From caf-talk Caf Mar 2 00:00:00 1992
From: allens@yang.earlham.edu
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: NSFnet rules of use and terminus
Message-ID: <1992Mar2.024607.16129@yang.earlham.edu>
Date: 2 Mar 92 07:46:06 GMT
In article <1992Feb27.035129.31941@mp.cs.niu.edu>, bennett@mp.cs.niu.edu (Scott Bennett) writes:
> In article <1992Feb24.171839.15358@news.iastate.edu> john@iastate.edu (John Hascall) writes:
>>mycroft@hal.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Charles Hannum) writes:
>>
>>}In article <1992Feb24.94335.14185@ms.uky.edu> morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes
>>}Morgan) writes:
>>}> [text deleted --SJB]
>>
>>}What you are "suggesting" is more than that. You are proposing a
>>}solution which is simply not acceptable to the people it will affect.
>>
>>Ok, maybe you'll like my "suggestion" better. Everyone who is
>>pissed off at MIT does:
>>
>> foreach x (0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1)
>> ping terminus.lcs.mit.edu 2000 >& /dev/null &
>> end
>>
> The problem with the above suggestion is that it also places an
> uncalled-for, extra load on other network resources. Perhaps a better
> alternative for those sites whose administrators feel strongly opposed
> to the existence of terminal servers that allow unauthenticated access
> to the Internet would be an extension to the recommendation that packet
> filtering be used to block access from said terminal servers. The
> extension would be simply to block access from *all* addresses at
> institutions that are known to have *any* such "open" terminal servers.
Do you seriously think that would be done to _MIT_? It seems
somewhat unlikely...
> Such filtering would accomplish three things: a) it would provide the
> at least as much enhancement to security as would blocking packets from
> just the terminal servers, b) it would reduce the utility to the offen-
> ding institutions of their Internet access to the extent that less of
> the Internet would be accessible to their users, thereby communicating
> in a very democratic manner the view of the offending institution held
> by the offended/defending institution, and c) would largely bypass the
> problem of updating the routers' packet filtering commands anytime the
> offending institutions happened to change the terminal servers' addresses
> within their networks. It also retains the advantage of the earlier
> suggestions to use packet filtering in that it would require no network-
> wide, official policy decision or enforcement activity, while improving
> the likelihood that offending institutions would someday reform their
> own policies and behavior.
> If such action became sufficiently widespread, then a considerable
> amount of pressure would be applied to the offending institutions by
> a) users at those institutions desiring access to the sites blocking
> the packets, b) users at the blocking sites desiring access to the
> offending institutions, and possibly c) system administrators at backup
> MX sites tiring of expending resources to forward inordinate amounts
> of email between the blocking sites and the offending sites.
Users at the blocking sites seem more likely to start bugging
their own admins to simply block the one open site. It's easier to bug
someone who is closer by.
> The Internet
> has become, like weather data, air traffic controller communications,
> and so forth, a valuable or even critical resource for most participants.
> As in the cases of exchange of weather data and air traffic controller
> communications, those organizations that refuse to act cooperatively in
> a manner beneficial, or at least harmless, to the rest of the community
> are simply excluded from the community until they adopt more civilized
> policies. Direct attacks, such as ping loops, are obnoxious and also,
> in this case, unnecessary. Democratic action, for all its flaws, is
> usually nonetheless preferable to military action.
Agreed.
-Allen
From caf-talk Caf Mar 2 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.unix.admin] Re: Why I hate IRC
Message-ID: <9203021436.AA25319@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 1992 02:36:39 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Mar 2 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: comp.unix.admin
From: sean@ms.uky.edu (Sean Casey)
Subject: Re: Why I hate IRC
Message-ID: <1992Mar1.230835.9357@ms.uky.edu>
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 1992 04:08:35 GMT
an288@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark Hittinger) writes:
[regarding shutting down controversial services]
|I wouldn't feel guilty about doing these things because they can get together
|and send a petition to your bosses. If they believe so strongly that it is
|their right than they certainly can and should fight for it. If they will
|not take the appropriate political steps then they are not really serious.
Why not ask students why they don't get together and send a petition?
I can tell you why; because most of them are convinced it won't make
any difference. These kids come out of high school and still have
authority stamped all over their behinds. Most of the college people I
know don't even conceive of trying to change the system until
their last year, and then they're too busy trying to graduate to get
involved.
I don't think lack of involvement implies a lack of seriousness.
Yes, the users have to become responsible with the use of the resources
and get involved in policy-making. But the administrators should help
in this process by asking for input, opening policy meetings, and by
acting less arbitrarily upon the users they are trying to serve.
Sean
--
|``Wind, waves, etc. are breakdowns in the face of the
Sean Casey | commitment to getting from here to there. But they are the
sean@s.ms.uky.edu | conditions for sailing -- not something to be gotten rid
U of KY, Lexington| of, but something to be danced with.''
From caf-talk Caf Mar 2 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.censorship] Re: Telnet Censorship.
Message-ID: <9203021438.AA25350@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 1992 02:38:17 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Mar 2 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
From: mpd@anomaly.sbs.com (Michael P. Deignan)
Subject: Re: Telnet Censorship.
Date: Mon, 02 Mar 1992 00:33:04 GMT
Message-ID: <1992Mar02.003304.9436@anomaly.sbs.com>
s8759859@titan.ucc.umass.edu (Tig Stone) writes:
>I pay extra money for my account here at the University of
>Massachusetts. I can make an analogy between Mr. Deignan's praise for
>system administrators with the attitude "it's my system, I'll do
>whatever the hell I want with users" and a car.
You can try to make an analogy, but it will be pretty useless. For one
thing, other people aren't dependent on the performance of that car you
"rented". Other people are continuously dependent on the performance of
academic machinery.
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 Mar 2 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.censorship] Re: Telnet Censorship.
Message-ID: <9203021438.AA25360@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 1992 02:38:36 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Mar 2 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
From: trd54583@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (LunarWolf)
Subject: Re: Telnet Censorship.
Message-ID: <1992Mar2.050935.24295@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 1992 05:09:35 GMT
mpd@anomaly.sbs.com (Michael P. Deignan) writes:
>Good for them! Its about time students realize that the computer system is
>for Academics and not for their personal leisure time. Buy an Atari 2600 if
>you want leisure material.
Well now, I can understand public sites limiting gaming hours since many
users need access to those computers for academic purposes. However, I do
not understand why the computer system itself should be ONLY for academics.
Furthermore, if a student can logon to the system from a private site, (such as a computer from his/her own room) I do
not see any reason why said student should not be able to use the system
for academics or {gasp!} games or whatever the hell s/he wants to do with the
damn system. *growl*
But then again, I am one of those stupid .edu users so my opinion is most
definitely biased and, by virtue of my extreme unforgivable unfathomable
ignorance, not valid, right?
Peace,
Tom
PS Keep your damn Atari 2600!!
From caf-talk Caf Mar 2 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.censorship] Re: Telnet Censorship.
Message-ID: <9203021438.AA25369@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 1992 02:38:55 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Mar 2 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
From: trd54583@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (LunarWolf)
Subject: Re: Telnet Censorship.
Message-ID: <1992Mar2.051901.25306@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 1992 05:19:01 GMT
mpd@anomaly.sbs.com (Michael P. Deignan) writes:
>"rented". Other people are continuously dependent on the performance of
>academic machinery.
>MD
If the sacred system is so "academic", then why did the Great Internet Gods
themselves decide to besmirch the honor (or allow aforementioned besmirching)
of the system by creating/allowing use of those evil little gaming demons?
Could it be *a light goes on, followed by a bell* because the Gods intended
the system to be maybe a bit more than academic? (A thousand pardons to the
Great Internet Gods if the previous statement was blasphemy. )
Yours in Sacred Sarcasm,
Tom
From caf-talk Caf Mar 2 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.censorship] Re: Telnet Censorship.
Message-ID: <9203021439.AA25378@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 1992 02:39:14 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Mar 2 00:00:00 1992
From: entropy@wintermute.WPI.EDU (Lawrence C. Foard)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
Subject: Re: Telnet Censorship.
Message-ID: <1992Mar2.074130.17989@wpi.WPI.EDU>
Date: 2 Mar 92 07:41:30 GMT
In article <1992Feb29.025848.20812@anomaly.sbs.com> mpd@anomaly.sbs.com (Michael P. Deignan) writes:
>bd671@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Christopher P. Harr) writes:
>
>> Recently here at the Universtiy of Cincinnati, my home University
>>we have had system administrators kill accounts of people who connected to
>>port numbers whether it be IRC, MUD's MUSHES, MUSES etc. There are also people
>>who lost their accounts for telnetting to certain foriegn hosts, even though
>>they had permission to telnet there.
>
>Good for them! Its about time students realize that the computer system is
>for Academics and not for their personal leisure time. Buy an Atari 2600 if
>you want leisure material.
What are you doing reading a non academic news group? If you want to read
news for leisure you should buy your own news feed....
With the attitudes of some sysops on the net I should have had tinymush
send each character as a seperate packet give them something to really
complain about....
--
Disclaimer: Opinions are based on logic rather than biblical "fact". ------
This is a mutated signature virus, if you don't put it in your .sig \ /
file you may lose your job, your dog may be run over, and you may die. \ /
If you repent and add the .sig you may win the lottery and get laid. \/
From caf-talk Caf Mar 2 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Policy of School of Engineering at the U. of Pennsylvania
Message-ID: <199203021938.AA07341@eff.org>
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 1992 09:38:32 GMT
[This is the current policy for the main timesharing system for the
School of Engineering and Applied Science at the University of
Pennsylvania. The policy is being revised. The revision is expected
this summer. Eniac is the hostname of the system. - Carl]
Eniac Policy
The eniac computer supports course work, electronic mail and news for
students, faculty and staff in the School of Engineering and Applied
Science. In order to provide sufficient resources for the entire SEAS
community, the Computing and Educational Technology Services Department
(CETS) must limit resources given to each individual. Additional resources
may be available from academic departments and research facilities.
Security:
You are responsible for what is done using your account. If there
is evidence of unauthorized or improper use of your account, CETS will
temporarily disable your account. This protects your files and other users
in the system. You will be asked to come to CETS, show your Penn ID,
and change your password and/or take other appropriate action. If you
suspect that someone else is using your account, come to CETS and report it
immediately.
Don't let other people use your account. Your computer account belongs to
you alone. SEAS provides computer accounts from the educational technology
fees of SEAS students, and it is desirable to keep that fee as low as
possible.
Keep your password a secret. Your password belongs to you alone. Don't
even give your password to a computer system administrator.
Logout when you are finished at a terminal. If you don't, other people can
use your account, change your password, and so on.
No computer system is immune from forgeries or spoofs. Don't take
any irreversible action based on electronic communication alone. In
particular, don't believe everything you read on April Fools' Day.
Privacy:
Only read other people's files if you have permission from the owner to
read them. This applies to both protected and unprotected files. On the
other hand, complete privacy cannot be guaranteed. Never store files on
any time-sharing system whose disclosure would be disastrous. CETS staff
will only view users' files under exceptional circumstances, such as the
appearance of abuse. However, printouts cannot be completely private,
since they are hand-separated.
Contacting other Computers:
Only attempt to connect to other computers if you have reason to believe
that the owner wants you to connect. This includes telnet, ftp and login.
If you are requested to stop connecting to certain computers, you must
stop. All outside connections go through the Internet, and some machines
on the Internet have very strict policies. Since our university connection
can be terminated by Internet authorities if there is evidence of abusive
use of the connection, CETS is very strict about even the appearance of
abuse.
Misbehavior:
Forged mail, attempts to use other people's accounts, attempts to crack
password files, attempts to alter system files, and similar misbehavior
may be referred to the University Office of Judicial Inquiry. Other
misbehavior, such as harassment by computer, falls under the university's
general policy which is found in the Academic Bulletin. Concerns regarding
harassment can be discussed in a confidential manner with the Ombudsman's
Office (898-8261).
Quotas:
1.5 megabytes is the basic quota for all students. If a student has 2 or
more courses which require extensive eniac-based computing, the quota can
be raised to 3 megs for the semester. All quotas are reset to 1.5 megs
in September. To get the high-level quota, send e-mail to accounts@eniac
listing the courses and the professors. (Note: this assumes that the
professors have already notified CETS that the courses will use eniac for
computing. If not, there will be a delay.)
Compute-bound jobs:
To provide a reasonable level of support for the SEAS community, CETS
limits the size of computing tasks performed on eniac. The limits, 20
cpu-minutes and/or 30 megabytes of memory per program, are automatically
enforced. For larger tasks, the faculty advisor of the project should work
with CETS to find computing resources sufficient for the project.
Printing:
Limit your printouts---save the trees! The lineprinters are available for
printing program listings. The laserwriters are for final versions of
PostScript files. No multiple copies, form letters or on-line manuals are
permitted to be printed on the laserwriters. So far, CETS has not imposed
limits or fees for laserprinting, but it may become necessary.
Computer Room Etiquette:
Eating, drinking and smoking are not allowed in any of the computer or
terminal rooms. Users who violate this rulecomputing from home. Computer
room documentation must be kept in the room.
Shared Resources:
Eniac and its network connections are shared resources. Using eniac is a
privilege which gives us computational abilities, world-wide communication,
and much more. However, it is a fragile system which depends on the
honesty of its users. Every user is involved in preserving and protecting
the system.
From ira Mon Mar 2 12:46:58 1992
From ira@cis.upenn.edu Wed Feb 5 13:40:51 1992
Posted-Date: Mon, 03 Feb 92 20:10:02 EST
To: kadie@eff.org
Subject: critique of proposed computer ethics policy
Date: Mon, 03 Feb 92 20:10:02 EST
From: Ira Winston
the attached proposed policy was partially approved in fall 1990 and
is being pushed forward again now. i was at a meeting today and
i volunteered to ask your opinion. i told the group that there has
been much progress in this area since 1990. i would appreciate
your comments and possible pointers to better policies that
address the same issues:
The following is the proposed "University of Pennylvania Policy on
Ethical Behavior with respect to the Electronic Information Environment"
The use of computers, electronic information and computer networks is
essential for research, instruction and administration within the academic
community. Because the electronic environment is extremely volatile and
easily disrupted and electronic information is readily reproduced, respect
for the work and rights of others is especially important. Unethical behavior
with respect to the electronic environment is a ground for sanctions against
members of the acedemic community.
The University of Pennsylvania defines as unethical any activity which
purposefully or through negligence:
a) destroys the integrity of electronic information
b) compromises the privacy of users of electronic networks or
computer systems.
c) disrupts the use of electronic networks or computer systems
d) violates the intellectual property of computer programs or
electronic information, including plagiarism and unauthorized use
or reproduction.
e) wastes resources (human or electronic) through such actions.
--
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 Mar 2 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Policy of School of Engineering at the U. of Pennsylvania
Message-ID: <199203021946.AA07514@eff.org>
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 1992 09:46:47 GMT
This is a critique of the current policy for the main timesharing
system for the School of Engineering and Applied Science at the
University of Pennsylvania. The policy is being revised. The revision
is expected this summer. Eniac is the hostname of the system. The
University of Pennsylvania is a private university.
> CETS staff
> will only view users' files under exceptional circumstances, such as the
> appearance of abuse.
I suggest providing more detail here. One approach is to find the
University's general privacy/search policy and apply it the computer
system. This will 1) help you outline the procedure for breaching
user's privacy with a search 2) keep you consistent with general
university policy 3) keep you consistent with the law.
> Since our university connection
> can be terminated by Internet authorities if there is evidence of abusive
> use of the connection, CETS is very strict about even the appearance of
> abuse.
I suggest removing the words "even the appearance of". To leave it in
suggests that users can be punished for nonabuse.
[...]
> Shared Resources:
> Eniac and its network connections are shared resources. Using eniac is a
> privilege which gives us computational abilities, world-wide communication,
> and much more. However, it is a fragile system which depends on the
> honesty of its users. Every user is involved in preserving and protecting
> the system.
[...]
I suggest changing the "Using eniac is a privilege" sentence to read
"Eniac gives us computational abilities, ...". Saying that it is a
privilege suggests that a user can be expelled from the computer
without due process.
> d) violates the intellectual property of computer programs or
> electronic information, including plagiarism and unauthorized use
> or reproduction.
This wording is awkward. It makes it sound as though computers
programs own intellectual property.
> The University of Pennsylvania defines as unethical any activity which
>purposefully or through negligence:
[...]
> e) wastes resources (human or electronic) through such actions.
The phrase "through such actions" is redundant.
Here are some misc. comments:
Suggested Additions (based on the Draft Statement
on Computers and Academic Freedom, which I am enclosing):
What happens if a student or faculty member violates the policy? This
should be spelled out. The easiest method of offering due process may
be to tie into the University's disciplinary system.
How do the University's general policies on privacy and freedom of
expression apply to your computer system? You may want to make this
explicit.
- Carl
===============excerpt from ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/caf-statement===========
This is an attempt to codify the application of academic freedom to
academic computers. It reflects our seven months of on-line discussion
about computers and academic freedom. It is made up of two kinds of
statements. The first, labeled as principles, are premises. The
second, labeled as interpretations, are conclusions drawn from the
principles.
The two kinds of statements can be thought of as axioms and theorems.
An axiom (principle) is most likely to be criticized for being
unreasonable. A theorem (interpretation) is mostly likely to be
criticized for not following from the principles.
Comments and suggestions are very welcome (especially when posted to
CAF-talk). On the documents referenced are available on-line. Access
information is at the end of this note.
- Carl
-------------------------------------------
I. General
Principle: The principles of academic freedom apply to academic
computer systems. Computer polices should be consistent with general
university codes and widely accepted statements on academic freedom
such as the Joint Statement on Rights and Freedoms of Students.
II. Policy Formulation
Interpretation: "The institution has an obligation to clarify those
standards of behavior which it considers essential to its educational
mission and its community life. These general behavioral expectations
and the resultant specific regulations should represent a reasonable
regulation of [user] conduct, but the [user] should be as free as
possible from imposed limitations that have no direct relevance to his
education. Offenses should be as clearly defined as possible and
interpreted in a manner consistent with the aforementioned principles
of relevance and reasonableness. Disciplinary proceedings should be
instituted only for violations of standards of conduct formulated with
significant [user] participation and published in advance through such
means as a [user] handbook or a generally available body of
institutional regulations." [Joint Statement]
II. Student and Faculty Discipline
Principle: Suspension or expulsion from a computer is a serious
penalty. Users facing these penalties should be given due process
protection similar to that given to those facing other serious
penalties such as a formal disciplinary warning, a failing grade for
cheating, or suspension from class.
Interpretation: "Pending action on the charges, the status of a [user]
should not be altered, or his [or her] right to be present on the
campus and to attend classes [and use computers] suspended, except for
reasons relating to his physical or emotional safety and well being,
or for reasons relating to the safety and well-being of students,
faculty, or university property." [Joint Statement]
III. Privacy
Principle: Personal files on university's computers (for example,
files in a user's home directory) should have the same privacy
protection as personal files in university-assigned space in an
office, lab, or dormitory (for example, files in a graduate student's
desk). Private communications via computer should have the same
protections as private communications via telephone.
IV. Computer Expression
Interpretation: "Academic institutions exist for the transmission of
knowledge, the pursuit of truth, the development of students, and the
general well-being of society. Free inquiry and free expression are
indispensable to the attainment of these goals its members of the
academic community, students should be encouraged to develop the
capacity for critical judgment and to engage in a sustained and
independent search for truth." [Joint Statement]
Principle: The principles of intellectual freedom developed by
libraries should be applied to the administration of information
material on computers. These principles are explained in such American
Library Association documents as the Library Bill of Rights, the
Freedom to Read Statement, and the Intellectual Freedom Statement.
Interpretation: Computer sites that offer newsgroups should select
newsgroups the way that traditional libraries select magazines and
books.
Interpretation: "Every [academic computer] system should have a
comprehensive policy on the selection of [information] materials."
[ALA Workbook for Selection Policy Writing]
Interpretation: "Materials should not be proscribed or removed because
of partisan or doctrinal disapproval" [Article 2, Library Bill of
Rights].
Principle: The principles of academic freedom applicable to student
and faculty publication in traditional media, apply to student and
faculty publication in computer media.
Interpretation: An article or note posted by a student to a newsgroup
is a student publication.
Interpretation: "Student publications [and the publications of other
users] are a valuable aid in establishing and maintaining an
atmosphere of free and responsible discussion and of intellectual
exploration on the campus. They are a means of bringing [...]
concerns to the attention of the faculty and the institutional
authorities and of formulating [...] opinion on various issues on the
campus and in the world at large." [Joint Statement]
Interpretation: "The institutional control of campus facilities should
not be used as a device of censorship." "[User publications] should be
free of censorship and advance approval of copy ..." [Joint Statement]
Interpretation: "All university published and financed [user]
publications should explicitly state [...] that the opinions there
expressed are not necessarily those of the college, university, or
student body. [Joint Statement]
-----------------------
References
Documents may be accessed via ftp (see the first line after the
document title). They may also be accessed via email. Send email to
archive-server@eff.org. In the body of your note include the second
line after the document title.
Joint Statement on Rights and Freedom of Students
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/student.rights
send acad-freedom student.rights
Library Bill of Rights
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/library/bill-of-rights.ala
send library-policies bill-of-rights.ala
Freedom to Read Statement
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/library/freedom-to-read.ala
send library-policies freedom-to-read.ala
Intellectual Freedom Statement
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/library/int-freedom.ala
send library-policies int-freedom.ala
CAF Archive's README file
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/README
send acad-freedom README
=============== ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/faq/policy ===============
q: What guidance is there for creating or evaluating a computer policy?
a: The first thing to do is to get a copy of your university's Student
Code. It often protects student and staff freedom of expression,
privacy, and due process rights. It is not just a piece of paper; it
is part of the legal contract between student and university. Any new
policy must be consistent with this policy.
You may also find the unofficial, draft Statement on Computers and
Academic Freedom (CAF) useful. Also the CAF Archive contains the
policies of many schools, some with critiques.
Finally, you may wish to look at the CAF Law archive. Speech
restrictions at public universities have been struck down consistently
by recent federal courts. Also, the courts require due process before
serious punishments can be applied to students.
- Carl Kadie
ANNOTATED REFERENCES
(All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.)
=================
caf-statement
=================
This is an attempt to codify the application of academic freedom to
academic computers. It reflects our seven months of on-line discussion
about computers and academic freedom.
Comments and suggestions are very welcome (especially when posted to
CAF-talk). All the documents referenced are available on-line.
=================
policies/README
=================
Computer Policy and Critiques Archive
[part of the Computers and Academic Freedom (CAF) Archive
[part of the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) Archive]]
This is a collection of the computer policies of many schools and
networks. The collection also includes critiques of some of the
policies.
The archive is accessible via anonymous ftp and email. Ftp to
ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.3). It is in directory "pub/academic/policies".
For email access, send email to archive-server@eff.org. Include the
line:
send other-comp-policies
where is a list of the files that you want. File README is
a detailed description of the items in the directory.
For more information, to make contributions, or to report typos
contact Carl Kadie (kadie@eff.org). Directory "widener" contains
additional policies (but not critiques).
=================
widener/README
=================
This directory is a mirror of ftp.cs.widener.edu:pub/cud/schools/*.
It is a collection of the computer polices of many schools. For a
description of the file see file "widener/Index". Also see directory
"policies".
=================
law/README
=================
CAF Law Archive
[part of the Computers and Academic Freedom (CAF) Archive
[part of the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) Archive]]
This is an on-line collection of law related to computers and academic
freedom. It includes both case law and legislation.
The archive is accessible via anonymous ftp and email. Ftp to
ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.3). It is in directory "pub/academic/law".
For email access, send email to archive-server@eff.org. Include the
line:
send caf-law
where is a list of the files that you want. File README is
a detailed description of the items in the directory.
For more information or to make contributions, contact Carl Kadie
(kadie@eff.org).
=================
law/uwm-post-v-u-of-wisconsin
=================
The full text of UWM POST v. U. of Wisconsin. This recent district
court ruling goes into detail about the difference between protected
offensive expression and illegal harassment. It even mentions email.
It concludes: "The founding fathers of this nation produced a
remarkable document in the Constitution but it was ratified only with
the promise of the Bill of Rights. The First Amendment is central to
our concept of freedom. The God-given "unalienable rights" that the
infant nation rallied to in the Declaration of Independence can be
preserved only if their application is rigorously analyzed.
The problems of bigotry and discrimination sought to be addressed here
are real and truly corrosive of the educational environment. But
freedom of speech is almost absolute in our land and the only
restriction the fighting words doctrine can abide is that based on the
fear of violent reaction. Content-based prohibitions such as that in
the UW Rule, however well intended, simply cannot survive the
screening which our Constitution demands."
=================
law/goss-v-lopez.fischer
=================
Comments from _Teacher's and the Law_, 3rd edition, by Louis Fischer,
et al. Published in 1991 by Longman. It reports that the Supreme Court
says that some modicum of due process is necessary unless the matter
is trivial or there is an emergency.
=================
=================
To get these documents by email, send email to archive-server@eff.org.
Include the line(s):
send acad-freeedom caf-statement
send other-comp-policies README
send widener-collected-comp-policies README
send caf-law README
send caf-law uwm-post-v-u-of-wisconsin
send caf-law goss-v-lopez.fischer
The files are also available via anonymous ftp from ftp.eff.org
(192.88.144.3) as file(s):
pub/academic/caf-statement
pub/academic/policies/README
pub/academic/widener/README
pub/academic/law/README
pub/academic/law/uwm-post-v-u-of-wisconsin
pub/academic/law/goss-v-lopez.fischer
--
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 Mar 2 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.admin.policy
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: New FAQ: Email Policies
Message-ID: <1992Mar2.212846.9765@eff.org>
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 1992 21:28:46 GMT
=============== ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/faq/email.policies ===============
q: Do any universities treat email and computer files as private?
a: Yes, many universities treat email and computer files as private.
Here are excerpts from their policies or policy drafts.
# Ohio State University - Computer and Information Science Department
It is recognized that computer files are a new form of property
separable from the media with which they are recorded, and that close
analogies can be found between the uses of computer files and of
various other forms of physical property. The Department shall use
these analogies in making decisions about the appropriate use of
computer files and the protection of their privacy, extending as
nearly as possible exactly the same protection to computer files as is
traditionally extended to the analogous physical property.
The spirit of this policy is that the file space provided by the
University to individuals has exactly the same status as analogous,
more tangible facilities also provided by the University. Such
facilities as private library carrels, dormitory rooms, and gym
lockers are technically owned by OSU, and may be entered only for
''administrative'' purposes such as building maintenance. Similarly,
the computers and computer files of students, staff, and faculty
members, being electronic extensions of their personal work areas, may
not be inspected, copied, changed, or otherwise tampered with without
the permission of the owner, except for purposes relevant to the
administration of the computer system. Notice that copying (i.e.,
stealing or ''pirating'') computer software is also prohibited under
this policy.
# Dalhousie University
Nothing in this Guide diminishes the responsibility of system
administrators of computing services to take remedial action in the
case of possible abuse of computing privileges. To this end, the
system administrators with the approval of the President and with due
regard for the right of privacy of users and the confidentiality of
their data, have the right, to suspend or modify computer access
privileges, examine files, passwords, accounting information,
printouts, tapes, and any other material which may aid in an
investigation of possible abuse. Whenever possible, the cooperation
and agreement of the user will be sought in advance. Users are
expected to cooperate in such investigations when requested. Failure
to do so may be grounds for cancellation of computer access
privileges.
# Draft - James Madison University
c. Students, faculty and staff who use the computer have
the right to privacy and security of their computer
programs and data. Computer users should not tamper
with files or information that belong to other users or
to the operating system.
# Draft - Michigan State University College of Engineering
3.2 Staff should at all times respect the privacy of user files,
mail, and printer listings (but see Staff Rights below).
# University of California at Berkeley Open Computing Facility
7.6. Privacy
Individuals' rights of privacy shall not be violated without
reasonable cause.
# University of Michigan
The University characterizes as unethical and unacceptable, and just
cause for taking disciplinary action up to and including
non-reappointment, discharge, dismissal, and/or legal action, any
activity through which an individual:
[...]
(e) without authorization invades the privacy of individuals or
entities that are creators, authors, users, or subjects of the
information resources,
This policy is applicable to any member of the University community,
whether at the University or elsewhere, and refers to all information
resources whether individually controlled, or shared, stand alone or
networked.
# New Mexico State University
All computer users have two basic rights -- privacy
and a fair share of resources.
# University of Pittsburgh
Every member of the University of Pittsburgh has two basic rights
regarding computing -- privacy and a fair share of resources.
# Washington University Center For Engineering Computing
PRIVACY
All user accounts are considered the private domain of the user who
owns them. All users should expect that, regardless of the
protections set on their files, they will not be read by others.
System Management personnel will only view users' files under
exceptional circumstances.
# Draft - University of New Mexico
UNM recognizes that files and mail messages are confidential.
Appropriate UNM employees may access computer users' files during
normal maintenance and will report unlawful activities to the proper
authorities.
# Purdue University Computer Center (Staff regulations)
* Don't inspect private user files and mailboxes unless the
administration of a Computing Center system requires it.
# Kansas State University
The third category is access to another user's account and/or files or
electronic mail for the purpose of invading an individual's privacy.
This is considered breach of privacy and is prosecutable under Kansas
law.
ANNOTATED REFERENCES
(All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.)
=================
faq/email.privacy
=================
q: Can (should) my university monitor my email?
=================
policies/cis.ohio-state.edu
=================
The appropriate use, mail (and Netnews), disk, and printer
policy for the computers labs of OSU's Computer and Information
Science Department (Critiqued)
=================
policies/cis.ohio-state.edu.critique
=================
Critique for the appropriate use, mail (and Netnews), disk, and
printer policy for the computers labs of OSU's Computer and
Information Science Department
=================
policies/dal.ca
=================
Guide to responsible computing at Dalhousie University (in Halifax,
NS, Canada)
=================
widener/jmadison.u.policy
=================
[No annotation available.]
=================
widener/mich.st.u.policy
=================
[No annotation available.]
=================
ocf.constitution
=================
This is the Constitution of Berkeley's Open Computing Facility, an
organization that democratically manages computer resources for
thousands of users.
=================
policies/umich.edu
=================
POLICY: PROPER USE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES, INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY,
AND NETWORKS AT THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
=================
widener/new.mex.st.u.policy
=================
[No annotation available.]
=================
widener/u.pitt.policy
=================
[No annotation available.]
=================
widener/wash.u.engr.policy
=================
[No annotation available.]
=================
widener/u.new.mexico.policy
=================
[No annotation available.]
=================
policies/staff.cc.purdue.edu
=================
Staff policy for Purdue University's Computing Center
=================
widener/kansas.state.policy
=================
[No annotation available.]
=================
=================
To get these documents by email, send email to archive-server@eff.org.
Include the line(s):
send caf-faq email.privacy
send other-comp-policies cis.ohio-state.edu
send other-comp-policies cis.ohio-state.edu.critique
send other-comp-policies dal.ca
send widener-collected-comp-policies jmadison.u.policy
send widener-collected-comp-policies mich.st.u.policy
send acad-freedom ocf.constitution
send other-comp-policies umich.edu
send widener-collected-comp-policies new.mex.st.u.policy
send widener-collected-comp-policies u.pitt.policy
send widener-collected-comp-policies wash.u.engr.policy
send widener-collected-comp-policies u.new.mexico.policy
send other-comp-policies staff.cc.purdue.edu
send widener-collected-comp-policies kansas.state.policy
The files are also available via anonymous ftp from ftp.eff.org
(192.88.144.4) as file(s):
pub/academic/faq/email.privacy
pub/academic/policies/cis.ohio-state.edu
pub/academic/policies/cis.ohio-state.edu.critique
pub/academic/policies/dal.ca
pub/academic/widener/jmadison.u.policy
pub/academic/widener/mich.st.u.policy
pub/academic/ocf.constitution
pub/academic/policies/umich.edu
pub/academic/widener/new.mex.st.u.policy
pub/academic/widener/u.pitt.policy
pub/academic/widener/wash.u.engr.policy
pub/academic/widener/u.new.mexico.policy
pub/academic/policies/staff.cc.purdue.edu
pub/academic/widener/kansas.state.policy
--
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 Mar 2 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.admin.policy
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: New FAQ: Email Policies
Message-ID: <1992Mar2.214353.10224@eff.org>
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 1992 21:43:53 GMT
This is a (older, slightly revised) related FAQ.
=============== ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/faq/email.privacy ===============
q: Can (should) my university monitor my email?
a: Ethically (and perhaps legally) email communications should have
the same privacy protection as telephone calls. It would be unwise for
any university employee to tap email communications without
authorization from the university president, university legal counsel,
and the academic freedom committee.
- Carl M. Kadie
ANNOTATED REFERENCES
(All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.)
=================
caf-statement
=================
This is an attempt to codify the application of academic freedom to
academic computers. It reflects our seven months of on-line discussion
about computers and academic freedom. It covers free expression, due
process, privacy, and user participation.
Comments and suggestions are very welcome (especially when posted to
CAF-talk). All the documents referenced are available on-line.
=================
student.freedoms
=================
Joint Statement on Rights and Freedoms of Students -- This is the main
statement on student academic freedom.
=================
faq/email.policies
=================
q: Do any universities treat email and computer files as private?
=================
law/uwm-post-v-u-of-wisconsin
=================
The full text of UWM POST v. U. of Wisconsin. This recent district
court ruling goes into detail about the difference between protected
offensive expression and illegal harassment. It even mentions email.
It concludes: "The founding fathers of this nation produced a
remarkable document in the Constitution but it was ratified only with
the promise of the Bill of Rights. The First Amendment is central to
our concept of freedom. The God-given "unalienable rights" that the
infant nation rallied to in the Declaration of Independence can be
preserved only if their application is rigorously analyzed.
The problems of bigotry and discrimination sought to be addressed here
are real and truly corrosive of the educational environment. But
freedom of speech is almost absolute in our land and the only
restriction the fighting words doctrine can abide is that based on the
fear of violent reaction. Content-based prohibitions such as that in
the UW Rule, however well intended, simply cannot survive the
screening which our Constitution demands."
=================
law/gillard-v-schmidt
=================
Description of an appellate court ruling that the school board could
not search the desk of a school counselor without a warrant.
=================
law/constraints.constitutional
=================
Comments from _A Practical Guide to Legal Issues Affecting College
Teachers_ by Partrica A. Hollander, D. Parker Young, and Donald D.
Gehring. (College Administration Publication, 1985). Discusses the
constitutional constraints on public universities including the
requires for freedom of expression, freedom against unreasonable
searches and seizures, due process, specific rules.
=================
law/ecpa.1986
=================
Portions of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 (ECPA) related
to e-mail privacy.
=================
law/ecpa.1986.godwin
=================
Mike Godwin, legal staff for the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF)
says that the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) could be
reasonably construed to protect university email.
=================
law/privacy.email
=================
"Computer Electronic Mail and Privacy", an edited version of a law
school seminar paper by Ruel T. Hernadex
=================
law/privacy.workplace
=================
Comments from and about _The new hazards of the high technology
workplace_ see (1991) 104 _Harvard Law Review_ 1898. Talks about email
and other electronic monitoring.
=================
law/email.bib
=================
I have been having an e-mail conversation with Stacy Veeder for several
days on the topic of e-mail privacy. She mailed me this bibliography
which she has compiled for two papers which she is currently writing.
I post it here with permission.
PS - She is interested in talking with anyone who has some views on the
topic/information to share.
Mark N.
=================
=================
To get these documents by email, send email to archive-server@eff.org.
Include the line(s):
send acad-freedom caf-statement
send acad-freedom student.freedoms
send caf-faq email.policies
send caf-law uwm-post-v-u-of-wisconsin
send caf-law gillard-v-schmidt
send caf-law constraints.constitutional
send caf-law ecpa.1986
send caf-law ecpa.1986.godwin
send caf-law privacy.email
send caf-law privacy.workplace
send caf-law email.bib
The files are also available via anonymous ftp from ftp.eff.org
(192.88.144.4) as file(s):
pub/academic/caf-statement
pub/academic/student.freedoms
pub/academic/faq/email.policies
pub/academic/law/uwm-post-v-u-of-wisconsin
pub/academic/law/gillard-v-schmidt
pub/academic/law/constraints.constitutional
pub/academic/law/ecpa.1986
pub/academic/law/ecpa.1986.godwin
pub/academic/law/privacy.email
pub/academic/law/privacy.workplace
pub/academic/law/email.bib
--
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 Mar 2 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [ch.general, et al.] Re: Censorship and bigotry come up strong in Switzerland
Message-ID: <9203022259.AA01031@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 1992 10:59:54 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Mar 2 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: ch.general,ch.network,epfl.general,news.admin,eunet.news
From: jbotz@mtholyoke.edu (Jurgen Botz)
Subject: Re: Censorship and bigotry come up strong in Switzerland
Message-ID: <1992Mar2.025634.13544@mtholyoke.edu>
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 1992 02:56:34 GMT
In article <1992Feb29.005416.19540@clarinet.com> brad@clarinet.com (Brad Templeton) writes:
>Please people, while I do not approve of what SWITCH is planning, it is
>not censorship and they are not censors. What they are doing is dumb and
>capricious, but if you've ever seen actual censorship, then you wouldn't
>demean the word by using it to refer to a private entitiy's refusal to
>transmit material they don't like.
Sorry Brad, I have to strongly disagree. I don't see how the censoring
agent has to be a government (I assume that's what you by not ``private'')
for the act of withholding information which is deemed ``objectionable''
by some arbitrary standards to be called censorship. Would you not call
it censorship if a University you attended quietly kept certain books off
the shelves? In many countries private Universities may have the right to
do that, but makes it no more ethical. SWITCH may be a private organization,
but as information provider to institutions of higher education they have
a moral responsibility to _not_ use their position to manipulate which
information the public is exposed to and which it isn't.
Just because certain totalitarian governments (some of which are defunct
now ;-) have made a mission out of completely rewriting history and mis-
information their populace doesn't mean that nothing else deserves that
label. What is being done by Switch is helping to create the kind of
atmosphere in which reactionary thought thrives -- and _that_ can ultimately
lead to ``official'' fascism. Yes, that may seem like an exaggeration,
and yes, very similar things are happening in the USA and many other places.
But I oppose them there, too, and cry ``foul'' when I see them because by
calling these things by their proper names one can sometimes draw enough
public attention to them that they get nipped in the bud _before_ they get
chance to blossom into more unwieldy evils.
Be it done by national authorities or private organizations, the act
of whitholding information in a capricious manner and according to
arbitrary and unpopular standards of ``objectionability'' IS
CENSORSHIP. There don't have to be brown-shirts or death squads
enforcing the policy and making sure that the information doesn't flow
from other sources to call it censorship. In many cases the same
effect is accomplished bureaucratic big-headedness and deliberate
misinformation about the facts. For examples SWITCH's claim that all
the ``banned'' newsgroups are ``against Swiss law,'' even though it
can't possibly be true, might be enough to convince the administrators
of SWITCH's member institutions that they had better not allow
secondary feeds which contain those groups. Smacks of deliberate mis-
information to me, and even if it _were_ pure ignorance, that wouldn't
be a very good excuse.
Call it censorship... no, SCREAM ``censorship,'' and maybe the heat will
get turned up enough under the SWITCH administrator's butts that
they'll realize that modern western society does not take lightly to some
bureacrats's deciding what is and what is not appropriate for them to read.
--
Jurgen Botz | Internet: JBotz@mtholyoke.edu
Academic Systems Consultant | Bitnet: JBotz@mhc.bitnet
Mount Holyoke College | Voice: (US) 413-538-2375 (daytime)
South Hadley, MA, USA | Snail Mail: J. Botz, 01075-0629
From caf-talk Caf Mar 2 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [ch.general, et al.] Re: Censorship and bigotry come up strong in Switzerland
Message-ID: <9203022300.AA01048@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 1992 11:00:42 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Mar 2 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: ch.general,ch.network,epfl.general,news.admin,eunet.news
From: brad@clarinet.com (Brad Templeton)
Subject: Re: Censorship and bigotry come up strong in Switzerland
Date: Mon, 02 Mar 1992 08:29:31 GMT
Message-ID: <1992Mar02.082931.21643@clarinet.com>
In article <1992Mar2.025634.13544@mtholyoke.edu> jbotz@mtholyoke.edu (Jurgen Botz) writes:
>Sorry Brad, I have to strongly disagree. I don't see how the censoring
>agent has to be a government (I assume that's what you by not ``private'')
>Would you not call
>it censorship if a University you attended quietly kept certain books off
>the shelves?
No, it isn't censorship, but it's very close, since Universities are
very much like communities, and their administrations perform governmental
functions. (If the schools are not indeed government funded.) However, the
main reason it is close is that it is almost impossible under existing academic
rules for ordinary students to just pick up and switch Universities without
tremendous cost.
And the reason for this is that censorship (in the sense of the word we're
using here) is the use of force/violence to control the flow of information.
(Or, more commonly, the threat of violence, which is the use of violence.)
This is why only governments can do it. For others to do it is illegal.
(Though if Vinnie and Guido were to visit me and say they would break my
legs if I post this message, I would call it censorship.)
There is real censorship in the world, even in the free countries of the
world. Books are banned. Broadcasting licences are threatened with
termination. Art galleries are closed down. Record store owners and
recording stars have charges filed against them. BBSs and computers are
confiscated.
THIS is censorship and this is evil. What SWITCH is planning is bad, but
it is insignificant, puny, nothing, when compared to censorship.
>Call it censorship... no, SCREAM ``censorship,'' and maybe the heat will
>get turned up enough under the SWITCH administrator's butts that
No, you'll make everybody think you're over-reacting, and that you don't
realize that freedom of the press rightly belongs to those who own the
press. The right to publish what we want is important, but the right not
to be told by others what you *must* publish or transmit is of equal
importance. These two rights are the two sides of freedom of expression.
--
Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Sunnyvale, CA 408/296-0366
From caf-talk Caf Mar 2 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [ch.general, et al.] Re: Censorship and bigotry come up strong in Switzerland
Message-ID: <9203022301.AA01060@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 1992 11:01:21 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Mar 2 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: ch.general,ch.network,epfl.general,news.admin,eunet.news
From: peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva)
Subject: Re: Censorship and bigotry come up strong in Switzerland
Message-ID: <118DC3H@taronga.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 1992 12:48:16 GMT
In article <1992Mar02.082931.21643@clarinet.com> brad@clarinet.com (Brad Templeton) writes:
>And the reason for this is that censorship (in the sense of the word we're
>using here) is the use of force/violence to control the flow of information.
Well, I'm not sure everyone's using the word in that sense, but even so...
Claiming that the groups are against Swiss law is the use of force/violence
(albeit by a proxy: hired violence is still violence) to control the flow of
information.
I don't accept your definition, but I don't have to: it's still censorship
by your definition. They threatened to call the cops.
"I can call spirits from the vasty deep."
"So can I, or so can any other man
But do they come when you do call for them?"
The law is easier to summon than demons, but just as hard to dismiss.
>THIS is censorship and this is evil. What SWITCH is planning is bad, but
>it is insignificant, puny, nothing, when compared to censorship.
It is proactive censorship, pure and simple, exactly the same act as when
an art gallery refuses to show Robert Mapplethorpe works because they're
afraid of losing their NEA grant.
--
-- Peter da Silva. Taronga Park BBS. +1 713 568 0480|1032 2400/n/8/1.
-- `-_-'
-- 'U` "Have you hugged your wolf today?"
From caf-talk Caf Mar 2 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [ch.general, et al.] Re: Censorship and bigotry come up strong in Switzerland
Message-ID: <9203022301.AA01069@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 1992 11:01:35 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Mar 2 00:00:00 1992
From: wyle@inf.ethz.ch (Mitchell Wyle)
Newsgroups: ch.general,ch.network,epfl.general,news.admin,eunet.news
Subject: Re: Censorship and bigotry come up strong in Switzerland
Message-ID: <1992Mar2.135005.14877@neptune.inf.ethz.ch>
Date: 2 Mar 92 13:50:05 GMT
I haven't posted to this thread for a while...
<1992Mar02.082931.21643@clarinet.com>
brad@clarinet.com (Brad Templeton) writes:
>What SWITCH is planning is bad, but
>it is insignificant, puny, nothing, when compared to censorship.
There is no plan; SWITCH cut off all the groups quite some time ago.
One moment the groups were there, and the next minute they were gone.
Some people call such policy administrative fiat. Others think that
Fiat is an Italian car.
Earlier in this discussion (when it was still local to Switzerland), I
was arguing Brad's point that SWITCH's action is not censorship. I
quoted from Chip Salzenberg's intro article, posted every month to
news.announce.newusers with the title ``Subject: What is Usenet?''
``Usenet is not a right.
``Some people misunderstand their local right of "freedom of speech"
to mean that they have a legal right to use others' computers to
say what they wish in whatever way they wish, and the owners of
said computers have no right to stop them.
``Those people are wrong. Freedom of speech also means freedom not
to speak. If I choose not to use my computer to aid your speech,
that is my right. Freedom of the press belongs to those who own
one.
``Usenet is not a public utility.
``Some Usenet sites are publicly funded or subsidized. Most of
them, by plain count, are not. There is no government monopoly
on Usenet, and little or no government control.
``Usenet is not an academic network.
``It is no surprise that many Usenet sites are universities,
research labs or other academic institutions. Usenet originated
with a link between two universities, and the exchange of ideas
and information is what such institutions are all about. But the
passage of years has changed Usenet's character. Today, by plain
count, most Usenet sites are commercial entities.
Later in the section entitled ``THE CAMEL's NOSE'' Chip writes:
``Property rights being what they are, there is no higher authority on
Usenet than the people who own the machines on which Usenet traffic is
carried. If the owner of the machine you use says, "We will not carry
alt.sex on this machine," and you are not happy with that order, you
have no Usenet recourse. What can we outsiders do, after all?
``That doesn't mean you are without options. Depending on the nature of
your site, you may have some internal political recourse. Or you
might find external pressure helpful. Or, with a minimal investment,
you can get a feed of your own from somewhere else. Computers capable
of taking Usenet feeds are down in the $500 range now, and
UNIX-capable boxes are going for under $2000, and there are at least
two UNIX lookalikes in the $100 price range.
``No matter what, though, appealing to "Usenet" won't help. Even if
those who read such an appeal are sympathetic to your cause, they will
almost certainly have even less influence at your site than you do.
``By the same token, if you don't like what some user at another site is
doing, only the administrator and owner of that site have any
authority to do anything about it. Persuade them that the user in
question is a problem for them, and they might do something -- if they
feel like it, that is.
``If the user in question is the administrator or owner of the site from
which she posts, forget it; you can't win. If you can, arrange for
your newsreading software to ignore articles from her; and chalk one
up to experience.''
SWITCH owns and runs SWITCH machines. They can carry what they want.
If the owner of your machine wants to get the banned groups, he can
either go through SWITCH (convince them to feed your machine) or buy a
feed from chuug. Such feeds are not expensive.
Apparantly the people at the Swiss federal institute of technology in
Laussanne (and in other places downstream of SWITCH) are going to
Hawaii and other international sites to nntp the banned groups.
Perhaps SWITCH will block port 119 in retaliation. Or, maybe SWITCH
banned the groups in order to INCREASE network traffic (if 2,000
individuals nntp directly to Hawaii and Ohio instead of reading news
locally on their machines...) Conspiracy theories don't seem likely in
this case.
Another fact Brad and other late-comers to this discussion might want
to consider is that SWITCH blocked port 25 out of Switzerland for quite
some time. SMTP is not a politically acceptable protocol and very
buggy x.400 software needed testing. You can't imagine how terrible
e-mail service was at that time or how many thousands of sys-admin
hours were invested in that fiasco. Eventually, SWITCH backed down and
allowed port 25 packets to flow. I personally would not be surprized
to see smtp turned off again (on a whim).
In addition to banning some usenet newsgroups, SWITCH is also blocking
packets to the local eunet chapter (chuug). We have to route most
packets from Zurich to Geneva and back to Zurich. Others go as far as
Amsterdam, and, yes, still others go to the USA and come back (hee
hee). SWITCH is blocking nntp, telnet and ftp to local sites connected
to eunet.
% ping chsun.chuug.ch
chsun.chuug.ch is alive
[ ping works ]
% finger poole@chsun.chuug.ch
[chsun.chuug.ch]
Login name: poole In real life: Simon Poole
Directory: /users/poole Shell: /bin/csh
On since Feb 20 10:38:30 on ttyp0 from magnolia
2 days 19 hours Idle Time
Mail last read Mon Mar 2 14:29:20 1992
No Plan.
[ port 79 is open ]
% telnet chsun.chuug.ch
Trying 146.228.10.15 ...
telnet: connect: Host is unreachable
[ port 23 is blocked ]
% ftp chsun.chuug.ch
ftp: connect: Host is unreachable
[ ports 20 and 21 seem closed ]
% telnet chsun.chuug.ch stmp
Connected to chsun.chuug.ch.
Escape character is '^]'.
220 chsun.chuug.ch Sendmail 5.65c8/1.34 ready at Mon, 2 Mar 1992 14:36:11 +0100
[ Hmmmm, port 25 does not seem to be blocked at the moment. ]
% telnet chsun.chuug.ch nntp
Trying 146.228.10.15 ...
telnet: connect: Host is unreachable
[ ...but port 119 is :-) I wonder why?]
From caf-talk Caf Mar 2 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [ch.general, et al.] Re: Censorship and bigotry come up strong in Switzerland
Message-ID: <9203022302.AA01099@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 1992 11:02:56 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Mar 2 00:00:00 1992
From: genillou@litsun.epfl.ch (Guy Genilloud)
Newsgroups: ch.general,ch.network,epfl.general,news.admin,eunet.news
Subject: Re: Censorship and bigotry come up strong in Switzerland
Message-ID: <1992Mar2.160238@litsun.epfl.ch>
Date: 2 Mar 92 15:02:38 GMT
In article <1992Feb29.005416.19540@clarinet.com>, brad@clarinet.com (Brad Templeton) writes:
|> Please people, while I do not approve of what SWITCH is planning, it is
|> not censorship and they are not censors. What they are doing is dumb and
|> capricious, but if you've ever seen actual censorship, then you wouldn't
|> demean the word by using it to refer to a private entitiy's refusal to
|> transmit material they don't like.
|> --
|> Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Sunnyvale, CA 408/296-0366
Je suis plutot d'accord avec Brad Templeton sur ce point.
Toutefois, on peut parler de cesnsure dans le sens que ce que les journeaux ont voulu, c'est de la censure, et ce qu'ils ont obtenu, c'est (presque) de la
censure.
Un entreprise privee a en effet le droit de faire ce qu'elle veut sur ce sujet.
Mais SWITCH n'est pas une entite privee comme une autre. Elle fait ce que ces
clients lui demandent - les clients de SWITCH c'est les EPFs, les Unis, les cantons, bref l'Etat. Et l'Etat, d'une certaine facon, c'est nous (les citoyens).
Il me semble (voir mon precedent message a ce sujet) que les fonctionnaires
de l'Etat ne peuvent decider arbitrairement de transmettre certains groupes et pas d'autres. Les fonctionnaires doivent appliquer des criteres coherents
compatibles avec la loi Suisse et les principes d'une democratie - car les fonctionnaires doivent pouvoir rendre compte de leurs actes devant les citoyens.
Est-il acceptable qu'une universite donne librement acces a des groupes
de discussion "conservateurs" (percus comme soutenant la politique du
gouvernement) et un acces sur demande avec justification, etc., pour des groupes
"alternatifs" (percus comme soutenant des idees allant dans un autre sens que
la politique du gouvernement)?
Guy Genilloud
DI - LIT
From caf-talk Caf Mar 2 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [ch.general, et al.] Re: Censorship and bigotry come up strong in Switzerland
Message-ID: <9203022303.AA01108@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 1992 11:03:08 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Mar 2 00:00:00 1992
From: hull@den.mmc.com (Jeff Hull)
Newsgroups: ch.general,ch.network,epfl.general,news.admin,eunet.news
Subject: Re: Censorship and bigotry come up strong in Switzerland
Message-ID: <1992Mar2.182036.24919@den.mmc.com>
Date: 2 Mar 92 18:20:36 GMT
In article <1992Mar02.082931.21643@clarinet.com> brad@clarinet.com
(Brad Templeton) writes:
>>Would you not call it censorship if a University ...
>... censorship ... is the use of force/violence to control the flow of
>information. ... the threat of violence
>There is real censorship in the world, even in the free countries...
Censorship is preventing people from seeing something. An attempt at
censorship may fail if the people have alternate sources of
infromation. An act of censorship may not be intentional, e.g., if my
site drops a newsgroup due to space considerations that a downstream
site has no other access to. Refusal to carry may or may not result in
censorship.
Please, people, remember that words start as a tool for communicating
ideas but they become tools with which we reason. When we misuse
words, we make communication more difficult and wind up making
reasoning more difficult or even impossible.
Brad said one other thing which should be graven in all our minds:
FREEDOM OF THE PRESS BELONGS (only) TO THOSE WHO OWN A PRESS.
--
Jeff Hull (hull@tss-soc-1.den.mmc.com)
No matter where you go...there you are.
#include
From caf-talk Caf Mar 2 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: USENET Readership report for Feb 92
Message-ID: <9203022309.AA01237@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 1992 11:09:35 GMT
>This is [...] data from the USENET readership report for Feb 92.
>Explanations of the figures are in a companion posting.
>
> +-- Estimated total number of people who read the group, worldwide.
> | +-- Actual number of readers in sampled population
> | | +-- Propagation: how many sites receive this group at all
> | | | +-- Recent traffic (messages per month)
> | | | | +-- Recent traffic (kilobytes per month)
> | | | | | +-- Crossposting percentage
> | | | | | | +-- Cost ratio: $US/month/rdr
> | | | | | | | +-- Share: % of newsrders
> | | | | | | | | who read this group.
> V V V V V V V V
> 1 260000 5905 70% 2343 5883.7 16% 0.03 13.8% alt.sex
> 2 210000 4653 84% 717 1340.7 17% 0.01 10.9% misc.jobs.offered
> 3 180000 4126 83% 73 183.9 0% 0.00 9.7% rec.humor.funny
> 4 180000 4065 89% 9 141.2 100% 0.00 9.5% news.announce.newusers
> 5 170000 3871 84% 1603 1990.9 33% 0.02 9.1% misc.forsale
[...]
> 383 28000 629 78% 301 691.2 4% 0.04 1.5% comp.org.eff.talk
[...]
> 653 17000 395 74% 1 5.3 100% 0.00 0.9% comp.org.eff.news
[...]
> 673 17000 382 56% 205 517.8 60% 0.04 0.9% alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
[...]
> 991 7200 164 48% 2 140.5 0% 0.02 0.4% alt.comp.acad-freedom.news
[...]
>1392 44 1 2% 17 14.9 0% 0.02 0.0% cu.cs.ugrads
>1393 44 1 1% 72 92.6 0% 0.07 0.0% um.h19
>1394 44 1 0% 7 14.8 57% 0.00 0.0% slac.users.aix
From caf-talk Caf Mar 2 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: C491153@UMCVMB.missouri.edu (John Schultz)
Subject: Re: Telnet Censorship
Message-ID: <199203022336.AA12510@eff.org>
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 1992 23:33:19 GMT
mpd@anomaly.sbs.com (Michael P. Deignan) writes:
>bd671@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Christopher P. Harr) writes:
>> Recently here at the Universtiy of Cincinnati, my home University
>>we have had system administrators kill accounts of people who connected to
>>port numbers whether it be IRC, MUD's MUSHES, MUSES etc. There are also people
>>who lost their accounts for telnetting to certain foriegn hosts, even though
>>they had permission to telnet there.
>Good for them! Its about time students realize that the computer systemis
>for Academics and not for their personal leisure time. Buy an Atari 260 if
>you want leisure material.
Hold on a minute here. I have an account I telnet to, but it's not for
leisure use only. I have a guest account on the FSF machines, (and I'm
very appreciative of the fact) so that I can get a little Unix experienc
while I'm in college. My school only has Unix on a few machines and you
have to be in the right classes (mainly CS - which I'm not) to have
access to. I'm very happy that MIT has seen fit to give out guest
accounts of this type. Now, students have no reason to whine about
IRC and MUD access, but I think if you have an account on another system
then you should be able to access it.
John Schultz (caffeine abuser) ! ABC killed Laura Palmer
c491153@umcvmb.bitnet ! Macintosh-free and proud of it!
c491153@umcvmb.missouri.edu ! Subscriber to the hacker ethic
From caf-talk Caf Mar 2 00:00:00 1992
From: schweige@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil (Jeffrey M. Schweiger)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: Student rights in dorms
Message-ID: <4325@aldebaran.cs.nps.navy.mil>
Date: 3 Mar 92 02:20:03 GMT
In article <4301@aldebaran.cs.nps.navy.mil> schweige@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil (Jeff Schweiger) writes:
|In article <15160@gollum.UMCS.Maine.EDU> who@gandalf.UMCS.Maine.EDU writes:
||In article <1992Feb26.174041.1056@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>, vanichth@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Mitri Van) writes:
|||> Hi ya... I was just curious...
|||>
|||> What kinda rights do students have when they live in a university dorm?
|||> I'm basically referring to searches by the university. My roomie and I
|||> both agree that students don't have any rights when they live in a dorm, but
|||> that didn't seem quite right. I'm currently under the assumption that
|||> housing admin. has the power to do whatever they want as long as
|||> "It's in the best interests of all in the dorm." So far, it seems reason-
|||> able, but slightly fascist.. can anyone enlighten me?
|||>
|||> Mitri Van
|||> mv45925@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
|||> vanichth@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu
||
||
|| Well, when ever I feel my rights have been or are about to be
||violated by either campuss police or resident assistants I threaten to
||take them to court and sue them! And if that doesn't work I threaten to
||call the "real" police (as opposed to campus) and file a complaint.
||I've yet to have to press charges, but I'am not above fileing a breaking
||and entering complaint against university personnel illegaly entering
||my dorm room.
|| So, FIGHT for YOUR RIGHTS!
||Don't be pushed around by any two-bit fascist housing admin.
||Go to the local police station and press charges :)
|
|I'm setting the followup to alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk, as that appears to be
|a more appropriate group for this discussion.
|
|Couple of comments though. The above advice should definitely _not_ be
|taken as gospel. (Net legal advice is generally worth what you paid for it
|:-) ). There are campuses where the campus police _is_ the real police.
|The campus police at MIT, when I was there as an undergraduate, had this
|status, and generally were a lot more supportive of the students than the
|Cambridge police were.
|
|Chances are there is some sort of written housing policy that spells out
|the circumstances under which the housing administration has the authority
|to enter dorm rooms. Find and read this policy would be the best advice
|that I can offer in this regard.
|
|Jeff Schweiger
|
I'm posting the following at the request of the author, in response to my
posting above:
From unicorn%works.uucp@merk.merk.com Mon Mar 2 17:01:30 1992
From: works!unicorn (Black Unicorn)
Comments: Citation for 142 in a 65
Message-Id:
Date: Mon, 02 Mar 92 18:33:38 EST
In-Reply-To: <4301@aldebaran.cs.nps.navy.mil>
Organization: The Works BBS
Status: R
Unfortunately, from a legal standpoint, you have NO RIGHTS when
a signator of a housing contract. I have yet to see a university that does
not include a "search and seizeure" clause. Usually these are under the
guise of " The University reserves the rights for its personal or duly
appointed agent or agents thereof to enter the residence at any time with or
without warning to the resident as is deemed necessary to premote the safety
and continued proper observance of University policy and to permit the
proper execution of administrative policy and to promote the safety of
residents."
"The University reserves the right to remove articles of any nature from the
residence as is deemed necessary to promote the safety and continued proper
observence of University policy and to promote the safety of residents."
As it is the University which ultimately decides what is or is not
"necessary to promote the safety and continued proper observence of
University policy and to promote the safety of residents." This whole cause
and section boils down to "We can go into your room when we want, and we can
take what we want if WE don't like it."
By signing the housing agreement you are in effect signing away your
constitutional rights. The ground on which these rights can be signed away
as compared to "waved" is shakey (Of note Lilden vs. University of
Pittsburgh). I doubt it will be challenged in the near future. Your advice
to "read your housing contract" is sound, and as I have no access to the
forwarded news group, I would hope you might forward my free assesment
above.
Uni (Dark)
unicorn@works.UUCP
--
*******************************************************************************
Jeff Schweiger Standard Disclaimer CompuServe: 74236,1645
Internet (Milnet): schweige@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil
*******************************************************************************
From caf-talk Caf Mar 3 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.org.eff.talk] Re: banning sci.military
Message-ID: <9203031520.AA05458@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Tue, 3 Mar 1992 03:20:47 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Mar 3 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: brian@norton.com (Brian Yoder)
Subject: Re: banning sci.military
Message-ID: <1992Mar03.050008.16319@norton.com>
Date: Tue, 03 Mar 1992 05:00:08 GMT
jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala) writes:
> I don't accept censorship on sci.military or any other group, but it truly
> shows how sick human culture is that many people think that discussing
> ways of finding pleasure as in alt.sex or alt.drugs is offensive while
> at the same time they find nothing wrong with planning new and better
> ways of deliberately destroying human lifes and causing suffering.
It never ceases to amaze me how people can evade the purpose of having
a military to defend ourselves. To focus only on the killing in a war
and utterly ignore the primary purpose of it is the same as ignoring the
difference between cold murder and self-defense. We might dispute what
particular cases of war were justified (self-defense) or unjustified (murder)
but to condemn all war from all sides is to close one's eyes because one does
not like what one is seeing.
--Brian
--
-- Brian K. Yoder (brian@norton.com) - Q: What do you get when you cross --
-- Peter Norton Computing Group - Apple & IBM? --
-- Symantec Corporation - A: IBM. --
--
From caf-talk Caf Mar 3 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: U38373@UICVM.UIC.EDU
Subject: Re: Libraries in the future
Message-ID: <199203031713.AA22398@eff.org>
Date: Tue, 3 Mar 1992 16:50:39 GMT
stoll@ocf.berkeley.edu (Cliff Stoll) said:
>Brad Tempelton sez:
>> Commercial authors (my dad is one) *do* mind that a library buys one copy
>> of their new best-seller and a few dozen people read it there. Multiplied
>> over thousands of libraries it is a significant hit to them.
>
>Well, not all authors object to libaries.
> [...]
>If I wrote for money, maybe I'd object to libraries.
>But I write to teach, to express opinions, and
>to tell stories. Guess I'm not a commercial author.
Income may be a more significant factor for some authors than others, but
I can't accept the idea that libraries are impairing their livelihood any more
than used bookstores, or pass-along readership of privately owned copies. If
you wanted to carry it to extremes, the best deal for writers would be if each
copy could be programmed to self-destruct after a single reading, potentially
jacking up the sales figures fantastically :-).
Then again, perhaps one ought to think about how much worth reading are
the words of a writer so preoccupied with the profit motive, that he gets bent
out of shape at the possibility of being read for free through a library :-).
Mitch Pravatiner
U38373@uicvm.uic.edu
From caf-talk Caf Mar 3 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: U38373@UICVM.UIC.EDU
Subject: Use tax (Was: Pricing of Software & Hardware in U.K compared to U.S.A)
Message-ID: <199203031732.AA22692@eff.org>
Date: Tue, 3 Mar 1992 17:13:09 GMT
In article <1992Feb27.013753.25644@ncsu.edu>, efg@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu
(Edward Gehringer) writes:
>North Carolina is now attempting to collect use tax on everything
>brought into the state. So did Indiana when I lived there. I don't
>see how they can reasonably expect to enforce it, so it really amounts
>to a voluntary contribution. It is not clear to me whether one has
>even a moral obligation to pay something like this.
As I see it, there is no moral obligation. To stipulate to the validity
of such a tax is to encourage the further reliance of government on regressive
sales taxes, rather than progressive income taxes. To encourage such reliance,
in turn, is to stipulate to the right of government to audit individual
spending, as income amounts and sources are now subject to audit. In practice,
the odds of revenue administrators actually trying to do this on a large scale
are not great; but the principle remains the same. It becomes particularly
ominous if "everything brought into the state" is construed so expansively as
to include the possessions of new residents. Strike a blow for liberty--
oppose use taxes as defined herein.
Mitch Pravatiner
U38373@uicvm.uic.edu
From caf-talk Caf Mar 3 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [ch.general, et al.] Re: Censorship and bigotry come up strong in Switzerland
Message-ID: <9203032019.AA08841@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Tue, 3 Mar 1992 08:19:59 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Mar 3 00:00:00 1992
From: stanley@skyking.OCE.ORST.EDU (John Stanley)
Newsgroups: ch.general,ch.network,epfl.general,news.admin,eunet.news
Subject: Re: Censorship and bigotry come up strong in Switzerland
Message-ID: <1992Mar3.003102.27987@talon.ucs.orst.edu>
Date: 3 Mar 92 00:31:02 GMT
In article <1992Mar2.182036.24919@den.mmc.com> hull@den.mmc.com (Jeff Hull) writes:
>Censorship is preventing people from seeing something. ...
>
>Please, people, remember that words start as a tool for communicating
>ideas but they become tools with which we reason. When we misuse
>words, we make communication more difficult and wind up making
>reasoning more difficult or even impossible.
Then stop misusing the word censorship.
Censorship is the act of an official to prohibit things.
It is NOT the act of a private group who decides not to provide
something. It is NOT the act of a newspaper when they decide not to
print a letter. It is NOT the act of a government when they refuse to
pay for the generation or production of something.
When a University chooses not to put a certain book on the shelves of
the local library, they have not censored that book. You are quite free
to call the publisher and buy it yourself or go to another library. You
will not be arrested for posession of that book just because the
University hasn't bought a copy of it. It is NOT censorship.
When the NEA decides not to fund a certain work of art, it is not
censorship. It does not prohibit the artist from garnering private
support, and does not prohibit him from displaying his work when it is
finished.
And when a USENET feed decides that it will not carry certain
newsgroups, you are free to get your own feed from somewhere else. It
isn't convenient, it isn't as cheap, maybe, but nobody said that USENET
had to be convenient and cheap. And it certainly isn't censorship.
From caf-talk Caf Mar 3 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [news.admin] Re: Inappropriate and Rude Post from Mr. Jose Martinez
Message-ID: <9203032020.AA08863@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Tue, 3 Mar 1992 08:20:54 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Mar 3 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: news.admin
From: chandra@cannelloni.cis.ohio-state.edu (B Chandrasekaran)
Subject: Re: Inappropriate and Rude Post from Mr. Jose Martinez
Message-ID: <1992Mar3.145205.28115@cis.ohio-state.edu>
Date: Tue, 3 Mar 1992 14:52:05 GMT
[Quoting from a recent article by kls@argus.SLAC.Stanford.EDU (Karl L. Swartz)]
>In article <1992Feb26.210337.1666@cbnewsi.cb.att.com> alok@cbnewsi.cb.att.com (alok.vijayvargia) writes:
>>I would like to point out to the system administrators that the following
>>mail was posted by Mr. Jose Martinez on SCIA.
>>This message was in very bad taste and
>>I am deeply offended with his rude, offensive and demeaning
>>language. Also I would like to point out his undesirable
>>and continuing interference on SCIA.
>>Would someone responsible take appropriate action that he does
>>post any further personally offensive posts and take his campaign to disband
>>SCIA elsewhere ?
Alok, you don't realy get the point, do you? After all that has been said,
after all the jokes about you writing to sysadministrators asking that
posting privileges of people be revoked on account of something that they
said that offended you, you write to yet another sys administrator asking
that he do something about a poster who offended you?
Also, re: "his undesirable and continuing interference on SCIA." You
still seem to be working on the model that SCIA "belongs" to you or to
some group of people. The poster is no more "interfering" by posting
on it than you are. The only thing that was missing in your post is
a reference to yourself as the "creator" to complete the above as a
contender for a parody of Alok V. What is simply astonishing about you
is how you are your own best parodist.
From caf-talk Caf Mar 3 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: ch.general,ch.network,epfl.general,news.admin,eunet.news,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.censorship
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Censorship and bigotry come up strong in Switzerland
Message-ID: <1992Mar3.210048.26534@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Tue, 3 Mar 1992 21:00:48 GMT
stanley@skyking.OCE.ORST.EDU (John Stanley) writes:
[...]
>When a University chooses not to put a certain book on the shelves of
>the local library, they have not censored that book. You are quite free
>to call the publisher and buy it yourself or go to another library. You
>will not be arrested for posession of that book just because the
>University hasn't bought a copy of it. It is NOT censorship.
[...]
If you don't like this use of the word "censorship", you might prefer
the more general word "suppression".
Librarians, at least in the U.S., often use the word in its looser
sense. They consider censorship the suppression of materials "because
of the origin, background, or views of those contributing to their
creation" or "because of partisan or doctrinal disapproval." I'm
enclosing the American Library Association's "Library Bill of Rights"
and "Books/Materials Challenge Terminology"
Universities, professors, etc (at least in the U.S.) also use the word
in this looser sense. Joint Statement on Rights and Freedoms of
Students is the main statement of student academic freedom for U.S.
students at both public and private universities. It says: "The
institutional control of campus facilities should not be used as a
device of censorship" and "The student press should be free of
censorship and advance approval of copy, and its editors and managers
should be free to develop their own editorial policies and news
coverage." [see ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/student.freedoms]
Of course, even looser uses of the word "censorship" are possible.
For example, some would say that the a newspaper editor who rejects an
article because it is poorly written is censoring. Personally, I never
use the word in this sense.
There are also much stricter definitions of the word from the British
law tradition. By Blackwell's definition, censorship is only
government suppression *before* publication. Thus, government jailing
of a newspaper reporter *after* a story was published and confiscating
the newspapers was not considered censorship. Although, the U.S.
Constitution explicitly rejected the Blackwell definition of
censorship, the courts in the U.S. used it anyway (at least until
recently).
I would say that the Swiss information suppression is censorship in
sense that libraries and universities use the word. It is not
censorship by the strictest definition. In other words, it is bad, but
not as bad as it could be.
- Carl
==== ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/library/bill-of-rights.ala====
LIBRARY BILL OF RIGHTS
The American Library Association affirms that all libraries are forums for
information and ideas, and that the following basic policies should guide
their services.
1. Books and other library resources should be provided for the
interest, information, and enlightenment of all people of the community the
library serves. Materials should not be excluded because of the origin,
background, or views of those contributing to their creation.
2. Libraries should provide materials and information presenting all
points of view on current and historical issues. Materials should not be
proscribed or removed because of partisan or doctrinal disapproval.
3. Libraries should challenge censorship in the fulfillment of their
responsibility to provide information and enlightenment.
4. Libraries should cooperate with all persons and groups concerned
with resisting abridgment of free expression and free access to ideas.
5. A person's right to use a library should not be denied or abridged
because of origin, age, background, or views.
6. Libraries which make exhibit spaces and meeting rooms available to
the public they serve should make such facilities available on an equitable
basis, regardless of the beliefs or affiliations of individuals or groups
requesting their use.
Adopted June 18, 1948; amended February 2, 1961, and January 23, 1980, by the
ALA Council.
[Made available by permission of the American Library Association.]
==========ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/library/censorship.def.ala======
Books/Materials Challenge Terminology
Expression of Concern -- An inquiry that has judgmental overtones.
Oral Complaint -- An oral challenge to the presence and/or
appropriateness of the material in question
Written Complaint -- A formal, written complaint filed with the
institution (library, school, etc.) challenging the presence and/or
appropriateness of specific material.
Public Attack -- A publicly disseminated statement challenging the
value of the material, presented to the media and/or others outside
the institutional organization in order to gain public support for
further action.
Censorship -- The change in the access status of material, made by a
governing authority or its representatives. Such changes include:
exclusion, restriction, removal, or age/grade level changes.
Adopted by the Intellectual Freedom Committee at the 1986 American
Library Association Annual Conference
[Made available by permission of the American Library Association.]
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Mar 3 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: ch.general,ch.network,epfl.general,news.admin,eunet.news,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.censorship
From: stanley@skyking.OCE.ORST.EDU (John Stanley)
Subject: Re: Censorship and bigotry come up strong in Switzerland
Message-ID: <1992Mar4.024101.21499@talon.ucs.orst.edu>
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1992 02:41:01 GMT
In article <1992Mar3.210048.26534@m.cs.uiuc.edu> kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>stanley@skyking.OCE.ORST.EDU (John Stanley) writes:
>
>[...]
>>When a University chooses not to put a certain book on the shelves of
>>the local library, they have not censored that book. You are quite free
>>to call the publisher and buy it yourself or go to another library. You
>>will not be arrested for posession of that book just because the
>>University hasn't bought a copy of it. It is NOT censorship.
>[...]
>
>If you don't like this use of the word "censorship", you might prefer
>the more general word "suppression".
In the particular example you left in, I would call it neither
censorship nor suppression. Of course, it depends somewhat on what their
motive is in not providing the material. If it is made in an attempt to
suppress the material, I would call it hopeless optimism on their part.
If it is for another reason, I would call it 'their right to decide how
the limited source of money is spent'.
>Librarians, at least in the U.S., often use the word in its looser
>sense. They consider censorship the suppression of materials "because
>of the origin, background, or views of those contributing to their
>creation" or "because of partisan or doctrinal disapproval." I'm
>enclosing the American Library Association's "Library Bill of Rights"
>and "Books/Materials Challenge Terminology"
The material you quoted does not define the term censorship any
differently than Webster does, and certainly not in the terms you say
they do. They do use the terms you quote in the list of reasons that
material should not be excluded. The only mention of censorship is that
libraries should challenge it.
>Universities, professors, etc (at least in the U.S.) also use the word
>in this looser sense. Joint Statement on Rights and Freedoms of
>Students is the main statement of student academic freedom for U.S.
>students at both public and private universities. It says: "The
>institutional control of campus facilities should not be used as a
>device of censorship"
This statement also does not define what they mean by censorship. It is
perfectly consistent to believe they meant the same thing that Webster
meant. I.e., if a government official attempts to censor something
the University should not allow the facilities on that campus to assist
in that censorship.
>and "The student press should be free of censorship
Still not a definition that differs from Webster. The statement does not
specify who the source of the censorship is, just that it should be free
of it.
>Of course, even looser uses of the word "censorship" are possible.
Of course. And I could define "beef" to include "chickens and pigs".
>For example, some would say that the a newspaper editor who rejects an
>article because it is poorly written is censoring.
Then they would be wrong. Just like BoFo Chickendog Company would be
wrong in calling their franks "all beef" based on my definition of
beef.
>I would say that the Swiss information suppression is censorship in
>sense that libraries and universities use the word.
I would say that is it not censorship, even in the sense that libraries
and universities use the word, because it doesn't meet the definition of
censorship.
From caf-talk Caf Mar 4 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: ch.general,ch.network,epfl.general,news.admin,eunet.news,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.censorship
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Censorship and bigotry come up strong in Switzerland
Message-ID: <1992Mar4.135306.6903@eff.org>
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1992 13:53:06 GMT
As article <1992Mar4.024101.21499@talon.ucs.orst.edu>
stanley@skyking.OCE.ORST.EDU (John Stanley) points out, my description
of how librarians use the word "censorship" was not supported by the
material I included. Here is the most official American Library
Association definition:
"Censorship -- The change in the access status of material, made by a
governing authority or its representatives. Such changes include:
exclusion, restriction, removal, or age/grade level changes."
[Aside: Librarians use the word informally, too. I'm enclosing
references to ALA statements that use it informally.]
Back to the SWITCH case, in article <1992Feb24.085804.26201@chx400.switch.ch>,
gilli@chx400.switch.ch (Peter Gilli) writes:
: SWITCH received legal advice that, if it - just like a book shop - stores
: and freely redistributes information, it can be pursued if somebody (a
: journalist, a women's right organisation, etc. - not SWITCH !) does not
: like the contents and files a lawsuit, claiming that information distri-
: buted by SWITCH is in violation with legal regulations.
So according to SWITCH, SWITCH is being censored, being threatened
with censorship, or being threatened with being threatened with
censorship.
- Carl
p.s. Another correction: Where I refered to "Blackwell's definition"
in my previous note, I meant "Blackstone's definition".
ANNOTATED REFERENCES
(All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.)
=================
library/censorship.def.ala
=================
The American Library Association's definition of "censorship" and related
terms.
=================
library/access.children.nonprint.ala
=================
"Access for Children and Young People to Videotapes and Other Nonprint
Formats"
An interpretation by the American Library Association of the "Library
Bill of Rights"
=================
library/access.minors.ala
=================
"Free Access to Libraries for Minors"
An interpretation by the American Library Association of the "Library
Bill of Rights"
=================
library/bulletin-boards.ala
=================
"Exhibit Spaces and Bulletin Boards"
An interpretation by the American Library Association of the "Library
Bill of Rights"
=================
library/diversity.ala
=================
"Diversity in Collection Development"
An interpretation by the American Library Association of the "Library
Bill of Rights"
=================
library/evaluating-collections.ala
=================
"Evaluating Library Collections"
An interpretation by the American Library Association of the "Library
Bill of Rights"
=================
library/expurgation.ala
=================
"Expurgation of Library Materials"
An interpretation by the American Library Association of the "Library
Bill of Rights"
=================
=================
To get these documents by email, send email to archive-server@eff.org.
Include the line(s):
send library-policies censorship.def.ala
send library-policies access.children.nonprint.ala
send library-policies access.minors.ala
send library-policies bulletin-boards.ala
send library-policies diversity.ala
send library-policies evaluating-collections.ala
send library-policies expurgation.ala
The files are also available via anonymous ftp from ftp.eff.org
(192.88.144.4) as file(s):
pub/academic/library/censorship.def.ala
pub/academic/library/access.children.nonprint.ala
pub/academic/library/access.minors.ala
pub/academic/library/bulletin-boards.ala
pub/academic/library/diversity.ala
pub/academic/library/evaluating-collections.ala
pub/academic/library/expurgation.ala
--
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 Mar 4 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Student rights in dorms
Message-ID: <1992Mar4.140729.7215@eff.org>
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1992 14:07:29 GMT
unicorn%works.uucp@merk.merk.com writes:
> Unfortunately, from a legal standpoint, you have NO RIGHTS when
>a signator of a housing contract. I have yet to see a university that does
>not include a "search and seizeure" clause. Usually these are under the
>guise of " The University reserves the rights for its personal or duly
>appointed agent or agents thereof to enter the residence at any time with or
>without warning to the resident as is deemed necessary to premote the safety
>and continued proper observance of University policy and to permit the
>proper execution of administrative policy and to promote the safety of
>residents."
[...]
It is not so bad at the U. of Illinois (origin of the original query).
Our biggest loophole is: "There may be entry without notice in
emergencies where imminent danger to life, safety, health, or property
is reasonably feared and for custodial service."
[ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/uiuc.code.excerpts]
Does anyone else have a copy of their student code or housing contract
handy? Which wording is more typical?
- 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 Mar 4 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [ch.general, et al.] Re: Censorship and bigotry come up strong in Switzerland
Message-ID: <9203041825.AA15346@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1992 06:25:55 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Mar 4 00:00:00 1992
From: genillou@litsun.epfl.ch (Guy Genilloud)
Newsgroups: ch.general,ch.network,epfl.general,news.admin,eunet.news
Subject: Re: Censorship and bigotry come up strong in Switzerland
Message-ID: <1992Mar3.184031@litsun.epfl.ch>
Date: 3 Mar 92 17:40:31 GMT
I have to apologize to all of you who don't understand French.
I made a mistake using xrn and I sent a message to the world that I intended
to send to epfl.general only.
Basically, in my preceding message, I was saying that Brad Templeton was
(probably) right about censorship: a private company can refuse to pass
information without that being called censorship.
But SWITCH is not any private company. SWITCH will do whatever the governmental
organisations ask it to do. Moreover, SWITCH made a proposal to pass any newsgroup
requested by a University, as long as the University takes "responsibility" for
it. The problem is now with Universities.
So now, the question in Switzerland is:
Can the government (or a governmental organisation) decide on an arbitrary basis
to cut some perfectly legal newsgroups and let others pass freely?
As a citizen, I would answer NO, on the ground that this could allow the
government to filter out information it does not like and to promote
information it likes. After all, a governement can not give subsidies to some
Newspapers (directly or indirectly) and refuse those subsidies to other
Newspapers (although of course no Newspaper has a right to receive subsidies).
I am not legal person, so I may be wrong. The law may be unclear or different
on this point. In that case, I think it should be changed (Swiss citizens can change the constitution if they want to).
I would appreciate if someone could provide authoritative information
regarding these matters for both Switzerland and United States.
Guy Genilloud
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DI - LIT (Laboratoire d'informatique technique)
EPFL (Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne)
CH-1015 Lausanne-Ecublens
SWITZERLAND
internet: genilloud@litsun.epfl.ch
X.400: C=CH; A=ARCOM; P=SWITCH; O=EPFL; OU=LITSUN; S=GENILLOUD
tel = (+41 21) 693 46 57 fax = (+41 21) 693 46 60
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From caf-talk Caf Mar 4 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.censorship] Re: Telnet Censorship.
Message-ID: <9203050404.AA18465@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1992 16:04:17 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Mar 4 00:00:00 1992
From: finneyrc@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
Subject: Re: Telnet Censorship.
Message-ID: <1992Mar4.161917.3977@ac.dal.ca>
Date: 4 Mar 92 20:19:16 GMT
In article <1992Mar2.050935.24295@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>, trd54583@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (LunarWolf) writes:
>
> .. ... ... .... However, I do
> not understand why the computer system itself should be ONLY for academics.
>.... why said student should not be able to use the system
> for academics or {gasp!} games or whatever the hell s/he wants to do with the
> damn system. *growl*
>
>
The problem with games on academics computers is that there is usually NEVER
enough computers/terminals/workstation to meet the needs of all students to
allow one for each. Here at my university, GAME playing is strickly
NOT ALLOWED because of the above reason. If anyone is found playing games
then all computer access is revoked (or so they say..). If anyone wishes
to play games then I suggest they save up their pennies (I know that this is
hard) and buy a personal computer for home use (or get back into the board
games). I don't really approve of the rules but I do see the fairness in
preventing non-academic use on non-academic machines.
Craig Finney : New to the news
Can be found at 'finneyrc@newton.ccs.tuns.ca'
From caf-talk Caf Mar 4 00:00:00 1992
From: paul@devon.lns.pa.us (Paul Sutcliffe Jr.)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: History of "alt" groups
Message-ID: <1992Mar5.030858.8349@devon.lns.pa.us>
Date: 5 Mar 92 03:08:58 GMT
clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca (Chris Lewis) writes:
>In article <1992Feb24.004705.10339@mtholyoke.edu> jbotz@mtholyoke.edu (Jurgen Botz) writes:
>|In article <1992Feb22.214243.14848@m.cs.uiuc.edu> kadie@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>|>Was this really the original motivation of the "alt" groups? If so, is
>|>this history relevent to today's use of "alt" groups (alt.censorship,
>|>alt.civil-liberty, etc.)?
>|Not exactly as I understand it. The alt hierarchy was created by a couple
>|of users in response to 'censorship' by the now forgotten 'backbone cabal'.
>The showdown you're referring to I think is really the thing that broke
>the "backbone cabal" (more accurately, the "backbone" mailing list
>subscribers, where "backbone" were those 30 or so sites with very large
>impact on connectivity - not just academic). "comp.women" passed a
>vote inspite of the fact that many major SA's believed the name to be
>a blatant attempt to carry a non-technical and political group in comp
>simply because of increased distribution and flatly refused to carry
>it. Apparently the arguments got quite violent even within the mailing
>list, and the backbone group broke up.
>It was a long time ago. I've blissfully forgotten most of the details.
I, too, am a little fuzzy on the details. I've been the administrator
of a Usenet site since 1984. That will make a lot of things seem
"fuzzy." :-)
Anyway, I seem to recall that during The Great Renaming (tm) that there
were those that objected to the following changes:
mod.sources -> comp.sources.unix
net.sources -> comp.sources.misc
Mod.sources was a moderated group, net.sources wasn't. Both the
comp.sources.* groups were to be moderated. Because many people wanted
an unmoderated sources group, alt.sources was born. I remember a *lot*
of screeming about this.
- paul
--
INTERNET: paul@devon.lns.pa.us | The weather is here.
UUCP: ...!rutgers!devon!paul | Wish you were beautiful.
From caf-talk Caf Mar 5 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.politics.correct, et al.] The Dilemma of Gays & Lesbians on Campus
Message-ID: <9203060415.AA05954@dante.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1992 16:15:40 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Mar 5 00:00:00 1992
From: glad@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: alt.politics.correct,soc.college,soc.rights.human
Subject: The Dilemma of Gays & Lesbians on Campus
Message-ID: <1992Mar4.225137.3984@ac.dal.ca>
Date: 4 Mar 92 22:51:37 -0400
THE DILEMMA OF GAYS AND LESBIANS ON CAMPUS
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
by Keith Clark (The Alternative)
San Francisco - "Why would a 20-year old college student use his university's
computer to send a message offering a rationale for 'killing homosexuals,' as
a Penn State student did in 1989? Why would a coach have a rule that allowed
only heterosexuals on a Penn State intercollegiate team? Why would a Penn
State faculty member tell his counseling class that he would kill his son were
the son to 'come-out' to him?"
These were questions Anthony D'Augelli of the Department of Human Development
and Family Studies at Pennsylvania State University asked at a symposium on
"Lesbian and Gay Youth and the Schools" during the 99th annual convention of
the American Psychological Association here August 16-20.
They were not just rhetorical questions, however, said D'Augelli. They are
precursors of worse things to come during the 1990s unless the whole climate
on campus is radically changed. "As polls indicate that increasing percentages
of Americans favor lesbian and gay rights-including the right to legalization
of couplehoods-why does it seem that more and more campus animosity is
directed toward lesbians, gay men and bisexuals, and anyone presumed to fit
into one of these categories?"
D'Augelli conceded that there were "no empirical data to address the
hypothesis that heterosexism on campus is significantly more intense than
non-campus heterosexism." But he urged that "heterosexism on campus (whether
or not it shadows heterosexism elsewhere) will escalate in the 1990s unless
some action is taken now" to curb it.
Even though the majority of lesbian/gay college students are still closeted,
D'Augelli noted a 1986 anonymous survey that reported 11 percent of the
students identified themselves as lesbian, gay or bisexual.
Most young lesbians and gay men have acknowledged their sexual orientation to
themselves by the time they reach college. As a result, D'Augelli said,
"denial becomes increasingly improbable, and conflict intensifies."
Increased student activism, the "freer context" that campus life offers young
people away from the scrutiny of their family, the recent resurgence in
high-visibility off-campus groups like Queer Nation, and even the growing
inclusion of sexual orientation "as one of the 'politically correct' causes on
campus" increases this growing openness at colleges and universities.
D'Augelli also noted that students are coming-out at an even earlier age than
in the past. In the past, he said, students involved in campus lesbian/gay
groups were more likely to be juniors or seniors "preparing for lesbian/gay
life after college." Now, he said, newly-arrived freshman (freshpeople?) are
increasingly becoming involved in campus groups-and they're coming out with
greater family support than before.
D'Augelli noted that a 20-year-old student today might well have parents who
are 45 years of age, people whose own young adult lives took place during the
"liberation movements" of the mid-1960s and early 1970s.
"Current undergraduates," he said, "were born about the same time as the
modern lesbian/gay rights movement-1969. This is the first post-Stonewall
generation, and their parents were having children as homosexuality was being
deleted as a mental illness from the [American Psychiatric Association]
nomenclature in 1973...The new generations of university and college lesbians
and gay men expect a place on campus-they see no reason for shame."
Yet D'Augelli said, "The assertiveness of this generation is a double-edged
sword: it seems very hard for these young people to look back on the hurts of
the past since they are too busy hoping to move ahead. Seeking help is not
acceptable [to them], yet most young lesbians and gay men I know are in need
of more support and nurturance than they receive. Young lesbians and gay men
are probably the most poorly served group on campus as far as health and
mental health services are concerned [and] fearing the consequences of
allowing themselves to be vulnerable again, they do not make their needs
known."
Coupled with this increased pressure-external and internal-to come-out on
campus, D'Augelli said anti-lesbian/gay violence on campus was likely to
increase because lesbians and gays remain the only "acceptable targets" of
hatred among younger males increasingly insecure about "the assertion of
masculine adulthood," and because colleges and universities, if they do
anything at all about sexual orientation, tend only to "offer a service"
rather than "produce a change in the actual culture of the [campus]
community."
To counter this trend, D'Augelli said "comprehensive" steps need to be taken
on campuses rather than being "limited to the development of specific
services."
Institutional protection and institutional inclusion, according to D'Augelli,
are critical components of the comprehensive change that is needed on campus.
"All policies must explicitly include sexual orientation as a basis upon which
all kinds of discrimination are prohibited," he said.
Such steps, D'Augelli said, "will make computer hate messages, discriminatory
practices, and faculty insensitivities less socially acceptable. Inclusion of
lesbians and gay men in the social and academic lives of colleges and
universities must be the over-arching goal, the achievement of which will
allow subsequent young people to step 'out' on campus with much less to risk
and with much to gain."
--
G A Y & L E S B I A N A S S O C I A T I O N O F D A L H O U S I E
********************************************************************************
e-mail: GLAD@AC.DAL.CA
snail-mail: GLAD - Dalhousie Student Union Building - Halifax, N.S. - B3H 4J2
Phone: Francis (429-0571) Neil (429-4170) Carolyn (496-0467)
********************************************************************************
G A Y & L E S B I A N A S S O C I A T I O N O F D A L H O U S I E
From caf-talk Caf Mar 5 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.censorship,soc.college,alt.politics.correct
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Abstract of CAF-News 02.06
Message-ID: <1992Mar6.042931.7695@eff.org>
Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1992 04:29:31 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 cafv02n06
--- begin abstract ---
[Week ending February 9. 1992
[This week's guest editor is Adam C. Gross,
ag3j+@andrew.cmu.edu. The February 2nd issue
is still in production. - Carl]
========================== KEY ================================
The words after the numbers are a short PARAPHRASES of the
articles, NOT AN OBJECTIVE SUMMARY and not necessarily my opinion.
===============================================================
Notes 1-6 are about the Eric Jefferson case at Carnegie Mellon, where a
student was accused of sexual harrasement because of a series of his
postings to a local bboard.
1. The university's threats of an investigation if the postings don't
stop promotes self censorship.
<46750.298C2BB3@psycho.fidonet.org>
2. "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. [of
sexual harresment]"
<9202032245.AA03081@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil>
3. Public universities are probhibited from banning 'politically
incorrect' speech because of the _Doe v. U. of Michigan_ and _UWM Post
v. U. of Wisconsin_ rulings.
<1992Feb4.210805.11317@eff.org>
4. [A CMU student:] The university supported mail readers do not allow a
user to suppress another individuals posts.
<0dXzHyC00UgII0ilcP@andrew.cmu.edu>
5. "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."
<9202071322.AA09866@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil>
6. [A CMU student:] "[This] IS about suppressing speech that was
merely offensive." "[H]ow can it be harassment when one can easily
ignore the message or not even read it at all?"
Notes 7-9 are about the disclosure of personal information on the U of
Illinois systems through such programs as finger.
7. [A U of Illinois student:] "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."
<1992Feb3.224647.28831@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
8. [A member of the U of Illinois Computing Services Office:] "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."
<1992Feb4.193335.16780@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
9. Under what curcumstances can the university disclose or require
personal information about a student? Enclosed excerpts from the
Family Education and Privacy Rights of Act provide a partial answer.
<1992Feb6.233159.24859@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Note 10 is about the availability of some newsgroups at U of Oregon.
10. [The director of Network Services at the U of Oregon:] Techincal
limitations of the most popular Mac newsreader force limited USENET
availability.
<199202052354.AA01561@eff.org>
- Adam]
--- 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 a
regular editor (Paul Joslin, Elizabeth M. Reid, or Carl M. Kadie). It
is not an EFF publication. The views an editor expresses and editorial
decisions he or she makes are his or her 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 Mar 5 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [uiuc.cs.problems] Re: Is there a way I can block-out certain e-mail?
Message-ID: <9203060447.AA06049@dante.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1992 16:47:52 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Mar 5 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: uiuc.cs.problems
From: ullmer@suna3.cs.uiuc.edu (Brygg Ullmer)
Subject: Re: Is there a way I can block-out certain e-mail?
Message-ID: <1992Mar5.164036.26921@sunb10.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1992 16:40:36 GMT
In <1992Mar3.013144.3462@m.cs.uiuc.edu> soufi@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Khaled S. Soufi) writes:
>I was wondering if anyone out there knows of any simple (?!) way to
>block-out certain people (addresses) from sending e-mail to me! I
>guess I can write a little utility that can search my mail file and
>delete all messages that came from undesirable addresses but is there
>anything better than that? Thanks in advance for any *wise*
>suggestion.
Yes... you can use the filter program, if elm has been installed on your
system. If you haven't run elm before, run it once so that it can create
the appropriate directories in your account. Then, you have filter invoked
by the reception of new mail by putting "| /usr/local/bin/filter" (with the
quotes) in your .forward file (the directory may be different from system
to system; type "which filter" to get the appropriate directory). Finally,
you set up a filter-rules file in your .elm directory, which might contain
the following:
if (from contains "unwanted-person-name") then save unwanted.message
#alternatively, replace "save unwanted..." with "delete"
if (always) then leave
Be sure to check your filter-rules out for proper working order by
running "filter -n < sample.msg" on both messages which should be deleted and
messages which should be saved (including the header); filter will tell you what
it would do with the message if run with the current filter-rules.
Check the filter man page for more information.
Brygg Ullmer
From caf-talk Caf Mar 5 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [uiuc.cs.problems] Re: Is there a way I can block-out certain e-mail?
Message-ID: <9203060448.AA06058@dante.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1992 16:48:18 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Mar 5 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: uiuc.cs.problems
From: schwager@cs.uiuc.edu (Mike Schwager)
Subject: Re: Is there a way I can block-out certain e-mail?
Message-ID: <1992Mar6.021936.5715@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1992 02:19:36 GMT
In article <1992Mar3.013144.3462@m.cs.uiuc.edu>, soufi@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Khaled S. Soufi) writes:
|> I was wondering if anyone out there knows of any simple (?!) way to
|> block-out certain people (addresses) from sending e-mail to me! I
|> guess I can write a little utility that can search my mail file and
|> delete all messages that came from undesirable addresses but is there
|> anything better than that? Thanks in advance for any *wise*
|> suggestion.
+------------------------------------+--------------------------+
I suggest using MH. There are manuals in the library. Basically, you can create a .forward file that looks like this:
"| /local/lib/mh/slocal -user schwager"
and then you can have a mail delivery file that looks like this:
from nastyperson qpipe ?: "/bin/cat > /dev/null 2>&1"
addr schwager qpipe ?: "/local/lib/mh/rcvstore +Sysadm"
Automagic!
Many more configuration options are available.
-Mike
From caf-talk Caf Mar 6 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [news.admin] Re: Inappropriate and Rude Post from Mr. Jose Martinez
Message-ID: <9203060612.AA06543@dante.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1992 18:12:14 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Mar 6 00:00:00 1992
From: dave@compnect.UUCP (Dave Ratcliffe)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: Inappropriate and Rude Post from Mr. Jose Martinez
Message-ID: <1967@compnect.UUCP>
Date: 1 Mar 92 23:03:25 GMT
In article <1992Feb26.210337.1666@cbnewsi.cb.att.com>, alok@cbnewsi.cb.att.com (alok.vijayvargia) writes:
>
> I would like to point out to the system administrators that the following
> mail was posted by Mr. Jose Martinez on SCIA.
Now THIS oughtta be good... Except that it wasn't mail if it was posted
to a newsgroup. But then that's assuming SCIA really _IS_ a newsgroup.
> This message was in very bad taste and
> I am deeply offended with his rude, offensive and demeaning
> language. Also I would like to point out his undesirable
> and continuing interference on SCIA.
Undesirable in your view perhaps but apparently not in the view of
others who happen to agree with him. Offensive? Not as much as the way
you conducted the vote.
> Would someone responsible take appropriate action that he does
> post any further personally offensive posts and take his campaign to disband
> SCIA elsewhere ?
This sounds a helluvalot like a plea for his SysAdmin to yank his
posting priviledges. And where else SHOULD he take his 'campaign' pray
tell?
> Sincerely,
I doubt it...
[ ..... and now, the OFFENSIVE posting, with comments ..... ]
> From: JLM@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU
> Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian.american
> Subject: ALOK WAS NOT MALICIOUS
> After reading all the nonsense that Alok has
> posted in the last two days I have reached the
> following conclusion regarding his solicitation
> of votes for SCIA in the P2 list:
> He did it because he is AN IGNORANT FOOL who
> lives in a fantasy world where the only reality
> is that which is concocted by his feeble mind.
Yup, definately offensive. Jeez.... I've seen worse insults in the
*.test groups. A little over-reaction there Alok..
> And in this world there is no room for any other
> reality; never mind what the rest of the world
> tells him !! If Alok doesn't think of it, it isn't
> true !!!
Ooooooooh! Now this is TRULY nasty. Maybe you oughtta challenge him to a
duel!
> I feel pity for this individual !!
Jose is not alone.
> However, I realize that to try to open his eyes to
> the realities of Usenet might cause an irreversible
> trauma and shatter his limitted mental capacity;
> therefore, I will not try to reason with him any further.
> Nor will I waste my time reading anything that is posted
> by this individual.
> I will continue to work with those that are really interested
> in fixing the damage done to this group by whatshisname.
Alok, you brought this all on yourself. I have absolutely no interest in
SCIA and cared not a wit about the vote UNTIL all of these interesting
facts about the vote came to light. As others have already stated, your
conduct during the vote and your ignoring of comments during the CFD
regarding the group name indicate that you really don't care what the
net-at-large says unless they agree with you.
If Jose's message offended you I suggest you get an additional skin to
wear. The one you are wearing now is decidedly thin.
No matter how many times you contradict the facts, they stand in
opposition to your opinion. Invalid voting procedures by the vote-taker
= a null vote.
By the way, if you wish to complain to my SysAdmin about this message,
feel free. His Email address is eds1!compnect!dave@psuvax1.uucp. He'll
be happy to answer your messages.
--
Dave Ratcliffe The Data Factory BBS Harrisburg Pa.
dave@compnect.uucp (717)657-4997 (717)657-4992
compnect!dave@uunet.UU.NET Login: tdf
eds1!compnect!dave@psuvax1.uucp 3/12/24/9600 Telebit PEP
From caf-talk Caf Mar 6 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [ch.network, et al.] Re: Censorship and bigotry come up stronge in Switzerland
Message-ID: <9203060612.AA06558@dante.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1992 18:12:31 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Mar 6 00:00:00 1992
From: chris@ixgch.uucp (Christoph Eckert)
Newsgroups: ch.network,ch.general,eunet.news,news.admin,de.admin.news
Subject: Re: Censorship and bigotry come up stronge in Switzerland
Message-ID: <3818@ixgch.uucp>
Date: 5 Mar 92 01:10:47 GMT
wyle@inf.ethz.ch (Mitchell Wyle) wrote:
> There is no plan; SWITCH cut off all the groups quite some time ago.
> One moment the groups were there, and the next minute they were gone.
correct! SWITCH does not plan to but HAS already banned these newsgroups.
> SWITCH owns and runs SWITCH machines. They can carry what they want.
> If the owner of your machine wants to get the banned groups, he can
> either go through SWITCH (convince them to feed your machine) or buy a
> feed from chuug. Such feeds are not expensive.
sorry, but you're definitely WRONG. you people always forget that
SWITCH is funded as a foundation by the swiss universities and therefore
financed (!!!) by the federation, the cantons and the universities.
SWITCH is really NO PRIVATE ORGANIZATION. i hope this is finally clear.
now this means:
SWITCH has to carry what their sponsors tell them to carry and NOT what
SWITCH thinks is good for its "customers". the whole mess is the result
of SWITCH's perverted organization!
later...
--
Chris Eckert, XGP Switzerland
Internet Mail: check@ixgch.imp.com, SRI-NIC: CE13
Phone: +41-61 8115635 (voice)
@ Ixgate Switzerland (ixgch.imp.com) / XGP Switzerland
Slogan: "The only thing human beings master perfectly is KILLING." (F.Zappa)
& Remember: We have to pay for every single bit of mail data!
From caf-talk Caf Mar 6 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.censorship] Re: Telnet Censorship.
Message-ID: <9203060627.AA06605@dante.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1992 18:27:20 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Mar 6 00:00:00 1992
From: entropy@wintermute.WPI.EDU (Lawrence C. Foard)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
Subject: Re: Telnet Censorship.
Message-ID: <1992Mar6.042104.14586@wpi.WPI.EDU>
Date: 6 Mar 92 04:21:04 GMT
In article <1992Mar4.161917.3977@ac.dal.ca> finneyrc@ac.dal.ca writes:
>The problem with games on academics computers is that there is usually NEVER
>enough computers/terminals/workstation to meet the needs of all students to
>allow one for each.
If you can't even handle your academic users its time to add some more
systems. I have trouble believing that your computer labs are full 24 hours
a day, if they are I'm glad I don't go there :-)
>Here at my university, GAME playing is strickly
>NOT ALLOWED because of the above reason.
How do you define a game? Does rn count? Does IRC count? Do muds count?
I use IRC, rn and muds both for recreation and as a source of information,
if you need to know something quickly IRC is the fastest way to find someone
who knows. There are also significant advantages to knowing people outside
of the local area in your field, the net provides a resource infinitly
better than the library since you don't have to wait 2 years for information
to appear.
Being aware of Linux not only helps me personally, but will also save money
for the project I'm working on since we can put some equipment to more
productive use rather than having to purchase additional workstations. The
amount my "game" playing costs WPI doesn't approach the amount it is saving
them...
>If anyone is found playing games
>then all computer access is revoked (or so they say..).
If I was asked to hire a programmer I would much rather hire someone who
was familiar with the resources available on the net, becoming familiar
with them involves using it for recreation as well as work.
>If anyone wishes
>to play games then I suggest they save up their pennies (I know that this is
>hard) and buy a personal computer for home use (or get back into the board
>games).
Most students can't afford the $350/month for the leased line and UUNET
connection...
>I don't really approve of the rules but I do see the fairness in
>preventing non-academic use on non-academic machines.
I assume this is a typo?
--
Disclaimer: Opinions are based on logic rather than biblical "fact". ------
This is a mutated signature virus, if you don't put it in your .sig \ /
file you may lose your job, your dog may be run over, and you may die. \ /
If you repent and add the .sig you may win the lottery and get laid. \/
From caf-talk Caf Mar 6 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.censorship] Re: Telnet Censorship.
Message-ID: <9203061815.AA00290@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1992 06:15:30 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Mar 6 00:00:00 1992
From: Rudy.Zalesak@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Rudy Zalesak)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
Subject: Re: Telnet Censorship.
Message-ID: <1992Mar6.061704.14051@samba.oit.unc.edu>
Date: 6 Mar 92 06:17:04 GMT
Michael P. Deignan writes,
>Good for them! Its about time students realize that the computer system
is
>for Academics and not for their personal leisure time. Buy an Atari
2600 if
>you want leisure material.
And they should leave the books in the library alone! Why I wasted
hours at the library as a freshman reading Steinbeck and Faulkner
when I *should* have been reading An Introduction to Cultural
Anthropology.
If I wanted to read a book, I should have PAID for one at
B. Dalton!!
Rudy Zalesak
Eternity is in love with the productions of time- William Blake
--
The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
internet: bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
From caf-talk Caf Mar 6 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.unix.admin] Re: Why I hate IRC
Message-ID: <9203061815.AA00281@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1992 06:15:08 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Mar 6 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: comp.unix.admin
From: michael@gandalf.informatik.rwth-aachen.de (Michael Haardt)
Subject: Re: Why I hate IRC
Message-ID: <9203052325@gandalf.informatik.rwth-aachen.de>
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 92 21:29:07 +0100
From article , by peter@ferranti.com (peter da silva):
> Then there was Diversidial, and GE Roundtable, and Yak!, and Prodigy, and
> IRC. They're all basically the same, with the same sorts of people on them.
> The problems have been around for years, and the solutions, too... people
> burn out on them. You just have to budget this learning period in when you
> install IRC, and try to catch the real IRC fanatics before they burn out in
> the real world.
I followed this thread for a while, and now I can't resist to write an article
on my own. If you don't have the equipment to run IRC, then don't install
it. Period. If you are not sure, ask IRC admins.
I can't be objective concerning IRC, because I spend lots of my time in
it. I like it, and I think I know "the sorts of people". To many
people's surprise, they are not that much different from usual people.
"To catch the real IRC fanatics..." It seems to me, that you don't like
people who spend much of their time there. Your opinion may be based on
personal experience or other things, I don't know. But I really hate
such sentences. They are full of hidden meanings, all negative.
I think IRC is a new medium, which offers interactive communication on
multiple levels, which is different to other interactice media. Perhaps
we should think about moving this discussion to another group, any
suggestions? alt.irc? comp.unix.admin isn't right any longer -- but I
would not like ending it at this point. I heard so many people speaking
negative about IRC users, I can't believe it.
I don't want to offend you, and I don't say that there are no
psychological problems, like with any other medium. But I don't like
the kind of language you are using in your article.
Michael (aka root in IRC)
From caf-talk Caf Mar 6 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.censorship, et al.] Due process (was Re: Telnet Censorship.)
Message-ID: <9203061816.AA00308@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1992 06:16:28 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Mar 6 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@dante.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Due process (was Re: Telnet Censorship.)
Message-ID: <1992Mar6.064010.22462@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1992 06:40:10 GMT
finneyrc@ac.dal.ca writes:
[...]
> Here at my university, GAME playing is strickly
>NOT ALLOWED because of the above reason. If anyone is found playing games
>then all computer access is revoked (or so they say..).
[...]
Is the computer expulsion permanent? Can it be appealed? Do the
alleged game players have a right to a hearing? What is the "rank" of
the person who makes the computer expulsion decision? (At most
universities, even a full professor can't expels a student for a
class; class expulsions can only be done by the Univeristy's judical
committee.)
In my opinion, "[s]uspension or expulsion from a computer is a serious
penalty. Users facing these penalties should be given due process
protection similar to that given to those facing other serious
penalties such as a formal disciplinary warning, a failing grade for
cheating, or suspension from class." [Excerpt from the draft Statement
on Computers and Academic Freedom, ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/caf-statement]
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Mar 7 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.censorship] College newspaper shut down after controversial article
Message-ID: <9203071341.AA04649@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Sat, 7 Mar 1992 01:41:41 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Mar 7 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
From: farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Big Bri)
Subject: College newspaper shut down after controversial article
Message-ID:
Date: Sat, 7 Mar 1992 04:18:47 GMT
The student newspaper at Russell Sage College in Troy, NY (near Albany)
was shut down after a controversial article criticizing the
student government. THE QUILL reported that the student government
overspent its budget by $5000 last year and as a result, it was facing
money problems this year.
The student govt responds that the shut down (surprise!) had nothing to
do with the embarassing article but rather because of some
irregularities in the election of the current editor. The paper staff
denies any irregularities.
Because the shutdown occurred so quickly after the expose, many suspect
that the govt's intentions were less than pure.
I saved the Albany Times-Union editorial on the subject so if any
has any questions you can postit or email me.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
BRI FARENELL CLARKSON '95 FARENEBT@CRAFT.CAMP.CLARKSON.EDU
A bleeding heart liberal card-carrying member of the ACLU.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOLTAIRE QUOTEBOARD
"I may disagree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right
to say it."
"...man was born to live in the convulsions of distress or the lethargy
of boredom."
From caf-talk Caf Mar 7 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,comp.org.eff.talk,rec.arts.tv,misc.legal,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Justices refuse to allow total ban on indecent TV, radio material
Message-ID: <1992Mar7.133233.7108@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Sat, 7 Mar 1992 13:32:33 GMT
Copyright 1992 by UPI. Reposted with permission from the ClariNet
Electronic Newspaper newsgroup clari.news.law.supreme, et al. For more
info on ClariNet, write to info@clarinet.com or phone 1-800-USE-NETS.
From: clarinews@clarinet.com (GREG HENDERSON)
Newsgroups: clari.news.law.supreme,clari.news.children,clari.news.tv,
clari.news.sex
Message-id:
Keywords: supreme court, legal, children, special interest, television,
media, pornography, social issues
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 92 7:16:17 PST
WASHINGTON (UPI) -- The Supreme Court Monday declined to let the
government institute a ban on material it considers ``indecent'' from
television and radio broadcasts.
The court, without comment, let stand a lower court ruling that the
First Amendment allows the government to limit but not totally bar
indecent material from the public airwaves.
Justices Byron White and Sandra Day O'Connor voted to hear the
government appeal, but four votes are needed for a case to be accepted.
Justice Clarence Thomas considered the issue as an appeals court judge
and so took no part in Mondlay's decision not to grant the case.
The Federal Communications Commission traditionally has allowed
material deemed indecent -- but not pornographic -- to air between 10 p.m.
and 6 a.m. The government had believed children were unlikely to be
exposed to material broadcast during those hours.
But the administration, backed by Congress and armed with data it
says shows children and teenagers are watching television and listening
to radio at all times, wanted permission to more strictly sanction the
types of language and images broadcast over public airwaves 24 hours a
day.
The government appeal was opposed by the three major television
networks and groups including the American Civil Liberties Union,
National Public Radio, People for the American Way and the Reporters
Committee for Freedom of the Press.
In 1988, Congress passed a regulation to require the FCC to enforce
its ban on indecent broadcasting at all times. That ban was to take
effect Jan. 31, 1989.
But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
struck down the FCC regulation and the congressional statute that
mandated its enforcement as violations of the First Amendment freedom of
speech protection.
The appeals court ordered the FCC to identify a ``reasonable period
of time'' when indecent speech would be allowed.
Since 1927, federal law has prohibited the broadcast of any
``obscene, indecent or profane language.'' But the nation's definition
of ``obscenity'' has changed, in large part due to Supreme Court
decisions.
While the court has said obscene language does not have First
Amendment protection, other less offensive language -- which the
government categorizes as ``indecent'' -- has full constitutional
protection.
In 1975, the FCC defined ``indecency'' as a level of language less
objectionable than obscenity that ``describes, in terms patently
offensive as measured by contemporary community standards for the
broadcast medium, sexual or excretory activities and organs.''
Three years later the Supreme Court upheld the FCC's finding that a
daytime radio broadcast of comedian George Carlin's ``seven dirty words''
act was indecent.
But the commission took a limited approach to enforcement of the
regulations, essentially allowing a ``safe harbor'' between 10 p.m. and
6 a.m. for programming that might not be acceptable during daytime
hours.
No broadcasters were sanctioned for violating the policy between 1975
and 1987.
But in 1987 the FCC decided to become more strict, declaring three
broadcasts that would not have violated the ``dirty words'' test to be
indecent. Two of those programs aired after 10 p.m.
The FCC also indicated it was considering pushing the ``safe harbor''
back until midnight.
But the D.C. Circuit vacated the sanctions for the post-10 p.m.
broadcasts and ordered the FCC to hold a full hearing to decide when the
safe harbor applies.
``Broadcast material that is indecent but not obscene is protected by
the First Amendment,'' the appeals court held. ``The FCC may regulate
such material only with due respect for the high value our Constitution
places on freedom and choice in what the people say and hear.''
But Congress then entered the debate with the 1988 ``Helms Amendment.
'' Named after its sponsor, Sen. Jesse Helms, R-N.C., the rider to an
appropriations bill ordered the FCC to impose a 24-hour-a-day ban on
broadcasting indecent language.
The FCC then issued a ban, but the D.C. Circuit stayed enforcement
pending further review.
In the meantime, the Supreme Court ruled that a similar blanket ban
on indecent commercial telephone messages was unconstitutional.
But the FCC reasoned that because there are more safeguards in
telephone messages than public airwaves, a ban on broadcast indecency
would still be allowed.
A new three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit -- including now-Justice
Thomas -- disagreed, saying the Supreme Court's ruling on telephone
messages ``affirmed the protected status of indecent speech.''
The administration differed.
``Children are present in the audience for late night television and
radio in large numbers, and the on-off switch on the television or radio
in virtually every household is the only ticket to admission,'' the
Justice Department wrote the high court. ``Indecent broadcasting cannot
be restricted to those households in which it is welcome.''
But opponents said a total ban would have let the FCC effectively
censor news, informational programs, political advertising, serious
drama, satire and even musical recordings.
------
91-883 Children's Legal Foundation, et al., vs. Federal Communications
Commission, et al.
91-952 Federal Communications Commission, et al., vs. Action for
Children's Television, et al.
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Mar 7 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.censorship,soc.college,alt.politics.correct
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Abstract of CAF-News 02.05
Message-ID: <1992Mar7.142028.26868@eff.org>
Date: Sat, 7 Mar 1992 14:20:28 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 cafv02n05
--- begin abstract ---
[Week ending February 2nd, 1992
========================== KEY ================================
The words after the numbers are a short PARAPHRASES of the
articles, NOT AN OBJECTIVE SUMMARY and not necessarily my opinion.
===============================================================
Notes 1 to 3 regard the duties of a system administrator who becomes
aware, by examining bounced mail, that a user may be being sexually
harassed.
1. A sysadmin has a moral responsibility to discourage sexual
harassment. Although the discovery was made accidentally, it was a
legitimate discovery, and once the sysadmin is formally aware of the
situation, he has a duty to act.
<9201271901.AA26229@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil>
2. Unless the sysadmin has been explicitly asked by the user to help
end the harassment, he is unable to take any action - he is, indeed,
jumping to conclusions in deciding that the situation is one of
harassment. By reading more than the headers of bounced mail, and by
taking action without a request having been made, he would be
violating the privacy of both users.
