HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: monson@hobo.ECE.ORST.EDU (Ty Monson)
Subject: Re: U. of Illinois may remove non"pleasant" art from vistor's center
Organization: ECE Dept.,OSU,Corvallis
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 01:16:06 GMT

In article <1992Aug10.175510.28838@m.cs.uiuc.edu> kadie@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>gardner@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Mike Gardner) writes:
>
 (much discussion deleted)
>
>>Let's just drive a nail in the wall in Levis every 4 feet and let
>>any University related artist put whatever they want on the walls(along
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
   ...and carl says:
>No one has advocated this as the ideal. The Committee should certainly
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>continue to consider quality when selecting works.
>ANNOTATED REFERENCES
  (deleted)
>Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

   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.

   Part of the function of the visitor's center is to project an
   image of the university. It is part of the public relations
   effort that any organization engages in for self promotion.
   (In other words, the big U. wants people to think well of
    it so that they will make generous donations of $$$)
   As part of that effort, the university staff selects art exhibits to
   please the public. In this case, they had a mission failure and then
   acted to correct their problem. That isn't censorship because no one
   had a fundamental right to display anything in that building
   in the first place.

   In simpler terms:
   Freedom of speech does not mean that you are guaranteed a forum
   in which to speak.
From: adamsr@netcom.com (Rick Adams)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
Subject: Public posting of private e-mail.
Date: 21 Aug 92 20:02:10 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

Thus spake sbradley@scic.intel.com (Seth Bradley):

>I'll add my agreement to this.  Posting private e-mail without prior
>consent is a gross breach of netiquette, and is not excusable under
>any circumstances.  Those who violate this principle of privacy present
>themselves and their comments in a _very_ negative light.

	Unfortunately the converse (sending of private e-mail without
invitation) is considered totally appropriate. As a result, anyone who posts
a message which is in anyway controversial is subject to a deluge of letters
ranging from intelligent responses to obscenity, insults, and even threats.
Yet, despite the nature of some of these messages (and some are too obscene
to post ANYWHERE), if the recepient should respond to them publicly, s/he
is considered to be the one in the wrong - a patent absurdity!

	I agree that a user should not violate netiquette, but there are
limits. Unlike the above statement which states that under NO circumstances
should such mail be publicized, I believe that limits exist - and that at a
minimum once a participant has either emailed the offending mailer or
publically informed that individual that their future email would NOT be
treated as private that limit has been reached. Once the sender has been 
so informed, I see no reason that the recepient should be required to
treat *future* email from that individual as private. If an individual
insists upon violating the privacy of the recepient, that individual has no
right to hide behind any claim of privacy themselves.

	Users have as much right to demand that others NOT send them
insulting email as they do to demand that their email remain private - yet
current netiquette recognizes only one of those rights while ignoring the
other. Ideally, the inclusion of a message in an individual's .signature to
that reads "Public responses ONLY" should be sufficient to either prevent
email responses or to justify posting those responses publicly.

	Unfortunately, it is doubtful that such a policy will ever take effect, 
those who prefer to hide behind the anonymous facade of email privacy will
never accept such a convention.

	Please note, I am *NOT* specifically refering to the occurance which
started this thread. I *AM* (as is the message quoted above) dealing with
generalities only. 
-- 
    rick.adams on GEnie   /|\        You are right from your side,        
     adamsr@netcom.com  /  |  \        And I am right from mine.          
    adamsr@irie.ais.org \ /|\ /  We're both just one too many mornings,   
   adamsr@norwich.bitnet  \|/  And a thousand miles behind. (c Bob Dylan)
From: gms@vax.oxford.ac.uk
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
Subject: Re: two major UK book chains restricting Amateur Photographer
Date: 14 Aug 92 08:21:06 GMT
Followup-To: alt.censorship
Organization: Oxford University VAX 6620

> 
> If the choice wasn't between two equally crap kinds of film I don't use,
> I'd be delighted to tell Smingies I was going to switch brands... at least
> I know where not to buy my magazines from now on.  (Smiths has a long
> record of politically-motivated censorship, but this is the only instance
> of this sort of marketing-driven ban I've ever heard of).
> 
> -- 
> --  Jack Campin    room G092, Computing Science Department, Glasgow University,
> 17 Lilybank Gardens, Glasgow G12 8RZ, Scotland   TEL: 041 339 8855 x6854 (work)
> INTERNET: jack@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk or via nsfnet-relay.ac.uk    FAX: 041 330 4913
> BANG!net: via mcsun and uknet     BITNET: via UKACRL    UUCP: jack@glasgow.uucp





Nice to know it is a free market :-) Wonder what the European Commission 
would make of it??

Michele
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
From: sbradley@scic.intel.com (Seth Bradley)
Subject: Re: Public posting of private e-mail.
Organization: Intel SCIC, Beaverton, OR
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 23:45:11 GMT

In article <12_n+cb.adamsr@netcom.com> adamsr@netcom.com (Rick Adams) writes:
>	Users have as much right to demand that others NOT send them
>insulting email as they do to demand that their email remain private - yet
>current netiquette recognizes only one of those rights while ignoring the
>other. 

I thought that this point would be brought up :-).
I agree that one should be able to stop offending e-mail.  However, before
one posts private e-mail, there is another step that can be taken, namely
mailing to the offender's sysadmin.  From (second hand) personal experience,
this is often effective.  If this approach is not effective, then I truly
doubt that posting the offender's e-mail will have any positive effect,
but would agree that the recipient would be justified in doing so at that
time.  The main point is, talking to a sysadmin is likely to be far more
effective than posting e-mail.  And a very tiny percentage of posted e-mail
seems to be of the harassment category.  Almost all seems to be of the
"look what a jerk this guy is, see what he e-mailed me" class, and that is
very poor netiquette, IMO.
-- 
Seth J. Bradley, Senior System Administrator, Intel SCIC
Internet: sbradley@scic.intel.com   UUCP: uunet!scic.intel.com!sbradley
----------------------------------------
"A system admin's life is a sorry one.  The only advantage he has over
Emergency Room doctors is that malpractice suits are rare.  On the other
hand, ER doctors never have to deal with patients installing new versions
of their own innards!"  -Michael O'Brien
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
From: rwd4f@poe.acc.Virginia.EDU (Rob Dobson)
Subject: Re: Limiting religious speech
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 15:53:29 GMT

In article <4-hy-yq@rpi.edu> aultj@rpi.edu (Jim Ault) writes:
>
>Ok, here's a question for anti-censorship people:
>
>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.

The first amendment DOES 'stifle' the speech of government agencies, in that
it prevents them from being used as religious mouthpieces.
>
>Let's all raise our voices and demand that this be overturned.

WHY?!?! I can still pray whenever I want, and Im glad that tax $$ arent being
spent on prayer.


-rob

Newsgroups: uiuc.general,alt.censorship,rec.arts.fine
From: tmkk@uiuc.edu (Khan)
Subject: Re: U. of Illinois may remove non"pleasant" art from vistor's center
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 16:32:02 GMT


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?
From: rsk@aspen.circ.upenn.edu (Rich Kulawiec)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
Subject: Re: Limiting religious speech
Date: 22 Aug 92 14:48:47 GMT
Organization: Cardiothoracic Imaging Research Center

In article <1992Aug21.094247.23584@newstand.syr.edu> greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (J. S. Greenfield) writes:
>In article <86660@netnews.upenn.edu> rsk@circ.upenn.edu writes:
>>Lee v. Weisman does not hold that "prayer at graduation ceremonies
>>is unconstitutional".  It holds that "invocations and benedictions at
>>public-high-school ceremonies" are unconstitutional.
>>
>>Things which are not unconstitutional, according to my best understanding
>>of this decision, include:
>>
>>1. Prayer at parochial high-school graduations.
>
>Private organizations are not part of the State--they can do whatever they
>want.  Is this even mentioned in *this* case?  If so, its nothing new.

The reason I cited #1 specifically was that the person who started this
thread used the phrase "high school" instead of "public high school".  I
cited #1 above in order to make it clear that the scope of the decision
was such that it did not apply to parochial high schools, and therefore
that parochial high school are free to continue incorporating whatever
religious ceremonies they wish into their graduation exercises.

>>2. Prayer at college or university graduations.
>
>I don't see how this follows from the summaries of the opinion I have seen.
>Private schools, as always, can do as they please.  Public schools, on the
>other hand may well be prohibited. 

Supreme Court decisions are usually drawn as narrowly as possible.  Unless
I'm mistaken (always a possibility) this particular decision only concerns
public high schools, and does not rule on the question of colleges and
universities.  In one sense, this "leaves the door" open, since the Court
has from time-to-time indicated that it views primary, secondary and
college students in different lights; in another sense, it would seem
reasonable that the logic of this case would extend easily to the college
level.  Without re-reading the entire decision, and I don't have it here,
I'm reluctant to speculate.

>>3. Private, silent prayer at any time during any graduation.
>
>??!!  AND HOW WOULD THEY KNOW ANYWAY???!

Again, I included this because the original poster specified "prayer",
i.e. prayer in general.  Since that includes spoken prayer, silent prayer,
public prayer, private prayer, etc., I felt it necessary to delineate
just what sort of prayer this decision affects.

---Rsk
Xref: sparky alt.censorship:7082 alt.privacy:1739
From: yergeau@leland.Stanford.EDU (Dan Yergeau)
Subject: Re: Limiting religious speech
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 92 00:00:04 GMT

In article <7kjy4+n@rpi.edu>, aultj@rpi.edu (Jim Ault) writes:
|> In article <1992Aug20.155329.2521@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> rwd4f@poe.acc.Virginia.EDU (Rob Dobson) writes:
|>    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.
|> 
|> How is a rabbi (the person in the Lee v. Weisman case) speaking with
|> state money?  The rabbi is not employed by the state at all. 

Where in the decision does it mention a money argument as being
the justification?  Public money is NOT the reason for the ruling.

|> What about school teachers who recite the pledge of allegiance?  It
|> mentions God.  Some of you probably want to strike that reference too.

Not in its proper form.  It was changed from "one nation, indivisible"
during the 20's or 30's because of the "godless commies."  Believe it
or not, the version I recited every morning at a Catholic grade school
was the original one.

|> This idea that anything or anyone that accepts state money is an
|> extension of the government is ridiculous.  

Yep.  But that doesn't give free reign for those formally employed
by the state and acting on behalf of the state to do whatever they
please.

|> These rulings are most
|> clearly biased against those who believe in God.   

First, answer the question "which god"?  Then, we can begin an 
intelligent discussion.

|> If anything is
|> being established, it is secular humanism (which was classified as a
|> religion by the Supreme Court in the 60's).

Name games.  'Nuf said.

|> I will end with a quote from George Will (June 28, 1992) about the Lee
|> v. Weisman decision:

Ooooh.  George Will.  Now there's a voice to quote from when you want
to get a liberal to see your viewpoint.

-- 
Dan Yergeau                         He's dead Jim.  Take his phaser
yergeau@gloworm.Stanford.EDU        and I'll get his wallet.
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
From: machanicm@gtephx.UUCP (Mindy Machanic)
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: 18 Aug 92 21:01:46 GMT
Organization: AG Communication Systems, Phoenix, Arizona

In article <adams.713731675@spssig>, adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
> 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.
> 
> I bet they understand why the conservatives are upset at the National
> Endowment for the arts right now....
> 
>  -Steve
> --

So why do you assume that NEA money was involved in this at all?

And how come conservatives have no sense of humor?

-- 
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: 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)
20
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
Subject: Re: Limiting religious speech
Date: 21 Aug 92 22:32:30 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL

aultj@rpi.edu (Jim Ault) writes:

[...]
>How is a rabbi (the person in the Lee v. Weisman case) speaking with
>state money?  The rabbi is not employed by the state at all. 
[...]

The rabbi (whether paid or not) was invited by the public school
principal and told by the principal what kind of prayer to give.

- Carl

--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Newsgroups: uiuc.general,alt.censorship,rec.arts.fine
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
Subject: Nea reply
Date: 14 Aug 92  18:40:00 EST

>Date: 08-1292 (19:40)              Number: 380 of 386
>  To: ALL                           Refer#: NONE
>From: MIKE PERCY                      Read: (N/A)
>Subj: RE: NEA = EDUCATION *3*       Status: PUBLIC MESSAGE
>Conf: CENSORSHIP (26)            Read Type: GENERAL

>Newsgroups: alt.censorship
>Organization: Clemson University
>Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 19:40:02 GMT


>How about we let those of us who enjoy the arts and want to promote the
>arts donate our "whopping 68 to 70 cents" to an organization which can
>distribute the funds in ways that are more efficient than the government
>does?  And how about letting me give, say, $50, voluntarily -- making
me
>feel good, the arts get funded, nobody is forced into anything -- rather
>than just taking a dollar from every taxpayer to fund things which would
>do quite well without government funding?


My reply:

One day when the system is designed to do this, it would be possible but

for the time being, STOP CRYING about something that provides a positive outlet, & for for only 68 to 70 cents.   Geeeeeee....

I pay taxes for things I do not like either, that's why I vote!

                                                              Mark, aka Professor Atget

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

Newsgroups: alt.censorship
From: russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto)
Subject: Re: Limiting religious speech
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 92 00:13:07 GMT
Organization: College of Engineering, University of Maryland, College Park

In article <4-hy-yq@rpi.edu> aultj@rpi.edu (Jim Ault) writes:
>
>Ok, here's a question for anti-censorship people:
>
>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? 

Wrong.  It only disallowed public school sponsored prayer at such
ceremonies.  The graduates are free to pray (and if they don't have a
job or college lined up, they are advised to)


-- 
Matthew T. Russotto	russotto@eng.umd.edu	russotto@wam.umd.edu
Some news readers expect "Disclaimer:" here.
Just say NO to police searches and seizures.  Make them use force.
(not responsible for bodily harm resulting from following above advice)
From: rsk@circ.upenn.edu (Rich Kulawiec)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
Subject: Re: Limiting religious speech
Summary: Clarification of just what Lee vs. Weisman holds
Date: 20 Aug 92 17:40:46 GMT
Reply-To: rsk@circ.upenn.edu
Organization: Cardiothoracic Imaging Research Center

In article yq@rpi.edu, aultj@rpi.edu (Jim Ault) 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? 

Lee v. Weisman does not hold that "prayer at graduation ceremonies
is unconstitutional".  It holds that "invocations and benedictions at
public-high-school ceremonies" are unconstitutional.  (See 91-744,
which mentions this in passing; I'd cite the decision itself, but I don't
know the case number.)

Things which are not unconstitutional, according to my best understanding
of this decision, include:

1. Prayer at parochial high-school graduations.
2. Prayer at college or university graduations.
3. Private, silent prayer at any time during any graduation.
4. Auxiliary ceremonies involving prayer and conducted by those of a particular faith;
	e.g. if a local synagogue wished to hold a reception for graduates
	of a neighborhood high school, they could do so, and could conduct
	prayers if they wished.

My point in citing these examples is to note that the issue is not nearly as cut-and-dried
as "If this isn't stifling free speech, what is?".  That portion of the decision which I got a
chance to read before someone recycled my New York Times indicated that much of
the basis of the argument is that government may not act in a way which advances religion,
except if that is an incidental consequence of a larger act.  For example, if the US gov't
builds a highway through a rural area in Tennesee, that highway might make it easier for
some people to reach the local Baptist church,  which might in turn benefit the church.
However, such an act clearly has a larger purpose than the advancement of religion,
or any particular religion, and the incidental benefit which the church enjoys is only
a minor result of the overall act.  An even more stringent requirement is that government
may not advance one religion at the expense of others; for example, if the U.S. gov't
wished to publish a book on "America's Religious Heritage", it would not be appropriate
for this text to  focus exclusively on Catholics, omitting Lutherans, Quakers, Muslims,
Jews, etc.   However, the issue is considerably more complex than my admittedly-simple
and contrived examples indicate; I'm merely trying to capture some of the flavor of the
underlying premise.  For the real story, told in a much more precise and exacting way
than I'm capable of relating, read the relevant decisions.  (I recommend starting
with the case discussed here, and tracking the citations backward.)




Newsgroups: uiuc.general,alt.censorship,rec.arts.fine
From: hucke@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Matt Hucke)
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
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 22:55:28 GMT

In article <Bt6qGD.2CJ@news.cso.uiuc.edu> GreyOwl@uiuc.edu writes:
>
>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.  ;-)

Or just read the instructions I posted here last month. :)
-- 
   And thither came Conan, a thief, a reaver, a slayer, to tread the jeweled 
   thrones of the Earth beneath his sandaled feet.  --THE NEMEDIAN CHRONICLES 
hucke@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu             _V_a_l_h_a_l_l_a BBS, 217-352-3682, WWIV4.21, 14.4k
From: Mark.Sablow@iphase.UUCP (Mark Sablow)
Sender: FredGate@iphase.UUCP