From caf-talk Caf Jun 1 11:45:23 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.censorship, et al.] Re: Congratulations! You've made the evening news.
Message-ID: <9206011543.AA23846@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 1992 05:43:02 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Jun 1 11:45:23 1992
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.sex,alt.config
Subject: Re: Congratulations! You've made the evening news.
Message-ID:
Date: 31 May 92 00:09:20 GMT
In article adamsr@netcom.com (Rick Adams) writes:
(Lots of stuff deleted)
> Freedom of speech, it it exists at all, MUST be absolute.
(More stuff deleted)
Not in Canada. The Supreme Court here uses a "hierarchy" of rights
(without, of course, calling it that). At the top is equality. Freedom of
speech isn't in this top eschelon.
Sean
--
Sean Smith - Dalhousie University Bill and Opus in '92 in the US!
Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada Don Cherry for Prime Minister in '93 in Canada!
01SSMITH@AC.DAL.CA or smith@ug.cs.dal.ca
Disclaimer: These ideas are mine...ALL MINE!! 'Cause noone else'd want 'em.
From caf-talk Caf Jun 1 11:45:41 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.sex.bondage, et al.] Re: Congratulations! You've made the evening news.
Message-ID: <9206011543.AA23856@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 1992 05:43:21 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Jun 1 11:45:41 1992
From: mcbryde@navier.math.uh.edu (Jack Mcbryde)
Subject: Re: Congratulations! You've made the evening news.
Message-ID: <1992Jun1.020046.22106@menudo.uh.edu>
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 1992 02:00:46 GMT
In article <1992May28.211907.19985@cs.sfu.ca> jamie@cs.sfu.ca (Jamie Andrews) writes:
>In article <15423@autodesk.COM> robertj@Autodesk.COM (Young Rob Jellinghaus) writes:
>>This has happened before, y'all. Many many many many times. Every
>>time it seems to some like the alt.sex hierarchy is doomed. Every
>>time the anti-censorship folks get together and muster the volumes of
>>reasoning about how net access is like library access, etc. Every
>>time the flap blows over very quickly.
>
> I don't know about you, but this is the first time that
>I have heard an RCMP (national police force) officer, on the
>national news, throwing around words like "alt.sex.bondage" and
>"unsubscribe", and making the connection that Usenet is
>distributed to *every* major university in Canada. And yes, I
>have been following a.s.b and the censorship debates for several
>years.
>
> This issue is just going to grow and grow. More and more
>people will become aware that there's a huge discrepancy between
>what is supposedly illegal in many jurisdictions, and blocked at
>borders around the world, and what is acceptable on this huge
>international network (ie. everything).
>
> I'm sure we'll find a way of dealing with this eventually,
>but it's going to involve cutting loose the non-consensual
>stuff -- at a minimum. Better sooner than later.
>
>--Jamie.
What if they decide that the consensual stuff is worthy of being censored?
Do you just disband asb?
jack
From caf-talk Caf Jun 1 11:45:53 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.sex.bondage, et al.] Re: Congratulations! You've made the evening news.
Message-ID: <9206011543.AA23866@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 1992 05:43:34 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Jun 1 11:45:53 1992
From: mcbryde@navier.math.uh.edu (Jack Mcbryde)
Subject: Re: Congratulations! You've made the evening news.
Message-ID: <1992Jun1.041153.29938@menudo.uh.edu>
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 1992 04:11:53 GMT
>jamie@cs.sfu.ca (Jamie Andrews) writes:
>> Come on folks. Let's create alt.sex.nonconsensual, let
>> whoever wants to block it block it, and *cancel* all articles
>> in the other newsgroups that involve nonconsensual sex. That
>> way, the anti-censorshippers have a focus for their discontent
>> (alt.sex.nonconsensual), and the rest of us (the vast majority
>> that don't care jack about the supposed evils of censoring
>> articles celebrating the joys of rape and sex with children) can
>> correctly say that we're distributing nothing illegal.
Looks like my previous response hit the nail on the head. According
to the posted transcript of the news report, asb is not gonna fly
is Canada regardless of whether or not the content is consensual.
jack
From caf-talk Caf Jun 1 11:46:12 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.censorship, et al.] Re: Congratulations! You've made the evening news.
Message-ID: <9206011543.AA23878@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 1992 05:43:52 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Jun 1 11:46:12 1992
From: russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto)
Subject: Re: Congratulations! You've made the evening news.
Message-ID: <1992Jun01.043204.12445@eng.umd.edu>
Date: Mon, 01 Jun 92 04:32:04 GMT
In article <1992May31.210023.26483@newshub.sdsu.edu> joel@moho.sdsu.edu (Joel Wedberg) writes:
>
>
> Well, one hates to keep blowing holes in the "don't censor me!" arguments,
>since their basic position makes a lot of sense; but really, what else can the
>objective reader do?
> Since so many posters here have had the temerity (and mendacity) to
>leap onto the bandwagon of comparisons between rape-porn and television-
>movie- real-life- detective-novel- violence, it seems only fair to point out
>that in rape porn, the gratification comes from reading about (or seeing, or
>whatever) aggressors who assault hapless and unwilling victims, with
>socially repugnant results - even in this society. With mainstream violence
>(n.b. this argument should not be construed as implicit approval of mainstream
>violence), such assailents aren't lionized or envied, they are villified, and
>the only violent assailents who are implicitly congratulated are those who
>prevent others from creating more vicitims.
There are exceptions to this-- consider, for instance, _The Silence of
the Lambs_, or at least the last scene. Not the same, certainly, as
the rape stories, but enough to start blurring your bright line.
However, this breaks the whole consensual/nonconsensual distinction,
and sets up another-- whether the "villian" is portrayed as someone to
lionize or envy or not. I think here it is much clearer that
eliminating these stories is censorship, plain and simple, and not
some sort of 'higher values' of consensuality.
--
Matthew T. Russotto russotto@eng.umd.edu russotto@wam.umd.edu
Some news readers expect "Disclaimer:" here.
Just say NO to police searches and seizures. Make them use force.
(not responsible for bodily harm resulting from following above advice)
From caf-talk Caf Jun 1 11:46:23 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.censorship, et al.] Re: Congratulations! You've made the evening news.
Message-ID: <9206011544.AA23887@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 1992 05:44:04 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Jun 1 11:46:23 1992
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.config,alt.sex
Subject: Re: Congratulations! You've made the evening news.
Message-ID: <1992Jun01.045934.4423@deeptht.santa-cruz.ca.us>
Date: 1 Jun 92 04:59:34 GMT
In article <1992May30.135242.13075@thelema.uucp> STella@thelema.uucp (STella) writes:
>Followups to alt.sex, alt.config, alt.censorship.
>
>In article <1992May29.144902.7908@athena.mit.edu> shiloh@mit.edu (Shiloh) writes:
>>> > lisahern@clubzen.fidonet.org (Lisa Hernandez) writes:
>>> [ threat of censorship ]
>>>
>>> | Hey, I'd be all for a ALT.SEX.NONCONSENSUAL. Why not? Why should it
>>> | be restricted?
>
>>How about alt.sex.rape?
>
>No need. That stuff's just fine in alt.sex.bondage, and when I write
>about rape, I'll do it here in asb. Cope.
>
>You can persuade someone to newgroup alt.sex.rape if you like. I
>won't be posting there, unless I'm redirecting a cascade, and I won't
>be taking MY concept of what asb can include TO any other place. I
>was posting much the same sort of thing about rape in net.singles,
>long ago.
>
>>If people want to post rape (oops, sorry, I mean nonconsensual) stories,
>>that's their business. I just think "nonconsensual" is a little too
>>euphemistic. Call it what it is. Creating a separate newsgroup is kind of
>>silly, there really aren't that many stories involving rape. It would
>>be nice if they could be tagged, so people could avoid them.
>
>No. If I write a murder mystery, I don't start it off saying "this
>story includes the non-consensual killing of one person by another".
>Why is rape different?
>
>As before, there's a flap about the evil stuff in asb. This time it's
>the Mounties. Ooooh, I'se scared. Been there, done that, got a
>system in my own house. I don't need the Canadian government's
>approval, any more than I need an NEA grant to fund my posting.
>
>STella@xanadu.com 1016 E. El Camino Real, #302, Sunnyvale, CA 94087
----
But there's plenty of rape on TV in prime time and the soaps. Let's
start a movement to censor the soaps if they are going to fuck with
OUR electronic media and see how many frightened suburban housewives
we can get on our side that just can do without the Y&R, (Young and
the Restless), the young rapists. And there's plenty in literature as
well, and even killing in all media. They can't fucking have it both
ways and we should be showing them that.
- Steve Walz
From caf-talk Caf Jun 1 11:46:52 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.sex.bondage, et al.] Re: Congratulations! You've made the evening news.
Message-ID: <9206011544.AA23899@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 1992 05:44:33 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Jun 1 11:46:52 1992
Newsgroups: alt.sex.bondage,alt.sex,alt.censorship,alt.config
Subject: Re: Congratulations! You've made the evening news.
Message-ID:
Date: Mon, 01 Jun 92 14:01:21 BST
jamie@cs.sfu.ca (Jamie Andrews) writes:
> This issue is just going to grow and grow. More and more
> people will become aware that there's a huge discrepancy between
> what is supposedly illegal in many jurisdictions, and blocked at
> borders around the world, and what is acceptable on this huge
> international network (ie. everything).
>
> I'm sure we'll find a way of dealing with this eventually,
> but it's going to involve cutting loose the non-consensual
> stuff -- at a minimum. Better sooner than later.
Dream on. Censorship is dead, it just hasn't stopped twitching yet.
Here in the UK, we've had MPs in the Houses of Parliament demanding urgent
action to stamp out bulletin board systems which carry "pornographic"
material.
Does that mean the UK doesn't get alt.sex.bestiality? No, it just means that
those who receive the newsgroup are fairly quiet about it.
Thanks to the wonders of the computer revolution, there is absolutely nothing
that the government can do to stop "pornographic" material from being
distributed. They can force it underground, but they can't stop it. Of
course, they haven't realised this yet, so there will be temporary
unpleasantness whilst they thrash around trying to censor things. But in the
end they will lose.
mathew
--
Wanted in four states -- solid, liquid, gas and plasma.
From caf-talk Caf Jun 1 12:03:02 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.config] Re: Congratulations! You've made the evening news.
Message-ID: <9206011600.AA24056@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 1992 06:00:41 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Jun 1 12:03:02 1992
Newsgroups: alt.config
Subject: Re: Congratulations! You've made the evening news.
Message-ID: <1992May31.222347.1@vm2.cis.pitt.edu>
Date: 1 Jun 92 03:23:47 GMT
In article <1992May29.115509.25181@panix.com>, gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
> It won't do any good. It's the "sex" part that gets the
> newspapers and the idiots excited. Enjoy it while it lasts,
> and start looking around for public access sites.
This is funny! I've read alt.sex on occassion and I've NEVER found anything
about SEX on that newsgroup. Anything but! No matter...
What are the SEX POLICE going to do when alt.sex is closed down and
ALT.SEX-like articles are suddenly found being posted to news.groups?
Shutting down a "newsgroup" is like trying to bail water with a sieve.
Terry
--
INTERNET: tjw+@pitt.edu BITNET: TJW@PITTVMS
"Laugh while you can, Monkey Boy!" - Lord "John" Warfin
"There can be only one!" - The Highlander
"There should have been only one. I want my money back!" - Terry
From caf-talk Caf Jun 1 12:03:16 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.config] Re: Congratulations! You've made the evening news.
Message-ID: <9206011600.AA24065@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 1992 06:00:55 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Jun 1 12:03:16 1992
Newsgroups: alt.config
Subject: Re: Congratulations! You've made the evening news.
Message-ID: <1992May31.222711.1@vm2.cis.pitt.edu>
Date: 1 Jun 92 03:27:11 GMT
In article <15456@autodesk.COM>, robertj@Autodesk.COM (Young Rob Jellinghaus) writes:
> stuff on his desk , but (verbatim quote) "It's a textbook on how to
> torture women for sexual pleasure. It's obscene."
I head "they" wanted to put Parker Brothers in jail for making the game CLUE.
It's a textbook on how to commit murder. It's obscene.
Terry
--
INTERNET: tjw+@pitt.edu BITNET: TJW@PITTVMS
From caf-talk Caf Jun 1 12:03:44 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.sex.bondage] Re: Congratulations! You've made the evening news.
Message-ID: <9206011601.AA24074@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 1992 06:01:24 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Jun 1 12:03:44 1992
Newsgroups: alt.sex.bondage
Subject: Re: Congratulations! You've made the evening news.
Message-ID: <920601#119#034555_nmehl@rm105serve.sas.upenn.edu>
Date: 1 Jun 92 07:46:52 GMT
In article <1992May30.004800.21420@access.digex.com> cowboy@access.digex.com (Cowboy) writes:
>Much of the material comes from subscribers to wizvax [sp?], a
>computer timesharing company in the United States. "...that's because
>our machine does provide a service to the community, through the
>alt.sex.bondage newsgroup." Stephanie Gillgut [sp?] operates her
>business from Massachusetts. What she calls a 'service' is basically
>a how-to manual on sex with partners getting strangled, or with
>children or animals. Gillgut says the written material comes
>anonymously from any of her subscribers; computers do the rest. "I
>have no direct link with Canada, so I'm really pass[ing] it on to
>another machine, which in turn passes it on to other machines, and so
>on and so forth." And it end up on the computer terminals at most
>Canadian universities.
A word to the wise:
Steph, if you don't already have a lawyer, get one. Now. When the mother
of all subpoenas lands on your doorstep in the near future, you're going
to need legal protection in a big way. When a national news service calls
you a distributor of violent pornoography in their nightly broadcasts, it's
time to get worried.
Good luck.
(BTW, will someone please cross-post this to the appropriate civil liberty/EFF
newsgroups?)
------------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 Jun 1 12:14:27 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.sex.bondage] Just Say "No!" To Reporters (Was: Congratulations! You've made the evening news.)
Message-ID: <9206011612.AA24124@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 1992 06:12:07 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Jun 1 12:14:27 1992
From: eifrig@beanworld.cs.jhu.edu (Jonathan Eifrig)
Subject: Just Say "No!" To Reporters (Was: Congratulations! You've made the evening news.)
Message-ID: <1992May30.221527.5614@blaze.cs.jhu.edu>
Date: Sat, 30 May 1992 22:15:27 GMT
Here we have another excellent example of why talking to the press
is, in general, a Very Bad Idea: the "CBC" (which I assume is the Canadian
Broadcasting Company) calls up Stephanie Gilgut, owner of the wizvax, and
asks for some comments. Her response:
In <8130@wizvax.methuen.ma.us>, stephie@wizvax.methuen.ma.us
(Stephanie P. Gilgut) writes:
> Yesterday, (5/27), I was telephoned by these people and interviewed about
> wizvax. Then, of course, in came the ASB questions. Surprise! Sneaky people,
> these. "Do you think this is obscene?" "No." The "how-to" manual etc was
> brought up. Told him the truth - In the two years or so I have been involved
> with this group, I have read no such article. He asked about "Saint
> Stephanie"... (Thanks, gang... 8-)...)
Then the CBC proceeds to make its report:
In article <1992May30.004800.21420@access.digex.com> cowboy@access.digex.com
(Cowboy) writes:
>[The following is a transcription of a report broadcast on CBC Radio's
>news program "The World at Six," aired 27 May 92 and monitored on 9755
>KHz at 2300 UTC All spelling and punctuation has been added, and may
>be incorrect.]
>
> [ Junk deleted ]
>
>A recent Supreme Court ruling holds that depicting sex involving
>violence or children is obscene and it is a criminal offence to
>publish or distribute it in Canada. But that's the type of material
>that has been appearing on computer terminals across the country, the
>equivalent of about a magazine per day, generated by something called
>'newsgroups.'
>
>Much of the material comes from subscribers to wizvax [sp?], a
>computer timesharing company in the United States. "...that's because
>our machine does provide a service to the community, through the
>alt.sex.bondage newsgroup." Stephanie Gillgut [sp?] operates her
>business from Massachusetts. What she calls a 'service' is basically
>a how-to manual on sex with partners getting strangled, or with
>children or animals. Gillgut says the written material comes
>anonymously from any of her subscribers; computers do the rest. "I
>have no direct link with Canada, so I'm really pass[ing] it on to
>another machine, which in turn passes it on to other machines, and so
>on and so forth." And it end up on the computer terminals at most
>Canadian universities.
Notice what is happening here. The CBC states _its_ interpretation
of events ("What she calls a 'service' is basically a how-to manual on
sex with partners getting strangled, or with children or animals",) and
then follows it up with some directly quoted material ("Gillgut says the
written material comes anonymously from any of her subscribers; computers
do the rest. "I have no direct link with Canada, so I'm really pass[ing]
it on to another machine, which in turn passes it on to other machines,
and so on and so forth.") While the (directly and indirectly) quoted mater-
ial is accurate, it is used in a way to mislead the listener into believing
that Stephanie _agrees_ with CBC's statement, while in reality we see that
Stephanie _explicitly_stated_ that this statement is incorrect.
What can we learn from this? (1) In general, the media is more
interested in getting a good-sounding story than in accurate reporting, and
is willing to twist facts to do so. (2) Anything you say to a reporter
can be used out of context to back up almost any opinion. (3) No matter
how sympathetic a reporter sounds, remember that he has his own agenda, and
it probably isn't the same as yours.
Remember, the press, like the policeman, isn't always your friend.
From caf-talk Caf Jun 1 14:01:32 1992
From: fsars@acad3.alaska.edu (Allen R Sparks)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject:
Message-ID: <1992Jun1.093346.1@acad3.alaska.edu>
Date: 1 Jun 92 17:33:46 GMT
In article you said:
>
> Well it's good to see that the U.S.A hasn't cornered the market on
> idiots and fools....What do you mean by Illegal? The mere discussion
> of S&M or the just the activity itself? Hey folks please help me on this,
> is Canada more liberal or conservative in it's sex laws?
Conservative, not only in its sex laws, but in its freedom of
expression laws. It was in Canada that a court convicted a man for
staring, just staring at a woman (feminist) at a public swimming pool,
who promptly pressed charges against him. I guess he was interested
in her, and she was offended. He was also unattractive BTW.
(ooooohhhhhh gross! How dare he be interested in me).
The court slapped a restraining order on him, he isn't allowed near
the pool, when she's there. This restraining order has a duration of
15 years. === Al Sparks
From caf-talk Caf Jun 1 15:41:25 1992
From: craig@fred.gi.alaska.edu (Craig Helmuth)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: [comp.org.eff.talk] Re: Is alt.sex.* illegal?
Message-ID: <1992Jun1.190047.23860@raven.alaska.edu>
Date: 1 Jun 92 19:00:47 GMT
In article <9206010102.AA18387@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu> kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl
M. Kadie) writes:
>
>From: ygoland@edison.seas.ucla.edu (The Jester)
>Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
>Subject: Re: Is alt.sex.* illegal?
>Message-ID: <7285@lee.SEAS.UCLA.EDU>
>Date: 30 May 92 11:50:55 GMT
>
>I can not speak for the U.S. as a whole but in the State of
>California and specifically the city of Los Angeles, I am allowed to
>read alt.sex.bondage and to write stories for it without fear of
>legal reprisal. I am allowed the right to create fiction depicting
>any act I care to think of and I do not have to fear the police
>comming after me.
Ah, methinks that a work of fiction depicting/advocating the
assination of the President might well have 'someone' knocking
at your door.
> The right to create is so fundamental, yet the
>people in Canada do not seem to agree. Is it that the people in
>Canada are so puritanical that they would never have any contact
>with this material or is this another example of a law passed along
>time ago that most people had forgotten aboutHow can any people
>allow themselves to live in a state where the government can dictate
>what they may and may not read and arrest them if they read
>something 'inapropriate'? Surely this must be a joke. Surely the
>Canadian laws do not say that writting a story involving sex with a
>child is a crime, that writting a story about something most people
>find distastful is illegal. What sort of insanity could think this
>up? Would someone who knows please be so kind as to enlighten the
>non-canadian audience as to the true laws dealing with pornography
>(and what isn't) in Canada?
> Thank you,
> The Jester
>--
>"Only the blind see in color."
>"Any union based upon pigment is foolish ignorance designed to
>give power to those few who enjoy power's taste above the common
>welfare."
>
I'm not sure I want to say we Yankees have it all that much better.
For example, what would happen if someone tried posting scans of the
Robert Maplethrope [sp - sorry!] exhibit to the net. The bluenose's
in the FedGov have already tromped on the NEA funding for this sort
of thing - a federally subsidized program that is now effectively
prevented from displaying something that might be offensive to a few.
Hits kinda close to home don'tcha think?
I say we make this a campaign issue in the US! Ask questions that
gets the condidates to explain why a network is different than an
arts grant program - "Do you support government funding of activities
that some people consider pronographic?" as an example. I'm sure there
are better wordings or questions, but I think it is important to confront
the issue now when it *may* get some attention.
Craig Helmuth, Network Manager | craig@fred.gi.alaska.edu
Geophysical Institute | fncah@alaska.bitnet
University of Alaska Fairbanks | "Its all FANTASY...until its HISTORY"
ObDis: My employer fully sanctions & endorses what I say (with $$$)...NOT!
From caf-talk Caf Jun 1 15:49:11 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: U38373@UICVM.UIC.EDU
Subject: What if...
Message-ID: <199206011946.AA28364@eff.org>
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 1992 19:43:52 GMT
If the alt.nonconsensual newsgroup speculated on in these pages became a
reality, and it caught on, and its fans held a convention, would the convention
become generally known as NONCONCON? :-)
Mitch Pravatiner
From caf-talk Caf Jun 1 16:49:56 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: rramji4@mamut.wlu.ca (ruby ramji u)
Subject: newsgroups ban
Message-ID: <9206012044.AA16736@unix4>
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 1992 20:44:45 GMT
since the incident at university of manitoba, i have
been unable to read any articles from the alt.sex et al
groups. this restriction also has cut me off from
alt.censorship. is this the case for all universities
in canada? i have asked the sysadmin about these
restrictions, and he knows nothing about them, assuming
that they must be from outside the university...say
by internet? is that possible? is it because the
police have decided that it's obscene or because they
don't want to get caught when the *shit* hits the fan?
ruby
rramji4@mach1.wlu.ca
wilfrid laurier university
waterloo, ontario
canada
From caf-talk Caf Jun 1 21:24:05 1992
Newsgroups: uiuc.general,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: New U. of Illinois (and NCSA) Computer Privacy policy
Message-ID: <1992Jun2.011050.15719@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Tue, 2 Jun 1992 01:10:50 GMT
[This is a repost of the article by Allan Levy entitled "Interim
E-Mail Advisory". The original article didn't not get propagated off
of ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (because distribution was set to "local"). I've
reformated it a bit. - Carl]
===== In article <1992May19.154352.3556@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, a-levy@uiuc.edu
(Allan H. Levy) writes ===============
The following notice was sent to the Deans, Directors and Department
Heads at the Urbana Campus.
It is reproduced in its entirety.
******************
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Office of the Vice Chancellor for Administrative Affairs
Swanlund Administration Building 217 333-6536
601 East John Street 217 333-2920
Champaign
Illinois 61820
TO: Deans, Directors, and Department Heads
DATE: April 27, 1992
FROM: Judith S. Liebman
Vice Chancellor for Resarch and
Dean of the Graduate College
Donald F. Wendel
Vice Chancellor for Administrative Affairs
RE: Electronic Mail Advisory
Over the past year, the campus administration has received a number of
inquiries about access to files maintained on electronic media.
Essentially, the questions focused on the privacy of such
communications and the conditions under which someone may look at
another person's files. We asked the Advisory Committee on Networking
and Computing to study this issue and to develop a policy statement
that would guide campus actions. The attached statement is the result
of the Committee's efforts. We are issuing the statement as an
interim policy in order to allow faculty, staff, and students to
"live" with the statement for a few months before it is made final.
We would be pleased to receive comments on the interim policy
statement.
INTERIM E-MAIL ADVISORY
The University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign participates in a range
of computing networks and many members of the community also regularly
use computers in their work. Statements in public files in this medium
are protected by the same laws and policies, and are subject to the
same limitations, as communications in other media. The same holds
true for electronic personal files and communications.
However, users should exercise caution when committing confidential
information to electronic media, because the confidentiality of such
material cannot be guaranteed. For example, routine maintenance or
system administration of a computer may result in the contents of
files and communications being seen.
Also, under the Illinois Freedom of Information Act, electronic files
are treated in the same way as paper files. The documents in the files
of employees of the State of Illinois are considered to be public
documents, and may be subject to inspection through FOIA. In such
cases, the campus Freedom of Information Officer must inspect files to
determine which portions may be exempt from disclosure.
Network and system administrators are expected to treat the contents
of electronic files as private and confidential. Any inspection of
electronic files, and any action based upon such inspection, will be
governed by all applicable U. S. and Illinois laws and by University
policies.
A network or system administrator who is unsure about how to deal with
questions about the content of computer files or access to such files
should contact George F. Badger, Associate Vice Chancellor for
Computing and Communications, at 333-4103 (e-mail: g-badger@uiuc.edu).
04/27/92
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Jun 2 00:28:00 1992
From: sean@ms.uky.edu (Sean Casey)
Newsgroups: uiuc.general,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: New U. of Illinois (and NCSA) Computer Privacy policy
Message-ID: <1992Jun2.041403.9031@ms.uky.edu>
Date: 2 Jun 92 04:14:03 GMT
:University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
:RE: Electronic Mail Advisory
:
:Also, under the Illinois Freedom of Information Act, electronic files
:are treated in the same way as paper files. The documents in the files
:of employees of the State of Illinois are considered to be public
:documents, and may be subject to inspection through FOIA. In such
:cases, the campus Freedom of Information Officer must inspect files to
:determine which portions may be exempt from disclosure.
Public documents? How many here think this makes sense?
Sean
--
|``Wind, waves, etc. are breakdowns in the face of the
Sean Casey | commitment to getting from here to there. But they are the
sean@s.ms.uky.edu | conditions for sailing -- not something to be gotten rid
U of KY, Lexington| of, but something to be danced with.''
From caf-talk Caf Jun 2 06:44:32 1992
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.sex,alt.config,alt.sex.bondage,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: jamie@cs.sfu.ca (Jamie Andrews)
Subject: Re: Congratulations! You've made the evening news.
Message-ID: <1992Jun1.190327.23949@cs.sfu.ca>
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 1992 19:03:27 GMT
In article <1992Jun1.005209.19959@m.cs.uiuc.edu> kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>And yet, in one of the first applications of the new definition all
>discussions of sex in a university medium were banned.
And why was that? Because there was no other way for the
university to weed out the "Farmer Bob"-type stories. And why
was that? Because so many people on alt.sex.* seem to feel that
having Farmer Bob right beside the latest safe-sex information
is crucial to the freedom of the net.
> In Canada, the
>slide down the slippery slope is not hypothetical; it has happened.
Maybe temporarily, thanks to dogmatism on the part of the
Absolute Freedom of Speechers.
--Jamie.
From caf-talk Caf Jun 2 09:00:03 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: nbc2134@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil (Robert F Solon)
Subject: Re: Congratulations! You've made the evening news.
Message-ID: <9206021254.AA26934@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil>
Date: Tue, 2 Jun 1992 04:54:16 GMT
In reply to the mail from ...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Maybe temporarily, thanks to dogmatism on the part of the
>Absolute Freedom of Speechers.
>
>--Jamie.
>
Only by insisting on absolute Freedom of Speech on Internet can we protect it
from censorship. I do not agree that the curtailment in Canada of alt.sex* is
a temporary measure.
Bob
The above is, of course, my own opinion.
Bob Solon, DITSO-CO-B
Administrative Information Branch -- APCAPS
"We Code, You Explode!!"
From caf-talk Caf Jun 2 09:29:07 1992
From: ldg@scott.skidmore.edu (Leo D. Geoffrion)
Newsgroups: uiuc.general,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: New U. of Illinois (and NCSA) Computer Privacy policy
Message-ID: <1992Jun2.120432.9595@scott.skidmore.edu>
Date: 2 Jun 92 12:04:32 GMT
In article <1992Jun2.041403.9031@ms.uky.edu> sean@ms.uky.edu (Sean Casey) writes:
>:University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
>:RE: Electronic Mail Advisory
>:
>:Also, under the Illinois Freedom of Information Act, electronic files
>:are treated in the same way as paper files. The documents in the files
>:of employees of the State of Illinois are considered to be public
>:documents, and may be subject to inspection through FOIA. In such
>:cases, the campus Freedom of Information Officer must inspect files to
>:determine which portions may be exempt from disclosure.
>
>Public documents? How many here think this makes sense?
>
Key point here....
If FOIA is to make sense, then some official must sort through the
files (paper or electronic) to determine what items are official
records and what are personal notes. I would expect that 90+% of
email is considered personal in nature, but just as some paper memos
are part of the public official record, some email messages constitute
official office records.
For example, an email from the division manager authorizing
(ordering?) one to proceed with a project despite its obvious problems
would probably be considered "official" record subject to FOIA. I'm
sure that any review agency would certainly push for copies of it
should the project subsequently fail.
In many public agencies, people are advised to keep their personal
materials distinct from the "office files". Perhaps the same is
needed when storing email.
--
Leo Geoffrion, Skidmore College Computer Services, Saratoga Springs, NY 12866
EMAIL: ldg@scott.skidmore.edu VOICE: (518) 584-5000 Ext. 2628
From caf-talk Caf Jun 2 11:17:14 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.sex.bondage, et al.] Imminent Death of the Net Predicted Was: Re: Congratulations!... news.
Message-ID: <9206021514.AA29892@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Tue, 2 Jun 1992 05:14:53 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Jun 2 11:17:14 1992
Newsgroups: alt.sex.bondage,alt.censorship
Subject: Imminent Death of the Net Predicted Was: Re: Congratulations!... news.
Message-ID:
Date: Mon, 01 Jun 1992 21:21:57 EST
In article <1992May28.010057.18609@cs.sfu.ca>, Jamie Andrews writes:
> I heard the CBC report referred to on the radio this
...
> States as well. (Yes, the States too -- don't think it's just
> a Canadian thing.)
No, but it ain't new either.
> > Apparently, much of what is shown on
> >this group [alt.sex.bondage] is illegal here in Canada...
> I'm sure that's what they think. Fortunately, that is
> wrong. Unfortunately, they can't tell.
No, unfortunately, it's true. More than you might think of asb
wouldn't get past Canada Customs if they looked at it and could stop
it. I don't think I need to say anything about the pictures groups.
> When (not if, *when*) this story breaks across the national
> media, *at every university*:
[imminent death of the net predicted]
> ...and in the face of that tremendous pressure, the alt.sex.*
> groups will be blocked forever, at all universities. Doesn't
It may happen, and does from time to time, that someone finds out that
their tax dollars, or corporate budget is subsidizing traffic in
something they disagree with, or just don't think they should be
paying for. So they stop subsidizing our "free ride". It's not
censorship, it's right and proper that people know where there money
goes, and what their resources are being used for.
If asb is "shut down" at some university or company, determined
individuals will bring it back in quietly after the fuss has died
down. I won't argue the ethics of this, that's what happens.
If your feed shuts down and you can't or won't get them to start up
again, well, it's time to pay for your usenet habit yourself. If you
want an asb feed, you can get a terminal for a handful of dollars, and
connect to a commercial or semi-commercial site that welcomes your
access. You can even start up your own site and give others access
and pass the stuff on. In fact, that's a great idea. If it's
important to you, support it.
> Come on folks. Let's create alt.sex.nonconsensual, let
> whoever wants to block it block it, and *cancel* all articles
If you want to set up your own site, you can do just that, at the site
that you run. I won't. Neither will people who will feed my site.
> jamie@cs.sfu.ca
I know that your concern is well placed, and I don't mean to knock it.
I'm just trying to damp the hysteria and put (albeit my) perspective
on things.
ObASB: Anyone who thinks they're the farthest place away from here
that gets the ont.personals.whips.and.rubber.chickens newsgroup, tell
me where you are (and proof that you get it). The winner gets a free
whipping for his or her rubber chicken if mailed to an address I will
specify, in a box with a plain brown wrapper.
--
# Hugh D. Gamble UUCP: hugh@kink.UUCP Domain: hugh@kink.PhaedraV.On.Ca %
# AMIX: HGAMBLE bix: hgamble voice: +1 416 267 6159 %
From caf-talk Caf Jun 2 11:17:38 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.config, et al.] Re: Congratulations! You've made the evening news.
Message-ID: <9206021515.AA29907@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Tue, 2 Jun 1992 05:15:18 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Jun 2 11:17:38 1992
Message-ID:
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 1992 22:48:44 -0400
From: Thomas Omar Smith
Subject: Re: Congratulations! You've made the evening news.
>Helm, et al. may be able to pressure some universitys and other Internet
>sites to drop alt.sex (what do you think they will say about alt.flame
>or alt.consispary :-) ) but there are thousnads of sites receiving
>alt.sex. I currently am reading this and posting this from a BBS that has an
>internet feed. This BBS, Gagme, is a public access UNIX site here in
>Chicago, there is at least 2 other public access Internet sites in Chicago.
>The cost of putting up an Internet site has been dropping very fast in the
>last few years. One could probly do the whole job for about $5,000.00. I
>know that is a shit load of money but 10 people pooling their resources
>could do it.
>
>The 2 best things about Technology is 1) Helms et. al. have know idea what
>is going on and because they are ignorant about the technology they don't
>know how to really stop it. and 2) Technology assists the free flow of
>information to the point of being subversive (YAH!!). Think about Tenneman
>Square. If you were on the Net during that period there was a lot of
>infromation coming out that the Party knew nothing about.
Small problem with this. the Government funds a lot of the net. Helms
has a prominent enough Senate position to have a real chance at cutting
that funding. he may not understand how computer nets work, but he
certainly knows that they don't work without funding.
Tom the non hacker
Kemp in 96!
Ross Perot may indeed turn this
country around. However, his next act
will probably be to bend it over.
From caf-talk Caf Jun 2 11:17:57 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.censorship, et al.] Re: Congratulations! You've made the evening news.
Message-ID: <9206021515.AA29916@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Tue, 2 Jun 1992 05:15:37 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Jun 2 11:17:57 1992
From: marc@r-node.gts.org (Marc Fournier - Sys Admin)
Subject: Re: Congratulations! You've made the evening news.
Message-ID: <1992Jun01.185528.13035@r-node.gts.org>
Date: Mon, 01 Jun 1992 18:55:28 GMT
In article adamsr@netcom.com (Rick Adams) writes:
>
> Thus, the primary consideration is not to avoid censorship, it is
>to consider the (reasonable) desires of the majority of the participants on
>those newsgroups. Creation of a new newsgroup such as you suggest would
>provide an alternative for those who DO choose to read and post such
>material.
>
That doesn't seem to work...sorry. A while back someone got
alt.sex.stories created, but even still, when I read alt.sex, I have
to filter through a bunch of stories. People won't keep something to
just one group...they want to cross-post. It is very very rare that
I feel like reading a story, but I check out alt.sex every day, twice
a day to see what is going on, as there are some thread, like this one,
that interest me.
Marc
--
**********************************************************************
| Marc Fournier R-Node Public Access Unix 416-636-2026 |
| 1500+ newsgroups Running UnixBBS 1.03 network email |
| 7 days/week news and mail feeds available 24 hrs/day |
| marc@r-node.gts.org r-node!marc marc@r-node.uucp |
**********************************************************************
From caf-talk Caf Jun 2 11:18:26 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.sex.bondage, et al.] Re: Congratulations! You've made the evening news.
Message-ID: <9206021516.AA29926@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Tue, 2 Jun 1992 05:16:07 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Jun 2 11:18:26 1992
From: jamie@cs.sfu.ca (Jamie Andrews)
Subject: Re: Congratulations! You've made the evening news.
Message-ID: <1992Jun1.190453.24042@cs.sfu.ca>
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 1992 19:04:53 GMT
In article <1992Jun1.020046.22106@menudo.uh.edu> mcbryde@navier.math.uh.edu (Jack Mcbryde) writes:
>What if they decide that the consensual stuff is worthy of being censored?
>Do you just disband asb?
No, then I'm fighting right alongside you guys. Much as
some people seem to have trouble with the concept, that *is* a
legitimate and considered position.
--Jamie.
From caf-talk Caf Jun 2 11:19:04 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.config, et al.] Attack of the Dreaded Analogies
Message-ID: <9206021516.AA29935@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Tue, 2 Jun 1992 05:16:41 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Jun 2 11:19:04 1992
From: jamie@cs.sfu.ca (Jamie Andrews)
Subject: Attack of the Dreaded Analogies
Message-ID: <1992Jun1.202739.24387@cs.sfu.ca>
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 1992 20:27:39 GMT
I don't think this censorship debate is shedding very much
light anymore. (I guess some would say it never did.) So I'll
just make a couple of points and then shut up... unless someone
wants to continue on alt.flame or something, of course.
The discussion seems to be moving away from what to do
specifically about a.s.b, the Mounties, and Farmer Bob, and onto
the details of why I and others think Farmer Bob should be
censored. I'll try to dig up my old article "A Dialogue on
Censorship" and post it just to alt.censorship, if anyone is
interested in tearing it apart there.
Finally, if you want Dreaded Analogies, I can give you one
of my own. The Absolute Freedom of Speechers, who consider me
"soft on censorship", really remind me of the McCarthyists and
their Canadian buddies from the 50's. They said that anyone
"soft on Communism" should be considered a threat, since they
were leaving the door open to the Red hordes. Being "soft on
Communism" could apparently take an amazing number of forms,
such as being in a progressive labour union, ever having visited
China, or subscribing to a Yiddish newspaper.
All I'm saying is: create alt.sex.nonconsensual (or some
such), cancel rape stories elsewhere, and let the sites who
want to keep alt.sex.nonconsensual out keep it out. This will
not leave the door open to the fundamentalist anti-sexual censor
hordes, people. It will only make it easier to argue for
alt.sex and a.s.b., in Canada and elsewhere.
--Jamie.
jamie@cs.sfu.ca
"The village may be changed, but the well cannot be changed."
From caf-talk Caf Jun 2 11:25:03 1992
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.privacy
Subject: Re: New U. of Illinois (and NCSA) Computer Privacy policy
Message-ID: <1992Jun2.151809.27140@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: 2 Jun 92 15:18:09 GMT
[This is repost of another article by Allan Levy with the title "Re:
Interim E-Mail Advisory". I'm reposting at the author's request. I've
reformatted it a bit. - Carl]
=======================================================
~Newsgroups: uiuc.general
~Subject: Re: Interim E-Mail Advisory
~References: <1992May19.154352.3556@news.cso.uiuc.edu>
Message-ID:
~Date: Tue, 26 May 1992 21:54:21 GMT
This is a comment on note 12776 which I posted. The text of the
original note is, as customary,shown within this note.: As the
individual who posted the note on the Interim email advisory, I wanted
to keep the policy and my comments separate. These are some
preliminary comments.
The major question is not whether email is secure - nearly all of us
realize that, like any other form of communication, it can be
intercepted, read by unauthorized people, or accidentally read. The
question I had hoped the policy would address was whether the
University considered email private - like your letter in campus mail
or your phone call. Or do they reserve the right to authorize someone
to look at your mail? Email is often stored, not in your desk, but on
a main frame.
The information in the email advisory from the University
is vague. It refers to other unnamed, unspecified
University policies as applying to email. It is not really
possible to understand a policy which points back to other
applicable policies without telling you which these are.
By reference to the Freedom of Information Act (which deals
mainly with release of policy documents) it appears to lump
email with policy documents, and not to treat it in the
same way as one would expect other paper mail to be
treated. This severely limits privacy.
The FOIA is designed to keep the University(or any other
State governmental body) from making policy in private. I
don't think it is designed to intrude on the privacy of
person-to-person mail, whether transmitted by Fax,
computer, paper, campus mail or US postal service.
I think the Interim advisory is badly in need of
clarification and a change in focus to emphasize protection
of privacy.
I hope others will comment on this matter.
In article <1992May19.154352.3556@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, a-levy@uiuc.edu
(Allan H. Levy) writes:
>
> The following notice was sent to the Deans, Directors and Department Heads at the Urbana Campus.
> It is reproduced in its entirety.
> ******************
>
>
> "University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
>
> Office of the Vice Chancellor for Administrative Affairs
>
> Swanlund Administration Building 217 333-6536
> 601 East John Street 217 333-2920
> Champaign
> Illinois 61820
>
> "TO: Deans, Directors, and Department Heads
> "DATE: April 27, 1992
>
> :
>
> "FROM: Judith S. Liebman
> Vice Chancellor for Resarch and
> Dean of the Graduate College
>
> Donald F. Wendel
> Vice Chancellor for Administrative Affairs
>
> "RE: Electronic Mail Advisory
>
> "Over the past year, the campus administration has received a number of inquiries
> about access to files maintained on electronic media. Essentially,
> the questions focused on the privacy of such communications and the conditions
> under which someone may look at another person's files.
> We asked the Advisory Committee on Networking and Computing to study this
> issue and to develop a policy statement that would guide campus actions.
> The attached statement is the result of the Committee's efforts.
> We are issuing the statement as an interim policy in order to allow faculty, staff,
> and students to "live" with the statement for a few months before it is made final.
> We would be pleased to receive comments on the interim policy statement.
>
>
> "INTERIM E-MAIL ADVISORY
>
> "The University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign participates in a range of
> computing networks and many members of the community also regularly use computers
> in their work. Statements in public files in this medium are protected by the
> same laws and policies, and are subject to the same limitations, as
> communications in other media. The same holds true for electronic personal
> files and communications.
>
> "However, users should exercise caution when committing confidential information
> to electronic media, because the confidentiality of such material cannot
> be guaranteed. For example, routine maintenance or system administration
> of a computer may result in the contents of files and communications being seen.
>
> "Also, under the Illinois Freedom of Information Act, electronic files are
> treated in the same way as paper files. The documents in the files of
> employees of the State of Illinois are considered to be public documents,
> and may be subject to inspection through FOIA. In such cases, the
> campus Freedom of Information Officer must inspect files to determine
> which portions may be exempt from disclosure.
>
> "Network and system administrators are expected to treat the contents of
> electronic files as private and confidential. Any inspection of electronic
> files, and any action based upon such inspection, will be governed by all
> applicable U. S. and Illinois laws and by University policies.
>
> "A network or system administrator who is unsure about how to deal with
> questions about the content of computer files or access to such files
> should contact George F. Badger, Associate Vice Chancellor for
> Computing and Communications, at 333-4103 (e-mail: g-badger@uiuc.edu).
>
> 04/27/92"
>
>
>
>
Allan H. Levy, M.D., Professor and Head
Department of Medical Information Science
University of Illinois College of Medicine at Urbana-Champaign
506 S. Mathews, Urbana IL 61801
a-levy@uiuc.edu, (217)333-9181 (voice); (217)333 8868 (FAX)
Allan H. Levy, M.D., Professor and Head
Department of Medical Information Science
University of Illinois College of Medicine at Urbana-Champaign
506 S. Mathews, Urbana IL 61801
a-levy@uiuc.edu, (217)333-9181 (voice); (217)333 8868 (FAX)
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Jun 2 13:36:53 1992
From: sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer)
Newsgroups: alt.sex.bondage,alt.sex,alt.censorship,alt.config,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,soc.women,soc.men
Subject: Re: Canadian obscenity law (was Re: Congratulations!)
Message-ID: <-69kt+g.sheaffer@netcom.com>
Date: 2 Jun 92 16:50:36 GMT
In article <1992May29.191336.1843@m.cs.uiuc.edu> kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>The current issue of _Ms._ magazine (p. 14, May/June 1991) has details
>of Canada's new definition of obscenity.
>
>In a decision given in Feburary, Justice John Sopinka of the Canadian
>Supreme Court wrote: "If true equality between male and female persons
>is to be achived we cannot ignore the threat to equality resulting
>from exposure to audiences of certain types of violent and degrading
>material."
>
>[...]
>'[T]he guidelines are now clear: degradation, bondage, child
>pornography, and violence are out; adult erotica, no matter how
>explicit, will not be considered obscene.'
And who gets to decide what is "degrading"? Andrea Dworkin?
For *some* people, "bondage" IS "adult erotica". Looks like they've
just been shafted!
--
Robert Sheaffer - Scepticus Maximus - sheaffer@netcom.com
Past Chairman, The Bay Area Skeptics - for whom I speak only when authorized!
"Every psychic investigator of [the medium] Mrs. Piper was impressed
by her simplicity and honesty. It never occurred to them that no
charlatan ever achieves greatness by acting like a charlatan. No
professional spy acts like a spy. No card cheat behaves at the
table like a card cheat."
- Martin Gardner
From caf-talk Caf Jun 2 14:32:59 1992
From: raisch@Control.COM (Robert Raisch)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: What if...
Message-ID: <2196@cthulhuControl.COM>
Date: 2 Jun 92 16:48:12 GMT
And if it was limited to non-commissioned officers who prefered and had been
incarcerated for their crimes?
NONCOMCONNONCONCON
--
Copyright 1992 by raisch -- This article is made available to the Usenet News
and Mail system only, and cannot be sold for profit without permission from
the author.
From caf-talk Caf Jun 2 15:05:44 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.censorship, et al.] Re: A not exactly novel idea
Message-ID: <9206021903.AA01438@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Tue, 2 Jun 1992 09:03:20 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Jun 2 15:05:44 1992
From: scannell@bubba.ma30.bull.com (P Scannell)
Subject: Re: A not exactly novel idea
Date: 2 Jun 92 12:25:04
Message-ID:
In article <13648@umd5.umd.edu> glenn@moeng2.minc.umd.edu (D. Glenn Arthur Jr.) writes:
What if the Canadian authorities got some ninety thousand letters
(you know, paper, envelope, stamps) from around the world (yeah,
so most of the people wouldn't be Canadian citizens, I know)
explaining why censoring alt.sex.bondage is a bad idea.
I had a marketing professor once who spent a lot of his time as a
consultant in Washington, DC. If the "authorities" in Canada are
anything like the ones in Washington, I suspect that mail from
non-constituents would be read by lowly staffers, if at all, and
discarded. Furthermore, numbers alone mean nothing. He
specifically mentioned that those photocopied messages that one
is often asked to sign and mail to one's congressman go directly
into the circular file. BUT: even a few personally written letters
from constituents can have an effect, because the people who
write that kind of letter "might actually go out and vote." Note
that the key thing is to write to *elected* officials; heaven knows
what would motivate a beaureaucrat, or in which direction.
--
== Pat Scannell Bull HN Information Systems Inc. ==
== (508) 294-2190 300 Concord Road MA30-826A ==
== P.Scannell@bull.com Billerica, MA 01821 ==
From caf-talk Caf Jun 2 15:06:03 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.censorship, et al.] Re: A not exactly novel idea
Message-ID: <9206021903.AA01447@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Tue, 2 Jun 1992 09:03:43 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Jun 2 15:06:03 1992
From: adamsr@netcom.com (Rick Adams)
Subject: Re: A not exactly novel idea
Message-ID:
Date: Tue, 02 Jun 92 14:37:45 GMT
In article <13648@umd5.umd.edu> glenn@moeng2.minc.umd.edu (D. Glenn Arthur Jr.) writes:
>What if the Canadian authorities got some ninety thousand letters
>(you know, paper, envelope, stamps) from around the world (yeah,
>so most of the people wouldn't be Canadian citizens, I know)
>explaining why censoring alt.sex.bondage is a bad idea.
>
>The letters could mention how a.s.b tends to promote the idea of
>safewords -- a great way of keeping bondage play from accidentally
>_turning_into_ a nonconsensual situation if used and heeded. They
>could mention what the CBC did not -- the strong emphasis on safety
>in a.s.b.
>
>I doubt the non-Canadians would really have to worry much about the
>possibility of being extradited to Canada to be tried for posting
>something that had gotten to Canada -- especially since most of the
>90,000 are lurkers and haven't _posted_ anything.
>
>I'll wake up in a little while, but for the next minute and a half
>I'm pleasantly dreaming of what might happen if all the lurkers
>wrote letters to the CBC and the Canadian government and law enforcement
>folks after some helpfull Canadians on the net posted the appropriate
>addresses.
>
Why use the postal service?
What do you think would happen if the system administrators at the
institutions which discontinued the alt.sex feeds were to receive 90K email
messages each of which explained why the sender felt it important that the
feeds be restored - and many of which would, by necessity, be from their
peers at other institutions?
It's a LOT easier to motivate Usenet participants to send email
(even if some comes through anonymous posting services) AND to secure the
appropriate email addresses than it is to motivate those people to send
snail mail and to locate the mailing addresses.
Give the system administrators enough reason and THEY'LL fight the
censorship battle themselves!
>That'd be a lot of mail.
>
>
>D. Glenn Arthur Jr., The Human Vibrator, glenn@bessel.umd.edu
>
>"Being a _man_ means knowing that one has a choice not to act like a 'man'."
> (From the "So You Think You're a Man" workshop at Starwood, 1991)
>
>You can send me mail anonymously at wi.2743@wizvax.methuen.ma.us (was wi.79)
--
73 de KE8HH * * * Rick Adams * * * (517)563-2531
adamsr@ais.org / rick.adams on GEnie \ adamsr@netcom.com
rick.adams@um.cc.umich.edu | bl472@cleveland.freenet.edu
* * * Living proof that a mind is a terrible thing * * *
From caf-talk Caf Jun 2 15:07:14 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [talk.politics.misc, et al.] Re: Thank you for explaining that to me...
Message-ID: <9206021904.AA01456@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Tue, 2 Jun 1992 09:04:51 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Jun 2 15:07:14 1992
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.drugs,alt.activism,alt.censorship
Subject: Re: Thank you for explaining that to me...
Message-ID: <1992Jun2.093912.10097@newstand.syr.edu>
Date: 2 Jun 92 13:39:12 GMT
In article <1992Jun2.001416.6534@Princeton.EDU> egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:
>
>No, I don't feel "threatened" by Nazi and Holoclown speech, unless you
>mean that I regard their speech as a threat to democracy, which it is,
>and which the Nazis and the Holoclowns mean it to be.
Yep, sounds like you are concerned about a "threat." This sounds quite
different from your earlier posts, in which you suggested that this
speech had to suppressed so that the masses could distinguish between
"meaningful" speech and other trash...
>If a given category of speech fails the Kantian test, then I must
>"control" that speech.
PLLLLLLLLLLLLPPPPHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!
Kant must be rolling over in his grave! If a given category of speech
fails the "Kantian" test, then you *must* "control" that speech???!!!
Get a grip. Immanuel Kant, categorical imperatives, etc. have nothing
to do with free speech. And that you believe that these ideas are
consistent with support for free speech demonstrates how little you
understand the (suprisingly simple!) concept of free speech.
All you have done is to explain your reasoning in support of censorship and
opposed to free speech. Bible-thumpers use the "will of God." You use
your "Kantian" tests.
>But as Stanley Fish's article "There's No Such
>Thing as Free Speech and It's a Good Thing Too" points-out, "control" is
>a continuum, ranging from vigorous debate (or even flaccid debate) all
>the way through passing administrative ukases within universities
>against offensive speech, to public law. Now, our Constitution places
>an enormous roadblock between step 2 (administrative ukases) and step 3
>(public law) and I believe that this is a good thing.
And this demonstrates how little you understand about the *law* regarding
free speech. (Public) universities do *not* have any greater legal ability to
restrict free speech than any other government arm. (See the Michigan and
Wisconsin cases, available from the eff archive.)
(Private universities are irrelevant since, generally speaking, private
property is under the control of its private owners. Just like you have
the right to restrict speech in your living room, the board of trustees at
a private university has the right to restrict speech on its campus.
Legislation may change that, someday (for federally funded institutions).)
>But the fact that our Constitution places this roadblock
>MEANS that because Edward Nilges fights Nazis and Holoclowns on usenet
>does NOT imply that he's out to become President of the World and to
>tear up the Constitution;
This is a total non-sequiter to me.
>perhaps the very vigor of his fight ENTAILS a
>respect for the Constitution's power. It's because we have
>Constitutional protection for all sorts of free speech that it's up to
>us to fight vigorously, BOTH against Nazi/Holoclown speech, and (even
>more importantly) against the flaccidity inherent in equating pernicious
>Nazi/Holoclown speech with just any old speech.
But you don't express respect for the Constitution by your vigor. The only
thing that you have vigorously espoused is the rejection of constitutional
protections for free speech in exchange for censorial power over Nazis and
revisionists.
--
J. S. Greenfield greeny@top.cis.syr.edu
(I like to put 'greeny' here,
but my d*mn system wants a
*real* name!) "What's the difference between an orange?"
From caf-talk Caf Jun 2 15:37:42 1992
From: russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: [comp.org.eff.talk] Re: Is alt.sex.* illegal?
Message-ID: <1992Jun02.180741.12834@eng.umd.edu>
Date: 2 Jun 92 18:07:41 GMT
In article <1992Jun1.190047.23860@raven.alaska.edu> craig@fred.gi.alaska.edu (Craig Helmuth) writes:
>
>Ah, methinks that a work of fiction depicting/advocating the
>assination of the President might well have 'someone' knocking
>at your door.
Nonsense. I've seen plenty of TV shows/movies, and read books
depicting the assasination of the President. You really think all
these writers heard a knock at their door?
--
Matthew T. Russotto russotto@eng.umd.edu russotto@wam.umd.edu
Some news readers expect "Disclaimer:" here.
Just say NO to police searches and seizures. Make them use force.
(not responsible for bodily harm resulting from following above advice)
From caf-talk Caf Jun 2 15:44:23 1992
From: rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.sex,alt.config,alt.sex.bondage,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: Congratulations! You've made the evening news.
Message-ID:
Date: 2 Jun 92 19:12:48 GMT
jamie@cs.sfu.ca (Jamie Andrews) writes:
>In article <1992Jun1.005209.19959@m.cs.uiuc.edu> kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>> In Canada, the
>>slide down the slippery slope is not hypothetical; it has happened.
> Maybe temporarily, thanks to dogmatism on the part of the
>Absolute Freedom of Speechers.
"Whoops, you didn't do as I demanded. You've FORCED me to shoot the
hostages." Your (or the government's) distaste for free speech
doesn't excuse depriving others of it.
--
Ray's Hangover Cure: Stay drunk!
From caf-talk Caf Jun 2 17:32:47 1992
Newsgroups: uiuc.general,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: zweig@cs.uiuc.edu (Johnny Zweig)
Subject: Re: New U. of Illinois (and NCSA) Computer Privacy policy
Message-ID: <1992Jun2.201710.9643@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Tue, 2 Jun 1992 20:17:10 GMT
Suppose, just for the sake of argument, someone were to encrypt their email.
Under FOIA, would the plaintext contents of the email files be subject to
disclosure, or just the file (encrypted) itself? I would analogize this to
the case of paper documents that use codewords to hide their meaning -- I
would suspect that the encrypted file would just be a representation of the
information that the FOIA requires disclosure of, and thus that it would not
be possible to use encryption as a way of legally preventing anyone from
reading your email (though from a practical standpoint, one could of course
conveniently "forget" the encryption key....).
-Johnny Plaintext
From caf-talk Caf Jun 2 19:22:41 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.society] Email privacy
Message-ID: <9206022320.AA02954@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Tue, 2 Jun 1992 13:20:16 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Jun 2 19:22:41 1992
Subject: Email privacy
Newsgroups: comp.society
Date: 2 Jun 92 16:33:57 GMT
Message-Id: <9206020934.aa04692@q2.ics.uci.edu>
Perry asks ....
>>Should system managers be allowed to peruse user's mail? In an academic
>>environment? In a corporate environment?
------------------------
System managers have special access to email, much in the way that a
nighttime janitor has special access to offices. In my view, both have
comparable **rights to peruse** mail that might be lying around where
they can see it. No right.
/Rob Kling
UC-Irvine
From caf-talk Caf Jun 2 19:24:05 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [news.admin, et al.] Re: Anonymous Contact Service @ wizvax
Message-ID: <9206022321.AA02966@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Tue, 2 Jun 1992 13:21:39 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Jun 2 19:24:05 1992
From: gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy)
Subject: Re: Anonymous Contact Service @ wizvax
Message-ID: <1992May29.213633.20123@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
Date: Fri, 29 May 1992 21:36:33 GMT
In article <1992May29.175240.4686@ccu.umanitoba.ca>
mills@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Gary Mills) writes:
#Authorities here would like to know
#the origin of some articles posted to alt.sex.bondage.
While they may like to know the origin, the person who runs the
anonymous servious won't turn over that information without a court
order at least. I suspect that even if a court order is obtained (and
a US court order not a Canadian court order would be needed) that the
disk might accidently have a head crash erasing that information.
--
-Greg Hennessy, University of Virginia
USPS Mail: Astronomy Department, Charlottesville, VA 22903-2475 USA
Internet: gsh7w@virginia.edu
UUCP: ...!uunet!virginia!gsh7w
From caf-talk Caf Jun 2 19:24:29 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [news.admin, et al.] Re: Anonymous Contact Service @ wizvax
Message-ID: <9206022322.AA02975@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Tue, 2 Jun 1992 13:22:04 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Jun 2 19:24:29 1992
From: jim@ferkel.ucsb.edu (Jim Lick)
Subject: Re: Anonymous Contact Service @ wizvax
Message-ID:
Date: Fri, 29 May 1992 22:26:37 GMT
In <1992May29.175240.4686@ccu.umanitoba.ca> mills@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Gary Mills) writes:
>Can somebody give me some information on wizvax.methuen.ma.us, and
>their anonymous posting facility?
There is a posting about the service made periodically on a.s.b. One
of the FAQ sites probably has it.
> Authorities here would like to know
>the origin of some articles posted to alt.sex.bondage.
What authorities wish to know?
Why do they wish to know?
It defeats the purpose of the service if anyone can determine the
origin for any purpose. If you believe a posting to be illegal
you will probably need to get a warrant to discover the person's
identity. I suspect this warrant would need to be obtained in
Massachusetts, not Canada. Before you go jumping off to do this,
you should take some time out to find out if it really is illegal,
resolve the issue of jurisdiction for prosecuting the crime, and
all that fun stuff. This is new ground you are treading on, so
you better make damn sure you do it right. If your only problem
is some bad press locally, you'll be told to get stuffed when you
ask for identities. Your only realistic solution is to can the
group, or filter out wizvax postings. In my opinion, this is a
poor choice. Mr. Kadie will be sure to post some references about
Library selection procedure, and how it pertains to the network.
> What do other
>news administrators think of anonymous posting?
The wizvax serice is not a true anonymous service. It is instead a
pseudonymous posting service. You can send mail to the alias used
by individual posters, and they will receive your message. In addition,
there is some accountability in that the identity can be determined
if there is sufficient reason. There is also accountability in that
many people who use the aliases have a certain identity of their alias
which they do not want to tarnish by doing something really stupid.
Most of these people are doing this to protect themselves from small
minded people who object to their lifestyle, not for mischeivous
purposes.
Jim Lick
Work: University of California | Play: 6657 El Colegio #24
Santa Barbara | Isla Vista, CA 93117-4280
Dept. of Mechanical Engr. | (805) 968-0189 voice/msg
2311 Engr II Building | This article is freely distributable
(805) 893-4113 |
jim@ferkel.ucsb.edu | PEROT/BROWN IN 92
From caf-talk Caf Jun 2 19:24:58 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [news.admin, et al.] Re: Anonymous Contact Service @ wizvax
Message-ID: <9206022322.AA02984@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Tue, 2 Jun 1992 13:22:31 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Jun 2 19:24:58 1992
From: merce@iguana.uucp (Jim Mercer)
Subject: Re: Anonymous Contact Service @ wizvax
Message-ID: <1992May30.055412.20866@iguana.uucp>
Date: Sat, 30 May 92 05:54:12 GMT
In article <1992May29.175240.4686@ccu.umanitoba.ca> mills@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Gary Mills) writes:
>Can somebody give me some information on wizvax.methuen.ma.us, and
>their anonymous posting facility? Authorities here would like to know
>the origin of some articles posted to alt.sex.bondage. What do other
>news administrators think of anonymous posting?
ha!
tell them to go stuff themselves, at least until they have some grasp of
what they are dealing with.
finding the posters of anonymous stuff, is sort of like trying to track down
who spray painted grafitti on walls.
geez, i hate when people stick their noses into stuff they have no clue about.
don't the mounties have a computer crime unit? don't they have some idea
what usenet is about?
--
Jim Mercer Reptilian Research merce@iguana.reptiles.org +1 519 893-6085
the octopus's secret wish
is not to be a formal fish
he dreams that some time he may grow
another set of legs or so
and be a broadway music show
-- Don Marquis, archy and mehitabel, 1927
From caf-talk Caf Jun 2 19:25:04 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [news.admin, et al.] Re: Anonymous Contact Service @ wizvax
Message-ID: <9206022322.AA02993@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Tue, 2 Jun 1992 13:22:38 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Jun 2 19:25:04 1992
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.config
Subject: Re: Anonymous Contact Service @ wizvax
Message-ID: <1992May30.210158.13002@mtholyoke.edu>
Date: 30 May 92 21:01:58 GMT
In article <1992May29.175240.4686@ccu.umanitoba.ca> mills@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Gary Mills) writes:
>Can somebody give me some information on wizvax.methuen.ma.us, and
>their anonymous posting facility? Authorities here would like to know
~~~~~~~~~~~
>the origin of some articles posted to alt.sex.bondage. What do other
>news administrators think of anonymous posting?
Authorities? On NetNews? There are no authorities. The only thing any-
one has authority over is whether or not they will receive and redistribute
any subset of the global NewsNet on their own machines or over their own
networks.
The point behind an anonymous posting service is for the posters to
remain anonymous. Most people who do things anonymously would not
like any self-proclaimed "authorities" to know their identity. Isn't
that obvious? Why did you even bother _asking_..?
As to what I think of anonymous posting... I think it has its place.
Obviously anyone posting to alt.sex.bondage with their real identity
exposes themselves to serious discrimination. Does that mean that
such controversial fora should not exist?
--
Jurgen Botz | Internet: JBotz@mtholyoke.edu
Academic Systems Consultant | Bitnet: JBotz@mhc.bitnet
Mount Holyoke College | Voice: (US) 413-538-2375 (daytime)
South Hadley, MA, USA | Snail Mail: J. Botz, 01075-0629
From caf-talk Caf Jun 2 19:26:43 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [news.admin, et al.] Re: Anonymous Contact Service @ wizvax
Message-ID: <9206022324.AA03031@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Tue, 2 Jun 1992 13:24:19 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Jun 2 19:26:43 1992
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.config
From: pep@pcn.org (Phil Pavarini, Jr.)
Subject: Re: Anonymous Contact Service @ wizvax
Message-ID:
Date: Mon, 01 Jun 92 14:11:50 BST
pep@pavnet.pcn.org (Phil Pavarini Jr.) writes:
> I would suggest, however, that
> if Canadian officials feel that something on Usenet is offensive -- or even
> illegal (in Canada) -- they should ban the newsgroups distributing that
> information. Stop the information from getting into Canada, I don't know
> how.
Nor do they; that's the problem.
mathew
--
Down, boy! There's a good dogma.
From caf-talk Caf Jun 2 21:34:31 1992
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: USENET Readership report for May 92
Message-ID: <1992Jun2.232934.12243@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: 2 Jun 92 23:29:34 GMT
[Excerpts from a post in news.lists. - Carl]
reid@decwrl.DEC.COM (Brian Reid) writes:
>This is the full set of data from the USENET readership report for May 92.
>Explanations of the figures are in a companion posting.
>
> +-- Estimated total number of people who read the group, worldwide.
> | +-- Actual number of readers in sampled population
> | | +-- Propagation: how many sites receive this group at all
> | | | +-- Recent traffic (messages per month)
> | | | | +-- Recent traffic (kilobytes per month)
> | | | | | +-- Crossposting percentage
> | | | | | | +-- Cost ratio: $US/month/rdr
> | | | | | | | +-- Share: % of newsrders
> | | | | | | | | who read this group.
> V V V V V V V V
> 1 260000 5598 68% 2185 5748.2 25% 0.04 11.3% alt.sex
> 2 250000 5471 83% 984 2004.1 15% 0.02 11.0% misc.jobs.offered
> 3 230000 4890 88% 8 130.8 100% 0.00 9.9% news.announce.newusers
> 4 230000 4880 83% 1309 1671.8 35% 0.01 9.8% misc.forsale
> 5 220000 4743 81% 64 110.8 0% 0.00 9.6% rec.humor.funny
> 6 190000 4051 71% 46 1183.9 2% 0.01 8.2% rec.arts.erotica
> 7 170000 3770 81% 2441 4602.4 11% 0.05 7.6% rec.humor
> 8 150000 3271 80% 7 170.5 57% 0.00 6.6% news.answers
> 9 150000 3222 89% 1452 2907.9 17% 0.04 6.5% news.groups
> 10 140000 3048 88% 96 777.4 100% 0.01 6.1% news.announce.newgroups
> 11 140000 3034 81% 1947 2254.8 18% 0.03 6.1% misc.forsale.computers
> 12 140000 3003 64% 1412 3755.0 4% 0.04 6.1% alt.sex.bondage
> 13 140000 2983 86% 1092 2070.7 17% 0.03 6.0% comp.lang.c
> 14 130000 2789 85% 572 1067.4 13% 0.02 5.6% comp.graphics
> 15 130000 2783 51% 1162 49129.7 8% 0.47 5.6% alt.binaries.pictures.erotica
[...]
> 385 36000 778 78% 172 464.9 22% 0.02 1.6% comp.org.eff.talk
[...]
> 615 25000 537 56% 200 631.6 18% 0.03 1.1% alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
[...]
>1065 9700 210 48% 3 162.3 0% 0.02 0.4% alt.comp.acad-freedom.news
[...]
>1813 46 1 1% 45 448.2 0% 0.24 0.0% ar.unix-wizards
>1814 46 1 1% 6 10.0 83% 0.01 0.0% uiuc.sys.dec
>1815 46 1 0% 90 252.9 0% 0.06 0.0% nyu.sunmanagers
>1816 46 1 0% 65 855.7 0% 0.42 0.0% ar.info-unix
>1817 46 1 0% 5 5.4 0% 0.00 0.0% nyu.kerberos
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Jun 2 22:16:55 1992
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.censorship,alt.revisionism
Subject: [UPI] Court stays clear of fray over free speech, Holocaust history
Message-ID: <1992Jun3.020107.19978@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: 3 Jun 92 02:01:07 GMT
Copyright 1992 by UPI. Reposted with permission from the ClariNet
Electronic Newspaper newsgroup clari.news.demostration, et al. For
more info on ClariNet, write to info@clarinet.com or phone
1-800-USE-NETS.
From: clarinews@clarinet.com (GREG HENDERSON)
Newsgroups: clari.news.group.jews,clari.news.demonstration
Message-ID:
Subject: Court stays clear of fray over free speech, Holocaust history
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 92 9:57:36 PDT
WASHINGTON (UPI) -- The Supreme Court Monday let stand a decision that
the city of Los Angeles and a number of private organizations can be
sued for allegedly conspiring to ensure the cancellation of a scheduled
speech by a ``Holocaust revisionist.''
The court, without comment, refused to entertain the delicate case
pitting the First Amendment and contractual rights of the ``revisionist''
against the free speech rights of those who did not want his message
espoused at a public event.
In 1984, David McCalden signed two contracts with the California
Library Association to present an exhibit and separate program on his
revisionist views at the CLA's 86th Annual Conference in Los Angeles.
McCalden believed the Nazi murder of millions of Jews in the 1930s
and 1940s was a hoax.
One of his programs was entitled: ``Free Speech and the Holocaust --
An overview from several speakers of the severe censorship and
intellectual terrorism which inhibits any objective, open discussion of
this controversial subject.''
Shortly after McCalden signed his contracts, the American Jewish
Committee and others brought pressure on the CLA to cancel the
contracts.
McCalden claims CLA representatives were told privately that if his
contracts were not cancelled, the conference would be disrupted,
property damaged and the CLA ``wiped out.''
The Los Angeles City Council, meanwhile, passed a unanimous
resolution requesting that McCalden be removed from the program and
severing the city's participation in the program.
And the director of the CLA was told by Los Angeles Police that he
had received death threats, and that it would not be able to provide
adequate police protection during the conference.
To add to the pressure, the Simon Wiesenthal Center for Holocaust
Studies allegedly was allowed to rent a conference room adjacent to that
>from which McCalden was scheduled to speak, purportedly to disrupt the
program.
The CLA eventually cancelled its contracts with McCalden prior to the
conference.
McCalden sued, claiming the city, the Wiesenthal Center and others
illegally conspired to deprive him of his First Amendment free speech
rights through ``extortionate threats.''
McCalden contends that by privately threatening the CLA with property
damage and violence, and then offering to remove the threat if the
contracts were canceled, the groups broke the law.
A federal district court threw out the suit, but a three-judge panel
of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 ruling, said McCalden
could pursue the charges.
The entire 9th Circuit later rejected a request that it hear the
case, with five judges dissenting.
Los Angeles and the Wiesenthal Center claim the 9th Circuit is
allowing a lawsuit to proceed against them simply because they expressed
their views.
McCalden's wife, who has pursued the suit since her husband's death,
said that while groups are entitled to boycott or express disagreement
with a conference program, they are not free under the First Amendment
to threaten violence in private conversations.
``There is no First Amendment right to intimidate by threats of
violence or to magnify threats of violence by refusing to provide police
protection,'' attorneys for McCalden wrote the high court. ``Nor is
there a First Amendment right intentionally to organize a violent
demonstration or to plan disruption of a conference to prevent someone
>from speaking.''
McCalden's opponents asked the high court to take the case and decide
whether political and religious organizations can be sued for
threatening a counter demonstration that does not constitute
``incitement to imminent lawless action.''
The Anti-Defamation League, joined by a diverse group including the
National Association of Evangelicals in a friend-of-the-court brief,
said the case centers on ``exactly what speech interfering with
contractual relations is protected by the First Amendment.''
------
91-1643 The Simon Wiesenthal Center for Holocaust Studies, et al., vs.
Viviana McCalden, as administrator of the estate of David McCalden
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Jun 3 04:03:33 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: DDC1@jaguar.uofs.edu (Dave D. Cawley, a De Leon Socialist)
Subject: Add comp-academic-freedom-batch
Message-ID: <920603040346.cb0@JAGUAR.UCS.UOFS.EDU>
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 1992 00:03:46 GMT
Please add me to the batch.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dave D. Cawley | Where a social revolution is pending and,
University Of Scranton | for whatever reason, is not accomplished,
ddc1@jaguar.uofs.edu | reaction is the alternative.
ddc1@SCRANTON | -Daniel De Leon
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From caf-talk Caf Jun 3 04:27:26 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kd1hz@anomaly.sbs.risc.net (Michael P. Deignan)
Subject: Re: newsgroups ban
Date: Tue, 02 Jun 1992 22:12:59 GMT
Message-ID: <1992Jun02.221259.28683@anomaly.sbs.risc.net>
rramji4@mamut.wlu.ca (ruby ramji u) writes:
>since the incident at university of manitoba, i have
>been unable to read any articles from the alt.sex et al
>groups. this restriction also has cut me off from
>alt.censorship.
Oh, so the government says you can't get a personal newsfeed from
one of a dozen different service providers too?
No?
Oh, I see, in other words you're just pissed 'cuz someone took your
freeloading readership privs away...
MD
--
-- Michael P. Deignan, KD1HZ / VE: ARRL, W5YI VECs
-- Domain: kd1hz@anomaly.sbs.risc.net / --------------------------------
-- UUCP: ...!uunet!anomaly!kd1hz / I'm not a bigot,
-- Telebit: +1 401 455 0347 / I hate everyone...
From caf-talk Caf Jun 3 07:32:28 1992
From: allens@yang.earlham.edu (Allen Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.sex.bondage,alt.censorship,alt.sex,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: Congratulations! You've made the evening new
Message-ID: <1992Jun3.004645.18862@yang.earlham.edu>
Date: 3 Jun 92 05:46:45 GMT
In article <13573@umd5.umd.edu>, glenn@moeng2.minc.umd.edu (D. Glenn Arthur Jr.) writes:
> In article <1992May28.010057.18609@cs.sfu.ca> jamie@cs.sfu.ca (Jamie Andrews) writes:
>> The anti-censorship weenies can bleat all they want about
>>how we *should* be able to show *absolutely anything* on a.s.b.
>>and alt.sex. But if that attitude, and the continuing stream
>>of non-consensual sex articles on these newsgroups, is going to
>>just result in the blockage of alt.sex and alt.sex.bondage to
>>most institutions, I think we should forget it.
>
> (*ahem*) I'm not at all convinced that removing all fiction dealing
> with nonconsensual activities would gain us one whit of safety in
> this matter. You're assuming that the folks who would shut us down
> can tell the difference. C'mon, they see something about techniques
> for tying someone down, which implements hurt most, how to hit someone
> without leaving marks, and unless they're already aware of the ways
> we deal with these things, and accepting of the idea that folks could
> be into these things for fun and still be sane, they're going to
> react the same way as they will to those stories.
>
> Or have I just gone from naive to cynical?
>
>
> We can -mutter- about how we _should_ be able to post anything we
> want, then turn around and knuckle under to this threat, but for
> anyone who _believes_ we _should_ be able to post non-PC fantasies
> I ask this:
>
> Are you going to roll over and let the opressors slit your belly,
> or are you going to stand up and fight like a Human?
>
> Personally, I have problems with giving in.
>
Quite. In the US, we've got a proud tradition of standing against
those who violate our rights; a primary explication of this tradition is
in the Declaration of Independence. The US needs to remember that
tradition, and other countries (if it isn't present in their pasts) need
to establish such a tradition.
>
>> If you seriously think that any anti-censorship interest
>>group could argue for "Cindy's Torment" in the national media
>>and the student newspapers, and succeed... well then, I have a
>>bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you.
>
> Want to see me try? 'Cause whether or not it's doomed to failure,
> _somebody_ has to try.
I wish I could do more to oppose such things, but about all I can
do on a personal level is vote for rational types (Libertarian Party) and
oppose it where I see it in person.
>> Come on folks. Let's create alt.sex.nonconsensual, let
>>whoever wants to block it block it,
>
> Fine, if you want.
>
>>and *cancel* all articles
>>in the other newsgroups that involve nonconsensual sex.
>
> Excuse me, but _that_ *is* _censorship_. It's also the _wrong_
> way to go about it. If you want a moderated a.s.b, feel free
> to start a moderated newsgroup and invite people to post to it.
> If it winds up being more popular than a.s.b, more power to you.
> But the circumstances under which a forged cancel message might
> be considered justified are few and limited.
I would say that among those circumstances are cancelling material
from someone who is improperly forging cancel messages. It's the principle
of prisons and punishment: you take away another's rights, your rights
should be taken away in recompensense.
-Allen
From caf-talk Caf Jun 3 07:32:29 1992
From: allens@yang.earlham.edu (Allen Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.censorship
Subject: Re: [alt.sex.bondage, et al.] Re: Congratulation
Message-ID: <1992Jun3.005733.18865@yang.earlham.edu>
Date: 3 Jun 92 05:57:33 GMT
In article <9205312338.AA17722@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
> From: joel@moho.sdsu.edu (Joel Wedberg)
> : nation that blocks alt.sex.* will be boycotted by myself and as many
> : others as I can inform and as many others who wish technical
> -Steve Walz
>
> Wait - you mean to propose that, under [your?] leadership, any "others"
> (nations? individuals? corporate entities?) will boycott (buying? selling?
> sexual acitivity? eclipses?) ...?
> You mean...any "others who wish technical" information with the U.S.
> are on board with this? You've already got signatures from Iraq, Britain, IBM,
> the Ghost of Elvis, Space Aliens, Spinal Tap, Pemex, and the Chinese Acrobats?
>
> Aww, c'mon - you're having me on, right? But....you're so earnest.
What he's meaning is that if a nation engages in censorship, it
should not be helped in any way whatsoever, unless the help is help to
being non-censoring. Similar to why I won't do biological warfare
research: I don't want genetics misused in that way.
-Allen
From caf-talk Caf Jun 3 07:32:30 1992
From: allens@yang.earlham.edu (Allen Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.censorship,alt.sex.bondage
Subject: Re: [alt.sex.bondage] Re: Congratulations! You'
Message-ID: <1992Jun3.010212.18866@yang.earlham.edu>
Date: 3 Jun 92 06:02:12 GMT
In article <9206010206.AA19080@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
> From: rstevew@deeptht.santa-cruz.ca.us (Richard Steven Walz)
> In article <73129@ut-emx.uucp> jrobi@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Jim Robinson) writes:
>>> D. Glenn Arthur Jr., The Human Vibrator, glenn@bessel.umd.edu
>>says:
>>
>>> Many people who don't care enough to think about the evils of
>>> censorship do want to read nonconsensual fantasies about things
>>> they'd never want to do in real life. They, like me (who wants
>>> to read such stories (if well written) and _do_ care about the
>>> moral and ethical ramifications of censorship), will be denied
>>> access to stories for no better reason than the hope that if
>>> we throw a sacrifice to those who would censor us then they'll
>>> leave us alone.
>>>
>>> Bah. Humbug. Is that a sacrifice, or is it an appetizer?
>>
>>Haven't said it better lately, so I had Glenn say it again (after
>>the predicted Death of the Net there'll be plenty of bandwidth, so
>>I'm using what I can now.)
>>Jim Robinson jrobi@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu
>>Trust me, I'm a lawyer (but nothing written here is legal advice.)
> -----
> A lawyer, just what we need. Aren't phone conversations private and
> protected? And aren't most stories received over the phone, thus
> making them as protected as the speech of a deaf person on his TDD?
> And if the net is comprised of these nodes of phone users, isn't there
> simply nothing that can be done about it here, except a lot of
> corporate and university broo-haha that will likely come to nothing if
> people start calling all sorts of literature non-consensual, like the
> taming of the shrew, or the rape of the lock, (I couldn't resist). And
> in fact isn't almost all fiction made of non-consensual acts like
> murder, etcetera, including soap operas!!!!! Now get the soap crowd
> interested and you have a voting block!!!!!!!
That's what should be, not what neccessarily will happen. In the
US, for instance, things happen such as confiscation of property without a
trial (civil forfeiture) for imagined, unconvicted crimes. The US
government regularly ignores the Bill of Rights, and the Canadian
government doesn't even have an effective Bill of Rights. "corporate and
university broo-haha"? Most of the net is composed of corporations and
universities.
-Allen
From caf-talk Caf Jun 3 08:11:40 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: NEELY_MP@DARWIN.NTU.EDU.AU (Mark P. Neely, Northern Territory University)
Subject: Sexual Harrassment & Computers
Message-ID: <920603213701.2020035d@DARWIN.NTU.EDU.AU>
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 1992 21:37:01 GMT
I pulled this one from Ethics-L...
From: Rich England
"Online Learning Can Be Electrifying"
- - The original note follows - -
Date: Sat, 30 May 1992 22:06 CDT
From: Elliott Mitchell
Thought the netters would be interested in an item from this morning's
paper.
By Leigh Ann Eagleston
THE TENNESSEAN, Nashville, Tenn. May 30, 1992
A brainstorming session gone bad has led to a sexual harassment
complaint against Vanderbilt University which was filed with the
U.S. Department of Education, a Vanderbilt official said
yesterday.
The incident occurred during a discussion, via computer, by 19
members of a Masters of Business Administration class at the Owen
School of Management, said Martin S. Geisel, dean of the school.
The computer system used by the students, designed by a
Vanderbilt professor, allows quick and anonymous exchange of
ideas through a three-way computer screen.
"Unfortunately, some of the students in the session chose to
brainstorm on the CM3 system by keying in offensive remarks
directed toward other members of their class, men and women,"
during a Feb. 7 meeting, Geisel said.
Some of the comments were sexual in nature, a source said.
"One woman student in particular was the subject of abusive
language by her classmante, " Geisel said. She is the student
who filed a complaint with Vanderbilt and the U.S. Department of
Education, he said.
The U.S. Department of Education has received one complaint
against Vanderbilt, said Rodger Murphey, a spokesman for the U.S.
Department of Education.
The department's investigation is in the planning stages and will
include a campus visit, as well as document review, Murphey said.
The Department of Education and the university refused to
identify the student.
The Department of Education had planned to issue its findings on
Vanderbilt by the end of August, but it delays investigations
when witnesses are inaccessible, Murphey said. The computer
system designer, Bezalel (Ben) Gavish, is out of the country for
several weeks.
"Our experience has been that schools are more than willing and
eager to get into compliance when they're found to have an out-
of-compliance situation, Murphey said.
If a school refused to comply with federal guidelines, it loses
its federal financial aid, Murphey said.
Since Vanderbilt learned of the complaint, a meeting has taken
place at which the student who claimed harassment confronted her
classmates, Geisel said. At that meeting Gavish, who was present
during the incident, apologized to the student and later sent a
letter of apology to her.
Geisel said the school will cooperate with the investigation of
this "regrettable incident."
Of course (he said smugly), it's the business school, not Peabody (looking
for wood on which to knock...)
____
Mark Neely neely_mp@darwin.ntu.edu.au
Articled Clerk & Tutor - Law School, NTU, Darwin NT Australia
DISCLAIMER: The views expressed herein are my own. They do not reflect the views
of my firm nor those of the University. Unless otherwise indicated, the contents
are not a formal legal opinion or advice.
From caf-talk Caf Jun 3 10:22:42 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [eff.mail.ethics-l] More S/H
Message-ID: <199206031420.AA02810@eff.org>
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 1992 06:20:35 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Jun 3 10:22:42 1992
From: RENGLAND@SNYESCVA.BITNET (Rich England)
Subject: More S/H
Message-ID: <199206030410.AA27160@eff.org>
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 1992 04:02:00 GMT
Another cross-posting.
Rich England
Empire State College
[RENGLAND@SNYESCVA.BITNET]
"Online Learning Can Be Electrifying"
Subj: Re: Now it's S/H on CMC!
From: Sam Lanfranco
In-Reply-To: Message of Sun, 31 May 1992 14:12:25 EDT from
Since it would appear that the S/H incident occured on a system where the
students could do anonymous postings, it presents one more reason to ask
if there is a solid reason for having anonymous accounts. I know that the
argument in favour of such an arrangement is that people will be more
willing to participate and less inhibited. I am not sure that I believe that
and I suspect that instructor time is better spent helping individual students
overcome the fear of being identified with their postings, and teaching the
other students tolerance.
Also, when we (York University) built our code of conduct for computer use
we wrote a positive document on what constitutes good citizenship and good
behaviour on the system, rather than a negative one listing what one cannot
do. I suspect that a student under our code would have had second thoughts
about S/H on line. With a "DON'T DO" code they just get legalistic and say
such behavior was not prohibited. Civics beats the penal system every time.
Sam Lanfranco
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Jun 3 10:22:53 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [eff.mail.ethics-l] 3rd S/H
Message-ID: <199206031420.AA02867@eff.org>
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 1992 06:20:44 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Jun 3 10:22:53 1992
From: RENGLAND@SNYESCVA.BITNET (Rich England)
Subject: 3rd S/H
Message-ID: <199206030412.AA27212@eff.org>
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 1992 04:03:00 GMT
My last cross-posting.
Rich England
Empire State College
[RENGLAND@SNYESCVA.BITNET]
"Online Learning Can Be Electrifying"
- - The original note follows - -
Date: Sun, 31 May 92 19:44:44 MST
From: Skip Knox
Here's a contribution from the BBS world, an arena that has dealt with
messaging for quite a long time now (by PC standards). I've been a
sysop for about six years, and my strict rule is: no handles (that is,
no nicknames by which everyone else on the board knows you).
My impression is that those boards that allow handles tend to attract
juvenile members (whether chronologically young or not), have a far
higher incidence of flame wars and Turettes-like outbursts of
obscenity, and in general are emotionally charged. Where people use
their real names, those tendencies are at least moderated. When the
sysop exercises control and sets the tone for discourse, then things
can get downright civil.
A professor who opens up a forum for discussion among students and who
does not moderate that discussion is abdicating his or her role as
teacher. I would always insist on real names, I would set the tone for
the class to be formal and polite, and should someone become insulting
I would hold them publicly responsible.
Is this any less than what one would do in a live classroom?
Ellis "Skip" Knox dusknox@idbsu.idbsu.edu
PC Coordinator & Faculty Computer Lab Supervisor
Professor of History
Boise State University Boise, Idaho
- - The original note follows - -
Date: Sun, 31 May 1992 22:39 EDT
From: Rich England
I have to ask the same question as Sam Lanfranco - is there any 'solid
reason for having anonymous accounts?' I can't think of any valid
purpose.
Rich England
Empire State College
[RENGLAND@SNYESCVA.BITNET]
"Online Learning Can Be Electrifying"
- - The original note follows - -
From: "Gerry Santoro - CAC/PSU 814-863-7896"
Subject: [cmk1] Sexual Harrassment & Computers
Message-ID:
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 92 09:19 EDT
Gee, I wondered when this would come up.
This kind of thing has happened with our students as well -- although it
typically is in the form of interactive messages. For example, a male
student might be at a public lab and notice an attractive female student at
another terminal. The male student determines the female student's userid
from her physical location (we have EXEC's that allow this) then he sends her
a number of unwanted messages -- thinking that he is anonymous and protected.
I give my students a different EXEC that allows them to determine who
sent them the message. I also teach them how to do console spooling so they
can capture any such messages. Then when any such messages come they can bring
the evidence to me and I contact the offender. So far (in perhaps a dozen
cases) the victim is merely annoyed and wants the messages to stop. The
perpetrator has (so far) always 'fessed up and usually thinks this is a joke.
Now, I realize that this may *not* be taken as a joke by all victims. Consider
the case where a woman who has been attacked (physically) in the past gets
a message like this. It certainly can result in REAL fear and harm.
On the other hand, how many of you have used RELAY, IRC or other multi-user
CHAT systems? The vast majority of the communications on these channels
(between students) are sexual in nature and would certainly be considered
to be harassment by someone.
The interesting thing in the reported case is that lack of a specific
perpetrator (via the anonymity feature) allows the victim to sue the
institution rather than the perpretrator. Although I do not know law
very well this is much like suing the telephone company because you received
a harrassing phone call.
>Since it would appear that the S/H incident occured on a system where the
>students could do anonymous postings, it presents one more reason to ask
>if there is a solid reason for having anonymous accounts. I know that the
>argument in favour of such an arrangement is that people will be more
>willing to participate and less inhibited. I am not sure that I believe that
>and I suspect that instructor time is better spent helping individual students
>overcome the fear of being identified with their postings, and teaching the
>other students tolerance.
Nice suggestion - but how do we do this? Helping students to overcome their
fear of posting controversial ideas is a disservice if the fear is warranted.
Also, while I agree that we should certainly encourage tolerance, I must
ask by whom and of what? Should a woman be tolerant of unwelcome statements
because they were given innocently instead of maliciously?
Not only are these ideas (tolerance, etiquette) quite fuzzy, unfortunately
the law is fuzzy as well. While there certainly is harassment and such
occurring, there are also groups who seek to fan the fires of such
controversey.
Up to this point the use of the networks have been policed by peer pressure.
(For example, sites whose users abuse usenet may lose their news feeds.) But
as we add our students to the nets (and we should) this will get lots more
complicated.
gerry santoro "Together, you and I, we hold the key
academic computing/speech communication to all the answers -- let go."
penn state university YES
- - The original note follows - -
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 92 11:28 EDT
From: "Gerry Santoro - CAC/PSU 814-863-7896"
>I have to ask the same question as Sam Lanfranco - is there any 'solid
>reason for having anonymous accounts?' I can't think of any valid
>purpose.
What do you consider to be a 'solid reason'? I assume fear of retribution
is not solid enough?
Why is it that many persons of gay persuasion choose to remain 'in the
closet'? Could it be because of their very real fears?
The fact remains that there is one very solid reason -- you simply will
NOT get students to honestly state their opinions on controversial
issues without having some form of anonymity.
I am willing to concede that, all things considered, perhaps this is for
the better. The instructor, as moderator, could steer the discussion
away from topics where lack of anonymity could be the basis for incomplete
or inhibited submissions.
I can't avoid the temptation to make one more illustration. How many
of you have tenure? How many of you are as yet untenured but in a
tenure track?
If you are in, or have been in, a tenure track position you should be
quite aware of the need to speak 'carefully' lest what you say be used
against you later. Once you get tenure you also get a certain amount
of your freedom of speech back.
gerry santoro |
academic computing/speech commuication -(*)-
penn state university |
ps - Anyone who knows me knows that I speak/dress as I wish (although by choice
I try to refrain from insulting people). However I am also considered
something of a ronin.
- - The original note follows - -
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 1992 11:13 CDT
From: Elliott Mitchell
Sorry, the "S/H" is my construction, it's not a standard netter's
abbreviation, IMHO. It stands for Sexual Harassment and I used it only
becuase I was afraid the fully-spelled words would be truncated by the mail
servers. IDBN (I'll do better, next time!)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Elliott Mitchell mitcheec@vuctrvax.Vanderbilt.edu
Peabody College at Vanderbilt University
Nashville, Tenn. Home of the Grand Ol Opry
- - The original note follows - -
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 1992 13:43 EST
From: R_HIGGINS@UTOROISE.BITNET
Although there may be appropriate uses for anonymity in CMC (eg:
Delphi groups, or role playing (educational or otherwise)), I
have always asserted:
The other side of the anonymity coin is >> ACCOUNTABILITY <<
--> r_higgins@utoroise.bitnet <--
ROBERT NORMAN HIGGINS, Ph.D. . HD
Ontario Institute for /+ _ _;
Studies in Education (^)\/ (^)- . . . .
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Jun 3 10:45:47 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [soc.culture.canada] Re: Congratulations! You've made the evening news.
Message-ID: <9206031443.AA06654@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 1992 04:43:24 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Jun 3 10:45:47 1992
From: kiisaka@csi.uottawa.ca (Ken Iisaka (the mad pianist))
Subject: Re: Congratulations! You've made the evening news.
Message-ID: <1992Jun3.062506.27232@csi.uottawa.ca>
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 92 06:25:06 GMT
University of Ottawa, Computer Science Department's privilege to access the
alt. hierarchy was revoked on June 1st. The system administrator cites
"suggestions" from the university administration and the Manitoba case.
Where the defensitve position of the university is reasonably understandable,
it is quite sad.
Does anyone have information on the Manitoba case? I understand that RCMP was
involved.
--
Ken Iisaka kiisaka@csi.uottawa.ca : So, you don't think you live up to
Artificial Intelligence Laboratory : other people's expectations?
University of Ottawa, Ont., Canada : Oh, cheer up,
H: +1 613 237 6642 W: 564 8155 : Neither does God...
From caf-talk Caf Jun 3 11:19:44 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [news.admin, et al.] Re: Anonymous Contact Service @ wizvax
Message-ID: <9206031517.AA06988@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 1992 05:17:22 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Jun 3 11:19:44 1992
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.config,alt.sex.bondage,alt.censorship
Subject: Re: Anonymous Contact Service @ wizvax
Message-ID: <1992Jun3.031324.18887@yang.earlham.edu>
Date: 3 Jun 92 08:13:24 GMT
In article <1992May29.175240.4686@ccu.umanitoba.ca>, mills@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Gary Mills) writes:
> Can somebody give me some information on wizvax.methuen.ma.us, and
> their anonymous posting facility? Authorities here would like to know
> the origin of some articles posted to alt.sex.bondage. What do other
> news administrators think of anonymous posting?
>
Authorites should not be permitted to know the origin of such
articles. If anyone traces back articles and informs authorities, then
that person should be disconnected from the net, and any other retaliatory
actions takable should be taken.
-Allen
From caf-talk Caf Jun 3 11:20:04 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [news.admin, et al.] Re: Anonymous Contact Service @ wizvax
Message-ID: <9206031517.AA06997@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 1992 05:17:41 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Jun 3 11:20:04 1992
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.censorship,alt.sex.bondage
Subject: Re: Anonymous Contact Service @ wizvax
Message-ID: <1992Jun3.031727.18888@yang.earlham.edu>
Date: 3 Jun 92 08:17:27 GMT
In article <1992May30.030911.12879@pavnet.pcn.org>, pep@pavnet.pcn.org (Phil Pavarini Jr.) writes:
> As quoted from <1992May29.175240.4686@ccu.umanitoba.ca> by mills@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Gary Mills):
>> Can somebody give me some information on wizvax.methuen.ma.us, and
>> their anonymous posting facility? Authorities here would like to know
>> the origin of some articles posted to alt.sex.bondage. What do other
>> news administrators think of anonymous posting?
>
>I have nothing against Canada, or its government. Actually, I know very little
>about the actual Canadian governmental system. I would suggest, however, that
>if Canadian officials feel that something on Usenet is offensive -- or even
>illegal (in Canada) -- they should ban the newsgroups distributing that
>information. Stop the information from getting into Canada, I don't know how.
>--- but I DO know that freedom of the press is something VERY important to us
>here in the United States, if adults want to exchange steamy S&M sex stories--
>that is their RIGHT as defined in the 1st Amendment of the Bill of Rights in
>the United States Constitution.
Quite. However, I would say that canadian officials should not
eliminate such newsgroups, nor should anyone cooperate with their
requests. Cross-posting and mailing lists are quite effective means of
evading censorship. Although the first puts a load on the newsgroups
cross-posted to, if the people on the newsgroup give permission I'd say
it's justified.
>
> In summary -- if you don't like it, don't get it and don't read it.
And the Canadian authorities and other puritans should realize
this and not try to ban the newsgroups.
-Allen
From caf-talk Caf Jun 3 11:24:07 1992
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.censorship
Subject: Re: Congratulations! You've made the evening news.
Message-ID: <1992Jun3.151347.31368@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: 3 Jun 92 15:13:47 GMT
In soc.culture.canada, kiisaka@csi.uottawa.ca (Ken Iisaka (the mad
pianist)) writes:
>University of Ottawa, Computer Science Department's privilege to access the
>alt. hierarchy was revoked on June 1st. The system administrator cites
>"suggestions" from the university administration and the Manitoba case.
[...]
Yikes! The U. of Manitoba only banned alt.sex* and it has already
restored at least one newsgroup, alt.sexual.recovery.
Enclosed is a reference to perhaps useful information from the
Computers and Academic Freedom archive.
- Carl
ANNOTATED REFERENCES
(All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.)
=================
umanitoba.edu
=================
Information related to the alt.sex* ban at the Univerity
of Manitoba. Including:
1) The Canadian Library Association's Intellectual Freedom Statement
2) A statement arguing that newsgroups should be selected like library
material (w/ U.S. centered references)
3) An open letter from Brad Templeton to the U. of Manitoba
4) Information on the Canadian definition of obscenity
5) My comments on the U. of Manitoba's application of this definition.
6) Information about the Computers and Academic Freedom discussion group.
=================
=================
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/umanitoba.edu
To get the files by 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 umanitoba.edu
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Jun 3 14:13:59 1992
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.sex,alt.sex.bondage
From: brims@bnkl01.astro.ucla.edu (George Brims)
Subject: Re: Congratulations! You've made the evening new
Message-ID: <1992Jun3.105049.18924@mic.ucla.edu>
Date: 3 Jun 92 10:50:48 PDT
In article <1992Jun3.004645.18862@yang.earlham.edu> allens@yang.earlham.edu (Allen Smith) writes:
> rational types (Libertarian Party) and
Oxymoron of the year!!!!
George Brims
From caf-talk Caf Jun 3 14:47:38 1992
From: rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.sex,alt.sex.bondage
Subject: Re: Congratulations! You've made the evening new
Message-ID:
Date: 3 Jun 92 18:19:59 GMT
brims@bnkl01.astro.ucla.edu (George Brims) writes:
>In article <1992Jun3.004645.18862@yang.earlham.edu> allens@yang.earlham.edu (Allen Smith) writes:
>> rational types (Libertarian Party) and
>Oxymoron of the year!!!!
What, UCLA graduate?
--
Anyone who goes to a psychiatrist ought to have his head examined. -- Goldwyn
From caf-talk Caf Jun 3 14:54:00 1992
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: colin@eecg.toronto.edu (Colin Plumb)
Subject: Re: Congratulations! You've made the evening news.
Message-ID: <1992Jun3.143504.1334@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu>
Date: 3 Jun 92 18:35:05 GMT
In article <1992Jun3.062506.27232@csi.uottawa.ca> kiisaka@csi.uottawa.ca (Ken Iisaka (the mad pianist)) writes:
>Where the defensitve position of the university is reasonably understandable,
>it is quite sad.
Roland Penner, the dean of law at the University of Manitoba, who
presumably has both knowledge about and interest in the case said on
CBC radio (The World at Six, 27 May):
> "Even if the computer services director was merely passive in the sense
> that he knew about it, might have done something to stop it but
> doesn't, he hasn't committed a crime."
In other words, the university won't get in legal trouble for forwarding it.
(I don't trust that CBC radio report; I counted 11 errors of fact in the parts
that I do know something about, but it was a direct quote and pretty
unambiguous, given the context was computer pornography.
>Does anyone have information on the Manitoba case? I understand that RCMP was
>involved.
The reference to the RCMP in jamie@cs.sfu.ca's posting was erroneous;
that was someone from Winnipeg. (Probably Inspector Ray Johns, vice squad,
+1 204 986-6277.) I can't say for sure the RCMP isn't involved, but I have
not heard anything that indicates it that did not stem from Jamie's
misattribution. You can call Inspector Johns to check, if you like.
I spoke to the Inspector last week, and I do not know of any charges that have
been laid, searches or anything unfriendly. Well, unfriendly looks and
opinions, but no unfriendly acts.
It appears to have died in the media already, so I see no reason to worry
about it overmuch. (And boy was I scared for a while - I posted some of
those things Ray Johns said the originators of could be charged for.)
--
-Colin
From caf-talk Caf Jun 3 16:05:52 1992
From: colin@eecg.toronto.edu (Colin Plumb)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,soc.culture.canada,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: Congratulations! You've made the evening news.
Message-ID: <1992Jun3.154644.2195@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu>
Date: 3 Jun 92 19:46:45 GMT
The other day, I went to the metro Central Reference Library and dug up
an annotated criminal code. Some parts confuse me, particularly
sections (2)(c) (I thought RU-486 ws legal), (2)(d) (penicillin works,
as do other things), and (8) (Which sounds like COPS on TV), but the
law, as people have often observed, is an ass. I guess nobody's
bothered to delete the silly bits.
Section (8) is the important one: the definition of obscenity.
(This is typed in from handwritten notes. I tried to be particularly
careful with the punctuation, but I'm sure there's at least one typo
below.)
# Part V - Sexual offences, public morals and disorderly conduct
# Offences tending to corrupt morals.
# 163. (1) Every one commits an offence who
# (a) makes, prints, publishes, distributes, circulates, or who has in
# his posession for the purpose of publication, distribution or
# circulation any obscene written matter, picture, model, phonograph
# record or other thing whatever; or
# (a) makes, prints, publishes, distributes, circulates, or who has in
# his posession for the purpose of publication, distribution or
# circulation a crime comic.
# (2) Every one commits an offence who knowingly, without lawful
# justification or excuse,
# (a) sells, exposes to public view or has in his posession for such a
# purpose any obscene written matter, picture, model, phonograph
# record or other thing whatever;
# (b) publicly exhibits a disgusting thing or an indecent show;
# (c) offers to sell, advertises or publishes an advertisement of, or has
# for sale or disposal any means, instructions, medicine, drug or
# article intended or represented as a method of causing abortion or
# miscarriage; or
# (d) advertises or publishes an advertisement of any means,
# instructions, medicine, drug or article intended or represented as
# a method for restoring sexual virility or curing venerial disease
# or diseases of the generative organs.
# (3) No person chall be convicted of an offence under this section if he
# establishes that the public good was served by the acts that are
# alleged to constitute the offence, and if the acts alleged did not
# extend beyond what served the public good.
# (4) For the purposes of this section, it is a question of law whether
# the act served the public good and whether there is evidence the
# act alleged went beyond what served the public good, but it is a
# question of fact whether the acts did or did not extend beyond what
# served the public good.
# (5) For the purposes of this section, the motives of the accused are
# irrelevant.
# (6) Where an accused is charged with an offence under subsection (1),
# the fact that the accused was ignorant of the nature or presence of
# the matter, picture, model, phonograph record, crime comic or other
# thing by means of or in relation to which the act was committed is
# not a defence to the charge.
# (7) In this section, "crime comic" means a magazine, periodical or book
# that exclusively or substantially comprises matter depicting
# pictorially
# (a) the commission of crimes, real or fictitious; or
# (b) events connected with the commission of crimes, real or fictitious,
# whether occurring before or after the commission of the crime.
# (8) For the purposes of this Act, any publication a dominant
# characteristic of which is the undue exploitation of sex, or of sex
# and any one or more of the following subjects, namely, crime,
# horror, cruelty and violence, shall be deemed to be obscene.
A few notes: The criminal code was renumbered a while ago; this used
to be section 159, and court reports will have references to that.
Some publications found _not_ to be obscene are Lady Chatterly's Lover
(in 1962), Fanny Hill (in 1965) and the December 1975 issue of
Penthouse (in 1978).
Also, one is that subsection 1 is intended to "go after the
head honcho", and is given more teeth by way of subsection 6, which
eliminates the defence of ignorance. The following quote from the annotations
on the criminal code may be reassuring to usenet sysadmins:
(then again, it may not)
> In order for s. 159(1) to apply there must be something more than a
> simple distribution by individual sale, the section being aimed at the
> maker, printer, publisher, distributor or circulator as opposed to the
> vendor in subs. (2). _Householders T.V. and Appliances Ltd._ (1984),
> 10 C.C.C. (3d) 561 (Ont. Co. Ct.), not following _Video Movieshop_
> (1982), 67 C.C.C. (2d) 87, 36 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 321, 101 A.P.R. 321
> (Nfld. T.D.).
Apparently, (some forms of, at least) strict liability (motives
irrelevant; doing the act even by accident is criminal) is in violation
of section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and other
laws have been overturned on those grounds.
Now I'm off to Osgoode Hall to look up the recent supreme court case on
obscenity (the Butler case). February of this year, so other libraries
haven't got it yet.
--
-Colin
From caf-talk Caf Jun 3 18:37:28 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.censorship, et al.] Re: More silliness
Message-ID: <9206032235.AA09344@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 1992 12:35:04 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Jun 3 18:37:28 1992
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.config,alt.sex.bondage,alt.sex
Subject: Re: More silliness
Message-ID: <1992Jun3.052737.3203@thelema.uucp>
Date: 3 Jun 92 05:27:37 GMT
In article adamsr@netcom.com (Rick Adams) writes:
>In article <1992Jun1.162415.26539@access.digex.com> heidi@access.digex.com (Heidi) writes:
>>It is my choice to read what I choose and hit "n" if I don't like what
>>I see. Treasure the fact that we have that choice.
> Granted.
> But since a number of other participants _do_ find such stories
>offensive, and pariticularly since a specific newsgroup (alt.sex.stories)
>exists for the purpose of carrying stories in the first place, is it
>unreasonable to suggest that _it_ is the appropriate place for them to be
Yes, it is unreasonable, as I see it, to suggest that stories be
posted ONLY to alt.sex.stories. I argued, when it was being
discussed, that I write, when I commit fiction, to comment in the
medium of fiction, on the topic under discussion in alt.sex.bondage,
and therefore have no interest in that story being read ONLY by those
who read alt.sex.stories. When I write fiction, I do it in the
context of asb, for the readers of asb, as a comment on the
discussions IN asb. In fact, since many of the readers of
alt.sex.stories are not interested in SMBDLMNOP, I might well choose
NOT to post a story that could push some folks' limits to
alt.sex.stories at all.
>posted - or, at the least that the subject line for the posting CLEARLY
>indicate that it involves rape?
On your second point, if I take the time to write a story (the last
one took me about six hours from rough idea to finished draft -- the
current one's been under way, rattling in my mind at odd moments, for
over six months, and a so-far total of several dozen hours writing and
rewriting time), I have considered all the elements of the story,
chosen an order in which to present them, and regard the choice of the
order in which my story is unveiled to be my prerogative as its
author. (I'm working now on a story where the question "is this
consensual or not?" may end up being left hanging even after one has
read the story several times. One of the hardest things I've ever
written, but leaving that question OPEN as long as possible is
_crucial_ to the point I am attempting to make.)
If I choose to give MY time to write a post, a piece of fiction,
whatever, for the amusement of the folks on the net, THEY will bottom
to me. If you read my words, you MUST submit to the order in which I
have placed them, the ideas I have chosen to introduce. I will not
bottom to the plaints of folks who whine that they'd like my story
ever so much better if I wrote it a completely different way. "Thank
you for sharing, now hit "n"." is something I've typed enough times in
my years on the net that I could do it in my sleep.
> For some readers the concept of rape is a personal one they would
>rather not deal with in fiction - the precise reason many movie reviews now
>specify that a film contains rape sequences. To expose such individuals to
>this material without prior warning is an unwarranted act not at all in
>keeping with the nature of alt.sex, alt.sex.bondage, or - for that matter -
>any other Usenet newsgroup.
We disagree. Individuals who cannot deal with my writing are most
welcome to put me in their KILL files. The concept of Operation
Rescue is one which I would rather not deal with in net.news --
therefore, I rarely read talk.abortion. Alt.sex.bondage is not just
about ropes and chains, about whips and safewords -- it's also about
confronting fears, getting past old pains, about liberating oneself
from old baggage. I do not consent to any view of the net that would
make asb a newsgroup in which I cannot continue pushing my limits, and
those of anyone who chooses to read my posts. I've been raped, and
did not enjoy it. The only protection I feel I need, however, is to
turn off the TV, walk out of the theater, or hit my "n" key. I don't
bother reading/watching/listening to things I don't enjoy -- but this
gives me absolutely no right to demand that it not be there for others
who enjoy it.
I'm told by people who don't like my explorations of SM, including one
person who was horrified by seeing me enjoy a wonderful flogging (that
caused one small spot on my back to bleed after the top of a mole was
knocked off) that I'm in a fair number of KILL files. Though I
consider writing to someone to tell hir that you've put hir in your
killfile a little silly, I have a formletter I send on such occasions.
I thank the correspondent for removing the temptation to flame that
which they cannot enjoy.
> The individual who posts such materials without providing any
>warning as to the content, is simply demonstrating that s/he has no concern
>for the feelings of other users or the emotional harm such stories may cause
>- hardly the sort of attitude to be supported on the basis of free choice!
We disagree. However, I am not attributing bogus motives to you. Is
it possible you did not mean to attack me, but had not thought of the
problem of writing for a diverse group without giving away the point
of one's story? I see very little difference between the oft-repeated
request that one put in warnings in the header if one's story contain
rape or gay sex, and the as-yet-unmade demand that mystery stories
begin with "this story concerns the non-consensual killing of the
heiress by her butler".
> I _totally_ support your right to read materials dealing with ANY
>subject whatever. I _also_ support the right of others NOT to do so. YOUR
>right is protected by opposition to censorship. A reasonable means to
>protect the rights of those others must be found as well - pressing the 'n'
>key is a bit ineffective if the material which causes the emotional harm has
>already been read.
I am, sometimes, a fairly competent writer. I believe it's impossible
for me, for Pat Califia, for any writer, to put all the impact of a
story in the first few paragraphs. If one does not choose to read
stories that may be about rape, stories that may involve nonconsensual
acts, one can move on, by way of that handy n-key, long before the end
of the story. If one is firmly determined not to read anything that
might conceivably be non-consensual, one may create, subscribe to, and
moderate alt.sex.consensual.smurf.fuck.
I'm sorry, Rick, that I have to disagree with you. You've given the
net a lot, and I do always consider your opinion. Unfortunately, in
this case, after considering it, I have to say "no". The exact line
between consent and nonconsent is one of the things we discuss and
explore in asb. When I am bound, sometimes it's so that I won't be
able to pull away from a blow that is more than my body wishes to
endure, and I have asked to be bound so that I'll have to make an
explicit decision to escape the whip. If I play without a safeword, I
am again exploring the line between consent and its absence. I am
unable to see any means by which folks who wish to read asb can be
"protected" from exposure to topics they would prefer to avoid other
than for each reader to assume the responsibility for hir choice of
whether or not to read an article.
STella@xanadu.com 1016 E. El Camino Real, #302, Sunnyvale, CA 94087
From caf-talk Caf Jun 3 21:25:43 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [eff.mail.ethics-l] Re: CMC Sexual Harrassment (S/H)
Message-ID: <199206040123.AA17792@eff.org>
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 1992 17:23:38 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Jun 3 21:25:43 1992
From: RENGLAND@SNYESCVA.BITNET (Rich England)
Subject: Re: CMC Sexual Harrassment (S/H)
Message-ID: <199206032353.AA16445@eff.org>
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 1992 23:46:00 GMT
In Carl Kadie's cites, one came to the forefront [law/student-pubs]
appearing to state that 'public universities are likely not liable for
publications [read telecommunications?] in which they do not control the
content.'
Let me ask: if a university supports a moderated discussion list [where
prior review of emails is assumed] and flaming or harrassment occurs,
is the university or moderator or list owner either legally or ethically
responsible to prevent this? Is this justified censure or unjustified
curtailment of free speech?
Rich England
Empire State College
[RENGLAND@SNYESCVA.BITNET]
"Online Learning Can Be Electrifying"
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Jun 3 21:25:56 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [eff.mail.ethics-l] Re: CMC Sexual Harrassment (S/H)
Message-ID: <199206040123.AA17854@eff.org>
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 1992 17:23:51 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Jun 3 21:25:56 1992
From: ccmlh@BU-IT.BU.EDU (Mark Hayes)
Subject: Re: CMC Sexual Harrassment (S/H)
Message-ID: <199206040027.AA17059@eff.org>
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 1992 16:23:19 GMT
>Let me ask: if a university supports a moderated discussion list [where
>prior review of emails is assumed] and flaming or harrassment occurs,
>is the university or moderator or list owner either legally or ethically
>responsible to prevent this? Is this justified censure or unjustified
>curtailment of free speech?
Sounds to me like you're questioning the rightness of moderation at all,
since such presumes that the moderator has the right/authority/responsibility
to suppress "inappropriate" material (at least the way I understand it).
Anyway, I say yes, definitely. Constraint of the content of a discussion
list is very different from constraint of direct communication. The problems
come when the constraint is exercised in what might be called "discriminatory"
ways. For example, if someone sets up a newsgroup/list for discussion of
basketball, and people veer off into an extended flame war about the
amount of fat in the average hamburger, I'd say a moderator would be
justified in intervening. But if discussion of hamburgers - in spite of its
being "off topic" - is tolerated, but discussion of, say, gay rights
suddenly brings in the "topic police" and is suppressed, well, then you
have a problem. Likewise, if abuse is tolerated for one position but
suppressed for another, that is not right; but I wouldn't object
to a moderated group in which excessively "flamelike" postings were
suppressed, perhaps after a warning.
Wow, this topic again! I guess it'll just keep coming up in one form
or another forever. Which is as it should be!
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Jun 3 22:08:44 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [eff.mail.cwis-l] Re: Usenet posting policies - help
Message-ID: <199206040206.AA18596@eff.org>
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 1992 18:06:38 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Jun 3 22:08:44 1992
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Usenet posting policies - help
Message-ID: <199206040147.AA18362@eff.org>
Date: Thu, 4 Jun 1992 01:22:14 GMT
percival@BRONZE.UCS.INDIANA.EDU writes:
[...]
>Do you restrict posting privileges based on the type of user population
>(e.g. prevent undergraduates from posting)? How about reading privileges?
Last year 260 people replied to an informal survey about undergrad
access to the Net. Most of the sites reported that undergrads have
full net access. [Reference to on-line results at the end of this note.]
[...]
>Do you restrict (or deny) access to certain groups (e.g. alt groups) and
>if so on what grounds (e.g. resource requirements, inappropriate material,
>etc)?
[...]
=============== 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
=================
Full text of ALA's selection policy workbook.
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 by 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
ANNOTATED REFERENCES
(All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.)
=================
faq/policy
=================
q: What guidance is there for creating or evaluating a computer policy?
=================
news/cafv01n33
=================
Include results of a netnews survey.
=================
caf
=================
A description to the comp-academic-freedom-talk mailing list. It is a
free-forum for the discussion of 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?
=================
=================
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/faq/policy
pub/academic/news/cafv01n33
pub/academic/caf
To get the files by 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/faq policy
send acad-freedom/news cafv01n33
send acad-freedom caf
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Jun 3 22:35:22 1992
Newsgroups: uiuc.general,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.privacy
From: sean@ms.uky.edu (Sean Casey)
Subject: Re: New U. of Illinois (and NCSA) Computer Privacy policy
Message-ID: <1992Jun3.223032.20875@ms.uky.edu>
Date: Thu, 4 Jun 1992 02:30:32 GMT
[Alan Levy article reposted by Carl Kadie]
:The major question is not whether email is secure - nearly all of us
:realize that, like any other form of communication, it can be
:intercepted, read by unauthorized people, or accidentally read.
This makes me wonder what happens when Privacy Enhanced Mail becomes
the norm... probably within 5 years. Without a user's PEM password
(which their RSA private key is encrypted under), it's going to be
relatively impossible to read their mail, even with full system
privileges.
Will a judge court-order someone to decrypt their mail for
examination? What about encrypted files?
I keep playing scenarios over and over in my mind. The government can
be put in the position where it _can't_ get at files. It reminds me of
reporters who have carefully destroyed information that led to contact
with a source. When the government wants to know the identity of that
source, it is at the mercy of the reporter. And, as we have seen, the
reporter is sometimes punished until the source is revealed.
I have routinely DES encrypted personal files for years now. They're
mostly highly personal email conversations. But because those files
involve other people, I consider it extremely unethical to decrypt
them for anyone I don't know and trust, and then only for the right
reasons. I could not be forced into decrypting them. Shall a sweep of
uky files someday land me in jail for refusing to cooperate?
And what about student's files and email? Are they protected against
bludgeoning in the name of finding scraps of information? Can you say
``chilling effect''?
Sean
--
|``Wind, waves, etc. are breakdowns in the face of the
Sean Casey | commitment to getting from here to there. But they are the
sean@s.ms.uky.edu | conditions for sailing -- not something to be gotten rid
U of KY, Lexington| of, but something to be danced with.''
From caf-talk Caf Jun 4 00:03:02 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [eff.mail.ethics-l] Re: CMC Sexual Harrassment (S/H)
Message-ID: <199206040400.AA22658@eff.org>
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 1992 20:00:56 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Jun 4 00:03:02 1992
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: CMC Sexual Harrassment (S/H)
Message-ID: <199206040217.AA18941@eff.org>
Date: Thu, 4 Jun 1992 02:16:06 GMT
RENGLAND@SNYESCVA.BITNET (Rich England) writes:
[...]
>Let me ask: if a university supports a moderated discussion list [where
>prior review of emails is assumed] and flaming or harrassment occurs,
>is the university or moderator or list owner either legally or ethically
>responsible to prevent this? Is this justified censure or unjustified
>curtailment of free speech?
[...]
My impression, to a first approximation, if you prior-review something
(as a newspaper editor or a newsgroup moderator), you are legally
responsible for it. It's pretty much as though you wrote it. I think
ethical responsibility depends on the publication's "charter". Some
editors may say: "I do not endorse every idea and presentation that I
select."
Moreover, much of what people informally call "harassment" is not
harassment. A key feature of harassment is that it is impractical for
the harassed to leave the situation. For example, "Carl is a fink" in
the campus newspaper, a newsgroup, or a campus demostration should not
be considered harassment because I don't have to read/listen to it.
On the other hand, "Carl is a fink" sent via email to me after prior
warnings or in a class, might be considered harassment.
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Jun 4 09:48:10 1992
From: dos@major.panix.com (Dave O'Shea)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.sex,alt.config,alt.sex.bondage,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: Congratulations! You've made the evening news.
Message-ID:
Date: 3 Jun 92 22:44:31 GMT
kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
> jamie@cs.sfu.ca (Jamie Andrews) writes:
>
> [...]
> > Some think that getting rid of some abusive Usenet postings
> >is a Slippery Slope to total censorship.
> [...]
>
> "Total censorship"? I'm not afraid of that. I am, however, afraid of
> more censorship. I don't think this fear is unfounded.
>
> The _Ms._ article (May/June 1992, p. 14) about Canada's new definition
> of obscenity gleefully reports:
>
> [A]dult erotica, no matter how explicit, will not be considered
> obscene.
>
> And yet, in one of the first applications of the new definition all
> discussions of sex in a university medium were banned. In Canada, the
> slide down the slippery slope is not hypothetical; it has happened.
It's an old trick in law. Just narrow things down enough, and you'll fnd
something that falls over the line. Now, I suppose, a film showing a man
feeding milk and cookies to a woman (down, lothie - get your own!:)
could be found illegal, as it might (Dworkinishly) imply that the male is
superior to the female.
All sex can be looked at as one person exploiting another - if you assume
that neither participant has a brain, and that neither is capable of
deciding for themself what they want.
From caf-talk Caf Jun 4 11:30:25 1992
From: jones@pyrite.cs.uiowa.edu (Douglas W. Jones,201H MLH,3193350740,3193382879)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Anonymous postings (was: [] More S/H)
Message-ID: <12951@ns-mx.uiowa.edu>
Date: 4 Jun 92 14:37:44 GMT
>From article <199206031420.AA02810@eff.org>, by kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie):
>
> Since it would appear that the S/H incident occured on a system where the
> students could do anonymous postings, it presents one more reason to ask
> if there is a solid reason for having anonymous accounts.
I will not support anonymous accounts where anyone can log in, but I feel
very strongly that there should be a way for people to make truly anonymous
postings and a way for people to send truly anonymous E-mail -- in a
controlled way.
I teach, and although I don't think of myself as being an ogre, many of my
students seem to think that I am one. One unfortunate consequence of this
is that many students are afraid to ask questions for fear of looking
foolish, either in the eyes of their peers or in my eyes. I encourage
students to ask questions by E-mail to provide an alternative and more
private way for them to ask questions, and I tell them that I don't bother
remembering who asked and that I won't hold their questions against them.
Nonetheless, many hesitate to ask by that channel because it does expose
their identity. If I could offer my students a way to send anonymous mail
to me, I feel that it would be a significant aid!
The minimum technical requirements that I feel apply to anonymous mail are
that both the sender and receiver agree that the communication should be
anonymous. The sender should be given the option of sending anonymously,
and the default should be that anonymous mail is discarded unless I choose
to see what is being sent to me anonymously. With appropriate protocols,
it should be possible for the sender to be informed of whether or not I am
willing to read anonymous mail.
Replying to anonymous mail is a separate problem. The various anonymous
posting services that people have patched together for USENET require that
the sender of an anonymous piece register with the service so that the
service can forward replies. This only guarantees anonymity to the sender
to the extent that the sender trusts the service, and if I, as an "ogre
professor", am running an anonymous mail server for my students, I don't
see why they'd want to trust me.
A better scheme might be to allow anonymous postings to moderated
newsgroups. Then, I could establish a local newsgroup for my class and
act as moderator. I would want to guarantee to my students that their
postings were actually anonymous, that is, that no personal identifying
information was available to me, the newsgroup moderator (keep in mind
that I have access to lots of log files on the machines in question!).
Then, I could accept anonymous questions and post the questions along
with my replies to the newsgroup that everyone in the class could read.
I should note that the PLATO project at the University of Illinois managed
to work their way through most of the above arguments about anonymous
posting back in the 1970's, and that the resulting anonymous posting
services offered for PLATO notesfiles met my requirements quite well by
the end of the 1970's. PLATO is alive and well at the U of Illinois under
a new name, NOVANET, and they have had experience with large scale use of
the newsgroup idea (in the form of notesfiles) for longer than any other
organization that I know of.
Doug Jones
jones@cs.uiowa.edu
From caf-talk Caf Jun 4 12:19:18 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: sbrack@jupiter.cse.UTOLEDO.edu (Steven S. Brack)
Subject: (fwd) Kevin Polson, notorious hacker (?)
Message-ID: <9206041616.AA26450@jupiter.cse.utoledo.edu>
Date: Thu, 4 Jun 1992 08:16:20 GMT
===== BEGIN QUOTED TEXT =====
Newsgroups: alt.cyberpunk,alt.dcom.telecom
Subject: Kevin Polson
Message-ID: <1992Jun4.042652.3845@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>
From: ahawks@isis.cs.du.edu (hawkeye)
Date: Thu, 4 Jun 92 04:26:52 GMT
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Xref: uoft02 alt.cyberpunk:7747 alt.dcom.telecom:562
I caught the tail-end of a report on that TV show 'Unsolved Mysteries'
concerning a hacker named Kevin Polson (sp?) who was recently caught.
I could swear I've heard the name mentioned somewhere before - probably in
connection with a previos report on that TV show or something...Does anybody
have any information on this person (his hacking activities, alias, etc)?
Please let me know. Thanks in advance.
BTW - If anybody responds with messages saying "he's not a hacker, he is a
cracker", please go shoot yourself. Thanks in advance, again.
===== END QUOTED TEXT =====
As I have no details about this, I was wondering if anyone
in this group knows about "Polson," and whether his case
is academic freedom related.
- Steve Brack
Banned on at least one campus 8)
From caf-talk Caf Jun 4 12:37:03 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.censorship,soc.college
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Abstract of CAF-News 02.22
Message-ID: <1992Jun4.163435.617@eff.org>
Date: Thu, 4 Jun 1992 16:34:35 GMT
This is an abstract for the most recent "Computers and Academic
Freedom News" (CAF-News). Information about CAF-News follows the
abstract. The full CAF-News is available via anonymous ftp or by
email. For ftp access, do an anonymous ftp to ftp.eff.org
(192.88.144.4). Get file "pub/academic/news/cafv02n22".
The full CAF-News is also available via email. Send email to
archive-server@eff.org. Include the line:
send caf-news cafv02n22
--- begin abstract ---
[Best of March, 1992
========================== KEY ================================
The words after the numbers are a short PARAPHRASES of the articles,
or QUOTES from them, NOT AN OBJECTIVE SUMMARY and not necessarily my
opinion. Many of the paraphrases are based on earlier paraphrases by
Adam, me, and by guest editors Terry Rooker and David Swanlund.
===============================================================
Notes 1-3 are about the U. of Nebraska at Lincoln's ban of
all alt.* newsgroups.
1. For anyone who has been following the alt.* controversy at UNL,
the following article appeared on page one of _The Daily Nebraskan_,
the student newspaper of the University of Nebraska - Lincoln, on
Tuesday, March 7, 1992. _UNL loses `alt' computer files_ by Mike
Lewis staff reporter. Used with permission of the Daily Nebraskan.
<9203212232.AA24018@cse.unl.edu>
2. [A UNL alum:] "The reasons given for the decision are so
transparent as to be internationally embarrassing to the University."
"There may be newsgroups that you wish not to take. If that is the
case, be honest about it." "If you are in need of additional
resources, they should be requested [...]"
<1992Mar26.214421.26447@sparky.imd.sterling.com>
Note 3 is about Switzerland's SWITCH (an academic networking
consortium).
3. "In addition to banning some usenet newsgroups, SWITCH is also blocking
packets to the local eunet chapter (chuug). We have to route most
packets from Zurich to Geneva and back to Zurich. Others go as far as
Amsterdam, and, yes, still others go to the USA and come back (hee
hee). SWITCH is blocking nntp, telnet and ftp to local sites connected
to eunet."
<1992Mar2.135005.14877@neptune.inf.ethz.ch>
Note 4 is about student and sys admin reaction to actions such as the
U of Cincinnati's move to terminate accounts of users who telnet to
"game" and IRC hosts.
4. "Yes, the users have to become responsible with the use of the
resources and get involved in policy-making. But the administrators
should help in this process by asking for input, opening policy
meetings, and by acting less arbitrarily upon the users they are
trying to serve."
<1992Mar1.230835.9357@ms.uky.edu>
Notes 5-6 are critiques of computer policies.
5. "This is a critique/review of the U. of Delaware computer policy
proposal." The policy is *very* polished. "I do have some concern
about punishment before 'conviction'" and "[t]he policy could be
improved by saying that nondisruptive, noncommercial "personal use" of
the computer [is] permitted and encouraged subject to whatever
limitations local sites may impose."
<1992Mar26.220927.5131@eff.org>
6. The _Penalties for Misuse of UIC Computing Resources_ is a detailed
list of infractions and penalties. This article is a critique of this
policy. The infraction descriptions are vague, and the penalties are
severe. In general, the stated policy would allow system
administration to enforce any arbitrary policy and still be in
accordance with this policy.
<1992Mar18.191830.5134@eff.org>
Notes 7-9 are about email and "anonymous" ftp privacy.
7. Here are the results of an informal poll of sys admins about email
privacy. One respondent says that searches for technical reasons are
not the same as searches to investigate wrong doing. One says that he
or she was once asked to search a users files, but flatly refused.
<1992Mar23.184747.13631@eff.org>
8. Enclosed is a sample account request form from the U. of
New Mexico. It specifies under what conditions the user can and cannot
expect privacy for their email.
9. Anonymous ftp does not necessarily mean that the process is
anonymous. ftp.uu.net is one such system that requires a domain style
email address for a password. All file transfers are logged, but the
initial login message informs the user of this.
<1992Mar12.213307.11252@uunet.uu.net>
Notes 10-12 are about what harassment is and how email filtering can
sometimes stop it.
10. [A professor who studies sexual harassment:] "It sounds generally
right" that merely making offensive-to-some information available has
never been found to create an illegal hostile environment. "The
availability of all kinds of materials in libraries is completely
protected....now, that's a TRUE First Amendment issue!"
<1992Mar25.180208.4528@eff.org>
11. A technique for email filtering using elm is explained.
<1992Mar5.164036.26921@sunb10.cs.uiuc.edu>
12. Another technique for email filtering, using HM, is explained.
<1992Mar6.021936.5715@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
- Carl]
--- end abstract ---
CAF-News is a weekly digest of notes from CAF-talk.
CAF-News is available as newsgroup alt.comp.acad-freedom.news or via
email. If you read newsgroups but your site doesn't get
alt.comp.acad-freedom.news, (politely) ask your sys admin to
subscribe. For info on email delivery, send email to
archive-server@eff.org. Include the line
send acad-freedom caf
Back issues of CAF-News are available via anonymous ftp or via email.
Ftp to ftp.eff.org. The directory is pub/academic/news. For
information about email access to the archive, send an email note to
archive-server@eff.org. Include the lines:
send acad-freedom README
help
index
Disclaimer: This CAF-News abstract was compiled by a guest editor or a
regular editor (Paul Joslin, Elizabeth M. Reid, Adam C. Gross, or Carl
M. Kadie). It is not an EFF publication. The views an editor expresses
and editorial decisions he or she makes are his or her own.
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Jun 4 13:13:30 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: sbrack@jupiter.cse.UTOLEDO.edu (Steven S. Brack)
Subject: Re: New U. of Illinois (and NCSA) Computer Privacy policy
Message-ID: <9206041710.AA08350@jupiter.cse.utoledo.edu>
Date: Thu, 4 Jun 1992 09:10:53 GMT
In article <1992Jun2.151809.27140@m.cs.uiuc.edu> Carl M. Kadie writes:
: [This is repost of another article by Allan Levy with the title "Re:
: Interim E-Mail Advisory". I'm reposting at the author's request. I've
: reformatted it a bit. - Carl]
:
: =======================================================
: ~Newsgroups: uiuc.general
: ~Subject: Re: Interim E-Mail Advisory
: ~References: <1992May19.154352.3556@news.cso.uiuc.edu>
: Message-ID:
: ~Date: Tue, 26 May 1992 21:54:21 GMT
[ONE PARA. REMOVED]
: The major question is not whether email is secure - nearly all of us
: realize that, like any other form of communication, it can be
: intercepted, read by unauthorized people, or accidentally read. The
: question I had hoped the policy would address was whether the
: University considered email private - like your letter in campus mail
: or your phone call. Or do they reserve the right to authorize someone
: to look at your mail? Email is often stored, not in your desk, but on
: a main frame.
That can be quite easily paralleled from several points of view.
Admin interested in reading users' email:
Since the user is receiving this mail at the university's
address, the university has the right to read it, as it
would the right to read any paper mail addressed to it.
Stored e-mail is like mail stored in the person's desk.
Since the desk is University property, we have the right
to inspect that as well.
Counterarguments:
A personal (non-business, non-class) account at the university
is analogous to a mailbox in a dormitory. No one but the
intended recipient has the right to read it.
Mail and other files stored on a personal account is analogous
to papers stored in a student dorm room. While routine
maintenance may require access to the student's papers, every
effort should still be made to avoid reading personal files.
I personally don't believe any student living in a dormitory would
be happy about the university feeling free to read his or her files
stored in his or her dorm room, or feeling it had a right to read
his or her mail beacause "University of _____" was in the address.
Now, the important difference between paper mail and e-mail:
We have a *very* long history of dealing with paper mail and
respecting its privacy. We have almost no history with personal
e-mail and respecting its privacy, or even knowing that it has
privacy.
[FOUR PARAGRAPHS DELETED]
: In article <1992May19.154352.3556@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, a-levy@uiuc.edu
: (Allan H. Levy) writes:
[TEXT OF UIUC E-MAIL POLICY DELETED]
:
: Allan H. Levy, M.D., Professor and Head
: Department of Medical Information Science
: University of Illinois College of Medicine at Urbana-Champaign
: 506 S. Mathews, Urbana IL 61801
: a-levy@uiuc.edu, (217)333-9181 (voice); (217)333 8868 (FAX)
:
: --
: Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Jun 4 13:27:18 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: sbrack@jupiter.cse.UTOLEDO.edu (Steven S. Brack)
Subject: Re: newsgroups ban
Message-ID: <9206041724.AA12004@jupiter.cse.utoledo.edu>
Date: Thu, 4 Jun 1992 09:24:37 GMT
In article <1992Jun02.221259.28683@anomaly.sbs.risc.net> kd1hz@anomaly.sbs.risc.net (Michael P. Deignan) writes:
: rramji4@mamut.wlu.ca (ruby ramji u) writes:
:
: >since the incident at university of manitoba, i have
: >been unable to read any articles from the alt.sex et al
: >groups. this restriction also has cut me off from
: >alt.censorship.
:
: Oh, so the government says you can't get a personal newsfeed from
: one of a dozen different service providers too?
Depending on what his University allows him, esp. if he lives on
campus, possibly not.
:
: No?
Sarcastic puffery will get us nowhere.
:
: Oh, I see, in other words you're just pissed 'cuz someone took your
: freeloading readership privs away...
Here's the clue you seem to lack:
This person is put in a position of paying for a
service that other students on campus, and other
people around canada, are given for free.
Further, he is being denied this service on the basis
of the content of the newsgroup, not for any other reason.
: MD
: --
: -- Michael P. Deignan, KD1HZ / VE: ARRL, W5YI VECs
: -- Domain: kd1hz@anomaly.sbs.risc.net / -------------------------------
: -- UUCP: ...!uunet!anomaly!kd1hz / I'm not a bigot,
: -- Telebit: +1 401 455 0347 / I hate everyone...
One of the fundamental principles of higher education is
freedom of enquiry. Your attitude would have us set back
over a century of progress. There was a time when a student
couldn't check out a book from a university library without
approval from his or her superior(s). This limitation of
freedom of enquiry was removed as library resourced were expanded.
It used to be that a student couldn't get an account without
approval from his or her superiors. That is, for the most part,
changing now. In fact, it has changed, to a great extent.
The freedom to enquire must be defended if students are to have
their own ideas, rather than just parrot the ideas of those who have
gone before them.
From caf-talk Caf Jun 4 14:01:19 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: CHADBOURNE@MARICOPA.EDU (Mary T. Chadbourne)
Subject: Attempted FBI incursion on privacy
Message-ID: <01GKTBIXRU9C8WW480@MARICOPA.EDU>
Date: Thu, 4 Jun 1992 17:58:00 GMT
Has anybody else noted the article on page 115 in Scientific American,
June 1992 titled "Tap Dance" (Keeping communications networks safe for
bugging)?
According to SA, the Justice Department, at the instigation of the FBI,
is proposing legislation requiring makers of electronic communications
equipment to ensure that their equipment could be tapped. Apparently
this is to be financed by charging the hapless users for the added
costs - we'll have to pay extra so Uncle Sam can snoop on us. SA goes
on to mention that the proposed legislation applies equally to private
branch exchanges, local-area networks, computer bulletin boards and even
the Internet. Violators would face fines up to $10K a day.
This is truly scary! One would like to believe our glorious leaders
would have better sense, but I'm afraid that's not a viable conclusion.
Orwell was a piker ...
Mary
__ __ __ __ __ __
Mary T. Chadbourne, Bitnet Postmaster/Techrep Maricopa CGC EMC GC
the Maricopa Colleges, Phoenix, Arizona USA GWC LIB MC PC
1+ (602) 996-9366 PVC RIO SCC SMC
BITNET: chadbour@maricopa.bitnet INTERNET: chadbourne@maricopa.edu
-- -- -- -- -- --
From caf-talk Caf Jun 4 14:48:21 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.binaries.pictures.fine-art.d, et al.] Welcome Message
Message-ID: <9206041845.AA23703@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Thu, 4 Jun 1992 08:45:57 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Jun 4 14:48:21 1992
From: mflll@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu (Dr. Laurence Leff)
Subject: Welcome Message
Message-ID: <1992Jun3.232304.20208@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu>
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 1992 23:23:04 GMT
This is the welcome message for
alt.binaries.pictures.fine-art.d
alt.binaries.pictures.fine-art.graphics
alt.binaries.pictures.fine-art.digitized
These groups all deal with the use of computer graphics and computer
digitization in art. These are all moderated groups.
The two alt groups are for the posting of digitized files.
These materials are also being made available via FTP for those sites
not receiving the alt groups.
alt.binaries.pictures.fine-art.graphics is for those pictures done using
computer graphics programs.
alt.binaries.pictures.fine-art.digitized is
for people who have made paintings, drawings, prints, etc.
and wish to distribute reproductions of same.
Thus those who have used "conventional media" to produce their art work
and wish to digitize same and share this with us, will have their
material posted in this group.
Pictures will be accepted in
any reasonable format including IFF, TIF, GIFF and JPEG.
(If we are unable to view the picture with our hardware/software environment,
we may ask the contributor to mail us slides or other similar hardcopy so that
we can perform our moderation.)
alt.binaries.pictures.fine-art.d
will be a discussion group for both of the
above picture groups. For each entry in
alt.binaries.pictures.fine-art.graphics and
alt.binaries.pictures.fine-art.digitized
the poster will send a short biography and any other information
associated with the drawing.
The biography should include:
a) name
b) education
c) affiliation
d) physical mail address
e) electronic mail address
f) exhibition record (optional)
g) age (optional)
This is intended to be the same sort of information that would be
included in art book.
A long-term goal would be to assemble an art book and/or a CD-ROM
based on the work submitted. (Of course, we would request the consent
of each poster prior to including their work.) This would include
the possible non-profit distribution to art departments worldwide.
People wishing to discuss the use of computer graphics in fine arts
may submit their postings to alt.pictures.fine-art.d
Your moderators are
Eugene V. Solot, M.F.A. Laurence L. Leff, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Art Assistant Prof. of Computer Science
Western Illinois University Western Illinois University
Macomb, IL 61455 Macomb, IL 61455
Please send all submissions to:
artcomp@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu
and send all administrative electronic mail to:
artcomp-request@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu
We also ask all people reading this posting to tell artists and the
local art department about our services. Most artists are NOT on
the net and you are probably the only way that the artists you know
will hear about us. We would also appreciate it if you would offer to
help them with such tasks as obtaining an account with access to USENET,
reading and posting news, uploading files and performing the digitization.
Thus, please spread the information so that
everyone can take advantage of this service. Thanks!
The following are answers to some of the questions raised during the
original call for discussion. We feel these may be concerns of new
subscribers and potential posters. We thus include these issues.
1) Copyright protection
Please don't post any material that you haven't done yourself. This is
to avoid copyright problems. In other words, this is not the group
to send your copies of the Mona Lisa or Van Gogh's works.
We are concerned that someone on the net might steal and plagiarize
pictures distributed on this group. In other words, some unscrupulous
individual might monitor these groups, download a picture, and then remove any
signature with a paint program. Then, they could submit the picture
to a juried show or as homework in an art class. That would be a risk
that would be born by any contributor. We trust that artists monitoring
this group would be of fine character and never do something so
dastardly.
However, we strongly recommend that no individual contributor
distribute more than five drawings using these group. This is also a
reason that we will be requiring the biographical information. If
someone wants to exchange more works, they can do this by private
electronic mail.
2) What is art?
Someone asked, "What is art?"
We will not censor anything for posting. However, we will limit the
works to a manageable amount--in order not to swamp the net or those
wishing to monitor these groups.
Of course, if we are making up a disk or publishing book, we will use our
discretion in choosing what will make the best possible publication.
From caf-talk Caf Jun 4 14:56:12 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [eff.mail.ethics-l] Re: CMC Sexual Harrassment (S/H)
Message-ID: <199206041854.AA03957@eff.org>
Date: Thu, 4 Jun 1992 10:54:11 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Jun 4 14:56:12 1992
From: woody@STMARYS-CA.EDU (Woody Weaver)
Subject: Re: CMC Sexual Harrassment (S/H)
Message-ID: <199206041719.AA01913@eff.org>
Date: Thu, 4 Jun 1992 17:02:29 GMT
Brad writes
>On Wed, 3 Jun 1992 19:46:00 EDT Rich England said:
>>Let me ask: if a university supports a moderated discussion list [where
>>prior review of emails is assumed] and flaming or harrassment occurs,
>>is the university or moderator or list owner either legally or ethically
>>responsible to prevent this? Is this justified censure or unjustified
>>curtailment of free speech?
>If a university supports a moderated discussion group consisting of people
>physically present in one room, is the moderator responsible to keep order
>where inflamatory or sexually tormenting remarks are made?
As part of my teaching contract, I am responsible to maintain order in my
classroom, yes. I would expect the same would extend to a moderated
discussion group.
--woody
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Jun 4 14:56:41 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [eff.mail.ethics-l] Re: CMC Sexual Harrassment (S/H)
Message-ID: <199206041853.AA03828@eff.org>
Date: Thu, 4 Jun 1992 10:53:41 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Jun 4 14:56:41 1992
From: BBAXTER@UGA.BITNET (Brad)
Subject: Re: CMC Sexual Harrassment (S/H)
Message-ID: <199206041402.AA27366@eff.org>
Date: Thu, 4 Jun 1992 13:35:04 GMT
On Wed, 3 Jun 1992 19:46:00 EDT Rich England said:
>Let me ask: if a university supports a moderated discussion list [where
>prior review of emails is assumed] and flaming or harrassment occurs,
>is the university or moderator or list owner either legally or ethically
>responsible to prevent this? Is this justified censure or unjustified
>curtailment of free speech?
If a university supports a moderated discussion group consisting of people
physically present in one room, is the moderator responsible to keep order
where inflamatory or sexually tormenting remarks are made?
If an email discussion list is not anonymous, the poster of offending
remarks is the one liable for those remarks, in my opinion. If the
list is anonymous, the university must accept liability for what appears
there. Bathroom walls across the country will tell you where anonymous
lists lead.
Presumably these discussion lists take place on the university's "property"
(the computer system being used). Is removing placards and notices posted
on the university billboards across campus a curtailment of free speech?
Brad
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Jun 4 15:53:40 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [eff.mail.ethics-l] Re: CMC Sexual Harrassment (S/H)
Message-ID: <199206041951.AA05578@eff.org>
Date: Thu, 4 Jun 1992 11:51:38 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Jun 4 15:53:40 1992
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: CMC Sexual Harrassment (S/H)
Message-ID: <199206041902.AA04398@eff.org>
Date: Thu, 4 Jun 1992 18:59:37 GMT
BBAXTER@UGA.BITNET (Brad) writes:
[...]
>If an email discussion list is not anonymous, the poster of offending
>remarks is the one liable for those remarks, in my opinion. If the
>list is anonymous, the university must accept liability for what appears
>there. Bathroom walls across the country will tell you where anonymous
>lists lead.
So universities are responsible for everything written on their
bathroom walls? I don't think anonymity is the key. I think the key is
that the harassee could not practically avoid the offensive material.
>Presumably these discussion lists take place on the university's "property"
>(the computer system being used). Is removing placards and notices posted
>on the university billboards across campus a curtailment of free speech?
Depends. If the bulletin boards are consistently for official use,
then no. If the bulletin boards are student forums, then perhaps yes.
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Jun 4 17:32:12 1992
From: booloo@framsparc.ocf.llnl.gov (Mark Boolootian)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: [comp.org.eff.talk] Re: Is alt.sex.* illegal?
Message-ID: <126604@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV>
Date: 4 Jun 92 20:20:13 GMT
>From: ygoland@edison.seas.ucla.edu (The Jester)
>Subject: Re: Is alt.sex.* illegal?
>
>I can not speak for the U.S. as a whole but in the State of
>California and specifically the city of Los Angeles, I am allowed to
>read alt.sex.bondage and to write stories for it without fear of
>legal reprisal.
It may be legal, but that doesn't mean it will be allowed. Universities
tend to receive money from both the State and Federal level. If either the
state or the feds decide they don't like the fact that UCLA has computers
carrying the alt.sex.* groups, I imagine it wouldn't be too hard for them
to threaten economic blackmail. There is precedent for this type of behavior
from our government.
LLNL is in the process of censoring newsgroups. We have lost, among others,
the alt.sex groups, alt.personals, alt.drugs, and a few others. I believe
more will disappear. These groups are viewed as political liabilities (even
though we are managed by the University of California, we get our funding from
the federal government). It appears management may also view the reading of
non-technical newsgroups as a waste of time. Most these managers are
operating in an information-vacuum, and don't have any idea of what Usenet
is all about.
As more people become aware of Usenet and what is available from it, I expect
we will see more censorship, especially in this country.
mb
--
Mark Boolootian booloo@llnl.gov +1 510-423-1948
From caf-talk Caf Jun 4 18:20:42 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [eff.mail.ethics-l] Re: CMC Sexual Harrassment (S/H)
Message-ID: <199206042218.AA08397@eff.org>
Date: Thu, 4 Jun 1992 14:18:43 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Jun 4 18:20:42 1992
From: GIB6313@NORTHEASTERN.EDU (LLewie louie...)
Subject: Re: CMC Sexual Harrassment (S/H)
Message-ID: <199206042149.AA07746@eff.org>
Date: Thu, 4 Jun 1992 22:39:00 GMT
About escaping harassment, suppose the conversation "TOM IS A FINK" in a
political science class, Tom is a student in the class, and President of
the Student Government, and the topic of the class is student government---
is calling TOM a FINK in that context harassment?
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Jun 4 20:29:40 1992
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.sex,alt.config,alt.sex.bondage,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: alan@dragon.acadiau.ca (Alan McKay)
Subject: Farlay Mowat and Free Speech (was: Congratulations...)
Message-ID: <1992Jun4.225125.19301@dragon.acadiau.ca>
Date: Thu, 4 Jun 1992 22:51:25 GMT
rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold) writes:
>"Whoops, you didn't do as I demanded. You've FORCED me to shoot the
>hostages." Your (or the government's) distaste for free speech
>doesn't excuse depriving others of it.
Here we go again! A holier than thou American telling the world that
America has all the answers and that the American system is the be all
and end all.
Sorry guy. If you want to talk about censorship, how about talking
about the renouned Canadian write Farlay Mowat being refused entry into
the "good-ol'" US of A because of a book he wrote entitled "Sea of
Slaughter". Of course, I guess that probably didn't get much media
down there since the government didn't want y'all to know that they
reserve the exclusive right to censor whomever they want, whenever they
want. Thats probably why your laws are so liberal down there; to fool
you all into thinking you have something that you really don't.
Of course I realise that I'm just blowing wind past deaf ears since
you've been so brain-washed into thinking America is the best place in
the Universe that you've lost the ability of self criticism.
Fortunately we in Canada haven't lost that ability, and our
constitutional crisis right now is living proof of that. We are
constantly trying to make things better, while you rest on the laurels
of something that happened over 200 years ago. I think its probably
about time you started to take a look at what you have today, and not
what you had back then.
--
--
Alan W. McKay | (902)542-2201.158 | Wolfville, N.S. Canada
alan@acadiau.ca | Acadia University | SUB Box 6008, B0P 1Z1
From caf-talk Caf Jun 4 21:20:05 1992
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.sex,alt.config,alt.sex.bondage,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Farlay Mowat and Free Speech (was: Congratulations...)
Message-ID: <1992Jun5.011807.11011@eff.org>
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 1992 01:18:07 GMT
RE: My/your country is less/more repressive/free that yours/mine.
Productive:
Person 1: My country sucks because of X.
Person 2: We're having X here, too. We're trying Y. You may want to, too.
Person 1: Good idea; thanks.
Unproductive:
Person 1: My country sucks because of X.
Person 2: You're right, your country does suck.
Person 1: What you mean my beloved country sucks?! Yours sucks more!
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Jun 4 21:20:37 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [eff.mail.cwis-l] Re: Usenet posting policies - help
Message-ID: <199206050118.AA11043@eff.org>
Date: Thu, 4 Jun 1992 17:18:38 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Jun 4 21:20:37 1992
From: sharp@MIZAR.USC.EDU (Malcolm Sharp)
Subject: Re: Usenet posting policies - help
Message-ID: <199206042214.AA08225@eff.org>
Date: Thu, 4 Jun 1992 05:56:17 GMT
What have been experiences of those who campus provides
Internet/UseNet access to K-12 programs? Or those whose systems may
allow general public access (like the Free-Net)? In either case are
all Usenet groups available?
Malcolm Sharp
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Jun 4 21:25:30 1992
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.sex,alt.config,alt.sex.bondage,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.flame.spelling
From: warren-matthew@CS.YALE.EDU (Matthew S. Warren)
Subject: Re: Farlay Mowat and Free Speech (was: Congratulations...)
Message-ID: <1992Jun5.011753.16962@cs.yale.edu>
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 1992 01:17:53 GMT
In article <1992Jun4.225125.19301@dragon.acadiau.ca>,
alan@dragon.acadiau.ca (Alan McKay) writes:
>Here we go again! A holier than thou American telling the world that
>America has all the answers and that the American system is the be all
>and end all.
>
>Sorry guy. If you want to talk about censorship, how about talking
>about the renouned Canadian write Farlay Mowat being refused entry into
>the "good-ol'" US of A because of a book he wrote entitled "Sea of
>Slaughter.
That's "renowned," not "renouned." I know "renouned" looks cooler
and more pretentious, but hey, "renowned" is correct.
Also, it's (note apostrophe) "Farley," not "Farlay." I guess
you're his biggest fan. Good writer -- look beyond "Never Cry Wolf"
and read his other stuff. My personal favorite, since you asked, is
"The Boat Who Wouldn't Float."
>Of course I realise that I'm just blowing wind past deaf ears since
>you've been so brain-washed into thinking America is the best place in
>the Universe that you've lost the ability of self criticism.
If I really wanted to pick nits, I could point out that
"holier-than-thou," "be-all and end-all," and "self-criticism"
should all have hyphens where I put them.
Please, when you make gross generalizations about my country and
needlessly initiate a series of personal attacks, take the time
to do it carefully. Spellcheck, at the very least.
-- Matt
P.S. Hey? Was that a flame? If so, it was my VERY FIRST
on usenet. Did I do good, teach? Did I?
--
Matthew S. "Opie" Warren warren-matthew@yale.edu
Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone.
From caf-talk Caf Jun 4 21:44:52 1992
From: rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.sex,alt.config,alt.sex.bondage,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: Farlay Mowat and Free Speech (was: Congratulations...)
Message-ID:
Date: 5 Jun 92 01:09:03 GMT
alan@dragon.acadiau.ca (Alan McKay) writes:
>rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold) writes:
>>"Whoops, you didn't do as I demanded. You've FORCED me to shoot the
>>hostages." Your (or the government's) distaste for free speech
>>doesn't excuse depriving others of it.
>Here we go again! A holier than thou American telling the world that
>America has all the answers and that the American system is the be all
>and end all.
>[...]
>Of course I realise that I'm just blowing wind past deaf ears since
>you've been so brain-washed into thinking America is the best place in
>the Universe that you've lost the ability of self criticism.
Here we go again, another dumbfuck just off the turnip truck. My
views on America's own censorship problem are quite clear and well
known. And have nothing to do with Canada's censorship problem, which
can, amazing enough as it may seem, be discussed all by itself, as
American censorship has been discussed here without bringing Canada or
Zaire into it. Tell you what, run along and show me where in the
message I've compared Canada's censorship laws unfavorably to the
US's, and I'll kiss your fungoid feet and make up. That inferiority
complex is going to take a bit more work.
--
Some people who can, should not.
From caf-talk Caf Jun 4 21:51:58 1992
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.sex,alt.sex.bondage,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,soc.culture.canada
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Last year U. of Waterloo restored a.s.b (was Re: Congrat ...)
Message-ID: <1992Jun5.015001.11933@eff.org>
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 1992 01:50:01 GMT
[Last year the U. of Waterloo restored rec.humor.funny,
alt.sex.bondage, and other newsgroups. Here is a rec.humor.funny
repost from the Computers and Academic Freedom archives. I'll post a
follow up with more information. - Carl]
>From: funnyr@looking.on.ca (Funny Guy)
>Subject: Waterloo ban on rec.humor.funny finally lifted
>Message-ID: <1991Oct03.060346.5082@looking.on.ca>
>Date: 3 Oct 91 06:03:46 GMT
Those of you familar with the history of this newsgroup will know
that in December of 1988, due to the efforts of an MIT grad student
named Jonathan Richmond, a ban was placed on possibly offensive jokes
in this newsgroup at the University of Waterloo. At the time, this
newsgroup went into the net only via that site, and Richmond's goal
was to control the content of the group by putting pressure on the
University through the daily newspapers.
[It didn't work of course. RHF quickly became fed out through a wide
variety of other paths, and only Waterloo folk and downstream nodes
were affected.]
To many people's surprise, the Douglas Wright (President) and
J. Alan George (Provost) supported and implemented the ban.
Later groups such as alt.sex were also removed. Pressure from the
community, with vigourous effort by some students and an invited talk
by Dr. John McCarthy of the Stanford AI Lab (Dr. McCarthy had played
a pivotal role in reversing a shorter-lived ban at Stanford) resulted
in the appointment of a committee to study the question of newsgroup
availability.
In May 1991, this committee reported what you would expect them
to report -- that, to paraphrase, a University administration should not
make non-financial decisions about what people can and can't read on
campus. The recommended restoration of all banned newsgroups.
Today, Dr. Johnny Wong, Associate Provost for Computing at UW, announced
that he would follow the recommendations of the committee.
The result is the restoration of all banned newsgroups there, from
alt.sex.bondage to rec.humor.funny.
I take particular satisfaction in this. The banning of my publication
at my alma mater has been a thorn in my side for years, and I have helped
and encouraged the efforts to reverse it. I did not wish to concede any
victory for the forces of thought-control and political correctness.
Even though the ban never stopped any determined reader (after all, the
groups could be read remotely with RRN and NNTP) it is good to see it
gone.
My thanks go out to all who worked to make this happen.
More detailed accounts of these events can be found in the prefaces
to the Jokebooks. This year's jokebook may be delayed a bit because
I am moving at the end of this month. Will tell you where later.
---------------
Other notes: I am keeping busy and am a fair bit behind in the joke
queue. Only 600 entries to go. Please have patience.
RHF is no longer USENET's most popular group. Alt.sex now easily holds
that distinction -- perhaps being banned at UW is the first step for success
in any USENET group. Misc.jobs.offered is also currently above, but
fluctuating. Statistics are posted in the group news.lists.
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Jun 4 22:00:27 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [eff.mail.cwis-l] Re: Usenet posting policies - help
Message-ID: <199206050158.AA12030@eff.org>
Date: Thu, 4 Jun 1992 17:58:27 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Jun 4 22:00:27 1992
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Usenet posting policies - help
Message-ID: <199206050139.AA11766@eff.org>
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 1992 01:36:58 GMT
sharp@MIZAR.USC.EDU (Malcolm Sharp) writes:
>What have been experiences of those who campus provides
>Internet/UseNet access to K-12 programs? Or those whose systems may
>allow general public access (like the Free-Net)? In either case are
>all Usenet groups available?
[...]
I would hope that selection for a university media collection
(library, bookstore, CWIS, Netnews, etc) would not be based on the
sensibility of kindergarteners, grade schoolers, and high schoolers.
As the American Library Association's statement on diversity says:
"Librarians have a professional responsibility to be inclusive, not
exclusive, in collection development and in the provision of
interlibrary loan. Access to all materials legally obtainable should
be assured to the user, and policies should not unjustly exclude
materials even if they are offensive to the librarian or the user."
- Carl
ANNOTATED REFERENCES
(All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.)
=================
library/diversity.ala
=================
"Diversity in Collection Development"
An interpretation by the American Library Association of the "Library
Bill of Rights"
It says that collections should be inclusive, not exclusive. And that
materials should cover the needs and interest of all patrons. "This
includes materials that reflect political, economic, religious,
social, minority, and sexual issues."
=================
=================
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/diversity.ala
To get the files by 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 diversity.ala
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Jun 4 22:03:13 1992
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.sex,alt.sex.bondage,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,soc.culture.canada
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Last year U. of Waterloo restored a.s.b (was Re: Congrat ...)
Message-ID: <1992Jun5.020117.12200@eff.org>
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 1992 02:01:17 GMT
[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.) - Carl]
=============== ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/jmcabstract ========
[From Professor John McCarthy of Stanford]
Here's the abstract of my University of Waterloo talk. It went quite
well, but it seemed that I was preaching to the choir.
[...]
Notice that the abstract emphasizes positive benefits from a new
information system.
NETWORK PUBLICATION AND FREE EXPRESSION
by John McCarthy, Stanford University
Abstract: A superior form of publication is developing that will
gradually supplant print media. Usenet newsgroups are a preliminary
form. The advantages are greater freedom of publication, greater
immediacy and reduced costs. Since anyone can "publish" a comment on
anything and anyone can look up the comments, controversial statements
have to be written so as to withstand criticism. There are already
more than 1,500 newsgroups including users of certain computers and
software, scientific topics like geology, pornography and discussion
of current affairs like the war in the Gulf. The field needs to find
a way of supporting professional editors and authors and to
universalize availability by merging the networks.
So far, establishment notice of network publication has only taken the
form of feeble and ignorant attempts at censorship. We'll tell about
manifestations of this at Stanford, U. Waterloo and in Norway. The
Stanford situation was resolved correctly by applying the same
principles of freedom of speech and universality of libraries to
network publication that apply to print publication.
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Jun 4 22:07:26 1992
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.sex,alt.sex.bondage,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,soc.culture.canada
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Last year U. of Waterloo restored a.s.b (was Re: Congrat ...)
Message-ID: <1992Jun5.020530.12305@eff.org>
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 1992 02:05:30 GMT
[Here is the announcement and report from Dr. Johnny Wong, Associate
Provost (Computing and Information Systems).
The policy recognizes that each user is responsible for what he or she
writes. It says that all available newsgroups will be carried without
screening or censorship. It establishes a procedure for dealing with
bad (illegal?) articles posted from off-campus. - Carl]
============ ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/policies/waterloo.edu ===
After reviewing the report of the Advisory Committee on
Network News, and the comments that I've received, I am
proceeding in accordance with the recommendations of that
committee. Newsgroups that are currently not supported
will be reinstated as soon as possible, and Roger Watt
of the Department of Computing Services (ext. 2491;
email: rwwatt@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca) has been
appointed as a liaison person with respect to complaints
related to the contents of electronic mail messages and
news articles.
- - - - - - - - - -
REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON NETWORK NEWS
MAY 30, 1991
INTRODUCTION
A. Universities have a long tradition of investigating all areas of human
activity and of sharing the results of those inquiries with others inside and
outside the University who may be interested. The recent growth of
communication networks for computers have made the sharing much more rapid and
efficient. Arguably, the two most effective means for making these results
available, and thus potentially for advancing the works of many other members
of the University community, are electronic mail (E-mail) to individuals and
network newsgroups, the latter functioning rather like collective mailboxes to
which faculty, staff, and students may choose to subscribe.
Thus, the Committee believes that it is entirely appropriate that the
University of Waterloo, which has a strong reputation for the constructive use
of computers, continue to allocate resources to receiving, storing, and
transmitting items of E-mail and news.
B. Further, the Committee believes that it is important that the University of
Waterloo consult its user community when decisions must be made about the use
of resources which are committed to E-mail and news.
C. Most importantly, the Committee believes that it is the users of the
computing systems who must be held responsible for their decisions to take
advantage of the resources which the University of Waterloo maintains for the
general use of its community. The Committee notes that in some cases items have
been posted which contain lengthy and verbatim excerpts from newspapers, books,
and magazines. Even when the source is fully acknowledged, the Committee
believes that this acknowledgement is not a substitute for a formal release
from the holder of the copyright in the material, usually the publisher if not
the author of the cited words. Thus, in advising users of the responsibility
they bear for what they post, the Committee considers it important that a
warning that the University will not be held liable for breach of copyright be
made plain.
D. Although the University of Waterloo is not under an obligation to distribute
news across campus, once the key role of the user is recognized, the Committee
sees no role for the institution `in loco parentis'. In particular, we see no
need for a Committee, even of one, to monitor the contents of items, noting
that the current daily volume of approximately 11 megabytes arriving at the
University makes such monitoring impractical.
E. Again, once the key role of the users of computing resources is established,
the Committee is of the opinion that the University of Waterloo already has a
number of mechanisms in place for handling queries or complaints should they
arise. The Committee sees no need to duplicate these mechanisms.
The Committee believes that complaints should be dealt with in the same manner
whether the offending items originate from UW or from a remote site. It is
clear that a user may reply directly to a poster and may make a more formal
complaint under UW policies in parallel. In either case, the channels normally
used for handling complaints from UW accounts should be used for those arising
from off-campus posting.
However, the nature of electronic communication is such that action often needs
to be more rapid than in dealing with, for example, printed material. The
Committee, therefore, suggests one addition to the existing mechanisms.
In its background documents, Usenet identifies users as responsible for their
actions just as the Committee has suggested the University of Waterloo should.
As a consequence, it is natural for one user who objects to an item posted by
another to reply directly and outline his or her complaint. Such direct reply
is often effective, but does assume enough familiarity with the reply mechanism
of newsgroups or with E-mail on the part of the offended user. A simple
description of each of these processes should be a standard part of the
introduction to computing provided to each new user, whose responsibility it
must be to assimilate the information; the University of Waterloo already
provides very substantial consulting advice, widely distributed across campus,
to assist users in making effective use of the University's computing
resources.
It seems clear that users should retain copies of both the item which was the
source of the objection and of the reply. Such electronic copies carry date and
time 'stamps' which may be useful should a more extensive discussion of the
item prove necessary.
Where the initial item originates from a member of the University of Waterloo,
then the provisions of existing policies should, of course, be available. The
Committee notes that the authors of the report from the Ad Hoc Committee to
Review UW Policy 33 on Ethical Behavior, chaired by Lois Claxton, already
anticipated the extension of the provisions of Policy 33 to cover the area of
computing (IV Recommendations, page 10, first paragraph).
However, electronic items may originate from other sites and it may be
impractical for a user to object directly; furthermore, direct reply may be
ineffective. Only in such situations can the Committee foresee the desirability
of there being a person, designated by the University of Waterloo, to whom
application may be made for assistance.
In recommending such an appointment, the Committee does not envisage such an
official being responsible for dealing with objections from one member of the
University about the actions of another. Nor does it see the official acting as
the 'agent' of an aggrieved user.
RECOMMENDATIONS
On the question of the use of resources and the responsibility of users, the
Committee recommends that:
1. The principles which are adopted by the University of Waterloo governing the
use of its computing facilities for storing, retrieving and transmitting
information, be widely disseminated and be included in all introductions to
computing for new users. Particular emphasis should be placed on the principles
which concern such direct methods of communication as E-mail and network news.
2. The University of Waterloo adopt and widely publicize the principle that, in
sending E-mail or in posting an article to a newsgroup, it is the user and not
the University, who assumes responsibility for its contents.
3. The University adopt and widely publicize the principle that it is the user,
not the University, who is responsible for his or her decision to read a mail
message or an article posted to an electronic newsgroup.
4. The University's primary news-server continue to receive all newsgroups
generated internally and all newsgroups which arrive over the networks to which
the University is connected.
5. The contents of these newsgroups continue to be made available to all lower
level servers.
6. When decisions are to be made re the consumption of computing resources for
newsgroups, those responsible for such decisions should widely and formally
consult with the full user community. In the case of the primary server, it
should be the responsibility of the University Computing Committee to see that
such consultation takes place. In the case of lower level servers, a
well-defined consultative process, approved by the University Computing
Committee, should exist.
On the question of responding to particular items of mail or news, the
Committee recommends that:
1. The University of Waterloo advise its user community that in the first
instance it is the responsibility, not of the University, but of a user who
objects to an item, to reply directly to the poster, making clear the nature of
the objection.
2. A person knowledgeable, particularly about electronic news and mail, but
also well-versed in the general provisions of UW policies, be appointed with
the following general terms of reference:
He or she should:
(A) Be able to identify a suitable authority at a remote site to whom a
request for action might be addressed, when he or she is convinced that
the normal methods for registering an objection have been ineffective. An
obvious example would be the continued posting of objectionable items.
(B) Be able to identify the most suitable authority at the University of
Waterloo to which objections from other sites about material generated at
the University of Waterloo might be referred. Examples of such authorities
are the Ethics Committee, the University Computing Committee, the Dean of a
Faculty; these examples clearly do not exhaust the possibilities.
3. Such an official should report at least once a year on his or her activity
in this area to the University Computing Committee through the Associate
Provost, Computing and Information Systems.
4. The responsibility for the removal of any item from a UW machine, as a
result of an investigation into a complaint, should reside with the Associate
Deans of Computing in each Faculty for machines under their control, and with
the corresponding officers responsible for non-Faculty machines, and with the
Associate Provost, Computing and Information Systems. The Committee presumes
that investigations and decisions will be carried out under University of
Waterloo policies and that where review by a Committee is called for, such
review will be carried out keeping in mind the short retention time for items
in newsgroups.
5. The University of Waterloo's principles or policies in this area clearly
identify the officers who are able to make such decisions.
6. At least once a year actions taken under this authority should be reported
to the University Computing Committee.
The Committee has not made suggestions about how the recommendations should be
implemented in any unit, academic or non-academic. The Committee presumes that
the University of Waterloo will continue to publicize its policies and
procedures which, in turn, will continue to be developed after careful
consultation with the University community. However, the Committee wishes to
point out that if the University of Waterloo appoints an official to assist
users in responding to particular items as has been recommended, then that
official should not also be asked to be responsible for removing items from
circulation; in the Committee's view the two functions conflict directly.
Submitted by:
Greg Bennett, Chair Paul Check
Ian Gibson Anil Goel
John Moore Vic Neglia
Roger Watt, Resource Person Bud Walker
Nancy Zinatelli
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Jun 5 02:17:58 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: [talk.politics.misc, et al.] Re: Thank you for explaining that to me...
Message-ID: <1992Jun4.204233.7844@uoft02.utoledo.edu>
From: sbrack@jupiter.cse.utoledo.edu (Steven S. Brack)
Date: 4 Jun 92 20:42:32 EST
: From: greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (J. S. Greenfield)
: Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.drugs,alt.activism,alt.censorship
: Subject: Re: Thank you for explaining that to me...
: Message-ID: <1992Jun2.093912.10097@newstand.syr.edu>
: Date: 2 Jun 92 13:39:12 GMT
:
: In article <1992Jun2.001416.6534@Princeton.EDU> egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:
: >
: >No, I don't feel "threatened" by Nazi and Holoclown speech, unless you
: >mean that I regard their speech as a threat to democracy, which it is,
: >and which the Nazis and the Holoclowns mean it to be.
:
: Yep, sounds like you are concerned about a "threat." This sounds quite
: different from your earlier posts, in which you suggested that this
: speech had to suppressed so that the masses could distinguish between
: "meaningful" speech and other trash...
"Protecting the masses" has been a recurring theme in censorship
for centuries. Let the people decide what they need protection from.
Ideas are not dangerous. It's how people use them that can be
a problem.
:
: >But as Stanley Fish's article "There's No Such
: >Thing as Free Speech and It's a Good Thing Too" points-out, "control" is
: >a continuum, ranging from vigorous debate (or even flaccid debate) all
: >the way through passing administrative ukases within universities
: >against offensive speech, to public law. Now, our Constitution places
: >an enormous roadblock between step 2 (administrative ukases) and step 3
: >(public law) and I believe that this is a good thing.
:
: And this demonstrates how little you understand about the *law* regarding
:free speech. (Public) universities do *not* have any greater legal ability to
: restrict free speech than any other government arm. (See the Michigan and
: Wisconsin cases, available from the eff archive.)
It's good to see that universities are starting to be limited in
their censorship, but I would say that Universities still have
quite a way to go before they truly adhere to the principals of
academic freedom.
:
: (Private universities are irrelevant since, generally speaking, private
: property is under the control of its private owners. Just like you have
: the right to restrict speech in your living room, the board of trustees at
: a private university has the right to restrict speech on its campus.
: Legislation may change that, someday (for federally funded institutions).)
Legislation already has, as has the judiciary, where receipt of
federal funds is concerned.
I believe the case is UNITED STATES vs. BOB JONES UNIV.
From caf-talk Caf Jun 5 02:20:38 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.dcom.telecom] From the Usenet Rumor Department
Message-ID: <9206050618.AA19299@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Thu, 4 Jun 1992 20:18:15 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Jun 5 02:20:38 1992
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: From the Usenet Rumor Department
Message-ID:
Date: 1 Jun 92 12:40:54 GMT
A thread has started in comp.org.eff.talk concerning a Wisconsin telco
monitoring subscriber calls. I think whoever started this has it
confused with Ma's monitoring of their own business calls, and not
subscriber to subscriber calls. Here's a quote ...
> Actually, they do. In Wisconsin MaBell records one out of every
> 1000 phone calls placed. They have employees listen to ALL these
> phone converstions, listen apparently for whatever they deem illegal
> or whatever. I know this because a colleague from a past position I
> held, his wife did this for four years for Wisconsin Bell. So, watch
> what you say.
Whoever started the thread implied that the telco was randomly
listening to subscriber calls (not just those from a sub to the telco)
and taking whatever action they deemed necessary. Now you and I know
this is caca, but to jump in to something like this without doing some
homework is major flame bait.
Can anyone state what type of monitoring Wisconsin Bell does, and how
it is stated, and where it is stated.?
Thanks,
Good day. JSW Ybbat (DRBBS) 8.9 v. 3.14 r.1
DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha (1:285/666.0)
[Moderator's Note: An old saying is 'consider the source ... '. Yes
there is monitoring of calls between subscribers, but of no person(s)
in particular, and without any immediate identification as to caller
or called-party for the purpose of testing line and connection
quality, etc. It is known as quality control, and it occurs in almost
every telephone company. Methods exist to identify the lines, circuits
and central office equipment used in the event poor quality connect-
ions are encountered. The length of time a call is monitored (from
several seconds to a minute or two) and the ratio of monitored calls
to calls attempted or completed (in the above article, the claim was 1
to 1000) varies from one telco to the next. Subscriber privacy is very
important, but so is quality control and to manage the latter, the
former has to be tampered with; but to maintain privacy, the employees
doing the monitoring can't access the record of the phone numbers
connected, etc. They can make their reports and someone else can look
up the specifics. Think of it like the label attached to your clothing
which says 'inspected by # 209' or similar. It is all rather impersonal
and the way in which the network is kept up to high standards. PAT]
From caf-talk Caf Jun 5 08:12:29 1992
From: allens@yang.earlham.edu (Allen Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.censorship
Subject: Re: newsgroups ban
Message-ID: <1992Jun4.234854.18997@yang.earlham.edu>
Date: 5 Jun 92 04:48:54 GMT
In article <1992Jun02.221259.28683@anomaly.sbs.risc.net>, kd1hz@anomaly.sbs.risc.net (Michael P. Deignan) writes:
> rramji4@mamut.wlu.ca (ruby ramji u) writes:
>
>>since the incident at university of manitoba, i have
>>been unable to read any articles from the alt.sex et al
>>groups. this restriction also has cut me off from
>>alt.censorship.
>
> Oh, so the government says you can't get a personal newsfeed from
> one of a dozen different service providers too?
>
> No?
>
> Oh, I see, in other words you're just pissed 'cuz someone took your
> freeloading readership privs away...
You're coming from the viewpoint of someone who can pay for a
newsgroup feed (directly or indirectly). There are some who can't. How
would you feel if someone came in and arbitrarily raised the cost of
getting some of the newsgroups you read, just because they didn't like the
contents?
There's also the issue that he's posting from a
government-controlled institution. Government shouldn't be in the business
of censorship. You may argue that alt.sex.* are inappropriate for
government to be paying for at an educational site, but alt.censorship
most definitely is appropriate. Looks like the government has decided that
it doesn't want anything coming in which criticizes it. Will they pay for
alt.hooray-canadian-government? I suspect so, and I don't think that's an
appropriate usage of taxpayer funds unless alt.censorship is also carried
(I have some questions over whether education at the university level
should be government funded in the first place, but that's another matter).
-Allen
From caf-talk Caf Jun 5 08:36:47 1992
From: ts2a+@andrew.cmu.edu (Thomas Omar Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.config,alt.sex.bondage,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.sex
Subject: Re: Farlay Mowat and Free Speech (was: Congratulations...)
Message-ID:
Date: 5 Jun 92 12:10:19 GMT
>Fortunately we in Canada haven't lost that ability, and our
>constitutional crisis right now is living proof of that. We are
>constantly trying to make things better, while you rest on the laurels
>of something that happened over 200 years ago. I think its probably
>about time you started to take a look at what you have today, and not
>what you had back then.
This from a country where the French and English are still fighting.
How are the Quebequois(sp)?
Tom the non hacker
Kemp in 96!
Ross Perot may indeed turn this
country around. However, his next act
will probably be to bend it over.
From caf-talk Caf Jun 5 09:35:09 1992
From: markh@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Mark William Hopkins)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.sex,alt.config,alt.sex.bondage,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: Farlay Mowat and Free Speech (was: Congratulations...)
Message-ID: <1992Jun5.132758.2777@uwm.edu>
Date: 5 Jun 92 13:27:58 GMT
In article <1992Jun4.225125.19301@dragon.acadiau.ca> alan@dragon.acadiau.ca (Alan McKay) writes:
>Fortunately we in Canada haven't lost that ability, and our
>constitutional crisis right now is living proof of that. We are
>constantly trying to make things better, while you rest on the laurels
>of something that happened over 200 years ago. I think its probably
>about time you started to take a look at what you have today, and not
>what you had back then.
Unfortunately, you've made 3 mistaken assumptions. Namely that (1) Canada will
even survive, much less profit from its crisis (it won't), (2) that the US is
not curently in its own wide ranging and building constitutional crisis that is
not at least as serious (it is), and (3) that the US is resting on its
laurels and will have this constitution for even 3 more years (it won't).
From caf-talk Caf Jun 5 09:40:00 1992
From: jsm4u@sonja.math.Virginia.EDU (Joe McDonnell)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.sex,alt.config,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: Farlay Mowat and Free Speech (was: Congratulations...)
Message-ID: <1992Jun5.124334.24073@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
Date: 5 Jun 92 12:43:34 GMT
In article <1992Jun4.225125.19301@dragon.acadiau.ca>
alan@dragon.acadiau.ca (Alan McKay) writes:
>...
> Sorry guy. If you want to talk about censorship, how about talking
> about the renouned Canadian write Farlay Mowat being refused entry into
> the "good-ol'" US of A because of a book he wrote entitled "Sea of
> Slaughter". Of course, I guess that probably didn't get much media
> down there since the government didn't want y'all to know that they
> reserve the exclusive right to censor whomever they want, whenever they
> want. Thats probably why your laws are so liberal down there; to fool
> you all into thinking you have something that you really don't.
> ...
> Fortunately we in Canada haven't lost that ability, and our
> constitutional crisis right now is living proof of that. We are
> constantly trying to make things better, while you rest on the laurels
> of something that happened over 200 years ago. I think its probably
> about time you started to take a look at what you have today, and not
> what you had back then.
I assume your complaint about Mr. Mowat extends from your interpretation
of the First Amendmemt guarantee of free speech. Since Mr. Mowat
apparantly is not a citizen of the US, the US Constitution would not
apply to him. What, then, is your criticism? If you want the freedoms,
however dimly you view them, of the US Constitution to apply to
non-citizens outside of the US, then are you willing to apply the
restrictions of the US Constitution to these folks also? That
would be hubris beyond belief!
Just a thought on a rainy Friday.
Joe
From caf-talk Caf Jun 5 13:14:49 1992
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.sex,alt.config,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Farlay Mowat and Free Speech (was: Congratulations...)
Message-ID: <1992Jun5.171256.24215@eff.org>
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 1992 17:12:56 GMT
[DISCLAIMER: I don't care which country is more/less repressive/free.
I would, however, like to see all countries, especially my own, less
repressive, so ....]
jsm4u@sonja.math.Virginia.EDU (Joe McDonnell) writes:
[...]
>I assume your complaint about Mr. Mowat extends from your interpretation
>of the First Amendmemt guarantee of free speech. Since Mr. Mowat
>apparantly is not a citizen of the US, the US Constitution would not
>apply to him.
[...]
The First Amendment applies to the government not to individuals. In
my opinion my government violated the First Amendment in this case.
By prohibiting government restrictions on free speech, the First
Amendment helps guarantee both the right to speak and the right to
listen. Even if the guarantee of a right to speak doesn't apply to Mr.
Mowat, the guarantee of the right to listen did apply to his audience.
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Jun 5 13:18:21 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [eff.mail.cwis-l] K-12 newsgroup access
Message-ID: <199206051716.AA24319@eff.org>
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 1992 09:16:20 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Jun 5 13:18:21 1992
From: RITA@PUCC.bitnet (Rita Saltz)
Subject: K-12 newsgroup access
Message-ID: <199206051159.AA17971@eff.org>
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 1992 10:55:28 GMT
Princeton University provides access to public schools. Princeton would
provide to the schools any newsgroup hierarchies requested by the
Superintendent of Schools. Presently, the only categories fed to the
regional schools are:
bionet
can
comp
k12
listserv
misc
news
nj
phl
princeton
sci
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Jun 5 13:18:25 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [eff.mail.cwis-l] Re: Usenet posting policies - help
Message-ID: <199206051716.AA24376@eff.org>
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 1992 09:16:25 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Jun 5 13:18:25 1992
From: RWWMAINT@MSU.bitnet (Richard W Wiggins)
Subject: Re: Usenet posting policies - help
Message-ID: <199206051325.AA19653@eff.org>
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 1992 12:46:33 GMT
>
>>What have been experiences of those who campus provides
>>Internet/UseNet access to K-12 programs? Or those whose systems may
>>allow general public access (like the Free-Net)? In either case are
>>all Usenet groups available?
>[...]
>
>I would hope that selection for a university media collection
>(library, bookstore, CWIS, Netnews, etc) would not be based on the
>sensibility of kindergarteners, grade schoolers, and high schoolers.
>
>Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
> =kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
Personally I'm a free speech advocate; in a university library context
I don't favor censorship.
However, we should be realistic here. Networked access to information
is quite different than physical access. A university library might
choose to keep Hustler magazine in a special collections area;
William Proxmire would never understand, but one can imagine serious
scholarly study of material many find offensive.
But this would not imply an obligation to put Hustler-like images
on a CWIS. And some of the alt picture groups contain lots of
material that obviously isn't being posted for a scholarly purpose.
(And much of it is probably posted in violation of copyright to boot.)
I wouldn't want to see folks responsible for a CWIS having to make
case-by-case decisions on which particular items in an Alt group
to carry. But the alt groups are fairly self-policing in their
organization by topic. Is there really a problem excluding certain
alt groups from certain display areas? For instance, let's suppose
Gopher clients learn to display JPEG images. Let's suppose you
have a gateway between Gopher and Usenet news feeds, but on your
public "information kiosk" terminals you exclude certain alt groups.
If for no other reason, you might want to do this so that people
can look at the campus map without waiting for a local teenager
to finish his graphical journey.
It is a common practice for sites to exclude particular alt groups
from news feeds altogether. Is the claim that if one carries a
news feed one is obliged to carry all groups?
/Rich Wiggins, Michigan State U
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Jun 5 13:18:34 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [eff.mail.cwis-l] Usenet postings and K-12
Message-ID: <199206051716.AA24433@eff.org>
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 1992 09:16:36 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Jun 5 13:18:34 1992
From: RITA@PUCC.bitnet (Rita Saltz)
Subject: Usenet postings and K-12
Message-ID: <199206051144.AA17785@eff.org>
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 1992 11:04:19 GMT
Having read Carl Kadie's comment regarding K-12, I feel obliged to add
explicitly that Princeton provides free flow for all newsgroups (though
capacity of some hosts requires that only a subset be presented for access
via those hosts). So the full range of newsgroups is available to members
of the University community; the range listed in my previous note pertains
only to the filter for the regional schools, and is subject to expansion
at the request of the Superintendent of Schools.
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Jun 5 13:49:42 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: ejohnso@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Eric Johnson)
Subject: Re:
Message-ID: <1992Jun5.165047.18590@ccu.umanitoba.ca>
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 1992 16:50:47 GMT
In <1992Jun1.093346.1@acad3.alaska.edu> fsars@acad3.alaska.edu (Allen R Sparks) writes:
>It was in Canada that a court convicted a man for
>staring, just staring at a woman (feminist) at a public swimming pool,
>who promptly pressed charges against him.
Not quite. It was a University (Western Ontario I think) that sanctioned him,
and not just for staring at her. He had a history of donning a diving mask and
closely following women during lap swims. Not once, or a few times, but over a
period of years. He did not desist when asked to by the women, lifeguards,
or anyone else.
>The court slapped a restraining order on him, he isn't allowed near
>the pool, when she's there.
Close, but not quite again... He's been banned from the pool for some
time ( I think it was about 5 years ), not a restraining order.
--
_______________________________________________________________________________
Eric Johnson | Commit random acts of kindness
ejohnso@ccu.umanitoba.ca | and
BITNET:ejohnso@UOFMCC | senseless beauty.
From caf-talk Caf Jun 5 14:21:08 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.censorship, et al.] Re: A not exactly novel idea
Message-ID: <9206051817.AA21532@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 1992 08:17:51 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Jun 5 14:21:08 1992
From: wayne@r-node.gts.org (Wayne)
Subject: Re: A not exactly novel idea
Message-ID: <1992Jun05.124833.23501@r-node.gts.org>
Date: Fri, 05 Jun 1992 12:48:33 GMT
In article <13648@umd5.umd.edu> glenn@moeng2.minc.umd.edu (D. Glenn Arthur Jr.) writes:
>Someone pointed out that there are > 90,000 people estimated to be
>reading alt.sex.bondage.
>
>What if the Canadian authorities got some ninety thousand letters
>(you know, paper, envelope, stamps) from around the world (yeah,
>so most of the people wouldn't be Canadian citizens, I know)
>explaining why censoring alt.sex.bondage is a bad idea.
>
Canadian politicians are like politicians in the rest of the world, they
react to things that get them votes. Though they might agree with you
on an intellectual level htye still prefer to get re-elected.
>The letters could mention how a.s.b tends to promote the idea of
>safewords -- a great way of keeping bondage play from accidentally
>_turning_into_ a nonconsensual situation if used and heeded. They
>could mention what the CBC did not -- the strong emphasis on safety
>in a.s.b.
>
The report on the CBC was more related to the decision by the University
of Manitoba to ban the groups. CBC made no comment on their perception
of the groups.
I think that trying to emphasis the safety aspect might backfire
especially if they did somre research in a week when a story like
Cindy's Torment was posted.
--
Wayne Dawe
wayne@r-node.gts.org
wayne@r-node.UUCP
From caf-talk Caf Jun 5 14:33:01 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [eff.mail.cwis-l] Re: Usenet posting policies - help
Message-ID: <199206051831.AA26734@eff.org>
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 1992 10:31:03 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Jun 5 14:33:01 1992
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Usenet posting policies - help
Message-ID: <199206051732.AA24903@eff.org>
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 1992 17:27:22 GMT
RWWMAINT@MSU.bitnet (Richard W Wiggins) writes:
[...]
>Personally I'm a free speech advocate; in a university library context
>I don't favor censorship.
>However, we should be realistic here. Networked access to information
>is quite different than physical access. A university library might
>choose to keep Hustler magazine in a special collections area;
>William Proxmire would never understand, but one can imagine serious
>scholarly study of material many find offensive.
[...]
It would be a violation of library ethics (and, in my opinion, the
official "no censorship" policy of most universities) to restrict
access to Hustler because of Senator's Proximire's disapproval.
I'm enclosing three ALA policy statements that explains this
positions. I'll post a follow up explaining an alternative to
censorship.
========= ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/library/access.restrictions.ala ========
RESTRICTED ACCESS TO LIBRARY MATERIALS
An Interpretation of the LIBRARY BILL OF RIGHTS
Libraries are a traditional forum for the open exchange of information.
Attempts to restrict access to library materials violate the basic tenets of
the LIBRARY BILL OF RIGHTS.
Historically, attempts have been made to limit access by relegating materials
into segregated collections. These attempts are in violation of established
policy. Such collections are often referred to by a variety of names,
including "closed shelf," "locked case," "adults only," "restricted shelf," or
"high demand." Access to some materials also may require a monetary fee or
financial deposit. In any situation which restricts access to certain
materials, a barrier is placed between the patron and those materials. That
barrier may be age related, linguistic, economic, or psychological in nature.
Because materials placed in restricted collections often deal with
controversial, unusual, or "sensitive" subjects, having to ask a librarian or
circulation clerk for them may be embarrassing or inhibiting for patrons
desiring the materials. Needing to ask for materials may pose a language
barrier or a staff service barrier. Because restricted collections often are
composed of materials which some library patrons consider "objectionable," the
potential user may be predisposed to think of the materials as "objectionable"
and, therefore, are reluctant to ask for them.
Barriers between the materials and the patron which are psychological, or are
affected by language skills, are nonetheless limitations on access to
information. Even when a title is listed in the catalog with a reference to
its restricted status, a barrier is placed between the patron and the
publication (see also "Statement on Labeling").
There may be, however, countervailing factors to establish policies to protect
library materials--specifically, for reasons of physical preservation
including protection from theft or mutilation. Any such policies must be
carefully formulated and administered with extreme attention to the principles
of intellectual freedom. This caution is also in keeping with ALA policies,
such as "Evaluating Library Collections," "Free Access to Libraries for
Minors," and the "Preservation Policy."
Finally, in keeping with the "Joint Statement on Access" of the American
Library Association and Society of American Archivists, restrictions that
result from donor agreements or contracts for special collections materials
must be similarly circumscribed. Permanent exclusions are not acceptable.
The overriding impetus must be to work for free and unfettered access to all
documentary heritage.
Adopted February 2, 1973; amended July 1, 1981; July 3, 1991, by the ALA
Council.
[Made available by permission of the American Library Association.]
========= ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/access.policy.ala ========
REGULATIONS, POLICIES, AND PROCEDURES AFFECTING
ACCESS TO LIBRARY RESOURCES AND SERVICES
An Interpretation of the LIBRARY BILL OF RIGHTS
American libraries exist and function within the context of a body of law
derived from the United States Constitution, defined by statute, and
implemented by regulations, policies, and procedures established by their
governing bodies and administrations. These regulations, policies, and
procedures reflect the function and character of the library, define its
operations, and protect its mission and the rights of its users.
"The library is one of the great symbols of our democracy. It is a living
embodiment of the First Amendment because it includes voices of dissent."1
Libraries of all types adhere to this ideal. Publicly supported libraries
serve as traditional public forums, open to the collection, use, and
dissemination of all forms of recorded human expression that are expressly
dedicated to the unfettered competition of the marketplace of ideas. It is
essential to this purpose that the library function as neutral ground in that
marketplace. Viewpoint-based discrimination has no place in publicly
supported library collections or services; for the library to espouse partisan
causes or favor particular viewpoints violates its mission.
"A public library is not only a designated public forum, but also a
quintessential, traditional public forum whose accessibility affects the
bedrock of our democratic system. A place where ideas are communicated freely
through the written word"2 and other means of recorded expression "is as
integral to a democracy and to First Amendment rights as an available public
space where citizens can communicate their ideas through the spoken word."3
The fact of public sponsorship of a library in no way implies endorsement of
any of the myriad viewpoints contained within a library's collection. Nor
should a funding source dictate its contents. The United States Supreme Court
has recognized that "the university is a traditional sphere of free
expression so fundamental to the functioning of our society that the
Government's ability to control speech within that sphere by means of
conditions attached to the expenditures of Government funds, is restricted by
the vagueness and overbreadth doctrines of the First Amendment. . . ."4 The
same principles apply with equal force to publicly supported libraries. These
principles restrict any attempt to control expression within a publicly
supported library or to dictate or limit the contents of its collections,
programs, displays, or publications through conditions attached to funding.
Libraries serve the function of making ideas and information available to all
members of the society, without discrimination. Publicly supported libraries
provide access to information for all without imposing barriers which limit or
prevent library users, including the indigent or the economically
disadvantaged, from exercising their full constitutional rights. Publicly
supported libraries' traditional commitment to free public service is integral
to their nature and function. Publicly supported libraries, like public
schools and universities, are supported in part from a recognition that
information and education are essential components of informed self-
government.
The right of free access to information for all individuals is basic to all
library service. The central thrust of the LIBRARY BILL OF RIGHTS is to
protect and encourage the free flow of information and ideas. Article 5
protects the rights of an individual to use a library regardless of origin,
age, background, or views. The American Library Association urges all
libraries to set policies and procedures that reflect the basic tenets of the
LIBRARY BILL OF RIGHTS, within the framework of Constitutional imperatives and
limitations.
Many libraries adopt administrative policies and procedures to govern their
order and use, the comfort and safety of patrons and staff, and the protection
of resources, services, and facilities. Such policies and procedures affect
access, and must not become a convenient means for removing or restricting
access to controversial materials, limiting access to facilities, programs, or
exhibits, or for discriminating against specific individuals or groups of
library patrons. Administrative policies and procedures which infringe on
equitable access to library buildings, services, and resources, the privacy of
the individual, or the right to read, violate the LIBRARY BILL OF RIGHTS.
Further, if such policies have the effect of impermissible discrimination
against individuals or particular groups of library users, they are likely to
violate First Amendment rights. The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized that
"`the right to receive ideas follows ineluctably from the sender's First
Amendment right to send them. . . . More importantly, the right to receive
ideas is a necessary predicate to the recipient's meaningful exercise of his
own rights such as speech, press, and political freedom' (emphasis in
original) Board of Education, Island Trees Union Free School District No. 26
v. Pico, 457 U.S. 853, 866-67 (1982) (plurality opinion)."5 Respect for
these rights is central to the function of any government supported library
for these rights define the library's purpose.
Because publicly supported libraries are institutions dedicated to the free
flow of information, it is essential that the regulations, policies, and
procedures which libraries develop and use embody the principles of free
expression. Information about their operations must be made available in full
compliance with confidentiality, privacy, freedom of information and sunshine
laws. The application of policies and procedures for the use of library
services and resources should be consistently applied to both members of the
public and library employees. Policies and procedures for responding to
complaints about library materials -- including individual items in a
collection, library programs and services, or publications and other material
produced or published by the library -- should be uniformly applied regardless
of the source of the complaint, whether coming from a member of the public,
staff, or governing authority.
1., 2., 3., 5. Richard R. Kreimer v. Bureau of Police for the Town of
Morristown, et. al., ___ F. Supp. ___ (No. 90-554, May 22, 1991).
4. Rust, et. al. v. Sullivan, ___U.S.___(___U.S.L.W.___, ___S. Ct. Rept.___),
No. 89-1391, May 23, 1991.
Adopted January 27, 1982, as ADMINISTRATIVE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES AFFECTING
ACCESS TO LIBRARY RESOURCES AND SERVICES; amended with title change July 3,
1991, by the ALA Council.
[Made available by permission of the American Library Association.]
========= ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/library/censorship.def.ala ========
Books/Materials Challenge Terminology
Expression of Concern -- An inquiry that has judgmental overtones.
Oral Complaint -- An oral challenge to the presence and/or
appropriateness of the material in question
Written Complaint -- A formal, written complaint filed with the
institution (library, school, etc.) challenging the presence and/or
appropriateness of specific material.
Public Attack -- A publicly disseminated statement challenging the
value of the material, presented to the media and/or others outside
the institutional organization in order to gain public support for
further action.
Censorship -- The change in the access status of material, made by a
governing authority or its representatives. Such changes include:
exclusion, restriction, removal, or age/grade level changes.
Adopted by the Intellectual Freedom Committee at the 1986 American
Library Association Annual Conference
[Made available by permission of the American Library Association.]
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Jun 5 14:33:34 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [eff.mail.cwis-l] Re: Usenet posting policies - help
Message-ID: <199206051831.AA26791@eff.org>
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 1992 10:31:10 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Jun 5 14:33:34 1992
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Usenet posting policies - help
Message-ID: <199206051753.AA25402@eff.org>
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 1992 17:49:16 GMT
RWWMAINT@MSU.bitnet (Richard W Wiggins) writes:
[...]
>Let's suppose you
>have a gateway between Gopher and Usenet news feeds, but on your
>public "information kiosk" terminals you exclude certain alt groups.
>If for no other reason, you might want to do this so that people
>can look at the campus map without waiting for a local teenager
>to finish his graphical journey.
>It is a common practice for sites to exclude particular alt groups
>from news feeds altogether. Is the claim that if one carries a
>news feed one is obliged to carry all groups?
[...]
No, just as a library can't effort to carry all magazines, "computer
libraries" can't effort of carry all computer media. So, selection is
necessary, but by what criteria?
The claim is that selection should be based on attributes such as
cost, relevance to mission, etc., but should not be based on, for
example, offensiveness-to-some. (Some CWIS have a narrow mission;
others have a broad mission.)
As a practical matter, adopting a selection policy based on library
ethics seems to head off many problems. It is a very defensible.
I'm enclosing an FAQ from alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk that talks about
selection in the context of newsgroups.
- 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
=================
Full text of ALA's selection policy workbook.
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 by 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
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Jun 5 17:06:14 1992
From: stssram@st.unocal.com (Bob Myers)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: Farlay Mowat and Free Speech (was: Congratulations...)
Message-ID:
Date: 5 Jun 92 20:52:04 GMT
>>>>> On 5 Jun 92 17:12:56 GMT, kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) said:
Carl> By prohibiting government restrictions on free speech, the First
Carl> Amendment helps guarantee both the right to speak and the right to
Carl> listen. Even if the guarantee of a right to speak doesn't apply to Mr.
Carl> Mowat, the guarantee of the right to listen did apply to his audience.
Huh? A right to listen? There is no such right.
--
Bob Myers Unocal Science & Technology Division
Internet: Bob.Myers@st.unocal.com Seismic Research and Applications
Phone: [714] 693-6951 P. O. Box 68076
Anaheim, California 92817-8076
From caf-talk Caf Jun 5 18:18:56 1992
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.config,alt.sex,alt.sex.bondage
From: greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (J. S. Greenfield)
Subject: Re: Farlay Mowat and Free Speech (was: Congratulations...)
Message-ID: <1992Jun5.112736.7609@newstand.syr.edu>
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 92 11:27:36 EDT
In article <1992Jun4.225125.19301@dragon.acadiau.ca> alan@dragon.acadiau.ca (Alan McKay) writes:
>
>Here we go again! A holier than thou American telling the world that
>America has all the answers and that the American system is the be all
>and end all.
>
>Sorry guy. If you want to talk about censorship, how about talking
>about the renouned Canadian write Farlay Mowat being refused entry into
>the "good-ol'" US of A because of a book he wrote entitled "Sea of
>Slaughter". Of course, I guess that probably didn't get much media
>down there since the government didn't want y'all to know that they
>reserve the exclusive right to censor whomever they want, whenever they
>want. Thats probably why your laws are so liberal down there; to fool
>you all into thinking you have something that you really don't.
>
>Of course I realise that I'm just blowing wind past deaf ears since
>you've been so brain-washed into thinking America is the best place in
>the Universe that you've lost the ability of self criticism.
>
>Fortunately we in Canada haven't lost that ability, and our
>constitutional crisis right now is living proof of that. We are
>constantly trying to make things better, while you rest on the laurels
>of something that happened over 200 years ago. I think its probably
>about time you started to take a look at what you have today, and not
>what you had back then.
My goodness, do you *mean* to start a flame war with these sweeping
generalizations?
In fact, Americans who have taken an interest are generally aware that the
government has consistently (and throughout its history) applied a
different set of rules to the *importation* of "expression" (in varying
forms) than that applied to expression within the country.
One of the grosser forms of this was the McCarren (sp?) Act, which was passed
sometime during the McCarthy era and allowed the government to keep out any
"undesirables," even if their "undesirable" activities would be completely
legal within the US. Reagan was particularly keen on using the Act, and it was
while he was in office that Farley Mowat (sp?) was refused entry to the
country.
As I recall, there was a move in Congress, approx. one year ago, to repeal
the Act. (The move was triggered by the government's refusal to allow
a *permanent resident* of the US (for 10 years) to re-enter the country
after attending a conference or something like that. This individual had
made it onto the "undesirables" list by participating in anti-Vietnam war
protests during the early 70s while he was in Japan (or was it Korea?)
*before* he had immigrated to the US.) I believe that the Act was, indeed,
repealed at that time, but I am not sure.
In any case, whether one agrees with them or not, there certainly are
individuals and organizations (for example, the ACLU) that work continually
to improve (depending upon your outlook) the existing laws in the US. For
you to suggest that everyone in the US simply sits back and says, "Hey, our
current laws and precedents are just hunky-dory" is simply nonsensical.
If that *were* the case, then we wouldn't have any problem--everybody would
already agree on all such matters...
--
J. S. Greenfield greeny@top.cis.syr.edu
(I like to put 'greeny' here,
but my d*mn system wants a
*real* name!) "What's the difference between an orange?"
From caf-talk Caf Jun 5 20:13:36 1992
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Farlay Mowat and Free Speech (was: Congratulations...)
Message-ID: <1992Jun6.001144.4051@eff.org>
Date: Sat, 6 Jun 1992 00:11:44 GMT
>>>>>> On 5 Jun 92 17:12:56 GMT, kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) said:
Carl> By prohibiting government restrictions on free speech, the First
Carl> Amendment helps guarantee both the right to speak and the right to
Carl> listen. Even if the guarantee of a right to speak doesn't apply to Mr.
Carl> Mowat, the guarantee of the right to listen did apply to his audience.
stssram@st.unocal.com (Bob Myers) writes:
>Huh? A right to listen? There is no such right.
The right to listen and right to speak are two sides of the same coin.
Without one, the other becomes meaningless.
Are you asserting that the government should have authority to, for
example, forbid people from listening to critisims of the government?
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Jun 5 22:57:35 1992
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.sex,alt.config,alt.sex.bondage,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: rich@gtsi.com (Richard Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Farlay Mowat and Free Speech (was: Congratulations...)
Message-ID:
Date: Sat, 6 Jun 1992 02:12:03 GMT
In article <1992Jun4.225125.19301@dragon.acadiau.ca> alan@dragon.acadiau.ca (Alan McKay) writes:
>rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold) writes:
[tens of lines of diatribe against the Grand Satan deleted]
>about time you started to take a look at what you have today, and not
>what you had back then.
>
>Alan W. McKay | (902)542-2201.158 | Wolfville, N.S. Canada
>alan@acadiau.ca | Acadia University | SUB Box 6008, B0P 1Z1
You know Al, decaffenated coffee is available in a variety of delicious
flavors these days. You should try some.
If as an American or you as a Canadian judge either by those labels, then
we commit the same injustice, the one you are guilty of in spades above:
stereotyping a human being by their geographical location, which ranks
right up there with judgement by color on the all-time silly scale.
--
"I see no .sig here." '92 Yamaha Seca II Weeeeeeeeee..... DoD#9630
From caf-talk Caf Jun 6 09:59:09 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: NEELY_MP@DARWIN.NTU.EDU.AU (Mark P. Neely, Northern Territory University)
Subject: Monopolies
Message-ID: <920606232523.20202a2a@DARWIN.NTU.EDU.AU>
Date: Sat, 6 Jun 1992 23:25:23 GMT
PLAYING MONOPOLY IN THE REAL WORLD
By JACOB G. HORNBERGER
There are three major monopolies in the United States that
have plagued the American people throughout most of this
century. Yet, despite their professed opposition to
monopolies, the American people simply cannot bring themselves
to end them. But end them we must--for they are among the most
tyrannical and destructive aspects of the American welfare-
state, regulated-economy way of life.
The most well-recognized monopoly, of course, is the United
States Postal Service. It never ceases to amaze me that the
American people continue to tolerate the "service" provided by
the Postal Service. For the Postal Service exemplifies every
single reason that people throughout history have hated
monopolies--poor service, high prices, long lines, arrogant
behavior, and especially the inability to go to a competitor.
We should first understand the violent nature of the Postal
Service's monopolistic power. Federal law prohibits anyone but
the Postal Service from delivering first-class mail. What does
this mean in the real world? It means that if a person tries
to provide first-class mail service to the citizenry, the
United States government will immediately secure from a
federal judge an injunction enjoining the operation of the
business. The terms of the injunction, which will be served by
a United States marshal on the provider of the service, will
be clear: "You are commanded to desist immediately from
providing first-class mail service."
What happens if the provider of the service takes the position
that he and his consumers have the natural and God-given right
to engage in economic enterprise and enter into contracts with
one another? The judge, through the assistance of the marshal,
will slam him into jail until he acknowledges the error of his
ways. And what if he resists the incarceration? He will be
shot for "resisting arrest."
Thus, behind the veil of benevolence of the postal monopoly
lies the jail and the gun of the state: "Violate our monopoly
position, and pay the price."
Every time I see the faces of my fellow citizens as they stand
in the long lines at the post office, I wonder how long they
are going to put up with this nonsense. Every single American
has his own personal horror story of the poor service he has
received at the hands of the postal monopoly. And every one of
us, at one time or another, has felt the frustration of not
being able to walk out of a postal station and go to a true
competitor--not just another governmental postal station.
The second monopoly has been much more destructive than the
first. For the U.S. Government has used this monopoly to wage
a very real war against its own people. Unfortunately,
however, very few Americans understand the tyrannical nature
of this monopoly and the way it is used to wage war against
them. This monopoly is the United States central bank, more
commonly known as the Federal Reserve System.
The American people are forced by law into using one--and only
one--medium of exchange--Federal Reserve Notes of the United
States government. Through legal-tender laws and the Federal
Reserve System, the U.S. government has maintained a
stranglehold over the economic affairs of the American
people--a stranglehold which has enabled our government,
decade after decade, to confiscate surreptitiously billions
and billions of dollars from the American people.
To understand the terrible destructiveness of the government's
monetary monopoly, imagine what life would be like if this
monopoly were ended. In a truly free-market economy, people
would be free to use any medium of exchange on which they
mutually agreed--gold, silver, bank notes, or any other means
of exchange that the market brought into existence. Under a
way of life based on monetary freedom, the political
authorities could not force anyone to use government paper
money in their financial affairs. Why is this so important?
Because if the government attempted to finance its operations
with ever-expanding quantities of government money--as it has
for the past several decades--people could still protect
themselves from the inflation by using other media of exchange
rather than the depreciating, government-produced paper money.
The American people have been taught by their governmental
officials that it is a historical imperative that money
depreciates as time progresses. For example, when Americans
say, "Just think--in the olden days, a penny could really buy
a lot, compared to what it will buy today," they believe that
progress over time necessarily entails money's losing its
value. They do not understand that it never had to happen--
that if the monetary monopoly had never been established,
their money would, in all likelihood, have increased in value
over the decades.
The third major monopoly in American is, of course, the
public-school monopoly. Now, it is true that this is more in
the nature of a near-monopoly, since people can choose to send
their children to a private school. But actually the "choice"
is a charade, at least in most cases. In most states, parents
are required by law to send their children to a government-
approved school--public or private. And even in those states
in which parents are permitted to home-school their children,
the educational program often must be approved by the
political authorities.
The result, of course, is that in most cases, the school and
the educational program will not receive governmental approval
unless government-approved doctrine is taught to the students.
And one of the best examples of the success of political
indoctrination of the American people in their government-
approved schools has been with respect to monopolies.
For example, if we ask Americans if they favor the repeal of
antitrust laws, the immediate, knee-jerk, government-
indoctrinated response is, "Of course not. Without antitrust
laws, individuals and companies would grow so powerful that
they could force the consumer to purchase their goods and
services at any price they choose."
The effectiveness of this indoctrination is reflected by the
fact that it flies in the face of reality. For anyone can
simply read The Wall Street Journal on any day of the week and
find numerous instances of formerly wealthy and "powerful"
business people and corporations who are now in bankruptcy.
If they really were omnipotent--that is, if they were actually
able to ignore the wishes of the consumers--then how could
they ever fall into financial straits? But when this is
pointed out to the countless victims of governmental
indoctrination, the response invariably is either silence or
"But . . .
but . . . but. . . ."
And the other reason that we know that our fellow citizens are
the victims of political indoctrination when it comes to
monopolies and antitrust laws is their willingness to accept
real monopolies--such as the Postal Service, the Federal
Reserve System, and the public-school monopoly--where the
providers of the service really are all-powerful--where they
can truly force people, through jails and killings, to accept
their "services." For despite all of the tyrannical aspects of
these monopolies--the poor service, the long lines, the ever-
increasing prices, the dismal results, and all of the other
traditional characteristics of monopolies--the response of the
average American, when asked if these monopolies should be
ended, invariably is, "Oh no! Reform maybe, but we need these
institutions in our society."
In the 1700s, the British people were being tyrannized by the
same sorts of monopolies which tyrannize us. Having grown sick
and tired of the privileged classes of people who manned and
benefitted from these monopolies, the British citizenry
finally rebelled and demanded an end to them. Fearing the
citizenry, the British government ended the monopolies.
Two centuries ago, our American ancestors, who had had to live
under the tyranny of many of these British monopolies, also
rebelled against the British authorities. And the founders of
America--our ancestors--pledged that our nation would forever
be free of the tyranny of monopolies. That is the reason our
ancestors refused to establish a postal monopoly, a central
bank, or public schools. In other words, they chose freedom
over tyranny.
Oh, for the spirit that moved those wonderful people! When it
finally ignites the hearts and souls of our fellow citizens--
when Americans finally discover the heritage of liberty which
belongs to them--when their minds finally break free of the
political indoctrination to which they have been subjected--
when they no longer will tolerate real monopolies--when they
finally decide that, like their ancestors, they wish to live
and die as free men and women--our age of tyranny will finally
be at an end.
Mr. Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of
Freedom Foundation.
From caf-talk Caf Jun 6 10:12:59 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: NEELY_MP@DARWIN.NTU.EDU.AU (Mark P. Neely, Northern Territory University)
Subject: Legal-Tender laws
Message-ID: <920606233902.20202a2a@DARWIN.NTU.EDU.AU>
Date: Sat, 6 Jun 1992 23:39:02 GMT
HEPBURN VS. GRISWOLD
By JACOB G. HORNBERGER
In 1860, Susan P. Hepburn executed a promissory note in which
she expressly promised to repay a loan of one thousand
dollars. When the note came due in 1862, Hepburn tendered to
Henry A. Griswold, the owner of the note, United States
governmental notes totalling the amount of the debt. Griswold
refused the tender and sued Hepburn for his money.
Why in the world would a creditor refuse payment of a debt and
then turn around and sue for his money?
Unlike present-day Americans, our ancestors established gold
and silver coin--not paper money--as their medium of exchange.
When the Constitution was adopted in 1787, the average person
was fully aware of what governments historically had done to
plunder and loot people through paper money. Thus, the
Constitution expressly forbade the state governments from
making anything but gold and silver coin legal tender and from
emitting bills of credit, i.e., paper money. And in its
delegation of limited powers to the national government, the
Constitution limited its power to coining money and regulating
the value thereof.
Thus, in the 1800s, people were accustomed to carrying with
them gold and silver coins in which to transact their
business. And their contracts were stipulated either in
coinage or in terms of "dollars," which were predefined in
terms of gold or silver coin.
Thus, when Henry Griswold received Susan Hepburn's note, he
fully expected to be repaid one thousand dollars, as dollars
were defined in gold or silver coin at the time of the
execution of the note.
In order to finance The War of Northern Aggression, President
Lincoln persuaded Congress to authorize the borrowing of money
through the issuance of governmental notes. Since the notes,
however, were expected to depreciate quickly in value,
especially with each battle which the Northern armies lost,
the Congress ordered that the notes be "legal tender" for all
debts, public and private. The legal-tender law, therefore,
required people to use the notes as money, whether they wanted
to or not.
When Hepburn attempted to pay the debt, she tendered
to Griswold one thousand dollars in governmental notes, notes
which had depreciated more than fifty percent against gold and
silver. Hepburn had borrowed the equivalent of one thousand
dollars in gold and was trying to pay back the equivalent of
five hundred dollars in gold.
The case reached the U.S. Supreme Court. A majority of the
Court held the legal-tender law to be in violation of the
Constitution. The Court reasoned that the U.S. government,
having only those powers which were enumerated in the
Constitution, did not have the power to issue paper money and
enact legal-tender laws.
Within less than a year, two new justices were appointed to
the Court. In one of the most shameful acts in Supreme Court
history, the previous minority, joined now with the two new
justices, voted to overrule the decision in Hepburn vs.
Griswold. In Knox vs. Lee and later decisions, it was to
become settled law that the U.S. government would have the
power to issue paper money and enact legal-tender laws, no
matter how destructive of contractural obligations.
One of the most interesting justices in the history of the
Court, Stephen J. Field, was the most eloquent of the new
dissenters: "The power to commit violence, perpetrate
injustice, take private property by force without compensation
to the owner, and compel the receipt of promises to pay in
place of money, may be exercised, as it often has been, by
irresponsible authority, but it cannot be considered as
belonging to a government founded upon law. . . . From the
decision of the Court I see only evil likely to follow."
From caf-talk Caf Jun 6 11:22:33 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Newsgroup and packet bans at Duke?
Message-ID: <1992Jun6.152045.9977@eff.org>
Date: Sat, 6 Jun 1992 15:20:45 GMT
[I'm posting this for an anonymous person at Duke - Carl.]
Due to the politics of the situation, I can't afford to post
this directly, or with my name or site attached, but I think it needs to be
mentioned.
We have heard a lot in the recent weeks about how various
universities around the world and in the USA have been filtering out the
alt.sex groups and acting generally hysterically about such matters, and
I have been rather smug about pointing out how Duke University isn't
doing "anything like that".
Talk about rose-colored glasses! I found out this week that it
depends on which machine you're reading news from around here. The
privledged folks can get everything, if they have accounts on the right
machines, but the students and less privledged folks will only get a
sanitized version of the news.
The main NNTP server for the campus is not receiving alt.sex.*
nor alt.binaries.pictures (and probably not a few other groups).
Meanwhile, other machines enjoy full access.
Unfortunately, I can't ask the campus news czar why without
causing more trouble than it is worth to me.
To further add fire to the situation, I heard that the network
services folk have active plans to squelch other network traffic that is
deemed "less valuable" as well. For example, they have plans to squelch
"xtrek" packets, and telnet connections to IRC servers! With options
to squelch telnet connections to other "frivolous" types of activities
as well. For this activity, they don't plan to make exceptions,
aparently - all that traffic would be squelched.
I thought Duke was doing pretty good, and then I took a look
beyond the end of my nose.
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Jun 6 12:40:49 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.society.privacy] Re: E-Mail Privacy Policy
Message-ID: <9206061638.AA26902@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Sat, 6 Jun 1992 06:38:22 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Jun 6 12:40:49 1992
Newsgroups: comp.society.privacy
Subject: Re: E-Mail Privacy Policy
Message-ID:
Date: 5 Jun 92 11:15:00 GMT
In Volume 1 : Issue: 042 "Allan H. Levy" writes:
>Also, under the Illinois Freedom of Information Act,
>electronic files are treated in the same way as paper files.
>The documents in the files of employees of the State of
>Illinois are considered to be public documents, and may be
>subject to inspection through FOIA. In such cases, the campus
>Freedom of Information Officer must inspect files to
>determine which portions may be exempt from disclosure.
How does this policy affect students, visiting professors, etc?
They aren't employees of the State of Illinois. Other areas are
research collaborations, federal grants (which might have a security
classification attached).
I feel that a little tighter description of just whose files are
available under the FOIA and whose aren't is in order.
Dave
Dave Niebuhr Internet: niebuhr@bnl.gov / Bitnet: niebuhr@bnl
Brookhaven National Laboratory Upton, NY 11973 (516)-282-3093
From caf-talk Caf Jun 6 13:55:48 1992
From: greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (J. S. Greenfield)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: Farlay Mowat and Free Speech (was: Congratulations...)
Message-ID: <1992Jun6.101909.25710@newstand.syr.edu>
Date: 6 Jun 92 14:19:09 GMT
In article Bob.Myers@st.unocal.com writes:
>
>Carl> By prohibiting government restrictions on free speech, the First
>Carl> Amendment helps guarantee both the right to speak and the right to
>Carl> listen. Even if the guarantee of a right to speak doesn't apply to Mr.
>Carl> Mowat, the guarantee of the right to listen did apply to his audience.
>
>Huh? A right to listen? There is no such right.
>
>--
>Bob Myers Unocal Science & Technology Division
>Internet: Bob.Myers@st.unocal.com Seismic Research and Applications
>Phone: [714] 693-6951 P. O. Box 68076
> Anaheim, California 92817-8076
Seismic research, eh? I suppose you have no right to "listen" for seismic
vibrations. And, more generally, I suppose that you have no right to
conduct research (information gathering), since listening is part of the
process of gathering information, and there is no such right as the right
to listen.
I suggest that, from an ethical standpoint, you are simply incorrect, and
there certainly is a "right to listen."
Furthermore, I suggest that under the US Constitution, there also is such
a right, even if it is not explicitly enumerated in the bill of rights.
In fact, there is even some judicial precedent that demonstrates the
existence of a "right to listen."
From American Constitutional Law, by Rossum and Tarr:
"The Court has held that government can impose restrictions on the time,
place, and manner of speech on public property in order to promote
effective communication..." [remainder, which not directly relevant, deleted]
Clearly, communication is a process of both "speaking" and "listening."
--
J. S. Greenfield greeny@top.cis.syr.edu
(I like to put 'greeny' here,
but my d*mn system wants a
*real* name!) "What's the difference between an orange?"
From caf-talk Caf Jun 6 23:53:04 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.sex.bondage] Re: Congratulations! You've made the evening news.
Message-ID: <9206070350.AA28663@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Sat, 6 Jun 1992 17:50:36 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Jun 6 23:53:04 1992
From: wi.4789@wizvax.methuen.ma.us
Subject: Re: Congratulations! You've made the evening news.
Message-ID: <1992Jun6.223237.12837@wizvax.methuen.ma.us>
Date: Sat, 6 Jun 1992 22:32:37 GMT
Some facts, for a change.
[
Precis judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada in the case R. v. Butler,
appeal from a judgment of the Manitoba Court of Appeal (1990), 60 C.C.C.
(3d) 219, [1991] 1 W.W.R. 97, 1 C.R. (4th) 309, allowing the Crown's
appeal from the accused's acquittals by Wright J. in the Manitoba Court
of Queen's Bench (1989), 60 Man. R. (2d) 82, 50 C.C.C. (3d) 97, [1989] 6
W.W.R. 35, 72 C.R. (3d), 18, 46 C.R.R. 124, on obscenity charges.
Appeal heard 6 June 1991, judgment rendered 27 February 1992.
Consitutional law -- Freedom of expression -- Obscenity -- Obscene
materials -- Whether definition of obscenity in Criminal Code infringes
s. 2(b) of Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms -- If so, whether
infringement justifiable under s. 1 of Charter -- Criminal Code, R.S.C.
1985, c. C-46,, s. 163(8).
Criminal law -- Obscenity -- Obscene materials -- Whether definition of
obscenity in Criminal Code infringes s. 2(b) of Canadian Charter of
Rights and Freedoms -- If so, whether infringement justifiable under s.
1 of Charter -- Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46,, s. 163(8).
]
The accused owned a shop selling and resting ``hard core'' videotapes and
magazines as well as sexual paraphernalia. He was charged with various
counts of selling obscene material, possessing obscene material for the
purpose of distribution or sale, and exposing obscene material to public
view, contrary to s. 159 (now 163) of the Criminal Code. Section 163(8)
of the Code provides that ``any publication a dominant characteristic of
which is the undue exploitation of sex, or of sex and any one or more of
... crime, horror, cruelty and violence, shall be deemed to be obscene''.
The trial judge concluded that the obscene material was protected by the
guarantee of freedom of expression in s. 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of
Rights and Freedoms, and that prima facie only those materials which
contained scenes involving violence or cruelty intermingled with sexual
activity or depicted lack of consent to sexual contact or otherwise could
be said to dehumanize men or women in a sexual context were legitimately
proscribed under s. 1. He convicted the accused on eight counts relating
to eight films and entered acquittals on the remaining charges. The Crown
appealed the acquittals. The Court of Appeal, in a majority decision,
allowed the appeal and entered convictions with respect to all the
counts. The majority concluded that the materials in question fell
outside the protection of the Charter since they constituted purely
physical activity and involved the undue exploitation of sex and the
degradation of human sexuality.
Held: The appeal should be allowed and a new trial directed on all
charges. Section 163 of the Criminal Code infringes s. 2(b) of the
Charter but can be justified under s. 1 of the Charter.
Per Lamer C.J. and La Forest, Sopinka, Cory, McLachlin, Stevenson and
Iacobucci JJ.: While the constitutional questions as stated concern s.
163 in its entirety, this appeal should be confined to an examination of
the constitutional validity of the definition of obscenity in s. 163(8).
Section 163(8) provides an exhaustive test of obscenity with respect to
publications and object which exploit sex as a dominant characteristic.
In order for a work or material to qualify as ``obscene'', the
exploitation of sex must not only be its dominant characteristic, but such
exploitation must be ``undue''. The courts have attempted to formulate
workable tests to determine when the exploitation of sex is ``undue''.
The most important of these is the ``community standard of tolerance''
test. This test is concerned not with what Canadians would not tolerate
being exposed to themselves, but with what they would not tolerate other
Canadians being exposed to. There has been a growing recognition in
recent cases that material which may be said to exploit sex in a
``degrading or dehumanizing manner'' will necessarily fail the community
standards test, not because it offends against morals but because it is
perceived by public opinion to be harmful to society, particularly women.
In the appreciation of whether material is degrading or dehumanizing, the
appearance of consent is not necessarily determinative. The last step in
the analysis of whether the exploitation of sex is undue is the ``internal
necessities'' test or artistic defence. Even material which by itself
offends community standards will not be considered ``undue'' if it is
required for the serious treatment of a theme. Thus far the jurisprudence
has failed to specify the relationship of these tests to each other.
The courts must determine as best they can what the community would
tolerate others being exposed to on the basis of the degree of harm that
may flow from such exposure. Harm in this context means that it
predisposes persons to act in an anti-social matter, in other words, a
matter which society formally recognizes as incompatible with its proper
functioning. The stronger the inference of a risk of harm, the lesser the
likelihood of tolerance. The portrayal of sex coupled with violence will
almost always constitute the undue exploitation of sex. Explicit sex
which is degrading or dehumanizing may be undue if the risk of harm is
substantial. Explicit sex that is not violent and neither degrading nor
dehumanizing is generally tolerated in our society and will not qualify as
the undue exploitation of sex unless it employs children in its
production. If material is not obscene under this framework, it does not
become so by reason of the person to whom it is or may be shown or by
reason of the place or manner in which it is shown.
The need to apply the ``internal necessities'' test arises only if a work
contains sexually explicit material that by itself would constitute the
undue exploitation of sex. The portrayal of sex must then be viewed in
context to determine whether undue exploitation of sex is the main object
of the work or whether the portrayal of sex is essential to a wider
artistic, literary or other similar purpose. The court must determine
whether the sexually explicit material when viewed in the context of the
whole work would be tolerated by the community as a whole. Any doubt in
this regard must be resolved in favour of freedom of expression.
Section 163 of the Code seeks to prohibit certain types of expressive
activity and thereby infringes s. 2(b) of the Charter. Activities cannot
be excluded from the scope of the guaranteed freedom on the basis of the
content or meaning being conveyed.
The infringement is justifiable under s. 1 of the Charter. Section
163(8), as interpreted in prior judgments and supplemented by these
reasons, prescribes an intelligible standard. The overriding objective of
s. 163 is not moral disapprobation but the avoidance of harm to society,
and this is a sufficiently pressing and substantial concern to warrant a
restriction on freedom of expression. One does not have to resort to the
``shifting purpose'' doctrine in order to identify the objective as the
avoidance of harm to society. There is a sufficiently rational link
between the criminal sanction, which demonstrates our community's
disapproval of the dissemination of materials which potentially victimize
women and restricts the negative influence which such materials have on
changes in attitudes and behaviour, and the objective. While a direct
link between obscenity and harm to society may be difficult to establish,
it is reasonable to presume that exposure to images bears a causal
relationship to changes in attitudes and beliefs. Section 163 of the Code
minimally impairs freedom of expression. It does not proscribe sexually
explicit erotica without violence that is not degrading or dehumanizing,
but is designed to catch material that creates a risk of harm to society.
Materials which have scientific, artistic or literary merit are not caught
by the provision. Since the attempt to provide exhaustive instances of
obscenity has been shown to be destined to fail, the only practical
alternative is to strive towards a more abstract definition of obscenity
which is contextually sensitive. The standard of ``undue exploitation''
is thus appropriate. Further, it is only the public distribution and
exhibition of obscene materials which is in issue here. Given the gravity
of the harm, and the threat to the values at stake, there is no
alternative equal to the measure chosen by Parliament. Serious social
problems such as violence against women require multi-pronged approaches
by government; education and legislation are not alternatives but
complements in addressing such problems. Finally, the effects of the law
do not so severely trench on the protected right that the legislative
objective is outweighted by the infringement.
Per L'Heureux-Dube and Gonthier JJ.: Sopinka J.'s reasons were generally
agreed with, subject to the following comments. The subject matter of s.
163 of the Code, obscene materials, comprises the dual elements of
representation and content, and it is the combination of the two that
attracts criminal liability. Obscenity is not limited to the acts
prohibited in the Code: Parliament ascribed a broader content to it
because it involves a representation. Obscenity leads to many ills.
Obscene materials convey a distorted image of human sexuality, by making
public and open elements of human nature that are usually hidden behind a
veil of modesty and privacy. These materials are often evidence of the
commission of reprehensible actions in their making, and can induce
attitudinal changes which may lead to abuse and harm.
Parliament through s. 163 prohibits, and does not regulate, the
circulation of obscene materials. In determining whether they are
obscene, the impugned materials must therefore be presumed available to
the Canadian public at large, since restrictions on availability are the
result of regulatory measures which fall outside the purview of these
provisions.
Explicit sex with violence will generally constitute undue exploitation of
sex, and explicit sex that is degrading or dehumanizing will be undue if
it creates a substantial risk of harm, as outlined by Sopinka J. Explicit
sex that is neither violent nor degrading or dehumanizing may also come
within the definition of obscene in s. 163(8). While the content of this
category of materials is generally perceived as unlikely to cause harm,
there are exceptions, such as child pornography. As well, it is quite
conceivable that the representation may cause harm, even its its content
as such is not seen as harmful. While the actual audience to which the
materials are presented is not relevant, the manner of representation
can greatly contribute to the deformation of sexuality, through the loss
of its humanity, and make it socially harmful. The likelihood of harm,
and the tolerance of the community, may vary according to the medium of
representation, even if the content stays the same. The overall type or
use of the representation may also be relevant. The assessment of the
risk of harm here depends on the tolerance of the community. If the
community cannot tolerate the risk of harm, then the materials, even
though they may offer a non-violent, non-degrading, non-dehumanizing
content, will constitute undue exploitation of sex and fall within the
definition of obscenity.
Section 162 of the Code is aimed at preventing harm to society, a moral
objective that is valid under s. 1 of the Charter. The avoidance of harm
to society is but one instance of a fundamental conception of morality.
In order to warrant an override of Charter rights the moral claims must be
grounded; they must involve concrete problems such as life, harm and
well-being, and not merely differences of opinion or taste. A consensus
must also exist among the population on these claims. The avoidance of
harm caused to society through attitudinal changes certainly qualifies as
a fundamental conception of morality. It is well grounded, since the harm
takes the form of violations of the principles of human equality and
dignity.
[
Excerpt from the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
]
Guarantee of Rights and Freedoms
1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and
freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits
prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and
democratic society.
Fundamental Freedoms
2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
(a) freedom of conscience and religion;
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including
freedom of the press and other media of communication;
(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d) freedom of association.
[
Excerpt from the Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46
]
Part V - Sexual offences, public morals and disorderly conduct
Offences tending to corrupt morals.
163. (1) Every one commits an offence who
(a) makes, prints, publishes, distributes, circulates, or who has in
his possession for the purpose of publication, distribution or
circulation any obscene written matter, picture, model, phonograph
record or other thing whatever; or
(a) makes, prints, publishes, distributes, circulates, or who has in
his possession for the purpose of publication, distribution or
circulation a crime comic.
(2) Every one commits an offence who knowingly, without lawful justification
or excuse,
(a) sells, exposes to public view or has in his possession for such
a purpose any obscene written matter, picture, model, phonograph
record or other thing whatever;
(b) publicly exhibits a disgusting thing or an indecent show;
(c) offers to sell, advertises or publishes an advertisement of, or has
for sale or disposal any means, instructions, medicine, drug or
article intended or represented as a method of causing abortion or
miscarriage; or
(d) advertises or publishes an advertisement of any means, instructions,
medicine, drug or article intended or represented as a method for
restoring sexual virility or curing venereal disease or diseases of
the generative organs.
(3) No person chall be convicted of an offence under this section if he
establishes that the public good was served by the acts that are alleged
to constitute the offence, and if the acts alleged did not extend beyond
what served the public good.
(4) For the purposes of this section, it is a question of law whether the act
served the public good and whether there is evidence that the act alleged
went beyond what served the public good, but it is a question of fact
whether the acts did or did not extend beyond what served the public good.
(5) For the purposes of this section, the motives of the accused are
irrelevant.
(6) Where an accused is charged with an offence under subsection (1), the
fact that the accused was ignorant of the nature or presence of the
matter, picture, model, phonograph record, crime comic or other thing by
means of or in relation to which the act was committed is not a defence
to the charge.
(7) In this section, ``crime comic'' means a magazine, periodical or book
that exclusively or substantially comprises matter depicting pictorially
(a) the commission of crimes, real or fictitious; or
(b) events connected with the commission of crimes, real or fictitious,
whether occurring before or after the commission of the crime.
(8) For the purposes of this Act, any publication a dominant characteristic
of which is the undue exploitation of sex, or of sex and any one or more
of the following subjects, namely, crime, horror, cruelty and violence,
shall be deemed to be obscene.
[
Excerpt from the text of the full judgment
]
Sopinka J.:
This appeal calls into question the constitutionality of the obscenity
provisions of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, s. 163. They are
attacked on the ground that they contravene s. 2(b) of the Canadian
Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The case requires the Court to address
one of the most difficult and controversial of contemporary issues, that
of determining whether, and to what extent, Parliament may legitimately
criminalize obscenity.
[...]
The constitutional questions, as stated, bring under scrutiny the entirety
of s. 163. However, both lower courts as well as the parties have focused
almost exclusively on the definition of obscenity found in s. 163(8).
Other portions of the impugned provision, such as the reverse onus
provision envisaged in s. 163(3) as well as the absolute liability offence
created by s. 163(6), raise substantial Charter issues which should be
left to be dealt with in proceedings specifically directed to these
issues. In my view, in the circumstances, this appeal should be confined
to the examination of the constitutional validity of s. 163(8) only.
[...]
A proper application of the test should not suppress what West refers to
as ``good pornography''. The objective of the impugned provision is not
to inhibit the celebration of human sexuality. However, it cannot be
ignored that the realities of the pornography industry are far from the
picture which the B.C. Civil Liberties Association would have us paint.
Shannon J., in R. v. Wagner, supra, described the materials more accurately
when he observed:
Women, particularly, are deprived of unique human character or
identity and are depicted as sexual playthings, hysterically and
instantly responsive to male sexual demands. They worship male
genitals and their own value depends upon the quality of their
genitals and breasts.
In my view, the kind of expression which is sought to be advanced does not
stand on equal footing with other kinds of expression which directly
engage the ``core'' of the freedom of expression values.
This conclusion is further buttressed by the fact that the targeted
material is expression which is motivated, in the overwhelming majority of
cases, by economic profit. This Court held in Rocket v. Royal College of
Dental Surgeons of Ontario, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 232, at p. 247, that an
economic motive for expression means that restrictions on the expression
might ``be easier to justify than other infringements''.
[...]
The American approach on the necessity of a causal link between obscenity
and harm to society was set out by Burger C.J. in Paris Adult Theatre I v.
Slaton, 413 U.S. 49 (1972):
Although there is no conclusive proof of a connection between antisocial
behaviour and obscene material, the legislature ... could quite
reasonably determine that such a connection does or might exist.
I am in agreement with Twaddle J.A. who expressed the view that Parliament
was entitled to have a ``reasoned apprehension of harm'' resulting from
the desensitization of individuals exposed to materials which depict
violence, cruelty, and dehumanization in sexual relations. Accordingly, I
am of the view that there is a sufficiently rational link between the
criminal sanction, which demonstrates our community's disapproval of the
dissemination of materials which potentially victimize women and which
restricts the negative influence which such materials have on changes in
attitudes and behaviour, and the objective.
[...]
The final question to be answered in the proportionality test is whether
the effects of the law so severely trench on a protected right that the
legislative objective is outweighted by the infringement. The infringement
on freedom of expression is confined to a measure designed to prohibit the
distribution of sexually explicit materials accompanied by violence, and
those without violence that are degrading or dehumanizing. As I have
already concluded, this kind of expression lies far from the core of the
guarantee of freedom of expression. It appeals only to the most base aspect
of individual fulfilment, and it is primarily economically motivated.
The objective of the legislation, on the other hand, is of fundamental
importance in a free and democratic society. It is aimed at avoiding
harm, which Parliament has reasonably concluded will be caused directly or
indirectly, to individuals, groups such as women and children, and
consequently to society as a whole, by the distribution of these
materials. It thus seeks to enhance respect for all members of society,
and non-violence and equality in their relations with each other. I
therefore conclude that the restriction on freedom of expression does not
outweigh the importance of the legislative objective.
--
Please *don't* post tests or personals here. To use this service, send EMAIL to:
Anonymous posting: wi-post@wizvax.methuen.ma.us (yes, a dash)
Anonymous reply: @wizvax.methuen.ma.us
Test path/get alias: wi-ping@wizvax.methuen.ma.us (yes, a dash)
ACS administrator: wi-admin@wizvax.methuen.ma.us (yes, a dash)
From caf-talk Caf Jun 7 17:26:29 1992
From: buhr@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Kevin Andrew Buhr)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.sex.bondage,sci.crypt
Subject: Re: [news.admin, et al.] Re: Anonymous Contact Service @ wizvax
Message-ID: <1992Jun7.210444.11685@ccu.umanitoba.ca>
Date: 7 Jun 92 21:04:44 GMT
[ This is a ridiculous cross-posting concerning the wizvax anonymous
posting service for the "alt.sex.bondage" newsgroup. It seems that
systems people here are making inquiries on the part of our "authorities"
(ha ha). It's being sent to "sci.crypt" for reasons that will hopefully
become apparent, if you haven't already guessed them. ]
In <9206031517.AA06988@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>, someone named Allan writes:
>In article <1992May29.175240.4686@ccu.umanitoba.ca>, mills@ccu.umanitoba.ca
>(Gary Mills) writes:
>> Can somebody give me some information on wizvax.methuen.ma.us, and
>> their anonymous posting facility? Authorities here would like to know
>> the origin of some articles posted to alt.sex.bondage. What do other
>> news administrators think of anonymous posting?
[ I'd be more interested in what lawyers and professors of moral philosophy
thought about anonymous posting. Administrators are often nice people,
but they shouldn't necessarly make moral decisions about the usage of
the equipment they administer. ]
> Authorites should not be permitted to know the origin of such
>articles. If anyone traces back articles and informs authorities, then
>that person should be disconnected from the net, and any other retaliatory
>actions takable should be taken.
One thing's for damn sure: authorities around here wouldn't score a 2 on the
"Kevin Buhr Swiftness Scale". It seems that my glib little comment about
this incident hurting our Net reputation will do more than that. While I
would most definitely support retaliatory actions against the University,
it would seem I'm chopping off my own hand.
Perhaps the people at wizvax should considering compromising some of their
functionality to further protect the anonymity of the posters. Currently,
the service is designed to provide a reversible mapping between aliases
and mail addresses: you can either send a message (with your mail address
in the "From:" line) and have it posted from your alias, or you can send
a message to an alias and have wizvax mail it to the corresponding mail
address.
Maybe a one-way map (from mail address to alias) should be implemented
in place of or in addition to the current service. This way, people could
post their messages from their real mail addresses and an irreversible (or
practically irreversible) algorithm would convert this address to a
(hopefully unique) alias. This wouldn't be unlike the basic *nix password
system.
In this way, no one at the wizvax would be able to reveal real names to
the authorities, even if they wanted to. Only the algorithm would be
kept on the system, no mail addresses or aliases.
It's just a thought...
Kevin Buhr
From caf-talk Caf Jun 7 17:49:05 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.censorship, et al.] Re: Last year U. of Waterloo restored a.s.b
Message-ID: <9206072146.AA01019@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Sun, 7 Jun 1992 11:46:33 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Jun 7 17:49:05 1992
From: mskucher@math.waterloo.edu (Murray S. Kucherawy)
Subject: Re: Last year U. of Waterloo restored a.s.b
Message-ID:
Date: Sun, 7 Jun 1992 20:34:55 GMT
cadesjar@undergrad.math.waterloo.edu (Curtis Desjardins) writes:
>I think Cindy's Torment was the reason for this second ban, if memory
>serves (or it was one of the reasons). And it wasn't just alt.sex that
>was banned, it was the whole alt.sex.* hierarchy, as well as alt.evil.
It started the ball rolling, anyway. It's a really long and involved
story.
>Thank god Waterloo students and staff got off their apathetic butts
>and did something about it.
Censorship seems to be something a lot of people here feel strongly about.
Many UW people said there hasn't been a show of protest at UW of that
magnitude in a very long time.
Shame on those of you who "couldn't find time" or whatever other silly
excuses you gave!
-- Murray S. Kucherawy --------------------+---------------------------------
University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada 3A Mathematics/Computer Science
Internet: mskucherawy@.UWaterloo.ca UUCP: uunet!watmath!mskucherawy
::= {math|descartes|cayley|napier|lily|undergrad.math}
Hi! I am a .signature virus. Copy me into your .signature and join the fun!
From caf-talk Caf Jun 7 17:49:30 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.censorship, et al.] Re: Last year U. of Waterloo restored a.s.b
Message-ID: <9206072146.AA01010@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Sun, 7 Jun 1992 11:46:27 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Jun 7 17:49:30 1992
From: cadesjar@undergrad.math.waterloo.edu (Curtis Desjardins)
Subject: Re: Last year U. of Waterloo restored a.s.b
Message-ID:
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 1992 15:42:52 GMT
In article <1992Jun5.015001.11933@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>>From: funnyr@looking.on.ca (Funny Guy)
>
>Those of you familar with the history of this newsgroup will know
>that in December of 1988, due to the efforts of an MIT grad student
>named Jonathan Richmond, a ban was placed on possibly offensive jokes
>in this newsgroup at the University of Waterloo. At the time, this
>newsgroup went into the net only via that site, and Richmond's goal
>was to control the content of the group by putting pressure on the
>University through the daily newspapers.
>
>Later groups such as alt.sex were also removed. Pressure from the
I think Cindy's Torment was the reason for this second ban, if memory
serves (or it was one of the reasons). And it wasn't just alt.sex that
was banned, it was the whole alt.sex.* hierarchy, as well as alt.evil.
Richmond went for cheap sensationalism by going to the Waterloo news-
papers with the story of "rape and racism being rampant on U(W)'s
computers". (Hmmmm...kinda sounds familiar, doesn't it Manitoba?)
Thank god Waterloo students and staff got off their apathetic butts
and did something about it.
========================= Fluffy the Wonder Bunny ============================
Sex is not the answer, sex is the question. Yes is the answer.
==============================================================================
The U.S. has George Bush, Johnny Cash, Bob Hope, and Stevie Wonder.
Canada has Brian Mulroney, No Cash, No Hope...No Wonder.
==============================================================================
The other night I was lying in bed, looking up at the stars, and
I wondered, "Where the FUCK is my ROOF ?!?"
================== cadesjardins@descartes.waterloo.edu =======================
Hi! I am a .signature virus. Copy me into your .signature and join the fun!
From caf-talk Caf Jun 7 21:38:16 1992
Newsgroups: alt.sex.bondage,sci.crypt,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: Marc VanHeyningen
Subject: Re: [news.admin, et al.] Re: Anonymous Contact Service @ wizvax
Message-ID: <1992Jun7.202842.29461@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu>
Date: Sun, 7 Jun 1992 20:28:34 -0500
In article <1992Jun7.210444.11685@ccu.umanitoba.ca> buhr@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Kevin Andrew Buhr) writes:
>>In article <1992May29.175240.4686@ccu.umanitoba.ca>, mills@ccu.umanitoba.ca
>>(Gary Mills) writes:
>>> Can somebody give me some information on wizvax.methuen.ma.us, and
>>> their anonymous posting facility? Authorities here would like to know
>>> the origin of some articles posted to alt.sex.bondage. What do other
>>> news administrators think of anonymous posting?
Why would they like to know the origin of them? What business is it of
theirs?
>Perhaps the people at wizvax should considering compromising some of their
>functionality to further protect the anonymity of the posters. Currently,
>the service is designed to provide a reversible mapping between aliases
>and mail addresses: you can either send a message (with your mail address
>in the "From:" line) and have it posted from your alias, or you can send
>a message to an alias and have wizvax mail it to the corresponding mail
>address.
>
>Maybe a one-way map (from mail address to alias) should be implemented
>in place of or in addition to the current service. This way, people could
>post their messages from their real mail addresses and an irreversible (or
>practically irreversible) algorithm would convert this address to a
>(hopefully unique) alias. This wouldn't be unlike the basic *nix password
>system.
This would be worse than the existing system. If I suspect you might be
posting through the wizvax system, I merely encrypt your address with
the algorithm and look for postings with that alias. If you try to keep
the algorithm secure, I could just forge a test message from your email
address. Something akin to the un*x password system is not viable
because real mail addresses aren't secret the way passwords are.
>In this way, no one at the wizvax would be able to reveal real names to
>the authorities, even if they wanted to. Only the algorithm would be
>kept on the system, no mail addresses or aliases.
Why even keep the algorithm? If you're willing to eliminate the ability
to respond to a poster via email, you don't need aliases at all, just
"anonymous@wixvax".
--
Marc VanHeyningen mvanheyn@indiana.edu (mvanheyn@iubacs.BITNET)
Computer Science
Indiana University immediate access, limited costs, high-tech medicine
Generic Grad Student (for health care, pick only two of the above.)
From caf-talk Caf Jun 7 22:51:58 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [news.admin, et al.] Re: Anonymous Contact Service @ wizvax
Message-ID: <9206080249.AA01948@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Sun, 7 Jun 1992 16:49:32 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Jun 7 22:51:58 1992
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.config
Subject: Re: Anonymous Contact Service @ wizvax
Message-ID: <1992Jun07.183019.15970@pavnet.pcn.org>
Date: 7 Jun 92 18:30:19 GMT
It was stated in a previous article that no one knows how to stop it.
Well,
**********************************************************************
********* Suggestion for ALL SITES CONNECTING TO A CANADIAN SITE:
Stop providing alt.sex.*, rec.arts.erotica, and any others I don't
know of. Fine, it is legal for us to do it here in the US. But
now we all know that it is ILLEGAL for certain material to be passed
into Canada. Therefor, it opens you up to a charge: since you
sent material somewhere that you KNOWINGLY knew was illegal. Stop
providing it, and there will not be any additional troubles (we hope).
**********************************************************************
> Sorry, Steve, neither you nor Jurgen have it right. The 'authorities'
> mentioned by the original posters are the Canadian police (you know,
> the ones with handcuffs and jails). They're looking to bring charges
> against those persons who are posting materials considered obscene
> under a new Canadian 'anti-pornography' law.
Look, the Canadian police have little to no juristiction over
me, or anyone else in the United States. Sure, extradition could take
place -- but only for certain crimes (not sure whether this is one of
them). The person(s) or organizations responsible for the information
being transfered is the one actually transfering the newsgroups across
the boarder -- NOT the poster of the message, the poster has no intent
for the article to be carried over into Canada.
**********************************************************************
********* Suggestion for article posters of illegal (in Canada)
material: ALWAYS POST WITH A DISTRIBUTION OF "USA"! If, by any small
chance, this case ever gets heard before a court -- it would not be a
bad defense. "Hey, I never wanted to send it into Canada -- only the
United States. That is why I put a distribution of USA on it. See,
look at a copy of my message. I did not knowingly send this material
into Canada, it was not within my control."
**********************************************************************
> --------------- Transcript Follows ---------------
>
> Computer Porn.
>
> Canadian police can't seem to control it. A wave of obscene material
> is being transmitted to universities through a computer network. Much
> of the pornographic writing comes from the US, where laws against
> obscenity are more relaxed. Police here say the material is clearly
> obscene and they say they'd be willing to prosecute if they could just
> figure out who's responsible. David McLaughlan has more ...
Police here, almost without a question, will prosecute someone
somewhere for the crime. There is no substantial case law reguarding the
"computer-unaware" and "computer-ignorant" law system. I think that we
will definatly see a more computer-aware and computer-literate law
system, as well as some case law, by the year 2000.
--
Phil Pavarini, Jr. Pavarini Communications Network
Tel +1 216 891 1122 -- Fax +1 216 891 0009 -- VM +1 216 243 0012 x1122
P.O. Box 360302, Cleveland OH 44136 INET: pep@pcn.org UUCP: pavnet!pep
From caf-talk Caf Jun 7 23:39:45 1992
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,soc.culture.canada,alt.censorhship
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Anonymous Contact Service @ wizvax
Message-ID: <1992Jun8.033130.14724@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Mon, 8 Jun 1992 03:31:30 GMT
[A reply to an article in news.admin - Carl]
pep@pavnet.pcn.org (Phil Pavarini Jr.) writes:
[...]
>********* Suggestion for ALL SITES CONNECTING TO A CANADIAN SITE:
>Stop providing alt.sex.*, rec.arts.erotica, and any others I don't
>know of. Fine, it is legal for us to do it here in the US. But
>now we all know that it is ILLEGAL for certain material to be passed
>into Canada.
Most all the material in alt.sex.*, etc is perfectly legal in Canada.
> Therefor, it opens you up to a charge: since you
>sent material somewhere that you KNOWINGLY knew was illegal.
Most Netnews transfers are initiated by the information requester, not
by the provider. In other words, it is mostly Canadians who transfer
Netnews articles into their nation.
If Canada wants to search all electronic communications at the boarder
(including telephone calls), so be it. I hope that the people of
Canada are too smart to put up an electronic curtain.
[...]
>********* Suggestion for article posters of illegal (in Canada)
>material: ALWAYS POST WITH A DISTRIBUTION OF "USA"! If, by any small
>chance, this case ever gets heard before a court
What court? Canadian courts have jurisdiction here. Should I also
label articles "USA" if they might violate the laws of Ireland
(abortion) or Turkey (politics or religion)? Boston University forbids
transferring "annoying" material. The C.S. department at U. of Texas
both prohibits material that would "demean ... or that would otherwise
bring discredit to the University or the Department." Iowa State
University has outlawed "rude" electonica expression. Am I expected to
set my distribution so that my articles will never violate someone
else's speech restrictions? The only such distribution is "local".
- Carl
ANNOTATED REFERENCES
(All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.)
=================
umanitoba.edu
=================
Information related to the alt.sex* ban at the Univerity
of Manitoba. Including:
1) The Canadian Library Association's Intellectual Freedom Statement
2) A statement arguing that newsgroups should be selected like library
material (w/ U.S. centered references)
3) An open letter from Brad Templeton to the U. of Manitoba
4) Information on the Canadian definition of obscenity
5) My comments on the U. of Manitoba's application of this definition.
6) History of the U. of Waterloo ban of rec.humor.funny and alt.sex*.
(They eventually restored the newsgroups.)
7) Abstract of Stanford's Dr. John McCarthy talk about the Waterloo ban.
8) The new U of Wateroo policy and the report that justifies it.
9) Information about the Computers and Academic Freedom discussion group.
=================
news/cafv02n10
=================
Includes two articles about Ireland's ban on abortion information.
=================
batch/may_10_1992
=================
Includes a critique of METU (in Turkey)'s computer media policy.
=================
policies/bostonu.edu
=================
Ethics policy for Boston University Information Technology
(Critiqued)
=================
policies/bostonu.edu.critique
=================
Critique of the ethics policy for Boston University Information Technology
Summary: 'In the name of protecting privacy, the policy attacks
privacy. It says the University has the power to "without notice, ...
inspect ... any data [or] file". It imposes speech restrict[ion]s that
would be ridiculed if applied to the campus as a whole. It says the
user may not "mak[e] accessible offensive [or] annoying material"'
=================
policies/cs.utexas.edu
=================
Computer Use Policy of the Department of Computer Science at the
University of Texas.
(Critiqued)
=================
policies/cs.utexas.edu.critique
=================
Critique of Computer Use Policy of the Department of Computer Science
at the University of Texas
Summary: The policy is better than most but 1) due process procedures
should be detailed, 2) privacy should be better protected, and 3)
unconstitutional speech restrictions should not be imposed.
=================
policies/ethics.iastate.edu
=================
The computer ethics statement for Iowa State University.
critiqued
=================
policies/ethics.iastate.edu.critique
=================
"This is a critique of Computer Ethics Statement for Iowa State
University. The due process protection of the policy is good. The
privacy protection is unclear. Free expression protection is poor.
(The policy imposes speech restrictions on email and other computer
media. Specifically, it prohibits rude expression and any expression
of a political nature. In my opinion, these speech restrictions
violate academic freedom and the law.)"
=================
=================
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/umanitoba.edu
pub/academic/news/cafv02n10
pub/academic/batch/may_10_1992
pub/academic/policies/bostonu.edu
pub/academic/policies/bostonu.edu.critique
pub/academic/policies/cs.utexas.edu
pub/academic/policies/cs.utexas.edu.critique
pub/academic/policies/ethics.iastate.edu
pub/academic/policies/ethics.iastate.edu.critique
To get the files by 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 umanitoba.edu
send acad-freedom/news cafv02n10
send acad-freedom/batch may_10_1992
send acad-freedom/policies bostonu.edu
send acad-freedom/policies bostonu.edu.critique
send acad-freedom/policies cs.utexas.edu
send acad-freedom/policies cs.utexas.edu.critique
send acad-freedom/policies ethics.iastate.edu
send acad-freedom/policies ethics.iastate.edu.critique
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Jun 7 23:41:13 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [] File 3--Major Congressional Candidates Commit to Elec. Civil Liberties
Message-ID: <9206080338.AA02150@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Sun, 7 Jun 1992 17:38:46 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Jun 7 23:41:13 1992
From: jwarren@AUTODESK.COM(Jim Warren)
Subject: File 3--Major Congressional Candidates Commit to Elec. Civil Liberties
Message-Id:
Five Leading San Francisco Peninsula Congressional Candidates Sign
Explicit Commitments to Protect "Electronic Civil Liberties"
All but one of the six leading candidates for California's 14th
Congressional District have formally committed to protect traditional
constitutional liberties against technological threats. All three
Republican candidates and two of the three leading Democratic
candidates signed formal commitments.
The 14th District covers northern "Silicon Valley" and the southern
half of the San Francisco Peninsula.
This is believed to be the first time that major-party congressional
candidates have ever committed to explicit action to protect
technology-related civil liberties.
The candidates' signed statements that were much more than
nice-sounding, equivocating "God, mother and apple-pie" principles.
They made explicit commitments to take explicit action in their
first/next term in Congress.
Those 14th Dist candidates who signed the formal statement (below)
included:
Dixon Arnett (R), Tom Huening (R), Ted Lempert (D),
Tom Nolan (D), Mike Maibach (R) and Chuck Olson (L).
Gerry Andeen (D) sent a statement about the issues, but made NO
COMMITMENTS.
Anna Eshoo (D) FAILED TO RESPOND AFTER FOUR REQUESTS, as did
then-candidate James Blackman (D), after three requests. The multiple
requests were faxed and mailed to the candidates between Apr. 4th and
Apr. 13th, along with an explanatory cover letter.
Lempert was the first to respond -- apparently by return mail -- and
added a two-page statement regarding technological threats to personal
privacy and his commitment to seek protection against them, as well.
Arnett's response also noted that he was one of the cosponsors of
the Privacy Section that was added to the California Constitution
during his tenure in the state Assembly.
In addition, ten other Libertarian candidates signed the formal
statement, apparently circulated by Libertarian activists, primarily
using the computer nets. Those signing included:
Alan F. Barksdale (U.S. Senate from Alabama),
Richard Boddie (U.S. Senate from California),
James Elwood (8th House Dist from California),
June R. Genis (U.S. Senate from California),
Robert D. Goodwyn (22nd California State Assembly Dist),
Chuck Hammill (47th California State Assembly Dist),
James J. Ludemann (California State Assembly),
George L. O'Brien (12th House Dist from California),
Anton Sherwood (12th California State Assembly Dist),
Mark Valverde (13th California State Assembly Dist) and
Will Wohler (3rd California State Senate Dist).
Note: This Libertarian sign-up resulted entirely from one copy
being sent by electronic-mail to June Genis (San Mateo County) and one
to Mark Hinkle (Santa Clara County activist).
Several others responded without committing to action:
U.S. Senate candidate Tom Campbell (R) also sent a statement about
the issues, but offered NO COMMITMENTS TO EXPLICIT ACTION, as did
Glenn Tenney (D, 12th House).
This effort was an outcome of disclosures before and during the
First Conference on Computers, Freedom & Privacy, held near San
Francisco International Airport in March, 1991. It drew over eighty
pages of public and trade press coverage, internationally.
This is the statement that was signed by the indicated candidates:
Guaranteeing Constitutional Freedoms into the 21st Century
Preface
Harvard Law Professor Laurence H. Tribe, one of the nation's
leading Constitutional scholars, views technological threats to our
traditional constitutional freedoms and protections as so serious that --
for the first time in his career -- he has proposed a Constitutional
Amendment:
"This Constitution's protections for the freedoms of speech,
press, petition and assembly, and its protections against unreasonable
searches and seizures and the deprivation of life, liberty or property
without due process of law, should be construed as fully applicable
without regard to the technological method or medium through which
information content is generated, stored, altered, transmitted or
controlled."
-- First Conf. on Computers, Freedom & Privacy, 3/27/91, Burlingame CA
In the absence of such a constitutional clarification, legislation
and regulation are the only alternatives to assure that citizens are
protected from technological threats against their constitutional
rights and freedoms.
Candidate's Commitment to Action
Preface: It has been over two centuries since our Constitution
and Bill of Rights were adopted. The great technological changes in
the interim --especially in computing, telecommunications and
electronics -- now pose a clear and present danger to the rights and
protections guaranteed in those great documents. Therefore:
Commitment: In the first legislative session after I am
[re]elected, I will author or co-author legislation reflecting the
following specifics, and I will actively support and testify in favor
of any similar legislation as may be introduced by others. Further, I
will actively seek to include in such legislation, explicit personal
civil and/or criminal penalties against any agent, employee or
official of the government who violates any of these statutes. And
finally, I will keep all citizens who express interest in legislative
progress on these matters fully and timely informed.
The protections guaranteed in the Constitution and its Amendments
shall be fully applicable regardless of the current technology of the
time. This particularly includes, but is not limited to:
Speech: Freedom of speech shall be equally protected, whether by
voice or in written form as in the 18th Century, or by electronic
transmission or computer communication as in the 20th Century and
thereafter.
Press: Freedom of the press shall be equally protected, whether
its information is distributed by print as in the 18th Century, or by
networked computers or other electronic forms, as in the 20th Century
and thereafter. Liability for content: Just as a printer is not
liable for content of leaflets printed for a customer, so also shall
the owner or operator of a computer or electronic or
telecommunications facility be held harmless for the content of
information distributed by users of that facility, except as the owner
or operator may, by contract, control information content. Those who
author statements and those who have contractual authority to control
content shall be the parties singularly responsible for such content.
Assembly: Freedom of assembly shall be equally protected, whether
by face-to-face meeting as in the 18th Century, or by computer-based
electronic-conference or other teleconference as in the 20th Century
and thereafter. The right to hold confidential meetings shall be
equally protected, whether they be by personal meeting in private
chambers, or by computer-assisted or electronic-based means.
Self-defense: The right of the people to keep and use computers
and communications connections shall not be abridged by the
government.
Search & seizure: The right of the people to be secure in their
papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall
be fully applicable to their electronic mail, computerized information
and personal computer systems.
Warrants: No warrants for search or seizure shall issue for
computerized information, but upon probable cause, supported by oath
or affirmation, and particularly describing the computer system to be
searched and the specific information to be seized.
Secure information vaults: Just as search and seizure of letters in a
post-office, and papers in a bank-vault lock-box, and surveillance of
telephone conversations by wire-tap, each require a separate warrant
for each postal address, lock-box and telephone line, so also shall a
separate warrant be required for each electronic-mail address and/or
computer files of each suspect, when stored in a computer facility or
archive shared by others. And further, computer files stored in a
shared facility or archive by or for a citizen who is neither named in
a warrant nor associated with a suspect so-named, may not be used
against that un-named citizen, if seized or discovered during legal
search of or for files of a suspect.
Self-incrimination: No person shall be compelled in any civil or
criminal case to be a witness against himself or herself, nor be
compelled to provide information retained only in their mind, nor
otherwise be compelled to assist the translation or decoding of
information that he or she believes may be self-incriminating.
Property: Private property shall not be taken for public use without
just compensation, nor shall such property be used nor sold by any
government agency for less than fair market value, in which case all such
proceeds shall promptly derive singularly to its last owner prior to
government seizure.
Speedy release: Anyone not accused of a crime shall enjoy the
right to a speedy release and return of all of their property, as may
be seized under any warrant, particularly including their computerized
information. The government shall be fully liable for any damage
befalling property or information they have seized.
[ Additional copies of this model candidate's position commitment are
available from:
Jim Warren, Electronic Democracy Initiatives,
345 Swett Road, Woodside CA 94062; (415)851-7075, fax/(415)851-2814;
electronic-mail/ jwarren@autodesk.com -or- jwarren@well.sf.ca.us
For identification purposes, only: organized and chaired the First
Conference on Computers, Freedom & Privacy (3/91), received one of the
Electronic Frontier Foundation's first Pioneer Awards (3/92), is a
"futures" columnist for MicroTimes, an Autodesk Board member, the founder
of InfoWorld, PBS-TV "Computer Chronicles" founding host, etc. ]
