From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: bastos sa scf -- score 1
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 17:58:21 GMT

[...]
>Date: 11 April 1992 17:02:50 CDT
>From: "Richard K. Wolf (312) 996-8291" <U42641@UICVM>
>To:   <U14540@UICVM>,
>      <CONSULT@UICVM>,
>      <U25720@UICVM>
>Subject: Forwarded note below
>
>Mr. Chang:
>
>Pleased be advsied that posts, such as the one you made below, are
>considered offensive by other users, both at UIC and elsewhere.  While
>we at the Computer Center do not want to limit your right to free speech
>we must also consider the effects derived from thoughtless behaviour,
>such as yours.
>
>Your account is a priveledge granted to you by the Computer Center.  If
>you abuse that priveledge, it will be quickly taken away from you.  I
>can think of two instances where accounts have been PERMANENTLY suspended
>because their owners were continually bothersome to other users, both
>at UIC and on the networks.
[...]

The University of Winconsin had a case like this involving email. The
district federal court said that it was illegal for a state university
to punish offensive speech. The full text of this decision is
available on-line. Access information is enclosed.

- Carl

=========== ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/faq/censorship-and-harassment =========
[...]
The federal courts have said that harassing speech is different
from offensive speech. While face-to-face harassment can be
prohibited, mere offensive speech is protected by the principles of
academic freedom and, at state universities, by the Constitution.

The courts have also said that that it is unconstitutional at state
universities to base campus speech restrictions on EEOC rules. Here is
part of a decision:

==============Excerpt uwm-post-v-u-of-wisconsin ==========

 (3) PARALLEL TO TITLE VII LAW
 The Board of Regents argues that this Court should find the UW Rule
constitutional because its prohibition of discriminatory speech which creates a
hostile environment has parallels in the employment setting.  The Board notes
that, under Title VII, an employer has a duty to take appropriate corrective
action when it learns of pervasive illegal harassment.  See Meritor Savings
Bank v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57, 72 (1986).
 The Board correctly states Title VII law.  However, its argument regarding
Title VII law has at least three difficulties.  First, Title VII addresses
employment, not educational, settings.  Second, even if Title VII governed
educational settings, the Meritor holding would not apply to this case.  The
Meritor Court held that courts should look to agency principles when
determining whether an employer is to be held liable for its employee's
actions.  See id.  Since employees may act as their employer's agents, agency
law may hold an employer liable for its employees actions.  In contrast, agency
theory would generally not hold a school liable for its students' actions since
students normally are not agents of the school.  Finally, even if the legal
duties set forth in Meritor applied to this case, they would not make the UW
Rule constitutional.  Since Title VII is only a statute, it cannot supersede
the requirements of the First Amendment.
============================

Private institutions are legally free to violate the standards set by
the Constitution and academic freedom. They should not, however, try
to justify their violations with appeals to government rules.

- Carl

ANNOTATED REFERENCES

(All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.)

=================
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.

=================
faq/netnews.liability
=================
q: Does a University reduce its likely liability by screening Netnews
for offensive articles and newsgroups?

=================
faq/netnews.reading
=================
q: Should my university remove (or restrict) Netnews newsgroups
because some people find them offensive? If it doesn't have the
resources to carry all newsgroups, how should newsgroups be selected?

=================
=================

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

  send caf-law uwm-post-v-u-of-wisconsin
  send caf-law doe-v-u-of-michigan
  send caf-faq netnews.liability
  send caf-faq netnews.reading

The files are also available via anonymous ftp from ftp.eff.org
(192.88.144.4) as file(s):
  pub/academic/law/uwm-post-v-u-of-wisconsin
  pub/academic/law/doe-v-u-of-michigan
  pub/academic/faq/netnews.liability
  pub/academic/faq/netnews.reading

--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Newsgroups: soc.culture.filipino