******************************************************************************* Please note: This is part of an on-line ASCII text version of the task force report. A full text and print-ready PostScript version is available via anonymous ftp from ftp.ucs.ubc.ca in /pub/info/ubc/reports/appropriate-use.ps. UNIXG account holders will find it on unixg.ubc.ca in the same file. ******************************************************************************* * APPENDIX D Submission to Task Force by Dr. Richard Rosenberg, Computer Science Free Speech, Pornography, Sexual Harassment, and Electronic Networks Richard S. Rosenberg Department of Computer Science University of British Columbia Vancouver, B.C. V6T 1Z2 E-mail: rosen@cs.ubc.ca Tel: (604) 822-4142 A Presentation to the Task Force on Appropriate Use of Information Technology October 23, 1992 A. Basic Principles * Do not treat electronic media differently than print media, or traditional bulletin boards, merely because they can be more easily controlled. * Do not censor: Use sexual harassment guidelines. * Issues will proliferate beyond the ability of organizations to control them by rigid policies. * Organizations do have a responsibility with respect to the uses and misuses of their facilities. However, they should not use cost of services as an excuse to censor and limit access. * Occasional offensive postings do not deter from the benefits of electronic networks. * Trust and educate people to be responsible. B. Relevant Issues 1. Networks and Electronic Media * Electronic Media vs. Print Media. * Information Networks -- Current State, Importance, Growth. * Networks Are International -- There are no universal standards of good taste. What are community standards? [C3, C13] * Usenet -- Rapid growth in number of newsgroups, readership, topics, and services provided. [C4, C11] * Benefits of Networks in the Information Age: Access for millions, open marketplace of ideas, anonymity of users, instantaneous access to a variety of information sources, multimedia, online books, graphics, and sound. [E1, E2] * Responsibility of Information Carriers and Providers -- networks (Internet, Bitnet, Cdnet), videotex (Prodigy, Compuserv, The Source), local carriers (e.g. Universities, BBS's, Libraries, Bookstores, Videostores). [E4, F2] 2. Pornography and Censorship * Impact of Pornography on Shaping Attitudes and Behaviour. [D2, D3] * Access by Young People -- An issue to be explored by concerned off- campus institutions as well. [C8] * Free Speech vs. Censorship -- U.S. First Amendment and Supreme Court decisions, Canadian Charter of Rights and Supreme Court decisions. [C6, D1] * Disagreement Within the Feminist Community on Censorship. [C14] * Censors and Censorship Criteria -- Which groups to monitor and on what basis: It's not just alt.sex. * and alt.binaries.pictures. * (Currently, Oct. 5, 609 alt groups. 9 new ones on Oct.13 including alt.comedy.british and alt.comedy.lnh) [C1, C2, C5, C7, F3] * Sexual Harassment, or Threatening, Offensive Behaviour -- This is the best route to explore to deal with the present problems. [C10, C12] 3. Ethics and Responsibility * Ethical Uses of Computers and Computer Networks -- Require reading of, and signature on, official use forms and regular reminders and discussion of what constitutes acceptable computer use. Removal or revoking of access privileges may be an appropriate non-legal measure. Guidelines should be clear about what constitutes non-acceptable use, e.g., private profit-making activities. However reading or viewing available material is not a priori an offense. [C9, C15, F1] * Organizational vs. Individual Responsibility -- Organizational: Given that universities must pay for computer and telecommunications hardware, software, and employees to support networks, they clearly have a voice with respect to usage. Individual: Use of killfiles to control offensive postings from identified individuals; headers and explicit warnings permit skipping possible offensive postings by subscribers; encrypted messages convention. [E4, E3, F4] 4. Other Issues * Other Network and Computer Systems Issues: Offensive E-Mail; obscene .plan files and file names; racist messages: anti-Black, anti- semitic, anti Arab, revisionist history; fascist political groups; copyright violations; software piracy; "crack" programs that can perform the illegal activity of discovering passwords. C. Information Gleaned From the Net 1. History of Alt . Groups -- Everything is anecdotal but it appears that the System Administrators (SA) of the Net "backbone" were apprehensive about permitting clearly non-technical and non- moderated groups to be included. A group of women voted to create comp.women and supposedly this action created so much discord among among the SA's that eventually the backbone broke up and leaving the present distributed, and weak, administration. It also seems that an additional component was what do with alt.sex and alt.drugs among others. As one person noted: (Chris Lewis, alt.comp.acad- freedom.talk, Feb. 27, 1992) "The prevalence of such groups as 'censorship', 'civil-liberty', 'acad-freedom' and the like in alt is because the people who tend to want to create such groups think that having to vote for a news group is fascist." 2. In a note from Switzerland (10, Article 1 of alt.comp.acad- freedom.news, April 17, 1992), the system manager at Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne, presents a classification of newsgroups into 4 categories: Category 1: Required newsgroups (exceptions: see Category 3) bionet.*, bit.*, ch.*, comp.*, etc. Category 2: Optional newsgroups (exceptions: see Category 3) alt.*, clari.*, misc.*, rec.*, soc.*, talk.*, etc. Category 3: Prohibited newsgroups: alt.binaries.pictures.erotica, alt.drugs, alt.fax.bondage, alt.personals.bondage, alt.politics.homosexuality, alt.psychoactives, alt.satanism, alt.sex* (6 groups), alt.sexual.abuse.recovery, alt.tasteless, bit.listserv.gaynet, de.talk.sex, clari.news.group.gays, clari.news.law.crime.sex, clari.news.law.crime.violent, clari.news.law.drugs, clari.news.sex, clari.news.terrorism, rec.arts.erotica, soc.bi, soc.motss, sub.sex, talk.abortion, talk.bizarre, talk.politics.drugs, talk.politics.guns, talk.rape [my underlining.] Category 4: Not available newsgroups: eunet.* Further, he notes, "The situation is such that I have users who use news servers in the US (Hawai! [sic]) and Germany (over slow and saturated links!) and who knows where else to read the newsgroups they want.) 3. From Article 2 of above, (a person in Ireland, where abortions are illegal), "The computer/censorship issue is related to the fact that only crosspostings to the group talk.abortion appear here. If a posting to such a group has information on how to procure an abortion, are we any more liable than a library with an English telephone directory which has the phone number of an abortion clinic?." 4. From (21, Article 3, alt.comp.acad-freedom.news) the following statement of Chip Salzenberg, in a monthly article in news.announce.users, with the title, "What is Usenet?" we read the following:"Usenet is not an academic network. It is no surprise that many Usenet sites are universities, research labs or other academic institutions. Usenet originated with a link between two universities, and the exchange of ideas and information is what such institutions are all about. But the passage of years has changed Usenet's character. Today, by plain count, most Usenet sites are commercial entities. Property rights being what they are, there is no higher authority on Usenet than the people who own the machines on which Usenet traffic is carried. If the owner of the machine you use says, "We will not carry alt.sex on this machine," and you are not happy with that order, you have no Usenet recourse. What can we outsiders do, after all?" 5. This is a reposting from University of Waterloo, October 3, 1991 (23, Article 7, June 25, 1992, as above). In May 1991, a committee appointed to study the question of newsgroup availability reported, "what you would expect them to report -- that is to paraphrase, a University administration should not make non-financial decisions about what people can and can't read on campus. They recommended restoration of all banned newsgroups." These included rec.humor.funny, alt.sex.bondage and others. Note that John McCarthy of Stanford spoke at Waterloo and also played an important role in reversing a short-lived ban at Stanford. 6. From Article 10, above, Laurence Tribe, a distinguished Harvard Law professor and a leading constitutional scholar, has proposed a Constitutional Amendment:"This Constitution's protections for the freedoms of speech, press, petition and assembly, and its protections against unreasonable searches and seizures and the deprivation of life, liberty or property without due process of law, should be construed as fully applicable without regard to the technological method or medium through which information content is generated, stored, altered, transmitted or controlled." 7. (29, Article 10, July 28, 1992, alt.comp.acad-freedom.news) David Sadleir, University of Toronto, vice-president, computing and communications, is quoted in an article in The Bulletin, June 8, 1992, by Karina Dahlin as follows: "I am not a censor." His view is that if a recipient has to actively select information, there is no need for the U of T to take action. If, on the other hand, the messages are flashed across the screen without user consent, his response would be "very aggressive" regardless of the content. 8. (35, Article 11, September 8, 1992, alt.comp.acad-freedom.news) The following is taken from Virginia's Public Education Network (PEN) Acceptable Use Policy for K-12 classroom, teachers, students, parents, and school administrators: It is therefore imperative that members conduct themselves in a responsible, decent, ethical, and polite manner while using the network. Each individual's judgment of appropriate conduct must be relied upon. To assist in such judgment, the following general guidelines are offered: I. Any use of VIRGINIA'S PEN for illegal, inappropriate, or obscene purposes, or in support of such activities, is prohibited. . . . Obscene activities shall be defined as a violation of generally accepted social standards for use of a publicly-owned and operated communication vehicle. >From the Guidelines for Student Accounts on Virginia's PEN: 5. Generally, students are not permitted to enter professional Virginia's PEN or Usenet discussion groups. Under certain conditions, posting privileges to specific newsgroups may be granted. >From the Public School Student Application for VIRGINIA'S PEN Account:SPONSORING PARENT or GUARDIAN (Required) I have read the Acceptable Use Policy and Student Guidelines for VIRGINIA'S PEN. I understand that although administrators of the VIRGINIA'S PEN network have taken reasonable precautions to ensure that controversial material is eliminated on Virginia's Education Network, I will monitor my child's daily use of the VIRGINIA'S PEN and his/her potential access to the world-wide Internet, and will accept full responsibility for supervision in that regard if and when my child's use is not in a school setting. I hereby give my permission to issue an account for my child and certify that the information contained on this form is correct. 9. One user's view of the banning of alt.sex.* newsgroups: (July 13, 1992, alt.censorship, alt.sex) In response to a posting that taxpayer's money should not be spent to transmit and store "illegal material" over Usenet, one reader posts the following: A quick look at the Arbiton stats'll show that alt.sex is one of the most popular groups on usenet. In other words, we have met the perverts, and we are them. What does that mean? A waste of money? hardly, son. A huge savings, instead. Know what'd happen to my site's disk space if alt.sex was killed, assuming that I'm the only person reading it? Nothing. I could, can, and will find a way to gate the newsfeed into my e-mail. . . . 10. From the 199 -1993 Guidelines for use of Campus and Network Computing Resources at Princeton University (47, Article 7, October 6, 1992, alt.comp.acad-freedom.news, also on comp.admin.policy , September 8, 1992): Those who avail themselves of the campus and network computing resources are required to behave in their use of the technology, in a manner consistent with the University's code of conduct. As stated in Princeton's University Rights, Rules, Responsibilities: "Respect for the rights, privileges, and sensibilities of each other is essential in preserving the spirit of community at Princeton. Actions which make the atmosphere intimidating, threatening, or hostile to individuals are therefore regarded as serious offenses. Abusive or harassing behavior, verbal or physical, which demeans, intimidates, threatens, or injures another because of his or her personal characteristics or beliefs is subject to University disciplinary sanctions . . . ." [A list of the responsibilities users accept if they chose to use a University computing resource or the network access which the University provides.] . . . . 6. You must be sensitive to the public nature of shared facilities, and take care not to display on screens in such locations images, sounds or messages which could create an atmosphere of discomfort or harassment for others. You must also refrain from transmitting to others in any location inappropriate images, sounds or messages which might reasonably be considered harassing. . . . . 11. Messages, sentiments, and declarations sent as electronic mail or sent as electronic postings must meet the same standards for distribution or display as if they were tangible documents or instruments. You are free to publish your opinions, but they must be clearly and accurately identified as coming from you, or, if you are acting as the authorized agent of a group recognized by the University, as coming from the group you are authorized to represent. Attempts to alter the "From" line or other attribution of origin in electronic mail, messages, or postings, will be considered transgressions of University rules. 11. USENET Readership Reports for June 92 (Article 3724, July 3, 1992, alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk), July 92 (Article 3944, August 2, 1992, ibid) , and September 92 (Article 4550, October 3, 1992, ibid): Month Newsgroup Readership % of sites Cost ratio %Share June Misc.jobs.offered 280,000 83 0.01 12.2 Misc.forsale 250,000 83 0.01 10.5 alt.sex 220,000 67 0.04 9.4 rec.humor.funny 220,000 81 0.00 9.2 . . . . alt.comp.acad-freed'm.t 27,000 57 0.03 1.2 July Misc.jobs.offered 300,000 84 0.01 12 Misc.forsale 250,000 83 0.01 10.5 News.annoe.new's 240,000 89 0.00 9.8 rec.humor.funny 220,000 81 0.00 9.0 alt.sex 220,000 67 0.04 8.9 . . . . alt.comp.acad-freed'm.t 29,000 57 0.02 1..2 August Misc.jobs.offered 160,000 83 0.02 11.5 Misc.forsale 160,000 82 0.02 11.1 News.announce.new's 150,000 89 0.00 10.3 alt.sex 120,000 68 0.07 8.4 news.answers 120,000 84 0.00 8.4 rec.humor.funny 120,000 81 0.00 8.2 . . . . alt.comp.acad-freed'm.t 14,000 59 0.04 1.0 Readership: Estimated total number of people who read the group, worldwide. % of sites: Propagation: how many sites receive this group at all. Cost ratio: $US/month/reader. %Share: % of newsreaders who read this group. 12. At least one posting from Carl Kadie, of the Electronic Frontier Foundation and a staunch defender of absolute freedom of speech, is necessary. Mr. Kadie maintains extensive archives of court decisions, legal opinions, psychological papers on the impact of pornography on male behaviour and perceptions of women, university codes of behaviour, etc. These are made available by ftp or e-mail. In article 4641, October 9, 1992, alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk, Mr. Kadie responds to the following, self-posed question: What should sys admins do about nude pictures and displays of nude pictures in public terminal rooms? Is a special rule banning such pictures and/or displays needed? The problem is not the pictures themselves but rather their display. By way of analogy, your library likely contains thousands of nude photos (many academic libraries, for example, subscribe to Playboy ). The existence of these pictures is not harassment because no one is compelled to keep looking at the pictures. If at the same time Playboy pictures, however, were *displayed* in a university office or lab where employees or students must work, the person displaying the pictures might be guilty of sexually harassing a person in the office or lab. Likewise the *display* of nude pictures in a public terminal room (or university office) might be found to be sexual harassment.. . . .[So what can you do? Basically, use available "sexual harassment" policy after the fact. Of course notices can be posted in appropriate locations reminding people of this policy.] 13. Australian action (Article 4671, October 11, 1992, alt.comp.acad- freedom.talk): " About two years ago, AARNet (Australian Academic Research Network) ceased to receive alt.sex* and alt.drugs, and although some of those groups have at times come in on alternate paths, the official ban is still in place. Please note that this is not a case of censorship based on content, but a matter of economics. At that time the Aus-US satellite link was running at saturation point and as a result, according to krecs.mu.oz.au (Robert Elz). [What about now?] "Despite upgrades within the last two years, the AARNet Business Plan of September 1992 described the situation as follows: 'this link is now (August 1992) running at 95% utilization levels for 4-6 hours per working day, and it is anticipated that critical congestion and subsequent performance collapse will be experienced well before the end of 1992.' I certainly agree that it is a pity we can't read these groups, but I do agree that if a choice has to be made then non-academic traffic should be sacrificed in order to ensure that academic traffic can be carried." (Elizabeth M. Reid) 14. Various postings from "Feminists Against Censorship" and "Women Against Censorship" are available in Article 27388, August 8, 1992, alt.activism and Article 11055, August 31, 1992, alt.censorship. 15. Without including the policies of a wide sampling of universities (presumably already available to the Task Force), it may be useful to conclude this section with the following items taken from 48, October 19, 1992, alt.comp.acad-freedom.news: (i) From Article 8, Geoff Bronner, Dartmouth College responds to some previously posted questions about computing policy: Dartmouth receives all newsgroups. rec, news, soc, alt, etc. We also gateway a number of listserv mailing lists through news as well. If the general alt* traffic isn't enough Dartmouth affiliates can use local dartmouth.alt.* groups as well. Here it appears to be a departmental decision made by Computing Services. But if a major problem developed the Dean's or Trustee's [sic] might get involved. It has never really happened. A few years ago there was a short period where freshman were printing questionable things to the public printers but Computing Services decided that they would not get into the censorship business. After a while the novelty wore off and that was that. [my underlining] In my opinion alt.* groups and similar things can be a source of problems but nothing really serious. I don't really object when a site rejects alt.* traffic to try and reduce costs, that's reasonable. But if they can afford a full news feed they should allow it. (ii) From Article 9, Marshall G. Flax, Princeton University, writes. If the problem is displaying "offensive" images in public computer clusters, then you might want to start a policy that people should view images only in private. If you have a problem with people printing "offensive" images on laserprinters, then you might want to restrict printing to text and academically-related graphics. There's no need to restrict what people read privately or store in their account as long as you make clear to users that they should behave politely in public. D. Other Sources on Pornography and Free Speech 1. Ronald Dworkin, "The Coming Battles over Free Speech, " The New York Review of Books, June 11, 1992, pp. 55 -- 64. (Mr. Dworkin is Professor of Jurisprudence at Oxford University and Professor of Law at New York University. He is a staunch defender of free speech and is critical of the MacKinnon-Dworkin approach. He is also very critical of a recent decision by the Supreme Court of Canada which argued that "the proliferation of materials which seriously offend the values fundamental to our society is a substantial concern which justifies restricting the otherwise full exercise of the freedom of expression." Dworkin: "That is an amazing statement. It is the central , defining, premise of freedom of speech that the offensiveness of ideas, or the challenge they offer to traditional ideas, cannot be a valid reason for censorship; once that premise is abandoned it is difficult to see what free speech means." (p. 61) 2. Robert M. Baird and Stuart E. Rosenbaum (Eds.). Pornography: Private Right or Public Menace (Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books), 1991. (A valuable collection representing a variety of viewpoints by very articulate and persuading writers including Susan Brownmiller, Andrea Dworkin, Ronald Dworkin, Gloria Steinem, and George F. Will). 3. John Stoltenberg. Refusing to Be a Man. (Portland, Oregon: Breitenbush Books, Inc.), 1989. Mr. Stoltenberg strongly supports the Catherine MacKinnon -- Andrea Dworkin view that anti-pornography legislation should be based on a civil-rights approach (as a civil law with pornography defined according to harm and claim based on injury to the victim) rather than on obscenity law (as a criminal law with obscenity defined by arousal as a crime based on offense to public morals). E. Other Sources on Networks 1. John D. H. Downing. Computers for Political Change: PeaceNet and Public Data Access. Journal of Communications 39(3), Summer 1989, pp. 154-162. Abstract: By "constructing an alternative public realm," two computer communications projects -- one devoted to peace issues, the other to making U.S. government information more broadly available -- demonstrate the potential of new technology for grass-roots political movements. This is just one of many examples of the importance of networks, in this instance for political action. [Surely as such systems continue to grow and diversify, care must be taken not to impose restrictions that prevent them from reaching their full potential.] 2. Eric A. Abbott. The Electronic Farmers' marketplace: New Technologies and Agricultural Information. Journal of Communication 39(3), Summer 1989, pp. 124-136. Another example. 3. Carol C. Gould (Ed.). The Information Web: Ethical and Social Implications of Computer Networking. (Boulder, CO: Westview Press), 1989. A collection of papers by some well known "computer - ethicists" including Deborah G. Johnson, James H. Moor, John W. Snapper, and Donn B. Parker. This book is interesting in the present context for what it does not include. Except for one relatively brief comment by Deborah Johnson, there is nothing included about pornography, free speech, or censorship. There is a great deal about privacy, ownership, computer conferences, access, and cooperation. For example the editor, Carol Gould, concludes her introductory chapter with a proposal for a general principal of network ethics: "Maximum sharing of information and maximally equal access compatible with the preservation of the value of privacy, as protected by the requirement of free and informed consent." What has happened in the past three years to suddenly elevate the issue of pornography to such a level of urgency and publicity? In Deborah Johnson's chapter she presents three cases for purposes of discussion. One case is taken from a collection of scenarios developed by Donn Parker and associates at SRI International (Donn B. Parker, Susan Swope, Bruce N. Baker. Ethical Conflicts in Information and Computer Science, Technology, and Business. (Wellesley, MA: QED Information Sciences, Inc.), 1990.) In this collection, some fifty-four scenarios were presented to a panel of experts for discussion. As far as I can tell only the one selected by Ms. Johnson bears any relation to the issue at hand. The scenario and associated discussion will be include at the end of this document. (Note that since Parker et al.'s study was funded by the U.S. government, the results can be copied without copyright violation.) Let me quote from Ms. Johnson's comments about this scenario: "The student who ultimately got in trouble with his university administration seemed to be treating the forum as public. That is, he did not bring the pornographic material into the forum itself, which would have, in some sense, forced students to see it who did not choose to do so. Rather, he informed students of it availability so that only those who wanted to see what they knew was pornographic, would see it. This approach seems to agree precisely with how we handle noncomputerized pornographic literature. We do not allow public displays or advertisements or distribution by mail to consumers who did not request the literature, but we do allow those who so choose to have access. . ." There is more and Ms. Johnson does grant universities the right to censor information on campuses if they believe it is the right thing to do. 4. The July/August issue of EDUCOM Review, Vol. 27, Number 4, is devoted to the theme Legal, Social, and Ethical Issues Operating in the '90s. EDUCOM is a nonprofit consortium of approximately 600 colleges and universities with 85 corporate associates. Four papers appeared under the advertised theme: (i) Sally Webster. Dispatches from the Front Line: Computer Ethics War Stories. pp. 18-21. (ii) Virginia E. Rezmierski. Ethical Dilemmas in Informational Technology Use: Opportunity Bumps on the Road to Civilization. pp. 22- -26. (iii) Susan F. Stager. Computer Ethics Violations: More Questions Than Answers. pp. 27-30. (iv) Marilyn A. Van Bergen. Copyright Law, Fair use, and Multimedia. pp. 31-34. Webster presents one relevant case: "One of your staff tells you that a young male student, X, has been receiving harassing mail messages from another user threatening to expose that he's gay, that his e-mail account has been broken into, and that sexual solicitations have been sent to others. After presenting other cases, Ms. Webster notes, "The time has come to demystify 'computer abuses,' to strip away from the act the tool with which it is committed, and to concentrate on the abusers and what they have done to each other. 'Computer abuses' should carry the same sanctions and consequences as the same misbehaviors committed with more ordinary tools." This position is consistent with the first of my basic principles. Dr. Rezmierski includes the following among several incidents mentioned as examples of what has been happening recently across campuses: "(a) A student collects hundreds of files of pornography. Using the network, the files' availability is advertised, complete with cost. (b) A staff member allows her teenage child to help read electronic mail. Instead of just reading, the teen decides to scare people and broadcasts a threatening message to specific international students on campus." She discusses an educational process developed at the University of Michigan to deal with such problems. Dr. Stager includes the results of a survey of 63 computer center directors on incidents occurring at their institutions over a 12 month period as well as their views of a number of statements dealing with many of the issues discussed above. These results are included in this report. She also makes the following statement on Freedom of Speech on Computer Bulletin Boards: "One of the most difficult management questions is about computer bulletin boards. Should Computer Centers take on the task of monitoring bulletin boards? It has been established that students at public institutions have protected, First Amendment constitutional rights to free expression. Institutions have the right to reasonably regulate expression as to its time, place, and manner so as to avoid disruption of the educational process and to avoid placing persons or property in danger. However, it remains unclear to many computer center directors whether this right of expression extends to university-operated computer bulletin boards. Many are hoping that Cubby v. Compuserv, Inc. will provide some guidance on whether the university can be held liable for the contents of these bulletin boards. Central to the issue of regulation of expression is the issue of obscenity. Of those directors surveyed, 68 percent agreed or strongly agreed that university-operated bulletin boards are subject to restrictions when material is clearly libelous or obscene. However, only 44 percent of those surveyed stated they have a general understanding of what their campus considers obscene." In a letter to the Editor in this same issue, Marcia Lin, Director of the Instructional Technology Program and professor of mathematics, science, and technology education at the University of California at Berkeley expresses her concern about barriers to women in computing. Her final point is given as follows: "Fifth, resort to respect. For example, recently, computers shipped with background screens of nude women were installed in a laboratory at the university. Females felt degraded, but males argued that removing the screens would threaten their right to free expression. Eventually, a standard of mutual respect was established, and all the screens were deleted. I call on all of us to take action against these barriers as well as to identify and address other barriers to equity in computing." One final excerpt from this magazine will be included. CNI is the Coalition for Networked Information, a group concerned about networks and management policy for networks, including NREN (National Research and Education Network). The Working Group on Legislation, Codes, Policies, and Practices, one of eight CNI working groups, identified a number of issues as top agenda items, including the following:* Providing model principles, policies, and practices to protect freedom of expression in networked environments, especially when asocial behavior exists, by asserting and testing the hypothesis that the issue is to promote an environment that favors freedom of speech rather than one that restricts distasteful expression. F. Other 1. Scenario IV.8 from Parker et al. (1990, pp. 121-124, 218-219. 2. Tables 1 and 2, from Stager (1992, pp. 28-29). 3. Article 4753 of alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk, October 22, 1992. 4. ACM Code of Ethics and Professionalism, Draft, February 12, 1992. Communications of the ACM 35(5), May 1992, pp. 94-99.