HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.society.civil-liberty]  music cnesorship victory
Originator: daemon@eff.org
Organization: EFF mail-news gateway
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 06:50:49 GMT


Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty
From: farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Big Bri)
Subject:  music cnesorship victory
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 16:06:20 GMT

Happily, the NYCLU helped win a battle for the anti-censorship forces. In
Guilderland, NY (near Albany), town officials passed a law making it a felony
to sell records with EXPLICIT LYRICS stickers to minors. The NYCLU fought it
and got officials to revoke the law. Why? Because an explicit lyrics sticker
, as judged by the music industry, does not mean that it's necesarily obscene.
Only the courts can decide that.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
BRI FARENELL	CLARKSON '95		FARENEBT@CRAFT.CAMP.CLARKSON.EDU
A bleeding heart liberal card-carrying member of the ACLU.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The most violent element of society is ignorance."
	---Emma Goldman	(possibly refering to Jesse Helms)

"Political campaigns now are so simplistic and superficial. In the 20 seconds
 we have left, could you tell us why, Mr Candidate?" 
	---Political cartoon		

"Yassir Arafat had a terrible accident. He tried to fax a mail bomb...."
	---Johnny Carson
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: [comp.org.eff.talk]  Re: Liabilities of providing access
Date: 7 Apr 92 06:47:56 GMT
Article-I.D.: herodotu.9204071647.AA15281
Organization: EFF mail-news gateway
Originator: daemon@eff.org


Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject:  Re: Liabilities of providing access
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1992 16:37:07 GMT

In article <1992Mar12.211657.3511@mother.bates.edu> rob@mother.bates.edu (Rob Spellman) writes:

>I am interested in providing a local k-12 school district with IP
>access to our network, and therefore to the Internet.  In speaking
>with our network provider, they brought up the issue of liability.  In
>particular, they are concerned about what is going to happen when a
>parent sees their child bring home a story from some newsgroup like
>alt.sex, and the adult screams that we are providing their child with
>access to pornography.

I think this is guaranteed to happen if you include the alt groups in your
feed. It may happen even if you don't.

> Would the parent have any legal recourse against
>us, or our network provider?

The state of the law is such that I think the best answer to your question
is "probably not." Very little of the textual material available on Usenet
could qualify as pornography by any stretch of the imagination--what is
more likely is that a parent would object to some posting or postings that
are not legally obscene (e.g., a detailed discussion of AMERICAN PSYCHO
from rec.arts.books). In that case, there would be no legal liability,
although there might be bad publicity.

Much of the uuencoded graphic material available through the alt groups
may qualify as legally obscene. I would hesitate before making such groups
available. 

> Even if they didn't have a case, I don't
>think that my college would like the publicity.

This is something you will have to weigh against your interest in
establishing the K-12 feed.



--Mike




-- 
Mike Godwin,     |"Les vrais paradis sont les paradis
mnemonic@eff.org | qu'on a perdus."
(617) 864-0665   | 
EFF, Cambridge   |          --Marcel Proust
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: [soc.men]  Re: A neat story, and a question.
Date: 16 Apr 92 17:39:44 GMT
Organization: EFF mail-news gateway
Originator: daemon@eff.org


From: mikep@hpmwtd.HP.COM (Mike Powell)
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 03:55:19 GMT
Subject:  Re: A neat story, and a question.
Newsgroups: soc.men


	I'm sorry to hear about this situation....  If I have a clear
	picture of the events by your message, then you are yet another
	victim of the _fantastic_ expansion of the term 'sexual harassment'.

	Ten years ago, it usually meant that a person had to perform some
	sexual act (or tolerate one) in order to maintain good standing
	at work, or even to retain one's job.

	These days, all you need to do is say something or own/display
	something having even the _slightest_ connection to sexuality, near
	any sexually-hyper-sensitive woman.  (as we all know, it is genetically
	impossible for a man to be sexually harassed).

	You are probably a far greater victim of harassment.... although
	hardly anyone will notice becuse the harassment is not sexual, and
	secondly, you are a man.
	
	On a related topic:

	Many people seem to have a difficult time understanding the 
	difference betueen something that is sexist, and something of a 
	sexual nature that is uncomfortable or offensive.  They are two
	TOTALLY different subjects, and yet many folks get confused.

	I'm sorry that I cannot provide you with answers to your specific
	questions though....   Good luck.

	Apologies for the generalizations.... insert exceptions where
	appropriate.

	-Mike-
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: [soc.men]  Re: A neat story, and a question.
Date: 16 Apr 92 17:39:30 GMT
Organization: EFF mail-news gateway
Originator: daemon@eff.org


Newsgroups: soc.men
From: dmcanzi@watserv1.waterloo.edu (David Canzi)
Subject:  Re: A neat story, and a question.
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 02:32:21 GMT

In article <FXBL_3C@ais.org> chungkuo@ais.org (Shawn FitzGerald) writes:
>Hopefully this will not get me expelled. My supervisors have basically told
>me to 'be carefull.' However, I can't help but be totaly pissed off. Not at
>this woman (whomever she may be), but that SHE'S TECHNICALLY RIGHT. 

Going only by what you've said, I'd say you have every right to be
angry at *both* the complainer and the administration.  You don't tell
us what was being said about masturbation, but a serious discussion of
masturbation (say from moral, political, or religious points of view)
is no more out of place than a discussion of baseball or tax shelters.
This looks like yet another case of loosely defined sexual harassment
policies being used to stomp on freedom of speech.

>I'd like to know if there is some place FTPable that archives sexual
>harrassment policies. I can't believe saying something that "offends"
>somebody in a room, when you've NEVER spoken to them or even know who they
>are can be termed 'sexual harrassment.'\

Personally, I'd be interested in knowing if there is an archive of
sexual harassment accusation horror stories somewhere.  Ie.  Stories of
men being accused of "harassing" women they have never seen or
communicated with, never been in the presence of, never been aware of
the existence of, or of men being accused of "harassment" where there
is no "harassee".  I have heard of examples of all of these, but didn't
have the foresight to collect them.

-- 
David Canzi
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: [talk.abortion]  pennsylvania harassment law
Date: 15 Apr 92 05:37:51 GMT
Article-I.D.: herodotu.9204151537.AA23694
Organization: EFF mail-news gateway
Originator: daemon@eff.org


From: keegan@kazoo.crd.ge.com (james g keegan jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject:  pennsylvania harassment law
Date: 15 Apr 92 04:09:26 GMT

from the PA Crimes Code...
=============================================================
2709.  Harassment

     A person commits a summary offense when, with intent to
harass, annoy, or alarm another person:

     (1)  he strikes, shoves, kicks, or otherwise subjects him
to physical contact, or attempt or threatens to do the same; or

     (2)  he follows a person in or about a public place or places; 
or

     (3)  he engages in a course of conduct or repeatedly commits 
acts which alarm or seriously annoy such other person and which
serve no legitimate purpose.
==================================================================

this should cause boy welch some concern.

hell, maybe it'll cause darcy some concern.

--
----
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: [alt.bbs, et al.]  Re: Illegal photographs and Prodigy
Date: 13 Apr 92 07:30:47 GMT
Organization: EFF mail-news gateway
Originator: daemon@eff.org


From: chris@ncmicro.lonestar.org (Chris Arps)
Newsgroups: alt.bbs,alt.bbs.internet
Subject:  Re: Illegal photographs and Prodigy
Date: 10 Apr 92 16:35:31 GMT


Compuserve dropped ALL of its R rated library a while back
due to copyright infringements.  They started another library
called Dontelli online that is filled with files from a 
modelling angency (full releases, copyright dealt with, etc.)

Any other photos that go to Compuserve MUST be the property of the
poster or public domain.  

Needless to say, this has diminished the amount of posting to
the picture groups and is an indicator of things to come for 
the rest of the BBS community.

Another news note: Penthouse has started their own BBS/chat system
that is available thru minitel.  So all this hoopla about
electronic images/paper images is irrelavant.  Penthouse has
jumped on the wagon and is SELLING electronic images to its
users.  




-- 
Chris Arps  ***BUY MARTIAN************ *New Music*SONIC YOUTH*SUICIDAL TEND*
NC/Scientific Software, Music,         *GARY NEUMAN*K. SCHULZE*PETER HAMILL*
Animation, 4 Dogs,1 Birds,1 cat        *Old Music*SPIRIT*MMANN*VDGG*HENDRIX*
NC Microproducts, 2323 N Central Ste 380, Richardson TX 75080 214-234-6655*
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.society.civil-liberty]  Re: Help stop the KKK
Originator: daemon@eff.org
Organization: EFF mail-news gateway
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 09:23:37 GMT


Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty
From: freedman@bellman.lanl.gov (Keith S. Freedman)
Subject:  Re: Help stop the KKK
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 15:47:02 GMT

In article 21899@athena.mit.edu, wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr) writes:
>
>"Hi there... we're a group of citizens who are concerned about the
>Klan's negative attitudes towards the civil liberties of others, so
>in order to protest against their attitudes we're going to try to
>deprive them of their rights to freedom of speech."
>
>Bleah.
>
We MUST use caution when depriving people of their rights.  If it is acceptable for us
to take away one persons freedoms, then it is acceptable for someone to then take
ours.  We should not deny anyone the Freedom of Speech, but we SHOULD exercise
OUR freedom to "Find something more constructive to listen to."
Whenever Hate groups speak, we generally find "something better to do."  Then, we
listen to what they've said after they are gone and educate people as to the reality
of the situation and try to clear up the misconseptions that the hate-spokesperson
deliberately instilled in the audience.

Trying to deny their freedoms is nearly as bad an idea as throwing rocks at them.
It only gives them power makes them look like the "Good Guys."

---
Keith Freedman
United Coalition Against Prejudice
freedman@ilmen.lanl.gov
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: [soc.motss]  Re: News from Auburn, Alabama
Date: 16 Apr 92 17:35:49 GMT
Organization: EFF mail-news gateway
Originator: daemon@eff.org


From: jglover@ducvax.auburn.edu
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject:  Re: News from Auburn, Alabama
Date: 16 Apr 92 18:16:30 GMT

In article <9204122135.AA19975@client.its.rpi.edu>, buckmr@RPI.EDU writes:
> From: Dale Prince <JPRINCE3@UA1VM.UA.EDU>
> Subject:      More on Alabama
> 
> 
> *** This was posted to the Queer Nation mailing list qn@queernet.org ***
> 
> The following is a reprint (without permission) of an editorial from The
> Crimson White, the University of Alabama's campus newspaper.  Material marked
> with brackets is my own.

Note this report is from the University of Alabama at Tuscaloosa;
previous reports have been about Auburn University in Auburn;

These are two different (rival) institutions; the SGA at UA (tuscaloose)
stole the idea to discrimate from the orignial actions at Auburn.
UA's group has been active and funded for several years already.

 - jayg
From: allens@yang.earlham.edu (Allen Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: [eff.mail.com-priv]  Re: The AUP, Common Sens
Date: 13 Apr 92 02:34:03 GMT
Organization: Earlham College, Richmond, Indiana

In article <199203250407.AA24580@eff.org>, kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
> 
> Newsgroups: eff.mail.com-priv
> From: scs@lokkur.dexter.mi.us (Steve Simmons)
> Subject:  Re: The AUP, Common Sense, and the Emperor's Clothes
> Message-ID: <9203250249.AA23992@lokkur>
> Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1992 02:49:14 GMT
> 
> A few thoughts on acceptable use and this whole topic...
> 
> Maybe we should all get in the habit of distinguishing between NSFNet
> and the Internet?  NSFNet is now a subset of the Internet, and saying
> things like "Internet AUP" are just plain silly.
> 
> In case nobody noticed, the post office and the telcos do have
> acceptable use policies.  One critical difference between them and the
> Internet is that the phone/post office have the same AUP across the
> whole "network".  Local corporations with internal phone systems may
> have internal AUPs (like no using company longlines to call your Mom)
> but they don't have any effect on the outside world.
> 
> Heretical statement: I have no problem with the NSFNet AUP.  What I
> have problems with is apparent use of the AUP as a marketing tool by
> ANS ("Them commercial folks can't hook you to nsfnet, but we can...").
> Faugh.  How about treating everybody by the same rules, guys.
> 
> IMHO, NSFNet ought to disconnect *ALL* commercial clients, including
> ANS.  If they don't want to be the national backbone, that's fine and
> understandable.  NSFNet sites who want to deal with commercial groups
> should (read: can easily and affordably) buy a commercial link from a
> commercial networking company.
> 
> The commercial networks should build their own backbone(s), doing all
> of (a) co-operative unmetered arrangements like the CIX, (b) private
> interconnects between two mutually agreeable parties, (c) buying from a
> 3rd-party backbone supplier at some mutually-agreed upon rate for
> packets and/or bandwidth and/or whatever.  Let the market decide what
> kind of arrangement is best.  It's working for phones -- almost all
> the complaints I hear about the telephone system today have to do with
> the still-regulated parts.
> 
> The only reason NSFNet/ANS matters is because they own the backbone.
> If, as has been said here, a backbone could be built cheaper and better
> with existing off-the-shelf equipment, then let's put our money and
> work where our mouths are and DO IT.  Universities etc are *extremely*
> price-sensitive, and will switch to commercial carriers if they can
> save bucks.  The AUP will become not merely irrelevant, but an active
> hindrance to those who use NSFNet.

	One way to handle some organization's dislike of carrying some 
information (commercial advertisements, for instance), is to simply try to 
make sure that such messages are in identifiable newsgroups. The 
organization can simply not carry those newsgroups.
	Of course, email is another matter entirely.
	-Allen
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.society]  Re: USENET Censorship at Iowa State University
Originator: daemon@eff.org
Organization: EFF mail-news gateway
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 06:12:06 GMT


From: mhart@blackjack.dt.navy.mil (Michael Hart)
Newsgroups: comp.society
Subject:  Re: USENET Censorship at Iowa State University
Message-Id: <mhart.702903074@blackjack>
Date: 10 Apr 92 10:51:14 GMT


In <1992Apr7.192956.6898@m.cs.uiuc.edu> kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M.
 Kadie) writes:

>In article <1992Apr5.205935.29334@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
>kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu > (Carl M. Kadie) writes:

>>If your library is like most, it does not keep a record of the books
>>you check out.

>I meant to say that if it is like most, it does not keep a record of
>the books you check out *after you return them*. Moreover, no library
>that I know of maintains an explicit list of people-who-read-material-
>that-discusses-sex.

See also my other followup to the thread.

No library that I know of, and I worked for a very large library
system (150 branches) and for a library computer systems vendor,
_ever_ keeps records, logs, or lists of any type of material that
a patron gets.

The other day, I went into my library with my wifes card to see what
she had out, in case any was overdue.  They scanned the barcode,
and would tell me that she had 3 items out, and when they were due,
but would not tell me the titles.

Most libraries will vehemently protect the privacy of their patrons.


--
|   Michael G. Hart                   mhart@blackjack.dt.navy.mil    |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------|
|     You think _I_ speak for the government or the navy?  HAH!      |
| Aviation, computers, quality improvement, Northern Exposure, money |
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,news.future
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Privacy perfect news management (was Re: News Group Readership)
Originator: kadie@eff.org
Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 1992 01:02:17 GMT

In article <1992Mar27.180455.22822@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl M.
Kadie) writes:

>I was unclear. I propose that each newsgroup be given a disk space
>quota. When a new article would cause it to exceed this quota, the
>oldest articles are expired and removed. I think some systems do this
>now.

bill@bilver.uucp (Bill Vermillion) writes:

>That scheme would severly impact the more popular newsgroups, and would
>have everyone scrambling to read before expiry.
[...]

If readers found themselves scrambling, they could increase the disk
quota.

- Carl

-- 
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
 =kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu, or (anonymous) ap.3619@layout.berkeley.edu=
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: [comp.dcom.telecom]  Equal Access Ruling Stayed Pending Appeal
Date: 7 Apr 92 08:56:24 GMT
Organization: EFF mail-news gateway
Originator: daemon@eff.org


From: K_MULLHOLAND@UNHH.UNH.EDU (Kath Mullholand)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject:  Equal Access Ruling Stayed Pending Appeal
Date: 6 Apr 92 17:27:47 GMT


 From the ACUTA (Association of College and University Telecommunications 
Adminstrators) News of April 1992  (typos mine):

     10-xxx rule stayed pending appeal

Since the regulations are being challenged, the Federal Communications
Commission issued a "stay" March 13 of irs order for call aggregators
to unblock 10-xxx access to interexchange carriers.  Under the FCC's
order in CC Docket 91-35, aggregators who could open 10-xxx-0+ access
simply by reprogramming their equipment had faced a March 16 deadline
to do so.

On September 18, 1991, ACUTA filed a petition with the FCC to exempt
universities from the 10-xxx requirement.  The Association filed a
second petition on February 18, 1992, seeking a clarification that
would remove colleges and universities from the aggregator
classification, which the FCC determined in CC Docket 90-313.  The two
proceedings were based on the Operator Services Act of 1990.

The FCC has indicated that it will move quickly to rule on these
matters, said ACTUA's attorney Anne Jones.  <end>


kath mullholand         university of new hampshire         durham, nh
Xref: sparky alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1631 comp.org.eff.talk:3450 comp.admin.policy:747 alt.censorship:3354 soc.college:2002
From: morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan)
Subject: (none)
Originator: daemon@eff.org
Organization: EFF mail-news gateway
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 1992 16:08:15 GMT

Newsgroups: info.academic-freedom
From: morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan)
Subject: Re: Legality of quoting letters
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 1992 16:08:11 GMT
Organization: The Puzzle Palace, UKentucky
X-Bytes: 2162

junger@gls47212.law.cwru.EDU (Peter D. Junger) writes:
>        Certainly the quotation of Mr. Willis's communication which
>contained the line: "Since there is a copy of our games policy in your
>directory I assume that you are aware of it", by the recipient to
>protest Mr. Willis's examination of his directory was a fair--and in
>fact a protected--use of that communication.  The fact that Mr. Willis
>claimed to know the contents of the directory is not overcome by Mr.
>Willis's later disingenuous assertion that "I have not looked at files
>in your directory, nor, to my knowledge, has any of my staff."  He
>clearly _had_ examined the user's directory without permission.  

This is not clear by any means.  Many systems administrators use auto-
mated programs/scripts to generate user accounts.  For instance, the
"user creation" scripts I use (and which I wrote) automatically place
certain files in the user's directory, namely .profile, .login, and/or
.cshrc (for the non-Unix reader, these are "startup files", roughly
equivalent to AUTOEXEC.BAT for DOS, LOGIN.COM for VMS, or PROFILE EXEC
for CMS).

The user may delete one (or all) of those files after I install them,
but I can honestly say that there was, at one time, a copy of those
files in each user directory. 

It may be that Mr. Willis' "user creation" procedures automatically place
a copy of their policy statement in each created directory.  In fact, I'm
considering the implementation of this very technique.  It's quite possible
that Mr. Willis intended to say "Since a copy of our games policy was placed
in your directory......"; that would indicate a non-invasive situation.

I am not defending Mr Willis' actual (or alleged) actions; I'm merely 
stating that you CAN, in some situations, make assumptions about the 
contents of a user directory without examining it.

-- 
 morgan@ms.uky.edu    |Wes Morgan, not speaking for|     ....!ukma!ukecc!morgan
 morgan@engr.uky.edu  |the University of Kentucky's|   morgan%engr.uky.edu@UKCC
 morgan@ie.pa.uky.edu |Engineering Computing Center| morgan@wuarchive.wustl.edu
        "I was going to rip your head off, but I'm past that now."
From: morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: (none)
Date: 26 Mar 92 14:25:58 GMT
Organization: EFF mail-news gateway
Originator: daemon@eff.org

Newsgroups: info.academic-freedom