HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: perez@mgr.hjf.org (Charles Perez)
Newsgroups: uiuc.general,alt.censorship,rec.arts.fine
Subject: Re: U. of Illinois may remove non"pleasant" art from vistor's center
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
Date: 13 Aug 92 13:59:23 GMT
Organization: HJF AIDS Research Project, Washington DC

In article <1992Aug10.220239.6865@anomaly.sbs.risc.net> kd1hz@anomaly.sbs.risc.net (Michael P. Deignan (KD1HZ)) writes:
>perez@mgr.hjf.org (Charles Perez) writes:
>
>>Do you really
>>want others, particularly the powers that be, to have that kind of power
>>over you?
>
>As a member of society, I have that power myself. I'm not deligating it to
>someone else.

In a democracy where "society" holds the power, you do not hold it
yourself. That power has been chopped up and spread very thinly. You
have only a very miniscule say in any given issue. The people who hold
the power are the people in a position to play the system, not the
people who are affected by it.

>>How can they if they can't even speak their minds. "You have the right
>>to try to change my mind, but you are not free to state your case."
>
>Funny, I didn't realize that, in this case, the University confiscated the
>"artist's" tools, and told the "artist" to cease production of offending
>material under threat of imprisonment. 

Oh. Pardon me for speaking in more general terms than this particular
case. I guess that's what I get from trying to reason from principles.

>>This is another issue. The owners of a forum presumably control what is
>>said there. If that forum is public, then everybody owns it and the
>>only restrictions the public should suffer are those that enforce order.
>
>Just because a piece of property is owned by the state doesn't mean that
>the "public" at large has access to it. I know many college professors
>who would get mighty upset if you decided to rummage through their office
>looking for their final exam, meanwhile claiming "hey, its a public
>filing cabinet!"

It sounds like an issue of order to me.

.sig
-- 
==========================================================================
That which is necessary is never evil. If an evil seems necessary, look
to your context; that's where its root lies.
                                   - Charles Perez
Newsgroups: uiuc.general,alt.censorship,rec.arts.fine
From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Subject: Re: U. of Illinois may remove non"pleasant" art from vistor's center
Organization: Northeastern Law, Class of '93
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 15:19:28 GMT


In article <BsvpxF.AIH@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, tmkk@uiuc.edu (Khan) said:

> Perhaps one of you folks debating this topic can answer the
> following question for me:
>
> Why is it legal for a University to bad X-rated GIF files from its
> anonymous ftp sites, ban the importation of groups such as
> alt.sex.pictures onto camous machines, but NOT legal for them to
> take a couple of X-rated paintings off of the wall of a campus
> building?

Consider this distinction, which I present as a hypothetical because I
don't know what the facts of U of I's actions and policies are:

1) The University of Fred wants to keep X-rated GIF files out of its
   computers.  It utilizes various tactics for doing so, ranging from
   banning certain "suspect" newsgroups to deleting X-rated GIF files
   when it finds them on the system.  This is "all right" because the
   University never said that it would allow X-rated GIF files on its
   computer in the first place, so no promise is being broken.

2) The University of Fred agrees to display certain works by an artist
   in a certain place for a certain time.  With complete knowledge of
   what these works look like, the University does indeed place them
   on display as per the agreement, and _then_, after receiving
   complaints, reverses itself and unilaterally voids the agreement
   and takes the works off of display.  This is "bad" because it
   constitutes a breach of the contract between the University and the
   artist.

Please note that I've avoided using terms like "legal" and "illegal"
in these examples, since (1) causes of action regarding breach of
contract and (2) causes of action regarding claims of censorship both
usually fall into the category of civil law rather than criminal law.

-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
From: sbradley@scic.intel.com (Seth Bradley)
Subject: Re: Brian Siano Posts Private E-Mail (was: Robert Sheaffer's Loyalty T
Organization: Intel SCIC, Beaverton, OR
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 21:35:29 GMT

In article <25630@dog.ee.lbl.gov> sichase@csa3.lbl.gov writes:
>Sheaffer surely doesn't need *me* to support him, but I will do it anyway.
>I think that posting his private E-mail was a disgusting ploy.  If anyone
>ever posted something that I had sent privately without asking my 
>permission I would be just as ticked off.  

I'll add my agreement to this.  Posting private e-mail without prior
consent is a gross breach of netiquette, and is not excusable under
any circumstances.  Those who violate this principle of privacy present
themselves and their comments in a _very_ negative light.
-- 
Seth J. Bradley, Senior System Administrator, Intel SCIC
Internet: sbradley@scic.intel.com   UUCP: uunet!scic.intel.com!sbradley
----------------------------------------
"A system admin's life is a sorry one.  The only advantage he has over
Emergency Room doctors is that malpractice suits are rare.  On the other
hand, ER doctors never have to deal with patients installing new versions
of their own innards!"  -Michael O'Brien
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
From: cmort@NCoast.ORG (Christopher Morton)
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Reply-To: cmort@ncoast.org (Christopher Morton)
Organization: North Coast Public Access *NIX, Cleveland, OH
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 02:23:53 GMT
Followup-To: alt.censorship

As quoted from <1992Aug15.213252.22415@sfu.ca> by kiefer@connext.ucs.sfu.ca (Theresa Kiefer):

> The question of censorship is a tricky one, however, because censors after all,
> exist to censor, and they don't usually act in the interests of women when they  
> doit - they act as representatives of the state, and this is problematic to say  
> the least.

Censors rarely if ever act in anyone's interest but their own, whatever that
might be.

> However, at SFU, I think it is safe to say that the removal of the alt.sex  
> groups will not prevent anyone from having access to pornographic ideas if  
> these are of interest to them.  All they have to do is turn on the television,  
> if they want access to the ideas.  Sexually explicit pictoral material is  
> available in many places.  I'm not so sure the discussion groups should have  
> been cancelled, since these were often a legitimate forum for discourse, and do  
> not intrude on people wandering through a given lab in the way that an  
> unencoded .gif file has a way of doing...  Freedom of speech is not absolute.
> In a community, such as SFU, it is both relevant and important to consider the 
> needs of the various constituants in order to provide a tolerant and inclusive
> environment for learning.  This includes the unlearning of sexism.

I'd say that it includes your right to advocate the unlearning of sexism, just
as it includes the right of somebody else to advocate the contrary.


-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------  

"Well whose opinions did you THINK these were...?" 
------------------------------------------------------------------  
Newsgroups: uiuc.general,alt.censorship,rec.arts.fine,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.society.civil-liberty,misc.legal,rec.arts.fine
Subject: Re: [UPI] "Judge rules artist's rights violated in painting seizure"
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 20:09:20 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

machanicm@gtephx.UUCP (Mindy Machanic) writes:

>In article <adams.713731675@spssig>, adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>> kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>> 
>> >	CHICAGO (UPI) -- Three aldermen violated an artist's rights when they
>> >removed from a student exhibit a painting of the late Mayor Harold
>> >Washington dressed in women's underwear, a federal judge has ruled.
>> 
>> I bet they understand why the conservatives are upset at the National
>> Endowment for the arts right now....
>> 
>>  -Steve

>So why do you assume that NEA money was involved in this at all?
I don't....

>And how come conservatives have no sense of humor?

Huh?  That was meant to make a point about 'offensive' art.....you can
offened everybody if you try hard enough...It's all in the eyes of the
beholder.  The point was that if the NEA can continue to fund garbage (in
my opinion) then it sort of serves these aldermen right that they too must
live with being offended...

 -Steve
--
 The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                        -------------------
     adams@spss.com                           Phone: (312) 329-3522
     Steve Adams                              Fax:   (312) 329-3558
Newsgroups: uiuc.general,alt.censorship,rec.arts.fine,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: carroll@cs.uiuc.edu (Alan M. Carroll)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
Subject: Re: U. of Illinois may remove non"pleasant" art from vistor's center
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
Date: 16 Aug 92 18:18:42 GMT
Organization: Technophiles Inc. - Engineers with Attitude

In article <1992Aug12.204437.18522@gtephx.UUCP>, machanicm@gtephx.UUCP (Mindy Machanic) writes:
> Oh, so I can stand _outside_ on public property and hold it up for all to see,
> but I cannot put it on the walls _indoors_, away from the weather, in public
> property, and put it up for all to see? Very logical and consistent, yes?

So I can hang around _outside_ with my friends and discuss politics on
public property, but I cannot hang around _indoors_, away from the
weather, in public property? Very logical and consistent, yes?

-- 
Alan M. Carroll          "Weren't there yams involved, too?" - J. Ockerbloom
Epoch Development Team   
Urbana Il.               "I hate shopping with the reality-impaired" - Susan
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.society.civil-liberty,misc.legal,rec.arts.fine
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [UPI] "Judge rules artist's rights violated in painting seizure"
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 18:26:52 GMT

Copyright 1992 by UPI. Reposted with permission from the ClariNet
Electronic Newspaper newsgroup clari.local.illinois.  For more info on
ClariNet, write to info@clarinet.com or phone 1-800-USE-NETS.

	CHICAGO (UPI) -- Three aldermen violated an artist's rights when they
removed from a student exhibit a painting of the late Mayor Harold
Washington dressed in women's underwear, a federal judge has ruled.
	U.S. District Judge George Lindberg decided Monday a jury will
determine what damages the three aldermen should pay David K. Nelson Jr.
	Nelson is seeking $100,000 from each of alderman -- Allan Streeter,
Dorothy Tillman and Bobby Rush.
	Lindberg also held former Police Superintendent Leroy Martin must go
to trial for ordering the painting taken into custody.
	``This is a very important decision for freedom of expression in
Chicago,'' said Harvey Grossman, legal director of the American Civil
Liberties Union of Chicago, which represented Nelson.
	Nelson's painting, ``Mirth and Girth,'' was prominently hung at an
exhibit of the School of the Art Institute of Chicago in 1988 just
months after Washington, Chicago's first black mayor, died of a heart
attack.
	``The combination of events beginning with Mayor Washington's death
and culminating in the display of (Nelson's) painting had increased
tensions in the African-American community to the point where violence
on the scale of the 1960s West Side riots was imminent,'' the three
aldermen said in a court filing in May.
	The three aldermen are black. Nelson, who is white, said his painting
depicting Washington in women's underwear was not intended to be racist.
	The aldermen removed the painting from display and held it for nearly
two hours during a stormy meeting in the office of the school's
president. Martin then ordered police to take the painting, which was
damaged during the process.
	Tillman's lawyer said an appeal will be filed.
	Lindberg dismissed the city of Chicago from the lawsuit.





--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,soc.rights.human,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: U. of Illinois may remove non"pleasant" art from vistor's center
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 15:55:13 GMT

monson@hobo.ECE.ORST.EDU (Ty Monson) writes:

[...]
>   In simpler terms:
>   Freedom of speech does not mean that you are guaranteed a forum
>   in which to speak.
[...]

Actually, at U. of Illinois (and most universities), we are guaranteed
forums in which to speak.

From the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign's Code on Campus
Affairs and Regulations Applying to All Students:

"Members and organizations in the University community may invite
 and hear any persons of their own choosing, subject only to reasonable
 requirements on time, place, and manner for use of University facilities."
...
 Freedom of Inquiry and Expression
 1. Students and student organizations should be free to examine and to
 discuss all questions of interest to them, and to express opinions
 publicly and privately. [...]
 2. Students should be allowed to invite and hear any person of their
 own choosing. [...] The University's control of campus facilities should
 not be used as a device of censorship. It should be made clear to the
 academic and larger community that sponsorship of guest speakers
 does not necessarily imply approval or endorsement of the views expressed
 either by the sponsoring group or the institution."

Of course, not all forums are open to all students. For example,
newspaper is open only to the student editor and the editorial board
(and those they appoint). Once such a forum is given, however, it
can't be closed down because disapproval with content. As the Code
says:

 "C. The campus press and media are to be free of censorship. The editors
 and managers shall not be arbitrarily suspended because of student,
 faculty, administration, alumni, or community disapproval of editorial
 policy or content."


- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
From: advax@reg.triumf.ca (A.Daviel)
Subject: Searching for computer porn at UBC
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: TRIUMF: Tri-University Meson Facility
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 22:49:00 GMT

I read recently in UBC Reports that the UBC President has "asked all UBC 
units to ensure that university property is not being used to gain access to, 
create, or store (such) pornographic material on university computing 
equipment".

I am disturbed by the possibilities in this. Not so much that I think it is 
OK to store 10Gbytes of sexually explicit GIF files on univerity disks (or 
10Gb of pictures of sports cars, for that matter), but that such a thing 
(ensuring ...) may be possible, at least for ASCII files.

Computer users on a big system (VMS, Unix, etc.) are prevented from reading 
each others mail by default, and may optionally protect any other files 
against unauthorised access. But they enjoy no such protection from 
privileged users, such as system managers. We rely on the personal integrity 
of privileged users, and hope that they are far too busy to have time to 
ferret around in users files.

Users could encrypt data, but I do not believe this is common practice.
Systems such as Sun that come with DES software in the USA are prevented from
doing so outside the US. 

Given operator privileges, it would be easy to write programs that 
would scan users files and mailboxes for keywords, according to some 
particular scheme of sexual or political censorship. Admittedly machine
inspection of picture and sound files would not currently be possible, if the
files were hidden in 'innocent' directories with innocuous filenames, though 
a program could produce a list of all picture files for subsequent visual
inspection. 

Regardless of the legal and technical facts (for instance, that bitnet 
mail may be logged, that store-and-forward mail may be backed up on tape, 
etc.), users have come to believe that electronic mail has the same 
confidentiality as letter mail or telephone converstions.

I believe that the possibilities for abuse of privacy are numerous, if system 
operators are effectively directed to search their systems for 'offensive 
material'.


A.Daviel, Vancouver BC
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
From: barnhart@netcom.com (Aaron Barnhart)
Subject: Re: Limiting religious speech
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 92 03:31:53 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Reply-To: barnhart@netcom.com

aultj@rpi.edu (Jim Ault) writes:


>Ok, here's a question for anti-censorship people:

>How many of you are dismayed at the recent Supreme Court ruling in
>Lee v. Weisman, which held prayer at graduation ceremonies
>unconstitutional?   If this isn't stifling free speech, what is? 

My favorite response to this old battle cry is from Senate Chaplain
Richard Halverson:

"All right then, what if we arranged for a prayer to be made at
graduation ceremony ... by a rabbi?"

-- 
Aaron (Barnhart@netcom.com) -- posting from Evanston, Illinois
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
From: bjpocock@undergrad.math.waterloo.edu (Beastor the Mad)
Subject: Is there a problem with producing porn in Canada
Organization: University of Waterloo
Distribution: ont
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 02:23:05 GMT

I was just wondering if it is illegal to produce porn stuff in Canada, Ontario
specifically.  What stuff can be shown... what can't be.  I know that this
probably isn't the best group... but I can't subscribe to any law groups.
Any replies would be welcome.

Newsgroups: uiuc.general,alt.censorship,rec.arts.fine
From: paul@uxc.cso.uiuc.edu (Paul Pomes - UofIllinois CSO)
Subject: Re: U. of Illinois may remove non"pleasant" art from vistor's center
Reply-To: Paul-Pomes@uiuc.edu
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 04:48:27 GMT

tmkk@uiuc.edu (Scott Coleman) writes:

>Why is it legal for a University to bad X-rated GIF files from its
>anonymous ftp sites, ban the importation of groups such as
>alt.sex.pictures onto camous machines, but NOT legal for them to take a
>couple of X-rated paintings off of the wall of a campus building?

We don't "ban" x-rated GIF files from CCSO anon-FTP directories; we've
simply chosen not to carry them.  A lot of textual material can fit
into the disk space required for a compressed image file.  Other 
departments make their own decisions what to put on their machines.

The alt.sex.pictures.* groups are not carried for the same reason.
Adding them would require cutting at least a day off the already short
retention time on ux1 and perhaps two or more days on ux3.  I like to
keep at least 130 Mb free on the ux3 spool disk to allow for fluctuations.
Once school starts again it's likely that free space will evaporate and
retention times will be cut anyway.

The reasons the pictures are staying is that they're not X-rated (have
you gone to look at them or merely working from preconceptions?) and
the artists have an agreement with the University to display their work
there.  This has been said multiple times before, I can only guess you've
not been following the discussion.

/pbp
-- 
"A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State,
the right of the People to keep and read Books shall not be infringed."
	-- J. Neil Schulman
Newsgroups: uiuc.general,alt.censorship,rec.arts.fine
From: mrl28033@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Michael R Linksvayer)
Subject: Re: U. of Illinois may remove non"pleasant" art from vistor's center
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 21:52:00 GMT
Keywords: significant content from an index used as words to a document

In article <1992Aug11.015910.27068@m.cs.uiuc.edu> kadie@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>jsc52962@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Jeffrey S. Curtis) writes:
>>Beating people over the head with baseball bats is illegal, too, and
>>it has about as much to do with this case as censorship.  There is simply
>>no censorship involved here, as has been agreed by all sides - the
>>problem is with the violation of a contract, and nothing more.

y!

>The problem is that because of partisan and doctrinal disapproval
>access to material might be reduced at an institution where expression
>is suppose to be protected from such suppression.

Yes, and as someone noted previously not putting neo nazi
books in the library reduces access to neo nazi books. 

-- 
Mike Linksvayer   m-linksvayer@uiuc.edu   +1 217 344 1326
From: Mark.Sablow@iphase.UUCP (Mark Sablow)
Sender: FredGate@iphase.UUCP
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
Subject: Nea reply
Date: 14 Aug 92  18:40:00 EST

>Date: 08-1292 (19:40)              Number: 380 of 386
>  To: ALL                           Refer#: NONE
>From: MIKE PERCY                      Read: (N/A)
>Subj: RE: NEA = EDUCATION *3*       Status: PUBLIC MESSAGE
>Conf: CENSORSHIP (26)            Read Type: GENERAL

>Newsgroups: alt.censorship
>Organization: Clemson University
>Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 19:40:02 GMT


>How about we let those of us who enjoy the arts and want to promote the
>arts donate our "whopping 68 to 70 cents" to an organization which can
>distribute the funds in ways that are more efficient than the government
>does?  And how about letting me give, say, $50, voluntarily -- making
me
>feel good, the arts get funded, nobody is forced into anything -- rather
>than just taking a dollar from every taxpayer to fund things which would
>do quite well without government funding?


My reply:

One day when the system is designed to do this, it would be possible but

for the time being, STOP CRYING about something that provides a positive outlet, & for for only 68 to 70 cents.   Geeeeeee....

I pay taxes for things I do not like either, that's why I vote!

                                                              Mark, aka Professor Atget

 * Origin: Aether (1:112/2020)

Xref: sparky alt.censorship:6928 alt.society.civil-liberty:5536 misc.legal:15988 rec.arts.fine:579
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.society.civil-liberty,misc.legal,rec.arts.fine
Subject: Re: [UPI] "Judge rules artist's rights violated in painting seizure"
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 18:47:55 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:

>	CHICAGO (UPI) -- Three aldermen violated an artist's rights when they
>removed from a student exhibit a painting of the late Mayor Harold
>Washington dressed in women's underwear, a federal judge has ruled.

I bet they understand why the conservatives are upset at the National
Endowment for the arts right now....

 -Steve
--
 The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                        -------------------
     adams@spss.com                           Phone: (312) 329-3522
     Steve Adams                              Fax:   (312) 329-3558
Xref: sparky alt.censorship:6922 rec.photo:14167