Computers and Academic Freedom News Vol. 01, No. 45 [Month of December, 1991 ========================== KEY ================================ The words after the numbers are a short PARAPHRASES of the articles, NOT AN OBJECTIVE SUMMARY and not necessarily my opinion. =============================================================== (Some of these paraphrases are based earlier paraphrases and summaries written by Bob Solon and me.) Note 1 is a summary of many 1991 cases. 1. Enclosed is an end-of-year update of the Banned Computer Material list. It summarizes incidents and policies at Ohio State U., the U. of Illinois (two campuses), Case Western U., Boston U., U. of Waterloo, U. of Toledo, Western Washington U., Iowa State U., Pennsylvania State U., U. of Texas, U. of Newcastle, James Madison U., U. of Wisconsin, and others. <1991Dec18.181508.10501@eff.org> Notes 2-4 are about Iowa State University's restrictions on who can see newsgroups such as alt.sex. 2. [Mike Godwin, staff counsel at the Electronic Frontier Foundation:] Although the policy's stated purpose is to avoid violations of law, in fact, all (or almost all) of the material restricted is legal and Constitutionally protected. <1991Dec19.175822.21404@eff.org> 3. "The Iowa State University policy should, in my opinion, be changed to better respect intellectual freedom by more accurately reflecting library policy (and the law)." It violates the principles of at least three American Library Association policy statements. (These are enclosed.) <1991Dec16.191620.21567@eff.org> 4. The policy was imposed by the Computation Center over the objections of the Computer Center Newsgroup committee and University Computation Center Advisory Sub-Committee. <1991Dec15.163311.4917@news.iastate.edu> Note 5 is about a pornography-on-usenet article that appeared in the German feminist publication EMMA. 5. Contrary to what the EMMA article says, Usenet is not used mainly for transmission of pornographic material. Less that 7% of Usenet traffic is even related to sex. Notes 6-7 try to answer frequently asked questions. 6. Enclosed are answers (with references) to the questions "Should my university remove Netnews newsgroups because some people find them offensive?" (No.) and "If it doesn't have the resources to carry all newsgroups, how should newsgroups be selected?" (Like it selects books and magazines.) <1991Dec16.154149.15030@eff.org> 7. "q: Does a University reduce its likely liability by screening Netnews for offensive articles and newsgroups? a: Not necessarily. By screening articles and newsgroups the University may *increase* its liability." <1991Dec20.045445.4243@m.cs.uiuc.edu> Notes 8-9 are about punishment of inflammatory speech at a private religious university and prohibition of rude speech at a public state university. 8. Enclosed is a note in which the sys admin of Marquette University reports that a student has been expelled from the computing facilities as a result of posting an inflammatory message. I think that inflammatory speech "should be out competed, not outlawed." Also, students should not be punished without due process. <1991Dec18.215846.17384@eff.org> 9. An Iowa State University policy says "[s]ending rude ... material via any electronic mail or bulletin board facility is strictly forbidden." The courts have said that "[i]t is not the job of the government to enforce concepts of courtesy, cooperation, and common sense with respect to expression." <1991Dec3.045840.18238@eff.org> Articles 10-11 discuss issues of user privacy vis-a-vis computers. 10. [A sysadmin] The Unix "ps" command has many positive uses. Also, "... if you don't have anything to hide, you have no reason for privacy" in the context of computer systems. I advocate educational "cross-pollination" and productivity from relatively open systems, especially in an educational environment. <1991Nov27.031621.4433@usl.edu> 11. "[T]he contents of an academic computer, other than directory information and any publicly posted material, are private unless their owners or creators choose to make them public." Such a policy should also pertain to students and staff, as well as faculty. <199112050610.AA19751@eff.org> Note 12 is about the resource use of the MUDs, a type of recreational programs. 12. I've measured network traffic at my site. During hours when MUDs are prohibited, they are 6% of network traffic. During hours when they are allowed they are 30% of traffic. "[W]hile MUD playing here isn't a problem for our T1 connection, it could be troublesome to a site with a 56KB connection." - Carl] In this issue: Carl M. Kadie 172 Banned Computer Material 1991 (end of year update) Mike Godwin 88 news policy at iowa state Carl M. Kadie 664 >New news censorship policy at Iowa State University John Hascall 51 What to do about the new <>group Censorship Policy at ISU Lars P. Fischer 61 >The USENET pornographic network Carl M. Kadie 161 >New news censorship policy at Iowa State University Carl M. Kadie 107 >Inappropriate Use by 2714sviatkos Carl M. Kadie 50 > Carl M. Kadie 91 >BS! Eric Lee Green 73 >System Accounting: Fascist Tool? Dean Gottehrer 36 >Positivism, privacy, and the flow of information Brick Verser 27 Network utilization by MUD players (was Re: Gaming) Computers and Academic Freedom News Managing Editor: Carl M. Kadie (kadie@eff.org) Administration: William W. Arnold (caf-talk-request@eff.org, warnold@eff.org) Associate Editor: Elizabeth M. Reid (emr@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au) Associate Editor: Paul Joslin (joslin@tso.uc.edu) 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 ftp.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 abstract was compiled by a guest editor or a regular editor (Paul Joslin, Elizabeth M. Reid, or Carl M. Kadie). It is not an EFF publication. The views an editor expresses and editorial decisions he or she makes are his or her 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 cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991 From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) Subject: Banned Computer Material 1991 (end of year update) Message-ID: <1991Dec18.181508.10501@eff.org> Date: Wed, 18 Dec 1991 18:15:08 GMT [[This is an major update of an article that was posted in October. New comments are in double square brackets. - Carl]] As part of Banned Book Week (and only a week late), here is: Banned Computer Material 1991 (and earlier) [The references are to issues of the Computers and Academic Freedom News (CAF-news). Instructions on how to access back issues of CAF-news are at the end of this note.] Netnews articles or email that Steve Brack might wish to post from a free student account at Ohio State University -- Last Spring, Steve Brack meant to post a note to the alt.flame newsgroup but also accidently posted to rec.aquaria. In part because of this note, Brack was permanently expelled (without the chance for a formal hearing or appeal) from OSU's Academic Computer Services (ACS) computers. Now a University Judicial Committee hearing is deciding if Mr. Brack be should punished some more for so-called obscenity (by which they mean writing "fuck you" in the note). (cafv01n20, cafv01n17, cafv01n18, cafv01n16, cafv01n15) [[Steven Brack was dismissed, possibly because of his so-called obscenity. He has said he may sue the University. (cafv01n35, cafv01n39, cafv01n36, cafv01n20)]] Email send to or from the National Center for Supercomputer Applications (NCSA) that verbally attacks the Center or the University of Illinois like the anonymous email, signed Saddam Hussein, sent to some people at the NCSA -- The NCSA is a department of the University of Illinois. To justify the methods it used to find and punish "Saddam", the NCSA created rules that allowed searches of user email if they suspected that the email verbally attacked the NCSA. [Follow up: this policy is being revised.] (cafn01n03, cafv01n09). [[...]] Outgoing Netnews article from Purdue -- All outgoing articles from some computer sites at Purdue where screened by a sys admin to make sure that there was nothing "grossly wrong with them". [Follow up: outgoing articles are no longer screened.] (cafv01n08, cafv01n03) An article, containing source code for a program, posted to a local newsgroup at Case Western -- The computer administrators at Case Western deleted the article because they were afraid that someone might read the code, learn how to make a program that would disrupt their local network, write a program that would disrupt their local network, run that program and disrupt their local network. (cafv01n08) Netnews including the so-called outrageous postings by users of the Engineering Computing Center at the University of Kentucky -- Complaints to a dean about the so-called outrageous postings were one reason that Netnews was dropped from a U. of Kentucky site (cafv01n25, cafv01n23). [Follow up: Current plans call for Netnews to be restored when more disk space becomes available.] Computer files at Boston University that anyone finds offensive or annoying -- The rules at Boston University prohibit a computer user from "making accessible offensive [or] annoying ... material". (cafv01n10) The rec.humor.funny newsgroup -- It was banned from parts of Stanford University and all of the University of Waterloo because some people found some of its jokes offensive. Ironically, at the same time the computer version of rec.humor.funny was banned from U. of Waterloo, the yearly book version could be found in the University library. [Follow up: Stanford and Waterloo decided that newsgroups should be selected more like library material and rescinded their bans.] [[...]] [[(cafv01n31,cafv01n33)]] The alt.sex newsgroup at the University of Toledo -- [[...]] [[see (ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/batch/oct_06_1991)]] GIF files of naked people on mars.ee.mstate.edu -- Deleted after the National Science Foundation received a complaint and then asked the mars.ee.mstate.edu archivist to justify the files. Apparently the files were available via anonymous ftp across a NSF sponsored net, but were not stored on a NSF computer. [[...]] [[ (cafv01n31) ]] [[ New stuff: More than a dozen newsgroups, including alt.sex, at Western Washington University -- They were removed from Western Washington University on the order of one person, the Vice Provost for "information and communication". Alt.sex remains at the University of Washington, but other newsgroups were removed right before a negative article was printed in the Seattle _Post_Intelligencer_. (cafv01n33, cafv01n36, cafv01n35, cafv01n41) An article posted by a student at the University of Illinois at Chicago -- The student was punished for posting the article, which offended many, to soc.women. The article was canceled. The system admin justified the punishment saying that the article, posted to an international unmoderated newsgroup, was not protected speech because "it can be considered as a generalized form of sexual harassment". The U. of Illinois has no rules on "generalized sexual harassment". The University's rules on (regular) sexual harassment do not authorize sys admins to judge and punish infractions. (cafv01n36,cafv01n34) Rude articles at Iowa State University -- On-line rudeness is prohibited at Iowa State. A student was reprimanded for posting a rude article to the net. (This policy may be under revision). (cafv01n38) The alt.sex.* hierarchy on PSUVM, Penn State's main general purpose computer -- (cafv01n34) Email or Netnews articles that "bring discredit to the University [of Texas] or the [Computer Science] Department." (cafv01n37) Offensive messages at the University of Newcastle -- (cafv01n39) Email containing offensive material at James Madison University -- (cafv01n39) Most on-line discussion of sex and drugs at Iowa State University -- Iowa State University labels all newsgroup as either "limited list", "standard list", or "full list". This labeling is based on the name and description of each newsgroup and not on its actual content. The standard list excludes most discussion of sex and drugs. The plan is that ,starting January 6, 1991, users on public access machines will be restricted to the standard list. (See recent alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk articles.) Racist email at the University of Wisconsin at Eau Claire -- The university formally reprimanded [a] student and placed him on probation for the remainder of the semester. (Follow up: The student sued in Federal district court and won. See _UWM Post v. University of Wisconsin_ available on-line as ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/law/uwm-post-v-u-of-wisconsin. The judge's decision concludes: "The founding fathers of this nation produced a remarkable document in the Constitution but it was ratified only with the promise of the Bill of Rights. The First Amendment is central to our concept of freedom. The God-given "unalienable rights" that the infant nation rallied to in the Declaration of Independence can be preserved only if their application is rigorously analyzed. The problems of bigotry and discrimination sought to be addressed here are real and truly corrosive of the educational environment. But freedom of speech is almost absolute in our land and the only restriction the fighting words doctrine can abide is that based on the fear of violent reaction. Content-based prohibitions such as that in the UW Rule, however well intended, simply cannot survive the screening which our Constitution demands." ]] ----------------------------- Back issues of the Computer and Academic Freedom News are available via anonymous ftp from ftp.eff.org. They are in directory pub/academic/news. Back issues are also available via email. For information on email access send an email note to archive-server@eff.org. Include the lines "help" and "index". [[For example, to get volume 1, number 39, send email to archiver-server@eff.org. Include the line: send caf-news cafv01n39 ]] I would love to get copies of the shorter banned notes. If you have the joke that got rec.humor.funny banned, the NCSA email, Brack's note, the Case Western source code, etc., please contact me. - 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 cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991 From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) Subject: news policy at iowa state Message-ID: <1991Dec19.175822.21404@eff.org> Date: Thu, 19 Dec 1991 17:58:22 GMT [This is a copy of email that Mike Godwin (mnemonic@eff.org) has sent to Iowa State University. It is posted with the author's permission. - Carl] Dear Mr. Kunz, Hello, my name is Mike Godwin, and I'm staff counsel at the Electronic Frontier Foundation. A student at Iowa State has forwarded to me a copy of your recent message concerning new policies for "Focused," "Standard," and "Full" news lists. In your notice, you say the following: "The Standard offering will be the default for campus use. The excluded lists are those which by their name and accompanying description appear to offer potential conflicts with law, (particularly with child protection and pornography law) or with policies such as the sexual harassment policy." I am somewhat familiar with the newsgroups you are excluding, but as a lawyer I am unclear on the perceived "potential conflicts" you see with "child protection and pornography law." Federal law concerning child pornography focuses on the "visual depiction" the production of which uses a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct. (18 USC 2252) Moreover, the Supreme Court has held that the First Amendment protects material that is not obscene, defining "obscene" as "whether the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest, whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law, and whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value." Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 14 (1974). So far as I know, none of the groups you are excluding has ever violated the child-pornography statutes (to do so would almost certainly require the transmission in a public newsgroup of a "visual depiction" of children engaging in sexual acts, or, perhaps, a conspiracy to create such a depiction). In addition, none of the text newsgroups you specify would likely meet all three prongs of the Miller v. California obscenity test. (As a practical matter, obscenity prosecutions for textual material have all but disappeared in this country.) I am assuming that Iowa State is a state university, and therefore is bound by the 14th Amendment in formulating its sexual-harassment policy. Presumably, such a policy can accommodate the need to free your university environment from sexual harassment without limiting access to newsgroups, just as it likely does not require limiting access to the D.H. Lawrence, Henry Miller, and Norman Mailer collections in your library system. Finally, it is unclear to me how the drug-related groups run any risk at all of violating either the laws you mention (child-protection and pornography law) or laws that you *don't* mention (presumably anti-drug laws). Discussions of drugs and their effects (including illegal drugs and their effects) is fully protected by the First Amendment. I should add that I understand fully how the sheer volume of material may be a factor in your system's choice not to carry any of the picture-oriented newsgroups, and that if this is your motivation for excluding these groups from the Standard list, it is uncontroversial as far as we are concerned. If I have misunderstood or misstated your concerns with regard to these newsgroups, please let me know. At EFF, we are deeply interested in policies that leave choices about what to read to the individual Usenet user. --Mike Godwin Staff Counsel Electronic Frontier Foundation -- 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 cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991 From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) Subject: Re: New news censorship policy at Iowa State University Message-ID: <1991Dec16.191620.21567@eff.org> Keywords: bogus! References: <1991Dec15.164750@IASTATE.EDU> <1991Dec16.154149.15030@eff.org> Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1991 19:16:20 GMT The Iowa State University policy should, in my opinion, be changed to better respect intellectual freedom by more accurately reflecting library policy (and the law). > *** ISU Usenet Access Policy *** > The following policy regarding news service from "news.iastate.edu" will be > placed into effect on January 6, 1992. If you wish > to opt for a different level > of service than Standard (as described in the policy statement), > the forms are > available now in the Computation Center administrative office, 291 Durham > Center. I believe that the requirement that one sign a form to get access to controversial newsgroups is a violation of the Library Bill of Rights. Here is an excerpt from the American Library Association's policy statement "Regulations, Policies, and Procedures Affecting Access to Library Resources and Services": [The full text of this statement is appended] ---------start-------- Libraries serve the function of making ideas and information available to all members of the society, without discrimination. Publicly supported libraries provide access to information for all without imposing barriers which limit or prevent library users, including the indigent or the economically disadvantaged, from exercising their full constitutional rights. Publicly supported libraries' traditional commitment to free public service is integral to their nature and function. Publicly supported libraries, like public schools and universities, are supported in part from a recognition that information and education are essential components of informed self- government. The right of free access to information for all individuals is basic to all library service. The central thrust of the LIBRARY BILL OF RIGHTS is to protect and encourage the free flow of information and ideas. Article 5 protects the rights of an individual to use a library regardless of origin, age, background, or views. The American Library Association urges all libraries to set policies and procedures that reflect the basic tenets of the LIBRARY BILL OF RIGHTS, within the framework of Constitutional imperatives and limitations. Many libraries adopt administrative policies and procedures to govern their order and use, the comfort and safety of patrons and staff, and the protection of resources, services, and facilities. Such policies and procedures affect access, and must not become a convenient means for removing or restricting access to controversial materials, limiting access to facilities, programs, or exhibits, or for discriminating against specific individuals or groups of library patrons. Administrative policies and procedures which infringe on equitable access to library buildings, services, and resources, the privacy of the individual, or the right to read, violate the LIBRARY BILL OF RIGHTS. Further, if such policies have the effect of impermissible discrimination against individuals or particular groups of library users, they are likely to violate First Amendment rights. The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized that "`the right to receive ideas follows ineluctably from the sender's First Amendment right to send them. . . . More importantly, the right to receive ideas is a necessary predicate to the recipient's meaningful exercise of his own rights such as speech, press, and political freedom' (emphasis in original) Board of Education, Island Trees Union Free School District No. 26 v. Pico, 457 U.S. 853, 866-67 (1982) (plurality opinion)."5 Respect for these rights is central to the function of any government supported library for these rights define the library's purpose." ----------end---------- > A document describing Usenet News and the development of this policy is > available via anonymous ftp from "ftp.iastate.edu". Simply establish an ftp > session using the user name "anonymous" and any password and get the document > "/netinfo/news/usenet-news-policy". Also in that directory, > you will find the > list of newsgroups excluded from the Standard offering in the file > "/netinfo/news/usenet-news-std-list". > (As noted below, this list will also be > posted to "isu.newsgroups" each month. > > Usenet News Policy > > The Computation Center maintains a news server offering Usenet News lists for > the Iowa State University community. This offering of service > must comply with > federal, state, and local laws; policies of the Iowa Board of > Regents and Iowa > State University; This is of course a truism. What is the policy of Iowa State University? The policy of most universities (as expressed in their student codes) prohibits institutional censorship. Which laws are you referring to? How do these laws affect the University Library? > and be within the guidelines of any agreements between the > university and local, regional, national, or international computer networks. > The Usenet News Administrator is responsible for the day-to-day > management of the > service on the Iowa State University campus. Any material, particularly > locally-posted material, which could be harmful to > a specific individual(s) may > be removed by the Usenet News Administrator. What kind of harm? If the answer is mere offensive, this assertion of authority violates library policy and likely the law. Article two of the Library Bill of Rights says: "Materials should not be proscribed or removed because of partisan or doctrinal disapproval." [full statement enclosed]. The American Library Association statement on "Diversity in Collection Development" says "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." [full statement enclosed] American Library Association Policy also prohibits the removal of material on the say-so on one person. For information on how material should be selected (and deselected) see the ALA Workbook for Selection Policy Writing. Although aimed at textbook and library book selection in grade and high schools, it also seems applicable to newsgroup selection (and deselection). It includes information about how create a selection policy and how to handle complaints. It also includes a sample selection policy. The full text of the Workbook is available on-line via anonymous ftp as ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/library/selection-workbook.ala. Or send email to archive-server@eff.org. Include the line send library-policies selection-workbook.ala The removal of an offensive note would also violate the law. Just as a state university generally can not remove an article from the student newspaper, it (likely) generally can not remove a student's article from a newsgroups. Like any organization, Iowa State University must work within its charter. Part of this charter is the U.S. Constitution. The Supreme Court has said that the Constitution limits the government's authority to control the media that owns and controls. The rational is that it would be dangerous for a Government that is elected by the people to have too much control on what the people can say and read. The Supreme Court calls created forums, like a student newspaper or campus mail systems, limited public forums. It says that the government can limited who may access these forums and/or what topics may be discussed. But otherwise, "it is bound by the same standards as apply in a traditional public forum"; "content-based prohibition must be narrowly drawn to effectuate a compelling state interest." For example, viewpoint-based discrimination is forbidden. [annotated references enclosed] > News lists which have large > resource requirements which adversely affect general use of > Usenet News may be > restricted in some form by the Usenet News Administrator. > Any news list may contain material which is unfamiliar, > unorthodox or unpopular > to some. Occasionally, even ordinary news lists may contain material which a > reader finds objectionable. Members of the university > community have the right > to request a review of particular material by contacting the Usenet News > Administrator in writing. An alternative consistent with the Intellectual > Freedom Statement (as adopted by the American Library Association Council on > June 25, 1971) would be to recognize that each item available within Usenet > News is a view or mode of expression of the person posting the > material. The presentation of such material in Usenet News does not > imply any endorsement by those providing the news service or by those > subscribing to it. This suggested alternative does not apply to the > public display of offensive materials, only to the presence of > material within Usenet. A separate policy governs the public display > of material. > Three variations of Usenet News lists are offered. These are called > the Focused News List, the Standard News List, and the Full News List. > > The purpose of the Focused News List is to provide an alternative to > those who want their computer to only access news lists which appear > to be focused on academic information directly rather than hobby, > recreational, or undefined areas. The Focused News List contains all > news lists except the alternative and recreational hierarchies (i.e., > "alt" and "rec"). Other hierarchies may also be excluded in the > future if their primary focus appears to be away from academic > information. > > The purpose of the Standard News List is to provide access to the > lists which are unlikely to evoke questions regarding access, use or > distribution of the material. Hence, the Standard News List offering > will explicitly exclude some news groups. The Standard offering will > be the default for campus use. The excluded lists are those which by > their name and accompanying description appear to offer potential > conflicts with law, (particularly with child protection and > pornography law) or with policies such as the sexual harassment > policy. A list of the excluded news lists will be posted monthly to > the newsgroup "isu.newsgroups" with the subject heading "Monthly > Posting -- ISU Usenet Access Policy - Standard List". If other news > lists are created which appear to offer these same potential > conflicts, they will be added to the excluded list. Here is what the American Library Association has to say in their Statement on Labeling: --------start----(full statement) STATEMENT ON LABELING An Interpretation of the LIBRARY BILL OF RIGHTS Labeling is the practice of describing or designating materials by affixing a prejudicial label and/or segregating them by a prejudicial system. The American Library Association opposes these means of predisposing people's attitudes toward library materials for the following reasons: 1. Labeling is an attempt to prejudice attitudes and as such, it is a censor's tool. 2. Some find it easy and even proper, according to their ethics, to establish criteria for judging publications as objectionable. However, injustice and ignorance rather than justice and enlightenment result from such practices, and the American Library Association opposes the establishment of such criteria. 