From caf-talk Caf Jul 13 00:23:24 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.censorship, et al.] Re: Surprise. You've made the evening news again.
Message-ID: <9207130421.AA12565@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Sun, 12 Jul 1992 18:21:50 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Jul 13 00:23:24 1992
From: franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve "edified" Franklin)
Subject: Re: Surprise. You've made the evening news again.
Message-ID:
Date: Sun, 12 Jul 1992 21:21:09 GMT
In <1992Jul12.173031.15090@zooid.guild.org> Mother Nature writes:
>I'm sure they don't. It's most likely someone who never read the net, but just
>happened to notice what was on it, and decided that they might have a story
>out of it. Or whatever. Most sensible people realize that no one is forcing
>them to read it.
Well, I'm a student, and I read the net, and I have complaints. You
say that no one is forcing them to read it, but the argument should be
more aptly put as "is it a waste of money". There lies the question. Sure,
I can unsubscribe from any crappy newsgroup I feel like, but can we
merit the financial funding of illegal material that obviously offends
and oversteps various legal bounds in one or more countries which we
know USENET extends into?
Of course the contents of USENET are going shock people who are unfamiliar
with it, because it is legalized pornography that is readily made available
to the underage, via school-funded and government funded and whoever else
funded media. In various ways, taxes are being used to fund those wonderful
pictures that so many sweaty palmed individuals sift over. Yes, I exercise
my right to not subscribe to these groups. However, can we justify diverting
money (as little as it may be) towards these causes? there lies the question.
At my university, as tuition is increasing (but still nothing like the
American Colleges) there were students pushing for increased disk space on
our machines, when some would be used for work perhaps, but much would
be in archiving materials that were obtained via USENET for entertainment
purposes.
>Yes, but are you sure that they would do justice to your story? While never
>having been interviewed for anything on the news, I have had friends who
>were. When they went to watch themselves, the news had cut a lot of stuff out
>and made what they said into something totally different. Whatever you had to
>say could just become more fuel for the sensationalist fires.
Yes, that is called creative news editing. Through the magic of
VI (jove?) I could cut up your above paragraph into little teensy
parts and by reassembling it, probably support anything from clubbing
seals, to electing Dan Quayle for president. Welcome to the wonder of
the media. I have never respected the media as a tool, but as a source
of entertainment. Didn't you watch the Persian Gulf war? The media is a
business like anything else, and they will give the audience what it wants,
rather than what it deserves.
--
aasdSteveFranklin-Subliminal Psychology Major.ks;dlasBlueJaysRULEkasdfeahsdbfl
sd;lfaswoq[eBuyMeAQuadra!!!mbnZMXCNdfsba;KdSPAMiuroqiyetIBMSuxiweuryth'ewr;mxn
qpuepriuPartyOneqtuj;,n.,xnc,kjasFlameMeNot!;lkj;lkgkjd;askElvisLivesjhfquweru
zx.cfranklin@ug.cs.dal.ca,sk;t;lrut[Superboy@ac.dal.cav.zx,Physics!eq3rwkh;oHA
From caf-talk Caf Jul 13 00:24:23 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.censorship, et al.] Re: Surprise. You've made the evening news again.
Message-ID: <9207130422.AA12612@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Sun, 12 Jul 1992 18:22:51 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Jul 13 00:24:23 1992
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.sex
Subject: Re: Surprise. You've made the evening news again.
Message-ID:
Date: 13 Jul 92 00:02:04 GMT
In article franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve "edified" Franklin) writes:
>Well, I'm a student, and I read the net, and I have complaints. You
>say that no one is forcing them to read it, but the argument should be
>more aptly put as "is it a waste of money". There lies the question. Sure,
>I can unsubscribe from any crappy newsgroup I feel like, but can we
>merit the financial funding of illegal material that obviously offends
>and oversteps various legal bounds in one or more countries which we
>know USENET extends into?
>Of course the contents of USENET are going shock people who are unfamiliar
>with it, because it is legalized pornography that is readily made available
>to the underage, via school-funded and government funded and whoever else
>funded media. In various ways, taxes are being used to fund those wonderful
>pictures that so many sweaty palmed individuals sift over. Yes, I exercise
>my right to not subscribe to these groups. However, can we justify diverting
>money (as little as it may be) towards these causes? there lies the question.
>At my university, as tuition is increasing (but still nothing like the
>American Colleges) there were students pushing for increased disk space on
>our machines, when some would be used for work perhaps, but much would
>be in archiving materials that were obtained via USENET for entertainment
>purposes.
I've got to save this as a canned response. A quick look at
the Arbitron stats'll show that alt.sex is one of the most popular
groups on usenet. In other words, we have met the perverts, and we are
them. Smell the coffee, squick the seals.
What does that mean? A waste of money? Hardly, son. A huge
savings, instead. Know what'd happen to my site's disk-space if
alt.sex was killed, assuming that I'm the only person reading it?
Nothing. I could, can, and will find a way to gate the newsfeed into
my e-mail. And since I suspect that I'm not the only person reading
this newsgroup, and what I could, can, and will do isn't much of
a feat, other people here'll be doing the exact same thing. Of
course, they've got their own copy of the newsfeed, so twice the
needed space's being used. I'd guess (conservatively) that at least
100 people here read alt.sex.
And, what the pro-censorship mavens are going to have to
realize at some point is that when the stock in trade isn't ink
printed in suggestive patterns on paper anymore.. when it's not
videotape.. when it's not a greasy book.. but information, 1's and
0's, there's no way on earth to stop its flow. None. The nature of
information is it's movement, after all.
-rj
--
Ranjan Bagchi: Di.sigsgvirusuise Ranjan.Bagchi@umich.edu
oo oooo o oo ooo oo oo oo o o oooo ooo o o oooooooo
From caf-talk Caf Jul 13 00:24:46 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.censorship, et al.] Re: Surprise. You've made the evening news again.
Message-ID: <9207130423.AA12629@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Sun, 12 Jul 1992 18:23:15 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Jul 13 00:24:46 1992
From: johnm@cajal.uoregon.edu (John Martin)
Subject: Re: Surprise. You've made the evening news again.
Message-ID: <1992Jul13.001349.12315@nntp.uoregon.edu>
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 92 00:13:49 GMT
In article , franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve "edified" Franklin) writes:
> Well, I'm a student, and I read the net, and I have complaints. You
>say that no one is forcing them to read it, but the argument should be
>more aptly put as "is it a waste of money". There lies the question. Sure,
>I can unsubscribe from any crappy newsgroup I feel like, but can we
>merit the financial funding of illegal material that obviously offends
>and oversteps various legal bounds in one or more countries which we
>know USENET extends into?
You seem to think that sites are being forced to pay for the newsgroups
you object to. This is not the case. Remember, Usenet is not an
official organization, but rather an informal congregation of sites that
share newsfeeds between each other. If a particular site doesn't want
to pay for a particular group, it doesn't carry it. Simple as that.
But also remember, most universities attach via the Internet. They pay
a flat fee for this service, and typically dedicate a machine or two to
act as news servers for the campus. The result is that their bill will
*not* be reduced by a single cent by deciding not to carry any given
newsgroup! The connection is paid for regardless, and the hardware
exists and consumes electricity regardless! As I see it, no money is
being "wasted"! The "recreational" groups are simply along for the
ride.
--
John Martin johnm@cajal.uoregon.edu
Institute of Neuroscience, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR, 97402
From caf-talk Caf Jul 13 00:24:56 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.censorship, et al.] Re: Surprise. You've made the evening news again.
Message-ID: <9207130423.AA12642@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Sun, 12 Jul 1992 18:23:24 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Jul 13 00:24:56 1992
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.sex
Subject: Re: Surprise. You've made the evening news again.
Message-ID:
Date: 13 Jul 92 01:25:15 GMT
In article <1992Jul13.001349.12315@nntp.uoregon.edu> johnm@cajal.uoregon.edu (John Martin) writes:
>
> [stuff about the mechanics of usenet]
>
>But also remember, most universities attach via the Internet. They pay
>a flat fee for this service, and typically dedicate a machine or two to
>act as news servers for the campus. The result is that their bill will
>*not* be reduced by a single cent by deciding not to carry any given
>newsgroup! The connection is paid for regardless, and the hardware
>exists and consumes electricity regardless! As I see it, no money is
>being "wasted"! The "recreational" groups are simply along for the
>ride.
>
Ummm.. no. Machines, and more to the point, disk space is
purchased with regard to the space that news is going to be taking up.
Carrying newsgroups definitely does cost money, in that regard, since
you've dedicated a certain amount of space to it.
However, as I've already posted, it's often more efficient to
carry the newsgroups as opposed to having people get ahold of the material in a
less centralized manner.
-rj
--
Ranjan Bagchi: Di.sigsgvirusuise Ranjan.Bagchi@umich.edu
oo oooo o oo ooo oo oo oo o o oooo ooo o o oooooooo
From caf-talk Caf Jul 13 00:25:12 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.censorship, et al.] Re: Surprise. You've made the evening news again.
Message-ID: <9207130423.AA12655@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Sun, 12 Jul 1992 18:23:40 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Jul 13 00:25:12 1992
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.sex
Subject: Re: Surprise. You've made the evening news again.
Message-ID: <1992Jul13.015125.20430@nntp.uoregon.edu>
Date: 13 Jul 92 01:51:25 GMT
In article , bagchi@eecs.umich.edu (Ranjan Drzzzzt! Bagchi) writes:
>In article <1992Jul13.001349.12315@nntp.uoregon.edu> johnm@cajal.uoregon.edu (John Martin) writes:
>>
>> [stuff about the mechanics of usenet]
>>
>>But also remember, most universities attach via the Internet. They pay
>>a flat fee for this service, and typically dedicate a machine or two to
>>act as news servers for the campus. The result is that their bill will
>>*not* be reduced by a single cent by deciding not to carry any given
>>newsgroup! The connection is paid for regardless, and the hardware
>>exists and consumes electricity regardless! As I see it, no money is
>>being "wasted"! The "recreational" groups are simply along for the
>>ride.
>>
>
> Ummm.. no. Machines, and more to the point, disk space is
>purchased with regard to the space that news is going to be taking up.
>Carrying newsgroups definitely does cost money, in that regard, since
>you've dedicated a certain amount of space to it.
I'm sorry, I really wasn't making myself clear. Yes, machines and disks
are purchased for the purpose, and do cost money. I was trying to make
the point that those machines and disks (in all probability) would have
been purchased whether or not the site was planning on carrying alt.*,
or whatever. In my mind anyway, this makes the point about the cost of
the disk space, as well as the other resources, pretty much moot.
At our campus here, we achieved the one situation where the cost really
does matter. The servers disk filled. They chose to solve the
situation by not carrying the least popular newsgroups (rather than the
most controversial ones!), and reducing the amount of time before
article expire. No one seems displeased with these choices, and new
hardware did not have to be purchased.
No doubt, the disks will fill again, and bigger ones *may* be needed.
This would be a different game altogether. Personally, I feel that
universities should not be in the censorship business. If newsgroups
must be jettisoned because of costs, then the most equitable thing to do
is to stop carrying the least popular ones.
> However, as I've already posted, it's often more efficient to
>carry the newsgroups as opposed to having people get ahold of the material in a
>less centralized manner.
You are 100% right on this. However, I have a sneaking suspicion that
this argument only carries weight with those who are not seeking to
censor newsgroups in the first place.
--
John Martin johnm@cajal.uoregon.edu
Institute of Neuroscience, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR, 97402
From caf-talk Caf Jul 13 00:56:08 1992
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,misc.legal,alt.activism.d,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.correct,alt.discrimination,talk.politics.guns
From: sybok@athena.mit.edu (The Rifleman)
Subject: Re: The Glorious Constitution (was: [UPI] Supreme Court strikes down...)
Message-ID: <1992Jul13.043838.9352@athena.mit.edu>
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 1992 04:38:38 GMT
In article <1992Jul12.161835.13387@dscomsf.desy.de> hallam@zeus02.desy.de writes:
>In article , viking@iastate.edu
>(Dan Sorenson) writes:
>
>|>hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phillip M. Hallam-Baker) writes:
>Just because the US system of government still bears a nominal
>resemblace to the original does not mean that the constitution is
>unchanged. The scrap of paper needs updating to meet modern practice.
Bullshit. The last thing we need is a "New Socialist States of
America" Constitution which would reduce the US to a socialist state
where individuals have few rights, like England, Australia, and Canada.
>|> It doesn't take divine intervention to see how you are wrong, any
>|>more than it took divine intervention to see that an armed citizenry is a
>|>deterrent to both foreign and domestic aggression. If you really wish to
>|>debate this subject, talk.politics.guns is the place to go.
>
>That would be to persue only half of the argument. You deify the
>original framers for a purpose. I wish to point out that the arguments
>that you use to glorify the framers destroy the conclusion you wish to
>finaly proceed to.
>
>If you want to argue that the US constitution wasn't half bad for a
>first go I am happy to agree. However since your argument is that they
>were visionaries whose word still remains applicable today you must
>accept comparisons to modern morals as valid.
No one is above the law. You can't discard the Constitution because
you think it's no longer in vogue.
>If it is necessary for legislation covering the whole country to be
>passed, it will be passed. It important to realise that power does not
>derive from bits of paper, it derives from consent or from fear. If you
>wish to prevent legislation that has consent you have no choice other
>than using fear. Is this why people mouth off in talk.politics.guns
>about what they would do if their guns were taken away?
Mouth off? You deny that arms in the hands of the people are the ultimate
deterrant against tyranny? If Nixon had refused to step down, where would
we have been without arms?
>|> Abortion and the death penalty are not items in the Constitution
>|>that I am aware of, and indeed capitol punishment is specifically mentioned
>|>at least three times, with the stipulation that it cannot be done except
>|>under due process of law.
>
>Law in both areas has been manufactured by the supreme court. Roe vs
>Wade is a pretty excentric definition of privacy.
>
>The death penalty should be ruled as being prohibited by the
>constitution since it is a cruel and unusual punishment.
No, the death penalty is *not* cruel and unusual; it was a common
form of execution at the time of the Constitution's adoption and
throughout the 19th century as well. Violent criminals SHOULD be put
to death. An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.
>The US is the
>only country in the civilised world that regularly carries out
>executions, this makes it unusual.
That's "civilized" here, and the reason the US doesn't change to become
like the socialist states England, Australia, and Canada is because those
countries are 20 years ahead of us DOWN THE WRONG ROAD. We don't
want to become more socialistic, we want a return to libertarian values.
>|> You're right, gun control has no business being
>|>in the Constitution, nor should it be on any state or local law.
>
>Too right get rid of the 2nd!
>
>Phill Hallam-Baker
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,
the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
The Oxford English Dictionary tells us that "well regulated" when said
of troops means "well disciplined/able/capable". The writings of
the Founding Fathers as well as the 1792 Militia Act show that
the militia consists in all free men between the ages of 17 and 45. Thus,
"A well disciplined/able/capable citizen militia being necessary to the
security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms
shall not be infringed."
----------------------
"Stand your ground. Don't fire unless fired upon;
But if they mean to have a war,
Let it begin here!"
-- Captain John Parker, Lexington Minute Company, April 19, 1775
"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm
the people is the best and most efficient means to enslave them."
-- George Mason
From caf-talk Caf Jul 13 03:15:45 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: leb@theory.lcs.mit.edu (Lars Bader)
Subject: Re: Harrassment of Women on Internet a Real Problem
Message-ID: <1992Jul13.064839.13975@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu>
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 1992 06:48:39 GMT
> I concur with Ms. Leonard; the computer-mediated environment is proving no
> more
> enlightened than its analog counterpart. As a newcomer to Usenet, here are
> my
> observations:
> 1. the majority of posters are men
> 2. the majority of posters on subjects pertaining to women's issues are men
> The latter observation concerns me the most. I have already lost interest in
> one area that persists in posting highly offensive messages comparing women to
> Nazis. It's obvious that the rule-makers are going by the same old rules.
I'm beginning to think maybe my earlier posting was useful after all.
Not to criticize Ms. Leonard, who wasn't demanding a change in the
"rules", but to engage in communication with people like you, who want
new "rules" to control what other people say.
Point number (1) reflects the fact that most computer users are men.
They should not be sentenced to silence just because it would upset
some statistical balance.
As to point number (2), remember that most women's issues are also
men's issues. If you state that to achieve "equality" or "social
justice" for women, you need to silence men or regulate noncoercive
male sexual behavior, which is in many cases what is demanded under
the rubric of "harassment" provisions, then men have a very legitimate
interest in what you consider a women's issue. There is no reason why
on these issues, the fraction of posters who are male shouldn't match
the fraction for Usenet overall. It's hard for me to think of a
serious "women's issue" that doesn't profoundly affect men.
In society as a whole, men have been silenced on "women's issues" so
totally that many feminist women have decided that men don't have a
right to speak on the issues. If Usenet provides a safe haven where
men can speak out, I think that's good.
As for the accusations of Nazism, if women are being compared to
Nazis, that's very troubling. But women do not equal radical
feminists, anymore than men do. And I suspect that the comparison
which is really being made is between radical feminists like Catherine
MacKinnon and Nazis. Such a comparison is very fair. There is a
hating, bigoted attitude towards men in radical feminism. In its
biologically deterministic view that men are evil and that society
should be reshaped from above to lower their status, it is clearly a
fascist movement.
Catherine MacKinnon has called men "a group trained toward
woman-hating aggression." She has said "sexual harassment is marriage
is rape." She has questioned the meaningfulness of consent in sexual
intercourse, an insult to every man and to every woman who has been
raped. Either she or her close ally, Andrea Dworkin, has said, "the
male is the penis and the penis is rape."
If some irresponsible men are indeed calling women who are not radical
feminists Nazis, we should consider whether such bad behavior might
have arisen by example, the example of all those people in our society
who are quick to call whites, males, and those with "politically
incorrect" views racist or sexist. Remember Gresham's Law, that the
bad drives out the good. Dirty methods will beget dirty methods.
From caf-talk Caf Jul 13 05:26:17 1992
From: rstevew@deeptht.armory.com (Richard Steven Walz)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.censorship,alt.sex,tor.general
Subject: Re: Surprise. You've made the evening news again.
Message-ID: <1992Jul13.073249.28035@deeptht.armory.com>
Date: 13 Jul 92 07:32:49 GMT
In article <1992Jul12.152040.9493@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> mroussel@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Marc Roussel) writes:
>In article <1992Jul10.172715.2238@r-node.gts.org> marc@r-node.gts.org
>(Marc Fournier - Sys Admin) writes:
>> I'm sorry...but I think this whole thing is a stupid waste of
>>time and resources...and it goes against what our great (or used to be?)
>>country stands for...freedom...to choose, to think, to speak.
>
> If we, the supporters of Usenet, misunderstand Canadian political
>and social history in this manner, we will find ourselves unable to
>contribute in an intelligent way to this debate,
----------------------
Well, I think we did a damned good job of contributing to Panama's
"debate" about freedom, and I think Manuel Noriega can now appreciate
that. He learned a new song, "Welcome to the Jungle", and he now gets
his choice of 40 years in prison or military stockade.
I am afraid that I have noticed that the trend of the world over time
is not toward some fascist notion of "civility" which means nothing,
as in today's Canada, but that it is toward taking dictators and
dictatorial religion based cultures, like Canada and England out and
shooting them, Coucesceau-style. When your millions awake from their
religious opiate, they will also rise up and demand some guarantees
from their government, else it will be turned out or even simply told
to fuck off, depending how fast it happens. If it is like the sixties
here, it can be upside down in a fortnight.
In fact, I, like amnesty international and other such groups adhere to
a rather strict interpretation of human rights. Any one who gets in
the way of human rights, most especially the right to say ANYTHING
should be taken out and shot. We finally have that here now. I cannot
find a thing I can say which will get me arrested, unless I threaten
someone's life or follow them around haranguing them. This is in
contrast to you ridiculous excuse for a nation to the north. You can
still virtually be recommended for jail time by your local vicar, like
we could in the fifties! Religion based countries are vicious
countries, and you will learn that by and by. We might have agencies
trying to mildly scare people out of using their right to speak, but
those bunglers can only cowe the fools who don't know their rights.
Anyone who goes to the press if they are hounded by the government is
virtually ignored ever after here. And we have the right to a speedy
trial. If your docket is that full, then the man of which you spoke
who was fined after such a long time in the courts, had he lived here,
could have demanded a speedy trial and it would probably been dropped.
It strikes me that you in Canada are a bunch of scared twits, true
ninnies in the essence of the word to put up with such crap from a
supposed member in good standing of the "free" world.
I am ashamed to live next to you.
- Richard Steven Walz
From caf-talk Caf Jul 13 10:09:43 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: nbc2134@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil (Robert F Solon)
Subject: Re: Harrassment of Women on Internet a Real Problem
Message-ID: <9207131407.AA05049@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil>
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 1992 06:07:57 GMT
In reply to the mail from ...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>I concur with Ms. Leonard; the computer-mediated environment is proving no more
>enlightened than its analog counterpart. As a newcomer to Usenet, here are my
>observations:
>
>1. the majority of posters are men
So? This is a statistical observation, not a condemnation. If it is a
condemnation, are you saying that _all_ majoarities are bad? If so, justify
yourself.
>2. the majority of posters on subjects pertaining to women's issues are men
>
I would think to some degree that this follows from Observation #1: if the
majority of posters are men, then the majority of postings on _any_ group
would more than likely be from men.
>The latter observation concerns me the most. I have already lost interest in
>one area that persists in posting highly offensive messages comparing women to
>Nazis. It's obvious that the rule-makers are going by the same old rules.
>
>
What do you mean, "the rule-makers are going by the same old rules"? About
the only way that women can be restricted from Usenet is by being denied host
access somewhere. Once an account is available, all users are free to
participate as fully as they wish (subject to any host-wide restrictions that
might apply). I don't see any restrictions placed on women; it women feel
restricted, I must conclude that such restrictions are self-imposed, not
imposed from outside.
As an aside, what does this have to do with academic freedom and computers?
Are you about to advocate restrictions on men for what you perceive to be an
imbalance?
Bob Solon, DITSO-CO-B
Administrative Information Branch -- APCAPS
"We Code, You Explode!!"
From caf-talk Caf Jul 13 12:08:31 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.censorship,alt.sex,tor.general
From: dbshapco@undergrad.math.waterloo.edu (Brad Shapcott)
Subject: Re: Surprise. You've made the evening news again.
Message-ID:
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 1992 15:16:41 GMT
In article <1992Jul13.073249.28035@deeptht.armory.com> rstevew@deeptht.armory.com (Richard Steven Walz) writes:
>
>I am ashamed to live next to you.
You could always move, then.
>- Richard Steven Walz
Brad
From caf-talk Caf Jul 13 13:06:34 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.censorship,soc.college
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Abstract of CAF-News 02.24
Message-ID: <1992Jul13.170500.1711@eff.org>
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 1992 17:05:00 GMT
This is an abstract for the most recent "Computers and Academic
Freedom News" (CAF-News). Information about CAF-News follows the
abstract. The full CAF-News is available via anonymous ftp or by
email. For ftp access, do an anonymous ftp to ftp.eff.org
(192.88.144.4). Get file "pub/academic/news/cafv02n24".
The full CAF-News is also available via email. Send email to
archive-server@eff.org. Include the line:
send caf-news cafv02n24
--- begin abstract ---
[Week ending May 17, 1992
[This week's guest editor is A. Andrew Brennan,
brennan@hal.hahnemann.edu - Carl]
========================== KEY ================================
The words after the numbers are a short PARAPHRASES of the
articles, NOT AN OBJECTIVE SUMMARY and not necessarily my opinion.
===============================================================
Note 1 is about Iowa State's Usenet newsgroup censoring reasons.
1. In reply to a previous assertion that "Iowa State and U. of
Nebraska are using the possibilities of NSF intervention as reason to
censor newsgroups. Neither institutions are citing any other
university, state, or federal regulations for their actions." ISU
admins have cited Chapter 728, [Iowa's Obscenity Law] though it
exempts libraries and educational institutions. [Editor's note: Iowa
Chapter 728 was included in a following note.]
<1992May11.132630.23905@news.iastate.edu>
Note 2 deals with computing policies vs. computer professionals.
2. (Bob Rehak:) Most people in charge of computer resources either
have good credentials (and no computer skills) or have computer skills
and don't have any desire to share the resources with the user
community. In situations that a system might need to shutdown, it is
often necessary to call/visit several managers before taking any
action - though it remains my responsibility.
(Stacy Veeder:) Often the worst fault of the operators taking the
brunt of the questions, etc. is uninterested ignorance. Local network
administrators are competent - and provide the best computer services
possible. The politically required cross-consulting may cause one to
find other solutions to problems.
<199205111758.AA11573@eff.org>
Note 3 discusses some of the "features" of Florida State's Seminole
ACCESS system.
3. Florida State's new Seminole ACCESS system (for Fall '92) will
combine an ID card, ATM card, MCI calling card and a credit card all
in one. While touting convenience and ease of use, it also permits
ACCESS offices to track an alarming number of an individual's
activities - it's all in the database!
Unfortunately, the "classification" of this seemingly private
information is somewhat loose (ex. librarians having access to fields
not necessarily related to the library). Plus, with all of the
features of THE card being interpreted electronically, there are
questions about possible abuse of the power vested in the card and/or
security given by a 4 digit PIN.
<9205121714.AA18456@systems.cc.fsu.edu>
Note 4 points out some of the differences in dealing with email and
IRC and/or BITNET RELAY.
4. RELAY is teleconferencing system - similar to email only in the
aspect of being a method of network communication. Due to the 'web'
of servers, etc. it is possible for a single user to inconvenience
RELAY users all over the world. While one user can be internationally
obnoxious, it is not as easy to restrict these users from doing so -
using the policies currently in place. It would seem that if any
control is deemed necessary for these types of teleconferencing
systems, we're going to need to develop a new set of procedures to
deal with them.
<1992May12.151828.21744@ms.uky.edu>
Notes 5 and 6 compare print publishing & censorship with Usenet News.
5. Usenet news can be likened unto publications with the networks
acting as a press. Given this analogy, the local administration takes
the place of the publishing house and it's editors - able to select
the materials that they will "publish" on their systems. This is not
censorship, this is reality.
<920512#119#131650_nmehl@rm105serve.sas.upenn.edu>
6. The publishing house analogy is not sufficient - the volume of
information that passes through is overwhelming. A closer similarity
is to the telephone company - they aren't responsible for what
subscribers say over their lines. [Editor's note: The analogy is
good, but this one lacks the permanent quality of the publishing house
(and the nets) ... now if the phone companies were to be logging each
and every message that passes through ... whoa! there's a paranoid
thought.]
<1992May14.062344.14289@ddsw1.mcs.com>
Note 7 recaps notes from a SPA (Software Publishers Association) talk to UPenn
sysadmins.
7. A few points from a recent talk to UPenn sysadmins by the SPA: When
the SPA visits your site, they can seize hardware through a court
order. Generally, they do not do so - instead performing an on-site
audit of software. The SPA has never actually gone to court - usually
settling with offending institutions out of court. They have a
self-audit kit available to you and your organization. They do not
try to enforce licensing of non-member companies, but they also do not
publicize which companies are members.
<77815@netnews.upenn.edu>
Notes 8-11 make distinctions between Usenet "peer pressure" and
administrative actions/sanctions.
8. Deliberate abuse of networks - email, news, etc. - is a valid
reason for turning an account off. But, the problem then lies in
determining intent. Since the only pieces of information are the
newsgroup(s) the message was sent to and the content of the message -
virtually any administrative action can be construed as an act of
censorship.
<1992May12.181507.7296@ultra.com>
9. 'Peer pressure' is the Usenet community telling the jerk that he is
a jerk. 'Administrative sanction' is the sysadmins telling/forcing
the user to become normal - often by removing his 'voice.'
Administrative sanctions should be based on policies previously set
forth for the user community. Usenet's 'peer pressure' becomes
necessary when it is realized how few administrative sanctions there
actually are and that even these are based on the individual
institution's policies - there is no network-wide police force.
10. I wouldn't remove the (ab)user's account. It might be considered
more appropriate to enforce disk/mail quotas so that the user is
forced to deal with the hate mail before accessing news.
<1992May14.081130.17848@yang.earlham.edu>
11. Most people would change their posting habits after enough hate
mail. Unfortunately, they often send copies to the sysadmins ("Look
at what your users are doing") and with a large user community this
type of action can cause the sysadmin to be forced to deal with the
user. In some cases, the decision to remove the account may be based
entirely on keeping the system from running out of disk storage space.
Peer pressure isn't as easy as it used to be.
<9205151636.08@rmkhome.UUCP>
Note 12 details an educational kit for ethics in computing.
12. Southern Connecticut State University and Educational Media
Resources, Inc. have prepared a kit (containing three videotapes and two
monographs) for teachers to show social and ethical implications of computing
in their classes. The kit can aid computer science departments in fulfilling
accreditation requirements. Additional details can be retrieved by contacting
the Research Center on Computing and Society at SCSU.
<199205132109.AA01445@eff.org>
- Andrew]
--- end abstract ---
CAF-News is a weekly digest of notes from CAF-talk.
CAF-News is available as newsgroup alt.comp.acad-freedom.news or via
email. If you read newsgroups but your site doesn't get
alt.comp.acad-freedom.news, (politely) ask your sys admin to
subscribe. For info on email delivery, send email to
archive-server@eff.org. Include the line
send acad-freedom caf
Back issues of CAF-News are available via anonymous ftp or via email.
Ftp to ftp.eff.org. The directory is pub/academic/news. For
information about email access to the archive, send an email note to
archive-server@eff.org. Include the lines:
send acad-freedom README
help
index
Disclaimer: This CAF-News abstract was compiled by a guest editor or a
regular editor (Paul Joslin, Elizabeth M. Reid, Adam C. Gross, Mark C.
Sheehan or Carl M. Kadie). It is not an EFF publication. The views an
editor expresses and editorial decisions he or she makes are his or
her own.
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Jul 13 13:21:19 1992
From: craig@fred.gi.alaska.edu (Craig Helmuth)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: Harrassment of Women on Internet a Real Problem
Message-ID: <1992Jul13.165644.21909@raven.alaska.edu>
Date: 13 Jul 92 16:56:44 GMT
In article schneide@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Karen
Schneider) writes:
>I concur with Ms. Leonard; the computer-mediated environment is proving no
more
>enlightened than its analog counterpart. As a newcomer to Usenet, here are my
>observations:
>
>1. the majority of posters are men
>2. the majority of posters on subjects pertaining to women's issues are men
>
>The latter observation concerns me the most. I have already lost interest in
>one area that persists in posting highly offensive messages comparing women to
>Nazis. It's obvious that the rule-makers are going by the same old rules.
>
Karen,
It sounds to me like a moderated newsgroup would be a way of getting what
your looking for - have you looked into that? This will not prevent men
from posting, but the postings will at least be consistent with some
charter that the moderator can follow (and screen out the rabid chatter
of men who feel so threatened they have to send highly offensive messages).
I hope it is not the case that "the rule-makers are going by the same old
rules" - the technology ought to be more gender-blind than that...
Craig Helmuth, Network Manager | craig@fred.gi.alaska.edu
Geophysical Institute | fncah@alaska.bitnet
University of Alaska Fairbanks | "Its all FANTASY...until its HISTORY"
ObDis: My employer fully sanctions & endorses what I say (with $$$)...NOT!
From caf-talk Caf Jul 13 16:19:50 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.censorship, et al.] Re: Surprise. Economic arguement vis net porn cost
Message-ID: <9207132018.AA07459@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 1992 10:18:14 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Jul 13 16:19:50 1992
From: grimlok@hubcap.clemson.edu (Mike Percy)
Subject: Re: Surprise. Economic arguement vis net porn cost
Message-ID: <1992Jul13.133949.8564@hubcap.clemson.edu>
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 1992 13:39:49 GMT
[oops, lost original author in an editor accident]
> Of course the contents of USENET are going shock people who are unfamiliar
>with it, because it is legalized pornography that is readily made available
>to the underage, via school-funded and government funded and whoever else
>funded media. In various ways, taxes are being used to fund those wonderful
>pictures that so many sweaty palmed individuals sift over. Yes, I exercise
>my right to not subscribe to these groups. However, can we justify diverting
>money (as little as it may be) towards these causes? there lies the question.
It occurs to me that these sorts of arguements are useless. With most
usenet functions automated (right?) it becomes far more costly to pay
someone to weed out these "offensive" articles. It almost becomes an
all-or-nothing situation -- keep usenet or drop it (or keep a group or
drop it entirely).
Most sane people would agree that alt.sex does contain much useful
information that is not pornography. To drop alt.sex would be a
disservice to many. If one want to keep the good stuff in alt.sex, and
weed out the offensive stuff, someone's gonna have to read everything
and expire said articles -- this person doesn't work for free. Also,
this person is now a censor. Culling alt.sex still won't keep idiots
from crossposting to unrelated groups like sci.physics or
misc.jobs.offered, so all these other groups must be read and censored
as well. Cheaper to just drop the whole thing isn't it?
Sorry, but cost arguements don't float. They just try to distract the
issue from censorship. The US government spends hundreds of millions of
dollars each year to fight child pornography and other obscenity laws.
They get very few convictions, and many of them are dismissed as
entrapment. I hardly think it's worth it, considiring that the US
government is the countries biggest producer of child porn (for its
sting operations!).
Mike Percy | grimlok@hubcap.clemson.edu | I don't know about
Sr. Systems Analyst | mspercy@clemson.clemson.edu | your brain, but mine
Info. Sys. Development | mspercy@clemson.BITNET | is really...bossy.
Clemson University | (803) 656-3780 | (Laurie Anderson)
From caf-talk Caf Jul 13 16:20:32 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: weisstr%lavc3.dnet@smithkline.com (Terry Weiss)
Subject: RE: Harrasment of women on Internet
Message-ID: <9207131946.AA07916@smithkline.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 1992 11:46:42 GMT
>I concur with Ms. Leonard; the computer-mediated environment is proving no more
>enlightened than its analog counterpart. As a newcomer to Usenet, here are my
>....
I suggest you look at Carl Kadie's excellent response to Ms. Leonard. The point that seems to be missing here is that the only
people that can empower women are women. To point to the amount of men posting, or any other such statistic is a crutch. The point
is the *lack* of women. Reading your note, it would seem that the only answer is to limit the amount of men of the net, and that is
obviously not an answer. You can't educate someone by regulating them. And no-one will be sympathetic to a point of view they are
not aware of.
Keep in mind that there is probably no safer route of protest than the net: there is no danger of physical violence. The worst that
could happen is that you get flamed and if you've struck a note that deep, you made your point. So if you feel strongly about it;
organize and make your point; that is the key to empowerment, for no-one will make it for you.
Terry
----------------------------------------------------------------
Terry Weiss
weisstr%lavc3.dnet@smithkline.com
terry@ws15.cis.temple.edu
From caf-talk Caf Jul 13 16:20:36 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.censorship, et al.] Re: Surprise. You've made the evening news again.
Message-ID: <9207132018.AA07484@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 1992 10:18:54 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Jul 13 16:20:36 1992
From: pentangl@spdcc.com (Scott Moir)
Subject: Re: Surprise. You've made the evening news again.
Message-ID: <1992Jul13.142103.15845@spdcc.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 1992 14:21:03 GMT
In article franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve "edified" Franklin) writes:
>..........but the argument should be
>more aptly put as "is it a waste of money". There lies the question. Sure,
>I can unsubscribe from any crappy newsgroup I feel like, but can we
>merit the financial funding of illegal material that obviously offends
>and oversteps various legal bounds in one or more countries which we
>know USENET extends into?
Using this formula, the limits of what can be posted to USENET would be
the limits imposed by the strictest country who participates in the net.
That kind of lowest common denominator thinking won't work very well. If
it REALLY breaks the laws in a given country, it should be up to the
powers that be in that country to stop the flow to its citizens. Telling
the rest of the world 'please don't talk about it' infringes on -our-
rights to do so.
> At my university, as tuition is increasing (but still nothing like the
>American Colleges) there were students pushing for increased disk space on
>our machines, when some would be used for work perhaps, but much would
>be in archiving materials that were obtained via USENET for entertainment
>purposes.
If you can justify a need for more disk space, then the school should see
about filling that need. However, I see no reason for a school to be forced
to provide space for non-educational purposes unless it has a surplus and
-wants- to do it. That is more a policy of the school than anything to do
with USENET. I have a 1 Meg limit for storage of personal stuff.. I get
along just fine.
Scott
--
Scott Moir / Pentangle / Satyr ______ # "There's really only one requirement
pentangl@Ursa-Major.spdcc.com \ \/ / # for a Prophet, and you've got it."
B4 f t+ w g k+(+) s+ m r p+ \/\/ # "What's that?"
These are my opinions, not SPDCC's # "A mouth." - 'God' to J.R.'BoB' Dobbs
From caf-talk Caf Jul 13 16:20:57 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.censorship, et al.] Re: Surprise. You've made the evening news again.
Message-ID: <9207132019.AA07501@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 1992 10:19:23 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Jul 13 16:20:57 1992
From: dbshapco@undergrad.math.waterloo.edu (Brad Shapcott)
Subject: Re: Surprise. You've made the evening news again.
Message-ID:
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 1992 14:41:21 GMT
In article franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve "edified" Franklin) writes:
> The media is a
>business like anything else, and they will give the audience what it wants,
>rather than what it deserves.
Well, actually, people are getting exactly what they deserve. When one sits
around like a big couch potato (or is that potatoe?) waiting for every element
of one's life to be spoon fed into one, then this sort of slop is deserved
most richly. Most news services seem to be slithering down to the level
of National Enquirer these days.
As for pornography, Steve, people really do (most) of these things that they
talk about, and they at least think them (ipso facto, if they post these
thoughts). Under the Charter this expression is protected, and has as much
right to access to the medium as discussions of neutrino emmision or
neural networks, although I would agree at times the content of any newgroup
on a per article basis has little merit. Sturgeon's Law, I guess. But not
illegal.
[Our American cousins may substitute Constitution for Charter to Americanize
the above article.]
And please, before any large emotional demonstrations, march off to the
library's government publications section and read up on the Charter. It
is one of the most significant documents in Canadian history, and yet most
Canadians seem to revel in ignorance of it.
Brad
From caf-talk Caf Jul 13 16:21:10 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.censorship, et al.] Re: Surprise. You've made the evening news again.
Message-ID: <9207132019.AA07514@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 1992 10:19:35 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Jul 13 16:21:10 1992
From: dbshapco@undergrad.math.waterloo.edu (Brad Shapcott)
Subject: Re: Surprise. You've made the evening news again.
Message-ID:
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 1992 14:56:36 GMT
In article <1992Jul12.192032.13771@husc3.harvard.edu> silvers3@husc8.harvard.edu (Jolyon Silversmith) writes:
>
>> to the underage, via school-funded and government funded and whoever else
>> funded media.
>
>I'm not going to say that underage individuals have never obtained pornographic
>materials through the net, but could you offer some evidence that it occurs
>with any sort of regularity? Most BBSes I've ever seen verify ages, and most
>college students, government employees, and private employees are adults.
And most underage people are exposed to violence, sex and the like in massive
doses anyways. What makes the net so evil? That suddenly its not a book or
magazine or television show or movie, but real people doing real things, and
then (gasp!!) talking about it? Would you rather get a view of all this
filtered through big businesses' 'lowest common denominator' sieve?
Who are Penthouse Letters written for? Cetainly no person with an ounce of
sense, intelligence, wit, compassion or grasp of reality. They seemed aimed
at horny teenagers who have never had sex and don't realize how ridiculous
these letters are. On the other hand some real people have been candid and
sincere, and written about real experiences here on the net. Sure, we get the
juvenile slop too, but at least not consistently.
Same goes for porno films. Don't watch them. They're silly. Most erotic
film I've seen in recent history is 'The Unbearable Lightness of Being'.
It was real, it was touching, and it was sincere.
I think this is a problem with the real world hitting up against Steve's
ideals. Your 'pornography', Steve, is someone else's life. Deal with it.
[Exuse riding on the tail of Jolyon article, but that's when these thoughts
occured to me.]
Brad
From caf-talk Caf Jul 13 21:23:40 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.censorship,soc.college
From: sss@netcom.com (Small Systems Solutions)
Subject: Re: Abstract of CAF-News 02.24
Message-ID: <8__m8j_.sss@netcom.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 92 00:31:06 GMT
In article <1992Jul13.170500.1711@eff.org>
kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>[This week's guest editor is A. Andrew Brennan,
>brennan@hal.hahnemann.edu - Carl]
>
>1. In reply to a previous assertion that "Iowa State and U. of
>Nebraska are using the possibilities of NSF intervention as reason to
>censor newsgroups. Neither institutions are citing any other
>university, state, or federal regulations for their actions." ISU
>admins have cited Chapter 728, [Iowa's Obscenity Law] though it
>exempts libraries and educational institutions. [Editor's note: Iowa
>Chapter 728 was included in a following note.]
> <1992May11.132630.23905@news.iastate.edu>
>
I have had discussions with Dr. Stephen Wolff, director of The Division
of Networking Communications Research and Infrastructure (DNCRI) at NSF,
regarding the subject of NSF intervention. It turns out that at no time
has any site lost access to the net as a result of alleged violation of the
Acceptable Use Policy, or for any other reason. When complaints arise,
he is the authority that contacts the technical or administrative person
mentioned in the DNS.
Regarding the subject of allegedly obscene materials, he said that there
are indeed acceptable uses (a college class on art and pornography, etc.)
but that such materials should not generally travel NSFNet. He is willing
to provide any site with a hacked version of 'ftp' that does a trace-route
and will find alternate routing for "questionable" materials.
He is reachable at
+1 202 357 9717
steve@nsf.gov
--
Small Systems Solutions 1563 Solano Avenue, Suite 123
sss@netcom.com Berkeley, CA 94707-2116
The above-expressed opinions aren't necessarily
From caf-talk Caf Jul 14 10:11:40 1992
From: evansmp@uhura.aston.ac.uk (Mark Evans)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: harrassment of women on the Internet
Message-ID: <1992Jul14.090604.24612@aston.ac.uk>
Date: 14 Jul 92 09:06:04 GMT
leonard@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Patt Leonard) writes:
: To Carl Kadie (kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu):
:
: For example, I can imagine a man posting a note to a local
: Usenet group, saying, "I need a ride to the Grateful Dead concert
: in Michigan. Does anybody want to carpool?" I don't think that
: this man would be too troubled about who might see this message, or
You are stero-typing.
Would someone fearing the motives of a respondee to the advert have
posted anyway, how could you possibly tell how many people
might be in that situation? (If they be man or woman)
: what their motives might be. However, I _know_ that women are
: fearful of posting messages like "I need a ride to the Michigan
: Womyn's Music Festival." What kind of psychopath is going to
: see that message, look up the poster's name in the phonebook,
: and.... -- we've all seen the slasher movies, and read the real-life
: accounts of slasher incidents, so we can imagine the worst
: possible scenario.
Odd reading the newspaper I find accounts of men being murdered in all sorts
of ways. (the same on TV, books and movies)
:
: I'm not saying we have to delete the alt.sex groups from
Do you read these newsgroups? Or do you just object to the name?
: the Usenet, but I would like to make men aware of how I feel when
: I am attending a lecture by a visiting computer scientist, and
: he throws in a gratuitous references alt.sex.pictures, and the
This is his problem, the individual.
: men in the room chuckle. I think of the vulgar, hateful
: pictures of women in the worst pornography, I think of the
: fact that I can`t walk outside after dark without being
: afraid of rapists, and I feel profoundly alienated from the
There are many people afraid of walking alone at night, for fear
of attack, these are both men and women.
Some of them just fear, some of them have been attacked, because
of their fears they may remain inside, so are un-noticed by anyone.
: men in that room, because they are so insensitive and unaware
: of what their chortles say to me.
This is your fears, and thus your problem, not theirs, not mine, or
anyone of the other 5Bn people of this world.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Evans |evansmp@uhura.aston.ac.uk
+(44) 21 565 1979 (Home) |evansmp@cs.aston.ac.uk
+(44) 21 359 6531 x4039 (Office) |
From caf-talk Caf Jul 14 10:18:07 1992
From: evansmp@uhura.aston.ac.uk (Mark Evans)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: Harrassment of Women on Internet a Real Problem
Message-ID: <1992Jul14.092700.24697@aston.ac.uk>
Date: 14 Jul 92 09:27:00 GMT
schneide@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Karen Schneider) writes:
: I concur with Ms. Leonard; the computer-mediated environment is proving no more
: enlightened than its analog counterpart. As a newcomer to Usenet, here are my
: observations:
:
: 1. the majority of posters are men
Maybe either
a) More men are using net-news
b) The news groups which you read have more men than women.
: 2. the majority of posters on subjects pertaining to women's issues are men
Define what exactly are 'women's issues'
It has been my observation that political groups with an axe to grind
grab hold of any issue which may concern any of their members..
Note the following
anyone can be raped, whatever their age, gender, apperance.
anyone can be attacked, whatever their age, gender, appearance.
anyone can be murdered, whatever their age, gender or appearance.
There are people of all ages, genders, whatever who are frightned to
go out (at night or whenever) because they feel if they do they
will become the victim of some sort of attack.
: The latter observation concerns me the most. I have already lost interest in
: one area that persists in posting highly offensive messages comparing women to
: Nazis. It's obvious that the rule-makers are going by the same old rules.
Most newsreaders have the ability to junk articles automatically on
either subject or author, these were intended for dealing with jerks, I
think you should learn to use them.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Evans |evansmp@uhura.aston.ac.uk
+(44) 21 565 1979 (Home) |evansmp@cs.aston.ac.uk
+(44) 21 359 6531 x4039 (Office) |
From caf-talk Caf Jul 14 15:51:17 1992
From: dave@bradley.bradley.edu (David Vessell)
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: <1992Jul14.184918.24829@bradley.bradley.edu>
Date: 14 Jul 92 18:49:18 GMT
hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phillip M. Hallam-Baker) writes:
>|> 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.
Have you ever noticed that people who would fight to the death for the
First Amendment couldn't care less about the Second Amendment, and vice
versa?
>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.
Sorry, I don't buy that, because lots of people can make arguments just as
good as yours that the First Amendment gets in the way as much as the
Second. The fact that they were slave owners or free marketeers or
lefthanded masturbators does not change the fact that the Constitution and
Bill of Rights IS as void of special interests and power plays as has ever
been possible in the history of mankind and could never be written today.
>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.
Of course, it just likely could have been that the master would have done
nothing if the slave said no. There *were* slave owners who were decent
people, after all. Your assumptions only underscore your own deepseated
preconceptions.
>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.
If there was a conscious attempt to lock the country into their little
capitalist club it was probably because they perceived a free market
economy as the fairest and most equitable system of trade between
individuals. They lived almost a century before socialism or communism
were considered viable economic systems.
And just because a president has the popular appeal to ignore the
Constitution doesn't mean he's right, nor does it indicate that the
Constitution should be changed.
If there are reasons to change the Constitution I would hope that those
changes would be towards increased individual freedoms or increased
restriction of government power.
>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.
Oh come on. Have you ever heard of federal laws? Prohibition was
gargantuanly stupid, but it's hardly a representative sample of federal
legislation. The fact is that there are some changes to government that
*should* be difficult to do. Any protections fundamental to our basic
freedoms shouldn't be able to be thrown away at the whim of a legislature.
>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.
First of all, none of the topics you rattled off are in the Constitution,
only related in that Constitutional interpretations have affected them.
That's the way it should be. The Constitution is the only means we have to
measure the validity of the laws we pass. Otherwise what's the point of
having a Constitution at all?
--
=========*davE*.....making the world safe for intelligent dance music.=========
Andre Marrou -- Libertarian for President 1992
--(David Vessell)--(Bradley University Computing Services)-(dave@bradley.edu)--
From caf-talk Caf Jul 14 17:40:52 1992
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,misc.legal,alt.activism.d,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.correct,alt.discrimination
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: The Glorious Constitution (was: [UPI] Supreme Court strikes down...)
Message-ID: <1992Jul14.213202.2485@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 1992 21:32:02 GMT
In article <1992Jul14.184918.24829@bradley.bradley.edu> dave@bradley.bradley.edu (David Vessell) writes:
>Have you ever noticed that people who would fight to the death for the
>First Amendment couldn't care less about the Second Amendment, and vice
>versa?
No, I haven't. I've noticed that there are some first amendment
zealots who really want the 2nd to go away, but I don't see many
pro-2nd amendment folk who think that the 1st should go away. (They
do whine that their message doesn't get out and that people protected
by the 1st oppose them, but that's different.)
>>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.
Fine. There's an amendment process. There's even a bill in the house
to repeal the 2nd. Until you succeed in getting your program through
the legislative process ....
-andy
--
UUCP: {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA: andy@cs.stanford.edu
From caf-talk Caf Jul 14 21:46:05 1992
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,misc.legal,alt.activism.d,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.correct,alt.discrimination
From: sybok@athena.mit.edu (The Rifleman)
Subject: Re: The Glorious Constitution (was: [UPI] Supreme Court strikes down...)
Message-ID: <1992Jul15.013016.27348@athena.mit.edu>
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 1992 01:30:16 GMT
>Have you ever noticed that people who would fight to the death for the
>First Amendment couldn't care less about the Second Amendment, and vice
>versa?
I happen to care about BOTH of them, which is why I'm a libertarian.
>Sorry, I don't buy that, because lots of people can make arguments just as
>good as yours that the First Amendment gets in the way as much as the
>Second. The fact that they were slave owners or free marketeers or
>lefthanded masturbators does not change the fact that the Constitution and
>Bill of Rights IS as void of special interests and power plays as has ever
>been possible in the history of mankind and could never be written today.
Hear! Hear!
"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm
the people is the best and most efficient means to enslave them."
--George Mason
"God created man; Samuel Colt made him equal."
From caf-talk Caf Jul 15 02:12:14 1992
From: vid@zooid.guild.org (David Mason)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.censorship,alt.sex,
Subject: Re: Surprise. You've made the evening news again.
Message-ID: <711139830.25020@zooid.guild.org>
Date: 14 Jul 92 18:50:30 GMT
From: rstevew@deeptht.armory.com (Richard Steven Walz)
>I am ashamed to live next to you.
>- Richard Steven Walz
WE'RE not the ones who are making the property values go down.
From caf-talk Caf Jul 15 03:36:32 1992
From: brian@bkj386.uucp (Brian Jenkins)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.censorship,alt.sex,tor.general
Subject: Re: Surprise. You've made the evening news again.
Message-ID: <1992Jul14.231918.20382@bkj386.uucp>
Date: 14 Jul 92 23:19:18 GMT
In article <1992Jul13.073249.28035@deeptht.armory.com> rstevew@deeptht.armory.com (Richard Steven Walz) writes:
>Well, I think we did a damned good job of contributing to Panama's
>"debate" about freedom, and I think Manuel Noriega can now appreciate
>that. He learned a new song, "Welcome to the Jungle", and he now gets
>his choice of 40 years in prison or military stockade.
True. I think you should round up all those guys in the world that
you disagree with and stick them in concentration....oops...prisons
or military stockades (half a :)).
>In fact, I, like amnesty international and other such groups adhere to
>a rather strict interpretation of human rights. Any one who gets in
>the way of human rights, most especially the right to say ANYTHING
>should be taken out and shot. We finally have that here now.
As a Canadian I can relate to this. You have about ten times the
population and 800 times the number of firearm related deaths a
year. It is certainly good to see such a clear summary of the
philosophical and social stucture of the US.
> I cannot
>find a thing I can say which will get me arrested, unless I threaten
>someone's life or follow them around haranguing them. This is in
>contrast to you ridiculous excuse for a nation to the north.
You might try libel, treason, disturbing the peace and all those
other little things that can land you in the slammer. I think that
the only thing Canada has that the US doesn't is malicious libel
against an identifiable group. I gather that is what the guns are
for down there.
>You can
>still virtually be recommended for jail time by your local vicar, like
>we could in the fifties!
Like the vicar, I could recommend you for jail time too. Like the vicar,
it would mean nothing in Canada -- before or after the fifties.
>It strikes me that you in Canada are a bunch of scared twits, true
>ninnies in the essence of the word to put up with such crap from a
>supposed member in good standing of the "free" world.
>I am ashamed to live next to you.
Feel free to move. Panama is nice this time of year, I hear.
>- Richard Steven Walz
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
from the basement of brian@bkj386.uucp
Brian Jenkins
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From caf-talk Caf Jul 15 04:15:33 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: purple@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu
Subject: Re: [alt.sex.bondage] Re: Request for NNTP servers to combat censors
Message-ID:
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 1992 08:13:30 GMT
Tis a truly sad state that pries into the affairs of individuals at whim.
Hmmm. Next we will see universities everywhere opening mail sent to students
on campus. Packages and belongings will be searched. Computer accounts
should be completely private and not subject to the mores of a university.
I am not a fanatic crying at every infringement upon personal freedom.
If the university believes ASB should not be offered by their computers, fine.
However, a hunt through personal files is quite reproachable.
purple
Hug a TA.....If he does a good job! 8)
From caf-talk Caf Jul 15 17:36:29 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: fogel@jester.usask.ca (Earl Fogel)
Subject: User fees for Internet use
Message-ID: <9207152134.AA18513@jester.usask.ca>
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 1992 09:34:25 GMT
I thought the members of this group might be interested in the following
article, recently posted to CANADA-L.
Earl Fogel
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 11 Jul 1992 14:35:52 CHT
From: pmason@chasqui.mic.cl (Patricio Mason)
Subject: Internet charges
A while ago, several members of the list debated the issue of user fees for
access to computer networks such as the Internet. Most were rightly
adamant that charging for use would have an incalculably detrimental
effect. I thought you might like to know that here in Chile this scenario
has suddenly become reality.
Our Internet hookup is run by CONICYT, (National Council on Science and
Technology) a government body. Recently, all users of the Internet,
including universities, were notified that starting July 1st, there will be
a minimum monthly rate plus a charge per megabyte of international traffic,
with 18% sales tax on top. This is a reversal of an earlier decision
whereby only a flat rate was charged, regardless of traffic. Both the
minimum rate and the charge per megabyte are measured in units roughly
equivalent to CDN$31.00 each, i.e., 10 MB of traffic equals CDN$310.00,
plus the minimum rate, plus tax. To place things in perspective, the
minimum monthly wage in this country is 38,000 pesos, roughly CDN$134.00.
Although the CONICYT decision was sanctioned by Chile's Council of Rectors
(university and college presidents), the academic community and other users
such as NGOs, non-profit groups and private individuals are stunned and
outraged. Needless to say, most university presidents are not users and
simply chose from a set of options presented to them by administrators and
CONICYT functionaries.
This may very well mean that university professors will have to clear it
with department heads before replying to a colleague abroad. Since every
byte will cost universities a pretty penny, it may also mean that students
will be prevented from generating or accepting international traffic. Few
will be allowed to do FTP or Telnet. For outside e-mail users such as
private individuals and non-profit groups, the high cost will probably
entail reducing or eliminating use altogether.
Access to the Internet is slightly wider here. High rates mean that only
those who can afford them, i.e., government and corporate users, will have
the run of the system. Although one of the consequences of the worldwide
computer revolution has been to empower the individual as a counterbalance
to the unbridled power of governments and corporations, the CONICYT
decision in Chile means that those outside the circles of political or
financial power will be left out.
There is no Internet affiliate that I know of which charges on the basis of
traffic volume. Universities are reeling from the implications: just
figuring out who is to be billed for what, plus the processing and billing
aspects, will most certainly prove an administrative nightmare. A whole
new bureaucracy will have to be created at CONICYT and elsewhere to handle
this.
There is a write-in campaign on to try to get CONICYT to reverse this
decision and discard the notion of charging per amount of traffic. Along
with members of the academic community within Chile, the members of CHILE-L
--Chilean academics, students and others scattered throughout the world--
are leading this campaign.
As a member of CANADA-L and Internet user, I thought I'd tell you of this
and try to enlist your support. If this type of mentality is allowed to
prevail, it will certainly set a precedent. If you would like to help,
please write a respectful note to CONICYT, the National Council on Science
and Technology, stating your views on this issue. Notes should be sent to
Mr. Alberto Cabezas at
acabezas@uchdciux.seci.uchile.cl
CONICYT may also be reached at:
Canada 308
2o Piso
Providencia
Santiago, Chile
Tel.: (562) 274-4537, 204-7541, 204-7542, 204-7566
I'll be glad to provide further information to anyone interested.
Thanks in advance.
Patricio Mason
Santiago, Chile
pmason@chasqui.mic.cl
--
Earl Fogel
-------------------------------------------------------------------
fogel@sask.usask.ca Computing Services, Room 56 Physics
Phone: (306) 966-4861 University of Saskatchewan
Fax: (306) 966-4938 Saskatoon, Sask. CANADA, S7N 0W0
-------------------------------------------------------------------
From caf-talk Caf Jul 16 04:27:51 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: dbailey@cix.compulink.co.uk (Diane Bailey)
Subject: Re: The Glorious Constitution
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 1992 07:10:29 +0000
Message-ID:
dave@bradley.bradley.edu (David Vessell) writes:
>The fact that they were slave owners or free marketeers or
>lefthanded masturbators does not change the fact that the
>Constitution and Bill of Rights IS as void of special interests
>and power plays as has ever been possible in the history of
>mankind and could never be written today.
but then, unaware of the important contradiction, also writes
>If there was a conscious attempt to lock the country into their
>little capitalist club it was probably because they perceived a
>free market economy as the fairest and most equitable system of
>trade between individuals.
More importantly, he says, regarding the rape of slaves by their
owners:
>Of course, it just likely could have been that the master would
>have done nothing if the slave said no. There *were* slave
>owners who were decent people, after all.
I would maintain that to be both a slave owner and a decent
person is and always was impossible. To be willing to own
another human being is and always was a fatal flaw. To imply
that a decent slave owner was one who would take "no" for an
answer when he proposed sexual intercourse is to show a GROSS
misunderstanding of the concept of consent.
Furthermore, in these times of dangerous libertarians loose in
the political think tanks, and slavery still existing in several
countries, the phrases used here should be examined ruthlessly.
To say "There *were* slave owners who were decent people, after
all", is also, because morality is timeless and not relative, to
say that there *could be* slave owners who would be decent
people, or that there *are* slave owners who are decent people.
Since the laws against slavery are entirely based on the belief
that slavery is immoral, this is to pave the way for the
allowance of the continuation of slavery, or even the
reintroduction of slavery. These follow with remorseless logic.
To find an acceptance of slavery and incomprehension of consent
in the same person is, for me, deeply worrying. I sincerely hope
this man is never an employer.
Diane
dbailey@cix.compulink.co.uk
From caf-talk Caf Jul 16 04:56:05 1992
From: jkreznar@ininx.UUCP (John E. Kreznar)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,misc.legal,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.correct
Subject: Re: The Glorious Constitution (was: [UPI] Supreme Court strikes down...)
Message-ID: <266@ininx.UUCP>
Date: 16 Jul 92 08:00:56 GMT
In article <1992Jul9.203457.20743@dscomsf.desy.de>, hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phillip M. Hallam-Baker) writes:
> This is a nonsense, the powers avaliable to the
> government do not derive from pieces of paper but from consent.
^^^^^^^
> 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.
Why would legislation be needed if there is consent? Is it not the case that
the purpose of legislation, indeed of government, is for one group (e.g. a
voting majority) to impose upon those who do _not_ consent?
Relations among people to be by mutual consent, or not at all.
| Voting in government elections, or petitioning government, or willfully |
| accepting government ``benefits'' when it's feasibly avoidable (thereby |
| generating demand for taxation), accelerate the supplanting of personal |
| choice by collective dictate, making these most serious crimes against |
| humanity. ---John E. Kreznar, jkreznar@ininx.com, uunet!ininx!jkreznar |
It got so cold last winter, I saw a voter with his hand in his own pocket!
--
Relations among people to be by mutual consent, or not at all.
---John E. Kreznar, jkreznar@ininx.com, uunet!ininx!jkreznar
From caf-talk Caf Jul 16 04:56:07 1992
From: jkreznar@ininx.UUCP (John E. Kreznar)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,misc.legal,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.correct
Subject: Re: The Glorious Constitution (was: [UPI] Supreme Court strikes down...)
Message-ID: <268@ininx.UUCP>
Date: 16 Jul 92 08:34:13 GMT
In article <1992Jul12.161835.13387@dscomsf.desy.de>, hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phillip M. Hallam-Baker) writes:
> If you
> wish to prevent legislation that has consent you have no choice other
> than using fear.
What might be "legislation that has consent" if there is a person who wishes to
prevent it, thereby demonstrating that it does _not_ have consent? Are you
confusing consensus with tyranny of the majority?
Relations among people to be by mutual consent, or not at all.
| Voting in government elections, or petitioning government, or willfully |
| accepting government ``benefits'' when it's feasibly avoidable (thereby |
| generating demand for taxation), accelerate the supplanting of personal |
| choice by collective dictate, making these most serious crimes against |
| humanity. ---John E. Kreznar, jkreznar@ininx.com, uunet!ininx!jkreznar |
It got so cold last winter, I saw a voter with his hand in his own pocket!
--
Relations among people to be by mutual consent, or not at all.
---John E. Kreznar, jkreznar@ininx.com, uunet!ininx!jkreznar
From caf-talk Caf Jul 16 20:20:47 1992
From: jbw@bigbird.bu.edu (Joe Wells)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: putting lyrics to "Cop Killer" in .plan file
Message-ID:
Date: 17 Jul 92 00:58:14 GMT
[this is a repost with an important addition superseding my original post]
Hi folks,
I recently put the lyrics to "Cop Killer" by Ice-T in my .plan file so
that it shows up when someone else does "finger jbw@cs.bu.edu".
Two people have complained to my department's chair. (I presume they
demanded he "do something about this", but don't know for sure.) He asked
me informally to remove it. I told him I would not do so voluntarily. I
expect that he will "do something", but don't know what.
I am seeking arguments to use against a possible attempt to censor me.
These possibilities occurred to me; I don't know how useful they might be:
* The university is accredited somewhere. The accreditation might require
some degree of academic freedom.
* I might be able to successfully cite the positions of the AAUP (I think
that's the name).
* .plan files are a traditional (to the extent that anything related to a
new technology is traditional) place for personal expression, including
the display of song lyrics or poems.
Any arguments are welcome. Keep in mind that Boston University is a
private school and hence the bill of rights doesn't apply.
--
Thanks,
Joe Wells
Member of the League for Programming Freedom --- send e-mail for details
From caf-talk Caf Jul 17 09:51:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: nbc2134@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil (Robert F Solon)
Subject: Re: The Glorious Constitution (was: [UPI] Supreme Court strikes down..
Message-ID: <9207171347.AA08808@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil>
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 1992 05:47:26 GMT
In reply to the mail from ...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>> This is a nonsense, the powers avaliable to the
>> government do not derive from pieces of paper but from consent.
> ^^^^^^^
>
>Why would legislation be needed if there is consent? Is it not the case that
>the purpose of legislation, indeed of government, is for one group (e.g. a
>voting majority) to impose upon those who do _not_ consent?
Legislation does not always mean the imposition of the will of the majority.
It is the result of the _process_ by which decisions are arrived at - simply
the formal codification of those decisions. In some cases, the decisions are
not particularly consensual, i.e, a close vote in the Senate. However, even
when concensus exists, such as the decision to enter WWII or to enact an
extension of unemployment benefits, legislation is still required in order for
the decision to be effective. It's not so oppressive as it's made out to be
above.
Bob
Bob Solon, DITSO-CO-B
Administrative Information Branch -- APCAPS
"We Code, You Explode!!"
From caf-talk Caf Jul 17 18:56:21 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: jaw@is.rice.edu (Joseph A. Watters)
Subject: Re: putting lyrics to "Cop Killer" in .plan file
Message-ID: <1992Jul17.212641.18596@rice.edu>
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 1992 21:26:41 GMT
In article , jbw@bigbird.bu.edu (Joe Wells) writes:
|>
|> Hi folks,
|>
|> I recently put the lyrics to "Cop Killer" by Ice-T in my .plan file so
|> that it shows up when someone else does "finger jbw@cs.bu.edu".
Why did you do this? Do you agree with the sentiment expressed in the
lyrics, or are you just trying to provoke a "First
Amendment/censorship" argument at your University by deliberately
publicizing something that you know most people at the University would
find offensive and attempt to supress? If it is the former, expect
people to disagree (vehemently) with your opinion, and they may use the
arguments that I outline below. By the way, I did finger your account
to see exactly what you had put in your plan.
|>
|> Two people have complained to my department's chair. (I presume they
|> demanded he "do something about this", but don't know for sure.) He asked
|> me informally to remove it. I told him I would not do so voluntarily. I
|> expect that he will "do something", but don't know what.
|>
|> I am seeking arguments to use against a possible attempt to censor me.
Here's where you need to be careful. There is an important distinction
to be made in your case. You do have the right to personal expression
as delineated in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. You
*do not* have the right to demand that someone else supply you a venue
for that expression. Your .plan file resides on University owned
equipment. The computer, disk, and network are not yours. The
University certainly has the right to determine what does and does not
reside *on their computer*. If someone who represents the University
tells you to remove the file, they are not denying you your right to
free expression, they are telling you that they will not provide, at
University cost, a venue for expression that they disagree with. That
is perfectly within their property rights.
|> These possibilities occurred to me; I don't know how useful they might be:
|>
|> * The university is accredited somewhere. The accreditation might require
|> some degree of academic freedom.
Academic freedom and freedom of personal expression are not the same
thing. This is particularly true when the personal expression is not
related to academic pursuit. Academic freedom is the freedom to
pursue any line of inquiry or study, not the freedom to say whatever
the hell you want, no matter how offensive. I recognize that many
University faculty have a much broader interpretation of academic
freedom.
|> * I might be able to successfully cite the positions of the AAUP (I think
|> that's the name).
|> * .plan files are a traditional (to the extent that anything related to a
|> new technology is traditional) place for personal expression, including
|> the display of song lyrics or poems.
|>
Yes, it is a traditional venue for personal expression, but as I said,
its someone else's dollar that makes the venue, so they have a
legitimate right to determine what expression takes place on that
venue.
|> Any arguments are welcome. Keep in mind that Boston University is a
|> private school and hence the bill of rights doesn't apply.
|>
I am at a private University also, and I thought the same thing. The
folks at EFF will be happy to supply you with all sorts of case law
that demonstrates that a lot more of the legal tenets of the U.S.
apply to BU than you might think.
|> Joe Wells
|>
|> Member of the League for Programming Freedom --- send e-mail for details
--
Joseph A. Watters, Jr. jaw@owlnet.rice.edu
Deputy Director, Owlnet
Rice University
Houston, Texas
From caf-talk Caf Jul 17 18:56:25 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.censorship,alt.sex,tor.general
From: marc@meadow.uucp (Marc Riehm)
Subject: Re: Surprise. You've made the evening news again.
Message-ID: <1992Jul17.152119.14526@meadow.uucp>
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 92 15:21:19 GMT
In article <1992Jul13.073249.28035@deeptht.armory.com> rstevew@deeptht.armory.com (Richard Steven Walz) writes:
^^^^^^^
deeptht == deep thought? :)
[ lunatic ranting deleted]
>In fact, I, like amnesty international and other such groups adhere to
>a rather strict interpretation of human rights. Any one who gets in
>the way of human rights, most especially the right to say ANYTHING
>should be taken out and shot. We finally have that here now. I cannot
>find a thing I can say which will get me arrested, unless I threaten
>someone's life or follow them around haranguing them. This is in
>contrast to you ridiculous excuse for a nation to the north. You can
>still virtually be recommended for jail time by your local vicar, like
>we could in the fifties! Religion based countries are vicious
>countries, and you will learn that by and by.
Recently at my company we had a "personal growth" seminar, conducted by
someone from head office (in California). As part of the exercise, we had to
rank our personal values from a set of 28. As it turned out, in our group
10 out of 15 people ranked religion in the bottom 3 of their set of values.
The American who conducted the course remarked on this, and said that it was
typical of the Canadian groups he had given the course to. By contrast,
the Americans who he gave the course to were far more religious.
Casual observation leads me to believe that Canadians are less religious than
Americans, and have more separation between Church and State. We tend to
be less demonstrative in our religion -- far less fundamentalism. How many
times do you hear Canadian politicians mention god? And how many times do you
hear their American counterparts mention god?
[ raving deleted ]
>It strikes me that you in Canada are a bunch of scared twits, true
>ninnies in the essence of the word to put up with such crap from a
>supposed member in good standing of the "free" world.
Well, that was a well-informed opinion.
--
Marc Riehm Amdahl Canada Ltd., Software Development Center
2000 Argentia Road, Plaza 2, Suite 300
Mississauga, Ont. L5N 1V8
marc@meadow.UUCP
From caf-talk Caf Jul 17 19:23:01 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: toddh@stedwards.edu (Todd C. Hart)
Subject: questions for thesis
Message-ID: <199207172321.AA19854@eff.org>
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 1992 23:20:26 GMT
Hello,
I am a student at St. Edward's University in Austin, TX. I am currently
writing my thesis "Should Employers have the Right to Monitor Employees'
Electronic Messages?" I need to conduct several field interviews
and I would appreciate it if you could answer the four questions below.
I understand that you may not have time to answer these questions, but
any assistance you can offer is greatly appreciated. If possible,
please also include your name and title.
Thank you for your time and please reply to me directly,
--Todd C. Hart
1. What is you position regarding employer monitoring of electronic messages &
why?
2. Answer either A or B or if you can, feel free to respond to both.
A) If you would support monitoring, how do you respond to those who say that
not only is it a violation of an individual's right to privacy, but that
it creates an unnecessary atmosphere of distrust in the workplace?
B) If you are against monitoring, how do you respond to those who say that the
company owns the equipment and because of this property right, employees
cannot have the expectation of privacy?
3. After doing the bulk of my research, I have a tentative conclusion that
allows monitoring if such monitoring only searches for key words and
improper e-mail addresses--not as reading each message that goes
through the system. And when an impropriety is found, then confront the
employee and request to see the message. This, I feel, provides a balance
between a company's property and information and the employees' right to
privacy. What is your view of my conclusion?
4. If companies do monitor messages, do you feel that they should openly post
their policy regarding message monitoring?
--
_______________________________________________________________________________
| hart@acad.stedwards.edu toddh@acad.stedwards.edu toddh5@aol.com |
| "I'm just a student...Your world of bits & bytes frightens and confuses me" |
| --Unfrozen Student Computer Lab Assistant |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
_______________________________________________________________________________
| hart@acad.stedwards.edu toddh@acad.stedwards.edu toddh5@aol.com |
| "I'm just a student...Your world of bits & bytes frightens and confuses me" |
| --Unfrozen Student Computer Lab Assistant |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From caf-talk Caf Jul 17 23:36:03 1992
From: jbw@bigbird.bu.edu (Joe Wells)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: putting lyrics to "Cop Killer" in .plan file
Message-ID:
Date: 18 Jul 92 04:15:47 GMT
In article <1992Jul17.212641.18596@rice.edu> jaw@is.rice.edu (Joseph A. Watters) writes:
Why did you do this?
Irrelevant.
Do you agree with the sentiment expressed in the
lyrics, or are you just trying to provoke a "First
Amendment/censorship" argument at your University by deliberately
publicizing something that you know most people at the University would
find offensive and attempt to supress?
With the "sentiment"? Yes. With the specific message? No. When I first
quoted the lyrics in my .plan it did not occur to me that anyone would
complain.
You do have the right to personal expression as delineated in the First
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. You *do not* have the right to
demand that someone else supply you a venue for that expression. Your
.plan file resides on University owned equipment. The computer, disk,
and network are not yours. The University certainly has the right to
determine what does and does not reside *on their computer*.
First, congratulations, you seem to understand perfectly why I came here
asking for help! Second, I think you are talking about legal rights,
while I am seeking arguments that might invoke moral rights or some other
form of pressure on the university. Third, keep in mind that I am a
tuition and fee paying student. Fourth, under Massachusetts law, it turns
out that I may actually have the right.
If someone who represents the University tells you to remove the file,
they are not denying you your right to free expression, they are
telling you that they will not provide, at University cost, a venue for
expression that they disagree with. That is perfectly within their
property rights.
B.U. derives most if not all of its operating income from tuition; I pay
tuition. Thus, the "at university cost" argument isn't very strong; I'm
not really worried about it. Also, fortunately, you are probably
incorrect about censorship being within their property rights. Several
people have informed me already of a wonderful Massachusetts law that may
prevent B.U. from preventing free expression. In fact, this law has been
used against B.U. before in Abromowitz vs. B.U.
Academic freedom and freedom of personal expression are not the same
thing. This is particularly true when the personal expression is not
related to academic pursuit. Academic freedom is the freedom to
pursue any line of inquiry or study, not the freedom to say whatever
the hell you want, no matter how offensive.
I believe academic freedom requires freedom of personal expression because
otherwise someone else gets to decide that my "academic expression" is
really just "personal expression". That would seriously harm academic
freedom.
Yes, it is a traditional venue for personal expression, but as I said,
its someone else's dollar that makes the venue ...
It's my dollar!
The folks at EFF will be happy to supply you with all sorts of case law
that demonstrates that a lot more of the legal tenets of the U.S.
apply to BU than you might think.
Indeed, we are most fortunate.
--
Thanks,
Joe Wells
Member of the League for Programming Freedom --- send e-mail for details
From caf-talk Caf Jul 18 16:34:46 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: <1992Jul18.192509.25061@dscomsf.desy.de>
Date: Sat, 18 Jul 1992 19:25:09 GMT
In article <1992Jul14.184918.24829@bradley.bradley.edu>,
dave@bradley.bradley.edu (David Vessell) writes:
|>hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phillip M. Hallam-Baker) writes:
|>>Most of the people trying to make them out to be far sighted geniuses are
|>>generaly trying to create a providence for the second ammendment as if
|>>it were one of the original ten commandments.
|>
|>Have you ever noticed that people who would fight to the death for the
|>First Amendment couldn't care less about the Second Amendment, and vice
|>versa?
Yes but the standard text for defending freedom of speech is On Liberty
by John Stuart Mills, not the US constitution. There is no need to
glorify Mills either because much of his argument is merely sumarising
and repeating the opinions of his predecessors. Mills mereley draws all
the threads together in one place. You can prove Mills to be the
blackest liar on the planet and the argument still holds.
There is no point in persuing an argument such as `my countries
constitution is better than yours'. However you don't seem to be curious
as to why someone would be so keen to make such a proof.
|>The fact that they were slave owners or free marketeers or
|>lefthanded masturbators does not change the fact that the Constitution and
|>Bill of Rights IS as void of special interests and power plays as has ever
|>been possible in the history of mankind and could never be written today.
A much more lauditory document was signed by almost every government in
the world less than 50 years ago. The Universal Declaration of Human
rights. As with the US constitution the signatories didn't think that
they would ever be bound by it. Of course the signatories themselves are
always long dead before this happens so in that sense they are right.
Howevere there will eventualy come a time when the UN declaration is
considered in the same light as the US Constitutional Bill of Rights.
|>>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.
|>
|>Of course, it just likely could have been that the master would have done
|>nothing if the slave said no. There *were* slave owners who were decent
|>people, after all. Your assumptions only underscore your own deepseated
|>preconceptions.
I have a preconception that slavery is a crime against humanity. It is
rather deep seated, go on call me a bigot!
Problem is that a slave may have to say yes when they want to say no. It
is not uncommon for a rapist to force his victim to ask for sex, that
does not stop it from being rape.
|>>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.
|>If there was a conscious attempt to lock the country into their little
|>capitalist club it was probably because they perceived a free market
|>economy as the fairest and most equitable system of trade between
|>individuals.
Or because they and their band were a bunch of aristocrats with access
to capital and therefore had most to gain from that system?
Phill Hallam-Baker
From caf-talk Caf Jul 19 01:59:53 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: Sun, 19 Jul 1992 05:25:35 GMT
hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phillip M. Hallam-Baker) writes:
>In article <1992Jul14.184918.24829@bradley.bradley.edu>,
>dave@bradley.bradley.edu (David Vessell) writes:
>|>Of course, it just likely could have been that the master would have done
>|>nothing if the slave said no. There *were* slave owners who were decent
>|>people, after all. Your assumptions only underscore your own deepseated
>|>preconceptions.
>I have a preconception that slavery is a crime against humanity. It is
>rather deep seated, go on call me a bigot!
That one of the people involved in the act was a slave in no way
makes it a rape. Consent is the issue here, not the social status and
freedom of the people involved. I don't call you a bigot -- I think
slavery a crime too, but at what stage do individuals take over for the
labels you are so quick to ascribe meaning to? Slave? What happens if
it is an indentured servant? How about a person over the age of consent
and under the age of majority? How about a pet? You're making the grave
mistake of assigning action based on social status, not upon individual
choices. If a slave enjoyed copulating with his or her master, was it
still rape? I say it wasn't, but you seem to say it was because the
former party was enslaved to the latter. I say this is simplistic.
>Problem is that a slave may have to say yes when they want to say no. It
>is not uncommon for a rapist to force his victim to ask for sex, that
>does not stop it from being rape.
And the act is still rape, according to the legal definition.
>|>If there was a conscious attempt to lock the country into their little
>|>capitalist club it was probably because they perceived a free market
>|>economy as the fairest and most equitable system of trade between
>|>individuals.
>Or because they and their band were a bunch of aristocrats with access
>to capital and therefore had most to gain from that system?
There is a lot to be said for a mobile society. The only thing I
recall the constitution using as a social classification was the ownership
of land, which was hardly difficult to get in those days. Even so, that
the opportunity was available hardly makes them out as trying to restrict
others with their economic policy. Are you annoyed that some people get
millions to play sports even when their talents are so obviously far above
those of the average person and though somebody is certainly willing to
pay that much to hire them? A refresher course in economics with respect
to a free market may be quite illuminating to you, but those millions are
what they are worth. Had you played basketball every hour of every day and
were able to shoot 90% from the half-court line, you would be worth it too.
Free market and mercantilism mean you have to work and take risks in order
to exceed. They did. Will you?
< ISU thinks I need more education, which they provide for a fee. >
From caf-talk Caf Jul 19 05:36:08 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.censorship,alt.sex,tor.general
From: tt@tarzan.jyu.fi (Tapani Tarvainen)
Subject: Re: Surprise. You've made the evening news again.
Message-ID:
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 1992 06:49:15 GMT
In article <1992Jul13.073249.28035@deeptht.armory.com> rstevew@deeptht.armory.com (Richard Steven Walz) writes:
>In fact, I, like amnesty international and other such groups adhere to
>a rather strict interpretation of human rights. Any one who gets in
>the way of human rights, most especially the right to say ANYTHING
>should be taken out and shot.
I feel compelled to point out that Amnesty International certainly
wouldn't support that last statement. They (and I) think that
being shot somehow violates one's human rights.
--
Tapani Tarvainen (tarvaine@jyu.fi, tarvainen@finjyu.bitnet)
From caf-talk Caf Jul 19 06:06:08 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.censorship,alt.sex,tor.general
From: sybok@athena.mit.edu (The Rifleman)
Subject: Re: Surprise. You've made the evening news again.
Message-ID: <1992Jul19.095218.187@athena.mit.edu>
Date: Sun, 19 Jul 1992 09:52:18 GMT
In article tt@tarzan.jyu.fi (Tapani Tarvainen) writes:
>In article <1992Jul13.073249.28035@deeptht.armory.com> rstevew@deeptht.armory.com (Richard Steven Walz) writes:
>
>>In fact, I, like amnesty international and other such groups adhere to
>>a rather strict interpretation of human rights. Any one who gets in
>>the way of human rights, most especially the right to say ANYTHING
>>should be taken out and shot.
>
>I feel compelled to point out that Amnesty International certainly
>wouldn't support that last statement. They (and I) think that
>being shot somehow violates one's human rights.
Unless the person getting shot is in the process of irreversibly violating
another's human rights? (You do support self-defense, don't you?)
From caf-talk Caf Jul 19 14:31:18 1992
From: dcwst8+@pitt.edu (David C Winters)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.censorship,alt.sex
Subject: Re: Surprise. You've made the evening news again.
Message-ID: <3342@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP>
Date: 19 Jul 92 18:10:58 GMT
In article tt@tarzan.jyu.fi (Tapani Tarvainen) writes:
>In article <1992Jul13.073249.28035@deeptht.armory.com> rstevew@deeptht.armory.com (Richard Steven Walz) writes:
>
>>In fact, I, like amnesty international and other such groups adhere to
>>a rather strict interpretation of human rights. Any one who gets in
>>the way of human rights, most especially the right to say ANYTHING
>>should be taken out and shot.
>
>I feel compelled to point out that Amnesty International certainly
>wouldn't support that last statement. They (and I) think that
>being shot somehow violates one's human rights.
No, Amnesty Int'l wouldn't agree with it. But, there is a condition
here: The person you are shooting, is s/he in the process of violating
someone's rights in a violent, criminal manner? Then, it becomes
a moral, and legally defendable, form of defense.
Does Amnesty Int'l support a person's rights to defence?
If y'all decide you want to make a big production out of the defence
issue, pop this thread over to talk.politics.guns.
--
David Winters
dcwst8@unix.cis.pitt.edu OR winters@vms.cis.pitt.edu
Illigitimi non carborundum.
From caf-talk Caf Jul 19 14:45:09 1992
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,misc.legal,alt.activism.d,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.correct,alt.discrimination
From: hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phillip M. Hallam-Baker)
Subject: Re: The Glorious Constitution (was: [UPI] Supreme Court strikes down...)
Message-ID: <1992Jul19.173448.1333@dscomsf.desy.de>
Date: Sun, 19 Jul 1992 17:34:48 GMT
In article , viking@iastate.edu
(Dan Sorenson) writes:
am@zeus02.desy.de (Phillip M. Hallam-Baker) writes:
|>
|>>In article <1992Jul14.184918.24829@bradley.bradley.edu>,
|>>dave@bradley.bradley.edu (David Vessell) writes:
|>
|>>|>Of course, it just likely could have been that the master would
|>have done
|>>|>nothing if the slave said no. There *were* slave owners who were
|>decent
|>>|>people, after all. Your assumptions only underscore your own
|>deepseated
|>>|>preconceptions.
|>
|>>I have a preconception that slavery is a crime against humanity. It
|>is
|>>rather deep seated, go on call me a bigot!
|>
|> That one of the people involved in the act was a slave in no way
|>makes it a rape. Consent is the issue here, not the social status
|>and
|>freedom of the people involved. I don't call you a bigot -- I think
|>slavery a crime too, but at what stage do individuals take over for
|>the
|>labels you are so quick to ascribe meaning to? Slave? What happens
|>if
|>it is an indentured servant? How about a person over the age of
|>consent
|>and under the age of majority? How about a pet?
Last time I looked the law had very stiff penalties for the latter case
and outlawed indentured status. Sex with a minor or mental defective
merits life and buggery 30 odd years.
|> You're making the grave
|>mistake of assigning action based on social status, not upon individual
|>choices. If a slave enjoyed copulating with his or her master, was it
|>still rape? I say it wasn't, but you seem to say it was because the
|>former party was enslaved to the latter. I say this is simplistic.
You still have not adressed how consent could be expressed. If you are
not allowed to say no then no method of saying yes has any meaning.
|>>|>If there was a conscious attempt to lock the country into their little
|>>|>capitalist club it was probably because they perceived a free market
|>>|>economy as the fairest and most equitable system of trade between
|>>|>individuals.
|>
|>>Or because they and their band were a bunch of aristocrats with access
|>>to capital and therefore had most to gain from that system?
|>
|> There is a lot to be said for a mobile society. The only thing I
|>recall the constitution using as a social classification was the ownership
|>of land, which was hardly difficult to get in those days.
Yes, you simply stole it off the native Indians.
The point still remains that locking policy into the constitution has
meant that methods have had to be found to circumvent the constitution.
The problem is that the political process is now used to circumventing
the constitution, because the bill of rights is a part of the
constitution people are now used to the circumvention of the bill of
rights.
It does not matter if the powers such as the right to declare war are
effectively traded between Congress and the President as the changing
world makes the constitutional requirements obsolete. However this
inevitable exchange should be held separate from the Bill of rights wich
should be imutable, except to the extent that the citizen be given more
rights and the government less.
Tying the Bill of rights to the constitution was a good move when
constitutions were more stable than governmental perceptions of the
rights of man. However the effect has been to stagnate the constitution
and prevent necessary reforms.
Phill Hallam-Baker
