Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.news Subject: Computers and Academic Freedom News 02.19 (Digest) Approved: kadie@eff.org Computers and Academic Freedom News Vol. 02, No. 19 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: joslin@tso.uc.edu (Paul Joslin) Subject: Article 0 -- Abstract of CAF-News 02.19 [Week ending April 26, 1992 ========================== KEY ================================ The words after the numbers are a short PARAPHRASES of the articles, NOT AN OBJECTIVE SUMMARY and not necessarily my opinion. =============================================================== Note 1 discusses the removal of the alt groups at the University of Nebraska, Lincoln. 1. (A user:) On March 2nd, the alt groups were eliminated by UNL's Computing Resource Center (CRC). Although the reason given was lack of resources, the content of the groups played a major part. The chairman of the UNL Academic Senate Computational Services and Facilities Committee felt in hindsight that the committee did not have all the facts when they recommended a limited set of news feeds. On April 6th the UNL Academic Senate Executive Committee voted to request restoration of the majority of the alt.* groups. Note 2 discusses a little known campaign law which may chill political discourse on public networks 2. (A user:) Federal (US) and state regulations governing political campaign contributions require that "contributions-in-kind" for or against a candidate or issue be accounted for just like cash donations. "Is *personal* electronic political speech, press and assembly protected at work or school -- or is it a corporate or institutional political donation?" Such speech would be permitted if written using a company owned pen, or over a company owned phone. "Why should *electronic* speech and *electronic* assembly be different?" Note 3 reports a set of news groups banned in Germany because of content. 3. A story in the German paper "EMMA" resulted in the banning of the "sex" news groups at several universities. Among the groups banned was "alt.sexual.abuse.recovery." <199204201927.AA07124@eff.org> Note 4 summarizes a long thread on posting "hate" speech and the first amendment. 4. (Administrator:) What recourse do we have if a student posts hate news items? (A user:) You are legally bound by your student code. What does it say about free expression? "The Student Code for many (most?) universities prohibits censorship even in university-owned media." References from the CAF archives are attached. <1992Apr23.175248.28395@eff.org> Note 5 discusses an article from Scientific American. Does email correspondence from the White House belong in the National Archive? 5. The Archive collects paper letters and memos and claim that email backup tapes are also official records. The Federal Records Act prohibits the destruction of official records. What status should an easily tampered source of information such as this be given? Notes 6 and 7 list recent changes FTP archives concerning Computers and Academic Freedom. 6. A list of recent changes to the CAF Archive at ftp.eff.org is attached. <1992Apr20.180322.4646@eff.org> 7. An archive containing the computing policies of 30+ universities has been established at ariel.unm.edu in the directory /ethics. A list of those policies is attached. <199204221825.AA10087@eff.org> Note 8 discusses whether it is ethical to log users who access an FTP archive "anonymously". 8. (An administrator:) I have been logging for months. It was done in response to people abusing privileges by uploading files to bypass local quotas, or to share with friends. After discussion in the picture discussion groups, I decided to post a notice about the logging and upload restrictions at login. Others argued that "anonymous" implied that no logging would be done. Login as anonymous now gives a message warning that that is not so. A sample warning is provided. Note 9 is a UPI story about a parody in the Harvard Law Revue which some found offensive. 9. Law professor David Kennedy claims charges should be brought against the authors of a parody of an article by slain law professor Mary Joe Frug, and the editors of the Harvard Law Revue, which published the parody. Three other professors have asked that Kennedy's motion be dismissed, as the parody is protected by the First Amendment. <1992Apr23.235407.3663@m.cs.uiuc.edu> Note 10 recounts the attempts by an Auburn University Gay and Lesbian student group to gain university recognition. 10. (A student:) The debate started when the Auburn Gay and Lesbian Alliance requested recognition from the Auburn student government association, and therefore access to student fees. The government refused on biblical grounds. When the university administration overruled the decision, the state legislature passed a law banning gay and lesbian student unions from state schools statewide. The governor of Alabama will sign the bill. "The government of Alabama is attempting to rescind free speech and assembly rights of a group under the guise of public morality." I encourage other student unions to pass a resolution condemning this action. <199204250421.AA28481@eff.org> Note 11 discusses the University of Illinois's National Center for Supercomputer Applications (NCSA) email policy. 11. The policy permits searches and punishment of facility users who criticize the NCSA or University in email. The policy was created to justify (after the fact) a search of the computer files of a student employee. In reaction to the criticism, the NCSA asked a campus wide committee to review the policy. The committee recommended a policy closer to the University's general privacy policy. The campus legal counsel apparently objected to the new policy, since it might increase the University's liability. It appears counsel is waiting for the courts to establish law in this area. <1992Apr26.204032.20854@m.cs.uiuc.edu> - Paul] In this issue: mike.riddle 115 File 7--SUMMARY AND UPDATE: alt.* Removal at UNL Jim Warren 143 File 5--First Amendment s<>void in electronic frontier ?? Carl M. Kadie 23 Netnews suppression in Germany Carl M. Kadie 108 >Recent Changes to the Com<>cademic Freedom (CAF) Archive Barry Margolin 37 Email as "official" government correspondence Carl M. Kadie 66 Policy archive at University of New Mexico Carl M. Kadie 274 >College policies on hate messages needed Jim Lick 90 >More songs about buildings and ftp.uu.net Carl M. Kadie 49 UPI story: Parody splits Harvard Law faculty Brian McConnell 42 Auburn University Carl M. Kadie 136 One year later: NCSA emai<>sity computer privacy policies 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) Associate Editor: Adam C. Gross (ag3j+@andrew.cmu.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, Adam C. Gross, 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 Apr 20 00:00:00 1992 Date: Fri, 17 Apr 92 16:31:12 CST From: mike.riddle@inns.omahug.org@ivgate.omahug.org Message-ID: Subject: Article 1--File 7--SUMMARY AND UPDATE: alt.* Removal at UNL As of April 17, 1992, when I write this summary and update, the noise on the nets has abated somewhat. But those readers of the CuD who have access to Usenet news have almost certainly seen and remember the brouhaha over the deletion of the alt.* hierarchy at the University of Nebraska. The following is the story, as I understand it, pieced together from several sources and personal inquiries. It is only as accurate as the information I was able to obtain, and if anyone has corrections or additions, please submit them to the CuD. The furor started on March 2nd, 1992, when the alt.* hierarchy was eliminated by the UNL Computing Resource Center (CRC). The termination was so abrupt that some downstream sites did not know in advance, and had to immediately scramble for alternate feeds. The decision was supposedly resource-based, and supported by a February 27th recommendation by the UNL Academic Senate Computational Services and Facilities Committee. Almost immediately, however, it became obvious that content-control had played a major part. Leo Chouinard, the "Academic Senate representative on the Computational Committee" [sic], reportedly said the committee discussed several considerations before making a decision about the alt groups, including possible violations of state pornography laws and concerns about computer resources being used for non-educational purposes. The memorandum announcing the termination read as follows: CRC Policy on Providing Information Resources 2/27/92 The Computing Resource Center provides information resources to the UNL community in support of the University's mission of research, instruction, and service. These resources commonly take the form of databases, archives, and bulletin boards. The Computing Resource Center makes available those information resources that are requested by faculty at UNL and approved by the Computing Resource Center in consultation the Academic Senate Computational Committee as useful in supporting the University's mission. If a user desires information resources not provided by the Computing Resource Center, they are free to acquire that information elsewhere, subject only to the requirements of the information provider, relevant federal and state laws, and applicable University policies. Adopted UNL Academic Senate, 2/27/92 The UNL Academic Senate Computational Services and Facilities Committee is chaired by Professor (of English) Les Whipp. He told me that, in hindsight, he felt his committee did not have all the facts before them when they concurred in the CRC recommendation that the following Usenet newsfeeds (and only these newsgroups) be made available: bionet, bit, biz, ci, comp, general, gnu, misc, news, rec, sci, soc, talk, unix-pc, unl, and vmsnet. In particular, he was not aware of the connotations of censorship that could (and did) become attached to the wholesale removal of the alt.* hierarchy, and as of the date I talked with him, felt that someone at the CRC had a hidden agenda to remove certain "objectionable" groups. Professor Whipp did not claim to be expert on the management of hardware resources, and sounded disturbed that a decision officially based on "limited resources" was so open to question on its basis. (The debate about the percentage, cost, etc., of carrying the alt.* groups went on at length in comp.org.eff.talk and other newsgroups. It is not my purpose to reiterate that discussion). Mr. Kent Landfield (kent@imd.sterling.com), a UNL alumnus, systems manager at a major software contractor, and moderator of comp.sources.misc, posted a thoughtful "Open Letter to UNL CRC" regarding the alt.* group removal. As a result of my own feelings, and encouraged by Mr. Landfield's letter, I contacted several individuals at UNL. Acting at approximately the same time, a number of UNL students formed the "Nebraska Students for Electronic Freedom (NUSEF)." The thrust of our comments was if resources were at issue, tell us what was needed and we would lobby to get them. If content was actually at issue, admit it openly, apply generally accepted educational/library standards, and bring back at least those alt.* groups with recognized value. As a result of the lobbying efforts, including telephone call from Mike Godwin at the Cambridge office of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the involvement of librarians both knowledgeable regarding computer services and resource allocation and selection criteria, and the general education several of the faculty participants received during the discussions, the UNL Academic Senate Executive Committee, meeting on April 6th, voted to request restoration of the majority of the alt.* groups. Their minutes reflect: 7.0 ALT Network Disconnect Wise and McShane indicated they had been contacted regarding CRC discontinuing the ALT network because of the potential for transmitting erotic pictures via the network. Users have indicated these pictures can be blocked under copyright law restrictions and the general network be continued. The committee requested the ALT network be added back with the designated restrictions. When I discussed the committee recommendation with one of its members, I came away with the feeling that the digitized pictures would be removed due to copyright concerns, and that the rest of the group would be evaluated using American Library Association criteria (as often advocated and explained by Carl Kadie, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu). I also came away with the feeling that similar decisions will, in the future, be conducted substantially more in the open. To use a trite saying, "time will tell." In Nebraska we are still waiting and watching for the return of the alt.* groups, will work to obtain legislative support if additional resources are in fact needed, and will continue to support resource allocation decisions based on academic criteria, as opposed to censorship. ------------------------------ From caf-talk Caf Apr 20 00:00:00 1992 Date: Sun, 19 Apr 92 18:58:22 PDT From: jwarren@AUTODESK.COM(Jim Warren) Message-ID: Subject: Article 2--File 5--First Amendment semi-void in electronic frontier ?? IS POLITICAL SPEECH, PRESS & ASSEMBLY PERMITTED IN THE ELECTRONIC FRONTIER? There is no purpose for which the freedoms of speech, press and assembly are more essential than for unfettered participation in the political process. Yet, such personal freedoms -- permitted in 18th Century voice, paper and face-to-face form -- may be severely suppressed in electronic form. Although *personal* computer-based speech, press and assembly by employees, students and others is generally permitted in companies, schools and organizations, within reasonable limits of time and place, some folks say they must be monitored, accounted for, evaluated and reported -- or suppressed and prohibited -- when they contain *personal* political expression or advocate political support or opposition for candidates or ballot issues. There are experienced net-users who are political candidates who say this. THE PROBLEM Most folks access the nets via company, school or institutional computer accou nts. Many are permitted to use that access for personal email, personal messages broadcast to email-alias lists and personal pa rticipation in public and private teleconferences -- provided they do so without adversely impacting their work or official basis for having their account. But: Federal and state regulations governing political campaign disclosures require that "contributions-in-kind" for or against candidates and ballot measures be accounted for and their value reported, just like cash donations. Contributions-in-kind include such things as postage, office space, printing, loans of furniture, office machines, etc. They also include use of telephones, faxes, computers, computer supplies, computer services, etc. Furthermore, donations by corporations are often restricted or prohibited. Most nonprofit organizations, including educational institutions, are entirely prohibited from making political donations -- or even lobbying for or against legislation (freedom is forfeited for tax perks). OVERT CORPORATE SUPPORT IS CLEARLY REGULATED If a corporation overtly underwrites political action by intentionally providing labor, staff, facilities, equipment or services to support or oppose a political campaign, then the fair-market value ot those services or facilities must clearly be reported as an in-kind contribution. (Such regulations appear to be much less enforced against unions and schools, and appear to be not-at-all enforced against churches or synagogues, regardless of how sectarian their political efforts may be.) THE 21st CENTURY QUESTION Is *personal* electronic political speech, press and assembly protected at work or school -- or is it a corporate or institutional political donation? PERSONAL POLITICAL SPEECH APPEARS PERMISSIBLE -- BY VOICE Within reasonable limits on time and place, citizens are not *legally* prohibited from discussing politics with their office associates, or in the company or school or church hallway, or in the cafeteria or employee lounge, or in telephone conversations with callers and professional associates with whom they have a personal relationship as well as business association. (Note: This concerns *legal* restrictions; *not* the issue of whether political discussions are *wise* in a business, school or church setting.) PERSONAL POLITICAL PRESS APPEARS PERMISSIBLE -- BY PAPER It is also common for employees, students and teachers to use *authorized* access to printers and copiers, to create and copy *personal* leaflets about political issues and activities that they hand to friends and post on company, school, church and synagogue bulletin boards. When they do so within the institutional limits placed on their general personal use of equipment and bulletin boards, the use has almost-certainly never been reported as an institutional contribution-in-kind. PERSONAL POLITICAL ASSEMBLY APPEARS PERMISSIBLE -- FACE-TO-FACE It is common for corporations, schools, unions, religious institutions, etc., to permit their their cafeterias, lounges, union halls, meeting rooms and parking lots to be used for candidate presentations, campaign debates and meet-the-candidate(s) receptions -- as well as for both public and internal meetings to hear presentations by incumbent elected represenatives and/or by leaders of various community, legislative and regulatory groups. Participants are rarely charged for such use (except by sites that routinely derive revenue from renting meeting space), and the value of the meeting facility is rarely reported as an in-kind contribution to the speaker(s). In fact, it is considered to be "good institutional citizenship" for organizations to provide their facilities for meetings between citizens and their current and potential elected and appointed representatives. CAN CORPORATIONS AND SCHOOLS ABSOLUTELY PROHIBIT POLITICAL SPEECH? Now, consider those workplaces and educational institutions that permit *personal* conversation, usually within reasonable limits on time and place. And recognize that such personal speech may be one-to-one or within formal or informal personal groups, e.g. a lunch group in the cafeteria. When such personal speech and personal assembly *is* permitted: * Must those companies and institutions then prohibit all *personal* employee or student conversation that has political content? * Must they prohibit all *personal* advocacy of political positions? * Must they prohibit all *personal* advocacy for or against candidates? * And if they don't prohibit it, must they monitor it and report it? **************************************************************************** * If corporations and schools can not or should not suppress all on-site * * personal speech and association having political content -- but must * * report all in-kind donations -- then how shall they evaluate the desks, * * offices, hallways, cafeterias, lounges, phones, phone bills, computers, * * and bulletin boards where personal political speech, personal political * * "press"/notices and personal political assembly occurs? And, how shall * * they monitor such speech. press and assembly, so as to identify which * * campaign is receiving how much value in in-kind contributions? * **************************************************************************** AND, WHY SHOULD *ELECTRONIC* SPEECH AND *ELECTRONIC* ASSEMBLY BE DIFFERENT? When *personal* conversation and personal political expression is permitted by voice or telephone in workplace, union hall or school, why should personal political speech be prohibited when it by electronic mail? When *personal* notices and copying and personal political leaflets are permitted if they are on paper and/or posted on wall-mounted bulletin boards, why should such personal political press be prohibited when it is by electronic origin and distribution? When *personal* meetings and personal political discussion in groups is permitted if it is face-to-face in the cafeteria, lounge or parking lot of school or workplace, why should personal assembly with others be prohibited when it is by electronic newsgroups or teleconferences? **************************************************************************** * TO THE EXTENT THAT employees and students, within their institutions, * * are permitted freedom of personal political expression by voice and in * * writing, and freedom of personal political association by face-to-face * * meeting, why should personal political speech, press or assembly be * * suppressed -- or monitored and reported -- merely when it is electronic? * ------------------------------ From caf-talk Caf Apr 20 00:00:00 1992 Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) Subject: Article 3--Netnews suppression in Germany Message-ID: <199204201927.AA07124@eff.org> Date: Mon, 20 Apr 1992 11:27:07 GMT Moon Month, a pseudonym for a person in Germany, sent the following via email. It is posted with the author's permission. ===================== At the beginning of December a German libber paper "EMMA" wrote a story about "porno in usenet" to get newsgroups banned. They got the *sex* groups and others banned at several universities. They furthermore encouraged people to become informers against their collegues and to spy through their directories. They were successful with this, too. There was a discussion in dnet.inet (expired newsgroup now), de.admin.news, de.talk.sex, and other groups. =============== In other email, Moon Moth added that among the newsgroups banned in some places in "alt.sexual.abuse.recovery." - Carl -- Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me. =kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu = ------------------------------ From caf-talk Caf Apr 23 00:00:00 1992 Newsgroups: news.sysadmin,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) Subject: Article 4--Re: College policies on hate messages needed Message-ID: <1992Apr23.175248.28395@eff.org> Date: Thu, 23 Apr 1992 17:52:48 GMT Here is the whole thread of conversation: copeland@cookman.edu writes: >We have recently had a couple of students posting hate newsitems >(real polemics). We feel that we can't just cut off the offenders without >getting into First Amendment issues that we would prefer to avoid. Yet >cutting off outgoing News for all our undergraduates seems a bad choice, >too. Surely postmasters at other colleges and universities have had >this problem. Please e-mail me any comments and suggestions on what >sort of policies are in effect at your institution, and I will summarize >to the net. kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes: >You are, however, legally bound >to your Student Code; it is part of the legal contract between >students and the College. What does it say about free expression? kd1hz@anomaly.sbs.com (Michael P. Deignan) writes: >Sigh. A college must not place any limits on free expression. That >does not mean the college has to provide a medium for that >expression. In article <1992Apr22.132941.4349@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes: >Do you mean that it is proper for a college to say "We will support a >student newspaper, a quad/square, email, and newsgroups, but only for >expression we find inoffensive?" >If so you are wrong. jarvis@psych.toronto.edu (Brian Jarvis) writes: >Read again. That's not what he said. The only alternative interpretation that I see is that Mr. Deignan was saying that one way to stop student hate speech in university-owned media is to stop student speech in university-owned media. If so, this was a nonsequitur. Also, I don't think that this is the kind of policy help that the original poster was looking for. Back to my original point. The Student Code for many (most?) universities prohibits censorship even in univeristy-owned media. I'm enclosing excerpts from the student code of my school and references to law. (These are applicable to state universities.) - Carl ========== ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/uiuc.code.excerpts ============ Here are some excerpts from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign's Code on Campus Affairs and Regulations Applying to All Students (Aug. 1985) "STATEMENT ON INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS I. Preamble A student at the University of Illinois at the Urbana-Champaign campus is a member of the University community of which all members have at least the rights and responsibilities common to all citizens, free from institutional censorship;" ... "III. Campus Expression A. Discussion and expression of all views is permitted within the University subject only to requirements for the maintenance of order. [...] B. Members and organizations in the University community may invite and hear any persons of their own choosing, subject only to reasonable requirements on time, place, and manner for use of University facilities. C. The campus press and media are to be free of censorship. The editors and managers shall not be arbitrarily suspended because of student, faculty, administration, alumni, or community disapproval of editorial policy or content." ... ... "VI. Student Affairs [...] B. Freedom of Inquiry and Expression 1. Students and student organizations should be free to examine and to discuss all questions of interest to them, and to express opinions publicly and privately. [...] 2. Students should be allowed to invite and hear any person of their own choosing. [...] The University's control of campus facilities should not be used as a device of censorship. It should be made clear to the academic and larger community that sponsorship of guest speakers does not necessarily imply approval or endorsement of the views expressed either by the sponsoring group or the institution." =============== ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/faq/netnews.writing =============== q: Should my university allow students to post to Netnews? a: Yes. Free inquiry and free expression are an important part of a university's mission. Most universities encourage and support student expression and publication. Most universities also seem to give full network access to all users, even students. (This conclusion is based on an informal survey posted to comp.admin.policy in October, 1991. [cafv01n33]) There is probably no need to create special rules for student computer media; your university likely already has rules for student media. (Look in your Student Code.) In the U.S., most student publications are free of university screening, censorship, and most retaliation. (For state universities, this is a legal requirement.) At the same time, most universities disclaim responsibility for student publications, even when the university "owns the presses." - Carl ANNOTATED REFERENCES (All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.) ================= 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. It covers free expression, due process, privacy, and user participation. Comments and suggestions are very welcome (especially when posted to CAF-talk). All the documents referenced are available on-line. ================= student.freedoms ================= Joint Statement on Rights and Freedoms of Students -- This is the main statement on student academic freedom. ================= news/cafv01n33 ================= [No annotation available.] ================= 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/media.control ================= q: Since freedom of the press belongs to those who own presses, a public university can do anything it wants with the media that it owns, right? ================= 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 ================= 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. ================= 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/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/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.] ================= ================= To get these documents by email, send email to archive-server@eff.org. Include the line(s): send acad-freedom caf-statement send acad-freedom student.freedoms send caf-news cafv01n33 send caf-faq netnews.reading send caf-faq media.control send caf-law san-diego-committee-v-gov-bd send caf-law stanley-v-magrath send caf-law student-publications.misc send caf-law uwm-post-v-u-of-wisconsin send caf-law rust-v-sullivan send caf-law perry-v-perry The files are also available via anonymous ftp from ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4) as file(s): pub/academic/caf-statement pub/academic/student.freedoms pub/academic/news/cafv01n33 pub/academic/faq/netnews.reading pub/academic/faq/media.control pub/academic/law/san-diego-committee-v-gov-bd pub/academic/law/stanley-v-magrath pub/academic/law/student-publications.misc pub/academic/law/uwm-post-v-u-of-wisconsin pub/academic/law/rust-v-sullivan pub/academic/law/perry-v-perry -- Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me. =kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu = ------------------------------ From caf-talk Caf Apr 20 00:00:00 1992 From: barmar@think.com (Barry Margolin) Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk Subject: Article 5--Email as "official" government correspondence Date: 20 Apr 1992 18:13:10 GMT Message-ID: There's an article in the "Science and the Citizen" section of this month's Scientific American about the National Security Archive trying to prevent erasing of the backup tapes containing old electronic mail files from White House computers. This Archive normally collects paper letters and memos, and they claim that the email records should also be turned over to them as official records. How should such data be treated? Personally, I tend to think of my email correspondence as much less formal, more like phone calls. I happen to save all my email, because I know that when I depended on selectively saving what I thought was important I frequently lost useful information. But I consider that mail archive to be for my personal use, as a memory assist, not an official record. But in the case of the government, it's less clear that the person and organizations should be allowed such leeway. The article mentions that these files contain Iran Contra information (they're from the Reagan era, as the Archive discovered that the tapes were going to be erased on the eve of Bush's inauguration). The Federal Records Act specifically prohibits wholesale destruction of government records, so that organizations like this Archive can extract documents for scholarly purposes. Then again, given the ease of tampering with mail files, it's not clear what status such records should be given. Imagine a cracker breaking into a government computer and altering a key document in such a way that future history books are likely to be affected. Hopefully, historians rely on multiple sources, so that this would be unlikely, but it's an interesting concept! -- Barry Margolin System Manager, Thinking Machines Corp. barmar@think.com {uunet,harvard}!think!barmar ------------------------------ From caf-talk Caf Apr 20 00:00:00 1992 Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) Subject: Article 6--Re: Recent Changes to the Computers and Academic Freedom (CAF) Archive Message-ID: <1992Apr20.180322.4646@eff.org> Date: Mon, 20 Apr 1992 18:03:22 GMT (More) Recent Changes to the Computers and Academic Freedom (CAF) Archive The CAF Archive is an electronic library of information about computers and academic freedom. It is available via anonymous ftp to ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4) in directory "pub/academic". It is also available via email. For information on email access send email to archive-server@eff.org. In the body of your note include the lines "help" and "index". For more information, to make contributions, or to report typos contract Carl Kadie (kadie@eff.org). ================= ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/batch/apr_19_1992 ================= ================= ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/batch/apr_26_1992 ================= ================= ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/books/emord,_johnathan_w.1 ================= I've almost finished reading the book _Freedom, Technology, and the First Amendment_ by Jonathan W. Emord (1991). I recommend the book to anyone interested in freedom and technology issues. Score: 10 of 10 Excerpt: actually a long review. ================= ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/books/price,_janet_r.3 ================= Excerpt from the ACLU Handbook _The Rights of Students_ 3rd Edition, 1988 about access to school facilities by students and outsiders. It says if use by students is not disruptive, use should be allowed. Also, "if any facility is made available to one group, the school may not then deny other groups the opportunity to use that facility." ================= ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/books/price,_janet_r.4 ================= Summary of laws protecting high school students from unreasonable searches. ================= ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/law/clergy-v-chicago-board-of-ed ================= Excerpt from the ACLU Handbook _The Rights of Students_ 3rd Edition, 1988 about access to school facilities by students and outsiders. It says if use by students is not disruptive, use should be allowed. Also, "if any facility is made available to one group, the school may not then deny other groups the opportunity to use that facility." ================= ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/law/new-jersey-v-tlo ================= Summary of laws protecting high school students from unreasonable searches. ================= ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/law/rico-porn ================= Short excerpt from a newspaper story about a court decision. The judge wrote that the payoff in discouraging pornography through sweeping forfeitures "does not justify the additional curtailment of constitutionally protected, sexually explicit speech." ================= ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/law/tinker_v_des_moines.2 ================= A few excerpts from the majority decision in _Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District_ (1969). It concerned non-disruptive political expression in schools. The Supreme Court held that two students had the right to wear black armbands to school as a protest against the Vietnam War. ================= ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/policies/eff.org ================= Here are the rules for *.eff.org, the computers of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a private, not-for-profit organization. The authors of the policy, Helen Trillian Rose (hrose@eff.org) and Chris Davis (ckd@eff.org) say that everyone is welcome to use this policy as a model. ================= ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/policies/ms.uky.edu.critique ================= A critique of an unofficial, draft of a "Student Access and Use Policy" including a discussion of requiring users to register their mailing lists and restricting students from the computer. ================= ================= -- Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me. =kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu = ------------------------------ From caf-talk Caf Apr 22 00:00:00 1992 Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) Subject: Article 7--Policy archive at University of New Mexico Message-ID: <199204221825.AA10087@eff.org> Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1992 10:25:44 GMT Here is the readme file and listing of the files available via anonymous ftp from ariel.unm.edu in directory /ethics. (Also ux.acs.umn.edu.) ================ 00.read.me ====================== Please understand that this directory is _still_ in development. The INDEX was last updated by Dec. 22, 1991. Please mail me contributions in any format that is handy at the addresses below. grish Dave Grisham Security Administrator, Phone (505) 277-8148 Computer & Information Resources & Technology Internet dave@unma.unm.EDU Univ. of New Mexico Albuquerque, NM 87131 BITNET DAVE@UNMB ======================================== -rw-r--r-- 1 dave 15 6032 Dec 23 13:17 00.INDEX -rw-r--r-- 1 dave 15 498 Dec 23 13:19 00.read.me -rw-r--r-- 1 dave 15 15060 May 31 1989 Acadia.policy -rw-r--r-- 1 dave 15 2474 Aug 15 1989 BITNET.policy -rw-r--r-- 1 dave 15 4530 Aug 23 1989 Baylor.policy -rw-r--r-- 1 dave 15 1963 May 31 1989 Bibliography -rw-r--r-- 1 dave 15 4891 Aug 23 1989 BostonU.policy -rw-r--r-- 1 dave 15 3832 May 31 1989 Canadian.criminal.code -rw-r--r-- 1 dave 15 8632 Mar 16 1990 ColgateU.policy -rw-r--r-- 1 dave 15 4946 May 14 1991 ColumbiaU.policy -rw-r--r-- 1 dave 15 4463 Jul 10 1989 DanWebster.policy -rw-r--r-- 1 dave 15 4535 May 14 1991 East.IllinoisU.policy -rw-r--r-- 1 dave 15 7962 May 31 1989 JMadisonU.policy -rw-r--r-- 1 dave 15 6483 Aug 15 1989 Kansas.State.policy -rw-r--r-- 1 dave 15 6938 Dec 20 13:50 Marquette.policy -rw-r--r-- 1 dave 15 7906 Jan 17 1990 Mich.TechU.policy -rw-r--r-- 1 dave 15 12699 Mar 16 1990 MichStU.policy -rw-r--r-- 1 dave 15 2119 Aug 22 1989 Minnesota.law.info -rw-r--r-- 1 dave 15 4236 Mar 22 1990 NewCastleU.policy -rw-r--r-- 1 dave 15 8138 Mar 16 1990 NewMexStU.policy -rw-r--r-- 1 dave 15 4807 Oct 21 1991 OregonState.policy -rw-r--r-- 1 dave 15 3367 May 31 1989 Other.Info -rw-r--r-- 1 dave 15 10030 Jan 30 07:53 Purdue.policy -rw-r--r-- 1 dave 15 5878 Oct 21 1991 RIACS.policy -rw-r--r-- 1 dave 15 4715 Nov 8 1990 RoseHulman.CS.policy -rw-r--r-- 1 dave 15 4883 Jun 5 1989 UMC.CS.policy -rw-r--r-- 1 dave 15 2753 May 14 1991 UofArizona.policy -rw-r--r-- 1 dave 15 1714 Aug 23 1989 UofIdaho.policy -rw-r--r-- 1 dave 15 2509 Jan 17 1990 UofMissoriKC.policy -rw-r--r-- 1 dave 15 7298 Aug 23 1989 UofMissouriC.policy -rw-r--r-- 1 dave 15 4080 Jan 17 1990 UofMissouriRolla.policy -rw-r--r-- 1 dave 15 4536 Apr 29 1991 UofNCarolina.policy -rw-r--r-- 1 dave 15 10407 Dec 23 14:48 UofNewMexico.policy -rw-r--r-- 1 dave 15 2697 May 31 1989 UofPitt.policy -rw-r--r-- 1 dave 15 3425 May 31 1989 UofWales.policy -rw-r--r-- 1 dave 15 4394 May 14 1991 UofWashington.policy -rw-r--r-- 1 dave 15 8624 May 31 1989 WashU.Engr.policy -rw-r--r-- 1 dave 15 8498 Jun 5 1989 WestVir.law -rw-r--r-- 1 dave 15 5908 Jun 1 1989 Wisconsin.law -rw------- 1 dave 15 14402 May 14 1991 temp -rw------- 1 dave 15 54226 May 14 1991 unfiled -- Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me. =kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu = ------------------------------ From caf-talk Caf Apr 23 00:00:00 1992 Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk From: jim@ferkel.ucsb.edu (Jim Lick) Subject: Article 8--Re: More songs about buildings and ftp.uu.net Message-ID: Date: Thu, 23 Apr 1992 21:43:10 GMT I thought I would add to this thread from the perspective of someone who operates an ftp archive. The logging here has been going on for a few months now. Initially, this was done without notice. The main README file had info about upload policies, but there was no pointer for new users to read this. The logging was done in response to a number of people abusing their priveleges by uploading their personal files to distribute to friends or to bypass their local quotas temporarily. And some people were uploading X-rated image files. As anyone who reads the pictures groups knows, I have nothing against x-rated image files. However, various local and network policies prohibit their distribution through public ftp archives. I would be held personally responsible for any such files found on my site. Not long after logging was started, someone uploaded about 10 x-rated image files to the main incoming directory. Because of the surprising response from the remote site, I started a dialouge on the matter in the pictures discussion groups on the matter about what should be done. As a result of this discussion, it was decided that a notice of the logging should be posted immediately at login, and also an explanation of the upload restrictions. A number of other sites now post such notices also. Note that many sites still do logging, but do not post a notice about it. The logging is nothing new, just the notices are. My notice reads: ============================================================ NOTICE: All transactions are logged. If you don't like this, disconnect now. All the public files are kept in the directory /pub and below. Do not upload anything which could get me in trouble. This includes illegally copied software, x-rated image or text files, etc. If you do not obey this warning, your actions will be reported. ============================================================ The physical disk for the ftp area is on ferkel.ucsb.edu. It would likely be faster and more reliable to use ferkel instead of piggy, oinker, or cavevax. (The systems are all logically equivalent though.) ============================================================ If you see something strange happening (permission denied on files, etc.), drop me email at jim@ferkel.ucsb.edu. ============================================================ If your ftp client doesn't seem to be working correctly, try logging in with '-' as the first character in your password. If users login with '-' as the first character in the password, they receive the message: 230 Guest login ok, read /README before using system. because '-' disables multi-line messages which confuse older ftp clients. In a later discussion in another group (I don't remember which), several people argued that the login name of 'anonymous' implied that no logging would take place. As a result of this, my initial action was to remove the login 'anonymous' as a ftp login, using 'ftp' and 'guest' instead. This ended up screwing up mirror programs, archie, and the like, so I changed things to send the message: 331 Guest login ok, 'anonymous' login doesn't mean you won't be logged. if a user logs in as 'anonymous'. I feel that such notices are the only effective ways to prevent misuse of my server. Logging is the only effective way to detect misuse quickly and easily. It is not meant to be used in a 'Big-Brother' manner. I receive the ftp logs in mail every morning from the previous day, and do a quick grep on it to see if anything happened. If nothing suspicious is noted, its deleted. In other discussions, I likened this logging to having a security camera in a store. The potential for abuse is there in each case, but security cameras are accepted to help prevent crime. The logs should be accepted by users to prevent misuse. If misuse could not be controlled because of the lack of logs, it would be possible for some ftp archives to be closed down completely. Like store cameras, most stores have cameras recording your actions without you knowing it, and many ftp sites log you without you knowing about it. 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 | "when you gonna make up your mind? (805) 893-4113 | when you gonna love you as much jim@ferkel.ucsb.edu | as i do?" -Tori Amos ------------------------------ From caf-talk Caf Apr 23 00:00:00 1992 From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.censorship,misc.legal,alt.politics.correct Subject: Article 9--UPI story: Parody splits Harvard Law faculty Message-ID: <1992Apr23.235407.3663@m.cs.uiuc.edu> Date: 23 Apr 92 23:54:07 GMT Copyright 1992 by UPI. Reposted with permission from the ClariNet Electronic Newspaper newsgroups clari.tw.education, clari.news.law.profession, and clari.news.group.women. For more info on ClariNet, write to info@clarinet.com or phone 1-800-USE-NETS. CAMBRIDGE, Mass. (UPI) -- The Harvard Law Revue parody of a slain female professor has divided the faculty at the prestigious school, embroiled in continuing controversies over alleged racism and sexism in hiring practices. One law professor, David Kennedy, said charges should be brought against the students who spoofed an article written by slain New England School of Law Professor Mary Joe Frug. Kennedy said charges should also be brought against the outgoing editors of the Revue, who he claimed were ``responsible for maintaining a working and academic environment hostile to women.'' Three other law professors, including Alan Dershowitz, contend that the parody's authors should not be punished because their freedom of speech is protected by the First Amendment. In a statement Wednesday to the school's disciplinary board, they asked that Kennedy's motion be dismissed because of the authors' rights to free speech. In the two-page memo, Dershowitz, Charles Fried and Charles Nesson said that although the parody ``failed to show respect for the dignity of others,'' that ``failing cannot ... be the occasion for disciplining the authors of a printed text such as the ... parody.'' Dershowitz, a constitutional law expert, said, ``my hope is not only that they dismiss it, but that they reprimand the professor who filed it.'' ``I think many of the Harvard faculty are behaving not as judges but as victims,'' he added. Kennedy said ``certainly there must be some level of misbehavior by students that is sufficiently either cruel or contemptible to raise questions about our certification of the individuals involved as members of the bar.'' According to Kennedy, sexism at the Revue was apparent before the parody was written and has worsened since. Kennedy said the parody was a kind of sexual harassment against women. The disciplinary board did not respond Wednesday to either request and gave no indication when it would, said Harvard Law spokesman Michael Chmura. -- Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign ------------------------------ From caf-talk Caf Apr 25 00:00:00 1992 Newsgroups: eff.mail.sganet From: BMCCONNE@VTVM1.CC.VT.EDU (Brian McConnell) Subject: Article 10--Auburn University Message-ID: <199204250421.AA28481@eff.org> Date: Sat, 25 Apr 1992 04:03:38 GMT Hello netters! As some of you probably already know, there is a major debate now in progress at Auburn university which has gone all the way to the state capitol of Alabama. This debate started when the Auburn Gay and Lesbian Alliance requested recognition from the Auburn student government assn, and therefore access to student fees. The short story... The student government refused, citing Biblical grounds for denying the group access to university facilities and student fees. The university administration overruled the decision. As of this evening, both houses of the Alabama state legislature have passed a law which will _ban_ gay and lesbian student unions from state schools statewide. The governor of Alabama Guy Hunt will sign the bill. I am writing you not as the moderator of SGANet, but as an individual who is deeply concerned about the erosion of basic civil liberties in Alabama. I would like to ask that we, as a group of students, discuss a statement condemning this action, and supporting the right of AGLA to free speech, free assembly, and access to the same student fees which their own members pay. Regardless of your feelings about gay and lesbian rights, I think the issue at stake here is much more basic. The government of Alabama is attempting to rescind free speech and assembly rights of a group under the guise of public morality. There is a procedure in SGANet by which a member can call for a resolution to be distributed to local student unions for debate and consideration. It is voluntary. I will not make that call, but I am encouraging others to discuss this issue, and if agreement can be reached, call for such distribution. I'll be glad to throw in my two cents worth later if the discussion takes on a life of its own. Brian S McConnell bmcconne@vtssi.vt.edu -- Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me. =kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu = ------------------------------ From caf-talk Caf Apr 26 00:00:00 1992 From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) Newsgroups: uiuc.general,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,ncsa.general Subject: Article 11--One year later: NCSA email and University computer privacy policies Message-ID: <1992Apr26.204032.20854@m.cs.uiuc.edu> Date: 26 Apr 92 20:40:32 GMT On April 1st, 1991 (no fooling), the University of Illinois's National Center for Supercomputer Applications (NCSA) set down an email policy that permits searches and punishment of faculty, students, and researchers who strongly criticize the University, or the NCSA, in e-mail.[ncsa.email] The policy was apparently created to justify, after the fact, the computer-file searches of a student employee who was suspected of sending an obnoxious email message. [cafv01n09,banned.1991] The policy was criticized as violating of Constitutional protections, academic freedom, and the spirit of the University privacy policy. The criticism asserted that not only were the rights of NCSA computer user violated, but also the rights to anyone who might correspond via email with an NCSA computer user.[ncsa.email]. On April 29, 1991, in reaction to the criticism, the NCSA asked Campus-Wide Committee on Computing and Networking to review the policy.[cafv01n04] The Committee is made up of representatives of many University departments, including the NCSA, the Computer Services Office (now the Computer and Communications Services Office), the Department of Computer Science, the University Library, etc. The NCSA said that the old policy would stand until a some policy replaces it. By early September 1991, the Committee drafted a "Protection of Electronic Mail and Files" statement. The draft is very similar the University's general privacy policy [uiuc.code.excerpt] and if adopted would (in my opinion) correct all the major problems with the NCSA policy. Although the policy draft has been made available to people outside the Committee (e.g. me) and even to other universities, it has yet to be made public at this University. As far as I know, nothing happened with the proposal until January or February 1992, when University Office of Campus Legal Counsel told the Committee that they thought the proposal was a poor idea. Apparently the gist of their objection is that by broadening University privacy policy to include computer files, the University might increase its liability. No one knows the Councel's exact opinion, because all their remarks were oral. A pessimistic explanation for the Legal Counsel's advice is that would prefer to wait until lawsuits (hopefully at other public universities) established the minimum legal rights of academic computer users. Presumably, the Legal Counsel would then recommend that the University meet the minimum legal obligation. The Situation Today: The NCSA policy is still in force, although, as far as I know, it has never been used (except for its one ex post facto application.) The "Protection of Electronic Mail and Files" proposal is stalled. In some ways, however, because of the Committee is so representative, the proposal is already the de facto policy on campus. To date, only a few people on this campus have seen the proposal (or even heard of it); however, other universities have a copies of it and seem to have found it useful as they formulate their computer privacy policy. - Carl Kadie ANNOTATED REFERENCES (All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.) ================= ncsa.email ================= The National Center for Supercomputer Applications (NCSA) is a department in the University of Illinois' Graduate College. On April 1, 1991 the NCSA set down a new e-mail policy. The policy was cleared by the University's legal counsel and the Graduate College. Faculty, students, and researchers, however, were not consulted. This note has three parts. The first is a critique of the policy. The critique concludes that the policy is inconsistent with the Constitution, Academic Freedom, and University policy. The second part of this notes is the text of the policy. The third part is notes from a conversation with an NCSA Administrator. [As of March 1992, a campus committee has developed draft of an email policy that recognizes some user privacy rights. The draft however, seems to stalled and has not been formally adopted.] ================= news/cafv01n09 ================= Computers and Academic Freedom News, vol. 01, no. 09. ================= banned.1991 ================= A list of computer material that was banned at universities during (or before) 1991. 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. ================= news/cafv01n04 ================= Computers and Academic Freedom News, vol. 01, no. 04. ================= uiuc.code.excerpts ================= Excerpts from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign's Code on Campus Affairs and Regulations Applying to All Students (Aug. 1985) ================= ================= To get these documents by email, send email to archive-server@eff.org. Include the line(s) (be sure to include the space before the file name): send acad-freedom ncsa.email send acad-freedom/news cafv01n09 send acad-freedom banned.1991 send acad-freedom/news cafv01n04 send acad-freedom uiuc.code.excerpts The files are also available via anonymous ftp from ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4) as file(s): pub/academic/ncsa.email pub/academic/news/cafv01n09 pub/academic/banned.1991 pub/academic/news/cafv01n04 pub/academic/uiuc.code.excerpts -- Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign ------------------------------ End of Computers and Academic Freedom News (Digest) ************************************