From caf-talk Caf Sep 28 09:24:55 1992
From: kdenning@portal.hq.videocart.com (Karl Denninger)
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,misc.legal.computing
Subject: Re: MCI E-mail Snooping
Message-ID:
Date: 28 Sep 92 12:58:53 GMT
In article jbotz@mtholyoke.edu (Jurgen Botz) writes:
>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?
The ECPA provides an exception for service providers in the course of their
duties (which certainly includes keeping the system running or fixing
problems).
>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?
To insure that connections are clean and trouble-free (which probably
includes spot-checks to verify this), yes.
--
Karl Denninger Inet: kdenning@hq.videocart.com
VideOcart Inc. Voice: (312) 987-5022
From caf-talk Caf Sep 28 09:41:33 1992
Newsgroups: uiuc.civil-liberty,alt.censorship,misc.legal,alt.politics.correct,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: grimlok@hubcap.clemson.edu (Mike Percy)
Subject: Re: "Multiculturalism and the First Amendment"
Message-ID: <1992Sep28.133934.21154@hubcap.clemson.edu>
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 13:39:34 GMT
egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Edward G. Nilges) writes:
>In article <1992Sep27.205816.3121@m.cs.uiuc.edu> kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>>
>>>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.
And your posting makes you seem an ass.
>>2. I've already posted a follow up with the correct spelling and a
>> book reference.
>Good. Shuddha done it before.
Ah, yes. Ed -- all-knowing netgod who never, ever, would even think
about posting about something he had not researched thoroughly and run
through a spelling checker. Last time I read the tips for new users, it
said, in particular, that spelling flames are not useful to anyone.
>>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
Ed, come on, Ed. You lie again. A typo is a simple thing. If you had
spelled the name even once correctly, perhaps you could honestly weasle
out with the typo excuse. But in your posting, you misspelled Hentoff
as Henthoff exactly 10 times. Not once did you spell it correctly.
Looks pretty egregious to me. Note that I'm not criticizing your
spelling, merely your hypocrisy.
You flame mercilessly about Carl's questionable spelling and lack of
effort, yet you do the same. At least Carl indicated that he was unsre
of the name and the time. You make the same error, but try to pass it
off as a typo. You claim that no Carl committed an egregious error by
posting with incomplete information. Carl has always been one of most
thorough posters -- often providing so much reference material that I
have to hit 'n' in his postings. You provide no references; never seem
to be willing to provide supporting materials in quotations.
You repeatedly make such claims to perfection, then are forced to cover
your ass with lies and damned lies. Your lack of research recently
allowed you to make repeated claims about Carl Lewis "the hurdler" (and
yes, I know someone else said it first, but you repeated it). Carl
Lewis is a gold-medalist sprinter and long-jumper, not a hurdler. I
guess you subconsiously wanted to trivialize Mr. Lewis' achievements as
a black man...
Mike Percy | grimlok@hubcap.clemson.edu | I don't know about
Sr. Systems Analyst | mspercy@clemson.clemson.edu | your brain, but mine
Info. Sys. Development | mspercy@clemson.BITNET | is really...bossy.
Clemson University | (803) 656-3780 | (Laurie Anderson)
From caf-talk Caf Sep 28 10:59:59 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: <1992Sep28.144829.22538@Princeton.EDU>
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 14:48:29 GMT
In article <1992Sep27.230624.905@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>cmk>1. I placed a question mark after the date and name indicating my
>cmk> uncertainty.
>
>
>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, I've been flamed for every error I've made, and (for every REAL)
error, I've published a retraction and the truth. Get used to it. You
not only referred to Herbert Marcuse as Herb Marsacosa, you ascribed the
practise of repressive tolerance to Hentoff's enemies, feminists and the
so-called politically correct, where the practise is used by the latter
two groups to analyse Hentoff's beliefs. Independent of our
convictions on the worth of what Nat Hentoff has to say, this is a
serious error, and referring to a noted German philosopher ms Herb
makes us Americans look like unlettered idiots. Our economy is already
being transformed by German and Japanese literacy and economic power
into a low-wage, low-skill labor and consumption pool for the rest of
the world; please don't post information on a global network that
further convinces the Germans that nobody here has any brains.
[No, guys, this isn't censorship. I have no power than other to make a
simple request of Carl, and in law "truth is the best defense." Carl
posted a serious untruth.]
From caf-talk Caf Sep 28 11:32:19 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: <1992Sep28.151440.25798@Princeton.EDU>
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 15:14:40 GMT
In article <1992Sep27.231746.1154@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl Kadie) writes:
>
>>* 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).
So Hentoff, in addition to you, is seriously misrepresenting Marcuse.
Repressive tolerance is not the decision by a ruling class to only allow
"good" points of view, whether those "good" views are left or right.
It's a structural phenomenon in which late capitalist society simply
gets out of the business of "censorship" because the structures of daily
life do a far more efficient job of controlling behavior than the
censors ever could.
Example: in the 1950s, there was a lot of overt censorship. Remnants of
prewar Hays office censorship in Hollywood saw to it that explicit sex
and violence was only hinted at, and Catholics were required to avoid
"condemned" movies (as defined by the Legion of Decency) and books on
the Index Librorum Prohibitorum. Yet at the same time there was much
more diversity of political discussion. Liberal democrats, Socialists
like Norman Thomas, and Communists were on the ballot, along with
extreme right wingers.
Now we can see anything (although on the job and, if we are sexually
subordinate women, in the home, we can't say everything.) At the same
time, political life is incredibly narrow. Both Clinton and Bush
support the death penalty, for example.
Marcuse would not analyze a simpleminded causal relationship and he
would NOT advocate bringing back censorship in hopes of improving
political dialogue (although it can be cogently argued that energy spent
masturbating to Madonna, mentally or physically, is energy lost from
political action.) He'd say, instead, that the two phenomenon are
structurally linked such that you can't have one without the other.
He'd say that repressive tolerance gives you freedoms that appear to be
additive (more freedom for men implies in this view more freedom for
women; how this is so is not explained) but which may REDUCE overall
freedom.
Look at the Simpsons, a popular cartoon show known for its frank talk;
"eat my shorts, man" describes pedophilia and perversion. Matt
Groening, prior to hitting it Big with the Simpsons, drew bizarre little
cartoons for years characterised by a surreal outlook that did not
target "real" personality types. Prototypes of Homer and Marge
appeared, but not identified as such; instead they were actors in strips
concerning family dysfunction, as in one identifying the types of Dads
available today (the alcoholic, the violent, the absent, the simply
embarrassing.) This changed when it hit TV. Homer and Marge were
identified as specific members of the lower middle class and as
permissible targets of abuse, people who children could identify with
their real parents. The toleration of Bart's attitude is actually
repressive because the mechanism of TV finance and production ensures
that Bart's targets won't be able to sue. Ergo, Bart's dad won't be
(say) a Henry Kissinger lookalike with a big job in Washington where he
gets to send men to die; he'll be a powerless safety inspector in a
nuclear plant (and a convenient focus for our ignorance and fear of
technology).
The tolerance becomes repressive under the actual conditions of
production. And I am not speaking as an academic trying to use the
"correct" Marxist/feminist code. I am speaking as one with twenty years
in business, who sees the structures operate in conference rooms every
day!
You made an error. But Hentoff has been in political dialog for years
and he knows damn well that "repressive tolerance" is exactly what HE is
advocating. Hentoff therefore lies: about his committment to
reproductive choice, about the St Paul law, and about repressive
tolerance. Please don't listen to him (or better, do, and then make
sure to question him.)
From caf-talk Caf Sep 28 11:43:11 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: <1992Sep28.153011.27789@Princeton.EDU>
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 15:30:11 GMT
In article <1992Sep27.233708.1395@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>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.
>
The only difference is that the fighting words doctrine applies to
one-on-one encounters. The St Paul law is valid under the background
reasoning of fighting words: free speech is not an absolute right that
automatically trumps all other rights. Nobody really believes that it
does. Proponents of absolute free speech would deny it to prisoners,
the insane, and children, and feminists point out that their
pornographic free speech silences the free speech of women. The St Paul
law was an effort to demarcate an area in which free speech is trumped
by civil peace.
>
>ANNOTATED REFERENCES
Good, you're doing your homework. Thanks.
From caf-talk Caf Sep 28 11:59:31 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: <1992Sep28.154427.29536@Princeton.EDU>
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 15:44:27 GMT
In article <1992Sep27.221411.15724@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>
>It was a typo you repeated several times.
>
Yeah, I noticed. But the error was not linked with a serious reversal
of the truth, as happened with Carl Kadie's and Hentoff's
misrepresentation of Herbert Marcuse's theories. I remain obliged to
Carl for calling me on my misspelling. Mispelling people's names makes
ME look bad. But since Carl and Hentoff are exactly wrong on repressive
tolerance, since THEY are the repressively tolerant, this means that
(far from being the fearless defender of the rights of the little guy,
which is Hentoff's and presumably Carl's pose) they are actually part of
the repressively "tolerant" Establishment.
>
>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.
In fact, that's what the ordinance does, for my placing a burning cross
on MY lawn (which is NOT what RAV did) is assaultive of any black
passerby. The broadcast, as opposed to the one-on-one, nature of the
act should increase, not decrease, its seriousness. Marching through a
Jewish neighborhood with Nazi regalia is assault on every Jew in that
neighborhood. Even the supporters of the SC decision say that the act
is ALREADY covered by existing law, so they concede that the law
enhances or adds-to penalties for existing crimes.
>
>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.
False equivalence. Hustler is dedicated to the subordination of women
to lower-middle-class men, whereas "Our bodies" was dedicated to the
empowerment of women. You CAN draw a distinction between the two types
of speech. Why was a (male) judge able to simply say of porn "I know it
when I see it" (and why is an entire legal theory of "realism" defined
as little more than "what de judge says"), whereas when feminist
theorists produce rich, detailed and apparently cogent analyses of why
pornography is DIFFERENT, they are dismissed as (1) hysterical or (2)
obfuscating or (3) too talkative? Could it be that Catherine MacKinnon
is CORRECT when she says that power is the power to SAY, "this is x?
From caf-talk Caf Sep 28 12:05:25 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: <1992Sep28.155350.835@Princeton.EDU>
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 15:53:50 GMT
In article <1992Sep28.030519.3540@eff.org> mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:
>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.
Nat's anti-choice stance is part of a deep opposition to feminism that
first surfaced inside the Village Voice (with which Hentoff has been
associated for thirty years.) A number of women staffers began to
question the serious exploitation that took place at the Voice and to
ask why (given its committment to freedom) this exploitation was
permitted to continue. This resulted in a pogrom in which the most
outspoken women were harassed and fired.
Hentoff favors pornography, which is most often the literal record of a
woman being coerced into having sex, but opposes abortion...he has more
care for the rights of potential human beings than the rights of real
human beings.
From caf-talk Caf Sep 28 12:17:04 1992
From: chrisb@natinst.com (Chris Bartz)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,misc.legal,alt.politics.correct,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: "Multiculturalism and the First Amendment"
Date: 28 Sep 1992 11:12:17 -0500
Message-ID: <1a7at1INNlh1@eagle.natinst.com>
In article <1992Sep27.230624.905@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>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.
I'm sorry Carl but Ed is right. You are lazy and it made you look
silly and I just can't take anything you say seriously anymore :-)
I would encourage you to put all your spelling mistakes near the
beginning of your post. This way Ed will go into a diatribe about
your spelling and people will hit 'n' before wasting their time
reading his posts.
--
-chris bartz (chrisb@natinst.com)
From caf-talk Caf Sep 28 13:06:22 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: <1992Sep28.151737.16977@midway.uchicago.edu>
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 15:17:37 GMT
In article <1992Sep28.144829.22538@Princeton.EDU> egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Edward G. Nilges) writes:
>Carl, I've been flamed for every error I've made, and (for every REAL)
>error, I've published a retraction and the truth.
I still haven't seen you publish a retraction for any of your false
claims re the RAV decision or the Minneapolis statute.
And though you e-mailed me admitting you were completely wrong about
the MIT antitrust case, I still haven't seen the posted correction
over a week later.
>You
>not only referred to Herbert Marcuse as Herb Marsacosa, you ascribed the
>practise of repressive tolerance to Hentoff's enemies,
He didn't. He made it quite clear that he didn't get the name right from
his notes, but he gave enough clues that anyone who knew of Marcuse's
work (and, in my case, someone who was only vaguely aware of Marcuse's
work only because he taught at my undergraduate institution) could figure
out what Carl was talking about. And then he posted a followup clarification
before your obnoxious correction.
>feminists and the
>so-called politically correct, where the practise is used by the latter
>two groups to analyse Hentoff's beliefs.
1) Carl didn't ascribe anything to anybody. He discussed what Hentoff
had to say, without indicating approval or disapproval. You need
to learn not to shoot the messenger, Ed.
2) I'm not sure what you're complaining about--Carl ascribed a practice
(I'll refrain from noting that you misspelled practice. Twice.) to
groups that use that practice? What's wrong with that?
>... Carl posted a serious untruth.]
He did no such thing. If he had represented what he posted as the
truth, you could make this accusation, though it would be somewhat
unfair, given that he corrected it in less than a few hours. However,
given that Carl indicated from the first that he was uncertain as to the
name, you owe him an apology, which I imagine we'll all die before seeing.
--
.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
ted frank | thf2@midway.uchicago.edu | standard disclaimers
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
From caf-talk Caf Sep 28 14:38:57 1992
Newsgroups: uiuc.civil-liberty,alt.censorship,misc.legal,alt.politics.correct,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,soc.culture.jewish
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Citecheck Hell)
Subject: Minneapolis Hate Speech Ordinance
Message-ID: <1992Sep28.170613.22678@midway.uchicago.edu>
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 17:06:13 GMT
Followups narrowing the distribution.
In article <1992Sep28.154427.29536@Princeton.EDU> egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Edward G. Nilges) writes:
>In article <1992Sep27.221411.15724@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>It was a typo you repeated several times.
>
>Yeah, I noticed. But the error was not linked with a serious reversal
>of the truth, as happened with Carl Kadie's and Hentoff's
>misrepresentation of Herbert Marcuse's theories.
Well, how about your continued misrepresentation of the Minneapolis
statute?
>>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.
>
>In fact, that's what the ordinance does, for my placing a burning cross
>on MY lawn (which is NOT what RAV did) is assaultive of any black
>passerby.
No, it isn't. Not under any definition of assault used in the last
five hundred years in the legal community.
It still doesn't change that the ordinance made it a separate offense.
The plain language of the ordinance makes it very clear, and your
deletion of it is telling.
>Marching through a
>Jewish neighborhood with Nazi regalia is assault on every Jew in that
>neighborhood.
It's obnoxious, it's offensive, but it's not an assault.
>Even the supporters of the SC decision say that the act
>is ALREADY covered by existing law, so they concede that the law
>enhances or adds-to penalties for existing crimes.
Ed, I haven't made that concession. Nor have I seen anyone else
make that concession. This is not an enhancement statute. There
is no way to honestly call this an enhancement statute. Unless you're
using a different definition of enhancement than the rest of the world.
>>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.
>
>False equivalence. Hustler is dedicated to the subordination of women
>to lower-middle-class men, whereas "Our bodies" was dedicated to the
>empowerment of women
I know that, Ed. You know that. Now write a law that can ban one without
resulting in the ban of the other. Can't be done--we live in a world where
there are more people offended by OBOB than Hustler. Once you ban one,
you remove the opportunity for protection of the other.
Your support of penalties for speech endanger the very groups you seek to
protect. You're a white male (as you've stated before); this isn't going
to hurt you when it happens. I'm a minority that's been squashed before
by governments extending their powers as you wish them to. The ordinance
that bans swastikas today as offensive to Jews will eventually lead to
the ordinance tomorrow that bans Jews as offensive to Christians.
--
.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
ted frank | thf2@midway.uchicago.edu | standard disclaimers
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
From caf-talk Caf Sep 28 18:57:24 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [] File 4--Studying Rights and Cyberspace
Message-ID: <1992Sep28.224913.13514@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 22:49:13 GMT
[A repost - Carl]
From caf-talk Caf Sep 28 18:57:24 1992
From: woj <@netmgr.cso.niu.edu:REWOICC@ERENJ.BitNet>
Subject: File 4--Studying Rights and Cyberspace
Message-Id:
The following article is transcribed from "Clarkson Closeup", a
magazine sent to alumni and such. I thought that CuD might be
interested in the subject matter (and perhaps the EFF might be as
well). I'm fairly certain that Prof. Ross is reachable via the net.
No byline is given.
((MODERATORS' COMMENT: Professor Ross may be reached at:
SROSS@CRAFT.CAMP.CLARKSON.EDU).
+++++
"Studying Rights and Cyberspace"
Susan M. Ross, assistant professor of Technical Communications, has
been awarded a $3,600 grant from the Canadian Embassy to study the
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the U.S. Bill of Rights
with respect to computer-mediated communication. Her research
involves the study of cyberspace -- the "virtual" or imaginary space
within which computer data is stored.
Cyberspace can be entered though any computer connected in a network,
or via a modem. Within networks, "communities" are formed through the
ex-change of data and information.
Ross is analyzing the human rights issues within these cyberspace
communities to help define the rights of users connected to networks.
Her research also assesses the differences in legal structure,
regarding electronic communication, between the United States and
Canada. Currently, she is looking at specific legal issues which have
entered litigation.
Last year, for example, a network called CompuServe experienced
problems with obscene material posted by users. Courts ruled the
network was not responsible for postings by a private user.
Concerns have also arisen in both nations over guaranteeing "equal
justice" to those accused of committing computer-assisted crimes and
those accused of crimes in which computer technology in not involved.
Differences in the wording of the constitutions could affect the
pursuit of "equal justice." For example, the U.S. Constitution does
not explicitly extend constitutional protections (e.g. First Amendment
and Fourth Amendment rights) to citizens who employ or are affected by
technologies that its framers could not anticipate. In contrast,
Canada does guarantee, "freedom of thought, belief, opinion and
expression, including freedom of the press and other media of
communication."
The research has applications for the Free Trade Agreement with
respect to computer information exchange across the border. It also
covers the evolution of constitutional civil rights for citizens who
enter cyberspace from the U.S. and Canada.
Ross received a bachelor of arts degree from Middlebury College,
master's degrees from Dartmouth University and the University of
Vermont, and her doctorate from Renssalaer Polytechnic Institute.
++++++++++
I'd be interested in hearing more about this CompuServe case if anyone
has any information on it - I seem to have missed it completely.
Also, I think that Prof. Ross should be made aware of CuD, EFF and the
telecom-privacy digest as I'm sure that she could find some
interesting material there (and possibly save her some work.)
Just another Clarkson alum...
Reply to: Rob Woiccak - rewoicc@erenj.bitnet
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Sep 28 22:54:07 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: <1992Sep29.025115.10089@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 02:51:15 GMT
In article <1992Sep27.233708.1395@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl M.
Kadie) writes:
cmk1>Code 292.02 (1990), which provides:
cmk1> -Whoever places on public or private property a
cmk1>symbol, object, appellation, characterization or graffiti,
cmk1>including, but not limited to, a burning cross or Nazi
cmk1>swastika, which one knows or has reasonable grounds
cmk1>to know arouses anger, alarm or resentment in others
cmk1>on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender
cmk1>commits disorderly conduct and shall be guilty of a
cmk1>misdemeanor.
egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Edward G. Nilges) writes:
en1>This is valid under the "fighting words" doctrine[...]
egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Edward G. Nilges) later changes
his position:
en2>The only difference is that the fighting words doctrine applies to
en2>one-on-one encounters.
Another difference is that the fighting words doctrine only applies to
those words "likely to provoke violent action". It is not enough that
speech be offensive, or invite dispute, or provoke hostility among
listeners.
en2>The St Paul law is valid under the background
en2>reasoning of fighting words: free speech is not an absolute right that
en2>automatically trumps all other rights.
The specific background reasoning of the fighting words doctrine is
that a listener in a face-to-face verbally abusive situation may act
violently without having time to reason. In such a case, the speaker
has some responsibility for the violence.
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Sep 29 07:27:15 1992
From: greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (J. S. Greenfield)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.politics.correct
Subject: Re: "Multiculturalism and the First Amendment"
Message-ID: <1992Sep28.235707.11675@newstand.syr.edu>
Date: 29 Sep 92 03:57:07 GMT
In article <1a7at1INNlh1@eagle.natinst.com> chrisb@natinst.com (Chris Bartz) writes:
>
>I would encourage you to put all your spelling mistakes near the
>beginning of your post. This way Ed will go into a diatribe about
>your spelling and people will hit 'n' before wasting their time
>reading his posts.
Or they can do one better and place something like
/egnilges/a:j
into their kill file. This will automatically junk any article with "egnilges"
*anywhere* in the article...
--
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 29 11:17:13 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [eff.mail.com-priv] Status of connectivity to xSU by US Federal nets
Message-ID: <1992Sep29.151704.5105@eff.org>
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 15:17:04 GMT
[A repost - Carl]
From caf-talk Caf Sep 29 11:17:13 1992
From: steve@cise.cise.nsf.gov (Stephen Wolff)
Subject: Status of connectivity to xSU by US Federal nets
Message-ID: <9209291450.AA22215@ncri>
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 14:50:01 GMT
On behalf of the R&E community, NSF sought and in June, 1991 received a
letter from the Department of Commerce authorizing IP connectivity to the
so-called Eastern bloc. In a second letter from Commerce in January, 1992,
the authorization was reaffirmed and clarified; i.e., that the concern was
export control, **not** the connectivity itself.
Accordingly, Poland, Czechoslovakia, and Hungary, have been now for some
time announced on the NSFNET Backbone; somewhat more recently, Estonia is
reachable as are (potentially) the other Baltic states.
Although connectivity to the xSU is covered by the Commerce letters to NSF,
at the request of the Federal Networking Council (FNC) the NSF agreed not to
carry such traffic on the NSFNET Backbone. This concession was nugatory
until two recent events: a network in the xSU is now being announced by the
CIX, so that it can (and does) exchange traffic with non-Federal US nets,
and Federal mission agencies are establishing what amount to point-to-point
links from specific sites in the xSU to specific US computational resources.
At the FNC meeting on Thursday, the 24th September, the NSF therefore asked
the FNC to reconsider its position, since a side effect of the growing
connectivity (which is either "non-R&E" or is between unilaterally-selected
scientists and sites in the US and the xSU) is to disenfranchise a large
fraction of the US R&E community whose aspirations for unrestricted
scientific and educational collaboration with their peers and colleagues in
the xSU NSF fully endorses.
-s
PS: Countries whose nets are announced on the NSFNET Backbone are listed in
/statistics/nets.by.country, available by anonymous ftp from nis.nsf.net. -s
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Sep 29 13:41:18 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [eff.mail.com-priv] Re: Status of connectivity to xSU by US Federal nets
Message-ID: <1992Sep29.174111.8875@eff.org>
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 17:41:11 GMT
[A repost - Carl]
From caf-talk Caf Sep 29 13:41:18 1992
From: nipper@ira.uka.de (Arnold Nipper)
Subject: Re: Status of connectivity to xSU by US Federal nets
Message-ID: <9209291522.AA08434@psi.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 15:20:54 GMT
>PS: Countries whose nets are announced on the NSFNET Backbone are listed in
>/statistics/nets.by.country, available by anonymous ftp from nis.nsf.net. -s
/statistics/nsfnet/nets.by.country
Arnold Nipper
XLINK
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Sep 29 14:48:18 1992
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Minireview: _Free speech in an open society_ by Rodney A. Smolla
Message-ID: <1992Sep29.184810.10473@eff.org>
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 18:48:10 GMT
DISCLAIMER FOR ED N. -- This is a summary/paraphrase of a book. You
can flame the author for his ideas, you can flame me for
misrepresenting the author's ideas, but please don't flame me for the
author's ideas.
Smolla, Rodney A.
Free speech in an open society / by Rodney A. Smolla. 1st ed. New
York : Knopf : Distributed by Random House, 1992.
xii, 429 p. ; 25 cm.
Includes bibliographical references (p. 369-414) and index.
ISBN 0679407278 : $$27.50 ($$34.50 Can.)
1. Freedom of speech--United States. 2. Freedom of speech I. Title.
ocm23-768570
Minireview:
One-line: New, up to date, and has lots of references to relevent court cases.
Says that history doesn't provide a comprehensive theory of free
speech, that mere balancing of competing interest is not enough.
Gives six suggested rules for speech rules in the general marketplace
of ideas:
1. Neutrality - Government may not "pick and choose" among ideas, but
must always be viewpoint-neutral"
2. Emotion - Speech does not forfeit the protection that it would
otherwise enjoy merely because it is laced with passion or vulgairty.
3. Symbolism - The First Amendment includes all expressive conduct
4. Harm -- physical (e.g. solicitation of murder or arson),
relational (e.g. libel, false advertising, copyright infringement,
unauthorized revelation of perivate personal information)
reactive harm (e.g. infliction of emotional distress, obscenity)
The government has the strongest case for regulating "physical". A
strong, but not as strong case, for regulating "relational". No good
case for regulating "reactive".
5. Causation - speech is required to be in a close causal nexus with harm
before it can be penalized
6. Precision - prohibitions must be the least restrive means and must
very clear.
Includes chapters on
hate speech -- "In a just soceity, reason and tolerance must triumph
over prejudice and hate. But that triump is best achived thought
education, no coerecion. Tolerance shouild be a dominant voice in
the markeplace of ideas, but it should not preempt that marketplace."
public funding of the arts, education, and other forms of public
speech -- says that only neutral, precise, relevent restrictions
should be allowed.
political speech -- "Limits on political contributions and the
public financing of elections are reforms that do not offend the
First Amendment. But limit on expenditure do.
The Noriega Tapes and the Gulf War
New Technologies -- e.g. TV, cable -- indecent or obscene material should
not be regulated at all because it is "immoral". Any regulations
should be aimed only at protecting childern and "captive" adult
audiences.
Toward an International Marketplace of ideas
Score: 9 of 10
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Sep 29 15:34:50 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 02.44
Message-ID: <1992Sep29.193440.11566@eff.org>
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 19:34:40 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/cafv02n44".
The full CAF-News is also available via email. Send email to
archive-server@eff.org. Include the line:
send caf-news cafv02n44
--- begin abstract ---
[Week ending September 6, 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.
===============================================================
[We need new guest (or regular) editors, for information send
email to kadie@eff.org. - Carl]
Notes 1-5 are distinct; no significant threads developed during this first
week of classes at most schools. It looks like most of us were busy with
other things!
1. On Freedom of Expression and Campus Speech Codes. "This is a policy
statement from the American association of University Professors. The
statement was endorsed by AAUP's Committee on Academic Freedom and Tenure
and by its Council at their meetings in June 1992."
<1992Sep1.232150.23045@eff.org>
2. "Women Against Censorship" is a collection of essays by feminists
opposed to censorship and certain antipornography movements. Excerpts here
discuss antipornography law, its effect on the feminist movement, its
potential for polarizing feminists against one another, and the
relationship between civil liberties and feminism.
<2519@bsu-cs.bsu.edu>
3. This is a reposting from ClariNet of a UPI article concerning censorship
in the classroom. People for the American Way, a civil liberties group,
reports that censorship or challenges of textbooks, classic novels, and
other materials are at their highest levels in 10 years of surveys. Censors
appear to be more successful now than at any time in the past four years.
The most frequent rationales for challenges were that the materials were
Satanic, New Age, or anti-Christian. Objectionable language and offensive
sexuality were the next most frequent rationales.
<1992Sep1.214241.984@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
4. Carl Kadie updates us on recent changes to the CAF Archive, where
information on computers and academic freedom is kept. Material includes
back issues of the CAF newsgroup discussions and CAF-News digests, book
reviews, legislators' addresses, frequently asked questions on a number of
topics, reports on laws and litigation, and more.
<1992Sep2.210144.8139@eff.org>
5. Not so much because it's pertinent to computers and academic freedom,
but because there's room this issue for it, here is a recent edition of
John December's wonderfully useful list of Internet information resources
and services. A browse through it will tell you where to look for: the
electronic texts of books on networking; electronic journals and
newsletters; Gopher and WAIS services; BBS lists; e-mail addresses; network
etiquette; weather maps; and much more. It's the Swiss Army knife of
Internet information!
- Mark]
--- 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 30 02:55:45 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: Banned Computer Material 1992
Message-ID: <1992Sep30.065537.23479@eff.org>
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 06:55:37 GMT
Banned Computer Material 1992
Inspired by Banned Book Week '92, this is a list of computer material
banned or challenged in academia in 1992. Iowa State University has
the dubious distinction of being listed most often (three times).
The list proper starts after a list of the academic institutions
involved. The list proper is followed by instructions on how to get
more information about specific incidents and then by instructions on
how to get general information about computers and academic freedom.
Please send reports, corrections, and updates to either
caf-talk@eff.org (a public mailing list) or kadie@eff.org (private).
-- Carl Kadie, kadie@eff.org,
co-editor Computer and Academic Freedom News
============= Academic Institutions Involved ==================
USA
Ball State University
Boston University (i)
Carnegie Mellon University
Iowa State University (i)
North Dakota State University
Princeton
University of California at Berkeley
University of Massachusetts at Boston
University of Nebraska at Lincoln
University of Wyoming
Virginia Public Education Network
Virginia Tech
Williams College
Canada
Canadian universities
Simon Fraser University
University of British Columbia
University of Manitoba
University of Toronto
University of Ottawa
Wilfrid Laurier University (i)
Wilfrid Laurier University (ii)
Europe
Irish universities
German universities
Middle East Technical University in Turkey
UKNet
Updates
Iowa State University (ii)
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Continuing
Boston University (ii)
Iowa State University (iii)
James Madison University
Pennsylvania State University
University of Newcastle
University of Texas
University of Toledo
Western Washington University (& University of Washington)
=============== List of Banned Computer Materials ==============
+ USA:
Computer code at *Ball State University* to crack passwords
... even if it is never run. During a system-wide search, an
administrator found the computer code. The user says "[i]t really
bothers me that I'm going to get in a lot of trouble (probably
anyway) just for the mere possession of a program."
REFERENCE:
news/cafv02n11:<9202161945.AA24863@bsu-cs.bsu.edu>
Lyrics to Ice-T's Cop Killer in a .plan file at *Boston University*
"Two people have complained to my department's chair... .He asked me
informally to remove it. I told him I would not do so voluntarily."
REFERENCE:
news/cafv02n35:
Articles in an open bulletin board at *Carnegie Mellon University* if
they offend
The University threatened to investigate the author on charges of
sexual harassment unless he stopped writing.
news/cafv02n11:<46750.298C2BB3@psycho.fidonet.org>
news/cafv02n08:<1992Jan28.223429.20426@eff.org>
Material from the rec.arts.erotica newsgroup at *Iowa State University*
To protest the University's ban of this newsgroup, a student
reposted some of the articles to newsgroup isu.newsgroups. He was
summarily expelled from the University computers. Later his
account was restored. The incident made the front page of the
student newspaper.
news/cafv02n30:<1992May6.033143.16713@eff.org>
news/cafv02n30:<1992May8.064304.8364@news.iastate.edu>
All "offensive" material at *North Dakota State University*
Banned by the Policy on Misuse of Computer Facilities
news/cafv02n20:<1992Apr27.214917.13402@eff.org>
Any electronic posting at *Princeton* that demeans a person because of
his or her beliefs
banned by Princeton's Guidelines for the use of Campus and
Network Computing Resources and the more general Rights, Rules,
Responsibilities Policy.
news/cafv02n20:<199204292110.AA23705@eff.org>
news/cafv02n20:<1992Apr29.213206.24214@eff.org>
Anti-Semitic material available at the *University of California at
Berkeley* via the Internet
... challenged by a student, but the University and the
Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith said that censorship would be
inappropriate.
news/cafv02n07:
All .plan files at the *University of Massachusetts at Boston* that would
not be given a PG-13 rating
news/cafv02n39:
All the alternative newsgroups (even alt.censorship) at the
*University of Nebraska at Lincoln*
... because someone might find some of the articles in some of the
newsgroups "objectionable". On April 6th the UNL Academic Senate
Executive Committee voted to request restoration of the majority of
the alt.* groups, but none have been restored.
news/cafv02n22:<1992Mar26.214421.26447@sparky.imd.sterling.com>
news/cafv02n22:<9203212232.AA24018@cse.unl.edu>
news/cafv02n23:<1992Apr1.192701.28737@eff.org>
news/cafv02n23:<9205040334.AA04565@cse.unl.edu>
news/cafv02n23:
news/cafv02n30:<1992May5.005813.281@eff.org>
Computer code at the *University of Wyoming* for Internet Relay Chat
A student was told that if university searches turned up IRC code in
his possession, he "would be disusered without hope for reinstatement."
news/cafv02n08:
<3803321809011992_A11466_POSSE_11614C9F3200*@mrgate.uwyo.edu>
Any network use on *Virginia Public Education Network* that violates
"generally accepted social standards"
Such use is defined as "obscene" and is banned by PEN's Acceptable
Use Policy.
policies/virginia.pen.edu
policies/virginia.pen.edu.critique
Any "unwarranted annoyance" or "unsolicited email" at *Virginia Tech*
... banned by the Information System's Appropriate Use Policy.
news/cafv02n20:<1992Apr27.214917.13402@eff.org>
The phrase "George Bush and his people need a bullet in the head" posted
to the Net from *Williams College*
The posting led to a U.S. Secret Service and grand jury investigation.
news/cafv02n29:<1992Jun11.001601.29258@morrow.stanford.edu>
+ Canada:
alt.sex.bondage and other "pornographic writing" anywhere in *Canada*.
... challenged in a CBC Radio show that suggested that the police
would suppress these if they could figure out how.
news/cafv02n30:
All Netnews discussions of sex at *Simon Fraser University*
The _Globe and Mail_ quotes the director of academic computing
services: "It's the same as if somebody wants Playboy or
Penthouse. We don't have them in the university library." In
fact, SFU has _Playboy_ in its library.
news/cafv02n38:<1992Jul21.164722.252@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu>
news/cafv02n37:
All "vulgar", "reprehensible", "pornographic", or "poison[ous]"
material that might be accessed from, created on, or stored on
*University of British Columbia* computing equipment starting with
newsgroups alt.sex and rec.arts.erotica
... banned by order of the president of the University
news/cafv02n39:
All Netnews discussions of sex at the *University of Manitoba*
... banned the day after a critical article in the Winnipeg Free Press
news/cafv02n21:<1992May10.093635.27536@ccu.umanitoba.ca>
news/cafv02n38:<1992Jul21.164722.252@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu>
news/cafv02n37:
news/cafv02n26:<1992May28.010057.18609@cs.sfu.ca>
news/cafv02n30:<1992May31.080939.25516@clarinet.com>
All on-line material related to sex at *University of Toronto*
... challenged in a broadcast by CITY-TV (an independent Toronto
television station) that suggested the U. of Toronto should deal
with the "problem" like U. of Manitoba did, that is, by banning the
material. The U. of Toronto resisted the challenge and refused to
censor the material.
news/cafv02n34:<1992Jul7.150830.27316@ccu.umanitoba.ca>
policies/utoronto.ca
news/cafv02n37:
news/cafv02n33:<1992Jun16.045026.15800@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca>
The alt.sex* newsgroups at the *University of Ottawa*
cases/wlu.ca
All "profane" computer file names at *Wilfrid Laurier University*
news/cafv02n40:<1992Aug13.182157.5688@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
The alt.sex* newsgroups at *Wilfrid Laurier University*
... because the administration thinks they are "offensive" and "puerile".
cases/wlu.ca
+ Europe:
Newsgroups at *many German universities* that discuss sex, including
discussion of recovery from sexual abuse
... banned in response to an article in the German paper "EMMA" .
news/cafv02n23:<199204201927.AA07124@eff.org>
Netnews discussion in *Ireland* of abortion
news/cafv02n11:<1992Feb24.222848.12187@maths.tcd.ie>
Netnews discussion via Switzerland's SWITCH of gay rights, of drugs
and drug policy, and of sex and recovery from sexual abuse. Also,
United Press International articles related to terrorism or sex
SWITCH is an academic network consortium. The official rational is
that this information *might* be illegal under Swiss law.
news/cafv02n22:<1992Mar2.135005.14877@neptune.inf.ethz.ch>
news/cafv02n11:<1992Feb20.180752@sic.epfl.ch>
news/cafv02n13:<16825.9203091724@pyr.swan.ac.uk>
All on-line political or religions "activism" at *Middle East
Technical University in Turkey*
news/cafv02n21:<1992May4.223243.28741@eff.org>
Newsgroups alt.sex*, alt.drugs, alt.evil, alt.tasteless and
rec.arts.erotica on *UKNet*
UKNet is an academic network in the United Kingdom.
news/cafv02n33:<1992Jun08.165434.4998@bas-a.bcc.ac.uk>
news/cafv02n30:<1992May19.093311.105@rdg.dec.com>
+ Updates:
Most on-line discussion of sex at *Iowa State University*
Iowa State University restricts access to these newsgroups. The
rational for the restriction is Iowa's Obscenity law. That law,
however, explicitly exempts universities. Since the original
restrictions were started rec.arts.erotica has been added to the
restricted list, while discussion of drugs and drug policy were
removed.
news/cafv02n11:<1992Feb23.201324.12799@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
news/cafv02n11:<3198@ecicrl.ocunix.on.ca>
news/cafv02n08:<1992Jan24.160039.20161@news.iastate.edu>
news/cafv02n30:<1992May11.132630.23905@news.iastate.edu>
Email send to or from the National Center for Supercomputer
Applications (NCSA) that verbally attacks the Center or the
*University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign*
No longer grounds for a computer file search
case/ncsa.email
news/cafv02n33:<1992Jun2.011050.15719@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
+ No Changes Reported:
Any computer files at *Boston University* that anyone else finds
offensive or annoying
The rules at Boston University prohibit a computer user from "making
accessible offensive [or] annoying ... material".
news/cafv01n10
All rude articles at *Iowa State University*
On-line rudeness is prohibited by Iowa State computer policy. A
student was reprimanded for posting a rude article to the net.
news/cafv01n38
news/cafv02n23:<1992Apr2.174625.23219@eff.org>
All email containing "offensive" material at *James Madison University*
news/cafv01n39
The alt.sex.* hierarchy on PSUVM, the main general purpose computer at
*Pennsylvania State University*
news/cafv01n34
All offensive messages at *University of Newcastle*
news/cafv01n39
All email or Netnews articles that "bring discredit" to the *University
of Texas* or its Computer Science Department"
news/cafv01n37
The alt.sex newsgroup at the *University of Toledo*
batch/oct_06_1991
More than a dozen newsgroups, including alt.sex, at *Western Washington
University*
They were removed from Western Washington University on the order of
one person, the Vice Provost for "information and communication".
Alt.sex remains at the *University of Washington*, but other
newsgroups were removed right before a negative article was printed
in the Seattle _Post_Intelligencer_.
news/cafv01n33
news/cafv01n36
news/cafv01n35
news/cafv01n41
========= How to get more information about an incident =========
Following each item in the list above is one or more references.
For example:
news/cafv02n11:<9202161945.AA24863@bsu-cs.bsu.edu>
news/cafv01n10
policies/virginia.pen.edu
cases/wlu.ca
batch/oct_06_1991
In the first example, "news/cafv02n11" is the name of a file and
"<9202161945.AA24863@bsu-cs.bsu.edu>" is a message-id within the file.
The other example references consist of just file names. If a
reference includes a message-id, retrieved the named file first, then
edit it and do a text search for that message-id.
The files are available by anonymous ftp (the preferred method) and by
email. To get the files via ftp, do an anonymous ftp to ftp.eff.org
(192.88.144.4), and "get" the files.
For example:
get pub/academic/news/cafv02n11
get pub/academic/news/cafv01n10
get pub/academic/policies/virginia.pen.edu
get pub/academic/cases/wlu.ca
get pub/academic/batch/oct_06_1991
To get the files by email, send email to archive-server@eff.org.
For the files in the example, the email should contain the lines:
send acad-freedom/news cafv02n11
send acad-freedom/news cafv01n10
send acad-freedom/policies virginia.pen.edu
send acad-freedom/cases wlu.ca
send acad-freedom/batch oct_06_1991
========== Other Information of Possible Interest ===========
All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.
=================
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?
=================
banned.1991
=================
A list of computer material that was banned at universities during (or
before) 1991. It summarizes incidents and policies at Ohio State U.,
the U. of Illinois (two campuses), Case Western U., Boston U., U. of
Waterloo, U. of Toledo, Western Washington U., Iowa State U.,
Pennsylvania State U., U. of Texas, U. of Newcastle, James Madison U.,
U. of Wisconsin, and others.
=================
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.
=================
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?
=================
faq/netnews.writing
=================
q: Should my university allow students to post to Netnews?
=================
faq/netnews.liability
=================
q: Does a University reduce its likely liability by screening Netnews
for offensive articles and newsgroups?
=================
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?
=================
faq/media.control
=================
q: Since freedom of the press belongs to those who own presses, a
public university can do anything it wants with the media that it
owns, right?
=================
faq/policy
=================
q: What guidance is there for creating or evaluating a computer policy?
=================
library/bill-of-rights.ala
=================
The Library Bill of Rights from the American Library Association.
=================
library/diversity.ala
=================
"Diversity in Collection Development"
An interpretation by the American Library Association of the "Library
Bill of Rights"
It says that collections should be inclusive, not exclusive. And that
materials should cover the needs and interest of all patrons. "This
includes materials that reflect political, economic, religious,
social, minority, and sexual issues."
=================
academic/speech-codes.aaup
=================
On Freedom of Expression and Campus Speech Codes Expression - An
official statement of the American Association of University
Professors (AAUP)
It says in part: "On a campus that is free and open, no idea can be
banned or forbidden. No viewpoint or message may be deemed so hateful
or disturbing that it may not be expressed."
=================
academic/student.freedoms.aaup
=================
Joint Statement on Rights and Freedoms of Students -- This is the main
U.S. statement on student academic freedom.
=================
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."
=================
=================
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/caf
pub/academic/banned.1991
pub/academic/statements/caf-statement
pub/academic/statements/caf-statement.critique
pub/academic/faq/netnews.reading
pub/academic/faq/netnews.writing
pub/academic/faq/netnews.liability
pub/academic/faq/censorship-and-harassment
pub/academic/faq/media.control
pub/academic/faq/policy
pub/academic/library/bill-of-rights.ala
pub/academic/library/diversity.ala
pub/academic/academic/speech-codes.aaup
pub/academic/academic/student.freedoms.aaup
pub/academic/law/uwm-post-v-u-of-wisconsin
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 caf
send acad-freedom banned.1991
send acad-freedom/statements caf-statement
send acad-freedom/statements caf-statement.critique
send acad-freedom/faq netnews.reading
send acad-freedom/faq netnews.writing
send acad-freedom/faq netnews.liability
send acad-freedom/faq censorship-and-harassment
send acad-freedom/faq media.control
send acad-freedom/faq policy
send acad-freedom/library bill-of-rights.ala
send acad-freedom/library diversity.ala
send acad-freedom/academic speech-codes.aaup
send acad-freedom/academic student.freedoms.aaup
send acad-freedom/law uwm-post-v-u-of-wisconsin
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Sep 30 09:52:22 1992
From: haverkam@uni-duesseldorf.de (Wilhelm Haverkamp)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Calendar of Events till December 92.
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 13:39:36 GMT
Message-ID:
Who can send me a calendar of events
about computer-oriented congresses
in NY or surrounding.
Thanks in advance
Wilhelm Haverkamp
From caf-talk Caf Sep 30 11:12:05 1992
From: betsys@cs.umb.edu (Elizabeth Schwartz)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.censorship,soc.college
Subject: Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Message-ID:
Date: 30 Sep 92 15:42:51 GMT
I protest our inclusion in a list entitled "Banned Materials."
We do not ban ANY legal materials. All we ask is that obscene, sexual,
or violent (or obnoxious ASCII or excessively long) materials be made
available at user request, and not shown to users who have not
requested this display.
There's a BIG DIFFERENCE. You are allowed to own, advertise, and
distribute any speech you like. For example, any user may post in
their .plan file or on our bulletin board "for sexually explicit
lyrics, see my publicly readable file dirty.txt"
I think this is analagous to a student newspaper requiring
political speech to be on the editorial pages, or requiring political
groups to use bulletin boards instead of plastering the walls. You are
allowed to speak but others are allowed to choose to receive your
material or not.
(*ie we would ban pirated software)
--
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 30 11:25:34 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Prof. in Brazil kicked on the network
Message-ID: <1992Sep30.152527.600@eff.org>
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 15:25:27 GMT
[Here are some articles in which
1. A Professor in Brazil posts something to Bitnet he maybe
wasn't suppose to
2. His local sys admin expels him from the computer (and thus the network)
and then announces this action the world
- Carl]
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 12:25:00 BSC
From: GELSON GOMES
Subject: Mastering Internet Tools
Sender: ListServ list owners
Comments: @FPSP.FAPESP.BR - @FPSP.HEPNET - @BRFAPESP.BITNET - .BR gateway
Comments: To: LCC-L@BRUFMG.BITNET, LCLTEST@TECHNION.BITNET,
LCOORD-L@CEARN.BITNET, LDBASE-L@UKANVM.BITNET, LEADTCHR@PSUVM.BITNET,
LECTU-L@BRUFSC.BITNET, LEPICSP3@LEPICS.BITNET, LEXX-L@IRISHVMA.BITNET,
LGA-L@UREGINA1.BITNET, LHLOG@UIUCVMD.BITNET, LHU-L@ALBNYDH2.BITNET,
LIAISON@BITNIC.BITNET, LIAISON@DEARN.BITNET, LIAISON@FINHUTC.BITNET,
LIAISON@HEARN.BITNET, LIAISON@MARIST.BITNET, LIAISON@UGA.BITNET,
LIBADMIN@UMAB.BITNET, LIBALL@PURCCVM.BITNET, LIBEVENT@USCVM.BITNET,
LIBEX-L@MAINE.BITNET, LIBINFO@HARVARDA.BITNET, LIBMASTR@UOTTAWA.BITNET,
LIBNET-L@EMUVM1.BITNET, LIBNET-L@NCSUVM.BITNET, LIBPER-L@KSUVM.BITNET,
LIBPLN-L@QUCDN.BITNET, LIBRARY@INDYCMS.BITNET, LIBREF-L@KENTVM.BITNET,
LIBRES@KENTVM.BITNET, LIBSCRN@PURCCVM.BITNET, LIBSYS@UWAVM.BITNET,
LIBTECH@PURCCVM.BITNET, LICENSE@BITNIC.BITNET, LICENSE@DEARN.BITNET,
LICENSE@FINHUTC.BITNET, LICENSE@HEARN.BITNET, LICENSE@MARIST.BITNET,
LICENSE@UGA.BITNET, LINGFAC@ARIZVM1.BITNET, LINGSTUD@ARIZVM1.BITNET,
LINGUA@ARIZVM1.BITNET, LINGUIST@TAMVM1.BITNET, LING417@RICEVM1.BITNET
"Mastering INTERNET Tools, Seizing METANET Power" -
"The InterMeta Course"
Begining on October 10, the InterMeta Course will describe
the History of the Metanetwork, cover the basic utilities used to
access the network and guide users through the Internet's,
Bitnet's, (and othernets') "databases of databases" to access
files and archives available. Some of the topics to be presented
in the InterMeta Course are how to (1)Remote Login, (2)Use
Electronic Mail, (3)Move a File, (4)Find Software, (5)Locate a
Person, (3)Deal with Network Problems. An index that covers a
selection of resources available on the Internet, ranging from
Card Catalogs to Archives for USENET news will also be delivered.
In addition, some sessions will help UNIX, VMS, VAX and DOS users
to interface their systems to the Net.
{_ Resulting from five years of researcing and using the
Network, the InterMeta Course is being prepared by Gelson
Gomes,Ph.D. The InterMeta is the first experience of a Global
Scale Course utilizing a matrix of connected networks, the
Metanetwork.
Dr. Gomes is a professor at the Federal University of Parana
and is conducting research on the Computer Industries of Brazil
and Taiwan. He got his Doctoral Degree on Science and Technology
Public Policy at The George Washington University (Washington
D.C.).
The course will be ministered from Brazil; to help
recovering local communication costs, (PDN is very expensive in
Brazil) a flat $ 5 US dollars donation is requested.
To enroll in the InterMeta Course, please fill in the
application bellow and E-Mail to: Gelson@BRFAPESP.
____________________________________________________________
Mastering INTERNET Tools, Seizing METANET Power -
The InterMeta Course
____________________________________________________________
APPLICATION FORM
Name:
Institution:
Highiest Degree Earned:
City: Country:
__ Yes, I am sending US$ 5 dollars
(or the equivalent on my own currency)
Mail your check to:
Gelson V. Gomes
358, R. Alvaro Andrade - ap.1201
Curitiba PR BRAZIL 80610-240
$
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 12:12:12 PDT
From: Melvin Klassen
Subject: RE: Mastering Internet Tools
Sender: ListServ list owners
On Sat, 26 Sep 1992 12:25:00 BSC, GELSON GOMES wrote:
> "Mastering INTERNET Tools, Seizing METANET Power" - "The InterMeta Course"
> ... 24 lines deleted ...
> to help recovering local communication costs (PDN is very expensive in Brazil)
It's too bad that he did **not** include "network etiquette" among his topics!
His message was posted to at least 94 BITNET mailing-lists (by my incomplete
count). I sent him a reply (including the entire text of his note),
with the addition:
Thank you for informing me of this course.
However, at this time, I do not wish to register.
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 15:58:04 -0500
From: John B Harlan
Subject: RE: Mastering Internet Tools
Sender: ListServ list owners
I sent Gelson a note, too. Not cool, such massive crossposting.
John B. Harlan (LSTOWN-L owner -- hjw)
JBHarlan@IndyVAX
JBHarlan@IndyVAX.IUPUI.Edu
219.289.6629
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 14:31:58 CDT
From: "(J. Philip Miller)"
Subject: Apologies re: InterMeta course (fwd)
Sender: ListServ list owners
I received the following note in response to a complaint about the widespread
posting over the weekend. Earlier today, I had received an appology from Mr.
Gelson Gomes.
-phil
Forwarded message:
> From GOMIDE@fapq.fapesp.br Mon Sep 28 14:03:28 1992
> Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 16:07 BSC (-0300 C)
> From: gomide@fpsp.fapesp.br
> Subject: Apologies re: InterMeta course
> Sender: Alberto Courrege Gomide
> To: phil@wubios
> Reply-To: gomide@fapq.fapesp.br
> Message-Id:
> X-Envelope-To: phil@wubios.wustl.edu
> X-Vms-To: IN%"phil@wubios.wustl.edu (J. Philip Miller)"
> References: ANSP Network HEPnet SPAN Bitnet Internet gateway
> Comments: @FAPQ.FAPESP.BR - @FAPQ%FPSP.HEPNET - @BRFAPQ.BITNET - .BR gateway
>
> PLEASE DO NOT SEND MONEY !
> It is with regret that I perform this task. Dr. Gelson V. Gomes. a
> professor of the University of Parana, Brazil, has exceeded this
> privileges and announced a eletronic course:
>
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > Mastering INTERNET Tools, Seizing METANET Power -
> > The InterMeta Course
> > ____________________________________________________________
>
> I must apologize for this flagrant breach of network etiquette. Please
> be aware that Dr. Gelson had no right to do so, since this is against
> the rules of our ANSP network, and also against the Bitnet rules.
> PLEASE DO NOT SEND MONEY!
> I will not discuss what his motivations were. But his account has been
> revoked, and there will be no such course through my network.
>
> Please write by normal mail, to:
> -> Gelson V. Gomes
> -> 358, R. Alvaro Andrade - ap.1201
> -> Curitiba PR BRAZIL 80610-240
> to get more information on his objectives. He may want to give the
> course by normal mail. :-)
>
> With regards,
> --
> Alberto Courrege Gomide | Fundacao de Amparo `a Pesquisa - (11)831-3357
> Software Supervisor | Rua Pio XI, 1500 - CEP 05468-901 - Sao Paulo
> | FAX (11)261-4167 Telex (11)82014 - Brazil
> (ACG8) - .BR Domain Technical Contact. |
> --
--
J. Philip Miller, Professor, Division of Biostatistics, Box 8067
Washington University Medical School, St. Louis MO 63110
phil@wubios.WUstl.edu - Internet (314) 362-3617 [362-2694(FAX)]
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 06:05:00 N
From: "H.J. Woltring, fax/tel +31.40.413 744"
Subject: RE: Crime & Punishment (copy)
Sender: ListServ list owners
Dear LSTOWN-L readers,
Following Melvin Klassen's reaction to Mr Gomide and the receipt of Mr
Gomide's statement on Biomch-L while Prof. Gelson's original posting
had *not* been posted to my list, I sent a note to Mr Gomide. Below is
part of his reply and my comment. While private notes should not be
published without the author's consent, I think that the present issue
overrides his copyright.
hjw
---------------------------------------------------------------
From: KUNPV1::WOLTRING "H.J. Woltring, fax/tel +31.40.413 744"
Date: 29-SEP-1992 05:48:17.67 MET
To: IN%"GOMIDE@BRFAPQ"
CC: WOLTRING
Subj: RE: Crime and Punishment ...
> Received: Tue, 29 Sep 92 01:26 MET
> Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 19:51 -0300
> From: Alberto Courrege Gomide
> Subject: RE: Crime and Punishment ...
> Original_To: Jnet%"WOLTRING@HNYKUN53.BITNET"
>
> ( ... )
>
> Moreover, many people are answering with "I sent the money!" - the
> fact that mail to is bouncing may discourage some of them.
>
> Yours,
> Alberto Gomide.
Thanks for the above. As regards the latter point, this can be addressed
by simply issueing a new, different user_id to Prof. Gelson? Also, the fact
that many people are, indeed, paying up does suggest to me that many respon-
dents don't think that he went out of bounds. If his intents were non-commer-
cial, I find it difficult to see how he offended CREN / EARN rules as put
forward in, e.g., file CONDUCT CODE at NETSERV@HEARN.BITNET -- perhaps except
for generating too much network traffic?
I trust that you'll take a wise decision.
Herman J. Woltring.
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 08:39:01 EDT
From: Stan Horwitz
Subject: RE: Crime & Punishment (copy)
Sender: ListServ list owners
How can anyone who is not personally involved with the decision to trash Dr.
Gelson's account could fault Mr. Gomide in this matter? Surely, if Dr.
Gelson was not treated fairly by Mr. Gomide, he could take the matter up
with Mr. Gomide and higher management there. I am not sure if my employer's
rules are any different than anyone else's, but we would never boot a
legitimate user off one of our systems unless we had damned good reason to do
so and could justify it to our Vice President if necessary.
It seems obvious to me that Dr. Gelson is not qualified to teach a network
course. Now that I think about it, it also seems very strange that Dr.
Gelson asked for donations directly to him, and not to his employer? This
idea of helping offset the networking costs there seems mighty strange given
the fact that he wanted the checks in his name. Hmmm. I suspect its what
got him in trouble, not the mass cross-posting of the announcement per se.
Take care everyone,
Stan Horwitz Internet: STAN @ VM.TEMPLE.EDU Bitnet: STAN @ TEMPLEVM
Temple University's Sr. Mainframe Consultant; Manager of the Help-Net
and Suggest lists; Listserv Postmaster
Standard disclaimers apply. One of these days I will make this sig file
look much nicer.
(N.B.: This was sorted out in private with Mr Horwitz -- hjw)
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 11:20:27 EDT
From: 34AEJ7D@CMUVM.BITNET
Subject: RE: Crime & Punishment (copy)
Sender: ListServ list owners
On Tue, 29 Sep 1992 08:39:01 EDT Stan Horwitz said:
>How can anyone who is not personally involved with the decision to trash Dr.
>Gelson's account could fault Mr. Gomide in this matter? Surely, if Dr.
I, for one, find Mr. Gomide's massive cross-posting of the action
taken against Dr. Gelson to be significantly objectionable in and of itself.
You are quite correct in saying that this was and is an internal matter
at the institution involved. IMHO, Mr. Gomide's wholesale transmission
of what one would presume to be privileged information regarding internal
disciplinary matters is no less offensive than the original post. If he
*had* to post something, Mr. Gomide should have stopped with a simple
"do not send money" imperative.
W. K. Gorman
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 92 23:16:00 N
From: "H.J. Woltring, fax/tel +31.40.413 744"
Subject: Crime and Punishment ...
Sender: Biomechanics & Movement Science listserver
TO: Sr Alberto Courrege Gomide
System Administration, BRFAPQ.BITNET
Fundacao de Amparo a Pesquisa do Estado de Sao Paulo, Brazil
cc: Sr Vilson Sarto
Biomch-L@HEARN.BITNET / Biomch-L@nic.surfnet.nl readership
Dear Mr Gomide,
Thank you for your posting onto Biomch-L@HEARN.BITNET concerning a
seemingly inappropriate BITNET posting in which some money was asked
for organising an electronic course on networking. Actually, I do
not think that the original posting was distributed on Biomch-L, so
it seems that you may have been overreacting.
I have seen the original posting on a number of other lists, and
I must agree with Melvin Klassen's LSTOWN-L posting that the punish-
ment exacted on the offender does not seem commensurate with the
seriousness of his crime. In my mind, the offender was more interested
in compensating for expenses than in making a profit; as such, I do not
think that his action was more than a (serious) breach of etiquette,
possibly confounded by the fact that your machine is both on BITNET and
on the Internet -- the latter is, indeed, becoming increasingly commercial
with many .com and .org sites.
In view of the above, may I urge you to reconsider the decision that the
offending professor is completely cut off from networking facilities?
Thank you for your kindness,
Herman J. Woltring PhD
Moderator, Biomch-L@nic.surfnet.nl
Biomch-L is an email forum in the field of Biomechanics and Movement Science
under the Patronage of the International Society of Biomechanics, currently
encompassing more than 630 subscribers world-wide. Subscription is possible
by sending the one-line request SUBSCRIBE BIOMCH-L <1st_name last_name> to
listserv@nic.surfnet.nl in the main body of an email note (the Subject: line
is irrelevant), while postings should be sent to Biomch-L@nic.surfnet.nl with
a relevant Subject: line (up to 40 chars).
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Sep 30 12:12:03 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: Re: Banned Computer Material 1992 - UMB
Message-ID: <1992Sep30.161154.1944@eff.org>
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 16:11:54 GMT
kadie@eff.org (Carl Kadie) writes:
[...]
>All .plan files at the *University of Massachusetts at Boston* that would
>not be given a PG-13 rating
> news/cafv02n39:
[...]
betsys@cs.umb.edu (Elizabeth Schwartz) writes:
>I protest our inclusion in a list entitled "Banned Materials."
The UMB rule was, in my opinion, the mildest ban on the list.
>We do not ban ANY legal materials.
You don't ban any legal materials completely, but you do ban them from .plans.
> All we ask is that obscene, sexual, or violent ([...]) materials be
>made available at user request, and not shown to users who have not
>requested this display.
All you ask is people label their material by your criteria and that
the don't offend anyone, even once. No one has to read a whole .plan.
No one has to see a .plan they find offensive twice. Many people find
many religious and political materials offensive; should those be
banned to.
> There's a BIG DIFFERENCE. You are allowed to own, advertise, and
>distribute any speech you like. For example, any user may post in
>their .plan file or on our bulletin board "for sexually explicit
>lyrics, see my publicly readable file dirty.txt"
This is good. Much better than, say, Boston U.'s rules.
> I think this is analagous to a student newspaper requiring
>political speech to be on the editorial pages,
I think it is analagous to the *University administation* requiring
that political speech in the student newspaper be on the editorial
pages.
> or requiring political
>groups to use bulletin boards instead of plastering the walls.
Everyone must use bulletin boards instead of plastering the walls. The
restrictions are not based on content.
> You are
>allowed to speak but others are allowed to choose to receive your
>material or not.
[...]
I agree that people have a right to avoid that which offends them, but
I don't think that people have a right to never be offended (or that a
public university should try to enforce that "right").
As the Supreme Court said in _Cohen v. California_, 1971:
"Finally, in arguments before this Court much has been made of the
claim that Cohen's distasteful mode of expression was thrust upon
unwilling or unsuspecting viewer, and that the State might therefore
legitimately act as it did in order to protect the sensitive from
otherwise unavoidable exposure to appellant's crude form of protest
... While this Court has recognized that government may properly act
in many situations to prohibit intrusion into the privacy of the home
of unwelcome views and ideas which cannot be totally banned from the
public dialog ... we have at the same time consistently stressed that
'we are often "captives" outside the sanctuary of the home and subject
to objectionable speech.' ... The ability of government, consistent
with the Constitution, to shut off discourse solely to protect others
from hearing it is, in other words, dependent upon the showing that
substantial privacy interest are being invaded in an essentially
intolerable manner. Any broader view of this authority would
effectively empower a majority to silence dissidents simply as a
matter of personal predilections." ...
- Carl
ANNOTATED REFERENCES
(All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.)
=================
news/cafv01n42: Message-Id: <1991Nov21.182340.11577@eff.org>
=================
An article from the Computers and Academic Freedom News 01.42
Note 11 is about rules that may effectively outlaw library catalog searches.
11. Rules that outlaw offensive computer expression also effectively outlaw
on-line searches of library catalogs because many catalogs contain
offensive titles.
=================
library/access.restrictions.ala
=================
"Restricted Access to Library Materials"
An interpretation by the American Library Association of the "Library
Bill of Rights"
It says in part: "In any situation which restricts access to certain
materials, a barrier is placed between the patron and those materials.
That barrier may be age related, linguistic, economic, or
psychological in nature." ... "Because restricted collections often
are composed of materials which some library patrons consider
'objectionable,' the potential user may be predisposed to think of the
materials as 'objectionable' and, therefore, are reluctant to ask for
them."
=================
library/labeling.ala
=================
"Statement on Labeling"
An interpretation by the American Library Association of the "Library
Bill of Rights"
It gives three reasons why labeling is bad. The first is that
"[l]abeling is an attempt to prejudice attitudes and as such, it is a
censor's tool."
=================
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."
=================
policies/bostonu.edu.critique
=================
Critique of the ethics policy for Boston University Information Technology
Summary: 'In the name of protecting privacy, the policy attacks
privacy. It says the University has the power to "without notice, ...
inspect ... any data [or] file". It imposes speech restrict[ion]s that
would be ridiculed if applied to the campus as a whole. It says the
user may not "mak[e] accessible offensive [or] annoying material"'
=================
banned.1992
=================
A list of computer material that was banned or challenged in academia
in 1992. The institutions mentioned are:
Ball State U., Boston U. (2), Carnegie Mellon U., German universities,
Iowa State U. (3), Irish universities, James Madison U., Middle East
Technical U., North Dakota State U., Pennsylvania State U., Princeton,
Simon Fraser U., U. of British Columbia, U. of California at Berkeley *,
U. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, U. of Manitoba, U. of
Massachusetts at Boston, U. of Nebraska at Lincoln, U. of Newcastle,
U. of Ottawa, U. of Texas, U. of Toledo, U. of Toronto *, U. of Wyoming,
UKNet, Virginia Public Education Network, Virginia Tech, Western
Washington U. (& U. of Washington), Wilfrid Laurier U. (2), Williams
College **
========
* Site of an unsuccessful challenge
** College not directly involved.
=================
=================
These document(s) are available by anonymous ftp (the preferred
method) and by email. To get the file(s) via ftp, do an anonymous ftp
to ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4), and get file(s):
pub/academic/news/cafv01n42
pub/academic/library/access.restrictions.ala
pub/academic/library/labeling.ala
pub/academic/law/cohen-v-california.1
pub/academic/law/cohen-v-california.2
pub/academic/policies/bostonu.edu.critique
pub/academic/banned.1992
To get the file(s) by email, send email to archive-server@eff.org.
Include the line(s) (be sure to include the space before the file
name):
send acad-freedom/news cafv01n42
send acad-freedom/library access.restrictions.ala
send acad-freedom/library labeling.ala
send acad-freedom/law cohen-v-california.1
send acad-freedom/law cohen-v-california.2
send acad-freedom/policies bostonu.edu.critique
send acad-freedom banned.1992
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Sep 30 12:46:13 1992
Newsgroups: uiuc.civil-liberty,alt.censorship,misc.legal,alt.politics.correct,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: dave@bradley.bradley.edu (David Vessell)
Subject: Re: "Multiculturalism and the First Amendment"
Message-ID: <1992Sep30.163937.16400@bradley.bradley.edu>
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 92 16:39:37 GMT
egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Edward G. Nilges) writes:
>kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>>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.
If a person wants to burn a cross on his own property, is that not his
right to do so, both by freedom of expression and property rights? I'm no
lawyer, but even I can see that the St. Paul ordinance would have
restricted both. Had the ordinance said 'on someone else's property' then
the kid would have been convicted, since no one has freedom of expression
on someone else's private property.
>>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.
I think your outburst is unjustified. In all the years that I've been
reading this newsgroup, Mr. Kadie has gone above and beyond the call of
duty to report and comment on issues of freedom of speech and expression.
You are the one who has no regard for anyone's rights, all too eager to
take away other peoples' free speech rights to further your own little idea
of Utopia. Remember that one price of freedom of speech is tolerating (and
if necessary, arguing against) speech you don't agree with. Argue against
hate speech, educate against hate speech, but when you try to legislate
against it you're no better than the people you're attempting to silence.
--
=========*davE*.....making the world safe for intelligent dance music.=========
Think twice you people!!
--------------------------{dave@bradley.bradley.edu}---------------------------
From caf-talk Caf Sep 30 13:14:24 1992
Newsgroups: uiuc.civil-liberty,alt.censorship,misc.legal,alt.politics.correct,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: dave@bradley.bradley.edu (David Vessell)
Subject: Re: "Multiculturalism and the First Amendment"
Message-ID: <1992Sep30.170214.17948@bradley.bradley.edu>
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 92 17:02:14 GMT
egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Edward G. Nilges) writes:
>Example: in the 1950s, there was a lot of overt censorship. Remnants of
>prewar Hays office censorship in Hollywood saw to it that explicit sex
>and violence was only hinted at, and Catholics were required to avoid
>"condemned" movies (as defined by the Legion of Decency) and books on
>the Index Librorum Prohibitorum. Yet at the same time there was much
>more diversity of political discussion. Liberal democrats, Socialists
>like Norman Thomas, and Communists were on the ballot, along with
>extreme right wingers.
>Now we can see anything (although on the job and, if we are sexually
>subordinate women, in the home, we can't say everything.) At the same
>time, political life is incredibly narrow. Both Clinton and Bush
>support the death penalty, for example.
Last time I checked, there were 11 candidates for president on the ballot
here in Illinois, and 4 of them were on the ballot in all 50 states. The
discussion still goes on, though our own ignorance has served to squash
ballot choice diversity. But I don't see how you can possibly justify your
statement that there was much more diversity in political discussion then
than now. Wasn't it about 1950 that the active persecution of Communists
began? They were certainly being *discussed*....but were they allowed to
do much else?
When was there ever freedom of speech at one's place of employment? While
I agree that it's wrong to discriminate against anyone's off-job practices
or beliefs, but on the job that point is moot. Whether women can speak
their mind in their own house is a domestic problem, not a political one,
and that *is* changing. Slowly, but it is changing, as women become less
afraid to speak their mind and men learn to be more fair.
>Look at the Simpsons, a popular cartoon show known for its frank talk;
>"eat my shorts, man" describes pedophilia and perversion.
So what's your point, you wanna ban "The Simpsons" because Bart says "Eat
my shorts"?
>Matt Groening, prior to hitting it Big with the Simpsons, drew bizarre little
>cartoons for years characterised by a surreal outlook that did not
>target "real" personality types. Prototypes of Homer and Marge
>appeared, but not identified as such; instead they were actors in strips
>concerning family dysfunction, as in one identifying the types of Dads
>available today (the alcoholic, the violent, the absent, the simply
>embarrassing.)
"Life in Hell". Yes, it was an unusually blunt and insightful strip and
one of my personal favourites.
>This changed when it hit TV. Homer and Marge were
>identified as specific members of the lower middle class and as
>permissible targets of abuse, people who children could identify with
>their real parents. The toleration of Bart's attitude is actually
>repressive because the mechanism of TV finance and production ensures
>that Bart's targets won't be able to sue. Ergo, Bart's dad won't be
>(say) a Henry Kissinger lookalike with a big job in Washington where he
>gets to send men to die; he'll be a powerless safety inspector in a
>nuclear plant (and a convenient focus for our ignorance and fear of
>technology).
And you would take away his right to depict his characters as he sees fit?
With all your bellyaching about this, this is what you seem to be
suggesting.
>The tolerance becomes repressive under the actual conditions of
>production. And I am not speaking as an academic trying to use the
>"correct" Marxist/feminist code. I am speaking as one with twenty years
>in business, who sees the structures operate in conference rooms every
>day!
Okay. So you seek to set us free by creating barriers to keep us from
getting our feelings hurt. How noble of you to rise up and fight the Rich
White Master. Too bad your rules will just end up being used to further
repress the groups you seek to liberate. Enough examples of that were
given by previous posters that I see no reason to repeat them.
--
=========*davE*.....making the world safe for intelligent dance music.=========
Think twice you people!!
--------------------------{dave@bradley.bradley.edu}---------------------------
From caf-talk Caf Sep 30 14:49:08 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: Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Message-ID: <1992Sep30.184903.25544@eff.org>
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 18:49:03 GMT
Please feel free to repost the list to interested mailing lists or
local newsgroups.
Also, if your school is on the list, you might want to send it to your
campus paper as a press release with a catchy title: "University of
Somewhere on international list of computer censors". You should
probably include a local contact. If you also want to give me as a
contact, send me email.
- Carl
ANNOTATED REFERENCES
(All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.)
=================
banned.1992
=================
A list of computer material that was banned or challenged in academia
in 1992. The institutions mentioned are:
Ball State U., Boston U. (2), Carnegie Mellon U., German universities,
Iowa State U. (3), Irish universities, James Madison U., Middle East
Technical U., North Dakota State U., Pennsylvania State U., Princeton,
Simon Fraser U., U. of British Columbia, U. of California at Berkeley *,
U. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, U. of Manitoba, U. of
Massachusetts at Boston, U. of Nebraska at Lincoln, U. of Newcastle,
U. of Ottawa, U. of Texas, U. of Toledo, U. of Toronto *, U. of Wyoming,
UKNet, Virginia Public Education Network, Virginia Tech, Western
Washington U. (& U. of Washington), Wilfrid Laurier U. (2), Williams
College **
========
* Site of an unsuccessful challenge
** College not directly involved.
=================
=================
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/banned.1992
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 banned.1992
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Sep 30 14:52:05 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: usenet@boss.cs.ohiou.edu
Subject: TEST
Message-ID: <1992Sep29.133412.1@matrix.cs.wright.edu>
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 17:34:12 GMT
______________________________________
| |
| THIS IS ONLY TEST !!! |
|______________________________________|
From caf-talk Caf Sep 30 14:59:29 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.censorship,soc.college
From: twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce)
Subject: Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Message-ID:
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 18:27:01 GMT
In article betsys@cs.umb.edu (Elizabeth Schwartz) writes:
> There's a BIG DIFFERENCE. You are allowed to own, advertise, and
>distribute any speech you like. For example, any user may post in
>their .plan file or on our bulletin board "for sexually explicit
>lyrics, see my publicly readable file dirty.txt"
What if users include sexually explicit text in their .plans, preceded
by a sequence of form feeds (^L) and the statement "Sexually explicit
material follows; press ^C now if it is likely to offend you?" Users
would be amply warned in advance, and there would not be no need even
for any restrictions based on the location of such material.
--
____ Tim Pierce / "You are just naive and repressed because
\ / twpierce@unix.amherst.edu / penis envy is here and it's now and it's
\/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) / all around you." -- Neal C. Wickham
From caf-talk Caf Sep 30 14:59:31 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.censorship,soc.college
From: twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce)
Subject: Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Message-ID:
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 18:40:11 GMT
Amherst College's primary computer system is a VAX running VMS, which
allows each person with an active process to set their "process name"
to any fifteen-character string. Since these process names show up in
the output of the "who" command on our VMS system, people tend to set
them to nicknames or cutesy little sayings.
While there is no censorship of any kind of .plan files or news
postings or email -- the staff is very strict about keeping freedom of
expression open on those lines -- users are not permitted to have
process names that others might find "objectionable," in terms of
profanity. This restriction is in effect primarily because it is very
easy to see other process names "accidentally," whereas people have to
go out of their way to read news or .plan files. I don't quite agree
with that distinction, but c'est la vie.
The "punishment" for breaking this rule is very mild: a brief note
from the computer center director explaining the rule and the reasons
for it. I have no idea what would happen to repeat offenders, but I
suspect very little; very few things would cause you actually to lose
your account at Amherst.
Any thoughts? This seems like a borderline case to me.
--
____ Tim Pierce / "You are just naive and repressed because
\ / twpierce@unix.amherst.edu / penis envy is here and it's now and it's
\/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) / all around you." -- Neal C. Wickham
From caf-talk Caf Sep 30 15:22:35 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.censorship,soc.college
From: dejesus@archimedes.nwc.navy.mil (Francisco X DeJesus)
Subject: Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Message-ID:
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 17:44:39 GMT
In article <1992Sep30.065537.23479@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>Banned Computer Material 1992
...
>Any "unwarranted annoyance" or "unsolicited email" at *Virginia Tech*
> ... banned by the Information System's Appropriate Use Policy.
...
>Any computer files at *Boston University* that anyone else finds
>offensive or annoying
> The rules at Boston University prohibit a computer user from "making
> accessible offensive [or] annoying ... material".
How the hell do you define "annoying"? Does anyone at those schools find the
policy itself "annoying"? What if someone find the "vi" editor annoying? Is
the system administrator forced to erase it? "Gee prof, I wish I could have
finished that programming assignment, but I found it annoying and thus
couldn't work on it online!" :-)
>All rude articles at *Iowa State University*
> On-line rudeness is prohibited by Iowa State computer policy. A
> student was reprimanded for posting a rude article to the net.
Heh. Guess they banned flame wars there too! Wonder what kind of filtering
they must do in their news system to accomplish that!
--
#define DISCLAIMER "I speak only for myself!"
Francisco X DeJesus -------- S A I C -------- dejesus@archimedes.nwc.navy.mil
From caf-talk Caf Sep 30 16:24:37 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.censorship,soc.college
From: pdh@netcom.com (Phil Howard )
Subject: Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Message-ID: <1992Sep30.192405.1619@netcom.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 19:24:05 GMT
betsys@cs.umb.edu (Elizabeth Schwartz) writes:
>I protest our inclusion in a list entitled "Banned Materials."
Why am I not surprised.
>We do not ban ANY legal materials. All we ask is that obscene, sexual,
>or violent (or obnoxious ASCII or excessively long) materials be made
>available at user request, and not shown to users who have not
>requested this display.
It's based on content. That constitutes censorship. Who decides what
is or is not "obscene, sexual, or violent"? If the specific logic to
decide what is or is not, is in writing, why not POST IT HERE (and of
course you would make it available to everyone on campus). If there
is no such specifics, how can anyone know in advance?
> There's a BIG DIFFERENCE. You are allowed to own, advertise, and
>distribute any speech you like. For example, any user may post in
>their .plan file or on our bulletin board "for sexually explicit
>lyrics, see my publicly readable file dirty.txt"
IMHO, you can place a size limit on .plan files, or just make your finger
server ignore them altogether.
The .plan file is a place. If you want to restrict the PLACE, fine;
its is the property of the university. But if it is decided to allow
speech there, it cannot be based on its CONTENT.
> I think this is analagous to a student newspaper requiring
>political speech to be on the editorial pages, or requiring political
>groups to use bulletin boards instead of plastering the walls. You are
>allowed to speak but others are allowed to choose to receive your
>material or not.
If political groups are not allowed to use walls, but all the other
groups ARE ALLOWED TO PLASTER THE WALLS, then you sure have a funny
policy. Wanna bet the the policy REALLY says that the walls are simply
not the forum?
If the newspaper decides to organize the things they are choosing to print
in their own facility, that is their decision. If they are suddenly
restricted by outside decision makers on the basis of their content,
then we have a problem again.
>(*ie we would ban pirated software)
It's already specified as illegal, so this is easy enough to do.
--
/***********************************************************************\
| Phil Howard --- KA9WGN --- pdh@netcom.com | "The problem with |
| depending on government is that you cannot depend on it" - Tony Brown |
\***********************************************************************/
From caf-talk Caf Sep 30 16:24:43 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.censorship] Censorship at Iowa State
Message-ID: <1992Sep30.201927.25985@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 20:19:27 GMT
[A repost - Carl]
From caf-talk Caf Sep 30 16:24:43 1992
From: twap8@isuvax.iastate.edu (Mike McNarney)
Subject: Censorship at Iowa State
Message-ID: <1992Sep30.062126.18026@news.iastate.edu>
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 06:21:26 GMT
An update on the evolving 'door policy' controversy...
We are now allowed to have our RA write our name, major, and hometown
in blue or black ink on a university-supplied 3x5 white index card.
Apparently, enforcement of violations has been left up to RA (Resident
Assistants)s and to Hall Directors. Many on my floor have made their
own corrections to the cards (changed majors, nicknames, etc) with
no reprisal.
Late flash: Blue ink has been outlawed. Black ink only now.
---
-Mike McNarney
Iowa State University
twap8@isuvax.bitnet
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Sep 30 16:46:32 1992
Newsgroups: uiuc.civil-liberty,alt.censorship,misc.legal,alt.politics.correct,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: dave@bradley.bradley.edu (David Vessell)
Subject: Re: "Multiculturalism and the First Amendment"
Message-ID: <1992Sep30.203631.28978@bradley.bradley.edu>
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 92 20:36:31 GMT
egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Edward G. Nilges) writes:
> pornography, which is most often the literal record of a
>woman being coerced into having sex,
Back up your claim or shut the hell up.
--
=========*davE*.....making the world safe for intelligent dance music.=========
Think twice you people!!
--------------------------{dave@bradley.bradley.edu}---------------------------
From caf-talk Caf Sep 30 16:46:33 1992
Newsgroups: uiuc.civil-liberty,alt.censorship,misc.legal,alt.politics.correct,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: dave@bradley.bradley.edu (David Vessell)
Subject: Re: "Multiculturalism and the First Amendment"
Message-ID: <1992Sep30.203418.28824@bradley.bradley.edu>
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 92 20:34:18 GMT
egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Edward G. Nilges) writes:
>In fact, that's what the ordinance does, for my placing a burning cross
>on MY lawn (which is NOT what RAV did) is assaultive of any black
>passerby.
So if some person puts a sign in their yard saying "Drug users must be
executed" and some pot smoker walks by and is offended, the pot smoker
would be justified in calling the police and having the property owner
fined and/or jailed. After all, drug users are victims of the oppresive
establishment. Or maybe *I*, being a Libertarian, am offended by someone
with a sign in their front yard saying "Bush/Quayle '92" (and who in their
right mind wouldn't be offended by that? =-) so I can have them thrown in
jail? Your point ends up the same....you are attempting to give people a
right to not be offended, and in a free society that is neither practical
nor (some would argue) desirable.
I know what RAV did, and had he been tried under the right law, he would
have been found guilty. Instead they chose to try to make an example out
of him and it backfired. Punish the act, not the thought. It only makes
sense.
>The broadcast, as opposed to the one-on-one, nature of the
>act should increase, not decrease, its seriousness. Marching through a
>Jewish neighborhood with Nazi regalia is assault on every Jew in that
>neighborhood. Even the supporters of the SC decision say that the act
>is ALREADY covered by existing law, so they concede that the law
>enhances or adds-to penalties for existing crimes.
But your example here doesn't work, if the Nazi march is on a public street
and the march organizers have abided by all laws applicable to their right
to peacably assemble. RAV did violate laws, but your scenario may not (and
probably would not since groups like the Nazis and the KKK are
hypersensitive to the laws governing their actions and plan in advance for
them).
>>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.
>
>False equivalence. Hustler is dedicated to the subordination of women
>to lower-middle-class men, whereas "Our bodies" was dedicated to the
>empowerment of women. You CAN draw a distinction between the two types
>of speech.
But I sure as hell don't want YOU to be drawing the distinction for
EVERYONE, based on your attitude towards other issues. That's what you're
doing. You're saying "This kind of expression is right, this is wrong, and
I'm going to try to make everyone else see it my way." That's all fine and
good until you start using the law to make other peoples' thoughts, speech,
and expression illegal.
>Why was a (male) judge able to simply say of porn "I know it
>when I see it" (and why is an entire legal theory of "realism" defined
>as little more than "what de judge says"), whereas when feminist
>theorists produce rich, detailed and apparently cogent analyses of why
>pornography is DIFFERENT, they are dismissed as (1) hysterical or (2)
>obfuscating or (3) too talkative? Could it be that Catherine MacKinnon
>is CORRECT when she says that power is the power to SAY, "this is x?
So let's just throw that judge in jail, he obviously is thinking wrongly,
and that will solve the whole problem. Not that I think pornography is a
problem (I myself think it's a myth, but that's another argument), but
judging from the way you'd handle racism, I figure you'd just handle sexism
the same way, by throwing in jail all who don't agree with your little idea
of Utopia.
--
=========*davE*.....making the world safe for intelligent dance music.=========
Think twice you people!!
--------------------------{dave@bradley.bradley.edu}---------------------------
From caf-talk Caf Sep 30 18:19:43 1992
From: marchany@vtserf.cc.vt.edu (Randy Marchany)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.censorship,soc.college
Subject: Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Message-ID: <7601@vtserf.cc.vt.edu>
Date: 30 Sep 92 22:17:32 GMT
In article <1992Sep30.065537.23479@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>Banned Computer Material 1992
>Inspired by Banned Book Week '92, this is a list of computer material
>banned or challenged in academia in 1992. Iowa State University has
>the dubious distinction of being listed most often (three times).
>The list proper starts after a list of the academic institutions
>involved. The list proper is followed by instructions on how to get
>more information about specific incidents and then by instructions on
>how to get general information about computers and academic freedom.
>
>Any "unwarranted annoyance" or "unsolicited email" at *Virginia Tech*
> ... banned by the Information System's Appropriate Use Policy.
> news/cafv02n20:<1992Apr27.214917.13402@eff.org>
>
Carl, Carl, Carl......
I know you didn't intend to cause lost of problems with this post and
subsequent posts on this subject, but you really make it difficult for
those institutions who are trying to balance the need to protect their
computing user communities with the academic freedom rights of the
university community. Really now, do you think that suggesting that
readers contact their campus newspapers (as suggested by you in a
subsequent post) is really helpful? Frankly, I can see the newspapers
grabbing the "hot" issue that will grab the reader's attention and not
give the full picture (any guess as to what the issue would be?
:-)). All we have to do is review the Houston newspaper episode about
Usenet and other incidents like it to realize that no good came out of
it. Having seen protests about being included in the list,
I feel that your post didn't present the entire picture. Indeed, it only
serves to sensationalize a serious topic that all of us (EFF,
Universities, businesses) are trying to define.
For example, I submitted VA Tech's policy for comments and the following
segment shows YOUR critique of our statement. In particular, the specific
item you mention in your 'banned' post and YOUR comments follow:
**********************************************************
EXCERPT from Carl Kadie's review of VA Tech policy, dated (by my
calendar :-)) 4/27/92
Summary: The policy shows good user participation and due process.
Privacy could be improved by detailing the procedure by which searches
are authorized. Freedom of expression could be improved by removing
vague speech restrictions.
>use mail or messaging services to harass, intimidate, or otherwise
>annoy another person, for example, by broadcasting unsolicited
>messages or sending unwanted mail.
Based on court cases like _UWM Post v. U. of Wisconsin_ (which
mentioned email), I believe this speech restriction is illegal because
it is too vague and because it illegally restricts First Amendment
rights.
I suggest:
o use mail or messaging services to harass, for example, by,
sending mail after being told that it is unwanted."
END OF EXCERPT
******************
What I wrote was preceded by the '>', the rest is what YOU wrote.
We are incorporating your suggestions in the next version of this
document. But for you to only give the "Headline" without the rest of
the story only serves to sensationalize the institutions listed. I
think the tone of this 'banned' post only serves to confuse the overall
issue and frankly, I think it will set back the efforts of all involved.
You, of all people, should be aware of what supplying incomplete
information on this delicate subject can do to the effort to balance
the needs of all involved. Having listed institutions under the catchy
banner of "Institutions that BAN material" will make it more difficult
for everyone involved (including institutions that weren't listed).
Telling people where they can get additional information is like a
newspaper printing a retraction on the back pages of the paper. The
majority of people will only remember the original statement.
Frankly, I'm disappointed in you.
-Randy Marchany
VA Tech Computing Center
Blacksburg, VA 24060
INTERNET: marchany@vtserf.cc.vt.edu
From caf-talk Caf Sep 30 20:42:08 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Message-ID: <1992Oct1.004159.17709@eff.org>
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 00:41:59 GMT
marchany@vtserf.cc.vt.edu (Randy Marchany) writes:
[...]
>What I wrote was preceded by the '>', the rest is what YOU wrote.
>We are incorporating your suggestions in the next version of this
>document. But for you to only give the "Headline" without the rest of
>the story only serves to sensationalize the institutions listed.
[...]
Randy,
I'm sorry I didn't mention that the policy was being revised. I based
the list mostly on the CAF-News abstracts, I forgot about your email
message last April. I've added a note to the Virginia Tech entry that
"The policy is currently being revised."
I've made several changes to the list today. Here is a "diff" followed
by access information.
- Carl
< The list proper starts after a list of the academic institutions
< involved. [...]
---
> The list proper starts after a list of the academic institutions where
> bans or challenges have occurred. [...]
> computers and academic freedom.
29a18,19
> Disclaimer: I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
> version: 1.04
31c21
< ============= Academic Institutions Involved ==================
---
> ============= Academic Institutions ==================
39c29
< University of California at Berkeley
---
> University of California at Berkeley (site of an unsuccessful challenge)
45c35
< Williams College
---
> Williams College (the college not directly involved)
51c41
< University of Toronto
---
> University of Toronto (site of an unsuccessful challenge)
62c52
< University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
---
> University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (ban ended)
157a148
> The policy is currently being revised.
241c232,233
< UKNet is an academic network in the United Kingdom.
---
> UKNet is commercial network that connects most academic institutions in
> the United Kingdom. They say that they fear UK law.
532,534d523
< --
< Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
< =kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
ANNOTATED REFERENCES
(All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.)
=================
banned.1992
=================
A list of computer material that was banned or challenged in academia
in 1992. The institutions mentioned are:
Ball State U., Boston U. (2), Carnegie Mellon U., German universities,
Iowa State U. (3), Irish universities, James Madison U., Middle East
Technical U., North Dakota State U., Pennsylvania State U., Princeton,
Simon Fraser U., U. of British Columbia, U. of California at Berkeley *,
U. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, U. of Manitoba, U. of
Massachusetts at Boston, U. of Nebraska at Lincoln, U. of Newcastle,
U. of Ottawa, U. of Texas, U. of Toledo, U. of Toronto *, U. of Wyoming,
UKNet, Virginia Public Education Network, Virginia Tech, Western
Washington U. (& U. of Washington), Wilfrid Laurier U. (2), Williams
College **
========
* Site of an unsuccessful challenge
** College not directly involved.
=================
=================
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/banned.1992
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 banned.1992
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Sep 30 20:53:21 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.censorship,alt.freedom.of.information.act
From: twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce)
Subject: Admission Records Shredded at Amherst
Message-ID:
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 00:26:03 GMT
From the Amherst _Student_ (the weekly newspaper), Wednesday, Sept.
30, 1992:
DEAN REYNOLDS ORDERS SHREDDING OF RECORDS
First-year students anxious to find out just what admission
personnel wrote on the margins of their applications are out of
luck, according to Dean of Admission Jane Reynolds. Reynolds and
her staff have shredded the portions of first-year students'
applications that contained subjective comments. The shredding
is a response to a U.S. Department of Education ruling last April
that indicated that students have a right to see comments written
on applications if the college keeps them.
Students in the sophomore through senior classes, however, may
request to see comments written on their applications, Reynolds
said, because the time that shredding all the documents would
require is not worth the effort.
The ruling was in response to a complaint filed by Joshua
Gerstein, a former editor of _The Harvard Crimson_, who appealed
to the Department of Education when denied access to his
admission files. The department ruled that under the Family
Education Rights and Privacy Act, which grants students access to
all their academic transcripts and records, colleges are legally
obliged to disclose all parts of the application at a student's
request.
Reynolds and Harvard Dean of Admission Marlyn Lewis both said
that the new rules were unlikely to drastically affect the
admission process itself. In a survey conducted by _The
Chronicle of Higher Education_, 83 percent of private colleges
reported that they plan to continue to collect subjective
comments on applications. In her survey response, Reynolds said
Amherst also intends to continue.
Lewis, meanwhile, said that Harvard would also keep collecting
comments but then shred them, because the ruling "forced us to
re-think what kind of documents we keep where."
The document in question at Amherst is a single sheet of paper on
which admission personnel provide numerical evaluations of
applicants and explain their reasoning in brief sentences.
Reynolds said that the document, which she calls "the yellow
sheet," provides an important summary of an application and
facilitates communication among admission personnel.
In coming years, Reynolds said that admission personnel will
shred the subjective portion of the evaluation sheet after the
process has ended. Lewis said that her office has removed the
reader sheets from student files that are sent to students'
advisors.
Some students said they felt they had a right to see the comments
on their applications. "If we bared our souls in our
applications, we have a right to know what the school thought,"
said Amanda Botticello '95.
Other Amherst students said they do not want to see the comments,
and many worry that admission officers might not write candid
evaluations if they had to worry that a student might someday see
their comments. "There's just no point to it," said Stephen
Hurley '96. "It could only hurt the admissions process."
Reynolds said her decision reflects Amherst's commitment to keep
the admission process as honest and candid as possible, and to
ensure that "the decisions made keep the institution in mind."
She said she does not want to complicate an already intricate
process by forcing admission officers to write "cryptically" or
to "soften their prose in anticipation of another possible
audience, the student."
When the Education Department first made its ruling in the
Gerstein case last semester, Reynolds said that pending a review
of the ruling by the College's lawyers, there was no indication
that the ruling applied to any school other than Harvard, and she
denied requests from two _Student_ reporters to see the comments
written about them.
Yesterday, after initial confusion, workers at the admission
office finally told a sophomore _Student_ reporter that she would
have to wait two days to see subjective comments that had been
written on her application and then could only see them in the
presence of an admission officer. She had previously been
referred to the Dean of Students' Office, which then told her to
return to the Admission Office.
In an interview last year, Gerstein said that he began seeking
the comments in order to see if admission officers used racial
and ethnic information in their evaluation of candidates.
Harvard had, at the time, been suspected of discriminating
against Asian American applicants. In light of the records'
destruction, Gerstein had suggested that admission officers may
have something to hide.
The shredding of the documents is not to protect the admission
officers, Reynolds said. The comments, she said, are "critical
and well reasoned," and do not focus on issues like race or
ethnicity. The officers also do not use the sheets as a chance to
be glib or humorous at the expense of a student.
"We open the folder looking to admit this student," Reynolds
stressed.
Lewis agreed, adding, "No one piece of information can keep a
student out or let a student in. We try to assemble a whole
patchwork of information to tell us about each student. The
reader sheet aids in this process." Lewis said that the sheet
contains no new information about a student.
After the subjective comments on the application have been
destroyed, the Harvard Office of Admission will still turn the
application materials themselves over to the Dean of Freshmen for
use in advising, just as Amherst does. Lewis said that essays
can be "useful in advising."
Reynolds said she would advise sophomores, juniors, and seniors
not to see the comments in their admission files. She said that
the comments are candid, and that although the majority are
positive, some are not. Students should ask themselves whether
they really want to see the information about themselves,
Reynolds said.
In an interview, Reynolds produced an actual "yellow sheet,"
after having blocked all names and identifiers from the entire
application. The sheet includes a sticker containing testing and
other information from the Educational Testing Service, a space
for other information about a student and an area in which
admission officers can write candid comments. For example, one
comment read, "Essays show independence as a thinker. An
intelligent voice," and another comment indicated that a student
had performed better at one high school than at another.
Most of the material on the sheet is not new information,
Reynolds said. For example, information on a student's class
rank, athletic history, prizes, or relation to Amherst alumni can
be found in other portions of the application.
--
____ Tim Pierce / "You are just naive and repressed because
\ / twpierce@unix.amherst.edu / penis envy is here and it's now and it's
\/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) / all around you." -- Neal C. Wickham
--
____ Tim Pierce / "You are just naive and repressed because
\ / twpierce@unix.amherst.edu / penis envy is here and it's now and it's
\/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) / all around you." -- Neal C. Wickham
From caf-talk Caf Sep 30 20:54:25 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Message-ID: <1992Oct1.005214.17810@eff.org>
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 00:52:14 GMT
marchany@vtserf.cc.vt.edu (Randy Marchany) writes:
[...]
>Really now, do you think that suggesting that
>readers contact their campus newspapers (as suggested by you in a
>subsequent post) is really helpful? Frankly, I can see the newspapers
>grabbing the "hot" issue that will grab the reader's attention and not
>give the full picture (any guess as to what the issue would be?
>:-)). All we have to do is review the Houston newspaper episode about
>Usenet and other incidents like it to realize that no good came out of
>it.
This is a good point. People should consider this before contacting
their newspapers. However, at many places (Iowa State U., many of the
Canadian schools, Boston U., to name a few) the bans and restrictions
are so entrenched that I don't think a newspaper story is likely to do
any harm and may help by shaking things ups.
[...]
>I feel that your post didn't present the entire picture.
[...]
Another good point. Any one who send a press release to a student
newspaper should have some knowledge of the incident.
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Sep 30 21:58:29 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.society.privacy] SSN in login ids
Message-ID: <1992Oct1.015812.14946@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 01:58:12 GMT
[A repost - Carl]
From caf-talk Caf Sep 30 21:58:29 1992
From: Eric Hunt
Newsgroups: comp.society.privacy
Subject: SSN in login ids
Message-ID:
The University of Alabama/Birmingham's Engineering dept uses a student's
full SSN as a part of their computer login ids. This machine in Internet
reachable.
I was wondering what relevant laws, if any, applied to this situation? I found
out about it through a friend who told me what his Internet address was. I
was shocked, and told him not to give that address to ANYONE because it
contained his SSN.
--
Eric Hunt | bsc835!ehunt@uunet.uu.net (preferred)
Birmingham-Southern College | ehunt@aol.com
Birmingham, Alabama 35254 | <>
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Sep 30 21:58:29 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.society.privacy] Re: SSN in login ids
Message-ID: <1992Oct1.020001.28860@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 02:00:01 GMT
[A repost - Carl]
From caf-talk Caf Sep 30 21:58:29 1992
From: Dave Grabowski
Newsgroups: comp.society.privacy
Subject: Re: SSN in login ids
Message-ID:
In article bsc835!ehunt@uunet.uu.net (Eric Hunt) writes:
>The University of Alabama/Birmingham's Engineering dept uses a student's
>full SSN as a part of their computer login ids. This machine in Internet
>reachable.
>
>I was wondering what relevant laws, if any, applied to this situation? I found
>out about it through a friend who told me what his Internet address was. I
>was shocked, and told him not to give that address to ANYONE because it
>contained his SSN.
A few weeks ago, I posted a msg about how NJIT uses student's SSN's
for Student ID's and for UNIX System ID's as well. It was the custom for
exam grades to be posted by SSN as well, but as I just found out today,
it seems that, at least in the Physics Dept., this is no longer going to
be done. They have now changed it so that the listing is done by >FIRST
NAME< only. This has GOT to be the most ridiculous way to post grades.
The Prof. mentioned that in one of his other classes, there were three
"Mark"'s in a row. Another person (who was checking her grade while I
was) said, "Nobody else has my name, anyway" (it was something obscure,
like Aretha).
Perhaps it's time for schools to realize that SSN's aren't the way to
go, and some crazy methods like this don't work either.
-Dave
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kappa Xi Kappa - Over & Above! dcg5662@hertz.njit.edu
9 Sussex Ave., Newark, NJ (car theft capital USA) 70721.2222@compuserve.com
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Sep 30 23:19:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.censorship,soc.college
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Message-ID: <1992Oct1.031852.19873@eff.org>
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 03:18:52 GMT
In article betsys@cs.umb.edu (Elizabeth Schwartz) writes:
>I protest our inclusion in a list entitled "Banned Materials."
>We do not ban ANY legal materials. All we ask is that obscene, sexual,
>or violent (or obnoxious ASCII or excessively long) materials be made
>available at user request, and not shown to users who have not
>requested this display.
> There's a BIG DIFFERENCE. You are allowed to own, advertise, and
>distribute any speech you like. For example, any user may post in
>their .plan file or on our bulletin board "for sexually explicit
>lyrics, see my publicly readable file dirty.txt"
Betsy, this looks very much like censorship to me. A user's .plan file is
not normally *forced* on anyone; what is the logic to regulating its
content?
You say you "do not ban ANY legal materials." Then you list among the
materials that you regulate "obscene, sexual, or violent (or obnoxious
ASCII or excessively long) materials." Although obscenity is regulable
under the Constitution, all of the other categories of materials you
mention here are presumptive *legal* speech.
Your explanation of your policy makes it apparent to me that you *do*
deserve inclusion in the censorship list. If you have questions about
this, feel free to call me at the office--it's a local call.
> I think this is analagous to a student newspaper requiring
>political speech to be on the editorial pages, or requiring political
>groups to use bulletin boards instead of plastering the walls. You are
>allowed to speak but others are allowed to choose to receive your
>material or not.
It's trivial to choose not to see a user's .plan file, Betsy. Your analogy
doesn't hold.
--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
From caf-talk Caf Oct 1 02:13:44 1992
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: edf444esft@vx24.cc.monash.edu.au
Subject: Re: Censorship at Iowa State
Message-ID: <1992Oct1.151637.1@vx24.cc.monash.edu.au>
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 05:16:37 GMT
In article <1992Sep27.164058.18896@newstand.syr.edu>, greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (J. S. Greenfield) writes:
> 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 Oct 1 02:58:45 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.censorship,soc.college
From: pauls@css.itd.umich.edu (Paul Southworth)
Subject: Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Message-ID: <1992Oct1.064733.22424@terminator.cc.umich.edu>
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 06:47:33 GMT
In article twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce) writes:
>In article betsys@cs.umb.edu (Elizabeth Schwartz) writes:
>
>> There's a BIG DIFFERENCE. You are allowed to own, advertise, and
>>distribute any speech you like. For example, any user may post in
>>their .plan file or on our bulletin board "for sexually explicit
>>lyrics, see my publicly readable file dirty.txt"
>
>What if users include sexually explicit text in their .plans, preceded
>by a sequence of form feeds (^L) and the statement "Sexually explicit
>material follows; press ^C now if it is likely to offend you?" Users
>would be amply warned in advance, and there would not be no need even
>for any restrictions based on the location of such material.
>
I take exception to the suggestion that Ice T lyrics are no more than
an indulgence in "dirty words". The idea that administrators are getting
away with silencing that which is explicitly political by trivializing
it to that level is disgusting.
Anyway, a .plan is like an answering machine message. If you don't like
what you hear, at least YOU were responsible for calling.
In our department this problem is somewhat circumvented by having the
default finger retrieve the short (no .plan) version, and anyone who
wants to read a .plan has to do finger -l
Paul Southworth | ftp redspread.css.itd.umich.edu
Consulting and Support Services | Anonymous Political Archives
Information Technology Division | 100% 386BSD 0.1
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor | Coming soon: mirror of ftp.eff.org
From caf-talk Caf Oct 1 03:20:58 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.censorship,soc.college
From: twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce)
Subject: Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Message-ID:
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 04:18:24 GMT
In article <1992Oct1.031852.19873@eff.org> mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:
>It's trivial to choose not to see a user's .plan file, Betsy.
The argument, I think, is that users who finger other accounts are not
normally expecting to see obscene material, and might simply be
looking for something as simple as an office phone number. One can
choose not to read _Playboy_, but that's because people generally know
what to expect in the pages of _Playboy._ You can't make the same
assumption about .plan files. If there were a convenient way to warn
people about the content, then I would say this is a better argument.
I am much more convinced by the point that some people are more
offended by various political materials than by obscenity. I don't
blink twice by seeing pages and pages full of profanity and
godlessness (for heaven's sake, I'm taking the job of rec.arts.erotica
moderator), but I am highly offended by plans and posts with vocal
anti-gay content in them. Why should the university say, "It's all
right to be offended by obscenity, but not by homophobia?"
--
____ Tim Pierce / "You are just naive and repressed because
\ / twpierce@unix.amherst.edu / penis envy is here and it's now and it's
\/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) / all around you." -- Neal C. Wickham
From caf-talk Caf Oct 1 05:11:17 1992
From: barmar@think.com (Barry Margolin)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.censorship,soc.college
Subject: Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Date: 1 Oct 1992 09:06:48 GMT
Message-ID: <1aef38INNfti@early-bird.think.com>
In article twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce) writes:
>What if users include sexually explicit text in their .plans, preceded
>by a sequence of form feeds (^L) and the statement "Sexually explicit
>material follows; press ^C now if it is likely to offend you?"
The problem with any such scheme is that the creator of the material may
not feel that it's offensive, yet may be censured (or at least censored)
later if some reader takes offense. Since harassment is in the eyes of the
receiver, a claim of "I didn't think it was bad" generally doesn't work.
The only system that's safe for authors is either no restrictions or an
independent pre-publication review system (i.e. you would have to submit
your .plan text to a review board in order to get it declared
"acceptable").
--
Barry Margolin
System Manager, Thinking Machines Corp.
barmar@think.com {uunet,harvard}!think!barmar
From caf-talk Caf Oct 1 05:16:47 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.censorship
From: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Subject: Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Message-ID: <1992Oct1.075258.499@nntp.hut.fi>
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 07:52:58 GMT
In article <1992Oct1.031852.19873@eff.org>, mnemonic@eff (Mike Godwin) writes:
>Although obscenity is regulable
>under the Constitution,
Could you point out exactly how this is so? My copy reads:
AMENDMENT I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,
or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to
petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
which seems simple enough to a layman - there's no "obscenity" mentioned.
//Jyrki
From caf-talk Caf Oct 1 08:27:15 1992
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 10:21:28 IST
From: Hank Nussbacher
Message-ID: <92275.104628HANK@BARILVM.BITNET>
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.censorship,soc.college
Subject: Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
In article <1992Sep30.065537.23479@eff.org>, kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) says:
>Computer code at *Ball State University* to crack passwords
> ... even if it is never run. During a system-wide search, an
> administrator found the computer code. The user says "[i]t really
> bothers me that I'm going to get in a lot of trouble (probably
> anyway) just for the mere possession of a program."
...
>Computer code at the *University of Wyoming* for Internet Relay Chat
> A student was told that if university searches turned up IRC code in
> his possession, he "would be disusered without hope for reinstatement."
Assume that sex/porn/necrophilia are all grounded in the rule of free speech
and that indeed some universities are trampling on the free speech rights of
their students. I somehow don't understand the two examples above - how does
this impinge the rights of their free speech? Let us take the first example:
suppose I carry a handgun tucked under my shirt. I have not used it and don't
intend to use it. What right does anyone have to stop me and take away my gun
when I enter their building? I assume you see the sarcasism. In the 2nd
example: suppose I wish to determine the 1,000,000,000th digit of PI. I really
want to know. I run a program to figure it out. The computer center sees
an incredible use of CPU time from my account over the past 48 hours. They
kill my program - and I take them to court suing them under the bill of
rights that they are taking away my freedom of expression.
Use of the computer is not a G-d given right. It is a privilege. It is
up to the computer center to determine whether the use you make of its
resources is warranted. How do you know that at the University of Wyoming
they are not running on a Vax 750 and that user response time is 8 seconds
per command and that running IRC has caused response to go up to 30 seconds
per command? Getting reports from college freshman is not the most reliable
form of reporting in regards to freedom of expression.
>
>+ Europe:
>
>Newsgroups at *many German universities* that discuss sex, including
>discussion of recovery from sexual abuse
...
>Netnews discussion in *Ireland* of abortion
...
>Netnews discussion via Switzerland's SWITCH of gay rights, of drugs
>and drug policy, and of sex and recovery from sexual abuse. Also,
>United Press International articles related to terrorism or sex
...
>All on-line political or religions "activism" at *Middle East
>Technical University in Turkey*
...
>Newsgroups alt.sex*, alt.drugs, alt.evil, alt.tasteless and
>rec.arts.erotica on *UKNet*
> UKNet is an academic network in the United Kingdom.
Unless I am mistaken, the US Bill of Rights which include the right to
free speech, etc. has not been accepted as the Bill of Rights to the World.
Have you checked that each of these countries (Ireland, Turkey, etc.) have
a law of free speech as the US does? Or are you merely applying your own
form of geocentricism which dictates that the entire world has to follow
what the USA says and does?
The reason I am extremely annoyed is that this is not the first time that
people in the USA assume that the entire world has to jump in line to their
definitions of how the world should work. No wonder that American foreign
policy around the world has nose-dived in the past 20 years. Why do you
think people demonstrate against the "Great Satan" in Iran or Indochina
or the Phillipines? Americans are extremely insensitive to cultures other
than their own. Your posting is a very good example that things have not
changed.
>Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
> =kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
Hank Nussbacher
Israel
From caf-talk Caf Oct 1 09:24:46 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.censorship,soc.college
From: twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce)
Subject: Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Message-ID:
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 13:10:24 GMT
In article <1992Oct1.064733.22424@terminator.cc.umich.edu> pauls@css.itd.umich.edu (Paul Southworth) writes:
>In article twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce) writes:
>
>>What if users include sexually explicit text in their .plans, preceded
>>by a sequence of form feeds (^L) and the statement "Sexually explicit
>>material follows; press ^C now if it is likely to offend you?"
>
>I take exception to the suggestion that Ice T lyrics are no more than
>an indulgence in "dirty words".
For Christ's sake, who said anything about Ice-T? Stick to the
subject.
--
____ Tim Pierce / "You are just naive and repressed because
\ / twpierce@unix.amherst.edu / penis envy is here and it's now and it's
\/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) / all around you." -- Neal C. Wickham
From caf-talk Caf Oct 1 09:28:44 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: Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Message-ID: <1992Oct1.132836.25405@eff.org>
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 13:28:36 GMT
mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:
[...]
>Betsy, this looks very much like censorship to me. A user's .plan file is
>not normally *forced* on anyone; what is the logic to regulating its
>content?
[...]
An argument could be made that it is forced on (or at least thrust at)
unsuspecting users. Legally, however, I don't think this matters. What
matters is if they can get away from it and still work or go to
school.
As _Cohen v. California_ says:
"... The ability of government, consistent with the Constitution, to
shut off discourse solely to protect others from hearing it is, in
other words, dependent upon the showing that substantial privacy
interest are being invaded in an essentially intolerable manner. Any
broader view of this authority would effectively empower a majority to
silence dissidents simply as a matter of personal predilections."
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Oct 1 09:47:14 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: Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Message-ID: <1992Oct1.134706.25819@eff.org>
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 13:47:06 GMT
RE: Computer code bans at Ball State U. and U. of Wyoming
Hank Nussbacher writes:
[...]
>I somehow don't understand the two examples above - how does
>this impinge the rights of their free speech? Let us take the first example:
>suppose I carry a handgun tucked under my shirt. I have not used it and don't
>intend to use it. What right does anyone have to stop me and take away my gun
>when I enter their building?
[...]
The right to bare arms is not (usually) part of academic freedom.
>I assume you see the sarcasism. In the 2nd example: suppose I wish
>to determine the 1,000,000,000th digit of PI. I really want to know.
>I run a program to figure it out. The computer center sees an
>incredible use of CPU time from my account over the past 48 hours.
>They kill my program - and I take them to court suing them under the
>bill of rights that they are taking away my freedom of expression.
[...]
The user would and should loose. If a running computer program is
interfering with a computer site, then there is nothing wrong with
killing it or banning it from running. In the cases listed, however,
the site went beyond banning the processing of the program, they also
banned possessing it.
- Carl
ANNOTATED REFERENCES
(All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.)
=================
news/cafv02n11: Message-Id: <9202161945.AA24863@bsu-cs.bsu.edu>
=================
An article from the Computers and Academic Freedom News 02.11
Notes 5-7 are about privacy.
5. A user on this system was apparently running a password cracking
program. An administer searched my files and found I had a copy of
the newest version of Crack. I have legitimate reasons for having
this program. I have received mail from the Chairman of the
Department "inviting" me to discuss my account privileges. "It really
bothers me that I'm going to get in a lot of trouble (probably anyway)
just for the mere possession of a program."
=================
news/cafv02n08: Message-Id: <3803321809011992_A11466_POSSE_11614C9F3200@mrgate.uwyo.edu>
=================
An article from the Computers and Academic Freedom News 02.08
Notes 10-11 discuss the recent removal of software from users'
accounts, computer suspendions before hearings, and searches
of user files at the University of Wyoming,
10. (A student:) I compiled an IRC client and master on a computer at U
Wyoming. I provided access to this software to other users. Upon
receiving complaints, the system administrators removed access for all
users who had used IRC. In order to get their accounts back, the
users had to remove all IRC software from their accounts and agree not
to use IRC on the computer. "After I agreed to do this, my (Cluster)
account was reinabled and I was told 2 hours later it would be
searched for IRC files. If any were ever found again, I would be
disusered without hope for reinstatement."
=================
banned.1992
=================
A list of computer material that was banned or challenged in academia
in 1992.
=================
=================
These document(s) are available by anonymous ftp (the preferred
method) and by email. To get the file(s) via ftp, do an anonymous ftp
to ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4), and get file(s):
pub/academic/news/cafv02n11
pub/academic/news/cafv02n08
pub/academic/banned.1992
To get the file(s) by email, send email to archive-server@eff.org.
Include the line(s) (be sure to include the space before the file
name):
send acad-freedom/news cafv02n11
send acad-freedom/news cafv02n08
send acad-freedom banned.1992
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Oct 1 10:07:03 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: Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Message-ID: <1992Oct1.140655.26052@eff.org>
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 14:06:55 GMT
RE: Banned Material in German, Ireland, Switzerland, Turkey, and the U.K.
Hank Nussbacher writes:
[...]
>Unless I am mistaken, the US Bill of Rights which include the right to
>free speech, etc. has not been accepted as the Bill of Rights to the World.
>Have you checked that each of these countries (Ireland, Turkey, etc.) have
>a law of free speech as the US does?
You are correct, the U.S. Bill of Rights does not apply to any of the
countries. Indeed, it does not even apply to private universities in
the U.S. I would not be surprised if the bans were legal in at least
some of the countries.
> Or are you merely applying your own
>form of geocentricism which dictates that the entire world has to follow
>what the USA says and does?
If believing in the importance of academic freedom and freedom of
expression is just USA-centered point of view, then I am USA-centered.
I hope the belief is held by many outside the U.S, too.
I am encouraged in this hope because I know the U.S. tradition of
academic freedom was adapted from Germany and that the U.S. tradition
of freedom of expression was adapted from the United Kingdom (with
influences from other centers of the Enlightenment). I am also
encouraged that the U.N. recognizes that at least some freedom of
expression is needed has part of basic human rights (e.g. Charter 19)
and that a Swiss-based organization, the World University Service,
meet in Lima, Peru, four years ago and drafted an international
statement on academic freedom.
- Carl
ANNOTATED REFERENCES
(All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.)
=================
academic/academic-freedom.wus
=================
The Lima Declaration on Academic Freedom and Autonomy of Institutions
of Higher Education, an international declaration by the World
University Service.
Source: _World University Service Academic Freedom 1990: A Human
Rights Report_ by Laksiri Fernando, et al.
=================
=================
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/academic/academic-freedom.wus
To get the file(s) by email, send email to archive-server@eff.org.
Include the line(s) (be sure to include the space before the file
name):
send acad-freedom/academic academic-freedom.wus
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Oct 1 10:16:48 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.censorship,soc.college
From: rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert)
Subject: Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Message-ID: <1992Oct1.141004.9029@mp.cs.niu.edu>
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 14:10:04 GMT
In article <1992Oct1.134706.25819@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>10. (A student:) I compiled an IRC client and master on a computer at U
>Wyoming. I provided access to this software to other users. Upon
>receiving complaints, the system administrators removed access for all
>users who had used IRC. In order to get their accounts back, the
You may think this a violation of academic freedom. I don't. If the
situation arose here, I would have no choice but to act quite similarly.
Think about it. We have students with homework assignments due. They
risk failing their course if they don't complete them on time. But
when they try they find that all ports on the terminal server are tied
up by users on IRC. Now tell me whose rights are being abused.
Now my personal opinion is that students should have complete freedom
to use IRC if they wish. Students here have that freedom. All they
need to is purchase time on a public access computer system and pay
their own bills for telephone charges, etc. If the state legislature
sees fit to increase our funding (fat chance) so that we have resources
to support it, we would even consider allowing them to use our systems.
From caf-talk Caf Oct 1 10:33:51 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: Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Message-ID: <1992Oct1.143343.27462@eff.org>
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 14:33:43 GMT
rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert) writes:
[...]
>>10. (A student:) I compiled an IRC client and master on a computer at U
>>Wyoming. I provided access to this software to other users. Upon
>>receiving complaints, the system administrators removed access for all
>>users who had used IRC. In order to get their accounts back, the
>You may think this a violation of academic freedom. I don't. If the
>situation arose here, I would have no choice but to act quite similarly.
[...]
>>users had to remove all IRC software from their accounts and agree not
>>to use IRC on the computer. "After I agreed to do this, my (Cluster)
>>account was reinabled and I was told 2 hours later it would be
>>searched for IRC files. If any were ever found again, I would be
>>disusered without hope for reinstatement."
<3803321809011992_A11466_POSSE_11614C9F3200@mrgate.uwyo.edu>
I agree that banning IRC because it is using up needed resources is
not a violation of academic freedom. However, 1) I don't think the
computer suspensions were necessary, 2) I don't think that the inert
code should have been banned, 3) I don't think the user files should
have been searched, and 4) I don't think the penalty for possision of
code should have been permanent computer expulsion.
In was on the second point, that I added U. of Wyoming to the list.
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Oct 1 11:04:29 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.censorship
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Message-ID: <1992Oct1.150421.28086@eff.org>
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 15:04:21 GMT
In article <1992Oct1.075258.499@nntp.hut.fi> jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala) writes:
>In article <1992Oct1.031852.19873@eff.org>, mnemonic@eff (Mike Godwin) writes:
>>Although obscenity is regulable
>>under the Constitution,
>
>Could you point out exactly how this is so? My copy reads:
>
> AMENDMENT I
> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
>prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,
>or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to
>petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
>
>which seems simple enough to a layman - there's no "obscenity" mentioned.
Jyrki, I agree with you. But the Supreme Court disagrees--most notably
in Miller v. California, 458 U.S. 747 (1972).
It should be noted that whenever I post as to what is or is not
Constitutional, I'm articulating the current status of Constitutional law,
not my own opinion as to what *should* be Constitutional law, *unless* I
state explicitly that I'm offering my own opinion.
--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
From caf-talk Caf Oct 1 11:10:49 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.censorship,soc.college
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Message-ID: <1992Oct1.151041.28314@eff.org>
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 15:10:41 GMT
In article <92275.104628HANK@BARILVM.BITNET> Hank Nussbacher writes:
>Assume that sex/porn/necrophilia are all grounded in the rule of free speech
>and that indeed some universities are trampling on the free speech rights of
>their students. I somehow don't understand the two examples above - how does
>this impinge the rights of their free speech? Let us take the first example:
>suppose I carry a handgun tucked under my shirt. I have not used it and don't
>intend to use it. What right does anyone have to stop me and take away my gun
>when I enter their building? I assume you see the sarcasism.
How is a handgun like speech concerning "sex/porn/necrophilia"?
>In the 2nd
>example: suppose I wish to determine the 1,000,000,000th digit of PI. I really
>want to know. I run a program to figure it out. The computer center sees
>an incredible use of CPU time from my account over the past 48 hours. They
>kill my program - and I take them to court suing them under the bill of
>rights that they are taking away my freedom of expression.
How is running a program the same as speech?
>>+ Europe:
>>
>>Newsgroups at *many German universities* that discuss sex, including
>>discussion of recovery from sexual abuse
>...
>>Netnews discussion in *Ireland* of abortion
>...
>>Netnews discussion via Switzerland's SWITCH of gay rights, of drugs
>>and drug policy, and of sex and recovery from sexual abuse. Also,
>>United Press International articles related to terrorism or sex
>...
>>All on-line political or religions "activism" at *Middle East
>>Technical University in Turkey*
>...
>>Newsgroups alt.sex*, alt.drugs, alt.evil, alt.tasteless and
>>rec.arts.erotica on *UKNet*
>> UKNet is an academic network in the United Kingdom.
>
>Unless I am mistaken, the US Bill of Rights which include the right to
>free speech, etc. has not been accepted as the Bill of Rights to the World.
Hank, you imply here that freedom of speech is solely an American concern.
But freedom of speech has its advocates in every one of the countries
mentioned here. Want proof? Try reading INDEX ON CENSORSHIP (a British
publication).
>Have you checked that each of these countries (Ireland, Turkey, etc.) have
>a law of free speech as the US does?
What relevance does "a law of free speech" have in this context? Carl
Kadie wasn't saying that the censorship in other countries was illegal; he
was merely saying that it occurred.
>The reason I am extremely annoyed is that this is not the first time that
>people in the USA assume that the entire world has to jump in line to their
>definitions of how the world should work.
It is unclear to me why you assume that only U.S. citizens care about
freedom of speech.
>No wonder that American foreign
>policy around the world has nose-dived in the past 20 years. Why do you
>think people demonstrate against the "Great Satan" in Iran or Indochina
>or the Phillipines? Americans are extremely insensitive to cultures other
>than their own. Your posting is a very good example that things have not
>changed.
I think it is a little premature to attribute the failures of American
foreign policy to Carl Kadie.
--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
From caf-talk Caf Oct 1 11:14:10 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.censorship,soc.college
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Message-ID: <1992Oct1.151336.28408@eff.org>
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 15:13:36 GMT
In article <1992Oct1.141004.9029@mp.cs.niu.edu> rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert) writes:
>In article <1992Oct1.134706.25819@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>
>>10. (A student:) I compiled an IRC client and master on a computer at U
>>Wyoming. I provided access to this software to other users. Upon
>>receiving complaints, the system administrators removed access for all
>>users who had used IRC. In order to get their accounts back, the
>
>You may think this a violation of academic freedom. I don't. If the
>situation arose here, I would have no choice but to act quite similarly.
Really? What would compel you to remove access for all users who had ever
used IRC?
>Think about it. We have students with homework assignments due. They
>risk failing their course if they don't complete them on time. But
>when they try they find that all ports on the terminal server are tied
>up by users on IRC. Now tell me whose rights are being abused.
Couldn't this problem be solved be removing IRC itself rather than by
removing users' access?
--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
From caf-talk Caf Oct 1 11:56:09 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.censorship,soc.college
From: raan@techunix.technion.ac.il (Ran Ever-Hadani)
Subject: Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Message-ID:
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 14:25:56 GMT
In <92275.104628HANK@BARILVM.BITNET> Hank Nussbacher writes:
#In article <1992Sep30.065537.23479@eff.org>, kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) says:
#>Newsgroups at *many German universities* that discuss sex, including
#>discussion of recovery from sexual abuse
#...
#>Netnews discussion in *Ireland* of abortion
#...
#>Netnews discussion via Switzerland's SWITCH of gay rights, of drugs
#>and drug policy, and of sex and recovery from sexual abuse. Also,
#>United Press International articles related to terrorism or sex
#...
#>All on-line political or religions "activism" at *Middle East
#>Technical University in Turkey*
#...
#>Newsgroups alt.sex*, alt.drugs, alt.evil, alt.tasteless and
#>rec.arts.erotica on *UKNet*
#> UKNet is an academic network in the United Kingdom.
#Unless I am mistaken, the US Bill of Rights which include the right to
#free speech, etc. has not been accepted as the Bill of Rights to the World.
#Have you checked that each of these countries (Ireland, Turkey, etc.) have
#a law of free speech as the US does? Or are you merely applying your own
#form of geocentricism which dictates that the entire world has to follow
#what the USA says and does?
I believe that freedom of speech is an important principle everywhere.
The fact that the US has a Bill of Rights is important as a legal means
to fight for various freedoms within the US, but the fact that such a bill
does not exist in many other countries does not diminish the obligation
of all of us, American or otherwise, to advocate freedom of speech as a
universal principal. When Jews were not allowed to leave the Soviet
Union, many Americans stood with us, demanding that gates of the
Soviet Union be opened, even though the Bill of Right was never
accepted by the Soviet Union. I am pretty sure that you would not accuse
those Americans of genocentricism.
-- Ran
Tel-Aviv, Israel
From caf-talk Caf Oct 1 12:06:56 1992
From: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.censorship,soc.college
Subject: Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Message-ID: <1992Oct1.140851.10720@nntp.hut.fi>
Date: 1 Oct 92 14:08:51 GMT
In article <92275.104628HANK@BARILVM.BITNET>, Hank Nussbacher Unless I am mistaken, the US Bill of Rights which include the right to
>free speech, etc. has not been accepted as the Bill of Rights to the World.
>Have you checked that each of these countries (Ireland, Turkey, etc.) have
>a law of free speech as the US does? Or are you merely applying your own
>form of geocentricism which dictates that the entire world has to follow
>what the USA says and does?
The document was not about illegalities or illegal censorship, it was
about banning material in general.
>The reason I am extremely annoyed is that this is not the first time that
>people in the USA assume that the entire world has to jump in line to their
>definitions of how the world should work. No wonder that American foreign
>policy around the world has nose-dived in the past 20 years. Why do you
>think people demonstrate against the "Great Satan" in Iran or Indochina
>or the Phillipines? Americans are extremely insensitive to cultures other
>than their own. Your posting is a very good example that things have not
>changed.
I strongly disagree with your view of Carl's posting. There are
people outside USA who support freedom of speech - freedom of speech
or civil liberties are not an US monopoly. To the contrary, it rather
seems that they are declining a lot faster in USA than most other
parts of the world and the U.S. government's actions certainly seem
very anti-freedom in many senses.
>>Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
>> =kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
>
>Hank Nussbacher
>Israel
//Jyrki
From caf-talk Caf Oct 1 12:29:20 1992
From: kraussW@moravian.edu (Bill Krauss - SysAdm)
Newsgroups: soc.college,alt.censorship,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Message-ID:
Date: 1 Oct 92 16:08:02 GMT
In <1992Oct1.134706.25819@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>RE: Computer code bans at Ball State U. and U. of Wyoming
>Hank Nussbacher writes:
>[...]
>>I somehow don't understand the two examples above - how does
>>this impinge the rights of their free speech? Let us take the first example:
>>suppose I carry a handgun tucked under my shirt. I have not used it and don't
>>intend to use it. What right does anyone have to stop me and take away my gun
>>when I enter their building?
>[...]
>The right to bare arms is not (usually) part of academic freedom.
Why not? If Freedom of Speech and Right to Keep and Bare Arms are both
guaranteed how can we discount one just because it is not frequently considered?
--
Bill Krauss
/*------------------------------------------------------------------------*\
| William F. Krauss III | Moravian College, Comp Sci Dept, Bethlehem, PA |
| Computer Science Dept | INTERNET -> kraussW@moravian.edu 18018 |
| System Administrator | UUCP -> ...!rutgers!lafcol!batman!kraussW |
| Phone - 215-861-1441 | <<<<<<<<<<<<< Love God! Hate Sin! >>>>>>>>>>>>>> |
\*------------------------------------------------------------------------*/
From caf-talk Caf Oct 1 13:08:22 1992
From: barmar@think.com (Barry Margolin)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.censorship
Subject: Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Date: 1 Oct 1992 17:06:01 GMT
Message-ID: <1afb5pINN9so@early-bird.think.com>
In article <1992Oct1.075258.499@nntp.hut.fi> jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala) writes:
>In article <1992Oct1.031852.19873@eff.org>, mnemonic@eff (Mike Godwin) writes:
>>Although obscenity is regulable
>>under the Constitution,
>Could you point out exactly how this is so? My copy reads:
...
>which seems simple enough to a layman - there's no "obscenity" mentioned.
It doesn't mention shouting "Fire" in a crowded theatre, but that's illegal
unless there's actually a fire. Nor does it mention libel, slander, and
fraud, yet those are also illegal. The Supreme Court has ruled that there
are limits to the freedom of speech the first amendment confers. For
instance, when freedom of speech conflicts with some other rights (e.g.
the right not to be trampled by stampeding moviegoers, or the right not to
lose one's good reputation through malicious lies), speech loses. And
obscenity has been declared by the Supreme Court not to be protected
speech.
--
Barry Margolin
System Manager, Thinking Machines Corp.
barmar@think.com {uunet,harvard}!think!barmar
From caf-talk Caf Oct 1 13:19:44 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.censorship,soc.college
From: holland@access.digex.com (Brian Holland)
Subject: Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Message-ID: <1992Oct1.171600.28282@access.digex.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 17:16:00 GMT
In article twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce) writes:
>
> . . . but I am highly offended by plans and posts with vocal
>anti-gay content in them. Why should the university say, "It's all
>right to be offended by obscenity, but not by homophobia?"
Tim, I can't tell if you are indicting "hate-speech" regulations or
are using them to justify censoring .plan files; however, I think
you have captured the essence of freedom of expression. Freedom
of expression means nothing without the freedom to offend.
Brian
From caf-talk Caf Oct 1 13:49:44 1992
Newsgroups: soc.college,alt.censorship,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Academic Gun Rights 1992 (was Re: Banned Computer Material 1992)
Message-ID: <1992Oct1.174934.2581@eff.org>
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 17:49:34 GMT
In <1992Oct1.134706.25819@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
writes:
>The right to bare arms is not (usually) part of academic freedom.
kraussW@moravian.edu (Bill Krauss - SysAdm) writes:
>Why not? If Freedom of Speech and Right to Keep and Bare Arms are
>both guaranteed how can we discount one just because it is not
>frequently considered?
[...]
I assume you mean guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. As far as I know,
the right to keep arms, say in a univeristy office, are not guarenteed
by any statements of academic freedom. Do you really think
it should be?
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Oct 1 14:11:51 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.censorship,soc.college
From: acbonin@unix.amherst.edu (Adam Bonin)
Subject: Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Message-ID:
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 17:47:00 GMT
Hank Nussbacher (HANK@BARILVM.BITNET) wrote:
:
: Unless I am mistaken, the US Bill of Rights which include the right to
: free speech, etc. has not been accepted as the Bill of Rights to the World.
: Have you checked that each of these countries (Ireland, Turkey, etc.) have
: a law of free speech as the US does? Or are you merely applying your own
: form of geocentricism which dictates that the entire world has to follow
: what the USA says and does?
:
: The reason I am extremely annoyed is that this is not the first time that
: people in the USA assume that the entire world has to jump in line to their
: definitions of how the world should work. No wonder that American foreign
: policy around the world has nose-dived in the past 20 years. Why do you
: think people demonstrate against the "Great Satan" in Iran or Indochina
: or the Phillipines? Americans are extremely insensitive to cultures other
: than their own. Your posting is a very good example that things have not
: changed.
: Hank Nussbacher
: Israel
There are certain things, however, which are not "definitions of how the world
should work" but natural rights which people have, simply by being persons,
regardless of the culture in which they live. Would you deny, for example
the necessary truth of either of the following statements to hold across all
cultures:
1. Persons should not be held blameworthy or responsible for acts they were
powerless to affect.
2. It is wrong to lay blame and punishment before making a reasoned
determination between those persons innocent and those guilty.
Even were it not codified into the U.S. Bill of Rights and the U.N. Declaration
of Human Rights, I would still hold that the right to free expression is a
similar natural right of man, that we have the right to our own opinions
by being rational beings capable of reason.
Furthermore, the presence of disagreement in other cultures towards these
truths certainly does not prove that there is no truth, no right and wrong
in this case. The rightness and wrongness of certain principles are not
dependent on the will of the majority, but instead rest in the nature of man.
And if they are using reason to make their arguments, it acknowledges the
supremacy of reason and further strengthens the case that man can only be
governed by reason.
But more on that later.
-adam
----
Adam Bonin '94
Amherst College
acbonin@amherst.edu
"He who accepts evil without fighting against
it is really cooperating with it."
-ML
From caf-talk Caf Oct 1 14:28:56 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: danc@gmail.psi.com (danc)
Subject: RE: Academic Gun Rights 1992 (was Re: Banned Computer Material 1992)
Message-ID: <9210011828.AA08852@psi.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 06:43:52 GMT
Don't you people have anything to do?
_______________________________________________________________________________
To: comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org
>From: Carl M. Kadie on Thu, Oct 1, 1992 2:40 PM
Subject: Academic Gun Rights 1992 (was Re: Banned Computer Material 1992)
Received: by gmail.psi.com (2.00/GatorMail) with SMTP/TCP;1 Oct 92 14:38:46 U
Received: by eff.org id AA03033
(5.65c/IDA-1.4.4/pen-ident for caft-list); Thu, 1 Oct 1992 14:07:25 -0400
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 17:49:34 GMT
>From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Message-Id: <1992Oct1.174934.2581@eff.org>
Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation
Sender: comp-academic-freedom-talk-request@eff.org
References: <92275.104628HANK@BARILVM.BITNET>, <1992Oct1.134706.25819@eff.org>,
Subject: Academic Gun Rights 1992 (was Re: Banned Computer Material 1992)
To: comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org (comp-academic-freedom-talk mailing
list)
In <1992Oct1.134706.25819@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
writes:
>The right to bare arms is not (usually) part of academic freedom.
kraussW@moravian.edu (Bill Krauss - SysAdm) writes:
>Why not? If Freedom of Speech and Right to Keep and Bare Arms are
>both guaranteed how can we discount one just because it is not
>frequently considered?
[...]
I assume you mean guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. As far as I know,
the right to keep arms, say in a univeristy office, are not guarenteed
by any statements of academic freedom. Do you really think
it should be?
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Oct 1 14:33:52 1992
Newsgroups: soc.college,alt.censorship,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: rwd4f@poe.acc.Virginia.EDU (Rob Dobson)
Subject: Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Message-ID: <1992Oct1.170907.22666@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 17:09:07 GMT
In article kraussW@moravian.edu (Bill Krauss - SysAdm) writes:
>>The right to bare arms is not (usually) part of academic freedom.
>
>Why not? If Freedom of Speech and Right to Keep and Bare Arms are both
>guaranteed how can we discount one just because it is not frequently considered?
ILL DIE BEFORE I LET THE GOVERNMENT FORCE ME TO WEAR SLEEVES!@!
I DEMAND THE RIGHT TO BARE MY ARMS WHENEVER ITS WARM ENUF!
r
From caf-talk Caf Oct 1 15:10:13 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.censorship
From: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Subject: Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Message-ID: <1992Oct1.164415.13315@nntp.hut.fi>
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 16:44:15 GMT
In article <1992Oct1.150421.28086@eff.org>, mnemonic@eff (Mike Godwin) writes:
>>which seems simple enough to a layman - there's no "obscenity" mentioned.
>
>Jyrki, I agree with you. But the Supreme Court disagrees--most notably
>in Miller v. California, 458 U.S. 747 (1972).
>
>It should be noted that whenever I post as to what is or is not
>Constitutional, I'm articulating the current status of Constitutional law,
>not my own opinion as to what *should* be Constitutional law, *unless* I
>state explicitly that I'm offering my own opinion.
Thanks for the clarification. However, your original statement was:
>Although obscenity is regulable
>under the Constitution,
which taken separately clearly is incorrect. I think it would be best
to qualify clearly unconstitutional interpretations (or ones where
there's considerable disagreement) by things like "according to the
current interpretation [by the Supreme Court]".
I think this is an important distinction.
//Jyrki
From caf-talk Caf Oct 1 15:31:48 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.censorship,soc.college
From: twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce)
Subject: Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Message-ID:
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 19:08:43 GMT
In article <1992Oct1.151041.28314@eff.org> mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:
>In article <92275.104628HANK@BARILVM.BITNET> Hank Nussbacher writes:
>
>>The computer center sees
>>an incredible use of CPU time from my account over the past 48 hours. They
>>kill my program - and I take them to court suing them under the bill of
>>rights that they are taking away my freedom of expression.
>
>How is running a program the same as speech?
The speech could not be composed without running the program. Of
course, the act of composing the speech and the act of producing it
are two different things.
--
____ Tim Pierce / "You are just naive and repressed because
\ / twpierce@unix.amherst.edu / penis envy is here and it's now and it's
\/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) / all around you." -- Neal C. Wickham
From caf-talk Caf Oct 1 15:47:41 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.censorship,soc.college
From: twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce)
Subject: Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Message-ID:
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 19:20:27 GMT
In article <1992Oct1.171600.28282@access.digex.com> holland@access.digex.com (Brian Holland) writes:
>In article twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce) writes:
>>
>> . . . but I am highly offended by plans and posts with vocal
>>anti-gay content in them. Why should the university say, "It's all
>>right to be offended by obscenity, but not by homophobia?"
>
>Tim, I can't tell if you are indicting "hate-speech" regulations or
>are using them to justify censoring .plan files;
What I am saying is that inconsistency pisses me off more than
anything. Perhaps hate speech regulations are right, perhaps they are
wrong. But at present, the line where "offense" is drawn by the
administration is obviously arbitrary.
--
____ Tim Pierce / "You are just naive and repressed because
\ / twpierce@unix.amherst.edu / penis envy is here and it's now and it's
\/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) / all around you." -- Neal C. Wickham
From caf-talk Caf Oct 1 15:56:21 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,
From: morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan)
Subject: Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Message-ID: <1992Oct1.154233.21781@ms.uky.edu>
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 19:42:33 GMT
twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce) writes:
> [ ... description of user-configurable session names ...]
>
>While there is no censorship of any kind of .plan files or news
>postings or email -- the staff is very strict about keeping freedom of
>expression open on those lines -- users are not permitted to have
>process names that others might find "objectionable," in terms of
>profanity. This restriction is in effect primarily because it is very
>easy to see other process names "accidentally," whereas people have to
>go out of their way to read news or .plan files. I don't quite agree
>with that distinction, but c'est la vie.
Well, the same situation exists under Unix, where a "ps -eaf" or "ps aux"
command will list the processes for all users. I've had a few users who
named their programs with "offensive" words.
>The "punishment" for breaking this rule is very mild: a brief note
>from the computer center director explaining the rule and the reasons
>for it. I have no idea what would happen to repeat offenders, but I
>suspect very little; very few things would cause you actually to lose
>your account at Amherst.
When I see such a thing, I drop a piece of email explaining that everyone
can see their process names. I don't tell them to cease and desist; I just
say "hey, did you know what anyone on the system can see that?" Most of my
users don't even realize that others can see that information; I've never
had a "repeat offender".
I think that this sort of thing is often born of frustration.....I've often
been tempted to call my FORTRAN code by various obscenties....8)
>Any thoughts? This seems like a borderline case to me.
As long as it's a friendly matter (as it seems to be so far), I think that
the informative angle is okay. If they start punishing offenders, that's
a different story. As I said, I've never had a repeating problem in this
area; most users are embarassed to find out that others can see.....8)
--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 Oct 1 16:03:24 1992
From: 00hfstahlke@bsu-ucs.uucp
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: System security versus censorship
Message-ID: <1992Oct1.141116.10025@bsu-ucs.uucp>
Date: 1 Oct 92 19:11:16 GMT
To go into any details on a matter such as that cited on the Banned Computer
Materials 1992 listing would be a violation of privacy. However, Ball State
University regards the possession of electronic copies of programs like
password crackers on BSU computer systems as a threat to system security.
Therefore we do not allow them to be stored on our systems. We do not see this
policy either as a violation of academic freedom or of first amendment rights.
Personally, I view the distinction between storing and using such a program as
rather like the distinction between possessing and using burglary tools or an
unlicensed concealed weapon.
Herbert Stahlke
Associate Director
University Computing Services
Ball State University
Muncie, IN 47306
00hfstahlke@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu
From caf-talk Caf Oct 1 16:14:36 1992
From: betsys@cs.umb.edu (Elizabeth Schwartz)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.censorship,soc.college
Subject: Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Message-ID:
Date: 1 Oct 92 20:07:43 GMT
In article twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce) writes:
>What if users include sexually explicit text in their .plans, preceded
>by a sequence of form feeds (^L) and the statement "Sexually explicit
>material follows; press ^C now if it is likely to offend you?" Users
>would be amply warned in advance, and there would not be no need even
>for any restrictions based on the location of such material.
Perfectly ok. We're really not trying to censor people. As I told
someone in a private message, I'm the sysadm here and I use finger
heavily, with the option to view the .plan, because most users put
information I need in there. The few users I have asked to change
their .plan's have been younger students who were quite embarassed to
realize that their message was seen by a fewmale sysop!
I'm not a prude, I read some of the more offbeat newsgroups myself.
I just dont want to have bathroom limericks scrolling across my
screen.
--
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 Oct 1 16:36:11 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.censorship,soc.college
From: pauls@css.itd.umich.edu (Paul Southworth)
Subject: Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Message-ID: <1992Oct1.203124.5955@terminator.cc.umich.edu>
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 20:31:24 GMT
In article <1992Oct1.151336.28408@eff.org> mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:
>In article <1992Oct1.141004.9029@mp.cs.niu.edu> rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct1.134706.25819@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>>
>>>10. (A student:) I compiled an IRC client and master on a computer at U
>>>Wyoming. I provided access to this software to other users. Upon
>>>receiving complaints, the system administrators removed access for all
>>>users who had used IRC. In order to get their accounts back, the
>>
>>You may think this a violation of academic freedom. I don't. If the
>>situation arose here, I would have no choice but to act quite similarly.
>
>Really? What would compel you to remove access for all users who had ever
>used IRC?
>
>>Think about it. We have students with homework assignments due. They
>>risk failing their course if they don't complete them on time. But
>>when they try they find that all ports on the terminal server are tied
>>up by users on IRC. Now tell me whose rights are being abused.
>
>Couldn't this problem be solved be removing IRC itself rather than by
>removing users' access?
>
Well this should at least be a message to those hapless students who happen
to have a shred of code in their $HOMEs that somebody might not like:
encrypt everything. It's the only way to keep unprincipled people
from snooping in your stuff, whether they have "legal" access or not.
A little script prompting for passwords that would encrypt and decrypt
one's $HOME would be a useful little thing to make.
Paul Southworth | ftp redspread.css.itd.umich.edu
Consulting and Support Services | Anonymous Political Archives
Information Technology Division | 100% 386BSD 0.1
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor | Coming soon: mirror of ftp.eff.org
From caf-talk Caf Oct 1 16:39:02 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: System security versus censorship
Message-ID: <1992Oct1.203856.7190@eff.org>
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 20:38:56 GMT
00hfstahlke@bsu-ucs.uucp writes:
[...]
>Personally, I view the distinction between storing and using such a program as
>rather like the distinction between possessing and using burglary tools or an
>unlicensed concealed weapon.
>Herbert Stahlke
>Associate Director
>University Computing Services
[...]
Personally, I view the distinction as rather like the distinction
between possessing a book that tells how to steal and actually
stealing. That is why I see it has censorship.
BTW: Academic libraries are full of books and reports that could be
used to break rules and laws. As one example:
Hoffman, Abbie.
Steal this book / by Abbie Hoffman ; co-conspirator, Izack Haber ;
accessory after the fact, Bert Cohen. New York : Pirate Editions ;
Distributed by Grove Press, c1971.
xii, 318 p. : ill., ports. ; 18 cm.
Includes index.
Bibliography: p. 288-308.
1. Anarchism--United States. 2. Radicalism--United States.
I. Title.
ocm09-793311
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Oct 1 17:07:39 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: System security versus censorship
Message-ID: <1992Oct1.210729.8170@eff.org>
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 21:07:29 GMT
kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
[...]
>Personally, I view the distinction as rather like the distinction
>between possessing a book that tells how to steal and actually
>stealing. That is why I see it has censorship.
>BTW: Academic libraries are full of books and reports that could be
>used to break rules and laws. As one example:
[...]
Here are some more from various libraries on our library computer
system. (Don't worry I won't post any more).
BIBLIOGRAPHIC DISPLAY
1. Alth, Max, All about locks and locksmithing. :1972: vii, 180 p.
ocm00-356933
2. Roper, C. A. The complete handbook of locks & locksmithing /
1st ed. c1976. 390 p. ocm02-645692
3. Roper, C. A. The complete book of locks & locksmithing / 2nd
ed. c1983. viii, 343 p. ocm08-974655
4. Steed, F. A. Locksmithing / 1st ed. c1982. vii, 172 p.
ocm07-948542
5. Mobile locksmithing. c1984. 141 leaves in various
foliations ocm15-288524
6. Crichton, Whitcomb. Practical course in modern locksmithing :
a Benj. Franklin illustrated home-study course complete in
one volume / New ed. 1979, c1957 223 p. ocm08-014707
7. Robinson, Robert L. Complete course in professional
locksmithing :1973: xv, 399 p. ocm00-591861
8. Marseille (France) Citizens. Tres-respectueuses
representations adressees a Mgr. Victor-Maurice de
Riquet, Comte de Caraman, . . . 1789: 8, :2: p.
ocm13-117455
9. Marseille (France) Citizens. Deliberation / 1789: 7 p.
ocm13-090790
10. Mayers, Keith. A dictionary of locksmithing / c1979 62 p.
ocm06-488518
11. Locksmith :questions & answers: c1972. 1 v. (various pagings)
ocm07-602859
12. Maintenance locksmith :questions & answers: c1972. 1 v.
(various pagings) ocm07-602875
13. Crichton, Whitcomb. Practical course in modern locksmithing /
new ed. 1979, c1957. 224 p. ocm07-408368
14. Locksmith ledger and security register. Security guide and
directory. v. ocm04-407913
15. Roper, C. A. The complete book of locks and locksmithing /
1990. p. cm. ocm22-182180
16. Phillips, Bill, Professional locksmithing techniques / Bill
Phillips. 1st ed. 1991. x, 374 p. ocm22-388733
17. Mobile locksmithing. c1988. 164 leaves (loose-leaf)
ocm20-278321
18. Locksmith c1988. 1 v. (various pagings) ocm18-328320
19. Locksmith. c1990. 1 v. (various pagings) ocm26-065688
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Oct 1 17:16:27 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.admin.policy] Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Message-ID: <1992Oct1.211337.28898@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 21:13:37 GMT
[A repost - Carl]
From caf-talk Caf Oct 1 17:16:27 1992
From: bud@mtek.com (Bud Hovell)
Subject: Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 92 18:29:12 GMT
Message-ID: <1992Sep30.182912.29524@mtek.com>
kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>Banned Computer Material 1992
>Inspired by Banned Book Week '92, this is a list of computer material
>banned or challenged in academia in 1992. Iowa State University has
>the dubious distinction of being listed most often (three times).
Ummm, the word "dubious" would seem to suggest that the enforcement
of *any* local restriction against *any* action or speech in *any*
academic computing environment, world-wide, is in violation of some
"universal principle" that supercedes any locally-conceived ideas
about how the owners wish to dispose the assets they are paying for.
What a strange idea.
Are you suggesting that some Spanish Jesuit seminary (which just
happens to have a computer network) must conform in its decisions
with the minimum standards of behavior and speech found tolerable
*anywhere* else on the face of the planet? Is Southern California
that society which models such (doubtful) world standard? Who sez?
Are you under the misapprehension that the Germans are -- as a
society -- any more likely to adopt all our (read USA) standards
of behavior any more readily than adopting our (perhaps equally
indefinite) standards for building automobiles. Surely you jest.
There is a clear distinction between absolute academic freedom (as
an abstract notion) and absolute personal license (manifest in
actual and specific behaviors).
A limitation upon the latter does not, a priori, constitute an
assault upon the former. Defending the latter as an inseperable
*subset* of the former (if that is what this list implies) would
be a simple, specious nonsense.
I might also add that this looks remarkably like an "Enemies List",
which device typically sets academics to howling wildly at the
moon -- but perhaps only when aimed at their *own* several and
peculiar sensibilities.
'Hardly classical liberal thought, which did not assume the pillory
to be the solitary universal response appropriate for conflicting
values and judgements. Quite the contrary.
If such liberal ideals are the foundation of "academic freedom",
then what to conclude but that such freedom may have quietly died,
obscured from notice because the embalmed cadaver continues to be
loudly heralded from the parapets, its health to be roundly toasted
in the local watering holes, and its dry remains to be enthusias-
tically bounced up and down the street on a plush litter with great
rejoicing under a heavily armed honor guard.
Yet be quite thoroughly dead, for all that.
--
________________________________________________________________
bud@mtek.com ... uunet!m2xenix!mtek!bud ... bud@rigel.cs.pdx.edu
MTEK International, Inc. Throughput Technology Corp.
Walk the talk.
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Oct 1 17:16:29 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.admin.policy] Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Message-ID: <1992Oct1.211357.29030@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 21:13:57 GMT
[A repost - Carl]
From caf-talk Caf Oct 1 17:16:29 1992
From: spam@iastate.edu (mike begley)
Subject: Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Message-ID: <1992Oct1.024913.14347@news.iastate.edu>
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 02:49:13 GMT
In article <1992Sep30.182912.29524@mtek.com> bud@mtek.com writes:
>kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>
>>Banned Computer Material 1992
>
>>Inspired by Banned Book Week '92, this is a list of computer material
>>banned or challenged in academia in 1992. Iowa State University has
>>the dubious distinction of being listed most often (three times).
>
>Ummm, the word "dubious" would seem to suggest that the enforcement
>of *any* local restriction against *any* action or speech in *any*
>academic computing environment, world-wide, is in violation of some
>"universal principle" that supercedes any locally-conceived ideas
>about how the owners wish to dispose the assets they are paying for.
it's a dubious honor, trust me... Iowa State University has been
caught in a battle between its administration and its student for most
of a year regarding this issue. The materials banned at ISU
(alt.sex*, rec.arts.erotica, and a few others) in no way violate the
Iowa Code (see section 728) and the restrictions were placed on the
system by the ISU computation Center administration with no input from
students and little if any from higher administration. A "senior
official" personally told me that "the [ISU] computation center
administration had no business in making legal decisions because they
have no legal expertise". The university administration is now caught
in a curious bind; defend the irresponsible actions one of it
departments, or uphold the tenants of academic freedom. In some ways
it's become a turf war within the administration, with the students as
victims. So, despite the overwhelming student & faculty opposition to
the restrictions and the total lack of informed legal judgement, the
university continues to censor the "bad" newsgroup from students who
are quite old enough to make their own decisions.
>which device typically sets academics to howling wildly at the
>moon -- but perhaps only when aimed at their *own* several and
>peculiar sensibilities.
huh...funny, I don't even read any of the newsgroups...so it wasn't
aimed at any of my peciliar sensibilities. Considering the state
motto of Iowa is "Our liberties we prize and our rights we shall
maintain", you would think that insuring freedom of expression
would be a basic goal of the state's universities; alas, they've
srunk from that duty.
--
Michael Begley Ask me how "the man and the woman were
spam@iastate.edu Iowa State University both naked, and they were
(515) 296-8378 is censoring my usenet access not ashamed..." Gen:2.25
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Oct 1 17:16:30 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.admin.policy] Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Message-ID: <1992Oct1.211447.23126@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 21:14:47 GMT
[A repost - Carl]
From caf-talk Caf Oct 1 17:16:30 1992
From: bud@mtek.com (Bud Hovell)
Subject: Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 92 07:32:37 GMT
Message-ID: <1992Oct1.073237.3891@mtek.com>
spam@iastate.edu (mike begley) writes:
>In article <1992Sep30.182912.29524@mtek.com> bud@mtek.com writes:
>>
>>Ummm, the word "dubious" would seem to suggest that the enforcement
>>of *any* local restriction against *any* action or speech in *any*
>>academic computing environment, world-wide, is in violation of some
>>"universal principle" that supercedes any locally-conceived ideas
>>about how the owners wish to dispose the assets they are paying for.
>it's a dubious honor, trust me... Iowa State University has been
>caught in a battle between its administration and its student for most
>of a year regarding this issue. The materials banned at ISU
>(alt.sex*, rec.arts.erotica, and a few others) in no way violate the
>Iowa Code (see section 728) and the restrictions were placed on the
>system by the ISU computation Center administration with no input from
>students and little if any from higher administration. A "senior
>official" personally told me that "the [ISU] computation center
>administration had no business in making legal decisions because they
>have no legal expertise". The university administration is now caught
>in a curious bind; defend the irresponsible actions one of it
This would seem to be an easy matter: who *is* charged with making
legal judgements? Do you have a legal staff? What advice does it offer?
Lack of legal expertise is not, by the way, immediate evidence of
a wrong decision. It simply calls it into question. Whether a decision
is "irresponsible" is not within the competence of one legal innocent
to conclude about the decision of another. Has legal counsel spoken
to this issue? What did they say?
>huh...funny, I don't even read any of the newsgroups...so it wasn't
>aimed at any of my peciliar sensibilities. Considering the state
>motto of Iowa is "Our liberties we prize and our rights we shall
>maintain", you would think that insuring freedom of expression
>would be a basic goal of the state's universities; alas, they've
>srunk from that duty.
I'm not sure that "freedom of expression" can be defended as the
end-all to be-all. It is, for example, a most curious fact that the
national press managed for months to declaim like a chorus that the
Maplethorpe material was not pornography, while simultaneously
and uniformly refusing to publish the material itself to allow the
public to judge. Perhaps because their reading public would have
concluded that it was, indeed, "pornographic"? And may have been
a whole lot less friendly to the views of those who were carried
out on their shields in defense of "freedom of expression" -- in
this case, at the expense of the taxpayers. So far, all I know is
that some undergrad has some alleged "rights' that have alleged-
ly been infringed by an allegedly "irresponsible" decision.
Without divulging the name(s) of its creators, how about
publishing the *specific* material that led directly to the
decisions taken?
Or is it asking too much to ask to see the *evidence* itself before
being driven to agree or disagree with a conclusion that may turn
out to be not so clearly "irresponsible"?
Finally, my posting really had nothing to do with the specific case
you cite -- which may very well demonstrate that the policy-making
process is, in fact, at serious fault, and should lead to the public
hanging of anyone who had a part in it, or even happened to be in
the office the day it was made.
My larger concern is with the notion of an "enemies list" of offending
(in his eyes) institutions which, presumably, Carl believes others
should hotly pursue on his say-so for having taken decisions with which
he (and others, no doubt) strongly disagrees.
Um, on just what date *are* we celebrating Krystalnacht this year?
________________________________________________________________
bud@mtek.com ... uunet!m2xenix!mtek!bud ... bud@rigel.cs.pdx.edu
MTEK International, Inc. Throughput Technology Corp.
Throughput!
--
________________________________________________________________
bud@mtek.com ... uunet!m2xenix!mtek!bud ... bud@rigel.cs.pdx.edu
MTEK International, Inc. Throughput Technology Corp.
Throughput!
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Oct 1 17:43:33 1992
Newsgroups: soc.college,alt.censorship,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: rwd4f@poe.acc.Virginia.EDU (Rob Dobson)
Subject: Re: Academic Gun Rights 1992 (was Re: Banned Computer Material 1992)
Message-ID: <1992Oct1.195021.26864@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 19:50:21 GMT
In article <1992Oct1.174934.2581@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>>Why not? If Freedom of Speech and Right to Keep and Bare Arms are
>>both guaranteed how can we discount one just because it is not
>>frequently considered?
>I assume you mean guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. As far as I know,
>the right to keep arms, say in a univeristy office, are not guarenteed
>by any statements of academic freedom. Do you really think
>it should be?
>
>- Carl
Not neccessarily, but if i had a nice gun behind my desk here at the library
i'd probably get fewer stupid questions.....
r
From caf-talk Caf Oct 1 18:25:37 1992
From: michael@resonex.com (Michael Bryan)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.censorship,soc.college
Subject: Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Message-ID: <1992Oct1.124243.8622@resonex.com>
Date: 1 Oct 92 12:42:43 GMT
In article <1992Oct1.134706.25819@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>The right to bare arms is not (usually) part of academic freedom.
I don't know about that. Most universities have done away with
strict dress codes, and students can generally wear shirts with
short sleeves or no sleeves anytime they want...
;-)
--
Michael Bryan michael@resonex.com "Milk and Cheese in '92!" | ,_,
"Lovers are like... dentures. You don't want them in your | /oo \
mouth all night, but you sure as hell want them within arm's | <>__|
reach in the morning!" --- Miss Almira Gulch | | U|
From caf-talk Caf Oct 1 18:25:44 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce)
Subject: Re: System security versus censorship
Message-ID:
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 21:50:25 GMT
In article <1992Oct1.141116.10025@bsu-ucs.uucp> 00hfstahlke@bsu-ucs.uucp writes:
>Personally, I view the distinction between storing and using such a program as
>rather like the distinction between possessing and using burglary tools
What are "burglary tools?" Putty knives? Glass cutters? You know,
burglars don't put on a little black mask and send away to ACME for
"Burglar's Kits."
I could see a perfectly legitimate use for owning even a small set of
lockpicks: my lock is such that I cannot *leave* it unlocked, but must
always have my key if I wish to open the door. If I accidentally lock
my keys in my room, I don't really want to have to pay Amherst College
$10 so that campus security can come and open my door. At BSU,
however, I suppose this personal safeguard is Right Out.
>or an
>unlicensed concealed weapon.
There is no "license" for owning a password cracking program. The
analogy fails.
--
____ Tim Pierce / "You are just naive and repressed because
\ / twpierce@unix.amherst.edu / penis envy is here and it's now and it's
\/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) / all around you." -- Neal C. Wickham
From caf-talk Caf Oct 1 19:47:12 1992
Newsgroups: soc.college,alt.censorship,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: What is "banning" anyway?
Message-ID:
From: betsys@cs.umb.edu (Elizabeth Schwartz)
Date: 1 Oct 92 22:17:20 GMT
My Random House defines it as to "prohibit, forbid or bar; interdict"
I claim that is NOT what we are doing!
Saying "you may post this material anywhere except for this one
place" is a far cry from prohibiting or forbidding the material!
The reason I am pushing this is that I feel we are a site which is
deeply and fundamentally supportive of open access and free speech. It
hurts to see us listed on the same list as folks who are denying
newsgroup access, shutting off users, and other serious measures.
I don't see what's wrong with asking that one particular system
utility, finger, be kept clear of obscene messages, when all of the
other distribution mechanisms , including e-mail, news, and file
storage, are available for unrestricted use. Any student who wishes to
make any message available to the entire system has a number of easy
ways to do it, none of which require recipients to be identified.
I have defended users on our system who are sending politically
unpopular mailings. I have fought repeatedly to keep ALL of the alt
groups, even though student collections of .gif files have been
filling up our disk and bringing our system to a halt.
We deal with ANY problems by sitting and talking with the user, and
we have never yet banned any student from any part of the system.
Our only other restrictions are based strictly on resource limits
(disk space limits and limits on telnet during prime time *based on
system load*)
--
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 Oct 1 19:47:16 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.censorship,soc.college
Subject: Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Message-ID: <1992Oct1.173240.7942@glas.rtsg.mot.com>
From: waider@glas.rtsg.mot.com (Ronan Waide)
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 17:32:40 GMT
twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce) writes:
[Process names restriction]
>Any thoughts? This seems like a borderline case to me.
In the University of Limerick, Ireland, there was a security incident involving
a user who had the process name "Baader". Subsequent to his "trial" and
expulsion from the college for a year, another student set his process name to
"Baader" and promptly found himself disusered.
A touch rough, no?
>--
>____ Tim Pierce / "You are just naive and repressed because
>\ / twpierce@unix.amherst.edu / penis envy is here and it's now and it's
> \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) / all around you." -- Neal C. Wickham
--
Ronan Waide, Motorola Ireland waider@glas.rtsg.mot.com
"You watch a talk show recently? They're doing one next month on a normal,
happy heterosexual couple, assuming they can find one." - Prof R. Noble @ RPI
From caf-talk Caf Oct 1 19:54:47 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.censorship,soc.college
From: fwp@CC.MsState.Edu (Frank Peters)
Subject: Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Message-ID: <1992Oct1.233504.1455@ra.msstate.edu>
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 23:35:04 GMT
In article <92275.104628HANK@BARILVM.BITNET> Hank Nussbacher says:
: In article <1992Sep30.065537.23479@eff.org>, kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) says:
: >Computer code at *Ball State University* to crack passwords
: > ... even if it is never run. During a system-wide search, an
: > administrator found the computer code. The user says "[i]t really
: > bothers me that I'm going to get in a lot of trouble (probably
: > anyway) just for the mere possession of a program."
: ...
: >Computer code at the *University of Wyoming* for Internet Relay Chat
: > A student was told that if university searches turned up IRC code in
: > his possession, he "would be disusered without hope for reinstatement."
:
:
: Assume that sex/porn/necrophilia are all grounded in the rule of free speech
: and that indeed some universities are trampling on the free speech rights of
: their students. I somehow don't understand the two examples above - how does
: this impinge the rights of their free speech?
I agree actually (though probably not for the same reasons that you do).
I see these two (and a few others in Carl's list) as issues of privacy
rather than free speech.
But a very significant relationship is there. Suppose, for example, that
we banned the use of our systems for the viewing "dirty" pictures. Does
this mean that we can then (ignoring the privacy issue) go through peoples
files looking for such pictures and delete them and punish their owners?
I think you have gone beyond an important line when you move from
banning potentially disruptive activities to searching peoples home
directories and removing related data and programs that aren't being
used.
: Unless I am mistaken, the US Bill of Rights which include the right to
: free speech, etc. has not been accepted as the Bill of Rights to the World.
I may have missed something buried in the text but I don't see where Carl
mentioned the US Constitution or the 1st Amendment anywhere in his post.
He didn't even mention free speech law in general.
Freedom of speech is a moral principle, not a law. The 1st Amendment
to the US Constitution is one attempt to assure our adherence to that
moral principle. It is not the only attempt to do so, and the principle
exists even if no laws exist to protect it.
: Have you checked that each of these countries (Ireland, Turkey, etc.) have
: a law of free speech as the US does? Or are you merely applying your own
: form of geocentricism which dictates that the entire world has to follow
: what the USA says and does?
Is freedom of speach REALLY an issue only of interest in the United States?
Does nobody in the countries mentioned concern themselves with the subject?
Even if nobody in the countries mentioned is interested in freedom of
speach (which I doubt very much) this doesn't make the application of
the principle to them irrelevent. Many countries (including the US)
violate what I consider to be basic human rights by oppressing
minorities, denying due process in legal proceedings and denying
freedom of speach. I consider all of these things wrong even if they
are legal withing the legal systems of the countries involved.
: The reason I am extremely annoyed is that this is not the first time that
: people in the USA assume that the entire world has to jump in line to their
: definitions of how the world should work.
Expecting people to speak the language we speak, eat the foods we eat,
obey the customs we obey, wear the clothes we wear, and bow to our
cultural superiority. All of these are things which I associate with
the "ugly american" syndrome and all are appalling.
Expecting other countries (and the US) to respect the basic human
rights of their citizens isn't something I usually consider in the same
category. If this makes me an ugly american then I wear the title with
pride.
: Americans are extremely insensitive to cultures other
: than their own.
Where should our respect for other cultures end? Should we respect
cultures that treat women as property? Cultures that treat minorities
as second class citizens?
--
Frank Peters - UNIX Systems Programmer - Mississippi State University
Internet: fwp@CC.MsState.Edu - Phone: (601)325-7030 - FAX: (601)325-8921
From caf-talk Caf Oct 1 21:04:46 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.censorship
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Message-ID: <1992Oct2.010438.13040@eff.org>
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 01:04:38 GMT
In article <1992Oct1.164415.13315@nntp.hut.fi> jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala) writes:
>Thanks for the clarification. However, your original statement was:
>
>>Although obscenity is regulable
>>under the Constitution,
>
>which taken separately clearly is incorrect.
You are mistaken. What I said is entirely correct.
>I think it would be best
>to qualify clearly unconstitutional interpretations (or ones where
>there's considerable disagreement) by things like "according to the
>current interpretation [by the Supreme Court]".
Jyrki, you use "clearly unconstitutional interpretations" in a very odd
way here. The Supreme Court is the highest governmental body that
interprets the Constitution. While I disagree with many of the decisions
the Supreme Court has made, I can't say I know of a single "clearly
unconstitutional interpretation."
>I think this is an important distinction.
It's not one that is ever found in American discourse on Constitutional
law. Perhaps we should institute it as the Kuoppala Distinction.
--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
From caf-talk Caf Oct 1 21:06:44 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.censorship,soc.college
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Message-ID: <1992Oct2.010637.13133@eff.org>
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 01:06:37 GMT
In article betsys@cs.umb.edu (Elizabeth Schwartz) writes:
> I'm not a prude, I read some of the more offbeat newsgroups myself.
>I just dont want to have bathroom limericks scrolling across my
>screen.
This seems a slender thread on which to hang a policy.
--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
From caf-talk Caf Oct 1 21:12:53 1992
Newsgroups: soc.college,alt.censorship,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: What is "banning" anyway?
Message-ID: <1992Oct2.011244.13372@eff.org>
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 01:12:44 GMT
In article betsys@cs.umb.edu (Elizabeth Schwartz) writes:
>My Random House defines it as to "prohibit, forbid or bar; interdict"
>I claim that is NOT what we are doing!
> Saying "you may post this material anywhere except for this one
>place" is a far cry from prohibiting or forbidding the material!
On the contrary, Betsy, American Constitutional jurisprudence is full of
cases in which regulation of expression based on content was considered to
be censorship.
The issue is not whether you are "banning" the material altogehter, but
whether you are banning it from their .plan files.
> The reason I am pushing this is that I feel we are a site which is
>deeply and fundamentally supportive of open access and free speech. It
>hurts to see us listed on the same list as folks who are denying
>newsgroup access, shutting off users, and other serious measures.
If you are deeply supportive of free speech, how can you justify a system
policy that seems to be grounded in your personal opposition to seeing
offensive stuff appear on your screen when you run finger?
> I don't see what's wrong with asking that one particular system
>utility, finger, be kept clear of obscene messages ....
But you seem to define "obscene" far more broadly than any government body
is allowed to do under the U.S. Constitution. For example, you seem to
think that all sexual material is obscene.
--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
From caf-talk Caf Oct 2 05:08:35 1992
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 09:35:31 IST
From: Hank Nussbacher
Message-ID: <92276.093531HANK@BARILVM.BITNET>
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.censorship,soc.college
Subject: Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
I have batched 3 separate answers together...
-------------------------------------------------------------------
>From: raan@techunix.technion.ac.il (Ran Ever-Hadani)
>universal principal. When Jews were not allowed to leave the Soviet
>Union, many Americans stood with us, demanding that gates of the
>Soviet Union be opened, even though the Bill of Right was never
>accepted by the Soviet Union. I am pretty sure that you would not accuse
>those Americans of genocentricism.
I think comparing sitting in a work camp in the Gulag for 10 years
due to Communist supression of free speech and someone having their
copy of IRC erased from a university computer is a *very* wrong
thing to do. One diminishes the power of a good law such as Free
Speech by applying it to every nook and cranny of life including
running computer programs. When the law will truly be needed, the
masses (the silent majority) will just scoff at it since its use has
been abused so often in the past.
------------------------------------------------------------------
>From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
>
>How is a handgun like speech concerning "sex/porn/necrophilia"?
My right to bare arms is as much a right according to US law as
is free speech.
>
>How is running a program the same as speech?
My point exactly. EFF is the one that batched together censorship
of sexual material (free speech) along with censorship of programs
on certain systems. Keep listing those that censor various sexual
newsgroups. But it is the perogative of every computer center to
decide what programs are or are not allowed to run on their system.
>
>Hank, you imply here that freedom of speech is solely an American concern.
>But freedom of speech has its advocates in every one of the countries
>mentioned here. Want proof? Try reading INDEX ON CENSORSHIP (a British
>publication).
There is a huge difference between having a law on the books and having
advocates in every country.
Let us turn the discussion the other way. In Germany as well as in
Israel there are laws about the Right to Privacy. When attempting
to establish an X.500 database here, we were told by the government
that according to law, we need a written, signed (non-electronic)
approval from each person who will be included in such a database.
There are other European countries who require consent also but
will accept it in electronic form. This Law is based on the prinicple
that everyone has a right to privacy and that their personal information
should not end up in some public database.
But in the USA, many universities have placed their telephone books
online and have automatically created X.500 databases of their
faculty and students. According to *our* law (and the right to
privacy has advocates in every country also) - you are in violation
of that basic tenet. How would it look if I came out with a list of
places that created X.500 databases without user consent that
infringed on peoples human right to privacy? Pretty stupid.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
>From: acbonin@unix.amherst.edu (Adam Bonin)
>There are certain things, however, which are not "definitions of how the world
>should work" but natural rights which people have, simply by being persons,
>regardless of the culture in which they live. Would you deny, for example
>the necessary truth of either of the following statements to hold across all
>cultures:
>1. Persons should not be held blameworthy or responsible for acts they were
>powerless to affect.
>2. It is wrong to lay blame and punishment before making a reasoned
>determination between those persons innocent and those guilty.
Right. But is a person innocent until proven guilty or guilty until
proven innocent? Careful. The answer will vary depending on which
country you are in.
>Even were it not codified into the U.S. Bill of Rights and the U.N. Declaration
>of Human Rights, I would still hold that the right to free expression is a
>similar natural right of man, that we have the right to our own opinions
>by being rational beings capable of reason.
What about a person's right to privacy? Wouldn't you consider this
a natural right of all people throughout the world? As the above
example shows, many sites on the Internet have trampled on that
right yet no one is making lists of them.
>Furthermore, the presence of disagreement in other cultures towards these
>truths certainly does not prove that there is no truth, no right and wrong
>in this case. The rightness and wrongness of certain principles are not
>dependent on the will of the majority, but instead rest in the nature of man.
Wrong. It rests with the majority of each country. If Ireland wishes
to ban abortion because the majority of the people living there wish it
to be so, even though the majority of the people in the world are in
favor of abortion, that is their *right*. There is no such thing as
a universal truth. The nature of man varies from place to place from
continent to continent. In one culture one is sad when a loved one
dies while in another they are happy (because the person is now
going to heaven). The Maoris of New Zealand stick their tongues
out to greet one another - an act any place else in the world that
is not a sign of greeting.
Just to throw some more examples out, elemetary school starts in
September, right? Pretty basic. In Japan it starts in April,
in Brazil in either February or March, in Thailand in May.
I see that the people who use networks are mainly from "Western"
cultures assuming that everyone in the world follows rules of
free speech, fair play, etc. I also notice that the level of
awareness among this same group, of other cultures is fairly low.
[Who expects someone in the sciences to major in sociology or
anthropology or political science?]
The ideas of free speech and rights to privacy are foreign to certain
cultures and we must respect that, just as we are not expected to
believe that committing suicide with a bomb strapped to your chest is
the best way to get into heaven. They have their culture and we have
our culture. Neither is right or wrong. Each is right in its own
country or segment of population.
Hank Nussbacher
Israel
From caf-talk Caf Oct 2 07:17:34 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: alan@ssd.ukpoit.co.uk (Alan Barclay)
Subject: Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Message-ID: <9210020732.AA04289@george.ukpoit.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 07:37:33 GMT
Ran Ever-Hadani about
>
> I believe that freedom of speech is an important principle everywhere.
> The fact that the US has a Bill of Rights is important as a legal means
> to fight for various freedoms within the US, but the fact that such a bill
> does not exist in many other countries does not diminish the obligation
> of all of us, American or otherwise, to advocate freedom of speech as a
> universal principal.
Obligation? What obligation? Some people might legitimately reject
universal freedom of speech, me for example, just as some others
reject the universal freedom to bear arms in the Bill of Rights.
It can be a personal choice, but no way is it an obligation.
--
Alan Barclay, iT, Barker Lane, CHESTERFIELD, S40 1DY, Derbys, England
alan@ukpoit.uucp, ..!uknet!ukpoit!alan, FAX:+44 246214353, VOICE:+44 246214261
iT - The Information Technology Business | explist now set to 3 days.
Of The Post Office : In Tune With Technology | Anyone got a 1.2 Gig disk?
From caf-talk Caf Oct 2 08:17:19 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.censorship
From: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Subject: Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Message-ID: <1992Oct2.111319.26055@nntp.hut.fi>
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 11:13:19 GMT
In article <1afb5pINN9so@early-bird.think.com>, barmar@think (Barry Margolin) writes:
>The Supreme Court has ruled that there
>are limits to the freedom of speech the first amendment confers.
>And
>obscenity has been declared by the Supreme Court not to be protected
>speech.
The topic wasn't what any of the Supreme Courts since the founding of
USA have said, the topic was what the Constitution says.
Does the Constitution give a monopoly of interpretation to the Supreme Court?
//Jyrki
From caf-talk Caf Oct 2 08:23:24 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.censorship,soc.college
From: waider@glas.rtsg.mot.com (Ronan Waide)
Subject: Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Message-ID: <1992Oct2.100012.8367@glas.rtsg.mot.com>
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 10:00:12 GMT
[Background: I mailed an example of a user losing his account over a process
name which had previously been associated with a cracker. Tim Pierce mailed
me asking for clarification, and suggested that I post my reply to the net.]
Previous writings from Tim Pierce stated :
>
> I might understand your post a little better if I knew what the word
> "Baader" connotes. :-)
>
> --
> ____ Tim Pierce / "You are just naive and repressed because
> \ / twpierce@unix.amherst.edu / penis envy is here and it's now and it's
> \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) / all around you." -- Neal C. Wickham
>
Sod all, really! It was just the fact that the original Baader had been caught
cracking, and the Ops then apparently assumed that any process called Baader
was a cracker.....
Actually, since the `security incident', things have gotten realy hairy in
the University; First they made it a disciplinary offence ( ie not funny :-7 )
to use someone else's account, even with their consent, which is fair enough.
Except that (i) disciplinary offences can get you kicked out of college and
(ii) _every_ student entering the college gets an account, however some
students don't even _know_ they have accounts throughout their college life (!)
so that their allocation of diskspace, etc. is never used. Actually, come to
think of it, the second point is a little lame, but I still stand by the first
one. Anyhow, since then, they've decided that `shareware' programs constitute
a security risk. Like I write a program that mails the Ops and says nasty things
to them, and tell you to run it. Or whatever. Okay, it's a fair point. Their
initial implementation was simple: on login, all WORLD and GROUP privileges on
your account are cleared, and any ACL files are removed. This, of course, can
be circumvented by using your LOGIN.COM to restore all this stuff. They are now
(apparently - I've been away from colege on work experience, hence the `mot.com'
address!) pushing to get shareware removed entirely by making it a disciplinary
offence to run a program which resides in someone else's account.
The sad thing is, I'd like to get a job with the Ops..... :-7
Ronan
--
Ronan Waide, Motorola Ireland waider@glas.rtsg.mot.com
"You watch a talk show recently? They're doing one next month on a normal,
happy heterosexual couple, assuming they can find one." - Prof R. Noble @ RPI
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments?
--
Ronan Waide, Motorola Ireland waider@glas.rtsg.mot.com
"You watch a talk show recently? They're doing one next month on a normal,
happy heterosexual couple, assuming they can find one." - Prof R. Noble @ RPI
From caf-talk Caf Oct 2 10:10:03 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: Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Message-ID: <1992Oct2.140955.22663@eff.org>
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 14:09:55 GMT
Hank Nussbacher writes:
[...]
>My point exactly. EFF is the one that batched together censorship
>of sexual material (free speech) along with censorship of programs
>on certain systems. Keep listing those that censor various sexual
>newsgroups. But it is the perogative of every computer center to
>decide what programs are or are not allowed to run on their system.
[...]
Two clarifications:
1) "EFF" did not batch this stuff together, I did. I am not an EFF
officer, agent, or spokesperson. (I am an EFF member and user on
eff.org). The posting included a disclaimer:
>Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
> =kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
but it may have been overlooked because it was as the very end. In
newer versions of the list, it is closer to the top.
2) I was not, even implicitly, critizing the schools for banning the
running of IRC and Crack. I was, implicitly, critizing the schools for
banning the code for IRC and Crack.
- Carl
ANNOTATED REFERENCES
(All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.)
=================
banned.1992
=================
A list of computer material that was banned or challenged in academia
in 1992. The institutions mentioned are:
Ball State U., Boston U. (2), Carnegie Mellon U., German universities,
Iowa State U. (3), Irish universities, James Madison U., Middle East
Technical U., North Dakota State U., Pennsylvania State U., Princeton,
Simon Fraser U., U. of British Columbia, U. of California at Berkeley
*, U. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, U. of Manitoba, U. of
Massachusetts at Boston, U. of Nebraska at Lincoln, U. of Newcastle,
U. of Ottawa, U. of Texas, U. of Toledo, U. of Toronto *, U. of
Wyoming, United Kingdom Net, Virginia Public Education Network,
Virginia Tech, Western Washington U. (& U. of Washington), Wilfrid
Laurier U. (2), Williams College **
========
* Site of an unsuccessful challenge
** College not directly involved.
=================
=================
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/banned.1992
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 banned.1992
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Oct 2 10:20:48 1992
From: 00hfstahlke@bsu-ucs.uucp
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: System security versus censorship
Message-ID: <1992Oct2.083815.10045@bsu-ucs.uucp>
Date: 2 Oct 92 13:38:15 GMT
In article , twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce) writes:
> In article <1992Oct1.141116.10025@bsu-ucs.uucp> 00hfstahlke@bsu-ucs.uucp writes:
>
>>Personally, I view the distinction between storing and using such a program as
>>rather like the distinction between possessing and using burglary tools
>
> What are "burglary tools?" Putty knives? Glass cutters? You know,
> burglars don't put on a little black mask and send away to ACME for
> "Burglar's Kits."
>
> I could see a perfectly legitimate use for owning even a small set of
> lockpicks: my lock is such that I cannot *leave* it unlocked, but must
> always have my key if I wish to open the door. If I accidentally lock
> my keys in my room, I don't really want to have to pay Amherst College
> $10 so that campus security can come and open my door. At BSU,
> however, I suppose this personal safeguard is Right Out.
>
>>or an
>>unlicensed concealed weapon.
>
> There is no "license" for owning a password cracking program. The
> analogy fails.
>
All analogies fail, Tim. That's why I prefaced that statement with
"Personally." Face it; system security relies heavily on judgment calls, both
as to how to interpret policy and as to how to react to something that might
fall outside of written policy. And as long as there is human judgment
involved there is also the risk of error. Fortunately, most universities, like
ours, have ways of correcting or avoiding such errors, like a simple phone call
or a prior arrangement with systech for a temporary exception. Security also
depends on people behaving reasonably and responsibly, which are also matters
of judgment. Since I'm not at liberty to discuss the posting that started all
this, I can't talk about the judgment calls that were involved, but it wasn't
simple.
I suppose if you carried around a set of lock picks on this campus you would
have no problem unless there were a rash of burglaries, the campus police had
some probable cause for arresting you, and they searched you and found the lock
picks. Even then, the fact that they arrest you as a suspect doesn't mean
you're guilty or will be found so.
Let's leave some room for judgment here and not make the assumption that
administrators are by definition hard-nosed and inflexible.
Let's also recognize that the "Banned...1992" listing was simply a listing of
extracts from postings received over the year. I don't know that we have much
idea of the judgment that underlay either the summarizing process, in itself a
creative act, or the decision as to what constitutes a case of censorship, also
a creative act. In other words, neither what was contained in the listing nor
the postings it was based on tell the whole story.
Herb Stahlke
Ball State University
From caf-talk Caf Oct 2 10:20:50 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.censorship,soc.college
From: acbonin@unix.amherst.edu (Adam Bonin)
Subject: Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Message-ID:
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 13:45:55 GMT
Hank Nussbacher (HANK@BARILVM.BITNET) wrote:
: I have batched 3 separate answers together...
:
I'll just handle mine, thank you...
: -------------------------------------------------------------------
: >From: acbonin@unix.amherst.edu (Adam Bonin)
: >There are certain things, however, which are not "definitions of how the world
: >should work" but natural rights which people have, simply by being persons,
: >regardless of the culture in which they live. Would you deny, for example
: >the necessary truth of either of the following statements to hold across all
: >cultures:
: >1. Persons should not be held blameworthy or responsible for acts they were
: >powerless to affect.
: >2. It is wrong to lay blame and punishment before making a reasoned
: >determination between those persons innocent and those guilty.
:
: Right. But is a person innocent until proven guilty or guilty until
: proven innocent? Careful. The answer will vary depending on which
: country you are in.
Is the positive law in each country different? Sure. But you have admitted
the basic point of that argument, that there are universal principles which
are true across cultures. The fact that some countries apply them in positive
laws in different ways, and some not at all, does not diminish their truth.
:
: >Even were it not codified into the U.S. Bill of Rights and the U.N. Declaration
: >of Human Rights, I would still hold that the right to free expression is a
: >similar natural right of man, that we have the right to our own opinions
: >by being rational beings capable of reason.
:
: What about a person's right to privacy? Wouldn't you consider this
: a natural right of all people throughout the world? As the above
: example shows, many sites on the Internet have trampled on that
: right yet no one is making lists of them.
Ok, fine, what about it? If the right to privacy is indeed a natural right,
than nothing, nothing can be done to pierce that inviolable sphere. If
a father abuses his children, can he claim that his home is a private sphere
and that the law does not apply there? How about drug use? If that is a
private matter, than do you hold that government can do nothing to stop its
spread? If you answer 'yes' to either question, then privacy is not a
fundamental, unalienable right.
:
: >Furthermore, the presence of disagreement in other cultures towards these
: >truths certainly does not prove that there is no truth, no right and wrong
: >in this case. The rightness and wrongness of certain principles are not
: >dependent on the will of the majority, but instead rest in the nature of man.
:
: Wrong. It rests with the majority of each country. If Ireland wishes
: to ban abortion because the majority of the people living there wish it
: to be so, even though the majority of the people in the world are in
: favor of abortion, that is their *right*. There is no such thing as
: a universal truth. The nature of man varies from place to place from
: continent to continent. In one culture one is sad when a loved one
: dies while in another they are happy (because the person is now
: going to heaven). The Maoris of New Zealand stick their tongues
: out to greet one another - an act any place else in the world that
: is not a sign of greeting.
:
: Just to throw some more examples out, elemetary school starts in
: September, right? Pretty basic. In Japan it starts in April,
: in Brazil in either February or March, in Thailand in May.
First of all, let's throw out the Maori and school examples off the bat. We're
dealing here with moral questions, not questions of ritual or practice. But
it does look like you're conceding another right there, that we all have the
right to education. There is no difference in the "nature of man", but there
are cultural diffences of no _moral_ significance.
But let's hit the key part there, and I'd like to use the issue of slavery as
an analogy. I think we can agree that slavery is wrong, that no man has the
right to treat another as property. If it is wrong, then, as Lincoln said,
"there is no right to do a wrong". That's why the pre-Civil War compromises
involving "popular sovereignty" were fundamentally wrong, because they put up
to a majority a moral question for which there is only one correct answer. If
slavery is wrong, it is as wrong in New York, Kansas and Nebraska as it is in
the Soviet Union or China. If abortion were truly wrong, and I don't believe
that it is, than it would be as wrong in Dublin as it would be in Philadelphia.
If you do not concede this point, then you have no right to make any judgments
about the conduct of other nations based on "your" principles, not being able
to lay praise or condemn based on their practices.
One other thing: "There is no such thing as a unversal truth"? Two responses:
1. Is _that_ a universal truth? 2. You've already conceded two of them, and
almost created a third on your own.
:
: I see that the people who use networks are mainly from "Western"
: cultures assuming that everyone in the world follows rules of
: free speech, fair play, etc. I also notice that the level of
: awareness among this same group, of other cultures is fairly low.
: [Who expects someone in the sciences to major in sociology or
: anthropology or political science?]
:
: The ideas of free speech and rights to privacy are foreign to certain
: cultures and we must respect that, just as we are not expected to
: believe that committing suicide with a bomb strapped to your chest is
: the best way to get into heaven. They have their culture and we have
: our culture. Neither is right or wrong. Each is right in its own
: country or segment of population.
:
Sure--some countries don't _practice_ all these rights. But if the rights
don't exist, quit sending your checks to Amnesty International, quit sending
letters to South Africa protesting their treatment of Blacks, and don't worry
about Jews in the Soviet Union during the 1970's and 1980's--after all,
freedoms of religion and travel are just Western concepts, I guess.
A final question: Is the notion that discrimination on the basis of race is
wrong a true, binding principle, or is it just a Western concept that other
countries should feel free to violate without our condemning it?
-adam
----
Adam Bonin '94
Amherst College
acbonin@amherst.edu
"He who accepts evil without fighting against
it is really cooperating with it."
-Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.
From caf-talk Caf Oct 2 10:31:20 1992
Newsgroups: soc.college,alt.censorship,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kraussW@moravian.edu (Bill Krauss - SysAdm)
Subject: Re: Academic Gun Rights 1992 (was Re: Banned Computer Material 1992)
Message-ID:
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 92 10:09:18 EDT
In <1992Oct1.174934.2581@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>I assume you mean guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. As far as I know,
>the right to keep arms, say in a univeristy office, are not guarenteed
>by any statements of academic freedom. Do you really think
>it should be?
No, not necessarily... I just think it's interesting that we champion the
right of having Freedom of Speech, and insist there be no restrictions and
other rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights are not looked at as something
that should be unrestricted... (I'm not advocating policies that allow
students to have guns on campus. Just think it's interesting.)
Context Change...
I do appreciate the discussion that we are able to share here... I know that
my outlook on Academic Freedom has changed since reading this group...
--
Bill Krauss
/*------------------------------------------------------------------------*\
| William F. Krauss III | Moravian College, Comp Sci Dept, Bethlehem, PA |
| Computer Science Dept | INTERNET -> kraussW@moravian.edu 18018 |
| System Administrator | UUCP -> ...!rutgers!lafcol!batman!kraussW |
| Phone - 215-861-1441 | <<<<<<<<<<<<< Love God! Hate Sin! >>>>>>>>>>>>>> |
\*------------------------------------------------------------------------*/
From caf-talk Caf Oct 2 12:01:17 1992
From: betsys@cs.umb.edu (Elizabeth Schwartz)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.censorship,soc.college
Subject: Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Message-ID:
Date: 2 Oct 92 16:43:08 GMT
In article <1992Oct2.010637.13133@eff.org> mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:
>> I'm not a prude, I read some of the more offbeat newsgroups myself.
>>I just dont want to have bathroom limericks scrolling across my
>>screen.
>This seems a slender thread on which to hang a policy.
Well, we have to keep this in perspective. THis isn't a formal,
take-it-to-court sort of policy anyway. I agree with the poster who
said that trying to make rules to cover every detail is oppressive.
When we see an offensive plan (and as Tim mentions, a gay-bashing or
racist one would count, but we've never seen one here) we ask the user
politely to change it, and so far they have all thought this was
reasonable.
--
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 Oct 2 12:08:26 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.censorship,soc.college
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Message-ID: <1992Oct2.160752.26340@eff.org>
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 16:07:52 GMT
In article <92276.093531HANK@BARILVM.BITNET> Hank Nussbacher writes:
>>From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
>>
>>How is a handgun like speech concerning "sex/porn/necrophilia"?
>
>My right to bare arms is as much a right according to US law as
>is free speech.
I think you mean "to bear arms." In any case, we are talking about censorship,
not gun control; censorship has far more nuances than gun control,
probably because speech is much more flexible and subtle than guns are.
So the purpose of your analogy is unclear.
>My point exactly. EFF is the one that batched together censorship
>of sexual material (free speech) along with censorship of programs
>on certain systems.
Pardon me? What's your source on this? EFF has never taken the position
that system administrators cannot prevent certain programs from being run
on their systems.
>Keep listing those that censor various sexual
>newsgroups. But it is the perogative of every computer center to
>decide what programs are or are not allowed to run on their system.
You seem confused here.
>There is a huge difference between having a law on the books and having
>advocates in every country.
Carl Kadie's posting wasn't addressing whether the censorship he cited was
illegal. You seem to have misread his posting as a claim that the
censorship in other countries is illegal. But Kadie never said this.
I advise you to reread it.
--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
From caf-talk Caf Oct 2 12:42:42 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: Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Message-ID: <1992Oct2.164236.27514@eff.org>
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 16:42:36 GMT
betsys@cs.umb.edu (Elizabeth Schwartz) writes:
[...]
>Well, we have to keep this in perspective. THis isn't a formal,
>take-it-to-court sort of policy anyway. I agree with the poster who
>said that trying to make rules to cover every detail is oppressive.
[...]
Creating rules on the fly can also be oppresive.
'In the Federalist #84 Alexander Hamilton argued that "the creation of
crimes after the commission of the fact, or, in other words, the
subjecting of men `to punishment for thing which, when they were done,
were breaches of no law" has been "in all ages" one of "the favorite
and more formidable instruments of tyranny."
- Edward J. Erler in _Criminal Justice and the Surpeme Court_, editted
by Leonard W. Levy, et al.
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Oct 2 13:01:44 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.censorship
From: barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry)
Subject: Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Message-ID: <1992Oct2.162504.6834@netcom.com>
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 16:25:04 GMT
In article <1992Oct2.111319.26055@nntp.hut.fi> jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala) writes:
>Does the Constitution give a monopoly of interpretation to the Supreme Court?
Pragmatically speaking, yes. We have a saying, "the Constitution
is what the Supreme Court says it is".
The Constitution does not give this right to the Court
explicitly, but the Court asserted the right back in the 1830s, and has
hung onto it.
Every citizen, of course, has the right to make their own
interpretation of what the Constitution really says, but only the
opinion of the Supreme Court has any legal weight.
Kayembee
From caf-talk Caf Oct 2 13:02:45 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.censorship,soc.college
From: jbotz@mtholyoke.edu (Jurgen Botz)
Subject: Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Message-ID:
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 16:55:11 GMT
In article <92275.104628HANK@BARILVM.BITNET> Hank Nussbacher writes:
>Assume that sex/porn/necrophilia are all grounded in the rule of free speech
>and that indeed some universities are trampling on the free speech rights of
>their students. I somehow don't understand the two examples above - how does
>this impinge the rights of their free speech? Let us take the first example:
>suppose I carry a handgun tucked under my shirt. I have not used it and don't
>intend to use it. What right does anyone have to stop me and take away my gun
>when I enter their building?
A COMPUTER PROGRAM IS NOT A HANDGUN. Computer programs, at least in
source code form, are PUBLISHED MATERIAL (and are considered such by
US law and many international trade agreements). This is an _extremely_
important distinction... yes, published material _can_ be dangerous,
but the greatest danger lies in authorities (whether governments or
University administrations) deciding what is "dangerous information"
and what is "good information". This is precisely why many countries
have anti-censorship laws.
Let us say I have in my possession some computer files that describe
the process of making illegal explosives. I have not made the
explosives, and do not intend to do so. Does any authority have the
right to stop me and take away those files? Not in the USA! Let us
say I have in my possession a program that decrypts passwords... let
us say my field of study is crytography, and I intend to do some
independent study into the practical security of modern host systems.
Let us say my field of study is not crytography, I'm merely curious
about the code. Let us say I'm going to see how well it works by
running it on a sample password file. Etc., etc...
Who gives you the right to decide what information I may have access
to and what information I may not have access to? If my use of
computer resources provided for a particular purpose to me and others
interferes with that purpose, then you have a right to take action (i.e.
tying up public terminals needed for other purposed with IRC).
But information itself may not be made "illegal" by _my_ code of
ethics, and by what we tend to think of as the basic principles of
democracy and human rights. Punishing a person for being in
possession of published material that some authority considers
"dangerous information" is pure authoritarianism in its most
despicable form... not one iota better than any form of government
censorship that has ever been practiced in any totalitarian state.
--
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 Oct 2 13:17:14 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: nbc2134@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil (Robert F Solon)
Subject: Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Message-ID: <9210021710.AA19273@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil>
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 09:10:43 GMT
In reply to the mail from ...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>In article <1afb5pINN9so@early-bird.think.com>, barmar@think (Barry Margolin) writes:
>>The Supreme Court has ruled that there
>>are limits to the freedom of speech the first amendment confers.
>
>>And
>>obscenity has been declared by the Supreme Court not to be protected
>>speech.
>
>The topic wasn't what any of the Supreme Courts since the founding of
>USA have said, the topic was what the Constitution says.
>
>Does the Constitution give a monopoly of interpretation to the Supreme Court?
>
>//Jyrki
>
Well, not exactly. But _Marbury vs. Madison_ is the vehicle used by the
Marshall Court to assume the role of ultimate interpreter of the Constitution.
Lower Federal courts may make interpretations that stand unless overturned on
appeal. But the Constitution does not specificly say which, if any,
governmental entity should have final say over Consitutional interpretations.
Bob
Bob Solon, DITSO-CO-BCC
Administrative Information Branch -- DRMS
"We Code, You Explode!!"
From caf-talk Caf Oct 2 14:26:28 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [soc.libraries.talk] bibliographies on sexuality
Message-ID: <199210021826.AA29859@eff.org>
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 10:26:16 GMT
Newsgroups: soc.libraries.talk
From: cbs@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca (Chris Syed)
Subject: bibliographies on sexuality
Message-ID:
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 15:56:15 GMT
Gary Klein's posting of forthcoming scholarly books on gay and lesbian
studies got me thinking...
I have prepared a bibliography of 98 scholarly/popular books on this
subject taken from the holdings of the SIECCAN library in Toronto.
We also have subject strengths in: sexuality and disability, sex education,
STDs, social aspects, etc etc.
If anyone would like the 98 book list, give me a buzz. Sorry, no
FTP available, but I can mail you a copy.
SIECCAN is the Sex Info & Edu Council of Canada, and is the sister
organisation to SIECUS in the USA. We publish the Canadian J. of Human
Sexuality (hope this isn't taken as a "commercial use of the net") ;-)
for which a list of articles is avail. SIECCAN has about 1000 members,
most of whom are accredited sexologists, therapists, pastors, psychologists
etc. so the library contains mostly scholarly stuff, but a fair amount of
self help or "popular" works.
--
---
"We cannot think without imagining." -- Thomas Aquinas
cbs@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca (Chris Brown-Syed)
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Oct 2 14:34:41 1992
Newsgroups: soc.libraries.talk,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: bibliographies on sexuality
Message-ID: <1992Oct2.183433.185@eff.org>
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 18:34:33 GMT
cbs@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca (Chris Syed) writes:
[...]
> SIECCAN is the Sex Info & Edu Council of Canada, and is the sister
> organisation to SIECUS in the USA. We publish the Canadian J. of Human
> Sexuality (hope this isn't taken as a "commercial use of the net") ;-)
> for which a list of articles is avail. SIECCAN has about 1000 members,
> most of whom are accredited sexologists, therapists, pastors, psychologists
> etc. so the library contains mostly scholarly stuff, but a fair amount of
> self help or "popular" works.
[...]
I suggest posting your infomation on how to get more information to
alt.sex.
As an aside, I'm enclosing a list of Canadian universities that have
banned on-line discussions of sex.
- Carl
=========== excerpts from ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/banned.1992 =====
Banned Computer Material 1992
Inspired by Banned Book Week '92, this is a list of computer material
banned or challenged in academia in 1992. Iowa State University has
the dubious distinction of being listed most often (three times).
[...]
+ Canada:
alt.sex.bondage and other "pornographic writing" anywhere in *Canada*.
... challenged in a CBC Radio show that suggested that the police
would suppress these if they could figure out how.
news/cafv02n30:
All Netnews discussions of sex at *Simon Fraser University*
The _Globe and Mail_ quotes the director of academic computing
services: "It's the same as if somebody wants Playboy or
Penthouse. We don't have them in the university library." In
fact, SFU has _Playboy_ in its library.
news/cafv02n38:<1992Jul21.164722.252@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu>
news/cafv02n37:
All "vulgar", "reprehensible", "pornographic", or "poison[ous]"
material that might be accessed from, created on, or stored on
*University of British Columbia* computing equipment starting with
newsgroups alt.sex and rec.arts.erotica
... banned by order of the president of the University
news/cafv02n39:
All Netnews discussions of sex at the *University of Manitoba*
... banned the day after a critical article in the Winnipeg Free Press
news/cafv02n21:<1992May10.093635.27536@ccu.umanitoba.ca>
news/cafv02n38:<1992Jul21.164722.252@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu>
news/cafv02n37:
news/cafv02n26:<1992May28.010057.18609@cs.sfu.ca>
news/cafv02n30:<1992May31.080939.25516@clarinet.com>
[U. of Toronto rejected a challenge -cmk]
The alt.sex* newsgroups at the *University of Ottawa*
cases/wlu.ca
[...]
The alt.sex* newsgroups at *Wilfrid Laurier University*
... because the administration thinks they are "offensive" and "puerile".
cases/wlu.ca
[...]
===================== end of excerpt ==========
ANNOTATED REFERENCES
(All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.)
=================
banned.1992
=================
A list of computer material that was banned or challenged in academia
in 1992. The institutions mentioned are:
Ball State U., Boston U. (2), Carnegie Mellon U., German universities,
Iowa State U. (3), Irish universities, James Madison U., Middle East
Technical U., North Dakota State U., Pennsylvania State U., Princeton,
Simon Fraser U., U. of British Columbia, U. of California at Berkeley
*, U. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, U. of Manitoba, U. of
Massachusetts at Boston, U. of Nebraska at Lincoln, U. of Newcastle,
U. of Ottawa, U. of Texas, U. of Toledo, U. of Toronto *, U. of
Wyoming, United Kingdom Net, Virginia Public Education Network,
Virginia Tech, Western Washington U. (& U. of Washington), Wilfrid
Laurier U. (2), Williams College **
========
* Site of an unsuccessful challenge
** College not directly involved.
=================
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/banned.1992
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 banned.1992
send acad-freedom caf
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Oct 2 14:47:58 1992
From: 00hfstahlke@bsu-ucs.uucp
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: System security versus censorship
Message-ID: <1992Oct2.130638.10051@bsu-ucs.uucp>
Date: 2 Oct 92 18:06:37 GMT
In article <1992Oct2.083815.10045@bsu-ucs.uucp>, 00hfstahlke@bsu-ucs.uucp writes:
> Let's also recognize that the "Banned...1992" listing was simply a listing of
> extracts from postings received over the year. I don't know that we have much
> idea of the judgment that underlay either the summarizing process, in itself a
> creative act, or the decision as to what constitutes a case of censorship, also
> a creative act.
Reading that over, I suspectet that an ambiguity in the last line might invite
and interpretation I did not intend. I'm not saying that censorship is a
creative act but that the decision is. Of course, I suppose that some might
argue the former as well, but I leave that for another day.
Herb Stahlke
Ball State University
From caf-talk Caf Oct 2 15:21:25 1992
From: michael@resonex.com (Michael Bryan)
Newsgroups: soc.college,alt.censorship,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: What is "banning" anyway?
Message-ID: <1992Oct2.094816.20638@resonex.com>
Date: 2 Oct 92 09:48:16 GMT
In article betsys@cs.umb.edu (Elizabeth Schwartz) writes:
> Saying "you may post this material anywhere except for this one
>place" is a far cry from prohibiting or forbidding the material!
Ok, consider that statement in the context of the following statement:
"You may have this book anyplace except in the public library."
I agree that your policy is nowhere near as serious as universities which
ban entire newsgroup heirarchies, or cancel student accounts without
warning for minor breeches of nettiquette. However, I would personally
take offense at somebody telling me what I could and could not put in
my .plan file. If someone *requests* information on me by issuing the
finger command, they are asking to see what I have to say. That is a
far cry different from me doing something like putting up a flyer in
a hallway, or standing on a street corner shouting out obscenities.
Granted, if I didn't want people to have reason to find me crude and
offensive, I would probably temper the content of my .plan file. But
it should be *my* choice to decide what people find out about me when
the ask for information on me and my account.
If you don't like the inclusion of your University in the list, there's
an incredibly simple solution: change your policy.
--
Michael Bryan michael@resonex.com "Milk and Cheese in '92!" | ,_,
"Lovers are like... dentures. You don't want them in your | /oo \
mouth all night, but you sure as hell want them within arm's | <>__|
reach in the morning!" --- Miss Almira Gulch | | U|
From caf-talk Caf Oct 2 15:26:10 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Banned '92 selection criteria
Message-ID: <1992Oct2.192604.1469@eff.org>
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 19:26:04 GMT
00hfstahlke@bsu-ucs.uucp writes:
[...]
>Let's also recognize that the "Banned...1992" listing was simply a
>listing of extracts from postings received over the year. I don't
>know that we have much idea of the judgment that underlay either the
>summarizing process, in itself a creative act, or the decision as to
>what constitutes a case of censorship, also a creative act. In other
>words, neither what was contained in the listing nor the postings it
>was based on tell the whole story.
[...]
I found most of the material by reading through all the 1992 abstracts
of CAF-News. Material for CAF-News is selected by an editor (sometimes
me, but usually not) from the material in CAF-Talk. (I'm enclosing a
reference to the CAF-News editorial policy.) Anyone can post to
CAF-Talk. Also, material is often reposted there (usually by me) from
other newsgroups. Thus, ideally I looked at every incident (or alleged
incident) reported via Netnews. This ideal may have been missed, but
if so, I don't think by very much; I haven't gotten any re-reports of
incidents since posting the list, only reports of incidents that
hadn't been mentioned before.
As for my selection criteria, I tried to be inclusive and to use
library policy as my standard. I think the only incidents of
restriction not listed were 1) where the material was likely removed
because of cost (usually disk space) 2) the restrictions were on
display of sexually offensive material in public terminal rooms or
public offices where it would be very difficult for the offended
person to avoid the material.
Of course, even these exceptions are subjective. The Administration at
U. of Nebraska at Lincoln originally claimed to be motivated by disk
space considerations. Later, however, the CRC director said
(admitted?) that "pornography was factor" (quoting the school
newspaper). U. of Washington also said that disk space was there
motivation, but acted just after being interviewed by the Seattle
_Post Intelligencer_. Our current discussion about .plan 's and
process names shows the difference of opinion on exception #2.
- Carl
ANNOTATED REFERENCES
(All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.)
=================
banned.1991
=================
A list of computer material that was banned at universities during (or
before) 1991. It summarizes incidents and policies at Ohio State U.,
the U. of Illinois (two campuses), Case Western U., Boston U., U. of
Waterloo, U. of Toledo, Western Washington U., Iowa State U.,
Pennsylvania State U., U. of Texas, U. of Newcastle, James Madison U.,
U. of Wisconsin, and others.
=================
admin/editorial.policy
=================
This note tries to answer questions about the editorial policy
of CAF-news.
=================
library/bill-of-rights.ala
=================
The Library Bill of Rights from the American Library Association.
=================
library/diversity.ala
=================
"Diversity in Collection Development"
An interpretation by the American Library Association of the "Library
Bill of Rights"
It says that collections should be inclusive, not exclusive. And that
materials should cover the needs and interest of all patrons. "This
includes materials that reflect political, economic, religious,
social, minority, and sexual issues."
=================
banned.1992
=================
A list of computer material that was banned or challenged in academia
in 1992. The institutions mentioned are:
Ball State U., Boston U. (2), Carnegie Mellon U., German universities,
Iowa State U. (3), Irish universities, James Madison U., Middle East
Technical U., North Dakota State U., Pennsylvania State U., Princeton,
Simon Fraser U., U. of British Columbia, U. of California at Berkeley
*, U. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, U. of Manitoba, U. of
Massachusetts at Boston, U. of Nebraska at Lincoln, U. of Newcastle,
U. of Ottawa, U. of Texas, U. of Toledo, U. of Toronto *, U. of
Wyoming, United Kingdom Net, Virginia Public Education Network,
Virginia Tech, Western Washington U. (& U. of Washington), Wilfrid
Laurier U. (2), Williams College **
========
* Site of an unsuccessful challenge
** College not directly involved.
=================
=================
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/banned.1991
pub/academic/admin/editorial.policy
pub/academic/library/bill-of-rights.ala
pub/academic/library/diversity.ala
pub/academic/banned.1992
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 banned.1991
send acad-freedom/admin editorial.policy
send acad-freedom/library bill-of-rights.ala
send acad-freedom/library diversity.ala
send acad-freedom banned.1992
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Oct 2 15:33:25 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [eff.mail.cwis-l] RE: Banned Computer Material 1992
Message-ID: <1992Oct2.193318.1569@eff.org>
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 19:33:18 GMT
[A repost - Carl]
From caf-talk Caf Oct 2 15:33:25 1992
From: pflynn@CURIA.UCC.IE (Peter Flynn)
Subject: RE: Banned Computer Material 1992
Message-ID: <199210021512.AA24470@eff.org>
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 15:45:40 GMT
Under *Ireland*, add "also the whole alt.sex hierarchy and some individual
alt. groups".
Perhaps we should start an alt.vice.presidents (maybe there is one :-)
///Peter
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Oct 2 15:41:45 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Banned '92 selection criteria
Message-ID: <1992Oct2.194138.1772@eff.org>
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 19:41:38 GMT
kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
[...]
>As for my selection criteria, I tried to be inclusive and to use
>library policy as my standard.
[...]
Also, if all I know about a place is that it doesn't subscribe to, for
example, alt.sex, it is not listed. Absent other information, in these
cases I assume the best.
- Carl
ANNOTATED REFERENCES
(All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.)
=================
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?
=================
=================
These document(s) are available by anonymous ftp (the preferred
method) and by email. To get the file(s) via ftp, do an anonymous ftp
to ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4), and get file(s):
pub/academic/faq/netnews.reading
To get the file(s) by email, send email to archive-server@eff.org.
Include the line(s) (be sure to include the space before the file
name):
send acad-freedom/faq netnews.reading
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Oct 2 16:03:55 1992
Newsgroups: soc.college,alt.censorship,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: What is "banning" anyway?
Message-ID: <1992Oct2.200348.2320@eff.org>
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 20:03:48 GMT
Here are some more quotes from _Cohen vs. California_ and related
cases (from an email correspondent):
"In this regard, persons confronted with Cohen's jacket were in quite
a different posture than, say, those subjected tot he raucous emmissions
of sound trucks blaring outside their residences [presumably a reference
to the specific case of Kovacs v. Cooper (1949)]. Those in the Los
Angeles courthouse could effectively avoid further bombardment of their
sensibilities simply by averting their eyes. And, while it may be that
one has a more substantial claim to a recognizable privacy interest when
walking through a courthouse corridor than, for example, strolling through
Central Park, surely it is nothing like the interest in being free from
unwanted expression in the confines of one's own home...."
_Kovacs v. Cooper_ says:
"Section 4 of the ordinance bars sound trucks from broadcasting in
a loud and raucous manner in the streets. There is no restriction upon
the communication of ideas or discussion of issues by the human voice,
by newspapers, by pamphlets, by dodgers. We think that the need for
reasonable protection in the homes or business houses from distracting
noises of vehicles equipped with such sound amplifying devices justifies
the ordinance."
_Carey v. Brown_ (1980): "In sum, 'no mandate in our Constitution
leaves States and governmental units powerless to pass laws to protect
the public from the kind of boisterous and threatening conduct that
disturbs the tranquility of spots selected by the people either for
homes, wherin they can escape the hurly-burly of the outside business
and political world, or for public buildings that require peace and
quiet to carry out their functions, such as courts, libraries,
schools, and hospitals.'"
- Carl
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 Oct 2 16:16:37 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.admin.policy] Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Message-ID: <1992Oct2.201312.28860@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 20:13:12 GMT
[A repost - Carl]
From caf-talk Caf Oct 2 16:16:37 1992
From: feit@ERA.COM (Mark Feit)
Subject: Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Message-ID: <1992Oct1.190919.12514@ERA.COM>
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 19:09:19 GMT
Two very generalized cents' worth, and then I'll put a sock in it.
Flames to /dev/null.
When most colleges/universities give you an account, you get it for
the sole purpose of completing assignments in a course, for research,
etc. True, plenty of other stuff (reading news, etc.) goes on and the
rule isn't enforced when the outside activities don't interfere with
those who are using their accounts to the end for which they were
issued. But you're still using the university's resources. If you
keep doing something you've been asked to stop because it eats
resources others need to use, then as far as I'm concerned they've got
all the right in the world to pull the rug out from under you and
start due process. I don't see why due process can't start _after_
the rug pulling, since the perpetrator likely to keep pulling the same
stunts if the account remains in place.
As for having the right to express yourself, you've got it. But as
was pointed out in another thread on another newsgroup, just because
you've got the right to express yourself doesn't mean that others have
to provide the soap box.
COMMON SENSE, people... COMMON SENSE. It worries me that everyone
(especially here in the U.S.; any comments from elsewhere?) seems to
want the rules and regulations of what is and what isn't allowed
spelled out in excruciating detail. I knew a fella who got away with
a lot of mischief with "there's no rule against it," and he was let
off the hook many times because of it. How 'bout if I walk over and
hold down your Control key while you're trying to type? Common sense
(and courtesy) says I really shouldn't, but there's nothing on the
books that says I can't. Okay. So make a rule. Then somebody else
will come up with something else way off in left field they'll have to
make a rule against. And another. And another. And another. Seems
kinda silly, doesn't it?
[Ed. Note: "Offensive" as used below is, of course, a subjective term.
But people are subjective critters.]
As for "offensive" material, a healthy injection of common sense and
courtesy is in order: If I see something I find offensive in your
.plan, I won't argue with your right to put it there. But I certainly
have all the right in the world to form opinions on you based on the
type of material you display in "public." I also have the right not
to look there again. On the other hand, if I drop something offensive
to you in your mailbox and you ask me not to do it again, I'll stop.
Honest. I'll even apologize for having offended you.
Rationalize, folks, don't institutionalize. You're trying to quantify
something there's no measurements for and then trying to find the
lowest common demominator. If some of want to be completely shielded
from everything that offends you, I have a cave for rent at a very
non-offensive rate.
- Mark
................................. .................................
: Mark A. Feit KD4TAJ : Internet: feit@era.com :
: Engineering Research Associates : USENET: ...!uunet!era!feit :
................................. .................................
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Oct 2 16:16:40 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.admin.policy] Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Message-ID: <1992Oct2.201230.3350@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 20:12:30 GMT
[A repost - Carl]
From caf-talk Caf Oct 2 16:16:40 1992
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy
Subject: Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Message-ID: <5881@mccuts.uts.mcc.ac.uk>
Date: 1 Oct 92 09:56:35 GMT
In article <1992Oct1.024913.14347@news.iastate.edu> spam@iastate.edu (mike begley) writes:
>A "senior
>official" personally told me that "the [ISU] computation center
>administration had no business in making legal decisions because they
>have no legal expertise".
>Michael Begley
This is the central point by which I object to ALL censorship by computer
centre staff (and others) of material distributed via Netnews. They make a
decision based on hearsay, rumor and a occasional personal observation mixed
together with their own beliefs and then place a blanket ban on the group.
This extends to censorship of email and posting to groups - if you take on
the responsibility of deciding what is and is not `legal' without the
necessary background you can end up with real legal problems of your own.
Common carriers like the post office and its officials are not
responsible(*) for the possibly illegal contents of letters and packages and
make no attempt to check. Why should netnews or email be any different.
(*) This may not be true absolutely everywhere.
--
Geoff. Lane. | Internet: zzassgl@uts.mcc.ac.uk | Janet: zzassgl@uk.ac.mcc.uts
UTS Sys Admin, Manchester Computing Centre, Oxford Rd, Manchester, M13 9PL
"The Royal Family must think the entire world smells of wet paint."
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Oct 2 16:16:41 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.admin.policy] Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Message-ID: <1992Oct2.201301.28519@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 20:13:01 GMT
[A repost - Carl]
From caf-talk Caf Oct 2 16:16:41 1992
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy
Subject: Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Message-ID: <2ACB0B56.7CBF@tct.com>
Date: 1 Oct 92 14:29:41 GMT
According to bud@mtek.com:
>My larger concern is with the notion of an "enemies list" of offending
>(in his eyes) institutions which, presumably, Carl believes others
>should hotly pursue on his say-so...
"Presumably?" I'm amazed that anyone would "presume" any such thing!
--
Chip Salzenberg at Teltronics/TCT , <73717.366@compuserve.com>
"My favorite phenomenon is when someone mails me or posts to this
group, either calling me a newbie or telling me that my postings
are not relevant to alt.non.sequitur." -- Matt Welsh
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Oct 2 16:41:47 1992
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Message-ID: <1992Oct2.203514.28898@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 20:35:14 GMT
bud@mtek.com (Bud Hovell) writes:
[...]
>Are you suggesting that some Spanish Jesuit seminary (which just
>happens to have a computer network) must conform in its decisions
>with the minimum standards of behavior and speech found tolerable
>*anywhere* else on the face of the planet?
[...]
No. However, any institution that claims to respect academic freedom
(as most universities, colleges, and larger institutes of technolgy
do), should respect it everywhere; computers should not be exempt.
[...]
>I might also add that this looks remarkably like an "Enemies List",
>which device typically sets academics to howling wildly at the
>moon -- but perhaps only when aimed at their *own* several and
>peculiar sensibilities.
[...]
You mean they don't mind lists when they are:
open
documented (reasonably well)
critical of violations of academic freedom
But then do mind them when they are:
secret
based on hearsay
promote violations of academic freedom
(e.g "she's a known Republican, don't hire")
Gee, you are right, they are hypocritical :-)
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Oct 2 16:50:30 1992
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Message-ID: <1992Oct2.204620.28136@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 20:46:20 GMT
bud@mtek.com (Bud Hovell) writes:
[...]
>My larger concern is with the notion of an "enemies list" of offending
>(in his eyes) institutions which, presumably, Carl believes others
>should hotly pursue on his say-so for having taken decisions with which
>he (and others, no doubt) strongly disagrees.
No one should act on my say-so. Any action should be based on a belief
that something is wrong and should be taken within institutional
guidelines.
>Um, on just what date *are* we celebrating Krystalnacht this year?
[...]
The idea that publicizing censorship is the same as terrorizing Jews
is despicable.
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Oct 2 17:02:43 1992
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Message-ID: <1992Oct2.205452.14545@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 20:54:52 GMT
zzassgl@uts.mcc.ac.uk (Geoff Lane) writes:
[...]
>This is the central point by which I object to ALL censorship by computer
>centre staff (and others) of material distributed via Netnews. They make a
>decision based on hearsay, rumor and a occasional personal observation mixed
>together with their own beliefs and then place a blanket ban on the group.
[...]
Also, an part of academic freedom is that policy should be made in the
open with the particpation from faculty and students.
- Carl
ANNOTATED REFERENCES
(All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.)
=================
faq/policy
=================
q: What guidance is there for creating or evaluating a computer policy?
=================
=================
These document(s) are available by anonymous ftp (the preferred
method) and by email. To get the file(s) via ftp, do an anonymous ftp
to ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4), and get file(s):
pub/academic/faq/policy
To get the file(s) by email, send email to archive-server@eff.org.
Include the line(s) (be sure to include the space before the file
name):
send acad-freedom/faq policy
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Oct 2 17:18:43 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.censorship] banned newsgroup at u of o
Message-ID: <1992Oct2.211846.8595@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 21:18:46 GMT
[A repost - Carl]
From caf-talk Caf Oct 2 17:18:43 1992
From: ()
Subject: banned newsgroup at u of o
Message-ID: <1992Oct1.193318.3721@nntp.uoregon.edu>
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 92 19:33:18 GMT
alt.binaries.pictures.erotica has been banned from University of Oregon.
Isn't this
censorship?
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Oct 2 17:18:44 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.censorship] Re: banned newsgroup at u of o
Message-ID: <1992Oct2.211859.27828@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 21:18:59 GMT
[A repost - Carl]
From caf-talk Caf Oct 2 17:18:44 1992
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
Subject: Re: banned newsgroup at u of o
Message-ID: <1992Oct2.023616.19456@samba.oit.unc.edu>
Date: 2 Oct 92 02:36:16 GMT
In article <1992Oct1.193318.3721@nntp.uoregon.edu> () writes:
>alt.binaries.pictures.erotica has been banned from University of Oregon.
>Isn't this
>censorship?
That depends on their reason for doing it. If their real, actual, genuine
reason is that the newsgroup takes up too much disk storage or some other
resource (and this may be the case, for all I know), then it isn't
censorship.
If their real, actual, genuine reason is that they disapprove of the
content, then it is censorship.
If their real, actual, genuine reason is some mixture of the above, then
it's censorship.
Their *stated* reasons do not bear on the question.
--
Scott Maxwell (maxwell@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu or Scott.Maxwell@bbs.oit.unc.edu)
--
The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
internet: bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Oct 2 17:18:46 1992
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Message-ID: <1992Oct2.211604.3005@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 21:16:04 GMT
feit@ERA.COM (Mark Feit) writes:
[...]
>When most colleges/universities give you an account, you get it for
>the sole purpose of completing assignments in a course, for research,
>etc.
Happily, more and more schools now have the resources to provide free
accounts for general use. This is consisent with the academic ideal in
which members of the academic community have some freedom to explore
their own interests. It is analogous to most academic libraries that
don't ask to know and don't care why you are browsing and borrowing
books.
> True, plenty of other stuff (reading news, etc.) goes on and the
>rule isn't enforced when the outside activities don't interfere with
>those who are using their accounts to the end for which they were
>issued.
When resources are scarce, priorities have to be established. These
priorities should not, however, be used to removed material just
because some find it offensive. For example, if there are no resources
for "recreational" newsgroups, then both alt.sex and
rec.sport.football should go, not just alt.sex.
> But you're still using the university's resources. If you
>keep doing something you've been asked to stop because it eats
>resources others need to use, then as far as I'm concerned they've got
>all the right in the world to pull the rug out from under you and
>start due process. I don't see why due process can't start _after_
>the rug pulling, since the perpetrator likely to keep pulling the same
>stunts if the account remains in place.
[...]
Is a student or professor really likely to keep breaking rules when he
or she knows that some type of disciplinary hearing is coming up? If
you have good reason to believe that the "stunts" will continue then
the rug pulling is justified. But this should be the exception. As the
Joint Statement on Rights and Freedoms of Students says:
======= excerpts ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/academic/student.freedoms.aaup ===
C. Status of Student Pending Final Action
Pending action on the charges, the status of a student
should not be altered, or his right to be present on the
campus and to attend classes suspended, except for
reasons relating to his physical or emotional safety and
well being, or for reasons relating to the safety and well-being
of students, faculty, or university property.
[...]
>As for having the right to express yourself, you've got it. But as
>was pointed out in another thread on another newsgroup, just because
>you've got the right to express yourself doesn't mean that others have
>to provide the soap box.
[...]
Actually, at a university to some degree they do. For example, most
universities guarantee students and faculty the right to use
classrooms for meetings and to hear invited speakers.
- Carl
ANNOTATED REFERENCES
(All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.)
=================
faq/media.control
=================
q: Since freedom of the press belongs to those who own presses, a
public university can do anything it wants with the media that it
owns, right?
=================
academic/student.freedoms.aaup
=================
Joint Statement on Rights and Freedoms of Students -- This is the main
U.S. statement on student academic freedom.
=================
=================
These document(s) are available by anonymous ftp (the preferred
method) and by email. To get the file(s) via ftp, do an anonymous ftp
to ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4), and get file(s):
pub/academic/faq/media.control
pub/academic/academic/student.freedoms.aaup
To get the file(s) by email, send email to archive-server@eff.org.
Include the line(s) (be sure to include the space before the file
name):
send acad-freedom/faq media.control
send acad-freedom/academic student.freedoms.aaup
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Oct 2 17:22:02 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,
From: morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan)
Subject: Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Message-ID: <1992Oct2.170410.12431@ms.uky.edu>
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 21:04:10 GMT
In article <1992Oct2.140955.22663@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>
>2) I was not, even implicitly, critizing the schools for banning the
>running of IRC and Crack. I was, implicitly, critizing the schools for
>banning the code for IRC and Crack.
>
When a given piece of code can be compiled, executed, and deleted in one
hour (or less, if you've a faster system), how can we effectively control
the execution of a program WITHOUT controlling the source code?
If the source code were available in hardcopy only, would you be satisfied?
If you were a system admin, how would *you* handle it?
--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 Oct 2 17:28:20 1992
Newsgroups: soc.college,alt.censorship,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: Nigel.Allen@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Nigel Allen)
Subject: Re: Academic Gun Rights 1992 (was Re: Banned Computer Material 1992)
Message-ID: <1992Oct2.114144.10734@samba.oit.unc.edu>
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 11:41:44 GMT
In article <1992Oct1.174934.2581@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>I assume you mean guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. As far as I know,
>the right to keep arms, say in a univeristy office, are not guarenteed
>by any statements of academic freedom. Do you really think
>it should be?
After the shootings at Concordia University in Montreal, most university
administrators will be particularly uncomfortable with the idea of anyone
carrying guns on campus.
At the University of Toronto, the university police do not carry guns,
or even nightsticks. If a situation is more than what an unarmed officer
can handle, the Metropolitan Toronto police are called in.
As well, there have been suggestions at the University of Toronto that the
gun club at Hart House, the long-established campus recreation centre,
should be gotten rid of. I think the gun club is still around, though.
(I believe it has been around as long as Hart House, actually.)
--
The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
internet: bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
From caf-talk Caf Oct 2 17:30:03 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.censorship
From: dan@cubmol.bio.columbia.edu (Daniel Zabetakis)
Subject: Hornet's nests, swizzle sticks, and Carl M Kadie.
Message-ID: <1992Oct2.192549.12229@news.columbia.edu>
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 19:25:49 GMT
There has never been so much traffic on comp.admin.policy. I know that
Carl Kadie has been harrassing, cajolling, bugging, explaining, talking,
citing, interpreting, and argueing about academic freedom for years. The
banned material list, though, is definately his biggest hit.
I would like to take the time to thank him for his efforts. He appears
on almost every group I read, and is consistently thoughful and accurate
in his articles. Hear hear!
And now, an original poem:
The .plan blues
I like my .plan
it is very clever.
but some of the words,
you may want to hear never.
But I won't change it.
I'll just "Let it be."
I don't care about you
or for your policy.
I like to have "Freedom"
with "Ac-a-dem-ic."
So by my .plan
I'm going to stick.
So if you do not
like just what you see.
Then please learn to use
finger [space] minus p.
DanZ
--
"I think it is a little premature to attribute the failures of American
foriegn policy to Carl Kadie."
-Mike Godwin
This article for entertainment purposes only.
From caf-talk Caf Oct 2 17:40:39 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: UIC: library and computer center to merge(?)
Message-ID: <9210022140.AA02951@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 11:40:26 GMT
The University of Illinois at Chicago is "consolidating". Here is an
excerpt from _University of Illinois: Priorities, Quality, and
Productivity_ (An official report submitted to the Illinois Board of
Higher Education October 1992):
============================================
* Consolidate Academic Computing and Library and Information Sciences
Resources.
The University Librarian has very recently been appointed Interim Director of
the Academic Computer Center. During this period of interim appointment a
group of faculty and staff members will examine prospects for new long-term
relationships between and among the Library, Computer Center, Office of
Telecommunications, Office of Media Services, and other related units.
============================================
Notes:
At my campus (Urbana), Computer Services merged with
Telecommunications last year. This seems to have worked well. I don't,
however, see the Library merging in in the foreseeable future.
Also, here is an excerpt from last year's banned computer material
list:
==========================
An article posted by a student at the University of Illinois at
Chicago -- The student was punished for posting the article, which
offended many, to soc.women. The article was canceled. The system
admin justified the punishment saying that the article, posted to an
international unmoderated newsgroup, was not protected speech because
"it can be considered as a generalized form of sexual harassment". The
U. of Illinois has no rules on "generalized sexual harassment". The
University's rules on (regular) sexual harassment do not authorize sys
admins to judge and punish infractions. (cafv01n36,cafv01n34)
===================================
- Carl
ANNOTATED REFERENCES
(All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.)
=================
banned.1991
=================
A list of computer material that was banned at universities during (or
before) 1991. It summarizes incidents and policies at Ohio State U.,
the U. of Illinois (two campuses), Case Western U., Boston U., U. of
Waterloo, U. of Toledo, Western Washington U., Iowa State U.,
Pennsylvania State U., U. of Texas, U. of Newcastle, James Madison U.,
U. of Wisconsin, and others.
=================
news/cafv01n36
=================
Includes article(s) on UIC incident.
=================
news/cafv01n34
=================
Includes article(s) on UIC incident.
=================
=================
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/banned.1991
pub/academic/news/cafv01n36
pub/academic/news/cafv01n34
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 banned.1991
send acad-freedom/news cafv01n36
send acad-freedom/news cafv01n34
From caf-talk Caf Oct 2 18:05:54 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: Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Message-ID: <1992Oct2.220546.5271@eff.org>
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 22:05:46 GMT
morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
[...]
>When a given piece of code can be compiled, executed, and deleted in one
>hour (or less, if you've a faster system), how can we effectively control
>the execution of a program WITHOUT controlling the source code?
>If the source code were available in hardcopy only, would you be satisfied?
>If you were a system admin, how would *you* handle it?
[...]
Disclaimer: I have no experience as a sys admin.
Well, a given piece of code can also be *copied from another machine*,
compiled, executed, and deleted in an hour. Also, in the case of
Crack, the passwd and .rhosts files can be copied to other machines in
a matter of minutes with almost no trace. So I'm not sure that trying
to control source code is effective.
In the case of IRC, I'd likely notice if it was running again and
using up needed resources. In the case of Crack, ??.
(I'm enclosing another "code control" report from last year's list.)
- Carl
===========excerpt ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/banned.1991 =======
An article, containing source code for a program, posted to a local
newsgroup at Case Western -- The computer administrators at Case
Western deleted the article because they were afraid that someone
might read the code, learn how to make a program that would disrupt
their local network, write a program that would disrupt their local
network, run that program and disrupt their local network.
(cafv01n08)
=============================
ANNOTATED REFERENCES
(All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.)
=================
banned.1991
=================
A list of computer material that was banned at universities during (or
before) 1991. It summarizes incidents and policies at Ohio State U.,
the U. of Illinois (two campuses), Case Western U., Boston U., U. of
Waterloo, U. of Toledo, Western Washington U., Iowa State U.,
Pennsylvania State U., U. of Texas, U. of Newcastle, James Madison U.,
U. of Wisconsin, and others.
=================
news/cafv01n08
=================
Includes information about code control case at CWRU
=================
banned.1992
=================
A list of computer material that was banned or challenged in academia
=================
=================
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/banned.1991
pub/academic/news/cafv01n08
pub/academic/banned.1992
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 banned.1991
send acad-freedom/news cafv01n08
send acad-freedom banned.1992
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Oct 2 18:19:26 1992
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert)
Subject: Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Message-ID: <1992Oct2.221152.19307@mp.cs.niu.edu>
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 22:11:52 GMT
In article <1992Oct2.211604.3005@m.cs.uiuc.edu> kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>feit@ERA.COM (Mark Feit) writes:
>
>[...]
>>When most colleges/universities give you an account, you get it for
>>the sole purpose of completing assignments in a course, for research,
>>etc.
>
>Happily, more and more schools now have the resources to provide free
>accounts for general use. This is consisent with the academic ideal in
>which members of the academic community have some freedom to explore
>their own interests. It is analogous to most academic libraries that
>don't ask to know and don't care why you are browsing and borrowing
>books.
Spoken with the incredible breadth of knowledge you have gained from
association with a small number of well funded schools.
Perhaps one of these days you will join the real world, where schools
are struggling to provide enough resources just for students currently
enrolled in a course that needs computers. But then, on the other
hand, why should this concern you - after all, you have never allowed
your ignorance to prevent you from trying to dictate policy to the
rest of the world.
>When resources are scarce, priorities have to be established. These
>priorities should not, however, be used to removed material just
>because some find it offensive. For example, if there are no resources
>for "recreational" newsgroups, then both alt.sex and
>rec.sport.football should go, not just alt.sex.
So I suppose that a poorly funded program in phys ed must deny its
football program access to rec.sport.football, just because it doesn't
happen to have resources for alt.sex?
Wake up, Carl. The world is a complex place. There are many good
reasons for limitations when resources are short. But the reasons are
local, so global solutions dictated by self appointed net gods will not
do.
From caf-talk Caf Oct 2 18:19:36 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.org.eff.talk] BOOK: Computerization & Controvers
Message-ID: <1992Oct2.221942.7947@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 22:19:42 GMT
[A repost - Carl]
From caf-talk Caf Oct 2 18:19:36 1992
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: BOOK: Computerization & Controvers
Message-ID: <1353000007@igc.apc.org>
Date: 1 Oct 92 15:38:00 GMT
WINNER OF COMPUTER BOOK REVIEW'S 1991 MAEVENTEC AWARD
-- Available now from Academic Press!
COMPUTERIZATION AND CONTROVERSY:
Value Conflicts and Social Choices
Edited by Charles Dunlop and Rob Kling
This collection of more than fifty essays introduces some of
the major social controversies about the computerization of
society. The book will help students and professionals
recognize some of the social processes that drive and shape
computerization, and will identify some of the paradoxes and
ironies of computerization. Each of the seven sections
opens with an extensive essay that identifies major
controversies and places the articles in the context of key
questions and debates.
Topics of current interest covered include ethical issues
in computing, professionalism, privacy, and security, among
others. The book includes essays from popular and
professional publications and features a large bibliography
and suggestions for further reading.
Computerization and Controversy is suitable as a text for
studies of the social and ethical implications of computers
in society, and as a supplemental text for any computer
science course.
CONTENTS
C. Dunlop and R. Kling, General Introduction: Social
Controversies about Computerization.
THE DREAM OF TECHNOLOGICAL UTOPIANISM
C. Dunlop and R. Kling, The Dream of Technological
Utopianism - An Introduction. E. Feigenbaum and P.
McCorduck, Excerpts from "The Fifth Generation: Artificial
Intelligence and Japan's Computer Challenge to the World."
J. Sculley, The Relationship Between Business and Higher
Education: A Perspective on the Twenty-First Century. R.
Kling and S. Iacono, Making a "Computer Revolution." W.
Berry, Why I Am Not Going to Buy a Computer.
ECONOMIC AND ORGANIZATIONAL DIMENSIONS OF COMPUTERIZATION
C. Dunlop and R. Kling, Economic and Organizational
Dimensions of Computerization - An Introduction. B.J.
Feder, Getting the Electronics Just Right. D. Frantz, Bank
of America's Plans for Computers Don't Add Up. M.N. Baily,
Great Expectations: PCs and Productivity. L. Salerno, What
Happened to the Computer Revolution? J. Rule and P.
Attewell, What Do Computers Do? R. Kling, Excerpts from
"Social Analyses of Computing: Theoretical Perspectives in
Recent Empirical Research." K. Kraemer, Strategic Computing
and Administrative Reform.
COMPUTERIZATION AND THE TRANSFORMATION OF WORK
C. Dunlop and R. Kling, Computerization and the
Transformation of Work - An Introduction. V.E. Giuliano,
The Mechanization of Office Work. S. Iacono and R. Kling,
Computerization, Office Routines, and Changes in Clerical
Work. J. Perrolle, Intellectual Assembly Lines: The
Rationalization of Managerial, Professional, and Technical
Work. P. Attewell, Big Brother and the Sweatshop: Computer
Surveillance in the Automated Office. C.V. Bullen and J.L.
Bennett, Groupware in Practice: An Interpretation of Work
Experiences. P. Ehn, The Art of Science and Designing
Computer Artifacts. J. Mouritsen and N. Bjorn-Anderson,
Understanding Third Wave Information Systems.
SOCIAL RELATIONSHIPS IN ELECTRONIC COMMUNITIES
C. Dunlop and R. Kling, Social Relationships in Electronic
Communities - An Introduction. S. Kiesler, J. Siegel, and
T.W. McGuire, Social Psychological Aspects of Computer-
Mediated Communication. J. Perrolle, Conversations and
Trust in Computer Interfaces. L. van Gelder, The Strange
Case of the Electronic Lover. L. Earnest, J. McCarthy, and
J. Hollombe, RISKS-FORUM Digest Contributions. P.J.
Denning, A New Paradigm for Science. J.R. Beniger,
Information Society and Global Science. F.W. Weingarten and
D.L. Garcia, Public Policy Concerning the Exchange and
Distribution of Scientific Information.
SOCIAL CONTROL AND PRIVACY
C. Dunlop and R. Kling, Social Control and Privacy - An
Introduction. R. Kling, Value Conflicts in EFT Systems. E.
Richards, Proposed FBI Crime Computer System Raises
Questions on Accuracy, Privacy. J. Shattuck, Computer
Matching is a Serious Threat to Individual Rights. R.P.
Kusserow, The Government Needs Computer Matching to Root Out
Waste and Fraud. Privacy Protection Study Commission,
Excerpts from "Personal Privacy in an Information Society."
J.B. Rule, D. McAdam, L. Stearns, and D. Uglow, Preserving
Individual Autonomy in an Information-Oriented Society.
K.C. Lauden Comment on "Preserving Individual Autonomy in an
Information-Oriented Society." R.C. Clarke, Information
Technology and Dataveillance.
SECURITY AND RELIABILITY
C. Dunlop and R. Kling, Security and Reliability - An
Introduction. C. Stoll, Stalking the Wily Hacker. P.J.
Denning, Computer Viruses. A. Borning, Computer System
Reliability and Nuclear War. D. L. Parnas, Software Aspects
of Strategic Defense Systems. J. Jacky, Safety-Critical
Computing: Hazards, Practices, Standards, and Regulation.
B.C. Smith, The Limits of Correctness in Computers. J.
McAfee, C. Johnson, F.J. Corbato, R. Aminzude, D. Sherman,
and D.B. Benson, RISKS-FORUM Digest Contributions.
ETHICAL PERSPECTIVES AND PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES
C. Dunlop and R. Kling, Ethical Perspectives and
Professional Responsibilities - An Introduction. J. Ladd,
Computers and Moral Responsibility: A Framework for Ethical
Analysis. R. Kling, When Organizations are Perpetrators:
Assumptions about Computer Abuse and Computer Crime.
Association for Computing Machinery, ACM Code of
Professional Conduct and Procedures for the Enforcement of
the ACM Code of Professional Conduct. H. Sackman, A
Prototype IFIP Code of Ethics Based on Participative
International Consensus. T.A. Winograd, Strategic Computing
Research and the Universities. C. Barus, Military Influence
on the Electrical Engineering Curriculum Since World War II.
J. Weizenbaum, Against the Imperialism of Instrumental
Reason.
ISBN 0-12-224356-0 $39.95 paperback 1991 758 pp.
U.S. and Canadian Customers may call toll-free
1-800-321-5068 of fax 1-800-336-7377 Monday though Friday
8:30 AM to 7:00 PM Eastern Time.
Free shipping and handling with all prepaid orders.
Visa, Mastercard, and American Express accepted, or send
check or money order to:
Academic Press
HBJ Order Fulfillment Department #18182
6277 Sea Harbor Drive
Orlando, FL 32887
In Europe call: 081-300-3322
Or write:
Academic Press
Book Marketing Department
24-48 Oval Road
London NW1 7DX, U.K.
---> ATTENTION INSTRUCTORS:
If you are interested in receiving an examination copy
of COMPUTERIZATION AND CONTROVERSY for use in a course,
please contact the Academic Press textbook department at
1-619-699-6547.
Copies of the editors' syllabi and brief notes for
instructors are also available for adopters of the book.
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Oct 2 19:13:34 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.censorship,soc.college
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Message-ID: <1992Oct2.231202.17287@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 23:12:02 GMT
In article betsys@cs.umb.edu (Elizabeth Schwartz) writes:
>In article <1992Oct2.010637.13133@eff.org> mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:
>>This seems a slender thread on which to hang a policy.
>
>Well, we have to keep this in perspective. THis isn't a formal,
>take-it-to-court sort of policy anyway.
Yes, let's keep it in perspective. To do that, we have to see more of
the perspective that makes this policy "acceptable" in Schwartz' eyes.
Suppose someone doesn't agree to remove a .plan that Schwartz finds
offensive. Does "This isn't a formal, take-it-to-court sort of policy
anyway" means that if said violator sues, UMass will back down wrt
said student? What happens to a violator who doesn't
"take-it-to-court"?
In other words, what happens to violators? What are the consequences
of refusing to "be reasonable"?
-andy
--
UUCP: {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA: andy@cs.stanford.edu
From caf-talk Caf Oct 2 19:20:57 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.censorship,soc.college
From: spam@iastate.edu (mike begley)
Subject: Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Message-ID: <1992Oct2.231326.11054@news.iastate.edu>
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 23:13:26 GMT
In article jbotz@mtholyoke.edu (Jurgen Botz) writes:
>In article <92275.104628HANK@BARILVM.BITNET> Hank Nussbacher writes:
>>Assume that sex/porn/necrophilia are all grounded in the rule of free speech
>>and that indeed some universities are trampling on the free speech rights of
>>their students. I somehow don't understand the two examples above - how does
>>this impinge the rights of their free speech? Let us take the first example:
>>suppose I carry a handgun tucked under my shirt. I have not used it and don't
>>intend to use it. What right does anyone have to stop me and take away my gun
>>when I enter their building?
>
>A COMPUTER PROGRAM IS NOT A HANDGUN. Computer programs, at least in [...]
Remember...Usenet doesn't kill people, people kill people...
--
Michael Begley Ask me how "the man and the woman were
spam@iastate.edu Iowa State University both naked, and they were
(515) 296-8378 is censoring my usenet access not ashamed..." Gen:2.25
From caf-talk Caf Oct 2 19:38:07 1992
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Message-ID: <1992Oct2.233758.7237@eff.org>
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 23:37:58 GMT
kadie@cs.uiuc.ed (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>>When resources are scarce, priorities have to be established. These
>>priorities should not, however, be used to removed material just
>>because some find it offensive. For example, if there are no resources
>>for "recreational" newsgroups, then both alt.sex and
>>rec.sport.football should go, not just alt.sex.
rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert) writes:
>So I suppose that a poorly funded program in phys ed must deny its
>football program access to rec.sport.football, just because it doesn't
>happen to have resources for alt.sex?
No ... in that case rec.sport.football would not be just recreational.
Similarly, at the Kinsey Institute for Research in Sex, Gender and
Reproduction, Indiana University-Bloomington, alt.sex would not be
just recreational. I'm sorry if my example was unclear or confusing.
[...]
>Wake up, Carl. The world is a complex place. There are many good
>reasons for limitations when resources are short.
... and many bad, no matter how many resources.
>But the reasons are local, so global solutions dictated by self
>appointed net gods will not do.
[...]
It is my hope that general principles based on academic and library
tradition and refined through discussion will prove useful to local
groups looking for solutions.
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Oct 2 20:33:36 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.censorship,soc.college
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Message-ID: <1992Oct3.003329.8615@eff.org>
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 00:33:29 GMT
In article <1992Oct2.170410.12431@ms.uky.edu> morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
>When a given piece of code can be compiled, executed, and deleted in one
>hour (or less, if you've a faster system), how can we effectively control
>the execution of a program WITHOUT controlling the source code?
>
>If the source code were available in hardcopy only, would you be satisfied?
You'd have to burn the book it appears in, Wes. After all, a person could
scan the source, or type it in, on his own PC, upload it to your system,
compile it, and run it while you're asleep.
>If you were a system admin, how would *you* handle it?
I'd state in my policies that running such programs were grounds for
reducing or eliminating system access privileges, and enforce that policy
in the event of a willful violation.
--Mike
--
Mike Godwin, |"Liberty resides in the rights of that person
mnemonic@eff.org| whose views you find most odious."
(617) 864-0665 |
EFF, Cambridge | --John Stuart Mill
From caf-talk Caf Oct 2 20:42:33 1992
From: rogue@ccs.northeastern.edu (Free Radical)
Newsgroups: soc.college,alt.censorship,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: What is "banning" anyway?
Message-ID: <1992Oct2.234340.29022@random.ccs.northeastern.edu>
Date: 2 Oct 92 23:43:40 GMT
In article betsys@cs.umb.edu
(Elizabeth Schwartz) writes:
>My Random House defines it as to "prohibit, forbid or bar; interdict"
>I claim that is NOT what we are doing!
> Saying "you may post this material anywhere except for this one
>place" is a far cry from prohibiting or forbidding the material!
Rephrase that, and it fits perfectly. 'You may not post this material
in this one place' sure sounds like prohibitting, forbidding, and
barring. Correct me if I'm wrong.
RA
rogue@ccs.northeastern.edu (Rogue Agent)
----------------------------------------
The NSA is now funding research not only in cryptography, but in all areas
of advanced mathematics. If you'd like a circular describing these new
research opportunities, just pick up your phone, call your mother, and
ask for one.
From caf-talk Caf Oct 2 23:27:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: ckd@eff.org (Christopher Davis)
Subject: Re: System security versus censorship
Message-ID:
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 03:26:57 GMT
HS> == 00hfstahlke <00hfstahlke@bsu-ucs.uucp>
HS> I suppose if you carried around a set of lock picks on this campus
HS> you would have no problem unless there were a rash of burglaries,
HS> the campus police had some probable cause for arresting you, and
HS> they searched you and found the lock picks.
What then is the "probable cause" used to search directories for
"programs like password crackers"? Has there been a rash of computer
breakins? Or does this analogy fall flat here?
--
Christopher K. Davis | NET.INSIGHTS INTO ARTISTIC CRITICISM:
EFF #14 | ``[Y]ou don't cure bad art by locking it all up
System Administrator, EFF | in one museum, you cure it by throwing tomatoes
+1 617 864 0665 [CKD1] | at bad artists.'' --Barry Shein
From caf-talk Caf Oct 2 23:58:08 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.org.eff.talk, et al.] Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Message-ID: <1992Oct3.035050.611@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 03:50:50 GMT
[A repost - Carl]
From caf-talk Caf Oct 2 23:58:08 1992
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,soc.college
Subject: Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Message-ID: <12600@optilink.UUCP>
Date: 3 Oct 92 02:53:02 GMT
In article <1992Oct1.173240.7942@glas.rtsg.mot.com>, waider@glas.rtsg.mot.com (Ronan Waide) writes:
#
# In the University of Limerick, Ireland, there was a security incident involving
# a user who had the process name "Baader". Subsequent to his "trial" and
# expulsion from the college for a year, another student set his process name to
# "Baader" and promptly found himself disusered.
What is the significance of "Baader"? What if your name happens to be Baader?
(I once worked with someone with that name.) How can the EC survive if what
is a perfectly good name in one part is a banned epithet in another part?
Does invoking this name cause giant chickens to issue forth from cracks in
the Earth, or termination of pregnancy, or what?
Also, from Kadie's original post:
# All email or Netnews articles that "bring discredit" to the *University
# of Texas* or its Computer Science Department"
"Bring discredit." This is truly precious. Never before has the mindset of
the institutional bureaucrat been so starkly delineated in so few words.
This statement would itself, to any reasonable person, bring discredit to the
institution. Who shall be punished if Kadie's post appears at UT? Or does
UT lack even one reasonable person?
What if latent discredit exists because of some undisclosed act or policy?
Is there something special about email and netnews, that they should be
particularly chilled as a means of disclosing potentially discrediting acts,
and thereby _bringing_ the discredit?
Brad "Baader than you wanna be" Yearwood brad@optilink.com
Petaluma, CA
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Oct 2 23:58:09 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.censorship] Re: banned newsgroup at u of o
Message-ID: <1992Oct3.035107.16744@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 03:51:07 GMT
[A repost - Carl]
From caf-talk Caf Oct 2 23:58:09 1992
From: dragon@camelot.bradley.edu (Matthew Korth)
Subject: Re: banned newsgroup at u of o
Message-ID:
Date: 2 Oct 92 22:30:20 GMT
In <1992Oct1.193318.3721@nntp.uoregon.edu> () writes:
>alt.binaries.pictures.erotica has been banned from University of Oregon.
>Isn't this
>censorship?
Not necessarily.
It depends on *why* the newsgroup was excluded. We don't get it here
at Bradley, either. There are two reasons given for this: first, that
pictures take up too much disk space, which we cannot afford; and
second, that there isn't enough readership to allocate disk space. I
know that the first point is justified, since we don't get any of
the other pictures groups either.
However, if U of O has the money to support the disk space, and does
get other pictures groups, *and* there's a sufficient demand to have
the groups added, then this may be censorship. You
might try asking your newsadmin why the alt.binaries.pictures.erotica
newsgroup was removed.
--
*** Matt Korth *** dragon@camelot.bradley.edu *** dragon@buhub.bradley.edu ***
The Republicans are thinking of changing the Republican Party emblem from
an elephant to a condom, because it stands for inflation, halts production,
and gives a false sense of security while one is being screwed.
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Oct 3 01:01:36 1992
Newsgroups: soc.college,alt.censorship,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: pds@lemming.webo.dg.com (Paul D. Smith)
Subject: Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Message-ID:
Date: 02 Oct 92 14:40:39 GMT
[] Regarding Re: Banned Computer Material 1992;
[] kraussW@moravian.edu (Bill Krauss - SysAdm) writes:
bk> In <1992Oct1.134706.25819@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl M.
bk> Kadie) writes:
>The right to bare arms is not (usually) part of academic freedom.
bk> Why not? If Freedom of Speech and Right to Keep and Bare Arms
bk> are both guaranteed how can we discount one just because it is
bk> not frequently considered?
Jeez, things have sure changed in the few years since I was in
college; we even had the Right to Bare Chests (for the men at least)
and the Right to Bare Legs! And no one thought twice about it!
Amazing!
(I know, I know, but I couldn't resist :)
--
paul
-----
------------------------------------------------------------------
| Paul D. Smith | paul_smith@dg.com |
| Data General Corp. | pds@lemming.webo.dg.com |
| Network Systems Development Division | |
| Open Network Systems Development | "Pretty Damn S..." |
------------------------------------------------------------------
From caf-talk Caf Oct 3 02:01:07 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.org.eff.talk,alt.censorship
From: bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris)
Subject: Scanners
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 21:45:14 GMT
Message-ID: <1992Oct2.214514.24387@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com>
Here's an interesting question:
What is the legal status of owning a 'scanner' in the US today?
This came up in practice when President Bush decided to visit the Motorola
campus to give a speech. While waiting for the speech to start (it was
very late starting - and I suspect it was for reasons of security), I
overheard that someone was being questioned by the police because they had
a scanner (and also a video camera,BTW) and was listening in to the
police frequences. The police didn't like that at all. (I remarked to
a friend that we needed to get our salespeople to start marketing our
secure radios - the officer who's radio I overheard heard my remarks and
got rather defensive, but that's another story. However, it does look to
me like civil liberties tend to suffer a bit when the President comes to
visit. The police were generally quite 'jumpy' IMO) BTW - from what I
overheard, the guy was basically hassled - oops, questioned - a bit and
required to show some ID. That's probably within police perrogative in any
event.
Anyway, the incident (which happened last week) caused me to realize that
I wasn't too sure about the legal status of scanners anymore. At one
time all radio reception was covered by the Federal Communication act (of
1934?) - and it was legal to listen to *anything* on the air. However, there
were certain restrictions on what could be communicated to a third party. I
really am unsure of what the current status of the law is in this area
nowadays.
Other interesting issues are just what should one do if one is being
'questioned' about a scanner?
Digressing a bit - what was the speech like? Well, it was quite late in
starting (because of security, I believe - I'm fairly sure that the delay was
caused by some concern by the police and/or Secret Service about people
'on the roof' and 'in the parking lot' [EVERYBODY had to be in the area
by the president that involved walking through a metal detector] though
I am of course not *positive* that this was the reason for the delay. I
never did see the president over the heads of the crowd. The media had a fine
view from their specially constructed stands, but the average person didn't
see so much. I gather he did come out into the crowd to shake hands after
the speech was over, but I didn't stick around, being rather frustrated at
that point.
From caf-talk Caf Oct 3 02:56:47 1992
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce)
Subject: Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Message-ID:
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 23:37:54 GMT
In article <1992Oct2.221152.19307@mp.cs.niu.edu> rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert) writes:
>In article <1992Oct2.211604.3005@m.cs.uiuc.edu> kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>
>>For example, if there are no resources
>>for "recreational" newsgroups, then both alt.sex and
>>rec.sport.football should go, not just alt.sex.
>
>So I suppose that a poorly funded program in phys ed must deny its
>football program access to rec.sport.football, just because it doesn't
>happen to have resources for alt.sex?
I understand that it is becoming common practice for football coaches
to require players to read rec.sport.football in its entirety.
--
____ Tim Pierce / "You are just naive and repressed because
\ / twpierce@unix.amherst.edu / penis envy is here and it's now and it's
\/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) / all around you." -- Neal C. Wickham
From caf-talk Caf Oct 3 02:56:49 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.censorship
From: twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce)
Subject: Re: [alt.censorship] banned newsgroup at u of o
Message-ID:
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 23:41:46 GMT
In article <1992Oct2.211846.8595@m.cs.uiuc.edu> kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
[repost]
>alt.binaries.pictures.erotica has been banned from University of Oregon.
>Isn't this
>censorship?
Arguably. The alt.binaries groups, in general, are high volume groups
and may be a strain on a small system's resources.
Alt.binaries.pictures.erotica, being the highest volume of these, is
often the first to go if resources are limited. Some of the other
binaries groups (notably comp.binaries.*) have clear applications in
academic work, and are less likely to be sacrificed.
You might check to see if alt.binaries.pictures.misc, no slouch
itself, is still available.
--
____ Tim Pierce / "You are just naive and repressed because
\ / twpierce@unix.amherst.edu / penis envy is here and it's now and it's
\/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) / all around you." -- Neal C. Wickham
From caf-talk Caf Oct 3 05:30:56 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.org.eff.talk,alt.censorship
From: brad@clarinet.com (Brad Templeton)
Subject: Re: Scanners
Date: Sat, 03 Oct 1992 08:40:23 GMT
Message-ID: <1992Oct03.084023.27789@clarinet.com>
In article <1992Oct2.214514.24387@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com> bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris) writes:
>What is the legal status of owning a 'scanner' in the US today?
Well, if you scan in pictures from playboy and put them up on your BBS
you will get sued by Playboy and, as is reported for the recent suit
against the Event Horizons BBS, you will have to settle out of court
for $500,000. (And you thought the issue of copyrighted GIFs wasn't
a serious one.)
Oh, you meant radio scanners. :-)
This is an ironic issue. We already have the technology to secure our
radio communications. Chips to do it could be mass produced and put
cheaply in all private radio units. I think the only thing standing in the
way is the NSA/FBI/etc.'s fear of ubiquitous encryption. The EFF is fighting
this fear.
I guess PKP could also be interefering, by wanting too much money. Who
knows. (I think they don't actually want that much, but people are
reluctant to pay anything.)
At this point the concept of scanners becomes moot. You won't be
able to hear conversations people want secret regardless. Though
one-to-selected-but-large-group transmissions will be harder to secure
because too many people have to know the code.
--
Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Sunnyvale, CA 408/296-0366
From caf-talk Caf Oct 3 09:33:29 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.censorship,soc.college
Subject: Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Message-ID: <1290.492.uupcb@grapevine.lrk.ar.us>
From: jim.wenzel@grapevine.lrk.ar.us (Jim Wenzel)
Date: 3 Oct 92 03:29:00 GMT
Adam Bonin * Ok, fine, what about it? If the right to privacy is indeed
a natural right, than nothing, nothing can be done to
pierce that inviolable sphere. If a father abuses his
children, can he claim that his home is a private sphere
and that the law does not apply there? How about drug use?
If that is a private matter, than do you hold that
government can do nothing to stop its spread? If you answer
'yes' to either question, then privacy is not a
fundamental, unalienable right.
= = =
In case #1 that you present it is also the private sphere of the
children. (alternate thought.. if more than one person share a private
sphere is it still private or public?) Since harm has befallen the
children who also have rights if they wish the laws would apply. Same
with drug use IMHO. Right to privacy ends when it hurts another
person. I beleive this is the distinction that is being made. What I
do in my own home is my business. Should it affect other people then
I have abused my right. ie.. playing a stereo too loud.
Adam Bonin * "He who accepts evil without fighting against it is really
cooperating with it." -Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.
= = =
good quote.
---
* SM 1.06 A0059 * Go ahead...MAKE MY DOWNLOAD!!!
From caf-talk Caf Oct 3 10:19:06 1992
Newsgroups: soc.college,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (J. S. Greenfield)
Subject: Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Message-ID: <1992Oct2.153156.5180@newstand.syr.edu>
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 92 15:31:56 EDT
In article <1992Oct1.140655.26052@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>>Unless I am mistaken, the US Bill of Rights which include the right to
>>free speech, etc. has not been accepted as the Bill of Rights to the World.
>>Have you checked that each of these countries (Ireland, Turkey, etc.) have
>>a law of free speech as the US does? Or are you merely applying your own
>>form of geocentricism which dictates that the entire world has to follow
>>what the USA says and does?
>
>[...]
>
>I am also
>encouraged that the U.N. recognizes that at least some freedom of
>expression is needed has part of basic human rights (e.g. Charter 19)
I don't have the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in front of me,
but I assume that the reference to Charter 19 is a reference to that.
Certainly, all nations which are part of the United Nations must have
accepted that document--so in an abstract, legal sense, they have
freely accepted the responsibility to protect free expression rights.
Of course, in practice, lots of nations totally ignore many provisions of
the UDHR.
--
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 Oct 3 10:52:53 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.org.eff.talk,alt.censorship
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Scanners
Message-ID: <1992Oct3.145246.17839@eff.org>
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 14:52:46 GMT
brad@clarinet.com (Brad Templeton) writes:
[...]
>Well, if you scan in pictures from playboy and put them up on your BBS
>you will get sued by Playboy and, as is reported for the recent suit
>against the Event Horizons BBS, you will have to settle out of court
>for $500,000. (And you thought the issue of copyrighted GIFs wasn't
>a serious one.)
[...]
Didn't Event Horizon ignore warnings from Playboy?
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Oct 3 11:02:34 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.admin.policy] Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Message-ID: <1992Oct3.150004.31213@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 15:00:04 GMT
[A repost - Carl]
From caf-talk Caf Oct 3 11:02:34 1992
From: bud@mtek.com (Bud Hovell)
Subject: Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 92 06:55:20 GMT
Message-ID: <1992Oct3.065520.5573@mtek.com>
kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>bud@mtek.com (Bud Hovell) writes:
>No. However, any institution that claims to respect academic freedom
>(as most universities, colleges, and larger institutes of technolgy
>do), should respect it everywhere; computers should not be exempt.
No -- that assumes that the definition that you hold to regarding
what specifically is or isn't a threat to academic freedom is the
only decision that can be reasonably taken. As in: "Lets be reason-
able and do it *my* way."
I must also say that "should" and "ought" are two of the most dangerous
words in the English language. They typically announce some piece of
authoritative nonsense that rarely holds up under even the mildest
examination.
>[...]
>>I might also add that this looks remarkably like an "Enemies List",
>>which device typically sets academics to howling wildly at the
>>moon -- but perhaps only when aimed at their *own* several and
>>peculiar sensibilities.
>[...]
>You mean they don't mind lists when they are:
> open
> documented (reasonably well)
> critical of violations of academic freedom
A circular argument. You return again to your own standards of which
kinds of conduct do or do not constitute violations of "academic
freedom". It is *precisely* this brand of self-fullfilling "logic"
that motivates the objections being raised. And you clearly don't
get it.
First of all, there is no basis in constitutional law for "academic
freedom" that I am aware of. It is a "freedom" that has been conferred
by the academic community upon itself: legislature, executive, judge,
and jury. And many believe it sometimes applies far more generously in
favor of those political persuasions which tend to cast Karl Marx as
a "moderate". This is an undue alarm, however, since whatever silliness
may be imposed upon the student by such persons will rarely survive
his first two weeks out in the real world. Of course, for those who
never leave.......but I digress.
I am not aware that the rest of the citizenry have ratified the acts
of this cozy group by direct vote or even public consultation. At
least I cannot recall its having been submitted to a referendum in
*this* state. "Academic freedom" is hardly on the lips of your fellow
countrymen as a pressing and important concern. But then, most are
knaves in any case, I'm sure.
>But then do mind them when they are:
> secret
> based on hearsay
> promote violations of academic freedom
> (e.g "she's a known Republican, don't hire")
>Gee, you are right, they are hypocritical :-)
Yep. You have defined what you choose to allow as the sole key
criteria for judging whether an Enemies List is now in existence.
Anything that doesn't agree with your (rather deficient) criteria
would thus be barred from criticism. Including -- surprise! -- your
very own list that just happens to be the object of this debate.
No sale.
I hate to drag these guys out, but the Nazis were *such* good
practitioners of propoganda that it is hard to pass them by. And,
boy, did they know about lists of enemies!
To take your criteria in order:
Secret: was there ever any doubt about who was on the Nazis' lists?
Hell, these were *really* efficient bastards -- they passed a law
requiring Jews to identify *themselves*. All the "List" did was
prioritize who was going to get transported first. But no one had
any real doubts about who was on the list. Indeed, constant beating
of the drum about who was on the list tended to divert attention
away from the uncomfortable questions about *why* they were on it.
So no secrecy there.
Hearsay: the people named by the Nazis to ship out for Auschwitz
and Dachau were, in fact, Jews (as well as members of other named
groups). The lists were factual, "more or less", as to names, ages,
addresses, etc. So no heresay there.
Promote violations of academic freedom: well, there you've got me,
I suppose. I cannot recall hearing of one single instance where any
person was named as having violated someone else's adademic freedom.
Indeed, I cannot recall anyone having even raised it as a subject.
And in Germany, too, that bastion of academic freedom. One would
have thought.....hmmmmmmmm, very odd, indeed.
Guess these folks really weren't on an "Enemies Lists", huh? And
should not, therefore, have had any basis for concern. Right?
--
________________________________________________________________
bud@mtek.com ... uunet!m2xenix!mtek!bud ... bud@rigel.cs.pdx.edu
MTEK International, Inc. Throughput Technology Corp.
Throughput!
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Oct 3 11:07:50 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.admin.policy] Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Message-ID: <1992Oct3.150240.20989@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 15:02:40 GMT
[A repost - Carl]
From caf-talk Caf Oct 3 11:07:50 1992
From: bud@mtek.com (Bud Hovell)
Subject: Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 92 10:45:04 GMT
Message-ID: <1992Oct3.104504.9261@mtek.com>
kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>No one should act on my say-so. Any action should be based on a belief
>that something is wrong and should be taken within institutional
>guidelines.
Something is most *definitely* wrong, Carl. You just won't have
any of it.
>>Um, on just what date *are* we celebrating Krystalnacht this year?
>[...]
>The idea that publicizing censorship is the same as terrorizing Jews
>is despicable.
My, my, "despicable", is it? Well, I'm truly wounded to the quick. :-)
Anyone who would attach the inflammatory word "BANNING" to any action
of mere university officials makes clear association with the current
tragedy in South Africa, and is thus hardly in a position to lay claim
to the high moral ground. Or to posture in indignation over indelicate
comparisons made by others.
So, now that the salutory pleasantries are out of the way, let's cut
directly to the chase, shall we.....
The fact that you cannot see the similarity of *tactic* -- not to be
confused with a similarity of *objective* -- perfectly validates the
criticisms you have drawn. You are, in fact, attempting to drum up
support for having others spread the word of your judgement against
actions of institutions that fail to measure up to your notion of
how the world should grind about on its moderately unstable axis.
That you will find others who agree with you is assured, and quite
beside the point. The point IS that there will be some who do *not*
agree with your absolutist, self-righteous pretense to some special
gift to judge other people -- people who may have taken their decisions
with perhaps no less devotion to higher moral principle than that
which you generously assign to yourself in taking yours. And with
batting averages that factually may be no worse than your own.
That you may disagree with those decisions is perfectly reasonable.
They are fit objects of debate by you or anyone else. Some of them
are probably terribly flawed. Maybe all. Maybe none. Not my point.
You aren't simply *debating* the merits or demerits of these thorny
decisions. Quite the contrary.
By pronouncing summary judgement, you thereby attempt to finesse an
appearance that debate has already *concluded* in favor of your own
pet notions.
It doesn't wash.
--
________________________________________________________________
bud@mtek.com ... uunet!m2xenix!mtek!bud ... bud@rigel.cs.pdx.edu
MTEK International, Inc. Throughput Technology Corp.
Throughput!
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Oct 3 11:13:14 1992
Newsgroups: soc.libraries.talk,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: cbs@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca (Chris Syed)
Subject: Re: bibliographies on sexuality
Message-ID:
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 15:05:02 GMT
In article <1992Oct2.183433.185@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>
>All "vulgar", "reprehensible", "pornographic", or "poison[ous]"
>material that might be accessed from, created on, or stored ...
You raise important points, I think. What if the banners try
to force an end to all legitimate academic research in this
area? For example, John Money's books on paraphilias contain some
spicy stuff.
Is there evidence that the banners and burners are becoming
a threat, say, to medical libraries?
--
---
"We cannot think without imagining." -- Thomas Aquinas
cbs@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca (Chris Brown-Syed)
From caf-talk Caf Oct 3 12:11:19 1992
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Message-ID: <1992Oct3.160705.17416@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 16:07:05 GMT
bud@mtek.com (Bud Hovell),
In one article I thought you where comparing the Banned Computer
Material list to an academic blacklist, in a second you compared it to
Krystalnacht. But your third note suggested that you meant a Nazi
blacklist, not an academic blacklist. Can you clarify (and perhaps
detail) for me which comparison(s) you are making?
Also, are you against all critical lists? To take an extreme, are you
against Amnesty International's lists? If not, what makes one list
good and other bad?
If you are arguing that academic freedom is against all lists, and
therefore the List is hypocritical, can you detail why you think
academic freedom is against all list?>
You questioned the *legal* the authority of "academic freedom" itself.
I'll get to that in a second. But first let me confess, a premise of
the List was that academic freedom is *morally* good. To those who
don't accept that premise, I understand that the List would be seen as
irrelevant or, if you believe that that academic freedom is morally
bad, the List seen as bad (but as bad as Krystalnacht?). And, of
course, even if you believe that academic freedom is morally good, you
may think that my application of it to computer media is mistaken.
I, of course, can't prove that academic freedom is morally good. I can
report, however, that an important academic freedom statement, the
Joint Statement on Rights and Freedoms of Students, has been endorsed
by virtually every academic group in the U.S. starting with:
American Association of University Professors
U. S. National Student Association
Association of American Colleges
National Association of Student Personnel Administrators
National Association of Woman Deans and Counselors
Now as to the legal authority of "academic freedom", I'm enclosing a
list of on-line references. The most recent Supreme Court decision
that I can think of is _Rust v. Sullivan_. The Court wrote:
"Similarly, we have recognized that the university is a traditional
sphere of free expression so fundamental to the functioning of our
society that the Government's ability to control speech within that
sphere by means of conditions attached to the expenditure of
Government funds is restricted by the vagueness and overbreadth
doctrines of the First Amendment, Keyishian v. Board of Regents, 385
U. S. 589, 603, 605-606 (1967)."
Also, most school also guarantee academic freedom via legal contract.
For example, my student contract with the University of Illinois,
says, in part:
"STATEMENT ON INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS
I. Preamble
A student at the University of Illinois at the Urbana-Champaign campus
is a member of the University community of which all members have at
least the rights and responsibilities common to all citizens, free from
institutional censorship;"
...
"VI. Student Affairs
[...]
B. Freedom of Inquiry and Expression
1. Students and student organizations should be free to examine and to
discuss all questions of interest to them, and to express opinions
publicly and privately. [...]
- Carl
ANNOTATED REFERENCES
(All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.)
=================
law/constraints.constitutional
=================
Comments from _A Practical Guide to Legal Issues Affecting College
Teachers_ by Partrica A. Hollander, D. Parker Young, and Donald D.
Gehring. (College Administration Publication, 1985). Discusses the
constitutional constraints on public universities including the
requires for freedom of expression, freedom against unreasonable
searches and seizures, due process, specific rules.
=================
law/constraints.contractual
=================
Comments from _A Practical Guide to Legal Issues Affecting College
Teachers_. Explains that University Code is part of the contract
between the student and school. The University can be liable for a
breach of the contract (i.e. for not following its own rules).
=================
law/keyishian-v-board-of-regents
=================
In this Supreme Court case, the Court said that public universities
can not infringe on the Constitutionally protected rights of their
students and employees (specially with regard to loyalty oaths).
=================
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/goss-v-lopez.fischer
=================
Comments from _Teacher's and the Law_, 3rd edition, by Louis Fischer,
et al. Published in 1991 by Longman. It reports that the Supreme Court
says that some modicum of due process is necessary unless the matter
is trivial or there is an emergency.
=================
law/goss-v-lopez.mnookin
=================
Comments from _In the Interest of Children_, R. Mnookin (Ed.),
Franklin E. Zimring and Rayman L. Solomon (Contrib. Authors). It
reports that the Supreme Court says that some modicum of due process
is necessary unless the matter is trivial or there is an emergency.
=================
law/mills-v-bd-of-ed
=================
Summary from the ACLU's Handbook _The Right of Students_ 3rd Edition
by Janet. R. Price, Alan H. Levine, and Eve Cary. p. 61. It says
before you can be severely punished, you have a due process right to
know the specific acts you are charged with committing and the
specific rules that those acts violate.
=================
law/perry-v-perry
=================
Comments from the ACLU Handbook _The Rights of _Teachers_. It says
that campus mail systems (and other school facilities) can be limited
public forums. (Perry v. Perry was about an interschool mail system.
It was one of the cases that defined the Public Forum Doctrine.)
Also, a paraphrase from an ACLU handbook _The Rights of Teachers_. It
says that generally, speech, if otherwise shielded from punishment by
the First Amendment, does not lose that protection because its tone is
sharp.
Also, from p. 92, it says that there are legal limits to the oaths a
(public) school can ask its teachers to sign. [Some of these same
limits might apply to what a school can ask a user to sign as a
condition of getting (or keeping) a computer account.]
=================
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/stanley-v-magrath
=================
Comments from _Public Schools Law: Teachers' and Students' Rights_ 2nd
Ed. by Martha M. McCarthy and Nelda H. Cambron-McCabe, published in
1987 by Allyn and Bacon, Inc. It says, in part, "[a]lthough school
boards are not obligated to support student papers, if a given
publication was originally created as a free speech forum, removal of
financial or other school board support can be construed as an
unlawful effort to stifle free expression." Also, "school
authorities cannot withdraw support from a student publication simply
because of displeasure with the content" and "the content of a
school-sponsored paper that is established as a medium for student
expression cannot be regulated more closely than a nonsponsored
paper". Also, it tells what to do about libel in student
publications.
=================
law/student-publications.misc
=================
Quotes from the book _Law of the Student Press_ by the Student Press
Law Center (1985,1988). They say that four-letter words are protected
speech, that public universities are not likely to be liable for
publications that they for which they do not control the contents, and
that the _Hazelwood_ decision does not apply to universities.
=================
law/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/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/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.
=================
academic/student.code.uiuc
=================
Excerpts from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign's Code on
Campus Affairs and Regulations Applying to All Students (Aug. 1985)
=================
academic/student.freedoms.aaup
=================
Joint Statement on Rights and Freedoms of Students -- This is the main
U.S. statement on student academic freedom.
=================
faq/media.control
=================
q: Since freedom of the press belongs to those who own presses, a
public university can do anything it wants with the media that it
owns, right?
=================
=================
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/constraints.constitutional
pub/academic/law/constraints.contractual
pub/academic/law/keyishian-v-board-of-regents
pub/academic/law/uwm-post-v-u-of-wisconsin
pub/academic/law/doe-v-u-of-michigan
pub/academic/law/goss-v-lopez.fischer
pub/academic/law/goss-v-lopez.mnookin
pub/academic/law/mills-v-bd-of-ed
pub/academic/law/perry-v-perry
pub/academic/law/rust-v-sullivan
pub/academic/law/stanley-v-magrath
pub/academic/law/student-publications.misc
pub/academic/law/tinker_v_des_moines.2
pub/academic/law/tinker_v_des_moines
pub/academic/law/young-conservatives-v-sau
pub/academic/academic/student.code.uiuc
pub/academic/academic/student.freedoms.aaup
pub/academic/faq/media.control
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 constraints.constitutional
send acad-freedom/law constraints.contractual
send acad-freedom/law keyishian-v-board-of-regents
send acad-freedom/law uwm-post-v-u-of-wisconsin
send acad-freedom/law doe-v-u-of-michigan
send acad-freedom/law goss-v-lopez.fischer
send acad-freedom/law goss-v-lopez.mnookin
send acad-freedom/law mills-v-bd-of-ed
send acad-freedom/law perry-v-perry
send acad-freedom/law rust-v-sullivan
send acad-freedom/law stanley-v-magrath
send acad-freedom/law student-publications.misc
send acad-freedom/law tinker_v_des_moines.2
send acad-freedom/law tinker_v_des_moines
send acad-freedom/law young-conservatives-v-sau
send acad-freedom/academic student.code.uiuc
send acad-freedom/academic student.freedoms.aaup
send acad-freedom/faq media.control
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Oct 3 12:27:50 1992
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Message-ID: <1992Oct3.162246.18699@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 16:22:46 GMT
bud@mtek.com (Bud Hovell) writes:
[...]
>By pronouncing summary judgement, you thereby attempt to finesse an
>appearance that debate has already *concluded* in favor of your own
>pet notions.
>
>It doesn't wash.
[...]
I confess that an implicit premise of the List is that academic
censorship of computer media is generally wrong. I'm sorry if this was
unclear. Now that you have "caught" me, you are welcome to argue
against this premise. A good forum for this continuing debate might be
alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk (or the corresponding mailing list).
- Carl
ANNOTATED REFERENCES
(All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.)
=================
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/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 caf
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Oct 3 13:57:05 1992
From: betsys@cs.umb.edu (Elizabeth Schwartz)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.censorship,soc.college
Subject: Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Message-ID:
Date: 3 Oct 92 18:03:25 GMT
What are the consequences if a student doesn't change a .plan file?
**NONE**
Lemme repeat for the last time: We are a community, not a legal board.
We are engaged in teaching. Perhaps one of the things we are teaching
is working together in a group. When someone is very disruptive, or
offensive, by our community standards, we ask them to change.
WE HAVE NO AUTHORITY EXCEPT FOR THE RESPECT WHICH THE STUDENTS HERE
STILL HAVE FOR US. WE FEEL THAT ASKING STUDENTS TO BEHAVE WITH SOME
DIGNITY DOESN'T DETRACT FROM THEIR EDUCATION BUT HELPS IT.
Students we've asked have changed with NO threats, NO hidden
consequences, NO nasty undertones. We've never taken an account away
so I don't think there are any hidden fears. Students seem to feel
free to debate policy, so I don't think there is hidden authoritarian
crackdowns.
I'm outa this argument. If you like, come to UMass and see how much
we are trying to do with so little, and you'll see a department that
is still working as a community.
Betsy
PS for the record: we are NOT the "library computer," the VAX/VMS
people are. We're a department lab belonging to the Math and CS dept
and earmarked for research and teaching ONLY. Every other service we
provide is an "extra" done because we want to provide it, and
UNFUNDED. This includes Usenet.
--
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 Oct 3 14:02:40 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: USENET Readership report for Sep 92
Message-ID: <1992Oct3.175754.26617@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 17:57:54 GMT
[Excerpts from the full list. - Carl]
reid@decwrl.DEC.COM (Brian Reid) writes:
>This is the full set of data from the USENET readership report for Sep 92.
>Explanations of the figures are in a companion posting.
>
> +-- Estimated total number of people who read the group, worldwide.
> | +-- Actual number of readers in sampled population
> | | +-- Propagation: how many sites receive this group at all
> | | | +-- Recent traffic (messages per month)
> | | | | +-- Recent traffic (kilobytes per month)
> | | | | | +-- Crossposting percentage
> | | | | | | +-- Cost ratio: $US/month/rdr
> | | | | | | | +-- Share: % of newsrders
> | | | | | | | | who read this group.
> V V V V V V V V
> 1 160000 5317 83% 980 1933.6 22% 0.02 11.5% misc.jobs.offered
> 2 160000 5142 82% 1568 1909.7 40% 0.02 11.1% misc.forsale
> 3 150000 4788 89% 10 157.9 100% 0.00 10.3% news.announce.newusers
> 4 120000 3910 68% 2556 6290.4 45% 0.07 8.4% alt.sex
> 5 120000 3903 84% 4 101.6 75% 0.00 8.4% news.answers
> 6 120000 3808 81% 65 191.8 0% 0.00 8.2% rec.humor.funny
> 7 97000 3199 86% 981 1748.5 20% 0.03 6.9% comp.windows.x
> 8 96000 3163 80% 2198 4434.5 13% 0.07 6.8% rec.humor
> 9 93000 3078 70% 16 187.7 0% 0.00 6.6% rec.arts.erotica
> 10 89000 2936 81% 2711 3114.8 17% 0.05 6.3% misc.forsale.computers
[...]
> 247 26000 855 78% 301 803.9 36% 0.05 1.8% comp.org.eff.talk
[...]
> 576 16000 517 75% 8 130.7 100% 0.01 1.1% comp.org.eff.news
[...]
> 708 14000 447 59% 123 499.0 28% 0.04 1.0% alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
[...]
>1321 4900 162 51% 11 539.0 0% 0.11 0.3% alt.comp.acad-freedom.news
[...]
>1570 1500 48 19% 92 104.7 0% 0.03 0.1% k12.lang.francais
>1571 1500 48 18% 43 72.4 0% 0.02 0.1% k12.lang.russian
>1572 1500 48 18% 26 78.6 0% 0.02 0.1% k12.ed.business
>1573 1500 48 14% 12 16.7 25% 0.00 0.1% aus.tex
>1574 1500 48 10% 175 279.2 16% 0.04 0.1% de.comp.sys.ibm
>1575 1500 48 10% 90 137.8 10% 0.02 0.1% de.etc.misc
>1576 1500 48 10% 66 128.6 34% 0.02 0.1% de.admin.archiv
>1577 1500 48 9% 24 31.7 0% 0.00 0.1% houston.eats
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Oct 3 16:00:18 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.censorship,soc.college
From: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Subject: Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Message-ID: <1992Oct3.183525.18063@nntp.hut.fi>
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 18:35:25 GMT
In article <92276.093531HANK@BARILVM.BITNET>, Hank Nussbacher of that basic tenet. How would it look if I came out with a list of
>places that created X.500 databases without user consent that
>infringed on peoples human right to privacy? Pretty stupid.
Stupid in whose opinion? I wouldn't think it stupid.
//Jyrki
>What about a person's right to privacy? Wouldn't you consider this
>a natural right of all people throughout the world? As the above
>example shows, many sites on the Internet have trampled on that
>right yet no one is making lists of them.
Perhaps it's just that no one who happens to consider it important is
as active and hard-working on the issues as Carl?
>The ideas of free speech and rights to privacy are foreign to certain
>cultures and we must respect that, just as we are not expected to
>believe that committing suicide with a bomb strapped to your chest is
>the best way to get into heaven. They have their culture and we have
>our culture. Neither is right or wrong. Each is right in its own
>country or segment of population.
Hmm. I'll try to view it from another viewpoint - say news reported
in USA on the count of babies born "out of wedlock" in various
countries. I think I saw such a list - I didn't think it insulting or
anything even though the majority of Finns seem to think that having a
child unmarried is no big deal. But I would guess most of these
children are born to couples anyway, they are just not married. The
news story just got a smile out of me as it was based on incorrect
cultural assumptions.
Similarly, I can think there are many people (many in USA, I would
guess) who could think it somehow "wrong" to house unmarried students
of different sex into the same apartments (student-housing). They
could perhaps collect lists of countries (or towns) which do this and
circulate them among themselves. I don't see what harm this would
have - I would think it just silly and pointless, but not offensive or
harmful.
I just fail to see the problem with the list.
//Jyrki
From caf-talk Caf Oct 3 16:50:06 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.censorship
From: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Subject: Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Message-ID: <1992Oct3.192125.18758@nntp.hut.fi>
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 19:21:25 GMT
In article <1992Oct2.010438.13040@eff.org>, mnemonic@eff (Mike Godwin) writes:
>In article <1992Oct1.164415.13315@nntp.hut.fi> jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala) writes:
>
>>Thanks for the clarification. However, your original statement was:
>>
>>>Although obscenity is regulable
>>>under the Constitution,
>>
>>which taken separately clearly is incorrect.
>
>You are mistaken. What I said is entirely correct.
You said you agree with me that the Constitution does not prohibit
obscenity but guarantees freedom of speech. Now you are saying that
obscenity is regulable under the Constitution. (sorry if my
undersanding was incomplete). I think there's a contradiction here
somewhere.
>>I think it would be best
>>to qualify clearly unconstitutional interpretations (or ones where
>>there's considerable disagreement) by things like "according to the
>>current interpretation [by the Supreme Court]".
>
>Jyrki, you use "clearly unconstitutional interpretations" in a very odd
>way here.
I'll try to clarify. I have a document, the U.S. Constitution. I
call "Constitutional" things that comply with that document. I call
"unconstitutional" things that don't comply with that document. Now,
the document talks nothing about "obscenity" but rather guarantees
freedom of speech. Also, it is a document which enumerates the powers
of government. This is why I call prohibition on obscenity clearly
unconstitutional. I don't think it changes to be constitutional if
Donald Duck, Miko Godwin, Frank Zappa, George Bush or the U.S. Supreme
Court says it's constitutional. It will be "judged constitutional by
Mike Godwin" or any of the others above.
>The Supreme Court is the highest governmental body that
>interprets the Constitution.
Does it hold a monopoly on interpreting the Constitution?
>While I disagree with many of the decisions
>the Supreme Court has made, I can't say I know of a single "clearly
>unconstitutional interpretation."
>>I think this is an important distinction.
>
>It's not one that is ever found in American discourse on Constitutional
>law.
If there's no such distinction, then if tomorrow the Supreme Court
announces that it is not unconstitional for police to shoot all
persons who have ever written to Usenet at first sighting, it is
perfectly constitutional to shoot all Usenetters without trial.
>Perhaps we should institute it as the Kuoppala Distinction.
Feel free.
//Jyrki
From caf-talk Caf Oct 3 20:26:26 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.censorship,soc.college
From: mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman)
Subject: Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Message-ID: <1992Oct4.001356.14962@oracle.us.oracle.com>
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 00:13:56 GMT
In article <1992Oct2.170410.12431@ms.uky.edu> morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
>In article <1992Oct2.140955.22663@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>>2) I was not, even implicitly, critizing the schools for banning the
>>running of IRC and Crack. I was, implicitly, critizing the schools for
>>banning the code for IRC and Crack.
>When a given piece of code can be compiled, executed, and deleted in one
>hour (or less, if you've a faster system), how can we effectively control
>the execution of a program WITHOUT controlling the source code?
Kind of tough, I'll agree. Of course we often agree to give up a
little security to protect a little freedom. See warrantless
searches, for example.
Also, how the heck can you control source code if people really want
to hide it? After all, how much time will it add to your hour if the
offender has the source code tared and encrypted? Or do you also
intend to ban encryption programs?
>If the source code were available in hardcopy only, would you be satisfied?
No.
>If you were a system admin, how would *you* handle it?
Well, first off, I wouldn't look arround in people's accounts unless
they were readable.
Secondly, if I found a possibly offensive program I would ask the
owner why he had it and inform him that running it, except under
limited and controlled circumstances is prohibited. I would ask him
to keep me posted on what he did with them and to inform me if he
compiled them for any reason.
Then, depending on the difficulty, I might write a watchdog program or
two to look for the programs being run.
After all, do you really object if someone is fooling arround with
IRC, debugging it and enhancing it as long as a lot of people aren't
using it? Or if someone is going through the Crack source code to
learn more about security?
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not an official Oracle spokesman. I speak for myself and no one else.
From caf-talk Caf Oct 3 22:10:40 1992
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (J. S. Greenfield)
Subject: Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Message-ID: <1992Oct3.085046.23065@newstand.syr.edu>
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 92 08:50:46 EDT
In article <1992Oct2.111319.26055@nntp.hut.fi> jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala) writes:
>>The Supreme Court has ruled that there
>>are limits to the freedom of speech the first amendment confers.
>
>>And
>>obscenity has been declared by the Supreme Court not to be protected
>>speech.
>
>The topic wasn't what any of the Supreme Courts since the founding of
>USA have said, the topic was what the Constitution says.
>
>Does the Constitution give a monopoly of interpretation to the Supreme Court?
Yes--at least in terms of any *legal* meaning.
Basically, you have it exactly backwards. One does not need to add an explicit
disclaimer, "According to the SC..." when citing (what you call)
"controversial" SC interpretation of the Constitution.
Rather, one should fell completely free to cite SC interpretation as *the*
meaning of the Constitution.
Where an individual disagrees with the SC as to the "proper" interpretation
of the document, he or she should feel free to say "According to the SC..."
And where one provides one's *own* interpretation, it should be prefaced
with something to the effect of "IMHO..."
--
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 Oct 4 10:55:04 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: Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Message-ID: <1992Oct4.145456.3062@eff.org>
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 14:54:56 GMT
To generalize, when a person in a position of authority is offended he
or she must take care that criticism is not mistaken for an official
orders. (What's the Shakespearian allusion? "Will no one rid me of
this priest"(?))
Here is a repost about a similar situation at the Harvard Law School.
The members of the disiplinary board condemned the offensive material,
but made clear that they had no authority to restrict it.
- Carl
============
From caf-talk Caf May 24 00:00:00 1992
From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Harvard Law School uproar update
Message-ID: <1992May24.124726.3824@athena.mit.edu>
Date: 24 May 92 12:47:26 GMT
Just thought I'd update people on the latest developments in that
tempest at that little law school up the river from Northeastern...
On May 21st, the Harvard Law School disciplinary board announced
that it would _not_ take action against the authors of the
now-infamous parody article "Manifesto of Post-Mortem Legal
Feminism."
The board basically held that if there was to be any disciplinary
action taken on the grounds that the publication of the parody of
the late Prof. Mary Jo Frug's article, such action should be
initiated by the dean of the law school:
"[T]he board is not the proper forum for further action at this
time... As individuals, we all join those members of the community
who believe the parody was offensive, and we deplore the pain it has
caused many persons. However, with regard to the publication, the
board notes that at the present time, neither the statement of
rights and responsibilities nor any other law school rule imposes
limits on the content of publications by students that would be
applicable here."
The board announced its decision in a public letter to Prof. David
Kennedy -- legal scholars take note, that's *David* Kennedy, not
Duncan Kennedy, who's also a professor at Harvard Law -- who on
April 19th had written an open letter to the board calling for
disciplinary action on the grounds that the article was
"incompatible with an open academic environment." Kennedy had also
been one of the "Group of 15" law professors who had condemned the
parody and had called for the law school to investigate issues of
sexual harassment and conditions for women on the campus, but he was
alone in his call for disciplinary action against the parody
authors.
This is not necessarily the end of the issue, by the way. The dean
of the law school, Robert Clark, is currently out of the country; he
might take some action on his own when he returns (probably next
week).
-- William December Starr
may_24_1992:been one of the "Group of 15" law professors who had condemned the
oct_06_1991:Yesterday, the _Lantern_ published a front-page editorial condemning the
oct_27_1991: "Prodigy condemns anti-Semitism. It is repugnant and
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Oct 4 11:45:43 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.censorship
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Message-ID: <1992Oct4.154536.4728@eff.org>
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 15:45:36 GMT
In article <1992Oct3.192125.18758@nntp.hut.fi> jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala) writes:
>You said you agree with me that the Constitution does not prohibit
>obscenity but guarantees freedom of speech. Now you are saying that
>obscenity is regulable under the Constitution. (sorry if my
>undersanding was incomplete). I think there's a contradiction here
>somewhere.
Not at all. There's a distinction between "prohibited" and "regulable."
The Supreme Court has never held that obscenity is *prohibited* by the
Constitution. The Supreme Court has held on a number of occasions that
obscenity *can be* prohibited (or otherwise regulated) under the
Constitution.
>I'll try to clarify. I have a document, the U.S. Constitution. I
>call "Constitutional" things that comply with that document. I call
>"unconstitutional" things that don't comply with that document.
So does the Supreme Court. But the difference is that they have a bit more
interpretive authority with regard to that document than you have. Their
interpretations become part of American Constitutional law.
>Does it hold a monopoly on interpreting the Constitution?
No. Only a monopoly on interpretations that become part of American
Constitutional law.
>If there's no such distinction, then if tomorrow the Supreme Court
>announces that it is not unconstitional for police to shoot all
>persons who have ever written to Usenet at first sighting, it is
>perfectly constitutional to shoot all Usenetters without trial.
Of course, even the current U.S. Supreme Court would not "announce" any
such thing.
--Mike
--
Mike Godwin, |"Liberty resides in the rights of that person
mnemonic@eff.org| whose views you find most odious."
(617) 864-0665 |
EFF, Cambridge | --John Stuart Mill
From caf-talk Caf Oct 4 11:49:21 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.censorship,soc.college
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Message-ID: <1992Oct4.154914.4799@eff.org>
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 15:49:14 GMT
In article <1992Oct4.145456.3062@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>To generalize, when a person in a position of authority is offended he
>or she must take care that criticism is not mistaken for an official
>orders. (What's the Shakespearian allusion? "Will no one rid me of
>this priest"(?))
This is not a Shakespeare allusion at all, since Shakespeare wrote no play
about Henry II of England and Thomas a Becket.
Henry's nobles are alleged to have decided to murder Becket in the
cathedral after having heard Henry complain: "Will no one rid me of this
meddlesome priest?"
--Mike
--
Mike Godwin, |"Liberty resides in the rights of that person
mnemonic@eff.org| whose views you find most odious."
(617) 864-0665 |
EFF, Cambridge | --John Stuart Mill
From caf-talk Caf Oct 4 13:21:30 1992
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (J. S. Greenfield)
Subject: Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Message-ID: <1992Oct4.114434.16434@newstand.syr.edu>
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 92 11:44:34 EDT
In article <1992Oct3.192125.18758@nntp.hut.fi> jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala) writes:
>
>You said you agree with me that the Constitution does not prohibit
>obscenity but guarantees freedom of speech. Now you are saying that
>obscenity is regulable under the Constitution. (sorry if my
>undersanding was incomplete). I think there's a contradiction here
>somewhere.
As I recall, he said that the obscenity exception was not explicitly
stated in the constitution. That creates no contradiction--lots of
stuff was (both purposefully and inadvertantly) left implicit in the
constitution.
>>>I think it would be best
>>>to qualify clearly unconstitutional interpretations (or ones where
>>>there's considerable disagreement) by things like "according to the
>>>current interpretation [by the Supreme Court]".
>
>I'll try to clarify. I have a document, the U.S. Constitution. I
>call "Constitutional" things that comply with that document. I call
>"unconstitutional" things that don't comply with that document. Now,
>the document talks nothing about "obscenity" but rather guarantees
>freedom of speech. Also, it is a document which enumerates the powers
>of government. This is why I call prohibition on obscenity clearly
>unconstitutional. I don't think it changes to be constitutional if
>Donald Duck, Miko Godwin, Frank Zappa, George Bush or the U.S. Supreme
>Court says it's constitutional. It will be "judged constitutional by
>Mike Godwin" or any of the others above.
This was *exactly* the point I made earlier. Anybody can express *his*
or *her* interpretation of the Constitution by stating, "IMHO, the
Constitution *really* says..."
But unless it is *obvious* from context (and it was not in the case of
your original remark) the absence of any such disclaimer implies that
one is refering to the SC interpretation, since that is the leaglly-
binding interpretation.
Come on now, this discussion has really become silly. IMNSHO, there
is no basis for the regulation of "obscenity" in the Constitution.
But that ain't the way the SC sees it--and I wouldn't think of making
the above statement without prefacing it with the IMNSHO.
--
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 Oct 4 20:49:20 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.org.eff.talk, et al.] Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Message-ID: <1992Oct5.004413.2410@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 00:44:13 GMT
[A repost - Carl]
From caf-talk Caf Oct 4 20:49:20 1992
From: waider@glas.rtsg.mot.com (Ronan Waide)
Subject: Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Message-ID: <1992Oct3.171103.9274@glas.rtsg.mot.com>
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 17:11:03 GMT
brad@optilink.UUCP (Brad Yearwood) writes:
>In article <1992Oct1.173240.7942@glas.rtsg.mot.com>, waider@glas.rtsg.mot.com (Ronan Waide) writes:
>#
># In the University of Limerick, Ireland, there was a security incident involving
># a user who had the process name "Baader". Subsequent to his "trial" and
># expulsion from the college for a year, another student set his process name to
># "Baader" and promptly found himself disusered.
>What is the significance of "Baader"? What if your name happens to be Baader?
>(I once worked with someone with that name.) How can the EC survive if what
>is a perfectly good name in one part is a banned epithet in another part?
>Does invoking this name cause giant chickens to issue forth from cracks in
>the Earth, or termination of pregnancy, or what?
>Also, from Kadie's original post:
No, no, no, no and no! The point was that Student A, with a process name of X,
cracked the system. Big time. Got rapped on the knuckles so hard for it that he
fell out of college for a year :-7. Student B, for whatever reason, set his
process name to X, and within _seconds_ found himself disusered. Like as in
there was a program somewhere watching for 'X' to log in.....
Mind you, one year on from 'Baader''s expulsion, every student who logged in
set his process name to `Baader lives', `Baader II' and the like :-)
>Brad "Baader than you wanna be" Yearwood brad@optilink.com
>Petaluma, CA
Right buddy, that's _your_ account gone....;-)
Ronan
--
Ronan Waide, Motorola Ireland waider@glas.rtsg.mot.com
"You watch a talk show recently? They're doing one next month on a normal,
happy heterosexual couple, assuming they can find one." - Prof R. Noble @ RPI
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Oct 4 22:56:16 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.censorship
From: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Subject: Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Message-ID: <1992Oct5.012838.8529@nntp.hut.fi>
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 01:28:38 GMT
In article <1992Oct2.162504.6834@netcom.com>, barry@netcom (Kenn Barry) writes:
>>Does the Constitution give a monopoly of interpretation to the Supreme Court?
>
> Pragmatically speaking, yes.
> The Constitution does not give this right to the Court
>explicitly, but the Court asserted the right back in the 1830s, and has
>hung onto it.
That seems like a "no" to me.
> Every citizen, of course, has the right to make their own
>interpretation of what the Constitution really says, but only the
>opinion of the Supreme Court has any legal weight.
I hope you recognize my right to interpret it as well, even though I'm
not a citizen of USA ;-).
One example I can think of where the Constitution is interpreted with
legal weight by someone else than the Supreme Court is when a jury
reaches a verdict of not guilty based on the accused being accused on
an unconstitutional law (as interpreted by the jury).
//Jyrki
