From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Computers and Academic Freedom News 02.08 1/2 (Digest)
Originator: kadie@eff.org
Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1992 09:35:09 GMT

Computers and Academic Freedom News
Vol. 02, No. 08


----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Article 0 -- Abstract of CAF-News 02.08

[Best of January, 1992

========================== KEY ================================
The words after the numbers are a short PARAPHRASES of the
articles, NOT AN OBJECTIVE SUMMARY and not necessarily my opinion.
===============================================================

[Many of these paraphrases are based weekly paraphrases by
Elizabeth, Paul, and me. - Carl]

Notes 1-3 regard a recent controversy at Carnegie Mellon
University involving issues of sexual harassment and freedom of
speech. 

1. As described in the Carnegie Mellon student newspaper 'The Tartan',
student Eric Jefferson has had sexual harassment charges filed
against him because of his postings to a CMU bulletin board for
the Women's Center.
    <1992Jan28.223429.20426@eff.org>

2. Here is a ruling on sexual harassment from the university of
Wisconsin which quite clearly indicates that Jefferson's postings did
not and cannot constitute harassment.
    <1992Jan29.221441.18673@m.cs.uiuc.edu>

3. Jefferson's chastisement does not constitute a threat to freedom
of speech - indeed, constitutional protections are irrelevant in a
privately owned university. However, the more important issue is
whether the university is more committed to the ideal of freedom of
speech or to the ideal of the free exchange of ideas. The two are not
the same, and the free expression of hatred can create an atmosphere
in which ideas cannot be freely shared.
    <8dX8mdS00WBwAAGCdi@andrew.cmu.edu>

Notes 4-5 discuss academic freedom and the right of sites to limit
access to netnews.

4. At Iowa State University, by default, a machine does not receive
the newsgroups alt.sex.*, alt.drugs, alt.psychoactives.  The head of
the department where the machines are located can request that the
machines have access to the omitted groups.  Students and staff are
attempting to change the policy.
    <1992Jan24.160039.20161@news.iastate.edu>


5. "If universities are bound to keep their libraries free of
arbitrary censorship, they are just as bound to keep Usenet free of
arbitrary censorship, as Usenet has become nothing less than an
electronic library of ideas."
    <1992Jan26.045844.10853@zip.eecs.umich.edu>


Notes 6-7 concern the UC's court-ordered search of computer files.

6. Dean Pentcheff (dean2@garnet.berkeley.edu): This is a summary of
the events surrounding "UC's court-ordered search of files on two of
its Unix mainframe computers... [This summary is] based on my own
understanding of what's going on.  These are not "official" summaries,
either from the University of California, or from the plaintiff in the
case.  I am not involved with the case in any capacity except as an
interested observer."
    <knesbiINN8d1@agate.berkeley.edu>

7. There are some grave inconsistencies inherent in defining a user's
files as 'university records'. For example, such a definition means
that a user who reads *her or his own email* might violate of federal law.
    <1992Jan14.032659.8519@m.cs.uiuc.edu>

Notes 8-9 describes the outcome of the recent Cubby vs. Compuserve case.

8. The effect of the Compuserve decisions has been to show that the
more a computer-mediated forum is monitored, the greater the liability
of the moderators/owners for what is said in that forum. If there is no
censorship then liability rests entirely with the authors of
individual posts.
    <oDeReB6w164w@cellar.org>

9. Mike Godwin (mnemonic@eff.org): By granting CompuServe's request
for a summary judgment (finding CompuServe not liable), the court has
strengthened first amendment protection for online services.  The
judge's decision holds that CompuServe was a distributor, not a
publisher. Like a bookstore owner, CompuServe is not required to
review everything it carries prior to providing it to its customers.
    <1992Jan6.204341.5096@eff.org>

Notes 10-11 discuss the recent removal of software from users'
accounts, computer suspendions before hearings, and searches
of user files at the University of Wyoming, 

10. (A student:) I compiled an IRC client and master on a computer at U
Wyoming.  I provided access to this software to other users.  Upon
receiving complaints, the system administrators removed access for all
users who had used IRC.  In order to get their accounts back, the
users had to remove all IRC software from their accounts and agree not
to use IRC on the computer.  "After I agreed to do this, my (Cluster)
account was reinabled and I was told 2 hours later it would be
searched for IRC files. If any were ever found again, I would be
disusered without hope for reinstatement."
    <3803321809011992_A11466_POSSE_11614C9F3200*@mrgate.uwyo.edu>

11. Even if the university was within its legal rights, did it have the
moral right to take this action? Specifically, should the
administrator have suspended the accounts before establishing that the
user had done something wrong? (No.) And should he have searched user files
without authorization? (No.)
    <199201101800.AA13167@eff.org>


Note 12 is about Freedom of (impolite) Speech.

12. The ACLU handbook on teachers' legal rights and Robert J. Wagmam's
_The First Amendment Book_ indicate that "The Freedom of Speech
guaranteed by the Constitution *does not* require that speakers be
polite."
    <1992Jan5.025518.11163@eff.org>

- Carl]



In this issue:

Carl M. Kadie    95  Speech restrictions on CMU computer bboards
Carl M. Kadie   119  >
John G Myers    215  Fwd: I comment once.
John Hascall     67  >Duties of state universities regarding 1st amendment
Brad Baillod     72  >
Dean Pentcheff  215  UC computer searches: Summary #3.
Carl M. Kadie    44  >hackers, crackers, privacy on KQED
Rachel McGregor 194  >Effect of the Compuserve decision
Mike Godwin     120  >
Robert Wedlock   53  IRC outlawed at U Wyoming...
Carl M. Kadie    59  -
Carl M. Kadie    35  >Inappropriate Use by 2714sviatkos


Computers and Academic Freedom News

Managing Editor:  Carl M. Kadie (kadie@eff.org)
Administration:   William W. Arnold (caf-talk-request@eff.org, warnold@eff.org)
Associate Editor: Elizabeth M. Reid (emr@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au)
Associate Editor: Paul Joslin (joslin@tso.uc.edu)
Associate Editor: Adam C. Gross (ag3j+@andrew.cmu.edu)

To contribute to the list, send email to "caf-talk@eff.org". Your note
will appear immediately on the caf-talk mailing list and in the
alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk newsgroup.

Back issues are available via anonymous ftp to ftp.eff.org. The
directory is pub/academic/news. Abstracts of CAF-news are in file
pub/academic/abstracts. The CAF archive is also available via email.
For information, send email to archive-server@eff.org. Include the
line:
  send acad-freedom README

Disclaimer: This CAF-News abstract was compiled by a guest editor or a
regular editor (Paul Joslin, Elizabeth M. Reid, Adam C. Gross, or Carl
M. Kadie). It is not an EFF publication. The views an editor expresses
and editorial decisions he or she makes are his or her own.

The addresses for the list are:
	comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org     - for contributions to the list
		or	caf-talk@eff.org
	listserv@eff.org    - for automated additions/deletions
                (send email with the line "help" for details.)
	caf-talk-request@eff.org    - for administrivia

        Also, if you read newsgroups, look for alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
        and alt.comp.acad-freedom.news.
------------            

------------------------------

From caf-talk Caf Jan 27 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,cmu.general,alt.censorship,alt.politics.correct
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Article 1--Speech restrictions on CMU computer bboards
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1992 22:34:29 GMT

[Reprinted with permission - The Tartan vol 86 issue 14]

By Matt Bushey
Tartan News Co-editor

Biology junior Eric Jefferson was accused of violating the University's
sexual harassment policy this month after posting a number of
questionable messages on the women's center Andrew bulletin board.

A letter of complaint was given to Dean of student affairs Micheal
Murphy concerning Eric Jefferson, who had posted messages which readers
claimed were offensive and harassing towards women. The formal complaint
was written by Todd Masco and signed by co-worker Chris Newman and
student senator Josh Knauer.

Alleged acts of harassment have occurred often over the past few years
and have traditionally been handled by the office of student affairs.

The first message posted by Jefferson was in response to a lecture by
feminist Ann Simonton sponsored by the political speaker forum board.
Jefferson posted his message to assocs.womens-center concerning his
opinion towards feminism and the role of women in society. In his
message, Jefferson writes, "I think that the biggest Nazis in the
country today and the biggest threats to freedom of speech are
feminists."
Jefferson posted over ten more messages to the board expressing his
opinions, including his liberal opinions about lesbians.                
                  

According to Knauer, the comments made by Jefferson on the bboard were
"personal attacks". Jefferson said, "I don't think they were offensive."
and believes he didn't break the sexual harassment policy. "The way [the
sexual harassment policy] is defined in the student handbook is really
vague," said Jefferson.

However, Knauer believes that Jefferson crossed the line of free speech.
Knauer said, "The administration should say, 'Look, what you wrote is
breaking the rules, whether they are right or not, and don't do it
again.'"

This happened on January 22 when the assistant dean of student affairs
told Jefferson that if he continued to post his questionable messages a
full disciplinary committee would make a ruling on his actions which
could ultimately result in the expulsion of Jefferson from Carnegie
Mellon. "I told her that I couldn't promise not to post any more
messages," said Jefferson. 

Masco believes Jefferson's messages are a "clear case of harassment."
and believes Jefferson's intent was to start an argument among the
members of the women's center. "I don't see how it can be possible for
any of his comments not to be taken as harassment," said Masco

The sexual harassment policy states, "Carnegie Mellon University seeks
to maintain a learning and work environment free from sexual harassment.
Carnegie Mellon is dedicated to the free exchange of ideas and the
intellectual development of all members of the community. For this
exchange and development to take place, the environment must promote the
confidence to work, to study, to innovate, and to perform without fear
of harassment."

The policy continues, "Carnegie Mellon University adopts the basic
definition of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)
regarding sexual harassment as any unwelcome sexual advance, requests
for sexual favors, or other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual
nature when...such conduct has the purpose or effect of unreasonable
interfering with an individual's work performance, or creating an
intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment."

Masco agrees with Jefferson that that policy is weakly worded, but he
doesn't see that as grounds for altering the policy. "It gives [the
administration] the ability to act reasonably rather than tying
themselves down to a specific course of action," said Masco.

According to Murphy, 

The free speech and assembly policy states, "Carnegie Mellon
University...encourages freedom of speech, assembly, and exchange of
ideas. This includes the distribution of leaflets and petitions, as well
as demonstrations or protests involving speaking, discussion, or the
distribution of information."

"All persons are permitted to distribute printed material, offer
petitions for signature, make speeches and conduct other similar
activities outside university buildings...The only limits on these
activities are the rights of the members of the university community and
the maintenance of the normal functioning of the university. No
activities which harm individuals, damage or deface property, block
access to university buildings, or disrupt classes will be permitted."
-- 
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
 =kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu, or (anonymous) ap.3619@layout.berkeley.edu=


------------------------------

From caf-talk Caf Jan 28 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.politics.correct
From: kadie@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Article 2--Re: Speech restrictions on CMU computer bboards
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1992 22:14:41 GMT

cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:

>To be clearer, what if the issue here is HARRASSMENT, and not "politically
>incorrect speech?"
[...]
>It's one thing to post, "All women are bitches," and another to post
>"You ugly bitches."

I don't see much difference. I do, however, see a difference between
sending unwanted email to a person and posting an offensive-to-some
article in a univeristy forum.

Here is the U. of Wisconsin's old rule. This is rule was found to be
to vague and broad by a federal judge, yet, it is clearer and narrower
than the CMU rule. Notice that by definition harassment must be directed
at an individual.

========== ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/law/uwm-post-v-u-of-wisconsin ==========
  (2)(a) For racist or discriminatory comments, epithets or other expressive
behavior directed at an individual or on separate occasions at different
individuals, or for physical conduct, if such comments, epithets or other
expressive behavior or physical conduct intentionally:
  1. Demean the race, sex, religion, color, creed, disability, sexual
orientation, national origin, ancestry or age of the individual or
individuals;  and
  2. Create an intimidating, hostile or demeaning environment for education,
university-related work, or other university-authorized activity.
 (b) Whether the intent required under par. (a) is present shall be determined
by consideration of all relevant circumstances.
 (c) In order to illustrate the types of conduct which this subsection is
designed to cover, the following examples are set forth.  These examples are
not meant to illustrate the only situations or types of conduct intended to be
covered.
 1. A student would be in violation if:
  a. He or she intentionally made demeaning remarks to an individual based on
that person's ethnicity, such as name calling, racial slurs, or "jokes";  and
  b. His or her purpose in uttering the remarks was to make the educational
environment hostile for the person to whom the demeaning remark was addressed.
  2. A student would be in violation if:
  a. He or she intentionally placed visual or written material demeaning the
race or sex of an individual in that person's university living quarters or
work area;  and
  b. His or her purpose was to make the educational environment hostile for the
person in whose quarters or work area the material was placed.
  3. A student would be in violation if he or she seriously damaged or
destroyed private property of any member of the university community or guest
because of that person's race, sex, religion, color, creed, disability, sexual
orientation, national origin, ancestry or age.
  4. A student would not be in violation if, during a class discussion, he or
she expressed a derogatory opinion concerning a racial or ethnic group.  There
is no violation, since the student's remark was addressed to the class as a
whole, not to a specific individual.  Moreover, on the facts as stated, there
seems no evidence that the student's purpose was to create a hostile
environment.
 *3 Wis. Admin.  Code s UWS 17.06(2).
[Judge's comments:]
 Thus, in order to be regulated under the UW Rule, a comment, epithet or other
expressive behavior must:
  (1) Be racist or discriminatory;
  (2) Be directed at an individual;
  (3) Demean the race, sex, religion, color, creed, disability, sexual
orientation, national origin, ancestry or age of the individual addressed;  and
  (4) Create an intimidating, hostile or demeaning environment for education,
university-related work, or other university-authorized activity.
 In addition to the rule, the UW System issued and circulated to its students
and faculty a brochure which explains the rule and provides guidance as to its
scope and application.  See Discriminatory Harassment:  Prohibited Conduct
Under Chapter UWS 17 Revisions.  This guide provides some illustrations of
situations where the UW Rule applies and does not apply:
  Question 1. In a class discussion concerning women in the workplace, a male
student states his belief that women are by nature better equipped to be
mothers than executives, and thus should not be employed in upper level
management positions.  Is this statement actionable under proposed UWS
17.06(2)?
  Answer:  No. The statement is an expression of opinion, contains no epithets,
is not directed to a particular individual, and does not, standing alone,
evince the requisite intent to demean or create a hostile environment.
  Question 2. A student living in the University dormitory continually calls a
black student living on his floor "nigger" whenever they pass in the hallway.
May the university take action against the name-caller?
  Answer:  Yes. The word "nigger" is an epithet, and is directed specifically
at an individual.  Its use and continuous repetition demonstrate the required
intent on the part of the speaker to demean the individual and create a hostile
living environment for him.
  Question 3. Two university students become involved in an altercation at an
off-campus bar.  During the fight one student used a racial epithet to prolong
the dispute.  May the university invoke a disciplinary action?
  Answer:  Perhaps.  Use of the epithet, and its direction to an individual
suggests a potential violation of proposed s. UWS 17.06(2);  however, because
the episode occurred off campus, the intent to create a hostile environment for
university-authorized activities would be difficult to demonstrate.  Additional
facts would have to be developed if disciplinary action were to be pursued.
  Question 4. A group of students disrupts a university class shouting
discriminating epithets.  Are they subject to disciplinary action under the
provisions related to regulation of expressive behavior?
  Answer:  Perhaps.  It is clear that the students are subject to disciplinary
action for disrupting a class under existing s. UWS 17.06(1)(c)3. The question
is whether they also violated the newly created provision concerning expressive
behavior, because they shouted epithets while in the course of other
misconduct.  If the epithets were directed to individuals within class, and
were intending to demean them and create an intimidating environment, then the
behavior might also be in violation of the provision concerning expressive
misconduct.
  *4 Question 5. A faculty member, in a genetics class discussion, suggests
that certain racial groups seem to be genetically pre-disposed to alcoholism.
Is this statement subject to discipline under Chapter UWS 17?
  Answer:  No. faculty member is in no case subject to discipline under Chapter
UWS 17, since that chapter applies only to students.  This situation would not
warrant disciplinary action under any other policy, either, since it is
protected expression of an idea.
============================ end =======================

- Carl
-- 
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign


------------------------------

From caf-talk Caf Jan 30 00:00:00 1992
From: jm36+@andrew.cmu.edu (John Gardiner Myers)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.correct,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.censorship
Subject: Article 3--Fwd: I comment once.
Date: 3 Feb 92 00:28:25 GMT

Here is one the complainant's final word on the subject, as posted on
the Women's Center's discussion bboard.

---------- Forwarded message begins here ----------

I'm going to say this once.  I have no interest in becoming embroiled
in a lengthy argument.

	Eric's chastisement is hardly a threat to free speech.
Firstly, bboards are privately owned.  Constitutional protections
don't count for anything on private property.  The university is NOT
the government, and there actions with their property have nothing to
do with governmental restrictions, as in "Congress shall make no law...
abridging the freedom of speech."

	A more important question is:  what is more important to the
university community, the intellectual commitment to free speech or
the commitment to the free exchange of ideas?  They are not identical.

	Attempts to reduce discussions into heated exchanges of emotionally
charged rhetoric block the free exchange of ideas.  Participants lose
perspective and what might have become an exchange where individuals walked
away with a better understanding of their opposites' opinion instead walk
away with

	In many cases, extreme emotional reaction to opinions can be 
considered unreasonable, a mark of immaturity.  However, there are certain
areas which are particularly sensitive due to our culture's history.  Old
biases that are the direct cause of past oppression leave scars even when
the explicit oppression is past.  Carnegie Mellon recognizes such areas
through its harassment policies, singling out harassment on the basis of
gender, sexual orientation, race, religion, etc.

	The need for the existence of the Women's Center is largely
due to the biases our culture introduces, placing the male in the role
of protector and provider and the female in the role of nurturing 
house-maker.  Such roles also include the implicit retaliation, whether
physical or social, against those who refuse to live those roles.  

	These self-propagating roles are largely artificial (see research by
Masters and Johnson, particularly the "Gender Roles" chapter of _Masters and
Johnson on Sex and Human Loving_).  These roles are also obsolete.

	As a society, we have consciously decided that differences in
gender are not relevant to the possession of rights and protection
under the law, but society lags behind, leaving sensitive scars.  Women
resist, often cautiously, their old submissive roles, but frequently distrust
men on the basis of the old gender roles.  

	This same change leaves men who have never accepted either set of
gender roles in a sensitive position as well.  It isn't a matter of the "Alan
Alva sensitivity" that is so often sneered at.  It's a matter of implicitly
being accused for crimes of oppression that one has not committed, of living with
the mistrust of half the human race because of progenitor's crimes.

	As far as I'm concerned, Eric's posts were an attempt at harassment
(he has stated that he was trying to start a flame war) that had the effect
casting me and other males in a supporting role, a role that I bitterly
reject.  His harassment was directly opposed to University policy, and I called
him on it.  Pure and simple.

	There is a tendency for people to cry "free speech" whenever anybody
is held accountable for the action of posting.  This cry is inappropriate when
said speech was directly aimed for particularly sensitive spots left by our
culture with the clear intention to hurt, whether the harm was for its own sake
or whether that harm is intended to elicit a spirited response.

	Why are people objecting to the gentle enforcement (how can the
university's handling be characterized as anything but gentle?  No punitive
actions were taken) of the harassment policy, but not to the harassment policy
itself? 

[[signature elided --jgm]]







Computers and Academic Freedom News
Vol. 02, No. 06

[Week ending February 9. 1992

  [This week's guest editor is Adam C. Gross,
   ag3j+@andrew.cmu.edu. The February 2nd issue
   is still in production. - Carl]

 
========================== KEY ================================
The words after the numbers are a short PARAPHRASES of the
articles, NOT AN OBJECTIVE SUMMARY and not necessarily my opinion.
===============================================================
 
Notes 1-6 are about the Eric Jefferson case at Carnegie Mellon, where a
student was accused of sexual harrasement because of a series of his
postings to a local bboard.
 
1. The university's threats of an investigation if the postings don't
stop promotes self censorship.
    <46750.298C2BB3@psycho.fidonet.org>
 
2. "Users were and are free at any time to refrain from
reading articles from the poster in question.  They apparently did
not do so.  Therefore, they _chose_ to read more from the poster,
thus invalidating the unwantedness criterion of the EEO definition. [of
sexual harresment]"
    <9202032245.AA03081@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil>
 
3. Public universities are probhibited from banning 'politically
incorrect' speech because of the _Doe v. U. of Michigan_ and _UWM Post
v. U. of Wisconsin_ rulings.
    <1992Feb4.210805.11317@eff.org>
 
4. [A CMU student:] The university supported mail readers do not allow a
user to suppress another individuals posts.
    <0dXzHyC00UgII0ilcP@andrew.cmu.edu>
 
5. "CMU is embarking on a slippery slope, as do all who wish to
supress expression for any reason.  It is impossible to objectively
determine what might be "intimidating, harassing, or sexually
harassing."  The search for truth is compromised when _any_ expression
is supressed."
    <9202071322.AA09866@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil>
 
6. [A CMU student:] "[This] IS about suppressing speech that was
merely offensive." "[H]ow can it be harassment when one can easily
ignore the message or not even read it at all?"
    <wdYcdhe00awU03pVd6@andrew.cmu.edu>

Notes 7-9 are about the disclosure of personal information on the U of
Illinois systems through such programs as finger.

7. [A U of Illinois student:] "Before the new software was installed, an
account holder could alter how he/she was identified when another
computer user on the same or a connected system requested information
about that person using the finger program. The current software has the
fingerd program return part or all of the person's legal name.  I must
protest this change, and request 
that the problem be fixed."
    <1992Feb3.224647.28831@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
 
8. [A member of the U of Illinois Computing Services Office:] "CCSO
believes the perception of anonymity leads to increased belligerence and
decreased sense of responsiblity for one's actions.  The fact that one
is ultimately traceable does not have the same effect as being
immediately identified."
    <1992Feb4.193335.16780@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
 
9. Under what curcumstances can the university disclose or require
personal information about a student? Enclosed excerpts from the
Family Education and Privacy Rights of Act provide a partial answer.
    <1992Feb6.233159.24859@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
 
Note 10 is about the availability of some newsgroups at U of Oregon.

10. [The director of Network Services at the U of Oregon:] Techincal
limitations of the most popular Mac newsreader force limited USENET
availability.
    <199202052354.AA01561@eff.org>

- Adam]


In this issue:

Howard Goldstein 49  Speech Restrictions On Cm
Robert F Solon   90  >Speech restrictions on CMU computers
Carl M. Kadie    27  >Speech restrictions on CMU computer bboards
John W Hollis    23  >
Robert F Solon   57  The Dark Ages Revisited (<>Re: Supression on speech on CM
C M Restifo      50  >Speech restrictions on CMU computer bboards
Memphis TN       81  Complaint letter about fingerd change
Steve Dorner     71  >an open letter to the cso.gods
Carl M. Kadie   138  Requiring students to release directory information
JQ Johnson       33  >Usenet News Selection Policies


Computers and Academic Freedom News

Managing Editor:  Carl M. Kadie (kadie@eff.org)
Administration:   William W. Arnold (caf-talk-request@eff.org, warnold@eff.org)
Associate Editor: Elizabeth M. Reid (emr@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au)
Associate Editor: Paul Joslin (joslin@tso.uc.edu)

To contribute to the list, send email to "caf-talk@eff.org". Your note
will appear immediately on the caf-talk mailing list and in the
alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk newsgroup.

Back issues are available via anonymous ftp to ftp.eff.org. The
directory is pub/academic/news. Abstracts of CAF-news are in file
pub/academic/abstracts. The CAF archive is also available via email.
For information, send email to archive-server@eff.org. Include the
line:
  send acad-freedom README

Disclaimer: This CAF-News abstract was compiled by a guest editor or a
regular editor (Paul Joslin, Elizabeth M. Reid, or Carl M. Kadie). It
is not an EFF publication. The views an editor expresses and editorial
decisions he or she makes are his or her own.

The addresses for the list are:
	comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org     - for contributions to the list
		or	caf-talk@eff.org
	listserv@eff.org    - for automated additions/deletions
                (send email with the line "help" for details.)
	caf-talk-request@eff.org    - for administrivia

        Also, if you read newsgroups, look for alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
        and alt.comp.acad-freedom.news.
------------            

------------------------------

From caf-talk Caf Jan 24 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.censorship,misc.legal
From: john@iastate.edu (John Hascall)
Subject: Article 4--Re: Duties of state universities regarding 1st amendment
Date: Fri, 24 Jan 1992 16:00:39 GMT

 -=[I only work and go to school here, this is opinion, not official policy]=-

That much said....

morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
}kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:

}>>  If ISU has never carried those
}>>groups, they are well within their rights to refuse to start now.

The original policy was open access.

}The thing that concerns me the most is the original poster's statement
}that "a majority of students cannot read alt.sex.*".  Does this mean
}that some students CAN read those groups?  Which students?  What systems?
}If they are offering certain newsgroups to only certain students on a
}particular machine, we definitely have a mess on our hands; I'll be 
}arguing right beside you that this is wrong.

By default a machine does not receive:
    alt.sex, alt.sex.*, alt.psychoactives, alt.personals.bondage, alt.drugs
    (or any of the new erotic binary groups whatever their names are)

}However, it could be that some particular machines have made their own
}arrangements for news feeds.  That would make each site responsible for
}its newsgroups selection and put a different spin on things.

The person in charge of the machines (generally the head of the dept
where the machines are located) can sign a form requesting:

	a) no groups be censored
	b) all alt.* and rec.* be censored

The net result being: machines in faculty/staff offices have the full
feed (unless the dept head is a real ___) machines available to students
don't.  Also many people are concerned about appearing on what has
become known as the `perverts list' (those signing up for option "a" above).

}Could someone from ISU PLEASE post a copy of this "new policy", or some
}more details (if an actual copy isn't available)?  We really need more
}information before we start picking this apart.

A group of students & staff has formed to work to change the policy.
This group has been meeting with the Comp Ctr (interim) director to
discuss their concerns about this policy and to propose changes and
alternatives.  Progress appears to be being made in a couple of areas:

	a) The director is likely going to remove all of the
	   textual groups from the restricted by default
	   category.

	b) A proposal has been submitted by the group to the
	   director outlining a policy and mechanism for 
	   personal choice based on personal responsibility.

 -=[I only work and go to school here, this is opinion, not official policy]=-

John
--
John Hascall           Our liberties we prize and our rights we will maintain
Project Vincent                                                              
Iowa State University Computation Center                     john@iastate.edu
Ames, IA  50011                                      515/294-9551 [fax -1717]


------------------------------

From caf-talk Caf Jan 26 00:00:00 1992
From: baillod@sparky.eecs.umich.edu (Brad Baillod)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,misc.legal,alt.censorship
Subject: Article 5--Re: Duties of state universities regarding 1st amendment
Date: 26 Jan 92 04:58:44 GMT

In article <1992Jan25.193640.25341@anomaly.sbs.com> mpd@anomaly.sbs.com (Michael P. Deignan) writes:
>Does this mean that every government entity cannot choose to edit or
>otherwise restrict that material which it carries? Absolutely not.
>...
>Does this mean they are preventing you from reading ALT.SEX? Absolutely
>not. You are perfectly free to call up any system you wish that carries
>ALT.SEX and read it. You are perfectly free to pay UUNET or another
>commercial service provider for uninterrupted access to ALT.SEX via a
>newsfeed to your personal system.
>
>Now, if the university or state involked a law which stated that you are
>prohibited from calling another system to read ALT.SEX, or you could not
>call UUNET to get a newsfeed of ALT.SEX, then *THAT* is a restriction on
>your 1st amendment rights.
>
>Your right to free speech does not extend itself to include complete,
>unrestricted access to the state's possessions. You have no more right
>to read ALT.SEX on a university computer than you have to use an M-1
>tank owned by the Department of Defense.
>
>The state has no duty to provide anything other than a computer system
>which is used for the purposes of completing classroom assignments,
>administrative work, etc. Anything above and beyond those duties are
>"perks". Perks are completely up to the discretion of the managing
>individual.

It seems to me, however, that the people responsible for usenet
policy in most places are treating
newsgroups as library-like material.  The fact that they exist,
and that they are used for discussion of a wide range of topics already,
means that they fall under the same standards as libraries.  The
government and the universities may not have originally intended to
have the various *nets used for discussion of sex and politics, but
creating the rec groups and ultimately the alt groups also created
a responsibility for unbiased administration of these groups.
  Take your second-to-last paragraph and substitute "read 'The Joy of
Sex' in a university library" for "read ALT.SEX on a university computer
system" and see how it sounds.  The fact is, the government is NOT
our "management," it is our employee, and we DO have the right to 
use a good deal of its property; libraries are one such example.
   If Usenet was used strictly for educational and research purposes,
then censors would have a valid argument for keeping non-research
and non-educational material off it.  But given that we have rec.motorcycles,
talk.politics.mideast, rec.sewing and alt.fan.jiro-nakamura on Usenet,
it is arbitrary and capricious to censor alt.sex, and, in fact, against
what the goal of Usenet has become.  Usenet has progressed far beyond
being a research tool; it is now a form of mass communication.  The
group hierarchies in Usenet's original setup testify to the fact that
it was never meant to be strictly a research tool, and it has come
to fill its desired role nicely.
   If universities are bound to keep their libraries free of arbitrary
censorship, they are just as bound to keep Usenet free of arbitrary 
censorship, as Usenet has become nothing less than an electronic library
of ideas.
   The argument "censorship is not censorship if you can get the material
>from another source" is not valid.  Does this mean that poor people are
excluded from the exchange of ideas?  If libraries are censored, those
of us with enough money can get the books ourselves.  This does not
make censorship of libraries okay.
   Universities would be within their rights to shut down all of Usenet
except the groups directly related to research and discussion in 
university fields of study.  But to arbitrarily censor newsgroups
on sexual topics when so many topics are discussed is a violation
of the freedom of thought that Universities stand for, and should
be no more permitted than censorship of library materials.

-- 
Brad Baillod						baillod@eecs.umich.edu


-- 
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
 =kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu, or (anonymous) ap.3619@layout.berkeley.edu=
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.news