HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [news.admin.policy]  Re: Groups used to distribute illegal material
Originator: daemon@eff.org
Organization: EFF mail-news gateway
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 11:41:57 GMT


Newsgroups: news.admin.policy
From: bohrer@mcc.com (Bill Bohrer)
Subject:  Re: Groups used to distribute illegal material
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 21:06:50 GMT

In article <1992Aug13.171742.15946@pony.Ingres.COM> sergio@Ingres.COM (Sergio L Aponte) writes:
>	Another question is how "censorship" of a particular group solves
>	the problem.
>
>	After all, if enough sites ban a pictures group, won't the pictures
>	start showing up somewhere else? Does eliminating a group that has
>	an ofensive "charter" aliminates the questionable articles off your
>	feed? NOT!
>
>	In truth, I think the issue will come up more and more. With the
>	"sexual harrasement" (sp?) focus, many companies/universities might not
>	want to be involved with questionable groups, deciding to drop it vs
>	entering a long argument about it. After all, if ONE person finds it
>	offensive, no matter if it is rec.humor, it is cause enough for a
>	"harrasement" (at least I am consistent on the spelling!) acusation.
>--

It's not legally harrassment because no one is forcing anyone to read
these groups.

And by the way, Mount Holyoke is a small WOMEN'S college in
Massachusetts; Why DON'T you just drop a.b.e.p??  I doubt there are
that many women interested in this group, which is reason enough to
drop a group, rather than because the NEWS-ADMIN finds it
objectionable and makes up some stupid excuse that he's protectin
COPYRIGHT ownership for christ sake.

-- 
Certainly these are my own opinions.  I WISH they were my
employer's as well...
-- 
*
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [news.admin]  Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Originator: daemon@eff.org
Organization: EFF mail-news gateway
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 04:59:30 GMT


From: mcb@foucault.postmodern.com (Michael C. Berch)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject:  Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Date: 12 Aug 92 07:04:29 GMT

In the referenced article, clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca (Chris Lewis) writes:
> [With respect to alt.sex.bondage:]
> The suggestion simply was: come on guys, do us a favour.  We'd like
> to receive the main stuff, but the odd bit gives our government
> indigestion.  How about a split?  Or a little gentle reminder from
> time to time to get the odd posting redirected to somewhere more
> appropriate.

I've stayed out of this so far, but I don't think you understand how
offensive I (and others) find the above paragraph.  I have absolutely
no interest in any cooperation, no matter how slight, with any form of
state censorship.  I believe that censorship is not merely evil but Evil, 
and if your government gives you problems about that, I think you
should oppose them.  I have no interest in giving even trivial respect
to Canadian laws that restrict freedom of expression.  I consider them
an offense to human rights and urge you to oppose them, to struggle
against them, to rise up and dismantle the institutions that
implement them, by means of the ballot, by means of protest, civil
disobedience, demonstration, samizdat, interference, and unblinking 
opposition.

And to that end I believe that it is not only a right but a duty of
Americans to make it as difficult as possible for Canadian (or any
other state's) censors to do their job.  If the Ontario Film Review
Board's building was on fire, believe me, (other than to rescue
trapped people), I would not put water on it.  

So if censorship (and pressures to resist it, i.e., by cross-border sites
that send you "illegal" material) gives you a problem, get on your
MLA's case.  Don't come whining to Americans telling us to cool it; I
think instead we should turn up the heat. 

Just Say NO to censors -- AND those who collaborate with them.

--
Michael C. Berch  
mcb@postmodern.com
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [news.admin.policy]  Re: Groups used to distribute illegal material
Originator: daemon@eff.org
Organization: EFF mail-news gateway
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 17:16:32 GMT


Newsgroups: news.admin.policy
From: dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Dave Hayes)
Subject:  Re: Groups used to distribute illegal material
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 22:19:44 GMT

stantbat@iastate.edu (John S Sinnott) writes:
>An interesting question was brought up:  Is it defensible to allow access to
>a newsgroup that distributes illegal material...
>I would ask the powers that be to prove someone has broken the law.

I agree wholeheartedly. It is not clear, from the context of USENET
(which has no real legal context in terms of legality, and is not
specifically under any one government's body of law) whether anything
posted here is illegal.

-- 
Dave Hayes - Network & Communications Engineering - JPL / NASA - Pasadena CA
dave@elxr.jpl.nasa.gov       dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov         ...usc!elroy!dxh

    He who has self-conceit in his head - 
         Do not imagine that he will ever hear the truth.
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [news.admin]  Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Originator: daemon@eff.org
Organization: EFF mail-news gateway
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 04:58:44 GMT


From: hartman@ulogic.UUCP (Richard M. Hartman)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject:  Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Date: 11 Aug 92 16:03:26 GMT

In article <1992Aug10.233103.12268@fid.morgan.com> sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart) writes:
>In article <3699@ecicrl.ocunix.on.ca> clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca
>(Chris Lewis) writes:
>
>>The problem is that *some* of the postings to a.s.b. are apparently
>>beyond what the law will accept.
>
>"The" law?  USENET is worldwide; many different laws apply to various
>portions of it.

Yup. And a.s.b is only being rejected by "various portions" of it,
according to their laws &/or regulations.

>If you don't want to receive the group, that's your privilege
>(assuming you're the system's owner or owner's representative).
>Otherwise, you should confine yourself to not reading it.

That is what they (the system's owners) did.  Then people started
all this "you can't do that" b*tching and moaning.  The U of Manitoba
(I think it was) cut of a.s.b because it was found to be in violation
of the Canadian laws.  The group is still in violation even if only
one article is the actual culprit.  So they cut it off.  If everyone
said as you did "that's their privilige" we wouldn't be here in this
thread.


		-Richard Hartman
		hartman@ulogic.COM

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
"Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men?"
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: [news.admin.policy]  Re: Groups used to distribute illegal material
Date: 14 Aug 92 05:35:22 GMT
Organization: EFF mail-news gateway
Originator: daemon@eff.org


Newsgroups: news.admin.policy
From: jbotz@mtholyoke.edu (Jurgen Botz)
Subject:  Re: Groups used to distribute illegal material
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 13:53:39 GMT

In article <1992Aug13.210650.16240@mcc.com> bohrer@mcc.com (Bill Bohrer) writes:
>It's not legally harrassment because no one is forcing anyone to read
>these groups.
>
>And by the way, Mount Holyoke is a small WOMEN'S college in
>Massachusetts; Why DON'T you just drop a.b.e.p??  I doubt there are
>that many women interested in this group, which is reason enough to
>drop a group, rather than because the NEWS-ADMIN finds it
>objectionable and makes up some stupid excuse that he's protectin
>COPYRIGHT ownership for christ sake.

Look, asshole, I don't make stupid excuses.  I don't have any intention
of judging when a newsgroup is "popular" enough to carry and when it's
not.  That is NOT an objective meassure... legality is.  I didn't raise
this is issue because I find it objectionable, I raised this issue because
I'm afraid the question of legality is giving the would-be censors 
ammunition and I'd like to pre-empt that, got it?  What you're advocating
is that I make arbitrary and unilateral decissions about what I'm going
to carry, and I have no intention of doing that.

And as a matter of fact, I know that some people here ARE interested
in this group (I don't know who, but it's being read).

- Jurgen Botz
From: evansmp@uhura.aston.ac.uk (Mark Evans)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: [news.admin.policy]  Re: Groups used to distribute illegal material
Date: 17 Aug 92 08:47:39 GMT
Organization: Aston University

sbrack@jupiter.cse.UTOLEDO.edu (Steven S. Brack) writes:
: 
: 	If I own a mail box, and mail gets delivered to it, by your
: 	argument, I have a right to open it and decide whether to pass it
: 	to its intended recipient or not.  After all, if it's not important
: 	to me, it's only taking up space.

The only case I know where that is true is where you have mail adressed
to someone in some sort of formal capacity which you now hold.
e.g. J Blogs, Membership Secretary, Undewater Photography society.
If I am Membership Secretary of this organisation (or someone acting
in that capacity) then I can open the mail, even if I am not J Blogs
other than that I have no Business opening it for the purpose described
above.
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Evans                                   |evansmp@uhura.aston.ac.uk
+(44) 21 565 1979 (Home)                     |evansmp@cs.aston.ac.uk
+(44) 21 359 6531 x4039 (Office)             |
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [news.admin.policy]  Re: Groups used to distribute illegal material
Originator: daemon@eff.org
Organization: EFF mail-news gateway
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 11:41:17 GMT


From: karlr@think.com (Karl Rotstan)
Newsgroups: news.admin.policy
Subject:  Re: Groups used to distribute illegal material
Date: 13 Aug 1992 20:30:19 GMT

In article <stantbat.713725545@vincent1.iastate.edu> stantbat@iastate.edu (John S Sinnott) writes:
>An interesting question was brought up:  Is it defensible to allow access to
>a newsgroup that distributes illegal material.  The example given was one
>of the alt.sex.picture groups where copywrited material is often posted.
>
>I think that we can all agree that the burden of proff is on the person 
>making the accusation.  Just which picture is copywritten, and is being
>posted without perrmission.  To my knowledge, there has never been a case
>involving an adult magazine publisher suing a BBS or network because of
>.gif files.  


I read (in Boardwatch I believe) that a bbs on the west coast which created
the "Maxipics" famous to those who view porno gifs is in the process of
being sued by Playboy or Penthouse for precisely this reason.  Apparently,
the magazine discovered that "Maxi" had been harassing various BBS's for
posting his "copyrighted" scanned gifs without giving him any money.  
The magazine did a little "turnabout is fair play" against him.  I have no
further information about this, but would be interested in seeing some

karl...
Xref: sparky alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:2669 news.admin:7231 alt.censorship:7080
From: news@wolves.uucp (The Wolfe of the Den)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,news.admin,alt.censorship
Subject: Re: Limiting religious speech
Date: 23 Aug 92 00:09:39 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Wolves Den UNIX
X-Md4-Signature: ab8cc286ff712823d73baafa2e41c6b2

bernman@symphony.cc.purdue.edu (Bernie Hoefer) writes:
>dh4j+@andrew.cmu.edu (David O Hunt) writes:
>---
>>If you want to pray at graduation, feel free.  Nobody's stopping it.
>>The
>>decision was to prevent _organized_ prayer.  e.g.  Valedictorian says
>>"Let us now thank the Lord who enabled us to graduate" type of thing.
>>
>>Same thing with prayer in schools - nobody is saying you can't pray.  
>>What they're saying is that prayer cannot be organized and sanctioned
>>(purposefully or by default).
>---
>
>	I thought the decision prevents SCHOOL OFFICIALS from
>promoting prayer.  A school official cannot ask that a prayer
>be said.
>	However, does this decision not work both ways?  If
>a school official cannot promote a prayer, he or she cannot
>discourage it, either.  Would a valedictorian, in his or her
>speech, be allowed to say a prayer or give thanks to his or her
>god?  Since the valedictorian is not a school official
>(he or she not on the government's payroll) it would not be
>a case of "government" promoting religion.  But if the school
>official tried to prevent the valedictorian from saying anything
>about god in his or her speech, would not this ruling be
>in favor of the valedictorian?

	The Valedictorian and other speakers at a public school function
are "acting under color of authority" and have been approved and guided
by the school officials to do what is being done.

	What is getting ridiculous is the extent to which speech is
being restricted in the attempt to prevent any mention of "religion" in
the public schools.  When a student speaker is prohibited from
mentioning the strong influence of religion in their own life, without
attempting to impose any expectations on the others, or a student
privately bowing their head to pray silently in a non-disturbing way
gets pulled from the assembly, then things have gone too far.

	There is a disturbing trend to suppressing individual
perogatives in the attempt to apply the law "equally."  All this does is
enforce the tyranny of the majority even more.
-- 
Usenet Net News Administrator @ The Wolves Den  (G. Wolfe Woodbury)
news%wolves@cs.duke.edu     ...duke!wolves!news     "We don't need no
There is a real person who watches this account.   stinking disclaimers"
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [news.admin.policy]  Re: Groups used to distribute illegal material
Originator: daemon@eff.org
Organization: EFF mail-news gateway
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 11:42:18 GMT


Newsgroups: news.admin.policy
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject:  Re: Groups used to distribute illegal material
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 21:08:22 GMT

In <16ea7qINNg7u@network.ucsd.edu> brian@ucsd.edu (Brian Kantor) writes:

>I too am concerned about the content of some of the groups.  It is not
>the bandwidth or moral issues that are the problem, but that indeed
>there are copyright violations taking place.

>I believe that we who maintain the news software should be able to treat
>the material passing through our sites as though we were solely a
>carrier - much like the telephone system, UPS, and other common
>carriers.  In that manner, our site would not be liable for illegalities
>committed by users of the system, since we do not assume to restrict
>their posting content.

>However, I do believe that anyone posting copyrighted material to the
>net in violation of that copyright can, will, and should be liable to
>the copyright owner.  That's only fair.

	As I understand it from the debate here at Iowa State (for more
information, send e-mail to me and I'll see about getting you on the
mailing list of the Students for Electronic Freedom.  The "leader" is
Mike Begley, spam@iastate.edu, and he might be a better contact.),
if you do not censor or restrict your newsfeed you stand a better chance
of defending yourself because you are not taking it upon yourself to
filter out the inappropriate stuff.  Once you start restricting, then
it follows that you are responsible for the content of what is on your
news server.

	Personally, I've always felt it was the responsibility of the
poster to make sure everything fits within copyright and obscenity
laws, and that they should be the ones prosecuted if necessary.  An
article can be cancelled, so let the author stay responsible.  Most
news sites also pass their feed along to others, so there is a legit
reason for viewing your site as just a carrier like the phone company.

<Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 |"There'll be angels on Ariels in leather>
<z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu | and chrome, Ridin' down from heaven    >
<viking@iastate.edu      | just to carry me home." -- R. Thompson >
< ISU thinks I need more education, which they provide for a fee. >

Xref: sparky alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:2579 alt.alt:95
From: sbrack@jupiter.cse.utoledo.edu (Steven S. Brack)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.alt
Subject: Re: [news.admin.policy]  Re: Groups used to distribute illegal material
Date: 13 Aug 92 23:12:52 GMT

: From: damon@umbc4.umbc.edu (Mr. Damon Kelly; ACS (RJE))
: Subject:  Re: Groups used to distribute illegal material
: 
: [jboltz@mtholyoke.edu wants to refuse to receive the newsgroups that
:  contain sexually explicit material because of copyright violations,
:  among some other possible reasons.]
: 
: I'd support your position, BUT you'd have to drop your USENET feed entirely.
: Most newsgroups, at one time or another, carry some material that was posted
: without permission from the copyright holder.

	The way international copyright law stands, which is enforced on the
	federal level in the U.S., every word you say is *by default* 
	copyrighted.  My followup to your post is a violation of copyright
	laws.  I'm waiting for them to come & take me away.  8)

: You CAN do it...but you would have to filter your incoming/outgoing feeds
: AND assign someone to the Library of Congress to check out whether any of the
: hundreds/thousands of postings that travel through your system violate
: copyright laws.

	Not to mention assigning full-time staff to check libraries, reading 
	rooms, bulletin boards, and bathroom walls for any copyright violation.
: 
: It will possibly be worth it, if your system owners have the budget,
: manpower and time to do so.
: 
: (I seriously doubt it.)

	I have no doubts about the overwhelmingly daft nature of the idea. 
	We don't throw the baby out with the bathwater; Likewise, we should
	not throw all the "good" (IMO, a very subjective term) articles out
	along with the "bad."    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


: 
: -d
: 
: -- 
: During his stint at Marvel, he brought you Cable.  Striking out on his own
: about a year or two later, he debuts another character: Shaft.
: And now, Rob Liefeld, the Genius of All-Macho Comics, brings you his NEW
: bombshell: ELEVATOR. Watch for him! -Ppd from dvandom@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu
-- 
Steven S. Brack                    |          sbrack@jupiter.cse.utoledo.edu
2021 Roanwood Drive                |         STU0061@uoft01.utoledo.edu
Toledo, Ohio      43620   ________/^\________  brack@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu 
+1 419 GR4 1010           | MY OWN OPINIONS | sbrack@maine.cse.utoledo.edu 
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [news.admin.policy]  UUNET's formal policy on copyrights
Originator: daemon@eff.org
Organization: EFF mail-news gateway
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 14:49:59 GMT


From: gt5878b@prism.gatech.EDU (Eddie Maise)
Newsgroups: news.admin.policy
Subject:  UUNET's formal policy on copyrights
Date: 14 Aug 92 22:07:52 GMT

In <BszA6L.2E9@mtholyoke.edu> jbotz@mtholyoke.edu (Jurgen Botz) writes:

>o  If (when) this issue does result in law-suits, it is unlikely to be
>   here at my small institution, and more likely will involve an organization
>   such as UUNET which is already prepared for this eventuality and has
>   formalized it's policy on the issue.

Could someone please direct me towards a reference for UUNET's formal
policy?  My specific questions: What is it?  How was it settled upon?

A related question, one that I have been wondering since Jurgen Botz
started this thread (in a marvelously coherent and rational manner,
by the way): the Electronic Frontier Foundation has (I believe) as one
of it's goals the development and promotion of a "sensible" (my word,
not theirs) public policy towards computer communication.  Can someone
comment on their progress towards developing well-stated principles
that would form such a policy?  Does UUNET's policy relate to the
EFF's work in any way?

These questions are probably not well suited for discussion on this
group, so email replies are appreciated.  I will of course summarize
responses and post if appropriate.

Eddie Maise   gt5878b@cad.gatech.edu   Serving Donuts on Another Planet

Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.censorship]  Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Originator: daemon@eff.org
Organization: EFF mail-news gateway
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 05:28:52 GMT


Newsgroups: alt.censorship
From: cmort@NCoast.ORG (Christopher Morton)
Subject:  Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 02:23:53 GMT

As quoted from <1992Aug15.213252.22415@sfu.ca> by kiefer@connext.ucs.sfu.ca (Theresa Kiefer):

> The question of censorship is a tricky one, however, because censors after all,
> exist to censor, and they don't usually act in the interests of women when they  
> doit - they act as representatives of the state, and this is problematic to say  
> the least.

Censors rarely if ever act in anyone's interest but their own, whatever that
might be.

> However, at SFU, I think it is safe to say that the removal of the alt.sex  
> groups will not prevent anyone from having access to pornographic ideas if  
> these are of interest to them.  All they have to do is turn on the television,  
> if they want access to the ideas.  Sexually explicit pictoral material is  
> available in many places.  I'm not so sure the discussion groups should have  
> been cancelled, since these were often a legitimate forum for discourse, and do  
> not intrude on people wandering through a given lab in the way that an  
> unencoded .gif file has a way of doing...  Freedom of speech is not absolute.
> In a community, such as SFU, it is both relevant and important to consider the 
> needs of the various constituants in order to provide a tolerant and inclusive
> environment for learning.  This includes the unlearning of sexism.

I'd say that it includes your right to advocate the unlearning of sexism, just
as it includes the right of somebody else to advocate the contrary.


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

"Well whose opinions did you THINK these were...?" 
------------------------------------------------------------------  
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk