From: morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan)
Subject: Re: news story on U. of Nebraska alt.* removal
    <1992Mar25.201547.7715@eff.org>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1992 15:01:10 GMT
Organization: The Puzzle Palace, UKentucky
X-Bytes: 4614

mnemonic@eff.ORG (Mike Godwin) writes:
>mpd@anomaly.sbs.com (Michael P. Deignan) writes:
>>
>>Bullshit. If the University had discontinued receiving certain alt groups
>>because of content, such as alt.sex, then *that* may be objectionable. In
>>this case we have a University making the decision that the alt
>>hierarchy doesn't fit into the educational goals of the University.
>
>The problem is that, while the university may be articulating its decision
>in terms of educational goals, it is almost certainly based on fear of
>news coverage and/or legislative disapproval of the availability of
>material with sexual or otherwise disturbing content. Hence the reference
>to state pornography laws in the story, in spite of the fact that the
>textual material in the alt.sex hierarchy is almost certainly not a
>violation of applicable obscenity laws.

I believe that Mike is referring to the specific case under discussion;
however, I'd like to apply his comments to a general situation.

Suppose that a news admin makes a simple statement, such as:

	"We cannot carry every newsgroup; we are limited by both our
	 resources (or shortage thereof) and our academic mission.  
	 Therefore, we will not carry the soc.*, rec.*, or alt.* hierarchies."

Will the Usenet community laud this admin for his adherence to his
site's mission/goals?  I don't think so; I think we'd see dozens of
posting screaming about "censorship", "fascist admins", and "the user's
right to a full feed". 

>If the university merely applied the same criteria to
>Usenet that it applies to its libraries, it is likely that there'd be
>little or nothing to complain about. 

A university creates/maintains a library for a specific purpose.  While
many universities share their resources (through interlibrary loans, for
example), there are certainly some that do not.

Usenet, on the other hand, is not "created" by a particular site.  It is
an amorphous conglomerate that, by default, spans every sector of society.  
Usenet includes commercial sites, educational institutions, government agen-
cies, and private systems (the 486 PC in a friend's house is the perfect 
example).  It spans the jurisdiction of almost every US state, as well as 
those of dozens of nations.  It travels over phone lines controlled/paid 
for by government networks, regional networks, and individual sites.

I don't believe that we can create a "Usenet policy" that can be equally
applied to these widely variant networks/sites/contributors.

>If the University of Nebraska carries
>books by Norman Mailer, D.H. Lawrence, Erica Jong, or Bret Easton Ellis in
>its libraries, it is inconsistent for it to object to the textual content
>of the alt.sex hierarchy.

If we are discussing obscenity, it is important to address the "community
standards" portion of the relevant definition.  Standards of obscenity
vary widely with jurisdictions; for example, the state of Indiana recently
banned nude dancing, even though many other states do not restrict it.  I
can easily envison a Usenet posting (or a book, or a movie) which would be
tolerated in one jurisdiction and treated as obscenity in another; in fact,
I think we've all seen such postings/books/movies.  

The transient nature of Usenet makes comparisons to printed materials
difficult, if not impossible.  I can examine a novel by Mailer and make
a qualified judgement of its "obscenity", according to my understanding
of the local jurisdiction's interpretation of the term.  I can read several
issues of a magazine and make a qualified judgement of its "style"; I can
estimate the likelihood of that magazine's tresspass into the local version
of "obscenity".  I cannot make a similar judgement of a Usenet newsgroup; I 
cannot "preview" its contents, nor can I estimate future "style" or content
by examination of "past issues".  

Library selection policies are based, in part, on the notion that the 
materials in question are somewhat fixed in nature.  I don't think that
anyone will come into my library and render my copy of Faulkner "obscene".
I don't think that _National Review_ will suddenly become a magazine for
pedophiles.  Usenet, on the other hand, is an embodiment of fluctuation.  
How can I apply "library selection policies" to something which is constantly 
changing?  

-- 
 morgan@ms.uky.edu    |Wes Morgan, not speaking for|     ....!ukma!ukecc!morgan
 morgan@engr.uky.edu  |the University of Kentucky's|   morgan%engr.uky.edu@UKCC
 morgan@ie.pa.uky.edu |Engineering Computing Center| morgan@wuarchive.wustl.edu
        "I was going to rip your head off, but I'm past that now."
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk