HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dave@bradley.bradley.edu (David Vessell)
Subject: Re: I've just been repremanded by net.big.brother
Keywords: no reply
Organization: Bradley University
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 92 19:29:41 GMT

awells@lynx.dac.northeastern.edu (Andrew V. Wells) writes:

>I just received this scolding from a net official at my
>university:
>>Andy,
>>	It has come to my attention that a number of complaints have
>>been posted and mailed to Northeastern relative the the content of some
>>recent postings to the internet from your account. While neither DAC or
>>the University have any intention of restricting free speech, there are
>>standards for reasonable conduct. Obscenities and name calling reflect
>>badly on this University especially in a world wide forum. In the
>>future, please refrain from using such offensive language; it
>>contributes nothing to any kind of discussion. 
>
>Doesn't this constitute a subtle form of censorship? 

I realize the risks of taking this subject on in alt.censorship, but....

I don't think it's censorship.  They could have just turned off your
account or (like here) revoked your ability to post articles to the net,
and that would have been censorship.  All I see is a polite request that
you police yourself.  Had they said "or else..." on the end or threatened
punitive measures, then that would be closer to censorship.

Freedom of speech in your forum is really a privilege, as is the case at
most private universities that grant their students net access, including
Bradley (though it goes without saying that if a university says it upholds
free speech, it's in its own best interest to do so in practice).  However,
every article you post has Northeastern University attached to it.  It's
more of a free press issue than a free speech issue; the university owns
the 'press' (the computer used to access the net) and therefore enjoys
editorial powers over its 'contributors'.


>                                   The scary thing is that
>the real powerhouses behind all of this are not just people
>like tipper gore, but ultra-right wing fanatic religous
>fronts with Orwellian names such as the "American Family 
>Association."

I agree completely, but I'm afraid your only real defense of your actions
is philosophical.  If you want absolute free speech on the net, it's
entirely possible for you to buy a PC, install Unix on it, install a news
reader on it, and arrange a net connection.  Otherwise, all you can do is
talk your university into agreeing with your philosophy.

-- 
 davE.   Making the world safe for intelligent dance music.  dave@bradley.edu.
########## David L. Vessell -- Bradley University Computing Services #########
  "I generally don't sing along with people who tie me up." - Robin Williams
Newsgroups: isu.newsgroups,isu.talk.politics,alt.censorship,isu.talk.usenet-policy
From: edsall@iastate.edu (David M Edsall)
Subject: IT KEEPS GOING AND GOING: An excerpt from the ISU Graduate Student Handbook
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 02:22:23 GMT

In <1991Dec18.213403.25661@news.iastate.edu> john@iastate.edu (John Hascall) writes:

>From p38 of my copy (1985-86 -- yeah, that long ago!):
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>VII. GRADUATE STUDENT-UNIVERSITY RELATIONSHIPS


>Freedoms & Responsibilities

>Freedoms and responsibilities for graduate students are based upon the
>assumption that undertaking graduate study presupposes some intellectual
>maturity and also a measure of commitment to the academic community.
>				:
>				:
>Graduate students are free:
>		:
>		:
>   to examine and discuss questions of interest both publicly and privately.

>   to exercise the rights they enjoy if they as citizens, i.e., the freedom
>   of speech, peaceful assembly and rights of petition, without reprisal from
>   the university.   [this doesn't parse quite right?  --john]
>		:
>		:
>Graduate students have responsibility:

>   to help maintain the atmosphere of free inquiry and free expression
>   inherent to the academic community.

>   to respect the right of other members of the community to express
>   themselves freely.

>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>John Hascall, ISU graduate student
From: morgan@engr.uky.edu (Wes Morgan)
Subject: Request or order?  [was Re: I've just been repremanded...] 
    <1992Dec13.122943.25005@ms.uky.edu> <1992Dec15.004213.24873@eng.umd.edu>
Organization: University of Kentucky Engineering Computing Center
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 13:58:36 GMT

russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) wrote:

>Any time you made a
>'request', I'd have to ask you to make clear whether or not you were
>requiring me to follow it.

If you were dealing with me, you'd know immediately.  My requests tend
to start with something like "you know, that is causing a bit of a prob-
lem for other users; could you please....".  Directives, on the other
hand start with "Don't do.......again."

I also offer alternatives in requests; for instance, I'll suggest that
the 20-postscript-jobs-to-the-printer user come in after 6pm (or before
8 am) to run them all at once, or that the user submit one or two at a
time.  

On those rare occasions when I give a real, binding *order* (and those
are few and far between), I do it with email and a personal followup.
The email is Cc'd to my boss, I keep an online copy, and I have a face-
to-face meeting with the user; in that meeting (and in the email), I 
specifically cite the relevant policy and explicitly inform them that 
violations can result in disciplinary action.  FYI, I have done this 4 
times in three years; three of the incidents were "account sharing", 
and one fellow was trying to steal DOS software from our network server 
with Kermit.  I have never filed charges against a student; the vast
majority of my students

When I hear "could you do this instead?", I take it as a request; they
aren't telling me NOT to do it, but they're telling me a better <and/or
more considerate> means of doing it.  When I hear "Don't do that", I
take it as an order.  It seems like a fairly "common sense" approach.

>No.  But with that catch all in place, if you don't want something to
>have the force of University rules, you'll have to say that
>explicitly.  Does the University of Kentucky have such a catch all.
>(what I _want_ is to see that catch-all, and a few like it, removed)

Yes, in fact, it does; Paragraph 1.21 of the _Code of Student Conduct_
states [in part]:

	1.21 Offenses as defined below are punishable disciplinary offenses:
	[...]
	h) Failure to comply with directions of University officials acting
	   in the performance of their duties.
	[...]

When I discussed this with the Dean of Students' office, they couldn't
remember the last time a student was disciplined under this paragraph;
I don't think it would make much difference if it were removed.  I will
mention this when next I speak with them.

--Wes
-- 
MORGAN@UKCC         |       Wes Morgan       |        ...!ukma!ukecc!morgan 
morgan@ms.uky.edu   | Engineering  Computing |   morgan@wuarchive.wustl.edu
morgan@engr.uky.edu | University of Kentucky | JWMorgan@dockmaster.ncsc.mil
  Mailing list for AT&T StarServer S/E  - starserver-request@engr.uky.edu
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
From: maxwell@deep-13.gizmo.com
Subject: Re: Banning the Beatles?
Organization: Gizmonics Institute Inc.
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 21:22:25 GMT
X-Posted-From: fnalo.fnal.gov
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <Bz3zyD.IIL@news.ucs.mun.ca>, hamm@weejordy.physics.mun.ca (Craig Hamm) writes:
> 
> 	Yes, a station in Ottawa have refused to replay a song by the Beatles
> 	after several listeners called in complaining.  Complainers said
> 	the lyrics might possibly condone violence against women.
> 	I can't remember the name of the song.  


...Bang! Bang! maxwell's silver hammer came down upon her head...

[if you knew how many times I've heard this one...]

> 
> -- 
>   Craig Hamm, Memorial University,|   
>   Newfoundland, Ocean Acoustics__/   
>   DoD #1500,      ____________/          
>   1981 Maxim 650 /            
>   _______________| 
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [soc.men, et al.]  Jim Bowery's offensive posting
Followup-To: alt.censorship,soc.men,soc.motss,soc.culture.new-zealand
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 13:45:09 GMT

[A repost - Carl]

Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.motss,soc.culture.new-zealand
Subject:  Jim Bowery's offensive posting
From: system@netlink.cts.com (System Administrator)
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 92 19:43:01 PST


We have been receiving a number of requests to censure Mr. Bowery for
his post (F81iVB1w165w@netlink.cts.com).  

NetLink is a public access system, and provides access for people to
exchange ideas and opinions -- any opinions, not just those that are
"politically correct."  

However, Mr. Bowery's post was in violation of soc.motss charter and
was also innapropriate for the other groups as well.  He has been 
counseled about proper net etiquette, and had his posting access temporarily
suspended.

Mr. Bowery speaks only for himself.  His opinions do not necessarily 
reflect those of NetLink Online Communications, its owner or operators.

Thanks to all who brought this to our attention.

Scott McClure
System Administrator
NetLink Online Communications



--
 Scott McClure, System Administrator    (system@netlink.cts.com)
 NetLink Online Communications * Public Access in San Diego, CA (619) 453-1115
-- 
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent any organization; this is just me.
 = kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
Newsgroups: ia.newsgroups,ia.talk.politics,isu.cc.general,isu.cc.vincent,isu.newsgroups,isu.talk.misc,isu.talk.computer-fee,isu.talk.politics,alt.censorship,isu.talk.usenet-policy
From: edsall@iastate.edu (David M Edsall)
Subject: ONE YEAR AGO: What to do about the new Newsgroup Censorship Policy at ISU
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 22:32:11 GMT

In <1991Dec16.062521.2567@news.iastate.edu> mds@iastate.edu (Mark D. Smucker) writes:

>I have added the computer addresses to these names.

>In article <1991Dec15.163311.4917@news.iastate.edu> john@iastate.edu (John Hascall) writes:
>>If you have a opinion on the new policy, speak up!  Encourage others to
>>speak up!  The policy definitely will not change if you sit there like sheep.
>>
>>In addition to posting news, here are some people to write
>>to express your opinion on this matter.
>>
>>	Richard Seagrave
>>	Acting Director, Comp Ctr
>>	291 Durham Ctr
>--->    e-mail: seagrave@iastate.edu 

>>	George Covert
>>	Associate Director, Comp Ctr
>>	291 Durham Ctr
>--->    e-mail: covert@iastate.edu
>>
>>	David Hopper
>>	Chair, University Computation Advisory Cmte
>>	Vet Diag Lab, 1541 Vet Med
>--->    e-mail: dlhopper@iastate.edu
>>
>>	Bob Boston
>>	Chair, UCAC (Comp Ctr Advisory Sub-Cmte)
>>	English, 353 Ross
>--->    e-mail: S2.RSB@isumvs.iastate.edu
>>
>>	Patrica Swan
>>	Interim Provost
>>	107 Beardshear


>Mark D. Smucker  ---   mds@iastate.edu
Xref: sparky alt.censorship:9726 talk.politics.drugs:8020 talk.politics.misc:64973
From: simon@saguenay.iro.umontreal.ca (Daniel Simon)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,talk.politics.drugs,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Khat
Date: 19 Dec 92 16:42:49 GMT
Organization: Universite de Montreal, Canada

In article <18287@borg.cs.unc.edu>, bell@liszt (Andrew Bell) writes:
>At least NPR did have one guy who explained that it was almost exactly like
>a cup of strong coffee in its effects, and that he had actually tried it.
>One wonders if he'll get fired for violating any sort of "Drug-free workplace"
>rules...

I highly recommend the book "Baghdad Without a Map", by American freelance
journalist Tony Horwitz.  It recounts his adventures while wandering around 
the Middle East in the late '80's looking for interesting stories to file.
The chapter on Yemen includes his account of an afternoon of qat-chewing
with a group of locals.  His sensations and observations would suggest 
somewhat stronger effects than I have noticed in any of my coffee-drinking 
acquaintances.  Perhaps it's all a matter of dosage.


"Que dites vous?  C'est inutile?  Je le sais!		Daniel R. Simon
 Mais on ne se bat pas dans l'espoir du succe`s!"	simon@iro.umontreal.ca
					-Rostand
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.feminism]  Feminist Censorship in Canada
Followup-To: alt.censorship,alt.feminism
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 22:09:24 GMT

[A repost - Carl]

Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: dsteinbe@nmsu.edu (David Steinberg)
Subject:  Feminist Censorship in Canada
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 02:32:11 GMT

I was eatching CNN today and learned that the Beatles song Run For Your Life
was banned from Canadian radio because of its misogynist (sp?  sorry
I'm sick) message.  A Canadian feminist group proclaimed it a stunning
victory.  This, Gordon, is why some of us are so afraid of the
(so-called) feminist censors.  Yeah the religious right wants to get
rid of rock and roll too, but how frequently do they get songs removed
from the radio?

-David "ZZYZX" Steinberg- King of the ellipses
       (dsteinbe@emmy.nmsu.edu)
**********************************************************************
*"There's a dog in the station  *"I can't believe I'm a junior and a *
* With a bad reputation         * film major, when all I really      *
* That's a sign of the nation's * wanted in this life was to marry a *
* Decay"                        * lobsterman and cook fish."         *
* -Phish                        * -a letter from Christie Searing    *
**********************************************************************
-- 
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent any organization; this is just me.
 = kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,rec.arts.tv
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: On PBS: "Popular Culture: Rage, Rights and Responsibility"
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 18:43:48 GMT

Tommorow, Dec 15th, my local PBS station is broadcasting:

"Popular Culture: Rage, Rights and Responsibility
 The conflict between artistic freedom and social responsibility in
 popular culture in the U.S. is examined including themes such as violence,
 sexuality, and hate speech. A panel responds to hypothetical
 situations with Professor Charles Ogletree of Harvard Law School
 moderating."
-- 
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent any organization; this is just me.
 = kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,rec.video.cable-tv
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [Daily Illini] "Cable-TV program's content questioned."
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 02:57:05 GMT

My campus paper recently had an article about Nazi public
access cable shows. The article starts:

>Cable-TV program's content questioned.
>News story by Shawna Schnorr, pg. 1.
>
>Tom Metzger and John McLaughlin see themselves as messengers to the oppressed,
>white working class, but their opponents say Metzger's television program
>is "small-minded hate propaganda."

If you have gopher, you can access the whole article with

gopher -p1/UI/DI/1992/December/4 harpoon.cso.uiuc.edu 70
And select for "Cable-TV program's content questioned."

- Carl
-- 
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent any organization; this is just me.
 = kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.feminism
From: pauls@tellabs.com (Paul Silver)
Subject: Re: [alt.feminism] Feminist Censorship in Canada
Organization: Tellabs, Lisle,IL
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 18:26:38 GMT

In article <1992Dec16.194150.1112@cs.sfu.ca> jamie@cs.sfu.ca (Jamie Andrews) writes:
>- A radio station in Ottawa played a Beatles song.
>- Some listeners complained it was misogynistic.
>- The radio station announced it would no longer play the song.
>- The listeners were happy & kept listening to the station.

Here is where your analysis fails.  *Some* listeners complained about
the song.  Those few listeners are the ones that are happy.  Most
listeners probably didn't think the song was misogynistic and
are upset that the station will no longer play it.

>- The advertisers were happy because the listeners kept
>  listening to the station.

The advertisers are happy because they avoid being involved in
too much controversy.

>- The station was happy because it had found a new way of
>  pleasing its listeners & advertisers.
>
>     Sounds like free enterprise in action, folks, not
>"feminist censorship in Canada."

When something is supressed because it offends a small minority
of the people, and it affects alot more than that small minority,
that is censorship, not free enterprise.

-- 
   "Life is inhuman when you are too old to be young." -Bill Nelson
   --------------------------------------------------------------------
  /       Paul Silver          /           Radius Records            /
 /     pauls@tellabs.com      /   PO Box 723, Lincolnshire IL 60069 /
--------------------------------------------------------------------  
   All opinions expressed are strictly my own, unless I stole them.
Newsgroups: soc.rights.alien,alt.censorship,alt.conspiracy
From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Subject: Re: "Censorship by Visa Denial"
Organization: Northeastern Law, Class of '93
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 15:34:11 GMT


In article <1992Dec7.195019.23014@netcom.com>, 
strnlght@netcom.com (David Sternlight) said:

> I agree with William December Starr's summary that the heart of the
> disagreement lies with whether the government has an affirmative
> obligation to apply independent standards to the granting of a visa,
> or whether they are simply acting as the agents of citizens who wish
> to invite foreigners.
>
> I speculate that the weight of evidence (until someone recites the
> law on this point <g>), is with the former interpretation, since
> some citizens might object to other citizens wishing to invite
> particular foreigners. Thus some absolute standards and procedures
> with respect to the foreigner, rather than the invitation, are
> needed.

Yes... but I don't see any valid reason why the absolute standards
should take into account the question of what ideas the foreigner is
likely to espouse while in the United States.  If the government wants
to keep someone out, let them show probable cause to believe that if
allowed to enter he'll perform acts which, if performed by an American
citizen, would be legally suppressible or punishable.  The act of
expressing views that offend or anger one or more U.S. citizens does
not fall into that category.

> Further evidence may be found in the immigration laws. Citizens
> cannot simply have anyone they wish immigrate. Congress has been
> very clear on this by creating quotas, rules, and standards.

Please note the difference between immigrating to a nation with the
announced intent of staying permanently and entering a nation on a
visa with the intent of giving speeches and then leaving.

> Finally, many cases are those in which a foreigner wishes a visa
> uninvited.  Many political agitators fall into this group.  In such
> cases the issue Starr (and others) raises becomes irrelevant.

Heck, all they have to do is ask me and I'll invite 'em.  And I
doubt that I'm the only U.S. citizen with that attitude.

-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>

Newsgroups: alt.censorship,talk.politics.drugs
From: pauls@tellabs.com (Paul Silver)
Subject: Re: Teacher says no to legalization
Organization: Tellabs, Lisle,IL
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 18:31:21 GMT

In article <oF9kVB1w165w@seanews.akita.com> finneyk@seanews.akita.com (Ken Finney) writes:
>
>I got into a fight with a teacher in high school over a grade I deserved
>but he refused to give me.  I deserved an A, but he gave a C, because
>in this 28 years of teaching, he had never given an A to a sophomore.
>After meeting with him and the Principal and not getting satisfaction,
>I got my counselor to schedule a meeting involving the teacher, the
>counselor, the Vice Principal, myself and my parents.  The teacher
>finally agreed to compromise and give me a B, but the major result of
>the meeting was that the Principal (who happened to be new to the school)
>saw in person what an ass the teacher was.  The Principal refused to 
>renew the contract of the teacher at the end of the year.  

*---------*

In an intro to Philosophy course in college, I got a C on a paper
that I deserved an A on, because the teaching assistant didn't agree
with my points.

I thought the whole point of philosophy was to think for yourself.

-- 
   "Life is inhuman when you are too old to be young." -Bill Nelson
   --------------------------------------------------------------------
  /       Paul Silver          /           Radius Records            /
 /     pauls@tellabs.com      /   PO Box 723, Lincolnshire IL 60069 /
--------------------------------------------------------------------  
   All opinions expressed are strictly my own, unless I stole them.
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: morgan@engr.uky.edu (Wes Morgan)
Subject: Re: I've just been repremanded by net.big.brother
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 23:24:35 GMT
Organization: University of Kentucky Engineering Computing Center

kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) wrote:
>The Northeastern official:
>>While neither DAC or the University have any intention of restricting
>>free speech, there are standards for reasonable conduct.
>[...]
>
>I read the phrase "there are standards for reasonable conduct" as a
>warning/threat of possible punitive measures.
>
>Finally, it is a fundamental principle of academic freedom that
>students and faculty may speak for themselves (even via univeristy
>facilities). If Northeastern wants to make this principle explicit, it
>can add a disclaimer to outgoing Netnews articles.

Boy, an admin just can't win, can he?

It's often been said (in this forum), "It's good to just have a chat with 
someone, rather than arbitrarily yanking their account/access/privileges."

Now, when an admin sends an apparently polite note to a user, we're right
back into the ambiguities of "warning", "threat", and "possible punitive
measures".

Tell me something -- if you were running toward a brick wall, wouldn't
you want someone to warn you?  It's the same situation in this case.
If the people complaining about this user keep complaining, the odds are
good that (sooner or later) they'll complain to someone who will initiate
proceedings against the user.  If a casual word from the admin can prevent
that from happening, isn't that worth it?

If this user wants to test the bureaucratic waters, all he has to do is
keep posting the "objectionable" material; I guarantee that he'll wind 
up testing the waters to his heart's content.  I see no problem with
the admin who warned him about the brick wall......


-- 
MORGAN@UKCC         |       Wes Morgan       |        ...!ukma!ukecc!morgan 
morgan@ms.uky.edu   | Engineering  Computing |   morgan@wuarchive.wustl.edu
morgan@engr.uky.edu | University of Kentucky | JWMorgan@dockmaster.ncsc.mil
  Mailing list for AT&T StarServer S/E  - starserver-request@engr.uky.edu