=============== ftp://ftp.eff.org/pub/CAF/faq/netnews.writing =============== q: Should my university allow students to post to Netnews or have Web pages? a: Yes. Free inquiry and free expression are an important part of a university's mission. Most universities encourage and support student expression and publication. Most universities also seem to give full network access to all users, even students. (This conclusion is based on an informal survey posted to comp.admin.policy in October, 1991. [cafv01n33]) There is probably no need to create special rules for student computer media; your university likely already has rules for student media. (Look in your Student Code.) In the U.S., most student publications are free of university screening, censorship, and most retaliation. (For state universities, this is a legal requirement.) At the same time, most universities disclaim responsibility for student publications, even when the university "owns the presses." The American Library Association's draft policy recommendation on electronic services and networks says (in part): No user should be restricted or denied access for expressing or receiving constitutionally protected speech. No user's access should be changed without due process, including, but not limited to, notice and a means of appeal. - Carl ANNOTATED REFERENCES (All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.) ================= library/computer.ala ================= * Access to Electronic ... Services and Networks ... (ALA) An interpretation by the American Library Association of the "Library Bill of Rights" Says in part: "Libraries and librarians exist to facilitate the exercise of these rights by selecting, producing, providing access to, identifying, retrieving, organizing, providing instruction in the use of, and preserving recorded expression regardless of the format or technology." Also see "computer.faq.draft.ala" for *draft* questions and answers about this policy recommendation. ================= library/computer.faq.draft.ala ================= * DRAFT Q&A about 'Access to Electronic ... Networks ...' (ALA) (Draft) Questions and Answers about the ALA computer policy recommendation (computer.ala). ================= statements/caf-statement ================= * Computer and Academic Freedom Statement -- Draft 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 ================= * Computer and Academic Freedom Statement -- Draft -- 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. ================= statements/bill-of-rights.aahe ================= * Bill of Rights ... for Electronic ... Learners This is the "Bill of Rights and Responsibilities for the Electronic Community of Learners". It could become the first widely endorsed statement directly related to computers and academic freedom. ================= academic/student.freedoms.aaup ================= * Student Freedoms (AAUP) Joint Statement on Rights and Freedoms of Students -- This is the main U.S. statement on student academic freedom. ================= academic/speech_codes.aaup ================= [No annotation available.] ================= academic/academic_freedom.wus ================= [No annotation available.] ================= academic/academic_freedom.can ================= [No annotation available.] ================= policies/netnews.uwm.edu ================= * Edu -- U. of Wisconsin-Milwaukee -- Netnews These are the network policy resolutions developed by the Computer Policy Committee at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. The resolutions were approved by the Committee and forwarded to the Chancellor. They were given final approval by the Chancellor as campus administrative policy (memo dated 02/23/93). They say (to paraphrase) 1) Netnews is important 2) No restrictions should be imposed without wide consultation 3) The principles of intellectual freedom developed for university libraries apply to Netnews material 4) The principles of intellectual freedom developed for publication in traditional media apply to computer media. ================= policies/netnews.uwo.ca ================= * U. of Western Ontario -- Netnews policy It says in part: "In its publications regarding Usenet, CCS should make it clear that the individual user bears the primary responsibility for the material that he or she chooses to send or display on the network or on the University's computer systems." It also specifies a procedure for dealing with challenges to material. ================= news/cafv01n33 ================= [No annotation available.] ================= faq/netnews.reading ================= * Netnews -- Policies on What Users Read q: Should my university remove (or restrict) Netnews newsgroups because some people find them offensive? If it doesn't have the resources to carry all newsgroups, how should newsgroups be selected? a: Material should not be restricted just because it is offensive to ... ================= faq/media.control ================= * University Control of Media 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? a: No. Like any organization, the U.S. government must work within its ... ================= law/rosenberger_v_u_virginia ================= * Expression -- Public Forum -- Rosenberger v. U. of Virginia A 1995 U.S. Supreme Court decision that says that it is illegal for a state univeristy to deny funds to a student newspaper on the grounds that the newspaper is religious. The decision confirms that the government cannot discriminate on the basis of viewpoint in (government-owned)limited public forums. ================= law/san-diego-committee-v-gov-bd ================= * Expression -- Public Forum -- Overview -- San Diego Committee v. Gov Bd Excerpts from San Diego Committee v. Governing Bd., 790 F.2d 1471. A decision by an appellate court that applied the Supreme Court's Public Forum Doctrine (to a school newspaper). ================= law/stanley-v-magrath ================= * Expression -- Public Forum -- Closing -- 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 ================= * Expression -- Offensive -- 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/uwm-post-v-u-of-wisconsin ================= * Expression -- Hate Speech -- 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/rust-v-sullivan ================= * Expression -- Gag Rule -- 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/rav-v-st-paul.1 ================= * Expression -- Hate Speech -- RAV v. St Paul -- 1 The Supreme Court's _R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul_ decision about hate crimes. The Court overturned St. Paul's Bias-Motivated Crime Ordinance, which prohibits the display of a symbol which one knows or has reason to know "arouses anger, alarm or resentment in others on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender." By 9-0, the Court said the law as overly broad. By 5-4, the Court said that the law was also unfairly selective because it only tried to protect some groups. Included: summary, majority opinion, 3 concurring opinions. ================= law/perry-v-perry ================= * Expression -- Public Forum -- Campus Mail -- Perry v. Perry Comments from the ACLU Handbook _The Rights of _Teachers_. It says that campus mail systems (and other school facilities) may or may not be limited public forums depending on how they are managed. (Perry v. Perry was about an interschool mail system that was managed as a nonpublic forum. 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/broadrick-v-oklahoma ================= * Expression -- Vague Regulation -- Broadrick v. Oklahoma, et al. Summary of case law on overly vague regulation of expression. It says a statute is unconstitutionally vague when "men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning." ================= law/naacp-v-button ================= * Expression -- Overbroad Regulation -- NAACP v. Button, et al. Summary of case law on overly broad regulation of expression. It says "[b]ecause First Amendment freedoms need breathing space to survive, government may regulate in the area only with narrow specificity." ================= law/pd-of-chicago-v-mosley ================= * Expression -- Content Regulation -- Police Department of Chicago v. Mosley Summary of case law on content-based regulation of expression. It says that "above all else, the First Amendment means that government has no power to restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content." ================= law/cohen-v-california.4 ================= * Expression -- Regulation of Tone -- Cohen v. California -- 4 A short quote from _Cohen v. California_: "We cannot sanction the view that the constitution, while solicitous of the cognitive content of individual speech, has little or no regard for that emotive function which, practically speaking, may often be the more important element of the overall message sought to be communicated." ================= law/political-speech ================= * Expression -- Academic - Political Speech A letter from the ACLU to Princeton University explaining why a ban on on-line political speech is unnecessary and perhaps illegal. ================= ================= If you have gopher, you can browse the CAF archive with the command gopher gopher.eff.org These document(s) are also 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, and then: cd /pub/CAF/library get computer.ala cd /pub/CAF/library get computer.faq.draft.ala cd /pub/CAF/statements get caf-statement cd /pub/CAF/statements get caf-statement.critique cd /pub/CAF/statements get bill-of-rights.aahe cd /pub/CAF/academic get student.freedoms.aaup cd /pub/CAF/academic get speech_codes.aaup cd /pub/CAF/academic get academic_freedom.wus cd /pub/CAF/academic get academic_freedom.can cd /pub/CAF/policies get netnews.uwm.edu cd /pub/CAF/policies get netnews.uwo.ca cd /pub/CAF/news get cafv01n33 cd /pub/CAF/faq get netnews.reading cd /pub/CAF/faq get media.control cd /pub/CAF/law get rosenberger_v_u_virginia cd /pub/CAF/law get san-diego-committee-v-gov-bd cd /pub/CAF/law get stanley-v-magrath cd /pub/CAF/law get student-publications.misc cd /pub/CAF/law get uwm-post-v-u-of-wisconsin cd /pub/CAF/law get rust-v-sullivan cd /pub/CAF/law get rav-v-st-paul.1 cd /pub/CAF/law get perry-v-perry cd /pub/CAF/law get broadrick-v-oklahoma cd /pub/CAF/law get naacp-v-button cd /pub/CAF/law get pd-of-chicago-v-mosley cd /pub/CAF/law get cohen-v-california.4 cd /pub/CAF/law get political-speech To get the file(s) by email, send email to ftpmail@decwrl.dec.com Include the line(s): connect ftp.eff.org cd /pub/CAF/library get computer.ala cd /pub/CAF/library get computer.faq.draft.ala cd /pub/CAF/statements get caf-statement cd /pub/CAF/statements get caf-statement.critique cd /pub/CAF/statements get bill-of-rights.aahe cd /pub/CAF/academic get student.freedoms.aaup cd /pub/CAF/academic get speech_codes.aaup cd /pub/CAF/academic get academic_freedom.wus cd /pub/CAF/academic get academic_freedom.can cd /pub/CAF/policies get netnews.uwm.edu cd /pub/CAF/policies get netnews.uwo.ca cd /pub/CAF/news get cafv01n33 cd /pub/CAF/faq get netnews.reading cd /pub/CAF/faq get media.control cd /pub/CAF/law get rosenberger_v_u_virginia cd /pub/CAF/law get san-diego-committee-v-gov-bd cd /pub/CAF/law get stanley-v-magrath cd /pub/CAF/law get student-publications.misc cd /pub/CAF/law get uwm-post-v-u-of-wisconsin cd /pub/CAF/law get rust-v-sullivan cd /pub/CAF/law get rav-v-st-paul.1 cd /pub/CAF/law get perry-v-perry cd /pub/CAF/law get broadrick-v-oklahoma cd /pub/CAF/law get naacp-v-button cd /pub/CAF/law get pd-of-chicago-v-mosley cd /pub/CAF/law get cohen-v-california.4 cd /pub/CAF/law get political-speech