From: fwp@CC.MsState.Edu (Frank Peters)
Subject: Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Organization: Computing Center, Mississippi State University
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 23:35:04 GMT

In article <92275.104628HANK@BARILVM.BITNET> Hank Nussbacher <HANK@BARILVM.BITNET> says:
: In article <1992Sep30.065537.23479@eff.org>, kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) says:
: >Computer code at *Ball State University* to crack passwords
: >     ... even if it is never run. During a system-wide search, an
: >     administrator found the computer code. The user says "[i]t really
: >     bothers me that I'm going to get in a lot of trouble (probably
: >     anyway) just for the mere possession of a program."
: ...
: >Computer code at the *University of Wyoming* for Internet Relay Chat
: >     A student was told that if university searches turned up IRC code in
: >     his possession, he "would be disusered without hope for reinstatement."
: 
: 
: Assume that sex/porn/necrophilia are all grounded in the rule of free speech
: and that indeed some universities are trampling on the free speech rights of
: their students.  I somehow don't understand the two examples above - how does
: this impinge the rights of their free speech?

I agree actually (though probably not for the same reasons that you do).
I see these two (and a few others in Carl's list) as issues of privacy
rather than free speech.

But a very significant relationship is there.  Suppose, for example, that
we banned the use of our systems for the viewing "dirty" pictures.  Does
this mean that we can then (ignoring the privacy issue) go through peoples
files looking for such pictures and delete them and punish their owners?

I think you have gone beyond an important line when you move from
banning potentially disruptive activities to searching peoples home
directories and removing related data and programs that aren't being
used.

: Unless I am mistaken, the US Bill of Rights which include the right to
: free speech, etc. has not been accepted as the Bill of Rights to the World.

I may have missed something buried in the text but I don't see where Carl
mentioned the US Constitution or the 1st Amendment anywhere in his post.
He didn't even mention free speech law in general.

Freedom of speech is a moral principle, not a law.  The 1st Amendment
to the US Constitution is one attempt to assure our adherence to that
moral principle.  It is not the only attempt to do so, and the principle
exists even if no laws exist to protect it.

: Have you checked that each of these countries (Ireland, Turkey, etc.) have
: a law of free speech as the US does?  Or are you merely applying your own
: form of geocentricism which dictates that the entire world has to follow
: what the USA says and does?

Is freedom of speach REALLY an issue only of interest in the United States?
Does nobody in the countries mentioned concern themselves with the subject?

Even if nobody in the countries mentioned is interested in freedom of
speach (which I doubt very much) this doesn't make the application of
the principle to them irrelevent.  Many countries (including the US)
violate what I consider to be basic human rights by oppressing
minorities, denying due process in legal proceedings and denying
freedom of speach.  I consider all of these things wrong even if they
are legal withing the legal systems of the countries involved.

: The reason I am extremely annoyed is that this is not the first time that
: people in the USA assume that the entire world has to jump in line to their
: definitions of how the world should work.

Expecting people to speak the language we speak, eat the foods we eat,
obey the customs we obey, wear the clothes we wear, and bow to our
cultural superiority.  All of these are things which I associate with
the "ugly american" syndrome and all are appalling.

Expecting other countries (and the US) to respect the basic human
rights of their citizens isn't something I usually consider in the same
category.  If this makes me an ugly american then I wear the title with
pride.

:                      Americans are extremely insensitive to cultures other
: than their own.  

Where should our respect for other cultures end?  Should we respect
cultures that treat women as property?  Cultures that treat minorities
as second class citizens?
--
Frank Peters  -  UNIX Systems Programmer  -  Mississippi State University
Internet: fwp@CC.MsState.Edu  -  Phone: (601)325-7030  -  FAX: (601)325-8921
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk