From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Computers and Academic Freedom News 02.47 1/2 (Digest)
Originator: kadie@eff.org
Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 16:08:21 GMT

Computers and Academic Freedom News
Vol. 02, No. 47


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

From: Aaron.D.Barnhart@gagme.chi.il.us (Aaron Barnhart)
Subject: Article 0 -- Abstract of CAF-News 02.47

[Week ending September 27, 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.
===============================================================

Notes 1-5 continue discussion of the Iowa State dorm-door "censorship"
case.

1. "If a given forum becomes unmanageable, the owners of the forum
should have the right to close it. [...] Does the university have a
resposibility (contractual or otherwise) to provide a proper living
environment for its students?  Does an oft-harassed minority have a
right, under the University's codes/policies, to demand a living
environment free from harassment?"
	<1992Sep21.84022.5459@ms.uky.edu>
	
2. "You presume that the door displays violate valid antiharassment
rules. I confess that I presumed that they did not. [...] Because
maybe all, and certainly most, of the material on people's door is
legal, to suppress that material would be an injustice."  (Author
also quotes from _UWM Post v. Regents_.)
	<1992Sep21.134410.14591@m.cs.uiuc.edu>

3. "No, I'm assuming that the administration wishes to close an
unmanageable forum (which may, or may not, have been directly
established as such)." For instance, some (non-electronic) university
bulletin boards, "notably those in administrative areas, are
controlled by prior approval of materials to be posted.  Is this
censorship?  I think not. 
	<1992Sep21.91745.13775@ms.uky.edu>

4. "I've seen out-of-the-way signs proclaiming such free speech
ghettos at U. of Illinois and U. of Texas. I haven't, however, ever
heard of anyone being restricted to them. Nor does the current U. of
I. Student Code refer to ours. [...] The school should enforce
antiharassment rules; it should not close down whole forums." 
	<1992Sep21.221307.629@m.cs.uiuc.edu>

5. (From the original Iowa State poster:) "The Dept of Residence has
not said anything about the nature of the posts that prompted this
policy, save that they were 'racist' and 'denegrating'. Rumor  has it
that the student committee has been formed. [...] It would not
surprise me at all if we hear nothing until a new policy is approved
by the Dept of Residence. It  would have the veneer of student
approval and would therefore be stronger in a court of law."
	<maanstro.717109312@vincent2.iastate.edu>
	
Note 6 is an announcement regarding the legal counsel available
through the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

6. "REQUESTS FOR HELP IN SITUATIONS WHERE THERE'S NO CRIMINAL OR
CIVIL CASE This category includes situations in which, for example, a
college student has his computer-access privileges suspended because
a 'hacker newsletter' is discovered by a system administrator
rummaging through the student's directory. [...] If you are running
into a legal problem, or if you simply have a general legal question,
or even if you're having a problem on the Electronic Frontier and
you're not sure whether or not it's a legal problem, you should call
me, Mike Godwin, at 617-864-0665, or send me electronic mail at
mnemonic@eff.org or at 76711,317 on CompuServe. I won't always be
able to help, but I'm always willing to listen. And I may be able to
help more often than you'd think."
	<1992Sep21.223239.26506@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
	
Note 7 profiles First Amendment defender Nat Hentoff.

7. Notes from a recent lecture given by one of the great defenders of
the First Amendment, journalist Nat Hentoff, jazz critic, columnist
for _The Village Voice_ and author of the new book, _Free Speech for
Me--But Not for Thee_ (HarperCollins).  Also bibliography and
annotations.
	<1992Sep26.195343.28231@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
	
Note 8 is a news item of possible university systems censorship.

8. "In keeping with the spirit of censorship, [Louisiana Tech
University] has turned off all the students e-mail functions for
Internet. [...] Not only has Tech turned off all the students
mailfeed, I have heard evidence that their are individuals reading
students mail/posts/[Netnews] subscriptions.  I have also heard that some
students [Netnews] readings are used against them."
	<1686D8F1E.ST32373@VM.CC.LATECH.EDU>

Note 9 reviews an article by academic computing expert Stephen
Franklin.

9. "While academic computing centers can be expected to provide a
smaller fraction of the total computing resources than in the past,
what they can be expected and challenged to provide can be of
increasing importance [...] in helping shape the academic community's
vision of what can be accomplished with these resources."
	<199209232322.AA01056@orion.oac.uci.edu>

Note 10 is a reply to controversy over systems use at Ohio State.

10. (A private systems administrator:) "I make the decision, but then
I have the freedom of doing that - it's my system. College and
university managers don't have that freedom, since they have to
tolerate the goodie-two-shoes who are permitted to do their thinking
for them, and often must remove 'politicly sensitive' material from
their" systems.
	<9209230011.AA11009@jupiter.cse.utoledo.edu>

Notes 11-12 respond to computing policy at University of Rochester.

11. (A Rice University sysadmin:) "There is no absolute right of
privacy.  There is a limited right of privacy.  This means that while
a person has an expectation of privacy regarding their data files or
information, there are conditions under which a duly authorized
person may access those files without obtaining the owner's consent
first.  The task for you and your users is to define the conditions
of access such that you can balance the user's expectation of privacy
with the need to keep the system operating effectively."
	<Bv03yI.LM5@rice.edu>

12. (A Skidmore College sysadmin:) "Use your established review
groups. Most universities have a student conduct board and many have
some form of Professional conduct committee for faculty/staff.  Use
them to help keep your practices in sync with the rest of the
institution."
	<1992Sep23.001942.8273@scott.skidmore.edu>

- Aaron Barnhart]



In this issue:

Wes Morgan      117  >Censorship at Iowa State
Carl M. Kadie   191  >
Wes Morgan      185  >
Carl M. Kadie   169  >
Mark A Anstrom   44  More ISU Censorship info
Carl M. Kadie    48  [comp.org.eff.talk] EFFector Online 3.05
Carl M. Kadie   363  "Multiculturalism and the First Amendment"
ST32373@VM.CC    15  NICK=La. Tech=CENSORSHIP
Calvin Boyer     89  libraries and computer centers
Steven S. Brack  55  (none)
Joseph Watters  119  >Computer use policy document
Leo D. Geoffrion 52  >


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)
Archivist:        J.S. Greenfield (greeny@eff.org)

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 21 08:44:25 1992
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan)
Subject: Article 1--Re: Censorship at Iowa State
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1992 12:40:22 GMT

kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
>[...]
>>Don't the owners of a forum have a right to close it?
>[...]
>
>Consider another scenario. A public university owns the student
>newspaper and one year a black is elected to the editorship by a
>student/faculty board. Would the administration be allowed to say "we
>don't like blacks in positions of authority, so were are closing down
>the paper"? (I don't think so.)
>
>I would consider that racial discrimination, just as I would consider
>situation at Iowa State censorship.

I would consider the two situations as "apples and oranges".  I don't
accept the notion that one's dormitory door is eqivalent to a student
newspaper.

If a given forum becomes unmanageable, the owners of the forum should have
the right to close it.  Here's my perspective on the events at ISU (dis-
claimer -- this is based, almost completely, on net traffic):

	- Traditionally, dormitory room doors have been 'unpoliced'; 
	  students usually hang posters, message boards, etc.

	- In recent months, students have begun to display items which
	  may be construed, by some, as offensive/repulsive/racist/etc.
	
	- The administration has attempted to resolve the matter on an
	  individual basis, and has failed miserably.

	- The only alternatives which remain are:
		- Initiate judicial/disciplinary proceedings against those
		  who display items which violate the various harassment 
	  	  and/or discrimation policies/rules/laws.
		- Explicitly prohibit any display in this particular forum.

	- Judicial/disciplinary proceedings may result in substantial harm
	  to the student.  A common complaint among accused violators is "it
	  takes *weeks* from my study time to resolve the matter."  Keep in
	  mind that these proceedings would also take the same amount of time
	  from those students *initiating* the action.

	- Judicial/disciplinary proceedings would also, as a byproduct, keep
	  the offensive/racist/repulsive material(s) in public view; wouldn't
	  this have a chilling effect on the other students?  Many offended
	  students would rather let the materials remain, rather than get in-
	  volved in lengthy disciplinary proceedings.

	- Therefore, why isn't it in the best interest of *all* students to
	  "close the forum"?

>Government forum owners can close down a forum but not for improper
>reasons. In the case of the door-forum, they can't even say that they
>are doing it to save money since it will likely cost them more money
>to keep stuff off the doors that it would have to allow things on the
>doors.

Does the university have a resposibility (contractual or otherwise) to
provide a proper living environment for its students?  Does an oft-harassed
minority have a right, under the University's codes/policies, to demand a
living environment free from harassment?

>[...]
>>I fail to see how dormitory-room doors were "originally created as a
>>free speech forum".  
>[...]
>
>This might help the school's case, but it is not decisive. 

I would consider it rather decisive!  If the doors are not a free-speech
forum, the University has an almost clear-cut ability to determine their
use.

The _San Diego Committee_ decision applied to student newspapers.  I
don't accept the relevance of newspaper-oriented decisions to this case.

>[...]
>>You're also ignoring the fact that the housing contract may give the
>>University the legal right to establish such a policy.
>[...]
>
>I don't think the contract is relevant. 

I believe that it is, especially if it already contains clauses concerning
the 'display of personal materials on University property'.

>The government can't
>arbitrarily make you sign away your rights and it can't create a
>contract that gives it more authority that it actually has.

So, anywhere I live becomes my personal free-speech forum?

Suppose I drive a University vehicle -- do I have the right to paint
anti-war slogans on it (or place pro-choice/pro-life bumper stickers
on it)?

>It couldn't for example change the student code to say:
>
>"Normally a university-owned student newspaper couldn't be closed down
>because the adminstation doesn't like the race of the editor, but by
>by signing this you agree that we can close down the newspaper for
>this reason. In exchange for your agreement, we will let you enroll."

Again, you're going into an apples-and-oranges comparison.

--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 Sep 21 09:52:12 1992
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Article 2--Re: Censorship at Iowa State
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1992 13:44:10 GMT

morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:

[...]
>	- The only alternatives which remain are:
>		- Initiate judicial/disciplinary proceedings against those
>		  who display items which violate the various harassment 
>	  	  and/or discrimation policies/rules/laws.
>		- Explicitly prohibit any display in this particular forum.
[...]

You presume that the door displays violate valid antiharassment rules.
I confess that I presumed that they did not. My presumption is based
on the two observations 1) many universities have tried to improperly
outlaw racially- or sexually-insensitive views 2) the university has
decided to bypass a due process proceeding that might determine the
material is Constititonal protected.

[...]
>	- Judicial/disciplinary proceedings may result in substantial harm
>	  to the student.  A common complaint among accused violators is "it
>	  takes *weeks* from my study time to resolve the matter."  Keep in
>	  mind that these proceedings would also take the same amount of time
>	  from those students *initiating* the action.
>
>	- Judicial/disciplinary proceedings would also, as a byproduct, keep
>	  the offensive/racist/repulsive material(s) in public view; wouldn't
>	  this have a chilling effect on the other students?  Many offended
>	  students would rather let the materials remain, rather than get in-
>	  volved in lengthy disciplinary proceedings.
>
>	- Therefore, why isn't it in the best interest of *all* students to
>	  "close the forum"?
[...]

Because forums are generally a good thing. Because maybe all, and
certainly most, of the material on people's door is legal, to suppress
that material would be an injustice.

- Carl

========== ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/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?

No. The federal courts have said that harassing speech is different
from offensive speech. While face-to-face harassment can be
prohibited, mere offensive speech is protected by the principles of
academic freedom and, at state universities, by the Constitution.

The courts have also said that that it is unconstitutional at state
universities to base campus speech restrictions on EEOC rules. Here is
part of a decision:

==============Excerpt uwm-post-v-u-of-wisconsin ==========

 (3) PARALLEL TO TITLE VII LAW
 The Board of Regents argues that this Court should find the UW Rule
constitutional because its prohibition of discriminatory speech which creates a
hostile environment has parallels in the employment setting.  The Board notes
that, under Title VII, an employer has a duty to take appropriate corrective
action when it learns of pervasive illegal harassment.  See Meritor Savings
Bank v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57, 72 (1986).
 The Board correctly states Title VII law.  However, its argument regarding
Title VII law has at least three difficulties.  First, Title VII addresses
employment, not educational, settings.  Second, even if Title VII governed
educational settings, the Meritor holding would not apply to this case.  The
Meritor Court held that courts should look to agency principles when
determining whether an employer is to be held liable for its employee's
actions.  See id.  Since employees may act as their employer's agents, agency
law may hold an employer liable for its employees actions.  In contrast, agency
theory would generally not hold a school liable for its students' actions since
students normally are not agents of the school.  Finally, even if the legal
duties set forth in Meritor applied to this case, they would not make the UW
Rule constitutional.  Since Title VII is only a statute, it cannot supersede
the requirements of the First Amendment.
============================

Private institutions are legally free to violate the standards set by
the Constitution and academic freedom. They should not, however, try
to justify their violations with appeals to government rules.

- Carl

ANNOTATED REFERENCES

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

=================
law/uwm-post-v-u-of-wisconsin
=================
The full text of UWM POST v. U. of Wisconsin. This recent district
court ruling goes into detail about the difference between protected
offensive expression and illegal harassment. It even mentions email.

It concludes: "The founding fathers of this nation produced a
remarkable document in the Constitution but it was ratified only with
the promise of the Bill of Rights.  The First Amendment is central to
our concept of freedom.  The God-given "unalienable rights" that the
infant nation rallied to in the Declaration of Independence can be
preserved only if their application is rigorously analyzed.

The problems of bigotry and discrimination sought to be addressed here
are real and truly corrosive of the educational environment.  But
freedom of speech is almost absolute in our land and the only
restriction the fighting words doctrine can abide is that based on the
fear of violent reaction.  Content-based prohibitions such as that in
the UW Rule, however well intended, simply cannot survive the
screening which our Constitution demands."


=================
law/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.

=================
law/rav-v-st-paul.1
=================
The Supreme Court's _R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul_ decision about hate crimes.

The Court overturned St. Paul's Bias-Motivated Crime Ordinance, which
prohibits the display of a symbol which one knows or has reason to
know "arouses anger, alarm or resentment in others on the basis of
race, color, creed, religion or gender."

Included: summary, majority opinion, 3 concurring opinions.

=================
law/young-conservatives-v-sau
=================
A UPI story that tells how Stephen F. Austin University originally
banned a groups "sexist" flyers, but when challenged, the ban was
lifted and a cash settlement was given to the students whose
free-speech was violated by the ban.

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

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

=================
filters.email
=================
Information about how users (on Unix machines) can filter out
harassing email by themselves.

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

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

  pub/academic/law/uwm-post-v-u-of-wisconsin
  pub/academic/law/doe-v-u-of-michigan
  pub/academic/law/rav-v-st-paul.1
  pub/academic/law/young-conservatives-v-sau
  pub/academic/faq/netnews.liability
  pub/academic/faq/netnews.reading
  pub/academic/filters.email

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

send acad-freedom/law uwm-post-v-u-of-wisconsin
send acad-freedom/law doe-v-u-of-michigan
send acad-freedom/law rav-v-st-paul.1
send acad-freedom/law young-conservatives-v-sau
send acad-freedom/faq netnews.liability
send acad-freedom/faq netnews.reading
send acad-freedom filters.email


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


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

From caf-talk Caf Sep 21 16:32:38 1992
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
From: morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan)
Subject: Article 3--Re: Censorship at Iowa State
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1992 13:17:45 GMT

greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (J. S. Greenfield) writes:
>morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
>
>>Does your Residence Hall contract give the University the right to establish
>>such a policy?  Mine certainly did.........
>
>I assume that "Iowa State University" is indeed a *state* university.  In
>that case, the contractual "rights" of the university are irrelevant.  They
>cannot supercede the US Constitution.

True; of course, it cannot supersede the various anti-discrimination and
anti-harassment polcies/laws either.......we're walking a tightrope.

>>OK, so no one can display anything.  Since they aren't singling anyone
>>out for "special treatment", I don't believe this is censorship.
>
>Well, you don't understand the concept of "censorship" very well.
>
>The presence of viewpoint discrimination is absolute evidence of an
>attempt to stifle expression.

Agreed.

Let's expand the question a bit:

	Would you expect the entire dormitory to be a free speech area?
	In other words, should students be allowed to plaster posters over the
	walls (and, possibly, other people's doors) in their hallways?  If so,
	why?  If not, how can you differentiate between hallways and doors?  
	Aren't both of them "in the public arena"?  Does any "common area" auto-
	matically become a "free speech area"?

>The opposite, however, is not true.  That is, the *absence* of viewpoint
>discrimination is *not* evidence of the *absence* of an attempt to
>stifle expression.  But this is what you seem to assume.

No, I'm assuming that the administration wishes to close an unmanageable
forum (which may, or may not, have been directly established as such).
There's a difference.

>If everyone is told that they cannot post items, then *everybody's*
>right to free speech is being infringed.  It makes absolutely no
>difference how uniformly the rule is applied.
>
>The only thing that can make a difference is the *basis* for the
>infringement.  If it is a legitimate time, place, and manner
>restriction--based upon, say, a fire hazard (as Carl mentioned),
>then the restriction is legal (and justified in many people's eyes).
>
>But that is not the case here.  The school has made it very clear
>that this rule is for the express purpose of stifling expression.
>Therefore. it is not a legitimate time, place and manner restriction.

Many universities have established "free speech areas"; for example,
UKentucky's FSA is a concrete patio behind the Student Center.  With
an established FSA, they have established a policy that the remainder
of the University's public physical plant is NOT a free speech area.  Is this
censorship?  I don't think so.

At this university, some bulletin boards are uncontrolled; others, notably
those in administrative areas, are controlled by prior approval of materials
to be posted.  Is this censorship?  I think not.

I would suspect that ISU has such an FSA (if this is not the case, I
hope that an ISU poster will correct me).  I would also suspect that
they have some uncontrolled "public access" bulletin boards.  If they 
have provided a specific free speech area (or areas), are they perfor-
ming censorship by making other areas "off limits" to free speech?  
Again, I don't think so.

"Guaranteeing free speech" does not equal "providing the soapbox".

>Please note that the first amendment prohibits restrictions on free
>speech, in general.  It does not merely prohibit viewpoint discrimination.

>>This seems to indicate that they have a contractual right to establish such
>>a policy.......
>
>It could also simply mean that there are assigning to themselves, via that
>letter, the contractual "right" to do so.  (That is, it does not suggest
>to me that there had been any previous contractual prohibitions.)

This may be correct; I don't have a copy of the ISU housing contract.  Could
someone with access to the ISU contract answer this one, please?

When I was a living in the UKentucky dorms 10 years ago, our Resident Advisor
explained the policy in this manner:

	"Your room is your leased property; therefore, we have nothing to
	 do with the materials you may post/hang there.  The hallway, how-
	 ever, is a public area; the University controls the public areas
	 of this university.  Therefore, don't hang anything other than
	 message boards on the outside of your door."

(I don't know if this is still the policy; I haven't set foot in a UK dorm
 in about 6 years.)

>In any case, as I said before, a state school's contractual "rights" cannot
>violate the constitution.

Yes, but can the individual's right *as a tenant* supersede the University's
control of public areas?

Keep in mind that the University may have an obligation to provide a cer-
tain living environment for its tenants.  Does a University student, living
in University dormitories, have a "right" to live in the dorms without being
harassed?

I always believed that my rights as a dorm resident ended at my doorway.
The halls are a public area; as such, they are subject to more stringent
control by the University.

(As I mentioned earlier, I'd be up in arms if ISU (or any university) tried
to dictate a policy for displaying materials *inside* my dorm room)

>>Sounds fair; they've formally stated that only repeated violations will
>>result in punishment (termination of contract).
>
>Doesn't sound fair to me.  It sounds like, "Put something up, we'll rip
>it down.  Become a pain in our ass by reposting, and we'll take formal
>disciplinary action."

Hey, at least due process has been considered/included, eh?

>That doesn't strike me as at all fair when we are talking about
>
>  1) An illegal rule, and

The legality of this policy has not been established.

>  2) a rule that, to my mind, clearly violates one of the most
>     fundamental principles to the workings of any academic institution--
>     that of free speech.

Don't get me wrong -- I, too, believe that free speech is an essential 
priciple in academia.  However, I believe that the University has, in 
some cases, the right (and the obligation) to limit the UNIVERSAL ap-
plication of free speech rights.  Again, the university isn't obliga-
ted to provide the soapbox.

>>Great!  They're going to involve students in the formal policy.
>
>I'm sure that the university will be glad to know that at least *some*
>people are so easily convinced that students will play a meaningful
>role in the development of the policy.  (That is, by means other
>than protest, etc.)

{++sarcasm;}
You're absolutely right!  We should never believe ANYTHING a University
says (or puts in print).  Heck, I guess we shouldn't believe ANYTHING in
the Student Code or University Bulletin.
{--sarcasm;}

>>It seems to me that they have handled a difficult situation rather well.
>
>It seems to me that they have handled a situation that they view as a
>potential headache in the manner that was most expedient for removing
>that headache--without any significant concern for law or basic
>principles.
>
>It is now the students' responsibility to show the university that to
>take such censorial action will produce a far greater headache...

I'll certainly agree that this will prove an interesting case, if/when
it reaches court.

>J. S. Greenfield                                         greeny@top.cis.syr.edu
>(I like to put 'greeny' here, 
>but my d*mn system wants a 
>*real* name!)                        "What's the difference between an orange?"

Just out of curiosity, do you consider it "censorship" when your "d*mn
system wants a real name"?

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



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

From caf-talk Caf Sep 21 22:21:56 1992
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Article 4--Re: Censorship at Iowa State
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1992 22:13:07 GMT

Miscellaneous comments on morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) most recent
articles.

[...]
>	Would you expect the entire dormitory to be a free speech area?
>	In other words, should students be allowed to plaster posters over the
>	walls (and, possibly, other people's doors) in their hallways?  If so,
>	why?  If not, how can you differentiate between hallways and doors?  
>	Aren't both of them "in the public arena"?  Does any "common area" 
>       automatically become a "free speech area"?

The ACLU handbook on _The Right to Protest_, 1991, p. 165,

"[T]he government can regulate the timing, the location, and the
manner of conduction speech activities, so long as the regulation is
'content neutral,' seeking to serve a state interest unrelated to the
content of the message communicated. {_Cox v. New Hampshire, 321 U.S.
569 (1941)}"

>Many universities have established "free speech areas"; for example,
>UKentucky's FSA is a concrete patio behind the Student Center.  With
>an established FSA, they have established a policy that the remainder
>of the University's public physical plant is NOT a free speech area.
>Is this censorship?  I don't think so.

I've seen out-of-the-way signs proclaiming such free speech ghettos at
U. of Illinois and U. of Texas. I haven't, however, ever heard of
anyone being restricted to them. Nor does the current U. of I. Student
Code refer to ours.

p. 219 "The speech activities are an import part of normal university
life and, absent unusually circumstances or overtly disruptive
conduct, are there fore unlikely to interfere with the education
process. Thus, walkways and other open areas between university
buildings that are open to the public have been held to be public
forums that can be used by nonstudent speakers for peaceable speech
activities. {_Spartacus Youth League v. Board of Trustees of the
Illinois Industrial University_, 520 F. Supp. 789 (N.D. Ill. 1980).}"

p. 181 "[Question:] Can officials in charge of a traditional public
forum permentently designate a portion of the forum for demostractions and
declare the rest of the forum to be out-of-bounds?

[Answer:] If officials wished to make a permanent designation of a
portion of a traditional public forum for demostractions, they would
have to establish two things. First they would have to prove that the
designated portion of the forum permits demonstrators to reach their
intended audience approximately as effectively as the out-of-bounds
portion would. Second, they would have to establish identifiable
characteristics of the out-of-bounds portion of the forum that make it
unsuitable for demonstrations and that make the designated are more
suitable. The designation of portions of traditional public forums for
speech activities was reject by the court in _Collin v. Chicago Park
District.{460 F.2d 746 602 (2d Cir. 1986)}"

[...]
>"Guaranteeing free speech" does not equal "providing the soapbox".
[..]

True, but if the soapbox already exists, the government can't restrict
access to it unless that restriction serves a state [compelling]
interest unrelated to the content of the message communicated.

[...]
> Does a University student, living
>in University dormitories, have a "right" to live in the dorms without being
>harassed?
[...]

The school should enforce antiharassment rules; it should not close
down whole forums.

[...]
>This is incorrect.  Many government agencies prohibit "free expression"
>in their buildings.  When was the last time you saw a "Bush for President"
>banner in a post office?  In fact, when was the last time you saw a federal
>employee wearing a political button on the job?  Is that censorship?
[...]

The court have allowed limited on-the-job (and even some off-the-job)
speech restrictions on government employees. These restrictions do not
apply to students. They have also restrictions at Post offices, jails,
and military bases; but such restrictions have not been allowed at
universities. [All of chapter XI is on this general topic.]

[...]
>[...]You are under no obligation to live in University housing.  In
>fact, there are hundreds, if not thousands, of low-cost apartments in
>close proximity to most universities (at least, there are in
>Lexington, Lou- isville, Richmond, and Bowling Green, KY).  The
>University is not obligated to provide housing to you; as a result,
>they have the right to establish certain policies for their tenants.

At U. of Illinois freshman are (with some exceptions) required to live
in the University dorms. In any case, content-motivated speech
restrictions are not the kind of policies government landlords are
allowed to make for their tenants.

[...]
>The notion that any forum which may evolve should automatically receive
>full protection bothers me a bit.........how would you feel if people 
>began marching through the halls of the Classroom Building, chanting
>slogans, while you were attempting to teach?

Such conduct could be banned (is banned at U. of I and, I assume,
elsewhere) on the grounds that it is overtly disruptive.

[...]
>Carl, would you post the citation for the "limited public forum" doctrine
>and our discussion of said doctrine?  I believe that it has some relevance.
[...]

I'm enclosing a reference to _San Diego_ and the abstract list. If you
(or anyone) sends me a list of message id's from the abstract list, I
can automatically turn them into a nice "Annotated References" list
suitable for posting. Also, you can do text searches on the CAF-Talk
archive with WAIS (info enclosed).

ANNOTATED REFERENCES

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

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

=================
abstracts
=================
These are abstracts to the Computers and Academic Freedom News
(CAF-news). Referenced issues of CAF-news are available via anonymous
ftp to eff.org in directory "academic/news".

=================
admin/wais
=================
How anyone who can ftp to eff.org can also do a fuzzy full text search
on the CAF archive using "wais".

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

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/san-diego-committee-v-gov-bd
  pub/academic/abstracts
  pub/academic/admin/wais

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 san-diego-committee-v-gov-bd
send acad-freedom abstracts
send acad-freedom/admin wais

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