🚀 go-pugleaf

You're slipping, Carl.  You just agreed with someone.

In article <1991Jun8.025146.16881@eff.org> kadie@eff.org
 (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>Similarly, if you look at a picture of a nude person or show that
>picture with someone who wants to see it, no one is harassed.
>When, you display that picture in the office or on an unwilling
>person's X-terminal, you are harassing the unwilling people who
>must view the picture.

Right.  Taken alone, sexual harrassment rules can only be used to
prohibit display of the images in question.  In addition to the
examples that you give, add "displaying that picture on your own
screen in a public lab" (the only kind of screen available to most of
our users...).

>You cannot harass me merely by setting file permissions such that
>others can view material that I find offensive.

Correct.  That's why I started this whole thing by saying "a
*combination* of university rules and state law".

>Finally, I note that Ohio State subscribes to Playboy magazine. (They
>really do; I checked).

I know; I checked too, before I posted.  I didn't have a chance to ask
how they regulate access, although I note that it's currently recieved
in the rare books room, which requires you to give your ID when
requesting materials.

>By collecting these pictures of nude people, the library harasses no
>one. Allowing you to see the pictures, harasses no one.

Leaving them in a conspicuous location (or putting it on top of your
books in a study room) *might*.  I note that they don't have it
sitting next to "Newsweek".


				"It's the old problem, of course --
				 the one that makes life so tough for
				 murderers -- what to do with the
				 body."
--
J Greely (jgreely@cis.ohio-state.edu; osu-cis!jgreely)