rmz@ifi.uio.no (Bjoern Remseth) (10/20/90)
Maybe this is the right newsgroup for this discussion? I don't know.
Anyway, here we go:
Here at the University of Oslo some very influential people are trying
to shut down alt.sex and a number of other newsgroups they and their
friends find offensive. Actually they have already closed down about
ten groups (including the entire alt.sex. hierarchy) for all of the
university except for the Comp. Sci. dept. From what I've heard
they have also expressed a wish to stop distribution of these groups
in all of Norway. What _really_ makes me worried is that these people
may carry enough political clout to make this happen.
Have any of you experienced something similar? Do you have a
suggestion about how this should be counterattacked? Do you know
about a newsgroup that is more appropriate for this question? Answers
to any or all of these questions are very much welcome.
--
(Rmz)
Bj\o rn Remseth Institutt for Informatikk Net: rmz@ifi.uio.no
Phone: +472 453466 Universitetet i Oslo, Norway NeXTmail: rmz@neste.uio.noriddle@hoss.unl.edu (Michael H. Riddle) (10/21/90)
In <RMZ.90Oct20170121@gode.uio.no> rmz@ifi.uio.no (Bjoern Remseth) writes: >Maybe this is the right newsgroup for this discussion? I don't know. >Anyway, here we go: Seems like a good group to start with, anyway! >Here at the University of Oslo some very influential people are trying >to shut down alt.sex and a number of other newsgroups they and their >friends find offensive. Actually they have already closed down about >ten groups (including the entire alt.sex. hierarchy) for all of the >university except for the Comp. Sci. dept. From what I've heard >they have also expressed a wish to stop distribution of these groups >in all of Norway. What _really_ makes me worried is that these people >may carry enough political clout to make this happen. >Have any of you experienced something similar? Do you have a >suggestion about how this should be counterattacked? Do you know >about a newsgroup that is more appropriate for this question? Answers >to any or all of these questions are very much welcome. I'm sure I'll create some controversy, but it seems to be that what I call "Murphy's Golden Rule" might apply here: "The one with the gold makes the rules." What I mean is that the people paying the bill ought to have the right to say how their resources are being used. While there are many good purposes served by a free and open exchange of ideas on a wide variety of subjects, I personally have some doubts that public funding, either from my country or yours, ought to be involved in some of the discussions we find on the net. Particulary if, for example, the funding agency thought it was underwriting discussions of theoretical physics, it might be upset with some justification to find out its money was supporting alt.sex.*. By the same token, I'm granted access for educational purposes relating to telecommunications law. This particular newsgroup is quite valid. I'm not so sure how valid my access to *.unix.* might be, except that once I'm on the net the incremental cost is relatively low. What you probably need to do, in a university setting, is get the faculty involved. At least at this school, they would be highly disturbed at the idea of anyone telling them what is or isn't valid for their departments. The Norwegian equivalent of "freedom of expression," to use our United States terms, would be a good idea, and perhaps the "human rights" aspects of the UN Declaration of Rights. However, my guess is they could make the withdrawal stick unless someone else is willing to fund it. There is still at least a little distinction between withdrawal of financial support and censorship. -- riddle@hoss.unl.edu | University of Nebraska riddle@crchpux.unl.edu | College of Law mike.riddle@f27.n285.z1.fidonet.org | Lincoln, Nebraska, USA
mnemonic@well.sf.ca.us (Mike Godwin) (10/21/90)
In article <RMZ.90Oct20170121@gode.uio.no> rmz@ifi.uio.no (Bjoern Remseth) writes: > >Have any of you experienced something similar? Do you have a >suggestion about how this should be counterattacked? In my own opinion, the best argument that can be made to preserve the alt groups, and in particular the alt.sex hierarchy, is that they serve as lightning rods for discussions and topics that otherwise would distract other newsgroups. For example, many nontechnical discussions of sexuality that almost certainly would have turned up in one or more of the sci groups go to alt.sex instead. --Mike -- Mike Godwin, (617) 864-0665 |"If the doors of perception were cleansed mnemonic@well.sf.ca.us | every thing would appear to man as it is, Electronic Frontier | infinite." Foundation | --Blake
jmc@Gang-of-Four.usenet (John McCarthy) (10/22/90)
The cost saving in suppressing a particular newsgroup are trivial. At Stanford they were probably negative, since personnel time went into it. We won the restoration by the following means: 1. There were faculty and student petitions on the subject, mostly from computer science people. 2. There was only one strong-minded bad guy and he was rather perfunctory in his "off with its head" decree. 3. The Academic Senate Steering Committee was persuaded to refer the issue to the faculty committee on libraries. This committee came up with a statement to the effect that the policy of an electronic library should be the same as that of a print library - universality tempered only by cost.
sean@ms.uky.edu (Sean Casey) (10/22/90)
riddle@hoss.unl.edu (Michael H. Riddle) writes: |What I mean is that the people paying the bill ought to have the right to |say how their resources are being used. While there are many good |purposes served by a free and open exchange of ideas on a wide variety of |subjects, I personally have some doubts that public funding, either from |my country or yours, ought to be involved in some of the discussions we |find on the net. I agree with this position, however... What if the admins decided they didn't want to carry just soc.culture.african.american? Or if they decided not to carry any women's groups. Or perhaps they had LPF influences and wouldn't carry any groups having to do with Apple computers? If I were on that system, I'd be very upset if someone started deciding what was appropriate for me to read. Especially if we're talking public funding. Sean -- *** Sean Casey sean@ms.uky.edu, sean@ukma.bitnet, ukma!sean *** "When all is said and done, it hardly ever is..."
zane@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Sameer Parekh) (10/22/90)
THere is a guy who is operatiing a mail service for censored sites.
There is a discussion about it in misc.misc.
Read that and find out about it. I dunno if he is doing alot or a little,
but ask him.
--
Sameer Parekh zane@ddsw1.MCS.COM "Our liberty depends upon the freedom of
the press, being limited, it is lost."
--- Thomas Jefferson (Paraphrased)bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) (10/22/90)
I suppose the obvious issue to raise is the whole editorial issue.
If someone wants to edit out those messages which are deemed
inappropriate by some guidelines then how are they going to guarantee
that this noble goal is achieved?
If there is a feeling that explicit material might appear in alt.sex,
how about sci.med? How about flame wars on technical groups? Etc.
Once someone owns the editing function they should be given the whole
editing function as they've already asserted that it's somehow
critical that none of this "potentially offensive" material arrive at
a site.
When they're finished with that, they should be given the same task
with the campus telephone system. Surely many calls have nothing to do
with education or research. And just as surely the possibility of
lascivious activity is possible if any phone conversation goes
unchecked.
Then move on to campus social activities of any sort...
--
-Barry Shein
Software Tool & Die | {xylogics,uunet}!world!bzs | bzs@world.std.com
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLDbrad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) (10/22/90)
"Freedom of the press belongs only to those who own a press." This is how it has always been, and to be honest, I doubt that computer networking will change the basic principle much. It does, however, change the ground rules, since it makes ownership of a "press" ridiculously cheap. In fact, within a few years, every educated person will own something that assures communications with large groups of people. This will make the the above principle moot. In the meantime, it is true, and as such, large multi-user sites have full rights to control what is on their machines. ...... But now we get to the "however." However, I think that Universities are a very special case. The traditional role of Universities has been the fostering of communication. Universities are expected to be more tolerant of unusual speech that constitutions require governments to be. They are expected to not just tolerate, but even facilitate the communication of all sorts of ideas, from the astute to the repugnant. Libraries have the same tradition. They can't stock all books, but they take a solid stand of not removing books for moralist reasons. So by tradition, Univs. should not run around banning things, even when it is their right to do so. As long as the cost is not too hard to bear, they should do the opposite. It is their heritage. -- Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
karish@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Chuck Karish) (10/23/90)
In article <sean.656539237@s.ms.uky.edu> sean@ms.uky.edu (Sean Casey) writes: >riddle@hoss.unl.edu (Michael H. Riddle) writes: > >|What I mean is that the people paying the bill ought to have the right to >|say how their resources are being used. While there are many good >|purposes served by a free and open exchange of ideas on a wide variety of >|subjects, I personally have some doubts that public funding, either from >|my country or yours, ought to be involved in some of the discussions we >|find on the net. > >I agree with this position, however... > >What if the admins decided they didn't want to carry just >soc.culture.african.american? [ ... ] USENET is a very loose voluntary organization. People are willing to volunteer time and resources to propagate all sorts of stuff they don't particularly care about, because they also get the things they're really interested in. Carrying more groups than serve your immediate purposes is the price you pay for the service. If the site that feeds you were to pare down their sys file to just what they read, you'd probably lose several groups that are important to you. If it's worthwhile to have a USENET feed, it's worth paying the overhead, which involves (1) being willing to feed others and (2) carrying more than you read, in order to do (1). Once the system is im place to provide what you want, the marginal cost to carry more groups is not great. The political cost is another issue; I hope these arguments will help some to balance it. -- Chuck Karish karish@mindcraft.com
david@twg.com (David S. Herron) (10/30/90)
In article <sean.656539237@s.ms.uky.edu> sean@ms.uky.edu (Sean Casey) writes: >riddle@hoss.unl.edu (Michael H. Riddle) writes: [Them's that gots the gold makes the rules ... ] >I agree with this position, however... > >What if the admins decided they didn't want to carry just >soc.culture.african.american? Or if they decided not to carry any >women's groups. Or perhaps they had LPF influences and wouldn't carry >any groups having to do with Apple computers? > >If I were on that system, I'd be very upset if someone started >deciding what was appropriate for me to read. Especially if we're >talking public funding. So? You don't own that system; the "admin"'s do. They've got the gold, in this case, and therefore get to make the rules. And, by your own admission, you agree with that position. If you don't like it you can use a different system, or get your own. Try to convince me that sites should be forced to carry particular groups, or that some groups are more valid/worthy than others. I don't think you can .. For myself -- certain groups are more valuable than others, and those are the ones I read. Other people have *wildly* different ideas of what's useful. >Sean >-- >*** Sean Casey sean@ms.uky.edu, sean@ukma.bitnet, ukma!sean >*** "When all is said and done, it hardly ever is..." -- <- David Herron, an MMDF & WIN/MHS guy, <david@twg.com> <- Formerly: David Herron -- NonResident E-Mail Hack <david@ms.uky.edu> <- <- Use the force Wes!
jar@ifi.uio.no (Jo Are Rosland) (10/31/90)
In article <1990Oct21.141502.26557@hoss.unl.edu>, riddle@hoss.unl.edu (Michael H. Riddle) writes: > > I'm sure I'll create some controversy, but it seems to be that what I call > "Murphy's Golden Rule" might apply here: > > "The one with the gold makes the rules." > > What I mean is that the people paying the bill ought to have the right to > say how their resources are being used. While there are many good > purposes served by a free and open exchange of ideas on a wide variety of > subjects, I personally have some doubts that public funding, either from > my country or yours, ought to be involved in some of the discussions we > find on the net. I think perhaps you are missing the potentially most interesting/scary points of rmz's article, namely: 1. The University of Oslo controls distribution of USENET to ALL of Norway. The people resposible for this first act of censorship have expressed the intention of censoring not only the university news feed, but also the news feed for the rest of Norway. 2. The decision was taken by _one_ person, the head of the Computer Centre. He did not consult anyone, eg. faculty. In fact the person who had to carry out the removal of the groups, was in direct opposition to the decision. 3. The head of the Computer Centre is _not_ "the people who pay the bill". This isn't really a decision for him to take, especially not at a whim, as it appears he has done. I believe your point that the owners of the machines should have the last say over the use of their equipment, but who really is "the owners" in a case like this? And aren't there also some installations that are too important for this to apply? For instance, would it be acceptable if uunet, or perhaps one of the main news gateways connecting Europe and the U.S., should start censoring which groups/articles they want to pass on? I believe computer networks are akin to other communication networks like snail mail/telephone, in that carriers have a responsibility to not censor the traffic on the grounds of their own more or less well founded ideas of what is "prudent" or what is "fitting". I acknowledge that this is not formally the case with neither USENET nor the Internet, still this idea is part of the informal ethics of most of the sites responsible for running these networks. But as computer networks continue to grow, perhaps it's time for a more formal declaration of the responsibilities of the carriers of electronic networking services, either through legislation, or presedence? -- Jo Are Rosland jar@ifi.uio.no
brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) (11/01/90)
In article <1990Oct31.141646.25350@ifi.uio.no> joare@sdata.no writes: > >1. The University of Oslo controls distribution of USENET to ALL of > Norway. The people resposible for this first act of censorship have > expressed the intention of censoring not only the university news > feed, but also the news feed for the rest of Norway. Please explain more about this. I have never heard of any site controlling distribution of USENET into an entire country. Are there special laws forbidding other sites from getting feeds from non-Norwegian sites? Can this site tell other sites not to phone outside the country or make tcp connections, or whatever for feeds? I'm being facetious, I am sure there are no such laws. (I hope) You simply don't understand the golden rule. Anybody is permitted to get a feed. As long as this is true, there is no censorship, only their refusal to spend their resources passing stuff to you. There is quasi-censorship of people within their own university, who may not have any other means for getting outside info. In general, censorship is the use of violence to suppress information. People who try to interfere with the flow of information in non-violent ways are not good, but they are not censors. That out of the way, I am still in favour of pushing people, particularly universities, not to delete material from general media because it may be offensive. -- Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
mbrown@tonic.osf.org (Mark Brown) (11/02/90)
In article <yTqyR1w163w@dogface>, writes: |> brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) writes: |> > In general, censorship is the use of violence to suppress information. |> Does censorship require violence? In the sense of doing violence to an |> idea, perhaps. Anything else is personal preference on the censor's part. Here's a good definition for you... It's judgement when an editor/publisher (of any medium) supresses something she doesn't want to display/print. It's censorship when done by an authority. No violence is needed. (It helps to use the dictionary, sometimes.) Mark Brown IBM AWD / OSF | I feel a hot wind, on my shoulder, The Good mbrown@osf.org | I dial it in from south-of-the-border The Bad uunet!osf!mbrown| I hear the talking, of the dj, The Ugly (617) 621-8981 | can't understand *just what does he say?*
peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) (11/02/90)
In article <15700@paperboy.OSF.ORG> mbrown@tonic.osf.org (Mark Brown) writes: > Here's a good definition for you... > It's judgement when an editor/publisher (of any medium) supresses something > she doesn't want to display/print. > It's censorship when done by an authority. > No violence is needed. (It helps to use the dictionary, sometimes.) Anything done by the state against someone's will involves violence or the threat of violence, because the power of the state to enforce this act grows out of the right of the state to use violence to that end. Outside of Marxist or Libertarian utopias, there is no other basis for the power of the state. And remember that "utopia" means "noplace". -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' +1 713 274 5180. 'U` peter@ferranti.com
bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) (11/02/90)
From: brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) >I'm being facetious, I am sure there are no such laws. (I hope) You >simply don't understand the golden rule. Anybody is permitted to get >a feed. As long as this is true, there is no censorship, only their >refusal to spend their resources passing stuff to you. Actually, things get stranger with universities and their ilk. Suppose the funding agencies take the attitude that any redundant link would be a squandering of funds and responded to by cutting back networking budgets (since it was already paid for once) or firing anyone who "squandered" those funds by installing a redundant link? I don't think that's either wild or unlikely, particularly with expensive transatlantic bandwidth. I believe most of the Norwegian bandwidth comes from their Defense Dept sources. Now, I suppose we can sink into the whole private vs public funding hole and how the world *oughta* work, but that wouldn't change the situation (remember, someone has already taken money to provide this service, presumably with a promise to provide it to all downstream institutions, we can't immediately postulate infinite funds to fix the situation.) In such a case I think it's pretty reasonable for the universities dependant on those rules to declare that the policy on that route is a political issue and up for argument. So it might be a bit flip to just say "go set up your own link", these may very well be several institutions mandated by law to eat from the same pot. >In general, censorship is the use of violence to suppress information. I don't think that's quite workable. Violence is one of many possible statutory forces (and may be in the background.) How about if the govt took over all the universities and university funding and then imposed their censorship rules? And declared that anyone else claiming to be a degree granting institution could be arrested for fraud (or, just made certain that they'd be ineligible for any funding, tax breaks, and so forth?) Etc. >People who try to interfere with the flow of information in non-violent >ways are not good, but they are not censors. Let's put it this way, if they're not from the govt or otherwise have police powers they're probably not properly called "censors". I think in this case we may very well be talking about state powers. >That out of the way, I am still in favour of pushing people, particularly >universities, not to delete material from general media because it may >be offensive. Agreed. -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | {xylogics,uunet}!world!bzs | bzs@world.std.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD
brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) (11/02/90)
Censorship does indeed require violence, in the extended sense, where "don't print that or we will put you in jail" is violence (the threat thereof) even if no actual violent acts take place because the repressed publisher complies. A slightly better definition might be "censorship is the use of force to suppress information" but I have taken to use the word violence because it points out the irony of the censor's position. So many of today's modern censors are particularly keen on censoring things which "might tend to encourage violence" or "which desensitize people to violence." Thus I tend to phrase their arguments (as I see 'em) this way: "Those who would say things that promote hatred are criminal scum, the lowest form of life. They should be reviled, shunned and punished." "Those who publish material which might generate acceptance of violence must be stopped. If they refuse to stop, they should be jailed and have their property confiscated. If they refuse to be jailed, they should be taken bodily or at gunpoint. If they still refuse or try to escape, they should be shot and killed." Somehow, the censors don't see the irony of the above statements... -- Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
jmc@Gang-of-Four.usenet (John McCarthy) (11/02/90)
In 1989 rec.humor.funny was suppressed in some of the Stanford University computers. After a campaign it was re-installed in those computers. It was never suppressed in the Computer Science Department's computers. There follow two relevant documents. The first is self-explanatory, and the second came about through the following sequence of events. (1) Donald Kennedy, Stanford's President, told the Academic Senate that he supported the suppression but would defer to the Senate. (2) The Senate Steering Committee asked the Committee on Libraries for a general policy recommendation on how to treat electronic newsgroups. Referring the issue to the Committee on Libraries indicated what kind of issue the Steering Committee thought was involved. (3) The Committee on Libraries made the statement given below. (4) The Steering Committee asked the Vice-President for Information Resources (i.e. the boss of the computer centers) whether he preferred to back down and re-establish rec.humor.funny or have the matter discussed by the full Senate. (5) He backed down somewhat grumpily. The following statement was passed unanimously at a meeting of the Computer Science Department faculty of Stanford University on Tuesday, Feb 21, 1989. Statement of Protest about the AIR Censorship of rec.humor.funny. Computer scientists and computer users have been involved in making information resources widely available since the 1960s. Such resources are analogous to libraries. The newsgroups available on various networks are the computer analog of magazines and partial prototypes of future universal computer libraries. These libraries will make available the information resources of the whole world to anyone's terminal or personal computer. Therefore, the criteria for including newsgroups in computer systems or removing them should be identical to those for including books in or removing books from libraries. For this reason, and since the resource requirements for keeping newsgroups available are very small, we consider it contrary to the function of a university to censor the presence of newsgroups in University computers. We regard it as analogous to removing a book from the library. To be able to read anything subject only to cost limitations is an essential part of academic freedom. Censorship is not an appropriate tool for preventing or dealing with offensive behavior. We therefore think that AIR and SDC should rescind the purge of rec.humor.funny. The Computer Science Department has also decided not to censor Department Computers. ***** Here's something else - a statement by the Stanford faculty committee on libraries. Office Memo, Stanford University Libraries date: April 12, 1989 To: The Steering Committee of the Academic Senate via Arthur Coladarci From: Joan Krasner, Secretary, C-Lib The following is an excerpt from the minutes of the April 10th meeting of C-Lib which considered the matter of computer bulletin boards on campus. The Preamble to the Statement on Academic Freedom (1974) states that ``Expression of the widest range of viewpoints should be encouraged, free from institutional orthodoxy and from internal or external coercion.'' It is the view of the Academic Council Committee on Libraries that this statement pertains to materials received on computer bulletin boards on campus. Acquisition and access to information in new forms should be subject only to financial limits and other standard criteria of collection such as the useful life of the materials, storage capacity, etc. - approved by Academic Council Commmittee on Libraries, April 10, 1989. XC: Gerald Gillespie
hes@ccvr1.ncsu.edu (Henry E. Schaffer) (11/02/90)
In article <1990Nov02.044428.2834@looking.on.ca> brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) writes: >Censorship does indeed require violence, in the extended sense, where >"don't print that or we will put you in jail" is violence (the >threat thereof) even if no actual violent acts take place because >the repressed publisher complies. In the public sector, plus private universities, censorship can be done by cutting off funding or threatening to cut off funding. The recent flap about the NEA fits under this heading. I don't see how this type of censorship fits the "violence" description in any way. --henry schaffer n c state univ > ...
fwp1@CC.MsState.Edu (Frank Peters) (11/03/90)
In article <1990Nov2.141012.25200@ncsuvx.ncsu.edu> hes@ccvr1.ncsu.edu (Henry E. Schaffer) writes: In article <1990Nov02.044428.2834@looking.on.ca> brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) writes: >Censorship does indeed require violence, in the extended sense, where >"don't print that or we will put you in jail" is violence (the >threat thereof) even if no actual violent acts take place because >the repressed publisher complies. In the public sector, plus private universities, censorship can be done by cutting off funding or threatening to cut off funding. The recent flap about the NEA fits under this heading. I don't see how this type of censorship fits the "violence" description in any way. What you have described is not censorship. If I (or your university or your government) refuse to help you buy or publish a book or record or work of art or whatever that is a policy decision. It is NOT censorship. It is simply saying "if you want to use my resources you play by my rules." It may be a poor policy decision. It may not be in the best interests of the people represented. It may be against the proper goals of an institution of higher learning (in the case of a university) or against the best interests of the citizens (in the case of a government). It may be foolish and ignorant and stubborn and mean spirited but IT IS NOT CENSORSHIP. You can still go out and seek other sources of funding. In the case of USENET you can get an account on a public access system. In the case of art you can seek out private patrons. In all cases you can seek to change the policy through exercising your right to vote, petitions, boycotts, advertizements in university, local or national newspapers or lots of annoying phone calls (well, maybe that last could be construed as harassment and be restricted). If I (or your university or your government) try to prevent you from doing any of the above with your own time and money and materials (or from seeking out others willing to provide you with such resources) then THAT would be censorship...and, as Brad indicated, is probably only possible through violence or threat of violence. FWP -- -- Frank Peters Internet: fwp1@CC.MsState.Edu Bitnet: FWP1@MsState Phone: (601)325-2942 FAX: (601)325-8921
brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) (11/03/90)
In article <1990Nov2.141012.25200@ncsuvx.ncsu.edu> hes@ccvr1.ncsu.edu (Henry E. Schaffer) writes: > In the public sector, plus private universities, censorship can be >done by cutting off funding or threatening to cut off funding. The >recent flap about the NEA fits under this heading. I don't see how >this type of censorship fits the "violence" description in any way. Easy. It isn't censorship. Censorship is one way to control information. It is the most evil way. It is *not* the only way, and not the only evil way. The NEA's riders about obscenity are not censorship. "Obscene" are is not being suppressed. It is simply not being encouraged. This might be called "moralizing." I agree that governments should not do it. They should not render value judgements on art and obscenity. There are two different acts here: a) Giving out a pool of money, but refusing to give it out to certain parties based on value judgements like "obscenity" b) Actively hunting down publishers of material which disagrees with official value judgements and imprisoning them. How can you even compare these two acts? They are different by orders of magnitude. These two things do not deserve the same word. (Yes, there is an argument that since the pool of money was coerced from taxpayers by force, that force was involved. But that sidesteps the main point. I think everybody can see the difference between the two acts above.) The only other application of the word censorship that I accept is when applied to quasi-governmental institutions. Where the quasi-government says, "Leave this institution unless you follow these restrictions on expression." Particularly when those who joined the institution did so without an expection of such restrictions. Thus, when a University (which is expected to be a bastion of free expression) says 'don't say XXX or you will be expelled,' that can be considered censorship, even though no violence is allowed. On the other hand, if an employer says, "Don't run around denouncing our products or you will be fired," that is not censorship, since such a restriction is to be reasonably expected when you are hired. -- Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
john@qip.UUCP (John Moore) (11/04/90)
In article <15700@paperboy.OSF.ORG> mbrown@tonic.osf.org (Mark Brown) writes: ]|> brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) writes: ]|> > In general, censorship is the use of violence to suppress information. ] ]Here's a good definition for you... ]It's judgement when an editor/publisher (of any medium) supresses something ] she doesn't want to display/print. ] ]It's censorship when done by an authority. ] ]No violence is needed. (It helps to use the dictionary, sometimes.) "Authorities" ALWAYS act with the implied threat of violence. If you don't believe me, try ignoring them when they order you to do something (with a legal order). Eventually you will find violence used to drag you off to jail. -- John Moore HAM:NJ7E/CAP:T-Bird 381 {ames!ncar!noao!asuvax,mcdphx}!anasaz!john USnail: 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale,AZ 85253 anasaz!john@asuvax.eas.asu.edu Voice: (602) 951-9326 Wishful Thinking: Long palladium, Short Petroleum Opinion: Support ALL of the bill of rights, INCLUDING the 2nd amendment! Disclaimer: The opinions expressed here are all my fault, and no one elses.
bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) (11/05/90)
>Mr. Templeton says that violence in the extended sense would mean >"don't print it or we will put you in jail" However, if a radio/TV >station airs something that would be found objectionable to the FCC, >they probably would not be jailed, but maybe fined and/or shut down. I can see this is promising to be this month's big boor (tho playing a poor second to the lawsuit threats...) Consider what would happen if you insisted on continuing to broadcast after the FCC objected. Say, you locked your doors, barred the windows, stacked up some canned goods and ran off a generator... I think the next step from da gummint would be properly called "violence". One mainly gives into those fines/shut-downs because they know resisting them at some near point would lead to plenty of violence. So Brad is not far off. Hell, he may even be right. But I may only be saying that because I owe him $148.00. The libertarians, perhaps, would raise the point that witholding public funding might be considered violence. Since the money was taken, ultimately via threat of force, it's not quite logical to say "go pay for it yourself", no one is offering you back the taxes they took from you to pay for it, right? So taking the money, say in the form of taxes, under threat of violence (try not paying your taxes if you doubt me), and then using that money to enforce some sort of repressed expression might be argued is in fact proper censorship (op. cit, q.v, e.g., Jesse Helms & NEA, although as a percentage it's probably not as dramatic as, say, computer network funding.) Although objection to this concept does seem to come mostly from the "right" on this group ("go pay for it yourself"), the same reasoning is used by that side of the room to argue for school voucher programs. I'm sure they're only temporarily confused, as are we all...maybe it's $149. -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | {xylogics,uunet}!world!bzs | bzs@world.std.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD
zane@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Sameer Parekh) (11/05/90)
Mr. Templeton says that violence in the extended sense would mean "don't print
it or we will put you in jail" However, if a radio/TV station airs something
that would be found objectionable to the FCC, they probably would not be jailed,
but maybe fined and/or shut down.
--
zane@ddsw1.MCS.COM
zane@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Sameer Parekh) (11/05/90)
Mr. Peters claims that a university or government does not wish to fund
someone's work because it is found objectionable, it is not censorship. However
that same university or government is funded by the person submitting the work
(In paying tuition or taxes) then it is censorship.
--
zane@ddsw1.MCS.COM
brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) (11/05/90)
In article <1990Nov05.032855.21385@ddsw1.MCS.COM> zane@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Sameer Parekh) writes: > >Mr. Templeton says that violence in the extended sense would mean "don't print >it or we will put you in jail" However, if a radio/TV station airs something >that would be found objectionable to the FCC, they probably would not be jailed, >but maybe fined and/or shut down. > That's a tough one. In today's society, the philosophy used is that the government owns the EM spectrun, and licences it out to various users, who are, in effect, renting it, under terms defined by the FCC. You may not agree with that system, but that is the way it is. TV stations do get 1st amendment protection in some ways, but in others, such as showing NC-17 movies, they don't have it at all. The hope is that the new world of electronic communications that this group was created to talk about changes all this, by leaving the EM spectrum for things it does well -- remote communications, mobile communications etc. -- Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
fwp1@CC.MsState.Edu (Frank Peters) (11/05/90)
In article <1990Nov05.033218.21980@ddsw1.MCS.COM> zane@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Sameer Parekh) writes:
Mr. Peters claims that a university or government does not wish to fund
someone's work because it is found objectionable, it is not censorship. However
that same university or government is funded by the person submitting the work
(In paying tuition or taxes) then it is censorship.
Nonsense. I pay taxes but that does not mean that the government owes
me a job or is obligated to pay for my personal pet project (be it a
book or work of art or usenet article).
Once again, when the government refuses to give me money it is not
censorship. When the government refuses to let me use my own money or
seek other sources of funding then THAT is censorship.
FWP
--
--
Frank Peters Internet: fwp1@CC.MsState.Edu Bitnet: FWP1@MsState
Phone: (601)325-2942 FAX: (601)325-8921lush@EE.MsState.Edu (Edward Luke) (11/06/90)
[... A long thread attempting to define censorship deleted ...] Ok, ok, who cares what you call it. As an individual I can not afford to pay for a nationwide (worldwide) net by myself, but I CAN pay a part of it's operational expenses. The problem is, if part of the 'net' I use to get a message from me to you is owned by the government, and as an individual I can not afford to get the message to you via any other route, then government control of the CONTENT of the messages going through it's 'net' has the SAME EFFECT as CENSORSHIP simply because I have no other options but to use the government net. (I can not afford to create another net myself.) For this reason I find the position 'He who has the gold, makes the rules' a very dangerous one. To make an analogy to the post office... Would any of us really accept a US postal system that did not deliver mail for any individual that was mailing letters that was politically controversial? NO! And we can not allow any new regulations have this effect on the net. I think that at the very least, the government should not have the power to deny access to the net to any individual because of political controversy. This would be very bad. I think that the net can and should be regulated based on the legality of data exchanges (Although this would be regulated by the courts, not the politicians), and on the actual bandwidth requirements of sites, but it is very dangerous to give the government the ability to make choices based on the CONTENT of the data exchanges, given they are not determined to be illegal by the courts. Of course the whole mess is made even more complicated by the fact that we are actually a worldwide net, not just a nationwide net. (Who's laws apply?) Ed Luke Mississippi State University lush@ee.msstate.edu
fwp1@CC.MsState.Edu (Frank Peters) (11/06/90)
In article <LUSH.90Nov5103033@athena0.EE.MsState.Edu> lush@EE.MsState.Edu (Edward Luke) writes:
[... A long thread attempting to define censorship deleted ...]
Ok, ok, who cares what you call it. As an individual I can not afford
to pay for a nationwide (worldwide) net by myself, but I CAN pay a
part of it's operational expenses. The problem is, if part of the
'net' I use to get a message from me to you is owned by the
government, and as an individual I can not afford to get the message
to you via any other route, then government control of the CONTENT of
the messages going through it's 'net' has the SAME EFFECT as
CENSORSHIP simply because I have no other options but to use the
government net. (I can not afford to create another net myself.) For
this reason I find the position 'He who has the gold, makes the rules'
a very dangerous one.
How about a rewording. If you wanna use MY gold you play by my rules.
Now if you wanna use someone elses gold then that is between you and
them.
Your analogy with the post office breaks down in that post office was
created as a general purpose communications path with no specific
charter about what it would be used for.
The main problem here is that we insist on using a network created by
the government for a SPECIFIC PURPOSE (support of research) as a
general purpose communications path.
I think the government has a right to decide how far use of their
network may diverge from its stated purpose before that usage becomes
inappropriate. Mind you, I may not agree with that decision or the
motives used to reach it. But I do agree with the right to make that
decision.
And there are alternatives. MCI offers email connectivity to
subscribers that doesn't use government network equipment (though it
does gateway to that equipment). So does Compuserve. And I believe
uunet is attempting to establish a network backbone on a commercial
basis. So one alternative is to create, like the phone system, a
network backbone of some sort that is privately funded and supported
by a fee to users.
Another alternative is to create a government sponsored network that,
like the postal service, has no specific charter. Such a network
should not be under the control of the NSF.
Ed Luke
Mississippi State University
lush@ee.msstate.edu
FWP
--
--
Frank Peters Internet: fwp1@CC.MsState.Edu Bitnet: FWP1@MsState
Phone: (601)325-2942 FAX: (601)325-8921howell@grover.llnl.gov (Louis Howell) (11/06/90)
In article <BZS.90Nov4235233@world.std.com>, bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) writes: |> The libertarians, perhaps, would raise the point that witholding |> public funding might be considered violence. Sounds more like liberal than libertarian to me. -- Louis Howell "A few sums!" retorted Martens, with a trace of his old spirit. "A major navigational change, like the one needed to break us away from the comet and put us on an orbit to Earth, involves about a hundred thousand separate calculations. Even the computer needs several minutes for the job."
bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) (11/06/90)
From: howell@grover.llnl.gov (Louis Howell)
>Sounds more like
I suppose if you cut something tiny enough out of context it will
sound like anything you wish...sheesh.
