From caf-talk Caf May 11 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.org.eff.talk] nsf and the alt.* groups...
Message-ID: <9205110409.AA04186@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Sun, 10 May 1992 18:09:49 GMT
From caf-talk Caf May 11 00:00:00 1992
From: gray@antaire.com (Gray Watson)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: nsf and the alt.* groups...
Message-ID: <9205110045.AA08701@antaire.com>
Date: 11 May 92 00:45:32 GMT
Does anyone have any idea if the NSF has *ever* protested the distribution of
the alt.* groups or other "pornographic" traffic? Does anyone know of any
actions toward restriction of traffic from the NSF (aside from the commercial
market)?
Iowa State and U. of Nebraska are using the possibilities of NSF intervention
as reason to censor newsgroups. Neither institutions are citing any other
university, state, or federal regulations for their actions.
just wondering,
gray
From caf-talk Caf May 11 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: john@iastate.edu (John Hascall)
Subject: Re: [comp.org.eff.talk] nsf and the alt.* groups...
Message-ID: <1992May11.132630.23905@news.iastate.edu>
Date: Mon, 11 May 1992 13:26:30 GMT
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
}From: gray@antaire.com (Gray Watson)
}Does anyone have any idea if the NSF has *ever* protested the distribution of
}the alt.* groups or other "pornographic" traffic?
}Iowa State and U. of Nebraska are using the possibilities of NSF intervention
}as reason to censor newsgroups. Neither institutions are citing any other
}university, state, or federal regulations for their actions.
The ISU Comp Ctr administration has cited Iowa Code Chap 728. When they
are reminded that 728 contains a specific exemption for libraries and
educational institutions, they generally mutter something about how they
wouldn't want to depend on that (maybe they're worried that ISU will be
found to be non-educational?)
(Chap 728 is Iowa's Obscenity Law)
John
From caf-talk Caf May 11 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.org.eff.talk] Re: nsf and the alt.* groups...
Message-ID: <9205111441.AA06016@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Mon, 11 May 1992 04:41:25 GMT
From caf-talk Caf May 11 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: mds@iastate.edu (Mark D. Smucker)
Subject: Re: nsf and the alt.* groups...
Message-ID: <1992May11.063951.12402@news.iastate.edu>
Date: Mon, 11 May 1992 06:39:51 GMT
In article <9205110045.AA08701@antaire.com> gray.watson@antaire.com writes:
>
>Iowa State and U. of Nebraska are using the possibilities of NSF intervention
>as reason to censor newsgroups. Neither institutions are citing any other
>university, state, or federal regulations for their actions.
>
No, ISU cites Iowa Code 728 ``obscenity'' as its reason for
placing restrictions on the method of access. They claim that they
want to prevent being held liable for the distribution of obscene
materials to minors. Code 728 has an exemption for educational
institutions and libraries, but for some reason the lawyers that
counsel the Comp. Center have them convinced that they are not covered
by this explicit exemption. The CC claims they are taking the
``better safe than sorry'' approach to the legal question. The groups
they restrict access to are ones that they feel ``could'' at any time
have an ocasional obscene article on them. The CC tends to use the
notion that ``most'' people consider porn obscene, not what actually
is the legal definition of obscene.
Here is sec. 728.7
-----------begin
728.7 Exemptions for public libraries and educational institutions.
Nothing in this chapter prohibits the use of appropriate material for
educational purposes in any accredited school, or any public library, or in
any educational program in which the minor is participating. Nothing in this
chapter prohibits the attendance of minors at an exhibition or display of art
works or the use of any materials in any public library.
-----------end
What follows is the entire code.
Mark D. Smucker ---- mds@iastate.edu
DISCLAIMER: This text was input through use of a scanner from the Iowa Code.
While spell-checking and a read-through were utilized to
check the text, a "word-by-word" comparison was not done.
This text should be used for non-legal reference only.
The Computation Center is not responsible for any errors
introduced in this text through the scanning process.
IOWA CODE CHAPTER 728
OBSCENITY
728.1 Definitions.
728.2 Dissemination and exhibition of obscene material to minors.
728.3 Admitting minors to premises where obscene material is exhibited.
728.4 Sale of hard core pornography.
728.5 Public indecent exposure in certain establishments.
728.6 Civil suit to determine obscenity.
728.7 Exemptions for public libraries and educational institutions.
728.8 Suspension of licenses or permits.
728.9 Evidence considered.
728.10 Affirmative defense.
728.11 Uniform application.
728.12 Sexual exploitation of children.
728.13 Forfeiture. Repealed by 85 Acts, ch 201, Section 21.
728.1 Definitions.
As used in this chapter, unless the context otherwise requires:
1. "Obscene material" is any material depicting or describing the
genitals, sex acts, masturbation, excretory functions or sadomasochistic
abuse which the average person, taking the material as a whole and applying
contemporary community standards with respect to what is suitable material
for minors, would find appeals to the prurient interest and is patently
offensive; and the material, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary,
scientific, political or artistic value.
2. "Material" means any book, magazine, newspaper or other printed or
written material or any picture, drawing, photograph, motion picture, or
other pictorial representation or any statue or other figure, or any
recording, transcription or mechanical, chemical or electrical reproduction
or any other articles, equipment, machines or materials.
3. "Disseminate" means to transfer possession, with or without
consideration.
4. "Knowingly" means being aware of the character of the matter.
5. "sadomasochistic abuse" means the infliction of physical or mental pain
upon a person or the condition of a person being fettered, bound or other-
wise physically restrained.
6. "Minor" means any person under the age of eighteen.
7. "Sex act" means any sexual contact, actual or simulated, either natural
or deviate, between two or more persons, or between a person and an animal,
by penetration of the penis into the vagina or anus, or by contact between
the mouth or tongue and genitalia or anus, or by contact between a finger
of one person and the genitalia of another person or by use of artificial
sexual organs or substitutes therefor in contact with the genitalia or anus.
8. "Prohibited sexual act" means any of the following:
a. A sex act as defined in section 702.17;
b. An act of bestiality involving a child;
c. Fondling or touching the pubes or genitals of a child;
d Fondling or touching the pubes or genitals of a person by a child;
e. Sadomasochistic abuse of a child for the purpose of arousing or
satisfying the sexual desires of a person who may view a depiction of
the abuse;
f. Sadomasochistic abuse of a person by a child for the purpose of
arousing or satisfying the sexual desires of a person who may view a
depiction of the abuse; or
g. Nudity of a child for the purpose of arousing or satisfying the sexual
desires of a person who may view a depiction of the nude child.
h. "Promote" means to procure, manufacture, issue, sell, give, provide,
lend, mail, deliver, transfer, transmute, transmit, publish,
distribute, circulate, disseminate, present, exhibit, or advertise,
or to offer or agree to do any of these acts.
[C75, 77, Section 725.1; C79, 81, Section 728.1]
83 Acts, ch 167, Section 1
728.2 Dissemination and exhibition of obscene material to minors.
Any person, other than the parent or guardian of the minor, who knowingly
disseminates or exhibits obscene material to a minor, including the
exhibition of obscene material so that it can be observed by a minor on or
off the premises where it is displayed, is guilty of a public offense and
shall upon conviction be guilty of a serious misdemeanor.
[C51, Section 2717; R60, Section 4359; C73, Section 4022; C97, Section 4951,
4955; C24, 27,31,35,39, Section 13188,13103; C46, 50,54, 58, 62, 66, 71, 73,
Section 725.4, 725.8; C75, 77, Section 725.2; C79, 81, Section 728.2]
728.3 Admitting minors to premises where obscene material is exhibited.
1. A person who knowingly sells, gives, delivers, or provides a minor who
is not a child with a pass or admits the minor to premises where obscene
material is exhibited is guilty of a public offense and upon conviction is
guilty of a serious misdemeanor.
2. A person who knowingly sells, gives, delivers, or provides a child with
a pass or admits a child to a premise where obscene material is exhibited is
guilty of a public offense and upon conviction is guilty of an aggravated
misdemeanor.
[C51, Section 2717; R60, Section 4359; C73, Section 4022; C97, Section 4951;
513, Section 4944-k; C24, 27, 31, 35, 39, Section 13185, 13189; C46,
50,54,58,62,66,71,73, Section 725.3,725.4; C75, 77, Section 725.3; C79, 81,
Section 728.3]
83 Acts, ch 167, Section 2
728.4 Sale of hard core pornography.
A person who knowingly sells or offers for sale material depicting a sex art
involving sadomasochistic abuse, excretory functions, or bestiality, which the
average adult taking the material as a whole in applying contemporary
community standards would find appeals to the prurient interest and is
patently offensive; and which material, taken as a whole, lacks serious
literary, scientific, political, or artistic value, upon conviction is guilty
of an aggravated misdemeanor charges under this section may only be brought by
a county attorney or by the attorney general.
[C79, 81, Section 728.4; 82 Acts, ch 1115, Section 1]
83 Acts, ch 167, Section 3
728.5 Public indecent exposure in certain establishments.
A holder of a liquor license or beer permit or any owner, manager or person
who exercises direct control over any licensed premises defined in section
123.3, subsection 31 shall be guilty of a serious misdemeanor under any of
the following circumstances:
1. If such person allow or permit the actual or simulated public
performance of any sex act upon or in such licensed premises.
2. If such person allow or permit the exposure of the genitals or buttocks
or female breast of any person who acts as a waiter or waitress.
3. If such person allow or permit the exposure of the genitals or female
breast nipple of any person who acts as an entertainer, whether or not the
owner of the licensed premises in which the activity is performed employs or
pays any compensation to such person to perform such activity.
4. If such person allow or permit any person to remain in or upon the
licensed premises who exposes to public view the person's genitals, pubic
hair, or anus.
5. If such person allow or permit the displaying of moving pictures,
films, or pictures depicting any sex act or the display of the pubic hair,
anus, or genitals upon or in such licensed premises.
6. If such person advertises that any activity prohibited by this section
is allowed or permitted in such licensed premises.
Provided that the provisions of this section shall not apply to a theater,
concert hall, art center, museum, or similar establishment which is primarily
devoted to the arts or theatrical performances and any of the circumstances
contained in this section were permitted or allowed as part of such art
exhibits or performances.
[C79, 81, Section 728.5]
728.6 Civil suit to determine obscenity.
Whenever the county attorney of any county has reasonable cause to believe
that any person is en- gaged or plans to engage in the dissemination or
exhibition of obscene material within the county attorney's county to minors
the county attorney may institute a civil proceeding in the district court of
the county to enjoin the dissemination or exhibition of obscene material to
minors. Such application for injunction is optional and not mandatory and
shall not be construed as a prerequisite to criminal prosecution for a
violation of this chapter.
[C75, 77, Section 725.4; C79, 81, Section 728.6]
728.7 Exemptions for public libraries and educational institutions.
Nothing in this chapter prohibits the use of appropriate material for
educational purposes in any accredited school, or any public library, or in
any educational program in which the minor is participating. Nothing in this
chapter prohibits the attendance of minors at an exhibition or display of art
works or the use of any materials in any public library.
[C75, 77, Section 725.5; C79, 81, Section 728.7]
728.8 Suspension of licenses or permits.
Any person who knowingly permits a violation of section 728.2 or 728.3 to
occur on premises under the person's control shall have all permits and
licenses issued to the person under state or local law as a prerequisite for
doing business on such premises revoked for a period of six months. The
county attorney shall notify all agencies responsible for issuing licenses
and permits of any conviction under section 728.2 or 728.3.
[C75, 77, Section 725.6; C79, 81, Section 728.8]
728.9 Evidence considered.
At a trial for violation of section 728.2 or 728.3 the court may consider the
material, and receive into evidence in addition to other competent evidence,
the offered testimony of experts pertaining to:
1. The artistic, literary, political or scientific value, if any, of the
challenged material.
2. The degree of public acceptance within the community of the material or
material of similar character.
3. The intent of the author, artist, producer, publisher or manufacturer
in creating the material.
4. The advertising promotion and other circumstances relating to the
sale of the material.
[C75, 77, Section 725.7; C79, 81, Section 728.9]
728.10 Affirmative defense.
In any prosecution for disseminating or exhibiting obscene material to
minors, it is an affirmative defense that the defendant had reasonable cause
to believe that the minor involved was eighteen years old or more and the
minor exhibited to the defendant a draft card, driver's license, birth
certificate or other official or apparently official document purporting to
establish that such minor was eighteen years old or more or was accompanied
by a parent or spouse eighteen years of age or more.
[C75, 77, Section 725.8; C79, 81, Section 728.10]
728.11 Uniform application.
In order to provide for the uniform application of the provisions of this
chapter relating to obscene material applicable to minors within this state,
it is intended that the sole and only regulation of obscene material shall be
under the provisions of this chapter, and no municipality, county or other
governmental unit within this state shall make any law ordinance or
regulation relating to the availability of obscene materials. All such
laws, ordinances or regulations shall be or become void, unenforceable and of
no effect on January 1,1978. Nothing in this section shall restrict the
zoning authority of cities and counties.
[C75, 77, Section 725.9; C79, 81, Section 728.11]
728.12 Sexual exploitation of children.
1. A person commits a class "C" felony when the person employs, uses,
persuades, induces, entices, coerces, knowingly permits, or otherwise
causes a child to engage in a prohibited sexual act or in the simulation of
a prohibited sexual act if the person knows, has reason to know, or intends
that the act or simulated act may be photographed, filmed, or otherwise
preserved in a negative, slide, book, magazine, or other print or visual
medium. Notwithstanding section 902.9, the court may assess a fine of not
more than fifty thousand dollars for each offense under this subsection in
addition to imposing any other authorized sentence.
2. A person commits a class "D" felony when the person knowingly promotes
any material visually depicting a live performance of a child engaging in a
prohibited sexual act or in the simulation of a prohibited sexual act.
Notwithstanding section 902.9, the court may assess a fine of not more than
twenty-five thousand dollars for each offense under this subsection in
addition to imposing any other authorized sentence.
3. A person who knowingly purchases any negative, slide, book, magazine
or other print or visual medium depicting a child engaging in a prohibited
sexual act or the simulation of a prohibited sexual act commits a serious
misdemeanor.
However, this section does not apply to law enforcement officers, court
personnel, licensed physicians, licensed psychologists, or attorneys in the
performance of their official duties.
[C79, 81, Section 728.12]
83 Acts, ch 167, Section 4; 86 Acts, ch 1176, Section 1-3
728.13 Forfeiture. Repealed by 85 Acts, ch 201, Section 21. See ch 809.
--
Steven L. Kunz
Networking & Communications | Usenet News Admin.
Iowa State University Computation Center, Iowa State University, Ames IA
INET: skunz@iastate.edu BITNET: gr.slk@isumvs.bitnet
From caf-talk Caf May 11 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.org.eff.talk] Re: nsf and the alt.* groups...
Message-ID: <9205111443.AA06035@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Mon, 11 May 1992 04:43:23 GMT
From caf-talk Caf May 11 00:00:00 1992
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: nsf and the alt.* groups...
Message-ID: <1992May11.080701.4089@eff.org>
Date: 11 May 92 08:07:01 GMT
In article <1992May11.063951.12402@news.iastate.edu> mds@iastate.edu (Mark D. Smucker) writes:
>
>Code 728 has an exemption for educational
>institutions and libraries, but for some reason the lawyers that
>counsel the Comp. Center have them convinced that they are not covered
>by this explicit exemption.
Is there any reason to believe that the ISU administrators have actually
consulted lawyers on this question? My impression, based on their
statements, is that they haven't.
Even if there were no exemption for educational institutions, the great
majority of things they are trying to ban are not legally obscene.
--Mike
--
Mike Godwin, |"If the bubble reputation can be obtained only at the
mnemonic@eff.org | cannon's mouth, I am willing to go there for it,
(617) 864-0665 | provided the cannon is empty."
EFF, Cambridge | --Mark Twain
From caf-talk Caf May 11 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: spam@iastate.edu (Michael L Begley)
Subject: Re: [comp.org.eff.talk] Re: nsf and the alt.* groups...
Message-ID: <1992May11.150950.639@news.iastate.edu>
Date: Mon, 11 May 1992 15:09:50 GMT
In article <9205111443.AA06035@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu> Mike Godwin asks:
>
>Is there any reason to believe that the ISU administrators have actually
>consulted lawyers on this question?
hehehe.
right.
Who needs a lawyer when sexually repressed people are available for
consultation?
-mike begley
spam@iastate.edu
--
Michael Begley Ask me how A riot is the language
spam@iastate.edu Iowa State University of the unheard.
(515) 296-8378 is censoring my usenet access -MLK
From caf-talk Caf May 11 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [eff.mail.ethics-l] University Censorship
Message-ID: <199205111842.AA12687@eff.org>
Date: Mon, 11 May 1992 10:42:49 GMT
From caf-talk Caf May 11 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: eff.mail.ethics-l
From: D7AP002@TOA.TOWSON.EDU (Tom Ohlendorf - TSU Admin. DP,
Subject: University Censorship
Message-ID: <199205111630.AA09683@eff.org>
Date: Mon, 11 May 1992 14:08:00 GMT
Mr. Murray:
Are you proposing that a "New Computer Revolution" be staged to uproot those in
command and the process through which the resources of the computer are
allocated? Are you telling us that the "judges" we have selected to allocate
these resources are not doing the job up to "your" standards?
I am sorry, but this sounds subversive to me, but, then again I have been
called a "dictatorial DP beaureaucrat" in a conference recently because I
indicated that we should run a reporting tool in batch because it was a system
resource hog.
It has been my experience that the ones that truly allocate computer resources
in most institutions are the professionals that are most familiar with the
resources and those that allocate information do it based upon the law of the
land or the resources that they have at their command, which ever is more
restrictive.
Finally, in many cases; local, state, or federal law controls access to
computer resources and information stored on the computer and those that
control the resources on a computer are restricted as to what can be contained
in any information extracted from those resources by the law of the land.
These are just the opinions of a "dictatorial DP beaureaucrat" and not those of
my institution.
+--------------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
|TTTTTTTTTTTT SSSSSSSSSSSS UUUUUUU UUUUUUU |Tom Ohlendorf |
|T T S S U U U U |HRS Advisory Committee |
|T T S SSSSSS S U U U U | DP Rep. & Secretary |
|TTTT TTTT S S SSS U U U U |Administrative Data Processing |
| T T S S U U U U |Towson State University |
| T T S SSSSSSSS U U U U |Administration Building, Room 128|
| T T S S U U U U |Towson, MD 21204 |
| T T SSSSSSSSS S U U U U | VOICE: (410) 830-3642 |
| T T S S U U U U | FAX: (410) 830-3476 |
| T T SSS S S U U U U | CSN: TSUPER01 |
| T T S SSSSSSS S U UUU U |INTERNET: D7AP002@TOA.TOWSON.EDU |
| T T S S U U | |
| TTTTTT SSSSSSSSSSSS UUUUUUUUU | |
| TOWSON STATE UNIVERSITY | |
+--------------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf May 11 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [eff.mail.ethics-l] Re: University Censorship
Message-ID: <199205111843.AA12744@eff.org>
Date: Mon, 11 May 1992 10:43:05 GMT
From caf-talk Caf May 11 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: eff.mail.ethics-l
From: A20RFR1@NIU.BITNET (Bob Rehak Ext. 3-9437 AIS Central Services - Swen Parson 146)
Subject: Re: University Censorship
Message-ID: <199205111658.AA10613@eff.org>
Date: Mon, 11 May 1992 16:52:00 GMT
It has been my experience that most people in charge of computer
resources either (1) know nothing about computers but were put in
that position because they have good business credentials (2) used
to work with computers years ago and are at the right level of the
management ladder (3) are good friends with the VP of such and so
(4) are computing professionals who have self inflated egos and have
the attitude that the system is their toy and they decide how their
going to share their toy (5) are computing professionals who are lazy
and try to work as little as possible (6) a combination of 4 and 5.
Ex: I am a DBA and am responsible for the integrity of the database;
however, if I was to detect a problem that was serious enough
that IMHO I needed to 'take the system down', I would have to
don my political hat and justify to several managers why this
action must be taken which would take many phone calls and
personal appearences (maybe even lie detector and drug tests)
before appropriate action is taken, eventhough it is my job
and my responsibility.
|-------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Bob Rehak, DBA At Large, BitNet: A20RFR1@MVS.CSO.NIU.EDU |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------|
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf May 11 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [eff.mail.ethics-l] Re: University Censorship
Message-ID: <199205111843.AA12800@eff.org>
Date: Mon, 11 May 1992 10:43:13 GMT
From caf-talk Caf May 11 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: eff.mail.ethics-l
From: SBVEEDER@SUVM.BITNET (Stacy Veeder)
Subject: Re: University Censorship
Message-ID: <199205111758.AA11573@eff.org>
Date: Mon, 11 May 1992 17:40:14 GMT
"Bob Rehak Ext. 3-9437 AIS Central Services - Swen Parson 146"
writes:
>It has been my experience that most people in charge of computer
>resources either (1) know nothing about computers but were put in
>that position because they have good business credentials (2) used
>to work with computers years ago and are at the right level of the
>management ladder (3) are good friends with the VP of such and so
>(4) are computing professionals who have self inflated egos and have
>the attitude that the system is their toy and they decide how their
>going to share their toy (5) are computing professionals who are lazy
>and try to work as little as possible (6) a combination of 4 and 5.
A little harsh, there, Bob. While this may be your experience, that
doesn't make it the rule. In my own experience, the worst sin committed
by network operators (and here I mean the front line, who are often work-study
students) has been uninterested ignorance. Far more often, I have found
our network administrators (the people who actually run the system, make
decisions, etc.) to be completent, caring professionals concerned only with
providing the best service (in both human and machine terms) possible.
>Ex: I am a DBA and am responsible for the integrity of the database;
> however, if I was to detect a problem that was serious enough
> that IMHO I needed to 'take the system down', I would have to
> don my political hat and justify to several managers why this
> action must be taken which would take many phone calls and
> personal appearences (maybe even lie detector and drug tests)
> before appropriate action is taken, eventhough it is my job
> and my responsibility.
>|-------------------------------------------------------------------|
>| Bob Rehak, DBA At Large, BitNet: A20RFR1@MVS.CSO.NIU.EDU |
>|-------------------------------------------------------------------|
Sorry, but I'm not sure this is all bad. Granted, it may be a cumbersome
process, but as a system user I appreciate safeguards against unnecessary
down time. I don't mean to imply that you personally might take your
system offline capriciously- but consulting with others sometimes leads
to alternative solutions. And, since policies should revolve around
processes rather than around specific individuals, keep in mind that
your predecessor or successor may not (have) share(d) your ability to
judge correctly when the system really must go down.
Stacy B. Veeder
Bitnet: SBVEEDER@SUVM.BITNET
Internet: sbveeder@suvm.acs.syr.edu
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf May 11 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [eff.mail.ethics-l] Re: University Censorship
Message-ID: <199205111843.AA12888@eff.org>
Date: Mon, 11 May 1992 10:43:36 GMT
From caf-talk Caf May 11 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: eff.mail.ethics-l
From: D7AP002@TOA.TOWSON.EDU (Tom Ohlendorf - TSU Admin. DP,
Subject: Re: University Censorship
Message-ID: <199205111811.AA11890@eff.org>
Date: Mon, 11 May 1992 18:05:00 GMT
Dear Bob:
At first I thought that your description of Data Processing professionals as
people "who have self inflated egos and have the attitude that the system is
their toy and they decide how their going to share their toy" or as people that
are "lazy and try to work as little as possible" was too far beneath me to
justify a reply; however, I feel the need to defend those in my profession.
I have been a programmer/analyst for over 10 years now. I work very hard at
what I do and I enjoy it also. Much of my job is mental; designing and idiot
proofing systems for people that do not have the experience or the desire to
gain experience in dealing with computers.
I invested time and money in a university to get my degree and I am again
investing time in money to get my masters. I think that anyone that has gone
through college deserves the right to bolster their own ego from time to time.
As for "toy sharing"; the days of the computer excentric, the nerd that diddles
with a computer all day and has no friends, social life, or love life except
for the computer, are over for the most part. I think we Data Processing
professionals recognize that we deal with users who need the resources that are
on the computers that we are responsible for and it is our job to make their
job as easy as possible. If this means that there must be some restrictions to
protect valuable data, then so be it.
As for your personalized example; maybe there are other factors besides your
database that need to be taken into consideration before the system "can be
taken down". I have never seen a situation in which a system has to be taken
down treated lightly. Taking a system down removes access from people that may
need it for other things!
Finally, based on your grammer, "if I was to detect", I can understand why you
have to justify things. The correct statement is "If I were to detect". Please
take this last statement as a tongue in cheek poke.
+--------------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
|TTTTTTTTTTTT SSSSSSSSSSSS UUUUUUU UUUUUUU |Tom Ohlendorf |
|T T S S U U U U |HRS Advisory Committee |
|T T S SSSSSS S U U U U | DP Rep. & Secretary |
|TTTT TTTT S S SSS U U U U |Administrative Data Processing |
| T T S S U U U U |Towson State University |
| T T S SSSSSSSS U U U U |Administration Building, Room 128|
| T T S S U U U U |Towson, MD 21204 |
| T T SSSSSSSSS S U U U U | VOICE: (410) 830-3642 |
| T T S S U U U U | FAX: (410) 830-3476 |
| T T SSS S S U U U U | CSN: TSUPER01 |
| T T S SSSSSSS S U UUU U |INTERNET: D7AP002@TOA.TOWSON.EDU |
| T T S S U U | |
| TTTTTT SSSSSSSSSSSS UUUUUUUUU | |
| TOWSON STATE UNIVERSITY | |
+--------------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf May 11 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [news.admin] Re: Policy on malicious/bad posts to a newsgroup
Message-ID: <9205112005.AA08464@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Mon, 11 May 1992 10:05:29 GMT
From caf-talk Caf May 11 00:00:00 1992
From: geoff@chemeng.ed.ac.uk (Geoff Ballinger)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: Policy on malicious/bad posts to a newsgroup
Message-ID: <1992May11.183507.8194@chemeng.ed.ac.uk>
Date: 11 May 92 18:35:07 GMT
news@tigger.jvnc.net (Zee News Genie) writes:
>I am sorry if this is in a FAQ, and I know that a similar discussion
>came up about flames and postings and freedom of speech, but as a system
>administrator, what am I supposed to do about a user who intentionally
>posts stuff (filth) on a newsgroup that has certain posting guidelines
>(but is unmoderated) ?
>I mean, am I supposed to be taking away his/her system account because
>he/she plays such 'pranks' ? Or should I let the hate mail bounce off
>his/her concrete skull ??
I am fortunate in that I have never had to deal with such a user, but
if I did I would attempt to persuade him/her to desist and if the behaviour
continued I would reluctantly remove that user's news access.
Note that I wouldn't do this based on my own judgement of what was
posted - I would base such a decision on the volume and content of complaints
received about the user.
To those who are about to shout "CENSORSHIP!!!!" I would say that the
individual certainly has a right to post whatever he or she pleases on Usenet,
but the individual has no right to force others into providing them with
access to the news service or a news feed. This is the basis of the "peer
pressure" which keeps Usenet going,
Geoff.
--
Mr Geoff Ballinger, Email: Geoff@Ed.Ac.Uk
Department of Chemical Engineering, Phone: +44 31 650 8557
Edinburgh University, The King's Buildings, Fax: +44 31 650 6551
Mayfield Road, Edinburgh, Scotland, EH9 3JL.
From caf-talk Caf May 11 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: mds@iastate.edu (Mark D. Smucker)
Subject: Re: [news.admin] Re: Policy on malicious/bad posts to a newsgroup
Message-ID: <1992May11.210018.18880@news.iastate.edu>
Date: Mon, 11 May 1992 21:00:18 GMT
geoff@chemeng.ed.ac.uk (Geoff Ballinger) writes
>Newsgroups: news.admin
>Subject: Re: Policy on malicious/bad posts to a newsgroup
>Message-ID: <1992May11.183507.8194@chemeng.ed.ac.uk>
>Date: 11 May 92 18:35:07 GMT
>>[ What should a news administrator do when someone posts something
others don't like? ]
> I am fortunate in that I have never had to deal with such a user, but
>if I did I would attempt to persuade him/her to desist and if the behaviour
>continued I would reluctantly remove that user's news access.
1) If you are a news admin for any length of time you WILL
have to deal with this problem.
2) If you did this, I would counsel the student, if you are
acting as an arm of the U.S. government to press charges of violation
of the First Amendment, and if you solely remove their access without
any sort of hearing or appeal process I would also recomend that they
press charges of due process being violated. Note: I see that you are
in the UK, I am not familiar with British law, but I would hope the
same freedoms are available there.
> Note that I wouldn't do this based on my own judgement of what was
>posted - I would base such a decision on the volume and content of complaints
>received about the user.
You would allow a majority to crush a dissenting vioce. You
are sad.
> To those who are about to shout "CENSORSHIP!!!!" I would say that the
>individual certainly has a right to post whatever he or she pleases on Usenet,
>but the individual has no right to force others into providing them with
>access to the news service or a news feed. This is the basis of the "peer
>pressure" which keeps Usenet going,
1) Did the poster MAKE the other people read it? No.
2) Peer pressure is just that. Pressure from other users
voicing there concerns to the poster. Peer pressure is not
administrators restricting access.
Mark D. Smucker --- mdss@iastate.edu
From caf-talk Caf May 11 00:00:00 1992
From: bh@anarres.CS.Berkeley.EDU (Brian Harvey)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,news.admin
Subject: Re: [news.admin] Re: Policy on malicious/bad posts to a newsgroup
Date: 11 May 1992 22:09:13 GMT
Message-ID:
geoff@chemeng.ed.ac.uk (Geoff Ballinger) writes:
> [...] I would reluctantly remove that user's news access.
>
> To those who are about to shout "CENSORSHIP!!!!" I would say that the
>individual certainly has a right to post whatever he or she pleases on Usenet,
>but the individual has no right to force others into providing them with
>access to the news service or a news feed. This is the basis of the "peer
>pressure" which keeps Usenet going,
Whoa! "Peer pressure" means that the poster's PEERS -- other users -- give
him a lot of shit about it (that's what "pressure" means).
A system administrator is not the "peer" of a user.
Whether or not you should/have the right to/want to remove a user's access,
it's really adding insult to injury to call your administrative action
"peer pressure." Makes it sound as if you're afraid/ashamed to take the
heat for your decision.
I am not arguing that no administrator should ever turn off a user. But
this is such a serious action that it should be called by its proper name.
When authorities start inventing euphemisms, that's when really bad things
start to happen.
P.S. The argument about "You can say whatever you want but not on my
machine" not being censorship is also, imho, dubious. Most cases of
censorship involve denial of access to the means of expression; the cases
where someone is imprisoned or killed are much rarer (although, of course,
not rare enough). If you deny access because of the *content* of what
someone posts, as opposed to the quantity of postings for instance, then
you are certainly censoring. If the person can go post the articles
somewhere else, then your censorship is not total, not 100% effective,
but it *is* still censorship.
From caf-talk Caf May 12 00:00:00 1992
From: nmehl@rm105serve.sas.upenn.edu (Nathan J. Mehl)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,news.admin
Subject: Re: [news.admin] Re: Policy on malicious/bad posts to a newsgroup
Message-ID: <920512#119#074540_nmehl@rm105serve.sas.upenn.edu>
Date: 12 May 92 14:49:47 GMT
In article bh@anarres.CS.Berkeley.EDU (Brian Harvey) writes:
>
>P.S. The argument about "You can say whatever you want but not on my
>machine" not being censorship is also, imho, dubious. Most cases of
>censorship involve denial of access to the means of expression; the cases
>where someone is imprisoned or killed are much rarer (although, of course,
>not rare enough). If you deny access because of the *content* of what
>someone posts, as opposed to the quantity of postings for instance, then
>you are certainly censoring. If the person can go post the articles
>somewhere else, then your censorship is not total, not 100% effective,
>but it *is* still censorship.
Nonsense. Is it censorship when the Philadelphia Inquirer doesn't print
my letters to the editor? Is it censorship when the Antioch Review decides
that my short stories aren't suited to publication? Is it censorship when
Bantam Spectra decides that they don't want to publish my novel?
Computer networks are not "speech" - they are publications. And the
sysadmin is the editor, and therefore has both the right and the
responsibility to decide what s/he will "publish" through his/her system.
Now, if a system advertises itself as allowing open posting regardless
of content there may be a breach of implied contract issue, but it still
isn't censorship.
Censorship is a big, powerful word. Let's not throw it around when it
isn't applicable.
------------Nathan J. Mehl---------------(nmehl@pennsas.upenn.edu)----------
It's the little touches that make a future solid enough to be destroyed. WSB
From caf-talk Caf May 12 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,news.admin
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Policy on malicious/bad posts to a newsgroup
Message-ID: <1992May12.155506.28685@eff.org>
Date: Tue, 12 May 1992 15:55:06 GMT
nmehl@rm105serve.sas.upenn.edu (Nathan J. Mehl) writes:
[...]
>Computer networks are not "speech" - they are publications. And the
>sysadmin is the editor, and therefore has both the right and the
>responsibility to decide what s/he will "publish" through his/her system.
>Now, if a system advertises itself as allowing open posting regardless
>of content there may be a breach of implied contract issue, but it still
>isn't censorship.
[...]
Enclosed are three FAQ's that address the issue within the special
context of an academic netnews system.
- Carl
=============== ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/faq/netnews.writing ===============
q: Should my university allow students to post to Netnews?
a: Yes. Free inquiry and free expression are an important part of a
university's mission. Most universities encourage and support student
expression and publication. Most universities also seem to give full
network access to all users, even students. (This conclusion is based
on an informal survey posted to comp.admin.policy in October, 1991.
[cafv01n33])
There is probably no need to create special rules for student computer
media; your university likely already has rules for student media.
(Look in your Student Code.) In the U.S., most student publications
are free of university screening, censorship, and most retaliation.
(For state universities, this is a legal requirement.) At the same
time, most universities disclaim responsibility for student
publications, even when the university "owns the presses."
- Carl
ANNOTATED REFERENCES
(All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.)
=================
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.
(Critiqued).
=================
caf-statement.critique
=================
This is a critique of 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.
Additional 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.
=================
policies/netnews.uwm.edu
=================
These are the network policy resolutions developed by the Computer
Policy Committee at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. The
resolutions were approved by the Committee and forwarded to the
Chancellor.
They say (to paraphrase) 1) Netnews is important 2) No restrictions
should be imposed without wide consultation 3) The principles of
intellectual freedom developed for university libraries apply to
Netnews material 4) The principles of intellectual freedom developed
for publication in traditional media apply to computer media.
=================
news/cafv01n33
=================
[No annotation available.]
=================
faq/netnews.reading
=================
q: Should my university remove (or restrict) Netnews newsgroups
because some people find them offensive? If it doesn't have the
resources to carry all newsgroups, how should newsgroups be selected?
=================
faq/media.control
=================
q: Since freedom of the press belongs to those who own presses, a
public university can do anything it wants with the media that it
owns, right?
=================
law/san-diego-committee-v-gov-bd
=================
Excerpts from San Diego Committee v. Governing Bd., 790 F.2d 1471
(1986). A decision by an appellate court that applied the Supreme
Court's Public Forum Doctrine (to a school newspaper).
=================
law/stanley-v-magrath
=================
Comments from _Public Schools Law: Teachers' and Students' Rights_ 2nd
Ed. by Martha M. McCarthy and Nelda H. Cambron-McCabe, published in
1987 by Allyn and Bacon, Inc. It says, in part, "[a]lthough school
boards are not obligated to support student papers, if a given
publication was originally created as a free speech forum, removal of
financial or other school board support can be construed as an
unlawful effort to stifle free expression." Also, "school
authorities cannot withdraw support from a student publication simply
because of displeasure with the content" and "the content of a
school-sponsored paper that is established as a medium for student
expression cannot be regulated more closely than a nonsponsored
paper". Also, it tells what to do about libel in student
publications.
=================
law/student-publications.misc
=================
Quotes from the book _Law of the Student Press_ by the Student Press
Law Center (1985,1988). They say that four-letter words are protected
speech, that public universities are not likely to be liable for
publications that they for which they do not control the contents, and
that the _Hazelwood_ decision does not apply to universities.
=================
law/uwm-post-v-u-of-wisconsin
=================
The full text of UWM POST v. U. of Wisconsin. This recent district
court ruling goes into detail about the difference between protected
offensive expression and illegal harassment. It even mentions email.
It concludes: "The founding fathers of this nation produced a
remarkable document in the Constitution but it was ratified only with
the promise of the Bill of Rights. The First Amendment is central to
our concept of freedom. The God-given "unalienable rights" that the
infant nation rallied to in the Declaration of Independence can be
preserved only if their application is rigorously analyzed.
The problems of bigotry and discrimination sought to be addressed here
are real and truly corrosive of the educational environment. But
freedom of speech is almost absolute in our land and the only
restriction the fighting words doctrine can abide is that based on the
fear of violent reaction. Content-based prohibitions such as that in
the UW Rule, however well intended, simply cannot survive the
screening which our Constitution demands."
=================
law/rust-v-sullivan
=================
The decision and decent for the so-called abortion information gag
rule case. The decision explicitly mentions universities as a place
where free expression is so important that gag rules would not be
allowed.
=================
law/perry-v-perry
=================
Comments from the ACLU Handbook _The Rights of _Teachers_. It says
that campus mail systems (and other school facilities) can be limited
public forums. (Perry v. Perry was about an interschool mail system.
It was one of the cases that defined the Public Forum Doctrine.)
Also, a paraphrase from an ACLU handbook _The Rights of Teachers_. It
says that generally, speech, if otherwise shielded from punishment by
the First Amendment, does not lose that protection because its tone is
sharp.
Also, from p. 92, it says that there are legal limits to what a
(public) school can ask its teachers to sign. [Some of these same
limits might apply to what a school can ask a user to sign as a
condition of getting (or keeping) a computer account.]
=================
=================
These documents are available by anonymous ftp (the preferred method)
and by email. To get the files via ftp, do an anonymous ftp to
ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4), and get file(s):
pub/academic/caf-statement
pub/academic/caf-statement.critique
pub/academic/student.freedoms
pub/academic/policies/netnews.uwm.edu
pub/academic/news/cafv01n33
pub/academic/faq/netnews.reading
pub/academic/faq/media.control
pub/academic/law/san-diego-committee-v-gov-bd
pub/academic/law/stanley-v-magrath
pub/academic/law/student-publications.misc
pub/academic/law/uwm-post-v-u-of-wisconsin
pub/academic/law/rust-v-sullivan
pub/academic/law/perry-v-perry
To get the files my email, send email to archive-server@eff.org.
Include the line(s) (be sure to include the space before the file
name):
send acad-freedom caf-statement
send acad-freedom caf-statement.critique
send acad-freedom student.freedoms
send acad-freedom/policies netnews.uwm.edu
send acad-freedom/news cafv01n33
send acad-freedom/faq netnews.reading
send acad-freedom/faq media.control
send acad-freedom/law san-diego-committee-v-gov-bd
send acad-freedom/law stanley-v-magrath
send acad-freedom/law student-publications.misc
send acad-freedom/law uwm-post-v-u-of-wisconsin
send acad-freedom/law rust-v-sullivan
send acad-freedom/law perry-v-perry
=============== ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/faq/media.control ===============
q: Since freedom of the press belongs to those who own presses, a
public university can do anything it wants with the media that it
owns, right?
a: Like any organization, the government must work within its charter
(the Constitution). The Supreme Court has said that this limits the
Government's authority to control the media that owns and controls.
The rational is that it would be dangerous for a Government that is
elected by the people to have too much control on what the people
can say and read.
The Supreme Court calls created forums, like a student newspaper or
campus mail systems, limited public forums. It says that the
government can limited who may access these forums and/or what topics
may be discussed. But otherwise, "it is bound by the same standards as
apply in a traditional public forum"; "content-based prohibition must
be narrowly drawn to effectuate a compelling state interest." For
example, viewpoint-based discrimination is forbidden.
- Carl
ANNOTATED REFERENCES
(All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.)
=================
law/san-diego-committee-v-gov-bd
=================
Excerpts from San Diego Committee v. Governing Bd., 790 F.2d 1471
(1986). A decision by an appellate court that applied the Supreme
Court's Public Forum Doctrine (to a school newspaper).
=================
law/stanley-v-magrath
=================
Comments from _Public Schools Law: Teachers' and Students' Rights_ 2nd
Ed. by Martha M. McCarthy and Nelda H. Cambron-McCabe, published in
1987 by Allyn and Bacon, Inc. It says, in part, "[a]lthough school
boards are not obligated to support student papers, if a given
publication was originally created as a free speech forum, removal of
financial or other school board support can be construed as an
unlawful effort to stifle free expression." Also, "school
authorities cannot withdraw support from a student publication simply
because of displeasure with the content" and "the content of a
school-sponsored paper that is established as a medium for student
expression cannot be regulated more closely than a nonsponsored
paper". Also, it tells what to do about libel in student
publications.
=================
law/student-publications.misc
=================
Quotes from the book _Law of the Student Press_ by the Student Press
Law Center (1985,1988). They say that four-letter words are protected
speech, that public universities are not likely to be liable for
publications that they for which they do not control the contents, and
that the _Hazelwood_ decision does not apply to universities.
=================
law/constraints.constitutional
=================
Comments from _A Practical Guide to Legal Issues Affecting College
Teachers_ by Partrica A. Hollander, D. Parker Young, and Donald D.
Gehring. (College Administration Publication, 1985). Discusses the
constitutional constraints on public universities including the
requires for freedom of expression, freedom against unreasonable
searches and seizures, due process, specific rules.
=================
law/uwm-post-v-u-of-wisconsin
=================
The full text of UWM POST v. U. of Wisconsin. This recent district
court ruling goes into detail about the difference between protected
offensive expression and illegal harassment. It even mentions email.
It concludes: "The founding fathers of this nation produced a
remarkable document in the Constitution but it was ratified only with
the promise of the Bill of Rights. The First Amendment is central to
our concept of freedom. The God-given "unalienable rights" that the
infant nation rallied to in the Declaration of Independence can be
preserved only if their application is rigorously analyzed.
The problems of bigotry and discrimination sought to be addressed here
are real and truly corrosive of the educational environment. But
freedom of speech is almost absolute in our land and the only
restriction the fighting words doctrine can abide is that based on the
fear of violent reaction. Content-based prohibitions such as that in
the UW Rule, however well intended, simply cannot survive the
screening which our Constitution demands."
=================
law/doe-v-u-of-michigan
=================
This is Doe v. University of Michigan. In this widely referenced
decision, the district judge down struck the University's rules
against discriminatory harassment because the rules were found to be too
broad and too vague.
=================
law/rust-v-sullivan
=================
The decision and decent for the so-called abortion information gag
rule case. The decision explicitly mentions universities as a place
where free expression is so important that gag rules would not be
allowed.
=================
law/keyishian-v-board-of-regents
=================
In this Supreme Court case, the Court said that public universities
can not infringe on the Constitutionally protected rights of their
students and employees (specially with regard to loyalty oaths).
=================
law/perry-v-perry
=================
Comments from the ACLU Handbook _The Rights of _Teachers_. It says
that campus mail systems (and other school facilities) can be limited
public forums. (Perry v. Perry was about an interschool mail system.
It was one of the cases that defined the Public Forum Doctrine.)
Also, a paraphrase from an ACLU handbook _The Rights of Teachers_. It
says that generally, speech, if otherwise shielded from punishment by
the First Amendment, does not lose that protection because its tone is
sharp.
Also, from p. 92, it says that there are legal limits to what a
(public) school can ask its teachers to sign. [Some of these same
limits might apply to what a school can ask a user to sign as a
condition of getting (or keeping) a computer account.]
=================
law/constitution.us
=================
The Constitution of the United States
=================
=================
These documents are available by anonymous ftp (the preferred method)
and by email. To get the files via ftp, do an anonymous ftp to
ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4), and get file(s):
pub/academic/law/san-diego-committee-v-gov-bd
pub/academic/law/stanley-v-magrath
pub/academic/law/student-publications.misc
pub/academic/law/constraints.constitutional
pub/academic/law/uwm-post-v-u-of-wisconsin
pub/academic/law/doe-v-u-of-michigan
pub/academic/law/rust-v-sullivan
pub/academic/law/keyishian-v-board-of-regents
pub/academic/law/perry-v-perry
pub/academic/law/constitution.us
To get the files my email, send email to archive-server@eff.org.
Include the line(s) (be sure to include the space before the file
name):
send acad-freedom/law san-diego-committee-v-gov-bd
send acad-freedom/law stanley-v-magrath
send acad-freedom/law student-publications.misc
send acad-freedom/law constraints.constitutional
send acad-freedom/law uwm-post-v-u-of-wisconsin
send acad-freedom/law doe-v-u-of-michigan
send acad-freedom/law rust-v-sullivan
send acad-freedom/law keyishian-v-board-of-regents
send acad-freedom/law perry-v-perry
send acad-freedom/law constitution.us
=============== ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/faq/netnews.liability ===============
q: Does a University reduce its likely liability by screening Netnews
for offensive articles and newsgroups?
a: Not necessarily. By screening articles and newsgroups the
University may *increase* its liability.
(Aside: Elimination of liability should not be the University's
only goal.)
According to the book _Law of the Student Press_ (in reference student
newspapers), "Only two court cases have considered the liability
question, and in both cases the courts found that the institution was
free from liability because control was in the hands of the
students.{33,34} ... Thus, despite arguments by administrators that
they need to prevent libel, it appears that just the opposite is true:
Where administrators have not exercised control over the content of
student publications, the courts have refused to hold their schools
responsible for libel appearing in such publication. If, however,
administrators exercise the power of prior review, then the court will
also hold them and their schools liable for the contents of such
publications. Encouraging the establishment of a clear-cut separation
between school administration and editor functions may also result in
the reduction of libel suits, for potential plaintiffs will realize
that substantial funds are beyond their reach. ... {33} _Mazart v.
State_ 441 N.Y.S.2d 600 (1981) {34} _Milliner v. Turner_ 436 So.2d
1300 (La. App. 1983)"
The recent _Cubby v. Compuserve_ decision also suggests that a
no-screening policy may be best. The judge wrote: "CompuServe has no
more editorial control over such a publication than does a public
library, bookstore or newsstand, and it would be no more feasible for
CompuServe to examine every publication it carries for potentially
defamatory statements than it would be for any other distributor to do
so."
- Carl
ANNOTATED REFERENCES
(All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.)
=================
student.freedoms
=================
Joint Statement on Rights and Freedoms of Students -- This is the main
statement on student academic freedom.
=================
law/cubby-v-compuserv
=================
Report of a federal district court case which said that BBS owners
cannot be held liable for the content unless they know beforehand that
the stories are false.
=================
law/student-publications.misc
=================
Quotes from the book _Law of the Student Press_ by the Student Press
Law Center (1985,1988). They say that four-letter words are protected
speech, that public universities are not likely to be liable for
publications that they for which they do not control the contents, and
that the _Hazelwood_ decision does not apply to universities.
=================
faq/netnews.reading
=================
q: Should my university remove (or restrict) Netnews newsgroups
because some people find them offensive? If it doesn't have the
resources to carry all newsgroups, how should newsgroups be selected?
=================
faq/netnews.writing
=================
q: Should my university allow students to post to Netnews?
=================
faq/censorship-and-harassment
=================
q: Must/should universities ban material that some find offensive
(from Netnews facilities, email, libraries, and student publications,
etc) in order to comply with antiharassment laws?
=================
=================
These documents are available by anonymous ftp (the preferred method)
and by email. To get the files via ftp, do an anonymous ftp to
ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4), and get file(s):
pub/academic/student.freedoms
pub/academic/law/cubby-v-compuserv
pub/academic/law/student-publications.misc
pub/academic/faq/netnews.reading
pub/academic/faq/netnews.writing
pub/academic/faq/censorship-and-harassment
To get the files my email, send email to archive-server@eff.org.
Include the line(s) (be sure to include the space before the file
name):
send acad-freedom student.freedoms
send acad-freedom/law cubby-v-compuserv
send acad-freedom/law student-publications.misc
send acad-freedom/faq netnews.reading
send acad-freedom/faq netnews.writing
send acad-freedom/faq censorship-and-harassment
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf May 12 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.censorship] Restriction or not ?
Message-ID: <199205121625.AA29513@eff.org>
Date: Tue, 12 May 1992 08:25:41 GMT
From caf-talk Caf May 12 00:00:00 1992
Date: Monday, 11 May 1992 17:30:21 TUR
From: Kursat CAGILTAY
Message-ID: <92132.173021KURSAT@TRMETU.BITNET>
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
Subject: Restriction or not ?
Hi,
Last week METU Network rules discussed on this list. And Carl M. Kadie
criticized our rules. Carl M. Kadie sent following comments about METU's
rules.
Today, somebody sent me an e-mail from Germany about one of our users. Now
my questions :
' Should this be classified as a free expression ? '
' Is there a limit for free expression? '
' What should we do for this type of behaviour? '
Thanks
Kursat CAGILTAY
METU CC Network Manager
*************** e-mail about one of METU users *********************
Comments: Originally-From: "AEGEE Konstanz,
Jens-Erik Weber"
Subject: Insults on relay
----------------------------Original message----------------------------
Hello,
some folks seem to have nothing else to do than to insult German speaking
people on relay. Namely,
Ian (E51651 at TRMETU) can iyidogan
called us several times "Nazis" and sent to me screens full of "FUCK YOU".
I think that such people should not be allowed to use the Bitnet relay.
Sincerly
Jens-Erik Weber, AEGEE Konstanz, University of Constance
******************** Critics about METU's rules*************************
> 1- An EARN user is a representative of METU, so, an extra care
> must be taken while using the network resource.
An important principle of academic freedom is that students and
professors generally speak for themselves and not for their
university.
.
.
.
Contrast this with the beginning of the Joint Statement on Rights and
Freedoms of Students:
"Academic institutions exist for the transmission of knowledge, the
pursuit of truth, the development of students, and the general
well-being of society. Free inquiry and free expression are
indispensable to the attainment of these goals. As members of the
academic community, students should be encouraged to develop the
capacity for critical judgment and to engage in a sustained and
independent search for truth."
And later, in the context of outside speakers:
"The institutional control of campus facilities should not be used as
a device of censorship."
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf May 12 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.censorship] Sex on the NET censored
Message-ID: <9205121646.AA00327@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Tue, 12 May 1992 06:46:40 GMT
From caf-talk Caf May 12 00:00:00 1992
From: rutkows@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Chris Rutkowski)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
Subject: Sex on the NET censored
Message-ID: <1992May12.152703.15728@ccu.umanitoba.ca>
Date: 12 May 92 15:27:03 GMT
Recently, a newspaper reporter "discovered" that alt.sex.bondage
existed on the UNIX newsgroup system. A front page story resulted,
which caused University of Manitoba adminstrators to publicly react and
pull the plug on all newsgroups with the lead phrase alt.sex*
Aside from the glaring innaccuracies such as describing the newsgroups
as "games", the article quoted UNIX users who were offended at such
groups, and the open availablility of them at an educational
institution.
Of course, the knee-jerk recation cancelled inocent newsfroups such as
alt.sexy.bald.captains (a Star Trek fan group) and an arguably
informative group, alt.sexual.abuse.recovery
The problem is that the UNIX newsgroups are perceived by most users as
educational and/OR informative, and that the system also includes many
recreational groups about magic, sailing, knitting, etc. Users here
have become outraged at the University Administration, not because they
miss alt.sex.bondage (to which no one admits subscribing or reading)
but because the censorship was enacted at all at an educational
institution.
Besides, there are other pornographic newsgroups that do not start with
alt.sex* that are still available. It can be further argued that if
the bondage newsgroup (which was likely 90% kids fooling around anyway)
could be censored, then why not things like alt.religion.scientology,
alt.flame, or motss newgroups? Is this a serious precedent?
--
Chris Rutkowski - rutkows@ccu.umanitoba.ca
Royal Astronomical Society of Canada
University of Manitoba - Winnipeg, Canada
From caf-talk Caf May 12 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Restriction or not ?
Message-ID: <1992May12.170236.18615@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Tue, 12 May 1992 17:02:36 GMT
Kursat CAGILTAY writes:
[...
> Today, somebody sent me an e-mail from Germany about one of our users. Now
> my questions :
>
>' Should this be classified as a free expression ? '
>' Is there a limit for free expression? '
>' What should we do for this type of behaviour? '
[...]
>----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>Hello,
>
>some folks seem to have nothing else to do than to insult German speaking
>people on relay. Namely,
> Ian (E51651 at TRMETU) can iyidogan
>called us several times "Nazis" and sent to me screens full of "FUCK YOU".
>I think that such people should not be allowed to use the Bitnet relay.
[...]
Roughly speaking, verbal harassment is continued unwanted
person-to-person communications. In my opinion, you would be justified
in telling your user to stop sending e-mail to the person who
complained on the grounds that further email would be harassment.
(Your user might also ask that email *from* the complainer stop.)
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf May 12 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: otto@systems.cc.fsu.edu (John G. Otto)
Subject: (none)
Message-ID: <9205121714.AA18456@systems.cc.fsu.edu>
Date: Tue, 12 May 1992 17:14:58 GMT
Subject: Seminole ACCESS
The included article from the campus paper, FSView (>), appears with
permission of the publisher. FSU is the Florida State University.
> Seminole Access replaces ID cards for Fall '92
> FSView Tuesday, 1992 April 14
> by Shannon Greene
> Beginning next fall, all FSU students will have a new ID card, a new
> ATM card, a new long distance calling card, and a new debit [sic] card.
> But instead of carrying around each of these individually, the Seminole
> Access Card will allow students to receive the benefits of all of the
> above without the burden of five or six cards.
Beginning next, all FSU students, faculty and staff will have a new ID
card, a new ATM card, a new long distance calling card, and a new credit
card, *whether they want it or not*. The Seminole ACCESS card will
force students to allow the university to record their every financial
transaction, every book they check out from the library or borrow on
reserve, and eventually, their every move in or out of any building or
any door on which an ACCESS limiter has been installed, all in a data
base conveniently accessible to the administration.
> According to Dianna Allen, systems coordinator, the reason for the
> change, besides convenience, is personal safety. Because students
> are carrying around cash and checks, the rate of campus muggings has
> increased, as well as the rate of vending machine robberies, Allen said.
According to Robert Basham, responding to an inquiry addressed to the
ACCESS office, fields of information would only be accessible to those
officials who have a need to know the information. It appears that
those officials have also been given free rein to decide what
constitutes such a need. Upon investigation, it was found that
librarians, for instance, have access to information other than that
related to the checking out and return of library materials, or fines
for late return.
> Allen also says that by eliminating excess cash carried by students and
> creating a new debit [sic] system for vending, this rate will decrease.
> "We are trying to make the campus a cashless society.", she says.
By eliminating cash, we can track every purchase (though, probably due
to high costs, vending machine transactions will most likely not be
tied to other information in the data base).
> The benefits of the card are numerous. It can be used as an ATM "money
> card" at any MAX or Publix [grocery chain] Presto location in the
> state. There will be a 75 cents charge for Access card use at all ATMs.
Not only will your actions on the FSU campus be traced, but you can make
it possible for off campus purchases to be traced as well. Over 200
businesses have already signed up.
> The card will also be coded as an MCI calling card, accessible only with
> a personalized PIN. And the debit [sic] card will allow for easy use of
> laundry and vending all over campus if there is cash in the account.
The card also discourages choice in selection of a long distance telephone
service by forcing the student to have an account with MCI as well as any
other service the student may have freely chosen. And they may even track
when you do your laundry.
> The card will replace FSU IDs in the coming fall and will cost $5.
> However, all current FSU students can get a free card now at [the
> Seminole] Access Office [in the Union].
> The cards have a black and white photo of the student, as well as
> library numbers and Seminole Access numbers printed on the front.
> The card is electronically coded with the student's social[ist
> in]security number.
Federal law prohibiting government agencies from requiring disclosure
of the socialist insecurity number in exchange for services or privileges
has been been ignored because it would be an inconvenience for the
university to respect people's privacy.
> "Everything is done electronically.", Allen says. This means ID
> validation, fee payments, and financial aid awards will all be done
> with the Access card. Financial aid rebates can be wired directly
> into the account, tuition payments can be automatically deducted, and
> validation will be coded in instead of the stickers students are
> used to.
Your account can be raided by the university without informing you ahead
of time and, if you want to challenge a transaction record, you get to
come grovel at the feet of the Seminole ACCESS bureaubums to beg to have
it corrected. Isn't that special. If someone in power decides to cut
you off and lock you out, it's soo much easier with the Seminole ACCESS
system.
> However, any student who does not want his rebate deposited in his
> account can go to cooperating banks, and have a check issued for
> his rebate amount at no extra cost to the student, Allen said.
What ever happened to the legal tender laws which have forced us to
accept these greenbacks in lieu of real money? If the university has
a debt to me, I should be able to collect it from the university in
cash, and I should be able to pay cash for what I owe them.
> Besides the programs starting up in fall '92, there are many projects
> in the works for the future. Dorm security will be increased by using
> the card with a PIN for residence hall entry, and attendance in large
> mandatory [?] classes will be taken via an electronic system to save
> time.
PINs are too short to be very secure. With people cracking 100 digit
encryption keys using their home computers, one would expect a 4
numeral code to be child's play. Industry experts [e.g. Charles
Knox] recommend that passwords be about 8 characters long (letters,
numerals and other characters) so as to strike a balance between
security and the frustrations of memory failure & typographical
errors.
> All these plans should be complete within the next several years.
- 30 -
From caf-talk Caf May 12 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan)
Subject: Re: Restriction or not ?
Message-ID: <1992May12.151828.21744@ms.uky.edu>
Date: Tue, 12 May 1992 19:18:28 GMT
kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>Kursat CAGILTAY writes:
>
>> Today, somebody sent me an e-mail from Germany about one of our users.
>>----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>>Hello,
>>
>>some folks seem to have nothing else to do than to insult German speaking
>>people on relay.
>
>Roughly speaking, verbal harassment is continued unwanted
>person-to-person communications. In my opinion, you would be justified
>in telling your user to stop sending e-mail to the person who
>complained on the grounds that further email would be harassment.
>(Your user might also ask that email *from* the complainer stop.)
Email isn't involved in this particular problem. BITNET RELAY is a real-time
conferencing system, much like IRC (Internet Relay Chat). Users of BITNET
systems send their messages/commands/requests to a server, which then broad-
casts their messages to the other distributed users. You do not need any
special software to access a RELAY server; you can just use the standard
CMS TELL command to reach the server(s). In fact, the server you use might
be located hundreds of miles away, at another university.
This structure can put a different spin on these matters. For instance,
the University of Kentucky's BITNET system (UKCC) is serviced by the RELAY
server at the University of Southern California (USCVM). 'Problems' on
RELAY could potentially involve three sites, namely UKCC, the home site(s) of
the offended party(ies), and USCVM (which provides RELAY service to UKCC). I
have been told of instances in which admins have received complaints from
RELAY users at *dozens* of sites.
In addition, RELAY 'problems' can inconvenience dozens of other users. If
someone starts broadcasting obscenities on RELAY channels, that person will
be interfering with people all over the world. How should that be handled?
This situation diverges significantly from the "one-on-one" nature of email.
I've always considered RELAY/IRC akin to ham radio. Since one person's
traffic can afffect dozens/hundreds of users, those users can simply
'change the channel' and go elsewhere. If the radio enthusiast continues
his behavior, the other hams can file complaints with the FCC. Should
admins act as the "FCC" for teleconferencing systems such as RELAY and IRC?
Some teleconferencing systems can be programmed to disable access from
specified userids. I don't know if RELAY has that capability; more im-
portantly, I'm not sure if/when that capability should be exercised. I
seem to remember that IRC supports an /ignore command, but I believe that
it only applies to personal messages (as opposed to messages sent to the
entire channel). Perhaps an IRC buff could provide more information.
I can easily picture a scenario in which a single user, hopping from channel
to channel, could disrupt the teleconferencing of several hundred users. Where
shall we draw the line?
In conclusion, RELAY != email. I don't believe that email-based policies and
procedures can be applied to teleconferencing systems.
--
morgan@ms.uky.edu |Wes Morgan, not speaking for| MORGAN@UKCC
morgan@engr.uky.edu |the University of Kentucky's| ....!ukma!ukecc!morgan
morgan@ie.pa.uky.edu |Engineering Computing Center| morgan@wuarchive.wustl.edu
Programming in C: It's not just a job, it's "char (*(*(*(*x)())[5])())[4];"!
From caf-talk Caf May 12 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,news.admin
From: dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Dave Hayes)
Subject: Re: [news.admin] Re: Policy on malicious/bad posts to a newsgroup
Message-ID: <1992May12.200441.29051@jato.jpl.nasa.gov>
Date: Tue, 12 May 1992 20:04:41 GMT
nmehl@rm105serve.sas.upenn.edu (Nathan J. Mehl) writes:
>Nonsense. Is it censorship when the Philadelphia Inquirer doesn't print
>my letters to the editor? Is it censorship when the Antioch Review decides
>that my short stories aren't suited to publication? Is it censorship when
>Bantam Spectra decides that they don't want to publish my novel?
Yes to all of the above.
>Computer networks are not "speech" - they are publications.
I disagree strongly. Network news (computer networks are transport
mechanisms) feels more like an open forum on a radio show or a
meeting hall than a book or newspaper.
Also, the strength and weakness of Netnews is in the diversity of exchange
and the freedom of expression.
>Censorship is a big, powerful word. Let's not throw it around when it
>isn't applicable.
Ok, we won't if it isn't appliciable.
--
Dave Hayes - Network & Communications Engineering - JPL / NASA - Pasadena CA
dave@elxr.jpl.nasa.gov dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov ...usc!elroy!dxh
Honest (adj.) - Someone who is secretly regarded by everyone as an enemy.
From caf-talk Caf May 12 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.censorship] Re: Sex on the NET censored
Message-ID: <9205122014.AA01352@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Tue, 12 May 1992 10:14:36 GMT
From caf-talk Caf May 12 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
From: colin@eecg.toronto.edu (Colin Plumb)
Subject: Re: Sex on the NET censored
Message-ID: <1992May12.143645.12228@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu>
Date: 12 May 92 18:36:46 GMT
In article <1992May12.152703.15728@ccu.umanitoba.ca> rutkows@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Chris Rutkowski) writes:
> Besides, there are other pornographic newsgroups that do not start with
> alt.sex* that are still available. It can be further argued that if
> the bondage newsgroup (which was likely 90% kids fooling around anyway)
> could be censored, then why not things like alt.religion.scientology,
> alt.flame, or motss newgroups? Is this a serious precedent?
As a frequent reader of and poster to, alt.sex.bondage, I'd like to note
that, while it has a small trickle of visiting idiots, most of the traffic
is from people who practice Bondage, Discipline (see The New Joy of Sex,
Dr. Alex Comfort, for a gentle introduction, or come and read a.s.bondage),
Dominance, Submission, Sadism and/or Masochism. I can give myself and
several people I have met in person after first encounters on a.s.bondage
as examples.
It is also a valuable resource for disseminating information about such
activities, encouraging (to use a phrase which has become common) safe,
sane and consentual play. (Some of the stories and fantasies discussed
are not all of these, but there is a difference between that and reality.)
Please don't be *quite* so dismissive. Yes, the newsgroup was created
as a joke, but it's grown to quite a bit more. The FAQ is recommended
reading for anyone curious.
--
-Colin
From caf-talk Caf May 12 00:00:00 1992
From: bh@anarres.CS.Berkeley.EDU (Brian Harvey)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: [news.admin] Re: Policy on malicious/bad posts to a newsgroup
Date: 12 May 1992 20:41:58 GMT
Message-ID:
nmehl@rm105serve.sas.upenn.edu writes:
>Nonsense. Is it censorship when the Philadelphia Inquirer doesn't print
>my letters to the editor? Is it censorship when the Antioch Review decides
>that my short stories aren't suited to publication? Is it censorship when
>Bantam Spectra decides that they don't want to publish my novel?
No, I wouldn't call any of those censorship, in general. However, if one of
those publications regularly offers its readers the opportunity to submit
"opposing viewpoint" articles for publication, and if they consistently
reject such articles from one particular viewpoint, then perhaps I would call
that censorship.
>Computer networks are not "speech" - they are publications. And the
>sysadmin is the editor, and therefore has both the right and the
>responsibility to decide what s/he will "publish" through his/her system.
A moderated newsgroup is, perhaps, a publication. But the network in
general is more like a common carrier. If Western Union refused to accept
telegrams on certain topics, it'd be censorship.
I think the past history makes a difference. For example, if an institution
does not generally carry netnews, but does carry a few selected groups that
have some specific relevance to their work, then I wouldn't call it
censorship because they left out my favorite. But if they generally carry
everything, and specifically decide to exclude a few because of their
topic, then it is censorship. The difference is in the *intent* of the
policy. The intent of one policy is to use resources only for business.
Fine. The intent of the other is to allow hobbyist use of resources, except
for a particular topic that an administrator wishes to exclude; that's
censorship.
This is not a legal opinion. I'm not a lawyer. It might be legal censorship
or illegal censorship. Doesn't matter.
From caf-talk Caf May 12 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.archives.admin] Legal ramifications of anon FTP site...
Message-ID: <199205122134.AA06417@eff.org>
Date: Tue, 12 May 1992 13:34:03 GMT
From caf-talk Caf May 12 00:00:00 1992
From: ccoprmm@prism.gatech.EDU (Michael Mealling)
Newsgroups: comp.archives.admin
Subject: Legal ramifications of anon FTP site...
Message-ID: <57493@hydra.gatech.EDU>
Date: 12 May 92 20:33:32 GMT
One of our system admin folx and I were talking yesterday about our
lack of services to the internet. Most other universities of our size and
technical background offer some type service to the net. The answer was
that the legal consequences were to great for our university to take on.
If that were true then I would be hearing about everyone here getting their
pants sued off. Is there any risk to speak of in offering a service to the
net, be it an FTP site, WAIS database, or gopher service? If not, what
can I do to convince folx here to allow services off campus?
Thanks!
-Michael Mealling
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Mealling ! Hypermedia WWW, WAIS, and gopher will be
Georgia Institute of Technology ! here soon via MIME. Your view of the
Internet: michael@fantasy.gatech.edu ! internet is about to change completely!
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf May 12 00:00:00 1992
From: nmehl@rm105serve.sas.upenn.edu (Nathan J. Mehl)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,news.admin
Subject: Re: [news.admin] Re: Policy on malicious/bad posts to a newsgroup
Message-ID: <920512#119#131650_nmehl@rm105serve.sas.upenn.edu>
Date: 12 May 92 20:28:22 GMT
In article <1992May12.200441.29051@jato.jpl.nasa.gov> dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov writes:
>nmehl@rm105serve.sas.upenn.edu (Nathan J. Mehl) writes:
>
>>Nonsense. Is it censorship when the Philadelphia Inquirer doesn't print
>>my letters to the editor? Is it censorship when the Antioch Review decides
>>that my short stories aren't suited to publication? Is it censorship when
>>Bantam Spectra decides that they don't want to publish my novel?
>
>Yes to all of the above.
Yes you agree, or yes you believe those examples do in fact constitute
censorship? (If the latter, I must entertain the notion that jpl.nasa.gov
is a forged site, and that you're actually posting from base.mars.)
>>Computer networks are not "speech" - they are publications.
>
>I disagree strongly. Network news (computer networks are transport
>mechanisms) feels more like an open forum on a radio show or a
>meeting hall than a book or newspaper.
It's not a question of "feel," it's a question of which set of legal
precedents should be applied. Presses are also transport mechanisms.
And just as I cannot force Macmillan to use their transport mechanisms
to produce my works (unless they have signed a contract obligating them
to do that), nor can I force my local sysadmin to use *his* transport
mechanism to distribute my writings to the world. Unless, of course
there is some sort of contract (either with the sysadmin or his employers,
such as an .edu site which guaranteed net access to its students) which
bound him/her to do so.
>Also, the strength and weakness of Netnews is in the diversity of exchange
>and the freedom of expression.
Did I ever maintain that it wasn't? Let me make this VERY clear: I believe
that it is a sysadmin's right to make decisions about material that
eminates from his/her system. However, I will not give my time, energy
or money to any system that does not guarantee me 100% access. But to
castigate sysadmins that do not explicitly offer that sort of setup
as censors is to berate an apple for not being an orange.
Also for the record- in a way, what I'm saying here only applies to
com and .org sites. .Edu and .gov sites are bound in different ways
by the policies of their operating institutions. And free speech at
a .mil site is a joke by definition...
>>Censorship is a big, powerful word. Let's not throw it around when it
>>isn't applicable.
>Ok, we won't if it isn't appliciable.
Good. :-)
------------Nathan J. Mehl---------------(nmehl@pennsas.upenn.edu)------
It's the little touches that make a future solid enough to be destroyed.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From caf-talk Caf May 12 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.org.eff.talk, et al.] Re: SPA -- what are your rights?
Message-ID: <9205122134.AA01732@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Tue, 12 May 1992 11:34:42 GMT
From caf-talk Caf May 12 00:00:00 1992
From: anderson@grip.cis.upenn.edu (Helen Anderson)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy
Subject: Re: SPA -- what are your rights?
Message-ID: <77815@netnews.upenn.edu>
Date: 12 May 92 19:02:58 GMT
Yesterday, Jodi Morrison of the Software Publishers Association gave a talk
to some Penn sys-admins at our request. She is not a lawyer, but has been
involved in several of their threatened lawsuits. The SPA is interested
in educating software users, and maybe she'll come to to your site if you ask.
Here's my recollection of some parts of what she said:
1. When the SPA comes to your site, they are accompanied by federal marshalls.
They have the right to seize your hardware, through some sort of court order,
but they generally do not seize hardware. Instead, they do an on-site audit,
which she called a "snapshot" of your software at the time.
2. SPA has never actually gone to court. They generally present a company
or school with overwhelming evidence of copyright violations and then
settle out of court. One member of our audience pointed out that this
means that none of the evidence has been really tested, including the
legality of shrink wrap licenses. Another person in the audience asked
whether software had ever been considered an "attractive nuisance"--
inviting copying.
3. There was a case where people at a company erased software while the
auditors were in the building. This was found out. From her description,
it sounded like this action had a negative effect on the company involved.
They have used things like unerase.
4. When we questioned her about minor technicalities in licenses (e.g.
use KeyServer to enforce license quantities, but the license actually
says you cannot network the software at all, even though the salesperson
said it was okay with a copy counter), she said that she could not recommend
anything less that 100% compliance. However, she emphatically said that SPA was
not targeting companies and schools who are making serious efforts at
compliance. Instead, they are starting by looking at companies who buy
1 copy of a program and run 100 (or 10?), companies that sell hardware with
pre-installed illegal copies of software, companies who duplicate and
resell illegal copies.
5. SPA concentrates on DOS. They have started working on Macs. It
appeared that they have not yet conquered the mysteries of Unix, but
that they plan to do so. (But don't feel *too* safe--she's not
the only person at SPA.) She seemed unaware of any privacy issues of
users' files on a system, for example. Their self-audit kit is for DOS
only. They have one being written for Macs, but it's not available yet.
6. Most places are caught through temporary workers, disgruntled former
employees, or when users of the software ask for support from the software
company. These people are usually willing to testify. They may also
investigate anonymous complaints, but those are harder for the SPA.
7. SPA gives out a free self-audit kit, a $10 video, and some brochures.
Just call, and they'll send stuff to you (202-452-1600).
You may redistribute the material within your organization.
8. She recommended that a school have a policy on software piracy, which
students and employees sign. It should be issued each year. Purchase
software in a central location, keep the purchase orders (that's their
favorite record of purchase), and log invoices or purchases.
9. Rather than raids, they often use "cease and desist" letters.
Companies who comply are not subject to publicity.
10. They do not try to enforce licenses for non-member companies.
However, they do not freely give out a list of their members.
There was more, but those are the highlights as I remember them.
-Helen Anderson
Penn Engineering
From caf-talk Caf May 12 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: jboyce1@mamut.wlu.ca (jim boyce u)
Subject: (none)
Message-ID: <9205122140.AA12357@unix1>
Date: Tue, 12 May 1992 21:40:02 GMT
I am interested in any info regarding a painting that was
censored at Concordia University. The painting was of an
African woman carrying a basket of fruit on her head. The
censorer was the Women's Centre at that university.
From caf-talk Caf May 12 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [eff.mail.ethics-l] RE: new subscriber
Message-ID: <199205122226.AA07604@eff.org>
Date: Tue, 12 May 1992 14:26:31 GMT
From caf-talk Caf May 12 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: eff.mail.ethics-l
From: MAU01SMS@gold.lon.ac.uk (STEPHEN STAFFORD)
Subject: RE: new subscriber
Message-ID: <199205110921.AA04364@eff.org>
Date: Mon, 11 May 1992 10:14:00 GMT
Ruby,
What do you mean censoring?
Do you mean when a system manager looks at what you are doing
and tells you to stop if you are being overly abusive of the net?
Or do you mean that someone reads all your incoming, and outgoing
email?
Please do expand.
Stephen Stafford.
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf May 12 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: jboyce1@mamut.wlu.ca (jim boyce u)
Subject: cultural appropriation
Message-ID: <9205122350.AA15679@unix1>
Date: Tue, 12 May 1992 23:50:49 GMT
A committee within the Canada Council has made recommendations
as to how funds should be distributed when someone is writing
about a culture that he/she does not belong to. It is suggested
that race or sex may be a factor when determining what writers
are supported. I would appreciate it is anyone could direct me
to other instances of such criteria being used (as it relates
to both fiction and non-fiction) to make such decisions and
opinions held regarding the issue
From caf-talk Caf May 12 00:00:00 1992
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: Sex on the NET censored
Message-ID: <1992May13.004553.22309@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: 13 May 92 00:45:53 GMT
rutkows@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Chris Rutkowski) writes:
>Recently, a newspaper reporter "discovered" that alt.sex.bondage
>existed on the UNIX newsgroup system. A front page story resulted,
>which caused University of Manitoba adminstrators to publicly react and
>pull the plug on all newsgroups with the lead phrase alt.sex*
[...]
Enclosed is an FAQ about this, followed by information about
the Computers and Academic discussion list/newsgroup.
- Carl
=============== ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/faq/netnews.reading ===============
q: Should my university remove (or restrict) Netnews newsgroups
because some people find them offensive? If it doesn't have the
resources to carry all newsgroups, how should newsgroups be selected?
a: In 1989, Stanford University banned rec.humor.funny. The ban was
lifted after a university committee recommended that newsgroups be
selected according to library policy. In other words, removing a
newsgroup is equivalent to banning a magazine from an academic
library.
The principles of intellectual freedom developed by libraries can (and
should, in my opinion) be applied to the administration of information
material on computers. These principles are explained in such American
Library Association documents as the Library Bill of Rights, the
Freedom to Read Statement, and the Intellectual Freedom Statement.
With the permission of the American Library Association, these
documents and others are available on-line. Many of these documents
deal with controversial material and material selection policy. For
example, article 2 of the Library Bill of Rights says: "Materials
should not be proscribed or removed because of partisan or doctrinal
disapproval". The ALA Statement on Diversity talks about the
importance of "materials that reflect political, economic, religious,
social, minority, and sexual issues." The ALA Workbook for Selection
Policy Writing tells how to create a formal policy. It also tells
exactly how to respond to challenges to controversial material.
- Carl M. Kadie
ANNOTATED REFERENCES
(All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.)
=================
stanford.statements
=================
"In 1989 rec.humor.funny was suppressed in some of the Stanford
University computers. After a campaign it was re-installed in those
computers."
This file contains
1) the "Statement of Protest about the AIR Censorship of rec.humor.funny"
2) a statement by the Stanford faculty committee on libraries
3) Notes from Professor John McCarthy on how censorship was fought at Stanford
(also see "jmcabstract")
=================
jmcabstract
=================
Professor John McCarthy lead the effort to restore "rec.humor.funny"
at Stanford. In March of 1991, he traveled to the University of
Waterloo, a place where "rec.humor.funny" and "alt.sex" was banned.
At Waterloo, he gave one talk on a new computer language and a second
talk on "Network Publication and Free Expression". This is the
abstract of that talk. (In May 1991, an advisory committee said the
ban should be lifted. In October 1991, the ban was lifted.)
(Also, see "stanford.statements")
=================
caf-statement
=================
This is an attempt to codify the application of academic freedom to
academic computers. It reflects our seven months of on-line discussion
about computers and academic freedom. 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.
(Critiqued).
=================
caf-statement.critique
=================
This is a critique of 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.
Additional comments and suggestions are very welcome (especially when
posted to CAF-talk). All the documents referenced are available
on-line.
=================
policies/netnews.uwm.edu
=================
These are the network policy resolutions developed by the Computer
Policy Committee at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. The
resolutions were approved by the Committee and forwarded to the
Chancellor.
They say (to paraphrase) 1) Netnews is important 2) No restrictions
should be imposed without wide consultation 3) The principles of
intellectual freedom developed for university libraries apply to
Netnews material 4) The principles of intellectual freedom developed
for publication in traditional media apply to computer media.
=================
library/bill-of-rights.ala
=================
The Library Bill of Rights from the American Library Association.
=================
library/diversity.ala
=================
"Diversity in Collection Development"
An interpretation by the American Library Association of the "Library
Bill of Rights"
=================
library/selection-workbook.ala
=================
The American Library Association's "Workbook on Selection Policy
Writing". Although aimed at textbook and library book selection in
grade and high schools, it also seems applicable to newsgroup
selection. It includes information about how create a selection policy
and how to handle complaints. It also includes a sample selection
policy.
=================
library/int-freedom.ala
=================
"Intellectual Freedom Statement"
An interpretation by the American Library Association of the "Library
Bill of Rights"
=================
library/censorship.def.ala
=================
The American Library Association's definition of "censorship" and related
terms.
=================
library/README
=================
Library Policy Archive
[part of the Computers and Academic Freedom (CAF) Archive
[part of the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) Archive]]
This is an on-line collection of library policy statements. It
includes the American Library Association's Freedom To Read statement
and the ALA Library Bill of Rights. (The ALA material is made
available by permission of the American Library Association.)
The archive is accessible via anonymous ftp and email. Ftp to
ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4). It is in directory "pub/academic/library".
For email access, send email to archive-server@eff.org. Include the
line:
send acad-freedom/library
where is a list of the files that you want. File README is
a detailed description of the items in the directory.
For more information, to make contributions, or to report typos
contact Carl Kadie (kadie@eff.org).
=================
faq/netnews.writing
=================
q: Should my university allow students to post to Netnews?
=================
banned.1991
=================
A list of computer material that was banned at universities during (or
before) 1991. It summarizes incidents and policies at Ohio State U.,
the U. of Illinois (two campuses), Case Western U., Boston U., U. of
Waterloo, U. of Toledo, Western Washington U., Iowa State U.,
Pennsylvania State U., U. of Texas, U. of Newcastle, James Madison U.,
U. of Wisconsin, and others.
=================
=================
These documents are available by anonymous ftp (the preferred method)
and by email. To get the files via ftp, do an anonymous ftp to
ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4), and get file(s):
pub/academic/stanford.statements
pub/academic/jmcabstract
pub/academic/caf-statement
pub/academic/caf-statement.critique
pub/academic/policies/netnews.uwm.edu
pub/academic/library/bill-of-rights.ala
pub/academic/library/diversity.ala
pub/academic/library/selection-workbook.ala
pub/academic/library/int-freedom.ala
pub/academic/library/censorship.def.ala
pub/academic/library/README
pub/academic/faq/netnews.writing
pub/academic/banned.1991
To get the files my email, send email to archive-server@eff.org.
Include the line(s) (be sure to include the space before the file
name):
send acad-freedom stanford.statements
send acad-freedom jmcabstract
send acad-freedom caf-statement
send acad-freedom caf-statement.critique
send acad-freedom/policies netnews.uwm.edu
send acad-freedom/library bill-of-rights.ala
send acad-freedom/library diversity.ala
send acad-freedom/library selection-workbook.ala
send acad-freedom/library int-freedom.ala
send acad-freedom/library censorship.def.ala
send acad-freedom/library README
send acad-freedom/faq netnews.writing
send acad-freedom banned.1991
========================= caf====================
Computers and Academic Freedom Mailing List
Purpose: To discuss questions such as: How should general principles
of academic freedom (such as freedom of expression, freedom to read,
due process, and privacy) be applied to university computers and
networks? How are these principles actually being applied? How can the
principles of academic freedom as applied to computers and networks be
defended?
Mitch Kapor of the Electronic Frontier Foundation has given the
discussion a home on the eff.org machine. As of Sept, 1991, the list
has 375 members in at least five countries. Thousands more read the
list via newsgroups.
There are four versions of the mailing list.
comp-academic-freedom-talk
- you'll received dozens of e-mail notes every day.
comp-academic-freedom-batch
- about once a day, you'll receive a compilation of the day's notes.
comp-academic-freedom-news
- about once a week you'll receive a compilation of the best
notes of the week. (Helen O'Boyle or I play the editor for
this one).
comp-academic-freeedom-abstracts
- about one a week you'll receive the abstract of the current
comp-academic-freedom-news (CAF-news). You'll also receive
instructions on how to access the current CAF-news.
To join a version of the list, send mail to listserv@eff.org. Include
the line "add ". (Other commands are "delete
" and "help"). If you have problems, send email to
caf-requests@eff.org.
In any case, after you join the list you can send e-mail to the list
by addressing it to caf-talk@eff.org.
Alternatively, if you may be able to read the mailing lists as newsgroups.
Look for alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk and alt.comp.acad-freedom.news.
An abstract and archive of comp-academic-freedom-news is available via
anonymous ftp from ftp.eff.org. See file "pub/academic/abstracts" and
"pub/academic/README". These files are also available via email (Send
email to archive-server@eff.org. Include the lines "help" and
"index".)
------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------
The long version:
When my grandmother attended the University of Illinois fifty-five
years ago, academic freedom meant the right to speak up in class, to
created student organizations, to listen to controversial speakers, to
read "dangerous" books in the library, and to be protected from random
searches of your dorm room.
Today these rights are guaranteed by most universities. These days,
however, my academic life very different from my grandmother's. Her
academic life was centered on the classroom and the student union.
Mine centers on the computer and the computer network. In the new
academia, my academic freedom is much less secure.
It is time for a discussion of computers and academic freedom. I've
been in contact with Mitch Kapor. He has given the discussion a home on
the eff.org machine.
The suppression of academic freedom on computers is common. At least
once a month, someone posts on plea on Usenet for help. The most
common complaint is that a newsgroup has been banned because of its
content (usually alt.sex). In January, 1991, a sysadmin at the
University of Wisconsin didn't ban any newsgroups directly. Instead,
he reduced the newsgroup expiration time so that reading groups such
as alt.sex is almost impossible. In April, 1991, a sysadmin at Case
Western reported that he had removed a note that a student had posted
to a local newsgroup. The sysadmin said the information in the note
could be misused. In other cases, university employees may be reading
e-mail or looking through user files. This may happen with or without
some prior notice that e-mail and files are fair game.
In many of these cases the legality of the suppression is unclear. It
may depend on user expectation, prior announcements, and whether the
university is public or private.
The legality is, however, irrelevant. The duty of the University is
not to suppress everything it legally can; rather it is to support the
free and open investigation and expression of ideas. This is the ideal
of academic freedom. In this role, the University acts a model of how
the wider world should be. (In the world of computers, universities are
perhaps the most important model of how things should be).
If you are interested in discussing this issues, or if you have
first-hand experience with academic surpression on computers or
networks, please join the mailing list.
- Carl Kadie
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf May 13 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Restriction or not ?
Message-ID: <1992May13.053231.14033@eff.org>
Date: Wed, 13 May 1992 05:32:31 GMT
morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
[...]
>Email isn't involved in this particular problem. BITNET RELAY is a real-time
>conferencing system, much like IRC (Internet Relay Chat). Users of BITNET
>systems send their messages/commands/requests to a server, which then broad-
>casts their messages to the other distributed users. You do not need any
>special software to access a RELAY server; you can just use the standard
>CMS TELL command to reach the server(s). In fact, the server you use might
>be located hundreds of miles away, at another university.
[...]
I apologize for misunderstanding the nature of Bitnet Relay. On IRC
each channel is owned by a channel operator. He or she can "kick"
anyone off of his or her channel. If the person kicked doesn't like
it, he or she can easily create his or her own channel. Also, anyone
can filter out anyone else's messages from view. Does Bitnet Relay
have similar facilities?
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf May 13 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [news.admin] Re: Policy on malicious/bad posts to a newsgroup
Message-ID: <9205130614.AA05089@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Tue, 12 May 1992 20:14:49 GMT
From caf-talk Caf May 13 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: news.admin
From: stcroix@ultra.com (Bill St. Croix)
Subject: Re: Policy on malicious/bad posts to a newsgroup
Message-ID: <1992May12.181507.7296@ultra.com>
Date: Tue, 12 May 92 18:15:07 GMT
In article bh@anarres.CS.Berkeley.EDU (Brian Harvey) writes:
>geoff@chemeng.ed.ac.uk (Geoff Ballinger) writes:
>> [...] I would reluctantly remove that user's news access.
>
>A system administrator is not the "peer" of a user.
In a university setting, often the sysadmins ARE peers of the users.
>Whether or not you should/have the right to/want to remove a user's access,
>it's really adding insult to injury to call your administrative action
>"peer pressure." Makes it sound as if you're afraid/ashamed to take the
>heat for your decision.
I do agree that "peer pressure" seems to be a copout.
>I am not arguing that no administrator should ever turn off a user. But
>this is such a serious action that it should be called by its proper name.
>When authorities start inventing euphemisms, that's when really bad things
>start to happen.
It really depends as to why the user is turned off. If it is due to
erroneous crosspostings (which is an abuse and is discussed in the USENET
newuser docs) or posting material to groups which violates the charter or
"spirit" (I know that that is VERY vague) of the group, then action is
necessary. A lot of this should be judgement on part of the sysadmin.
(ie, racial jokes to soc.culture.* groups would get immediate attention
as would posting "adult" material to computer or other groups where it is
obviously done with malice) I would look at the intent of the poster as well.
Did he/she have a malicious intent or was it an "accident"? Again, it is
a judgement call.
>P.S. The argument about "You can say whatever you want but not on my
>machine" not being censorship is also, imho, dubious. Most cases of
>censorship involve denial of access to the means of expression; the cases
>where someone is imprisoned or killed are much rarer (although, of course,
>not rare enough). If you deny access because of the *content* of what
>someone posts, as opposed to the quantity of postings for instance, then
>you are certainly censoring. If the person can go post the articles
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This is like the old, "Screaming fire in a movie theater". That is
against the law. It does not matter how many times the person yells this,
it is still against the law. Because it can do harm....there is a malicious
intent to do harm. This is not censorship, it is common sense.
>somewhere else, then your censorship is not total, not 100% effective,
>but it *is* still censorship.
Many USENET users do what they do, because they know that they can get away
with it. That their sysadmin's will bring up the "censorship" issue and
say that USENET is "anarchy". Whether or not a group is moderated should
have nothing to do with it. Whether or not a group is an "alt" group
should have nothing to do with it. There are enough groups to post
alieniating and hateful things to (alt.flame, talk.bizarre, as examples)
that there should be NO justification to posting them to any other groups.
Words can be taken the wrong way, it happens all the time. It is just a
matter of sysadmin's taking control of their systems and informing them
of the USENET guidelines and enforcing those guidelines.
I don't believe in censorship, but I do believe that there are enough
USENET groups to cover most any subject. Deliberate abuses of the computer
networks should not be allowed. Basically, the buck stops with the
sysadmin at the site.
Bill
--
Bill St. Croix Ultra Network Technologies
Systems Administrator 101 Daggett Drive
stcroix@ultra.com San Jose, CA 95134
Detroit Red Wings - '93 Stanley Cup Champs! (408) 922-0600 ext. 287
From caf-talk Caf May 13 00:00:00 1992
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: Policy on malicious/bad posts to a newsgroup
Message-ID: <1992May13.063637.148@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: 13 May 92 06:36:37 GMT
geoff@chemeng.ed.ac.uk (Geoff Ballinger) writes:
[...]
> I am fortunate in that I have never had to deal with such a user, but
>if I did I would attempt to persuade him/her to desist and if the behaviour
>continued I would reluctantly remove that user's news access.
(In the context of a university:)
Do you (personally) have authority to do this by yourself? In the
U.S., at most universities, even a professor does not have the
authority to suspend or expell a student from a class. Students have a
right to due process. This includes a right to a hearing (if they
wish), to appeal, to be told of their rights, etc.
> Note that I wouldn't do this based on my own judgement of what was
>posted - I would base such a decision on the volume and content of complaints
>received about the user.
[...]
I don't think outside pressure should be an important factor. As the
Joint Statement on Rights and Freedoms of Students says:
"Institutional action should be independent of community pressure."
- Carl
ANNOTATED REFERENCES
(All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.)
=================
student.freedoms
=================
Joint Statement on Rights and Freedoms of Students -- This is the main
statement on student academic freedom.
=================
=================
These documents are available by anonymous ftp (the preferred method)
and by email. To get the files via ftp, do an anonymous ftp to
ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4), and get file(s):
pub/academic/student.freedoms
To get the files my email, send email to archive-server@eff.org.
Include the line(s) (be sure to include the space before the file
name):
send acad-freedom student.freedoms
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf May 13 00:00:00 1992
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: Policy on malicious/bad posts to a newsgroup
Message-ID: <1992May13.070219.13258@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: 13 May 92 07:02:19 GMT
stcroix@ultra.com (Bill St. Croix) writes:
[...]
>I agree, but it should be kept to the relevant newsgroups. Otherwise, why
>have newsgroups at all?
[...]
Newsgroups provide benefit to both writer and reader.
(In the context of university sites:) Their charters should be thought
of a social contracts not as university rules. Giving them the status
of university rules not only provides an overly convenient pretext for
university censorship (see referenced statement on involuntary
labeling) but can also put the university in violation of
discrimination laws.
For example, suppose there was an unmoderated newsgroup
"soc.women.only" with charter that prohibited men from posting. Would
you enforce that charter? What is there was an unmoderated religious
newsgroup that prohibited postings from outside the religion. What
about an unmoderated newsgroup on abortion that prohibited
pro-abortion-rights posts?
- Carl
ANNOTATED REFERENCES
(All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.)
=================
library/labeling.ala
=================
"Statement on Labeling"
An interpretation by the American Library Association of the "Library
Bill of Rights"
=================
=================
These documents are available by anonymous ftp (the preferred method)
and by email. To get the files via ftp, do an anonymous ftp to
ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4), and get file(s):
pub/academic/library/labeling.ala
To get the files my email, send email to archive-server@eff.org.
Include the line(s) (be sure to include the space before the file
name):
send acad-freedom/library labeling.ala
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf May 13 00:00:00 1992
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: Policy on malicious/bad posts to a newsgroup
Message-ID: <1992May13.064847.16028@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: 13 May 92 06:48:47 GMT
hartman@ulogic.UUCP (Richard M. Hartman) writes:
[...]
>There are two types of "content" to be considered. Informational
>and form. Freedom of expression was guaranteed to ensure that the
>public would never be subject to suppression of ideas (primarily
>political which was the main worry at the time...). However this
>does *not* apply to someone who merely wishes to excersize his
>four letter vocabulary. At least, not using *my* equipment.
[...]
Different sites have different rules. At a state university (in the
U.S.) speech does not lose its protection because of its sharp tone or
four-letter words. A court observed that "often those with the power
to appoint will be on one side of a controversial issue and find it
convenient to use their opponent's momentary stridency as a pretext to
squelch them."
ANNOTATED REFERENCES
(All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.)
=================
law/cohen-v-california
=================
Netnews article with reference _Cohen v. California_, "in which the
court ruled that Cohen's jacket, which stated "Fuck the Draft" was a
protected form of free speech, even though he wore it in a county
courthouse."
=================
law/perry-v-perry
=================
Comments from the ACLU Handbook _The Rights of _Teachers_. It says
that campus mail systems (and other school facilities) can be limited
public forums. (Perry v. Perry was about an interschool mail system.
It was one of the cases that defined the Public Forum Doctrine.)
Also, a paraphrase from an ACLU handbook _The Rights of Teachers_. It
says that generally, speech, if otherwise shielded from punishment by
the First Amendment, does not lose that protection because its tone is
sharp.
Also, from p. 92, it says that there are legal limits to what a
(public) school can ask its teachers to sign. [Some of these same
limits might apply to what a school can ask a user to sign as a
condition of getting (or keeping) a computer account.]
=================
law/doe-v-u-of-michigan
=================
This is Doe v. University of Michigan. In this widely referenced
decision, the district judge down struck the University's rules
against discriminatory harassment because the rules were found to be too
broad and too vague.
=================
law/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."
=================
=================
These documents are available by anonymous ftp (the preferred method)
and by email. To get the files via ftp, do an anonymous ftp to
ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4), and get file(s):
pub/academic/law/cohen-v-california
pub/academic/law/perry-v-perry
pub/academic/law/doe-v-u-of-michigan
pub/academic/law/uwm-post-v-u-of-wisconsin
To get the files my email, send email to archive-server@eff.org.
Include the line(s) (be sure to include the space before the file
name):
send acad-freedom/law cohen-v-california
send acad-freedom/law perry-v-perry
send acad-freedom/law doe-v-u-of-michigan
send acad-freedom/law uwm-post-v-u-of-wisconsin
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf May 13 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [repost] Seminole ACCESS
Message-ID: <1992May13.134408.18143@eff.org>
Date: Wed, 13 May 1992 13:44:08 GMT
[Some sites didn't get this article by John G. Otto because
they couldn't find the subject. - Carl]
From: otto@systems.cc.fsu.edu (John G. Otto)
Message-ID: <9205121714.AA18456@systems.cc.fsu.edu>
Date: Tue, 12 May 1992 17:14:58 GMT
~Subject: Seminole ACCESS
The included article from the campus paper, FSView (>), appears with
permission of the publisher. FSU is the Florida State University.
> Seminole Access replaces ID cards for Fall '92
> FSView Tuesday, 1992 April 14
> by Shannon Greene
> Beginning next fall, all FSU students will have a new ID card, a new
> ATM card, a new long distance calling card, and a new debit [sic] card.
> But instead of carrying around each of these individually, the Seminole
> Access Card will allow students to receive the benefits of all of the
> above without the burden of five or six cards.
Beginning next, all FSU students, faculty and staff will have a new ID
card, a new ATM card, a new long distance calling card, and a new credit
card, *whether they want it or not*. The Seminole ACCESS card will
force students to allow the university to record their every financial
transaction, every book they check out from the library or borrow on
reserve, and eventually, their every move in or out of any building or
any door on which an ACCESS limiter has been installed, all in a data
base conveniently accessible to the administration.
> According to Dianna Allen, systems coordinator, the reason for the
> change, besides convenience, is personal safety. Because students
> are carrying around cash and checks, the rate of campus muggings has
> increased, as well as the rate of vending machine robberies, Allen said.
According to Robert Basham, responding to an inquiry addressed to the
ACCESS office, fields of information would only be accessible to those
officials who have a need to know the information. It appears that
those officials have also been given free rein to decide what
constitutes such a need. Upon investigation, it was found that
librarians, for instance, have access to information other than that
related to the checking out and return of library materials, or fines
for late return.
> Allen also says that by eliminating excess cash carried by students and
> creating a new debit [sic] system for vending, this rate will decrease.
> "We are trying to make the campus a cashless society.", she says.
By eliminating cash, we can track every purchase (though, probably due
to high costs, vending machine transactions will most likely not be
tied to other information in the data base).
> The benefits of the card are numerous. It can be used as an ATM "money
> card" at any MAX or Publix [grocery chain] Presto location in the
> state. There will be a 75 cents charge for Access card use at all ATMs.
Not only will your actions on the FSU campus be traced, but you can make
it possible for off campus purchases to be traced as well. Over 200
businesses have already signed up.
> The card will also be coded as an MCI calling card, accessible only with
> a personalized PIN. And the debit [sic] card will allow for easy use of
> laundry and vending all over campus if there is cash in the account.
The card also discourages choice in selection of a long distance telephone
service by forcing the student to have an account with MCI as well as any
other service the student may have freely chosen. And they may even track
when you do your laundry.
> The card will replace FSU IDs in the coming fall and will cost $5.
> However, all current FSU students can get a free card now at [the
> Seminole] Access Office [in the Union].
> The cards have a black and white photo of the student, as well as
> library numbers and Seminole Access numbers printed on the front.
> The card is electronically coded with the student's social[ist
> in]security number.
Federal law prohibiting government agencies from requiring disclosure
of the socialist insecurity number in exchange for services or privileges
has been been ignored because it would be an inconvenience for the
university to respect people's privacy.
> "Everything is done electronically.", Allen says. This means ID
> validation, fee payments, and financial aid awards will all be done
> with the Access card. Financial aid rebates can be wired directly
> into the account, tuition payments can be automatically deducted, and
> validation will be coded in instead of the stickers students are
> used to.
Your account can be raided by the university without informing you ahead
of time and, if you want to challenge a transaction record, you get to
come grovel at the feet of the Seminole ACCESS bureaubums to beg to have
it corrected. Isn't that special. If someone in power decides to cut
you off and lock you out, it's soo much easier with the Seminole ACCESS
system.
> However, any student who does not want his rebate deposited in his
> account can go to cooperating banks, and have a check issued for
> his rebate amount at no extra cost to the student, Allen said.
What ever happened to the legal tender laws which have forced us to
accept these greenbacks in lieu of real money? If the university has
a debt to me, I should be able to collect it from the university in
cash, and I should be able to pay cash for what I owe them.
> Besides the programs starting up in fall '92, there are many projects
> in the works for the future. Dorm security will be increased by using
> the card with a PIN for residence hall entry, and attendance in large
> mandatory [?] classes will be taken via an electronic system to save
> time.
PINs are too short to be very secure. With people cracking 100 digit
encryption keys using their home computers, one would expect a 4
numeral code to be child's play. Industry experts [e.g. Charles
Knox] recommend that passwords be about 8 characters long (letters,
numerals and other characters) so as to strike a balance between
security and the frustrations of memory failure & typographical
errors.
> All these plans should be complete within the next several years.
- 30 -
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf May 13 00:00:00 1992
From: morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: Restriction or not ?
Message-ID: <1992May13.93216.27589@ms.uky.edu>
Date: 13 May 92 13:32:16 GMT
kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
>
>[...]
>>Email isn't involved in this particular problem. BITNET RELAY is a real-time
>>conferencing system, much like IRC (Internet Relay Chat). Users of BITNET
>>systems send their messages/commands/requests to a server, which then broad-
>>casts their messages to the other distributed users. You do not need any
>>special software to access a RELAY server; you can just use the standard
>>CMS TELL command to reach the server(s). In fact, the server you use might
>>be located hundreds of miles away, at another university.
>[...]
>
>I apologize for misunderstanding the nature of Bitnet Relay. On IRC
>each channel is owned by a channel operator. He or she can "kick"
>anyone off of his or her channel. If the person kicked doesn't like
>it, he or she can easily create his or her own channel. Also, anyone
>can filter out anyone else's messages from view. Does Bitnet Relay
>have similar facilities?
BITNET RELAY does not allow users to 'create' channels. There are a
fixed number of channels, referenced by number. Where an IRC user
might say "/chan #boojumsnark" after creating the channel, a RELAY
user can only say "/ch 23"; channel 23 already exists, and there are
no channel-specific operators.
There are RELAY Operators, but the set of RELAY operators is significantly
smaller than its IRC counterpart. I don't think that RELAY ops can boot a
user from a particular channel; they can, however, remove you from RELAY
completely.
I don't think that RELAY has an /ignore command.
I think that the RELAY server code provides for "user refusal"; i.e., I
belive that the server for your system can be programmed to refuse access
on a per-user basis. (I'm not sure about this one....)
--
morgan@ms.uky.edu |Wes Morgan, not speaking for| MORGAN@UKCC
morgan@engr.uky.edu |the University of Kentucky's| ....!ukma!ukecc!morgan
morgan@ie.pa.uky.edu |Engineering Computing Center| morgan@wuarchive.wustl.edu
Programming in C: It's not just a job, it's "char (*(*(*(*x)())[5])())[4];"!
From caf-talk Caf May 13 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan)
Subject: Re: Policy on malicious/bad posts to a newsgroup
Message-ID: <1992May13.94300.29063@ms.uky.edu>
Date: Wed, 13 May 1992 13:42:59 GMT
kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>hartman@ulogic.UUCP (Richard M. Hartman) writes:
>
>[...]
>>There are two types of "content" to be considered. Informational
>>and form. Freedom of expression was guaranteed to ensure that the
>>public would never be subject to suppression of ideas (primarily
>>political which was the main worry at the time...). However this
>>does *not* apply to someone who merely wishes to excersize his
>>four letter vocabulary. At least, not using *my* equipment.
>[...]
>
>Different sites have different rules. At a state university (in the
>U.S.) speech does not lose its protection because of its sharp tone or
>four-letter words. A court observed that "often those with the power
>to appoint will be on one side of a controversial issue and find it
>convenient to use their opponent's momentary stridency as a pretext to
>squelch them."
Hmmmm......
I can understand protection from one's own "momentary stridency"; I'm
sure that many of us have uttered regrettable things in the "heat of debate."
What about someone who *consistently* dives into abusive/profane/obscene
language? We've all seen posters whose submissions are nothing more
than pure invective, spackled together with shreds of fact. For exam-
ple, I was involved in a discussion with an individual who answered my
every post with something along the lines of "you're just another racist
fucked-up shitbag white asshole." (That's a quote.) He never offered a
rebuttal of my points, and he never contributed anything factual to the
discussion; he wasn't an original participant in the discussion at all!
He simply felt the need to abuse me in print at every opportunity.
After a dozen such postings, have we passed from "momentary stridency" to
"public disruption"?
(Personally, I couldn't care less; kill files are wonderful. I am, however,
concerned about the actions of those with thinner skins than mine.)
--
morgan@ms.uky.edu |Wes Morgan, not speaking for| MORGAN@UKCC
morgan@engr.uky.edu |the University of Kentucky's| ....!ukma!ukecc!morgan
morgan@ie.pa.uky.edu |Engineering Computing Center| morgan@wuarchive.wustl.edu
Programming in C: It's not just a job, it's "char (*(*(*(*x)())[5])())[4];"!
From caf-talk Caf May 13 00:00:00 1992
From: geoff@chemeng.ed.ac.uk (Geoff Ballinger)
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: Policy on malicious/bad posts to a newsgroup
Message-ID: <1992May13.093330.13190@chemeng.ed.ac.uk>
Date: 13 May 92 09:33:30 GMT
kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>geoff@chemeng.ed.ac.uk (Geoff Ballinger) writes:
>[...]
>> I am fortunate in that I have never had to deal with such a user, but
>>if I did I would attempt to persuade him/her to desist and if the behaviour
>>continued I would reluctantly remove that user's news access.
>(In the context of a university:)
>Do you (personally) have authority to do this by yourself?
Yes - though I would only do so in extreme circumstances and after
consultation.
>In the
>U.S., at most universities, even a professor does not have the
>authority to suspend or expell a student from a class. Students have a
>right to due process. This includes a right to a hearing (if they
>wish), to appeal, to be told of their rights, etc.
Err, firstly I have virtually no undergraduates using this system -
and none of them are using news. Secondly, there is absolutaly no parallel
between news access being removed and expulsion from a course. I can't think
of any situation where news access would be required for completion of a
course.
>> Note that I wouldn't do this based on my own judgement of what was
>>posted - I would base such a decision on the volume and content of complaints
>>received about the user.
>[...]
>I don't think outside pressure should be an important factor. As the
>Joint Statement on Rights and Freedoms of Students says:
>"Institutional action should be independent of community pressure."
I have to disagree with you here. On usenet peer pressure is has to be
the most important controlling factor - mainly because it is the only
controlling factor,
Geoff.
--
Mr Geoff Ballinger, Email: Geoff@Ed.Ac.Uk
Department of Chemical Engineering, Phone: +44 31 650 8557
Edinburgh University, The King's Buildings, Fax: +44 31 650 6551
Mayfield Road, Edinburgh, Scotland, EH9 3JL.
From caf-talk Caf May 13 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.censorship] Re: Sex on the NET censored
Message-ID: <9205131846.AA07937@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Wed, 13 May 1992 08:46:02 GMT
From caf-talk Caf May 13 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
From: freedman@bellman.lanl.gov (Keith Freedman)
Subject: Re: Sex on the NET censored
Message-ID: <1992May13.171239.3666@ctr.columbia.edu>
Date: Wed, 13 May 1992 17:12:39 GMT
Try explaining to the administrators that the purpose of the NEWS feed is
to provide education on wide ranging topics (as is also the purpose of
a university). Therefor, they should leave which information a student
should read up to the student.
---
Keith Freedman
freedman@ilmen.lanl.gov
From caf-talk Caf May 13 00:00:00 1992
From: bh@anarres.CS.Berkeley.EDU (Brian Harvey)
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: Policy on malicious/bad posts to a newsgroup
Date: 13 May 1992 18:55:23 GMT
Message-ID:
geoff@chemeng.ed.ac.uk (Geoff Ballinger) writes:
>kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>>I don't think outside pressure should be an important factor. As the
>>Joint Statement on Rights and Freedoms of Students says:
>>"Institutional action should be independent of community pressure."
>
> I have to disagree with you here. On usenet peer pressure is has to be
>the most important controlling factor - mainly because it is the only
>controlling factor,
Once again: "Peer pressure" does not mean that system administrators
turn someone off to avoid hubbub. "Peer pressure," in the Usenet context,
means that six zillion people send e-mail to the jerk telling him that
he's a jerk, and he thinks, "gee, maybe I should stop being a jerk."
What system administrators do is called "administrative sanctions."
Peer pressure is not at all the same thing.
Carl is saying, correctly I think, that administrative sanctions should
not be based on community pressure, because they should not be based on
anyone's immediate feelings in the heat of the moment, but rather on
uniform rules that have been worked out calmly in advance.
When the Usenet documents say "Usenet works on peer pressure," what they
mean is precisely that there is *NOT* a lot of administrative sanctions
going on. People have to learn how to behave from the reactions of their
peers, because there is no central authority, and often no strong local
authority either.
From caf-talk Caf May 13 00:00:00 1992
From: pwh@bradley.bradley.edu (Pete Hartman)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,news.admin
Subject: Re: [news.admin] Re: Policy on malicious/bad posts to a newsgroup
Message-ID: <1992May13.193509.17449@bradley.bradley.edu>
Date: 13 May 92 19:35:09 GMT
In <1992May12.200441.29051@jato.jpl.nasa.gov> dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Dave Hayes) writes:
>nmehl@rm105serve.sas.upenn.edu (Nathan J. Mehl) writes:
>>Nonsense. Is it censorship when the Philadelphia Inquirer doesn't print
>>my letters to the editor? Is it censorship when the Antioch Review decides
>>that my short stories aren't suited to publication? Is it censorship when
>>Bantam Spectra decides that they don't want to publish my novel?
>Yes to all of the above.
Really? Wow. I never knew that the constitution included a right
to being published. I thought it was just a right to free speech.
>>Computer networks are not "speech" - they are publications.
>I disagree strongly. Network news (computer networks are transport
>mechanisms) feels more like an open forum on a radio show or a
>meeting hall than a book or newspaper.
So do you have a right to call up a radio show and spew obscenities?
Or talk about whatever you like, despite any particular topic at hand
on the talk show, and not get cut off?
--
Pete Hartman Bradley University pwh@bradley.bradley.edu
Love is blind, Love can tell a million stories
Love's unkind, spiteful in a million ways
From caf-talk Caf May 13 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [eff.mail.ethics-l] Teaching Computer Ethics: A Starter Kit
Message-ID: <199205132138.AA02038@eff.org>
Date: Wed, 13 May 1992 13:38:10 GMT
From caf-talk Caf May 13 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: eff.mail.ethics-l
From: BYNUM@SCSUC.CTSTATEU.EDU (Terry Bynum)
Subject: Teaching Computer Ethics: A Starter Kit
Message-ID: <199205132109.AA01445@eff.org>
Date: Wed, 13 May 1992 13:01:46 GMT
TEACHING SOCIAL AND ETHICAL IMPLICATIONS OF COMPUTING:
A "STARTER KIT"
The Research Center on Computing and Society at Southern
Connecticut State University and Educational Media Resources, Inc.
(a not-for-profit organization specializing in educational
programming) have assembled a "Starter Kit" for teachers who wish
to introduce social and ethical implications of computing into
their computer science or computer engineering classes. The "Kit"
can also help computer science departments fulfill national
accreditation requirements (CSAC/CSAB).
The "Starter Kit" includes three video tapes and two monographs:
VIDEO TAPES: No. 1--Teaching Computing and Human Values (45 min.)
No. 2--What Is Computer Ethics (45 min.)
No. 3--Examples and Cases in Computer Ethics (45 min.)
Monographs: No. 1--Teaching Computer Ethcis (110 pages)
No. 2--Computing and Social Responsibility: A
Collection of Course Syllabi (142 pages)
Subscribers to this LIST who want more details will find some
information below and can get further information by contacting
the Research Center on Computing and Society.
* * * * * (additional details for those who want them) * * * * *
Video Tape No. 1: (45 minutes)
TEACHING COMPUTING AND HUMAN VALUES--This video program
includes leading scholars in the field of computing and human
values addressing three key questions: Why should computer
science and computer engineering curricula include materials
on social and ethical implications of computing? What is
computer ethics? How can computer ethics be taught? The program
includes:
Susan Conry-- Chair, Computer Science Accreditation Commission,
Clarkson University
Gerald Engel-- ACM/IEEE-CS Joint Curriculum Task Force,
National Science Foundation
Don Gotterbarn-- Task Force for Revision of ACM Code of Ethics,
East Tennessee State University
Deborah Johnson--Chair, American Philosophical Association Committee
on Computing and Philosophy, RPI
Walter Maner-- Co-Chair, National Conference on Computing and
Values, Bowling Green State University
Dianne Martin-- Task Force for Revision of ACM Code of Ethics,
The George Washington University
Keith Miller-- Author and Consultant on Computer Ethics and
Software Engineering, William and Mary College
James H. Moor-- Pioneering Author in the field of Computer Ethics,
Dartmouth College
Donn Parker-- Author and Editor of Case Studies in Computer
Ethics, SRI International
Terrell Ward Bynum--Director, Research Center on Computing and
Society, Southern Connecticut State University
Video Tape No. 2: (45 minutes)
WHAT IS COMPUTER ETHICS?--This video program provides a
broad overview of the field of computing and human values as
explained by major thinkers in the field. (Intended for
classroom showing, as well as teacher preparation.)
Video Tape No. 3: (45 minutes)
EXAMPLES AND CASES IN COMPUTER ETHICS--In this video
program, scholars and teachers present and explain examples
and cases in computing and human values.
Monograph No. 1: (110 pages)
TEACHING COMPUTER ETHICS--This monograph examines
teaching methods and strategies for integrating computer
ethics into the curriculum. (The monograph is a component of
the proceedings of the National Conference on Computing and
Values, funded in part by National Science Foundation grants
DIR-8820595 and DIR- 9012494). The editors are Terrell Ward
Bynum, Walter Maner and John L. Fodor.
Monograph No. 2: (142 pages)
COMPUTING AND SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY: A COLLECTION OF
COURSE SYLLABI--This monograph contains detailed syllabi
from a variety of courses on computing and human values. It
was compiled and edited by Batya Friedman and Terry Winograd
and published by Computer Professionals for Social
Responsibility.
For further information about this "Starter Kit", contact
The Research Center on Computing and Society
Southern Connecticut State University
501 Crescent Street
New Haven, CT 06515 USA
E-Mail: RCCS@SCSU.CTSTATEU.EDU
Phone: (203) 397-4423 (Center & answering machine)
Additional video tapes and printed materials on computing and human
values, including additional components of the Proceedings of the
National Conference on Computing and Values, are available from the
Research Center on Computing and Society. For details, contact the
Research Center.
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf May 13 00:00:00 1992
From: dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Dave Hayes)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,news.admin
Subject: Re: [news.admin] Re: Policy on malicious/bad posts to a newsgroup
Message-ID: <1992May13.213556.21219@jato.jpl.nasa.gov>
Date: 13 May 92 21:35:56 GMT
nmehl@rm105serve.sas.upenn.edu (Nathan J. Mehl) writes:
>Yes you agree, or yes you believe those examples do in fact constitute
>censorship?
One of the definitions of a censor is "an official who reads communications
and deletes material considered harmful to the interests of his organization"
(from Webster's New Collegiate).
A publisher's job is to publish material beneficial to the interests of
his organization (almost by definition). Hence, if the publisher receives
a communication that is considered harmful, he deletes it. Hence, the publisher
is a censor and there we have censorship.
>(If the latter, I must entertain the notion that jpl.nasa.gov
>is a forged site, and that you're actually posting from base.mars.)
Bleep. Mrrk.
>It's not a question of "feel," it's a question of which set of legal
>precedents should be applied.
(I'm really sick of "legal precedents" and other BS that has nothing to
do with the price of rice in china. Be real. Don't be legal.)
When you talk about "should be" you are naturally discounting what "is".
What "is" is fine with me. Why would you want to change it?
>And just as I cannot force Macmillan to use their transport mechanisms
>to produce my works (unless they have signed a contract obligating them
>to do that), nor can I force my local sysadmin to use *his* transport
>mechanism to distribute my writings to the world.
But that doesn't justify Macmillan's decision or your SA's. It's still
censorship. The application of force is a non-issue.
>or money to any system that does not guarantee me 100% access. But to
>castigate sysadmins that do not explicitly offer that sort of setup
>as censors is to berate an apple for not being an orange.
It's not as much castigation as it is explanation. A censor is a censor.
Ah calls it like ah sees it. If you wanted an orange and you get an
apple, then you have a right to berate that apple or the apple giver.
--
Dave Hayes - Network & Communications Engineering - JPL / NASA - Pasadena CA
dave@elxr.jpl.nasa.gov dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov ...usc!elroy!dxh
Fool (n.) - 1. A person trying to be honest with the dishonest.
From caf-talk Caf May 13 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.censorship] Re: Sex on the NET censored
Message-ID: <9205132149.AA09497@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Wed, 13 May 1992 11:49:39 GMT
From caf-talk Caf May 13 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
From: hallam@zws011.desy.de
Subject: Re: Sex on the NET censored
Message-ID: <1992May13.190300.4700@dscomsf.desy.de>
Date: Wed, 13 May 1992 19:03:00 GMT
In article <1992May12.152703.15728@ccu.umanitoba.ca>,
rutkows@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Chris Rutkowski) writes:
|>Recently, a newspaper reporter "discovered" that alt.sex.bondage
|>existed on the UNIX newsgroup system. A front page story resulted,
|>which caused University of Manitoba adminstrators to publicly react and
|>pull the plug on all newsgroups with the lead phrase alt.sex*
Look in the newsgroup junk. Thats where news puts all the mail in the
"where does this go?" category.
|>Aside from the glaring innaccuracies such as describing the newsgroups
|>as "games", the article quoted UNIX users who were offended at such
|>groups, and the open availablility of them at an educational
|>institution.
In the minds of those who would rule us the purpose of educational
establishments is to educate the young as to how their society is
perfect. Or at least that there is no means of removing its
`imperfections'.
|>The problem is that the UNIX newsgroups are perceived by most users as
Whats all this `UNIX' business? This is VMS here! You don't have to use
a home computer operating system to read news.
|>educational and/OR informative, and that the system also includes many
|>recreational groups about magic, sailing, knitting, etc. Users here
|>have become outraged at the University Administration, not because they
|>miss alt.sex.bondage (to which no one admits subscribing or reading)
Perhaps their tops dis not give them permission?
|>but because the censorship was enacted at all at an educational
|>institution.
|>
|>Besides, there are other pornographic newsgroups that do not start with
|>alt.sex* that are still available. It can be further argued that if
|>the bondage newsgroup (which was likely 90% kids fooling around anyway)
|>could be censored, then why not things like alt.religion.scientology,
|>alt.flame, or motss newgroups? Is this a serious precedent?
If you actualy read a.s.b you will soon realize that the majority of the
posters are entirely serious. However since you have just been cut off
perhaps you can't! Heh Heh Heh.
If some people could let up on enforcing their own sexual hang ups on
the population at large we would all be better off. After all it does
not affect me if my neighbours idea of a good time is to truss each
other up in leatherwear and [further details covering three pages
deleted to save bandwidth - Ed]
Hard core pornography in Blue Peter now !
Phill Hallam-Baker
From caf-talk Caf May 14 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: nbc2134@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil (Robert F Solon)
Subject: Re: [news.admin] Re: Policy on malicious/bad posts to a newsgroup
Message-ID: <9205141334.AA22816@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil>
Date: Thu, 14 May 1992 05:34:48 GMT
In reply to the mail from ...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>nmehl@rm105serve.sas.upenn.edu (Nathan J. Mehl) writes:
>
>>Nonsense. Is it censorship when the Philadelphia Inquirer doesn't print
>>my letters to the editor? Is it censorship when the Antioch Review decides
>>that my short stories aren't suited to publication? Is it censorship when
>>Bantam Spectra decides that they don't want to publish my novel?
>
>Yes to all of the above.
>
No, No, I say again, No!
How can it possible censorship when those in charge of private publications
decide what and what not to print? There is no governmental intervention
here. Restrictions by private individuals may be unfortunate, but it is _not_
censorship. Now Carl may print the usual stuff from the ALA about what
librarians consider censorship to be, but I would argue that since most
libraries are in some direct sense governmental organizations, they are
required to be as full as possible under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
Newspapers are not. I simply cannot believe nor accept the idea that
publications should be required to accept all the stuff that people send them.
The implications of this are bizarre. You would have them devote pages and
pages to letters to the editor. That is an editorial decision, made by those who
have been given that responsibility by the owners of the publication. You
would take away the fundamental property right: the right to control what
is done with one's own property.
>>Computer networks are not "speech" - they are publications.
>
The primary reason I don't disagree too much is because so much of the funding
fro Usenet, Internet, *-net, etc comes from various governmental
organizations, thus raising First Amendment questions. Under this criteria,
however, I would claim that the sysop of a local BBS has full power to
restrict whatever speech he or she wants: he owns the system; he controls the
subscriber lists; and Ma Bell carries the transmissions.
Under the same criterion, private colleges, universities, and all other
private sites have full power to control newsgroup selection in any way they
see fit. Public institutions and universities are probably required to
carefully consider First Amendment grounds when selecting (or more
importantly, deselecting) newsgroups; private sites are under no such
restrictions.
>I disagree strongly. Network news (computer networks are transport
>mechanisms) feels more like an open forum on a radio show or a
>meeting hall than a book or newspaper.
>
>Also, the strength and weakness of Netnews is in the diversity of exchange
>and the freedom of expression.
>
>>Censorship is a big, powerful word. Let's not throw it around when it
>>isn't applicable.
>
"Censorship" generally refers to speech restrictions done by _government_.
What newspapers, magazines, and private institutions do is not censorship; it
is the legitimate exercise of their property rights.
Bob Solon, DITSO-CO-B
Administrative Information Branch -- APCAPS
"We Code, You Explode!!"
From caf-talk Caf May 14 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger)
Subject: Re: [news.admin] Re: Policy on malicious/bad posts to a newsgroup
Message-ID: <1992May14.062344.14289@ddsw1.mcs.com>
Date: Thu, 14 May 1992 06:23:44 GMT
In article <920512#119#131650_nmehl@rm105serve.sas.upenn.edu> nmehl@rm105serve.sas.upenn.edu writes:
>In article <1992May12.200441.29051@jato.jpl.nasa.gov> dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov writes:
>>
>>I disagree strongly. Network news (computer networks are transport
>>mechanisms) feels more like an open forum on a radio show or a
>>meeting hall than a book or newspaper.
>
>It's not a question of "feel," it's a question of which set of legal
>precedents should be applied.
You >REALLY< don't want to have Usenet cast as a publishing house in a legal
definition. You also don't want your site(s) to be cast that way.
Trust me on this one. If the system admins end up as "editors" in the
legal sense of the word they'll all pull the plug immediately. The reason
is simple -- there is NO WAY anyone can perform the "editing" function right
now on the net. This problem gets worse every year.
This is the reason I'm not worried about it actually - I believe any
reasonable court, judge and jury would understand the enormity of the task
and that it is beyond human possibility. I believe that if it ever got to
that point we'd be found to all be running some form of distributed
telephone switch (as a metaphor) before we were found to be running
printing presses.
The Telephone Company isn't responsible for what the phone users say over
the line.....
If I was challenged this way in court I would simply print out one day's
worth of NetNews and bring that as my Exhibit "A". It would fill several
boxes of paper.
I think that would make the point about it being physically >impossible< for
anyone to monitor the feed and perform any kind of meaningful "censorship"
or "control"....
--
Karl Denninger (karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM, !ddsw1!karl)
Data Line: [+1 312 248-0900] Anon. arch. (nuucp) 00:00-06:00 C[SD]T
Request file: /u/public/sources/DIRECTORY/README for instructions
From caf-talk Caf May 14 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: nbc2134@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil (Robert F Solon)
Subject: Re: [repost] Seminole ACCESS
Message-ID: <9205141350.AA23795@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil>
Date: Thu, 14 May 1992 05:50:43 GMT
In reply to the mail from ...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>[Some sites didn't get this article by John G. Otto because
>they couldn't find the subject. - Carl]
>
>From: otto@systems.cc.fsu.edu (John G. Otto)
>Message-ID: <9205121714.AA18456@systems.cc.fsu.edu>
>Date: Tue, 12 May 1992 17:14:58 GMT
>
>~Subject: Seminole ACCESS
>
>The included article from the campus paper, FSView (>), appears with
>permission of the publisher. FSU is the Florida State University.
>
>> Seminole Access replaces ID cards for Fall '92
>> FSView Tuesday, 1992 April 14
>> by Shannon Greene
>
>> Beginning next fall, all FSU students will have a new ID card, a new
>> ATM card, a new long distance calling card, and a new debit [sic] card.
>> But instead of carrying around each of these individually, the Seminole
>> Access Card will allow students to receive the benefits of all of the
>> above without the burden of five or six cards.
[....]
Wow! Big Brother, here we come!
I can see how an individual might _choose_ to consolidate their monetary
stuff; I have a debit card that I use in place of cash almost everywhere - my
grocery store will even accept it. But to force all members of the
institution to sign up, and then provide adequate controls on the integrity of
the data, is absolutely wrong and unacceptable.
I look forward to hearing further about this project.
Bob
Bob Solon, DITSO-CO-B
Administrative Information Branch -- APCAPS
"We Code, You Explode!!"
From caf-talk Caf May 14 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: NATCBELL@vax.liverpool-poly.ac.uk
Subject: RE: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Message-ID: <199205141702.AA16697@eff.org>
Date: Thu, 14 May 1992 17:02:28 GMT
Unsubscribe colin bell COMP-ACADEMIC-FREEDOM-TALK
14-MAY-1992 17:47:38.74
To: natcbell
CC:
Subj: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Via: UK.AC.NSFNET-RELAY; Thu, 14 May 92 17:47 BST
Received: from morrolan.eff.org by sun3.nsfnet-relay.ac.uk with Internet SMTP
id ;
Thu, 14 May 1992 17:40:10 +0100
Received: from eff.org by morrolan.eff.org with SMTP
id AA11695 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for natcbell@vax.liverpool-poly.ac.uk);
Thu, 14 May 1992 11:25:53 -0500
Received: by eff.org id AA16280 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4/pen-ident
for cafb-list@eff.org); Thu, 14 May 1992 12:42:54 -0400
Reply-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk@org.eff
From: comp-academic-freedom-talk@org.eff
Precedence: bulk
To: comp-academic-freedom-talk@org.eff
Errors-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk-request@org.eff
Date: Thu, 14 May 1992 12:42:53 -0400
X-Digest-Sender: "William W. Arnold"
Message-Id: <199205141642.AA16275@eff.org>
Subject: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Sender: warnold@org.eff
Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Thu May 14 12:42:34 EDT 1992
[For information on how to get a much smaller edited version of the
list, send email to archive-server@eff.org. Include the line:
send acad-freedom caf
- Billy ]
In this issue:
morgan@ms.uky.edu : Re: Policy on malicious/bad posts to a newsgroup
geoff@chemeng.ed.a : Re: Policy on malicious/bad posts to a newsgroup
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (alt.censorship) Re: Sex on the NET censored
bh@anarres.CS.Berk : Re: Policy on malicious/bad posts to a newsgroup
pwh@bradley.bradle : Re: (news.admin) Re: Policy on malicious/bad posts to a n
kadie@eff.org (Car : (eff.mail.ethics-l) Teaching Computer Ethics: A Starter K
dave@jato.jpl.nasa : Re: (news.admin) Re: Policy on malicious/bad posts to a n
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (alt.censorship) Re: Sex on the NET censored
nbc2134@dsacg2.dsa : Re: (news.admin) Re: Policy on malicious/bad posts to a n
karl@ddsw1.mcs.com : Re: (news.admin) Re: Policy on malicious/bad posts to a n
-- Careful on that slippery slope!
The addresses for the list are now:
comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org - for contributions to the list
or caf-talk@eff.org
listserv@eff.org - for automated additions/deletions
(send email with the line "help" for details.)
caf-talk-request@eff.org - for administrivia
-------------------
From: morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan)
Subject: Re: Policy on malicious/bad posts to a newsgroup
References: <43@ulogic.UUCP>
<1992May13.064847.16028@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Message-ID: <1992May13.94300.29063@ms.uky.edu>
Date: Wed, 13 May 1992 13:42:59 GMT
kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>hartman@ulogic.UUCP (Richard M. Hartman) writes:
>
>[...]
>>There are two types of "content" to be considered. Informational
>>and form. Freedom of expression was guaranteed to ensure that the
>>public would never be subject to suppression of ideas (primarily
>>political which was the main worry at the time...). However this
>>does *not* apply to someone who merely wishes to excersize his
>>four letter vocabulary. At least, not using *my* equipment.
>[...]
>
>Different sites have different rules. At a state university (in the
>U.S.) speech does not lose its protection because of its sharp tone or
>four-letter words. A court observed that "often those with the power
>to appoint will be on one side of a controversial issue and find it
>convenient to use their opponent's momentary stridency as a pretext to
>squelch them."
Hmmmm......
I can understand protection from one's own "momentary stridency"; I'm
sure that many of us have uttered regrettable things in the "heat of debate."
What about someone who *consistently* dives into abusive/profane/obscene
language? We've all seen posters whose submissions are nothing more
than pure invective, spackled together with shreds of fact. For exam-
ple, I was involved in a discussion with an individual who answered my
every post with something along the lines of "you're just another racist
fucked-up shitbag white asshole." (That's a quote.) He never offered a
rebuttal of my points, and he never contributed anything factual to the
discussion; he wasn't an original participant in the discussion at all!
He simply felt the need to abuse me in print at every opportunity.
After a dozen such postings, have we passed from "momentary stridency" to
"public disruption"?
(Personally, I couldn't care less; kill files are wonderful. I am, however,
concerned about the actions of those with thinner skins than mine.)
--
morgan@ms.uky.edu |Wes Morgan, not speaking for| MORGAN@UKCC
morgan@engr.uky.edu |the University of Kentucky's| ....!ukma!ukecc!morgan
morgan@ie.pa.uky.edu |Engineering Computing Center| morgan@wuarchive.wustl.edu
Programming in C: It's not just a job, it's "char (*(*(*(*x)())[5])())[4];"!
-------------------
From: geoff@chemeng.ed.ac.uk (Geoff Ballinger)
Subject: Re: Policy on malicious/bad posts to a newsgroup
Keywords: Usenet, policy
Message-ID: <1992May13.093330.13190@chemeng.ed.ac.uk>
Date: 13 May 92 09:33:30 GMT
References: <1992May11.130622.20377@tigger.jvnc.net> <1992May11.183507.8194@chemeng.ed.ac.uk> <1992May13.063637.148@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: news@chemeng.ed.ac.uk
kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>geoff@chemeng.ed.ac.uk (Geoff Ballinger) writes:
>[...]
>> I am fortunate in that I have never had to deal with such a user, but
>>if I did I would attempt to persuade him/her to desist and if the behaviour
>>continued I would reluctantly remove that user's news access.
>(In the context of a university:)
>Do you (personally) have authority to do this by yourself?
Yes - though I would only do so in extreme circumstances and after
consultation.
>In the
>U.S., at most universities, even a professor does not have the
>authority to suspend or expell a student from a class. Students have a
>right to due process. This includes a right to a hearing (if they
>wish), to appeal, to be told of their rights, etc.
Err, firstly I have virtually no undergraduates using this system -
and none of them are using news. Secondly, there is absolutaly no parallel
between news access being removed and expulsion from a course. I can't think
of any situation where news access would be required for completion of a
course.
>> Note that I wouldn't do this based on my own judgement of what was
>>posted - I would base such a decision on the volume and content of complaints
>>received about the user.
>[...]
>I don't think outside pressure should be an important factor. As the
>Joint Statement on Rights and Freedoms of Students says:
>"Institutional action should be independent of community pressure."
I have to disagree with you here. On usenet peer pressure is has to be
the most important controlling factor - mainly because it is the only
controlling factor,
Geoff.
--
Mr Geoff Ballinger, Email: Geoff@Ed.Ac.Uk
Department of Chemical Engineering, Phone: +44 31 650 8557
Edinburgh University, The King's Buildings, Fax: +44 31 650 6551
Mayfield Road, Edinburgh, Scotland, EH9 3JL.
-------------------
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.censorship] Re: Sex on the NET censored
Message-ID: <9205131846.AA07937@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: Wed, 13 May 1992 08:46:02 GMT
From: freedman@bellman.lanl.gov (Keith Freedman)
Subject: Re: Sex on the NET censored
Message-ID: <1992May13.171239.3666@ctr.columbia.edu>
Date: Wed, 13 May 1992 17:12:39 GMT
Try explaining to the administrators that the purpose of the NEWS feed is
to provide education on wide ranging topics (as is also the purpose of
a university). Therefor, they should leave which information a student
should read up to the student.
---
Keith Freedman
freedman@ilmen.lanl.gov
-------------------
From: bh@anarres.CS.Berkeley.EDU (Brian Harvey)
Subject: Re: Policy on malicious/bad posts to a newsgroup
Date: 13 May 1992 18:55:23 GMT
Message-ID:
References: <1992May11.183507.8194@chemeng.ed.ac.uk> <1992May13.063637.148@m.cs.uiuc.edu> <1992May13.093330.13190@chemeng.ed.ac.uk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: anarres.cs.berkeley.edu
Keywords: Usenet, policy
geoff@chemeng.ed.ac.uk (Geoff Ballinger) writes:
>kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>>I don't think outside pressure should be an important factor. As the
>>Joint Statement on Rights and Freedoms of Students says:
>>"Institutional action should be independent of community pressure."
>
> I have to disagree with you here. On usenet peer pressure is has to be
>the most important controlling factor - mainly because it is the only
>controlling factor,
Once again: "Peer pressure" does not mean that system administrators
turn someone off to avoid hubbub. "Peer pressure," in the Usenet context,
means that six zillion people send e-mail to the jerk telling him that
he's a jerk, and he thinks, "gee, maybe I should stop being a jerk."
What system administrators do is called "administrative sanctions."
Peer pressure is not at all the same thing.
Carl is saying, correctly I think, that administrative sanctions should
not be based on community pressure, because they should not be based on
anyone's immediate feelings in the heat of the moment, but rather on
uniform rules that have been worked out calmly in advance.
When the Usenet documents say "Usenet works on peer pressure," what they
mean is precisely that there is *NOT* a lot of administrative sanctions
going on. People have to learn how to behave from the reactions of their
peers, because there is no central authority, and often no strong local
authority either.
-------------------
From: pwh@bradley.bradley.edu (Pete Hartman)
Subject: Re: [news.admin] Re: Policy on malicious/bad posts to a newsgroup
Message-ID: <1992May13.193509.17449@bradley.bradley.edu>
Date: 13 May 92 19:35:09 GMT
References: <9205112005.AA08464@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu> <920512#119#074540_nmehl@rm105serve.sas.upenn.edu> <1992May12.200441.29051@jato.jpl.nasa.gov>
Distribution: usa
In <1992May12.200441.29051@jato.jpl.nasa.gov> dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Dave Hayes) writes:
>nmehl@rm105serve.sas.upenn.edu (Nathan J. Mehl) writes:
>>Nonsense. Is it censorship when the Philadelphia Inquirer doesn't print
>>my letters to the editor? Is it censorship when the Antioch Review decides
>>that my short stories aren't suited to publication? Is it censorship when
>>Bantam Spectra decides that they don't want to publish my novel?
>Yes to all of the above.
Really? Wow. I never knew that the constitution included a right
to being published. I thought it was just a right to free speech.
>>Computer networks are not "speech" - they are publications.
>I disagree strongly. Network news (computer networks are transport
>mechanisms) feels more like an open forum on a radio show or a
>meeting hall than a book or newspaper.
So do you have a right to call up a radio show and spew obscenities?
Or talk about whatever you like, despite any particular topic at hand
on the talk show, and not get cut off?
--
Pete Hartman Bradley University pwh@bradley.bradley.edu
Love is blind, Love can tell a million stories
Love's unkind, spiteful in a million ways
-------------------
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [eff.mail.ethics-l] Teaching Computer Ethics: A Starter Kit
Message-ID: <199205132138.AA02038@eff.org>
Sender: kadie
Date: Wed, 13 May 1992 13:38:10 GMT
From: BYNUM@SCSUC.CTSTATEU.EDU (Terry Bynum)
Subject: Teaching Computer Ethics: A Starter Kit
Message-ID: <199205132109.AA01445@eff.org>
Date: Wed, 13 May 1992 13:01:46 GMT
TEACHING SOCIAL AND ETHICAL IMPLICATIONS OF COMPUTING:
A "STARTER KIT"
The Research Center on Computing and Society at Southern
Connecticut State University and Educational Media Resources, Inc.
(a not-for-profit organization specializing in educational
programming) have assembled a "Starter Kit" for teachers who wish
to introduce social and ethical implications of computing into
their computer science or computer engineering classes. The "Kit"
can also help computer science departments fulfill national
accreditation requirements (CSAC/CSAB).
The "Starter Kit" includes three video tapes and two monographs:
VIDEO TAPES: No. 1--Teaching Computing and Human Values (45 min.)
No. 2--What Is Computer Ethics (45 min.)
No. 3--Examples and Cases in Computer Ethics (45 min.)
Monographs: No. 1--Teaching Computer Ethcis (110 pages)
No. 2--Computing and Social Responsibility: A
Collection of Course Syllabi (142 pages)
Subscribers to this LIST who want more details will find some
information below and can get further information by contacting
the Research Center on Computing and Society.
* * * * * (additional details for those who want them) * * * * *
Video Tape No. 1: (45 minutes)
TEACHING COMPUTING AND HUMAN VALUES--This video program
includes leading scholars in the field of computing and human
values addressing three key questions: Why should computer
science and computer engineering curricula include materials
on social and ethical implications of computing? What is
computer ethics? How can computer ethics be taught? The program
includes:
Susan Conry-- Chair, Computer Science Accreditation Commission,
Clarkson University
Gerald Engel-- ACM/IEEE-CS Joint Curriculum Task Force,
National Science Foundation
Don Gotterbarn-- Task Force for Revision of ACM Code of Ethics,
East Tennessee State University
Deborah Johnson--Chair, American Philosophical Association Committee
on Computing and Philosophy, RPI
Walter Maner-- Co-Chair, National Conference on Computing and
Values, Bowling Green State University
Dianne Martin-- Task Force for Revision of ACM Code of Ethics,
The George Washington University
Keith Miller-- Author and Consultant on Computer Ethics and
Software Engineering, William and Mary College
James H. Moor-- Pioneering Author in the field of Computer Ethics,
Dartmouth College
Donn Parker-- Author and Editor of Case Studies in Computer
Ethics, SRI International
Terrell Ward Bynum--Director, Research Center on Computing and
Society, Southern Connecticut State University
Video Tape No. 2: (45 minutes)
WHAT IS COMPUTER ETHICS?--This video program provides a
broad overview of the field of computing and human values as
explained by major thinkers in the field. (Intended for
classroom showing, as well as teacher preparation.)
Video Tape No. 3: (45 minutes)
EXAMPLES AND CASES IN COMPUTER ETHICS--In this video
program, scholars and teachers present and explain examples
and cases in computing and human values.
Monograph No. 1: (110 pages)
TEACHING COMPUTER ETHICS--This monograph examines
teaching methods and strategies for integrating computer
ethics into the curriculum. (The monograph is a component of
the proceedings of the National Conference on Computing and
Values, funded in part by National Science Foundation grants
DIR-8820595 and DIR- 9012494). The editors are Terrell Ward
Bynum, Walter Maner and John L. Fodor.
Monograph No. 2: (142 pages)
COMPUTING AND SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY: A COLLECTION OF
COURSE SYLLABI--This monograph contains detailed syllabi
from a variety of courses on computing and human values. It
was compiled and edited by Batya Friedman and Terry Winograd
and published by Computer Professionals for Social
Responsibility.
For further information about this "Starter Kit", contact
The Research Center on Computing and Society
Southern Connecticut State University
501 Crescent Street
New Haven, CT 06515 USA
E-Mail: RCCS@SCSU.CTSTATEU.EDU
Phone: (203) 397-4423 (Center & answering machine)
Additional video tapes and printed materials on computing and human
values, including additional components of the Proceedings of the
National Conference on Computing and Values, are available from the
Research Center on Computing and Society. For details, contact the
Research Center.
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
-------------------
From: dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Dave Hayes)
Subject: Re: [news.admin] Re: Policy on malicious/bad posts to a newsgroup
Message-ID: <1992May13.213556.21219@jato.jpl.nasa.gov>
Date: 13 May 92 21:35:56 GMT
References: <920512#119#074540_nmehl@rm105serve.sas.upenn.edu> <1992May12.200441.29051@jato.jpl.nasa.gov> <920512#119#131650_nmehl@rm105serve.sas.upenn.edu>
nmehl@rm105serve.sas.upenn.edu (Nathan J. Mehl) writes:
>Yes you agree, or yes you believe those examples do in fact constitute
>censorship?
One of the definitions of a censor is "an official who reads communications
and deletes material considered harmful to the interests of his organization"
(from Webster's New Collegiate).
A publisher's job is to publish material beneficial to the interests of
his organization (almost by definition). Hence, if the publisher receives
a communication that is considered harmful, he deletes it. Hence, the publisher
is a censor and there we have censorship.
>(If the latter, I must entertain the notion that jpl.nasa.gov
>is a forged site, and that you're actually posting from base.mars.)
Bleep. Mrrk.
>It's not a question of "feel," it's a question of which set of legal
>precedents should be applied.
(I'm really sick of "legal precedents" and other BS that has nothing to
do with the price of rice in china. Be real. Don't be legal.)
When you talk about "should be" you are naturally discounting what "is".
What "is" is fine with me. Why would you want to change it?
>And just as I cannot force Macmillan to use their transport mechanisms
>to produce my works (unless they have signed a contract obligating them
>to do that), nor can I force my local sysadmin to use *his* transport
>mechanism to distribute my writings to the world.
But that doesn't justify Macmillan's decision or your SA's. It's still
censorship. The application of force is a non-issue.
>or money to any system that does not guarantee me 100% access. But to
>castigate sysadmins that do not explicitly offer that sort of setup
>as censors is to berate an apple for not being an orange.
It's not as much castigation as it is explanation. A censor is a censor.
Ah calls it like ah sees it. If you wanted an orange and you get an
apple, then you have a right to berate that apple or the apple giver.
--
Dave Hayes - Network & Communications Engineering - JPL / NASA - Pasadena CA
dave@elxr.jpl.nasa.gov dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov ...usc!elroy!dxh
Fool (n.) - 1. A person trying to be honest with the dishonest.
-------------------
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.censorship] Re: Sex on the NET censored
Message-ID: <9205132149.AA09497@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: Wed, 13 May 1992 11:49:39 GMT
From: hallam@zws011.desy.de
Subject: Re: Sex on the NET censored
Message-ID: <1992May13.190300.4700@dscomsf.desy.de>
Date: Wed, 13 May 1992 19:03:00 GMT
In article <1992May12.152703.15728@ccu.umanitoba.ca>,
rutkows@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Chris Rutkowski) writes:
|>Recently, a newspaper reporter "discovered" that alt.sex.bondage
|>existed on the UNIX newsgroup system. A front page story resulted,
|>which caused University of Manitoba adminstrators to publicly react and
|>pull the plug on all newsgroups with the lead phrase alt.sex*
Look in the newsgroup junk. Thats where news puts all the mail in the
"where does this go?" category.
|>Aside from the glaring innaccuracies such as describing the newsgroups
|>as "games", the article quoted UNIX users who were offended at such
|>groups, and the open availablility of them at an educational
|>institution.
In the minds of those who would rule us the purpose of educational
establishments is to educate the young as to how their society is
perfect. Or at least that there is no means of removing its
`imperfections'.
|>The problem is that the UNIX newsgroups are perceived by most users as
Whats all this `UNIX' business? This is VMS here! You don't have to use
a home computer operating system to read news.
|>educational and/OR informative, and that the system also includes many
|>recreational groups about magic, sailing, knitting, etc. Users here
|>have become outraged at the University Administration, not because they
|>miss alt.sex.bondage (to which no one admits subscribing or reading)
Perhaps their tops dis not give them permission?
|>but because the censorship was enacted at all at an educational
|>institution.
|>
|>Besides, there are other pornographic newsgroups that do not start with
|>alt.sex* that are still available. It can be further argued that if
|>the bondage newsgroup (which was likely 90% kids fooling around anyway)
|>could be censored, then why not things like alt.religion.scientology,
|>alt.flame, or motss newgroups? Is this a serious precedent?
If you actualy read a.s.b you will soon realize that the majority of the
posters are entirely serious. However since you have just been cut off
perhaps you can't! Heh Heh Heh.
If some people could let up on enforcing their own sexual hang ups on
the population at large we would all be better off. After all it does
not affect me if my neighbours idea of a good time is to truss each
other up in leatherwear and [further details covering three pages
deleted to save bandwidth - Ed]
Hard core pornography in Blue Peter now !
Phill Hallam-Baker
-------------------
From: nbc2134@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil (Robert F Solon)
Subject: Re: [news.admin] Re: Policy on malicious/bad posts to a newsgroup
Message-ID: <9205141334.AA22816@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil>
Sender: nbc2134@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil
Date: Thu, 14 May 1992 05:34:48 GMT
In reply to the mail from ...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>nmehl@rm105serve.sas.upenn.edu (Nathan J. Mehl) writes:
>
>>Nonsense. Is it censorship when the Philadelphia Inquirer doesn't print
>>my letters to the editor? Is it censorship when the Antioch Review decides
>>that my short stories aren't suited to publication? Is it censorship when
>>Bantam Spectra decides that they don't want to publish my novel?
>
>Yes to all of the above.
>
No, No, I say again, No!
How can it possible censorship when those in charge of private publications
decide what and what not to print? There is no governmental intervention
here. Restrictions by private individuals may be unfortunate, but it is _not_
censorship. Now Carl may print the usual stuff from the ALA about what
librarians consider censorship to be, but I would argue that since most
libraries are in some direct sense governmental organizations, they are
required to be as full as possible under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
Newspapers are not. I simply cannot believe nor accept the idea that
publications should be required to accept all the stuff that people send them.
The implications of this are bizarre. You would have them devote pages and
pages to letters to the editor. That is an editorial decision, made by those who
have been given that responsibility by the owners of the publication. You
would take away the fundamental property right: the right to control what
is done with one's own property.
>>Computer networks are not "speech" - they are publications.
>
The primary reason I don't disagree too much is because so much of the funding
fro Usenet, Internet, *-net, etc comes from various governmental
organizations, thus raising First Amendment questions. Under this criteria,
however, I would claim that the sysop of a local BBS has full power to
restrict whatever speech he or she wants: he owns the system; he controls the
subscriber lists; and Ma Bell carries the transmissions.
Under the same criterion, private colleges, universities, and all other
private sites have full power to control newsgroup selection in any way they
see fit. Public institutions and universities are probably required to
carefully consider First Amendment grounds when selecting (or more
importantly, deselecting) newsgroups; private sites are under no such
restrictions.
>I disagree strongly. Network news (computer networks are transport
>mechanisms) feels more like an open forum on a radio show or a
>meeting hall than a book or newspaper.
>
>Also, the strength and weakness of Netnews is in the diversity of exchange
>and the freedom of expression.
>
>>Censorship is a big, powerful word. Let's not throw it around when it
>>isn't applicable.
>
"Censorship" generally refers to speech restrictions done by _government_.
What newspapers, magazines, and private institutions do is not censorship; it
is the legitimate exercise of their property rights.
Bob Solon, DITSO-CO-B
Administrative Information Branch -- APCAPS
"We Code, You Explode!!"
-------------------
From: karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger)
Subject: Re: [news.admin] Re: Policy on malicious/bad posts to a newsgroup
Message-ID: <1992May14.062344.14289@ddsw1.mcs.com>
Summary: Careful on that slippery slope!
References: <920512#119#074540_nmehl@rm105serve.sas.upenn.edu> <1992May12.200441.29051@jato.jpl.nasa.gov> <920512#119#131650_nmehl@rm105serve.sas.upenn.edu>
Date: Thu, 14 May 1992 06:23:44 GMT
X-Disclaimer: Opinions expressed are those of the poster and do not necessarily represent the views of MCS or the owners.
In article <920512#119#131650_nmehl@rm105serve.sas.upenn.edu> nmehl@rm105serve.sas.upenn.edu writes:
>In article <1992May12.200441.29051@jato.jpl.nasa.gov> dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov writes:
>>
>>I disagree strongly. Network news (computer networks are transport
>>mechanisms) feels more like an open forum on a radio show or a
>>meeting hall than a book or newspaper.
>
>It's not a question of "feel," it's a question of which set of legal
>precedents should be applied.
You >REALLY< don't want to have Usenet cast as a publishing house in a legal
definition. You also don't want your site(s) to be cast that way.
Trust me on this one. If the system admins end up as "editors" in the
legal sense of the word they'll all pull the plug immediately. The reason
is simple -- there is NO WAY anyone can perform the "editing" function right
now on the net. This problem gets worse every year.
This is the reason I'm not worried about it actually - I believe any
reasonable court, judge and jury would understand the enormity of the task
and that it is beyond human possibility. I believe that if it ever got to
that point we'd be found to all be running some form of distributed
telephone switch (as a metaphor) before we were found to be running
printing presses.
The Telephone Company isn't responsible for what the phone users say over
the line.....
If I was challenged this way in court I would simply print out one day's
worth of NetNews and bring that as my Exhibit "A". It would fill several
boxes of paper.
I think that would make the point about it being physically >impossible< for
anyone to monitor the feed and perform any kind of meaningful "censorship"
or "control"....
--
Karl Denninger (karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM, !ddsw1!karl)
Data Line: [+1 312 248-0900] Anon. arch. (nuucp) 00:00-06:00 C[SD]T
Request file: /u/public/sources/DIRECTORY/README for instructions
--------------------
--
| William W. Arnold | warnold@eff.org | has8wwa@cabell.vcu.edu |
| Co-moderator: Computers and Academic Freedom Mailing list |
| I speak for myself, not {him, her, it, eff}. |
From caf-talk Caf May 14 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.censorship] alt.pictures.erotica censored?
Message-ID: <9205141706.AA13421@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Thu, 14 May 1992 07:06:54 GMT
From caf-talk Caf May 14 00:00:00 1992
From: oleo@loke.dhhalden.no (OLE MAGNUS OLSEN)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
Subject: alt.pictures.erotica censored?
Message-ID:
Date: 14 May 92 15:30:24 GMT
Does anyone out there know whether alt.pictures.erotica is censored in
Norway? Or is it just censored at Ostfold Regional College. Whatever the
case is, the only posts I can find in the group are text posts, no pictures!
=============================================================================
This has been a message from M A G N U M of the legendary Basement Brats.
E-mail: oleo@loke.dhhalden.no
Snail-mail: Ole M. Olsen, Hovsveien 130, N-1750 HALDEN, NORWAY
=============================================================================
From caf-talk Caf May 14 00:00:00 1992
From: mds@iastate.edu (Mark D. Smucker)
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: Policy on malicious/bad posts to a newsgroup
Message-ID: <1992May14.174627.15891@news.iastate.edu>
Date: 14 May 92 17:46:27 GMT
In article <1992May13.093330.13190@chemeng.ed.ac.uk> geoff@chemeng.ed.ac.uk (Geoff Ballinger) writes:
>kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>>In the
>>U.S., at most universities, even a professor does not have the
>>authority to suspend or expell a student from a class. Students have a
>>right to due process. This includes a right to a hearing (if they
>>wish), to appeal, to be told of their rights, etc.
>
> Err, firstly I have virtually no undergraduates using this system -
>and none of them are using news. Secondly, there is absolutaly no parallel
>between news access being removed and expulsion from a course. I can't think
>of any situation where news access would be required for completion of a
>course.
Q: How do you remove news access without totally removing the
naughty student's entire computer account?
If you can remove news access without removing the computer
account then you are only facing charges of violating freedom of
speech, but if you remove an account without due process you are
enacting a punishment that constitutes the removal of a paid service.
Most likely the computer account is NECCESSARY for class work of some
sort. If you are letting the student use the system at your own whim
and the university has no policy concerning granting of accounts to
students then you do not hold an obligation to maintain the account.
But, I am not lawyer.
MArk D. Smucker --- mds@iastate.edu
From caf-talk Caf May 14 00:00:00 1992
From: cathyf@is.rice.edu (Catherine Anne Foulston)
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: Policy on malicious/bad posts to a newsgroup
Message-ID: <1992May14.195554.9595@rice.edu>
Date: 14 May 92 19:55:54 GMT
In article <1992May14.174627.15891@news.iastate.edu> mds@iastate.edu (Mark D. Smucker) writes:
> If you can remove news access without removing the computer
>account then you are only facing charges of violating freedom of
>speech,
The student's right to free expression does not include the right to
use the University's systems for that expression. He may have the
right to use the system for his expression for contractual or other
reasons, but not because of the First Amendment. Of course, I think
the person who originally asked the question is in the UK, so US
constitutional amendments don't apply for him anyway.
And yes, you can give someone an account (at least under unix) that
doesn't allow them access to news but lets them do necessary work.
>Most likely the computer account is NECCESSARY for class work of some
>sort.
Well, some of our systems have policies that explicitly recognize that
if you commit a violation that causes you to lose your account, you
may in fact be unable to complete your coursework. In other words, if
that punishment (following whatever disciplinary procedures are used)
is given, it's with full knowledge that classwork may be affected.
Cathy
This is not an official statement of Rice University.
--
Cathy Foulston + Rice University + Network & Systems Support + cathyf@rice.edu
Users get the OS they deserve. -- Chip Salzenberg
From caf-talk Caf May 14 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Policy on malicious/bad posts to a newsgroup
Message-ID: <1992May15.014915.24897@eff.org>
Date: Fri, 15 May 1992 01:49:15 GMT
In article <1992May14.174627.15891@news.iastate.edu> mds@iastate.edu (Mark D. Smucker) writes:
> If you can remove news access without removing the computer
>account then you are only facing charges of violating freedom of
>speech,
cathyf@is.rice.edu (Catherine Anne Foulston) writes:
>The student's right to free expression does not include the right to
>use the University's systems for that expression
[...]
But what if free expression *is* permitted? Can it then be removed
arbitrarily? Outside the U.S. and at private schools in the U.S. this
may only be a moral issue. At public schools in the U.S. it is also a
legal issue. Here is information about law with respect to public high
school newspapers in the U.S.:
========== Excerpt ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/law/stanley-v-magrath ===
_Public Schools Law: Teachers' and Students' Rights_
2nd Ed. by Martha M. McCarthy and Nelda H. Cambron-McCabe,
published in 1987 by Allyn and Bacon, Inc.
p. 121 "Although school boards are not obligated to support student
papers, if a given publication was originally created as a free
speech forum, removal of financial or other school board support can
be construed as an unlawful effort to stifle free expression. In
essence, school authorities cannot withdraw support from a student
publication simply because of displeasure with the content. In an
illustrative case, the Eight Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a
university could not change its funding policy for a student paper
based on the 'hue and cry' of the public objecting to a particular
issue {78}. The court noted, however, that a policy could be
established allowing students a refund of the portion of their
activity fee that supports a student paper they oppose. The judiciary
also has recognized that school officials have the right to stamp
copies of student publications to disclaim responsibility from the
content.
{78} Stanley v. Magrath, 719 F.2d 279, 282-283 (8th Cir. 1983).
Although holding that a refund policy can be established, the court
noted that such a policy cannot be initiated in response to public
criticism of the publication."
=========================================
- Carl
ANNOTATED REFERENCES
(All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.)
=================
law/stanley-v-magrath
=================
Comments from _Public Schools Law: Teachers' and Students' Rights_ 2nd
Ed. by Martha M. McCarthy and Nelda H. Cambron-McCabe, published in
1987 by Allyn and Bacon, Inc. It says, in part, "[a]lthough school
boards are not obligated to support student papers, if a given
publication was originally created as a free speech forum, removal of
financial or other school board support can be construed as an
unlawful effort to stifle free expression." Also, "school
authorities cannot withdraw support from a student publication simply
because of displeasure with the content" and "the content of a
school-sponsored paper that is established as a medium for student
expression cannot be regulated more closely than a nonsponsored
paper". Also, it tells what to do about libel in student
publications.
=================
law/san-diego-committee-v-gov-bd
=================
Excerpts from San Diego Committee v. Governing Bd., 790 F.2d 1471
(1986). A decision by an appellate court that applied the Supreme
Court's Public Forum Doctrine (to a school newspaper).
=================
=================
These documents are available by anonymous ftp (the preferred method)
and by email. To get the files via ftp, do an anonymous ftp to
ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4), and get file(s):
pub/academic/law/stanley-v-magrath
pub/academic/law/san-diego-committee-v-gov-bd
To get the files my email, send email to archive-server@eff.org.
Include the line(s) (be sure to include the space before the file
name):
send acad-freedom/law stanley-v-magrath
send acad-freedom/law san-diego-committee-v-gov-bd
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf May 14 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Policy on malicious/bad posts to a newsgroup
Message-ID: <1992May15.015351.24988@eff.org>
Date: Fri, 15 May 1992 01:53:51 GMT
cathyf@is.rice.edu (Catherine Anne Foulston) writes:
[Speaking, unofficially, of Rice University, a private University
in Houston:]
[...]
>Well, some of our systems have policies that explicitly recognize that
>if you commit a violation that causes you to lose your account, you
>may in fact be unable to complete your coursework. In other words, if
>that punishment (following whatever disciplinary procedures are used)
>is given, it's with full knowledge that classwork may be affected.
[...]
As long as the due process is followed, any punishment up to explusion
from the university can be consistent with academic freedom. Without
at least some due process, even minor punishments are questionable.
(Rice seems pretty good at repecting due process.)
- Carl
ANNOTATED REFERENCES
(All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.)
=================
policies/rice.edu
=================
Computer policies ("User Agreement","Disciplinary Procedures",
"Appropriate Use") for Rice University (especially Owlnet). Rice is a
private University in Houston, Texas. These policies are under
development and subject to change. The "Disciplinary Procedures" is
interesting because it establishes a due process procedure just for
computer infractions.
(Critiqued)
=================
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.
=================
law/goss-v-lopez.mnookin
=================
Comments from _In the Interest of Children_, R. Mnookin (Ed.),
Franklin E. Zimring and Rayman L. Solomon (Contrib. Authors). It
reports that the Supreme Court says that some modicum of due process
is necessary unless the matter is trivial or there is an emergency.
Also,
=================
=================
These documents are available by anonymous ftp (the preferred method)
and by email. To get the files via ftp, do an anonymous ftp to
ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4), and get file(s):
pub/academic/policies/rice.edu
pub/academic/law/goss-v-lopez.fischer
pub/academic/law/goss-v-lopez.mnookin
To get the files my email, send email to archive-server@eff.org.
Include the line(s) (be sure to include the space before the file
name):
send acad-freedom/policies rice.edu
send acad-freedom/law goss-v-lopez.fischer
send acad-freedom/law goss-v-lopez.mnookin
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf May 14 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Policy on malicious/bad posts to a newsgroup
Message-ID: <1992May15.020115.25079@eff.org>
Date: Fri, 15 May 1992 02:01:15 GMT
morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
[...]
>What about someone who *consistently* dives into abusive/profane/obscene
>language? We've all seen posters whose submissions are nothing more
>than pure invective, spackled together with shreds of fact.
[...]
>(Personally, I couldn't care less; kill files are wonderful. I am, however,
> concerned about the actions of those with thinner skins than mine.)
[...]
I'm sorry if this sounds callous, but I think those with thin skins
should either toughen up, learn to use kill files, or stick to
watching the Disney Channel on cable. If you can't stand the flames,
stay out of free speech kitchen.
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf May 15 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: Policy on malicious/bad posts to a newsgroup
From: rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly)
Date: Fri, 15 May 1992 00:37:10 GMT
Message-ID: <9205141937.17@rmkhome.UUCP>
In article bh@anarres.CS.Berkeley.EDU (Brian Harvey) writes:
>geoff@chemeng.ed.ac.uk (Geoff Ballinger) writes:
>>kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>>>I don't think outside pressure should be an important factor. As the
>>>Joint Statement on Rights and Freedoms of Students says:
>>>"Institutional action should be independent of community pressure."
>>
>> I have to disagree with you here. On usenet peer pressure is has to be
>>the most important controlling factor - mainly because it is the only
>>controlling factor,
>
>Once again: "Peer pressure" does not mean that system administrators
>turn someone off to avoid hubbub. "Peer pressure," in the Usenet context,
>means that six zillion people send e-mail to the jerk telling him that
>he's a jerk, and he thinks, "gee, maybe I should stop being a jerk."
>
>What system administrators do is called "administrative sanctions."
>Peer pressure is not at all the same thing.
And the six zillion people who flamed the jerk cc: the system administrator
in the email so he performs an "administrative sanction".
>Carl is saying, correctly I think, that administrative sanctions should
>not be based on community pressure, because they should not be based on
>anyone's immediate feelings in the heat of the moment, but rather on
>uniform rules that have been worked out calmly in advance.
It's fairly easy to have uniform rules at a specific site, but it would
impossible to do this across the USENET.
>When the Usenet documents say "Usenet works on peer pressure," what they
>mean is precisely that there is *NOT* a lot of administrative sanctions
>going on. People have to learn how to behave from the reactions of their
>peers, because there is no central authority, and often no strong local
>authority either.
USENET users need to be educated before they ever type "rn".
--
Rick Kelly rmk@rmkhome.UUCP unixland!rmkhome!rmk rmk@frog.UUCP
From caf-talk Caf May 15 00:00:00 1992
From: bh@anarres.CS.Berkeley.EDU (Brian Harvey)
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: Policy on malicious/bad posts to a newsgroup
Date: 15 May 1992 13:22:52 GMT
Message-ID:
rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:
>And the six zillion people who flamed the jerk cc: the system administrator
>in the email so he performs an "administrative sanction".
Oh, for heaven's sake.
Let's look at the paradigmatic example of peer pressure, shall we?
Are you suggesting that the reason a kid starts smoking is that all his
friends tell his mother to cut off his allowance if he doesn't smoke?
"Peer pressure" is what your friends do to get you to smoke. "Administrative
sanction" is what your mother does to get you to clean your room. There is a
place for both of them.[*] There is *no* place for your mother to claim that
what she does is "peer pressure." (There is also no place for your mother to
apply administrative sanctions in response to pressure from your peers; she's
supposed to apply her mature adult judgment and, preferably, establish clear
rules in advance so that you are not taken by surprise by sanctions.)
[*] - Well, maybe not about smoking. But if peer pressure gets you to do
something good, or refrain from doing something bad, that's cool.
From caf-talk Caf May 15 00:00:00 1992
From: allens@yang.earlham.edu (Allen Smith)
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.censorship
Subject: Re: Policy on malicious/bad posts to a newsgroup
Message-ID: <1992May14.081130.17848@yang.earlham.edu>
Date: 14 May 92 13:11:30 GMT
In article <1992May11.130622.20377@tigger.jvnc.net>, news@tigger.jvnc.net (Zee News Genie) writes:
> I am sorry if this is in a FAQ, and I know that a similar discussion
> came up about flames and postings and freedom of speech, but as a system
> administrator, what am I supposed to do about a user who intentionally
> posts stuff (filth) on a newsgroup that has certain posting guidelines
> (but is unmoderated) ?
>
> I mean, am I supposed to be taking away his/her system account because
> he/she plays such 'pranks' ? Or should I let the hate mail bounce off
> his/her concrete skull ??
>
I definitely wouldn't take away the person's entire account. At
maximum, take away posting access to that newsgroup (if you can get that
selective). If there's a lot of hate mail coming in, then let the
over-full mail quotas be a proper punishment (and make sure the person
can't access news until _after_ reading the mail and clearing the quota).
-Allen
From caf-talk Caf May 15 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.society.civil-liberty] UNI-censorship
Message-ID: <9205151826.AA20159@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Fri, 15 May 1992 08:26:09 GMT
From caf-talk Caf May 15 00:00:00 1992
From: clgp14@vaxa.strath.ac.uk
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty
Subject: UNI-censorship
Message-ID: <1992May15.162316.1@vaxa.strath.ac.uk>
Date: 15 May 92 16:23:16 GMT
Network Censorship
Does anybody agree with me that there should me no censorship of the
network in the UK.
I am not just talking about alt.sex which is now total blacked out at
Strathclyde University, but a great deal of others.
I believe that I should be given the chance to read some of these newsgroups
and make up my own mind whether I think they are bad or not, and then if I
do not like them then it would be up to me to decide if I wanted to read
them or not.
If we are going to start censoring things in a University, where should
we draw the line?, just the network or should we begin in the library next?
Is it possible that we could see the censoring of political views that do
not agree with the censor or the University itself?
Who should we get to the censoring, the vax controller or maybe we could
enploy Mary Whitehouse to do the job.
A University is supposed to be a place of free thinking, but once you start
any kind of censorship an little of that free thinking is lost.
I think once you start to censor any kind of information entering a
system which enters a University then there must be a lot of questions to
be answered.
I Davis
From caf-talk Caf May 15 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [news.admin] Re: Policy on malicious/bad posts to a newsgroup
Message-ID: <9205152002.AA20967@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Fri, 15 May 1992 10:02:47 GMT
From caf-talk Caf May 15 00:00:00 1992
From: hartman@ulogic.UUCP (Richard M. Hartman)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: Policy on malicious/bad posts to a newsgroup
Message-ID: <51@ulogic.UUCP>
Date: 13 May 92 22:11:56 GMT
In article <1992May13.070219.13258@m.cs.uiuc.edu> kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>For example, suppose there was an unmoderated newsgroup
>"soc.women.only" with charter that prohibited men from posting. Would
>you enforce that charter? What is there was an unmoderated religious
>newsgroup that prohibited postings from outside the religion. What
>about an unmoderated newsgroup on abortion that prohibited
>pro-abortion-rights posts?
Ridiculous examples. First off, groups w/ charters like those would
in all probability not pass. Secondly, if (to pick one) the
religious group truly did not want anyone from outside the religion
posting, they should create a moderated group or mailing list. An
unmoderated group, by its very nature, invites postings from all
viewpoints. This should not, however, be construed to mean that
one should be entitled to start posting not-sequiter, or abusive
articles. Finally, _even_if_ the "soc.women.only" group (to spread
the examples, don't want to get tagged as "anti religion" :-) managed
to get created with such a charter, in a situation like that I would
not hold the sysadmin from the originating site responsible for the
"male-originated" post. But they (as such a cohesive group) would
be able to inundate the offender with so much email garbage that he
would quickly be forced to stop. However, my first point here
remains foremost -- if you want to talk hypothetically, at least
try to keep one foot in the "real world," ok?
-Richard Hartman
hartman@ulogic.COM
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
"Nobody has ever had a sexual fantasy about being tied
to a bed and ravished by somebody dressed as a liberal."
P.S.: I could not post to: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From caf-talk Caf May 15 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: Policy on malicious/bad posts to a newsgroup
From: rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly)
Date: Fri, 15 May 1992 21:36:01 GMT
Message-ID: <9205151636.08@rmkhome.UUCP>
In article bh@anarres.CS.Berkeley.EDU (Brian Harvey) writes:
>rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:
>>And the six zillion people who flamed the jerk cc: the system administrator
>>in the email so he performs an "administrative sanction".
>
>Oh, for heaven's sake.
>
>Let's look at the paradigmatic example of peer pressure, shall we?
>
>Are you suggesting that the reason a kid starts smoking is that all his
>friends tell his mother to cut off his allowance if he doesn't smoke?
>
>"Peer pressure" is what your friends do to get you to smoke. "Administrative
>sanction" is what your mother does to get you to clean your room. There is a
>place for both of them.[*] There is *no* place for your mother to claim that
>what she does is "peer pressure." (There is also no place for your mother to
>apply administrative sanctions in response to pressure from your peers; she's
>supposed to apply her mature adult judgment and, preferably, establish clear
>rules in advance so that you are not taken by surprise by sanctions.)
>
>[*] - Well, maybe not about smoking. But if peer pressure gets you to do
>something good, or refrain from doing something bad, that's cool.
Presumably most people would consider giving up bad posting habits if they
receive enough flaming email. What I am also saying is that in real life
the flamers will often send a copy of the mail to the system admin.
If the admin happens to be in a large user community, like a university,
he might get huge amounts of such mail. At this point, the admin can talk
to the net abuser and say "don't do this anymore". And that may be the end
of the situation. But peer pressure can get very strange. If the zillion
people all decide to send the abuser a copy of /etc/termcap or /vmunix,
the admin may decide to pull the account just to keep the system from
running out of space. And of course the sendsys forgeries that guarantee
a 30 meg mailbox.
Simple peer pressure ought to be useful, but nothing on USENET is ever
simple.
--
Rick Kelly rmk@rmkhome.UUCP unixland!rmkhome!rmk rmk@frog.UUCP
From caf-talk Caf May 15 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: rramji4@mamut.wlu.ca (ruby ramji u)
Subject: laws
Message-ID: <9205160109.AA00821@unix4>
Date: Sat, 16 May 1992 01:09:33 GMT
i have read much of the information dealing with court
rulings in the united states concerning computer
censorship and they are quite interesting.
what i would like to know is if anyone has any
information on canadian court rulings on computer
censorship (particularly in the universities).
thanx
ruby ramji
rramji4@mach1.wlu.ca
wilfrid laurier university
waterloo, ontario
canada
From caf-talk Caf May 15 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.cyberpunk.movement, et al.] BEWARE: THERE ARE NARCS ON THE NET!
Message-ID: <199205160146.AA11850@eff.org>
Date: Fri, 15 May 1992 17:46:09 GMT
From caf-talk Caf May 15 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.cyberpunk.movement,alt.cyberpunk
From: 92bmc@williams.edu (kraker)
Subject: BEWARE: THERE ARE NARCS ON THE NET!
Message-ID: <1992May15.205013.29471@williams.edu>
Date: Fri, 15 May 1992 20:50:13 GMT
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 5/15/92
CONTACT:
Brian Coan (413) 597 2627 e-mail: 92bmc@cs.williams.edu
Stanley Cohen, Attny. (212) 979 7572 - Mr. Coan's Attorney
Matt Black (212) 925 7966 or PO Box 3, NYC 10012 - NY press contact
Student Activist Subpoenaed to Federal Grand Jury; Pledges Non-Collaboration
On Friday, May 8th student activist Brian Coan was subpoenaed to appear
before a Federal Grand Jury on what appears to be a charge of threatening the
life of the President.
Williams College (Williams, MA) student Brian Coan was visited by a
Secret Service agent on Thursday, May 7th, while Coan was at track practice.
The agent attempted to interview Coan, informing him that the Federal
Government was conducting an investigation of him; Coan refused. On Friday
May 8th two agents returned with local police and served Coan a summons to
appear in Federal District Court before a Federal Grand Jury on May 28 in
Springfield, MA. Although the summons didn't mention a specific charge, the
Secret Service agent who delivered it said that it was related to a charge of
threatening the life of the President.
Coan, a senior, has been involved in local and campus politics while at
Williams. He founded the campus anarchist/anti-imperialist group Autonome
Forum. He is also associated with the anti-imperialist/autonomist journal Arm
The Spirit, and with the national anarchist newspaper Love and Rage. Locally,
Coan has been involved with the squatting movement on New York's Lower East
Side.
Coan has stated that he has no idea why he is being accused of
threatening the President. He cites a recent student march in response to the
acquittal of the 4 white Los Angeles police officers in the Rodney King
beating case as the only likely source he can think of for these allegations.
On Monday, May 4 nearly 600 Williams students marched 23 miles from
Williamstown, MA to Pittsfield, MA where they staged a peaceful demonstration
at the Federal Court House. Coan was one of a number of speakers over a
period of 1 1/2 hours, but his speech was fiery. He defended the anger of the
rebellion in LA, but he never mentioned Mr. Bush.
There is a long history of government using Federal Grand Juries against
activists. Under Grand Jury rules, the press is barred from the proceedings,
and once on the stand, those testifying can be legally compelled to respond
to questions on any subject, regardless of its relevance to the charges at
hand, or face imprisonment on contempt charges. Thus, in the past activists
have been pressured to divulge otherwise private information about their
friends, families, and political activities; many have gone to jail for
refusing. Further, the very act of calling people to testify has the effect
of calling into question the activist's character. For example, Coan's
summons requires him to furnish information about "acquisitions of a firearms
identification card and/or any firearms or explosive devices of any type."
Although Coan has a firearms identification card and has applied for a pistol
permit, he does not own any firearms and is not in possession of any
explosive devices of any type. Nonetheless, the college Deans became alarmed
at the media's coverage of these weapons allegations and questioned Coan
about whether he had weapons in his dorm room. For more information about
Grand Juries, call the Center for Constitutional Rights (212) 614 6464.
Already the investigation has been characterized by legal and procedural
improprieties. When the subpoena was delivered, the local police officer who
accompanied Secret Service, Officer Vincent Zoito, opened the door to Coan's
room before Coan could get there to answer his knock. Further, the Secret
Service apparently obtained a subpoena for Coan's computer files and copied
all of the files he had stored on the campus mainframe network. Coan's
account on the campus network also allows access to his files on the public
educational network Internet. The subpoenaing and copying of computer files
remains a legally contentious issue.
In view of the history of the use of Grand Jury Proceedings against
political activists, and the seemingly specious nature of the current
allegation against him, Coan has pledged total non-collaboration with the
inquiry.
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf May 16 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: derose@vassar.edu (Derek Rose)
Subject: Computer Servers and free speech
Message-ID: <55446CD9029F019E42@vassar.bitnet>
Date: Wed, 16 May 1990 11:08:56 GMT
This is a slightly edited version of an article that appeared in
the Graduation 1992 , Vassar College's
"alternative" newspaper.
Summary:
Vassar College has an AppleTalk network which connects nearly
every room on campus; nearly 600 students (out of a student body of
about 2400) have borrowed AppleTalk connectors from the school.
Several students have started AppleShare file servers from their
own personal computer, for the purposes of software exchange and
"message boards." On many student servers, a folder containing
many Teachtext files may be accessed by any student with a
password, which are generally freely available for the asking.
However...
(Please note that I am not a member of this list, and do not use
UseNet frequently. Correspondence may be addressed to
derose@vassar.edu, spectator@vassar.edu, or The Vassar Spectator,
Vassar College, Box 279, Poughkeepsie, NY 12601.)
Administration Cracks Down on Computer Servers
by Derek Rose
Vassar Spectator, Graduation 1992, pages 8-11.
In her Convocation speech of April 29, Vassar Student Association
(VSA) President-elect Jung Yun '94 noted that the Administration
is currently running the show at Vassar College. In what may be a
striking example of this, Matthew Patterson '92 may be facing
eviction from college housing without a hearing.
Mr. Patterson runs a computer file server, utilizing the power of
the Appletalk network which runs into nearly every room on campus.
File servers are a popular medium for exchanging data across the
campus. Every Macintosh computer is sold with networking software
that allows it to connect to a server, and the latest version of
the Macintosh operating system has built-in server software. If a
computer is running a server, all or part of its hard disk may be
accessible from another networked computer.
On any given weeknight, there are roughly 20 to 30 computer
servers running, some operated by students, others by the Academic
Computer Center (ACC), and others by Academic Departments. ACC
file servers allow users access to many different computer
programs from their rooms. The VSA Council, The Miscellany News
and the Computer Science Department all have a file server run for
them by the ACC. The Miscellany News's file server allows students
to make submissions from their rooms, and most minutes of VSA
Council meetings from the past two years are available on the VSA
file server.
Mr. Patterson's file server, known as "Spam," is different from
most of these servers, because along with computer software, Mr.
Patterson allows users to access a "Message Center." Popular among
many students, these bulletin-board type files allow for
discussion of various topics, which have in the past included
abortion, racism, sexism, jazz, sexually explicit topics, gossip,
Clarence Thomas, civil disobedience, drugs, films, the
environment, journalism, baseball, Star Trek, AIDS, television,
books and bands.
Last year, then-VSA Treasurer Kilian Schalk '92 started a file on
Mr. Patterson's server entitled "Just ask the VSA Treaz," which
was designed to "clear up misconceptions about the VSA with
questions addressed to and answered by an insider," according to
an opening statement in the file. This year, at least three VSA
Executive Board members and several VSA Council members have made
use of Mr. Patterson's server.
According to Mr. Patterson, currently there are over 200 students
with passwords to his computer server, which he has operated since
March 1990. Of these 200, some 50 to 70 connect multiple times a
week, and "there are about ten people who log on hourly," Mr.
Patterson said. About 3 megabytes of text files, or roughly 1,500
pages, have been written on Mr. Patterson's server since the start
of this academic year.
The nature of this public file medium is unusual, in that no one
can tell who has written what, unless it is attributed. Because of
this, people have felt free to discuss topics that might normally
be considered taboo, resulting in many interesting and
enlightening conversations. However, some users have used their
anonymity to write entries that are hateful, mean-spirited,
immature or threatening.
"I can't even consider [feminists] on the same level with guys and
women who believe that they should belong in the kitchen and bed
because feminists are plain stupid, ugly, and devious," one entry
reads.
"[A Vassar student] thinks she is SOOOOOOOOO smart, when really
all she is a snobby upper-class 'I went to Windsor Academy' bitchy
pseudo-feminist c*nt."
"I love rape. Seeing my female victims struggle against me while
I'm raping them makes the whole scene so sexy, wild, and fun."
"Blacks are always causing trouble. Always complaining. Always
killing. Always starting riots because they're wild animals. They
don't have intelligence and manner to deal with their problems in
a peaceful mature way. Why don't you n*ggers stop using your race
to bulls--t and collect welfare and get a f--king job? <---Sorry
but they're too indolent and stupid to do anything. That's why
other races have to take care of them like pets and babies."
While these are extreme examples, other entries contain statements
about the private and personal affairs of students.
The most notorious entry on this file server was first revealed to
the campus at large in a January 31 Miscellany News opinion piece.
In this article 1991-'92 VSA Vice President Joanna Pearlstein '92
wrote that she had been subjected to threats of rape on a file
server: "A file called 'VSA Sucks' featured the entry, 'Joanna is
a lesbo c*nt who I'm going to f--k' repeated over an over again
until the file was full. I erased it and wrote a response. The
statement kept reappearing, and it kept being erased. A few days
later in the same file, this statement appeared: 'I want to rape
Joanna.' Not knowing what else to do, I deleted the entire file.
About twelve hours later, in the 'Gossip and Fun Rumors 7' file, I
read 'I'm going to f--k Joanna Pearlstein whether she wants to or
not.' Again, I deleted the file."
Mr. Patterson had no idea who was writing these threats, and
erased them when he saw them. He also sent a message through the
College's VAX system to Miss Pearlstein saying that he was working
with her to try to determine who was writing these threats--an act
of kindness he would later have cause to regret.
These threats prompted a major debate within the Vassar
administration. What responsibility does a server administrator
have for what is written on their server?
Most people involved have tried to answer the question through the
use of analogies. What is a server like? Miss Pearlstein wrote in
her Miscellany News article that "this server is like a
publication with a small group of subscribers. ... everyone can
read the publication, and everyone can get a 'subscription.'" If
so, then logically Mr. Patterson, the "publisher," is not only
responsible but also liable for any harassing remarks written on
his server, just as the editor-in-chief of any conventional
publication.
Mr. Patterson originally used an analogy of the library walls to
describe his file server. "I am not responsible for what other
people say. The librarians are not held responsible for what is
written on their walls," Mr. Patterson wrote on his server last
year.
Ian Smith '92, who runs a server with about five users, said in an
interview, "a good analogy of servers is the campus mail. We're
using their conduit, but it's our property. In that context, the
right to be free of censorship is universally acknowledged."
Josh Pollack '93, a server user, used a different analogy. In a
statement posted on student servers, he wrote, "do there need to
be new rules regulating the computer network? Seeing as the
network is College property, aren't all rules regarding personal
conduct fully meaningful in this context, as all others? If you
were to pass a notebook and pen around the quad, round-robin, for
the fun of it, and it came around to some girl with her name and
the word 'rape' on it, should you be held responsible? Shouldn't
every effort be made to find out who did it?"
In an interview, Charles Steinhorn, Acting Dean of the Faculty,
used the analogy of radio broadcast. "Airwaves are regulated by
the government. If you try to use the airwaves to broadcast child
pornography, that would be dealt with by the law. We should hold
the server operator responsible just as we would if the station
manager of [Vassar radio station] WVKR broadcast harassing
material," he said.
In an interview, John Savarese, Director of Computing and
Information Systems, disagreed: "The issue of the servers is not
like the FCC making it illegal to say swear words on the air,
while it is not illegal to say them in your home. We are talking
about actions that are wrong whether you do them on the server or
at the [All-Campus Dining Center]."
"I spent several hours with the Computing Committee trying to come
up with similes for what files on computer servers were like. We
were never very successful," admitted Colton Johnson, Acting Dean
of Student Life, in an interview.
"It is impossible to make an analogy, because there is nothing
like a server! The closest thing to it would be a super-recorded
conference call, which doesn't exist," said Mr. Patterson.
Mr. Savarese said, "You can't hold someone culpable for something
they have no control over. The degree to which you have control,
you have responsibility. In a case like server harassment, the
Dean of the Faculty has the difficult job of deciding whether the
server operator took reasonable measures. I don't think that just
saying 'I don't have this responsibility' relieves you of any
responsibility."
"Ultimately, people who maintain information that is [distressing]
and harmful have the same responsibility that they would have if
they were maintaining that kind of behavior in any other of the
more public acts at Vassar," said Mr. Johnson.
Adam Bank '93, member-elect of the Computing Committee, disagreed,
saying that while "it's clear server operators are responsible for
the existence of the medium, I don't think servers were created
for the use of harassment. They were created for the exchange of
information and software. Holding a server operator responsible
for everything that is written on them is like holding Black &
Decker responsible for someone using one of its tools to commit
murder."
Ben Gilmore '93, a server user, agreed: "furnishing a public forum
doesn't make you responsible for what is written."
