Computers and Academic Freedom (news version) September 29, 1991 Vol. 1, No. 29 [For the week of September 23 to September 29, 1991 The first three articles cover two topics. The first says that unwritten rules are bad and that a site that is really for instructional use only should subscribe to few or no newsgroups.<1991Sep23.041527.1439@eng.umd.edu> The second note says that there is nothing wrong with a site being mostly for instructional use and a little for recreational use. Experience shows that this works.<1991Sep26.041948.27809@visix.com> The third note explains why written rules are better than unwritten rules.<4B0Z91w164w@bluemoon.rn.com> The next three notes are about restricted access to magazines and newsgroups. The first note says that access restrictions can be censorship.<07829621CE001F77@ccmail.sunysb.edu> The second says that there are sometimes legitimate reasons to restricted access<199109231818.AA23069@eff.org>. The third note reports that the American Library Association (ALA) recognizes some forms of access restriction as censorship. It then lists the ALA's definition of censorship and other related terms.<1991Sep23.151518.18589@eff.org> The Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 (ECPA) protects the privacy of "public" email users. In the next note, Mike Godwin, staff lawyer for the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), says that the ECPA could be reasonably construed to protect university email.<1991Sep23.190848.24422@eff.org> The note following suggests that the ability to send and receive mail from off campus makes a university email system more "public"<8264@ns-mx.uiowa.edu>. The final four notes are about the ALA's Intellectual Freedom Statement. The first note is the text of the Statement. 'It talks about the role of free expression in a democracy and the role of an information provider ("We need not endorse every idea contained in the materials we produce and make available."). It argues against censorship and labeling. Finally, it talks about professional responsibility ("We perceive the admirable, often lonely, refusal to succumb to threats of punitive action as the highest form of true professionalism: dedication to the cause of intellectual freedom and the preservation of vital human and civil liberties.")' <1991Sep24.033201.24899@m.cs.uiuc.edu> The next note says that parts of the Statement are Quixotic, stupid, and Libertarian. <917C2FD0A24073B3@ccmail.sunysb.edu> The third note asserts that fighting censorship is not stupid.<1991Sep24.200349.27056@mp.cs.niu.edu> The fourth note questions the application of the label "Libertarian" <1991Sep24.061001.13417@eff.org> - Carl] In this issue: M T Russotto 26 >Ownership rights Amanda Walker 65 > Steven S. Brack 43 > Sanjay Kapur 37 >Academic Privacy Question Dan Lester 53 > Carl M. Kadie 63 > Carl M. Kadie 53 ECPA and University Email Douglas W Jones 69 > Carl M. Kadie 198 ALA's "Intellectual Freedom Statement" Sanjay Kapur 25 > jim thomas 24 > Carl M. Kadie 19 > Computers and Academic Freedom News 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 pub/academic/news. Abstracts of CAF-news are in file pub/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. 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. From: russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) Subject: Re: Ownership rights Message-ID: <1991Sep23.041527.1439@eng.umd.edu> Date: 23 Sep 91 04:15:27 GMT References: <17840DD99E401E65@ccmail.sunysb.edu> In article <17840DD99E401E65@ccmail.sunysb.edu> Sanjay Kapur writes: >>From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) >>Paying tuition does give students *some* rights; it gives them >>contractual rights. If the student handbook says that students will >>not be censored and that students can have a free computer account, >>then students have a right to be free of censorship and to have a free >>computer account. > >What if the same handbook says (or implies) that the free account also comes >with a set of (maybe unwritten) rules? What if the free account is limited by >custom or otherwise for instructional use only? Unwritten rules are worth the paper they are written on. If the free account is limited to instructional use, then USENet on that machine ought be limited to an extremely small set of topics, if it exists at all-- the question of censoring newsgroups because they are objectionable won't come up, as newsgroups would be provided with the only criteria being cost and relevance to instruction-- most likely, neither alt.sex nor rec.arts.startrek would even come up for consideration. -- Matthew T. Russotto russotto@eng.umd.edu russotto@wam.umd.edu .sig under construction, like the rest of this campus. Just say NO to police searches and seizures. Make them use force. (not responsible for bodily harm resulting from following above advice) From: amanda@visix.com (Amanda Walker) Subject: Re: Ownership rights Message-ID: <1991Sep26.041948.27809@visix.com> Sender: news@visix.com References: <17840DD99E401E65@ccmail.sunysb.edu> <1991Sep23.041527.1439@eng.umd.edu> <1991Sep23.152244.18876@eff.org> Date: Thu, 26 Sep 91 04:19:48 GMT kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes: I see no reason that a machine can't be mostly for instructional use and a little bit for recreational and personal use. For example, the policy of the machine might be that classwork has priority over game playing, that some newsgroups are available just because the users find them interesting, and that email may be used for personal use. This is in fact how network access has been treated at the educational institutions I've attended and worked for. Officially, the equipment and the network connection are there to support instruction and research, but a certain amount of personal use is allowed. One aspect of this approach is that personal use becomes a marginal service: in effect, it is provided in exchange for not having to police the resources. Problems arise when policing the resources starts looking easier than providing open access (scandals, flamewars that bleed off of the net and into "real life," and so on)... Personally, I'd rather see having a machine or cluster whose sole reason for existence is to provide universal email and news to the entire campus, but in most cases hardware is scarce enough to preclude taking this approach. Amanda Walker amanda@visix.com Visix Software Inc. ...!uunet!visix!amanda -- "Freedom is fragile and must be protected. To sacrifice it, even as a temporary measure, is to betray it." --Germain Greer From: sbrack@bluemoon.rn.com (Steven S. Brack) Subject: Re: Ownership rights Message-ID: <4B0Z91w164w@bluemoon.rn.com> Sender: nstar!bluemoon!sbrack@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu References: <1991Sep23.041527.1439@eng.umd.edu> Date: 28 Sep 91 22:22:26 GMT Approved: usenet@eff.org nstar!iuvax!eng.umd.edu!russotto (Matthew T. Russotto) writes: > In article <17840DD99E401E65@ccmail.sunysb.edu> Sanjay Kapur >>From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) > >>Paying tuition does give students *some* rights; it gives them > >>contractual rights. If the student handbook says that students will > >>not be censored and that students can have a free computer account, > >>then students have a right to be free of censorship and to have a free > >>computer account. > > > >What if the same handbook says (or implies) that the free account also comes > >with a set of (maybe unwritten) rules? What if the free account is limited > >custom or otherwise for instructional use only? > > Unwritten rules are worth the paper they are written on. If the free account > is limited to instructional use, then USENet on that machine ought be limited > to an extremely small set of topics, if it exists at all-- the question of > censoring newsgroups because they are objectionable won't come up, as > newsgroups would be provided with the only criteria being cost and relevance > to instruction-- most likely, neither alt.sex nor rec.arts.startrek would eve > come up for consideration. In my own experience, if nothing else, IT SAVES TROUBLE to explicitly state what is expected of each user, or better yet, to limit users' access to those areas in which they have no need to be. Written policy goes a long way toward eliminating ambiguity & misunderstandings between the maintainers of the system & its users. -- Steve Brack _________________________________________________________________________ |Steven S. Brack | sbrack%bluemoon@nstar.rn.com | |Jacob E. Taylor Honors Tower | sbrack@bluemoon.uucp | |The Ohio State University | sbrack@nyx.cs.du.edu | |50 Curl Drive | sbrack@isis.cs.du.edu | |Columbus, Ohio 43210-1112 USA | brack@ewf.eng.ohio-state.edu | |+1 614 293 7383 or 419 474 1010 | Steven.S.Brack@osu.edu | From: SKAPUR@ccmail.sunysb.edu (Sanjay Kapur) Subject: Re: Academic Privacy Question Message-ID: <07829621CE001F77@ccmail.sunysb.edu> Sender: SKAPUR@ccmail.sunysb.edu Date: 23 Sep 91 12:25:00 GMT Approved: usenet@eff.org >That's a non sequitur and you know it. I was merely pointing out that not all >restriction of access is censorship Then Who decides what restriction is censorship? > -- you appear to be trying to cheapen the >term by claiming "Playboy" is censored merely by being held behind the >counter. >Matthew T. Russotto russotto@eng.umd.edu russotto@wam.umd.edu In my opinion it is a very bad form of censorship, even though no librarian will admit that it is. Everyone has their blind spots (me included). This form of censorship is particularly bad because it is practiced by those who claim to fight censorship, yet they do not recognize their own actions. The "justification" for censorship has always been security. In this case it is the security of the magazine itself. What would you call the folllowing: Everytime you wanted to read a popular newsgroup, you had to ask permission? I can also dream up a reason as to why such an action would be required in the interests of protecting the system. (A popular newsgroup implies too many people accessing the same files causing disk contention and performance problems for everyone, so access must be controlled, in this case by a person sitting at a counter enabling access when you present your ID card. Surely this problem can be solved by purchasing faster disks, but disks cost money, just as multiple subscriptions to a magazine cost money. This money is in very short supply and so access has to be controlled.) Note: I do NOT endorse the parenthesized scenario above. 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 From: ALILESTE@idbsu.idbsu.edu (Dan Lester) Subject: Re: Academic Privacy Question Message-ID: <199109231818.AA23069@eff.org> Sender: ALILESTE@idbsu.idbsu.edu References: Date: 23 Sep 91 19:04:15 GMT Approved: usenet@eff.org On Mon, 23 Sep 1991 08:25 EDT Sanjay Kapur said: >In my opinion it is a very bad form of censorship, even though no librarian >will admit that it is. Everyone has their blind spots (me included). This >form of censorship is particularly bad because it is practiced by those who >claim to fight censorship, yet they do not recognize their own actions. > >The "justification" for censorship has always been security. In this case it >is the security of the magazine itself. The case of keeping some things "behind the desk for their protection" is NOT, in many cases, any hidden censorship. It is KEEPING the material FROM being censored. So far, people have assumed that the purchase of multiple subscriptions of Playboy, for example, (or Hustler, Penthouse, a book on how to draw nudes, etc....take your pick) is adequate to keep it available for the the masses who want to read it. In some cases that is true. In others, however, even if the library could afford fifty subscriptions, it would not be enough. There are a number of documented cases where self-appointed censors have organized campaigns to steal and/or mutilate EVERY copy of some magazines or books. I know of a library in Eastern Idaho, where the LDS church has very strong influence, where some members have stolen dozens of copies of some virulent anti-LDS publications. (and before I am attacked for any religious biases....this is just an example....the same has happened with rabid Jewish, Baptist, and other groups, too). Is it not a fight AGAINST censorship to keep the book protected in these cases? If not, why not? Remember that in some of these cases even if you catch the culprit, the local law enforcement agencies won't "bother" with such small things, for reasons which you can imagine for yourself. Also, do those who wish to look at books with "nasty pictures" (i.e. nudes) have the right to read them without the semen stains on the pictures? It is obvious that some users have used some books for masturbation fantasies. If I go to the quarter booths of a local porn parlor, I may expect to find such things. But should I on the pages of a classic art book in a public library? Should other users be somewhat shielded or protected from such behavior? Why or why not? Should your sixteen year old sister be able to go to the school library and look at pictures of nude paintings without some jerkoff's cum stains on them? As always, there are more questions than answers. I am mainly trying to illustrate that it is not as simple an issue as it seems. dan ************************************************************************ * Dan Lester Bitnet: alileste@idbsu * Associate University Librarian Internet: alileste@idbsu.idbsu.edu * Boise State University * Boise, Idaho 83725 You can be sure these ideas are my * 208-385-1234 own; no one else would have them. ************************************************************************ Xref: eff alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1022 alt.censorship:1621 From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) Subject: Re: Academic Privacy Question Message-ID: <1991Sep23.151518.18589@eff.org> References: <07829621CE001F77@ccmail.sunysb.edu> Date: Mon, 23 Sep 1991 15:15:18 GMT Matthew T. Russotto (russotto@eng.umd.edu, russotto@wam.umd.edu) writes: [...] > I was merely pointing out that not all restriction of access is censorship [...] SKAPUR@ccmail.sunysb.edu (Sanjay Kapur) writes: [...] >In my opinion it is a very bad form of censorship, even though no librarian >will admit that it is. Everyone has their blind spots (me included). This >form of censorship is particularly bad because it is practiced by those who >claim to fight censorship, yet they do not recognize their own actions. [...] I'm happy to report that librarians *do* see restricted access as a possible form of censorship. Here is the American Library Association's definition of censorship (this is updated from the ALA definitions given in the book _50 Ways to Fight Censorship_): ----------- Books/Materials Challenge Terminology Expression of Concern -- An inquiry that has judgmental overtones. Oral Complaint -- An oral challenge to the presence and/or appropriateness of the material in question Written Complaint -- A formal, written complaint filed with the institution (library, school, etc.) challenging the presence and/or appropriateness of specific material. Public Attack -- A publicly disseminated statement challenging the value of the material, presented to the media and/or others outside the institutional organization in order to gain public support for further action. Censorship -- The change in the access status of material, made by a governing authority or its representatives. Such changes include: exclusion, restriction, removal, or age/grade level changes. Adopted by the Intellectual Freedom Committee at the 1986 American Library Association Annual Conference [Made available by permission of the American Library Association.] ------------ [This, and many other ALA policy statements, are available from the Computers-and-Academic-Freedom Library Policy archive. The archive is accessible via anonymous ftp to ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.3). It is in directory "pub/academic/library". File README is a detailed description of the items in this directory. The archive is also accessible via email. For information on email access send email to archive-server@eff.org. In the body of your note include the lines "help" and "index".] - Carl -- Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu I do not represent EFF; this is just me. From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) Subject: ECPA and University Email Message-ID: <1991Sep23.190848.24422@eff.org> Date: Mon, 23 Sep 1991 19:08:48 GMT Last week in email, I asked Mike Godwin if the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) could be reasonably construed to protect university email. (Mike is the Staff Lawyer for the Electronic Freedom Foundation.) With Mike's permission, I'm posting his reply. - Carl --------- Carl, I don't think it's been resolved whether ECPA reaches university e-mail, but I think there is an argument that it does. Consider two key terms in ECPA: a: "electronic communication service" [defined in 18 USC 2510] means any service which provides to users thereof the ability to send or receive wire or electronic communications. b: "remote computing service" [defined in 18 USC 2711] means the provision *to the public* [emphasis mine] of computer storage or processing services by means of an electronic communications services. Now, one obvious difference between (a) and (b) is the phrase "to the public"--a university email system might well qualify as (a), but probably would not qualify as (b). But some sections of ECPA add the language "to the public" to (a), which suggests a narrower class of (a) that may exclude such things as university e-mail systems and internal corporate e-mail systems. Does this mean that a university e-mail system is not covered by ECPA because it doesn't provide services "to the public"? I don't think so, if the system provides services to students. Students are not employees--they are educational consumers. In other words, they are more like "public" than like "employees." Presumably, access to the university system is something that's paid for, at least in part, by a student's tuition and fees--i.e., the student is paying for the service. Obviously there's a counterargument here--that "public" just means "general public"--but the issue of interpretation hasn't yet been resolved. Hope this helps. --Mike --------- -- Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu I do not represent EFF; this is just me. From: jones@pyrite.cs.uiowa.edu (Douglas W. Jones,201H MLH,3193350740,3193382879) Subject: Re: ECPA and University Email Message-ID: <8264@ns-mx.uiowa.edu> Date: 23 Sep 91 20:53:21 GMT References: <1991Sep23.190848.24422@eff.org> Sender: news@ns-mx.uiowa.edu > ... Mike is the Staff Lawyer for the Electronic Freedom Foundation. > With Mike's permission, I'm posting his reply. > > Now, one obvious difference between (a) and (b) is the phrase > "to the public"--a university email system might well qualify as (a), > but probably would not qualify as (b). My campus computer system may appear not to offer communication services "to the public", in that the only on-campus users may be limited to "members of the university community", but it also allows me to communicate over the internet to a large number of public-access computer systems. Thus, my campus computer system might be compared to a campus mailroom where both internal campus mail and incoming and outgoing US mail are processed. My E-mail to someone else on campus corresponds to campus mail. My E-mail to a member of the public out on the internet corresponds to outgoing US mail, and E-mail addressed to me from a member of the public out on the internet corresponds to incoming US mail. Continuing the analogy, I should note that for campus mail, we have separate mail drops for sending mail in the two categories, but mail from both categories ends up in the same personal mailboxes in the mailroom. With E-mail, we send on and off campus mail identically and let the computer sort out which pieces should be delivered where. The mail delivery software does not distinguish between the two kinds of E-mail in the way it handles them except as necessary to properly deliver them to the correct destination. Thus, I would imagine that unless the university E-mail system and the staff supporting it are careful to discriminate between campus E-mail and E-mail addressed to or from members of the public off campus, then both the system and the supporting staff must assume that each piece of E-mail could be to or from a member of the public, and as such they must treat all such mail as being covered by the act. Standard disclaimer: I'm no lawyer, if you want to get the law right, consult a lawyer. Doug Jones jones@cs.uiowa.edu Xref: eff alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1031 comp.admin.policy:1005 news.misc:1484 talk.politics.misc:18811 alt.censorship:1635 From: kadie@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) Subject: ALA's "Intellectual Freedom Statement" Message-ID: <1991Sep24.033201.24899@m.cs.uiuc.edu> Followup-To: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk.comp.admin.policy Date: Tue, 24 Sep 1991 03:32:01 GMT [Followups to alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk and comp.admin.policy.] This is the American Library Association's Intellectual Freedom Statement. It is a general statement that applies as much to computers and Netnews as to libraries and books. It talks about the role of free expression in a democracy and the role of an information provider ("We need not endorse every idea contained in the materials we produce and make available."). It argues against censorship and labeling. Finally, it talks about professional responsibility ("We perceive the admirable, often lonely, refusal to succumb to threats of punitive action as the highest form of true professionalism: dedication to the cause of intellectual freedom and the preservation of vital human and civil liberties.") [This and many other library policy statements are available via anonymous ftp. See file ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/library/README.] - Carl ------------------------------------------------------- INTELLECTUAL FREEDOM STATEMENT An Interpretation of the LIBRARY BILL OF RIGHTS The heritage of free men is ours. In the Bill of Rights to the United States Constitution, the founders of our nation proclaimed certain fundamental freedoms to be essential to our form of government. Primary among these is the freedom of expression, specifically the right to publish diverse opinions and the right to unrestricted access to those opinions. As citizens committed to the full and free use of all communications media and as professional persons responsible for making the content of those media accessible to all without prejudice, we, the undersigned, wish to assert the public interest in the preservation of freedom of expression. Through continuing judicial interpretations of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, freedom of expression has been guaranteed. Every American who aspires to the success of our experiment in democracy -- who has faith in the political and social integrity of free men -- must stand firm on those Constitutional guarantees of essential rights. Such Americans can be expected to fulfill the responsibilities implicit in those rights. We, therefore, affirm these propositions: 1. We will make available to everyone who needs or desires them the widest possible diversity of views and modes of expression, including those which are strange, unorthodox or unpopular. Creative thought is, by its nature, new. New ideas are always different and, to some people, distressing and even threatening. The creator of every new idea is likely to be regarded as unconventional -- occasionally heretical -- until his idea is first examined, then refined, then tested in its political. social or moral applications. The characteristic ability of our governmental system to adapt to necessary change is vastly strengthened by the option of the people to choose freely from among conflicting opinions. To stifle nonconformist ideas at their inception would be to end the democratic process. Only through continuous weighing and selection from among opposing views can free individuals obtain the strength needed for intelligent, constructive decisions and actions. In short, we need to understand not only what we believe, but why we believe as we do. 2. We need not endorse every idea contained in the materials we produce and make available. We serve the educational process by disseminating the knowledge and wisdom required for the growth of the mind and the expansion of learning. For us to employ our own political, moral, or esthetic views as standards for determining what materials are published or circulated conflicts with the public interest. We cannot foster true education by imposing on others the structure and content of our own opinions. We must preserve and enhance the people's right to a broader range of ideas than those held by any librarian or publisher or church or government. We hold that it is wrong to limit any person to those ideas and that information another believes to be true, good, and proper. 3. We regard as irrelevant to the acceptance and distribution of any creative work the personal history or political affiliations of the author or others responsible for it or its publication. A work of art must be judged solely on its own merits. Creativity cannot flourish if its appraisal and acceptance by the community is influenced by the political views or private lives of the artists or the creators. A society that allows blacklists to be compiled and used to silence writers and artists cannot exist as a free society. 4. With every available legal means, we will challenge laws or governmental action restricting or prohibiting the publication of certain materials or limiting free access to such materials. Our society has no place for legislative efforts to coerce the taste of its members, to restrict adults to reading matter deemed suitable only for children, or to inhibit the efforts of creative persons in their attempts to achieve artistic perfection. When we prevent serious artists from dealing with truth as they see it, we stifle creative endeavor at its source. Those who direct and control the intellectual development of our children -- parents, teachers, religious leaders, scientists, philosophers, statesman -- must assume the responsibility for preparing young people to cope with life as it is and to face the diversity of experience to which they will be exposed as they mature. This is an affirmative responsibility that cannot be discharged easily, certainly not with the added burden of curtailing one's access to art, literature, and opinion. Tastes differ. Taste, like morality, cannot be controlled by government, for governmental action, devised to suit the demands of one group, thereby limits the freedom of all others. 5. We oppose labeling any work of literature or art, or any persons responsible for its creation, as subversive, dangerous, or otherwise undesirable. Labeling attempts to predispose users of the various media of communication, and to ultimately close off a path to knowledge. Labeling rests on the assumption that persons exist who have a special wisdom, and who, therefore, can be permitted to determine what will have good and bad effects on other people. But freedom of expression rests on the premise of ideas vying in the open marketplace for acceptance, change, or rejection by individuals. Free men choose this path. 6. We. as guardians of intellectual freedom oppose and will resist every encroachment upon that freedom by individuals or groups, private or official. It is inevitable in the give-and-take of the democratic process that the political, moral and esthetic preferences of a person or group will conflict occasionally with those of others. A fundamental premise of our free society is that each citizen is privileged to decide those opinions to which he will adhere or which he will recommend to the members of a privately organized group or association. But no private group may usurp the law and impose its own political or moral concepts upon the general public. Freedom cannot be accorded only to selected groups for it is then transmuted into privilege and unwarranted license. 7. Both as citizens and professionals. we will strive by all legitimate means open to us to be relieved of the threat of personal, economic, and legal reprisals resulting from our support and defense of the principles of intellectual freedom. Those who refuse to compromise their ideals in support of intellectual freedom have often suffered dismissals from employment, forced resignations, boycotts of products and establishments, and other invidious forms of punishment. We perceive the admirable, often lonely, refusal to succumb to threats of punitive action as the highest form of true professionalism: dedication to the cause of intellectual freedom and the preservation of vital human and civil liberties. In our various capacities, we will actively resist incursions against the full exercise of our professional responsibility for creating and maintaining an intellectual environment which fosters unrestrained creative endeavor and true freedom of choice and access for all members of the community. We state these propositions with conviction, not as easy generalizations. We advance a noble claim for the value of ideas, freely expressed, as embodied in books and other kinds of communications. We do this in our belief that a free intellectual climate fosters creative endeavors capable of enormous variety, beauty, and usefulness. and thus worthy of support and preservation. We recognize that application of these propositions may encourage the dissemination of ideas and forms of expression that will be frightening or abhorrent to some. We believe that what people read, view, and hear is a critically important issue. We recognize, too, that ideas can be dangerous. It may be, however, that they are effectually dangerous only when opposing ideas are suppressed. Freedom, in its many facets, is a precarious course. We espouse it heartily. Adopted by the ALA Council, June 25, 1971 Endorsed by the FREEDOM TO READ FOUNDATION. Board of Trustees June 18, 1971 [Made available by permission of the American Library Association.] -- Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign From: SKAPUR@ccmail.sunysb.edu (Sanjay Kapur) Subject: Re: ALA's "Intellectual Freedom Statement" Message-ID: <917C2FD0A24073B3@ccmail.sunysb.edu> Sender: SKAPUR@ccmail.sunysb.edu Date: 24 Sep 91 04:52:00 GMT Approved: usenet@eff.org >From: kadie@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) >This is the American Library Association's Intellectual Freedom >Statement. It is a general statement that applies as much >to computers and Netnews as to libraries and books. > >Finally, it talks about professional >responsibility ("We perceive the admirable, often lonely, refusal to >succumb to threats of punitive action as the highest form of true >professionalism: dedication to the cause of intellectual freedom and >the preservation of vital human and civil liberties.") > I admire those who refuse to succumb and so I also admire the character of Don Quixote. I also believe that Don Quixote was a stupid person. I am not very sure that it is very professional for a computer professional to espouse the political cause of Libertarianism which the ALA council seems to endorse in its Library Bill of Rights. 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 From: tk0jut1@mp.cs.niu.edu (jim thomas) Subject: Re: ALA's "Intellectual Freedom Statement" Message-ID: <1991Sep24.200349.27056@mp.cs.niu.edu> Sender: tk0jut1@mp.cs.niu.edu References: <917C2FD0A24073B3@ccmail.sunysb.edu> Date: 24 Sep 91 20:03:49 GMT Approved: usenet@eff.org Sanjay Kapur writes: >I admire those who refuse to succumb and so I also admire the character >of Don Quixote. I also believe that Don Quixote was a stupid person. > >I am not very sure that it is very professional for a computer professional >to espouse the political cause of Libertarianism which the ALA council seems >to endorse in its Library Bill of Rights. Normally Sanjay's non-sequitors and inaccuracies can be ignored, but posts such as these force me to rethink my opposition to mandatory drug testing. What's to be gained, Sanjay, by implying that the ALA is "stupid" for opposing censorship? How on earth do you conclude that defense of the Constitution, on which the basis for civil liberties rests, is "unprofessional" and advocacy of "Libertarianism?" Is this more of your obnoxious coconut throwing just to see who responds, or do you have information that the rest of us don't? If the former, you owe some apologies. If the latter, by all means share it with us so we can be as wise as you. For once, try articulating a coherent position before you insult groups and the principles to which they adhere. Jim Thomas From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) Subject: Re: ALA's "Intellectual Freedom Statement" Message-ID: <1991Sep24.061001.13417@eff.org> References: <917C2FD0A24073B3@ccmail.sunysb.edu> Date: Tue, 24 Sep 1991 06:10:01 GMT SKAPUR@ccmail.sunysb.edu (Sanjay Kapur) writes: [...] >I am not very sure that it is very professional for a computer professional >to espouse the political cause of Libertarianism which the ALA council seems >to endorse in its Library Bill of Rights. [...] Can you be more specific? Do you mean "Libertarianism" (relating to the political party) or "libertarianism" (relating to liberty)? I doubt if there are too many Libertarian librarians since I think the Libertarians oppose public libraries. - Carl -- Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu I do not represent EFF; this is just me.