HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
Subject: Re: u. of illinois may re
Date: 12 Aug 92  22:26:00 EST

Allen M. Carroll states:

>>Let me be clear that if the U. took any action _against the student_
>that would be a far different matter. That, in fact, would clearly be
>censorship. (If the U. agreed to pay the student, they are still
>obligated to make that payment even if they don't show the paintings)

J.S. Greenfield replies:

Why do you think that a contractual agreement to pay the artist is legally enforceable, while a contractual agreement to display the paintings is not (or at least, is somehow worthy of less protection).

Both represent a form of consideration contractually offered to the artist, and I do not see how one can be distinguished from the other in this case.

In fact, as a practical matter, the artist may consider the exhibit of her work to be *more* important than any money received directly from the University. (Since, presumably, exposure may lead to future opportunities.)

My response:

Mr. Greenfield could not be more correct.  The exhibition is vital to an artist (especially a young artist trying to become established).  The money, if any (very often none), is very little, when paid it is usually a tolken amount.

I am a artist & professor, I need exhibitions for my resume for both fields!  Not to be given a show to only have the rug pulled from under my feet.  An exhibition can be a tremendous amount of work.  The institution should stand by its orginal decision.


                                                         Have a Great Day & Be All You Can Be!

                    Mark, aka Professor Atget

 * Origin: Aether (1:112/2020)
20 
20 

Newsgroups: alt.censorship
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: For Mark Sablow (was Re: u. of illinois may re)
Originator: kadie@eff.org
Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 14:35:05 GMT

Mark,

What is your email address from the Internet? Mail to
Mark.Sablow@iphase.UUCP bounced.

- Carl


-- 
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
 =kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From: michael@paul.bu.edu (Michael Chaplin)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
Subject: Re: Limiting religious speech
Date: 22 Aug 92 06:43:39 GMT
	<1992Aug21.092801.23431@newstand.syr.edu>
Organization: Boston University
In-reply-to: greeny@top.cis.syr.edu's message of 21 Aug 92 13:28:01 GMT


   In article <1992Aug20.160815.5222@hubcap.clemson.edu> grimlok@hubcap.clemson.edu (Mike Percy) writes:
   >
   >So, if we are to have prayer at the behest and control of the
   >government, it had better be done fairly.  Any prayers must be
   >universally acceptable to all the represented religions or each religion
   >should be represented with its own prayers.

Hm. Does anybody wish to count the number of religions which could
fit on the head of a pin? Or maybe we could use the Agnostic's
Benediction, written by Zelazny... :-)

Chaplin.

--
===========================================================================
Michael Chaplin                    Language is a virus from outer space.
michael@albert.bu.edu                     - William S. Burroughs

The Einstein Papers Project        The opinions contained herein reflect
Boston University                      neither those of the project, 
Boston, Massachusetts, U.S.A.          nor those of Albert Einstein.
Xref: sparky alt.censorship:6992 alt.society.civil-liberty:5574 misc.legal:16095 rec.arts.fine:601
From: sandrock@leo.scs.uiuc.edu (Mark Sandrock)
Subject: Re: U. of Illinois may remove non"pleasant" art from vistor's center
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 19:30:46 GMT

kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>monson@hobo.ECE.ORST.EDU (Ty Monson) writes:

>>   Freedom of speech does not mean that you are guaranteed a forum
>>   in which to speak.

>Actually, at U. of Illinois (and most universities), we are guaranteed
>forums in which to speak.

>From the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign's Code on Campus
>Affairs and Regulations Applying to All Students:

>"Members and organizations in the University community may invite
> and hear any persons of their own choosing, subject only to reasonable
> requirements on time, place, and manner for use of University facilities."

Maybe his point was that the right of the members of the University
community to hear any speaker does not imply that any speaker has the
right to be heard.

Mark Sandrock
-- 
UIUC Chemical Sciences Computer Ctr.	  "What we are, that only can we
505 S. Mathews Ave., Urbana, IL 61801	   perceive." -- Emerson
Email: sandrock@aries.scs.uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
From: adamsr@netcom.com (Rick Adams)
Subject: Re: Limiting religious speech
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 92 18:28:55 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

Thus spake aultj@rpi.edu (Jim Ault):
>
>Ok, here's a question for anti-censorship people:
>
>How many of you are dismayed at the recent Supreme Court ruling in
>Lee v. Weisman, which held prayer at graduation ceremonies
>unconstitutional?   If this isn't stifling free speech, what is? 
>
>Let's all raise our voices and demand that this be overturned.
>
>Right?
>
	Absolutely.

	Um, you don't mind if the prayer is an invocation to Satan, a plea
to Kali to bring torturous agony to our enemies, or a Pagan blessing
performed appropriately in the nude, do you?

	And since I'm a practicing Tantric, you don't mind if I engage in a
union with my partner on the satge of the auditorium do you?

	Oh. You _do_ mind these things?

	But since I find monotheistic prayer as offensive as you find those
forms, how can you justify permitting that form of prayer while excluding my
own preferences? Is it because the majority of Americans are monotheists?
But the majority of Americans are *white* as well - does that mean that
racist speeches should also be permitted at graduation ceremonies?

	Hmmmmmmmmm.

	Maybe banning _all_ prayer at a graduation ceremony isn't really
censorship after all!


-- 
    rick.adams on GEnie   /|\        You are right from your side,        
     adamsr@netcom.com  /  |  \        And I am right from mine.          
    adamsr@irie.ais.org \ /|\ /  We're both just one too many mornings,   
   adamsr@norwich.bitnet  \|/  And a thousand miles behind. (c Bob Dylan) 
Newsgroups: uiuc.general,alt.censorship,rec.arts.fine
From: grimlok@hubcap.clemson.edu (Mike Percy)
Subject: Canadina vs. US badgering
Organization: Clemson University
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 17:01:04 GMT


This was interesting at first, but it has now pretty much fallen into an
"oh yeah, well you did such and thus" and "did not, you did that" pile
of nothing.  

Worse, a consistently method of arguement has been to decry what one
system doesn;t allow with examples, whereupon the other side is compeeld
to say, "our's is bad? well your's allowed [some event] to happen"

Just because certain events happened under a particular system once upon
a time does not mean that the situation is currently the same.  Also,
just because something was allowed to happen, say McCarthyism, doesn't
mean that it was right or that we'd want it to happen again.

It seems to me to be more useful to keep this discussion focused on the
here and now (or at least the very recent past and the near future).
Dragging up 50-year old events doesn't reflect the current situation.
As background, these things are important because they help us figure
out how we arrived where we are but they do not _define_ the status quo.

Mike Percy             | grimlok@hubcap.clemson.edu  | I don't know about
Sr. Systems Analyst    | mspercy@clemson.clemson.edu | your brain, but mine
Info. Sys. Development | mspercy@clemson.BITNET      | is really...bossy.
Clemson University     | (803) 656-3780              | (Laurie Anderson)

Newsgroups: uiuc.general,alt.censorship,rec.arts.fine
From: tmkk@uiuc.edu (Khan)
Subject: Re: U. of Illinois may remove non"pleasant" art from vistor's center
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 16:40:09 GMT


In article <Bswo0t.Ko6@news.cso.uiuc.edu> paul@uxc.cso.uiuc.edu (Paul Pomes - UofIllinois CSO) writes:
>tmkk@uiuc.edu (Scott Coleman) writes:
>
>>Why is it legal for a University to bad X-rated GIF files from its
>>anonymous ftp sites, ban the importation of groups such as
>>alt.sex.pictures onto camous machines, but NOT legal for them to take a
>>couple of X-rated paintings off of the wall of a campus building?
>
>We don't "ban" x-rated GIF files from CCSO anon-FTP directories; we've
>simply chosen not to carry them.

OK, that's fine. I didn't mean to get into that side-issue anyway. I
agree that it is legitimate for CCSO to exclude alt.sex.pictures, for
whatever reasons it wants (size being the reason in this case). My real
question was why shouldn't Levis be allowed to display some paintings and
not others, just as CCSO can choose to receive some newsgroups but not
others. I was not in any way complaining about the fact that those
groups are not carried here.

>The reasons the pictures are staying is that they're not X-rated (have
>you gone to look at them or merely working from preconceptions?) and
>the artists have an agreement with the University to display their work
>there.  This has been said multiple times before, I can only guess you've
>not been following the discussion.

I confess, you are correct. There's far too much to follow, and I
haven't hung on every word. ;-)

From: Mark.Sablow@iphase.UUCP (Mark Sablow)
Sender: FredGate@iphase.UUCP
From: michael@albert.bu.edu (Michael Chaplin)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
Subject: Re: Limiting religious speech
Date: 21 Aug 92 19:43:31 GMT
Organization: Boston University
In-reply-to: barnhart@netcom.com's message of 21 Aug 92 03:31:53 GMT

In article <x+_nlw_.barnhart@netcom.com> barnhart@netcom.com (Aaron Barnhart) writes:
     aultj@rpi.edu (Jim Ault) writes:


  =>Ok, here's a question for anti-censorship people:

  =>How many of you are dismayed at the recent Supreme Court ruling in
  =>Lee v. Weisman, which held prayer at graduation ceremonies
  =>unconstitutional?   If this isn't stifling free speech, what is? 

  =My favorite response to this old battle cry is from Senate Chaplain
  =Richard Halverson:

  ="All right then, what if we arranged for a prayer to be made at
                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
  =graduation ceremony ... by a rabbi?"
   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
   -- 
  =Aaron (Barnhart@netcom.com) -- posting from Evanston, Illinois

Actually, this was the point of Lee vs. Weisman. The Weismans,
who are jewish, objected to a prayer given in a public school
graduation ceremony by a priest. The next year, they objected
to the prayer given by a rabbi. Type of religion/denomination was not
a concern, but that a _public_ school was acting out its bounds
(being an extension of gov't) was.


The point is that the state has no
business in promoting _any_ religion over any other,
or promoting religion over "non-religion" (agnosticism, atheism).
Nor does the state have any business in promoting non-religion
over religion. The state is to have nothing to do with it.
This will not prevent those who do not represent the gov't (either
directly or indirectly) who wish to pray on their own from
doing so, and, in so doing this, does not stifle free speech.

-Chaplin.
--
===========================================================================
Michael Chaplin                    Language is a virus from outer space.
michael@albert.bu.edu                     - William S. Burroughs

The Einstein Papers Project        The opinions contained herein reflect
Boston University                      neither those of the project, 
Boston, Massachusetts, U.S.A.          nor those of Albert Einstein.
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
From: greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (J. S. Greenfield)
Subject: Re: Limiting religious speech
Organization: Syracuse University, CIS Dept.
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 92 09:28:01 EDT

In article <1992Aug20.160815.5222@hubcap.clemson.edu> grimlok@hubcap.clemson.edu (Mike Percy) writes:
>
>So, if we are to have prayer at the behest and control of the
>government, it had better be done fairly.  Any prayers must be
>universally acceptable to all the represented religions or each religion
>should be represented with its own prayers.

While I expect that you have the best of intentions, this suggestion
becomes an oxymoron if we term aetheism (and agnosticism) a "religion."

It is *impossible* to construct a "universally acceptable" religious prayer
or practice of any sort.

-- 
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
From: wayne@mathematik.uni-Bremen.de (Wayne Tvedt)
Subject: Re: Praying at graduation (was: U. of Illinois may remove...)
Organization: 250 Million Pet Rocks
Distribution: world 
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 16:40:36 GMT
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

kornkven@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Ed Kornkven) writes:
> Have you tried to pray at a graduation ceremony lately?  I didn't
> think so-- that's your shiny new "freedom of religion".  Folks, we
> just barely have any Constitution left.  Those of you who are
> genuinely concerned about our liberties ought to start here.

	I didn't try to pray at my graduation ceremony, but a student
next to me did.  Almost as soon as he bowed his head, he was dragged
from the aisle and hauled away by the vice principal.  We never saw
him again, and were too afraid to ask... 

--
Wayne Tvedt                                     wayne@mathematik.uni-bremen.de
                                              ...fold globally, expand locally
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
From: bear@tigger.cs.Colorado.EDU (Bear Giles)
Subject: Dead Fetuses on TV
Keywords: political debate
Organization: National Oceanic & Atmospheric Adminstration / Boulder Labs
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 01:15:38 GMT

For your entertainment...

A Denver politican has decided to prove how much he respects the preborn
by parading their dead bodies on TV.  (There, that's out of my system...
the one thing I that really angers me about the abortion debate is the
posturing of pro-lifers about the sanctity of human life -- then they
carry around pickled humans (by their definition) solely to upset people).

Matt Noah, Christian Pro-Life Party founder and candidate for the open
Senate seat, is airing TV ads showing aborted fetuses during the _Maury
Povich_ and _Phil Donahue_ show (once each).  These shows air in
midafternoons in Denver.

Court challenges to the commercials were thrown out since Mr Noah is a
'bona fide' political candidate -- two judges ruled his commericals must
air unedited and at the time of Mr Noah's choosing.  (More precisely,
they ruled the question was out of their jurisdiction and referred the
matter to FCC regulations).

These commericals, and Mr Noah's previous actions (the _Rocky Mountain
News_ article today mentions that Mr Noah has been arrested twice, last
time in April for "'praying loudly' to disrupt a Queer Town meeting in
Boulder.") have lead many people to question the FCC ruling granting
unlimited access to the airwaves for political candidates.

(As I read this, Mr Noah is using the FCC rules to protect his right to
air controversial ads in mid-afternoon, but he _abused_ his right of free
speech solely to disrupt a community meeting because it was focused on
'gay' issues.  (If he had prayed softly he would have been 'witnessing'
for Christ, protected speech.  He prayed loudly so he would disrupt the
meeting)).  (Okay, I'll get off my soapbox again...)

I called the "Political Scene" reporter at the RMN after his editoral
column came out in favor of not requiring acceptence of all political
ads and left a long voice-mail message about TCI Cable in Indiana
refusing to air ads from a pro-hemp organization since it "contradicts
TCI's strong anti-drug stance", explaining the risks of mass media
outlets refusing to air _any_ ads by political organizations/candidates
with differing views (or relegating 'incorrect' ads to 3 AM slots),
but I haven't heard back from him.

That about covers it, except for the editoral comments in the papers.
I could enter them if there's an interest (at least for the _RMN_; I'd
have to look for someone with an old _Denver Post_)...


Bear Giles
bear@fsl.noaa.gov
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
From: greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (J. S. Greenfield)
Subject: Re: Limiting religious speech
Organization: Syracuse University, CIS Dept.
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 92 09:42:47 EDT

In article <86660@netnews.upenn.edu> rsk@circ.upenn.edu writes:
>
>Lee v. Weisman does not hold that "prayer at graduation ceremonies
>is unconstitutional".  It holds that "invocations and benedictions at
>public-high-school ceremonies" are unconstitutional.  (See 91-744,
>which mentions this in passing; I'd cite the decision itself, but I don't
>know the case number.)
>
>Things which are not unconstitutional, according to my best understanding
>of this decision, include:
>
>1. Prayer at parochial high-school graduations.

Private organizations are not part of the State--they can do whatever they
want.  Is this even mentioned in *this* case?  If so, its nothing new.

>2. Prayer at college or university graduations.

I don't see how this follows from the summaries of the opinion I have seen.
Private schools, as always, can do as they please.  Public schools, on the
other hand may well be prohibited.  This decision seems to have left the
door open by stating that such state-imposed religion was of particular
concern to elementary and secondary school-children.  (And it made reference
to a case in which bendictions at the start of a legislative session was
found acceptable.)

However, I think it is unreasonable to suggest that this decision goes so
far as to imply that public universities may have benedictions at their
graduation ceremonies.

>3. Private, silent prayer at any time during any graduation.

??!!  AND HOW WOULD THEY KNOW ANYWAY???!

I think it is fairly obvious that the constitution does not permit the
government to undertake thought control...


>4. Auxiliary ceremonies involving prayer and conducted by those of a particular faith;
>	e.g. if a local synagogue wished to hold a reception for graduates
>	of a neighborhood high school, they could do so, and could conduct
>	prayers if they wished.

Once again, private organizations may do what they wish...


-- 
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
From: aultj@rpi.edu (Jim Ault)
Subject: Re: Limiting religious speech
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy NY
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 21:43:36 GMT

In article <1992Aug20.155329.2521@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> rwd4f@poe.acc.Virginia.EDU (Rob Dobson) writes:

   >How many of you are dismayed at the recent Supreme Court ruling in
   >Lee v. Weisman, which held prayer at graduation ceremonies
   >unconstitutional?   If this isn't stifling free speech, what is? 

   This decision did NOT stifle free speech. It held that opening a
   graduation with a prayer violated the establishment clause of the
   1st amendment, and was therefore illegal. In no way does this
   decision prevent anyone from praying at graduation, EXCEPT the
   person at the microphone, who is speaking with state $$ and
   therefore prohibited from praying while he is at the mike.

How is a rabbi (the person in the Lee v. Weisman case) speaking with
state money?  The rabbi is not employed by the state at all. 

What about school teachers who recite the pledge of allegiance?  It
mentions God.  Some of you probably want to strike that reference too.

You say the state should have nothing to do with religion, but in
trying to remove all references to God, the state is instead showing
open hostility to religion.

You have a lot of work to do because of the strong Christian
foundations of this country.  Who is going to remove the ten
commandments from the walls of the Supreme Court?  (I see many of you
pulling out your chisels as I speak. :-)

This idea that anything or anyone that accepts state money is an
extension of the government is ridiculous.  These rulings are most
clearly biased against those who believe in God.    If anything is
being established, it is secular humanism (which was classified as a
religion by the Supreme Court in the 60's).

I will end with a quote from George Will (June 28, 1992) about the Lee
v. Weisman decision:

"
Scalia notes that three years ago, Justice Kennedy wrote that the
meaning of the Establishment Clause "is to be determined by reference
to historical practices and understandings."  Now Kennedy, who
evidently lacks any intellectual compass, find unconstitutional a
tradition as old as public-school graduation ceremonies.  The court,
Scalia says, has invented "a boundless, and boundlessly manipulable,
test of psychological coercion."  The court's new "psycho-coercion
test" of "establishment" is "as infinitely expandable as the reasons
for psychotherapy itself."
"

Jim Ault, ITS Systems Programmer, aultj@rpi.edu    <><




Newsgroups: alt.censorship
From: yergeau@leland.Stanford.EDU (Dan Yergeau)
Subject: Re: Limiting religious speech
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 92 17:29:35 GMT

In article <4-hy-yq@rpi.edu>, aultj@rpi.edu (Jim Ault) writes:
|> 
|> Ok, here's a question for anti-censorship people:
|> 
|> How many of you are dismayed at the recent Supreme Court ruling in
|> Lee v. Weisman, which held prayer at graduation ceremonies
|> unconstitutional?   If this isn't stifling free speech, what is? 

The decision did not place any restrictions on individual speech.
It just stated that (any) religion (or religious activity) cannot
be an *official* part of a state sponsored event.  If I am
incorrect in this assessment, please let me know.

Did the decision say that the valedictorian (or any other, 
non-state employed or endorsed person) could not mention his 
god at the ceremony?  I doubt it.  

Is there an ftp site where we can get the text of the decision?

|> Let's all raise our voices and demand that this be overturned.

If you want it overturned, try on its Constitutional merit.
There was certainly no written law mandating that there must be 
a prayer at the graduation ceremony.  But, still, the actions 
of the state, in including a prayer as an official part of the 
ceremony, are respecting an establishment of religion.

-- 
Dan Yergeau                         He's dead Jim.  Take his phaser
yergeau@gloworm.Stanford.EDU        and I'll get his wallet.
Xref: sparky alt.censorship:6914 rec.arts.fine:575