From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Censorship and Internet (Re: Samit Banerjee and Ed Crick)
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 23:10:37 GMT

vidynath@math.ohio-state.edu (Vidhyanath K Rao) writes:

[...]
>Vulgarity used with the sole intent of provoking someone would/could
>be construed as fighting words. They have never been protected by the
>first amendment. [...] Any entity that allows its resources to used
>in this manner, and then refuses to take action when such instances
>have been brought to its notice is liable under the law. Show me a
>case or the specific law that disproves this.
[...]

I believe the current definition of fighting words is 1) the language
must be delivered one-to-one, and 2) must be such as to evoke an
immediate breach of peace (as opposed to simply offending the
listener). Vulgarities in an open forum are not fighting works; quite
the opposite they are constitutionally protected.

The University of Wisconsin tried to punish a student for email that
it called "fighting words". The federal district judge said that it's
rule against what-it-called-fighting-words was an illegal suppression
of the student's free speech right.

- Carl

ANNOTATED REFERENCES

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

=================
law/cohen-v-california.1
=================
* Expression -- Offensive -- 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
=================
* Expression -- Offensive -- 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
=================
* Expression -- Offensive -- 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."

=================
law/uwm-post-v-u-of-wisconsin
=================
* Expression -- Hate Speech -- 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
=================
* Expression -- Hate Speech -- 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.

=================
faq/censorship-and-harassment
=================
* 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?
 
a: No. The federal courts have said that harassing speech is different
...

=================
caf
=================
* About the CAF mailing lists (and newsgroups)

A description of 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?

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

If you have gopher, you can browse the CAF archive with the command
   gopher gopher.eff.org

These document(s) are also 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
  pub/academic/law/cohen-v-california.3
  pub/academic/law/uwm-post-v-u-of-wisconsin
  pub/academic/law/doe-v-u-of-michigan
  pub/academic/faq/censorship-and-harassment
  pub/academic/caf

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
send acad-freedom/law cohen-v-california.3
send acad-freedom/law uwm-post-v-u-of-wisconsin
send acad-freedom/law doe-v-u-of-michigan
send acad-freedom/faq censorship-and-harassment
send acad-freedom caf


-- 
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent any organization; this is just me.
 = kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =