From: edsall@iastate.edu (David M Edsall)
Subject: ONE YEAR AGO: New news censorship policy at Iowa State University
Keywords: bogus!
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 23:05:00 GMT

In <1991Dec16.191620.21567@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:

>The Iowa State University policy should, in my opinion, be changed to
>better respect intellectual freedom by more accurately reflecting
>library policy (and the law).

>> *** ISU Usenet Access Policy ***

>> The following policy regarding news service from "news.iastate.edu" will be
>> placed into effect on January 6, 1992.  If you wish 
>> to opt for a different level
>> of service than Standard (as described in the policy statement), 
>> the forms are
>> available now in the Computation Center administrative office, 291 Durham
>> Center.

>I believe that the requirement that one sign a form to get access to
>controversial newsgroups is a violation of the Library Bill of Rights.
>Here is an excerpt from the American Library Association's policy
>statement "Regulations, Policies, and Procedures Affecting Access to
>Library Resources and Services":

>[The full text of this statement is appended]

>---------start--------
>Libraries serve the function of making ideas and information available to all
>members of the society, without discrimination.  Publicly supported libraries
>provide access to information for all without imposing barriers which limit or
>prevent library users, including the indigent or the economically
>disadvantaged, from exercising their full constitutional rights.  Publicly
>supported libraries' traditional commitment to free public service is integral
>to their nature and function.  Publicly supported libraries, like public
>schools and universities, are supported in part from a recognition that
>information and education are essential components of informed self-
>government.

>The right of free access to information for all individuals is basic to all
>library service.  The central thrust of the LIBRARY BILL OF RIGHTS is to
>protect and encourage the free flow of information and ideas.  Article 5
>protects the rights of an individual to use a library regardless of origin,
>age, background, or views.  The American Library Association urges all
>libraries to set policies and procedures that reflect the basic tenets of the
>LIBRARY BILL OF RIGHTS, within the framework of Constitutional imperatives and
>limitations.

>Many libraries adopt administrative policies and procedures to govern their
>order and use, the comfort and safety of patrons and staff, and the protection
>of resources, services, and facilities.  Such policies and procedures affect
>access, and must not become a convenient means for removing or restricting
>access to controversial materials, limiting access to facilities, programs, or
>exhibits, or for discriminating against specific individuals or groups of
>library patrons.  Administrative policies and procedures which infringe on
>equitable access to library buildings, services, and resources, the privacy of
>the individual, or the right to read, violate the LIBRARY BILL OF RIGHTS.
>Further, if such policies have the effect of impermissible discrimination
>against individuals or particular groups of library users, they are likely to
>violate First Amendment rights.  The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized that
>"`the right to receive ideas follows ineluctably from the sender's First
>Amendment right to send them. . . . More importantly, the right to receive
>ideas is a necessary predicate to the recipient's meaningful exercise of his
>own rights such as speech, press, and political freedom' (emphasis in
>original) Board of Education, Island Trees Union Free School District No. 26
>v. Pico, 457 U.S. 853, 866-67 (1982) (plurality opinion)."5   Respect for
>these rights is central to the function of any government supported library
>for these rights define the library's purpose."
>----------end----------

>> A document describing Usenet News and the development of this policy is
>> available via anonymous ftp from "ftp.iastate.edu".  Simply establish an ftp
>> session using the user name "anonymous" and any password and get the document
>> "/netinfo/news/usenet-news-policy".  Also in that directory, 
>>  you will find the
>> list of newsgroups excluded from the Standard offering in the file
>> "/netinfo/news/usenet-news-std-list".  
>> (As noted below, this list will also be 
>> posted to "isu.newsgroups" each month.
>> 
>> Usenet News Policy
>> 
>> The Computation Center maintains a news server offering Usenet News lists for
>> the Iowa State University community.  This offering of service
>> must comply with
>> federal, state, and local laws; policies of the Iowa Board of
>> Regents and Iowa
>> State University; 

>This is of course a truism. What is the policy of Iowa State
>University? The policy of most universities (as expressed in their
>student codes) prohibits institutional censorship. Which laws are you
>referring to? How do these laws affect the University Library?

>> and be within the guidelines of any agreements between the
>> university and local, regional, national, or international computer networks.

>> The Usenet News Administrator is responsible for the day-to-day 
>> management of the
>> service on the Iowa State University campus.  Any material, particularly
>> locally-posted material, which could be harmful to
>> a specific individual(s) may
>> be removed by the Usenet News Administrator.

>What kind of harm? If the answer is mere offensive, this assertion of
>authority violates library policy and likely the law. 

>Article two of the Library Bill of Rights says: "Materials should not
>be proscribed or removed because of partisan or doctrinal
>disapproval." [full statement enclosed].

>The American Library Association statement on "Diversity in Collection
>Development" says "Librarians have a professional responsibility to be
>inclusive, not exclusive, in collection development and in the
>provision of interlibrary loan.  Access to all materials legally
>obtainable should be assured to the user, and policies should not
>unjustly exclude materials even if they are offensive to the librarian
>or the user." [full statement enclosed]

>American Library Association Policy also prohibits the removal of
>material on the say-so on one person. For information on how material
>should be selected (and deselected) see the ALA Workbook for Selection
>Policy Writing.  Although aimed at textbook and library book selection
>in grade and high schools, it also seems applicable to newsgroup
>selection (and deselection). It includes information about how create
>a selection policy and how to handle complaints. It also includes a
>sample selection policy. The full text of the Workbook is available
>on-line via anonymous ftp as
>ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/library/selection-workbook.ala. Or send
>email to archive-server@eff.org. Include the line
>  send library-policies selection-workbook.ala

>The removal of an offensive note would also violate the law. Just as a
>state university generally can not remove an article from the student
>newspaper, it (likely) generally can not remove a student's article
>from a newsgroups.

>Like any organization, Iowa State University must work within its
>charter.  Part of this charter is the U.S. Constitution. The Supreme
>Court has said that the Constitution limits the government's authority
>to control the media that owns and controls. The rational is that it
>would be dangerous for a Government that is elected by the people to
>have too much control on what the people can say and read.

>The Supreme Court calls created forums, like a student newspaper or
>campus mail systems, limited public forums. It says that the
>government can limited who may access these forums and/or what topics
>may be discussed. But otherwise, "it is bound by the same standards as
>apply in a traditional public forum"; "content-based prohibition must
>be narrowly drawn to effectuate a compelling state interest." For
>example, viewpoint-based discrimination is forbidden.
>[annotated references enclosed]

>> News lists which have large 
>> resource requirements which adversely affect general use of
>> Usenet News may be 
>> restricted in some form by the Usenet News Administrator.


>> Any news list may contain material which is unfamiliar, 
>> unorthodox or unpopular
>> to some.  Occasionally, even ordinary news lists may contain material which a
>> reader finds objectionable.   Members of the university 
>> community have the right
>> to request a review of particular material by contacting the Usenet News 
>> Administrator in writing.  An alternative consistent with the Intellectual 
>> Freedom Statement (as adopted by the American Library Association Council on 
>> June 25, 1971) would be to recognize that each item available within Usenet 
>> News is a view or mode of expression of the person posting the
>> material.  The presentation of such material in Usenet News does not
>> imply any endorsement by those providing the news service or by those
>> subscribing to it.  This suggested alternative does not apply to the
>> public display of offensive materials, only to the presence of
>> material within Usenet.  A separate policy governs the public display
>> of material.

>> Three variations of Usenet News lists are offered.  These are called
>> the Focused News List, the Standard News List, and the Full News List.
>> 
>> The purpose of the Focused News List is to provide an alternative to
>> those who want their computer to only access news lists which appear
>> to be focused on academic information directly rather than hobby,
>> recreational, or undefined areas.  The Focused News List contains all
>> news lists except the alternative and recreational hierarchies (i.e.,
>> "alt" and "rec").  Other hierarchies may also be excluded in the
>> future if their primary focus appears to be away from academic
>> information.
>> 
>> The purpose of the Standard News List is to provide access to the
>> lists which are unlikely to evoke questions regarding access, use or
>> distribution of the material.  Hence, the Standard News List offering
>> will explicitly exclude some news groups.  The Standard offering will
>> be the default for campus use.  The excluded lists are those which by
>> their name and accompanying description appear to offer potential
>> conflicts with law, (particularly with child protection and
>> pornography law) or with policies such as the sexual harassment
>> policy.  A list of the excluded news lists will be posted monthly to
>> the newsgroup "isu.newsgroups" with the subject heading "Monthly
>> Posting -- ISU Usenet Access Policy - Standard List".  If other news
>> lists are created which appear to offer these same potential
>> conflicts, they will be added to the excluded list.

>Here is what the American Library Association has to say in
>their Statement on Labeling:

>--------start----(full statement)
>                            STATEMENT ON LABELING

>                An Interpretation of the LIBRARY BILL OF RIGHTS


>Labeling is the practice of describing or designating materials by affixing a
>prejudicial label and/or segregating them by a prejudicial system.  The
>American Library Association opposes these means of predisposing people's
>attitudes toward library materials for the following reasons:

>1.    Labeling is an attempt to prejudice attitudes and as such, it is a
>      censor's tool.

>2.    Some find it easy and even proper, according to their ethics, to
>      establish criteria for judging publications as objectionable.  However,
>      injustice and ignorance rather than justice and enlightenment result
>      from such practices, and the American Library Association opposes the
>      establishment of such criteria.

>3.    Libraries do not advocate the ideas found in their collections.  The
>      presence of books and other resources in a library does not indicate
>      endorsement of their contents by the library.

>A variety of private organizations promulgate rating systems and/or review
>materials as a means of advising either their members or the general public
>concerning their opinions of the contents and suitability or appropriate age
>for use of certain books, films, recordings, or other materials.  For the
>library to adopt or enforce any of these private systems, to attach such
>ratings to library materials, to include them in bibliographic records,
>library catalogs, or other finding aids, or otherwise to endorse them would
>violate the LIBRARY BILL OF RIGHTS.

>While some attempts have been made to adopt these systems into law, the
>constitutionality of such measures is extremely questionable. If such
>legislation is passed which applies within a library's jurisdiction, the
>library should seek competent legal advice concerning its applicability to
>library operations.

>Publishers, industry groups, and distributors sometimes add ratings to
>material or include them as part of their packaging.  Librarians should not
>endorse such practices.  However, removing or obliterating such ratings -- if
>placed there by or with permission of the copyright holder -- could constitute
>expurgation, which is also unacceptable.

>The American Library Association opposes efforts which aim at closing any path
>to knowledge.  This statement, however, does not exclude the adoption of
>organizational schemes designed as directional aids or to facilitate access to
>materials.

>Adopted July 13, 1951.  Amended June 25, 1971; July 1, 1981; June 26, 1990, by
>the ALA Council.

>[Made available by permission of the American Library Association.]

>---------end------
>> 
>> The purpose of the Full News List is to offer full access to all news
>> lists to anyone in the Iowa State community who requests it and
>> acknowledges their responsibility in accessing, using, and
>> distributing material from it.  Some material in the full news feed
>> may not be appropriate for general distribution.  It is the
>> responsibility of those receiving the material to comply with
>> appropriate law and policy.
>> 
>> All computers served by the Computation Center news server will
>> receive the Standard News List as the default.  Those persons in
>> charge of computers (time-sharing systems, workstations, or
>> microcomputers) may request either the Focused List or the Full list
>> by filling out the appropriate form obtained from the Computation
>> Center administrative office, 291 Durham Center.  The form for the
>> Focused News List acknowledges that certain material may not be
>> available to the specified computer.  The form for the Full News List
>> acknowledges responsibility for access, use, and distribution of all
>> Usenet material via that specific computer via either console or
>> remote use.  Once either Full or Focused access has been requested,
>> the requester may revert to the Standard offering by filling out a
>> form.
>> 
>> All publicly-accessible computers in the Computation Center, with the
>> exception of the HDS WYLBUR time-sharing system, will offer the
>> Standard News List only.  University users of WYLBUR may request
>> access to the Full or Focused News Lists by filling out the
>> appropriate form obtained from 291 Durham Center.  The form
>> acknowledges individual responsibility of the user-id owner for
>> access, use, and distribution of Usenet material.  Some material in
>> the full news feed may not be appropriate for general distribution.
>> It is the responsibility of those receiving the material to comply
>> with appropriate law and policy.

>> -- 
>> Steven L. Kunz
>> Networking & Communications | Usenet News Admin.
>> Iowa State University Computation Center, Iowa State University, Ames  IA
>> INET: skunz@iastate.edu     BITNET: gr.slk@isumvs.bitnet

>I urge Iowa State University to more faithfully apply the principles
>of intellectual freedom developed by libraries to the administration
>of information material on computers.

>- Carl Kadie

>============ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/library/access.policies.ala======
>REGULATIONS, POLICIES, AND PROCEDURES AFFECTING
>ACCESS TO LIBRARY RESOURCES AND SERVICES

>                An Interpretation of the LIBRARY BILL OF RIGHTS


>American libraries exist and function within the context of a body of law
>derived from the United States Constitution, defined by statute, and
>implemented by regulations, policies, and procedures established by their
>governing bodies and administrations.  These regulations, policies, and
>procedures reflect the function and character of the library, define its
>operations, and protect its mission and the rights of its users.

>"The library is one of the great symbols of our democracy.  It is a living
>embodiment of the First Amendment because it includes voices of dissent."1
>Libraries of all types adhere to this ideal.  Publicly supported libraries
>serve as traditional public forums, open to the collection, use, and
>dissemination of all forms of recorded human expression that are expressly
>dedicated to the unfettered competition of the marketplace of ideas.  It is
>essential to this purpose that the library function as neutral ground in that
>marketplace.  Viewpoint-based discrimination has no place in publicly
>supported library collections or services; for the library to espouse partisan
>causes or favor particular viewpoints violates its mission.

>"A public library is not only a designated public forum, but also a
>quintessential, traditional public forum whose accessibility affects the
>bedrock of our democratic system.  A place where ideas are communicated freely
>through the written word"2 and other means of recorded expression "is as
>integral to a democracy and to First Amendment rights as an available public
>space where citizens can communicate their ideas through the spoken word."3
>The fact of public sponsorship of a library in no way implies endorsement of
>any of the myriad viewpoints contained within a library's collection.  Nor
>should a funding source dictate its contents.  The United States Supreme Court
>has recognized that  "the university is a traditional sphere of free
>expression so fundamental to the functioning of our society that the
>Government's ability to control speech within that sphere by means of
>conditions attached to the expenditures of Government funds, is restricted by
>the vagueness and overbreadth doctrines of the First Amendment. . . ."4  The
>same principles apply with equal force to publicly supported libraries.  These
>principles restrict any attempt to control expression within a publicly
>supported library or to dictate or limit the contents of its collections,
>programs, displays, or publications through conditions attached to funding.

>Libraries serve the function of making ideas and information available to all
>members of the society, without discrimination.  Publicly supported libraries
>provide access to information for all without imposing barriers which limit or
>prevent library users, including the indigent or the economically
>disadvantaged, from exercising their full constitutional rights.  Publicly
>supported libraries' traditional commitment to free public service is integral
>to their nature and function.  Publicly supported libraries, like public
>schools and universities, are supported in part from a recognition that
>information and education are essential components of informed self-
>government.

>The right of free access to information for all individuals is basic to all
>library service.  The central thrust of the LIBRARY BILL OF RIGHTS is to
>protect and encourage the free flow of information and ideas.  Article 5
>protects the rights of an individual to use a library regardless of origin,
>age, background, or views.  The American Library Association urges all
>libraries to set policies and procedures that reflect the basic tenets of the
>LIBRARY BILL OF RIGHTS, within the framework of Constitutional imperatives and
>limitations.

>Many libraries adopt administrative policies and procedures to govern their
>order and use, the comfort and safety of patrons and staff, and the protection
>of resources, services, and facilities.  Such policies and procedures affect
>access, and must not become a convenient means for removing or restricting
>access to controversial materials, limiting access to facilities, programs, or
>exhibits, or for discriminating against specific individuals or groups of
>library patrons.  Administrative policies and procedures which infringe on
>equitable access to library buildings, services, and resources, the privacy of
>the individual, or the right to read, violate the LIBRARY BILL OF RIGHTS.
>Further, if such policies have the effect of impermissible discrimination
>against individuals or particular groups of library users, they are likely to
>violate First Amendment rights.  The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized that
>"`the right to receive ideas follows ineluctably from the sender's First
>Amendment right to send them. . . . More importantly, the right to receive
>ideas is a necessary predicate to the recipient's meaningful exercise of his
>own rights such as speech, press, and political freedom' (emphasis in
>original) Board of Education, Island Trees Union Free School District No. 26
>v. Pico, 457 U.S. 853, 866-67 (1982) (plurality opinion)."5   Respect for
>these rights is central to the function of any government supported library
>for these rights define the library's purpose.

>Because publicly supported libraries are institutions dedicated to the free
>flow of information, it is essential that the regulations, policies, and
>procedures which libraries develop and use embody the principles of free
>expression.  Information about their operations must be made available in full
>compliance with confidentiality, privacy, freedom of information and sunshine
>laws.  The application of policies and procedures for the use of library
>services and resources should be consistently applied to both members of the
>public and library employees.  Policies and procedures for responding to
>complaints about library materials -- including individual items in a
>collection, library programs and services, or publications and other material
>produced or published by the library -- should be uniformly applied regardless
>of the source of the complaint, whether coming from a member of the public,
>staff, or governing authority.


>1., 2., 3., 5.  Richard R. Kreimer v. Bureau of Police for the Town of
>Morristown, et. al., ___ F. Supp. ___ (No. 90-554, May 22, 1991).

>4.  Rust, et. al. v. Sullivan, ___U.S.___(___U.S.L.W.___, ___S. Ct. Rept.___),
>No. 89-1391, May 23, 1991.

>Adopted January 27, 1982, as ADMINISTRATIVE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES AFFECTING
>ACCESS TO LIBRARY RESOURCES AND SERVICES; amended with title change July 3,
>1991, by the ALA Council.

>[Made available by permission of the American Library Association.]

>============ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/library/bill-of-rights.ala ======
>                            LIBRARY BILL OF RIGHTS


>The American Library Association affirms that all libraries are forums for
>information and ideas, and that the following basic policies should guide
>their services.

>      1.  Books and other library resources should be provided for the
>interest, information, and enlightenment of all people of the community the
>library serves.  Materials should not be excluded because of the origin,
>background, or views of those contributing to their creation.

>      2.  Libraries should provide materials and information presenting all
>points of view on current and historical issues.  Materials should not be
>proscribed or removed because of partisan or doctrinal disapproval.

>      3.  Libraries should challenge censorship in the fulfillment of their
>responsibility to provide information and enlightenment.

>      4.  Libraries should cooperate with all persons and groups concerned
>with resisting abridgment of free expression and free access to ideas.

>      5.  A person's right to use a library should not be denied or abridged
>because of origin, age, background, or views.

>      6.  Libraries which make exhibit spaces and meeting rooms available to
>the public they serve should make such facilities available on an equitable
>basis, regardless of the beliefs or affiliations of individuals or groups
>requesting their use.


>Adopted June 18, 1948; amended February 2, 1961, and January 23, 1980, by the
>ALA Council.

>[Made available by permission of the American Library Association.]

>============ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/library/diversity.ala ======
>                     DIVERSITY IN COLLECTION DEVELOPMENT

>                An Interpretation of the LIBRARY BILL OF RIGHTS


>Throughout history, the focus of censorship has fluctuated from generation to
>generation.  Books and other materials have not been selected or have been
>removed from library collections for many reasons, among which are prejudicial
>language and ideas, political content, economic theory, social philosophies,
>religious beliefs, sexual forms of expression, and other topics of a
>potentially controversial nature.

>Some examples of censorship may include removing or not selecting materials
>because they are considered by some as racist or sexist; not purchasing
>conservative religious materials; not selecting materials about or by
>minorities because it is thought these groups or interests are not represented
>in a community; or not providing information on or materials from non-
>mainstream political entities.

>Librarians may seek to increase user awareness of materials on various social
>concerns by many means, including, but not limited to, issuing bibliographies
>and presenting exhibits and programs.

>Librarians have a professional responsibility to be inclusive, not exclusive,
>in collection development and in the provision of interlibrary loan.  Access
>to all materials legally obtainable should be assured to the user, and
>policies should not unjustly exclude materials even if they are offensive to
>the librarian or the user.  Collection development should reflect the
>philosophy inherent in Article II of the LIBRARY BILL OF RIGHTS:  "Libraries
>should provide materials and information presenting all points of view on
>current and historical issues.  Materials should not be proscribed or removed
>because of partisan or doctrinal disapproval."  A balanced collection reflects
>a diversity of materials, not an equality of numbers.  Collection development
>responsibilities include selecting materials in the languages in common use in
>the community which the library serves.  Collection development and the
>selection of materials should be done according to professional standards and
>established selection and review procedures.

>There are many complex facets to any issue, and variations of context in which
>issues may be expressed, discussed, or interpreted.  Librarians have a
>professional responsibility to be fair, just, and equitable and to give all
>library users equal protection in guarding against violation of the library
>patron's right to read, view, or listen to materials and resources protected
>by the First Amendment, no matter what the viewpoint of the author, creator,
>or selector.  Librarians have an obligation to protect library collections
>from removal of materials based on personal bias or prejudice, and to select
>and support the access to materials on all subjects that meet, as closely as
>possible, the needs and interests of all persons in the community which the
>library serves.  This includes materials that reflect political, economic,
>religious, social, minority, and sexual issues.

>Intellectual freedom, the essence of equitable library services, provides for
>free access to all expressions of ideas through which any and all sides of a
>question, cause, or movement may be explored.  Toleration is meaningless
>without tolerance for what some may consider detestable.  Librarians cannot
>justly permit their own preferences to limit their degree of tolerance in
>collection development, because freedom is indivisible.


>Adopted July 14, 1982; amended January 10, 1990, by the ALA Council.

>[Made available by permission of the American Library Association.]

>==============================legal refernences============
> Access information follows the bibliography.

>=================
>law/san-diego-committee-v-gov-bd
>=================
>Excerpts from San Diego Committee v.  Governing Bd., 790 F.2d 1471
>(1986).  A decision by an appellate court that applied the Supreme
>Court's Public Forum Doctrine (to a school newspaper).

>=================
>law/stanley-v-magrath
>=================
>Comments from _Public Schools Law: Teachers' and Students' Rights_ 2nd
>Ed. by Martha M. McCarthy and Nelda H. Cambron-McCabe, published in
>1987 by Allyn and Bacon, Inc. It says, in part, "[a]lthough school
>boards are not obligated to support student papers, if a given
>publication was originally created as a free speech forum, removal of
>financial or other school board support can be construed as an
>unlawful effort to stifle free expression." Also, "school
>authorities cannot withdraw support from a student publication simply
>because of displeasure with the content" and "the content of a
>school-sponsored paper that is established as a medium for student
>expression cannot be regulated more closely than a nonsponsored
>paper". Also, it tells what to do about libel in student
>publications.

>=================
>law/student-publications.misc
>=================
>The book _Law of the Student Press_ by the Student Press Law Center
>(1985,1988), says that four-letter words are protected speech, that
>public universities are not likely to be liable for publications that
>they for which they do not control the contents, and that the
>_Hazelwood_ decision does not apply to universities.

>=================
>law/constraints.constitutional
>=================
>Comments from _A Practical Guide to Legal Issues Affecting College
>Teachers_ by Partrica A. Hollander, D. Parker Young, and Donald D.
>Gehring.  (College Administration Publication, 1985).  Discusses the
>constitutional constraints on public universities including the
>requires for freedom of expression, freedom against unreasonable
>searches and seizures, due process, specific rules.

>=================
>law/uwm-post-v-u-of-wisconsin
>=================
>The full text of UWM POST v. U. of Wisconsin. This recent district
>court ruling goes into detail about the difference between protected
>offensive expression and illegal harassment. It even mentions email.

>It concludes: "The founding fathers of this nation produced a
>remarkable document in the Constitution but it was ratified only with
>the promise of the Bill of Rights.  The First Amendment is central to
>our concept of freedom.  The God-given "unalienable rights" that the
>infant nation rallied to in the Declaration of Independence can be
>preserved only if their application is rigorously analyzed.

>The problems of bigotry and discrimination sought to be addressed here
>are real and truly corrosive of the educational environment.  But
>freedom of speech is almost absolute in our land and the only
>restriction the fighting words doctrine can abide is that based on the
>fear of violent reaction.  Content-based prohibitions such as that in
>the UW Rule, however well intended, simply cannot survive the
>screening which our Constitution demands."


>=================
>law/doe-v-u-of-michigan
>=================
>This is Doe v. University of Michigan. In this widely referenced
>decision, the district judge down struck the University's rules
>against discriminatory harassment because the rules were found to be too
>broad and too vague.

>=================
>law/rust-v-sullivan
>=================
>The decision and decent for the so-called abortion information gag
>rule case. The decision explicitly mentions universities as a place
>where free expression is so important that gag rules would not be
>allowed.

>=================
>law/keyishian-v-board-of-regents
>=================
>In this Supreme Court case, the Court said that public universities
>can not infringe on the Constitutionally protected rights of their
>students and employees (specially with regard to loyalty oaths).

>=================
>law/perry-v-perry
>=================
>Comments from the ACLU Handbook _The Rights of _Teachers_. It says
>that campus mail systems (and other school facilities) can be limited
>public forums. (Perry v. Perry was about an interschool mail system.
>It was one of the cases that defined the Public Forum Doctrine.)

>Also, a paraphrase from an ACLU handbook _The Rights of Teachers_. It
>says that generally, speech, if otherwise shielded from punishment by
>the First Amendment, does not lose that protection because its tone is
>sharp.

>Also, from p. 92, it says that there are legal limits to what a
>(public) school can ask its teachers to sign. [Some of these same
>limits might apply to what a school can ask a user to sign as a
>condition of getting (or keeping) a computer account.]

>=================
>law/constitution.us
>=================
>The Constitution of the United States

>=================
>=================

>To get these documents by email, send email to archive-server@eff.org.
>Include the line(s):

>  send caf-law san-diego-committee-v-gov-bd
>  send caf-law stanley-v-magrath
>  send caf-law student-publications.misc
>  send caf-law constraints.constitutional
>  send caf-law uwm-post-v-u-of-wisconsin
>  send caf-law doe-v-u-of-michigan
>  send caf-law rust-v-sullivan
>  send caf-law keyishian-v-board-of-regents
>  send caf-law perry-v-perry
>  send caf-law constitution.us

>The files are also available via anonymous ftp from ftp.eff.org
>(191.88.144.3) as file(s):
>  pub/academic/law/san-diego-committee-v-gov-bd
>  pub/academic/law/stanley-v-magrath
>  pub/academic/law/student-publications.misc
>  pub/academic/law/constraints.constitutional
>  pub/academic/law/uwm-post-v-u-of-wisconsin
>  pub/academic/law/doe-v-u-of-michigan
>  pub/academic/law/rust-v-sullivan
>  pub/academic/law/keyishian-v-board-of-regents
>  pub/academic/law/perry-v-perry
>  pub/academic/law/constitution.us
>-- 
>Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu, or (anonymous) ap.4352@hri.com
>I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk