🚀 go-pugleaf

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

marchany@vtserf.cc.vt.edu (Randy Marchany) writes:

[...]
>Really now, do you think that suggesting that
>readers contact their campus newspapers (as suggested by you in a
>subsequent post) is really helpful? Frankly, I  can see the newspapers
>grabbing the "hot" issue that will grab the reader's attention and not
>give the full picture (any guess as to what the issue would be?
>:-)). All we have to do is review the Houston newspaper episode about
>Usenet and other incidents like it to realize that no good came out of
>it.

This is a good point. People should consider this before contacting
their newspapers. However, at many places (Iowa State U., many of the
Canadian schools, Boston U., to name a few) the bans and restrictions
are so entrenched that I don't think a newspaper story is likely to do
any harm and may help by shaking things up.

[...]
>I feel that your post didn't present the entire picture.
[...]

Another good point. Any one who sends a press release to a student
newspaper should have some knowledge of the incident.

- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

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