Computers and Academic Freedom (news version) August 25, 1991 Vol. 1, No. 23 Editor: Carl M. Kadie (kadie@eff.org) Circulation: William W. Arnold (caf-talk-request@eff.org, warnold@eff.org) Publication: Helen C. O'Boyle (helen@eff.org) To contribute to the list, send email to "caf-talk@eff.org". Your note will appear immediately on the caf-talk mailing list and in the alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk newsgroup. Back issues are available via anonymous ftp to eff.org. The directory is academic/news. Best-of-the-month issues are available as files April, May, June, and July. Abstracts of CAF-news are in file academic/abstracts. Disclaimer: This CAF-news was compiled by me, Carl M. Kadie. It is not an EFF publication. The views I express and editorial decisions I make are my own. [This week's note continues the discussion on freedom of expression on (public) university computers. The first five notes discuss issues in the abstract. In the first note, a sys admin argues that sys admins and computers cannot be expected to follow library procedures unless computers are funded like libraries and sys admins are given academic status like academic librarians. In the second note a student says that Netnews is much like other small student publications he has worked on (and so should be treated like other student publications). The next note is an exchange about government funding of personally objectionable material. The poster says that contributing a small price to shared channels (roads, libraries, networks) is worthwhile because it helps "to ensure freedom of communication, movement, and other activity that ultimately benefits everybody,...". The fourth note discusses when an sys admin would be obliged to let a user use a computer for some expressive purpose. The fifth note points out the need for an authorative answer to question of "when is a university-owned computer properly regarded as an instrument of free expression?" The next note changes the topic a bit. In it, a student (me), says that like academic, library, and parking policy, university computer policy should be in the main student handbook. The last five notes discuss the Netnews policy of the Engineering Computing Center of the University of Kentucky. In the first note, a sys admin explains that his site doesn't allow games and doesn't support Netnews. He says that one reason that they dropped Netnews was because their Dean received mail complaining about the postings of several users. He says that when they upgrade their hardware they may support Netnews but will not carry the alt.sex newsgroup because minors might be able to access it. The next note says that cutting off all Netnews access (in part) because of complaints amounts to censorship by the University of Kentucky. In the third note, a sys admin suggests that a university's safest bet may sometimes be to improperly censor a student. The second-to-last note criticizes the decision deny adults access to alt.sex and advocates use of a selection policy of the type traditional libraries use. In the last note, the U. of Kentucky sys admin explains that their decision not to carry alt.sex is not based on legal concerns but rather on a desire to avoid bad publicity and "complaints up and down the administrative hierarchy". - Carl] In this issue: Sanjay Kapur 112 >Free Forum vs. Class-Work Only machines Paul Moloney 46 >Netnews censorship at U. of Kentucky jim thomas 18 >Free Forum vs. Class-Work Only machines M. K. Thakur 118 >Free Forum vs. Class-Work<>.024550.22138@mp.cs.niu.edu> J Greely 17 >Free Forum vs. Class-Work Only machines Carl M. Kadie 32 Computer Policy in the Student Handbook Wes Morgan 96 >I don't get it. Carl M. Kadie 64 >Netnews censorship at U. of Kentucky Sanjay Kapur 32 >Netnews censorship at U. <>cky (was Re: I don't get it.) Carl M. Kadie 96 - Wes Morgan 76 >Verifying users, was Re: I don't get it. The addresses for the list are: comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org - for contributions to the list or caf-talk@eff.org listserv@eff.org - for automated additions/deletions (send email with the line "help" for details.) caf-talk-request@eff.org - for administrivia Also, if you read newsgroups, look for alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk and alt.comp.acad-freedom.news. Date: Sun, 18 Aug 1991 21:57 EDT From: Sanjay Kapur Message-Id: <2F0D768BFC00965B@ccmail.sunysb.edu> Subject: Re: Free Forum vs. Class-Work Only machines >From: Diane Kovacs > >re: >>I would agree that a computing resource is closely analogous to library >>under one condition: >> ONLY WHEN IT IS FUNDED IN AN ANALOGOUS MANNER TO A LIBRARY. > >>Most computing facilities are funded as laboratories rather than libraries and >>so follow laboratory rules rather than library rules. > >Sanjay, et al, This is nonsense. Many computer facilities are adminstered by >the same provost or vice president as the libraries are. In fact I've observed >the library and the computer facilities competing for funds and space. >At several institutions the library and the academic computer facilities are >part of the same organization. > I think we agree that those computing facilities funded as libraries should be open as libraries. You are neglecting those computing facilities that are NOT so funded. >I think that a crucial distinction needs to be made between "administrative" >computer facilities and "academic computer facilities" It is my opinion that >the administrative computer facilities need to be governed by the same >security principles as the filing cabinets and offices of the registrar and >accounting departments. If this is a problem for you then keep the facilities >seperate...The military does know how to handle this...they put security stuff >on computers off the network but I've noticed that they provide e-mail access >to the network at many of their sites. I've got several military persons on >my lists. > >Academic computer facilities have an a different reason for being >than adminstrative computer facilities.... What about research computing facilities that you do not talk at all about? What about departmental computers which are used for both administrative purposes and academic purposes? What about mainframe computers which an instituition can not afford to buy multiples of? The military is rich and at times wasteful and should not be cited as an example for a University to follow. > >When was the last time you visited the library? Cd-Roms, Internet access >terminals, microcomputer networks with connections to the bitnet/internet, >Computer assisted Instruction laboratories, bibliographic and full-text >databases? Not all Universities are that advanced and I have five CD-ROM players (1 on my PC and 4 on my VAXstation) in my office. Only very few CD-ROM titles (relative to print) exist. Because of the cost of the databases, it is often impractical for a library to buy more than a few anyway. >We use the networks as a reference source for our faculty. (Isaac Asimov >is describing the academic library of 1991 in the book _Prelude to >Foundation_ when Hari Seldon goes to the University on Trantor to use >the library) > To quote you from above: This is nonsense. That kind of reference information does not yet exist. >The academic computer facilities *are* like libraries, in fact there >a number of parallels (texts,databases, information services,. etc.) >Libraries *are* "laboratories" for learning. They are just not funded that way: That is my complaint. > What the He double toothpicks >do you think libraries are for anyway?...They are for research and exploration >and discovery and this is key..ensuring that the current generation of students >has access to the accumulated knowledge of the past and current explorers and >discoverers...that is what the mission or raison d'etre of the entire >university is supposed to be...just read some of the words engraved on the >older buildings on your campus...or the land grant agreement if you are at >a land grant university. > I know you are waxing philosophical but lets get back to earth. My main complaint is that sufficient number of computing sites are NOT treated as libraries are treated when it comes to funding and are forced because of University politics to charge access fees and usage fees. You may want to read some of my postings on this list about four months back when I was arguing that Computing Facilities ought to be treated like libraries for all purposes not just one. Computing Facilities should 1) not be Forced to charge access and usage fees. 2) get funded like libraries 3) have freedom of choosing what hardware/software should be used just as a librarian chooses books/software/hardware. Also Systems staff (people like me) should get the same privileges as Librarians do (e.g. most Universities give Librarians Faculty status and a 9 month academic year work schedule) >Speaking as a Librarian, > Obviously. >Diane Sanjay Kapur |Internet: Sanjay.Kapur@sunysb.edu Systems Staff, Computing Services, |Bitnet: SKAPUR@USB State University of New York, |SPAN/HEPnet: 44132::SKAPUR Stony Brook, NY 11794-2400 |Phone:(516)632-8029, FAX:(516)632-8046 Date: 23 Aug 91 21:19:43 GMT From: pmoloney@unix1.tcd.ie (Paul Moloney) Message-Id: References: <1991Aug22.155144.21136@ms.uky.edu>, <1991Aug22.184036.20080@eff.org>, <1991Aug23.150637.11652@ms.uky.edu> Subject: Re: Netnews censorship at U. of Kentucky morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes: >Each student is his own paper? Interesting; you want to