From caf-talk Caf Jun 15 00:39:37 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: arie@csc.cs.technion.ac.il (Arie Rudich)
Subject: Please take me off the list. Thanks, Arie
Message-ID: <9206150435.AA06372@csc.cs.technion.ac.il>
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 1992 04:38:31 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Jun 15 13:25:45 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.org.eff.talk] Re: standard managers reply
Message-ID: <9206151723.AA11849@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 1992 07:23:08 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Jun 15 13:26:26 1992
From: gritton@alaska.caedm.byu.edu (Jamie Gritton)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: standard managers reply
Message-ID:
Date: Mon, 8 Jun 92 09:08:14 MDT
grady@btr.BTR.COM (Grady Ward grady@btr.com) writes:
> (1) This system believes in freedom of speech within
> the bounds of the law;
But if it's a private machine, the bounds of the law don't force
the owner to propagate potentially offensive messages. I say
"potentially offensive" because that way a system manager may restrict
all mail based on reports of offensive mail without actually reading
any of the accused user's private correspondence. It's rather
repressive, but diesn't bring up any sticky privacy issues.
> (2) If you do not like the content of an individuals
> newsgroup posting, then read the rn manual entry on
> how to use the "kill file";
Reasonable.
> (3) If you do not like the content of an individuals
> e-mail, then feel perfectly free to delete it without
> reading it. Refer to the mail manual entry for more
> information;
Not reasonable. Unlike news, which is a broadcast medium, mail is
directed specifically to the reader. This makes offensive mail the
reponsibility of the sender as well as the reader. A more reasonable
solution to the problem is to ask the offending sender to stop sending
offensive mail. After repeated complaints (and talking to the
offender), I would consider revoking either mail priveleges or the
entire account.
> (4) If you believe the content of a posting is contrary
> to law, then inform the proper authorities;
> (5) System managers are not the court of last resort
> in case you are losing an argument on the net. Refer
> to "The Art of Clear Thinking" by Rudolph Flesch,
> "Fallacy: The Counterfeit of Argument" by Fearnside
> or other similar book for more information on how to
> argue without whining to mother.
They certainly can be effective though. And people who are prone to
mailing obcenities are not always renowned for clear thinking :-).
--
James Gritton - gritton@byu.edu - I disclaim
From caf-talk Caf Jun 15 13:26:26 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.org.eff.talk] System Managers standard reply, final version
Message-ID: <9206151723.AA11873@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 1992 07:23:51 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Jun 15 13:26:26 1992
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: System Managers standard reply, final version
Message-ID: <7049@public.BTR.COM>
Date: 14 Jun 92 17:08:59 GMT
After several excellent suggestions, here is
the final version of the Standard Manager's Reply
to people complaining of offensive e-mail by
a user of the Manager's system:
"This systems supports freedom of expression."
Thanks to all for your input!
--
Views expressed are not those of the National Security Agency
From caf-talk Caf Jun 15 13:26:42 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.org.eff.talk] Standard Mngr's Reply Rev. A
Message-ID: <9206151723.AA11864@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 1992 07:23:41 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Jun 15 13:26:42 1992
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Standard Mngr's Reply Rev. A
Message-ID: <6980@public.BTR.COM>
Date: 10 Jun 92 13:56:32 GMT
The"Standard Manager's Reply" sent to people
complaining about the content of the e-mail or newsgroup
posting of a subscriber to the manager's system, Rev. A.
"(1) This system believes in freedom of expression
within the bounds of the law;
(2) If you do not like the content of an individuals
newsgroup posting, then read your newreader's
manual entry on how to use the "killfile";
(3) If you do not like the content of an individuals
e-mail, then feel free to delete it without reading it.
Continued e-mail after explicit requests to stop may
constitute harassment. Inquire among your local
authorities.
(4) If you believe the content of a posting is contrary
to law, then inform the proper authorities;
(5) System managers are not the court of last resort
in case you are losing an argument on the net. Refer
to "The Art of Clear Thinking" by Rudolph Flesch,
"Fallacy: The Counterfeit of Argument" by Ward
Fearnside or other similar book for more information
on how to argue without whining to your parents."
--
Grady Ward grady@btr.com KD6ETH/AA @ K6LY Moby Lexicons
From caf-talk Caf Jun 15 14:57:22 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [misc.legal] Net Threat
Message-ID: <9206151854.AA12145@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 1992 08:54:49 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Jun 15 14:57:22 1992
From: GA.CJJ@forsythe.stanford.edu (Clifford Johnson)
Subject: Net Threat
Message-ID: <1992Jun11.001601.29258@morrow.stanford.edu>
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1992 00:16:01 GMT
Reprinted from the New York Times, 6/10/92 p. b8
AN ANARCHIST, A THREAT TO BUSH AND THE SPOTLIGHT
WILLIAMSTOWN, Mass., June 7 -- A computer message that threatened the
life of President Bush has brought the Secret Service onto the
tranquil Williams College campus here. Under investigation for
sending the message via the school's computer system is Brian Coan,
an honors student and self-proclaimed anarchist who is also a track
star at this small liberal arts college. The two-sentence message,
which was sent out in early May as part of a dialogue among students
on a national intercollegiate network, condemned Mr. Bush for
criticizing rioters in Los Angeles after he had waged war in Iraq.
It then said, "George Bush and his people need a bullet in the head."
It was not known how the authorities learned of the message, but Mr.
Coan, who graduated today, said he was subpoenaed last month after
refusing to talk with Secret Service agents who showed up at his
track practice. He said he appeared before a grand jury two weeks
ago but refused to testify, citing his rights against compelled
self-incrimination...
From caf-talk Caf Jun 15 14:58:44 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [misc.activism.progressive] Harvard Law Controversy
Message-ID: <9206151856.AA12161@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 1992 08:56:10 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Jun 15 14:58:44 1992
From: harelb@math.cornell.edu (Harel Barzilai)
Subject: Harvard Law Controversy
Message-ID: <1992Jun15.121757.24317@mont.cs.missouri.edu>
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 1992 12:17:57 GMT
Topic 158 Harvard Law Controversy
hrcoord gen.racism 11:43 am Jun 3, 1992
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
From: Human Rights Coordinator
Subject: Harvard Law Controversy
/* Written 12:31 am Jun 3, 1992 by nlns in cdp:nlns.samples */
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Harvard Law Controversy Opens Old Wounds of
Sexism, Racism at School; Dean Asked to Resign
Greg Bylinsky, NLNS
CAMBRIDGE, MA (NLNS)---A Harvard Law Review parody of a
murdered feminist law professor has embroiled an already troubled
campus that has spent the last several years debating whether its
faculty is too male and too white.
The parody, which was seen as misogynist and brutal by many
at the school, was of the last work of Professor Mary Joe Frug.
Professor Frug's unfinished article, "A Postmodern Feminist Legal
Manifesto", was published this spring by the Law Review, and
generated considerable controversy within the Law Review for its
blunt criticism of the way women are treated by the legal system.
Professor Frug was murdered in Cambridge one year ago.
In apparent retaliation, conservative editors published the five
page, heavily footnoted parody, entitled "He-Manifesto of Post-
Mortem Legal Feminism". It was said by its authors, third-year
students Craig Coben and Kenneth Fenyo, to have been dictated from
"beyond the grave" by one "Mary Doe, Rigor-Mortis Professor of
Law."
The parody was distributed at a private Law Review banquet
which coincided with the anniversary of Frug's murder. Her
husband, also a law professor, had been invited to the banquet but
did not attend. Leaked to several third year students who then
informed the campus, the parody caused an immediate uproar.
Andrea Brenneke, a third-year student who has been active in the
opposition to the Frug piece, said "The parody is symptomatic of the
hostility towards women who are taking over positions of power
traditionally held by white males. This was their fraternity-like
response to getting back at women who fought to publish Mary Joe's
article."
Several hundred students signed letters condemned the Law
Review piece, and noted constitutional law scholar Laurence A. Tribe
compared the authors, in their denial of the existence of violence
against women, to those who deny the existence of the Holocaust. A
group of twenty professors wrote a letter that a pervasive
atmosphere of sexism exists at the Law School and the prestigious
Law Review, and a significant cause is the fact that the Harvard Law
faculty consists mostly of white males. Of 64 tenured professors at
Harvard, there are five white women and three black men.
Embattled Dean Robert Clark came under heavy criticism for
his sluggish and lukewarm criticism to the parody. Clark did not
respond to the parody until 10 days after the banquet, and has
defended the free speech rights of the authors while condemning
the content of their work. Nevertheless, a coalition of student
organizations that have worked to diversify the faculty called for the
Dean's resignation on April 19th, saying that he was no longer an
effective leader. Students in the Harvard Law Coalition for Civil
Rights have been vigorously protesting Clark's inaction on faculty
diversity throughout the spring. Earlier in April, students held a "No
Confidence" vote in Dean Clark, which he lost overwhelmingly by a
vote of 330 to 38.
The Law School has appointed five more white male professors
to tenured and tenure-track positions since March 1st of this year,
and students have held mass protests that culminated in a 24 hour
sit-in in Dean Clark's office on April 6th and 7th. In contrast to his
unwillingness to take action against the Law Review editors, Clark
has moved swiftly to bring disciplinary charges against the nine
students involved in the sit-in. Clark has also stated that he is
opposed to the reappointment of Professor Derrick Bell, Harvard's
first African American professor who has been on a two-year protest
leave over Harvard's failure to diversify.
From caf-talk Caf Jun 15 16:27:15 1992
From: hwt@bwdlh490.BNR.CA (Henry Troup)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: Farlay Mowat and Free Speech (was: Congratulations...)
Message-ID: <14075@bwdls58.bnr.ca>
Date: 15 Jun 92 19:23:34 GMT
In article <1992Jun5.124334.24073@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>,
jsm4u@sonja.math.Virginia.EDU (Joe McDonnell) writes:
|>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
|>I assume your complaint about Mr. Mowat extends from your interpretation
|>of the First Amendmemt guarantee of free speech.
Today, it's Canadian writers they don't let in. Tomorrow, Canadian
ideas, the day after, any ideas the U.S. government dislikes. And your
freedom isn't being infringed? Controlling information at source
appears to be close to abandoning freedom of the press. "When the first
book is burned..."
Henry Troup - HWT@BNR.CA (Canada) - BNR owns but does not share my opinions
"Never waste fair fighting on your social inferiors"
From caf-talk Caf Jun 16 11:08:29 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [soc.culture.canada, et al.] U of Toronto reaction
Message-ID: <9206161505.AA16503@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 1992 05:05:53 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Jun 16 11:08:29 1992
From: pkern@utcs.utoronto.ca (pkern)
Subject: U of Toronto reaction
Message-ID: <1992Jun16.045026.15800@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca>
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 1992 04:50:26 GMT
_The Bulletin_
University of Toronto
June 8, 1992
page 1.
Network Pornography Elicits Little Reaction at U of T
By Karina Dahlin
U of T is not planning to intercept or censor the international
computer network, Internet, that carries among its thousands of files
a couple that contain violent pornographic material.
Material of this nature has been available for a long time and
University of Toronto Computing Services has not received any
complaints about it, said associate director Eugene Siciunas.
Last month the University of Manitoba cut off access to a file
called "sex-bondage." Terry Falconer, vice-president (administration),
said in an interview that complaints about the material were made to
the news media and recounted to him. The Winnipeg police department
told Canadian Press that anyone distributing material that depicts
violence against women and children may be prosecuted. Although the
police paid a visit to the university, Falconer does not expect them
to take any action.
Falconer has not received any direct complaints about his action
but has heard it is being compared to censorship. That is not the
way he sees it. "We don't make such material available in the
bookstore or the library either." If anyone wishes to study the
restricted file, the university will provide access to it, he said.
Like a bookstore, Internet offers a multitude of reading material
arranged in categories such as science, sociology and miscellaneous.
The file banned in Winnipeg and one listed as "sex-bestiality" are
available under the heading "alternatives." To open any of the files
people must push certain keys on their keyboard.
If the material were to be intercepted at U of T, it would
probably be on the order of David Sadleir, vice-president (computing
and communications). Such action seems unlikely. "I am not a
censor," said Sadleir in an interview. Not knowing the details about
the case at the University of Manitoba, he did not wish to pass
judgement on it.
Sadleir's view is that if a recipient has to actively select
information, there is no need for U of T to take action. If, on the
other hand, the messages are flashed across the screen without user
consent, his response would be "very aggressive" regardless of the
content. Such practice could be described as invasion of people's
privacy, he said.
A couple of months ago, U of T was asked by other Canadian
universities to help trace the source of some pornographic computer
material, Sadleir said. The site was identified as a large US
university. While it is possible to block access to an institution
that transmits offensive material, this would also restrict access to
useful information, he added.
What constitutes proper use of computer networks is the source of
much debate. Although the topic is mentioned in various codes of
conduct and user policies at the University, no one has yet
formulated a policy that addresses all concerns. "I'm looking forward
to someone coming up with the definitive statement but I haven't seen
one yet," Sadleir said. "It's a complex reality, one that's going to
plague us for a while."
ONet, one of the thousands of networks that form and carry
Internet, should not be blamed for the contents of the messages that
individual users post, says John Drake, assistant vice-president
(computing and information services) at McMaster University and chair
of the management board of ONet. The Ontario-wide research and
education network is a carrier, not a provider or publisher of
information and its managers should not decide which material is
proper to transmit, Drake said in an interview.
ONet is an association, not a government-regulated carrier as is
Bell Canada. But like a phone company it provides a service with the
view that "what you do with the phone is up to you," said Drake.
===== =====
[ page 2: from the mast-head ]
The Bulletin
Published every two weeks by the Department of Public Affairs,
21 King's College Circle, 2nd floor,
University of Toronto, Toronto, M5S 1A1.
Material may be reprinted in whole or in part with appropriate
credit to _The Bulletin_.
===== =====
From caf-talk Caf Jun 16 11:28:51 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: bsc835!ehunt@uunet.UU.NET (Eric Hunt)
Subject: "Right to Listen"
Message-ID: <9206161526.AA14880@relay1.UU.NET>
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 1992 15:07:51 GMT
An interesting situation developed in Birmingham over the weekend, with
direct relevance to the "Right to Listen" discussion going on here.
A local skinhead/KKK/Neo-nazi group had a parade and speech rally through
the streets of downtown Birmingham Saturday. After the parade, when they
set up a platform for speeches, the city of Birmingham kept a helicopter at
treetop level right above the speech area, preventing *ANYONE* (including
the speech givers themselves) from hearing what the skinheads had to say.
This infuriated teh skinheads to no end. It cost the city well in excess
of 50k to provide overtime police support for this parade, and the
skinheads say they'll have a parade every weekend until they get rid of the
damn helicopter.
Should be an interesting next month or two here.
(Let it be known that the citizens against hate crimes [or somesuch] had
a parade/speech rally immediately following the skinheads, and they
were not bothered by the helicopter.)
--
Eric Hunt | bsc835!ehunt@uunet.uu.net (preferred)
Birmingham-Southern College | eric.hunt@matrix.sbs.com
Birmingham, Alabama 35254 | ^----nothing longer than 100 lines
From caf-talk Caf Jun 16 11:50:36 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.unix.admin, et al.] Bay-Lisa June 18th: SAGE, the System Administration Guild
Message-ID: <9206161548.AA16753@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 1992 05:48:02 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Jun 16 11:50:36 1992
Newsgroups: comp.unix.admin,comp.unix.large,comp.org.usenix
Subject: Bay-Lisa June 18th: SAGE, the System Administration Guild
Date: 16 Jun 1992 05:53:08 GMT
Message-ID:
Bay-LISA June 18th
The topic this month is SAGE, the System Administration Guild.
During the San Antonio USENIX conference, the USENIX Association launched
SAGE, the Systems Administrators' Guild, as the first USENIX Special
Technical Group. SAGE is devoted to the advancement of Systems
Administration as a profession. USENIX and SAGE will work jointly to
publish technical information and sponsor conferences, workshops,
tutorials, and local groups in the Systems Administration field.
Video tapes of previous meetings are available for Bay-LISA members.
Send e-mail to baylisa-info@sysadmin.com for further information.
General Meeting Information:
Date: Thursday, June 18th 7:30 PM
(Third Thursday of every month)
Please do not arrive before 7 PM.
Place: DEC
2525 Augustine Drive
Building 2
Santa Clara
To get there take 101 to Bowers Avenue. From Bowers
Avenue turn left into Augustine Drive. The DEC
facility is on your left. Building 2 is the rear building.
Info: Send e-mail to baylisa-info@sysadmin.com, or you
may contact:
Bjorn Satdeva (408) 241-3111
bjorn@sysadmin.com
The Bay-LISA group meets monthly to discuss topics of interest for
administration of sites with more than 100 users and/or computers.
The meetings are free and open to the public.
--
Bjorn Satdeva -- email: bjorn@sysadmin.com
/sys/admin, inc. The Unix System Management Experts (408) 241 3111
Send requests to the SysAdmin mailing list to sysadm-list-request@sysadmin.com
From caf-talk Caf Jun 16 13:53:40 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [can.politics, et al.] Re: U of Toronto reaction
Message-ID: <9206161751.AA17692@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 1992 07:51:05 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Jun 16 13:53:40 1992
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re: U of Toronto reaction
Message-ID: <92Jun16.115702edt.16792@ois.db.toronto.edu>
Date: 16 Jun 92 15:57:19 GMT
pkern@utcs.utoronto.ca (pkern) writes:
>_The Bulletin_
>University of Toronto
>June 8, 1992
> [...]
> U of T is not planning to intercept or censor the international
>computer network, Internet, that carries among its thousands of files
>a couple that contain violent pornographic material.
> [...]
Way to go! I'm glad my school looks like it will continue to support
a free exchange of information. Very refreshing!
--
-- Frank Ch. Eigler -- Comp Eng -- --
From caf-talk Caf Jun 16 14:28:24 1992
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: NO FREEDOM OF SPEECH FOR FASCISTS/REVISIONISTS
Message-ID: <1992Jun16.181727.16613@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 1992 18:17:27 GMT
[A repost from alt.activism - Carl]
In phs265y@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au writes:
>In article , gmartin@b-cpu.UUCP (George Martin) writes:
>> Here is a letter and introduction you might find interesting.
>>
>>
>> THE HOLOCAUST IN PERSPECTIVE,
>> A LETTER BY PAUL RASSINIER
>>
>> Paul Rassinier is the generally acknowledged founder
>> scholarly Holocaust Revisionism. [..stuff deleted..]
>>...........
>> [from Rassinier's letter...]
>>
>> However, when I correct
>> the vulgar errors of the hysterical adversaries of Nazism, I do
>> so because, although I am a Frenchman, I am also a European:
>>...........
>> It is maintained at fever pitch by
>> Bolshevism, which is the modern version of Pan-Slavism, and
>> it aims at the subversion of Europe, a subversion against
>> which Germany is our only shield. In 1965, the Slavs, who had
>> been driven back by Charlemagne beyond the Vistual, are 50
>> kilometers from Hamburg. If they can engineer the collapse of
>> Germany, they will, tomorrow, be in Brest and Bayonne.
>>............
>> There is, of course, the
>> Communist danger, as well, which can only be warded off by
>> a Europe, united in mutual and brotherly goodwill.
>
>
> Anyone would have to be blind not to see that fascism is on the
>increase in europe at the moment.
>
> Partly, the explanantion for this increase in
>fascism is tied up with the world recession. Government's always try to blame
>tough economic times on "immigrants" who supposedly come into the country and
>take all the jobs, welfare and houses. This strategy is based on the divide and
>rule idea; divide the population by propagating racist ideas and their
>attention will be taken away from the real culprits in society, governments and
>big business. Fascism increases when there is a lack of a left-wing alternative
>to the ideas of immigrant racism.
>
> It is no accident that the recent rise in fascism has been
>accompanied by an increase in confidence of these Revisionists. There is only
>one reason why you would seek to deny that the logic of fascism in Germany lead
>to the slaughter of 12 million Jews, communists, gypsies, slavs, gays and
>handicapped; and that is to aplogise for it and make it more acceptable to
>the present generation.
>
> One of the mistakes that the Left made in the 1930's was not to
>confront fascism when it was last on the rise. Partly this came out of the
>reformist ideas of the social democrats and the mistaken idea of Stalinist
>Russia, that social democracy (i.e labour parties) [social fascism they
>called it] was just as bad as fascism.
>
> The anti-nazi leagues that exist in opposition to fascism today
>attempt to disrupt and shut down the meetings and rallies of the fascists
>whenever they happen and we should have the same attitude on the net.
>
> Freedom of speech is an ideal worth fighting for and it would be
>one of the fundamental principles of a fair, socialist society. But we don't
>live in a fair society yet; the majority of society, the poor, the working
>class and the oppressed don't have the same freedom of speech as the rich and
>powerful. Trying to correct that inbalance is something we should all fight
>for. But, in my opinion, freedom of speech isn't something fascists should be
>allowed to have. THROW THEM OFF THE NET.
>
>
> Tony Hartin
> International Socialist Organisation
> Monash University
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Jun 16 16:35:19 1992
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,news.future
From: hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phillip M. Hallam-Baker)
Subject: Re: would this be censorship?
Message-ID: <1992Jun16.193204.14255@dscomsf.desy.de>
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 1992 19:32:04 GMT
In article <1992Jun11.210453.2239@eco.twg.com>, reece@eco.twg.com (Reece
R. Pollack) writes:
|>In article , tt@tarzan.jyu.fi (Tapani
|>Tarvainen) writes:
|>|>You have a good point there. The "censoring" of articles
|>|>would be better done by someone else. How about this:
|>|>
|>|>Build a mechanism for "soft-moderated" groups:
|>|>The moderator doesn't screen individual articles but simply sends
|>|>kill file modifications as control messages which are automatically
|>|>applied to implement the kind of "soft censoring" I suggested.
|>Also,
|>|>besides being able to turn this mechanism off users should be able
|>to
|>|>use regular kill files not only to kill even more articles but also
|>to
|>|>override the default ("unkill" articles by some criteria).
|>
|>Why should there be a mechanism so that someone else can determine
|>if something is fit for you to look at? You've already taken positive
|>action to read a group by subscribing to it and then reading the
|>articles.
|>If you don't like the content, unsubscribe.
This is missing the point, the problem is not one of decideing or not
deciding to read, it's one of feedback. Mut-lu and co have to be told
somehow that the vast majority of the net simply don't read the posts
that come out of their automatic post generators.
The guy clearly does not read any of the posts that he replies to, he
simply has a program that scans through the news articles for the string
m-u-t-l-u and then appends an insulting paragraph about the poster and a
diatribe. Some of the diatribes are fed in from Cefax so Mu-tlu has to
do even less typing.
Phill Hallam-Baker
From caf-talk Caf Jun 16 18:22:33 1992
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: NO FREEDOM OF SPEECH FOR FASCISTS/REVISIONISTS
Message-ID: <1992Jun16.220303.28270@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 1992 22:03:03 GMT
phs265y@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au writes:
[...]
Freedom of speech is an ideal worth fighting for and it would be
one of the fundamental principles of a fair, socialist society. But we don't
live in a fair society yet; the majority of society, the poor, the working
class and the oppressed don't have the same freedom of speech as the rich and
powerful. Trying to correct that inbalance is something we should all fight
for. But, in my opinion, freedom of speech isn't something fascists should be
allowed to have. THROW THEM OFF THE NET.
Tony Hartin
International Socialist Organisation
Monash University
Freedom of expression isn't a luxury to be denied until we reach a
perfect society; it is instead our best want of perfecting (or at
least improving) society.
Ironically, your organization would have been banned from my campus in
the 1950's. Why? Because the State of Illinois believed, as you
believe, that viewpoints contrary to the public good should be
suppressed.
The 1950 Code on Student Affairs said: "Article 4 - Unrecognized
Organizations -- V. Section 13 -- Forbidden Organizations --
Organizations with purposes or practices contrary to morality, to
education, or to public or University welfare, or with a secret
membership will not be permitted to exist on the campus."
In 1958, an administrative order of the Univeristy President set down
rules for visiting speakers. Like your article it pays lip service
to free expression. Like your article it then dismisses it.
'The University of Illinois Statutes (Section 39a) state, "It is
the policy of the University to maintain and encourage full freedom
within the law, of inquiry, discourse, teaching, research, and
publication ..." Consistent with this policy the Senate Committee on
Visiting Speakers will maintain the tradition of full freedom of
discourse for visiting speakers within the limitations imposed by law,
rules of the Board of Trustees, University regulations, and the
welfare of the University.
1. Subversive Organizations. The Illinois Statutes provide [...]:
No Trustee, official, instructor, or other employee of the University
of Illinois shall extend to any subversive, seditious, and un-American
organization, or to its representatives, the use of any facilities of
the University for the purpose of carrying on, advertising, or
publicizing the activities of such organization."'
Personally, I doubt that utopias are even possible. But I'm confident
that when expression is suppressed we move farther from, not closer
to, the ideal.
- Carl
ANNOTATED REFERENCES
(All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.)
=================
reg2rights
=================
The history of student regulations at the University of Illinois
from 1904 to present. Shows how policies evolve.
=================
=================
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/reg2rights
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 reg2rights
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Jun 16 23:12:26 1992
From: phs265y@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: NO FREEDOM OF SPEECH FOR FASCISTS/REVISIONISTS
Message-ID: <1992Jun17.103208.89142@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au>
Date: 17 Jun 92 10:32:08 +1000
In article <1992Jun16.184216.9189@m.cs.uiuc.edu>, kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>
> Ironically, your organization would have been banned from my campus in
> the 1950's. Why? Because the State of Illinois believed, as you
> believe, that viewpoints contrary to the public good should be
> suppressed.
>
> In 1958, an administrative order of the Univeristy President set down
> rules for visiting speakers. Like your article it pays lip service
> to free expression. Like your article it then dismisses it.
>
> 1. Subversive Organizations. The Illinois Statutes provide [...]:
> No Trustee, official, instructor, or other employee of the University
> of Illinois shall extend to any subversive, seditious, and un-American
> organization, or to its representatives, the use of any facilities of
> the University for the purpose of carrying on, advertising, or
> publicizing the activities of such organization."'
The McCarthy era was directed specifically at left-wing groups, and
had more in common with fascism than anything else. You'll find throughout the
history of this century that while left-wing groups are censored, extreme
right-wing groups rarely are. The government likes to keep its options open
with regard to the extreme right. If it can't control people with bougeois
ideology that it often resorts to the far more rigid control that fascism
offers.
A good example of government's double standard is in Germany recently.
They sent in 100s of troops with tanks to smash up a gay squat in Berlin, while
completely ignoring the fascist organisation down the road.
Tony Hartin
International Socialist Organisation
Monash University
From caf-talk Caf Jun 17 05:18:11 1992
From: craig@osh3.OSHA.GOV (Craig Nordin)
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,news.future
Subject: Re: would this be censorship?
Message-ID: <1992Jun16.233303.6134@osh3.OSHA.GOV>
Date: 16 Jun 92 23:33:03 GMT
In <1992Jun16.193204.14255@dscomsf.desy.de> hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phillip M. Hallam-Baker) writes:
>In article <1992Jun11.210453.2239@eco.twg.com>, reece@eco.twg.com (Reece
>R. Pollack) writes:
>|>In article , tt@tarzan.jyu.fi (Tapani
>|>Tarvainen) writes:
>|>|>You have a good point there. The "censoring" of articles
>|>|>would be better done by someone else. How about this:
>|>|>
>|>|>Build a mechanism for "soft-moderated" groups:
>|>|>The moderator doesn't screen individual articles but simply sends
>|>|>kill file modifications as control messages which are automatically
>|>|>applied to implement the kind of "soft censoring" I suggested.
>|>Also,
>|>|>besides being able to turn this mechanism off users should be able
>|>to
>|>|>use regular kill files not only to kill even more articles but also
>|>to
>|>|>override the default ("unkill" articles by some criteria).
>|>
>|>Why should there be a mechanism so that someone else can determine
>|>if something is fit for you to look at? You've already taken positive
>|>action to read a group by subscribing to it and then reading the
>|>articles.
>|>If you don't like the content, unsubscribe.
>This is missing the point, the problem is not one of decideing or not
>deciding to read, it's one of feedback. Mut-lu and co have to be told
>somehow that the vast majority of the net simply don't read the posts
>that come out of their automatic post generators.
>The guy clearly does not read any of the posts that he replies to, he
>simply has a program that scans through the news articles for the string
>m-u-t-l-u and then appends an insulting paragraph about the poster and a
>diatribe. Some of the diatribes are fed in from Cefax so Mu-tlu has to
>do even less typing.
>Phill Hallam-Baker
From caf-talk Caf Jun 17 10:47:32 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [news.admin] Re: Protest of offensive message
Message-ID: <9206171444.AA03626@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 1992 04:44:57 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Jun 17 10:47:32 1992
From: ts@uwasa.fi (Timo Salmi)
Subject: Re: Protest of offensive message
Message-ID: <1992Jun17.052430.20515@uwasa.fi>
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 1992 05:24:30 GMT
In article <1992Jun17.003111.3598@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> by403@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Spiros Triantafyllopoulos) writes:
>A recent exchange of e-mail messages with ...
-From: garbo.uwasa.fi:/pc/ts/tsfaq29.zip Frequently Asked Questions
>Subject: What to do about abusive messages
>Date: Fri 12 Jun 00:00:10 1992
11. *****
Q: How should I react to abusive email or postings?
There is one further category of problematic net behavior to
point out, that is overly aggressive or abusive postings or email.
These are often written in the heat of the moment, or under the
influence. Or they may result from outright misunderstandings,
because this is not an easy media for conveying subtleties. Also
remember that UseNet is an international net, and not everyone is
fluent in English. On top of that, there are cultural differences in
expressing wishes and views. (For example, I've noticed that email
from one cultural background tends to be abrupt, while another
sometimes seems to be lacking in consideration in asking services
from others). Or someone may have a completely different sense of
humor from yours. The reasons for angry postings can be many, and
the only solid deduction that can be drawn from a single abusive
posting is that someone has truly bad manners or a totally off-key
day. The best way to react is either to reply politely, or not to
reply at all. (There is no sense in responding in the same manner,
and being just another jerk).
I'll give you an example concerning incompatible humor. I have a
predilection for trying to come up with puns in English, and this is
not always liked. There was a discussion in the news.groups
demanding why an infertility group had not passed in the news. I
just couldn't resist the temptation, and remarked that perhaps it
was because the idea was barren :-). One user obviously had real
personal strife with infertility, and told me to shove the Smiley,
you know where, in as many words.
To give another example, here is a counter-xenophobic joke
guaranteed to bring flames crashing in from some US users. "There
was this American who was asked wasn't he ever annoyed by the fact
that he didn't really have a language of his very own but had to
speak English. The reply. If English was good enough for Jesus, it's
certainly good enough for me." Seriously, though. Although it is
fortunately very rare, sometimes one encounters netters from the US,
who do not seem to be able quite to grasp the international nature
of the InterNet.
Here is a story of a case of mutual misunderstanding turning out
right. I sent a note to a user who posted test messages to a
discussion newsgroup, and told him that he shouldn't, and pointed
out that there are special newsgroups just for testing purposes. I
got a very testy (pardon the pun) reply referring to my attitude as
smart-ass. But we started discussing about it, and soon noticed
that: 1) he had misread my intentions, 2) that my message was badly
formulated and gave rise to the possibility of taking it just as an
impolite flame. What happened was that we together worked out a
better formulation for my prerecorded advice on test post (see item
#17), and we both benefited from the process, and enjoyed it.
If someone continues to post to the UseNet news in a language
that offends you, perhaps the best action is simply not to read any
postings from that person. Most newsreader programs have what is
called a kill file, where you can specify which subjects or persons
you wish to ignore. (And speaking more generally than just about
offensive postings, I would like to put forward here that unless you
are seriously involved with the maintenance of the relevant
newsgroup, if you do not like someone's posting habits, you should
seriously consider the option of using the kill file. Express your
views by all means, but long-standing UseNet experience tells that
attacking will not achieve anything).
What to do if the abusive individual persists sending you one
unwelcome message after another, or keeps on harassing you in some
other way. Persisting cases are perhaps best tackled by just
deleting _unread_ all the email and postings from that address. I
apply this method myself, although fortunately I have needed this
drastic option extremely seldom so far.
Another understandable, but problematic situation is when one
gets flamed for something one didn't say or do. This sometimes
happens eg when one quotes in the news an offensive posting, and
consequently someone confuses who said what. For example one of my
perfectly neutral postings included a quote from a third person
castigating American freedom in an obviously unfriendly fashion. In
consequence I got a rather indignant message from a reader who
mistook the quote as my opinion. We finally sorted it out to a
friendly conclusion, but much unnecessary effort was involved.
The more general lesson from the last item above is to be careful
not to confuse the original poster, and the person who is replying
to the posting. It unfortunately happens relatively often that when
I answer a question in the news, someone emails a reply to the
original question mistakenly to me, not to the original poster where
the reply should be directed. And I have been guilty of a similar
mistake myself a couple of times.
As an archive site moderator getting much email, and having been
quite active on the UseNet news I am exposed to the possibility of
overly aggressive behavior perhaps even more than the average user.
Therefore I store messages and the addresses of the intentionally
offensive and hostile individuals for future reference in order to
be able to try to steer clear of such hotheads. It is thoroughly
frustrating that when one tries to help eg by giving information on
the charter of a newsgroup, as a result one gets back a message that
has been devised with the sole intention of heaping deliberate
insults. In December of 1991 I had such an unfortunate incident
involving the comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d newsgroup.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
..................................................................
Prof. Timo Salmi
Moderating at garbo.uwasa.fi anonymous FTP archives 128.214.87.1
Faculty of Accounting & Industrial Management; University of Vaasa
Internet: ts@uwasa.fi Bitnet: salmi@finfun ; SF-65101, Finland
From caf-talk Caf Jun 17 10:50:18 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [talk.politics.misc, et al.] Re: Denying freedom of speech
Message-ID: <9206171447.AA03661@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 1992 04:47:43 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Jun 17 10:50:18 1992
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.censorship
Subject: Re: Denying freedom of speech
Message-ID: <1992Jun17.110655.89148@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au>
Date: 17 Jun 92 01:06:55 GMT
In article <11li96INNjg0@agate.berkeley.edu>, mitja@hera.Berkeley.EDU (Mitja Baumhackl) writes:
>
> My guess is that the fascists would believe that freedom of speech isn't
> something you should be allowed to have.
Yes, and the government backs them up. 5 of our comrades in Greece
face treason charges for writing a pamphlet. In Australia we face 10 years jail
for simply being at a student demonstration.
>
> Don't you realize that when you deny one group freedom of speech, we all
> are at risk of losing it?
No. When the government imposes censorship it often signals
a stepped up repression against progressives in society. When mass movements
from below (like the anti-nazi leagues in europe) disrupt and confront fascists
it is a step in the right direction and it signals more freedom of speech. The
fascists, if they get in power will censor not only left-wingers, but anyone
even slightly left of the extreme right.
> It is for this reason that the ACLU defended
> the Nazi's right to march in Skokie, and why the ACLU defends other
> such groups: it is easy to deny rights to people if you're not in
> the category being denied the rights. But when your free speech rights
> are denied, the lawmakers need only point to the other groups denied
> free speech and base it on that precedent.
You have your priorities in the wrong order. The nazis aren't
just any group. The logic of your position, despite whatever fine ideals you
might have, leads to the support of racism and ultimately far greater
censorship. It is these ideas which allowed fascists to come to power in the
1920's and 1930's.
>
> Meanwhile, Tony, instead of calling for censorship, why don't you just
> skip over messages that don't appeal to you, and challenge messages
> that offend you?
Ignore the problem and hope it goes away? I did challenge it;
that was the purpose of my posting.
Tony Hartin
International Socialist Organisation
Monash University
From caf-talk Caf Jun 17 11:32:09 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: HaskettP@mg.sdstate.edu
Subject: Re: NO FREEDOM OF SPEECH FOR FASCISTS
Message-ID: <2A3F57F0@msmail.sdstate.edu>
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 1992 15:19:00 GMT
>A good example of government's double standard is in Germany recently.
Remember Stalin. Remember Tiananmen Square. The "right" has no monopoly on
oppression.
Legalize Freedom.
Phil Haskett/a libertarian, speaking for himself only.
From caf-talk Caf Jun 17 19:28:04 1992
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,news.future
From: mistik@grex.ann-arbor.mi.us (Mustafa Soysal)
Subject: Re: would this be censorship?
Message-ID:
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 1992 17:46:47 GMT
In article <1992Jun16.193204.14255@dscomsf.desy.de> hallam@zeus02.desy.de writes:
>In article <1992Jun11.210453.2239@eco.twg.com>, reece@eco.twg.com (Reece
>R. Pollack) writes:
>
>|>In article , tt@tarzan.jyu.fi (Tapani
>|>Tarvainen) writes:
>|>|>You have a good point there. The "censoring" of articles
>|>|>would be better done by someone else. How about this:
>|>|>
>|>|>Build a mechanism for "soft-moderated" groups:
>|>|>The moderator doesn't screen individual articles but simply sends
>|>|>kill file modifications as control messages which are automatically
>|>|>applied to implement the kind of "soft censoring" I suggested.
>|>Also,
>|>|>besides being able to turn this mechanism off users should be able
>|>to
>|>|>use regular kill files not only to kill even more articles but also
>|>to
>|>|>override the default ("unkill" articles by some criteria).
>|>
>|>Why should there be a mechanism so that someone else can determine
>|>if something is fit for you to look at? You've already taken positive
>|>action to read a group by subscribing to it and then reading the
>|>articles.
>|>If you don't like the content, unsubscribe.
>
>This is missing the point, the problem is not one of decideing or not
>deciding to read, it's one of feedback. Mut-lu and co have to be told
>somehow that the vast majority of the net simply don't read the posts
>that come out of their automatic post generators.
>
>The guy clearly does not read any of the posts that he replies to, he
>simply has a program that scans through the news articles for the string
>m-u-t-l-u and then appends an insulting paragraph about the poster and a
>diatribe. Some of the diatribes are fed in from Cefax so Mu-tlu has to
>do even less typing.
>
>Phill Hallam-Baker
Oh really, is that why you were trying to avoid feedback from Mutlu by
spelling it different ways?
Who told Mutlu that the vast majority didn't want to read his posts, even if
so, what would it matter? There was a forger with a Greek name (I would
even doubt that he was Greek) and his co taking votes (terminator(!?)), and
they claimed to get 50-60 votes everyday (pretty regular ey? never heard of
stats?).
--
Mustafa Soysal
===============================================================================
Don't believe everything you hear or anything you say.
===============================================================================
From caf-talk Caf Jun 17 19:57:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.activism,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: NO FREEDOM OF SPEECH FOR FASCISTS/REVISIONISTS
Message-ID: <1992Jun17.234704.8148@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 1992 23:47:04 GMT
phs265y@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au writes:
[...]
> The McCarthy era was directed specifically at left-wing groups, and
>had more in common with fascism than anything else. You'll find throughout the
>history of this century that while left-wing groups are censored, extreme
>right-wing groups rarely are. The government likes to keep its options open
>with regard to the extreme right. If it can't control people with bougeois
>ideology that it often resorts to the far more rigid control that fascism
>offers.
[...]
A reasonable conclusion based on your analysis is that we should not
give governments, universities, etc the authority to censor the right
wing because they will use that authority to censor the left wing even
more.
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Jun 17 20:13:58 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.sex.bondage] Re: Request for NNTP servers to combat censors
Message-ID: <9206180011.AA12916@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 1992 14:11:22 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Jun 17 20:13:58 1992
From: umthom61@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Adam Thompson)
Subject: Re: Request for NNTP servers to combat censors
Message-ID: <1992Jun17.204240.29727@ctr.columbia.edu>
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 1992 20:42:40 GMT
In article 7851@cs.sfu.ca, miron@cs.sfu.ca (Miron Cuperman) writes:
>This newsgroups was dropped from the computer services network at Simon
>Fraser University. If know of an NNTP server which is publicly
>accessible, please drop me a note. I'd also like to know about any
>other method of reading news remotely.
>
>Your help to combat censorship will be appreciated.
>
>(The affected domain is sfu.ca. Their mail server is whistler.sfu.ca.
>Polite notes about the value of freedom of speech and the dangers
>of discrimination to this address may have an effect.)
Well, it appears that many universities in Canada are doing this. Here at
the University of Manitoba, everything matching *sex* has been cut. Those
of you who noticed that little ... request ... for info. on WizVax by a
certain Gary Mills -- our postmaster/newsadmin/sysadmin. The local police
want to "talk" to some of the posters! And, on a side note, although there
appears to be no solid legal ground here, they have also indicated that
anyone caught with ASB (specifically: "alt.sex.bondage" only) material in
their home directories will be prosecuted. This policy has yet to be
officially disseminated by the administration here.
Similar events have happened in the past at the Uof Waterloo, and are currently
happening at the U of Nova Scotia. <*sigh*>
followups redirected to alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk , in the hopes of not
starting _another_ irrelevant thread on asb. :-(
-Adam
---
= Adam Thompson ---- Computer Engineering ---- University of Manitoba =
= umthom61@ccu.umanitoba.ca = =
= ...!uunet!decwrl!alberta!\ = Do a good deed today ... =
= ccu.UManitoba.CA!umthom61 = kill your TA painlessly. =
From caf-talk Caf Jun 18 05:16:13 1992
Newsgroups: alt.security,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: vince@ghost.dsi.unimi.it (David Vincenzetti)
Subject: Re: Legalities and policies for searching user accounts
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 1992 08:31:34 GMT
Message-ID: <1992Jun18.083134.18463@ghost.dsi.unimi.it>
morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
>joslin@c0223.ae.ge.com writes:
>You should have been there for this conversation:
> User: You wanted to see me?
[...]
> Me:
>
>
Very interesting. I am the sysadm of our CS dept and facts like the above
one do happen regularly. But here in Italy there are not clear laws about
punishments for violations and often I am unable do much against hackers.
For istance last month I cought red hands a user that had written an `X-spy'
program and had stolen a dozen student passwords: he was only disabled
for a week and then reenabled. What do you think? How would this hacker I
cought had punished in your country?
David
--
David Vincenzetti EMAIL: vince@ghost.dsi.unimi.it
SNAIL: 8th street 39, 20090 Segrate, ITALY
*PK available by finger* ORG: DSI, Universita` degli Studi di Milano
From caf-talk Caf Jun 18 06:11:40 1992
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,news.future
From: jjj@mits.mdata.fi (Joni Jarvenkyla)
Subject: Re: would this be censorship?
Message-ID: <1992Jun18.095410.15769@mits.mdata.fi>
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 1992 09:54:10 GMT
In article mathew writes:
>I'll find it interesting or amusing. I'd use the default kill file as a list
>of good stuff to read.
I'm just a little bit pissed off because of a fact named Hasan B Mutlu.
He is feeding articles about Turkish politics to 6-10 newsgroups on a
high volume, month after month. He is claiming that it's his personal
freedom of speech - on the ground level I agree with him.
But when I have to read Turkish propaganda in newsgroups like
soc.culture.europe and soc.culture.soviet, I start wondering: is it
really morally right to post to these newsgroups, when
talk.politics.mideast or soc.culture.turkish would be much more
appropiate? And to which he ALSO cross-posts. It just doesn't make any
sense to post to every group that just has something to do with Turkey,
either politically, regionally or concerning individual rights!
In my opinion his massive Turkey-concerned article feeding has
frightened away lots and lots of possible readers AND contributors from
newsgroups like soc.culture.europe and soc.culture.soviet, which mainly
are founded for something else than Turkey-related things as far as I
have understood this "newsgroup heararchy" thing right.
I myself can edit my kill files, junk the Hasan B Mutlu propagation
articles, but very many people don't know how to do this effectively.
And what more, the volume of Hasan B Mutlu's propaganda simply scares
people away.
(If somebody finds this article personally insulting, restricting or
godknowswhatelse, please flame by mail.)
--
jjj@mits.mdata.fi "Bull-Johnsonin pallealihakset olivat kuin betonia,
jjj@niksula.hut.fi mutta Wang Tengin nyrkki oli ter{st{." -Hulkkonen #36-1992
From caf-talk Caf Jun 18 12:47:27 1992
From: tt@tarzan.jyu.fi (Tapani Tarvainen)
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,news.future,news.groups
Subject: Re: would this be censorship?
Message-ID:
Date: 18 Jun 92 14:15:58 GMT
[I added news.groups to the Newsgroups: line. Please consider
restricting followups as appropriate.]
In article , I wrote:
>> |> How about this:
>> |>
>> |>Build a mechanism for "soft-moderated" groups:
>> |>The moderator doesn't screen individual articles but simply sends
>> |>kill file modifications as control messages which are automatically
>> |>applied to implement the kind of "soft censoring" I suggested. Also,
>> |>besides being able to turn this mechanism off users should be able to
>> |>use regular kill files not only to kill even more articles but also to
>> |>override the default ("unkill" articles by some criteria).
Some followups prompt me to clarify one thing about this:
I do _not_ want to restrict anybody's right to post or read whatever
they wish, nor am I trying to accommodate or compromise with those
who do. I just want _for myself_ some additional means for selecting
what I want to read.
Censorship is not the only problem -- the sheer volume of information
is a big problem also. Important information can be lost not only
because it's suppressed but also because it's buried under irrelevant
stuff one has no time to scan through.
I believe the mechanism outlined above would be useful for some groups
-- not all, it would be just another alternative between normal
moderation and none at all, and of course it'd have to be voted on
just like normal moderation or name change or whatever.
And I can't see how it can be called censorship, as those who do not
like the moderation would be free to ignore it (unlike with normal
moderation). One additional suggestion I do like is providing a
reverse switch that would allow seeing only the articles moderator has
disapproved of, for the true dissenters.
The only problem is that it requires changes in News software.
I think, however, that it could be implemented so that old
software would simply see such groups as unmoderated, so it
would not need to be adopted everywhere at once.
Even so I'm rather pessimistic about the possibility of
it actually happening, but perhaps some day ...
--
Tapani Tarvainen (tarvaine@jyu.fi, tarvainen@finjyu.bitnet)
From caf-talk Caf Jun 18 13:01:45 1992
From: rop@hacktic.nl (Rop Gonggrijp)
Newsgroups: alt.security,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: Legalities and policies for searching user accounts
Message-ID:
Date: 18 Jun 92 16:45:11 GMT
vince@ghost.dsi.unimi.it (David Vincenzetti) writes:
> Very interesting. I am the sysadm of our CS dept and facts like the above
> one do happen regularly. But here in Italy there are not clear laws about
> punishments for violations and often I am unable do much against hackers.
> For istance last month I cought red hands a user that had written an `X-spy'
> program and had stolen a dozen student passwords: he was only disabled
> for a week and then reenabled. What do you think? How would this hacker I
> cought had punished in your country?
You could try TALKING to the guy. See what his intentions were. He may just
be interested in learning about system security. All this 'law and order'
crap makes me tired. The network is still suffering from a definite fifties
mentality. Lots of extremely square folks that say "We built the net, so it
belongs to us". Sounds like "We built this country, it belongs to us" to me.
For your question: In Holland the guy would probably be kicked out for the
rest of the year, in the states he might even face criminal prosecution. If
you leave it to some of the sickos here, he would have gotten shot on the
spot. But don't worry: Italy will get a lot worse before anything gets
better. You'll get your chance to be a digital dictator. Don't open your
mind to any of this, it's bad for you.
From caf-talk Caf Jun 18 14:08:22 1992
From: ddv@unix.brighton.ac.uk (Domenico De Vitto)
Newsgroups: alt.security,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: Legalities and policies for searching user accounts
Message-ID: <1992Jun18.172148.2144@unix.brighton.ac.uk>
Date: 18 Jun 92 17:21:48 GMT
vince@ghost.dsi.unimi.it (David Vincenzetti) writes:
> Very interesting. I am the sysadm of our CS dept and facts like the above
> one do happen regularly. But here in Italy there are not clear laws about
> punishments for violations and often I am unable do much against hackers.
> For istance last month I cought red hands a user that had written an `X-spy'
> program and had stolen a dozen student passwords: he was only disabled
> for a week and then reenabled. What do you think? How would this hacker I
> cought had punished in your country?
I got 'caught' (seriously suspected) of 'snatching' passwords and out sys
manager just wanted the source code, but I gave him the assurance it wouldn't
happen again.
What can be illegal about finding out passwords ?
~~~~~~~~~
(Unless they are a breach of national security !)
Domenico De Vitto
(Both parents Italian born)
From caf-talk Caf Jun 18 14:35:44 1992
From: bill@chaos.cs.umn.edu (Hari Seldon)
Newsgroups: alt.security,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: Legalities and policies for searching user accounts
Message-ID:
Date: 18 Jun 92 18:20:30 GMT
vince@ghost.dsi.unimi.it (David Vincenzetti) writes:
>morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
>>joslin@c0223.ae.ge.com writes:
[stuff deleted]
>punishments for violations and often I am unable do much against hackers.
>For istance last month I cought red hands a user that had written an `X-spy'
>program and had stolen a dozen student passwords: he was only disabled
>for a week and then reenabled. What do you think? How would this hacker I
>cought had punished in your country?
well the ag department has these fields......
bill pociengel
--
bill@chaos.cs.umn.edu
From caf-talk Caf Jun 18 16:19:12 1992
From: jfowler@beta.lanl.gov (John C. Fowler)
Newsgroups: alt.security,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: Legalities and policies for searching user accounts
Message-ID: <1992Jun18.200126.486@newshost.lanl.gov>
Date: 18 Jun 92 20:01:26 GMT
In article <1992Jun18.172148.2144@unix.brighton.ac.uk> ddv@unix.brighton.ac.uk (Domenico De Vitto) writes:
>What can be illegal about finding out passwords ?
> ~~~~~~~~~
Keep in mind that I'm not a lawyer, but I don't believe that it's
_illegal_ in the U.K. to find out passwords. It's also not illegal
there to note calling card or credit card numbers, as long as you
don't use them. But if I patronize a business there using a credit
card, and the sales clerk writes down the card number for his own use later,
then I want that clerk fired, whether he has technically broken the
law yet or not. The clerk was given a position of trust in handling
credit cards, and he should be removed for abusing that position.
The same goes for computer accounts. You are given an account with
the understanding that you will not use it to attempt to crack the system.
But if you use that account to learn the passwords of other users, then
you are abusing the trust placed in you by the system administrator, and
he can remove your access for it. Legality does not come into play.
--
John C. Fowler, jfowler@lanl.gov
From caf-talk Caf Jun 18 17:09:29 1992
Newsgroups: alt.security,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan)
Subject: Re: Legalities and policies for searching user accounts
Message-ID: <1992Jun18.165615.6222@ms.uky.edu>
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 1992 20:56:15 GMT
vince@ghost.dsi.unimi.it (David Vincenzetti) writes:
>morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
>> Me:
>>
>>
>
>Very interesting. I am the sysadm of our CS dept and facts like the above
>one do happen regularly. But here in Italy there are not clear laws about
>punishments for violations and often I am unable do much against hackers.
>For istance last month I cought red hands a user that had written an `X-spy'
>program and had stolen a dozen student passwords: he was only disabled
>for a week and then reenabled. What do you think? How would this hacker I
>cought had punished in your country?
Depending on the situation (and its resolution), the guilty party could
receive punishments ranging from written reprimand to outright dismissal
from the University.
It's important to note that any of these punishments may be appealed to the
University Appeals Board, which consists of students, faculty, and staff.
--
morgan@ms.uky.edu |Wes Morgan, not speaking for| MORGAN@UKCC
morgan@engr.uky.edu |the University of Kentucky's| ....!ukma!ukecc!morgan
morgan@ie.pa.uky.edu |Engineering Computing Center| morgan@wuarchive.wustl.edu
Mailing list for AT&T StarServer S/E - starserver-request@engr.uky.edu
From caf-talk Caf Jun 18 20:57:48 1992
From: oleg@Veritas.COM (Oleg Kiselev)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: Request for NNTP servers to combat censors
Message-ID: <1992Jun19.000854.9427@Veritas.COM>
Date: 19 Jun 92 00:08:54 GMT
umthom61@ccu.umanitoba.ca writes:
>The local police >want to "talk" to some of the posters!
What are they going to do, fly to US and try to get an arrest warrant?
Kidnap the posters, smuggle them to Canada and torture them?
>appears to be no solid legal ground here, they have also indicated that
>anyone caught with ASB (specifically: "alt.sex.bondage" only) material in
>their home directories will be prosecuted. This policy has yet to be
>officially disseminated by the administration here.
I know Canada doesn't have anything like the 1st Amendment of the US
Constitution or the laws about privacy of electronic communications so
this may be a good case for Canadian civil liberties people to raise with
the courts.
--
"... i heard the droning / in the shrine
of the sea-monkey / palace of the brine ..." -- Pixies.
Oleg Kiselev oleg@veritas.com
VERITAS Software ...!{apple|uunet}!veritas!oleg
From caf-talk Caf Jun 18 21:47:54 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: "Right to Listen"
Message-ID: <1992Jun18.194456.8089@uoft02.utoledo.edu>
From: sbrack@jupiter.cse.utoledo.edu (Steven S. Brack)
Date: 18 Jun 92 19:44:55 EST
bsc835!ehunt@uunet.UU.NET (Eric Hunt) writes:
: An interesting situation developed in Birmingham over the weekend, with
: direct relevance to the "Right to Listen" discussion going on here.
:
: A local skinhead/KKK/Neo-nazi group had a parade and speech rally through
: the streets of downtown Birmingham Saturday. After the parade, when they
: set up a platform for speeches, the city of Birmingham kept a helicopter at
: treetop level right above the speech area, preventing *ANYONE* (including
: the speech givers themselves) from hearing what the skinheads had to say.
Its free speech implications seem pretty clear. The only defense I
see the city as having is lack of intent, i.e. not intending to drown
out the skinheads.
But, since the city could hardly deny knowing how loud a helicopter
is, and since the city did not do the same to all groups speaking
that day, their defense would be weak, indeed.
- SteveB
From caf-talk Caf Jun 19 00:38:46 1992
From: phs265y@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.activism,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: NO FREEDOM OF SPEECH FOR FASCISTS/REVISIONISTS
Message-ID: <1992Jun19.115436.89181@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au>
Date: 19 Jun 92 11:54:36 +1000
In article <1992Jun17.234704.8148@m.cs.uiuc.edu>, kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
> phs265y@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au writes:
>
> [...]
