From: edsall@iastate.edu (David M Edsall)
Subject: ONE YEAR AGO: New news censorship policy at Iowa State University
Keywords: bogus!
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 23:06:22 GMT

In <1991Dec16.213351.26078@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:

>One possible justification of the policy is that it implements the
>University's policy against sexual harrassment.

>>[This is file "usenet-news-std-list" - cmk]
>[...]
>>The "Standard News List" is the full Usenet newsgroup list MINUS
>>certain groups excluded because their name and accompanying description
>>appear to offer potential conflicts [...] with policies such as the sexual
>>harassment policy.
>[...]

>I think this justiication is legally invalid. _UWM POST v. U. of
>Wisconsin is a 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."

>I'm enclosing a README file for an archive of legal information.

>- Carl
> ===========================
>=================
>README
>=================
>CAF Law Archive
>  [part of the Computers and Academic Freedom (CAF) Archive
>     [part of the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) Archive]]

>This is an on-line collection of law related to computers and academic
>freedom. It includes both case law and legislation.

>The archive is accessible via anonymous ftp and email. Ftp to
>ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.3). It is in directory "pub/academic/law".
>For email access, send email to archive-server@eff.org. Include the
>line:
>      send caf-law <filenames>
>where <filenames> is a list of the files that you want. File README is
>a detailed description of the items in the directory.

>For more information or to make contributions, contact Carl Kadie
>(kadie@eff.org).

>=================
>access.minors
>=================
>Comment from the ACLU's Handbook on the _Rights of Authors and
>Artists_ (1984). It says that protecting minors was held to be an
>inadequate justification for such a severe interference with adults'
>First Amendment rights.

>=================
>bbs.kahn
>=================
>Full copy of "Defamation Liability of Computerized Bulletin Board
>Operators and Problems of Proof" by John R. Kahn

>=================
>bbs.riddle
>=================
>Full copy of "THE ELECTRONIC PAMPHLET--COMPUTER BULLETIN BOARDS AND THE LAW"
>by Michael H. Riddle

>=================
>brandenberg-v-ohio
>=================
>In e-mail, a correspondent expressed the view that there was no right
>to speech that advocated violence. This response is based on U.S. law.
>It is a summary of the ACLU's Bill of Rights Briefing Paper #10:
>Freedom of Expression. The Supreme Court's standard is that speech may
>not be suppressed or punished unless it is intended to produce
>'imminent lawless action' and it is 'likely to produce such action.'

>=================
>constitution.us
>=================
>The Constitution of the United States

>=================
>constraints.constitutional
>=================
>Comments from _A Practical Guide to Legal Issues Affecting College
>Teachers_ by Partrica A. Hollander, D. Parker Young, and Donald D.
>Gehring.  (College Administration Publication, 1985).  Discusses the
>constitutional constraints on public universities including the
>requires for freedom of expression, freedom against unreasonable
>searches and seizures, due process, specific rules.

>=================
>constraints.contractual
>=================
>Comments from _A Practical Guide to Legal Issues Affecting College
>Teachers_. Explains that University Code is part of the contract
>between the student and school. The University can be liable for a
>breach of the contract (i.e. for not following its own rules).

>=================
>court-decisions
>=================
>How to access Supreme Court decisions by anonymous ftp and WAIS.


>=================
>cubby-v-compuserv
>=================
>Report of a federal district court case which said that BBS owners
>cannot be held liable for the content they know beforehand that the
>stories are false.

>=================
>doe-v-u-of-michigan
>=================
>This is Doe v. University of Michigan. In this widely referenced
>decision, the district judge down struck the University's rules
>against discriminatory harassment because the rules were found to be too
>broad and too vague.

>=================
>due-process.buchanan
>=================
>Quotes about the due process requirements of "notice of charges" and
>"find of facts" at a formal administrative hearing. The quotes are
>~from:

>_Procedural due process guidelines for disciplinary hearings resulting
>in suspension or expulsion in higher education_ by Ernest T. Buchanan
>III. Published by Education/Law Research Associates, 1972

>=================
>due-process.french
>=================
>Quotes about the due process requirements of "notice of charges" and
>"find of facts" at a formal administrative hearing. The quotes are
>~from:

>_The Redefinition of the Exclusionary Rule as to Student Procedural
>Due Process in High Education_. A monograph from the Office of the
>General Counsel [of Southern Illinois University] by Dr. Larry L.
>French, General Counsel, 1977.

>=================
>due-process.weckstein
>=================
>Quotes about the due process requirements of "notice of charges" and
>"find of facts" at a formal administrative hearing. The quotes are
>~from:

>_School Discipline and Student Rights: an advocate's manual_ by
>Paul Weckstein, revised edition, 1982, Center for Law and
>Education.

>=================
>ecpa.1986
>=================
>Portions of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 (ECPA) related
>to e-mail privacy.

>=================
>email.bib
>=================
>I have been having an e-mail conversation with Stacy Veeder for several 
>days on the topic of e-mail privacy. She mailed me this bibliography
>which she has compiled for two papers which she is currently writing.

>I post it here with permission.

>PS - She is interested in talking with anyone who has some views on the 
>topic/information to share.

>Mark N.

>=================
>gillard-v-schmidt
>=================
>Description of an appellate court ruling that the school board could
>not search the desk of a school counselor without a warrant.

>=================
>goss-v-lopez.fischer
>=================
>Comments from _Teacher's and the Law_, 3rd edition, by Louis Fischer,
>et al. Published in 1991 by Longman. It reports that the Supreme Court
>says that some modicum of due process is necessary unless the matter
>is trivial or there is an emergency.

>=================
>goss-v-lopez.mnookin
>=================
>Comments from _In the Interest of Children_, R. Mnookin (Ed.),
>Franklin E.  Zimring and Rayman L.  Solomon (Contrib. Authors). It
>reports that the Supreme Court says that some modicum of due process
>is necessary unless the matter is trivial or there is an emergency.
>Also,

>=================
>hustler-magazine-v-falwell
>=================
>Summary from _The First Amendment Book_ by Robert J. Wagmam, p. 157.
>The publisher of a cartoon parody, already found not to be libelous,
>could not be punished for the emotional distress the cartoon may have
>caused. The Court wrote: "in public debate our own citizens must
>tolerate insulting, and even outrageous speech in order to provide
>adequate breathing space to the freedoms protected by the First
>Amendment."

>=================
>keyishian-v-board-of-regents
>=================
>In this Supreme Court case, the Court said that public universities
>can not infringe on the Constitutionally protected rights of their
>students and employees (specially with regard to loyalty oaths).

>=================
>meritor-v-vinson
>=================
>This is Meritor Savings Bank FSB v. Vinson. This is the Supreme Court
>decision that recognized illegal sexual harassment in the form of a
>"hostile environment" at the work place. It is referenced in the two
>university speech code decisions.

>=================
>mills-v-bd-of-ed
>=================
>Summary from the ACLU's Handbook _The Right of Students_ 3rd Edition
>by Janet.  R. Price, Alan H. Levine, and Eve Cary. p. 61. It says
>before you can be severely punished, you have a due process right to
>know the specific acts you are charged with committing and the
>specific rules that those acts violate.

>=================
>mt-healthy-v-doyle
>=================
>_Due Process for School Officials: A Guide for the Conduct of
>Administrative Proceedings_ by Edgar H. Bittle (1986) says that a
>formal hearing should make a detailed "findings of fact" list.


>=================
>perry-v-perry
>=================
>Comments from the ACLU Handbook _The Rights of _Teachers_. It says
>that campus mail systems (and other school facilities) can be limited
>public forums. (Perry v. Perry was about an interschool mail system.
>It was one of the cases that defined the Public Forum Doctrine.)

>Also, a paraphrase from an ACLU handbook _The Rights of Teachers_. It
>says that generally, speech, if otherwise shielded from punishment by
>the First Amendment, does not lose that protection because its tone is
>sharp.

>Also, from p. 92, it says that there are legal limits to what a
>(public) school can ask its teachers to sign. [Some of these same
>limits might apply to what a school can ask a user to sign as a
>condition of getting (or keeping) a computer account.]

>=================
>privacy.electronic.bill
>=================
>The text of Simon's electronic privacy bill, S. 516. "To prevent
>potential abuses of electronic monitoring in the workplace."

>=================
>privacy.email
>=================
>"Computer Electronic Mail and Privacy", an edited version of a law
>school seminar paper by Ruel T. Hernadex

>=================
>privacy.workplace
>=================
>Comments from and about _The new hazards of the high technology
>workplace_ see (1991) 104 _Harvard Law Review_ 1898. Talks about email
>and other electronic monitoring.

>=================
>rust-v-sullivan
>=================
>The decision and decent for the so-called abortion information gag
>rule case. The decision explicitly mentions universities as a place
>where free expression is so important that gag rules would not be
>allowed.

>=================
>san-diego-committee-v-gov-bd
>=================
>Excerpts from San Diego Committee v.  Governing Bd., 790 F.2d 1471
>(1986).  A decision by an appellate court that applied the Supreme
>Court's Public Forum Doctrine (to a school newspaper).

>=================
>stanley-v-magrath
>=================
>Comments from _Public Schools Law: Teachers' and Students' Rights_ 2nd
>Ed. by Martha M. McCarthy and Nelda H. Cambron-McCabe, published in
>1987 by Allyn and Bacon, Inc. It says, in part, "[a]lthough school
>boards are not obligated to support student papers, if a given
>publication was originally created as a free speech forum, removal of
>financial or other school board support can be construed as an
>unlawful effort to stifle free expression." Also, "school
>authorities cannot withdraw support from a student publication simply
>because of displeasure with the content" and "the content of a
>school-sponsored paper that is established as a medium for student
>expression cannot be regulated more closely than a nonsponsored
>paper". Also, it tells what to do about libel in student
>publications.

>=================
>student-publications.misc
>=================
>The book _Law of the Student Press_ by the Student Press Law Center
>(1985,1988), says that four-letter words are protected speech, that
>public universities are not likely to be liable for publications that
>they for which they do not control the contents, and that the
>_Hazelwood_ decision does not apply to universities.

>=================
>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."


>=================
>=================
>Last update
>Fri Dec 13 11:09:30 EST 1991

>-- 
>Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu, or (anonymous) ap.4352@hri.com
>I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.censorship,alt.discrimination,alt.politics.correct