From caf-talk Caf Feb 3 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.politics.correct,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.censorship
From: russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto)
Subject: Re: Fwd: I comment once.
Message-ID: <1992Feb03.044123.5950@eng.umd.edu>
Date: Mon, 03 Feb 92 04:41:23 GMT
In article <8dX8mdS00WBwAAGCdi@andrew.cmu.edu> 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.
>
>---------- Forwarded message begins here ----------
>
> 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)
Huh? A flame war may not be the most productive form of debate (all right,
that is an understatement), but an attempt to start one isn't per se an act
of harassment.
> 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.
The now-familiar PC cry-- certain areas are taboo, and must be kept off limits
to open debate.
> 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?
Jefferson's posts didn't violate the harassment policy as posted on this group
-- that policy seems to set out a very narrow definition of harassment that
he simply didn't violate. The enforcement was not gentle-- a threat to appear
before a disciplinary committee is an extremely serious thing. It is two
things:
1) It is exactly what it claims to be-- a threat of disciplinary action and
2) It is something more. It is a way for the body making the threat to
provide Mr. Jefferson with enought rope to hang himself. They may not
have enough to expel him now, were they to force the issue by actually
making the referral to the committee. If they were to force the issue
now, the disciplinary committee might just rule against them, and Mr.
Jefferson would be free to continue. With just the threat, they can wait
a while, collecting more 'evidence' and more complaints, until they have
enough to show that there was a pattern of obnoxious conduct-- enough that
even if none of the conduct was against the rules, the sheer extent of it
would convince the committee to take action. They can also add such
catch-all charges as "Failure to comply with a University Official", or
"Disruption of University Activities".
--
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 Feb 3 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: Fwd: I comment once.
Message-ID: <1992Feb3.003706.701@newstand.syr.edu>
Date: Mon, 3 Feb 92 00:37:06 EST
I can't help but think that the CMU complainant's post fulfills the classic
stereotype of "political correctness." (I really hate to use such a cliche
term, but when the shoe fits...)
I am continually amazed at how easy it is for people to rationalize a belief
that censorship actually represents *support* for the free exchange of ideas.
--
greeny greeny@top.cis.syr.edu
"What's the difference between an orange?"
From caf-talk Caf Feb 3 00:00:00 1992
From: jm36+@andrew.cmu.edu (John Gardiner Myers)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.politics.correct,alt.censorship
Subject: Re: Speech restrictions on CMU computer bboards
Message-ID:
Date: 3 Feb 92 06:31:14 GMT
There is no cmu.general newsgroup, you need not attempt to post there.
kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
> 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.
> [...] In contrast, agency theory would generally not
> hold a school liable for its students' actions since students normally
> are not agents of the school.
The point being that as employers may be held liable for
"discriminatory speech" which is not necessarily directed at an
individual, one can conclude that such speech can be sexual
harassment and can be harmful. While the school may not necessarily
be held liable for the speech, it is entirely justified in prohibiting
it where possible (e.g. on its own systems)
kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
> 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.
The same straw man. The purpose of the forum known as _Playboy_ is
such that one can expect to find material of a purient nature.
In the proposed case, the purpose of the bboard is not in any way
related to sexual material. Let's say the bboard is for discussing
ways to water the campus lawn. The material posted by the third party
is in no way related to the purpose of the bboard. The third party is
not an agent of the employer.
The employer cannot reasonably be considered guilty of harassment.
The third party, on the other hand, can.
kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
> 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.
>
> Are you saying that someone is harassed by something they don't read
> and, in fact, don't even know was written?
While they may not have read the material, they may well know it was
written.
--
_.John G. Myers Internet: John.G.Myers@andrew.cmu.edu
LoseNet: ...!seismo!ihnp4!wiscvm.wisc.edu!give!up
From caf-talk Caf Feb 3 00:00:00 1992
From: cr2r+@andrew.cmu.edu (Christian M. Restifo)
Newsgroups: cmu.general,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.politics.correct
Subject: Re: Speech restrictions on CMU computer bboards
Message-ID: <0dXI=gq00awMM9Q1Rx@andrew.cmu.edu>
Date: 3 Feb 92 13:26:04 GMT
Excerpts from cmu.opinion: 2-Feb-92 Re: Speech restrictions on .. John
Gardiner Myers (3988)
> 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.
Andrew is not a company. An electronic bboard is not a company. There is
a difference between a working environment where one cannot easily avoid
another's sexist remarks, pictures, etc. and a bboard where one can skip
the message and save everyone a shitload of time and trouble.
> 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 the material were in a bboard message dealing with the project, that
*might* be harassment. Mr. Jefferson's posts did not deal in any type of
project. One could easily avoid the messages (which were opinions) and
not loose any type of productivity.
As I stated, the listener has the choice not to answer the phone.
The reader has the choice to skip the message.
> 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.
Like, wow, don't click on the message with Mr. Jefferson's name. My, oh,
my, that was so hard to do. Help, help, I'm being harassed.
Oh, free exchange of the *proper* ideas. Now I get it..........................
Look, harassment in the workplace, etc. should be dealt with quickly and
harshly. However, bboards are another matter. This harassment is people
bitching because they don't like what they read when they have the
option of easily avoiding it. In a workplace, it's kind of hard to avoid
someone making direct comments or indirect comments aimed at another
person. Now if personal email was sent, phonecalls were made, etc., then
you have grounds for harassment.
"The reason for time is so that | Chris Restifo
everything doesn't happen at once." | cr2r+@andrew.cmu.edu
-The Banzai Institute | Carnegie Mellon (no U)
Disclaimer: One who disclaims. This thing don't claim anything.
It's at times like these that you should be glad I don't work for the
Post Office...
From caf-talk Caf Feb 3 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.censorship] Speech Restrictions On Cm
Message-ID: <9202031512.AA25081@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: 3 Feb 92 03:12:00 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Feb 3 00:00:00 1992
From: Howard.Goldstein@f20.n3603.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Howard Goldstein)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
Subject: Speech Restrictions On Cm
Message-ID: <46750.298C2BB3@psycho.fidonet.org>
Date: Sat, 01 Feb 92 17:40:00 EDT
In Message-ID dl2p+@andrew.cmu.edu
(Douglas Allen Luce) writes:
DAL>greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (Jonathan Greenfield) writes:
DAL>> Sorry. The Dean has the power to examine the situation himself and make
DAL>> a categorical determination that this type of behavior is not harassment.
DAL>> (This is a policy decision, not a fact-bound decision based on the
DAL>individual
DAL>> case.) A disciplinary committee is not an policy-making body. It is a
DAL>> fact-finding, and policy-enforcing body.
DAL>There was no attempt to determine whether this action was considered
DAL>to be harrassment. What the university did was a brush off; it tried
DAL>to avoid taking any action by telling Eric that the matter would be
DAL>pursued further if his actions continued (that of bringing in
DAL>complaints). This is a very standard police action.
[...much omitted]
It seems to me that the university's conditional forebearance puts
student in a rather awkward predicament. Student speaks? Student
suffers investigation. Student censors himself? No investigation.
With such a patent cause-effect relationship, I believe a clearer
example of the "chilling effect" that Jonathan Greenfield mentioned
could not be easily imagined. (but fact being stranger than fiction...)
It further seems the only one to suffer actual harrassment is the fellow
who was threatened with a process potentially leading to expulsion. (The
school was the harrassor) Expulsion results in a form of blacklisting,
in that the occurrence must be noted on many applications requiring
background checks. I believe the events surrounding the Un-American
Activities Committee is a valid historical analogy, and demonstrates how
the mere charge of impropriety is capable of irreparably harming (much
more than harrassing) those wrongly accused.
Legally, it may be CMU's business. But ethically, it instills its
students with the false expectation that the real world shields adults
ears from brutish, offensive speech. In an academic setting, this is,
perhaps, irresponsible.
--
Internet: Howard.Goldstein@f20.n3603.z1.FIDONET.ORG
UUCP: ...!uunet!ndcc!tct!psycho!20!Howard.Goldstein
Note:psycho is a free gateway between Usenet & Fidonet. For info write to
root@psycho.fidonet.org.
From caf-talk Caf Feb 3 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.censorship] Speech restrictions at CMU
Message-ID: <9202031717.AA07771@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: 3 Feb 92 05:17:23 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Feb 3 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
From: greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (Jonathan Greenfield)
Subject: Speech restrictions at CMU
Message-ID: <1992Feb3.103014.12094@newstand.syr.edu>
Date: Mon, 3 Feb 92 10:30:14 EST
>> [...]
>> >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.
>
>The same straw man.
No. A straw man is an argument that an individual puts forth, only in order
to disprove that argument, himself (or herself).
>> Are you saying that someone is harassed by something they don't read
>> and, in fact, don't even know was written?
>
>While they may not have read the material, they may well know it was
>written.
I see. So the fact that I know there are Jew-haters out there means that
they have harassed me.
(This is a straw man--except that the argument is so obviously absurd, that
it is not necessary for me to take the time to disprove this statement.)
Beyond the case at hand, you seem to think that harassment is entirely in
the mind of the "harassed." As in, if I find something offensive, and take
it personally, then I have been harassed, no matter what the circumstances.
This I can make no sense of.
--
greeny greeny@top.cis.syr.edu
"What's the difference between an orange?"
From caf-talk Caf Feb 3 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: <9202032245.AA03081@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil>
Date: 3 Feb 92 21:45:41 GMT
I've been disturbed by much of what I read in this newsgroup, but
I'm not sure that I've ever been _more_ disturbed than now. I have
been hearing that speech that is offensive, even in a public forum,
may be censored. Although none of the correspondents defending the
CMU action have come right out and said so, I believe that this is
the intent. Consider:
1. The bboard in question is a public forum. John Gardiner Myers
and others have called it so. (Incidentally, if this assumption is
correct than it's possible that speech on it is protected under the
"limited Public forum" doctrine. Send e-mail for more info.)
2. A poster to this board posted allegedly harassing messages, not
once but several times.
3. Complaints were filed alleging harassment of the complainants
and others.
4. The CMU administration took action by suggesting that an inquiry
might be convened, the result of which might be the curtailment of
the poster's academic endeavors at CMU.
Defenders of the University's actions have stated that harassment
has inpeded the free exchange of ideas. Of course, these
individuals have already found the poster guilty of harassment. I
fail to see how harassment could have taken place. After the first
or second posting by this correspondent (the one doing the alleged
harassing), users of the bboard were free to ignore further posts by
the individual. Harassment, by EEO definition, must first of all
take place in the workplace, which point I will grant for the
moment. But harassment must also be unwanted, of a sexual nature,
and be tending to create a hostile working environment. Forgetting
for the moment that the EEO definition does not on its face apply to
educational institutions, the criterion of unwantedness is still not
satisfied. Users were and are free at any time to refrain from
reading articles from the poster in question. They apparently did
not do so. Therefore, they _chose_ to read more from the poster,
thus invalidating the unwantedness criterion of the EEO definition.
Thus, I would say (although I'm neither lawyer, judge, nor jury)
that the individual was not guilty of harassment.
This is not a tempest in a teapot. The implications of the CMU
action are staggering. Consider Brother Jed. (Many of you may know
of Brother Jed. He goes around to college campuses and preaches
fire and brimstone to any that will listen.) What the CMU policy
says is that Brother Jed could be stopped from speaking, (even in a
public forum like a campus quad), if his speech is offensive to
someone. We could also consider a student running for student
office. If he os she said something in a public forum that was
offensive in any way, shape, or form, then that person could be
punished under the CMU policy.
The upshot of the CMU policy is this: the search for truth has been
superceded by the idea that people's egos and psyches are so fragile
that they must be protected from any and all offense. Even if we
can't objectivelly define what it means to be offensive, that's ok,
say the CMU apologists. Truth is now irrelavant.
Of course, I would suspect that if the poster had been railing at
those on the political right instead of the political left, he would
not now been in the same situation. The problem with PC is the same
problem as with any group of extremists, whether they be Nazis, KKK
members, or whatever: they feel that they are the only correct
thinkers, and that they have the right to silence those who don't
think the way they do.
Sounds totalitarian to me. I thought totalitarianism fell in 1991. I was
wrong. It's alive and well at CMU.
I stand for all speech. Each person, regardless of background,
race, sex, color, sexual orientation, gender, or any other criterion
you'd care to name, has the moral, intellectual, and legal right to
search for truth. Unfortunately, I don't think those at CMU care
much about truth. If they did, they wouldn't be advocating such
extreme policies.
The above is my own opinion, and does not reflect any policy, either
inherent or stated, official or unoffical, of the United States,
the U.S. Department of Defense, the Defense Logistics Agency, nor
any subpart thereof.
--
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 3 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: <9202040052.AA12875@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: 3 Feb 92 12:52:06 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Feb 3 00:00:00 1992
From: 493hiremath@gw.wmich.edu
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy
Subject: harrassing mail
Message-ID: <1992Feb3.130903.2668@gw.wmich.edu>
Date: 3 Feb 92 13:09:03 EST
Harrassing messages do nothing for the unews and/or email systems.
While a joke between two friends may be acceptable, random harrassment
definitely is not. It defeats the purpose of these systems and their potential
postive applications.
From caf-talk Caf Feb 3 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.politics.correct,cmu.general
From: galt@scratchy.dsd.es.com (Greg Alt - Perp)
Subject: Re: Speech restrictions on CMU computer bboards
Message-ID: <1992Feb4.023518.17059@dsd.es.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Feb 92 02:35:18 GMT
In article <1992Feb3.035156.16359@eff.org>, kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
|> 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.
If your employer gives you a box of magazines and tells you to read all
of them, and some sneaky person slips a Playboy in the box, your employer
and Hugh Hefner are both innocent. It is not clear if the sneaky person
is guilty or innocent...
--
/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)
"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 Feb 4 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: Tue, 04 Feb 1992 02:47:33 GMT
Message-ID: <1992Feb04.024733.24695@anomaly.sbs.com>
kadie@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>I note that being a forum for information and ideas and being a source
>of reference material are not mutually exclusive.
Of course not. However, if you believe that your "forum" is the street
corner, you are perfectly free to hand out as many pamphlets as your
wages allow.
Similarly, universities can only provide as much service as their
budgets allow. This means, unfortunately, that everyone can't have
everything.
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 4 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: Tue, 04 Feb 1992 02:48:26 GMT
Message-ID: <1992Feb04.024826.24784@anomaly.sbs.com>
bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) writes:
>A University is no more an educational institution than it is a
>restaurant, even if it does have both classes and cafeterias.
I suggest you read the charter of a University or College sometime.
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 4 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.censorship] Re: Speech restrictions at CMU
Message-ID: <9202040741.AA14267@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: 3 Feb 92 19:41:44 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Feb 4 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
From: rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold)
Subject: Re: Speech restrictions at CMU
Message-ID:
Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1992 01:59:53 GMT
greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (Jonathan Greenfield) writes:
>>While they may not have read the material, they may well know it was
>>written.
>I see. So the fact that I know there are Jew-haters out there means that
>they have harassed me.
>Beyond the case at hand, you seem to think that harassment is entirely in
>the mind of the "harassed." As in, if I find something offensive, and take
>it personally, then I have been harassed, no matter what the circumstances.
>This I can make no sense of.
In fact, the fact that such a person exists out there is extremely
upsetting to me. I didn't read his original post, but I still feel
harassed by such views. How do I go about getting him to stop?
Whoops. Now he's probably feeling harassed by my threatened
harassment. Screw it (whoops, someone's is going to feel harassed by
that), everyone is harasses someone. Everyone off the net!
Shades of the Bloom County "offensensitivity" strip...
--
I feel like a fugitive from the law of averages.
From caf-talk Caf Feb 4 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [uiuc.general] Complaint letter about fingerd change
Message-ID: <9202040745.AA08334@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: 3 Feb 92 19:45:05 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Feb 4 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: uiuc.general
From: memphis-tn@uiuc.edu (Memphis TN)
Subject: Complaint letter about fingerd change
Message-ID: <1992Feb3.224647.28831@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1992 22:46:47 GMT
This is a copy of a letter I have sent to the director
of CSO. I post it here for your examination.
<>
1011 S. Wright St.
Champaign, IL 61820-6278
February 3, 1992
Mr. George F. Badger, Jr., director
Computing Services Office
1120 DCL, MC 256
1304 W. Springfield
Urbana, IL 61801
Dear Sir:
I hereby file an official complaint about the recent change of the
fingerd program on the mainframe computer, uxa. Before the new
software was installed, an account holder could alter how he/she
was identified when another computer user on the same or a connected
system requested information about that person using the finger program.
The current software has the fingerd program return part or all of
the person's legal name. I must protest this change, and request
that the problem be fixed.
The change in how the program works presents two problems. First,
many people do not wish to be commonly known by their given name.
This is true in the case where people are called by a more familiar
form of their given first name (e.g., Bill instead of William), or
when they are called by a middle name, which is not returned with
the current version of fingerd on uxa. Second, this change does not
permit uxa account holders to suppress their legal names from public
access, a clear violation of University policy and the Family
Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974, both of which state that
the following items of information about a student must be suppressed
from public access at the student's request: name, address, phone
numbers, college curriculum, major field of study, class level, date
of birth, dates of attendance, full/part-time status, eligibility
for status in registered University honoraries, degrees, honors,
certificates received or anticipated, participation in officially
recognized activities, and sports and institutions previously attended.
There has been quite a bit of discussion on the USENET newsgroup,
uiuc.general on this subject over the past few days, discussing the
possible ramifications of this policy change. I direct your
attention there for other comments made on this topic.
I respectfully request that the appropriate action be taken to ensure
the right to privacy, as defined in the Family Education and Privacy
Rights Bill of 1974, for the users of uxa. Such action may be, but
is not limited to:
1. Restoration of the former fingerd program and the restriction
of public access to the really program and database.
2. Immediate institution of a program through which individuals
may request that their common name or no name at all be returned by
the fingerd program rather than their given name, and the publicization
of such a program.
Although I am willing to be held academicly and legally responsible
for my actions taken and comments made on uxa, irc, and USENET, I value
my right to privacy highly. I will guard that right jealously, and I
intend to take appropriate action, if necessary, to protect that right.
Yours truly,
Michael D. Adams (memphis-tn@uiuc.edu; mda46419@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu)
electronic copies: badger@vmd.cso.uiuc.edu
root@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
memphis-tn@uiuc.edu
posted (USENET) on: uiuc.general
--
Michael "Memphis" Adams memphis-tn@uiuc.edu (internet) +1(217)344-4857
p = 1
8|1 20
From caf-talk Caf Feb 4 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.callahans] Re: First Amendment (was Re: Assumptions and Axioms ???)
Message-ID: <9202040800.AA09896@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: 3 Feb 92 20:00:24 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Feb 4 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.callahans
From: tjlee@iastate.edu (Tom Lee)
Subject: Re: First Amendment (was Re: Assumptions and Axioms ???)
Message-ID:
Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1992 00:15:18 GMT
David Gillett writes:
> Lamplighter writes:
>> "People around here have been saying a lot that the First
>>Amendment gives them the right to free speech. (If you were here you'd
>>know why they were saying that.) ..."
> I don't know if by "you" you mean the singular me or the plural
>callahaniers, so I'm not sure whether this was a personal response or not.
>I also can't tell whether "here" means U.S.A., state of Iowa, or Iowa State --
>or alt.callahans, although I haven't seen much of that on this group lately.
> Please tell me more.
"All right," says Tom. "The Computation Center has recently
taken it upon itself to censor our newsfeed by controlling what
newsgroups we are and are not allowed to read. If you own a VAX or a
workstation, you can get the uncensored newsgroups (but still not the
ones we've never subscribed to), but it's mostly just professors who can
do that. If you fill out a form, you can read the restricted groups on
the archaic, user-hostile HDS mainframe, so they tell us that they're
not censoring anything. But making information more difficult to access
on the basis of content (or imagined content) constitutes censorship in
my book."
>> ... Constitutional Amendments do not *give* citizens any rights.
> I'm not certain whether you're making a very fine/subtle/esoteric point
>here, or something very blunt and obvious. In either case, these are reasons
>why "That right doesn't exist, because it's not in the Constitution" fails to
>be a convincing argument. [I most recently heard this argument advanced by an
>intelligent(!) opponent of health cost reform....]
"It's probably not a good idea to assume that anything I'm
saying is fine or esoteric. I just think that once people get it in
their heads that 'I have this right because it's in the Constitution',
it's not hard to step from there to 'Well, I don't have that right,
because it's not in the Constitution'. It's a dangerous (for them!) way
to think. We've got the right to do anything that our own personal
ethics and morals will permit us to do. What our government will do in
return should be considered, of course, but don't stop thinking about
something just because it's illegal. Television already has enough
control over the space between our ears, without laws having even more."
He sighs. "Tom, the closet anarchist."
>"Those who preach inequity don't understand how
> those who love liberty can disagree with those
> who hate oppression without embracing inequity."
This is one of my big moral dilemmas -- how do you get people to
stop violating other people's rights without violating their rights in
turn?
--> Tom Lee, tjlee@iastate.edu <-----> Physics Dept., Iowa State University <--
"Come along, Homo sapiens, for all we humble friends of yours are waiting here
to cheer." -- A white-front goose, in T. H. White's _The Once and Future King_
From caf-talk Caf Feb 4 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.dcom.telecom] Re: Supreme Court Action Restricts 900 Porn Services
Message-ID: <9202042003.AA00330@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: 4 Feb 92 08:03:04 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Feb 4 00:00:00 1992
From: brown@NCoast.ORG (Stan Brown)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Supreme Court Action Restricts 900 Porn Services
Message-ID:
Date: 3 Feb 92 20:18:38 GMT
In last week's article, I said in part:
> But by declining to review the decision, the Justices sent a pretty
> clear signal that they considered the law constitutional.
Two persons (so far) have written to tell me I'm wrong, and I agree
with them.
The Supreme Court may have declined to review the appeals court's
decision for any of a number of reasons. But though the Justices
didn't review _this_ decision, for all we know they could review a
later one on the same issue, and find the law unconstitutional.
We can't draw valid inferences from the Supreme Court's denial of any
particular petition for review.
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cleveland, Ohio, USA brown@ncoast.org
From caf-talk Caf Feb 4 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: <1992Feb4.210805.11317@eff.org>
Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1992 21:08:05 GMT
jm36+@andrew.cmu.edu (John Gardiner Myers) writes:
[...]
>The point being that as employers may be held liable for
>"discriminatory speech" which is not necessarily directed at an
>individual, one can conclude that such speech can be sexual
>harassment and can be harmful. While the school may not necessarily
>be held liable for the speech, it is entirely justified in prohibiting
>it where possible (e.g. on its own systems)
[...]
In _Doe v. U. of Michigan_ and _UWM Post v. U. of Wisconsin_, the
courts said that, at least for state schools, such prohibitions are
not justified.
- 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 4 00:00:00 1992
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.correct,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.censorship
Subject: Re: Fwd: I comment once.
Message-ID: <10844@lectroid.sw.stratus.com>
Date: 4 Feb 92 22:31:48 GMT
In article <8dX8mdS00WBwAAGCdi@andrew.cmu.edu>, jm36+@andrew.cmu.edu (John Gardiner Myers) writes:
> 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."
Lester Maddox would agree with this; unfortunately for him, the courts
didn't. If you wish to insist on this principle, however, think of how
well it will serve to promote sexual harassment and employment
discrimination on the privately-owned grounds of privately-run companies;
censorship of school-run newspapers; and warrantless searches of your
home and property.
> 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 man brought up within these roles, I feel sexually harassed by this
assertion. Somebody do something about it. :-)
--
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 Feb 5 00:00:00 1992
From: cr2r+@andrew.cmu.edu (Christian M. Restifo)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.censorship,alt.politics.correct
Subject: Re: Speech restrictions on CMU computer bboards
Message-ID:
Date: 5 Feb 92 11:55:27 GMT
Excerpts from netnews.alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk: 3-Feb-92 Re: Speech
restrictions on .. John Gardiner Myers@andr (2789)
> kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
> > 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.
> >
> > Are you saying that someone is harassed by something they don't read
> > and, in fact, don't even know was written?
> While they may not have read the material, they may well know it was
> written.
There is a big difference between knowing something was written and
knowing what it was about. How many times do you hear about politicians,
activists, etc. screaming about some report when they haven't even read
the whole damn thing? As the saying goes, you can't judge a book by its
cover.
"The reason for time is so that | Chris Restifo
everything doesn't happen at once." | cr2r+@andrew.cmu.edu
-The Banzai Institute | Carnegie Mellon (no U)
Disclaimer: One who disclaims. This thing don't claim anything.
It's at times like these that you should be glad I don't work for the
Post Office...
From caf-talk Caf Feb 5 00:00:00 1992
From: jh4y+@andrew.cmu.edu (John William Hollis, III)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.politics.correct,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: Speech restrictions on CMU computer bboards
Message-ID: <0dXzHyC00UgII0ilcP@andrew.cmu.edu>
Date: 5 Feb 92 14:30:22 GMT
Excerpts from cmu.opinion: 30-Jan-92 Re: Speech restrictions on .. John
Gardiner Myers (1264)
> 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 don't know what system you use to read bboards and mail, but the major
ones that are supported here at CMU (MacMail, EZ Mail, and AMS) all
allow you to skim through the subject headers and pick which messages
you wish to read. The phone analogy would have to include the phone
announcing who's calling and why they're calling before the person
decides whether or not to answer.
The choice, and therefore the responsibility, lies with the person who
decides to read the message and feel harrassed.
Sean
From caf-talk Caf Feb 5 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [uiuc.general] Re: Re^2: Anonymity and the Universities/CCSO's image
Message-ID: <9202051509.AA28721@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: 5 Feb 92 03:09:18 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Feb 5 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: uiuc.general
From: dorner@pequod.cso.uiuc.edu (Steve Dorner)
Subject: Re: Re^2: Anonymity and the Universities/CCSO's image
Message-ID: <1992Feb5.022442.22588@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1992 02:24:42 GMT
hucke@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Matt Hucke) writes:
>What is the policy here for events of this nature? Just how obnoxious do you
>have to be to have the account killed? I've been involved in several
>flamewars, but haven't received any complaints...
The following is second-hand information; it may be wrong.
The particular case resulted in no sanctions, as both parties seemed
clearly at fault.
Basically, they flamed back and forth for some time, until the remote
party got the smart idea that, since racial slurs were involved,
he might be able to get the UI student in big trouble. The fact
that he was using them himself he evidently did not consider
germaine (but that's a whole different kettle of wax, as they say).
In any case, there is currently no written policy. Many people
would like to see that rectified; getting them to agree on *what*
that policy should be is the trick.
--
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 Feb 5 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: <9202051532.AA07581@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: 5 Feb 92 03:32:45 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Feb 5 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: uiuc.general
From: roma@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Jon Roma)
Subject: Re: Why are UXA accounts *given* out?
Message-ID: <1992Feb5.024514.24791@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1992 02:45:14 GMT
acheng@ncsa.uiuc.edu (A. Cheng) writes:
>Jon, I don't want to get involved in if the University should provide
>free account or not.
Good, because that's an issue completely outside the scope of this debate.
>However, I have something to say about the right
>to know "who's interacting with them". It depends on what kind of
>identity you mean. Is a crayptic signon 1231@sitex good enough as long
>as it is consistent and no forgery or deceit is intended? This is
>consistent with law in court as you can call yourself any name as long
>as you use it regularly without intended deceit. If you mean
>electronic interaction requires Full Name be disclosed, I think that is
>only a matter of politeness, not as a requirement.
I don't think CCSO or the University of Illinois are legally REQUIRED to
identify our users to others. But I believe CCSO can, at its discretion,
implement a policy requiring uxa users to have full name identification.
Of course this must be done in a non-discriminatory fashion.
>News groups do not demand real ID.
I am interested in real name identification so that people harassing others
via electronic mail or `talk' can be easily identified. I am NOT in the
least interested in changing the way network news or `irc' work; both of these
facilities are entirely voluntary and I thus don't see harm in people using
pseudonyms there.
Email, on the other hand, is a bit difficult to avoid unless one wants to
remain incommunicado. One of the major benefits of uxa access is that of
electronic mail access around the world via the Internet. If one avoids email
altogether because of harassment, one loses one of the significant benefits
of having a uxa login.
>Do I need
>to show my ID before I may debate Max on Quad?
No, because the quad is as a public place, open to all members of the public.
If it weren't, Max would've been arrested for trespassing a long time ago,
since he's neither student nor staff.
State-owned buildings and services have different status. The fact that a
service is tax-supported does not itself imply that the service MUST be made
available to all citizens without restriction. The fact that I am a taxpayer
does not give me the right to watch TV in the governor's office if I wish to
do so.
State agencies can legally place restrictions and conditions on their
services, though these restrictions and conditions must be applied in a
non-discriminatory manner. Just as the university library is within its
rights to bar me from entering the book stacks at 3 a.m., CCSO would be
within its rights to bar me from uxa or from SLIP service if having a `ph'
entry were a requirement these services. Access to uxa is irrelevant to
one's classwork and/or research here, so such a requirement for uxa can not
be construed as a interference with the education that one is paying for.
>If CSO starts to enforce compulsary real full name disclosure in
>newsgroups, it becomes liable to enforce articles from other
>sites should have full names too. If CSO does not expect other
>sites to follow such rules, why do it locally?
The University of Illinois has some responsibility for the [electronic]
actions of users of its facilities, so CCSO and the University have some
obligation to protect people (both within the UI and outside) from malicious
actions taken by our users. Enforcing real name identification of uxa users
is an attempt to coerce people into feeling responsibility for their own
actions, as Steve Dorner stated in another posting.
While it would be useful to have access to real name identification from off-
campus sites -- we have indeed had users harassed by people at other sites --
it is entirely impossible to expect every other site's administrators to do
so. Nor would we wish to presume that they would WANT to do so.
--
Jon Roma
Computing and Communications Services Office,
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Internet: roma@uiuc.edu UUCP: uunet!uiucuxc!uiuc.edu!roma
From caf-talk Caf Feb 5 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [uxa.general, et al.] Re: an open letter to the cso.gods
Message-ID: <9202051616.AA11924@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: 5 Feb 92 04:16:03 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Feb 5 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: uxa.general,uiuc.general,cso.general
From: dorner@pequod.cso.uiuc.edu (Steve Dorner)
Subject: Re: an open letter to the cso.gods
Message-ID: <1992Feb4.193335.16780@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1992 19:33:35 GMT
memphis-tn@uiuc.edu writes:
>I am still entitled to air my grievances
>until I get a rational answer.
I'm not sure what you want a rational answer for. Why Paul made the change
to fingerd? Anyway, it seems to me that it's time to dull the shouting
just a bit. Let me try to do so:
Why CCSO Wants to Identify Users on the Net
CCSO believes the perception of anonymity leads to increased belligerence
and decreased sense of responsiblity for one's actions. The fact
that one is ultimately traceable does not have the same effect as
being immediately identified.
Thus, CCSO wishes to stamp each piece of outgoing mail and news with
the person's real name. As this is technically difficult, fingerd
made a reasonable alternative in the short term.
Uxa And the Privacy Act
As a uxa account is in no way required by the University, there is
merit to the argument that forcing identification on uxa users is
not a violation of the act. On the other hand, since uxa is offered
freely to all students, there is also merit to the argument that
denying information suppression on uxa accounts amounts to discrimination
against the legitimate exercise of rights. Quite honestly, I have
no idea how the courts would rule on the issue.
However, the act, as quoted in this newsgroup, is perfectly clear.
If you have not filled out a suppression form, you have not a legal
leg upon which to stand, and the claim that your rights have been
violated is utterly spurious, no matter how loudly it is made.
Uxa And University Policy
Uxa is a CCSO service, not one mandated by the University. The University
has in the past been without such a service. The University targets
no money to uxa, and the computer fee committee has never funded it to
any extent, despite CCSO requests.
Therefore, I find it hard to imagine that the University administration
will place much value on uxa as a service, should push come to shove.
It is well within the bounds of possibility that, should the courts
rule that we cannot divulge the names of students who own accounts,
CCSO will simply get out of the business of providing accounts to
the general student populace.
If you wish to discuss these points rationally, fine; I'm happy to
do so. In point of fact, I've modified my own position in the
course of this debate; I think it has been on the whole useful.
However, I have a purely personal request to make. Let us please
stop making dogmatic assertions of that which we cannot support.
Let us please stop impugning the motives of all involved. Let us
please lose the shouting. Let us please read before we respond,
and reread our own words before we post. I'm making this request
not of the privacy advocates only, but of both sides.
Otherwise, I will opt entirely out of this discussion, as I do not
care to be involved in a shouting match. I do not hold myself
entirely blameless (having used all caps a few times myself), which
is all the more reason I want to see this toned down.
--
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 Feb 5 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: <9202051628.AA31373@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: 5 Feb 92 04:28:40 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Feb 5 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.bbs.internet,alt.censorship
From: lisbon@vpnet.chi.il.us (Gerry Swetsky)
Subject: Re: school wont let students on Internet
Message-ID: <1992Feb04.062514.28776@vpnet.chi.il.us>
Date: Tue, 04 Feb 1992 06:25:14 GMT
For what it's worth......
This whole thread started because a user here posted that the College of
DuPage was on the Internet, yet was not allowing any student access to
the net.
We just checked with the NIC tonight.....
The College of DuPage does NOT have a machine on the Internet!
Repeating.....
The College of DuPage does NOT have a machine on the Internet!
That is most likely why they aren't giving students access.
We now return you to your regularly scheduled thread.
--
============================================================================
| Help stamp out stupid .signature files! Gerry Swetsky WB9EBO |
| vpnet - Public access Unix and Usenet |
| Home (708)833-8122 vpnet (708)833-8126 lisbon@vpnet.chi.il.us |
============================================================================
From caf-talk Caf Feb 5 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.callahans] Re: First Amendment (was Re: Assumptions and Axioms ???)
Message-ID: <9202051747.AA27636@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: 5 Feb 92 05:47:01 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Feb 5 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.callahans
From: tjlee@iastate.edu (Tom Lee)
Subject: Re: First Amendment (was Re: Assumptions and Axioms ???)
Message-ID:
Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1992 00:40:43 GMT
Mentor the Sage writes:
> It is indeed a moral dilemma: How much tolerance is intolerance entitled
>to? My gut reaction, despite my opposition to censorship, is: Not much.
"Hmm," muses Tom, "I suppose I have the right to give out as
much, or as little, tolerance as I want ... but then so do they ...
urgh. But then, who said life was easy?"
> But I think I have a formulation which satisfies me. I have a "natural"
>right to censor what I read/watch/listen to; I am within that right to exclude
>things which offend me, and even to make public what I am doing and why. What
>I do not have -- or SHOULD not have, ideally -- is the power to assign that
>right to be exercised on my behalf by authority (especially government, but
>also computer centre or corporation).
Tom says, "My thought is that you should be able to let anybody
you want censor what you read, or watch, or listen to -- but only if you
explicitly let them, and you should also be able to get them to stop
censoring at any time."
> I might consider -- although I'm not convinced of this -- an
>exception for parents and guardians of minor children....
"Perhaps," says Tom, nodding. "The university's censoring
groups like alt.sex and alt.drugs (but not alt.rock-n-roll), partly for
public-relations reasons and partly to try to avoid sexual harassment
lawsuits."
--> Tom Lee, tjlee@iastate.edu <-----> Physics Dept., Iowa State University <--
"Come along, Homo sapiens, for all we humble friends of yours are waiting here
to cheer." -- A white-front goose, in T. H. White's _The Once and Future King_
From caf-talk Caf Feb 5 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.politics.correct,alt.censorship
From: kadie@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Speech restrictions on CMU computer bboards
Message-ID: <1992Feb5.174032.17326@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1992 17:40:32 GMT
So what's wrong with suppressing offensive speech? Here is John Stuart
Mill's answer.
[From _On Liberty_, 1859. This excerpt is quoted on page 121 of
_Freedom, Technology, and the First Amendment_ by Johnathan W. Emord.]
======================== start ==================================
[I]f any opinion is compelled to silence, that opinion may, for aught
we can certainly know, be true. To deny this is to assume our own
infalliabilty ....
[T]hough the silenced opinion be an error, it may, and very commonly
does, contain a portion of truth; and since the general or prevailing
opinion on any subject is rarely or never the whole truth, it is only
by the collision of adverse opinions that the remainder of the truth
has any chance of being supplied ....
[E]ven if the received opinion be not only true, but the whole truth;
unless it is suffered to be, and actually is, vigorously and earnestly
contested, it will, by most of those who receive it, be held in the
manner of a prejudice, with little comprehension [of] or feeling [for]
its rational grounds.
===========================end==========================
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Feb 5 00:00:00 1992
From: pb1p+@andrew.cmu.edu (Peter Glen Berger)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.politics.correct,alt.censorship
Subject: Re: Speech restrictions on CMU computer bboards
Message-ID:
Date: 5 Feb 92 19:13:07 GMT
"John William Hollis, III" writes:
> Excerpts from cmu.opinion: 30-Jan-92 Re: Speech restrictions on .. John
> Gardiner Myers (1264)
>
> > 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 don't know what system you use to read bboards and mail, but the major
> ones that are supported here at CMU (MacMail, EZ Mail, and AMS) all
> allow you to skim through the subject headers and pick which messages
> you wish to read. The phone analogy would have to include the phone
> announcing who's calling and why they're calling before the person
> decides whether or not to answer.
>
> The choice, and therefore the responsibility, lies with the person who
> decides to read the message and feel harrassed.
Not. Let's say I walk around and tell all your co-workers that you're
lazy, you're stupid, you're ugly, you deserve to die and you're
nothing more than a receptacle for my sperm.
This is harassment. Whether you hear me say it or not. It is a
deliberate attempt to degrade your standing in the community, and,
when coupled with threats, creates a true fear of violence. If I hear
from friends that someone is going around saying that they wish I was
dead, whether or not I can "skip some headers" is, ultimately,
irrelevant.
> Sean
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pete Berger || ARPA: peterb@cs.cmu.edu
Professional Student || Pete.Berger@andrew.cmu.edu
Univ. Pittsburgh School of Law || BITNET: R746PB1P@CMCCVB
Attend this school, not CMU || UUCP: ...!harvard!andrew.cmu.edu!pb1p
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Goldilocks is about property rights. Little Red Riding Hood is a tale
of seduction, rape, murder, and cannibalism." -Bernard J. Hibbits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From caf-talk Caf Feb 5 00:00:00 1992
From: jp57+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jefferson Provost)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.politics.correct,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: Speech restrictions on CMU computer bboards
Message-ID:
Date: 5 Feb 92 19:50:30 GMT
On 05-Feb-92 in Re: Speech restrictions on ..
user Peter Glen Berger writes:
>Not. Let's say I walk around and tell all your co-workers that you're
>lazy, you're stupid, you're ugly, you deserve to die and you're
>nothing more than a receptacle for my sperm.
>
>This is harassment. Whether you hear me say it or not. It is a
>deliberate attempt to degrade your standing in the community, and,
>when coupled with threats, creates a true fear of violence.
Actually, it's more like slander than harrassment, but the way sexual
harrassment is defined
In any case, Eric Jefferson didn't, as I understand it, say these
things about any _specific_ person (correct me, and provide a reference,
if I'm wrong) That makes it quite a different thing. The judicial
board may decide that it is harrassment, but it certainly not as clear
cut as the hypothetical case you made above.
I think it's an awful stretch to say that because someone publicly made
derogatory comments about an entire class of people an individual (not
even in that class of people!) can come out and claim, "He was
harrassing me."
Have people become so sensitive and cowardly that being called names,
(remotely, through an electronic bulletin board, even!) is legitimate
cause for judicial board action?
(Not Eric,)
Jefferson
From caf-talk Caf Feb 5 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: 5 Feb 92 20:12:34 GMT
Excerpts from cmu.opinion: 5-Feb-92 Re: Speech restrictions on .. Peter
Glen Berger (2088)
> Not. Let's say I walk around and tell all your co-workers that you're
> lazy, you're stupid, you're ugly, you deserve to die and you're
> nothing more than a receptacle for my sperm.
> This is harassment. Whether you hear me say it or not. It is a
> deliberate attempt to degrade your standing in the community, and,
> when coupled with threats, creates a true fear of violence. If I hear
> from friends that someone is going around saying that they wish I was
> dead, whether or not I can "skip some headers" is, ultimately,
> irrelevant.
To use your eloquent wording - not.
What you're saying is: gossip is harrassment. I've heard people saying
things like that about other people in the past, and I'm sure many other
people who read this have, too.
Threats? What happened to harrassment?
Gee, you mean to tell me that threats create a true fear of violence? Really?
I've never heard of a threat being telling a 3rd party that "I wish
so-and-so was dead." It's usually more like "I have a gun and I'm going
to kill you," anyway. It's directly to the person, from the other
person - not an outside comment of "I wish s/he were dead." This is all
besides the fact that I haven't seen anyone show proof of any direct
threats. Also, the only derogatory comments I've read were typical of a
flame war and were beyond believability by even an average person.
Therefore, as was shown in a court case against a tabloid, it couldn't
be considered slander even. Sorry, skipping headers still seems like
the best, and only alternative.
Sean
From caf-talk Caf Feb 5 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [uiuc.general] Re: clearing up a something I said re: Dorner
Message-ID: <9202052101.AA00106@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: 5 Feb 92 09:01:18 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Feb 5 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: uiuc.general
From: dawn@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Dawn Owens-Nicholson)
Subject: Re: clearing up a something I said re: Dorner
Message-ID: <1992Feb5.175011.15339@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1992 17:50:11 GMT
lemson@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (David Lemson) writes:
>It is my strong opinion that certain debators here (jeffo and Dawn,
>in particular) would object to CCSO personnel having access to that
>information that would be deemed 'unlisted' to the general
>community.
I guess I haven't been as clear on my position as I thought I had
been. I have NO objection to authorized personnel having necessary
information about me. I object to University departments making
PUBLIC information which I have specifically asked the University to
suppress from public view. I also object to the loss of services
provided by the University (SLIP and nameserver alias) when someone
doesn't want to have his/her name published in the student directory.
I think the "Unlisted" idea is a fine one.
-Dawn
From caf-talk Caf Feb 5 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.politics.correct,alt.censorship
From: russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto)
Subject: Re: Speech restrictions on CMU computer bboards
Message-ID: <1992Feb05.204258.3275@eng.umd.edu>
Date: Wed, 05 Feb 92 20:42:58 GMT
In article pb1p+@andrew.cmu.edu (Peter Glen Berger) writes:
>"John William Hollis, III" writes:
>>
>> The choice, and therefore the responsibility, lies with the person who
>> decides to read the message and feel harrassed.
>
>Not. Let's say I walk around and tell all your co-workers that you're
>lazy, you're stupid, you're ugly, you deserve to die and you're
>nothing more than a receptacle for my sperm.
>
>This is harassment. Whether you hear me say it or not. It is a
>deliberate attempt to degrade your standing in the community, and,
>when coupled with threats, creates a true fear of violence. If I hear
>from friends that someone is going around saying that they wish I was
>dead, whether or not I can "skip some headers" is, ultimately,
>irrelevant.
Going around bad-mouthing someone may (repeat: MAY) be slander, but it is not
harassment. If someone is going around saying that they wish you were dead,
THAT is neither slander nor harassment, just completely legal voicing of an
opinion.
--
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 Feb 5 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [eff.mail.cwis-l] Re: Usenet News Selection Policies
Message-ID: <199202052154.AA26551@eff.org>
Date: 5 Feb 92 11:54:12 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Feb 5 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: eff.mail.cwis-l
From: CHRIS@HMCVAX.CLAREMONT.EDU (Chris Yoder)
Subject: Re: Usenet News Selection Policies
Message-ID: <199202052115.AA24868@eff.org>
Date: 5 Feb 92 21:12:00 GMT
I don't believe that Harvey Mudd College has a specific policy on this.
However, the *PRACTICE* is and has always been to allow full access to all
groups that we can get a feed for, regardless of content. So far we haven't
had any complaints about this... after all users can read what they want and
don't have to read what they don't want.
-- Chris Yoder Internet --- Chris@HMCVAX.Claremont.Edu
VMS Systems Manager
Harvey Mudd College Bitnet ----- Chris@HMCVAX.Bitnet
From caf-talk Caf Feb 5 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 01.44
Message-ID: <1992Feb6.004932.3269@eff.org>
Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1992 00:49:32 GMT
This is an abstract for the most recent "Computers and Academic
Freedom News" (CAF-News). Information about CAF-News followings the
abstract. The full CAF-News is available via email. Send email
to archive-server@eff.org. Include the line:
send caf-news cafv01n44
--- begin abstract ---
[Week ending December 22, 1991
Sorry, this issue is late. The backlog is almost clear. If you might
be interested in helping by guest editing an issue of CAF News, please
send me email at kadie@eff.org.
========================== KEY ================================
The words after the numbers are a short PARAPHRASES of the
articles, NOT AN OBJECTIVE SUMMARY and not necessarily my opinion.
===============================================================
Note 1 is a summary of many 1991 cases.
1. Enclosed is an end-of-year update of the Banned Computer Material
list. It summarizes incidents and policies at Ohio State U., the U. of
Illinois (two campuses), Case Western U., Boston U., U. of Waterloo,
U. of Toledo, Western Washington U., Iowa State U., Pennsylvania State
U., U. of Texas, U. of Newcastle, James Madison U., U. of Wisconsin,
and others.
<1991Dec18.181508.10501@eff.org>
Notes 2-5 are about Iowa State University's Netnews policy.
2. [ISU's 'Usenet News Policy':] "While most of these news lists
provide a wealth of technical, research-based, and collateral
material, a few lists may contain material which may be illegal or
viewed by some as socially or morally objectionable."
<1991Dec16.192659.21805@eff.org>
3. [ISU's 'Standard List':] "The 'Standard News List' is the full
Usenet newsgroup list MINUS certain groups excluded because their name
and accompanying description appear to offer potential conflicts with
law, (particularly with child protection and pornography law) or with
policies such as the sexual harassment policy."
<1991Dec16.200545.23159@eff.org>
4. "The Iowa State University policy should, in my opinion, be changed
to better respect intellectual freedom by more accurately reflecting
library policy (and the law)." It violates the principles of at least
three American Library Association policy statements. (These are
enclosed.)
<1991Dec16.191620.21567@eff.org>
5. [Mike Godwin, staff counsel at the Electronic Frontier Foundation:]
Although the policy's stated purpose is to avoid violations of law, in
fact, all (or almost all) of the material restricted is legal and
Constitutionally protected.
<1991Dec19.175822.21404@eff.org>
Note 6-7 are about an incident at Marquette University, a Catholic
school.
6. Enclosed is a note in which the sys admin of Marquette University
reports that a student has been expelled from the computing facilities
as a result of posting an inflammatory message. I think that
inflammatory speech "should be out competed, not outlawed." Also,
students should not be punished without due process.
<1991Dec18.215846.17384@eff.org>
7. "[O]nce student forums are created they should not be censored."
<1991Dec20.184053.24331@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Notes 8-9 try to answer frequently asked questions.
8. Enclosed are answers (with references) to the questions "Should my
university remove Netnews newsgroups because some people find them
offensive?" and "If it doesn't have the resources to carry all
newsgroups, how should newsgroups be selected?"
<1991Dec16.154149.15030@eff.org>
9. "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."
<1991Dec20.045445.4243@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Note 10 is a report if an incident at the University of Illinois at UC.
10. My account was suspended, apparently for posting a parody to
rec.arts.startrek that some people found offensive.
<9112191932.AA13509@sumter.cso.uiuc.edu>
- Carl]
--- end abstract ---
CAF-News is a weekly digest of notes from CAF-talk.
CAF-News is available as newsgroup alt.comp.acad-freedom.news or via
email. If you read newsgroups but your site doesn't get
alt.comp.acad-freedom.news, (politely) ask your sys admin to
subscribe. For info on email delivery, send email to
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 Feb 5 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [eff.mail.cwis-l] Re: Usenet News Selection Policies
Message-ID: <199202060054.AA03550@eff.org>
Date: 5 Feb 92 14:54:39 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Feb 5 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: eff.mail.cwis-l
From: jqj@DUFF.UOREGON.EDU (JQ Johnson)
Subject: Re: Usenet News Selection Policies
Message-ID: <199202052354.AA01561@eff.org>
Date: 5 Feb 92 23:42:36 GMT
The U of Oregon has generally implemented a de facto policy on news groups
of "anything that's legal." We therefore do not carry feeds of the
restricted-distribution news hierarchies like clari.*, but do carry most
other things.
We have been concerned about resource consumption, but in general the
major resource in short supply had always seemed to be disk space on news
servers, so we finessed that issue by expiring the groups my staff and I
didn't care about (e.g. the alt.* and talk.* groups) fairly rapidly.
However, we have noticed a new technical issue that is getting in the way
of this policy. One of the favorite news reading user agents on campus,
NewsWatcher for the Mac, is effectively limited to 32K chars of data in
its equivalent of a .newsrc file. If we were to carry all the news groups
we have access to, we'd see nearly twice that in news group names. So, to
support our Mac users we currently trim the list of news groups carried on
our major public news server not to include groups of what we believe to
be low local interest (e.g. local news hierarchies for other campuses). I
could easily see users on campus complaining about this policy, though
(for example, before I implemented the policy I was a regular reader of
several Stanford su.* news groups. I'd personally much rather keep those
groups than alt.american.automibile.breakdown.breakdown.breakdown and
such.).
We are not in a position to invest much time in picking and choosing news
groups, so we need a better fix. Does anyone have suggestions?
--
JQ Johnson
Director of Network Services Internet: jqj@oregon.uoregon.edu
University of Oregon voice: (503) 346-1746
250E Computing Center fax: (503) 346-4397
Eugene, OR 97403-1212
From caf-talk Caf Feb 6 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan)
Subject: Re: [uiuc.general] Re: clearing up a something I said re: Dorner
Message-ID: <1992Feb6.95911.28855@ms.uky.edu>
Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1992 14:59:11 GMT
>Newsgroups: uiuc.general
>From: dawn@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Dawn Owens-Nicholson)
>
>I object to University departments making
>PUBLIC information which I have specifically asked the University to
>suppress from public view.
If you have followed the proper procedures, you have a legitimate objection.
I, for one, agree with you on this particular point; if they have an estab-
lished procedure for protecting/withholding this information, they have an
obligation to honor such requests.
>I also object to the loss of services
>provided by the University (SLIP and nameserver alias) when someone
>doesn't want to have his/her name published in the student directory.
I don't agree with this statement. SLIP and nameserver services are
"special cases" and, as such, I can understand the need for real names.
I certainly wouldn't be comfortable with providing anonymous SLIP or
aliases; it's another revision of Pandora's Box.
There is a slight parallel between these and other university systems.
You can't register for classes with a pseudonym, nor can you get a library
card with one. You can't use Student Health Services under a false name;
I'm sure that we can all think of other examples.
SLIP and other such services are not, by default, necessities. They are
luxuries, and the University has a certain right to more stringent require-
ments for their use.
You may have a right to a certain amount of privacy, but I don't think
that translates into a University obligation to provide all of its ser-
vices on an anonymous basis.
--
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 Feb 7 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,uiuc.general
From: kadie@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Requiring students to release directory information
Message-ID: <1992Feb6.233159.24859@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1992 23:31:59 GMT
Here is one interesting question to come out of the current
discussions at UIUC:
If a student decides to surpass directory information, can the
university *legally* refuse to offer some services based on that
refusal? [The moral question is interesting, but distinct.]
For example,
Can the university require student athletes to disclose their name
to the outside world as a condition for being on the team?
Can the university require students to disclose their name to the
outside world as a condition for getting a free student computer
account?
Can the university require students to disclose their name and phone
number to the outside world as a condition for getting a free student
computer account?
Can the university require students to disclose their name and phone
number to the outside world as a condition for getting a class
computer account?
Can the university require students to disclose their name and phone
number to the outside world as a condition for sending email?
Can the university require students to release their name and phone
number as a condition for early registration?
Can the university require students to release their name and phone
number as a condition for continued enrollment.
I would guess the answer to the first question is "yes" and that the
answer to the last is "no". I don't know the answer to the middle
questions, but can provide some additional information:
[From _College and University Student Records: A Legal Compendium_,
Edited by Joan E. Van Tol, 1989]
================== p. 119 ===============
The regulations ... were significantly modified in 1988. ... The
new regulations amend the definition of directory information
and establish a standard for the designation of directory information.
The new definition is:
' ... information contained in an education record of a student which
would not be considered harmful or an invasion of privacy if
disclosed. It includes, but is not limited to, the student's name,
address, telephone list, date and place of birth, major field of
study, participation in officially-recognized activities and sports,
weight and height of members of athletic teams, date of attendance,
degrees and awards received, and the most recent previous educational
agency or institution attended.'
The new standard -- that which would not be considered harmful or an
invasion of privacy if disclosed -- permits the educational
institution to exercise its discretion in the designation and and
release of directory information provided that the eligible student
does not object to the disclosure.
======================== p. 106 ============
[From the regulations: 34 C.F.R., 99.37 (1988)]
99.37 What conditions apply to disclosing directory information?
(a) An educational agency or institution may disclose directory information
if it has given public notice to parents of students in attendance and
eligible student is attendance at the agency or institutional of --
(1) The types of personally identifiable information that the
agency or institution has designed as directory information;
(2) A parent's or eligible student's right to refuse to let the agency
or institution any or all of those types of information about the
student as directory information; and
(3) The period of time within which a parent or eligible student has
to notify the agency or institution in writing that he or she does
not want any or all of those types of information about the student
designed as directory information.
================== p. 155 ================
[from a reprint of an article printed in 1982 in _Computer/Law
Journal_ by a Ms. Hyman.]
... A waiver of FERPA rights made pursuant to section 99.7 must be
exercised by the student {109} and can apply to all FERPA rights
{110}. Wavers must be signed {111}, and are most commonly given
regarding letters of recommendation for admission {112}. Institutions
may request students to waive their right of access to these letters,
but they may not require a waiver as a condition for admission or
services.{113}.
[References]
{110} 34 C.F.R. 99.7(a) (1980)
{113} 34 C.F.R, 99.7(b) (1980) [Which I think cooresponds to this section of the 1988
regulations - cmk]
====================== p. 104 =================
[34 C.F.R. 99.12 (1988)]
99.12 What limitations exist on the right to inspect and review
records? ...
(b) A postsecondary institution does not have to permit a student to
inspect and review educational records that are -- ...
(3) Confidential letters and confidential statement of recommendation
places in the student's records ..., if
(i) The student has waived his or her right to inspect and review
those letters and statements;
...
(c) A waiver under paragraph (b)(3)(i) of this section is valid only
if --
(i) The educational agency or institution does not require the waiver
as a condition for admission to or receipt of a service or benefit
form the agency or institution;
...
============================================
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Feb 7 00:00:00 1992
From: jm36+@andrew.cmu.edu (John Gardiner Myers)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.censorship,alt.politics.correct
Subject: Re: Speech restrictions on CMU computer bboards
Message-ID:
Date: 7 Feb 92 03:48:51 GMT
kadie@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
> So what's wrong with suppressing offensive speech? Here is John Stuart
> Mill's answer.
...which is fairly irrelevant because noone at CMU was arguing to
suppress speech that was merely offensive. The issue is about
suppressing speech that is intimidating, harassing, or sexually
harassing. Such speech, like the classic example of "Fire!" in a
crowded theatre, can be shown to do real harm.
From caf-talk Caf Feb 7 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: uiuc.general,alt.censorship,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Next Tuesday
Message-ID: <1992Feb7.041549.16323@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1992 04:15:49 GMT
Next Tuesday, former attorney general Ed Meese will be speaking at the
U. of Illinois at U.C. (7pm, Lincoln Hall, that's all I know.)
Ironically, on the same day, at the same time, our local PBS
affiliate will be broadcasting:
7pm TV PBS Nova "What Smells?"
and
9pm TV PBS "Bill of Rights: 1st Amendment and Hate Speech"
[BTW, the Bill of Rights program this week was excellent. I expect
next Tuesday's show to be good too. Remember every PBS affiliate
decides on its own when (and if) it will broadcast a show, so check
your listings.]
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Feb 7 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: nbc2134@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil (Robert F Solon)
Subject: The Dark Ages Revisited (Was Re: Supression on speech on CM
Message-ID: <9202071322.AA09866@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil>
Date: 7 Feb 92 03:22:12 GMT
In reply to the mail from ...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>....which is fairly irrelevant because noone at CMU was arguing to
>suppress speech that was merely offensive. The issue is about
>suppressing speech that is intimidating, harassing, or sexually
>harassing. Such speech, like the classic example of "Fire!" in a
>crowded theatre, can be shown to do real harm.
>
CMU is embarking on a slippery slope, as do all who wish to supress expression
for any reason. It is impossible to objectively determine what might be
"intimidating, harassing, or sexually harassing." The search for truth is
compromised when _any_ expression is supressed. Mill argued that even the
most obnoxious and terrible of ideas might contain a small kernel of truth.
By not allowing such ideas, as hateful and uninformed as they might be, we
risk losing some of the truth. Surely and especially at an academic
institution, that should be a primary goal.
In the case of shouting fire in a theatre, one can show that there is an
objective effect, i.e., determination of harm does not rest with the recievers
of the expression, but can be made by an outside observer. In the case of Mr.
Myer's examples, there is no way for an outside observer to be able to
objectively determine that a given expression is intimidating, harassing, or
sexually harassing. Therefore, supression of such expression is unwarranted,
IMHO.
I would suggest that instead of attempting to supress undesirable speech one
would instead want to educate all individuals about such topics as harassment,
and multiculturalism. These are worthy goals, and education is a worthy way
to achieve them.
Finally, let me ask this: Have things gone so far that we can sit here and
discuss supression of expression for any reason? The liberal tradition sets
inquiry, questioning, and critical thought as among the highest goals of
people everywhere. And yet, there are those who wish to limit the inquiry to
only "correct" topics, or to inquire only in "correct" ways. These
individuals seem to sacrifice the search for truth for some ever-changing,
ever-undefinable ideology that stifles the human spirit and that would
seek to force conformity, not by persuasion, but with the brute force of the
law.
Sounds familiar? Ever here of Marxism-Leninism-Stalinism? How about Maoism?
People died in Tiananmen Square for the freedom to inquire. People died
attempting to cross the Berlin Wall to escape such "theories." We fought a
world war to stop another such "theory" from subjugating Europe. Men and
women have fought for thousands of years for the freedom to think for
themselves. And yet here, in the U.S. of A., the bastion of freedom and
democracy, there are those who think nothing of using the the methods of
Stalin, Mao, Deng, Hitler, and Castro to impose their own ideological framework
on us all.
Have we learned nothing?
From caf-talk Caf Feb 7 00:00:00 1992
From: cr2r+@andrew.cmu.edu (Christian M. Restifo)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.politics.correct,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: Speech restrictions on CMU computer bboards
Message-ID:
Date: 7 Feb 92 13:32:29 GMT
Excerpts from netnews.alt.censorship: 6-Feb-92 Re: Speech restrictions
on .. John Gardiner Myers@andr (442)
> ...which is fairly irrelevant because noone at CMU was arguing to
> suppress speech that was merely offensive. The issue is about
> suppressing speech that is intimidating, harassing, or sexually
> harassing. Such speech, like the classic example of "Fire!" in a
> crowded theatre, can be shown to do real harm.
why not let them all know what is happening, john? the very question of
harassment is what is being argued here. how many people here, in the
paper and on the bboards, have said that what knauer, newman, and masco
did was wrong? And since these people DID make themselves the
self-appointed moral arbitrators of the system, it IS about suppressing
speech that was merely offensive.
simple questions to which i want answers:
1) how can it be harassment when one can easily ignore the message or
not even read it at all?
