Originator: kadie@eff.org
Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.cwis-l
Apparently-To: eff-mail-cwis-l@eff.org
Date:         Fri, 9 Oct 1992 03:54:18 GMT
Comments:     Warning -- original Sender: tag was usenet@EFF.ORG
From:         "(Carl M. Kadie)" <kadie@EFF.ORG>
Subject:      Re: Banned Computer Material 1992

GLWARNER@SAMFORD.bitnet (THE GAR) writes:

>Why should we ridicule universities and other
>organizations that choose to enforce the law of the land?

Iowa State U. is not enforcing the law. Virtually all the material
restricted is constitutionally protected. Morever, in Iowa,
universities are excepted from the state obscenity law. [see ref.] The
material apparently restricted not because it was illegal, but because
someone finds discussion of sex offensive.

[...]
>It would not be so very difficult for a library or
>bookstore to have certain sections of their establishment
>marked "adults only" and enforce these areas.
[...]

Such a policy in a library would be a violation of the intellectual
freedom policies of the American Library Association [see refs].

[...]
>Most universities would not allow a student to rise in class and spew
>obscenities at a class mate, or post obscene materials on the
>bulletin boards, or stand in the hallways and recite erotica.  They
>have the right to make these choices TO PROTECT THEIR STUDENT BODY
>from what they feel are detrimental influences and TO PROTECT THEIR
>INSTITUTION from that which violates local ordinances.
[...]

Universities have the authority to protected their students from
harassment. State Universities do not have the authority to protect
students from mere offense [see refs].

[...]
>I believe that the EFF is stepping beyond their charter to make
>changes.  As I understood the EFF, they were trying to give the
>computerized citizen equal rights with the rest of society.  Not
>allow them to "get away" with things with which non-computerized
>citizens must deal.

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

Moreover, the computerized student at Iowa State does not have equal
rights. Sexual material is not restricted in the Univeristy library;
it is only restricted on the University computer. (Sexual material is
considered necessary for a library collection [see refs].)

[...]
>Possession of materials for criminal intent?  illegal (where I live,
>try and buy or advertise lock-picks!)
[...]

Books on lock picking are not illegal. My academic library (U. of
Illinois at U-C) contains _Steal This Book_. Many public and academic
libraries in my state have books on locksmithing.

[...]
>While it may be extreme to not allow criticism of the
>host university, if they own the computer, that's their right.
[...]

Not true. Universities can only act within the scope of their charter
and their contracts with their students. Students at public schools
have a constitutional (charter) right to criticize their school [see
refs]. Students at all most all universities also have a contractual
right to free expression.

- Carl

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


ANNOTATED REFERENCES

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

=================
news/cafv02n11: Message-Id: <1992Feb23.201324.12799@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
=================
An article from the Computers and Academic Freedom News 02.11

Notes 1-4 discuss newsgroup removals rationalized by creative
interpretations of law. Sites around the world have found this an
effective way to ban almost any topic, for example, war, drugs, gay
rights, crime, rape, abortion, and sex (including recovery from sexual
abuse and United Press International stories mentioning sex).

3. This is a parody of the Iowa State University policy that bans
discussions of sex (and previously drugs). It shows what the policy
might say if it were honest. It starts "We, a handful of individuals
in the Iowa State University Computation Center, have imposed a policy
on the distribution of Usenet newsgroups. ...  The purpose of this
statement is to provide an after-the-fact justification of a decision
that we made without looking at the academic freedom issues."

=================
news/cafv02n11: Message-Id: <3198@ecicrl.ocunix.on.ca>
=================
An article from the Computers and Academic Freedom News 02.11

Note 10 discusses the history of altnet, the set of "alt" groups.

10. Contrary to the 'history' given in the Iowa State University
policy, the alt groups were not created by a 'collective group of
Usenet "news administrators"' as a place for dangerous topics. In
fact, the alt groups were created to fight the suppression of the
collective group.

=================
news/cafv02n08: Message-Id: <1992Jan24.160039.20161@news.iastate.edu>
=================
An article from the Computers and Academic Freedom News 02.08

Notes 4-5 discuss academic freedom and the right of sites to limit
access to netnews.

4. At Iowa State University, by default, a machine does not receive
the newsgroups alt.sex.*, alt.drugs, alt.psychoactives.  The head of
the department where the machines are located can request that the
machines have access to the omitted groups.  Students and staff are
attempting to change the policy.

=================
news/cafv02n30: Message-Id: <1992May11.132630.23905@news.iastate.edu>
=================
An article from the Computers and Academic Freedom News 02.30

Note 4-5 discuss Iowa State University's and the University of Nebraska
at Lincoln's rationalizations for censorship.

4. In reply to a previous assertion that "Iowa State and U. of
Nebraska are using the possibilities of NSF intervention as reason to
censor newsgroups.  Neither institutions are citing any other
university, state, or federal regulations for their actions."  ISU
admins have cited Chapter 728, [Iowa's Obscenity Law] though it
exempts libraries and educational institutions.

=================
law/obscenity.iowa
=================
IOWA CODE CHAPTER 728 - OBSCENITY
It explicitly exempts public libraries and educational institutions.

=================
library/labeling.ala
=================
* Labeling (ALA)

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

It gives three reasons why labeling is bad. The first is that
"[l]abeling is an attempt to prejudice attitudes and as such, it is a
censor's tool."

=================
library/access.children.nonprint.ala
=================
* Access for Young People to Nonprint Material (ALA)

"Access for Children and Young People to Videotapes and Other Nonprint
Formats"

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

=================
library/access.minors.ala
=================
* Free Access to Libraries for Minors (ALA)

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

=================
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/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.

=================
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."

=================
law/cohen-v-california.3
=================
Here are excerpts from several Supreme Court decisions inclusing
_Cohen v. Calfiornia_. They say that offensive public expression is
protected if those offended can "effectively avoid further bombardment
of their sensibilities simply by averting their eyes."

=================
library/diversity.ala
=================
* Diversity in Collection Development (ALA)

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."

=================
library/challenged-materials.ala
=================
* Challenged Materials (ALA)

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

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

a: No, ....

=================
law/constraints.constitutional
=================
* 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.

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

=================
academic/student.code.uiuc
=================
Excerpts from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign's Code on
Campus Affairs and Regulations Applying to All Students (Aug. 1985)

It is the contract that gives students at UIUC a right to free expression.
(It is typical of most university policies.)

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

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/news/cafv02n11
  pub/academic/news/cafv02n11
  pub/academic/news/cafv02n08
  pub/academic/news/cafv02n30
  pub/academic/law/obscenity.iowa
  pub/academic/library/labeling.ala
  pub/academic/library/access.children.nonprint.ala
  pub/academic/library/access.minors.ala
  pub/academic/law/uwm-post-v-u-of-wisconsin
  pub/academic/law/doe-v-u-of-michigan
  pub/academic/law/young-conservatives-v-sau
  pub/academic/law/cohen-v-california.1
  pub/academic/law/cohen-v-california.2
  pub/academic/law/cohen-v-california.3
  pub/academic/library/diversity.ala
  pub/academic/library/challenged-materials.ala
  pub/academic/faq/media.control
  pub/academic/law/constraints.constitutional
  pub/academic/law/constraints.contractual
  pub/academic/academic/student.code.uiuc

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/news cafv02n11
send acad-freedom/news cafv02n11
send acad-freedom/news cafv02n08
send acad-freedom/news cafv02n30
send acad-freedom/law obscenity.iowa
send acad-freedom/library labeling.ala
send acad-freedom/library access.children.nonprint.ala
send acad-freedom/library access.minors.ala
send acad-freedom/law uwm-post-v-u-of-wisconsin
send acad-freedom/law doe-v-u-of-michigan
send acad-freedom/law young-conservatives-v-sau
send acad-freedom/law cohen-v-california.1
send acad-freedom/law cohen-v-california.2
send acad-freedom/law cohen-v-california.3
send acad-freedom/library diversity.ala
send acad-freedom/library challenged-materials.ala
send acad-freedom/faq media.control
send acad-freedom/law constraints.constitutional
send acad-freedom/law constraints.contractual
send acad-freedom/academic student.code.uiuc
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
 =kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =