From caf-talk Caf Jul 6 22:42:49 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.sex.bondage] Re: Westmark is gone
Message-ID: <9207070241.AA29267@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Mon, 6 Jul 1992 16:41:47 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Jul 6 22:42:49 1992
From: kestrel@westmark.Stanford.EDU (Alaric Morgan Kestrel)
Subject: Re: Westmark is gone
Message-ID: <1992Jul6.025130.11090@morrow.stanford.edu>
Date: Mon, 6 Jul 1992 02:51:30 GMT
In article <1992Jun30.120310.13119@wizvax.methuen.ma.us> wi.4653@wizvax.methuen.ma.us writes:
>> The server previously known as westmark is gone. Do not
>> attempt to contact it, or your address will be traced,
>> and your system administrator will be notified. The
>> owner of the system has been reprimanded, and is
>> currently on probation; the material on the server has
>> been confiscated and destroyed.
>
>"Your system adminstrator will be notifed" of WHAT ?
>I'm sorry, boss, yes, I am guilty of contacting a system in Stamford, I
>promise I won't do it again ? Or are there no "legitimate" (ie.
>approved by the self-appointed censor) users on that node ?
>Seems to me that, while the owner of a system (we must assume that the person
>issuing the message is in a position to claim ownership) has a right
>to determine the purposes for which his/her machine will be used, broadcasting
>rather unpleasant and vaguely threatening posts to the world is
>overstepping the mark a little.
Oh no, please, make it stop...
I posted a reply explaining what happened, and I indicated
that the message alluded to above was a forging, most likely
by someone here at Stanford based on the fact that it came from
our NNTP server, but it seems that this is one incident I will
never live down.
I'm not going to go into all the details again--if you really
want to know, write to me directly. I simply want to say that
the message from root was a forgery, by whom we do not know.
No issue of censorship was ever raised, all the material that
was on westmark is still there, no tracing of users was ever
done or considered. The only problem was one of bandwidth,
and so a filter was temporarily placed on the gateway going
in.
Please, PLEASE, do not continue to berate the issue! Whoever
posted the message with the subject line "Westmark is gone"
was upset with my decision to temporarily remove anonymous
permissions at westmark. They should have written to me
to voice their anger, not post inflamatory messages to the
net.
I apologize for the waste of bandwidth, and I hope we can
proceed once again to issues more germaine to the subject
of this newsgroup?...
>Each to their own, as always, but, once again, Magician bridles at
>someone else telling me what I'm allowed to think.
>...even if they are doing it in a heavy-handed, clumsy and unimaginative way !
Precisely why most of the people who know me realized right
from the start that the message was a forgery. If I'm going
to make a point, I'll do it in an imaginative way... ;-)
>
>Magician,
>despairing of the foolishness of the world, turns up the air-con in the
>Magic Tower (it's *hot* over here!) and conjures a calming and cooling
>drink.....
Alaric Morgan Kestrel, who in the limited sphere of reality is
also known as Matthew Nicholas Petach once again apologizes for
this, and hopes that any further debate can be carried out
directly via voice. My home number is (415) 497-0561; I'm
happy to give you more details directly.
And now, back to bondage...
Those of you who recognize the parts you played in this
little drama should feel free to lay claim to your role
in carrying this out--I, however, am not the one to make
such a decision. I would have liked to check with each
and every one of you before posting this, but I forgot
to while I was at the party, and I felt a need to put
this down while it was still fresh, still bursting forth
in a myriad of colors, lights and sounds, a fountain of
raw _experience_; but before the fountain, a few words
of introduction...
I had a very different sort of experience last night.
It was the fourth of July, known colloquially as
"Independence Day." For me, it was truly a day of
independence, because for the first time in my life
I was going to do something in direct opposition to
my parent's training and upbringing, something that
was completely and uniquely mine.
I was going to get my nipple pierced.
While to most of you here, the response would most
likely be "oh, another piercing...," for me,
it represented the largest hurdle of my life. You
see, ever since I was a young child, I have been
*deathly* afraid of needles. When I had splinters
removed, my parents would drive me up into the hills
first so the neighbors wouldn't call, asking what on
earth was happening to that "poor, screaming child."
Blood samples from my thumb took three nurses and 45
minutes to complete as a young tyke. When I underwent
spinal fusion two years ago, I had to have oral sedative
before I was calm enough that the doctor could put an
IV in. The list goes on...the point being, that I have
always feared and resisted having my skin pierced and
punctured by cold, sharp steel.
And now I was voluntarily driving to have someone push
one of the largest needles I had ever faced in my life
through one of the most sensitive areas of my body.
My nipples are very special to me. I've come very close
to orgasm from nipple play alone. I _like_ my nipples,
small though they are! The thought of willingly saying
"I'm ready--pierce me!" gave me the screaming heebie-jeebies,
but it was also the ultimate challange, and the ultimate
opportunity to test my limits. I honestly didn't know if
I would be able to go through with it. I'd really only
been seriously considering it for about ten days, since
a recent BurgerMunch, when a very dear friend brought
the idea up. The idea appealed to me, and I considered
it, and bounced it around, but no real action was taken
towards realizing it until the same day as the party,
when she called and indicated that s/he had been
successful at obtaining supplies. From that moment onward,
my heart was pounding. We met for dinner before going to
the party/ceremony, and even in the midst of the light-hearted
banter, my heart was pounding.
It was completely and totally up to me now--no longer could
I hide behind details such as a lack of nails (uh, needles...
they *are* about the same size, though...;-) or jewelry. I
felt like a child again, on the doorway to adulthood, about
to undergo a ritual demonstration of the change that I was
undergoing.
This feeling was further heightened by the *wonderful*
ritual done by the hosts of the party... the five candles
in the center of the floor were magical, as were the
piercingly resonant chimes that summoned us all from our
disparate playspaces into a common area in the living room,
an area that was somehow out of this time and out of this
space, a place into which we had all come for a common
purpose, which was made safe by our collective love and
energy. We gathered twice; once for the shiveringly
provocative tale of the three Brahmans, and for a chance
for me to attempt to put into words for those present the
same types of thoughts I am attempting to put down here; the
terror, the fear of the unknown that I was facing, the love
and support I was receiving, and the need to do this, the
feeling that in order to better know who "I" is, I _had_
to face this, my oldest fear, and both be conquered by it,
but in giving in to the experience and welcoming it, to
conquer it.
The second summons brought us together again, and focused
our energies even more deeply. We held hands, staring at
the candles, breathing together, vibrating together, *being*
together. This time very little was said; the time for speaking
was past, and now the time for action had come.
We moved into the bedroom, and my nipple was marked. I was
flogged again, building up the endorphins in my system, and
then my nipple was cleaned and re-marked. As I lay down, all
the friends who had gathered there with me came in to support
me, to hold me and to share the energy with me. I welcomed
them, rejoicing in the strength I felt in that room...
I think the endorphins really must have been having a field day
in my system, because I can remember my heart pounding, and the
breathing I had just been taught coming to my rescue, keeping the
precious oxygen flowing to my mind, allowing me to find my center
again. The last-minute preparations passed as a blur to me, and
my world narrowed down to a bright, blinding light. Fortunately,
a very dear and wonderful friend came to my rescue and put her
hand between the light and my eyes, and my world expanded once
again to encompass everyone in the room. The clamp was placed
on the nipple, the needle was positioned, the cork was positioned,
and then a moment of stillness descended.
"Are you ready, Kestrel?"
The voice echoed in my head, bouncing off of thousands of childhood
memories, half-forgotten images and barely-remembered nightmares;
a hundred hobgoblins and gibbering, frothing demons crawled out of
the dark corners of my mind, and I realized the universe was in
perfect balance. With a single word, I could tip it in either
direction, and at that perfect moment, I finally realized which
word I wanted, and which word I would say. I took a deep breath,
held it for 5, let it out for 7, breathing in through the nose,
out through the mouth, and then
"Yes, I'm ready; pierce me."
The universe hung in the balance for a few brief moments longer,
then tilted and cascaded down in a dazzling display of light and
sound and sensation; nerves that had no right to feel what they
did screamed from the sensation, and when I resisted for a moment
screamed all the more
"Accept the needle into you, Kestrel; welcome it."
The words pierced the blinding miasma of sensation, and I realized
I still controlled the chaos that surrounded me and threatened to
overwhelm me. I exhaled, took a breath, and welcomed the pain,
bidding the turmoil in my mind to be still. Slowly, complainingly,
it complied, and I heard the voices around me, the general buzz of
approval at how nice the needle looked, how perfect it was, how
exactly *right* it was. A small smile slipped out, until the forceps
were removed, and I stifled a scream. Best remember the neighbors,
I thought.
The ring was positioned, and the needle was moved to the end, which
brought forth a second shower of raw energy, and again I allowed a
groan to escape, digging my fingers into the leg of the person
sitting on my left arm. The ring was placed against the end of
the needle; again I was warned, and again I indicated I was ready.
And then came trouble.
The ring would not sit against the end of the needle properly, and
it didn't follow the needle through the hole, despite the best
efforts of the two piercers.
A hurried consultation took place, and they discussed trying
it again; pushing the needle back through a second time, and
trying to get the ring to follow it, being more careful now
that they knew what the problem was. I was asked if I felt
up to it, and I concurred, realizing that while I was still
up on endorphins would be the best time to try again. I steeled
myself, digging my fingernails into a new spot on the leg holding
my left arm down ( and drawing fresh blood, as I found out later),
and said
"I'm ready."
Which wasn't really true, as it turned out; I had to be reminded
to relax, and let the needle flow, accepting it into me and
welcoming it before it could pass through the hole again.
Again, the needle was moved to the end, and the ring placed up
against it. And again, the ring stubbornly refused to follow the
needle through.
By this time the energy level was ebbing, my nipple was becoming
a bit sore, and frustration was threatening to become a player in
this wonderful ritual, so a decision was made to call it quits,
allow it to heal and to try again with a different needle in a
few weeks.
Everyone gathered around, hugging and holding me, congratulating
me; and yet, in some way, somewhere in my head I was upset. I
felt like I hadn't really been pierced. I had nothing to show
for it but a bandaid on my nipple. Dammit, I wanted these
people to take me seriously!!! I felt like crying.
And then I felt hands holding me, a bottle of juice being offered
to me (THANK YOU!!!), and voices indicating approval and acceptance,
and wonder. I opened my eyes, and the two beautiful people who
womanned (manned?) the needles looked at me and kissed me and said,
"It doesn't matter; you *have* been pierced, and that's what
matters. In fact, you've been pierced twice!! You know that
you did it, and you'll be forever different for having done it,
for having faced your fear and conquered it. Getting a token to
show others that you've done it will come later. Tonight, for
you, was the real test, the real moment of truth."
I thought about that for a while as I gazed upon my friends,
many of whom I had only really known for a few months, and
as I looked at them I realized she was right.
I love you all, and I thank you for being there to share what
was the for me the most intimate penetration I have ever
experienced, and probably will be for a while. I tried
to tell each of you that with my eyes as I looked at you,
and I tried to frame the words, but somehow they all seemed
vastly inappropriate and incredibly inadequate at the time.
The rest of the night passed as a blur. As the endorphins
faded, and the soreness became more noticeable, I fell
asleep curled up next to the wonderful goddess that brought
me the drink after the second piercing. I felt at peace with
myself, and slept like I have not slept for a long, long time.
Yes, I'll get the ring put in; but it's not as important to
me as I thought it was originally. It's a badge, a token
to show the world that I'm different; but the real difference,
the crucial difference is to myself, and that's something that
no-one can take away, and I don't need a badge to know that.
Everything after that seems somewhat anticlimatic, somehow.
Damn!! Why is it every time I hit a vein of experience,
a group of econ students comes charging in and distracts
me?!!
Oh well, I guess I'll wrap it up here. More on the aftermath
later.
Love to all, especially those who were there. You are the
most wonderful people in the universe!!!
Hugs,
Kestrel
--
************************************************************************
Alaric Morgan Kestrel | kestrel@westmark.Stanford.EDU
"For every problem, there exists a simple and elegant solution which is
absolutely wrong." -- J. Wagoner, U.C.B. Mathematics
From caf-talk Caf Jul 6 23:47:51 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.binaries.pictures.erotica, et al.] Re: Westmark is gone
Message-ID: <9207070346.AA29688@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Mon, 6 Jul 1992 17:46:50 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Jul 6 23:47:51 1992
From: ejbehr@rs6000.cmp.ilstu.edu (Eric Behr)
Subject: Re: Westmark is gone
Message-ID: <1992Jul06.025321.14991@rs6000.cmp.ilstu.edu>
Date: Mon, 06 Jul 1992 02:53:21 GMT
Someone mentioned the westmark affair to me recently, and I thought the
following might be of interest as well (this is from jyu.fi):
-------------
150 Opening ASCII mode data connection for /pub/incoming/.../README (303
bytes).
Sigh... I'm gone for 4 days and what do I find when I come back ?
Lots of gifs... and mostly the stuff posted to alt.binaries.pictures...
groups :-(
Anyway the NSFnet people (in the US) have told us that our internet
connection
will be removed if we don't remove gifs.
-> rm -rf ...
- sorry -
-jme
-------------
Note followups to alt.pictures.binaries.d - it seemed more appropriate to
me. E.
--
Eric Behr, Illinois State University, Mathematics Department
Internet: ejbehr@rs6000.cmp.ilstu.edu Bitnet: ebehr@ilstu
From caf-talk Caf Jul 7 12:03:52 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [eff.mail.cosndisc] K-12 Access
Message-ID: <199207071602.AA15377@eff.org>
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 1992 08:02:51 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Jul 7 12:03:52 1992
From: Connie.Stout@Paula-Formby.tenet.edu (Connie Stout)
Subject: K-12 Access
Message-ID: <199207071411.AA13654@eff.org>
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 1992 14:04:32 GMT
Working to establish k-12 access to the Internet is a great challenge.
Collaboratively, in Texas, this process has been achieved. More than
12,000 educators have direct dial access to the Texas Education Network
(TENET). This is a statewide network that provides local/and 800 line a
ccess to educators throughout the state - both private and public
schools. We will be piloting putting schools, - both administration
buildings and campuses, and our intermediate units [ESC's} directly on
the Internet this fall.
TENET is a network that has been subcontracted to the THEnet - Texas
Higher Education network operated by The University of Texas. Through
mutual sharing of resources, these provide network access to the
community of educators for $5 [public] or $25 [private] a year. There
is no online charged. The value of the network activities have been
realized by the legislature which funded the project.
Before an educator can get on the network, they must agree to an
acceptable use policy. At this time, students are not permited direct
access through their own individual account. However, by fall students
will have access -- through their teachers to the network. They will
need to sign a responsible use form and it is a decision that needs to
be made at the local level - not from a state level.
The network provides access to many Internet resources as well as
conferencing, newsgroups, databases and etc. Other states have put
together similar networks - VA.Pen and etc. Hopefully more states will
follow the same path to provide access to the education community.
This is a copy of the Acceptable Use Policy developed collaboratively by
folks on the TENET network...
TENET Acceptable Use Policy
The purpose of the Texas Education Network, TENET, is to advance and promote
education in Texas. Established for use by the educational community, TENET
is intended to assist in the collaboration and exchange of information between
and among schools, district offices, educational service centers, the Texas
Education Agency (the agency), and other State and educational entities.
TENET Goal
The goal of TENET is to promote innovation and educational excellence in
Texas. To achieve this, the network must provide quality, equitable, and
cost-effective information and communication resources to the educational
community.
TENET Use
All use of TENET shall be consonant with the purpose and goal of the network.
Successful operation of the network requires that its users regard TENET as a
shared resource, and cooperate to form a community of diverse interests with
the common purpose of advancing education in Texas. It is therefore imperative
that members conduct themselves in a responsible, ethical, and polite manner
while using the network.
The intent of the TENET acceptable use policy is to ensure that all uses of
TENET are consistent with the purposes of the agency. The policy does not
attempt to articulate all required or proscribed behavior by its members.
TENET is an open network in both implementation and spirit. Technical
measures could have been invoked to constrain network use, but they would
have limited the utility of the network. Rather, in any specific situation,
each individual's judgement of appropriate conduct is relied upon. To assist
in such judgement, the following general guidelines are offered:
I. Any use of TENET for illegal purposes, or in support of illegal
activities, is prohibited.
II. All use of TENET must be in support of education and research in
Texas and consistent with the purposes of the agency.
III. Any use of TENET for commercial purposes is prohibited.
IV. Any use of TENET for product advertisement or political lobbying
is prohibited.
V. No use of TENET shall serve to disrupt the use of the network by
other users.
VI. TENET accounts should be used only by the authorized owner of the
account for the authorized purpose.
VII. All communications and information accessible via TENET should be
assumed to be private property.
VIII. All TENET conferences and bulletin boards will be moderated.
IX. Any TENET user's traffic that traverses another network may be subject
to that network's acceptable use policy.
X. From time to time, the agency will make decisions on whether specific
uses of TENET are consistent with this policy.
--
Connie Stout (512) 463-9091: voice
Texas Education Agency (512) 463-9090: fax
1701 N. Congress Ave. Connie.Stout@tenet.edu
Austin, TX 78701
--
Connie Stout (512) 463-9091: voice
Texas Education Agency (512) 463-9090: fax
1701 N. Congress Ave. (512) 463-0828 ex. 39091: Voice Mail
Austin, TX 78701 cstout@tenet.edu
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Jul 7 16:38:39 1992
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,misc.legal,alt.activism.d,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.correct,alt.discrimination
From: hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phillip M. Hallam-Baker)
Subject: Re: The Glorious Constitution (was: [UPI] Supreme Court strikes down...)
Message-ID: <1992Jul7.191118.29775@dscomsf.desy.de>
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 1992 19:11:18 GMT
In article <1992Jul3.181236.970@mtu.edu>, barrera@mtu.edu (Barrera) writes:
|>wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr) writes:
|>:
|>: I'll point out in passing that a "correct interpretation of the
|>: Constitution and the natural rights of man" as put forth by the
|>: Framers is also antithetical to the Bill of Rights (which the
|>: Framers had to be browbeaten into accepting), the banning of slavery
|>: (didn't happen until 1865), the protection of persons from the
|>: excesses of state governments as well as the federal government
|>: (1868), voting rights for non-whites (1870) and voting rights for
|>: women (1920).
|>:
|>
|>Voting rights for women aside, there would probably still be slavery in
|>existance in many small little countries along the Atlantic coast today
|>if the founding fathers attemtped to outlaw slavery at the outset throught
|>the entire US. The fact that the North was free was enough to give hope
|>that the south would eventually be made to follow the same.
Your analysis is based on the erroneous beleif that the framers of the
constitution were in any way opposed to slavery.
Jefferson and Washington were both slave owners. The true nature of
their crimes against humanity are brought into stark relief when one
discovers that many of the slaves were the slave owners own children by
slaves which they had raped.
|>: is the most damning to any portrayal of the Framers as far-sighted
|>: saints.
|>:
|>
|>They were pragmatists. They got the job done. Who can say that under the
|>circumstances anything better could have resulted? Your opinion of the
|>founding fathers has some holes in its foundation.
Again you appear to argue from the belief that the framers of the
constitution were compromising their idealistic principles to others
base motives. This was not the case, the framers by their actions reveal
that their beliefs were not so fine as the oratory which they used.
Throughout history politicians have been crooks humbugs and hypocites.
The US consititution was written by politicians, not by the pious saints
as the Dysney version of history might have it.
Phill Hallam-Baker
From caf-talk Caf Jul 7 17:58:23 1992
From: blunden@ccu.umanitoba.ca
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.censorship,alt.sex,alt.sex.bondage
Subject: Surprise. You've made the evening news again.
Message-ID: <1992Jul7.150830.27316@ccu.umanitoba.ca>
Date: 7 Jul 92 15:08:30 GMT
Following is a transcript of a story originating with CITY-TV, and independent
television station in Toronto. It was carried on local (Winnipeg) TV station
MTN in yesterday's evening news.
Anchor: Well it was a problem at the University of Manitoba and it was
dealt with. But other universities across the country seem a
little slower to act. The issue is computer pornography, and
as Avi Lewis reports, some schools aren't following the example
set by the U of M because they're still questioning where to draw
the line on censorship.
----------------------------------
cut to reporter and a male (student?) sitting at a terminal at the University
of Toronto
----------------------------------
Reporter: Ok, I'm in the system, what do I do now?
Student: A L T dot S E X return
----------------------------------
camera zooms in on terminal screen, shows listing of news articles
----------------------------------
Ok, Japanese bondage, video X-rated animation,
RAPE scenes LISTING update ?!!
Reporter: Alright, let's see what's in that.
Student: Look at THIS! An alphabetized LIST! With COMMENTS!
And it seems like people are sort of corresponding through this
thing. I mean, they're talking to each other about these movies.
----------------------------------
cut to male (system administrator?) seated at desk in front of a terminal
----------------------------------
Male: The University has taken the position that we are not censors,
and we are not going to control the type of information an
individual can seek out.
----------------------------------
cut to female
----------------------------------
Female: We're not talking about censorship. We're talking about material
which is extremely harmful to over half of the population, and
they're refusing to do anything about it.
----------------------------------
cut to reporter
----------------------------------
Reporter: Internet is an international computer information network, that
could be accessed by literally thousands of public and private
terminals on campus. Although the pornography only occupies a
small fraction of the files in the system, in a system as big
as Internet that's a lot of files.
----------------------------------
cut to another female
----------------------------------
Female: (With) the key wording sex, you can produce a list of at least
40 files, some of which have up to 5 or 6 thousand entries.
As a feminist, it's problematic. For sure, it offended me.
But that doesn't mean I advocate doing something about it.
----------------------------------
cut to reporter
----------------------------------
Reporter: The University of Manitoba, another Internet subscriber, doesn't
find this issue so complex. When files about torturing women
for sexual pleasure showed up on its system, the Winnipeg vice
squad labelled them pornographic, and the University had them
deleted from the system. Here at the University of Toronto,
it's being treated as an issue of censorship versus free speech.
At King's college circle, I'm Avi Lewis for CITY Pulse.
**********************************
Interesting anecdote: CITY-TV started out as a cable TV station in Toronto
in the early 1970's. Their main claim to fame was "The Baby Blue
Movie", shown every Friday at midnight.
Another interesting anecdote: The University of Manitoba library has the book
"Sadism in the Movies" by George de Coulteray,
191 pages plus illustrations.
From caf-talk Caf Jul 7 18:46:09 1992
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,misc.legal,alt.activism.d,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.correct,alt.discrimination
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: The Glorious Constitution (was: [UPI] Supreme Court strikes down...)
Message-ID:
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 1992 22:20:34 GMT
hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phillip M. Hallam-Baker) writes:
>Your analysis is based on the erroneous beleif that the framers of the
>constitution were in any way opposed to slavery.
>Jefferson and Washington were both slave owners. The true nature of
>their crimes against humanity are brought into stark relief when one
>discovers that many of the slaves were the slave owners own children by
>slaves which they had raped.
So? You have a point? Slavery was socially acceptable at the time,
and in no way was considered a "crime against humanity" by the Framers. It
is also clear that slave ownership is hardly a reason to reject out of hand
that they were quite capable of constructing a government that was flexible
and capable of changing as society and the needs of the country changed.
In addition, I find your use of the word "rape" to be annoying, simply
because we have no way of knowing if rape was actually involved, and thus
you are making an unsubstantiated accusation with no method of proving it.
Let the dead lie in dignity if you can do nothing but slander.
>Throughout history politicians have been crooks humbugs and hypocites.
>The US consititution was written by politicians, not by the pious saints
>as the Dysney version of history might have it.
The US Constitution was also written by soldiers, revolutionaries,
pragmatists, as well as politicians. Just because they were politicians
does not mean they were crooks, humbugs, or hypocrits. I'd claim they
were less hypocritical than our present-day politicians, simply because
they did not legislate against any of their own vices and exempt themselves
from the law.
To throw out an entire document because you don't like who wrote it
is simply asinine.
< Dan Sorenson, z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu, viking@iastate.edu >
<"There'll be angels on Ariels in leather and chrome, Ridin'>
< down from heaven just to carry me home..." -- R. Thompson >
From caf-talk Caf Jul 7 19:22:46 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [news.admin] Posting policies
Message-ID: <9207072321.AA04607@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 1992 13:21:39 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Jul 7 19:22:46 1992
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Posting policies
Message-ID: <1992Jul7.140855.455@vax1.utulsa.edu>
Date: 7 Jul 92 14:08:55 CST
Hi,
I have recently been assigned the task of NEWSMGR at The University of Tulsa.
We are running VAX/VMS 5.5 and ANU News 6.0.
All users have been given read access to all newsgroups but write access
has been restricted to local newsgroups only. Our administration feels
that the university community should not be granted "free-access" to post
anything they want. They want to allow posting, but are looking for another
university's policy as a guideline. That's where I come in. I have been
assigned this task.
Please Email me any suggestions or ideas you may have, or if you have a
policy, please educate me. Any help is greatly appreciated.
! Ted H. Holland * "I did not want that square root of
! The University of Tulsa * minus one; it could not be thought
! Computing and Information Resources * out because it was beyond reason."
! newsmgr@vax1.utulsa.edu * --Eugene Zamiatin
From caf-talk Caf Jul 7 19:46:51 1992
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,misc.legal,alt.activism.d,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.correct,alt.discrimination
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: The Glorious Constitution (was: [UPI] Supreme Court strikes down...)
Message-ID:
Date: 7 Jul 92 16:37:03
I'll bet a lot (maybe most) of the framers thought slavery was a bad
idea but weren't ready to fight a civil war at that time. There was
already a substantial anti-slavery movement in Britain and doubtless
Americans were affected by it. It seems to me that I read that as
late as 1840 there was a movement in one of the Carolinas to send
the slaves back to Africa, but they were much too dependent on
slave labor for morality to overcome convenience. The full racist
theory of slavery developed in the middle of the century not very
long before the civil war.
Remember that classical education dominated at the time the framers
were educated. The theory of Roman and Greek slavery wasn't racist.
It said that if you lost a war, you were likely to be enslaved by the
winners. A common alternative behavior on the part of ancient winners
was simply to slaughter the losers. Intermediates like slaughtering
the men and enslaving the women and children were also common.
Some slave owners like Jefferson compromised morality with convenience
by providingg that their slaves be freed when they died.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
From caf-talk Caf Jul 8 00:07:09 1992
From: dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.censorship
Subject: Re: Surprise. You've made the evening news again.
Message-ID: <1992Jul7.234049.8427@uoft02.utoledo.edu>
Date: 7 Jul 92 23:40:49 EST
In article <1992Jul7.150830.27316@ccu.umanitoba.ca>, blunden@ccu.umanitoba.ca writes:
> Following is a transcript of a story originating with CITY-TV, and independent
> television station in Toronto. It was carried on local (Winnipeg) TV station
> MTN in yesterday's evening news.
>
> Anchor: Well it was a problem at the University of Manitoba and it was
> dealt with. But other universities across the country seem a
> little slower to act. The issue is computer pornography, and
> as Avi Lewis reports, some schools aren't following the example
> set by the U of M because they're still questioning where to draw
> the line on censorship.
>
> ----------------------------------
> cut to reporter and a male (student?) sitting at a terminal at the University
> of Toronto
> ----------------------------------
>
> Reporter: Ok, I'm in the system, what do I do now?
>
> Student: A L T dot S E X return
>
> ----------------------------------
> camera zooms in on terminal screen, shows listing of news articles
> ----------------------------------
>
> Ok, Japanese bondage, video X-rated animation,
> RAPE scenes LISTING update ?!!
>
> Reporter: Alright, let's see what's in that.
>
> Student: Look at THIS! An alphabetized LIST! With COMMENTS!
> And it seems like people are sort of corresponding through this
> thing. I mean, they're talking to each other about these movies.
>
> ----------------------------------
> cut to male (system administrator?) seated at desk in front of a terminal
> ----------------------------------
>
> Male: The University has taken the position that we are not censors,
> and we are not going to control the type of information an
> individual can seek out.
>
> ----------------------------------
> cut to female
> ----------------------------------
>
> Female: We're not talking about censorship. We're talking about material
> which is extremely harmful to over half of the population, and
> they're refusing to do anything about it.
>
> ----------------------------------
> cut to reporter
> ----------------------------------
>
> Reporter: Internet is an international computer information network, that
> could be accessed by literally thousands of public and private
> terminals on campus. Although the pornography only occupies a
> small fraction of the files in the system, in a system as big
> as Internet that's a lot of files.
>
> ----------------------------------
> cut to another female
> ----------------------------------
>
> Female: (With) the key wording sex, you can produce a list of at least
> 40 files, some of which have up to 5 or 6 thousand entries.
> As a feminist, it's problematic. For sure, it offended me.
> But that doesn't mean I advocate doing something about it.
>
> ----------------------------------
> cut to reporter
> ----------------------------------
>
> Reporter: The University of Manitoba, another Internet subscriber, doesn't
> find this issue so complex. When files about torturing women
> for sexual pleasure showed up on its system, the Winnipeg vice
> squad labelled them pornographic, and the University had them
> deleted from the system. Here at the University of Toronto,
> it's being treated as an issue of censorship versus free speech.
> At King's college circle, I'm Avi Lewis for CITY Pulse.
>
> **********************************
>
> Interesting anecdote: CITY-TV started out as a cable TV station in Toronto
> in the early 1970's. Their main claim to fame was "The Baby Blue
> Movie", shown every Friday at midnight.
>
> Another interesting anecdote: The University of Manitoba library has the book
> "Sadism in the Movies" by George de Coulteray,
> 191 pages plus illustrations.
Does anyone have a taped copy of this???
DC
From caf-talk Caf Jul 8 03:16:01 1992
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,misc.legal,alt.activism.d,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.correct,alt.discrimination
From: olson30@netcom.com (John Sully)
Subject: Re: The Glorious Constitution (was: [UPI] Supreme Court strikes down...)
Message-ID:
Date: Wed, 08 Jul 92 05:58:52 GMT
jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy) writes:
>I'll bet a lot (maybe most) of the framers thought slavery was a bad
>idea but weren't ready to fight a civil war at that time. There was
>already a substantial anti-slavery movement in Britain and doubtless
>Americans were affected by it.
This is an interesting discussion, but it seems as though no one
participating in it has actually bothered to read a history of
the constitutional convention.
It turns out that many of the representatives of non slave states
did not want to enshrine slavery in the constitution but it was
realized that the slave states would never accept such a constitution.
The representatives at the convention also felt that it was important
to have the southern states in the new union, although a radical
minority thought that the new union would be better off without them.
In the end the pragmatists won out and the 3/5's compromise was
placed in the new constitution. It was not arrived at easily.
This is not so much directed at John as at some of the earlier
posters to this thread: it would help if you actaully bothered to
read some history before painting the framers of the constitution
with the brush you have chosen to use. Not all of them held the
beliefs you ascribe to them, they were a diverse group of people
with many different economic and political interests and reading
Madison's notes on the the convention is a most interesting
endeavour.
If you would like to read more I would recommend "The Constitution:
A Documentary and Narrative History" by Page Smith. It consists of
some interpretive material, but is mostly long excerpts from Madison's
notes and gives a very good sense of what went on during the
convention.
John
olson30@netcom.com
From caf-talk Caf Jul 8 06:35:03 1992
From: bh@anarres.CS.Berkeley.EDU (Brian Harvey)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,misc.legal,alt.activism.d,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.correct,alt.discrimination
Subject: Re: The Glorious Constitution (was: [UPI] Supreme Court strikes down...)
Message-ID: <13efvgINN6fg@agate.berkeley.edu>
Date: 8 Jul 92 10:28:00 GMT
viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) writes:
> The US Constitution was also written by soldiers, revolutionaries,
>pragmatists, as well as politicians. Just because they were politicians
>does not mean they were crooks, humbugs, or hypocrits. I'd claim they
>were less hypocritical than our present-day politicians, simply because
>they did not legislate against any of their own vices and exempt themselves
>from the law.
Jefferson, who, as has been pointed out, owned slaves, wrote an
anti-slavery stand into the original draft of the Declaration of
Independence. (He was overruled in committee.) He exempted himself,
as you put it, on the grounds that he would be economically not
competitive with other big landholders if they had slaves and he
didn't. (As JMC points out he did free his slaves after his own
death. I wonder who inherited his property and how they felt about
that!)
Don't get me wrong -- I think Jefferson was one of the more decent and
more progressive people of his time. But he did indeed say one thing
and do a different thing about slavery. People are talking as if the
authors of the constitution were either all great disinterested heros
or else all selfish crooks. I think they were just people. Jefferson
knew about the social injustice at the root of his culture, but he also
happened to be one of the lucky ones born into the aristocracy and he
liked his privileges and he didn't think it would do anyone any good for
him to "bear witness" by giving them up. Instead he used his position of
power to push for some progressive ideas while at the same time
knowingly benefitting from the exploitation of others. You could say
the same about Engels.
The point of the original posting that started this thread, I think,
was that people in the US should not pat themselves on the back about
their magical Constitution and ignore the nibbling away of freedom
that's been going on (in its name, waving its flag) ever since it was
written and especially in the last 12 years. We have a lot of freedom
partly because our country was born in rebellion and all that, but also
largely because we've had a very lucky history with plenty of land (so
you can just move away from people you don't like, or who don't like you)
and plenty of resources. But as soon as there is a hint of a real crisis
in the US, the constitution goes out the window. Examples: the curfews
imposed (illegally, and selectively enforced) after the Rodney King
violence; the seizure of property *without trial* of people accused of
drug possession. Just imagine if the post-Rodney-King fighting had
happened in every city, and developed into a serious rebellion to
overthrow the government. You think the Constitution would restrain
the response to that?
From caf-talk Caf Jul 8 07:45:09 1992
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,misc.legal,alt.activism.d,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.correct,alt.discrimination
From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Subject: Sex With a Slave == Rape? (was: The Glorious Constitution)
Message-ID: <1992Jul8.112545.19905@athena.mit.edu>
Date: Wed, 8 Jul 1992 11:25:45 GMT
<<< Please note the redirect(s) in the "Followup-To:" line. >>>
In article ,
viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) said:
> > Jefferson and Washington were both slave owners. The true nature
> > of their crimes against humanity are brought into stark relief
> > when one discovers that many of the slaves were the slave
> > owners' own children by slaves which they had raped. [Phillip
> > M. Hallam-Baker]
[stuff deleted]
> In addition, I find your use of the word "rape" to be annoying,
> simply because we have no way of knowing if rape was actually
> involved, and thus you are making an unsubstantiated accusation
> with no method of proving it. Let the dead lie in dignity if you
> can do nothing but slander.
I doubt that this issue has ever been formally dealt with in the
United States (since sex with slaves, willing or otherwise, was
legal in places and times where and when slavery was legal and, to
my limited knowledge, no one has ever, following the abolition of
slavery, been subject to ex-post-facto liability for then-legal
actions taken as a slaveowner), but my own opinion is that a person
who has had sex with a slave who was under his control at the time
must bear an *enormous* burden of proof to demonstrate that the
slave actually consented to the act. Indeed, I'm not entirely
certain that a slave who has not already consented to the state of
slavery _can_ give a master true consent with regard to _anything_,
given the way that slavery destroys the entire concept of personal
autonomy.
-- William December Starr
From caf-talk Caf Jul 8 08:54:51 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [eff.mail.cosndisc] Re: K-12 Access
Message-ID: <199207081253.AA00450@eff.org>
Date: Wed, 8 Jul 1992 04:53:45 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Jul 8 08:54:51 1992
From: hcothern@VDOE386.VAK12ED.EDU (Dr. Harold Cothern)
Subject: Re: K-12 Access
Message-ID: <199207071841.AA17968@eff.org>
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 1992 18:05:49 GMT
I have also sat silent for too long regarding student
usage of the Internet. We in Virginia have also haggled over
this issue, but would rather err on the side of progressivism
and try to apply the "Reasonable Person" theory (often used in
court decisions). Below you will find not only our complete
Acceptable Use Policy, but administrative guidelines and forms
for all users as well. This fall we will be administratively
(with system features) limiting certain telnet capabilities for
students. Thanks to Connie Stout for some parts of this which
mirror TENET almost word for word. I hope some of you find
this useful. Though student access can present problems for
us, we should see it as an OPPORTUNITY first to enrich the
lives of citizens of the future
Harold "Bud" Cothern
Director, Virginia's Public Edcuation Network (PEN)
Virginia Department of Education
P.O. Box 6Q
Richmond, VA 23216
(804)225-2921
FAX 804-371-8978
Internet: hcothern@vdoe386.vak12ed.edu
Subject: Virginia's PEN Acceptable Use Policy
Date: 13 Apr 92
The following policies and guidelines have been established for
the network by a committee of node administrators, university personnel,
and Department of Education representatives. Members of this committee
also included K-12 classroom teachers, student, and school administrators.
Acceptance of the policies are automatic upon use of the network.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* Virginia's Public Education Network *
* Acceptable Use Policy *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
VIRGINIA'S PEN Purpose
The purpose of the Virginia's Public Education Network, VIRGINIA'S
PEN, is to advance and promote a world class public education in
Virginia. VIRGINIA'S PEN is intended to assist in the collaboration and
exchange of information between and among schools, school offices, the
Virginia Department of Education, and other State and educational entities.
VIRGINIA'S PEN Goal
The goal of VIRGINIA'S PEN is to promote innovation and educational
excellence in Virginia's public schools. To achieve this, the network
must provide quality, equitable, and cost-effective information and
communication resources to the public education community.
VIRGINIA'S PEN Mission Statements & Priority Listing
1. To provide electronic mail service and electronic conferencing
capabilities to public school professional employees;
2. To provide basic services at no cost to public education end users;
3. To provide an intuitive user interface which includes an easy to
use text editor;
4. To provide accessibility for the user via multi-vendor
microcomputers;
5. After first providing basic services, to provide opportunities for
wider networking (interstate and international) by promoting the
addition of full Internet services where economically feasible;
6. To provide for both administrative and instructional file
transfer capabilities where feasible.
VIRGINIA'S PEN Use
All use of VIRGINIA'S PEN shall be consistent with the purpose, goal,
mission, and priorities of the network. Successful operation of the
network requires that its users regard VIRGINIA'S PEN as a shared
resource, and cooperate to form a community of diverse interests with the
common purpose of advancing a world class public education in Virginia.
It is therefore imperative that members conduct themselves in a
responsible, decent, ethical, and polite manner while using the network.
The intent of the VIRGINIA'S PEN acceptable use policy is to ensure
that all uses of VIRGINIA'S PEN are consistent with its stated purpose,
mission, and goal. The policy does not attempt to articulate all required
or proscribed behavior by its members. VIRGINIA'S PEN is an open network
in both implementation and spirit. Each individual's judgment of
appropriate conduct must be relied upon. To assist in such judgment, the
following general guidelines are offered:
I. Any use of VIRGINIA'S PEN for illegal, inappropriate, or obscene
purposes, or in support of such activities, is prohibited. Illegal
activities shall be defined as a violation of local, state, and/or
federal laws. Inappropriate use shall be defined as a violation of the
intended use of the network, and/or purpose and goal. Obscene
activities shall be defined as a violation of generally accepted
social standards for use of a publicly-owned and operated
communication vehicle;
II. All use of VIRGINIA'S PEN must be in support of a world class
public education and educational research in Virginia and
consistent with the purposes of the network. Private school
professionals may secure accounts under the guidelines for Non-
Public School Accounts. Private school students are not permitted
accounts at this time. Use by private school professionals is
permitted recognizing the finite resources of the network;
III. Any use of VIRGINIA'S PEN for commercial purposes is prohibited;
IV. Any use of VIRGINIA'S PEN for product advertisement or
political lobbying is prohibited;
V. No use of VIRGINIA'S PEN shall serve to disrupt the use of
the network by other users;
VI. VIRGINIA'S PEN accounts shall be used only by the authorized owner
of the account for the authorized purpose. Account owners are
ultimately responsible for all activity under their account;
VII. Unbridled and open-ended use of the network in terms of access time
can not be accommodated inasmuch as supportive financial resources
remain finite. Users are cautioned to exercise prudence in the
shared use of this resource;
VIII. All communications and information accessible via VIRGINIA'S PEN
should be assumed to be private property. Great care is taken by
the VIRGINIA'S PEN administrators to ensure the right of privacy
of users;
IX. Any VIRGINIA'S PEN user's traffic that traverses another network may
be subject to that network's acceptable use policy;
X. * Under prescribed circumstances public school student use may be
permitted, provided proper supervision is maintained by schools and
parents;
XI. * Under prescribed circumstances non-educator use may be permitted,
provided such individuals provide evidence that their use furthers
the purpose and goal of the network and public education in general;
XII. From time to time, the Virginia Department of Education will make
decisions on whether specific uses of VIRGINIA'S PEN are consistent
with this policy. The Virginia Department of Education shall
remain the final authority on use of the network and the issuance of
user accounts.
* Such prescribed circumstances and uses shall be defined in
writing by the Virginia Department of Education, and from
time to time be subject to change.
*************************************************************
Guidelines for Non-Public School Accounts
on
Virginia's Public Education Network
1. The primary purpose of the VIRGINIA'S PEN Network is for use by
the public school professional staff. The use of an individual
non-public school account is considered to be a privilege.
2. Accounts for non-public school persons may be granted for up to
one academic year at a time, provided they read and agree to
follow the Acceptable Use Policy. This agreement is formalized
through their signature on the application form.
3. This provision applies only to adults who can demonstrate a close
tie to public school education. Furthermore, the applicant must
demonstrate how his/her use of the network will further the goals
of world class education for students in the public schools of
the Commonwealth of Virginia.
4. Only the director of the network (or designee) may issue accounts
for special situations which he/she feels appropriate, but which
may not fall under existing guidelines.
5. Accounts for all non-public school persons will be issued by the
local node administrators and will receive final approval by the
Department of Education which will maintain a list of approved
applications. No persons in this category shall be permitted to use
the network without Department of Education approval.
6. The above-mentioned use is subject to revision in policy. In
all cases, use by professional public education staff shall take
precedence. The Virginia Department of Education reserves its
right as final authority on use of the network.
**********************************************************
Non-Public School Application
for
VIRGINIA'S PEN Account
Applicant's Name
__________________________________________________________
(Title) (Last) (First) (Middle)
Place of Employment _________________________________
Job Title _________________________________
Business Addresss _________________________________
_________________________________
Home Address ____________________________________
____________________________________
Telephone ( ) - ( ) -
HOME BUSINESS
Purpose(s) for which you wish to use Virginia's PEN (Be sure you state
how your use will further the goals of public education in Virginia):
I have read the Acceptable Use Policy and Non-Public School Account
Guidelines, and agree to abide by those provisions. I understand that
violation of the use provisions stated in the policy may constitute
suspension or revocation of network privileges.
______________________________________________________
Applicant's Signature Date
*This application must be renewed each academic year.
Approval by Va. Dept of Education representative
______________________________________________________
Name Title Date
**********************************************************
Guidelines for Student Accounts
on Virginia's Public Education Network
1. The primary purpose of the VIRGINIA'S PEN Network is for the use
of the public school professional staff. The use of an individual
student account is considered to be a privilege and is permitted to
the extent that available resources allow.
2. Students in grades 6-12 may be granted an account for up to one
academic year at a time provided they:
a. Read and agree to follow the Acceptable Use Policy. This
agreement is formalized through their signature on the
application form;
b. Have at least one teacher sign the application form as a sponsor;
c. Obtain the signature of a parent on the application form.
3. Students in grade five and below are not allowed individual
accounts. Teachers of these grades, however, may apply for a
class account, but are obligated to directly supervise these
students with its use according to the Acceptable Use Policy.
The teacher holding this account is ultimately responsible
for use of the account and is required to maintain
confidentiality with the password (not giving it to
students) and is advised to change the password frequently.
4. Students may not maintain accounts upon graduation unless they
otherwise qualify under one of the other acceptable use provisions.
5. Generally, students are not permitted to enter professional
Virginia's PEN or Usenet discussion groups. Under certain
conditions, posting privileges to specific newsgroups may be granted.
6. All public school student accounts will be issued by the local
node administrators and will receive final approval by the
Department of Education which will maintain a list of approved
applications. No students shall be permitted to use the network
without Department of Education approval.
7. The above-mentioned use is subject to revision in policy.
In all cases, use by professional public education staff shall
take precedence. The Virginia Department of Education reserves
its right as final authority on use of the network.
*********************************************************
Public School Student Application for
VIRGINIA'S PEN Account
STUDENT SECTION
Student Name ________________________________ Grade ____
(Last) (First) (Middle)
School ______________________ School System ______________
School Address _________________ School Phone No. __________
Purpose(s) for which you wish to use Virginia's PEN:
I have read the Acceptable Use Policy and Student Guidelines, and
agree to abide by their provisions. I understand that violation of
the use provisions stated in the policy may constitute suspension or
revocation of network privileges.
Student's Signature _____________________ Date ________
-----------------------------------------------------------
SPONSORING TEACHER(S) (Required)
I agree to sponsor the above student and to supervise his/her
responsible use of the network as defined by the Acceptable Use
Policy and Student Guidelines while in my classes.
______________________________________________________
Teacher's(s) Signature(s) Date(s)
-----------------------------------------------------------
SPONSORING PARENT or GUARDIAN (Required)
I have read the Acceptable Use Policy and Student Guidelines for
VIRGINIA'S PEN. I understand that although administrators of the
VIRGINIA'S PEN network have taken reasonable precautions to ensure
that controversial material is eliminated on Virginia's Public
Education Network, I will monitor my child's daily use of the
VIRGINIA'S PEN and his/her potential access to the world-wide Internet,
and will accept full responsibility for supervision in that regard if
and when my child's use is not in a school setting. I hereby give my
permission to issue an account for my child and certify that
the information contained on this form is correct.
______________________________________________________
Parent's Signature Date
______________________________________________________
Home Address (street,city,zip) Home Phone No.
*Student application must be renewed each academic year.
Approval by Va. Dept of Education representative
______________________________________________________
Name Title Date
--
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Jul 8 11:52:53 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [tor.general, et al.] Re: Internet on City TV news...
Message-ID: <9207081551.AA07513@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Wed, 8 Jul 1992 05:51:43 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Jul 8 11:52:53 1992
From: evan@telly.on.ca (Evan Leibovitch)
Subject: Re: Internet on City TV news...
Date: Wed, 8 Jul 1992 03:12:44 GMT
Message-ID: <2A5A5D2D.32D7@telly.on.ca>
In article <710490325.17473@zooid.guild.org>
vid@zooid.guild.org (David Mason) writes:
>Isn't anyone going to comment on City TV's treatment of pornography/censorship
>at U of T of Usenet groups and Internet resources?
[ For those of you joining the discussion late, CITY is a Toronto TV station ]
>Yes, for those who were lucky enough to miss it, they had a nice five minute
>summary of the issue. They were nice enough to comment that alt.sex and
>related items were only a small part of the system, but in typical
>journalistic style they had screen shots of cryptic looking symbols (well, I
>suppose to the uninitiated message headers scrolling by at 9600 baud can look
>cryptic) as well as semi-pornographic language on the screen.
>This was covered in regards to the censoring of alt.sex groups at the
>University of Manitoba. Apparently at U of M it was treated as a pornography
>issue while at U of T it is being treated as a censorship - freedom of speech
>issue.
The media is treating Usenet the way it treats most other parts of
everyday life. The stuff that doesn't bother anyone, or is productive,
or boringly efficient, is ignored. That which irritates someone, or
offends, or provokes outrage, is instantly fair game.
I wouldn't expect much of CITY, as I consider it one of the more
tabloid-type TV news programs. Their "analyst" Colin Vaughan has
all the political savvy of a box of Polyfilla.
It isn't over, though. A week or so ago, I was on the phone for the
better part of two hours with a guy from the Globe and Mail (newspaper),
who intends to do something a little more in-depth than the reports we've
seen so far. So he says.
As the moderator of the erotica group and a Canadian, I guess I was a
reasonable (and probably inevitable) target. What the reporter didn't
expect was that I have been on both sides of this fence, having
completed a graduate Journalism programme along with many of this
reporter's co-workers. So I could be honest in the interview, giving
his intentions the benefit of the doubt whilst keeping my guard up. Even
if he is either sympathetic or merely impartial, that's not to say that
his editors will be.
The impression I got during the interview while getting a feel for some
of the other people this guy has spoken to, is that some people are
scared shitless about Usenet.
Scared? You bet. Unlike a newspaper with its heavily selective letters
to the editor or a broadcaster who has complete editing control over
what makes the 6:00 news, Usenet has no such bounds over one's ability
to respond to what one reads.
Those who wish to be offensive or think offensive things, be they
fans of sex with animals, homophobes, holocaust revisionists or
John Palmer, cannot be silenced per se; Partially because the mechanics
of the system don't make it easy to censor, but also partly because
there's no central authorites to do the censoring.
This lack of control is something that, in my mind, would be very
difficult for those in conventional media to grasp. It is so easy to
keep out the views of the offensive and pretend they don't exist, or it
is possible to bring them into the open and expose them for the shams
that they are.
The point that kept going through my mind during the interview, that I
hope I conveyed well enough to the reporter, is that the individual
news reader/poster has much more influence over the content of the net
than in any other media. As a result, we see some commentaries and
discussions in many subjects that are of better quality and relevance
than the other media are capable of providing. We also see an awful lot
of absolute garbage, but the net is no better and no worse than the
people who contribute to is. Indeed, each site is in total control of
the level of participation they desire, even to the point of ignoring
certain subject groups totally.
"Where does it end?" asked the reporter. "It doesn't," I answered,
pointing out applications like Clarinet which make use of conventional
net mechanisms to *replace* conventional media.
The proportion of Usenet devoted to sex is a much smaller part than, I
would suggest, the amount of sex on DOS BBS systems like Canada Remote
Systems. But that's not news anymore. What is news is that some people
from the outside are starting to see what the net is and what it is
capable of being. Some of us are fascinated by it; others, who see a
potential erosion in the media status quo, or the reduction of the
media as a one-way tool for influencing thought, in my eyes indeed
have much to fear. I don't believe it's far fetched to say that I've
learned more about the gut problems behind that Canadian constitution
from can.politics that from any parade of taking heads on the Journal.
Imminent death of Usenet predicted?
NOT.
In Usenet, I see methods of frustrating those who would censor, of
knocking professional journalists and "experts" down a notch and making
them more responsible for what they say and do.
Indeed, Usenet is not for the overly sensitive or easily offended. It's
more like the floor of the Stock Exchange than an audience watching a
stage play. It's not for everyone, but I don't think it's reached a
fraction of its potential. The more the conventional media attacks it
out of ignorance or fear, the more I believe this to be true.
--
Evan Leibovitch, Sound Software Ltd., located in beautiful Brampton, Ontario
evan@telly.on.ca / uunet!utzoo!telly!evan / (416) 452-0504
Said Captain Jean-Luc Picard to the tailor at his machine: "Make it sew!"
From caf-talk Caf Jul 8 11:53:39 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [tor.general, et al.] Re: Internet on City TV news...
Message-ID: <9207081552.AA07528@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Wed, 8 Jul 1992 05:52:32 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Jul 8 11:53:39 1992
Newsgroups: tor.general,news.admin
Subject: Re: Internet on City TV news...
Message-ID: <710579731.3737@zooid.guild.org>
Date: 8 Jul 92 07:15:31 GMT
From: evan@telly.on.ca (Evan Leibovitch)
>The media is treating Usenet the way it treats most other parts of
>everyday life. The stuff that doesn't bother anyone, or is productive,
>or boringly efficient, is ignored. That which irritates someone, or
>offends, or provokes outrage, is instantly fair game.
..
>
>I wouldn't expect much of CITY, as I consider it one of the more
>tabloid-type TV news programs. Their "analyst" Colin Vaughan has
>all the political savvy of a box of Polyfilla.
I have to say I agree here, but then I don't like ANY news at all, in fact
unfortunately television in general sickens me.
>
>It isn't over, though. A week or so ago, I was on the phone for the
>better part of two hours with a guy from the Globe and Mail (newspaper),
>who intends to do something a little more in-depth than the reports we've
...
>seen so far. So he says.
>The impression I got during the interview while getting a feel for some
>of the other people this guy has spoken to, is that some people are
>scared shitless about Usenet.
>
>Scared? You bet. Unlike a newspaper with its heavily selective letters
>to the editor or a broadcaster who has complete editing control over
>what makes the 6:00 news, Usenet has no such bounds over one's ability
>to respond to what one reads.
>
If I were in a very positive mood I might agree with you, but after hanging
out here for a couple of years so far, I get the feeling that a lot of talk
goes on on Usenet but 90% of it (or more) is just hot air. And there is just
so much going on, with so many different camps representing so many different
opinions, and so many people representing all different ranges from reasonable
to totally crazy (in my opinion of course) that I think people quickly become
rather blasee about the whole thing. Additionaly there is a large percentage
who think that all of Usenet is an extension of talk.bizarre, and when
something that isn't funny is posted to "alt.best.of.internet" (yeah, a stupid
name for the newsgroup) they say "I don't get it, it's not funny".
The thing that always makes me laugh (or sob) about Usenet is the fact that
everyone is always complaining about lawyers, yet as soon as someone tries to
bring up a topic for discussion everyone puts their lawyer hats on and picks
it to pieces, but they don't talk about the important things, it's just the
totally stupid lawyer-nitpicky issues that don't mean anything to anyone but
lawyers. Yeah, I know, the Usenet has to prepare itself against the upcoming
Battle of the Lawyers and Entanglement in Red Tape, because it's bound to
happen someday. But it's totally frustrating seeing an important issue
degenerate into some stupid point that has no real relevance to anything.. the
spirit of the law, intent, is quite often disregarded for the word of the
law, even when it's perfectly obvious what a person MEANT.
If you ask me every Usenet site should have some kind of notice stating that
every Usenet site is a free-for-all, and that no works submitted on Usenet
have any copyright on them, and that individual sites are not responsible for
the content of their site , and so on. I don't know, I'm not a lawyer, and I
don't intend to try to sound like one, but maybe this would be a good project
for the people who do claim to think they are lawyers. The news.admin
newsgroup crowd has a lot of potential for this project.
Anyways I'd love to see every average Joe and Jane hooked into Usenet, and I
think a giant worldwide network that everyone is connected into is a
frightfully nifty idea, but for a lot of different reasons it just wouldn't
work. I wish you luck with the reporter at the Globe and Mail, and the Globe
is certainly a better forum than the Sun for example, but I doubt I will
recognize the Usenet that I am familiar with. Maybe that's for the best.
From caf-talk Caf Jul 8 12:26:18 1992
Newsgroups: tor.general,news.admin,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Internet on City TV news...
Message-ID: <1992Jul8.161207.15726@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Wed, 8 Jul 1992 16:12:07 GMT
[Tor.general readers may not have seen this]
(All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.)
=================
umanitoba.ca
=================
Information related to the alt.sex* ban at the Univerity
of Manitoba. Including:
1) The Canadian Library Association's Intellectual Freedom Statement
2) A statement arguing that newsgroups should be selected like library
material (w/ U.S. centered references)
3) An open letter from Brad Templeton to the U. of Manitoba
4) Information on the Canadian definition of obscenity
5) My comments on the U. of Manitoba's application of this definition.
6) History of the U. of Waterloo ban of rec.humor.funny and alt.sex*.
(They eventually restored the newsgroups.)
7) Abstract of Stanford's Dr. John McCarthy talk about the Waterloo ban.
8) The new U of Wateroo policy and the report that justifies it.
9) Information about the Computers and Academic Freedom discussion group.
10) Article explaining why the U. of Toronto will not be banning newsgroups.
=================
=================
These document(s) are available by anonymous ftp (the preferred
method) and by email. To get the file(s) via ftp, do an anonymous ftp
to ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4), and get file(s):
pub/academic/umanitoba.ca
To get the file(s) by email, send email to archive-server@eff.org.
Include the line(s) (be sure to include the space before the file
name):
send acad-freedom umanitoba.ca
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Jul 8 12:45:23 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.censorship
From: blunden@ccu.umanitoba.ca
Subject: Re: Surprise. You've made the evening news again.
Message-ID: <1992Jul8.151913.20746@ccu.umanitoba.ca>
Date: Wed, 8 Jul 1992 15:19:13 GMT
In article <1992Jul7.234049.8427@uoft02.utoledo.edu> dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:
>In article <1992Jul7.150830.27316@ccu.umanitoba.ca>, blunden@ccu.umanitoba.ca writes:
>> Following is a transcript of a story originating with CITY-TV, an independent
>> television station in Toronto. It was carried on local (Winnipeg) TV station
>> MTN in yesterday's evening news.
>> etcetera, etcetera
>
>Does anyone have a taped copy of this???
>
>DC
>
There was a promo in the early part of the news, so I was able to tape it.
The transcript is from the tape.
From caf-talk Caf Jul 8 13:18:54 1992
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,misc.legal,alt.activism.d,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.correct,alt.discrimination
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: The Glorious Constitution (was: [UPI] Supreme Court strikes down...)
Message-ID:
Date: 8 Jul 92 10:03:46
I don' agree with Brian Harvey's reading of history to say that
Constitutional civil liberties are being eroded. Rather the authority
of the police and government authorities at all levels has been
eroded. Curfews, for example, were common and not subject to
judicial review before the 1960s. Before then, the Governor could
have declared martial law in L.A., and the National Guard could have
done whatever seemed best. I believe that shooting looters out of
hand was even unchallenged, i.e. it could be announced that looters
would be shot on sight by the National Guard.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
From caf-talk Caf Jul 8 15:41:18 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [eff.mail.archives] email policy (fwd)
Message-ID: <199207081940.AA08174@eff.org>
Date: Wed, 8 Jul 1992 11:40:10 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Jul 8 15:41:18 1992
From: cyndim@U.WASHINGTON.EDU (Cyndi Merritt)
Subject: email policy (fwd)
Message-ID: <199207081837.AA06941@eff.org>
Date: Wed, 8 Jul 1992 04:22:37 GMT
I am forwarding the following message sent out on the Records Management
list to those of you on the Archives list.
CM
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 1992 16:29:48 -0700 (PDT)
From: Cyndi Merritt
To: recman
Subject: email policy
The State of Washington has an E-mail policy that divides email records
into 3 categories: calendars, policy and non-policy correspondence.
Calendars are described as providing a record of appointments, "to-do"
lists, and meeting schedules. Retention is divided into 3 categories for
calendars:
elected officials, agency directors and cabinet members are
required to print out the calendars, lists and schedules monthly, retain
in office for 1 year and then tranfer to the archives along with executive
records.
for other Agency offices, the retention period is 90 days and then they
can be deleted.
for the IS department, the retention is 90 days and then backup tapes
can be erased.
The second category of electronic mail is Routine and Non-Policy, defined as
"notes, messages, transmittal letters, correspondence, reports, and requests
(routine and non-policy)". These can be destroyed daily (or until
administrative purpose is served); and the retention period for IS backup
tapes is 30 days.
The third category of electronic mail is Policy, defined as "correspondence
and reports establishing agency policy". The sender is required to
generate a paper copy and file it with executive records to be
retained for 1 year and then transferred to the Archives. The receiver(s)
are allowed to delete on a monthly basis (or until administrative purpose
is served). The retention period for the IS backup tape is 30 days.
Documents transmitted on email but residing primarily in another program
and/or database are to be erased from email as soon as administrative
purpose is served. Original computer file is to be retained per the
retention schedule applicable for that file.
Cyndi Merritt
Records Management Office
University of Washington
cyndim@u.washington.edu
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Jul 8 16:42:33 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Dept. of Mathematics, U. of Florida, Computer Use Policy
Message-ID: <199207082041.AA09431@eff.org>
Date: Wed, 8 Jul 1992 12:41:26 GMT
[From
Kermit Sigmon, Chair
Mathematics Department Computer Committee
University of Florida
sigmon@math.ufl.edu, 904-392-6719
]
POLICY ON RESPONSIBLE USE OF THE COMPUTER SYSTEM
Department of Mathematics, University of Florida, July 2, 1992
The computer system of the Department of Mathematics is provided to
support mathematical instruction and research. In order to ensure that
the system is fully available for these purposes, the Department of
Mathematics establishes the following policy on responsible use of its
computer system. It is expected that this policy will be complied
with voluntarily. Violations of these policies may lead to suspension
of the user's account or referral to the appropriate authority for
disciplinary action.
There exist University policies and regulations, including the Student
Conduct Code, and state statutes and rules, including the Florida
Computer Crimes Act, which apply to many of the potential abuses of
the computer system. Violations of these will be handled by the
appropriate authority.
SECURITY
Users of the Department of Mathematics computer system should respect
the privacy of other users and the integrity of the system.
1. An account on the Department of Mathematics computer system is
provided for use by the owner of the account only. Passwords
should be protected and should not be shared. The owner of the
account is fully responsible for any actions taken using the account.
2. Unauthorized access of, or attempts to access, another user's
protected directories, files or mail is prohibited.
3. Attempts to obtain unauthorized access to either local or remote
computers via the computer network or to obtain privileges to which
the user is not entitled are prohibited.
4. The University has signed licenses for much of the software on the
computer system. Removal or transfer of such software without
authorization is prohibited.
5. The user should not leave unattended a machine to which he or she
is logged in, unless the machine is in a secure area such as a
private office.
WORKING ENVIRONMENT
Users of the Department of Mathematics computer system should conduct
themselves in a manner that promotes a productive working environment.
1. Users of electronic mail, bulletin boards, and newsgroups should
not send messages which would be offensive to the recipient or
which intimidate, threaten, demean, or harass individuals or groups.
2. Material which is likely to be offensive to other users should not
be printed or displayed on a publicly visible computer or printer,
nor should users keep such material in a publicly accessible disk file.
3. Conduct in the computer laboratories which disturbs other users is
prohibited.
SYSTEM RESOURCES
Users of the Department of Mathematics computer system are expected to
restrict their use of limited resources such as disk space, laser
printing and machine access. The Department may impose restrictions
or limits on use of its resources.
1. Large nonmathematical files, such as picture files or games, should
not normally be stored in personal disk space. A user wishing to
save such files should consult with the system manager.
2. Potential printer output should be reviewed on-screen for
correctness prior to printing.
3. Use of the system for purposes other than mathematical instruction
and research is not permitted if it interferes in any way with
these activities. In particular, anyone using a public machine for
recreational or other nonmathematical purposes should release the
machine when requested to do so by a user who needs it for a
mathematical purpose.
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Jul 8 16:47:35 1992
Newsgroups: comp.mail.sendmail,comp.unix.admin,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Sendmail: two laws possible?
Message-ID: <1992Jul8.202209.16268@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Wed, 8 Jul 1992 20:22:09 GMT
bcs@waikato.ac.nz writes:
>I attempt to provide support to the CS dept. of a smallish university, and
>the day has finally arrived when the powers-that-be are planning to share
>a u**x system with the undergrad population. Most of the networking security
>problems I can see solutions for - but the staff want to be able to continue
>to email all over the world, and want the undergrads able to email locally
>only. 8-|
[...]
If you can, please try to get full email access for everyone.
- Carl
ANNOTATED REFERENCES
(All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.)
=================
news/cafv01n33: Message-Id: <9110191524.AA07825@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
=================
An article from the Computers and Academic Freedom News 01.33
Note 12 is a repost from comp.admin.policy.
12. 260 people replied to a survey about undergrad access to the Net.
Most of the sites reported that undergrads have full net access.
=================
faq/netnews.writing
=================
Tell why a university should allow students to post to Netnews. Many
of the reasons also apply to email.
=================
policies/rice.edu
=================
Computer policies for Rice University, especially Owlnet. Rice
recently decided to drop its restrictions on undergraduate
email.
=================
=================
These document(s) are available by anonymous ftp (the preferred
method) and by email. To get the file(s) via ftp, do an anonymous ftp
to ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4), and get file(s):
pub/academic/news/cafv01n33
pub/academic/faq/netnews.writing
pub/academic/policies/rice.edu
To get the file(s) 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/news cafv01n33
send acad-freedom/faq netnews.writing
send acad-freedom/policies rice.edu
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Jul 8 16:57:56 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: U15289@UICVM.UIC.EDU
Subject: Travels with Farley redux
Message-ID: <199207082056.AA09908@eff.org>
Date: Wed, 8 Jul 1992 20:53:32 GMT
Regarding the recenty thread about Farley Mowat's latest encounter with U.S.
customs and integration: check out the customs sequence in the new film
_Highway 61_. Judging from what I read in the Mowat thread, it seems like it
must be pretty true to life.
Mitch Pravatiner
U15289@uicvm.uic.edu
From caf-talk Caf Jul 8 17:13:51 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Dept. of Mathematics, U. of Florida, Computer Use Policy
Message-ID: <199207082112.AA10165@eff.org>
Date: Wed, 8 Jul 1992 13:12:41 GMT
This is a critique of:
> POLICY ON RESPONSIBLE USE OF THE COMPUTER SYSTEM
>
> Department of Mathematics, University of Florida, July 2, 1992
[...]
> ... Violations of these policies may lead to suspension
> of the user's account or referral to the appropriate authority for
> disciplinary action.
Suspension of user's account is a serious penalty. Unless the
department can provide the due process garenteeded by most Student
Codes and required by law, discipline should be imposed via regular
university channels (typically a university's Judical Committee).
References to due process are enclosed.
[...]
> 1. Users of electronic mail, bulletin boards, and newsgroups should
> not send messages which would be offensive to the recipient or
> which intimidate, threaten, demean, or harass individuals or groups.
>
> 2. Material which is likely to be offensive to other users should not
> be printed or displayed on a publicly visible computer or printer,
> nor should users keep such material in a publicly accessible disk file.
In my opinion, these speech restrictions are much, much to broad and
vague and would be found illegal if challenged in court. They also, in
my opinion, are so broad that they violate academic freedom. (references
enclosed)
- Carl Kadie
ANNOTATED REFERENCES
(All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.)
=================
student.freedoms
=================
Joint Statement on Rights and Freedoms of Students -- This is the main
statement on student academic freedom.
=================
caf-statement
=================
This is an attempt to codify the application of academic freedom to
academic computers. It reflects our seven months of on-line discussion
about computers and academic freedom. It covers free expression, due
process, privacy, and user participation.
Comments and suggestions are very welcome (especially when posted to
CAF-talk). All the documents referenced are available on-line.
(Critiqued).
=================
caf-statement.critique
=================
This is a critique of an attempt to codify the application of academic
freedom to academic computers. It reflects our seven months of on-line
discussion about computers and academic freedom. It covers free
expression, due process, privacy, and user participation.
Additional comments and suggestions are very welcome (especially when
posted to CAF-talk). All the documents referenced are available
on-line.
=================
faq/policy
=================
q: What guidance is there for creating or evaluating a computer policy?
=================
law/goss-v-lopez.fischer
=================
Comments from _Teacher's and the Law_, 3rd edition, by Louis Fischer,
et al. Published in 1991 by Longman. It reports that the Supreme Court
says that some modicum of due process is necessary unless the matter
is trivial or there is an emergency.
=================
law/goss-v-lopez.mnookin
=================
Comments from _In the Interest of Children_, R. Mnookin (Ed.),
Franklin E. Zimring and Rayman L. Solomon (Contrib. Authors). It
reports that the Supreme Court says that some modicum of due process
is necessary unless the matter is trivial or there is an emergency.
Also,
=================
law/mills-v-bd-of-ed
=================
Summary from the ACLU's Handbook _The Right of Students_ 3rd Edition
by Janet. R. Price, Alan H. Levine, and Eve Cary. p. 61. It says
before you can be severely punished, you have a due process right to
know the specific acts you are charged with committing and the
specific rules that those acts violate.
=================
law/mt-healthy-v-doyle
=================
_Due Process for School Officials: A Guide for the Conduct of
Administrative Proceedings_ by Edgar H. Bittle (1986) says that a
formal hearing should make a detailed "findings of fact" list.
=================
law/constraints.constitutional
=================
Comments from _A Practical Guide to Legal Issues Affecting College
Teachers_ by Partrica A. Hollander, D. Parker Young, and Donald D.
Gehring. (College Administration Publication, 1985). Discusses the
constitutional constraints on public universities including the
requires for freedom of expression, freedom against unreasonable
searches and seizures, due process, specific rules.
=================
law/uwm-post-v-u-of-wisconsin
=================
The full text of UWM POST v. U. of Wisconsin. This recent district
court ruling goes into detail about the difference between protected
offensive expression and illegal harassment. It even mentions email.
It concludes: "The founding fathers of this nation produced a
remarkable document in the Constitution but it was ratified only with
the promise of the Bill of Rights. The First Amendment is central to
our concept of freedom. The God-given "unalienable rights" that the
infant nation rallied to in the Declaration of Independence can be
preserved only if their application is rigorously analyzed.
The problems of bigotry and discrimination sought to be addressed here
are real and truly corrosive of the educational environment. But
freedom of speech is almost absolute in our land and the only
restriction the fighting words doctrine can abide is that based on the
fear of violent reaction. Content-based prohibitions such as that in
the UW Rule, however well intended, simply cannot survive the
screening which our Constitution demands."
=================
law/doe-v-u-of-michigan
=================
This is Doe v. University of Michigan. In this widely referenced
decision, the district judge down struck the University's rules
against discriminatory harassment because the rules were found to be too
broad and too vague.
=================
law/rav-v-st-paul.1
=================
The Supreme Court's _R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul_ decision about hate crimes.
The Court overturned St. Paul's Bias-Motivated Crime Ordinance, which
prohibits the display of a symbol which one knows or has reason to
know "arouses anger, alarm or resentment in others on the basis of
race, color, creed, religion or gender."
Included: summary, majority opinion, 3 concurring opinions.
=================
law/san-diego-committee-v-gov-bd
=================
Excerpts from San Diego Committee v. Governing Bd., 790 F.2d 1471. A
decision by an appellate court that applied the Supreme Court's Public
Forum Doctrine (to a school newspaper).
=================
law/stanley-v-magrath
=================
Comments from _Public Schools Law: Teachers' and Students' Rights_ 2nd
Ed. by Martha M. McCarthy and Nelda H. Cambron-McCabe, published in
1987 by Allyn and Bacon, Inc. It says, in part, "[a]lthough school
boards are not obligated to support student papers, if a given
publication was originally created as a free speech forum, removal of
financial or other school board support can be construed as an
unlawful effort to stifle free expression." Also, "school
authorities cannot withdraw support from a student publication simply
because of displeasure with the content" and "the content of a
school-sponsored paper that is established as a medium for student
expression cannot be regulated more closely than a nonsponsored
paper". Also, it tells what to do about libel in student
publications.
=================
law/student-publications.misc
=================
Quotes from the book _Law of the Student Press_ by the Student Press
Law Center (1985,1988). They say that four-letter words are protected
speech, that public universities are not likely to be liable for
publications that they for which they do not control the contents, and
that the _Hazelwood_ decision does not apply to universities.
=================
law/rust-v-sullivan
=================
The decision and decent for the so-called abortion information gag
rule case. The decision explicitly mentions universities as a place
where free expression is so important that gag rules would not be
allowed.
=================
law/perry-v-perry
=================
Comments from the ACLU Handbook _The Rights of _Teachers_. It says
that campus mail systems (and other school facilities) can be limited
public forums. (Perry v. Perry was about an interschool mail system.
It was one of the cases that defined the Public Forum Doctrine.)
Also, a paraphrase from an ACLU handbook _The Rights of Teachers_. It
says that generally, speech, if otherwise shielded from punishment by
the First Amendment, does not lose that protection because its tone is
sharp.
Also, from p. 92, it says that there are legal limits to the oaths a
(public) school can ask its teachers to sign. [Some of these same
limits might apply to what a school can ask a user to sign as a
condition of getting (or keeping) a computer account.]
=================
faq/media.control
=================
q: Since freedom of the press belongs to those who own presses, a
public university can do anything it wants with the media that it
owns, right?
=================
caf
=================
A description to the comp-academic-freedom-talk mailing list. It is a
free-forum for the discussion of questions such as: How should general
principles of academic freedom (such as freedom of expression, freedom
to read, due process, and privacy) be applied to university computers
and networks? How are these principles actually being applied? How can
the principles of academic freedom as applied to computers and
networks be defended?
=================
=================
These document(s) are available by anonymous ftp (the preferred
method) and by email. To get the file(s) via ftp, do an anonymous ftp
to ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4), and get file(s):
pub/academic/student.freedoms
pub/academic/caf-statement
pub/academic/caf-statement.critique
pub/academic/faq/policy
pub/academic/law/goss-v-lopez.fischer
pub/academic/law/goss-v-lopez.mnookin
pub/academic/law/mills-v-bd-of-ed
pub/academic/law/mt-healthy-v-doyle
pub/academic/law/constraints.constitutional
pub/academic/law/uwm-post-v-u-of-wisconsin
pub/academic/law/doe-v-u-of-michigan
pub/academic/law/rav-v-st-paul.1
pub/academic/law/san-diego-committee-v-gov-bd
pub/academic/law/stanley-v-magrath
pub/academic/law/student-publications.misc
pub/academic/law/rust-v-sullivan
pub/academic/law/perry-v-perry
pub/academic/faq/media.control
pub/academic/caf
To get the file(s) 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 student.freedoms
send acad-freedom caf-statement
send acad-freedom caf-statement.critique
send acad-freedom/faq policy
send acad-freedom/law goss-v-lopez.fischer
send acad-freedom/law goss-v-lopez.mnookin
send acad-freedom/law mills-v-bd-of-ed
send acad-freedom/law mt-healthy-v-doyle
send acad-freedom/law constraints.constitutional
send acad-freedom/law uwm-post-v-u-of-wisconsin
send acad-freedom/law doe-v-u-of-michigan
send acad-freedom/law rav-v-st-paul.1
send acad-freedom/law san-diego-committee-v-gov-bd
send acad-freedom/law stanley-v-magrath
send acad-freedom/law student-publications.misc
send acad-freedom/law rust-v-sullivan
send acad-freedom/law perry-v-perry
send acad-freedom/faq media.control
send acad-freedom caf
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Jul 8 17:21:26 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: booloo@framsparc.ocf.llnl.gov (Mark Boolootian)
Subject: Need info on sexual harassment and Usenet
Message-ID: <9207082121.AA11628@framsparc.ocf.llnl.gov.ocf>
Date: Wed, 8 Jul 1992 21:21:27 GMT
Have there ever been any cases in the U.S. of sexual harassment charges
related to postings on Usenet? I'd be interested in hearing about such
cases and their disposition. Even if these issues were settled locally,
e.g. by management, I'd like to hear about them. Anecdotal or documented.
I need whatever information I can collect in order to educate management
here about Usenet. We are trying to keep our newsfeed from disappearing
entirely.
Thanks in advance,
mb
--
Mark Boolootian booloo@llnl.gov +1 510-423-1948
From caf-talk Caf Jul 8 19:44:45 1992
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,misc.legal,alt.activism.d,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.correct,alt.discrimination
From: dsc@gemini.tmc.edu (Doug S. Caprette Bldg. 28 W191 x3892)
Subject: Re: The Glorious Constitution (was: [UPI] Supreme Court strikes down...)
Message-ID: <1992Jul8.230339.13187@nsisrv.gsfc.nasa.gov>
Date: Wed, 8 Jul 1992 23:03:39 GMT
In article jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:
>I'll bet a lot (maybe most) of the framers thought slavery was a bad
>idea but weren't ready to fight a civil war at that time. There was
>already a substantial anti-slavery movement in Britain and doubtless
>Americans were affected by it. It seems to me that I read that as
>late as 1840 there was a movement in one of the Carolinas to send
>the slaves back to Africa, but they were much too dependent on
>slave labor for morality to overcome convenience. The full racist
>theory of slavery developed in the middle of the century not very
>long before the civil war.
>
Actually, the fact that slavery was not institutionalised in the
Constitution throughout the US, was somewhat of a victory for those
who opposed slavery. At the time that the Constitution was adopted,
slavery was practiced in 6 or 7 of the 13 states. (Georgia, S. Carolina,
N. Carolina, Virginia, Maryland, Delaware(can someone check this?),
and New York--where it was on the way out, but not yet gone.)
Massachusetts was also a slave state at the time of the Revolution, but
inadvertently abolished slavery in 1783 by adopting a state Bill of Rights
which included words to the effect that "All men are created free and
equal". The state supreme court interpretted slavery to be in violation
of the Massachusetts bill of rights.
>
>Remember that classical education dominated at the time the framers
>were educated. The theory of Roman and Greek slavery wasn't racist.
>It said that if you lost a war, you were likely to be enslaved by the
>winners. A common alternative behavior on the part of ancient winners
>was simply to slaughter the losers. Intermediates like slaughtering
>the men and enslaving the women and children were also common.
>
>Some slave owners like Jefferson compromised morality with convenience
>by providingg that their slaves be freed when they died.
>--
>John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
>*
>He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
Unfortunately for the American slaves, slavery in America was *NOT*
based legally or philosophically on Roman law, which recognised slavery
as a form of second class citizenship resulting from chance. Rather,
slaves were considered to be property.
From caf-talk Caf Jul 8 21:18:55 1992
From: fsars@acad3.alaska.edu (Allen R Sparks)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,misc.legal,alt.activism.d,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.correct,alt.discrimination
Subject: Re: The Glorious Constitution (was: [UPI] Supreme Court strikes down...)
Message-ID: <1992Jul8.165000.1@acad3.alaska.edu>
Date: 9 Jul 92 00:50:00 GMT
In article <13efvgINN6fg@agate.berkeley.edu>, bh@anarres.CS.Berkeley.EDU (Brian Harvey) writes:
> viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) writes:
>> The US Constitution was also written by soldiers, revolutionaries,
>>pragmatists, as well as politicians. Just because they were politicians
>>does not mean they were crooks, humbugs, or hypocrits. I'd claim they
>>were less hypocritical than our present-day politicians, simply because
>>they did not legislate against any of their own vices and exempt themselves
>>from the law.
>
> Jefferson, who, as has been pointed out, owned slaves, wrote an
> anti-slavery stand into the original draft of the Declaration of
> Independence. (He was overruled in committee.) He exempted himself,
> as you put it, on the grounds that he would be economically not
> competitive with other big landholders if they had slaves and he
> didn't. (As JMC points out he did free his slaves after his own
> death. I wonder who inherited his property and how they felt about
> that!)
Actually Jefferson never was economically competitive. He was always
in debt up until the time of his death. His plantation rarely made a
profit. His success lay in his government jobs. By the time he died,
his plantation was no longer a going concern.
> Examples: the curfews
> imposed (illegally, and selectively enforced) after the Rodney King
> violence; the seizure of property *without trial* of people accused of
> drug possession. Just imagine if the post-Rodney-King fighting had
> happened in every city, and developed into a serious rebellion to
> overthrow the government. You think the Constitution would restrain
> the response to that?
Your examples are valid, but you could find better ones if you were to
look at the Civil War period, and even WW I, where our shores were not
directly threatened. In fact a glaring example was the jailing of
Eugene V Debs for speaking out against WW I.
=== Al Sparks
From caf-talk Caf Jul 9 09:29:52 1992
From: aaronk@county.lmt.mn.org (Aaron Kurland)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,misc.legal,alt.activism.d,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.correct,alt.discrimination
Subject: Re: The Glorious Constitution (was: [UPI] Supreme Court strikes down...)
Message-ID:
Date: 8 Jul 92 23:47:22 GMT
>Some slave owners like Jefferson compromised morality with convenience
>by providingg that their slaves be freed when they died.
>--
Not much point in being freed after you're dead. =:*)
From caf-talk Caf Jul 9 15:13:27 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.org.eff.talk] drug forfeiture on ftp.eff.org
Message-ID: <9207091912.AA15513@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Thu, 9 Jul 1992 09:12:11 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Jul 9 15:13:27 1992
From: gray@antaire.com (Gray Watson)
Subject: drug forfeiture on ftp.eff.org
Message-ID: <9207091724.AA23777@antaire.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Jul 1992 17:24:14 GMT
This is a followup to a post I made back on June 25th.
>Although maybe not down the electronic alley, I have just finished scanning in
>a segment written by the Pittsburgh Press on drug forfeiture. It is quite
>fascinating (and thoroughly frightening and depressing) especially in light of
>its similarities with operation 'Sun Devil'.
A copy of the report is now available on ftp.eff.org in
/pub/cud/papers/presumed. Thanks go to Brendan Kehoe, CUD, and the EFF.
I've included a synopsis of the document below. They're quite scary articles!
happy reading,
gray
-----
Reprinted by permission from the 'Pittsburgh Press'
THE LAW'S VICTIMS IN THE WAR ON DRUGS
It's a strange twist of justice in the land of freedom. A law designed to
give cops the right to confiscate and keep the luxurious possessions of major
drug dealers mostly ensnares the modest homes, cars and cash of ordinary,
law-abiding people. They step off a plane or answer their front door and
suddenly lose everything they've worked for. They are not arrested or tried for
any crime. But there is punishment, and it's severe.
This six-day series chronicles a frightening turn in the war on drugs. Ten
months of research across the country reveals that seizure and forfeiture, the
legal weapons meant to eradicate the enemy, have done enormous collateral
damage to the innocent. The reporters reviewed 25,000 seizures made by the
Drug Enforcement Administration. They interviewed 1,600 prosecutors, defense
lawyers, cops, federal agents and victims. They examined court documents from
510 cases. What they found defines a new standard of justice in America: You
are presumed guilty.
From caf-talk Caf Jul 9 16:58:46 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: leonard@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Patt Leonard)
Subject: harrasment of women on the Internet
Message-ID:
Date: Thu, 9 Jul 1992 20:57:39 GMT
Mark Boolootian (booloo@llnl.gov) asks if there are any instances of
charges being filed for sexual harrassment on the Usenet. I don't
know of any, however, I do feel that the general atmosphere of
the Usenet newsgroups, and the Internet LISTSERV mailing lists, can
be hostile to women.
A couple of examples:
A graduate student in the communications dept. here at the
Univ. of Illinois in Urbana-Champaign was monitoring some of the
Usenet groups in regard to male-female communication The
men were posting messages which said "why do women object when we
whistle at them on the street?" A woman replied that she felt such
catcalls reflected a hostility to women. The moderator of the group
deleted her posting, but left the men's.
On a local women's group (uiuc.women), a woman posted a message
in which she wrote "womyn," and a man replied that she
should spell it "womyne," so that it would look more archaic.
His message was totally irrelevant, and the effect was a hostile
male voice, interjected in the conversation, saying, "I'm
listening in on you, and I'll interrupt when I feel like it."
On the LISTSERV group for the American Library Association's
Feminist Task Force (FEMINIST), a man posted a note solicting our
involvment in some stupid singles match-up. Again, it was totally
irrelevant to the topic of the discussion group, and it implied
this man thought we women should have no forum for serious
discussion.
Patt Leonard
leonard@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu
From caf-talk Caf Jul 9 17:36:44 1992
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,misc.legal,alt.activism.d,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.correct,alt.discrimination
From: hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phillip M. Hallam-Baker)
Subject: Re: The Glorious Constitution (was: [UPI] Supreme Court strikes down...)
Message-ID: <1992Jul9.203457.20743@dscomsf.desy.de>
Date: Thu, 9 Jul 1992 20:34:57 GMT
In article , viking@iastate.edu
(Dan Sorenson) writes:
|> hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phillip M. Hallam-Baker) writes:
|>
|>>Your analysis is based on the erroneous beleif that the framers of the
|>>constitution were in any way opposed to slavery.
|>>Jefferson and Washington were both slave owners. The true nature of
|>>their crimes against humanity are brought into stark relief when one
|>>discovers that many of the slaves were the slave owners own children by
|>>slaves which they had raped.
|>
|> So? You have a point?
The point is plain enough, Jefferson etc were politicians not the
upright moralists that the legends might claim. It was fairly clear in
the original post.
|>Slavery was socially acceptable at the time,
|>and in no way was considered a "crime against humanity" by the Framers.
And the NAZIs in no way considered Auswitz a crime against humanity.
Such issues must be judged by a standard of morals which is invariant
with time.
|> It
|>is also clear that slave ownership is hardly a reason to reject out of hand
|>that they were quite capable of constructing a government that was flexible
|>and capable of changing as society and the needs of the country changed.
Most of the people trying to make them out to befar sighted geniuses are
generaly trying to create a providence for the second ammendment as if
it were one of the original ten commandments.
The fact that the current constitution is radicaly different to the
original demonstrates the fact that the constitution must be allowed to
evolve to meet societies changing needs. These now point to the
abolition of the second ammendment. Trying to deify the original bunch
of lawyers who worked out the constitution would not be much of an
argument even if it were possible. Fact is they were not devinely
inspired byt acted from rather base motives which we no regard as
repugnant.
|>In addition, I find your use of the word "rape" to be annoying, simply
|>because we have no way of knowing if rape was actually involved, and thus
|>you are making an unsubstantiated accusation with no method of proving it.
|>Let the dead lie in dignity if you can do nothing but slander.
Actualy it is not slander unless it is spoken, the word you were looking
for was libel.
I stand by the word rape, a slave cannot consent to intercourse because
there is no possibility of refusal. Even if there were not an explicit
threat of punishment there would always be an implicit threat of one.
Even if the act was consensual there would always be the implicit
expectation of some favour in return. In the case of a slave any favour
is merely the return of something already stolen from them, witholding a
right unless sexual intercourse is permitted is in no way different from
threatening to withdraw the right if is not permitted.
|> To throw out an entire document because you don't like who wrote it
|>is simply asinine.
I didn't say that the document did not have some redeeming features, the
general approach is what one would expect if you put the drafting of a
constitution in the hands of professionals - ie lawyers. The powers and
basic functioning of the system of government are clearly defined.
However much of the reasoning behind the constitution is flawed.
Jefferson and co were attempting to lock a particular brand of
mercantile capitalism into the constitution. They wanted to use the
constitution to prevent the government implementing any type of
Socialist system. This is a nonsense, the powers avaliable to the
government do not derive from pieces of paper but from consent. This is
why the greatest Presidents, such as Lincoln and F.D. Roosevelt was able
to drive a coach and horses through the constitution, because they had
popular support for their program.
The problem with the US constitution is that the only method of
legislating across the whole country in many areas is via the
constitution itself. That is a damn fool idea beacuse it means that a
lot of damn fool propositions such as prohibition have been put into the
constitution when they had no business being there.
The first ammendment and the fifth have a legitimate claim to be in the
constitution, they delineate the division of power between the
individual and the government. Gun control, abortion, the death penalty
etc have no business being there, they are properly the province of the
state or federal legislature.
Phill Hallam-Baker
From caf-talk Caf Jul 9 18:47:33 1992
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,misc.legal,alt.activism.d,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.correct,alt.discrimination
From: jaw@is.rice.edu (Joseph A. Watters)
Subject: Re: The Glorious Constitution (was: [UPI] Supreme Court strikes down...)
Message-ID: <1992Jul9.220946.24140@rice.edu>
Date: Thu, 9 Jul 1992 22:09:46 GMT
In article , aaronk@county.lmt.mn.org (Aaron Kurland) writes:
|> >Some slave owners like Jefferson compromised morality with convenience
|> >by providingg that their slaves be freed when they died.
|> >--
|>
|> Not much point in being freed after you're dead. =:*)
Uh, unclear antecedents here. The slaves were freed when the
*slaveowner* died, as opposed to becoming the slaves (property) of
whoever inherited the slaveowner's estate.
--
Joseph A. Watters, Jr. jaw@owlnet.rice.edu
Rice University
Houston, Texas
From caf-talk Caf Jul 9 19:57:13 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: paulf@w6yx (Paul Flaherty)
Subject: Re: harrasment of women on the Internet
Message-ID:
Date: Thu, 9 Jul 1992 23:29:42 GMT
It looks like the hostility being displayed here is towards political
feminism, and not towards individuals (with the possible exception of
the first example, which can be seen as an indictment of the moderator
system per se).
--
-=Paul Flaherty, N9FZX/5W1JX |"Anyway, nothing can beat Good Old American
->paulf@Stanford.EDU | Know - How." -- Harry Canyon, _Heavy Metal_
From caf-talk Caf Jul 9 20:46:58 1992
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,misc.legal,alt.activism.d,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.correct,alt.discrimination
From: pprior@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Paul A Prior)
Subject: Re: The Glorious Constitution (was: [UPI] Supreme Court strikes down...)
Message-ID: <1992Jul10.003703.11268@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 1992 00:37:03 GMT
In article <1992Jul9.220946.24140@rice.edu> jaw@is.rice.edu (Joseph A. Watters) writes:
>In article , aaronk@county.lmt.mn.org (Aaron Kurland) writes:
>|> >Some slave owners like Jefferson compromised morality with convenience
>|> >by providingg that their slaves be freed when they died.
>|> >--
>|>
>|> Not much point in being freed after you're dead. =:*)
>
>Uh, unclear antecedents here. The slaves were freed when the
>*slaveowner* died, as opposed to becoming the slaves (property) of
>whoever inherited the slaveowner's estate.
>
I may be off the wall here, but I think that is what the =:*)
was for.... .
--
--------pprior@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu----(614) 297-8474----------------
Paul A. Prior Ban anchors, not reef tanks "With friends like this,
3rd year medical student who needs anemones?"
The Ohio State U. College of Medicine Tobacco Kills- Please don't smoke!
From caf-talk Caf Jul 9 21:01:39 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Hostility toward women (was Re: harrasment of women on the Internet)
Message-ID: <1992Jul10.010025.6972@eff.org>
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 1992 01:00:25 GMT
leonard@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Patt Leonard) writes:
[...]
> I do feel that the general atmosphere of
>the Usenet newsgroups, and the Internet LISTSERV mailing lists, can
>be hostile to women.
If some women find Usenet (or some other medium) hostile, what should
be done? Should they be protected by some authority? Would Usenet
assertiveness training help?
Because I hate articles that ask questions without suggesting an
answer, here is my first pass at an answer. I think "protection" from
offensive ideas is paternalism. It needlessly creates dependence. I
think Net assertiveness is effective and empowering.
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Jul 9 21:16:53 1992
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,misc.legal,alt.activism.d,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.correct,alt.discrimination
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: The Glorious Constitution (was: [UPI] Supreme Court strikes down...)
Message-ID:
Date: Thu, 9 Jul 1992 23:59:20 GMT
hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phillip M. Hallam-Baker) writes:
>In article , viking@iastate.edu
>(Dan Sorenson) writes:
>The point is plain enough, Jefferson etc were politicians not the
>upright moralists that the legends might claim. It was fairly clear in
>the original post.
And I never claimed they were upright moralists. By definition they
_had_ to be politicians, since they were engaged in political acts at the
time. However, they did not restrict the body of the people by enforcing
their own morality through legislation; something that is lost today.
>|>Slavery was socially acceptable at the time,
>|>and in no way was considered a "crime against humanity" by the Framers.
>And the NAZIs in no way considered Auswitz a crime against humanity.
>Such issues must be judged by a standard of morals which is invariant
>with time.
Complete and utter bullshit, Phillip. Morals change with time and
culture, and to hold people of an entirely different time and culture to our
own standards of morality is ridiculous. There is no "standard" of morals
that is invariant with time as you claim above. Invariably, the only
standard of morals is the one that can be forcefully applied, which is no
guarentee they are indeed acceptable to us.
>Most of the people trying to make them out to befar sighted geniuses are
>generaly trying to create a providence for the second ammendment as if
>it were one of the original ten commandments.
