HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: s12334@doc.flc.colorado.edu (JAC)
Newsgroups: alt.gothic
Subject: Re: Death becomes me
Date: 16 Aug 92 11:40:00 GMT
Reply-To: S12334@doc.flc.colorado.edu
Organization: Fort Lewis College
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Aug15.230041.1@acad3.alaska.edu>, fsjdh@acad3.alaska.edu writes...
>LONG LIVE ROCK AND ROLL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!DUDE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


I wish this type of person 'became' dead more!!!!!!
In fact I bet if I saw them I think I would find that death was indeed
an atractive option for them.
:(
Newsgroups: alt.gothic,alt.industrial,rec.music.cd,rec.music.industrial,alt.music.alternative
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
Subject: Re: u. of illinois may re
Date: 17 Aug 92  00:06:00 EST

  To: ALL                           Refer#: NONE From: MICHAEL R LINKSVAYER            Read: (N/A) Subj: RE: U. OF ILLINOIS MAY RE     Status: PUBLIC MESSAGE Conf: CENSORSHIP (26)            Read Type: GENERAL



     HEY OUT THERE!   Sorry to be behind the action, but I have been busy in the darkroom (my own exhibition coming Up).

     I was wondering if the orginal message, & better yet, if an article from a newpaper or magazine existed on this debate.

     This way I could better understand the issue in this case, & so that I could ad to my censorship articles collection!!!

     Please, send the info, so I may have it on record....


     Many thanks,

                    Mark Sablow, aka Professor Atget

 * Origin: Aether (1:112/2020)

Xref: sparky alt.censorship:7056 alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:2666
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: Searching for computer porn at UBC
Date: 21 Aug 92 23:28:01 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL

advax@reg.triumf.ca (A.Daviel) writes:

>I read recently in UBC Reports that the UBC President has "asked all UBC 
>units to ensure that university property is not being used to gain access to, 
>create, or store (such) pornographic material on university computing 
>equipment".
[...]

Note the double standard. "Pornographic material" is not banned from
the traditional library (presumably because the library is protected
by academic freedom), but it is banned from computers (presumably
because academic freedom doesn't protect computers.)

- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From: Mindy.Machanic@iphase.UUCP (Mindy Machanic)
Sender: FredGate@iphase.UUCP
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.society.civil-liberty,misc.legal,rec.arts.fine
Subject: Re: [UPI] "Judge rules artist's rights violated in painting seizure"
Date: 13 Aug 92 19:27:02 GMT
Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation
Originator: kadie@eff.org

kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:

>	CHICAGO (UPI) -- Three aldermen violated an artist's rights when they
>removed from a student exhibit a painting of the late Mayor Harold
>Washington dressed in women's underwear, a federal judge has ruled.
[...]

adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:

>I bet they understand why the conservatives are upset at the National
>Endowment for the arts right now....

Yeah, it must be infuriating to have so much political power and yet
be unable to stop the electorate from seeing thing that you don't want
them to see.

- Carl

-- 
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
 =kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
Xref: sparky alt.censorship:6976 rec.arts.fine:596
From: hucke@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Matt Hucke)
Subject: Re: U. of Illinois may remove non"pleasant" art from vistor's center
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 17:52:02 GMT

In article <BsvpxF.AIH@news.cso.uiuc.edu> tmkk@uiuc.edu (Khan) writes:
>
>Perhaps one of you folks debating this topic can answer the following
>question for me:
>
>Why is it legal for a University to bad X-rated GIF files from its
>anonymous ftp sites, ban the importation of groups such as
>alt.sex.pictures onto camous machines, but NOT legal for them to take a
>couple of X-rated paintings off of the wall of a campus building?

Possibly because nobody complains to the newspapers about the GIFs, so 
nothing is done...

Most admins refuse the a.s.pictures group because it takes up enormous amounts
of disk space.  A single GIF can be 50 times as long as the average non-GIF
post.
-- 
  "It begins here--an army--to bring sense to a world plagued by worse than
   thieves and murderers. This will be a good life... good enough."
             Bruce Wayne, "Batman: The Dark Knight Returns"
hucke@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu             _V_a_l_h_a_l_l_a BBS, 217-352-3682, WWIV4.21, 14.4k
Newsgroups: uiuc.general,alt.censorship,rec.arts.fine
From: machanicm@gtephx.UUCP (Mindy Machanic)
Newsgroups: uiuc.general,alt.censorship,rec.arts.fine
Subject: Re: U. of Illinois may remove non"pleasant" art from vistor's center
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
Date: 12 Aug 92 20:44:37 GMT
Organization: AG Communication Systems, Phoenix, Arizona

In article <1992Aug09.140231.16426@anomaly.sbs.risc.net>, kd1hz@anomaly.sbs.risc.net (Michael P. Deignan (KD1HZ)) writes:
> StarWatcher@uiuc.edu (StarWatcher) writes:
> 
> 
> Your right to "free speech" should not infringe upon other people's
> rights. Likewise, just because someone decides not to show a piece of
> "art", or decides to take it down because of numerous complaints about
> the acceptability of said "art", does not in fact infringe on your right
> to "free speech" - you're more than welcome to stand outside on public
> property and hold it up for all to see.
> 
> 
> MD
> -- 
> --  Dr. Michael P. Deignan (deg.pend.)      /   "Its okay dear,
> --  Domain: kd1hz@anomaly.sbs.risc.net     /     you can show me...
> --    UUCP: ..!uunet!anomaly!kd1hz        /      I'm a Doctor..."

Oh, so I can stand _outside_ on public property and hold it up for all to see,
but I cannot put it on the walls _indoors_, away from the weather, in public
property, and put it up for all to see? Very logical and consistent, yes?
-- 
Mindy
*****************************************************************************************
Mindy Machanic  (AG Communication Systems/Quality Engineering, Phoenix, AZ)               
(This space available for interesting messages and the usual disclaimers...)
From: Mark.Sablow@iphase.UUCP (Mark Sablow)
Sender: FredGate@iphase.UUCP
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
Subject: Re: u. of illinois may re
Date: 12 Aug 92  22:26:00 EST

Allen M. Carroll states:

>>Let me be clear that if the U. took any action _against the student_
>that would be a far different matter. That, in fact, would clearly be
>censorship. (If the U. agreed to pay the student, they are still
>obligated to make that payment even if they don't show the paintings)

J.S. Greenfield replies:

Why do you think that a contractual agreement to pay the artist is legally enforceable, while a contractual agreement to display the paintings is not (or at least, is somehow worthy of less protection).

Both represent a form of consideration contractually offered to the artist, and I do not see how one can be distinguished from the other in this case.

In fact, as a practical matter, the artist may consider the exhibit of her work to be *more* important than any money received directly from the University. (Since, presumably, exposure may lead to future opportunities.)

My response:

Mr. Greenfield could not be more correct.  The exhibition is vital to an artist (especially a young artist trying to become established).  The money, if any (very often none), is very little, when paid it is usually a tolken amount.

I am a artist & professor, I need exhibitions for my resume for both fields!  Not to be given a show to only have the rug pulled from under my feet.  An exhibition can be a tremendous amount of work.  The institution should stand by its orginal decision.


                                                         Have a Great Day & Be All You Can Be!

                    Mark, aka Professor Atget

 * Origin: Aether (1:112/2020)
20 

Xref: sparky alt.censorship:6983 alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:2621
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 23:27:15 GMT

kiefer@connext.ucs.sfu.ca (Theresa Kiefer) writes:

>IMHO, the  
>issue here comes down to the question of whether it is legitimate for an  
>institution of higher education, that claims to be so strapped for cash that  
>they've cut back on scholarships this fall, ...

It likely cost more to exclude the material that to include it. Cost
likely had nothing to do with the decision to remove the material.

> IMHO, the exploitation of women through porn can't be  
>separated from advertising and other media in our culture ...
[...]
>The number of women  
>today suffering from eating disorders is proof enough of the extreme  
>difficulties many women experience trying to remake their bodies ...
[...]

I think advertising is 1000 times more to blame than pornography.
After all advertising is 1000 times more prevalent and designed in
many cases to woman dissatisfied with their bodies. Should we then all
such advertising be banned?

>However, at SFU, I think it is safe to say that the removal of the alt.sex  
>groups will not prevent anyone from having access to pornographic ideas if  
>these are of interest to them.  All they have
>to do is turn on the television,  
>if they want access to the ideas.  Sexually explicit pictoral material is  
>available in many places.  I'm not so sure the discussion groups should have  
>been cancelled, since these were often a
>legitimate forum for discourse, and do  
>not intrude on people wandering through a given lab in the way that an  
>unencoded .gif file has a way of doing

We agree on this. Rules against sexual harassment could ban display of
sexually explict images in labs without banning all discussions of
sex.

One final point. You worry about paternalism. What could be more
paternalistic that giving the University the authority to decide which
topics can and which topic can't be discussed on campus? What could be
more paternalistic than having the University decide that sex is
something so shameful and dirty that it can't be discussed?

- Carl

--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From: Mark.Sablow@iphase.UUCP (Mark Sablow)
Sender: FredGate@iphase.UUCP
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
Subject: Re: u. of illinois may re
Date: 12 Aug 92  22:26:00 EST

Allen M. Carroll states:

>>Let me be clear that if the U. took any action _against the student_
>that would be a far different matter. That, in fact, would clearly be
>censorship. (If the U. agreed to pay the student, they are still
>obligated to make that payment even if they don't show the paintings)

J.S. Greenfield replies:

Why do you think that a contractual agreement to pay the artist is legally enforceable, while a contractual agreement to display the paintings is not (or at least, is somehow worthy of less protection).

Both represent a form of consideration contractually offered to the artist, and I do not see how one can be distinguished from the other in this case.

In fact, as a practical matter, the artist may consider the exhibit of her work to be *more* important than any money received directly from the University. (Since, presumably, exposure may lead to future opportunities.)

My response:

Mr. Greenfield could not be more correct.  The exhibition is vital to an artist (especially a young artist trying to become established).  The money, if any (very often none), is very little, when paid it is usually a tolken amount.

I am a artist & professor, I need exhibitions for my resume for both fields!  Not to be given a show to only have the rug pulled from under my feet.  An exhibition can be a tremendous amount of work.  The institution should stand by its orginal decision.


                                                         Have a Great Day & Be All You Can Be!

                    Mark, aka Professor Atget

 * Origin: Aether (1:112/2020)

Newsgroups: uiuc.general,alt.censorship,rec.arts.fine
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: U. of Illinois may remove non"pleasant" art from vistor's center
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 15:43:34 GMT

monson@hobo.ECE.ORST.EDU (Ty Monson) writes:

[...]
>   Carl, I have been following your postings, and it is clear to
>   me that you have (implicitly) taken the position that anyone should be 
>   permitted to display anything they want in the visitor's center.
>   Your statement above not withstanding,
>   your past comments and citations consistently indicate that you 
>   regard anything less as censorship.
[...]

No so. The selection committee has likely rejected dozens (perhaps
hundreds) of artists. Assuming the artists weren't rejected because of
their origin, background, or views or because of partisan or doctrinal
disapproval this wasn't, in my opinion, censorship.

- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Xref: sparky alt.censorship:6988 rec.arts.fine:600
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Newsgroups: uiuc.general,alt.censorship,rec.arts.fine
Subject: Re: U. of Illinois may remove non"pleasant" art from vistor's center
Date: 18 Aug 92 00:52:58 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL

kornkven@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Ed Kornkven) writes:

[...]
>Partly right, I suppose.  But even the most liberal Courts have upheld the
>notion of *illegal* pornography.  As another example, the FCC still
>exercises regulation of the airwaves.  So, the common misconception that this
>"right" is absolute is false.
[...]

If anyone had claimed that freedom of speech as protected the the
Supreme Court was absolute, they would be wrong and you would right.
(I don't recall anyone making that claim). Other examples include
restrictions on fighting words, on commercial speech, on libel and
slander, etc. etc.

The University of Wisconsin tried recently tried to ban all racially
and sexually offensive speech from campus using the fighting words
rational. The federal district court however said that the
University's use of the fighting words doctrine was so broad that
infringed on much protected speech and was therefore invalid.

- 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."


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

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/law/uwm-post-v-u-of-wisconsin

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/law uwm-post-v-u-of-wisconsin
	

--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From: Mindy.Machanic@iphase.UUCP (Mindy Machanic)
Sender: FredGate@iphase.UUCP
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
Subject: Re: U. of Illinois may remove non"pleasant" art from vistor's center
Date: 12 Aug 92  20:44:37 EST

Organization: AG Communication Systems, Phoenix, Arizona

In article <1992Aug09.140231.16426@anomaly.sbs.risc.net>, kd1hz@anomaly.sbs.risc.net (Michael P. Deignan (KD1HZ)) writes:
> StarWatcher@uiuc.edu (StarWatcher) writes:
> 
> 
> Your right to "free speech" should not infringe upon other people's
> rights. Likewise, just because someone decides not to show a piece of
> "art", or decides to take it down because of numerous complaints about
> the acceptability of said "art", does not in fact infringe on your right
> to "free speech" - you're more than welcome to stand outside on public
> property and hold it up for all to see.
> 
> 
> MD
> -- 
> --  Dr. Michael P. Deignan (deg.pend.)      /   "Its okay dear,
> --  Domain: kd1hz@anomaly.sbs.risc.net     /     you can show me...
> --    UUCP: ..!uunet!anomaly!kd1hz        /      I'm a Doctor..."

Oh, so I can stand _outside_ on public property and hold it up for all to see,
but I cannot put it on the walls _indoors_, away from the weather, in public
property, and put it up for all to see? Very logical and consistent, yes?
-- 
Mindy
*****************************************************************************************
Mindy Machanic  (AG Communication Systems/Quality Engineering, Phoenix, AZ)               
(This space available for interesting messages and the usual disclaimers...)
 * Origin: Gated from uucp to Fidonet by FredGate (1:112/28.0)

From: Mark.Sablow@iphase.UUCP (Mark Sablow)
Sender: FredGate@iphase.UUCP
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
Subject: Re: u. of illinois may re
Date: 12 Aug 92  22:26:00 EST

Allen M. Carroll states:

>>Let me be clear that if the U. took any action _against the student_
>that would be a far different matter. That, in fact, would clearly be
>censorship. (If the U. agreed to pay the student, they are still
>obligated to make that payment even if they don't show the paintings)

J.S. Greenfield replies:

Why do you think that a contractual agreement to pay the artist is legally enforceable, while a contractual agreement to display the paintings is not (or at least, is somehow worthy of less protection).

Both represent a form of consideration contractually offered to the artist, and I do not see how one can be distinguished from the other in this case.

In fact, as a practical matter, the artist may consider the exhibit of her work to be *more* important than any money received directly from the University. (Since, presumably, exposure may lead to future opportunities.)

My response:

Mr. Greenfield could not be more correct.  The exhibition is vital to an artist (especially a young artist trying to become established).  The money, if any (very often none), is very little, when paid it is usually a tolken amount.

I am a artist & professor, I need exhibitions for my resume for both fields!  Not to be given a show to only have the rug pulled from under my feet.  An exhibition can be a tremendous amount of work.  The institution should stand by its orginal decision.


                                                         Have a Great Day & Be All You Can Be!

                    Mark, aka Professor Atget

 * Origin: Aether (1:112/2020)
20 
20 
20 

Newsgroups: uiuc.general,alt.censorship,rec.arts.fine
From: GreyOwl@uiuc.edu (GreyOwl)
Subject: Re: U. of Illinois may remove non"pleasant" art from vistor's center
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Reply-To: GreyOwl@uiuc.edu
Organization: UIUC Actuarial Science Program
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 15:17:00 GMT
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content

tmkk@uiuc.edu (Khan) writes:
: 
: Perhaps one of you folks debating this topic can answer the following
: question for me:
: 
: Why is it legal for a University to bad X-rated GIF files from its
: anonymous ftp sites, ban the importation of groups such as
: alt.sex.pictures onto camous machines, but NOT legal for them to take a
: couple of X-rated paintings off of the wall of a campus building?

Erotica-type gifs may be banned from University anonymous ftp sites because
UIUC would probably be swamped with ftp connections from all over the world...
an unaceptable drain on limited University resources.

UIUC does not carry the alt.binaries.pictures groups for a similar reason:
they require a lot of disk space to maintain.

However, I don't think that UIUC _really_ bans the alt.binaries.pictures.*
groups (as well as other groups not carried here) because it is still possible
to access them.  You just have to figure out how.  ;-)

--
Michael Adams (aka GreyOwl)
+1 (217) 344-0709, +1 (217) 344-4857
GreyOwl@uiuc.edu (NeXT mail accepted)
wi.5467@wizvax.methuen.ma.us (anon mail)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
From: greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (J. S. Greenfield)
Subject: Re: Limiting religious speech
Organization: Syracuse University, CIS Dept.
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 92 09:32:44 EDT

In article <1992Aug20.155329.2521@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> rwd4f@poe.acc.Virginia.EDU (Rob Dobson) writes:

>>How many of you are dismayed at the recent Supreme Court ruling in
>>Lee v. Weisman, which held prayer at graduation ceremonies
>>unconstitutional?   If this isn't stifling free speech, what is? 
>
>This decision did NOT stifle free speech. It held that opening a graduation
>with a prayer violated the establishment clause of the 1st amendment, and
>was therefore illegal. In no way does this decision prevent anyone from
>praying at graduation, EXCEPT the person at the microphone, who is speaking
>with state $$ and therefore prohibited from praying while he is at the mike.

I'd appreciate a reference to the portion of the decision that stated this.

To my knowledge, the decision, explicitly, only prohibited clergy from
being brought in for the express purpose of a benediction.

Furthermore, I am unaware of any implication of your argument.  From the
summaries I have seen, the only reasonable implication of the court
decision is that no *agent of the state* may conduct prayer (or other
religious activities).

I see absolutely nothing that supports the contention that those who are *not*
agents of the state are prohibited from doing so.


-- 
J. S. Greenfield                                         greeny@top.cis.syr.edu
(I like to put 'greeny' here, 
but my d*mn system wants a 
*real* name!)                        "What's the difference between an orange?"
Newsgroups: uiuc.general,alt.censorship,rec.arts.fine