🚀 go-pugleaf

This is an abstract for the most recent "Computers and Academic
Freedom News" (CAF-News). Information about CAF-News follows the
abstract. The full CAF-News is available via anonymous ftp or by
email. For ftp access, do an anonymous ftp to ftp.eff.org
(192.88.144.4). Get file "pub/academic/news/cafv02n49".
The full CAF-News is also available via email. Send email to
archive-server@eff.org. Include the line:

send caf-news cafv02n49

--- begin abstract ---
[Week ending October 4, 1992

========================== KEY ================================
The words after the numbers are a short PARAPHRASES of the
articles, or QUOTES from them, NOT AN OBJECTIVE SUMMARY and
not necessarily my opinion.
===============================================================

  [We need new guest (or regular) editors, for information send
   email to kadie@eff.org.  - Carl]

Note 1 is the latest edition of the "Banned Computer Material 1992"
list. [The original version is in the archive as
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/old.banned.1992]

1. 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.
    <1992Sep30.065537.23479@eff.org>

Notes 2-7 are about "banning" offensive .plan files.

2. In reply to a sys admin who says that asking that users not to put
   offensive material in a .plan is not a ban: "It's based on content.
   That constitutes censorship.  Who decides what is or is not
   'obscene, sexual, or violent'? If the specific logic to decide what
   is or is not, is in writing, why not POST IT HERE ... If there is
   no such specifics, how can anyone know in advance?"
    <1992Sep30.192405.1619@netcom.com>

3. In reply to the sys admin's comment that "Saying 'you may post this
   material anywhere except for this one place' is a far cry from
   prohibiting or forbidding the material!": "On the contrary, [...]
   American Constitutional jurisprudence is full of cases in which
   regulation of expression based on content was considered to be
   censorship."
    <1992Oct2.011244.13372@eff.org>

4. [The sys admin:] "What are the consequences if a student doesn't
   change a .plan file? **NONE** Lemme repeat for the last time: We
   are a community, not a legal board."
    <BETSYS.92Oct3130325@ra.cs.umb.edu>

5. [A sys admin at another site:] "I've had a few users who named
   their programs with "offensive" words." ... When I see such a
   thing, I drop a piece of email explaining that everyone can see
   their process names.  I don't tell them to cease and desist; I just
   say 'hey, did you know what anyone on the system can see that?'
   Most of my users don't even realize that others can see that
   information; I've never had a 'repeat offender'.
    <1992Oct1.154233.21781@ms.uky.edu>

6. Here is an excerpt from the Supreme Court decision _Cohen v.
   California_. It says that offensive speech is protected unless
   "substantial privacy interests are being invaded in an essentially
   intolerable manner."
    <1992Oct1.132836.25405@eff.org>

7. Here are excerpts from several Supreme Court decisions. They say
   that offensive public expression is protected if those offended can
   "effectively avoid further bombardment of their sensibilities
   simply by averting their eyes."
    <1992Oct2.200348.2320@eff.org>

Note 8 is about the University of Limerick in Ireland:

8. "[T]here was a security incident involving a user who had the
   process name 'Baader' [, his name]. Subsequent to his 'trial' and
   expulsion from the college for a year, another student set his
   process name to 'Baader' and promptly found himself disusered."
    <1992Oct1.173240.7942@glas.rtsg.mot.com>

Notes 9-10 are about banning not only the running of some computer
programs but also possession of program's code.

9. In reply to an associate director of computing services who
   compared possession of some programs' code to possession of a
   handgun: "A COMPUTER PROGRAM IS NOT A HANDGUN.  Computer programs,
   at least in source code form, are PUBLISHED MATERIAL ... If my use
   of computer resources provided for a particular purpose to me and
   others interferes with that purpose, then you have a right to take
   action ...  But information itself may not be made '"illegal' ..."
    <BvI6zz.7w7@mtholyoke.edu>

10. In reply to the associate director comment that program code is to
    running a prohibited program as burglary tools are to burglary: "I
    view the distinction as rather like the distinction between
    possessing a book that tells how to steal and actually stealing.
    .... Academic libraries are full of books and reports that could
    be used to break rules and laws. I've enclosed an example.
  <1992Oct1.203856.7190@eff.org>

Note 11 is about network connectivity with the former Soviet Union (xSU).

11. The National Science Foundation (NSF) is asking that the xSU be
    allowed to connect so as not to "to disenfranchise a large
    fraction of the US R&E community whose aspirations for
    unrestricted scientific and educational collaboration with their
    peers and colleagues in the xSU NSF fully endorses."
   <9209291450.AA22215@ncri>

Note 12 is a mini review of a book about freedom of expression.

12. The book, _Free Speech in an Open Society_, is new, up to date,
    and has lots of references to relevant court cases. Enclosed are
    the book's six suggested rules for speech rules in a free forum.
   <1992Sep29.184810.10473@eff.org>

- Carl]

--- end   abstract ---

CAF-News is a weekly digest of notes from CAF-talk.

CAF-News is available as newsgroup alt.comp.acad-freedom.news or via
email. If you read newsgroups but your site doesn't get
alt.comp.acad-freedom.news, (politely) ask your sys admin to
subscribe. For info on email delivery, send email to
archive-server@eff.org. Include the line

send acad-freedom caf

Back issues of CAF-News are available via anonymous ftp or via email.
Ftp to ftp.eff.org. The directory is pub/academic/news. For
information about email access to the archive, send an email note to
archive-server@eff.org. Include the lines:

send acad-freedom README
help
index

Disclaimer: This CAF-News abstract was compiled by a guest editor or a
regular editor (Paul Joslin, Elizabeth M. Reid, Adam C. Gross, Mark C.
Sheehan, John F. Nixon or Carl M. Kadie). It is not an EFF
publication. The views an editor expresses and editorial decisions he
or she makes are his or her own.


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