HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sergio@Ingres.COM (Sergio L Aponte)
Newsgroups: news.admin.policy
Subject: Re: Groups used to distribute illegal material
Date: 13 Aug 92 17:17:42 GMT
Organization: Ingres, an ASK Company, Alameda CA 94501
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5


	Another question is how "censorship" of a particular group solves
	the problem.

	After all, if enough sites ban a pictures group, won't the pictures
	start showing up somewhere else? Does eliminating a group that has
	an ofensive "charter" aliminates the questionable articles off your
	feed? NOT!

	In truth, I think the issue will come up more and more. With the
	"sexual harrasement" (sp?) focus, many companies/universities might not
	want to be involved with questionable groups, deciding to drop it vs
	entering a long argument about it. After all, if ONE person finds it
	offensive, no matter if it is rec.humor, it is cause enough for a
	"harrasement" (at least I am consistent on the spelling!) acusation.
--
===============================================================   _|||_
Sergio L. Aponte, SMTS @ Ingres, an ASK Company                   <*,*>
Internet : sergio@coqui.ingres.com                                [`-']  Keko
UUCP     : {sun,mtxinu,pyramid,pacbell}!ingres!coqui!sergio       _"_"_  Jones
Newsgroups: news.admin.policy
From: ajg@controls.ccd.harris.com (Arnold Goldberg)
Subject: Re: Groups used to distribute illegal material
Organization: Harris Controls and Compositions
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 17:32:00 GMT

>>>>> On Thu, 13 Aug 1992 15:14:31 GMT, jbotz@mtholyoke.edu (Jurgen Botz) said:

Jurgen> As a news administrator for a site relatively new to the Net, I have
Jurgen> recently been giving _much_ thought to the issues surrounding certain
Jurgen> controversial newsgroups.

[much stuff deleted]

Jurgen> Furthermore, I am somewhat personally offended that such a relatively
Jurgen> large percentage of the total bandwith used by my news feeds and
Jurgen> store are used for such morally questionable purposes by a presumably
Jurgen> tiny fringe group of network users who appear to feel that it is their
Jurgen> natural right to waste everyone's resources with their trash.

Before I unsubscribe this news group, let me just followup to this post.

I grant you the fact that you might be offended by the supposed "waste"
of "your" bandwidth (by way of the news feeds) by questionable news groups.

Let me suggest a simple remedy, that as the supposed news administrator
you must be aware of.

Restrict the inflow of the articles!!!!
Very creative, huh.  (An added hint for you, in case you really don't know:
it's in the sys file for your news setup).

I'd rather you censor yourself then me.


FLAME OFF and GOODBYE.

arnold


--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arnold Goldberg                            Email:  ajg@ccd.harris.com
Phone: (407)242-5051                       Snail:  Harris Corporation
Fax  : (407)242-4262                               407 John Rodes Blvd.
                                                   Melbourne, FL 32905
The opinions expressed are my own and do not in any way represent Harris 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.admin.policy]  Re: Computer Usage Policy Statements?
Originator: daemon@eff.org
Organization: EFF mail-news gateway
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 11:48:52 GMT


From: kko@fraser.sfu.ca (Samuel Ko)
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy
Subject:  Re: Computer Usage Policy Statements?
Date: 12 Aug 92 18:50:52 GMT

jwmanly@amherst.edu writes:

>Hello, everyone.

>Forgive me if my memory is faulty, but I believe this is the group were I
>recently (within the last two or three months) saw a number of individual
>institutions' computer account usage policies posted for comment.  ("Users
>must not give their passwords to others, etc.")

>Amherst College is now in the process of drafting such a document, but I
>find I no longer have any copies of any of the old messages in this group.
>If someone would be so kind as to E-mail me any of the samples that were
>posted here, I would be most grateful.

I believe computer usage and security policies from various
universities are available by anonymous ftp from ariel.unm.edu 
(in the  ethics  directory) ...

--
Samuel Ko (kko@sfu.ca) 
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: rramji4@mamut.wlu.ca (ruby ramji u)
Subject: freedom of speech
Originator: daemon@eff.org
Organization: EFF mail-news gateway
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 15:13:18 GMT


i was wondering, if we strive for freedom of speech
where do issues such as libel and slander fall?
i mean, are they are different issue, or is there
a line drawn when freedom of speech actually harms 
someone?

curious
ruby

rramji4@mach1.wlu.ca

Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [news.admin.policy]  Re: Groups used to distribute illegal material
Originator: daemon@eff.org
Organization: EFF mail-news gateway
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 11:39:33 GMT


From: harthc@ntmtv.UUCP (Howard Hart)
Newsgroups: news.admin.policy
Subject:  Re: Groups used to distribute illegal material
Date: 13 Aug 92 19:13:34 GMT

In article <BsxH08.GE8@mtholyoke.edu>, jbotz@mtholyoke.edu (Jurgen Botz) writes:

|> I am extremely opposed to censorship, and we are currently receiving
|> everything we can get our hands (well, our lines) on.  But since our
|> news user population is growing rapidly, I expect that it won't be
|> long before someone here tries to make a stink about the fact that

Here's a simple if slightly fascist fix. Disable access to questionable
newsgroups and permit access by user machine only. Insist on low-key,
word of mouth subscription only (i.e. - they have to come to you as
the news admin to get access to "fringe" newsgroups). Make it clear,
access exists only so long as nobody raises a major stink and you'll
be amazed how cooperative these users will be. It's not a great 
solution, but gets you out of the business of playing morals judge
and jury and avoids the issue of having to justify anything to those
with different ideas on wha't proper (and what's not).

-- 
Howard Hart		UUCP:{ames,pyramid!amdahl,hplabs}!ntmtv!harthc
System Administrator	INTERNET: ntmtv!harthc@ames.arc.nasa.gov
Northern Telecom	PHONE: (415) 940-2680
Mt. View, CA
Xref: sparky alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:2659 alt.censorship:7036 news.admin:7197
From: ljt3@CS1.CC.Lehigh.EDU (Lewis)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.censorship,news.admin
Subject: Re: Limiting religious speech
Date: 21 Aug 92 03:56:56 GMT
	<1992Aug20.143700.1@acad3.alaska.edu>
Organization: Lehigh University, Bethlehem, PA

In article <1992Aug20.143700.1@acad3.alaska.edu> fsars@acad3.alaska.edu (Allen R Sparks) writes:
>In article <UeYz6mS00XsEA6g0Vc@andrew.cmu.edu>, dh4j+@andrew.cmu.edu (David O Hunt) writes:
>> Same thing with prayer in schools - nobody is saying you can't pray.  
>> What they're saying is that prayer cannot be organized and sanctioned
>> (purposefully or by default).
>Hmm... doesn't freedom of speech include freedom of assembly,
>organized or not?  Those are the grounds that they still allow the
>Elk's Club not to admit women. === Al Sparks

That's for private organizations.  The problem is the separation of church
and state, and that _PUBLIC_ schools are state-funded.  They're not allowed
to sanction any religion (or group of religions).  Private schools can do 
whatever they want.
--
Lewis Tanzos - ljt3@cs1.cc.lehigh.edu - LJT3@PL122.eecs.lehigh.edu
"Under heaven, all can see beauty only because there is ugliness.
 All can know good as good only because there is evil."
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [news.admin.policy]  distribute illegal material
Originator: daemon@eff.org
Organization: EFF mail-news gateway
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 12:27:47 GMT


Newsgroups: news.admin.policy
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject:  distribute illegal material
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 18:53:00 GMT

jbotz@mtholyoke.edu (Jurgen Botz) writes:
] 
] Where do all these idiots come from?  I wasn't advocating censoring
] you or anyone.  I was asking the net what people thought about
] CONSIDERING a policy of restricting the INFLOW of DEMONSTRABLY ILLEGAL
] material into MY system.

Jurgen,

Welcome on board the wonderful world of questionable behavior....

In Irealand they delete groups like talk.abortion
on the chance that there Might be 
"DEMONSTRABLY ILLEGAL material "
in that news group....

The Irish have been so pleasant as to 
Cancel the distribution of NewsPapers
as well on the Same standard....

I therefore put forward that a part of
the problem is clarifying if the notions
of "DEMONSTRABLY ILLEGAL material "
is merely some 'Objective Reality" or
A Pleasant Way of wishing to say 'Censorship'
without having to say that Unpleasant word.


ciao
drieux



-- 
I Do Not Believe in .sig files
as they are such a Known Waste Of BandWidth,
And Therefore Not a Morally UpRight Choice.
But I Can See the HideousHienousHandOfHeteroSexualityBehindItAll.
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: nbc2134@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil (Robert F Solon)
Subject: Re: Limiting religious speech
Originator: daemon@eff.org
Organization: EFF mail-news gateway
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 09:19:36 GMT

In reply to the mail from <aultj@rpi.edu>...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>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?
>
>Let's all raise our voices and demand that this be overturned.
>
>Right?
>
>Jim Ault, ITS Systems Programmer, aultj@rpi.edu    <><
>

Sorry, I'm not dismayed.  The First Amendment says that Congress shall make no
law infringing on the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the the free
exercise of religion, but it also prohibits the government from advocating any
particular religious pratices.  The "Wall of Seperation" between church and
State is a good idea.  Since the Framers didn't construct a hierarchy of
rights, merely an enumeration of some of them, sometimes rights will clash.

More specifically, what were the facts of the case?  I presume the Court
banned prayers at _public_ graduation ceremonies only.  In that case, it seems
there was a clear Establishement Clause violation.  However, let's assume for
a moment that there is a Free Speech issue.  What is it?  The right of the
minister to pray in public?  How does that balance with the right of listeners
to not listen id they so choose?

Without knowing either the specifics of the case, or the reasoning the Court
used to arrive at it's decision, or even the vote tally on the case, I must
lean by default toward saying it was O.K.

Cheers!

Bob



Bob Solon, DITSO-CO-B
Administrative Information Branch -- APCAPS

"We Code, You Explode!!"

Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.censorship
From: hhll@milton.u.washington.edu (Steven Hodas)
Subject: Re: [news.admin] Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Organization: University of Washington
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 00:46:59 GMT

>>I have absolutely no interest in any cooperation, no matter how
>>slight, with any form of state censorship.  I believe that censorship is
>>not merely evil but Evil, and if your government gives you problems
>>about that, I think you should oppose them. 

>For a person who is usually relatively well informed, this is a remarkably
>*stupid* and insulting remark.

>In case you missed it, Canada is not only a democracy, but these laws
>enjoy the overwhelming support of the entire country.  State censorship?
>Bullshit.  The state is us.  Evil?  You're calling the entire country evil.
>At least Reagan had the sense to try to back out of his "evil empire"
>remark, and his remark had a lot more validity than yours.

[stuff deleted]

>>And to that end I believe that it is not only a right but a duty of
>>Americans to make it as difficult as possible for Canadian (or any
>>other state's) censors to do their job.

>Oh great.  You gonna try to invade again?  Go "save" somebody else.
>We're simply not interested in what you're selling.  We whupped you
>last time you tried.

>Save us from evangelical Americans who simply cannot accept that there are
>ways, *viable* ways, other than theirs.

>It's attitudes like this that make the term "ugly american" so appropriate.


There's a lot that's ugly about American cultural values and the
imperialism that attempts to spread them, but I'm afraid that respect for
freedom of expression is not among them. Unlike Canada, America is
'ugliest' and least true when it fails to stand for diversity.


Steven
Xref: sparky alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:2558 alt.censorship:6924
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [news.admin.policy, et al.]  Re: Groups used to distribute illegal material
Originator: daemon@eff.org
Organization: EFF mail-news gateway
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 17:16:11 GMT


Newsgroups: news.admin.policy,comp.admin.policy
From: jik@athena.mit.edu (Jonathan I. Kamens)
Subject:  Re: Groups used to distribute illegal material
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 21:26:16 GMT

[A followup to an article in news.admin.policy, in a thread about
restricting newsgroups with a lot of probably illegal material in
them.]

In article <1992Aug13.160445.16878@dragon.acadiau.ca> 880518l@dragon.acadiau.ca (Nelson Langille) writes:

   Yes, but isin't it true that many(mostly all) anonymous FTP sites
   contain pictures which are copyrighted?  So what's the difference.

Unless you mean, "many anonymous FTP sites which contain pictures
contain pictures which are copyrighted," your statement is false,
since most anonymous ftp sites don't carry any pictures at all -- they
don't have the space and don't think it's important enough (and don't
want to worry about the copyright problems).

As for your latter question, "So what's the difference?"  If anything,
administrators of ftp sites with copyrighted materials on them are
MORE likely to get into trouble if anybody decides to start enforcing
their subjects, since anonymous ftp site administrators have in many
cases actively made files available on their systems, rather than just
allowing copyrighted articles to pass through as part of the stream of
mostly legal material that is the Usenet.

If you are someone who thinks that newsgroups with much illegal
material in them should not be received by your site, then you
probably also believe that your site should not have an anonymous ftp
archive with illegal material in it.  If, on the other hand, you
believe that the newsgroup is OK because you think that Usenet sites
have common carrier status, then you may or may not believe the same
thing about anonymous ftp archives.

Of course, the existence of anonymous ftp archives that allow anyone
to put files in them for downloading without interacting with the
administrator clouds the issue somewhat.

Further discussion of anonymous ftp archives should probably go
somewhere other than news.admin.policy, since it has nothing to do
with news.  I have cross-posted and redirected followups to
comp.admin.policy.

-- 
Jonathan Kamens                                         jik@MIT.Edu
MIT Information Systems/Athena              Moderator, news.answers
    (Send correspondence related to the news.answers newsgroup
        {and ONLY correspondence related to the newsgroup}
                 to news-answers-request@MIT.Edu.)
From: adamsr@netcom.com (Rick Adams)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: Limiting religious speech
Date: 21 Aug 92 19:16:21 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

Thus spake bernman@symphony.cc.purdue.edu (Bernie Hoefer):

>	I thought the decision prevents SCHOOL OFFICIALS from
>promoting prayer.  A school official cannot ask that a prayer
>be said.
>	However, does this decision not work both ways?  If
>a school official cannot promote a prayer, he or she cannot
>discourage it, either.  Would a valedictorian, in his or her
>speech, be allowed to say a prayer or give thanks to his or her
>god?  Since the valedictorian is not a school official
>(he or she not on the government's payroll) it would not be
>a case of "government" promoting religion.  But if the school
>official tried to prevent the valedictorian from saying anything
>about god in his or her speech, would not this ruling be
>in favor of the valedictorian?
>
	True.

	This is essentially the core of the decision. An *individual* who is
*speaking* as an individual may certainly include a prayer in their address.
What is *not* permissible, however is for any official of the institution to
either recite or solicit the recitation of such a prayer - since such an act
implys governmental sanction of the prayer.

	You, as an individual, are perfectly free to pray when you address a
group, just as I, as an individual, am perfectly free to ignore your request
that I participate in the prayer by bowing my head or in any other manner.
If a school official makes the same request, otoh, it is an OFFICIAL request
and less subject to being ignored. You are not being compensated for your
prayer with my tax dollars - a school official is!

-- 
    rick.adams on GEnie   /|\        You are right from your side,        
     adamsr@netcom.com  /  |  \        And I am right from mine.          
    adamsr@irie.ais.org \ /|\ /  We're both just one too many mornings,   
   adamsr@norwich.bitnet  \|/  And a thousand miles behind. (c Bob Dylan) 
Xref: sparky alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:2569 misc.legal:15993 alt.censorship:6933
From: bjorn@ludd.luth.se (Bjorn Fahller)
Newsgroups: news.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,misc.legal,alt.censorship
Subject: Re: Groups used to distribute illegal material
Date: 13 Aug 92 19:23:47 GMT
Organization: Lule} H|gskolas datorf|rening ( Ludd )

I think this idea of closing newgroups because they carry illegal material is
a bit strange. It's not the newsgroup that's at fault. If it's pictures, they
can very well be posted somewhere else, or be spread through mail (which
I believe already happens). No one (I think) would carry the idea of closing
a road because people drive too fast, or would anyone? If illegal material
is posted, sue the poster, don't shut the distribution channel.
   _
/Bjorn.
-- 
Bjorn Fahller     Phone:              |The opinions above are not necessarily
Trollnasvagen 3A  Intl:+46 920 226870 |those of... Hey! Wait a minute. Do you
S-951 61 Lulea    Natl:0920-22 68 70  |seriously expect Me, a student, to carry
Sweden            << space for rent >>|the official voice of the University?
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.censorship
From: sybok@athena.mit.edu (The Rifleman)
Subject: Re: WLU sys admins search out "nasty" filenames and passwords
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 00:37:12 GMT

In article <1992Aug13.185526.9397@uoft02.utoledo.edu> sbrack@jupiter.cse.utoledo.edu (Steven S. Brack) writes:
>morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
>: 
>: I just received a complaint last week about a 
>: program named "shit".  It had been placed in the background, and 
>: it required several hours of runtime.  I sent the owner of the pro-
>: gram a note, explaining the complaints; I also mentioned that, while
>: I didn't plan to "take any action", any further complaints would be
>: directed to him.  In his reply, he apologized (he didn't realize that 
>: other users could see his command names via ps) and changed the name 
>: immediately.
>: 
>	WHat are the privacy, & collaterally, academic freedom concerns
>	regarding the ability of everyone on a system to see what you are
>	doing?

If someone sent me mail about how they were upset I had a program
running called, "shit," I'd tell them to goto Hell!  If I offend them,
that's their problem.  (Reminds me of that scene with Eddie Murphy.  Someone
says to Eddie, "You're a Foul Mouth!!"  Eddie responds, "Foul Mouth!?!
Fuck you!")


Xref: sparky alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:2590 misc.legal:16015 alt.censorship:6955
From: gritton@alaska.et.byu.edu (Jamie Gritton)
Newsgroups: news.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,misc.legal,alt.censorship
Subject: Re: Groups used to distribute illegal material
Date: 14 Aug 92 15:31:48 GMT
	<1992Aug13.192347.21686@ludd.luth.se>
Reply-To: gritton@byu.edu
Organization: Brigham Young University, Provo UT USA

bjorn@ludd.luth.se (Bjorn Fahller) writes:

> It's not the newsgroup that's at fault...
> No one (I think) would carry the idea of closing
> a road because people drive too fast, or would anyone?

   The road analogy breaks down when you think of nearly everybody
driving 100mph down a residential street. It's my understanding that
the alt.binaries.pictures.* groups carry mostly copyrighted images,
with a very slim majority in the public domain or owned by the
posters. For example the Playboy etc. scans in a.b.p.erotica and the
continual stream of scanned album covers in a.b.p.misc.
   The issue here isn't that of carrying a mostly non-copyrighted
Usenet with the occasional violation. The text groups are like that
(containing a few lifted "real" news articles). The issue here is
choosing to carry a set of groups that are known to consist largely of
copyright violations. True, you cant *know* that future articles in
a.b.p.* are going to be mostly copyrighted, but it doesn't take a
genius to guess that they will.
   In short, you can substantially reduce the illegal articles on your
server by not carrying these groups.
--
James Gritton - gritton@byu.edu - I disclaim
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: [news.admin.policy]  Re: Groups used to distribute illegal material
Date: 13 Aug 92 09:15:00 GMT
Organization: EFF mail-news gateway
Originator: daemon@eff.org


Newsgroups: news.admin.policy
From: damon@umbc4.umbc.edu (Mr. Damon Kelly; ACS (RJE))
Subject:  Re: Groups used to distribute illegal material
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 18:08:37 GMT

[jboltz@mtholyoke.edu wants to refuse to receive the newsgroups that
 contain sexually explicit material because of copyright violations,
 among some other possible reasons.]

I'd support your position, BUT you'd have to drop your USENET feed entirely.
Most newsgroups, at one time or another, carry some material that was posted
without permission from the copyright holder.

You CAN do it...but you would have to filter your incoming/outgoing feeds
AND assign someone to the Library of Congress to check out whether any of the
hundreds/thousands of postings that travel through your system violate
copyright laws.

It will possibly be worth it, if your system owners have the budget,
manpower and time to do so.

(I seriously doubt it.)

-d

-- 
During his stint at Marvel, he brought you Cable.  Striking out on his own
about a year or two later, he debuts another character: Shaft.
And now, Rob Liefeld, the Genius of All-Macho Comics, brings you his NEW
bombshell: ELEVATOR. Watch for him! -Ppd from dvandom@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: $L$LB50@LUCCPUA.bitnet (Claudia Gomez Carmona)
Subject: SAVE WOUNDED KNEE  (Copy) Wounded Knee
Originator: daemon@eff.org
Organization: EFF mail-news gateway
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 21:36:00 GMT

 ---------------------------- Text of forwarded message -----------------------
/* Written  7:11 pm  Aug  6, 1992 by peacenet in cdp:pn.alerts */
/* ---------- "Wounded Knee" ---------- */
From: <peacenet>
Subject: Wounded Knee

From eeames Thu Aug  6 09:40:22 1992
From: Elizabeth Eames <eeames>

ELDERS OF THE LAKOTA SIOUX NATION HAVE URGED CONCERNED CITIZENS TO
CONTACT CONGRESS IMMEDIATELY TO DEFEAT RESOLUTION 9285 WHICH WOULD
TAKE AWAY THE SACRED WOUNDED KNEE SITE TO MAKE A NATIONAL PARK.
THIS WOULD NO LONGER THEN BE INDIAN LAND AND WOULD GIVE MINERAL
RIGHTS TO THE GOVERNMENT. 600 SIOUX WOULD BE DISPLACED. THEIR HOMES
WOULD BE CONDEMNED. NO PROVISIONS HAVE BEEN MADE FOR RELOCATION.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT WALTER LITTLEMOON (AFTER 7 P.M.
CENTRAL TIME) AT (605)-288-1907 OR JOHNICE (11 AM)7 EASTERN) (704)
658-0123.. ... ...-....1200 N81N
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk