| From: | "Robert A. Hayden" <hayden@*******.MANKATO.MSUS.EDU> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Last word on being removed from computer access |
| Date: | Mon, 7 Mar 1994 12:37:07 -0600 |
Date: Sun, 6 Mar 1994 20:46:53 -0500
From: Carl M. Kadie <kadie@***.org>
To: hayden@*******.mankato.msus.edu
Subject: legal support
Here is some material.
=============== ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/faq/netnews.writing ===============
q: Should my university allow students to post to Netnews?
a: Yes. Free inquiry and free expression are an important part of a
university's mission. Most universities encourage and support student
expression and publication. Most universities also seem to give full
network access to all users, even students. (This conclusion is based
on an informal survey posted to comp.admin.policy in October, 1991.
[cafv01n33])
There is probably no need to create special rules for student computer
media; your university likely already has rules for student media.
(Look in your Student Code.) In the U.S., most student publications
are free of university screening, censorship, and most retaliation.
(For state universities, this is a legal requirement.) At the same
time, most universities disclaim responsibility for student
publications, even when the university "owns the presses."
- Carl
ANNOTATED REFERENCES
(All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.)
=================<a
href="ftp://ftp.eff.org/pub/CAF/statements/caf-statement">;
statements/caf-statement
=================</a>
* Computer and Academic Freedom Statement -- Draft
This is an attempt to codify the application of academic freedom to
academic computers. It reflects our seven months of on-line discussion
about computers and academic freedom. It covers free expression, due
process, privacy, and user participation.
Comments and suggestions are very welcome (especially when posted to
CAF-talk). All the documents referenced are available on-line.
(Critiqued).
=================<a
href="ftp://ftp.eff.org/pub/CAF/statements/caf-statement.critique">;
statements/caf-statement.critique
=================</a>
* Computer and Academic Freedom Statement -- Draft -- Critique
This is a critique of an attempt to codify the application of academic
freedom to academic computers. It reflects our seven months of on-line
discussion about computers and academic freedom. It covers free
expression, due process, privacy, and user participation.
Additional comments and suggestions are very welcome (especially when
posted to CAF-talk). All the documents referenced are available
on-line.
=================<a
href="ftp://ftp.eff.org/pub/CAF/academic/student.freedoms.aaup">;
academic/student.freedoms.aaup
=================</a>
* Student Freedoms (AAUP)
Joint Statement on Rights and Freedoms of Students -- This is the main
U.S. statement on student academic freedom.
=================<a
href="ftp://ftp.eff.org/pub/CAF/academic/speech-codes.aaup">;
academic/speech-codes.aaup
=================</a>
* Speech Codes (AAUP)
On Freedom of Expression and Campus Speech Codes Expression - An
official statement of the American Association of University
Professors (AAUP)
It says in part: "On a campus that is free and open, no idea can be
banned or forbidden. No viewpoint or message may be deemed so hateful
or disturbing that it may not be expressed."
=================<a
href="ftp://ftp.eff.org/pub/CAF/policies/netnews.uwm.edu">;
policies/netnews.uwm.edu
=================</a>
* Edu -- U. of Wisconsin-Milwaukee -- Netnews
These are the network policy resolutions developed by the Computer
Policy Committee at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. The
resolutions were approved by the Committee and forwarded to the
Chancellor. They were given final approval by the Chancellor as campus
administrative policy (memo dated 02/23/93).
They say (to paraphrase) 1) Netnews is important 2) No restrictions
should be imposed without wide consultation 3) The principles of
intellectual freedom developed for university libraries apply to
Netnews material 4) The principles of intellectual freedom developed
for publication in traditional media apply to computer media.
=================<a
href="ftp://ftp.eff.org/pub/CAF/policies/netnews.uwo.ca">;
policies/netnews.uwo.ca
=================</a>
* U. of Western Ontario -- Netnews policy
It says in part: "In its publications regarding Usenet, CCS should
make it clear that the individual user bears the primary
responsibility for the material that he or she chooses to send or
display on the network or on the University's computer systems." It
also specifies a procedure for dealing with challenges to material.
=================<a href="ftp://ftp.eff.org/pub/CAF/news/cafv01n33">;
news/cafv01n33
=================</a>
[No annotation available.]
=================<a href="ftp://ftp.eff.org/pub/CAF/faq/netnews.reading">;
faq/netnews.reading
=================</a>
* Netnews -- Policies on What Users Read
q: Should my university remove (or restrict) Netnews newsgroups
because some people find them offensive? If it doesn't have the
resources to carry all newsgroups, how should newsgroups be selected?
a: Material should not be restricted just because it is offensive to
...
=================<a href="ftp://ftp.eff.org/pub/CAF/faq/media.control">;
faq/media.control
=================</a>
* University Control of Media
q: Since freedom of the press belongs to those who own presses, a
public university can do anything it wants with the media that it
owns, right?
a: No. Like any organization, the U.S. government must work within its
...
=================<a
href="ftp://ftp.eff.org/pub/CAF/law/san-diego-committee-v-gov-bd">;
law/san-diego-committee-v-gov-bd
=================</a>
* Expression -- Public Forum -- Overview -- San Diego Committee v. Gov Bd
Excerpts from San Diego Committee v. Governing Bd., 790 F.2d 1471. A
decision by an appellate court that applied the Supreme Court's Public
Forum Doctrine (to a school newspaper).
=================<a
href="ftp://ftp.eff.org/pub/CAF/law/stanley-v-magrath">;
law/stanley-v-magrath
=================</a>
* Expression -- Public Forum -- Closing -- Stanley v. Magrath
Comments from _Public Schools Law: Teachers' and Students' Rights_ 2nd
Ed. by Martha M. McCarthy and Nelda H. Cambron-McCabe, published in
1987 by Allyn and Bacon, Inc. It says, in part, "[a]lthough school
boards are not obligated to support student papers, if a given
publication was originally created as a free speech forum, removal of
financial or other school board support can be construed as an
unlawful effort to stifle free expression." Also, "school
authorities cannot withdraw support from a student publication simply
because of displeasure with the content" and "the content of a
school-sponsored paper that is established as a medium for student
expression cannot be regulated more closely than a nonsponsored
paper". Also, it tells what to do about libel in student
publications.
=================<a
href="ftp://ftp.eff.org/pub/CAF/law/student-publications.misc">;
law/student-publications.misc
=================</a>
* Expression -- Offensive -- Student Publications -- Misc
Quotes from the book _Law of the Student Press_ by the Student Press
Law Center (1985,1988). They say that four-letter words are protected
speech, that public universities are not likely to be liable for
publications that they for which they do not control the contents, and
that the _Hazelwood_ decision does not apply to universities.
=================<a
href="ftp://ftp.eff.org/pub/CAF/law/uwm-post-v-u-of-wisconsin">;
law/uwm-post-v-u-of-wisconsin
=================</a>
* Expression -- Hate Speech -- UWM Post v. U Of Wisconsin
The full text of UWM POST v. U. of Wisconsin. This recent district
court ruling goes into detail about the difference between protected
offensive expression and illegal harassment. It even mentions email.
It concludes: "The founding fathers of this nation produced a
remarkable document in the Constitution but it was ratified only with
the promise of the Bill of Rights. The First Amendment is central to
our concept of freedom. The God-given "unalienable rights" that the
infant nation rallied to in the Declaration of Independence can be
preserved only if their application is rigorously analyzed.
The problems of bigotry and discrimination sought to be addressed here
are real and truly corrosive of the educational environment. But
freedom of speech is almost absolute in our land and the only
restriction the fighting words doctrine can abide is that based on the
fear of violent reaction. Content-based prohibitions such as that in
the UW Rule, however well intended, simply cannot survive the
screening which our Constitution demands."
=================<a href="ftp://ftp.eff.org/pub/CAF/law/rust-v-sullivan">;
law/rust-v-sullivan
=================</a>
* Expression -- Gag Rule -- Rust v. Sullivan
The decision and decent for the so-called abortion information gag
rule case. The decision explicitly mentions universities as a place
where free expression is so important that gag rules would not be
allowed.
=================<a href="ftp://ftp.eff.org/pub/CAF/law/rav-v-st-paul.1">;
law/rav-v-st-paul.1
=================</a>
* Expression -- Hate Speech -- RAV v. St Paul -- 1
The Supreme Court's _R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul_ decision about hate crimes.
The Court overturned St. Paul's Bias-Motivated Crime Ordinance, which
prohibits the display of a symbol which one knows or has reason to
know "arouses anger, alarm or resentment in others on the basis of
race, color, creed, religion or gender."
By 9-0, the Court said the law as overly broad. By 5-4, the Court said
that the law was also unfairly selective because it only tried to protect
some groups.
Included: summary, majority opinion, 3 concurring opinions.
=================<a href="ftp://ftp.eff.org/pub/CAF/law/perry-v-perry">;
law/perry-v-perry
=================</a>
* Expression -- Public Forum -- Campus Mail -- Perry v. Perry
Comments from the ACLU Handbook _The Rights of _Teachers_. It says
that campus mail systems (and other school facilities) can be limited
public forums. (Perry v. Perry was about an interschool mail system.
It was one of the cases that defined the Public Forum Doctrine.)
Also, a paraphrase from an ACLU handbook _The Rights of Teachers_. It
says that generally, speech, if otherwise shielded from punishment by
the First Amendment, does not lose that protection because its tone is
sharp.
Also, from p. 92, it says that there are legal limits to the oaths a
(public) school can ask its teachers to sign. [Some of these same
limits might apply to what a school can ask a user to sign as a
condition of getting (or keeping) a computer account.]
=================<a
href="ftp://ftp.eff.org/pub/CAF/law/broadrick-v-oklahoma">;
law/broadrick-v-oklahoma
=================</a>
* Expression -- Vague Regulation -- Broadrick v. Oklahoma, et al.
Summary of case law on overly vague regulation of expression. It says
a statute is unconstitutionally vague when "men of common intelligence
must necessarily guess at its meaning."
=================<a href="ftp://ftp.eff.org/pub/CAF/law/naacp-v-button">;
law/naacp-v-button
=================</a>
* Expression -- Overbroad Regulation -- NAACP v. Button, et al.
Summary of case law on overly broad regulation of expression. It says
"[b]ecause First Amendment freedoms need breathing space to survive,
government may regulate in the area only with narrow specificity."
=================<a
href="ftp://ftp.eff.org/pub/CAF/law/pd-of-chicago-v-mosley">;
law/pd-of-chicago-v-mosley
=================</a>
* Expression -- Content Regulation -- Police Department of Chicago v. Mosley
Summary of case law on content-based regulation of expression. It says
that "above all else, the First Amendment means that government has no
power to restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its
subject matter, or its content."
=================<a
href="ftp://ftp.eff.org/pub/CAF/law/cohen-v-california.4">;
law/cohen-v-california.4
=================</a>
* Expression -- Regulation of Tone -- Cohen v. California -- 4
A short quote from _Cohen v. California_: "We cannot sanction the view
that the constitution, while solicitous of the cognitive content of
individual speech, has little or no regard for that emotive function
which, practically speaking, may often be the more important element
of the overall message sought to be communicated."
=================
=================
If you have gopher, you can browse the CAF archive with the command
gopher gopher.eff.org
These document(s) are also 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 (192.77.172.4), and get file(s):
pub/CAF/statements/caf-statement
pub/CAF/statements/caf-statement.critique
pub/CAF/academic/student.freedoms.aaup
pub/CAF/academic/speech-codes.aaup
pub/CAF/policies/netnews.uwm.edu
pub/CAF/policies/netnews.uwo.ca
pub/CAF/news/cafv01n33
pub/CAF/faq/netnews.reading
pub/CAF/faq/media.control
pub/CAF/law/san-diego-committee-v-gov-bd
pub/CAF/law/stanley-v-magrath
pub/CAF/law/student-publications.misc
pub/CAF/law/uwm-post-v-u-of-wisconsin
pub/CAF/law/rust-v-sullivan
pub/CAF/law/rav-v-st-paul.1
pub/CAF/law/perry-v-perry
pub/CAF/law/broadrick-v-oklahoma
pub/CAF/law/naacp-v-button
pub/CAF/law/pd-of-chicago-v-mosley
pub/CAF/law/cohen-v-california.4
To get the file(s) by email, send email to archive-server@***.org.
Include the line(s) (be sure to include the space before the file
name):
send acad-freedom/statements caf-statement
send acad-freedom/statements caf-statement.critique
send acad-freedom/academic student.freedoms.aaup
send acad-freedom/academic speech-codes.aaup
send acad-freedom/policies netnews.uwm.edu
send acad-freedom/policies netnews.uwo.ca
send acad-freedom/news cafv01n33
send acad-freedom/faq netnews.reading
send acad-freedom/faq media.control
send acad-freedom/law san-diego-committee-v-gov-bd
send acad-freedom/law stanley-v-magrath
send acad-freedom/law student-publications.misc
send acad-freedom/law uwm-post-v-u-of-wisconsin
send acad-freedom/law rust-v-sullivan
send acad-freedom/law rav-v-st-paul.1
send acad-freedom/law perry-v-perry
send acad-freedom/law broadrick-v-oklahoma
send acad-freedom/law naacp-v-button
send acad-freedom/law pd-of-chicago-v-mosley
send acad-freedom/law cohen-v-california.4