3. Libraries do not advocate the ideas found in their collections. The presence of books and other resources in a library does not indicate endorsement of their contents by the library. A variety of private organizations promulgate rating systems and/or review materials as a means of advising either their members or the general public concerning their opinions of the contents and suitability or appropriate age for use of certain books, films, recordings, or other materials. For the library to adopt or enforce any of these private systems, to attach such ratings to library materials, to include them in bibliographic records, library catalogs, or other finding aids, or otherwise to endorse them would violate the LIBRARY BILL OF RIGHTS. While some attempts have been made to adopt these systems into law, the constitutionality of such measures is extremely questionable. If such legislation is passed which applies within a library's jurisdiction, the library should seek competent legal advice concerning its applicability to library operations. Publishers, industry groups, and distributors sometimes add ratings to material or include them as part of their packaging. Librarians should not endorse such practices. However, removing or obliterating such ratings -- if placed there by or with permission of the copyright holder -- could constitute expurgation, which is also unacceptable. The American Library Association opposes efforts which aim at closing any path to knowledge. This statement, however, does not exclude the adoption of organizational schemes designed as directional aids or to facilitate access to materials. Adopted July 13, 1951. Amended June 25, 1971; July 1, 1981; June 26, 1990, by the ALA Council. [Made available by permission of the American Library Association.] ---------end------ > > The purpose of the Full News List is to offer full access to all news > lists to anyone in the Iowa State community who requests it and > acknowledges their responsibility in accessing, using, and > distributing material from it. Some material in the full news feed > may not be appropriate for general distribution. It is the > responsibility of those receiving the material to comply with > appropriate law and policy. > > All computers served by the Computation Center news server will > receive the Standard News List as the default. Those persons in > charge of computers (time-sharing systems, workstations, or > microcomputers) may request either the Focused List or the Full list > by filling out the appropriate form obtained from the Computation > Center administrative office, 291 Durham Center. The form for the > Focused News List acknowledges that certain material may not be > available to the specified computer. The form for the Full News List > acknowledges responsibility for access, use, and distribution of all > Usenet material via that specific computer via either console or > remote use. Once either Full or Focused access has been requested, > the requester may revert to the Standard offering by filling out a > form. > > All publicly-accessible computers in the Computation Center, with the > exception of the HDS WYLBUR time-sharing system, will offer the > Standard News List only. University users of WYLBUR may request > access to the Full or Focused News Lists by filling out the > appropriate form obtained from 291 Durham Center. The form > acknowledges individual responsibility of the user-id owner for > access, use, and distribution of Usenet material. Some material in > the full news feed may not be appropriate for general distribution. > It is the responsibility of those receiving the material to comply > with appropriate law and policy. > -- > Steven L. Kunz > Networking & Communications | Usenet News Admin. > Iowa State University Computation Center, Iowa State University, Ames IA > INET: skunz@iastate.edu BITNET: gr.slk@isumvs.bitnet I urge Iowa State University to more faithfully apply the principles of intellectual freedom developed by libraries to the administration of information material on computers. - Carl Kadie ============ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/library/access.policies.ala====== REGULATIONS, POLICIES, AND PROCEDURES AFFECTING ACCESS TO LIBRARY RESOURCES AND SERVICES An Interpretation of the LIBRARY BILL OF RIGHTS American libraries exist and function within the context of a body of law derived from the United States Constitution, defined by statute, and implemented by regulations, policies, and procedures established by their governing bodies and administrations. These regulations, policies, and procedures reflect the function and character of the library, define its operations, and protect its mission and the rights of its users. "The library is one of the great symbols of our democracy. It is a living embodiment of the First Amendment because it includes voices of dissent."1 Libraries of all types adhere to this ideal. Publicly supported libraries serve as traditional public forums, open to the collection, use, and dissemination of all forms of recorded human expression that are expressly dedicated to the unfettered competition of the marketplace of ideas. It is essential to this purpose that the library function as neutral ground in that marketplace. Viewpoint-based discrimination has no place in publicly supported library collections or services; for the library to espouse partisan causes or favor particular viewpoints violates its mission. "A public library is not only a designated public forum, but also a quintessential, traditional public forum whose accessibility affects the bedrock of our democratic system. A place where ideas are communicated freely through the written word"2 and other means of recorded expression "is as integral to a democracy and to First Amendment rights as an available public space where citizens can communicate their ideas through the spoken word."3 The fact of public sponsorship of a library in no way implies endorsement of any of the myriad viewpoints contained within a library's collection. Nor should a funding source dictate its contents. The United States Supreme Court has recognized that "the university is a traditional sphere of free expression so fundamental to the functioning of our society that the Government's ability to control speech within that sphere by means of conditions attached to the expenditures of Government funds, is restricted by the vagueness and overbreadth doctrines of the First Amendment. . . ."4 The same principles apply with equal force to publicly supported libraries. These principles restrict any attempt to control expression within a publicly supported library or to dictate or limit the contents of its collections, programs, displays, or publications through conditions attached to funding. Libraries serve the function of making ideas and information available to all members of the society, without discrimination. Publicly supported libraries provide access to information for all without imposing barriers which limit or prevent library users, including the indigent or the economically disadvantaged, from exercising their full constitutional rights. Publicly supported libraries' traditional commitment to free public service is integral to their nature and function. Publicly supported libraries, like public schools and universities, are supported in part from a recognition that information and education are essential components of informed self- government. The right of free access to information for all individuals is basic to all library service. The central thrust of the LIBRARY BILL OF RIGHTS is to protect and encourage the free flow of information and ideas. Article 5 protects the rights of an individual to use a library regardless of origin, age, background, or views. The American Library Association urges all libraries to set policies and procedures that reflect the basic tenets of the LIBRARY BILL OF RIGHTS, within the framework of Constitutional imperatives and limitations. Many libraries adopt administrative policies and procedures to govern their order and use, the comfort and safety of patrons and staff, and the protection of resources, services, and facilities. Such policies and procedures affect access, and must not become a convenient means for removing or restricting access to controversial materials, limiting access to facilities, programs, or exhibits, or for discriminating against specific individuals or groups of library patrons. Administrative policies and procedures which infringe on equitable access to library buildings, services, and resources, the privacy of the individual, or the right to read, violate the LIBRARY BILL OF RIGHTS. Further, if such policies have the effect of impermissible discrimination against individuals or particular groups of library users, they are likely to violate First Amendment rights. The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized that "`the right to receive ideas follows ineluctably from the sender's First Amendment right to send them. . . . More importantly, the right to receive ideas is a necessary predicate to the recipient's meaningful exercise of his own rights such as speech, press, and political freedom' (emphasis in original) Board of Education, Island Trees Union Free School District No. 26 v. Pico, 457 U.S. 853, 866-67 (1982) (plurality opinion)."5 Respect for these rights is central to the function of any government supported library for these rights define the library's purpose. Because publicly supported libraries are institutions dedicated to the free flow of information, it is essential that the regulations, policies, and procedures which libraries develop and use embody the principles of free expression. Information about their operations must be made available in full compliance with confidentiality, privacy, freedom of information and sunshine laws. The application of policies and procedures for the use of library services and resources should be consistently applied to both members of the public and library employees. Policies and procedures for responding to complaints about library materials -- including individual items in a collection, library programs and services, or publications and other material produced or published by the library -- should be uniformly applied regardless of the source of the complaint, whether coming from a member of the public, staff, or governing authority. 1., 2., 3., 5. Richard R. Kreimer v. Bureau of Police for the Town of Morristown, et. al., ___ F. Supp. ___ (No. 90-554, May 22, 1991). 4. Rust, et. al. v. Sullivan, ___U.S.___(___U.S.L.W.___, ___S. Ct. Rept.___), No. 89-1391, May 23, 1991. Adopted January 27, 1982, as ADMINISTRATIVE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES AFFECTING ACCESS TO LIBRARY RESOURCES AND SERVICES; amended with title change July 3, 1991, by the ALA Council. [Made available by permission of the American Library Association.] ============ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/library/bill-of-rights.ala ====== LIBRARY BILL OF RIGHTS The American Library Association affirms that all libraries are forums for information and ideas, and that the following basic policies should guide their services. 1. Books and other library resources should be provided for the interest, information, and enlightenment of all people of the community the library serves. Materials should not be excluded because of the origin, background, or views of those contributing to their creation. 2. Libraries should provide materials and information presenting all points of view on current and historical issues. Materials should not be proscribed or removed because of partisan or doctrinal disapproval. 3. Libraries should challenge censorship in the fulfillment of their responsibility to provide information and enlightenment. 4. Libraries should cooperate with all persons and groups concerned with resisting abridgment of free expression and free access to ideas. 5. A person's right to use a library should not be denied or abridged because of origin, age, background, or views. 6. Libraries which make exhibit spaces and meeting rooms available to the public they serve should make such facilities available on an equitable basis, regardless of the beliefs or affiliations of individuals or groups requesting their use. Adopted June 18, 1948; amended February 2, 1961, and January 23, 1980, by the ALA Council. [Made available by permission of the American Library Association.] ============ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/library/diversity.ala ====== 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.] ==============================legal refernences============ Access information follows the bibliography. ================= law/san-diego-committee-v-gov-bd ================= Excerpts from San Diego Committee v. Governing Bd., 790 F.2d 1471 (1986). A decision by an appellate court that applied the Supreme Court's Public Forum Doctrine (to a school newspaper). ================= law/stanley-v-magrath ================= Comments from _Public Schools Law: Teachers' and Students' Rights_ 2nd Ed. by Martha M. McCarthy and Nelda H. Cambron-McCabe, published in 1987 by Allyn and Bacon, Inc. It says, in part, "[a]lthough school boards are not obligated to support student papers, if a given publication was originally created as a free speech forum, removal of financial or other school board support can be construed as an unlawful effort to stifle free expression." Also, "school authorities cannot withdraw support from a student publication simply because of displeasure with the content" and "the content of a school-sponsored paper that is established as a medium for student expression cannot be regulated more closely than a nonsponsored paper". Also, it tells what to do about libel in student publications. ================= law/student-publications.misc ================= The book _Law of the Student Press_ by the Student Press Law Center (1985,1988), says that four-letter words are protected speech, that public universities are not likely to be liable for publications that they for which they do not control the contents, and that the _Hazelwood_ decision does not apply to universities. ================= law/constraints.constitutional ================= Comments from _A Practical Guide to Legal Issues Affecting College Teachers_ by Partrica A. Hollander, D. Parker Young, and Donald D. Gehring. (College Administration Publication, 1985). Discusses the constitutional constraints on public universities including the requires for freedom of expression, freedom against unreasonable searches and seizures, due process, specific rules. ================= law/uwm-post-v-u-of-wisconsin ================= The full text of UWM POST v. U. of Wisconsin. This recent district court ruling goes into detail about the difference between protected offensive expression and illegal harassment. It even mentions email. It concludes: "The founding fathers of this nation produced a remarkable document in the Constitution but it was ratified only with the promise of the Bill of Rights. The First Amendment is central to our concept of freedom. The God-given "unalienable rights" that the infant nation rallied to in the Declaration of Independence can be preserved only if their application is rigorously analyzed. The problems of bigotry and discrimination sought to be addressed here are real and truly corrosive of the educational environment. But freedom of speech is almost absolute in our land and the only restriction the fighting words doctrine can abide is that based on the fear of violent reaction. Content-based prohibitions such as that in the UW Rule, however well intended, simply cannot survive the screening which our Constitution demands." ================= law/doe-v-u-of-michigan ================= This is Doe v. University of Michigan. In this widely referenced decision, the district judge down struck the University's rules against discriminatory harassment because the rules were found to be too broad and too vague. ================= law/rust-v-sullivan ================= The decision and decent for the so-called abortion information gag rule case. The decision explicitly mentions universities as a place where free expression is so important that gag rules would not be allowed. ================= law/keyishian-v-board-of-regents ================= In this Supreme Court case, the Court said that public universities can not infringe on the Constitutionally protected rights of their students and employees (specially with regard to loyalty oaths). ================= law/perry-v-perry ================= Comments from the ACLU Handbook _The Rights of _Teachers_. It says that campus mail systems (and other school facilities) can be limited public forums. (Perry v. Perry was about an interschool mail system. It was one of the cases that defined the Public Forum Doctrine.) Also, a paraphrase from an ACLU handbook _The Rights of Teachers_. It says that generally, speech, if otherwise shielded from punishment by the First Amendment, does not lose that protection because its tone is sharp. Also, from p. 92, it says that there are legal limits to what a (public) school can ask its teachers to sign. [Some of these same limits might apply to what a school can ask a user to sign as a condition of getting (or keeping) a computer account.] ================= law/constitution.us ================= The Constitution of the United States ================= ================= To get these documents by email, send email to archive-server@eff.org. Include the line(s): send caf-law san-diego-committee-v-gov-bd send caf-law stanley-v-magrath send caf-law student-publications.misc send caf-law constraints.constitutional send caf-law uwm-post-v-u-of-wisconsin send caf-law doe-v-u-of-michigan send caf-law rust-v-sullivan send caf-law keyishian-v-board-of-regents send caf-law perry-v-perry send caf-law constitution.us The files are also available via anonymous ftp from ftp.eff.org (191.88.144.3) as file(s): pub/academic/law/san-diego-committee-v-gov-bd pub/academic/law/stanley-v-magrath pub/academic/law/student-publications.misc pub/academic/law/constraints.constitutional pub/academic/law/uwm-post-v-u-of-wisconsin pub/academic/law/doe-v-u-of-michigan pub/academic/law/rust-v-sullivan pub/academic/law/keyishian-v-board-of-regents pub/academic/law/perry-v-perry pub/academic/law/constitution.us -- 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 cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991 From: john@iastate.edu (John Hascall) Subject: What to do about the new Newsgroup Censorship Policy at ISU Message-ID: <1991Dec15.163311.4917@news.iastate.edu> Originator: john@vincent1.iastate.edu Sender: news@news.iastate.edu (USENET News System) Distribution: na Date: Sun, 15 Dec 1991 16:33:11 GMT DISCLAIMER: This posting is from John Hascall, private citizen, and any opinions contained within are solely those of the author and are not the official position of his employer or any committee on which he serves. If you have a opinion on the new policy, speak up! Encourage others to speak up! The policy definitely will not change if you sit there like sheep. Here are some facts not mentioned in the posting about the policy. 1) The policy was not developed by the Comp Ctr committee which developed the original "open learning environment" policy. 2) The policy was brought to the Comp Ctr Newsgroup committee who did not approve it. 3) The policy was brought to the University Computation Advisory Committee (Computation Center Advisory Sub-Committee) who did not approve it. In addition to posting news, here are some people to write to express your opinion on this matter. Richard Seagrave Acting Director, Comp Ctr 291 Durham Ctr George Covert Associate Director, Comp Ctr 291 Durham Ctr David Hopper Chair, University Computation Advisory Cmte Vet Diag Lab, 1541 Vet Med Bob Boston Chair, UCAC (Comp Ctr Advisory Sub-Cmte) English, 353 Ross Patrica Swan Interim Provost 107 Beardshear John Hascall -------------------- From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991 From: fischer@iesd.auc.dk (Lars P. Fischer) Subject: Re: The USENET pornographic network Message-ID: Date: 10 Dec 91 15:45:55 GMT >>>>> "Eric" == J Eric Townsend (jet@karazm.math.uh.edu) >> The german version of EMMA has published in its current issue >> an article about the USENET, an academic network used mainly >> for transmission of pornographic material. Eric> Go look at the stats in the news.* groups. alt.sex.* is up at the top. Eric> Yes Virginia, a big chunk of USENET's users read the alt.sex.* hierarchy. Eric> That's a simple fact, not a moral judgement. group readers % of all newsreaders ------------------------------------------------------------------------ alt.sex 210000 12.7% rec.arts.erotica 140000 8.7% alt.sex.bondage 99000 6.1% alt.sex.pictures 93000 5.7% alt.binaries.pictures.erotica 72000 4.4% alt.sex.movies 61000 3.8% alt.sex.pictures.d 53000 3.2% alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.d 51000 3.1% alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.female 42000 2.6% alt.sex.pictures.female 33000 2.0% alt.sex.motss 31000 1.9% alt.sex.masturbation 11000 0.7% alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.male 11000 0.7% alt.sex.wanted 8200 0.5% Yes, Eric, that's a lot of people, but it hardly justifies saying that USENET is "used mainly for transmission of pornographic material". Well, we might look at volume instead. Totalling the traffic for the above groups (ignoring crossposting for now), we get 51031.4 kbyte/month. Doing the same for all groups, we get 747191 kbyte/month, i.e. the sex groups constitutes 6.83% of the traffic. So, we ignored crossposting above. According to the UUNET traffic totals, there is currently (Nov) 22330.362 kbytes/day or 669910.86 kbytes/month, i.e. we overestimated the traffic by 11% by ignoring crossposting. For the sex groups, crossposting varies, with alt.sex.bondage at 1%, alt.binaries.pictures.erotica at 12%, alt.sex at 23% and alt.sex.pictures at a whopping 54%. This means that we lack precision, but not fatally so. Lots of boring numbers, right? The point is, I guess, that, yes, there *is* pornographic material on the USENET, and, yes, some USENET readers follow these groups, but, no, it is *not* the majority that follow these groups, and, no, it is not the major part of the traffic. Now back to out usual flaming. I hope a few facts didn't ruin your day. /Lars -- Lars Fischer, fischer@iesd.auc.dk | It takes an uncommon mind to think of CS Dept., Univ. of Aalborg, DENMARK. | these things. -- Calvin ------------------- From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991 From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) Subject: Re: New news censorship policy at Iowa State University Message-ID: <1991Dec16.154149.15030@eff.org> Keywords: bogus! References: <1991Dec15.164750@IASTATE.EDU> Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1991 15:41:49 GMT spam@IASTATE.EDU (Michael L Begley) writes: >Hi. I'm a staudent at Iowa State University, and the university >just recently unveiled a policy designed to censor the following >groups from virtually every student and most faculty. ... >Could >someone with more experience with this issue please point me to some >of the most relevent information regarding htis issue on eff.com >and any other source? Thanks. ----------------ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/faq/newsgroups.read------- q: Should my university remove Netnews newsgroups because some people find them offensive? If it doesn't have the resources to carry all newsgroups, how should newsgroups be selected? a: In 1989, Stanford University banned rec.humor.funny. The ban was lifted after a university committee recommended that newsgroups be selected according to library policy. In other words, removing a newsgroup is equivalent to banning a magazine from an academic library. The principles of intellectual freedom developed by libraries can (and should, in my opinion) 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. With the permission of the American Library Assocation, these documents and others are avaiable on-line. Many of these documents deal with controversial material and material selection policy. For example, article 2 of the Library Bill of Rights says: "Materials should not be proscribed or removed because of partisan or doctrinal disapproval". The ALA Workbook for Selection Policy Writing tells how to create a formal policy. - Carl M. Kadie ANNOTATED REFERENCES (All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.) ================= stanford.statements ================= "In 1989 rec.humor.funny was suppressed in some of the Stanford University computers. After a campaign it was re-installed in those computers." This file contains 1) the "Statement of Protest about the AIR Censorship of rec.humor.funny" 2) a statement by the Stanford faculty committee on libraries 3) Notes from Professor John McCarthy on how censorship was fought at Stanford (also see "jmcabstract") ================= jmcabstract ================= Professor John McCarthy lead the effort to restore "rec.humor.funny" at Stanford. In March of 1991, he traveled to the University of Waterloo, a place where "rec.humor.funny" and "alt.sex" was banned. At Waterloo, he gave one talk on a new computer language and a second talk on "Network Publication and Free Expression". This is the abstract of that talk. (In May 1991, an advisory committee said the ban should be lifted. In October 1991, the ban was lifted.) (Also, see "stanford.statements") ================= caf-statement ================= 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. Comments and suggestions are very welcome (especially when posted to CAF-talk). All the documents referenced are available on-line. ================= library/bill-of-rights.ala ================= The Library Bill of Rights from the American Library Association. ================= library/selection-workbook.ala ================= The American Library Association's "Workbook on Selection Policy Writing". Although aimed at textbook and library book selection in grade and high schools, it also seems applicable to newsgroup selection. It includes information about how create a selection policy and how to handle complaints. It also includes a sample selection policy. ================= library/int-freedom.ala ================= "Intellectual Freedom Statement" An interpretation by the American Library Association of the "Library Bill of Rights" ================= library/README ================= Library Policy Archive [part of the Computers and Academic Freedom (CAF) Archive [part of the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) Archive]] This is an on-line collection of library policy statements. It includes the American Library Association's Freedom To Read statement and the ALA Library Bill of Rights. (The ALA material is made available by permission of the American Library Association.) The archive is accessible via anonymous ftp and email. Ftp to ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.3). It is in directory "pub/academic/library". For email access, send email to archive-server@eff.org. Include the line: send library-policies where is a list of the files that you want. File README is a detailed description of the items in the directory. For more information, to make contributions, or to report typos contact Carl Kadie (kadie@eff.org). ================= faq/netnews.writing ================= q: Should my university allow students to post to Netnews? ================= ================= To get these documents by email, send email to archive-server@eff.org. Include the line(s): send acad-freeedom stanford.statements send acad-freeedom jmcabstract send acad-freeedom caf-statement send library-policies bill-of-rights.ala send library-policies selection-workbook.ala send library-policies int-freedom.ala send library-policies README send caf-faq netnews.writing The files are also available via anonymous ftp from ftp.eff.org (191.88.144.3) as file(s): pub/academic/stanford.statements pub/academic/jmcabstract pub/academic/caf-statement pub/academic/library/bill-of-rights.ala pub/academic/library/selection-workbook.ala pub/academic/library/int-freedom.ala pub/academic/library/README pub/academic/faq/netnews.writing -- 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 cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991 From: kadie@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) Subject: Re: Inappropriate Use by 2714sviatkos Message-ID: <1991Dec20.045445.4243@m.cs.uiuc.edu> References: <009534B5.604A6160@vms.csd.mu.edu> <1991Dec19.154732.29142@wpi.WPI.EDU> <144@hsdndev.UUCP> Date: Fri, 20 Dec 1991 04:54:45 GMT burns@thurifer.harvard.edu (John A. Burns) writes: [...] >And can his publisher (in this case, Marquette University) also be held >legally responsible for harm done as a result? If not, why not? If so, >how can you deny them the right to avoid doing harm by refusing to publish? [...] =============== ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/faq/netnews.liability =============== q: Does a University reduce its likely liability by screening Netnews for offensive articles and newsgroups? a: Not necessarily. By screening articles and newsgroups the University may *increase* its liability. (Aside: Elimination of liability should not be the University's only goal.) According to the book _Law of the Student Press_ (in reference student newspapers), "Only two court cases have considered the liability question, and in both cases the courts found that the institution was free from liability because control was in the hands of the students.{33,34} ... Thus, despite arguments by administrators that they need to prevent libel, it appears that just the opposite is true: Where administrators have not exercised control over the content of student publications, the courts have refused to hold their schools responsible for libel appearing in such publication. If, however, administrators exercise the power of prior review, then the court will also hold them and their schools liable for the contents of such publications. Encouraging the establishment of a clear-cut separation between school administration and editor functions may also result in the reduction of libel suits, for potential plaintiffs will realize that substantial funds are beyond their reach. ... {33} _Mazart v. State_ 441 N.Y.S.2d 600 (1981) {34} _Milliner v. Turner_ 436 So.2d 1300 (La. App. 1983)" The recent _Cubby v. Compuserve_ decision also suggests that a no-screening policy may be best. The judge wrote: "CompuServe has no more editorial control over such a publication 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." - Carl ANNOTATED REFERENCES (All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.) ================= student.freedoms ================= Joint Statement on Rights and Freedoms of Students -- This is the main statement on student academic freedom. ================= law/cubby-v-compuserv ================= Report of a federal district court case which said that BBS owners cannot be held liable for the content they know beforehand that the stories are false. ================= law/student-publications.misc ================= Quotes from the book _Law of the Student Press_ by the Student Press Law Center (1985,1988). They say that four-letter words are protected speech, that public universities are not likely to be liable for publications that they for which they do not control the contents, and that the _Hazelwood_ decision does not apply to universities. ================= faq/netnews.reading ================= q: Should my university remove Netnews newsgroups because some people find them offensive? If it doesn't have the resources to carry all newsgroups, how should newsgroups be selected? ================= faq/netnews.writing ================= q: Should my university allow students to post to Netnews? ================= ================= To get these documents by email, send email to archive-server@eff.org. Include the line(s): send acad-freeedom student.freedoms send caf-law cubby-v-compuserv send caf-law student-publications.misc send caf-faq netnews.reading send caf-faq netnews.writing The files are also available via anonymous ftp from ftp.eff.org (191.88.144.3) as file(s): pub/academic/student.freedoms pub/academic/law/cubby-v-compuserv pub/academic/law/student-publications.misc pub/academic/faq/netnews.reading pub/academic/faq/netnews.writing -- Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign ------------------- From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991 From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) Subject: Re: Inappropriate Use by 2714sviatkos Message-ID: <1991Dec18.215846.17384@eff.org> References: <009534B5.604A6160@vms.csd.mu.edu> Date: Wed, 18 Dec 1991 21:58:46 GMT In article <009534B5.604A6160@vms.csd.mu.edu> 8001mallinge@vms.csd.mu.edu writes: > > Access code 2714sviatkos has been removed and the person involved > is restricted from use of any Computer Services computing facilities. > Our computer use policy as well as our network acceptable use policy > clearly prohibit activity such as the inflammatory message posted > Friday evening, December 13, 1991. > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - > Ann Mallinger, User Services Manager > Computer Services Division > Marquette University Dear Ms. Mallinger: I am distressed to read that you are punishing a student for offending people in a free speech forum. Bad speech should be out competed, not outlawed. The Joint Statement on Rights and Freedoms of Students, main statement on academic freedom in the US, says: "Students and student organizations should be free to examine and discuss all questions of interest to them, and to express opinions publicly and privately." What is your university's policy on freedom of expression? The Student Code of most universities guarantees students that they will be free of institutional censorship. This guarentee is part of the contractual obligation between student and school and cannot be overridden by departments. (see _A Practical Guide to Legal Issues Affecting College Teachers_ by Patricia A. Hollander.) (Also what is your university's due process procedure? Most university's guarantee that students cannot be punished without being given the chance for a hearing.) I hope that you will consider your moral (and legal) obligations, and strike down the punishment. For a copy of the Joint Statement, send email to archive-server@eff.org. Include the lines: send acad-freedom student.freedoms send acad-freedom README help index Yours, Carl Kadie -- 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 cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991 From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) Subject: Re: BS! Message-ID: <1991Dec3.045840.18238@eff.org> References: <1991Dec2.040913.5347@news.iastate.edu> Date: Tue, 3 Dec 1991 04:58:40 GMT (A second response) kadie@eff.org, paraphrasing an article by kadie@eff.org, writes: >4. Iowa State University policy prohibits the sending of "rude" >material. This policy is very likely infringes on >Constitutionally-protected rights. References are enclosed. > <1991Nov14.203127.16256@eff.org> S2.RSB@isumvs.iastate.edu (Bob Boston) writes: > The following guidelines govern ethical computer use at Iowa State > University: [...] > # Sending rude, obscene or harassing material via any electronic mail > or bulletin board facility is strictly forbidden. [...] >Please note that the existing guidelines refer only to "University Computing >Facilities." These facilities are owned or paid for by Iowa State University >and the Iowa Board of Regents, not by the students and teachers who use the >facilities. Students and teachers who use their own computers and public >networks like GEnie and CompuServe are free to be as rude as they wish. But >if they use computers and networks supported by Iowa State they must abide by >the guidelines established by the owner of those computers and networks. [...] >IMHO, saying "Rudeness is not a crime" is putting the emPHAsis on the wrong >sylLABle. Any action not defined as a crime is permissable? In other words I >can spit in your face and seduce your wife without worrying you? I can call >you a motherf****r without raising your ire? >It may be that rudeness is *the* crime in reasoned discourse, for it usually >involves an attack on the person rather than an argument against the person's >ideas. In thinking so much about legalities, you may have forgotten more basic >concepts of courtesy, cooperation and common sense. >Bob Boston >Writing Labs Director >English Department >Iowa State University [...] It is not the job or place of the government to enforce concepts of courtesy, cooperation and common sense with respect to expression. That should and is done with social pressure. In _Hustler Magazine v. Falwell_, the Supreme Court wrote "in public debate our own citizens must tolerate insulting, and even outrageous speech in order to provide adequate breathing space to the freedoms protected by the First Amendment." To paraphrase the ACLU handbook on the _Rights of Teachers_: generally, speech, if otherwise shielded from punishment by the First Amendment [or Academic Freedom -cmk], does not lose that protection because its tone is sharp. Discussions will not always be models of decorum. A court observed that "often those with the power to appoint will be on one side of a controversial issue and find it convenient to use their opponent's momentary stridency as a pretext to squelch them." Also, of interest are two recent federal district decisions. In _UWM POST v. U. of Wisconsin_ and _Doe v. U. of Michican, the courts struck down campus speech codes saying that they violated the First Amendment. (_UWM Post_ involved email.) The full text of both decisions is available via anonymous ftp from directory ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/law. The _UWM Post_ decision concludes: "The founding fathers of this nation produced a remarkable document in the Constitution but it was ratified only with the promise of the Bill of Rights. The First Amendment is central to our concept of freedom. The God-given "unalienable rights" that the infant nation rallied to in the Declaration of Independence can be preserved only if their application is rigorously analyzed. The problems of bigotry and discrimination sought to be addressed here are real and truly corrosive of the educational environment. But freedom of speech is almost absolute in our land and the only restriction the fighting words doctrine can abide is that based on the fear of violent reaction. Content-based prohibitions such as that in the UW Rule, however well intended, simply cannot survive the screening which our Constitution demands." -- 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 cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991 From: elg@usl.edu (Eric Lee Green) Subject: Re: System Accounting: Fascist Tool? Message-ID: <1991Nov27.031621.4433@usl.edu> Date: 27 Nov 91 03:16:21 GMT Article-I.D.: usl.1991Nov27.031621.4433 References: <9111252053.AA09129@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu> Sender: anon@usl.edu (Anonymous NNTP Posting) In article <9111252053.AA09129@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu> brack@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu (Brack) writes: >In article <1991Nov25.162134.6865@eff.org> you write: >: Resolved: Use of the Unix "ps" command should be severely restricted >: for the sake of user privacy. >: >: Believe it or not, I'm going to take the negative position and defend >: "ps". >: >: ------- > It is not the users place to decide what processes are allowed > to be executed by other users. That is a function of the > sysadmin (remember the concierge theory?). I don't want Well: I agree, that there should be a per-process option which restricts what information is available to "ps". HOWEVER: here's something that actually happened: A person ran MIT C-Scheme. This is a huge memory hog that has a 4 megabyte memory image. He typed (quit) to exit the Scheme environment. He wasn't Unix-adept, so he didn't know what "job stopped xyzzzy" meant... he assumed that it meant that Scheme had died and gone away. He then edited his Scheme file (sure, he should have control-Z'ed, but Unix neophyte, remember?) and then ran Scheme again. Note: Now we have TWO schemes running, taking up 8 megabytes of swap space. Repeat several times. Get message, "Out of swap space" when try to spawn a process. I typed ps -augxw at my terminal, trying to figure out what the heck was going on, and noticed all these Schemes. I noted the tty that this was being run from, and wandered over there and let him know what he was doing wrong. Now, who did I harm? Seems to me that yes, I could have reported it to an administrator... but I'd still be waiting for someone to kill all those old processes off :-). > anyone who does a ps -a to know what I'm doing. If I want\ > people to know, I'll tell them, but I don't want information > private to me to be given to anyone who asks without my permission. I'm of the old hacker school. I don't believe in either privacy or administrators :-). The way I figure it, if you don't have anything to hide, you have no reason for privacy. Now, I'll agree that in a corporate environment privacy is a necessity. But this is the academic environment, built around free flow of information. Restrict that free flow of information, and you get less productivity, less cross-pollination of ideas between people, less of what universities are set up to do. > > What good would it do the other users to see his/her runaway > process? The only ones who can stop it are the student & > the admin, in any case. Well, knowing what the runaway process is allows me to go over to that person's terminal and say "hey, did you know that you were using 90% of the CPU?". It also allows me to go straight to the operator and tell him exactly what is going on... note that this guy in the machine room isn't a professional, probably just a graduate assistant, and expecting him to know his way around the system is like expecting a blind man to see :-). (In other words, expecting him to be able to figure out how to solve the problem all by himself just isn't realistic). -- -- Eric Lee Green P.O. Box 92191 Lafayette, LA 70506 (318) 989-8950 Internet: elg@elgamy.raidernet.com UUCP: uunet!mjbtn!raider!elgamy!elg "It's never too late for a happy childhood" -- The Doctor ------------------- From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991 From: FFDMG@ALASKA.BITNET (Dean Gottehrer) Subject: Re: Positivism, privacy, and the flow of information Message-ID: <199112050610.AA19751@eff.org> Sender: FFDMG%ALASKA.BITNET@CORNELLC.cit.cornell.edu Date: 4 Dec 91 12:09:13 GMT Thanks, Mitch, for an invitation to join the debate. I hope we can keep this out of the flame war arena where more fire than light is created. I read the line about "if you don't have anything to hide, you have no reason for privacy" and thought it made about as much sense to me as automatically assuming that anyone who asserts his or her consitutional Fifth Amendment rights is guilty of a crime. Innocent people accused of crimes are just as entitled to the right not to respond as guilty folks are. Similarly, people with nothing to hide are also entitled to privacy. Not everything about any person's life is public. Some things are private--not because anyone of us wants to hide them, but because the Supreme Court has determined we have a right to privacy and certain parts of our lives are lived in private and not out in public for everyone to see. For much of that same reason, I think the contents of an academic computer, other than directory information and any publically posted material, are private unless their owners or creaters choose to make them public. Research that faculty conduct is not public until they make it so by publishing it in some way. Just because a faculty member has files on the academic computer does mean that everyone should have the ability to look around and read them--unless, of course, the faculty member makes them public. And for whatever my two cents are worth, I think the same privacy rights pertain to students and staff. We are not yet at the point where everything everyone owns or creates is open to anyone else to read. Does that mean a faculty member who doesn't want his research public until he chooses to publish it has something to hide? I don't think so. I would rather view it as his right to shape a work in progress, refine and polish it, until he believes it is ready to face the world. Best, Dean Gottehrer Anchorage, Alaska ------------------- From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991 From: bav@hobbes.ksu.ksu.edu (Brick Verser) Subject: Network utilization by MUD players (was Re: Gaming) Date: 9 Dec 91 09:41:57 GMT Message-ID: In article <1991Dec06.180003.10985@groucho> djanson@doc.ee.uidaho.edu (David Janson) writes: >If anyone has any hard figures on this subject, I'd appreciate looking at them. I ran NNSTAT here on Thursday, Nov 21, 6am to 6pm. We have a policy which supposedly prohibits MUD playing between 8am and midnight on school days, so there shouldn't have been too much MUD activity. But MUD turned out to be the number 4 application behind BITNET, NETNEWS, and FTP. It outpaced ordinary TELNET and SMTP that day (dunno how representative that Thursday was). MUD ports represented about 6% of the total traffic, or about 32 megabytes in those 12 hours (740 bytes/sec). I did the same test running from Friday night about 10pm to Monday about 3am (3171 minutes) and MUD was the single biggest application. MUD was about 30% of our total while FTP, NETNEWS, and BITNET were each about 15%. The total MUD traffic was about 460 megabytes (in 190K seconds is 2400 bytes per second). 30 minutes peaks were much higher than average, but still only a tiny bump for a T1 connection. We have no servers here, so all of the MUD traffic represents our folks playing the game on distant machines. So, while MUD playing here isn't a problem for our T1 connection, it could be troublesome to a site with a 56KB connection. Indeed, before we upgraded our Internet link about a year ago, the MUD players were requesting we enhance the 56KB connection we had at the time; seems interactive response time wasn't really good enough for real-time MUD battles. --Brick -------------------