Computers and Academic Freedom News Vol. 02, No. 05 [Week ending February 2nd, 1992 ========================== KEY ================================ The words after the numbers are a short PARAPHRASES of the articles, NOT AN OBJECTIVE SUMMARY and not necessarily my opinion. =============================================================== Notes 1 to 3 regard the duties of a system administrator who becomes aware, by examining bounced mail, that a user may be being sexually harassed. 1. A sysadmin has a moral responsibility to discourage sexual harassment. Although the discovery was made accidentally, it was a legitimate discovery, and once the sysadmin is formally aware of the situation, he has a duty to act. <9201271901.AA26229@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil> 2. Unless the sysadmin has been explicitly asked by the user to help end the harassment, he is unable to take any action - he is, indeed, jumping to conclusions in deciding that the situation is one of harassment. By reading more than the headers of bounced mail, and by taking action without a request having been made, he would be violating the privacy of both users. 3. The legal situation in Finland suggests that mail that is file protected can only be read by those from whom it is not protected. This might mean that Postmaster can legitimately read all mail that is bounced to him or her. <1992Jan31.101449.13991@nntp.hut.fi> Notes 4 and 5 discuss a hypothetical 'Netnews Bill of Rights' based on the Library Bill of Rights. 4. Carl Kadie: "All computers offering Netnews are forums for information and ideas, and that the following basic policies should guide their services: ... " <1992Jan27.201548.22829@m.cs.uiuc.edu> 5. This is an in-depth critique of Carl Kadie's 'Netnews Bill of Rights.' <1992Jan27.165137.14992@ms.uky.edu> Notes 6 to 11 regard a recent controversy at Carnegie Mellon University involving issues of sexual harassment and freedom of speech. 6. As described in the Carnegie Mellon student newspaper 'The Tartan', student Eric Jefferson has had sexual harassment charges filed against him because of his postings to a CMU bulletin board for the Women's Center. <1992Jan28.223429.20426@eff.org> 7. "Here are the collected works of Eric Scott Jefferson: ..." <1992Jan31.211130.19359@eff.org> 8. From 'The Tartan' - "Bboards provide a unique opportunity for communication and opinion exchange, often with people you would never otherwise meet. Every Andrew user has a responsibility, however, to police him- or herself and keep posts appropriate." <1992Jan28.223916.20536@eff.org> 9. Although offensive, Jefferson's posts do not constitute harassment since they were posted to a public forum and not to an individual. Suppression would amount to a violation of Jefferson's right to free speech. <1992Jan28.234454.22561@eff.org> 10. Here is a ruling on sexual harassment from the university of Wisconsin which quite clearly indicates that Jefferson's postings did not and cannot constitute harassment. <1992Jan29.221441.18673@m.cs.uiuc.edu> 11. Jefferson's chastisement does not constitute a threat to freedom of speech - indeed, constitutional protections are irrelevant in a privately owned university. However, the more important issue is whether the university is more committed to the ideal of freedom of speech or to the ideal of the free exchange of ideas. The two are not the same, and the free expression of hatred can create an atmosphere in which ideas cannot be freely shared. <8dX8mdS00WBwAAGCdi@andrew.cmu.edu> - Elizabeth] In this issue: Robert F Solon 59 >[comp.admin.policy] harrassing mail Jim Lick 69 >harrassing mail Jyrki Kuoppala 31 email privacy Carl M. Kadie 77 >Duties of state universities regarding 1st amendment Wes Morgan 148 > The Tartan 94 Speech restrictions on CMU computer bboards Carl M. Kadie 854 > The Tartan 48 - Carl M. Kadie 88 > Carl M. Kadie 118 > John G Myers 73 Fwd: I comment once. 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 caf-talk Caf Feb 2 00:00:00 1992 Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk From: nbc2134@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil (Robert F Solon) Subject: Re: [comp.admin.policy] harrassing mail Message-ID: <9201271901.AA26229@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil> Date: 27 Jan 92 18:01:53 GMT > > > From: brendan@cs.widener.edu (Brendan Kehoe) > Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy > Subject: harrassing mail > Message-ID: > Date: 27 Jan 92 15:25:19 GMT > > Say someone (a guy) is sending someone else (a girl) some pretty rude > mail (stuff from r.a.erotica & such), but she just blows it off & > doesn't say anything---she doesn't want to make a fuss. > > But then one day he mis-mails it (to her first name, rather than her > last), and it bounces its way into my (the Postmaster's) mailbox. > Forgetting I've known about his behavior for a while now, do I have > any real right as sysadmin to ask him to stop? > > -- > Brendan Kehoe, Sun Network Manager brendan@cs.widener.edu > Widener University Chester, PA > > ``Ya know Quaker Oats make you feel good twice?'' Hmm. > I believe that you do, based on several criteria. First, sexual harassment is undesirable; you might consider you have a moral responsibility to intervene. Failing that, perhaps a legal approach would be valid here (disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer, please consult one as required). If I'm pulled over for a traffic offense and a stash or crack falls out of my open car door, I can be arrested. Similarly, although the circumstances of getting your attention are accidental, you may still take action, now that you "formally" know about the situation. If you decide to take action, there are several options available to you. You may decide to simply ask the user to refrain. You may suspend his account pending a formal inquiry. You may refer the matter to other University authorities. You may approach the recipient of the mail and request permission to proceed with an inquiry or other action. You may ask the recipient to take action on her own. You may take some combination of the above actions. There may other channels available that I'm not aware of. Or, of course, you may do nothing. IMHO, however, I believe that you should not overlook this matter. To do so would be to do a disservice not only to the recipient of the mail, but also the sender, as well as the University and your computer network. Of course, the above is my own opinion only. -- Bob Solon, rsolon@dsac.dla.mil Administrative Information Branch -- "We Code, You Explode!!" Directorate of Resource Management Systems (APCAPS) DLA Systems Automation Center, DSAC-BCC (614) 238-8256 AV: 850-8256 From caf-talk Caf Jan 27 00:00:00 1992 Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy From: jim@ferkel.ucsb.edu (Jim Lick) Subject: Re: harrassing mail Message-ID: Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1992 23:38:31 GMT I find it surprising that this thread has turned the way it has to assuming that the article in question was sexually harassing. All we we told is a hypothetical situation in which a postmaster receives something which is 'rude' which was misaddressed. The specific material given as an example is an article from rec.arts.erotica. The description of the article as being 'rude' and the following speculation that the recipient did not want the material has no basis. Unless there was a prior statement made by the user to the postmaster, the postmaster has absolutely no way to know whether or not the intended recipient wanted it. If there was a prior request by the user that she did not want to receive mail from that user, or that she did not want any explicit mail, then the postmaster would have a responsibility to do something about it. If the user has made no such request, the postmaster has no business whatsoever doing anything beyond redirecting the mail or dropping it on the floor, depending on the normal procedure for processing bounced mail. So many of you are assuming from the way the original question was phrased that it is indeed harassment. Since there is no evidence in the original question that the postmaster knew there was harrassment, then we can only assume that those statements were simply his opinion. As someone else pointed out, for all we know she wanted to receive that material, and may even have asked the other user to mail it to her. In my opinion, bounced mail should be handled as following: 1) Bounces always are returned to the sender. 2) Bounces may either be ignored locally (that's what we do), or brought to the attention of the postmaster. 3) Privacy concerns dictate that the postmaster either configure the software to display only headers, or ignore the message contents. 4) If the postmaster can determine the correct recipient, he may forward the article to the right address. If not, he should drop the message and forget about it. A responsible postmaster would configure his software to only display headers. Not all of them do, but it is the only way to insure privacy. I'd be much more concerned about protecting the recipient's privacy than I would worry about something which may or may not be harrassment. Imagine what would happen if you treated the case as harrassment without consulting the recipient and it wasn't. She'd probably be pissed off as all hell that you violated her privacy. I know that many people who would be very embarrassed if it got out that they read erotic stories or looked at dirty pictures. So just remember, don't assume things you don't know. And privacy is a right just as much as being free of harrassment is. Jim Lick Work: University of California | Play: 6657 El Colegio #24 Santa Barbara | Isla Vista, CA 93117-4280 Dept. of Mechanical Engr. | (805) 968-0189 voice/msg 2311 Engr II Building | "Don't be naive, (805) 893-4113 | Don't deny what you see" jim@ferkel.ucsb.edu | -Erasure From caf-talk Caf Jan 28 00:00:00 1992 From: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala) Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.privacy,alt.society.civil-liberty Subject: email privacy Message-ID: <1992Jan31.101449.13991@nntp.hut.fi> Date: 31 Jan 92 10:14:49 GMT In article <1992Jan30.144947.18720@m.cs.uiuc.edu>, kadie@m.cs (Carl M. Kadie) writes: >Ethically (and perhaps legally) email communications should have the >same privacy protection as telephone calls. Email archives should have >the same privacy protection as desk file cabinets. It would be unwise >for any university employee to tap email communications or search an >email archive without authorization from the university president, >university legal counsel, and univeristy's academic freedom committee. In Finland email currently has the same protection as paper mail while in transit. There's a problem with what 'in transit' means, but the law is supposed to be changed so that all email will be protected. It's not legal for the government to listen to people's phones for any reason and paper mail secrecy is held to a greater value so I don't think the government (or anyone else, for that matter) has any legal power to read email either. In the law-to-be there's some wording that 'protected' (as for example by Unix file protections) form of traffic is private. So, there are some problems with bounces to postmaster - according to one interpretation the postmaster can read the mail if it is legitimately forwarded to the postmaster's mailbox because then there is no protection from the postmaster. We get into shady areas here - if the postmaster is also responsible for the mail system handling all mail could be directed to also go to the postmaster's mailbox and according to this interpretation there would be no problem with this. //Jyrki From caf-talk Caf Jan 31 00:00:00 1992 From: kadie@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,misc.legal,alt.censorship Subject: Re: Duties of state universities regarding 1st amendment Message-ID: <1992Jan27.201548.22829@m.cs.uiuc.edu> Date: 27 Jan 92 20:15:48 GMT In article <1992Jan27.150734.23638@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes: |Here, for example, is the definition of library from Indiana state |law. It could cover some a Usenet facilities: | |"'Library' means a collection of a variety of books or other printed |matter, audiovisual materials or other items in which knowledge is |recorded; kept in a centralized place; for which a person who as |knowledge of the materials, their arrangement, their use and of |library skills is responsible; and which are for the use of |individuals or groups in meeting their recreational, informational, |educational, research or cultural needs." See _American Library Laws_ |(5th edition). tse@poohbah.pa.dec.com (Gary Tse) writes: >By this definition, my local VCR tape rental place is a library. I agree. Indeed, many traditional libraries have video tapes. Many are privately owned. Some have per-use fees. I don't know if any are for-profit. >My bank and the local train station, with their pamphlet stands, would also be >considered libraries. > Heck, my cable TV is a library, my favorite >restaurant a library... These facilities seem to lack a "librarian." >Wait till I show my banker the Library Bill of Rights. I don't know how well the Library Bill of Rights fits banking information racks. Here, however, is an attempt to fit it to netnews. Hypothetical Netnews Bill of Rights All computers offering Netnews are forums for information and ideas, and that the following basic policies should guide their services. 1. Newsgroups and other Netnews resources should be provided for the interest, information, and enlightenment of all people of the community the Netnews provider serves. Materials should not be excluded because of the origin, background, or views of those contributing to their creation. 2. Computers offering Netnews 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. Netnews providers should challenge censorship in the fulfillment of their responsibility to provide information and enlightenment. 4. Netnews providers 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 Netnews service should not be denied or abridged because of origin, age, background, or views. 6. Netnews providers which provides resources for user expression or assembly should make such resources available on an equitable basis, regardless of the beliefs or affiliations of individuals or groups requesting their use. [reposted from ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/news/cafv01n30] - Carl -- Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign From caf-talk Caf Jan 27 00:00:00 1992 Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,misc.legal,alt.censorship From: morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) Subject: Re: Duties of state universities regarding 1st amendment Message-ID: <1992Jan27.165137.14992@ms.uky.edu> Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1992 21:51:37 GMT kadie@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes: > >> Heck, my cable TV is a library, my favorite >>restaurant a library... > >These facilities seem to lack a "librarian." Does the cable TV company have a director of programming? Don't they decide which services to offer? After all, it's my cable company that decides whether or not I can receive the Playboy Channel on their equipment......I have nothing to say in the matter. Their decisions have a definite impact on the information provided to me. What's the difference? Keep in mind that I cannot erect a satellite dish, and that there are no other cable companies servicing my city. > Hypothetical Netnews Bill of Rights > >All computers offering Netnews are forums for information and ideas, >and that the following basic policies should guide their services. Comment: Netnews itself is a forum. The computer, in and of itself, is not such a forum. There may be policies and procedures controlling an individual computer system that affect the provision of netnews services. Comment: Netnews spans every section of society. A multinational cor- poration's Cray supercomputer is, in Usenet, at the same relative level as one person's personal computer at home; both are merely "sites". Would you apply the same obligations to both? Comment: Netnews participants include Federal, State, and local governmental entities, as well as the corporate and private sectors. Both public and private educational institutions are represented. A "Netnews Bill of Rights" encompassing these diverse sites must respect their rights as public or private entities. > 1. Newsgroups and other Netnews resources should be provided >for the interest, information, and enlightenment of all people of the >community the Netnews provider serves. Materials should not be >excluded because of the origin, background, or views of those >contributing to their creation. Addendum: Materials may be excluded because of their irrelevance to the mission or purpose of the provider. A private firm specializing in computer software, for example, can exclude recreational or social materials from their service. Conversely, a university's sociology department is free to carry only those materials which relate to its mission. Comment: If we accept the notion of Usenet as a limited public forum, then we must accept the rights of the providers/maintainers of that forum. One of those rights is the selection of topics for discussion. The owners/maintainers of a Usenet site do have the right to determine which newsgroups will (or will not) be supported. This is the very basis of the Usenet mechanism. We may argue that a formal selection process is needed, but the final decision belongs to the maintainers/owners of the forum. > 2. Computers offering Netnews 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. Addendum: If materials concerning a given topic are provided, materials relevant to that discussion should not be proscribed because of partisan or doctrinal disapproval. If one point of view is pre- sented, the other must be presented as well. The provider may choose not to present either side, through the materials selec- tion process. Comment: If I accept a controversial newsgroup, I cannot ethically censor individual postings to that newsgroup; I have accepted the dis- cussion as part of my forum (my site). If, however, I choose not to accept that discussion/newsgroup, I am simply exercising my rights as an individual site. > 3. Netnews providers should challenge censorship in the >fulfillment of their responsibility to provide information and >enlightenment. Amendment: Preface this sentence with "Within the scope of those materials they have chosen to provide". Comment: This statement seems dangerously close to "you have to provide everything your users request". This is not feasible on a Usenet-wide scale. > 4. Netnews providers should cooperate with all persons and >groups concerned with resisting abridgment of free expression and free >access to ideas. Amendment: Append the following: "within the scope of the service itself, and respecting the scope and/or mission of the facility." Comment: One of the responsibilities of the maintainer of a limited public forum is to keep the discussion "on the topic". If someone at my site argues vehemently against gun control in talk.politics.guns, that's fine. If, however, a user posts anti-abortion materials to talk.politics.guns, I am not abridging that user's rights in my insistence that he keep the discussion "on the topic". That is one of my obligations as the maintainer of the forum. Comment: "shall cooperate with all persons and groups"?? Does that mean that I have to give the local chapter of the ACLU a login on my system? Does that mean that every student group on this cam- pus should automatically get access to computers offering net- news? > 5. A person's right to use a Netnews service should not be >denied or abridged because of origin, age, background, or views. Addendum: Certain materials may be made available on a "by request" basis. This is in keeping with common library policies. Access should not be withheld; however, the "by request" mechanism is a legitimate management tool. Comment: According to recent net discussions, there are many libraries which make "adult" materials available on a "by request" basis. They do not withhold access; they just make the user ask for it. I can certainly see a parallel in netnews; perhaps the more con- troversial groups could be "by request only". No criteria should be used to determine access; just require that they ask for it. > 6. Netnews providers which provides resources for user >expression or assembly should make such resources available on an >equitable basis, regardless of the beliefs or affiliations of >individuals or groups requesting their use. Addendum: It should be recognized that a given site is not required to provide services upon request; many sites have policies and requirements which affect the granting of access. These policies should be respected. Comment: No site is obligated to give access to anyone who requests it. Many sites are restricted in their use; some might only be open to comp sci students, while a corporate system might be restricted to company employees. Within these requirements, access should not be restricted; we should realize, however, that such requirements exist. -- morgan@ms.uky.edu |Wes Morgan, not speaking for| ....!ukma!ukecc!morgan morgan@engr.uky.edu |the University of Kentucky's| morgan%engr.uky.edu@UKCC morgan@ie.pa.uky.edu |Engineering Computing Center| morgan@wuarchive.wustl.edu From caf-talk Caf Jan 27 00:00:00 1992 Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,cmu.general,alt.censorship,alt.politics.correct From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) Subject: Speech restrictions on CMU computer bboards Message-ID: <1992Jan28.223429.20426@eff.org> Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1992 22:34:29 GMT [Reprinted with permission - The Tartan vol 86 issue 14] By Matt Bushey Tartan News Co-editor Biology junior Eric Jefferson was accused of violating the University's sexual harassment policy this month after posting a number of questionable messages on the women's center Andrew bulletin board. A letter of complaint was given to Dean of student affairs Micheal Murphy concerning Eric Jefferson, who had posted messages which readers claimed were offensive and harassing towards women. The formal complaint was written by Todd Masco and signed by co-worker Chris Newman and student senator Josh Knauer. Alleged acts of harassment have occurred often over the past few years and have traditionally been handled by the office of student affairs. The first message posted by Jefferson was in response to a lecture by feminist Ann Simonton sponsored by the political speaker forum board. Jefferson posted his message to assocs.womens-center concerning his opinion towards feminism and the role of women in society. In his message, Jefferson writes, "I think that the biggest Nazis in the country today and the biggest threats to freedom of speech are feminists." Jefferson posted over ten more messages to the board expressing his opinions, including his liberal opinions about lesbians. According to Knauer, the comments made by Jefferson on the bboard were "personal attacks". Jefferson said, "I don't think they were offensive." and believes he didn't break the sexual harassment policy. "The way [the sexual harassment policy] is defined in the student handbook is really vague," said Jefferson. However, Knauer believes that Jefferson crossed the line of free speech. Knauer said, "The administration should say, 'Look, what you wrote is breaking the rules, whether they are right or not, and don't do it again.'" This happened on January 22 when the assistant dean of student affairs told Jefferson that if he continued to post his questionable messages a full disciplinary committee would make a ruling on his actions which could ultimately result in the expulsion of Jefferson from Carnegie Mellon. "I told her that I couldn't promise not to post any more messages," said Jefferson. Masco believes Jefferson's messages are a "clear case of harassment." and believes Jefferson's intent was to start an argument among the members of the women's center. "I don't see how it can be possible for any of his comments not to be taken as harassment," said Masco The sexual harassment policy states, "Carnegie Mellon University seeks to maintain a learning and work environment free from sexual harassment. Carnegie Mellon is dedicated to the free exchange of ideas and the intellectual development of all members of the community. For this exchange and development to take place, the environment must promote the confidence to work, to study, to innovate, and to perform without fear of harassment." The policy continues, "Carnegie Mellon University adopts the basic definition of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) regarding sexual harassment as any unwelcome sexual advance, requests for sexual favors, or other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature when...such conduct has the purpose or effect of unreasonable interfering with an individual's work performance, or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment." Masco agrees with Jefferson that that policy is weakly worded, but he doesn't see that as grounds for altering the policy. "It gives [the administration] the ability to act reasonably rather than tying themselves down to a specific course of action," said Masco. According to Murphy, The free speech and assembly policy states, "Carnegie Mellon University...encourages freedom of speech, assembly, and exchange of ideas. This includes the distribution of leaflets and petitions, as well as demonstrations or protests involving speaking, discussion, or the distribution of information." "All persons are permitted to distribute printed material, offer petitions for signature, make speeches and conduct other similar activities outside university buildings...The only limits on these activities are the rights of the members of the university community and the maintenance of the normal functioning of the university. No activities which harm individuals, damage or deface property, block access to university buildings, or disrupt classes will be permitted." -- Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me. =kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu, or (anonymous) ap.3619@layout.berkeley.edu= From caf-talk Caf Jan 28 00:00:00 1992 Newsgroups: cmu.opinion,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.politics.correct From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) Subject: Re: Speech restrictions on CMU computer bboards Message-ID: <1992Jan31.211130.19359@eff.org> Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1992 21:11:30 GMT Here are the collected works of Eric Scott Jefferson. - Carl ====================================================================== >Date: & Sat, 16 Nov 1991 17:56:41 -0500 (EST) >From: , Eric Scott Jefferson >To: Bulletin Board Administration , >Subject: Ann Simonton Well, I've never written to the women's center before this (not wanting to deal with all you fugly sexually frustrated women before. Yes fugly, no typo. This word was invented by Stephanie Zikos last year (maybe by accident) and is a contraction of fucking ugly Usage: "Man that girl is fugly") but this has me so pissed off that I can't restrain myself. I went to this so-called talk of the bitch who's name is in my title. All she did was rant and rave for two hours about how everything in our society is sexist/racist/homphobic/classist/and capitalist piggish. After her two hour talk she did not answer any questions (except for one or two, ignoring me of course even though I had my hand up first, maybe it was the Guns N' Roses T-shirt I was wearing). Thus her basic point was "You listen to me but I don't want to listen to you", maybe because she was ripped in half a few years ago by Gloria Leonard (editor of High Society magazine). Next time you get a political speaker, don't pay them if they won't answer questions. The other thing about this talk that got me pissed off was the way the bitch came off looking more prudish than Jerry Fallwell. A message to all the women out there: I subscribe to Hustler, I watch porno flicks regularly (in fact I just saw Oriental Lesbian Fantasies a few days ago -- weak flick the womens bodies were pretty disgusting), I favor legalization of prostitution. I make no apologies for doing these things because men have a definite sexuality. I think that the biggest Nazis in the country today and the biggest threats to freedom of speech are feminists. You women always act like you want to cut my balls off. Well fuck you. First you are restricting speech in the workplace because a few frustrated cunts who masturbate every night since no man would have them think that they are being sexually harassed. I have talked about porn, the size of my dick and other things regularly with women in the course of summer jobs and you know what, not one of them fucking minded at all. Not one. A girl I know went to see Guns N' Roses with me in concert this summer. Did she mind their songs. FUCK NO!!!!. My sister is a model whose looks put all the women on this campus to shame. Does she feel she is being exploited. FUCK NO!!!! As Camille Paglia says, feminists have the most screwed up view of the world. They don't realize that women are the dominant sex (which they are), they don't realize that sex is a dark force between man and women, the sexes will always be in conflict and other things that every other human being has realized in the world since we evolved from apes. (As Ms. Paglia also says, the only place where feminists have gained a hold have been on college campuses where men are basically sit or their ass guys who have no balls anyway such as those motherfucking pussy-wimps that came to that Simonton debate). I like good-looking women. Why!!!! Because that's the way we evolved. Beauty is a sign of health and good genes. Men's high sex drive always means they are attracted to beauty. My favorite show on TV is Married...With Children since Christina Applegate is so hot. If you feminist women don't like the male sex drive then set up your own country. You'll all die within one generation and then we'll be rid of you. (As a side note I don't feel bad when hunky men appear in commercials or magazines and their sex is userd to sell products. Oh Sniff, Sniff I feel so exploited. Boo hoo hoo mommy, daddy why don't you make them stop. Wahhhhhh!!!!) The venom in this post is intentional since you bitches have always tried to cut my balls off and I don't appreciate it. "Bitch, Bitch, Bitch , Bitch, Fucking Bitch!!!!!" Guns N' Roses "Back Off Bitch" ****************************************************************************** *** **** "Walked into the party I was drunk as hell 3 bitches already said 'Eric your breath smells'"--N.W.A "8 Ball" from Straight Outta Compton "Hail to the Redskins. Hail Victory!!! Braves on the Warpath. Fight for old D.C.!!!" ---Redskins fight song 10-0!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ****************************************************************************** *** **** >Date: & Mon, 18 Nov 1991 07:57:20 -0500 (EST) >From: , Eric Scott Jefferson >To: Bulletin Board Administration , >Subject: Re: Ann Simonton Thanks for the free publicity. Whoever put up those posters showed real guts instead of confronting me directly. I should have expected a full character assassination simply because I refused to bow down to the god (or is that goddess?) of political correctness and kiss his ass. Go ahead, smear me all you like. I don't care. I hate everyone on campus anyway. If that is all your puny minds can think up instead of confronting me about my post then everything I said was justified. Because of this smear tactic I have no regrets. This is what traditionally happens to those bold enough on college campuses (such as the editors of The Dartmouth Review) who speak the truth. Childish people try to intimidate them into silence. Well I won't be silenced. If you want a fight --- you've come to the right place. Let's rumble! "They break down the doors and rape my rights but, They won't touch me. They screech and yell and fight all night But they can't tell me... They're out ta get me. They won't catch me.. I'm fucking innocennt. They won't break me!!!!!!!!!!!" Guns N' Roses Out Ta Get Me. You won't break me women's center. No matter how hard you try. ******************************************************************************* ** **** *"Walked into the party I was drunk as hell 3 bitches already said 'Eric your breath smells'"--N.W.A "8 Ball" from Straight Outta Compton "Hail to the Redskins. Hail Victory!!! Braves on the Warpath. Fight for old D.C.!!!" ---Redskins fight song 10-0!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ******************************************************************************* ** **** >Date: & Mon, 18 Nov 1991 15:02:01 -0500 (EST) >From: , Eric Scott Jefferson >To: Bulletin Board Administration , >Subject: Re: Ann Simonton >I think it's pretty clear that Eric wanted to publicly attack Ann >Simonton. If he wanted to state an opinion, then he can do so in a >rational manner. This is a University, not a beer hall. Todd you moron. I would think even you would give me more credit than this.When I went to this talk on David Lynch last year and what a sexist pig he is I was very restrained in my questions. In fact I was cut off during one of my questions so that the talk could be moved somewhere else (and to shut me up). I certainly was not looking for a fight as you say. Though of course since I disagree with you you won't listen to me anyway. ******************************************************************************* ** **** "Walked into the party I was drunk as hell 3 bitches already said 'Eric your breath smells'"--N.W.A "8 Ball" from Straight Outta Compton "Hail to the Redskins. Hail Victory!!! Braves on the Warpath. Fight for old D.C.!!!" ---Redskins fight song 10-0!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ******************************************************************************* ** **** >Date: & Tue, 19 Nov 1991 15:44:53 -0500 (EST) >From: , Eric Scott Jefferson >To: Bulletin Board Administration , >Subject: Re: Another planet >But with this Eric Jefferson kid? I read his post and I found myself wondering what planet he came >from. What a moron. Since you show interest in where I'm from I'll try to describe it for you (apologies to Eazy-E and the N.W.A posse) Eric is his name and the boyz call me.... Straight outta virginia, is a honky that'll smother you mother and make your sister think I love her Dangerous mother fucker raisin' hell and if I ever get caught I'll make bail see I don't give a fuck, that's the problem I see a mother fuckin' [security] guard I don't dodge him but I'm smart, lay low, creep awhile and I see the punk pass I smile to me it's kinda funny the attitudes to a honky hackin' but don't know where the fuck he goin just roamin lookin' for the one they call E. but here's a flash, they'll never see me ruthless, never seen, like a shadow in the dark except when I unload you see its fronted over and over and hesitation and hear the scream of the one who caught the last penetration feel a little gust of wind and I'm jettin but leave a memory no one will be forgettin' So what about the bitch who got shot? Fuck her. You think I give a damn about a bitch I ain't a sucker This is the autobiography of the E, and if you ever fuck with me you'll get taken by a stupid dope honky who'll smother word to the mother fucker straight outta virginia (Damn that shit was wack!) ******************************************************************************* ** **** *"Walked into the party I was drunk as hell 3 bitches already said 'Eric your breath smells'"--N.W.A "8 Ball" from Straight Outta Compton "Hail to the Redskins. Hail Victory!!! Braves on the Warpath. Fight for old D.C.!!!" ---Redskins fight song : 11-0!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ******************************************************************************* ** **** >Date: & Tue, 19 Nov 1991 16:17:47 -0500 (EST) >From: , Eric Scott Jefferson >To: Bulletin Board Administration , >Subject: & Re: this sounds soooo familiar....... Yipes! Sorry about that last letter. I sent it accidently before editing it finally. Disreagrd what it says. This is the final version. People say oooo what an asshole where does his anger come from. What a jerk. When I arrived on campus more than four years ago (Yeah, I arrived in 1987. I'm 22 years old and have been here longer than any of you punks except for Todd Masco) I considered myself a liberal. I used to be proud to call myself one since liberal is synonymous with open-minded. After attending a debate freshman year during which a contra gave a talk and the liberals beat up all the conservatives for supporting these killers I started to change my mind. My mind was changed more when I saw that white males were blamed for every single problem in the world since the big bang and that authors such as Alice Walker were taken seriously just because she whined about everything. I also saw the Magaret Morrisson lounge become a public grievance factory for the women on campus and now I am watching whining pieces of shit trying to change the Redskins name in my hometown of D.C. since they find it offensive. I saw that anything black man or a woman does is automatically taken seriously while a white man better shut the fuck up unless he totally agrees with what they have to say. I saw a Spirit press conference my first sophomore year during which they compared CMU to South Africa. I have seen my ancestors (such as Thomas Jefferson, one of the greatest people who ever lived and a direct ancestor of mine) being called every sort of evil that ever was and I am the one who is expected to make it up to the world. I could go on and on for hours of all the incidents that have irritated me. Every time I speak out I am called racist and sexist any way so I don't give a fuck anymore. If all you people on this bbooard hate me fine. I don't really like anyone here outside of a few people anyway No matter how offensive my opinions are, at least I have carefully thought them through. The opinions of most people on this campus are on the level of "Like wow, racial and sexual equality, like I fer that dude". I bet no one on this bboard has actually thought carefully about any issues whatsoever and just mindlessly follow whatever is the correct idea. Does anyone out there question anything? Obviously not since such statements were made at the Ann Simonton debate as (2/3 of all women will remember that they were incest victims, 50% of all men beat women in response to which there was much solemn head nodding since everyone in the lecture was so obviously patting themselves on the back about how much they were doing to fighting sexism and how important their mission was. Ain't we just the Savior's right hand now!) Oh yeah another thing. How come when Fallwell wants to censor things he is attacked but when feminists want to they are taken seriously. To all feminists who are offended by pornography, my post, other things you don't have to buy, read , look at , these things that offend you. They do no harm whatsoever to you so why do you complain so much? If you are so offended I recommend driving down to D.C. buying a 12" vibrating dildo at this place they call the pleasure chest, sticking it up your ass and turning it on. Maybe it will loosen the stick up your butt.There has never been one study done that conclusively links pornography with harm.Why don't you poster this? Putting up posters of my messages was an obvious attempt to get me to be quiet since I'd be to scared to send any more messages if I knew my quotes were going to read by the whole campus. One last thing. People have been coming up to me after that poster stunt congratulating me. My friends don't care and people who don't know me are glad that someone has said what they were too scared to.Thanks to whoever for the good publicity >Date: & Wed, 4 Dec 1991 09:10:47 -0500 (EST) >From: , Eric Scott Jefferson >To: Bulletin Board Administration , >Subject: After a brief hiatus Well after spending Thanksgiving break and Dec. 2 and 3. in London (well Dec. 3 flying from London) I come back to this bboard. (Hee, hee yes London, for all you poor scum spending Thanksgiving break here or with your parents eat your heart out!!!! I got to visit the Raymond's Revue Bar (excellent strip-tease show, famous throughout Europe), the London hookers and such high-class stores as Harrods where I could indulge my capitalist pig tastes along with all the other greedy swine and got to see all the Limey babes). As much as everyone might like to hope, even the IRA could not get rid of me (there were several bombings by these disgusting micks close to where I was, and I'm part Irish so I'll insult them all I want). But seriously, I have a question to ask. Scientists now say that the small size of the hypothalamus in males causes homosexuality in males. My question is this, does ugliness in females cause lesbianism. I saw a bunch of lesbians in Britain and they were pretty fugly. All the lesbians I have seen in this country make me want to lose my lunch. Is there a correlation? Might be an interesting research project (my last project was on how females are not as good in science and math in general as males because of differential brain development by the way) ******************************************************************************* ** **** "I used to love her but I had to kill her I used to love her but I had to kill her I had to put her 6 feet under And I can still hear her complain" Guns N' Roses "Used to Love Her" "Hail to the Redskins. Hail Victory!!! Braves on the Warpath. Fight for old D.C.!!!" ---Redskins fight song ******************************************************************************* ** **** >Date: & Thu, 5 Dec 1991 08:26:56 -0500 (EST) >From: , Eric Scott Jefferson >To: Bulletin Board Administration , >Subject: Re: After a brief hiatus >CC: ' "Todd L. Masco" >Judging from your plan file and your stated opinions, I'd guess that >you judge "beauty" (this from the person who was called 'The Fly' by >most people in his dorm's floor, freshman year?) by... let me see... Yup.You were Mr. Popular himself also. I remember freshman year how much all the guys on the floor thought you were the biggest geek in the universe (my roommate often said how much he hated your guts and how much he'd like to beat you up, a very easy proposition for a fat blob of shit such as yourself). Well you'll soon be graduating and out on the street selling pencils which is all you are qualified to do so if I see you on the street corner I'll be sure not to give you any change. Q~~**** "I used to love her but I had to kill her I used to love her but I had to kill her I had to put her 6 feet under And I can still hear her complain" Guns N' Roses "Used to Love Her" "Hail to the Redskins. Hail Victory!!! Braves on the Warpath. Fight for old D.C.!!!" ---Redskins fight song ******************************************************************************* ** **** >Date: & Fri, 6 Dec 1991 14:33:47 -0500 (EST) >From: , Eric Scott Jefferson >To: Bulletin Board Administration , >Subject: Re: After a brief hiatus >This bboard is not in existence for you to use to call each other names. Nobody really cares what you >look like or have to say anymore anyway so take it somewhere else. And by the way, this is not my >account so don't respond to me here please. Thank you. >-Rose To me, Todd's post insulting me was 1,000,000 times less offensive than some person (too scared to even use their own account yet!) telling me what I can and can't post and where I can and can't post this stuff. (actually my friends an I were laughing as we read it)Todd and I may not like each other much but at least he hasn't peremptorarily ordered me off a bboard. I post anywhere I like as long as I like so fuck you.He can say whatever insulting thing he likes about me and I about him (you're probably too young to remember this bboard called andrew.pictures.nudes.disc.robin on which people continually said much more vicious things about each other than Mr. Masco's post and my post) Anyway, to those wondering to whom my posts have been referring .... you have mirrors don't you? ******************************************************************************* ** **** "I used to love her but I had to kill her I used to love her but I had to kill her I had to put her 6 feet under And I can still hear her complain" Guns N' Roses "Used to Love Her" "Hail to the Redskins. Hail Victory!!! ******************************************************************************* ** **** >Date: & Tue, 10 Dec 1991 12:30:45 -0500 (EST) >From: , Eric Scott Jefferson >To: Bulletin Board Administration , >Subject: Fwd: After a brief hiatus Boy, here's someone who has heard of the 1st ammendment. And some people think that feminists and their sympathizers are anti-censorship. Yeah right. ---------- Forwarded message begins here ---------- #Return-path: BX-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 18654;andrew.cmu.edu;Joshua Alan Knauer .Received: from pcs4.andrew.cmu.edu via trymail I ID ; / Sun, 8 Dec 1991 18:28:16 -0500 (EST) ,Received: from pcs4.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail M ID ; / Sun, 8 Dec 1991 18:28:11 -0500 (EST) _Received: from mms.0.1.873.MacMail.0.9.CUILIB.3.45.SNAP.NOT.LINKED.pcs4.andrew.cmu.edu.p max.ul4 2 via MS.5.6.pcs4.andrew.cmu.edu.pmax_ul4; / Sun, 8 Dec 1991 18:28:10 -0500 (EST) /Message-ID: +Date: Sun, 8 Dec 1991 18:28:10 -0500 (EST) /From: Joshua Alan Knauer X-Andrew-Message-Size: 976+0 Content-Type: X-BE2; 12 If-Type-Unsupported: alter /To: Eric Scott Jefferson !Subject: Re: After a brief hiatus Cc: 0In-Reply-To: /References: $ $ $ $ Mr. Jefferson, I am writing to inform you that the next time that I see you using profanity, insulting another person using your disgusting language, or posting to the Women's Center's b-board, I am going to make sure you will lose your Andrew account, and quite possibly get arrested for harrasment, verbal abuse, and violating the policies governing the use of Internet, and the Andrew system. If you think this is an idol threat, you try me-- I dare you. Your views, and the way that you express them are disgusting. Your obvious sexual problems indicate that you are not sure about your sexuality. I would seriously consider getting psychiatric help. You are truly mentally sick. Heed my warning, I assure you that I can make life quite difficult for you on this campus. Please do not cause any more problems by using threatening, profane, or otherwise abusive language. You are being watched, remember that. Sincerely, Joshua Knauer Student Senator, H&SS ******************************************************************************* ** **** "I used to love her but I had to kill her I used to love her but I had to kill her I had to put her 6 feet under And I can still hear her complain" Guns N' Roses "Used to Love Her" "Hail to the Redskins. Hail Victory!!! Braves on the Warpath. Fight for old D.C.!!!" ---Redskins fight song ******************************************************************************* ** **** \~~Date: & Wed, 11 Dec 1991 13:22:05 -0500 (EST) >From: , Eric Scott Jefferson >To: )Joshua Alan Knauer >Subject: Re: Eric Jefferson >CC: Bulletin Board Administration , >I can assure you that Mr. Jefferson only posted a small portion of the letter. He edited out parts that >he didn't want everyone to see. I explained that if he posted to the Women's Center Board, AND used >his threatening manner that was profane, etc., THEN I would report him. You fucking liar. I simply forwarded your whole message to the bboard. Do you enough about Andrew to understand forwarding? Huh? It means that your whole message is sent. I assure you that I did not change a damn thing in my forwarding of your post.I have no respect for someone who makes obnoxious little threats and then claims that I twisted his words around. So shut up you twerpy little freshman. You haven't even been here one semester and you think you can boss me around. Don't make me laugh. Go back to picking maggots out of your mother's cunt and leave the thinking to your betters. ******************************************************************************* ** **** "I used to love her but I had to kill her I used to love her but I had to kill her I had to put her 6 feet under And I can still hear her complain" Guns N' Roses "Used to Love Her" "Hail to the Redskins. Hail Victory!!! Braves on the Warpath. Fight for old D.C.!!!" ---Redskins fight song ******************************************************************************* ** **** >Date: & Wed, 11 Dec 1991 14:21:41 -0500 (EST) >From: , Eric Scott Jefferson >To: Bulletin Board Administration , >Subject: New Profane Post >CC: * Joshua Alan Knauer Hey Josh (don't mind if I call you Josh do you?) as you can now see I am posting a new message to the womens center bboard filled with profane language, attacks on feminists et ceetera. Oh no will I lose my account and go to jail because of the thought police.Oooohh I am so scared. Some freshaman who has been here all of one semester wants to rumble. Maybe you didn't hear of Kevin Wolfe's love -slave post last year for which he recieved no punishment.Maybe I'll just have to get a free lawyer provided by the ACLU to defend my rights as an American. (Oh by the way, where are the mysterious private posts I've sent to women that you claim to have seen. Forward them to the womens'center bboard if you want I certainly don't recall any threatening private posts) Actual post begins here: Gautham Kamath posted a message saying that women should be called vaginal americans. I would prefer the term Dick Receptacles.Because see, we don't really need women except for one thing. That one thing should be their whole function in the world. This is why feminists want to ban pornography and keep prostitution illegal. If these things ever become widespread we men will break out of female bondage since we can just visit the neighborhood whore and find our sexual release that way. If we want to talk with someone, we can just talk to the guys, if we want to go out we go out with the guys. Sex is thus female's only useful function as far as I am concerned. So make prostituion legal so I don't have to live under the yoke of these bitches at CMU (prostituion is legal in Thailand and you can fuck a woman all night for two dollars. If only it was that way here!) whose only interest in males is to cut their testicles off and make them all wimps (which has happened to most of the guys here already. No one at this university has any balls) Here's some amusing advice for guys on how to treat women from N.W.A (and remeber, these guys are black so they cannot be criticized by upper-middle class white liberals) "Findum Fuckum and Flee" Eazy-E Easily I'm approaching There aint no joking When the pussy holes are open Ready to fuck until my dick is raw Yo The motherfuckin' devil son in law No it's the E The motherfuckin' pussy beater And I'm the quicker bigger to pick up the bitch So come here bitch And lick up the lick up the lick up the dick Now how many nuts will it take for me To let the bitch graduate to lesson three As you can see I straight waxed that ass Back up bitch Unless you want nut in your eye I've never never ever ever seen a bitch cry Not one not two not four five six I lost the third nut in the mix Fuck it Six five four now three is up Give me that Give me that Give me that nut You wanna feel the dick baby try your luck Because the E likes to Fuck fuck fuck Yo I get them stuck on And get the fuck on Give them a tootsie roll And tell them thanks for the pussy hole I findum fuckem and flee you know But before I d-o Yo I take a hoe to the hotel to the motel to the holiday inn Yo If that bitch start fucking up I'll just fuck her friend Dr Dre my mellow It's on you So what you gonna do Dr Dre Well it's on and on and on and on Yo The beat don't stop Until the break of dawn Yo Every bitch I know they wanna get with me The motherfucking notorius D-r-e Spit game at a bitch While a nigger's around And you know most hoe's No not the clown Coz if a bitch try to dis me While I'm fulla liquor I smack the bitch up And shoot the nigger That's with her That's the kind of nigger You're listening to Talk to you for a minute Then my dick's in you Yo Now every single bitch Got a price to pay Up on the dicks of NWA I findum fuckem and flee you know But before I d-o Yo I take a hoe to the hotel To the motel To the holiday inn If that bitch starts fucking up I'll just fuck her friend Now Mc Ren my mellow It's on you So whattafuck you're gonna do MC Ren Now gatha 'round ya'll And check it out ya'll And all the bitches Come and suck up on my balls ya'll And take the dick to play it like a slinkie So put your lips On my big chocolate twinkie And you swallowed all the nut If you bitches are smart To make my dick pop up Like a pop tart But after I nut I'ma leave you But first I must decieve you 'Cause bitch I don't need you And don't say that you love me to 'Cause if I turn my back You will fuck the whole crew You're nothing but a steak ho Trying to take my bake hoe So I'll have to let you know At a hotel At a motel At a holiday inn Because if that bitch sttart fucking up Yo I'll just fuck her friend ******************************************************************************* ** **** "I used to love her but I had to kill her I used to love her but I had to kill her I had to put her 6 feet under And I can still hear her complain" Guns N' Roses "Used to Love Her" "Hail to the Redskins. Hail Victory!!! Braves on the Warpath. Fight for old D.C.!!!" ---Redskins fight song ******************************************************************************* ** **** >Date: & Wed, 11 Dec 1991 14:22:17 -0500 (EST) >From: , Eric Scott Jefferson >To: Bulletin Board Administration , >Subject: Fwd: After a brief hiatus ---------- Forwarded message begins here ---------- #Return-path: BX-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 18654;andrew.cmu.edu;Joshua Alan Knauer .Received: from pcs6.andrew.cmu.edu via trymail I ID ; / Tue, 10 Dec 1991 14:40:10 -0500 (EST) ,Received: from pcs6.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail M ID ; / Tue, 10 Dec 1991 14:40:08 -0500 (EST) _Received: from mms.0.1.873.MacMail.0.9.CUILIB.3.45.SNAP.NOT.LINKED.pcs6.andrew.cmu.edu.p max.ul4 2 via MS.5.6.pcs6.andrew.cmu.edu.pmax_ul4; / Tue, 10 Dec 1991 14:40:07 -0500 (EST) /Message-ID: +Date: Tue, 10 Dec 1991 14:40:07 -0500 (EST) /From: Joshua Alan Knauer X-Andrew-Message-Size: 1033+0 Content-Type: X-BE2; 12 If-Type-Unsupported: alter /To: Eric Scott Jefferson !Subject: Re: After a brief hiatus Cc: 0In-Reply-To: <4dFDb5K00awP01i1Ak@andrew.cmu.edu> /References: $ $ $ $ $ $ <4dFDb5K00awP01i1Ak@andrew.cmu.edu> Eric, I am not going to make a personal attack against you, because it would be too easy. Censorship is taking away one's right to the guaranteed (1st Ammendment) freedom of speech. If you read the first ammendment, it also suggests that these freedoms have limits. One of these limits is when one person verbally assaults another. This is a crime in the United States, Pennsylvania, and Pittsburgh. Your posts, both personal (which I have received from the women you sent them to) and public assaults and threats on women qualify under this part of the 1st Ammendment. You have overstepped your freedoms, now it is time for you to be punished. I plan on making an official complaint to Academic Computing, the next time I hear of you threatening people or using profanity as a personal attack against others. The term Big Brother refers to a government, which I am not. But if you would like to think of me as your Big Brother, then you do have your own, personal Big Brother. Be careful! Loves and kisses, Josh Knauer ****************************************************************************** *** **** "I used to love her but I had to kill her I used to love her but I had to kill her I had to put her 6 feet under And I can still hear her complain" Guns N' Roses "Used to Love Her" "Hail to the Redskins. Hail Victory!!! Braves on the Warpath. Fight for old D.C.!!!" ---Redskins fight song ****************************************************************************** *** **** >Date: & Mon, 16 Dec 1991 09:06:43 -0500 (EST) >From: , Eric Scott Jefferson >To: Bulletin Board Administration , >Subject: Re: Harassment policy >CC: / "Christian M. Restifo" , U +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr0/postman/CampusLists/cmu/opinion.dl@andrew.c mu.edu, ! Bulletin Board Administration 7 It seems that due to the fine efforts of upstanding citizens such as Mr. Masco and Mr. Knauer who consider themselves public watchdogs as to what people should and should not be allowed to say, I will probably have to face a disciplinary hearing next semester. It seems like the Thought Police mentioned by Newsweek have nailed another victim (very ironic considering that this month is the 200th anniversary of the Bill of Rights which was taken from my ancestor Thomas Jefferson's Virginia Bill of Rights. He is probably rolling in his grave at the prospect of one of his descendants and most fervent admirers being skewered by the people who ignore his vision, especially as that vision is now being hailed across the world). Well, I have been advised by my parents and my parents' lawyer to seek the help of the ACLU if this should turn serious. I'm sure that they will defend my side of the affair. Perhaps that Student Handbook will have to be revised very soon. Especially as it seems no one objects to any point of view on the left, no matter how extreme. Any other point of view is characterized as harassment or racism or whatever and is dealt with seriously by the administration because certain groups are protected and thus have more rights than certain other groups. (What I find especially hilarious was that it was not even women who complained of harssment but some straight white males who figure it is their mission in life to defend these poor oppressed people who are too dumb to defend themselves) "I was a student at the height of the McCarthy period and it is worse now than it was then" Donald Kagan faculty member at Harvard University ******************************************************************************* ** **** "Freedom of Speech -- Just Watch What You Say" Ice-T "Feminism is an adolescent whine" Camille Paglia "Hail to the Redskins. Hail Victory!!! Braves on the Warpath. Fight for old D.C.!!!" ---Redskins fight song ******************************************************************************* ** **** >Date: & Mon, 13 Jan 1992 14:15:47 -0500 (EST) >From: , Eric Scott Jefferson >To: Bulletin Board Administration , >Subject: Re: Cold-Blooded Exploitation >CC: 0 Christopher John Newman , @ Bulletin Board Administration I know about Basic Instinct and the Jesse Helms like tactics used to try and censor it. I plan to see it the first day it comes out to protest this censorship. Free Speech activist Nat Hentoff wrote an article in the Washington Post over Christmas break that should be required reading for all people on this bboard. He wrote how liberals today are just as big a threat to freedom of speech as are conservatives and compared censorship in the name of sexual harassment and sensitivity with Jesse Helms. To him, GLAAD and Jesse Helms are no different. This is certainly the case. I don't see heterosexuals complaining about movies in which they are killers so it is extremely hypocritical and anal retentive for homosexuals to complain about movies in which they are potrayed as killers (remember that Jeffrey Dahmer is homosexual) ****************************************************************************** *** **** "Freedom of Speech -- Just Watch What You Say" Ice-T "Feminism is an adolescent whine" Camille Paglia "Hail to the Redskins. Hail Victory!!! Braves on the Warpath. Fight for old D.C.!!!" ---Redskins fight song ****************************************************************************** *** **** -- Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me. =kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu, or (anonymous) ap.3619@layout.berkeley.edu= From caf-talk Caf Jan 31 00:00:00 1992 Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,cmu.general,alt.censorship,alt.politics.correct From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) Subject: Speech restrictions on CMU computer bboards Message-ID: <1992Jan28.223916.20536@eff.org> Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1992 22:39:16 GMT [An editoral from the CMU student newspaper. Reprinted with permission - The Tartan vol 86 issue 14] ----start editorial When we arrive at this university, we gain immediate access to Andrew accounts which, among other things, allow us to send electronic mail to friends, faculty, group organizations, and people at other colleges, and allow us to post messages on electronic bulletin boards. Bboards are quite popular and have served as an excellent means for sharing common ideas and expressing new ones. >From time to time, individuals abuse the privilege of using the networks by posting racist, prejudicial, or sexually harassing messages on bboards. Bboards allow us to communicate quickly and efficiently. They also provide a forum for expressing our opinions. However, there is no place on the bboards for so-called hate speech, which is nothing but counter-productive. Expressing opinions is one thing - harassment and deliberately offensive language is something else. At this point we should mention 'flaming.' Flames are insults and inflammatory language specifically designed to make others angry. Avid bboard users tend to find them amusing. Flaming has its place - the bboard cmu.opinion, for example, which exists so people can express opinions and discuss them or, as the case may be, have flame wars over them. Bboards such as cmu.market or assocs.women's-center, on the other hand, are not the place for flames, as they were created only for announcements, not discussion of any kind. And even when flaming, every bboard user should set limits for him- or herself. Harassment is harassment, no matter what the forum. If you feel that you have been harassed by email or a bboard post, you can take official action. A complaint sent to advisor+@andrew is enough to launch an investigation of the incident, potentially resulting in punitive action against the offender. Taking matters into your own hands often causes more problems than it solves. It can give the offender more attention than he or she deserves, and cause further problems for you. Go directly to the authorities - that's what they're there for. Bboards provide a unique opportunity for communication and opinion exchange, often with people you would never otherwise meet. Every Andrew user has a responsibility, however, to police him- or herself and keep posts appropriate. ----end editorial -- Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me. =kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu, or (anonymous) ap.3619@layout.berkeley.edu= From caf-talk Caf Jan 28 00:00:00 1992 Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,cmu.general,alt.censorship,alt.politics.correct From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) Subject: Re: Speech restrictions on CMU computer bboards Message-ID: <1992Jan28.234454.22561@eff.org> Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1992 23:44:54 GMT The articles in question are sexist and, to most, offensive. However, because they were posted in an open university forum they are not sexually harassing. Regardless of what CMU claims, it is not suppressing sexual harassment; it is suppressing student speech. The rational CMU is using to suppress speech in this instance could easily be applied to other student publications and speech. Based on this precedent, it could, for example, punish students for offensive pamphlets handed out on campus, offensive statements made at a demonstrations, or offensive articles in the student newspaper. The precedent might also be used to remove offensive books form the library and bookstore. If CMU was a public university the university could not punish a student for sexist articles because the it would be bound to respect the Bill of Rights. As a private university, CMU is not bound by the Bill of Rights. It is, however, bound by its student code. The student codes at most universities guarantee free expression. Also, as a university, CMU has a moral obligation to keep the student media (including computer media) free of censorship. As the Joint Statement on Rights and Freedoms of Students says: ------------start---------------------- 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. As 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. [...] 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. As 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. [...] Student publications and the student press 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 student concerns to the attention of the faculty and the institutional authorities and of formulating student opinion on various issues on the campus and in the world at large. [...] The student press should be free of censorship ... ------------------end----------------------- [ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/student.freedoms] _UWM POST v. U. of Wisconsin_ is a recent district court ruling goes into detail about the difference between protected offensive expression and illegal harassment. It even mentions computer media. 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." [The full text of the decision is available via anonymous ftp from ftp.eff.org as file pub/academic/law/uwm-post-v-u-Wisconsin.] A cornerstone of academic freedom is that "bad speech" should be out competed, not outlawed. For this to happen, university forums should be protected from university retaliation. This protection should include traditional media like the newspaper and new media like computer bboards. - Carl -- Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me. =kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu, or (anonymous) ap.3619@layout.berkeley.edu= From caf-talk Caf Jan 28 00:00:00 1992 Newsgroups: alt.politics.correct From: kadie@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) Subject: Re: Speech restrictions on CMU computer bboards Message-ID: <1992Jan29.221441.18673@m.cs.uiuc.edu> Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1992 22:14:41 GMT cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes: >To be clearer, what if the issue here is HARRASSMENT, and not "politically >incorrect speech?" [...] >It's one thing to post, "All women are bitches," and another to post >"You ugly bitches." I don't see much difference. I do, however, see a difference between sending unwanted email to a person and posting an offensive-to-some article in a univeristy forum. Here is the U. of Wisconsin's old rule. This is rule was found to be to vague and broad by a federal judge, yet, it is clearer and narrower than the CMU rule. Notice that by definition harassment must be directed at an individual. ========== ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/law/uwm-post-v-u-of-wisconsin ========== (2)(a) For racist or discriminatory comments, epithets or other expressive behavior directed at an individual or on separate occasions at different individuals, or for physical conduct, if such comments, epithets or other expressive behavior or physical conduct intentionally: 1. Demean the race, sex, religion, color, creed, disability, sexual orientation, national origin, ancestry or age of the individual or individuals; and 2. Create an intimidating, hostile or demeaning environment for education, university-related work, or other university-authorized activity. (b) Whether the intent required under par. (a) is present shall be determined by consideration of all relevant circumstances. (c) In order to illustrate the types of conduct which this subsection is designed to cover, the following examples are set forth. These examples are not meant to illustrate the only situations or types of conduct intended to be covered. 1. A student would be in violation if: a. He or she intentionally made demeaning remarks to an individual based on that person's ethnicity, such as name calling, racial slurs, or "jokes"; and b. His or her purpose in uttering the remarks was to make the educational environment hostile for the person to whom the demeaning remark was addressed. 2. A student would be in violation if: a. He or she intentionally placed visual or written material demeaning the race or sex of an individual in that person's university living quarters or work area; and b. His or her purpose was to make the educational environment hostile for the person in whose quarters or work area the material was placed. 3. A student would be in violation if he or she seriously damaged or destroyed private property of any member of the university community or guest because of that person's race, sex, religion, color, creed, disability, sexual orientation, national origin, ancestry or age. 4. A student would not be in violation if, during a class discussion, he or she expressed a derogatory opinion concerning a racial or ethnic group. There is no violation, since the student's remark was addressed to the class as a whole, not to a specific individual. Moreover, on the facts as stated, there seems no evidence that the student's purpose was to create a hostile environment. *3 Wis. Admin. Code s UWS 17.06(2). [Judge's comments:] Thus, in order to be regulated under the UW Rule, a comment, epithet or other expressive behavior must: (1) Be racist or discriminatory; (2) Be directed at an individual; (3) Demean the race, sex, religion, color, creed, disability, sexual orientation, national origin, ancestry or age of the individual addressed; and (4) Create an intimidating, hostile or demeaning environment for education, university-related work, or other university-authorized activity. In addition to the rule, the UW System issued and circulated to its students and faculty a brochure which explains the rule and provides guidance as to its scope and application. See Discriminatory Harassment: Prohibited Conduct Under Chapter UWS 17 Revisions. This guide provides some illustrations of situations where the UW Rule applies and does not apply: Question 1. In a class discussion concerning women in the workplace, a male student states his belief that women are by nature better equipped to be mothers than executives, and thus should not be employed in upper level management positions. Is this statement actionable under proposed UWS 17.06(2)? Answer: No. The statement is an expression of opinion, contains no epithets, is not directed to a particular individual, and does not, standing alone, evince the requisite intent to demean or create a hostile environment. Question 2. A student living in the University dormitory continually calls a black student living on his floor "nigger" whenever they pass in the hallway. May the university take action against the name-caller? Answer: Yes. The word "nigger" is an epithet, and is directed specifically at an individual. Its use and continuous repetition demonstrate the required intent on the part of the speaker to demean the individual and create a hostile living environment for him. Question 3. Two university students become involved in an altercation at an off-campus bar. During the fight one student used a racial epithet to prolong the dispute. May the university invoke a disciplinary action? Answer: Perhaps. Use of the epithet, and its direction to an individual suggests a potential violation of proposed s. UWS 17.06(2); however, because the episode occurred off campus, the intent to create a hostile environment for university-authorized activities would be difficult to demonstrate. Additional facts would have to be developed if disciplinary action were to be pursued. Question 4. A group of students disrupts a university class shouting discriminating epithets. Are they subject to disciplinary action under the provisions related to regulation of expressive behavior? Answer: Perhaps. It is clear that the students are subject to disciplinary action for disrupting a class under existing s. UWS 17.06(1)(c)3. The question is whether they also violated the newly created provision concerning expressive behavior, because they shouted epithets while in the course of other misconduct. If the epithets were directed to individuals within class, and were intending to demean them and create an intimidating environment, then the behavior might also be in violation of the provision concerning expressive misconduct. *4 Question 5. A faculty member, in a genetics class discussion, suggests that certain racial groups seem to be genetically pre-disposed to alcoholism. Is this statement subject to discipline under Chapter UWS 17? Answer: No. faculty member is in no case subject to discipline under Chapter UWS 17, since that chapter applies only to students. This situation would not warrant disciplinary action under any other policy, either, since it is protected expression of an idea. ============================ end ======================= - Carl -- Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign From caf-talk Caf Jan 30 00:00:00 1992 From: jm36+@andrew.cmu.edu (John Gardiner Myers) Newsgroups: alt.politics.correct,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.censorship Subject: Fwd: I comment once. Message-ID: <8dX8mdS00WBwAAGCdi@andrew.cmu.edu> Date: 3 Feb 92 00:28:25 GMT Here is one the complainant's final word on the subject, as posted on the Women's Center's discussion bboard. ---------- Forwarded message begins here ---------- I'm going to say this once. I have no interest in becoming embroiled in a lengthy argument. Eric's chastisement is hardly a threat to free speech. Firstly, bboards are privately owned. Constitutional protections don't count for anything on private property. The university is NOT the government, and there actions with their property have nothing to do with governmental restrictions, as in "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech." A more important question is: what is more important to the university community, the intellectual commitment to free speech or the commitment to the free exchange of ideas? They are not identical. Attempts to reduce discussions into heated exchanges of emotionally charged rhetoric block the free exchange of ideas. Participants lose perspective and what might have become an exchange where individuals walked away with a better understanding of their opposites' opinion instead walk away with In many cases, extreme emotional reaction to opinions can be considered unreasonable, a mark of immaturity. However, there are certain areas which are particularly sensitive due to our culture's history. Old biases that are the direct cause of past oppression leave scars even when the explicit oppression is past. Carnegie Mellon recognizes such areas through its harassment policies, singling out harassment on the basis of gender, sexual orientation, race, religion, etc. The need for the existence of the Women's Center is largely due to the biases our culture introduces, placing the male in the role of protector and provider and the female in the role of nurturing house-maker. Such roles also include the implicit retaliation, whether physical or social, against those who refuse to live those roles. These self-propagating roles are largely artificial (see research by Masters and Johnson, particularly the "Gender Roles" chapter of _Masters and Johnson on Sex and Human Loving_). These roles are also obsolete. As a society, we have consciously decided that differences in gender are not relevant to the possession of rights and protection under the law, but society lags behind, leaving sensitive scars. Women resist, often cautiously, their old submissive roles, but frequently distrust men on the basis of the old gender roles. This same change leaves men who have never accepted either set of gender roles in a sensitive position as well. It isn't a matter of the "Alan Alva sensitivity" that is so often sneered at. It's a matter of implicitly being accused for crimes of oppression that one has not committed, of living with the mistrust of half the human race because of progenitor's crimes. As far as I'm concerned, Eric's posts were an attempt at harassment (he has stated that he was trying to start a flame war) that had the effect casting me and other males in a supporting role, a role that I bitterly reject. His harassment was directly opposed to University policy, and I called him on it. Pure and simple. There is a tendency for people to cry "free speech" whenever anybody is held accountable for the action of posting. This cry is inappropriate when said speech was directly aimed for particularly sensitive spots left by our culture with the clear intention to hurt, whether the harm was for its own sake or whether that harm is intended to elicit a spirited response. Why are people objecting to the gentle enforcement (how can the university's handling be characterized as anything but gentle? No punitive actions were taken) of the harassment policy, but not to the harassment policy itself? [[signature elided --jgm]]