HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: esther@verdix.com (Esther Lumsdon)
Subject: Re: Academic Gun Rights 1992 (was Re: Banned Computer Material 1992)
Organization: Verdix Corp.
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 20:20:40 GMT

kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:

>In <1992Oct1.134706.25819@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
>writes:

>>The right to bare arms is not (usually) part of academic freedom.

>kraussW@moravian.edu (Bill Krauss - SysAdm) writes:

>>Why not?  If Freedom of Speech and Right to Keep and Bare Arms are
>>both guaranteed how can we discount one just because it is not
>>frequently considered?
>[...]

Are you both talking about the same thing?  What sort of a university
would ban sleeveless shirts?  What does that have to do with the 2nd
amendment?  Besides, the Bill of Rights only lists rights which the
government may not infringe. A private university is a different
animal.  Was one of you joking about clothing, or were you both
misspelling 'bare'?

>I assume you mean guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. As far as I know,
>the right to keep arms, say in a univeristy office, are not guarenteed
>by any statements of academic freedom. Do you really think
>it should be?

I think that any University rifle or pistol coach should have a secure
storage facility for arms.  I think that the students whom he or she
coaches should be allowed to store their firearms there, too.  I've felt
very insecure in my youth, carrying a 16 lb rifle in case across campus
(grounds) to my car, fearful that I could be robbed or arrested, while
arranging to transport the expensive rifle home for the summer.
Students were not allowed to store firearms in dorms; I didn't know
whether carrying them from one storage place to another was permitted,
or driving car containing firearm was permitted (the coach was permitted,
but he was over 21, and a University employee).  I was too naive at
that age to inquire about local laws, and about University policy.

If the shooting facility for students in on University property, then
the storage facility should be, too.  The ROTC departments at some
Universities allow shooting teams and shooters to use their facilities
without regard for whether shooters are enrolled in ROTC.  I always
liked those policies; competitive shooting is rather an accessible
sport, and I think facilities should be accessible whenever possible.
-- 
------ Esther Lumsdon   employed by, not speaking for, Verdix Corporation
     It's nice to be important, but it's more important to be nice.
  esther@verdix.com  or  esther%verdix.com@uunet.uu.net
From: morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan)
Subject: Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
    <1992Oct2.211604.3005@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 13:25:49 GMT
Organization: The Puzzle Palace, UKentucky

kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>feit@ERA.COM (Mark Feit) writes:
>
>[...]
>>When most colleges/universities give you an account, you get it for
>>the sole purpose of completing assignments in a course, for research,
>>etc.
>
>Happily, more and more schools now have the resources to provide free
>accounts for general use. This is consisent with the academic ideal in
>which members of the academic community have some freedom to explore
>their own interests. It is analogous to most academic libraries that
>don't ask to know and don't care why you are browsing and borrowing
>books.

Keep in mind, however, that this notion does not apply to *all* computer
systems on a given campus.  This is not a campus-wide decision; it is
determined separately for each system.  Your college/university may very
well allow almost anything on system X; that does NOT imply that such
liberties exist on system Y.

>When resources are scarce, priorities have to be established. These
>priorities should not, however, be used to removed material just
>because some find it offensive. For example, if there are no resources
>for "recreational" newsgroups, then both alt.sex and
>rec.sport.football should go, not just alt.sex.

Unless, of course, the entire alt.* hierarchy is deleted before rec.*.
I have read of several sites that "conserve resources" in the following
manner:
	- delete alt.*
	- delete talk.*
	- delete rec.*
	- delete [...]
If your site is following this sort of plan, it would be difficult to
call it censorship.  If, however, they are nuking only "certain" alt.*
groups, you've got a legitimate beef.

Find out *exactly* what's going on before crying censorship; it will make
your arguments much more effective.

--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
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy
From: chip@tct.com (Chip Salzenberg)
Subject: Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 14:29:41 GMT
Organization: TC Telemanagement, Clearwater, FL

According to bud@mtek.com:
>My larger concern is with the notion of an "enemies list" of offending
>(in his eyes) institutions which, presumably, Carl believes others
>should hotly pursue on his say-so...

"Presumably?"  I'm amazed that anyone would "presume" any such thing!
-- 
Chip Salzenberg at Teltronics/TCT  <chip@tct.com>, <73717.366@compuserve.com>
    "My favorite phenomenon is when someone mails me or posts to this
     group, either calling me a newbie or telling me that my postings
     are not relevant to alt.non.sequitur."           -- Matt Welsh
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy
From: bud@mtek.com (Bud Hovell)
Subject: Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Reply-To: bud@mtek.com
Organization: MTEK International, Inc.
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 92 20:43:55 GMT

wbg@mtek.com (W. Brewster Gillett) writes:

>bud@mtek.com (Bud Hovell) writes:

>>The humerous part is that there have been recent suggestions that the

>The "humerous" part? Is that the part that connects to the ulna and the
>radius somewhere near the elbow?

No, no -- dammit, Gillett! -- you know *very* well that humerous is a
Lebanese dish comprised mainly of chick peas, and is customarily served
chilled along with pocket bread.  My, God, man, you really *are* slipping
with age. Get a grip!

>Sorry to inject frivolity into a serious debate!

Do you think I'd let *you* get off lightly after such an opportune fumble?
Fat chance. :-) :-) :-)
-- 
________________________________________________________________
bud@mtek.com ... uunet!m2xenix!mtek!bud ... bud@rigel.cs.pdx.edu
MTEK International, Inc.             Throughput Technology Corp.
Walk the talk.
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Banned List Reminds me of National Enquirer Tactics!
Followup-To: comp.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 17:25:25 GMT

Randy,

I'm sorry the original version of the Banned List didn't mention that
the Virginia Tech policy was being revised. I based the list mostly on
the CAF-News abstracts, I forgot about your email message to me last
April. The current version of the List (the version included in new
CAF-News) notes that the Virgina Tech policy is currently being
revised.

- Carl

ANNOTATED REFERENCES

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

=================
banned.1992
=================
A list of computer material that was banned or challenged in academia
in 1992. The institutions mentioned are:

Ball State U., Boston U. (2), Carnegie Mellon U., German universities,
Iowa State U. (3), Irish universities, James Madison U., Middle East
Technical U., North Dakota State U., Pennsylvania State U., Princeton,
Simon Fraser U., U. of British Columbia, U. of California at Berkeley
*, U. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, U. of Manitoba, U. of
Massachusetts at Boston, U. of Nebraska at Lincoln, U. of Newcastle,
U. of Ottawa, U. of Texas, U. of Toledo, U. of Toronto *, U. of
Wyoming, United Kingdom Net, Virginia Public Education Network,
Virginia Tech, Western Washington U. (& U. of Washington), Wilfrid
Laurier U. (2), Williams College **

========
* Site of an unsuccessful challenge
** College not directly involved.


=================
old.banned.1992
=================
The first posted version of the list of computer material that was
banned or challenged in academia in 1992.

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

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/banned.1992
  pub/academic/old.banned.1992

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 banned.1992
send acad-freedom old.banned.1992




--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Xref: sparky comp.admin.policy:1199 alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:3046
Organization: Bar-Ilan University Computing Center, Israel
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 12:44:10 IST
From: Hank Nussbacher <HANK@BARILVM.BITNET>
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: Banned Computer Material 1992

>From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
>I, of course, can't prove that academic freedom is morally good. I can
>report, however, that an important academic freedom statement, the
>Joint Statement on Rights and Freedoms of Students, has been endorsed
>by virtually every academic group in the U.S. starting with:
>
>   American Association of University Professors
>   U. S. National Student Association
>   Association of American Colleges
>   National Association of Student Personnel Administrators
>   National Association of Woman Deans and Counselors

So if the above statement has been endorsed by every academic group
in the USA, does that mean it has been endorsed by every academic
group in the world?

Is your list just for academic institutions or for every Internet
site?  If a church or religious organization is a member of the
Internet (and there are these days) and keeping GIFs in their
system was against their religious tenets would they also appear
on your list?  If Oral Roberts University would not allow sex
newsgroups due to their religious beliefs - would they be added
to your "Banned" list?  If the Vatican were connected, and didn't
allow certain newsgroups, would they be on your Banned list?  If
certain Moslem countries had universities on the Internet and their
Law prohibits sexual matter as contained in certain newsgroups,
and the law in their land in regards to pornography supercedes
academic freedom since their law is based on the Koran - would you
still include them in your Banned list?

Those of us who attempt to make sure no censorship takes place
and that no Usenet list get censored out, find your list of little
help and as a matter of fact find it a hinderance.

Stick to the USA where you have "statements" endorsed by major
academic institutions, don't apply your rules to other countries
unless you have something to back it up with (other than the UN
Declaration - which you suprisingly don't use for the USA cases
since you have "statements" instead - which means that the UN
Declaration is too broad and doesn't apply in this case - since
it was chartered for serious matters like death, rape, genocide,
and not for Playboy GIFs), and drop the computer code banned
entries.

Place a very clear header at the top as to who you represent and
what organizations you are targetting and what sort of parameters
you use for adding in a 'banned' entry.

Hank Nussbacher
Israel
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy
From: spam@iastate.edu (mike begley)
Subject: Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, IA
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 02:49:13 GMT

In article <1992Sep30.182912.29524@mtek.com> bud@mtek.com writes:
>kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>
>>Banned Computer Material 1992
>
>>Inspired by Banned Book Week '92, this is a list of computer material
>>banned or challenged in academia in 1992. Iowa State University has
>>the dubious distinction of being listed most often (three times).
>
>Ummm, the word "dubious" would seem to suggest that the enforcement
>of *any* local restriction against *any* action or speech in *any*
>academic computing environment, world-wide, is in violation of some
>"universal principle" that supercedes any locally-conceived ideas
>about how the owners wish to dispose the assets they are paying for.

it's a dubious honor, trust me...  Iowa State University has been
caught in a battle between its administration and its student for most
of a year regarding this issue.  The materials banned at ISU
(alt.sex*, rec.arts.erotica, and a few others) in no way violate the
Iowa Code (see section 728) and the restrictions were placed on the
system by the ISU computation Center administration with no input from
students and little if any from higher administration.  A "senior
official" personally told me that "the [ISU] computation center
administration had no business in making legal decisions because they
have no legal expertise".  The university administration is now caught
in a curious bind; defend the irresponsible actions one of it
departments, or uphold the tenants of academic freedom.  In some ways
it's become a turf war within the administration, with the students as
victims. So, despite the overwhelming student & faculty opposition to
the restrictions and the total lack of informed legal judgement, the
university continues to censor the "bad" newsgroup from students who
are quite old enough to make their own decisions.

>which device typically sets academics to howling wildly at the
>moon -- but perhaps only when aimed at their *own* several and
>peculiar sensibilities.

huh...funny, I don't even read any of the newsgroups...so it wasn't
aimed at any of my peciliar sensibilities.  Considering the state
motto of Iowa is "Our liberties we prize and our rights we shall
maintain", you would think that insuring freedom of expression
would be a basic goal of the state's universities; alas, they've
srunk from that duty.



-- 
Michael Begley             Ask me how           "the man and the woman were
spam@iastate.edu      Iowa State University        both naked, and they were
(515) 296-8378    is censoring my usenet access      not ashamed..." Gen:2.25
Xref: sparky comp.admin.policy:1246 alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:3090
From: marchany@vtserf.cc.vt.edu (Randy Marchany)
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: Banned List Reminds me of National Enquirer Tactics!
Date: 6 Oct 92 19:26:45 GMT
Followup-To: comp.admin.policy
Organization: Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA

In article <1992Oct5.172525.17375@m.cs.uiuc.edu> kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>Randy,
>
>I'm sorry the original version of the Banned List didn't mention that
>the Virginia Tech policy was being revised. I based the list mostly on
>the CAF-News abstracts, I forgot about your email message to me last
>April. The current version of the List (the version included in new
>CAF-News) notes that the Virgina Tech policy is currently being
>revised.
>
>- Carl
>

Carl, thank you for the apology but I'm still perturbed over the intent
of posting a "Sites that BAN stuff" list. Certainly, other sites as well
as our own are in the process of adopting and revising acceptable use
policies but your original post served no real purpose other than to
misrepresent the entire issue of "what is acceptable use" at a site.
All you have to do is check out the spinoffs from your original thread
in order to see how far we've drifted away from the issue.

I do appreciate the fact that the new version of your post states that
our policy is under revision. As I mentioned in previous posts, you've
created the scenario where the revised 'list' is similar to a   a
retraction that appears in the back pages of the newspaper. Technically,
you have corrected an error but in reality, the majority 
of readers will only remember the original message.
 
Carl, the thing that I really don't understand is that you published a
'List' without contacting the named institutions IN ADVANCE. The failure
to do this indicates 1) you didn't verify the accuracy of your
information. You had contact names since most of these sites submitted
policy statements to you for review. 2) you failed to give the named
institutions due process by not giving them an opportunity to verify 
the information you were planning to publicize.

I do object to the creation of any such 'list' in this form. Handled
improperly (as I feel was done in this case), such a list creates an
atmosphere of suspicion toward the named entities. 
I hate to use the term, "McCarthyism" but that's what this whole affair
smacks of. Enlightening the Usenet community via a "list" is noble but
make sure your information is accurate and that you've contacted the
affected parties beforehand.


	-Randy Marchany
	VA Tech Computing Center
	Blacksburg, VA 24060

INTERNET: marchany@vtserf.cc.vt.edu

Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 20:35:14 GMT

bud@mtek.com (Bud Hovell) writes:

[...]
>Are you suggesting that some Spanish Jesuit seminary (which just
>happens to have a computer network) must conform in its decisions
>with the minimum standards of behavior and speech found tolerable
>*anywhere* else on the face of the planet?
[...]

No. However, any institution that claims to respect academic freedom
(as most universities, colleges, and larger institutes of technolgy
do), should respect it everywhere; computers should not be exempt.

[...]
>I might also add that this looks remarkably like an "Enemies List",
>which device typically sets academics to howling wildly at the
>moon -- but perhaps only when aimed at their *own* several and
>peculiar sensibilities.
[...]

You mean they don't mind lists when they are:
   open
   documented (reasonably well)
   critical of violations of academic freedom

But then do mind them when they are:
   secret
   based on hearsay
   promote violations of academic freedom
    (e.g "she's a known Republican, don't hire")

Gee, you are right, they are hypocritical :-)

- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert)
Subject: Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Organization: Northern Illinois University
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 22:11:52 GMT

In article <1992Oct2.211604.3005@m.cs.uiuc.edu> kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>feit@ERA.COM (Mark Feit) writes:
>
>[...]
>>When most colleges/universities give you an account, you get it for
>>the sole purpose of completing assignments in a course, for research,
>>etc.
>
>Happily, more and more schools now have the resources to provide free
>accounts for general use. This is consisent with the academic ideal in
>which members of the academic community have some freedom to explore
>their own interests. It is analogous to most academic libraries that
>don't ask to know and don't care why you are browsing and borrowing
>books.

Spoken with the incredible breadth of knowledge you have gained from
association with a small number of well funded schools.

Perhaps one of these days you will join the real world, where schools
are struggling to provide enough resources just for students currently
enrolled in a course that needs computers.  But then, on the other
hand, why should this concern you - after all, you have never allowed
your ignorance to prevent you from trying to dictate policy to the
rest of the world.

>When resources are scarce, priorities have to be established. These
>priorities should not, however, be used to removed material just
>because some find it offensive. For example, if there are no resources
>for "recreational" newsgroups, then both alt.sex and
>rec.sport.football should go, not just alt.sex.

So I suppose that a poorly funded program in phys ed must deny its
football program access to rec.sport.football, just because it doesn't
happen to have resources for alt.sex?

Wake up, Carl.  The world is a complex place.  There are many good
reasons for limitations when resources are short.  But the reasons are
local, so global solutions dictated by self appointed net gods will not
do.

Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy
From: bud@mtek.com (Bud Hovell)
Subject: Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Reply-To: bud@mtek.com
Organization: MTEK International, Inc.
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 92 10:45:04 GMT

kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:

>No one should act on my say-so. Any action should be based on a belief
>that something is wrong and should be taken within institutional
>guidelines.

Something is most *definitely* wrong, Carl. You just won't have
any of it.

>>Um, on just what date *are* we celebrating Krystalnacht this year?
>[...]
>The idea that publicizing censorship is the same as terrorizing Jews
>is despicable.

My, my, "despicable", is it?  Well, I'm truly wounded to the quick. :-)

Anyone who would attach the inflammatory word "BANNING" to any action
of mere university officials makes clear association with the current
tragedy in South Africa, and is thus hardly in a position to lay claim
to the high moral ground. Or to posture in indignation over indelicate
comparisons made by others.

So, now that the salutory pleasantries are out of the way, let's cut
directly to the chase, shall we.....

The fact that you cannot see the similarity of *tactic* -- not to be
confused with a similarity of *objective* -- perfectly validates the
criticisms you have drawn. You are, in fact, attempting to drum up
support for having others spread the word of your judgement against
actions of institutions that fail to measure up to your notion of
how the world should grind about on its moderately unstable axis.

That you will find others who agree with you is assured, and quite
beside the point. The point IS that there will be some who do *not*
agree with your absolutist, self-righteous pretense to some special
gift to judge other people -- people who may have taken their decisions
with perhaps no less devotion to higher moral principle than that
which you generously assign to yourself in taking yours. And with
batting averages that factually may be no worse than your own.

That you may disagree with those decisions is perfectly reasonable.
They are fit objects of debate by you or anyone else. Some of them
are probably terribly flawed. Maybe all. Maybe none. Not my point.

You aren't simply *debating* the merits or demerits of these thorny
decisions. Quite the contrary.

By pronouncing summary judgement, you thereby attempt to finesse an
appearance that debate has already *concluded* in favor of your own
pet notions.

It doesn't wash.
-- 
________________________________________________________________
bud@mtek.com ... uunet!m2xenix!mtek!bud ... bud@rigel.cs.pdx.edu
MTEK International, Inc.             Throughput Technology Corp.
Throughput!
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy