!Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk Subject: Re: Computer Use Policy of U. Texas Dept. of CS References: <1991Nov5.011528.4635@eff.org> This is a critique of the UT CS Computer Use Policy. Overall, I think the UT policy is better than most, but in three places I think it is too broad. (References given at the end.) [...] > The policy applies to all those who use CS computers. Depending on > the seriousness of an offense, violation of the policy can result in > penalties ranging from reprimand to loss of account to referral to > University authorities for disciplinary action. [...] The procedure for computer expulsion should be detailed. Who decides to apply expulsions? How can they be appealed? How can a formal hearing be requested? [goss, constraints.constitutional, constraints.contractual] [...] > User acknowledgment of this policy statement authorizes CS computer > systems staff to examine the user's files if required as part of their > official duties. [...] If you believe that academic freedom on computers is important, then you might want to give computer files the same protection as traditional files in University-assigned office space. In any case, there should be protection against unreasonable searches. Making a user sign a statement does not make an unreasonable search reasonable (or legal.) The policy is vauge. Who can authorize a search? For what reasons? Is the user notified before the search? After? Ever? [cole-v-richardson, constraints.constitutional, gillard-v-schmidt] [...] > Users of electronic mail and bulletin boards should avoid sending > messages that are libelous, patently offensive, or that intimidate, threaten, > demean, or harass individuals or groups, or that would otherwise bring > discredit to the University or the Department. [...] This rule likely violates United States law. Most offensive speech, demeaning speech, and speech that brings discredit to the department is protected by academic freedom and the Constitution. University speech restrictions like these are being overturned in the courts. The rule probably also violates the University's general policy on freedom of expression. (Also, "group harassment" is an contradiction in terms.) [uwm-post-v-u-of-wisconsin, constraints.constitutional, constraints.contractual, doe-v-u-of-michigan, perry-v-perry, rust-v-sullivan, san-diego-committee-v-gov-bd, stanley-v-magrath, student-publications.control, student-publications.libel, student-publications.sharp] REFERENCES CAF Law Archive [part of the Computers and Academic Freedom (CAF) Archive [part of the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) Archive]] This is an on-line collection of law related to computers and academic freedom. It includes both case law and legislation. The archive is accessible via anonymous ftp and email. Ftp to ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.3). It is in directory "pub/academic/law". For email access, send email to archive-server@eff.org. Include the line: caf-law where is a list of the files that you want. File README is a detailed description of the items in the directory. For more information or to make contributions, contact Carl Kadie (kadie@eff.org). ================= access.minors ================= Comment from the ACLU's Handbook on the _Rights of Authors and Artists_ (1984). It says that protecting minors was held to be an inadequate justification for such a severe interference with adults' First Amendment rights. ================= bbs.kahn ================= Full copy of "Defamation Liability of Computerized Bulletin Board Operators and Problems of Proof" by John R. Kahn ================= bbs.riddle ================= Full copy of "THE ELECTRONIC PAMPHLET--COMPUTER BULLETIN BOARDS AND THE LAW" by Michael H. Riddle ================= brandenberg-v-ohio ================= In e-mail, a correspondent expressed the view that there was no right to speech that advocated violence. This response is based on U.S. law. It is a summary of the ACLU's Bill of Rights Briefing Paper #10: Freedom of Expression. The Supreme Court's standard is that speech may not be suppressed or punished unless it is intended to produce 'imminent lawless action' and it is 'likely to produce such action.' ================= cole-v-richardson ================= Comment from the ACLU handbook _The Rights of Teachers_, revised edition, by David Rubin, 1984, 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.] ================= constraints.constitutional ================= Comments from _A Practical Guide to Legal Issues Affecting College Teachers_ by Partrica A. Hollander, D. Parker Young, and Donald D. Gehring. (College Administration Publication, 1985). Discusses the constitutional constraints on public universities including the requires for freedom of expression, freedom against unreasonable searches and seizures, due process, specific rules. ================= constraints.contractual ================= Comments from _A Practical Guide to Legal Issues Affecting College Teachers_. Explains that University Code is part of the contract between the student and school. The University can be liable for a breach of the contract (i.e. for not following its own rules). ================= cubby-v-compuserv ================= Report of a federal district court case which said that BBS owners cannot be held liable for the content they know beforehand that the stories are false. ================= doe-v-u-of-michigan ================= This is Doe v. University of Michigan. In this widely referenced decision, the district judge down struck the University's rules against discriminatory harassment because the rules were found to be too broad and too vague. ================= ecpa.1986 ================= Portions of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 (ECPA) related to e-mail privacy. ================= gillard-v-schmidt ================= Description of an appellate court ruling that the school board could not search the desk of a school counselor without a warrant. ================= goss ================= Comments from _Teacher's and the Law_, 3rd edition, by Louis Fischer, et al. Published in 1991 by Longman. It reports that the Supreme Court says that some modicum of due process is necessary unless the matter is trivial or there is an emergency. ================= meritor-v-vinson ================= This is Meritor Savings Bank FSB v. Vinson. This is the Supreme Court decision that recognized illegal sexual harassment in the form of a "hostile environment" at the work place. It is referenced in the two university speech code decisions. ================= 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.) ================= privacy.email ================= "Computer Electronic Mail and Privacy", an edited version of a law school seminar paper by Ruel T. Hernadex ================= privacy.workplace ================= Comments from and about _The new hazards of the high technology workplace_ see (1991) 104 _Harvard Law Review_ 1898. Talks about email and other electronic monitoring. ================= 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. ================= 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. ================= 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." ================= student-publications.control ================= Comments from _School Law: Teachers' and Students' Rights_ by Martha M. McCarthy and Nelda H. Cambron-McCabe. It says, in part, "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". ================= student-publications.libel ================= From _Public School Law: Teachers' and Student' Rights_ by Martha McCarthy and Nelda Cambron-McCabe on what to do about libel in student publications. ================= student-publications.sharp ================= 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. ================= 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. ================= ================= Last update Mon Nov 4 20:00:45 EST 1991