From caf-talk Caf Sep 21 05:51:52 1992
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: evansmp@uhura.aston.ac.uk (Mark Evans)
Subject: Re: Locking out users
Message-ID: <1992Sep21.092710.18030@aston.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1992 09:27:10 GMT
jim@ferkel.ucsb.edu (Jim Lick) writes:
:
: From the user's perspective, this seems to be an unfair policy. How is J.
: Random User going to know that the password they enter is easily cracked?
: Besides, this problem can be solved much more easily by using a passwd
: program which disallows use of crackable passwords. As it is, you are
: trying to catch the problem after it's happened.
This dosn't work to well, because it can easily result in people
writing the passwords down.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Sep 21 08:44:25 1992
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan)
Subject: Re: Censorship at Iowa State
Message-ID: <1992Sep21.84022.5459@ms.uky.edu>
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1992 12:40:22 GMT
kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
>[...]
>>Don't the owners of a forum have a right to close it?
>[...]
>
>Consider another scenario. A public university owns the student
>newspaper and one year a black is elected to the editorship by a
>student/faculty board. Would the administration be allowed to say "we
>don't like blacks in positions of authority, so were are closing down
>the paper"? (I don't think so.)
>
>I would consider that racial discrimination, just as I would consider
>situation at Iowa State censorship.
I would consider the two situations as "apples and oranges". I don't
accept the notion that one's dormitory door is eqivalent to a student
newspaper.
If a given forum becomes unmanageable, the owners of the forum should have
the right to close it. Here's my perspective on the events at ISU (dis-
claimer -- this is based, almost completely, on net traffic):
- Traditionally, dormitory room doors have been 'unpoliced';
students usually hang posters, message boards, etc.
- In recent months, students have begun to display items which
may be construed, by some, as offensive/repulsive/racist/etc.
- The administration has attempted to resolve the matter on an
individual basis, and has failed miserably.
- The only alternatives which remain are:
- Initiate judicial/disciplinary proceedings against those
who display items which violate the various harassment
and/or discrimation policies/rules/laws.
- Explicitly prohibit any display in this particular forum.
- Judicial/disciplinary proceedings may result in substantial harm
to the student. A common complaint among accused violators is "it
takes *weeks* from my study time to resolve the matter." Keep in
mind that these proceedings would also take the same amount of time
from those students *initiating* the action.
- Judicial/disciplinary proceedings would also, as a byproduct, keep
the offensive/racist/repulsive material(s) in public view; wouldn't
this have a chilling effect on the other students? Many offended
students would rather let the materials remain, rather than get in-
volved in lengthy disciplinary proceedings.
- Therefore, why isn't it in the best interest of *all* students to
"close the forum"?
>Government forum owners can close down a forum but not for improper
>reasons. In the case of the door-forum, they can't even say that they
>are doing it to save money since it will likely cost them more money
>to keep stuff off the doors that it would have to allow things on the
>doors.
Does the university have a resposibility (contractual or otherwise) to
provide a proper living environment for its students? Does an oft-harassed
minority have a right, under the University's codes/policies, to demand a
living environment free from harassment?
>[...]
>>I fail to see how dormitory-room doors were "originally created as a
>>free speech forum".
>[...]
>
>This might help the school's case, but it is not decisive.
I would consider it rather decisive! If the doors are not a free-speech
forum, the University has an almost clear-cut ability to determine their
use.
The _San Diego Committee_ decision applied to student newspapers. I
don't accept the relevance of newspaper-oriented decisions to this case.
>[...]
>>You're also ignoring the fact that the housing contract may give the
>>University the legal right to establish such a policy.
>[...]
>
>I don't think the contract is relevant.
I believe that it is, especially if it already contains clauses concerning
the 'display of personal materials on University property'.
>The government can't
>arbitrarily make you sign away your rights and it can't create a
>contract that gives it more authority that it actually has.
So, anywhere I live becomes my personal free-speech forum?
Suppose I drive a University vehicle -- do I have the right to paint
anti-war slogans on it (or place pro-choice/pro-life bumper stickers
on it)?
>It couldn't for example change the student code to say:
>
>"Normally a university-owned student newspaper couldn't be closed down
>because the adminstation doesn't like the race of the editor, but by
>by signing this you agree that we can close down the newspaper for
>this reason. In exchange for your agreement, we will let you enroll."
Again, you're going into an apples-and-oranges comparison.
--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 Sep 21 09:52:12 1992
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Censorship at Iowa State
Message-ID: <1992Sep21.134410.14591@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1992 13:44:10 GMT
morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
[...]
> - The only alternatives which remain are:
> - Initiate judicial/disciplinary proceedings against those
> who display items which violate the various harassment
> and/or discrimation policies/rules/laws.
> - Explicitly prohibit any display in this particular forum.
[...]
You presume that the door displays violate valid antiharassment rules.
I confess that I presumed that they did not. My presumption is based
on the two observations 1) many universities have tried to improperly
outlaw racially- or sexually-insensitive views 2) the university has
decided to bypass a due process proceeding that might determine the
material is Constititonal protected.
[...]
> - Judicial/disciplinary proceedings may result in substantial harm
> to the student. A common complaint among accused violators is "it
> takes *weeks* from my study time to resolve the matter." Keep in
> mind that these proceedings would also take the same amount of time
> from those students *initiating* the action.
>
> - Judicial/disciplinary proceedings would also, as a byproduct, keep
> the offensive/racist/repulsive material(s) in public view; wouldn't
> this have a chilling effect on the other students? Many offended
> students would rather let the materials remain, rather than get in-
> volved in lengthy disciplinary proceedings.
>
> - Therefore, why isn't it in the best interest of *all* students to
> "close the forum"?
[...]
Because forums are generally a good thing. Because maybe all, and
certainly most, of the material on people's door is legal, to suppress
that material would be an injustice.
- Carl
========== 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?
No. The federal courts have said that harassing speech is different
from offensive speech. While face-to-face harassment can be
prohibited, mere offensive speech is protected by the principles of
academic freedom and, at state universities, by the Constitution.
The courts have also said that that it is unconstitutional at state
universities to base campus speech restrictions on EEOC rules. Here is
part of a decision:
==============Excerpt uwm-post-v-u-of-wisconsin ==========
(3) PARALLEL TO TITLE VII LAW
The Board of Regents argues that this Court should find the UW Rule
constitutional because its prohibition of discriminatory speech which creates a
hostile environment has parallels in the employment setting. The Board notes
that, under Title VII, an employer has a duty to take appropriate corrective
action when it learns of pervasive illegal harassment. See Meritor Savings
Bank v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57, 72 (1986).
The Board correctly states Title VII law. However, its argument regarding
Title VII law has at least three difficulties. First, Title VII addresses
employment, not educational, settings. Second, even if Title VII governed
educational settings, the Meritor holding would not apply to this case. The
Meritor Court held that courts should look to agency principles when
determining whether an employer is to be held liable for its employee's
actions. See id. Since employees may act as their employer's agents, agency
law may hold an employer liable for its employees actions. In contrast, agency
theory would generally not hold a school liable for its students' actions since
students normally are not agents of the school. Finally, even if the legal
duties set forth in Meritor applied to this case, they would not make the UW
Rule constitutional. Since Title VII is only a statute, it cannot supersede
the requirements of the First Amendment.
============================
Private institutions are legally free to violate the standards set by
the Constitution and academic freedom. They should not, however, try
to justify their violations with appeals to government rules.
- Carl
ANNOTATED REFERENCES
(All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.)
=================
law/uwm-post-v-u-of-wisconsin
=================
The full text of UWM POST v. U. of Wisconsin. This recent district
court ruling goes into detail about the difference between protected
offensive expression and illegal harassment. It even mentions email.
It concludes: "The founding fathers of this nation produced a
remarkable document in the Constitution but it was ratified only with
the promise of the Bill of Rights. The First Amendment is central to
our concept of freedom. The God-given "unalienable rights" that the
infant nation rallied to in the Declaration of Independence can be
preserved only if their application is rigorously analyzed.
The problems of bigotry and discrimination sought to be addressed here
are real and truly corrosive of the educational environment. But
freedom of speech is almost absolute in our land and the only
restriction the fighting words doctrine can abide is that based on the
fear of violent reaction. Content-based prohibitions such as that in
the UW Rule, however well intended, simply cannot survive the
screening which our Constitution demands."
=================
law/doe-v-u-of-michigan
=================
This is Doe v. University of Michigan. In this widely referenced
decision, the district judge down struck the University's rules
against discriminatory harassment because the rules were found to be too
broad and too vague.
=================
law/rav-v-st-paul.1
=================
The Supreme Court's _R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul_ decision about hate crimes.
The Court overturned St. Paul's Bias-Motivated Crime Ordinance, which
prohibits the display of a symbol which one knows or has reason to
know "arouses anger, alarm or resentment in others on the basis of
race, color, creed, religion or gender."
Included: summary, majority opinion, 3 concurring opinions.
=================
law/young-conservatives-v-sau
=================
A UPI story that tells how Stephen F. Austin University originally
banned a groups "sexist" flyers, but when challenged, the ban was
lifted and a cash settlement was given to the students whose
free-speech was violated by the ban.
=================
faq/netnews.liability
=================
q: Does a University reduce its likely liability by screening Netnews
for offensive articles and newsgroups?
=================
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?
=================
filters.email
=================
Information about how users (on Unix machines) can filter out
harassing email by themselves.
=================
=================
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/uwm-post-v-u-of-wisconsin
pub/academic/law/doe-v-u-of-michigan
pub/academic/law/rav-v-st-paul.1
pub/academic/law/young-conservatives-v-sau
pub/academic/faq/netnews.liability
pub/academic/faq/netnews.reading
pub/academic/filters.email
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 uwm-post-v-u-of-wisconsin
send acad-freedom/law doe-v-u-of-michigan
send acad-freedom/law rav-v-st-paul.1
send acad-freedom/law young-conservatives-v-sau
send acad-freedom/faq netnews.liability
send acad-freedom/faq netnews.reading
send acad-freedom filters.email
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Sep 21 14:51:17 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: U15289@UICVM.UIC.EDU
Subject: On door-opening findings :-)
Message-ID: <199209211851.AA28415@eff.org>
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1992 18:46:32 GMT
Kudos to J.S. Greenfield on the results of his legal research. It's reassur-
ing to know that, contrary to the conclusions I posted the other day, ISU
may not have trumped its door-posting dorm residents after all, by turning its
overbroad attempt at supressing hate speech from a censorship issue into a
landlord-tenant one.
Mitch Pravatiner
From caf-talk Caf Sep 21 16:01:43 1992
From: betsys@cs.umb.edu (Elizabeth Schwartz)
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: Locking out users
Message-ID:
Date: 21 Sep 92 19:54:29 GMT
In article jim@ferkel.ucsb.edu (Jim Lick) writes:
>>We lock out users by changing their shell. We do this whenever we
>>crack their passwd's using crack, ...
>From the user's perspective, this seems to be an unfair policy. How is J.
>Random User going to know that the password they enter is easily cracked?
>Besides, this problem can be solved much more easily by using a passwd
>program which disallows use of crackable passwords. As it is, you are
Actually we do both. However, for some obscure technical reason, the
algorithms in Crack are more sophisticated than in the passwd filter
(npasswd?)
We don't really like turning off users. However, we do have student
ops on 7 days a week so no user has to be shut off for that long. It
does force them to come to campus, which is painful for some, but most
students are sympathetic. After all, if a cracker did get ahold of
their passwd, any badness that was done would be done in their name,
so we are protecting them also.
--
System Administrator Internet: betsys@cs.umb.edu
MACS Dept, UMass/Boston BITNET:ESCHWARTZ%UMBSKY.DNET@NS.UMB.EDU
100 Morrissy Blvd Staccato signals
Boston, MA 02125-3393 of constant information....
From caf-talk Caf Sep 21 16:29:01 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.unix.shell, et al.] Re: Locking out users
Message-ID: <1992Sep21.202140.28235@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1992 20:21:40 GMT
[A repost - Carl]
From caf-talk Caf Sep 21 16:29:01 1992
From: metcalf@CATFISH.LCS.MIT.EDU (Chris Metcalf)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.shell,comp.unix.admin,comp.unix.wizards
Subject: Re: Locking out users
Message-ID: <1992Sep21.145135.8623@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu>
Date: 21 Sep 92 14:51:35 GMT
Dan Bernstein writes (with respect to disabling accounts):
>[The user] can, for instance, set up a server of his own on a TCP port. Or he
>can arrange for programs to be run through cron, perhaps accepting
>commands from the outside by some mechanism. Or he can set up a .forward
>which executes commands for him. Or he can set up a setuid program and
>get someone else to run that program. If you don't shut down _all_ of
>these mechanisms then you haven't really shut down _any_ of them.
These are all good points, though most of them are more general than
the issue of how to delete an account (i.e., setting the shell to be
bogus, the password to be '*', deleting the account completely, etc.).
A careful admin should certainly kill all the user's jobs running on
all the machines the user had accesss to and delete all private atjobs
and crontabs. The account should be locked with chown root/chmod 700,
or deleted completely, and you should find and assess any files owned by
that user elsewhere in the filesystems he or she had access to. All of
these issues are important no matter what user-lockout technique is used.
The .forward issue is one that is relevant with respect to disabling
vs. deleting a given account; the administrator should ensure that the
user's .forward does something valid if the account is merely disabled.
(In our case, we scan .forwards every night and do a validity check
anyway, for inclusion in our global aliases file.) Note that sendmail
typically has no problem reading a user's .forward even if it is under
a root-owned 700-mode home directory.
Thanks for some good worst-case suggestions on how a user can
avoid being shut down, Dan.
--
Chris Metcalf, MIT Laboratory for Computer Science
metcalf@lcs.mit.edu // +1 (617) 253-7766
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Sep 21 16:32:38 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.censorship] Re: Censorship at Iowa State
Message-ID: <1992Sep21.202856.6610@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1992 20:28:56 GMT
[A repost - Carl]
From caf-talk Caf Sep 21 16:32:38 1992
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
From: morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan)
Subject: Re: Censorship at Iowa State
Message-ID: <1992Sep21.91745.13775@ms.uky.edu>
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1992 13:17:45 GMT
greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (J. S. Greenfield) writes:
>morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
>
>>Does your Residence Hall contract give the University the right to establish
>>such a policy? Mine certainly did.........
>
>I assume that "Iowa State University" is indeed a *state* university. In
>that case, the contractual "rights" of the university are irrelevant. They
>cannot supercede the US Constitution.
True; of course, it cannot supersede the various anti-discrimination and
anti-harassment polcies/laws either.......we're walking a tightrope.
>>OK, so no one can display anything. Since they aren't singling anyone
>>out for "special treatment", I don't believe this is censorship.
>
>Well, you don't understand the concept of "censorship" very well.
>
>The presence of viewpoint discrimination is absolute evidence of an
>attempt to stifle expression.
Agreed.
Let's expand the question a bit:
Would you expect the entire dormitory to be a free speech area?
In other words, should students be allowed to plaster posters over the
walls (and, possibly, other people's doors) in their hallways? If so,
why? If not, how can you differentiate between hallways and doors?
Aren't both of them "in the public arena"? Does any "common area" auto-
matically become a "free speech area"?
>The opposite, however, is not true. That is, the *absence* of viewpoint
>discrimination is *not* evidence of the *absence* of an attempt to
>stifle expression. But this is what you seem to assume.
No, I'm assuming that the administration wishes to close an unmanageable
forum (which may, or may not, have been directly established as such).
There's a difference.
>If everyone is told that they cannot post items, then *everybody's*
>right to free speech is being infringed. It makes absolutely no
>difference how uniformly the rule is applied.
>
>The only thing that can make a difference is the *basis* for the
>infringement. If it is a legitimate time, place, and manner
>restriction--based upon, say, a fire hazard (as Carl mentioned),
>then the restriction is legal (and justified in many people's eyes).
>
>But that is not the case here. The school has made it very clear
>that this rule is for the express purpose of stifling expression.
>Therefore. it is not a legitimate time, place and manner restriction.
Many universities have established "free speech areas"; for example,
UKentucky's FSA is a concrete patio behind the Student Center. With
an established FSA, they have established a policy that the remainder
of the University's public physical plant is NOT a free speech area. Is this
censorship? I don't think so.
At this university, some bulletin boards are uncontrolled; others, notably
those in administrative areas, are controlled by prior approval of materials
to be posted. Is this censorship? I think not.
I would suspect that ISU has such an FSA (if this is not the case, I
hope that an ISU poster will correct me). I would also suspect that
they have some uncontrolled "public access" bulletin boards. If they
have provided a specific free speech area (or areas), are they perfor-
ming censorship by making other areas "off limits" to free speech?
Again, I don't think so.
"Guaranteeing free speech" does not equal "providing the soapbox".
>Please note that the first amendment prohibits restrictions on free
>speech, in general. It does not merely prohibit viewpoint discrimination.
>>This seems to indicate that they have a contractual right to establish such
>>a policy.......
>
>It could also simply mean that there are assigning to themselves, via that
>letter, the contractual "right" to do so. (That is, it does not suggest
>to me that there had been any previous contractual prohibitions.)
This may be correct; I don't have a copy of the ISU housing contract. Could
someone with access to the ISU contract answer this one, please?
When I was a living in the UKentucky dorms 10 years ago, our Resident Advisor
explained the policy in this manner:
"Your room is your leased property; therefore, we have nothing to
do with the materials you may post/hang there. The hallway, how-
ever, is a public area; the University controls the public areas
of this university. Therefore, don't hang anything other than
message boards on the outside of your door."
(I don't know if this is still the policy; I haven't set foot in a UK dorm
in about 6 years.)
>In any case, as I said before, a state school's contractual "rights" cannot
>violate the constitution.
Yes, but can the individual's right *as a tenant* supersede the University's
control of public areas?
Keep in mind that the University may have an obligation to provide a cer-
tain living environment for its tenants. Does a University student, living
in University dormitories, have a "right" to live in the dorms without being
harassed?
I always believed that my rights as a dorm resident ended at my doorway.
The halls are a public area; as such, they are subject to more stringent
control by the University.
(As I mentioned earlier, I'd be up in arms if ISU (or any university) tried
to dictate a policy for displaying materials *inside* my dorm room)
>>Sounds fair; they've formally stated that only repeated violations will
>>result in punishment (termination of contract).
>
>Doesn't sound fair to me. It sounds like, "Put something up, we'll rip
>it down. Become a pain in our ass by reposting, and we'll take formal
>disciplinary action."
Hey, at least due process has been considered/included, eh?
>That doesn't strike me as at all fair when we are talking about
>
> 1) An illegal rule, and
The legality of this policy has not been established.
> 2) a rule that, to my mind, clearly violates one of the most
> fundamental principles to the workings of any academic institution--
> that of free speech.
Don't get me wrong -- I, too, believe that free speech is an essential
priciple in academia. However, I believe that the University has, in
some cases, the right (and the obligation) to limit the UNIVERSAL ap-
plication of free speech rights. Again, the university isn't obliga-
ted to provide the soapbox.
>>Great! They're going to involve students in the formal policy.
>
>I'm sure that the university will be glad to know that at least *some*
>people are so easily convinced that students will play a meaningful
>role in the development of the policy. (That is, by means other
>than protest, etc.)
{++sarcasm;}
You're absolutely right! We should never believe ANYTHING a University
says (or puts in print). Heck, I guess we shouldn't believe ANYTHING in
the Student Code or University Bulletin.
{--sarcasm;}
>>It seems to me that they have handled a difficult situation rather well.
>
>It seems to me that they have handled a situation that they view as a
>potential headache in the manner that was most expedient for removing
>that headache--without any significant concern for law or basic
>principles.
>
>It is now the students' responsibility to show the university that to
>take such censorial action will produce a far greater headache...
I'll certainly agree that this will prove an interesting case, if/when
it reaches court.
>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?"
Just out of curiosity, do you consider it "censorship" when your "d*mn
system wants a real name"?
--
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
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Sep 21 17:56:34 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.censorship] More ISU Censorship info
Message-ID: <1992Sep21.215627.1685@eff.org>
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1992 21:56:27 GMT
[A repost - Carl]
From caf-talk Caf Sep 21 17:56:34 1992
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
From: maanstro@iastate.edu (Mark A Anstrom)
Subject: More ISU Censorship info
Message-ID:
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1992 21:01:52 GMT
I never dreamed I'd get such a response. Thanks for all the input.
To answer a few questions:
Iowa State is a state school supported by Iowan taxpayers. The president of
ISU answers to the Board of Reagents, and they in turn answer to the
Legislature of the State of Iowa.
The Dept of Residence has not said anything about the nature of the posts that
prompted this policy, save that they were "racist" and "denegrating". Rumor
has it that the student committee has been formed. However, the names of its
members are not known, nor have I seen anywhere on campus information on how
to join. Nothing at all has been said about any of its deliberations or
recommendations made regarding the policy. It would not surprise me at all if
we hear nothing until a new policy is approved by the Dept of Residence. It
would have the veneer of student approval and would therefore be stronger in
a court of law.
There is no place on the ISU campus officially designated as a free speech
area, though the campus (but no longer the dorms) have long been unofficially
considered free speech areas. Dorm doors, previous to the policy, had been
unofficially considered free speech areas as long as anyone here can remember.
We signed our contracts for fall lodging in the residence halls in March, two
months before this policy was announced. Therefore, we did not sign away our
right to post in our room contract. There are roughly 8,000 students in the
residence halls, and for all of them to find lodging elsewhere is impossible.
Apartments in the Ames area are generally old, dingy, expensive, far from
campus, and less condusive to study than the residence halls.
The ISU Daily printed an editorial I wrote on September 2. It's long, so I
won't post it in its intirety, unless somebody wants me to. In summary, I
cited Tinker v Des Moines, RAV v. St Paul, Ward v. RAR, and Frisby v. Schultz
to show that the door policy was unconstitutional. I also sent a copy to the
director of residence, so I know he has seen it. No response has been made,
either in private or in public.
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Sep 21 18:22:02 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.censorship] Re: Censorship at Iowa State
Message-ID: <1992Sep21.221335.25477@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1992 22:13:35 GMT
[A repost - Carl]
From caf-talk Caf Sep 21 18:22:02 1992
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
From: morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan)
Subject: Re: Censorship at Iowa State
Message-ID: <1992Sep21.95104.21094@ms.uky.edu>
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1992 13:51:04 GMT
greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (J. S. Greenfield) writes:
>> morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
>>
>>Don't the owners of a forum have a right to close it?
>
>Not when the "owner" of the forum is an arm of the government--then their
>"right" to close the forum are significantly resricted. (See my previous
>posts.)
Forums (fora?) evolve.
If something evolves into a forum, might it not be improper?
If the University had clearly established doors as a forum, this policy
would be improper. If doors have, over time, evolved as a forum, the
University should have the right to deterimine the propriety of such use.
The notion that any forum which may evolve should automatically receive
full protection bothers me a bit.........how would you feel if people
began marching through the halls of the Classroom Building, chanting
slogans, while you were attempting to teach?
Free speech areas are not necessarily automatic.
Carl, would you post the citation for the "limited public forum" doctrine
and our discussion of said doctrine? I believe that it has some relevance.
--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
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Sep 21 18:22:03 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.censorship] Re: Censorship at Iowa State
Message-ID: <1992Sep21.221317.5748@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1992 22:13:17 GMT
[A repost - Carl]
From caf-talk Caf Sep 21 18:22:03 1992
From: morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
Subject: Re: Censorship at Iowa State
Message-ID: <1992Sep21.94041.18565@ms.uky.edu>
Date: 21 Sep 92 13:40:41 GMT
greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (J. S. Greenfield) writes:
>> morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
>>"fire safety"? Where did that come from?
>
>Once the university is challenged and learns that they cannot legally
>institute such a ban, they might want to come up with a legitimate
>time, place and manner restriction to replace the illegal policy--
>for example, claiming that posts present a fire hazard.
>
>Carl is simply pointing out that, given the letter already in hand, it
>will be obvious that any such attempt is merely a facade--and therefore,
>would also be illegal (see Cornelius v. NAACP).
I understand; however, Carl seems to be jumping the gun a bit, eh?
Why should we assume that such a (farcical) ruse will be attempted?
>>Anyway, they have not overstepped their authority, IMHO.
>
>I'm glad your opinion is humble, because from a legal standpoint, it
>is clearly wrong. (Once again, assuming that ISU is indeed a public
>institution.)
Thanks so much for the words of wisdom, but I've learned that very
few things are "clearly wrong" in legal proceedings.
>>They have merely
>>stated that dormitory doors (which are University property in a public area)
>>are not to be used as "free speech forums".
>
>But they have absolutely no right to do so. They cannot arbitrarily pick and
>choose where they will allow expression.
This is incorrect. Many government agencies prohibit "free expression"
in their buildings. When was the last time you saw a "Bush for President"
banner in a post office? In fact, when was the last time you saw a federal
employee wearing a political button on the job? Is that censorship?
Government agencies may CERTAINLY restrict the nature of "free speech" in
buildings under their jurisdiction.
The University of Kentucky's Free Speech Area is a good example. UKentucky
established this area as an uncontrolled free speech area; after this action,
they placed limits on the use of other university areas for free speech ex-
pression(s).
>>Had they stated that the *interiors* of dorm rooms would be similarly
>>controlled, I would be quite upset. However, the Unviersity certainly
>>has a right to dictate how its public areas shall be used.
>
>Does the government have a right to tell you that you can freely
>express yourself--so long as you confine that expression to within
>your house?
If you're living in some government housing, such as military barracks,
they most certainly can. "Guaranteeing free speech" does not equal
"providing the soapbox".
>At a state university, the adminstration *is* the government!!
Whew! This misconception seems to raise its ugly head time and time
again. The administration of a state university is subject to the
same legal authorities as anyone else. Don't you believe that this
matter will go to court? If so, it won't be ISU's Legal Department;
it will be the local/county/district/circuit Court!
>>[.....my "no alcohol" policy dilemma deleted.....]
>Whether such was legal or not, I don't know. But in any case, it is not
>a comparable case, since you do not have a constitutionally protected
>right to have alcohol in your dormitory.
Whoa there! I have legal permission, as a adult, to possess alcohol.
The Residence Halls contract, however, superseded that legal permission.
Why aren't these two cases comparable? Remember, we're talking about
two separate sets of responsibilities -- your free speech rights and the
landlord-tenant relationship between you and the University. The former
is clearly Constitutional, but the latter seems to lean into contract law.
>Furthermore, as far as housing contracts go--some states, like New York
>for example, recognize that most leases (such as those offered by
>Universities) are offered on a take it or leave it basis (which constitutes
>a form of duress).
Sure, I'll agree with this. You are under no obligation to live in University
housing. In fact, there are hundreds, if not thousands, of low-cost apartments
in close proximity to most universities (at least, there are in Lexington, Lou-
isville, Richmond, and Bowling Green, KY). The University is not obligated to
provide housing to you; as a result, they have the right to establish certain
policies for their tenants.
>As such, various provisions may be found totally
>unenforceable when challenged.
The legal challenge should prove interesting......I've seen dozens of harsh
lease restrictions upheld in court.
--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
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Sep 21 18:32:54 1992
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: [comp.org.eff.talk] EFFector Online 3.05
Message-ID: <1992Sep21.223239.26506@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: 21 Sep 92 22:32:39 GMT
Two paragraphs from an article in comp.org.eff.talk by Mike Godwin:
[....]
>=====================================================================
>EFFector Online September 18, 1992 Issue 3.05
> A Publication of the Electronic Frontier Foundation
> ISSN 1062-9424
>=====================================================================
>
> EFF LEGAL SERVICES
> by Mike Godwin
> EFF Staff Counsel, Cambridge
[...]
>REQUESTS FOR HELP IN SITUATIONS WHERE THERE'S NO CRIMINAL OR CIVIL CASE
>This category includes situations in which, for example, a college
>student has his computer-access privileges suspended because a "hacker
>newsletter" is discovered by a system administrator rummaging through
>the student's directory. (I've explained to more than one system
>administrator that mere possession of such information does not make one
>a computer intruder, and that their rummaging may have violated the
>students' rights.) Or a university computer center may decide to suspend
>some kinds of Usenet newsgroups, justifying their actions by saying
>they're afraid the sexually oriented newsgroups are illegal. (I've
>written and spoken to university administrators to explain that
>virtually none of the discussions in the sexually oriented newsgroups on
>Usenet qualify legally as "obscenity"--instead, they're protected
>expression under established American Constitutional law.) Or a group of
>sysops may be concerned about their local phone company's efforts to
>impose business rates on nonprofit BBS phone lines. (I now refer most
>such calls to Shari Steele, ssteele@eff.org, the staff counsel of EFF's
>Washington office, who has given special study to these issues.)
[...]
> It is important that EFF members and constituents recognize we are
>here to help you solve individual problems as well as promote your
>interests on general policy issues. If you are running into a legal
>problem, or if you simply have a general legal question, or even if
>you're having a problem on the Electronic Frontier and you're not sure
>whether or not it's a legal problem, you should call me, Mike Godwin, at
>617-864-0665, or send me electronic mail at mnemonic@eff.org or at
>76711,317 on CompuServe. I won't always be able to help, but I'm always
>willing to listen. And I may be able to help more often than you'd
>think.
[...]
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Sep 21 21:25:12 1992
From: greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (J. S. Greenfield)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: Censorship at Iowa State
Message-ID: <1992Sep21.145107.12124@newstand.syr.edu>
Date: 21 Sep 92 18:51:07 GMT
In article <1992Sep21.84022.5459@ms.uky.edu> morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
>I would consider the two situations as "apples and oranges". I don't
>accept the notion that one's dormitory door is eqivalent to a student
>newspaper.
The two situations are different. And as such, I do not find the
argument that Carl is presenting to be particular compelling (at least,
in and of itself).
However, in several posts, I have provided a (IMHO) much more compelling
basis for the claim that ISU's action is illegal. I am still waiting
for you to respond to those posts.
>If a given forum becomes unmanageable, the owners of the forum should have
>the right to close it. Here's my perspective on the events at ISU (dis-
>claimer -- this is based, almost completely, on net traffic):
>
> - Traditionally, dormitory room doors have been 'unpoliced';
> students usually hang posters, message boards, etc.
And you should note that traditions *can* form the basis for *contractual*
obligations. _A_Practical_Guide_to_Legal_Issues_Affecting_College_
Teachers_ (by P. Hollander et al) states:
"Under certain circumstances, longstanding and widely accepted traditions
at a college may form the basis for legal rights."
But contractual rights or responsibilities are really of little import
to this case, since it is a public institution, and as such, must comply
with a higher law--the Constitution. (If it were a private institution,
then contractual rights would be the crux of the matter, and we would need
to know a lot more about the school's rules and regulations.)
In my previous posts, I have already demonstrated that the ISU policy
violates first amendment protections.
> - In recent months, students have begun to display items which
> may be construed, by some, as offensive/repulsive/racist/etc.
That someone takes offense is unfortunate, but is not a basis for any
legal right to supress or punish the material.
> - The administration has attempted to resolve the matter on an
> individual basis, and has failed miserably.
In reality, we have very little knowledge of just what the administration
attempted to do prior to establishing the new policy.
> - The only alternatives which remain are:
> - Initiate judicial/disciplinary proceedings against those
> who display items which violate the various harassment
> and/or discrimation policies/rules/laws.
> - Explicitly prohibit any display in this particular forum.
The former is the appropriate means for addressing the problems consistent
with the first amendment and principles of free expression, academic
freedom, etc. (caveat--I'm not sure how "discrimination" policies relate
to this, as it is hard to imagine how a posting can discriminate. It
should suffice to distinguish whether or not materials represent
harassment.)
It seems apparent in this case that the posted materials that troubled
the university were *not* actionable under their harassment regulations,
etc. (Otherwise, they would have used them to handle those postings.)
> - Judicial/disciplinary proceedings may result in substantial harm
> to the student. A common complaint among accused violators is "it
> takes *weeks* from my study time to resolve the matter." Keep in
> mind that these proceedings would also take the same amount of time
> from those students *initiating* the action.
How much effort it requires is largely determined by whether or not the
administration is committed to facilitating (or preventing) a resolution
of the problem.
> - Judicial/disciplinary proceedings would also, as a byproduct, keep
> the offensive/racist/repulsive material(s) in public view; wouldn't
> this have a chilling effect on the other students? Many offended
> students would rather let the materials remain, rather than get in-
> volved in lengthy disciplinary proceedings.
How so? I don't know too many administrations that issue restraining
orders to allow materials/behavior alleged to be harassment (by the university
--and remember, the university has to decide to prosecute any complaints
filed by students) to continue (to be posted) pending judicial disposition.
It is far more likely that the school will, in the meantime, ban the
allegedly-harassing material pending resolution.
> - Therefore, why isn't it in the best interest of *all* students to
> "close the forum"?
Stifling expression is not in the best interest of anyone, particularly in
academia. This is a time-tested principle recognized by both our
constitution and by the fundamental precepts of academic freedom and
integrity.
>Does the university have a resposibility (contractual or otherwise) to
>provide a proper living environment for its students? Does an oft-harassed
>minority have a right, under the University's codes/policies, to demand a
>living environment free from harassment?
The university may (and may have a responsibility to) stifle and punish
*harassment*. That someone finds something *offensive* does not make
it harassment, however.
>>>I fail to see how dormitory-room doors were "originally created as a
>>>free speech forum".
>>
>>This might help the school's case, but it is not decisive.
>
>I would consider it rather decisive! If the doors are not a free-speech
>forum, the University has an almost clear-cut ability to determine their
>use.
Subject to constitutional restrictions. This policy cannot pass
constitutional muster.
>>>You're also ignoring the fact that the housing contract may give the
>>>University the legal right to establish such a policy.
>>
>>I don't think the contract is relevant.
>
>I believe that it is, especially if it already contains clauses concerning
>the 'display of personal materials on University property'.
A *legal* contract cannot contradict the *supreme* law of the land.
>>The government can't
>>arbitrarily make you sign away your rights and it can't create a
>>contract that gives it more authority that it actually has.
>
>So, anywhere I live becomes my personal free-speech forum?
>
>Suppose I drive a University vehicle -- do I have the right to paint
>anti-war slogans on it (or place pro-choice/pro-life bumper stickers
>on it)?
Permanent or indelible postings could be prohibited as defacing property,
since they actually *damage* the property.
Furthermore, the university may be able to argue that the vehicle is
(or is taken to be, by those who view it as) an "agent" of the university,
and therefore, material posted upon it may reflect (or appear to reflect)
the university's position. As such, the university may be able to
argue that it must maintain control of those vehicles as it would control
anyone (or thing) acting as its agent.
The same can not be said of a dorm door. It cannot be reasonably argued
that materials posted on a dormitory door could be construed to
represent the position of the University or its agent (barring, perhaps,
an RA's door).
So your example is really one of apples and oranges, as you would say.
>>It couldn't for example change the student code to say:
>>
>>"Normally a university-owned student newspaper couldn't be closed down
>>because the adminstation doesn't like the race of the editor, but by
>>by signing this you agree that we can close down the newspaper for
>>this reason. In exchange for your agreement, we will let you enroll."
>
>Again, you're going into an apples-and-oranges comparison.
No he is not. He is demonstrating that contractual provisions cannot
override other laws. (In this case, the relevant law would be Title VI
of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.)
--
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 Sep 21 22:21:56 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.censorship] Re: Censorship at Iowa State
Message-ID: <1992Sep22.022150.5529@eff.org>
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1992 02:21:50 GMT
[A repost - Carl]
From caf-talk Caf Sep 21 22:21:56 1992
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Censorship at Iowa State
Message-ID: <1992Sep21.221307.629@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1992 22:13:07 GMT
Miscellaneous comments on morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) most recent
articles.
[...]
> Would you expect the entire dormitory to be a free speech area?
> In other words, should students be allowed to plaster posters over the
> walls (and, possibly, other people's doors) in their hallways? If so,
> why? If not, how can you differentiate between hallways and doors?
> Aren't both of them "in the public arena"? Does any "common area"
> automatically become a "free speech area"?
The ACLU handbook on _The Right to Protest_, 1991, p. 165,
"[T]he government can regulate the timing, the location, and the
manner of conduction speech activities, so long as the regulation is
'content neutral,' seeking to serve a state interest unrelated to the
content of the message communicated. {_Cox v. New Hampshire, 321 U.S.
569 (1941)}"
>Many universities have established "free speech areas"; for example,
>UKentucky's FSA is a concrete patio behind the Student Center. With
>an established FSA, they have established a policy that the remainder
>of the University's public physical plant is NOT a free speech area.
>Is this censorship? I don't think so.
I've seen out-of-the-way signs proclaiming such free speech ghettos at
U. of Illinois and U. of Texas. I haven't, however, ever heard of
anyone being restricted to them. Nor does the current U. of I. Student
Code refer to ours.
p. 219 "The speech activities are an import part of normal university
life and, absent unusually circumstances or overtly disruptive
conduct, are there fore unlikely to interfere with the education
process. Thus, walkways and other open areas between university
buildings that are open to the public have been held to be public
forums that can be used by nonstudent speakers for peaceable speech
activities. {_Spartacus Youth League v. Board of Trustees of the
Illinois Industrial University_, 520 F. Supp. 789 (N.D. Ill. 1980).}"
p. 181 "[Question:] Can officials in charge of a traditional public
forum permentently designate a portion of the forum for demostractions and
declare the rest of the forum to be out-of-bounds?
[Answer:] If officials wished to make a permanent designation of a
portion of a traditional public forum for demostractions, they would
have to establish two things. First they would have to prove that the
designated portion of the forum permits demonstrators to reach their
intended audience approximately as effectively as the out-of-bounds
portion would. Second, they would have to establish identifiable
characteristics of the out-of-bounds portion of the forum that make it
unsuitable for demonstrations and that make the designated are more
suitable. The designation of portions of traditional public forums for
speech activities was reject by the court in _Collin v. Chicago Park
District.{460 F.2d 746 602 (2d Cir. 1986)}"
[...]
>"Guaranteeing free speech" does not equal "providing the soapbox".
[..]
True, but if the soapbox already exists, the government can't restrict
access to it unless that restriction serves a state [compelling]
interest unrelated to the content of the message communicated.
[...]
> Does a University student, living
>in University dormitories, have a "right" to live in the dorms without being
>harassed?
[...]
The school should enforce antiharassment rules; it should not close
down whole forums.
[...]
>This is incorrect. Many government agencies prohibit "free expression"
>in their buildings. When was the last time you saw a "Bush for President"
>banner in a post office? In fact, when was the last time you saw a federal
>employee wearing a political button on the job? Is that censorship?
[...]
The court have allowed limited on-the-job (and even some off-the-job)
speech restrictions on government employees. These restrictions do not
apply to students. They have also restrictions at Post offices, jails,
and military bases; but such restrictions have not been allowed at
universities. [All of chapter XI is on this general topic.]
[...]
>[...]You are under no obligation to live in University housing. In
>fact, there are hundreds, if not thousands, of low-cost apartments in
>close proximity to most universities (at least, there are in
>Lexington, Lou- isville, Richmond, and Bowling Green, KY). The
>University is not obligated to provide housing to you; as a result,
>they have the right to establish certain policies for their tenants.
At U. of Illinois freshman are (with some exceptions) required to live
in the University dorms. In any case, content-motivated speech
restrictions are not the kind of policies government landlords are
allowed to make for their tenants.
[...]
>The notion that any forum which may evolve should automatically receive
>full protection bothers me a bit.........how would you feel if people
>began marching through the halls of the Classroom Building, chanting
>slogans, while you were attempting to teach?
Such conduct could be banned (is banned at U. of I and, I assume,
elsewhere) on the grounds that it is overtly disruptive.
[...]
>Carl, would you post the citation for the "limited public forum" doctrine
>and our discussion of said doctrine? I believe that it has some relevance.
[...]
I'm enclosing a reference to _San Diego_ and the abstract list. If you
(or anyone) sends me a list of message id's from the abstract list, I
can automatically turn them into a nice "Annotated References" list
suitable for posting. Also, you can do text searches on the CAF-Talk
archive with WAIS (info enclosed).
ANNOTATED REFERENCES
(All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.)
=================
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).
=================
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".
=================
admin/wais
=================
How anyone who can ftp to eff.org can also do a fuzzy full text search
on the CAF archive using "wais".
=================
=================
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/san-diego-committee-v-gov-bd
pub/academic/abstracts
pub/academic/admin/wais
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 san-diego-committee-v-gov-bd
send acad-freedom abstracts
send acad-freedom/admin wais
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Sep 22 12:47:05 1992
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan)
Subject: Re: Censorship at Iowa State
Message-ID: <1992Sep22.124022.5229@ms.uky.edu>
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1992 16:40:22 GMT
greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (J. S. Greenfield) writes:
>
>> - Traditionally, dormitory room doors have been 'unpoliced';
>> students usually hang posters, message boards, etc.
>
>And you should note that traditions *can* form the basis for *contractual*
>obligations. _A_Practical_Guide_to_Legal_Issues_Affecting_College_
>Teachers_ (by P. Hollander et al) states:
>
That's "can form", not "automatically form". I'd say that any opposition
to this measure will determine if the tradition warrants protection.
>But contractual rights or responsibilities are really of little import
>to this case, since it is a public institution, and as such, must comply
>with a higher law--the Constitution. (If it were a private institution,
>then contractual rights would be the crux of the matter, and we would need
>to know a lot more about the school's rules and regulations.)
This may wind up as a challenge to the ISU Student Code. I'm guessing
that this policy is based, in part, on some provision of the Student Code;
*that's* where the legal scissors will make their cuts.
>In my previous posts, I have already demonstrated that the ISU policy
>violates first amendment protections.
I have demonstrated that the First Amendment does not automatically apply
to every possible environment.
>How so? I don't know too many administrations that issue restraining
>orders to allow materials/behavior alleged to be harassment (by the university
>--and remember, the university has to decide to prosecute any complaints
>filed by students) to continue (to be posted) pending judicial disposition.
Gee, isn't that "punishment before the establishment of guilt"? When a
system admin suggested locking out users after discovering evidence of
cracking, there was a great hue and cry about "punishment before guilt".
>Stifling expression is not in the best interest of anyone, particularly in
>academia. This is a time-tested principle recognized by both our
>constitution and by the fundamental precepts of academic freedom and
>integrity.
"Academic freedom", as I understand it, applies to the academic process.
I fail to see how we can apply "academic freedom" to something outside of
the academic process.
This is a valid First Amendment issue; I don't think it falls under the
banner of "academic freedom".
>>Does the university have a resposibility (contractual or otherwise) to
>>provide a proper living environment for its students? Does an oft-harassed
>>minority have a right, under the University's codes/policies, to demand a
>>living environment free from harassment?
>
>The university may (and may have a responsibility to) stifle and punish
>*harassment*. That someone finds something *offensive* does not make
>it harassment, however.
Hmmm.......if I saw " go home" on my neighbor's door every
evening, I'd say that its presence is harassment.
>>>>I fail to see how dormitory-room doors were "originally created as a
>>>>free speech forum".
>>>
>>>This might help the school's case, but it is not decisive.
>>
>>I would consider it rather decisive! If the doors are not a free-speech
>>forum, the University has an almost clear-cut ability to determine their
>>use.
>
>Subject to constitutional restrictions. This policy cannot pass
>constitutional muster.
It may not pass muster; then, again, it may pass with flying colors.
>>I believe that it is, especially if it already contains clauses concerning
>>the 'display of personal materials on University property'.
>
>A *legal* contract cannot contradict the *supreme* law of the land.
Yes, it can. Again, consider the example of political speech. I cannot
engage in political activities while wearing my Army uniform, nor can I
hold political meetings in the barracks. The terms of my enlistment con-
tract (and the regulations I must obey) prohibit such action. There's a
direct example of a *legal* contract which contradicts my First Amendment
rights.
Notice that I can exercise my rights after changing out of uniform (or
holding the meeting off-post); the contract/regulations merely control
the *manner and location* in which I can exercise those rights.
>[....example of university vehicle and university employees deleted....]
>The same can not be said of a dorm door. It cannot be reasonably argued
>that materials posted on a dormitory door could be construed to
>represent the position of the University or its agent (barring, perhaps,
>an RA's door).
No, but I can reasonably argue that a dormitory hallway is not a proper
place for free expression. Identical arguments have been used to argue that
classrooms, libraries, and laboratories are improper as well.....
--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 Sep 22 15:31:28 1992
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Censorship at Iowa State
Message-ID: <1992Sep22.193121.18375@eff.org>
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1992 19:31:21 GMT
morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
[...]
>Hmmm.......if I saw " go home" on my neighbor's door every
>evening, I'd say that its presence is harassment.
[...]
If you think it is harassment, press charges; don't have the whole
forum shut down.
[...]
>>A *legal* contract cannot contradict the *supreme* law of the land.
>Yes, it can. Again, consider the example of political speech. I cannot
>engage in political activities while wearing my Army uniform, nor can I
>hold political meetings in the barracks. The terms of my enlistment con-
>tract (and the regulations I must obey) prohibit such action. There's a
>direct example of a *legal* contract which contradicts my First Amendment
>rights.
[...]
"The Supreme Court has ruled that military bases and installations are
not public forums because they serve specialized functions that are
inconsistent with political activities.{_Greer v. Spock_, 424 U.S. 828
(1974).} -- p. 222 of _The Right to Protest_ by Joel Gora, et al.
The courts, on the other hand, have said that "the university is a
traditional sphere of free expression [...] fundamental to the
functioning of our society [...]" {_Rust v. Sullivan_ refering
to _Keyishian v. Board of Regents_ (1967)}.
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Sep 22 16:45:39 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.censorship] Re: Censorship at Iowa State
Message-ID: <1992Sep22.202847.6407@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1992 20:28:47 GMT
[A repost - Carl]
From caf-talk Caf Sep 22 16:45:39 1992
From: greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (J. S. Greenfield)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
Subject: Re: Censorship at Iowa State
Message-ID: <1992Sep21.223851.15685@newstand.syr.edu>
Date: 22 Sep 92 02:38:51 GMT
morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
>>I assume that "Iowa State University" is indeed a *state* university. In
>>that case, the contractual "rights" of the university are irrelevant. They
>>cannot supercede the US Constitution.
>
>True; of course, it cannot supersede the various anti-discrimination and
>anti-harassment polcies/laws either.......we're walking a tightrope.
No. This seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding on your part. The
Constitution is the *SUPREME* law of the land. Neither legislation nor
contractual rights can supersede it. Where legislation conflicts with
constitutional protections, the legislation is null. Where contractual
provisions conflict with the constitution, those provisions are null.
If we were talking about *harassment* then constitutional protections
would not apply. But that is not what we are talking about. In general,
we are talking about protected expression. And even the expression to
which ISU is objecting appears *not* to be harassment (based on the actions
that ISU has taken).
>>>OK, so no one can display anything. Since they aren't singling anyone
>>>out for "special treatment", I don't believe this is censorship.
>>
>>Well, you don't understand the concept of "censorship" very well.
>>
>>The presence of viewpoint discrimination is absolute evidence of an
>>attempt to stifle expression.
>
>Agreed.
>
>Let's expand the question a bit:
>
> Would you expect the entire dormitory to be a free speech area?
> In other words, should students be allowed to plaster posters over the
> walls (and, possibly, other people's doors) in their hallways? If so,
> why? If not, how can you differentiate between hallways and doors?
> Aren't both of them "in the public arena"? Does any "common area"
> automatically become a "free speech area"?
A university (or the government, in general, may regulate expression "if the
regulation is narrowly drawn to further a substantial governmental interest,
and if the interest is unrelated to the suppression of free speech." (Clark
v. Community for Creative Non-violence (1984)).
Regulations that meet this standard can be constitutionally acceptable. The
regulation in question, by ISU's own admission in the letter, is clearly
intended to stifle expression. Therefore, it most certainly cannot pass
constitutional muster.
>>The opposite, however, is not true. That is, the *absence* of viewpoint
>>discrimination is *not* evidence of the *absence* of an attempt to
>>stifle expression. But this is what you seem to assume.
>
>No, I'm assuming that the administration wishes to close an unmanageable
>forum (which may, or may not, have been directly established as such).
>There's a difference.
Please define "unmanageable." This is an extremely vague term that you
seem to be using to mask viewpoint discrimination.
I have little doubt that this is how the administration sees it--the doorway
postings are "unmanageable" in the sense that they cannot control (prohibit)
offensive (but protected) expression. Therefore, they are attempting to shut
down the forum entirely.
The closing of this "forum" is *entirely* related to an interest in suppressing
protected expression. As such, the policy is illegal.
>>If everyone is told that they cannot post items, then *everybody's*
>>right to free speech is being infringed. It makes absolutely no
>>difference how uniformly the rule is applied.
>>
>>The only thing that can make a difference is the *basis* for the
>>infringement. If it is a legitimate time, place, and manner
>>restriction--based upon, say, a fire hazard (as Carl mentioned),
>>then the restriction is legal (and justified in many people's eyes).
>>
>>But that is not the case here. The school has made it very clear
>>that this rule is for the express purpose of stifling expression.
>>Therefore. it is not a legitimate time, place and manner restriction.
>
>Many universities have established "free speech areas"; for example,
>UKentucky's FSA is a concrete patio behind the Student Center. With
>an established FSA, they have established a policy that the remainder
>of the University's public physical plant is NOT a free speech area. Is this
>censorship? I don't think so.
You seem to want to draw this question out into a much larger, hypothetical
question as to whether university's (or government, in general) may impose
any time, place and manner restrictions.
The answer is that, in general, they may--subject to significant restrictions.
However, the *general* question is wholly irrelevant to the case at hand. The
case at hand involves a clear case of a restriction with the intended purpose
of suppressing protected expression. Such a restriction is absolutely
contradictory of SC precedent.
>At this university, some bulletin boards are uncontrolled; others, notably
>those in administrative areas, are controlled by prior approval of materials
>to be posted. Is this censorship? I think not.
This, again, speaks to the general question, and not to the case at hand.
Assuming that the adminstrative control is used to protect the bulletin board
to be used for its intended purpose (to publicize adminstrative information--
which could easily be impeded/prevented by uncontrolled posting) then the
policy is likely a constitutionally acceptable time, place and manner
restriction.
Is it censorship? I would say it is--but that's a whole other argument.
(I believe "censorship" is an objective term, and should not be confused with
the common subjective implication that "censorship" means "censorship with
bad intentions...")
>I would suspect that ISU has such an FSA (if this is not the case, I
>hope that an ISU poster will correct me). I would also suspect that
>they have some uncontrolled "public access" bulletin boards. If they
>have provided a specific free speech area (or areas), are they perfor-
>ming censorship by making other areas "off limits" to free speech?
>Again, I don't think so.
Again, this is all irrelevant to the case at hand.
>"Guaranteeing free speech" does not equal "providing the soapbox".
I mentioned in my previous post that tradition could form contractual
obligations on the part of the university. It can als create constitutional
obligations.
"In places which by long tradition or by government fiat have have been
devoted to assembly and debate, the rights of the state to limit expressive
activity are sharply circumscribed." (Perry Educ. Assn. v. Perry Local
Educ. Assn, 1983)
This is the so-called "public forum." While it may not be applicable to
dorm doors, it is certainly applicable to other university properties. (This
relates to some of the general questions you have posed.) For example, a
public school could not prohibit expression on its quad, even if it has
designated other areas for such expression.
Perry goes on to say, "A second category consists of public property which the
state has opened for use by the public as a place for expressive activity.
The Constitution forbids a state to enforce certain exclusions from a forum
generally open to the public even if it was not required to create the forum
in the first place.... Although a state is not required to indefinitely
retain the open character of the facility, as long as it does so it does so it
is bound by the same standards as apply in a traditional public forum."
This is the so-called "limited public forum." As Carl has pointed out the
San Diego case establishes that, under the constitution, such forums may not
be closed for the purpose of suppressing expression.
Even if the dorm doors did not fit into the "limited public forum," Perry
continues to state:
"Public property which is not by tradition or designation a forum for public
communication is governed by different standards. We have recognized that the
'First Amendment does not guarantee access to property simply because it is
owned or controlled by the government.' ...In addition to time, place and
manner regulations, the state may reserve the forum for its intended
purposes, communicative or otherwise, as long as the regulation on speech is
reasonable and not an effort to suppress expression merely because public
officials oppose the speaker's view...."
It is clear that under *any* of these classifications, the ISU policy would
be unconstitutional, since its purpose *is* to suppress expression.
This has been the basis for my claims. As a general principle, a university
may not adopt *any* regulation with the intended purpose of suppressing
protected expression.
>When I was a living in the UKentucky dorms 10 years ago, our Resident Advisor
>explained the policy in this manner:
>
> "Your room is your leased property; therefore, we have nothing to
> do with the materials you may post/hang there. The hallway, how-
> ever, is a public area; the University controls the public areas
> of this university. Therefore, don't hang anything other than
> message boards on the outside of your door."
>
>(I don't know if this is still the policy; I haven't set foot in a UK dorm
> in about 6 years.)
Is UK a public school? If it were, then this policy is clearly questionable.
You have the right to hang a message board on your door, but you don't
have a right to post other materials? Certainly, they can't claim that
posting other materials somehow impedes the intended purpose of the hall.
And what if someone were to post a message board and place a message on
it that UK didn't like?
But again, these are just interesting questions. There are not relevant to
the ISU case.
>>In any case, as I said before, a state school's contractual "rights" cannot
>>violate the constitution.
>
>Yes, but can the individual's right *as a tenant* supersede the University's
>control of public areas?
But your assumption that the university is exercising a "right" is mistaken.
The university has *no* right to "control...public areas" for the purpose
of suppressing protected expression.
>Keep in mind that the University may have an obligation to provide a cer-
>tain living environment for its tenants. Does a University student, living
>in University dormitories, have a "right" to live in the dorms without being
>harassed?
Yes. But we are not talking about suppression of *unprotected* expression
(of which, harassment is one example). We are talking about suppression of
*protected* expression.
>I always believed that my rights as a dorm resident ended at my doorway.
>The halls are a public area; as such, they are subject to more stringent
>control by the University.
Well, I don't see how what you believed reflects upon the legal issues in
this case.
>The legality of this policy has not been established.
I beg to differ. SC precedent is quite clear on these matters, as I
have pointed out on numerous occassions. Furthermore, as I mentioned in
my original post, the Central NY chapter of the ACLU informed me that they
had successfully settled this matter in a very similar case at SUNY
Binghamton.
I don't think there is any real question here.
>Don't get me wrong -- I, too, believe that free speech is an essential
>priciple in academia. However, I believe that the University has, in
>some cases, the right (and the obligation) to limit the UNIVERSAL ap-
>plication of free speech rights. Again, the university isn't obliga-
>ted to provide the soapbox.
But it is its obligation to *not* impede, prohibit or prevent free expression.
In this case, there is no question that this is the intent of the
university.
>>>Great! They're going to involve students in the formal policy.
>>
>>I'm sure that the university will be glad to know that at least *some*
>>people are so easily convinced that students will play a meaningful
>>role in the development of the policy. (That is, by means other
>>than protest, etc.)
>
>{++sarcasm;}
>You're absolutely right! We should never believe ANYTHING a University
>says (or puts in print). Heck, I guess we shouldn't believe ANYTHING in
>the Student Code or University Bulletin.
>{--sarcasm;}
You may be sarcastic, but in point of fact, most students can expect that
it is very likely that their university will fail to (willingly) uphold their
own regulations whenever the breeze blows the wrong way.
>>It is now the students' responsibility to show the university that to
>>take such censorial action will produce a far greater headache...
>
>I'll certainly agree that this will prove an interesting case, if/when
>it reaches court.
Actually, the headache that I meant was more along the lines of student
protests, bad publicity, etc. This is one of the most powerful tools that
the ISU students will have.
University administration wish to avoid controversy like the plague. They
probably viewed the door posts as a potential liability, which they figured
they would remove. The students need to show them that their censorial
policy is an even greater liability for the university...
>>>"fire safety"? Where did that come from?
>>
>>Once the university is challenged and learns that they cannot legally
>>institute such a ban, they might want to come up with a legitimate
>>time, place and manner restriction to replace the illegal policy--
>>for example, claiming that posts present a fire hazard.
>>
>>Carl is simply pointing out that, given the letter already in hand, it
>>will be obvious that any such attempt is merely a facade--and therefore,
>>would also be illegal (see Cornelius v. NAACP).
>
>I understand; however, Carl seems to be jumping the gun a bit, eh?
>Why should we assume that such a (farcical) ruse will be attempted?
I don't agree. From personal experience, I can tell you that Syracuse
University challenged a posting on my door as "in bad taste" and within
days (after I identified the policy as clearly improper under SU regulations)
changed their tune to say that the policy prohibited *all* non-academic
postings. (Despite the fact that better than thirty other doors in that
building had non-academic postings, and despite the fact that the building
administration removed two items from my door, but left one (non-academic)
up!!)
As it happens, the latter alleged policy (even if it were actually in effect)
still violated SU regulations. But regardless, it should be clear that an
expectation for false claims about policies that are merely a facade for
illegal suppression is quite reasonable.
>>>Anyway, they have not overstepped their authority, IMHO.
>>
>>I'm glad your opinion is humble, because from a legal standpoint, it
>>is clearly wrong. (Once again, assuming that ISU is indeed a public
>>institution.)
>
>Thanks so much for the words of wisdom, but I've learned that very
>few things are "clearly wrong" in legal proceedings.
But some things are, and this is one.
>>But they have absolutely no right to do so. They cannot arbitrarily pick and
>>choose where they will allow expression.
>
>This is incorrect. Many government agencies prohibit "free expression"
>in their buildings. When was the last time you saw a "Bush for President"
>banner in a post office? In fact, when was the last time you saw a federal
>employee wearing a political button on the job? Is that censorship?
>
>Government agencies may CERTAINLY restrict the nature of "free speech" in
>buildings under their jurisdiction.
Not true. Certain facilities, such as jails, have been found to have such
broad rights. But these principles do not generally apply.
In any case, I must once again point out that these generally considerations
do not apply to the *specific* case at hand.
>The University of Kentucky's Free Speech Area is a good example. UKentucky
>established this area as an uncontrolled free speech area; after this action,
>they placed limits on the use of other university areas for free speech ex-
>pression(s).
If the UK were public, and it tried to create such forums and prohibit
expression on, say, the main quad (a traditional "public forum") then it
would certainly not be constitutional.
>>Does the government have a right to tell you that you can freely
>>express yourself--so long as you confine that expression to within
>>your house?
>
>If you're living in some government housing, such as military barracks,
>they most certainly can. "Guaranteeing free speech" does not equal
>"providing the soapbox".
Enough with irrelevant analogies! Lots of things could be said about this.
Most importantly, you give up *many* of your constitutional rights upon
entering the military (wrt dealings with the military).
>>At a state university, the adminstration *is* the government!!
>
>Whew! This misconception seems to raise its ugly head time and time
>again. The administration of a state university is subject to the
>same legal authorities as anyone else. Don't you believe that this
>matter will go to court? If so, it won't be ISU's Legal Department;
>it will be the local/county/district/circuit Court!
No. You are misinterpreting my statement. I am *not* saying that a
state university is *like* the government. I am saying it literally *is*
the government. The adminstration of a state university *is* an arm of
the state government. This is why the constitutional protections apply at
state universities. (They do not apply to private universities.)
>>>[.....my "no alcohol" policy dilemma deleted.....]
>>Whether such was legal or not, I don't know. But in any case, it is not
>>a comparable case, since you do not have a constitutionally protected
>>right to have alcohol in your dormitory.
>
>Whoa there! I have legal permission, as a adult, to possess alcohol.
>The Residence Halls contract, however, superseded that legal permission.
>Why aren't these two cases comparable? Remember, we're talking about
>two separate sets of responsibilities -- your free speech rights and the
>landlord-tenant relationship between you and the University. The former
>is clearly Constitutional, but the latter seems to lean into contract law.
Once again, you demonstrate a basic lack of understanding of our legal system.
No law says that you have a "right" to possess alcohol. (At least not
explicitly. I suppose you could argue for it under rights to privacy,
ninth amendment, etc--but for the sake of argument lets ignore these unlikely
possibilities.) Therefore, there is no immediate reason why a contractual
provision could not restrict possession of alcohol.
The same is not true of expression. You *do* have a constitutional right
to free expression that the *government* may not restrict. The government
cannot create a contractual right to do something which the constitution
prohibits. (At least, not without a compelling state interest--but there
is no such interest in the ISU policy.)
>>Furthermore, as far as housing contracts go--some states, like New York
>>for example, recognize that most leases (such as those offered by
>>Universities) are offered on a take it or leave it basis (which constitutes
>>a form of duress).
>
>Sure, I'll agree with this. You are under no obligation to live in University
>housing. In fact, there are hundreds, if not thousands, of low-cost apartments
>in close proximity to most universities (at least, there are in Lexington, Lou-
>isville, Richmond, and Bowling Green, KY). The University is not obligated to
>provide housing to you; as a result, they have the right to establish certain
>policies for their tenants.
You say "I'll agree with this" but then you go on to suggest the opposite.
As I stated, in *some* states this *is* how leases are treated. This doesn't
mean that *all* lease provisions will be struck. It just means that they
may be struck.
Furthermore, certain things simply can *not* be done contractually at all.
For example, you cannot sell yourself into slavery.
In any case, your statement about not having to live in university housing is
simply not correct for many (perhaps most) universities which require
freshman (and sometimes others) to live in university housing.
>>As such, various provisions may be found totally
>>unenforceable when challenged.
>
>The legal challenge should prove interesting......I've seen dozens of harsh
>lease restrictions upheld in court.
Notice the word 'may.' The statements I have made regarding this are based
upon a brochure on tenant rights put out by the NYS Attorney General's
office. I assume that is a fairly reliable source.
>>>Don't the owners of a forum have a right to close it?
>>
>>Not when the "owner" of the forum is an arm of the government--then their
>>"right" to close the forum are significantly resricted. (See my previous
>>posts.)
>
>Forums (fora?) evolve.
>
>If something evolves into a forum, might it not be improper?
>
>If the University had clearly established doors as a forum, this policy
>would be improper. If doors have, over time, evolved as a forum, the
>University should have the right to deterimine the propriety of such use.
Well, the rights you think the university *should* have do not correspond
with the law. Perhaps you're morally right (I don't think so--but that's just
my opinion) but the law does not support this position.
>The notion that any forum which may evolve should automatically receive
>full protection bothers me a bit.........how would you feel if people
>began marching through the halls of the Classroom Building, chanting
>slogans, while you were attempting to teach?
It would be a legitimate time, place and manner restriction to restrict
this expression, provided that the purpose is to keep the expression from
interfering with the classroom building's intended purpose.
Once again, this is not applicable to the specific case at hand.
--
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?"
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Sep 22 18:04:43 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@dante.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.admin.policy] Computer use policy document
Message-ID: <1992Sep22.215658.21411@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1992 21:56:58 GMT
[A repost - Carl]
From caf-talk Caf Sep 22 18:04:43 1992
From: deke@ee.rochester.edu (Dikran Kassabian)
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy
Subject: Computer use policy document
Message-ID: <1992Sep22.180913.3740@ee.rochester.edu>
Date: 22 Sep 92 18:09:13 GMT
I'm interested in finding out whether there is a single repository, such as
an anonymous ftp site, of "University Computer Use Policy"-type documents.
I wouldn't be surprised to find out that there is a FAQ posting that appears
here and that such information is listed, but I haven't seen it yet.
I apologize for re-initiating discussion on Policy documents, as I know that
this has been handled here many times before.
My Department/College has a Computer Use Policy document in place, and a
faculty member is objecting to a certain section, included below. There is
no argument with other sections on User rights and responsibilities.
| 3. Staff Responsibilities
|
| In general, the staff of the College of Engineering computer facili-
| ties has the responsibility of enforcing the rights and responsibil-
| ities of the users of those facilities to the best of their ability.
| Several specific staff responsibilities are listed below.
|
| 3.1 Staff should not make use of facilities intended for instruc-
| tional purposes unless this is necessary to correct an urgent
| problem. Instructional facilities should never be used for
| day-to-day staff work unless these facilities are currently being
| under-utilized by students.
|
| 3.2 Staff should at all times respect the privacy of user files,
| mail, and printer listings (but see Staff Rights below).
|
| 4. Staff Rights
|
| The staff in general have the right to do whatever is necessary to
| carry out their responsibility to keep the College computing
| resources operating and available.
|
| 4.1 The networked computer environment in the College of
| Engineering is a facility provided to faculty, staff, and stu-
| dents to enable them to accomplish certain tasks required by
| their roles within the College and the University. There is an
| acknowledged trade-off between the absolute right of privacy of a
| user, and the need of the staff to gather necessary information
| to ensure the continued functioning of this College-wide resource.
|
| In the normal course of system administration, the staff may have
| to examine files, mail, and printer listings to gather sufficient
| information to diagnose and correct problems with system software,
| or to determine if a user is acting in violation of the policies set
| forth in this document. The staff has the right to do this.
|
| As mentioned in Staff Responsibilities, above, the staff has an
| obligation to maintain the privacy of a user's files, mail, and
| printer listings.
The objection stems from a concern that the staff has claimed an independent
"police power." Such is certainly not the intent. As I am often the local
champion of individual rights and freedoms, there's a certain irony here.
I'm very willing to be convinced that the statements are too strong. At the
same time, the reality of system administration is such that we occasionally
need to do exactly what is stated in the second paragraph of 4.1. Automated
security programs for use on Unix systems, like COPS and Crack, may read user
.rhosts or .plan or .forward files, check permissions, etc. We must examine
the results. Printer problems or mail problems may require us to look at
files in printer or mail spool areas. We absolutely do not snoop around.
But we have a job to do. We acknowledge the trade-off.
I'd like to see how this is handled in other documents, and to get feedback
from others on the balance between the absolute right of privacy, and the
need of the staff to gather necessary information to ensure continued
functioning and proper operation in a complex networked computing environment.
Thanks,
------
^Deke Kassabian, deke@ee.rochester.edu or ur-valhalla!deke
Mgr of College Computing and Dir of the Computing and Networking Group
University of Rochester College of Engineering (+1 716-275-3106)
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Sep 22 18:04:45 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@dante.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [news.admin.policy] Re: What do you do about alt.*
Message-ID: <1992Sep22.215458.13849@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1992 21:54:58 GMT
[A repost - Carl]
From caf-talk Caf Sep 22 18:04:45 1992
From: bin@primate.wisc.edu (Brain in Neutral)
Newsgroups: news.admin.policy
Subject: Re: What do you do about alt.*
Date: 22 Sep 1992 12:31:11 -0500
Message-ID: <19nl8vINN38g@uakari.primate.wisc.edu>
> I am interested in what various sites do about the alt
> hierarchy.
Easy. I refuse it.
--
Paul DuBois
dubois@primate.wisc.edu
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Sep 22 20:12:21 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: sbrack@jupiter.cse.UTOLEDO.edu (Steven S. Brack)
Subject: (none)
Message-ID: <9209230011.AA11009@jupiter.cse.utoledo.edu>
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1992 16:11:40 GMT
To: caf-talk@eff.org
Subject: Re: What do you do about alt.*
Newsgroups: news.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
In article <1992Sep20.031417.13992@m.cs.uiuc.edu>, kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
: kmcvay@oneb.almanac.bc.ca (Ken Mcvay) writes:
:
: [...]
: >Sex-related groups are not available to users under the age of majority.
: >Once they are at or beyond 21, I don't care what they look at, say, or do,
: >so long as they respect my right to peaceful co-existence :-)
: [...]
:
: In the U.S. the age of majority for most things in most places is 18.
: (I thought it was about the same in Canada.
:
In sexual matters, at least, from my work with unconventional
relationships, the age of consent for all but the most invasive
of acts is 14. (If you really want to know whaich, email me.)
I can't see Canada being more strict with erotica thjan it is
with intercourse itself.
:
: [...]
: >I make the decision, but then I have the freedom of doing that - it's my
: >system. College and university managers don't have that freedom, since they
: >have to tolerate the goodie-two-shoes who are permitted to do their thinking
: >for them, and often must remove "politicly sensitive" material from their
:
: >I'm not much on censorship, although I confess to being less than perfect in
: >this regard. I suspect society would be better off if the goodie-two-shoes
: >folks fucked right off, and left the rest of us to read whatever we chose
: >to. A university that censors the information available isn't entitled to
: >the respect it would normally enjoy. Cowardice is difficult to reconcile,
: >even for the "educated" among us who run our institutions of higher
: >learning.
Bravo! A copy of this post is being sent to the "goodie two-shoes"
admins at Ohio State who banned me.
As I said before, the only reason colleges & universities, not to
mention governments get away with censorship & various other offenses
is because *WE, THE PEOPLE* let them. We must begin to exercise some
control over the monsters we've created.
: Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
--
Steven S. Brack | B0 w+f s+k+c+v a!v | sbrack@jupiter.cse.utoledo.edu
2021 Roanwood Drive \____________________/ STU0061@uoft01.utoledo.edu
Toledo, OH 43613-1605 / \ brack@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu
+1 419 GR4 1010 | MY OWN OPINIONS | sbrack@maine.cse.utoledo.edu
From caf-talk Caf Sep 22 21:21:23 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.admin.policy] Re: Computer use policy document
Message-ID: <1992Sep23.012157.15755@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1992 01:21:57 GMT
[A repost - Carl]
From caf-talk Caf Sep 22 21:21:23 1992
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy
From: jaw@owlnet.rice.edu (Joseph A. Watters)
Subject: Re: Computer use policy document
Message-ID:
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1992 22:32:42 GMT
In article , deke@ee.rochester.edu (Dikran Kassabian) writes:
|> I'm interested in finding out whether there is a single repository, such as
|> an anonymous ftp site, of "University Computer Use Policy"-type documents.
|> I wouldn't be surprised to find out that there is a FAQ posting that appears
|> here and that such information is listed, but I haven't seen it yet.
Carl Kadie maintains just such an archive at ftp.eff.org in the
directory /pub/academic/policies. I'm sure he'll respond to your post
with more information on it.
|>
|> My Department/College has a Computer Use Policy document in place, and a
|> faculty member is objecting to a certain section, included below. There is
|> no argument with other sections on User rights and responsibilities.
|>
|>
|> | 3. Staff Responsibilities
|> |
|> | In general, the staff of the College of Engineering computer facili-
|> | ties has the responsibility of enforcing the rights and responsibil-
|> | ities of the users of those facilities to the best of their ability.
|> | Several specific staff responsibilities are listed below.
|> |
[...]
|> |
|> | 3.2 Staff should at all times respect the privacy of user files,
|> | mail, and printer listings (but see Staff Rights below).
|> |
|> | 4. Staff Rights
|> |
[...]
|> | 4.1 The networked computer environment in the College of
|> | Engineering is a facility provided to faculty, staff, and stu-
|> | dents to enable them to accomplish certain tasks required by
|> | their roles within the College and the University. There is an
|> | acknowledged trade-off between the absolute right of privacy of a
|> | user, and the need of the staff to gather necessary information
|> | to ensure the continued functioning of this College-wide resource.
Your policy is making assumptions about privacy that may unecessarily
hinder you. See my comments below.
|> |
|> | In the normal course of system administration, the staff may have
|> | to examine files, mail, and printer listings to gather sufficient
|> | information to diagnose and correct problems with system software,
|> | or to determine if a user is acting in violation of the policies set
|> | forth in this document. The staff has the right to do this.
|> |
|> | As mentioned in Staff Responsibilities, above, the staff has an
|> | obligation to maintain the privacy of a user's files, mail, and
|> | printer listings.
|>
You need to make a distinction between privacy and confidentiality.
Privacy means that you will not look at it. Confidentiality means
that if you see it in the course of your job, you will not disclose it
to other people. Generally speaking, staff should respect privacy
when possible. If job duties require staff to break privacy, then
they should be bound by confidentiality considerations. Even
confidentiality is not absolute. There are circumstances when what
you see should be disclosed to appropriate third parties. For
example, evidence of a crime. In a university, a more pertinent one
would be evidence of cheating. You need to establish the rules and
procedures for what a staff person should do in this case.
|>
|> The objection stems from a concern that the staff has claimed an independent
|> "police power." Such is certainly not the intent. As I am often the local
|> champion of individual rights and freedoms, there's a certain irony here.
It is unclear from your posting which specific words in the policy lead
the faculty member to think you have claimed "police power".
Regardless, the faculty member's objection raises a question for him or
her. Presumably he or she objects to a staff "police power" because
he/she thinks that the staff should not have that power. Well then,
who should at Rochester? Policies are next to worthless if there is no
mechanism or authority to enforce them. If not the computing center
staff, then who? The faculty? I suggest that the faculty member
cannot simply object to staff "police power" without also providing an
alternative for who will have the police power.
|>
|> I'd like to see how this is handled in other documents, and to get feedback
|> from others on the balance between the absolute right of privacy, and the
|> need of the staff to gather necessary information to ensure continued
|> functioning and proper operation in a complex networked computing environment.
Herein lies a potential problem for you in creating policy and
enforcing it. There is no absolute right of privacy. There is a
limited right of privacy. This means that while a person has an
expectation of privacy regarding their data files or information, there
are conditions under which a duly authorized person may access those
files without obtaining the owner's consent first. The task for you
and your users is to define the conditions of access such that you can
balance the user's expectation of privacy with the need to keep the
system operating effectively. Most legislation that deals with privacy
of information (e.g. Electronic Communications Privacy Act, Federal
Educational Records Privacy Act) works to create a balance between
privacy and need-to-know by authorized persons. Since the privacy
rights of an individual are strong but limited, don't hinder yourself
unecessarily by starting off with the assumption that you must chip
away at an "absolute" right. I also suggest that if you have not read
the two pieces of Federal legislation that I mentioned above, that you
do so. They apply to your facility. They will also give you valuable
insight into how the privacy vs. access balance is created and
maintained.
--
Joseph A. Watters, Jr. jaw@owlnet.rice.edu
Deputy Director, Owlnet
Rice University
Houston, Texas
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Sep 22 21:21:25 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.admin.policy] Re: Computer use policy document
Message-ID: <1992Sep23.012235.27272@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1992 01:22:35 GMT
[A repost - Carl]
From caf-talk Caf Sep 22 21:21:25 1992
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy
From: ldg@scott.skidmore.edu (Leo D. Geoffrion)
Subject: Re: Computer use policy document
Message-ID: <1992Sep23.001942.8273@scott.skidmore.edu>
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1992 00:19:42 GMT
Your distinction between privacy and confidentiality is well put.
I'd like to offer a few additional thoughts.
1. "Dragnets" are inappropriate management behavior.
Police do not have the right to search every home just because they
suspect that a criminal is hiding in one of them. Likewise, system
managers should not sweep through large numbers of accounts looking
for suspicious code or messages.
2. You must have reasonable suspicion.
Before police can search a home, they must obtain a search warrant
(excluding "hot pursuit" issues). Likewise, you should need to
justify your suspicions to an outside body before you go digging into
someone's account.
3. Use your established review groups.
Most universities have a student conduct board and many have some form
of Professional conduct committee for faculty/staff. Use them to help
keep your practices in sync with the rest of the institution.
Here's our policy in a nutshell:
We only look at mail files with prior consent of the user.
If we suspect an intrusion or improper usage, we
a. backup all files to mag tape
b. Present our suspicions to the apprpriate committee
c. If they deem it appropriate, we examine the tapes to
document the violation and present our evidence to
the committee.
d. If they deem our suspicions without basis, we
recycle the tapes as usual.
Incidentally, there is also an escape clause for immediate system
crises (the equivalent of "hot pursuit"), but we are required to
consult with the committee as soon as possible thereafter.
So far, our policy has been formally adopted by the College, but has
not yet been tested by any actual incidents. Faculty were very
pleased by the adoption process and appreciated the attempts to
integrate the practices into the established judicial procedures of
the college.
--
Leo Geoffrion, Skidmore College Computer Services, Saratoga Springs, NY 12866
EMAIL: ldg@scott.skidmore.edu VOICE: (518) 584-5000 Ext. 2919
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Sep 22 21:43:14 1992
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Computer use policy document
Message-ID: <1992Sep23.013636.7238@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1992 01:36:36 GMT
Two other replies make good, broad points. This critique will be much
narrower.
deke@ee.rochester.edu (Dikran Kassabian) writes:
>| 4. Staff Rights
This should be "Staff Authority". Not everyone cares about the
difference between rights and authority, but those of us who do take
the difference very seriously. Basically, a "right" is something that
is inherent or self-evident, for example, reasonable freedom of
speech. "Authority" is authorization given institutions such as
governments and universities so that they can do something for us, for
example, protect our rights.
>| The staff in general have the right to do whatever is necessary to
>| carry out their responsibility to keep the College computing
>| resources operating and available.
"Whatever is necessary"? Even replacing "right" with "authority", this
is much to strong. You're claiming more authority for the computer
staff than professors have. It sounds as though the computer staff are
not bound by the University's general polices on due process, privacy,
freedom of expression, and participation.
I'm enclosing an FAQ on policy.
- Carl
=============== ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/faq/policy ===============
q: What guidance is there for creating or evaluating a computer policy?
a: The first thing to do is to get a copy of your university's Student
Code. It often protects student and staff freedom of expression,
privacy, and due process rights. It is not just a piece of paper; it
is part of the legal contract between student and university. Any new
policy must be consistent with this policy.
You may also find the unofficial, draft Statement on Computers and
Academic Freedom (CAF) useful. Also the CAF Archive contains the
policies of many schools, some with critiques.
Finally, you may wish to look at the CAF Law archive. Speech
restrictions at public universities have been struck down consistently
by recent federal courts. Also, the courts require due process before
serious punishments can be applied to students.
- Carl Kadie
ANNOTATED REFERENCES
(All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.)
=================
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).
=================
statements/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/README
=================
Computer Policy and Critiques Archive
[part of the Computers and Academic Freedom (CAF) Archive
[part of the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) Archive]]
This is a collection of the computer policies of many schools and
networks. The collection also includes critiques of some of the
policies.
The archive is accessible via anonymous ftp and email. Ftp to
ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4). It is in directory "pub/academic/policies".
For email access, send email to archive-server@eff.org. Include the
line:
send acad-freedom/policies
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). Directory "widener" contains
additional policies (but not critiques).
=================
widener/README
=================
This directory is a mirror of ftp.cs.widener.edu:pub/cud/schools/*.
It is a collection of the computer polices of many schools. For a
description of the file see file "widener/Index". Also see directory
"policies".
=================
law/README
=================
CAF Law 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 law related to computers and academic
freedom. It includes both case law and legislation.
The archive is accessible via anonymous ftp and email. Ftp to
ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4). It is in directory "pub/academic/law".
For email access, send email to archive-server@eff.org. Include the
line:
send acad-freedom/law
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 or to make contributions, contact Carl Kadie
(kadie@eff.org).
=================
law/uwm-post-v-u-of-wisconsin
=================
The full text of UWM POST v. U. of Wisconsin. This recent district
court ruling goes into detail about the difference between protected
offensive expression and illegal harassment. It even mentions email.
It concludes: "The founding fathers of this nation produced a
remarkable document in the Constitution but it was ratified only with
the promise of the Bill of Rights. The First Amendment is central to
our concept of freedom. The God-given "unalienable rights" that the
infant nation rallied to in the Declaration of Independence can be
preserved only if their application is rigorously analyzed.
The problems of bigotry and discrimination sought to be addressed here
are real and truly corrosive of the educational environment. But
freedom of speech is almost absolute in our land and the only
restriction the fighting words doctrine can abide is that based on the
fear of violent reaction. Content-based prohibitions such as that in
the UW Rule, however well intended, simply cannot survive the
screening which our Constitution demands."
=================
law/goss-v-lopez.fischer
=================
Comments from _Teacher's and the Law_, 3rd edition, by Louis Fischer,
et al. Published in 1991 by Longman. It reports that the Supreme Court
says that some modicum of due process is necessary unless the matter
is trivial or there is an emergency.
=================
=================
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/statements/caf-statement
pub/academic/statements/caf-statement.critique
pub/academic/policies/README
pub/academic/widener/README
pub/academic/law/README
pub/academic/law/uwm-post-v-u-of-wisconsin
pub/academic/law/goss-v-lopez.fischer
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 caf-statement
send acad-freedom/statements caf-statement.critique
send acad-freedom/policies README
send acad-freedom/widener README
send acad-freedom/law README
send acad-freedom/law uwm-post-v-u-of-wisconsin
send acad-freedom/law goss-v-lopez.fischer
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Sep 23 11:23:20 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: MS12@jaguar.uofs.edu (SENSITIVE NAKED MAN)
Subject: subscribe
Message-ID: <920923112401.6c46@JAGUAR.UCS.UOFS.EDU>
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1992 07:24:01 GMT
subscribe me please. thanks.
From caf-talk Caf Sep 23 15:02:44 1992
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (J. S. Greenfield)
Subject: Re: Censorship at Iowa State
Message-ID: <1992Sep22.234229.6383@newstand.syr.edu>
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 92 23:42:28 EDT
In article <1992Sep22.124022.5229@ms.uky.edu> morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
>
>That's "can form", not "automatically form". I'd say that any opposition
>to this measure will determine if the tradition warrants protection.
Did I suggest otherwise?? I think not. I presented a quote which made
it quite clear that traditions *can* form obligations, but not *always*.
Furthermore, I have consistently pointed out that the contractual
obligations are of little concern, since the constitutional issues here
are quite clear.
You keep arguing until you are blue in the face about how you think things
should be, and to question how things may generalize to all possible
situations, but the fact of the matter is that you have presented absolutely
nothing (in the way of precedents, for example) to contradict the many
precedents that have been cited which indicate this case to be very clear
cut.
Your arguments will remain incredibly unpersuasive until you are able to
provide at least *some* evidence supporting your claims that those
precedents do not make the case very clear-cut.
>>But contractual rights or responsibilities are really of little import
>>to this case, since it is a public institution, and as such, must comply
>>with a higher law--the Constitution. (If it were a private institution,
>>then contractual rights would be the crux of the matter, and we would need
>>to know a lot more about the school's rules and regulations.)
>
>This may wind up as a challenge to the ISU Student Code. I'm guessing
>that this policy is based, in part, on some provision of the Student Code;
>*that's* where the legal scissors will make their cuts.
So what is your point?
>>In my previous posts, I have already demonstrated that the ISU policy
>>violates first amendment protections.
>
>I have demonstrated that the First Amendment does not automatically apply
>to every possible environment.
So what? This is not news to anyone here. What you need to do is to
demonstrate that the First Amendment does not apply to THIS PARTICULAR
CASE.
So far, all of the (IMHO quite compelling) factual evidence presented has
supported the illegality of the ISU rule.
Your entire argument has been based upon your own principles of fairplay
and drawing analogies from other situations (to suggest that the matter
is not clear-cut). That would be fine if we had no precedents that shed
light directly upon the issues in this case--but we *do* have many
precedents shedding direct light upon the issues here, so your analogies
are useless.
>>How so? I don't know too many administrations that issue restraining
>>orders to allow materials/behavior alleged to be harassment (by the university
>>--and remember, the university has to decide to prosecute any complaints
>>filed by students) to continue (to be posted) pending judicial disposition.
>
>Gee, isn't that "punishment before the establishment of guilt"? When a
>system admin suggested locking out users after discovering evidence of
>cracking, there was a great hue and cry about "punishment before guilt".
I expressed no opinion as to whether this was good or bad. I merely made
a statement of fact. As a simple matter of fact, I don't know too many
adminstrations that demonstrate great concern for the possibility that
they will infringe someone's rights prior to a hearing. I fully expect
that most adminstrations would/will suppress expression first, ask questions
later.
>>Stifling expression is not in the best interest of anyone, particularly in
>>academia. This is a time-tested principle recognized by both our
>>constitution and by the fundamental precepts of academic freedom and
>>integrity.
>
>"Academic freedom", as I understand it, applies to the academic process.
>I fail to see how we can apply "academic freedom" to something outside of
>the academic process.
>
>This is a valid First Amendment issue; I don't think it falls under the
>banner of "academic freedom".
I suggest you take a look a some University statements regarding academic
freedom. They are generally catch-alls that encompass the general
priciple of free expression. The whole point is that *nobody* should be
in position to judge what is and what is not "academic" in nature.
For example, a statement on academic freedom relating to graduate students
as SU states, "The graduate student is entitled, both in and out of University
classes, to the freedom of thought abd expression that is enjoyed by the
senior scholars in the University."
It also states, "When speaking, writing, or acting as a citizen, he or she
should be free from censorship or discipline..."
Note the explicit references to freedom of expression and freedom from
censorship and discipline.
>>>Does the university have a resposibility (contractual or otherwise) to
>>>provide a proper living environment for its students? Does an oft-harassed
>>>minority have a right, under the University's codes/policies, to demand a
>>>living environment free from harassment?
>>
>>The university may (and may have a responsibility to) stifle and punish
>>*harassment*. That someone finds something *offensive* does not make
>>it harassment, however.
>
>Hmmm.......if I saw " go home" on my neighbor's door every
>evening, I'd say that its presence is harassment.
I'd be interested in hearing your reasoning, since there would be very little
support in law for your conclusion that a single note posted on a single
door, making a general ethnic slur, would constitute harassment.
Regradless, the matter at hand has little to do with the question of
what constitutes "harassment." If you were correct, then the university
could have taken individual action to remove those ethnic slurs, without
violating the first amendment.
>>Subject to constitutional restrictions. This policy cannot pass
>>constitutional muster.
>
>It may not pass muster; then, again, it may pass with flying colors.
Once again, your argument that there is some reasonable doubt regarding
the legality of this policy will remain unconvincing until you provide
some evidence to refute the precedents that have already been cited.
>>>I believe that it is, especially if it already contains clauses concerning
>>>the 'display of personal materials on University property'.
>>
>>A *legal* contract cannot contradict the *supreme* law of the land.
>
>Yes, it can. Again, consider the example of political speech. I cannot
>engage in political activities while wearing my Army uniform, nor can I
>hold political meetings in the barracks. The terms of my enlistment con-
>tract (and the regulations I must obey) prohibit such action. There's a
>direct example of a *legal* contract which contradicts my First Amendment
>rights.
I think you will find the military is treated as a whole other ball game,
and while I'm no expert, I have sincere doubts that principle of contract
law are used to establish the position that you lose most of your rights
when you join the military. Certainly, any such argument would not
apply to anyone who did not join the military voluntarily. (And when there
was a draft, conscripts lost their rights just like anyone else...)
>Notice that I can exercise my rights after changing out of uniform (or
>holding the meeting off-post); the contract/regulations merely control
>the *manner and location* in which I can exercise those rights.
Even this is not true. Military people can see (and have seen) punishment
for exercising those "rights" even when out of uniform or off-duty.
(Recently, for example, a high-ranking officer was dishonorably discharged
as a result of some transfer of pornographic (but, to the best of my
knowledge, legally protected) materials from or to his home (personal)
computer. Also, some marines (I believe) were punished for performing
skits and wearing t-shirts critical of Pat Schroeder, related to the
tailhook scandal.)
>>[....example of university vehicle and university employees deleted....]
>>The same can not be said of a dorm door. It cannot be reasonably argued
>>that materials posted on a dormitory door could be construed to
>>represent the position of the University or its agent (barring, perhaps,
>>an RA's door).
>
>No, but I can reasonably argue that a dormitory hallway is not a proper
>place for free expression. Identical arguments have been used to argue that
>classrooms, libraries, and laboratories are improper as well.....
If you can reasonably argue that there is some legitimate reason for a
time, place and manner restriction then please do so.
To this point, there is absolutely no evidence that the posting of items
on one's doors impedes the building from being used for its intended
purpose.
Furthermore, I'm a little concerned about your non-chalance in the
phrase "a dormitory hallway is not the proper place for free expression."
Does this mean any expression? Does this mean that you will have to
cover up your t-shirt when walking down the hall? Does this mean that
you will have to keep your door constantly closed, lest any expressive
material in your room be visible from the hallway?
--
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 Sep 23 16:35:49 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.censorship] Re: More ISU Censorship info
Message-ID: <1992Sep23.203226.8853@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1992 20:32:26 GMT
[A repost - Carl]
From caf-talk Caf Sep 23 16:35:49 1992
From: greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (J. S. Greenfield)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
Subject: Re: More ISU Censorship info
Message-ID: <1992Sep22.145446.3277@newstand.syr.edu>
Date: 22 Sep 92 18:54:46 GMT
In article maanstro@iastate.edu (Mark A Anstrom) writes:
>
>The Dept of Residence has not said anything about the nature of the posts that
>prompted this policy, save that they were "racist" and "denegrating". Rumor
>has it that the student committee has been formed. However, the names of its
>members are not known, nor have I seen anywhere on campus information on how
>to join. Nothing at all has been said about any of its deliberations or
>recommendations made regarding the policy. It would not surprise me at all if
>we hear nothing until a new policy is approved by the Dept of Residence. It
>would have the veneer of student approval and would therefore be stronger in
>a court of law.
I wouldn't worry too much about that. First of all, the courts aren't dumb--
and they can tell as easily as you or I the difference between *real*
student input and what you have here.
Furthermore, even if there were genuine student input (say, elected
representatives) it wouldn't make any difference. The policy would still
be illegal.
>The ISU Daily printed an editorial I wrote on September 2. It's long, so I
>won't post it in its intirety, unless somebody wants me to. In summary, I
>cited Tinker v Des Moines, RAV v. St Paul, Ward v. RAR, and Frisby v. Schultz
>to show that the door policy was unconstitutional. I also sent a copy to the
>director of residence, so I know he has seen it. No response has been made,
>either in private or in public.
In the future, you might also add the district court cases of UWM Post v.
University if Wisconsin, and Doe v. Michigan which dealt directly with
hate speech codes at universities.
--
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?"
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Sep 24 14:26:21 1992
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan)
Subject: Re: Censorship at Iowa State
Message-ID: <1992Sep24.142117.1316@ms.uky.edu>
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1992 18:21:17 GMT
[This posting is somewhat long (about 220 lines)]
greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (J. S. Greenfield) writes:
>morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
>
>You keep arguing until you are blue in the face about how you think things
>should be, and to question how things may generalize to all possible
>situations, but the fact of the matter is that you have presented absolutely
>nothing (in the way of precedents, for example) to contradict the many
>precedents that have been cited which indicate this case to be very clear
>cut.
I've never claimed to be a lawyer, nor have I played one on TV. 8)
I'll certainly agree that I've been talking about how I *think* things
*should* be; it would be foolish of me to deny it. Isn't that what
discussion is all about?
We could all post precedents until we're "blue in the face", but pre-
cedent is not always honored. Roe v. Wade, anyone? How about Miranda
v. Arizona? Both of these "landmark" precedents have been modified,
partially reversed, or ignored in recent years.
Why shouldn't we discuss opinions? Court decisions are nothing more
than a collective opinion; the ebb and flow of US law is indicative
of this "opinion flux".
>Your arguments will remain incredibly unpersuasive until you are able to
>provide at least *some* evidence supporting your claims that those
>precedents do not make the case very clear-cut.
I mentioned several pieces of evidence; unfortunately, I was told that
each case was "special", and that Constitutional rights were not being
violated (despite assertions that Constitutional rights cannot be signed
away). Specifically, I mentioned the limitations on free speech by
military personnel and (civilian) Federal and State employees.
[One decision, cited by (I think) Carl Kadie, decreed that military
bases (and, presumably, the buildings therein) were of a "special
purpose". Does the nature and purpose of college dormitories qualify
as a "special purpose"? If so, does that change our perspective? ]
What about the "graduation prayer" case? Doesn't that place limits on
free expression? (There's a case, by the way, in which "tradition" was
found lacking in a Constitutional decision).
There's even a case in which a teacher was forbidden to read his Bible
(to himself, not as classwork) during school. Is that a proper "time,
place, and manner" restriction? (This case may still be in the courts;
my memory is a bit fuzzy)
>>This may wind up as a challenge to the ISU Student Code. I'm guessing
>>that this policy is based, in part, on some provision of the Student Code;
>>*that's* where the legal scissors will make their cuts.
>
>So what is your point?
I was attempting to point out that those who protest this policy may
be targeting the wrong policy/code. It helps to know one's proper
target.
>>"Academic freedom", as I understand it, applies to the academic process.
>>I fail to see how we can apply "academic freedom" to something outside of
>>the academic process.
>>
>>This is a valid First Amendment issue; I don't think it falls under the
>>banner of "academic freedom".
>
>I suggest you take a look a some University statements regarding academic
>freedom. They are generally catch-alls that encompass the general
>priciple of free expression. The whole point is that *nobody* should be
>in position to judge what is and what is not "academic" in nature.
>
>[ portions of SU academic-freedom policy deleted ]
>
>Note the explicit references to freedom of expression and freedom from
>censorship and discipline.
If "academic freedom" is not limited to academic activities, isn't it
just another name for "Constitutional rights"? If so, why is it dis-
cussed so widely?
To me, "academic freedom" means "the specific applications of Constitutional
law to academic procedures/situations". There are certainly situations unique
to academia which make these specific applications necessary; such topics as
the selection of research areas, publication and presentation of results, and
expression of controversial subjects *in the classroom* are all examples of con-
cerns peculiar to academia.
I don't think that "anything occuring on a college/university campus" is
automatically covered by "academic freedom".
>>Hmmm.......if I saw " go home" on my neighbor's door every
>>evening, I'd say that its presence is harassment.
>
>I'd be interested in hearing your reasoning, since there would be very little
>support in law for your conclusion that a single note posted on a single
>door, making a general ethnic slur, would constitute harassment.
Didn't a staff member at Arizona State receive a sexual harassment
complaint after posting a "Sexual Harassment Consent Form" in his
working area as a joke? What happened in that case? (Again, my
memory fails)
Courts have upheld the right of private companies to forbid certain forms
of expression in the working environment. A New York City construction
company recently (last year, actually) forced its employees to remove
"pinup calendars" from their offices. This case actually went to court;
if you really need it, I can try to find the citation.
These actions lead me to ask several questions:
- Does the difference between "working environment" and "living
environment" require a different interpretation of the "supreme
law of the land"?
- Does the difference between the private sector and the government
require a different interpretation?
- Does the transient, "special purpose" nature of dormitories
make a difference?
If the answer to any of these is "yes", then our Constitutional rights
are not as absolute as some would lead us to believe.
>>No, but I can reasonably argue that a dormitory hallway is not a proper
>>place for free expression. Identical arguments have been used to argue that
>>classrooms, libraries, and laboratories are improper as well.....
>
>If you can reasonably argue that there is some legitimate reason for a
>time, place and manner restriction then please do so.
The University provides dormitory rooms for several purposes; can it be
argued that the provision of "an environment conducive to academic progress"
and "peaceful living conditions" are two such purposes?
Examples of such a "conducive living environment" include (in my experience;
your mileage may vary):
- Enforced "quiet hours"
- Computer network wiring in each room
- Computer laboratories in the dorm
- Periodic room inspections (cleanliness/property maintenance)
- "No alcohol" policies
- "No solicitation" policies
- "Doors locked to non-residents after XX pm" policies
- Enforced opposite-sex visitation policies
I would say that all of these policies are implemented in the hopes of
developing a "conducive environment". It could be argued that some of
these restrictions infringe on individual rights, but I am unaware of
any successful challenges to these policies.
Free expression, in many cases, leads to debate; this is well and good.
However, does such debate help provide a "conducive environment" for those
parties who are not involved?
Free expression can also lead to hostility; I think we've all seen that
happen. Is an atmosphere of such hostility (even when implied) suitable
in such an environment? For that matter, is the constant presence of *any*
"free expression" material conducive to one's living environment? Even the
simple expression of one's beliefs/opinions can cause an uncomfortable atmos-
phere. Suppose that my roommate is a pro-life activist; if he hangs posters
of aborted fetuses that physically nauseate me, do I have any recourse
whatsoever? Has my roommate infringed on my "living environment"? What
if he puts the poster on our door? Should the other occupants of the
building be required to see it every single day? Does it infringe on their
living environment?
There are many "general public areas" at every university which are
suitable (or even designated) for such activities. In fact, most
dormitories have "common areas" or lounges which are suitable for
these purposes. (This has been true for every dormitory I've ever
used or visited)
Assuming that such "general public areas" exist, why can't "time,
place, and manner" restrictions be valid for actual living areas?
>To this point, there is absolutely no evidence that the posting of items
>on one's doors impedes the building from being used for its intended
>purpose.
If the "intended purpose" includes the provision of a comfortable personal
study/living environment, unlimited free expression can definitely
impede its use.
>Furthermore, I'm a little concerned about your non-chalance in the
>phrase "a dormitory hallway is not the proper place for free expression."
>Does this mean any expression? Does this mean that you will have to
>cover up your t-shirt when walking down the hall?
No, because you (and your t-shirt) are going somewhere; I'm assuming
that you aren't going to emphatically present your t-shirt to every
passing person. Wall/door postings, on the other hand, are emphatic
statements, repeatedly presented to each and every passer-by.
>Does this mean that
>you will have to keep your door constantly closed, lest any expressive
>material in your room be visible from the hallway?
I can see a distinction between your "personal living space" and the
public hallway. If I don't like the material in your room, I won't go
into your room; I can't escape material on your door, and I'll have to see
it each and every time I walk down the hallway.
--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 Sep 24 17:51:12 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [] File 3--How to Talk to the Press
Message-ID: <1992Sep24.214823.6453@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1992 21:48:23 GMT
[A repost - Carl]
From caf-talk Caf Sep 24 17:51:12 1992
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 92 19:30:08 EDT
From: Mike Godwin
Subject: File 3--How to Talk to the Press
((It was rumored that, immediately after his appearance on
an NBC news show, that John (Cap'n Crunch) Draper was
released from his job for reasons of fiscal expediency.
Whether true or not, this seems like a good time to reprint
Mike Godwin's advice on "How to Talk to the Press" for those
who are in the rolodexes of media folk)).
This is a file I posted to an Austin BBS back when I gave the SJG
story to the local papers.
104: Talking to Media, part 1
By: Johnny Mnemonic [54]
Date: 11:07 3/18/90
As I've promised on another message base, here's the beginning of
discussion of how to bring stories to the media.
Since I keep thinking of different things people ought to know about
how to take a story to the media, I'm going to make this a multi-post
discussion.
1) TRY TO THINK LIKE THE REPORTER YOU'RE TALKING TO.
One of the things that happens when people know about an event or
series of events that may make a good news story is that they assume
the importance of the story will be obvious to anyone.
Sometimes this is true (when the tipster knows about a murder, for
example). Often it's not.
So, when I tell a reporter about a story I think she should want to
cover, I make sure to stress the aspects of the story that are likely
to interest that reporter and/or the readers of her publication. For
example, when I spoke to Kyle Pope about the Illuminati seizure, I
stressed the following:
a) Steve Jackson Games is an Austin business that may end up being
damaged by the seizure.
b) Nobody has given this story anything like major coverage in the
national media, or (so far as I knew) in other geographic areas. (I
was telling him he had a major "scoop" opportunity.)
c) There are some very dramatic aspects to this story. (I told him
about the 20-year-old LoD member who woke up on the morning of March 1
with a gun pointed at him by a Secret Service agent.)
2) IF YOU'RE GOING TO MEET THE REPORTER IN PERSON, TRY TO BRING
SOMETHING ON PAPER.
There are lots of good reasons to follow this rule:
a) Believe it or not, but people take stuff on paper a little more
seriously than the spoken word. It's nice to give the reporter
something that lends substance to what you're saying, even if the
substance is printouts from your own computer.
b) It makes life easier for the reporter, who doesn't have to write
down every single thing you tell her. Reporters like to have materials
they can use for reference as they research and write their stories.
c) It helps you remember to say everything you want to say. Nothing is
more frustrating than trying to get a reporter interested in your
story, getting inconclusive results, and then realizing later that you
should have told the reporter about something. (E.g., "Damn! I forgot
to tell him what 'cyberpunk' means, so he won't know how the federal
agents misinterpreted the manual.")
When I went to the Statesman, I took edited printouts of discussions
from Flight, from SMOF, and from comp.dcom.telecom on Usenet. I also
took some private Email I had received, with the names of the senders
deleted. And I took my copy of the WHOLE EARTH REVIEW with the article
on Usenet. My object was to convey to him the scale of concern about
the seizures, plus give him enough background to be able to ask
reasonably informed questions of the people he talked to.
3) GIVE THE REPORTER OTHER PEOPLE TO TALK TO, IF POSSIBLE.
Two basic justifications for this rule: First, it'll help your
credibility (especially if you don't already know the reporter
personally). Second, multiple sources or witnesses usually enable the
reporter to filter out what is mere opinion or speculation from what
everybody actually knows for a fact.
4) DON'T ASSUME THAT THE REPORTER WILL COVER THE STORY THE WAY YOU'D
LIKE HER TO.
Reporters' accuracy and focus in a story are constrained by several
factors:
a) The amount of available time. Reporters have to be quick studies,
and often have to assimilate a complex story in a hurry. This
necessarily increases the risk of inaccuracy in a story, and gives you
an even greater reason to follow Rules 1 through 3.
2) The reporters' obligation to be fair. This means they have to talk
to people on the other side of the issues from you. This in turn means
that you're unlikely to get a story that represents or promotes your
point of view at the expense of those who oppose you.
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Sep 25 10:20:20 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.censorship,soc.college
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Abstract of CAF-News 02.42
Message-ID: <1992Sep25.142011.10428@eff.org>
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1992 14:20:11 GMT
This is an abstract for the most recent "Computers and Academic
Freedom News" (CAF-News). Information about CAF-News follows the
abstract. The full CAF-News is available via anonymous ftp or by
email. For ftp access, do an anonymous ftp to ftp.eff.org
(192.88.144.4). Get file "pub/academic/news/cafv02n42".
The full CAF-News is also available via email. Send email to
archive-server@eff.org. Include the line:
send caf-news cafv02n42
--- begin abstract ---
[Week ending August 30th, 1992
========================== KEY ================================
The words after the numbers are a short PARAPHRASES of the
articles, or QUOTES from them, NOT AN OBJECTIVE SUMMARY and
not necessarily my opinion.
===============================================================
Notes 1 to 5 are responses to a query about policies regarding
possession and use of programs, such as Crack and COPS, which might be
used for unacceptable purposes.
1. At Rice University attempting to gain unauthorized access to a
computer system is prohibited, but merely possessing copies of Crack
or COPS is not. Indeed we regularly use these programs in order to
find and fix potential security holes.
2. Prohibiting users from possessing and using certain programs
doesn't really violate the ideal of free expression, nor does it
amount to banning legal material. Academic freedom is not equivalent
to a blank cheque, and a university is under no obligation to support
any interest shown by students in subjects which they are not enrolled
to study.
<1992Aug26.174017.1077@ms.uky.edu>
3. System administrators have obligations to the wider community of
network users. They should take steps to ensure that their system
cannot be used as a base from which to attack other systems, and they
should cooperate with other administrators in investigating suspected
cracking activities.
<1992Aug27.115813.28741@ms.uky.edu>
4. Users and system administrators should cooperate in formulating a
policy regarding permissible and impermissible system usage, but the
administrator, having the best knowledge of the system, should have
the final say.
<1992Aug28.140932.657@ms.uky.edu>
5. Usage restrictions should be decided upon by a consensus between
all the people involved. Real conflicts of interest are rare and most
cases can be easily settled if all parties are willing to cooperate.
<1992Aug28.153108.2829@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de>
The remaining articles are on miscellaneous subjects.
6. "If you enjoy full communications privileges (and wish them
extended to others), you WILL, eventually, be offended. It's part of
the virtual territory." If you don't wish to be offended you should
take steps to avoid reading anything that might offend you.
<1992Aug24.92353.3596@ms.uky.edu>
7. A letter to the editor of the _Globe & Mail_ condemns the
University of Manitoba's decision to ban alt.sex* and argues the
merits of free speech and free access to information.
<1992Aug24.205712.7453@zooid.guild.org>
8. In response to a Baylor student's query, Carl Kadie says that it is
unlikely that Baylor University screens Usenet articles one-by-one as
"such an undertaking would be very expensive. On the other hand, it is
not unlikely that Baylor excludes newsgroups based on the school's
religious doctrine."
<1992Aug27.150751.11322@eff.org>
9. Here is the text of the "Proposed Privacy Guidelines for the NREN"
presented by Marc Rotenberg of CPSR (Computer Professionals for Social
Responsibility) at the Open Forum on Library and Information Service's
Roles in the National Research and Education Network
<1992Aug30.202432.22763@eff.org>
- Elizabeth]
--- end abstract ---
CAF-News is a weekly digest of notes from CAF-talk.
CAF-News is available as newsgroup alt.comp.acad-freedom.news or via
email. If you read newsgroups but your site doesn't get
alt.comp.acad-freedom.news, (politely) ask your sys admin to
subscribe. For info on email delivery, send email to
archive-server@eff.org. Include the line
send acad-freedom caf
Back issues of CAF-News are available via anonymous ftp or via email.
Ftp to ftp.eff.org. The directory is pub/academic/news. For
information about email access to the archive, send an email note to
archive-server@eff.org. Include the lines:
send acad-freedom README
help
index
Disclaimer: This CAF-News abstract was compiled by a guest editor or a
regular editor (Paul Joslin, Elizabeth M. Reid, Adam C. Gross, Mark C.
Sheehan, John F. Nixon or Carl M. Kadie). It is not an EFF
publication. The views an editor expresses and editorial decisions he
or she makes are his or her own.
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Sep 25 18:21:04 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.org.eff.talk] Re: Sysops' Top 20 Legal Questions
Message-ID: <1992Sep25.221352.8701@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1992 22:13:52 GMT
[A repost - Carl]
From caf-talk Caf Sep 25 18:21:04 1992
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: Sysops' Top 20 Legal Questions
Message-ID: <1992Sep25.154248.12407@eff.org>
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1992 15:42:48 GMT
In article <1992Sep25.014246.12597@wixer.cactus.org> bladex@wixer.cactus.org (David Smith) writes:
>For example, Cubby v. Compuserve does nothing to protect individual sysops.
>We are still 100% liable for all information on our systems. The argument
>that Compuserve is so large that it is infeasible to control it's content
>does not apply to one-to-small node BBS Systems. What is the extent of a
>sysop's liability for what is posted/uploaded/distributed on his system?
>Does the sysop need to have personal knowledge to be responsible? (Many
>signs point to the answer being no.......)
David, where are you getting this analysis of Cubby v. CompuServe? What
you write here has nothing to do with the analysis the federal district
court employed in arriving at a summary judgment for CompuServe.
Nothing in this case is based on the *size* of CompuServe--it's based
on the *procedure* by which CompuServe makes public postings available.
Specifically, CompuServe does not pre-screen postings before it makes them
available to the public. (In this, it is like most small BBSs.) Although
the court in Cubby dwells on the fact that there was a subcontractor
moderating the forum, the legal analysis itself rests on a Supreme Court
case dating from the 1950s: Smith v. California. In Smith, the Supreme
Court held that a bookstore operator or book distributor cannot be
Constitutionally held liable for obscenity in the publications sold or
distributed, absent some proof of *knowledge* that the particular material
is illegal. This reasoning was later extended to libel cases. (Cubby v.
CompuServe is a libel case.)
The question raised by CompuServe in Cubby is whether CompuServe is more
like a bookseller or distributor, or more like a newspaper publisher. The
court held that CompuServe was more like the former, and thus deserving of
the First Amendment protections articulated in Smith.
Now, so long as a BBS is operated in the manner that most BBSs are
operated in, and so long as the function of the BBS is not itself illegal
(this is the loophole that allows for the prosecution of adult-book
sellers and distributors), the holding in Smith should protect the small
BBS as well as CompuServe.
David, did you actually read Cubby?
>Access to Adult Material : What steps do the *COURTS* consider to be
>"reasonable measures" to protect against the control of pornography to minors.
>What procedures should or shouldn't be adopted? Voice validation? Age
>statement? One common tactic is requiring a photocopy of a driver's license
>and/or birth certificate....which is just goes way too far, imo. [Hell if I'm
>sending someone I don't know my TDL].
This is a reasonable question, which I will include in the list.
>This isn't a FAQ-type question, but an advanced excercise for the reader that
>Ed Cavazos and I have discussed: suppose I take a photography of a 9 year
>old in a bathing suit, digitally scan it, and via the wonders of a paint
>program, make her appear nude. Is this pornography?
It's not a violation of the federal child-porn statutes, which require the
sexual use of a child.
>The FBI prosecutes photographs of minors on the basis that if a picture is
>taken, the child had to be involved, and thus was injured. [For the same
>reason, no text is illegal since it is merely considered to be the fantasy of
>the author/reader]. With digitizing, how can you tell whether the child is
>from the original photograph or not?
The FBI prosecutes photographs of minors only if the taking of those
photographs violated the specific provisions of 18 USC 2252 et seq., which
include "the use of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct."
The issue of what constitutes evidence is a separate one, and you
are correct to note that digital modification of imagery creates
evidentiary problems.
>Back to FAQ-type questions. Is a BBS a private entity, a public entity, or
>some weird hybrid?
It depends. There is no rule classifying all BBSs as one kind of entity or
another. Whether it's public or private will turn on the facts of a
particular BBS. Perhaps I don't understand the question. In any case, I
will forward this, along with your other questions, to the legal group.
>Slander & defamation : does it exist in cyberspace?
Yes.
> I believe that the
>ruling was that Compuserve was the wrong entity to sue; that Cubby still had
>the right to sue the publisher of the ectronic newsletter who they accused of
>making the false & defamatory statements.
Again, you are distorting what the ruling in Cubby is.
> If I say Qmodem is a piece of shit
>compared to Telemate, how close am I towards the thin ice?
Not very. To get on thin ice in "business libel" you have to make a
specific factual claim that is demonstrably incorrect. This statement
wouldn't count.
> Where are the
>boundaries over expression of opinion? [This may be a generic question,
>simply applied to the media of telecommunications].
Basically, don't libel or slander, and don't violate copyright.
>Well these are just the topics I have on the top of my head. I'm co-sysop of
>a BBS that's been running a BBS/Modem Law Net for about a year or so now, and
>these are what comes to the surface. The main problem we have on that net
>is people weighing in without any understanding whatsoever of the legal
>concerns about liability, access of minors to pornography, etc. Save us
We'll do our best.
--Mike
--
Mike Godwin, |"The meeting of two personalities is like the contact
mnemonic@eff.org| of two chemical substances: if there is any reaction,
(617) 864-0665 | both are transformed."
EFF, Cambridge | --Carl Jung
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Sep 25 18:21:06 1992
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Sysops' Top 20 Legal Questions
Message-ID: <1992Sep25.221837.14728@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1992 22:18:37 GMT
bladex@wixer.cactus.org (David Smith) writes:
[...]
>For example, Cubby v. Compuserve [...]
[...]
>Access to Adult Material : What steps do the *COURTS* consider to be
>"reasonable measures" to protect against the control of pornography to minors.
[...]
(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/dial-information-vs-barr
=================
Newspaper story saying: "The Supreme Court Monday allowed the
government to require adults wanting to take part in ``dial-a-porn''
telephone dialogue to first take a series of steps meant to keep
children from joining in the sexually explicit conversations."
=================
law/obscenity.iowa
=================
IOWA CODE CHAPTER 728 - OBSCENITY
It explicitly exempts public 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/law/cubby-v-compuserv
pub/academic/law/dial-information-vs-barr
pub/academic/law/obscenity.iowa
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 dial-information-vs-barr
send acad-freedom/law obscenity.iowa
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Sep 26 00:05:36 1992
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (J. S. Greenfield)
Subject: Re: Censorship at Iowa State
Message-ID: <1992Sep25.090831.5189@newstand.syr.edu>
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 92 09:08:31 EDT
In article <1992Sep24.142117.1316@ms.uky.edu> morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
>I'll certainly agree that I've been talking about how I *think* things
>*should* be; it would be foolish of me to deny it. Isn't that what
>discussion is all about?
I don't think so. We *could* discuss what things should be, but by my
understanding, this discussion has been a debate of whether or not the ISU
policy is *legal*. Whether or not it is "good" has been a side-issue.
>We could all post precedents until we're "blue in the face", but pre-
>cedent is not always honored. Roe v. Wade, anyone? How about Miranda
>v. Arizona? Both of these "landmark" precedents have been modified,
>partially reversed, or ignored in recent years.
That's fine, except a number of recent decision specifically identify
college campuses as places where the very **highest** level of protection
of expression must be afforded.
Furthermore, two major District Court cases directly struck down "hate
speech" codes at public universities. The recent SC decisions in RAV v.
St. Paul and the Webster case (abortion gag-rule) explicitly support
the understanding that Carl and I have presented that regarding the
legality of such codes, and the standard applied to academic institutions.
>Why shouldn't we discuss opinions? Court decisions are nothing more
>than a collective opinion; the ebb and flow of US law is indicative
>of this "opinion flux".
Ain't been much "ebb and flow" in this area of US law for quite some time...
>I mentioned several pieces of evidence; unfortunately, I was told that
>each case was "special", and that Constitutional rights were not being
>violated (despite assertions that Constitutional rights cannot be signed
>away). Specifically, I mentioned the limitations on free speech by
>military personnel and (civilian) Federal and State employees.
Once again, what one may try to generalize from other examples is not
particularly interesting where numerous precedents regarding the case at
hand are already available. The generalization would only be helpful here
if we had a void of judicial precedent regarding university situations.
>[One decision, cited by (I think) Carl Kadie, decreed that military
> bases (and, presumably, the buildings therein) were of a "special
> purpose". Does the nature and purpose of college dormitories qualify
> as a "special purpose"? If so, does that change our perspective? ]
Every indication is the exact opposite.
>What about the "graduation prayer" case? Doesn't that place limits on
>free expression? (There's a case, by the way, in which "tradition" was
>found lacking in a Constitutional decision).
No, this is only a limitation upon those acting as an *agent* of the state.
Those who are not acting as agents of the state may express themselves freely.
(Surely, one can't expect to have total freedom to do whatever they please
*while* the are (at that instant in time) acting on the state's behalf.)
>There's even a case in which a teacher was forbidden to read his Bible
>(to himself, not as classwork) during school. Is that a proper "time,
>place, and manner" restriction? (This case may still be in the courts;
>my memory is a bit fuzzy)
From what I know of this case, it sounds quite misguided. It is, however,
a lone district court case, which does not appear to be supported by any other
precedents. Furthermore, I am quite hard-pressed to see how this reflects
upon the free expression issues of this case.
>If "academic freedom" is not limited to academic activities, isn't it
>just another name for "Constitutional rights"? If so, why is it dis-
>cussed so widely?
>
>To me, "academic freedom" means "the specific applications of Constitutional
>law to academic procedures/situations". There are certainly situations unique
>to academia which make these specific applications necessary; such topics as
>the selection of research areas, publication and presentation of results, and
>expression of controversial subjects *in the classroom* are all examples of con-
>cerns peculiar to academia.
The constitution has little to do with academic freedom, other that the fact
that protections upon expression contained within the constitution encompass
the same realm to a great extent. Certainly, academic freedom is a fundamental
principle recognized, understood, and protected (at least in name) at many
private institutions, where the constitution has no effect upon such matters.
Furthermore, I don't understand your comment about "in the classroom" at
all. Certainly, you don't mean *literally* in the classroom, since that
is just one **small** part of academic discourse at a university.
I have yet to see an academic freedom policy that limits its scope to "the
classroom."
>I don't think that "anything occuring on a college/university campus" is
>automatically covered by "academic freedom".
What you don't seem to recognize is that the protections of academic freedom
are generally recognized to sweep very broadly because of the inherent
difficulty in distinguishing between "legitimate" academic pursuits, and
ohter things.
For example, consider a professor who researches genetic differences between
men/women, various ethnic groups. Suppose the professor's research leads
(the professor, at least) to the conclusion that there are differences in
intelligence among such groups.
Such work is bound to be extremely controversial, and branded by many
(perhaps correctly, or perhaps not) as a simple example of sexism/racism/
bigotry-of-some-sort.
How do you classify that?
BTW, we're not in class, and this discussion is hardly related to my main area
of study, but I consider this discussion to be very much within the realm of
academic discourse.
The principle of "academic freedom" has been made necessarily "over-" broad
to avoid the alternative hazard of having some academic pursuits lose
protection due to subjective evaluation of their "merit."
>>>Hmmm.......if I saw " go home" on my neighbor's door every
>>>evening, I'd say that its presence is harassment.
>>
>>I'd be interested in hearing your reasoning, since there would be very little
>>support in law for your conclusion that a single note posted on a single
>>door, making a general ethnic slur, would constitute harassment.
>
>Didn't a staff member at Arizona State receive a sexual harassment
>complaint after posting a "Sexual Harassment Consent Form" in his
>working area as a joke? What happened in that case? (Again, my
>memory fails)
First of all, this was at the University of Arizona (a private school).
Secondly, anybody can *claim* anything. I could claim that your post,
by mentioning the phrase "Sexual Harassment Consent Form" constitutes
sexual harassment. That doesn't make it so.
In any case, I have read Meritor v. Vinson (the landmark case that established
"hostile environment" as an actionable form of sexual harassment) and things
like the SHCF clearly do not meet the standard. (I have had the opportunity/
need to explore these issues, since my own problems with censorship of my
door stemmed from a copy of the SHCF posted with the words "BANNED AT
UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA.")
In the specific case of the SHCF, the form is not even specific to one gender
or another (or even one sexual orientation, or another) and as such, simply
could not constitute discrimination from a technical standpoint. (Recall
that sexual harassment is illegal under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964 as a form of gender-based discrimination.)
For the more general case, this is what the Meritor court had to say:
...not all workplace conduct that may be described as
"harassment" affects a "term, condition, or privilege" of
employment within the meaning of Title VII. See Rogers v. EEOC,
supra, at 238 ("mere utterance of an ethnic or racial epithet
which engenders offensive feelings in an employee" would not
affect the conditions of employment to sufficiently significant
degree to violate Title VII); [citation omitted] For sexual
harassment to be actionable, it must be sufficiently severe or
pervasive "to alter the conditions of [the victim's] employment
and create an abusive working environment."
Also the District Court in the UWM Post v. U. Wisconsin specifically held
that Title VII did not apply to educational settings, and as a general
principle stated:
Finally, even if the legal duties set forth in Meritor applied to this
case, they would not make the UW rule constitutional. Since Title VII
is only a statute, it cannot supersede the requirements of the First
Amendment.
In fact, I think that the SHCF is a classic example of how a legitimate
expression of dissent (whether one likes the sarcastic tone, or not) is
readily classified by many and particularly, those in power) as "offensive"
or "harassment" for the purpose of trying to stifle that dissent.
>Courts have upheld the right of private companies to forbid certain forms
>of expression in the working environment. A New York City construction
>company recently (last year, actually) forced its employees to remove
>"pinup calendars" from their offices. This case actually went to court;
>if you really need it, I can try to find the citation.
I don't see where a case involving a private company has any bearing on this
case. We have already agreed that if ISU were private, then the constitutional
considerations would be irrelevant.
>>>No, but I can reasonably argue that a dormitory hallway is not a proper
>>>place for free expression. Identical arguments have been used to argue that
>>>classrooms, libraries, and laboratories are improper as well.....
>>
>>If you can reasonably argue that there is some legitimate reason for a
>>time, place and manner restriction then please do so.
>
>The University provides dormitory rooms for several purposes; can it be
>argued that the provision of "an environment conducive to academic progress"
>and "peaceful living conditions" are two such purposes?
>
>[...]
>
>I would say that all of these policies are implemented in the hopes of
>developing a "conducive environment". It could be argued that some of
>these restrictions infringe on individual rights, but I am unaware of
>any successful challenges to these policies.
I don't think that any of your examples rise to the level of expression. But
in any case, let's pursue this line of reasoning.
You suggest that the purpose of the regulation is to maintain an environment
"conducive to academic progress." But you still need to demonstrate several
things. Two of particular interest are, (from Tinker):
In order for the State in the person of school officials to justify
prohibition of a particular expression of opinion, it must be able to
show that its action was caused by something more than a mere desire
to avoid the discomfort and unpleasantness that always accompany an
unpopular viewpoint. Certainly where there is no finding and no
showing that engagin in the forbidden conduct would "materially and
substantially interfere with the requirements of appropriate discipline
in the operation of the school," the prohibition cannot be sustained....
and (from Clark) the statement that a time, place and manner restriction
can be constitutional only,
if the regulation is narrowly drawn to further a substantial governmental
interest, and if the interest is unrelated to the suppression of free
speech.
I would suggest that, even if the so-called "offensive" posts could be legally
restricted, the ISU policy sweeps far, far too broadly to meet these standards.
>Free expression, in many cases, leads to debate; this is well and good.
>However, does such debate help provide a "conducive environment" for those
>parties who are not involved?
>
>Free expression can also lead to hostility; I think we've all seen that
>happen. Is an atmosphere of such hostility (even when implied) suitable
>in such an environment? For that matter, is the constant presence of *any*
>"free expression" material conducive to one's living environment? Even the
>simple expression of one's beliefs/opinions can cause an uncomfortable atmos-
>phere. Suppose that my roommate is a pro-life activist; if he hangs posters
>of aborted fetuses that physically nauseate me, do I have any recourse
>whatsoever? Has my roommate infringed on my "living environment"? What
>if he puts the poster on our door? Should the other occupants of the
>building be required to see it every single day? Does it infringe on their
>living environment?
You don't appear to have any right to not be "uncomfortable." The infringement
must rise to a much higher level.
Furthermore, what if the posting were (as in the case of the SHCF) in very
small type, such that an individual would have to decide to stop and read
the post, in order to see what it had to say. Does this eliminate your
argument about being "required" to see the material (in that case)?
>There are many "general public areas" at every university which are
>suitable (or even designated) for such activities. In fact, most
>dormitories have "common areas" or lounges which are suitable for
>these purposes. (This has been true for every dormitory I've ever
>used or visited)
So people should be able to post materials (and "offensive" materials) in
the student lounge?
>>Furthermore, I'm a little concerned about your non-chalance in the
>>phrase "a dormitory hallway is not the proper place for free expression."
>>Does this mean any expression? Does this mean that you will have to
>>cover up your t-shirt when walking down the hall?
>
>No, because you (and your t-shirt) are going somewhere; I'm assuming
>that you aren't going to emphatically present your t-shirt to every
>passing person. Wall/door postings, on the other hand, are emphatic
>statements, repeatedly presented to each and every passer-by.
I don't follow this logic **at all**!
Only statements which are unemphatic are protected? How perverse! :)
>>Does this mean that
>>you will have to keep your door constantly closed, lest any expressive
>>material in your room be visible from the hallway?
>
>I can see a distinction between your "personal living space" and the
>public hallway. If I don't like the material in your room, I won't go
>into your room; I can't escape material on your door, and I'll have to see
>it each and every time I walk down the hallway.
Personally, I believe that one's door is equivalent to one's t-shirt.
The door, itself, is certainly not a public forum of any sort (just as
your t-shirt is not). It is for the exclusive use of the occupants. The
*hallway* is the forum.
What if I decide to leave my door open, and place a stand with my post
in the doorway, so that it is visible from the hall?
What if I have a little window, and I post material inside the window, so
that it is visible from outside?
I think that the distinctions you are making are quite ad hoc.
--
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 Sep 26 05:15:16 1992
From: leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,misc.legal.computing
Subject: Re: MCI E-mail Snooping
Message-ID: <1992Sep26.070035.7902@qiclab.scn.rain.com>
Date: 26 Sep 92 07:00:35 GMT
morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
>I cannot envision a situation in which the "common carrier", MCI, would
>have the need or the contractual right to read its customers' email.
Depends on the internals of MCIMail.
There might be a problem that trashed part of the address, so they'd
have to examine the rest of the "packet" to see where it goes.
--
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 Sep 26 05:15:18 1992
From: leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,misc.legal.computing
Subject: Re: MCI E-mail Snooping
Message-ID: <1992Sep26.070306.8031@qiclab.scn.rain.com>
Date: 26 Sep 92 07:03:06 GMT
komarimf@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Mark Komarinski) writes:
>But is it legal to have a sysadmin read user's email? NO! At least it
>shouldn't be. Even though MCI was carrying the mail, they should have
>no right to read user's messages. Then again, if he didn't want anyone
>to read his messages, he should have deleted them before closing his
>account. This may be a very interesting case.
Sorry, but according to the laws, a sysadmin can read *anything* if
it is necessary to keep the system working or to fix a problem.
He shouldn't *snoop*.
There is a difference.
--
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 Sep 26 09:02:36 1992
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Censorship at Iowa State
Message-ID: <1992Sep26.130228.5143@eff.org>
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 13:02:28 GMT
greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (J. S. Greenfield) writes:
[...]
>the University of Arizona (a private school).
[...]
I think U of Arizona is a state school. Tuition last year was $1528,
pretty inexpensive and to the dollar exactly the same as Arizona State
University. [Source: U.S. News' college guide]
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Sep 26 09:09:16 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [] Electronic mail confusion
Message-ID: <1992Sep26.130910.5200@eff.org>
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 13:09:10 GMT
[A repost - Carl]
From caf-talk Caf Sep 26 09:09:16 1992
From: "Stewart T. Fleming"
Subject: Electronic mail confusion
Message-Id:
I wasn't going to contribute this until I read David Paschich's contribution
(Wed, 16 Sep 1992) concerning potential confusion of users on electronic
networks.
Working within a computer-oriented university department, a lot of internal
work (memos, reminders etc) gets distributed by e-mail. Such distribution
lists exist for staff, postgraduate students and so on. This afternoon, a
postgrad. student was surprised to receive complaints from postgraduates at a
neighbouring institution about an e-mail message he had sent for internal
distribution.
What had happened was that an electronic mail address had become truncated and
passed through the smart address matching path. None of the machines on that
path flagged the address as invalid and the mail was sent on up the chain.
When it reached the other institution, it was distributed to their
postgraduates.
This incident illustrates the potential for embarrassing disclosures,
particularly in view of two results from a recent e-mail survey we carried out:
Q: Have you sent or received confidential/sensitive information by
electronic mail ?
Yes: 75%
Q: Was the material encrypted or protected in any way ?
No: 91%
Do you know where your e-mail messages are ?
STF
sfleming@uk.ac.hw.cs or sfleming@cs.hw.ac.uk or ...uknet!cs.hw.ac.uk!sfleming
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Sep 26 11:56:42 1992
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,misc.legal.computing
From: jbotz@mtholyoke.edu (Jurgen Botz)
Subject: Re: MCI E-mail Snooping
Message-ID:
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 15:53:14 GMT
In article <1992Sep26.070306.8031@qiclab.scn.rain.com> 70465.203@compuserve.com writes:
>Sorry, but according to the laws, a sysadmin can read *anything* if
>it is necessary to keep the system working or to fix a problem.
"According to the laws..." Which laws are these? Can you provide
specific references?
I suppose that in general it probably is legal, or more to the point, in
general it is probably not illegal. However, MCI may be a different
case, as they are already a common carrier... are they allowed to listen
in on telephone conversations?
--
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 Sep 26 16:02:57 1992
Newsgroups: uiuc.civil-liberty,alt.censorship,misc.legal,alt.politics.correct,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: "Multiculturalism and the First Amendment"
Message-ID: <1992Sep26.195343.28231@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 19:53:43 GMT
Author and newspaper person (publisher? reporter?) Nat Hentoff spoke
on "Multiculturalism and the First Amendment" this morning at the U.
of Illinois. The occasion was the keynote speech for the Library
School's Centennial.
Here are my scattered notes from that talk, followed by a list of Mr.
Hentoff's free-speech related books, followed by references to on-line
copies of some of the court cases he mentioned.
- Carl Kadie
=====================
* His latest book is:_Free speech for me--but not for thee: how the
American left and right relentlessly censor each other_
* The Supreme Court's _RAV vs. St. Paul_ decision may be the most
important pro-speech decision since the 1930's. The St. Paul law not
only made cross burning in someone else's yard illegal, it also made
many signs in your own yard illegal. For example: "Bishop Smith is a
fink for opposing the freedom of choice". Or, in the 1950's in the
South: "Integrate the White Segregated Schools".
* The St. Paul cross burner could have been tried not only on arson,
trespass, *and* Minnesota's law against terrorist treat. The
prosecutor, however, choose to try him only on the city's ordinance
against hate speech.
* Many liberal groups supported the law. Only a few groups opposed it.
The best brief against the law was by the Freedom to Read
Foundation. The ACLU was also against the law, but its brief was
weaker than it should have been because the National Office (in NYC)
watered down a brief written in Minnesota.
* The Court voted 9-0 that the law was too broad. A majority of 5,
however, went further. Their decision was written by Scalia (who
previously voted that flag burning was protected). The majority
decision said that not only was the law too broad but it also was
too selective in how it applied the Fighting Words Doctrine. The
Majority said that it was improper for the city to ban some fighting
words (e.g. those related to race, sex, religion, etc.) but not
others (e.g. those related to political views, handicap, etc). It
said:
"(b)A few limited categories of speech, such as obscenity,
defamation, and fighting words, may be regulated because of
their constitutionally proscribable content. However, these
categories are not entirely invisible to the Constitution,
and government may not regulate them based on hostility, or
favoritism, towards a nonproscribable message they contain."
This is the first time the Court has said that no category of speech
is invisible to the First Amendment.
* The Fighting Words doctrine was created in 1942. It is the basis for
most college speech codes and hate speech laws. However, it has
never been used at the Supreme Court level since 1942 and with this
decision it is pretty much dead because it is always applied
selectively.
* Id _RAV_ had gone the other way, many cites and states would have
created similar laws.
* The day after the _RAV_ decision, the Wisconsin Supreme Court struck
down an "enhancement law" (e.g. if you hit someone, you go to jail
for one year, if you hit someone and call them a racial or religion
name, you go to jail for 3 years.). A good article about these laws
was written by Susan Gelman in the _UCLA Law Review_ in 1991. She
points out that such laws would cause prosecutors to investigate the
history of a accused criminal to search for books, associations, and
speech that might indicate evidence to bigotry.
* In the 1950's (?) Herb Marsacosa (?) wrote about "Repressive
Tolerance" in which only good points of view would be allowed. His
vision is coming true.
* The Court's _Rust v. Sullivan_ decision was one of its worst ever
because it said that government could restrict speech in family
planning clinics but not universities because there is only
tradition of free speech at universities. This ignore the tradition
of freedom of medical speech and makes it sound as though
universities are the only places with a tradition of freedom of
speech.
* The so-called Porn Victim's Compensation Act is probably coming up
for a vote in 3 weeks in the Senate. This law would make writers,
distributors, and directors financially responsible for the bad things
that their work "causes" people to do. The law requires that cause
and effect be "proven" but does not define the word.
* At Harvard a year or few ago, a student from the South displayed a
Confederate flag from her window. (She said she wanted to see if
northern liberals really believed in freedom of speech.) Many people
tried to have the school force her to take it down. In reply, a
black student displayed a strong anti-bigotry (?) banner from his
window. The school denounced the displays but refused to order them
down. Because of the displays, discussion of racism on campus
increased.
* Nat Hentoff knew Malcolm X pretty well the last two years of Malcolm
X's life. Malcolm X thought that black youth had to demystify
language and empower themselves to use it effectively.
Some Books by Nat Hentoff:
Hentoff, Nat.
Free speech for me--but not for thee : how the American left and
right relentlessly censor each other / Nat Hentoff. 1st ed. New
York : Aaron Asher Books, c1992.
p. cm.
Includes index.
ISBN 006019006X : $$25.00
1. Freedom of speech--United States. 2. Censorship--United
States. I. Title.
ocm25-410523
Hentoff, Nat.
American heroes : in and out of school / Nat Hentoff. New York :
Delacorte Press, c1987.
126 p.
Includes index.
Bibliography: p. :119:
ISBN 0385295650
1. Civil rights--United States--Juvenile literature. 2. Freedom
of speech--United States--Juvenile literature. 3. Students--Legal
status, laws, etc.--United States--Juvenile literature. I. Title.
AC: 1. Freedom of speech. 2. Civil rights. 3. United States--
Constitutional law--Amendments--1st-10th.
ocm14-818419
Hentoff, Nat.
The day they came to arrest the book : a novel / by Nat Hentoff.
New York : Delacorte Press, c1982.
169 p. ; 22 cm.
ISBN 0440020395 : $$10.95
I. Title.
AC: 1. School stories. 2. Censorship--Fiction.
ocm08-552177
Hentoff, Nat.
Blues for Charlie Darwin / Nat Hentoff. New York : W. Morrow,
c1982.
203 p. ; 22 cm.
ISBN 0688012604
I. Title.
ocm08-280334
Hentoff, Nat.
The first freedom : a tumultuous history of free speech in America
/ Nat Hentoff. New York : Delacorte Press, :1980:
x, 340 p. ; 23 cm.
Includes index.
Summary: A history of free speech in our country from earliest
times to some of the controversial court cases of today
involving school demonstrations and the right of Nazis to
march.
Bibliography: p. 325-328.
ISBN 0440038502
1. Freedom of speech--United States--History--Juvenile
literature. I. Title.
AC: 1. Freedom of speech--History.
ocm05-334782
Are libraries fair? :sound recording: : pre-selection censorship in
a time of resurgent conservatism. Chicago : American Library
Association, 1982.
1 sound cassette (ca. 60 min.) : analog, 1 7/8 ips, mono.
Title on container: Are libraries fair? pre-selection censorship.
Cosponsored by ALTA Intellectual Freedom Committee/Intellectual
Freedom Round Table/PaLA Intellectual Freedom Committee/YASD
Intellectual Freedom Committee.
82107-010.
Recorded at 101st Annual ALA Conference, Philadelphia, Pa., July
10, 1982.
1. Book selection 2. Libraries--Censorship I. Thomas, Cal. II.
Hentoff, Nat. III. American Library Association Conference
(101st : 1982 : Philadelphia, Pa.) IV. 3 1337 00010 7796 V.
American Library Association. Intellectual Freedom Committee.
ocm08-638442
Books under fire :motion picture: / Bennett Watts Bennett
Productions ; producers and directors, Arnold Bennett and Grady Watts,
Jr. Wilmette, Ill. : Films Inc., 1983.
1 film reel (58 min.) : sd., col. ; 16 mm.
Intended audience: Ages 15 through adult.
Summary: Pivoting on the case of Sheck vs. the Woodland, Me.,
School Committee, in which several students and parents
challenged the schools' banning of Dr. Ronald Glasser's book
entitled 365 days, broadens into a national perspective on
the increasing incidences of book censorship in U.S. public
schools. Includes insights of noted journalist Nat Hentoff
and focuses on the censorship efforts of Mel and Norma Gabler
in Woodland, Me.
1. School libraries--United States--Censorship. 2.
Censorship-- United States. I. Hentoff, Nat. II. Gabler,
Mel. III. Gabler, Norma. IV. Glasser, Ronald J. 365 days.
V. Indiana University, Bloomington. Audio-Visual Center.
VI. Films Incorporated. VII. Bennett Watts Bennett
Productions.
ocm10-299456
Books under fire! / produced and directed by Arnold Bennett and
Grady Watts, Jr. ; executive producer, Alvin Goldstein. Kent,
Ohio ; PTV Publications, c1982. :2:, 28 p. ; 22 cm. (Crisis
to crisis ;)
Transcript of PBS program broadcast in the Crisis to crisis series,
hosted by Barbara Jordan, on September 10, 1982, discussing
the attempt to ban Ronald Glasser's 365 days from the
Woodland, Maine, school systems.
1. Glasser, Ronald. 365 days. 2. Censorship--United States.
3. School libraries--United States--Censorship. 4. Sheck vs.
Woodland School Committee. I. Bennett, Arnold. II. Watts, Grady.
III. Gabler, Mel. IV. Gabler, Norma. V. Hentoff, Nat. VI. Series.
ocm22-522964
ANNOTATED REFERENCES
(All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.)
=================
law/rav-v-st-paul.1
=================
The Supreme Court's _R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul_ decision about hate crimes.
The Court overturned St. Paul's Bias-Motivated Crime Ordinance, which
prohibits the display of a symbol which one knows or has reason to
know "arouses anger, alarm or resentment in others on the basis of
race, color, creed, religion or gender."
Included: summary, majority opinion, 3 concurring opinions.
=================
law/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.
=================
law/rust-v-sullivan
=================
The decision and decent for the so-called abortion information gag
rule case. The decision explicitly mentions universities as a place
where free expression is so important that gag rules would not be
allowed.
=================
law/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.
=================
law/cohen-v-california.2
=================
Netnews article with reference _Cohen v. California_, "in which the
court ruled that Cohen's jacket, which stated "Fuck the Draft" was a
protected form of free speech, even though he wore it in a county
courthouse."
=================
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.'
=================
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.
=================
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.
=================
law/childrens-legal-foundation-v-fcc
=================
A newspaper story saying that the Supreme Court refuses to allow a
total ban on indecent TV and radio material.
=================
law/dial-information-vs-barr
=================
Newspaper story saying: "The Supreme Court Monday allowed the
government to require adults wanting to take part in ``dial-a-porn''
telephone dialogue to first take a series of steps meant to keep
children from joining in the sexually explicit conversations."
=================
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/law/rav-v-st-paul.1
pub/academic/law/wisconsin-v-mitchell
pub/academic/law/rust-v-sullivan
pub/academic/law/cohen-v-california.1
pub/academic/law/cohen-v-california.2
pub/academic/law/brandenberg-v-ohio
pub/academic/law/tinker_v_des_moines
pub/academic/law/tinker_v_des_moines.2
pub/academic/law/childrens-legal-foundation-v-fcc
pub/academic/law/dial-information-vs-barr
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/law rav-v-st-paul.1
send acad-freedom/law wisconsin-v-mitchell
send acad-freedom/law rust-v-sullivan
send acad-freedom/law cohen-v-california.1
send acad-freedom/law cohen-v-california.2
send acad-freedom/law brandenberg-v-ohio
send acad-freedom/law tinker_v_des_moines
send acad-freedom/law tinker_v_des_moines.2
send acad-freedom/law childrens-legal-foundation-v-fcc
send acad-freedom/law dial-information-vs-barr
send acad-freedom caf
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Sep 26 21:24:34 1992
Newsgroups: uiuc.civil-liberty,alt.censorship,misc.legal,alt.politics.correct,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: "Multiculturalism and the First Amendment"
Message-ID: <1992Sep27.012421.14337@eff.org>
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 01:24:21 GMT
Here is some more info, on one of the references.
kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
[...]
>Here are my scattered notes from that talk,
[...]
[...]
>* In the 1950's (?) Herb Marsacosa (?) wrote about "Repressive
> Tolerance" in which only good points of view would be allowed. His
> vision is coming true.
[...]
Wolff, Robert Paul.
A critique of pure tolerance :by: Robert Paul Wolff, Barrington
Moore, Jr. :and: Herbert Marcuse. Boston, Beacon Press :1969:
vi, 123 p. 22 cm.
Contents: Beyond tolerance, by R. P. Wolff.--Tolerance and the
scientific outlook, by B. Moore.--Repressive tolerance, by H. Marcuse.
1. Toleration I. Marcuse, Herbert, 1898- II. Moore, Barrington,
1913- III. Title.
ocm00-069262
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Sep 26 21:32:09 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.tv.ren-n-stimpy] NICK=La. Tech=CENSORSHIP
Message-ID: <1992Sep27.012524.27133@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 01:25:24 GMT
[A repost - Carl]
From caf-talk Caf Sep 26 21:32:09 1992
From: ST32373@VM.CC.LATECH.EDU
Subject: NICK=La. Tech=CENSORSHIP
Message-ID: <1686D8F1E.ST32373@VM.CC.LATECH.EDU>
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 92 10:10:38 CST
In keeping with the spirit of censorship, La Tech has turned off all the stude
nts e-mail functions for Internet. This is the only way I can respond to those
of you who said they would send me VCR tapes. I STILL WANT THEM! Just give me a
voice number or something where we can work out details.
P.S. What is with this spirit of "family values" (READ:Censorship) that is swe
eping the nation? Not only has Tech turned off all the students mailfeed, I hav
e heard evidence that their are individuals reading students mail/posts/NNR sub
scriptions. I have also heard that some students NNR readings are used against
them. I have heard of a guy who was RAKED over the coals for reading some of th
e more "offbeat" shall we say, newsgroups. I know this is kind of out of place
but feel free to complain to Tech. Maybe they will turn OUR mail back on.
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Sep 26 23:29:26 1992
From: lkk@panix.com (Larry Kolodney)
Newsgroups: uiuc.civil-liberty,alt.censorship,misc.legal,alt.politics.correct,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: "Multiculturalism and the First Amendment"
Message-ID: <1992Sep27.022633.4984@panix.com>
Date: 27 Sep 92 02:26:33 GMT
In <1992Sep26.195343.28231@m.cs.uiuc.edu> kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>* At Harvard a year or few ago, a student from the South displayed a
> Confederate flag from her window. (She said she wanted to see if
> northern liberals really believed in freedom of speech.) Many people
> tried to have the school force her to take it down. In reply, a
> black student displayed a strong anti-bigotry (?) banner from his
> window. The school denounced the displays but refused to order them
> down. Because of the displays, discussion of racism on campus
> increased.
Correction: The black student put up a Nazi Flag, which she equated
with the confederate flag in terms of offensiveness. I believe that
both students eventually removed their flags voluntarily after
negotiations.
--
larry kolodney:(lkk@panix.com)
_(*#&)#*&%)@(*^%_!*&%^!)*&#+!*&$+!?&%+!*&^_)*&#%)*&^%#+&
The past is not dead, it's not even past. - Wm. Faulkner
From caf-talk Caf Sep 27 01:11:07 1992
Newsgroups: uiuc.civil-liberty,alt.censorship,misc.legal,alt.politics.correct,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: "Multiculturalism and the First Amendment"
Message-ID: <1992Sep27.051056.16084@eff.org>
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 05:10:56 GMT
lkk@panix.com (Larry Kolodney) writes:
>Correction: The black student put up a Nazi Flag, which she equated
>with the confederate flag in terms of offensiveness. I believe that
>both students eventually removed their flags voluntarily after
>negotiations.
[...]
That was probably my mistake. I wasn't sure what the second display
was.
Mr. Hentoff said that the black student's flag was removed volentarily
at the request of a black student group who felt that it interfering
with their discussions with Jewish students. The original flag,
however, stayed up until the student graduated. Hentoff said that he
confirmed this for a newspaper story it wrote about it.
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Sep 27 08:54:56 1992
From: isbell@ai.mit.edu (Charles L Isbell)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,misc.legal,alt.politics.correct,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: "Multiculturalism and the First Amendment"
Message-ID:
Date: 27 Sep 92 12:41:21 GMT
kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
|lkk@panix.com (Larry Kolodney) writes:
|>Correction: The black student put up a Nazi Flag, which she equated
|>with the confederate flag in terms of offensiveness. I believe that
|>both students eventually removed their flags voluntarily after
|>negotiations.
|[...]
|That was probably my mistake. I wasn't sure what the second display
|was.
|Mr. Hentoff said that the black student's flag was removed volentarily
|at the request of a black student group who felt that it interfering
|with their discussions with Jewish students. The original flag,
|however, stayed up until the student graduated. Hentoff said that he
|confirmed this for a newspaper story it wrote about it.
My understanding was that the Black woman was forced to take her flag
down (strong Jewish lobby) while the White woman kept hers up forever
(weaker Black lobby).
I find the situation telling, but I'm not sure how important the event
is.
--
Peace.
"We should develop anti-satellite weapons because we could not
have prevailed without them in 'Red Storm Rising'."
-- Vice President Dan Quayle
-\--/-
Don't just adopt opinions | \/ | Some of you are homeboys
develop them. | /\ | but only I am The Homeboy From hell
-/--\-
From caf-talk Caf Sep 27 10:22:12 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [bit.listserv.pacs-l] libraries and computer centers
Message-ID: <1992Sep27.142204.17861@eff.org>
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 14:22:04 GMT
[A repost - Carl]
Message-ID: <199209232322.AA01056@orion.oac.uci.edu>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.pacs-l
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1992 11:36:22 CDT
From: Calvin Boyer
Subject: libraries and computer centers
----------------------------Original message----------------------------
"Choosing What Is Important in Times of Change"
Stephen Franklin, a UCI colleague of mine, whose interest is academic
computing centers writes:
Computing is essential to the academic enterprise. Within the
university, as elsewhere, the understanding of what "computing" encompasses
is changing. While academic computing centers can be expected to provide a
smaller fraction of the total computing resources than in the past, what
they can be expected and challenged to provide can be of increasing
importance in integrating academic computing resources, in allowing those
using these resources to focus on their primary academic endeavors, in
broadening the utility of these resources, and in helping shape the academic
community's vision of what can be accomplished with these resources.
*********
Stephen D. Franklin. "Academic Computing Centers as Strategic University
Resources," in IFIP World Computer Congress (12th : 1992 : Madrid).
Information Processing 92, Vol. II. Proceedings .... Elsevier Science
Publishers B.V. (North Holland), p.114.
*********
What Franklin envisions for computing centers and what university libraries
face are strikingly similar. Given this convergence of circumstances,
these two primary campus service organizations can profit immeasurably by
drawing from the other's treasury of experiences and expertise. Within
our libraries, no one can remain ignorant of our rapidly escalating
dependence upon computers and telecommunications to deliver a growing
portion of needed information. While the portion of information
provided through libraries to campuses inevitably will change, and like
computing centers, that portion is very likely a diminishing one, the
urgent need for personnel in both library and computing center to
ensure a greater integration of information resources available to the
user community is beyond question.
For librarians (and computer personnel as well) the challenge is a daunting
one. Virtually everyone throughout our campuses is ignorant of some
important information source(s). While such has, no doubt, always
been true, the continuing proliferation of information sources and
formats has raised the level of such ignorance for most individuals.
Probably no other arena highlights this issue so elegantly as
the mushrooming volume of information in electronic format. If we
are to provide a measure of sophisticated assistance to faculty and
students which will enable them to exploit more fully electronic
information resources, our need to master an entirely new set of
tools is self evident. Yet unlike reference works in paper format, not
only are the electronic tools dynamic but they are machine-dependent
with a requisite, often unique, set of vocabulary and protocols,
(some of which are even non-intuitive).
While the gains in "market penetration" by our electronic library
discussion lists (listservs) are surely commendable, one
surmises that among the subscribers there is yet a large percentage
who are not yet proficient in searching for information among the
resulting archives. With listserv subscribers representing today a
minor fraction of our own professional population, even conservative
extrapolations suggest how probable it is that librarians and users
alike will miss readily available useful information. Such examples
merely underscore the pressing need for our own continuing education
and training.
It seems almost trite to be concerned with "turf" for the challenge
facing us very likely is larger than can be fully met by the
combined talents of both computing centers and libraries. If so,
then our mutual success in assisting others and in particular students
will be increasingly contingent upon our working with and through
faculty to achieve "information literacy" for our populations.
Likewise, the elusive proper mix of paper and electricity should not
preoccupy us to the extent that intervening generations of users of
our libraries of today and the electronic libraries of tomorrow
are shortchanged in their quests for information. Revolutions
are underway in both computing centers and libraries as each seeks to
provide the community with services of increasing value and quality.
As with any revolution, outcomes can not be entirely foreseen. Yet,
we can shape forces within these revolutions to achieve desired outcomes.
Calvin Boyer Library University of California, Irvine
PO Box 19557 Irvine, CA 92713
BITNET cjboyer@uci INTERNET cjboyer@uci.edu PHONE 714 856-4764
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Sep 27 13:59:31 1992
Newsgroups: uiuc.civil-liberty,alt.censorship,misc.legal,alt.politics.correct,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Edward G. Nilges)
Subject: Re: "Multiculturalism and the First Amendment"
Message-ID: <1992Sep27.174959.21240@Princeton.EDU>
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 17:49:59 GMT
In article <1992Sep26.195343.28231@m.cs.uiuc.edu> kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>Author and newspaper person (publisher? reporter?) Nat Hentoff spoke
>on "Multiculturalism and the First Amendment" this morning at the U.
>of Illinois. The occasion was the keynote speech for the Library
>School's Centennial.
...well-known foe of reproductive choice and part of the Village Voice
organization which persecuted and excluded outspoken women staffers in
the 1970s, showing the strength of the VV's, and Henthoff's committment
to "free speech". Henthoff and the Voice a male-dominated "liberal"
organization, the chief contribution of which has been the
gentrification of the Village and the dispossession of its poor and
middle-class population.
>
>* The Supreme Court's _RAV vs. St. Paul_ decision may be the most
> important pro-speech decision since the 1930's. The St. Paul law not
> only made cross burning in someone else's yard illegal, it also made
> many signs in your own yard illegal. For example: "Bishop Smith is a
> fink for opposing the freedom of choice". Or, in the 1950's in the
> South: "Integrate the White Segregated Schools".
Henthoff lied. The drafters of the St Paul law were aware both of
property rights and the First Amendment, and RAV flouted the former and
as a mentally disturbed youth (his case entitled "In re the welfare of
RAV) was not "speaking" at all; he's a useful tool, the Marinus van der
Lubbe of the free-speech-for-white-guys crowd. Henthoff is practising
law without a license in interpreting the law so broadly. No such
interpretations have been made.
>
>* The St. Paul cross burner could have been tried not only on arson,
> trespass, *and* Minnesota's law against terrorist treat. The
> prosecutor, however, choose to try him only on the city's ordinance
> against hate speech.
>
Which means that RAV was already a criminal and not in full possession
of rights. Convicted criminals in our society were recently deprived of
a number of rights by the sitting Supreme Court, including some rights
of appeal in capital cases and the right to have jail conditions
declared cruel and inhuman, so it it hypocrisy for the Supreme Court to
pretend such tender care for RAV's "rights", rights that in this case
are completely formal, since Henthoff here recommends trying the same
act under far stricter statutes.
>
>* In the 1950's (?) Herb Marsacosa (?) wrote about "Repressive
> Tolerance" in which only good points of view would be allowed. His
> vision is coming true.
Carl, you might trouble to research names and facts before posting.
* It is to laugh. You transform the name of a dignified
German pedant, Herbert Marcuse, into the name of (an Italian
sensitivity group therapist?) "Herb" Marsacosa.
* Marcuse started work in the 1930s as part of the Frankfurt
School. He, Max Horkheimer, and other theorists analyzed
the way in which capitalism produces various forms of Fascism
from a standpoint that was neither capitalist nor Marxist-
Leninist.
* Marcuse's theories enjoyed a brief popularity among the
American New Left in the 1960s (not the 1950s.)
* Most importantly, Marcuse was NOT talking about Henthoff's
fantasy that an army of feminist Nazis is about to put the
boot down. MARCUSE WAS TALKING ABOUT PEOPLE LIKE HENTHOFF.
"Repressive tolerance" is capitalist society's pretense
that (1) all points of view have equal power and (2) that
all points of view are equally valid, a pretense which is
neatly exploded by Catherine MacKinnon, who asks whether,
if you organize a forum on world hunger, you must invite
pro-hunger forces for "balance." I have a bumper sticker
that reads "another man against violence against women."
Should I add another saying "'cept on Saturday night"
to show my committment to "balance" and "free speech?"
Henthoff is an avatar of repressive tolerance because he
espouses "free speech" (for RAV but not for the Voice's
women staffers) as a way of further disempowering the powerless.
>
>* The Court's _Rust v. Sullivan_ decision was one of its worst ever
> because it said that government could restrict speech in family
> planning clinics but not universities because there is only
> tradition of free speech at universities. This ignore the tradition
> of freedom of medical speech and makes it sound as though
> universities are the only places with a tradition of freedom of
> speech.
Since Henthoff's program is one of disempowering women and non-Jewish
minorities, he is being hypocritical here in not confessing his own
anti-choice stands. It is plain to me that to Henthoff, free speech is
only a sophisticated tool of repression. Just as Susan Brownmiller
argues that for centuries, rapists (crude dudes, strangely like Viktora)
have enforced a program of domination on behalf of "gentlemen" who
shudder at rapists, RAV and the KKK shall extend this program to racial
minorities and workers while people like Henthoff parade in the mantle
of liberalism before the mirrors of their expensive East Village condos.
> X's life. Malcolm X thought that black youth had to demystify
> language and empower themselves to use it effectively.
Unless they tread on the right of the powerful and wealthy to make a
buck. A rap group recently quoted James Brown in one of its productions
as a form of respect...James Brown is suing them. More generally, much
rap music is a bricolage of tunes and ideas which are taken and
creatievly processed by artists, much in the way T. S. Eliot quoted
Dante, Marlowe and Shakespeare in his work, Picasso used industrial
materials in collages and sculpture, and Martin Luther King paraphrased
Scripture to powerful emotional effect. This heroism, making art out of
the postmodern trash surrounding black youth, is under seige by lawyers
(much as computer programmers are under attack by software patents.)
And I DON'T see these heroic defenders of the right of Ice T to sing
about killing white working class cops jumping to the defense of rap
music bricolage, for this would interfere with the right of established
artists (and, more importantly, the right of established labels) to make
money.
The rule may be phrased like this: in order to defend the rights of the
wealthy and powerful, we shall quite selectively wrap ourselves in the
mantle of the First Amendment. When, however, the poor and obscure
attempt to exercise free speech, we shall "trump" their rights: this
applies, for example, to startup rap musicians, women staffers at the
Village Voice, smalltime computer programmers, and the homeless.
From caf-talk Caf Sep 27 17:00:27 1992
Newsgroups: uiuc.civil-liberty,alt.censorship,misc.legal,alt.politics.correct,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: "Multiculturalism and the First Amendment"
Message-ID: <1992Sep27.205816.3121@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 20:58:16 GMT
egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Edward G. Nilges) writes:
[...]
>Henthoff and the Voice a male-dominated "liberal" organization, the [...]
[...]
cmk>* In the 1950's (?) Herb Marsacosa (?) wrote about "Repressive
cmk> Tolerance" in which only good points of view would be allowed. His
cmk> vision is coming true.
>Carl, you might trouble to research names and facts before posting.
[...]
1. I placed a question mark after the date and name indicating my
uncertainty.
2. I've already posted a follow up with the correct spelling and a
book reference.
3. It's "Hentoff" not "Henthoff".
cmk>* The Supreme Court's _RAV vs. St. Paul_ decision may be the most
cmk> important pro-speech decision since the 1930's. The St. Paul law not
cmk> only made cross burning in someone else's yard illegal, it also made
cmk> many signs in your own yard illegal. For example: "Bishop Smith is a
cmk> fink for opposing the freedom of choice". Or, in the 1950's in the
cmk> South: "Integrate the White Segregated Schools".
>Henthoff lied. [...]
Here is the law:
Code 292.02 (1990), which provides:
-Whoever places on public or private property a
symbol, object, appellation, characterization or graffiti,
including, but not limited to, a burning cross or Nazi
swastika, which one knows or has reasonable grounds
to know arouses anger, alarm or resentment in others
on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender
commits disorderly conduct and shall be guilty of a
misdemeanor.
[...]
cmk>* The St. Paul cross burner could have been tried not only on arson,
cmk> trespass, *and* Minnesota's law against terrorist treat. The
cmk> prosecutor, however, choose to try him only on the city's ordinance
cmk> against hate speech.
>Which means that RAV was already a criminal and not in full possession
>of rights. Convicted criminals in our society were recently deprived of
>a number of rights by the sitting Supreme Court, [...]
RAV was not (indeed, is not) a convicted criminial.
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Sep 27 17:47:12 1992
Newsgroups: uiuc.civil-liberty,alt.censorship,misc.legal,alt.politics.correct,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Edward G. Nilges)
Subject: Re: "Multiculturalism and the First Amendment"
Message-ID: <1992Sep27.214208.16504@Princeton.EDU>
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 21:42:08 GMT
In article <1992Sep27.205816.3121@m.cs.uiuc.edu> kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Edward G. Nilges) writes:
>>Henthoff and the Voice a male-dominated "liberal" organization, the [...]
>[...]
>cmk>* In the 1950's (?) Herb Marsacosa (?) wrote about "Repressive
>cmk> Tolerance" in which only good points of view would be allowed. His
>cmk> vision is coming true.
>
>>Carl, you might trouble to research names and facts before posting.
>[...]
>
>1. I placed a question mark after the date and name indicating my
> uncertainty.
You're lazy. It would have been better to research the name. Your
spelling makes you look silly.
>2. I've already posted a follow up with the correct spelling and a
> book reference.
Good. Shuddha done it before.
>3. It's "Hentoff" not "Henthoff".
Thanks; that was a typo rather than an egregious error which placed on
display the fact that you didn't know what you were talking about; and
your absurd spelling segued into an even more grievous error in which
you accused Hentoff's opponents, the so-called "politically correct" and
radfems, of "repressive tolerance". The "PC" and the radfems were the
ones, back in the Sixties, to introduce the notion of repressive
tolerance into United States political discourse. Repressive tolerance,
again, is the equation of all views and Catherine MacKinnon, for
example, does not equate chauvinism and feminism. Repressive tolerance
is what HENTOFF practises.
>
>>Henthoff lied. [...]
>
>Here is the law:
>
>Code 292.02 (1990), which provides:
> -Whoever places on public or private property a
>symbol, object, appellation, characterization or graffiti,
>including, but not limited to, a burning cross or Nazi
>swastika, which one knows or has reasonable grounds
>to know arouses anger, alarm or resentment in others
>on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender
>commits disorderly conduct and shall be guilty of a
>misdemeanor.
This is valid under the "fighting words" doctrine (and it is interesting
that many pro-RAV-decision posters don't like that doctrine, for it's
what stands between us and Sarajevo.) Far from being a "slippery
slope", this law draws a clear boundary around certain acts. It
proscribes some idiot placing a burning cross on his lawn. Same idiot
can still publish and distribute a newsletter. Hentoff lied, for such
laws are not impediments to free speech, indeed they can improve the
DIALOGUE and the LISTENING that are integral to free SPEECH.
>
>cmk>* The St. Paul cross burner could have been tried not only on arson,
>cmk> trespass, *and* Minnesota's law against terrorist treat. The
>cmk> prosecutor, however, choose to try him only on the city's ordinance
>cmk> against hate speech.
>
>>Which means that RAV was already a criminal and not in full possession
>>of rights. Convicted criminals in our society were recently deprived of
>>a number of rights by the sitting Supreme Court, [...]
>
>RAV was not (indeed, is not) a convicted criminial.
But it's essential to you half-assed case that "he could have been
tried" under criminal (felony rather than misdemeanor!) laws. The guy
was tried under the most lenient law available; your tender care for his
"freedom" is such that you'd reconvict him under far more Draconian
statutes! You don't give a flying fuck about anyone's freedom, only
about a collective ability to control outgroups with mean, low and
insulting speech.
From caf-talk Caf Sep 27 18:35:47 1992
Newsgroups: uiuc.civil-liberty,alt.censorship,misc.legal,alt.politics.correct,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: gsbg9079@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (G. Scott Braley)
Subject: Re: "Multiculturalism and the First Amendment"
Message-ID:
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 22:24:57 GMT
egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Edward G. Nilges) writes:
>You're lazy. It would have been better to research the name. Your
>spelling makes you look silly.
Your responses make you look like a pompous ass.
>>2. I've already posted a follow up with the correct spelling and a
>> book reference.
>Good. Shuddha done it before.
Like I said...
>>3. It's "Hentoff" not "Henthoff".
>Thanks; that was a typo rather than an egregious error which placed on
>display the fact that you didn't know what you were talking about; and
>your absurd spelling segued into an even more grievous error in which
>you accused Hentoff's opponents, the so-called "politically correct" and
>radfems, of "repressive tolerance". The "PC" and the radfems were the
>ones, back in the Sixties, to introduce the notion of repressive
>tolerance into United States political discourse. Repressive tolerance,
>again, is the equation of all views and Catherine MacKinnon, for
>example, does not equate chauvinism and feminism. Repressive tolerance
>is what HENTOFF practises.
>>
>>>Henthoff lied. [...]
>>
>>Here is the law:
>>
>>cmk>* The St. Paul cross burner could have been tried not only on arson,
>>cmk> trespass, *and* Minnesota's law against terrorist treat. The
>>cmk> prosecutor, however, choose to try him only on the city's ordinance
>>cmk> against hate speech.
>>
>>>Which means that RAV was already a criminal and not in full possession
>>>of rights. Convicted criminals in our society were recently deprived of
>>>a number of rights by the sitting Supreme Court, [...]
>>
>>RAV was not (indeed, is not) a convicted criminial.
>But it's essential to you half-assed case that "he could have been
He is not a half-assed case.
>tried" under criminal (felony rather than misdemeanor!) laws. The guy
>was tried under the most lenient law available; your tender care for his
>"freedom" is such that you'd reconvict him under far more Draconian
>statutes! You don't give a flying fuck about anyone's freedom, only
>about a collective ability to control outgroups with mean, low and
>insulting speech.
Huh? Wouldn't know anything about mean, low and insulting speech, would we.
Are you an example of what princeton is like? Must be sad to actually have
an opinion, or, God forbid, a moral principle there, with folks like you
running around. Try to keep some objectivity and decorum, ace, just like me.
-Scott
*flame off*
--
*****************************************************************************
* F.B.I.B.M.--The most feared merger * gsbg9079@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu *
*****************************************************************************
From caf-talk Caf Sep 27 18:52:01 1992
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (J. S. Greenfield)
Subject: Re: Censorship at Iowa State
Message-ID: <1992Sep27.164058.18896@newstand.syr.edu>
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 92 16:40:58 EDT
In article <1992Sep26.130228.5143@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>[...]
>>the University of Arizona (a private school).
>[...]
>
>I think U of Arizona is a state school. Tuition last year was $1528,
>pretty inexpensive and to the dollar exactly the same as Arizona State
>University. [Source: U.S. News' college guide]
I guess that's my mistake. If U. of A. is a public school, then all I can
say is that one can't expect a public school to obey the law unless they
are forced to. If one isn't willing to challenge an illegal policy, then
they are left at the mercy of the administration.
--
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 Sep 27 18:57:30 1992
Newsgroups: uiuc.civil-liberty,alt.censorship,misc.legal,alt.politics.correct,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: paul@uxc.cso.uiuc.edu (Paul Pomes - UofIllinois CSO)
Subject: Re: "Multiculturalism and the First Amendment"
Message-ID:
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 22:49:30 GMT
gsbg9079@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (G. Scott Braley) writes:
>egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Edward G. Nilges) writes:
>
>>You're lazy. It would have been better to research the name. Your
>>spelling makes you look silly.
>Huh? Wouldn't know anything about mean, low and insulting speech, would we.
>Are you an example of what princeton is like? Must be sad to actually have
>an opinion, or, God forbid, a moral principle there, with folks like you
>running around. Try to keep some objectivity and decorum, ace, just like me.
Please trim your followups to the minimum necessary for your response.
This must be your first introduction to Ed Nilges. He's a noisy clown and
safely ignored. I must investigate how he escaped my kill file however...
/pbp
--
"A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State,
the right of the People to keep and read Books shall not be infringed."
-- J. Neil Schulman
From caf-talk Caf Sep 27 19:06:31 1992
Newsgroups: uiuc.civil-liberty,alt.censorship,misc.legal,alt.politics.correct,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: "Multiculturalism and the First Amendment"
Message-ID: <1992Sep27.230624.905@eff.org>
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 23:06:24 GMT
cmk>1. I placed a question mark after the date and name indicating my
cmk> uncertainty.
egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Edward G. Nilges) writes:
>You're lazy. It would have been better to research the name. Your
>spelling makes you look silly.
[...]
I hope everyone (Ed Nilges excluded) forgives me for not knowing how
to spell a name that I heard at a talk, for not finding any libraries
books with "repressive tolerance" in their titles, for marking my best
guess of the spelling with a question mark, for posting the correct
name within hours (after receiving help from the net), and for not
telling Ed Nilges, "fuck you" for calling me lazy and silly looking.
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Sep 27 19:17:53 1992
Newsgroups: uiuc.civil-liberty,alt.censorship,misc.legal,alt.politics.correct,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: "Multiculturalism and the First Amendment"
Message-ID: <1992Sep27.231746.1154@eff.org>
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 23:17:46 GMT
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl Kadie) writes:
>Author and newspaper person (publisher? reporter?) Nat Hentoff spoke
>on "Multiculturalism and the First Amendment" this morning at the U.
>of Illinois. [...] Here are my scattered notes from that talk [...]
[...]
>* In the 1950's (?) Herb Marsacosa (?) wrote about "Repressive
> Tolerance" in which only good points of view would be allowed. His
> vision is coming true.
egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Edward G. Nilges) writes:
[...]
>you accused Hentoff's opponents, the so-called "politically correct" and
>radfems, of "repressive tolerance".
[...]
Apparently my post was unclear, I accused no one. I just reported
Hentoff's talk (as well as my lazy, silliness allowed).
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Sep 27 19:37:15 1992
Newsgroups: uiuc.civil-liberty,alt.censorship,misc.legal,alt.politics.correct,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: "Multiculturalism and the First Amendment"
Message-ID: <1992Sep27.233708.1395@eff.org>
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 23:37:08 GMT
cmk>Here is the law:
cmk>Code 292.02 (1990), which provides:
cmk> -Whoever places on public or private property a
cmk>symbol, object, appellation, characterization or graffiti,
cmk>including, but not limited to, a burning cross or Nazi
cmk>swastika, which one knows or has reasonable grounds
cmk>to know arouses anger, alarm or resentment in others
cmk>on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender
cmk>commits disorderly conduct and shall be guilty of a
cmk>misdemeanor.
egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Edward G. Nilges) writes:
>This is valid under the "fighting words" doctrine (and it is interesting
>that many pro-RAV-decision posters don't like that doctrine, for it's
>what stands between us and Sarajevo.)
The St. Paul law went beyond the fighting words doctrine. The fighting
words doctrine permits punishment of expression likely to envoke an
immediate breach of peace. The St. Paul law authorized punishment for
expression that "arouses" "resentment" even when that expression is
not likely to envoke an immediate breach of piece.
[...]
>[...] it's essential to you half-assed case that "he could have been
>tried" under criminal (felony rather than misdemeanor!) laws. The guy
>was tried under the most lenient law available; your tender care for his
>"freedom" is such that you'd reconvict him under far more Draconian
>statutes!
[...]
Indeed, I don't care much about the personal freedom of arsonists. I
do, however, care about everone's freedom of expression. That is why I
think arsonists should for their arson and not for their expression.
ANNOTATED REFERENCES
(All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.)
=================
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.
=================
law/cohen-v-california.2
=================
Netnews article with reference _Cohen v. California_, "in which the
court ruled that Cohen's jacket, which stated "Fuck the Draft" was a
protected form of free speech, even though he wore it in a county
courthouse."
=================
=================
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/cohen-v-california.1
pub/academic/law/cohen-v-california.2
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 cohen-v-california.1
send acad-freedom/law cohen-v-california.2
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Sep 27 22:55:38 1992
Newsgroups: uiuc.civil-liberty,alt.censorship,misc.legal,alt.politics.correct,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Citecheck Hell)
Subject: Re: "Multiculturalism and the First Amendment"
Message-ID: <1992Sep27.180045.8289@midway.uchicago.edu>
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 18:00:45 GMT
In article <1992Sep27.174959.21240@Princeton.EDU> egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Edward G. Nilges) writes:
>In article <1992Sep26.195343.28231@m.cs.uiuc.edu> kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>>* The St. Paul cross burner could have been tried not only on arson,
>> trespass, *and* Minnesota's law against terrorist treat. The
>> prosecutor, however, choose to try him only on the city's ordinance
>> against hate speech.
>>
>Which means that RAV was already a criminal and not in full possession
>of rights.
Ed: "could have been tried" does not equal "criminal." Yet.
>Convicted criminals in our society were recently deprived of
>a number of rights by the sitting Supreme Court, including some rights
>of appeal in capital cases and the right to have jail conditions
>declared cruel and inhuman,
This last clause is untrue.
Meanwhile, Ed, I suggest that you read both the Supreme Court opinion,
and the Minneapolis ordinance in question, as you are demonstrably
confused as to what either said.
--
.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
ted frank | thf2@midway.uchicago.edu | standard disclaimers
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
From caf-talk Caf Sep 27 22:55:40 1992
Newsgroups: uiuc.civil-liberty,alt.censorship,misc.legal,alt.politics.correct,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: thf2@quads.uchicago.edu (Citecheck Hell)
Subject: Re: "Multiculturalism and the First Amendment"
Message-ID: <1992Sep27.221411.15724@midway.uchicago.edu>
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 22:14:11 GMT
In article <1992Sep27.214208.16504@Princeton.EDU> egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Edward G. Nilges) writes:
>>2. I've already posted a follow up with the correct spelling and a
>> book reference.
>
>Good. Shuddha done it before.
>
>>3. It's "Hentoff" not "Henthoff".
>
>Thanks; that was a typo rather than an egregious error which placed on
>display the fact that you didn't know what you were talking about
It was a typo you repeated several times.
>>Here is the law:
>>
>>Code 292.02 (1990), which provides:
>> -Whoever places on public or private property a
>>symbol, object, appellation, characterization or graffiti,
>>including, but not limited to, a burning cross or Nazi
>>swastika, which one knows or has reasonable grounds
>>to know arouses anger, alarm or resentment in others
>>on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender
>>commits disorderly conduct and shall be guilty of a
>>misdemeanor.
>
>This is valid under the "fighting words" doctrine (and it is interesting
>that many pro-RAV-decision posters don't like that doctrine, for it's
>what stands between us and Sarajevo.) Far from being a "slippery
>slope", this law draws a clear boundary around certain acts.
Nonsense. It has nothing to do with "fighting words." It has
only to do with words.
Note, Ed, that you were wrong in your last hundred posts on the subject
when you claimed that the ordinance did not create a separate crime, but
only enhanced penalties for existing crimes.
Furthermore, Hentoff's analysis of the statute is correct: the same
statute in 1950's Mississippi would prohibit a sign saying "Desegregate
Now"; in a Catholic neighborhood, it would prohibit the ACT-UP signs
that condemn Cardinal O'Connor with the phrase "Know your scumbags."
>>>Which means that RAV was already a criminal and not in full possession
>>>of rights. Convicted criminals in our society were recently deprived of
>>>a number of rights by the sitting Supreme Court, [...]
>>
>>RAV was not (indeed, is not) a convicted criminial.
>
>But it's essential to you half-assed case that "he could have been
>tried" under criminal (felony rather than misdemeanor!) laws. The guy
>was tried under the most lenient law available; your tender care for his
>"freedom" is such that you'd reconvict him under far more Draconian
>statutes! You don't give a flying fuck about anyone's freedom, only
>about a collective ability to control outgroups with mean, low and
>insulting speech.
Far easier to control the outgroups by banning their speech completely.
Which is what Minneapolis laws would eventually lead to. Anti-porn
laws take out Hustler today, but "Our Bodies, Ourselves" tomorrow.
--
.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
ted frank | thf2@midway.uchicago.edu | standard disclaimers
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
From caf-talk Caf Sep 27 23:05:26 1992
Newsgroups: uiuc.civil-liberty,alt.censorship,misc.legal,alt.politics.correct,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: "Multiculturalism and the First Amendment"
Message-ID: <1992Sep28.030519.3540@eff.org>
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 03:05:19 GMT
Ed Nilges makes a point of trying to invalidate Nat Hentoff's discussion
of the First Amendment by noting that Hentoff is anti-abortion. I'm
pro-choice myself, but I don't assume that those who disagree with me
on that issue are therefore vicious or untrustworthy in what they say.
Hentoff is quite knowledgeable about the First Amendment and about freedom
of speech. That he is wrong (IMHO) in his stance on abortion does not make
him wrong on the issue of freedom of speech.
--Mike
--
Mike Godwin, |"The meeting of two personalities is like the contact
mnemonic@eff.org| of two chemical substances: if there is any reaction,
(617) 864-0665 | both are transformed."
EFF, Cambridge | --Carl Jung
