🚀 go-pugleaf

> Greg Homicki <gwh@cs.mcgill.ca> says:
>
> You are missing the point, or ignoring it.  McGill did not
>censor the information, the Canadian courts did.


Well, let's see what LIBRARIANS think censorship is:

=	The American Library Association definition of censorship
=	is as follows (available from ftp.eff.org in pub/academic/library):
=
=	Censorship -- The change in the access status of material, made by a
=	governing authority or its representatives. Such changes include:
=	exclusion, restriction, removal, or age/grade level changes.


There is no question that McGill chose to *censor* the newsgroup.


It is also not clear whether the Ontario court ban, which specifically
mentioned "Canadian accredited media" even applies to USENET News.
Furthermore, *all* articles in that newsgroup are banned, by virtue
of their "Newsgroup:" label and not by virtue of their content.
Lawyers disagree on how the so-called "media-ban" should be applied
in the electronic context.

McGill legal counsel, however, supports the removal of the newsgroup,
and so all campus news servers comply.

It is just too bad this legal opinion came two weeks *after* the move
to censor, and not before.  Notably, our news server at CIM refused to ban
the newsgroup until the legal opinion was in hand.

dj