From alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk Tue May 5 16:10:34 1992 Xref: eff alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:4286 alt.censorship:6309 Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.censorship Path: eff!kadie From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) Subject: Critique of Turkish AUP (was "just read and think") Message-ID: <1992May4.223243.28741@eff.org> Originator: kadie@eff.org Sender: usenet@eff.org (NNTP News Poster) Nntp-Posting-Host: eff.org Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation References: <9205041459.AA06449@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu> Date: Mon, 4 May 1992 22:32:43 GMT Lines: 178 This is a critique of the Computer Policy of Middle East Technical University (METU) in Ankara, Turkey. Most of my references are to US centered documents, the ones to which I am most familar. The METU policy provides no due process protection and bans much speech. In this, it is similar to some of policies of universities such as Iowa State, U. of Texas, and U. of Illinois. In contrast to these the U.S. speech restrictions, METU's bans are clear and (as far as I know) legal. >Organization: Middle East Technical University - Computer Center >Date: Tuesday, 4 Feb 1992 10:30:01 TUR >From: Kursat CAGILTAY >Message-ID: <92035.103001KURSAT@TRMETU.BITNET> >Newsgroups: metu.cc.news >Subject: Network RULES (Please read carefully !!!) > Rules of Network Usage > This article explains the rules for EARN Network Usage in METU > campus. This code of conduct has been established to remind users > of the intended purposes of EARN, in additon to clarify that EARN > should not be relied upon for transmission of confidential or > sensitive data because EARN can not guarantee its security. Users > found in violation of these rules and regulations will be held > accountable for their action. EARN and METUCC reserve the rights > to deny the use of the network to individuals found to be rules > explained below. > 1- An EARN user is a representative of METU, so, an extra care > must be taken while using the network resource. An important principle of academic freedom is that students and professors generally speak for themselves and not for their university. > If one behaves > against the rules METU or Republic of TURKEY, METU Computer > Center has the right of cancelling the user-id without noticing > the user and give the information to the judgement institutes. Expulsion from the network is a serious penality. Due process should be observed. This means, for example, that a users should have a right to a hearing and an appeal. > 2- Purpose of the network is to support academic and research > activities. So, using it for another activity is not allowed. >> deleted > 4- Listservs are powerful communication tools in academic life. > But some non-academic ones do exist. It has been reported that > some discussion against of METU and Republic of TURKEY take place > in some of these lists. Therefore, the ones taking place in these > discussion and against of METU and Republic of TURKEY will be > prosecuted. >>deleted > 6-2. Use of the network for political and religious activism is > forbidden. Contrast this with the beginning of the Joint Statement on Rights and Freedoms of Students: "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." And later, in the context of outside speakers: "The institutional control of campus facilities should not be used as a device of censorship." METU's policy is similar to a number of U.S. policies. For example, Iowa State University also bans "any message of ... political nature." The U. of Illinois's NCSA bans email that "attempts to disadvantage NCSA" The Computer Science department at the University of Texas forbids "messages that are ... patently offensive, or that ... demean ... individuals or groups, or that would otherwise bring discredit to the University or the Department." To the METU's credit, its policy is less vague than the U. of Illinois policy and, unlike these U.S. policies, it does not (to my knowledge) violate its nation's law. On the other hand, there are better policies. For example, the policy of the U.S.'s National Science Foundation Net explictly allows "(3) Communication and exchange for professional development, to maintain currency, or to debate issues in a field or subfield of knowledge." ANNOTATED REFERENCES (All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.) ================= student.freedoms ================= Joint Statement on Rights and Freedoms of Students -- This is the main statement on student academic freedom. ================= policies/ethics.iastate.edu ================= The computer ethics statement for Iowa State University. critiqued ================= policies/ncsa.uiuc.edu ================= Email policy for the National Center for Supercomputer Applications, a department of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (Critiqued) ================= 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." ================= policies/nsf ================= The NSFNET backbone services acceptable use policy ================= ================= These documents are available by anonymous ftp (the preferred method) and by email. To get the files via ftp, do an anonymous ftp to ftp.eff.org (192.77.172.4), and get file(s): pub/academic/student.freedoms pub/academic/policies/ethics.iastate.edu pub/academic/policies/ncsa.uiuc.edu pub/academic/law/uwm-post-v-u-of-wisconsin pub/academic/policies/nsf To get the files my 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 student.freedoms send acad-freedom/policies ethics.iastate.edu send acad-freedom/policies ncsa.uiuc.edu send acad-freedom/law uwm-post-v-u-of-wisconsin send acad-freedom/policies nsf -- Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me. =kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =