From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: putting lyrics to "Cop Killer" in .plan file
Originator: kadie@eff.org
Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 02:51:50 GMT

betsys@cs.umb.edu (Elizabeth Schwartz) writes:

>In article <1992Jul21.142535.21786@digibd.com> merlyn@digibd.com (Merlyn LeRoy) writes:


[...]
>I still don't see why. What's unconstitutional about our policy of 
>setting an obsenity standard, for example? Our policy is that all
>finger info and public X-terminal screens should be of roughly PG-13
>offensiveness or less.

This is not an "obscenity" standard; it is a PG-13 standard. The word
"obscene" has a specific legal meaning. It only refers to the hardest
of the hard core and only then if it has no other value.

_Penthouse_ magazine, for example, is not obscene. (see references)

[...]
>   It seems to me that we are applying  acommon "community standard"
>to this material.  
[...]

Your policy may be justifiable, but not on these grounds. Community
standards has to do with obscenity, not PG-13.

If the policy is justifiable, it is because the display of sexually
offensive pictures in a public terminal room might violate your
university's sexual harassment policy.

Be careful that you don't overstep your authority. For example, the
library computer system (LCS) at my school, U.  of Illinois, contains
serveral books with the word "fuck" in their title. Does your policy
prohibit access to LCS or similar library computer systems?

- Carl

ANNOTATED REFERENCES

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

=================
law/uwm-post-v-u-of-wisconsin
=================
The full text of UWM POST v. U. of Wisconsin. This recent district
court ruling goes into detail about the difference between protected
offensive expression and illegal harassment. It even mentions email.

It concludes: "The founding fathers of this nation produced a
remarkable document in the Constitution but it was ratified only with
the promise of the Bill of Rights.  The First Amendment is central to
our concept of freedom.  The God-given "unalienable rights" that the
infant nation rallied to in the Declaration of Independence can be
preserved only if their application is rigorously analyzed.

The problems of bigotry and discrimination sought to be addressed here
are real and truly corrosive of the educational environment.  But
freedom of speech is almost absolute in our land and the only
restriction the fighting words doctrine can abide is that based on the
fear of violent reaction.  Content-based prohibitions such as that in
the UW Rule, however well intended, simply cannot survive the
screening which our Constitution demands."


=================
law/doe-v-u-of-michigan
=================
This is Doe v. University of Michigan. In this widely referenced
decision, the district judge down struck the University's rules
against discriminatory harassment because the rules were found to be too
broad and too vague.

=================
law/miller
=================
The Supreme Court's definition of obscenity (the so-called _Miller_
test)

=================
law/penthouse-vs-meese
=================
Newspaper story about Edwin Meese's improper harassment of _Playboy_
and _Penthouse_ and his immunity from punishment.  The story says
"[w]hile Penthouse and Playboy feature naked women, neither has ever
been found to be legally pornographic or obscene. Such material has
been granted full First Amendment protection by the Supreme Court."

=================
law/student-publications.misc
=================
Quotes from the book _Law of the Student Press_ by the Student Press
Law Center (1985,1988). They say that four-letter words are protected
speech, that public universities are not likely to be liable for
publications that they for which they do not control the contents, and
that the _Hazelwood_ decision does not apply to universities.

=================
law/cohen-v-california.1
=================
Definition of "fighting words"; why no right not to be offended

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

=================
law/cohen-v-california.2
=================
Netnews article with reference _Cohen v. California_, "in which the
court ruled that Cohen's jacket, which stated "Fuck the Draft" was a
protected form of free speech, even though he wore it in a county
courthouse."

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

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

  pub/academic/law/uwm-post-v-u-of-wisconsin
  pub/academic/law/doe-v-u-of-michigan
  pub/academic/law/miller
  pub/academic/law/penthouse-vs-meese
  pub/academic/law/student-publications.misc
  pub/academic/law/cohen-v-california.1
  pub/academic/law/cohen-v-california.2

To get the file(s) by email, send email to archive-server@eff.org.
Include the line(s) (be sure to include the space before the file
name):

send acad-freedom/law uwm-post-v-u-of-wisconsin
send acad-freedom/law doe-v-u-of-michigan
send acad-freedom/law miller
send acad-freedom/law penthouse-vs-meese
send acad-freedom/law student-publications.misc
send acad-freedom/law cohen-v-california.1
send acad-freedom/law cohen-v-california.2


-- 
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
 =kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =