From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Computers and Academic Freedom News 02.49 (Digest)
Originator: kadie@eff.org
Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 06:02:51 GMT

Computers and Academic Freedom News
Vol. 02, No. 49


----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Article 0 -- Abstract of CAF-News 02.49

[Week ending October 4, 1992

========================== KEY ================================
The words after the numbers are a short PARAPHRASES of the
articles, or QUOTES from them, NOT AN OBJECTIVE SUMMARY and
not necessarily my opinion.
===============================================================

  [We need new guest (or regular) editors, for information send
   email to kadie@eff.org.  - Carl]

Note 1 is the latest edition of the "Banned Computer Material 1992"
list. [The original version is in the archive as
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/old.banned.1992]

1. A list of computer material that was banned or challenged in academia
in 1992. The institutions mentioned are:
     Ball State U., Boston U. (2), Carnegie Mellon U., German
     universities, Iowa State U. (3), Irish universities, James
     Madison U., Middle East Technical U., North Dakota State U.,
     Pennsylvania State U., Princeton, Simon Fraser U., U. of British
     Columbia, U. of California at Berkeley *, U. of Illinois at
     Urbana-Champaign, U. of Manitoba, U. of Massachusetts at Boston,
     U. of Nebraska at Lincoln, U. of Newcastle, U. of Ottawa, U. of
     Texas, U. of Toledo, U. of Toronto *, U. of Wyoming, United
     Kingdom Net, Virginia Public Education Network, Virginia Tech,
     Western Washington U. (& U. of Washington), Wilfrid Laurier U.
     (2), Williams College **
          * Site of an unsuccessful challenge
          ** College not directly involved.
    <1992Sep30.065537.23479@eff.org>

Notes 2-7 are about "banning" offensive .plan files.

2. In reply to a sys admin who says that asking that users not to put
   offensive material in a .plan is not a ban: "It's based on content.
   That constitutes censorship.  Who decides what is or is not
   'obscene, sexual, or violent'? If the specific logic to decide what
   is or is not, is in writing, why not POST IT HERE ... If there is
   no such specifics, how can anyone know in advance?"
    <1992Sep30.192405.1619@netcom.com>

3. In reply to the sys admin's comment that "Saying 'you may post this
   material anywhere except for this one place' is a far cry from
   prohibiting or forbidding the material!": "On the contrary, [...]
   American Constitutional jurisprudence is full of cases in which
   regulation of expression based on content was considered to be
   censorship."
    <1992Oct2.011244.13372@eff.org>

4. [The sys admin:] "What are the consequences if a student doesn't
   change a .plan file? **NONE** Lemme repeat for the last time: We
   are a community, not a legal board."
    <BETSYS.92Oct3130325@ra.cs.umb.edu>

5. [A sys admin at another site:] "I've had a few users who named
   their programs with "offensive" words." ... When I see such a
   thing, I drop a piece of email explaining that everyone can see
   their process names.  I don't tell them to cease and desist; I just
   say 'hey, did you know what anyone on the system can see that?'
   Most of my users don't even realize that others can see that
   information; I've never had a 'repeat offender'.
    <1992Oct1.154233.21781@ms.uky.edu>

6. Here is an excerpt from the Supreme Court decision _Cohen v.
   California_. It says that offensive speech is protected unless
   "substantial privacy interests are being invaded in an essentially
   intolerable manner."
    <1992Oct1.132836.25405@eff.org>

7. Here are excerpts from several Supreme Court decisions. They say
   that offensive public expression is protected if those offended can
   "effectively avoid further bombardment of their sensibilities
   simply by averting their eyes."
    <1992Oct2.200348.2320@eff.org>

Note 8 is about the University of Limerick in Ireland:

8. "[T]here was a security incident involving a user who had the
   process name 'Baader' [, his name]. Subsequent to his 'trial' and
   expulsion from the college for a year, another student set his
   process name to 'Baader' and promptly found himself disusered."
    <1992Oct1.173240.7942@glas.rtsg.mot.com>

Notes 9-10 are about banning not only the running of some computer
programs but also possession of program's code.

9. In reply to an associate director of computing services who
   compared possession of some programs' code to possession of a
   handgun: "A COMPUTER PROGRAM IS NOT A HANDGUN.  Computer programs,
   at least in source code form, are PUBLISHED MATERIAL ... If my use
   of computer resources provided for a particular purpose to me and
   others interferes with that purpose, then you have a right to take
   action ...  But information itself may not be made '"illegal' ..."
    <BvI6zz.7w7@mtholyoke.edu>

10. In reply to the associate director comment that program code is to
    running a prohibited program as burglary tools are to burglary: "I
    view the distinction as rather like the distinction between
    possessing a book that tells how to steal and actually stealing.
    .... Academic libraries are full of books and reports that could
    be used to break rules and laws. I've enclosed an example.
  <1992Oct1.203856.7190@eff.org>

Note 11 is about network connectivity with the former Soviet Union (xSU).

11. The National Science Foundation (NSF) is asking that the xSU be
    allowed to connect so as not to "to disenfranchise a large
    fraction of the US R&E community whose aspirations for
    unrestricted scientific and educational collaboration with their
    peers and colleagues in the xSU NSF fully endorses."
   <9209291450.AA22215@ncri>

Note 12 is a mini review of a book about freedom of expression.

12. The book, _Free Speech in an Open Society_, is new, up to date,
    and has lots of references to relevant court cases. Enclosed are
    the book's six suggested rules for speech rules in a free forum.
   <1992Sep29.184810.10473@eff.org>

- Carl]


In this issue:

Carl M. Kadie   524  Banned Computer Material 1992
Phil Howard      60  >
Mike Godwin      42  >What is "banning" anyway?
E Schwartz       34  >Banned Computer Material 1992
Wes Morgan       48  >
Carl M. Kadie    30  >
Carl M. Kadie    80  >What is "banning" anyway?
Ronan Waide      25  >Banned Computer Material 1992
Jurgen Botz      51  >
Carl M. Kadie    37  >System security versus censorship
Stephen Wolff    36  Status of connectivity to xSU by US Federal nets
Carl M. Kadie    81  Minireview: _Free speech <>n society_ by Rodney A. Smolla


Computers and Academic Freedom News

Managing Editor:  Carl M. Kadie (kadie@eff.org)
Administration:   William W. Arnold (caf-talk-request@eff.org, warnold@eff.org)
Associate Editor: Elizabeth M. Reid (emr@eff.org)
Associate Editor: Paul Joslin (joslin@tso.uc.edu)
Associate Editor: Adam C. Gross (ag3j+@andrew.cmu.edu)
Associate Editor: Mark C. Sheehan (sheehan@unixpop.ucs.indiana.edu)
Associate Editor: John F. Nixon (fnixon@sol.utc.edu)

To contribute to the list, send email to "caf-talk@eff.org". Your note
will appear immediately on the caf-talk mailing list and in the
alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk newsgroup.

Back issues are available via anonymous ftp to ftp.eff.org. The
directory is pub/academic/news. Abstracts of CAF-news are in file
pub/academic/abstracts. The CAF archive is also available via email.
For information, send email to archive-server@eff.org. Include the
line:

send acad-freedom README

Disclaimer: This CAF-News abstract was compiled by a guest editor or a
regular editor (Paul Joslin, Elizabeth M. Reid, Adam C. Gross, Mark C.
Sheehan, or Carl M. Kadie). It is not an EFF publication. The views an
editor expresses and editorial decisions he or she makes are his or
her own.

The addresses for the list are:
	comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org     - for contributions to the list
		or	caf-talk@eff.org
	listserv@eff.org    - for automated additions/deletions
                (send email with the line "help" for details.)
	caf-talk-request@eff.org    - for administrivia

        Also, if you read newsgroups, look for alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
        and alt.comp.acad-freedom.news.
------------            

------------------------------

From caf-talk Caf Sep 30 02:55:45 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.censorship,soc.college
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Article 1--Banned Computer Material 1992
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 06:55:37 GMT

[The original version of this list is in the archive as
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/old.banned.1992 -cmk]

Banned Computer Material 1992

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).

The list proper starts after a list of the academic institutions where
bans or challenges have occurred. The list proper is followed by
instructions on how to get more information about specific incidents
and then by instructions on how to get general information about
computers and academic freedom.

Please send reports, corrections, and updates to either
caf-talk@eff.org (a public mailing list) or kadie@eff.org (private).

-- Carl Kadie, kadie@eff.org, 
       co-editor Computer and Academic Freedom News
       Disclaimer: I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
   version: 1.08

=============  Academic Institutions ==================
 USA
   Ball State University
   Boston University (i)
   Carnegie Mellon University
   Iowa State University (i)
   North Dakota State University
   Princeton
   University of California at Berkeley (site of an unsuccessful challenge)
   University of Massachusetts at Boston
   University of Nebraska at Lincoln
   University of Wyoming
   Virginia Public Education Network
   Virginia Tech
   Williams College (the college not directly involved)
 Canada
   Canadian universities
   Simon Fraser University
   University of British Columbia
   University of Manitoba
   University of Toronto (site of an unsuccessful challenge)
   University of Ottawa
   Wilfrid Laurier University (i)
   Wilfrid Laurier University (ii)
 Europe
   Irish universities
   German universities
   Middle East Technical University in Turkey
   United Kingdom Net
 Updates
   Iowa State University (ii)
   University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (ban ended)
 Continuing
   Boston University (ii)
   Iowa State University (iii)
   James Madison University
   Pennsylvania State University
   University of Newcastle
   University of Texas
   University of Toledo
   Western Washington University (& University of Washington)

=============== List of Banned Computer Materials ==============

+ USA:

Computer code at *Ball State University* to crack passwords
     ... even if it is never run. During a system-wide search, an
     administrator found the computer code. The user says "[i]t really
     bothers me that I'm going to get in a lot of trouble (probably
     anyway) just for the mere possession of a program."
          REFERENCE:
          news/cafv02n11:<9202161945.AA24863@bsu-cs.bsu.edu>

Lyrics to Ice-T's Cop Killer in a .plan file at *Boston University*
     "Two people have complained to my department's chair... .He asked me
     informally to remove it.  I told him I would not do so voluntarily."
          REFERENCE:
          news/cafv02n35:<JBW.92Jul16195814@bigbird.bu.edu>

Articles in an open bulletin board at *Carnegie Mellon University* if
they offend
     The University threatened to investigate the author on charges of
     sexual harassment unless he stopped writing.
          news/cafv02n11:<46750.298C2BB3@psycho.fidonet.org>
          news/cafv02n08:<1992Jan28.223429.20426@eff.org>

Material from the rec.arts.erotica newsgroup at *Iowa State University*
     To protest the University's ban of this newsgroup, a student
     reposted some of the articles to newsgroup isu.newsgroups. He was
     summarily expelled from the University computers. Later his
     account was restored. The incident made the front page of the
     student newspaper.
          news/cafv02n30:<1992May6.033143.16713@eff.org>
          news/cafv02n30:<1992May8.064304.8364@news.iastate.edu>

All "offensive" material at *North Dakota State University*
     Banned by the Policy on Misuse of Computer Facilities
          news/cafv02n20:<1992Apr27.214917.13402@eff.org>

Any electronic posting at *Princeton* that demeans a person because of
his or her beliefs
     banned by Princeton's Guidelines for the use of Campus and
     Network Computing Resources and the more general Rights, Rules,
     Responsibilities Policy.
          news/cafv02n20:<199204292110.AA23705@eff.org>
          news/cafv02n20:<1992Apr29.213206.24214@eff.org>

Anti-Semitic material available at the *University of California at
Berkeley* via the Internet
     ... challenged by a student, but the University and the
     Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith said that censorship would be
     inappropriate.
          news/cafv02n07:<kpgo3cINNvq@news.bbn.com>

All .plan files at the *University of Massachusetts at Boston* that would
not be given a PG-13 rating
          news/cafv02n39:<BETSYS.92Aug3155829@ra.cs.umb.edu>

All the alternative newsgroups (even alt.censorship) at the
*University of Nebraska at Lincoln*
     ... because someone might find some of the articles in some of the
     newsgroups "objectionable".  On April 6th the UNL Academic Senate
     Executive Committee voted to request restoration of the majority of
     the alt.* groups, but none have been restored.
          news/cafv02n22:<1992Mar26.214421.26447@sparky.imd.sterling.com>
          news/cafv02n22:<9203212232.AA24018@cse.unl.edu>
          news/cafv02n23:<1992Apr1.192701.28737@eff.org>
          news/cafv02n23:<9205040334.AA04565@cse.unl.edu>
          news/cafv02n23:<fwd.9204201540.AA12109@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
          news/cafv02n30:<1992May5.005813.281@eff.org>

Computer code at the *University of Wyoming* for Internet Relay Chat
     A student was told that if university searches turned up IRC code in
     his possession, he "would be disusered without hope for reinstatement."
          news/cafv02n08:
                 <3803321809011992_A11466_POSSE_11614C9F3200@mrgate.uwyo.edu>

Any network use on *Virginia Public Education Network* that violates
"generally accepted social standards"
     Such use is defined as "obscene" and is banned by PEN's Acceptable
     Use Policy.
          policies/virginia.pen.edu
          policies/virginia.pen.edu.critique

Any "unwarranted annoyance" or "unsolicited email" at *Virginia Tech*
     ... banned by the Information System's Appropriate Use Policy.
      The policy is currently being revised.
          news/cafv02n20:<1992Apr27.214917.13402@eff.org>

The phrase "George Bush and his people need a bullet in the head" posted
to the Net from *Williams College*
     The posting led to a U.S. Secret Service and grand jury investigation.
          news/cafv02n29:<1992Jun11.001601.29258@morrow.stanford.edu>

+ Canada:

alt.sex.bondage and other "pornographic writing" anywhere in *Canada*.
     ... challenged in a CBC Radio show reporting that some police
     consider these legally obscene, and would like to suppress them
     if possible.  (The police haven't acted, but their statements may
     have caused some sites to ban material.)
          news/cafv02n30:<telecom12.427.9@eecs.nwu.edu>

All Netnews discussions of sex at *Simon Fraser University*
     The _Globe and Mail_ quotes the director of academic computing
     services: "It's the same as if somebody wants Playboy or
     Penthouse.  We don't have them in the university library." In
     fact, SFU has _Playboy_ in its library.
          news/cafv02n38:<1992Jul21.164722.252@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu>
          news/cafv02n37:<philip.12@SMU.StMarys.CA>

All "vulgar", "reprehensible", "pornographic", or "poison[ous]"
material that might be accessed from, created on, or stored on
*University of British Columbia* computing equipment starting with
newsgroups alt.sex and rec.arts.erotica
     ... banned by order of the president of the University
          news/cafv02n39:<DALTON.92Jul31231305@oligo.Geop.UBC.CA>

All Netnews discussions of sex at the *University of Manitoba*
     ... banned the day after a critical article in the Winnipeg Free Press
          news/cafv02n21:<1992May10.093635.27536@ccu.umanitoba.ca>
          news/cafv02n38:<1992Jul21.164722.252@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu>
          news/cafv02n37:<philip.12@SMU.StMarys.CA>
          news/cafv02n26:<1992May28.010057.18609@cs.sfu.ca>
          news/cafv02n30:<1992May31.080939.25516@clarinet.com>

All on-line material related to sex at *University of Toronto*
     ... challenged in a broadcast by CITY-TV (an independent Toronto
     television station) that suggested the U. of Toronto should deal
     with the "problem" like U. of Manitoba did, that is, by banning the
     material. The U. of Toronto resisted the challenge and refused to
     censor the material.
          news/cafv02n34:<1992Jul7.150830.27316@ccu.umanitoba.ca>
          policies/utoronto.ca
          news/cafv02n37:<philip.12@SMU.StMarys.CA>
          news/cafv02n33:<1992Jun16.045026.15800@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca>

The alt.sex* newsgroups at the *University of Ottawa*
          cases/wlu.ca

All "profane" computer file names at *Wilfrid Laurier University*
     news/cafv02n40:<1992Aug13.182157.5688@m.cs.uiuc.edu>

The alt.sex* newsgroups at *Wilfrid Laurier University*
     ... because the administration thinks they are "offensive" and "puerile".
          cases/wlu.ca

+ Europe:

Newsgroups at *many German universities* that discuss sex, including
discussion of recovery from sexual abuse
     ... banned in response to an article in the German paper "EMMA" .
          news/cafv02n23:<199204201927.AA07124@eff.org>

Netnews discussion in *Ireland* of abortion
          news/cafv02n11:<1992Feb24.222848.12187@maths.tcd.ie>

Netnews discussion via Switzerland's SWITCH of gay rights, of drugs
and drug policy, and of sex and recovery from sexual abuse. Also,
United Press International articles related to terrorism or sex
     SWITCH is an academic network consortium. The official rational is
     that this information *might* be illegal under Swiss law.
          news/cafv02n22:<1992Mar2.135005.14877@neptune.inf.ethz.ch>
          news/cafv02n11:<1992Feb20.180752@sic.epfl.ch>
          news/cafv02n13:<16825.9203091724@pyr.swan.ac.uk>

All on-line political or religions "activism" at *Middle East
Technical University in Turkey*
          news/cafv02n21:<1992May4.223243.28741@eff.org>

Newsgroups alt.sex*, alt.drugs, alt.evil, alt.tasteless and
rec.arts.erotica on *United Kingdom Net*
     UKNet is commercial network that connects most academic institutions in
     the United Kingdom. They say that they fear UK law.
          news/cafv02n33:<1992Jun08.165434.4998@bas-a.bcc.ac.uk>
          news/cafv02n30:<1992May19.093311.105@rdg.dec.com>

+ Updates:

Most on-line discussion of sex at *Iowa State University*
     Iowa State University restricts access to these newsgroups. The
     rational for the restriction is Iowa's Obscenity law. That law,
     however, explicitly exempts universities. Since the original
     restrictions were started rec.arts.erotica has been added to the
     restricted list, while discussion of drugs and drug policy were
     removed.
          news/cafv02n11:<1992Feb23.201324.12799@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
          news/cafv02n11:<3198@ecicrl.ocunix.on.ca>
          news/cafv02n08:<1992Jan24.160039.20161@news.iastate.edu>
          news/cafv02n30:<1992May11.132630.23905@news.iastate.edu>

Email send to or from the National Center for Supercomputer
Applications (NCSA) that verbally attacks the Center or the
*University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign*
     No longer grounds for a computer file search
          case/ncsa.email
          news/cafv02n33:<1992Jun2.011050.15719@m.cs.uiuc.edu>

+ No Changes Reported:

Any computer files at *Boston University* that anyone else finds
offensive or annoying
     The rules at Boston University prohibit a computer user from "making
     accessible offensive [or] annoying ... material".
          news/cafv01n10

All rude articles at *Iowa State University*
     On-line rudeness is prohibited by Iowa State computer policy. A
     student was reprimanded for posting a rude article to the net.
          news/cafv01n38
          news/cafv02n23:<1992Apr2.174625.23219@eff.org>

All email containing "offensive" material at *James Madison University*
          news/cafv01n39

The alt.sex.* hierarchy on PSUVM, the main general purpose computer at
*Pennsylvania State University*
          news/cafv01n34

All offensive messages at *University of Newcastle*
          news/cafv01n39

All email or Netnews articles that "bring discredit" to the *University
of Texas* or its Computer Science Department"
          news/cafv01n37

The alt.sex newsgroup at the *University of Toledo*
          batch/oct_06_1991

More than a dozen newsgroups, including alt.sex, at *Western Washington
University*
     They were removed from Western Washington University on the order of
     one person, the Vice Provost for "information and communication".
     Alt.sex remains at the *University of Washington*, but other
     newsgroups were removed right before a negative article was printed
     in the Seattle _Post Intelligencer_.
          news/cafv01n33
          news/cafv01n36
          news/cafv01n35
          news/cafv01n41

========= How to get more information about an incident =========

Following each item in the list above is one or more references.
For example:
          news/cafv02n11:<9202161945.AA24863@bsu-cs.bsu.edu>
          news/cafv01n10
          policies/virginia.pen.edu
          cases/wlu.ca
          batch/oct_06_1991

In the first example, "news/cafv02n11" is the name of a file and
"<9202161945.AA24863@bsu-cs.bsu.edu>" is a message-id within the file.
The other example references consist of just file names. If a
reference includes a message-id, retrieved the named file first, then
edit it and do a text search for that message-id.

The files are available by anonymous ftp (the preferred method) and by
email. To get the files via ftp, do an anonymous ftp to ftp.eff.org
(192.88.144.4), and  "get" the files.

For example:

  get pub/academic/news/cafv02n11
  get pub/academic/news/cafv01n10
  get pub/academic/policies/virginia.pen.edu
  get pub/academic/cases/wlu.ca
  get pub/academic/batch/oct_06_1991

To get the files by email, send email to archive-server@eff.org.
For the files in the example, the email should contain the lines:

send acad-freedom/news cafv02n11
send acad-freedom/news cafv01n10
send acad-freedom/policies virginia.pen.edu
send acad-freedom/cases wlu.ca
send acad-freedom/batch oct_06_1991

========== Other Information of Possible Interest ===========

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

=================
caf
=================
A description to the comp-academic-freedom-talk mailing list. It is a
free-forum for the discussion of questions such as: How should general
principles of academic freedom (such as freedom of expression, freedom
to read, due process, and privacy) be applied to university computers
and networks? How are these principles actually being applied? How can
the principles of academic freedom as applied to computers and
networks be defended?

=================
banned.1991
=================
A list of computer material that was banned at universities during (or
before) 1991. It summarizes incidents and policies at Ohio State U.,
the U. of Illinois (two campuses), Case Western U., Boston U., U. of
Waterloo, U.  of Toledo, Western Washington U., Iowa State U.,
Pennsylvania State U., U. of Texas, U. of Newcastle, James Madison U.,
U. of Wisconsin, and others.

=================
statements/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).

=================
statements/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.

=================
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?

=================
faq/netnews.writing
=================
q: Should my university allow students to post to Netnews?

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

=================
faq/censorship-and-harassment
=================
q: Must/should universities ban material that some find offensive
(from Netnews facilities, email, libraries, and student publications,
etc) in order to comply with antiharassment laws?

=================
faq/media.control
=================
q: Since freedom of the press belongs to those who own presses, a
public university can do anything it wants with the media that it
owns, right?

=================
faq/policy
=================
q: What guidance is there for creating or evaluating a computer policy?

=================
library/bill-of-rights.ala
=================
The Library Bill of Rights from the American Library Association.

=================
library/diversity.ala
=================
"Diversity in Collection Development"

An interpretation by the American Library Association of the "Library
Bill of Rights"

It says that collections should be inclusive, not exclusive. And that
materials should cover the needs and interest of all patrons. "This
includes materials that reflect political, economic, religious,
social, minority, and sexual issues."

=================
academic/speech-codes.aaup
=================
On Freedom of Expression and Campus Speech Codes Expression - An
official statement of the American Association of University
Professors (AAUP)

It says in part: "On a campus that is free and open, no idea can be
banned or forbidden.  No viewpoint or message may be deemed so hateful
or disturbing that it may not be expressed."

=================
academic/student.freedoms.aaup
=================
Joint Statement on Rights and Freedoms of Students -- This is the main
U.S. statement on student academic freedom.

=================
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/caf
  pub/academic/banned.1991
  pub/academic/statements/caf-statement
  pub/academic/statements/caf-statement.critique
  pub/academic/faq/netnews.reading
  pub/academic/faq/netnews.writing
  pub/academic/faq/netnews.liability
  pub/academic/faq/censorship-and-harassment
  pub/academic/faq/media.control
  pub/academic/faq/policy
  pub/academic/library/bill-of-rights.ala
  pub/academic/library/diversity.ala
  pub/academic/academic/speech-codes.aaup
  pub/academic/academic/student.freedoms.aaup
  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 caf
send acad-freedom banned.1991
send acad-freedom/statements caf-statement
send acad-freedom/statements caf-statement.critique
send acad-freedom/faq netnews.reading
send acad-freedom/faq netnews.writing
send acad-freedom/faq netnews.liability
send acad-freedom/faq censorship-and-harassment
send acad-freedom/faq media.control
send acad-freedom/faq policy
send acad-freedom/library bill-of-rights.ala
send acad-freedom/library diversity.ala
send acad-freedom/academic speech-codes.aaup
send acad-freedom/academic student.freedoms.aaup
send acad-freedom/law uwm-post-v-u-of-wisconsin


------------------------------

From caf-talk Caf Sep 30 16:24:37 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.censorship,soc.college
From: pdh@netcom.com (Phil Howard )
Subject: Article 2--Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 19:24:05 GMT

betsys@cs.umb.edu (Elizabeth Schwartz) writes:

>I protest our inclusion in a list entitled "Banned Materials."

Why am I not surprised.


>We do not ban ANY legal materials. All we ask is that obscene, sexual,
>or violent (or obnoxious ASCII or excessively long) materials be made
>available at user request, and not shown to users who have not
>requested this display.

It's based on content.  That constitutes censorship.  Who decides what
is or is not "obscene, sexual, or violent"?  If the specific logic to
decide what is or is not, is in writing, why not POST IT HERE (and of
course you would make it available to everyone on campus).  If there
is no such specifics, how can anyone know in advance?


>   There's a BIG DIFFERENCE. You are allowed to own, advertise, and 
>distribute any speech you like. For example, any user may post in
>their .plan file or on our bulletin board  "for sexually explicit
>lyrics, see my publicly readable file dirty.txt" 

IMHO, you can place a size limit on .plan files, or just make your finger
server ignore them altogether.

The .plan file is a place.  If you want to restrict the PLACE, fine;
its is the property of the university.  But if it is decided to allow
speech there, it cannot be based on its CONTENT.


>    I think this is analagous to a student newspaper requiring
>political speech to be on the editorial pages, or requiring political
>groups to use bulletin boards instead of plastering the walls. You are
>allowed to speak but others are allowed to choose to receive your
>material or not.

If political groups are not allowed to use walls, but all the other
groups ARE ALLOWED TO PLASTER THE WALLS, then you sure have a funny
policy.  Wanna bet the the policy REALLY says that the walls are simply
not the forum?

If the newspaper decides to organize the things they are choosing to print
in their own facility, that is their decision.  If they are suddenly
restricted by outside decision makers on the basis of their content,
then we have a problem again.


>(*ie we would ban pirated software)

It's already specified as illegal, so this is easy enough to do.
-- 
/***********************************************************************\
| Phil Howard  ---  KA9WGN  ---  pdh@netcom.com   |   "The problem with |
| depending on government is that you cannot depend on it" - Tony Brown |
\***********************************************************************/


------------------------------

From caf-talk Caf Oct  1 21:12:53 1992
Newsgroups: soc.college,alt.censorship,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Article 3--Re: What is "banning" anyway?
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 01:12:44 GMT

In article <BETSYS.92Oct1171720@ra.cs.umb.edu> betsys@cs.umb.edu (Elizabeth Schwartz) writes:
>My Random House defines it as to "prohibit, forbid or bar; interdict"
>I claim that is NOT what we are doing!
>  Saying "you may post this material anywhere except for this one
>place" is a far cry from prohibiting or forbidding the material!

On the contrary, Betsy, American Constitutional jurisprudence is full of
cases in which regulation of expression based on content was considered to
be censorship.

The issue is not whether you are "banning" the material altogehter, but
whether you are banning it from their .plan files. 

>  The reason I am pushing this is that I feel we are a site which is
>deeply and fundamentally supportive of open access and free speech. It
>hurts to see us listed on the same list as folks who are denying
>newsgroup access, shutting off users, and other serious measures. 

If you are deeply supportive of free speech, how can you justify a system
policy that seems to be grounded in your personal opposition to seeing
offensive stuff appear on your screen when you run finger?

>   I don't see what's wrong with asking that one particular system
>utility, finger, be kept clear of obscene messages ....

But you seem to define "obscene" far more broadly than any government body
is allowed to do under the U.S. Constitution. For example, you seem to
think that all sexual material is obscene.


--Mike



-- 
Mike Godwin,    |"The meeting of two personalities is like the contact 
mnemonic@eff.org| of two chemical substances: if there is any reaction, 
(617) 864-0665  | both are transformed."
EFF, Cambridge  |                           --Carl Jung 


------------------------------

From caf-talk Caf Oct  3 13:57:05 1992
From: betsys@cs.umb.edu (Elizabeth Schwartz)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.censorship,soc.college
Subject: Article 4--Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Date: 3 Oct 92 18:03:25 GMT

What are the consequences if a student doesn't change a .plan file?
**NONE**

Lemme repeat for the last time: We are a community, not a legal board.
We are engaged in teaching. Perhaps one of the things we are teaching
is working together in a group. When someone is very disruptive, or
offensive, by our community standards, we ask them to change.
  WE HAVE NO AUTHORITY EXCEPT FOR THE RESPECT WHICH THE STUDENTS HERE 
STILL HAVE FOR US. WE FEEL THAT ASKING STUDENTS TO BEHAVE WITH SOME
DIGNITY DOESN'T DETRACT FROM THEIR EDUCATION BUT HELPS IT.
  Students we've asked have changed with NO threats, NO hidden
consequences, NO nasty undertones. We've never taken an account away
so I don't think there are any hidden fears. Students seem to feel
free to debate policy, so I don't think there is hidden authoritarian
crackdowns. 
  I'm outa this argument. If you like, come to UMass and see how much
we are trying to do with so little, and you'll see a department that
is still working as a community. 

Betsy

PS for the record: we are NOT the "library computer," the VAX/VMS
people are. We're a department lab belonging to the Math and CS dept
and  earmarked for research and teaching ONLY. Every other service we 
provide is an "extra" done because we want to provide it, and
UNFUNDED. This includes Usenet.
--
System Administrator                  Internet: betsys@cs.umb.edu
MACS Dept, UMass/Boston               BITNET:ESCHWARTZ%UMBSKY.DNET@NS.UMB.EDU
100 Morrissy Blvd                     Staccato signals
Boston, MA 02125-3393                      of constant information....


------------------------------

From caf-talk Caf Oct  1 15:56:21 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,
From: morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan)
Subject: Article 5--Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 19:42:33 GMT

twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce) writes:
> [ ... description of user-configurable session names ...]
>
>While there is no censorship of any kind of .plan files or news
>postings or email -- the staff is very strict about keeping freedom of
>expression open on those lines -- users are not permitted to have
>process names that others might find "objectionable," in terms of
>profanity.  This restriction is in effect primarily because it is very
>easy to see other process names "accidentally," whereas people have to
>go out of their way to read news or .plan files.  I don't quite agree
>with that distinction, but c'est la vie.

Well, the same situation exists under Unix, where a "ps -eaf" or "ps aux"
command will list the processes for all users.  I've had a few users who
named their programs with "offensive" words.

>The "punishment" for breaking this rule is very mild: a brief note
>from the computer center director explaining the rule and the reasons
>for it.  I have no idea what would happen to repeat offenders, but I
>suspect very little; very few things would cause you actually to lose
>your account at Amherst.

When I see such a thing, I drop a piece of email explaining that everyone
can see their process names.  I don't tell them to cease and desist; I just
say "hey, did you know what anyone on the system can see that?"  Most of my 
users don't even realize that others can see that information; I've never 
had a "repeat offender".

I think that this sort of thing is often born of frustration.....I've often
been tempted to call my FORTRAN code by various obscenties....8)

>Any thoughts?  This seems like a borderline case to me.

As long as it's a friendly matter (as it seems to be so far), I think that
the informative angle is okay.  If they start punishing offenders, that's 
a different story.  As I said, I've never had a repeating problem in this
area; most users are embarassed to find out that others can see.....8)

--Wes

-- 
MORGAN@UKCC         |       Wes Morgan       |        ...!ukma!ukecc!morgan 
morgan@ms.uky.edu   | Engineering  Computing |   morgan@wuarchive.wustl.edu
morgan@engr.uky.edu | University of Kentucky | JWMorgan@dockmaster.ncsc.mil
  Mailing list for AT&T StarServer S/E  - starserver-request@engr.uky.edu


------------------------------

From caf-talk Caf Oct  1 09:28:44 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.censorship,soc.college
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Article 6--Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 13:28:36 GMT

mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:

[...]
>Betsy, this looks very much like censorship to me. A user's .plan file is
>not normally *forced* on anyone; what is the logic to regulating its
>content?
[...]

An argument could be made that it is forced on (or at least thrust at)
unsuspecting users. Legally, however, I don't think this matters. What
matters is if they can get away from it and still work or go to
school.

As _Cohen v. California_ says:

"... The ability of government, consistent with the Constitution, to
shut off discourse solely to protect others from hearing it is, in
other words, dependent upon the showing that substantial privacy
interest are being invaded in an essentially intolerable manner. Any
broader view of this authority would effectively empower a majority to
silence dissidents simply as a matter of personal predilections."

- Carl

-- 
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
 =kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =


------------------------------

From caf-talk Caf Oct  2 16:03:55 1992
Newsgroups: soc.college,alt.censorship,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Article 7--Re: What is "banning" anyway?
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 20:03:48 GMT

Here are some more quotes from _Cohen vs. California_ and related
cases (from an email correspondent):

"In this regard, persons confronted with Cohen's jacket were in quite
a different posture than, say, those subjected tot he raucous emmissions
of sound trucks blaring outside their residences [presumably a reference
to the specific case of Kovacs v. Cooper (1949)].  Those in the Los
Angeles courthouse could effectively avoid further bombardment of their
sensibilities simply by averting their eyes.  And, while it may be that
one has a more substantial claim to a recognizable privacy interest when
walking through a courthouse corridor than, for example, strolling through
Central Park, surely it is nothing like the interest in being free from
unwanted expression in the confines of one's own home...."

_Kovacs v. Cooper_ says:

"Section 4 of the ordinance bars sound trucks from broadcasting in
a loud and raucous manner in the streets.  There is no restriction upon
the communication of ideas or discussion of issues by the human voice,
by newspapers, by pamphlets, by dodgers.  We think that the need for
reasonable protection in the homes or business houses from distracting
noises of vehicles equipped with such sound amplifying devices justifies
the ordinance."

_Carey v. Brown_ (1980): "In sum, 'no mandate in our Constitution
leaves States and governmental units powerless to pass laws to protect
the public from the kind of boisterous and threatening conduct that
disturbs the tranquility of spots selected by the people either for
homes, wherin they can escape the hurly-burly of the outside business
and political world, or for public buildings that require peace and
quiet to carry out their functions, such as courts, libraries,
schools, and hospitals.'"

- Carl

ANNOTATED REFERENCES

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

=================
law/cohen-v-california.1
=================
Definition of "fighting words"; why no right not to be offended

The definition of fighting words from _Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire_
and then _Cohen v. California_. Also, says quotes the Supreme Court
saying that there is no universal right to not hear offensive
expression.

=================
law/cohen-v-california.2
=================
Netnews article with reference _Cohen v. California_, "in which the
court ruled that Cohen's jacket, which stated "Fuck the Draft" was a
protected form of free speech, even though he wore it in a county
courthouse."

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

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/cohen-v-california.1
  pub/academic/law/cohen-v-california.2

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 cohen-v-california.1
send acad-freedom/law cohen-v-california.2

-- 
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
 =kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =


------------------------------

From caf-talk Caf Oct  1 19:47:16 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.censorship,soc.college
Subject: Article 8--Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
From: waider@glas.rtsg.mot.com (Ronan Waide)
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 17:32:40 GMT

twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce) writes:

[Process names restriction]

>Any thoughts?  This seems like a borderline case to me.

In the University of Limerick, Ireland, there was a security incident involving
a user who had the process name "Baader". Subsequent to his "trial" and
expulsion from the college for a year, another student set his process name to
"Baader" and promptly found himself disusered.

A touch rough, no?

>-- 
>____ Tim Pierce                / "You are just naive and repressed because
>\  / twpierce@unix.amherst.edu /  penis envy is here and it's now and it's
> \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) /  all around you." -- Neal C. Wickham
-- 
Ronan Waide, Motorola Ireland                        waider@glas.rtsg.mot.com

"You watch a talk show recently?  They're doing one next month on a normal,
happy heterosexual couple, assuming they can find one." - Prof R. Noble @ RPI


------------------------------

From caf-talk Caf Oct  2 13:02:45 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.censorship,soc.college
From: jbotz@mtholyoke.edu (Jurgen Botz)
Subject: Article 9--Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 16:55:11 GMT

In article <92275.104628HANK@BARILVM.BITNET> Hank Nussbacher <HANK@BARILVM.BITNET> writes:
>Assume that sex/porn/necrophilia are all grounded in the rule of free speech
>and that indeed some universities are trampling on the free speech rights of
>their students.  I somehow don't understand the two examples above - how does
>this impinge the rights of their free speech?  Let us take the first example:
>suppose I carry a handgun tucked under my shirt.  I have not used it and don't
>intend to use it.  What right does anyone have to stop me and take away my gun
>when I enter their building?

A COMPUTER PROGRAM IS NOT A HANDGUN.  Computer programs, at least in
source code form, are PUBLISHED MATERIAL (and are considered such by
US law and many international trade agreements).  This is an _extremely_
important distinction...  yes, published material _can_ be dangerous,
but the greatest danger lies in authorities (whether governments or
University administrations) deciding what is "dangerous information"
and what is "good information".  This is precisely why many countries
have anti-censorship laws.

Let us say I have in my possession some computer files that describe
the process of making illegal explosives.  I have not made the
explosives, and do not intend to do so.  Does any authority have the
right to stop me and take away those files?  Not in the USA!  Let us
say I have in my possession a program that decrypts passwords... let
us say my field of study is crytography, and I intend to do some
independent study into the practical security of modern host systems.
Let us say my field of study is not crytography, I'm merely curious
about the code.  Let us say I'm going to see how well it works by
running it on a sample password file.  Etc., etc...

Who gives you the right to decide what information I may have access
to and what information I may not have access to?  If my use of
computer resources provided for a particular purpose to me and others
interferes with that purpose, then you have a right to take action (i.e.
tying up public terminals needed for other purposed with IRC).

But information itself may not be made "illegal" by _my_ code of
ethics, and by what we tend to think of as the basic principles of
democracy and human rights.  Punishing a person for being in
possession of published material that some authority considers
"dangerous information" is pure authoritarianism in its most
despicable form... not one iota better than any form of government
censorship that has ever been practiced in any totalitarian state.

--
Jurgen Botz                  |   Internet: JBotz@mtholyoke.edu
Academic Systems Consultant  |     Bitnet: JBotz@mhc.bitnet
Mount Holyoke College        |      Voice: (US) 413-538-2375 (daytime)
South Hadley, MA, USA        | Snail Mail: J. Botz, 01075-0629


------------------------------

From caf-talk Caf Oct  1 16:39:02 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Article 10--Re: System security versus censorship
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 20:38:56 GMT

00hfstahlke@bsu-ucs.uucp writes:

[...]
>Personally, I view the distinction between storing and using such a program as
>rather like the distinction between possessing and using burglary tools or an
>unlicensed concealed weapon.  

>Herbert Stahlke
>Associate Director
>University Computing Services
[...]

Personally, I view the distinction as rather like the distinction
between possessing a book that tells how to steal and actually
stealing. That is why I see it has censorship.

BTW: Academic libraries are full of books and reports that could be
used to break rules and laws. As one example:

     Hoffman, Abbie. 
     Steal this book / by Abbie Hoffman ; co-conspirator, Izack Haber ;
        accessory after the fact, Bert Cohen. New York : Pirate Editions ; 
        Distributed by Grove Press, c1971. 
     xii, 318 p. : ill., ports. ; 18 cm. 
     Includes index. 
     Bibliography: p. 288-308. 
       1. Anarchism--United States.   2. Radicalism--United States. 
          I. Title.  
     ocm09-793311  

- Carl
-- 
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
 =kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =


------------------------------

From caf-talk Caf Sep 29 11:17:13 1992
From: steve@cise.cise.nsf.gov (Stephen Wolff)
Subject: Article 11--Status of connectivity to xSU by US Federal nets
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 14:50:01 GMT

On behalf of the R&E community, NSF sought and in June, 1991 received a
letter from the Department of Commerce authorizing IP connectivity to the
so-called Eastern bloc.  In a second letter from Commerce in January, 1992,
the authorization was reaffirmed and clarified; i.e., that the concern was
export control, **not** the connectivity itself.

Accordingly, Poland, Czechoslovakia, and Hungary, have been now for some
time announced on the NSFNET Backbone; somewhat more recently, Estonia is
reachable as are (potentially) the other Baltic states.

Although connectivity to the xSU is covered by the Commerce letters to NSF,
at the request of the Federal Networking Council (FNC) the NSF agreed not to
carry such traffic on the NSFNET Backbone.  This concession was nugatory
until two recent events:  a network in the xSU is now being announced by the
CIX, so that it can (and does) exchange traffic with non-Federal US nets,
and Federal mission agencies are establishing what amount to point-to-point
links from specific sites in the xSU to specific US computational resources.

At the FNC meeting on Thursday, the 24th September, the NSF therefore asked
the FNC to reconsider its position, since a side effect of the growing
connectivity (which is either "non-R&E" or is between unilaterally-selected
scientists and sites in the US and the xSU) is to disenfranchise a large
fraction of the US R&E community whose aspirations for unrestricted
scientific and educational collaboration with their peers and colleagues in
the xSU NSF fully endorses.

-s

PS: Countries whose nets are announced on the NSFNET Backbone are listed in
/statistics/nets.by.country, available by anonymous ftp from nis.nsf.net.  -s
-- 
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
 =kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =


------------------------------

From caf-talk Caf Sep 29 14:48:18 1992
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Article 12--Minireview: _Free speech in an open society_ by Rodney A. Smolla
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 18:48:10 GMT


DISCLAIMER FOR ED N. -- This is a summary/paraphrase of a book. You
can flame the author for his ideas, you can flame me for
misrepresenting the author's ideas, but please don't flame me for the
author's ideas.

     Smolla, Rodney A. 
     Free speech in an open society / by Rodney A. Smolla. 1st ed. New
         York : Knopf : Distributed by Random House, 1992. 
     xii, 429 p. ; 25 cm. 
     Includes bibliographical references (p. 369-414) and index. 
     ISBN  0679407278 : $$27.50 ($$34.50 Can.) 
       1. Freedom of speech--United States.   2. Freedom of speech  I. Title.  
     ocm23-768570  

Minireview:

One-line: New, up to date, and has lots of references to relevent court cases. 

Says that history doesn't provide a comprehensive theory of free
speech, that mere balancing of competing interest is not enough.

Gives six suggested rules for speech rules in the general marketplace
of ideas:

1. Neutrality - Government may not "pick and choose" among ideas, but
must always be viewpoint-neutral"

2. Emotion - Speech does not forfeit the protection that it would
otherwise enjoy merely because it is laced with passion or vulgairty.

3. Symbolism - The First Amendment includes all expressive conduct

4. Harm -- physical (e.g. solicitation of murder or arson),
        relational (e.g. libel, false advertising, copyright infringement,
                    unauthorized revelation of perivate personal information)
        reactive harm (e.g. infliction of emotional distress, obscenity)

   The government has the strongest case for regulating "physical". A
   strong, but not as strong case, for regulating "relational". No good
   case for regulating "reactive".

5. Causation - speech is required to be in a close causal nexus with harm
before it can be penalized

6. Precision - prohibitions must be the least restrive means and must
   very clear.

Includes chapters on 

  hate speech -- "In a just soceity, reason and tolerance must triumph
  over prejudice and hate. But that triump is best achived thought
  education, no coerecion. Tolerance shouild be a dominant voice in
  the markeplace of ideas, but it should not preempt that marketplace."

  public funding of the arts, education, and other forms of public
  speech -- says that only neutral, precise, relevent restrictions
  should be allowed.

  political speech -- "Limits on political contributions and the
  public financing of elections are reforms that do not offend the
  First Amendment. But limit on expenditure do.

  The Noriega Tapes and the Gulf War

  New Technologies -- e.g. TV, cable -- indecent or obscene material should
   not be regulated at all because it is "immoral". Any regulations
   should be aimed only at protecting childern and "captive" adult
   audiences.

  Toward an International Marketplace of ideas

Score: 9 of 10


- Carl
-- 
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
 =kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =




------------------------------

End of Computers and Academic Freedom News (Digest)
************************************
-- 
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
 =kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.news