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 23:18:40 GMT

kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:

>dave@bradley.bradley.edu (David Vessell) writes:
>[...]
>> 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.
>[...]
>
>I read the phrase "there are standards for reasonable conduct" as a
>warning/threat of possible punitive measures.

Well, I suppose I'm used to universities citing a specific policy statement
when they intend punitive measures to back up their suggestions.  Plus, I
assumed that based on Northeastern's location (Boston, isn't it?) they
might have actually meant the message as a suggestion, but since I'm
nowhere near Boston, I suppose that's not a safe assumption.


>While freedom of expression at private universities is not a legal
>constitutional right, it is usually a legal contractual right. For
>example, the Policy Statement On Student Rights And Responsibilities
>of Northwestern U. (not to be confused with Northeastern) says:
>
>"8. Students will be free from censorship in the publication and
>   dissemination of their views as long as these are not
>   represented as the views of Northwestern University."
>
>(It, in my opinion, is also a moral right.)
>
>Moreover, universities generally don't want or accept editorial
>control of student publications. Not only would such control violate
>academic freedom, it would increase the chances that the University is
>legally liable for the publications.
>
>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.

I agree completely.  I suppose the problem lies in whether or not academic
freedom extends to computer networks in the eyes of the university, which
judging from the many articles on the subject over the years, I'd say
that's not the case in most places.

-- 
 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: 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 22:34:50 GMT

In <1991Dec16.171109.20209@news.iastate.edu> spam@iastate.edu (Michael L Begley) writes:

>In article <1991Dec16.152546.14765@news.iastate.edu> i1neal@exnet.iastate.edu (Neal Rauhauser -- ) writes:

>>	1. organizational meeting, I know most of you, but we need
>>	   a good (unmonitored) meeting about this :-)

>Tuesday 8:00.

>>	2. some sort of press, beyond the Daily, covering this censorship.
>>	   I know the nice AP lady here in town, I'm sure all of you
>>	   have similar ideas - "Censorship @ state university - page 3
>>	   of Today section in the register"

>First we need to get the daily.  Unfortunately they don't print anymore
>this semester.  I've also been in contact with a writer for 'the drummer'

>>	4. Contact the Gay etc etc, whatever the acronym is this month,
>>	   and let them know that a.s.motss is going to be cut -
>>	   I'd say this is grounds for a discrimination suit.

>Been done.  At least I left a message on their machine with my phone
>number and email address.  I hope to have a rep or two at the meeting.
>>
>>     Well, that'll do for a start. Looking forward to Tuesday :-)
>>

>I've also contacted a GSB senator.
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.feminism
From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Subject: Re: [alt.feminism] Feminist Censorship in Canada
Organization: Northeastern Law, Class of '93
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 14:54:59 GMT


In article <1992Dec12.044754.13997@midway.uchicago.edu>, 
mec6@midway.uchicago.edu said:

> > Feminists are calling the banning of this Beatle's song a victory.
> > ...
> > What happened in Ottawa was NOT feminism, it was FASCISM.
> > [SWG101@psuvm.psu.edu]
>
> Boy, I hope y'all got just as riled up about that stink with the
> "Cop Killer" song.

According to the incomplete and possibly misleading reports I've seen
on the net, the playing of this Beatles song on the radio was banned
by the Canadian government.

Here in the United Staets, the worst form of governmental action that
we've had to put up with with regard to "Cop Killer" was the awful
spectacle of Dan Quayle reciting part of the lyrics in an "oh my god
isn't this awful" speech before some law enforcement organization.

(If you want something for people in the U.S. to get riled up about,
try the FCC's fining of various radio stations for the heinous crime
of airing the voice of Howard Stern saying things that offended
somebody somewhere.)

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

Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.feminism
From: cburian@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu (Christopher J Burian)
Subject: Re: [alt.feminism] Feminist Censorship in Canada
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 16:19:01 GMT

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

>     And BTW, it could also happen in the good old
>free-enterprise US of A.  At least I hope it could.

>--Jamie.

Agreed.  Some "free-speech" advocates, who know not what free speech
means, have used the incident to promote anti-feminism.  It's been
asserted that the complaintants used government force to supress the
radio station, which is untrue.

On the other hand, self-proclaimed feminists in Canada have made them-
selves known by teaming up with fundamentalists to ban pornography. 
This tiny minority has given feminism, and Canadian authorities, a bad
reputation.

Chris---

Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (J. S. Greenfield)
Subject: Re: "Censorship by Visa Denial"
Organization: Syracuse University, CIS Dept.
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 92 19:53:23 EST

In article <1992Dec12.193536.11835@netcom.com> strnlght@netcom.com (David Sternlight) writes:
>
>"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."
>
>That's another philosophical difference. It assumes one must hold
>foreigners wishing to visit this country only to legal standards
>one holds one's own Citizens to.
>
>The position as a generic rule is unsupportable. To take a simple
>example, some acts by citizens would, if performed by foreign
>visitors be quite illegal--taking a job, for example, without the
>government's permission.


I find your example to be rather contrived and silly, and I'm doubtful that
you can find any other examples that are any less contrived and silly.

Why didn't you say "if a visitor tried to vote...?"


Just substitute "a visitor already legally within the US" for "an American
citizen" in Mr. Starr's statement.  (I'm not sure, but I don't think that
the govt could legally revoke a visa already granted simply because of
its dislike for some protected expression.)

In any case, it is obvious to most of us that Mr. Starr's statements did
not extend as far as you have tried to extend them.  As I recall, he has
already acknowledged that control over permanent residency is a separate
issue from control over temporary visits.

The example you provide is inextricably related to permanent residency
issues.  Expression is not.  If you wish to make a meaningful argument,
then please provide an example to support your position that is *not*
inextricably related to permanent residency issues.



-- 
J. S. Greenfield                                         greeny@top.cis.syr.edu
(I like to put 'greeny' here, 
but my d*mn system wants a 
*real* name!)                        "What's the difference between an orange?"
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.conspiracy
From: labiche@crchh561.BNR.CA (Maurice LaBiche)
Subject: Re: CIA Now Plotting a Coup D'etat Against the Government of Cuba
Keywords: seeking news about planned CIA coup d'etat against the Gov't of CubaPost.
Reply-To: labiche@crchh561.BNR.CA (Maurice LaBiche)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd.
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 21:59:59 GMT

Try and get a copy of Covert Action Information Bulletin(Quarterly).
The Summer or Fall issue contained very interesting/disgusting
background on our outgoing President Bush and his long running
association with the CIA.  It also went into some discussion of
his associations with the "Cuban Freedom Fighters", can't remember
the typical term for them, and US desire to overthrow Castro. 

If you'd like some info. on subscribing to this quarterly magazine
let me know and I'll send you the address.  I've gotten my copies in 
a local Whole Foods grocery store but I'm going to subscribe soon.

If you read this newsgroup you'll probably like the magazine.  
There is no advertising and I think the articles are well 
researched with references clearly noted.  The current issue,
which I wish I had with me now, had an article on the future
covert operations which are likely to be put in action soon.

--------------------------------------
Maurice LaBiche   |   labiche@bnr.ca 

"The world is a strange place."
"Someone oughta sell tickets."
"I'd buy one!"
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
From: fsmaw@acad3.alaska.edu (WALKER MARY A)
Subject: net.etiquette
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41.UAC
Organization: University of Alaska - Fairbanks
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 13:21:00 GMT

"If nothing else, Mr. Cramer violates net.etiquette."
etiquette? rules? censoring?
just a thought....
.
as for myself, i agree with the quote, which i can't remember exactly that
says something to the effect of "I may not agree with what you have to say
but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
.
I don't have to read it, I don't have to listen to it, I don't have to agree
with it....

Newsgroups: alt.censorship
From: nasiatka@anhep3.anl.gov.bitnet (Jim Wylde)
Subject: re: Banning the Beatles?
Organization: Argonne National Laboratory 
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 15:17:47 GMT

In article <1992Dec10.203840.8210@seachg.uucp> (Chris Blask) writes:

>I would like to take a moment to distract from this ongoing thread about
>whether we can censor fools on alt.censorship.  We have here a wonderful
>topic with vast tracts of un-argued (at least by me) territory, how about
>some other pertinent threads?
>
>For instance, I caught something out of the corner of my ear this morning
>about a radio station in Ottawa (?) banning a Beatles song, but I didn't
>get the detail on the article.  Anyone in Canada hear this?  Anyone else
>have any comments or instances of censorship that would be worth fighting
>over?

I'm not from Canada, but I heard about the banning...  What I guess 
happened is that some people complained to a radio station the the
Beatle's song "Little Girl" was offensive and promoted the beating of
women because of it's lyrics.

Here's some of the lyrics that they found offensive (partially reproduced
from my memory...)


You better run for you life if you can little girl
better hide you head in the sand little girl
if I catch you with another man, that't the end little girl


Possibly offensive?  maybe.  Seriously detrimental to womens rights?
somehow I doubt it.  25 years late??  You betcha dupa!

Jim

*******************************************************************
  ______________                        Bigotry is NOT Rebellion!                               
  \            /                    Hate is NOT a Family Value!                                
   \          /  Rough Boys!         
    \        /    Wild in the Streets                       
     \      /    Rough Boys!                        
      \    /      Under the Sheets                               
       \  /                           
        \/   Gonna fight to miss ya... Gonna fight to kiss ya!

                               GATEWAY::"Nasiatka@ANHEP3.ANL.GOV"
******************************************************************



Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.conspiracy
From: greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (J. S. Greenfield)
Subject: Re: PORTLAND: American Front (Hate group) transcript
Organization: Syracuse University, CIS Dept.
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 92 15:12:09 EST

In article <1992Dec15.004328.23916@oracle.us.oracle.com> rchilder@us.oracle.com (Richard Childers) writes:
>
>Here you go ... this isn't actually your mail, just the snippets I replied
>to, but it gets the gist across. ( There are _lots_ of these snippets em-
>-bedded in our conversations from back then. )
>
>> 
>> From rchilder Tue Jul  7 09:33:04 1992
>> To: kmcvay@oneb.almanac.bc.ca
>> Subject: Re: "LEST WE FORGET" Citations - Can you lend a hand?
>> 
>> 
>>|> You consort with those whose intention is explicitly just that, and I sort
>>|> of doubt that you are oblivious of their ethical proximity ...

You must be crazy!  You cite *one sentence* from Mr. McVay (which appears
to make no sense whatsoever, out of context), you then give us a whole
long shpiel of your own, and then draw the conclusion:

>So, here we see an open acknowledgement that you "work closely with" certain
>folks whom share your goals - which are the cessation of Nazism ( a goal you
>admit is not only impossible, above, but which works against your long-term
>interests ), and the elimination of B-CPU in particular.

???????



>The "work" you were doing included tutoring people, not in how to use Kill
>files in general, but how to use them explicitly for B-CPU, specifically.
>( I don't necessarily disagree with this desire, but insist that it sets a
>pretty ugly example for the new kids on the block. )

I've many times told people both how to use kill files, general, and how
to kill b-cpu posts, in particular.  Can you please explain what's
wrong with this?


>In another of your emails, you noted that you were pretty old and didn't
>expect to be around too many more years.
>
>If you don't recall, I responded then - and now - with the request that you
>not corrupt this communications channel with activities - such as censor-
>-ship - that will leave the rest of us with a mess to clean up, long after
>you've left the scene.

Please explain how teaching someone how to kill b-cpu posts is censorship.

----

Mr. Childers, you seem to be undermining your own credibility with
your strange claims about other people.  I vehemently disagreed with Mr.
McVay earlier in this thread, so I'm certainly not biased in his favor.

Your statements just don't make any sense.


-- 
J. S. Greenfield                                         greeny@top.cis.syr.edu
(I like to put 'greeny' here, 
but my d*mn system wants a 
*real* name!)                        "What's the difference between an orange?"
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.conspiracy
From: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Subject: Re: Khat
Reply-To: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 07:26:16 GMT

In article <1992Dec11.004046.16927@xn.ll.mit.edu>, kathy@xn writes:
>That's interesting.  I heard an interview of WBZ (a Boston news/talk radio 
>station) a couple of nights ago, with a local expert on the area.  Unfortu-
>nately the man's name is escaping me.  The commentator asked about this "drug"
>he'd heard talked about the night before on Nightline, in the context of 
>discussing how foolish we were to be getting involved there.  The expert, who
>had traveled extensively in the area, as well as in Ethiopia, Kenya and some
>other neighboring areas, said repeatedly that his experience with people using
>the drug was that it tended to make them idolent rather than violent or paranoid,
>as the news coverage was suggesting.

I think there was a comment on this, when a Somalian was asked about
this, ie. aggression/danger from people who carry guns and have chewed
khat.  The reply was "No, it is not like whiskey".

//Jyrki
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,news.admin.policy,comp.org.eff.talk
From: nagle@netcom.com (John Nagle)
Subject: Appeals court declares child pornography law unconstitutional
Summary: New decision by Ninth Circuit may affect BBS operators
Keywords: law pornography
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 23:26:18 GMT

     The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled, in US vs X-Citement
Video Inc., (CA No. 89-50556), that the sections of the Protection of
Children Against Sexual Exploitation Act of 1977 that deal with 
distribution, transportation, and receipt of sexually explicit 
materials are invalid on First Amendment grounds.  The court let stand the 
prohibition on the production of child pornography.

     This ruling needs to be looked at more closely, but it may help to
remove sysop worries about someone posting such material on their system
without their knowledge, or about network nodes being liable for 
material passing through them.  This is a step forward, because it was
one of the very few real legal risks a US sysop had to face, and now
it appears to be dead. Do the lawyers out there agree with this analysis?

     Producing child pornography remains illegal, which is reasonable.

					John Nagle


Source: Wall Street Journal, 17DEC92, p. B10 (Western edition)

Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: greeny@eff.org (J S Greenfield)
Subject: Re: I've just been repremanded by net.big.brother
Originator: greeny@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 16:32:25 GMT

In article <BETSYS.92Dec12211548@ra.cs.umb.edu> betsys@cs.umb.edu (Elizabeth Schwartz) writes:
>Around here, we call polite requests TEACHING.

The crux of the problem here is interpretation.

I'm not convinced that the sysadmin really intended for his message to be
taken as an implicit threat.  Then again, I'm not yet convinced that it
wasn't.  The problem is, it's hard to tell.

In my mind, what it comes down to is this--one who is in a position of
authority needs to be aware that any comment they make may be interpreted
as an implicit warning.  I think the only way to avoid this is for the
authority to *explicitly* state that they are *not* issuing a warning in
their capacity as an authority, but rather, are just offering some advice,
in their capacity as a human being...

This way, we avoid the confusion of this case.

-- 
J. S. Greenfield                                         greeny@top.cis.syr.edu
(I like to put 'greeny' here,                            greeny@eff.org 
but my d*mn system wants a 
*real* name!)                        "What's the difference between an orange?"
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.feminism
From: chrisb@seachg.uucp (Chris Blask)
Subject: Re: [alt.feminism] Feminist Censorship in Canada
Reply-To: chrisb@seachg.UUCP (Chris Blask)
Organization: Me, Mississauga, Ontario, Canada
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 92 16:50:56 GMT

>
>>Feminists are calling the banning of this Beatle's song a victory.
>...
>>What happened in Ottawa was NOT feminism, it was FASCISM.
>
>Boy, I hope y'all got just as riled up about that stink with the "Cop
>Killer" song.
>

Just to add fuel to the fire: If there is going to be censorship (there is,
isn't there?), how do we find the edges?  Where are the limits?

Shouting:  "FUCK EVERYONE!!  KILL THE CHILDREN!" in the streets, 24 hours a
day.

Writing a song with the lyrics "Mommies aren't nice."

Both can be considered offensive.  Do we allow ANYTHING, live sex on the
sidewalk in front of your house (Hey, that might not be so bad...), do we
allow nothing, a cop on the sidewalk in front of your house, or do we set
flexible limits that can be changed by a good fight?  I've heard Ice-T give
some good defense, maybe he's right.  If you are willing to debate in
public about it, then it can become acceptable ( a ban or a song).  What I
don't like is backroom decisions, pandering to small loud groups, and Anita
Bryant setting rules for the rest of us, who are a little less
lilly-white.

-chris blask
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto)
Subject: Re: I've just been repremanded by net.big.brother
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 92 00:51:23 GMT
Organization: Project GLUE, University of Maryland, College Park

In article <BETSYS.92Dec13193943@ra.cs.umb.edu> betsys@cs.umb.edu (Elizabeth Schwartz) writes:
>In article <1992Dec13.144427.25801@eng.umd.edu> russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) writes:
>
>>Does your university have the catchall "refusal to obey the reasonable
>>request of a universal official" in its disciplinary code?  If so, a
>>'polite request' is an order, no matter what else it may be.  You need
>>to have that removed from the code before you can reasonably say that
>>it is not a demand and not a threat.
>	Personally, I'm *NOT* a "University Official." I am
>"Professional Staff." I don't think I have any official ability to act
>formally in the name of the University; what I do have is explicitly
>delegated authority to take short-term actions necessary to the
>functionning of the system. Temporarily shutting off a cracked account
>is such an action. Deleting the account of an active student in a cs
>course is not. (Accounts of students who are not taking cs courses are
>considered "courtesy" accounts and I have explicit permission to make 
>decisions about those. )

At UMCP, the system administrator IS considered a university official
for the purpose of that part of the disciplinary code.  

Yes, he still has to take formal action to get punishment through it.
But all he has to show is that he made a request, it was reasonable,
and it was disobeyed.  I doubt any quasijudicial board would find
a sysadmin asking a user to stop using obscenities 'unreasonable' by
the code's standards.  Same goes for Wes Morgan's hypothetical request
to send only one or two print jobs at a time.

-- 
Matthew T. Russotto	russotto@eng.umd.edu	russotto@wam.umd.edu
Some news readers expect "Disclaimer:" here.
Just say NO to police searches and seizures.  Make them use force.
(not responsible for bodily harm resulting from following above advice)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship