From kadie Fri Nov 00 00:00:00 0000 To: _ Subject: Computers and Academic Freedom (news version) 1.26 Computers and Academic Freedom (news version) Vol. 01, No. 36 [Special issue: Best of October The words after the numbers are a short paraphrase of the article, not necessarily my opinion. Note 1 is a CAF Statement. 1. Draft Statement on Computers and Academic Freedom -- This is an attempt to codify the application of academic freedom to academic computers. It reflects our seven months of on-line discussion about computers and academic freedom. <1991Oct26.210722.29271@eff.org> Notes 2-6 are about incidents and policy at specific universities. 2. The University of Waterloo has lifted its ban on newsgroups "from alt.sex.bondage to rec.humor.funny". Enclosed is the story of the ban. <1991Oct03.060346.5082@looking.on.ca> 3. (Student at WWU:) Alt.sex was removed on the order of one person, the Vice Provost for "information and communication". <1991Oct17.181138.9478@henson.cc.wwu.edu> 4. Many of Ohio State's so-called charges against Steven Brack are trivial (for example, using two Macs at once). Mr. Brack is also charged with a Constitutionally-protected activity (posting a vulgarity). The vagueness of the so-called charges (alleged activities are never matched to the University rules they violate) makes it impossible for Mr. Brack to defend himself. <1991Oct13.150613.14818@eff.org> 5. UCLA's Computer Use Policy could be improved with better privacy protection and the elimination of procedures that allow users to be punished for rule infractions before it is determined that infractions have actually occurred. <199110261528.AA24204@eff.org> 6. (Addressed to the UIC sys admin:) "[Y]ou overstepped the bounds of your authority when you punished the student for his expression." The speech in the note, although offensive, was Constitutionally protected. "Statements in a free-speech forum such as soc.women [cannot] constitute sexual harassment." Moreover, you are not authorized by your university to decide sexual harassment cases. <1991Oct22.211259.5178@eff.org> Notes 7-9 are about newsgroup policy. 7. "I think that unmoderated Netnews newsgroups facilities offered by most universities are free-speech forums. ... I offer three justifications for this opinion." 8. University sys admins should enforce newsgroup charters even charters that discriminate based on sex or viewpoint. <1991Oct29.150556.5266@eff.org> 9. Postings to the net, like other expressive actions, should only be punished if they cause substantial interference with the rights of others. A few off-topic posts do not constitute substantial interference. Enclosed are the general rules my school has against disruptive and coercive action. <1991Oct24.014633.28623@eff.org> Notes 10-12 are about the application of library policy to newsgroups. 10. (Computer administrator at Iowa State:) Having a selection policy based on Library policy is the proverbial ounce of prevention. <1991Oct18.025306.11694@news.iastate.edu> 11. The National Science Foundation's network rules are unclear. The rules should recognize that the NSF has created an on-line electronic library system. Enclosed is a copy of the American Library Association's Diversity Statement (a statement that discusses both sexual and sexist material). <1991Oct2.225512.3857@eff.org> 12. A judge as ruled that CompuServe (a commercial on-line information provider) isn't liable for some of the contents of its network. The judge compared CompuServe to a public library or a bookstore that can't feasibly examine every publication it carries. <1991Nov1.195246.13037@eff.org> Note 13 is about K-12 net access. 13. Net access and use by grade and high schoolers should be supervised by an instructor. - Carl] In this issue: Carl M. Kadie 149 Draft Statement on Computers and Academic Freedom (CAF) Funny Guy 61 Waterloo ban on rec.humor.funny finally lifted Jeff Wandling 36 alt.sex Carl M. Kadie 197 >The rules that Ohio State<>es that Steven Brack violated Carl M. Kadie 156 [eff.mail.ethics-l] Re: Ucla's Use Policies Carl M. Kadie 117 >yahweh is good posting Carl M. Kadie 61 > Anonymous 55 >off-topic notes (was yahweh is good posting) Carl M. Kadie 75 > John Hascall 30 >USENET censorship strikes University of Washington! Carl M. Kadie 105 >Acceptable Use Policies (Was Re: Bill's... ) Carl M. Kadie 26 CompuServe Isn't Liable for Contents of its Network halcyon!ralphs 31 >So what is the answer? 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 line: send acad-freedom README 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: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) Subject: Draft Statement on Computers and Academic Freedom (CAF) Message-ID: <1991Oct26.210722.29271@eff.org> Date: Sat, 26 Oct 1991 21:07:22 GMT This is an attempt to codify the application of academic freedom to academic computers. It reflects our seven months of on-line discussion about computers and academic freedom. It is made up of two kinds of statements. The first, labeled as principles, are premises. The second, labeled as interpretations, are conclusions drawn from the principles. The two kinds of statements can be thought of as axioms and theorems. An axiom (principle) is most likely to be criticized for being unreasonable. A theorem (interpretation) is mostly likely to be criticized for not following from the principles. Comments and suggestions are very welcome (especially when posted to CAF-talk). On the documents referenced are available on-line. Access information is at the end of this note. - Carl ------------------------------------------- I. General Principle: The principles of academic freedom apply to academic computer systems. Computer polices should be consistent with general university codes and widely accepted statements on academic freedom such as the Joint Statement on Rights and Freedoms of Students. II. Policy Formulation Interpretation: "The institution has an obligation to clarify those standards of behavior which it considers essential to its educational mission and its community life. These general behavioral expectations and the resultant specific regulations should represent a reasonable regulation of [user] conduct, but the [user] should be as free as possible from imposed limitations that have no direct relevance to his education. Offenses should be as clearly defined as possible and interpreted in a manner consistent with the aforementioned principles of relevance and reasonableness. Disciplinary proceedings should be instituted only for violations of standards of conduct formulated with significant [user] participation and published in advance through such means as a [user] handbook or a generally available body of institutional regulations." [Joint Statement] II. Student and Faculty Discipline Principle: Suspension or expulsion from a computer is a serious penalty. Users facing these penalties should be given due process protection similar to that given to those facing other serious penalties such as a formal disciplinary warning, a failing grade for cheating, or suspension from class. Interpretation: "Pending action on the charges, the status of a [user] should not be altered, or his [or her] right to be present on the campus and to attend classes [and use computers] suspended, except for reasons relating to his physical or emotional safety and well being, or for reasons relating to the safety and well-being of students, faculty, or university property." [Joint Statement] III. Privacy Principle: Personal files on university's computers (for example, files in a user's home directory) should have the same privacy protection as personal files in university-assigned space in an office, lab, or dormitory (for example, files in a graduate student's desk). Private communications via computer should have the same protections as private communications via telephone. IV. Computer Expression Interpretation: "Academic institutions exist for the transmission of knowledge, the pursuit of truth, the development of students, and the general well-being of society. Free inquiry and free expression are indispensable to the attainment of these goals its members of the academic community, students should be encouraged to develop the capacity for critical judgment and to engage in a sustained and independent search for truth." [Joint Statement] Principle: The principles of intellectual freedom developed by libraries should be applied to the administration of information material on computers. These principles are explained in such American Library Association documents as the Library Bill of Rights, the Freedom to Read Statement, and the Intellectual Freedom Statement. Interpretation: Computer sites that offer newsgroups should select newsgroups the way that traditional libraries select magazines and books. Interpretation: "Every [academic computer] system should have a comprehensive policy on the selection of [information] materials." [ALA Workbook for Selection Policy Writing] Interpretation: "Materials should not be proscribed or removed because of partisan or doctrinal disapproval" [Article 2, Library Bill of Rights]. Principle: The principles of academic freedom applicable to student and faculty publication in traditional media, apply to student and faculty publication in computer media. Interpretation: An article or note posted by a student to a newsgroup is a student publication. Interpretation: "Student publications [and the publications of other users] are a valuable aid in establishing and maintaining an atmosphere of free and responsible discussion and of intellectual exploration on the campus. They are a means of bringing [...] concerns to the attention of the faculty and the institutional authorities and of formulating [...] opinion on various issues on the campus and in the world at large." [Joint Statement] Interpretation: "The institutional control of campus facilities should not be used as a device of censorship." "[User publications] should be free of censorship and advance approval of copy ..." [Joint Statement] Interpretation: "All university published and financed [user] publications should explicitly state [...] that the opinions there expressed are not necessarily those of the college, university, or student body. [Joint Statement] ----------------------- References Documents may be accessed via ftp (see the first line after the document title). They may also be accessed via email. Send email to archive-server@eff.org. In the body of your note include the second line after the document title. Joint Statement on Rights and Freedom of Students ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/student.rights send acad-freedom student.rights Library Bill of Rights ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/library/bill-of-rights.ala send library-policies bill-of-rights.ala Freedom to Read Statement ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/library/freedom-to-read.ala send library-policies freedom-to-read.ala Intellectual Freedom Statement ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/library/int-freedom.ala send library-policies int-freedom.ala CAF Archive's README file ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/README send acad-freedom README -- Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu, or (anonymous) ap.4352@hri.com I do not represent EFF; this is just me. From: funnyr@looking.on.ca (Funny Guy) Subject: Waterloo ban on rec.humor.funny finally lifted Message-ID: <1991Oct03.060346.5082@looking.on.ca> Date: 3 Oct 91 06:03:46 GMT Those of you familar with the history of this newsgroup will know that in December of 1988, due to the efforts of an MIT grad student named Jonathan Richmond, a ban was placed on possibly offensive jokes in this newsgroup at the University of Waterloo. At the time, this newsgroup went into the net only via that site, and Richmond's goal was to control the content of the group by putting pressure on the University through the daily newspapers. [It didn't work of course. RHF quickly became fed out through a wide variety of other paths, and only Waterloo folk and downstream nodes were affected.] To many people's surprise, the Douglas Wright (President) and J. Alan George (Provost) supported and implemented the ban. Later groups such as alt.sex were also removed. Pressure from the community, with vigourous effort by some students and an invited talk by Dr. John McCarthy of the Stanford AI Lab (Dr. McCarthy had played a pivotal role in reversing a shorter-lived ban at Stanford) resulted in the appointment of a committee to study the question of newsgroup availability. In May 1991, this committee reported what you would expect them to report -- that, to paraphrase, a University administration should not make non-financial decisions about what people can and can't read on campus. The recommended restoration of all banned newsgroups. Today, Dr. Johnny Wong, Associate Provost for Computing at UW, announced that he would follow the recommendations of the committee. The result is the restoration of all banned newsgroups there, from alt.sex.bondage to rec.humor.funny. I take particular satisfaction in this. The banning of my publication at my alma mater has been a thorn in my side for years, and I have helped and encouraged the efforts to reverse it. I did not wish to concede any victory for the forces of thought-control and political correctness. Even though the ban never stopped any determined reader (after all, the groups could be read remotely with RRN and NNTP) it is good to see it gone. My thanks go out to all who worked to make this happen. More detailed accounts of these events can be found in the prefaces to the Jokebooks. This year's jokebook may be delayed a bit because I am moving at the end of this month. Will tell you where later. --------------- Other notes: I am keeping busy and am a fair bit behind in the joke queue. Only 600 entries to go. Please have patience. RHF is no longer USENET's most popular group. Alt.sex now easily holds that distinction -- perhaps being banned at UW is the first step for success in any USENET group. Misc.jobs.offered is also currently above, but fluctuating. Statistics are posted in the group news.lists. -- Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu I do not represent EFF; this is just me. From: jeff@henson.cc.wwu.edu (Jeff Wandling) Subject: alt.sex Summary: I don't understand how this can be allowed to happen Keywords: alt.sex censorship Message-ID: <1991Oct17.181138.9478@henson.cc.wwu.edu> Date: 17 Oct 91 18:11:38 GMT Distribution: alt Recently at Western Washington University, alt.sex groups and alt.binary.pictures.erotica groups were removed from our USENET database. This was precipitated by events at the University of Washington (Seattle). It seems that the local newspaper (Seattle PI) reported that "pornographic" files existed on UofW computer equipment. The article went on to describe what kinds of files there were (list included color pictures, and soft-porn stories). Earlier at Central Washington University, a director of some sort was demoted because of a similar situation (where porn files existed on Computer Center equipment). UofW seemed to stand firm to the situation and gave the signal that it would find it neither "wise, legal, or proper to ban or control the pornographic material and other activites" Western Washington University on the other hand found it quite easy to ban and control the "alt.sex" material. And the Vice Provost for "information and communication" made the decision that such material would not be allowed on campus. Paraphrasing, he said it was regarded as "junk mail" and we won't accept it. As of this writing, access to these newsgroups is not provided by the University. But, if just one professor states that he or she needs the groups for any reason then they will be re-instated. This to me is a crock because not one group we do carry is there by request of any professor here. It just doesn't make any sense. No one is pointing a gun to our heads and forcing us to read anything. Any comments? -- Jeff Wandling disclaimer: "I don't disclaim nuthin!"- me quote: "Ooh, you're an icky student-thing! No wonder you keep such funny hours! :-)" -bill trost From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) Subject: Re: The rules that Ohio State U. alleges that Steven Brack violated Message-ID: <1991Oct13.150613.14818@eff.org> References: <1991Oct13.140940.14103@eff.org> Date: Sun, 13 Oct 1991 15:06:13 GMT (This is my critique of the OSU charges against Steven Brack. A version of this note was posted on July 15th. I've revised it in light of the letters Steven Brack released.) One of most important lessons I have learned from our discussions on the Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list is that good communications between users and sys admins is critical. As Sanjay Kapur, a sys admin at SUNY Stony Brook, wrote on June 20th: "My experience has taught me that ALL problems of abuse etc. come about due to lack of communications between the Systems staff and the users. Direct access to the systems staff who actually manage the system in addition to access to a front office (e.g. an accounts office, a user support office, Student assistants) has to be a central element of any policy." The Ohio State affair could be a case study in what happens when communications breaks down and all actions are ascribed to malice. Remember how this all started. Mr. Brack reformatted the system manual pages on an HP workstation. Academic Computer Services's (ACS) viewpoint: Mr. Brack vandalized the system. Brack's viewpoint: It was an accident; I assumed it would only reformat only my personal manual pages. If reformatting is such a terrible thing to do, why are the file permissions set so that anyone can do it? In the next event, Mr. Brack got into a heated argument in alt.flame. He replied to someone else's note with the message "fuck you". (This is exactly the kind of message for which alt.flame was designed.) The note that Mr. Brack replied was set so that by default all replies would go to not only alt.flame but also rec.aquaria. Thus, Mr. Brack posted the message "fuck you" to the aquarium newsgroup. ACS's viewpoint: Mr. Brack "posted an obscene message." Brack's viewpoint: I was tricked into posting to rec.aquaria. I didn't even know that replies could be directed to other groups. So how can ACS and Mr. Brack view the same events so differently? William Murray's note of June 29 addresses this question: "The student knows that systems are robust. 'Pac-Man' never broke. 'King's Quest' never broke. You could push as hard as you wanted to; it never broke. You could not get out of the 'land.' It did not break. Yet. Push! Problems are related to hardware and software, not users. The rules of the game are implicit in the game. If you can do it, it is legitimate. The way you 'win the game' is to explore the land to its outermost boundaries." "The system administrator knows that systems are fragile. Most have come about by elaboration of earlier systems. They were not designed of a piece. Even when we do a major upgrade, we often include function from earlier systems, usually as an accommodation to users. This functionality often includes gratuitous generality and flexibility. The systems have often been extended to support user populations which are much larger and less orderly than the ones for which the systems were conceived. The result is systems which are not as robust as might be indicated or expected for their current use and user populations. The system administrator knows this." Here are my comments on the specifics of the Ohio State affair. [I'm quoting from my previous note.] Recall that the Joint Statement on Rights and Freedoms of Students says that "[t]he burden of proof should rest upon the officials bringing the charge." "1. While on the HPUXA computer, you attempted to send a command that would shut the system off. Your account was suspended. You met with Collins and Miller and signed a "Ethical Standards of Conduct" form and agreed to abide by the policies of the [sic] Academic Computing Services (ACS)." He is not accused of actually executing this command; as an ordinary user it would be impossible for him to execute this command. "2. You allegedly posted an obscene message on a bulletin board and copied it to several other networks. The contents of the message was [sic] in conflict with established standards of practice for most of the additional networks." (i.e. posting the phrase "fuck you" to national the alt.flame and rec.aquaria newsgroups.) The phrase "fuck you" is rude, but protected speech. It is not obscene. The posting to rec.aquaria was accidental. The posting to alt.flame was consistent with the purpose of that newsgroup. "3. Collins and Miller met with you again and suspended your account indicating that you would no longer have access to HPUXA or any other network at the University." This is not an offense on Mr. Brack's part. If ACS expelled Mr. Brack without due process, they have committed an offense. Moreover, ACS has no authority to restict Mr. Brack from, for example, the Library's network. "4. Allegedly you continued the same practices using an account provided to you through the College of Engineering. They issued you a restricted account that was to be used for academically- related [sic] work only. You were specifically advised not to use the computer system to access national bulletin boards." Without more specific information this is not an offense. "5. Your social security number showed up on the account of another person during sessions which used national networks." The other student charged a *free* print job to Mr. Brack's social security number with Mr. Brack's permission. They did this because the file that contained the other student's SSN was corrupted. "6. It was confirmed that you used another student's account to access a computer system at the University of Denver [sic]. This was in direct opposition to your instructions not to use the University's system to access national networks." The other student accessed Mr. Brack's account at the University of Denver. This violates no Ohio State rules (or rules of the University of Denver system). "7. Additionally, allegedly you were keeping a number of non-academic files on a microcomputer system in the Central [sic] Biology system [sic]. You were advised against abusing your privileges on this system and excess files were removed. ..." This violated no Ohio State rules. (Rather than ask Mr. Brack to remove his files; all his files were deleted.) ... "Several times you were allegedly warned to use only one computer at a time (apparently you may have been using more than one). This practice continued despite this warning." This is a petty accusation. Using multiple Macs when the lab is nearly empty violated no Ohio State rules. When asked to move to one Mac (because a class was expected), Mr Brack did. "8. Apparently you copied 24 copies [sic] of a mathematics program [sic] to the hard disk of the Central [sic] Biology Computer lab computer [sic]. This used up a considerable amount of the hard disk space. This was allegedly done in retaliation against the administrators of that system." This is false. Mr. Brack used 24 meg of disk space, but did not store 24 copies of any programs. This violated no Ohio State rules. When asked to free up disk space, Mr. Brack did. "9. Toward the end of May, after being banned from all ACS computers, you used the MAGNUS system to connect with the University of Denver [sic] computer." Same as #6. In sum, you may not like Mr. Brack. You may have found his "fuck you" note offense and his subsequent defense of himself whinny. But whether you like him or not, the pettiness and weakness of the so-called charges against Mr. Brack (he is not accused of causing any actual damage), support the conclusion that this whole affair has more to do with poor communications than with computer vandalism. I say "so-called charges" because these are not really even charges. A charge is an alleged action paired with the rule(s) that it violates. Mr. Brack was sent a list of vague rules like the Other Rule: "(K) Violation of other published University regulations, policies, or rules, or any other violation of state or federal law committed on University premises." In a separate letter, and only after it requested it, he was send information about his alleged actions. The actions were NEVER paired with the rules to form charges. How, for example, can he defend himself against the Other Rule if he doesn't know which alleged actions violate it? The letters suggest that such unfairness might be OK for an informal inquiry. Note, however, that the purpose of the inquiry is to "to determine if the alleged violation of Rules 3335-25-01 (E), (F), (G), (J), and (K) did, indeed, occur." I would hope that Ohio State actually bothers to try to write up the charges against Mr. Brack and that the charges are then dropped and that his computer expulsion is ended. In the future, I hope that ACS will handle problems less hysterically and more professionally by: 1) working with the user community to create and implement a good written policy 2) talking *with* (not "at") users when there is a problem 3) respecting their user's freedom of expression 4) respecting their user's due process rights by punishing (when necessary) users only after the user has had a chance for a hearing. - 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: [eff.mail.ethics-l] Re: Ucla's Use Policies Message-ID: <199110261528.AA24204@eff.org> Sender: kadie Date: 26 Oct 91 07:28:43 GMT Approved: usenet@eff.org It seems like a pretty good policy. I especially like that it covers both users and sys admins. Also, it lays out clear rules and disciplinary procedures. And, it acknowledges the user's privacy. I think it could be improved (perhaps with the participation of users) by clarifying the prohibition against noncommercial personal use. Also, procedure by which a sys admin is authorized to search user files should be made clear and it should be made consistent with the University's general search procedures (or its telephone search procedures). Finally, users should not be punished for rule infractions until and unless it is determined such infractions have occurred. I will discuss each of these points in turn. 1. The policy says: >* Use of SEASnet's Computing Facilities > Use of SEASnet's computing facilities, including > hardware, software, and networks is restricted to the > purposes for which SEASnet accounts are assigned. These > uses are limited to research and educational purposes. > Any personal or commercial use of SEASnet equipment is > prohibited. But then: > * Game Playing > Various games are available on the system. > however, you must not play games when other > users need a terminal for any other activity. If > you are playing games, you must log out whenever > users are waiting, and offer them your terminal. > it is not ethical or polite to stay logged in > until the person waiting asks you to log out, or > to expect a waiting user to wait for you to > finish playing. Isn't game playing an example of personal use? Isn't much email use personal? If the members of a student organization (say, the sailing club) keep the the club roster on-line, isn't that a personal use? How about if someone accesses the library computer to find a book on bicycle repair? The policy could be improved by applying the "game policy" to all noncommercial personal use. 2. The policy says: > In very unusual circumstances when system >response, integrity or security is threatened, as outlined >above, a system administrator is authorized to access files and >information necessary to find and resolve the situation. And: >1.5.4. Consequences of Misuse of Computing Privileges > Abuse of computing privileges is subject to disciplinary >action. If system administrators of SEASnet have strong evidence >of misuse of computing resources, and if that evidence points to >the computing activities or the computer files of an individual, >they have the obligation to pursue any or all of the following >steps to protect the user community: ... > * Inspect the user's files, diskettes, and/or > tapes. System administrators must be certain that the > trail of evidence leads to the user's computing > activities or computing files before inspecting > the user's files. Faculty and student files on university's computers should have the same privacy protection as personal files in university-assigned space in an office or dormitory space (for example, files in a graduate student's desk). I don't know what the exact rules are at UCLA, but the Joint Statement on Rights and Freedoms of Students, the main statement of academic freedom for students says: "B. Investigation of Student Conduct 1. Except under extreme emergency circumstances, premises occupied by students and the personal possessions of students should not be searched unless appropriate authorization has been obtained. For premises such as residence halls controlled by the institution, an appropriate and responsible authority should be designated to whom application should be made before a search is conducted. The application should specify the reasons for he search and the objects or information sought. The student should be present, if possible, during the search. For premises not controlled by the institution, the ordinary requirements for lawful search should be followed." [ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/student.rights] The policy could be improved by making the computer search procedure consistent the University's general search procedure. This will likely mean having sys admins get search authorization from a higher authority. 3. The policy also authorizes sys admins to: > * Suspend or restrict the user's computing > privileges during the investigation. A user may > appeal such a suspension or restriction and > petition for reinstatement of computing > privileges through the SEAS Associate Dean of > Student Affairs or the SEAS Associate Dean of > Computing. This is inconsistent with the principle of innocent until found guilty. It is most likely inconsistent with the general policies of UCLA. The Joint Statement says: "C. Status of Student Pending Final Action Pending action on the charges, the status of a student should not be altered, or his right to be present on the campus and to attend classes suspended, except for reasons relating to his physical or emotional safety and well being, or for reasons relating to the safety and well-being of students, faculty, or university property." The policy could be improved by authorizing summary computer suspension only "for reasons relating to the safety of ... university property." Perhaps, such computer suspensions should be authorized by a higher authority. I hope the UCLA community will work together to improve the policy. I hope faculty and student users are given a chance to participate in policy making. As the Joint Statement says: "The responsibility to secure and to respect general conditions conductive to the freedom to learn is shared by all members of the academic community. Each college and university has a duty to develop policies and procedures which provide and safeguard this freedom. Such policies a procedures should be developed at each institution within the framework of general standards and with the broadest possible participation of the members of the academic community." RESOURCES Every University has a Student Code that spells out the University's general policies. This Code is not just a document; it is a legal contract between students and the University. New policies must be consistent with the Code. The Computers and Academic Freedom Archive is available via anonymous ftp from ftp.eff.org. It is in directory pub/academic. The archive is also available via email. For information on email access, send email to archive-server@eff.org. Include the lines "help" and "index". The Computers and Academic Freedom on-line discussion is available as newsgroups alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk and alt.comp.acad-freedom.news. It is also available in mailing list form. For information on the mailing list, send email to archive-server@eff.org. Include the line: send acad-freedom caf - Carl Kadie From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) Subject: Re: yahweh is good posting Message-ID: <1991Oct22.211259.5178@eff.org> Followup-To: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,soc.women,alt.sex,alt.censorship References: <9110221943.AA27573@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu> Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1991 21:12:59 GMT Mr. Grau, I realize that you received many complaints about the yahwey article. While, I do not support the ideas in the article, but I do support the right of the author to post it. I think you overstepped the bounds of your authority when you punished the student for his expression. You write: >I'm sorry about the "yahweh is good posting". I have discussed the posting >with its author, explained to him why it was inappropriate for him to post >it where he did, taken action to prevent his posting such articles in the >short term and informed him that if he continues we will take longer term >action. >While I support freedom of speech, an individual's right to use his own >resources to publish pornography and individuals' rights to read pornography, >using University resources to publish pornography in a forum in which it >can be considered as a generalized form of sexual harrassment is certainly >not a protected freedom of speech. Please review your contractual and Constitutional obligations as an agent of the University. You are contractually constrained by your "Code on Campus Affairs". I don't know exactly what yours says, but at the Urbana campus, where I am a student, it says: "STATEMENT ON INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS I. Preamble A student at the University of Illinois at the Urbana-Champaign campus is a member of the University community of which all members have at least the rights and responsibilities common to all citizens, free from institutional censorship;" ... "III. Campus Expression A. Discussion and expression of all views is permitted within the University subject only to requirements for the maintenance of order. [...] B. Members and organizations in the University community may invite and hear any persons of their own choosing, subject only to reasonable requirements on time, place, and manner for use of University facilities. C. The campus press and media are to be free of censorship. The editors and managers shall not be arbitrarily suspended because of student, faculty, administration, alumni, or community disapproval of editorial policy or content." ... "VI. Student Affairs [...] B. Freedom of Inquiry and Expression 1. Students and student organizations should be free to examine and to discuss all questions of interest to them, and to express opinions publicly and privately. [...] 2. Students should be allowed to invite and hear any person of their own choosing. [...] The University's control of campus facilities should not be used as a device of censorship. It should be made clear to the academic and larger community that sponsorship of guest speakers does not necessarily imply approval or endorsement of the views expressed either by the sponsoring group or the institution." Constiutionally, you are also constrained by the First (and 14th) Amendments. The University's newsgroup facility (like the student newspaper) is a "limited public forum" under the Supreme Court' Public-Forum Doctrine (alt.sex and soc.women are limited in the sense that only people with computer accounts can access it.) Here are is the law for limited public forums: [Quotes are from the decision "San Diego Committee v. Governing Bd., 790 F.2d 1471 (1986)". Quotes within quotes are from the Supreme Court.] '"[C]ontent-based prohibition must be narrowly drawn to effectuate a compelling state interest."' "Having established a limited public forum [the school] cannot, absent a compelling governmental interest, exclude speech otherwise within the boundaries of the forum ...." "Thus the identical broad free speech rights attach to [traditional] and [limited] 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." For more details see the "Computers and Academic Freedom News" (vol. 1, no. 25). It is available via anonymous ftp it from ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/news/cafn01n25. Or send email to archive-server@eff.org. Include the line: send caf-news cafn01n25 Finally, concerning the justification that you are enforcing University rules against sexual harassment. First, I do not think that statements in a free-speech forum such as soc.women can constitute sexual harassment. I note that the Supreme Court overturned such campus speech restrictions at the Univerisity of Michigan. Second, if the rules for the Chicago campus are anything like the rules for the Urbana-Champaign campus, you have no authority to punish students who sexually harass. Such punishment can occur only after a due process as spelled out in documents such as "Administrative Procedures for Complaints and Grievances of Discrimination and of Sexual Harassment -- Students" Please withdraw your punishment and your threat of further punishments. - Carl -- Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu, or (anonymous) ap.4352@hri.com I do not represent EFF; this is just me. From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) Subject: Re: yahweh is good posting Message-ID: Date: 31 Oct 91 16:14:05 GMT Article-I.D.: herodotu.kadie.688925645 References: <91294.162201U42054@uicvm.uic.edu> <1991Oct22.210104.4938@eff.org> <1991Oct30.030810.13193@panix.com> Sender: news@m.cs.uiuc.edu (News Database (admin-Mike Schwager)) In <1991Oct30.030810.13193@panix.com> eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler) writes: [...] >No-one is claiming that the Yahweh poster can't publish his puerile >fantasies in any number of appropriate newsgroups. What *is* being >asserted (by yours truly, anyhow) is that given the structure of the >Usenet hierarchy, it's perfectly fitting to demand some semblance of >adherence to the charters of the various groups. >If you disagree, you've got your work cut out for you. As a first >Herculean labor, I suggest calling for and achieving the elimination >of all moderated newsgroups. [...] I think that unmoderated Netnews newsgroups facilities offered by most universities are free-speech forums. The charters of the newsgroups (if any) defines the focus of the forum, not the government-enforced boundary of the forum. I offer three justifications for this opinion. First, the unmoderated newsgroups at most universities are in practice free-speech forums. No university that I know of consistently enforces newsgroup charters. If the charter is enforced at all, it is enforced as a way to punish the poster of an offensive note. This kind of selective enforcement is exactly what was prohibited in _San Diego Committee v. Governing Bd_[1]. I think that one reason that most universities treat unmoderated newsgroups as free-speech forums is that Usenet (and altnet, etc) offer no way to enforce the charters of unmoderated newsgroups on posters from other sites. Second, moderated newsgroups (and mailing lists) offer a popular and well-accepted alternative to the free-speech forums of unmoderated newsgroups. In practice, forging an approval for an unmoderated newsgroup is not tolerated, no matter what the content of the article. Third, charters are not written to be legally enforceable documents. A charter can say almost anything. It could say that this newsgroup is only for people of a certain religion; it could say expressions of skepticism are not allowed; it could say that offensive articles are prohibited. None of these restrictions could be legally enforced by a state university. So, if the charters of newsgroups are not enforceable by the government does that mean the end of the Net as we know it? I don't think so. Newsgroup charters are explicit parts of social contracts. Experience shows government policing is not necessary; the charters can be and are enforced with social pressure. Such enforcement is not perfect, but as Gene Spafford quotes in "What is Usenet?": "Anarchy means having to put up with things that really piss you off." - Carl [1] Excerpts from this case are available via anonymous ftp as ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/law/san-diego-committee-v-gov-bd or send email to archive-server@eff.org. Include the lines: send academic-law san-diego-committee-v-gov-bd send acad-freedom README -- Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign From: kadie@eff.org (Anonymous) Subject: Re: off-topic notes (was yahweh is good posting) Message-ID: <1991Oct29.150556.5266@eff.org> References: <1991Oct23.233034.24688@eff.org> <9110240013.AA20625@sentinel.CES.CWRU.Edu> <1991Oct24.222935.19366@eff.org> Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1991 15:05:56 GMT [Here is an anonymous response to my query about how far a sys admin should go to enforce a newsgroups charter. The lines marked with ">" are from my previous note. - Carl > * Does every newsgroups have a charter? Yes and no. Each newsgroup does have a short [one line] description. Some also have one page [or longer] charters that were either agreed upon when the group was created or later by votes. > * Do your users have access to the charters of every newsgroup you carry? Yes. Unfortunately the software used does not make it possible to access the charters upon demand with a single keystroke. > * How are charters officially decided? By votes of those interested in the group. > * If a charter calls for viewpoint discrimination, would you enforce > it? (e.g. If the alt.astrology charter says that articles expressing > skeptism are not welcome, will you punish skeptical posters?) Yes. I would enforce any charter, _if_ I was notified of a violation. I do not try to watch all the newsgroups but if someone sends me a complaint I will investigate it. I have yet, in the last 5 years, "punished" someone by removing their privileges. In every case, the act was not malicious (as I think the recent one was) but due to ignorance. As soon as the problem was described to the student, they _voluntarily_ took action to remove the article. In most cases they tried to take action even before I was notified. (me puzzled - "what article xyz in pdq? It's not there.") I honestly think this is true 95% of the time which is why I send mail to the user before sending mail to a sysadmin. > * If a charter calls for sexual discrimination (remember > soc.women.only?), will you enforce it? Yes. If the group was approved by USENET rules. I would also support a soc.men.only though. I do believe in free-speech. I just don't think that people using their rights to free-speech should have to deal with harrassment. I think the shouting down of speakers is wrong. But I have no problems with protesting a speaker outside the meeting hall. > * If a charter says that a person can be barred from posting > by a majority vote, will you enforce such a vote? If you can show me a group that would agree... I will give you an answer. As a personal preference, I would be opposed to instituting such a policy. -- Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu, or (anonymous) ap.4352@hri.com I do not represent EFF; this is just me. From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) Subject: Re: off-topic notes (was yahweh is good posting) Message-ID: <1991Oct24.014633.28623@eff.org> References: <1991Oct23.233034.24688@eff.org> <9110240013.AA20625@sentinel.CES.CWRU.Edu> Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1991 01:46:33 GMT edguer@alpha.ces.cwru.edu (Aydin Edguer) writes: [...] >Okay, we have set a lower bound of 1 article and an upper bound of >100K/5 minutes as disruptive enough to "censor" a user. Now try to >write a fair regulation.... [...] The U. of Illinois at UC has rules against disruptive and coercive action. (I think these are Trustee's rules. If so, they apply at U. of Illinois at Chicago, too.) The standard is substantial interference with the rights of others. Penalties can be imposed after (and only after) a disciplinary process. If a user does not post many more notes than other users and if his or her posts can be killed with kill files, I do not think that off-topic posts constitute substantial interference with the rights of others. Here are the potentially relevant parts of the rules: ---start quote--- Conduct for which students are subject to discipline or expulsion include, without limitation, knowingly engaging in disruptive or coercive action. Disruptive or coercive action include the following: (1) Participation in a disruptive or coercive demonstration. A demonstration is disruptive or coercive if it substantially impedes University operations, or substantially interferes with the rights of others, or takes place on premises or at times where students are not authorized to be. There is no requirement that University authorities order students to cease participation in a disruptive or coercive demonstration. [... (2) use of force or violence ...] (3) Unauthorized entry to or use of property or facilities owned or controlled by the University. [... (4) physical abuse ...] [... (5) endangering the safety or health of others ...] [... (6) Theft and vandalism ...] (7) Failure to comply with direction of a member or agent of the University acting in the performance of her or his duty in connection with a potential or actual disorder. (8) Any conduct which substantially threatens or interferes with the maintainence of appropriate order and discipline in the operation of the University, or any conduct on University property or in connection with a University activity which invades the rights of others. Without excluding other situation, examples include shouting, noisemaking, obstruction and other disruptive actions designed or intended to interfere with or prevent meetings, assemblies, classes or other scheduled or routine University operations or activities. (9) Inciting, aiding, or encouraging others to engage in a disruptive or coercive action. When, through the disciplinary process, a student is found to have knowingly engage in a disruptive or coercive action, as above defined, the penalty will be dismissal or, upon a finding that substantial mitigating circumstances exist, suspended dismissal or other sanctions or coercive actions. [....] -----end quote--- -- Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu, or (anonymous) ap.4352@hri.com I do not represent EFF; this is just me. Xref: eff alt.censorship:2002 alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1308 alt.sex:21800 From: john@iastate.edu (John Hascall) Subject: Re: USENET censorship strikes University of Washington! Message-ID: <1991Oct18.025306.11694@news.iastate.edu> Sender: news@news.iastate.edu (USENET News System) References: <1991Oct17.060137.5509@milton.u.washington.edu> <1991Oct17.133242.17424@eff.org> <1991Oct17.152408.25384@milton.u.washington.edu> Distribution: na Date: Fri, 18 Oct 1991 02:53:06 GMT tdowling@lib.washington.edu (Thomas Dowling) writes: }kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes: }> I think there is still hope. We can point to universities like }> Stanford and (hopefully) U. of Washington as places where library }> policy has been successfully applied computer-material selection. }> }As a librarian at the University of Washington, I'm relatively }confident in saying that the University Libraries have not developed }or been asked to develop a collection policy for computer files }available on the campus-wide Uniform Access machines. I am not even }aware that anyone has even mentioned the idea to our head of collection }development. I am sure that the much more likely case is the various University Computation Centers (and their ilk) have used their Library policies as the basis for their Newsgroup policy -- I know we have because I served on the committee which wrote it. If your site has not done this I strongly recommend it -- having a policy which we have on hand to give to a `complainant' has surely proved to be the proverbial ounce of prevention. John -- John Hascall An ill-chosen word is the fool's messenger. Project Vincent Iowa State University Computation Center john@iastate.edu Ames, IA 50011 (515) 294-9551 Xref: eff comp.org.eff.talk:4186 alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1057 alt.censorship:1721 From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) Subject: Re: Acceptable Use Policies (Was Re: Bill's... ) Message-ID: <1991Oct2.225512.3857@eff.org> References: <199110021650.AA23508@eff.org> Date: Wed, 2 Oct 1991 22:55:12 GMT In article <1991Oct1.153519.18849@ucunix.san.uc.edu> owenstm@ucunix.san.uc.edu (Cygnus X-1) writes: [...] >Well, the discussion could hold relavent if one was to involve Gif's >files, some "hard-line" religious people had them removed from the Mars >Hotel if you remember (Mars.ee.msstate.edu)... And the NSF has declared >it against their "rules" to transmit pornographics material. [...] I don't know that the NSF has made this declaration officially. I think it merely responded to some complaints by expressing some concern and the sys op at Mars decided to avoid any hassles by deleting the files. I think it's time to move beyond expendency to principled policies. Anonymous FTP archives are a new type of library. The Internet is the delivery medium for these libraries. The NSF should adopt policies based on long-standing library and academic experience. These polices should embrace free expression and renounce content restrictions. The Library Bill of Rights says: " 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." Also, here is the American Library Association's statement on diversity: -------------------begin------------------------------------ DIVERSITY IN COLLECTION DEVELOPMENT An Interpretation of the LIBRARY BILL OF RIGHTS Throughout history, the focus of censorship has fluctuated from generation to generation. Books and other materials have not been selected or have been removed from library collections for many reasons, among which are prejudicial language and ideas, political content, economic theory, social philosophies, religious beliefs, sexual forms of expression, and other topics of a potentially controversial nature. Some examples of censorship may include removing or not selecting materials because they are considered by some as racist or sexist; not purchasing conservative religious materials; not selecting materials about or by minorities because it is thought these groups or interests are not represented in a community; or not providing information on or materials from non- mainstream political entities. Librarians may seek to increase user awareness of materials on various social concerns by many means, including, but not limited to, issuing bibliographies and presenting exhibits and programs. Librarians have a professional responsibility to be inclusive, not exclusive, in collection development and in the provision of interlibrary loan. Access to all materials legally obtainable should be assured to the user, and policies should not unjustly exclude materials even if they are offensive to the librarian or the user. Collection development should reflect the philosophy inherent in Article II of the LIBRARY BILL OF RIGHTS: "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." A balanced collection reflects a diversity of materials, not an equality of numbers. Collection development responsibilities include selecting materials in the languages in common use in the community which the library serves. Collection development and the selection of materials should be done according to professional standards and established selection and review procedures. There are many complex facets to any issue, and variations of context in which issues may be expressed, discussed, or interpreted. Librarians have a professional responsibility to be fair, just, and equitable and to give all library users equal protection in guarding against violation of the library patron's right to read, view, or listen to materials and resources protected by the First Amendment, no matter what the viewpoint of the author, creator, or selector. Librarians have an obligation to protect library collections from removal of materials based on personal bias or prejudice, and to select and support the access to materials on all subjects that meet, as closely as possible, the needs and interests of all persons in the community which the library serves. This includes materials that reflect political, economic, religious, social, minority, and sexual issues. Intellectual freedom, the essence of equitable library services, provides for free access to all expressions of ideas through which any and all sides of a question, cause, or movement may be explored. Toleration is meaningless without tolerance for what some may consider detestable. Librarians cannot justly permit their own preferences to limit their degree of tolerance in collection development, because freedom is indivisible. Adopted July 14, 1982; amended January 10, 1990, by the ALA Council. [Made available by permission of the American Library Association.] ----------------------------end-------------------- [The library-policy 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 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: CompuServe Isn't Liable for Contents of its Network Message-ID: <1991Nov1.195246.13037@eff.org> Date: Fri, 1 Nov 1991 19:52:46 GMT [Short excerpts from a Doe Jones News Retrieval story:] [...] "CompuServe has no more editorial control over such a pubiication than does a public library, bookstore or newsstand, and it would be no more feasible for CompuServe to examine every publication it carries for potentially defamatory statements than it would be for any other distributor to do so," wrote Judge Leisure. [...] The decision won't necessarily have the same direct benefits for the Prodigy network, a joint venture of International Business Machines Corp. and Sears, Roebuck & Co. That's because Prodigy has an unusual policy of pre-screening its members' public notes. Thus, a plaintiff could conceivably argue that Prodigy knew in advance about any defamatory or offensive message. [...] The new decision could be influential because it tackles free speech on an electronic network. But it's unclear how the ruling, which involves "publications," would affect bulletin boards on which users add comments to an in-house forum. [...] -- Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu, or (anonymous) ap.4352@hri.com I do not represent EFF; this is just me. From: halcyon!ralphs@sumax.seattleu.edu Subject: Re: So what is the answer? Message-ID: Sender: com-priv8-forw@psi.com Distribution: eff Date: 9 Oct 91 03:13:54 GMT Approved: usenet@eff.org sumax!magic322.chron.com!edtjda (Joe Abernathy) writes: > That business of "so don't take those newsgroups" sounds good, > if it worked. Of course, it doesn't. I can think of no less > than four alternate methods to get to controversial material > in the absence of a usenet feed. Shut 'em all down and you've > got no net left. But in the case of a K-12 environment, the folks who administer the system have the ability (or should) to control what flows in an out of their monitors and keyboards. In this setting, an introduction the myriad of Internet services is quite a treasure in itself, what with White Pages, WAIS, talk, phone, etc., and keeping those resources from the community that might best benefit from them would appear not to be in the best interests of all concerned. The same argument exists for the youth, who in the comfort of the family home, discovers 'questionable' materials on the net. Should not the supervision of this individual be left to the parents, and not to the net in question? Should not, then,the supervision of the school youth using the Internet best be left to the instructor? Perhaps we're attempting to educate the wrong people. I'm sure you are aware that the alt groups are not 'mainstream' Usenet and, in fact, are not carried by the majority of Usenet sites and not even by all of the 'roadways' of the Internet. The analogy of killing the messenger for delivering the message might be drawn, when writing your articles; as you become more aware of what the Internet and all its ramifications is about, the more you should be one of its activists instead of one of its doomsayers. Unfortunately, your reputation has preceeded you, but we are still hopeful...