3. The legal situation in Finland suggests that mail that is file
protected can only be read by those from whom it is not protected.
This might mean that Postmaster can legitimately read all mail that is
bounced to him or her.
<1992Jan31.101449.13991@nntp.hut.fi>
Notes 4 and 5 discuss a hypothetical 'Netnews Bill of Rights' based on
the Library Bill of Rights.
4. Carl Kadie: "All computers offering Netnews are forums for
information and ideas, and that the following basic policies should
guide their services: ... "
<1992Jan27.201548.22829@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
5. This is an in-depth critique of Carl Kadie's 'Netnews Bill of
Rights.'
<1992Jan27.165137.14992@ms.uky.edu>
Notes 6 to 11 regard a recent controversy at Carnegie Mellon
University involving issues of sexual harassment and freedom of
speech.
6. As described in the Carnegie Mellon student newspaper 'The Tartan',
student Eric Jefferson has had sexual harassment charges filed
against him because of his postings to a CMU bulletin board for
the Women's Center.
<1992Jan28.223429.20426@eff.org>
7. "Here are the collected works of Eric Scott Jefferson: ..."
<1992Jan31.211130.19359@eff.org>
8. From 'The Tartan' - "Bboards provide a unique opportunity for
communication and opinion exchange, often with people you would never
otherwise meet. Every Andrew user has a responsibility, however, to
police him- or herself and keep posts appropriate."
<1992Jan28.223916.20536@eff.org>
9. Although offensive, Jefferson's posts do not constitute
harassment since they were posted to a public forum and not to an
individual. Suppression would amount to a violation of Jefferson's
right to free speech.
<1992Jan28.234454.22561@eff.org>
10. Here is a ruling on sexual harassment from the university of
Wisconsin which quite clearly indicates that Jefferson's postings did
not and cannot constitute harassment.
<1992Jan29.221441.18673@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
11. Jefferson's chastisement does not constitute a threat to freedom
of speech - indeed, constitutional protections are irrelevant in a
privately owned university. However, the more important issue is
whether the university is more committed to the ideal of freedom of
speech or to the ideal of the free exchange of ideas. The two are not
the same, and the free expression of hatred can create an atmosphere
in which ideas cannot be freely shared.
<8dX8mdS00WBwAAGCdi@andrew.cmu.edu>
- Elizabeth]
--- 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 a
regular editor (Paul Joslin, Elizabeth M. Reid, or Carl M. Kadie). It
is not an EFF publication. The views an editor expresses and editorial
decisions he or she makes are his or her 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 Mar 7 00:00:00 1992
From: wolfe@wolves.uucp (G. Wolfe Woodbury)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,news.admin,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Censorship - some definitions
Message-ID: <1992Mar7.061340.8484@wolves.uucp>
Date: 7 Mar 92 06:13:40 GMT
Every so often the net gets into an "is not, is too" shouting match
over the definition of censorship. The latest round is about the
actions of the SWITCH folk in Switzerland. Here is a set of
definitions adapted from the _Webster's Third New International
Dictionary, Unabridged_ (published by Merriam-Webster, dated 1986).
cen.sor.ship (noun)
1: the institution, system or practice of censoring : the actions
or practices of censors or censorates; esp. censorial control
excercised repressively.
2: (offical term of office of the Roman Empire Censor)
3: the process of excluding from consciousness those ideas and
feelings that would be intolerable in other than sybolic form.
cen.sor (noun)
1 : (Roman magistrates) inspectors of conduct and morals.
2 : a supervisor or inspector, esp of conduct and morals :
a: an official empowered to examine materials in order to
forbid publication...if it contains anything objectionable.
b: (English college supervisors)
c: (state government board overseeing conduct of state
officials)
d: an official charged with scrutinizing communications to
intercept, suppress, or delete material harmful to his country's or
organization's interests
e: one who lacks official sanctions but acting ostensibly in
society's interests scrutinizes communications, compositions, and
entertainments to discover anything immoral, profane, seditious,
heretical, or otherwise offensive
3 : (archaic) critic
cen.sor (verb transitive)
to subject to a censor's examination; often: to alter, delete, or
ban completely after examination.
Given the definition, is is obvious that the actions of SWITCH and
others are censorship. The actions are obviously designed to serve
some persons' sense of morals.
Followups are set to alt.censorship.
--
G. Wolfe Woodbury @ The Wolves Den UNIX, Durham NC [use the maps!]
UUCP: ...dukcds!wolves!wolfe ...duke!wolves!wolfe
Domain: wolfe%wolves@cs.duke.edu wolfe@cds.duke.edu
We be of one blood, ye and I. (Stranger's Hunting Call)
From caf-talk Caf Mar 7 00:00:00 1992
From: edwardp@cs.umb.edu (Edward P. Piecewicz)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,comp.org.eff.talk,rec.arts.tv,misc.legal,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: Justices refuse to allow total ban on indecent TV, radio material
Message-ID: <1992Mar7.161149.28973@cs.umb.edu>
Date: 7 Mar 92 16:11:49 GMT
Do they expect this will "clean up" the soaps on television??
--
Edward P. Piecewicz Internet: edwardp@cs.umb.edu
Opinions expressed are my own and not those of the University of
Massachusetts at Boston.
From caf-talk Caf Mar 7 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.unix.admin] Re: Why I hate IRC
Message-ID: <9203071923.AA05781@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Sat, 7 Mar 1992 07:23:26 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Mar 7 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: comp.unix.admin
From: lindahl@arrisun3.uta.edu (Charlie Lindahl)
Subject: Re: Why I hate IRC
Message-ID:
Date: Sat, 7 Mar 1992 01:52:54 GMT
In article solsman@rohan.endor.cs.psu.edu (Mark Solsman) writes:
Newsgroups: comp.unix.admin
From: solsman@rohan.endor.cs.psu.edu (Mark Solsman)
Sender: news@cs.psu.edu (Usenet)
Nntp-Posting-Host: rohan.endor.cs.psu.edu
Organization: Penn State Computer Science
References: <18399@bach.udel.edu>
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1992 19:58:16 GMT
Lines: 17
Sounds like your problem with IRC is in administeration.
You shouldn't have to honor any constitutional right governing the use
or disallowment of irc. After all, your system is a service- a privilege
not a right. Tell your boss that if she wants to discontinue the use of irc,
or any other service, that she should do this by legistics.
Simply, how about adding the clause "This system is only for use approved by
the university" Then, next time someone uses irc or does something that you
don't wish to allow, it is then a legal concern, send them to the dean. If
someone wants to carry on, revoke their account, expell them.
Any other opinions?
PLEASE, don't flame me, we are professionals. I can take criticism.
Mark Solsman
I agree with Mark's point, and would like to make it a little
stronger: we've had some problems with INTERNET access (students
TELNEtting to strange places like Los Alamos, for example), and my
first observation is that we don't have published (online) policies
for use of the net in general (much less IRC in specific).
So, "fascist" arguments aside, I believe that we must first have
published policies on usage before we can bash IRC abusers (or other
network users). If the network is still abused, then the users
cannot claim ignorance of the rules, and can be properly disciplined
(net access cut off) if necessary.
A good example of a simple set of "policy" statements was posted
last week on the comp.unix.sources (I think) bboard. It consists of
a set of shell commands, and a "first login" message that appears when
the user first logs on to the system. My personal experience here is
that MOST students ARE willing to abide by the rules, if they KNOW
them ahead of time.
My $.02.
--
Charlie S. Lindahl
Automation and Robotics Research Institute
University of Texas at Arlington
Internet EMAIL: lindahl@sparki.uta.edu
When the going gets tough, computer scientists press the reset
button. -- From Werner Uhrig (werner@rascal.ics.utexas.edu).
Disclaimer: These be my own musings/opinions ... the University
of Texas at Arlington has nothing to do with them.
From caf-talk Caf Mar 7 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: comp.unix.admin,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Why I hate IRC
Message-ID: <1992Mar7.195213.17699@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Sat, 7 Mar 1992 19:52:13 GMT
lindahl@arrisun3.uta.edu (Charlie Lindahl) writes:
[...]
>So, "fascist" arguments aside, I believe that we must first have
>published policies on usage before we can bash IRC abusers (or other
>network users). If the network is still abused, then the users
>cannot claim ignorance of the rules, and can be properly disciplined
>(net access cut off) if necessary.
[...]
How long will access be cut off? Will the student or faculty user be
able to ask for an informal hearing? a formal hearing? Will the
discipline be imposed before a hearing establishes that an offense
actually took place. Who decides when discipline is warrented? (i.e.
who is authorized by your university to discipline student and faculty
users?) Can users appeal discipline decisions? Will they be informed
of this right? Will users participate in the development and
application of the policy?
In my opinion, users should participate in the development of policy.
Also, unless you want to set up a formal "computer-infractions judical
committee", you should should tie into regular university judicial
procedures. I'm enclosing a FAQ on policy making. It includes a list
of references to on-line material.
- Carl
=============== ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/faq/policy ===============
q: What guidance is there for creating or evaluating a computer policy?
a: The first thing to do is to get a copy of your university's Student
Code. It often protects student and staff freedom of expression,
privacy, and due process rights. It is not just a piece of paper; it
is part of the legal contract between student and university. Any new
policy must be consistent with this policy.
You may also find the unofficial, draft Statement on Computers and
Academic Freedom (CAF) useful. Also the CAF Archive contains the
policies of many schools, some with critiques.
Finally, you may wish to look at the CAF Law archive. Speech
restrictions at public universities have been struck down consistently
by recent federal courts. Also, the courts require due process before
serious punishments can be applied to students.
- Carl Kadie
ANNOTATED REFERENCES
(All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.)
=================
caf-statement
=================
This is an attempt to codify the application of academic freedom to
academic computers. It reflects our seven months of on-line discussion
about computers and academic freedom. It covers free expression, due
process, privacy, and user participation.
Comments and suggestions are very welcome (especially when posted to
CAF-talk). All the documents referenced are available on-line.
=================
policies/README
=================
Computer Policy and Critiques Archive
[part of the Computers and Academic Freedom (CAF) Archive
[part of the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) Archive]]
This is a collection of the computer policies of many schools and
networks. The collection also includes critiques of some of the
policies.
The archive is accessible via anonymous ftp and email. Ftp to
ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4). It is in directory "pub/academic/policies".
For email access, send email to archive-server@eff.org. Include the
line:
send other-comp-policies
where is a list of the files that you want. File README is
a detailed description of the items in the directory.
For more information, to make contributions, or to report typos
contact Carl Kadie (kadie@eff.org). Directory "widener" contains
additional policies (but not critiques).
=================
widener/README
=================
This directory is a mirror of ftp.cs.widener.edu:pub/cud/schools/*.
It is a collection of the computer polices of many schools. For a
description of the file see file "widener/Index". Also see directory
"policies".
=================
law/README
=================
CAF Law Archive
[part of the Computers and Academic Freedom (CAF) Archive
[part of the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) Archive]]
This is an on-line collection of law related to computers and academic
freedom. It includes both case law and legislation.
The archive is accessible via anonymous ftp and email. Ftp to
ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4). It is in directory "pub/academic/law".
For email access, send email to archive-server@eff.org. Include the
line:
send caf-law
where is a list of the files that you want. File README is
a detailed description of the items in the directory.
For more information or to make contributions, contact Carl Kadie
(kadie@eff.org).
=================
law/uwm-post-v-u-of-wisconsin
=================
The full text of UWM POST v. U. of Wisconsin. This recent district
court ruling goes into detail about the difference between protected
offensive expression and illegal harassment. It even mentions email.
It concludes: "The founding fathers of this nation produced a
remarkable document in the Constitution but it was ratified only with
the promise of the Bill of Rights. The First Amendment is central to
our concept of freedom. The God-given "unalienable rights" that the
infant nation rallied to in the Declaration of Independence can be
preserved only if their application is rigorously analyzed.
The problems of bigotry and discrimination sought to be addressed here
are real and truly corrosive of the educational environment. But
freedom of speech is almost absolute in our land and the only
restriction the fighting words doctrine can abide is that based on the
fear of violent reaction. Content-based prohibitions such as that in
the UW Rule, however well intended, simply cannot survive the
screening which our Constitution demands."
=================
law/goss-v-lopez.fischer
=================
Comments from _Teacher's and the Law_, 3rd edition, by Louis Fischer,
et al. Published in 1991 by Longman. It reports that the Supreme Court
says that some modicum of due process is necessary unless the matter
is trivial or there is an emergency.
=================
=================
To get these documents by email, send email to archive-server@eff.org.
Include the line(s):
send acad-freedom caf-statement
send other-comp-policies README
send widener-collected-comp-policies README
send caf-law README
send caf-law uwm-post-v-u-of-wisconsin
send caf-law goss-v-lopez.fischer
The files are also available via anonymous ftp from ftp.eff.org
(192.88.144.4) as file(s):
pub/academic/caf-statement
pub/academic/policies/README
pub/academic/widener/README
pub/academic/law/README
pub/academic/law/uwm-post-v-u-of-wisconsin
pub/academic/law/goss-v-lopez.fischer
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Mar 7 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [news.admin] Re: Censorship and bigotry come up strong in Switzerland
Message-ID: <9203080415.AA07798@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Sat, 7 Mar 1992 16:15:08 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Mar 7 00:00:00 1992
From: keith@ksmith.uucp (Keith Smith)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: Censorship and bigotry come up strong in Switzerland
Message-ID: <1992Mar06.152248.6104@ksmith.uucp>
Date: 6 Mar 92 15:22:48 GMT
Interesting discussion. My wife in in ALA and is studying for her
masters degree in Library Science. One of her assignments was reading
an article by a woman about censorship.
In the article several books are mentioned. One is about HOW TO
sexually molest children (What to do to be a pediophile). All of the
references in the article were similar in emotional index. The summary
was that as a LIBRARIAN you have no right to restrict such literature
from the library.
This is SWELL for the LIBRARY ITSELF. HOWEVER, as a COMMUNITY we (as in
Hope Mills, NC) have the RIGHT to decide what we want to PAY FOR that
goes into our library AND what we want AVAILABLE there. If we don't
want to pay for it and we don't want to see it, we have the right not
to. THE SAME HOLDS TRUE as the community grows larger as in the STATE
and FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. The fed certianly has the right to restrict
federal funds that the MAJORITY of people want to restrict. The
SOLUTION is to sway the MAJORITY's opinion to allow it.
I don't carry alt.* groups here. I can't afford it. I don't want it.
I have a downline site that gets a feed from me. NO ONE can MAKE me
carry them. You want SWITCH to carry/not carry the feeds? Then you need
to make the people pulling the purse strings at SWITCH to do it with
PUBLIC PRESSURE by either refusing to use it and finding alternate
information sources, or if it is publicly funded by instituting
legislation IN YOUR COMMUNITY (no matter what the size of the community)
to prohibit the restriction and get the MAJORITY of people to agree with
your point of view to get it passed. If none of that works then MOVE
to a different community that has more similar viewpoints than yours.
--
Keith Smith uunet!ksmith!keith 5719 Archer Rd.
Digital Designs BBS 1-919-423-4216 Hope Mills, NC 28348-2201
From caf-talk Caf Mar 8 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.censorship] Re: College newspaper shut down after controversial article
Message-ID: <9203081853.AA10100@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Sun, 8 Mar 1992 06:53:29 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Mar 8 00:00:00 1992
From: falk@peregrine.Sun.COM (Ed Falk)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
Subject: Re: College newspaper shut down after controversial article
Message-ID:
Date: 8 Mar 92 08:35:35 GMT
In article farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Big Bri) writes:
>The student newspaper at Russell Sage College in Troy, NY (near Albany)
>was shut down after a controversial article criticizing the
>student government. THE QUILL reported that the student government
>overspent its budget by $5000 last year and as a result, it was facing
>money problems this year.
Well! I'm impressed that the Quill was radical enough to print
something the student government didn't like. Good for them. I'm not
surprised they got shut down though; if Russel Sage is anything like
RPI (and it is), the student government has no qualms about shutting
them down. The main RPI paper, the Poly, has never been shut down in
my memory, but then they learned many years ago to only print things
the school and student government like. Other publications,
(especially the humor magazines) seem to have a mean life expectancy of
about six years before they piss somebody off and get shut down. The
last such incident was an *independent* publication which had all of
its members placed on probation and sent to mandatory "sensitivity"
training.
-ed falk, sun microsystems
sun!falk, falk@sun.com
That's one thing about going against the flow: there's
less traffic in that direction.