>> The McCarthy era was directed specifically at left-wing groups, and
>>had more in common with fascism than anything else. You'll find throughout the
>>history of this century that while left-wing groups are censored, extreme
>>right-wing groups rarely are. The government likes to keep its options open
>>with regard to the extreme right. If it can't control people with bougeois
>>ideology that it often resorts to the far more rigid control that fascism
>>offers.
> [...]
>
> A reasonable conclusion based on your analysis is that we should not
> give governments, universities, etc the authority to censor the right
> wing because they will use that authority to censor the left wing even
> more.
Ah, but that's not my idea of censorship. I'm for a mass movement
of net users to get rid of the fascists. My posting was designed to provoke a
debate, not an act of god from system administrators. My argument is that
the left should unite to get rid of the fascists; the idea of free speech for
fascists has been a demobilising factor for the left historically. If,
ultimately, net users as a mass demand that system adminstrators remove access
rights for persistent revisionists, then so be it. The left after all doesn't
refuse to support wage rises for workers because we think this will increase
the power of the state.
Tony Hartin
International Socialist Organisation
Monash University
From caf-talk Caf Jun 19 00:47:26 1992
From: phs265y@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: NO FREEDOM OF SPEECH FOR FASCISTS
Message-ID: <1992Jun19.120032.89184@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au>
Date: 19 Jun 92 12:00:32 +1000
In article <2A3F57F0@msmail.sdstate.edu>, HaskettP@mg.sdstate.edu writes:
>
> Remember Stalin. Remember Tiananmen Square. The "right" has no monopoly on
> oppression.
I don't want to quibble over terms, but Stalinist Russia and the
present Chinese government are two examples of extreme right-wing
governments, despite the form of their state religions.
Even the bougeois media had the sense to refer to the attempt last
year of pro-stalinist forces in Russia to take power as a "right-wing coup".
Tony Hartin
International Socialist Organisation
Monash University
From caf-talk Caf Jun 19 02:44:15 1992
From: kmcvay@oneb.almanac.bc.ca (Ken Mcvay)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.activism,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: NO FREEDOM OF SPEECH FOR FASCISTS/REVISIONISTS
Message-ID: <1992Jun19.061006.23999@oneb.almanac.bc.ca>
Date: 19 Jun 92 06:10:06 GMT
In article <1992Jun19.115436.89181@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au> phs265y@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au writes:
> Ah, but that's not my idea of censorship. I'm for a mass movement
>of net users to get rid of the fascists. My posting was designed to provoke a
>debate, not an act of god from system administrators. My argument is that
>the left should unite to get rid of the fascists; the idea of free speech for
>fascists has been a demobilising factor for the left historically. If,
>ultimately, net users as a mass demand that system adminstrators remove access
>rights for persistent revisionists, then so be it. The left after all doesn't
>refuse to support wage rises for workers because we think this will increase
>the power of the state.
I believe it would be a grave mistake to force the Holocaust-deniers off
the net. There are far more effective means at hand to deal with their
peculiar brand of filth.
First, given the quality of the material generated from b-cpu, and the
nature of the audience they are presenting it to, I would recommend that we
do anything and everything to keep their link viable. Their utterances are,
after all, damning evidence of the most effective sort, and make it clear
to any and all that they are dealing with a movement that attracts to its
ranks the mentally lame - folks utterly devoid of self-respect, education,
intelligence, and a shred of civil merit. The more effectively they are
refuted, the more crude and offensive they become - would you deprive the
net of this most satisfying observation, and drive the vermin underground,
just to satisfy a political agenda?
Second, we have not yet taken full advantage of the opportunity these inept
fools have placed before us - we have a golden opportunity to learn rather
more than they would like to tell us about the nazi movement - chasing them
away would serve little purpose, and close several doors to those who would
prefer them to remain open.
Third, it is my belief that these people are _dangerous_, and the longer
they hang around spewing their filth, the more observers will arrive at the
same conclusion. In short, they themselves have provided the impetus needed
to organize resistance on a world-wide scale, and I (for one) would like to
see that resistance grow to the point where they are no longer able to
publish their bullshit without having enormous resources brought to bear.
No, I'm not talking about "Zionist Thought Police," or any of the other
offensive phrases these folks count upon for use as effective emotional
triggers, I'm talking about "just plain people," co-operating because, like
me, they find these vermin an offense against civilization.
Let's keep them around a bit longer, in the certain hope they will continue
to make fools of themselves, eh?
--
"(Later , I was to learn that we were at Bergen-Belsen; that this hastily
built camp beside a firing range had been occupied, until our arrival, by
women, and that it needed no gas chambers because death came by another
route, that of phenol injections into the heart.)" Fania Fenelon - p240.
From caf-talk Caf Jun 19 02:56:30 1992
Newsgroups: alt.security,comp.org.eff.talk,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: bdh@eff.org (Brian D. Howard)
Subject: Re: Legalities and policies for searching user accounts
Message-ID: <1992Jun19.065554.8876@eff.org>
Date: Fri, 19 Jun 1992 06:55:54 GMT
kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>[A followup to an article in alt.security - Carl]
>bdh@eff.org (Brian D. Howard) writes:
>>[...] The reasoning was something like the
>>computer was like a hotel and the account a room in it. The files were
>>like drawers or coatracks. We had the right to enter and look at anything
>>as we owned the 'premises'.
>[...]
>> ... all
>>bets are off (the shit hits the fan) if you disclose specific information
>>to a third party that is *not* a law enforcement agency and used for law
>>enforcement purposes.
>[...]
>I'm very skeptical of this advice. Does this mean that law enforcment
>doesn't need a search warrent if my apartment landlord lets them in?
>I don't think so.
If you are a tenant in an apartment there are all sorts of law usually
that requires all manner of things to search. In a hotel room (and
similar) all bets are off. I think the point was that computer stored
files *can* be regarded as fair game; are different, or so the reasoning
seems to be. I'm not saying its good or bad, I'm merely reporting what
I know or have seen in operation. To restate- it seems the expectation of
provacy in a computer system *can* be seen as *different*.
From caf-talk Caf Jun 19 03:24:14 1992
From: tyu@ecst.csuchico.edu (shit fetish)
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: <1992Jun19.063815.10006@ecst.csuchico.edu>
Date: 19 Jun 92 06:38:15 GMT
>What I was is surprised that someone would paint the US as being in a
>terrorist state. It's not. I should know, I live here. I have friends
>that have lived in war zones a large part of their lives. The US is
>not a war zone. The average person does not live in fear.
>
It depends on what you mean by U.S. I bet you live in a nice
white suburban neighborhood, but a large percent of iner-city
americans do live in fear day to day and drive by shooting
is very common, worse than Middle East.
Did you know more people were murdered in New York city
then American military men during the period of Gulf war?
From caf-talk Caf Jun 19 05:43:09 1992
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.activism,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: lfoard@Turing.ORG (Lawrence C. Foard)
Subject: Re: NO FREEDOM OF SPEECH FOR FASCISTS/REVISIONISTS
Message-ID: <1992Jun19.084539.1206@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
Date: Fri, 19 Jun 1992 08:45:39 GMT
In article <1992Jun19.115436.89181@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au> phs265y@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au writes:
>> A reasonable conclusion based on your analysis is that we should not
>> give governments, universities, etc the authority to censor the right
>> wing because they will use that authority to censor the left wing even
>> more.
>
> Ah, but that's not my idea of censorship. I'm for a mass movement
>of net users to get rid of the fascists.
Mob rule is a form of "government".
>My posting was designed to provoke a
>debate, not an act of god from system administrators. My argument is that
>the left should unite to get rid of the fascists; the idea of free speech for
>fascists has been a demobilising factor for the left historically.
What good is fighting for ideals if you destroy those ideals in the fight?
If your idea of a "perfect" world doesn't include freedom of expression
I want no part of it.
This isn't to say someone can say absolutely anything, threatening people
and the like is something else, and of course there is nothing wrong with
holding someone to an offer such as the $50,000 offered.
>If,
>ultimately, net users as a mass demand that system adminstrators remove access
>rights for persistent revisionists, then so be it.
^^^^^^
If we want the network to be treated as a common carrier, then atleast for
pay services have no right to censor based on content alone.
>The left after all doesn't
>refuse to support wage rises for workers because we think this will increase
>the power of the state.
If your version of "left" is a dictatorship no thanks.
--
Tired of Microsoft hype? Try Linux the only real OS for the 386/486 ______
that costs less than your computer does. ftp tsx-11.mit.edu \ /
cd pub/linux and say goodbye Messy-Loss and 1/2 an OS. \ /
-- VWIS 508-793-9568 (2400 baud), Linux support, Resumes, Etc.-- \/
From caf-talk Caf Jun 19 05:47:20 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: colin@eecg.toronto.edu (Colin Plumb)
Subject: Re: [alt.sex.bondage] Re: Request for NNTP servers to combat censors
Message-ID: <1992Jun19.053601.25400@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu>
Date: 19 Jun 92 09:36:01 GMT
In article <1992Jun17.204240.29727@ctr.columbia.edu> umthom61@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Adam Thompson) wrote:
> The local police want to "talk" to some of the posters! And, on a side
> note, although there appears to be no solid legal ground here, they
> have also indicated that anyone caught with ASB (specifically:
> "alt.sex.bondage" only) material in their home directories will be
> prosecuted.
I suspect it isn't quite *that* bad.
A few weeks ago, I spoke to inspector Ray Johns of the Winnipeg vice sqaud,
who was dealing with the a.s.b. thing. In the course of our conversation,
I told him I had written some of the material, and left him my name and phone
number.
I haven't heard a thing yet. I promise I'll tell the net if I do.
--
-Colin
From caf-talk Caf Jun 19 08:50:17 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [news.admin] Re: Protest of offensive message
Message-ID: <9206191247.AA20399@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Fri, 19 Jun 1992 02:47:38 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Jun 19 08:50:17 1992
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: Protest of offensive message
Message-ID:
Date: 19 Jun 92 09:19:35 GMT
In article <1992Jun17.052430.20515@uwasa.fi> ts@uwasa.fi (Timo Salmi) writes:
>11. *****
> Q: How should I react to abusive email or postings?
> What to do if the abusive individual persists sending you one
>unwelcome message after another, or keeps on harassing you in some
>other way. Persisting cases are perhaps best tackled by just
>deleting _unread_ all the email and postings from that address.
Seconded. In Unix at least it is easy to install a personal mail
filter which acts like a kill file for incoming mail. It can of
course as easily bounce messages from undesired sources back, but I
think it is better to simply discard them. Or you may prefer to file
them away for future reference (and occasionally check they won't
overflow your disk).
--
Tapani Tarvainen (tarvaine@jyu.fi, tarvainen@finjyu.bitnet)
From caf-talk Caf Jun 19 08:52:45 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.censorship] Banned Books Week '92
Message-ID: <9206191250.AA20446@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Fri, 19 Jun 1992 02:50:08 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Jun 19 08:52:45 1992
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
Subject: Banned Books Week '92
Message-ID:
Date: 18 Jun 92 11:18:49 GMT
The American Library Association is sponsoring Banned Books
Week, September 26--October 3 1992.
For $20 + $3.75 postage & handling you can get a "Banned
Books Week" kit including 4 22" x 32" posters + a 104 page
Resource Book. One of this year's posters deals with electronic
communications. Send your order to
Banned Books Week
American Library Association
50 East Huron Street
Chicago, IL 60611
USA
Disclaimer: no affiliation with ALA. Last year I purchased the
kit and found it worthwhile.
Jeff Shallit
University of Waterloo
From caf-talk Caf Jun 19 08:54:06 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.censorship, et al.] Re: Underground High School Newspapers
Message-ID: <9206191251.AA20455@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Fri, 19 Jun 1992 02:51:27 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Jun 19 08:54:06 1992
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,misc.kids
Subject: Re: Underground High School Newspapers
Date: 19 Jun 1992 05:49:19 GMT
Message-ID:
In article <1992Jun14.005320.24135@m.cs.uiuc.edu> kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>
>If I was a begining college student looking at private univeristies
>and institutes (such such as RPI), I would ask to see the Student
>Code. The Code is part of the contract between a student and the
>school. Most Codes detail how school will respect student expression,
>but some do not.
At RPI, you're bound to "The Code" when you sign your first housing
contract (mandatory for freshmen.) You don't get to *see* a copy
until well after you sign.
Given enough nudging, RPI will even follow the code. Another student
humor magazine published a sexist joke one time. The dean of
affirmitive action ordered security to go around campus and confiscate
every copy they could find (direct violation of the student bill of
rights). The dean of students ordered security to put them back. The
dean of affirmitive action ordered security to go confiscate them
again. At this point, the president stepped in so we don't know exactly
how long this little comedy would have continued.
Eventually, that humor magazine was terminated after publishing a racist
joke and that was that.
Things may have changed since these events happened (about ten years
ago), but censorship was alive and well back then.
-ed falk, sun microsystems
sun!falk, falk@sun.com
If you want peace, work for justice.
From caf-talk Caf Jun 19 09:52:46 1992
From: cmort@NCoast.ORG (Christopher Morton)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.activism,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: NO FREEDOM OF SPEECH FOR FASCISTS/REVISIONISTS
Message-ID: <1992Jun19.121016.19631@NCoast.ORG>
Date: 19 Jun 92 12:10:16 GMT
As quoted from <1992Jun19.115436.89181@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au> by phs265y@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au:
> In article <1992Jun17.234704.8148@m.cs.uiuc.edu>, kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
> > phs265y@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au writes:
> >
> > [...]
> >> The McCarthy era was directed specifically at left-wing groups, and
> >>had more in common with fascism than anything else. You'll find throughout the
> >>history of this century that while left-wing groups are censored, extreme
> >>right-wing groups rarely are. The government likes to keep its options open
> >>with regard to the extreme right. If it can't control people with bougeois
> >>ideology that it often resorts to the far more rigid control that fascism
> >>offers.
> > [...]
> >
> > A reasonable conclusion based on your analysis is that we should not
> > give governments, universities, etc the authority to censor the right
> > wing because they will use that authority to censor the left wing even
> > more.
>
> Ah, but that's not my idea of censorship. I'm for a mass movement
> of net users to get rid of the fascists. My posting was designed to provoke a
> debate, not an act of god from system administrators. My argument is that
> the left should unite to get rid of the fascists; the idea of free speech for
> fascists has been a demobilising factor for the left historically. If,
> ultimately, net users as a mass demand that system adminstrators remove access
> rights for persistent revisionists, then so be it. The left after all doesn't
> refuse to support wage rises for workers because we think this will increase
> the power of the state.
Why are you so afraid of them? Why are you so afraid of what they say? Can't
you refute them? Or is it just too much trouble to rely on fact and logic,
when repressive measures can be used instead? Personally, I've never had even
the SLIGHTEST problem dispensing with their "arguments". What you propose is
to lend CREDENCE to their views. I have no interest in that.
Secondly, what's a "facist"? Is that somebody who disagrees with you? Almost
invariably, I find those who whine "fascist" or "commie" and demand that
censorship be imposed on those with whom they disagree are bereft of the tools
of rational discourse needed to refute these "fascists" or "commies" and in
fact embody the worst faults of both.
Lastly, you can pretend that you aren't buying your opponents an expensive
pistol, loading it, and handing it to them cocked, but that doesn't make it
untrue. Censorship ALWAYS cuts both ways. It frequently cuts the WRONG way
(for you) FIRST. There's no reason in the world why YOU can't be driven out
TOO, so long as you give the cart it's first push downhill. Pretty soon it'll
be going NICE and fast. I doubt you have the prescience to determine WHOM it
will ultimately run over....
>
> Tony Hartin
> International Socialist Organisation
Some people just never learn....
--
------------------------------------------------------------------
"Well whose opinions did you THINK these were...?"
------------------------------------------------------------------
From caf-talk Caf Jun 19 12:31:28 1992
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Banned Books Week '92
Message-ID: <1992Jun19.132850.11360@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: 19 Jun 92 13:28:50 GMT
I asked Jeff what the poster refering to electronic communications was
like. Here is is reply (post with his permission), followed up his
original article from alt.censorship.
- Carl
================
Date: Fri, 19 Jun 92 08:52:29 -0400
From: Jeffrey Shallit
To: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Subject: Re: Banned Books Week '92
It's not terribly good (from the reproduction, anyway). It's
a representation of a terminal with the words "access denied"
on it. At the bottom is the phrase "censorship: old sins in
new worlds".
Jeff
============================
shallit@graceland.waterloo.edu (Jeffrey Shallit) writes:
>The American Library Association is sponsoring Banned Books
>Week, September 26--October 3 1992.
>
>For $20 + $3.75 postage & handling you can get a "Banned
>Books Week" kit including 4 22" x 32" posters + a 104 page
>Resource Book. One of this year's posters deals with electronic
>communications. Send your order to
>
>Banned Books Week
>American Library Association
>50 East Huron Street
>Chicago, IL 60611
>USA
>
>Disclaimer: no affiliation with ALA. Last year I purchased the
>kit and found it worthwhile.
>
>Jeff Shallit
>University of Waterloo
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Jun 19 12:52:22 1992
From: scw@ollie.SEAS.UCLA.EDU
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: <7447@lee.SEAS.UCLA.EDU>
Date: 19 Jun 92 16:12:14 GMT
In article <1992Jun19.063815.10006@ecst.csuchico.edu> tyu@ecst.csuchico.edu (shit fetish) writes:
>>What I [...] average person does not live in fear.
>>
>It depends on what you mean by U.S. I bet you live in a nice
>white suburban neighborhood, but a large percent of iner-city
>americans do live in fear day to day and drive by shooting
>is very common, worse than Middle East.
>Did you know more people were murdered in New York city
>then American military men during the period of Gulf war?
Well I live in a multi-racial suburb (if you can call any part of Greater
LA suburb, there's no urb), The next street over is controlled by a Gang
called P-13, the next block south is the begining of the territory controlled
by the 4th largest Latino Gang in GLA Basset Grande\'. I know about street
shootings. I've also been shot at for real (by professionals). There is
no compairison. 3-4 weeks ago (just after the Riots, BTW what would you
call the little disturbance in Chicago, was everyone there ENRAGED because
the Bull's WON?), some gang-bangers tried to hit a group (of ~40 odd)
standing in front of a Church. The gang-bangers drove by the crowd 'spraying
it with gunfire' (LA Times) [Radio reported that there were 4 shooters
thats a minimum of 24 rounds, more likley about 48, those folks seem to be
fond of HI-cap pistols] the only casualty was some kid sitting in his house
several blocks away, he died from a stray round. Those twits are incompentent
(thank God).
You wouldn't know from danger, you listen to Ted Koppel solemly pronouce
that, '...it is more dangerous to live in an inner city than to be in the
"Front-lines" in WWII...'. What sheer unadulterated bullshit, I could
accept that it is more dangerous than being in the U.S. Army during WWII
-remembering that some 40% of the people in the armed forces never left
the ZI (Zone of the Interior, what the War Dept. called the lower 48).
But I'm sorry, I know what 'real' war is all about there was a war in
Lebanon, there is minor skirmishing going on in the inner citys. As some
other poster pointed out there is a 'war on drugs' in progress, the
participants do become casualties, and there is colateral damage, but it is
NOT a real war.
Get a clue, better yet get several, they're free.
-----
Stephen C. Woods; UCLA SEASNET; 2567 BH;LA CA 90024; (310)-825-8614
UUCP: ...{ibmsupt,ncar!cepu}!ollie}!scw Internet:scw@SEAS.UCLA.EDU
"Non, je ne regrette rien"--1st Para, LE 1963
From caf-talk Caf Jun 19 12:55:48 1992
From: bill@chaos.cs.umn.edu (Hari Seldon)
Newsgroups: alt.security,comp.org.eff.talk,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: Legalities and policies for searching user accounts
Message-ID:
Date: 19 Jun 92 16:38:18 GMT
bdh@eff.org (Brian D. Howard) writes:
>kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>>[A followup to an article in alt.security - Carl]
>>bdh@eff.org (Brian D. Howard) writes:
>>>[...] The reasoning was something like the
>>>computer was like a hotel and the account a room in it. The files were
[stuff deleted, hmmm starting to look like alt.cascades]
>>doesn't need a search warrent if my apartment landlord lets them in?
>>I don't think so.
>If you are a tenant in an apartment there are all sorts of law usually
>that requires all manner of things to search. In a hotel room (and
>similar) all bets are off. I think the point was that computer stored
>files *can* be regarded as fair game; are different, or so the reasoning
>seems to be. I'm not saying its good or bad, I'm merely reporting what
>I know or have seen in operation. To restate- it seems the expectation of
>provacy in a computer system *can* be seen as *different*.
this is precicely why you need a public policy stating what a users rights
and responsibilities are. on paper. with their signature (not that its
worth anything, but they can't come back and say they hadn't a clue)
and date on it. btw lets not try and carry this analogy *to* far.
analogies are like photo copies clear only for the first few levels
past the original :-)
bill pociengel
--
bill@chaos.cs.umn.edu
From caf-talk Caf Jun 19 15:49:51 1992
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.activism,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold)
Subject: Re: NO FREEDOM OF SPEECH FOR FASCISTS/REVISIONISTS
Message-ID:
Date: Fri, 19 Jun 1992 19:07:46 GMT
phs265y@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au writes:
> Tony Hartin
> International Socialist Organisation
> Monash University
I've just got to ask, in what way do you speak for the ISO? Are you
just the head at Monash U, or what? This stuff is just far too good,
I've been capturing it all, but how do your views represent those of
the ISO?
--
Daddy would have gotten us Uzis
From caf-talk Caf Jun 19 21:12:36 1992
Newsgroups: alt.security,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto)
Subject: Re: Legalities and policies for searching user accounts
Message-ID: <1992Jun20.010026.21736@eng.umd.edu>
Date: Sat, 20 Jun 92 01:00:26 GMT
In article <1992Jun18.165615.6222@ms.uky.edu> morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
>It's important to note that any of these punishments may be appealed to the
>University Appeals Board, which consists of students, faculty, and staff.
Perhaps at your university, that actually means something. At mine,
the administrator member of the board attempts to run the board (even
when he is not the chairman), acts as an extra advocate for the
punishers, and changes the decision after the board has reached it.
--
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 20 06:47:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.activism,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: NO FREEDOM OF SPEECH FOR FASCISTS/REVISIONISTS
Message-ID: <1992Jun19.155145.2260@desire.wright.edu>
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Date: 19 Jun 92 15:51:44 EST
In article <1992Jun19.115436.89181@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au>, phs265y@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au writes:
> In article <1992Jun17.234704.8148@m.cs.uiuc.edu>, kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>> phs265y@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au writes:
>> [...]
>>> The McCarthy era was directed specifically at left-wing groups, and
>>>had more in common with fascism than anything else. You'll find throughout the
>>>history of this century that while left-wing groups are censored, extreme
>>>right-wing groups rarely are. The government likes to keep its options open
>>>with regard to the extreme right. If it can't control people with bougeois
>>>ideology that it often resorts to the far more rigid control that fascism
>>>offers.
>> [...]
>> A reasonable conclusion based on your analysis is that we should not
>> give governments, universities, etc the authority to censor the right
>> wing because they will use that authority to censor the left wing even
>> more.
> Ah, but that's not my idea of censorship. I'm for a mass movement
> of net users to get rid of the fascists. My posting was designed to provoke a
> debate, not an act of god from system administrators. My argument is that
> the left should unite to get rid of the fascists; the idea of free speech for
> fascists has been a demobilising factor for the left historically. If,
> ultimately, net users as a mass demand that system adminstrators remove access
> rights for persistent revisionists, then so be it. The left after all doesn't
> refuse to support wage rises for workers because we think this will increase
> the power of the state.
>
An organization that has the power to silence one group has the power
to silence all groups. Contrast that with the organization that has no power
to censor any group.
Brett
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer: NOT!
From caf-talk Caf Jun 20 15:47:47 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: trost@romulus.reed.edu (Bill Trost)
Subject: Re: [alt.sex.bondage] Re: Request for NNTP servers to combat censors
Date: Sat, 20 Jun 1992 19:17:21 GMT
Message-ID:
In article <9206180011.AA12916@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu> kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
In article 7851@cs.sfu.ca, miron@cs.sfu.ca (Miron Cuperman) writes:
>This newsgroups was dropped from the computer services network at Simon
>Fraser University. If know of an NNTP server which is publicly
>accessible, please drop me a note. I'd also like to know about any
>other method of reading news remotely.
Well, it appears that many universities in Canada are doing this.
Here at the University of Manitoba, everything matching *sex* has
been cut....
Does that include alt.sexual.abuse.recovery? If I remember correctly,
that group was cut in the German universities as part of the fuss some
radical feminist magazine generated.
Hopefully, the Canadian Universities aren't quite that
blind/paranoid....
--
Bill Trost How can public spending create jobs that private
Reed College Systems Manager spending can't?
From caf-talk Caf Jun 20 18:34:22 1992
From: hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phillip M. Hallam-Baker)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.activism,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: NO FREEDOM OF SPEECH FOR FASCISTS/REVISIONISTS
Message-ID: <1992Jun20.220725.22308@dscomsf.desy.de>
Date: 20 Jun 92 22:07:25 GMT
In article <1992Jun19.115436.89181@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au>,
phs265y@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au writes:
|>In article <1992Jun17.234704.8148@m.cs.uiuc.edu>,
|>kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
|>> phs265y@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au writes:
|>>
|>> [...]
|>>> The McCarthy era was directed specifically at left-wing
|>groups, and
|>>>had more in common with fascism than anything else. You'll find
|>throughout the
|>>>history of this century that while left-wing groups are censored,
|>extreme
|>>>right-wing groups rarely are. The government likes to keep its
|>options open
|>>>with regard to the extreme right. If it can't control people with
|>bougeois
|>>>ideology that it often resorts to the far more rigid control that
|>fascism
|>>>offers.
|>> [...]
|>>
|>> A reasonable conclusion based on your analysis is that we should
|>not
|>> give governments, universities, etc the authority to censor the
|>right
|>> wing because they will use that authority to censor the left wing
|>even
|>> more.
|>
|> Ah, but that's not my idea of censorship. I'm for a mass
|>movement
|>of net users to get rid of the fascists. My posting was designed to
|>provoke a
|>debate, not an act of god from system administrators. My argument is
|>that
|>the left should unite to get rid of the fascists; the idea of free
|>speech for
|>fascists has been a demobilising factor for the left historically.
|>If,
|>ultimately, net users as a mass demand that system adminstrators
|>remove access
|>rights for persistent revisionists, then so be it. The left after all
|>doesn't
|>refuse to support wage rises for workers because we think this will
|>increase
|>the power of the state.
People should note that the speaker is speaking for himself, certainly
not `the left' as a whole.
Note how the post has the typical halmarks of the Trotskyite fringe,
talk of `the left should unite" (i.e. stop criticising the Trots), "net
users as a mass", and notice how he denies that he is in favour of
censorship - he want the `mass movement' to do it for him.
If the Trots were capable of being honest with themselves and
recognising that all they really want is a boost to their ego (big demo
to address etc) they might be able to contribute something to the
socialist movement. Instead they have to form their endless splinter
groups - so they can all be President of it - oops, sorry chair, or is
it convenor these days?
Phill Hallam-Baker
From caf-talk Caf Jun 20 18:41:12 1992
From: rob@wzv.win.tue.nl (Rob J. Nauta)
Newsgroups: alt.security,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: Legalities and policies for searching user accounts
Message-ID: <3418@wzv.win.tue.nl>
Date: 20 Jun 92 19:36:51 GMT
In article <1992Jun18.083134.18463@ghost.dsi.unimi.it> vince@ghost.dsi.unimi.it (David Vincenzetti) writes:
>
>For istance last month I cought red hands a user that had written an `X-spy'
>program and had stolen a dozen student passwords: he was only disabled
>for a week and then reenabled. What do you think? How would this hacker I
>cought had punished in your country?
That student could sue you for damages for depriving him of his account.
In almost all countries law states that listening in to voice communication
is illegal. However, monitoring somebody's keyboard is not illegal.
He didn't break security (as far as I know), so although his actions
may seem unethical, unless you caught him redhanded using another
person's account without permission.
But using xkey.c isn't illegal. If someone decides to run it, it is
legal. Unless you warn users in advance that running it is not
allowed on your systems.
Rob
>David
From caf-talk Caf Jun 20 19:36:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.activism,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phillip M. Hallam-Baker)
Subject: Re: NO FREEDOM OF SPEECH FOR FASCISTS/REVISIONISTS
Message-ID: <1992Jun20.221331.22428@dscomsf.desy.de>
Date: Sat, 20 Jun 1992 22:13:31 GMT
In article , rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com
(Ron Dippold) writes:
|>phs265y@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au writes:
|>> Tony Hartin
|>> International Socialist Organisation
|>> Monash University
|>
|>I've just got to ask, in what way do you speak for the ISO? Are you
|>just the head at Monash U, or what? This stuff is just far too good,
|>I've been capturing it all, but how do your views represent those of
|>the ISO?
ISO, SIO ??? aghh!!!
Why do all the leftwing groups have similar names. Isn't there a bona
fide sort of moderate International Socialist Movement, is this it or is
this a bunch of Trots with a similar name.
Does anyone have a summary of the Left Wing handy, we could build up a
list of 'em, like ye olde list of old Iron in comp.folklore.computers.
While we are at it we could do the Right too!
Phill Hallam-Baker
From caf-talk Caf Jun 21 00:53:12 1992
From: shmeck@west.darkside.com (The Shmeckhouser)
Newsgroups: alt.security,comp.org.eff.talk,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: Legalities and policies for searching user accounts
Message-ID:
Date: 21 Jun 92 02:19:45 GMT
bill@chaos.cs.umn.edu (Hari Seldon) writes:
> bdh@eff.org (Brian D. Howard) writes:
> >kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
> >>[A followup to an article in alt.security - Carl]
> >>bdh@eff.org (Brian D. Howard) writes:
> >>>[...] The reasoning was something like the
> >>>computer was like a hotel and the account a room in it. The files were
> [stuff deleted, hmmm starting to look like alt.cascades]
>
I think you'd all create more secure systems by spending less time
trying to find "the perfect analogy" and working on the problems at hand.
I suppose it is good to determine just what the situation is, but don't
you think this can be done in actual terms, and not in the constantly
changing analogies y'all are using. Let's face facts, computers are not
doors, houses, hotels, etc... I think that the users of the Internet are
sophisticated computer users, so sophisticated that we can understand
actual computer terminology. Please, please, bury the analogies. I'm
getting confused.
---Mark Trumpbour
From caf-talk Caf Jun 21 10:08:06 1992
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.activism,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: cmort@NCoast.ORG (Christopher Morton)
Subject: Re: NO FREEDOM OF SPEECH FOR FASCISTS/REVISIONISTS
Date: Sun, 21 Jun 1992 13:20:16 GMT
Message-ID: <1992Jun21.132016.1065@NCoast.ORG>
As quoted from <1992Jun20.221331.22428@dscomsf.desy.de> by hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phillip M. Hallam-Baker):
> Does anyone have a summary of the Left Wing handy, we could build up a
> list of 'em, like ye olde list of old Iron in comp.folklore.computers.
>
> While we are at it we could do the Right too!
I'd like to see this as well. A short summary of principles would be nice too.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------
"Well whose opinions did you THINK these were...?"
------------------------------------------------------------------
From caf-talk Caf Jun 21 23:02:35 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [misc.kids, et al.] Re: Underground High School Newspapers
Message-ID: <9206220259.AA01540@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Sun, 21 Jun 1992 16:59:56 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Jun 21 23:02:35 1992
From: greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (J. S. Greenfield)
Subject: Re: Underground High School Newspapers
Message-ID: <1992Jun19.195257.25582@newstand.syr.edu>
Date: Fri, 19 Jun 92 19:52:57 EDT
In article falk@peregrine.Sun.COM (Ed Falk) writes:
>>
>>If I was a begining college student looking at private univeristies
>>and institutes (such such as RPI), I would ask to see the Student
>>Code. The Code is part of the contract between a student and the
>>school. Most Codes detail how school will respect student expression,
>>but some do not.
>
>At RPI, you're bound to "The Code" when you sign your first housing
>contract (mandatory for freshmen.) You don't get to *see* a copy
>until well after you sign.
Well, whatever "The Code" is, it is undoubtedly published in some Institute
publication, so that a truly determined student could find it beforehand.
In any case, if the situation were as you described, then the school would
have a very difficult time enforcing the "contract."
Certainly, within NYS (where RPI is), form leases are not necessarily binding
in all of their provisions. The law recognizes that renters are typically
offered a "take it or leave it" lease contract, and do not have actual
consent in signing a lease. This is particularly true of dorm contracts.
In any case, NYS courts are very likely to throw out unreasonable lease
provisions, when challenged.
Of course, one would have to decide to buck the administration and go to
court, in order to remedy any problems...
--
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?"