Mr. Steinhorn differentiated between liability and responsibility,
saying that while server operators are not liable for what is
written on their server, they are still responsible for it. "It's
much the same thing as a sign which says 'I hate Jews' on the
College Center kiosk. Ray Parker would not be liable for writing
it, but he would be responsible for taking it down."
It seems this is the view which prevailed. According to The
Miscellany News (Jan. 31, 1992), "the Computer Committee began
discussing the problem of abuse and harassment on servers" on
January 29. More than a month later, shortly after a meeting of
the Board of Trustees, Mr. Patterson received a letter marked
"PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL" from Mr. Steinhorn, dated March 2,
which reads:
Dear Mr. Patterson:
It recently has been brought to my attention that you have made
certain material available on a server that you operate on the
campus computing network. This material clearly is harassing, as
defined in the Vassar College Regulations. ...
As the Vassar College Regulations ... state, access to the campus
network is a privilege, not a right, the exercise of which
expressly forbids a user to send or store harassing material. The
regulations further provide that the Dean of the Faculty, upon
recommendation of the Director of Computing and Information
Systems, is empowered to apply sanctions in response to violations
of the regulations dealing with computing. ...
I hereby instruct you to remove all material from your server
which violates the College Harassment Policy no later than Friday,
March 6, 1992, and to monitor your server conscientiously so that
it remains free of harassing material. Failure to carry out either
of these obligations will result in the loss of your privilege to
employ the campus network to make material available on a server
for the remainder of this semester.
I look forward to your cooperation in maintaining a campus
environment that encourages the expression of diverse opinions and
at the same time protects each individual in accordance with the
Regulations which bind us all.
Yours truly,
Charles I. Steinhorn
Acting Dean of the Faculty
Mr. Patterson responded with a letter dated March 10, which reads:
Dear Mr. Steinhorn:
I was shocked when I opened my mailbox the other day and found a
letter from you which accused me of *allegedly* running a computer
server which has *allegedly* violated college regulations.
First of all, how can you accuse me of running a server with
nothing more than circumstantial evidence? If you had cared to
check you would have found it is scarcely possible for me to have
run such a program from my room. As various personnel in the ACC
can tell you, the connector box located on the wall in my room has
been out of service since the middle of September. Currently it
sits inert on my floor collecting dust. This has been the source
of endless frustration for me, as I have had to forgo the ability
to access the VAX, or use the LaserWriters from my room. Over
break, some people from a Bell Company were supposed to finally
come fix it. The day they finally do, I will rejoice.
You might have gotten your information from an misinformed article
which appeared in the first issue of the Misc. this semester. This
article wrongfully reported that Ms. Pearlstein was harassed on a
server that was run out of my room in Ferry House, when in fact
the server was run out of Main Dorm.
The harassment issue is an important one, and I do not want to
come across as belittling it in any way. No student should have
to be subjected to anonymous threats or slander. The safeguard
which these servers provide is that any subscriber, as well as the
server administrator, can erase any entry they find slanderous or
threatening. And as far as I have been able to tell, any students
who have had problems with the content of published messages they
have come upon have done just that. For you to demand that *one*
person scrupulously monitor and edit all messages twenty-four
hours a day, seven days a week is impossible and unrealistic.
But even if I had run such a program from my room, I do not think
that running a server with harassing material on it (which might
be insensitive to the community) is in violation of college
regulations. Please re-read Part C on computers, and you will
find that the regulations you cite in your letter were written to
cover the VAX system, owned and operated by the college, not the
communication between students via LocalTalk, operated by
students.
You write in your letter that the Vassar College Regulations,
"state, [that] access to the campus network is a privilege, not a
right, the exercise of which expressly forbids a user to send or
store harassing material." The first part of this sentence is a
paraphrasing of a regulation which in fact reads:
"Access to the networks, such as CCnet and ARPAnet, of which the
college is a part, is a privilege, not a right" ...
Your letter neatly omits what sorts of networks the regulations
actually cover. CCnet and ARPAnet function as computer bridges so
that mail can get from one college network (like VAX) to another.
LocalTalk, on the other hand, connects computers on campus
directly to one another. It bears no relation to either CCnet or
ARPAnet. It would therefore be a rather large stretch on the
administration's part to insist that LocalTalk be subject to
regulations governing a type of network to which it holds no
likeness. A close reading reveals that this regulation does not
have any bearing upon LocalTalk.
The second part of your sentence is another paraphrasing of a
regulation that reads:
"Deliberately offensive material must not be sent or stored
over the system" ...
What do the regulations mean by system? Under the section B of the
Computer regulations ("Resources") it refers to the "system" in
relation to passwords, private files, and accounts--all VAX
buzzwords. It is also stated that the ACC may access personal
files in the system, something that can only occur in a VAX
account. The words, "sent or stored" also refer to the VAX, since
messages are sent and stored on the college owned computer system.
The AppleShare file server program holds no relation to the
"system" which is mentioned in this regulation. Unlike the VAX, a
file sharing program (as it is run by students on this campus) is
one to which the server's administrator licenses subscribers to
mount their personal hard drive. The components of the VAX system
are owned by the college; the components of an AppleShare server
are privately owned.
Therefore, upon a close examination of the College Regulations
regarding computers, I would have to conclude that there are no
regulations which cover the owning and operation of an AppleShare
(or otherwise) server. Furthermore, the fact that you are
attempting to regulate a private hard drive is one which I find
deeply disturbing.
The Administration's penchant for "quick fixes" this year astounds
me. By rushing bullheaded into situations, and looking for the
easy solution, you are not addressing the issues. A few people
decide to blow off class? Then make it mandatory for everyone to
attend--or fail! Someone hiding in the closet? Lock all the
doors! Someone being threatened via the computer? Locate a
scapegoat and punish him! All this in one year. Has any of these
solutions really worked? Are classes more interesting because they
are mandatory? Has crime in the dorms ceased? Would the
meticulous editing of message files end harassment?
If you have any other questions please feel free to contact me and
I will try to be as helpful as possible.
Sincerely,
Matt Patterson
Mr. Steinhorn did not respond to Mr. Patterson's letter until
nearly a month later. On April 21, Mr. Steinhorn met with Mr.
Patterson to discuss these issues. According to Mr. Patterson, Mr.
Steinhorn presented him with a hard copy of the VAX message he had
sent to Miss Pearlstein telling her he was trying to discover who
was writing these threats against her on his server. At this
point, Mr. Patterson admitted that the server in question was, in
fact, his own.
Mr. Steinhorn further presented Mr. Patterson with a hard copy of
a file from his server dated March 26, which included an entry
threatening a Vassar student with rape. "I hadn't followed his
directive to remove all the harassing material. ... Then he lets
it out that I will be punished for not following his directive. He
is recommending that I be removed from housing. Yippie! At this
point I sort of freak out. ... I ask what about the proposed
punishment written down? The one which stated that I would have
computing privs. revoked. He said that that might interfere w/ my
work so [he] proposed this instead. duhhhh. Like kicking me out
would be beneficial." wrote Mr. Patterson on his file server.
Neither Mr. Johnson nor Mr. Steinhorn would comment on their
specific dealings with Mr. Patterson, citing confidentiality
reasons.
"I'm perfectly happy with people running servers. I want to see
the free flow of information. I'm not legislating new standards
for discourse, I just want to see servers conform to the standards
we already have," noted Mr. Steinhorn.
The matter in question is, is the campus LocalTalk network part of
the "system", as referred to in the Vassar College Computer
Regulations, which reads: "Deliberately offensive material must
not be sent or stored on the system, e.g. obscenities, slanders,
insults, demeaning or unnecessarily embarrassing remarks or
information."
Both Mr. Steinhorn and Mr. Johnson noted that the current
regulations were too vague. "I've asked the head of the Computing
Committee to review the language of the Computer Regulations and
update it in ways that seem reasonable," said Mr. Johnson.
Mr. Johnson noted that the College computing regulations date back
to when there was no campus-wide network, "and clearly reflects
that. However, it embodies a spirit which can be reasonably
extrapolated, just as the language of the Constitution can be
extrapolated to the present day."
Mr. Steinhorn agreed, saying that "by system, that includes the
network. Any part of the hard drive that is on the network is part
of the system."
"That's not clear. The information isn't stored on the network,"
protested Shad Todd '93, Computing Committee member. "Since the
regulations don't appear to cover this current issue with Mr.
Patterson, Steinhorn's recommendations seem rather overzealous.
There's nothing in the current regulations that holds a server
operator responsible for this harassment," Mr. Todd continued.
Even if there are only two passwords given to a particular
server, it is still part of the system and thus subject to College
regulations, Mr. Steinhorn said. "It's not perfect, there are gray
areas to every law, that's why we have committees" he admitted,
"but how do you know that they are going to keep the passwords to
themselves?" In a subsequent communication, Mr. Steinhorn noted
that he was thinking out loud here, and not articulating hard and
fast policy. He also said he might very much want to consult with
others about such a situation before going ahead and acting.
"I think that's ludicrous, to suggest the administration can have
any control over what I keep on the computer I own," said Mr.
Smith.
"You can't say 'College regulations won't be enforced if only a
few people have a password.' That constitutes selective
enforcement, and that gives the administration far too much leeway
in regulation" said Mr. Todd.
"Who cares whether it is part of the campus network! The system
doesn't matter," said Mr. Savarese. "What matters is the threat of
physical violence."
What complicates the issue even further is that Mr. Patterson
attempted to delete all the entries which threatened this student,
but missed one. The particular entry which Mr. Steinhorn found
reads, "I am not going to hate [a Vassar student who's name has
been changed to Jane Smith] I am not going to hate Jane Smith I am
not going to hate Jane Smith I am not going to hate Jane Smith I
am not going to hate Jane Smith I am not going to hate Jane Smith
I am not going to hate Jane Smith I am not going to eat Jane Smith
I am not going to do Jane Smith I am not going to talk about Jane
Smith I am not going think of Jane Smith I am not going to do
anything to Jane Smith, except rape her."
Mr. Patterson said, "I took [the harrassing material] off when I
found it on there. But with this one, I just saw all the "nots,"
and didn't look at it carefully. If I had seen [the final phrase],
I would have taken it off. He could have asked me to erase it."
At press time, Mr. Patterson reported that he had met with Mr.
Johnson, who informed him that he had until 11 a.m. on May 1 to
come up with an alternate punishment or face eviction from campus
housing. Mr. Johnson has said he has been in favor of this
solution since December, according to Mr. Patterson.
Mr. Patterson protested, saying that he was originally threatened
with losing the privilege to employ the campus network, not
eviction from housing. Mr. Johnson replied that losing campus
housing was simply a means of enforcing loss of network privilege.
Ultimately, might this question have been dealt with much better
through openness and discussion, rather than meetings behind
closed doors? "We need to have community dialogue, to clarify our
shared values on this issue," said Mr. Savarese.
"There is just no way that I am going to sit down and judge codes
for everyone at the school! I don't want to be combing through
three megs of text files wondering if 'I like to suck [female
genitalia]' is okay or not," declared Mr. Patterson. However,
"last year, someone did ask me to remove all the statements about
her, and I did comply."
"Saying so-and-so sleeps with everyone is really not nice stuff.
But whether that constitutes harassment, that's really not stuff
the school can move on," said Pam Neimeth, Director of Resources
on Rape/Assault, Conflict and Harassment.
"I don't think that can be dealt with through College regulations.
You need to make people aware of what's going on, create an
atmosphere of intolerance. Hateful things hurt the whole
community, and we need to address that," said Ms. Neimeth.
"I agree with that 100 percent," said Mr. Patterson. "I encourage
anyone logging onto a server and seeing such a threat to erase it
immediately and report it to the server administrator. No one can
say that I didn't work with them when they asked for help."
Had the administration called a meeting of all parties involved to
discuss these issues, as Mr. Savarese suggested, could they have
reached some sort of agreement? Perhaps not. But they never tried;
instead the two acting deans chose not to meet with Mr. Patterson
until their decisions were already made. And now, it seems, a
graduating senior may lose his housing privileges without trial.
Mr. Patterson said, "I think a lot of this has to do with
misunderstanding and fear of new technology. The administration
has perceived a creeping evil in society, that has manifested
itself in me. But a server is a mirror through what's going on in
people's minds. You can't solve the problem by breaking that
mirror."
Derek Rose '94 is a major in philosophy and an editorial associate
for the Vassar Spectator. He administers a file server through the
Appletalk network.
UPDATE: On May 1, Mr. Patterson, facing eviction from housing,
sent a VAXmail message to Mr. Johnson in which he offered to send
out a letter of apology to the administration; suspend all access
privileges to the members of the file server, reinstating them
only if they agree to abide by an document saying that they will
abide by all college regulations in the message center; and lead
an open forum on the issue to further discuss its intricacies with
members of the community, according to a note posted on his
server. On the same date, The Miscellany News partially broke the
story--the first the college community had heard of the issue. An
editorial called the Steinhorn's actions "unfair," and "not
adequately founded in college regulations."
Mr. Patterson's proposal has evidentially been accepted "with
slight modifications," according to another note Mr. Patterson
left on his server.
From caf-talk Caf May 16 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: res@colnet.uucp (Rob Stampfli)
Subject: Re: Policy on malicious/bad posts to a newsgroup
Message-ID: <1992May16.221306.26627@colnet.uucp>
Date: Sat, 16 May 1992 22:13:06 GMT
> Q: How do you remove news access without totally removing the
>naughty student's entire computer account?
Technically it doesn't seem too hard at all:
chgrp nonews /usr/spool/news
chmod 705 /usr/spool/news
Now, any account having been assigned to group "nonews" in /etc/passwd
no longer has access to news.
--
Rob Stampfli, 614-864-9377, res@kd8wk.uucp (Internet), kd8wk@n8jyv.oh (AMPR)
From caf-talk Caf May 16 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [misc.activism.progressive] Harvard Law Controversy Opens Old Wounds of Sexism, Racism at School
Message-ID: <9205170201.AA26035@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Sat, 16 May 1992 16:01:01 GMT
From caf-talk Caf May 16 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: misc.activism.progressive
From: rich@pencil.cs.missouri.edu (Rich Winkel)
Subject: Harvard Law Controversy Opens Old Wounds of Sexism, Racism at School
Message-ID: <1992May16.214014.23244@mont.cs.missouri.edu>
Date: Sat, 16 May 1992 21:40:14 GMT
From: PENN@MITLNS.MIT.EDU (steve penn 26-567, 253-1521 Remember Our Humanity; Science is Not Neutral; MIT War Research Kills.)
Included below is an article from the New Liberation News Service
(NLNS) Packet 2.9 -- our autoposter is posting one
article at a time from this 168K file. To receive the full file,
use the GET command (see bottom) on the file NLNS PACKET ; to
find out more about NLNS, use GET on NLNS BROCHURE and/or email
Steve Penn at the above address.
To find out more about the PROG-PUBS (Progressive Publications) email
mailing list, use GET on CAMPUS PROGPUBS, or contact RJ Hinde at
rjh1@midway.uchicago.edu
--Harel B.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
NLNS Packet 2.9 - 11 May 1992
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Harvard Law Controversy Opens Old Wounds of Sexism, Racism at School
Dean Asked to Resign
Greg Bylinsky, NLNS
CAMBRIDGE, MA (NLNS)---A Harvard Law Review parody of a
murdered feminist law professor has embroiled an already troubled
campus that has spent the last several years debating whether its
faculty is too male and too white.
The parody, which was seen as misogynist and brutal by many
at the school, was of the last work of Professor Mary Joe Frug.
Professor Frug's unfinished article, "A Postmodern Feminist Legal
Manifesto", was published this spring by the Law Review, and
generated considerable controversy within the Law Review for its
blunt criticism of the way women are treated by the legal system.
Professor Frug was murdered in Cambridge one year ago.
In apparent retaliation, conservative editors published the five
page, heavily footnoted parody, entitled "He-Manifesto of Post-
Mortem Legal Feminism". It was said by its authors, third-year
students Craig Coben and Kenneth Fenyo, to have been dictated from
"beyond the grave" by one "Mary Doe, Rigor-Mortis Professor of
Law."
The parody was distributed at a private Law Review banquet
which coincided with the anniversary of Frug's murder. Her
husband, also a law professor, had been invited to the banquet but
did not attend. Leaked to several third year students who then
informed the campus, the parody caused an immediate uproar.
Andrea Brenneke, a third-year student who has been active in the
opposition to the Frug piece, said "The parody is symptomatic of the
hostility towards women who are taking over positions of power
traditionally held by white males. This was their fraternity-like
response to getting back at women who fought to publish Mary Joe's
article."
Several hundred students signed letters condemned the Law
Review piece, and noted constitutional law scholar Laurence A. Tribe
compared the authors, in their denial of the existence of violence
against women, to those who deny the existence of the Holocaust. A
group of twenty professors wrote a letter that a pervasive
atmosphere of sexism exists at the Law School and the prestigious
Law Review, and a significant cause is the fact that the Harvard Law
faculty consists mostly of white males. Of 64 tenured professors at
Harvard, there are five white women and three black men.
Embattled Dean Robert Clark came under heavy criticism for
his sluggish and lukewarm criticism to the parody. Clark did not
respond to the parody until 10 days after the banquet, and has
defended the free speech rights of the authors while condemning
the content of their work. Nevertheless, a coalition of student
organizations that have worked to diversify the faculty called for the
Dean's resignation on April 19th, saying that he was no longer an
effective leader. Students in the Harvard Law Coalition for Civil
Rights have been vigorously protesting Clark's inaction on faculty
diversity throughout the spring. Earlier in April, students held a "No
Confidence" vote in Dean Clark, which he lost overwhelmingly by a
vote of 330 to 38.
The Law School has appointed five more white male professors
to tenured and tenure-track positions since March 1st of this year,
and students have held mass protests that culminated in a 24 hour
sit-in in Dean Clark's office on April 6th and 7th. In contrast to his
unwillingness to take action against the Law Review editors, Clark
has moved swiftly to bring disciplinary charges against the nine
students involved in the sit-in. Clark has also stated that he is
opposed to the reappointment of Professor Derrick Bell, Harvard's
first African American professor who has been on a two-year protest
leave over Harvard's failure to diversify.
##################################################################
======================================
To get a file named FILE NAME from the archiver (files are
two words separated by a space), send the 1-line message
GET FILE NAME ACTIV-L
to: LISTSERV@UMCVMB.BITNET
[or: LISTSERV@UMCVMB.MISSOURI.EDU]
======================================
Use GET with the file ACTIV-L ARCHIVE for a listing of
files available with the GET command.
e.g., send GET ACTIV-L ARCHIVE ACTIV-L to LISTSERV@UMCVMB.BITNET to be
emailed the index of archived files.
From caf-talk Caf May 17 00:00:00 1992
From: nmehl@rm105serve.sas.upenn.edu (Nathan J. Mehl)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,news.admin
Subject: Re: [news.admin] Re: Policy on malicious/bad posts to a newsgroup
Message-ID: <920516#119#204502_nmehl@rm105serve.sas.upenn.edu>
Date: 17 May 92 04:13:42 GMT
In article <1992May13.213556.21219@jato.jpl.nasa.gov> dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov writes:
>One of the definitions of a censor is "an official who reads communications
>and deletes material considered harmful to the interests of his organization"
>(from Webster's New Collegiate).
>A publisher's job is to publish material beneficial to the interests of
>his organization (almost by definition). Hence, if the publisher receives
>a communication that is considered harmful, he deletes it. Hence, the publisher
>is a censor and there we have censorship.
There are so many problems with this analogy that it's hard to know where to
start. First of all, when a publisher refuses to publish a novel, it is not
"deleted," it is merely sent back to its originator. (If it was in fact
destroyed, that would in fact be censorship.) Also, to talk about the
dictionary definition (or, as you so tellingly put it, "*one* of the
definitions" [emphasis mine]) is irrelevent- we are talking about censorship
in the sense of an act that violates one's First Amendment rights.
Lastly, consider for a moment the effects of your statement above. By your
logic, every publishing company in the country (and by extension every radio
and television station) would be obligated to publish every manuscript that
is sent to them. (This would number in the tens of thousands, by the way.)
If refusing to do that is censorship, then the term is meaningless as you
use it. And this is far too important an issue to be trivialized.
>>It's not a question of "feel," it's a question of which set of legal
>>precedents should be applied.
>(I'm really sick of "legal precedents" and other BS that has nothing to
>do with the price of rice in china. Be real. Don't be legal.)
It's a lovely sentiment, but until you can get even two people to agree
totally about what is "real," then I'll stick with the "legal" for issues
of human rights. It keeps the arguments from getting too metaphysical.
>When you talk about "should be" you are naturally discounting what "is".
>What "is" is fine with me. Why would you want to change it?
I am not talking about what "should be." I feel that the situation *right
now* "is" that a sysadmin may, unless previously constrained by contract,
remove a user's access at will, and that such an action is not censorship.
What worries me is that a whole lot of people seem to think that it "should
be" different.
>>And just as I cannot force Macmillan to use their transport mechanisms
>>to produce my works (unless they have signed a contract obligating them
>>to do that), nor can I force my local sysadmin to use *his* transport
>>mechanism to distribute my writings to the world.
>But that doesn't justify Macmillan's decision or your SA's. It's still
>censorship. The application of force is a non-issue.
Again, censorship as defined this way is meaningless. If this is censorship,
then censorship will have to be legal, and we're all going to be in a shitload
of trouble. My point here is very simple: neither Macmillan nor my sysadmin
*need* to "justify" their decisions, unless they are contracted to do so. It's
their presses, and their computer, and for the sake of *my* computer, I
wouldn't have it any other way.
>>or money to any system that does not guarantee me 100% access. But to
>>castigate sysadmins that do not explicitly offer that sort of setup
>>as censors is to berate an apple for not being an orange.
>It's not as much castigation as it is explanation. A censor is a censor.
>Ah calls it like ah sees it. If you wanted an orange and you get an
>apple, then you have a right to berate that apple or the apple giver.
Again, your anology fails. You were never offered an orange. Or more to
the point, those people who were offered oranges got them, or have the right
to sue. Those people who were offered "a fruit" with no further details
have no particular right to expect an orange.
Translating that little homily into English: If your system states upfront
that it allows posting regardless of content (or if the policies of the
system's operating institution dictates it), then you have the right to
expect just that. But, if that offer was not explicitly made, then the
final say as to who gets access to any individual machine belongs solely
to that machine's owner(s), and it is not "censorship" when the owner(s)
decide to exercise that option.
(BTW: the reason that I'm being so nit-picky about the definition of "censor-
ship" here is that it's a prosecutable offense. Given that, we need to be
very careful about what is therefore made illegal, lest we find our jails
overflowing with submissions editors and newspapermen...)
------------Nathan J. Mehl---------------(nmehl@pennsas.upenn.edu)------
It's the little touches that make a future solid enough to be destroyed.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From caf-talk Caf May 17 00:00:00 1992
From: bh@anarres.CS.Berkeley.EDU (Brian Harvey)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: K12net censorship discussion
Message-ID:
Date: 17 May 92 05:02:15 GMT
Hey, Carl, help me out here. Can you post to k12.chat.teacher?
Someone seems to think they are required by federal (USA) law to
censor their network:
|Article: 2119 of k12.chat.teacher
|From: Chris.Rowan@f100.n397.z1.fidonet.org (Chris Rowan)
|Sender: ufgate@puddle.fidonet.org (newsout1.26)
|Newsgroups: k12.chat.teacher
|Subject: What do you think?
|Message-ID: <4399.2A15079A@puddle.fidonet.org>
|Date: Sat, 09 May 92 20:40:02 PST
|Organization: FidoNet node 1:397/100 - The Lyceum, Brownsville TX
|Lines: 67
|
|Hi everyone,
| I post the following message for all users of The Lyceum to
|see:
|
|
|Some users within the K12Net community have chosen to abuse their
|writing privilages and post messages that are offensive, obscene,
|and/or profane. I feel compelled to do something to protect the
|integrity of the K12Network. Therefore, users who wish to write in
|any of the K12 areas must agree to the following rules:
|
|----------------------------------------------------------------
|Rules: Standard Echomail Area
|
|1 - Be polite, or you'll lose access to ALL message areas.
|2 - Keep your letters on topic. Don't ask about baseball
| in a conference about Music.
|3 - N-E-V-E-R reply to crude or unfriendly messages. Let them
| die of neglect and be gone.
|4 - If quoting message text in reply, quote only the MINIMUM
| needed to remind the writer of what was being said.
|5 - Post letters in keeping with the scope of the area. That is,
| don't ask when the next PTA meeting is when your in an
| international conference. All "K12" areas are international.
|6 - If you are unsure whether a word or phrase is vulgar or profane,
| assume that it is and use another word or phrase.
|-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
|If you agree to abide by these rules, send a message to the SysOp
|(Chris Rowan) when you logoff.
|
|If you find that you no longer have access to message areas you USED
|to access, please let me know. I will need to know which message
|areas you would like to access, your age, name of school presently
|attending (if applicable), and phone number.
|
|I apologize for any inconvenience this may cause, but I learned only
|recently that the electronic transmission of profane material across
|state lines is a federal offense. Since I am ultimately responsible
|for all message traffic that leaves from The Lyceum, I do not want
|to take any chances.
|
|Again, please accept my apologies for any inconvenience this may
|cause. As soon as I receive your message of agreement, I will
|upgrade your access status.
|
| Thank you,
| Chris Rowan
| SysOp
|
|I copied most of the rules from a message I read here. I added the
|last rule.
|
|I have also reconfigured everything so that users I do not know very
|well have to agree to the rules in order to post or reply to messages.
|If I have even the *slightest* doubt that a user will abide by the
|rules, he/she may READ messages but not POST messages.
|
|As I see it, I am not censoring anything. I am preventing the
|trafficking of pornographic material across state lines.
|
|So . . . What do you think?
|
|
|--
|uucp: uunet!m2xenix!puddle!397!100!Chris.Rowan
|Internet: Chris.Rowan@f100.n397.z1.fidonet.org