2) if i "yell" on a bboard that women in general are bitches, how does
that do harm? (and i mean REAL harm--harassment, etc. not this "well,
he's not contributing to a healthy learning environment junk)
3) just what is 'intimidating" speech? how can i intimidate someone on a
bboard to such an extent that they feel harassed when I don't mention
any particular names?
4) why is it that when someone reads something offensive, they instantly
claim "oh i'm being harassed" or "it's not conducive to the free
exchange of ideas because it makes me afraid to speak out"? since when
did the principle of openly taking issue with what someone else said
become the responsibility of the that person (who spoke first) to "not
upset" everyone else?
those who defend this current form of speech restriction have yet to
offer good answers that hold up to close scrutiny.
"The reason for time is so that | Chris Restifo
everything doesn't happen at once." | cr2r+@andrew.cmu.edu
-The Banzai Institute | Carnegie Mellon (no U)
Disclaimer: One who disclaims. This thing don't claim anything.
It's at times like these that you should be glad I don't work for the
Post Office...
From caf-talk Caf Feb 7 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: warnold@eff.org (William W. Arnold)
Subject: Re: Speech restrictions on CMU computer bboards
Message-ID: <199202071529.AA05354@eff.org>
Date: 7 Feb 92 15:29:05 GMT
sent to caf-request, forwarded----warnold@eff.org
-------------------------------------------------
There is nothing wrong with shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theatre -- as long
as there is a fire. The problem is when there is no fire. There is no
remedy for the damage that can be caused as people attempt to escape an
imaginary fire.
There are remedies for offensive, intimidating, harassing and even sexually
harassing speech. Most of them start with more speech, some of them end
with some form of administrative, civil or even criminal punishment. Free
speech is too precious a commodity to allow it to fall victim to those who
believe they know the truth -- no matter what part of the political spectrum
they inhabit. The harm most people claim speech can do is usually
eliminated by turning the dial, walking away or disconnecting from the
bulletin board service.
It would be most ironic that at the moment when we are most capable of
allowing every person to become a publisher (through mail, newsgroups and
the use of computers) we institute greater controls on speech than have
ever been found needed in our contry's history.
The remedy for speech with which you do not agree is for you to speak
out.
And by the way, thanks to Bob Solon for his earlier remarks in favor of
free speech.
Dean Gottehrer
Anchorage, Alaska
From caf-talk Caf Feb 7 00:00:00 1992
From: bh@anarres.Berkeley.EDU (Brian Harvey)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.politics.correct,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: Speech restrictions on CMU computer bboards
Date: 7 Feb 1992 15:37:42 GMT
Message-ID:
[Introducing myself: I am a long-time left radical, and an ACLU member.
I think the postings under discussion were disgusting and their author
an immature child. Nevertheless I think they have the status of
protected speech.]
Aside from the free speech issue, I think there are two self-defeating
aspects to the stance that such postings should be punished:
1. The crying-wolf effect. A few years ago I was a faculty resident in a
dormitory. Late one night a freshman, under the influence of alcohol,
pushed burning paper under the door of another student in the hope of starting
a fire, because the former was homophobic and the latter gay. Now,
THAT'S harrassment, and he was punished for it. If people dilute the meaning
of "harrassment" to include the expression of antagonistic opinions, other
people will just find it easier to condone REAL harrassment as merely being
further along a continuum.
I am not suggesting that harrassment has to be physical. But I think it
does have to be directed at a specific person.
2. The easy-target problem. I don't know what CMU's record is about
things like tenure for faculty women, and recruitment and retention of
female and minority students, but I'm going to assume it's just as bad
as Berkeley's, where I am. If so, there is nothing the university
administration will like better than a high-profile, low-cost way to
paint themselves in the progressive camp by dumping on a student, to get
people's attention off the university's own problems.
The kid who posted those messages is a jerk, but he's a young powerless
jerk, and it's possible that he'll get over it when he grows up. The
university is full of mature WASP-male-privileged adults who have the
power to make, or to avoid, real changes in social role stereotyping.
That's a more important battle to fight.
P.S. I *also* think that the free-speech arguments are the most important
thing to say about this situation, but I'm saying this other stuff because
I don't have anything to add about free speech that others haven't said.
From caf-talk Caf Feb 8 00:00:00 1992
Date: Friday, 7 Feb 1992 16:27:19 CST
From: John Schulien
Message-ID: <92038.162719U21187@uicvm.uic.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.censorship,alt.politics.correct
Subject: Re: Speech restrictions on CMU computer bboards
In article , jm36+@andrew.cmu.edu (John
Gardiner Myers) says:
>
>...which is fairly irrelevant because noone at CMU was arguing to
>suppress speech that was merely offensive. The issue is about
>suppressing speech that is intimidating, harassing, or sexually
>harassing. Such speech, like the classic example of "Fire!" in a
>crowded theatre, can be shown to do real harm.
Movie theatres used to be dangerous places -- the projectors were run
using high temperature carbon arcs, the film was made of flammable,
practically explosive cellulose, The buildings were often wood frame,
and the exit doors didn't always open out. There were a number of tragic
incidents where a crowd would realize that a theatre was on fire, and dash
towards the inward-opening exit doors, preventing them from opening, and
crushing the unlucky people in front to death.
The "movie-theatre" principle originated and belongs in this context.
Saying that you can't yell "fire" in a movie theatre really means that
you can't use speech to create a situation in which other people are
likely to be physically injured or killed, not that you can't say
something that is offensive or controversial.
In the cases you mention, the "fire" doctrine just doesn't apply.
- JohnS
From caf-talk Caf Feb 9 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: mpd@anomaly.sbs.com (Michael P. Deignan)
Subject: Re: school wont let students on Internet
Date: Sun, 09 Feb 1992 14:21:28 GMT
Message-ID: <1992Feb09.142128.177@anomaly.sbs.com>
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) duplicates a message from
petrilli@hal.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Chris Petrilli)
>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.
I'm sure IRC can serve a valuable purpose to the academic community.
Students from around the world can get together, discuss various political,
social, and scientific ideas. Right now, however, IRC is little more than
a CompuServe CB-chat simulator.
>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.
The same argument could be easily applied to free textbooks.
>Considering the tuitions that most students pay, even if they simply
>increased tuition $2-3 they could justify a larger link onto Internet.
But, its just not a larger link. Going from a 56kbps connection to a T1
connection is an approximate 300% increase (from about $1.5k/mo. to $5k/mo.)
However, you also have increased equipment costs, a larger number of
computer terminals (all those extra students using the system need something
to log on with...), more manpower to handle the user base, increased
staffing requirements (hour-wise) not to mention elongating the schedule of
the computer labs (so more people can get in).
Equating access to the Internet as merely an augmentation of bandwidth
potential is foolish.
>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.
As another user pointed out (by quoting statistics retrieved from nis.nsf.net)
the largest consumer of bandwidth was FTP. NFS and Xwindows didn't even make
it on the list. I suggest you do some more research before you open your
mouth to spew "facts".
>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.
An interesting comment, coming from someone who doesn't even have a clue
what he is talking about (as is clearly demonstrated by your "Xwindows"
comment...)
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 9 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: mpd@anomaly.sbs.com (Michael P. Deignan)
Subject: Re: school wont let students on Internet
Date: Sun, 09 Feb 1992 14:21:28 GMT
Message-ID: <1992Feb09.142128.177@anomaly.sbs.com>
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) duplicates a message from
petrilli@hal.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Chris Petrilli)
>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.
I'm sure IRC can serve a valuable purpose to the academic community.
Students from around the world can get together, discuss various political,
social, and scientific ideas. Right now, however, IRC is little more than
a CompuServe CB-chat simulator.
>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.
The same argument could be easily applied to free textbooks.
>Considering the tuitions that most students pay, even if they simply
>increased tuition $2-3 they could justify a larger link onto Internet.
But, its just not a larger link. Going from a 56kbps connection to a T1
connection is an approximate 300% increase (from about $1.5k/mo. to $5k/mo.)
However, you also have increased equipment costs, a larger number of
computer terminals (all those extra students using the system need something
to log on with...), more manpower to handle the user base, increased
staffing requirements (hour-wise) not to mention elongating the schedule of
the computer labs (so more people can get in).
Equating access to the Internet as merely an augmentation of bandwidth
potential is foolish.
>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.
As another user pointed out (by quoting statistics retrieved from nis.nsf.net)
the largest consumer of bandwidth was FTP. NFS and Xwindows didn't even make
it on the list. I suggest you do some more research before you open your
mouth to spew "facts".
>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.
An interesting comment, coming from someone who doesn't even have a clue
what he is talking about (as is clearly demonstrated by your "Xwindows"
comment...)
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 /
