From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [eff.mail.cwis-l]  Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Followup-To: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,eff.mail.cwis-l
Originator: kadie@eff.org
Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 03:19:34 GMT

[A repost - Carl]

Newsgroups: eff.mail.cwis-l
From: GLWARNER@SAMFORD.bitnet (THE GAR)
Subject:  Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 20:31:19 GMT

On Wed, 30 Sep 1992 19:39:30 GMT Carl M. Kadie said:
>
>Inspired by Banned Book Week '92, this is a list of computer material
>banned or challenged in academia in 1992. Iowa State University has
>the dubious distinction of being listed most often (three times).

More power to Iowa State University!
The mere existence of this list implies that there is something
improper about electronic censorship.  The truth of the matter
is that it is probably MORE important than print censorship.
Enough Americans feel that there should be some limit to what
can be depicted and described that we have obscenity laws in
this country.  Why should we ridicule universities and other
organizations that choose to enforce the law of the land?
or the laws of their university for that matter?  It is as
if people think that because their words or graphics appear
via computer that they have special rights.  The nature of
the internet makes these words and graphics contain even
more potential for harm than their spoken or printed counter
parts.  It would not be so very difficult for a library or
bookstore to have certain sections of their establishment
marked "adults only" and enforce these areas.  It would also
not be very difficult for the management of these establishments
to refuse to carry a certain publication.  On the internet we
have no such luxuries.  Children and minors can go where they
wish, and see whatever is available.  Something posted on the
net one locale may very well violate the "acceptable community
standards" of another.  Most universities would not allow a
student to rise in class and spew obscenities at a class mate,
or post obscene materials on the bulletin boards, or stand
in the hallways and recite erotica.  They have the right to
make these choices TO PROTECT THEIR STUDENT BODY from what
they feel are detrimental influences and TO PROTECT THEIR
INSTITUTION from that which violates local ordinances.

Universities who recognize their responsibility in these areas,
and rise to take that responsibility should not be demeaned by
the EFF, or any other organization, but rather their actions
should be studied, and considered by other organizations so that
they may implement similar "censorship" at their own
institutions, correcting mistakes they feel their predecessors
may have made.  Don't criticize their computer actions without
looking at the underlying causes.  If its the obscenity laws
that are not appreciated, complain to Congress, don't demean
the enforcers.  If the computer policies of an organization
match the policies for print and voice communication at a campus,
I believe that the EFF is stepping beyond their charter to make
changes.  As I understood the EFF, they were trying to give the
computerized citizen equal rights with the rest of society.  Not
allow them to "get away" with things with which non-computerized
citizens must deal.

In "the real world" most of the things that you listed would
either be crimes, or subject to censorship.  Distribution of
erotica and pornography to minors?  illegal.  Possession of
materials for criminal intent?  illegal (where I live, try and
buy or advertise lock-picks!) Calling for assassination sounds
like incitement to riot, and religious activism in Turkey,
well, it fits the laws of the nation....  "Offensive" materials
are not allowed on many campuses in any form, and a call for the
ban of Ice-T lyrics went out from many organizations.  To be
asked to not post them publicly is certainly reasonable.  They
certainly weren't getting any air time that I know of on the
radio!  While it may be extreme to not allow criticism of the
host university, if they own the computer, that's their right.
If students don't like it, they have the right to go to another
university.  Would the university allow them to hang a demeaning
poster on the gate to the university?

It sounds as if in these cases, the computerized citizen is
being treated the same as the non-computerized citizen.  EFF,
please return to your calling.

(Standard Disclaimer:  The views expressed in this note are
 my own and do not reflect the positions of my employer, my
 department, or my mother-in-law.)


 /++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++\
!  Later        +   Systems Programmer                                 !
!  Gary Warner  +   Samford University Computer Services               !
!               +   II TIMOTHY 2:15                                    !
 \+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++/
-- 
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
 =kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
Xref: sparky alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:3133 comp.org.eff.talk:6362 comp.admin.policy:1278 alt.censorship:7995 soc.college:4224