From: allens@yang.earlham.edu (Allen Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: (none)
Date: 13 Apr 92 02:39:55 GMT
Organization: Earlham College, Richmond, Indiana

In article <9203261504.aa11755@s.s.ms.uky.edu>, morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
>>If the university merely applied the same criteria to
>>Usenet that it applies to its libraries, it is likely that there'd be
>>little or nothing to complain about. 
> 
> A university creates/maintains a library for a specific purpose.  While
> many universities share their resources (through interlibrary loans, for
> example), there are certainly some that do not.
> 
> Usenet, on the other hand, is not "created" by a particular site.  It is
> an amorphous conglomerate that, by default, spans every sector of society.  
> Usenet includes commercial sites, educational institutions, government agen-
> cies, and private systems (the 486 PC in a friend's house is the perfect 
> example).  It spans the jurisdiction of almost every US state, as well as 
> those of dozens of nations.  It travels over phone lines controlled/paid 
> for by government networks, regional networks, and individual sites.
> 
> I don't believe that we can create a "Usenet policy" that can be equally
> applied to these widely variant networks/sites/contributors.
> 
>>If the University of Nebraska carries
>>books by Norman Mailer, D.H. Lawrence, Erica Jong, or Bret Easton Ellis in
>>its libraries, it is inconsistent for it to object to the textual content
>>of the alt.sex hierarchy.
> 
> If we are discussing obscenity, it is important to address the "community
> standards" portion of the relevant definition.  Standards of obscenity
> vary widely with jurisdictions; for example, the state of Indiana recently
> banned nude dancing, even though many other states do not restrict it.  I
> can easily envison a Usenet posting (or a book, or a movie) which would be
> tolerated in one jurisdiction and treated as obscenity in another; in fact,
> I think we've all seen such postings/books/movies.  
> 
> The transient nature of Usenet makes comparisons to printed materials
> difficult, if not impossible.  I can examine a novel by Mailer and make
> a qualified judgement of its "obscenity", according to my understanding
> of the local jurisdiction's interpretation of the term.  I can read several
> issues of a magazine and make a qualified judgement of its "style"; I can
> estimate the likelihood of that magazine's tresspass into the local version
> of "obscenity".  I cannot make a similar judgement of a Usenet newsgroup; I 
> cannot "preview" its contents, nor can I estimate future "style" or content
> by examination of "past issues".  
> 
> Library selection policies are based, in part, on the notion that the 
> materials in question are somewhat fixed in nature.  I don't think that
> anyone will come into my library and render my copy of Faulkner "obscene".
> I don't think that _National Review_ will suddenly become a magazine for
> pedophiles.  Usenet, on the other hand, is an embodiment of fluctuation.  
> How can I apply "library selection policies" to something which is constantly 
> changing?  
> 
	There is the question, of course, of if the community standards 
policy is a violation of free press/speech. I tend to think it is. What 
the community thinks doesn't matter; people don't have a right for others 
not to read/view/publish/whatever "obscene" material. Until a university 
recieves a court order to stop carrying alt.sex or whatever, they are 
engaging in willing (and, IMNHO (In My Non-Humble Opinion), 
unconstitutional if receiving governmental money) violation of free 
speech/press if they drop a newsgroup due to "offensive" content.
	Dropping it due to lack of room, if this policy is carried out for 
all non-academic groups, is another matter entirely.
	-Allen