--
-Barry Shein
Software Tool & Die | {xylogics,uunet}!world!bzs | bzs@world.std.com
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLDmnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) (11/06/90)
In article <FWP1.90Nov5084449@tzu.CC.MsState.Edu> fwp1@CC.MsState.Edu (Frank Peters) writes: > >Once again, when the government refuses to give me money it is not >censorship. So, when a public school refuses to buy a copy of HUCKLEBERRY FINN for the school library because some parents have complained that Twain's portrayal of Jim is racist, that isn't censorship? --Mike -- Mike Godwin, (617) 864-0665 |"If the doors of perception were cleansed mnemonic@well.sf.ca.us | every thing would appear to man as it is, Electronic Frontier | infinite." Foundation | --Blake
JAHAYES@MIAMIU.BITNET (Josh Hayes) (11/06/90)
This is certainly a thorny issue. Let me describe a rather minor case of "censorship" going on here at Miami University. We have some local-limited newsgroups, beginning mu., thus mu.important.dates, and so forth. One group created was called mu.mcug.etc, intended to replace the CoSy newsgroup 'etc', which contained material that some might find objectionable. In other words, gross and disgusting jokes, sexist jokes, racist jokes, and the like. Well, the Computer Center administrators were a bit peeved to see some especially nasty sexist stuff posted there, and suggested that the posters might wish to tone down their stuff. Cries of "Censorship!" filled the air. As of now, the group still exists, stuff posted there is rot13'ed, and we've had no problems because nobody posts or reads it except the two or three infantile types who find that kind of stuff entertaining. The administration argued that it was letting itself in for bigtime lawsuits (agh! No! not lawsuits in this thread, too! :-)), along the lines of sexual harassment cases. Some unsuspecting person logs in, gets on netnews, reads something on .etc, even un-rot13's it, and we are informed by legal counsel we are open for a suit. It seems to me that if you put signs all over the group saying things along the lines of "don't read this if you don't want to risk being offended" and rotate your text and all that stuff, you've made a good faith effort to prevent offense and should not be liable....but what do I know.... Anyway, this is just an example. Does the admin have a right to rmgroup .etc? Does it constitute censorship? Is it bad even if it ain't "censorship" per se? I don't really know the answers to these questions, but perhaps this will provide some focus for the discussion. Right. Carry on. ------- Josh Hayes, Zoology Department, Miami University, Oxford OH 45056 voice: 513-529-1679 fax: 513-529-6900 jahayes@miamiu.bitnet, or jahayes@miamiu.acs.muohio.edu "It is always wise to remember that it was the gods who put nipples on men, seeds in pomegranates, and priests in temples."
lush@EE.MsState.Edu (Edward Luke) (11/06/90)
government net. (I can not afford to create another net myself.) For
this reason I find the position 'He who has the gold, makes the rules'
a very dangerous one.
How about a rewording. If you wanna use MY gold you play by my rules.
Now if you wanna use someone elses gold then that is between you and
them.
You are illustrating the problem with that position quite well. The
net is not just the NSF backbone, or the UUnet or any other SINGLE
ENTITY. This is the whole problem... We could decide to reduce
ourselves and the net to the lowest common denominator, but for the
net to be effective, doesn't it require interconnectivity and freedom
that the net currently enjoys. If the NSF backbone was to really
stick to it's charter religiously then wouldn't it have to disconnect
access to any net that provided services not strictly in it's charter?
Wouldn't this be a harm rather than a benefit to the net's
effectiveness?
The main problem here is that we insist on using a network created by
the government for a SPECIFIC PURPOSE (support of research) as a
general purpose communications path.
... but then fact meets reality. If the network really was a specific
purpose net, why the connection to portal and public access unix
sites? Lets face it, what the network says it is, and what it is are
two different things.
And there are alternatives. MCI offers email connectivity to
subscribers that doesn't use government network equipment (though it
does gateway to that equipment). So does Compuserve. And I believe
uunet is attempting to establish a network backbone on a commercial
basis. So one alternative is to create, like the phone system, a
network backbone of some sort that is privately funded and supported
by a fee to users.
True.. things are getting better. But what scares me is that
buisnesses can be more political animals than the government itself.
What guarantees are there that I will have an uncensored forum from a
buisness if the government doesn't provide it. Lets face it, networks
are the new communication medium.. first the printing press, then
radio, then television, now the network. Shouldn't we be concerned
now in it's birth about saving it's freedom for the day when we are
actually depending on it for most of our news and information.
Another alternative is to create a government sponsored network that,
like the postal service, has no specific charter. Such a network
should not be under the control of the NSF.
Well since the net already is in a state of anarchy..(charter, Ha!)
why don't we just change the name of the department managing it?
Write your congressmen!
Ed Luke
Mississippi State University
lush@ee.msstate.edujfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) (11/06/90)
In article <1990Nov5.194650.197@eff.org> mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes: >So, when a public school refuses to buy a copy of HUCKLEBERRY >FINN for the school library because some parents have complained >that Twain's portrayal of Jim is racist, that isn't censorship? correct - it would be censorship if the public purchased a copy at no cost to the public school system and the library refused to put it in the stacks. it is trivially obvious that no school has enough money for every book ever published - therefore any criteria used to select books is arbitrary and could be called censorship in some sense. [ libraries frequently accept "free" books - they obviously also don't have room for every "free" book they might receive, but i've never had a library reject a contribution i had to make, that's why the example is as it is ] -- John F. Haugh II UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh Ma Bell: (512) 832-8832 Domain: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org "SCCS, the source motel! Programs check in and never check out!" -- Ken Thompson
jgd@rsiatl.UUCP (John G. DeArmond) (11/06/90)
mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes: >So, when a public school refuses to buy a copy of HUCKLEBERRY >FINN for the school library because some parents have complained >that Twain's portrayal of Jim is racist, that isn't censorship? Certainly not. If you don't like what the school board did you can a) Vote them out or b) Buy the correct book(s) yourself or c) Find another school. If the government says that you cannot buy the book, then that is censorship. Let's turn it around. Would you think it correct that the same school board would force your child to read a evolutionist biology textbook if you believe in creationism? How about if the sides are reversed? If you disliked this course of action, you could: a) Vote them out or b) Buy the correct book(s) yourself or c) Find another school. Is there a pattern developing there? You be the judge. The fascists of both the Left and the Right really seek only control and use whatever issue arised toward that goal. This is where the Libertarian perspective really shines. There would be no public schools because the governmnet would not be involved in education. And you as a parent could use the money you save from our present extortionist tax structure to build a school of your liking. John -- John De Armond, WD4OQC | "The truly ignorant in our society are those people Radiation Systems, Inc. | who would throw away the parts of the Constitution Atlanta, Ga | they find inconvenient." -me Defend the 2nd {emory,uunet}!rsiatl!jgd| with the same fervor as you do the 1st.
mvp@hsv3.UUCP (Mike Van Pelt) (11/06/90)
In article <1990Nov5.194650.197@eff.org> mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes: >So, when a public school refuses to buy a copy of HUCKLEBERRY >FINN for the school library because some parents have complained >that Twain's portrayal of Jim is racist, that isn't censorship? No. It's stupid, pinheaded idiocy, and quite a few other epithets to boot, but it isn't censorship. When the Thought Police put Huckleberry Finn on a list of banned books and make printing, sale, or posession of them illegal, then that's censorship. -- Mike Van Pelt | What happens if a big asteroid hits Earth? Headland Technology | Judging from realistic simulations involving a (was: Video Seven) | sledge hammer and a common laboratory frog, we ...ames!vsi1!v7fs1!mvp | can assume it will be pretty bad. -- Dave Barry
bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) (11/06/90)
I don't think the argument "we can't afford to buy *every* book"
washes in a case like this. That would merely be a lie to cover up the
real motives. Presumably the motives are a matter of record or at
least someone who was present and dissatisfied related the real
motives, or it comes out when the decision is challenged.
I realize we live in a world where duplicitous politics are the norm,
but acceding to them is an even worse state of affairs.
If they kept out a book by Mark Twain because of some political motive
and claimed to the public they were supposed to be serving that it was
merely a cost-saving message then fire them for that, lying to the
people who provide their pay checks, regardless of the underlying
issues.
Somehow we have to make lying from public officials more dangerous
than telling the truth. Somewhere we have failed to do this.
--
-Barry Shein
Software Tool & Die | {xylogics,uunet}!world!bzs | bzs@world.std.com
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLDdalamb@qucis.queensu.CA (David Lamb) (11/07/90)
In article <BZS.90Nov1195146@world.std.com> Barry Shein writes: > >Let's put it this way, if they're not from the govt or otherwise have >police powers they're probably not properly called "censors". I think >in this case we may very well be talking about state powers. In article <1990Nov02.202330.21517@looking.on.ca> Brad Templeton writes: > >Easy. It isn't censorship. Censorship is one way to control information. >It is the most evil way. It is *not* the only way, and not the only evil >way. > In article <LUSH.90Nov5103033@athena0.EE.MsState.Edu> Ed Luke writes: >[... A long thread attempting to define censorship deleted ...] > >Ok, ok, who cares what you call it. As an individual I can not afford >to pay for a nationwide (worldwide) net by myself, but I CAN pay a >part of it's operational expenses. Can we agree to put aside discussion of terminology? I think Ed Luke is on the right track, which I'd express as: what matters is the power to control things. If government coercion happens to be ineffective (as it usually is with policing mild violations of the speeding laws), it has little real effect on most of our lives. If a commercial organization has the financial clout to suppress something, it could be more onerous than "government coercion". I don't see why legal financial coercion is a priori "better" or less onerous than the actions of "the evil government". For example, the threat of a lawsuit can be pretty coercive, even to a defendant who's pretty sure of winning, if you can't afford to defend yourself (financially, or in terms of personal time). Having TV show sponsors threaten to cut off sponsorship is pretty coercive, too - and often effective. It's legal, but not necessarily right. There's a hierarchy of methods of coercion: raw force, the law (which many people obey without even thinking about the raw force behind it), financial coercion, social coercion. There's even "verbal coercion": for example, applying seemingly reasonable arguments to talk someone with less verbal skill into doing what you want, without attempting to understand what they want and reach consensus. Each form of coercion is usually "less bad" than the one before, and perhaps easier to resist, but can still be unfair and evil. David Alex Lamb ARPA Internet: dalamb@qucis.queensu.ca Department of Computing David.Lamb@cs.cmu.edu and Information Science uucp: ...!utzoo!utcsri!qucis!dalamb Queen's University phone: (613) 545-6067 Kingston, Ontario, Canada K7L 3N6
jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) (11/07/90)
In article <BZS.90Nov6102817@world.std.com> bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) writes: >I don't think the argument "we can't afford to buy *every* book" >washes in a case like this. That would merely be a lie to cover up the >real motives. Presumably the motives are a matter of record or at >least someone who was present and dissatisfied related the real >motives, or it comes out when the decision is challenged. It's simply to illustrate the point that any criteria used to select which books they do buy is arbitrary. Unless you buy every book, or select books in a totally random fashion, you will use some criteria that will exclude books that may be wanted by some group. [ What continues to amaze me is that any educated person even could consider that Twain's depiction of Jim's character was racist in the context of the entire work is simply mind boggling. ] -- John F. Haugh II UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh Ma Bell: (512) 832-8832 Domain: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org "SCCS, the source motel! Programs check in and never check out!" -- Ken Thompson
zane@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Sameer Parekh) (11/08/90)
I understand your comments. It seems I have underestimated what the govt.
will do. (At that time, I think I DO have the ability to make some neat
worst case scenarios)
--
zane@ddsw1.MCS.COM
zane@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Sameer Parekh) (11/08/90)
> No. It's stupid, pinheaded idiocy, and quite a few other epithets to > boot, but it isn't censorship. When the Thought Police put Huckleberry > Finn on a list of banned books and make printing, sale, or posession of > them illegal, then that's censorship. No, when it is a public school and is being funded by the people it is censorship. It is Mr. Templeton's (If someone else posted this, sorry) golden rule: He who has the gold makes the rules. The people are those who pay the money, therefore, the school can not ban the book in the library. If those who pay the money want it. (ANYONE who pays the money, not just the majority, if it IS the majority, people should have the right not to pay taxes) -- zane@ddsw1.MCS.COM
peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) (11/08/90)
Real case: if the public library system receives orders to pull from the shelves and destroy copies of a book, is that censorship? It happened to the "Oz" books in Florida. (why? The Princess of Oz had a sex-change) -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' +1 713 274 5180. 'U` peter@ferranti.com