Message-ID: Date: Wed, 9 Nov 1994 16:45:55 -0500 (EST) From: The Tartan X-Andrew-Message-Size: 7427+0 Content-Type: X-BE2; 12 If-Type-Unsupported: alter To: Outbound News , Outbound News , Bulletin Board Administration , Outbound News Subject: Editorial on CMU newsgroup censorship Cc: "Edmund J. Delaney" , Don Hale , Robert Mehrabian , "William Y. Arms" \begindata{text, 1958808048} \textdsversion{12} \template{messages} The follow editorial appeared in The Tartan, Carnegie Mellon's Student Newspaper on November 7, 1994. Feel free to redistribute this editorial. Andrew Sproule Tartan Editor-in-Chief ------------------------------------------------------------------ The Tartan Editor-in-Chief: Andrew Sproule Box 17 Managing Editor: Samuel Greenfield Carnegie Mellon University E-mail: tartan+@andrew.cmu.edu Pittsburgh, PA 15213-3890 Phone: (412) 268-2111 ------------------------------------------------------------------ Censorship violates academic freedom "Based upon the American concept of the right of freedom of expression, Carnegie Mellon is committed to standards of open communication within this community.... "To this end, the University can not tolerate any individual in the campus community impeding the free speech of another, whether such speech is verbal or written. In interpersonal communications, the university must tolerate even offensive and disrespectful communications as long as such communications do not, in the eyes of our community, constitute harassment or intimidation. Therefore, while I personally may find a poster or other communication to be offensive, I have no right to exercise censorship over it, nor does any other person on this campus." -- A letter from President Mehrabian to the campus community on April 6, 1994 "If men and women are to value freedom, they must experience it. If they are to learn to choose wisely, they must know what the choices are, and they must learn in an environment where no idea is unthinkable and where no alternative is withheld from their consideration.... "For their part, colleges and universities must hold vital the students' right to know. When so-called controversial speakers are invited to the campus by a recognized campus organization, they speak not because they have a right to be heard but because the students have a right to hear. It is the students' right to hear that the university must defend if it is to serve its high function in society. "To fulfill fully this responsibility, the University must ensure not only that no viewpoint is withheld, but that, within reasonable limits, all major alternatives are made available to its students." -- From the University policy concerning controversial speakers "Over the past few months a Carnegie Mellon research project has been studying the use of sexually explicit bulletin boards. It appears that, due to their content, the act of carrying a small number of Netnews bulletin boards may be illegal in Pennsylvania. In the interest of free speech, the university carries a very wide range of bulletin boards for the community with no monitoring of their contents; however, it is a criminal offense to knowingly disseminate sexually explicit material to minors or obscene material to people of any age. We have to be particularly careful because some of the users of our bulletin board system are under the age of 18. "This issue was discussed at the Academic Council on October 26. It was agreed that, in order to comply with the law, the university will not carry any bulletin board whose stated purpose is to distribute sexually explicit or obscene material, or that is known to contain a high percentage of such material. In other aspects our policies concerning access to bulletin boards are unchanged. We will continue to mount all the Netnews bulletin boards that the law permits and will not monitor their content." -- A message from advisor, Computing Services' online consulting service Since Carnegie Mellon is an institute of higher learning, we are all probably familiar with a wide variety of educational television programming, such as Sesame Street. There is one song from Sesame Street, which starts out, "One of these things is not like the others; one of these things is not the same...." As an exercise to the reader, we present three quotes above. One of these quotes is not like the others. One of these quotes is not the same. As the quotes above show, Carnegie Mellon's new policy on the alt.sex, alt.binaries.pictures, and rec.arts.erotica newsgroups is totally inconsistent with its policies and statements regarding free speech and academic freedom. The University can make all the grandiose statements it wants, but if it buckles at the first sign of a lawsuit, its statements are hollow. The University's excuse for censoring newsgroups -- that it found out it was breaking the law -- is ridiculous. The University knew of these newsgroups and their content for a long time. Not only has the University not been approached by any member of the law enforcement community, but also -- as it has stated -- the University does not know if carrying these newsgroups is against the law. What makes the University's censorship even more detestable is that it is censoring every post in over 80 newsgroups based on the group they are posted in -- not their content. No one would make the argument that every post on every one of these newsgroups is obscene or sexually explicit. If the University were truly interested in following the law while still maintaining academic freedom, it would consider each post on an individual basis to determine if the post were obscene or sexually explicit. Or, if it felt that none of the posts were obscene, but some were sexually explicit, it would put in the time and money to develop a system which would not allow minors to see the sexually explicit posts. Besides illustrating the hypocrisy of the University, the removal of these controversial newsgroups sets a dangerous precedent for the rest of the University. Here are some ways in which this policy could effect other departments if it were universally applied: * English classes would not study books which contained explicit sexual material, such as The Handmaid's Tale, by Margaret Atwood, or novels by Kathy Acker. * The Psychology department would have to remove Sigmund Freud's books and essays from the curriculum because of their sexually explicit nature. * The Activities Board would no longer show NC-17 movies. * Some speakers, including author Susie Bright, who writes and speaks about sex, would no longer be allowed on campus. * The Student Dormitory Council would have to cancel most, if not all, of Sex Week, because of its frank and explicit sexual nature. * The Women's Center would no longer be open to all students, because it has books and videos containing explicit sex. * The library would have to remove all sexually explicit books. (While the library may be exempt from Pennsylvania obscenity laws, the University could still censor it just to be safe.) Clearly this is an abbreviated list of what could happen if this policy were applied throughout the University. Also, it should be clear that not everything on this list would necessarily happen. But the important point is that the University is violating its policies regarding academic freedom. If the University is willing to do it once, it will be willing to do it again. The University's censorship is wrong and should not be tolerated. Every group and every person on this campus who believes in the principles of academic freedom should speak out against the University. Those who don't may regret it later when the University decides that something they are doing or saying is obscene. \enddata{text, 1958808048}