From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.censorship
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Date: 13 Aug 92 15:21:04 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL


What infuriates me is the double standard.

For example, in the _Globe and Mail_ story, Lionel Tolan, Simon
Fraser's director of academic computer services, said "It's the same
as if somebody wants Playboy or Penthouse.  We don't have them in the
university library." When in fact, _Playboy_ *is* in the SFU library.

We have mostly been discussing
  "How should sexual material treated in Canada?"

I think, the more productive question, is 
  "Should computer material be treated like traditional material or
   should there be a double standard?"

I think they should be treated the same, NO DOUBLE STANDARD!

As the unofficial draft statement on Computers and Academic Freedom says:

  "The principles of intellectual freedom developed by libraries should
   be applied to the administration of information material on
   computers."

  "The principles of academic freedom applicable to student and faculty
   publication in traditional media, apply to student and faculty
   publication in computer media."

- Carl

ANNOTATED REFERENCES

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

=================
globe-and-mail
=================
An article from the Toronto _Globe and Mail_, Monday, July 20, 1992.
Headline: Computers graphic when it comes to porn
Subheadline: NETWORK SEX: Is increasingly explicit material on some computer
bulletin boards free speech, or obscenity?

=================
caf-statement
=================
This is an attempt to codify the application of academic freedom to
academic computers. It reflects our seven months of on-line discussion
about computers and academic freedom. It covers free expression, due
process, privacy, and user participation.

Comments and suggestions are very welcome (especially when posted to
CAF-talk). All the documents referenced are available on-line.
(Critiqued).

=================
caf-statement.critique
=================
This is a critique of an attempt to codify the application of academic
freedom to academic computers. It reflects our seven months of on-line
discussion about computers and academic freedom. It covers free
expression, due process, privacy, and user participation.

Additional comments and suggestions are very welcome (especially when
posted to CAF-talk). All the documents referenced are available
on-line.

=================
library/int-freedom.can
=================
Canadian Library Association Statement on Intellectual Freedom

=================
faq/umanitoba.ca
=================
q: What is going on at the Univeristy of Manitoba in Canada? What is
the Canadian law on obscenity?

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

These document(s) are available by anonymous ftp (the preferred
method) and by email. To get the file(s) via ftp, do an anonymous ftp
to ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4), and get file(s):

  pub/academic/globe-and-mail
  pub/academic/caf-statement
  pub/academic/caf-statement.critique
  pub/academic/library/int-freedom.can
  pub/academic/faq/umanitoba.ca

To get the file(s) by email, send email to archive-server@eff.org.
Include the line(s) (be sure to include the space before the file
name):

send acad-freedom globe-and-mail
send acad-freedom caf-statement
send acad-freedom caf-statement.critique
send acad-freedom/library int-freedom.can
send acad-freedom/faq umanitoba.ca


--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign