From caf-talk Caf Aug 10 03:34:03 1992
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,sfu.general
From: laidley@fraser.sfu.ca (Jennefer Anne Laidley)
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Message-ID: <1992Aug10.072814.6300@sfu.ca>
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1992 07:28:14 GMT
In article barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry) writes:
> I won't repeat Carl Kadie's excellent summary of the history of
>suppression of "obscenity", except for the conclusion: suppression of
>"porn" is a Victorian phenomenon and was little-practised before the
>19th century.
[etc.]
Well, Chapman, here's my contribution to the debate...couldn't help
it...
Firstly, Kenn, I wanted to thank you for contributing coherently and
articulately to the debate - this has largely been missing on this
newsgroup. I just wanted to question a couple of your points.
You write:
> The genuinely long-standing tradition behind the suppression of
>porn is the tradition that Authority has the right to control speech.
>That is the tradition the founding fathers of the American system took a
>stand against when they added the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution.
>If you look at the language of that amendment, or at the philosophical
>works that inspired it, you will find no evidence that the guarantee was
>meant to be less than absolute. The only "intuitive" exception would be
>cases where there was a conflict with other people's fundamental legal
>rights.
And then you write:
>There are quite a variety of reasons, and most are identical to the
>reasons nonsexual but controversial works got censored: they
>offended someone who had the power to impose censorship...
And you also write:
>...You need to show how legalized "obscenity" actually infringes on
>anyone's recognized legal rights, not just point out that some will
>be offended by it.
Seems to me that you understand, probably better than most, the
potential for abuses of power by those who have it when they are able
to impose censorship. But what about the power of the lawmakers?
Shouldn't their biases be examined and questioned just as well? Isn't
it the case that, in the vein of your argument, those same legal
rights which it seems you uphold should be questioned? And shouldn't
they be questioned with regards to the biases which those who created
them necessarily brought to them? And what about the power of those
founding fathers who added the 1st Amendment? What biases were they
bringing to their work? Or is to do this to take the questioning a
touch too far? Should we only be questioning those ideals, like
censorship, with which we do not agree, and not those, like freedom of
speech, with which we do?
You also write:
> No. Apparently you fail to understand my position. I am not
>concerned with harm. I have no doubt at all that, to cite one example,
>Leni Riefenstahl's TRIUMPH OF THE WILL has had a mainly pernicious
>influence on the world. But I know that the way to counter lies is with
>truth, not suppression. Censorship only increases the harm, and dilutes
^^^^^^^
>freedom with the very tyranny we claim to oppose.
And what kind of truth do you propose we counter lies with? Who's
truth? And who is to determine which truth is truly true? And are you
referring to individual truth, or collective truth? Could it be,
despite your disbelief of the studies which seem to point to a
correlation between the proliferation of porn and violence against
women, that they may indeed be the truth which you believe might be
the solution?
I don't know...
And what of the studies which seem to prove that there is no
correlation? Well, so what? My point does not revolve around any
studies, but simply around what you seem to be most vociferous in
(and capable of) arguing against - the determination by the select
few of what is or should be true for the majority.
And, on a more picky note, I had to reply to this one:
> Think it through, Jamie. Leave aside the fictional nature of
>the so-called "evidence", and imagine that the ability of porn to
>encourage sexism and sexual violence is established. Now what? The
>Declaration of Independence provoked a lot more violence and death, in
>a far more immediate fashion....
Imagining that this is the case, I take exception to your inference
that somehow the D of I was "better" at killing and maiming people.
What point are you trying to make? That there is a continuum of
events in which people are hurt, and that somehow those that score
higher on the continuum are more worthy of note?
> Sorry, I don't submit my reading tastes to a vote, nor
>blame my misbehavior on books I've read or movies I've seen.
Nor do I. Neither do I rest on the laurels of what had been
determined by those, such as those founding fathers, with whom I
really have nothing in common, nor hope to.
All of this is not to say that I agree with (or disagree with, for
that matter) censorship (or with the points you made). It is only
to say that there are questions which must be raised around any and
all arguments.
On another note, can somebody PLEASE post something on how to use
this damn editor, or maybe direct me to some hard-copy somewhere which
will explain it? Holding down the delete button for half an hour or
so gets to be a little tedious.
Thanks,
Jennefer.
(no snappy sig.file)
p.s. John, you realise that now I've left myself open to intense
flaming...Thanks :). See you in the Pub.
From caf-talk Caf Aug 10 10:59:37 1992
From: clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca (Chris Lewis)
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Message-ID: <3699@ecicrl.ocunix.on.ca>
Date: 10 Aug 92 13:31:00 GMT
In article <1992Aug7.151318.9822@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>jamie@cs.sfu.ca (Jamie Andrews) writes:
>> Then how was it that _Playboy_ (which didn't even show
>>pubic hair) was banned for so long, in so many places, under
>>the US Constitution + First Amendment? And that so much other
>>material was banned for decades before that, under the same
>>US Constitutional + First Amendment? I think everyone has always
>>recognized that "freedom of speech" is subject to balance with
>>other freedoms and rights that people enjoy; what gets banned
>>depends on the mores of the time.
>[...]
>What right is being defended when my speech banned because of your
>mores. The "right" not to have other people violate your mores? If
>there is such a right then there is no room for other rights.
You missed the question entirely. How is it that that piece of paper
that supposedly gives you absolute freedom of speech permitted the
banning of playboy and other materials over the years? Jamie was
simply pointing out that that section is subject to interpretation,
and which interpretation changes from time to time. After all,
the Supreme court could rule tomorrow that pictures of bare feet should
be banned. Dr. Alvarez-Machain has shown us how liberal the Supreme
Court can be in interpreting the supposedly inviolate constitution.
>Censors often claim that they are balancing the right not to be raped
>or the right of equality against the right of free expression. If so,
>they have their thumb on the scale.
So do most people on the other side of the issue. Especially the ones
who want to make money off it.
....................
>According to the _Ms._ article: "The ruling has the support of most
>women's groups in Canada, where the free-speech tradition is not a
>dominant as it is in the U.S.; as a result, feminist debate on
>pornography is less intense." Also: "'This is of world historic
>importance,' proclaimed Catherine A. MacKinnon, the University of
>Michigan law professor whose analysis of pornography and the law,
>co-authored with writer Andrea Dworkin, helped form the basis of
>LEAF's [Woman's Legal Education and Acuation Fund] argument.
>I note that _Ms's._ prediction that "adult erotica, no matter how
>explicit, will not be considered obscene" seems, as a practical matter
>incorrect. If it were true, alt.sex would not have been banned.
Incorrect. This is indeed what's happening. The Ontario Film Board,
for example, is passing stuff now that'll curl most people's hair.
You missed one of Jamie's points entirely. The fact of the matter
is that most of the contents of alt.sex.bondage or the other groups
is perfectly legal. Especially the supposed charter of a.s.b.
The problem is that *some* of the postings to a.s.b. are apparently
beyond what the law will accept. Beyond, as well, the charter of
a.s.b. Since the denizens of a.s.b. are unwilling to police themselves
(ie: sticking to the charter of the group), then the only alternative
is to disable the group. The only other alternative would be to
manually screen what goes through, and nobody's that much of an idiot.
--
Chris Lewis; clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca; Phone: Canada 613 832-0541
Psroff 3.0 info: psroff-request@ferret.ocunix.on.ca
Ferret list: ferret-request@ferret.ocunix.on.ca
From caf-talk Caf Aug 10 11:21:44 1992
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,sfu.general
From: peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva)
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Message-ID:
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1992 11:57:01 GMT
In article <1992Aug10.072814.6300@sfu.ca> laidley@fraser.sfu.ca (Jennefer Anne Laidley) writes:
>And what kind of truth do you propose we counter lies with? Who's
>truth? And who is to determine which truth is truly true?
The reader or listener. Everyone has to decide their own truth, and they
can only do that when there's nobody else filtering their information flow
for them.
--
`-_-'
Have you hugged your wolf today? 'U`
Peter da Silva, Taronga Park BBS, Houston, TX +1 713 568 0480/1032
From caf-talk Caf Aug 10 13:10:26 1992
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,sfu.general
From: clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca (Chris Lewis)
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Message-ID: <1992Aug10.165028.24684@bwdls61.bnr.ca>
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1992 16:50:28 GMT
In article barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry) writes:
|In article <1992Jul31.235725.25121@cs.sfu.ca> jamie@cs.sfu.ca (Jamie Andrews) writes:
|> I say "yes", many people say "no". No one can "prove"
|>this, *one way or the other*. The researchers are the first to
|>point out that their experiments don't "prove" anything. But at
|>some point we have to move from what the experiments show to
|>public policy. The decision to not ban, or unban, certain
|>material is just as much an experiment-based decision as the
|>decision to ban.
| No, it's not, it's a philosophical decision. The essence of the
|freedom of speech and press guaranteed in the US Constitution can be
|expressed in the phrase, "innocent until proven guilty". That is, in
|American law, censoring requires _establishing_, beyond a reasonable
|doubt, that you have a special case on your hands.
This is not that much different from the rules here. The line is simply
drawn in a somewhat different place. See Carl's posting on Canadian
laws.
| Nonsense. Donnerstein, himself, has demurred from such a
|position. In fact, when you admit that the harm from such material can't
|be "proven", you understate the problem: no one has even found serious
|_evidence_ for such a conclusion.
Carl's posting listing of a whole pile of studies on the subject seems
to indicate the contrary. Not definitive, but certainly not "no one
has ever even found..."..
| I'm glad you've figured this much out, at least. Yes, Jamie, the
|censors have their own agenda;
Actually, the censors have been trying to get out of the business for
decades, but the general public keeps insisting that somebody do it.
From caf-talk Caf Aug 10 13:48:57 1992
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,sfu.general
From: clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca (Chris Lewis)
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Message-ID: <1992Aug10.172241.26638@bwdls61.bnr.ca>
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1992 17:22:41 GMT
In article barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry) writes:
> Think it through, Jamie. Leave aside the fictional nature of
>the so-called "evidence", and imagine that the ability of porn to
>encourage sexism and sexual violence is established. Now what? The
>Declaration of Independence provoked a lot more violence and death, in
>a far more immediate
This is rather ironic. Think on this a bit. Just *who* were the Americans
fighting? Us. That's who. It's this very distinction that places us
here, and you there.
When the American revolution broke out, fully 1/4 of the population of the
north east American colonies disagreed. Disagreed strongly enough with
the way that things were developing that they took up arms to defend themselves
and their property, and when it became obvious that they couldn't stay without
sacrificing their own lives, they all moved up to Canada.
Later on, when the Americans wanted to free us from our "shackles" (read,
annex Canada as they were later to do with Texas, California etc.), they
invaded Canada in 1812. It was their "manifest destiny" to own the whole
continent. Again, the people of Canada explicitly rejected the "liberators"
and their philosophy, and fought back. And won.
We have chosen a different route. Chosen by our repeated refusal to become
part of the USA. Our constitutions are indeed similar, but we have implemented
certain social checks and balances to try to keep things a little more orderly.
Given the fact that the crime rate in the US is by far the highest in the western
world (there are some war zones I'd rather live than in some US cities), we haven't
done that badly, without giving up much at all. Unfortunately, due to proximity
and the overwhelming weight of US "culture" (you call *that* "culture"!), we're
catching up fast.
People forget that at least until the turn of this century, the biggest danger
to Canada's freedom was the United States of America. Now that the
Soviet Empire has fallen, there are no longer any checks and balances
on US arrogance and imperialism. We're not likely to win again. God help
us all.
Chris Lewis, UEL. A proud Canadian/not-an-American. A descendent of members of the
King's New York Rifles.
From caf-talk Caf Aug 10 14:14:13 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: nbc2134@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil (Robert F Solon)
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Message-ID: <9208101813.AA06242@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil>
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1992 10:13:28 GMT
In reply to the mail from ...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>In article barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry) writes:
>
>Actually, the censors have been trying to get out of the business for
>decades, but the general public keeps insisting that somebody do it.
>
Huh? I'm sorry, I just don't see the basis of this. What evidence can you
cite to support this conclusion? I don't see citzens' groups demanding
censorship. Sometimes I see a very small and very vocal group getting upset
over, say, certain books in a school library. But I don't see a majority of
the public wanting publications and stuff censored. Rated, perhaps, but not
censored.
Bob
Bob Solon, DITSO-CO-B
Administrative Information Branch -- APCAPS
"We Code, You Explode!!"
From caf-talk Caf Aug 10 14:51:54 1992
From: exuptr@exu.ericsson.se (Patrick Taylor)
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,sfu.general
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Message-ID:
Date: 10 Aug 92 18:27:56 GMT
Jennifer wrote:
First off let me say I was really impressed by Jennifer's responses...
>In article barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry) writes:
>> Think it through, Jamie. Leave aside the fictional nature of
>>the so-called "evidence", and imagine that the ability of porn to
>>encourage sexism and sexual violence is established. Now what? The
>>Declaration of Independence provoked a lot more violence and death, in
>>a far more immediate fashion....
>Imagining that this is the case, I take exception to your inference
>that somehow the D of I was "better" at killing and maiming people.
>What point are you trying to make? That there is a continuum of
>events in which people are hurt, and that somehow those that score
>higher on the continuum are more worthy of note?
Not only that, but the D of I birthed our nation, which is a rather
positive effect, I think. What great establishment has pron brought us?
Hugh Heffner is smiling.
>> Sorry, I don't submit my reading tastes to a vote, nor
>>blame my misbehavior on books I've read or movies I've seen.
>Nor do I. Neither do I rest on the laurels of what had been
>determined by those, such as those founding fathers, with whom I
>really have nothing in common, nor hope to.
:-)
>Thanks,
>Jennefer.
>(no snappy sig.file)
>p.s. John, you realise that now I've left myself open to intense
>flaming...Thanks :). See you in the Pub.
"This must be Thursday. I never could get the hang of Thursdays" - D Adams
- Patrick Taylor
Ericsson Network Systems exuptr@exu.ericsson.se "Don't let the .se fool you" alternately, exuptr@ZGNews.Lonestar.Org
From caf-talk Caf Aug 10 14:51:57 1992
From: exuptr@exu.ericsson.se (Patrick Taylor)
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,sfu.general
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Message-ID:
Date: 10 Aug 92 18:31:05 GMT
In article peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
>Xref: exucom.exu.ericsson.se news.admin:7894 alt.censorship:7535 alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:4013
>Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,sfu.general
>Path: exucom.exu.ericsson.se!ericom!sunic!mcsun!uunet!cis.ohio-state.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!menudo.uh.edu!sugar!taronga!peter
>From: peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva)
>Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
>Message-ID:
>Organization: Taronga Park BBS
>References: <1992Aug6.185205.250@cs.sfu.ca> <1992Aug10.072814.6300@sfu.ca>
>Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1992 11:57:01 GMT
>Lines: 12
>In article <1992Aug10.072814.6300@sfu.ca> laidley@fraser.sfu.ca (Jennefer Anne Laidley) writes:
>>And what kind of truth do you propose we counter lies with? Who's
>>truth? And who is to determine which truth is truly true?
>The reader or listener. Everyone has to decide their own truth, and they
>can only do that when there's nobody else filtering their information flow
>for them.
>--
> `-_-'
> Have you hugged your wolf today? 'U`
>Peter da Silva, Taronga Park BBS, Houston, TX +1 713 568 0480/1032
Back to the origional point, though. I don't want MY kids making those
decisions for themselves yet, and I don't want SOMEONE ELSE making that
decision for them, since they are not ready to make it themselves. The
issue is not really about what other adults do to each other as far as I'm
concerned.
"This must be Thursday. I never could get the hang of Thursdays" - D Adams
- Patrick Taylor
Ericsson Network Systems exuptr@exu.ericsson.se "Don't let the .se fool you" alternately, exuptr@ZGNews.Lonestar.Org
From caf-talk Caf Aug 10 15:14:07 1992
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Message-ID: <1992Aug10.190804.30054@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1992 19:08:04 GMT
hartman@ulogic.UUCP (Richard M. Hartman) writes:
>Actually I don't think that "degrading" is the issue. The constitutional
>guarantee of freedom of speech was to ensure that dissenting political
>ideas could not be suppressed.
That was only one reason that freedom of speech was protected. It was
also protected because it has, in the opinion of many, value in and of
itself. Freedom of speech is part of being a free people. It was also
protected because it is needed for a free marketplace of ideas, the
best way we know move toward truth.
>This has since become expanded to the point of ridiculousness. To the
>point where a cross dipped in urine is not only touted as "freedom of
>_expression_" (note the change in the phrase), but somehow must ALSO
>be funded by the taxpayers!
The change in phrase is the result of combining "freedom of speech"
with "freedom of the press" and recognizing that function, not
technology, is the defining feature. Are you saying that unamplified
speech and mechanical presses are protected from the government? What
about the Ninth Amendment:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be con-
strued to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
> Nowhere in the constitution does the
>freedom to "express" get tied to the government's obligation to PAY
>for everything anyone wants to come up with.
Nowhere in the NEA debate (or anywhere else) did I hear anyone suggest
that the government had an obligation to pay for everything anyone
wants to come up with.
>To bring this back to the topic of pornography, there is no *idea*
>conveyed by pornography to be protected.
[...]
Then the rational (rationalization?) for the new Canadian definition
of obscenity is invalid. It takes as its premise that obscenity
conveys the idea that women are unequal.
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Aug 10 16:35:27 1992
From: jfaubert@fraser.sfu.ca (Jean-Paul Faubert)
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,sfu.general
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Message-ID: <1992Aug10.200246.18034@sfu.ca>
Date: 10 Aug 92 20:02:46 GMT
In article <1992Aug10.172241.26638@bwdls61.bnr.ca>
clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca Chris Lewis wrir
>Again, the people of Canada explicitly rejected the "liberators"
>and their philosophy, and fought back. And won.
thankfully.
>We have chosen a different route. Chosen by our repeated refusal to become
>part of the USA.
until the FTA and now NAFTA
>People forget that at least until the turn of this century, the biggest danger
>to Canada's freedom was the United States of America. Now that the
>Soviet Empire has fallen, there are no longer any checks and balances
>on US arrogance and imperialism. We're not likely to win again. God help
>us all.
True, and VERY frightening.
>
>Chris Lewis, UEL. A proud Canadian/not-an-American. A descendent of members of the
>King's New York Rifles.
Just to let you know that UBC has now also censored alt.sex.* groups
from their system.
Jean-Paul Faubert
From caf-talk Caf Aug 10 17:45:59 1992
From: exuptr@exu.ericsson.se (Patrick Taylor)
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,sfu.general
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Message-ID:
Date: 10 Aug 92 20:03:25 GMT
In article <1992Aug10.172241.26638@bwdls61.bnr.ca> clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca (Chris Lewis) writes:
>In article barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry) writes:
>> Think it through, Jamie. Leave aside the fictional nature of
>>the so-called "evidence", and imagine that the ability of porn to
>>encourage sexism and sexual violence is established. Now what? The
>>Declaration of Independence provoked a lot more violence and death, in
>>a far more immediate
>This is rather ironic. Think on this a bit. Just *who* were the Americans
>fighting? Us. That's who. It's this very distinction that places us
>here, and you there.
>People forget that at least until the turn of this century, the biggest danger
>to Canada's freedom was the United States of America. Now that the
>Soviet Empire has fallen, there are no longer any checks and balances
>on US arrogance and imperialism. We're not likely to win again. God help
>us all.
Kinda strayed from the point, but nonetheless well put. I, for one, hope
your country will survive separately from the US. But if you have anything
to fear from the US it is not arrogance and imperialism, it is commercialism
and materialism.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"This must be Thursday. I never could get the hang of Thursdays"
- D Adams
- Patrick Taylor
Ericsson Network Systems
exuptr@exu.ericsson.se "Don't let the .se fool you"
alternately, exuptr@ZGNews.Lonestar.Org
From caf-talk Caf Aug 10 18:21:17 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: rayh@eng.auburn.edu (Ray W. Hiltbrand)
Subject: Grade Systems...
Message-ID:
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1992 22:01:19 GMT
I am collecting data on how universities make available grades to students
at the end of the school term. Whether the university or college mails the
grades or has some other system. Any information would be appreciated.
Thanks,
Ray W. Hiltbrand
From caf-talk Caf Aug 10 19:18:10 1992
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: dan@cubmol.bio.columbia.edu (Daniel Zabetakis)
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Message-ID: <1992Aug10.212824.24015@news.columbia.edu>
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1992 21:28:24 GMT
In article exuptr@exu.ericsson.se (Patrick Taylor) writes:
>Jennifer wrote:
>
>
>Not only that, but the D of I birthed our nation, which is a rather
>positive effect, I think. What great establishment has pron brought us?
>
40% reduction in reported cases of child molestation. (Kutchinsky, 1973,
Journal of social Issues. Full citation provided upon request). Not an
establishment, but an 'effect' rather.
DanZ
--
This article is for entertainment purposes only. Any facts, opinions,
narratives or ideas contained herein are not necessarily true, and do
not necessarily represent the views of any particular person.
From caf-talk Caf Aug 10 23:31:27 1992
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,sfu.general
From: peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva)
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Message-ID: <5H7IBT2@taronga.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1992 00:52:21 GMT
In article exuptr@exu.ericsson.se (Patrick Taylor) writes:
>>>And what kind of truth do you propose we counter lies with? Who's
>>>truth? And who is to determine which truth is truly true?
>>The reader or listener. Everyone has to decide their own truth, and they
>>can only do that when there's nobody else filtering their information flow
>>for them.
>Back to the origional point, though. I don't want MY kids making those
>decisions for themselves yet, and I don't want SOMEONE ELSE making that
>decision for them, since they are not ready to make it themselves.
Then you need to take responsibility for what you let your kids be exposed
to. Whether it be sex or mystical propoganda. I'm more concerned about the
mystical influences, myself.
--
`-_-'
Have you hugged your wolf today? 'U`
Peter da Silva, Taronga Park BBS, Houston, TX +1 713 568 0480/1032
From caf-talk Caf Aug 11 03:20:49 1992
From: barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry)
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,sfu.general
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Message-ID:
Date: 11 Aug 92 02:43:17 GMT
In article <1992Aug10.072814.6300@sfu.ca> laidley@fraser.sfu.ca (Jennefer Anne Laidley) writes:
>Isn't
>it the case that, in the vein of your argument, those same legal
>rights which it seems you uphold should be questioned? And shouldn't
>they be questioned with regards to the biases which those who created
>them necessarily brought to them? And what about the power of those
>founding fathers who added the 1st Amendment? What biases were they
>bringing to their work? Or is to do this to take the questioning a
>touch too far? Should we only be questioning those ideals, like
>censorship, with which we do not agree, and not those, like freedom of
>speech, with which we do?
Of course you get to question all these things, including the
wisdom of free speech, itself. As I told Jamie, speaking in favor of
censorship is a right that the idea of free speech protects. But what
questions do you _have_? Make your case, and let's discuss it.
>In article barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry) writes:
>>I know that the way to counter lies is with
>>truth, not suppression. Censorship only increases the harm, and dilutes
>>freedom with the very tyranny we claim to oppose.
>
>And what kind of truth do you propose we counter lies with? Who's
>truth? And who is to determine which truth is truly true?
Exactly! That is the strength of free speech. No one is
competent to give final answers to these questions, that's one of the
reasons it's important to let everyone have their say. You never know
where a bit of truth may turn up.
The determiner is you. You get to hear as much as you wish to
hear from whomever you care to listen to, and then make up your own mind
about what the truth is. The democratic leap of faith is that this
procedure will allow the people to make reasonable decisions most of the
time. Or, at the very least, that it's better than the alternative of a
controlled debate. That causes tyranny.
>Could it be,
>despite your disbelief of the studies which seem to point to a
>correlation between the proliferation of porn and violence against
>women, that they may indeed be the truth which you believe might be
>the solution?
Anything is possible :-). I don't want to suppress their
studies, you know. As I said before, looks irrelevant to me...
>My point does not revolve around any
>studies, but simply around what you seem to be most vociferous in
>(and capable of) arguing against - the determination by the select
>few of what is or should be true for the majority.
Sorry, you've lost me. What "determination of the select few" do
you refer to? I'm arguing for a free market of ideas.
>>imagine that the ability of porn to
>>encourage sexism and sexual violence is established. Now what? The
>>Declaration of Independence provoked a lot more violence and death, in
>>a far more immediate fashion....
>
>What point are you trying to make? That there is a continuum of
>events in which people are hurt, and that somehow those that score
>higher on the continuum are more worthy of note?
My point is simple: deciding something should be censored
because it could have indirect negative effects is not a stand against
pornography, it's a stand against the whole notion of free speech.
Political and religious speech is far more "dangerous" for the
same reasons it's far more important than porn. The "harm" standard
for censorship _necessitates_ the suppression of ideas.
- nothing fails like success - Kenn Barry
----------------------------------------------------------------
ELECTRIC AVENUE: barry@netcom.com
From caf-talk Caf Aug 11 03:48:44 1992
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,sfu.general
From: billmcc@seanews.akita.com (Bill McCormick)
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1992 06:03:44 GMT
Message-ID: <1992Aug11.060344.1062@seanews.akita.com>
In article exuptr@exu.ericsson.se (Patrick Taylor) writes:
>>What right is being defended when my speech banned because of your
>>mores. The "right" not to have other people violate your mores? If
>>there is such a right then there is no room for other rights.
>I think what is meant is the consensus mores of the group, not any one
>person's. And what these are should be decided at the polls. Although
>I'm afraid this doesn't always happen.
I think what is meant is that those who speak should yield to the
"tyrany of the majority." No thank you.
Just because a majority of people want to shut up the minority doesn't
make it right. Censorship is still wrong.
>>Censors often claim that they are balancing the right not to be raped
>>or the right of equality against the right of free expression. If so,
>>they have their thumb on the scale.
>
>Everyone has their thumb on the scale. Don't they?
No. Some of us want to remove the scale. Why should be government
be charged with deciding what we, as adults, choose to read, look at,
and write?
>>On a related topic, is there a right to speech that goes beyond
>>fiction and actually advocates illegal acts or violence?
>
>Rappers do it all the time. Of course, some of them get censored.
And it's still wrong.
>The founding fathers provided this so that man may openly discuss
>important issues, not to protect those who would degrade womankind.
Ah. Here's the crux of the matter. A sacred cow is being gored.
>Unless it can be construed as degrading. Like 5 men lining up to get
>oral sex from a woman, for example. Or anything that portrays a woman
>as an object of lust.
There are many ways to deal with the problem of sexual disrimination. One
of them is to disavow sexuality -- renouncing that aspect of humanity.
This personal coping strategy becomes a problem when those pursuing it
charge themselves with "reforming" the rest of humankind in their image.
As with all fanatics they choose to censor that information which
violates their ideocentric view of the world. This is when they
become dangerous.
Sexuality exists. Women are objects of lust. Men are objects of lust.
This is life. This sexuality is part and parcel of our humanity.
Those who feel threatened by this might be better off looking inward
rather than attempting to control the communication of others through
force of law.
As someone wise once said, "freedom of speech means putting up with
things that piss you off."
Bill
--
SEANEWS [] Seattle News + Mail [] Public Access [] +1 206 937 9529
(hit 'n' to skip uuencoded PGP Public Key)
-------CUT HERE------ PGP Public Key -------CUT HERE------
begin 644 billmcc.pub
MF; IHJ$*BE-8T-O4#+1:_'?W$4B10]AS3R+W6,U"H?15BD"F"OM"1X'F,Y&C1MB+C37$-
MTYQ,;UG9;<$[Z<8V0(]:6/:Z9:)>/D".)1'N -A]:4+Z^K]"5=\2% 5:#;_;
LX0 OX+^P][<42Q8GZ=E]6I =%R*V=W"XHV\GJS&9#05_33*<43FU;14% !';
end
-------CUT HERE------ PGP Public Key -------CUT HERE------
From caf-talk Caf Aug 11 07:21:03 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [news.admin] Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Message-ID: <9208111122.AA09164@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1992 01:22:53 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Aug 11 07:21:03 1992
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Message-ID: <3701@ecicrl.ocunix.on.ca>
Date: 11 Aug 92 07:29:12 GMT
In article <1992Aug10.170357.14268@m.cs.uiuc.edu> kadie@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
|clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca (Chris Lewis) writes:
|>You missed the question entirely. How is it that that piece of paper
|>that supposedly gives you absolute freedom of speech permitted the
|>banning of playboy and other materials over the years?
|I haven't claimed that the 1st Amendment gives me absolute freedom of
|speech.
Sorry. Lots of other people were.
|In the U.S., the state's were not constrained by the Bill of Rights
|until historically recently.
The 1960s? That late? I think not.
|>>I note that _Ms's._ prediction that "adult erotica, no matter how
|>>explicit, will not be considered obscene" seems, as a practical matter
|>>incorrect. If it were true, alt.sex would not have been banned.
|>Incorrect. This is indeed what's happening. The Ontario Film Board,
|>for example, is passing stuff now that'll curl most people's hair.
|And yet as I said, alt.sex has been banned at U. of Manitoba and at
|SFU.
|>The problem is that *some* of the postings to a.s.b. are apparently
|>beyond what the law will accept.
|A problem is that very, very, very little of the material in alt.sex
|is obscene by the new Canadian definition, and yet the whole newsgroup
|has been removed from several universities.
When you find that the corn has individual kernels laced with strychnine,
that it's not practical to screen it, and the consequences can
be rather nasty of letting some of the contaminated stuff through, you
have to dump the load.
The actions of individual university administrators can hardly be
considered to be definitive on what the courts (or even the police)
view as obscene.
--
Chris Lewis; clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca; Phone: Canada 613 832-0541
Psroff 3.0 info: psroff-request@ferret.ocunix.on.ca
Ferret list: ferret-request@ferret.ocunix.on.ca
From caf-talk Caf Aug 11 07:21:08 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [news.admin, et al.] Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Message-ID: <9208111123.AA09185@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1992 01:23:00 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Aug 11 07:21:08 1992
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.censorship
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Message-ID: <3702@ecicrl.ocunix.on.ca>
Date: 11 Aug 92 07:37:56 GMT
In article <1992Aug10.233103.12268@fid.morgan.com> sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart) writes:
|In article <3699@ecicrl.ocunix.on.ca> clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca
|> Beyond, as well, the charter of
|>a.s.b.
|Assuming a.s.b. is unmoderated, the appropriateness of postings
|therein is determined the same way as in any other newsgroup:
|concensus of readers, enforced (to the extent it ever is!) by flaming.
|Furthermore, does a.s.b. even _have_ a charter? Alt groups generally
|dont'.
Correct. On the other hand, with people claiming what the subject
matter actually was, it suggests to one that there is an informal
charter.
The suggestion simply was: come on guys, do us a favour. We'd like
to receive the main stuff, but the odd bit gives our government
indigestion. How about a split? Or a little gentle reminder from
time to time to get the odd posting redirected to somewhere more
appropriate.
|> Since the denizens of a.s.b. are unwilling to police themselves
|>(ie: sticking to the charter of the group), then the only alternative
|>is to disable the group.
|If you don't want to receive the group, that's your privilege
|(assuming you're the system's owner or owner's representative).
|Otherwise, you should confine yourself to not reading it.
You don't have to lecture me on the subject. I've been an SA since
1983.
|> The only other alternative would be to
|>manually screen what goes through, and nobody's that much of an idiot.
|Likewise, you do what you want on your system. Of course, as anybody
|with any experience on the net knows, if you try to stop other people
|from reading something they want to read, they'll find a way around
|you.
Of course. That's fine. Then why is everybody screeching
about freedom of speech???
--
Chris Lewis; clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca; Phone: Canada 613 832-0541
Psroff 3.0 info: psroff-request@ferret.ocunix.on.ca
Ferret list: ferret-request@ferret.ocunix.on.ca
From caf-talk Caf Aug 11 07:38:50 1992
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.censorship
From: kadie@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Message-ID: <1992Aug11.113418.11233@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1992 11:34:18 GMT
clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca (Chris Lewis) writes:
[...]
>The problem is that *some* of the postings to a.s.b. are apparently
>beyond what the law will accept. [...] The only other alternative would be to
>manually screen what goes through, and nobody's that much of an idiot.
[...]
An illegal posting could appear in any newsgroup. By your reasoning,
Netnews is, as a practical matter, illegal in Canada. By your
reasoning, imported newspapers, books, and satellite TV programs are,
as a practicle matter, illegal in Canada. So is live radio and TV.
For sites that reject this, I think the U. of Waterloo's and U. of
Toronto's policies are better models than the U. of Manitoba's or
SFU's.
ANNOTATED REFERENCES
(All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.)
=================
umanitoba.ca
=================
Information related to the alt.sex* ban at the Univerity
of Manitoba. Including:
1) The Canadian Library Association's Intellectual Freedom Statement
2) A statement arguing that newsgroups should be selected like library
material (w/ U.S. centered references)
3) An open letter from Brad Templeton to the U. of Manitoba
4) Information on the Canadian definition of obscenity
5) My comments on the U. of Manitoba's application of this definition.
6) History of the U. of Waterloo ban of rec.humor.funny and alt.sex*.
(They eventually restored the newsgroups.)
7) Abstract of Stanford's Dr. John McCarthy talk about the Waterloo ban.
8) The new U of Wateroo policy and the report that justifies it.
9) Information about the Computers and Academic Freedom discussion group.
10) Article explaining why the U. of Toronto will not be banning newsgroups.
=================
=================
These document(s) are available by anonymous ftp (the preferred
method) and by email. To get the file(s) via ftp, do an anonymous ftp
to ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4), and get file(s):
pub/academic/umanitoba.ca
To get the file(s) by email, send email to archive-server@eff.org.
Include the line(s) (be sure to include the space before the file
name):
send acad-freedom umanitoba.ca
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Aug 11 09:06:39 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [news.admin] Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Message-ID: <9208111308.AA18108@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1992 03:08:29 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Aug 11 09:06:39 1992
From: kadie@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Message-ID: <1992Aug11.112000.4307@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1992 11:20:00 GMT
kadie@uiuc.edu (Carl Kadie writes:
>|A problem is that very, very, very little of the material in alt.sex
>|is obscene by the new Canadian definition, and yet the whole newsgroup
>|has been removed from several universities.
clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca (Chris Lewis) writes:
[...]
>When you find that the corn has individual kernels laced with strychnine,
>that it's not practical to screen it, and the consequences can
>be rather nasty of letting some of the contaminated stuff through, you
>have to dump the load.
[...]
No studies have claimed that sexual material is anywhere near as
dangerous as poison.
I offer a closer analogy. In the U.S. (and likely in Canada, but I
don't know for sure) the old laws against sexual material said that if
any part of the material was obscene, then it was all obscene. The
effect of this was to outlaw material that many thought had merit,
including, Miller's _Tropic of Cancer, Hemingway's _For Whom the Bell
Tools_, Joyce's _Ulysses_, and Guttmacher's _Complete Book of Birth
Control_. Because of this undesirable effect, the Courts changed the
standard so that (in the U.S. at least) material can be obscene if
(among other things) considered as a whole it is without value.
By analogy, considered as a whole, alt.sex has scientific, political,
literary, and artistic value and therefore should not be banned as
obscene.
[...]
>The actions of individual university administrators can hardly be
>considered to be definitive on what the courts (or even the police)
>view as obscene.
[...]
The actions of the administrators show the chilling effects of the
law. Because the law is so vague and because it provides no easy way
to ask for definitive clarifications, such effects are inevitable.
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Aug 11 12:18:07 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Wanted: Guest (and Regular) CAF-News editors
Message-ID: <1992Aug11.161759.8062@eff.org>
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1992 16:17:59 GMT
Wanted: Folks to guest edit one issue of the CAF-News. I'd like to
clear the backlog before classes start. (Also needed, folks to edit
CAF-News on a rotating basis, ideally, about once a month, but it's
best to try guest editing first.)
Short Job Description:
Given a file containing, on average, about 75 CAF-talk articles,
choose the approximately 12 best and write a short paraphrase of each
articles.
Job Requirements: Email access to me (kadie@eff.org)
Things that make the jobs easier:
Being able to run "nn" and "perl".
Compensation: You will be listed as editor for the issue you edit.
"Rotating" editors will also get a title ("Associate Editor") and will
be put on the CAF administrative mailing list.
Also, you will have the satisfaction of doing something useful and
maybe even important. CAF-News has an estimated readership of 9000.
It's abstract is distributed to at least twice as many.
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Aug 11 12:27:24 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Wanted: Usenet vote organizer
Message-ID: <1992Aug11.162712.8179@eff.org>
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1992 16:27:12 GMT
I think alt.comp.acad-freedom.{talk,news} could reach more folks, if
they were changed to a Usenet newsgroup (I would guess in the soc.* or
comp.* hierarchies). Their current propagations are 59% and 50%.
Would anyone like to organize the effort (starting official
discussion, name selection moderation, vote tabulation, etc)?
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Aug 11 12:34:42 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [news.admin] Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Message-ID: <9208111636.AA25375@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1992 06:36:32 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Aug 11 12:34:42 1992
From: peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva)
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Message-ID:
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1992 13:34:52 GMT
kadie@uiuc.edu (Carl Kadie writes:
>>|A problem is that very, very, very little of the material in alt.sex
>>|is obscene by the new Canadian definition, and yet the whole newsgroup
>>|has been removed from several universities.
>clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca (Chris Lewis) writes:
>>When you find that the corn has individual kernels laced with strychnine,
>>that it's not practical to screen it, and the consequences can
>>be rather nasty of letting some of the contaminated stuff through, you
>>have to dump the load.
In article <1992Aug11.112000.4307@m.cs.uiuc.edu> kadie@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>No studies have claimed that sexual material is anywhere near as
>dangerous as poison.
I don't think Chris is concerned with the material itself. He's concerned
with the criminal prosecution that would result from carrying it.
>By analogy, considered as a whole, alt.sex has scientific, political,
>literary, and artistic value and therefore should not be banned as
>obscene.
OK, you're volunteering to be the test case?
Yes, it's a bad law. But, really, what alternative have the schools in
question got?
--
`-_-'
Have you hugged your wolf today? 'U`
Peter da Silva, Taronga Park BBS, Houston, TX +1 713 568 0480/1032
From caf-talk Caf Aug 11 13:16:13 1992
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.censorship
From: kadie@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Message-ID: <1992Aug11.171126.2448@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1992 17:11:26 GMT
peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
[...]
>I don't think Chris is concerned with the material itself. He's concerned
>with the criminal prosecution that would result from carrying it.
[...]
>Yes, it's a bad law. But, really, what alternative have the schools in
>question got?
[...]
The only way a school could be 100% safe is by cutting off its network
feed, burning all the books in the library, firing all its professors,
and expelling all its students.
University administrators (to generalize) instinctively want to avoid
risk. But what is the risk the seek to avoid here and is it rational?
They always (to generalize) claim they seek to avoid the legal risk.
But,
* Has textual material been found to be obscene in Canada or the U.S.
since _Ulysses_?
* Has a university ever been found guilty of obscenity?
* Has a university even ever been charged with obscenity?
* Did the university administrators bother to get legal advice?
* Did the university administrators bother to discuss the issues
with representatives of the faculty and students?
(To the best of my knowledge, in every case, the answer to all these
questions is "no").
Thus, I don't think the legal fear is rational.
I think it is more likely that administrators want to avoid the real
risk of publicity, even at the expense of academic freedom. This is
most clear at Iowa State University, where the administration
rationalized its censorship by reference to a law that explicitly
exempts educational institutions.
Finally, although bans may solve publicity problems in the short term,
in the long term it not only hurts academic freedom, it also opens a
university up to bad publicity as folks make demand after demand for
bans of material that they don't want other folks see.
- Carl
ANNOTATED REFERENCES
(All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.)
=================
news/cafv02n30: Message-Id: <1992May11.132630.23905@news.iastate.edu>
=================
An article from the Computers and Academic Freedom News 02.30
Note 4-5 discuss Iowa State University's and the University of Nebraska
at Lincoln's rationalizations for censorship.
4. 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.
=================
=================
These document(s) are available by anonymous ftp (the preferred
method) and by email. To get the file(s) via ftp, do an anonymous ftp
to ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4), and get file(s):
pub/academic/news/cafv02n30
To get the file(s) by email, send email to archive-server@eff.org.
Include the line(s) (be sure to include the space before the file
name):
send acad-freedom/news cafv02n30
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Aug 11 14:30:30 1992
From: evansmp@uhura.aston.ac.uk (Mark Evans)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: [news.admin] Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Message-ID: <1992Aug11.161429.29457@aston.ac.uk>
Date: 11 Aug 92 16:14:29 GMT
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
:
: When you find that the corn has individual kernels laced with strychnine,
: that it's not practical to screen it, and the consequences can
: be rather nasty of letting some of the contaminated stuff through, you
: have to dump the load.
(maybe high in glucose, with a few of its consumers being diabetic???)
What are you suggesting, get rid of all of netnews, sounds like it.
:
: The actions of individual university administrators can hardly be
: considered to be definitive on what the courts (or even the police)
: view as obscene.
Of course as this definition is so 'flexible' anyway.....
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Aug 11 14:52:42 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Subject: Re: Wanted: Usenet vote organizer
Message-ID: <1992Aug11.175346.12839@nntp.hut.fi>
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1992 17:53:46 GMT
In article <1992Aug11.162712.8179@eff.org>, kadie@eff (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>I think alt.comp.acad-freedom.{talk,news} could reach more folks, if
>they were changed to a Usenet newsgroup (I would guess in the soc.* or
>comp.* hierarchies). Their current propagations are 59% and 50%.
>
>Would anyone like to organize the effort (starting official
>discussion, name selection moderation, vote tabulation, etc)?
Being currently running the talk.politics new groups creation process,
I might run another. So I guess I volunteer with this article.
And please, keep the votes for the talk.politics groups coming in!
Again, the vote is detailed in <1992Aug4.183850.19471@uunet.uu.net>
and the list is:
CALL FOR VOTES: talk.politics new groups
VOTING:
To place a vote either for or against the creation of any or each of
the new talk.politics newsgroups, send the ballot below completed with
Y/N/A for Yes, No and Abstain respectively to address
talk-politics-vote@niksula.hut.fi. An email reply to this message
will go to the right address. If there is no line with the respective
group, it will be interpreted as an "abstain" vote. DO NOT post votes
to a newsgroup. Votes will be acknowledged on these newsgroups.
All votes must be received by Aug 22, 1992.
As per the rules, if there are more than 100 yes votes than no votes
by that date AND at least 2/3 of the total number of valid votes
received are yes votes, the newsgroup will be created.
This CFV follow the RFD on new talk.politics groups - many new groups
were added to it along the way.
THE BALLOT:
------ cut here ----
A talk.politics.usa.misc Misc. USA politics.
A talk.politics.usa.constitution U.S. Constitutional politics
A talk.politics.canada Politics of and in Canada
A talk.politics.asia.japan Politics of and in Japan
A talk.politics.asia.taiwan Politics of and in Taiwan
A talk.politics.europe.britain Politics of and in Great Britain
A talk.politics.org.ec European Community politics
A talk.politics.org.un Politics of United Nations
A talk.politics.org.spook "Spook" organizations around the world
A talk.politics.org.misc Political organizations
A talk.politics.europe.misc Misc. discussion on European politics
A talk.politics.europe.nordic Politics of Norden
A talk.politics.europe.baltic Politics of Baltic countries
A talk.politics.europe.east East European politics
A talk.politics.europe.balkan Balkanese politics
A talk.politics.latin-america Latin American politics
A talk.politics.north-america Politics of Northern America
A talk.politics.americas Geopolitics on the American continents
A talk.politics.africa.misc Politics in Africa
A talk.politics.asia.misc Politics in Asia
A talk.politics.asia.southwest Politics in South-West Asia
A talk.politics.asia.southeast Politics in South-East Asia
A talk.politics.asia.south Politics in South Asia
A talk.politics.australasia Politics in Australasia
A talk.politics.antarctica Politics of the Antarctic
A talk.politics.elections Elections discussions and reports
A talk.politics.sex "Blue laws", decency laws, sexual behaviour
A talk.politics.equality Equality and discrimination
A talk.politics.civil-liberty Civil liberties
A talk.politics.libertarian The libertarian ideology
A talk.politics.constitution A constitution as a basis for a society
A talk.politics.economics Political economics: taxes, gov. budgets
A talk.politics.media Media and politics
A talk.politics.usenet Politics of Usenet
A talk.politics.science Politics in science.
A talk.politics.health Health care, politics in medicine, etc.
A talk.politics.ethics Ethics in politics.
A talk.politics.work Workplace and employment politics
A talk.politics.reform Political reform
------ cut here ----
//Jyrki
From caf-talk Caf Aug 12 01:43:46 1992
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,sfu.general
From: jamie@cs.sfu.ca (Jamie Andrews)
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Message-ID: <1992Aug11.183602.4348@cs.sfu.ca>
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1992 18:36:02 GMT
One more round at least.
In article barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry) writes:
>...suppression of
>"porn" is a Victorian phenomenon and was little-practised before the
>19th century.
That is, little-practised when the media had very little
distribution and most people were illiterate.
> The genuinely long-standing tradition behind the suppression of
>porn is the tradition that Authority has the right to control speech.
>That is the tradition the founding fathers of the American system took a
>stand against when they added the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution.
I find it interesting that for each clause in the US
constitution there are 100 different and conflicting
interpretations of what the "founding fathers" really intended
with it. Please find something in the Constitution which
refers specifically to rape or child pornography. I would doubt
that the "founding fathers" were even aware that it could exist.
In any case, once more, we are talking about CANADA here.
>... But I know that the way to counter lies is with
>truth, not suppression. Censorship only increases the harm, and dilutes
>freedom with the very tyranny we claim to oppose.
Again you are generalizing the argument and then taking
examples from the specific area that falls outside what I was
talking about. I am not against censoring reasoned argument
that, for instance, "women like rape" or "children like sex with
adults" (much as I abhor that position). I am for censoring
certain material that makes no arguments, presents no opinions,
and can have the effect of reinforcing and encouraging rapists
and child molesters.
> If, as you mentioned earlier, you want to be philosophical, you
>should defend the philosophical basis of that exception. "Harm"
>arguments are beside the point, in that if some vague, spread-out
>social harm becomes the grounds for censorship, nothing is safe.
No, I think that "harm" is exactly the basis of what I am
saying. You diminish certain freedoms (like Absolute Freedom of
Speech) so that other freedoms are reinforced more strongly.
Your "nothing is safe" is just a rephrasing of this irrational
fear that censorship will lead to Stalinism.
>>But again, our position on censorship is a combination of
>>empirical evidence and philosophy, and we can surely use the
>>empirical evidence to whatever extent we find reasonable.
>
> There is no empirical evidence, period.
Do you equate the phrase "empirical evidence" with
"absolute proof"? I would never advocate accepting seriously
flawed experimental evidence, but I'm not doing that. I think
you've been reading the empirical evidence with your Absolute
Freedom of Speech blinkers on, Kenn.
>The theory behind the
>exception goes like this: porn expresses no ideas; rather, it is akin to
>a sideshow entertainment, whose only justification is titillation. The
>intent of the 1st Amendment is read as protecting the free expression of
>_ideas_, and since porn expresses no ideas, it is not under the
>protection of the 1st Amendment.
That's about what I feel too, though I would say "opinions"
rather than "ideas". The difference between me and the
lawmakers you speak of is that I don't believe that titillation
is inherently wrong. Titillation that reinforces seriously
damaging behaviour is.
> ...[Some antiporn people] accuse porn of supporting and defending pernicious ideas:
>sexism, the dehumanization of women, etc. Ironically enough, were that
>actually true, it would vacate the logic of the traditional "obscenity"
>exception, and give porn the same protection that any other work of
>politics or philosophy enjoys.
I'm not one to support the Dworkinist position that
_Playboy_ dehumanizes women to an extent demanding legal
sanction, but let me just say that you've got this wrong. It is
not an idea, but an irrational prejudice that is being reinforced.
> By making "obscenity" the deciding factor, it keeps the
>logic of the censorship restricted to porn, and is useless for censoring
>something like _Mein Kampf_ which, however offensive and harmful, is not
>sexual and cannot be found obscene in that sense.
"Offensiveness" is (IMHO) irrelevant. Harm is more
relevant. There are other laws in Canada which prevent things
like "Mein Kampf" from being published as-is, which incidentally
would probably not prevent an annotated edition from being
published. But arguing about this would take us way away from
the argument about a.s.b.
>Once we accept the notion that something should be censored because its
>effects are more negative than positive, there is no theoretical limit
>on what may be censored.
I still fail to see the difference between this and traffic
laws. Just because there is no theoretical limit does not mean
we're going to turn into a Stalinist state.
>If skin flicks should be censored because they're
>demeaning to women, doesn't it follow that a well-written and persuasive
>philosophical essay that argued the natural superiority of males must be
>censored on the same grounds?
No. See above, on "opinions". (And before someone says
for the 10,000th time "who are you to impose your views on me",
let me say for the 9,999th time that I am just adding my
opinions to the pot, and that the decisions are made by
lawmakers, judges and juries, same as anything else.)
> Think it through, Jamie.
Oh please Kenn. What is this, "proof by patronization"?
I have been thinking it through for about 15 years, reading the
literature and philosophical arguments very intently. It was
only recently that I finally decided what I think about rape
and kiddie porn; you will notice that I do not include other
sub-classifications in my arguments, and that I can be found on
soc.women from time to time arguing against the Dworkinist
position that non-violent porn encourages violence. (And for
you ad hominem fans, no, my personal tastes do not dictate my
views.)
> The terrorist
>(and his bosses) are responsible for blowing up the building, not Karl
>Marx or Mao ZeDong or the authors of PLO manifestos; the rapist is
>guilty of the rape, whether porn had a negative effect on his character
>or not.
Well, I can think up other analogies (such as incitement to
riot). I think this is where we have to agree to disagree.
> You need to make up your mind.
Dear Papa Kenn, my mind is made up already. But I'm open
to argument.
> Maybe the censorship of what
>was worthwhile in [a.s.b] strikes you as a necessary and reasonable
>price to pay to suppress the obscene stuff; if so, say so, don't claim
>such a price won't have to be paid.
Sure, I'll say so. If _Playboy_ published "Cindy's
Torment", I would be for censoring it too, regardless of what
other worthwhile stuff it had in it. If _Playboy_ doesn't want
to be censored, it won't publish stuff like that. Likewise
a.s.b. The institutions in question took a reasonable action to
avoid legal consequences.
> No one presently has the
>power to control what gets posted to the group. If you give someone that
>power you've got censorship, and all that entails. You certainly _don't_
>have Usenet any more.
This is disingenuous, Kenn. You and I both know that
Usenet chugged along very well for many years with admins
cancelling other people's articles all the time. That _was_
Usenet. It's only on the liberated altnet that people are now
claiming the "right" to post anything, anywhere.
>... You've
>argued right along that porn is censorable because it demeans women...
No I haven't.
> and
>encourages sexual violence against them.
Certain kinds do. I'm not a Dworkinist.
> Well, I've decided to change my
>name to John Norman and write a philosophical work arguing that the
>natural role of women in society is as slaves to the men, and that a
>firm hand (beat 'em up occasionally) is best.
Fine. I'll argue against your *opinions*. If you progress
into all-out fictional glorification of rape (as Norman never
has done), I'll want it censored. Note, *I'm* not going to
censor it -- I'm just adding my $.02.
>> So if, say, someone were to produce a magazine called
>>_RAPE_, with erotic stories involving women getting raped and
>>loving it, pictorials of rapes (produced by consenting adults,
>>of course), and features like "How to Convince People You're Not
>>a Rapist Anymore", and if they were to distribute this magazine
>>in prisons for convicted rapists, you would think that's OK?
>
> One technical quibble: convicted felons don't have full legal
>rights; temporarily depriving them of these rights is part of the
>justice process.
Oh I see, so you *don't* believe in Absolute Freedom of
Speech. Where else are you for abrogation of this important
Right, Kenn? Copyright law, by any chance? Incitement to riot?
Conspiracy to commit murder? Gee, I guess Freedom of Speech is
just another right, to be balanced against others.
>>Sorry, but that's not the kind of society I want to live in.
>
> You already do.
Obviously what I meant was that I don't want to live in
a society where that's legal.
> Censorship has _never_ succeeded in suppressing
>anything people want.
Neither have murder laws. Should we throw them out too?
Sigh.
The people who pass around the pen-and-ink drawings of
children having sex with adults, and the stories glorifying
rape, do not need official blessing for what they're doing.
They don't need reinforcement for the feeling that acting out
their desires is a good way of dealing with their pain. What
they need, for their sake and ours, is to understand that doing
these things is wrong; understand at a deep, emotional level,
which goes beyond rational argument and into the realm of
therapy and emotional healing.
Many of them understand it already. Others don't. The
rights of the people who understand it are not more important
than the rights of the victims of the others.
--Jamie.
jamie@cs.sfu.ca
"Every \item command in item_list must have an optional argument." LaTeX pg.168
From caf-talk Caf Aug 12 09:30:41 1992
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.censorship
From: peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva)
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Message-ID:
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 11:24:51 GMT
In article <1992Aug11.171126.2448@m.cs.uiuc.edu> kadie@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
>[...]
>>I don't think Chris is concerned with the material itself. He's concerned
>>with the criminal prosecution that would result from carrying it.
>[...]
>>Yes, it's a bad law. But, really, what alternative have the schools in
>>question got?
>[...]
>The only way a school could be 100% safe is by cutting off its network
>feed, burning all the books in the library, firing all its professors,
>and expelling all its students.
That's nice. Nobody said anything about being 100% safe. You can't buy a
car with a 5-point racing harness, but does that mean you quit wearing
your seatbelt?
I've cut off all of alt.sex from time to time when the political situation
has warranted it. I don't like the idea, but so long as twits in power see
this as an easy way to get {more power/publicity/...} I can't afford it.
--
`-_-'
Have you hugged your wolf today? 'U`
Peter da Silva, Taronga Park BBS, Houston, TX +1 713 568 0480/1032
From caf-talk Caf Aug 12 09:30:42 1992
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,sfu.general
From: peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva)
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Message-ID:
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 11:30:28 GMT
In article <1992Aug11.183602.4348@cs.sfu.ca> jamie@cs.sfu.ca (Jamie Andrews) writes:
> One more round at least.
>In article barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry) writes:
>>...suppression of
>>"porn" is a Victorian phenomenon and was little-practised before the
>>19th century.
> That is, little-practised when the media had very little
>distribution and most people were illiterate.
There has always been a *lot* of what you call "porn" around. Please
check any good university library for a number of relevant historical
texts.
--
`-_-'
Have you hugged your wolf today? 'U`
Peter da Silva, Taronga Park BBS, Houston, TX +1 713 568 0480/1032
From caf-talk Caf Aug 12 10:58:34 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [news.admin] Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Message-ID: <9208121458.AA18257@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 04:58:22 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Aug 12 10:58:34 1992
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Message-ID: <222@ulogic.UUCP>
Date: 11 Aug 92 15:53:15 GMT
In article <1992Aug10.190804.30054@m.cs.uiuc.edu> kadie@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>hartman@ulogic.UUCP (Richard M. Hartman) writes:
>
>>Actually I don't think that "degrading" is the issue. The constitutional
>>guarantee of freedom of speech was to ensure that dissenting political
>>ideas could not be suppressed.
>
>That was only one reason that freedom of speech was protected. It was
>also protected because it has, in the opinion of many, value in and of
>itself. Freedom of speech is part of being a free people. It was also
>protected because it is needed for a free marketplace of ideas, the
>best way we know move toward truth.
It was protected because under England's governance they were not
free to express dissenting ideas.
There may be justification for making all pornography illegal, but
I am *not* certain that the 1st amendment, which is primarily focussed
on ideas would be it. Perhaps the 9th (as you point out below) should
be brought in.
I admit that I am on shakey ground. I am in favor of "erotica"
remaining legal. To be honest I could care less if most porn
remained legal as well. (Although to be honest, bear in mind
that this whole issue *did* start w/ a Canadian university, not
an American one -- and they *do* have more explicit laws on pornography).
As long as such laws are chosen by the people, and not the government,
I have little trouble with them (not to say none...).
Actually my prime interest is in keeping child pornography illegal
because (as I have been discussing in another thread) it is not
possible to place a child in sexual situations (with or without
penetration) without it being a form of child abuse.
>>This has since become expanded to the point of ridiculousness. To the
>>point where a cross dipped in urine is not only touted as "freedom of
>>_expression_" (note the change in the phrase), but somehow must ALSO
>>be funded by the taxpayers!
>
>The change in phrase is the result of combining "freedom of speech"
>with "freedom of the press" and recognizing that function, not
>technology, is the defining feature. Are you saying that unamplified
>speech and mechanical presses are protected from the government? What
>about the Ninth Amendment:
>
> "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be con-
>strued to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
Nope. I am saying that no "artist" has the *right* to demand
that his work be funded by the taxpayers. If he cannot make
money on his own, then his work (probably) isn't worth the
money. If the government wishes to establish some sort of
aid to subsidize the arts, they have a responsibility to the
taxpayers to not spend that money on every tom dick or harry
that *thinks* they are an artist -- but to excercise some
form of judgement on who might deserve such aid.
One of the main problems w/ the government spending policies
in ALL areas (not just the arts) is that they just spend the
damn money without any regard to finding out whether they are
getting reasonable value in return. I'm sure we've all heard
the stories about $16000 hex wrenches, and studies to determine
if cutting the legs off of frogs makes them go deaf.
>> Nowhere in the constitution does the
>>freedom to "express" get tied to the government's obligation to PAY
>>for everything anyone wants to come up with.
>
>Nowhere in the NEA debate (or anywhere else) did I hear anyone suggest
>that the government had an obligation to pay for everything anyone
>wants to come up with.
Perhaps not on USENET. People *have* defended that artist's
"right" to be paid for his "work", and noone was paying except
the NEA. (Sorry if I don't remember his name.)
>>To bring this back to the topic of pornography, there is no *idea*
>>conveyed by pornography to be protected.
>[...]
>
>Then the rational (rationalization?) for the new Canadian definition
>of obscenity is invalid. It takes as its premise that obscenity
>conveys the idea that women are unequal.
That's Canada's problem if the wrote the law wrong.... :-)
Then again, Canada is not covered by the U.S. Constitution, so
all this talk on the 1st & 9th amendments doesn't apply anyway...
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Blasting, bursting, billowing forth with |
the power of ten billion butterfly sneezes, | -Richard Hartman
Man, with his flaming fire, | hartman@uLogic.COM
has conquered the wayword breezes. |
From caf-talk Caf Aug 12 10:58:55 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [news.admin] Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Message-ID: <9208121458.AA18266@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 04:58:44 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Aug 12 10:58:55 1992
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Message-ID: <225@ulogic.UUCP>
Date: 11 Aug 92 16:03:26 GMT
In article <1992Aug10.233103.12268@fid.morgan.com> sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart) writes:
>In article <3699@ecicrl.ocunix.on.ca> clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca
>(Chris Lewis) writes:
>
>>The problem is that *some* of the postings to a.s.b. are apparently
>>beyond what the law will accept.
>
>"The" law? USENET is worldwide; many different laws apply to various
>portions of it.
Yup. And a.s.b is only being rejected by "various portions" of it,
according to their laws &/or regulations.
>If you don't want to receive the group, that's your privilege
>(assuming you're the system's owner or owner's representative).
>Otherwise, you should confine yourself to not reading it.
That is what they (the system's owners) did. Then people started
all this "you can't do that" b*tching and moaning. The U of Manitoba
(I think it was) cut of a.s.b because it was found to be in violation
of the Canadian laws. The group is still in violation even if only
one article is the actual culprit. So they cut it off. If everyone
said as you did "that's their privilige" we wouldn't be here in this
thread.
-Richard Hartman
hartman@ulogic.COM
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
"Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men?"
From caf-talk Caf Aug 12 10:59:13 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [news.admin] Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Message-ID: <9208121459.AA18275@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 04:59:03 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Aug 12 10:59:13 1992
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Message-ID:
From: a_rubin@dsg4.dse.beckman.com (Arthur Rubin)
Date: 11 Aug 92 17:23:11 GMT
In peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
>kadie@uiuc.edu (Carl Kadie writes:
>>>|A problem is that very, very, very little of the material in alt.sex
>>>|is obscene by the new Canadian definition, and yet the whole newsgroup
>>>|has been removed from several universities.
>>clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca (Chris Lewis) writes:
>>>When you find that the corn has individual kernels laced with strychnine,
>>>that it's not practical to screen it, and the consequences can
>>>be rather nasty of letting some of the contaminated stuff through, you
>>>have to dump the load.
>In article <1992Aug11.112000.4307@m.cs.uiuc.edu> kadie@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>>No studies have claimed that sexual material is anywhere near as
>>dangerous as poison.
>I don't think Chris is concerned with the material itself. He's concerned
>with the criminal prosecution that would result from carrying it.
>>By analogy, considered as a whole, alt.sex has scientific, political,
>>literary, and artistic value and therefore should not be banned as
>>obscene.
>OK, you're volunteering to be the test case?
>Yes, it's a bad law. But, really, what alternative have the schools in
>question got?
In the Canadian cases, I don't see any. In the case of public US schools,
the First Amendment does apply, and the school (probably) cannot make
content-based decisions as to which newsgroups to accept. Note: I am not
a lawyer, and I am also not saying that THIS situation is desirable either.
--
Arthur L. Rubin: a_rubin@dsg4.dse.beckman.com (work) Beckman Instruments/Brea
216-5888@mcimail.com 70707.453@compuserve.com arthur@pnet01.cts.com (personal)
My opinions are my own, and do not represent those of my employer.
Our news system is unstable; if you want to be sure I see a post, mail it.
From caf-talk Caf Aug 12 10:59:25 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [news.admin] Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Message-ID: <9208121459.AA18284@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 04:59:13 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Aug 12 10:59:25 1992
From: dan@cubmol.bio.columbia.edu (Daniel Zabetakis)
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Message-ID: <1992Aug11.234418.29685@news.columbia.edu>
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1992 23:44:18 GMT
In article <225@ulogic.UUCP> hartman@ulogic.UUCP (Richard M. Hartman) writes:
> The U of Manitoba
>(I think it was) cut of[f] a.s.b because it was found to be in violation
>of the Canadian laws.
I may have missed this, but what court was it that found a.s.b in violation
of a law? I didn't know it had got that far yet.
DanZ
--
This article is for entertainment purposes only. Any facts, opinions,
narratives or ideas contained herein are not necessarily true, and do
not necessarily represent the views of any particular person.
From caf-talk Caf Aug 12 10:59:41 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [news.admin] Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Message-ID: <9208121459.AA18293@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 04:59:30 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Aug 12 10:59:41 1992
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Message-ID: <920811.1523457463@foucault.postmodern.com>
Date: 12 Aug 92 07:04:29 GMT
In the referenced article, clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca (Chris Lewis) writes:
> [With respect to alt.sex.bondage:]
> The suggestion simply was: come on guys, do us a favour. We'd like
> to receive the main stuff, but the odd bit gives our government
> indigestion. How about a split? Or a little gentle reminder from
> time to time to get the odd posting redirected to somewhere more
> appropriate.
I've stayed out of this so far, but I don't think you understand how
offensive I (and others) find the above paragraph. I have absolutely
no interest in any cooperation, no matter how slight, with any form of
state censorship. I believe that censorship is not merely evil but Evil,
and if your government gives you problems about that, I think you
should oppose them. I have no interest in giving even trivial respect
to Canadian laws that restrict freedom of expression. I consider them
an offense to human rights and urge you to oppose them, to struggle
against them, to rise up and dismantle the institutions that
implement them, by means of the ballot, by means of protest, civil
disobedience, demonstration, samizdat, interference, and unblinking
opposition.
And to that end I believe that it is not only a right but a duty of
Americans to make it as difficult as possible for Canadian (or any
other state's) censors to do their job. If the Ontario Film Review
Board's building was on fire, believe me, (other than to rescue
trapped people), I would not put water on it.
So if censorship (and pressures to resist it, i.e., by cross-border sites
that send you "illegal" material) gives you a problem, get on your
MLA's case. Don't come whining to Americans telling us to cool it; I
think instead we should turn up the heat.
Just Say NO to censors -- AND those who collaborate with them.
--
Michael C. Berch
mcb@postmodern.com
From caf-talk Caf Aug 12 11:15:31 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: rramji4@mamut.wlu.ca (ruby ramji u)
Subject: freedom of speech
Message-ID: <9208121513.AA04552@unix4>
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 15:13:18 GMT
i was wondering, if we strive for freedom of speech
where do issues such as libel and slander fall?
i mean, are they are different issue, or is there
a line drawn when freedom of speech actually harms
someone?
curious
ruby
rramji4@mach1.wlu.ca
From caf-talk Caf Aug 12 11:41:47 1992
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.censorship
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Message-ID: <1992Aug12.154039.14754@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 15:40:39 GMT
hartman@ulogic.UUCP (Richard M. Hartman) writes:
[...]
>That is what they (the system's owners) did. Then people started
>all this "you can't do that" b*tching and moaning. The U of Manitoba
>(I think it was) cut of a.s.b because it was found to be in violation
>of the Canadian laws.
You make it sound as if the University administrators involved went
though some careful deliberation. In fact, to the best of my
knowledge, no court, or even lawyer, even looked at the law and the
material before it was cut.
According to one report, the administrators, reacting to newspaper
criticism, were so sloppy they initially cut alt.sexual.abuse.recovery.
> The group is still in violation even if only
>one article is the actual culprit.
Can you support this claim or did you just make it up?
My understanding of both U.S. and Canadian law is the opposite. My
understanding is that if one part of a whole has some value, then the
whole is not obscene. Here is an excerpt someone sent me from the
recent Canadian Supreme Court decision:
| Second, materials which have scientific, artistic, or literary merit
| are not captured by the provision. As discussed above, the court must
| be generous in its application of the ``artistic defence''. For
| example, in certain cases, materials such as photographs, prints,
| books, and films which may undoubtedly be produced with some motive
| for economic profit, may nonetheless claim the protection of the
| Charter insofar as their defining characteristic is that of aesthetic
| expression, and thus represent the artist's attempt at individual
| fulfillment. The existence of an accompanying economic motive does
| not, of itself, deprive a work of significance as an example of
| individual artistic or self-fulfillment.
Also, note that it also
1) suggests that noncommercial material is less likely to be found obscene
2) recognizes that self-fulfillment through expression
is a reason for protecting expression.
I see not justification in the decision for banning alt.sex.
> So they cut it off. If everyone
>said as you did "that's their privilege" we wouldn't be here in this
>thread.
[...]
If they had done their duty to academic freedom rather than caving in
to newspaper criticism, we wouldn't be here in this thread.
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Aug 12 13:16:22 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [news.future] Re: reading news from multiple NNTP servers.
Message-ID: <9208121716.AA21708@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 07:16:09 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Aug 12 13:16:22 1992
From: jaapjl@tab00.larc.nasa.gov (J Lee Jaap)
Subject: Re: reading news from multiple NNTP servers.
Message-ID:
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 14:43:14 GMT
In article <1992Aug12.010716.16392@news.iastate.edu> spam@iastate.edu (mike begley) writes:
Is there ans newsreading software that will allow me to read news from
multiple NNTP servers? For example, I read some news on from our local
server, and read some groups on a remote server. I think it would be
to have another field in the .newsrc file that specifies what server the
groups are to be read from. this would
-widen the range of groups a user may read
-allow users to spread their use over multiple sites, thereby spreading
the load from some overloaded sites
-lessen the danger of censorship by giving users a choice of server; they're
not limited to the range of groups their administrator decides to carry.
Is this a possibility?
GNUS has this capability, but implemented a different way. It can
use ~/.newsrc-, where is the name of the server....
I'm not sure where to find it (I didn't install it), but you can
probably ask on gnu.emacs.gnus.
--
J Lee Jaap +1 804/864-2148
employed by, not speaking for, AS&M Inc, at NASA LaRC, Hampton VA 23681
From caf-talk Caf Aug 12 13:44:56 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.censorship
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: freedom of speech
Message-ID: <1992Aug12.173436.17652@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 17:34:36 GMT
rramji4@mamut.wlu.ca (ruby ramji u) writes:
[...]
>i was wondering, if we strive for freedom of speech
>where do issues such as libel and slander fall?
>i mean, are they are different issue, or is there
>a line drawn when freedom of speech actually harms
>someone?
[...]
When the harm to other's rights is clear and present and when more
speech won't work, then compensation or punishment can be justified.
Examples: Falsely yelling fire and causing a panic.
Spreading lies about someone that damages their
reputation.
Calling someone on the phone day after day after they
tell you to stop.
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Aug 12 14:13:33 1992
Newsgroups: uiuc.general,alt.censorship,rec.arts.fine,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: U. of Illinois may remove non"pleasant" art from vistor's center
Message-ID: <1992Aug12.180342.25106@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 18:03:42 GMT
tmkk@uiuc.edu (Khan) writes:
[...]
>Why is it legal for a University to bad X-rated GIF files from its
>anonymous ftp sites, ban the importation of groups such as
>alt.sex.pictures onto camous machines, but NOT legal for them to take a
>couple of X-rated paintings off of the wall of a campus building?
[...]
[This reply is based more on academic freedom than the law.]
There is no University wide ban against any of these things. (In the
days before home video, X-rated movies were shown on campus almost
every weekend.)
Anytime the University selects material for a public collection, it
should base its selection on criteria such as cost, quality, and
relevance to the mission of that collection. It should not base its
selection on criteria such as the origin, background, or views of
those contributing to the materials creation or partisan or doctrinal
disapproval.
Student (and staff) expression can also be moved (both in time and
place) to avoid disruption.
In the case of the paintings (which were not, by the way "x-rated"),
the Committee's initial approval (as recorded in a contract) is strong
evidence that the works were acceptable with respect to cost, quality,
and relevance. That their removal was suggested only after people
objected to them is strong evidence that the removal attempt was
motivated by such disapproval. (The paintings were not disruptive.)
I'm enclosing an FAQ on newsgroup selection.
- Carl
=============== ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/faq/netnews.reading ===============
q: Should my university remove (or restrict) Netnews newsgroups
because some people find them offensive? If it doesn't have the
resources to carry all newsgroups, how should newsgroups be selected?
a: In 1989, Stanford University banned rec.humor.funny. The ban was
lifted after a university committee recommended that newsgroups be
selected according to library policy. In other words, removing a
newsgroup is equivalent to banning a magazine from an academic
library.
The principles of intellectual freedom developed by libraries can (and
should, in my opinion) be applied to the administration of information
material on computers. These principles are explained in such American
Library Association documents as the Library Bill of Rights, the
Freedom to Read Statement, and the Intellectual Freedom Statement.
With the permission of the American Library Association, these
documents and others are available on-line. Many of these documents
deal with controversial material and material selection policy. For
example, article 2 of the Library Bill of Rights says: "Materials
should not be proscribed or removed because of partisan or doctrinal
disapproval". The ALA Statement on Diversity talks about the
importance of "materials that reflect political, economic, religious,
social, minority, and sexual issues." The ALA Workbook for Selection
Policy Writing tells how to create a formal policy. It also tells
exactly how to respond to challenges to controversial material.
- Carl M. Kadie
ANNOTATED REFERENCES
(All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.)
=================
stanford.statements
=================
"In 1989 rec.humor.funny was suppressed in some of the Stanford
University computers. After a campaign it was re-installed in those
computers."
This file contains
1) the "Statement of Protest about the AIR Censorship of rec.humor.funny"
2) a statement by the Stanford faculty committee on libraries
3) Notes from Professor John McCarthy on how censorship was fought at Stanford
(also see "jmcabstract")
=================
jmcabstract
=================
Professor John McCarthy lead the effort to restore "rec.humor.funny"
at Stanford. In March of 1991, he traveled to the University of
Waterloo, a place where "rec.humor.funny" and "alt.sex" was banned.
At Waterloo, he gave one talk on a new computer language and a second
talk on "Network Publication and Free Expression". This is the
abstract of that talk. (In May 1991, an advisory committee said the
ban should be lifted. In October 1991, the ban was lifted.)
(Also, see "stanford.statements")
=================
caf-statement
=================
This is an attempt to codify the application of academic freedom to
academic computers. It reflects our seven months of on-line discussion
about computers and academic freedom. It covers free expression, due
process, privacy, and user participation.
Comments and suggestions are very welcome (especially when posted to
CAF-talk). All the documents referenced are available on-line.
(Critiqued).
=================
caf-statement.critique
=================
This is a critique of an attempt to codify the application of academic
freedom to academic computers. It reflects our seven months of on-line
discussion about computers and academic freedom. It covers free
expression, due process, privacy, and user participation.
Additional comments and suggestions are very welcome (especially when
posted to CAF-talk). All the documents referenced are available
on-line.
=================
policies/netnews.uwm.edu
=================
These are the network policy resolutions developed by the Computer
Policy Committee at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. The
resolutions were approved by the Committee and forwarded to the
Chancellor.
They say (to paraphrase) 1) Netnews is important 2) No restrictions
should be imposed without wide consultation 3) The principles of
intellectual freedom developed for university libraries apply to
Netnews material 4) The principles of intellectual freedom developed
for publication in traditional media apply to computer media.
=================
library/bill-of-rights.ala
=================
The Library Bill of Rights from the American Library Association.
=================
library/freedom-to-read.ala
=================
The "Freedom to Read Statement" of the American Library Association
and Association of American Publishers.
It says in part: "We trust Americans to recognize propaganda, and to
reject it. We do not believe they need the help of censors to assist
them in this task. We do not believe they are prepared to sacrifice
their heritage of a free press in order to be "protected" against what
others think may be bad for them. We believe they still favor free
enterprise in ideas and expression."
=================
library/diversity.ala
=================
"Diversity in Collection Development"
An interpretation by the American Library Association of the "Library
Bill of Rights"
It says that collections should be inclusive, not exclusive. And that
materials should cover the needs and interest of all patrons. "This
includes materials that reflect political, economic, religious,
social, minority, and sexual issues."
=================
library/selection-workbook.ala
=================
Full text of ALA's selection policy workbook.
The American Library Association's "Workbook on Selection Policy
Writing". Although aimed at textbook and library book selection in
grade and high schools, it also seems applicable to newsgroup
selection. It includes information about how create a selection policy
and how to handle complaints. It also includes a sample selection
policy.
=================
library/int-freedom.ala
=================
"Intellectual Freedom Statement"
An interpretation by the American Library Association of the "Library
Bill of Rights"
=================
library/censorship.def.ala
=================
The American Library Association's definition of "censorship" and related
terms.
=================
library/README
=================
Library Policy Archive
[part of the Computers and Academic Freedom (CAF) Archive
[part of the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) Archive]]
This is an on-line collection of library policy statements. It
includes the American Library Association's Freedom To Read statement
and the ALA Library Bill of Rights. (The ALA material is made
available by permission of the American Library Association.)
The archive is accessible via anonymous ftp and email. Ftp to
ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4). It is in directory "pub/academic/library".
For email access, send email to archive-server@eff.org. Include the
line:
send acad-freedom/library
where is a list of the files that you want. File README is
a detailed description of the items in the directory.
For more information, to make contributions, or to report typos
contact Carl Kadie (kadie@eff.org).
=================
faq/netnews.writing
=================
q: Should my university allow students to post to Netnews?
=================
banned.1991
=================
A list of computer material that was banned at universities during (or
before) 1991. It summarizes incidents and policies at Ohio State U.,
the U. of Illinois (two campuses), Case Western U., Boston U., U. of
Waterloo, U. of Toledo, Western Washington U., Iowa State U.,
Pennsylvania State U., U. of Texas, U. of Newcastle, James Madison U.,
U. of Wisconsin, and others.
=================
=================
These document(s) are available by anonymous ftp (the preferred
method) and by email. To get the file(s) via ftp, do an anonymous ftp
to ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4), and get file(s):
pub/academic/stanford.statements
pub/academic/jmcabstract
pub/academic/caf-statement
pub/academic/caf-statement.critique
pub/academic/policies/netnews.uwm.edu
pub/academic/library/bill-of-rights.ala
pub/academic/library/freedom-to-read.ala
pub/academic/library/diversity.ala
pub/academic/library/selection-workbook.ala
pub/academic/library/int-freedom.ala
pub/academic/library/censorship.def.ala
pub/academic/library/README
pub/academic/faq/netnews.writing
pub/academic/banned.1991
To get the file(s) by email, send email to archive-server@eff.org.
Include the line(s) (be sure to include the space before the file
name):
send acad-freedom stanford.statements
send acad-freedom jmcabstract
send acad-freedom caf-statement
send acad-freedom caf-statement.critique
send acad-freedom/policies netnews.uwm.edu
send acad-freedom/library bill-of-rights.ala
send acad-freedom/library freedom-to-read.ala
send acad-freedom/library diversity.ala
send acad-freedom/library selection-workbook.ala
send acad-freedom/library int-freedom.ala
send acad-freedom/library censorship.def.ala
send acad-freedom/library README
send acad-freedom/faq netnews.writing
send acad-freedom banned.1991
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Aug 12 15:35:55 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [news.future] Re: reading news from multiple NNTP servers.
Message-ID: <9208121935.AA23091@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 09:35:43 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Aug 12 15:35:55 1992
Newsgroups: news.future
Subject: Re: reading news from multiple NNTP servers.
Message-ID:
Date: 12 Aug 92 17:26:54 GMT
The NNTP version of trn can do this, via the NNTPSERVER env variable. I've
built a script which allows flexible access to multiple servers. It will
store the required "dot" files (.newsrc, .rnlast, .rnsoft) in a $HOME
directory of .trrn-{nntpserver}-{user $NAME}. You need to keep separate
.newsrc files for each NNTP server or else trn will get really confused.
Here's how I do it; my default NNTP server is news.cerf.net:
#!/bin/sh
NNTPSERVER=${NNTPSERVER:-news.cerf.net}
suffix=${NAME:+`echo $NAME|sed -e 's/[^[:alpha:]]//g'`}
DOTDIR=${DOTDIR:-"$HOME/.trrn-$NNTPSERVER${suffix:+-$suffix}"}
export DOTDIR NNTPSERVER
if [ ! -d $DOTDIR ] ; then
echo I am creating the following DOTDIR directory for you: $DOTDIR
echo This will prevent trrn from conflicting with your standard trn files.
echo "Please press RETURN to continue...\c"
read junk
mkdir $DOTDIR
fi
PATH=/usr/contrib/bin/trrndir:$PATH
export PATH
/usr/contrib/bin/trrndir/trrn
--
Mark Bixby Internet: markb@spock.dis.cccd.edu
Coast Community College District 1370 Adams Avenue
District Information Services Costa Mesa, CA, USA 92626
Technical Support (714) 432-5064
"You can tune a file system, but you can't tune a fish." - tunefs(1M)
From caf-talk Caf Aug 12 17:33:36 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: $L$LB50@LUCCPUA.bitnet (Claudia Gomez Carmona)
Subject: SAVE WOUNDED KNEE (Copy) Wounded Knee
Message-ID: <199208122133.AA02891@eff.org>
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 21:33:00 GMT
---------------------------- Text of forwarded message -----------------------
/* Written 7:11 pm Aug 6, 1992 by peacenet in cdp:pn.alerts */
/* ---------- "Wounded Knee" ---------- */
From:
Subject: Wounded Knee
From eeames Thu Aug 6 09:40:22 1992
From: Elizabeth Eames
ELDERS OF THE LAKOTA SIOUX NATION HAVE URGED CONCERNED CITIZENS TO
CONTACT CONGRESS IMMEDIATELY TO DEFEAT RESOLUTION 9285 WHICH WOULD
TAKE AWAY THE SACRED WOUNDED KNEE SITE TO MAKE A NATIONAL PARK.
THIS WOULD NO LONGER THEN BE INDIAN LAND AND WOULD GIVE MINERAL
RIGHTS TO THE GOVERNMENT. 600 SIOUX WOULD BE DISPLACED. THEIR HOMES
WOULD BE CONDEMNED. NO PROVISIONS HAVE BEEN MADE FOR RELOCATION.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT WALTER LITTLEMOON (AFTER 7 P.M.
CENTRAL TIME) AT (605)-288-1907 OR JOHNICE (11 AM)7 EASTERN) (704)
658-0123.. ... ...-....1200 N81N
From caf-talk Caf Aug 12 17:37:27 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: $L$LB50@LUCCPUA.bitnet (Claudia Gomez Carmona)
Subject: SAVE WOUNDED KNEE (Copy) Wounded Knee
Message-ID: <199208122137.AA02977@eff.org>
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 21:36:00 GMT
---------------------------- Text of forwarded message -----------------------
/* Written 7:11 pm Aug 6, 1992 by peacenet in cdp:pn.alerts */
/* ---------- "Wounded Knee" ---------- */
From:
Subject: Wounded Knee
From eeames Thu Aug 6 09:40:22 1992
From: Elizabeth Eames
ELDERS OF THE LAKOTA SIOUX NATION HAVE URGED CONCERNED CITIZENS TO
CONTACT CONGRESS IMMEDIATELY TO DEFEAT RESOLUTION 9285 WHICH WOULD
TAKE AWAY THE SACRED WOUNDED KNEE SITE TO MAKE A NATIONAL PARK.
THIS WOULD NO LONGER THEN BE INDIAN LAND AND WOULD GIVE MINERAL
RIGHTS TO THE GOVERNMENT. 600 SIOUX WOULD BE DISPLACED. THEIR HOMES
WOULD BE CONDEMNED. NO PROVISIONS HAVE BEEN MADE FOR RELOCATION.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT WALTER LITTLEMOON (AFTER 7 P.M.
CENTRAL TIME) AT (605)-288-1907 OR JOHNICE (11 AM)7 EASTERN) (704)
658-0123.. ... ...-....1200 N81N
From caf-talk Caf Aug 12 17:49:07 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.admin.policy] Re: Computer Usage Policy Statements?
Message-ID: <9208122148.AA27245@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 11:48:52 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Aug 12 17:49:07 1992
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy
Subject: Re: Computer Usage Policy Statements?
Message-ID:
Date: 12 Aug 92 18:50:52 GMT
jwmanly@amherst.edu writes:
>Hello, everyone.
>Forgive me if my memory is faulty, but I believe this is the group were I
>recently (within the last two or three months) saw a number of individual
>institutions' computer account usage policies posted for comment. ("Users
>must not give their passwords to others, etc.")
>Amherst College is now in the process of drafting such a document, but I
>find I no longer have any copies of any of the old messages in this group.
>If someone would be so kind as to E-mail me any of the samples that were
>posted here, I would be most grateful.
I believe computer usage and security policies from various
universities are available by anonymous ftp from ariel.unm.edu
(in the ethics directory) ...
--
Samuel Ko (kko@sfu.ca)
From caf-talk Caf Aug 12 18:42:14 1992
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,sfu.general
From: cmort@NCoast.ORG (Christopher Morton)
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 19:47:21 GMT
Message-ID: <1992Aug12.194721.5474@NCoast.ORG>
As quoted from <1992Aug11.183602.4348@cs.sfu.ca> by jamie@cs.sfu.ca (Jamie Andrews):
> >... But I know that the way to counter lies is with
> >truth, not suppression. Censorship only increases the harm, and dilutes
> >freedom with the very tyranny we claim to oppose.
>
> Again you are generalizing the argument and then taking
> examples from the specific area that falls outside what I was
> talking about. I am not against censoring reasoned argument
> that, for instance, "women like rape" or "children like sex with
> adults" (much as I abhor that position). I am for censoring
> certain material that makes no arguments, presents no opinions,
> and can have the effect of reinforcing and encouraging rapists
> and child molesters.
I'm much more afraid of the censors than I am of NAMBLA et al. The latter are
always a small minority. When they violate the laws regarding sexual assault,
feel free to try and hang them. The censors are legion and never too narrow
as to what must be suppressed for your own good. Censorship is a bandwagon
mentality. The more the merrier.
> > If, as you mentioned earlier, you want to be philosophical, you
> >should defend the philosophical basis of that exception. "Harm"
> >arguments are beside the point, in that if some vague, spread-out
> >social harm becomes the grounds for censorship, nothing is safe.
>
> No, I think that "harm" is exactly the basis of what I am
> saying. You diminish certain freedoms (like Absolute Freedom of
> Speech) so that other freedoms are reinforced more strongly.
> Your "nothing is safe" is just a rephrasing of this irrational
> fear that censorship will lead to Stalinism.
It's hardly irrational. In fact censorship of whatever doesn't fit the general
line is the sine qua non of Stalinism. Considering the depth and breadth of
material that the various censors of the right and left want the suppress, they
constitute a veritable Stalinschina reinactment society.
> > There is no empirical evidence, period.
>
> Do you equate the phrase "empirical evidence" with
> "absolute proof"? I would never advocate accepting seriously
> flawed experimental evidence, but I'm not doing that. I think
> you've been reading the empirical evidence with your Absolute
> Freedom of Speech blinkers on, Kenn.
There isn't even equivocal proof. When you have to rely on the words of Ted
Bundy, you don't have an argument.
> >The theory behind the
> >exception goes like this: porn expresses no ideas; rather, it is akin to
> >a sideshow entertainment, whose only justification is titillation. The
> >intent of the 1st Amendment is read as protecting the free expression of
> >_ideas_, and since porn expresses no ideas, it is not under the
> >protection of the 1st Amendment.
>
> That's about what I feel too, though I would say "opinions"
> rather than "ideas". The difference between me and the
> lawmakers you speak of is that I don't believe that titillation
> is inherently wrong. Titillation that reinforces seriously
> damaging behaviour is.
What's "seriously damaging behavior"? I think Marxist-Leninism is "Seriously
damaging behavior". I also think that suppression of Marxist-Leninist
discourse is more dangerous than the Marxist-Leninism itself. If you ask a
Teheran cleric, a woman wearing a conservative business suit is "seriously
damaging behavior". Who's going to decide? If the cleric lives where you do,
what makes his opinion LESS valuable than yours? Why shouldn't women have to
where chadors to assuage his moral indignation?
> > ...[Some antiporn people] accuse porn of supporting and defending pernicious ideas:
> >sexism, the dehumanization of women, etc. Ironically enough, were that
> >actually true, it would vacate the logic of the traditional "obscenity"
> >exception, and give porn the same protection that any other work of
> >politics or philosophy enjoys.
>
> I'm not one to support the Dworkinist position that
> _Playboy_ dehumanizes women to an extent demanding legal
> sanction, but let me just say that you've got this wrong. It is
> not an idea, but an irrational prejudice that is being reinforced.
"Irrational prejudices" are also ideas, and in any case, "irrational" in the
eye of the beholder. I consider both organized religion and socialism
manifestations of "irrational prejudice". That does not one thing to justify
suppression of ideas which advocate either.
> > By making "obscenity" the deciding factor, it keeps the
> >logic of the censorship restricted to porn, and is useless for censoring
> >something like _Mein Kampf_ which, however offensive and harmful, is not
> >sexual and cannot be found obscene in that sense.
>
> "Offensiveness" is (IMHO) irrelevant. Harm is more
> relevant. There are other laws in Canada which prevent things
> like "Mein Kampf" from being published as-is, which incidentally
> would probably not prevent an annotated edition from being
> published. But arguing about this would take us way away from
> the argument about a.s.b.
How about Lenin's "What is to be Done"? Is that also suppressed? What about
William F. Buckley's "Up from Liberalism"? Why is one more or less "dangerous"
than the others? None that I can see other than totally subjective opinion.
What's the rule? You get to suppress everything else which would challenge
YOUR beliefs, whatever they might be? How do you achieve that position of
responsibility? Democracy? How when a free exchange of ideas has been
foreclosed?
> >Once we accept the notion that something should be censored because its
> >effects are more negative than positive, there is no theoretical limit
> >on what may be censored.
>
> I still fail to see the difference between this and traffic
> laws. Just because there is no theoretical limit does not mean
> we're going to turn into a Stalinist state.
There's no practical limit either. When you define "harm" as the dissemination
of ideas you don't like, what's to stop you from making the list of ideas as
comprehensive as you like? You make the same mistake that Bukharin and co.
made regarding Stalin. You're leaving a loaded gun on a table and assuming
that nobody will ever pick it up and use it against you. It's invariably a
self-correcting error.
> >If skin flicks should be censored because they're
> >demeaning to women, doesn't it follow that a well-written and persuasive
> >philosophical essay that argued the natural superiority of males must be
> >censored on the same grounds?
>
> No. See above, on "opinions". (And before someone says
> for the 10,000th time "who are you to impose your views on me",
> let me say for the 9,999th time that I am just adding my
> opinions to the pot, and that the decisions are made by
> lawmakers, judges and juries, same as anything else.)
So were the decisions that led to the terror famine, the holocaust, and the
internment of the Japanese-Americans. You can't set up this mechanism of
repression and then abdicate responsibility for it.
> > Think it through, Jamie.
>
> Oh please Kenn. What is this, "proof by patronization"?
> I have been thinking it through for about 15 years, reading the
> literature and philosophical arguments very intently. It was
> only recently that I finally decided what I think about rape
> and kiddie porn; you will notice that I do not include other
> sub-classifications in my arguments, and that I can be found on
> soc.women from time to time arguing against the Dworkinist
> position that non-violent porn encourages violence. (And for
> you ad hominem fans, no, my personal tastes do not dictate my
> views.)
Please define "kiddie porn". Is it textual, photographic, what? I would
suppress photo/video child pornography, but not from any obscenity doctrine,
since I consider obscenity an invalid legal concept. Consider consent and
intellectual property issues and you may understand....
> > The terrorist
> >(and his bosses) are responsible for blowing up the building, not Karl
> >Marx or Mao ZeDong or the authors of PLO manifestos; the rapist is
> >guilty of the rape, whether porn had a negative effect on his character
> >or not.
>
> Well, I can think up other analogies (such as incitement to
> riot). I think this is where we have to agree to disagree.
No, they are totally lacking in similarity. If Mao MET WITH the terrorists or
contributed materially to their enterprise, you'd have a point. Mere philospo-
phizing doesn't merit more dangerous self-inflicted oppression.
> > Maybe the censorship of what
> >was worthwhile in [a.s.b] strikes you as a necessary and reasonable
> >price to pay to suppress the obscene stuff; if so, say so, don't claim
> >such a price won't have to be paid.
>
> Sure, I'll say so. If _Playboy_ published "Cindy's
> Torment", I would be for censoring it too, regardless of what
> other worthwhile stuff it had in it. If _Playboy_ doesn't want
> to be censored, it won't publish stuff like that. Likewise
> a.s.b. The institutions in question took a reasonable action to
> avoid legal consequences.
An interesting concept. How about "If homosexuals didn't violate the sodomy
laws, they wouldn't be prosecuted for doing so." You seem to be unwilling to
address the basic desireability of the laws.
> > No one presently has the
> >power to control what gets posted to the group. If you give someone that
> >power you've got censorship, and all that entails. You certainly _don't_
> >have Usenet any more.
>
> This is disingenuous, Kenn. You and I both know that
> Usenet chugged along very well for many years with admins
> cancelling other people's articles all the time. That _was_
> Usenet. It's only on the liberated altnet that people are now
> claiming the "right" to post anything, anywhere.
Then why shouldn't your calls for censorship be censored?
> >... You've
> >argued right along that porn is censorable because it demeans women...
>
> No I haven't.
>
> > and
> >encourages sexual violence against them.
>
> Certain kinds do. I'm not a Dworkinist.
Certain political discourse encourages violence against multi-national
corporations and their employees. Should the works of Abimael Guzman be
censored?
> > Well, I've decided to change my
> >name to John Norman and write a philosophical work arguing that the
> >natural role of women in society is as slaves to the men, and that a
> >firm hand (beat 'em up occasionally) is best.
>
> Fine. I'll argue against your *opinions*. If you progress
> into all-out fictional glorification of rape (as Norman never
> has done), I'll want it censored. Note, *I'm* not going to
> censor it -- I'm just adding my $.02.
Then of course radical lesbian material that advocates castration and other
violence against men should ALSO be censored?
> >> So if, say, someone were to produce a magazine called
> >>_RAPE_, with erotic stories involving women getting raped and
> >>loving it, pictorials of rapes (produced by consenting adults,
> >>of course), and features like "How to Convince People You're Not
> >>a Rapist Anymore", and if they were to distribute this magazine
> >>in prisons for convicted rapists, you would think that's OK?
> >
> > One technical quibble: convicted felons don't have full legal
> >rights; temporarily depriving them of these rights is part of the
> >justice process.
>
> Oh I see, so you *don't* believe in Absolute Freedom of
> Speech. Where else are you for abrogation of this important
> Right, Kenn? Copyright law, by any chance? Incitement to riot?
> Conspiracy to commit murder? Gee, I guess Freedom of Speech is
> just another right, to be balanced against others.
"Absolute" freedom of speech is a strawman, ably pioneered by Ed Ni[hi]lges.
Apparently "absolute" freedom of speech is one word more than you like.
> >>Sorry, but that's not the kind of society I want to live in.
> >
> > You already do.
>
> Obviously what I meant was that I don't want to live in
> a society where that's legal.
Tom Metzger doesn't want to live in a society where Blacks aren't property and
Jews aren't soap. You'll understand if some of us object to the millenarian
vision of others....
> > Censorship has _never_ succeeded in suppressing
> >anything people want.
>
> Neither have murder laws. Should we throw them out too?
It depends upon whether your more afraid of speech you don't like than you are
of murder.
> Sigh.
Try to think through the vast power you'd confer on others and you might sigh
again.
> The people who pass around the pen-and-ink drawings of
> children having sex with adults, and the stories glorifying
> rape, do not need official blessing for what they're doing.
Nor is there justification for wasting time and money to try to stop them.
> They don't need reinforcement for the feeling that acting out
> their desires is a good way of dealing with their pain. What
> they need, for their sake and ours, is to understand that doing
> these things is wrong; understand at a deep, emotional level,
> which goes beyond rational argument and into the realm of
> therapy and emotional healing.
And what if they DON'T understand that it's wrong? How will censorship of non-
photographic material change that? Remember the murder laws? Amazingly, there
are people who don't know that murder OR child molestation are wrong. I
suggest that you imprison or execute them. They won't be ABLE to do these
things and it won't MATTER what they THINK.
> Many of them understand it already. Others don't. The
> rights of the people who understand it are not more important
> than the rights of the victims of the others.
That's why we have jails and electric chairs.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------
"Well whose opinions did you THINK these were...?"
------------------------------------------------------------------
From caf-talk Caf Aug 12 18:42:16 1992
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,sfu.general
From: cmort@NCoast.ORG (Christopher Morton)
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 19:10:06 GMT
Message-ID: <1992Aug12.191006.5052@NCoast.ORG>
As quoted from by exuptr@exu.ericsson.se (Patrick Taylor):
> Kinda strayed from the point, but nonetheless well put. I, for one, hope
> your country will survive separately from the US. But if you have anything
> to fear from the US it is not arrogance and imperialism, it is commercialism
> and materialism.
I'd suggest that they have much more to fear from envy and self-loathing....
--
------------------------------------------------------------------
"Well whose opinions did you THINK these were...?"
------------------------------------------------------------------
From caf-talk Caf Aug 12 22:00:15 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Recent changes and additions to the CAF archive
Message-ID: <1992Aug13.015941.6814@eff.org>
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 01:59:41 GMT
Recent Changes to the
Computers and Academic Freedom (CAF) Archive
The CAF Archive is an electronic library of information about
computers and academic freedom.
It is available via anonymous ftp to ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4) in
directory "pub/academic". It is also available via email. For
information on email access send email to archive-server@eff.org. In
the body of your note include the lines "help" and "index".
For more information, to make contributions, or to report typos
contract Carl Kadie (kadie@eff.org).
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/law/r-v-butler
=================
Excerpts from the precis judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada in
the case _R. v. Butler_. The February 1992 case refined "obscenity" in
Canada.
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/faq/umanitoba.ca
=================
q: What is going on at the Univeristy of Manitoba in Canada? What is
the Canadian law on obscenity?
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/faq/umanitoba.ca
=================
q: What is going on at the Univeristy of Manitoba in Canada? What is
the Canadian law on obscenity?
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/policies/utoronoto.ca
=================
An article from the University of Toronto _Bulletin_. It says, in
part, "U of T is not planning to intercept or censor the international
computer network, Internet, that carries among its thousands of files
a couple that contain violent pornographic material."
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/waterloo.ca
=================
History of the U. of Waterloo (in Canada) ban of rec.humor.funny and
alt.sex*. (They eventually restored the newsgroups.)
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/abstracts
=================
These are abstracts to the Computers and Academic Freedom News
(CAF-news). Referenced issues of CAF-news are available via anonymous
ftp to eff.org in directory "academic/news".
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/batch/apr_12_1992
=================
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/batch/apr_26_1992
=================
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/batch/aug_02_1992
=================
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/batch/aug_09_1992
=================
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/batch/aug_16_1992
=================
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/batch/jul_05_1992
=================
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/batch/jul_12_1992
=================
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/batch/jul_19_1992
=================
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/batch/jul_26_1992
=================
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/batch/jun_07_1992
=================
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/batch/jun_14_1992
=================
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/batch/jun_21_1992
=================
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/batch/jun_28_1992
=================
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/batch/mar_15_1992
=================
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/batch/mar_29_1992
=================
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/batch/may_03_1992
=================
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/batch/may_10_1992
=================
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/batch/may_17_1992
=================
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/batch/may_24_1992
=================
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/batch/may_31_1992
=================
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/books/boucher,_viginia
=================
Review: has both the major US policies
Score: 8 of 10
bib:
Boucher, Virginia, 1929-
Interlibrary loan practices handbook / Virginia Boucher. Chicago :
American Library Association, 1984.
xii, 195 p. : ill. ; 28 cm.
Includes index.
Bibliography: p. 183-191.
ISBN 0838932983 (pbk. : alk. paper) : $$20.00
1. Inter-library loans--Handbooks, manuals, etc. I. American
Library Association. II. Title.
ocm10-185408
Excerpt:
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/books/emord,_johnathan_w.2
=================
From _Freedom, Technology, and the First Amendment_ by Jonathan W.
Emord, p.88:
Summary of the since overturned Supreme Court decision that said that
as owner the government could forbid speech on any public property.
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/books/new-books
=================
A bibliography of books newly added to the CAF book list.
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/books/pernul,_g
=================
A Bibliography on Database Security
G. Pernul, G. Luef
Institute of Statistics & Computer Science
University of Vienna
Full text: available
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/books/price,_janet_r.3
=================
Excerpt from the ACLU Handbook _The Rights of Students_ 3rd Edition,
1988 about access to school facilities by students and outsiders. It
says if use by students is not disruptive, use should be allowed.
Also, "if any facility is made available to one group, the school may
not then deny other groups the opportunity to use that facility."
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/books/price,_janet_r.4
=================
Summary of laws protecting high school students from unreasonable
searches.
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/caf-statement
=================
This is an attempt to codify the application of academic freedom to
academic computers. It reflects our seven months of on-line discussion
about computers and academic freedom. It covers free expression, due
process, privacy, and user participation.
Comments and suggestions are very welcome (especially when posted to
CAF-talk). All the documents referenced are available on-line.
(Critiqued).
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/caf-statement.critique
=================
This is a critique of an attempt to codify the application of academic
freedom to academic computers. It reflects our seven months of on-line
discussion about computers and academic freedom. It covers free
expression, due process, privacy, and user participation.
Additional comments and suggestions are very welcome (especially when
posted to CAF-talk). All the documents referenced are available
on-line.
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/civics/constitution.us
=================
The Constitution of the United States
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/civil-liberty/campaign-92.aclu
=================
The American Civil Liberties Union's planks for its "Campaign for the
Bill of Rights '92". The planks are 1) a national campaign against
bigotry and racism, 2) constitutional protection for a woman's right
to choose, 3) a realistic approach to crime and punishment, 4) a Bill
of Rights for all working people.
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/eff.rights
=================
An overview of the electronic frontier and the U.S Bill of Rights
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/faq/archive
=================
q: What files are available from the Computers and Academic Freedom
archive?
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/faq/censorship-and-harassment
=================
q: Must/should universities ban material that some find offensive
(from Netnews facilities, email, libraries, and student publications,
etc) in order to comply with antiharassment laws?
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/faq/email.policies
=================
q: Do any universities treat email and computer files as private?
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/faq/email.privacy
=================
q: Can (should) my university monitor my email?
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/faq/media.control
=================
q: Since freedom of the press belongs to those who own presses, a
public university can do anything it wants with the media that it
owns, right?
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/faq/netnews.liability
=================
q: Does a University reduce its likely liability by screening Netnews
for offensive articles and newsgroups?
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/faq/netnews.reading
=================
q: Should my university remove (or restrict) Netnews newsgroups
because some people find them offensive? If it doesn't have the
resources to carry all newsgroups, how should newsgroups be selected?
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/faq/netnews.writing
=================
q: Should my university allow students to post to Netnews?
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/faq/policy
=================
q: What guidance is there for creating or evaluating a computer policy?
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/law/brandenberg-v-ohio
=================
In e-mail, a correspondent expressed the view that there was no right
to speech that advocated violence. This response is based on U.S. law.
It is a summary of the ACLU's Bill of Rights Briefing Paper #10:
Freedom of Expression. The Supreme Court's standard is that speech may
not be suppressed or punished unless it is intended to produce
'imminent lawless action' and it is 'likely to produce such action.'
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/law/cohen-v-california.1
=================
Definition of "fighting words"; why no right not to be offended
The definition of fighting words from _Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire_
and then _Cohen v. California_. Also, says quotes the Supreme Court
saying that there is no universal right to not hear offensive
expression.
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/law/court-decisions
=================
How to access Supreme Court decisions by anonymous ftp and WAIS. Also
an index of available Supreme Court decisions.
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/law/eff.legal
=================
The index of directory ftp.eff.org:pub/EFF/papers/legal.
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/law/iskcon-v-lee
=================
Supreme Court orders, summaries, and opinions for case 91-155 (_ISKCON
v. Lee_) and 91-339 (_Lee v. ISKCON_).
ISKCON is the International Society for Krishna Consciousness.
The Court ruled that neither by tradition nor purpose can the airport
terminals be decribed as public fora (forums). The Port Authority
airports are thus nonpublic fora, and thus "reasonable" restrictions,
such as a ban on solicitation, are Constitutional. A ban on literature
distribution, however, is unreasonable.
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/law/miller
=================
The Supreme Court's definition of obscenity (the so-called _Miller_
test)
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/law/mills-v-bd-of-ed
=================
Summary from the ACLU's Handbook _The Right of Students_ 3rd Edition
by Janet. R. Price, Alan H. Levine, and Eve Cary. p. 61. It says
before you can be severely punished, you have a due process right to
know the specific acts you are charged with committing and the
specific rules that those acts violate.
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/law/naacp_v_alabama
=================
A short Netnews article by attorney Mike Godwin about anonymity.
"... [In] NAACP v. Alabama, 1958, [...] the Supreme Court held it
unconstitutional for Alabama state government to require the NAACP to
disclose its membership list..."
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/law/perry-v-perry
=================
Comments from the ACLU Handbook _The Rights of _Teachers_. It says
that campus mail systems (and other school facilities) can be limited
public forums. (Perry v. Perry was about an interschool mail system.
It was one of the cases that defined the Public Forum Doctrine.)
Also, a paraphrase from an ACLU handbook _The Rights of Teachers_. It
says that generally, speech, if otherwise shielded from punishment by
the First Amendment, does not lose that protection because its tone is
sharp.
Also, from p. 92, it says that there are legal limits to the oaths a
(public) school can ask its teachers to sign. [Some of these same
limits might apply to what a school can ask a user to sign as a
condition of getting (or keeping) a computer account.]
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/law/r-v-butler.ms
=================
Information on the Canadian definition of obscenity from _Ms._
magazine.
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/law/rav-v-st-paul.1
=================
The Supreme Court's _R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul_ decision about hate crimes.
The Court overturned St. Paul's Bias-Motivated Crime Ordinance, which
prohibits the display of a symbol which one knows or has reason to
know "arouses anger, alarm or resentment in others on the basis of
race, color, creed, religion or gender."
Included: summary, majority opinion, 3 concurring opinions.
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/law/rico-porn
=================
Short excerpt from a newspaper story about a court decision. Also a
full newspaper story on a related case. In the first case the judge
wrote that the payoff in discouraging pornography through sweeping
forfeitures "does not justify the additional curtailment of
constitutionally protected, sexually explicit speech." The second
judge ruled the opposite. The Supreme Court has agreed to decide one
way or the other.
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/law/san-diego-committee-v-gov-bd
=================
Excerpts from San Diego Committee v. Governing Bd., 790 F.2d 1471. A
decision by an appellate court that applied the Supreme Court's Public
Forum Doctrine (to a school newspaper).
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/law/search.berkeley
=================
Information and references to more information about an judge-ordered
email search at the U. of California at Berkeley.
Relates to: Buckley amendement/Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act/FERPA
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/law/tinker_v_des_moines
=================
Excerpt from the ACLU Handbook _The Rights of Students_ (3rd edition)
by Janet R. Price, Alan H. Levine, and Eve Cary. It says that school
cannot prohibit students from handing literature such as underground
newspapers on school property.
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/news/cafv02n12
=================
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/news/cafv02n13
=================
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/news/cafv02n14
=================
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/news/cafv02n15
=================
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/news/cafv02n16
=================
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/news/cafv02n17
=================
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/news/cafv02n18
=================
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/news/cafv02n19
=================
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/news/cafv02n20
=================
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/news/cafv02n21
=================
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/news/cafv02n22
=================
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/news/cafv02n23
=================
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/news/cafv02n24
=================
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/news/cafv02n25
=================
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/news/cafv02n26
=================
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/news/cafv02n27
=================
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/news/cafv02n29
=================
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/news/cafv02n30
=================
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/news/cafv02n31
=================
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/news/cafv02n32
=================
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/news/december_1991
=================
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/news/february_1992
=================
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/policies/netnews.uwm.edu
=================
These are the network policy resolutions developed by the Computer
Policy Committee at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. The
resolutions were approved by the Committee and forwarded to the
Chancellor.
They say (to paraphrase) 1) Netnews is important 2) No restrictions
should be imposed without wide consultation 3) The principles of
intellectual freedom developed for university libraries apply to
Netnews material 4) The principles of intellectual freedom developed
for publication in traditional media apply to computer media.
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/policies/nsf
=================
The NSFNET backbone services acceptable use policy
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/policies/rice.edu
=================
Computer policies for Rice University, especially Owlnet. (Rice is a
private University in Houston, Texas.) Interesting features include a
Sys Admin Statement of Ethics and student committee that advises on
policy and handles some of the discipline.
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/policies/uiuc.edu
=================
This is the University of Illinois's Interim E-Mail and Computer File
Privacy Policy. It says that "network and system administrators are
expected to treat the contents of electronic files as private and
confidential." and "Any inspection of electronic files, and any action
based upon such inspection, will be governed by all applicable U. S.
and Illinois laws and by University policies."
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/policies/umanitoba.ca.critique
=================
An open letter from Brad Templeton to the U. of Manitoba arguing against their
newsgroup ban.
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/umanitoba.ca
=================
q: What is going on at the Univeristy of Manitoba in Canada? What is
the Canadian law on obscenity?
=================
=================
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Aug 13 00:44:13 1992
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,sfu.general
From: barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry)
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Message-ID:
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 92 04:17:21 GMT
In article <1992Aug11.183602.4348@cs.sfu.ca> jamie@cs.sfu.ca (Jamie Andrews) writes:
>In article barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry) writes:
>>... But I know that the way to counter lies is with
>>truth, not suppression. Censorship only increases the harm, and dilutes
>>freedom with the very tyranny we claim to oppose.
>
> Again you are generalizing the argument and then taking
>examples from the specific area that falls outside what I was
>talking about. I am not against censoring reasoned argument
>that, for instance, "women like rape" or "children like sex with
>adults" (much as I abhor that position). I am for censoring
>certain material that makes no arguments, presents no opinions,
>and can have the effect of reinforcing and encouraging rapists
>and child molesters.
And who decides what is censorship of ideas, and what is the
other kind? Why, the censors, of course :-).
Your statement avoids all the hard questions. Let's come back to
alt.sex.bondage for a moment. Is it correct to state that it's good to
censor it, given that it isn't "cleaned up"? Well, bang, there you are
censoring ideas, by your own admission, since you admit that only a
small percentage of what's there deserves censorship. There are ideas
there, Jamie, opinions stated.
It is not an isolated example. If you require an opinion in it
to make it publishable, porn books featuring rape will put in opinions.
And it works the other way, too. Writers with something to say find
it necessary to put rape scenes in their work from time to time. Even
Shakespeare did. So now you're either censoring all _kinds_ of stuff, or
you've got your censors playing the old mental telepathy game: "is the
artist serious, or just lurid?" And either way, the "harm" question has
been set aside, in tacit admission that it was never important to begin
with.
You've got a choice, Jamie. Either you bite the bullet and come
up with a standard of what's censorable that's specific enough to
answer questions like this, or else your argument comes down to allowing
anything to be censored, by popular vote or other mechanism. Is that
what you want? Not a content-based standard of what's censorable, but a
popularity-based standard?
> No, I think that "harm" is exactly the basis of what I am
>saying.
That may be what you say, but it is not what you describe when
we get down to cases. Let's be serious, here: if a person can be
weak-minded or sick enough to rape because he read porn featuring rape,
it's at least as likely that someone would rape because they read a
well-written essay extolling the virtues of rape for keeping women in
their place. You say you won't censor that essay because it's ideas, but
then you say your test is "harm" and the essay surely can't pass that
test if porn can't. No, Jamie, you are using some other standard, as
well; what is it?
>You diminish certain freedoms (like Absolute Freedom of
>Speech) so that other freedoms are reinforced more strongly.
_What_ other freedoms? Not pretty phrases, but freedoms that
have the same degree of legal protection in our countries as does
freedom of speech and press? What are you balancing against?
>>[US "obscenity" exception to 1st amendment rights]
>>The theory behind the
>>exception goes like this: porn expresses no ideas; rather, it is akin to
>>a sideshow entertainment, whose only justification is titillation. The
>>intent of the 1st Amendment is read as protecting the free expression of
>>_ideas_, and since porn expresses no ideas, it is not under the
>>protection of the 1st Amendment.
>
> That's about what I feel too, though I would say "opinions"
>rather than "ideas". The difference between me and the
>lawmakers you speak of is that I don't believe that titillation
>is inherently wrong. Titillation that reinforces seriously
>damaging behaviour is.
Then shouldn't _anything_ that "reinforces seriously damaging
behavior" be equally censorable? If there's nothing wrong with
titillation, then titillation has nothing to do with it. Make up your
mind. If it has to be simultaneously titillating and damaging to be
censorable, you have to explain why titillating is relevant.
I suspect I know how porn affects people: it makes some bad
people worse, some good people better, and most people it don't have
much effect on at all :-). That's how most things seem to work, after
all. The Bible probably helped turned a man that was good to begin with
into St. Francis of Assisi, but it also likely helped turn Torquemada
(whom I suspect was a _rotten_ kid :-) into the Grand Inquisitor.
But you don't give porn the same benefit of the doubt. For
every study suggesting that vicarious violence encourages violence,
another suggests that vicarious violence is cathartic. I've been
willing to concede the first possibility is as likely as the second;
will you do the same? If you do (and what basis is there to do
otherwise?), what basis is left for censorship?
>> ...[Some antiporn people] accuse porn of supporting and defending pernicious ideas:
>>sexism, the dehumanization of women, etc. Ironically enough, were that
>>actually true, it would vacate the logic of the traditional "obscenity"
>>exception, and give porn the same protection that any other work of
>>politics or philosophy enjoys.
>
>let me just say that you've got this wrong. It is
>not an idea, but an irrational prejudice that is being reinforced.
But I thought the _definition_ of "irrational prejudice" was
"ideas I hate" :-). Don't be ingenuous, Jamie. You can't avoid the
paradox that way. You're still trying to have it both ways, to prevent
your "harm" without censoring ideas. But your whole modern case against
porn is that it is _giving_ some men ideas. Eventually you'll have to
make up your mind.
>> Think it through, Jamie.
>
> Oh please Kenn. What is this, "proof by patronization"?
Don't overinterpret minor rhetorical flourishes.
>> No one presently has the
>>power to control what gets posted to the group. If you give someone that
>>power you've got censorship, and all that entails. You certainly _don't_
>>have Usenet any more.
>
> This is disingenuous, Kenn. You and I both know that
>Usenet chugged along very well for many years with admins
>cancelling other people's articles all the time.
Well, I've been around here since 1984, and I've not heard about
it. When it has happened it's been unusual enough to be discussed all
over the net. The net's as close to perfect free speech as anything I've
seen. Depending on what site you're at, of course.
>> Well, I've decided to change my
>>name to John Norman and write a philosophical work arguing that the
>>natural role of women in society is as slaves to the men, and that a
>>firm hand (beat 'em up occasionally) is best.
>
> Fine. I'll argue against your *opinions*. If you progress
>into all-out fictional glorification of rape (as Norman never
>has done), I'll want it censored.
_Norman_ has never engaged in "all-out fictional glorification
of rape"?????
[...]
Sorry, I'm back; had to clear my throat :-)
- Nothing fails like success - Kenn Barry
----------------------------------------------------------------
ELECTRIC AVENUE: barry@netcom.com
From caf-talk Caf Aug 13 05:40:29 1992
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.censorship
From: evansmp@uhura.aston.ac.uk (Mark Evans)
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Message-ID: <1992Aug12.071230.2392@aston.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 07:12:30 GMT
kadie@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
: peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
:
: [...]
: >I don't think Chris is concerned with the material itself. He's concerned
: >with the criminal prosecution that would result from carrying it.
: [...]
: >Yes, it's a bad law. But, really, what alternative have the schools in
: >question got?
: [...]
:
: The only way a school could be 100% safe is by cutting off its network
: feed, burning all the books in the library, firing all its professors,
: and expelling all its students.
(you missed cutting all their phonelines)
(though maybe flattening the whole site would do the trick)
:-)
: I think it is more likely that administrators want to avoid the real
: risk of publicity, even at the expense of academic freedom. This is
: most clear at Iowa State University, where the administration
: rationalized its censorship by reference to a law that explicitly
: exempts educational institutions.
:
: Finally, although bans may solve publicity problems in the short term,
: in the long term it not only hurts academic freedom, it also opens a
: university up to bad publicity as folks make demand after demand for
: bans of material that they don't want other folks see.
Where does this stop, what material is universerly acceptable, for
all to see?
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Aug 13 06:37:50 1992
From: robert@informix.com (Robert Coleman)
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,sfu.general
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Message-ID:
Date: 12 Aug 92 23:23:36 GMT
clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca (Chris Lewis) writes:
>In article barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry) writes:
>> Think it through, Jamie. Leave aside the fictional nature of
>>the so-called "evidence", and imagine that the ability of porn to
>>encourage sexism and sexual violence is established. Now what? The
>>Declaration of Independence provoked a lot more violence and death, in
>>a far more immediate
>When the American revolution broke out, fully 1/4 of the population of the
>north east American colonies disagreed. Disagreed strongly enough with
>the way that things were developing that they took up arms to defend themselves
>and their property, and when it became obvious that they couldn't stay without
>sacrificing their own lives, they all moved up to Canada.
>Later on, when the Americans wanted to free us from our "shackles" (read,
>annex Canada as they were later to do with Texas, California etc.), they
>invaded Canada in 1812. It was their "manifest destiny" to own the whole
>continent. Again, the people of Canada explicitly rejected the "liberators"
>and their philosophy, and fought back. And won.
Noting an extreme anti-US bias here, and not so much against the
current US as against the US of 100-200 years ago...biases such as these
really can't help but warp your vision. For instance:
>We have chosen a different route. Chosen by our repeated refusal to become
>part of the USA. Our constitutions are indeed similar, but we have implemented
>certain social checks and balances to try to keep things a little more orderly.
>Given the fact that the crime rate in the US is by far the highest in the western
>world (there are some war zones I'd rather live than in some US cities), we haven't
>done that badly, without giving up much at all. Unfortunately, due to proximity
>and the overwhelming weight of US "culture" (you call *that* "culture"!), we're
>catching up fast.
Your crime rates were low before implementing the extra social checks
and balances, and, surprise surprise, remain low afterward. This suggests
some larger cultural issue is responsible for the violence differences than
the laws put into place.
One example is a greater degree of cultural homogeneity; the melting
pot ideal has both it's advantages and it's disadvantages, advantages being
greater cultural diversity and disadvantages being cultural conflict.
Another might be population density, though I don't actually know the stats
on that.
Unfortunately, your bias allows you to blame "America" rather than
examine what the roots of violence really are. And, I note, that you're
prepared to blame "proximity" for the rising level of violence (uh...haven't
we been "proximate" for the entire existence of our respective governments?)
Why does that proximity suddenly cause your violence rate to increase now?)
instead, again, of looking for the root causes. Rising population? Greater
cultural disparity? I don't know, but I'll sure be looking...how about you?
>People forget that at least until the turn of this century, the biggest danger
>to Canada's freedom was the United States of America. Now that the
>Soviet Empire has fallen, there are no longer any checks and balances
>on US arrogance and imperialism. We're not likely to win again. God help
>us all.
Yes, it's true, you know. For the last hundred years, we've merely
been sublimating our lust for your fair country. One of these days, we're
gonna get Canada alone, and...*Not*. We haven't even annexed territories we
officially *own*, much less challenged new territory. Canada would have to
be pretty low on our list of targets...what have you got that would be worth
the trouble? If we annex the Middle East, then you might have some worrying
to do, but until then, it's just needless worry lines...
Robert C.
--
----------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: My company has not yet seen fit to
elect me as spokesperson. Hmmpf.
From caf-talk Caf Aug 13 06:50:16 1992
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,sfu.general
From: jamie@cs.sfu.ca (Jamie Andrews)
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Message-ID: <1992Aug12.193601.5316@cs.sfu.ca>
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 19:36:01 GMT
In article peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
|In article <1992Aug11.183602.4348@cs.sfu.ca> jamie@cs.sfu.ca (Jamie Andrews) writes:
|>In article barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry) writes:
|>>...suppression of
|>>"porn" is a Victorian phenomenon and was little-practised before the
|>>19th century.
|
|> That is, little-practised when the media had very little
|>distribution and most people were illiterate.
|
|There has always been a *lot* of what you call "porn" around. Please
|check any good university library for a number of relevant historical
|texts.
This does not contradict what I was saying. I was not
denying that "porn" existed, I was saying that it was not seen
as a major problem until it had wide audiences.
BTW I try to avoid using the word "porn" or "pornography"
when talking about erotic literature in general, so your scare
quotes apply mainly to Kenn's mistaken impression of me as a
Dworkinist.
--Jamie.
jamie@cs.sfu.ca
"Every \item command in item_list must have an optional argument." LaTeX pg.168
From caf-talk Caf Aug 13 11:31:46 1992
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.censorship
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Message-ID: <1992Aug13.152104.3300@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 15:21:04 GMT
What infuriates me is the double standard.
For example, in the _Globe and Mail_ story, Lionel Tolan, Simon
Fraser's director of academic computer services, said "It's the same
as if somebody wants Playboy or Penthouse. We don't have them in the
university library." When in fact, _Playboy_ *is* in the SFU library.
We have mostly been discussing
"How should sexual material treated in Canada?"
I think, the more productive question, is
"Should computer material be treated like traditional material or
should there be a double standard?"
I think they should be treated the same, NO DOUBLE STANDARD!
As the unofficial draft statement on Computers and Academic Freedom says:
"The principles of intellectual freedom developed by libraries should
be applied to the administration of information material on
computers."
"The principles of academic freedom applicable to student and faculty
publication in traditional media, apply to student and faculty
publication in computer media."
- Carl
ANNOTATED REFERENCES
(All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.)
=================
globe-and-mail
=================
An article from the Toronto _Globe and Mail_, Monday, July 20, 1992.
Headline: Computers graphic when it comes to porn
Subheadline: NETWORK SEX: Is increasingly explicit material on some computer
bulletin boards free speech, or obscenity?
=================
caf-statement
=================
This is an attempt to codify the application of academic freedom to
academic computers. It reflects our seven months of on-line discussion
about computers and academic freedom. It covers free expression, due
process, privacy, and user participation.
Comments and suggestions are very welcome (especially when posted to
CAF-talk). All the documents referenced are available on-line.
(Critiqued).
=================
caf-statement.critique
=================
This is a critique of an attempt to codify the application of academic
freedom to academic computers. It reflects our seven months of on-line
discussion about computers and academic freedom. It covers free
expression, due process, privacy, and user participation.
Additional comments and suggestions are very welcome (especially when
posted to CAF-talk). All the documents referenced are available
on-line.
=================
library/int-freedom.can
=================
Canadian Library Association Statement on Intellectual Freedom
=================
faq/umanitoba.ca
=================
q: What is going on at the Univeristy of Manitoba in Canada? What is
the Canadian law on obscenity?
=================
=================
These document(s) are available by anonymous ftp (the preferred
method) and by email. To get the file(s) via ftp, do an anonymous ftp
to ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4), and get file(s):
pub/academic/globe-and-mail
pub/academic/caf-statement
pub/academic/caf-statement.critique
pub/academic/library/int-freedom.can
pub/academic/faq/umanitoba.ca
To get the file(s) by email, send email to archive-server@eff.org.
Include the line(s) (be sure to include the space before the file
name):
send acad-freedom globe-and-mail
send acad-freedom caf-statement
send acad-freedom caf-statement.critique
send acad-freedom/library int-freedom.can
send acad-freedom/faq umanitoba.ca
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Aug 13 12:52:45 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [news.admin.policy] Groups used to distribute illegal material
Message-ID: <9208131652.AA01275@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 06:52:32 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Aug 13 12:52:45 1992
From: jbotz@mtholyoke.edu (Jurgen Botz)
Subject: Groups used to distribute illegal material
Message-ID:
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 15:14:31 GMT
As a news administrator for a site relatively new to the Net, I have
recently been giving _much_ thought to the issues surrounding certain
controversial newsgroups.
I am extremely opposed to censorship, and we are currently receiving
everything we can get our hands (well, our lines) on. But since our
news user population is growing rapidly, I expect that it won't be
long before someone here tries to make a stink about the fact that
there is pornography available on our computer systems. In preparation
for that day I have formulated many good arguments against restricting
the available material, which I'm sure I don't need to repeat here
as this has been discussed countless times.
However, while I think that it is easy to demonstrate that merely
controversial material such as the postings to alt.sex.bondage and
similar groups should not be restricted, much of the material posted
to alt.binaries.pictures.erotica is _illegal_ and therefor quite hard
to defend. (The illegality of this material stems from the fact that
much of it is distributed in violation of copyright -- this means
that it is illegal not only in the U.S., but in most of the world.
There are other legal issues around the occasional depictions of
bestiality and child pornography, but these appear to be rare enough
that they are not as much of an issue.)
Furthermore, I am somewhat personally offended that such a relatively
large percentage of the total bandwith used by my news feeds and
store are used for such morally questionable purposes by a presumably
tiny fringe group of network users who appear to feel that it is their
natural right to waste everyone's resources with their trash.
In summary, while I will fight tooth and nail against censorship in
general when the issue comes up with the local powers-that-be, I am
tempted to concede that newsgroups which are used to distribute
demonstrably illegal materials not be carried. I am fully aware of
the complications and problems with such a policy, but I would like
to see some further discussion of this topic. I fear that if such
discussion does not take place, the future of the entire Altnet is
in peril as the Newsnet becomes more mainstream and gets exposed
to greater scrutiny.
--
Jurgen Botz | Internet: JBotz@mtholyoke.edu
Academic Systems Consultant | Bitnet: JBotz@mhc.bitnet
Mount Holyoke College | Voice: (US) 413-538-2375 (daytime)
South Hadley, MA, USA | Snail Mail: J. Botz, 01075-0629
From caf-talk Caf Aug 13 14:13:29 1992
Newsgroups: news.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,misc.legal,alt.censorship
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Groups used to distribute illegal material
Message-ID: <1992Aug13.180458.9340@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 18:04:58 GMT
[A reply to an article in news.admin.policy]
jbotz@mtholyoke.edu (Jurgen Botz) writes:
[...]
>much of the material posted
>to alt.binaries.pictures.erotica is _illegal_ and therefor quite hard
>to defend. (The illegality of this material stems from the fact that
>much of it is distributed in violation of copyright -- this means
>that it is illegal not only in the U.S., but in most of the world.
[...]
In my opinion, it is ok to exclude a newsgroup if it is illegal. I
think this position is supported by library policies. They say that 1)
laws should be obeyed 2) legal advice should obtained from compete
sources 3) restrictive laws should be challenged (with legal means) 4)
and that challenged material should be given due process.
Also note that in the U.S., material is not obscene unless when taken
as a whole, it lacks "serious literary, artistic, political, or
scientific value". In my opinion, alt.sex etc., when taken as a whole,
have such value. Copyright and libel laws don't use the "taken as a
whole" test. However, the case law suggests that if you don't know
(and can't reasonably be expected to know) about the violations, you
are not responsible for them.
As an example of what not to do, consider Iowa State University. It
decided to restrict alt.sex without previous notice or discussion.
When challenged it justified its action by referring to an obscenity
law that 1) says alt.sex is not obscene and 2) explicitly exempts
educational institutions.
I'm enclosing quotes from library polices, followed by on-line
references and information about the Computers and Academic Freedom
mailing list.
- Carl
================ Quotes from Library Policies =====================
From the American Library Associations Diversity in Collection
Development interpretation:
"Librarians have a professional responsibility to be inclusive, not exclusive,
in collection development and in the provision of interlibrary loan. Access
to all materials legally obtainable should be assured to the user, and
policies should not unjustly exclude materials even if they are offensive to
the librarian or the user."
From the American Library Association's Intellectual Freedom Statement:
"4. With every available legal means, we will challenge laws or
governmental action restricting or prohibiting the publication of
certain materials or limiting free access to such materials.
Our society has no place for legislative efforts to coerce the taste
of its members, to restrict adults to reading matter deemed suitable
only for children, or to inhibit the efforts of creative persons in
their attempts to achieve artistic perfection. When we prevent serious
artists from dealing with truth as they see it, we stifle creative
endeavor at its source. Those who direct and control the intellectual
development of our children -- parents, teachers, religious leaders,
scientists, philosophers, statesman -- must assume the responsibility
for preparing young people to cope with life as it is and to face the
diversity of experience to which they will be exposed as they mature.
This is an affirmative responsibility that cannot be discharged
easily, certainly not with the added burden of curtailing one's access
to art, literature, and opinion. Tastes differ. Taste, like morality,
cannot be controlled by government, for governmental action, devised
to suit the demands of one group, thereby limits the freedom of all
others."
From the American Library Association's Statement on Labeling:
"While some attempts have been made to adopt these [labeling] systems
into law, the constitutionality of such measures is extremely
questionable. If such legislation is passed which applies within a
library's jurisdiction, the library should seek competent legal advice
concerning its applicability to library operations."
From the ALA's Access for Children and Young People to Videotapes
and Other Nonprint Formats interpretation:
"Unless directly and specifically prohibited by law from circulating
certain motion pictures and video productions to minors, librarians
should apply the same standards to circulation of these materials as
are applied to books and other materials."
From the ALA's Library Bill of Rights:
"3. Libraries should challenge censorship in the fulfillment of their
responsibility to provide information and enlightenment."
From the ALA's Challenged Materials interpreation:
"Freedom of expression is protected by the Constitution of the United
States, but constitutionally protected expression is often separated
from unprotected expression only by a dim and uncertain line. The
Constitution requires a procedure designed to focus searchingly on
challenged expression before it can be suppressed. An adversary
hearing is a part of this procedure."
ANNOTATED REFERENCES
(All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.)
=================
faq/netnews.liability
=================
Why a University may not decrease (and my increase) its likely
liability by screening Netnews for offensive articles and newsgroups.
=================
library/diversity.ala
=================
"Diversity in Collection Development"
An interpretation by the American Library Association of the "Library
Bill of Rights"
It says that collections should be inclusive, not exclusive. And that
materials should cover the needs and interest of all patrons. "This
includes materials that reflect political, economic, religious,
social, minority, and sexual issues."
=================
library/int-freedom.ala
=================
"Intellectual Freedom Statement"
An interpretation by the American Library Association of the "Library
Bill of Rights"
=================
library/labeling.ala
=================
"Statement on Labeling"
An interpretation by the American Library Association of the "Library
Bill of Rights"
It gives three reasons why labeling is bad. The first is that
"[l]abeling is an attempt to prejudice attitudes and as such, it is a
censor's tool."
=================
library/access.children.nonprint.ala
=================
"Access for Children and Young People to Videotapes and Other Nonprint
Formats"
An interpretation by the American Library Association of the "Library
Bill of Rights"
=================
library/bill-of-rights.ala
=================
The Library Bill of Rights from the American Library Association.
=================
library/challenged-materials.ala
=================
"Challenged Materials"
An interpretation by the American Library Association of the "Library
Bill of Rights"
=================
law/obscenity.iowa
=================
IOWA CODE CHAPTER 728 - OBSCENITY
It explicitly exempts public libraries and educational institutions.
=================
caf
=================
A description to the comp-academic-freedom-talk mailing list. It is a
free-forum for the discussion of questions such as: How should general
principles of academic freedom (such as freedom of expression, freedom
to read, due process, and privacy) be applied to university computers
and networks? How are these principles actually being applied? How can
the principles of academic freedom as applied to computers and
networks be defended?
=================
=================
These document(s) are available by anonymous ftp (the preferred
method) and by email. To get the file(s) via ftp, do an anonymous ftp
to ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4), and get file(s):
pub/academic/faq/netnews.liability
pub/academic/library/diversity.ala
pub/academic/library/int-freedom.ala
pub/academic/library/labeling.ala
pub/academic/library/access.children.nonprint.ala
pub/academic/library/bill-of-rights.ala
pub/academic/library/challenged-materials.ala
pub/academic/law/obscenity.iowa
pub/academic/caf
To get the file(s) by email, send email to archive-server@eff.org.
Include the line(s) (be sure to include the space before the file
name):
send acad-freedom/faq netnews.liability
send acad-freedom/library diversity.ala
send acad-freedom/library int-freedom.ala
send acad-freedom/library labeling.ala
send acad-freedom/library access.children.nonprint.ala
send acad-freedom/library bill-of-rights.ala
send acad-freedom/library challenged-materials.ala
send acad-freedom/law obscenity.iowa
send acad-freedom caf
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Aug 13 14:24:21 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.censorship
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: WLU (in Canada) bans alt.sex* because its "offensive"
Message-ID: <1992Aug13.181732.3739@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 18:17:32 GMT
[This article, by Jim Boyce, jboyce1@mamut.wlu.ca, appeared on July
14th in the Wilfrid Laurier University's student newspaper, the Cord.
Since the first article was published no action has been taken by the
administration except the electing of a new chair for the senate
committee of computing. It is posted with Jim Boyce's permission.]
Access to six newsgroups on Laurier's computing system has
been restricted until the Senate Committee on Computing Ethics
can meet and discuss their controversial content. All six were
from the alt.sex hierarchy, a collection of groups that deals
with topics ranging from bondage and bestiality to recovery from
sexual abuse and a general discussion on sex. WLU President John
Weir said he made the decision because, "in my opinion, and in
the opinions of others, the material was offensive."
Newsgroups first began arriving at Laurier two months ago
when the university started to switch from the "unix" computer
system to the faster, "sequent" system. They enter through a
computer network called ONET via the University of Waterloo, and
include messages and information from computer users all over the
world.
While there are more than a thousand newsgroups available,
it is a handful which are raising moral and legal questions at
several Canadian universities. Most of these are in the alt.sex
hierarchy which are among the most popular newsgroups.
In May, the alt.sex hierarchy and several other groups were
banned at the University of Manitoba after a student sent some
prinouts from alt.sex to a reporter at The Winnipeg Free Press.
Gerry Miller, Director of Computing at the University of
Manitoba, said the Winnipeg vice squad visited the univeristy
twice asking for technical information on newsgroups. The ban is
still in effect, Miller said, although individual users may get
access, "if anybody can make a case that the material should be
brought back for scholary issues."
On July 2, The Kitchener-Waterloo Record ran a front page
story about computer pornography at the University of Waterloo.
It was reported that the newspaper had received newsgroup stories
and pictures anonymously, including, "a photograph of an almost
nude woman hanging by her neck from a rope on a hook. Her mouth
is open as if screaming." The Waterloo Regional Police Department
was quoted as saying no investigation would be undertaken unless
campus police requested help. The University of Waterloo, which
banned the alt.sex hierarchy for several months in 1990, plans no
investigation either unless a complaint about the material is
received.
Other universities to recently deal with the matter include
University of Ottawa, University of Toronto and Simon Fraser.
The Cord began an investigation on newsgroups in May after
being informed by Ruby Ramji, a Laurier student, that many of
them were unavailable at Laurier. Ramji said she had found a
newslist on the Laurier system and tried to access some of the
groups that were listed on it but was unable to get most of the
"alt" groups, including the entire alt.sex hierarchy.
Ramji then talked to Bob Ellsworth, Assistant Systems
Administrator, about the problem and said she was told that no
restrictions had been placed on the groups. She decided to pursue
the matter further. "Since Bob said it was happening outside the
university, I decided to follow the link."
Because the newsgroups come to Laurier via the University of
Waterloo, Ramji used a friend's account there to see if U of W
was restricting "alt" groups and indirectly keeping them out of
Laurier. She said she checked the U of W system about eight times
during May and found that the "alt" groups were always available.
On June 17, the Cord interviewed Ellsworth and Carl
Langford, Systems Administrator. Two reasons were offered to
explain the absence of the alt.sex newgroups.
First, there was an expiry date of one day for messages in
the "alt" groups. Even with such an expiry date, however, there
should have been dozens of messages a day at Laurier just as
there were at the University of Waterloo. Instead, there were
only one or two and they arrived indirectly via other newsgroups.
Secondly, system problems may have been keeping the groups
out. Whatever the reason, Langford said that it was
unintentional: "We have done nothing here to stop if from coming
in."
A week later, the Cord interviewed Langford, Ellsworth and
Hart Bezner, Director of Computing Services. Bezner said he was
"stunned by even the suggestion that people would be keeping it
[alt.sex] out", and attributed the unavailablility of alt.sex to
problems within the system.
Bezner typified the content of alt.sex as "puerile" and said
that he could not understand why students would be interested in
reading "bondage" groups. He added that the situation would have
to be considered in regards to the university switching over to
the new computer system: "It's a matter of priorities, putting
sex groups on is not as important as compilers... it's just like
walking up to a half-finished apartment and asking why the
bathroom isn't finished... we just haven't got around to it yet."
Later, Bezner said the Cord interview "turned on our
interest" and he decided to do something about the material in
the alt.sex groups. He took one hundred pages of output from one
of the groups to Don Baker, Vice-President Academic: "it was my
personal decision... I looked at it and said to myself, `I don't
want to be held legally responsible for that, let those guys [the
administration] investigate the legalities of it'."
Langford said that many of the people in Computing Services
had moral and legal concerns about the material and had talked
about it amongst themselves: "We're a small enough group that we
can discuss these things."
A meeting was held shortly after and attended by Baker,
Langford, WLU President John Weir, and Arthur Stephens and Julia
Easley of Institutional Relations. The printout was discussed at
the meeting and John Weir made known his decision to restrict the
six newsgroups.
On June 26, one of the newsgroups was restricted, and on
July 2, another five met a similar fate. All six were from the
alt.sex hierarchy, according to Ramji (Bezner referred us to her
because he was not sure which of the groups were restricted).
They included: alt.sex.bondage, bestiality, motss (members of the
same sex), movies, pictures.d (a subgroup that discusses
pictures), pictures.misc, and wizards (a less tame version of the
generic alt.sex group).
Don Baker said that the solution was "short term". He said
that there were policies on language use at Laurier and laws on
such issues as hate literature, and that while the university
should try to be as liberal as possible, "we're mindful of the
fact that language has consequences, and to the extent that they
can be discriminatory or demeaning, we should have some concern."
John Weir said that the decision was based on how offensive
the material was and not any legal implications. He did not think
the decision compromised the university in any way and said, "I
think one has to always make judgement about the need to judge
things as being offensive versus the right people claim to have
to read anything they want to read... we could have, I suppose,
allowed the thing to run and gave it to the committee as a
problem such as that. We chose not to do that. We felt that we
would prefer to have it off-line during the interim rather than
on-line."
Ruby Ramji disagrees with the judgement and, until the
Senate Committee makes a decision, will have to access alt.sex at
the University of Waterloo. She said that the newsgroups have
educational content and discuss issues such as sexual hangups and
relationships, and provide information on AIDS and other sexual
diseases. They also have an academic purpose: "I was doing a
study on alt.sex and I couldn't get access to it and I needed it
as a primary source... I feel they [the administration] are
hindering the flow of information into an academic institution
that's supposed to uphold the freedom of information."
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Aug 13 14:26:50 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [news.admin.policy] Re: Groups used to distribute illegal material
Message-ID: <9208131826.AA01899@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 08:26:35 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Aug 13 14:26:50 1992
Newsgroups: news.admin.policy
Subject: Re: Groups used to distribute illegal material
Date: 13 Aug 1992 12:56:26 -0500
Message-ID:
illegal and "not to my liking" or "without merit" are two different
things completely.
As a news site, you are free to only import those newsgroup which
you are interested in and which your management considers to be
of merit. What is not to your taste or liking, you are free to
ignore (and avoid importing and/or redistributing).
The problem of what to do about articles which might be considered
of "questionable legality" (innocent until proven guilty?) is a
completely different matter. In real life, most people only call
their lawyers or the police when their personal interest are
"under attack"; of course, we also are concerned when we are
watching a "crime in progress", but we probably won't call the
cops when someone is jay-walking or not keeping his dog on the
leash... and who would call the cops when watching someone
making photo-copies of (surely copyrighted) books and such,
or nailing pictures from sex (obscene?) magazines on neighbor-
hood trees?
What remains is the question of "complicity" if the tree or
wall that "illegal" material is nailed to is mine....
heck, I'd rip it down from MY tree and fence, I'd do whatever
possible to prevent that MY tree is used for this again,
and I may go as far as suggesting to "the author" to reconsider
what s/he is doing; but I'd not be likely to consider FORMALLY
raising "the legal question" (and, anyway, the analogy between
"real life" and CyberSpace ends, as news-distribution isn't
done in a way analogeous to someone abusing my tree or fence,
but more like people sending me junkmail and ringing my doorbell
and phone for "solicitation"... though by hooking up to the
net, you are actually better off as you can filter out (most)
of what you don't care for by not importing certain newsgroups.
still there always be articles you may object to in newsgroups
you generally care for... oh, well..)
the problem of avoiding that people post "objectionable" material
from your site (or send it by email or make it available for FTP)
is a "completely different animal" (which you'll have to handle
administratively under considerations of "privacy" and "freedom
of speech" and "criminal liability"); when it comes to people
FTPing (or receiving in email) "objectionable material" to your
site, the question of "privacy" becomes even stronger (as the
case to be made that you are criminally liable or that your
reputation suffers (also) when "objectionable material" emanates
from your site versus when someone receives it, is significantly
different)
Simply ignore those people who posted follow-up "flaming you"
for expressing publically your concerns and thoughts; some
people simply don't know to make an effort to understand others
and thus are best simply ignored; we all disagree sometimes,
but one learns to simply not pay attention to certain newsgroups
and certain posters, as one identifies the contents to be
mostly "without merit"...
Cheers, ---Werner
--
werner@cs.utexas.edu | ..!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!werner | werner@UTXVM.bitnet
"Free Advice and Opinions -- Refunds Available"
Newsgroups: news.admin.policy
Path: m.cs.uiuc.edu!vela!wsu-cs!destroyer!gatech!darwin.sura.net!mips!sdd.hp.com!news.cs.indiana.edu!nstn.ns.ca!dragon.acadiau.ca!880518l
From: 880518l@dragon.acadiau.ca (Nelson Langille)
Subject: Re: Groups used to distribute illegal material
Message-ID: <1992Aug13.160445.16878@dragon.acadiau.ca>
Organization: Acadia University
References:
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 16:04:45 GMT
Lines: 3
Yes, but isin't it true that many(mostly all) anonymous FTP sites
contain pictures which are copyrighted? So what's the difference.
Newsgroups: news.admin.policy
Path: m.cs.uiuc.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!bgsuvax!sevans
From: sevans@andy.bgsu.edu (Stephen W. Evans)
Subject: Re: Groups used to distribute illegal material
Message-ID:
Organization: Bowling Green State University B.G., Oh.
References:
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 16:50:05 GMT
Lines: 27
jbotz@mtholyoke.edu (Jurgen Botz) writes:
[Lots of unneccesary rationalizations and excuses deleted...]
> In summary, while I will fight tooth and nail against censorship in
> general when the issue comes up with the local powers-that-be, I am
> tempted to concede that newsgroups which are used to distribute
> demonstrably illegal materials not be carried. I am fully aware of
> the complications and problems with such a policy, but I would like
> to see some further discussion of this topic. I fear that if such
> discussion does not take place, the future of the entire Altnet is
> in peril as the Newsnet becomes more mainstream and gets exposed
> to greater scrutiny.
In other words you are opposed to censorship except where such items
as you are personnally opposed to are the ones being censored??
C'mon, it seems like EVERYONE, even Bible Thumpers, are opposed to
censorship of things they don't find objectionable. The only criteria
then is if the "powers that be" find that the material should be
censored "for the good of the public".
Frankly if you use some justification for not carrying one group it
becomes quite simple then to come up with some seemingly just a logical
justification for eliminating others.
Banning groups is like eating lays potato chips, no one can do Just one!
-Steve
Newsgroups: news.admin.policy
Path: m.cs.uiuc.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!sdd.hp.com!mips!darwin.sura.net!jvnc.net!yale.edu!yale!gumby!destroyer!news.iastate.edu!vincent1.iastate.edu!stantbat
From: stantbat@iastate.edu (John S Sinnott)
Subject: Re: Groups used to distribute illegal material
Message-ID:
Sender: news@news.iastate.edu (USENET News System)
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
References:
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 17:05:45 GMT
Lines: 30
An interesting question was brought up: Is it defensible to allow access to
a newsgroup that distributes illegal material. The example given was one
of the alt.sex.picture groups where copywrited material is often posted.
I think that we can all agree that the burden of proff is on the person
making the accusation. Just which picture is copywritten, and is being
posted without perrmission. To my knowledge, there has never been a case
involving an adult magazine publisher suing a BBS or network because of
.gif files.
I am not a lawyer, but is it not part of US copywrite law that an owner
of a copywrite must protect his/her property?
I would ask the powers that be to prove someone has broken the law.
Even if they can show wrongdoing, does that mean the group that the post
appered on should be closed? Are they asking you to set up a policy where
every group that has someone breaking the law (or the groups charter) be
cancelled? What about people illegally sending pirated software through
e-mail? Should we get rid of E-mail too? Or are the Powers only censoring
groups that they object to morally? What about people who put copywritten
quotes in their .sigs? Are we going to get rid of every group that has
someone doing this?
If I was the adminitrator, I would ask for well defined rules for determining
under what situations a group can be cancelled and then point out how many
other non-sex related groups would also have to go.
-John Sinnott
Path: m.cs.uiuc.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!sdd.hp.com!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!ames!pacbell.com!rtech!ingres!sergio
From: sergio@Ingres.COM (Sergio L Aponte)
Newsgroups: news.admin.policy
Subject: Re: Groups used to distribute illegal material
Message-ID: <1992Aug13.171742.15946@pony.Ingres.COM>
Date: 13 Aug 92 17:17:42 GMT
References:
Organization: Ingres, an ASK Company, Alameda CA 94501
Lines: 20
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5
Another question is how "censorship" of a particular group solves
the problem.
After all, if enough sites ban a pictures group, won't the pictures
start showing up somewhere else? Does eliminating a group that has
an ofensive "charter" aliminates the questionable articles off your
feed? NOT!
In truth, I think the issue will come up more and more. With the
"sexual harrasement" (sp?) focus, many companies/universities might not
want to be involved with questionable groups, deciding to drop it vs
entering a long argument about it. After all, if ONE person finds it
offensive, no matter if it is rec.humor, it is cause enough for a
"harrasement" (at least I am consistent on the spelling!) acusation.
--
=============================================================== _|||_
Sergio L. Aponte, SMTS @ Ingres, an ASK Company <*,*>
Internet : sergio@coqui.ingres.com [`-'] Keko
UUCP : {sun,mtxinu,pyramid,pacbell}!ingres!coqui!sergio _"_"_ Jones
Newsgroups: news.admin.policy
Path: m.cs.uiuc.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!sdd.hp.com!mips!darwin.sura.net!mlb.semi.harris.com!controls.ccd.harris.com!usenet
From: ajg@controls.ccd.harris.com (Arnold Goldberg)
Subject: Re: Groups used to distribute illegal material
In-Reply-To: jbotz@mtholyoke.edu's message of Thu, 13 Aug 1992 15:14:31 GMT
Message-ID:
Sender: usenet@ccd.harris.com
Organization: Harris Controls and Compositions
References:
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 17:32:00 GMT
Lines: 42
>>>>> On Thu, 13 Aug 1992 15:14:31 GMT, jbotz@mtholyoke.edu (Jurgen Botz) said:
Jurgen> As a news administrator for a site relatively new to the Net, I have
Jurgen> recently been giving _much_ thought to the issues surrounding certain
Jurgen> controversial newsgroups.
[much stuff deleted]
Jurgen> Furthermore, I am somewhat personally offended that such a relatively
Jurgen> large percentage of the total bandwith used by my news feeds and
Jurgen> store are used for such morally questionable purposes by a presumably
Jurgen> tiny fringe group of network users who appear to feel that it is their
Jurgen> natural right to waste everyone's resources with their trash.
Before I unsubscribe this news group, let me just followup to this post.
I grant you the fact that you might be offended by the supposed "waste"
of "your" bandwidth (by way of the news feeds) by questionable news groups.
Let me suggest a simple remedy, that as the supposed news administrator
you must be aware of.
Restrict the inflow of the articles!!!!
Very creative, huh. (An added hint for you, in case you really don't know:
it's in the sys file for your news setup).
I'd rather you censor yourself then me.
FLAME OFF and GOODBYE.
arnold
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arnold Goldberg Email: ajg@ccd.harris.com
Phone: (407)242-5051 Snail: Harris Corporation
Fax : (407)242-4262 407 John Rodes Blvd.
Melbourne, FL 32905
The opinions expressed are my own and do not in any way represent Harris
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From caf-talk Caf Aug 13 14:37:16 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.censorship
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: WLU sys admins search out "nasty" filenames and passwords
Message-ID: <1992Aug13.182157.5688@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 18:21:57 GMT
[This article, by Jim Boyce, jboyce1@mamut.wlu.ca, appeared on July
14th in the Wilfrid Laurier University's student newspaper, the Cord.
It is posted with Jim Boyce's permission.]
Questions have been raised about a program used by Computing
Services to find profane file names. In May, The Cord obtained
computer printouts from Kathy O'Grady, a student, which showed
that the program was running as recently as last October and was
designed to search through accounts in a section of the computer
system and find files with the words "cunt", "shit" and "fuck" in
their names.
O'Grady said she had been sceptical of rumours about the
program's existence until last summer when she saw it operating
(it could be viewed by typing a computer command which causes all
running programs to be listed on the screen). She said she
continued to check the system regularly during the summer and the
fall and found it several more times. Copies of the program were
saved on computer and printed out by her and two other Laurier
students as proof.
Carl Langford, the Systems Administrator, said the program
was started up two or three years ago and discontinued after a
few weeks. The program discovered last year by O'Grady and other
students was left running by mistake, he said, and had evaded
detection because it ran sporadically and late at night. "As I
recall, it was set to fire up at some ungodly hour of the
morning," he said, but added that no action was taken with the
results.
Hart Bezner, Director of Computing Services, said the
program operated routinely during the mid-eighties, "but it [the
language] cleaned up so we quit looking." He also said that it
may have been running as recently as the past year: "there was
one occasion when we had a complaint and that must have been
within the last six months, maybe eight months, and I think we
ran it two or three nights on all six unix machines to see how
big the problem was."
Bezner, however, was not explicit as to what was done with
the results from the program. A former Laurier student has told
the Cord that the password to his account was changed last
October, a few days before he had an assignment due. His password
included the word "fuck" [in reference to a Kurt Vonnegut novel]
and he said that when he contacted Computing Service, he was told
he would have to get a new one: "They said that the computer went
through and deleted nasty words".
Bezner would neither confirm or deny that such incidents had
happened saying that no account had ever been cancelled but it
was, "quite possible that we changed a password".
Langford and Bezner gave two reasons for intially creating
the program.
First, according to Bezner, there had been many complaints
about profane file names during the mid-eighties. Some of these
complaints came from within Computing Services: "When the
operators do file saves, the names of files roll past and they
appear on a printout or a screen or both... and what triggered it
was a file called `curly cunt hairs'."
Others came from computer users. Bezner said that during
these years output from the laser printer carried file names in
"inch-high letters" on the front page: "people flipping through
their output would come across these words and it just wasn't
very nice."
He said that only the names of files were checked and never
the contents.
Secondly, according to Langford and Bezner, two students
complained to Computer Services after seeing profane file names
on terminals that other students were using. The program was then
run to discover the degree to which profanity was being used.
When asked whether those students should have been looking
at the terminals Bezner said, "it happens quite accidentally"
when they are passing by. He explained that the computer room was
a public place and equated the incident with someone going into
an elevator and seeing a swear word written on the wall.
Kathy O'Grady, who has been the using the computers daily
for more than two years, disagreed with such a comparison:
"[Graffiti] forces the public to look at it, that's the whole
point of graffiti, it makes people look at it.... When I'm typing
in the main computer room I don't expect somebody to come up and
look at what I'm writing."
Furthermore, it does not explain why a password should be
cancelled since it is known only to the user and cannot be seen
by anyone else.
O'Grady said she talked to a professor several times during
the fall and winter about the program but decided to pursue the
matter further and contacted Bezner. She said she wrote to him
via computer mail and asked for an interview because she was
thinking of writing an article for The Cord. Bezner responded
with the following message: "If such a program still runs, it is
a hangover from the distant past when such words were less
acceptable. The program certainly doesn't appear to take any
action. Will look into it. HB." (February 10, 1992).
O'Grady said that she has not seen the program running since
that time but has concerns that it might be "masked" or kept
dormant until she has left the university. She continues to check
for it regularly and maintains her opposition to such actions by
Computing Services: "it is totally ridiculous for any individual
or small group of individuals to determine the language that
students, or even professors, use."
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Aug 13 14:48:49 1992
Newsgroups: news.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,misc.legal,alt.censorship
From: ckd@eff.org (Christopher Davis)
Subject: Re: Groups used to distribute illegal material
Message-ID:
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 18:48:45 GMT
Carl> == Carl M. Kadie
Carl> In my opinion, it is ok to exclude a newsgroup if it is illegal.
Carl> I think this position is supported by library policies. They say
Carl> that 1) laws should be obeyed 2) legal advice should obtained
Carl> from compete sources 3) restrictive laws should be challenged
Carl> (with legal means) 4) and that challenged material should be
Carl> given due process.
I might note that there is probably *also* a proportion of copyrighted
material in the alt.binaries.pictures.misc group (and that the whole
purpose of the alt.binaries.* hierarchy is to allow the *WHOLE THING* to
be easily blocked for reasons of disk space, transfer bandwidth, and/or
copyright problems).
--
Christopher Davis * ckd@eff.org * System Administrator, EFF * +1 617 864 0665
``Ed Gruberman, you fail to grasp Ti Kwan Leep.
Approach me that you might see.'' -- The Master
From caf-talk Caf Aug 13 15:00:21 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: sbrack@jupiter.cse.UTOLEDO.edu (Steven S. Brack)
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Message-ID: <9208131859.AA21002@jupiter.cse.utoledo.edu>
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 10:59:25 GMT
In article <1992Aug11.183602.4348@cs.sfu.ca> jamie@cs.sfu.ca (Jamie Andrews) writes:
>I am not against censoring reasoned argument
>that, for instance, "women like rape" or "children like sex with
>adults" (much as I abhor that position). I am for censoring
>certain material that makes no arguments, presents no opinions,
>and can have the effect of reinforcing and encouraging rapists
>and child molesters.
1) Speaking on a topic doesn't make people any less responisble
for how they act regarding that topic, nor does it make the
"author" responsible for the actions of those who "read" his work.
2) Creating "straw man" arguments, like "women like rape" and
"children like sex with adults," will not get us any closer
to understanding what constitutes acceptible speech. Some women
*do* have rape fantasies, far different from rape. And some minors
are capable of forming relationships with older people.
3) ANd who is to decide what material makes an argument, presents an
opinion, or is otherwise worthwhile, and what material is to be
censored? Who is to censor the censors? And who will censor
them? Humanity has free will. We can pick and choose what
we see and read, and what we do about it. America treats its
citizens much like adults, letting them have access to information
other nations paternalistically "guard" their citizens from.
We are not children. We are capable of deciding right and wrong,
and of knowing what actions to take. There is no rational basis
for censoring personal expression, except in **EXTREMELY** limited
circumstances, such as libel or "shouting fire in a crowded
theater."
Let's move forward into the light of open, honest truth.
From caf-talk Caf Aug 13 15:15:13 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [news.admin.policy] Re: Groups used to distribute illegal material
Message-ID: <9208131915.AA02109@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 09:15:00 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Aug 13 15:15:13 1992
From: damon@umbc4.umbc.edu (Mr. Damon Kelly; ACS (RJE))
Subject: Re: Groups used to distribute illegal material
Message-ID: <1992Aug13.180837.12770@umbc3.umbc.edu>
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 18:08:37 GMT
[jboltz@mtholyoke.edu wants to refuse to receive the newsgroups that
contain sexually explicit material because of copyright violations,
among some other possible reasons.]
I'd support your position, BUT you'd have to drop your USENET feed entirely.
Most newsgroups, at one time or another, carry some material that was posted
without permission from the copyright holder.
You CAN do it...but you would have to filter your incoming/outgoing feeds
AND assign someone to the Library of Congress to check out whether any of the
hundreds/thousands of postings that travel through your system violate
copyright laws.
It will possibly be worth it, if your system owners have the budget,
manpower and time to do so.
(I seriously doubt it.)
-d
--
During his stint at Marvel, he brought you Cable. Striking out on his own
about a year or two later, he debuts another character: Shaft.
And now, Rob Liefeld, the Genius of All-Macho Comics, brings you his NEW
bombshell: ELEVATOR. Watch for him! -Ppd from dvandom@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu
From caf-talk Caf Aug 13 15:15:18 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [news.admin.policy] Re: Groups used to distribute illegal material
Message-ID: <9208131915.AA02124@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 09:15:05 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Aug 13 15:15:18 1992
Newsgroups: news.admin.policy
Subject: Re: Groups used to distribute illegal material
Date: 13 Aug 1992 18:38:50 GMT
Message-ID: <16ea7qINNg7u@network.ucsd.edu>
I too am concerned about the content of some of the groups. It is not
the bandwidth or moral issues that are the problem, but that indeed
there are copyright violations taking place.
I could wish that the pictures being sent took up less of the network
bandwidth and disk storage, but the answer to that is better data
compression, storage, and retrieval methods, not restricting posting.
I believe that we who maintain the news software should be able to treat
the material passing through our sites as though we were solely a
carrier - much like the telephone system, UPS, and other common
carriers. In that manner, our site would not be liable for illegalities
committed by users of the system, since we do not assume to restrict
their posting content.
UUNET states that they operate in such a manner as an "enhanced service
provider" under FCC regulations. To my knowledge, there is not legal
precedent for this (i.e., no court decisions) but apparently the UUNET
lawyers feel that it's a sound position.
However, I do believe that anyone posting copyrighted material to the
net in violation of that copyright can, will, and should be liable to
the copyright owner. That's only fair.
- Brian
From caf-talk Caf Aug 13 15:15:51 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [news.admin.policy] Re: Groups used to distribute illegal material
Message-ID: <9208131915.AA02140@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 09:15:38 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Aug 13 15:15:51 1992
From: sean@ms.uky.edu (Sean Casey)
Subject: Re: Groups used to distribute illegal material
Message-ID: <1992Aug13.144412.27465@ms.uky.edu>
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 18:44:12 GMT
stantbat@iastate.edu (John S Sinnott) writes:
|An interesting question was brought up: Is it defensible to allow access to
|a newsgroup that distributes illegal material. The example given was one
|of the alt.sex.picture groups where copywrited material is often posted.
Another good question might be: Is it defensible to allow access to a
newsgroup where some people sometimes distribute materials illegal in
your country?
Sean
--
|``Wind, waves, etc. are breakdowns in the face of the
Sean Casey | commitment to getting from here to there. But they are the
sean@s.ms.uky.edu | conditions for sailing -- not something to be gotten rid
U of KY, Lexington| of, but something to be danced with.''
From caf-talk Caf Aug 13 15:16:15 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [news.admin.policy] Re: Groups used to distribute illegal material
Message-ID: <9208131916.AA02149@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 09:16:02 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Aug 13 15:16:15 1992
Newsgroups: news.admin.policy
Subject: Re: Groups used to distribute illegal material
Message-ID:
Date: 13 Aug 92 21:28:02 GMT
I'll take your question at face value and assume this isn't a veiled way
of justifying censorship of a group whose content you dislike.
The issue you raise is not a "free speech" issue. You have no moral,
ethical, or legal obligation to assist others in breaking the law. Of
course, if you believe the law is wrong, you could choose to engage in civil
disobedience and carry the illegal material anyway, but then you should
expect to be arrested and taken to court some day. That is, of course, the
objective of civil disobedience (so the law can be overturned).
As a practical matter, you can estimate the risk of carrying a group by
determining what percentage of the stuff in the group is clearly illegal
(copies without permission of copyrighted material in this case). If, in
your opinion, the illegal stuff is a significant fraction of the total, don't
accept the group into your site. At worst, anyone getting their feed of that
group from you will have to find another feed.
The ideal solution would be to delete just those articles that are
essentially just postings without permission of copyrighted material. So far
as I know, that's not practical.
-WBE
From caf-talk Caf Aug 13 15:44:16 1992
Newsgroups: news.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,misc.legal,alt.censorship
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Groups used to distribute illegal material
Message-ID: <1992Aug13.193809.28680@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 19:38:09 GMT
wbe@bbn.com (Winston Edmond) writes:
[...]
> Of
>course, if you believe the law is wrong, you could choose to engage in civil
>disobedience and carry the illegal material anyway, but then you should
>expect to be arrested and taken to court some day.
Copyright violation and libel in the U.S. are civil wrongs, so
you wouldn't be subject to arrest.
[...]
> As a practical matter, you can estimate the risk of carrying a group by
>determining what percentage of the stuff in the group is clearly illegal
>(copies without permission of copyrighted material in this case).
[...]
This might be a good measure for copyright and libel, but not for
obscenity. In the U.S., material is obscene only if 3) when taken as a
whole, it "must lack serious literary, artistic, political, or
scientific value".
I don't know the case law on what constitutes a "whole" material, but
I would think that the impracticality of checking each article
individually would support the idea that a newsgroup should be judged
as a whole.
- Carl
ANNOTATED REFERENCES
(All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.)
=================
law/miller
=================
The Supreme Court's definition of obscenity (the so-called _Miller_
test)
=================
=================
These document(s) are available by anonymous ftp (the preferred
method) and by email. To get the file(s) via ftp, do an anonymous ftp
to ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4), and get file(s):
pub/academic/law/miller
To get the file(s) by email, send email to archive-server@eff.org.
Include the line(s) (be sure to include the space before the file
name):
send acad-freedom/law miller
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Aug 13 15:51:14 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.sources.d] Re: Jive (Jive censored here)
Message-ID: <9208131950.AA02343@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 09:50:58 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Aug 13 15:51:14 1992
From: sean@ms.uky.edu (Sean Casey)
Subject: Re: Jive (Jive censored here)
Message-ID: <1992Aug13.150333.2236@ms.uky.edu>
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 19:03:33 GMT
Jive was censored from our game directory here a couple of years ago.
Some people felt it was offensive.
I, having installed it, thought it was a funny computer implementation
of the language used in the Airplane movie sketch, and that it had
nothing to do with real life or any actual persons living or dead.
Likewise, kraut was also removed, presumably because some German
somewhere might be offended, or actually was.
Gotta love the University of Kentucky. Reason number 71,456 for
leaving: You can't put up programs that some might find politically
incorrect.
Sean
--
|``Wind, waves, etc. are breakdowns in the face of the
Sean Casey | commitment to getting from here to there. But they are the
sean@s.ms.uky.edu | conditions for sailing -- not something to be gotten rid
U of KY, Lexington| of, but something to be danced with.''
From caf-talk Caf Aug 13 15:53:16 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.censorship
From: ppotter@nyx.cs.du.edu (Phillip Potter)
Subject: Re: WLU (in Canada) bans alt.sex* because its "offensive"
Message-ID: <1992Aug13.194226.370@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 92 19:42:26 GMT
The situation ain't too hot over in the UK either. As far as I can tell,
while alt.sex*, alt.psychoactives, alt.drugs, etc aren't actually banned
the authority that lets NetNews into the UK simply removes everything not
cross-posted to an uncensored group (this is actually one of the reasons
why I have a Nyx account]. Any folks from the UK know a) who is responsible
for this, b) why they do it and c) what if anything we could do to get them
to lighten up. Then again, the UK is one of the most heavily censored
countries in the "free world" anyway. Sigh
Phil
--
Phil Potter ppotter@nyx.cs.du.edu | Be exactly who you want to be
-----------------------------------+ Do what you want to do
Standard disclaimers apply | I am he and she is she
This space for hire | But you're the only you (Crass)
From caf-talk Caf Aug 13 16:03:50 1992
From: bjorn@ludd.luth.se (Bjorn Fahller)
Newsgroups: news.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,misc.legal,alt.censorship
Subject: Re: Groups used to distribute illegal material
Message-ID: <1992Aug13.192347.21686@ludd.luth.se>
Date: 13 Aug 92 19:23:47 GMT
I think this idea of closing newgroups because they carry illegal material is
a bit strange. It's not the newsgroup that's at fault. If it's pictures, they
can very well be posted somewhere else, or be spread through mail (which
I believe already happens). No one (I think) would carry the idea of closing
a road because people drive too fast, or would anyone? If illegal material
is posted, sue the poster, don't shut the distribution channel.
_
/Bjorn.
--
Bjorn Fahller Phone: |The opinions above are not necessarily
Trollnasvagen 3A Intl:+46 920 226870 |those of... Hey! Wait a minute. Do you
S-951 61 Lulea Natl:0920-22 68 70 |seriously expect Me, a student, to carry
Sweden << space for rent >>|the official voice of the University?
From caf-talk Caf Aug 13 16:42:31 1992
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: tsdavies@rodan.syr.EDU (Real life? Ha!)
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Message-ID:
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 92 02:26:07 EDT
Carl> == Carl Kadie
Carl> * Has textual material been found to be obscene in Canada or the U.S.
Carl> since _Ulysses_?
Carl> * Has a university ever been found guilty of obscenity?
Carl> * Has a university even ever been charged with obscenity?
Carl> * Did the university administrators bother to get legal advice?
Carl> * Did the university administrators bother to discuss the issues
Carl> with representatives of the faculty and students?
Carl> (To the best of my knowledge, in every case, the answer to all these
Carl> questions is "no").
I can't speak to the rest of the questions, but the answer to the
first is definitely "yes". (I suspect you may be right on the others,
though.)
To name a few (the _Ulysses_ decision is made in 1933):
1943-5 Various crime magazine distributors are prosecuted
for distributing various crime magazines under New
York obscenity law. (Law struck down by the U.S.
Supreme Court in _Winters_ v. _New York_.)
1946 Edmund Wilson's _Memoirs of Hecate County_ is seized
by John Sumner (the head of the New York Society for
the Suppression of Vice) under State obscenity laws.
(Upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in (I believe)
_Doubleday_ v. _New York_.) The book was not republished
in the United States until the 1960's, by a subsidiary
of Farrar, Straus, and Young.
1955 Samuel Roth imprisoned on charges of sending obscenity
through the mails (including advertisements and the
third issue of _American Aphrodite_, a hardbound
magazine which contained Aubrey Beardsley's "Venus and
Tannhauser" -- upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in
_Roth_ v. _United States_).
1958 The University of Chicago suppresses the Winter 1958,
issue of the _Chicago Review_, which contains material
by Jack Kerouac and William S. Burroughs. This
material was published in the first issue of _Big
Table_ in March, 1959, (by the editors who resigned
from the _Chicago Review_), and is seized by the
United States Post Office, and ruled obscene by the
Post Office's hearing examiner. It is set free by
Judge Julius Hoffmann under _Roth_ v. _United States_.
1961 Henry Miller's _Tropic of Cancer_ is published by
Grove Press and is declared obscene in various parts
of the country. The book is finally freed by the U.S.
Supreme Court in _Grove Press_ v. _Gerstein_ (decided in
conjunction with _Jacobellis_ v. _Ohio_, which involved a
film by Louis Malle called _The Lovers_.)
196? _Fanny Hill_ is found obscene by the Supreme Judicial
Court of Massachusetts. Overturned by the U.S.
Supreme Court in 1966, in _Memoirs of a Lady of
Pleasure_ v. _Massachusetts_ [?].
1963 Proceedings against William S. Burroughs' _Naked
Lunch_ are begun in Massachusetts on the grounds that
it may be obscene. (Won in appeal in the Massachusetts
Supreme Judicial Court in 1966.)
1966 Ralph Ginzburg's conviction on charges of distributing
obscenity through the mails is upheld by the U.S.
Supreme Court in _Ginzburg_ v. _United States_.
1973 In _Miller_ v. _California_, the Supreme Court upholds
the conviction of a distributor of illustrated books and
films which were held to violate California obscenity
law, and partially redefines the conditions under
which an item can be found to be obscene.
Other prosecutions and decisions since then mostly deal with films,
photographic images, and artistic performances; including the various
attempts to pass anti-pornography legislation; the arrest of Dennis
Barrie, the director of the Cincinnati, Ohio, Contemporary Arts Center
in 1990 for the presentation of Robert Mapplethorpe's "homoerotic"
photographs; and the actions of the U.S. Congress to establish limits
on NEA grantees.
Carl> Thus, I don't think the legal fear is rational.
In _Redrup_ v. _New York_, the U.S. Supreme Court laid out a decision
which implied "that consenting adults in the United States ought to be
constitutionally entitled to read and acquire any publication that
they wished -- including concededly obscene or pornographic ones --
without governmental interference." (de Grazia 1992: 516) In
_Stanley_ v. _Georgia_, the Court "held that adults had a constitutional
right to possess, read, or watch concededly obscene books and films in
the privacy of their homes." (de Grazia 1992: 516)
The Burger Court chose to limit the interpretation of this decision to
the facts, however, and deny that the decision "implied that people had
a constitutional right to exhibit or sell such materials outside the
home, or that anyone had a constitutional right to bring them to his
home, for example, from abroad." (de Grazia 1992: 516) In July, 1990,
"the Rehnquist Court further narrowed the principle by holding that
the right of Americans to read and watch anything they wished in the
privacy of their homes did not include 'child pornography.'" [In
_Osborne_ v. _Ohio_.] (de Grazia 1992: 337)
So there's an opening there, but chances are that the current Supreme
Court would not look favorably upon a case asking for sanctioning of a
constitutional right to read "obscene" Usenet News (in one's home,
business, dorm room, school terminal room, etc.).
Carl> I think it is more likely that administrators want to avoid the
Carl> real risk of publicity, even at the expense of academic freedom.
Their attempts to control bad (or potentially bad) publicity over
incidents like this one often result in even more bad publicity from
the response to the attempted suppression/cover-up. This is often
good publicity for the artists/persons/groups under attack, who can
get a great deal of free publicity. (E.g.: 2 Live Crew.)
Carl> Finally, although bans may solve publicity problems in the short
Carl> term, in the long term it not only hurts academic freedom, it
Carl> also opens a university up to bad publicity as folks make demand
Carl> after demand for bans of material that they don't want other
Carl> folks see.
(Which you said. ;-) )
Source:
de Grazia, Edward
1992 _Girls Lean Back Everywhere: The Law Of Obscenity And
The Assault On Genius_. New York: Random House.
(ISBN: 0-394-57611-X, $30.00)
--
"If a man slept by day, he had little time to work. That was a satisfying
notion to Escargot." -- _The Stone Giant_, James P. Blaylock
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
T.S. Davies tsdavies@mailbox.syr.edu SHC, DS
From caf-talk Caf Aug 13 17:06:02 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.censorship
From: morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan)
Subject: Re: WLU sys admins search out "nasty" filenames and passwords
Message-ID: <1992Aug13.170321.22549@ms.uky.edu>
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 21:03:21 GMT
>[This article, by Jim Boyce, jboyce1@mamut.wlu.ca, appeared on July
>14th in the Wilfrid Laurier University's student newspaper, the Cord.
>It is posted with Jim Boyce's permission.]
>
> O'Grady said that she has not seen the program running since
>that time but has concerns that it might be "masked" or kept
>dormant until she has left the university. She continues to check
>for it regularly and maintains her opposition to such actions by
>Computing Services: "it is totally ridiculous for any individual
>or small group of individuals to determine the language that
>students, or even professors, use."
That's interesting; I just received a complaint last week about a
program named "shit". It had been placed in the background, and
it required several hours of runtime. I sent the owner of the pro-
gram a note, explaining the complaints; I also mentioned that, while
I didn't plan to "take any action", any further complaints would be
directed to him. In his reply, he apologized (he didn't realize that
other users could see his command names via ps) and changed the name
immediately.
I wonder what would have happened if the original admins had simply
asked the users of such language to refrain from doing so. How do
these people stand the monolithic approach?
--Wes
--
MORGAN@UKCC | Wes Morgan | ...!ukma!ukecc!morgan
morgan@ms.uky.edu | Engineering Computing | morgan@wuarchive.wustl.edu
morgan@engr.uky.edu | University of Kentucky | JWMorgan@dockmaster.ncsc.mil
Mailing list for AT&T StarServer S/E - starserver-request@engr.uky.edu
From caf-talk Caf Aug 13 17:39:46 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [news.admin.policy] Re: Groups used to distribute illegal material
Message-ID: <9208132139.AA03004@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 11:39:33 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Aug 13 17:39:46 1992
Newsgroups: news.admin.policy
Subject: Re: Groups used to distribute illegal material
Message-ID: <1992Aug13.191334.19680@ntmtv>
Date: 13 Aug 92 19:13:34 GMT
In article , jbotz@mtholyoke.edu (Jurgen Botz) writes:
|> I am extremely opposed to censorship, and we are currently receiving
|> everything we can get our hands (well, our lines) on. But since our
|> news user population is growing rapidly, I expect that it won't be
|> long before someone here tries to make a stink about the fact that
Here's a simple if slightly fascist fix. Disable access to questionable
newsgroups and permit access by user machine only. Insist on low-key,
word of mouth subscription only (i.e. - they have to come to you as
the news admin to get access to "fringe" newsgroups). Make it clear,
access exists only so long as nobody raises a major stink and you'll
be amazed how cooperative these users will be. It's not a great
solution, but gets you out of the business of playing morals judge
and jury and avoids the issue of having to justify anything to those
with different ideas on wha't proper (and what's not).
--
Howard Hart UUCP:{ames,pyramid!amdahl,hplabs}!ntmtv!harthc
System Administrator INTERNET: ntmtv!harthc@ames.arc.nasa.gov
Northern Telecom PHONE: (415) 940-2680
Mt. View, CA
From caf-talk Caf Aug 13 17:40:31 1992
Newsgroups: uiuc.general,alt.censorship,rec.arts.fine,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: U. of Illinois may remove non"pleasant" art from vistor's center
Message-ID: <1992Aug13.213713.25840@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 21:37:13 GMT
[This is a policy statement from the American Association of
University Professors. The statement was endorsed by AAUP's Committee
A on Academic Freedom and Tenure and by its Council at their meetings
in June 1990. As with all AAUP policy statements, it is in the public
domain. For a comprehensive collection of AAUP statements see _Policy
Documents & Reports_ by the American Association of University
Professors]
Academic Freedom and Artistic Expression
Attempts to curtail artistic presentations at academic institutions on
grounds that the works are offensive to some members of the campus
community and general public occur with disturbing frequency. Those
who support restrictions argue that works presented to the public
rather than in the classroom or other entirely intramural settings
should conform to their view of the prevailing community standard
rather than to standards of academic freedom. We believe that
"essential as freedom is for the relation and judgment of facts, it is
even more indispensable to the imagination."[1] In our judgment
academic freedom in the creation and presentation of works in the
visual and performing arts, by ensuring greater opportunity for
imaginative exploration and expression, best serves the public and the
academy.
The following proposed policies are designed to assist institutions to
respond to the issues that may arise from the presentation of artistic
works to the public in a manner which preserves academic freedom:
l) Academic Freedom in Artistic Expression. Faculty and students
engaged in the creation and presentation of works of the visual and
the performing arts are engaged in pursuing the mission of the
university as much as are those who write, teach, and study in other
academic disciplines. Works of the visual and performing arts are
important both in their own right and because they can enhance our
experience and understanding of social institutions and the human
condition. Artistic expression in the classroom, studio, and workshop
therefore merits the same assurance of academic freedom that is
accorded to other scholarly and teaching activities. Since faculty
and student artistic presentations to the public are integral to their
teaching, learning, and scholarship, these presentations no less merit
protection. Educational and artistic criteria should be used by all
who participate in the selection and presentation of artistic works.
Reasonable content-neutral regulation of the "time, place, and manner"
of presentations should be developed and maintained. Academic
institutions are obliged to ensure that regulations and procedures do
not impair freedom of expression or discourage creativity by
subjecting work to tests of propriety or ideology.
2) Accountability. Academic institutions provide artistic performances
and exhibits to encourage artistic creativity, expression, learning,
and appreciation. The institutions do not thereby endorse the
specific artistic presentations nor do the presentations necessarily
represent the institution. This principle of institutional neutrality
does not relieve institutions of general responsibility for
maintaining professional and educational standards, but it does mean
that institutions are not responsible for the views or attitudes
expressed in specific artistic works any more than they would be for
the content of other instruction, publication, or invited speeches.
Correspondingly, those who present artistic work should not represent
themselves or their work as speaking for the institution and should
otherwise fulfill their educational and professional responsibilities.
3) The Audience. When academic institutions offer exhibitions or
performances to the public, they should ensure that the rights of the
presenters and the audience are not impaired by a "heckler's veto"
from those who may be offended by the presentation. Academic
institutions should ensure that those who choose to view or attend may
do so without interference. Mere presentation in a public place does
not create a "captive audience." Institutions may reasonably
designate specific places as generally available or unavailable for
exhibitions or performances.
4) Public Funding. Public funding for artistic presentations and for
academic institutions does not diminish (and indeed may heighten) the
responsibility of the university community to ensure academic freedom
and of the public to respect the integrity of academic institutions.
Government imposition on artistic expression of a test of propriety,
ideology, or religion is an act of censorship which impermissibly
denies the academic freedom to explore, teach, and learn.
[1] Helen C. White, "Our Most Urgent Professional Task," AAUP Bulletin
45 (March 1959), 282.
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Aug 13 17:40:42 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [news.admin.policy] Re: Groups used to distribute illegal material
Message-ID: <9208132140.AA03027@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 11:40:30 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Aug 13 17:40:42 1992
Subject: Re: Groups used to distribute illegal material
Message-ID:
From: ward1@husc8.harvard.edu (Lester Ward)
Date: 13 Aug 92 19:55:30 GMT
There are two main issues brought up here, censorship and legality. I'm
completely ignoring the censorship issue, as that did not seem to be the
original posters main issue.
As far as legality, a few comments:
o Copywrites: Although the poster originally brought up images, which have
accepted copywrite standards, many other types of posted data is still
a bit hazy on exactly what a copywrite is. Can you copywrite algrothms
for example. I'm speaking from a vaccuum here, so someone will correct
me, no doubt.
o Juristiction: A post from Germany shows up in the USA. It is illegal in
the USA, but not in Germany. Is the poster breaking the law? There are
probably not too many precidents for this (its not that likely), but I hope
the point is clear. Suppose the post is illegal in both countries; how is
the poster prosecuted? etc.
o The law: Recent legal decisions have taken a somewhat counter-intuitive
slant regarding computer crime. For example, there have been cases of
administrators being brought to trial for reading "private" mail, but
found not guilty because mail is not legally private. There may be
similar cases where the administrator was found guilty. Which brings up
another point: law is just starting to deal with computers and networks.
I guess this is the real point: right now, we (the computer literate, network
literate community) have the ability to steer the law one way or an other.
The world at large (including most courts and lawyers) don't know much about
computers. When dealing with legislating computers, they will have to get
advice from the experts (us) in making their decisions, decisions which will
set legal president to the day when everyone uses computers.
Les
From caf-talk Caf Aug 13 17:40:43 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [news.admin.policy] Re: Groups used to distribute illegal material
Message-ID: <9208132140.AA03018@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 11:40:05 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Aug 13 17:40:43 1992
From: ted@telematics.com (Ted Goldblatt)
Subject: Re: Groups used to distribute illegal material
Message-ID: <1992Aug13.195436.19296@telematics.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 19:54:36 GMT
In article wbe@bbn.com (Winston Edmond) writes:
>
> As a practical matter, you can estimate the risk of carrying a group by
>determining what percentage of the stuff in the group is clearly illegal
>(copies without permission of copyrighted material in this case). If, in
>your opinion, the illegal stuff is a significant fraction of the total, don't
>accept the group into your site. At worst, anyone getting their feed of that
>group from you will have to find another feed.
>
The problem that was (at least implicitly) raised was not just risk to
the receiving site, but risk to Usenet (or the greater entity that
includes alt.*, anonymous FTP, etc.) as a whole. There are both
legalities and realities involved. Considering a.b.p.e, at a guess
half(?) of its traffic could be considered to violate copyrights,
the other half (:-)) violates community standards _somewhere_.
(other groups probably have a lower (but non-trivial) level of
such "problems".
If a purely common carrier argument could be maintained, then only
the posters and (possibly) receivers of such materical could legally
be held accountable. However, this argument has never been tested,
and further, it ignores some of the reality issues. The major
reality issue is that Usenet is heavily supported (at least in the
US) by the taxpayers (the NSFNet and most of the regional backbones
have at least some public funding; most (if not all) .edu sites
receive some (if not all) of their funding from public sources).
Legal and moral arguments raised by lawyers and bible-thumpers
could resonate with Joe Taxpayer, or with a publicity seeking
politician (remember Proxmire and the Golden Fleece Awards). This
could seriously impact us, even if the law itself was not a problem.
I don't know if similar problems could exist elsewhere in the world.
I'm not arguing for the elimination of a.b.p.e (we get it here :-))
or any other group, and I don't have a proposal to make. I just
think that arguing "you people are closed-minded" or "just don't
get the group if you don't want it" is both insulting to those
that raise a (potentially) serious issue, and is short-sighted.
ted
--
Ted Goldblatt ted@telematics.com (305) 351-4367
Telematics Intl., Inc. Ft. Lauderdale, FL
From caf-talk Caf Aug 13 17:41:29 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [news.admin.policy] Re: Groups used to distribute illegal material
Message-ID: <9208132141.AA03036@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 11:41:17 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Aug 13 17:41:29 1992
Newsgroups: news.admin.policy
Subject: Re: Groups used to distribute illegal material
Date: 13 Aug 1992 20:30:19 GMT
Message-ID: <16egorINNdl7@early-bird.think.com>
In article stantbat@iastate.edu (John S Sinnott) writes:
>An interesting question was brought up: Is it defensible to allow access to
>a newsgroup that distributes illegal material. The example given was one
>of the alt.sex.picture groups where copywrited material is often posted.
>
>I think that we can all agree that the burden of proff is on the person
>making the accusation. Just which picture is copywritten, and is being
>posted without perrmission. To my knowledge, there has never been a case
>involving an adult magazine publisher suing a BBS or network because of
>.gif files.
I read (in Boardwatch I believe) that a bbs on the west coast which created
the "Maxipics" famous to those who view porno gifs is in the process of
being sued by Playboy or Penthouse for precisely this reason. Apparently,
the magazine discovered that "Maxi" had been harassing various BBS's for
posting his "copyrighted" scanned gifs without giving him any money.
The magazine did a little "turnabout is fair play" against him. I have no
further information about this, but would be interested in seeing some
karl...
From caf-talk Caf Aug 13 17:42:08 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [news.admin.policy] Re: Groups used to distribute illegal material
Message-ID: <9208132141.AA03047@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 11:41:57 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Aug 13 17:42:08 1992
From: bohrer@mcc.com (Bill Bohrer)
Subject: Re: Groups used to distribute illegal material
Message-ID: <1992Aug13.210650.16240@mcc.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 21:06:50 GMT
In article <1992Aug13.171742.15946@pony.Ingres.COM> sergio@Ingres.COM (Sergio L Aponte) writes:
> Another question is how "censorship" of a particular group solves
> the problem.
>
> After all, if enough sites ban a pictures group, won't the pictures
> start showing up somewhere else? Does eliminating a group that has
> an ofensive "charter" aliminates the questionable articles off your
> feed? NOT!
>
> In truth, I think the issue will come up more and more. With the
> "sexual harrasement" (sp?) focus, many companies/universities might not
> want to be involved with questionable groups, deciding to drop it vs
> entering a long argument about it. After all, if ONE person finds it
> offensive, no matter if it is rec.humor, it is cause enough for a
> "harrasement" (at least I am consistent on the spelling!) acusation.
>--
It's not legally harrassment because no one is forcing anyone to read
these groups.
And by the way, Mount Holyoke is a small WOMEN'S college in
Massachusetts; Why DON'T you just drop a.b.e.p?? I doubt there are
that many women interested in this group, which is reason enough to
drop a group, rather than because the NEWS-ADMIN finds it
objectionable and makes up some stupid excuse that he's protectin
COPYRIGHT ownership for christ sake.
--
Certainly these are my own opinions. I WISH they were my
employer's as well...
--
*
From caf-talk Caf Aug 13 17:42:30 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [news.admin.policy] Re: Groups used to distribute illegal material
Message-ID: <9208132142.AA03056@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 11:42:18 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Aug 13 17:42:30 1992
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Groups used to distribute illegal material
Message-ID:
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 21:08:22 GMT
In <16ea7qINNg7u@network.ucsd.edu> brian@ucsd.edu (Brian Kantor) writes:
>I too am concerned about the content of some of the groups. It is not
>the bandwidth or moral issues that are the problem, but that indeed
>there are copyright violations taking place.
>I believe that we who maintain the news software should be able to treat
>the material passing through our sites as though we were solely a
>carrier - much like the telephone system, UPS, and other common
>carriers. In that manner, our site would not be liable for illegalities
>committed by users of the system, since we do not assume to restrict
>their posting content.
>However, I do believe that anyone posting copyrighted material to the
>net in violation of that copyright can, will, and should be liable to
>the copyright owner. That's only fair.
As I understand it from the debate here at Iowa State (for more
information, send e-mail to me and I'll see about getting you on the
mailing list of the Students for Electronic Freedom. The "leader" is
Mike Begley, spam@iastate.edu, and he might be a better contact.),
if you do not censor or restrict your newsfeed you stand a better chance
of defending yourself because you are not taking it upon yourself to
filter out the inappropriate stuff. Once you start restricting, then
it follows that you are responsible for the content of what is on your
news server.
Personally, I've always felt it was the responsibility of the
poster to make sure everything fits within copyright and obscenity
laws, and that they should be the ones prosecuted if necessary. An
article can be cancelled, so let the author stay responsible. Most
news sites also pass their feed along to others, so there is a legit
reason for viewing your site as just a carrier like the phone company.
< ISU thinks I need more education, which they provide for a fee. >
From caf-talk Caf Aug 13 18:03:50 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [news.admin.policy] Re: Groups used to distribute illegal material
Message-ID: <9208132203.AA03126@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 12:03:37 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Aug 13 18:03:50 1992
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Groups used to distribute illegal material
Message-ID:
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 21:14:31 GMT
In <1992Aug13.191334.19680@ntmtv> harthc@ntmtv.UUCP (Howard Hart) writes:
>Here's a simple if slightly fascist fix. Disable access to questionable
>newsgroups and permit access by user machine only. Insist on low-key,
>word of mouth subscription only (i.e. - they have to come to you as
>the news admin to get access to "fringe" newsgroups). Make it clear,
>access exists only so long as nobody raises a major stink and you'll
>be amazed how cooperative these users will be. It's not a great
>solution, but gets you out of the business of playing morals judge
>and jury and avoids the issue of having to justify anything to those
>with different ideas on wha't proper (and what's not).
Unfortunately, it doesn't work worth a damn. Here at ISU,
we have a large network of Unix machines, VAXen, and one old
clunker known as Wylbur. Since all are multi-user machines, we
pressed for any restrictions to be on a per-user basis, but this was
not allowed. Now, you have to sign up for a full newsfeed for each
machine you are responsible for. This means the public-access machines
are not allowed a full feed. Wylbur is the only machine that can
work on a per-username basis, and coincidentially it has the most
primitive newsreader available.
In short, I can't read from my terminal at home, my terminal
at work, or any of the public labs unless I telnet to wylbur and
read it there. This doesn't stop a darn thing (I can ftp pics to
the workstation and display them there if I wish) -- all it does is
make it inconvenient.
One thing that came to mind was to write a script on Wylbur
that mailed each and every message from the banned groups to my
unix account with the header and message number in the subject line.
I could then write a script on my unix account to organize the
messages and display them in order by subject. I think this would
waste more bandwidth than just opening things back up, but I don't
want to get anybody angry while we are making progress in removing
these silly restrictions.
There are ways around everything, and your policy is so
easy to circumvent it is merely a laughable attempt that only
inconveniences readers.
< ISU thinks I need more education, which they provide for a fee. >
From caf-talk Caf Aug 13 18:59:40 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.alt
Subject: Re: [news.admin.policy] Re: Groups used to distribute illegal material
Message-ID: <1992Aug13.181253.9396@uoft02.utoledo.edu>
From: sbrack@jupiter.cse.utoledo.edu (Steven S. Brack)
Date: 13 Aug 92 18:12:52 EST
: From: damon@umbc4.umbc.edu (Mr. Damon Kelly; ACS (RJE))
: Subject: Re: Groups used to distribute illegal material
:
: [jboltz@mtholyoke.edu wants to refuse to receive the newsgroups that
: contain sexually explicit material because of copyright violations,
: among some other possible reasons.]
:
: I'd support your position, BUT you'd have to drop your USENET feed entirely.
: Most newsgroups, at one time or another, carry some material that was posted
: without permission from the copyright holder.
The way international copyright law stands, which is enforced on the
federal level in the U.S., every word you say is *by default*
copyrighted. My followup to your post is a violation of copyright
laws. I'm waiting for them to come & take me away. 8)
: You CAN do it...but you would have to filter your incoming/outgoing feeds
: AND assign someone to the Library of Congress to check out whether any of the
: hundreds/thousands of postings that travel through your system violate
: copyright laws.
Not to mention assigning full-time staff to check libraries, reading
rooms, bulletin boards, and bathroom walls for any copyright violation.
:
: It will possibly be worth it, if your system owners have the budget,
: manpower and time to do so.
:
: (I seriously doubt it.)
I have no doubts about the overwhelmingly daft nature of the idea.
We don't throw the baby out with the bathwater; Likewise, we should
not throw all the "good" (IMO, a very subjective term) articles out
along with the "bad." ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
:
: -d
:
: --
: During his stint at Marvel, he brought you Cable. Striking out on his own
: about a year or two later, he debuts another character: Shaft.
: And now, Rob Liefeld, the Genius of All-Macho Comics, brings you his NEW
: bombshell: ELEVATOR. Watch for him! -Ppd from dvandom@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu
--
Steven S. Brack | sbrack@jupiter.cse.utoledo.edu
2021 Roanwood Drive | STU0061@uoft01.utoledo.edu
Toledo, Ohio 43620 ________/^\________ brack@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu
+1 419 GR4 1010 | MY OWN OPINIONS | sbrack@maine.cse.utoledo.edu
From caf-talk Caf Aug 13 18:59:42 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.censorship
Subject: Re: WLU sys admins search out "nasty" filenames and passwords
Message-ID: <1992Aug13.185526.9397@uoft02.utoledo.edu>
From: sbrack@jupiter.cse.utoledo.edu (Steven S. Brack)
Date: 13 Aug 92 18:55:26 EST
morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
:
: I just received a complaint last week about a
: program named "shit". It had been placed in the background, and
: it required several hours of runtime. I sent the owner of the pro-
: gram a note, explaining the complaints; I also mentioned that, while
: I didn't plan to "take any action", any further complaints would be
: directed to him. In his reply, he apologized (he didn't realize that
: other users could see his command names via ps) and changed the name
: immediately.
:
WHat are the privacy, & collaterally, academic freedom concerns
regarding the ability of everyone on a system to see what you are
doing?
--
Steven S. Brack | sbrack@jupiter.cse.utoledo.edu
2021 Roanwood Drive | STU0061@uoft01.utoledo.edu
Toledo, Ohio 43620 ________/^\________ brack@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu
+1 419 GR4 1010 | MY OWN OPINIONS | sbrack@maine.cse.utoledo.edu
From caf-talk Caf Aug 13 20:56:54 1992
From: bane@vtx.ma.man.ac.uk) (M i c h a e l ;-)
Newsgroups: news.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,misc.legal,alt.censorship
Subject: Re: Groups used to distribute illegal material
Message-ID: <5752@m1.cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: 13 Aug 92 22:49:08 GMT
In article <1992Aug13.192347.21686@ludd.luth.se>, bjorn@ludd.luth.se (Bjorn Fahller) writes:
|> I think this idea of closing newgroups because they carry illegal material is
|> a bit strange. It's not the newsgroup that's at fault. If it's pictures, they
|> can very well be posted somewhere else, or be spread through mail (which
|> I believe already happens). No one (I think) would carry the idea of closing
|> a road because people drive too fast, or would anyone?
Come on.... things *DO* happen if many people drive too fast down one piece of road:
1) the police keep a watch (from secret hiding places....... THINK ABOUT IT!)
2) there are other measures taken ("traffic calming")
3) and it has been known (and OFTEN APPRECIATED) to actually close the roads !
NB: this is not to say that I do or do not agree with illegal traffic on UseNet (I've
not weighed up all the arguments yet)
Michael
From caf-talk Caf Aug 13 21:04:27 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.censorship
From: sybok@athena.mit.edu (The Rifleman)
Subject: Re: WLU sys admins search out "nasty" filenames and passwords
Message-ID: <1992Aug14.003712.9132@athena.mit.edu>
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 00:37:12 GMT
In article <1992Aug13.185526.9397@uoft02.utoledo.edu> sbrack@jupiter.cse.utoledo.edu (Steven S. Brack) writes:
>morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
>:
>: I just received a complaint last week about a
>: program named "shit". It had been placed in the background, and
>: it required several hours of runtime. I sent the owner of the pro-
>: gram a note, explaining the complaints; I also mentioned that, while
>: I didn't plan to "take any action", any further complaints would be
>: directed to him. In his reply, he apologized (he didn't realize that
>: other users could see his command names via ps) and changed the name
>: immediately.
>:
> WHat are the privacy, & collaterally, academic freedom concerns
> regarding the ability of everyone on a system to see what you are
> doing?
If someone sent me mail about how they were upset I had a program
running called, "shit," I'd tell them to goto Hell! If I offend them,
that's their problem. (Reminds me of that scene with Eddie Murphy. Someone
says to Eddie, "You're a Foul Mouth!!" Eddie responds, "Foul Mouth!?!
Fuck you!")
From caf-talk Caf Aug 13 23:16:22 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [news.admin.policy, et al.] Re: Groups used to distribute illegal material
Message-ID: <9208140316.AA04190@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 17:16:11 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Aug 13 23:16:22 1992
From: jik@athena.mit.edu (Jonathan I. Kamens)
Subject: Re: Groups used to distribute illegal material
Message-ID:
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 21:26:16 GMT
[A followup to an article in news.admin.policy, in a thread about
restricting newsgroups with a lot of probably illegal material in
them.]
In article <1992Aug13.160445.16878@dragon.acadiau.ca> 880518l@dragon.acadiau.ca (Nelson Langille) writes:
Yes, but isin't it true that many(mostly all) anonymous FTP sites
contain pictures which are copyrighted? So what's the difference.
Unless you mean, "many anonymous FTP sites which contain pictures
contain pictures which are copyrighted," your statement is false,
since most anonymous ftp sites don't carry any pictures at all -- they
don't have the space and don't think it's important enough (and don't
want to worry about the copyright problems).
As for your latter question, "So what's the difference?" If anything,
administrators of ftp sites with copyrighted materials on them are
MORE likely to get into trouble if anybody decides to start enforcing
their subjects, since anonymous ftp site administrators have in many
cases actively made files available on their systems, rather than just
allowing copyrighted articles to pass through as part of the stream of
mostly legal material that is the Usenet.
If you are someone who thinks that newsgroups with much illegal
material in them should not be received by your site, then you
probably also believe that your site should not have an anonymous ftp
archive with illegal material in it. If, on the other hand, you
believe that the newsgroup is OK because you think that Usenet sites
have common carrier status, then you may or may not believe the same
thing about anonymous ftp archives.
Of course, the existence of anonymous ftp archives that allow anyone
to put files in them for downloading without interacting with the
administrator clouds the issue somewhat.
Further discussion of anonymous ftp archives should probably go
somewhere other than news.admin.policy, since it has nothing to do
with news. I have cross-posted and redirected followups to
comp.admin.policy.
--
Jonathan Kamens jik@MIT.Edu
MIT Information Systems/Athena Moderator, news.answers
(Send correspondence related to the news.answers newsgroup
{and ONLY correspondence related to the newsgroup}
to news-answers-request@MIT.Edu.)
From caf-talk Caf Aug 13 23:16:43 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [news.admin.policy] Re: Groups used to distribute illegal material
Message-ID: <9208140316.AA04199@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 17:16:32 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Aug 13 23:16:43 1992
From: dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Dave Hayes)
Subject: Re: Groups used to distribute illegal material
Message-ID: <1992Aug13.221944.12665@jato.jpl.nasa.gov>
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 22:19:44 GMT
stantbat@iastate.edu (John S Sinnott) writes:
>An interesting question was brought up: Is it defensible to allow access to
>a newsgroup that distributes illegal material...
>I would ask the powers that be to prove someone has broken the law.
I agree wholeheartedly. It is not clear, from the context of USENET
(which has no real legal context in terms of legality, and is not
specifically under any one government's body of law) whether anything
posted here is illegal.
--
Dave Hayes - Network & Communications Engineering - JPL / NASA - Pasadena CA
dave@elxr.jpl.nasa.gov dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov ...usc!elroy!dxh
He who has self-conceit in his head -
Do not imagine that he will ever hear the truth.
From caf-talk Caf Aug 13 23:17:04 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [news.admin.policy] Re: Groups used to distribute illegal material
Message-ID: <9208140316.AA04208@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 17:16:52 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Aug 13 23:17:04 1992
From: arms@cs.UAlberta.CA (Bill Armstrong)
Subject: Re: Groups used to distribute illegal material
Message-ID:
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 22:27:21 GMT
wbe@bbn.com (Winston Edmond) writes:
> The ideal solution would be to delete just those articles that are
>essentially just postings without permission of copyrighted material. So far
>as I know, that's not practical.
IMHO, when someone posts anything, he/she should take responsibility
for it. If the poster's real name is used, and there is either in the
article, or available at the posting site, an address where the person
can be reached for the service of a summons, people who go too far will
find out about it.
A corollary of this is that all sites should try to transfer as much
responsibility onto the individual as is "reasonable" by posting
warnings about copyrighted, illegal and objectionable material and
having users sign pertinent agreements as a condition of use.
Institutions may run into a few problems in trying to encourage
dissemination of knowledge while at the same time staying on good
terms with the public regarding the definition of what constitutes
"objectionable" material. For example, the University of Alberta's
motto is "Quaecumque Vera" = "Whatsoever Things are True". It's going
to be a bit of a problem for the Latin translators if it has to be
changed to include a phrase "(except we won't tolerate anything
written about sex and bondage, even if true)". I would like to think
the original motto means something, and the self-imposed *obligation*
to disseminate the truth will protect both the institution and the
individuals in it, even if some cases do end up in court.
(My own opinions, not necessarily those of my employer.)
--
***************************************************
Prof. William W. Armstrong, Computing Science Dept.
University of Alberta; Edmonton, Alberta, Canada T6G 2H1
arms@cs.ualberta.ca Tel(403)492 2374 FAX 492 1071
From caf-talk Caf Aug 13 23:18:53 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [rec.arts.fine, et al.] Re: U. of Illinois may remove non"pleasant" art from vistor's center
Message-ID: <9208140318.AA04217@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 17:18:41 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Aug 13 23:18:53 1992
From: greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (J. S. Greenfield)
Subject: Re: U. of Illinois may remove non"pleasant" art from vistor's center
Message-ID: <1992Aug13.091526.7822@newstand.syr.edu>
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 92 09:15:26 EDT
In article tmkk@uiuc.edu (Khan) writes:
>
>Perhaps one of you folks debating this topic can answer the following
>question for me:
>
>Why is it legal for a University to bad X-rated GIF files from its
>anonymous ftp sites, ban the importation of groups such as
>alt.sex.pictures onto camous machines, but NOT legal for them to take a
>couple of X-rated paintings off of the wall of a campus building?
Who said the paintings were "X-rated?" According to the posted articles,
university officials specifically stated that they wouldn't go so far as
to describe the paintings as "pornographic"--they were just objectionable.
Furthermore, what makes you assume that it *is* legal for a (public)
university to ban x-rated GIF files, any more so than any other large-space
consuming non-academic related material.
Arguments can be (and have been) made suggesting that (public) schools can
legitimately limit such use of their computer facilities--but I have never
seen a legitimate argument that was based on the "x-rated" content of the
material. Rather, the arguments are based on lack of resources to support
such (memory-) expensive, non-academically-oriented material.
If a public school attempted to limit access to "x-rated" gifs, solely because
of the content of the material (so long as it was not "obscene") then that
attempt would very likely *not* be legal.
To my knowledge, no such case has ever been litigated, however.
In any case, the issues involved in archiving gif files can hardly be
considered at all related to the case at hand. The university has displayed
the paintings already, and has made no argument that "lack of resources"
require the removal of the paintings. The University wishes to remove the
paintings *solely* on the basis of their content.
Can you just imagine the University--"We need to remove these two paintings to
make room for other, academically-related paintings..."
"Hey! What are those academically-oriented paintings? Paintings of the
alphabet?"
--
J. S. Greenfield greeny@top.cis.syr.edu
(I like to put 'greeny' here,
but my d*mn system wants a
*real* name!) "What's the difference between an orange?"
From caf-talk Caf Aug 14 06:14:56 1992
From: clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca (Chris Lewis)
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.censorship
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Message-ID: <3713@ecicrl.ocunix.on.ca>
Date: 14 Aug 92 02:46:14 GMT
In article <1992Aug11.113418.11233@m.cs.uiuc.edu> kadie@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca (Chris Lewis) writes:
>>The problem is that *some* of the postings to a.s.b. are apparently
>>beyond what the law will accept. [...] The only other alternative would be to
>>manually screen what goes through, and nobody's that much of an idiot.
>An illegal posting could appear in any newsgroup. By your reasoning,
>Netnews is, as a practical matter, illegal in Canada. By your
>reasoning, imported newspapers, books, and satellite TV programs are,
>as a practicle matter, illegal in Canada. So is live radio and TV.
This is nonsense. This is what comes out of being too simplistic -
not everything is black and white.
It's simply a matter of risk management. Whether the risk is
legal charges, adverse publicity, or your mother screaming at you,
you have to determine out what portion of the material is of questionable
legality, and decide whether that percentage is an acceptable risk
or not.
In all of the media that you refer to, there are editors in the loop,
or at least identifiable people. So there's almost always some assurance
that *somebody* identifiable will be screening the material or can be
called to task for violations.
Not so with USENET. Which is rapidly descending in the average level
of maturity.
--
Chris Lewis; clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca; Phone: Canada 613 832-0541
Psroff 3.0 info: psroff-request@ferret.ocunix.on.ca
Ferret list: ferret-request@ferret.ocunix.on.ca
From caf-talk Caf Aug 14 06:14:57 1992
From: clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca (Chris Lewis)
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Message-ID: <3715@ecicrl.ocunix.on.ca>
Date: 14 Aug 92 03:08:42 GMT
In article robert@informix.com (Robert Coleman) writes:
|clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca (Chris Lewis) writes:
|>Later on, when the Americans wanted to free us from our "shackles" (read,
|>annex Canada as they were later to do with Texas, California etc.), they
|>invaded Canada in 1812. It was their "manifest destiny" to own the whole
|>continent. Again, the people of Canada explicitly rejected the "liberators"
|>and their philosophy, and fought back. And won.
| Noting an extreme anti-US bias here, and not so much against the
|current US as against the US of 100-200 years ago...biases such as these
|really can't help but warp your vision.
It's amazing how often this claim is made. You don't know me very well
do you - for in the last flame war I was embroiled in, I was being accused
of being some sort of fanatical pro-American.
No. My bias is simply against Americans who arrogantly claim that only
*their* way is right, and that any other culture or tradition must be
rejected.
|>We have chosen a different route. Chosen by our repeated refusal to become
|>part of the USA. Our constitutions are indeed similar, but we have implemented
|>certain social checks and balances to try to keep things a little more orderly.
|>Given the fact that the crime rate in the US is by far the highest in the western
|>world (there are some war zones I'd rather live than in some US cities), we haven't
|>done that badly, without giving up much at all. Unfortunately, due to proximity
|>and the overwhelming weight of US "culture" (you call *that* "culture"!), we're
|>catching up fast.
| Your crime rates were low before implementing the extra social checks
|and balances, and, surprise surprise, remain low afterward. This suggests
|some larger cultural issue is responsible for the violence differences than
|the laws put into place.
| One example is a greater degree of cultural homogeneity; the melting
|pot ideal has both it's advantages and it's disadvantages, advantages being
|greater cultural diversity and disadvantages being cultural conflict.
Hardly. A couple of centuries ago, Canada was considerably less homogenous
than the USA. And today, it is *still* less homegenous, for you forget that >25%
of our population is French, and have retained their culture and language.
A "multi-cultural" or "cultural mosaic" has a far higher potential for
conflict than melting pot.
| Unfortunately, your bias allows you to blame "America" rather than
|examine what the roots of violence really are. And, I note, that you're
|prepared to blame "proximity" for the rising level of violence (uh...haven't
|we been "proximate" for the entire existence of our respective governments?)
Well of course. And during the first hundred years or so we had to keep
fighting you off. Now we have the electronic age, and it's not quite so
damn easy...
|Why does that proximity suddenly cause your violence rate to increase now?)
|instead, again, of looking for the root causes. Rising population? Greater
|cultural disparity? I don't know, but I'll sure be looking...how about you?
I already have.
| Yes, it's true, you know. For the last hundred years, we've merely
|been sublimating our lust for your fair country. One of these days, we're
|gonna get Canada alone, and...*Not*. We haven't even annexed territories we
|officially *own*, much less challenged new territory. Canada would have to
|be pretty low on our list of targets...what have you got that would be worth
|the trouble?
Oil, gas, water, power....
But I was really referring to economic and cultural annexation.
--
Chris Lewis; clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca; Phone: Canada 613 832-0541
Psroff 3.0 info: psroff-request@ferret.ocunix.on.ca
Ferret list: ferret-request@ferret.ocunix.on.ca
From caf-talk Caf Aug 14 11:32:11 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [news.admin] Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Message-ID: <9208141531.AA00320@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 05:31:58 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Aug 14 11:32:11 1992
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Message-ID: <3716@ecicrl.ocunix.on.ca>
Date: 14 Aug 92 03:36:23 GMT
In article <920811.1523457463@foucault.postmodern.com> mcb@foucault.postmodern.com (Michael C. Berch) writes:
>In the referenced article, clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca (Chris Lewis) writes:
>> [With respect to alt.sex.bondage:]
>> The suggestion simply was: come on guys, do us a favour. We'd like
>> to receive the main stuff, but the odd bit gives our government
>> indigestion. How about a split? Or a little gentle reminder from
>> time to time to get the odd posting redirected to somewhere more
>> appropriate.
>I've stayed out of this so far, but I don't think you understand how
>offensive I (and others) find the above paragraph. I have absolutely
>no interest in any cooperation, no matter how slight, with any form of
>state censorship. I believe that censorship is not merely evil but Evil,
>and if your government gives you problems about that, I think you
>should oppose them.
For a person who is usually relatively well informed, this is a remarkably
*stupid* and insulting remark.
In case you missed it, Canada is not only a democracy, but these laws
enjoy the overwhelming support of the entire country. State censorship?
Bullshit. The state is us. Evil? You're calling the entire country evil.
At least Reagan had the sense to try to back out of his "evil empire"
remark, and his remark had a lot more validity than yours.
And why should I, or anybody else bust their butt to "save" crap like
this? Crap who's only legacy is oppression, misery or even death [ie:
Keegstra or Zundel].
>I have no interest in giving even trivial respect
>to Canadian laws that restrict freedom of expression.
How about a little respect for the desires, laws and traditions of
other countries?
>I consider them
>an offense to human rights and urge you to oppose them, to struggle
>against them, to rise up and dismantle the institutions that
>implement them, by means of the ballot, by means of protest, civil
>disobedience, demonstration, samizdat, interference, and unblinking
>opposition.
Why? So a couple of morons get to jack off in from of their computer
terminals? So that I have to *pay* for this shit?
>And to that end I believe that it is not only a right but a duty of
>Americans to make it as difficult as possible for Canadian (or any
>other state's) censors to do their job.
Oh great. You gonna try to invade again? Go "save" somebody else.
We're simply not interested in what you're selling. We whupped you
last time you tried.
>If the Ontario Film Review
>Board's building was on fire, believe me, (other than to rescue
>trapped people), I would not put water on it.
Shows what little you know. The Ontario Film Review Board does not
censor movies. Hasn't for a number of years. It now only provides
ratings. ["anne.jones" notwithstanding ;-)]
>So if censorship (and pressures to resist it, i.e., by cross-border sites
>that send you "illegal" material) gives you a problem, get on your
>MLA's case. Don't come whining to Americans telling us to cool it; I
>think instead we should turn up the heat.
So you have just gotta save us from ourselves.
Save us from evangelical Americans who simply cannot accept that there are
ways, *viable* ways, other than theirs.
It's attitudes like this that make the term "ugly american" so appropriate.
MLAs? More ignorance. MPs.
MLAs are the term for some provincial politicians. This issue is federal.
--
Chris Lewis; clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca; Phone: Canada 613 832-0541
Psroff 3.0 info: psroff-request@ferret.ocunix.on.ca
Ferret list: ferret-request@ferret.ocunix.on.ca
From caf-talk Caf Aug 14 11:32:36 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [news.admin] Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Message-ID: <9208141532.AA00335@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 05:32:24 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Aug 14 11:32:36 1992
From: chil@fraser.sfu.ca (Keith Lim)
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Message-ID:
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 07:36:30 GMT
clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca (Chris Lewis) writes:
>In article <1992Aug10.233103.12268@fid.morgan.com> sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart) writes:
>|Likewise, you do what you want on your system. Of course, as anybody
>|with any experience on the net knows, if you try to stop other people
>|from reading something they want to read, they'll find a way around
>|you.
>Of course. That's fine. Then why is everybody screeching
>about freedom of speech???
Because the ability to obtain material through alternative routes
doesn't make the original censoring right, nor make it any less an
action against freedom of speech and freedom of information.
--
Keith_Lim@sfu.ca Simon Fraser University, Burnaby B.C., V5A 1S6, Canada
Forum (Cog Sci); Senate; CDSU; ASC. ...but all opinions are my own only.
"I see everything twice!" --Joseph Heller, "Catch-22"
Keith_Lim@sfu.ca Simon Fraser University, Burnaby B.C., V5A 1S6, Canada
Forum (Cog Sci); Senate; CDSU; ASC. ...but all opinions are my own only.
"I see everything twice!" --Joseph Heller, "Catch-22"
From caf-talk Caf Aug 14 11:32:59 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [news.admin.policy] Re: Groups used to distribute illegal material
Message-ID: <9208141532.AA00344@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 05:32:45 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Aug 14 11:32:59 1992
Newsgroups: news.admin.policy
Subject: Re: Groups used to distribute illegal material
Message-ID: <1992Aug14.073924.19954@qiclab.scn.rain.com>
Date: 14 Aug 92 07:39:24 GMT
jbotz@mtholyoke.edu (Jurgen Botz) writes:
>As a news administrator for a site relatively new to the Net, I have
>recently been giving _much_ thought to the issues surrounding certain
>controversial newsgroups.
...
>However, while I think that it is easy to demonstrate that merely
>controversial material such as the postings to alt.sex.bondage and
>similar groups should not be restricted, much of the material posted
>to alt.binaries.pictures.erotica is _illegal_ and therefor quite hard
>to defend. (The illegality of this material stems from the fact that
>much of it is distributed in violation of copyright -- this means
>that it is illegal not only in the U.S., but in most of the world.
>There are other legal issues around the occasional depictions of
>bestiality and child pornography, but these appear to be rare enough
>that they are not as much of an issue.)
Just as a point of reference a local commercial BBS is in the process
of being sued by Playboy for charging for GIF scanned from their
magazine. And the attempted "defense" that the BBS didn't scan them
doesn't impress Playboy at all...
--
Leonard Erickson leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com
CIS: [70465,203] 70465.203@compuserve.com
FIDO: 1:105/51 Leonard.Erickson@f51.n105.z1.fidonet.org
(The CIS & Fido addresses are preferred)
From caf-talk Caf Aug 14 11:33:22 1992
Message-ID: <01@byu.edu>
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 92 09:31:48 MDT
From: gritton@alaska.et.byu.edu (Jamie Gritton)
Newsgroups: news.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,misc.legal,alt.censorship
Subject: Re: Groups used to distribute illegal material
bjorn@ludd.luth.se (Bjorn Fahller) writes:
> It's not the newsgroup that's at fault...
> No one (I think) would carry the idea of closing
> a road because people drive too fast, or would anyone?
The road analogy breaks down when you think of nearly everybody
driving 100mph down a residential street. It's my understanding that
the alt.binaries.pictures.* groups carry mostly copyrighted images,
with a very slim majority in the public domain or owned by the
posters. For example the Playboy etc. scans in a.b.p.erotica and the
continual stream of scanned album covers in a.b.p.misc.
The issue here isn't that of carrying a mostly non-copyrighted
Usenet with the occasional violation. The text groups are like that
(containing a few lifted "real" news articles). The issue here is
choosing to carry a set of groups that are known to consist largely of
copyright violations. True, you cant *know* that future articles in
a.b.p.* are going to be mostly copyrighted, but it doesn't take a
genius to guess that they will.
In short, you can substantially reduce the illegal articles on your
server by not carrying these groups.
--
James Gritton - gritton@byu.edu - I disclaim
From caf-talk Caf Aug 14 11:33:50 1992
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,sfu.general
From: evansmp@uhura.aston.ac.uk (Mark Evans)
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Message-ID: <1992Aug14.111515.10068@aston.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 11:15:15 GMT
peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
: In article <1992Aug11.183602.4348@cs.sfu.ca> jamie@cs.sfu.ca (Jamie Andrews) writes:
: > One more round at least.
:
: >In article barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry) writes:
: >>...suppression of
: >>"porn" is a Victorian phenomenon and was little-practised before the
: >>19th century.
:
: > That is, little-practised when the media had very little
: >distribution and most people were illiterate.
:
: There has always been a *lot* of what you call "porn" around. Please
: check any good university library for a number of relevant historical
: texts.
Though it is quite possible that the term 'ponography' was coined by
those who wished to censor it.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Aug 14 11:35:05 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [news.admin.policy] Re: Groups used to distribute illegal material
Message-ID: <9208141534.AA00355@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 05:34:52 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Aug 14 11:35:05 1992
Newsgroups: news.admin.policy
Subject: Re: Groups used to distribute illegal material
Message-ID: <1992Aug14.091115.27891@ludd.luth.se>
Date: 14 Aug 92 09:11:15 GMT
In <5752@m1.cs.man.ac.uk> bane@vtx.ma.man.ac.uk) (M i c h a e l ;-) writes:
>Come on.... things *DO* happen if many people drive too fast down one piece of road:
>1) the police keep a watch (from secret hiding places....... THINK ABOUT IT!)
>2) there are other measures taken ("traffic calming")
>3) and it has been known (and OFTEN APPRECIATED) to actually close the roads !
Incidently, this is what I meant with my comparison to roads/traffic. Things
happen. Police are on watch for violators. The very same can be applied to
the net. Don't close the roads, but keep an eye on the violators.
_
/Bjorn.
--
Bjorn Fahller Phone: |The opinions above are not necessarily
Trollnasvagen 3A Intl:+46 920 226870 |those of... Hey! Wait a minute. Do you
S-951 61 Lulea Natl:0920-22 68 70 |seriously expect Me, a student, to carry
Sweden << space for rent >>|the official voice of the University?
From caf-talk Caf Aug 14 11:35:14 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [news.admin.policy] Re: Groups used to distribute illegal material
Message-ID: <9208141535.AA00364@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 05:35:00 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Aug 14 11:35:14 1992
From: jbotz@mtholyoke.edu (Jurgen Botz)
Subject: Re: Groups used to distribute illegal material
Message-ID:
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 13:41:06 GMT
In article <1992Aug13.160445.16878@dragon.acadiau.ca> 880518l@dragon.acadiau.ca (Nelson Langille) writes:
>Yes, but isin't it true that many(mostly all) anonymous FTP sites
>contain pictures which are copyrighted? So what's the difference.
No it is not true.
- J. Botz
From caf-talk Caf Aug 14 11:35:35 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [news.admin.policy] Re: Groups used to distribute illegal material
Message-ID: <9208141535.AA00378@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 05:35:22 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Aug 14 11:35:35 1992
From: jbotz@mtholyoke.edu (Jurgen Botz)
Subject: Re: Groups used to distribute illegal material
Message-ID:
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 13:53:39 GMT
In article <1992Aug13.210650.16240@mcc.com> bohrer@mcc.com (Bill Bohrer) writes:
>It's not legally harrassment because no one is forcing anyone to read
>these groups.
>
>And by the way, Mount Holyoke is a small WOMEN'S college in
>Massachusetts; Why DON'T you just drop a.b.e.p?? I doubt there are
>that many women interested in this group, which is reason enough to
>drop a group, rather than because the NEWS-ADMIN finds it
>objectionable and makes up some stupid excuse that he's protectin
>COPYRIGHT ownership for christ sake.
Look, asshole, I don't make stupid excuses. I don't have any intention
of judging when a newsgroup is "popular" enough to carry and when it's
not. That is NOT an objective meassure... legality is. I didn't raise
this is issue because I find it objectionable, I raised this issue because
I'm afraid the question of legality is giving the would-be censors
ammunition and I'd like to pre-empt that, got it? What you're advocating
is that I make arbitrary and unilateral decissions about what I'm going
to carry, and I have no intention of doing that.
And as a matter of fact, I know that some people here ARE interested
in this group (I don't know who, but it's being read).
- Jurgen Botz
From caf-talk Caf Aug 14 11:35:57 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [news.admin.policy] Re: Groups used to distribute illegal material
Message-ID: <9208141535.AA00387@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 05:35:43 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Aug 14 11:35:57 1992
From: jbotz@mtholyoke.edu (Jurgen Botz)
Subject: Re: Groups used to distribute illegal material
Message-ID:
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 14:05:05 GMT
In article ajg@controls.ccd.harris.com (Arnold Goldberg) writes:
>>>>>> On Thu, 13 Aug 1992 15:14:31 GMT, jbotz@mtholyoke.edu (Jurgen Botz) said:
>
>Jurgen> As a news administrator for a site relatively new to the Net, I have
>Jurgen> recently been giving _much_ thought to the issues surrounding certain
>Jurgen> controversial newsgroups.
>
>[much stuff deleted]
>
>Jurgen> Furthermore, I am somewhat personally offended that such a relatively
>Jurgen> large percentage of the total bandwith used by my news feeds and
>Jurgen> store are used for such morally questionable purposes by a presumably
>Jurgen> tiny fringe group of network users who appear to feel that it is their
>Jurgen> natural right to waste everyone's resources with their trash.
>
>Before I unsubscribe this news group, let me just followup to this post.
>
>I grant you the fact that you might be offended by the supposed "waste"
>of "your" bandwidth (by way of the news feeds) by questionable news groups.
>
>Let me suggest a simple remedy, that as the supposed news administrator
>you must be aware of.
>
>Restrict the inflow of the articles!!!!
>Very creative, huh. (An added hint for you, in case you really don't know:
>it's in the sys file for your news setup).
>
>I'd rather you censor yourself then me.
Where do all these idiots come from? I wasn't advocating censoring
you or anyone. I was asking the net what people thought about
CONSIDERING a policy of restricting the INFLOW of DEMONSTRABLY ILLEGAL
material into MY system.
I hope you DID unsubscribe this newsgroup... we don't need idiots who
can't objectively discuss an important issue here.
--
Jurgen Botz | Internet: JBotz@mtholyoke.edu
Academic Systems Consultant | Bitnet: JBotz@mhc.bitnet
Mount Holyoke College | Voice: (US) 413-538-2375 (daytime)
South Hadley, MA, USA | Snail Mail: J. Botz, 01075-0629
From caf-talk Caf Aug 14 11:36:11 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [news.admin.policy] Re: Groups used to distribute illegal material
Message-ID: <9208141535.AA00396@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 05:35:58 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Aug 14 11:36:11 1992
Newsgroups: news.admin.policy
Subject: Re: Groups used to distribute illegal material
Message-ID: <1992Aug14.140516.13020@ee.rochester.edu>
Date: 14 Aug 92 14:05:16 GMT
In article jbotz@mtholyoke.edu (Jurgen Botz) writes:
>However, while I think that it is easy to demonstrate that merely
>controversial material such as the postings to alt.sex.bondage and
>similar groups should not be restricted, much of the material posted
>to alt.binaries.pictures.erotica is _illegal_ and therefor quite hard
>to defend. (The illegality of this material stems from the fact that
>much of it is distributed in violation of copyright -- this means
>that it is illegal not only in the U.S., but in most of the world.
>There are other legal issues around the occasional depictions of
>bestiality and child pornography, but these appear to be rare enough
>that they are not as much of an issue.)
Aren't virtually all of the image-distribution groups violating
copyright? Aren't most distributing images which have been scanned in
from copyrighted material?
It is not clear to me why you single out pornographic groups for this
charge.
SImilarly, the other image groups use similarly large proportions of
resources.
You probably need to take a uniform policy toward all image groups on
the basis of copyright or resource use if you don't wish to be involved
in censorship.
--
My situation is hopeless, wengler@ee.rochester.edu
but not serious. weng@uordbv (bitnet)
ur-valhalla!wengler
From caf-talk Caf Aug 14 11:36:26 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [news.admin.policy] Re: Groups used to distribute illegal material
Message-ID: <9208141536.AA00405@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 05:36:14 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Aug 14 11:36:26 1992
From: jbotz@mtholyoke.edu (Jurgen Botz)
Subject: Re: Groups used to distribute illegal material
Message-ID:
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 14:14:47 GMT
In article ward1@husc8.harvard.edu (Lester Ward) writes:
>There are two main issues brought up here, censorship and legality. I'm
>completely ignoring the censorship issue, as that did not seem to be the
>original posters main issue.
>
>As far as legality, a few comments:
>o Copywrites: Although the poster originally brought up images, which have
> accepted copywrite standards, many other types of posted data is still
> a bit hazy on exactly what a copywrite is. Can you copywrite algrothms
> for example. I'm speaking from a vaccuum here, so someone will correct
> me, no doubt.
I think the hazy areas are not under discussion right now... they are a
separate issue that I as a news administrator don't really have to worry
about until they are settled.
>o Juristiction: A post from Germany shows up in the USA. It is illegal in
>the USA, but not in Germany. Is the poster breaking the law? There are
>probably not too many precidents for this (its not that likely), but I hope
>the point is clear. Suppose the post is illegal in both countries; how is
>the poster prosecuted? etc.
This is a good point, but doesn't apply to the major issue under discussion,
which is copyrighted material. Copyright laws are international.
- J. Botz
From caf-talk Caf Aug 14 11:37:31 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [news.admin.policy] Follow-up: illegal material in newsgroups
Message-ID: <9208141537.AA00428@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 05:37:16 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Aug 14 11:37:31 1992
From: jbotz@mtholyoke.edu (Jurgen Botz)
Subject: Follow-up: illegal material in newsgroups
Message-ID:
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 14:42:20 GMT
Less than 24 hours after posting my initial article raising this issue,
there are about 30 follow-ups in news.admin.policy and I have received
again as many replies via e-mail.
Many excellent points have been raised. A surprisingly small percentage
of the total traffic was pure "you're a fascist censor" noise.
To summarize, after reading other people's views on the issue, I have
decided that for the time being I will continue my current policy of
carrying everything, and if I am challenged on it by my superiors, will
strongly recommend AGAINST restricting the flow of News through our
system in any way.
The main reasons for my decission are...
o A considerable quantity of copyrighted material is posted to groups
other than a.b.p.e.*, so monitoring groups to determine which groups
carry illegal material, and which don't, appears impractical.
o It seems likely that the legal responsibility for distributing
copyrighted material rests with the poster.
o There seems to be a good chance that a "common-carrier" type argument
can be applied, and by making policy decissions on what to carry and
what not to carry I'm more likely to hurt than help this argument.
o If (when) this issue does result in law-suits, it is unlikely to be
here at my small institution, and more likely will involve an organization
such as UUNET which is already prepared for this eventuality and has
formalized it's policy on the issue.
Those are my personal reasons for my decission, but the issue remains.
I think we will do well to discuss further what the impact on the
Altnet and USENET will be when this issue does get exposed to public
scrutiny. Maybe one should start a directed campaign to discourage
the posting of copyrighted materials? (After all, there does appear
to be a fair amount of "amateur" pornography posted to a.b.p.e which
can continue). Not that I would expect such a campaign to have much
immediate impact, but again, I think it might in the best interest of
the Altnet to demonstrate that the majority of it's readership does
not condone it's use for the distribution of illegal materials.
I would like to repeat once again that I'm very much against censorship,
and that my primary reason for bring this issue up in the first place
is because I fear that the illegality of the materials under discussion
will serve as wellcome ammunition for those who would advocate broad
censorship of everything they do not like. In fact, I'm sure it has
already happened at several sites that the entire Altnet was discontinued
because someone successfully argued that it was being used to distribute
illegal materials.
--
Jurgen Botz | Internet: JBotz@mtholyoke.edu
Academic Systems Consultant | Bitnet: JBotz@mhc.bitnet
Mount Holyoke College | Voice: (US) 413-538-2375 (daytime)
South Hadley, MA, USA | Snail Mail: J. Botz, 01075-0629
From caf-talk Caf Aug 14 12:33:23 1992
Message-ID: <21@byu.edu>
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 92 10:31:08 MDT
From: gritton@alaska.et.byu.edu (Jamie Gritton)
Newsgroups: news.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,misc.legal,alt.censorship
Subject: Re: Groups used to distribute illegal material
I said:
> with a very slim majority in the public domain or owned by the
> posters.
I meant to say there is a slim *minority* in the public domain or
owned by the posters.
--
James Gritton - gritton@byu.edu - I disclaim
From caf-talk Caf Aug 14 13:15:24 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: evansmp@uhura.aston.ac.uk (Mark Evans)
Subject: Re: [news.admin] Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Message-ID: <1992Aug14.163130.12259@aston.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 16:31:30 GMT
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
:
: From: hartman@ulogic.UUCP (Richard M. Hartman)
: Newsgroups: news.admin
: Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
: Message-ID: <225@ulogic.UUCP>
: Date: 11 Aug 92 16:03:26 GMT
:
: That is what they (the system's owners) did. Then people started
: all this "you can't do that" b*tching and moaning. The U of Manitoba
: (I think it was) cut of a.s.b because it was found to be in violation
: of the Canadian laws. The group is still in violation even if only
: one article is the actual culprit. So they cut it off. If everyone
: said as you did "that's their privilige" we wouldn't be here in this
: thread.
Good idea for a denial of service attack, post 'in violation' articles
to any newsgroups you don't like.
Then places like the U of Manitoba will get rid of 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 Aug 14 13:46:26 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: weisstr%lavc3.dnet@smithkline.com (Terry Weiss)
Subject: Computer Graphics, etc.
Message-ID: <9208141713.AA21973@smithkline.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 09:13:28 GMT
>>I've stayed out of this so far, but I don't think you understand how
>>offensive I (and others) find the above paragraph. I have absolutely
>>no interest in any cooperation, no matter how slight, with any form of
>>state censorship. I believe that censorship is not merely evil but Evil,
>>and if your government gives you problems about that, I think you
>>should oppose them.
>For a person who is usually relatively well informed, this is a remarkably
>*stupid* and insulting remark.
>In case you missed it, Canada is not only a democracy, but these laws
>enjoy the overwhelming support of the entire country. State censorship?
>Bullshit. The state is us. Evil? You're calling the entire country evil.
>At least Reagan had the sense to try to back out of his "evil empire"
>remark, and his remark had a lot more validity than yours.
For me, at least, democracy is not an answer in and of itself. It is one
of responsibility, and ultimately responsibility rests with the individual,
NOT the majority. Those laws may have considerable support, but I doubt
very many of those people understand the implications, much less the laws
themselves. Advocating freedom of speech, is not the support of every person
having the ability to spout their ideas, no matter how offensive they are. The
idea (IMHO) is that an open exchange of ideas will eventually lead to an
educated, well informed populace, where concepts like bigotry and fascism
are rejected not because people are told that they are "bad", but because
people understand the terms for what they are and reject them because they
find them tasetless and primitive.
Contrast this with the person who earlier posted that he would not remove
a program with a name that someone else finds offensive. He may be
advocating free speech, but is forgetting his perosnal responsibility.
The same is true for your almost nazi-like canadian nationalism. I'll get
back to that later.
>>I consider them
>>an offense to human rights and urge you to oppose them, to struggle
>>against them, to rise up and dismantle the institutions that
>>implement them, by means of the ballot, by means of protest, civil
>>disobedience, demonstration, samizdat, interference, and unblinking
>>opposition.
>Why? So a couple of morons get to jack off in from of their computer
>terminals? So that I have to *pay* for this shit?
I found that last statement offensive and am marching off to my sysadmin
right now, to get this crap off....Don't you understand that the very
restrictions you support could be turned on you? It's all very cozy
right now to sit and discuss this in academic terms, but it has very real
implications and may even affect YOU. Then where will you stand?
>>And to that end I believe that it is not only a right but a duty of
>>Americans to make it as difficult as possible for Canadian (or any
>>other state's) censors to do their job.
>Oh great. You gonna try to invade again? Go "save" somebody else.
>We're simply not interested in what you're selling. We whupped you
>last time you tried.
[...]
>Save us from evangelical Americans who simply cannot accept that there are
>ways, *viable* ways, other than theirs.
>It's attitudes like this that make the term "ugly american" so appropriate.
>MLAs? More ignorance. MPs.
>MLAs are the term for some provincial politicians. This issue is federal.
I've got to say that having been exposed to the *INTER*net, I'm amazed that
these attitudes persist (american and canadian) at all. I think the lesson of
this thread is that we can no longer think in terms of arbitrary geographical
boundaries. We must learn to think globally. These issues don't have anything
to with american or canadian attitudes. Freedom of speech and expression are
insufferable rights of HUMAN BEINGS!!!!!!!!!! not americans or canadians or any
other artificial categfory of person. It's the lack of free speech that we now
have that cause the almost infantile flame wars and concepts that have permeated
this argument. What is at issue is whether or not, given the choice, will people
turn into slobbering, theiving, rapists or will they rise above the slime and see
humanity for what it is?
I tend to have a lot more faith in people than the censors at some schools do,
but then, I don't have a vested interest in keeping things the way they are...
Terry
From caf-talk Caf Aug 14 15:22:34 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [news.admin.policy] Re: Groups used to distribute illegal material
Message-ID: <9208141922.AA01558@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 09:22:20 GMT
Message-ID: <11@byu.edu>
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 92 09:36:46 MDT
From: gritton@alaska.et.byu.edu (Jamie Gritton)
Newsgroups: news.admin.policy
Subject: Re: Groups used to distribute illegal material
karlr@think.com (Karl Rotstan) writes:
> Apparently,
> the magazine discovered that "Maxi" had been harassing various BBS's for
> posting his "copyrighted" scanned gifs without giving him any money.
> The magazine did a little "turnabout is fair play" against him.
This is an interesting development. It says to me that the
magazines that own a (probable) majority of the illegally copied
images on the net unofficially condone the unlicensed electronic
redistribution of the images as long as nobody makes money off the
deal. Altnet falls spuarely in this non-profit area.
I like the precedent and commend them for it, but note that they
may change their minds at any time and without notice.
--
James Gritton - gritton@byu.edu - I disclaim
From caf-talk Caf Aug 14 15:23:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [news.admin.policy] Re: Groups used to distribute illegal material
Message-ID: <9208141922.AA01568@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 09:22:48 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Aug 14 15:23:00 1992
Newsgroups: news.admin.policy
Subject: Re: Groups used to distribute illegal material
Date: 14 Aug 1992 12:01:31 -0500
Message-ID:
Mr. Botz did do a pretty good job at trying to start a rational discussion
on copyrighted materials on Usenet. The couple of flames I saw here were
probably posted because Mr. Botz brought up a.b.p.e, a "legal hotbed" for
other reasons entirely, as an example. Not that he could really help it;
a.b.p.e is probably the best known example of posted copyrighted material,
so-called obscenity or no, along with a.b.p.
Anyway, someone made the point that responsibility for such materials should
fall on the poster, not on the newsfeed administrator, the readers, etc.
With that I could not agree more. EXCEPT for one thing.
Many of you have probably heard stories of inflammatory messages posted to
alt.sex, or rec.humor, or other groups with large readerships, only to
find that the owner of the originating account never posted it. This
seemed to happen most often because the owner of the account would leave
his or her machine while still logged in, go eat dinner, study upstairs,
or whatever, while some unnamed frosh took it upon himself to play a
little "practical joke". Next thing you know there's an article in the
campus paper about a post to soc.culture.asian containing scathing remarks
toward "gooks".
Point is, even if responsibility lies with the poster, how can you prosecute?
Even if one is careful enough to log out of a public-access terminal before
he leaves, there's still an off chance that it can be hacked into anyway.
It's never happened yet to the best of my knowledge, but it's still possible,
perhaps likely if the nation starts cracking down on illegal posting and some
hacker as an agenda to fulfill. Even so, most news readers make it
ridiculously easy to forge the From: line in a posting anyway, hence the
frequent "Anonymous" or "Mr. Nobody" posts to a.b.p.e. The best you can do
with those posts is trace the path back to the machine, and that's it. If
it's public access, then you've narrowed it down to our entire CS department,
for instance.
Fixes to problems like this would require a lot of software rewriting;
perhaps make "authentic" versions of newsreaders, and have all newsfeeds
ask for "authenticated" readers which do not allow forging, or something
like that. And that would work until someone writes his own version that
gets around it and lets him forge anyway. The bottom line is that making
a viable system for prosecuting copyright violators would probably cost
more resources than the copyright holders would benefit. This is only
my opinion of course; opposing arguments are welcome.
Frankly, I kinda like Playboy's precedent of not actively challenging
violations as long as they are not done for profit. This appears to
me as a much more practical position to pursue.
Paul Brinkley
brinkley@cs.utexas.edu
From caf-talk Caf Aug 14 15:33:12 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [news.admin.policy] Re: Groups used to distribute illegal material
Message-ID: <9208141932.AA01621@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 09:32:57 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Aug 14 15:33:12 1992
From: neuhaus@vier.informatik.uni-kl.de (Stephan Neuhaus (HiWi Mattern))
Subject: Re: Groups used to distribute illegal material
Message-ID:
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 10:32:54 GMT
Hi.
I have read the ongoing discussion in this group with interest at
first. However, when I thought of it some more, I found that all of
the followups seem to have ignored one central issue:
If a University or company offers a news feed, it is offering a
*service*. Usenet is not yet a right, it's a privilege. A University
or company has every right to control how their computers are used.
After all, they belong to the University or company, not to the
students or employees. In analogy, a newsstand does not have to carry
each and every available newspaper or magazine. If I, as the
newsstand's owner, find magazines containing porno photos, fascist
propaganda, leftist propaganda, etc. unacceptable, I will not sell
those magazines which will probably only take up shelf space anyway.
This does not mean that anybody should read (private) email, by the
way. Once a service like mail is offered, it must be available in a
secure and unoppressive manner. For example, I believe it's OK for a
University or company to cancel certain newsgroups, but students or
employees must not be punished for reading any group once it's
available, and tracing who reads which newsgroups must not be done.
In direct answer to the original poster, I believe you should not
play God yourself and simply cancel the groups. You should ask for an
official policy, if only to get your head out of the sling. If you
cancelled newsgroups at your own will, that would be arbitrary and
despotic, even if those groups carried copyrighted or otherwise
illegally published material.
I would like to thank the poster for his rational tone, which has
done everything to avoid unnecessary flamage. Well done!
--
+------- No .sig? OH, COME ON! --------+-"The derivative snuggles close to-+
| email: neuhaus@informatik.uni-kl.de | the function---whatever to snuggle |
| snail mail: Stephan Neuhaus/Hilgard- | means; I'm too old for that" |
| ring 32/6750 Kaiserslautern/Germany | -- Math Prof |
From caf-talk Caf Aug 14 15:33:16 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [news.admin.policy] Re: Groups used to distribute illegal material
Message-ID: <9208141933.AA01628@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 09:33:01 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Aug 14 15:33:16 1992
From: jbotz@mtholyoke.edu (Jurgen Botz)
Subject: Re: Groups used to distribute illegal material
Message-ID:
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 16:38:10 GMT
In article neuhaus@vier.informatik.uni-kl.de (Stephan Neuhaus (HiWi Mattern)) writes:
>Hi.
>
>I have read the ongoing discussion in this group with interest at
>first. However, when I thought of it some more, I found that all of
>the followups seem to have ignored one central issue:
>
> If a University or company offers a news feed, it is offering a
>*service*. Usenet is not yet a right, it's a privilege. A University
>or company has every right to control how their computers are used.
>After all, they belong to the University or company, not to the
>students or employees. In analogy, a newsstand does not have to carry
>each and every available newspaper or magazine. If I, as the
>newsstand's owner, find magazines containing porno photos, fascist
>propaganda, leftist propaganda, etc. unacceptable, I will not sell
>those magazines which will probably only take up shelf space anyway.
No, I think you're missing the point, entirely. The question you're
addressing has been discussed at great length over years, and what it
boils down to is that while USENET is certainly a service and a
priviledge, at an ACADEMIC institution most people consider it quite
inappropriate for any person or committee to judge what material is
acceptable and what is not, i.e. you either offer it all, or you
don't. (See Carl Kadie's articles on University Library policies.)
But the issue I raised isn't one of judging what's acceptable, but
rather one of what is legally justifiable.
>[...] but students or employees must not be punished for reading any
>group once it's available, and tracing who reads which newsgroups
>must not be done.
I can't imagine that anybody would disagree with THAT.
> In direct answer to the original poster, I believe you should not
>play God yourself and simply cancel the groups. You should ask for an
>official policy, if only to get your head out of the sling. If you
>cancelled newsgroups at your own will, that would be arbitrary and
>despotic, even if those groups carried copyrighted or otherwise
>illegally published material.
That is not a direct answer to the original poster (me). 8-).
I have no intention of playing god. (Why can't people ever read
articles carefully before replying? Sigh!) In fact, I very explicitly
stated that my interest in resolving this was to determine what my
recommendation to the powers-that-be should be when they come down
on my ass.
> I would like to thank the poster for his rational tone, which has
>done everything to avoid unnecessary flamage. Well done!
Thank you very kindly! ;-)
--
Jurgen Botz | Internet: JBotz@mtholyoke.edu
Academic Systems Consultant | Bitnet: JBotz@mhc.bitnet
Mount Holyoke College | Voice: (US) 413-538-2375 (daytime)
South Hadley, MA, USA | Snail Mail: J. Botz, 01075-0629
From caf-talk Caf Aug 14 15:33:28 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [news.admin.policy] Re: Groups used to distribute illegal material
Message-ID: <9208141933.AA01637@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 09:33:16 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Aug 14 15:33:28 1992
From: s_fuller@iastate.edu (Steve Fuller)
Subject: Re: Groups used to distribute illegal material
Message-ID:
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 16:59:19 GMT
In neuhaus@vier.informatik.uni-kl.de (Stephan Neuhaus (HiWi Mattern)) writes:
>Hi.
>I have read the ongoing discussion in this group with interest at
>first. However, when I thought of it some more, I found that all of
>the followups seem to have ignored one central issue:
> If a University or company offers a news feed, it is offering a
>*service*. Usenet is not yet a right, it's a privilege. A University
>or company has every right to control how their computers are used.
>After all, they belong to the University or company, not to the
>students or employees. In analogy, a newsstand does not have to carry
They belong to the university IF they are a private university.
If we are talking about state funded schools, then the majority
of the equipment belongs to the state, which is purchased by tax
dollars. If I want a certain newsgroup and am denied it, am I
getting my tax dollar's and tuition money's value back in a fair
manor.
--
---------------------=------------------------------
Steve Fuller =
s_fuller@iastate.edu = No witty quote here yet...
---------------------=-----------------------------
From caf-talk Caf Aug 14 16:57:49 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [news.admin.policy] Re: Groups used to distribute illegal material
Message-ID: <9208142057.AA02049@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 10:57:37 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Aug 14 16:57:49 1992
From: fwp@CC.MsState.Edu (Frank Peters)
Subject: Re: Groups used to distribute illegal material
Message-ID: <1992Aug14.185643.18559@ra.msstate.edu>
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 18:56:43 GMT
In article neuhaus@vier.informatik.uni-kl.de (Stephan Neuhaus (HiWi Mattern)) says:
:
: If a University or company offers a news feed, it is offering a
: *service*. Usenet is not yet a right, it's a privilege. A University
: or company has every right to control how their computers are used.
: After all, they belong to the University or company, not to the
: students or employees.
If the University is a public, state supported institution then there
may very well be restrictions on how they manage their resources.
There is legal precedent for the conclusion that a state University may
not shut down a newspaper because they disapprove of the thrust of its
articles and they may not remove books from the University library
because of discomfort with their subject matter. Decisions can be made
on criteria like quality and interest and so forth but not on content
approval grounds.
It is reasonable to extend this theory to USENET (though, as of yet,
there has been no court case to test this theory). If this is so then
a University may decide whether or not to carry Usenet at all and might
make decisions that (for instance) alt.binaries requires too many
resources and elect not to carry it (though someone might claim that
alt.binaries was restricted as an excuse to eliminate
alt.binaries.pictures.erotica). The University would not, however, be
able to conclude that the "dirty" groups are in appropriate because of
the nature (rather than quality or quantity) of their content.
A University might reasonably make the case that alt.sex.whatever
doesn't further the educational mission of the University. But they
would have a hard time taking that stance and then justifying retention
of, say, rec.humor.funny or the star trek groups or what have you.
--
Frank Peters - UNIX Systems Programmer - Mississippi State University
Internet: fwp@CC.MsState.Edu - Phone: (601)325-7030 - FAX: (601)325-8921
From caf-talk Caf Aug 14 17:12:54 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: CAF archive reogranized
Message-ID: <1992Aug14.211242.21229@eff.org>
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 21:12:42 GMT
More Recent Changes to the Computers and Academic Freedom (CAF) Archive
I've reorganized the CAF archive. About two dozen files have moved and
many files have been added.
The new subarchives are:
statements - statements related to computers and academic freedom
academic - information about general academic freedom
cases - information about specific cases and incidents
admin - information about the adminstration of the CAF discussion lists and archive
civil-liberty - information about civil liberty
The archive is available via anonymous ftp to ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4) in
directory "pub/academic". It is also available via email. For
information on email access send email to archive-server@eff.org. In
the body of your note include the lines "help" and "index".
For more information, to make contributions, or to report typos
contract Carl Kadie (kadie@eff.org).
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/academic/artistic.freedom.aaup
=================
Academic Freedom and Artistic Expression - An official statement of
the American Association of University Professors (AAUP.
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/civics/sens+reps-detail
=================
Detailed information about the U.S. Congress
(from info.uwm.edu:info/Government/US)
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/faq/email.policies
=================
q: Do any universities treat email and computer files as private?
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/law/wiesenthal-center-v-mccalden
=================
UPI article about Supeme Court case 91-1643, _The Simon Wiesenthal
Center for Holocaust Studies, et al., vs. Viviana McCalden, as
administrator of the estate of David McCalden_.
"The Supreme Court Monday let stand a decision that the city of Los
Angeles and a number of private organizations can be sued for
allegedly conspiring to ensure the cancellation of a scheduled speech
by a ``Holocaust revisionist.''"
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/statements/README
=================
Statement Archive
[part of the Computers and Academic Freedom (CAF) Archive
[part of the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) Archive]]
This is an on-line collection of computers and academic freedom
statements. It includes the unofficial, draft "Statement on Computers
and Academic Freedom". File README is a detailed description of the
items in the directory.
For more information, to make contributions, or to report typos
contact Carl Kadie (kadie@eff.org).
The document(s) are available by anonymous ftp (the preferred
method) and by email. To get the file(s) via ftp, do an anonymous ftp
to ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4), and get file(s):
pub/academic/statements/
To get the file(s) by email, send email to archive-server@eff.org.
Include the line(s) (be sure to include the space before the file
name):
send acad-freedom/statements
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/academic/README
=================
General Academic Freedom Archive
[part of the Computers and Academic Freedom (CAF) Archive
[part of the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) Archive]]
This is an on-line collection of general academic freedom statements.
It includes the Statement on the Rights and Freedoms of Students. File
README is a detailed description of the items in the directory.
For more information, to make contributions, or to report typos
contact Carl Kadie (kadie@eff.org).
The document(s) are available by anonymous ftp (the preferred
method) and by email. To get the file(s) via ftp, do an anonymous ftp
to ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4), and get file(s):
pub/academic/academic/
To get the file(s) by email, send email to archive-server@eff.org.
Include the line(s) (be sure to include the space before the file
name):
send acad-freedom/academic
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/cases/README
=================
Case Archive
[part of the Computers and Academic Freedom (CAF) Archive
[part of the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) Archive]]
This is an on-line collection of information about specific computers
and academic freedom cases. File README is a detailed description of
the items in the directory.
For more information, to make contributions, or to report typos
contact Carl Kadie (kadie@eff.org).
The document(s) are available by anonymous ftp (the preferred
method) and by email. To get the file(s) via ftp, do an anonymous ftp
to ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4), and get file(s):
pub/academic/cases/
To get the file(s) by email, send email to archive-server@eff.org.
Include the line(s) (be sure to include the space before the file
name):
send acad-freedom/cases
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/admin/README
=================
Administrative Archive
[part of the Computers and Academic Freedom (CAF) Archive
[part of the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) Archive]]
This is an on-line collection of documents related to the CAF archive
and the CAF newsgroups and mailing list. It includes the editorial
policy of the CAF-News. File README is a detailed description of the
items in the directory.
For more information, to make contributions, or to report typos
contact Carl Kadie (kadie@eff.org).
The document(s) are available by anonymous ftp (the preferred
method) and by email. To get the file(s) via ftp, do an anonymous ftp
to ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4), and get file(s):
pub/academic/admin/
To get the file(s) by email, send email to archive-server@eff.org.
Include the line(s) (be sure to include the space before the file
name):
send acad-freedom/admin
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/civil-liberty/README
=================
Civil Liberty Archive
[part of the Computers and Academic Freedom (CAF) Archive
[part of the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) Archive]]
This is an on-line collection of civil liberty statements. It includes
the American Civil Liberties Union's planks for its "Campaign for the
Bill of Rights '92". (The ACLU material is made available by permission
of the American Civil Liberties Union)
The archive is accessible via anonymous ftp and email. Ftp to
ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4). It is in directory
"pub/academic/civil-liberty". For email access, send email to
archive-server@eff.org. Include the line:
send acad-freedom/civil-liberty
where is a list of the files that you want. File README is
a detailed description of the items in the directory.
For more information, to make contributions, or to report typos
contact Carl Kadie (kadie@eff.org).
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/abstracts
=================
These are abstracts to the Computers and Academic Freedom News
(CAF-news). Referenced issues of CAF-news are available via anonymous
ftp to eff.org in directory "academic/news".
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/academic/student.freedoms.aaup
=================
Joint Statement on Rights and Freedoms of Students -- This is the main
U.S. statement on student academic freedom.
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/admin/listserv4.txt
=================
Info on how to get a super-duper version of listserv for unix.
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/batch/aug_16_1992
=================
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/books/de_graszia,_edward
=================
de Grazia, Edward
1992 _Girls Lean Back Everywhere: The Law Of Obscenity And
The Assault On Genius_. New York: Random House.
(ISBN: 0-394-57611-X, $30.00)
Notes on this book by T.S. Davies, tsdavies@mailbox.syr.edu.
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/cases/globe-and-mail
=================
An article from the Toronto _Globe and Mail_, Monday, July 20, 1992.
Headline: Computers graphic when it comes to porn
Subheadline: NETWORK SEX: Is increasingly explicit material on some computer
bulletin boards free speech, or obscenity?
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/cases/umanitoba.ca
=================
q: What is going on at the Univeristy of Manitoba in Canada? What is
the Canadian law on obscenity?
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/civics/constitution.az.us
=================
Article II, Section 12 of the Constitution of the State of Arizona
relating to liberty of conscience; appropriations for religious
purposes prohibited; religious freedom.
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/civics/umd.edu
=================
Information about the University of Marylands civics collection, including
campaign '92 speeches.
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/faq/archive
=================
q: What files are available from the Computers and Academic Freedom
archive?
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/faq/email.privacy
=================
q: Can (should) my university monitor my email?
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/faq/netnews.liability
=================
q: Does a University reduce its likely liability by screening Netnews
for offensive articles and newsgroups?
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/faq/netnews.reading
=================
q: Should my university remove (or restrict) Netnews newsgroups
because some people find them offensive? If it doesn't have the
resources to carry all newsgroups, how should newsgroups be selected?
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/faq/netnews.writing
=================
q: Should my university allow students to post to Netnews?
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/faq/policy
=================
q: What guidance is there for creating or evaluating a computer policy?
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/faq/umanitoba.ca
=================
q: What is going on at the Univeristy of Manitoba in Canada? What is
the Canadian law on obscenity?
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/law/2-live-crew
=================
UPI story reporting that "The previously banned rap album ``As Nasty
As They Wanna Be'' was for sale again in South Florida stores Friday,
a day after an Atlanta appeals court ruled it was not obscene."
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/law/constitution.az.us
=================
Article II, Section 12 of the Constitution of the State of Arizona
relating to liberty of conscience; appropriations for religious
purposes prohibited; religious freedom.
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/law/ecpa.1986.video
=================
The Electronic Communication Privacy Act's rather detailed provisions
limiting access to video rental records.
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/law/justices
=================
Biography of the justices of the U.S, Supreme Court
(from info.uwm.edu:info/Government/US/SupremeCt)
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/law/obscenity.history.us
=================
Notes on the the history of obscenity law by T.S. Davies,
tsdavies@mailbox.syr.edu. Based on the book by Edward de Grazia:
1992 _Girls Lean Back Everywhere: The Law Of Obscenity And
The Assault On Genius_. New York: Random House.
(ISBN: 0-394-57611-X, $30.00)
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/law/obscenity.iowa
=================
IOWA CODE CHAPTER 728 - OBSCENITY
It explicitly exempts public libraries and educational institutions.
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/law/tinker_v_des_moines
=================
Excerpt from the ACLU Handbook _The Rights of Students_ (3rd edition)
by Janet R. Price, Alan H. Levine, and Eve Cary. It says that school
cannot prohibit students from handing literature such as underground
newspapers on school property.
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/law/tinker_v_des_moines.2
=================
A few excerpts from the majority decision in _Tinker v. Des Moines
Independent Community School District_ (1969). It concerned
non-disruptive political expression in schools. The Supreme Court held
that two students had the right to wear black armbands to school as a
protest against the Vietnam War.
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/law/wisconsin-v-mitchell
=================
A political magazine's description of _State of Wisconsin v. Todd
Mitchell_, a Wisconsin Supreme Court case which appeared to outlawed
all hate crime laws in Wisconsin.
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/law/wooley-v-maynard
=================
Short summary of _Wooley v. Maynard_ in which the Supreme Court recognized
a right not to speak.
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/library/patron.behavior.draft.ala
=================
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
GUIDELINES FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF POLICIES REGARDING PATRON BEHAVIOR
AND LIBRARY USAGE
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/newsin
=================
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/policies/cwru.edu
=================
Case Western Reserve University Computing Ethics Policy
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/policies/math.ufl.edu
=================
POLICY ON RESPONSIBLE USE OF THE COMPUTER SYSTEM
Department of Mathematics, University of Florida, July 2, 1992
Submitted by: Kermit Sigmon, Chair
Mathematics Department Computer Committee
University of Florida
sigmon@math.ufl.edu, 904-392-6719
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/policies/metu.bitnet
=================
Rules of Network Usage for Middle East Technical University in Ankara, Turkey.
(critiqued)
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/policies/metu.bitnet.critique
=================
This is a critique of the Computer Policy of Middle East Technical
University (METU) in Ankara, Turkey. Most of my references are to US
centered documents, the ones to which I am most familar.
The METU policy provides no due process protection and bans much
speech. In this, it is similar to some of policies of universities
such as Iowa State, U. of Texas, and U. of Illinois. In contrast to
these the U.S. speech restrictions, METU's bans are clear and (as far
as I know) legal.
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/policies/mu.edu
=================
Policy on Authorized Use of M.U. Public Computer Systems. Marquette
University is a private religious university.
(critiqued)
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/policies/mu.edu.critique
=================
Critique of Policy on Authorized Use of M.U. Public Computer Systems. Marquette
University is a private religious university.
Computer Services presupposes that anyone it accuses of misuse is in
fact an offender. It sounds as if a user could be permanently expelled
from the system without ever having a chance to speak, without the
chance of a formal hearing, and without an opportunity to appeal.
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/policies/udel.edu
=================
The Policy for Responsible Computing Use at the University of Delaware
This policy is the result of 61 months of work! (also see
old.udel.edu, old.udel.edu.critique, old.very.udel.edu, and
old.very.udel.edu.critique.)
(critiqued)
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/policies/udel.edu.critique
=================
Critique of the Policy for Responsible Computing Use at the University
of Delaware. Says that much of the policy seems vacuous.
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/policies/usd.edu
=================
Draft: Acceptable Use Policy -- 1/27/92
University of San Diego
Department of Academic Computing and Department of Information Systems
January 1992
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/policies/virginia.pen.edu
=================
Acceptable Use Policy, administrative guidelines, and forms for all
users for the Virginia's Public Edcuation Network (PEN).
Contact: Harold "Bud" Cothern
Director, Virginia's Public Edcuation Network (PEN)
Internet: hcothern@vdoe386.vak12ed.edu
(critiqued)
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/policies/virginia.pen.edu.critique
=================
Critique of Acceptable Use Policy Virginia's Public Edcuation Network (PEN).
Points out factual errors. Says that speech restrictions are unconstitutional.
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/policies/vt.edu
=================
Acceptable Usage Statement from Virgina Tech
(critiqued)
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/policies/vt.edu.critique
=================
Critique of Acceptable Usage Statement from Virgina Tech
Summary: The policy shows good user participation and due process.
Privacy could be improved by detailing the procedure by which searches
are authorized. Freedom of expression could be improved by removing
vague speech restrictions.
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/statements/stanford.statements
=================
"In 1989 rec.humor.funny was suppressed in some of the Stanford
University computers. After a campaign it was re-installed in those
computers."
This file contains
1) the "Statement of Protest about the AIR Censorship of rec.humor.funny"
2) a statement by the Stanford faculty committee on libraries
3) Notes from Professor John McCarthy on how censorship was fought at Stanford
(also see "pub/academic/cases/jmcabstract")
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Aug 14 17:14:13 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [news.admin.policy] Re: copyright == illegal ????
Message-ID: <9208142113.AA02126@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 11:13:32 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Aug 14 17:14:13 1992
From: jbotz@mtholyoke.edu (Jurgen Botz)
Subject: Re: copyright == illegal ????
Message-ID:
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 19:07:15 GMT
Daniel Zabetakis (dan@cubmol.bio.columbia.edu) wrote>
>
> In the first 40 articles here, at least half have equated copyright
> material with illegal material. I'm sorry, but I did not know it was
> illegal to transmit copyrighted material >-).
But it is... it is illegal to copy (transmit, distribute, whatever)
copyrighted material without consent of the holder of the copyright.
> The poin you all shoul be trying to make is that carrying the image
> groups could concievably lead to someone being sued. It is not clear
> who would be sued, but most sites feel comfortable that it is not themselves.
>
> If Playboy, for example, wanted to, they could sue. We know for sure
> that thier editors know all about usenet. They told one person (Brian Read ?)
> who used to post the FAQ for alt.sex.pictures that they probably would never
> sue usenet as a whole, but would sue if a single person would be identified
> (such as a proposed moderator for alt.sex.pictures).
> The point is that if the publishers don't sue, there is nothing wrong
> with carrying the group. Publishers of album covers and pornography have
> much more to gain by allowing free distribution in the manner of usenet
> than they do by fighting against dubious losses due to decreased sales.
Hmmm... there are a number of problems with your analysis. For one, no one
can "sue usenet as a whole", because there is no organization that is "usenet
as a whole". USENET is the sum of it's parts... so the best you could do would
be to sue all the parts, but that would be impractical to the point of being
impossible. Therefor the most likely thing to happen would be that a few
highly visible sites get sued... such as UUNET. But if UUNET got sued by
Playboy and lost, that would be the end of the Altnet at least, as no one
would be willing to carry it anymore.
The other problem with what you're saying is that it sounds an awful lot like
"it's ok to commit a crime if you have got reason to believe that you're not
going to get punished." Now, I have no intention of debating the merit of that
attitude as a personal philosophy, but I think that as institutional policy
it simply won't do.
However, as I have stated in my follow-up post, I haved decided that the
best institutional policy in my oppinion for now is to pretend that USENET
sites are a kind of "common carrier", and therefor not responsible for the
material transmitted, until such a time as the issue is settled legally.
--
Jurgen Botz | Internet: JBotz@mtholyoke.edu
Academic Systems Consultant | Bitnet: JBotz@mhc.bitnet
Mount Holyoke College | Voice: (US) 413-538-2375 (daytime)
South Hadley, MA, USA | Snail Mail: J. Botz, 01075-0629
From caf-talk Caf Aug 14 17:40:49 1992
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,sfu.general
From: cmort@NCoast.ORG (Christopher Morton)
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 18:44:17 GMT
Message-ID: <1992Aug14.184417.32@NCoast.ORG>
As quoted from by barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry):
> I suspect I know how porn affects people: it makes some bad
> people worse, some good people better, and most people it don't have
> much effect on at all :-). That's how most things seem to work, after
> all. The Bible probably helped turned a man that was good to begin with
> into St. Francis of Assisi, but it also likely helped turn Torquemada
> (whom I suspect was a _rotten_ kid :-) into the Grand Inquisitor.
An EXCELLENT point. If we can have a Pornography Victims Compensation Act,
there's no constitutional reason why we can't have a Religious Doctrine Victims
Compensation Act. Anybody who claims that a LOT more people HAVEN'T died
under hideous circumstances, because of religion, is being diplomatically
speaking, "differently honest"....
--
------------------------------------------------------------------
"Well whose opinions did you THINK these were...?"
------------------------------------------------------------------
From caf-talk Caf Aug 14 20:49:52 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [news.admin.policy] Re: Groups used to distribute illegal material
Message-ID: <9208150049.AA02868@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 14:49:38 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Aug 14 20:49:52 1992
From: styri@hal.nta.no (Haakon Styri)
Subject: Re: Groups used to distribute illegal material
Message-ID: <1992Aug14.195106.5083@nntp.nta.no>
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 92 19:51:06 GMT
In article , Lester Ward writes:
>
> [stuff deleted, but les states that he's making comments on the legal issue]
>
> o Juristiction: A post from Germany shows up in the USA. It is illegal in
> the USA, but not in Germany. Is the poster breaking the law? There are
> probably not too many precidents for this (its not that likely), but I hope
> the point is clear. Suppose the post is illegal in both countries; how is
> the poster prosecuted? etc.
I remember that the news admin at mcvax (?) cut off some groups from the
news-feed from the US to Europe some 8 or 9 years ago because too many of
the postings could be illegal in a few countries that got it's feed from
the mcvax. (Correct me if I'm wrong.) Dunno what happened later.
I think it's ok to view the net as a common carrier, but laws differ
from country to country. In Norway, I can legally view any public TV
broadcast I receive with my own sattelite dish. If I want to distribute
the same signal to other people through a cable there are stricter
rules. (In the same manner, I could legally import porn for private use
that would be illegal to import for sale in Norway. This law's reviewed
at present I believe.)
I think the news is in a special position due toat least two different facts.
1) The amount of information makes it impossible to screen the news.
2) The exchange if information between two nodes is agreed and can be
controlled to some extent by the `newsgroup' and the `distribution'
fields. But, none of these fields are useful when it comes to sort
out any kind of `illegal' traffic.
There was some fuzz last year when a BBS carried some stuff from the
alt.pyrotechnics group. The real trouble started, however, when some
BBS got a few faked porn pics of members of the royal family. The sys
op removed the files, and the Crown did not press charges. (The files
from the alt.pyrotechnics group were not removed if my memory serves me
right.)
A poster may break the law in another country, but if he did
restrict distribution - is he/she the responsible, or should the
news admin that ignored the distribution field get the blame.
A nice problem, but do we really know who posted the article, and
can we trust the `path' information to be correct. No, we cannot.
Guess I'm in no danger as long as I'm not screening the news. Running
an archive server is a bit more tricky if I don't want to give unknown
people both read and write access to the file system. Guess I can use
the old "see no evil, hear no evil, day no evil" trick, but: Is it the
right thing to do?
Anyway, thanks to Jurgen Botz for starting this thread. He, and other
people should probably have a look at some of the threads going on
the misc.legal and misc.legal.computing groups. I think it's a case
for discussing the copyright problem without screaming "censorship"
and "bible-thumper" all over the place. Some people are afraid of
knowledge because having that knowledge may require that they are
more responsible for their actions (or lack of actions). They are
free to include the thread in their KILL file.
---
Haakon Styri
Norwegian Telecom Research
Std. diclaimer applies - I speak for myself and only myself.
From caf-talk Caf Aug 14 20:50:10 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [news.admin.policy] UUNET's formal policy on copyrights
Message-ID: <9208150049.AA02877@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 14:49:59 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Aug 14 20:50:10 1992
Newsgroups: news.admin.policy
Subject: UUNET's formal policy on copyrights
Message-ID: <66016@hydra.gatech.EDU>
Date: 14 Aug 92 22:07:52 GMT
In jbotz@mtholyoke.edu (Jurgen Botz) writes:
>o If (when) this issue does result in law-suits, it is unlikely to be
> here at my small institution, and more likely will involve an organization
> such as UUNET which is already prepared for this eventuality and has
> formalized it's policy on the issue.
Could someone please direct me towards a reference for UUNET's formal
policy? My specific questions: What is it? How was it settled upon?
A related question, one that I have been wondering since Jurgen Botz
started this thread (in a marvelously coherent and rational manner,
by the way): the Electronic Frontier Foundation has (I believe) as one
of it's goals the development and promotion of a "sensible" (my word,
not theirs) public policy towards computer communication. Can someone
comment on their progress towards developing well-stated principles
that would form such a policy? Does UUNET's policy relate to the
EFF's work in any way?
These questions are probably not well suited for discussion on this
group, so email replies are appreciated. I will of course summarize
responses and post if appropriate.
Eddie Maise gt5878b@cad.gatech.edu Serving Donuts on Another Planet
From caf-talk Caf Aug 14 21:20:50 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: hhll@milton.u.washington.edu (Steven Hodas)
Subject: Re: [news.admin] Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Message-ID:
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 00:46:59 GMT
>>I have absolutely no interest in any cooperation, no matter how
>>slight, with any form of state censorship. I believe that censorship is
>>not merely evil but Evil, and if your government gives you problems
>>about that, I think you should oppose them.
>For a person who is usually relatively well informed, this is a remarkably
>*stupid* and insulting remark.
>In case you missed it, Canada is not only a democracy, but these laws
>enjoy the overwhelming support of the entire country. State censorship?
>Bullshit. The state is us. Evil? You're calling the entire country evil.
>At least Reagan had the sense to try to back out of his "evil empire"
>remark, and his remark had a lot more validity than yours.
[stuff deleted]
>>And to that end I believe that it is not only a right but a duty of
>>Americans to make it as difficult as possible for Canadian (or any
>>other state's) censors to do their job.
>Oh great. You gonna try to invade again? Go "save" somebody else.
>We're simply not interested in what you're selling. We whupped you
>last time you tried.
>Save us from evangelical Americans who simply cannot accept that there are
>ways, *viable* ways, other than theirs.
>It's attitudes like this that make the term "ugly american" so appropriate.
There's a lot that's ugly about American cultural values and the
imperialism that attempts to spread them, but I'm afraid that respect for
freedom of expression is not among them. Unlike Canada, America is
'ugliest' and least true when it fails to stand for diversity.
Steven
From caf-talk Caf Aug 15 10:02:04 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: sbrack@jupiter.cse.UTOLEDO.edu (Steven S. Brack)
Subject: NetNews as a common carrier?
Message-ID: <9208151401.AA21304@jupiter.cse.utoledo.edu>
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 06:01:03 GMT
According to my understanding of common carrier status, news carriers
like UUnet would be common carriers, provided they carried *all* newsgroups.
News sites would also qualify as common carriers, but if & only if
they did not exclude any news. Once you start paring down the information
flow based on content, I don't believe you qualify for common carrier
protections, as you are, in a broad sense, "editing" the newsfeed.
What do you think?
From caf-talk Caf Aug 15 11:30:18 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: NetNews as a common carrier?
Message-ID: <1992Aug15.153011.28728@eff.org>
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 15:30:11 GMT
sbrack@jupiter.cse.UTOLEDO.edu (Steven S. Brack) writes:
> According to my understanding of common carrier status, news carriers
>like UUnet would be common carriers, provided they carried *all* newsgroups.
[...]
I don't think it is that clear cut. Usually common carrier means that
you carry "stuff" for any customer who meet your terms (even for
competitors), not that you retail all "stuff" yourself. (Also, common
carrier often means regulations as to what the terms are.) Thus, the
common carrier model works well for email and network access, but not
so well for newgroups.
In those situations, I think the bookseller/library model is better.
In any case, as you suggest, it looks as though the more editorial
control you exercise, the more likely youq will be liable for content.
In the extreme, a system like Prodigy that screens every article is
likely as liable for content as if it had written the articles itself.
- Carl
ANNOTATED REFERENCES
(All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.)
=================
law/cubby-v-compuserv
=================
Report of a federal district court case which said CompuServe could
not be held liable for the defamatory content because it exercised no
editorial control.
=================
law/student-publications.misc
=================
Quotes from the book _Law of the Student Press_ by the Student Press
Law Center (1985,1988). They say that four-letter words are protected
speech, that public universities are not likely to be liable for
publications that they for which they do not control the contents, and
that the _Hazelwood_ decision does not apply to universities.
=================
faq/netnews.liability
=================
q: Does a University reduce its likely liability by screening Netnews
for offensive articles and newsgroups?
=================
=================
These document(s) are available by anonymous ftp (the preferred
method) and by email. To get the file(s) via ftp, do an anonymous ftp
to ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4), and get file(s):
pub/academic/law/cubby-v-compuserv
pub/academic/law/student-publications.misc
pub/academic/faq/netnews.liability
To get the file(s) by email, send email to archive-server@eff.org.
Include the line(s) (be sure to include the space before the file
name):
send acad-freedom/law cubby-v-compuserv
send acad-freedom/law student-publications.misc
send acad-freedom/faq netnews.liability
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Aug 15 11:37:14 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [news.admin.policy] Re: Groups used to distribute illegal material
Message-ID: <9208151537.AA04562@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 05:37:03 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Aug 15 11:37:14 1992
From: harthc@ntmtv.UUCP (Howard Hart)
Subject: Re: Groups used to distribute illegal material
Message-ID: <1992Aug15.040248.7681@ntmtv>
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 04:02:48 GMT
In article , viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) writes:
|> In <1992Aug13.191334.19680@ntmtv> harthc@ntmtv.UUCP (Howard Hart) writes:
|>
|> >Here's a simple if slightly fascist fix. Disable access to questionable
|> >newsgroups and permit access by user machine only. Insist on low-key,
|> >word of mouth subscription only (i.e. - they have to come to you as
|> Unfortunately, it doesn't work worth a damn. Here at ISU,
|> we have a large network of Unix machines, VAXen, and one old
Works fine here, but then, everyone has a personal workstation. Agreed,
it's a little hard to foot the bill for that a your local
University.
|> There are ways around everything, and your policy is so
|> easy to circumvent it is merely a laughable attempt that only
|> inconveniences readers.
You missed the point entirely. I'm not trying to restrict access,
I'm just hiding it from those who might object to it. The purpose
is obscurity, not security.
--
Howard Hart UUCP:{ames,pyramid!amdahl,hplabs}!ntmtv!harthc
System Administrator INTERNET: ntmtv!harthc@ames.arc.nasa.gov
Northern Telecom PHONE: (415) 940-2680
Mt. View, CA
From caf-talk Caf Aug 15 12:41:54 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: sbrack@jupiter.cse.UTOLEDO.edu (Steven S. Brack)
Subject: Re: [news.admin] Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Message-ID: <9208151641.AA21699@jupiter.cse.utoledo.edu>
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 08:41:21 GMT
: From: clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca (Chris Lewis)
: Newsgroups: news.admin
: Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
: Message-ID: <3716@ecicrl.ocunix.on.ca>
: Date: 14 Aug 92 03:36:23 GMT
:
: In article <920811.1523457463@foucault.postmodern.com> mcb@foucault.postmodern.com (Michael C. Berch) writes:
: >I've stayed out of this so far, but I don't think you understand how
: >offensive I (and others) find the above paragraph. I have absolutely
: >no interest in any cooperation, no matter how slight, with any form of
: >state censorship. I believe that censorship is not merely evil but Evil,
: >and if your government gives you problems about that, I think you
: >should oppose them.
:
: For a person who is usually relatively well informed, this is a remarkably
: *stupid* and insulting remark.
It does no good commit the same acts yourself you find abhorrent
in others.
:
: In case you missed it, Canada is not only a democracy, but these laws
: enjoy the overwhelming support of the entire country. State censorship?
: Bullshit. The state is us. Evil? You're calling the entire country evil.
: At least Reagan had the sense to try to back out of his "evil empire"
: remark, and his remark had a lot more validity than yours.
No one said Canada was evil. What was said only shows the evil
of a system of censorship.
: And why should I, or anybody else bust their butt to "save" crap like
: this? Crap who's only legacy is oppression, misery or even death [ie:
: Keegstra or Zundel].
Because that's a person's opinion, who is free to hold that opinion.
Because now, the censors are coming for those of "unacceptable"
sexuality. Who will speak up when the censors come after unacceptable
politics? unacceptable religions? races? As Dr Martin Luther King, Jr.
said, "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."
: >I have no interest in giving even trivial respect
: >to Canadian laws that restrict freedom of expression.
:
: How about a little respect for the desires, laws and traditions of
: other countries?
A country can only desire what its majority desires. Do you
advocate we ignore minority groups' right to express their
opinion?
: >I consider them
: >an offense to human rights and urge you to oppose them, to struggle
: >against them, to rise up and dismantle the institutions that
: >implement them, by means of the ballot, by means of protest, civil
: >disobedience, demonstration, samizdat, interference, and unblinking
: >opposition.
:
: Why? So a couple of morons get to jack off in from of their computer
: terminals? So that I have to *pay* for this shit?
Weren't you complaining about "stupid and insulting" remarks?
I find your comment to be highly insulting. That you deem yourself
judge of appropriateness for me, or for anyone else, is appalling.
It's Hitleresque.
: >And to that end I believe that it is not only a right but a duty of
: >Americans to make it as difficult as possible for Canadian (or any
: >other state's) censors to do their job.
:
: Oh great. You gonna try to invade again? Go "save" somebody else.
: We're simply not interested in what you're selling. We whupped you
: last time you tried.
If you're still smarting over 1812, you need to get on with your
life. All he said was that Americans have an obligation not to
knuckle under to the pressure of the censors.
: Shows what little you know.
If you can't have a rational discussion, then you'd best not be
involed in the discussion.
: The Ontario Film Review Board does not
: censor movies. Hasn't for a number of years. It now only provides
: ratings. ["anne.jones" notwithstanding ;-)]
Many people consider film ratings to be a form of censorship.
e.g.: Film Board gives move a bad rating, like "R" in this country.
Movie houses don't show it, 'cuz it has an "R" rating.
Persons under 17 are prohibited from seeing it. That's
censorship.
: >So if censorship (and pressures to resist it, i.e., by cross-border sites
: >that send you "illegal" material) gives you a problem, get on your
: >MLA's case. Don't come whining to Americans telling us to cool it; I
: >think instead we should turn up the heat.
:
: So you have just gotta save us from ourselves.
Puh-leeze! Your inflammatory remarks really won't help.
: Save us from evangelical Americans who simply cannot accept that there are
: ways, *viable* ways, other than theirs.
I don't accept that the government needs to "save" me from seeing
whatever material I *choose* to see. Few rational people would.
: It's attitudes like this that make the term "ugly american" so appropriate.
And, in turn, it's attitudes like these that cause Americans to
believe, equally as unjustified, in the rudeness & snobbery of
foreigners.
: MLAs? More ignorance. MPs.
: MLAs are the term for some provincial politicians. This issue is federal.
But did the province or the feds get upset?
From caf-talk Caf Aug 15 12:51:08 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: sbrack@jupiter.cse.UTOLEDO.edu (Steven S. Brack)
Subject: Re: [news.admin.policy] Re: Groups used to distribute illegal material
Message-ID: <9208151650.AA21706@jupiter.cse.utoledo.edu>
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 08:50:40 GMT
From:
: Newsgroups: news.admin.policy
: From: neuhaus@vier.informatik.uni-kl.de (Stephan Neuhaus (HiWi Mattern))
: Subject: Re: Groups used to distribute illegal material
: Message-ID:
: Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 10:32:54 GMT
:
: If a University or company offers a news feed, it is offering a
: *service*. Usenet is not yet a right, it's a privilege. A University
: or company has every right to control how their computers are used.
: After all, they belong to the University or company, not to the
: students or employees.
And who owns a public university? The people. The students.
The employees. A University has no business making decisions
about what to keep on its system based strictly on content.
: In analogy, a newsstand does not have to carry
: each and every available newspaper or magazine. If I, as the
: newsstand's owner, find magazines containing porno photos, fascist
: propaganda, leftist propaganda, etc. unacceptable, I will not sell
: those magazines which will probably only take up shelf space anyway.
University's are not information salesplaces. They are public
resources. The public *must* be able to execute control over
the activities & affairs of the University.
: This does not mean that anybody should read (private) email, by the
: way. Once a service like mail is offered, it must be available in a
: secure and unoppressive manner. For example, I believe it's OK for a
: University or company to cancel certain newsgroups, but students or
: employees must not be punished for reading any group once it's
: available, and tracing who reads which newsgroups must not be done.
If I own a mail box, and mail gets delivered to it, by your
argument, I have a right to open it and decide whether to pass it
to its intended recipient or not. After all, if it's not important
to me, it's only taking up space.
: In direct answer to the original poster, I believe you should not
: play God yourself and simply cancel the groups. You should ask for an
: official policy, if only to get your head out of the sling. If you
: cancelled newsgroups at your own will, that would be arbitrary and
: despotic, even if those groups carried copyrighted or otherwise
: illegally published material.
If you cancelled newsgroups at all, based solely on their content,
you would be performing an act many, if not most, people consider
highly unethical.
--
Steven S. Brack | sbrack@jupiter.cse.utoledo.edu
2021 Roanwood Drive | STU0061@uoft01.utoledo.edu
Toledo, Ohio 43620 ________/^\________ brack@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu
+1 419 GR4 1010 | MY OWN OPINIONS | sbrack@maine.cse.utoledo.edu
From caf-talk Caf Aug 15 18:27:59 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [news.admin.policy] distribute illegal material
Message-ID: <9208152227.AA05777@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 12:27:47 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Aug 15 18:27:59 1992
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: distribute illegal material
Message-ID: <1992Aug15.185300.6015@wetware.com>
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 18:53:00 GMT
jbotz@mtholyoke.edu (Jurgen Botz) writes:
]
] Where do all these idiots come from? I wasn't advocating censoring
] you or anyone. I was asking the net what people thought about
] CONSIDERING a policy of restricting the INFLOW of DEMONSTRABLY ILLEGAL
] material into MY system.
Jurgen,
Welcome on board the wonderful world of questionable behavior....
In Irealand they delete groups like talk.abortion
on the chance that there Might be
"DEMONSTRABLY ILLEGAL material "
in that news group....
The Irish have been so pleasant as to
Cancel the distribution of NewsPapers
as well on the Same standard....
I therefore put forward that a part of
the problem is clarifying if the notions
of "DEMONSTRABLY ILLEGAL material "
is merely some 'Objective Reality" or
A Pleasant Way of wishing to say 'Censorship'
without having to say that Unpleasant word.
ciao
drieux
--
I Do Not Believe in .sig files
as they are such a Known Waste Of BandWidth,
And Therefore Not a Morally UpRight Choice.
But I Can See the HideousHienousHandOfHeteroSexualityBehindItAll.
From caf-talk Caf Aug 15 18:29:02 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.censorship] Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Message-ID: <9208152228.AA05786@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 12:28:50 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Aug 15 18:29:02 1992
From: kiefer@connext.ucs.sfu.ca (Theresa Kiefer)
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Message-ID: <1992Aug15.213252.22415@sfu.ca>
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 21:32:52 GMT
In sfu.general article <1992Aug14.184417.32@NCoast.ORG> you wrote:
> As quoted from by barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry):
>
As someone who has been following this debate for quite some time, I think
It would be wise to recall the original purpose of the discussion - ie. the
question of the graphic material on the altnet system at SFU... This is a very
concrete circumnstance, and the abstract debate concerning freedom of speeck
notwithstanding, one that continues to require a serious response. IMHO, the
issue here comes down to the question of whether it is legitimate for an
institution of higher education, that claims to be so strapped for cash that
they've cut back on scholarships this fall, to dedicate some of these precious
resources to the provision of material that couldn't even be displayed in the
Dean of Arts office, and which, moreover, makes some students incredibly
uncomfortable. The needs of this particular community need to be taken into
account when determining what material is appropriate to the public computer
monitors in labs around campus. I wouldn't feel too damn comfortable if
someone I had to work beside was busy admiring the commodified sexual display
of some man or woman - especially if this activity was being conducted by
several fellow students. We don't sell soft-core porn magazines on this campus
for much this same reason; that doesn't mean I think that it shouldn't be
available anywhere, just that as a woman at SFU I don't want to be confronted
with it as part of the social environment I have to accomodate myself to in
order to get an education.
> > I suspect I know how porn affects people: it makes some bad
> > people worse, some good people better, and most people it don't have
> > much effect on at all :-). That's how most things seem to work, after
> > all. The Bible probably helped turned a man that was good to begin with
> > into St. Francis of Assisi, but it also likely helped turn Torquemada
> > (whom I suspect was a _rotten_ kid :-) into the Grand Inquisitor.
It affects everyone, but the causal link between violence and pornography in
this discussion has been a little bit too simplistic. The argument linking
porn to violence is really a little more subtle than either side of this debate
have acknowledged. Pornography, and by this I'm referring to the explicit
display of women for consumption by men, is part of the reproduction of
cultural meaning in our society. It DOES discuss ideas. It addresses the
question of what is the cultural standard for a sexually desireable woman, and
what her power relation is to the man who can have access to a commodified
version of her sexuality through the purchase of a representation of this
idealized sexuality. IMHO, the exploitation of women through porn can't be
separated from advertising and other media in our culture that address women
only in their role as consumers, and which presents their sexuality in the form
of a commodity that they exchange in their relations with men for security and
other values that they are presumed to be incapable of acquiring on their own.
Pornography is particularly pernicous, though, because it exposes women's most
intimate selves, through a representation that is designed purely for its
ability to provide voyeristic pleasure to others they individually may not ever
choose to relate to in this manner, and through its mass distribution, porn
exposes a homogenized idea of women's sexuality to the culture at large. This
idea is designed for male consumption in a patriarchial context. This is not a
version of our sexuality that women have chosen for themselves - it has been
imposed with as much authority as any censor could muster, in fact more so
because these values are internalized by women themselves. The number of women
today suffering from eating disorders is proof enough of the extreme
difficulties many women experience trying to remake their bodies according to
these images so that they can reclaim the sexuality that is denied them because
some men defend the right to freedom of expression.
>
> An EXCELLENT point. If we can have a Pornography Victims Compensation Act,
> there's no constitutional reason why we can't have a Religious Doctrine
Victims
> Compensation Act. Anybody who claims that a LOT more people HAVEN'T died
> under hideous circumstances, because of religion, is being diplomatically
> speaking, "differently honest"....
Yes, many people have suffered due to religious persecution. This is a far
more serious type of discrimination than being asked by your sysadmin not to
store 2nudes.gif on SFU's system. The patriarchy of traditional religion and
sexism share more than a few values in common, however.
Pornography also reproduces power relationships between men and women. It
confirms in the minds of men and women that its OK for women to be objectified.
Studies of rape and violence together with pornography consistently show that
it is the link between these concepts that is explosive in terms of inciting
violent attitudes in viewers. There is no question that exposure causes
desensitization to the material shown. This does not establish the link
between an individual's attitude and their tendency to act in a violent manner,
but it does affect what in considered by the culture to be acceptable. Where
the net effect is a society that is increasingly violent, and indifferent
toward the violence perpetuated toward women, the question of what factors
contribute to that violence must be answered. I suspect that violent
pornography might play a role. I also suspect that non-violent porn, which
purports to compensate men who feel increasingly helpless in their daily lives
by offering them a representational power over women's sexuality, also
consitutes an element. Both of these factors contribute to a climate where
human contact is reduced to the level of commodity exchange, and in which tacit
social approval is granted to the idea that women's sexuality exists only to
satisfy men's desires and on men's terms.
The question of censorship is a tricky one, however, because censors after all,
exist to censor, and they don't usually act in the interests of women when they
doit - they act as representatives of the state, and this is problematic to say
the least.
However, at SFU, I think it is safe to say that the removal of the alt.sex
groups will not prevent anyone from having access to pornographic ideas if
these are of interest to them. All they have to do is turn on the television,
if they want access to the ideas. Sexually explicit pictoral material is
available in many places. I'm not so sure the discussion groups should have
been cancelled, since these were often a legitimate forum for discourse, and do
not intrude on people wandering through a given lab in the way that an
unencoded .gif file has a way of doing... Freedom of speech is not absolute.
In a community, such as SFU, it is both relevant and important to consider the
needs of the various constituants in order to provide a tolerant and inclusive
environment for learning. This includes the unlearning of sexism.
Theresa Kiefer
kiefer@sfu.ca
>
>
>
From caf-talk Caf Aug 15 19:30:47 1992
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Message-ID: <1992Aug15.232715.29590@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 23:27:15 GMT
kiefer@connext.ucs.sfu.ca (Theresa Kiefer) writes:
>IMHO, the
>issue here comes down to the question of whether it is legitimate for an
>institution of higher education, that claims to be so strapped for cash that
>they've cut back on scholarships this fall, ...
It likely cost more to exclude the material that to include it. Cost
likely had nothing to do with the decision to remove the material.
> IMHO, the exploitation of women through porn can't be
>separated from advertising and other media in our culture ...
[...]
>The number of women
>today suffering from eating disorders is proof enough of the extreme
>difficulties many women experience trying to remake their bodies ...
[...]
I think advertising is 1000 times more to blame than pornography.
After all advertising is 1000 times more prevalent and designed in
many cases to woman dissatisfied with their bodies. Should we then all
such advertising be banned?
>However, at SFU, I think it is safe to say that the removal of the alt.sex
>groups will not prevent anyone from having access to pornographic ideas if
>these are of interest to them. All they have
>to do is turn on the television,
>if they want access to the ideas. Sexually explicit pictoral material is
>available in many places. I'm not so sure the discussion groups should have
>been cancelled, since these were often a
>legitimate forum for discourse, and do
>not intrude on people wandering through a given lab in the way that an
>unencoded .gif file has a way of doing
We agree on this. Rules against sexual harassment could ban display of
sexually explict images in labs without banning all discussions of
sex.
One final point. You worry about paternalism. What could be more
paternalistic that giving the University the authority to decide which
topics can and which topic can't be discussed on campus? What could be
more paternalistic than having the University decide that sex is
something so shameful and dirty that it can't be discussed?
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Aug 16 13:03:34 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [news.admin.policy] Re: Groups used to distribute illegal material
Message-ID: <9208161703.AA08080@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 07:03:21 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Aug 16 13:03:34 1992
Newsgroups: news.admin.policy
Subject: Re: Groups used to distribute illegal material
Message-ID: <1992Aug16.154853.6577@nntp.nta.no>
Date: 16 Aug 92 15:48:53 GMT
In article , Paul Brinkley writes:
>
>Point is, even if responsibility lies with the poster, how can you prosecute?
That's very difficult, because you need evidence to prosecute.
>Even if one is careful enough to log out of a public-access terminal before
>he leaves, there's still an off chance that it can be hacked into anyway.
>It's never happened yet to the best of my knowledge, but it's still possible,
Not long ago there was an article in alt.security (I think) from someone
claiming to post from a hacked-into computer.
>perhaps likely if the nation starts cracking down on illegal posting and some
>hacker as an agenda to fulfill. Even so, most news readers make it
>ridiculously easy to forge the From: line in a posting anyway, hence the
>frequent "Anonymous" or "Mr. Nobody" posts to a.b.p.e. The best you can do
>with those posts is trace the path back to the machine, and that's it. If
>it's public access, then you've narrowed it down to our entire CS department,
>for instance.
But, how do you know the path isn't forged? The only thing you really know
is that some poster have had access toi one of the machines somewhere in
the path.
---
Haakon Styri
Norwegian Telecom Research
