free public service is integral
to their nature and function. Publicly supported libraries, like public
schools and universities, are supported in part from a recognition that
information and education are essential components of informed self-
government.
The right of free access to information for all individuals is basic to all
library service. The central thrust of the LIBRARY BILL OF RIGHTS is to
protect and encourage the free flow of information and ideas. Article 5
protects the rights of an individual to use a library regardless of origin,
age, background, or views. The American Library Association urges all
libraries to set policies and procedures that reflect the basic tenets of the
LIBRARY BILL OF RIGHTS, within the framework of Constitutional imperatives and
limitations.
Many libraries adopt administrative policies and procedures to govern their
order and use, the comfort and safety of patrons and staff, and the protection
of resources, services, and facilities. Such policies and procedures affect
access, and must not become a convenient means for removing or restricting
access to controversial materials, limiting access to facilities, programs, or
exhibits, or for discriminating against specific individuals or groups of
library patrons. Administrative policies and procedures which infringe on
equitable access to library buildings, services, and resources, the privacy of
the individual, or the right to read, violate the LIBRARY BILL OF RIGHTS.
Further, if such policies have the effect of impermissible discrimination
against individuals or particular groups of library users, they are likely to
violate First Amendment rights. The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized that
"`the right to receive ideas follows ineluctably from the sender's First
Amendment right to send them. . . . More importantly, the right to receive
ideas is a necessary predicate to the recipient's meaningful exercise of his
own rights such as speech, press, and political freedom' (emphasis in
original) Board of Education, Island Trees Union Free School District No. 26
v. Pico, 457 U.S. 853, 866-67 (1982) (plurality opinion)."5 Respect for
these rights is central to the function of any government supported library
for these rights define the library's purpose.
Because publicly supported libraries are institutions dedicated to the free
flow of information, it is essential that the regulations, policies, and
procedures which libraries develop and use embody the principles of free
expression. Information about their operations must be made available in full
compliance with confidentiality, privacy, freedom of information and sunshine
laws. The application of policies and procedures for the use of library
services and resources should be consistently applied to both members of the
public and library employees. Policies and procedures for responding to
complaints about library materials -- including individual items in a
collection, library programs and services, or publications and other material
produced or published by the library -- should be uniformly applied regardless
of the source of the complaint, whether coming from a member of the public,
staff, or governing authority.
1., 2., 3., 5. Richard R. Kreimer v. Bureau of Police for the Town of
Morristown, et. al., ___ F. Supp. ___ (No. 90-554, May 22, 1991).
4. Rust, et. al. v. Sullivan, ___U.S.___(___U.S.L.W.___, ___S. Ct. Rept.___),
No. 89-1391, May 23, 1991.
Adopted January 27, 1982, as ADMINISTRATIVE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES AFFECTING
ACCESS TO LIBRARY RESOURCES AND SERVICES; amended with title change July 3,
1991, by the ALA Council.
[Made available by permission of the American Library Association.]
============ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/library/bill-of-rights.ala ======
LIBRARY BILL OF RIGHTS
The American Library Association affirms that all libraries are forums for
information and ideas, and that the following basic policies should guide
their services.
1. Books and other library resources should be provided for the
interest, information, and enlightenment of all people of the community the
library serves. Materials should not be excluded because of the origin,
background, or views of those contributing to their creation.
2. Libraries should provide materials and information presenting all
points of view on current and historical issues. Materials should not be
proscribed or removed because of partisan or doctrinal disapproval.
3. Libraries should challenge censorship in the fulfillment of their
responsibility to provide information and enlightenment.
4. Libraries should cooperate with all persons and groups concerned
with resisting abridgment of free expression and free access to ideas.
5. A person's right to use a library should not be denied or abridged
because of origin, age, background, or views.
6. Libraries which make exhibit spaces and meeting rooms available to
the public they serve should make such facilities available on an equitable
basis, regardless of the beliefs or affiliations of individuals or groups
requesting their use.
Adopted June 18, 1948; amended February 2, 1961, and January 23, 1980, by the
ALA Council.
[Made available by permission of the American Library Association.]
============ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/library/diversity.ala ======
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.]
==============================legal refernences============
Access information follows the bibliography.
=================
law/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 (to a school newspaper).
=================
law/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." Also, "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". Also, it tells what to do about libel in student
publications.
=================
law/student-publications.misc
=================
The book _Law of the Student Press_ by the Student Press Law Center
(1985,1988), says that four-letter words are protected speech, that
public universities are not likely to be liable for publications that
they for which they do not control the contents, and that the
_Hazelwood_ decision does not apply to universities.
=================
law/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 universities including the
requires for freedom of expression, freedom against unreasonable
searches and seizures, due process, specific rules.
=================
law/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 between protected
offensive expression and illegal harassment. It even mentions email.
It concludes: "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."
=================
law/doe-v-u-of-michigan
=================
This is Doe v. University of Michigan. In this widely referenced
decision, the district judge down struck the University's rules
against discriminatory harassment because the rules were found to be too
broad and too vague.
=================
law/rust-v-sullivan
=================
The decision and decent for the so-called abortion information gag
rule case. The decision explicitly mentions universities as a place
where free expression is so important that gag rules would not be
allowed.
=================
law/keyishian-v-board-of-regents
=================
In this Supreme Court case, the Court said that public universities
can not infringe on the Constitutionally protected rights of their
students and employees (specially with regard to loyalty oaths).
=================
law/perry-v-perry
=================
Comments from the ACLU Handbook _The Rights of _Teachers_. It says
that campus mail systems (and other school facilities) can be limited
public forums. (Perry v. Perry was about an interschool mail system.
It was one of the cases that defined the Public Forum Doctrine.)
Also, 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.
Also, from p. 92, it says that there are legal limits to what a
(public) school can ask its teachers to sign. [Some of these same
limits might apply to what a school can ask a user to sign as a
condition of getting (or keeping) a computer account.]
=================
law/constitution.us
=================
The Constitution of the United States
=================
=================
To get these documents by email, send email to archive-server@eff.org.
Include the line(s):
send caf-law san-diego-committee-v-gov-bd
send caf-law stanley-v-magrath
send caf-law student-publications.misc
send caf-law constraints.constitutional
send caf-law uwm-post-v-u-of-wisconsin
send caf-law doe-v-u-of-michigan
send caf-law rust-v-sullivan
send caf-law keyishian-v-board-of-regents
send caf-law perry-v-perry
send caf-law constitution.us
The files are also available via anonymous ftp from ftp.eff.org
(191.88.144.3) as file(s):
pub/academic/law/san-diego-committee-v-gov-bd
pub/academic/law/stanley-v-magrath
pub/academic/law/student-publications.misc
pub/academic/law/constraints.constitutional
pub/academic/law/uwm-post-v-u-of-wisconsin
pub/academic/law/doe-v-u-of-michigan
pub/academic/law/rust-v-sullivan
pub/academic/law/keyishian-v-board-of-regents
pub/academic/law/perry-v-perry
pub/academic/law/constitution.us
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu, or (anonymous) ap.4352@hri.com
I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
--------------------
--
Helen C. O'Boyle | Co-moderator, Computers and Academic Freedom list
helen@eff.org | << insert usual disclaimer here... my opinions
isy5hob@cabell.vcu.edu | are mine alone, not EFF's or VCU's, etc. >>
From helen Mon Dec 16 13:49:06 1991
Received: by eff.org id AA02438
(5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for cafb-list@eff.org); Mon, 16 Dec 1991 18:49:10 -0500
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: New news censorship policy at Iowa State University
Message-ID: <1991Dec16.192659.21805@eff.org>
Keywords: bogus!
References: <1991Dec15.164750@IASTATE.EDU> <1991Dec16.154149.15030@eff.org>
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1991 19:26:59 GMT
[I've reformatting a little bit. - cmk]
NOTICE: The following policy is a new policy that will be activated on
January 6, 1992 at Iowa State University. It is not currently
in effect.
Usenet News Policy
Iowa State University Computation Center
December 12, 1991
Introduction
The Iowa State University Computation Center has established the
following policy on the distribution of Usenet News lists. This
policy addresses challenges and conflicts that have arisen due to the
rapid evolution of services provided by the Computation Center in
network-based news lists. While most of these news lists provide a
wealth of technical, research-based, and collateral material, a few
lists may contain material which may be illegal or viewed by some as
socially or morally objectionable.
The purpose of this statement is to provide a brief overview of Usenet
News, provide a description of the problems that arise, and present
the Computation Center's policy on this issue.
Overview of Usenet News
Usenet News is the term used to refer to a collective group of
computer-accessible lists on a wide variety of topics. These lists
do not come from a central repository with a central administration
but are "passed around" by the network-connected systems. Thousands
of computers of various types are connected via telecommunications
links ranging from slow-speed telephone lines to high-speed data
networks. Any network-connected system can install the Usenet News
software. That site then contacts one or more other sites on a
network near them and requests a "news feed". Once the "news feed" is
established, the news software at each site begins communicating.
News files on one site that do not exist on an adjacent site are
automatically transmitted. In this manner, a new article generated on
a single network-connected news system will eventually replicate
itself to all network-connected news systems throughout the world.
The large group of network-connected computer systems running Usenet
News software is collectively called "Usenet". The files exchanged by
the news software are called "news lists". These lists are named in a
hierarchical fashion, with the name indicating the subject matter of
the list. There are currently over 1,100 lists that an individual
user can subscribe to. Major divisions of Usenet News lists are:
comp Technical computing discussions
news Usenet News discussions
misc A "catch-all" category
sci Science-related discussions
soc Discussions on the society or its culture
talk Talk on current issues (politics, environment, etc.)
rec Hobby related discussions
Using the "comp" division as an example, there are lists included with
such names as "comp.lang.fortran", "comp.sys.ibmpc", and
"comp.unix.questions". News lists are created by "common consent" of
all the news administrators on all systems. A defined procedure
exists for suggesting a new list. A vote of those interested in
participating is taken and, if accepted, all sites have the option of
"turning on" the new list. Individual news systems are managed by
"news administrators" (a technical systems person). Each site may be
as selective as it wants in allowing the reception of individual lists
into its system. In addition, the local news administrator has the
option of creating "local lists", which are lists of local interest
that are not passed on to other news systems.
"subscribed to". Most systems containing news are multi-user systems.
The news feed for all lists is stored in the disk file system of the
news machine and each user is given access to "news reader" commands
that allow the user to read and post articles to the various news
lists. Most news lists are unmoderated, meaning that anyone can say
anything they want without any review. In general, the only form of
content control is by "peer pressure" from other list participants.
A key observation is that there may be no point where any systematic
review of material can occur before it is included in the "news feed".
Postings can arrive from any point in the world which has computer
access to Usenet. While moderated news lists are said to be "reviewed
by the moderator", how (or whether) that person reviews material is
not subject to any further review. Most lists are unmoderated.
In a university environment with a multitude of computers and users,
the Usenet News articles generally come into campus over a high-speed
data network called the Internet. The high-speed data transfer
backbone communication facility is funded by the National Science
Foundation. Note that the NSF does not directly provide the Usenet
News service--it only provides one transport mechanism which is used
to relay the news lists from one area to another. Connected to this
backbone are regional high-speed networks formed by regional
associations for the purpose of providing access to the NSF backbone.
Iowa State belongs to and uses the facilities of MIDnet, a seven-state
regional network.
All news comes into one campus system and is stored for later reading.
This system is called the "news server". The other computer systems
on campus that wish to read news utilize software to function as "news
clients", allowing them to read news off the "news server" via the
campus network. In this manner, one copy of the news (which
collectively occupies approximately 500 megabytes of information with
frequent purging of old material) is kept for the entire campus.
It is important to note that at this point a significant share of the
support structure for distributing Usenet News is derived from public
funding. Most (although not all) of the long-haul news article
transport occurs over the National Science Foundation's data
communications network and the regional networks supported in part by
NSF and other public funding. Many of the news systems that receive
and re-distribute news articles are owned by or operated for the U.S.
government (in the case of military or research systems) or by state
and local governments (in the case of university systems). Usenet
News could not function at the current level without the existing
public-funded infrastructure.
Challenges which Accompany this Technology
The use of Usenet to discuss a wide variety of issues has grown over
the years. Before long, the "pure technical" nature of the news lists
gave way to general talk on almost anything, including such topics as
aspects of sexual lifestyles, illegal drugs, and racist humor. The
collective group of Usenet "administrators" early on decided to
address this potential problem by creating an "alt" group division for
"alternate" selections. This group of lists could presumably be
omitted if some topics were considered questionable at an individual's
site. Currently, the "alt" groups contain such topics as:
alt.sex Postings of a prurient nature
alt.sex.bondage Postings about dominance/submission
alt.sex.pictures Graphics images of a prurient nature
alt.drugs Recreational pharmaceuticals
and also these topics:
alt.fishing Fishing as a hobby and sport
alt.recovery 12-step recovery groups
(such as Alcoholics Anonymous)
alt.sources Alternative source code
alt.native Issues for and about native Americans
The lines of distinction between "objectionable" and
"non-objectionable" groups can become very fuzzy when groups such as
"rec.humor" begin exchanging ethnic or "off color" jokes or a sexist
discussion begins on "alt.sex".
Some university sites in other locations have already come under
internal and external criticism for the alleged use of state and
federal funds to store and distribute items which are alleged either
to be illegal or objectionable.
Institutions on campus such as the Parks Library already have
guidelines regarding free access to information. They also have
policies in place to handle complaints from those who object to
various forms of research material. The guidelines do not impose
censorship. They allow access to all materials, although some
material may be available only upon request. Procedures exist to
review the purchase of materials which might be considered illegal
under state or federal statute. Costs, themselves, prevent the
collection of all possible material.
Usenet News lists, however, present a new form of "openness", both in
access and in collection. University computer access may extend
further into the public in the immediate future with ever-expanding
network access. Assumptions that access is limited to adults
(student, staff, or faculty) may no longer be valid. This new medium
provides any user the ability to voluntarily read and say anything
they want in a relatively uncensored and anonymous atmosphere. What
is posted anywhere on the world-wide network will result in Iowa State
"acquiring" that posting.
Development of the Usenet News Policy
Many aspects of Usenet News were considered in developing a policy.
Several of them are discussed here for insight into the policy itself.
Some of the material provided through Usenet has been objectionable to
some members of the university community. These objections have
ranged from an objection to having news lists considered "frivolous"
available on a researcher's workstation to objections to the display
of material in violation of the university's sexual harassment policy.
The volume of material that arrives at campus every day precludes
individual review of articles or even of selected news groups. The
campus commitment to open access and intellectual freedom makes the
review of material unlikely even if it were technically feasible.
With the academic freedom of the campus environment goes individual
intellectual responsibility. Hallmarks of that responsibility are to
obtain and use material in manners respecting others in the campus
community, the goals of intellectual inquiry, and state and federal
law. Certain aspects of public law may apply to the dissemination of
material to persons under the age of 18.
Access to news lists are by request for the specific news list based
on the name of the list. Currently, textual material is easily
viewed. Graphic material requires additional processing to be
viewable, although once processed, it can be easily recalled on common
workstations and microcomputers. The future undoubtedly holds
advances in the user interface so that graphical material will be as
easily viewed as text. Additionally, multi-media advances will make
moving video replete with sound as easily seen and heard as text is
viewed today.
Since individual article review is precluded by the volume of material
received, news lists can only be assessed by their name and the
accompanying description of their contents. Due to the extremely
distributed nature of the posting process, any news list may contain
an occasional posting (particularly with respect to offensive
language) which could be considered to be objectionable by some.
Certain technical issues also pertain. The news server software can
distinguish recipients of news lists based only on the Internet
address of the receiving computer (timesharing system, workstation, or
microcomputer). Of the timesharing systems offering general access
operated by the Computation Center, only the software on the HDS
system (WYLBUR) is readily modifiable to allow individual choice of
access.
Usenet News Policy
The Computation Center maintains a news server offering Usenet News
lists for the Iowa State University community. This offering of
service must comply with federal, state, and local laws; policies of
the Iowa Board of Regents and Iowa State University; and be within the
guidelines of any agreements between the university and local,
regional, national, or international computer networks.
The Usenet News Administrator is responsible for the day-to-day
management of the service on the Iowa State University campus. Any
material, particularly locally-posted material, which could be harmful
to a specific individual(s) may be removed by the Usenet News
Administrator. News lists which have large resource requirements
which adversely affect general use of Usenet News may be restricted in
some form by the Usenet News Administrator.
Any news list may contain material which is unfamiliar, unorthodox or
unpopular to some. Occasionally, even ordinary news lists may contain
material which a reader finds objectionable. Members of the
university community have the right to request a review of particular
material by contacting the Usenet News Administrator in writing. An
alternative consistent with the Intellectual Freedom Statement (as
adopted by the American Library Association Council on June 25, 1971)
would be to recognize that each item available within Usenet News is a
view or mode of expression of the person posting the material. The
presentation of such material in Usenet News does not imply any
endorsement by those providing the news service or by those
subscribing to it. This suggested alternative does not apply to the
public display of offensive materials, only to the presence of
material within Usenet. A separate policy governs the public display
of material.
Three variations of Usenet news lists are offered. These are called
the Focused News List, the Standard News List, and the Full News List.
The purpose of the Focused News List is to provide an alternative to
those who want their computer to only access news lists which appear
to be focused on academic information directly rather than hobby,
recreational, or undefined areas. The Focused News List contains all
news lists except the alternative and recreational hierarchies (i.e.,
"alt" and "rec"). Other hierarchies may also be excluded in the
future if their primary focus appears to be away from academic
information.
The purpose of the Standard News List is to provide access to the
lists which are unlikely to evoke questions regarding access, use or
distribution of the material. Hence, the Standard News List offering
will explicitly exclude some news groups. The Standard offering will
be the default for campus use. The excluded lists are those which by
their name and accompanying description appear to offer potential
conflicts with law, (particularly with child protection and
pornography law) or with policies such as the sexual harassment
policy. A list of the excluded news lists will be posted monthly to
the newsgroup "isu.newsgroups" with the subject heading "Monthly
Posting -- ISU Usenet Access Policy - Standard List". If other news
lists are created which appear to offer these same potential
conflicts, they will be added to the excluded list.
The purpose of the Full News List is to offer full access to all news
lists to anyone in the Iowa State community who requests it and
acknowledges their responsibility in accessing, using, and
distributing material from it. Some material in the full news feed
may not be appropriate for general distribution. It is the
responsibility of those receiving the material to comply with
appropriate law and policy.
All computers served by the Computation Center news server will
receive the Standard News List as the default. Those persons in
charge of computers (time-sharing systems, workstations, or
microcomputers) may request either the Focused List or the Full list
by filling out the appropriate form obtained from the Computation
Center administrative office, 291 Durham Center. The form for the
Focused News List acknowledges that certain material may not be
available to the specified computer. The form for the Full News List
acknowledges responsibility for access, use, and distribution of all
Usenet material via that specific computer via either console or
remote use. Once either Full or Focused access has been requested,
the requester may revert to the Standard offering by filling out a
form.
All publicly-accessible computers in the Computation Center, with the
exception of the HDS WYLBUR time-sharing system, will offer the
Standard News List only. University users of WYLBUR may request
access to the Full or Focused News Lists by filling out the
appropriate form obtained from 291 Durham Center. The form
acknowledges individual responsibility of the user-id owner for
access, use, and distribution of Usenet material. Some material in
the full news feed may not be appropriate for general distribution.
It is the responsibility of those receiving the material to comply
with appropriate law and 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 cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: burger@convex1.tcs.tulane.edu (rodney lim)
Subject: Re: Sexual Harassment at work
Message-ID: <10160@cs.tulane.edu>
Date: 16 Dec 91 20:00:34 GMT
In article <1991Dec8.062212.609@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu> sabu@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu writes:
>Sexual harassmet includes almost any type of unwanted sexual attention.
>However, to claim sexual harassment under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act,
>"the person being harassed must have suffered a monetary loss, such as loss
>of a job, payraise, or promotion" (quote from textbook and not direct quote
>of Title VII). Men most certainly can be and are victims of sexual
>harassment. However, the situation of resulting monetary loss is most
>likely to occur when the offender is in a position of power over the victim.
>At least in traditional office environments, men usually occupy positions
>of authority over women, as opposed to the reverse. There are many exceptions,
>but this is still often the case.
>
>
Sexual harassment can also mean conduct that interferes with performance or
creates a hostile, intimidating, or offensive working environment under Title
VII. Specifically, according to the EEOC, sexual harassment is legally defined
as follows:
Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal
or physical conduct of a sexual nature constitutes sexual harassment
when (1) submission to such conduct is made either explicitly or
implicitly a term or condition of an individual's employment; (2)
submission to or rejection of such conduct by an individual is used as
the basis for employment decisions affecting such an individual; or (3)
such conduct has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with
an individual's work performance or creating an intimidating, hostile,
or offensive working environment.
Of course, the interpretation of any of the language found in this
definition with respect to a given specific situation is for the courts to
decide.
-- The Rodman
----------Form .sig-----------Cut Here-----------Form .sig--------------
Brought to you by ______burger@convex1.tcs.tulane.edu__________.
(clever handle/net address)
Obligatory Disclaimer: The (views/flames/falsehoods) expressed above
are not representative of those of ______________________________.
(reputable organization)
Obligatory Nifty Quote: (check one)
___ "Women! They're a completely different gender altogether!"
----------Form .sig----------Cut Here-----------Form .sig--------------
-------------------
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: New news censorship policy at Iowa State University
Message-ID: <1991Dec16.200140.22800@eff.org>
Keywords: bogus!
References: <1991Dec15.164750@IASTATE.EDU> <1991Dec16.154149.15030@eff.org> <1991Dec16.192659.21805@eff.org>
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1991 20:01:40 GMT
The introduction to the policy suggests that it is consistent with
library policy with respect to controversial material.
[...]
>Institutions on campus such as the Parks Library already have
>guidelines regarding free access to information. They also have
>policies in place to handle complaints from those who object to
>various forms of research material. The guidelines do not impose
>censorship. They allow access to all materials, although some
>material may be available only upon request. Procedures exist to
>review the purchase of materials which might be considered illegal
>under state or federal statute. Costs, themselves, prevent the
>collection of all possible material.
[..]
>Usenet News lists, however, present a new form of "openness", both in
>access and in collection. University computer access may extend
>further into the public in the immediate future with ever-expanding
>network access. Assumptions that access is limited to adults
>(student, staff, or faculty) may no longer be valid. This new medium
>provides any user the ability to voluntarily read and say anything
>they want in a relatively uncensored and anonymous atmosphere. What
>is posted anywhere on the world-wide network will result in Iowa State
>"acquiring" that posting.
[...]
I believe that the policy is inconsistent with library policy. I'm
enclosing two relevent American Library Assoication statements and
information on how to access an on-line archive of such statements.
- Carl Kadie
==================================================
RESTRICTED ACCESS TO LIBRARY MATERIALS
An Interpretation of the LIBRARY BILL OF RIGHTS
Libraries are a traditional forum for the open exchange of information.
Attempts to restrict access to library materials violate the basic tenets of
the LIBRARY BILL OF RIGHTS.
Historically, attempts have been made to limit access by relegating materials
into segregated collections. These attempts are in violation of established
policy. Such collections are often referred to by a variety of names,
including "closed shelf," "locked case," "adults only," "restricted shelf," or
"high demand." Access to some materials also may require a monetary fee or
financial deposit. In any situation which restricts access to certain
materials, a barrier is placed between the patron and those materials. That
barrier may be age related, linguistic, economic, or psychological in nature.
Because materials placed in restricted collections often deal with
controversial, unusual, or "sensitive" subjects, having to ask a librarian or
circulation clerk for them may be embarrassing or inhibiting for patrons
desiring the materials. Needing to ask for materials may pose a language
barrier or a staff service barrier. Because restricted collections often are
composed of materials which some library patrons consider "objectionable," the
potential user may be predisposed to think of the materials as "objectionable"
and, therefore, are reluctant to ask for them.
Barriers between the materials and the patron which are psychological, or are
affected by language skills, are nonetheless limitations on access to
information. Even when a title is listed in the catalog with a reference to
its restricted status, a barrier is placed between the patron and the
publication (see also "Statement on Labeling").
There may be, however, countervailing factors to establish policies to protect
library materials--specifically, for reasons of physical preservation
including protection from theft or mutilation. Any such policies must be
carefully formulated and administered with extreme attention to the principles
of intellectual freedom. This caution is also in keeping with ALA policies,
such as "Evaluating Library Collections," "Free Access to Libraries for
Minors," and the "Preservation Policy."
Finally, in keeping with the "Joint Statement on Access" of the American
Library Association and Society of American Archivists, restrictions that
result from donor agreements or contracts for special collections materials
must be similarly circumscribed. Permanent exclusions are not acceptable.
The overriding impetus must be to work for free and unfettered access to all
documentary heritage.
Adopted February 2, 1973; amended July 1, 1981; July 3, 1991, by the ALA
Council.
[Made available by permission of the American Library Association.]
=========================================================
ACCESS FOR CHILDREN AND YOUNG PEOPLE TO VIDEOTAPES
AND OTHER NONPRINT FORMATS
An Interpretation of the LIBRARY BILL OF RIGHTS
Library collections of videotapes, motion pictures, and other nonprint formats
raise a number of intellectual freedom issues, especially regarding minors.
The interests of young people, like those of adults, are not limited by
subject, theme, or level of sophistication. Librarians have a responsibility
to ensure young people have access to materials and services that reflect
diversity sufficient to meet their needs.
To guide librarians and others in resolving these issues, the American Library
Association provides the following guidelines.
Article V of the LIBRARY BILL OF RIGHTS says, "A person's right to use a
library should not be denied or abridged because of origin, age, background,
or views."
ALA's FREE ACCESS TO LIBRARIES FOR MINORS: An Interpretation of the LIBRARY
BILL OF RIGHTS states:
The "right to use a library" includes free access to, and unrestricted
use of, all the services, materials, and facilities the library has to
offer. Every restriction on access to, and use of, library resources,
based solely on the chronological age, educational level, or legal
emancipation of users violates Article V.
. . .[P]arents - and only parents - have the right and the
responsibility to restrict the access of their children - and only their
children - to library resources. Parents or legal guardians who do not
want their children to have access to certain library services,
materials or facilities, should so advise their children. Librarians
and governing bodies cannot assume the role of parents or the functions
of parental authority in the private relationship between parent and
child. Librarians and governing bodies have a public and professional
obligation to provide equal access to all library resources for all
library users.
Policies which set minimum age limits for access to videotapes and/or other
audiovisual materials and equipment, with or without parental permission,
abridge library use for minors. Further, age limits based on the cost of the
materials are unacceptable. Unless directly and specifically prohibited by
law from circulating certain motion pictures and video productions to minors,
librarians should apply the same standards to circulation of these materials
as are applied to books and other materials.
Recognizing that libraries cannot act in loco parentis, ALA acknowledges and
supports the exercise by parents of their responsibility to guide their won
children's reading and viewing. Published reviews of films and videotapes
and/or reference works which provide information about the content, subject
matter, and recommended audiences can be made available in conjunction with
nonprint collections to assist parents in guiding their children without
implicating the library in censorship. This material may include information
provided by video producers and distributors, promotional material on
videotape packaging, and Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) ratings
if they are included on the tape or in the packaging by the original publisher
and/or if they appear in review sources or reference works included in the
library's collection. Marking out or removing ratings information from
videotape packages constitutes expurgation or censorship.
MPAA and other rating services are private advisory codes and have no legal
standing*. For the library to add such ratings to the materials if they are
not already there, to post a list of such ratings with a collection, or to
attempt to enforce such ratings through circulation policies or other
procedures constitutes labeling, "an attempt to prejudice attitudes" about the
material, and is unacceptable. The application of locally generated ratings
schemes intended to provide content warnings to library users is also
inconsistent with the LIBRARY BILL OF RIGHTS.
*For information on case law, please contact the ALA Office for Intellectual
Freedom.
See also: STATEMENT ON LABELING and EXPURGATION OF LIBRARY MATERIALS,
Interpretations of the LIBRARY BILL OF RIGHTS.
Adopted June 28, 1989, by the ALA Council; the quotation from FREE ACCESS TO
LIBRARIES FOR MINORS was changed after Council adopted the July 3, 1991,
revision of that Interpretation.
[Made available by permission of the American Library Association.]
=========================================================
=================
README
=================
Library Policy Archive
[part of the Computers and Academic Freedom (CAF) Archive
[part of the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) Archive]]
This is an on-line collection of library policy statements. It
includes the American Library Association's Freedom To Read statement
and the ALA Library Bill of Rights. (The ALA material is made
available by permission of the American Library Association.)
The archive is accessible via anonymous ftp and email. Ftp to
ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.3). It is in directory "pub/academic/library".
For email access, send email to archive-server@eff.org. Include the
line:
send library-policies
where is a list of the files that you want. File README is
a detailed description of the items in the directory.
For more information, to make contributions, or to report typos
contact Carl Kadie (kadie@eff.org).
=================
access.children.nonprint.ala
=================
"Access for Children and Young People to Videotapes and Other Nonprint
Formats"
An interpretation by the American Library Association of the "Library
Bill of Rights"
=================
access.minors.ala
=================
"Free Access to Libraries for Minors"
An interpretation by the American Library Association of the "Library
Bill of Rights"
=================
access.policies.ala
=================
"Regulations, policies, and Procedures Affecting Access to Library
Resources and Services"
An interpretation by the American Library Association of the "Library
Bill of Rights"
=================
access.restrictions.ala
=================
"Restricted Access to Library Materials"
An interpretation by the American Library Association of the "Library
Bill of Rights"
=================
bill-of-rights.ala
=================
The Library Bill of Rights from the American Library Association.
=================
bulletin-boards.ala
=================
"Exhibit Spaces and Bulletin Boards"
An interpretation by the American Library Association of the "Library
Bill of Rights"
=================
censorship.def.ala
=================
The American Library Association's definition of "censorship" and related
terms.
=================
challenged-materials.ala
=================
"Challenged Materials"
An interpretation by the American Library Association of the "Library
Bill of Rights"
=================
confidentiality.1.ala
=================
The American Library Association's "Policy on Confidentiality of
Library Records"
=================
confidentiality.2.ala
=================
The American Library Association's "Statement Concerning
Confidentiality of Personally Identifiable Information about Library
Users"
=================
diversity.ala
=================
"Diversity in Collection Development"
An interpretation by the American Library Association of the "Library
Bill of Rights"
=================
elec.rights1-4
=================
This is the ASCII version of a printed booklet distributed at the
American Library Association conference in July 1991. The program was
sponsored by the Library and Information Technology Association.
Details follow on ordering the full print monograph.
[From ftp.apple.com:alug/rights/elec.rights1-4]
=================
evaluating-collections.ala
=================
"Evaluating Library Collections"
An interpretation by the American Library Association of the "Library
Bill of Rights"
=================
expurgation.ala
=================
"Expurgation of Library Materials"
An interpretation by the American Library Association of the "Library
Bill of Rights"
=================
free-expression.ala
=================
"The Universal Right to Free Expression"
An interpretation by the American Library Association of the "Library
Bill of Rights"
=================
freedom-to-read.ala
=================
The "Freedom to Read Statement" of the American Library Association
and Association of American Publishers.
=================
int-freedom.ala
=================
"Intellectual Freedom Statement"
An interpretation by the American Library Association of the "Library
Bill of Rights"
=================
int-freedom.can
=================
Canadian Library Association Statement on Intellectual Freedom
=================
labeling.ala
=================
"Statement on Labeling"
An interpretation by the American Library Association of the "Library
Bill of Rights"
=================
library-programs.ala
=================
"Library Initiated Programs as a Resource"
An interpretation by the American Library Association of the "Library
Bill of Rights"
=================
meeting-rooms.ala
=================
"Meeting Rooms"
An interpretation by the American Library Association of the "Library
Bill of Rights"
=================
order.form.ala
=================
Information on how to order intellectual freedom material from the
American Library Association. Much of the material is free.
=================
school-libraries.ala
=================
"Access to Resources And Services in the School Library Media Program"
An interpretation by the American Library Association of the "Library
Bill of Rights"
=================
selection-workbook.ala
=================
The American Library Association's "Workbook on Selection Policy
Writing". Although aimed at textbook and library book selection in
grade and high schools, it also seems applicable to newsgroup
selection. It includes information about how create a selection policy
and how to handle complaints. It also includes a sample selection
policy.
=================
=================
Last update
Mon Nov 4 20:01:59 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 cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: New news censorship policy at Iowa State University
Message-ID: <1991Dec16.200545.23159@eff.org>
Keywords: bogus!
References: <1991Dec15.164750@IASTATE.EDU> <1991Dec16.154149.15030@eff.org> <1991Dec16.192659.21805@eff.org>
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1991 20:05:45 GMT
[This is file "usenet-news-std-list" - cmk]
NOTICE: The following list relates to a new policy that will be activated on
January 6, 1992 at Iowa State University. It is not currently
in effect.
*** ISU "Standard List" Newsgroups ***
(This information is current as of 12/13/91)
The "Standard News List" is the full Usenet newsgroup list MINUS
certain groups excluded because their name and accompanying description
appear to offer potential conflicts with law, (particularly with child
protection and pornography law) or with policies such as the sexual
harassment policy.
Reasons for the exclusion of certain groups from the "Standard List" are
outlined in the monthly posting to "isu.newsgroups" with the subject
"Monthly Posting -- ISU Usenet Access Policy - Policy Stmt". A full copy
of the ISU Usenet News Policy is available via anonymous FTP from
"ftp.iastate.edu" in the file:
net-info/news/usenet-news-policy
The following is a list of newsgroups that are unavailable unless a
person responsible for a system (or WYLBUR user-ID) has filled out a
"FULL NEWSGROUP ACCESS REQUEST" form (available from the Computation
Center main office, 291 Durham Center).
Groups currently not provided with "Standard" newsgroup access are:
alt.personals.bondage
alt.drugs
alt.psychoactives
alt.sex
alt.sex.bestiality
alt.sex.bondage
alt.sex.motss
alt.sex.pictures
alt.sex.pictures.d
If other news lists are created which appear to offer these same potential
conflicts, they will be added to the excluded lists.
--
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 cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: spam@iastate.edu (Michael L Begley)
Subject: Re: New news censorship policy at Iowa State University
Message-ID: <1991Dec16.202035.574@news.iastate.edu>
Keywords: bogus!
Sender: news@news.iastate.edu (USENET News System)
References: <1991Dec15.164750@IASTATE.EDU> <1991Dec16.154149.15030@eff.org> <1991Dec16.192659.21805@eff.org>
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1991 20:20:35 GMT
For those of you wanting the rest of the story unfolding at Iowa state, I can
post (in a digest form) the complete discussion on isu.cc.general (which
contained most of the discussion). It will be one post, but it will be quite
long (a weekends worth of pissed off users). So if I get enough requests I'll
post it to comp.org.eff.talk.
-m
-------------------
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: david@iastate.edu (David M. Martin Jr.)
Subject: Re: What to do about the new Newsgroup Censorship Policy at ISU
Message-ID:
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1991 20:32:00 GMT
In <1991Dec16.152546.14765@news.iastate.edu> i1neal@exnet.iastate.edu (Neal Rauhauser -- ) writes:
> 2. some sort of press, beyond the Daily, covering this censorship.
> I know the nice AP lady here in town, I'm sure all of you
> have similar ideas - "Censorship @ state university - page 3
> of Today section in the register"
Hmm. As an exercise, choose the headline that you think would shock
more Iowans:
PORNOGRAPHY RESTRICTED AT IOWA STATE
Drug Chat also Taboo
or
KOMPUTER ZUM KLO AT IOWA STATE
Attorney General to File Charges
> 4. Contact the Gay etc etc, whatever the acronym is this month,
> and let them know that a.s.motss is going to be cut -
> I'd say this is grounds for a discrimination suit.
Huh? Discrimination suit? That would require both actual
discrimination (of which I see none) and a law prohibiting it in this
form (which we certainly don't have).
David
--
David Martin
Iowa State University david@iastate.edu
-------------------
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: New news censorship policy at Iowa State University
Message-ID: <1991Dec16.204655.24362@eff.org>
Keywords: bogus!
References: <1991Dec15.164750@IASTATE.EDU> <1991Dec16.154149.15030@eff.org> <1991Dec16.192659.21805@eff.org> <1991Dec16.200545.23159@eff.org>
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1991 20:46:55 GMT
In article <1991Dec16.200545.23159@eff.org> Iowa State University
"usenet-news-std-list" file is quoted:
[...]
>The "Standard News List" is the full Usenet newsgroup list MINUS
>certain groups excluded because their name and accompanying description
>appear to offer potential conflicts with law, (particularly with child
>protection and pornography law) or with policies such as the sexual
>harassment policy.
....
This says that groups are being banned from the public access machines
* not because they violate any specific law
* not because they violate some unspecified laws
* not because they potentially volate some unspecified laws
* not because they appear to potentially violate some unspecified laws
* BUT because their NAMES APPEAR to POTENTIALLY violate some UNSPECIFIED laws
If the Library followed this policy, it would contain few books.
To take a case in point, what specific law does alt.drugs violate?
- 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 cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: U15289@UICVM.uic.edu
Subject: Re: writing to senators on the ISU Usenet policy
Message-ID: <199112162108.AA25167@eff.org>
Sender: U15289@UICVM.uic.edu
Date: 16 Dec 91 21:01:30 GMT
>even want to write to a state legislator. Sen. Grassley may also be a good
>contact to make. Even just talking to a lawyer about whether they can
Seems to me that Sen. Harkin, insofar as he's not preoccupied with running
for higher office, would be at least as good a contact--probably better, since
there's less chance that he'd agree with the Usenet policy than Grassley.
Mitch Pravatiner
U15289@uicvm.uic.edu
--------------------
--
Helen C. O'Boyle | Co-moderator, Computers and Academic Freedom list
helen@eff.org | << insert usual disclaimer here... my opinions
isy5hob@cabell.vcu.edu | are mine alone, not EFF's or VCU's, etc. >>
From helen Mon Dec 23 06:27:10 1991
Received: by eff.org id AA24870
(5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for cafb-list@eff.org); Mon, 23 Dec 1991 11:27:22 -0500
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: spam@iastate.edu (Michael L Begley)
Subject: Re: What to do about the new Newsgroup Censorship Policy at ISU
Message-ID: <1991Dec16.210727.2682@news.iastate.edu>
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1991 21:07:27 GMT
In article david@iastate.edu (David M. Martin Jr.) writes:
>> 4. Contact the Gay etc etc, whatever the acronym is this month,
>> and let them know that a.s.motss is going to be cut -
>> I'd say this is grounds for a discrimination suit.
>
>Huh? Discrimination suit? That would require both actual
>discrimination (of which I see none) and a law prohibiting it in this
>form (which we certainly don't have).
The reason I contacted the LGBA is because they not only promote acceptance
of homosexual lifestyles, but they also promote overall sexual awareness.
The censorship of alt.sex.motss affects their first aim, by limiting people's
ability to discuss homosexual lifestyles. The censorship of the other groups
affects their secondary aim, by limiting peoples ability to discuss sex.
I'm writing with no representation of the LGBA, only my perception of their
goals. I have not yet gotten a response from them; I called this morning
and talked to the answering machine. They`re working limited hours this week,
so the message may not have been receved. Perhaps someone out there in
isu.cc.generaland can speed this up...
-------------------
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: New news censorship policy at Iowa State University
Message-ID: <1991Dec16.213351.26078@eff.org>
Keywords: bogus!
References: <1991Dec15.164750@IASTATE.EDU> <1991Dec16.154149.15030@eff.org> <1991Dec16.192659.21805@eff.org> <1991Dec16.200545.23159@eff.org>
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1991 21:33:51 GMT
One possible justification of the policy is that it implements the
University's policy against sexual harrassment.
>[This is file "usenet-news-std-list" - cmk]
[...]
>The "Standard News List" is the full Usenet newsgroup list MINUS
>certain groups excluded because their name and accompanying description
>appear to offer potential conflicts [...] with policies such as the sexual
>harassment policy.
[...]
I think this justiication is legally invalid. _UWM POST v. U. of
Wisconsin is a recent district court ruling goes into detail about the
difference between protected offensive expression and illegal
harassment. (It even mentions email.)
It concludes: "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."
I'm enclosing a README file for an archive of legal information.
- Carl
===========================
=================
README
=================
CAF Law Archive
[part of the Computers and Academic Freedom (CAF) Archive
[part of the Electronic Frontier 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:
send 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.
=================
bbs.kahn
=================
Full copy of "Defamation Liability of Computerized Bulletin Board
Operators and Problems of Proof" by John R. Kahn
=================
bbs.riddle
=================
Full copy of "THE ELECTRONIC PAMPHLET--COMPUTER BULLETIN BOARDS AND THE LAW"
by Michael H. Riddle
=================
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.'
=================
constitution.us
=================
The Constitution of the United States
=================
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 universities 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).
=================
court-decisions
=================
How to access Supreme Court decisions by anonymous ftp and WAIS.
=================
cubby-v-compuserv
=================
Report of a federal district court case which said that BBS owners
cannot be held liable for the content they know beforehand that the
stories are false.
=================
doe-v-u-of-michigan
=================
This is Doe v. University of Michigan. In this widely referenced
decision, the district judge down struck the University's rules
against discriminatory harassment because the rules were found to be too
broad and too vague.
=================
due-process.buchanan
=================
Quotes about the due process requirements of "notice of charges" and
"find of facts" at a formal administrative hearing. The quotes are
from:
_Procedural due process guidelines for disciplinary hearings resulting
in suspension or expulsion in higher education_ by Ernest T. Buchanan
III. Published by Education/Law Research Associates, 1972
=================
due-process.french
=================
Quotes about the due process requirements of "notice of charges" and
"find of facts" at a formal administrative hearing. The quotes are
from:
_The Redefinition of the Exclusionary Rule as to Student Procedural
Due Process in High Education_. A monograph from the Office of the
General Counsel [of Southern Illinois University] by Dr. Larry L.
French, General Counsel, 1977.
=================
due-process.weckstein
=================
Quotes about the due process requirements of "notice of charges" and
"find of facts" at a formal administrative hearing. The quotes are
from:
_School Discipline and Student Rights: an advocate's manual_ by
Paul Weckstein, revised edition, 1982, Center for Law and
Education.
=================
ecpa.1986
=================
Portions of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 (ECPA) related
to e-mail privacy.
=================
email.bib
=================
I have been having an e-mail conversation with Stacy Veeder for several
days on the topic of e-mail privacy. She mailed me this bibliography
which she has compiled for two papers which she is currently writing.
I post it here with permission.
PS - She is interested in talking with anyone who has some views on the
topic/information to share.
Mark N.
=================
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-v-lopez.fischer
=================
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.
=================
goss-v-lopez.mnookin
=================
Comments from _In the Interest of Children_, R. Mnookin (Ed.),
Franklin E. Zimring and Rayman L. Solomon (Contrib. Authors). 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.
Also,
=================
hustler-magazine-v-falwell
=================
Summary from _The First Amendment Book_ by Robert J. Wagmam, p. 157.
The publisher of a cartoon parody, already found not to be libelous,
could not be punished for the emotional distress the cartoon may have
caused. The Court wrote: "in public debate our own citizens must
tolerate insulting, and even outrageous speech in order to provide
adequate breathing space to the freedoms protected by the First
Amendment."
=================
keyishian-v-board-of-regents
=================
In this Supreme Court case, the Court said that public universities
can not infringe on the Constitutionally protected rights of their
students and employees (specially with regard to loyalty oaths).
=================
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.
=================
mills-v-bd-of-ed
=================
Summary from the ACLU's Handbook _The Right of Students_ 3rd Edition
by Janet. R. Price, Alan H. Levine, and Eve Cary. p. 61. It says
before you can be severely punished, you have a due process right to
know the specific acts you are charged with committing and the
specific rules that those acts violate.
=================
mt-healthy-v-doyle
=================
_Due Process for School Officials: A Guide for the Conduct of
Administrative Proceedings_ by Edgar H. Bittle (1986) says that a
formal hearing should make a detailed "findings of fact" list.
=================
perry-v-perry
=================
Comments from the ACLU Handbook _The Rights of _Teachers_. It says
that campus mail systems (and other school facilities) can be limited
public forums. (Perry v. Perry was about an interschool mail system.
It was one of the cases that defined the Public Forum Doctrine.)
Also, 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.
Also, from p. 92, it says that there are legal limits to what a
(public) school can ask its teachers to sign. [Some of these same
limits might apply to what a school can ask a user to sign as a
condition of getting (or keeping) a computer account.]
=================
privacy.electronic.bill
=================
The text of Simon's electronic privacy bill, S. 516. "To prevent
potential abuses of electronic monitoring in the workplace."
=================
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 explicitly 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 (to a school newspaper).
=================
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." Also, "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". Also, it tells what to do about libel in student
publications.
=================
student-publications.misc
=================
The book _Law of the Student Press_ by the Student Press Law Center
(1985,1988), says that four-letter words are protected speech, that
public universities are not likely to be liable for publications that
they for which they do not control the contents, and that the
_Hazelwood_ decision does not apply to universities.
=================
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 between protected
offensive expression and illegal harassment. It even mentions email.
It concludes: "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."
=================
=================
Last update
Fri Dec 13 11:09:30 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 cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: spam@iastate.edu (Michael L Begley)
Subject: Re: New news censorship policy at Iowa State University
Message-ID: <1991Dec16.213427.3875@news.iastate.edu>
Keywords: bogus!
Sender: news@news.iastate.edu (USENET News System)
References: <1991Dec16.154149.15030@eff.org> <1991Dec16.192659.21805@eff.org> <1991Dec16.202035.574@news.iastate.edu>
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1991 21:34:27 GMT
In article <1991Dec16.202035.574@news.iastate.edu> spam@iastate.edu (Michael L Begley) writes:
>For those of you wanting the rest of the story unfolding at Iowa state, I can
>post (in a digest form) the complete discussion on isu.cc.general (which
>contained most of the discussion). It will be one post, but it will be quite
>long (a weekends worth of pissed off users). So if I get enough requests I'll
>post it to comp.org.eff.talk.
>
too late, someone's already posted it to alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk.
-------------------
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: ckd@eff.org (Christopher Davis)
Subject: Re: New news censorship policy at Iowa State University
Message-ID:
Date: 16 Dec 91 22:11:50 GMT
JD> == James Davies
JD> There's a difference between censorship and lack of government support.
JD> The groups should still be available if you don't mind paying for them
JD> yourself (e.g. through uunet).
Well, the groups are being brought onto campus. My reading of it was
that the campus NNTP server was going to have the groups, but would not
make them available to public machines or to departmental machines that
don't request them.
As a news administrator, I know that it's harder (more work) to set up
this kind of restrictions than to either get a group for everyone or not
get the group at all.
That's not "lack of government support," that's "we're going to have
_Playbeing_ in the library, but we won't check it out to people without
a faculty ID".
--Chris
--
Christopher Davis | WEIRD QUOTES OF THE WEEK:
System Manager & Postmaster | "Carpe grepem."
Electronic Frontier Foundation | "Seize the WAIS?"
+1 617 864 0665 NIC: [CKD1] | -- two overworked technodweebs
--------------------
--
Helen C. O'Boyle | Co-moderator, Computers and Academic Freedom list
helen@eff.org | << insert usual disclaimer here... my opinions
isy5hob@cabell.vcu.edu | are mine alone, not EFF's or VCU's, etc. >>
From helen Mon Dec 16 13:48:13 1991
Received: by eff.org id AA02298
(5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for cafb-list@eff.org); Mon, 16 Dec 1991 18:48:20 -0500
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: bwa@ee.mu.OZ.AU (Barry W Anderson)
Subject: Re: [comp.admin.policy] Re: Gaming
Message-ID:
Sender: news@cs.mu.OZ.AU
References: <9112060430.AA19365@m.cs.uiuc.edu> <1991Dec6.160804.24767@ms.uky.edu>
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 1991 00:44:54 GMT
The comment is that the whole is always greater than the sum of the parts.
MUD preceded IRC for internet multiperson comms, LPC is a better language than
Pascal (shudder) for first-years, and yes it's a darn fun game :)
But hey lets be honest right? The internet isn't about meeting people or
learning things is it? If people want to communicate let them do so in a
structured, well-defined, easy-to-monitor environment. And remember, it's for
your own good ;) [pls note smilie for sarcasm impaired <- I spose for pc this
should be differently sarcased]
Barry
--
| email : bwa@munagin.ee.mu.OZ.AU | snail : 408 Clarke Street, |
|--------------------------------- Northcote, |
| phone : +61 3 489-5875 | VIC 3070 Australia |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------|
| email : bwa@munagin.ee.mu.OZ.AU | snail : 408 Clarke Street, |
|--------------------------------- Northcote, |
| phone : +61 3 489-5875 | VIC 3070 Australia |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------|
-------------------
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: kadie@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: finger names and caller id's
Message-ID: <1991Dec17.034229.8649@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 1991 03:42:29 GMT
ffujita@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Frank Fujita) writes:
[...]
>let me think about this out loud. The first amendment -- as I
>understand it -- does not protect your (anyone's) right to say
>things annonymously. Censorship is not discouraging discussion by
>making it plain that your speech can have an effect on your life.
>When I say things -- which is often -- and they are wrong/silly/
>stupid/etc. -- there is a consequence associated with my name.
[...]
I've found a reference. I don't that if this applies to newsgroups at
a public university, but it does address anonymous speech. From the
ACLU Handbook on _The Right to Protest_ (1991):
----------start--------
[q:] Does a leaflet have to identify the person or group responsible
for its message?
[a:] Not usually. The Supreme Court has held that the distribution of
anonymous political leaflets is a constitutionally protected activity
because "{a}nonymously pamphlets, leaflets, brochures and even books
have played an important role in the progress of mankind. Persecuted
groups and sects from time to time throughout history have been able
to criticize oppressive practices and laws either anonymously or not
at all."{21} However, a few lower courts have upheld restrictions on
anonymous leaflets that are part of an election campaign in order to
prevent "dirty tricks."{22}
[References]
21. _Tally v. California_, 362 U.S. 60, 64 (1960); see also _Wilson v.
Stocker_, 819 F2d 943 (10th Cir. 1987)
22. _Morefield v. Moore, 540 S.W. 2d 873 (Ky. 1976); but see _People
v. White, 116 Ill. 2d 171, 506 N.E.2d 1284 (1987)
---------end------
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
-------------------
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.org.eff.talk] Re: New news censorship policy at Iowa State University
Message-ID: <9112172105.AA31630@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 17 Dec 91 09:05:42 GMT
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: dorner@pequod.cso.uiuc.edu (Steve Dorner)
Subject: Re: finger names and caller id's
Message-ID: <1991Dec17.153429.14817@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 1991 15:34:29 GMT
kadie@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>I've found a reference. I don't that if this applies to newsgroups at
>a public university, but it does address anonymous speech.
I'd like to draw some distinctions that are all too often overlooked.
1. The first ammendment prohibits the restriction of free speech. It does
not, however, give automatically give any individual the right to use
any public facility to express themselves. CSO can deny someone the use
of uxa without infringing on their 1st ammendment rights, even though uxa
can be used for speech. (Let me be clear that were such denial due to
the exercise of constitutionally-protected speech, the case would be
quite different.)
2. While anonymous speech may indeed be protected, that also does not imply
that the University must facilitate it.
So what's my point? Even if anonymous newsgroup postings are an example
of speech protected under the first ammendment, the University is under
no obligation to make anonymous posting possible.
--
Steve Dorner, U of Illinois Computing Services Office
Internet: s-dorner@uiuc.edu UUCP: uunet!uiucuxc!uiuc.edu!s-dorner
"What is Truth?"--Pontius Pilate.
-------------------
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: _What is Censorship?_
Message-ID: <1991Dec17.161417.27380@eff.org>
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 1991 16:14:17 GMT
This is a repost, but it is short and seems applicable to Iowa State
U. It the American Library Assoication's "Materials Challenge
Terminology". According to (at least, my reading) of these
definitions, "censorship" is the right word to describe the proposed
poliicy.
- Carl
============ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/library/censorship.def==========
Books/Materials Challenge Terminology
Expression of Concern -- An inquiry that has judgmental overtones.
Oral Complaint -- An oral challenge to the presence and/or
appropriateness of the material in question
Written Complaint -- A formal, written complaint filed with the
institution (library, school, etc.) challenging the presence and/or
appropriateness of specific material.
Public Attack -- A publicly disseminated statement challenging the
value of the material, presented to the media and/or others outside
the institutional organization in order to gain public support for
further action.
Censorship -- The change in the access status of material, made by a
governing authority or its representatives. Such changes include:
exclusion, restriction, removal, or age/grade level changes.
Adopted by the Intellectual Freedom Committee at the 1986 American
Library Association Annual Conference
[Made available by permission of the American Library Association.]
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu, or (anonymous) ap.4352@hri.com
I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
-------------------
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: So what's the history behind the Iowa State policy?
Message-ID: <1991Dec17.163708.27857@eff.org>
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 1991 16:37:08 GMT
Does anyone know the inside story about the Iowa State policy? The
usual life cycle for policy seems to be:
no policy
student does something annoying, but not against the rules
student is punished
harsh policy is created to (ex post facto) justify the punishment
folks complain about that the policy is too harsh
a committee is formed
a more evenhanded policy is created
The Iowa State U. Policy, however, doesn't seem to
match this pattern.
Here is what I know:
October, 1991: It is mentioned in discussions that Iowa State's Library
policy will be used as the basis of it's Newsgroup policy.
November, 25, 1991: The _Daily Iowan_ (the student paper at U. of
Iowa) carries a story headlined :'UI Computer Files Contain
Pornography'
December, 1991: It is announced that Iowa State will ban on-line
discussions of sex (and drugs) on its publicly-accessible machines.
--
If you know the inside story, please post it, or, if you want, email
to someone (like me) have them post it anonymously for you, or email
it to me anonymously (seem my .sig).
- 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 cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: meyer@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Don Meyer)
Subject: Re: finger names and caller id's
Message-ID: <1991Dec17.174146.6450@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 1991 17:41:46 GMT
dorner@pequod.cso.uiuc.edu (Steve Dorner) writes:
>I'd like to draw some distinctions that are all too often overlooked.
>1. The first ammendment prohibits the restriction of free speech. It does
> not, however, give automatically give any individual the right to use
> any public facility to express themselves. CSO can deny someone the use
> of uxa without infringing on their 1st ammendment rights, even though uxa
> can be used for speech. (Let me be clear that were such denial due to
> the exercise of constitutionally-protected speech, the case would be
> quite different.)
>2. While anonymous speech may indeed be protected, that also does not imply
> that the University must facilitate it.
>So what's my point? Even if anonymous newsgroup postings are an example
>of speech protected under the first ammendment, the University is under
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>no obligation to make anonymous posting possible.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This statement is correct on its face, when examined carefully. But, although
the U. is not required to *make* it possible, the act of making it not possible
again is restriction. They don't have to facilitate, but they may not restrict.
Again, this is under the assumtion Steve stated above that anonymous posting
is protected speech. The issue is still arguable; I feel it is protected.
And then, when posting it is extremely difficult to create a totally
anonymous message anyway. If the reason for tracking down the poster of a
message is strong, then he/she will be tracked down. If the reason is
trivial, then perhaps it is a good thing to have a little bit of pseudo-
anonymity.
And as for politeness, it is polite to introduce yourself to anyone you speak
to who may not know you already. Does anyone do this as a rule? Even
occasionally?
In order to justify a restriction, there must exist concrete and quantifiable
benefits to the affected community, and these benefits must outweigh the
disadvantages and drawbacks of the solution.
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Don Meyer dlmeyer@uiuc.edu
Network Manager, UIUC College of Ag Microcomputer Facility
"He who restricts another's right to self-defense is accomplice to
any crime committed because of the lack of self defense."
member: NRA, ISSC, IL Farm Bureau "Don't blame me, I voted Libertarian!"
>--
>Steve Dorner, U of Illinois Computing Services Office
>Internet: s-dorner@uiuc.edu UUCP: uunet!uiucuxc!uiuc.edu!s-dorner
> "What is Truth?"--Pontius Pilate.
-------------------
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: mvp@hsv3.UUCP (Mike Van Pelt)
Subject: Re: New news censorship policy at Iowa State University
Message-ID: <11907@hsv3.UUCP>
Date: 17 Dec 91 19:39:00 GMT
In article <1991Dec16.203817.6124@craycos.com> jrbd@craycos.com (James Davies) writes:
>There's a difference between censorship and lack of government support.
True. Unfortunately, this is a distinction that completely eludes a
certain very loud group of people, who fervently believe that they have
a right to expect me and thee to finance the universal disemination of
their every idle comment. I expect them to completely innundate this
group with 300+ line flames for the next month, not one of which will
contain a single new thought or argument on the subject. *yawn*
Thank God for KILL files!
--
"We're dealing with an unemployment bill. Your | Mike Van Pelt
proposal creates jobs, increases investment, and | Headland Technology
encourages work. That's clearly not unemployment." | mvp@hsv3.lsil.com
-- Thomas Foley, on ruling the proposal out of order.
-------------------
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: brack%uoftcse@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu (Steven S. Brack)
Subject: Re: New news censorship policy at Iowa State University
Message-ID: <9112172014.AA20707@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu>
Sender: brack%uoftcse@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu
Date: 17 Dec 91 20:14:32 GMT
In article <1991Dec16.200545.23159@eff.org> kadie writes:
: [This is file "usenet-news-std-list" - cmk]
:
: NOTICE: The following list relates to a new policy that will be activated on
: January 6, 1992 at Iowa State University. It is not currently
: in effect.
:
:
: *** ISU "Standard List" Newsgroups ***
:
: (This information is current as of 12/13/91)
:
: The "Standard News List" is the full Usenet newsgroup list MINUS
: certain groups excluded because their name and accompanying description
: appear to offer potential conflicts with law, (particularly with child
: protection and pornography law) or with policies such as the sexual
: harassment policy.
Seems like standard CYA administration. 8(
:
: Reasons for the exclusion of certain groups from the "Standard List" are
: outlined in the monthly posting to "isu.newsgroups" with the subject
: "Monthly Posting -- ISU Usenet Access Policy - Policy Stmt". A full copy
: of the ISU Usenet News Policy is available via anonymous FTP from
: "ftp.iastate.edu" in the file:
:
: net-info/news/usenet-news-policy
Then they tell you where to find their policy. So far so good.
:
: The following is a list of newsgroups that are unavailable unless a
: person responsible for a system (or WYLBUR user-ID) has filled out a
: "FULL NEWSGROUP ACCESS REQUEST" form (available from the Computation
: Center main office, 291 Durham Center).
Then they give you a method of getting access. It is not, however,
made clear whether it's simply a matter of asking, or whether they
pass judgement on your request.
:
: Groups currently not provided with "Standard" newsgroup access are:
:
: alt.personals.bondage
: alt.drugs
: alt.psychoactives
: alt.sex
: alt.sex.bestiality
: alt.sex.bondage
: alt.sex.motss
: alt.sex.pictures
: alt.sex.pictures.d
:
: If other news lists are created which appear to offer these same potential
: conflicts, they will be added to the excluded lists.
:
Notice that they have not banned any USENet groups. Rec.arts.erotica,
rec.humor.*, etc. are untouched.
Also, they have made their decision based on newsgroup names &
descriptions, not on the actual content of the newsgroups. This is
kind of like the city censor of Boston, who would ban books w/o
ever having read them.
It seems they are trying to censor NetNews without it appearing that
it is censorship. They claim that they are protecting users from
pornography, sexual harassment, etc., but are, in reality robbing
users of the freedom to choose.
Some will say that a university has the right to censor NetNews;
we have gone over that several times in the past. To give an
example: If ISU allowed all soc.culture.* groups except
soc.culture.african-american, would that be permissable? I say no.
I say no for the same reason that I oppose censorship of any other
newsgroup. The university is making the newsgroups available to
the student body, for them to decide what to read & what not to
read. It is not the University's place to decide that students not
be allowed to read about certain topics any more than it is the
library's place to deny access to materials because their names and
descriptions indicate that they may violate the law.
--
Steven S. Brack | brack@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu
2021 Roanwood Drive | STU0061@uoft01.utoledo.edu
Toledo, Ohio 43613-1605 _________/^\_______ sbrack@bluemoon.rn.com
+1 419 474 1010 | MY OWN OPINIONS | sbrack@nyx.cs.du.edu
-------------------
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: kadie@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: New news censorship policy at Iowa State University
Message-ID: <1991Dec17.211949.31207@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 1991 21:19:49 GMT
In article <1991Dec16.203817.6124@craycos.com> jrbd@craycos.com (James
Davies) writes:
>There's a difference between censorship and lack of government support.
mvp@hsv3.UUCP (Mike Van Pelt) writes:
>True. Unfortunately, this is a distinction that completely eludes a
>certain very loud group of people, who fervently believe that they have
>a right to expect me and thee to finance the universal disemination of
>their every idle comment.
[...]
I agree that a failure to fund is not necessarily censorship. What I
don't understand what this has do with the situation at Iowa State
University.
Many of us have posted notes arguing that Iowa State University is
censoring. These arguments have relied on the law and on the
principles of academic freedom (as expressed in widely accepted
documents such as the Joint Statement on Rights and Freedoms of
Students).
Please, if you can, go beyond merely asserting that these arguments
are wrong; please explain *why* these arguments are wrong.
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
-------------------
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [uiuc.general, et al.] Re: finger names and caller id's
Message-ID: <9112181407.AA17590@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 18 Dec 91 02:07:58 GMT
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [uiuc.general, et al.] Re: finger names and caller id's
Message-ID: <9112181408.AA20302@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 18 Dec 91 02:08:04 GMT
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [uiuc.general, et al.] Re: finger names and caller id's
Message-ID: <9112181408.AA26451@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 18 Dec 91 02:08:11 GMT
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [uiuc.general, et al.] Re: finger names and caller id's
Message-ID: <9112181408.AA31569@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 18 Dec 91 02:08:17 GMT
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.org.eff.talk, et al.] Re: New news censorship policy at Iowa State University
Message-ID: <9112181409.AA01146@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 18 Dec 91 02:09:20 GMT
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: axolotl@socs.uts.edu.au (Iain D. Sinclair)
Message-ID:
Date: 18 Dec 91 03:28:04 GMT
Subject: Re: IRC's /kill
References: <1991Dec6.100928.8950@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> <1991Dec12.062733.10145@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
Keywords: protracted, bloody
axolotl@socs.uts.edu.au (Iain D. Sinclair) writes:
>
>>Isn't it ironic? We can't even have this conversation on IRC, because
>>you'd pull out the /kill whenever I try to get a point across. Thank
>>Christ some moron didn't code the equivalent of "/kill" into Usenet.
gl8f@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl) writes:
>Fortunately, Usenet's kill file is something that works better than
>IRC's ignore, if only that it doesn't let the abusive person (you)
>know that you're being ignored.
So why does IRC do it? An /ignore on IRC is tantamount to walking
out in mid-conversation, or spitting in someone's face and slamming
the door. It's for the obnoxious and the weak. If someone attempts
to evade this /ignore, can you blame them?
Why do you /kill people who do this? Since when was this acceptable?
Why don't you warn people? Why are intolerant idiots allowed to
/kill at a whim?
>BTW, Usenet does have something rougly as bad as kill, it's called
>"cancel".
(Really? And this thing is an "article" on a "newsgroup".)
In what ways is a cancel message similar to a /kill? I don't see
any resemblance in their intention, or their practiced usage.
--
Iain Sinclair (axolotl@socs.uts.edu.au) +61 2 330 1816
-------------------
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: jet@karazm.math.uh.edu (J Eric Townsend)
Subject: What people will do for sex (was Re: MORE GIF SITES
Message-ID: <1991Dec18.040926.8540@menudo.uh.edu>
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 1991 04:09:26 GMT
The "I have a right to use/abuse somebody else's machine to trade
adult image" folks are going to great lengths to cover their tracks.
The ante has been upped to cancelling the posts of people who happen
to mention such sites publicly.
In article <1991Dec16.010541.24878@wam.umd.edu> connolly@wam.umd.edu (John P. Connolly) writes:
>Some loser decided to post two more FTP sites. I took the liberty to
>issue a cancel post on it. Just to let the net know...
>--
>John P. Connolly
>connolly@wam.umd.edu (NeXT)
Isn't cancelling another person's posting w/o their permission A Bad
Thing? Does this person need to be admonished?
If somebody canceled one of my postings becaue they didn't like the content,
I think I'd go straight to their admin...
--
J. Eric Townsend - jet@uh.edu - Systems Wrangler, UH Dept of Mathematics
vox: (713) 749-2126 '91 CB750, DoD# 0378
-------------------
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: warlock@ecst.csuchico.edu (John Kennedy)
Subject: Re: What people will do for sex (was Re: MORE GIF SITES
Message-ID: <1991Dec18.054959.27183@ecst.csuchico.edu>
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 1991 05:49:59 GMT
In article <1991Dec18.040926.8540@menudo.uh.edu> J Eric Townsend writes:
--> Isn't cancelling another person's posting w/o their permission A Bad
--> Thing? Does this person need to be admonished? If somebody canceled
--> one of my postings becaue they didn't like the content, I think I'd go
--> straight to their admin...
If that doesn't work, I'd add in their system name to my PATH. Buttheads
don't deserve to read. (: If nice doesn't work, well then...
--
John Kennedy/KC6RCK/warlock@ecst.csuchico.edu "IBM, You BM, We All BM for IBM!"
-------------------
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: jal41820@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Smiley)
Subject: Re: finger names and caller id's
Message-ID: <1991Dec18.072559.16961@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 1991 07:25:59 GMT
dorner@pequod.cso.uiuc.edu (Steve Dorner) writes:
:)So what's my point? Even if anonymous newsgroup postings are an example
:)of speech protected under the first ammendment, the University is under
:)no obligation to make anonymous posting possible.
Which has nothing to do with what's right or wrong, only who has the
power to do what. Just because the University CAN prevent anonymous
posting doesn't mean it is RIGHT for them to do so.
And I'm not talking about what's right according to law, so don't bring
laws into it.
-Josh Laff :)
--
_______________________________________________________________________________
"Do you know how much damage it would | Josh Laff: e-mail to: |
do to the bulldozer if I simply just | smiley@uiuc.edu | # #
let it run over you?" |_________________________| _ _
"No. How much?" | (217) 356-0149 | |#\_____/#|
"None at all." |________________| \#######/
-------------------
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: jfw@ksr.com (John F. Woods)
Subject: Re: What people will do for sex (was Re: MORE GIF SITES
Message-ID: <7998@ksr.com>
Date: 18 Dec 91 11:43:27 EST
jet@karazm.math.uh.edu (J Eric Townsend) writes:
>In article <1991Dec16.010541.24878@wam.umd.edu> connolly@wam.umd.edu (John P. Connolly) writes:
>>Some loser decided to post two more FTP sites. I took the liberty to
>>issue a cancel post on it. Just to let the net know...
>Isn't cancelling another person's posting w/o their permission A Bad Thing?
Not "by definition".
> Does this person need to be admonished?
Probably not, see below.
>If somebody canceled one of my postings becaue they didn't like the content,
>I think I'd go straight to their admin...
Had you posted an FTP site list, it is fairly likely that your own admin
would be currently staring at messages from the affected admins saying,
roughly, "I want this guy's HEAD by Federal Express tomorrow morning,"
it MIGHT be difficult for you to "go" to someone else's admin (how difficult
depends on whether your admin pulls your account or pulls off your head :-).
Some system admins might appreciate the warning that their system is being
used for activities they don't approve of, but generally they'd prefer a
simple piece of informative mail, rather than the subtler hint of the load
average on their ftp machine climbing to 500, accompanied by the screams of
anguish from their user community...
-------------------
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.censorship] Re: Another censorship incident has just occurred
Message-ID: <9112190117.AA05589@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 18 Dec 91 13:17:47 GMT
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [soc.men, et al.] Re: Inappropriate Use by 2714sviatkos
Message-ID: <9112190118.AA19142@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 18 Dec 91 13:18:28 GMT
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.activism, et al.] Re: Inappropriate Use by 2714sviatkos
Message-ID: <9112190118.AA10175@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 18 Dec 91 13:18:40 GMT
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [isu.newsgroups, et al.] An excerpt from the ISU Graduate Student Handbook
Message-ID: <9112190119.AA04220@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 18 Dec 91 13:19:29 GMT
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.activism] Re: Inappropriate Use by 2714sviatkos
Message-ID: <9112190128.AA01543@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 18 Dec 91 13:28:45 GMT
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.activism] Re: Inappropriate Use by 2714sviatkos
Message-ID: <9112190129.AA05111@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 18 Dec 91 13:29:06 GMT
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.activism] Re: Inappropriate Use by 2714sviatkos
Message-ID: <9112190129.AA28202@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 18 Dec 91 13:29:14 GMT
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.activism] Re: Inappropriate Use by 2714sviatkos
Message-ID: <9112190129.AA15254@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 18 Dec 91 13:29:27 GMT
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.activism] Re: Inappropriate Use by 2714sviatkos
Message-ID: <9112190129.AA16133@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 18 Dec 91 13:29:38 GMT
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.activism] Re: Inappropriate Use by 2714sviatkos
Message-ID: <9112190129.AA10570@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 18 Dec 91 13:29:52 GMT
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.activism] Re: Inappropriate Use by 2714sviatkos
Message-ID: <9112190129.AA03381@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 18 Dec 91 13:29:59 GMT
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.activism] Re: Inappropriate Use by 2714sviatkos
Message-ID: <9112190130.AA23198@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 18 Dec 91 13:30:12 GMT
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.activism] Re: Inappropriate Use by 2714sviatkos
Message-ID: <9112190130.AA20255@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 18 Dec 91 13:30:23 GMT
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.activism] Re: Inappropriate Use by 2714sviatkos
Message-ID: <9112190130.AA02781@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 18 Dec 91 13:30:57 GMT
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.activism, et al.] Inappropriate Use by 2714sviatkos
Message-ID: <9112190200.AA29844@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 18 Dec 91 14:00:17 GMT
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [news.admin] What people will do for sex (was Re: MORE GIF SITES
Message-ID: <9112190219.AA21154@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 18 Dec 91 14:19:54 GMT
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [news.admin] Re: What people will do for sex (was Re: MORE GIF SITES
Message-ID: <9112190220.AA06116@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 18 Dec 91 14:20:07 GMT
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [news.admin] Re: What people will do for sex (was Re: MORE GIF SITES
Message-ID: <9112190220.AA15253@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 18 Dec 91 14:20:25 GMT
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: sterba@vax.sonoma.edu
Message-ID: <1991Dec18.151018.1@vax.sonoma.edu>
Subject: Re: Inappropriate Use by 2714sviatkos
Date: 18 Dec 91 15:10:18 -0800
In article <009534B5.604A6160@vms.csd.mu.edu>, 8001mallinge@vms.csd.mu.edu writes:
>
> Access code 2714sviatkos has been removed and the person involved
> is restricted from use of any Computer Services computing facilities.
> Our computer use policy as well as our network acceptable use policy
> clearly prohibit activity such as the inflammatory message posted
> Friday evening, December 13, 1991.
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> Ann Mallinger, User Services Manager
> Computer Services Division
> Marquette University
Wow. Freedom of speech at it's best. V-E-R-Y AMERICAN!
V-E-R-Y POLITICALLY CORRECT! Bravo!
It is one thing to be gay, bigot, homophobe, fashist, communist, whatever.
It is one thing to be able to say what you think is right, what you believe in,
whether it is currently a popular political/religious/social view.
It is something else to NOT be able to say it (as misguided as it might be).
I am sure glad I am not part of "Marquette University", it is probably
somewhere in the middle of Gulag, or could it be part of the 'progressive'
Chinese government?
Personally, do not share the religious views of the person who was bumped off
the system, but I still sent a letter of condemnation to "Ann Mallinger" to
tell them how I feel about it.
Please, send a message to 8001mallinge@vms.csd.mu.edu. and also to
postmaster@vms.csd.mu.edu to tell them how un-american this action was.
We should not let this system become just another party-echo. Like the
messages on this system or not, your own right to say what you feel like saying
might be online sometime, too. The way Marquette University is going, it might
be sooner than later...
Peter Sterba
Sonoma State University
-------------------
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: New news censorship policy at Iowa State University
Message-ID: <1991Dec18.160355.7162@eff.org>
Keywords: bogus!
References: <1991Dec15.164750@IASTATE.EDU> <1991Dec16.154149.15030@eff.org>
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 1991 16:03:55 GMT
=============== ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/faq/netnews.liability ===============
q: Does a University reduce its likely liability by screening Netnews
for offensive articles and newsgroups?
a: Not necessarily. By screening articles and newsgroups the
University may *increase* its liability.
(Aside: Elimination of liability should not be the University's
only goal.)
According to the book _Law of the Student Press_ (in reference student
newspapers), "Only two court cases have considered the liability
question, and in both cases the courts found that the institution was
free from liability because control was in the hands of the
students.{33,34} ... Thus, despite arguments by administrators that
they need to prevent libel, it appears that just the opposite is true:
Where administrators have not exercised control over the content of
student publications, the courts have refused to hold their schools
responsible for libel appearing in such publication. If, however,
administrators exercise the power of prior review, then the court will
also hold them and their schools liable for the contents of such
publications. Encouraging the establishment of a clear-cut separation
between school administration and editor functions may also result in
the reduction of libel suits, for potential plaintiffs will realize
that substantial funds are beyond their reach. ... {33} _Mazart v.
State_ 441 N.Y.S.2d 600 (1981) {34} _Milliner v. Turner_ 436 So.2d
1300 (La. App. 1983)"
The recent _Cubby v. Compuserve_ decision also suggests that a
no-screening policy may be best. The judge wrote: "CompuServe has no
more editorial control over such a publication 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."
- Carl
ANNOTATED REFERENCES
(All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.)
=================
student.freedoms
=================
Joint Statement on Rights and Freedoms of Students -- This is the main
statement on student academic freedom.
=================
law/cubby-v-compuserv
=================
Report of a federal district court case which said that BBS owners
cannot be held liable for the content they know beforehand that the
stories are false.
=================
law/student-publications.misc
=================
Quotes from the book _Law of the Student Press_ by the Student Press
Law Center (1985,1988). They say that four-letter words are protected
speech, that public universities are not likely to be liable for
publications that they for which they do not control the contents, and
that the _Hazelwood_ decision does not apply to universities.
=================
faq/netnews.reading
=================
q: Should my university remove Netnews newsgroups because some
people find them offensive? If it doesn't have the resources
to carry all newsgroups, how should newsgroups be selected?
=================
faq/netnews.writing
=================
q: Should my university allow students to post to Netnews?
=================
=================
To get these documents by email, send email to archive-server@eff.org.
Include the line(s):
send acad-freeedom student.freedoms
send caf-law cubby-v-compuserv
send caf-law student-publications.misc
send caf-faq netnews.reading
send caf-faq netnews.writing
The files are also available via anonymous ftp from ftp.eff.org
(191.88.144.3) as file(s):
pub/academic/student.freedoms
pub/academic/law/cubby-v-compuserv
pub/academic/law/student-publications.misc
pub/academic/faq/netnews.reading
pub/academic/faq/netnews.writing
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu, or (anonymous) ap.4352@hri.com
I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
--------------------
--
Helen C. O'Boyle | Co-moderator, Computers and Academic Freedom list
helen@eff.org | << insert usual disclaimer here... my opinions
isy5hob@cabell.vcu.edu | are mine alone, not EFF's or VCU's, etc. >>
From helen Thu Dec 19 08:59:07 1991
Received: by eff.org id AA23606
(5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for cafb-list@eff.org); Thu, 19 Dec 1991 13:59:22 -0500
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: as_m455@titan.kingston.ac.uk
Subject: Re: [comp.admin.policy] Re: Gaming
Message-ID: <1991Dec18.163100.1@titan.kingston.ac.uk>
Date: 18 Dec 91 16:31:00 GMT
References: <9112060430.AA19365@m.cs.uiuc.edu> <1991Dec6.160804.24767@ms.uky.edu>
Sender: news@kingston.ac.uk (Network News)
Nntp-Posting-Host: tethys
In article , bwa@ee.mu.OZ.AU (Barry W Anderson) writes:
> The comment is that the whole is always greater than the sum of the parts.
>
> MUD preceded IRC for internet multiperson comms, LPC is a better language than
> Pascal (shudder) for first-years, and yes it's a darn fun game :)
>
> But hey lets be honest right? The internet isn't about meeting people or
> learning things is it? If people want to communicate let them do so in a
> structured, well-defined, easy-to-monitor environment. And remember, it's for
> your own good ;)
Spot on ... it's just another form of censorship. If you have access to
internet why not use it ? I've a telephone and no one stops me using that,
though I'm sure British Telecom could find hundreds of reasons. When I call
home it's hardly essential, and think of the maintainance work they have to do
because of the wear and tear on their exchanges.
Of course, I pay a phone bill; so why not just levy a charge, resources wise,
on my account when I use internet ? Oh, but they already do ... yep, my usage
goes up and I get kicked off when the load is to high. Seems perfectly fair, so
why not have the same thing everywhere. We'd soon see if MUDers where that much
strain on their machines.
And for those who object to the use of terminals, how about a few old TVI's ...
most users seem to be keen on PCs, and MUDs don't suffer from dumb terminals;
at least, I've never had any problems. So, if SysAdmins left some of the older
gear around, instead of junking it whenever something more modern comes along,
a lot of their problems would be solved.
{;-\ Hermes, the Megaflow Junkie.
-------------------
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: 8001mallinge@vms.csd.mu.edu
Subject: Inappropriate Use by 2714sviatkos
Message-ID: <009534B5.604A6160@vms.csd.mu.edu>
Date: 18 Dec 91 17:28:33 GMT
Access code 2714sviatkos has been removed and the person involved
is restricted from use of any Computer Services computing facilities.
Our computer use policy as well as our network acceptable use policy
clearly prohibit activity such as the inflammatory message posted
Friday evening, December 13, 1991.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ann Mallinger, User Services Manager
Computer Services Division
Marquette University
-------------------
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.sex] Re: Inappropriate Use by 2714sviatkos
Message-ID: <9112190539.AA17675@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 18 Dec 91 17:39:51 GMT
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: dl2p+@andrew.cmu.edu (Douglas Allen Luce)
Subject: Re: IRC's /kill
Message-ID:
Date: 18 Dec 91 18:06:14 GMT
References: <1991Dec6.100928.8950@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> <1991Dec12.062733.10145@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
In-Reply-To:
> Excerpts from netnews.alt.irc: 18-Dec-91 Re: IRC's /kill An /ignore on
> IRC is tantamount to walking
> out in mid-conversation, or spitting in someone's face and slamming
> the door. It's for the obnoxious and the weak. If someone attempts
> to evade this /ignore, can you blame them?
Yes. This falls under what I call IRC "rights." I believe in a simple
policy governing IRC user interaction as summed up by two rules:
1) Each user has the right to make contact with any other user.
2) Each user has the right to break contact with any other user.
Rule 2 has a higher priority than rule 1; i.e. a users's right to
/ignore you overrides your right to talk to him/her.
I think these rules should come about through technical means. It
should not be possible to get around them. Right now, there are several
ways to defeat this:
for rule 1: local policy, netsplits, operator kills.
for rule 2: evading ignore, user ignorance.
(local policy refers to things like administrator not allowing users the
chance to even get onto irc in the first place. user ignorance refers
to people not knowing how to use /ignore)
Using /ignore is, by definition, intolerance. The baggage that
"intolerance" carries in today's society does not commute to the
intolerance that people on IRC exhibit:
1) intolerance to people throwing dictionaries to their screens,
effectivly inhibiting their ability to communicate with others,
2) intolerance to people who are not trying to communicate in a fashion
that is useful to both parties.
(Example 2 is typified by /ignoring "sex maniacs," or /ignoring "idiots.")
Currently, most IRC operators (appear to) believe in the second right.
However, many of them feel that IRC is not (or should not be)
technically able to cope with letting individual users enact their
rights. Thus, you get /killed. While I believe that /killing (and
IRC-banning) denies the first right of those /killed, I do not seem to
be in the majority opinion.
Douglas Luce
Carnegie Mellon
-------------------
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Banned Computer Material 1991 (end of year update)
Message-ID: <1991Dec18.181508.10501@eff.org>
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 1991 18:15:08 GMT
[[This is an major update of an article that was posted in October.
New comments are in double square brackets. - Carl]]
As part of Banned Book Week (and only a week late), here is:
Banned Computer Material 1991 (and earlier)
[The references are to issues of the Computers and Academic Freedom
News (CAF-news). Instructions on how to access back issues of CAF-news
are at the end of this note.]
Netnews articles or email that Steve Brack might wish to post from a
free student account at Ohio State University -- Last Spring, Steve
Brack meant to post a note to the alt.flame newsgroup but also
accidently posted to rec.aquaria. In part because of this note, Brack
was permanently expelled (without the chance for a formal hearing or
appeal) from OSU's Academic Computer Services (ACS) computers. Now a
University Judicial Committee hearing is deciding if Mr. Brack be
should punished some more for so-called obscenity (by which they mean
writing "fuck you" in the note). (cafv01n20, cafv01n17, cafv01n18,
cafv01n16, cafv01n15)
[[Steven Brack was dismissed, possibly because of his so-called
obscenity. He has said he may sue the University. (cafv01n35,
cafv01n39, cafv01n36, cafv01n20)]]
Email send to or from the National Center for Supercomputer
Applications (NCSA) that verbally attacks the Center or the University
of Illinois like the anonymous email, signed Saddam Hussein, sent to
some people at the NCSA -- The NCSA is a department of the University
of Illinois. To justify the methods it used to find and punish
"Saddam", the NCSA created rules that allowed searches of user email
if they suspected that the email verbally attacked the NCSA. [Follow
up: this policy is being revised.] (cafn01n03, cafv01n09).
[[...]]
Outgoing Netnews article from Purdue -- All outgoing articles from
some computer sites at Purdue where screened by a sys admin to make
sure that there was nothing "grossly wrong with them". [Follow up:
outgoing articles are no longer screened.] (cafv01n08, cafv01n03)
An article, containing source code for a program, posted to a local
newsgroup at Case Western -- The computer administrators at Case
Western deleted the article because they were afraid that someone
might read the code, learn how to make a program that would disrupt
their local network, write a program that would disrupt their local
network, run that program and disrupt their local network.
(cafv01n08)
Netnews including the so-called outrageous postings by users of the
Engineering Computing Center at the University of Kentucky --
Complaints to a dean about the so-called outrageous postings were one
reason that Netnews was dropped from a U. of Kentucky site (cafv01n25,
cafv01n23). [Follow up: Current plans call for Netnews to be restored
when more disk space becomes available.]
Computer files at Boston University that anyone finds offensive or
annoying -- The rules at Boston University prohibit a computer user
from "making accessible offensive [or] annoying ... material".
(cafv01n10)
The rec.humor.funny newsgroup -- It was banned from parts of Stanford
University and all of the University of Waterloo because some people
found some of its jokes offensive. Ironically, at the same time the
computer version of rec.humor.funny was banned from U. of Waterloo,
the yearly book version could be found in the University library.
[Follow up: Stanford and Waterloo decided that newsgroups should be
selected more like library material and rescinded their bans.]
[[...]] [[(cafv01n31,cafv01n33)]]
The alt.sex newsgroup at the University of Toledo -- [[...]]
[[see (ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/batch/oct_06_1991)]]
GIF files of naked people on mars.ee.mstate.edu -- Deleted after the
National Science Foundation received a complaint and then asked the
mars.ee.mstate.edu archivist to justify the files. Apparently the
files were available via anonymous ftp across a NSF sponsored net, but
were not stored on a NSF computer. [[...]] [[ (cafv01n31) ]]
[[ New stuff:
More than a dozen newsgroups, including alt.sex, at Western Washington
University -- They were removed from Western Washington University on
the order of one person, the Vice Provost for "information and
communication". Alt.sex remains at the University of Washington, but
other newsgroups were removed right before a negative article was
printed in the Seattle _Post_Intelligencer_. (cafv01n33, cafv01n36,
cafv01n35, cafv01n41)
An article posted by a student at the University of Illinois at
Chicago -- The student was punished for posting the article, which
offended many, to soc.women. The article was canceled. The system
admin justified the punishment saying that the article, posted to an
international unmoderated newsgroup, was not protected speech because
"it can be considered as a generalized form of sexual harassment". The
U. of Illinois has no rules on "generalized sexual harassment". The
University's rules on (regular) sexual harassment do not authorize sys
admins to judge and punish infractions. (cafv01n36,cafv01n34)
Rude articles at Iowa State University -- On-line rudeness is
prohibited at Iowa State. A student was reprimanded for posting a rude
article to the net. (This policy may be under revision). (cafv01n38)
The alt.sex.* hierarchy on PSUVM, Penn State's main general purpose
computer -- (cafv01n34)
Email or Netnews articles that "bring discredit to the University [of
Texas] or the [Computer Science] Department." (cafv01n37)
Offensive messages at the University of Newcastle -- (cafv01n39)
Email containing offensive material at James Madison University -- (cafv01n39)
Most on-line discussion of sex and drugs at Iowa State University --
Iowa State University labels all newsgroup as either "limited list",
"standard list", or "full list". This labeling is based on the name
and description of each newsgroup and not on its actual content. The
standard list excludes most discussion of sex and drugs. The plan is
that ,starting January 6, 1991, users on public access machines will
be restricted to the standard list. (See recent
alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk articles.)
Racist email at the University of Wisconsin at Eau Claire -- The
university formally reprimanded [a] student and placed him on
probation for the remainder of the semester. (Follow up: The student
sued in Federal district court and won. See _UWM Post v. University of
Wisconsin_ available on-line as
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/law/uwm-post-v-u-of-wisconsin. The judge's
decision concludes:
"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."
]]
-----------------------------
Back issues of the Computer and Academic Freedom News are available
via anonymous ftp from ftp.eff.org. They are in directory
pub/academic/news. Back issues are also available via email. For
information on email access send an email note to
archive-server@eff.org. Include the lines "help" and "index".
[[For example,
to get volume 1, number 39, send email to archiver-server@eff.org.
Include the line:
send caf-news cafv01n39
]]
I would love to get copies of the shorter banned notes. If you have
the joke that got rec.humor.funny banned, the NCSA email, Brack's
note, the Case Western source code, etc., please contact 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 cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: hoffberg-michael@CS.YALE.EDU (Michael Hoffberg)
Subject: Re: Inappropriate Use by 2714sviatkos
Message-ID: <1991Dec18.184619.28016@cs.yale.edu>
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 1991 18:46:19 GMT
In article <009534B5.604A6160@vms.csd.mu.edu> 8001mallinge@vms.csd.mu.edu writes:
>
> Access code 2714sviatkos has been removed and the person involved
> is restricted from use of any Computer Services computing facilities.
> Our computer use policy as well as our network acceptable use policy
> clearly prohibit activity such as the inflammatory message posted
> Friday evening, December 13, 1991.
Now I am confused. Which person committed the greater act of being evil, the
person who wrote the original posting, or the person who took away that
person's right to free speech?
--
Michael Hoffberg ------Zippy the ~\ /~ "Jeez, ----- PO Box 2394, Yale Station
hoffberg@cs.yale.edu -.sig virus \./ am I the only --- New Haven, CT 06520
---was here 9 | 2 one who paid full ----- (203) 436-2982
I graduate 12/91, please hire me _|_ price?" F.F. -------- Ezra Stiles 2982
-------------------
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: scobbie@Csli.Stanford.EDU (Jim Scobbie)
Subject: Re: Inappropriate Use by 2714sviatkos
Message-ID: <1991Dec18.184832.17958@Csli.Stanford.EDU>
Date: 18 Dec 91 18:48:32 GMT
In <009534B5.604A6160@vms.csd.mu.edu> 8001mallinge@vms.csd.mu.edu writes:
> Access code 2714sviatkos has been removed and the person involved
> is restricted from use of any Computer Services computing facilities.
> Our computer use policy as well as our network acceptable use policy
> clearly prohibit activity such as the inflammatory message posted
> Friday evening, December 13, 1991.
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> Ann Mallinger, User Services Manager
> Computer Services Division
> Marquette University
I'm sorry, but I guess this pisses me off. I didn't like the message,
(assuming it was the faggot die thing) but
there's a lot of things I don't like. Unless this user has a a track
record or history of posting messages which subsequently cause problems
for the efficient running of Marquette University, then let it go. If your
email got totally bogged down, and so on, then it your concern. If the
'ideas' posted are repulsive, then it is not your concern as a user
services manager. At least, I don't think so.
--
James M. Scobbie: Dept of Linguistics, Stanford University, CA 94305-2150
-------------------
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: firth@sei.cmu.edu (Robert Firth)
Subject: Re: Inappropriate Use by 2714sviatkos
Message-ID: <36813@as0c.sei.cmu.edu>
Date: 18 Dec 91 18:49:49 GMT
In article <009534B5.604A6160@vms.csd.mu.edu> 8001mallinge@vms.csd.mu.edu writes:
> Access code 2714sviatkos has been removed and the person involved
> is restricted from use of any Computer Services computing facilities.
> Our computer use policy as well as our network acceptable use policy
> clearly prohibit activity such as the inflammatory message posted
> Friday evening, December 13, 1991.
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> Ann Mallinger, User Services Manager
> Computer Services Division
> Marquette University
Ms Mallinger, if you have a network acceptable use policy, might I
suggest you observe it? Most of the network agrees that posts
should be directed to appropriate groups. For example, one place
for discussion of sick, ugly little bigots who persecute people
because of their gender or sexual orientation is soc.men. And the
place for discussion of sick, ugly little bigots who persecute people
because of their opinions is alt.censorship, to which followups
are directed.
In what I trust will become an annual tradition, I hereby acknowledge
the right of all my fellow posters to offend me with their inflammatory
opinions. Real persons don't need nanny-persons.
-------------------
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (Jonathan Greenfield)
Subject: Re: Another censorship incident has just occurred
Message-ID: <1991Dec18.185940.28089@rodan.acs.syr.edu>
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 91 18:59:40 EST
In article <9763@ns-mx.uiowa.edu> jones@pyrite.cs.uiowa.edu (Douglas W. Jones,201H MLH,3193350740,3193382879) writes:
>>
>>We must rid our planet of faggots and other sexual perverts. ...
>> ... The proper way to kill a faggot is through burning, as the Bible says.
>>I am issuing a call to all those who follow the true way to take up the
>>burden or cleansing the earth through fire.
>
>On the face of it, this posting is an attempt to incite mass murder. The
>hate crime and riot laws of some states may well outlaw such language,
>particularly if people react by actually following up on the suggested
>course of action (something that hasn't occured here, to my knowledge).
I don't think so!!
If you're going to argue that this post represents an 'incitement to riot'
and is, therefore, unprotected speech, then you had better be able to justify
the belief that there is a real possibly that the post represents an
imminent danger.
If anybody really believes that this post is going to cause people to go out
and burn homosexuals, then I think they are out of their gourds...
greeny greeny@top.cis.syr.edu
"What's the difference between an orange?"
-------------------
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: galt@toddler.dsd.es.com (Greg Alt - Perp)
Subject: Re: Inappropriate Use by 2714sviatkos
Message-ID: <1991Dec18.191453.27598@dsd.es.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 91 19:14:53 GMT
In article <1991Dec18.184619.28016@cs.yale.edu>, hoffberg-michael@CS.YALE.EDU (Michael Hoffberg) writes:
> In article <009534B5.604A6160@vms.csd.mu.edu> 8001mallinge@vms.csd.mu.edu writes:
> >
> > Access code 2714sviatkos has been removed and the person involved
> > is restricted from use of any Computer Services computing facilities.
> > Our computer use policy as well as our network acceptable use policy
> > clearly prohibit activity such as the inflammatory message posted
> > Friday evening, December 13, 1991.
>
>
> Now I am confused. Which person committed the greater act of being evil, the
> person who wrote the original posting, or the person who took away that
> person's right to free speech?
The original poster was at worst annoying. Assuming it was the "Faggots Die"
post a while back, I don't see the justification for pulling his computer
access. Freedom of speech includes the freedom to be an annoying jerk.
If their university is like most, the "computer use policy" is so restrictive
that everything is forbidden. Then, if they don't like something, they
can selectively enforce the policy. (e.g. At the University of Utah, the
policy is something like "Computers can only be used for work directly related
to school work".)
--
/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)
"I speak only for myself" -me ) "But if someone came for you one night
_ _ _ _ ___ ) and dragged you away, do you really
( ` D L ( ` /_\ | | ) think your neighbors would even care?"
\7 |\ L \7 | | L_ | ) --Jello Biafra,
(galt@dsd.es.com) ) _Last Scream of the Missing Neighbors_
-------------------
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (Jonathan Greenfield)
Subject: Re: Another censorship incident has just occurred
Message-ID: <1991Dec18.191849.28698@rodan.acs.syr.edu>
References: <1991Dec18.194423.28973@zip.eecs.umich.edu> <1991Dec18.212555.149@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 91 19:18:49 EST
In article <1991Dec18.212555.149@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gl8f@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl) writes:
>>Well, here's another censorship incident!
>
>No, here is another *possible* censorship incident. It isn't censorship,
>for example, to prohibit someone from shouting "Fire!" in a crowded
>theater. Is this case similar, or different?
Yes it *IS* censorship to prohibit someone from shouting "Fire!" in a crowded
theatre.
Fortunately, the government does NOT have the power to define and re-define
how you and I may think, and understand language.
The fact that such censorship is *legal* (and in most individual's opinions
an acceptable form of censorship), does not change the meaning of the word
censorship.
Though censorship presumably refers to an a priori restriction on speech,
colloquially, the term is often used to describe any punitive response to
the exercise of speech (particularly when the response is intended to
intimidate others into censoring themselves, in the future).
By this standard, the case at hand *IS* one of censorship, whether or not
you believe it to be justified.
This reminds me of a late-night anti-porn paid TV advertisement I saw once.
The sponsor happily announced that since "obscene" materials had been ruled
to be unprotected expression by the SC, it was, therefore NOT censorship
to eliminate obscenity...
It's kind of funny, because I can't ever recall the SC claiming that it was,
by definition, impossible to censor legally-unprotected speech. It appears
to be a notion cooked up by those who would like to believe that it is
possible to get rid of the "bad" stuff without bringing up the spectre of
censorship--you just re-define "censorship" to exclude application to the
"bad" stuff...
greeny greeny@top.cis.syr.edu
"What's the difference between an orange?"
-------------------
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: baillod@sparky.eecs.umich.edu (Brad Baillod)
Subject: Another censorship incident has just occurred
Message-ID: <1991Dec18.194423.28973@zip.eecs.umich.edu>
Sender: news@zip.eecs.umich.edu (Mr. News)
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 1991 19:44:23 GMT
Well, here's another censorship incident! This was posted to alt.sex
and a number of other newsgroups at 12:28 EST this afternoon. First
will come the sytem administrator's message explaining that an account
has been cancelled for a post to these newsgroups, and then will come
the original article. This was probably a response to mail from
netreaders to the sysadmin of the site.
Questions to keep in mind: Is the original poster's article
protected speech? Is it protected with the systems of a private
university, like Marquette?
>From: 8001mallinge@vms.csd.mu.edu
>Newsgroups: alt.activism,alt.evil,alt.politics.correct,alt.romance,alt.sex,alt.sex.bondage,alt.sex.homosexual,soc.men,soc.women
>Subject: Inappropriate Use by 2714sviatkos
>Message-ID: <009534B5.604A6160@vms.csd.mu.edu>
>Date: 18 Dec 91 17:28:33 GMT
>Sender: news@spool.mu.edu
>Reply-To: 8001mallinge@vms.csd.mu.edu
>Followup-To: alt.activism
>Organization: Marquette University - Computer Services
>
>
> Access code 2714sviatkos has been removed and the person involved
> is restricted from use of any Computer Services computing facilities.
> Our computer use policy as well as our network acceptable use policy
> clearly prohibit activity such as the inflammatory message posted
> Friday evening, December 13, 1991.
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> Ann Mallinger, User Services Manager
> Computer Services Division
> Marquette University
>
>
>From: 2714sviatkos@vms.csd.mu.edu
>Newsgroups: alt.activism,alt.evil,alt.politics.correct,alt.romance,alt.sex,alt.sex.bondage,alt.sex.homosexual,soc.men,soc.women
>Subject: Faggots must die!!
>Message-ID: <00953111.87075EE0@vms.csd.mu.edu>
>Date: 14 Dec 91 02:18:07 GMT
>Article-I.D.: vms.00953111.87075EE0
>Sender: news@spool.mu.edu
>Reply-To: 2714sviatkos@vms.csd.mu.edu
>Followup-To: alt.activism
>Organization: Marquette University - Computer Services
>
>"No man is to have sexual intercourse with another man; God hates that"
>- Leviticus 18:22
>
>"If a man has sexual relations with another man, they have done a disgusting
>thing, and both shall be put to death. They are responsible for their own
>death." - Leviticus 20:13
>
>The truths in these ancient words tell it all. Homosexuality and homosexuals
>are evil, and the earth must be purged of these vile creatures who engage in
>these profane acts. It saddens me deeply that there are so many faggots on the
>net, but I know that there are many concerned individuals out there who are
>willing to defend the word of God and fight for what is right and just.
>
>We must rid our planet of faggots and other sexual perverts. They have defiled
>the temple of their bodies, and now that temple must be destroyed, lest it
>remain as a mockery to the one true God. The proper way to kill a faggot is
>through burning, as the Bible says. I am issuing a call to all those who
>follow the true way to take up the burden or cleansing the earth through fire.
>
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>- Steve |"A man, a plan, a canal.. Panama!"
>2714sviatkos@vms.csd.mu.edu |
>The views expressed in this article are not necessarily those of M.U.
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Can anyone get a copy of Marquette's acceptable and network use policies?
--
Brad Baillod baillod@eecs.umich.edu
-------------------
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: gl8f@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl)
Subject: Re: IRC's /kill
Keywords: protracted, bloody
Message-ID: <1991Dec18.200009.29016@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
Date: 18 Dec 91 20:00:09 GMT
References: <1991Dec12.062733.10145@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
Sender: usenet@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU
In article axolotl@socs.uts.edu.au writes:
>So why does IRC do it? An /ignore on IRC is tantamount to walking
>out in mid-conversation, or spitting in someone's face and slamming
>the door. It's for the obnoxious and the weak. If someone attempts
>to evade this /ignore, can you blame them?
Fortunately, most people on IRC don't agree with you. Now I'm going to
exercise the Usenet analague and put you in my kill-file.
-------------------
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: young@co2.serum.kodak.com (Rich Young (x37176))
Subject: Re: Inappropriate Use by 2714sviatkos
Message-ID: <1991Dec18.204330.9828@ssd.kodak.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 91 20:43:30 GMT
In article <1991Dec18.184619.28016@cs.yale.edu> hoffberg-michael@CS.YALE.EDU (Michael Hoffberg) writes:
>In article <009534B5.604A6160@vms.csd.mu.edu> 8001mallinge@vms.csd.mu.edu writes:
>>
>> Access code 2714sviatkos has been removed and the person involved
>> is restricted from use of any Computer Services computing facilities.
>> Our computer use policy as well as our network acceptable use policy
>> clearly prohibit activity such as the inflammatory message posted
>> Friday evening, December 13, 1991.
>
>
>Now I am confused. Which person committed the greater act of being evil, the
>person who wrote the original posting, or the person who took away that
>person's right to free speech?
>
>
>--
>Michael Hoffberg ------Zippy the ~\ /~ "Jeez, ----- PO Box 2394, Yale Station
>hoffberg@cs.yale.edu -.sig virus \./ am I the only --- New Haven, CT 06520
> ---was here 9 | 2 one who paid full ----- (203) 436-2982
>I graduate 12/91, please hire me _|_ price?" F.F. -------- Ezra Stiles 2982
There is a basic tenet being missed here...and probably in other posts
I've not yet read, and that is: unless you own the equipment and pay
the bills, you can't necessarily say what you want, when you want to
say it. You can't yell "Fire!" in a crowded movie theater (unless,
of course, there IS one :-}) without being penalized, either. Free
speech is not absolute; it is limited to those occasions where it
does not cause harm to someone or something else. Yelling "Fire!"
might well cause physical injury to the theater patrons as they rush
to escape, and postings such as that from 2714sviatkos might well
cause injury to the reputation of the university from which it came,
since it could have been interpreted as representative of the
university itself.
When you don't control the means, you have to abide by the rules of
he/she who does.
-Rich (young@serum.kodak.com)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My opinions are not necessarily shared by my employer, and extremism in
support of ANYTHING cannot be justified!
"It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral
busybodies...those who torment us 'for our own good' will torment us without
end, for they do so with the approval of their consciences." - C. S. Lewis
-------------------
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: young@co2.serum.kodak.com (Rich Young (x37176))
Subject: Re: Inappropriate Use by 2714sviatkos
Message-ID: <1991Dec18.204820.9998@ssd.kodak.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 91 20:48:20 GMT
In article <1991Dec18.184832.17958@Csli.Stanford.EDU> scobbie@Csli.Stanford.EDU (Jim Scobbie) writes:
>In <009534B5.604A6160@vms.csd.mu.edu> 8001mallinge@vms.csd.mu.edu writes:
>
>
>> Access code 2714sviatkos has been removed and the person involved
>> is restricted from use of any Computer Services computing facilities.
>> Our computer use policy as well as our network acceptable use policy
>> clearly prohibit activity such as the inflammatory message posted
>> Friday evening, December 13, 1991.
>> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>> Ann Mallinger, User Services Manager
>> Computer Services Division
>> Marquette University
>
>I'm sorry, but I guess this pisses me off. I didn't like the message,
>(assuming it was the faggot die thing) but
>there's a lot of things I don't like. Unless this user has a a track
>record or history of posting messages which subsequently cause problems
>for the efficient running of Marquette University, then let it go. If your
>email got totally bogged down, and so on, then it your concern. If the
>'ideas' posted are repulsive, then it is not your concern as a user
>services manager. At least, I don't think so.
>
>--
>James M. Scobbie: Dept of Linguistics, Stanford University, CA 94305-2150
Nobody has restricted 2714sviatkos' right to proclaim his bigotry,
only his privileges of doing it using Marquette University's
equipment.
-Rich (young@serum.kodak.com)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My opinions are not necessarily shared by my employer, and extremism in
support of ANYTHING cannot be justified!
"It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral
busybodies...those who torment us 'for our own good' will torment us without
end, for they do so with the approval of their consciences." - C. S. Lewis
-------------------
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: cnh5730@maraba.tamu.edu (Charles Herrick)
Subject: Re: Inappropriate Use by 2714sviatkos
Message-ID: <7103@tamsun.tamu.edu>
Date: 18 Dec 91 20:50:46 GMT
In article <009534B5.604A6160@vms.csd.mu.edu> 8001mallinge@vms.csd.mu.edu
writes:
* Access code 2714sviatkos has been removed and the person involved
* is restricted from use of any Computer Services computing facilities.
* Our computer use policy as well as our network acceptable use policy
* clearly prohibit activity such as the inflammatory message posted
* Friday evening, December 13, 1991.
* - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
* Ann Mallinger, User Services Manager
* Computer Services Division
* Marquette University
There were no smileys in the original post, and intentionally, there are none
in my followup.
I presume this official reaction by Marquette University was taken in response
to the recent post in which some asshole claimed that homosexuality is bad and
that gays should be burned.
Listen up, Marquette and Ann Mallinger. The poster was indescribably cruel and
ignorant, but you are worse. You are censors of freedom of speech, and as a
so-called University, you, of all people, should know better. Persoanlly, I'd
rather have the ignorant broadcasting their hatred openly.. it makes it easier
to keep an eye on them. I start to worry when they get forced underground
(read: politically correct).
You, Marquette University and Ann Mallinger, are far more evil than the
ignorant poster. You, and all those who participated in this decision at
Marquette, should be immediately and summarily fired and kept from ever working
in any official capacity for any public entity ever again.
Pray tell where you will stop in your efforts to censor free speech in AmeriKa
(misspelling intentional)?
Chuck Herrick
-------------------
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: cnh5730@maraba.tamu.edu (Charles Herrick)
Subject: Inappropriate Use by 2714sviatkos
Message-ID: <7104@tamsun.tamu.edu>
Date: 18 Dec 91 20:53:49 GMT
Sender: usenet@tamsun.tamu.edu
Followup-To: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
In article <009534B5.604A6160@vms.csd.mu.edu> 8001mallinge@vms.csd.mu.edu
writes:
* Access code 2714sviatkos has been removed and the person involved
* is restricted from use of any Computer Services computing facilities.
* Our computer use policy as well as our network acceptable use policy
* clearly prohibit activity such as the inflammatory message posted
* Friday evening, December 13, 1991.
* - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
* Ann Mallinger, User Services Manager
* Computer Services Division
* Marquette University
There were no smileys in the original post, and intentionally, there are none
in my followup.
I presume this official reaction by Marquette University was taken in response
to the recent post in which some asshole claimed that homosexuality is bad and
that gays should be burned.
Listen up, Marquette and Ann Mallinger. The poster was indescribably cruel and
ignorant, but you are worse. You are censors of freedom of speech, and as a
so-called University, you, of all people, should know better. Persoanlly, I'd
rather have the ignorant broadcasting their hatred openly.. it makes it easier
to keep an eye on them. I start to worry when they get forced underground
(read: politically correct).
You, Marquette University and Ann Mallinger, are far more evil than the
ignorant poster. You, and all those who participated in this decision at
Marquette, should be immediately and summarily fired and kept from ever working
in any official capacity for any public entity ever again.
Pray tell where you will stop in your efforts to censor free speech in AmeriKa
(misspelling intentional)?
Chuck Herrick
-------------------
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: jones@pyrite.cs.uiowa.edu (Douglas W. Jones,201H MLH,3193350740,3193382879)
Subject: Re: Another censorship incident has just occurred
Message-ID: <9763@ns-mx.uiowa.edu>
Date: 18 Dec 91 21:04:11 GMT
References: <1991Dec18.194423.28973@zip.eecs.umich.edu>
Sender: news@ns-mx.uiowa.edu
Followup-To: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
>Date: 18 Dec 91 17:28:33 GMT
>
> Access code 2714sviatkos has been removed and the person involved
> is restricted from use of any Computer Services computing facilities.
>From: 2714sviatkos@vms.csd.mu.edu
>Subject: Faggots must die!!
>Date: 14 Dec 91 02:18:07 GMT
>
>We must rid our planet of faggots and other sexual perverts. ...
> ... The proper way to kill a faggot is through burning, as the Bible says.
>I am issuing a call to all those who follow the true way to take up the
>burden or cleansing the earth through fire.
On the face of it, this posting is an attempt to incite mass murder. The
hate crime and riot laws of some states may well outlaw such language,
particularly if people react by actually following up on the suggested
course of action (something that hasn't occured here, to my knowledge).
What worries me about this posting is that it is so corny! It reads like
a parody of the kinds of anti-homosexual flames that are fairly common on
the net. I won't place any bets, but there is a real chance that this is
a prank posting by someone else who got access to the account named
2714sviatkos.
Because of this, I wonder about the speed of the official response from the
administrators at Marquette. The punishment seems to have been imposed
within 4 days of the posting. Was this long enough to allow for due
process? It could have been, if the person responsible for the account
admitted to having posted the message or allowing unauthorized access when
confronted, but if this wasn't the case, it is hard to believe that due
process was involved.
Doug Jones
jones@cs.uiowa.edu
-------------------
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: gl8f@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl)
Subject: Re: Another censorship incident has just occurred
Message-ID: <1991Dec18.212555.149@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
Sender: usenet@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU
References: <1991Dec18.194423.28973@zip.eecs.umich.edu>
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 91 21:25:55 GMT
In article <1991Dec18.194423.28973@zip.eecs.umich.edu> baillod@sparky.eecs.umich.edu (Brad Baillod) writes:
>Well, here's another censorship incident!
No, here is another *possible* censorship incident. It isn't censorship,
for example, to prohibit someone from shouting "Fire!" in a crowded
theater. Is this case similar, or different?
-------------------
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: john@iastate.edu (John Hascall)
Subject: An excerpt from the ISU Graduate Student Handbook
Message-ID: <1991Dec18.213403.25661@news.iastate.edu>
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 1991 21:34:03 GMT
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VII. GRADUATE STUDENT-UNIVERSITY RELATIONSHIPS
Freedoms & Responsibilities
Freedoms and responsibilities for graduate students are based upon the
assumption that undertaking graduate study presupposes some intellectual
maturity and also a measure of commitment to the academic community.
:
:
Graduate students are free:
:
:
to examine and discuss questions of interest both publicly and privately.
to exercise the rights they enjoy if they as citizens, i.e., the freedom
of speech, peaceful assembly and rights of petition, without reprisal from
the university. [this doesn't parse quite right? --john]
:
:
Graduate students have responsibility:
to help maintain the atmosphere of free inquiry and free expression
inherent to the academic community.
to respect the right of other members of the community to express
themselves freely.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Hascall, ISU graduate student
--------------------
--
Helen C. O'Boyle | Co-moderator, Computers and Academic Freedom list
helen@eff.org | << insert usual disclaimer here... my opinions
isy5hob@cabell.vcu.edu | are mine alone, not EFF's or VCU's, etc. >>
From helen Thu Dec 19 09:27:30 1991
Received: by eff.org id AA24844
(5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for cafb-list@eff.org); Thu, 19 Dec 1991 14:27:43 -0500
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Inappropriate Use by 2714sviatkos
Message-ID: <1991Dec18.213548.16903@eff.org>
Keywords: free speech
References: <009534B5.604A6160@vms.csd.mu.edu> <1991Dec18.184619.28016@cs.yale.edu> <1991Dec18.204330.9828@ssd.kodak.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 1991 21:35:48 GMT
In article <1991Dec18.204330.9828@ssd.kodak.com> young@co2.serum.kodak.com (Rich Young (x37176)) writes:
[...]
> There is a basic tenet being missed here...and probably in other posts
> I've not yet read, and that is: unless you own the equipment and pay
> the bills, you can't necessarily say what you want, when you want to
> say it. You can't yell "Fire!" in a crowded movie theater (unless,
> of course, there IS one :-}) without being penalized, either. Free
> speech is not absolute; it is limited to those occasions where it
> does not cause harm to someone or something else. Yelling "Fire!"
> might well cause physical injury to the theater patrons as they rush
> to escape, and postings such as that from 2714sviatkos might well
> cause injury to the reputation of the university from which it came,
> since it could have been interpreted as representative of the
> university itself.
[...]
In other words, since freedom of the press belongs to those who own
presses, a private university can do anything it wants with the media
that it owns, right?
But, like any organziation, a private univeristy must work within its
charter. The charters of most private university's guarentee that the
university will be free of institutional censorship. If they
have fears for their reputation, they can require disclaimers.
- 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 cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: streeter@cs.unca.edu (Tom Streeter)
Subject: Re: Another censorship incident has just occurred
Message-ID: <1991Dec18.215440.4927@rock.concert.net>
Date: 18 Dec 91 21:54:40 GMT
References: <1991Dec18.194423.28973@zip.eecs.umich.edu> <9763@ns-mx.uiowa.edu>
Sender: news@rock.concert.net
In article <9763@ns-mx.uiowa.edu> jones@pyrite.cs.uiowa.edu (Douglas W. Jones,201H MLH,3193350740,3193382879) writes:
>>Date: 18 Dec 91 17:28:33 GMT
>>
>> Access code 2714sviatkos has been removed and the person involved
>> is restricted from use of any Computer Services computing facilities.
>
>>From: 2714sviatkos@vms.csd.mu.edu
>>Subject: Faggots must die!!
>>Date: 14 Dec 91 02:18:07 GMT
>>
>>We must rid our planet of faggots and other sexual perverts. ...
>> ... The proper way to kill a faggot is through burning, as the Bible says.
>>I am issuing a call to all those who follow the true way to take up the
>>burden or cleansing the earth through fire.
>
>On the face of it, this posting is an attempt to incite mass murder. The
>hate crime and riot laws of some states may well outlaw such language,
>particularly if people react by actually following up on the suggested
>course of action (something that hasn't occured here, to my knowledge).
>
>What worries me about this posting is that it is so corny! It reads like
>a parody of the kinds of anti-homosexual flames that are fairly common on
>the net. I won't place any bets, but there is a real chance that this is
>a prank posting by someone else who got access to the account named
>2714sviatkos.
>
Is it possible that Marquette officials have violated the Buckley
Amendment? The original message had a .sig attached (legitimate or not
is a question, of course), and now a Marquette official has announced
the results of a disciplinary action. It does not take a great deal of
effort to track down the original message and attach a name to the
incident.
I'm not claiming definitive knowledge that they have violated the
amendment. I'd be interested in the opinions of someone more
knowledgable than I about it.
--
Tom Streeter | streeter@cs.unca.edu
Dept. of Mass Communication | 704-251-6227
University of North Carolina at Asheville | Opinions expressed here are
Asheville, NC 28804 | mine alone.
-------------------
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Inappropriate Use by 2714sviatkos
Message-ID: <1991Dec18.215846.17384@eff.org>
References: <009534B5.604A6160@vms.csd.mu.edu>
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 1991 21:58:46 GMT
In article <009534B5.604A6160@vms.csd.mu.edu> 8001mallinge@vms.csd.mu.edu writes:
>
> Access code 2714sviatkos has been removed and the person involved
> is restricted from use of any Computer Services computing facilities.
> Our computer use policy as well as our network acceptable use policy
> clearly prohibit activity such as the inflammatory message posted
> Friday evening, December 13, 1991.
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> Ann Mallinger, User Services Manager
> Computer Services Division
> Marquette University
Dear Ms. Mallinger:
I am distressed to read that you are punishing a student for offending
people in a free speech forum. Bad speech should be out competed, not
outlawed. The Joint Statement on Rights and Freedoms of Students, main
statement on academic freedom in the US, says:
"Students and student organizations should be free to examine and
discuss all questions of interest to them, and to express opinions
publicly and privately."
What is your university's policy on freedom of expression? The
Student Code of most universities guarantees students that they will
be free of institutional censorship. This guarentee is part of the
contractual obligation between student and school and cannot be
overridden by departments. (see _A Practical Guide to Legal Issues
Affecting College Teachers_ by Patricia A. Hollander.) (Also what is
your university's due process procedure? Most university's guarantee
that students cannot be punished without being given the chance for a
hearing.)
I hope that you will consider your moral (and legal) obligations, and
strike down the punishment.
For a copy of the Joint Statement, send email to archive-server@eff.org.
Include the lines:
send acad-freedom student.freedoms
send acad-freedom README
help
index
Yours,
Carl Kadie
--
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 cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: pierce@husc4.harvard.edu (Tim Pierce)
Subject: Re: Inappropriate Use by 2714sviatkos
Message-ID: <1991Dec18.171449.6754@husc3.harvard.edu>
Date: 18 Dec 91 22:14:48 GMT
In article <1991Dec18.191453.27598@dsd.es.com> galt@toddler.dsd.es.com (Greg Alt - Perp) writes:
>Freedom of speech includes the freedom to be an annoying jerk.
But not to advocate mass murder.
--
____ Tim Pierce / "Anal sex is good; infinite sex is good;
\ / pierce@husc.harvard.edu / drugs are good..."
\/ (aka twpierce@amherst.edu) / -- Arthur T. Hu
-------------------
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: taylorsm@milton.u.washington.edu (Allen TaylorSmith)
Subject: Re: Another censorship incident has just occurred
Message-ID: <1991Dec18.221806.3518@milton.u.washington.edu>
Date: 18 Dec 91 22:18:06 GMT
References: <1991Dec18.194423.28973@zip.eecs.umich.edu> <1991Dec18.212555.149@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
In article <1991Dec18.212555.149@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gl8f@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl) writes:
>In article <1991Dec18.194423.28973@zip.eecs.umich.edu> baillod@sparky.eecs.umich.edu (Brad Baillod) writes:
>
>>Well, here's another censorship incident!
>
>No, here is another *possible* censorship incident. It isn't censorship,
>for example, to prohibit someone from shouting "Fire!" in a crowded
>theater. Is this case similar, or different?
I think it would be germain to this discussion to look at where the principle
espoused here, shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater, originated. It was
first used in the supporting opinion in a US Supreme Court case, Debs vs
City of Chicago. I do not remember which Justice wrote the opinion, but it
was given as an example of why it was ok for the city of Chicago to arrest
Eugene V. Debs _before_ he made a speech that the mayor of Chicago felt
could lead to civil unrest. I can't recall off the top of my head if this
was during the Haymarket Riots or the Pullman Car Strike.
My point being that this example was used specifically to allow a priori
arrest to prevent a speech from being made. You judge whether that was
censorship or not.
--
--
==============================================================================
Allen D. TaylorSmith University of Washington taylorsm@cac.washington.edu
Information Systems Seattle, Washington USA Human 1st - World Citizen 2nd
-------------------
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: pprior@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Paul A Prior)
Subject: Re: Inappropriate Use by 2714sviatkos
Message-ID: <1991Dec18.224109.28188@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 1991 22:41:09 GMT
In article <009534B5.604A6160@vms.csd.mu.edu> 8001mallinge@vms.csd.mu.edu writes:
>
> Access code 2714sviatkos has been removed and the person involved
> is restricted from use of any Computer Services computing facilities.
> Our computer use policy as well as our network acceptable use policy
> clearly prohibit activity such as the inflammatory message posted
> Friday evening, December 13, 1991.
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> Ann Mallinger, User Services Manager
> Computer Services Division
> Marquette University
Thanks for the censorship. I was quite able to ignore the boob on
my own, thank you.
I know, I know, you're just doing your job....
--
--------pprior@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu----(614) 297-8474----------------
Paul A. Prior "With friends like this,
2nd year medical student who needs anemones?"
The Ohio State U. College of Medicine Tobacco Kills- Please don't smoke!
-------------------
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: gl8f@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl)
Subject: Re: Another censorship incident has just occurred
Message-ID: <1991Dec18.231646.1202@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
Sender: usenet@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU
References: <1991Dec18.194423.28973@zip.eecs.umich.edu> <1991Dec18.212555.149@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> <1991Dec18.221806.3518@milton.u.washington.edu>
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 91 23:16:46 GMT
In article <1991Dec18.221806.3518@milton.u.washington.edu> taylorsm@milton.u.washington.edu (Allen TaylorSmith) writes:
>I think it would be germain to this discussion to look at where the principle
>espoused here, shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater, originated.
[...]
Ah, so because something has been used to suppress speech once, we
should never use it, even when hundreds of people are killed? My
point was quite simple: people assume that "free speech" means any
kind of speech, when it does not. Deciding where the line lies is an
exercise for the reader and courts.
-------------------
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: galt@scratchy.dsd.es.com (Greg Alt - Perp)
Subject: Re: Another censorship incident has just occurred
Message-ID: <1991Dec18.233118.2395@dsd.es.com>
Followup-To: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.censorship
Sender: galt@scratchy (Greg Alt - Perp)
Nntp-Posting-Host: 130.187.85.107
References: <1991Dec18.194423.28973@zip.eecs.umich.edu> <1991Dec18.212555.149@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 91 23:31:18 GMT
In article <1991Dec18.212555.149@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, gl8f@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl) writes:
> In article <1991Dec18.194423.28973@zip.eecs.umich.edu> baillod@sparky.eecs.umich.edu (Brad Baillod) writes:
>
> >Well, here's another censorship incident!
>
> No, here is another *possible* censorship incident. It isn't censorship,
> for example, to prohibit someone from shouting "Fire!" in a crowded
> theater. Is this case similar, or different?
Why is it that whenever someone censors, someone says it is ok because you
aren't allowed to shout "Fire" in a crowded theater? Did anyone run and
panic when he posted his "Faggots Die" message? How many people were trampled?
In what way did his post actually hurt people?
Aside from making people angry and wasting bandwidth, the actual damage was
that he made some homosexuals scared. I would say that the only thing about
his post that would cause fear is that it reminds people of the gay-bashing
that already occurs. I really didn't expect an increase in gay-bashing as
a result of his message.
It is very similar to the "'No' means 'harder'" thread a while back. It was
extremely offensive. It made people feel threatened because it was refering
to a common sort of violence that threatens all members of a specific group.
But it did not actually cause any of that violence.
--
/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)
"I speak only for myself" -me ) "But if someone came for you one night
_ _ _ _ ___ ) and dragged you away, do you really
( ` D L ( ` /_\ | | ) think your neighbors would even care?"
\7 |\ L \7 | | L_ | ) --Jello Biafra,
(galt@dsd.es.com) ) _Last Scream of the Missing Neighbors_
-------------------
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: gl8f@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl)
Subject: Re: Another censorship incident has just occurred
Message-ID: <1991Dec18.235950.1673@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
Sender: usenet@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU
References: <1991Dec18.194423.28973@zip.eecs.umich.edu> <1991Dec18.212555.149@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> <1991Dec18.233118.2395@dsd.es.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 91 23:59:50 GMT
In article <1991Dec18.233118.2395@dsd.es.com> galt@scratchy.dsd.es.com (Greg Alt - Perp) writes:
>Why is it that whenever someone censors, someone says it is ok because you
>aren't allowed to shout "Fire" in a crowded theater?
Why is it that anyone who disagrees with you is supporting censorship?
Do you have a monopoly on Truth?
-------------------
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: cecchinr@cs.rpi.edu (Ron Cecchini)
Subject: Re: Inappropriate Use by 2714sviatkos
Message-ID: <3a6qb+@rpi.edu>
Date: 19 Dec 91 00:11:17 GMT
In article <009534B5.604A6160@vms.csd.mu.edu> 8001mallinge@vms.csd.mu.edu writes:
>
> Access code 2714sviatkos has been removed and the person involved
> is restricted from use of any Computer Services computing facilities.
> Our computer use policy as well as our network acceptable use policy
> clearly prohibit activity such as the inflammatory message posted
> Friday evening, December 13, 1991.
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> Ann Mallinger, User Services Manager
> Computer Services Division
> Marquette University
Sounds like fucking "Politically Correct" censorship to me!
Can't say anything bad about gays! No sirreebob!
With the multitudinous amounts of human garbage that gets posted over
the net daily, one person gets all their computer priveleges taken away
for stating his opinion. An opinion, mind you, that no one in this group
with > 1 neuron in their head took seriously (even if we agreed with it
to some degree).
I'd like to see your network policies.
Ron
-------------------
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: spam@iastate.edu (Michael L Begley)
Subject: Re: Banned Computer Material 1991 (end of year update)
Message-ID: <1991Dec19.002051.2753@news.iastate.edu>
Sender: news@news.iastate.edu (USENET News System)
References: <1991Dec18.181508.10501@eff.org>
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 1991 00:20:51 GMT
This is really only relevent to us ISU people (the site of the most censorship
flap) but others may find it amusing.
In article <1991Dec18.181508.10501@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
> Banned Computer Material 1991 (and earlier)
This is listed on the ISU NNTP server as article#1984 of alt.acad-freedom.talk.
Ironic, eh?
Michael Begley Ask me how
spam@iastate.edu Iowa State University
hzl01@ccvax.iastate.edu is censoring my usenet access
-------------------
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: aschaffe@netcom.COM (Allan Schaffer)
Subject: Re: Inappropriate Use by 2714sviatkos
Message-ID: <1991Dec19.004647.28909aschaffe@netcom.COM>
Date: 19 Dec 91 00:46:47 GMT
young@co2.serum.kodak.com (Rich Young (x37176)) said..
>hoffberg-michael@CS.YALE.EDU (Michael Hoffberg) writes:
>>8001mallinge@vms.csd.mu.edu writes:
>>>
>>> Access code 2714sviatkos has been removed and the person involved
>>> is restricted from use of any Computer Services computing facilities.
>>> Our computer use policy as well as our network acceptable use policy
>>> clearly prohibit activity such as the inflammatory message posted
>>> Friday evening, December 13, 1991.
>>
>>Now I am confused. Which person committed the greater act of being evil, the
>>person who wrote the original posting, or the person who took away that
>>person's right to free speech?
>
> There is a basic tenet being missed here...and probably in other posts
> I've not yet read, and that is: unless you own the equipment and pay
> the bills, you can't necessarily say what you want, when you want to
> say it.
This is very true, and is really the heart of the issue here. The original
poster still has the right to promote his way of thinking, but not on that
particular University's resources.
BTW, I'm extremely incensed about the guy getting his account yanked. For
all they know, he may have left his terminal unattended; furthermore, groups
like the ones he posted to FREQUENTLY have discussions on how the people
involved should deal with bigots -- so he was giving them some practice. :-)
And even more importantly, he had a valid viewpoint. I disagree with it
on ALL counts, but nevertheless we all must realize that his viewpoint is as
valid as ours.
I'm also very worried; I'm a vehement opponent of pink hoop earrings.. I
wonder if I had posted my (inflammatory) viewpoint to misc.activism.earrings,
saying that all pink hoop earrings should be burned (cuz bible sez so) if
I would lose my account. It's pretty obvious that some PC'er with
the BIGGEST pink hoop earrings EVER would write to my sysadmin demanding
that my account be terminated -- and within the "fair use" policy of most
universities, "anything not related to school activities" is forbidden.
The analogy I'm drawing here is that my (albeit nonexistant) opposition to
pink hoop earrings and inflammatory postings on them would make me a ripe
candidate for account termination. This is stupid, whether it's a free
speech issue or not. Are we really so paranoid of someone yelling
"burn the faggots!" that we have to pretend that taking away their account
will somehow silence that viewpoint, and eliminate bigotry?
> You can't yell "Fire!" in a crowded movie theater (unless,
> of course, there IS one :-}) without being penalized, either. Free
> speech is not absolute; it is limited to those occasions where it
> does not cause harm to someone or something else. Yelling "Fire!"
> might well cause physical injury to the theater patrons as they rush
> to escape, and postings such as that from 2714sviatkos might well
> cause injury to the reputation of the university from which it came,
> since it could have been interpreted as representative of the
> university itself.
This entire paragraph is absolute bunk. It's all true, I suppose, but
totally unrelated to the subject at hand. Also BTW, 2714sviatkos had a
"My opinion does not reflect those of the university" disclaimer in his post.
> When you don't control the means, you have to abide by the rules of
> he/she who does.
Now you're back on track. :-)
Allan
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Allan Schaffer | There has already been a term coined
aschaffe@polyslo.csc.calpoly.edu | for this PC nonsense, some 44 years ago.
aschaffe@netcom.com | Newspeak.
-------------------
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Another censorship incident has just occurred
Message-ID: <1991Dec19.011013.22900@eff.org>
References: <1991Dec18.194423.28973@zip.eecs.umich.edu> <1991Dec18.212555.149@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> <1991Dec18.221806.3518@milton.u.washington.edu> <1991Dec18.231646.1202@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 1991 01:10:13 GMT
gl8f@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl) writes:
[...]
>Ah, so because something has been used to suppress speech once, we
>should never use it, even when hundreds of people are killed? My
>point was quite simple: people assume that "free speech" means any
>kind of speech, when it does not. Deciding where the line lies is an
>exercise for the reader and courts.
[...]
I hope this will help folks understand where the line lies.
(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.)
In 1919 the Court agreed that there was no right to speech
that advocated violence. 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 overthorwing 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 Kadie -- kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu, or (anonymous) ap.4352@hri.com
I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
-------------------
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: gl8f@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl)
Subject: Re: Another censorship incident has just occurred
Message-ID: <1991Dec19.011151.2159@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
Sender: usenet@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU
References: <1991Dec18.194423.28973@zip.eecs.umich.edu> <1991Dec18.212555.149@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> <1991Dec18.191849.28698@rodan.acs.syr.edu>
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 91 01:11:51 GMT
In article <1991Dec18.191849.28698@rodan.acs.syr.edu> greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (Jonathan Greenfield) writes:
>Yes it *IS* censorship to prohibit someone from shouting "Fire!" in a crowded
>theatre.
>
>Fortunately, the government does NOT have the power to define and re-define
>how you and I may think, and understand language.
But I don't think it is necessarily censorship. Looks like you and I
don't define language the same way. Amazing what diversity you can
find on this planet...
-------------------
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: axolotl@socs.uts.edu.au (Iain D. Sinclair)
Message-ID:
Date: 19 Dec 91 01:47:00 GMT
Subject: Re: IRC's /kill
Keywords: protracted, bloody
References: <1991Dec12.062733.10145@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> <1991Dec18.200009.29016@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
So, you agree with that /kill is nothing like cancel! Good.
Now we're getting somewhere.
gl8f@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl) writes:
>Now I'm going to
>exercise the Usenet analague and put you in my kill-file.
Oh..
--
Iain Sinclair (axolotl@socs.uts.edu.au) +61 2 330 1816
--------------------
--
Helen C. O'Boyle | Co-moderator, Computers and Academic Freedom list
helen@eff.org | << insert usual disclaimer here... my opinions
isy5hob@cabell.vcu.edu | are mine alone, not EFF's or VCU's, etc. >>
From warnold Thu Jan 16 11:17:12 1992
Received: by eff.org id AA09784
(5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for cafb-list@eff.org); Thu, 16 Jan 1992 16:17:19 -0500
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.activism] Re: Inappropriate Use by 2714sviatkos
Message-ID: <9112191405.AA01731@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 19 Dec 91 02:05:36 GMT
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto)
Subject: Re: Another censorship incident has just occurred
Message-ID: <1991Dec19.023516.20218@eng.umd.edu>
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 91 02:35:16 GMT
References: <1991Dec18.194423.28973@zip.eecs.umich.edu> <9763@ns-mx.uiowa.edu>
In article <9763@ns-mx.uiowa.edu> jones@pyrite.cs.uiowa.edu (Douglas W. Jones,201H MLH,3193350740,3193382879) writes:
[some censored fool writes]
>>We must rid our planet of faggots and other sexual perverts. ...
>> ... The proper way to kill a faggot is through burning, as the Bible says.
>>I am issuing a call to all those who follow the true way to take up the
>>burden or cleansing the earth through fire.
>
>On the face of it, this posting is an attempt to incite mass murder. The
>hate crime and riot laws of some states may well outlaw such language,
>particularly if people react by actually following up on the suggested
>course of action (something that hasn't occured here, to my knowledge).
Oh, give it a rest. No law banning this sort of speech could survive the
Supreme Court's 'clear and present' or 'grave and probable' danger tests-- the
danger of mass murder is neither present nor probably from a stupid post
on UseNet. Now if the guy was standing outside a gay bar with a torch, we'd
have a different story...
--
Matthew T. Russotto russotto@eng.umd.edu russotto@wam.umd.edu
Your superior intellect is no match for our puny weapons! -- The Simpsons
Just say NO to police searches and seizures. Make them use force.
(not responsible for bodily harm resulting from following above advice)
-------------------
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: burns@thurifer.harvard.edu (John A. Burns)
Subject: Re: Inappropriate Use by 2714sviatkos
Message-ID: <143@hsdndev.UUCP>
Date: 19 Dec 91 02:43:52 GMT
sterba@vax.sonoma.edu writes [re account-yanking for evil post]:
`Wow. Freedom of speech at it's best. V-E-R-Y AMERICAN!
`V-E-R-Y POLITICALLY CORRECT! Bravo!
`
`It is one thing to be gay, bigot, homophobe, fashist, communist, whatever.
`It is one thing to be able to say what you think is right, what you believe in,
`whether it is currently a popular political/religious/social view.
`We should not let this system become just another party-echo.
Well, you're muddying the waters a little bit here. The original poster
wasn't just making a moral statement (homosexuality is bad), he was
exhorting other people to commit murder (kill fags). Now, we can get into
a big debate over whether someone has the right to advocate breaking the
law, but I'd like to hear a good reason why Marquette University should
be *required to help* this disturbed man encourage people to commit crimes.
If I were to pass your name to a serial killer, you might have a different
view of the moral and legal issues involved. (No, that's not a threat--I
don't know any serial killers, and I wouldn't do such a thing. Merely
hypothetical. All you people out there considering murder, don't do it.)
--
John A. Burns (burns@thurifer.harvard.edu)
"Don't get mad at an elf."
-------------------
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto)
Subject: Re: Another censorship incident has just occurred
Message-ID: <1991Dec19.024748.20475@eng.umd.edu>
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 91 02:47:48 GMT
References: <1991Dec18.194423.28973@zip.eecs.umich.edu> <1991Dec18.212555.149@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> <1991Dec18.221806.3518@milton.u.washington.edu>
In article <1991Dec18.221806.3518@milton.u.washington.edu> taylorsm@milton.u.washington.edu (Allen TaylorSmith) writes:
>
>I think it would be germain to this discussion to look at where the principle
>espoused here, shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater, originated. It was
>first used in the supporting opinion in a US Supreme Court case, Debs vs
>City of Chicago. I do not remember which Justice wrote the opinion, but it
>was given as an example of why it was ok for the city of Chicago to arrest
>Eugene V. Debs _before_ he made a speech that the mayor of Chicago felt
>could lead to civil unrest. I can't recall off the top of my head if this
>was during the Haymarket Riots or the Pullman Car Strike.
>
>My point being that this example was used specifically to allow a priori
>arrest to prevent a speech from being made. You judge whether that was
>censorship or not.
The first case was Schenck v. United States (249 US 47; 39 S. Ct 247; 63 L.
Ed 470 (1919)), decided a week before Debs. The opinion was written by
Holmes.
"The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely
shouting fire in a theatre, and causing a panic. It does not even protect a
man from an injunction against uttering words that may have all the effect
of force. The question in every case is whether the words used are used in
such circumstances and are of a nature as to create a clear and present
danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has
a right to prevent. It is a question of proximity and degree."
I find it hard to believe that any article on Usenet (besides, perhaps, a
how-to manual on computer fraud) could satisfy the proximity requirement.
--
Matthew T. Russotto russotto@eng.umd.edu russotto@wam.umd.edu
Your superior intellect is no match for our puny weapons! -- The Simpsons
Just say NO to police searches and seizures. Make them use force.
(not responsible for bodily harm resulting from following above advice)
-------------------
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: tjreynol@zephyr.cair.du.edu (Sprungvergnuegen)
Subject: Re: IRC's /kill
Message-ID: <1991Dec19.031726.13026@mercury.cair.du.edu>
Summary: fup fup fup
Sender: news@mercury.cair.du.edu (netnews)
References: <1991Dec12.062733.10145@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 91 03:17:26 GMT
a HUGE thumbs up to fup
nice to see you, when i do...
tim
-------------------
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: schweige@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil (Jeffrey M. Schweiger)
Subject: Re: Another censorship incident has just occurred
Message-ID: <3637@aldebaran.cs.nps.navy.mil>
Date: 19 Dec 91 03:21:36 GMT
References: <1991Dec18.194423.28973@zip.eecs.umich.edu> <1991Dec18.212555.149@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> <1991Dec18.233118.2395@dsd.es.com>
Since Marquette University, I believe, is a private institution, the only
"rights" the individual who lost computer privileges has are contractual ones.
We have yet to see a posting spelling those out. It is quite possible that
what was done is completely legal.
I won't argue whether or not Marquette's actions were appropriate, or
ethical, but until I see evidence to the contrary, I'll believe them to be
legal.
As a reality reminder, here are a couple of excerpts from Gene Spafford's
"What is Usenet":
"WHAT USENET IS NOT
------------------
1. Usenet is not an organization.
No person or group has authority over Usenet as a whole. No one
controls who gets a news feed, which articles are propagated
where, who can post articles, or anything else. There is no
"Usenet Incorporated," nor is there a "Usenet User's Group."
You're on your own.
Granted, there are various activities organized by means of Usenet
newsgroups. The newsgroup creation process is is one such
activity. But it would be a mistake to equate Usenet with the
organized activities it makes possible. If they were to stop
tomorrow, Usenet would go on without them.
2. Usenet is not a democracy.
Since there is no person or group in charge of Usenet as a whole
-- i.e. there is no Usenet "government" -- it follows that Usenet
cannot be a democracy, autocracy, or any other kind of "-acy."
(But see "The Camel's Nose?" below.)
3. Usenet is not fair.
After all, who shall decide what's fair? For that matter, if
someone is behaving unfairly, who's going to stop him? Neither
you nor I, that's certain.
4. Usenet is not a right.
Some people misunderstand their local right of "freedom of speech"
to mean that they have a legal right to use others' computers to
say what they wish in whatever way they wish, and the owners of
said computers have no right to stop them.
Those people are wrong. Freedom of speech also means freedom not
to speak. If I choose not to use my computer to aid your speech,
that is my right. Freedom of the press belongs to those who own
one.
...
WHAT USENET IS
--------------
Usenet is the set of people who exchange articles tagged with one or
more universally-recognized labels, called "newsgroups" (or "groups"
for short).
(Note that the term "newsgroup" is correct, while "area," "base,"
"board," "bboard," "conference," "round table," "SIG," etc. are
incorrect. If you want to be understood, be accurate.)
...
CONTROL
-------
Every administrator controls his own site. No one has any real
control over any site but his own.
The administrator gets her power from the owner of the system she
administers. As long as her job performance pleases the owner, she
can do whatever she pleases, up to and including cutting off Usenet
entirely. Them's the breaks.
Sites are not entirely without influence on their neighbors, however.
There is a vague notion of "upstream" and "downstream" related to the
direction of high-volume news flow. To the extent that "upstream"
sites decide what traffic they will carry for their "downstream"
neighbors, those "upstream" sites have some influence on their
neighbors' participation in Usenet. But such influence is usually
easy to circumvent; and heavy-handed manipulation typically results in
a backlash of resentment.
...
IF YOU ARE UNHAPPY...
---------------------
Property rights being what they are, there is no higher authority on
Usenet than the people who own the machines on which Usenet traffic is
carried. If the owner of the machine you use says, "We will not carry
alt.sex on this machine," and you are not happy with that order, you
have no Usenet recourse. What can we outsiders do, after all?
That doesn't mean you are without options. Depending on the nature of
your site, you may have some internal political recourse. Or you
might find external pressure helpful. Or, with a minimal investment,
you can get a feed of your own from somewhere else. Computers capable
of taking Usenet feeds are down in the $500 range now, and
UNIX-capable boxes are going for under $2000, and there are at least
two UNIX lookalikes in the $100 price range.
No matter what, though, appealing to "Usenet" won't help. Even if
those who read such an appeal are sympathetic to your cause, they will
almost certainly have even less influence at your site than you do.
By the same token, if you don't like what some user at another site is
doing, only the administrator and owner of that site have any
authority to do anything about it. Persuade them that the user in
question is a problem for them, and they might do something -- if they
feel like it, that is.
If the user in question is the administrator or owner of the site from
which she posts, forget it; you can't win. If you can, arrange for
your newsreading software to ignore articles from her; and chalk one
up to experience.
WORDS TO LIVE BY #1:
USENET AS SOCIETY
--------------------
Those who have never tried electronic communication may not be aware
of what a "social skill" really is. One social skill that must be
learned, is that other people have points of view that are not only
different, but *threatening*, to your own. In turn, your opinions may
be threatening to others. There is nothing wrong with this. Your
beliefs need not be hidden behind a facade, as happens with
face-to-face conversation. Not everybody in the world is a bosom
buddy, but you can still have a meaningful conversation with them.
The person who cannot do this lacks in social skills.
-- Nick Szabo
WORDS TO LIVE BY #2:
USENET AS ANARCHY
--------------------
Anarchy means having to put up with things that really piss you off.
-- Unknown "
I personally think the last quote should be taken to heart by those who
want to see something censored, though I admit, I probably don't always
follow this. It should also be taken to heart by those who criticize others
exercising their rights (which might be the case of the Marquette
administrators).
Jeff Schweiger
--
*******************************************************************************
Jeff Schweiger Standard Disclaimer CompuServe: 74236,1645
Internet (Milnet): schweige@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil
*******************************************************************************
-------------------
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: gl8f@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl)
Subject: Re: IRC's /kill
Message-ID: <1991Dec19.041943.3534@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
Keywords: protracted, bloody
Sender: usenet@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU
References: <1991Dec18.200009.29016@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 91 04:19:43 GMT
In article axolotl@socs.uts.edu.au writes:
>So, you agree with that /kill is nothing like cancel! Good.
Nope. And you've yet to agree that you should avoid harrassing people.
We're getting nowhere.
-------------------
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: gl8f@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl)
Subject: Re: Another censorship incident has just occurred
Message-ID: <1991Dec19.042659.3701@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
Sender: usenet@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU
References: <1991Dec18.221806.3518@milton.u.washington.edu> <1991Dec18.231646.1202@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> <1991Dec19.011013.22900@eff.org>
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 91 04:26:59 GMT
In article <1991Dec19.011013.22900@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>I hope this will help folks understand where the line lies.
Now has the Supreme Court ever ruled on whether or not it's illegal to
require people to stay on-topic in a newsgroup? That's an interesting
question.
-------------------
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.activism, et al.] Re: Inappropriate Use by 2714sviatkos
Message-ID: <9112191730.AA03081@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 19 Dec 91 05:30:09 GMT
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.activism] Re: Inappropriate Use by 2714sviatkos
Message-ID: <9112191732.AA03376@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 19 Dec 91 05:32:03 GMT
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: rjc@cstr.ed.ac.uk (Richard Caley)
Subject: Re: Inappropriate Use by 2714sviatkos
Message-ID:
Date: 19 Dec 91 07:40:21 GMT
In article <7103@tamsun.tamu.edu>, Charles Herrick (ch) writes:
ch> You, Marquette University and Ann Mallinger, are far more
ch> evil[...more drivel deleted]
Now, I know I'm gonna regret this, responding to someone with number
is their id, on a thread cross posted to soc.men etc, but...
Mr Herrick, please explain why Marquette University shouldn't place
what restrictions they like on their computers. If whatsisface the
drivelling imbecile wants to post he can always find someone else to
help him do it. Or pay for it himself.
--
rjc@cstr.ed.ac.uk _O_
|<
-------------------
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.activism] Re: Inappropriate Use by 2714sviatkos
Message-ID: <9112191959.AA15579@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 19 Dec 91 07:59:47 GMT
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.activism] Re: Inappropriate Use by 2714sviatkos
Message-ID: <9112192000.AA15622@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 19 Dec 91 08:00:35 GMT
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: comp-academic-freedom-talk
Reply-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk
Precedence: bulk
To: comp-academic-freedom-talk
Errors-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk-request
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 1991 08:29:56 -0500
X-Digest-Sender: "Helen C. O'Boyle"
Message-Id: <199112191329.AA14513@eff.org>
Subject: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Thu Dec 19 08:29:17 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:
bwa@ee.mu.OZ.AU (B : Re: (comp.admin.policy) Re: Gaming
kadie@eff.org (Car : What is
kadie@eff.org (Car : So what's the history behind the Iowa State
brack%uoftcse@uoft : Re: New news censorship policy at Iowa State University
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (comp.org.eff.talk) Re: New news censorship policy at Iowa
kadie@m.cs.uiuc.ed : Re: New news censorship policy at Iowa State University
axolotl@socs.uts.e : Re: IRC's /kill
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (uiuc.general, et al.) Re: finger names and caller id's
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (uiuc.general, et al.) Re: finger names and caller id's
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (uiuc.general, et al.) Re: finger names and caller id's
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (uiuc.general, et al.) Re: finger names and caller id's
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (comp.org.eff.talk, et al.) Re: New news censorship policy
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: New news censorship policy at Iowa State University
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 cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: maxwell@fnalo.fnal.gov (What does this button do?)
Subject: Re: Another censorship incident has just occurred
Message-ID: <1991Dec19.051918.1@fnalo.fnal.gov>
Sender: usenet@coe.montana.edu (News Master)
References: <1991Dec18.194423.28973@zip.eecs.umich.edu> <1991Dec18.212555.149@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> <1991Dec18.233118.2395@dsd.es.com> <3637@aldebaran.cs.nps.navy.mil>
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 1991 11:19:18 GMT
In article <3637@aldebaran.cs.nps.navy.mil>, schweige@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil
(Jeffrey M. Schweiger) writes:
> Since Marquette University, I believe, is a private institution, the only
> "rights" the individual who lost computer privileges has are contractual ones.
> We have yet to see a posting spelling those out. It is quite possible that
> what was done is completely legal.
>
> I won't argue whether or not Marquette's actions were appropriate, or
> ethical, but until I see evidence to the contrary, I'll believe them to be
> legal.
I sent Ms. Millinger email and asked her to post a copy of the guidelines and
policies that were violated by the "Faggots should be killed" article to
alt.censorship.
> As a reality reminder, here are a couple of excerpts from Gene Spafford's
> "What is Usenet":
[...]
> WORDS TO LIVE BY #2:
> USENET AS ANARCHY
> --------------------
> Anarchy means having to put up with things that really piss you off.
> -- Unknown "
>
> I personally think the last quote should be taken to heart by those who
> want to see something censored, though I admit, I probably don't always
> follow this.
I believe a tolerant mind is stronger than an intolerant one.
> It should also be taken to heart by those who criticize others
> exercising their rights (which might be the case of the Marquette
> administrators).
Yes and no. Marquette can do whatever they want-- I have no control over that.
But, since Ms. Millinger "opened the door" by posting notice of the student's
account revokation to the net, she also opened the door to criticism. I think
Marquette blew it. The student *might* have learned something about tolerance
from the flamefest he started (or maybe not, who knows?). What was he taught
instead? Anybody think he has a more enlightened attitude towards gay people?
> Jeff Schweiger
> *******************************************************************************
> Jeff Schweiger Standard Disclaimer CompuServe: 74236,1645
> Internet (Milnet): schweige@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil
> *******************************************************************************
O~~* ...and what does *THIS* button do. \ | /
- ~ ------------ Max Monningh ------------------------->zap<-
/ \ Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory / | \
( # ) SPAN/HEPnet/PHYSnet: 43198::Monningh
\ / 43011::Maxwell
- - Bitnet: Maxwell@FNALB.BITNET
~ Internet: Monningh@BASIL.FNAL.GOV
-------------------
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Another censorship incident has just occurred
Message-ID: <1991Dec19.135508.14985@eff.org>
References: <1991Dec18.194423.28973@zip.eecs.umich.edu> <1991Dec18.212555.149@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> <1991Dec18.233118.2395@dsd.es.com> <3637@aldebaran.cs.nps.navy.mil> <1991Dec19.051918.1@fnalo.fnal.gov>
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 1991 13:55:08 GMT
maxwell@fnalo.fnal.gov (What does this button do?) writes:
[...]
>Yes and no. Marquette can do whatever they want-- I have no control over that.
>But, since Ms. Millinger "opened the door" by posting notice of the student's
>account revokation to the net, she
> also opened the door to criticism. I think
>Marquette blew it. The student *might* have learned something about tolerance
>from the flamefest he started (or maybe not, who knows?). What was he taught
>instead? Anybody think he has a more enlightened attitude towards gay people?
[...]
> - ~ ------------ Max Monningh ------------------------->zap<-
[...]
I agree. The public annoucement of the (summary?) punishment suggests
to me the University's agent was modivated more by a desire to stop
the hue and cry and less by a desire to teach the student.
- 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 cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: comp-academic-freedom-talk
Reply-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk
Precedence: bulk
To: comp-academic-freedom-talk
Errors-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk-request
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 1991 13:59:07 -0500
X-Digest-Sender: "Helen C. O'Boyle"
Message-Id: <199112191859.AA23600@eff.org>
Subject: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Thu Dec 19 13:57:24 EST 1991
[For information on how to get a much smaller edited version of the
list, send email to archive-server@eff.org. Include the line:
send acad-freedom caf
- Billy ]
In this issue:
kadie@eff.org (Car : Banned Computer Material 1991 (end of year update)
dl2p+@andrew.cmu.e : Re: IRC's /kill
baillod@sparky.eec : Another censorship incident has just occurred
cnh5730@maraba.tam : Inappropriate Use by 2714sviatkos
gl8f@fermi.clas.Vi : Re: IRC's /kill
jones@pyrite.cs.ui : Re: Another censorship incident has just occurred
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: Inappropriate Use by 2714sviatkos
gl8f@fermi.clas.Vi : Re: Another censorship incident has just occurred
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: Inappropriate Use by 2714sviatkos
streeter@cs.unca.e : Re: Another censorship incident has just occurred
taylorsm@milton.u. : Re: Another censorship incident has just occurred
gl8f@fermi.clas.Vi : Re: Another censorship incident has just occurred
galt@scratchy.dsd. : Re: Another censorship incident has just occurred
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: Another censorship incident has just occurred
gl8f@fermi.clas.Vi : Re: Another censorship incident has just occurred
greeny@top.cis.syr : Re: Another censorship incident has just occurred
spam@iastate.edu ( : Re: Banned Computer Material 1991 (end of year update)
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (alt.censorship) Re: Another censorship incident has just
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (soc.men, et al.) Re: Inappropriate Use by 2714sviatkos
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (alt.activism, et al.) Re: Inappropriate Use by 2714sviatk
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (isu.newsgroups, et al.) An excerpt from the ISU Graduate
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 cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: kadie@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Inappropriate Use by 2714sviatkos
Message-ID: <1991Dec19.142404.22378@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 1991 14:24:04 GMT
rjc@cstr.ed.ac.uk (Richard Caley) writes:
[...]
>Mr Herrick, please explain why Marquette University shouldn't place
>what restrictions they like on their computers. If whatsisface the
>drivelling imbecile wants to post he can always find someone else to
>help him do it. Or pay for it himself.
[...]
(I'm not Mr. Herrick, but I'd like to respond anyway.)
A university has a moral duty to guarentee the freedom of expression
of its students. This guarentee is often part of the written contract
between the student and university.
Joint Statement on Rights and Freedoms of Students
(ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/student.rights) says:
"Academic institutions exist for the transmission of knowledge, the
pursuit of truth, the development of students, and the general
well-being of society. Free inquiry and free expression are
indispensable to the attainment of these goals its members of the
academic community, students should be encouraged to develop the
capacity for critical judgment and to engage in a sustained and
independent search for truth."
"B. Freedom of Inquiry and Expression
1. Students and student organizations should be free to examine and
discuss all questions of interest to them, and to express opinions
publicly and privately. They should always be free to support causes
by orderly means which do not disrupt the regular and essential
operation of the institution. At the same time, it should be made
clear to the academic and the larger community that in their public
expressions or demonstrations students or student organizations speak
only for themselves.
2. Students should be allowed to invite and to hear any person of
their own choosing. Those routine procedures required by an
institution before a guest speaker is invited to appear on campus
should be designed only to insure that there is orderly scheduling of
facilities and adequate preparation for the event, and that the
occasion is conducted in a manner appropriate to an academic
community. The institutional control of campus facilities should not
be used as a device of censorship. It should be made clear to the
academic and larger community that sponsorship of guest speakers does
not necessarily imply approval or endorsement of the views expressed,
either by the sponsoring group or the institution."
"D. Student Publications
Student publications and the student press are a valuable aid in
establishing and maintaining an atmosphere of free and responsible
discussion and of intellectual exploration on the campus. They are a
means of bringing student concerns to the attention of the faculty and
the institutional authorities and of formulating student opinion on
various issues on the campus and in the world at large.
Whenever possible the student newspaper should be an
independent corporation financially and legally separate
from the university. Where financial and legal autonomy
is not possible, the institution, as the publisher of student
publications, may have to bear the legal responsibility for
the contents of the publications. In the delegation of
editorial responsibility to students, the institution must
provide sufficient editorial freedom and financial autonomy
for the student publications to maintain their integrity of
purpose as vehicles for free inquiry and free expression
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
-------------------
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: comp-academic-freedom-talk
Reply-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk
Precedence: bulk
To: comp-academic-freedom-talk
Errors-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk-request
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 1991 14:27:30 -0500
X-Digest-Sender: "Helen C. O'Boyle"
Message-Id: <199112191927.AA24825@eff.org>
Subject: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Thu Dec 19 14:25:50 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:
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (alt.activism) Re: Inappropriate Use by 2714sviatkos
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (alt.activism) Re: Inappropriate Use by 2714sviatkos
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (alt.activism) Re: Inappropriate Use by 2714sviatkos
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (alt.activism) Re: Inappropriate Use by 2714sviatkos
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (alt.activism) Re: Inappropriate Use by 2714sviatkos
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (alt.activism) Re: Inappropriate Use by 2714sviatkos
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (alt.activism) Re: Inappropriate Use by 2714sviatkos
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (alt.activism) Re: Inappropriate Use by 2714sviatkos
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (alt.activism) Re: Inappropriate Use by 2714sviatkos
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (alt.activism) Re: Inappropriate Use by 2714sviatkos
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (alt.activism, et al.) Inappropriate Use by 2714sviatkos
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (news.admin) What people will do for sex (was Re: MORE GIF
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (news.admin) Re: What people will do for sex (was Re: MORE
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (news.admin) Re: What people will do for sex (was Re: MORE
gl8f@fermi.clas.Vi : Re: Another censorship incident has just occurred
russotto@eng.umd.e : Re: Another censorship incident has just occurred
russotto@eng.umd.e : Re: Another censorship incident has just occurred
schweige@taurus.cs : Re: Another censorship incident has just occurred
tjreynol@zephyr.ca : Re: IRC's /kill
-- fup fup fup
axolotl@socs.uts.e : Re: IRC's /kill
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 cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap)
Subject: Re: Inappropriate Use by 2714sviatkos
Message-ID: <1991Dec19.143329.19682@njitgw.njit.edu>
Date: 19 Dec 91 14:33:29 GMT
Article-I.D.: njitgw.1991Dec19.143329.19682
References: <7104@tamsun.tamu.edu>
Sender: news@njit.edu
Nntp-Posting-Host: hertz.njit.edu
In article <7104@tamsun.tamu.edu> cnh5730@maraba.tamu.edu (Charles Herrick) writes:
>In article <009534B5.604A6160@vms.csd.mu.edu> 8001mallinge@vms.csd.mu.edu
>writes:
>* Access code 2714sviatkos has been removed and the person involved
>* is restricted from use of any Computer Services computing facilities.
>* Our computer use policy as well as our network acceptable use policy
>* clearly prohibit activity such as the inflammatory message posted
>* Friday evening, December 13, 1991.
>There were no smileys in the original post, and intentionally, there are
>none in my followup.
>
>I presume this official reaction by Marquette University was taken in
>response to the recent post in which some asshole claimed that homosexuality
>is bad and that gays should be burned.
>
>Listen up, Marquette and Ann Mallinger. The poster was indescribably cruel
>and ignorant, but you are worse. You are censors of freedom of speech....
Come on! A school's computer has nothing to do with freedom of
speech. It has to do with freedom of the press. Which only applies
to those who HAVE a press. No outside agency can force Marquette U
to censor those posts, but if they decide to of their own volition,
it's their legal right.
When you post a message on the Net, you are representing your site.
While you may disagree, look at how many flames ask that the ENTIRE
SITE be banned from the Net because some idiot posts something bad.
If the site actively does not want such messages representing them,
they have every right to censor it.
I don't know about your site, but when I applied for my mainframe
account, the contract I signed clearly stated that violations of
academic computer policy will be punished with loss of computer
privaleges. This was along with a document that clearly outlined
policy. Now at NJIT, policy means not hacking into other people's
computers and stuff like that - leaving content of Usenet postings
to individual discression, but I see nothing wrong with adding that
as well. So long as the person accused was aware of this policy
before he posted these inflamatory remarks.
You know, one can always find a public site and pay an annual fee
to post whatever you want. The University has no need to provide
Net access at all. If they choose to control that access, that's
also thir right - especially since it's free of charge. You get
what you pay for.
--
David Charlap Q:"Where do these stairs go?"
dic5340@hertz.njit.edu A:"They go up"
----------------------------
Hi! I am a .signature virus. Copy me into your .signature to join in!
-------------------
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: entropy@wintermute.WPI.EDU (Lawrence C. Foard)
Subject: Re: Inappropriate Use by 2714sviatkos
Message-ID: <1991Dec19.152638.11582@wpi.WPI.EDU>
Date: 19 Dec 91 15:26:38 GMT
In article <009534B5.604A6160@vms.csd.mu.edu> 8001mallinge@vms.csd.mu.edu writes:
>
> Access code 2714sviatkos has been removed and the person involved
> is restricted from use of any Computer Services computing facilities.
> Our computer use policy as well as our network acceptable use policy
> clearly prohibit activity such as the inflammatory message posted
> Friday evening, December 13, 1991.
I really hate to be put in the position of defending the civil rights of a low
life sea slug like 2714, but I have to support the right of free speech even
when it is used by those who don't value civil rights, so that it will still
be available if and when cretin like 2714 or David Duke come to power.
Advocating genocide (as opposed to threatening the life of an individual)
appears to fall under the first admendment, although I've been told that the
individual responsible can still be held legally responsible for harm done as a
result.
Censoring a mindless individual like 2714 gives their idea's a validity that
is undeserved, 2714 can now go around screaming PC and censorship rather
than having to defend indefensible ideas on there own non existant merits.
Please return 2714's account and remove there undeserved martyrdom.
P.S. I'm sure people are going to be screaming PC. Before you post a letter
about the horrors of PC censorship, please repost your letters condemning the
censorship of the Maplethorpe exhibit, and your letters to administrators who
where censoring alt.sex, and soc.motss, then someone might take you
seriously.
-------------------
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: taylorsm@milton.u.washington.edu (Allen TaylorSmith)
Subject: Re: Another censorship incident has just occurred
Message-ID: <1991Dec19.154007.27287@milton.u.washington.edu>
References: <1991Dec18.212555.149@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> <1991Dec18.221806.3518@milton.u.washington.edu> <1991Dec18.231646.1202@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 1991 15:40:07 GMT
In article <1991Dec18.231646.1202@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gl8f@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl) writes:
>In article <1991Dec18.221806.3518@milton.u.washington.edu> taylorsm@milton.u.washington.edu (Allen TaylorSmith) writes:
>
>>I think it would be germain to this discussion to look at where the principle
>>espoused here, shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater, originated.
>[...]
>
>Ah, so because something has been used to suppress speech once, we
>should never use it, even when hundreds of people are killed? My
>point was quite simple: people assume that "free speech" means any
>kind of speech, when it does not. Deciding where the line lies is an
>exercise for the reader and courts.
In my explanation of the origins of your original example, I clearly stated
that it was a case of aprior restraint. I do believe that people, are you
reading carefully here, have the right to stand up in a crowded theater and
yell fire. After all, some one particular person will be the first to
detect a fire. If people are killed or injured or there is property damage
but there was no fire, then the person who yelled fire should be held
accountable. However, _no one_ should be banned from the theater just because
someone is afraid that person _may_ yell fire. That is what the First
Amendment is about. And that is what I worry is being erroded.
--
--
==============================================================================
Allen D. TaylorSmith University of Washington taylorsm@cac.washington.edu
Information Systems Seattle, Washington USA Human 1st - World Citizen 2nd
-------------------
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: sterba@vax.sonoma.edu
Message-ID: <1991Dec19.160823.1@vax.sonoma.edu>
Subject: Re: Inappropriate Use by 2714sviatkos
Date: 19 Dec 91 16:08:23 -0800
References: <009534B5.604A6160@vms.csd.mu.edu> <1991Dec18.184619.28016@cs.yale.edu>
<1991Dec18.204330.9828@ssd.kodak.com> <1991Dec18.213548.16903@eff.org>
Nntp-Posting-Host: vax.sonoma.edu
>> /.../ unless you own the equipment and pay
>> the bills, you can't necessarily say what you want,
>> when you want to say it.
Isn't that precisely what went on in the USSR and still goes on in China?
Everything is owned "by the people", and therefore no-one can say anything in
the "people's newspaper" or on "people's TV" . This is because nothing
belongs to him/her, but "the people" (those in power), which of course will
not allow any dissenting views, or those against "the people" (those in power).
Since these large networks (USENET, etc.) do not belong to any one individual,
will we in the future have to deal with censorship as we send messages among
ourselves? Before any electronic message reaches its destination, it
frequently 'bounces' around and through a few intermediate nodes. Each node is
a computer run by a different organization. What if one of these will want to
supress any mention about certain subject, and will not allow messages
containing anything mentioning this subject through. They are part of the
network, yes, but just because YOU (or I) didn't pay their electricity bill or
maintance costs, should they have the power to do something like this?
--
-------------------------+----------------------------------------------------
Peter Sterba | My messages consist of my own opinions (may they be
Sonoma State University | 'right' or 'wrong') and do not necessarily reflect
Rohnert Park, California | the views or opinions of others at S.S.U.
-------------------------+----------------------------------------------------
Freedom of speech. It is what USA is all about.
Let's not have it slip between our fingers.
It has already happened at Marquette University, Milwaukee, WI.
It could happen to YOU, too!
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
8001mallinge@vms.csd.mu.edu wrote:
> Access code 2714sviatkos has been removed and the person involved
> is restricted from use of any Computer Services computing facilities.
> Our computer use policy as well as our network acceptable use policy
> clearly prohibit activity such as the inflammatory message posted
> Friday evening, December 13, 1991.
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> Ann Mallinger, User Services Manager
> Computer Services Division
> Marquette University
Dictatorship Studies Department
Current Project: Advancement of Totaliarism in the World
-------------------
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: rtsumn01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu
Subject: Re: Inappropriate Use by 2714sviatkos
Message-ID: <1991Dec19.111034.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu>
Date: 19 Dec 1991 16:10:34 GMT
In article <009534B5.604A6160@vms.csd.mu.edu>, 8001mallinge@vms.csd.mu.edu writes:
>
> Access code 2714sviatkos has been removed and the person involved
> is restricted from use of any Computer Services computing facilities.
> Our computer use policy as well as our network acceptable use policy
> clearly prohibit activity such as the inflammatory message posted
> Friday evening, December 13, 1991.
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> Ann Mallinger, User Services Manager
> Computer Services Division
> Marquette University
I didn't know there was such a thing as an inappropriate use of this network.
-m.
-------------------
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: case@diku.dk (Steven Snedker)
Subject: The naked Maja revisited
Summary: Naked Maja harrassing poor danish custumors.
Keywords: oh my
Message-ID: <1991Dec19.161054.1940@odin.diku.dk>
Date: 19 Dec 91 16:10:54 GMT
Sender: case@freja.diku.dk
IRONY ON
I've just encountered one of the most violent cases of sexual harrasment ever.
Peacefully strolling round the local supermarket I was viciously attacked by the
most horrible and revolting pornografic image I've ever seen. On the cover
of a package of slimming powder (dilute in water, then consume and slim) was
the harrassing picture of 'The Naked Maja' by the filthy pornographer Goya.
I let out a cry of despair. I immidiately thought of all the poor women
(and especially female american professors on vacation) who could get
severly harrased by looking at this atrocious picture. It depicted a n*ked
woman lying on a bed. Horror! Not only would this package harrass just by
being within sight, but proved a possible source of harrassment from
immature boys, who'd most surely use it as an excuse to bring forth sexist
remarks. Horrified I ran to the manager and complained. I demanded that he'd
remove the terribly offending image. I mean, it was there for everyone
to see! Children, Women, frail elderly people. And she was completely n*ked
and without any clothes, not even pants. I asked him how he dared display
such a harrassing item in the shop. But he refused to remove it, and instead
told me that I perhaps suffered from some mental disease. I proceeded to
threaten him with legal action, to which he just asked wheteher I was an
idiot, a subhuman, an american or all three. I left the shop disgruntled.
The picture is still there. In my distress I called club 700, and asked them
to include packages of slimming powder in their next heavy metal recordburning.
The overseas call cost a fortune, but at least somebody here understood my
problem with n*ked bodies. This way comforted I went to write this.
'Nupo' slimming powder is still on sale. A woman cannot avoid sexual
harrassment in a danish supermarket.
It's horrible, but true!
For a better world, remove 'The N*ked Maja'!
IRONY OFF
I'm genuinely impressed by the sordid state of things.
Steven Snedker | 'Have you got any dirty films?' 'No!' 'You BASTARD!'
goofy@diku.dk | -Mr. Jolly Lives Next Door
-------------------
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: hamlet@bach.udel.edu (Chris Adams)
Subject: Re: Inappropriate Use by 2714sviatkos
Message-ID: <18166@bach.udel.edu>
Date: 19 Dec 91 16:11:12 GMT
In article <1991Dec18.153332.1@vax.sonoma.edu> sterba@vax.sonoma.edu writes:
>> Access code 2714sviatkos has been removed and the person involved
>> is restricted from use of any Computer Services computing facilities.
>> Our computer use policy as well as our network acceptable use policy
>> clearly prohibit activity such as the inflammatory message posted
>> Friday evening, December 13, 1991.
>Wow. Freedom of speech at it's best. V-E-R-Y AMERICAN!
>V-E-R-Y POLITICALLY CORRECT! Bravo!
here's an auspicious start...
>It is one thing to be gay, bigot, homophobe, fashist, communist, whatever.
>It is one thing to be able to say what you think is right, what you believe in,
>whether it is currently a popular political/religious/social view.
>It is something else to NOT be able to say it (as misguided as it might be).
Even when your spending someone else's money?
Sorry, but if he's posting from someone else's site,
using an account for which he probably didn't pay,
then he has no business complaining if he gets his
account yanked.
>I am sure glad I am not part of "Marquette University",
Marquette, I suspect, probably shares your relief.
>it is probably
>somewhere in the middle of Gulag, or could it be part of the 'progressive'
>Chinese government?
Or maybe they just don't want their site getting a
reputation for producing idiots.
>Personally, do not share the religious views of the person who was bumped off
>the system, but I still sent a letter of condemnation to "Ann Mallinger" to
>tell them how I feel about it.
Did you do it 'cuz you actually gave a shit, or was
it for that wonderful feeling of moral superiority?
>We should not let this system become just another party-echo. Like the
>messages on this system or not, your own right to say what you feel like saying
>might be online sometime, too.
Not if you're paying your own bills.
--
"Why, if one wants to compare life to anything, one must
liken it to being blown through the Tube at fifty miles
an hour--landing at the other end without a single hair-
pin in one's hair!" --Virginia Woolf
-------------------
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: bh@anarres.Berkeley.EDU (Brian Harvey)
Subject: Re: Inappropriate Use by 2714sviatkos
Message-ID:
Date: 19 Dec 91 16:11:39 GMT
Article-I.D.: agate.kl1h5rINN6f8
References: <7104@tamsun.tamu.edu> <1991Dec19.143329.19682@njitgw.njit.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: anarres.berkeley.edu
dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap) writes:
>Come on! A school's computer has nothing to do with freedom of
>speech. It has to do with freedom of the press. Which only applies
>to those who HAVE a press. No outside agency can force Marquette U
>to censor those posts, but if they decide to of their own volition,
>it's their legal right.
A lot of people seem to think that law is the same as ethics. I keep
running into this in many different contexts. At a computer education
conference I attended a panel discussion about teaching computer ethics
and it turned out that the panelists all thought that meant teaching
kids not to break the law (e.g., about pirating software). Not only
was there no talk about unethical behavior that happens to be legal
(e.g., hoarding algorithms) but there was no talk about any POSITIVE
approach to ethical behavior (e.g., volunteering one's resources to a
good cause). Just obligations. Similarly, I took a course about the
ethics of psychotherapy that was entirely about how to cover one's ass
relative to legal codes of behavior.
In the current context, from reading a lot of postings one would think
that there are only two choices:
1. The first amendment requires colleges to allow anyone
to post anything.
2. The laws protecting the private ownership of property
make it okay for computer owners to restrict the use of
their computers in any way.
My feeling is that the first amendment applies specifically to government,
and it's important not to lose the concept that government is especially
powerful and therefore is subject to special constraints on the use of its
power. (I also understand that there are powerful private monopolies of
various kinds, that they must be restrained too, and that that complicates
the simple argument I've just made.) But an act of censorship could be
legal without being good policy.
The widespread divestment by universities in stocks of companies doing
business in South Africa, for example, had nothing to do with legal rights
or obligations. It had everything to do with public pressure and an idea
about social responsibility. The special protection offered to tenured
university faculty who say politically unpopular things is another example;
it is based in custom, not in law.
Even just from a tactical point of view, this is not a good time to rely on
the first amendment, since the US government is working hard to dismantle
it. Arguments about the possible illegality of censorship are good
secondary arguments, but the key point is that censorhip by any school of
its students is a bad idea in terms of the school's educational mission.
It's a misdirection of energy to get into big arguments about whether some
instance of censorship is legal.
-------------------
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: baptist@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (BAPTIST ROBERT PITMAN)
Subject: Re: Inappropriate Use by 2714sviatkos
Message-ID: <1991Dec19.162912.3557@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>
Date: 19 Dec 91 16:29:12 GMT
In article <009534B5.604A6160@vms.csd.mu.edu> 8001mallinge@vms.csd.mu.edu writes:
>
> Access code 2714sviatkos has been removed and the person involved
> is restricted from use of any Computer Services computing facilities.
> Our computer use policy as well as our network acceptable use policy
> clearly prohibit activity such as the inflammatory message posted
> Friday evening, December 13, 1991.
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> Ann Mallinger, User Services Manager
> Computer Services Division
> Marquette University
I read the message posted by 2714sviatkos and it while it was
"inflammatory", wrong, sick, and ignorant, does that warrant the supression
of speech period? Obviously Marquette's policy (and probably the policy at
most schools) says so, which I can understand. But when does someone
become too stupid to post on the net?
And what about sviatkos now... So the person is kicked off of Marquette's
computing services system. Does that change his/her's views? Is that
"punishment" going to reform the person into not being an ass? On the
contrary, I think it would just further inflame the ignorance and
misunderstanding that this person has.
People like that should be allowed to post so it stimulates discussions
like the ones which have been going on here. Perhaps then, idealistically,
we can all learn more from the discussion. (And maybe, but not probably
someone like sviatkos would learn something.) We can also see by the
ignorance of what people post how far we have to go before we achieve real
human understanding in our society.
- Robert
-------------------
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: hamlet@bach.udel.edu (Chris Adams)
Subject: Re: Inappropriate Use by 2714sviatkos
Message-ID: <18167@bach.udel.edu>
Date: 19 Dec 91 16:35:41 GMT
In article <1991Dec18.191453.27598@dsd.es.com> galt@toddler.dsd.es.com (Greg Alt - Perp) writes:
>If their university is like most, the "computer use policy" is so restrictive
>that everything is forbidden. Then, if they don't like something, they
>can selectively enforce the policy. (e.g. At the University of Utah, the
>policy is something like "Computers can only be used for work directly related
>to school work".)
You mean to tell me that U of U actually requires
students to use computer time on actual assignments
rather than wasting it on news or games?
You mean they actually expect equipment to be put
to the use for which it was purchased?
You mean they expect students to...gasp...study?
The nerve of some people!
--
"Why, if one wants to compare life to anything, one must
liken it to being blown through the Tube at fifty miles
an hour--landing at the other end without a single hair-
pin in one's hair!" --Virginia Woolf
-------------------
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: hamlet@bach.udel.edu (Chris Adams)
Subject: Re: Inappropriate Use by 2714sviatkos
Message-ID: <18168@bach.udel.edu>
Date: 19 Dec 91 16:41:53 GMT
In article <7103@tamsun.tamu.edu> cnh5730@maraba.tamu.edu (Charles Herrick) writes:
>Listen up Marquette and Ann Mallinger. The poster was indescribably cruel and
>ignorant, but you are worse. You are censors of freedom of speech, and as a
It's not free. Someone has to pay for it.
>You, Marquette University and Ann Mallinger, are far more evil than the
>ignorant poster.
evil? come now...
>You, and all those who participated in this decision at
>Marquette, should be immediately and summarily fired
Oh, now that's a subtle irony, isn't it?
>and kept from ever working
>in any official capacity for any public entity ever again.
I may be wrong, but I don't think Marquette IS a public
entity.
--
"Why, if one wants to compare life to anything, one must
liken it to being blown through the Tube at fifty miles
an hour--landing at the other end without a single hair-
pin in one's hair!" --Virginia Woolf
-------------------
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.censorship, et al.] Re: Inappropriate Use by 2714sviatkos
Message-ID: <9112200446.AA03384@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 19 Dec 91 16:46:03 GMT
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.censorship] Re: Another censorship incident has just occurred
Message-ID: <9112200446.AA03402@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 19 Dec 91 16:46:15 GMT
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.censorship] Re: Another censorship incident has just occurred
Message-ID: <9112200446.AA03435@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 19 Dec 91 16:46:56 GMT
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.censorship] Re: Another censorship incident has just occurred
Message-ID: <9112200447.AA03456@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 19 Dec 91 16:47:15 GMT
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.censorship] Re: Another censorship incident has just occurred
Message-ID: <9112200447.AA03512@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 19 Dec 91 16:47:52 GMT
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.activism, et al.] Re: Inappropriate Use by 2714sviatkos
Message-ID: <9112200449.AA03539@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 19 Dec 91 16:49:13 GMT
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: entropy@wintermute.WPI.EDU (Lawrence C. Foard)
Subject: Re: Inappropriate Use by 2714sviatkos
Message-ID: <1991Dec19.165605.23863@wpi.WPI.EDU>
Date: 19 Dec 91 16:56:05 GMT
Here is what I posted to alt.sex in response to the thread, I'm reposting it
here since the argument seems to have spread:
In article <009534B5.604A6160@vms.csd.mu.edu> 8001mallinge@vms.csd.mu.edu writes:
>
> Access code 2714sviatkos has been removed and the person involved
> is restricted from use of any Computer Services computing facilities.
> Our computer use policy as well as our network acceptable use policy
> clearly prohibit activity such as the inflammatory message posted
> Friday evening, December 13, 1991.
I really hate to be put in the position of defending the civil rights of a low
life sea slug like 2714, but I have to support the right of free speech even
when it is used by those who don't value civil rights, so that it will still
be available if and when cretin like 2714 or David Duke come to power.
Advocating genocide (as opposed to threatening the life of an individual)
appears to fall under the first admendment, although I've been told that the
individual responsible can still be held legally responsible for harm done as a
result.
Censoring a mindless individual like 2714 gives their idea's a validity that
is undeserved, 2714 can now go around screaming PC and censorship rather
than having to defend indefensible ideas on there own non existant merits.
Please return 2714's account and remove there undeserved martyrdom.
P.S. I'm sure people are going to be screaming PC. Before you post a letter
about the horrors of PC censorship, please repost your letters condemning the
censorship of the Maplethorpe exhibit, and your letters to administrators who
where censoring alt.sex, and soc.motss, then someone might take you
seriously.
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 cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: hamlet@bach.udel.edu (Chris Adams)
Subject: Re: Inappropriate Use by 2714sviatkos
Message-ID: <18169@bach.udel.edu>
Date: 19 Dec 91 16:59:11 GMT
In article <1991Dec19.142404.22378@m.cs.uiuc.edu> kadie@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>Joint Statement on Rights and Freedoms of Students
What is the source of this statement? Who are the
signatories? When was it written?
In this statement, I find two statements that pertain
to the discussion at hand.
>"B. Freedom of Inquiry and Expression
>The institutional control of campus facilities should not
>be used as a device of censorship. It should be made clear to the
This statement by itself is suggestive, but in context,
it refers to the allocation of lecture space for guest
speakers, lecture space which is usually cost-free and,
in evening hours at least, not in very high demand.
>"D. Student Publications
> Whenever possible the student newspaper should be an
>independent corporation financially and legally separate
>from the university.
I assume you included this section with the idea that
usenet postings constitute a student publication. I
think that in itself is debatable, but we'll let it
stand. If, like a student paper, the computing facilities
were financially independent and legally seperate, then
perhaps the intellectual freedom thing would be an issue,
but they're not and it's not.
--
"Why, if one wants to compare life to anything, one must
liken it to being blown through the Tube at fifty miles
an hour--landing at the other end without a single hair-
pin in one's hair!" --Virginia Woolf
-------------------
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: young@co2.serum.kodak.com (Rich Young (x37176))
Subject: Re: Inappropriate Use by 2714sviatkos
Message-ID: <1991Dec19.170230.12325@ssd.kodak.com>
Keywords: free speech
Sender: news@ssd.kodak.com
References: <1991Dec18.184619.28016@cs.yale.edu> <1991Dec18.204330.9828@ssd.kodak.com> <1991Dec18.213548.16903@eff.org>
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 91 17:02:30 GMT
In article <1991Dec18.213548.16903@eff.org>
kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>In article <1991Dec18.204330.9828@ssd.kodak.com> young@co2.serum.kodak.com (Rich Young (x37176)) writes:
>
>[...]
>
>> There is a basic tenet being missed here...and probably in other posts
>> I've not yet read, and that is: unless you own the equipment and pay
>> the bills, you can't necessarily say what you want, when you want to
>> say it. You can't yell "Fire!" in a crowded movie theater (unless,
>> of course, there IS one :-}) without being penalized, either. Free
>> speech is not absolute; it is limited to those occasions where it
>> does not cause harm to someone or something else. Yelling "Fire!"
>> might well cause physical injury to the theater patrons as they rush
>> to escape, and postings such as that from 2714sviatkos might well
>> cause injury to the reputation of the university from which it came,
>> since it could have been interpreted as representative of the
>> university itself.
>[...]
>
>In other words, since freedom of the press belongs to those who own
>presses, a private university can do anything it wants with the media
>that it owns, right?
You may think it's not right, but this IS the reality. There is no
law which says that anyone MUST participate in the promulgation
of ANY idea. Marquette University [apparently] chooses not to
participate in the dissemination of ideas such as that expressed
by 2714sviatkos, and, since it owns the means used, it has the
right to elect not to allow it __over its own equipment__!
Please note that this decision, IN NO WAY, attempts to prevent
2714sviatkos from spouting drivel through some OTHER means. Burning
the flag is permitted, but NOT if it belongs to your neighbor.
>
>But, like any organziation, a private univeristy must work within its
>charter. The charters of most private university's guarentee that the
>university will be free of institutional censorship. If they
>have fears for their reputation, they can require disclaimers.
Absolutely. And 2714sviatkos violated this implied agreement by not
using one. Now, I don't know whether Marquette specifically asks for
one or not, but responsible use implies addition of a disclaimer
whenever one says something which might incorrectly reflect on the
organization as a whole. I doubt that many would object to the
most outrageous of statements...as long as the author makes it
cyrstal clear that the opinions are not shared by the whole. How
many Marquette students do you think believe in the same dogma as
the late, unlamented 2714sviatkos?
-Rich (young@serum.kodak.com)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My opinions are not necessarily shared by my employer, and extremism in
support of ANYTHING cannot be justified!
"It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral
busybodies...those who torment us 'for our own good' will torment us without
end, for they do so with the approval of their consciences." - C. S. Lewis
-------------------
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: ACM023@Zeus.unomaha.edu (Ed Stastny ACMM)
Subject: Re: Inappropriate Use by 2714sviatkos
Message-ID: <1991Dec19.171241.14726@news.unomaha.edu>
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 1991 17:12:41 GMT
> > Our computer use policy as well as our network acceptable use policy
> > clearly prohibit activity such as the inflammatory message posted
> > Friday evening, December 13, 1991.
>
>
> Now I am confused. Which person committed the greater act of being evil, the
> person who wrote the original posting, or the person who took away that
> person's right to free speech?
He can still say what he wants, but he violated the contract of a private
system so he's now denied access. I tend to agree with you, though...I
wouldn't delete someone for what they said or advocated...merely for what
they did (if it was damaging...such as hacking pwords, killing files, etc).
I do think, though, it is not a violation of any of his rights to delete
him from the system. Supposedly he knew the "code of conduct" the computer
operators required...they have every right to refuse access.
In essence...I don't think there is any "evil" here. Only consequences. He
took the risk, he suffered the consequences. It was his choice to be on that
system and to break the rules. Let me separate this from a GOVERNMENTAL right
to exact punishment on those who offend.
-------------------
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: entropy@wintermute.WPI.EDU (Lawrence C. Foard)
Subject: Re: Another censorship incident has just occurred
Message-ID: <1991Dec19.172107.17039@wpi.WPI.EDU>
Date: 19 Dec 91 17:21:07 GMT
In article <9763@ns-mx.uiowa.edu> jones@pyrite.cs.uiowa.edu (Douglas W. Jones,201H MLH,3193350740,3193382879) writes:
>What worries me about this posting is that it is so corny! It reads like
>a parody of the kinds of anti-homosexual flames that are fairly common on
>the net. I won't place any bets, but there is a real chance that this is
>a prank posting by someone else who got access to the account named
>2714sviatkos.
I think there is a good chance it was serious, the "real" world is full of
psycho's who try to rationalize there murderous urges and actions using BS
like this. Many closet sadists distort religion and other philosophy's as an
excuse to get off while inflicting pain on non consenting people.
However even Charles Mansion has the right to free speech, I would rather see
people like 2714 free to spout there demented sewage and possibly be talked
out of there delusions, than having potential psycho killers festering
silently.
-------------------
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: berninge@radium.ecn.purdue.edu (James A Berninger)
Subject: Re: Inappropriate Use by 2714sviatkos
Message-ID: <1991Dec19.173014.24606@noose.ecn.purdue.edu>
Date: 19 Dec 1991 17:30:14 GMT
In article <1991Dec19.154732.29142@wpi.WPI.EDU> entropy@wintermute.WPI.EDU (Lawrence C. Foard) writes:
>In article <009534B5.604A6160@vms.csd.mu.edu> 8001mallinge@vms.csd.mu.edu writes:
>> Access code 2714sviatkos has been removed and the person involved
>> is restricted from use of any Computer Services computing facilities.
>> Our computer use policy as well as our network acceptable use policy
>> clearly prohibit activity such as the inflammatory message posted
>> Friday evening, December 13, 1991.
>
>I really hate to be put in the position of defending the civil rights of a low
>life sea slug like 2714, but I have to support the right of free speech even
>when it is used by those who don't value civil rights, so that it will still
>be available if and when cretin like 2714 or David Duke come to power.
I never thought I'd be defending what appears to be censorship,
either. But, I have to recognize that Marquette University, the
proper owners of the computers used to post the original message,
have every right to say how their machines will be used. Just as
people can be kicked out of Cracker Barrel for driving away
customers, if Marquette thinks that 2714sviatkos abused their
property, then don't let him do it again. It's private property.
Mr. 2714sciatkos still has the right to state his opinion, but he
must do it in a way that does not violate the rights of others on
the way. This is why newspapers have editorial columns, why people
stand on corners handing out flyers, and the like. Make yourself
heard, but if you want to use other people's property along the way,
play by their rules.
Disclaimer: You didn't actually think that Purdue would have an
opinion, did you? Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!
Jim Berninger (for the moment) ______ "This is no 'Whoops!' This is
B0 w- c- g k s- e r- p \ / an 'Aaaaaaaauuuuuggggghhhh!'"
berninge@cn.ecn.purdue.edu \ / - Harvey ("Arnold") Fierstein
Green Lantern Fan, Extraordinaire \/ "Torch Song Trilogy"
--------------------
--
Helen C. O'Boyle | Co-moderator, Computers and Academic Freedom list
helen@eff.org | << insert usual disclaimer here... my opinions
isy5hob@cabell.vcu.edu | are mine alone, not EFF's or VCU's, etc. >>
From warnold Fri Jan 17 10:00:27 1992
Received: by eff.org id AA20451
(5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for cafb-list@eff.org); Fri, 17 Jan 1992 15:00:31 -0500
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: news policy at iowa state
Message-ID: <1991Dec19.175822.21404@eff.org>
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 1991 17:58:22 GMT
[This is a copy of email that Mike Godwin (mnemonic@eff.org) has sent
to Iowa State University. It is posted with the author's permission.
- Carl]
Dear Mr. Kunz,
Hello, my name is Mike Godwin, and I'm staff counsel at the Electronic
Frontier Foundation. A student at Iowa State has forwarded to me a
copy of your recent message concerning new policies for "Focused,"
"Standard," and "Full" news lists. In your notice, you say the
following:
"The Standard offering will be the default for campus use. The
excluded lists are those which by their name and accompanying description
appear to offer potential conflicts with law, (particularly with child
protection and pornography law) or with policies such as the sexual
harassment policy."
I am somewhat familiar with the newsgroups you are excluding, but
as a lawyer I am unclear on the perceived "potential conflicts"
you see with "child protection and pornography law." Federal law
concerning child pornography focuses on the "visual depiction"
the production of which uses a minor engaging in sexually explicit
conduct. (18 USC 2252)
Moreover, the Supreme Court has held that the First Amendment
protects material that is not obscene, defining "obscene" as
"whether the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient
interest, whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive
way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state
law, and whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary,
artistic, political, or scientific value." Miller v. California,
413 U.S. 14 (1974).
So far as I know, none of the groups you are excluding has ever
violated the child-pornography statutes (to do so would almost
certainly require the transmission in a public newsgroup of a
"visual depiction" of children engaging in sexual acts, or, perhaps,
a conspiracy to create such a depiction).
In addition, none of the text newsgroups you specify would likely
meet all three prongs of the Miller v. California obscenity test.
(As a practical matter, obscenity prosecutions for textual material
have all but disappeared in this country.)
I am assuming that Iowa State is a state university, and therefore
is bound by the 14th Amendment in formulating its sexual-harassment
policy. Presumably, such a policy can accommodate the need to free
your university environment from sexual harassment without limiting
access to newsgroups, just as it likely does not require limiting
access to the D.H. Lawrence, Henry Miller, and Norman Mailer
collections in your library system.
Finally, it is unclear to me how the drug-related groups run any
risk at all of violating either the laws you mention (child-protection
and pornography law) or laws that you *don't* mention (presumably
anti-drug laws). Discussions of drugs and their effects (including
illegal drugs and their effects) is fully protected by the First
Amendment.
I should add that I understand fully how the sheer volume of
material may be a factor in your system's choice not to carry
any of the picture-oriented newsgroups, and that if this is your
motivation for excluding these groups from the Standard list,
it is uncontroversial as far as we are concerned.
If I have misunderstood or misstated your concerns with regard
to these newsgroups, please let me know. At EFF, we are deeply
interested in policies that leave choices about what to read
to the individual Usenet user.
--Mike Godwin
Staff Counsel
Electronic Frontier Foundation
--
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 cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.evil] Re: Inappropriate Use by 2714sviatkos
Message-ID: <9112200603.AA07250@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 19 Dec 91 18:03:23 GMT
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.sex, et al.] Re: Inappropriate Use by 2714sviatkos
Message-ID: <9112200603.AA10162@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 19 Dec 91 18:03:53 GMT
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.activism] Re: Inappropriate Use by 2714sviatkos
Message-ID: <9112200604.AA10215@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 19 Dec 91 18:04:15 GMT
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Inappropriate Use by 2714sviatkos
Message-ID: <1991Dec19.180644.21794@eff.org>
Keywords: free speech
References: <1991Dec18.184619.28016@cs.yale.edu> <1991Dec18.204330.9828@ssd.kodak.com> <1991Dec18.213548.16903@eff.org> <1991Dec19.170230.12325@ssd.kodak.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 1991 18:06:44 GMT
In article <1991Dec18.213548.16903@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl M.
Kadie) writes:
>But, like any organziation, a private univeristy must work within its
>charter. The charters of most private university's guarentee that the
>university will be free of institutional censorship. If they
>have fears for their reputation, they can require disclaimers.
young@co2.serum.kodak.com (Rich Young (x37176)) writes:
[...]
> Absolutely. And 2714sviatkos violated this implied agreement by not
> using one. Now, I don't know whether Marquette specifically asks for
> one or not, but responsible use implies addition of a disclaimer
> whenever one says something which might incorrectly reflect on the
> organization as a whole. I doubt that many would object to the
> most outrageous of statements...as long as the author makes it
> cyrstal clear that the opinions are not shared by the whole. How
> many Marquette students do you think believe in the same dogma as
> the late, unlamented 2714sviatkos?
[...]
I believe the article did include a disclaimer.
I note that s/he was not accused of lack-of-disclaimer (or of the
catch-all "being off-topic"), s/he was accused of posting an
"inflammatory message".
- 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.
--------------------
--
Helen C. O'Boyle | Co-moderator, Computers and Academic Freedom list
helen@eff.org | << insert usual disclaimer here... my opinions
isy5hob@cabell.vcu.edu | are mine alone, not EFF's or VCU's, etc. >>
From helen Fri Dec 20 12:29:28 1991
Received: by eff.org id AA10705
(5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for cafb-list@eff.org); Fri, 20 Dec 1991 17:29:35 -0500
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.activism] Re: Inappropriate Use by 2714sviatkos
Message-ID: <9112200612.AA10586@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 19 Dec 91 18:12:06 GMT
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.activism] Re: Inappropriate Use by 2714sviatkos
Message-ID: <9112200612.AA09929@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 19 Dec 91 18:12:25 GMT
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.activism] Re: Inappropriate Use by 2714sviatkos
Message-ID: <9112200613.AA10755@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 19 Dec 91 18:13:08 GMT
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: trd54583@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Sir Dobro the Un4gvn)
Subject: Re: Inappropriate Use by 2714sviatkos
Message-ID: <1991Dec19.181850.11880@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 1991 18:18:50 GMT
> There is a basic tenet being missed here...and probably in other posts
> of course, there IS one :-}) without being penalized, either. Free
> speech is not absolute; it is limited to those occasions where it
> does not cause harm to someone or something else.
If free speech is not absolute, then is it really free? Rather than saying it
has limits, free speech has responsibilities. Foremost is the responsibility
to accept the consequences of what you say. I'm sure the dickhead who posted
the message knew what he might have been getting himself into. Anyway, maybe
my head's up in the clouds, but I think we there should be unlimited free
speech AND people should have somewhat of a clue as to the consequences of
what they say and should deal with what happens.
> to escape, and postings such as that from 2714sviatkos might well
> cause injury to the reputation of the university from which it came,
> since it could have been interpreted as representative of the
> university itself.
Oh please, that's the biggest cop out explanation a university (or anyone)
can give for censorship. Anyway, is there a bit of a double standard here?
I mean, I haven't heard of universities restricting or taking away accounts
from people who say GOOD things about 'em.
I think people on the net know that opinions expressed are usually idividual
opinions, usually addressed from some person rather than "University of ....
Official Statement" Besides, I live in America, yet I'm not representing the
United States with my opinions; I'm human, yet I don't speak for the whole
human race....
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Tom Dobrowolsky Watch this space for future coming
trd54583@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu attractions.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
trd54583@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
B
B
-------------------
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.sex] Re: Inappropriate Use by 2714sviatkos
Message-ID: <9112200631.AA11552@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 19 Dec 91 18:31:34 GMT
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.activism] Re: Inappropriate Use by 2714sviatkos
Message-ID: <9112200631.AA11565@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 19 Dec 91 18:31:48 GMT
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.sex] Re: Inappropriate Use by 2714sviatkos
Message-ID: <9112200632.AA11230@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 19 Dec 91 18:32:16 GMT
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: merton@sumter.cso.uiuc.edu (Joseph Merton)
Subject: Banned Computer Material 1991
Message-ID: <9112191932.AA13509@sumter.cso.uiuc.edu>
Sender: merton@sumter.cso.uiuc.edu
Date: 19 Dec 91 19:32:41 GMT
About September this year I wrote a Star Trek parady and posted it to Rec.arts.startrek. The story had explicit language and sexual references. I posted a
warning at the beginning of the story, telling the readers of the content, and
explicity warned them, that if the material was offensive to them, do not read
it. I guess some can't read. In spite of the warning, people who found the
material offensive still read it. My mailbox was full of two types of messages:praise and requests for copies of the story, yes there were many people who
found it hilarious, and thought that it broke the die-hard seriousness of the
group; and violent personal attacks, the type where people want to know where
I live. I responded to both types. It seems that, as fast as I posted the
story, it was quickly taken down. Even some of my posted repsonses to the personal attacks were removed. I mailed the attackers my comments. They mailed me
back, and after a while, the entire group was involved in a flame war, the people for the story versus the people against it. In the end it seems that the
cons won. The last part of the story never appeared on the net,even though I posted it, and my account was suspened. Now it's December, it seems that this
account from where I'm writing will be going down soon. Yes, censorship sucks,
even on the final free frontier. My net privileges will be cut for voicing my views, and protecting myself against physical threats. I think I might even consider myself lucky, at least I wasnt kicked out of school like that guy from
Ohio State....
X->J. Merton<-X
-------------------
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: hamlet@ravel.udel.edu (Chris Adams)
Subject: Re: Inappropriate Use by 2714sviatkos
Keywords: free speech
Message-ID: <18149@ravel.udel.edu>
Date: 19 Dec 91 20:03:13 GMT
References: <1991Dec18.204330.9828@ssd.kodak.com> <1991Dec18.213548.16903@eff.org> <1991Dec19.170230.12325@ssd.kodak.com>
Followup-To: alt.activism
In article <1991Dec19.170230.12325@ssd.kodak.com> young@co2.serum.kodak.com (Rich Young (x37176)) writes:
>In article <1991Dec18.213548.16903@eff.org>
> kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>>have fears for their reputation, they can require disclaimers.
> Absolutely. And 2714sviatkos violated this implied agreement by not
> using one.
um...did you...uh...read the original post?
Perhaps you should do so, paying particular
attention to the last three or four lines.
--
"Why, if one wants to compare life to anything, one must
liken it to being blown through the Tube at fifty miles
an hour--landing at the other end without a single hair-
pin in one's hair!" --Virginia Woolf
-------------------
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: cnh5730@maraba.tamu.edu (Charles Herrick)
Subject: Re: Another censorship incident has just occurred
Message-ID: <7130@tamsun.tamu.edu>
Date: 19 Dec 91 20:25:53 GMT
References: <9763@ns-mx.uiowa.edu>
Sender: usenet@tamsun.tamu.edu
Followup-To: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
In article <9763@ns-mx.uiowa.edu> jones@pyrite.cs.uiowa.edu (Douglas W.
Jones,201H MLH,3193350740,3193382879) writes:
** Access code 2714sviatkos has been removed and the person involved
** is restricted from use of any Computer Services computing facilities.
** From: 2714sviatkos@vms.csd.mu.edu
** Subject: Faggots must die!!
[...]
* I wonder about the speed of the official response from the
* administrators at Marquette. The punishment seems to have been imposed
* within 4 days of the posting. Was this long enough to allow for due
* process?
[...]
Has anyone attempted to advise 2714sviatkosvms.csd.mu.edu (Marquette
University) to recommend that (s)he immediately contact the ACLU and acquire
counsel to initiate legal proceedings against Marquette University and Ann
Mallinger, User Services Manager at Marquette University? I have sent h(im/er)
email to that effect. Please join in trying to contact this person.
Personally, I find h(is/er) speech incredibly offensive, but if we let these
techno-nazis get away with this, who knows who'll be speaking out about
anything on USENET in the future?
Chuck Herrick
-------------------
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: tmca@astro.as.utexas.edu (Tim Abbott)
Subject: Re: Inappropriate Use by 2714sviatkos
Message-ID: <64136@ut-emx.uucp>
Date: 19 Dec 91 20:29:37 GMT
In article <18166@bach.udel.edu> hamlet@bach.udel.edu (Chris Adams) writes:
>Even when your spending someone else's money?
>Sorry, but if he's posting from someone else's site,
>using an account for which he probably didn't pay,
>then he has no business complaining if he gets his
>account yanked.
1) He isn't complaining. He can't: he's had his account "yanked".
2) If he's registered at said university, he's no doubt paying fees
and therefore he's spending his own money.
3) Despite (2), the upshot of what you're saying is that money
gives the right to an opinion, or rather, the right to express
that opinion. I never did like the phrase "money talks", and it's
people like this that give reality to the metaphor.
--
Tim Abbott | "out there in the darkness, out there in the night
Astronomy, UTexas Austin | out there in the starlight, one soul burns
tmca@astro.as.utexas.edu | brighter than a thousand suns." - Simple Minds
-------------------
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: cnh5730@maraba.tamu.edu (Charles Herrick)
Subject: Re: Another censorship incident has just occurred
Message-ID: <7132@tamsun.tamu.edu>
Date: 19 Dec 91 20:39:32 GMT
In article <3637@aldebaran.cs.nps.navy.mil> schweige@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil
(Jeffrey M. Schweiger) writes:
> Since Marquette University, I believe, is a private institution, the only
> "rights" the individual who lost computer privileges has are contractual
ones.
> We have yet to see a posting spelling those out. It is quite possible that
> what was done is completely legal.
>
> I won't argue whether or not Marquette's actions were appropriate, or
> ethical, but until I see evidence to the contrary, I'll believe them to be
> legal.
>
> As a reality reminder, here are a couple of excerpts from Gene Spafford's
> "What is Usenet":
>
> "WHAT USENET IS NOT
[... long diatribe by SPAF trying to decide for everyone what USENET _*IS*_
deleted]
1) Private entities are just as bound by the U.S. Constitution as public
entities. Can this really be that difficult to understand?
2) Why do justifications of censorship on "the net" always devolve into
techno-squabbles about who owns the computers and who pays for the net and
other ridiculous arguments?
3) Spaf's great, but the fact is that _*NOW*_, in 1991, the USENET is a
wide-access forum for opinion and speech. Speech on USENET is speech, and
entities in AmeriKa, whether private or public _*SHOULD*_ have _*NO*_ right to
engage in censorship.
4) I hope the student at Marquette had the foresight to contact the ACLU and
get a lawyer and I hope (s)he sues the living daylights out of Marquette
University and Ann Mallinger, User Services Manager at Marquette University.
Apparently, you have to drag these admin-fascists into court every other month
or they forget that censorship is anti-AmeriKan.
Chuck Herrick
-------------------
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: cnh5730@maraba.tamu.edu (Charles Herrick)
Subject: Re: Another censorship incident has just occurred
Message-ID: <7133@tamsun.tamu.edu>
Date: 19 Dec 91 20:42:44 GMT
References: <7130@tamsun.tamu.edu>
Sender: usenet@tamsun.tamu.edu
In article <7130@tamsun.tamu.edu> cnh5730@maraba.tamu.edu (Charles Herrick)
writes:
* Has anyone attempted to advise 2714sviatkos@vms.csd.mu.edu (Marquette
* University) to recommend that 2714sviatkos immediately contact the ACLU and
* acquire
* counsel to initiate legal proceedings against Marquette University and Ann
* Mallinger, User Services Manager at Marquette University? I have sent
h(im/er)
* email to that effect.
Sigh. here's the result:
--snip-snip--
----- Transcript of session follows -----
550 2714sviatkosvms.csd.mu.edu... User unknown
----- Unsent message follows -----
--snip-snip--
Welcome to AmeriKa, land of the free and home of the brave (new world).
Chuck Herrick
-------------------
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: gl8f@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl)
Subject: Re: Another censorship incident has just occurred
Message-ID: <1991Dec19.212057.22643@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
Date: 19 Dec 91 21:20:57 GMT
In article <7132@tamsun.tamu.edu> cnh5730@maraba.tamu.edu (Charles Herrick) writes:
>1) Private entities are just as bound by the U.S. Constitution as public
>entities. Can this really be that difficult to understand?
Obviously it is, given the way you seem to interpret things.
>2) Why do justifications of censorship on "the net" always devolve into
>techno-squabbles about who owns the computers and who pays for the net and
>other ridiculous arguments?
Because you don't have the right to force a private newspaper owner to
print your words on his press. There's an example of #1. But you sound
very sincere at least.
-------------------
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (Jonathan Greenfield)
Subject: Re: Another censorship incident has just occurred
Message-ID: <1991Dec19.212650.9822@rodan.acs.syr.edu>
References: <1991Dec18.194423.28973@zip.eecs.umich.edu> <1991Dec18.212555.149@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> <1991Dec18.191849.28698@rodan.acs.syr.edu> <1991Dec19.011151.2159@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 91 21:26:50 EST
In article <1991Dec19.011151.2159@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gl8f@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl) writes:
>
>>Yes it *IS* censorship to prohibit someone from shouting "Fire!" in a crowded
>>theatre.
>
>But I don't think it is necessarily censorship. Looks like you and I
>don't define language the same way. Amazing what diversity you can
>find on this planet...
Ok, I'll bite on this one (again). Please give us your proposed definition
of censorship (which presumably has some twist so that it does not apply to
expression that is objectionable to a suitably large enough group of
people?).
I've already posted (on several occasions during the Doonesbury debate) the
Webster definition of censorship. By *that* definition, the above is
clearly censorship...
(And, hurrah, we don't even have to get into the discussion of editing vs.
censorship, right? I hope that nobody out there is going to try to argue
that the above should be considered 'editorial' action!!!)
greeny greeny@top.cis.syr.edu
"What's the difference between an orange?"
-------------------
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: dmittleman@misvax.mis.arizona.edu (Daniel David Mittleman)
Subject: Governing of campus computer conferencing
Summary: Inquiry into how it might be done
Message-ID: <19DEC199115030674@misvax.mis.arizona.edu>
Date: 19 Dec 91 22:03:00 GMT
Article-I.D.: misvax.19DEC199115030674
References: <7130@tamsun.tamu.edu> <7133@tamsun.tamu.edu>
Distribution: world,local
Nntp-Posting-Host: misvax.mis.arizona.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41
Beacuse a recent incident of possible harassment/possible exercise
of free speech on VAXnotes at this campus has caused the student
conferencing community and the relevent administrators to realize
that we have no policies, guidelines, or rules to manage the
process, we now have some administrators sitting down and trying
to write rules.
Several of us (students and administrators working together - can
you imagine that!) would like to take this opportunity to put into
place appropriate due process procedures and to establish some
sort of judiciary body to hear complaints (so that complaints are not
decided by the same administrators who are functioning as
prosecutors.)
Does anyone out there have a workable system at their school that
they might be willing to share? Does anyone have some specific
guidelines, resources, or constraints that we should know about?
Does EFF have some documents that might be relevent to our
situation?
I would appreciate e-mail or postings that would help up put
together a healthy and effective set of procedures.
danny
===========================================================================
daniel david mittleman - danny@arizona.edu - (602) 621-2932
probably important to state here I am only speaking for me in this
posting - not for our computer center, lovable people that they
are :>
-------------------
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: alberti@ux.acs.umn.edu (Timothy Fay)
Subject: Re: Inappropriate Use by 2714sviatkos
Message-ID:
Date: 19 Dec 91 22:17:58 GMT
Perhaps the most unfortunate thing about this whole incident is that
it does nothing to address the homophobia at the heart of "Steve"'s
post. I'd be willing to bet that 2714sviatkos probably hates gays
even more than ever, now. While the University is well within its
rights to restict his access to their facilities, I think they may
have just made a bad situation worse...
--
Reply to: avatar@pnet51.orb.mn.org
"Bowl a strike, not a spare; Revolution everywhere!" -RABL credo
-------------------
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: kudwarf@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
Subject: Re: The USENET pornographic network
Message-ID: <1991Dec19.221832.36510@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu>
Date: 19 Dec 91 22:18:32 CST
In article <1991Dec13.082053.23933@math.ufl.edu>, snarler@maple.circa.ufl.edu (Drifter...) writes:
> In article , fischer@iesd.auc.dk (Lars P. Fischer) writes:
>>>>>>> "Eric" == J Eric Townsend (jet@karazm.math.uh.edu)
>>>> The german version of EMMA has published in its current issue
>>>> an article about the USENET, an academic network used mainly
>>>> for transmission of pornographic material.
>
> Hmmm, the Germans must have gotten an extra does of Stupidity that day...
> Any short-term analysis of the net will show that the vast bulk of information
> being transmitted is non-sexual... Maybe 1 percent of all the total newsgroups
> on USENET (which numbers over 1,300) have anything to do with sex. And of
> course, only about half a percent of the alt.sex newsgroup volume is actual
> sexually explicit material.
> The majority of mailing lists are non-sexual in nature. THe VAST bulk of
> USENET material seems to be sources for all sorts of programs for unix and
> unix-like operating systems, as well as personal computers and other OS's...
> Then you got all the constant discussion on political and social topics,
> current events, quite a bit on mass media (TV, Books, Movies)...
I think the main complaint was that the pornographic material newsgroups were
being carried AT ALL.
The usual Puritanical complaint, from people who are scared shitless when they
discover FOR CERTAIN that somewhere, someone is actually having fun...
>
>
> |=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|
> | Drifter... Homo Postmortemus |
> | ~~Annuit Coeptis Novus Ordo Seclorum~~ |
> | ObQuote: The sweating, bruised, insect-bitten, food-splattered priest |
> | said "Where's your external data tap?" --The Exorcist |
> | ObClaim: Freedom isn't a right, it's a state of mind. |
> | Internet: SNARLER%oak.decnet@pine.circa.ufl.edu -or- 7%arms.uucp@ufl.edu |
> |=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|
Leo
-------------------
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: hamlet@ravel.udel.edu (Chris Adams)
Subject: Re: Another censorship incident has just occurred
Message-ID: <18152@ravel.udel.edu>
Date: 19 Dec 91 22:18:49 GMT
In article <7132@tamsun.tamu.edu> cnh5730@maraba.tamu.edu (Charles Herrick) writes:
>1) Private entities are just as bound by the U.S. Constitution as public
>entities. Can this really be that difficult to understand?
no, and it's not a constitutional question
>2) Why do justifications of censorship on "the net" always devolve into
>techno-squabbles about who owns the computers and who pays for the net and
>other ridiculous arguments?
hm...if you submitted a book to a publisher who refused
it as absurd or inflammatory, and then tried to make a
legal case out of it with cries of "censorship" and
"freedom of speech", you'd be laughed out of court.
Who's being ridiculous?
>3) Spaf's great, but the fact is that _*NOW*_, in 1991, the USENET is a
>wide-access forum for opinion and speech. Speech on USENET is speech, and
>entities in AmeriKa, whether private or public _*SHOULD*_ have _*NO* right to
>engage in censorship.
Speech on Usenet is *not* speech; it's print. And Marquette
is not censoring the scholar in question; they are denying
him use of *their* equipment. If the above publisher refuses
your manuscript, you're perfectly free to find some other
publisher who might be willing to print it. If your ms is
lousy enough that you can't find *anyone* to print it, you
can always make some kind of arrangement for desktop publishing
or a vanity publisher or something. Censorship is totally
irrelevant.
>4) I hope the student at Marquette had the foresight to contact the ACLU and
>get a lawyer and I hope (s)he sues the living daylights out of Marquette
>University and Ann Mallinger, User Services Manager at Marquette University.
Me too. I'd love to see them get laughed out of court.
>Apparently you have to drag these admin-fascists into court every other month
admin-fascists?
you can't be serious.
--
"Why, if one wants to compare life to anything, one must
liken it to being blown through the Tube at fifty miles
an hour--landing at the other end without a single hair-
pin in one's hair!" --Virginia Woolf
-------------------
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: entropy@wintermute.WPI.EDU (Lawrence C. Foard)
Subject: Re: Another censorship incident has just occurred
Message-ID: <1991Dec19.225618.7476@wpi.WPI.EDU>
Date: 19 Dec 91 22:56:18 GMT
References: <9763@ns-mx.uiowa.edu> <7130@tamsun.tamu.edu>
Sender: news@wpi.WPI.EDU (News)
Nntp-Posting-Host: wintermute.wpi.edu
In article <7130@tamsun.tamu.edu> cnh5730@maraba.tamu.edu (Charles Herrick) writes:
>In article <9763@ns-mx.uiowa.edu> jones@pyrite.cs.uiowa.edu (Douglas W.
[stuff deleted]
>Has anyone attempted to advise 2714sviatkosvms.csd.mu.edu (Marquette
>University) to recommend that (s)he immediately contact the ACLU and acquire
>counsel to initiate legal proceedings against Marquette University and Ann
>Mallinger, User Services Manager at Marquette University? I have sent h(im/er)
>email to that effect. Please join in trying to contact this person.
Let them have a chance to fix there mistake, I would rather not let this
slug have the opportunity to become a martyr. Not only is censorship wrong,
but censoring people who are wrong in the first place only lends them
undeserved credibility.
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 cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: bgi@stiatl.salestech.com (Brad Isley)
Subject: Re: Inappropriate Use by 2714sviatkos
Message-ID: <1991Dec19.230949.3333@stiatl.salestech.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 1991 23:09:49 GMT
8001mallinge@vms.csd.mu.edu writes:
> Access code 2714sviatkos has been removed and the person involved
> is restricted from use of any Computer Services computing facilities.
> Our computer use policy as well as our network acceptable use policy
> clearly prohibit activity such as the inflammatory message posted
> Friday evening, December 13, 1991.
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> Ann Mallinger, User Services Manager
> Computer Services Division
> Marquette University
OH NO ! Marquette University is on THE NET????
WOW! I've met a total of five Marquette graduates in computer science.
All totally useless. Neither of the two electrical engineer graduates
that I knew from there could even route a simple computer cicruit onto
a PC board prototype.
AND THEY'RE ON THE NET. OH-MY-GAWD!!!!
The five CS grads knew only Fortran and COBOL. Not much about those
languages, at that. Ask them about software tools, structure charts,
data flow diagrams, ERD, etc. and get a blank stare.
--
-----------------------------\ / ..and Apple thought GUI was theirs!.. \
bgi@salestech.com 841-4169 \---| Yer local zymurgist & Amiga hacker/user |
OR \ Klein bottle for sale- Inquire within /
uupsi!stiatl!bgi Brad Isley, Sales Technologies, Inc.
-------------------
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: luljak@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Fairlight)
Subject: Re: Inappropriate Use by 2714sviatkos
Message-ID: <1991Dec19.232646.21110@uwm.edu>
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 1991 23:26:46 GMT
In article <1991Dec18.153332.1@vax.sonoma.edu> sterba@vax.sonoma.edu writes:
>In article <009534B5.604A6160@vms.csd.mu.edu>, 8001mallinge@vms.csd.mu.edu writes:
>>
>> Access code 2714sviatkos has been removed and the person involved
>> is restricted from use of any Computer Services computing facilities.
>> Our computer use policy as well as our network acceptable use policy
>> clearly prohibit activity such as the inflammatory message posted
>> Friday evening, December 13, 1991.
>> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>> Ann Mallinger, User Services Manager
>> Computer Services Division
>> Marquette University
>
>Wow. Freedom of speech at it's best. V-E-R-Y AMERICAN!
>V-E-R-Y POLITICALLY CORRECT! Bravo!
>
>It is one thing to be gay, bigot, homophobe, fashist, communist, whatever.
>It is one thing to be able to say what you think is right, what you believe in,
>whether it is currently a popular political/religious/social view.
>
>It is something else to NOT be able to say it (as misguided as it might be).
>
>I am sure glad I am not part of "Marquette University", it is probably
>somewhere in the middle of Gulag, or could it be part of the 'progressive'
>Chinese government?
>
>Personally, do not share the religious views of the person who was bumped off
>the system, but I still sent a letter of condemnation to "Ann Mallinger" to
>tell them how I feel about it.
>
>Please, send a message to 8001mallinge@vms.csd.mu.edu. and also to
>postmaster@vms.csd.mu.edu to tell them how un-american this action was.
>
>We should not let this system become just another party-echo. Like the
>messages on this system or not, your own right to say what you feel like saying
>might be online sometime, too. The way Marquette University is going, it might
>be sooner than later...
>
>Peter Sterba
>Sonoma State University
>
>ps: I noticed that most of the replies to this topic are under alt.activism,
> since the original post appeared here, I thought it would be appropriate
> to post my reply to it here, too.
>
Marquette University is a Jesuit institution. A very overpriced one
at that. Perhaps that explains their facism.
mark->
--
Mark Luljak Duranduran Newsletter Editor
luljak@csd4.csd.uwm.edu The_Reflex!
Send me mail with subject: DURAN-JOIN to join the mailing list...
-------------------
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: schweige@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil (Jeffrey M. Schweiger)
Subject: Re: Another censorship incident has just occurred
Message-ID: <3646@aldebaran.cs.nps.navy.mil>
Date: 20 Dec 91 00:05:18 GMT
References: <9763@ns-mx.uiowa.edu> <7130@tamsun.tamu.edu>
In article <7130@tamsun.tamu.edu> cnh5730@maraba.tamu.edu (Charles Herrick) writes:
|In article <9763@ns-mx.uiowa.edu> jones@pyrite.cs.uiowa.edu (Douglas W.
|Jones,201H MLH,3193350740,3193382879) writes:
|** Access code 2714sviatkos has been removed and the person involved
|** is restricted from use of any Computer Services computing facilities.
|** From: 2714sviatkos@vms.csd.mu.edu
|** Subject: Faggots must die!!
|[...]
|* I wonder about the speed of the official response from the
|* administrators at Marquette. The punishment seems to have been imposed
|* within 4 days of the posting. Was this long enough to allow for due
|* process?
|[...]
|
|Has anyone attempted to advise 2714sviatkosvms.csd.mu.edu (Marquette
|University) to recommend that (s)he immediately contact the ACLU and acquire
|counsel to initiate legal proceedings against Marquette University and Ann
|Mallinger, User Services Manager at Marquette University? I have sent h(im/er)
|email to that effect. Please join in trying to contact this person.
|
|Personally, I find h(is/er) speech incredibly offensive, but if we let these
|techno-nazis get away with this, who knows who'll be speaking out about
|anything on USENET in the future?
|
| Chuck Herrick
While I have come to basically agree with the views expressed here that
Marquette's actions in this incident were undesirable, I have not seen any
information to indicate that legal action is appropriate. As Marquette, is
I believe, a private institution, "freedom of speech" is a right defined
by contract in this case. No one has posted anything that indicate that
Marquette's actions are not legal.
Jeff Schweiger
--
*******************************************************************************
Jeff Schweiger Standard Disclaimer CompuServe: 74236,1645
Internet (Milnet): schweige@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil
*******************************************************************************
-------------------
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: gl8f@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl)
Subject: Re: Another censorship incident has just occurred
Message-ID: <1991Dec20.031554.24870@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
Sender: usenet@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU
References: <1991Dec18.191849.28698@rodan.acs.syr.edu> <1991Dec19.011151.2159@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> <1991Dec19.212650.9822@rodan.acs.syr.edu>
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 91 03:15:54 GMT
In article <1991Dec19.212650.9822@rodan.acs.syr.edu> greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (Jonathan Greenfield) writes:
>Ok, I'll bite on this one (again). Please give us your proposed definition
>of censorship (which presumably has some twist so that it does not apply to
>expression that is objectionable to a suitably large enough group of
>people?).
Unlike some people, I don't like arguing about dictionary definitions.
I look at something and I tell you what my gut feeling is. I should
note that I haven't even given an opinion on this case, yet one
person's posting implied that I "supported censorship"...
Since you use IRC, though, I'm sure you'd have a fun time talking with
the people who claim that channel operators constitute censorship and
should be removed. Fun people. I'm of the opinion that Usenet could
use a similar mechanism for setting up "instant" moderated channels.
-------------------
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.censorship] Re: Another censorship incident has just occurred
Message-ID: <9112201619.AA27166@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 20 Dec 91 04:19:06 GMT
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.censorship] Re: Another censorship incident has just occurred
Message-ID: <9112201619.AA26025@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 20 Dec 91 04:19:10 GMT
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Governing of campus computer conferencing
Message-ID: <1991Dec20.042550.8620@eff.org>
References: <7130@tamsun.tamu.edu> <7133@tamsun.tamu.edu> <19DEC199115030674@misvax.mis.arizona.edu>
Distribution: world,local
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 1991 04:25:50 GMT
dmittleman@misvax.mis.arizona.edu (Daniel David Mittleman) writes:
[...]
> Beacuse a recent incident of possible harassment/possible exercise
> of free speech on VAXnotes at this campus has caused the student
> conferencing community and the relevent administrators to realize
> that we have no policies, guidelines, or rules to manage the
> process, we now have some administrators sitting down and trying
> to write rules.
[...]
[A revision]
=============== ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/faq/policy ===============
q: What guidance is there for creating or evaluating a computer policy?
a: The first thing to do is to get a copy of your university's Student
Code. It often protects student and staff freedom of expression,
privacy, and due process rights. It is not just a piece of paper; it
is part of the legal contract between student and university. Any new
policy must be consistent with this policy.
You may also find the unofficial, draft Statement on Computers and
Academic Freedom (CAF) useful. Also the CAF Archive contains the
policies of many schools, some with critiques.
Finally, you may wish to look at the CAF Law archive. Speech
restrictions at public universities have been struck down consistently
by recent federal courts. Also, the courts require due process before
serious punishments can be applied to students.
- Carl Kadie
ANNOTATED REFERENCES
(All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.)
=================
caf-statement
=================
This is an attempt to codify the application of academic freedom to
academic computers. It reflects our seven months of on-line discussion
about computers and academic freedom.
Comments and suggestions are very welcome (especially when posted to
CAF-talk). All the documents referenced are available on-line.
=================
policies/README
=================
Computer Policy and Critiques Archive
[part of the Computers and Academic Freedom (CAF) Archive
[part of the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) Archive]]
This is a collection of the computer policies of many schools and
networks. The collection also includes critiques of some of the
policies.
The archive is accessible via anonymous ftp and email. Ftp to
ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.3). It is in directory "pub/academic/policies".
For email access, send email to archive-server@eff.org. Include the
line:
send other-comp-policies
where is a list of the files that you want. File README is
a detailed description of the items in the directory.
For more information, to make contributions, or to report typos
contact Carl Kadie (kadie@eff.org). Directory "widener" contains
additional policies (but not critiques).
=================
widener/README
=================
This directory is a mirror of ftp.cs.widener.edu:pub/cud/schools/*.
It is a collection of the computer polices of many schools. For a
description of the file see file "widener/Index". Also see directory
"policies".
=================
law/README
=================
CAF Law Archive
[part of the Computers and Academic Freedom (CAF) Archive
[part of the Electronic Frontier 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:
send 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).
=================
law/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 between protected
offensive expression and illegal harassment. It even mentions email.
It concludes: "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."
=================
law/goss-v-lopez.fischer
=================
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.
=================
=================
To get these documents by email, send email to archive-server@eff.org.
Include the line(s):
send acad-freeedom caf-statement
send other-comp-policies README
send widener-collected-comp-policies README
send caf-law README
send caf-law uwm-post-v-u-of-wisconsin
send caf-law goss-v-lopez.fischer
The files are also available via anonymous ftp from ftp.eff.org
(191.88.144.3) as file(s):
pub/academic/caf-statement
pub/academic/policies/README
pub/academic/widener/README
pub/academic/law/README
pub/academic/law/uwm-post-v-u-of-wisconsin
pub/academic/law/goss-v-lopez.fischer
--
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 cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: kadie@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Inappropriate Use by 2714sviatkos
Message-ID: <1991Dec20.045445.4243@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
References: <009534B5.604A6160@vms.csd.mu.edu> <1991Dec19.154732.29142@wpi.WPI.EDU> <144@hsdndev.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 1991 04:54:45 GMT
burns@thurifer.harvard.edu (John A. Burns) writes:
[...]
>And can his publisher (in this case, Marquette University) also be held
>legally responsible for harm done as a result? If not, why not? If so,
>how can you deny them the right to avoid doing harm by refusing to publish?
[...]
=============== ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/faq/netnews.liability ===============
q: Does a University reduce its likely liability by screening Netnews
for offensive articles and newsgroups?
a: Not necessarily. By screening articles and newsgroups the
University may *increase* its liability.
(Aside: Elimination of liability should not be the University's
only goal.)
According to the book _Law of the Student Press_ (in reference student
newspapers), "Only two court cases have considered the liability
question, and in both cases the courts found that the institution was
free from liability because control was in the hands of the
students.{33,34} ... Thus, despite arguments by administrators that
they need to prevent libel, it appears that just the opposite is true:
Where administrators have not exercised control over the content of
student publications, the courts have refused to hold their schools
responsible for libel appearing in such publication. If, however,
administrators exercise the power of prior review, then the court will
also hold them and their schools liable for the contents of such
publications. Encouraging the establishment of a clear-cut separation
between school administration and editor functions may also result in
the reduction of libel suits, for potential plaintiffs will realize
that substantial funds are beyond their reach. ... {33} _Mazart v.
State_ 441 N.Y.S.2d 600 (1981) {34} _Milliner v. Turner_ 436 So.2d
1300 (La. App. 1983)"
The recent _Cubby v. Compuserve_ decision also suggests that a
no-screening policy may be best. The judge wrote: "CompuServe has no
more editorial control over such a publication 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."
- Carl
ANNOTATED REFERENCES
(All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.)
=================
student.freedoms
=================
Joint Statement on Rights and Freedoms of Students -- This is the main
statement on student academic freedom.
=================
law/cubby-v-compuserv
=================
Report of a federal district court case which said that BBS owners
cannot be held liable for the content they know beforehand that the
stories are false.
=================
law/student-publications.misc
=================
Quotes from the book _Law of the Student Press_ by the Student Press
Law Center (1985,1988). They say that four-letter words are protected
speech, that public universities are not likely to be liable for
publications that they for which they do not control the contents, and
that the _Hazelwood_ decision does not apply to universities.
=================
faq/netnews.reading
=================
q: Should my university remove Netnews newsgroups because some
people find them offensive? If it doesn't have the resources
to carry all newsgroups, how should newsgroups be selected?
=================
faq/netnews.writing
=================
q: Should my university allow students to post to Netnews?
=================
=================
To get these documents by email, send email to archive-server@eff.org.
Include the line(s):
send acad-freeedom student.freedoms
send caf-law cubby-v-compuserv
send caf-law student-publications.misc
send caf-faq netnews.reading
send caf-faq netnews.writing
The files are also available via anonymous ftp from ftp.eff.org
(191.88.144.3) as file(s):
pub/academic/student.freedoms
pub/academic/law/cubby-v-compuserv
pub/academic/law/student-publications.misc
pub/academic/faq/netnews.reading
pub/academic/faq/netnews.writing
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
-------------------
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: kadie@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Inappropriate Use by 2714sviatkos
Message-ID: <1991Dec20.050735.5246@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
References: <009534B5.604A6160@vms.csd.mu.edu> <1991Dec19.154732.29142@wpi.WPI.EDU> <144@hsdndev.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 1991 05:07:35 GMT
burns@thurifer.harvard.edu (John A. Burns) writes:
[...]
>Several people in this thread seem to be confused about the difference
>between censorship and refusal to publish. No one has prevented anyone
>from speaking their mind; Marquette University has just refused to use their
>resources to publish it. If anyone doesn't understand the difference,
>I can visit you over Christmas break and demand to use your account to
>send hate e-mail. Would you "censor" me? I hope so.
[...]
The student (apprently) posted from his own account. The student
posted with a disclaimer.
[ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/faq/netnews.writing:]
Free inquiry and free expression are an important part of a
university's mission. Most university encourage and support student
expression and publication. Most universities also seem to give full
network access to all users, even students. (This conclusion is based
on an informal survey posted to comp.admin.policy in October, 1991.
[cafv01n33])
There is no need to create special rules for student computer media;
most universities already have rule for student media (in their
Student Code.) In the U.S., most student publications are free of
university screening, censorship, and most retaliation. (For state
universities, this is a legal requirement; for all universities it is
a moral obligation.) At the same time, most universities disclaim
responsibility for student publications, even when the university
"owns the presses."
- Carl
ANNOTATED REFERENCES
(All these documents are available on-line. Access information
follows. The legal requirements listed apply only to public
universities.)
=================
caf-statement
=================
This is an attempt to codify the application of academic freedom to
academic computers. It reflects our seven months of on-line discussion
about computers and academic freedom.
Comments and suggestions are very welcome (especially when posted to
CAF-talk). All the documents referenced are available on-line.
=================
student.freedoms
=================
Joint Statement on Rights and Freedoms of Students -- This is the main
statement on student academic freedom.
=================
news/cafv01n33
=================
[No annotation available.]
=================
faq/netnews.reading
=================
q: Should my university remove Netnews newsgroups because some
people find them offensive? If it doesn't have the resources
to carry all newsgroups, how should newsgroups be selected?
=================
faq/media.control
=================
q: Since freedom of the press belongs to those who own presses, a
public university can do anything it wants with the media that it
owns, right?
=================
law/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 (to a school newspaper).
=================
law/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." Also, "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". Also, it tells what to do about libel in student
publications.
=================
law/student-publications.misc
=================
The book _Law of the Student Press_ by the Student Press Law Center
(1985,1988), says that four-letter words are protected speech, that
public universities are not likely to be liable for publications that
they for which they do not control the contents, and that the
_Hazelwood_ decision does not apply to universities.
=================
law/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 between protected
offensive expression and illegal harassment. It even mentions email.
It concludes: "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."
=================
law/rust-v-sullivan
=================
The decision and decent for the so-called abortion information gag
rule case. The decision explicitly mentions universities as a place
where free expression is so important that gag rules would not be
allowed.
=================
law/perry-v-perry
=================
Comments from the ACLU Handbook _The Rights of _Teachers_. It says
that campus mail systems (and other school facilities) can be limited
public forums. (Perry v. Perry was about an interschool mail system.
It was one of the cases that defined the Public Forum Doctrine.)
Also, 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.
Also, from p. 92, it says that there are legal limits to what a
(public) school can ask its teachers to sign. [Some of these same
limits might apply to what a school can ask a user to sign as a
condition of getting (or keeping) a computer account.]
=================
=================
To get these documents by email, send email to archive-server@eff.org.
Include the line(s):
send acad-freeedom caf-statement
send acad-freeedom student.freedoms
send caf-news cafv01n33
send caf-faq netnews.reading
send caf-faq media.control
send caf-law san-diego-committee-v-gov-bd
send caf-law stanley-v-magrath
send caf-law student-publications.misc
send caf-law uwm-post-v-u-of-wisconsin
send caf-law rust-v-sullivan
send caf-law perry-v-perry
The files are also available via anonymous ftp from ftp.eff.org
(191.88.144.3) as file(s):
pub/academic/caf-statement
pub/academic/student.freedoms
pub/academic/news/cafv01n33
pub/academic/faq/netnews.reading
pub/academic/faq/media.control
pub/academic/law/san-diego-committee-v-gov-bd
pub/academic/law/stanley-v-magrath
pub/academic/law/student-publications.misc
pub/academic/law/uwm-post-v-u-of-wisconsin
pub/academic/law/rust-v-sullivan
pub/academic/law/perry-v-perry
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
-------------------
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Abstract of CAF-News 01.44
Message-ID: <1991Dec20.053243.9866@eff.org>
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 1991 05:32:43 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 cafv01n44
--- begin abstract ---
[Month of November, 1991
[The guest editor this week is Lorrie Ackerman. I really need
more guest editors for the New Year (I'll be away till Jan 6th).
If you are intersted, please send me email (kadie@eff.org).
For information on being a guest editor, send email to
archive-server@eff.org.
Include the line: send acad-freedom call-for-guest-editors
- Carl Kadie]
[These paraphrases are excerpted from weekly editions of CAF-news edited
by Carl M. Kadie and Benjamin Gross.]
========================== KEY ================================
The words after the numbers are a short PARAPHRASES of the
articles, NOT AN OBJECTIVE SUMMARY and not necessarily my opinion.
===============================================================
Notes 1-2 are critiques of university computer policies.
1. The policy of Ohio State University's Academic Computer Services is
too vague. "It seems to claim that the ACS staff does not need to
follow due process procedures to expel a user from the ACS computers."
<1991Nov9.152336.10203@eff.org>
2. The policy of the University of Texas Computer Science department
is too broad. It does not detail the process leading to a computer
expulsion. It offers little privacy protection. It prohibits some
constitutionally-protected speech.
<1991Nov5.023409.6759@eff.org>
Notes 3-4 are about system administration.
3. (A user:) "If the users software interferes with the running of
the lab, he/she is warned about it, & continues to do it, then your
solution [ordering the user to stop and temporarily turning off the
user's account] seems the only one available."
<9111152223.AA19536@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu>
4. Instead of a list of Acceptable Uses, we should have a list of
Unacceptable uses. I am appalled by the idea that I must beg permission
for anything not on the list of Acceptable Uses.
<9111162029.AA27328@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Notes 5-6 are about Steven Brack and Ohio State University.
5. A student should be given the findings of fact upon which the
formal hearing board bases its decision. In the Brack case, no
findings of fact were given. This is unfair and likely illegal.
(Legal references are enclosed.)
<1991Nov19.192831.1996@eff.org>
6. (Steven Brack:) "The only action I ever performed that had any
impact on the system was the fixman command." I ran it because its
manual page led me to think that it would improve the display time of
my manual pages. My action was noticed because fixman acts globally,
not locally, and because it kept running (for hours) after I thought
that I had killed it.
<9111190335.AA14297@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu>
Note 7 is about an access suspension incident.
7. (A student:) Mohawk Valley Community College suspended my computer
access (without any hearing) for 1) setting the (correct) time on the
PCs in the lab where I worked and 2) sharing simple utility programs
with other users. Administrative appeals were futile. I failed my
English class when the sys admin refused to give me copies of my
files. I eventually transferred to another school.
<1991Nov15.152856.25079@pool.info.sunyit.edu>
Note 8 is about system administration goals.
8. (A sys admin:) The goal of limiting the user-admin ratio is
worthy, but difficult. The goal of communicating with and educating
users is practical and productive.
<1991Nov18.150215.11121@ms.uky.edu>
Note 9 is about the Alt.sex flap at U of Iowa.
9. "Today's Daily Iowan, Monday Nov. 25, 1991, has joined the fray. On
the top of page 3A, on the left, is the headline 'UI Computer Files Contain
Pornography', followed by the same kind of incisive reporting of the alt.sex
newsgroups that we have been used to from the print media. The article does
mention that the "pornography" is carried by USENET, but no mention is made
of other material on USENET. The article indicates that the U of I computers
contain "over 70,000 pages" of pornography, which is nonsense -- this
is roughly the total number of postings that have been delivered to Iowa's
machines over USENET, but nobody at the DI seems to have noticed that things
get deleted on a regular basis."
<9300@ns-mx.uiowa.edu>
Note 10 is about the different kinds of recreational computer uses.
10. (A student:) There should be a distinction made between the different
kinds of recreational computer uses, "those that have an arguable nexus
to the communication of ideas and those that do not (by which I refer
principally to computer games)." This especially applies to general
use computers and sites.
<199111252159.AA14818@eff.org>
Note 11 is about rules that may effectively outlaw library catalog searches.
11. Rules that outlaw offensive computer expression also effectively outlaw
on-line searches of library catalogs because many catalogs contain
offensive titles.
<1991Nov21.182340.11577@eff.org>
Notes 12 and 13 are about ps and other system accounting measures.
12. (Carl M. Kadie, in response to Steven Brack who says it is not
one user's place to decide what process other users can execute:)
Users should have access to ps because "if I see that you have what
looks like a run away process, I can send you and/or the sys admin
email. Why should I be the one doing this? Because, I'm the one who
wants the cycles. The sys admin isn't logged into the computer, or
isn't paying close attention. You may have logged off or started work
on another task, not realizing that your job is still running."
<1991Nov25.213447.14114@eff.org>
13. (Wes Morgan:) ps and other accounting measures are not an invasion
of privacy because the computer is a publicly available resource. Since the
computer account is provided by the university and "your use of a given
computer system affects all other users of that system....then the need
for this information becomes apparent." The users' real information, at
minimum the users' real names, must be available so they can be contacted,
otherwise the users loose the benefits of effective electronic communication.
<1991Nov26.232012.2924@ms.uky.edu>
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=GUEST EDITOR-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Lorrie Ackerman -- Washington U. engineering and policy grad student
6639 University Dr. Apt 1-W, St. Louis, MO 63130 (314)727-4910
(Student Life newspaper office #: 935-5441--call me there any time)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- lfa1@cec1.wustl.edu -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
]
--- 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
archive-server@eff.org. Include the line
send acad-freedom caf
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
send acad-freedom README
help
index
Disclaimer: This CAF-News abstract was compiled by a guest editor or
by me, Carl M. Kadie. It is not an EFF publication. The views I
express and editorial decisions I make are my own.
--
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 cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Abstract of CAF-News 01.44
Message-ID: <1991Dec20.055024.10489@eff.org>
References: <1991Dec20.053243.9866@eff.org>
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 1991 05:50:24 GMT
I typed the wrong issue number. It is really CAF-News 01.42.
- 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 cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.sex.bondage, et al.] Re: The USENET pornographic network
Message-ID: <9112201807.AA22066@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 20 Dec 91 06:07:39 GMT
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.sex.bondage, et al.] Re: The USENET pornographic network
Message-ID: <9112201808.AA22935@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 20 Dec 91 06:08:01 GMT
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.activism] Re: Inappropriate Use by 2714sviatkos
Message-ID: <9112201808.AA18623@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 20 Dec 91 06:08:45 GMT
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.activism] Re: Inappropriate Use by 2714sviatkos
Message-ID: <9112201809.AA22057@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 20 Dec 91 06:09:09 GMT
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.activism] Re: Inappropriate Use by 2714sviatkos
Message-ID: <9112201809.AA19371@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 20 Dec 91 06:09:29 GMT
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: kadie@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Inappropriate Use by 2714sviatkos
Message-ID: <1991Dec20.061147.10005@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
References: <009534B5.604A6160@vms.csd.mu.edu> <1991Dec19.162912.3557@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 1991 06:11:47 GMT
baptist@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (BAPTIST ROBERT PITMAN) writes:
[...]
> I read the message posted by 2714sviatkos and it while it was
>"inflammatory", wrong, sick, and ignorant, does that warrant the supression
>of speech period? Obviously Marquette's policy (and probably the policy at
>most schools) says so, which I can understand. But when does someone
>become too stupid to post on the net?
[...]
It is *not* the policy of most U.S. schools to punish inflamatory
statements.
Most schools guarantee that school-owned student media will be free
of censorship. This guarantee is an important part of academic freedom
for students.
I think there is a good chance that the sys admin at Marquette broke
her univeristy's policy (which, of course, overrides her department's
policy.)
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
-------------------
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: rjc@cstr.ed.ac.uk (Richard Caley)
Subject: Re: Inappropriate Use by 2714sviatkos
Message-ID:
Date: 20 Dec 91 06:23:35 GMT
In article <1991Dec19.142404.22378@m.cs.uiuc.edu>, Carl M. Kadie (cmk) writes:
cmk> A university has a moral duty to guarentee the freedom of expression
cmk> of its students. This guarentee is often part of the written contract
cmk> between the student and university.
Freedom of expression means letting them speak and not jumping on them
when they do. It doesn't mean that have to pay for book publication,
full page ads in the NY Times or shippng the stuff out by usenet.
Also most places will have restrictions on the use of expensive
equipment, such as labs and computers. If they stopped him orating in
the chemistry lab because it was dangerous and he was breaking things
as he waved his hands about would you complain?
There is a big difference between stopping someone from talking on
campus or censoring a student newspaper and just deciding not to
publish something in a university newspaper or on the net. The latter
is not censorship, simply editorial control.
Now if Mr Imascreamingloonie had set up his own news feed and the
university had tried to stop him using it, _that_ would be censorship.
--
rjc@cstr.ed.ac.uk _O_
|<
-------------------
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: kadie@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Inappropriate Use by 2714sviatkos
Message-ID: <1991Dec20.063036.11448@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
References: <7103@tamsun.tamu.edu> <1991Dec19.142404.22378@m.cs.uiuc.edu> <18169@bach.udel.edu>
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 1991 06:30:36 GMT
In article <1991Dec19.142404.22378@m.cs.uiuc.edu> kadie@m.cs.uiuc.edu
(Carl M. Kadie) writes:
cmk> Joint Statement on Rights and Freedoms of Students
hamlet@bach.udel.edu (Chris Adams) writes:
ca> What is the source of this statement? Who are the
ca> signatories? When was it written?
The full statement is available via anonymous ftp from
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/student.freedoms. Or send email
to archive-server@eff.org. Include the line:
send acad-freedom student.freedoms
[From the preface of the Statement:]
"In June, 1967, a joint committee, comprised of representatives from
the American Association of University Professors, U. S. National
Student Association, Association of American College, National
Association of Student Personnel Administrators, and National
Association of Woman Deans and Counselors, met in Washington, D.C.,
and drafted the Joint Statement on Rights and Freedoms of Students
published below.
Since its formulation, the Joint Statement has been endorsed by each
of its five national sponsors, as well as by a number of other
professional bodies. The Association's Council approved the Statement
in October, 1967, and the Fifty-fourth Annual Meeting endorsed it as
Association policy."
Also, from the newest version: "The governing bodies of the
Association of American Colleges and the American Association of
University Professors, active respectivly in January and April 1990,
adopted several changes in language in order to remove gender-specefic
references from the original text."
ca> In this statement, I find two statements that pertain
ca> to the discussion at hand.
cmk> "B. Freedom of Inquiry and Expression
cmk> The institutional control of campus facilities should not
cmk> be used as a device of censorship. It should be made clear to the
ca> This statement by itself is suggestive, but in context,
ca> it refers to the allocation of lecture space for guest
ca> speakers, lecture space which is usually cost-free and,
ca> in evening hours at least, not in very high demand.
I think this statement is also relevent:
"B. Freedom of Inquiry and Expression
1. Students and student organizations should be free to examine and
discuss all questions of interest to them, and to express opinions
publicly and privately. They should always be free to support causes
by orderly means which do not disrupt the regular and essential
operation of the institution. At the same time, it should be made
clear to the academic and the larger community that in their public
expressions or demonstrations students or student organizations speak
only for themselves."
cmk> "D. Student Publications
cmk> Whenever possible the student newspaper should be an
cmk> independent corporation financially and legally separate
cmk> from the university.
ca> I assume you included this section with the idea that
ca> usenet postings constitute a student publication. I
ca> think that in itself is debatable, but we'll let it
ca> stand. If, like a student paper, the computing facilities
ca> were financially independent and legally seperate, then
ca> perhaps the intellectual freedom thing would be an issue,
ca> but they're not and it's not.
[...]
The next sentence of the statement is relevent:
"Where financial and legal autonomy is not possible, the institution,
as the publisher of student publications, may have to bear the legal
responsibility for the contents of the publications."
This is not as bold as it seems. A university that censors may
*increase* its liability.
[ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/faq/netnews.liability]
According to the book _Law of the Student Press_ (in reference student
newspapers), "Only two court cases have considered the liability
question, and in both cases the courts found that the institution was
free from liability because control was in the hands of the
students.{33,34} ... Thus, despite arguments by administrators that
they need to prevent libel, it appears that just the opposite is true:
Where administrators have not exercised control over the content of
student publications, the courts have refused to hold their schools
responsible for libel appearing in such publication. If, however,
administrators exercise the power of prior review, then the court will
also hold them and their schools liable for the contents of such
publications. Encouraging the establishment of a clear-cut separation
between school administration and editor functions may also result in
the reduction of libel suits, for potential plaintiffs will realize
that substantial funds are beyond their reach. ... {33} _Mazart v.
State_ 441 N.Y.S.2d 600 (1981) {34} _Milliner v. Turner_ 436 So.2d
1300 (La. App. 1983)"
The recent _Cubby v. Compuserve_ decision also suggests that a
no-screening policy may be best. The judge wrote: "CompuServe has no
more editorial control over such a publication 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."
- Carl
ANNOTATED REFERENCES
(All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.)
=================
student.freedoms
=================
Joint Statement on Rights and Freedoms of Students -- This is the main
statement on student academic freedom.
=================
law/cubby-v-compuserv
=================
Report of a federal district court case which said that BBS owners
cannot be held liable for the content they know beforehand that the
stories are false.
=================
law/student-publications.misc
=================
Quotes from the book _Law of the Student Press_ by the Student Press
Law Center (1985,1988). They say that four-letter words are protected
speech, that public universities are not likely to be liable for
publications that they for which they do not control the contents, and
that the _Hazelwood_ decision does not apply to universities.
=================
faq/netnews.reading
=================
q: Should my university remove Netnews newsgroups because some
people find them offensive? If it doesn't have the resources
to carry all newsgroups, how should newsgroups be selected?
=================
faq/netnews.writing
=================
q: Should my university allow students to post to Netnews?
=================
=================
To get these documents by email, send email to archive-server@eff.org.
Include the line(s):
send acad-freeedom student.freedoms
send caf-law cubby-v-compuserv
send caf-law student-publications.misc
send caf-faq netnews.reading
send caf-faq netnews.writing
The files are also available via anonymous ftp from ftp.eff.org
(191.88.144.3) as file(s):
pub/academic/student.freedoms
pub/academic/law/cubby-v-compuserv
pub/academic/law/student-publications.misc
pub/academic/faq/netnews.reading
pub/academic/faq/netnews.writing
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
-------------------
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: kadie@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Inappropriate Use by 2714sviatkos
Message-ID: <1991Dec20.064127.11658@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
References: <1991Dec18.153332.1@vax.sonoma.edu> <1991Dec19.232646.21110@uwm.edu>
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 1991 06:41:27 GMT
luljak@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Fairlight) writes:
[...]
>Marquette University is a Jesuit institution. A very overpriced one
>at that. Perhaps that explains their facism.
[...]
The only thing in the Joint Statement on Rights and Freedoms of
Students about religious schools is "While church-related institutions
may give admission preference to students of their own persuasion,
such a preference should be clearly and publicly stated."
This book is good:
am ocm14-719648 db 09/10/87 09/10/87 11/10/90 4096 Lincoln
MEPS $a $Annarelli, James John.
TILA0 $ac $Academic freedom and Catholic higher education /$
James John Annarelli ; foreword by Charles E. Curran.
IMP $abc $New York :$Greenwood Press,$1987.
COL $ac $xxi, 236 p. ;$25 cm.
SET 0 $axv $Contributions to the study of education,$0196-707X ;$
no. 21
NOG $a $Includes index.
NOB $a $Bibliography: p. :221:-230.
SUT L $az $Academic freedom$United States.
SUT L $az $Catholic universities and colleges$United States.
GAC $a $n-us---
SBN $a $0313254257 (lib. bdg. : alk. paper)
CAL $ab $LC487$.A56 1987
DDCF $a2 $378/.121$19
CAS $acd $DLC$DLC$UIU
LON $a $ocm14719648
FFD CONF= FEST= INDEX=x ME IN B=x
INTEL LV= FIC= BIOG= LAN=eng DAT KY=s
DATE1=1987 DATE2= CNTY=nyu ILLUS= REPRO=
CONTENTS=b MODRC= CAT S= GOV PUB= CAT FORM=a
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
-------------------
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: pierce@husc4.harvard.edu (Tim Pierce)
Subject: Re: Inappropriate Use by 2714sviatkos
Message-ID: <1991Dec20.014917.6806@husc3.harvard.edu>
Date: 20 Dec 91 06:49:16 GMT
In article alberti@ux.acs.umn.edu (Timothy Fay) writes:
>
>Perhaps the most unfortunate thing about this whole incident is that
>it does nothing to address the homophobia at the heart of "Steve"'s
>post. I'd be willing to bet that 2714sviatkos probably hates gays
>even more than ever, now. While the University is well within its
>rights to restict his access to their facilities, I think they may
>have just made a bad situation worse...
There is no question in my mind that nothing anyone does for
2714sviatkos, short of killing him, can possibly change his mind
about homosexuality. His presence on the net did nothing for
"exchange of ideas," and his loss is most unquestionably our gain.
Let those who wish to "oppose homosexuality" do so calmly and
intelligently, and let the murderous bigots tear each other to pieces.
--
____ Tim Pierce / "Anal sex is good; infinite sex is good;
\ / pierce@husc.harvard.edu / drugs are good..."
\/ (aka twpierce@amherst.edu) / -- Arthur T. Hu
-------------------
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.censorship] Re: Another censorship incident has just occurred
Message-ID: <9112201935.AA30092@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 20 Dec 91 07:35:09 GMT
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.activism] Re: Inappropriate Use by 2714sviatkos
Message-ID: <9112201939.AA30918@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 20 Dec 91 07:39:39 GMT
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.activism] Re: Inappropriate Use by 2714sviatkos
Message-ID: <9112201940.AA28918@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 20 Dec 91 07:40:06 GMT
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.activism] Re: Inappropriate Use by 2714sviatkos
Message-ID: <9112201952.AA29269@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 20 Dec 91 07:52:26 GMT
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: falk@peregrine.Sun.COM (Ed Falk)
Subject: Re: Another censorship incident has just occurred
Message-ID:
Date: 20 Dec 91 08:17:26 GMT
References: <1991Dec18.194423.28973@zip.eecs.umich.edu> <1991Dec18.212555.149@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> <1991Dec18.233118.2395@dsd.es.com> <1991Dec18.235950.1673@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
NNTP-Posting-Host: peregrine
In article <1991Dec18.235950.1673@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gl8f@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl) writes:
|In article <1991Dec18.233118.2395@dsd.es.com> galt@scratchy.dsd.es.com (Greg Alt - Perp) writes:
|
|>Why is it that whenever someone censors, someone says it is ok because you
|>aren't allowed to shout "Fire" in a crowded theater?
|
|Why is it that anyone who disagrees with you is supporting censorship?
|Do you have a monopoly on Truth?
Of course it isn't. It's not censorship to disagree with you. It's
censorship to censor you. That is what happened here.
-------------------
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: falk@peregrine.Sun.COM (Ed Falk)
Subject: Re: [alt.activism] Re: Inappropriate Use by 2714sviatkos
Message-ID:
Date: 20 Dec 91 08:18:29 GMT
References: <9112190129.AA03381@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: peregrine
In article <9112190129.AA03381@m.cs.uiuc.edu> kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>
>In article <1991Dec18.191453.27598@dsd.es.com> galt@toddler.dsd.es.com (Greg Alt - Perp) writes:
>>Freedom of speech includes the freedom to be an annoying jerk.
>
>But not to advocate mass murder.
Yes it does.
-------------------
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (Jonathan Greenfield)
Subject: Re: Another censorship incident has just occurred
Message-ID: <1991Dec20.102912.4005@rodan.acs.syr.edu>
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 91 10:29:12 EST
In article <1991Dec20.092028.29782@ms.uky.edu> morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
>>>> Since Marquette University, I believe, is a private institution, the only
>>>> "rights" the individual who lost computer privileges has are contractual
>>>> ones. We have yet to see a posting spelling those out. It is quite
>>>> possible that what was done is completely legal.
>>
>>Agreed. However, someone did suggest that the speech might not be protected
>>speech within a public forum. I think most of the responses addressed the
>>question of whether or not such speech is protected (from *governmental*
>>control).
>>
>
>After long discussion in alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk, many participants
>(including myself and Carl Kadie, the leading light of the newsgroup
>and editor of the Computers and Academic Freedom Digest) agreed that
>Usenet could be classed as a "limited public forum" as defined by a
>US Supreme Court decision (I belive that the decision in question is
>available for anonymous FTP from eff.org). Under the limited public
>forum doctrine, the organization(s) supporting a given forum have the
>right to determine which topics are suitable for discussion in that
>forum.
[much deleted]
I'm really not clear that this is relevant, because, as far as I know,
private institutions still maintain the right to take action in response
to protected free speech (even if that speech occurs within a public
forum separate from the institution). By my understanding, it would be
legal for a private university's professor to be fired for espousing (for
example) racist ideals in a newspaper. This is clearly protected speech,
yet the private institutions maintain the legal right to take punitive action
in response.
My understanding in this regard is primarily based upon the material in
"A Practical Guide to Legal Issues affecting College Teachers" often
mentioned in this newgroup. If you are aware of court cases that explicitly
contradict my understanding, then I would appreciate a reference.
greeny greeny@top.cis.syr.edu
"What's the difference between an orange?"
-------------------
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (Jonathan Greenfield)
Subject: Re: Another censorship incident has just occurred
Message-ID: <1991Dec20.104247.4610@rodan.acs.syr.edu>
References: <1991Dec18.191849.28698@rodan.acs.syr.edu> <1991Dec19.011151.2159@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> <1991Dec19.212650.9822@rodan.acs.syr.edu> <1991Dec20.031554.24870@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 91 10:42:46 EST
In article <1991Dec20.031554.24870@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gl8f@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl) writes:
>>Ok, I'll bite on this one (again). Please give us your proposed definition
>>of censorship (which presumably has some twist so that it does not apply to
>>expression that is objectionable to a suitably large enough group of
>>people?).
>
>Unlike some people, I don't like arguing about dictionary definitions.
>I look at something and I tell you what my gut feeling is. I should
>note that I haven't even given an opinion on this case, yet one
>person's posting implied that I "supported censorship"...
I don't *like* to argue definitions either. Yet it seems to become necessary
at times. *Your* gut feeling doesn't do *me* any good in defining the meaning
of a word.
If you are going to suggest that a "diversity" of definitions are available
(and, presumably, reasonable) then you should at least supply us with the
definitions that you consider appropriate.
Please note (in case there is any confusion--though I know that you have
not accused me) that I am *not* a person who has suggested that you
"supported censorship." I have merely suggested that you have improperly
defined censorship on the subjective grounds of whether or not you (or
somebody else--say the SC) finds the "censored" material sufficiently
objectionable. Well, if the material weren't sufficiently objectionable to
*somebody*, it wouldn't have been "censored" in the first place!!
How much more of a classical example of censorship could you find, than a
government prohibiting some form of expression? It doesn't matter whether
you, I or anybody else believes the prohibition is justified. It is *still*
censorship.
>Since you use IRC, though, I'm sure you'd have a fun time talking with
>the people who claim that channel operators constitute censorship and
>should be removed. Fun people. I'm of the opinion that Usenet could
>use a similar mechanism for setting up "instant" moderated channels.
Sorry. Though I am a computer scientist, I'm just an end-user when it
comes to UseNet. I know a minimal amount about how UseNet works.
I don't even know what "IRC" stands for...
greeny greeny@top.cis.syr.edu
"What's the difference between an orange?"
--------------------
--
Helen C. O'Boyle | Co-moderator, Computers and Academic Freedom list
helen@eff.org | << insert usual disclaimer here... my opinions
isy5hob@cabell.vcu.edu | are mine alone, not EFF's or VCU's, etc. >>
From helen Fri Dec 20 19:22:12 1991
Received: by eff.org id AA18670
(5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for cafb-list@eff.org); Sat, 21 Dec 1991 00:22:18 -0500
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: rsr@ocf.berkeley.edu (Roy S. Rapoport)
Subject: Re: The USENET pornographic network
Message-ID:
Date: 20 Dec 91 11:09:26 GMT
In article <1991Dec19.221832.36510@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> kudwarf@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu writes:
>In article <1991Dec13.082053.23933@math.ufl.edu>, snarler@maple.circa.ufl.edu (Drifter...) writes:
>> In article , fischer@iesd.auc.dk (Lars P. Fischer) writes:
>>>>>>>> "Eric" == J Eric Townsend (jet@karazm.math.uh.edu)
>>>>> The german version of EMMA has published in its current issue
>>>>> an article about the USENET, an academic network used mainly
->>>>> for transmission of pornographic material.
->>
->> Hmmm, the Germans must have gotten an extra does of Stupidity that day...
->> Any short-term analysis of the net will show that the vast bulk of information
->> being transmitted is non-sexual... Maybe 1 percent of all the total newsgroups
->> on USENET (which numbers over 1,300) have anything to do with sex. And of
->> course, only about half a percent of the alt.sex newsgroup volume is actual
->> sexually explicit material.
->> The majority of mailing lists are non-sexual in nature. THe VAST bulk of
->> USENET material seems to be sources for all sorts of programs for unix and
->> unix-like operating systems, as well as personal computers and other OS's...
->> Then you got all the constant discussion on political and social topics,
->> current events, quite a bit on mass media (TV, Books, Movies)...
Actually, I seem to remember that sexstuff does make a considerable portion
of USENET mail. Remember -- you also have to consider stuff like
alt.binaries.pictures.*, which generates a LOT of stuff, because each
complete picture can be in upwards of 300k. . .
I could, however, be wrong.
->I think the main complaint was that the pornographic material newsgroups were
->being carried AT ALL.
->
->The usual Puritanical complaint, from people who are scared shitless when they
->discover FOR CERTAIN that somewhere, someone is actually having fun...
Look -- I agree with your general position (that these groups SHOULD be
carried), but I'm not so sure about your reasoning why these people are
pissed -- remember, someone is paying for us to post all of these things. .
. whoever is paying for our net access, could very well not feel comfortable
with porn.
For example, the NSF (National Science Foundation) has repeatedly cracked
down on xxx gif sites, because these sites were funded, in part, by grants
from the NSF, which felt that their money should not be used for "smut."
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roy S. Rapoport rsr@ocf.berkeley.edu
"It is not the purpose of this title to place any undue or unnecessary
Federal restrictions or burdens on law-abiding citizens. . .this title is
not intended to discourage or eliminate the private ownership or use of
firearms by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes. . ." HA!! :-(
-- Gun Control Act of 1968
-------------------
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.activism] Re: Inappropriate Use by 2714sviatkos
Message-ID: <9112202353.AA14066@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 20 Dec 91 11:53:20 GMT
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: bleys@tronsbox.xei.com (Bill Cavanaugh)
Subject: Re: Inappropriate Use by 2714sviatkos
Message-ID: <2951@tronsbox.xei.com>
Date: 20 Dec 91 13:08:27 GMT
Please excuse the previous mess. (bill)
[I cut the newsgroups line down a bit]
In article <1991Dec19.154732.29142@wpi.WPI.EDU> entropy@wintermute.WPI.EDU (Lawrence C. Foard) writes:
>
>I really hate to be put in the position of defending the civil rights of a low
>life sea slug like 2714, but I have to support the right of free speech even
>when it is used by those who don't value civil rights, so that it will still
>be available if and when cretin like 2714 or David Duke come to power.
>
>Advocating genocide (as opposed to threatening the life of an individual)
>appears to fall under the first admendment, although I've been told that the
>individual responsible can still be held legally responsible for harm done as a
>result.
>
>Censoring a mindless individual like 2714 gives their idea's a validity that
>is undeserved, 2714 can now go around screaming PC and censorship rather
>than having to defend indefensible ideas on there own non existant merits.
>Please return 2714's account and remove there undeserved martyrdom.
>
>P.S. I'm sure people are going to be screaming PC. Before you post a letter
> about the horrors of PC censorship, please repost your letters condemning the
> censorship of the Maplethorpe exhibit, and your letters to administrators who
> where censoring alt.sex, and soc.motss, then someone might take you
> seriously.
>
2714 (why is it I keep thinking of Number 6?) wasn't censored.
He/she/it was denied use of someone elses computer and resources. No
one said, "You can't say that." He/she/it can set up a UUCP site and
say whatever he/she/it wants.
The Mapplethorpe exhibit wasn't censored. The government didn't say,
"You can't show those pictures to the public." It said, "Government
funds are not available to help you show those pictures to the
public." The difference between those two statements seems to be lost
on a lot of people. I like Mapplethorpe's work, but I respect the
right of people who don't to deny their tax money to supporting the
exhibit. That's what representative government is all about.
BTW, the way I understand it, Mapplethorpe hadn't intended those
pictures for public display. That exhibit was put together after he'd
passed away.
--
* Bill Cavanaugh bleys@tronsbox.xei.com *
* *
If you really wanna make me happy, Santa,
honey, give me a five pound box o' money!
Pearl Bailey
--
* Bill Cavanaugh bleys@tronsbox.xei.com *
* *
If you really wanna make me happy, Santa,
honey, give me a five pound box o' money!
Pearl Bailey
-------------------
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto)
Subject: Re: Inappropriate Use by 2714sviatkos
Message-ID: <1991Dec20.135112.21076@eng.umd.edu>
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 91 13:51:12 GMT
References: <7104@tamsun.tamu.edu> <1991Dec19.143329.19682@njitgw.njit.edu>
In article <1991Dec19.143329.19682@njitgw.njit.edu> dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap) writes:
>
>Come on! A school's computer has nothing to do with freedom of
>speech. It has to do with freedom of the press. Which only applies
>to those who HAVE a press. No outside agency can force Marquette U
>to censor those posts, but if they decide to of their own volition,
>it's their legal right.
Doesn't mean we can't flame them for exercising it in a way we find repugnant.
And, the justifications involving 'violation of state law' are nonsense.
(though those justifications weren't advanced by Marquette U)
>When you post a message on the Net, you are representing your site.
>While you may disagree, look at how many flames ask that the ENTIRE
>SITE be banned from the Net because some idiot posts something bad.
>If the site actively does not want such messages representing them,
>they have every right to censor it.
Naa, it's not your whole site you represent, but, instead, your whole network--
look at how many flames ask that the ENTIRE NETWORK (fidonet) be banned from
Usenet because some idiot posts something bad. Therefore, every admin on
the network has the right to censor you.
>I don't know about your site, but when I applied for my mainframe
>account, the contract I signed clearly stated that violations of
>academic computer policy will be punished with loss of computer
>privaleges. This was along with a document that clearly outlined
>policy. Now at NJIT, policy means not hacking into other people's
>computers and stuff like that - leaving content of Usenet postings
>to individual discression, but I see nothing wrong with adding that
>as well. So long as the person accused was aware of this policy
>before he posted these inflamatory remarks.
And there's the catch-- the policy was most likely either ex-post-facto, or
selectively enforced-- someone mentioned policies which forbade everything and
then were used on troublemakers at the discretion of the University-- I doubt
such a policy would be enforcable should the user sue for breach of
contract.
>You know, one can always find a public site and pay an annual fee
>to post whatever you want. The University has no need to provide
>Net access at all. If they choose to control that access, that's
>also thir right - especially since it's free of charge. You get
>what you pay for.
Free? Free? What are all those 'fees' for on my bill?
--
Matthew T. Russotto russotto@eng.umd.edu russotto@wam.umd.edu
Your superior intellect is no match for our puny weapons! -- The Simpsons
Just say NO to police searches and seizures. Make them use force.
(not responsible for bodily harm resulting from following above advice)
-------------------
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan)
Subject: Re: Another censorship incident has just occurred
Message-ID: <1991Dec20.092028.29782@ms.uky.edu>
Date: 20 Dec 91 14:20:28 GMT
greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (Jonathan Greenfield) writes:
>
>>> Since Marquette University, I believe, is a private institution, the only
>>> "rights" the individual who lost computer privileges has are contractual
>>> ones. We have yet to see a posting spelling those out. It is quite
>>> possible that what was done is completely legal.
>
>Agreed. However, someone did suggest that the speech might not be protected
>speech within a public forum. I think most of the responses addressed the
>question of whether or not such speech is protected (from *governmental*
>control).
>
After long discussion in alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk, many participants
(including myself and Carl Kadie, the leading light of the newsgroup
and editor of the Computers and Academic Freedom Digest) agreed that
Usenet could be classed as a "limited public forum" as defined by a
US Supreme Court decision (I belive that the decision in question is
available for anonymous FTP from eff.org). Under the limited public
forum doctrine, the organization(s) supporting a given forum have the
right to determine which topics are suitable for discussion in that
forum. This doctrine supports the right of news admins to select the
newsgroups their site will offer/support (IMHO). Once selected, how-
ever, the maintainers of a forum may not attempt to control the dis-
cussion of a supported topic; at that point, the right of free speech
becomes predominant. However, they may take steps to ensure that the
discussion in their supported forums remains topical.
There are several questions that have a direct impact on the Marquette
University situation:
1) Did Marquette carry *all* the newsgroups in which 2147sviatkos
posted his "offensive" article? If he used some other means
to post his article to groups not carried by MU, he would not
be protected under the limited public forum doctrine. ( I'm
thinking of the various mail-to-news gateways out there.)
2) Did he post the message to a RELEVANT group carried by MU?
The maintainers of a limited public forum have the right
to ensure that the discussion in their forums remains con-
sistent with the topic on which the forum is based. For example,
if someone posted an abortion message to an inappropriate
newsgroup, such as talk.politics.guns, the admins (as maintainers
of the forum) would be acting properly to force the message
into the proper group (or even cancelling it, if the message
was not relevant to any newsgroups they carried/supported).
3) Was this a repeated problem? This person may have already
violated MU policies for Usenet, perhaps in local groups.
We may never know if this was the case. If he had already
been informed of the "relevancy" policy (or any other policy),
he may have knowingly violated it again.
4) I noticed that the original message carried an explicit dis-
claimer (in keeping with a long Usenet tradition). Did the
admins at MU take this into consideration? In fact, do they
require such a disclaimer? I haven't seen many messages from
Marquette, so I can't assume anything about it.
5) Did the individual receive any form of due process?
I have supported the rights of admins to take drastic measures
(including shutting off accounts), but ONLY when there is a clear
and present danger to the system itself; I envision the vast
majority of such instances to be security-related. I cannot con-
done the withdrawl of computing privileges for such arbitrary
reasons, UNLESS the individual benefitted from due process.
6) Can anyone post a copy of the MU computer use policy? If this
individual agreed to the terms of a known policy and then
knowingly violated that policy, it makes a huge difference
in our discussion.
I am not defending the actions of the MU admins, nor am I agreeing with the
content of the original posting. I am merely mentioning some areas in which
we desperately need more information before we rush headlong into judgement
of all parties involved.
The "Usenet as a limited public forum" discussion from the
Computers and Academic Freedom Digest may be retrieved via
anonymous FTP from eff.org (192.88.144.3). Interested par-
ties may wish to join the discussion on alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk;
if your site does not carry that newsgroup, it is gatewayed
to a mailing list; contact Carl Kadie for a
subscription.
Wes
--
morgan@ms.uky.edu |Wes Morgan, not speaking for| ....!ukma!ukecc!morgan
morgan@engr.uky.edu |the University of Kentucky's| morgan%engr.uky.edu@UKCC
morgan@ie.pa.uky.edu |Engineering Computing Center| morgan@wuarchive.wustl.edu
-------------------
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.sex.bondage, et al.] Piles o' porn (WASRe: The USENET pornographic network)
Message-ID: <9112210326.AA00909@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 20 Dec 91 15:26:00 GMT
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: comp-academic-freedom-talk
Reply-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk
Precedence: bulk
To: comp-academic-freedom-talk
Errors-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk-request
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 1991 17:24:13 -0500
X-Digest-Sender: "Helen C. O'Boyle"
Message-Id: <199112202224.AA10115@eff.org>
Subject: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Fri Dec 20 17:22:23 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:
gl8f@fermi.clas.Vi : Re: IRC's /kill
gl8f@fermi.clas.Vi : Re: Another censorship incident has just occurred
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (alt.sex) Re: Inappropriate Use by 2714sviatkos
maxwell@fnalo.fnal : Re: Another censorship incident has just occurred
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: Another censorship incident has just occurred
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (alt.activism) Re: Inappropriate Use by 2714sviatkos
dic5340@hertz.njit : Re: Inappropriate Use by 2714sviatkos
as m455@titan.king : Re: (comp.admin.policy) Re: Gaming
bh@anarres.Berkele : Re: Inappropriate Use by 2714sviatkos
taylorsm@milton.u. : Re: Another censorship incident has just occurred
case@diku.dk (Stev : The naked Maja revisited
-- Naked Maja harrassing poor danish custumors.
young@co2.serum.ko : Re: Inappropriate Use by 2714sviatkos
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (alt.activism, et al.) Re: Inappropriate Use by 2714sviatk
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (alt.activism) Re: Inappropriate Use by 2714sviatkos
kadie@eff.org (Car : news policy at iowa state
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: Inappropriate Use by 2714sviatkos
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 cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: comp-academic-freedom-talk
Reply-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk
Precedence: bulk
To: comp-academic-freedom-talk
Errors-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk-request
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 1991 17:29:28 -0500
X-Digest-Sender: "Helen C. O'Boyle"
Message-Id: <199112202229.AA10699@eff.org>
Subject: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Fri Dec 20 17:27:43 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:
merton@sumter.cso. : Banned Computer Material 1991
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (alt.activism) Re: Inappropriate Use by 2714sviatkos
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (alt.activism) Re: Inappropriate Use by 2714sviatkos
hamlet@ravel.udel. : Re: Inappropriate Use by 2714sviatkos
cnh5730@maraba.tam : Re: Another censorship incident has just occurred
cnh5730@maraba.tam : Re: Another censorship incident has just occurred
dmittleman@misvax. : Governing of campus computer conferencing
-- Inquiry into how it might be done
entropy@wintermute : Re: Another censorship incident has just occurred
kadie@m.cs.uiuc.ed : Re: finger names and caller id's
sterba@vax.sonoma. : Re: Inappropriate Use by 2714sviatkos
schweige@taurus.cs : Re: Another censorship incident has just occurred
greeny@top.cis.syr : Re: Another censorship incident has just occurred
gl8f@fermi.clas.Vi : Re: Another censorship incident has just occurred
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: Governing of campus computer conferencing
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (alt.censorship) Re: Another censorship incident has just
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (alt.censorship) Re: Another censorship incident has just
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (alt.censorship) Re: Another censorship incident has just
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (alt.censorship) Re: Another censorship incident has just
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (alt.activism, et al.) Re: Inappropriate Use by 2714sviatk
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 cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: schweige@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil (Jeffrey M. Schweiger)
Subject: Re: [alt.censorship] Re: Another censorship incident has just occurred
Message-ID: <3654@aldebaran.cs.nps.navy.mil>
Date: 20 Dec 91 17:43:26 GMT
References: <9112200446.AA03435@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
|From: cnh5730@maraba.tamu.edu (Charles Herrick)
|Newsgroups: alt.censorship
|Subject: Re: Another censorship incident has just occurred
|Message-ID: <7132@tamsun.tamu.edu>
|Date: 19 Dec 91 20:39:32 GMT
|
|In article <3637@aldebaran.cs.nps.navy.mil> schweige@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil
|(Jeffrey M. Schweiger) writes:
|> Since Marquette University, I believe, is a private institution, the only
|> "rights" the individual who lost computer privileges has are contractual
|ones.
|> We have yet to see a posting spelling those out. It is quite possible that
|> what was done is completely legal.
|>
|> I won't argue whether or not Marquette's actions were appropriate, or
|> ethical, but until I see evidence to the contrary, I'll believe them to be
|> legal.
|>
|> As a reality reminder, here are a couple of excerpts from Gene Spafford's
|> "What is Usenet":
|>
|> "WHAT USENET IS NOT
|[... long diatribe by SPAF trying to decide for everyone what USENET _*IS*_
|deleted]
|
|1) Private entities are just as bound by the U.S. Constitution as public
|entities. Can this really be that difficult to understand?
All citizens fall under the Constitution, but 'Freedom of Speech' is a
restriction on the actions of the government, not on private entities.
Is this 'really that difficult to understand?' What you advocate is
a restriction on the 'Freedom of the Press'.
|2) Why do justifications of censorship on "the net" always devolve into
|techno-squabbles about who owns the computers and who pays for the net and
|other ridiculous arguments?
Because 'Freedom of the Press' is just as important as 'Freedom of Speech',
and many reasonable people are trying to explain why _they_ don't always
agree that 'Freedom of Speech' is the governing principle.
|3) Spaf's great, but the fact is that _*NOW*_, in 1991, the USENET is a
|wide-access forum for opinion and speech. Speech on USENET is speech, and
|entities in AmeriKa, whether private or public _*SHOULD*_ have _*NO*_ right to
|engage in censorship.
And I believe that no entity, public or private should have a right to
engage in restricting Freedom of the Press, another form of censorship.
|4) I hope the student at Marquette had the foresight to contact the ACLU and
|get a lawyer and I hope (s)he sues the living daylights out of Marquette
|University and Ann Mallinger, User Services Manager at Marquette University.
|Apparently, you have to drag these admin-fascists into court every other month
|or they forget that censorship is anti-AmeriKan.
|
| Chuck Herrick
And I consider a desire to restrict the rights of private entities, such as
private colleges, to be just as anti-American, as what you have accused
Marquette as being.
Chuck, I'm bit saying that Marquette's actions were appropriate, just that
they had the right to take them. Sometimes, rights conflict.
Now, an outcry against Marquette's actions, stating that they were inconsistent
with the principles of academic freedom (as stated in the Joint Statement that
Carl frequently refers to), might be appropriate. I'm just stating that
legal action based on Constitutional rights probably is not. Contractual
rights are another action, but no one has yet posted what these are at
Marquette.
Jeff Schweiger
--
*******************************************************************************
Jeff Schweiger Standard Disclaimer CompuServe: 74236,1645
Internet (Milnet): schweige@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil
*******************************************************************************
-------------------
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: durrell@umaxc.weeg.uiowa.edu (Cyberpixie)
Subject: Re: [alt.activism] Re: Inappropriate Use by 2714sviatkos
Message-ID: <9811@ns-mx.uiowa.edu>
Date: 20 Dec 91 17:48:44 GMT
References: <9112200612.AA10586@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: news@ns-mx.uiowa.edu
Followup-To: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
In article <18167@bach.udel.edu> mlet@bach.udel.edu (Chris Adams) writes:
>In article <1991Dec18.191453.27598@dsd.es.com> galt@toddler.dsd.es.com (Greg Alt - Perp) writes:
>>If their university is like most, the "computer use policy" is so restrictive
>>that everything is forbidden. Then, if they don't like something, they
>>can selectively enforce the policy. (e.g. At the University of Utah, the
>>policy is something like "Computers can only be used for work directly related
>>to school work".)
>You mean to tell me that U of U actually requires
>students to use computer time on actual assignments
>rather than wasting it on news or games?
>You mean they actually expect equipment to be put
>to the use for which it was purchased?
>You mean they expect students to...gasp...study?
Dunno about you, but my University doesn't have any problems with
letting people use their library for non-academic activities. Why,
I've even withdrawn books for pleasure.
Then again, maybe there's some fine subtle distinction I'm missing
here. I don't think it's a usage issue, since (as per the ongoing
comp.admin discussion on gaming) there is a multitude of ways to
get people off the system when it's needed for other things. So,
I suppose I'll go on blissfully ignorant of the reasons why it's
OK to use most University facilities for recreation, with the sole
exception of the computers...
--
Bryant Durrell durrell@umaxc.weeg.uiowa.edu
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Life is just like high school, but with better production values.
-------------------
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: kadie@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Another censorship incident has just occurred
Message-ID: <1991Dec20.175453.20630@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 1991 17:54:53 GMT
greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (Jonathan Greenfield) writes:
[...]
>I'm really not clear that this is relevant, because, as far as I know,
>private institutions still maintain the right to take action in response
>to protected free speech (even if that speech occurs within a public
>forum separate from the institution). By my understanding, it would be
>legal for a private university's professor to be fired for espousing (for
>example) racist ideals in a newspaper. This is clearly protected speech,
>yet the private institutions maintain the legal right to take punitive action
>in response.
[...]
I believe you are correct. The Netnews facilities *at a public
university* are likely Constitutionally limited public forums, but the
facilities *a private university* have no such protection.
The only legal protections they have contractual. Departments of
private universities can't surpess expression in ways that violate the
student code of the private university. Departments of private
universities can't take away contractual rights (like a contractual
right to attend the school or to use a computer system) without some
kind due process. (Just like your landlord can't evict you without
some kind of due process.)
Thus, MU might (or might not) have acted within the bounds of the law
when it expelled the student from the computer. They did not, however,
act within the bounds of academic freedom.
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
-------------------
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: kadie@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: The USENET pornographic network
Message-ID: <1991Dec20.182121.24027@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
References: <1991Dec13.082053.23933@math.ufl.edu> <1991Dec19.221832.36510@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu>
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 1991 18:21:21 GMT
rsr@ocf.berkeley.edu (Roy S. Rapoport) writes:
[...]
>For example, the NSF (National Science Foundation) has repeatedly cracked
>down on xxx gif sites, because these sites were funded, in part, by grants
>from the NSF, which felt that their money should not be used for "smut."
[...]
I'm not sure I'd characterize the NSF's actions as "repeatedly
crack[ing] down". I'd say the the NSF has intimidated one or two
sites. As far as I know the NSF has never made a definitive statement
one way or the other.
Also, the concern was raised not because the information provider
sites were NSF funded, but because informatio requesters at other
sites were accessing these sites via the NSFnet.
Personally, I think it should be the information requester's
responsibility stay within the guidelines of whatever network the
requester is using to access information. The information provider
often doesn't even know (and shouldn't care) which networks are being
used to access the information.
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
-------------------
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: jcollier@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au (John Donald Collier)
Subject: Re: Inappropriate Use by 2714sviatkos
Message-ID: <1549@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au>
Date: 20 Dec 91 18:26:11 GMT
In <3a6qb+@rpi.edu> cecchinr@cs.rpi.edu (Ron Cecchini) writes:
>Sounds like fucking "Politically Correct" censorship to me!
>Can't say anything bad about gays! No sirreebob!
He wasn't just saying "anything bad about gays", he was
advocating mass murder.
--
John Collier Email: jcollier@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au
HPS -- U. of Melbourne Fax: 61+3 344 7959
Parkville, Victoria, AUSTRALIA 3052
-------------------
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: kadie@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Inappropriate Use by 2714sviatkos
Message-ID: <1991Dec20.184053.24331@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 1991 18:40:53 GMT
In article <1991Dec19.142404.22378@m.cs.uiuc.edu>, Carl M. Kadie (cmk) writes:
cmk> A university has a moral duty to guarentee the freedom of expression
cmk> of its students. This guarentee is often part of the written contract
cmk> between the student and university.
jc@cstr.ed.ac.uk (Richard Caley) writes:
>Freedom of expression means letting them speak and not jumping on them
>when they do. It doesn't mean that have to pay for book publication,
>full page ads in the NY Times or shippng the stuff out by usenet.
You're right, it doesn't mean those thing. It does, however, mean that
once student forums are created they should not be censored.
>Also most places will have restrictions on the use of expensive
>equipment, such as labs and computers. If they stopped him orating in
>the chemistry lab because it was dangerous and he was breaking things
>as he waved his hands about would you complain?
Freedom of expression is different than freedom of chemistry. As the
preamble to the Joint Statement [ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/student.freedoms]
says:
"Academic institutions exist for the transmission of knowledge, the
pursuit of truth, the development of students, and the general
well-being of society. Free inquiry and free expression are
indispensable to the attainment of these goals its members of the
academic community, students should be encouraged to develop the
capacity for critical judgment and to engage in a sustained and
independent search for truth."
and
"Student publications and the student press are a valuable aid in
establishing and maintaining an atmosphere of free and responsible
discussion and of intellectual exploration on the campus. They are a
means of bringing student concerns to the attention of the faculty and
the institutional authorities and of formulating student opinion on
various issues on the campus and in the world at large."
>There is a big difference between stopping someone from talking on
>campus or censoring a student newspaper and just deciding not to
>publish something in a university newspaper or on the net. The latter
>is not censorship, simply editorial control.
I think the Netnews is more like a University-owned student-controlled
newspaper than like a University-owned voice-of-the-administration
newspaper. I think this because as far as I can tell the University
exercised no editorial control on the net (except in this one case).
As the poster's disclaim said, he spoke for himself, not for the
University. [Btw: It is very dangerous for a University to exercise
editorial control. By doing so, it increases the chances that it will
be held legally liable for what is written (see
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/faq/media.liability).
>Now if Mr Imascreamingloonie had set up his own news feed and the
>university had tried to stop him using it, _that_ would be censorship.
[...]
According to the Joint Statement surpression of student expression in
university-owned media can be censorship. The Joint Statement says:
"The [university-owned] student press should be free of censorship
...". Also, in the context of students inviting guest speakers to
campus, it says "the institutional control of campus facilities should
not be used as a device of censorship."
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
-------------------
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: kadie@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Inappropriate Use by 2714sviatkos
Message-ID: <1991Dec20.201406.2229@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Keywords: free speech
References: <1991Dec18.213548.16903@eff.org> <1991Dec19.170230.12325@ssd.kodak.com> <18149@ravel.udel.edu> <1991Dec20.191759.23750@ssd.kodak.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 1991 20:14:06 GMT
young@co2.serum.kodak.com (Rich Young (x37176)) writes:
[...]
> Mea culpa. I was interrupted and skipped over them. The fact
> remains, however, that the question is NOT one of free speech vs.
> censorship, it's whether the owner of an information distribution
> means is required to publish EVERYTHING submitted by the users of
> that system.
[...]
I thought the question is whether a university should punish students
for "inflamatory" expression in university-owned student forums.
In my opinion, the answer is no. A university that respects academic
freedom will not suppress a student's offensive speech even in
university-owned student forums.
Some folks seem to find the the use of the word "censorship" here
strange. This use is consistent with the Joint Statement on Rights and
Freedoms of Students. In the context of students inviting speakers to
campus, the Joint Statement says: "The institutional control of campus
facilities should not be used as a device of censorship." Later it
says, "The [university-owned] student press should be free of
censorship and advance approval of copy, and its editors and managers
should be free to develop their own editorial policies and news
coverage." [ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/student.freedoms]
I think the use is also consistent with use by the American Library
Association (enclosed).
- Carl
=============ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/library/censorship.def.ala======
Books/Materials Challenge Terminology
Expression of Concern -- An inquiry that has judgmental overtones.
Oral Complaint -- An oral challenge to the presence and/or
appropriateness of the material in question
Written Complaint -- A formal, written complaint filed with the
institution (library, school, etc.) challenging the presence and/or
appropriateness of specific material.
Public Attack -- A publicly disseminated statement challenging the
value of the material, presented to the media and/or others outside
the institutional organization in order to gain public support for
further action.
Censorship -- The change in the access status of material, made by a
governing authority or its representatives. Such changes include:
exclusion, restriction, removal, or age/grade level changes.
Adopted by the Intellectual Freedom Committee at the 1986 American
Library Association Annual Conference
[Made available by permission of the American Library Association.]
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
-------------------
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: gl8f@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl)
Subject: Re: Another censorship incident has just occurred
Message-ID: <1991Dec20.204022.13449@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
Sender: usenet@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU
References: <1991Dec18.233118.2395@dsd.es.com> <1991Dec18.235950.1673@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 91 20:40:22 GMT
In article falk@peregrine.Sun.COM (Ed Falk) writes:
>|>Why is it that whenever someone censors, someone says it is ok because you
>|>aren't allowed to shout "Fire" in a crowded theater?
>|
>|Why is it that anyone who disagrees with you is supporting censorship?
>|Do you have a monopoly on Truth?
>
>Of course it isn't. It's not censorship to disagree with you. It's
>censorship to censor you. That is what happened here.
Look, you implied that I said censorship was OK. I did not. Please
retract your statement. I am apalled that you ignored my email about
this.
-------------------
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: gl8f@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl)
Subject: Re: Another censorship incident has just occurred
Message-ID: <1991Dec20.204606.13522@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
Sender: usenet@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU
References: <1991Dec19.212650.9822@rodan.acs.syr.edu> <1991Dec20.031554.24870@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> <1991Dec20.104247.4610@rodan.acs.syr.edu>
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 91 20:46:06 GMT
In article <1991Dec20.104247.4610@rodan.acs.syr.edu> greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (Jonathan Greenfield) writes:
>I don't *like* to argue definitions either. Yet it seems to become necessary
>at times. *Your* gut feeling doesn't do *me* any good in defining the meaning
>of a word.
Sorry. Try listening to what I say, and perhaps you'll begin to understand.
I do not find that quoting definitions back and forth contributes to a
discussion.
>Please note (in case there is any confusion--though I know that you have
>not accused me) that I am *not* a person who has suggested that you
>"supported censorship."
Indeed, I am well aware of who did that.
> I have merely suggested that you have improperly defined censorship
> on the subjective grounds of whether or not you (or
>somebody else--say the SC) finds the "censored" material sufficiently
>objectionable.
No, I do not believe that my personal opinion on the material has
anything to do with whether or not censorship was taking place. I was
merely suggesting that the posters crying "censorship" were improperly
defining the word.
-------------------
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: gnu@hoptoad.uucp (John Gilmore)
Subject: Computers, Freedom and Privacy videos on Palo Alto channel 6
Message-ID: <23796@hoptoad.uucp>
Date: 20 Dec 91 21:22:40 GMT
Distribution: ba
The local public-access cable channel will be showing the entire series
of panel discussions from the Computers, Freedom, and Privacy conference
this past March.
The first show, on Saturday, January 11th at 9:30PM, will be a
75-minute session on "The Constitution in the Information Age",
featuring the keynote speech by Harvard Constitutional scholar Lawrence
H. Tribe. His topic is "The Constitution in Cyberspace: Law & Liberty
Beyond the Electronic Frontier". This is the speech in which Prof.
Tribe proposed a 27th amendment to the Constitution:
"This Constitution's protections for the freedoms of speech,
press, petition, and assembly, and its protections against
unreasonable searches and seizures and the deprivation of
life, liberty or property without due process of law, shall be
construed as fully applicable without regard to the technological
method or medium through which information content is generated,
stored, altered, transmitted, or controlled."
The second show, on Saturday, February 11th at 9:30PM, discusses "Trends
in Computers and Networks", featuring:
"Computers Under Attack" by Peter Denning
"The Matrix as Volksnet" by John Quarterman
"Computers at Risk: The NRC Report and the Future" by Peter Neumann
"Cryptography and Privacy: The Human Factor" by Martin Hellman
"Electronic Money and Beyond" by David Chaum
"Will the Global Village be a Police State" by David Farber
Future shows will occur every other Saturday night. Spread the word!
If you'd like to have these shows broadcast in your local area, please
let me know. You can get a full set of tapes for about the price of
conference attendance ($400-500), and in most areas, public-access
cablecasting is free. After each show is broadcast here, I can lend
the tapes out for broadcast in other areas.
--
John Gilmore {sun,uunet,pyramid}!hoptoad!gnu gnu@toad.com gnu@cygnus.com
Never argue with a man who buys bits by the barrel.
--
John Gilmore {sun,uunet,pyramid}!hoptoad!gnu gnu@toad.com gnu@cygnus.com
Never argue with a man who buys bits by the barrel.
-------------------
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: hamlet@ravel.udel.edu (Chris Adams)
Subject: Re: [alt.activism] Re: Inappropriate Use by 2714sviatkos
Message-ID: <18156@ravel.udel.edu>
Date: 20 Dec 91 22:11:04 GMT
References: <9112200612.AA10586@m.cs.uiuc.edu> <9811@ns-mx.uiowa.edu>
Followup-To: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
In article <9811@ns-mx.uiowa.edu> durrell@umaxc.weeg.uiowa.edu (Cyberpixie) writes:
>Then again, maybe there's some fine subtle distinction I'm missing
>here. I don't think it's a usage issue, since (as per the ongoing
>comp.admin discussion on gaming) there is a multitude of ways to
>get people off the system when it's needed for other things. So,
>I suppose I'll go on blissfully ignorant of the reasons why it's
>OK to use most University facilities for recreation, with the sole
>exception of the computers...
In general, using the library for recreation doesn't waste
time and resources that is needed by people with actual
projects due. In general, using the library for recreation
doesn't cost the school immense amounts of money. In general,
people using the library for recreation don't stand on soap
boxes encouraging the slaughter of queers.
Is the distiction really that subtle?
--
"Why, if one wants to compare life to anything, one must
liken it to being blown through the Tube at fifty miles
an hour--landing at the other end without a single hair-
pin in one's hair!" --Virginia Woolf
-------------------
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: entropy@wintermute.WPI.EDU (Lawrence C. Foard)
Subject: Re: Inappropriate Use by 2714sviatkos
Message-ID: <1991Dec20.224449.6618@wpi.WPI.EDU>
Date: 20 Dec 91 22:44:49 GMT
In article <2950@tronsbox.xei.com> bleys@tronsbox.xei.com (Bill Cavanaugh) writes:
>[I cut the newsgroups line down a bit]
>
>In article <1991Dec19.154732.29142@wpi.WPI.EDU> entropy@wintermute.WPI.EDU (Lawrence C. Foard) writes:
>2714 (why is it I keep thinking of Number 6?) wasn't censored.
>He/she/it was denied use of someone elses computer and resources. No
>one said, "You can't say that." He/she/it can set up a UUCP site and
>say whatever he/she/it wants.
Where does this end? Nynex doesn't like you discussing politics on the phone,
but you can buy your own phone company. Your not allowed to carry signs for
certain candidates on public property, but you can buy some property to carry
them on. Effectively you are fining someone for expressing unpopular opinions
so that only the rich can hold them, this is infinitly more dangerous than the
material being censored.
>The Mapplethorpe exhibit wasn't censored. The government didn't say,
>"You can't show those pictures to the public."
You mean the people putting on the exhibit weren't dragged into court?
>It said, "Government
>funds are not available to help you show those pictures to the
>public."
That was another case, but the Maplethorpe case was good old fashioned
censorship.
>The difference between those two statements seems to be lost
>on a lot of people. I like Mapplethorpe's work, but I respect the
>right of people who don't to deny their tax money to supporting the
>exhibit. That's what representative government is all about.
The government either has to support art that offends no one, or support art
that offends everyone. Deciding that you will not support art that is "against
the bible" but not art that some other group finds offensive is wrong.
-------------------
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: dmittleman@misvax.mis.arizona.edu (Daniel David Mittleman)
Message-ID: <20DEC199122465880@misvax.mis.arizona.edu>
Subject: Re: Piles o' porn (WAS some long confused string)
Date: 20 Dec 1991 22:46 MST
References: <9112210326.AA00909@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Distribution: world,local
Nntp-Posting-Host: misvax.mis.arizona.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41
>[some fascinating statistics deleted]
>
> Now, if one were to presume, for the sake of argument, that there exsit
>no "scientific" groups in the heirarchies alt, rec, soc, and talk, one
>would be able to point out that not only is the net carrying
>"irrelivant" material, but is, in fact, better than 2/3 irrelivant to
>its chartered purpose.
> Wether this presumption is accurate, of course, is open to question - I
>assume that there are soc.culture groups which are "scientifically
>relevant" to, for instance, students of cultural anthropology studying
>varios nations and their heritages. Even making generous allowances for
>such cases, we still come up with a net where 50% or so of the posts are
>of a "recreational" nature.
You are absolutely correct in that much scientific discussion goes
on in soc and talk conferences. Heck, I bet there are even some
sociologists and anthropologists studying native American computer
geek mating rituals in the alt.sex.* conferences. :>
>
> Which leads to two conclusions -
>
>First, the distinction between "scientific data" and "recreational
>posting" is not necessarily as hard and fast as one might be led to
>think. Which means that a policy of limiting or removing groups based on
>their "scientific value" would probably be a total failure, were it to
>be applied fairly. And a total failure were it to be applied as a tool
>to remove certain targeted groups, as it can be challenged on the basis
>of this ambiguity.
>
>Second, there comes the thought that maybe, just maybe, the net has
>progressed beyond a mere data storage tool, and reached the level of an
>interactive large scale community. Which means its orginal charters are
>as dead as Julis Ceasar, since they reflect a network organization and
>distribution which no longer exists.
>
I have never read the original charters... You mean this isn't
supposed to be a community? {no smiley here, I am serious} I have
met people through this net that I now consider professional
colleagues. I have begun e-mail correspondence with several
people in fields related to mine who I never would have found were
it not for this net. There are several regular posters to the
groups I read whom I consider acquaintences now - even though I
have never met them other than from their posts. But they are
as or more significant to me than the faces I see every day in the
coffeehouse and nod to - even though we have never been
introduced. Seems like a community to me.
>Of course, I'm just an architecture student, so what do I know?
>
I'm only minoring in architecture, so maybe I know a little more.
:>
If you are interested in how architectoure and MIS can be combined
(other than CAD), drop me a note.
>Michael - rational romantic mystic cynical idealist
>Michael Feely, PO Box 4602, 5115 Margaret Morrison, Pittsburgh, PA 15213
>* mf2x+@andrew.cmu.edu ** Anonymous mail - wi.1227@wizvax.methuen.ma.us *
===========================================================================
daniel david mittleman - danny@arizona.edu - (602) 621-2932
"Gosh, this is my first post to alt.sex, won't the guys in the
motor pool be impressed."
-------------------
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: lambast@buengf.bu.edu (Insert Name Here)
Subject: Re: IRC vs. Usenet & email (authoritarianism)
Message-ID:
Date: 20 Dec 91 23:08:09 GMT
References: <1991Dec6.100928.8950@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
<1991Dec6.150235.10506@eff.org> <1991Dec6.160029.22601@ms.uky.edu>
Sender: news@bu.edu
Followup-To: alt.irc
In-reply-to: morgan@ms.uky.edu's message of 6 Dec 91 16:00:29 GMT
On 6 Dec 91 16:00:29 GMT, morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) said:
[Discussion of how site admins can refuse to deal with mail or news from a
given site deleted]
>>so an IRC operators's jurisdiction should be limited to
>>his or her site.
> IRC administrators can refuse to handle messages from a given user or site.
> What's the difference?
Well, for one, IRC is a tree, whereas mail and news are meshes. In other
words, at any given time on IRC, there is only one path from a given site
to another. This inherently puts an added requirement of tolerance on the
intermediate servers.
Don't you think?
-Ho Yi
--------------------
--
Helen C. O'Boyle | Co-moderator, Computers and Academic Freedom list
helen@eff.org | << insert usual disclaimer here... my opinions
isy5hob@cabell.vcu.edu | are mine alone, not EFF's or VCU's, etc. >>
From helen Fri Dec 20 19:23:25 1991
Received: by eff.org id AA18898
(5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for cafb-list@eff.org); Sat, 21 Dec 1991 00:23:32 -0500
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: mf2x+@andrew.cmu.edu (Michael Raymond Feely)
Subject: Piles o' porn (WASRe: The USENET pornographic network)
Message-ID: <8dIbdWW00Vp400xWwj@andrew.cmu.edu>
Date: 20 Dec 91 23:18:58 GMT
rsr@ocf.berkeley.edu (Roy S. Rapoport) writes...
>Actually, I seem to remember that sexstuff does make a considerable portion
>of USENET mail. Remember -- you also have to consider stuff like
>alt.binaries.pictures.*, which generates a LOT of stuff, because each
>complete picture can be in upwards of 300k. . .
>
>I could, however, be wrong.
When in doubt, let's go facthunting.
from -Top 25 News Groups for the last 2 weeks-
I find
> No. of $ Cost % of Cumulative
>Rank Kbytes Articles per Site Total % of Total Group (Articles/contributor)
> 1 20669.1 483 54.54 6.7% 6.7%
alt.binaries.pictures.erotica (4.2)
> 3 5536.0 128 14.61 1.8% 15.1% alt.sex.pictures (2.8)
> 7 4272.1 88 11.27 1.4% 21.3%
alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.blondes (7.3)
>17 2396.7 1328 6.32 0.8% 30.5% alt.sex (2.2)
> 18 2015.5 752 5.32 0.7% 31.1% alt.sex.bondage (2.7)
These are the only "erotic" groups in the top 25, but is suspect that
this is over 90 percent of the volume of "erotic" material on the net -
for argument's sake, we'll fudge the numbers upward a wee bit.
Total - 34,889 kilobytes, over a period of two weeks.
Adding in a ten percent fudge factor for all those groups I under the
alt.sex.* aegis, et al, such as, notably, alt.sex.bestiality, which
carries some picture files, (with their associated volume) I get a
figure of 38,766 Kbytes in a two week period.
Equals 38 megabytes, give or take.
Equals 2.7 megabytes of erotic material per day.
>145496 articles, totaling 309.832717 Mbytes (375.136472 including headers),
>were submitted from 14997 different Usenet sites by 39474 different
>users to 1851 different newsgroups for an average of 22.130908 Mbytes
>(26.795462 including headers) per day.
Or, erotic material is just a tiny tad over 10 percent of the volume of
material on the net (Note that for that calculation I am assuming that
the figures on kilobytage from "top 25 groups" include the space spent
on headers and so forth. If they don't, the figure rises to 12.2
percent.)
Of course, one might also note theses figures...
> alt 28313 104.959058 33% 118.296067
> rec 44214 68.479894 22% 87.758875
> comp 31744 67.210345 21% 81.291739
> soc 17427 30.628584 9% 39.277784
> talk 7834 15.219771 4% 19.305112
> sci 6260 12.523492 4% 15.486029
> clari 4495 12.506167 4% 15.451066
> fj 5337 11.723154 3% 14.545480
> bit 8799 11.155195 3% 15.455704
> misc 6628 10.580627 3% 13.580648
> news 1438 7.169381 2% 7.878767
> bionet 2282 6.517144 2% 7.420098
Now, if one were to presume, for the sake of argument, that there exsit
no "scientific" groups in the heirarchies alt, rec, soc, and talk, one
would be able to point out that not only is the net carrying
"irrelivant" material, but is, in fact, better than 2/3 irrelivant to
its chartered purpose.
Wether this presumption is accurate, of course, is open to question - I
assume that there are soc.culture groups which are "scientifically
relevant" to, for instance, students of cultural anthropology studying
varios nations and their heritages. Even making generous allowances for
such cases, we still come up with a net where 50% or so of the posts are
of a "recreational" nature.
Which leads to two conclusions -
First, the distinction between "scientific data" and "recreational
posting" is not necessarily as hard and fast as one might be led to
think. Which means that a policy of limiting or removing groups based on
their "scientific value" would probably be a total failure, were it to
be applied fairly. And a total failure were it to be applied as a tool
to remove certain targeted groups, as it can be challenged on the basis
of this ambiguity.
Second, there comes the thought that maybe, just maybe, the net has
progressed beyond a mere data storage tool, and reached the level of an
interactive large scale community. Which means its orginal charters are
as dead as Julis Ceasar, since they reflect a network organization and
distribution which no longer exists.
Of course, I'm just an architecture student, so what do I know?
=======------======------======------
Michael - rational romantic mystic cynical idealist
"...it is okay to wield a riding crop at an asb party, but not in the
middle of an architecture lab." - Richard Chandler
CMU did make me this way, but they'll never admit it.
Michael Feely, PO Box 4602, 5115 Margaret Morrison, Pittsburgh, PA 15213
* mf2x+@andrew.cmu.edu ** Anonymous mail - wi.1227@wizvax.methuen.ma.us *
-------------------
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: comp-academic-freedom-talk
Reply-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk
Precedence: bulk
To: comp-academic-freedom-talk
Errors-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk-request
Date: Sat, 21 Dec 1991 00:01:55 -0500
X-Digest-Sender: "Helen C. O'Boyle"
Message-Id: <199112210501.AA18004@eff.org>
Subject: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Sat Dec 21 00:00:47 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@cs.uiuc.edu : (alt.censorship, et al.) Re: Inappropriate Use by 2714svia
kadie@eff.org (Car : Abstract of CAF-News 01.44
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: Abstract of CAF-News 01.44
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (alt.sex, et al.) Re: Inappropriate Use by 2714sviatkos
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (alt.activism) Re: Inappropriate Use by 2714sviatkos
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (alt.evil) Re: Inappropriate Use by 2714sviatkos
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (alt.activism) Re: Inappropriate Use by 2714sviatkos
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (alt.activism) Re: Inappropriate Use by 2714sviatkos
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (alt.activism) Re: Inappropriate Use by 2714sviatkos
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (alt.sex) Re: Inappropriate Use by 2714sviatkos
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (alt.activism) Re: Inappropriate Use by 2714sviatkos
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (alt.sex) Re: Inappropriate Use by 2714sviatkos
falk@peregrine.Sun : Re: Another censorship incident has just occurred
falk@peregrine.Sun : Re: (alt.activism) Re: Inappropriate Use by 2714sviatkos
russotto@eng.umd.e : Re: Inappropriate Use by 2714sviatkos
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (alt.censorship) Re: Another censorship incident has just
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (alt.censorship) Re: Another censorship incident has just
greeny@top.cis.syr : Re: Another censorship incident has just occurred
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 cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: falk@peregrine.Sun.COM (Ed Falk)
Subject: Re: [alt.activism] Re: Inappropriate Use by 2714sviatkos
Message-ID:
Date: 21 Dec 91 00:20:13 GMT
References: <9112200612.AA10586@m.cs.uiuc.edu> <9811@ns-mx.uiowa.edu> <18156@ravel.udel.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: peregrine
In article <18156@ravel.udel.edu> hamlet@ravel.udel.edu (Chris Adams) writes:
>
>In general, using the library for recreation doesn't waste
>time and resources that is needed by people with actual
>projects due. In general, using the library for recreation
>doesn't cost the school immense amounts of money. In general,
>people using the library for recreation don't stand on soap
>boxes encouraging the slaughter of queers.
>Is the distiction really that subtle?
I reject the "waste of resources" and "innapropriate use of facilities"
arguments on censorship. They didn't cut anybody off because they
wasted resources by posting to the net, they cut them off because
of *what* they posted. These areguments are a smokescreen unless
the university cuts *everybody* off regardless of what views they
express.
If everybody lost their accounts because money ran tight, that
wouldn't be censorship. If one person loses his account because
of what he said, then "time and resources" is just an excuse.
-------------------
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: comp-academic-freedom-talk
Reply-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk
Precedence: bulk
To: comp-academic-freedom-talk
Errors-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk-request
Date: Sat, 21 Dec 1991 00:22:12 -0500
X-Digest-Sender: "Helen C. O'Boyle"
Message-Id: <199112210522.AA18661@eff.org>
Subject: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Sat Dec 21 00:21:07 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.sex.bondage, et al.) Re: The USENET pornographic netw
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (alt.sex.bondage, et al.) Re: The USENET pornographic netw
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (alt.activism) Re: Inappropriate Use by 2714sviatkos
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (alt.activism) Re: Inappropriate Use by 2714sviatkos
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (alt.activism) Re: Inappropriate Use by 2714sviatkos
durrell@umaxc.weeg : Re: (alt.activism) Re: Inappropriate Use by 2714sviatkos
schweige@taurus.cs : Re: (alt.censorship) Re: Another censorship incident has
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (alt.censorship) Re: Another censorship incident has just
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (alt.activism) Re: Inappropriate Use by 2714sviatkos
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (alt.activism) Re: Inappropriate Use by 2714sviatkos
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (alt.activism) Re: Inappropriate Use by 2714sviatkos
gnu@hoptoad.uucp ( : Computers, Freedom and Privacy videos on Palo Alto channe
gl8f@fermi.clas.Vi : Re: Another censorship incident has just occurred
gl8f@fermi.clas.Vi : Re: Another censorship incident has just occurred
hamlet@ravel.udel. : Re: (alt.activism) Re: Inappropriate Use by 2714sviatkos
lambast@buengf.bu. : Re: IRC vs. Usenet & email (authoritarianism)
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 cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: comp-academic-freedom-talk
Reply-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk
Precedence: bulk
To: comp-academic-freedom-talk
Errors-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk-request
Date: Sat, 21 Dec 1991 00:23:25 -0500
X-Digest-Sender: "Helen C. O'Boyle"
Message-Id: <199112210523.AA18891@eff.org>
Subject: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Sat Dec 21 00:22:38 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:
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (alt.activism) Re: Inappropriate Use by 2714sviatkos
kadie@m.cs.uiuc.ed : Re: Inappropriate Use by 2714sviatkos
kadie@m.cs.uiuc.ed : Re: Inappropriate Use by 2714sviatkos
kadie@m.cs.uiuc.ed : Re: Inappropriate Use by 2714sviatkos
kadie@m.cs.uiuc.ed : Re: Inappropriate Use by 2714sviatkos
kadie@m.cs.uiuc.ed : Re: Inappropriate Use by 2714sviatkos
kadie@m.cs.uiuc.ed : Re: The USENET pornographic network
kadie@m.cs.uiuc.ed : Re: Inappropriate Use by 2714sviatkos
falk@peregrine.Sun : Re: (alt.activism) Re: Inappropriate Use by 2714sviatkos
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (alt.sex.bondage, et al.) Piles o' porn (WASRe: The USENET
john@iastate.edu ( : NSF crackdown (was Re: The USENET pornographic network)
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 cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: john@iastate.edu (John Hascall)
Subject: NSF crackdown (was Re: The USENET pornographic network)
Message-ID: <1991Dec21.030811.1156@news.iastate.edu>
Date: 21 Dec 91 03:08:11 GMT
References: <1991Dec19.221832.36510@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> <1991Dec20.182121.24027@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: news@news.iastate.edu (USENET News System)
kadie@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
}rsr@ocf.berkeley.edu (Roy S. Rapoport) writes:
}[...]
}>For example, the NSF (National Science Foundation) has repeatedly cracked
}>down on xxx gif sites, [...]
}Also, the concern was raised not because the information provider
}sites were NSF funded, but because information requesters at other
}sites were accessing these sites via the NSFnet.
Current NSFnet program director: George Strawn, on leave from his job
as the Director of the Iowa State University Computation Center.
John
--------------------
--
Helen C. O'Boyle | Co-moderator, Computers and Academic Freedom list
helen@eff.org | << insert usual disclaimer here... my opinions
isy5hob@cabell.vcu.edu | are mine alone, not EFF's or VCU's, etc. >>
From helen Sat Jan 4 07:24:25 1992
Received: by eff.org id AA05151
(5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for cafb-list@eff.org); Sat, 4 Jan 1992 12:24:29 -0500
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: bh@anarres.Berkeley.EDU (Brian Harvey)
Subject: Re: [alt.activism] Re: Inappropriate Use by 2714sviatkos
Message-ID:
Date: 21 Dec 91 04:18:04 GMT
Article-I.D.: agate.kl5g3sINN7tq
References: <9112200612.AA10586@m.cs.uiuc.edu> <9811@ns-mx.uiowa.edu> <18156@ravel.udel.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: anarres.berkeley.edu
hamlet@ravel.udel.edu (Chris Adams) writes:
>[...] In general,
>people using the library for recreation don't stand on soap
>boxes encouraging the slaughter of queers.
>Is the distiction really that subtle?
About good and evil again--and your library. The books and the films
and the records and the tapes and the pictures you have in there have
come from the best parts of human beings who have often, in real life,
been contemptible in many ways. The best example I know of goodness
from vileness is the body of humane writings produced by Louis-Ferdinand
Celine, a French physician and novelist, who was a convicted war criminal
after World War Two. Louis-Ferdinand Celine was his pen name. His real
name was Louis-Ferdinand Destouches. He was the son of poor people. He
spent most of his adult life as a badly paid physician who treated the
poor. I read his early novels without knowing anything about his
vicious anti-Semitism. He kept it out of his early books. The internal
evidence of those books persuaded me, and many others, too, that I was
in the presence of a great man.
-- Kurt Vonnegut, "Address at Rededication of Wheaton College
Library, 1973" in _Wampeters,_Foma_&_Granfalloons_ (1965).
The point is, it's not that the library is totally safe from horrible ideas
or horrible people. You can find _Mein_Kampf_ in the library. No doubt
some people read it for fun. You can find all kinds of stuff in the library
that's not so horrible, but still (imho) foolish, like books about astrology.
I support all that with my taxes, and gladly, because I know that I can also
find some things there that *I* want, like Karl Marx for example, whom some
people would reject as being evil like Hitler, and others would reject as
being silly like astrology. (In the state of California it is illegal for a
public school teacher to teach about socialism, by the way.)
-------------------
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: durrell@umaxc.weeg.uiowa.edu (Cyberpixie)
Subject: Re: [alt.activism] Re: Inappropriate Use by 2714sviatkos
Message-ID: <9823@ns-mx.uiowa.edu>
Date: 21 Dec 91 05:43:42 GMT
References: <9112200612.AA10586@m.cs.uiuc.edu> <9811@ns-mx.uiowa.edu> <18156@ravel.udel.edu>
Sender: news@ns-mx.uiowa.edu
In article <18156@ravel.udel.edu> hamlet@ravel.udel.edu (Chris Adams) writes:
>In article <9811@ns-mx.uiowa.edu> durrell@umaxc.weeg.uiowa.edu (Cyberpixie) writes:
>>Then again, maybe there's some fine subtle distinction I'm missing
>>here. I don't think it's a usage issue, since (as per the ongoing
>>comp.admin discussion on gaming) there is a multitude of ways to
>>get people off the system when it's needed for other things. So,
>>I suppose I'll go on blissfully ignorant of the reasons why it's
>>OK to use most University facilities for recreation, with the sole
>>exception of the computers...
>In general, using the library for recreation doesn't waste
>time and resources that is needed by people with actual
>projects due.
Um, I referenced that point above, didn't I? It's possible to make
sure machines are available for people who need them for academic
work while still allowing others to use them. If it wasn't possible
to do this, I suspect few universities would allow non-academic
accounts.
>In general, using the library for recreation
>doesn't cost the school immense amounts of money.
Well, sure. Neither does using computer resources for posting,
gaming, etc. Both are examples of people making recreation use
of things that are already there. The libraries cost immense
amounts, and so do the computers, but those costs are nearly
constant no matter what use they are put to. Costs only go up with
the number of people using them, in both cases. I don't think
you'll find many cases of schools buying new machines just for
gamers and newsreaders, so your point is moot.
>In general,
>people using the library for recreation don't stand on soap
>boxes encouraging the slaughter of queers.
In general, people using the Internet for recreation don't stand on
soap boxes encouraging the slaughter of queers. The ones that do
are more obvious.
>Is the distiction really that subtle?
Yes.
--
Bryant Durrell durrell@umaxc.weeg.uiowa.edu
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Life is just like high school, but with better production values.
-------------------
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: goehring@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Scott Goehring)
Subject: Re: The USENET pornographic network
Message-ID:
Date: 21 Dec 91 23:52:53 GMT
References:
<1991Dec13.082053.23933@math.ufl.edu>
<1991Dec19.221832.36510@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu>
<1991Dec20.182121.24027@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: news@mentor.cc.purdue.edu
Followup-To: alt.sex.bondage
In-reply-to: kadie@m.cs.uiuc.edu's message of 20 Dec 91 18:21:21 GMT
kadie@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
[referring to x-rated gif ftp sites]
>Also, the concern was raised not because the information provider
>sites were NSF funded, but because informatio requesters at other
>sites were accessing these sites via the NSFnet.
Not to mention the rather remarkable network load that X-rated ftp
sites create when they're up. In fact, I can understand the NSF's
feelings in this regard: X-rated GIF sites don't serve any reasonable
research purpose, and they do interfere with legitimate research uses
of the net, in some cases substantially.
--
We expect them [Salvadoran officials] to work toward the elimination
of human rights.
-- Vice President Dan Quayle
-------------------
