Computers and Academic Freedom (news version) September 1, 1991 Vol. 1, No. 24 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. The CAF archive is also available via email. For information, send email to archive-server@eff.org. Include the lines "help" and "index". 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 we (finally) seem to get a handle on the likely legal status of Netnews at public universities. The first note quotes a court decision that explains and applies the Supreme Court's public forum doctrine. Under this doctrine, Netnews and email (but not necessarily the computer as a whole) seem to be "limited-public forums". The second note points out that under this analysis sys admins legally *can* select which Netnews newsgroups their site will acquire. The third says that Netnews newsgroups *should* be selected much the way that librarians select material. Also it includes a discussion of whether Netnews should be considered a single forum and a collection of many forums. The next six notes concern a site's responsibility for the content of Netnews. The first note explains why a sys admin may not want to carry a controversial newsgroup such as alt.sex. The reasons include fear of criticism (and lawsuits) and fear of obscenity and pantering laws. The next note suggests that alt.sex has a valid purpose, namely to "provide an open (unmoderated) forum to express views and questions about sex". The third note argues that while obscenity and pantering laws do exist, they are not as broad as some may imagine. Also, it reports that the American Library Association fights official access restrictions based on age. The fourth note, quoting a law book, argues that a public university's sponsorship of a student publication does not makes it the "unfettered master" of content. The fifth note, quoting the same law book, says that public schools can not legally withdraw sponsorship of student publications "simply because of displeasure with the content." The sixth note tries to answer the question of how public schools should address their concerns about libel and obscenity in student publications. Quoting from the same book, the note says that prior restraints are generally forbidden, but "[s]tudents can be punished and publications confiscated if the material distributed ... is libelous or obscene ..." The last two notes are about due process and the a sys admin's need for flexibility. The first note quotes a (different) law book that reports that due process requirements have not "turned classrooms and schools into courtrooms". It also explains that some due process is legally required unless the matter is trivial (or there is an emergency). At some schools, a student will be suspended from the computer anytime the computer administration wants the student to meet with them. In the last note, a sys admin says such suspensions should not be used until reasonable attempts to set up a meeting have failed. The note also gives examples of when a sys admin needs flexibility. - Carl] In this issue: Carl M. Kadie 213 Taxonomy of forums (was Re: Toward a taxonomy ... of alt.s Wes Morgan 110 > Wes Morgan 46 > Wes Morgan 63 >Toward a taxonomy of arguments for censorship of alt.sex Stephen Marting 25 >Why does alt.sex exist? Carl M. Kadie 39 > I don't get it. Carl M. Kadie 54 >Toward a taxonomy of arguments for censorship of alt.sex Carl M. Kadie 33 >Netnews censorship at U. of Kentucky Carl M. Kadie 49 > Carl M. Kadie 80 >Computer Policy in the Student Handbook rickert@cs.niu 85 > 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. Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk Path: eff!kadie From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) Subject: Taxonomy of forums (was Re: Toward a taxonomy ... of alt.sex) Message-ID: <1991Aug29.202609.17233@eff.org> Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation References: <8FC1B522C8807487@ccmail.sunysb.edu> Date: Thu, 29 Aug 1991 20:26:09 GMT Lines: 212 SKAPUR@ccmail.sunysb.edu (Sanjay Kapur) writes: [...] >The simple solution is for all systems administrators to explicitly state at >account assignment time that the computer is not a "free speech forum". >(This is already implied if the account is for research or class use.) >Also, the argument that Netnews access is a "student publication" is not a >valid argument. (The Berkeley OCF is the only "student publication"/"free >speech forum" that I know off. I personally believe that this is the proper >and constitutionally protected approach to the free speech question.) >Both the above arguments make the case cited by Carl inapplicable in the case >of a University owned instructional computing facility. [...] Here is some info about to free speech forums at public universities. It outlines the different types of forums and the rules for each one. This is from _The Freedom to Publish_ edited by Haig A. Bosmajian. Published by Neal-Schuman Publishers 1989. It is part of the First Amendment in the Classroom series. All the books in the series are edited by Bosmajian. Each book is just a collection of court decisions. Other books in the series include _The Freedom to Read books, Films, and Plays_, _Freedom of Religion_, _Freedom of Expression_, _Academic Freedom_, _Freedom to Publish_. In San Diego Committee v. Governing Bd., 790 F.2d 1471 (1986), a high school board rejected an anti-draft advertisement that the San Diego Committee Against Registration and the Draft (CARD) wanted to place in student newspapers. The Court said: --- begin quote-- CARD's advertisement comes within the boundaries of the limited public forum the Board has created. Having established a limited public forum the Board cannot, absent a compelling governmental interest, exclude speech otherwise within the boundaries of the forum.... In particular, the Board cannot allow the presentation of one side of an issue, but prohibit the presentation of the other side ... Here, the board permitted mixed political and commercial speech advocating military service, but attempted to bar the same type of speech opposing interest justifying its conduct. Accordingly, the Board violated the First Amendment when it excluded CARD's advertisements from the newspapers. [...] The Board has failed to advance any reasonable grounds for excluding CARD's advertisement from the newspapers. Accordingly, even if we assume that the newspapers are a nonpublic forum, that is, the type of forum which receives the least protection under the First Amendment, we must conclude that the Board violated the guarantees of that amendment when it prevented the publication of CARD's advertisement. -end quote--- Here is some more about the different kinds of forums. (This is from the same decision). -- begin quote --- III. THE PUBLIC FORUM DOCTRINE AND THE FIRST AMENDMENT [...] The values embodied in the First Amendment require the state, under certain circumstances, to provide members of the public with access to its facilities for purpose of speech. Certain state facilities, which may be appropriately used for communication, enjoy special constitution status as "public forums." [...references...] In these public forums, the First Amendment narrowly circumscribes the government's power to exclude or regulate speech. Of course, a state's mere ownership or control of a facility does not, in itself, guarantee access under the First Amendment. [... references ...] Similarly, merely permitting public access to a government facility does not necessarily open it for use as a public forum. [... references ...] However, even with respect to nonpublic forums, the state may not act unreasonably. _Cornelius_, 105 S.Ct at 3448. In _Perry_ and _Cornelius_, the Supreme Court identified three types of forums to which the public's right to access varies, as does the type of limitations the state may impose upon the right. The Court first focused on "places which by long tradition or by government fiat have been devoted to assembly and debate," such as streets and parks, where "the rights of the state to limit expressive activity are sharply circumscribed. [...references...] The Court stated that "{i}n these quintessential public forums, the government may not prohibit all communicative activity. For the state to enforce a content-based exclusion it mush show that its regulation is necessary to serve a compelling state interest and that it is narrowly drawn to achieve that end. The state may also enforce regulations of the time, place and manner of expression which are content-neutral, are narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest, and leave open amble alternative channels for communcations. _Perry_ [...reference...]" The second type of public forum on which the Court focused consists of "public property which the State has opened for use by the public as a place for expressive activity." [refs] The courts have come to call this type of public forum a "limited public forum" or a "public forum by designation." In such a forum, "{t}he Constitution forbids a state to enforce certain exclusions from a forum generally open to the public even if it was not required to create the forum in the first place." [refs] A limited public forum may, depending on its nature and the nature of the state's actions, be open to the general public for the discussion of all topics, or there may be limitations on the groups allowed to use the forums or the topics that can be discussed. Thus, a limited public forum may be open to certain groups for the discussion if any topic, [ref] or to the entire public for the discussion of certain topics, [ref] or some combination of the two. Once the state has created a limited public forum, its ability to impose further constraints on the type of speech permitted in that forum is quite restricted: "{a}lthough a State is not required to indefinitely retain the open character of the facility, as long as it does so it is bound by the same standards as apply in a traditional public forum. Reasonable time, place, and manner regulations are permissible, and a content-based prohibition must be narrowly drawn to effectuate a compelling state interest." [refs] "Thus the identical broad free speech rights attach to the first and second types of public forums, [ref]although in the latter type of forums those broad rights apply only within the particular boundaries of the specific forum that has been established. The third type of forum is "{p}ublic property ... which is not by tradition or designation a forum for public communications," [ref] such as a military base or jail. The Court recognized that this type of forum is governed by standard different from those applicable to the first two. The Court stated that "{i}n addition to time, place, and manner regulations, the state may reserve the forum for its intended purposes, communicative or otherwise, as long as that regulation on speech is _reasonable_". [ref] "The existence of reasonable grounds for limiting access to a nonpublic forum, however, will not save a regulation that is in reality a facade for viewpoint-based discrimination." _Cornelius_, 105 S.Ct. at 3454. IV. SCHOOL NEWSPAPERS AS A LIMITED PUBLIC FORUM The Board first contends that the school newspaper falls into the third category of forums, nonpublic forums. We disagree, and hold that the newspapers fall into the second category, limited pubic forums. In deciding whether a particular forum is a limited public forum or a nonpublic forum, we must determine what type of forum the government intended to created. [ref] The government's intent is evidenced by "{its} policy and practice ... {as well as} the nature of the property and its compatibility with expressive activity." [ref] In the case before use, the evidence clearly indicates an intent to create a limited public forum. Newspapers, including the Board's are devoted entirely to expressive activity. Everything that appears in a newspaper is speech, whether commercial, political, artistic, or some other type. It is difficult to think of any other kind of property that is more compatible with expressive activity. In addition, the admitted policy and practice of the Board is to allow a particular group -- the students -- to discuss any topic in the newspapers, subject only to certain conditions not relevant to the issues before us. Thus, under the test enumerated in _Cornelius_, the Board's newspapers, like most other school papers constitute, at a minimum, a limited public forum of the type found in _Widmar_. [ref] [...] Thus, the Board has allowed certain members of the public -- various military recruiters -- to use its newspapers to engage in speech that is not essentially commercial in nature but that combines elements of political and commercial speech. As a result, the Board's _actual_ policy and practice leads, under _Cornelius_, to the conclusion that the Board has established the school newspapers as a limited public forum in which students can discuss any topic, and in which non-students can engage in commercial speech generally and in speech which is both political and commercial with respect to at least on important and highly controversial topic -- military service. Because the Board on a number of occasions permitted the publication of advertisements advocating military service, there can be no question by that the Board intended to open the newspapers for advertisements on this topic -- at least by one side to the debate. [...] B. Viewpoint-Based Discrimination Furthermore, it appears that the Board was engaging in viewpoint-based discrimination. By allowing the publication of the military recruitment advertisements, the Board allowed the presentation of one side of a highly controversial issue. The Board provided a forum to those who advocated military service. The Board then refused, without a valid reason, to allow those who oppose military service to use the same forum. The only reasonable inference is that the Board was engaging in viewpoint discrimination. As the Supreme Court has stated, "{t}o permit one side of a debatable public question to have a monopoly in expressing its views ... is the antithesis of constitutional guarantees." _City of Madison_ [refs] In other words, "the First Amendment means that the government has no power to restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content. _Bolger v. Youngs Drug Products Corp_ [ref]. Viewpoint-based discrimination is not permitted even in a non-public forum. _Cornelius_ [ref]. Accordingly, the Board's viewpoint discrimination provides a second ground for holding that even if the school newspapers do not constitute a public forum, the Board violated the First Amendment in excluding CARD's advertisement. -- Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu I do not represent EFF; this is just me. Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk Path: eff!iWarp.intel.com!uunet!wupost!ukma!morgan From: morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) Subject: Re: Taxonomy of forums (was Re: Toward a taxonomy ... of alt.sex) Message-ID: <1991Aug29.215250.22926@ms.uky.edu> Organization: The Puzzle Palace, UKentucky References: <8FC1B522C8807487@ccmail.sunysb.edu> <1991Aug29.202609.17233@eff.org> Date: Thu, 29 Aug 1991 21:52:50 GMT Lines: 109 kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes: >Certain state facilities, which >may be appropriately used for communication, enjoy special >constitution status as "public forums." [...references...] I could argue that, since many computer systems were purchased for "academic use only", they do not enjoy "public forum" status. >The Court first >focused on "places which by long tradition or by government fiat have >been devoted to assembly and debate," such as streets and parks, I don't think that a computer system would enjoy this status, regardless of the growth of Usenet, IRC, email, and the like. Access to many systems is granted on the basis of *individual* services. Can we consider a com- puter system, in and of itself, to be "devoted to assembly and debate"? >The second type of public forum on which the Court focused consists of >"public property which the State has opened for use by the public as a >place for expressive activity." Again, computing services are often provided for academic use, i.e. study and/or research. I don't know of a case where a computer system has been opened by the State specifically for "expressive activity". Some systems may have evolved into such a beast, but I don't know of any which enjoyed such a status since its inception. I would agree that the addition of a usenet feed to a given com- puter system might confer upon that system the status of a "limited public forum". In anticipation of such a status, let's look at the next paragraph: >A limited public forum may, depending on its nature and >the nature of the state's actions, be open to the general public for >the discussion of all topics, I would suggest that this grants the state, as represented by the individual systems' administrators, to start a Usenet feed. >or there may be limitations on the >groups allowed to use the forums or the topics that can be discussed. Surprise!! Am I correct in interpreting this as a license to "tailor" my Usenet feed? Doesn't this imply that I could, at the outset, decide which newsgroups would or would not be available in the "limited public forum" that is the computer system? >Thus, a limited public forum may be open to certain groups for the >discussion if any topic, [ref] or to the entire public for the >discussion of certain topics, [ref] or some combination of the two. Let's embark on another logical chain: - We have determined in previous discussions that access to computer systems may be limited to a particular sec- tion of the public (i.e., students/faculty/staff, mem- bers of a particular part of the University (Engineering, Computer Science, whatever), and the like). - I have argued, using this ruling, that a given computer system does not qualify as a "quintessential public forum". This interpretation, as always, is subject to debate. - However, I have argued, from this ruling, that the addition of Usenet to a computer system may grant it status as a "limited public forum", according to the decision cited above. - The paragraph quoted above grants the state the right to determine the topics that will be subject to discussion in the "limited public forum". To me, it seems that this ruling explicitly gives me the right, as an agent of the State, to determine the content of the "limited public forum" (i.e., Usenet) which I wish to make available to the public. >Once the state has created a limited public forum, its ability to >impose further constraints on the type of speech permitted in that >forum is quite restricted: As well it should be. Of course, if I choose not to offer a particular newsgroup FROM THE OUTSET, it would seem that I am protected in that choice by this precedent. >The third type of forum is "{p}ublic property ... which is not by >tradition or designation a forum for public communications," [ref] >such as a military base or jail. I could make the argument that a computer system is not "by tradition or designation a forum for public communications". It is primarily designated as a computational service. Any public communcation tools, such as email or Usenet, might be considered secondary to the computing mission. >Because >the Board on a number of occasions permitted the publication of >advertisements advocating military service, there can be no question >by that the Board intended to open the newspapers for advertisements >on this topic -- at least by one side to the debate. If I do not provide a particular newsgroup FROM THE OUTSET of news service, this wouldn't apply to my news feed. Netiher side of a particular newsgroup discussion would enjoy access to my system. I think I'm covered. -- 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 Path: eff!iWarp.intel.com!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wupost!tulane!ukma!morgan From: morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk Subject: Re: Taxonomy of forums (was Re: Toward a taxonomy ... of alt.sex) Message-ID: <1991Aug30.131213.24391@ms.uky.edu> Date: 30 Aug 91 13:12:13 GMT References: <1991Aug29.202609.17233@eff.org> <1991Aug29.215250.22926@ms.uky.edu> <1991Aug29.234538.22350@eff.org> Organization: The Puzzle Palace, UKentucky Lines: 45 kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes: >morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes: > >[...] >>I would agree that the addition of a usenet feed to a given com- >>puter system might confer upon that system the status of a "limited public >>forum". In anticipation of such a status, let's look at the next paragraph: >[...] > >Just to add to what you are saying. A computer system be include >several forums, for example, an email forum and a Netnews forum. >Individual Netnews newsgroups might each be considered a distinct >forums. Each forum might be limited in different ways. For example, >any topic might be allowed in email, while the "uiuc.hazards" >newsgroup might be restricted to official notes (as approved by a >newsgroup moderator) related to toxic hazards on campus. I've always considered NetNews as a single forum, since a single message can be placed in many newsgroups, regardless of content. I think that the "limiting" of newsgroups is achieved, in many cases, by moderation. However, I don't want to see an all-moderated Usenet. >Given that legally you *can* make this selection, how *should* you >make this selection? I advocate library selection rules. Sounds like a solid suggestion to me. I've already spoken with some folks at the library, and I'll be received information on their selection rules/processes. I think that some subtle changes will have to be made, since NetNews is far more interactive than a library; on the whole, however, I think that it will give me a solid base from which to work. >Likewise, you might be able to legally restrict all email to the topic >of discrete mathematics. But for most systems, I advocate opening >email to all topics. [For one thing, it would be very hard to enforce >the discrete-math only rule without violating your users' privacy.] I don't EVER plan to place content restrictions on electronic mail. I am a staunch supporter of email privacy, as many of you know. 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 Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk Path: eff!iWarp.intel.com!uunet!wupost!ukma!morgan From: morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) Subject: Re: Toward a taxonomy of arguments for censorship of alt.sex Message-ID: <1991Aug29.201145.4152@ms.uky.edu> Organization: The Puzzle Palace, UKentucky References: <1991Aug28.210259.3773@news.Hawaii.Edu> Date: Thu, 29 Aug 1991 20:11:45 GMT Lines: 62 lee@uhunix.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu (Greg Lee) writes: > >1. "Any price for freedom is too high." > If I carry alt.sex, someone might object, and this would be > an inconvenience to me. I or my university might even get sued, > and if so, the bad guys might win. > In a utopia, this wouldn't even be necessary. In reality, however, this is a concern. Many news admins are NOT in a position to be a martyr to the "freedom to post whatever the heck I want" cause. Many sites consider news a privilege; I certainly consider it as such. I will be installing news on one of our systems in the near future. There are many factors which could cause its removal. This factor may not be philosophically valid, but it must certainly be considered. >2. "Someone else denies freedoms, so it must be ok." > I once saw a newstand vendor refuse to sell Playboy to a > five year old. Same thing. And what better model to follow > for a university in a free society? Now hold on a second. Many people have compared NetNews to newsstands and libraries, for purposes of determining its status as an information source. Are you trying to say that I can't make that comparison? For that matter, many universities refuse to allow minors to access adult materials without parental consent (according to posters in this forum; I don't have firsthand knowledge of this). Why shouldn't my access policies be the same as the library's? >3. "We had to destroy freedom in order to save it." (variant of #1) > A reporter will notice I carry alt.sex. It will get into > the news. Someone will write a congressman. The congressman > will call NSF. NSF will not renew the grant that pays for > network access. Legitimate research will be impeded, no one > will be able to read news, and (here's the killer) the very > people who wanted alt.sex will not have access to it!! What's your point? Would you care to convince me that this is not a valid concern? Actually, my concern is not reporters; I'm concerned about parents. What happens when that father calls the University Administration about that "nasty pornography" little Biily is getting from "those computers" that his big brother uses? There won't *be* any letters, nor will there be any legal hoohah at all. There will simply be an "administrative" decision made by some faceless bureaucrat, eliminating news on university systems. They'll find some pretext like "network congestion" or "large phone bills" or "disk space considerations" or "academic use only". Sarcasm is fine, but let's concern ourselves with the reality of our situation. We're all discussing methods of changing our academic (and computing) environments, and that's great. However, until we have effected those changes, we must deal with the current environment, and that means that we must make compromises. -- 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 Path: eff!world!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!apple!mips!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cis.ohio-state.edu!sei.cmu.edu!fs7.ece.cmu.edu!crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu!andrew.cmu.edu!sm6h+ From: sm6h+@andrew.cmu.edu (Stephen P. Marting) Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk Subject: Re: Why does alt.sex exist? Message-ID: Date: 31 Aug 91 20:40:47 GMT References: Organization: Freshman, Chemistry, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA Lines: 24 In-Reply-To: Excerpts from alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk: 31-Aug-91 Why does alt.sex exist? Ranjan Bagchi@eecs.umich.edu (924) > A point that many seem to have overlooked is why > alt.sex is here in the first place? The folklore I've > heard was given when rec.pyrotechnics was created: to > keep the inevitable alt.sex type discussions out of "serious" > groups like sci.med. To create a ghetto for the perverts, in > a sense. Hmmm... possibly to provide an open (unmoderated) forum to express views and questions about sex? Stop laughing, people. Underneath all the bandwidth (I read it for about a month each semester - then it starts repeating), there is some serious, informative discussion. Why ban that? Why does rec.humor exist? Only to keep jokes out of serious newsgroups? What would a system lose if it didn't carry rec.humor? Somehow, I think less sites carry alt.sex than rec.humor. >From comp-academic-freedom-talk-request@eff.org Mon Aug 26 12:56:50 1991 Return-Path: Received: from eff.org by alpha.CES.CWRU.Edu with SMTP (5.64+/ane.07.08.91.01) id AA24871; Mon, 26 Aug 91 12:56:47 -0400 Received: by eff.org (5.61+++/Spike-2.0) id AA18536; Mon, 26 Aug 91 12:56:08 -0400 Reply-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org Precedence: bulk To: comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org Date: Mon, 26 Aug 1991 16:54:22 GMT From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) Message-Id: <1991Aug26.165422.18472@eff.org> Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation From: comp-academic-freedom-talk-request@eff.org References: <1991Aug19.143743.21042@ms.uky.edu>, , <1991Aug26.135435.7338@ms.uky.edu> Subject: Re: I don't get it. Status: OR Concerning so-called adult periodicals: Some states have laws that restrict the display and sales of sexually explicit material to minors. The laws have often been rewritten after courts found them to interfere too much with the rights of adults to read what they wished. Libraries are often (for example, in Michigan) are exempt from these laws. It is the official position of the American Library Association that "a person's right to use a library should not be denied or abridged because of origin, age, background, or views." This means that they fight against requiring "a parent's permission before allowing a customer under 18 to browse/borrow from the adult collection." [quoting Wes Morgan]. I am not aware that such restrictions are widespread. If such a law really applies to you, I can see that you might feel compelled (under protest, I hope) to restrict sexually explicit material to people over 18. I would note that alt.sex is the most widely read newsgroup in the world. This suggest that most sites have not found it necessary to ban it. ~References: The Library Bill of Rights (available via anonymous ftp from eff.org as file pub/academic/library.us) 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 note <1991Aug15.200628.27084@eff.org>) -- Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu I do not represent EFF; this is just me. Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk Path: eff!kadie From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) Subject: Re: Toward a taxonomy of arguments for censorship of alt.sex Message-ID: <1991Aug29.162832.11923@eff.org> Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation References: <2B4DC7B358804D3E@ccmail.sunysb.edu> Date: Thu, 29 Aug 1991 16:28:32 GMT Lines: 53 SKAPUR@ccmail.sunysb.edu (Sanjay Kapur) writes: >>1. "Any price for freedom is too high." >> If I carry alt.sex, someone might object, and this would be >> an inconvenience to me. I or my university might even get sued, >> and if so, the bad guys might win. >An inconvenience to me is a loss of MY freedom. I am thoroughly convinced that >people are confusing the freedom of the press with freedom of speech. Freedom >of press, the current model for Usenet, is the freedom of the owner of the >press, i.e. the owner of the hardware. Just as a magazine or newspaper >publisher publishes what they want according to their convenience, so does a >Usenet computer owner. [...] [From Public School Law: Teachers' and Students' Rights by Martha M. McCarthy and Nelda H. Cambron-McCabe:] ----- begin quote---- School Sponsorship of Student Publications School authorities often have claimed that they exert more control over school-sponsored publications than over nonschool material, but the judiciary has recognized that constitutional protections apply to both types of student literature. mere school affiliation does not remove student literature from first amendment protection. The judiciary has reasoned that a governmental body "is not necessarily the unfettered master of all it creates." Thus, 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. For example, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals [Connecticut, New York, Vermont - Carl] affirmed a decision in which the federal district court held that a [high school] principle could not prohibit the distribution of a school-sponsored newspaper in which students placed a four-page supplement with information about contraception and abortion. The court noted that the articles in the supplement were intended to convey information and that the subjects were treated in a serious manner. While recognizing that the supplement might create some controversy, the court reasoned that it did not threaten a disruption in the educational environment. Although 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. In essence, school authorities cannot withdraw support from a student publication simply because of displeasure with the content. [...] ---- end of quote--- -- Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu I do not represent EFF; this is just me. >From comp-academic-freedom-talk-request@eff.org Mon Aug 26 15:13:35 1991 Return-Path: Received: from eff.org by alpha.CES.CWRU.Edu with SMTP (5.64+/ane.07.08.91.01) id AA25327; Mon, 26 Aug 91 15:13:32 -0400 Received: by eff.org (5.61+++/Spike-2.0) id AA21370; Mon, 26 Aug 91 15:12:41 -0400 Reply-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org Precedence: bulk To: comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org Date: Mon, 26 Aug 1991 19:03:18 GMT From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) Message-Id: <1991Aug26.190318.20989@eff.org> Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation From: comp-academic-freedom-talk-request@eff.org References: <1991Aug19.211851.14599@eff.org>, <1991Aug21.210341.5322@ms.uky.edu>, <1991Aug21.224553.10512@eff.org> Subject: Re: Netnews censorship at U. of Kentucky Status: OR I've just gotten a load of books from the library. Here is a quote 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. p. 121 "Although 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. In essence, school authorities cannot withdraw support from a student publication simply because of displeasure with the content. In an illustrative case, the Eight Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a university could not change its funding policy for a student paper based on the 'hue and cry' of the public objecting to a particular issue {78}. The court noted, however, that a policy could be established allowing students a refund of the portion of their activity fee that supports a student paper they oppose. The judiciary also has recognized that school officials have the right to stamp copies of student publications to disclaim responsibility from the content. {78} Stanley v. Magrath, 719 F.2d 279, 282-283 (8th Cir. 1983). Although holding that a refund policy can be established, the court noted that such a policy cannot be initiated in response to public criticism of the publication." - Carl -- Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu I do not represent EFF; this is just me. >From comp-academic-freedom-talk-request@eff.org Mon Aug 26 17:41:52 1991 Return-Path: Received: from eff.org by alpha.CES.CWRU.Edu with SMTP (5.64+/ane.07.08.91.01) id AA25848; Mon, 26 Aug 91 17:41:49 -0400 Received: by eff.org (5.61+++/Spike-2.0) id AA24205; Mon, 26 Aug 91 17:41:12 -0400 Reply-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org Precedence: bulk To: comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org Date: Mon, 26 Aug 1991 21:32:02 GMT From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) Message-Id: <1991Aug26.213202.23932@eff.org> Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation From: comp-academic-freedom-talk-request@eff.org References: <475E3B736880119D@ccmail.sunysb.edu> Subject: Re: Netnews censorship at U. of Kentucky Status: OR >> In an >>illustrative case, the Eight Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a >>university could not change its funding policy for a student paper >>based on the 'hue and cry' of the public objecting to a particular >>issue {78}. SKAPUR@ccmail.sunysb.edu (Sanjay Kapur) writes: [...] >But what if the reason is any one of: >1) Fear of a libel suit >2) Anti-pornography laws >3) Running out of funds due to budget cuts >4) Not one issue but all issues cause a "hue and cry", something not addressed > in your article. I've some info on the libel question (that may also apply to "Anti-pornography" laws). >From _Public School Law: Teachers' and Student' Rights_ by Martha McCarthy and Nelda Cambron-McCabe: ---start quote--- [p.124] Permissible and Impermissible Content While courts are reluctant to endorse prior restrains on the content of student publicaitons, they are more inclined to support disciplinary action after distribution has begun. [High-school- Carl] [s]tudents can be punished and publications confiscated if the material distributed forsters a disruption of the educational process, is libelous or obscene, or encourages others to engage in dangerous or unlawful activity. [...] Courts also have ruled that the mere discussion of controversial issues cannot be barred from student publications. The judiciary has recognized that material dealing with war, drugs, abortion, and birth control information is not too controversial for high school students. [...] --- end quote--- -- Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu I do not represent EFF; this is just me. >From comp-academic-freedom-talk-request@eff.org Mon Aug 26 15:41:53 1991 Return-Path: Received: from eff.org by alpha.CES.CWRU.Edu with SMTP (5.64+/ane.07.08.91.01) id AA25454; Mon, 26 Aug 91 15:41:50 -0400 Received: by eff.org (5.61+++/Spike-2.0) id AA21925; Mon, 26 Aug 91 15:41:08 -0400 Reply-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org Precedence: bulk To: comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org Date: Mon, 26 Aug 1991 19:29:51 GMT From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) Message-Id: <1991Aug26.192951.21811@eff.org> Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation From: comp-academic-freedom-talk-request@eff.org References: <1991Aug23.145258.12240@eff.org>, <1991Aug23.233843.25066@mp.cs.niu.edu>, <1991Aug26.163042.17952@eff.org> Subject: Re: Computer Policy in the Student Handbook Status: OR kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes: [...] >Maybe we can make a list of actions that should be at the sysadmin's >discretion (subject to the requirement that the sysadmin not act >capriciously) and another list of disciplinary actions that would be >reviewed more closely: >Here is a first cut: >Discretionary actions: > - changing disk quotas > - suspending high CPU jobs until a later time > - deleting the /tmp directory > - suspending an account 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. > etc >Disciplinary Actions: > (- informal warning) > - formal warning > - suspending a student from the computer as a penalty for an infraction > - expelling a student from the computer > - suspending a student from the university > - etc. I got a batch of library books a few hours after I wrote this. Here is a quote from _Teacher's and the Law_, 3rd edition, by Louis Fischer, et al. Published in 1991 by Longman. (The book is aimed at K-12 teachers). --- begin quote---- [Question:] Have due process requirements turned classrooms and schools into courtrooms? [Answer:] No. When the Supreme Court ruled in Goss that even short-term suspensions require some modicum of due process, a hue and cry arose across the land. School administrators, parents, and teachers were upset and feared that the decision would force school officials to consult lawyers before they could take any disciplinary measures in schools. These fears where ill based. Careful reading of Goss and other cases indicates that the legal requirements are not at all excessive and that there is no need for lawyers to be at the side of administrators or teachers. Conscientious educators used fair procedures long before these cases ever went to court, and their procedures amply satisfy the law. On the other hand, oppressive, authoritarian procedures that do not respect students' rights to know why they are being disciplined and do not provide opportunities for students to present their defense in a fair way are crumbling as a result of the application of the Constitution to the schools. In sum, on may think of the right of due process as applying to student disciplinary matters on a continuum represented in the following diagram: May act without due process: Trivial or vary minor matters, or emergencies. The latter must be followed by due process as soon as possible. Some modicum of due process is necessary: Disciplinary matters that may lead to short-term suspensions or entry on the students' record. Extensive, careful due process is required: Disciplinary matters that may result in long-term suspension or expulsion, or in a significant penalty such as a short suspension during final exams. ---- end of quote --- -- Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu I do not represent EFF; this is just me. Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk Path: eff!eff-gate!usenet From: rickert@cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert) Subject: Re: Computer Policy in the Student Handbook Message-ID: <1991Aug31.162538.22121@mp.cs.niu.edu> From: rickert@cs.niu.edu Organization: Northern Illinois University References: <1991Aug23.145258.12240@eff.org> Date: 31 Aug 91 16:25:38 GMT Approved: usenet@eff.org Lines: 85 In article <1991Aug30.221014.20654@eff.org> kadie@eff.ORG (Carl Kadie) writes: >How about a compromise? Maybe a user (student, faculty, etc) could be >given 24 or 48 hours after being contacted to make an appointment for >a meeting. After that their account would be suspended until they made >an appointment. (This is kind of like not being able to register for >classes if you owe the University money.) I have no problem with this provided: (a) There is provision for immediate suspension where needed to protect the system - I would expect use of this to be very rare. (b) The 48 hours notice can be given by email. If the user doesn't bother to read his email, too bad. That is his problem. This is somewhat comparable to the idea that certain types of legal notices can be published in appropriate newspapers/journals, and that publication is deemed adequate notification. >> If, >>on the other hand, an instructor fails a student in a class, this will likely >>have very serious long term consequences for the student, yet you accept that >>this is something the instructor can do in the normal course of events, >>subject only to some appeal procedure. > >I can't think of any better alternative than to have faculty assign >grades. Note that even faculty can't punish a student for cheating >without at least an informal hearing. The faculty member can assign a grade of FAIL for cheating. Unless the students appeals, there will be no hearing. >> You only have to look at the mess the patent office and the >>courts are making in computer related cases to realize that we do not have >>the experience necessary to prepare such a set of rules as you propose. > >I agree with your assessment, but draw the opposite conclusion. I >would say that the patent office and the courts are messed up because >they don't have computer-specific laws to guide them. The don't have the computer-specific laws to guide them because we do not have enough experience to know how to design such laws. There have been various attempts, largely unsuccessful, to draw up such laws. >> When >>you don't have the experience to understand the consequences you need to >>grant a great deal of flexibility to those who make the decisions, > >Can you give examples of situations in which a sys admin needs a great >deal of flexibility? Perhaps we can propose some rules that are clear >enough to satisfy me and flexible enough to satisfy you. I see a student has 50 processes running wild (our current per-user limit), and I see a faculty member has 3 processes very carefully 'nice'd. I need the flexibility to decide that the student problem is inconsequential, probably caused by a shell script named 'test' which does an 'if test ...', and I need the flexibility to kill two of the professor's processes because, in spite of the 'nice', they are memory hogs and are thrashing so severely as to cause severe interference with other users. -- I see student A has started a daemon which watches for new logins, and does 'write's to them. I see student B has started a daemon which watches for new processes and attempts to 'kill' them. I need the flexibility to determine that student A has done something abusive and anti-social, while student B has merely seen a neat looking program named 'init', tried it to see what it does, then attempted to kill it after realizing his mistake. (Naturally I removed the world execute permissions of 'init' after this happened). -- I need the flexibility to decide that a student who is 'telnet'ing to port 2000 as some place halfway across the country is violating our rules against playing games in the middle of the day. I need the flexibility to decide that another student who is running a program called 'hangman' is just working on an assignment in his programming class. -- =*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*= Neil W. Rickert, Computer Science Northern Illinois Univ. DeKalb, IL 60115 +1-815-753-6940