From declanm@netcom.com Wed Jul 26 15:37:54 1995 Return-Path: Received: from po7.andrew.cmu.edu by mail.netcom.com (8.6.12/Netcom) id PAA06581; Wed, 26 Jul 1995 15:21:07 -0700 Received: (from postman@localhost) by po7.andrew.cmu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA09876; Wed, 26 Jul 1995 18:17:41 -0400 Received: via switchmail for fight-censorship+@andrew.cmu.edu; Wed, 26 Jul 1995 18:17:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from po2.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Wed, 26 Jul 1995 18:16:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from netcom.netcom.com (netcom.netcom.com [192.100.81.100]) by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id SAA26206 for ; Wed, 26 Jul 1995 18:16:19 -0400 Received: by netcom.netcom.com (8.6.12/Netcom) id OAA10075; Wed, 26 Jul 1995 14:48:26 -0700 Date: Wed, 26 Jul 1995 14:48:24 -0700 (PDT) From: D B McCullagh Subject: Rimm Fallout Last November To: fight-censorship@andrew.cmu.edu Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: RO X-Status: I've attached a post from Erik Altmann, a computer science graduate student, and the response from Marty Rimm. Bill Arms, the CMU VP who wrote the university's Usenet censorship policy in October based on Rimm's study, had already tendered his resignation. (I remember him telling me in November that he wanted the dirty pictures removed 'cause he was afraid of being locked up unless they were yanked.) Was he a convenient fall guy or the administration's censor? You decide. In either case, the administration knew the details of Rimm's research last November. But now they're conveniently claiming ignorance. -Declan --- From: Erik Altmann To: robert.mehrabian@ANDREW.CMU.EDU CC: bb+graffiti.bboard-censorship@ANDREW.CMU.EDU Subject: The new bboard policy Date: Sat, 5 Nov 94 12:00:30 EST Bill Arms formulated the new bboard policy without consulting a lawyer. He has been trying to censor "smut" from the bboards here for several years, but has consistently been voted down by opponents of censorship (mostly faculty). The to-be-released porn study, which appears to have merit, more-or-less accidentally provided him with means. He was able to conjure a scenario in which CMU could get sued, however remote the chance. CMU's lawyers, in their professional capacity, were forced to agree. I have seen Bill Arms act to intimidate people who have asked hard questions about his projects, and I believe him quite capable of launching CMU into uncharted legal territory as a net censor to achieve his own goals. People like Erwin Steinberg are the ones taking the fall, and to hear them talk they're not having an easy time of it. The above is based on: . Talking to a lawyer to got Bill Arms on the phone, to whom Arms admitted that he consulted no one in formulating the new policy. . Talking to one of the faculty who worked on internet porn study, who is also familiar with Bill Arms. . The comments of others involved with the study, and also apparently familiar with Bill Arms. . Having observed Bill Arms in action first hand, on a separate issue. . Having listened to Dr Steinberg on WRCT. The issue is simpler than local policy hacks would have it (they seem to be trained to bury larger questions in technicalities). But the issue is also gravely more complicated, as actual lawyers and indeed the entire internet community will testify. Erik Altmann ------------- From: Martin Rimm To: Erik Altmann Cc: Subject: Re: The new bboard policy Date: Sat, 5 Nov 1994 13:17:42 -0500 (EST) You're statements were on the right track. Martin