From: jmc@Gang-of-Four.usenet (John McCarthy)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Censorship on the USENET
Date: 21 Oct 90 18:56:43 GMT
Distribution: comp
Organization: /u/jmc/.organization

The cost saving in suppressing a particular newsgroup are trivial.
At Stanford they were probably negative, since personnel time went
into it.

We won the restoration by the following means:

1. There were faculty and student petitions on the subject, mostly
from computer science people.

2. There was only one strong-minded bad guy and he was rather
perfunctory in his "off with its head" decree.

3. The Academic Senate Steering Committee was persuaded to refer
the issue to the faculty committee on libraries.  This committee
came up with a statement to the effect that the policy of an
electronic library should be the same as that of a print library -
universality tempered only by cost.

============= ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/policies/utoronto.ca =====
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics,can.general
From: pkern@utcs.utoronto.ca (pkern)
Subject:  U of Toronto reaction
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 1992 04:50:26 GMT


_The Bulletin_
University of Toronto
June 8, 1992

page 1.


Network Pornography Elicits Little Reaction at U of T

By Karina Dahlin

   U of T is not planning to intercept or censor the international
computer network, Internet, that carries among its thousands of files
a couple that contain violent pornographic material.
   Material of this nature has been available for a long time and
University of Toronto Computing Services has not received any
complaints about it, said associate director Eugene Siciunas.
   Last month the University of Manitoba cut off access to a file
called "sex-bondage."  Terry Falconer, vice-president (administration),
said in an interview that complaints about the material were made to
the news media and recounted to him.  The Winnipeg police department
told Canadian Press that anyone distributing material that depicts
violence against women and children may be prosecuted.  Although the
police paid a visit to the university, Falconer does not expect them
to take any action.
   Falconer has not received any direct complaints about his action
but has heard it is being compared to censorship.  That is not the
way he sees it.  "We don't make such material available in the
bookstore or the library either."  If anyone wishes to study the
restricted file, the university will provide access to it, he said.
   Like a bookstore, Internet offers a multitude of reading material
arranged in categories such as science, sociology and miscellaneous.
The file banned in Winnipeg and one listed as "sex-bestiality" are
available under the heading "alternatives."  To open any of the files
people must push certain keys on their keyboard.
   If the material were to be intercepted at U of T, it would
probably be on the order of David Sadleir, vice-president (computing
and communications).  Such action seems unlikely.  "I am not a
censor," said Sadleir in an interview.  Not knowing the details about
the case at the University of Manitoba, he did not wish to pass
judgement on it.
  Sadleir's view is that if a recipient has to actively select
information, there is no need for U of T to take action.  If, on the
other hand, the messages are flashed across the screen without user
consent, his response would be "very aggressive" regardless of the
content.  Such practice could be described as invasion of people's
privacy, he said.
   A couple of months ago, U of T was asked by other Canadian
universities to help trace the source of some pornographic computer
material, Sadleir said.  The site was identified as a large US
university.  While it is possible to block access to an institution
that transmits offensive material, this would also restrict access to
useful information, he added.
   What constitutes proper use of computer networks is the source of
much debate.  Although the topic is mentioned in various codes of
conduct and user policies at the University, no one has yet
formulated a policy that addresses all concerns.  "I'm looking forward
to someone coming up with the definitive statement but I haven't seen
one yet," Sadleir said.  "It's a complex reality, one that's going to
plague us for a while."
   ONet, one of the thousands of networks that form and carry
Internet, should not be blamed for the contents of the messages that
individual users post, says John Drake, assistant vice-president
(computing and information services) at McMaster University and chair
of the management board of ONet.  The Ontario-wide research and
education network is a carrier, not a provider or publisher of
information and its managers should not decide which material is
proper to transmit, Drake said in an interview.
  ONet is an association, not a government-regulated carrier as is
Bell Canada.  But like a phone company it provides a service with the
view that "what you do with the phone is up to you," said Drake.

			===== =====
[ page 2: from the mast-head ]

The Bulletin
Published every two weeks by the Department of Public Affairs,
21 King's College Circle, 2nd floor,
University of Toronto, Toronto, M5S 1A1.

Material may be reprinted in whole or in part with appropriate
credit to _The Bulletin_.
			===== =====

============= ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/policies/waterloo.edu =====
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: [repost] Waterloo ban on rec.humor.funny finally lifted
Date: Fri, 4 Oct 1991 15:30:00 GMT

[This is the announcement and report from Dr. Johnny Wong, Associate
Provost (Computing and Information Systems). - Carl]

After reviewing the report of the Advisory Committee on 
Network News, and the comments that I've received, I am 
proceeding in accordance with the recommendations of that 
committee. Newsgroups that are currently not supported
will be reinstated as soon as possible, and Roger Watt 
of the Department of Computing Services (ext. 2491; 
email: rwwatt@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca) has been
appointed as a liaison person with respect to complaints 
related to the contents of electronic mail messages and 
news articles.
                           - - - - - - - - - -

               REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON NETWORK NEWS

                                 MAY 30, 1991

INTRODUCTION

A. Universities have a long tradition of investigating all areas of human
activity and of sharing the results of those inquiries with others inside and
outside the University who may be interested. The recent growth of
communication networks for computers have made the sharing much more rapid and
efficient. Arguably, the two most effective means for making these results
available, and thus potentially for advancing the works of many other members
of the University community, are electronic mail (E-mail) to individuals and
network newsgroups, the latter functioning rather like collective mailboxes to
which faculty, staff, and students may choose to subscribe.

Thus, the Committee believes that it is entirely appropriate that the
University of Waterloo, which has a strong reputation for the constructive use
of computers, continue to allocate resources to receiving, storing, and
transmitting items of E-mail and news.

B. Further, the Committee believes that it is important that the University of
Waterloo consult its user community when decisions must be made about the use
of resources which are committed to E-mail and news.

C. Most importantly, the Committee believes that it is the users of the
computing systems who must be held responsible for their decisions to take
advantage of the resources which the University of Waterloo maintains for the
general use of its community. The Committee notes that in some cases items have
been posted which contain lengthy and verbatim excerpts from newspapers, books,
and magazines. Even when the source is fully acknowledged, the Committee
believes that this acknowledgement is not a substitute for a formal release
from the holder of the copyright in the material, usually the publisher if not
the author of the cited words. Thus, in advising users of the responsibility
they bear for what they post, the Committee considers it important that a
warning that the University will not be held liable for breach of copyright be
made plain.

D. Although the University of Waterloo is not under an obligation to distribute
news across campus, once the key role of the user is recognized, the Committee
sees no role for the institution `in loco parentis'. In particular, we see no
need for a Committee, even of one, to monitor the contents of items, noting
that the current daily volume of approximately 11 megabytes arriving at the
University makes such monitoring impractical.

E. Again, once the key role of the users of computing resources is established,
the Committee is of the opinion that the University of Waterloo already has a
number of mechanisms in place for handling queries or complaints should they
arise. The Committee sees no need to duplicate these mechanisms.

The Committee believes that complaints should be dealt with in the same manner
whether the offending items originate from UW or from a remote site. It is
clear that a user may reply directly to a poster and may make a more formal
complaint under UW policies in parallel. In either case, the channels normally
used for handling complaints from UW accounts should be used for those arising
from off-campus posting.

However, the nature of electronic communication is such that action often needs
to be more rapid than in dealing with, for example, printed material. The
Committee, therefore, suggests one addition to the existing mechanisms.

In its background documents, Usenet identifies users as responsible for their
actions just as the Committee has suggested the University of Waterloo should.
As a consequence, it is natural for one user who objects to an item posted by
another to reply directly and outline his or her complaint. Such direct reply
is often effective, but does assume enough familiarity with the reply mechanism
of newsgroups or with E-mail on the part of the offended user. A simple
description of each of these processes should be a standard part of the
introduction to computing provided to each new user, whose responsibility it
must be to assimilate the information; the University of Waterloo already
provides very substantial consulting advice, widely distributed across campus,
to assist users in making effective use of the University's computing
resources.

It seems clear that users should retain copies of both the item which was the
source of the objection and of the reply. Such electronic copies carry date and
time 'stamps' which may be useful should a more extensive discussion of the
item prove necessary.

Where the initial item originates from a member of the University of Waterloo,
then the provisions of existing policies should, of course, be available. The
Committee notes that the authors of the report from the Ad Hoc Committee to
Review UW Policy 33 on Ethical Behavior, chaired by Lois Claxton, already
anticipated the extension of the provisions of Policy 33 to cover the area of
computing (IV Recommendations, page 10, first paragraph).

However, electronic items may originate from other sites and it may be
impractical for a user to object directly; furthermore, direct reply may be
ineffective. Only in such situations can the Committee foresee the desirability
of there being a person, designated by the University of Waterloo, to whom
application may be made for assistance.

In recommending such an appointment, the Committee does not envisage such an
official being responsible for dealing with objections from one member of the
University about the actions of another. Nor does it see the official acting as
the 'agent' of an aggrieved user.

RECOMMENDATIONS

On the question of the use of resources and the responsibility of users, the
Committee recommends that:

1. The principles which are adopted by the University of Waterloo governing the
use of its computing facilities for storing, retrieving and transmitting
information, be widely disseminated and be included in all introductions to
computing for new users. Particular emphasis should be placed on the principles
which concern such direct methods of communication as E-mail and network news.

2. The University of Waterloo adopt and widely publicize the principle that, in
sending E-mail or in posting an article to a newsgroup, it is the user and not
the University, who assumes responsibility for its contents.

3. The University adopt and widely publicize the principle that it is the user,
not the University, who is responsible for his or her decision to read a mail
message or an article posted to an electronic newsgroup.

4. The University's primary news-server continue to receive all newsgroups
generated internally and all newsgroups which arrive over the networks to which
the University is connected.

5. The contents of these newsgroups continue to be made available to all lower
level servers.

6. When decisions are to be made re the consumption of computing resources for
newsgroups, those responsible for such decisions should widely and formally
consult with the full user community. In the case of the primary server, it
should be the responsibility of the University Computing Committee to see that
such consultation takes place. In the case of lower level servers, a
well-defined consultative process, approved by the University Computing
Committee, should exist.

On the question of responding to particular items of mail or news, the
Committee recommends that:

1. The University of Waterloo advise its user community that in the first
instance it is the responsibility, not of the University, but of a user who
objects to an item, to reply directly to the poster, making clear the nature of
the objection.

2. A person knowledgeable, particularly about electronic news and mail, but
also well-versed in the general provisions of UW policies, be appointed with
the following general terms of reference:

   He or she should:

   (A) Be able to identify a suitable authority at a remote site to whom a
   request for action might be addressed, when he or she is convinced that
   the normal methods for registering an objection have been ineffective. An
   obvious example would be the continued posting of objectionable items.

   (B) Be able to identify the most suitable authority at the University of
   Waterloo to which objections from other sites about material generated at
   the University of Waterloo might be referred. Examples of such authorities
   are the Ethics Committee, the University Computing Committee, the Dean of a
   Faculty; these examples clearly do not exhaust the possibilities.

3. Such an official should report at least once a year on his or her activity
in this area to the University Computing Committee through the Associate
Provost, Computing and Information Systems.

4. The responsibility for the removal of any item from a UW machine, as a
result of an investigation into a complaint, should reside with the Associate
Deans of Computing in each Faculty for machines under their control, and with
the corresponding officers responsible for non-Faculty machines, and with the
Associate Provost, Computing and Information Systems. The Committee presumes
that investigations and decisions will be carried out under University of
Waterloo policies and that where review by a Committee is called for, such
review will be carried out keeping in mind the short retention time for items
in newsgroups.

5. The University of Waterloo's principles or policies in this area clearly
identify the officers who are able to make such decisions.

6. At least once a year actions taken under this authority should be reported
to the University Computing Committee.

The Committee has not made suggestions about how the recommendations should be
implemented in any unit, academic or non-academic. The Committee presumes that
the University of Waterloo will continue to publicize its policies and
procedures which, in turn, will continue to be developed after careful
consultation with the University community. However, the Committee wishes to
point out that if the University of Waterloo appoints an official to assist
users in responding to particular items as has been recommended, then that
official should not also be asked to be responsible for removing items from
circulation; in the Committee's view the two functions conflict directly.

Submitted by:

Greg Bennett, Chair                 Paul Check
Ian Gibson                          Anil Goel
John Moore                          Vic Neglia
Roger Watt, Resource Person         Bud Walker
Nancy Zinatelli
-- 
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
I do not represent EFF; this is just me.



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