From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Babak Sehari postings -- iastate.edu is dealing
Originator: kadie@eff.org
Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 15:50:51 GMT

Some thoughts in random order:

1. Iowa State Univeristy's computer policy has the best due process
procedures I've seen. It says:

  "Violations of the University Code of Computer Ethics are treated like
  any other ethical violation as outlined in the Student Handbook and
  applicable faculty and staff handbooks."

In other words, it just ties into the University's regular due process
procedure.

2. Massive autoposting likely violates the University's likely
prohibition on substantially disruptive actions. I'm enclosing a
reference to the text of my school's rule on this. (Massive
autoposting also likely violates the ISU computer policy's ban on
"rude" postings. But this ban is, in my opinion, illegal because it is
unconstutionally vague and broad.)

3. I don't know if the user was suspended from the computer or not.
In my opinion, once he is put on notice (and pending due process), he
should be allowed on the computer.

4. The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act mandates that student
discipline be kept private. (Unless the student waives privacy.)

- Carl

ANNOTATED REFERENCES

(All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.)

=================
policies/ethics.iastate.edu
=================
* Edu -- Iowa State U. -- Ethics

The computer ethics statement for Iowa State University.
critiqued

=================
policies/ethics.iastate.edu.critique
=================
* Edu -- Iowa State U. -- Ethics -- Critique

"This is a critique of Computer Ethics Statement for Iowa State
University. The due process protection of the policy is good. The
privacy protection is unclear. Free expression protection is poor.
(The policy imposes speech restrictions on email and other computer
media. Specifically, it prohibits rude expression and any expression
of a political nature. In my opinion, these speech restrictions
violate academic freedom and the law.)"

=================
news/cafv01n36: Message-Id: <1991Oct24.014633.28623@eff.org>
=================
An article from the Computers and Academic Freedom News 01.36

Notes 7-9 are about newsgroup policy.

9. Postings to the net, like other expressive actions, should only be
punished if they cause substantial interference with the rights of
others. A few off-topic posts do not constitute substantial
interference. Enclosed are the general rules my school has against
disruptive and coercive action.

=================
law/cohen-v-california.1
=================
* Expression -- Offensive -- Cohen v. California -- 1

Definition of "fighting words"; why no right not to be offended

The definition of fighting words from _Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire_
and then _Cohen v. California_. Also, says quotes the Supreme Court
saying that there is no universal right to not hear offensive
expression.

=================
law/cohen-v-california.2
=================
* Expression -- Offensive -- Cohen v. California -- 2

Netnews article with reference _Cohen v. California_, "in which the
court ruled that Cohen's jacket, which stated "Fuck the Draft" was a
protected form of free speech, even though he wore it in a county
courthouse."

=================
law/cohen-v-california.3
=================
* Expression -- Offensive -- Cohen v. California -- 3

Here are excerpts from several Supreme Court decisions inclusing
_Cohen v. Calfiornia_. They say that offensive public expression is
protected if those offended can "effectively avoid further bombardment
of their sensibilities simply by averting their eyes."

=================
law/doe-v-u-of-michigan
=================
* Expression -- Hate Speech -- 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.

=================
law/uwm-post-v-u-of-wisconsin
=================
* Expression -- Hate Speech -- 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."

=================
faq/due-process
=================
* Due Process
 
q: Should users be suspended from the computer pending formal discipline?
 
a: No, with one exception. Just as students should not be expelled from
...

=================
law/ferpa
=================
* Privacy -- School Records -- FERPA -- Excerpts

Excerpts from _College and University Student Records: A Legal
Compendium_, Edited by Joan E. Van Tol, 1989. Details the Family
Education Rights and Privacy Act's (Buckley Amendment's) provisions on
directory information.

=================
=================

If you have gopher, you can browse the CAF archive with the command
   gopher gopher.eff.org

These document(s) are also available by anonymous ftp (the preferred
method) and by email. To get the file(s) via ftp, do an anonymous ftp
to ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4), and get file(s):

  pub/academic/policies/ethics.iastate.edu
  pub/academic/policies/ethics.iastate.edu.critique
  pub/academic/news/cafv01n36
  pub/academic/law/cohen-v-california.1
  pub/academic/law/cohen-v-california.2
  pub/academic/law/cohen-v-california.3
  pub/academic/law/doe-v-u-of-michigan
  pub/academic/law/uwm-post-v-u-of-wisconsin
  pub/academic/faq/due-process
  pub/academic/law/ferpa

To get the file(s) by 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/policies ethics.iastate.edu
send acad-freedom/policies ethics.iastate.edu.critique
send acad-freedom/news cafv01n36
send acad-freedom/law cohen-v-california.1
send acad-freedom/law cohen-v-california.2
send acad-freedom/law cohen-v-california.3
send acad-freedom/law doe-v-u-of-michigan
send acad-freedom/law uwm-post-v-u-of-wisconsin
send acad-freedom/faq due-process
send acad-freedom/law ferpa
-- 
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
 =kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk