From caf-talk Caf Jan 27 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,misc.legal,alt.censorship
From: mpd@anomaly.sbs.com (Michael P. Deignan)
Subject: Re: Duties of state universities regarding 1st amendment
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1992 04:17:06 GMT
Message-ID: <1992Jan27.041706.3240@anomaly.sbs.com>
baillod@sparky.eecs.umich.edu (Brad Baillod) writes:
>It seems to me, however, that the people responsible for usenet
>policy in most places are treating
>newsgroups as library-like material.
Hardly. The USENET is nothing more than a giant public forum. Electronic,
but a public forum nonetheless. The only similarity between it and a
library is that it contains verbiage.
> If Usenet was used strictly for educational and research purposes,
>then censors would have a valid argument for keeping non-research
>and non-educational material off it. But given that we have rec.motorcycles,
>talk.politics.mideast, rec.sewing and alt.fan.jiro-nakamura on Usenet,
>it is arbitrary and capricious to censor alt.sex, and, in fact, against
>what the goal of Usenet has become.
Some could argue that talk.politics.* etc., are in fact educational
groups, designed to enhance the political awareness of polysci students,
etc.
>it is now a form of mass communication.
Exactly. It is basically a large public forum. As such, the owner/
administrator of each site can determine which forums or topics of
interest are best suited for his/her environment.
> If universities are bound to keep their libraries free of arbitrary
>censorship, they are just as bound to keep Usenet free of arbitrary
>censorship, as Usenet has become nothing less than an electronic library
>of ideas.
But USENET isn't a library, and is therefore entitled to none of the
protections a "library" is.
Even libraries are "censored", in the sense that the staff must determine
which publications, materials, etc., to purchase using their limited
budget.
Therefore, "censorship", or "editing", does occur at the library level,
regardless.
> The argument "censorship is not censorship if you can get the material
>from another source" is not valid.
Censorship is the elimination of unauthorized materials from a collection
or writing. Censorship is the supression of ideals. Nobody is suppressing
your ideals or writings - you may merely not use their property to
propagate them. You are totally free to propagate your ideals and
writings through other means that are available to people on USENET.
> Does this mean that poor people are
>excluded from the exchange of ideas?
Poor people are excluded from many things. Housing, food, education,
clothing, health. You name it.i
Life isn't fair. Nor was it meant to be.
MD
--
-- Michael P. Deignan /
-- Domain: mpd@anomaly.sbs.com / I'm not a bigot,
-- UUCP: ...!uunet!rayssd!anomaly!mpd / I hate everyone.
-- Telebit: +1 401 455 0347 /
From caf-talk Caf Jan 27 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: nbc2134@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil (Robert F Solon)
Subject: Re: Duties of state universities regarding 1st amendment
Message-ID: <9201271451.AA15680@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil>
Date: 27 Jan 92 04:51:48 GMT
In reply to the mail from ...
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[....]
>>It seems to me, however, that the people responsible for usenet
>>policy in most places are treating
>>newsgroups as library-like material.
>
>Hardly. The USENET is nothing more than a giant public forum. Electronic,
>but a public forum nonetheless. The only similarity between it and a
>library is that it contains verbiage.
>
I presume, then, that Usenet enjoys the same legal protections as other public
fora? I believe Carl Kadie can site the approriate legal definitions.
[....]
>
>>it is now a form of mass communication.
>
>Exactly. It is basically a large public forum. As such, the owner/
>administrator of each site can determine which forums or topics of
>interest are best suited for his/her environment.
I ask again if Usenet is therefore subject to the legal protections given
other public fora. If not, what not? And if the owner/operator is a public
entity supported by taxpayers' money, do the various provisions of the First,
Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments apply?
>
>> If universities are bound to keep their libraries free of arbitrary
>>censorship, they are just as bound to keep Usenet free of arbitrary
>>censorship, as Usenet has become nothing less than an electronic library
>>of ideas.
>
>But USENET isn't a library, and is therefore entitled to none of the
>protections a "library" is.
Why isn't Usenet a library? What characteristics of Usenet make it
inappropriate to use the term?
>
>Even libraries are "censored", in the sense that the staff must determine
>which publications, materials, etc., to purchase using their limited
>budget.
>
>Therefore, "censorship", or "editing", does occur at the library level,
>regardless.
>
But editing or selection should not be made on the basis of content.
>
>> The argument "censorship is not censorship if you can get the material
>>from another source" is not valid.
>
>Censorship is the elimination of unauthorized materials from a collection
>or writing. Censorship is the supression of ideals. Nobody is suppressing
>your ideals or writings - you may merely not use their property to
>propagate them. You are totally free to propagate your ideals and
>writings through other means that are available to people on USENET.
We've discussed this whole idea before. I was and am (albeit grudgingly, to
be sure), convinced that Usenet at public institutions enjoys a certain level
of protection. Of course, you're correct that private carriers may do as they
wish. I'd be happy to hear any other ideas on this topic that you may have.
It's always refreshing to hear others' viewpoints.
>
>> Does this mean that poor people are
>>excluded from the exchange of ideas?
>
>Poor people are excluded from many things. Housing, food, education,
>clothing, health. You name it.i
>
I think that perhaps this line of reasoning is a fallacy. One's socioeconomic
status has little to do with basic rights. I would argue that availability of
a forum to express views is not a duty of any institution, public or
otherwise. If that were the case, one could argue that all individuals must
be provided with free access to broadcast and print media, so that they could
express themselves, and that all forms of media should be subsidized, so that
all members of society can partake of the media of their choice regardless of
cost. The First Amendment does not carry a requirement of subsidy, nor should
it.
Bob
Bob Solon, DSAC-BCC
Administrative Information Branch -- APCAPS
"We Code, You Explode!!"
From caf-talk Caf Jan 27 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,misc.legal,alt.censorship
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Duties of state universities regarding 1st amendment
Message-ID: <1992Jan27.150734.23638@eff.org>
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1992 15:07:34 GMT
baillod@sparky.eecs.umich.edu (Brad Baillod) writes:
>It seems to me, however, that the people responsible for usenet
>policy in most places are treating
>newsgroups as library-like material.
mpd@anomaly.sbs.com (Michael P. Deignan) writes:
>Hardly. The USENET is nothing more than a giant public forum. Electronic,
>but a public forum nonetheless. The only similarity between it and a
>library is that it contains verbiage.
Brad did not suggest that _Usenet_ was like a library, he suggested
that _the Usenet facilities are at most universities_ are like a
library. The difference between "Usenet" and "the Usenet facilities at
a public university" is analogous to the difference between
"Magazines" and "the Magazine facilities at a public university (i.e.
a library)."
The comparison between Usenet facility and library is not so strange.
Here, for example, is the definition of library from Indiana state
law. It could cover some a Usenet facilities:
"'Library' means a collection of a variety of books or other printed
matter, audiovisual materials or other items in which knowledge is
recorded; kept in a centralized place; for which a person who as
knowledge of the materials, their arrangement, their use and of
library skills is responsible; and which are for the use of
individuals or groups in meeting their recreational, informational,
educational, research or cultural needs." See _American Library Laws_
(5th edition).
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu, or (anonymous) ap.3619@layout.berkeley.edu=
From caf-talk Caf Jan 27 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,misc.legal,alt.censorship
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Duties of state universities regarding 1st amendment
Message-ID: <1992Jan27.155014.24555@eff.org>
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1992 15:50:14 GMT
mpd@anomaly.sbs.com (Michael P. Deignan) writes:
[...]
>But USENET isn't a library, and is therefore entitled to none of the
>protections a "library" is.
Libraries don't get their protection because they are "libraries",
they get them because they are "forums for information and ideas".
[ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/library/bill-of-rights.ala]
Netnews facilities are state university are entitled to protection for
the same reason.
>Even libraries are "censored", in the sense that the staff must determine
>which publications, materials, etc., to purchase using their limited
>budget.
>Therefore, "censorship", or "editing", does occur at the library level,
>regardless.
True. Librarians call it "selection". They consider some selection
criteria (such as cost) valid and others (such as offensiveness)
invalid. For information on library selection policy, see
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic library/selection-workbook.ala. It says
"[m]aterials should not be proscribed or removed because of partisan
or doctrinal disapproval."
It says that every school should have a selection policy and that
every selection policy should have a policy on controversial material.
Here is some of what it says about controversial material:
(This was written for high schools. State universities will,
hopefully, aspire to at least these standards.)
=======================start===================================
POLICIES ON CONTROVERSIAL MATERIALS. Here, or in another place
in your policy you should include a statement on intellectual
freedom and why it is important to maintain. You may wish to
include the test of the First Amendment to the United States
Constitution - "Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise
thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or
the right of the people peaceable to assemble, and to petition
the Government for a redress of grievances," and the LIBRARY BILL
OF RIGHTS. (A copy is included at the end of this booklet.)
Sample Statement on intellectual freedom:
o The school board subscribes in principle to the
statements of policy on library philosophy as expressed
in the American Library Association LIBRARY BILL OF
RIGHTS, a copy of which is appended to and made a part
of this policy.
RECONSIDERATION. Occasional objections to instructional
materials will be made despite the quality of the selection
process; therefore, the procedure for handling reconsideration of
challenged materials in response to questions concerning their
appropriateness should be stated. This procedure should
establish the framework for registering a complaint that provides
for a hearing with appropriate action while defending the
principles of freedom of information, the student's right to
access of materials, and the professional responsibility and
integrity of the school faculty. The principles of intellectual
freedom are inherent in the First Amendment of the Constitution
of the United States and are expressed in the LIBRARY BILL OF
RIGHTS adopted by the Council of the American Library
Association. In the event instructional materials are
questioned, the principles of intellectual freedom should e
defended rather than the materials.
List here the specific steps that will be taken when you are
asked to reconsider materials in your collection. These steps
should include:
--asking the complainant to fill out a written complaint
form. (See attached form as an example.)
--assigning a review committee to examine the material in
question.
--requesting that the committee report their findings to the
school board.
The procedure for handling complaints should describe every
step from the initial response to the complaint through the
highest appeal.
o Procedure for handling complaints
No duly selected materials whose appropriateness is
challenged shall be removed from the school except upon
the recommendation of a review committee (as provided
for below) with the concurrence of the Superintendent
or, upon the Superintendent's recommendation, the
concurrence of the Board of Education, or upon formal
action of the Board of Education when a recommendation
of a review committee is appealed to it.
Procedures to be observed.
a. All complaints to staff members shall be reported
to the building principal involved, whether
received by telephone, letter, or in personal
conversation.
b. The principal shall contact the complainant to
discuss the complaint and attempt to resolve it
informally by explaining the philosophy and goals
of the school district and/or the library media
center.
c. If the complaint is not resolved informally, the
complainant shall be supplied with a packet of
materials consisting of the District's
instructional goals and objectives, materials
selection policy statement, and the procedure for
handling objections. This packet will also
include a standard printed form which shall be
completed and returned before consideration will
be given to the complaint.
d. If the formal request for reconsideration has not
been received by the principal within two weeks,
it shall be considered closed. If the request is
returned, the reasons for selection of the
specific work shall be reestablished by the
appropriate staff.
e. In accordance with statement of philosophy, no
questioned materials shall be removed from the
school pending a final decision. Pending the
outcome of the request for reconsideration,
however, access to questioned materials can be
denied to the child (or children) of the parents
making the complaint, if they so desire.
f. Upon receipt of a completed objection form, the
principal in the building involved will call
together a committee of five to consider the
complaint. This committee shall consist of the
curriculum director and from the school involved:
the principal, the library media center director,
a teacher, and a PTA representative.
g. The committee shall meet to discuss the material,
following the guidelines set forth in Instructions
to Evaluation Committee and shall prepare a report
on the material containing their recommendations
on disposition of the matter.
h. The principal shall notify complainant of the
decision and send a formal report and
recommendation to the Superintendent. In
answering the complainant, the principal shall
explain the book selection system, give the
guidelines used for selection, and cite
authorities used in reaching decisions. If the
committee decides to keep the work that caused the
complaint, the complainant shall be given an
explanation. If the complaint is valid, the
principal will acknowledge it and make recommended
changes .
i. If the complainant is still not satisfied, he/she
may ask the Superintendent to present an appeal to
the Board of Education which shall make a final
determination of the issue. The Board of
Education may seek assistance from outside
organizations such as the American Library
Association, the Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development, etc., in making its
determination.
SAMPLE LETTER TO COMPLAINT
Dear _______________ :
We appreciate your concern over the use of _________________
in our school district. The district has developed procedures
for selecting materials, but realize that not everyone will
agree with every selection made.
To help you understand the selection process, we are sending
copies of the district's:
1. Instructional goals and objectives
2. Materials Selection Policy statement
3. Procedure for Handling Objections
If you are still concerned after you review this material,
please complete the Request for Reconsideration of Material form
and return it to me. You may be assured of prompt attention to
your request. If I have not heard from you within two weeks, we
will assume you no longer wish to file a formal complaint.
Sincerely,
Principal
INSTRUCTIONS TO EVALUATING COMMITTEE
Bear in mind the principles of the freedom to learn and to
read and base your decision on these broad principles rather than
on defense of individual materials. Freedom of inquiry is vital
to education in a democracy.
Study thoroughly all materials referred to you and read
available reviews. The general acceptance of the materials
should be checked by consulting standard evaluation aids and
local holdings in other schools.
Passages or parts should not be pulled out of context. The
values and faults should be weighed against each other and the
opinions based on the materials as a whole.
Your report, presenting both majority and minority opinions,
will be presented by the principal to the complainant at the
conclusion of our discussion of the questioned material.
STATEMENT OF CONCERN ABOUT
LIBRARY/MEDIA CENTER RESOURCES
This is where you identify who in your own structure, has
authorized use of this form - Director, Board of Trustees, Board
of Education, etc. and to whom to return form.
Name ___________________________________________ Date ____________
Address ________________________________________
City ___________________ State ______ Zip ______ Phone # _________
1. Resources on which you are commenting:
___ Book ___ Audiovisual Resource
___ Magazine ___ Content of Library Program
___ Newspaper ___ Other
Title _______________________________________________________
Author/Producer ______________________________________________
2. What brought this title to your attention?
3. Please comment on the resource as a whole as well as being
specific on those matters which concern you. (Use other
side if needed.)
Comment:
Optional:
4. What resource(s) do you suggest to provide additional
information on this topic?
Revised by the ALA Intellectual Freedom Committee, January 12,
1983
=========================================end======================
>Censorship is the elimination of unauthorized materials from a collection
>or writing. Censorship is the suppression of ideals. Nobody is suppressing
>your ideals or writings - you may merely not use their property to
>propagate them. You are totally free to propagate your ideals and
>writings through other means that are available to people on USENET.
This definition of censorship seem at odds with the definition from
libraries:
"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."
[ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/library/censorship.def.ala].
It is also at odds with the use of the term in academic freedom
statements:
"The institutional control of campus facilities should not be used as
a device of censorship."
"The 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]
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu, or (anonymous) ap.3619@layout.berkeley.edu=
From caf-talk Caf Jan 27 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.censorship,soc.college
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Abstract of CAF-News 02.02
Message-ID: <1992Jan27.161036.25544@eff.org>
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1992 16:10:36 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 cafv02n02
--- begin abstract ---
[Week ending 12 Jan 1992
[The guest editor this issue is Paul Joslin (joslin@tso.uc.edu).
- Carl Kadie]
========================== KEY ================================
The words after the numbers are a short PARAPHRASES of the
articles, NOT AN OBJECTIVE SUMMARY and not necessarily my opinion.
===============================================================
Note 1 discusses whether an information provider is responsible
for an information requestor's use of NSFNET.
1. Is it proper for a site to cut off access to my site if I refuse
to remove material they find offensive?
A site may sever contact. "Your freedom to talk doesn't require
them to listen." An information provider is not required to remove
materials, but might find access blocked by other sites. The NSFNET
Project Office may determine whether a use is appropriate or not.
<1992Jan6.070807.109@sdg.dra.com>
Notes 2-4 are about the Cubby, Inc. vs CompuServe libel case.
2. Mike Godwin (mnemonic@eff.org): By granting CompuServe's request
for a summary judgment (finding CompuServe not liable), the court has
strengthened first amendment protection for online services. The
judge's decision holds that CompuServe was a distributor, not a
publisher. Like a bookstore owner, CompuServe is not required to
review everything it carries prior to providing it to its customers.
<1992Jan6.204341.5096@eff.org>
3. (A moderator:) Why hasn't Smith v. California affected record store
owners prosecuted for selling obscene albums? If it is because the
stores were informed that they had obscene albums and declined to
purge them, how will this effect an information provider who is asked
to remove questionable material? Can they be held liable for its
content?
<1992Jan07.061636.26835@clarinet.com>
4. Although CompuServe received a summary judgement, the case against
the person posting the alleged defamatory material, and the third
party contracted to operate the forum continues. A 'moderator' who
prescreens material may increase their liability, since they are more
like publishers than bookstore owners.
<1992Jan8.183626.24959@eff.org>
Note 5 provides a reference to a discussion of libraries and
minor-access laws.
5. kadie@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie): "American Library Association
policy forbids libraries from limiting access because of a patron's
age." However, "Only a few states have legal definitions of a
library." Whether a BBS or Usenet site is considered a library might
depend on how it is run.
<1992Jan8.215233.24855@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Notes 6-9 discuss the recent removal of IRC software from users'
accounts at the University of Wyoming.
6. (A student:) I compiled an IRC client and master on a computer at U
Wyoming. I provided access to this software to other users. Upon
receiving complaints, the system administrators removed access for all
users who had used IRC. In order to get their accounts back, the
users had to remove all IRC software from their accounts and agree not
to use IRC on the computer. "After I agreed to do this, my (Cluster)
account was reinabled and I was told 2 hours later it would be
searched for IRC files. If any were ever found again, I would be
disusered without hope for reinstatement."
<3803321809011992_A11466_POSSE_11614C9F3200*@mrgate.uwyo.edu>
7. Even if the university was within its legal rights, did it have the
moral right to take this action? Specifically, should the
administrator have suspended the accounts before establishing that the
user had done something wrong? And should he have searched user files
without authorization?
<199201101800.AA13167@eff.org>
8. "If the University has contractual or legal requirements for due
process in the revocation of computer accounts, then he and the others
who lost their accounts may very well have a case." A university may
have legal or contractual obligations to the users of its facilities.
<199201101912.AA15236@eff.org>
Note 9 gives an overview of a recent discussion on hackers, computer
privacy, and the government's role in computer security.
9. Guests on KQED's Forum program, including Cliff Stoll, Steve Sawyer
and Jay Ward, discussed computers and security. Topics included the
difference between crackers and hackers, corporate policies on
privacy, and the Buckley Amendment (student access to university
records).
<1992Jan11.083311.25336@odin.corp.sgi.com>
Note 10 discusses a case at UC Berkeley which points to an apparent
conflict between the Buckley Amendment and the Electronic
Communications Privacy Act.
10. The family of a student disciplined for allegedly breaking into
university computers is suing the university. They have requested all
records stored on two mainframes concerning the student. The
university has searched all files on these mainframes for the
student's login id. The university will seek to stop execution of the
order on the grounds that examining each file would be an undue burden
(and not on privacy grounds).
Note 11 is a reminder that "ALT" news groups are created and managed
differently.
11. Carl Kadie: You cannot create a news group and expect Usenet sites
to enforce your charter. Matthew Russotto: "Most importantly, don't
create an ALT group and expect ANYTHING to be enforced."
<1992Jan12.025341.4239@eng.umd.edu>
- Paul]
--- 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 -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu, or (anonymous) ap.3619@layout.berkeley.edu=
From caf-talk Caf Jan 27 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.admin.policy] harrassing mail
Message-ID: <9201271717.AA11148@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: 27 Jan 92 05:17:07 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Jan 27 00:00:00 1992
From: brendan@cs.widener.edu (Brendan Kehoe)
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy
Subject: harrassing mail
Message-ID:
Date: 27 Jan 92 15:25:19 GMT
Say someone (a guy) is sending someone else (a girl) some pretty rude
mail (stuff from r.a.erotica & such), but she just blows it off &
doesn't say anything---she doesn't want to make a fuss.
But then one day he mis-mails it (to her first name, rather than her
last), and it bounces its way into my (the Postmaster's) mailbox.
Forgetting I've known about his behavior for a while now, do I have
any real right as sysadmin to ask him to stop?
--
Brendan Kehoe, Sun Network Manager brendan@cs.widener.edu
Widener University Chester, PA
``Ya know Quaker Oats make you feel good twice?'' Hmm.
From caf-talk Caf Jan 27 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: History of speech rights in public places
Message-ID: <1992Jan27.180759.22786@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1992 18:07:59 GMT
From _Freedom, Technology, and the First Amendment_ by Joathan W.
Emord, p.88:
"In the 1798 case of _Davis v. Massachusetts_, the Supreme Court
refused to recognize a liberty to speak unobtrusively in a public
commons under the theory that 'absolutely or conditionally to forbid
public speaking in a highway or public palce is no ore an infringement
of the rights of a member of the public than for the owner of a
private house to forbid it in his house.' This remained the law for
forty years."
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Jan 27 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.admin.policy] Re: harrassing mail
Message-ID: <9201271857.AA10306@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: 27 Jan 92 06:57:18 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Jan 27 00:00:00 1992
From: mark@kraken.ucsd.edu (Mark Anderson)
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy
Subject: Re: harrassing mail
Message-ID: <27821@sdcc12.ucsd.edu>
Date: 27 Jan 92 16:05:39 GMT
In article brendan@cs.widener.edu (Brendan Kehoe) writes:
>Say someone (a guy) is sending someone else (a girl) some pretty rude
>mail (stuff from r.a.erotica & such), but she just blows it off &
>doesn't say anything---she doesn't want to make a fuss.
>
>But then one day he mis-mails it (to her first name, rather than her
>last), and it bounces its way into my (the Postmaster's) mailbox.
>Forgetting I've known about his behavior for a while now, do I have
>any real right as sysadmin to ask him to stop?
>
No. You are only suppose to read the mail as far is necessary to
send it on its proper way, or to return it to the sender. As far
as you know it is a message between two consenting adults. Now
if it were a threat to kill the President, perhaps you would be
under some other obligations.
But, she had decided how she wants to handle it, why do you need to
be so paternalistic?
If you really want to help the user, why don't you show her
her how to use some mail filter program like 'elm'.
Then she could have all incoming mail checked. For example
if (from contains "mark@cs.ucsd.edu" ) then
delete
or perhaps
if (from contains "mark@cs" ) then
execute "/cse/grad/mark/.elm/rule1.sh)
where rule1.sh simply kicks the mail back at the sender, with
a note explain 'receipt' denied.
Yes, I've been in a position to have to read mail addresses to
'postmaster'. I always dreamed of a tool that would only reveal
the address portion of the mail and keep the contents private.
Maybe if all mailer could just encode and decode the contents
of the original message in a standard way. What a dreamer.
Mark Anderson
mark@cs.ucsd.edu
From caf-talk Caf Jan 27 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.admin.policy] Re: harrassing mail
Message-ID: <9201271857.AA10889@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: 27 Jan 92 06:57:47 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Jan 27 00:00:00 1992
From: marchany@vtserf.cc.vt.edu (Randy Marchany)
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy
Subject: Re: harrassing mail
Message-ID: <3167@vtserf.cc.vt.edu>
Date: 27 Jan 92 16:53:33 GMT
In article brendan@cs.widener.edu (Brendan Kehoe) writes:
>But then one day he mis-mails it (to her first name, rather than her
>last), and it bounces its way into my (the Postmaster's) mailbox.
>Forgetting I've known about his behavior for a while now, do I have
>any real right as sysadmin to ask him to stop?
I would think you don't have any real right to stop him UNLESS the
recipient has complained about the behavior. Unless your site has some
policy statement to the contrary, I would pursue a hands-off approach.
I would inform the recipient of any procedures they can follow to stop
such behavior but if it doesn't bother them, there's not much you can
do.
-Randy Marchany
VA Tech Computing Center
From caf-talk Caf Jan 27 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.admin.policy] Re: harrassing mail
Message-ID: <9201271857.AA15597@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: 27 Jan 92 06:57:58 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Jan 27 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy
From: morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan)
Subject: Re: harrassing mail
Message-ID: <1992Jan27.120805.9404@ms.uky.edu>
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1992 17:08:05 GMT
brendan@cs.widener.edu (Brendan Kehoe) writes:
>Say someone (a guy) is sending someone else (a girl) some pretty rude
>mail (stuff from r.a.erotica & such), but she just blows it off &
>doesn't say anything---she doesn't want to make a fuss.
>
>But then one day he mis-mails it (to her first name, rather than her
>last), and it bounces its way into my (the Postmaster's) mailbox.
>Forgetting I've known about his behavior for a while now, do I have
>any real right as sysadmin to ask him to stop?
In my opinion, you are stuck in the role of 'disinterested onlooker'.
I would think that you could take some action if:
-- The user asks you to intervene.
-- The user has asked you, in the past, to intervene.
(I'm assuming that we can treat this as a continuation
of the supposed earlier incident)
I would think that your obligations in this matter stop at the headers.
It's uncomfortable, I know; I'd feel pretty bad about it. However, you
really shouldn't do anything unless/until the recipient complains.
Of course, you could always put up a message-of-the-day to reiterate the
policies/procedures for handling offensive/harassing email......8)
--
morgan@ms.uky.edu |Wes Morgan, not speaking for| ....!ukma!ukecc!morgan
morgan@engr.uky.edu |the University of Kentucky's| morgan%engr.uky.edu@UKCC
morgan@ie.pa.uky.edu |Engineering Computing Center| morgan@wuarchive.wustl.edu
From caf-talk Caf Jan 27 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.admin.policy] Re: harrassing mail
Message-ID: <9201271858.AA03398@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: 27 Jan 92 06:58:38 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Jan 27 00:00:00 1992
From: sblair@upurbmw.dell.com (Steve Blair "UNIX Network Services")
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy
Subject: Re: harrassing mail
Message-ID: <1992Jan27.171714.21432@raid.dell.com>
Date: 27 Jan 92 17:17:14 GMT
In article <1992Jan27.120805.9404@ms.uky.edu>, morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
> brendan@cs.widener.edu (Brendan Kehoe) writes:
> >Say someone (a guy) is sending someone else (a girl) some pretty rude
> >mail (stuff from r.a.erotica & such), but she just blows it off &
> >doesn't say anything---she doesn't want to make a fuss.
There is also the option if the message(s) are sexually explicit to
complain to the *sending site's* administrator(s), as well as
potential legal avenues that one can pursue(unwarranted sexual harrassment,
unwanted sexual advances).
You DO have an explicit responsibility as administrator to NOT read
users' email. Also, you do have the right to assist legal authorities,
whether a sites legal dept., or local law enforcement types,
*should the user agree, preferably in writing*.
--
Steven C. Blair DELL UNIX NETWORK OPERATIONS sblair@dell.com
==========================================================================
"One form to rule them all, one form to find them, one form to bring them"
"all and in the darkness rewrite the hell out of them."
-- Sendmail ruleset 3 comment from DEC
From caf-talk Caf Jan 27 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.admin.policy] Headers-only viewing of email
Message-ID: <9201271859.AA09416@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: 27 Jan 92 06:59:03 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Jan 27 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy
From: morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan)
Subject: Headers-only viewing of email
Message-ID: <1992Jan27.123213.14405@ms.uky.edu>
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1992 17:32:12 GMT
>Yes, I've been in a position to have to read mail addresses to
>'postmaster'. I always dreamed of a tool that would only reveal
>the address portion of the mail and keep the contents private.
Well, here's a trivial (2 minutes just now to write) filter in awk that ignores
everything after the first blank line. Pump your mail through the filter, and
voila! You see nothing but the headers.
This is based on one assumption; header lines must be in a contiguous block,
uninterrupted by blanks. The RFCs dictate this behavior, so this should work
for the vast majority of email messages.
------------>8------------cut here--------->8-----------
#!/bin/sh
#
# prthead -- extract the headers of a specific message
#
# Wes Morgan, morgan@engr.uky.edu, 27 Jan 92
#
awk 'BEGIN { blankfound = 0 }
blankfound == 0 { if (length == 0) blankfound = 1;
print;
}
blankfound == 1 { exit; }'
------------>8------------cut here--------->8-----------
I just tested this with System V 3.2.3 mailx and SunOS 4.1.1 mail, and it
worked perfectly. It does need a brief setup, however; here's what you do.
-- Keep that awk code in a file named "prthead"; make it executable,
and be sure it's in your search path
-- In your .mailrc file
-- set crt=1
(This tells mail/mailx to send anything longer than
one line to your PAGER)
-- set PAGER="prthead|/usr/bin/pg" (or whatever your pager is)
(This tells mail/mailx to use this command to invoke your
pager)
-- That's it!
Set up a separate mailbox for "postmaster", give it a .mailrc as described
above, and you're set.
If this breaks under your mail system, check the invocation of the pager.
You might have to put that command string ("prthead|/usr/bin/pg") into a
separate shell script and call that script as your pager.
--
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 caf-talk Caf Jan 27 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.admin.policy] Re: harrassing mail
Message-ID: <9201271858.AA15788@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: 27 Jan 92 06:58:21 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Jan 27 00:00:00 1992
From: sfarrell@unix2.tcd.ie (The Hammer)
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy
Subject: Re: harrassing mail
Message-ID:
Date: 27 Jan 92 17:11:14 GMT
In brendan@cs.widener.edu (Brendan Kehoe) writes:
>Say someone (a guy) is sending someone else (a girl) some pretty rude
>mail (stuff from r.a.erotica & such), but she just blows it off &
>doesn't say anything---she doesn't want to make a fuss.
>But then one day he mis-mails it (to her first name, rather than her
>last), and it bounces its way into my (the Postmaster's) mailbox.
>Forgetting I've known about his behavior for a while now, do I have
>any real right as sysadmin to ask him to stop?
I think the best solution would be to e-mail the intended recipient and
ask her whether she would like the unwanted mailings stopped. That way
it would be done privately without a formal complaint being made.
This does, of course, skirt around the privacy and free speech
issues involved, but I'm inclined to think that if such mailings are
detected (through whatever means) the recipient should be asked if
he/she would like the mail stopped.
Any comments?
From caf-talk Caf Jan 27 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.org.eff.news, et al.] Liberation Technology
Message-ID: <9201271934.AA28227@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: 27 Jan 92 07:34:06 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Jan 27 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.news,comp.org.eff.talk
From: rita@eff.org (Rita Marie Rouvalis)
Subject: Liberation Technology
Message-ID: <1992Jan27.180504.29513@eff.org>
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1992 18:05:04 GMT
LIBERATION TECHNOLOGY
Equal Access Via Computer Communication
by Norman Coombs
(NRCGSH@RITVAX.ISC.RIT.EDU)
I am a blind professor at the Rochester Institute of Technology.As such I
use a computer with a speech synthesizer,and regularly teach a class of
students online with a computer conference. Most of these students have
no physical handicap. Some, however, are hearing impaired, and others
totally deaf. I have team-taught another course at the New School for
Social Research, some 350 miles away, with a teacher who is blind and
confined to a wheelchair. On the computer screen, our handicaps of
blindness and mobility make no difference.
One of the courses I teach online is African American history. In that
class, some students are White, some Black, others Asian, and still
others Native American. Obviously, some of the class members are male and
others female. All of these differences, like those of the handicaps
described above, become unimportant on the computer screen. It isn't that
these characteristics disappear; participants share their identities,
views and feelings freely. However, these differences no longer block
communication and community. In fact, conference members often feel free
to make such differences one of the topics for discussion. A student in
my Black history course said that what he liked about conducting a class
discussion on the computer was that it didn't matter whether a person was
male, female, Black, White, Red, Yellow, blind or deaf. His comments were
accepted for their own worth and not judged by some prior stereotype.
One myth about the computer is that it is cold, depersonalizing and
intimidating. When I began using the computer to communicate with
students, I had no idea of its potential to change my life and my
teaching. First, it liberated me, a blind teacher, from my dependence on
other people. I now have all my assignments submitted through electronic
mail including take-home exams,and have little need for human readers.
Because of this I have become a member of a pilot study using computer
conferencing to replace classroom discussion for students in continuing
education. Students with a personal computer and modem could work from
home or the office. This freed them from the time and bother of commuting
and also let them set their own schedule.The conference facilitates
genuine group discussion without the class having to be in the same place
at the same time. In addition, I find it easy to send frequent personal
notes to individual students, giving me more contact with individual
students than is usual in a traditional classroom.
I find conferencing appeals to three groups. First, the off-campus
continuing education students who no longer have to commute. Second,
those who had been taking television or correspondence courses. The
online experience gives them a means of exchanging information between
themselves and their teacher. The third group turns out to be regular day
students with scheduling problems. Online is especially valuable for
students whose schedules are filled by laboratory courses.
Although computer conferencing had obvious benefits for me, I had failed
to grasp its significance for disabled students in general. Only when a
deaf student joined the class did I realize its potential. This deaf
woman said that this was the first time in her life that she had
conversed with one of her teachers without using an intermediary. She
also remarked that mine had been her most valuable college course because
she could share in the discussions easily and totally.
Computer conferencing can also benefit people with mobility impairments.
They can go to school while they stay at home. The distance involved
could be anything from a few miles to all the way across the continent or
across an ocean. Students with motor impairments can also use this
system. There are a variety of alternate input devices to let motor
impaired persons use a computer even though they cannot handle a
keyboard.
But conferencing liberates more people than the physically disabled. All
students became less inhibited in the discussions. Once students got over
any initial computer phobia, many found it easier to participate. Where
there is no stage then there is no stage fright.
While some educators prefer to keep the teaching process academic and
objective, others are convinced that students learn more profoundly when
they become emotionally engaged in the process. My class underlined this
aspect of conferencing. In a discussion on welfare, one woman in her
twenties confessed to being on welfare and described her feelings about
it. In a Black history course, students described personal experiences as
victims of racism. White students admitted to having been taught to be
prejudiced and asked for help and understanding. Black students revealed
that they had prejudices about various shades of color within their own
community. As a teacher, I often felt that I was treading on privileged
ground. These were experiences I had never had in the 29 previous years
of my teaching career.
Computer communications is infamous for people making thoughtless and
irresponsible attacks on one another, something known as "flaming". In my
experience, happily, there has been almost none of this. First, the
teacher has the opportunity to set ground rules and establish a
professional atmosphere. Second, a computer conference is different than
electronic mail. Once a mass mailing has been sent, it is irretrievable,
while the contents of a computer conference are posted publicly for all
to see. Most students seemed intuitively aware of the potential for
misunderstanding and, before criticizing someone, they frequently asked
questions to be sure that they understood what had be meant by the
previous author. On very rare occasions I have removed a posting before
it was read by most of the class. Usually, I prefer to leave
controversial material on the conference and utilize it as a group
learning experience.
Computer communication has other important implications for both the
print handicapped and those with motor impairments. Library catalogs can
already be accessed from a personal computer and a modem. Soon, growing
numbers of reference works will be available on-line . While the
copyright problems are complex, it seems inevitable that large amounts of
text material from periodicals and books will also be accessible on a
computer network. I still have vivid memories of the first time I
connected my computer to a library catalog and found my book was really
there. It was only a year ago that I had my first personal, unassisted,
access to an encyclopedia. Not only is this technology liberating to
those of us who have physical impairments, but in turn, it will help to
make us more productive members of society.
Not all handicapped persons rush to join the computer world. Indeed, many
have become dependent on human support systems. Sometimes, independence
is frightening, and handicapped students may need special assistance to
get started. Another problem is cost. While the personal computer has
decentralized power and is seen as a democratizing force in society, it
works mainly for the middle class. Unless there is a deliberate policy to
the contrary, such technology will leave the underclass further behind.
Visually impaired computer users, at present, have one growing worry.
They fear that graphic interfaces and touch screens may take away all
that the computer has promised to them. Recently passed federal
legislation has tried to guarantee that future computer hardware and
software be accessible to all the physically disabled,but there is no
real mechanism to enforce this. Besides, voluntary awareness and
cooperation by computer providers is a far better approach to the
problem. Educom has established EASI to work within the academic
community for software access, and it is having an important impact on
voluntary compliance. Others believe that adaptive software and hardware
can be produced which can adequately interpret graphic interfaces for the
visually impaired.
Physical disabilities serve as an isolating factor in life. They also
create a tremendous sense of powerlessness. Computer communication,
however, serves to bring the world into one's home and puts amazing power
at one's fingertips. Not only can this empowerment liberate the
handicapped to compete in society more equally, but the sense of power
changes how one feels about oneself.
Finally, I am personally excited about the ability of computer networking
to provide more equal access to education and information for many
persons with physical disabilities. In the fall of 1991, The Rochester
Institute of Technology and Gallaudet University in Washington will
conduct an experiment involving two courses: one taught from Rochester
and the other from Washington, DC. Students from both campuses will be
enrolled in both classes. While some use will be made of videos and
movies, class discussions and meetings between a student and a teacher
will all be done with computer telecommunications using Internet as the
connecting link. Some students will be hearing impaired, and one teacher
will be blind.
Norman Coombs
Professor of History
Rochester Institute of Technology
One Lomb Memorial Dr.
Rochester NY 14623
Email: NRCGSH@RITVAX.ISC.RIT.EDU
From caf-talk Caf Jan 27 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,misc.legal,alt.censorship
From: tse@poohbah.pa.dec.com (Gary Tse)
Subject: Re: Duties of state universities regarding 1st amendment
Message-ID: <1992Jan27.191441.6184@PA.dec.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 92 19:14:41 GMT
In article <1992Jan27.150734.23638@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
|Here, for example, is the definition of library from Indiana state
|law. It could cover some a Usenet facilities:
|
|"'Library' means a collection of a variety of books or other printed
|matter, audiovisual materials or other items in which knowledge is
|recorded; kept in a centralized place; for which a person who as
|knowledge of the materials, their arrangement, their use and of
|library skills is responsible; and which are for the use of
|individuals or groups in meeting their recreational, informational,
|educational, research or cultural needs." See _American Library Laws_
|(5th edition).
By this definition, my local VCR tape rental place is a library. My bank
and the local train station, with their pamphlet stands, would also be
considered libraries. Heck, my cable TV is a library, my favorite
restaurant a library...
Wait till I show my banker the Library Bill of Rights.
--
Gary Tse tse@wse.dec.com || tse@soda.berkeley.edu (415) 617-3106
"Freedom begins when you tell Mrs. Grundy to go fly a kite."
From caf-talk Caf Jan 27 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: harrassing mail
Message-ID: <1992Jan27.192002.28922@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1992 19:20:02 GMT
sblair@upurbmw.dell.com (Steve Blair "UNIX Network Services") writes:
[...]
>There is also the option if the message(s) are sexually explicit to
>complain to the *sending site's* administrator(s), as well as
>potential legal avenues that one can pursue(unwarranted sexual harrassment,
>unwanted sexual advances).
[...]
I doubt if the sender's site's sexual harassment rules would cover
harassment of someone at another school. The sender's site may,
however, have computer harassment rules that cover the situtation. In
any case, until the receiver complains and the sender refuses to stop,
you can't be sure that it is harassment.
Here is a related note from the CAF archive.
===============start==================
From: ts@cup.portal.com (Tim W Smith)
Subject: [misc.legal, et al.] Harassment via Email
Message-ID: <9110231905.AA03782@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: 23 Oct 91 14:15:52 GMT
replaced with "..." in an attempt to not be too blatent about
copyright violations...):
"A Seattle judge has agreed that ...Bill Gates has been the
victim of harassment. ...In what may be one of the first cases
of high-tech harassment, a former Microsoft saleswoman Monday
was ordered to stay from Microsoft -- and Gates -- both physically
and electronically. Microsoft said Joan Brewer had been sending
Gates a steady stream of unwelcome messages over an electronic
mail system. Brewer earlier had claimed that she...was the
victim of harassment,...EEOC dismissed her complaint. Now
King County District Judge William Roarty has told Brewer any
contact she makes with Microsoft must be through the company's
legal department."
Tim Smith
==================end==================
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Jan 27 00:00:00 1992
From: kadie@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,misc.legal,alt.censorship
Subject: Re: Duties of state universities regarding 1st amendment
Message-ID: <1992Jan27.201548.22829@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: 27 Jan 92 20:15:48 GMT
In article <1992Jan27.150734.23638@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl M.
Kadie) writes:
|Here, for example, is the definition of library from Indiana state
|law. It could cover some a Usenet facilities:
|
|"'Library' means a collection of a variety of books or other printed
|matter, audiovisual materials or other items in which knowledge is
|recorded; kept in a centralized place; for which a person who as
|knowledge of the materials, their arrangement, their use and of
|library skills is responsible; and which are for the use of
|individuals or groups in meeting their recreational, informational,
|educational, research or cultural needs." See _American Library Laws_
|(5th edition).
tse@poohbah.pa.dec.com (Gary Tse) writes:
>By this definition, my local VCR tape rental place is a library.
I agree. Indeed, many traditional libraries have video tapes. Many are
privately owned. Some have per-use fees. I don't know if any are
for-profit.
>My bank and the local train station, with their pamphlet stands, would also be
>considered libraries.
> Heck, my cable TV is a library, my favorite
>restaurant a library...
These facilities seem to lack a "librarian."
>Wait till I show my banker the Library Bill of Rights.
I don't know how well the Library Bill of Rights fits banking
information racks. Here, however, is an attempt to fit it
to netnews.
Hypothetical Netnews Bill of Rights
All computers offering Netnews are forums for information and ideas,
and that the following basic policies should guide their services.
1. Newsgroups and other Netnews resources should be provided
for the interest, information, and enlightenment of all people of the
community the Netnews provider serves. Materials should not be
excluded because of the origin, background, or views of those
contributing to their creation.
2. Computers offering Netnews should provide materials and
information presenting all points of view on current and historical
issues. Materials should not be proscribed or removed because of
partisan or doctrinal disapproval.
3. Netnews providers should challenge censorship in the
fulfillment of their responsibility to provide information and
enlightenment.
4. Netnews providers should cooperate with all persons and
groups concerned with resisting abridgment of free expression and free
access to ideas.
5. A person's right to use a Netnews service should not be
denied or abridged because of origin, age, background, or views.
6. Netnews providers which provides resources for user
expression or assembly should make such resources available on an
equitable basis, regardless of the beliefs or affiliations of
individuals or groups requesting their use.
[reposted from ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/news/cafv01n30]
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Jan 27 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.admin.policy] Re: harrassing mail
Message-ID: <9201272054.AA10112@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: 27 Jan 92 08:54:47 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Jan 27 00:00:00 1992
From: dan@lclark.edu (Dan Revel)
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy
Subject: Re: harrassing mail
Message-ID: <1992Jan27.194726.29107@lclark.edu>
Date: 27 Jan 92 19:47:26 GMT
In article <1992Jan27.120805.9404@ms.uky.edu> morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
>brendan@cs.widener.edu (Brendan Kehoe) writes:
>>Say someone (a guy) is sending someone else (a girl) some pretty rude
>>mail (stuff from r.a.erotica & such), but she just blows it off &
>>doesn't say anything---she doesn't want to make a fuss.
>>But then one day he mis-mails it (to her first name, rather than her
>>last), and it bounces its way into my (the Postmaster's) mailbox.
>>Forgetting I've known about his behavior for a while now, do I have
>>any real right as sysadmin to ask him to stop?
>I would think that your obligations in this matter stop at the headers.
>It's uncomfortable, I know; I'd feel pretty bad about it. However, you
>really shouldn't do anything unless/until the recipient complains.
>Of course, you could always put up a message-of-the-day to reiterate the
>policies/procedures for handling offensive/harassing email......8)
I like this suggestion.
I don't think that 'free speech' or 'right to privacy' arguments can be
applied to this situation. Our computer systems are here to support
teaching and research at this college, not as a medium for harassment.
I am obligated by my employment to act with discretion with regard to
the data stored and transmitted by these systems. But that doesn't mean
that if I see something which is wrong or even questionable I should not
act appropriately.
Harassment is harassment, and the appropriate response is not to simply
look the other way.
--
Dan Revel (dan@lclark.edu)
Network Manager Me transmittem sursum, Caledoni!
Lewis & Clark College
From caf-talk Caf Jan 27 00:00:00 1992
From: wcn@milton.u.washington.edu (W C Newell Jr)
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: harrassing mail
Message-ID: <1992Jan27.205236.22912@milton.u.washington.edu>
Date: 27 Jan 92 20:52:36 GMT
In article <1992Jan27.192002.28922@m.cs.uiuc.edu> kadie@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>sblair@upurbmw.dell.com (Steve Blair "UNIX Network Services") writes:
>>There is also the option if the message(s) are sexually explicit to
>>complain to the *sending site's* administrator(s), as well as
>>potential legal avenues that one can pursue [...]
>
>I doubt if the sender's site's sexual harassment rules would cover
>harassment of someone at another school.
Ours do -- if state-funded resources are being used (and the computer qualifies
for that), there exists applicable state law in Washington.
>The sender's site may,
>however, have computer harassment rules that cover the situtation. In
>any case, until the receiver complains and the sender refuses to stop,
>you can't be sure that it is harassment.
Emphasis on the last sentence. That's the golden rule we have to live by here.
In Washington, all state employees (including UW staff) must go through a
mandatory orientation on sexual harassment. While the examples presented are
all in an office setting, the rules are easily extrapolated to the computer.
The user >must< complain before we can act on any e-mail we might see. I've
had women students come into the Consulting office to ask for help with a
problem of this kind, and they will freely show us the offending e-mail, but we
still have to tell them there's nothing we can do unless they file a complaint;
if they're both students, we refer the problem to the Office of Student Affairs
and then they sort it out. Conversely, if we know that a no-contact order is
in effect, and we see an attempted violation, we'd have to report it.
Returning to Brendan's original example: It would be appropriate, in my
judgement, for the admin to send a note to the intended recipient saying, in
effect, "We've found some lost e-mail sent to you by user _ on date _ with
subject _; do you still want it?" If the user doesn't reply in the next day
or two, you can safely throw it away.
>Here is a related note from the CAF archive. [regarding well-publicized case
>involving Bill Gates and a former Microsoft employee]
It should be noted that in Washington all anti-harassment restraining orders
issued by a court are automatically reciprocal, again by state law.
--
Bill Newell
Systems Analyst, Applications Consulting Group, IS
University of Washington
WCN@u.washington.edu
From caf-talk Caf Jan 27 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,misc.legal,alt.censorship
From: morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan)
Subject: Re: Duties of state universities regarding 1st amendment
Message-ID: <1992Jan27.165137.14992@ms.uky.edu>
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1992 21:51:37 GMT
kadie@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>
>> Heck, my cable TV is a library, my favorite
>>restaurant a library...
>
>These facilities seem to lack a "librarian."
Does the cable TV company have a director of programming? Don't they
decide which services to offer? After all, it's my cable company that
decides whether or not I can receive the Playboy Channel on their
equipment......I have nothing to say in the matter. Their decisions
have a definite impact on the information provided to me. What's the
difference? Keep in mind that I cannot erect a satellite dish, and
that there are no other cable companies servicing my city.
> Hypothetical Netnews Bill of Rights
>
>All computers offering Netnews are forums for information and ideas,
>and that the following basic policies should guide their services.
Comment: Netnews itself is a forum. The computer, in and of itself,
is not such a forum. There may be policies and procedures
controlling an individual computer system that affect the
provision of netnews services.
Comment: Netnews spans every section of society. A multinational cor-
poration's Cray supercomputer is, in Usenet, at the same relative
level as one person's personal computer at home; both are merely
"sites". Would you apply the same obligations to both?
Comment: Netnews participants include Federal, State, and local
governmental entities, as well as the corporate and private sectors.
Both public and private educational institutions are represented.
A "Netnews Bill of Rights" encompassing these diverse
sites must respect their rights as public or private entities.
> 1. Newsgroups and other Netnews resources should be provided
>for the interest, information, and enlightenment of all people of the
>community the Netnews provider serves. Materials should not be
>excluded because of the origin, background, or views of those
>contributing to their creation.
Addendum: Materials may be excluded because of their irrelevance to
the mission or purpose of the provider. A private firm
specializing in computer software, for example, can exclude
recreational or social materials from their service. Conversely,
a university's sociology department is free to carry only those
materials which relate to its mission.
Comment: If we accept the notion of Usenet as a limited public forum,
then we must accept the rights of the providers/maintainers
of that forum. One of those rights is the selection of topics
for discussion. The owners/maintainers of a Usenet site do
have the right to determine which newsgroups will (or will not)
be supported. This is the very basis of the Usenet mechanism.
We may argue that a formal selection process is needed, but the
final decision belongs to the maintainers/owners of the forum.
> 2. Computers offering Netnews should provide materials and
>information presenting all points of view on current and historical
>issues. Materials should not be proscribed or removed because of
>partisan or doctrinal disapproval.
Addendum: If materials concerning a given topic are provided, materials
relevant to that discussion should not be proscribed because of
partisan or doctrinal disapproval. If one point of view is pre-
sented, the other must be presented as well. The provider may
choose not to present either side, through the materials selec-
tion process.
Comment: If I accept a controversial newsgroup, I cannot ethically censor
individual postings to that newsgroup; I have accepted the dis-
cussion as part of my forum (my site). If, however, I choose not
to accept that discussion/newsgroup, I am simply exercising my
rights as an individual site.
> 3. Netnews providers should challenge censorship in the
>fulfillment of their responsibility to provide information and
>enlightenment.
Amendment: Preface this sentence with "Within the scope of those materials
they have chosen to provide".
Comment: This statement seems dangerously close to "you have to provide
everything your users request". This is not feasible on a
Usenet-wide scale.
> 4. Netnews providers should cooperate with all persons and
>groups concerned with resisting abridgment of free expression and free
>access to ideas.
Amendment: Append the following: "within the scope of the service itself,
and respecting the scope and/or mission of the facility."
Comment: One of the responsibilities of the maintainer of a limited
public forum is to keep the discussion "on the topic". If
someone at my site argues vehemently against gun control in
talk.politics.guns, that's fine. If, however, a user posts
anti-abortion materials to talk.politics.guns, I am not abridging
that user's rights in my insistence that he keep the discussion
"on the topic". That is one of my obligations as the maintainer
of the forum.
Comment: "shall cooperate with all persons and groups"?? Does that mean
that I have to give the local chapter of the ACLU a login on
my system? Does that mean that every student group on this cam-
pus should automatically get access to computers offering net-
news?
> 5. A person's right to use a Netnews service should not be
>denied or abridged because of origin, age, background, or views.
Addendum: Certain materials may be made available on a "by request"
basis. This is in keeping with common library policies.
Access should not be withheld; however, the "by request"
mechanism is a legitimate management tool.
Comment: According to recent net discussions, there are many libraries
which make "adult" materials available on a "by request" basis.
They do not withhold access; they just make the user ask for it.
I can certainly see a parallel in netnews; perhaps the more con-
troversial groups could be "by request only". No criteria should
be used to determine access; just require that they ask for it.
> 6. Netnews providers which provides resources for user
>expression or assembly should make such resources available on an
>equitable basis, regardless of the beliefs or affiliations of
>individuals or groups requesting their use.
Addendum: It should be recognized that a given site is not required
to provide services upon request; many sites have policies
and requirements which affect the granting of access. These
policies should be respected.
Comment: No site is obligated to give access to anyone who requests it. Many
sites are restricted in their use; some might only be open to comp
sci students, while a corporate system might be restricted to company
employees. Within these requirements, access should not be
restricted; we should realize, however, that such requirements exist.
--
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 caf-talk Caf Jan 27 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,misc.legal,alt.censorship
From: tse@poohbah.pa.dec.com (Gary Tse)
Subject: Re: Duties of state universities regarding 1st amendment
Message-ID: <1992Jan27.220654.19309@PA.dec.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 92 22:06:54 GMT
In article <1992Jan27.201548.22829@m.cs.uiuc.edu> kadie@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
|In article <1992Jan27.150734.23638@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl M.
|Kadie) writes:
||Here, for example, is the definition of library from Indiana state
||law. It could cover some a Usenet facilities:
||
||"'Library' means a collection of a variety of books or other printed
||matter, audiovisual materials or other items in which knowledge is
||recorded; kept in a centralized place; for which a person who as
||knowledge of the materials, their arrangement, their use and of
||library skills is responsible; and which are for the use of
||individuals or groups in meeting their recreational, informational,
||educational, research or cultural needs." See _American Library Laws_
||(5th edition).
|
|tse@poohbah.pa.dec.com (Gary Tse) writes:
|>My bank and the local train station, with their pamphlet stands, would also be
|>considered libraries.
|> Heck, my cable TV is a library, my favorite
|>restaurant a library...
|These facilities seem to lack a "librarian."
Hmm... The definition says "for which a person who as [sic] knowledge of
the materials, their arrangement, their use and of library skills is
responsible". The persons who stock and maintain the pamphlet stands
at banks and train stations, who arrange the programming on TV, and who
manage the distribution and use of menues, most certainly have knowledge
of the materials, their arrangement, and their use. Now "library skills"
are simply the ability to collect and organize the libraries that they
be useable by the customers. Insofar as the alternate libraries I proposed
are well-maintained, they have been under the care of someone with the
requisite skills.
Let's have a contest. What's the most ridiculous institution that would
be considered a library under this definition?
--
Gary Tse tse@wse.dec.com || tse@soda.berkeley.edu (415) 617-3106
"I'm not locked up in here with you. You're locked up in here with me."
From caf-talk Caf Jan 27 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.admin.policy] Re: harrassing mail
Message-ID: <9201272242.AA15729@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: 27 Jan 92 10:42:21 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Jan 27 00:00:00 1992
From: mark@kraken.ucsd.edu (Mark Anderson)
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy
Subject: Re: harrassing mail
Message-ID: <27841@sdcc12.ucsd.edu>
Date: 27 Jan 92 20:52:03 GMT
In article <1992Jan27.194726.29107@lclark.edu> dan@lclark.edu (Dan Revel) writes:
>
>Harassment is harassment, and the appropriate response is not to simply
>look the other way.
But, harassment is NOT harassment until a complaint is made and
the action persist. (In the words of the labor relations
attorney who spoke at a town meeting on sexual harrasment
I attended at the university last month).
Maybe your appropriate response should be to get the receiver
of the messages to let the sender know that they are unwelcome,
instead of assuming that the sender understands this implicitly.
Mark Anderson
mark@cs.ucsd.edu
From caf-talk Caf Jan 27 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.admin.policy] Re: Headers-only viewing of email
Message-ID: <9201272242.AA18134@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: 27 Jan 92 10:42:36 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Jan 27 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy
From: ckd@eff.org (Christopher Davis)
Subject: Re: Headers-only viewing of email
Message-ID:
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1992 21:16:51 GMT
We use the UIUC IDA package, which allows mail errors to be defined to
go to a particular alias (in our case, mailer-errors).
We then filter out the body (but not the error report). This allows
"real" postmaster mail (ie "looking for a user" or "evil mail loop" or
whatever) to arrive intact, without even tempting us to see the body of
an error message...
/etc/aliases:
mailer-errors: "|/usr/local/etc/mailerdaemon.pl postmaster"
here's /usr/local/etc/mailerdaemon.pl:
#!/usr/bin/perl -- # -*-Perl-*-
# mailerdaemon.pl - send only the headers to Postmaster
# v0.1 by Christopher Davis
# for use with sendmail 5.65c+IDA1.4.4 & related versions
# how to use:
# in .m4, add a line:
# define(POSTMASTERBOUNCE, mailer-errors)
# in the aliases file, add a line:
# mailer-errors: "|/usr/local/etc/mailerdaemon.pl postmaster"
# (defaults to postmaster, but command line overrides)
# This will forward bounces to postmaster after deleting the body
# of bounced messages (for privacy)
# assumes your /usr/ucb/mail takes '-s'. Change if it doesn't.
$target = shift(@ARGV) || 'postmaster';
firstheaders: while (<>) {
if (/^Subject:\s+(.*)$/) {$subject = $1;};
last firstheaders if (/^$/);
}
unless ($pid = open(MAIL,"|-")) {
exec '/usr/ucb/mail','-s',$subject,$target;
}
beforetag: while (<>) {
print MAIL;
last beforetag if (/Unsent message follows/);
}
headers: while (<>) {
print MAIL;
last headers if (/^$/);
}
@junk = <>;
--
Christopher Davis | OUT-OF-CONTEXT QUOTE OF THE WEEK
System Manager & Postmaster | "Earth was interesting and worth
Electronic Frontier Foundation | the money I paid for it."
+1 617 864 0665 NIC: [CKD1] | -Bryce Koike
From caf-talk Caf Jan 27 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,misc.legal,alt.censorship
From: kadie@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Duties of state universities regarding 1st amendment
Message-ID: <1992Jan27.224207.1652@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1992 22:42:07 GMT
kadie@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
[...]
cmk> Hypothetical Netnews Bill of Rights
cmk>
cmk> All computers offering Netnews are forums for information and ideas,
cmk> and that the following basic policies should guide their services.
morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
>Comment: Netnews itself is a forum. The computer, in and of itself,
> is not such a forum. There may be policies and procedures
> controlling an individual computer system that affect the
> provision of netnews services.
Agreed.
>Comment: Netnews spans every section of society. A multinational cor-
> poration's Cray supercomputer is, in Usenet, at the same relative
> level as one person's personal computer at home; both are merely
> "sites". Would you apply the same obligations to both?
You are right; my first statement is too strong. I got it by replacing
the word "library" in the real Library Bill of Rights with the phrase
"computers offering Netnews". But, just as not every collection of
books is a traditional library, not every computer offering Netnews is
an "electronic library." Also, just as a building can contain a
library without the whole building being a library, so a computer can
contain forum without the whole computer being a forum.
I don't know exactly when a reading room becomes a (traditional)
library. I don't know exactly when a usenet facility because an
electronic library.
[...]
cmk> 1. Newsgroups and other Netnews resources should be provided
cmk> for the interest, information, and enlightenment of all people of the
cmk> community the Netnews provider serves. Materials should not be
cmk> excluded because of the origin, background, or views of those
cmk> contributing to their creation.
[...]
>Comment: If we accept the notion of Usenet as a limited public forum,
> then we must accept the rights of the providers/maintainers
> of that forum. One of those rights is the selection of topics
> for discussion. The owners/maintainers of a Usenet site do
> have the right to determine which newsgroups will (or will not)
> be supported. This is the very basis of the Usenet mechanism.
> We may argue that a formal selection process is needed, but the
> final decision belongs to the maintainers/owners of the forum.
Legally, this is so. If the forum owner is a university, however, the
selection policy should be in line with the Library Bill of Rights.
cmk> 2. Computers offering Netnews should provide materials and
cmk> information presenting all points of view on current and historical
cmk> issues. Materials should not be proscribed or removed because of
cmk> partisan or doctrinal disapproval.
>Addendum: If materials concerning a given topic are provided, materials
> relevant to that discussion should not be proscribed because of
> partisan or doctrinal disapproval. If one point of view is pre-
> sented, the other must be presented as well. The provider may
> choose not to present either side, through the materials selec-
> tion process.
>Comment: If I accept a controversial newsgroup, I cannot ethically censor
> individual postings to that newsgroup; I have accepted the dis-
> cussion as part of my forum (my site). If, however, I choose not
> to accept that discussion/newsgroup, I am simply exercising my
> rights as an individual site.
A univeristy should not run away from discussions of controversial
topics.
cmk> 3. Netnews providers should challenge censorship in the
cmk> fulfillment of their responsibility to provide information and
cmk> enlightenment.
[...]
>Comment: This statement seems dangerously close to "you have to provide
> everything your users request". This is not feasible on a
> Usenet-wide scale.
I don't see the implication.
cmk> 4. Netnews providers should cooperate with all persons and
cmk> groups concerned with resisting abridgment of free expression and free
cmk> access to ideas.
[...]
>Comment: One of the responsibilities of the maintainer of a limited
> public forum is to keep the discussion "on the topic". If
> someone at my site argues vehemently against gun control in
> talk.politics.guns, that's fine. If, however, a user posts
> anti-abortion materials to talk.politics.guns, I am not abridging
> that user's rights in my insistence that he keep the discussion
> "on the topic". That is one of my obligations as the maintainer
> of the forum.
I don't see see any such obligation. I don't think univerity agents
should be deciding that something doesn't belong. My experience is
that such power is applied very selectively. In fact, it only seems to
be applied forcefully (e.g. "you posted to the wrong group so now you
are expelled from the computer") to posters of offensive notes.
Moreover, with peer pressure and kill files, the university does
not need this power.
>Comment: "shall cooperate with all persons and groups"?? Does that mean
> that I have to give the local chapter of the ACLU a login on
> my system? Does that mean that every student group on this cam-
> pus should automatically get access to computers offering net-
> news?
No.
cmk> 5. A person's right to use a Netnews service should not be
cmk> denied or abridged because of origin, age, background, or views.
>Addendum: Certain materials may be made available on a "by request"
> basis. This is in keeping with common library policies.
> Access should not be withheld; however, the "by request"
> mechanism is a legitimate management tool.
It depends how it is used.
>Comment: According to recent net discussions, there are many libraries
> which make "adult" materials available on a "by request" basis.
> They do not withhold access; they just make the user ask for it.
> I can certainly see a parallel in netnews; perhaps the more con-
> troversial groups could be "by request only". No criteria should
> be used to determine access; just require that they ask for it.
This is not in line with library policy. Here is the American Library
Association policy on "Resticted Access to Library Materials":
======== ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/library/access.restrictions.ala ====
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.]
====================end===================
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Jan 27 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: nbc2134@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil (Robert F Solon)
Subject: Re: [comp.admin.policy] harrassing mail
Message-ID: <9201271901.AA26229@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil>
Date: 27 Jan 92 18:01:53 GMT
>
>
> From: brendan@cs.widener.edu (Brendan Kehoe)
> Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy
> Subject: harrassing mail
> Message-ID:
> Date: 27 Jan 92 15:25:19 GMT
>
> Say someone (a guy) is sending someone else (a girl) some pretty rude
> mail (stuff from r.a.erotica & such), but she just blows it off &
> doesn't say anything---she doesn't want to make a fuss.
>
> But then one day he mis-mails it (to her first name, rather than her
> last), and it bounces its way into my (the Postmaster's) mailbox.
> Forgetting I've known about his behavior for a while now, do I have
> any real right as sysadmin to ask him to stop?
>
> --
> Brendan Kehoe, Sun Network Manager brendan@cs.widener.edu
> Widener University Chester, PA
>
> ``Ya know Quaker Oats make you feel good twice?'' Hmm.
>
I believe that you do, based on several criteria. First, sexual
harassment is undesirable; you might consider you have a moral
responsibility to intervene. Failing that, perhaps a legal approach
would be valid here (disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer, please consult
one as required). If I'm pulled over for a traffic offense and a
stash or crack falls out of my open car door, I can be arrested.
Similarly, although the circumstances of getting your attention
are accidental, you may still take action, now that you "formally"
know about the situation.
If you decide to take action, there are several options available to
you. You may decide to simply ask the user to refrain. You may
suspend his account pending a formal inquiry. You may refer the
matter to other University authorities. You may approach the
recipient of the mail and request permission to proceed with an
inquiry or other action. You may ask the recipient to take action
on her own. You may take some combination of the above actions.
There may other channels available that I'm not aware of.
Or, of course, you may do nothing.
IMHO, however, I believe that you should not overlook this matter.
To do so would be to do a disservice not only to the recipient of
the mail, but also the sender, as well as the University and your
computer network.
Of course, the above is my own opinion only.
--
Bob Solon, rsolon@dsac.dla.mil
Administrative Information Branch -- "We Code, You Explode!!"
Directorate of Resource Management Systems (APCAPS)
DLA Systems Automation Center, DSAC-BCC (614) 238-8256 AV: 850-8256
From caf-talk Caf Jan 27 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.admin.policy] Re: harrassing mail
Message-ID: <9201280245.AA29795@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: 27 Jan 92 14:45:11 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Jan 27 00:00:00 1992
From: dmccart@elvis.intel.com (D. J. McCarthy ~)
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy
Subject: Re: harrassing mail
Message-ID: <8670@inews.intel.com>
Date: 28 Jan 92 01:31:29 GMT
brendan@cs.widener.edu (Brendan Kehoe) writes:
> Say someone (a guy) is sending someone else (a girl) some pretty rude
> mail (stuff from r.a.erotica & such), but she just blows it off &
> doesn't say anything---she doesn't want to make a fuss.
> But then one day he mis-mails it (to her first name, rather than her
> last), and it bounces its way into my (the Postmaster's) mailbox.
> Forgetting I've known about his behavior for a while now, do I have
> any real right as sysadmin to ask him to stop?
1.1) Is it bothering the recipient?
1.2) Has the recipient told the sender it's bothering her?
1.3) Has the recipient told *you* it's bothering her?
2) Is it eating up a lot of resources (/var/spool/mail disk space, perhaps)?
If the answer to all the 1.x questions, or question 2, is "yes",
then you should bring the matter to his attention. (Actually question 1.2
is a little iffy; you might not feel the need to have her tell him it's
bothering her.) You're not his (or her) mother. You shouldn't go out of
your way to interfere. On the other hand, if they're both users on your
system, then you have an awful lot of useful power over them. I see
you're from a .edu site, so I'll assume these two users are students.
A mail message from "root@lisa" might go a long way towards straight-
ening up his act. It wouldn't hurt to find out if he's actually
breaking a policy either; I'd look up the rights & responsibilities for
computer accounts before rebuking him.
The "disk hog" question is a little bit tougher, especially if
you're not really low on disk space, or if her mailbox isn't the biggest
one around due to his mail to her. But if you can make a valid point of
it, this argument is a lot stronger.
--
| D. J. McCarthy The moving walkway is now ending.
| dmccart@swtec1.intel.com Please look down.
| ...!intelhf!mipos3!modl01!dmccart
From caf-talk Caf Jan 28 00:00:00 1992
From: jkreznar@ininx.UUCP (John E. Kreznar)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,misc.legal,alt.censorship
Subject: Re: Duties of state universities regarding 1st amendment
Message-ID: <156@ininx.UUCP>
Date: 28 Jan 92 07:11:07 GMT
In article <1992Jan26.045844.10853@zip.eecs.umich.edu>, baillod@sparky.eecs.umich.edu (Brad Baillod) writes:
> The argument "censorship is not censorship if you can get the material
> from another source" is not valid. Does this mean that poor people are
> excluded from the exchange of ideas?
Anyone may help the poor.
Hypothetical person Peter may help the poor.
Hypothetical person Paul may choose not to.
Peter may attempt to persuade Paul to help the poor.
But the plight of the poor does not justify Peter invoking his nuclear-armed
nation-state against Paul to attempt to force Paul to help the poor. This is
exactly what government help for the poor amounts to.
Accepting government funding causes taxes. Taxes make slaves.
Relations among people to be by mutual consent, or not at all.
| Voting in government elections, or petitioning government, or willfully |
| accepting government ``benefits'' when it's feasibly avoidable (thereby |
| generating demand for taxation), accelerate the supplanting of personal |
| choice by collective dictate, making these most serious crimes against |
| humanity. ---John E. Kreznar, jkreznar@ininx.com, uunet!ininx!jkreznar |
It got so cold last winter, I saw a voter with his hand in his own pocket!
--
Relations among people to be by mutual consent, or not at all.
---John E. Kreznar, jkreznar@ininx.com, uunet!ininx!jkreznar
From caf-talk Caf Jan 28 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,misc.legal,alt.censorship
From: morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan)
Subject: Re: Duties of state universities regarding 1st amendment
Message-ID: <1992Jan28.91349.7581@ms.uky.edu>
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1992 14:13:49 GMT
kadie@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
>
>I don't know exactly when a reading room becomes a (traditional)
>library. I don't know exactly when a usenet facility because an
>electronic library.
>
As most of you know, my personal perspective on Usenet is that of a
reading room. The vast majority of a typical library's collection
is permanent; individual items have an extremely long life. Usenet,
on the other hand, is essentially transient; the longest expire time
I've ever seen on a Usenet site is one month.
I think that "collected archives" of Usenet would be more closely
identified with a library then Usenet itself. If I subscribe to
Newsweek, my one weekly issue does not constitute a library; however,
if I collect each issue, I am amassing a permanent collection, which
more closely matches our definition of a library.
>> The owners/maintainers of a Usenet site do
>> have the right to determine which newsgroups will (or will not)
>> be supported. This is the very basis of the Usenet mechanism.
>
>Legally, this is so. If the forum owner is a university, however, the
>selection policy should be in line with the Library Bill of Rights.
In a perfect world, it *should* be so. I don't know if we can reconcile
a transient medium with the concepts we associate with a library.
>>Comment: If I accept a controversial newsgroup, I cannot ethically censor
>> individual postings to that newsgroup; I have accepted the dis-
>> cussion as part of my forum (my site). If, however, I choose not
>> to accept that discussion/newsgroup, I am simply exercising my
>> rights as an individual site.
>
>A univeristy should not run away from discussions of controversial
>topics.
Not wishing to support a particular discussion/newsgroup is NOT
"running away" from controversy.
We don't see very many UFO articles in the national media; does this
indicate censorship? It is certainly a controversial topic, isn't it?
The national media has decided INDIVIDUALLY that the particular dis-
cussion does not fit within their purpose/mission. Why shouldn't
netnews sites have the same privilege?
How many libraries carry "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion"?
Government officials do not have to answer every question put to them,
nor are they required to comment on every situation. Why can't a net-
news site reply "no comment" to alt.sex.*?
>cmk> 3. Netnews providers should challenge censorship in the
>cmk> fulfillment of their responsibility to provide information and
>cmk> enlightenment.
>
>[...]
>>Comment: This statement seems dangerously close to "you have to provide
>> everything your users request". This is not feasible on a
>> Usenet-wide scale.
>
>I don't see the implication.
You've already stated (in previous messages) that the newsgroup selection
process can be a vehicle for censorship. If netnews providers are supposed
to "challenge censorship", doesn't that imply that every newsgroup should
be carried?
>>Comment: One of the responsibilities of the maintainer of a limited
>> public forum is to keep the discussion "on the topic".
>> I am not abridging
>> that user's rights in my insistence that he keep the discussion
>> "on the topic". That is one of my obligations as the maintainer
>> of the forum.
>
>I don't see see any such obligation. I don't think univerity agents
>should be deciding that something doesn't belong.
See any University Press catalog, University magazine, course catalogs,
or official bulletin boards (the physical type).
>My experience is
>that such power is applied very selectively. In fact, it only seems to
>be applied forcefully (e.g. "you posted to the wrong group so now you
>are expelled from the computer") to posters of offensive notes.
True; my "insistence" would probably take the form of an email note
saying "please try to stay within the topic". I certainly wouldn't
revoke access for off-topic postings.
>Moreover, with peer pressure and kill files, the university does
>not need this power.
Kill files don't work. Peer pressure cannot be effectively applied
through network lines.
>>Comment: "shall cooperate with all persons and groups"?? Does that mean
>> that I have to give the local chapter of the ACLU a login on
>> my system? Does that mean that every student group on this cam-
>> pus should automatically get access to computers offering net-
>> news?
>
>No.
How about a clarification, then? What does that mean?
>>Addendum: Certain materials may be made available on a "by request"
>> basis. This is in keeping with common library policies.
>> Access should not be withheld; however, the "by request"
>> mechanism is a legitimate management tool.
>
>It depends how it is used.
I was thinking about something along the lines of a default initial
configuration for news access, which would contain only "innocuous"
newsgroups, also known as "mainstream" Usenet. The other groups would
be available, but the user would be required to actively request them.
Such a request could take several forms:
-- Copying a more complete defaults file (which would be
readily available)
-- Requesting groups by name (the monthly "list of newsgroups"
would be made available for this purpose)
-- Some form of online request to the news admin.
This would allow a modicum of protection to the site, while maintaining
free access to the controversial materials. If the user is required to
actively choose to view, say, alt.sex.*, his action protects the site
from the typical accusations of perversity/pandering to porno/corruption
that we've seen levelled at Usenet in the last few years.
This comes back to a theme I've stated in several discussions -- MAKE
THE USERS TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEIR ACTIONS. How many times have
we seen controversies initiated by people who "stumbled upon" a news-
group? I don't see anything wrong with placing the responsibility
squarely on their shoulders.
This is one of the peculiarities of computers that distances them from
traditional libraries. Anyone can walk into a library and start reading.
Doing the same with a computer providing netnews is not always possible,
unless that site provides anonymous access.
>This is not in line with library policy. Here is the American Library
>Association policy on "Resticted Access to Library Materials":
It is not in line with ALA policy. I have seen it happen too many
times to believe that it does not exist.
A quick note: Keep in mind that I plan to offer as full a feed as possible
when my site joins Usenet (which should happen as soon as we scare up
enough money for disk space). I do, however, plan to put a system in
place that will place the obligations/responsibilities on the users,
rather than on the site. I expect that these "by request" newsgroups
will include all groups not in the "mainstream" Usenet (i.e., alt.*)
I may even have a default .newsrc that only includes local distributions;
I might give them a copy of the "list of newsgroups" and let them manually
subscribe to whatever they like; this would place the obligations on their
shoulders and protect me from the "you gave my little Johnny PORNO!" crowd.
I'm a big supporter of netnews, and (believe it or not) I do support full
access to the materials there. However, I do believe that the providers
of netnews do not have the same obligations/responsibilities/protections
as traditional libraries; we must make some adjustments to compensate.
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 caf-talk Caf Jan 28 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.admin.policy] Re: harrassing mail
Message-ID: <9201281628.AA13717@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: 28 Jan 92 04:28:43 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Jan 28 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy
From: jim@ferkel.ucsb.edu (Jim Lick)
Subject: Re: harrassing mail
Message-ID:
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1992 23:38:31 GMT
I find it surprising that this thread has turned the way it has to
assuming that the article in question was sexually harassing. All
we we told is a hypothetical situation in which a postmaster receives
something which is 'rude' which was misaddressed. The specific
material given as an example is an article from rec.arts.erotica.
The description of the article as being 'rude' and the following
speculation that the recipient did not want the material has no
basis. Unless there was a prior statement made by the user to
the postmaster, the postmaster has absolutely no way to know
whether or not the intended recipient wanted it.
If there was a prior request by the user that she did not want to
receive mail from that user, or that she did not want any explicit
mail, then the postmaster would have a responsibility to do
something about it. If the user has made no such request, the
postmaster has no business whatsoever doing anything beyond
redirecting the mail or dropping it on the floor, depending on
the normal procedure for processing bounced mail.
So many of you are assuming from the way the original question
was phrased that it is indeed harassment. Since there is no
evidence in the original question that the postmaster knew there
was harrassment, then we can only assume that those statements
were simply his opinion. As someone else pointed out, for all
we know she wanted to receive that material, and may even have
asked the other user to mail it to her.
In my opinion, bounced mail should be handled as following:
1) Bounces always are returned to the sender.
2) Bounces may either be ignored locally (that's what we do), or
brought to the attention of the postmaster.
3) Privacy concerns dictate that the postmaster either configure
the software to display only headers, or ignore the message
contents.
4) If the postmaster can determine the correct recipient, he may
forward the article to the right address. If not, he should
drop the message and forget about it.
A responsible postmaster would configure his software to only
display headers. Not all of them do, but it is the only way to
insure privacy. I'd be much more concerned about protecting
the recipient's privacy than I would worry about something which
may or may not be harrassment.
Imagine what would happen if you treated the case as harrassment
without consulting the recipient and it wasn't. She'd probably
be pissed off as all hell that you violated her privacy. I know
that many people who would be very embarrassed if it got out that
they read erotic stories or looked at dirty pictures.
So just remember, don't assume things you don't know. And privacy
is a right just as much as being free of harrassment is.
Jim Lick
Work: University of California | Play: 6657 El Colegio #24
Santa Barbara | Isla Vista, CA 93117-4280
Dept. of Mechanical Engr. | (805) 968-0189 voice/msg
2311 Engr II Building | "Don't be naive,
(805) 893-4113 | Don't deny what you see"
jim@ferkel.ucsb.edu | -Erasure
From caf-talk Caf Jan 28 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.admin.policy] Re: harrassing mail
Message-ID: <9201281629.AA21176@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: 28 Jan 92 04:29:53 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Jan 28 00:00:00 1992
From: jamesd@techbook.com (James Deibele)
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy
Subject: Re: harrassing mail
Message-ID: <1992Jan28.040849.27607@techbook.com>
Date: 28 Jan 92 04:08:49 GMT
mark@kraken.ucsd.edu (Mark Anderson) writes:
>In article <1992Jan27.194726.29107@lclark.edu> dan@lclark.edu (Dan Revel) writes:
>>Harassment is harassment, and the appropriate response is not to simply
>>look the other way.
>But, harassment is NOT harassment until a complaint is made and
>the action persist.
I think you both are right. Brendan should try to let the user know that
he'll be supportive (as far as he's allowed by the rules and regs that may
apply) if she wants to complain, but do it in a more general manner,
posting a motd or a broadcast message letting all users know of their right
to complain of harassment.
She may not want to spend the time or effort necessary to pursue it, and
I think that's quite a reasonable response: do you threaten the neighbor
who plays his stereo too loud all the time, or do you just sigh and bear
it? She may very well not want to go through the formal steps necessary
to resolve this the way you would like.
IMHO, SysAdmins have taken, or should have taken, a vow of silence. We
see much, we say little. Reading someone's mail if they don't know it
and you don't say anything hasn't hurt them. Saying something about it
to anyone, including the recipient, does hurt them. It's awfully easy
to come across as patronizing --- "I'm the mighty SA and I'm here to help
you" --- when all you really want to be is helpful.
How do people handle the question of confidentiality? I want people to
be aware that if they muck something up a copy may end up in my mailbox,
but I don't want to dwell on the subject too much. If you concentrate
on the way root can read anything, it begins to seem like you're saying
you read anything. There's a fine line between warning people,
and sounding like you're bragging about what you can do if you want.
(For the record, I'm certainly not in the habit of reading users' mail.)
--
jamesd@techbook.COM Voice: +1 503 646-8257
PDaXcess gives free access to news & mail. (503) 644-8135 - 1200/2400, N81
"Sitting on the console all day, watching the news scroll away ..."
From caf-talk Caf Jan 28 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.admin.policy] Re: harrassing mail
Message-ID: <9201281630.AA28771@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: 28 Jan 92 04:30:35 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Jan 28 00:00:00 1992
From: janet@cs.uwa.oz.au (Janet Jackson)
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy
Subject: Re: harrassing mail
Message-ID:
Date: 28 Jan 92 04:13:09 GMT
In brendan@cs.widener.edu (Brendan Kehoe) writes:
>Say someone (a guy) is sending someone else (a girl) some pretty rude
>mail (stuff from r.a.erotica & such), but she just blows it off &
>doesn't say anything---she doesn't want to make a fuss.
...
[As Postmaster, Brendan then sees a stray message.]
>Forgetting I've known about his behavior for a while now, do I have
>any real right as sysadmin to ask him to stop?
I would not intervene unless the woman or my boss asked me to, which would
mean the problem was known about already without me having seen the mail.
If my boss asked me to watch for this sort of thing I would have to refuse.
If the stray mail was my only source of information, I would quietly ignore
it - it's between the two users concerned, and if the woman is fool enough
not to make a fuss, I would have to assume she is prepared to put up with
the messages. Anyway, how can you tell that she finds the messages offensive,
if you didn't previously know about them?
And if the message offends _me_, it serves me right for looking past the
headers.
I have occasionally pointed out to people that their deliberately offensive
.plan file, for instance, is not a good idea. However any user could do
the same - I am not using root, Postmaster or other privileges to snoop.
Janet Jackson
Systems Administrator
Department of Computer Science
The University of Western Australia
From caf-talk Caf Jan 28 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.admin.policy] Re: harrassing mail
Message-ID: <9201281631.AA22823@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: 28 Jan 92 04:31:02 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Jan 28 00:00:00 1992
From: wcn@milton.u.washington.edu (W C Newell Jr)
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy
Subject: Re: harrassing mail
Message-ID: <1992Jan28.053012.23409@milton.u.washington.edu>
Date: 28 Jan 92 05:30:12 GMT
In article jim@ferkel.ucsb.edu (Jim Lick) writes:
>[...]
>
>So many of you are assuming from the way the original question
>was phrased that it is indeed harassment. Since there is no
>evidence in the original question that the postmaster knew there
>was harrassment, then we can only assume that those statements
>were simply his opinion. As someone else pointed out, for all
>we know she wanted to receive that material, and may even have
>asked the other user to mail it to her.
I think the majority opinion in this thread is in complete agreement with your
assessment. If it sounds like people are reading the "harassment" context
into it unnecessarily, bear in mind that some of us have already had to deal
with sexual harassment controversies, complaints from upset users, complaints
about IRC and Usenet, reminders from management about the institution's policy,
etc. Even if the current example is simpler than that, it's worthwhile to
emphasize the big picture. I take the view that if users don't understand the
rules, it's a safe bet that a few admins don't, either.
>In my opinion, bounced mail should be handled as following:
>
>1) Bounces always are returned to the sender.
>
>2) Bounces may either be ignored locally (that's what we do), or
> brought to the attention of the postmaster.
>
>3) Privacy concerns dictate that the postmaster either configure
> the software to display only headers, or ignore the message
> contents.
>
>4) If the postmaster can determine the correct recipient, he may
> forward the article to the right address. If not, he should
> drop the message and forget about it.
I agree with this in principle, but so often it's a judgement call. I am far
more likely to attempt redelivery of bounced mail from a faculty member who is
sending travel info than I am mail between two students playing D&D on-line.
In all things, activity directly related to the University gets priority; that
is, after all, my job. It's often hard to tell which is which without looking
at the content of the message. Whatever the reason, if a valid address for the
intended recipient cannot be determined, it goes back to the sender. We try to
avoid dropping mail as much as possible.
Professional ethics is important. Everyone who acts as postmaster is trusted
to use good judgement in handling bounced e-mail, and to be discreet about any
message text that may have been read. We are not under the "seal of the
confessional", however. If bounced mail reveals evidence of abuse by hackers
or other illegal acts, we would act on the information received. It is not,
strictly speaking, an invasion of privacy; it is the user's responsibility to
get the address right, and the results of any failed attempts (that aren't
automatically returned to sender) belong to the postmaster. The USPS treats
surface mail the same way.
I thus don't see the need to hide message text when reading the postmaster's
e-mail. If a user asks one of our staff to look at one of his/her mail files
to help diagnose a problem, that's different. Unfortunately, we don't have
universal tools for handling this.
>[...] I know
>that many people who would be very embarrassed if it got out that
>they read erotic stories or looked at dirty pictures.
And yet they leave their .newsrc files world-readable... I'm surprised that no
one has yet complained about the Arbitron program being an invasion of privacy.
We don't run it here.
--
Bill Newell
Systems Analyst, Applications Consulting Group, IS
University of Washington
WCN@u.washington.edu
From caf-talk Caf Jan 28 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.admin.policy] Re: harrassing mail
Message-ID: <9201281906.AA12013@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: 28 Jan 92 07:06:31 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Jan 28 00:00:00 1992
From: michael@resonex.com (Michael Bryan)
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy
Subject: Re: harrassing mail
Message-ID: <1992Jan27.231201.625@resonex.com>
Date: 27 Jan 92 23:12:01 GMT
In article <27841@sdcc12.ucsd.edu> mark@kraken.ucsd.edu (Mark Anderson) writes:
>In article <1992Jan27.194726.29107@lclark.edu> dan@lclark.edu (Dan Revel) writes:
>>Harassment is harassment, and the appropriate response is not to simply
>>look the other way.
>
>But, harassment is NOT harassment until a complaint is made and
>the action persist.
*Almost* right. Harrassment is not pursueable until a complaint is made.
There does not have to be persistence of the action. As an example, what if
a male manager asked to talk to a female employee in private, and in the
course of the meeting, said that he found her sexy, and placed his hand on
her breast. If she were to immediately walk out and file a complaint, that
manager's actions would qualify as harrassment. Actually, it would probably
be harrassment even if she *didn't* complain, but nothing could be done
about it unless she did complain. Which brings us to the point of this
thread: the e-mail should not automatically be treated as harrassment by
the system manager. If the system manager feels it is potentially a case
of harrassment, *and this perception is based on reading the message
headers or opening sentence to determine who the recipient should be*,
there is no problem with contacting the recipient, passing on the message,
and explaining your concerns. In this case, be sure to indicate that you
could not help but notice the nature of the message, as it was in the
subject line or something else that was unavoidable as part of your job.
If the apparent harrassment is in the body of the message, you have no
business having read it in the first place, and you should forget about
it.
--
Michael Bryan michael@resonex.com
This offer law where prohibited by void.
From caf-talk Caf Jan 28 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.admin.policy] Re: harrassing mail
Message-ID: <9201281906.AA30578@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: 28 Jan 92 07:06:54 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Jan 28 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy
From: tpm%tpm-sprl@uunet.UU.NET (Terence P. Ma)
Subject: Re: harrassing mail
Message-ID: <1992Jan28.172757.2551@tpm-sprl>
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1992 17:27:57 GMT
In article sfarrell@unix2.tcd.ie (The Hammer) writes:
> I think the best solution would be to e-mail the intended recipient and
>ask her whether she would like the unwanted mailings stopped. That way
>it would be done privately without a formal complaint being made.
> This does, of course, skirt around the privacy and free speech
>issues involved, but I'm inclined to think that if such mailings are
>detected (through whatever means) the recipient should be asked if
>he/she would like the mail stopped.
> Any comments?
Well, personally, I question this approach because:
1. What if the recipient *likes* or *wants* to receive this
type of material, but is quite private about her
preferences. Wouldn't contacting her be a real
embarrassment? (A case I am more familiar with was a
closeted Gay man at a major scientific institution and was
receiving soc.motss material. He was thoroughly embarrassed
when this same incident occurred to him.)
2. Doesn't contacting the intended recipient mean that you, the
SysAdmin has actually looked at the contents, and isn't that
what we aren't supposed to do?
Personally, what I've done on bounces is to try and figure out what
the correct address is and return the mail to the sender with what I
think is the correct address. This way, the user knows I know
something is going on, but there is no indication that I have read
the mail (I am usually too busy to do that anyway ... not that many
people would have pecadilloes that would interest or fascinate me).
Regards!
--
Terence P. Ma, Ph.D. VOICE: 601-984-1654
Department of Anatomy FAX: 601-984-1655
University of Mississippi Med. Ctr. EMAIL: tpm%tpm-sprl@uunet.uu.net
Jackson, MS 39216
From caf-talk Caf Jan 28 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.admin.policy] Privacy and Arbitron (Was Re: harrassing mail)
Message-ID: <9201281907.AA28407@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: 28 Jan 92 07:07:14 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Jan 28 00:00:00 1992
From: michael@resonex.com (Michael Bryan)
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy
Subject: Privacy and Arbitron (Was Re: harrassing mail)
Message-ID: <1992Jan28.085827.5286@resonex.com>
Date: 28 Jan 92 08:58:27 GMT
In article <1992Jan28.053012.23409@milton.u.washington.edu> wcn@milton.u.washington.edu (W C Newell Jr) writes:
>In article jim@ferkel.ucsb.edu (Jim Lick) writes:
>>[...] I know
>>that many people who would be very embarrassed if it got out that
>>they read erotic stories or looked at dirty pictures.
>
>And yet they leave their .newsrc files world-readable... I'm surprised that no
>one has yet complained about the Arbitron program being an invasion of privacy.
>We don't run it here.
If Arbitron is run as intended, nobody, including the system manager, ever
finds out who is reading which groups. It uses privileges to look at each
user's .newsrc, but it does not keep any user-specific information from
these files. The final report merely says that there are "X" users on
the system, "Y" of them read news, and "Z" of them read newsgroup "a.b.c".
Granted, if you only have two or three readers on your system, then it
might not be too hard to figure out who is reading what groups. But if
you have that few readers, you are just as likely to find out by other
means as well, such as word-of-mouth or watching who posts what. With
more readers, the percentage data becomes harder to attribute to any one
reader. At worst, you might discover something like "Omigawd, 39% of our
users are reading alt.sex.bondage!"
I don't consider Arbitron an invasion of privacy, and in fact find it
useful to help me decide which groups are no longer being read and
hence do not need to be carried. It gathers useful statistics needed
to "tune" the news system, and doesn't reveal anything about any
particular user.
--
Michael Bryan michael@resonex.com
This offer law where prohibited by void.
From caf-talk Caf Jan 28 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.admin.policy] Re: harrassing mail
Message-ID: <9201282123.AA09634@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: 28 Jan 92 09:23:25 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Jan 28 00:00:00 1992
From: jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond)
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy
Subject: Re: harrassing mail
Message-ID:
Date: 28 Jan 92 18:46:52 GMT
sfarrell@unix2.tcd.ie (The Hammer) writes:
> I think the best solution would be to e-mail the intended recipient and
>ask her whether she would like the unwanted mailings stopped. That way
>it would be done privately without a formal complaint being made.
Yes. The person may be one who does not like this kind of stuff but is
to nice/bashful to say something. A discreet inquiry as to her
wishes would be in order.
> This does, of course, skirt around the privacy and free speech
>issues involved, but I'm inclined to think that if such mailings are
>detected (through whatever means) the recipient should be asked if
>he/she would like the mail stopped.
I don't see any privacy or free speech issues. No free speech is involved
because there is no public forum. The lady has no obligation to listen (read)
from that twit. Nor do I see any privacy issue, assuming you as sysadmin
can keep your lips zipped. I see something similiar to a lawyer-patient
priviledge here. Depending on what acceptable use agreement the lady
signed as a condition of being granted access, there may not even
be an expectation of privacy for plaintext messages. We make that very
clear here at Dixie.com. Encryption is the way to get privacy, not
playing no-see-um.
John
--
John De Armond, WD4OQC | If Congress ever does something purely
Rapid Deployment System, Inc. | in the interest of the nation, Lincoln
Marietta, Ga | will get up, stroll over to congratulate
jgd@dixie.com | them.
From caf-talk Caf Jan 28 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.admin.policy] Re: Privacy and Arbitron (Was Re: harrassing mail)
Message-ID: <9201282123.AA00423@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: 28 Jan 92 09:23:47 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Jan 28 00:00:00 1992
From: wcn@milton.u.washington.edu (W C Newell Jr)
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy
Subject: Re: Privacy and Arbitron (Was Re: harrassing mail)
Message-ID: <1992Jan28.200612.20492@milton.u.washington.edu>
Date: 28 Jan 92 20:06:12 GMT
In article <1992Jan28.085827.5286@resonex.com> michael@resonex.com (Michael Bryan) writes:
>If Arbitron is run as intended, nobody, including the system manager, ever
>finds out who is reading which groups. It uses privileges to look at each
>user's .newsrc, but it does not keep any user-specific information from
>these files. [...]
Since I received a few similiar replies by e-mail, perhaps I should elaborate.
Some of our users would object (if they knew) to privileged applications
opening their files under any circumstances, on the grounds that it would set
a bad precedent and allow other applications to invade their privacy still
further. These people would argue that the admin should first ask permission
to collect sample data, and exclude any user(s) who say no. This is, in fact,
how the commercial TV ratings work.
The system backups aren't an issue because they don't actually look at data,
they just copy. We do have an application that is designed to simplify viewing
and setting mail forwarding addresses across multiple systems, and which will
update a user's .forward files, but its actions are well-documented and running
it is voluntary. My sense is that users are on the whole a bit more sensitive
about their Usenet data.
>At worst, you might discover something like "Omigawd, 39% of our
>users are reading alt.sex.bondage!"
I think that's the big issue. People don't want to see the administration
trash some or all of the non-academic areas because some report says they're
heavily used. It's even more likely to be a concern on departmental systems
which run clients off of our central server, because most of their users are
faculty/staff and so they can't "blame" their recreational use on the students.
And rather than focus on alt.sex.*, let me rephrase the management's reaction:
"Oh dear, our employees must be spending 39% of their time reading Usenet!"
>I don't consider Arbitron an invasion of privacy, and in fact find it
>useful to help me decide which groups are no longer being read and
>hence do not need to be carried. It gathers useful statistics needed
>to "tune" the news system, and doesn't reveal anything about any
>particular user.
With 25,000+ active accounts on our central systems, and at least 20% of those
people reading something in news, the Arbitron program would actually take
quite a long time to run. It isn't worth the trouble for the data it gives us.
If someone wrote a version that runs as a server and allows users to
voluntarily submit their data, I'd personally be interested.
--
Bill Newell
Systems Analyst, Applications Consulting Group, IS
University of Washington
WCN@u.washington.edu
From caf-talk Caf Jan 28 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.censorship] PLEASE READ THIS: URGENT
Message-ID: <9201282126.AA16428@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: 28 Jan 92 09:26:16 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Jan 28 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
From: Jeffrey A Golds
Subject: PLEASE READ THIS: URGENT
Message-ID: <9201282036.AA20228@function.mps.ohio-state.edu>
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1992 20:36:49 GMT
There are some very interesting things going on on the OSU campus these
days, foremost of which is the commotion being caused by an editorial written
by Bradley Smith.
Bradley Smith wanted to put an ad in the OSU newspaper, the Lantern, but was
voted down because of the content of the ad. The next day (last Friday)
the text of the ad was printed as an editorial since the staff considered
it news. The content was about how the holocaust never happened etc.
Of course, I don't agree with the article, but I think it is ok to print.
The article is very reasonable and doesn't appear to be trying to elicit
hateful responses from anti-Semites or Jews.
Now the Lantern is under fire. The Hillel foundation had (or is still
having) a sit-in in the Journalism Building. Protestors are telling people
to resign. One quote in today's paper said that they would hold the Lantern
responsible for any hate crimes that take place on campus as a result of
the article. Of course, who is to say what causes hate crimes? I don't
believe reading an article does, but how you were raised probably has a lot
to do with it.
Protestors are calling for people to flood that Lantern with letters of
protest. I say people who care about free speech (not about defending
Revisionists) should send letters in SUPPORT of the Lantern.
Please help this cause. We need to keep what freedoms we can. All it takes
is one slight give in, and before you know it, you have no rights left.
Here's the Lantern's address:
the Lantern
271 Journalism Building
242 W. 18th Ave.
Columbus, OH 43210
I hope that all those who care will take time to write a short note.
Thanks for your time.
Jeff Golds
function@mps.ohio-state.edu
From caf-talk Caf Jan 28 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.censorship] Re: PLEASE READ THIS: URGENT
Message-ID: <9201282127.AA18424@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: 28 Jan 92 09:27:52 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Jan 28 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
From: jgolds@function.mps.ohio-state.edu (Jeffrey A Golds)
Subject: Re: PLEASE READ THIS: URGENT
Message-ID: <1992Jan28.203958.28449@zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu>
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1992 20:39:58 GMT
Sorry, my email address is jgolds@function.mps.ohio-state.edu.
From caf-talk Caf Jan 28 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: axsymgr@acad2a.alaska.edu ()
Subject: Model NNTP newsgroup policy?
Message-ID: <1992Jan28.114827@acad2a.alaska.edu>
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1992 20:52:58 GMT
has anyone at the eff or other institution put together a model NNTP/newsgroup
policy that
reflects a strong anti-censorship bias? if so, i would like to obtain a copy as
the university
of alaska is preparing to address newsgroup policy and i have been asked to
prepare a discussion of the relevant issues and make recommendations to local
management.
thanks
vic kapella, systems manager
university of alaska anchorage
From caf-talk Caf Jan 28 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,cmu.general,alt.censorship,alt.politics.correct
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Speech restrictions on CMU computer bboards
Message-ID: <1992Jan28.223429.20426@eff.org>
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1992 22:34:29 GMT
[Reprinted with permission - The Tartan vol 86 issue 14]
By Matt Bushey
Tartan News Co-editor
Biology junior Eric Jefferson was accused of violating the University's
sexual harassment policy this month after posting a number of
questionable messages on the women's center Andrew bulletin board.
A letter of complaint was given to Dean of student affairs Micheal
Murphy concerning Eric Jefferson, who had posted messages which readers
claimed were offensive and harassing towards women. The formal complaint
was written by Todd Masco and signed by co-worker Chris Newman and
student senator Josh Knauer.
Alleged acts of harassment have occurred often over the past few years
and have traditionally been handled by the office of student affairs.
The first message posted by Jefferson was in response to a lecture by
feminist Ann Simonton sponsored by the political speaker forum board.
Jefferson posted his message to assocs.womens-center concerning his
opinion towards feminism and the role of women in society. In his
message, Jefferson writes, "I think that the biggest Nazis in the
country today and the biggest threats to freedom of speech are
feminists."
Jefferson posted over ten more messages to the board expressing his
opinions, including his liberal opinions about lesbians.
According to Knauer, the comments made by Jefferson on the bboard were
"personal attacks". Jefferson said, "I don't think they were offensive."
and believes he didn't break the sexual harassment policy. "The way [the
sexual harassment policy] is defined in the student handbook is really
vague," said Jefferson.
However, Knauer believes that Jefferson crossed the line of free speech.
Knauer said, "The administration should say, 'Look, what you wrote is
breaking the rules, whether they are right or not, and don't do it
again.'"
This happened on January 22 when the assistant dean of student affairs
told Jefferson that if he continued to post his questionable messages a
full disciplinary committee would make a ruling on his actions which
could ultimately result in the expulsion of Jefferson from Carnegie
Mellon. "I told her that I couldn't promise not to post any more
messages," said Jefferson.
Masco believes Jefferson's messages are a "clear case of harassment."
and believes Jefferson's intent was to start an argument among the
members of the women's center. "I don't see how it can be possible for
any of his comments not to be taken as harassment," said Masco
The sexual harassment policy states, "Carnegie Mellon University seeks
to maintain a learning and work environment free from sexual harassment.
Carnegie Mellon is dedicated to the free exchange of ideas and the
intellectual development of all members of the community. For this
exchange and development to take place, the environment must promote the
confidence to work, to study, to innovate, and to perform without fear
of harassment."
The policy continues, "Carnegie Mellon University adopts the basic
definition of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)
regarding sexual harassment as any unwelcome sexual advance, requests
for sexual favors, or other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual
nature when...such conduct has the purpose or effect of unreasonable
interfering with an individual's work performance, or creating an
intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment."
Masco agrees with Jefferson that that policy is weakly worded, but he
doesn't see that as grounds for altering the policy. "It gives [the
administration] the ability to act reasonably rather than tying
themselves down to a specific course of action," said Masco.
According to Murphy,
The free speech and assembly policy states, "Carnegie Mellon
University...encourages freedom of speech, assembly, and exchange of
ideas. This includes the distribution of leaflets and petitions, as well
as demonstrations or protests involving speaking, discussion, or the
distribution of information."
"All persons are permitted to distribute printed material, offer
petitions for signature, make speeches and conduct other similar
activities outside university buildings...The only limits on these
activities are the rights of the members of the university community and
the maintenance of the normal functioning of the university. No
activities which harm individuals, damage or deface property, block
access to university buildings, or disrupt classes will be permitted."
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu, or (anonymous) ap.3619@layout.berkeley.edu=
From caf-talk Caf Jan 28 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,cmu.general,alt.censorship,alt.politics.correct
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Speech restrictions on CMU computer bboards
Message-ID: <1992Jan28.223916.20536@eff.org>
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1992 22:39:16 GMT
[An editoral from the CMU student newspaper. Reprinted with
permission - The Tartan vol 86 issue 14]
----start editorial
When we arrive at this university, we gain immediate access to Andrew
accounts which, among other things, allow us to send electronic mail to
friends, faculty, group organizations, and people at other colleges, and
allow us to post messages on electronic bulletin boards. Bboards are
quite popular and have served as an excellent means for sharing common
ideas and expressing new ones.
>From time to time, individuals abuse the privilege of using the networks
by posting racist, prejudicial, or sexually harassing messages on
bboards. Bboards allow us to communicate quickly and efficiently. They
also provide a forum for expressing our opinions. However, there is no
place on the bboards for so-called hate speech, which is nothing but
counter-productive. Expressing opinions is one thing - harassment and
deliberately offensive language is something else.
At this point we should mention 'flaming.' Flames are insults and
inflammatory language specifically designed to make others angry. Avid
bboard users tend to find them amusing. Flaming has its place - the
bboard cmu.opinion, for example, which exists so people can express
opinions and discuss them or, as the case may be, have flame wars over
them. Bboards such as cmu.market or assocs.women's-center, on the other
hand, are not the place for flames, as they were created only for
announcements, not discussion of any kind.
And even when flaming, every bboard user should set limits for him- or
herself. Harassment is harassment, no matter what the forum.
If you feel that you have been harassed by email or a bboard post, you
can take official action. A complaint sent to advisor+@andrew is enough
to launch an investigation of the incident, potentially resulting in
punitive action against the offender.
Taking matters into your own hands often causes more problems than it
solves. It can give the offender more attention than he or she deserves,
and cause further problems for you. Go directly to the authorities -
that's what they're there for.
Bboards provide a unique opportunity for communication and opinion
exchange, often with people you would never otherwise meet. Every Andrew
user has a responsibility, however, to police him- or herself and keep
posts appropriate.
----end editorial
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu, or (anonymous) ap.3619@layout.berkeley.edu=
From caf-talk Caf Jan 28 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,cmu.general,alt.censorship,alt.politics.correct
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Speech restrictions on CMU computer bboards
Message-ID: <1992Jan28.224809.20796@eff.org>
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1992 22:48:09 GMT
[Email. Posted with the author's permission. - Carl]
From ag3j+@andrew.cmu.edu Tue Jan 28 17:41:49 1992
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1992 16:15:35 -0500 (EST)
From: "Adam C. Gross"
To: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Help needed at CMU
Cc: "Adam C. Gross"
In-Reply-To: <1992Jan27.161036.25544@eff.org>
References: <1992Jan27.161036.25544@eff.org>
There is quite a large contraversy brewing here at Carnegie Mellon,
highlighted by a front page story in today's Tartan (school newspaper).
Here is the short story. A student, Eric Jefferson has had sexual
harrasment charges filled against him because of his postings on
assocs.womens-center, a local cmu bboard for the Women's Center (a
organization for women's issues.)
I have read and archived all 16 of his posts to the bboards, and while
they are definately rude and in poor taste (he insults women and
lesbians extensively and often quotes questionable rap lyrics), the
university has said it will try to expell him if they parties who filed
the charges (three readers of the bboard) want.
In my opinion, as there are no personal references (with the exception
of calling one user names after that user had already called him names),
his posts are protected speech. IMHO, Eric maybe close to explusion,
and has already been convicted by an editorial in the school paper.
[... - cmk]
----message starts here
Date: Sat, 16 Nov 1991 17:56:41 -0500 (EST)
From: Eric Scott Jefferson
To: Bulletin Board Administration
Subject: Ann Simonton
Well, I've never written to the women's center before this (not wanting to
deal with all you fugly sexually frustrated women before. Yes fugly, no typo.
This word was invented by Stephanie Zikos last year (maybe by accident)
and is a contraction of fucking ugly Usage: "Man that girl is fugly") but this
has me so pissed off that I can't restrain myself.
I went to this so-called talk of the bitch who's name is in my title. All she
did was rant and rave for two hours about how everything in our society is
sexist/racist/homphobic/classist/and capitalist piggish. After her two hour
talk she did not answer any questions (except for one or two, ignoring me
of course even though I had my hand up first, maybe it was the Guns N'
Roses T-shirt I was wearing). Thus her basic point was "You listen to me
but I don't want to listen to you", maybe because she was ripped in half a
few years ago by Gloria Leonard (editor of High Society magazine). Next
time you get a political speaker, don't pay them if they won't answer
questions.
The other thing about this talk that got me pissed off was the way the bitch
came off looking more prudish than Jerry Fallwell. A message to all the
women out there: I subscribe to Hustler, I watch porno flicks regularly (in
fact I just saw Oriental Lesbian Fantasies a few days ago -- weak flick the
womens bodies were pretty disgusting), I favor legalization of prostitution. I
make no apologies for doing these things because men have a definite
sexuality. I think that the biggest Nazis in the country today and the biggest
threats to freedom of speech are feminists. You women always act like you
want to cut my balls off. Well fuck you. First you are restricting
speech in the
workplace because a few frustrated cunts who masturbate every night since
no man would have them think that they are being sexually harassed. I
have talked about porn, the size of my dick and other things regularly with
women in the course of summer jobs and you know what, not one of them
fucking minded at all. Not one. A girl I know went to see Guns N' Roses
with me in concert this summer. Did she mind their songs. FUCK NO!!!!. My
sister is a model whose looks put all the women on this campus to shame.
Does she feel she is being exploited. FUCK NO!!!! As Camille Paglia says,
feminists have the most screwed up view of the world. They don't realize
that women are the dominant sex (which they are), they don't realize that
sex is a dark force between man and women, the sexes will always be in
conflict and other things that every other human being has realized in the
world since we evolved from apes. (As Ms. Paglia also says, the only place
where feminists have gained a hold have been on college campuses
where men are basically sit or their ass guys who have no balls anyway
such as those motherfucking pussy-wimps that came to that Simonton
debate). I like good-looking women. Why!!!! Because that's the way we
evolved. Beauty is a sign of health and good genes. Men's high sex drive
always means they are attracted to beauty. My favorite show on TV is
Married...With Children since Christina Applegate is so hot. If you feminist
women don't like the male sex drive then set up your own country. You'll all
die within one generation and then we'll be rid of you. (As a side note I
don't feel bad when hunky men appear in commercials or magazines and
their sex is userd to sell products. Oh Sniff, Sniff I feel so exploited. Boo
hoo hoo mommy, daddy why don't you make them stop. Wahhhhhh!!!!)
The venom in this post is intentional since you bitches have always tried
to cut my balls off and I don't appreciate it.
"Bitch, Bitch, Bitch , Bitch, Fucking Bitch!!!!!"
Guns N' Roses "Back Off Bitch"
*******************************************************************************
**
****
"Walked into the party I was drunk as hell
3 bitches already said 'Eric your breath smells'"--N.W.A "8 Ball" from
Straight Outta Compton
"Hail to the Redskins. Hail Victory!!!
Braves on the Warpath. Fight for old D.C.!!!" ---Redskins fight song
10-0!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
*******************************************************************************
**
****
-----end
[... - cmk]
~*****************************************************************************
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu, or (anonymous) ap.3619@layout.berkeley.edu=
From caf-talk Caf Jan 28 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,cmu.general,alt.censorship,alt.politics.correct
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Speech restrictions on CMU computer bboards
Message-ID: <1992Jan28.234454.22561@eff.org>
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1992 23:44:54 GMT
The articles in question are sexist and, to most, offensive. However,
because they were posted in an open university forum they are not
sexually harassing. Regardless of what CMU claims, it is not
suppressing sexual harassment; it is suppressing student speech.
The rational CMU is using to suppress speech in this instance could
easily be applied to other student publications and speech. Based on
this precedent, it could, for example, punish students for offensive
pamphlets handed out on campus, offensive statements made at a
demonstrations, or offensive articles in the student newspaper. The
precedent might also be used to remove offensive books form the
library and bookstore.
If CMU was a public university the university could not punish a
student for sexist articles because the it would be bound to respect
the Bill of Rights. As a private university, CMU is not bound by the
Bill of Rights. It is, however, bound by its student code. The student
codes at most universities guarantee free expression. Also, as a
university, CMU has a moral obligation to keep the student media
(including computer media) free of censorship.
As the Joint Statement on Rights and Freedoms of Students says:
------------start----------------------
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. As 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.
[...]
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. As 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.
[...]
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.
[...]
The student press should be free of censorship ...
------------------end-----------------------
[ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/student.freedoms]
_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 computer media.
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."
[The full text of the decision is available via anonymous ftp from
ftp.eff.org as file pub/academic/law/uwm-post-v-u-Wisconsin.]
A cornerstone of academic freedom is that "bad speech" should be
out competed, not outlawed. For this to happen, university forums
should be protected from university retaliation. This protection
should include traditional media like the newspaper and new media
like computer bboards.
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu, or (anonymous) ap.3619@layout.berkeley.edu=
From caf-talk Caf Jan 28 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,cmu.general,alt.censorship,alt.politics.correct
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Speech restrictions on CMU computer bboards
Message-ID: <1992Jan29.001302.23267@eff.org>
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1992 00:13:02 GMT
kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
[...]
>The policy continues, "Carnegie Mellon University adopts the basic
>definition of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)
>regarding sexual harassment as any unwelcome sexual advance, requests
>for sexual favors, or other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual
>nature when...such conduct has the purpose or effect of unreasonable
>interfering with an individual's work performance, or creating an
>intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment."
[...]
The University of Wisconsin also tried to base speech restrictions
on EEOC rules. A federal judge rejected the restrictions
as unconstitutional. Here is part of that decision:
============== uwm-post-v-u-of-wisconsin ==========
(3) PARALLEL TO TITLE VII LAW
The Board of Regents argues that this Court should find the UW Rule
constitutional because its prohibition of discriminatory speech which creates a
hostile environment has parallels in the employment setting. The Board notes
that, under Title VII, an employer has a duty to take appropriate corrective
action when it learns of pervasive illegal harassment. See Meritor Savings
Bank v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57, 72 (1986).
The Board correctly states Title VII law. However, its argument regarding
Title VII law has at least three difficulties. First, Title VII addresses
employment, not educational, settings. Second, even if Title VII governed
educational settings, the Meritor holding would not apply to this case. The
Meritor Court held that courts should look to agency principles when
determining whether an employer is to be held liable for its employee's
actions. See id. Since employees may act as their employer's agents, agency
law may hold an employer liable for its employees actions. In contrast, agency
theory would generally not hold a school liable for its students' actions since
students normally are not agents of the school. Finally, even if the legal
duties set forth in Meritor applied to this case, they would not make the UW
Rule constitutional. Since Title VII is only a statute, it cannot supersede
the requirements of the First Amendment.
============================
As a private institution, CMU is free to violate the standards set by
the Constitution and academic freedom. It should not, however, try to
justify its violations with appeals to inappropriate government rules.
- Carl
=================
REFERENCES
=================
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).
=================
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.
=================
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
Thu Jan 16 12:23:20 EST 1992
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu, or (anonymous) ap.3619@layout.berkeley.edu=
From caf-talk Caf Jan 28 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.admin.policy
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: [comp.admin.policy] harrassing mail
Message-ID: <1992Jan29.020039.25606@eff.org>
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1992 02:00:39 GMT
nbc2134@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil (Robert F Solon) writes:
[...]
>If you decide to take action, there are several options available to
>you. You may decide to simply ask the user to refrain. You may
>suspend his account pending a formal inquiry.
[...]
This is what the Joint Statement on Rights and Freedoms of Students
says about the status of student pending final action:
"Pending action on the charges, the status of a student should not be
altered, or his right to be present on the campus and to attend
classes suspended, except for reasons relating to his physical or
emotional safety and well being, or for reasons relating to the safety
and well-being of students, faculty, or university property."
[ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/student.freedoms]
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu, or (anonymous) ap.3619@layout.berkeley.edu=
From caf-talk Caf Jan 28 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Model NNTP newsgroup policy?
Message-ID: <1992Jan29.020756.26085@eff.org>
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1992 02:07:56 GMT
axsymgr@acad2a.alaska.edu () writes:
>has anyone at the eff or other institution put together a model NNTP/newsgroup
>policy that
>reflects a strong anti-censorship bias?
>if so, i would like to obtain a copy as
>the university
>of alaska is preparing to address newsgroup policy and i have been asked to
>prepare a discussion of the relevant issues and make recommendations to local
>management.
[...]
I suggest looking at the policy of your university library. I'm
enclosing material that elaborates on this suggestion.
- Carl
I'm enclosing
faq/policy
caf-statement (excerpt)
faq/netnews.reading
faq/netnews.liability
faq/README
Good luck.
- Carl
=============== 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
(192.88.144.3) 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
=============== excerpt from ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/caf-statement =======
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Path: eff!kadie
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Draft Statement on Computers and Academic Freedom (CAF)
Message-ID: <1991Oct26.210722.29271@eff.org>
Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 1991 21:07:22 GMT
Lines: 148
This is an attempt to codify the application of academic freedom to
academic computers. It reflects our seven months of on-line discussion
about computers and academic freedom. It is made up of two kinds of
statements. The first, labeled as principles, are premises. The
second, labeled as interpretations, are conclusions drawn from the
principles.
The two kinds of statements can be thought of as axioms and theorems.
An axiom (principle) is most likely to be criticized for being
unreasonable. A theorem (interpretation) is mostly likely to be
criticized for not following from the principles.
Comments and suggestions are very welcome (especially when posted to
CAF-talk). On the documents referenced are available on-line. Access
information is at the end of this note.
- Carl
-------------------------------------------
I. General
Principle: The principles of academic freedom apply to academic
computer systems. Computer polices should be consistent with general
university codes and widely accepted statements on academic freedom
such as the Joint Statement on Rights and Freedoms of Students.
II. Policy Formulation
Interpretation: "The institution has an obligation to clarify those
standards of behavior which it considers essential to its educational
mission and its community life. These general behavioral expectations
and the resultant specific regulations should represent a reasonable
regulation of [user] conduct, but the [user] should be as free as
possible from imposed limitations that have no direct relevance to his
education. Offenses should be as clearly defined as possible and
interpreted in a manner consistent with the aforementioned principles
of relevance and reasonableness. Disciplinary proceedings should be
instituted only for violations of standards of conduct formulated with
significant [user] participation and published in advance through such
means as a [user] handbook or a generally available body of
institutional regulations." [Joint Statement]
II. Student and Faculty Discipline
Principle: Suspension or expulsion from a computer is a serious
penalty. Users facing these penalties should be given due process
protection similar to that given to those facing other serious
penalties such as a formal disciplinary warning, a failing grade for
cheating, or suspension from class.
Interpretation: "Pending action on the charges, the status of a [user]
should not be altered, or his [or her] right to be present on the
campus and to attend classes [and use computers] suspended, except for
reasons relating to his physical or emotional safety and well being,
or for reasons relating to the safety and well-being of students,
faculty, or university property." [Joint Statement]
III. Privacy
Principle: Personal files on university's computers (for example,
files in a user's home directory) should have the same privacy
protection as personal files in university-assigned space in an
office, lab, or dormitory (for example, files in a graduate student's
desk). Private communications via computer should have the same
protections as private communications via telephone.
IV. Computer Expression
Interpretation: "Academic institutions exist for the transmission of
knowledge, the pursuit of truth, the development of students, and the
general well-being of society. Free inquiry and free expression are
indispensable to the attainment of these goals its members of the
academic community, students should be encouraged to develop the
capacity for critical judgment and to engage in a sustained and
independent search for truth." [Joint Statement]
Principle: The principles of intellectual freedom developed by
libraries should be applied to the administration of information
material on computers. These principles are explained in such American
Library Association documents as the Library Bill of Rights, the
Freedom to Read Statement, and the Intellectual Freedom Statement.
Interpretation: Computer sites that offer newsgroups should select
newsgroups the way that traditional libraries select magazines and
books.
Interpretation: "Every [academic computer] system should have a
comprehensive policy on the selection of [information] materials."
[ALA Workbook for Selection Policy Writing]
Interpretation: "Materials should not be proscribed or removed because
of partisan or doctrinal disapproval" [Article 2, Library Bill of
Rights].
Principle: The principles of academic freedom applicable to student
and faculty publication in traditional media, apply to student and
faculty publication in computer media.
Interpretation: An article or note posted by a student to a newsgroup
is a student publication.
Interpretation: "Student publications [and the publications of other
users] are a valuable aid in establishing and maintaining an
atmosphere of free and responsible discussion and of intellectual
exploration on the campus. They are a means of bringing [...]
concerns to the attention of the faculty and the institutional
authorities and of formulating [...] opinion on various issues on the
campus and in the world at large." [Joint Statement]
Interpretation: "The institutional control of campus facilities should
not be used as a device of censorship." "[User publications] should be
free of censorship and advance approval of copy ..." [Joint Statement]
Interpretation: "All university published and financed [user]
publications should explicitly state [...] that the opinions there
expressed are not necessarily those of the college, university, or
student body. [Joint Statement]
-----------------------
References
Documents may be accessed via ftp (see the first line after the
document title). They may also be accessed via email. Send email to
archive-server@eff.org. In the body of your note include the second
line after the document title.
Joint Statement on Rights and Freedom of Students
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/student.rights
send acad-freedom student.rights
Library Bill of Rights
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/library/bill-of-rights.ala
send library-policies bill-of-rights.ala
Freedom to Read Statement
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/library/freedom-to-read.ala
send library-policies freedom-to-read.ala
Intellectual Freedom Statement
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/library/int-freedom.ala
send library-policies int-freedom.ala
CAF Archive's README file
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/README
send acad-freedom README
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu, or (anonymous) ap.4352@hri.com
I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=============== ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/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?
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
(192.88.144.3) 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
=============== 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
(192.88.144.3) 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
=====================================README===========================
=================
README
=================
A directory of frequently asked questions. To see a list of questions,
see file ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/faq/README or send email to
archive-server@eff.org, including the line:
send caf-faq README
Disclaimer: The answers are generally not written by lawyers and are
not authoritative. Each answer is the opinion of its author.
=================
archive
=================
q: What files are available from the Computers and Academic Freedom
archive?
=================
email.privacy
=================
q: Can (should) my university monitor my email?
=================
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?
=================
netnews.liability
=================
q: Does a University reduce its likely liability by screening Netnews
for offensive articles and newsgroups?
=================
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?
=================
netnews.writing
=================
q: Should my university allow students to post to Netnews?
=================
policy
=================
q: What guidance is there for creating or evaluating a computer policy?
=================
=================
Last update
Sat Jan 25 11:01:47 EST 1992
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu, or (anonymous) ap.3619@layout.berkeley.edu=
From caf-talk Caf Jan 28 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,misc.legal,alt.censorship
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Duties of state universities regarding 1st amendment
Message-ID: <1992Jan29.025546.27040@eff.org>
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1992 02:55:46 GMT
>kadie@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
cmk> I don't know exactly when a reading room becomes a (traditional)
cmk> library. I don't know exactly when a usenet facility because an
cmk> electronic library.
My use of the turm "reading room" was unclear. I meant the informal
collections of books that a department will sometimes have. I should
have said something like: I don't know exactly when an informaal
collection of books becauses a library, etc.
morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
wm2> As most of you know, my personal perspective on Usenet is that of a
wm2> reading room. The vast majority of a typical library's collection
wm2> is permanent; individual items have an extremely long life. Usenet,
wm2> on the other hand, is essentially transient; the longest expire time
wm2> I've ever seen on a Usenet site is one month.
wm2> I think that "collected archives" of Usenet would be more closely
wm2> identified with a library then Usenet itself. If I subscribe to
wm2> Newsweek, my one weekly issue does not constitute a library; however,
wm2> if I collect each issue, I am amassing a permanent collection, which
wm2> more closely matches our definition of a library.
I don't think the archival function of many libraries is their
defining feature.
[..]
cmk> A univeristy should not run away from discussions of controversial
cmk> topics.
wm2> Not wishing to support a particular discussion/newsgroup is NOT
wm2> "running away" from controversy.
[...]
wm2> How many libraries carry "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion"?
In the state of Illinois, at least five libraries carry it.
wm2> Government officials do not have to answer every question put to them,
wm2> nor are they required to comment on every situation. Why can't a net-
wm2> news site reply "no comment" to alt.sex.*?
An academic site has a moral responsbility to make its selection on
criteria more valid that "We want to avoid controversy".
[...]
wm2> You've already stated (in previous messages) that the newsgroup selection
wm2> process can be a vehicle for censorship.
wm2> If netnews providers are supposed
wm2> to "challenge censorship", doesn't that imply that every newsgroup should
wm2> be carried?
No. It only implies that selection should not be used as a vehicle for
censorship. For example, selection should not proscribe material
because of partisan or doctrinal disapproval.
wm1>Comment: One of the responsibilities of the maintainer of a limited
wm1> public forum is to keep the discussion "on the topic".
wm1> I am not abridging
wm1> that user's rights in my insistence that he keep the discussion
wm1> "on the topic". That is one of my obligations as the maintainer
wm1> of the forum.
cmk> I don't see see any such obligation. I don't think univerity agents
cmk> should be deciding that something doesn't belong.
wm2> See any University Press catalog, University magazine, course catalogs,
wm2> or official bulletin boards (the physical type).
I stand corrected. I meant in a univeristy forum. I'll even qualify
that. I think cost is a valid reason to enforce topic restrictions.
For example, personal use of campus mail systems are generally
prohibited because of the incremental cost of personal use would be
large.
[...]
wm2> Kill files don't work. Peer pressure cannot be effectively applied
wm2> through network lines.
Kill files work for me. If I see a strong of off-topic articles, I
kill the subject. If one poster is especially bad, I kill 'em.
wm1>Comment: "shall cooperate with all persons and groups"?? Does that mean
wm1> that I have to give the local chapter of the ACLU a login on
wm1> my system? Does that mean that every student group on this cam-
wm1> pus should automatically get access to computers offering net-
wm1> news?
cmk> No.
wm2> How about a clarification, then? What does that mean?
I think it is saying that librarians/netnews providers should
cooperate in the fight against censorship with other groups.
wm1>Addendum: Certain materials may be made available on a "by request"
[...]
wm2> I was thinking about something along the lines of a default initial
wm2> configuration for news access, which would contain only "innocuous"
wm2> newsgroups, also known as "mainstream" Usenet. The other groups would
wm2> be available, but the user would be required to actively request them.
wm2> Such a request could take several forms:
[...]
wm2> This comes back to a theme I've stated in several discussions -- MAKE
wm2> THE USERS TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEIR ACTIONS. How many times have
wm2> we seen controversies initiated by people who "stumbled upon" a news-
wm2> group? I don't see anything wrong with placing the responsibility
wm2> squarely on their shoulders.
[...]
Well restricted access is certainly better than no access.
My feeling, however, is that the controvery comes from people who
don't want other people from reading and writing on certain topics. I
think much of their outrage could be eliminated by a formal selection
policy and a formal policy for handling complaints. Users should, of
course, be told of the policy.
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu, or (anonymous) ap.3619@layout.berkeley.edu=
From caf-talk Caf Jan 29 00:00:00 1992
From: pdh@netcom.COM (Phil Howard KA9WGN)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,cmu.general,alt.censorship,alt.politics.correct
Subject: Re: Speech restrictions on CMU computer bboards
Message-ID: <1992Jan29.055108.20687pdh@netcom.COM>
Date: 29 Jan 92 05:51:08 GMT
I agree that the article in question posted on the womens bbs at CMU was
distasteful and inappropriately positioned (another group might have been
better, with a post only to refer).
It appears that he is only expounding upon his own perverted opinions (IMHO)
but I certainly don't see one shred of speech that would not be protected
by the First Amendment.
I don't know if CMU is public or private. If public, they are clearly out
of bounds in the matter. If private, then at least they are very
inconsistent in their wording and application of policy.
--
/***********************************************************************\
| Phil Howard --- KA9WGN --- pdh@netcom.com | "The problem with |
| depending on government is that you cannot depend on it" - Tony Brown |
\***********************************************************************/
From caf-talk Caf Jan 29 00:00:00 1992
From: pdh@netcom.COM (Phil Howard KA9WGN)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,cmu.general,alt.censorship,alt.politics.correct
Subject: Re: Speech restrictions on CMU computer bboards
Message-ID: <1992Jan29.054251.20039pdh@netcom.COM>
Date: 29 Jan 92 05:42:51 GMT
kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>Jefferson posted his message to assocs.womens-center concerning his
>opinion towards feminism and the role of women in society. In his
>message, Jefferson writes, "I think that the biggest Nazis in the
>country today and the biggest threats to freedom of speech are
>feminists."
>Jefferson posted over ten more messages to the board expressing his
>opinions, including his liberal opinions about lesbians.
If he indeed believes these things, then his postings are strictly
factual and any perception of offense is the fault of the reader.
--
/***********************************************************************\
| Phil Howard --- KA9WGN --- pdh@netcom.com | "The problem with |
| depending on government is that you cannot depend on it" - Tony Brown |
\***********************************************************************/
From caf-talk Caf Jan 29 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.sex
From: kadie@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [clari.news.sex] Supreme Court lets stand 'dial-a-porn' restrictions
Message-ID: <1992Jan29.151937.25814@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1992 15:19:37 GMT
Reposted with permission from the ClariNet Electronic Newspaper newsgroup
clari.xxxxxxxx. For more info on ClariNet, write to info@clarinet.com or
phone 1-800-USE-NETS.
From: clarinews@clarinet.com (GREG HENDERSON, UPI Supreme Court Reporter)
Newsgroups: clari.news.sex
Message-id:
Subject: Supreme Court lets stand 'dial-a-porn' restrictions
Keywords: supreme court, legal, sexual issues, social issues, sex,
human interest
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 92 14:06:56 PST
WASHINGTON (UPI) -- The Supreme Court Monday allowed the government to
require adults wanting to take part in ``dial-a-porn'' telephone
dialogue to first take a series of steps meant to keep children from
joining in the sexually explicit conversations.
The court, without comment, refused to review a law passed by
Congress in 1989 that allows for civil and criminal penalties on any
provider of legal but ``indecent'' sexually related telephonic messages
who does not take specified steps to help ensure minors are not using
the service.
The so-called dial-a-porn companies, now operating nationally with
``900'' and other prefixes that can cost consumers $2 or more per
minute, claim the congressional restrictions violate their First
Amendment free speech protection.
The 1989 amendment to the Communications Act of 1934, named for Sen.
Jesse Helms, R-N.C., its author, criminalizes ``indecent communication
for commercial purposes'' available to anyone under 18 years of age.
It allows a waiver for those agreeing to abide by a
``presubscription'' procedure.
Federal Communications Commission regulations that accompany the
amendment require either that payment be made in advance of a
conversation by credit card, that an authorized access or identification
code be given prior to the message, or that a ``descrambler'' be needed
to hear a message.
In addition, any dial-a-porn service that still uses a telephone
company to do its billing collection can only be used by a consumer who
has first requested access to the service in writing with the telephone
company.
Many of the dial-a-porn providers, however, now do their own billing
and have installed their own operators who ask for credit card
information or require an access code before a call is placed.
The Helms amendment followed similar efforts by Congress that were
struck down as unconstitutional, and followed complaints by some
constituents that minors were running up massive telephone bills making
such calls.
A federal district court in New York struck down the 1989 law as a
violation of the First Amendment and an illegal prior restraint on
protected speech, and issued a nationwide injunction on its enforcement.
But the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals last July reversed the
ruling and upheld the law.
Dial Information Services Corp. of New York, leading a suit by
providers of the sexually related telephone services, argued that the
``presubscription'' procedure violates free speech because it is not the
``least restrictive'' means by which the government could protect
children.
Telephone companies have the technology to provide voluntary blocking
of such numbers, requiring only a request from the parents in a
household that no access be provided to the numbers.
But the 2nd Circuit said voluntary blocking ``would not even come
close'' to restricting access to most minors. It cited a study of the
New York area that showed most parents either did not know of the free
option or failed to exercise it.
Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, the nation's largest
homosexual legal rights advocacy organization, filed a friend-of-the-
court brief asking that the Helms amendment be struck down.
``The phone services under attack here facilitate people's choice to
engage in such protected speech and association in the privacy of their
own homes and over their own telephones,'' the group wrote.
``Such speech is not the mere 'indecent' sexual banter that the
government seeks to portray, but to the contrary serves important
functions for many gay, disabled, and otherwise isolated individuals
relating to the exchange of information, the pursuit of companionship,
entertainment, and risk-free sexual satisfaction in the midst of the
AIDS crisis.''
The groups said many people now substitute the telephone calls for
risky sexual encounters that could expose them to the virus that causes
AIDS -- but only because they can remain anonymous.
``To require (some) individuals to submit a request in writing to the
telephone company -- revealing themselves to a mammoth and impersonal
corporate institution -- prior to the delivery of such services would
effectively deter people from engaging in admittedly protected speech,''
Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund wrote.
The four dial-a-porn companies that challenged the law also claimed
it should be struck down because the classification of ``indecent''
communication is unconstitutionally vague.
But the Bush administration, in its brief to the high court, said the
FCC has clearly defined ``indecent'' as it relates to these cases.
The FCC defines indecent as ``the description or depiction of sexual
or excretory activities or organs in a patently offensive manner as
measured by contemporary community standards for the telephone medium.''
------
_91-697 Dial Information Services Corp. of New York, et al., vs.
William P. Barr_, attorney general of the United States
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Jan 29 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.admin.policy] Re: harrassing mail
Message-ID: <9201291626.AA05494@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: 29 Jan 92 04:26:00 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Jan 29 00:00:00 1992
From: vds7789@aw2.fsl.ca.boeing.com (Vincent D. Skahan)
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy
Subject: Re: harrassing mail
Message-ID: <1992Jan28.151318.7895@aw2.fsl.ca.boeing.com>
Date: 28 Jan 92 15:13:18 GMT
brendan@cs.widener.edu (Brendan Kehoe) writes:
>Say someone (a guy) is sending someone else (a girl) some pretty rude
>mail (stuff from r.a.erotica & such), but she just blows it off &
>doesn't say anything---she doesn't want to make a fuss.
she should make a big fuss.
>But then one day he mis-mails it (to her first name, rather than her
>last), and it bounces its way into my (the Postmaster's) mailbox.
>Forgetting I've known about his behavior for a while now, do I have
>any real right as sysadmin to ask him to stop?
first of all, why forget that you've known about it?
secondly, you have every right whether you're a sysadmin or not to
ask him to stop. In all probability, you have no responsibility or
power as a sysadmin to FORCE him to stop or to take action to prevent
it.
You also have every right to turn him in to whatever 'authority'
in the university enforces whatever code of behavior Widener has
and to push them to take action if you feel so inclined.
Maybe a quiet note that the guy is opening himself up for a harassment
lawsuit if he continues and a thinly veiled threat to turn him in
the next time you hear of the behavior?
If you were in the 'real world' rather than Widener (hey, I've been
to Widener many times :-)), that guy would quite likely be in line
for discipline up to the point of getting fired. Around here, it
only takes one complaint about stuff like you're mentioning to be
in 'deep-doo-doo'.
--
--------- Vince Skahan ----------- vince@atc.boeing.com ---------
Woody: What's going on, Mr. Peterson?
Norm: Another layer for the winter, Wood.
From caf-talk Caf Jan 29 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: nbc2134@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil (Robert F Solon)
Subject: Re: [clari.news.sex] Supreme Court lets stand 'dial-a-porn' restrictions
Message-ID: <9201291819.AA20929@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil>
Date: 29 Jan 92 08:19:52 GMT
In reply to the mail from ...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to the recent Supreme Court decsion on dial-a-porn:
I wonder if Usenet is subject to the same regulations?
Will we be required by sysadmins to "presubscribe" to so-called "indecent"
newsgroups like alt.sex? It's interesting to note the Wes Morgan recently
recently advocated a policy that would do in fact just that: the .newsrc files
of new users would contain only intro groups; users would have to actively
subscribe to other groups. If required by law, it would be trivial to insert
an online disclaimer and/or request for subscription. Caveat: the Helms
amendment requires presubscription _in writing_. Would email or online
interaction suffice?
Poor Jesse. He must really be in sad shape if he stays up at nights worrying
about "porn." I really feel sorry for him.
Of course, the above is my own opinion.
Bob
Bob Solon, DSAC-BCC
Administrative Information Branch -- APCAPS
"We Code, You Explode!!"
From caf-talk Caf Jan 29 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan)
Subject: Re: Supreme Court lets stand 'dial-a-porn' restrictions
Message-ID: <1992Jan29.142722.26517@ms.uky.edu>
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1992 19:27:22 GMT
nbc2134@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil (Robert F Solon) writes:
>
>In response to the recent Supreme Court decsion on dial-a-porn:
>
>I wonder if Usenet is subject to the same regulations?
>
>Will we be required by sysadmins to "presubscribe" to so-called "indecent"
>newsgroups like alt.sex? It's interesting to note the Wes Morgan recently
>recently advocated a policy that would do in fact just that: the .newsrc files
>of new users would contain only intro groups; users would have to actively
>subscribe to other groups.
I don't claim any prescience in this matter at all; my first knowledge of
the Supreme Court's ruling was this morning's paper. It's nice to know
that 2 out of 3 judicial bodies surveyed seem to agree with me. 8)
I came up with this idea after spending an evening in a local library.
A library does not foist books upon you as you walk in the door. They
provide a complete listing of their holdings, but each user is required
to personally decide which materials they wish to examine. I think that
such a system, when applied to Netnews, makes it easier to support and
implement polcies parallel to those used by libraries.
I noticed that the Lexington Public Library has a "general interest"
collection on the first floor; it contains everything from SubGenius
materials to Harlequin romances, by way of guitar sheet music. I didn't
find anything "controversial" in the general selection, even though it
was available in the library. I think that a site-selected list of
"general interest" newsgroups would be a workable parallel. With
this method, I can offer alt.sex.*; I just refrain from throwing it
in their digital face.
>If required by law, it would be trivial to insert
>an online disclaimer and/or request for subscription. Caveat: the Helms
>amendment requires presubscription _in writing_. Would email or online
>interaction suffice?
I don't see why not, as long there is a clear public notice of the policies
and procedures involved. After all, the library doesn't give you a personal
copy of its policies; they make them available to the public on request.
--
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 caf-talk Caf Jan 29 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,cmu.general,alt.censorship,alt.politics.correct
From: russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto)
Subject: Re: Speech restrictions on CMU computer bboards
Message-ID: <1992Jan29.204635.26792@eng.umd.edu>
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 92 20:46:35 GMT
In article <1992Jan28.223429.20426@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>A letter of complaint was given to Dean of student affairs Micheal
>Murphy concerning Eric Jefferson, who had posted messages which readers
>claimed were offensive and harassing towards women. The formal complaint
>was written by Todd Masco and signed by co-worker Chris Newman and
>student senator Josh Knauer.
Todd? Josh? It doesn't seem likely (though it is possible) that women were
making this complaint. Seems to me if someone is complaining that a message
offends women, they ought to at least have some grounds for making that claim.
>opinion towards feminism and the role of women in society. In his
>message, Jefferson writes, "I think that the biggest Nazis in the
>country today and the biggest threats to freedom of speech are
>feminists."
>Jefferson posted over ten more messages to the board expressing his
>opinions, including his liberal opinions about lesbians.
>
>Masco believes Jefferson's messages are a "clear case of harassment."
>and believes Jefferson's intent was to start an argument among the
>members of the women's center. "I don't see how it can be possible for
>any of his comments not to be taken as harassment," said Masco
>
...
>
>The policy continues, "Carnegie Mellon University adopts the basic
>definition of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)
>regarding sexual harassment as any unwelcome sexual advance, requests
>for sexual favors, or other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual
>nature when...such conduct has the purpose or effect of unreasonable
>interfering with an individual's work performance, or creating an
>intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment."
I don't know about his other comments (anyone have the original messages?) but
it seems clear that there is no sexual advance or request for sexual
favors in the one statement he was quoted on. Furthermore, there is no
'verbal or physical' conduct at all- newsgroups are not a medium which allow
that.
--
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 caf-talk Caf Jan 29 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,cmu.general,alt.censorship,alt.politics.correct
From: russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto)
Subject: Re: Speech restrictions on CMU computer bboards
Message-ID: <1992Jan29.205515.26949@eng.umd.edu>
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 92 20:55:15 GMT
In article <1992Jan29.055108.20687pdh@netcom.COM> pdh@netcom.COM (Phil Howard KA9WGN) writes:
>
>I don't know if CMU is public or private. If public, they are clearly out
>of bounds in the matter. If private, then at least they are very
>inconsistent in their wording and application of policy.
CMU is private. But seems to me that if they follow their own sexual
harassment policy, the Jefferson article could not be construed as
sexual harassment-- there are no sexual advances, requests for sexual favors,
nor any other "verbal or physical conduct" (all the 'conduct' is via typed
text-- that isn't verbal).
The article is certainly insulting, and offensive to a lot of people. But
the appropriate action is to junk the article, not to attempt to expel the
poster-- at least given the CMU policies posted.
--
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 caf-talk Caf Jan 29 00:00:00 1992
From: jones@pyrite.cs.uiowa.edu (Douglas W. Jones,201H MLH,3193350740,3193382879)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: Supreme Court lets stand 'dial-a-porn' restrictions
Message-ID: <10380@ns-mx.uiowa.edu>
Date: 29 Jan 92 21:15:41 GMT
From article <1992Jan29.142722.26517@ms.uky.edu>,
by morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan):
>
> I noticed that the Lexington Public Library has a "general interest"
> collection on the first floor; it contains everything from SubGenius
> materials to Harlequin romances, by way of guitar sheet music.
Poor Jesse Helms is missing something here. Harlequin romances may once
have confined their descriptions of sex to heavy breathing, but they are
quite explicit these days. I've only read one, in my life, and that only
under duress (I was stuck with nothing better to do and nothing better
to read). The book was Romancing the Stone (the book version of the
movie by the same name). Unlike the movie, the sex scenes in the book
were quite explicit (also laughable, but that, at least, I expected).
The Harlequin romance, at least, confined its sex to penis/vagina
interaction. It was, however, premarital or extramarital sex. The last
time I read a best seller, the sex was the kind that might curl Jesse
Helms's toenails. (Again, I read it under duress. I forget the title,
it was something about a CIA agent in Afganistan linking up with the wife
of a French doctor from Physicians Without Borders -- lots of blood and
guts, and a fair dose of adventure). In this book, not only did the
hero make it with a married woman, but he got interested in her anus
and she really loved it when he squirted his semin all over her face.
Other than a lack of what Helms called homoerotic content, I'd say that
what I saw in my limited sample of one Harlequin romance and one
best seller was right up there with most of the explicit stuff in alt.sex.
The only difference was the surrounding plot, and some of the short
stories in alt.sex have better plots.
So, my conclusion is that the stuff sold in B. Daltons or Waldenbooks,
which seems to be representative of the stuff in the public interest
sections of most public libraries, can be pretty explicit stuff.
The only difference I see between books and the electronic media, including
telephony, is that books are an established medium with a long tradition of
freedom. The other media are young. Videotapes seem to be getting the
same protection as books, considering the kinds of things that video
stores can rent without drawing fire, but the broadcast media face problems.
I think that, to the extent that computer newsgroups look like libraries,
they'll eventually get the protection that libraries get. To the extent
that they look like broadcast media, there will be problems.
Doug Jones
jones@cs.uiowa.edu
From caf-talk Caf Jan 29 00:00:00 1992
From: ag3j+@andrew.cmu.edu (Adam C. Gross)
Newsgroups: cmu.general,alt.censorship,alt.politics.correct,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: Speech restrictions on CMU computer bboards
Message-ID:
Date: 29 Jan 92 21:13:02 GMT
CMU is a private university, so I think they are free to limit speech in
any way they see fit. (This however, does not mean the students will
stand for it).
As I see the situation now, and this is by no means offical, Eric
Jefferson has agreed to stop posting his flames, and the university is
not seeking any further action.
Adam
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
Adam C. Gross | "Sometimes you'll find you can get shown the
Carnegie Mellon University | light in the strangest of places if you look
ag3j@andrew.cmu.edu | at it right.." - Grateful Dead
CompuServe: 72060,2137 |
AmericaOnLine: AdamCGross |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
From caf-talk Caf Jan 29 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.admin.policy] Re: harrassing mail
Message-ID: <9201292155.AA30467@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: 29 Jan 92 09:55:44 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Jan 29 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy
From: gamble@owlnet.rice.edu (Ben Gamble)
Subject: Re: harrassing mail
Message-ID: <1992Jan29.201536.25119@rice.edu>
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1992 20:15:36 GMT
In article vds7789@aw2.fsl.ca.boeing.com (Vincent D. Skahan) writes:
|she should make a big fuss.
This is the point so many of you paternalists keep missing: it's HER
CHOICE.
|first of all, why forget that you've known about it?
Because it's none of his business, that's why. Private
communications. Why is this so hard to grasp?
|secondly, you have every right whether you're a sysadmin or not to
|ask him to stop.
Paternalistic.
|You also have every right to turn him in to whatever 'authority'
|in the university enforces whatever code of behavior Widener has
|and to push them to take action if you feel so inclined.
Paternalistic.
|Maybe a quiet note that the guy is opening himself up for a harassment
|lawsuit if he continues and a thinly veiled threat to turn him in
|the next time you hear of the behavior?
Paternalistic.
|If you were in the 'real world' rather than Widener (hey, I've been
|to Widener many times :-)), that guy would quite likely be in line
|for discipline up to the point of getting fired. Around here, it
|only takes one complaint about stuff like you're mentioning to be
|in 'deep-doo-doo'.
Whereas zero complaints have been made in this situation. What's your
point?
If there were a greater intersection between feminists and sysadmins,
we would be toasting our marshmallows over a major conflagration right
about now, as many would-be white knights got their butts flamed to a
crisp for assuming that this damsel needs their help, or even that she
is in distress to begin with. She's a grownup, ferghodssake.
P.S. Despite the heated tone of this reply, please believe that it is
not intended as a personal comment. I just find this attitude really
offensive.
--
Ben Gamble
gamble@owlnet.rice.edu
Oh ye who go about saying unto each other: "Hello sailor":
Dost thou know the magnitude of thy sin before the gods?
From caf-talk Caf Jan 29 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.admin.policy] Re: Headers-only viewing of email
Message-ID: <9201292155.AA07475@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: 29 Jan 92 09:55:30 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Jan 29 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy
From: waugh@rtpnet05.rtp.dg.com (Matthew Waugh)
Subject: Re: Headers-only viewing of email
Message-ID: <1992Jan29.184146.27139@dg-rtp.dg.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 92 18:41:46 GMT
In article <1992Jan27.123213.14405@ms.uky.edu> morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
>>Yes, I've been in a position to have to read mail addresses to
>>'postmaster'. I always dreamed of a tool that would only reveal
>>the address portion of the mail and keep the contents private.
>
>Well, here's a trivial (2 minutes just now to write) filter in awk that ignores
>everything after the first blank line. Pump your mail through the filter, and
>voila! You see nothing but the headers.
>
>This is based on one assumption; header lines must be in a contiguous block,
>uninterrupted by blanks. The RFCs dictate this behavior, so this should work
>for the vast majority of email messages.
Does anybody actually do all this kind of stuff? If I just looked at the
first set of headers in a message I'd never get anything anywhere,
most of what I get in the postmaster mailbox has bounced it's way
around a few systems before totally giving up and getting dumped
on postmaster. I need to see the header history, why it failed here,
why it failed there. Anyway, most of the errors are transient, if
I kick the message back out on it's way to the intended recipient
it'll probably make it, fat lot of good that does if there's no
body left for them to read, I might as well have thrown it away.
Oh sure, we get some "real" message problems in postmaster, but
probably over 50% just need a little guidance. I don't want to read
peoples messages, I don't, like most people, have the time anyway,
but a broken message that hits the postmaster box can't be decoded
by a program as to what is content, and what is "header", it's all
got too complicated by then.
I always figured that people would prefer that their message be
delivered in the end, or that they get notified that it's completly
undeliverable, and that outweighs the off-chance I might actually
notice what's in the body of the message. Maybe I'm wrong.....
Just an opinion of course...
Mat
Matthew Waugh waugh@dg-rtp.dg.com
RTP Network Services
Data General Corp.
RTP, NC. (919)-248-6344
From caf-talk Caf Jan 29 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [misc.legal, et al.] Re: Duties of state universities regarding 1st amendment
Message-ID: <9201292156.AA14096@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: 29 Jan 92 09:56:31 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Jan 29 00:00:00 1992
From: andersom@spot.Colorado.EDU (Marc Anderson)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.censorship
Subject: Re: Duties of state universities regarding 1st amendment
Message-ID: <1992Jan29.193644.27064@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>
Date: 29 Jan 92 19:36:44 GMT
In article <1992Jan24.131624.489@aspentec.com> jwalsh@aspentec.com (Jamie Walsh) writes:
>Last I heard, your rights to free speech don't extend into other people's
>wallets, including university budgets for non-curricular public services.
>
>I don't see how the first amendment enters into it, unless they are preventing
>you from reading your article on the front steps.
>
>If the university is paying to provide newsgroups, they should be able to
>carry or not carry whatever they like. By analogy, if a state university
>decided to provide standard cable TV to its dorms, it wouldn't be
>required to provide all the pay channels as well.
But in the end, whose wallet does the money come from? I pay several hundred
dollars in student fees, many of which are completely irrelevent to my
education... Who's to decide that I can't read alt.drugs or some of the
other 'questionable' newsgroups?
marc
andersom@spot.colorado.edu
>--
>--jamie
> "There's a seeker born every minute."
>
>Internet: jwalsh@aspentec.com
>UUCP: uunet!aspentec!jwalsh
From caf-talk Caf Jan 29 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.politics.correct] Re: Speech restrictions on CMU computer bboards
Message-ID: <9201292157.AA28669@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: 29 Jan 92 09:57:17 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Jan 29 00:00:00 1992
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.correct
Subject: Re: Speech restrictions on CMU computer bboards
Message-ID: <10700@lectroid.sw.stratus.com>
Date: 29 Jan 92 19:27:32 GMT
In article <1992Jan29.055108.20687pdh@netcom.COM>, pdh@netcom.COM (Phil Howard KA9WGN) writes:
> I agree that the article in question posted on the womens bbs at CMU was
> distasteful and inappropriately positioned (another group might have been
> better, with a post only to refer).
>
> It appears that he is only expounding upon his own perverted opinions (IMHO)
> but I certainly don't see one shred of speech that would not be protected
> by the First Amendment.
Does it change things for you if you consider the message in the same
light as a harrassing phone call?
To be clearer, what if the issue here is HARRASSMENT, and not "politically
incorrect speech?"
Certainly I can imagine a person calling me up the same number of times
and indulging in speech that would otherwise be protected by the
First Amendment (from, "Do you know what I have in my hand?" to, "We
still haven't received the December payment on your stolen Buick")
but that doesn't mean I am completely denied recourse.
It's one thing to post, "All women are bitches," and another to post
"You ugly bitches."
--
cdt@pdp.sw.stratus.com --If you believe that I speak for my company,
OR cdt@vos.stratus.com write today for my special Investors' Packet...
From caf-talk Caf Jan 29 00:00:00 1992
From: jones@pyrite.cs.uiowa.edu (Douglas W. Jones,201H MLH,3193350740,3193382879)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: [clari.news.sex] Supreme Court lets stand 'dial-a-porn' restrictions
Message-ID: <10383@ns-mx.uiowa.edu>
Date: 29 Jan 92 21:31:08 GMT
From article <9201291819.AA20929@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil>,
by nbc2134@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil (Robert F Solon):
> the .newsrc files of new users would contain only intro groups; users
> would have to actively subscribe to other groups.
Anything else is unworkable, and not for legal reasons. If you try to
run vn here at Iowa, without first getting an up-to-date .newsrc and
doing a blanket unsubscribe to all but the few groups that interest
you, it takes more than 24 hours for it to get through the list of
newsgroups and ready to display the first index page of unread news.
My feeling is that vn has many faults, and there must be a way to make
a newsreader start up quickly with a blank slate, but even so, we've
got 1307 newsgroups on-line on our server (ns-mx.uiowa.edu) (that is, if
no new groups were created while I wrote this note). With this wide a
selection, a system administrator who gives new users anything other
than a pruned down .newsrc file would have to be crazy. There's just
too darned much stuff to wade through.
Doug Jones
jones@cs.uiowa.edu
From caf-talk Caf Jan 29 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: cmu.general,alt.censorship,alt.politics.correct,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Speech restrictions on CMU computer bboards
Message-ID: <1992Jan30.025551.6911@eff.org>
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 1992 02:55:51 GMT
I was asked in email my opinion of "what should be done about
Jefferson."
I can think of three alternatives to banning/expelling Jefferson.
1. Readers who don't want to see Jefferson's comments could use the
"kill file" facilities of the computer bboard. This facility allows
each reader to create his or her own list of authors (or article
titles) that he or she does not want to see. The computer shows a
reader those articles that aren't killed by the reader's kill file.
(If the articles were the student newspaper, the best you could do
would be to tell offended people, not to read the offending author.)
2. Readers could fight bad expression with good by writing replies to
offensive articles. A reply on a computer bboard is just as
conspicuous as the original article.
(Replies to newspaper articles are often much less conspicuous that
the original article.)
3. If the bboard is really just for announcements, the University can
change it from "unmoderated" to "moderated". Unmoderated means than
any reader can decide to publish an article on the bboard. Moderated
means that readers submit their articles to a "moderator", or editor,
who makes the publication decision.
(Unmoderated bboards can be true free-speech forums.)
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu, or (anonymous) ap.3619@layout.berkeley.edu=
From caf-talk Caf Jan 29 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (Jonathan Greenfield)
Subject: Re: [alt.politics.correct] Re: Speech restrictions on CMU computer bboards
Message-ID: <1992Jan29.204041.21632@newstand.syr.edu>
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 92 20:40:41 EST
>> I agree that the article in question posted on the womens bbs at CMU was
>> distasteful and inappropriately positioned (another group might have been
>> better, with a post only to refer).
>>
>> It appears that he is only expounding upon his own perverted opinions (IMHO)
>> but I certainly don't see one shred of speech that would not be protected
>> by the First Amendment.
>
>Does it change things for you if you consider the message in the same
>light as a harrassing phone call?
I don't see any analogy to harassing phone calls in this case. You *might*
be able to make a reasonable argument comparing e-mail message to phone
calls, but I can't see any similarity between posts to a public bulletin
board, and phone calls to an individual (or individual home).
>To be clearer, what if the issue here is HARRASSMENT, and not "politically
>incorrect speech?"
But the issue here IS "political correctness."
How can you call it harassment when an individual must *choose* to read the
posts? The bulletin board is a public forum (and I don't mean to imply the
legal definition of such) and, undoubtedly, provides facilities that make
it trivial to skip any given posting. (At least, every bulletin board I've
ever used has provided such facilities.
You don't have to read very far into such a post in order to determine
whether or not you want to read the whole post. And you can skip any
subsequent posts immediately after seeing the author. Some systems (like
many UseNet readers) even let you specify that certain authors' posts be
automatically junked. I can, therefore, only conclude that anybody who
reads such posts, does so because they WANT to.
And let's admit it, many of us read outrageous posts because we WANT to see
what idiotic things the author has to say--usually so that we can they
respond by refuting them. This is precisely an exchange of ideas--not
harassment.
(A classic example is the revisionist postings on alt.censorship, which
invariably receive a large response from people, even though it's just
the same thing being said over and over again.)
I also think that, for this particular example, the political nature of
the complaint is demonstrated *clearly* by the fact that two MEN apparently
filed the "harassment" complaint. (As was noted in a previous post.) One
can't help but wonder how two men could possibly have been harassed by
these postings.
In general, "harassment" implies that the (harassing) behavior is, in some
sense, inescapable, in addition to be extremely offensive. Something can
only be harassment if one can not (easily and reasonably) avoid being
subjected to such behavior.
For example, continually hitting on a woman could be considered harassment
when it occurs in the workplace, because (presumably) the woman has no
choice but to remain in the workplace in order to do her job. The same
activity could NOT be considered harassment if it occurred, say, in a bar
after work every day. In the latter case, the woman's continued presence
in the bar suggests that she has willingly decided to subject herself to
that behavior (and might even suggest she liked it...).
Constantly calling someone on their phone could also be considered harassment
since one would have to substantially change how they use their phone in
order to avoid the offensive phone calls.
The same can not be said of the bulletin board. So I cannot see how any
such post to a bulletin board could ever be considered harassment.
I have heard stories (which I've generally had great difficulty believing--
though, perhaps, I am naive) of women subscribing to alt.sex.pictures (well,
alt.binaries.pictures.erotica, now), storing the articles, concatenating the
pieces, decoding the pictures, finding a viewer, displaying the pictures,
and then file a harassment complaint because they were "subjected" to
pictures of naked women.
The case at hand sounds very similar to me...just not so extreme an example.
To those of you who reached this point, my apologies for such a long post...
--
greeny greeny@top.cis.syr.edu
"What's the difference between an orange?"
From caf-talk Caf Jan 30 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.admin.policy] Re: harrassing mail
Message-ID: <9201301427.AA08965@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: 30 Jan 92 02:27:14 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Jan 30 00:00:00 1992
From: mhw@warlord.UUCP (Michael H. Warfield)
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy
Subject: Re: harrassing mail
Message-ID: <177@warlord.UUCP>
Date: 29 Jan 92 17:05:12 GMT
In brendan@cs.widener.edu (Brendan Kehoe) writes:
>Say someone (a guy) is sending someone else (a girl) some pretty rude
>mail (stuff from r.a.erotica & such), but she just blows it off &
>doesn't say anything---she doesn't want to make a fuss.
>But then one day he mis-mails it (to her first name, rather than her
>last), and it bounces its way into my (the Postmaster's) mailbox.
>Forgetting I've known about his behavior for a while now, do I have
>any real right as sysadmin to ask him to stop?
Actually you do. As an administrator, you have the position of
enforcing any rules your organization may have with regard to sexual
harrasment. Stepping around, for the moment, the issue of potentially
forged mail messages, as soon as a message got miss delivered to the
postmaster, you became officially aware of the situation in your capacity
as administrator. As such, you should talk to the individual "off the
record" and warn him about policy violations and potential sanctions should
the sexual harrasment continue. Having done that and him failing to comply,
your next recourse is to officially and on the record notify him of violations
of policy and request that he cease and desist before a complaint is filed
and actions taken against him. If all else fails, file a complaint with
the higher ups just to keep your butt out of a sling for condoning his actions.
From caf-talk Caf Jan 30 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.admin.policy] Re: harrassing mail
Message-ID: <9201301427.AA26248@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: 30 Jan 92 02:27:32 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Jan 30 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy
From: francis@styracosaur.cis.ohio-state.edu (RD Francis)
Subject: Re: harrassing mail
Message-ID:
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1992 22:25:56 GMT
In article <1992Jan29.201536.25119@rice.edu> gamble@owlnet.rice.edu (Ben Gamble) writes:
In article vds7789@aw2.fsl.ca.boeing.com (Vincent D. Skahan) writes:
|first of all, why forget that you've known about it?
Because it's none of his business, that's why. Private
communications. Why is this so hard to grasp?
The way I read the original, the original poster "Forget that I've
known about it" statement sounded like "Forget that I knew about the
harassment before I saw this message," not "I should forget that I
ever saw this message."
--
R David Francis francis@cis.ohio-state.edu -or- rdf+@osu.edu
From caf-talk Caf Jan 30 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.admin.policy] Re: harrassing mail
Message-ID: <9201301427.AA15702@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: 30 Jan 92 02:27:47 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Jan 30 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy
From: gamble@owlnet.rice.edu (Ben Gamble)
Subject: Re: harrassing mail
Message-ID: <1992Jan30.005108.4638@rice.edu>
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 1992 00:51:08 GMT
In article francis@styracosaur.cis.ohio-state.edu (RD Francis) writes:
|In article <1992Jan29.201536.25119@rice.edu> gamble@owlnet.rice.edu (Ben Gamble) writes:
| In article vds7789@aw2.fsl.ca.boeing.com (Vincent D. Skahan) writes:
| |first of all, why forget that you've known about it?
|
| Because it's none of his business, that's why. Private
| communications. Why is this so hard to grasp?
|
|The way I read the original, the original poster "Forget that I've
|known about it" statement sounded like "Forget that I knew about the
|harassment before I saw this message," not "I should forget that I
|ever saw this message."
Well, okay, I assumed we were using "forget" in the figurative sense,
as in "take no action". Of course I didn't mean "forget" in the
literal sense.
--
Ben Gamble
gamble@owlnet.rice.edu
Oh ye who go about saying unto each other: "Hello sailor":
Dost thou know the magnitude of thy sin before the gods?
From caf-talk Caf Jan 30 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.admin.policy] Re: harrassing mail
Message-ID: <9201301429.AA04538@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: 30 Jan 92 02:29:34 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Jan 30 00:00:00 1992
From: news@wolves.uucp (News Administrator @ Wolves)
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy
Subject: Re: harrassing mail
Message-ID: <1992Jan30.070950.4252@wolves.uucp>
Date: 30 Jan 92 07:09:50 GMT
To me it all depends on the context of the system in question. With
many system admins working with multiple systems, the context has to be
considered.
My office went through a situation a few years back when one of the
programmers was leaving and going to a site with which there was an
ongoing dispute over the availability of a program that was developed
under contract and the implication was that the person was being "hired
away" to gain some kind of advantage. The Director of Research for the
department at the university consulted with me about the problems and we
decided (with reluctance) that we needed to search the mail files to
insure that there was no correspondence about the program in question.
Not having the time to do some software to analyze for keywords, I had
the unenviable task of scanning the mailboxes.
As fate would have it, one of the users noticed the scanning and hit the
ceiling. I referred the user to the research director and we pointed
out that the univ. work rules (these are employees, NOT students) stated
that the univ. facilities are used ONLY for univ. business. Personal
email and some small amount of private interest use is tolerated because
it is inevitable and can be written off to "learning to use the
facilites" or what have you. All that was found were some juvenile mash
notes and some generic discussion about the situation. The logs also
were examined to make sure that files had not been sent via other
channels.
ON THE OTHER HAND...
At my personal machine (this site) the other users are guests and I
afford them as much privacy as is resonable to protect myself. I point
out that if they were to hold a conversation in my house, there is
always the chance that I might overhear something by accident. I do NOT
go prowling around the mail box files, but if something gets directed to
the postmaster account for correction I might see something of the
message and will react as I deem fit. However, this aspect of
"accidental" revelation is explicitly stated to all the users of this
systems and they understand the chance before using the system.
The third position is what to do when students are using a system
provided by a university beyond the support of the course of study.
There is usually some kind of contractual relationship between the
university and the student and the use of the computer is governed by
the explicit and implicit terms of that contract.
In the case Brendan presents, there is not enough information to
determine if the persons involved are students, employees or some
combination thereof. If the recipient or sender is an employee and the
message is clearly not of an official work nature, there is probably
some ground for "doing something" in an official manner under the work
rules or university policies about harassment (of any kind applicable).
If the persons are both students, AND the facilities involved are
contractually limited to "support of course of study" only, then again
some kind of action might be appropriate if the revealed message is
clearly not related to the stated purpose of the provided facilites.
If the persons are a mix of student and/or employee in any of several
combinations, then there are probably some kinds of university policies
that relate to the approprate behaviour of univ staff/employees towards
the students and vice versa. Again, the nature of the revealed message
might be actionable under one or more of these policies.
It sure looks like there are several ways to look at this topic.
What really counts thought, Brendan, is what do you want to do? I
suspect that you present this to us to provide some kind of
justification for action or inaction on your part because your decisions
to act/not act are not sitting right in your mind.
I note for your consideration, that an aweful lot of "teaching" about
the world or office policy takes place without "formal" notice. I
suspect that it would NOT be amiss to mention to one or the other of
these people that you have become aware of the situation in the course
of your duties as system administrator and you would not LIKE to have to
make a formal action out of it, but that if the situation continues,
something MIGHT have to be done. I, faced with a similar situation,
would think very hard about who would be the most amenable to such an
informal notice and would (possibly) welcome the opportunity to end the
situation or find a better solution.
Personally, I think I would (face to face) mention to the woman
recipient of these (apparently) unwanted mailings that it is possible
for the system to filter the offending messages completely without her
having to even look at them, perhaps even to the extent of bouncing
completely only those messages that are problematical while allowing
normal, non-harassing messages to be processed. (ELM makes this fairly
easy, but I think deliver or other software may be able to do so as
well.)
Someone said "Never let morals get in the way of doing what is RIGHT!"
--
Usenet Net News Administrator @ The Wolves Den (G. Wolfe Woodbury)
news%wolves@cs.duke.edu ...duke!wolves!news "We don't need no
There is a real person who watches this account. stinking disclaimers"
From caf-talk Caf Jan 30 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.admin.policy] I have sent 'harrassing e-mail'
Message-ID: <9201301430.AA28778@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: 30 Jan 92 02:30:18 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Jan 30 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy
From: dan@cubmol.bio.columbia.edu (Daniel Zabetakis)
Subject: I have sent 'harrassing e-mail'
Message-ID: <1992Jan30.011143.14565@cubmol.bio.columbia.edu>
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 1992 01:11:43 GMT
There's been alot of discussion about the question posed about
harrasing with e-mail. The most common comment was that if the alledged
victim doesn't complain, then there is no basis for action.
I want to make sure that people don't step too lightly over the
issues. It is generally held that the average sysadmin shouldn't read
e-mail intended for other people. This case shows specifically why this is
true.
The situation as I understand it is as follows. A sysadmin becomes aware
that a female user is recieving dirty stories by e-mail. He believes that the
mailings are harrasment, but doesn't explain clearly how he knows this.
Eventually, by accident, one of the mailings lands in the postmaster box.
Even though the user has stated that she does not wish to pursue any action
in regard to the situation, the sysadmin wants to use this mis-directed mail
as a means to take action himself.
I have sent such mail to users of other machines across the country.
Since such mailings were expected by the recipients, I presume they never
considered them harrasment. But othwise, I think my situation is very
similar to the mailer in the story above.
How does the sysadmin know that the user is recieving this e-mail?
There are two fesible explanations. One is that the user is a friend of the
sysadmin. If this is so, then the two people should be able to reach a
descision without resorting to independant action by one. Another explaination
is that the sysadmin is in the habit of reading other people's mail, or
other dubious activity.
Either the user told the sysadmin herself, or the sysadmin found out about
it by himself. If the first case is true, then I presume that the two
people are friends, and that changes the case as far as admin.policy is
concerned. In the second case, the sysadmin would have to account for how
he knows about it.
How does the sysadmin know it is harrassment? If the user is a friend,
then the user may have said that much. But in that case, I cannot believe
they couldn't have resolved the issue then. But what if the sysadmin
confronted the user with the knowledge that the mail was being recieved.
Would the user say "oh, I like those stories"? Maybe, but maybe in some
situations, the user would not. I can easily see a user saying "Oh, this
guy sends them to me, but I don't really want them".
I think it very likely that the sysadmin is taking more interest
than is usually accepted. As long as I don't make any complaints, and the
mail is not hurting the system, I don't see why a sysadmin should have
any concern over what I am recieving.
In the situation given, if the sysadmin is mistaken, and the user
actually wants the stories, then the user must come out and say "I like
reading dirty stories" in order to avoid further discussion about it.
Why would a sysadmin take action when a user has specifically stated
that she doesn't want anything done about it? This is the part that really
worries me. I have sent such stories (and poems from a.sex.bondage) to
some people. What if thier sysadmin found out, and in a fit of paternal
concern confronted them with it. What if they didn't say how they enjoy the
mail. What would a sysadmin do if they thought one of thier users were
being harrased?
The two most likely actions are to mail to me or to my sysadmin. Mailing
to me would be no problem because I think I could straighten things out.
But what if he mailed to the administrators at my site? We can't be sure
what the response would be, but I wouldn't be suprised to have my account
immediately suspended. We all have heard the stories of cracked due process,
etc. With no way to contact my friend, I might have no idea what is really
going on.
This potential problem (a very severe one, really) can be avoided if
the sysadmin doesn't read mail not directed to him. And if he doesn't
make assumptions about what people want to recieve, and what they don't.
This point should not be under-stressed.
DanZ
--
This article is for entertainment purposes only. Any facts, opinions,
narratives or ideas contained herein are not necessarily true, and do
not necessarily represent the views of any particular person.
From caf-talk Caf Jan 30 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.admin.policy] Re: harrassing mail (a feminist sysadmin's view)
Message-ID: <9201301431.AA29954@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: 30 Jan 92 02:31:12 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Jan 30 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy
From: janet@cs.uwa.oz.au (Janet Jackson)
Subject: Re: harrassing mail (a feminist sysadmin's view)
Message-ID:
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 1992 09:06:10 GMT
Note: It is with some trepidation that I call myself a "feminist", because to
some people that seems to imply a humourless whinging bitch, whereas to me
it merely means someone who opposes gender-based discrimination and harassment.
In <1992Jan29.201536.25119@rice.edu> gamble@owlnet.rice.edu (Ben Gamble) writes:
>If there were a greater intersection between feminists and sysadmins,
>we would be toasting our marshmallows over a major conflagration right
>about now, as many would-be white knights got their butts flamed to a
>crisp...
Didn't I already do something like that? Maybe my posting didn't get out.
I didn't flame, though, just stated my viewpoint, which is:
If you knew nothing about the situation before seeing the mail, you
can't possibly assume the recipient is being offended.
If you _do_ know that the recipient is being harassed, then you can (as a
fellow user, not as sysadmin) encourage her to make a complaint. You can
also help her configure her mail interface to trash the messages, and perhaps
to automatically reply to them. This is regardless of whether you have seen
any bounced mail.
Once the recipient complains, then you can, in your capacity as sysadmin,
do something about the harassment.
Of course, at any time you can, as sysadmin, remind all the users about laws
and site policies regarding use of systems for harassment, etc.
Janet Jackson (feminist sysadmin)
Department of Computer Science
The University of Western Australia
From caf-talk Caf Jan 30 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.politics.correct] Re: Speech restrictions on CMU computer bboards
Message-ID: <9201301452.AA13181@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: 30 Jan 92 02:52:04 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Jan 30 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.politics.correct
From: kadie@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Speech restrictions on CMU computer bboards
Message-ID: <1992Jan29.221441.18673@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1992 22:14:41 GMT
cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:
>To be clearer, what if the issue here is HARRASSMENT, and not "politically
>incorrect speech?"
[...]
>It's one thing to post, "All women are bitches," and another to post
>"You ugly bitches."
I don't see much difference. I do, however, see a difference between
sending unwanted email to a person and posting an offensive-to-some
article in a univeristy forum.
Here is the U. of Wisconsin's old rule. This is rule was found to be
to vague and broad by a federal judge, yet, it is clearer and narrower
than the CMU rule. Notice that by definition harassment must be directed
at an individual.
========== ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/law/uwm-post-v-u-of-wisconsin ==========
(2)(a) For racist or discriminatory comments, epithets or other expressive
behavior directed at an individual or on separate occasions at different
individuals, or for physical conduct, if such comments, epithets or other
expressive behavior or physical conduct intentionally:
1. Demean the race, sex, religion, color, creed, disability, sexual
orientation, national origin, ancestry or age of the individual or
individuals; and
2. Create an intimidating, hostile or demeaning environment for education,
university-related work, or other university-authorized activity.
(b) Whether the intent required under par. (a) is present shall be determined
by consideration of all relevant circumstances.
(c) In order to illustrate the types of conduct which this subsection is
designed to cover, the following examples are set forth. These examples are
not meant to illustrate the only situations or types of conduct intended to be
covered.
1. A student would be in violation if:
a. He or she intentionally made demeaning remarks to an individual based on
that person's ethnicity, such as name calling, racial slurs, or "jokes"; and
b. His or her purpose in uttering the remarks was to make the educational
environment hostile for the person to whom the demeaning remark was addressed.
2. A student would be in violation if:
a. He or she intentionally placed visual or written material demeaning the
race or sex of an individual in that person's university living quarters or
work area; and
b. His or her purpose was to make the educational environment hostile for the
person in whose quarters or work area the material was placed.
3. A student would be in violation if he or she seriously damaged or
destroyed private property of any member of the university community or guest
because of that person's race, sex, religion, color, creed, disability, sexual
orientation, national origin, ancestry or age.
4. A student would not be in violation if, during a class discussion, he or
she expressed a derogatory opinion concerning a racial or ethnic group. There
is no violation, since the student's remark was addressed to the class as a
whole, not to a specific individual. Moreover, on the facts as stated, there
seems no evidence that the student's purpose was to create a hostile
environment.
*3 Wis. Admin. Code s UWS 17.06(2).
[Judge's comments:]
Thus, in order to be regulated under the UW Rule, a comment, epithet or other
expressive behavior must:
(1) Be racist or discriminatory;
(2) Be directed at an individual;
(3) Demean the race, sex, religion, color, creed, disability, sexual
orientation, national origin, ancestry or age of the individual addressed; and
(4) Create an intimidating, hostile or demeaning environment for education,
university-related work, or other university-authorized activity.
In addition to the rule, the UW System issued and circulated to its students
and faculty a brochure which explains the rule and provides guidance as to its
scope and application. See Discriminatory Harassment: Prohibited Conduct
Under Chapter UWS 17 Revisions. This guide provides some illustrations of
situations where the UW Rule applies and does not apply:
Question 1. In a class discussion concerning women in the workplace, a male
student states his belief that women are by nature better equipped to be
mothers than executives, and thus should not be employed in upper level
management positions. Is this statement actionable under proposed UWS
17.06(2)?
Answer: No. The statement is an expression of opinion, contains no epithets,
is not directed to a particular individual, and does not, standing alone,
evince the requisite intent to demean or create a hostile environment.
Question 2. A student living in the University dormitory continually calls a
black student living on his floor "nigger" whenever they pass in the hallway.
May the university take action against the name-caller?
Answer: Yes. The word "nigger" is an epithet, and is directed specifically
at an individual. Its use and continuous repetition demonstrate the required
intent on the part of the speaker to demean the individual and create a hostile
living environment for him.
Question 3. Two university students become involved in an altercation at an
off-campus bar. During the fight one student used a racial epithet to prolong
the dispute. May the university invoke a disciplinary action?
Answer: Perhaps. Use of the epithet, and its direction to an individual
suggests a potential violation of proposed s. UWS 17.06(2); however, because
the episode occurred off campus, the intent to create a hostile environment for
university-authorized activities would be difficult to demonstrate. Additional
facts would have to be developed if disciplinary action were to be pursued.
Question 4. A group of students disrupts a university class shouting
discriminating epithets. Are they subject to disciplinary action under the
provisions related to regulation of expressive behavior?
Answer: Perhaps. It is clear that the students are subject to disciplinary
action for disrupting a class under existing s. UWS 17.06(1)(c)3. The question
is whether they also violated the newly created provision concerning expressive
behavior, because they shouted epithets while in the course of other
misconduct. If the epithets were directed to individuals within class, and
were intending to demean them and create an intimidating environment, then the
behavior might also be in violation of the provision concerning expressive
misconduct.
*4 Question 5. A faculty member, in a genetics class discussion, suggests
that certain racial groups seem to be genetically pre-disposed to alcoholism.
Is this statement subject to discipline under Chapter UWS 17?
Answer: No. faculty member is in no case subject to discipline under Chapter
UWS 17, since that chapter applies only to students. This situation would not
warrant disciplinary action under any other policy, either, since it is
protected expression of an idea.
============================ end =======================
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Jan 30 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Searching email archives (was Re: harrassing mail)
Message-ID: <1992Jan30.144947.18720@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 1992 14:49:47 GMT
news@wolves.uucp (News Administrator @ Wolves) writes:
[...]
>The Director of Research for the
>department at the university consulted with me about the problems and we
>decided (with reluctance) that we needed to search the mail files to
>insure that there was no correspondence about the program in question.
[...]
>As fate would have it, one of the users noticed the scanning and hit the
>ceiling. I referred the user to the research director and we pointed
>out that the univ. work rules (these are employees, NOT students) stated
>that the univ. facilities are used ONLY for univ. business. Personal
>email and some small amount of private interest use is tolerated because
>it is inevitable and can be written off to "learning to use the
>facilites" or what have you.
[...]
Most universities give the same privacy protection to staff as they do
to students. Also, even if the material in question was all email-
generated-as-part-of-univeristy-business, that does not mean that it
was generated for you to read. What if the material included work
evaluations, drafts of university grievances, a letter nominating the
Director for univeristy employee of the month, correspondence with
students (that may be covered by the Buckley amendment), etc?
Ethically (and perhaps legally) email communications should have the
same privacy protection as telephone calls. Email archives should have
the same privacy protection as desk file cabinets. It would be unwise
for any university employee to tap email communications or search an
email archive without authorization from the university president,
university legal counsel, and univeristy's academic freedom committee.
- Carl M. Kadie
ANNOTATED REFERENCES
(All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.)
=================
law/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.
=================
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/ecpa.1986
=================
Portions of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 (ECPA) related
to e-mail privacy.
=================
law/privacy.email
=================
"Computer Electronic Mail and Privacy", an edited version of a law
school seminar paper by Ruel T. Hernadex
=================
law/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.
=================
law/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.
=================
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.
=================
=================
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-law gillard-v-schmidt
send caf-law constraints.constitutional
send caf-law ecpa.1986
send caf-law privacy.email
send caf-law privacy.workplace
send caf-law email.bib
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/law/gillard-v-schmidt
pub/academic/law/constraints.constitutional
pub/academic/law/ecpa.1986
pub/academic/law/privacy.email
pub/academic/law/privacy.workplace
pub/academic/law/email.bib
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Jan 30 00:00:00 1992
From: ej0i+@andrew.cmu.edu (Eric Scott Jefferson)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.politics.correct,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,cmu.general
Subject: Re: Speech restrictions on CMU computer bboards
Message-ID:
Date: 30 Jan 92 15:02:39 GMT
>As I see the situation now, and this is by no means offical, Eric
>Jefferson has agreed to stop posting his flames, and the university is
>not seeking any further action.
Actually, I have not agreed to anything. I am on a sort of unofficial
disciplinary probation and was given to understand that if I made any
more such posts then I would face the University Disciplinary Comittee.
I refused to agree to restrict my posts in the future and in fact will
make such posts again if I feel the situation warrants it. That is all.
*******************************************************************************
******
"Freedom of Speech -- Just Watch What You Say" Ice-T
"Feminism is an adolescent whine" Camille Paglia
"Hail to the Redskins. Hail Victory!!!
Braves on the Warpath. Fight for old D.C.!!!" ---Redskins fight song
"We Are the Champions" Queen (with regards to the awesome 'Skins. World
Champs for a year)
*******************************************************************************
******
From caf-talk Caf Jan 30 00:00:00 1992
From: jfielek@planck.ssc.gov (Josh Fielek)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,cmu.general,alt.censorship,alt.politics.correct
Subject: Re: Speech restrictions on CMU computer bboards
Message-ID: <1992Jan30.160320.10722@sunova.ssc.gov>
Date: 30 Jan 92 16:03:20 GMT
In article <1992Jan29.204635.26792@eng.umd.edu>, russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) writes:
|> In article <1992Jan28.223429.20426@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
|> >A letter of complaint was given to Dean of student affairs Micheal
|> >Murphy concerning Eric Jefferson, who had posted messages which readers
|> >claimed were offensive and harassing towards women. The formal complaint
|> >was written by Todd Masco and signed by co-worker Chris Newman and
|> >student senator Josh Knauer.
|>
|> Todd? Josh? It doesn't seem likely (though it is possible) that women were
|> making this complaint. Seems to me if someone is complaining that a message
|> offends women, they ought to at least have some grounds for making that claim.
|>
I don't know who made the complaint, but in a public forum, the
miscreant has the right to spew his offensive, puling words.
|> >opinion towards feminism and the role of women in society. In his
|> >message, Jefferson writes, "I think that the biggest Nazis in the
|> >country today and the biggest threats to freedom of speech are
|> >feminists."
|> >Jefferson posted over ten more messages to the board expressing his
|> >opinions, including his liberal opinions about lesbians.
|> >
It's his right to post in a public forum.
|> >Masco believes Jefferson's messages are a "clear case of harassment."
|> >and believes Jefferson's intent was to start an argument among the
|> >members of the women's center. "I don't see how it can be possible for
|> >any of his comments not to be taken as harassment," said Masco
|> >
Public speech _cannot_ be harassment. By its very nature, public
speech _will_ offend someone. But the speaker has a right to be heard,
regardless of who is offended.
An interesting aside - a PC'er I spoke with said the interpretation of
the First Amendment was incorrect, that the 1st was intended only to
protect speech protesting to governemtn, not to protect "insensitive"
speech. He then proceeded to claim that offensive speech laws
certainly were constitutional. Well, I pointed out, what of speech
deragatory to the offensive speech laws? They are, afterall, critical
of the governing body, and the best way to criticise speech
restrictions is to use the offensive speech. He found his position
untenable after that.
|> ...
|> >
|> >The policy continues, "Carnegie Mellon University adopts the basic
|> >definition of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)
|> >regarding sexual harassment as any unwelcome sexual advance, requests
|> >for sexual favors, or other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual
|> >nature when...such conduct has the purpose or effect of unreasonable
|> >interfering with an individual's work performance, or creating an
|> >intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment."
|>
|> I don't know about his other comments (anyone have the original messages?) but
|> it seems clear that there is no sexual advance or request for sexual
|> favors in the one statement he was quoted on. Furthermore, there is no
|> 'verbal or physical' conduct at all- newsgroups are not a medium which allow
|> that.
There is no intended threat from this Jefferson person. He (maybe she?
Who knows - the first name is never given and there is no affirmation
of the sex of the poster) makes no sexual advances whatsoever, towards
even someone in general. There is no request for sexual favors (Ooooh!
What a euphimism :-) and as for the speesh interfering with another
persons work, well, teh individual can be added to the kill file of
just plain ignored. The net gives the READER the option of ignoring
the speech.
As for comparisons with phone harassment - remember that the poster
cannot force you to read the net the way a caller could force you to
answer the phone.
No crime. Period.
J. Fielek
From caf-talk Caf Jan 30 00:00:00 1992
From: sieh@quads.uchicago.edu (Lui Sieh)
Newsgroups: cmu.general,alt.censorship,alt.politics.correct,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: Speech restrictions on CMU computer bboards
Message-ID: <1992Jan30.150504.12385@midway.uchicago.edu>
Date: 30 Jan 92 15:05:04 GMT
In article <1992Jan30.025551.6911@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
writes:
>I was asked in email my opinion of "what should be done about
>Jefferson."
>1. Readers who don't want to see Jefferson's comments could use the
>"kill file" facilities of the computer bboard. This facility allows
>each reader to create his or her own list of authors (or article
>titles) that he or she does not want to see. The computer shows a
>reader those articles that aren't killed by the reader's kill file.
This is not feasible given CMU's newsreader. The Andrew system does not
use rn and no "kill" feature is supported. There is another newsreader
that does support "kill" but most people do not use it.
>2. Readers could fight bad expression with good by writing replies to
>offensive articles. A reply on a computer bboard is just as
>conspicuous as the original article.
This is better but one would be cause more "flaming" which could degenerate
into garbage rather than contructive dialogue.
>3. If the bboard is really just for announcements, the University can
>change it from "unmoderated" to "moderated". Unmoderated means than
>any reader can decide to publish an article on the bboard. Moderated
>means that readers submit their articles to a "moderator", or editor,
>who makes the publication decision.
This is the best alternative.
//Lui
--
Dum loquimur, fugerit invida Aetas: carpe diem, quam minimum postero.
Horace, Odes, I.xi.7; <-- "Why post to USENET?" -Brian O. Indeed.
What about my opinions? ==>> /dev/null or sieh@quads.uchicago.edu
From caf-talk Caf Jan 30 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.admin.policy] Re: harrassing mail
Message-ID: <9201301714.AA28389@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: 30 Jan 92 05:14:10 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Jan 30 00:00:00 1992
From: paw@coos.dartmouth.edu (Pat Wilson)
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy
Subject: Re: harrassing mail
Message-ID: <1992Jan30.153449.16177@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Date: 30 Jan 92 15:34:49 GMT
Not that I don't agree with what Ben said (loosely paraphrased "It's
HER problem, or not, and she most probably can take care of herself"),
and not that my gorge didn't rise when [someone] referred to the female
intended recipient as "the lady", but don't assume there's not a
reasonable association between feminists and sysadmins - I am unabashedly
feminist (connote what you'd like) - just because noone has made much of a
fuss about it.
Discussions about feminists, "ladies", etc. don't belong in this group,
though the conciousness-raising is appreciated.
Pat
gamble@owlnet.rice.edu (Ben Gamble) writes:
>If there were a greater intersection between feminists and sysadmins,
>we would be toasting our marshmallows over a major conflagration right
>about now, as many would-be white knights got their butts flamed to a
>crisp for assuming that this damsel needs their help, or even that she
>is in distress to begin with. She's a grownup, ferghodssake.
--
Pat Wilson
Systems Manager, Project NORTHSTAR
paw@northstar.dartmouth.edu
From caf-talk Caf Jan 30 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.politics.correct] Re: Speech restrictions on CMU computer bboards
Message-ID: <9201301715.AA05012@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: 30 Jan 92 05:15:33 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Jan 30 00:00:00 1992
From: jfielek@planck.ssc.gov (Josh Fielek)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.correct
Subject: Re: Speech restrictions on CMU computer bboards
Message-ID: <1992Jan30.154052.10204@sunova.ssc.gov>
Date: 30 Jan 92 15:40:52 GMT
In article <10700@lectroid.sw.stratus.com>, cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:
|> In article <1992Jan29.055108.20687pdh@netcom.COM>, pdh@netcom.COM (Phil Howard KA9WGN) writes:
|> > I agree that the article in question posted on the womens bbs at CMU was
|> > distasteful and inappropriately positioned (another group might have been
|> > better, with a post only to refer).
|> >
|> > It appears that he is only expounding upon his own perverted opinions (IMHO)
|> > but I certainly don't see one shred of speech that would not be protected
|> > by the First Amendment.
|>
|> Does it change things for you if you consider the message in the same
|> light as a harrassing phone call?
But it is not the same as a phone call. While the text is repulsive,
you must remember that participation on the net is _voluntary_. The
ass can easily be added to any kill file.
|>
|> To be clearer, what if the issue here is HARRASSMENT, and not "politically
|> incorrect speech?"
|>
See above. In a public forum, regardless of its original purpose,
cannot restrict freedom of speech. BTW - Congress is _not_ a public
forum.
|> Certainly I can imagine a person calling me up the same number of times
|> and indulging in speech that would otherwise be protected by the
|> First Amendment (from, "Do you know what I have in my hand?" to, "We
|> still haven't received the December payment on your stolen Buick")
|> but that doesn't mean I am completely denied recourse.
|>
Your recourse on the net is to ignore the baiter, or to counter. If
you can't handle harsh language, you need to reconsider discussing
views. You will always find something offensive on the net. Sometimes
it even comes to you :-)
|> It's one thing to post, "All women are bitches," and another to post
|> "You ugly bitches."
Not on an argumentative forum.
The idiot has every right to post. It is the responsibility of all of
use to defend the rights of everyone, not just those who we like.
J. fielek
From caf-talk Caf Jan 30 00:00:00 1992
From: morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: [comp.admin.policy] Re: harrassing mail
Message-ID: <1992Jan30.131919.28960@ms.uky.edu>
Date: 30 Jan 92 18:19:19 GMT
NOTICE: This posting contains words and phrases which might be offensive
to some readers. I certainly do not intend them to be offensive;
I am merely using them to illustrate a point.
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>
>>Forgetting I've known about his behavior for a while now, do I have
>>any real right as sysadmin to ask him to stop?
>
> Actually you do. As an administrator, you have the position of
>enforcing any rules your organization may have with regard to sexual
>harrasment.
When directed to do so by the appropriate authority, I do have this
obligation. I do not have a responsibility to initiate proceedings
on behalf of a third party. If someone is found guilty of sexual
harassment, I may be ordered to restrict their access to my systems
or police their activity. I have neither the responsibility nor the
obligation to do so "on my own".
Is a system administrator in the "chain of responsibility"
for anyone other than those employees reporting to him? Do I now have
some responsibility to shield, or intercede for, all 2000 of my
faculty/student/staff users?
I don't think so. To be an effective
enforcer in cases such as this, wouldn't I have to violate the principles
of privacy and free expression that we've been honing to such a sharp edge?
I would agree that I have a responsibility to make my users aware of this
site's policies and procedures, including those which apply to topics such
as sexual harassment. It is, however, their responsibility to exercise those
policies themselves, if they become victims.
If I have to "enforce" the sexual harassment polcies, do I have to start
tracking the gender of my users? Must I begin using "grep" to look for
"patently offensive" words in user mailboxes?
If a user chooses to file a complaint, I am obligated to assist them in
whatever means are at my disposal. If someone comes to me with a complaint
about harassing email (or other messages), I will explain their rights to
them and point them to the administrators responsible for that area. That's
it. Anything more is opening the door to the digital "police state" abhorred
by so many of us.
Quite a bit of abuse has been heaped upon admins in this forum; some of it
has been deserved (on an individual basis), while some of it has been hyper-
bole. Do you really consider system administrators qualified to evaluate
matters as ambiguous as sexual harassment? I certainly don't consider myself
qualified in that area.
>Stepping around, for the moment, the issue of potentially
>forged mail messages,
or misaddressed messages, or inadvertent file inclusion (sending the file
"story5" to someone instead of "story4", for example), or the growing
number of network magazines such as InterText and Quanta (which might
very well contain offensive/harassing materials, in the opinion of some
folks), or unmoderated/automated mailing lists......must I go on?
>as soon as a message got miss delivered to the
>postmaster, you became officially aware of the situation in your capacity
>as administrator.
Suppose the messages comes from outside my site? Do I forward it to the
remote admins, saying "take a look at this; it might be a violation of
your policies"? Didn't we just have a raucous discussion of this very
activity? Why is it proper in the case of potential sexual harassment,
if it's improper in the case of potential copyright violations?
Can you say "double standard"?
>As such, you should talk to the individual "off the
>record" and warn him about policy violations and potential sanctions should
>the sexual harrasment continue.
Assuming that we're pursuing this line (argh!), the first step MUST be
speaking with the intended recipient. I'm surprised that you didn't think
of that. I know of many cases in which friends use language among them-
selves that would shock a third party. For example, I have several black
friends who routinely call each other "nigger" and "Uncle Tom"; among
themselves it is considered routine, but it would be quite different coming
from a third party. I've known them for years, but none of us would be
comfortable if I used those terms. What if you saw those words in a
mail message? Will we need new header lines for "Gender:" and "Race:"?
I've heard homosexuals call each other "faggot" as a term of endearment;
shall we add "Sexual Orientation:" after "From:", so the admins can make
a more informed judgement?
Further action should be undertaken by the admin IF AND ONLY IF the recipient
requests it. You can inform them of their rights, but you cannot force them
to execute them, nor can you execute them on their behalf.
>If all else fails, file a complaint with
>the higher ups just to keep your butt out of a sling for condoning his actions.
We can't file a complaint!! I am not the harassed party; it's up to them
to initiate action. All we can do is inform them of the policies and proce-
dures available to them. A third party cannot understand the context of
a conversation from a single email message.
This is an extremely ambiguous issue, given the uncertainties in electronic
communications. We are on dangerous ground. This is Pandora. This is her
Box. This is Pandora's sysadmin. See the sysadmin open Pandora's Box....
--
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 caf-talk Caf Jan 30 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: [comp.admin.policy] Re: harrassing mail
Message-ID: <1992Jan30.194005.5230@eff.org>
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 1992 19:40:05 GMT
morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
[...]
>kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
[...]
Actually, I didn't write it. I just forwarded it. It came from:
From: mhw@warlord.UUCP (Michael H. Warfield)
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy
Subject: Re: harrassing mail
Message-ID: <177@warlord.UUCP>
Date: 29 Jan 92 17:05:12 GMT
All in all, I agree with Wes Morgan more than Micheal Warfield.
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu, or (anonymous) ap.3619@layout.berkeley.edu=
From caf-talk Caf Jan 30 00:00:00 1992
From: jm36+@andrew.cmu.edu (John Gardiner Myers)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.politics.correct,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: Speech restrictions on CMU computer bboards
Message-ID:
Date: 30 Jan 92 18:22:41 GMT
I must say I'm not surprised at Carl Kadie's usual knee-jerk reaction.
Mr Kadie should get his facts straight. Mr. Jefferson was not brought
up before the University Disciplinary Adjutant because his posts were
offensive, he was brought up because his posts were sexually
harassing the complainants*.
*(Some people incorrectly claim that the complainants filed formal
charges because they thought the posts sexually harassed women. The
complainants have publically stated that they personally felt sexually
harassed and that "if anyone else felt harassed, they could file
their own damned complaint.")
As a matter of record, the complainants did inform Mr. Jefferson that
they did consider his posts harassing and implored him to stop. Mr.
Jefferson continued to post.
The University's Sexual Harassment policy states in part:
> Carnegie Mellon University adopts the basic definition of the Equal
> Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) regarding sexual harassment
> as any unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, or other
> verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature when:
>
> [...]
>
> 3. Such conduct has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering
> with an individual's work performance, or creating an intimidating,
> hostile, or offensive work environment.
The rest of Mr. Kadie's speculation about how the "rational" [sic]
used could apply to pamphlets, books in the library, etc. is
irrelevant, as the complaint was based on harassment, not
offensiveness.
--
_.John G. Myers Internet: John.G.Myers@andrew.cmu.edu
LoseNet: ...!seismo!ihnp4!wiscvm.wisc.edu!give!up
From caf-talk Caf Jan 30 00:00:00 1992
From: jh4y+@andrew.cmu.edu (John William Hollis, III)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.censorship,alt.politics.correct
Subject: Re: Speech restrictions on CMU computer bboards
Message-ID:
Date: 30 Jan 92 19:13:10 GMT
Excerpts from cmu.opinion: 30-Jan-92 Re: Speech restrictions on .. John
Gardiner Myers (1618)
> *(Some people incorrectly claim that the complainants filed formal
> charges because they thought the posts sexually harassed women. The
> complainants have publically stated that they personally felt sexually
> harassed and that "if anyone else felt harassed, they could file
> their own damned complaint.")
> As a matter of record, the complainants did inform Mr. Jefferson that
> they did consider his posts harassing and implored him to stop. Mr.
> Jefferson continued to post.
Anyone who knows anything about how to use their interface to BBs and
mail, knows how to avoid reading an article. The first post, even in
its title, should have clued the complainants in to the fact that they
weren't going to like what was said and that they might get offended. I
believe part of the point Mr. Kadie was trying to make was that they had
a choice in whether or not to even see what Mr. Jefferson posted.
Applying this to a book in the library: Person X chooses a book from
the library, reads the book, tells the library they felt sexually
harrassed by the book, checks it out again, reads it again, files a
complaint with administration. Is person X being stupid? YES. Is it
the library's fault? The author's?
The point is, no one made anyone read what he posted. He was not
shouting/saying things so that complainants could not avoid the
situation. He was not interfering with their work (what kind of work
are they doing reading bboards anyway?). This issue is purely a free
speech/hate speech issue. While I don't agree with anything he says, I
don't see why anyone, especially anyone who would claim to be a
"liberal", would try to refute his right to say it. Double-standards
like that lead to good-old facism.
Sean
/* I make my own comments, so don't even think about*/
/* crediting them to anyone else.*/
/* "We become the enemy, when freedom dies for security" */
/* - Nuclear Assault */
From caf-talk Caf Jan 30 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.admin.policy] Re: harrassing mail
Message-ID: <9201302003.AA31000@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: 30 Jan 92 08:03:44 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Jan 30 00:00:00 1992
From: mark@kraken.ucsd.edu (Mark Anderson)
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy
Subject: Re: harrassing mail
Message-ID: <27965@sdcc12.ucsd.edu>
Date: 30 Jan 92 17:34:25 GMT
I have been asked to post the following from someone unable to post
a response. Plese note whom it is from and direct any private
responses to this person.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
From taylor@jet.rutgers.edu
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: harassing mail
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy
Summary: why avoid formal complaint?
References:
I don't understand all the emphasis, re harassing mail to women, of
just deleting it, ignoring it, and generally avoiding public
complaint. Such actions do not discourage the harasser. It is time to
let the harassers know forcefully that what they are doing is illegal
and highly destructive to women! After the Anita Hill case, where
those Senators said they found her testimony unbelievable -- how could
she not have said anything at the time, they said -- surely it is time
for all of us, men and women, to say that such behavior will not be
tolerated, and to make public, legal, or whatever complaints are
necessary to get it stopped.
I agree that there is certainly a possibility that the situation is
one of consenting adults. I think that what is called for is a highly
visible campaign to acquaint all users, male and female, of what is
the proper recourse for harassing mail -- and it is NOT just to put
something in your own private elm commands!
From caf-talk Caf Jan 30 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.admin.policy] Re: harrassing mail
Message-ID: <9201302004.AA14887@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: 30 Jan 92 08:04:05 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Jan 30 00:00:00 1992
From: mark@kraken.ucsd.edu (Mark Anderson)
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy
Subject: Re: harrassing mail
Message-ID: <27969@sdcc12.ucsd.edu>
Date: 30 Jan 92 18:05:41 GMT
In article <27965@sdcc12.ucsd.edu> taylor@jet.rutgers.edu
>
>
>I don't understand all the emphasis, re harassing mail to women, of
>just deleting it, ignoring it, and generally avoiding public
>complaint. Such actions do not discourage the harasser. It is time to
>let the harassers know forcefully that what they are doing is illegal
>and highly destructive to women! After the Anita Hill case, where
>those Senators said they found her testimony unbelievable -- how could
>she not have said anything at the time, they said -- surely it is time
>for all of us, men and women, to say that such behavior will not be
>tolerated, and to make public, legal, or whatever complaints are
>necessary to get it stopped.
>
>I agree that there is certainly a possibility that the situation is
>one of consenting adults. I think that what is called for is a highly
>visible campaign to acquaint all users, male and female, of what is
>the proper recourse for harassing mail -- and it is NOT just to put
>something in your own private elm commands!
>
>
>
I was asked to post this because I was preceived as advocating
a keep it quiet respose.
I am advocating "let the women receving the mail make the
decision". I am inno position to question her judgement.
In this case she choose to ignore the messages. I was
suggesting a means that she could more effectively "ignore"
the messages.
There may be many reasons the the women wants to simply
ignore the messages. Some of them might be deeply personal,
so personal she does not wish to discuss them with the
system administrator. There is not "proper" recourse for
harassing mail. There is not one response that is proper
for all situations. At this point I would define the
email as "unwelcome". When the person communicates (directly
or through some proper channel) the the messages are
unwelcome, and the sender continues to send them, then the
email becomes "harassing".
I do not assume all sexually explicit material is offensive
to women and by default unwelcome. I do not assume women
are incapable to making intelligent decisions. I do not
assume if someone takes a different course of action than
I would, that they are "wrong" and must be convinced otherwise.
Mark Anderson
mark@cs.ucsd.edu
From caf-talk Caf Jan 30 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.politics.correct] Re: Speech restrictions on CMU computer bboards
Message-ID: <9201302009.AA26018@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: 30 Jan 92 08:09:02 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Jan 30 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.politics.correct
From: pprior@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Paul A Prior)
Subject: Re: Speech restrictions on CMU computer bboards
Message-ID: <1992Jan30.180846.10373@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 1992 18:08:46 GMT
In article <1992Jan30.154052.10204@sunova.ssc.gov> jfielek@planck.ssc.gov (Josh Fielek) writes:
>
>The idiot has every right to post. It is the responsibility of all of
>use to defend the rights of everyone, not just those who we like.
>
>J. fielek
AMEN!
--
--------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 caf-talk Caf Jan 30 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,cmu.general,alt.censorship,alt.politics.correct
From: galt@scratchy.dsd.es.com (Greg Alt - Perp)
Subject: Re: Speech restrictions on CMU computer bboards
Message-ID: <1992Jan30.201824.6297@dsd.es.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 92 20:18:24 GMT
In article <1992Jan29.055108.20687pdh@netcom.COM>, pdh@netcom.COM (Phil Howard KA9WGN) writes:
|> I agree that the article in question posted on the womens bbs at CMU was
|> distasteful and inappropriately positioned (another group might have been
|> better, with a post only to refer).
|>
|> It appears that he is only expounding upon his own perverted opinions (IMHO)
|> but I certainly don't see one shred of speech that would not be protected
|> by the First Amendment.
|>
|> I don't know if CMU is public or private. If public, they are clearly out
|> of bounds in the matter. If private, then at least they are very
|> inconsistent in their wording and application of policy.
It depends on the policy regarding the BBS... For example, with traditional
wood-and-tack bulletin boards, Universities can't control the content of
what is posted, but they can limit where students can put them... If there
was a BBS conference that allowed his sort of speech (someone mentioned
an "Opinions" conference), and the policy was clearly stated that you must
put posts in the correct conference, then it is ok to punish him. Though
I would think he should have to get a warning first (which it sounded like
he did). Expelling seems a rather harsh punishment for being an asshole,
though.
--
/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)
"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 caf-talk Caf Jan 30 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.admin.policy] Re: harrassing mail
Message-ID: <9201310018.AA19861@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: 30 Jan 92 12:18:27 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Jan 30 00:00:00 1992
From: wcn@milton.u.washington.edu (W C Newell Jr)
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy
Subject: Re: harrassing mail
Message-ID: <1992Jan30.223434.25949@milton.u.washington.edu>
Date: 30 Jan 92 22:34:34 GMT
In article <1992Jan30.132250.29427@ms.uky.edu> morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
>Quite a bit of abuse has been heaped upon admins in this forum; some of it
>has been deserved (on an individual basis), while some of it has been hyper-
>bole. Do you really consider system administrators qualified to evaluate
>matters as ambiguous as sexual harassment? I certainly don't consider myself
>qualified in that area.
Amen to that. I am even reluctant to discuss our sexual harassment policies
informally with a user I've never met before, preferring instead to refer the
person to the University's designated authority. In the past, users have shown
me samples of abusive e-mail and have asked me to keep our conversation
confidential. I've been burned once or twice when the perpetrator somehow
finds out I know what he's been up to, and he defends himself by telling the
world that I'm monitoring his activities and using my privileges to read his
e-mail. That sort of innuendo can make a professional's life a living hell.
As the Internet is gradually opened up to public access, and we get a greater
number of "fringe elements" on the net, I predict we're going to see this
tactic used more aggressively.
> [...]
>
>Suppose the messages comes from outside my site? Do I forward it to the
>remote admins, saying "take a look at this; it might be a violation of
>your policies"? Didn't we just have a raucous discussion of this very
>activity? cussion> Why is it proper in the case of potential sexual harassment,
>if it's improper in the case of potential copyright violations?
>
>Can you say "double standard"?
I should first point out that there was no consensus on the issue of whether
copyright violations and other abuses of public file servers should be reported
to the poster's admin; I am still of the opinion that in some cases such action
is jusfified.
On the subject of harassing e-mail from one site to another, let me pose the
following example for this group to consider. This is an actual case, with the
names of the admin and site removed, for obvious reasons.
I received a piece of sexually-explicit e-mail from a user at this other site.
The title of the piece was "With SEX All Things Are Possible". It looked like
a chain letter of some kind. I found the material to be somewhat offensive.
The mail was unsigned, and the ID was unknown to me. I don't believe I know a
single person at this other site. So I forwarded the e-mail to their
postmaster, with a note attached stating my objection and requesting that I
not receive any more e-mail of that nature. One of their admins sent me a
polite reply, explaining that the user was running a "vacation" program which
sent out the message. He told me the user had promised to remove the text.
I scratched my head at this explanation, because (a) there was nothing in the
header or text of the e-mail to suggest a vacation program was involved, and
(b) I did not know this user, and I had never sent e-mail to this user, so how
did he/she know about me? How, exactly, did I come to receive this message?
I replied to admin and posed these questions, asking for a more detailed
explanation.
Now if you're that admin and you receive such e-mail from me, how would you
handle it?? Do you investigate, bluff, or drop it on the floor?
>>If all else fails, file a complaint with
>>the higher ups just to keep your butt out of a sling for condoning his actions.
>
>We can't file a complaint!! I am not the harassed party; it's up to them
>to initiate action. All we can do is inform them of the policies and proce-
>dures available to them. [...]
Management is far more likely to respond to such complaints by reprimanding the
admin for sticking his/her nose in and wasting company time. The stock phrase
around here is "We are not policemen!"
> [...] See the sysadmin open Pandora's Box...
And out pops the laughing head of Dr. Doom...
--
Bill Newell
Systems Analyst, Applications Consulting Group, IS
University of Washington
WCN@u.washington.edu
From caf-talk Caf Jan 30 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.sex] Annihilate censorship
Message-ID: <9201310030.AA16244@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: 30 Jan 92 12:30:27 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Jan 30 00:00:00 1992
Date: Thursday, 30 Jan 1992 12:41:41 EST
From: Kurt Ludwick
Message-ID: <92030.124141KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.sex
Subject: Annihilate censorship
Hey, did you know that PSUVM doesn't have access to alt.sex? We can't read
it or post to it, thanks to the local net.thought.police...
Just thought I'd pass that along.
Kurt Ludwick
From caf-talk Caf Jan 30 00:00:00 1992
From: dl2p+@andrew.cmu.edu (Douglas Allen Luce)
Newsgroups: cmu.general,alt.censorship,alt.politics.correct,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: Speech restrictions on CMU computer bboards
Message-ID:
Date: 30 Jan 92 23:15:25 GMT
>This happened on January 22 when the assistant dean of student affairs
>told Jefferson that if he continued to post his questionable messages a
>full disciplinary committee would make a ruling on his actions which
>could ultimately result in the expulsion of Jefferson from Carnegie
>Mellon. "I told her that I couldn't promise not to post any more
>messages," said Jefferson.
Read this passage very carefully. CMU was not threatening to expel or
limit Eric's freedoms in any way. It was only threatening to look
further into the situation. It did not make Eric promise to never
post again, or tone down his speech, or do anything at all except
realize that someone had filed a complaint against him.
I fail to see how CMU was at fault in the least. If the university
would have done nothing at all, and completely ignored the formally
filed complaint, might have been violating the rights (or at least
denying the importance) of the individuals who felt harassed.
No individuals from the Women's Center Collective made any attempt to
impede Eric's rights or freedom in any way, and the collective as an
entity gave no acknowledgement of Eric or his posts in any manner.
The main impact of this whole issue is to take the attention off of
the main goals of the CMU Women's Center, and to imply wrongly that
the members of the Women's Center Collective wish to suppress the
human rights of those who take a paternalistic view of the world.
As to the comment that a poster made about the complaints being made
by men:
Since the majority of men are not constantly sexually harassed,
demeaned, threatened, and exploited, they can be more sensitive to
what might be construed as blatant sexism. Those individuals who have
more immediate and chronic exposure to sexism are desensitized to it,
and understand that complaining to those who feel affinity for those
complained about is unlikely to elicit any positive action.
Douglas Luce
From caf-talk Caf Jan 31 00:00:00 1992
From: jm36+@andrew.cmu.edu (John Gardiner Myers)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.politics.correct,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: Speech restrictions on CMU computer bboards
Message-ID:
Date: 31 Jan 92 03:44:36 GMT
"John William Hollis, III" writes:
> [...] part of the point Mr. Kadie was trying to make was that they had
> a choice in whether or not to even see what Mr. Jefferson posted.
>
> [...]
>
> The point is, no one made anyone read what he posted. He was not
> shouting/saying things so that complainants could not avoid the
> situation. He was not interfering with their work (what kind of work
> are they doing reading bboards anyway?). [...]
Some people (like myself) are required to read certain bboards as part
of their work. This, however, does not apply to this particular case.
Some people have to read certain bboards in order to keep up with or
participate in certain campus organizations or activities. The CMU
policies state that people have the right to do this without fear of
harassment. They thus prohibit harassment and sexual harassment in
any forum, electronic or not.
Stating that persons that do not wish to be harassed by Mr. Jefferson
do not need to participate in these electronic forums is like stating
that people who do not want to be victims of obscene phone calls need
not answer the phone.
--
_.John G. Myers Internet: John.G.Myers@andrew.cmu.edu
LoseNet: ...!seismo!ihnp4!wiscvm.wisc.edu!give!up
From caf-talk Caf Jan 31 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.politics.correct
From: greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (Jonathan Greenfield)
Subject: Re: Speech restrictions on CMU computer bboards
Message-ID: <1992Jan31.010336.12107@newstand.syr.edu>
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 92 01:03:36 EST
In article dl2p+@andrew.cmu.edu (Douglas Allen Luce) writes:
>>This happened on January 22 when the assistant dean of student affairs
>>told Jefferson that if he continued to post his questionable messages a
>>full disciplinary committee would make a ruling on his actions which
>>could ultimately result in the expulsion of Jefferson from Carnegie
>>Mellon. "I told her that I couldn't promise not to post any more
>>messages," said Jefferson.
>
>Read this passage very carefully. CMU was not threatening to expel or
>limit Eric's freedoms in any way. It was only threatening to look
>further into the situation. It did not make Eric promise to never
>post again, or tone down his speech, or do anything at all except
>realize that someone had filed a complaint against him.
Sorry. The Dean has the power to examine the situation himself and make
a categorical determination that this type of behavior is not harassment.
(This is a policy decision, not a fact-bound decision based on the individual
case.) A disciplinary committee is not an policy-making body. It is a
fact-finding, and policy-enforcing body.
To say that a disciplinary committee would handle the matter is, therefore,
an implicit statement that the administration views speech in a open forum
as possibly constituting harassment, in general. This is a grave mistake.
Furthermore, I find your suggestion that this does not constitute a threat
simply unbelievable. Regardless of intention, this kind of a warning,
undoubtedly, would have a chilling effect on most people. Furthermore,
knowing administrations as I do, I would be shocked if this were not the
primary intention of the warning.
>I fail to see how CMU was at fault in the least. If the university
>would have done nothing at all, and completely ignored the formally
>filed complaint, might have been violating the rights (or at least
>denying the importance) of the individuals who felt harassed.
You're right. They shouldn't ignore the complaint. They should examine it,
and issue a statement that such case, categorically, do not constitute
harassment.
>No individuals from the Women's Center Collective made any attempt to
>impede Eric's rights or freedom in any way, and the collective as an
>entity gave no acknowledgement of Eric or his posts in any manner.
Good for them! They must have incredible restraint. I envy them.
>As to the comment that a poster made about the complaints being made
>by men:
>
>Since the majority of men are not constantly sexually harassed,
>demeaned, threatened, and exploited, they can be more sensitive to
>what might be construed as blatant sexism. Those individuals who have
>more immediate and chronic exposure to sexism are desensitized to it,
>and understand that complaining to those who feel affinity for those
>complained about is unlikely to elicit any positive action.
This is nonsense. "Sensitivity" has nothing to do with this.
Let's take a case of real harassment--suppose person A is (generically)
harassing person B. Suppose person C looks out the window and observes
this. Person B is free to file a harassment complaint. Person C, on the
other hand, *cannot* file a harassment complaint--person C was not
harassed.
You already have a bunch of people who do not accept the case at hand as
harassment, period. Surely, you aren't about to suggest that the posts
(that we saw) could be construed as "harassing" men, are you??
I don't think that *anybody* with any understanding of the word harassment
could suggest that these posts could have harassed men.
"Harass" is not a synonym for "offend."
--
greeny greeny@top.cis.syr.edu
"What's the difference between an orange?"
From caf-talk Caf Jan 31 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [uiuc.general] Re: Why are UXA accounts *given* out?
Message-ID: <9201311621.AA31161@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: 31 Jan 92 04:21:24 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Jan 31 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: uiuc.general
From: dorner@pequod.cso.uiuc.edu (Steve Dorner)
Subject: Re: Why are UXA accounts *given* out?
Message-ID: <1992Jan31.144241.4191@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1992 14:42:41 GMT
dawn@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Dawn Owens-Nicholson) writes:
>by making class level a compulsory part of the uxa (and NeXT) userids.
So sorry, no. Neither uxa nor NeXT accounts are in any way required
by the University. They are elective activities, like the band or
or ping-pong at IMPE.
Required class accounts do not have this information.
>I also believe that CSO is violating the University's supression policy
>by including the "left_uiuc" field in the ph database, since dates of
>attendance to the University are also suppressible.
So sorry, no. If you fill out a suppression form, you do not appear
in ph, and you will not have any fields, much less left_uiuc.
Left_uiuc is a courtesy extended to ex-students, to allow email to be
forwarded to their new lives. I'm not about to yank it just because
of hysteria on a privacy non-issue.
If you object to how we administer accounts, get one elsewhere. Put
in a request for student computer fee money to fund an anonymous site.
I'd like to see it happen, and you be the administrator; it would
be a very valuable experience.
>and who currently have no idea that their names and class levels are
>available to the entire world through uxa, even though they may
>have gone to the effort of supressing this information.
Let me say this one more time. I will use very small words.
IF YOU FILL OUT A QUASH FORM, A UXA LOGIN WILL NOT BE CREATED
FOR YOU UNLESS YOU ASK FOR IT.
Ok? Can we please put this particular red herring to rest?
--
Steve Dorner, U of Illinois Computing Services Office
Internet: s-dorner@uiuc.edu UUCP: uunet!uiucuxc!uiuc.edu!s-dorner
Apparently-To: does more harm than good.
From caf-talk Caf Jan 31 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [uiuc.general] Re: Why are UXA accounts *given* out?
Message-ID: <9201311620.AA30849@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: 31 Jan 92 04:20:52 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Jan 31 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: uiuc.general
From: dawn@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Dawn Owens-Nicholson)
Subject: Re: Why are UXA accounts *given* out?
Message-ID: <1992Jan31.064253.26216@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1992 06:42:53 GMT
Paul Pomes asks, "Why should suppression [of student information]
apply at all to uxa or computer accounts in general?"
It should apply for the simple reason that the University, in
compliance with the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974,
designates some items of student information suppressible from the
public. I will give the entire list of suppressible items at the end
of the post. Among these items are name and class level. Currently,
the University is violating its own policy, as well as the privacy act
by making class level a compulsory part of the uxa (and NeXT) userids.
It is also violating the act by making the names in the really database
available to all uxa users, and by making the real name field available
to anyone in the world who can use the finger command.
I also believe that CSO is violating the University's supression policy
by including the "left_uiuc" field in the ph database, since dates of
attendance to the University are also suppressible.
Arguments about privileges vs. rights, I will dismiss out of hand.
The courts no longer recognize the wooden distinction between
privileges and rights [Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 (1972)].
Besides that, it strikes me as profoundly unethical to require people
to give up their rights under federal law, and under university policy
in order to use university facilities.
The thing that bothers me the most is the automatic creation of
logins on uxa for thousands of users who never even log into the system,
and who currently have no idea that their names and class levels are
available to the entire world through uxa, even though they may
have gone to the effort of supressing this information.
These people are not even using the system, and so even those of you
still erroneously clinging to the "rights v. privileges" argument can not say
that these people are giving up privacy in exchange for computer use.
One more thing:
Paul Pomes exclaims,"System admins are not being paid to be nannys."
It really bothers me that apparently there are workers at the University
who are doing unpaid labor. That is unconscionable, and I would bet
that it violates some state and federal labor laws. I would also bet
that it IS the job of a system administrator to track down
trouble makers, so your assertion probably has no merit.
Here is a list of all suppressible items of student information: name,
addresses, phone numbers, college, curriculum, major field of study,
class level, date of birth, dates of attendance, full/parttime status,
eligibility for membership in registered university honoraries,
degrees, honors, certificates received or anticipated, weight and
height (if you are an athletic team member), participation in
officially recognized activities and sports, and institutions
previously attended.
From caf-talk Caf Jan 31 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.censorship, et al.] Re: Speech restrictions on CMU computer bboards
Message-ID: <9201311607.AA03352@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: 31 Jan 92 04:07:31 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Jan 31 00:00:00 1992
From: pr0i+@andrew.cmu.edu (Pravin Devineni Ratnam)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.politics.correct,cmu.general
Subject: Re: Speech restrictions on CMU computer bboards
Message-ID:
Date: 31 Jan 92 06:01:58 GMT
How the fuck can 3 men feel sexually harrassed when Eric Jefferson
started spewing his foul language on an unspecified group of females.
It could be construed as offensive. But how in the hell can 3 guys feel
harassed and threatened by that post. Those 3 guys must be superwimps to
feel harrassed.
How are those three bastards going to live in the real world?
From caf-talk Caf Jan 31 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: cmu.general,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.politics.correct
Message-ID: <4dWDlgW00iV189DVoo@andrew.cmu.edu>
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1992 02:36:12 -0500
From: "Adam C. Gross"
Subject: Re: Speech restrictions on CMU computer bboards
Douglas Luce writes..
>The main impact of this whole issue is to take the attention off of
>the main goals of the CMU Women's Center, and to imply wrongly that
>the members of the Women's Center Collective wish to suppress the
>human rights of those who take a paternalistic view of the world.
I don't know who you speak for, but no one has ever claimed that the
women's center is even remotely involved with charges brought against
Jefferson. As far as I understand it, the Women's Center has been
supportive of his right to speak and post.
The people I mean to address are the people who brought the charges. If
they wish to pursue the issue, formal charges would be brought against
Jefferson. I question the administration's handling of the matter, as
they seemed all to receptive to bring the charges to a hearing, instead
of telling Jefferson that he was acting within acceptable bounds. The
bottom line is that the university has no real policy of dealing with
new media free speech issues, and that one should be formulated.
And take it easy on your view of paternalistic vs. feminist issues. We
don't need any more barriers created between us than already exist.
Adam
From caf-talk Caf Jan 31 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.bbs.internet, et al.] Re: school wont let students on Internet
Message-ID: <9201311607.AA02192@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: 31 Jan 92 04:07:15 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Jan 31 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.bbs.internet,alt.censorship
From: mpd@anomaly.sbs.com (Michael P. Deignan)
Subject: Re: school wont let students on Internet
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1992 03:42:05 GMT
Message-ID: <1992Jan31.034205.26999@anomaly.sbs.com>
shite@sinkhole.unf.edu (Stephen Hite) writes:
> I'm sure the NSF would not be pleased to hear that a school they donate
>thousands of dollars to for internet access is limiting a student's
>access to such a valuable educational resource.
The NSF will be pleased to see that the institution isn't allowing
valuable bandwidth to be wasted on such frivilous things as MUD and IRC
connections.
> My point is, no school wants to be thought of as denying their students
>access to information.
Institutions are doing nothing of the sort. Students are more than free to
contact any one of the "commercial" providers who charge between $10 and
$20 per month for complete Internet access.
> The school pays the same bill for the internet connection no matter if
>1 or 1000 people use it services, so I don't see any justification for
>their practice.
Except that 1000 people can use 10 times the bandwidth of 100 users. And,
if you only have the bandwidth to support 100 users, then you're sure as
hell not going to let 1000 people on your system.
> The answer is...there is no good reason why the original poster
>is being denied internet access.
There are lots of good reasons. You simply choose to ignore the
administrative matters of the network for some idealistic concept of
"everyone" having access to the network, which is an impossibility,
for several of the reasons stated in this message and others.
MD
--
-- Michael P. Deignan /
-- Domain: mpd@anomaly.sbs.com / I'm not a bigot,
-- UUCP: ...!uunet!rayssd!anomaly!mpd / I hate everyone.
-- Telebit: +1 401 455 0347 /
From caf-talk Caf Jan 31 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.admin.policy] Usage Statistics and Privacy (Was Re: Privacy and Arbitron (Was Re: harrassing mail))
Message-ID: <9201311605.AA05729@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: 31 Jan 92 04:05:19 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Jan 31 00:00:00 1992
From: vds7789@aw2.fsl.ca.boeing.com (Vincent D. Skahan)
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy
Subject: Usage Statistics and Privacy (Was Re: Privacy and Arbitron (Was Re: harrassing mail))
Message-ID: <1992Jan30.160811.24100@aw2.fsl.ca.boeing.com>
Date: 30 Jan 92 16:08:11 GMT
michael@resonex.com (Michael Bryan) writes:
>If Arbitron is run as intended, nobody, including the system manager, ever
>finds out who is reading which groups. It uses privileges to look at each
>user's .newsrc, but it does not keep any user-specific information from
>these files.
please try running it once and see. It quite happily writes some lovely
temp files while it's in progress. Since it's slow, they're there for
the reading.
>I don't consider Arbitron an invasion of privacy, and in fact find it
>useful to help me decide which groups are no longer being read and
>hence do not need to be carried. It gathers useful statistics needed
>to "tune" the news system, and doesn't reveal anything about any
>particular user.
I think it's very, very useful to determine which groups can be safely
deleted to save disk space and cpu/modem resources. If nobody's reading
the startrek groups, which are very high traffic, there's $$$ to be
saved.
Are people's home directories mode 700 ?
If not, then the users are making the .newsrc public information
that a non-privileged arbitron program can read just like any user
could.
The issue of whether or not it's ok to use privs to run arbitron is
a little more difficult and I'll leave that for the lawyer wanna-be's.
Personally I think it's ok, again to figure out what's going on the system
to provide better service, but I know others disagree so I'll leave it at that.
To expand the topic, somewhat....what about the following cases:
- tracking syslogs for sendmail usage on/off campus to
get an idea of Internet/USENET usage. Is it an
invasion of privacy to run syslogd with mail debugging
on. That reports to/from/when/how-big information
about electronic mail.
As an admin I need to know how e-mail is used so that
I need to know how much priority to put on it when
something breaks. I need to know at least to the level
of 'system A mails to networks B and C', but is there
any damage in looking at the 'to' addresses to see if a
particular group is routing mail via UUNET at cost when
there's a better way and they need to be trained.
How 'bout mailing lists of gatewayed news ? There are
people on Internet mailing lists of stuff that is already
there in news that you already get. Mail is a resource pig.
What about 20 people on the same list when one central alias
would do the trick and cut your UUNET bill by a factor of 20?
Is it ok to know who's sending mail to/from whom and how
big the mail is (as long as you don't read the mail) ?
- disk usage. Many systems can't run quotas so you have
to use privs to total up a 'du' command to see
who just ate the disk.
Again as an admin, I need to know everything possible
to tune the system and services. You can't do that
without using (not abusing) privs.
- tracking postings to USENET. Hey, you posted to a public
forum...does that make it ok for a news admin to
track locally-generated postings to see what groups
posted to USENET and to where? If the people wanted
the be anonymous, there are ways like mailing to the
mail-to-news gateways at several Internet sites.
How about the old B-news 'fascist' option to restrict
who can post to what. I think it was a great option,
though I never had to use it. It's not in C-news.
Should it be ?
--
--------- Vince Skahan ----------- vince@atc.boeing.com ---------
A marriage can't be reconciled in a few hours, Homer.
It takes a whole weekend to do that!
-- Rev. Lovejoy's marriage encounter retreat, ``War of the
From caf-talk Caf Jan 31 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.bbs.internet, et al.] Re: school wont let students on Internet
Message-ID: <9201311607.AA05412@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: 31 Jan 92 04:07:11 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Jan 31 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.bbs.internet,alt.censorship
From: mpd@anomaly.sbs.com (Michael P. Deignan)
Subject: Re: school wont let students on Internet
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 1992 11:44:52 GMT
Message-ID: <1992Jan30.114452.24265@anomaly.sbs.com>
phydeaux@netcom.COM (Leroy Smith) writes:
>just another example of a school that exists for the faculty and staff,
>not for the students. students complain? big deal. faculty complains? ouch!
Just another example of a "gimme, gimme, gimme" moron who thinks that the
resources of an academic institution exist so he may masterbate over the
erotic GIFs posted to the net...
MD
--
-- Michael P. Deignan /
-- Domain: mpd@anomaly.sbs.com / I'm not a bigot,
-- UUCP: ...!uunet!rayssd!anomaly!mpd / I hate everyone.
-- Telebit: +1 401 455 0347 /
From caf-talk Caf Jan 31 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.admin.policy] Re: harrassing mail
Message-ID: <9201312043.AA15199@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: 31 Jan 92 08:43:26 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Jan 31 00:00:00 1992
From: feanor@bsu-cs.bsu.edu (Bryan Strawser)
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy
Subject: Re: harrassing mail
Message-ID: <840@bsu-cs.bsu.edu>
Date: 30 Jan 92 14:29:48 GMT
In article , brendan@cs.widener.edu (Brendan Kehoe) writes:
> Say someone (a guy) is sending someone else (a girl) some pretty rude
> mail (stuff from r.a.erotica & such), but she just blows it off &
> doesn't say anything---she doesn't want to make a fuss.
>
> But then one day he mis-mails it (to her first name, rather than her
> last), and it bounces its way into my (the Postmaster's) mailbox.
> Forgetting I've known about his behavior for a while now, do I have
> any real right as sysadmin to ask him to stop?
>
I'm not really sure what *I* would do in the same circumstances. Whenever
I've had access to postmaster, which has been just on my 3b2, I've never
actually read the messages, but rahter the headers, and then bounced
it to where it goes..
I wouldn't do anything unless she should make a complaint, unless it
is strictly against your policy to have such material
-Bryan
--
Bryan Strawser feanor@bsu-cs.bsu.edu
-=-=-=-=- Ball State University - Computer Science Department Unix -=-=-=-=-
"Unix: It's a nice place to live, but you don't want to visit there."
From caf-talk Caf Jan 31 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: ICRR400@INDYVAX.IUPUI.EDU (PATRICK RAINBOLT CONSULTANT)
Subject: (none)
Message-ID: <01GFYZDI0IG0004P5L@INDYVAX.IUPUI.EDU>
Date: 31 Jan 92 10:52:00 GMT
unsub comp-academic-freedom-talk
From caf-talk Caf Jan 31 00:00:00 1992
From: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.privacy,alt.society.civil-liberty
Subject: email privacy
Message-ID: <1992Jan31.101449.13991@nntp.hut.fi>
Date: 31 Jan 92 10:14:49 GMT
In article <1992Jan30.144947.18720@m.cs.uiuc.edu>, kadie@m.cs (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>Ethically (and perhaps legally) email communications should have the
>same privacy protection as telephone calls. Email archives should have
>the same privacy protection as desk file cabinets. It would be unwise
>for any university employee to tap email communications or search an
>email archive without authorization from the university president,
>university legal counsel, and univeristy's academic freedom committee.
In Finland email currently has the same protection as paper mail while
in transit. There's a problem with what 'in transit' means, but the
law is supposed to be changed so that all email will be protected.
It's not legal for the government to listen to people's phones for any
reason and paper mail secrecy is held to a greater value so I don't
think the government (or anyone else, for that matter) has any legal
power to read email either.
In the law-to-be there's some wording that 'protected' (as for example
by Unix file protections) form of traffic is private. So, there are
some problems with bounces to postmaster - according to one
interpretation the postmaster can read the mail if it is legitimately
forwarded to the postmaster's mailbox because then there is no
protection from the postmaster. We get into shady areas here - if the
postmaster is also responsible for the mail system handling all mail
could be directed to also go to the postmaster's mailbox and according
to this interpretation there would be no problem with this.
//Jyrki
From caf-talk Caf Jan 31 00:00:00 1992
From: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.politics.correct,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: Speech restrictions on CMU computer bboards
Message-ID: <1992Jan31.113255.15279@nntp.hut.fi>
Date: 31 Jan 92 11:32:55 GMT
In article , jm36+@andrew (John Gardiner Myers) writes:
>Mr Kadie should get his facts straight. Mr. Jefferson was not brought
>up before the University Disciplinary Adjutant because his posts were
>offensive, he was brought up because his posts were sexually
>harassing the complainants*.
>
>*(Some people incorrectly claim that the complainants filed formal
>charges because they thought the posts sexually harassed women. The
>complainants have publically stated that they personally felt sexually
>harassed and that "if anyone else felt harassed, they could file
>their own damned complaint.")
This is absurd, like from a bad science fiction book. I don't
understand how someone posting a public message can be harrassing
someone else who is not even mentioned in any way in the message.
Gee, I suppose next they'll sue someone from having a hard-on in a
public place - I mean, someone probably will feel harassed by looking
at the bump on the trousers of a passerby on a street.
//Jyrki
From caf-talk Caf Jan 31 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto)
Subject: Re: [comp.admin.policy] Re: harrassing mail
Message-ID: <1992Jan31.151156.16597@eng.umd.edu>
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 92 15:11:56 GMT
In article <9201302003.AA31000@m.cs.uiuc.edu> kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>
>-------------------------------------------------------------------
>From taylor@jet.rutgers.edu
>-------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Subject: Re: harassing mail
>Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy
>Summary: why avoid formal complaint?
>References:
>
>
>
>I don't understand all the emphasis, re harassing mail to women, of
>just deleting it, ignoring it, and generally avoiding public
>complaint. Such actions do not discourage the harasser. It is time to
>let the harassers know forcefully that what they are doing is illegal
>and highly destructive to women!
None of the messages I have seen so far have recommended that the receiver
of harassing mail delete it, ignore it, or avoid public complaint. What I have
seen is
1) That third parties (such as systems administrators who receive mail by
mistake) ignore it if there is no complaint from the receiver, or if the
receiver has indicated that the third party should take no action.
2) That posting of offensive messages on a _newsgroup_ is not harassment.
--
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 caf-talk Caf Jan 31 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: cmu.opinion,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.politics.correct
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Speech restrictions on CMU computer bboards
Message-ID: <1992Jan31.211130.19359@eff.org>
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1992 21:11:30 GMT
Here are the collected works of Eric Scott Jefferson.
- Carl
======================================================================
Date: & Sat, 16 Nov 1991 17:56:41 -0500 (EST)
From: , Eric Scott Jefferson
To: Bulletin Board Administration
,
Subject:
Ann Simonton
Well, I've never written to the women's center before this (not wanting to
deal with all you fugly sexually frustrated women before. Yes fugly, no typo.
This word was invented by Stephanie Zikos last year (maybe by accident)
and is a contraction of fucking ugly Usage: "Man that girl is fugly") but this
has me so pissed off that I can't restrain myself.
I went to this so-called talk of the bitch who's name is in my title. All she
did was rant and rave for two hours about how everything in our society is
sexist/racist/homphobic/classist/and capitalist piggish. After her two hour
talk she did not answer any questions (except for one or two, ignoring me
of course even though I had my hand up first, maybe it was the Guns N'
Roses T-shirt I was wearing). Thus her basic point was "You listen to me
but I don't want to listen to you", maybe because she was ripped in half a
few years ago by Gloria Leonard (editor of High Society magazine). Next
time you get a political speaker, don't pay them if they won't answer
questions.
The other thing about this talk that got me pissed off was the way the bitch
came off looking more prudish than Jerry Fallwell. A message to all the
women out there: I subscribe to Hustler, I watch porno flicks regularly (in
fact I just saw Oriental Lesbian Fantasies a few days ago -- weak flick the
womens bodies were pretty disgusting), I favor legalization of prostitution. I
make no apologies for doing these things because men have a definite
sexuality. I think that the biggest Nazis in the country today and the biggest
threats to freedom of speech are feminists. You women always act like you
want to cut my balls off. Well fuck you. First you are restricting
speech in the
workplace because a few frustrated cunts who masturbate every night since
no man would have them think that they are being sexually harassed. I
have talked about porn, the size of my dick and other things regularly with
women in the course of summer jobs and you know what, not one of them
fucking minded at all. Not one. A girl I know went to see Guns N' Roses
with me in concert this summer. Did she mind their songs. FUCK NO!!!!. My
sister is a model whose looks put all the women on this campus to shame.
Does she feel she is being exploited. FUCK NO!!!! As Camille Paglia says,
feminists have the most screwed up view of the world. They don't realize
that women are the dominant sex (which they are), they don't realize that
sex is a dark force between man and women, the sexes will always be in
conflict and other things that every other human being has realized in the
world since we evolved from apes. (As Ms. Paglia also says, the only place
where feminists have gained a hold have been on college campuses
where men are basically sit or their ass guys who have no balls anyway
such as those motherfucking pussy-wimps that came to that Simonton
debate). I like good-looking women. Why!!!! Because that's the way we
evolved. Beauty is a sign of health and good genes. Men's high sex drive
always means they are attracted to beauty. My favorite show on TV is
Married...With Children since Christina Applegate is so hot. If you feminist
women don't like the male sex drive then set up your own country. You'll all
die within one generation and then we'll be rid of you. (As a side note I
don't feel bad when hunky men appear in commercials or magazines and
their sex is userd to sell products. Oh Sniff, Sniff I feel so exploited. Boo
hoo hoo mommy, daddy why don't you make them stop. Wahhhhhh!!!!)
The venom in this post is intentional since you bitches have always tried
to cut my balls off and I don't appreciate it.
"Bitch, Bitch, Bitch , Bitch, Fucking Bitch!!!!!"
Guns N' Roses "Back Off Bitch"
******************************************************************************
***
****
"Walked into the party I was drunk as hell
3 bitches already said 'Eric your breath smells'"--N.W.A "8 Ball" from
Straight Outta Compton
"Hail to the Redskins. Hail Victory!!!
Braves on the Warpath. Fight for old D.C.!!!" ---Redskins fight song
10-0!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
******************************************************************************
***
****
Date: & Mon, 18 Nov 1991 07:57:20 -0500 (EST)
From: , Eric Scott Jefferson
To: Bulletin Board Administration
,
Subject: Re: Ann Simonton
Thanks for the free publicity. Whoever put up those posters showed real
guts instead of confronting me directly. I should have expected a full
character assassination simply because I refused to bow down to the god
(or is that goddess?) of political correctness and kiss his ass. Go ahead,
smear me all you like. I don't care. I hate everyone on campus anyway. If
that is all your puny minds can think up instead of confronting me about my
post then everything I said was justified. Because of this smear tactic I have
no regrets. This is what traditionally happens to those bold enough on
college campuses (such as the editors of The Dartmouth Review) who
speak the truth. Childish people try to intimidate them into silence. Well I
won't be silenced. If you want a fight --- you've come to the right place.
Let's rumble!
"They break down the doors and rape my rights but,
They won't touch me.
They screech and yell and fight all night
But they can't tell me...
They're out ta get me.
They won't catch me..
I'm fucking innocennt.
They won't break me!!!!!!!!!!!"
Guns N' Roses Out Ta Get Me.
You won't break me women's center. No matter how hard you try.
*******************************************************************************
**
****
*"Walked into the party I was drunk as hell
3 bitches already said 'Eric your breath smells'"--N.W.A "8 Ball" from
Straight Outta Compton
"Hail to the Redskins. Hail Victory!!!
Braves on the Warpath. Fight for old D.C.!!!" ---Redskins fight song
10-0!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
*******************************************************************************
**
****
Date: & Mon, 18 Nov 1991 15:02:01 -0500 (EST)
From: , Eric Scott Jefferson
To: Bulletin Board Administration
,
Subject: Re: Ann Simonton
>I think it's pretty clear that Eric wanted to publicly attack Ann
>Simonton. If he wanted to state an opinion, then he can do so in a
>rational manner. This is a University, not a beer hall.
Todd you moron. I would think even you would give me more credit than
this.When I went to this talk on David Lynch last year and what a sexist pig
he is I was very restrained in my questions. In fact I was cut off during one
of my questions so that the talk could be moved somewhere else (and to
shut me up). I certainly was not looking for a fight as you say. Though of
course since I disagree with you you won't listen to me anyway.
*******************************************************************************
**
****
"Walked into the party I was drunk as hell
3 bitches already said 'Eric your breath smells'"--N.W.A "8 Ball" from
Straight Outta Compton
"Hail to the Redskins. Hail Victory!!!
Braves on the Warpath. Fight for old D.C.!!!" ---Redskins fight song
10-0!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
*******************************************************************************
**
****
Date: & Tue, 19 Nov 1991 15:44:53 -0500 (EST)
From: , Eric Scott Jefferson
To: Bulletin Board Administration
,
Subject: Re: Another planet
>But with this Eric Jefferson kid? I read his post and I found myself
wondering what planet he came >from. What a moron.
Since you show interest in where I'm from I'll try to describe it for you
(apologies to Eazy-E and the N.W.A posse)
Eric is his name and the boyz call me....
Straight outta virginia,
is a honky that'll smother you mother
and make your sister think I love her
Dangerous mother fucker raisin' hell
and if I ever get caught I'll make bail
see I don't give a fuck, that's the problem
I see a mother fuckin' [security] guard I don't dodge him
but I'm smart, lay low, creep awhile
and I see the punk pass I smile
to me it's kinda funny the attitudes to a honky hackin'
but don't know where the fuck he goin
just roamin lookin' for the one they call E.
but here's a flash, they'll never see me
ruthless, never seen, like a shadow in the dark
except when I unload
you see its fronted over and over
and hesitation
and hear the scream of the one who caught the last penetration
feel a little gust of wind and I'm jettin
but leave a memory no one will be forgettin'
So what about the bitch who got shot? Fuck her.
You think I give a damn about a bitch I ain't a sucker
This is the autobiography of the E,
and if you ever fuck with me
you'll get taken
by a stupid dope honky who'll smother
word to the mother fucker
straight outta virginia
(Damn that shit was wack!)
*******************************************************************************
**
****
*"Walked into the party I was drunk as hell
3 bitches already said 'Eric your breath smells'"--N.W.A "8 Ball" from
Straight Outta Compton
"Hail to the Redskins. Hail Victory!!!
Braves on the Warpath. Fight for old D.C.!!!" ---Redskins fight song
: 11-0!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
*******************************************************************************
**
****
Date: & Tue, 19 Nov 1991 16:17:47 -0500 (EST)
From: , Eric Scott Jefferson
To: Bulletin Board Administration
,
Subject: & Re: this sounds soooo familiar.......
Yipes! Sorry about that last letter. I sent it accidently before editing it
finally. Disreagrd what it says. This is the final version.
People say oooo what an asshole where does his anger come from.
What a jerk.
When I arrived on campus more than four years ago (Yeah, I arrived in
1987. I'm 22 years old and have been here longer than any of you punks
except for Todd Masco) I considered myself a liberal. I used to be proud to
call myself one since liberal is synonymous with open-minded. After
attending a debate freshman year during which a contra gave a talk and
the liberals beat up all the conservatives for supporting these killers I
started to change my mind. My mind was changed more when I saw that
white males were blamed for every single problem in the world since the
big bang and that authors such as Alice Walker were taken seriously just
because she whined about everything. I also saw the Magaret Morrisson
lounge become a public grievance factory for the women on campus and
now I am watching whining pieces of shit trying to change the Redskins
name in my hometown of D.C. since they find it offensive. I saw that
anything black man or a woman does is automatically taken seriously
while a white man better shut the fuck up unless he totally agrees with
what they have to say. I saw a Spirit press conference my first sophomore
year during which they compared CMU to South Africa. I have seen my
ancestors (such as Thomas Jefferson, one of the greatest people who ever
lived and a direct ancestor of mine) being called every sort of evil that ever
was and I am the one who is expected to make it up to the world. I could go
on and on for hours of all the incidents that have irritated me. Every time I
speak out I am called racist and sexist any way so I don't give a fuck
anymore. If all you people on this bbooard hate me fine. I don't really like
anyone here outside of a few people anyway
No matter how offensive my opinions are, at least I have carefully thought
them through. The opinions of most people on this campus are on the
level of "Like wow, racial and sexual equality, like I fer that dude". I bet no
one on this bboard has actually thought carefully about any issues
whatsoever and just mindlessly follow whatever is the correct idea. Does
anyone out there question anything? Obviously not since such statements
were made at the Ann Simonton debate as (2/3 of all women will
remember that they were incest victims, 50% of all men beat women in
response to which there was much solemn head nodding since everyone
in the lecture was so obviously patting themselves on the back about how
much they were doing to fighting sexism and how important their mission
was. Ain't we just the Savior's right hand now!)
Oh yeah another thing. How come when Fallwell wants to censor things
he is attacked but when feminists want to they are taken seriously. To all
feminists who are offended by pornography, my post, other things you
don't have to buy, read , look at , these things that offend you. They do no
harm whatsoever to you so why do you complain so much? If you are so
offended I recommend driving down to D.C. buying a 12" vibrating dildo at
this place they call the pleasure chest, sticking it up your ass and turning it
on. Maybe it will loosen the stick up your butt.There has never been one
study done that conclusively links pornography with harm.Why don't you
poster this? Putting up posters of my messages was an obvious attempt to
get me to be quiet since I'd be to scared to send any more messages if I
knew my quotes were going to read by the whole campus.
One last thing. People have been coming up to me after that poster stunt
congratulating me. My friends don't care and people who don't know me
are glad that someone has said what they were too scared to.Thanks to
whoever for the good publicity
Date: & Wed, 4 Dec 1991 09:10:47 -0500 (EST)
From: , Eric Scott Jefferson
To: Bulletin Board Administration
,
Subject: After a brief hiatus
Well after spending Thanksgiving break and Dec. 2 and 3. in London
(well Dec. 3 flying from London) I come back to this bboard. (Hee, hee yes
London, for all you poor scum spending Thanksgiving break here or with
your parents eat your heart out!!!! I got to visit the Raymond's Revue Bar
(excellent strip-tease show, famous throughout Europe), the London
hookers and such high-class stores as Harrods where I could indulge my
capitalist pig tastes along with all the other greedy swine and got to see all
the Limey babes). As much as everyone might like to hope, even the IRA
could not get rid of me (there were several bombings by these disgusting
micks close to where I was, and I'm part Irish so I'll insult them all I want).
But seriously, I have a question to ask. Scientists now say that the small
size of the hypothalamus in males causes homosexuality in males. My
question is this, does ugliness in females cause lesbianism. I saw a bunch
of lesbians in Britain and they were pretty fugly. All the lesbians I have seen
in this country make me want to lose my lunch. Is there a correlation?
Might be an interesting research project (my last project was on how
females are not as good in science and math in general as males because
of differential brain development by the way)
*******************************************************************************
**
****
"I used to love her but I had to kill her
I used to love her but I had to kill her
I had to put her 6 feet under
And I can still hear her complain"
Guns N' Roses "Used to Love Her"
"Hail to the Redskins. Hail Victory!!!
Braves on the Warpath. Fight for old D.C.!!!" ---Redskins fight song
*******************************************************************************
**
****
Date: & Thu, 5 Dec 1991 08:26:56 -0500 (EST)
From: , Eric Scott Jefferson
To: Bulletin Board Administration
,
Subject: Re: After a brief hiatus
CC: ' "Todd L. Masco"
>Judging from your plan file and your stated opinions, I'd guess that
>you judge "beauty" (this from the person who was called 'The Fly' by
>most people in his dorm's floor, freshman year?) by... let me see...
Yup.You were Mr. Popular himself also. I remember freshman year how
much all the guys on the floor thought you were the biggest geek in the
universe (my roommate often said how much he hated your guts and how
much he'd like to beat you up, a very easy proposition for a fat blob of shit
such as yourself). Well you'll soon be graduating and out on the street
selling pencils which is all you are qualified to do so if I see you on the
street corner I'll be sure not to give you any change.
Q~~****
"I used to love her but I had to kill her
I used to love her but I had to kill her
I had to put her 6 feet under
And I can still hear her complain"
Guns N' Roses "Used to Love Her"
"Hail to the Redskins. Hail Victory!!!
Braves on the Warpath. Fight for old D.C.!!!" ---Redskins fight song
*******************************************************************************
**
****
Date: & Fri, 6 Dec 1991 14:33:47 -0500 (EST)
From: , Eric Scott Jefferson
To: Bulletin Board Administration
,
Subject: Re: After a brief hiatus
>This bboard is not in existence for you to use to call each other names.
Nobody really cares what you >look like or have to say anymore anyway so
take it somewhere else. And by the way, this is not my >account so don't
respond to me here please. Thank you.
>-Rose
To me, Todd's post insulting me was 1,000,000 times less offensive than
some person (too scared to even use their own account yet!) telling me
what I can and can't post and where I can and can't post this stuff. (actually
my friends an I were laughing as we read it)Todd and I may not like each
other much but at least he hasn't peremptorarily ordered me off a bboard. I
post anywhere I like as long as I like so fuck you.He can say whatever
insulting thing he likes about me and I about him (you're probably too
young to remember this bboard called andrew.pictures.nudes.disc.robin on
which people continually said much more vicious things about each other
than Mr. Masco's post and my post)
Anyway, to those wondering to whom my posts have been referring ....
you have mirrors don't you?
*******************************************************************************
**
****
"I used to love her but I had to kill her
I used to love her but I had to kill her
I had to put her 6 feet under
And I can still hear her complain"
Guns N' Roses "Used to Love Her"
"Hail to the Redskins. Hail Victory!!!
*******************************************************************************
**
****
Date: & Tue, 10 Dec 1991 12:30:45 -0500 (EST)
From: , Eric Scott Jefferson
To: Bulletin Board Administration
,
Subject: Fwd: After a brief hiatus
Boy, here's someone who has heard of the 1st ammendment. And some
people think that feminists and their sympathizers are anti-censorship.
Yeah right.
---------- Forwarded message begins here ----------
#Return-path:
BX-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 18654;andrew.cmu.edu;Joshua Alan Knauer
.Received: from pcs4.andrew.cmu.edu via trymail
I ID ;
/ Sun, 8 Dec 1991 18:28:16 -0500 (EST)
,Received: from pcs4.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
M ID ;
/ Sun, 8 Dec 1991 18:28:11 -0500 (EST)
_Received: from
mms.0.1.873.MacMail.0.9.CUILIB.3.45.SNAP.NOT.LINKED.pcs4.andrew.cmu.edu.p
max.ul4
2 via MS.5.6.pcs4.andrew.cmu.edu.pmax_ul4;
/ Sun, 8 Dec 1991 18:28:10 -0500 (EST)
/Message-ID:
+Date: Sun, 8 Dec 1991 18:28:10 -0500 (EST)
/From: Joshua Alan Knauer
X-Andrew-Message-Size: 976+0
Content-Type: X-BE2; 12
If-Type-Unsupported: alter
/To: Eric Scott Jefferson
!Subject: Re: After a brief hiatus
Cc:
0In-Reply-To:
/References:
$
$
$
$
Mr. Jefferson,
I am writing to inform you that the next time that I see you using
profanity, insulting another person using your disgusting language, or
posting to the Women's Center's b-board, I am going to make sure you will
lose your Andrew account, and quite possibly get arrested for harrasment,
verbal abuse, and violating the policies governing the use of Internet, and
the Andrew system. If you think this is an idol threat, you try me-- I dare
you. Your views, and the way that you express them are disgusting. Your
obvious sexual problems indicate that you are not sure about your
sexuality. I would seriously consider getting psychiatric help. You are
truly mentally sick.
Heed my warning, I assure you that I can make life quite difficult for you
on this campus. Please do not cause any more problems by using
threatening, profane, or otherwise abusive language. You are being
watched, remember that.
Sincerely,
Joshua Knauer
Student Senator, H&SS
*******************************************************************************
**
****
"I used to love her but I had to kill her
I used to love her but I had to kill her
I had to put her 6 feet under
And I can still hear her complain"
Guns N' Roses "Used to Love Her"
"Hail to the Redskins. Hail Victory!!!
Braves on the Warpath. Fight for old D.C.!!!" ---Redskins fight song
*******************************************************************************
**
****
\~~Date: & Wed, 11 Dec 1991 13:22:05 -0500 (EST)
From: , Eric Scott Jefferson
To: )Joshua Alan Knauer
Subject: Re: Eric Jefferson
CC: Bulletin Board Administration
,
>I can assure you that Mr. Jefferson only posted a small portion of the
letter. He edited out parts that >he didn't want everyone to see. I
explained that if he posted to the Women's Center Board, AND used >his
threatening manner that was profane, etc., THEN I would report him.
You fucking liar. I simply forwarded your whole message to the bboard.
Do you enough about Andrew to understand forwarding? Huh? It means
that your whole message is sent. I assure you that I did not change a damn
thing in my forwarding of your post.I have no respect for someone who
makes obnoxious little threats and then claims that I twisted his words
around. So shut up you twerpy little freshman. You haven't even been here
one semester and you think you can boss me around. Don't make me
laugh. Go back to picking maggots out of your mother's cunt and leave the
thinking to your betters.
*******************************************************************************
**
****
"I used to love her but I had to kill her
I used to love her but I had to kill her
I had to put her 6 feet under
And I can still hear her complain"
Guns N' Roses "Used to Love Her"
"Hail to the Redskins. Hail Victory!!!
Braves on the Warpath. Fight for old D.C.!!!" ---Redskins fight song
*******************************************************************************
**
****
Date: & Wed, 11 Dec 1991 14:21:41 -0500 (EST)
From: , Eric Scott Jefferson
To: Bulletin Board Administration
,
Subject: New Profane Post
CC: * Joshua Alan Knauer
Hey Josh (don't mind if I call you Josh do you?) as you can now see I am
posting a new message to the womens center bboard filled with profane
language, attacks on feminists et ceetera. Oh no will I lose my account and
go to jail because of the thought police.Oooohh I am so scared. Some
freshaman who has been here all of one semester wants to rumble. Maybe
you didn't hear of Kevin Wolfe's love -slave post last year for which he
recieved no punishment.Maybe I'll just have to get a free lawyer provided
by the ACLU to defend my rights as an American. (Oh by the way, where
are the mysterious private posts I've sent to women that you claim to have
seen. Forward them to the womens'center bboard if you want I certainly
don't recall any threatening private posts)
Actual post begins here:
Gautham Kamath posted a message saying that women should be called
vaginal americans. I would prefer the term Dick Receptacles.Because see,
we don't really need women except for one thing. That one thing should be
their whole function in the world. This is why feminists want to ban
pornography and keep prostitution illegal. If these things ever become
widespread we men will break out of female bondage since we can just
visit the neighborhood whore and find our sexual release that way. If we
want to talk with someone, we can just talk to the guys, if we want to go out
we go out with the guys. Sex is thus female's only useful function as far as I
am concerned. So make prostituion legal so I don't have to live under the
yoke of these bitches at CMU (prostituion is legal in Thailand and you can
fuck a woman all night for two dollars. If only it was that way here!) whose
only interest in males is to cut their testicles off and make them all wimps
(which has happened to most of the guys here already. No one at this
university has any balls)
Here's some amusing advice for guys on how to treat women from N.W.A
(and remeber, these guys are black so they cannot be criticized by
upper-middle class white liberals)
"Findum Fuckum and Flee"
Eazy-E Easily I'm approaching
There aint no joking
When the pussy holes are open
Ready to fuck until my dick is raw
Yo
The motherfuckin' devil son in law
No it's the E
The motherfuckin' pussy beater
And I'm the quicker bigger to pick up the bitch
So come here bitch
And lick up the lick up the
lick up the dick
Now how many nuts will it take for me
To let the bitch graduate to lesson three
As you can see I straight waxed that ass
Back up bitch
Unless you want nut in your eye
I've never never ever ever seen a bitch cry
Not one not two not four five six
I lost the third nut in the mix
Fuck it
Six five four now three is up
Give me that
Give me that
Give me that nut
You wanna feel the dick baby
try your luck
Because the E likes to
Fuck fuck fuck
Yo
I get them stuck on
And get the fuck on
Give them a tootsie roll
And tell them thanks for the pussy hole
I findum fuckem and flee you know
But before I d-o
Yo
I take a hoe to the hotel
to the motel
to the holiday inn
Yo
If that bitch start fucking up
I'll just fuck her friend
Dr Dre my mellow
It's on you
So what you gonna do
Dr Dre Well it's on and on and on and on
Yo
The beat don't stop
Until the break of dawn
Yo
Every bitch I know
they wanna get with me
The motherfucking notorius D-r-e
Spit game at a bitch
While a nigger's around
And you know most hoe's
No not the clown
Coz if a bitch try to dis me
While I'm fulla liquor
I smack the bitch up
And shoot the nigger
That's with her
That's the kind of nigger
You're listening to
Talk to you for a minute
Then my dick's in you
Yo
Now every single bitch
Got a price to pay
Up on the dicks of NWA
I findum fuckem and flee you know
But before I d-o
Yo
I take a hoe to the hotel
To the motel
To the holiday inn
If that bitch starts fucking up
I'll just fuck her friend
Now Mc Ren my mellow
It's on you
So whattafuck you're gonna do
MC Ren Now gatha 'round ya'll
And check it out ya'll
And all the bitches
Come and suck up on my balls ya'll
And take the dick
to play it like a slinkie
So put your lips
On my big chocolate twinkie
And you swallowed all the nut
If you bitches are smart
To make my dick pop up
Like a pop tart
But after I nut
I'ma leave you
But first I must decieve you
'Cause bitch I don't need you
And don't say that you love me to
'Cause if I turn my back
You will fuck the whole crew
You're nothing but a steak ho
Trying to take my bake hoe
So I'll have to let you know
At a hotel
At a motel
At a holiday inn
Because if that bitch sttart fucking up
Yo
I'll just fuck her friend
*******************************************************************************
**
****
"I used to love her but I had to kill her
I used to love her but I had to kill her
I had to put her 6 feet under
And I can still hear her complain"
Guns N' Roses "Used to Love Her"
"Hail to the Redskins. Hail Victory!!!
Braves on the Warpath. Fight for old D.C.!!!" ---Redskins fight song
*******************************************************************************
**
****
Date: & Wed, 11 Dec 1991 14:22:17 -0500 (EST)
From: , Eric Scott Jefferson
To: Bulletin Board Administration
,
Subject: Fwd: After a brief hiatus
---------- Forwarded message begins here ----------
#Return-path:
BX-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 18654;andrew.cmu.edu;Joshua Alan Knauer
.Received: from pcs6.andrew.cmu.edu via trymail
I ID ;
/ Tue, 10 Dec 1991 14:40:10 -0500 (EST)
,Received: from pcs6.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
M ID ;
/ Tue, 10 Dec 1991 14:40:08 -0500 (EST)
_Received: from
mms.0.1.873.MacMail.0.9.CUILIB.3.45.SNAP.NOT.LINKED.pcs6.andrew.cmu.edu.p
max.ul4
2 via MS.5.6.pcs6.andrew.cmu.edu.pmax_ul4;
/ Tue, 10 Dec 1991 14:40:07 -0500 (EST)
/Message-ID:
+Date: Tue, 10 Dec 1991 14:40:07 -0500 (EST)
/From: Joshua Alan Knauer
X-Andrew-Message-Size: 1033+0
Content-Type: X-BE2; 12
If-Type-Unsupported: alter
/To: Eric Scott Jefferson
!Subject: Re: After a brief hiatus
Cc:
0In-Reply-To: <4dFDb5K00awP01i1Ak@andrew.cmu.edu>
/References:
$
$
$
$
$
$ <4dFDb5K00awP01i1Ak@andrew.cmu.edu>
Eric,
I am not going to make a personal attack against you, because it would be
too easy. Censorship is taking away one's right to the guaranteed (1st
Ammendment) freedom of speech. If you read the first ammendment, it
also suggests that these freedoms have limits. One of these limits is when
one person verbally assaults another. This is a crime in the United States,
Pennsylvania, and Pittsburgh. Your posts, both personal (which I have
received from the women you sent them to) and public assaults and
threats on women qualify under this part of the 1st Ammendment. You
have overstepped your freedoms, now it is time for you to be punished. I
plan on making an official complaint to Academic Computing, the next time
I hear of you threatening people or using profanity as a personal attack
against others.
The term Big Brother refers to a government, which I am not. But if you
would like to think of me as your Big Brother, then you do have your own,
personal Big Brother. Be careful!
Loves and kisses,
Josh Knauer
******************************************************************************
***
****
"I used to love her but I had to kill her
I used to love her but I had to kill her
I had to put her 6 feet under
And I can still hear her complain"
Guns N' Roses "Used to Love Her"
"Hail to the Redskins. Hail Victory!!!
Braves on the Warpath. Fight for old D.C.!!!" ---Redskins fight song
******************************************************************************
***
****
Date: & Mon, 16 Dec 1991 09:06:43 -0500 (EST)
From: , Eric Scott Jefferson
To: Bulletin Board Administration
,
Subject: Re: Harassment policy
CC: / "Christian M. Restifo" ,
U
+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr0/postman/CampusLists/cmu/opinion.dl@andrew.c
mu.edu,
! Bulletin Board Administration
7
It seems that due to the fine efforts of upstanding citizens such as Mr.
Masco and Mr. Knauer who consider themselves public watchdogs as to
what people should and should not be allowed to say, I will probably have
to face a disciplinary hearing next semester. It seems like the Thought
Police mentioned by Newsweek have nailed another victim (very ironic
considering that this month is the 200th anniversary of the Bill of Rights
which was taken from my ancestor Thomas Jefferson's Virginia Bill of
Rights. He is probably rolling in his grave at the prospect of one of his
descendants and most fervent admirers being skewered by the people who
ignore his vision, especially as that vision is now being hailed across the
world). Well, I have been advised by my parents and my parents' lawyer to
seek the help of the ACLU if this should turn serious. I'm sure that they will
defend my side of the affair. Perhaps that Student Handbook will have to
be revised very soon. Especially as it seems no one objects to any point of
view on the left, no matter how extreme. Any other point of view is
characterized as harassment or racism or whatever and is dealt with
seriously by the administration because certain groups are protected and
thus have more rights than certain other groups. (What I find especially
hilarious was that it was not even women who complained of harssment
but some straight white males who figure it is their mission in life to defend
these poor oppressed people who are too dumb to defend themselves)
"I was a student at the height of the McCarthy period and it is worse now
than it was then"
Donald Kagan faculty member at Harvard University
*******************************************************************************
**
****
"Freedom of Speech -- Just Watch What You Say" Ice-T
"Feminism is an adolescent whine" Camille Paglia
"Hail to the Redskins. Hail Victory!!!
Braves on the Warpath. Fight for old D.C.!!!" ---Redskins fight song
*******************************************************************************
**
****
Date: & Mon, 13 Jan 1992 14:15:47 -0500 (EST)
From: , Eric Scott Jefferson
To: Bulletin Board Administration
,
Subject: Re: Cold-Blooded Exploitation
CC: 0 Christopher John Newman ,
@ Bulletin Board Administration
I know about Basic Instinct and the Jesse Helms like tactics used to try
and censor it. I plan to see it the first day it comes out to protest this
censorship. Free Speech activist Nat Hentoff wrote an article in the
Washington Post over Christmas break that should be required reading for
all people on this bboard. He wrote how liberals today are just as big a
threat to freedom of speech as are conservatives and compared
censorship in the name of sexual harassment and sensitivity with Jesse
Helms. To him, GLAAD and Jesse Helms are no different. This is certainly
the case. I don't see heterosexuals complaining about movies in which
they are killers so it is extremely hypocritical and anal retentive for
homosexuals to complain about movies in which they are potrayed as
killers (remember that Jeffrey Dahmer is homosexual)
******************************************************************************
***
****
"Freedom of Speech -- Just Watch What You Say" Ice-T
"Feminism is an adolescent whine" Camille Paglia
"Hail to the Redskins. Hail Victory!!!
Braves on the Warpath. Fight for old D.C.!!!" ---Redskins fight song
******************************************************************************
***
****
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu, or (anonymous) ap.3619@layout.berkeley.edu=
From caf-talk Caf Jan 31 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: cmu.general,alt.censorship,alt.politics.correct,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto)
Subject: Re: Speech restrictions on CMU computer bboards
Message-ID: <1992Jan31.151939.16707@eng.umd.edu>
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 92 15:19:39 GMT
In article dl2p+@andrew.cmu.edu (Douglas Allen Luce) writes:
>
>Read this passage very carefully. CMU was not threatening to expel or
>limit Eric's freedoms in any way. It was only threatening to look
>further into the situation. It did not make Eric promise to never
>post again, or tone down his speech, or do anything at all except
>realize that someone had filed a complaint against him.
Anyone who doesn't recognize that a threat to appear before a disciplinary
committee isn't a threat to 'expel or limit' freedoms, hasn't been before
such a committee.
--
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 caf-talk Caf Jan 31 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.politics.correct,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,cmu.opinion
From: kadie@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Speech restrictions on CMU computer bboards
Message-ID: <1992Jan31.160147.10742@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1992 16:01:47 GMT
"John William Hollis, III" writes:
[...]
> The point is, no one made anyone read what he posted. He was not
> shouting/saying things so that complainants could not avoid the
> situation. He was not interfering with their work (what kind of work
> are they doing reading bboards anyway?). [...]
jm36+@andrew.cmu.edu (John Gardiner Myers) writes:
[...]
>Some people (like myself) are required to read certain bboards as part
>of their work. This, however, does not apply to this particular case.
[...]
A requirement to read certain bboards, is not necessarily a
requirement to read every article in a bboard.
But suppose you were required as a condition of employment to read
articles you found sexually very offensive. For example, suppose your
employer required, for no good reason, you to read every newspaper
article about the Tyson rape trial and the Dahmer sanity trail. In
such a case you might indeed be the victim of sexual harassment. The
harasser in this case, however, would not be the author of the
articles; it would be your employer.
>Some people have to read certain bboards in order to keep up with or
>participate in certain campus organizations or activities. The CMU
>policies state that people have the right to do this without fear of
>harassment. They thus prohibit harassment and sexual harassment in
>any forum, electronic or not.
But why do they have to read every article? I assume that they also
have a right to use the library without fear of harassment. Does that
mean that every book they find sexually offensive must be removed from
the library? I assume they also have a right to walk across campus
without fear of harassment. Does that mean that every person speaking
publicly on campus must be silenced if their message offends?
[...]
>Stating that persons that do not wish to be harassed by Mr. Jefferson
>do not need to participate in these electronic forums is like stating
>that people who do not want to be victims of obscene phone calls need
>not answer the phone.
[...]
I would not say they should not participate in the bboards, I would
say they should not read Jefferson's articles.
The difference between a phone call and a bboard is that a phone call
is one-to-one and the listener can not help but listen; this is
harassment. A bboard is one-to-many and any offended listener has the
choice not to read particular messages; this is not harassment.
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Jan 31 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.politics.correct
From: greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (Jonathan Greenfield)
Subject: Re: Speech restrictions on CMU computer bboards
Message-ID: <1992Jan31.113757.23948@newstand.syr.edu>
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 92 11:37:57 EST
In article jm36+@andrew.cmu.edu (John Gardiner Myers) writes:
>>
>> The point is, no one made anyone read what he posted. He was not
>> shouting/saying things so that complainants could not avoid the
>> situation. He was not interfering with their work (what kind of work
>> are they doing reading bboards anyway?). [...]
>
>Some people have to read certain bboards in order to keep up with or
>participate in certain campus organizations or activities. The CMU
>policies state that people have the right to do this without fear of
>harassment. They thus prohibit harassment and sexual harassment in
>any forum, electronic or not.
>
>Stating that persons that do not wish to be harassed by Mr. Jefferson
>do not need to participate in these electronic forums is like stating
>that people who do not want to be victims of obscene phone calls need
>not answer the phone.
You completely misunderstand this. The point is that it is trivial to
read and post to a newsgroup, while disregarding such posts.
For example, alt.censorship is now flooded with holocaust postings. I
have no interest such nonsense. So I simply skip any article on that
topic. When there are a lot of these articles, it is perhaps an
*annoyance* to have to do so. But *annoyance* is a far cry from
*harassment*.
This is notably different from phone calls, both in that it is far more than
an annoyance to be forced to avoid answering the phone (or to screen all calls)
and in that a private phone is in no way a public forum.
Jonathan
--
greeny greeny@top.cis.syr.edu
"What's the difference between an orange?"
From caf-talk Caf Jan 31 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.sex
From: kadie@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: [clari.news.sex] Supreme Court lets stand 'dial-a-porn' restrictions
Message-ID: <1992Jan31.175852.16821@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1992 17:58:52 GMT
>Reposted with permission from the ClariNet Electronic Newspaper newsgroup
>clari.xxxxxxxx. For more info on ClariNet, write to info@clarinet.com or
>phone 1-800-USE-NETS.
> WASHINGTON (UPI) -- The Supreme Court Monday allowed the government to
>require adults wanting to take part in ``dial-a-porn'' telephone
>dialogue to first take a series of steps meant to keep children from
>joining in the sexually explicit conversations.
Based on the newspaper article, I don't think this particular law
effects academic sites. Because,
They are not telephone services.
They are not regulated by the FCC.
indecency (roughly "R-rated" and above), as contrasted with obscenity
(beyond most "X-rated" material), is only censored in highly
regulated media like broadcast TV and now the telephone.
They are not a commercial service.
They generally require a password (at least of local users).
It would be great if someone would post the Helms amendment so that we
could read what it actually says.
In the long term, this Supreme Court decision not to hear this case is
a bad sign. Helms, himself, said that he is trying to stamp out all
pornography (which apparently means anything "R-rated" or above.)
Helms offered this amendment after an amendment that banned all adult
material from telephones was overturned of the Court. To me, at least,
it is clear that the main purpose of this law is to reduce the access
adults have to Constitutionally-protected material. (I guess Helms
thinks that this will reduce the amount of masturbation and dirty
thoughts in American and, thus, bring us to greater greatness.) In my
opinion, the mechanisms required by the law are not only not the least
restrictive, they are, in fact, the most restrictive that Helms
thought he could get away with.
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Jan 31 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.admin.policy] Re: harrassing mail
Message-ID: <9201312302.AA27867@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: 31 Jan 92 11:02:08 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Jan 31 00:00:00 1992
From: vds7789@aw2.fsl.ca.boeing.com (Vincent D. Skahan)
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy
Subject: Re: harrassing mail
Message-ID: <1992Jan31.174159.5006@aw2.fsl.ca.boeing.com>
Date: 31 Jan 92 17:41:59 GMT
gamble@owlnet.rice.edu (Ben Gamble) writes:
[... and flames the heck out of me for expressing an opinion different
from his...]
>P.S. Despite the heated tone of this reply, please believe that it is
>not intended as a personal comment. I just find this attitude really
>offensive.
how could I possibly *not* believe that it was intended as a personal
comment ? how could I possibly *not* be offended ?
we disagree on our interpretation of our rights and duties as
a result of our also differing interpretation of the original
question. It doesn't make me a bad person, just different.
Your flaming, however, may say something different about you.
--
--------- Vince Skahan ----------- vince@atc.boeing.com ---------
Homer: Yea yea yea. Well, I wish I could help you, but we're looking
for brother today.
-- visit to the orphanage, ``Oh Brother, Where Art Thou?''
From caf-talk Caf Jan 31 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.admin.policy] Re: harrassing mail
Message-ID: <9201312301.AA22892@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: 31 Jan 92 11:01:47 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Jan 31 00:00:00 1992
From: vds7789@aw2.fsl.ca.boeing.com (Vincent D. Skahan)
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy
Subject: Re: harrassing mail
Message-ID: <1992Jan31.171256.4583@aw2.fsl.ca.boeing.com>
Date: 31 Jan 92 17:12:56 GMT
francis@styracosaur.cis.ohio-state.edu (RD Francis) writes:
>In article <1992Jan29.201536.25119@rice.edu> gamble@owlnet.rice.edu (Ben Gamble) writes:
> In article vds7789@aw2.fsl.ca.boeing.com (Vincent D. Skahan) writes:
> |first of all, why forget that you've known about it?
> Because it's none of his business, that's why. Private
> communications. Why is this so hard to grasp?
I did not infer from Brendan's posting that I learned about it first via
the bounced mail. I inferred that I'd known about it in the past and that
the bounced mail was the first 'proof'.
>The way I read the original, the original poster "Forget that I've
>known about it" statement sounded like "Forget that I knew about the
>harassment before I saw this message," not "I should forget that I
>ever saw this message."
yep...
I've discussed this thread with Wes quite a bit via mail but let me explain.
First, everybody's considering Brendan's question to be one of possible sexual
harassment between people of opposite sexes. There's lots of blood pressure on
this subject as result of recent current events. Let's ignore the type of
harassment because it really doesn't matter.
I read his question to be 'if I know one of my users is getting hassled and
it is bothering them, what can/should I do ?' My answers were intended to
answer that question. To me, it doesn't matter if it was sexual harassment,
or racial, or religious, or ethnic, or whatever.
Secondly, I'm getting flamed for being 'paternalistic' and for being a
'white night' trying to save a helpless damsel-in-distress or something.
Wrong...
I read the question as 'that user's a friend of mine'. Well, if I didn't
try to nudge that friend in a direction to lessen his/her hurt, I wouldn't
consider myself to be much of a friend. I don't care what the friend's sex
or religion or race or whatever is in Brendan's case because it doesn't
matter at all. I don't care what type of harassment it is either because
it shouldn't matter (though there may be special implications of the particular
type of alleged harassment).
Next, I hear that I have no right as a sys admin to ask the other person
to stop. Well, I might and I might not depending on local policies and
responsibilities. All sites are different. Regardless of that, I have every
right as a friend (regardless of whether or not I'm an admin or not) to
stick up for a friend and try to help. The other person has an equal right
to tell me to 'take a hike' or worse. Anything further I might do within
the bounds of local policies, etc. is up to me. Hopefully I'd consult with
the friend every step of the way to see how much of a stink he/she wants
to put up.
As a friend, I can't just turn off knowledge I gain inadvertantly.
I don't think anyone can as an admin either. I never said that I'd
go poking around in files or something and abuse sys-admin privs.
--
--------- Vince Skahan ----------- vince@atc.boeing.com ---------
Homer: Yea yea yea. Well, I wish I could help you, but we're looking
for brother today.
-- visit to the orphanage, ``Oh Brother, Where Art Thou?''
From caf-talk Caf Jan 31 00:00:00 1992
From: dl2p+@andrew.cmu.edu (Douglas Allen Luce)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.politics.correct,alt.censorship
Subject: Re: Speech restrictions on CMU computer bboards
Message-ID:
Date: 31 Jan 92 20:50:39 GMT
greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (Jonathan Greenfield) writes:
> Sorry. The Dean has the power to examine the situation himself and make
> a categorical determination that this type of behavior is not harassment.
> (This is a policy decision, not a fact-bound decision based on the individual
> case.) A disciplinary committee is not an policy-making body. It is a
> fact-finding, and policy-enforcing body.
There was no attempt to determine whether this action was considered
to be harrassment. What the university did was a brush off; it tried
to avoid taking any action by telling Eric that the matter would be
pursued further if his actions continued (that of bringing in
complaints). This is a very standard police action.
It avoided making a decision on whether his actions actually did
constitute harassment because it's a touch issue these days. For the
dean to come out and declare Eric's posts as "just fine" might irk
those in the administration who have heard about the issue, and would
want it carefully dealt with to avoid casting CMU as a school where
harassing women is okay (and conversely, as a school where students
are stomped on at the slightest perturbation).
> To say that a disciplinary committee would handle the matter is, therefore,
> an implicit statement that the administration views speech in a open forum
> as possibly constituting harassment, in general. This is a grave mistake.
There is no CMU policy denoting the local bboards as open forums;
> Furthermore, I find your suggestion that this does not constitute a threat
> simply unbelievable. Regardless of intention, this kind of a warning,
> undoubtedly, would have a chilling effect on most people.
You'll notice that I explicitly termed it a threat. It's intent is to
quash the matter by terrorizing the student against which the
complaint was lodged. Whether it is a matter of official policy
doesn't seem to have been addressed by the university.
> You're right. They shouldn't ignore the complaint. They should examine it,
> and issue a statement that such case, categorically, do not constitute
> harassment.
This is likely what the role of the committee would have been.
> >No individuals from the Women's Center Collective made any attempt to
> >impede Eric's rights or freedom in any way, and the collective as an
> >entity gave no acknowledgement of Eric or his posts in any manner.
>
> Good for them! They must have incredible restraint. I envy them.
I don't think it had to to with restraint. The Women's Center is
merely a group of intelligent persons.
> Person C, on the
> other hand, *cannot* file a harassment complaint--person C was not
> harassed.
In this case, Person C filed the compliant stating that Person C felt
harassed, not that they had witnessed harassment.
> You already have a bunch of people who do not accept the case at hand as
> harassment, period. Surely, you aren't about to suggest that the posts
> (that we saw) could be construed as "harassing" men, are you??
I believe the complaint was filed under such pretenses.
From caf-talk Caf Jan 31 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,cmu.opinion,alt.censorship,alt.politics.correct
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Speech restrictions on CMU computer bboards
Message-ID: <1992Jan31.230918.23792@eff.org>
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1992 23:09:18 GMT
galt@scratchy.dsd.es.com (Greg Alt - Perp) writes:
[...]
>It depends on the policy regarding the BBS... For example, with traditional
>wood-and-tack bulletin boards, Universities can't control the content of
>what is posted, but they can limit where students can put them... If there
>was a BBS conference that allowed his sort of speech (someone mentioned
>an "Opinions" conference), and the policy was clearly stated that you must
>put posts in the correct conference, then it is ok to punish him. Though
>I would think he should have to get a warning first (which it sounded like
>he did). Expelling seems a rather harsh punishment for being an asshole,
>though.
[...]
Many forums are open without being designed that way, for example,
town squares. To limit a forum to particular topics or particular
people usually does require some positive action. Fairness requires
that such restrictions be applied even handedly. Fairness also
requires that topic restrictions do not become viewpoint restrictions.
(In government owned forums this last requirement is the law.)
If the bboard was designed only for official announcements, if it is
in fact used only for official announcements, if a student was so
notified, and if a student continues to post, then that student is
guilty of unauthorized use of a bboard, not sexual harassment.
In such a case, the specific content of the students messages is
irrelevant. If he or she had been posting "for sale" ads for a text
book or Nazi literature (neither of which is sexual), his or her
"crime" would have been the same.
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu, or (anonymous) ap.3619@layout.berkeley.edu=
From caf-talk Caf Jan 31 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,cmu.opinion,alt.censorship,alt.politics.correct
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Speech restrictions on CMU computer bboards
Message-ID: <1992Jan31.231130.24027@eff.org>
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1992 23:11:30 GMT
as such, the rule is too broad.
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu, or (anonymous) ap.3619@layout.berkeley.edu=
From caf-talk Caf Jan 31 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,cmu.opinion,alt.censorship,alt.politics.correct
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Speech restrictions on CMU computer bboards
Message-ID: <1992Jan31.231345.24211@eff.org>
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1992 23:13:45 GMT
One of the joys of computer media is their flexiblity. I believe that
with two technical fixes similar future incidents can be avoided.
First, a mechanism so that only moderators can post to "official
announcments only" bboards. Second, a kill file mechanism, so that a
reader can surpress the display of articles by author.
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu, or (anonymous) ap.3619@layout.berkeley.edu=
From caf-talk Caf Feb 1 00:00:00 1992
From: jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond)
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: Searching email archives (was Re: harrassing mail)
Message-ID:
Date: 1 Feb 92 05:41:01 GMT
kadie@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>news@wolves.uucp (News Administrator @ Wolves) writes:
>Most universities give the same privacy protection to staff as they do
>to students. Also, even if the material in question was all email-
>generated-as-part-of-univeristy-business, that does not mean that it
>was generated for you to read. What if the material included work
>evaluations, drafts of university grievances, a letter nominating the
>Director for univeristy employee of the month, correspondence with
>students (that may be covered by the Buckley amendment), etc?
He has the same ethical and legal responsibility to maintain the privacy
of what he sees in the course of performing his job duties as do the
people in the personnel office who see this type of material on a daily
basis. Why is seeing this information on a computer screen instead
of on a piece of paper so special?
Methinks we have yet another net.tempest-in-a-teapot.
John
--
John De Armond, WD4OQC | If Congress ever does something purely
Rapid Deployment System, Inc. | in the interest of the nation, Lincoln
Marietta, Ga | will get up, stroll over to congratulate
jgd@dixie.com | them.
From caf-talk Caf Feb 1 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Searching email archives (was Re: harrassing mail)
Message-ID: <1992Feb1.161056.1738@eff.org>
Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1992 16:10:56 GMT
kadie@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>Most universities give the same privacy protection to staff as they do
>to students. Also, even if the material in question was all email-
>generated-as-part-of-univeristy-business, that does not mean that it
>was generated for you to read. What if the material included work
>evaluations, drafts of university grievances, a letter nominating the
>Director for univeristy employee of the month, correspondence with
>students (that may be covered by the Buckley amendment), etc?
jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:
>He has the same ethical and legal responsibility to maintain the privacy
>of what he sees in the course of performing his job duties as do the
>people in the personnel office who see this type of material on a daily
>basis. Why is seeing this information on a computer screen instead
>of on a piece of paper so special?
When I worked as a programmer for a personnal department, it was made
very clear to me that the information I saw in personnal records was
confidential. (For one thing, everything all the records were marked
" Confidential".)
I am happy to say that my job duties did not include searches of
employee desks, personal (as contrasted with personnal) files, or
voice mail.
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu, or (anonymous) ap.3619@layout.berkeley.edu=
From caf-talk Caf Feb 1 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.politics.correct,alt.censorship
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Speech restrictions on CMU computer bboards
Message-ID: <1992Feb1.165526.2272@eff.org>
Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1992 16:55:26 GMT
dl2p+@andrew.cmu.edu (Douglas Allen Luce) writes:
[...]
>There was no attempt to determine whether this action was considered
>to be harrassment. What the university did was a brush off; it tried
>to avoid taking any action by telling Eric that the matter would be
>pursued further if his actions continued (that of bringing in
>complaints). This is a very standard police action.
[...]
Your observation is astute. How one sees the administration's action
(kind or threatening) seems to depend mostly on how you see
Jefferson's actions.
If you see Jefferson as a serious offender, then the administration
was nice. (E.g. Jane Student was caught breaking school windows. The
university said that if she stopped breaking windows, the matter would
not be pursued.)
If you see Jefferson as someone exercising his academic right to
express offensive opinions, then the administration is threatening.
(E.g. Jane Student criticized the administration in a newspaper
article. The university said that if she stopped criticizing the
administration, the matter would not be pursued.)
I find the administration's nonposition untenable if technical
conditions stay as they are. On the other hand, if new technical
conditions (such as reader kill files and moderated bboards) will soon
mote the issue, then their nonposition doesn't seem so bad.
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu, or (anonymous) ap.3619@layout.berkeley.edu=
From caf-talk Caf Feb 1 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.politics.correct,alt.censorship
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Speech restrictions on CMU computer bboards
Message-ID: <1992Feb1.171334.2509@eff.org>
Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1992 17:13:34 GMT
greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (Jonathan Greenfield) writes:
> To say that a disciplinary committee would handle the matter is, therefore,
> an implicit statement that the administration views speech in a open forum
> as possibly constituting harassment, in general. This is a grave mistake.
dl2p+@andrew.cmu.edu (Douglas Allen Luce) writes:
> There is no CMU policy denoting the local bboards as open forums;
The phrase "open forum" can mean several things. One of the most
restrictive meanings is "publically-viewable forum". The bboard in
question is certainly publically viewable. To paraphrase Johnathan
Greenfields comment:
To say that a disciplinary committee would handle the matter is,
therefore, an implicit statement that the administration views speech
in a publically-viewable forum as possibly constituting harassment, in
general. This is a grave mistake.
The phrase "open forum" can also mean open to all who wish to speak,
open to all viewpoints, open to all topics. It is the official policy
(and contractual oblication) of CMU to encourage such free expression:
================start======================
Carnegie Mellon University...encourages freedom of speech, assembly,
and exchange of ideas. This includes the distribution of leaflets and
petitions, as well as demonstrations or protests involving speaking,
discussion, or the distribution of information.
All persons are permitted to distribute printed material, offer
petitions for signature, make speeches and conduct other similar
activities outside university buildings...The only limits on these
activities are the rights of the members of the university community
and the maintenance of the normal functioning of the university. No
activities which harm individuals, damage or deface property, block
access to university buildings, or disrupt classes will be permitted.
================ end =========================
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu, or (anonymous) ap.3619@layout.berkeley.edu=
From caf-talk Caf Feb 1 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.censorship] CMU Speech Restrictions
Message-ID: <9202011720.AA21304@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: 1 Feb 92 05:20:19 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Feb 1 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
From: greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (Jonathan Greenfield)
Subject: CMU Speech Restrictions
Message-ID: <1992Jan31.185104.27192@newstand.syr.edu>
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 92 18:51:04 EST
>> Sorry. The Dean has the power to examine the situation himself and make
>> a categorical determination that this type of behavior is not harassment.
>> (This is a policy decision, not a fact-bound decision based on the individual
>> case.) A disciplinary committee is not an policy-making body. It is a
>> fact-finding, and policy-enforcing body.
>
>There was no attempt to determine whether this action was considered
>to be harrassment. What the university did was a brush off; it tried
>to avoid taking any action by telling Eric that the matter would be
>pursued further if his actions continued (that of bringing in
>complaints). This is a very standard police action.
>
>It avoided making a decision on whether his actions actually did
>constitute harassment because it's a touch issue these days. For the
>dean to come out and declare Eric's posts as "just fine" might irk
>those in the administration who have heard about the issue, and would
>want it carefully dealt with to avoid casting CMU as a school where
>harassing women is okay (and conversely, as a school where students
>are stomped on at the slightest perturbation).
You are completely ignoring what I have said. The Dean *should* have
recognized that speech in an open forum *cannot* constitute harassment,
in any case. (That's the policy decision.)
In this *particular* case, it would then be clear that a disciplinary hearing
would be inappropriate.
>> To say that a disciplinary committee would handle the matter is, therefore,
>> an implicit statement that the administration views speech in a open forum
>> as possibly constituting harassment, in general. This is a grave mistake.
>
>There is no CMU policy denoting the local bboards as open forums;
No such CMU policy is necessary. The term "open forum" is defined by our
language, not CMU (and note, I am *not* trying to use "open forum" as a
synonym for either "public forum" or "limited public forum" in any legal
sense). If, as a matter of fact, people have open access to exchange posts,
and do so, then we are clearly talking about an open forum.
Clearly, CMU has no policy establishing this open forum as a "public forum"
in the legal sense and protecting expression in that forum, as such. That is
what I referred to as a grave mistake.
>> Furthermore, I find your suggestion that this does not constitute a threat
>> simply unbelievable. Regardless of intention, this kind of a warning,
>> undoubtedly, would have a chilling effect on most people.
>
>You'll notice that I explicitly termed it a threat. It's intent is to
>quash the matter by terrorizing the student against which the
>complaint was lodged. Whether it is a matter of official policy
>doesn't seem to have been addressed by the university.
Are we talking about the same post?? The post that I responded to said
something to the effect of "Read this paragraph carefully, CMU did *not*
threaten..."
>> You're right. They shouldn't ignore the complaint. They should examine it,
>> and issue a statement that such case, categorically, do not constitute
>> harassment.
>
>This is likely what the role of the committee would have been.
They may have done so...but they should not be forced (or even allowed to
do so). The administration needs to determine policy (whether by executive
edict, policy committees, or whatever...) *before* sending matters to
*disciplinary* committees.
The purpose of of a disciplinary committee should be to examine facts, and make
the *fact-bound* decision of whether a particular incident represents a
violation of some University rule (policy). To have a disciplinary
committee take on the role of *establishing* University policy is an
extremely bad idea, is not what such committee were designed for, and will,
undoubtedly, lead to ad hoc policies and uneven application of those policies.
>> Person C, on the
>> other hand, *cannot* file a harassment complaint--person C was not
>> harassed.
>
>In this case, Person C filed the compliant stating that Person C felt
>harassed, not that they had witnessed harassment.
Having now read (what is alleged to be) the complete set of postings by
Mr. Jefferson, I would guess that the harassment complaints were not
predicated upon the anti-female portions of the posts, but rather, upon
the personal remarks regarding Mr. Masco and Mr. Knauer.
I cannot see, however, how those two individuals could possibly have
construed those posts as harassment.
Frankly, I found Mr. Jefferson's posts to be fairly obnoxious. I found
Mr. Knauer's (alleged) threats to be obnoxious also--and far closer to
harassment than anything I saw from Mr. Jefferson.
--
greeny greeny@top.cis.syr.edu
"What's the difference between an orange?"
From caf-talk Caf Feb 1 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.bbs.internet, et al.] Re: school wont let students on Internet
Message-ID: <9202011722.AA09611@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: 1 Feb 92 05:22:32 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Feb 1 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.bbs.internet,alt.censorship
From: bfrg9732@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Brian F. Redman)
Subject: Re: school wont let students on Internet
Message-ID: <1992Feb1.162629.15587@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1992 16:26:29 GMT
mpd@anomaly.sbs.com (Michael P. Deignan) writes:
>phydeaux@netcom.COM (Leroy Smith) writes:
>>just another example of a school that exists for the faculty and staff,
>>not for the students. students complain? big deal. faculty complains? ouch!
>Just another example of a "gimme, gimme, gimme" moron who thinks that the
>resources of an academic institution exist so he may masterbate over the
>erotic GIFs posted to the net...
Still, why not begin to let students on the net? It would increase the
amount of dialogue between students and professors. The students, while
admittedly they would bring naivete, would also bring freshness and candor
into a sometimes stuffy forum.
I guess this boils down to the question of what is the primary function
of the university, i.e. to teach or to conduct research. If its
primary function is to teach, then yes, students should begin to be
allowed access.
"We ain't gonna be able to have our Heaven
unless it's for everybody." -- Abbie Hoffman
From caf-talk Caf Feb 1 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: nbc2134@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil (Robert F Solon)
Subject: Re: Speech restrictions on CMU computer bboards
Message-ID: <9202011748.AA12576@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil>
Date: 1 Feb 92 16:48:10 GMT
> A requirement to read certain bboards, is not necessarily a
> requirement to read every article in a bboard.
>
> But why do they have to read every article? I assume that they also
> have a right to use the library without fear of harassment. Does that
> mean that every book they find sexually offensive must be removed from
> the library? I assume they also have a right to walk across campus
> without fear of harassment. Does that mean that every person speaking
> publicly on campus must be silenced if their message offends?
>
> [...]
> >Stating that persons that do not wish to be harassed by Mr. Jefferson
> >do not need to participate in these electronic forums is like stating
> >that people who do not want to be victims of obscene phone calls need
> >not answer the phone.
> [...]
>
> I would not say they should not participate in the bboards, I would
> say they should not read Jefferson's articles.
>
> The difference between a phone call and a bboard is that a phone call
> is one-to-one and the listener can not help but listen; this is
> harassment. A bboard is one-to-many and any offended listener has the
> choice not to read particular messages; this is not harassment.
>
> - Carl
> --
> Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
>
Bravo, Carl!!
For once we agree one-thousand per cent!!
Bob
--
Bob Solon, rsolon@dsac.dla.mil
Administrative Information Branch -- "We Code, You Explode!!"
Directorate of Resource Management Systems (APCAPS)
DLA Systems Automation Center, DSAC-BCC (614) 238-8256 AV: 850-8256
From caf-talk Caf Feb 1 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: nbc2134@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil (Robert F Solon)
Subject: Re: Speech restrictions on CMU computers
Message-ID: <9202011808.AA12899@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil>
Date: 1 Feb 92 17:08:47 GMT
I just finished reading the collected works of Eric Jefferson. I
must say that his posts were not very tasteful, and that he
apparantly has some grudges. But it seems his antagonists, Mr.
Knauer, et. al., are being more consorial and harassing than
anything Mr. Jefferson has to say. My guess is that Mr. Knauer is
trying to politicize this for re-election purposes, or at least
something along those lines. It's interesting (as has been pointed
out) that it's men doing the offical complaining. It's also
saddening to realize that CMU is allowing censorship on its campus,
regardless of its Student Handbook says. I'm appalled at the whole
situation, frankly. It sounds like something out of the Iron
Curtain (pre-1991), not at a college campus in the Unitesd States of
America.
Of course, the above is my own opinion.
--
Bob Solon, rsolon@dsac.dla.mil
Administrative Information Branch -- "We Code, You Explode!!"
Directorate of Resource Management Systems (APCAPS)
DLA Systems Automation Center, DSAC-BCC (614) 238-8256 AV: 850-8256
From caf-talk Caf Feb 1 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.bbs.internet, et al.] Re: school wont let students on Internet
Message-ID: <9202012226.AA28665@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: 1 Feb 92 10:26:03 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Feb 1 00:00:00 1992
From: petrilli@hal.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Chris Petrilli)
Newsgroups: alt.bbs.internet,alt.censorship
Subject: Re: school wont let students on Internet
Message-ID:
Date: 31 Jan 92 17:45:12 GMT
From: mpd@anomaly.sbs.com (Michael P. Deignan)
The NSF will be pleased to see that the institution isn't allowing
valuable bandwidth to be wasted on such frivilous things as MUD and
IRC connections.
Seems to me that there are plenty of faculty on IRC and MUDs...
therefore limiting students is silly... they may be a good percentage
of the people using a resource, but if you disagree with the resource,
you should limit it for everyone. BTW, IRC consumes neglagible
resources on Internet... JMU for example runs one of the more active
servers (hub.cs.jmu.edu), and it consumes a minimal amount of their
56Kbps link onti Internet.
Institutions are doing nothing of the sort. Students are more than
free to contact any one of the "commercial" providers who charge
between $10 and $20 per month for complete Internet access.
Did you ever think that some students are on a budget and can't afford
$200 for something that they could get for free at the university.
Considering the tuitions that most students pay, even if they simply
increased tuition $2-3 they could justify a larger link onto Internet.
It's not that it's not possible, the schools just doesn't think it's
any of their concern.
Except that 1000 people can use 10 times the bandwidth of 100
users. And, if you only have the bandwidth to support 100 users,
then you're sure as hell not going to let 1000 people on your
system.
It's all a matter of what you DO on Internet... NFS file mouting and
Xwindows are the 2 biggest consumers of bandwidth, and yet that is
something that the faculty and sysadmins mainly do. The programs you
refer to on Internet arre very low consumption items.
There are lots of good reasons. You simply choose to ignore the
administrative matters of the network for some idealistic concept
of "everyone" having access to the network, which is an
impossibility, for several of the reasons stated in this message
and others.
Your reasoning is unsound, therefore your arguement leaks like a
sieve. Perhaps if you stepped into the reality of how much each
application uses in Internet bandwidth you'de realise your mistakes.
Chris
---
| Chris Petrilli ____
| petrilli@gnu.ai.mit.edu \ /
| I don't even speak for myself. \/
--
| Chris Petrilli ____
| petrilli@gnu.ai.mit.edu \ /
| I don't even speak for myself. \/
From caf-talk Caf Feb 1 00:00:00 1992
From: mpd@anomaly.sbs.com (Michael P. Deignan)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: Duties of state universities regarding 1st amendment
Message-ID: <1992Feb01.164110.8668@anomaly.sbs.com>
Date: 1 Feb 92 16:41:10 GMT
nbc2134@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil (Robert F Solon) writes:
>I ask again if Usenet is therefore subject to the legal protections given
>other public fora. If not, what not? And if the owner/operator is a public
>entity supported by taxpayers' money, do the various provisions of the First,
>Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments apply?
I'm sure that some provisions of various amendments apply. For instance, I
would not agree with someone getting his/her access cut off because of a
controversial opinion being posted to the net.
However, I do not believe that someone's first amendment rights are being
violated when an institution decides not to carry a forum. An academic
institution is chartered by the state to provide an education, not to
carry forums. If some forums are deemed to have academic merit, then a
school may decide to carry them. However, a school is also free not to
carry those forums which do not or will not enhance the quality of
education being given to the student body.
Nobody's first amendment rights are being violated. Students are more than
free to subscribe to any number of commercial service providers where they
can get complete Internet access for as low as $10 per month.
A similar parallel would be a school library deciding not to carry
"Heavy Punk Metal Magazine". Censorship is not present - students interest
in said magazine are free to subscribe themselves.
>Why isn't Usenet a library? What characteristics of Usenet make it
>inappropriate to use the term?
A library is, among other things, a collection of stories, researched
material, reference sources, etc.
USENET is hardly a "reference source", and although may have some
similar characteristics (for some groups), the vast majority of USENET
is more akin to a large public forum, where people gather in groups to
argue/discuss various matters.
> But editing or selection should not be made on the basis of content.
Whether you like it or not, that is exactly what happens. For the most
part, each source at a library is there because of its educational value.
Those items without educational value are not included. Who decides what
educational value is? The library staff.
>We've discussed this whole idea before. I was and am (albeit grudgingly, to
>be sure), convinced that Usenet at public institutions enjoys a certain level
>of protection.
I also agree that people who use USENET are afforded some basic rights. If
the ability for posting has been granted, then that individual's first
amendment rights should not be infringed upon. However, someone's first
amendment rights doesn't include the ability to have access to every
newsgroup in creation at the expense of the rest of the student population.
[some other stuff deleted]
A similar parallel can be drawn to public forums. The state has no
responsibility to provide the public with "forums" for citizens to
express their ideas/opinions. However, when a forum HAS been formed,
the state cannot restrict what you say in it (or, at least shouldn't be).
MD
--
-- Michael P. Deignan /
-- Domain: mpd@anomaly.sbs.com / I'm not a bigot,
-- UUCP: ...!uunet!rayssd!anomaly!mpd / I hate everyone.
-- Telebit: +1 401 455 0347 /
From caf-talk Caf Feb 1 00:00:00 1992
From: mpd@anomaly.sbs.com (Michael P. Deignan)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,misc.legal,alt.censorship
Subject: Re: Duties of state universities regarding 1st amendment
Message-ID: <1992Feb01.164112.8716@anomaly.sbs.com>
Date: 1 Feb 92 16:41:12 GMT
kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>Libraries don't get their protection because they are "libraries",
>they get them because they are "forums for information and ideas".
A library is no such thing. A library is a source of reference material.
A library is under no obligation to carry a book that you publish.
>Netnews facilities are state university are entitled to protection for
>the same reason.
Posters to netnews are certainly entitled to their first amendment
rights. However, an institution deciding not to carry a newsgroup
is not an infringement upon your rights. You are certainly free to
go elsewhere to get the newsgroup you desire.
>True. Librarians call it "selection". They consider some selection
>criteria (such as cost) valid and others (such as offensiveness)
>invalid.
I consider "educational content" to be a very valid criteria for an
educational institution.
[stuff deleted]
Md
--
-- Michael P. Deignan /
-- Domain: mpd@anomaly.sbs.com / I'm not a bigot,
-- UUCP: ...!uunet!rayssd!anomaly!mpd / I hate everyone.
-- Telebit: +1 401 455 0347 /
From caf-talk Caf Feb 1 00:00:00 1992
From: kadie@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,misc.legal,alt.censorship
Subject: Re: Duties of state universities regarding 1st amendment
Message-ID: <1992Feb1.221819.13669@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: 1 Feb 92 22:18:19 GMT
kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
[...]
>True. Librarians call it "selection". They consider some selection
>criteria (such as cost) valid and others (such as offensiveness)
>invalid.
[...]
mpd@anomaly.sbs.com (Michael P. Deignan) writes:
[...]
>I consider "educational content" to be a very valid criteria for an
>educational institution.
[...]
So do I. So do librarians. There are many valid criteria.
Offensiveness isn't one of them. For more information about what
librarians consider valid selection criteria, see
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/library/selection-workbook.ala
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Feb 1 00:00:00 1992
From: kadie@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,misc.legal,alt.censorship
Subject: Re: Duties of state universities regarding 1st amendment
Message-ID: <1992Feb1.221408.12069@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: 1 Feb 92 22:14:08 GMT
>kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>Libraries don't get their protection because they are "libraries",
>they get them because they are "forums for information and ideas".
mpd@anomaly.sbs.com (Michael P. Deignan) writes:
>A library is no such thing. A library is a source of reference material.
I note that being a forum for information and ideas and being a source
of reference material are not mutually exclusive.
Here is the opening sentence of the American Library Association's
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."
[ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/library/bill-of-rights.ala]
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Feb 1 00:00:00 1992
From: kadie@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: Duties of state universities regarding 1st amendment
Message-ID: <1992Feb1.222447.801@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: 1 Feb 92 22:24:47 GMT
mpd@anomaly.sbs.com (Michael P. Deignan) writes:
[...]
>However, I do not believe that someone's first amendment rights are being
>violated when an institution decides not to carry a forum.
[...]
I agree, First Amendment rights are not at issue here, academic
freedom is.
A student's academic freedom is violated when a university decides not
to carry a newsgroup merely because it is controverial. Quoting the
Library Bill of Rights: "Materials should not be proscribed or removed
because of partisan or doctrinal disapproval."
[ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/library/bill-of-rights.ala]
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Feb 1 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,misc.legal,alt.censorship
From: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
Subject: Re: Duties of state universities regarding 1st amendment
Message-ID:
Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1992 00:22:32 GMT
From: mpd@anomaly.sbs.com (Michael P. Deignan)
>I consider "educational content" to be a very valid criteria for an
>educational institution.
A University is no more an educational institution than it is a
restaurant, even if it does have both classes and cafeterias.
Michael, there's something frighteningly narrow about the points you
make, sort of like saying that a church is a place for people to sing
and working from there.
--
-Barry Shein
Software Tool & Die | bzs@world.std.com | uunet!world!bzs
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD
From caf-talk Caf Feb 2 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [eff.mail.com-priv] Commercialization via 3 Acceptable Use Policies? Why not KISS?
Message-ID: <199202021304.AA17062@eff.org>
Date: 2 Feb 92 03:04:49 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Feb 2 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: eff.mail.com-priv
From: cook@tmn.com (Gordon Cook)
Subject: Commercialization via 3 Acceptable Use Policies? Why not KISS?
Message-ID: <9202012215.AA17752@tmn.com>
Date: 2 Feb 92 03:15:34 GMT
<> Gordon Cook 01-FEB-92 22:15
cook@tmn
I had thought there were but two acceptable use policies. That of the
NSFnet for the NSFnet backbone and that of ANS for the ANSnet backbone.
It appears that I may be mistaken. There seem to be **THREE**. I have in
front of me copies of the acceptable use policy of ANS and a quite
different ANS CO+RE acceptable use policy. The third policy would be that
of the NSF.
I am confused as to why ANS has two policies. I thought there were only
two virtual backbones: NSFnet and ANSnet.... not three. But perhaps the
number of virtual backbones isn't the right question to focus on.
Apparently one can join ANS as either a CO+RE customer or as an R&E
customer. That would explain why Dialog was able to revert back to R&E
status. Apparently Abbot Labs and Union Carbide signed on during the
summer as R&E customers? Ah, it's getting clearer now. Purdue, VPI, and
CONCERT must be ANS R&E customers. (Someone stated that Dialog was the
first CO+RE customer.)
But if one joins ANS (which is a commercial provider), why on earth would
one join as an R&E customer when one could have the presumed benefit of
sending commercial traffic over the ANSnet backbone?
I suppose that we have seen the answer now. He who joins as CO+RE can
talk to only those relatively few mid-levels that are commercially
compliant with the ANS backbone rules. Why this is the case remains
unclear to me (and I guess to a few others) despite the reams of traffic
of a month ago. Since it is ANS' backbone, I guess ANS can make its own
rules for its own benefit. I do not see any force or law EXTERNAL to ANS
that requires it to make the rules that it does.
This lack of access exists because most mid-levels appear to find the ANS
agreements to be unacceptable. Nevertheless, with their own territories,
these mid-levels, for all practical purposes, allow self defined levels of
commercial use. They certainly allow use that would be unacceptable over
the NSFnet backbone. They allow within their networks (for the most part)
the commercialization that policy makers have been trying to get for the
net as a whole.
Now I thought that one advantage of giving ANS the right to use for its
own purposes a part of the here-to-fore government provided backbone was a
way commercialize the network. Customers of the mid-levels would now be
able to send accross the backbone the kind of traffic that they were free
to send within the midlevel. In the meantime ANS would add its own
commercial customers. Everyone could talkto everyone else and all would
live happily ever after.
Instead the ANS agreements, combined with the mid-levels reluctance to
sign them, appear to have recreated the same commercial use versus R&E use
dichotomy within ANSnet that exists within the NSFnet and that I thought
ANS had been created to avoid. How can it be said that these policies are
leading to the successful commercialization of the NSFnet when the Dialog
as the very first CO+RE customer throws up its hands in despair and bails
out?
If policy makers still desire the commercialization of the network and if
they cannot convince ANS to drop its agreements, then perhaps its time for
them to give the CIX a chance to perform?
From caf-talk Caf Feb 2 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.bbs.internet, et al.] Re: school wont let students on Internet
Message-ID: <9202021410.AA12091@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: 2 Feb 92 02:10:26 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Feb 2 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.bbs.internet,alt.censorship
From: rsnyder@fergie.dnet.ge.com (Bob Snyder)
Subject: Re: school wont let students on Internet
Message-ID:
Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1992 11:00:20 GMT
>>>>> On Sat, 1 Feb 1992 16:26:29 GMT, bfrg9732@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
>>>>> (Brian F. Redman) said:
Brian> Still, why not begin to let students on the net? It would
Brian> increase the amount of dialogue between students and
Brian> professors. The students, while admittedly they would bring
Brian> naivete, would also bring freshness and candor into a sometimes
Brian> stuffy forum.
Brian> I guess this boils down to the question of what is the primary
Brian> function of the university, i.e. to teach or to conduct
Brian> research. If its primary function is to teach, then yes,
Brian> students should begin to be allowed access.
This was a rather interesting leap... If the function of a university
is to teach, students should be allowed access? I really fail to see
the connection. I would hazard to say that almost all use of the
Internet by students is "recreational" in nature. There are lots of
schools out there that don't have Internet links, and may not even
UUCP mail. So they can't teach? I agree that net access should be
provided, but linking a school's ability to tearch, and it's policy on
Internet access seems a nit much...
Bob
--
Bob Snyder rsnyder@fergie.dnet.ge.com, or rsnyder@atl.dnet.ge.com
Computing Services ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ if it bounces, try ^^^^^^^^
GE Aerospace, Advanced Technology Labs (609) 866-6672 FX: (609) 866-6397
From caf-talk Caf Feb 2 00:00:00 1992
From: kadie@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: USENET Readership report for Jan 92
Message-ID: <1992Feb2.163308.28661@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: 2 Feb 92 16:33:08 GMT
reid@decwrl.DEC.COM (Brian Reid) writes:
>This is the full set of data from the USENET readership report for Jan 92.
^edited -cmk
>Explanations of the figures are in a companion posting.
>
> +-- Estimated total number of people who read the group, worldwide.
> | +-- Actual number of readers in sampled population
> | | +-- Propagation: how many sites receive this group at all
> | | | +-- Recent traffic (messages per month)
> | | | | +-- Recent traffic (kilobytes per month)
> | | | | | +-- Crossposting percentage
> | | | | | | +-- Cost ratio: $US/month/rdr
> | | | | | | | +-- Share: % of newsrders
> | | | | | | | | who read this group.
> V V V V V V V V
> 1 250000 5272 70% 1756 6300.0 28% 0.04 13.0% alt.sex
> 2 220000 4597 85% 814 1629.4 17% 0.01 11.4% misc.jobs.offered
> 3 190000 3932 83% 82 159.2 0% 0.00 9.7% rec.humor.funny
> 4 170000 3551 82% 2067 3472.9 10% 0.04 8.8% rec.humor
> 5 160000 3350 84% 1456 1851.7 40% 0.02 8.3% misc.forsale
> 6 160000 3300 73% 9 121.9 0% 0.00 8.2% rec.arts.erotica
> 7 130000 2734 90% 1136 2221.1 19% 0.03 6.8% news.groups
> 8 120000 2613 86% 688 1344.9 19% 0.02 6.5% comp.graphics
> 9 120000 2503 89% 81 523.2 100% 0.01 6.2% news.announce.newgroups
...
> 374 31000 655 78% 455 1114.7 15% 0.06 1.6% comp.org.eff.talk
...
> 570 23000 489 74% 2 77.7 100% 0.01 1.2% comp.org.eff.news
...
> 654 20000 428 55% 260 811.7 19% 0.05 1.1% alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
> 997 9000 191 47% 2 73.6 0% 0.01 0.5% alt.comp.acad-freedom.news
...
>1652 95 2 0% 5 5.4 0% 0.00 0.0% tamu.phil.240
>1653 47 1 1% 4 6.9 25% 0.00 0.0% uiuc.sys.next
>1654 47 1 0% 20 37.6 0% 0.01 0.0% nyu.listserv.cwis-l
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Feb 2 00:00:00 1992
From: news@wolves.uucp (News Administrator @ Wolves)
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: Searching email archives (was Re: harrassing mail)
Message-ID: <1992Feb2.153535.18861@wolves.uucp>
Date: 2 Feb 92 15:35:35 GMT
kadie@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>news@wolves.uucp (News Administrator @ Wolves) writes:
>
>[...]
>>The Director of Research for the
>>department at the university consulted with me about the problems and we
>>decided (with reluctance) that we needed to search the mail files to
>>insure that there was no correspondence about the program in question.
>[...]
>>As fate would have it, one of the users noticed the scanning and hit the
>>ceiling. I referred the user to the research director and we pointed
>>out that the univ. work rules (these are employees, NOT students) stated
>>that the univ. facilities are used ONLY for univ. business. Personal
>>email and some small amount of private interest use is tolerated because
>>it is inevitable and can be written off to "learning to use the
>>facilites" or what have you.
>[...]
>
>Most universities give the same privacy protection to staff as they do
>to students. Also, even if the material in question was all email-
>generated-as-part-of-univeristy-business, that does not mean that it
>was generated for you to read. What if the material included work
>evaluations, drafts of university grievances, a letter nominating the
>Director for univeristy employee of the month, correspondence with
>students (that may be covered by the Buckley amendment), etc?
>
>Ethically (and perhaps legally) email communications should have the
>same privacy protection as telephone calls. Email archives should have
>the same privacy protection as desk file cabinets. It would be unwise
>for any university employee to tap email communications or search an
>email archive without authorization from the university president,
>university legal counsel, and univeristy's academic freedom committee.
>
>- Carl M. Kadie
Carl:
Go dry up someplace. Your particular monomania for quoting some
particular set of documents that support your viewpoint as defining law
is getting very old very quick. I actually used to read a.c.a-f.* but
have ceased paying much attention since you seem to be the only one
whose opinions matter in that group.
As for the classes of items you mentioned: Any and all of those would
be appropriate for me or someone else to at least look at if there are
legitimate questions about the use of university facilities by
university employees for non-work purposes. While one may not be wholly
thrilled by the idea that employers may have an occasional need to go
ahead and scan the contents of files, there are occasional needs to do
so and most employers are NOT going to bother getting a court order or
legal opinion before entering a "manager who is out of town for a week"s
office and searching his files if they need a document he has or if they
need to determine something about the status of one of the employees
under her/him.
Addmittedly, it can make one feel sort of slimey to be scanning such
stuff, but there are occasions when it becomes necessary and the rules
and laws support such actions.
--
Usenet Net News Administrator @ The Wolves Den (G. Wolfe Woodbury)
news%wolves@cs.duke.edu ...duke!wolves!news "We don't need no
There is a real person who watches this account. stinking disclaimers"
From caf-talk Caf Feb 2 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Searching email archives (was Re: harrassing mail)
Message-ID: <1992Feb2.193209.9362@eff.org>
Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1992 19:32:09 GMT
kadie@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>Ethically (and perhaps legally) email communications should have the
>same privacy protection as telephone calls. Email archives should have
>the same privacy protection as desk file cabinets. It would be unwise
>for any university employee to tap email communications or search an
>email archive without authorization from the university president,
>university legal counsel, and univeristy's academic freedom committee.
news@wolves.uucp (News Administrator @ Wolves) writes:
[...]
>As for the classes of items you mentioned: Any and all of those would
>be appropriate for me or someone else to at least look at if there are
>legitimate questions about the use of university facilities by
>university employees for non-work purposes.
[...]
At the University of Illinois, and I assume at other state
universities, there are very strict regulations on the taping of
phones and the searching of assigned office space. These regulations
are based in part on academic freedom and in part on the
Constitution's prohibitions against "unreasonable searches and
seizures".
I feel compelled to document part of my assertion. (If this annoys
anyone, please forgive me). From the University of Illinois at
Urbana-Champaign's Code on Campus Affairs and Regulations Applying to
All Students (Aug. 1991):
"The University may not conduct or permit a search of an office
assigned or living quarters leased to an individual except in response
to a properly executed search warrant or search incident to an
arrest."
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu, or (anonymous) ap.3619@layout.berkeley.edu=
From caf-talk Caf Feb 2 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: (repost) ALA Statement on Diversity
Message-ID: <1992Feb2.214056.11220@eff.org>
Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1992 21:40:56 GMT
This hasn't been posted for a while. It seems relevent to the recent
discussions on newsgroup selection.
- Carl
=============================================
DIVERSITY IN COLLECTION DEVELOPMENT
An Interpretation of the LIBRARY BILL OF RIGHTS
Throughout history, the focus of censorship has fluctuated from generation to
generation. Books and other materials have not been selected or have been
removed from library collections for many reasons, among which are prejudicial
language and ideas, political content, economic theory, social philosophies,
religious beliefs, sexual forms of expression, and other topics of a
potentially controversial nature.
Some examples of censorship may include removing or not selecting materials
because they are considered by some as racist or sexist; not purchasing
conservative religious materials; not selecting materials about or by
minorities because it is thought these groups or interests are not represented
in a community; or not providing information on or materials from non-
mainstream political entities.
Librarians may seek to increase user awareness of materials on various social
concerns by many means, including, but not limited to, issuing bibliographies
and presenting exhibits and programs.
Librarians have a professional responsibility to be inclusive, not exclusive,
in collection development and in the provision of interlibrary loan. Access
to all materials legally obtainable should be assured to the user, and
policies should not unjustly exclude materials even if they are offensive to
the librarian or the user. Collection development should reflect the
philosophy inherent in Article II of the LIBRARY BILL OF RIGHTS: "Libraries
should provide materials and information presenting all points of view on
current and historical issues. Materials should not be proscribed or removed
because of partisan or doctrinal disapproval." A balanced collection reflects
a diversity of materials, not an equality of numbers. Collection development
responsibilities include selecting materials in the languages in common use in
the community which the library serves. Collection development and the
selection of materials should be done according to professional standards and
established selection and review procedures.
There are many complex facets to any issue, and variations of context in which
issues may be expressed, discussed, or interpreted. Librarians have a
professional responsibility to be fair, just, and equitable and to give all
library users equal protection in guarding against violation of the library
patron's right to read, view, or listen to materials and resources protected
by the First Amendment, no matter what the viewpoint of the author, creator,
or selector. Librarians have an obligation to protect library collections
from removal of materials based on personal bias or prejudice, and to select
and support the access to materials on all subjects that meet, as closely as
possible, the needs and interests of all persons in the community which the
library serves. This includes materials that reflect political, economic,
religious, social, minority, and sexual issues.
Intellectual freedom, the essence of equitable library services, provides for
free access to all expressions of ideas through which any and all sides of a
question, cause, or movement may be explored. Toleration is meaningless
without tolerance for what some may consider detestable. Librarians cannot
justly permit their own preferences to limit their degree of tolerance in
collection development, because freedom is indivisible.
Adopted July 14, 1982; amended January 10, 1990, by the ALA Council.
[Made available by permission of the American Library Association.]
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu, or (anonymous) ap.3619@layout.berkeley.edu=
From caf-talk Caf Feb 2 00:00:00 1992
From: dl2p+@andrew.cmu.edu (Douglas Allen Luce)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: [alt.censorship] CMU Speech Restrictions
Message-ID: <8dX7Gc200XQCFPyzp1@andrew.cmu.edu>
Date: 2 Feb 92 22:46:00 GMT
greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (Jonathan Greenfield) writes:
> You are completely ignoring what I have said. The Dean *should* have
> recognized that speech in an open forum *cannot* constitute harassment,
> in any case. (That's the policy decision.)
I would guess that the dean wanted to avoid making any sort of policy
decision until the problem became more than just what seemed to be a
mostly baseless complaint. You are implying that the dean should make
fairly broad-ranging decisions that have not been tackled before on
this campus by himself (i.e. deciding how the computer bboards fit
into the university policy on free speech). To do so would likely be
putting himself at greater risk for criticism that he would want to
be. It should be the Dean's perogative to prioritize issues so as to
not bog down the bureacracy. Whether or not he made the right
decision to defer judgement on this particular issue is another matter.
> No such CMU policy is necessary. The term "open forum" is defined by our
> language, not CMU (and note, I am *not* trying to use "open forum" as a
> synonym for either "public forum" or "limited public forum" in any legal
> sense). If, as a matter of fact, people have open access to exchange posts,
> and do so, then we are clearly talking about an open forum.
This paragraph demonstrates that this discussion has dwindled from
marginal usefulness to semantic crubbage.
> Are we talking about the same post?? The post that I responded to said
> something to the effect of "Read this paragraph carefully, CMU did *not*
> threaten..."
You have (mis-)quoted me out of context. Reread the original
paragraph, and it should be clear that I did not imply that CMU has made
no threats.
> The purpose of of a disciplinary committee should be to examine facts, and make
> the *fact-bound* decision of whether a particular incident represents a
> violation of some University rule (policy). To have a disciplinary
> committee take on the role of *establishing* University policy is an
> extremely bad idea...
This assumes that someone in the administration recognizes that the
case in point is not covered by current policy. It may not be the
view of the Dean or CMU administration that this is the case.
From caf-talk Caf Feb 2 00:00:00 1992
From: jm36+@andrew.cmu.edu (John Gardiner Myers)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.politics.correct,cmu.general
Subject: Re: Speech restrictions on CMU computer bboards
Message-ID:
Date: 3 Feb 92 00:23:01 GMT
"Adam C. Gross" writes:
> [...] no one has ever claimed that the women's center is even
> remotely involved with charges brought against Jefferson.
Correct. The complainants have no affiliation with the women's
center. To repeat myself, they filed the complaint on their own
behalf because they felt themselves to have been sexually harassed.
> As far as I understand it, the Women's Center has been
> supportive of his right to speak and post.
This is a gross misrepresentation of the Women's Center's position.
The only statement I could find that comes even close to speaking for
the Women's Center was that "members of the women's center did not go
to the authorities and file a complaint becuase we did not see this an
appropriate solution to the problem." The statement effectively said
that members felt that this was one case where the law was not
equipped to handle women's interests.
greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (Jonathan Greenfield) writes:
> You already have a bunch of people who do not accept the case at hand as
> harassment, period. Surely, you aren't about to suggest that the posts
> (that we saw) could be construed as "harassing" men, are you??
>
> I don't think that *anybody* with any understanding of the word harassment
> could suggest that these posts could have harassed men.
To use the words of one of the complainants:
Complainant writes:
> I resent [XXX]'s implication that I wrote the complaint on anybody
> else's behalf. I wrote the complaint because *I* felt harrassed.
> Statements like "women are only penis receptacles" harrass both
> women *and* het men sexually -- I considered my (sometimes het)
> sexuality attacked. If anybody else felt harrassed, they could file
> their own damned complaint.
jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala) writes:
> This is absurd, like from a bad science fiction book. I don't
> understand how someone posting a public message can be harrassing
> someone else who is not even mentioned in any way in the message.
One, Mr. Jefferson commented on the sexual organs of one of the
complainant's immediate family. I consider this "mentioning".
Two, companies have been sucessfully sued for sexual harassment where
the plaintiff did not establish that any direct advances or comments
were made. The fact that the working environment was a place where
the plaintiff's sexuality was a major concern was sufficient to carry
the case.
kadie@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
> For example, suppose your employer required, for no good reason, you
> to read every newspaper article about the Tyson rape trial and the
> Dahmer sanity trail.
This is a straw-man argument.
Consider the case where one's employer requires you to read a bboard
discussing a project that you are assigned to. A third party posts
material that if individually addressed would be considered sexually
harrassing. In this case, the poster is the harasser.
> The difference between a phone call and a bboard is that a phone call
> is one-to-one and the listener can not help but listen; this is
> harassment.
As I stated, the listener has the choice not to answer the phone.
> A bboard is one-to-many and any offended listener has the
> choice not to read particular messages; this is not harassment.
As in the phone example, the listener frequently has no means of
knowing the material is harassing until after it is read. Even then,
the listener must go out of their way to avoid future messages by the
same author.
For another example, if every time someone of the Jewish faith posted
an opinion on some matter, someone else posted "Damned kikes don't
know any better", the poster would have been harassed whether the
poster had the option of reading the reply or not.
The CMU policies state a dedication to the free exchange of ideas.
For this reason, harassment is not tolerated in any forum.
--
_.John G. Myers Internet: John.G.Myers@andrew.cmu.edu
LoseNet: ...!seismo!ihnp4!wiscvm.wisc.edu!give!up
From caf-talk Caf Feb 2 00:00:00 1992
From: jm36+@andrew.cmu.edu (John Gardiner Myers)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.correct,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.censorship
Subject: Fwd: I comment once.
Message-ID: <8dX8mdS00WBwAAGCdi@andrew.cmu.edu>
Date: 3 Feb 92 00:28:25 GMT
Here is one the complainant's final word on the subject, as posted on
the Women's Center's discussion bboard.
---------- Forwarded message begins here ----------
I'm going to say this once. I have no interest in becoming embroiled
in a lengthy argument.
Eric's chastisement is hardly a threat to free speech.
Firstly, bboards are privately owned. Constitutional protections
don't count for anything on private property. The university is NOT
the government, and there actions with their property have nothing to
do with governmental restrictions, as in "Congress shall make no law...
abridging the freedom of speech."
A more important question is: what is more important to the
university community, the intellectual commitment to free speech or
the commitment to the free exchange of ideas? They are not identical.
Attempts to reduce discussions into heated exchanges of emotionally
charged rhetoric block the free exchange of ideas. Participants lose
perspective and what might have become an exchange where individuals walked
away with a better understanding of their opposites' opinion instead walk
away with
In many cases, extreme emotional reaction to opinions can be
considered unreasonable, a mark of immaturity. However, there are certain
areas which are particularly sensitive due to our culture's history. Old
biases that are the direct cause of past oppression leave scars even when
the explicit oppression is past. Carnegie Mellon recognizes such areas
through its harassment policies, singling out harassment on the basis of
gender, sexual orientation, race, religion, etc.
The need for the existence of the Women's Center is largely
due to the biases our culture introduces, placing the male in the role
of protector and provider and the female in the role of nurturing
house-maker. Such roles also include the implicit retaliation, whether
physical or social, against those who refuse to live those roles.
These self-propagating roles are largely artificial (see research by
Masters and Johnson, particularly the "Gender Roles" chapter of _Masters and
Johnson on Sex and Human Loving_). These roles are also obsolete.
As a society, we have consciously decided that differences in
gender are not relevant to the possession of rights and protection
under the law, but society lags behind, leaving sensitive scars. Women
resist, often cautiously, their old submissive roles, but frequently distrust
men on the basis of the old gender roles.
This same change leaves men who have never accepted either set of
gender roles in a sensitive position as well. It isn't a matter of the "Alan
Alva sensitivity" that is so often sneered at. It's a matter of implicitly
being accused for crimes of oppression that one has not committed, of living with
the mistrust of half the human race because of progenitor's crimes.
As far as I'm concerned, Eric's posts were an attempt at harassment
(he has stated that he was trying to start a flame war) that had the effect
casting me and other males in a supporting role, a role that I bitterly
reject. His harassment was directly opposed to University policy, and I called
him on it. Pure and simple.
There is a tendency for people to cry "free speech" whenever anybody
is held accountable for the action of posting. This cry is inappropriate when
said speech was directly aimed for particularly sensitive spots left by our
culture with the clear intention to hurt, whether the harm was for its own sake
or whether that harm is intended to elicit a spirited response.
Why are people objecting to the gentle enforcement (how can the
university's handling be characterized as anything but gentle? No punitive
actions were taken) of the harassment policy, but not to the harassment policy
itself?
[[signature elided --jgm]]
From caf-talk Caf Feb 2 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.politics.correct,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.censorship
From: aaiken@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Andrew C. Aiken)
Subject: Re: Fwd: I comment once.
Message-ID:
Date: 3 Feb 92 01:05:10 GMT
> These self-propagating roles are largely artificial (see research by
>Masters and Johnson, particularly the "Gender Roles" chapter of _Masters and
>Johnson on Sex and Human Loving_). These roles are also obsolete.
Even so notable an anthroplogist as Margaret Mead has
acknowledged the inevitabilty of patriarchy. Her work was grossly
distorted, much to her own displeasure, to accord with the whims of
feminist politics.
> As a society, we have consciously decided that differences in
>gender are not relevant to the possession of rights and protection
>under the law, but society lags behind, leaving sensitive scars. Women
>resist, often cautiously, their old submissive roles, but frequently distrust
>men on the basis of the old gender roles.
I see. Women should be able to do whatever they want, except
become housewives or stay-at-home mothers.
Of course, whomever wrote this is entitled to his opinion. But I am not
certain that he could ever survive outside the cloistered fantasy-world
of the university. In the cold, hard world, there are no Centers to
which one may repair. There is no Administration to care for your
every need, from cradle to grave (at least not yet. Liberty has
ambitious enemies, as the saying goes.). Neither is life fair. The
notion that bureaucracy solves problems is derided.
Andrew Aiken
From caf-talk Caf Feb 2 00:00:00 1992
From: jm36+@andrew.cmu.edu (John Gardiner Myers)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.politics.correct,cmu.general,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: disclaimer [Re: Speech restrictions on CMU computer bboards]
Message-ID:
Date: 3 Feb 92 01:07:00 GMT
Lest anyone get confused on the point.
Except where otherwise attributed, the opinions stated by me on these
newsgroups/bboards are my own. I am not speaking for Carnegie Mellon
University or any of its divisions. The only places where the postion
of Carnegie Mellon appears in my posts is where I specifically quote
published Carnegie Mellon policies.
Pursuant to CMU's Organization Announcement No. 228-A, I may state my
personal views on these issues and identify myself by my title.
I am a Systems Programmer for the University. Part of my job
responsibilities includes assisting in the maintenance and
administration of the mail and bboard system here. My duties do not
normally extend to dealing with users.
I was not involved in the handling of the complaints. Had I been,
I would not now be posting on the issue.
--
_.John G. Myers Internet: John.G.Myers@andrew.cmu.edu
LoseNet: ...!seismo!ihnp4!wiscvm.wisc.edu!give!up
From caf-talk Caf Feb 2 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.politics.correct,cmu.general
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Speech restrictions on CMU computer bboards
Message-ID: <1992Feb3.031559.15580@eff.org>
Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1992 03:15:59 GMT
jm36+@andrew.cmu.edu (John Gardiner Myers) writes:
[...]
>Two, companies have been sucessfully sued for sexual harassment where
>the plaintiff did not establish that any direct advances or comments
>were made. The fact that the working environment was a place where
>the plaintiff's sexuality was a major concern was sufficient to carry
>the case.
As the judge said in the _UWM Post v. U. of Wisconsin_ case:
" The Board of Regents argues that this Court should find the UW Rule
constitutional because its prohibition of discriminatory speech which creates a
hostile environment has parallels in the employment setting. The Board notes
that, under Title VII, an employer has a duty to take appropriate corrective
action when it learns of pervasive illegal harassment. See Meritor Savings
Bank v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57, 72 (1986).
The Board correctly states Title VII law. However, its argument
regarding Title VII law has at least three difficulties. First, Title
VII addresses employment, not educational, settings. Second, even if
Title VII governed educational settings, the Meritor holding would not
apply to this case. The Meritor Court held that courts should look to
agency principles when determining whether an employer is to be held
liable for its employee's actions. See id. Since employees may act
as their employer's agents, agency law may hold an employer liable for
its employees actions. In contrast, agency theory would generally not
hold a school liable for its students' actions since students normally
are not agents of the school. Finally, even if the legal duties set
forth in Meritor applied to this case, they would not make the UW Rule
constitutional. Since Title VII is only a statute, it cannot
supersede the requirements of the First Amendment." [Or,
in my opinion, academic freedom - cmk]
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu, or (anonymous) ap.3619@layout.berkeley.edu=
From caf-talk Caf Feb 2 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.politics.correct,cmu.general
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Speech restrictions on CMU computer bboards
Message-ID: <1992Feb3.035156.16359@eff.org>
Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1992 03:51:56 GMT
jm36+@andrew.cmu.edu (John Gardiner Myers) writes:
[...]
>Consider the case where one's employer requires you to read a bboard
>discussing a project that you are assigned to. A third party posts
>material that if individually addressed would be considered sexually
>harrassing. In this case, the poster is the harasser.
[...]
If your employer makes you read _Playboy_, it is your employer not
Hugh Hefner who is guilty of harassment.
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu, or (anonymous) ap.3619@layout.berkeley.edu=
From caf-talk Caf Feb 2 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.politics.correct,cmu.general
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Speech restrictions on CMU computer bboards
Message-ID: <1992Feb3.040022.16532@eff.org>
Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1992 04:00:22 GMT
jm36+@andrew.cmu.edu (John Gardiner Myers) writes:
[...]
>For another example, if every time someone of the Jewish faith posted
>an opinion on some matter, someone else posted "Damned kikes don't
>know any better", the poster would have been harassed whether the
>poster had the option of reading the reply or not.
[...]
With kill files you not only don't know what a "killed" author writes,
you don't even know if he or she writes. Are you saying that someone
is harassed by something they don't read and, in fact, don't even know
was written? You have a very, very broad notion of "harassment".
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu, or (anonymous) ap.3619@layout.berkeley.edu=
From caf-talk Caf Feb 2 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.politics.correct,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.censorship
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Fwd: I comment once.
Message-ID: <1992Feb3.043340.16844@eff.org>
Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1992 04:33:40 GMT
jm36+@andrew.cmu.edu (John Gardiner Myers) writes:
>Here is one the complainant's final word on the subject, as posted on
>the Women's Center's discussion bboard.
[...]
Hey, I thought the Women's Center discussion bboard was for official
Women Center announcements only!
[...]
> Eric's chastisement is hardly a threat to free speech.
>Firstly, bboards are privately owned. Constitutional protections
>don't count for anything on private property. The university is NOT
>the government, and there actions with their property have nothing to
>do with governmental restrictions, as in "Congress shall make no law...
>abridging the freedom of speech."
True, but the CMU policy says much the same thing. It states:
"Carnegie Mellon University ... encourages freedom of speech,
assembly, and exchange of ideas."
> A more important question is: what is more important to the
>university community, the intellectual commitment to free speech or
>the commitment to the free exchange of ideas? They are not identical.
Both are guaranteed at CMU. I believe that free speech is a
prerequisite for the free exchange of ideas.
> Attempts to reduce discussions into heated exchanges of emotionally
>charged rhetoric block the free exchange of ideas. Participants lose
>perspective and what might have become an exchange where individuals walked
>away with a better understanding of their opposites' opinion instead walk
>away with
As you say, CMU is not required by law to offer the free speech
protections of the Constitution. I think, however, the law is
instructive.
In _Hustler Magazine v. Falwell_ 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."
And, (I'm paraphrasing from an ACLU handbook on teacher's legal
rights) generally, speech, if otherwise shielded from punishment by
the First Amendment, does not lose that protection because its tone is
sharp. Discussions will not always be models of decorum. A court
observed that "often those with the power to appoint will be on one
side of a controversial issue and find it convenient to use their
opponent's momentary stridency as a pretext to squelch them."
[...]
> As far as I'm concerned, Eric's posts were an attempt at harassment
>(he has stated that he was trying to start a flame war) that had the effect
>casting me and other males in a supporting role, a role that I bitterly
>reject.
[...]
Offensive is not identical to harassment. I reject that implication
that Jefferson's spew had to be surpressed because it could not be out
competed.
> There is a tendency for people to cry "free speech" whenever anybody
>is held accountable for the action of posting. This cry is inappropriate when
>said speech was directly aimed for particularly sensitive spots left by our
>culture with the clear intention to hurt, whether
>the harm was for its own sake
>or whether that harm is intended to elicit a spirited response.
[...]
If by "held accountable" you mean "threaten with punishment by the
authorities", then I agree, there is a tendency for people to cry
"free speech" in such cases.
You seem to be saying that only inoffensive speech should be
protected. I disagree. Inoffensive speech needs no protection. It is
offensive speech needs protection. Part of the price of free speech is
that we each will be offended from time to time. In my opinion, it is
a small price to pay.
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu, or (anonymous) ap.3619@layout.berkeley.edu=