compare NetNews >access to student newspapers and student organizations, but you don't want >there to be a "checks and balances" system until due process gets involved? >Student organizations have officers and advisors, and student newspapers >and magazines have editorial boards and advisors; can you really group >them together with a "one-man" NetNews paper? Probably. Here in Trinity I edit, along with three others, a College magazine. You could argue that four people make an 'editorial board', but several other magazines here are edited (and some, indeed, written) by one person. By the way, of the four editors, three have had their access to news removed at one stage or another. The fourth never posts. I wonder is there a genetic correllation or something? Or are we Editors just Too Dangerous To Live????? (ta-dah) In my opinion, Usenet _does_ resemble a magazine that anyone can write to. For that reason, there should be freedom of opinion there, without restraint, except of course by the law of the land (libel and slander should of course apply to Usenet as well as to any other publication. The realities of actually enforcing libel suits against someone halfway across the globe are another matter - a matter for the law, not for the university.) The problem with the university, business, whatever being liable for whatever is written seems to me to be a misunderstanding by the law as to what the computer's function is as regards Usenet. If there exists a magazine to which anyone can mail articles (I use mail here in the Postman Pat sense of the word), then of course the postal service shouldn't be liable for any slander suits - the person who mailed the articles should be. Likewise with Usenet. The computer, that the university had provided to you, is only a means of _accessing_ Usenet. The same a postbox or a phone is to a regular magazine. Opinions? Or an I talking bullshit (it _is_ quite late here)? P. -- moorcockheathersiainbankshamandcornpizzapjorourkebluesbrothersspikeleepratchett clive P a u l M o l o n e y "Lines of light ranged in the nonspace of the rem james Trinity College, Dublin mind." PMOLONEY%VAX1.TCD.IE@PUCC.PRINCETON.EDU vr brownbladerunnerorsonscottcardprincewatchmenkatebushbatmanthekillingjoketolkien Date: Sun, 18 Aug 1991 21:53:50 GMT From: tk0jut1@mp.cs.niu.edu (jim thomas) Message-Id: <1991Aug18.215350.21835@mp.cs.niu.edu> References: Subject: Re: Free Forum vs. Class-Work Only machines In article comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org writes: > >What I strongly object to is being forced to pay your expenses either directly >or indirectly (through taxes, tuition etc.) while you make a speech or >publish something I happen to disagree with. I object to KKK types travelling on public roads that I've paid for to my meetings, to some library material that I pay for, and to a long list of other stuff. But, we are an interconnected society, and to ensure freedom of communication, movement, and other activitity that ultimately benefits everybody, shared channels to which we all contribute are a small price. Given the importance of information production and dissemination, "free" net access is as important as "free" highways. Yes, they cost money, but it's a shared expense with massive benefits, and available to everybody. Jim Thomas Date: Wed, 21 Aug 91 11:25:30 EDT Sender: "Manavendra K. Thakur" Message-Id: <9108211525.AA01871@zerkalo.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: Free Forum vs. Class-Work Only machines <1991Aug21.024550.22138@mp.cs.niu.edu> >>>>> On Wed, 21 Aug 1991 02:45:50 GMT, rickert@cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert) said: >>"[Question:] Can students use school facilities such a bulletin >>boards, loudspeakers, mimeograph machines, and meeting rooms to >>express their views? >> >>[Answer:] If the use of these school facilities for expression of >>student views would not be likely to disrupt regular school >>activities, students should be able to use them. However, a school >>may legitimately refuse to allow students to use its mimeograph >>machine if, for example, it is used all day long in the preparation >>of course material. If the loudspeaker is used only for school >>business, such as the announcement of school activities, program >>changes, and special events, a court would probably hold that >>student groups may legally be prevented from using for the >>expression of particular opinions. On the other hand, facilities >>such as bulletin boards should present no problem since space for >>the use of students can almost always be made available. > If you really believe this garbage, I suggest you file a law suit > against every school in the USA, for they all violate this. It is > common to not make mimeographs available to students, even when they > are not used all day long for preparation of class material. It is > common to have some bulletin boards for administrative use and not > permit students to post to these bulletin boards. It is common to > have some bulletin boards restricted to particular topics (say > arranging rides into town, or finding housing) and to only allow > students to post to these bulleting boards if they keep to these > restricted topics. Yet each of these very common practices clearly > violates the principles you apparently believe in. Neil, Neil, ease up for a moment, would you? Carl's quotation didn't imply that ALL students have the right to access ALL school facilities ALL the time. Look again at what Carl quoted and what you said (I'll concentrate on the statements about bulletin boards): Carl's quotation: facilities such as bulletin boards should present no problem since space for the use of students can almost always be made available. Your response: It is common to have some bulletin boards restricted to particular topics (say arranging rides into town, or finding housing) and to only allow students to post to these bulleting boards if they keep to these restricted topics. Please correct me if I'm wrong; it seems to me that you and Carl are saying the same thing. Carl is saying that it would be unjustified to completely ban students >from using bulletin boards since additional bulletin board space for student use can "almost always be made available." You are saying that schools commonly allocate bulletin board space (a resource, if you will) for specific purposes. Both of you are right! And to my mind, neither of you are contradicting each other. You're simply saying the same thing, albeit in different ways. Perhaps the misunderstanding arises from the inherent ambiguity of the phrase "... should present no problem ..." in Carl's quotation. Most likely, you interpreted this to mean that students cannot be denied access to any bulletin board space no matter what. Most likely, Carl did not mean this at all; rather, he was pointing out that barring students from using all bulletin boards in general is an abuse of legitimate administrative control over resources. The irony of all this is that the thrust of Carl's quotation actually affirms the validity of administrative control over resources! I've been following this list since it began, and not once have I read anything written or quoted by Carl that says institutions cannot maintain administrative control over their resources. What I've heard Carl arguing over and over is that administrative control is a legitimate function of academic institutions and that such administrative control must be done in a manner that is fair, equitable, and consistent with widley accepted principles of academic freedom. (Hence Carl's quotation of authoritative statements from various academic organizations, professional societies, etc). I have a hard time believing that anyone could actually disagree with that. So I'm at a loss to understand why these eminently reasonable statments end up getting blown out of proportion and misunderstood. Instead of flaming and hurling venom at each other, can't we try to identify the set of assumptions and understandings being brought into the discussion? Bringing these out into the open would probably eliminate a large proportion of the ill will that seems to be lingering in this newsgroup. Perhaps a good rule of thumb for future discussion in this newsgroup would be to: 1) Assume nothing 2) Ask probing questions to eliminate any ambiguities or misunderstandings and avoid jumping to conclusions Note that I'm not simply asking people to "be nice"; rather, I'm trying to point out that personal invective in this newsgroup (as with any newsgroup) tends to bog down any substantive discussion of the issues at hand. If we could get past all the elements that raise people's hackles, and concentrate instead on what this newsgroup is supposed to be about, maybe we'd all learn something and perhaps even get something constructive accomplished. Manavendra K. Thakur Internet: thakur@zerkalo.harvard.edu Systems Programmer, High Energy Division BITNET: thakur@cfa.BITNET Harvard-Smithsonian Center for DECNET: CFA::thakur Astrophysics UUCP: ...!uunet!mit-eddie!thakur Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1991 10:12:27 GMT From: jgreely@morganucodon.cis.ohio-state.edu (J Greely) Message-Id: References: <1991Aug14.145236.23462@eff.org> Subject: Re: Free Forum vs. Class-Work Only machines In article <1991Aug20.183745.8709@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes: >Here is some more info about students's legal rights to free >expression. Interesting reading. The problem with your use of "proof by authority" is that you're avoiding what I see as the basic issue in this discussion, namely: when is a university-owned computer properly regarded as an instrument of free expression? Your answer seems to be "when it's turned on". "We're not lost. We're locationally challenged." -- J Greely (jgreely@cis.ohio-state.edu; osu-cis!jgreely) Date: Fri, 23 Aug 1991 14:52:58 GMT Sender: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) Message-Id: <1991Aug23.145258.12240@eff.org> Subject: Computer Policy in the Student Handbook At many (most?) universities, a computer organization can suspend or expel a user from the computer for any reason and with no right of appeal. This power is sometimes justified by defining it away. (For example, Due process is only necessary if there is a punishment. Computer expulsion is defined not be a punishment. Therefore, due process is not needed.) Other times, it is justified as an administrative action. But what other university officials have this much unchecked power? At my school, the University of Illinois at Urbana, faculty can punish a student for cheating by (among other things) assigning the student a failing grade. Also, the library can fine a patron for keeping a book too long. In both cases, however, everything is outlined in the student handbook (even the amount of the library fines). Also, the handbook's rules for the classroom and library can not be changed at the whim of the dean or the head librarian. The rules are part of the official University code and all changes must be discussed and approved by the University government and administration. For many students and faculty, computer facilities are now as important as libraries. The time for informal, ad hoc, and local computer policies has passed. It's time to put computer policies in the student handbook. - Carl -- Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu I do not represent EFF; this is just me. Date: 19 Aug 91 14:37:43 GMT From: morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) Message-Id: <1991Aug19.143743.21042@ms.uky.edu> References: <9108172010.AA21385@vega.irus.rri.uwo.ca> Subject: Re: I don't get it. aganguli@irus.rri.uwo.ca (Ami Ganguli) writes: > > My greatist criticism of administrators in general ( and perhaps one >that can be explained away? ) is that many seem to feel that controlling who >accesses the system and for what purposes is a goal unto itself. When you >make a rule against running games or sending personal e-mail or reading alt. >sex, or any of those horrible things that users like to do, do you ever ask >yourself why? > OK, let me explain the rationale behind my site's policies: 1) We do not allow games or game playing. Our systems are used by 1800 students, staff, and faculty members. For about 10 years, our only systems were an AT&T 3B20 and a Harris HCX-7. Anyone with experience on these systems can testify to their computational sloth. There is no such thing as "occasional" game playing when there are 1800 userids on a system. When we profiled the system performance and load, we found that games were burning about 20% of the available CPU time at peak usage. That was unacceptable. 2) We do not support Usenet. At one time, my site participated in Usenet. Several things combined to cause us to drop our feeds: - Disk space. Since we have to give priority to academic use, we did not have the disk space to support a full feed. Rather than provide a "crippled" Usenet, we decided to drop it alto- gether. - Public relations. Several users at my site caused some con- sternation on the net, which resulted in USMail being dispatched to the Dean of our College, as well as to the Director of the computing center. This was not your typical flamage; these users really did "go over the line". - The aforementioned CPU time problem. Usenet was eating huge chunks of CPU time, both in transport and user-interface. Now that we have upgraded our hardware (to StarServer Es and SPARCStations, with an HP-9000 thrown in for good measure), we hope to reestablish our shop as a Usenet site. However, we will not carry certain groups, such as the alt.sex.* hierarchy. Our rationale for this decision is simple: We cannot properly ascertain the identity of our users. We do not have access to personal user data, such as birthdates. We cannot guarantee that user "jqpubl01" is John Q. Public; it might be his roommate, his girlfriend, or his 10-year-old brother. Since many of the discussions and images in the alt.sex hierarchy are oriented towards adults, they should be restricted to adults, just as adult movies and periodicals are restricted. Since we cannot reliably enforce such restrictions, we will not carry those groups at all. > A computer that isn't begin used is a very expensive piece of trash. >If somebody want's to play a game, why not let them? Instead of making a >policy like "thou shalt not play video games", why not just say, "if you're >playing a video game, we have the right to boot you off if somebody else needs >the computer"? That way at least the machine will be used. Because this doesn't work. Can I spend all my time policing the student labs, which are spread all over campus? After I leave at 5 PM, who is going to per- form the "booting"? Students don't listen to other students; the most common reply I've heard in student labs is "F*** off, I was here first". This is hardly an enforceable restriction. > On mainframes, why not check your average cpu usage sometime. Is >it only at 50% ? How's your disk space? 70% ? If so, then why are you >trying to place so many restrictions on your users? Did the university spend >all that money because they wanted a really expensive paperweight? Well, during the school year we usually run at 75% CPU utilization and above. Disk space is usually running at about 85%. Can you imagine what those sta- tistics would look like without our restrictions? > People will generally respect rules if you make them reasonable and >provide some justification. I hope that this has given you some insight into our situation. I don't claim that our restrictions should apply to everyone; the measures I des- cribe here are merely our method of dealing with our situation. When the hardware upgrade is in place, we will reevaluate our restrictions. We've already decided to reimplement our Usenet feed; personally, I hope that we can allow more recreational use of our systems. Our first priority, however, must be the academic users. Best, Wes -- morgan@ms.uky.edu |Wes Morgan, not speaking for| ....!ukma!ukecc!morgan morgan@engr.uky.edu |the University of Kentucky's| morgan%engr.uky.edu@UKCC morgan@ie.pa.uky.edu |Engineering Computing Center| morgan@wuarchive.wustl.edu Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1991 22:45:53 GMT Sender: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) Message-Id: <1991Aug21.224553.10512@eff.org> References: <1991Aug19.143743.21042@ms.uky.edu>, <1991Aug19.211851.14599@eff.org>, <1991Aug21.210341.5322@ms.uky.edu> Subject: Re: Netnews censorship at U. of Kentucky morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes: >The HypeMaster strikes again!! [...] I will try to explain why I think this case is important. >If this were the sole reason, or if Usenet access was only partially >restricted, I would agree with you. In my opinion, a university administrator's opinion that a student's notes are "over the line" should have no bearing on whether Netnews service is continued or discontinued. In my opinion, considering the student's perceived-over-the-lineness is no more legitimate than considering the student's race or religion. >I mentioned three reasons that Usenet was dropped at our site. Carl, >true to his hyperbolic form, seized upon the issue from which the most >mileage could be drawn. I agreed with the legitimacy of two of reasons (#1 and #3). That does not change the legitimacy or illegitimacy of #2. In my opinion, reason #2 deserved condemnation. >A judicious header renaming, and voila! Let's >all cry "censorship" and implicate the entire University!!! In my opinion, a University is responsible for the official actions of its departments and employees. Also, in my opinion, the decision to remove a communication medium because of "over-the-line" content is censorship, even if content is only one factor. Here is my attempt at an analogy: Suppose the University journalism department closes down the student paper 1) mostly because it loses money and 2) in part because the editor is African-American. In my opinion, the University (not just the department) would be guilty of racial discrimination. [...] >As long as the decisions made affect >all users equally, I don't think that it is an issue of censorship. Heck, >I *was* a user of this site when Usenet went away, and I didn't feel >particularly censored; I just found a few other systems and BBSs, >and went my way rejoicing. [...] While it is important to treat users equally, it is not sufficient. Users should also be treated fairly. I believe that this is not just a good idea, but also the law. To quote, "The Rights of Students": "In other cases, courts have barred school officials from cutting off funds to campus newspapers because they disapproved of the newspaper's content. {65} [...] {65} Joyner v. Whiting, 477 F.2d 456 (4th Cir. 1973); Stanley v. Magrath, 719 F.2d 279 (8th Cir. 1983)." - Carl -- Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu I do not represent EFF; this is just me. Date: Tue, 20 Aug 1991 03:31 EDT From: Sanjay Kapur Message-Id: <26E77EDC1C200482@ccmail.sunysb.edu> Subject: Re: Netnews censorship at U. of Kentucky (was Re: I don't get it.) >From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) >After reading edguer@alpha.ces.cwru.edu (Aydin Edguer) note, I take >this back. A fear of legal liability might be a legitimate reason to >deny all users write access to Usenet. But ... > >It is not a reason to deny users read access to Usenet. > >If the troublesome behavior was limited to a few students, it >is unfair to remove everyone's access. Once burnt twice shy is a common rule followed by administrators. > >As far as I know, no university has ever been found liable for >something their students or staff wrote to the net. (I don't >think any university has even been sued.) Universities have, >however, been successfully sued for improperly banning student >expression. The potential for libel damage awards reaching into millions exists. I would be very much interested in the maximum monetary damage awarded a student for improper banishment of free expression. >Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu >I do not represent EFF; this is just me. Sanjay Kapur |Internet: Sanjay.Kapur@sunysb.edu Systems Staff, Computing Services, |Bitnet: SKAPUR@USB State University of New York, |SPAN/HEPnet: 44132::SKAPUR Stony Brook, NY 11794-2400 |Phone:(516)632-8029, FAX:(516)632-8046 Date: Mon, 19 Aug 1991 21:55:39 GMT From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) Message-Id: <1991Aug19.215539.15837@eff.org> Subject: Netnews censorship at U. of Kentucky (was Re: I don't get it.) ~References: <9108172010.AA21385@vega.irus.rri.uwo.ca> <1991Aug19.143743.21042@ms.uky.edu> morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes: [...] >Now that we have upgraded our hardware (to StarServer Es and SPARCStations, >with an HP-9000 thrown in for good measure), we hope to reestablish our shop >as a Usenet site. However, we will not carry certain groups, such as the >alt.sex.* hierarchy. Our rationale for this decision is simple: > We cannot properly ascertain the identity of our users. We do > not have access to personal user data, such as birthdates. We > cannot guarantee that user "jqpubl01" is John Q. Public; it might > be his roommate, his girlfriend, or his 10-year-old brother. Since > many of the discussions and images in the alt.sex hierarchy are > oriented towards adults, they should be restricted to adults, just > as adult movies and periodicals are restricted. Since we cannot > reliably enforce such restrictions, we will not carry those groups > at all. [..] I am happy to hear that the University of Kentucky will be restoring Netnews. I am sorry to hear that the University has banned alt.sex.*. Most recent censorship attempts claim to be modivated by a desire to protect childern. But, in fact, they deny materials to adults. [This case is mostly from memory] When the FCC tried to ban all dial-a-porn (to protect childern), the Supreme Court struck the rule down (Sable Communications v. FCC ?). It said that there were other ways to protect children that did not require banning the material. What law in Kentucky are you in fear of? Does it really say that if you cannot reliably enforce restrictions on children, you can not carry alt.sex.*? How does it define reliable? How does it define adult-oriented material? If you want to be selective about what newsgroups you subscribe to, I suggest that you create a netnews selection policy with the help of the librarians at the U. of Kentucky. You may be suprised to discover that U. of Kentucky already owns much adult-oriented material and that it does not restrict access to that material based on age. If you want to read about selection policy, I recommend these books: Censorship and Selection: Issues and Answers for Schools Before and After the Censor: a Resource Manual on Intellectual Freedom Intellectual Freedom Manual (full references in <1991Aug15.200628.27084@eff.org>) Finally, read over this: Library Bill of Rights The American Library Association affirms that all libraries are forums for information and ideas, and that the following basic policies should guide their services. 1. Books and other library resources should be provided for the interest, information, and enlightenment of all people of the community the library serves. Materials should not be excluded because of the origin, background, or views of those contributing to their creation. 2. Libraries should provide materials and information presenting all points of view on current and historical issues. Materials should not be proscribed or removed because of partisan or doctrinal disapproval. 3. Libraries should challenge censorship in the fulfillment of their responsibility to provide information and enlightenment. 4. Libraries should cooperate with all persons and groups concerned with resisting abridgment of free expression and free access to ideas. 5. A person's right to use a library should not be denied or abridged because of origin, age, background, or views. 6. Libraries which make exhibit spaces and meeting rooms available to the public they serve should make such facilities available on an equitable basis, regardless of the beliefs or affiliations of individuals or groups requesting their use. Adopted June 18, 1948. Amended February 2, 1961, June 27, 1967, and January 23, 1980, by the ALA Council. -- Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu I do not represent EFF; this is just me. Date: 23 Aug 91 15:21:39 GMT From: morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) Message-Id: <1991Aug23.152139.15501@ms.uky.edu> References: <8cge2vm00WDJ0=eFBu@andrew.cmu.edu>, <1991Aug21.215723.17260@ms.uky.edu>, Subject: Re: Verifying users, was Re: I don't get it. sm6h+@andrew.cmu.edu (Stephen P. Marting) writes: >morgan@ms.uky.edu (that's me) writes: >> >>Yes, but JQP's parents aren't going to care about that. The only >>thing which will hold their attention is the fact that JQP's little >>brother was pulling down GIFs of Traci Lords or reading about the >>latest Swedish Erotica catalog. They won't blame JQP for giving >>out his password; they'll rail, in righteous anger, about public >>schools carrying "pornography". It's already happened; it will >>happen again, regardless of any policy you care to develop. The >>best solution is to can alt.sex.* and the like entirely. As has >>been mentioned several times, they are usually available from several >>other systems that aren't my concern. > >It has happened? And what were the results of these cases? Has a >school ever been successfully sued for "allowing" one of their students >to perform an illegal act? It is not a question of lawsuits; I didn't even mention legal action. It's a question of letters to the editor, pickets, complaints up and down the adminstrative hierarchy, and general nastiness. It's a question of reporters such as Joe Abernathy of the Houston Chronicle; remember his articles about the "govenment-sponsored porno ring", otherwise known as alt.sex? It's a question of the folks holding the moneybags asking probing questions about "why you have this stuff on your systems". None of this requires legal action, and some of it never sees the light of day, but it happens. >Sounds like CMU could be sued if I give some underage freshman alcohol >and (s)he falls down and hits his/her head - being as I'm only 19 myself. This case would be different, because CMU didn't provide the alcohol. In our hypothetical case, however, they would have provided the item of contention (alt.sex, alt.drugs, whatever). >And if it's available from other sites, and those other sites can be >reached from your stations, then what would be the difference in the >situation you described? The difference is in the presentation of the material. My shop would provide neither the material nor pointers to other sources. If the student took it upon himself to find out how to get it, that's his problem, not mine. If you use my car to drive down and buy some crack, do I get arrested? >c) Johnny gives Jimmy his password - legally. Jimmy connects to an >outside news server (default for Johnny's account) and a) more or less >happens. That's the difference; we don't advertise an outside news server. We don't support an outside news server. We don't point people to an outside news server. If they discover it on their own, it's their problem. >Yes, of course you'll say that if giving out passwords is *always* >illegal, then the school may be protected just as well in b) and c) as >it is in a). You would probably be right. But just how far are you >willing to compromise the abilites of your users just to CYA in some >hypothetical situation that you heard happened to some school out there >somewhere (just a point - do you have facts about the supposed lawsuits >or is it a bit of UL?)? "We don't have ftp, rn, or even email. Hey, >man, that stuff's *dangerous*." I never said anything about lawsuits; please read what I post before accusing me of spouting ULs. Nor do I compromise the abilities of my users. They have full access to telnet, ftp, and email. If, through some combination of those, they find other services elsewhere, it really isn't my concern, since I'm not the provider of those services. I just give them the keys to a car; where they drive it is their responsibility. -- morgan@ms.uky.edu |Wes Morgan, not speaking for| ....!ukma!ukecc!morgan morgan@engr.uky.edu |the University of Kentucky's| morgan%engr.uky.edu@UKCC morgan@ie.pa.uky.edu |Engineering Computing Center| morgan@wuarchive.wustl.edu