jgreely@morganucodon.cis.ohio-state.edu (J Greely) (06/08/91)
In article <1991Jun7.180227.4515@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes: >In <JGREELY.91Jun7130139@morganucodon.cis.ohio-state.edu> jgreely@morganucodon.cis.ohio-state.edu (J Greely) writes: >>A combination of university rules and state law. >Can you be more specific? What rules? What law? The university's sexual harrassment rules, and the state law on making "pornography" available to minors (we *do* get some). After one incident, the chairman (in response to a threatened lawsuit) was quite prepared to order all questionable images deleted, and future offenders treated harshly. Fortunately, that didn't happen, but it could. >It sounds like you selectively enforce your disk quotas based on >how much the content might embarrass the department chairman. It sounds like you don't read too well. If you're within your quota, we don't care what you have in there, but in the specific case of R- or X-rated graphic images, we care about the file permissions. The only "selective enforcement" of disk quotas is based on the relevance of the files to the funded purpose of the system (computer science instruction). If you're over quota because of course work, we'll work with you to solve the problem (possibly increasing your quota). If it's because of saved news or GIF files, we'll tell you to get rid of them. How much it "embarrasses the chairman" has *nothing* to do with it. "Sexual harassment at work -- is it a problem for the self-employed?" -- J Greely (jgreely@cis.ohio-state.edu; osu-cis!jgreely)
kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) (06/08/91)
>In article <1991Jun7.180227.4515@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (that's me) writes: >>Can you be more specific? What rules? What law? jgreely@morganucodon.cis.ohio-state.edu (J Greely) writes: >The university's sexual harrassment rules, and the state law on making >"pornography" available to minors (we *do* get some). [...] >[I]n the specific case of R- >or X-rated graphic images, we care about the file permissions. [...] (I'll respond with two notes.) So the question is where does free expression end and harassment begin? Just as I have a right to speak, write, listen, and read; so, I also have a right not to speak, not to write, not to listen, and not read. The denial of my right not to listen or my right to to read is harassment. Thus, a campus meeting or rally by American's Against the Left-Handed (AALH) does not harass me because I don't have to attend the meeting and I can avoid the rally. On the other hand, if AALH members following me home, calling me a "dirty lefty", I am being harassed. Similarly, if you look at a picture of a nude person or show that picture with someone who wants to see it, no one is harassed. When, you display that picture in the office or on an unwilling person's X-terminal, you are harassing the unwilling people who must view the picture. You cannot harass me merely by setting file permissions such that others can view material that I find offensive. Finally, I note that Ohio State subscribes to Playboy magazine. (They really do; I checked). By collecting these pictures of nude people, the library harasses no one. Allowing you to see the pictures, harasses no one. On the other hand, if you photocopy the pictures and put them on an unwilling person's desk, you harass that person. - Carl -- Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- But I speak for myself.
kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) (06/08/91)
(This is the second half of my response - Carl) >In article <1991Jun7.180227.4515@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (that's me) writes: >>Can you be more specific? What rules? What law? jgreely@morganucodon.cis.ohio-state.edu (J Greely) writes: >The university's sexual harassment rules, and the state law on making >"pornography" available to minors (we *do* get some). [...] >[I]n the specific case of R- >or X-rated graphic images, we care about the file permissions. [...] (I'll respond with two notes.) So the second question is how far can the freedom to read (or view) be suppressed in the name of protecting youth? My information on this may be out-of-date, but according to the ACLU's Handbook on the Rights of Authors and Artists (1984): "Although the Supreme Court has not yet considered the issue [of minor access laws], three 'display' or 'access' statutes have been struck down as unconstitutional by lower courts. A Georgia display law was invalidated because it prevented the perusal by and limited the sale of constitutionally protected material to adults. Protecting minors was held to be an inadequate justification for such a severe interference with adults' First Amendment rights. A Colorado display statute was invalidated because the court concluded that channels for the interchange of literary, political, artistic, and scientific ideas about sex were effectively closed by the statute and that its enforcement would regulate to a commercially infeasible degree the activities of responsible members of the community. Likewise a California court invalidated a display ordinance which required that commercial establishments seal magazines or books containing sexually explicit but non-obscene picture, keep them out of the reach of minors, or else bar minors from entering the stores. [...]" Does anyone know the details of the state of Ohio law? How do the librarians and art teachers at OSU stay out of jail? Do they card for underage students? Do resident advisors police dorm rooms, making sure that no 17 year olds are allowed to R-rated movies on cable? - Carl -- Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- But I speak for myself.
jgreely@morganucodon.cis.ohio-state.edu (J Greely) (06/09/91)
You're slipping, Carl. You just agreed with someone. In article <1991Jun8.025146.16881@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes: >Similarly, if you look at a picture of a nude person or show that >picture with someone who wants to see it, no one is harassed. >When, you display that picture in the office or on an unwilling >person's X-terminal, you are harassing the unwilling people who >must view the picture. Right. Taken alone, sexual harrassment rules can only be used to prohibit display of the images in question. In addition to the examples that you give, add "displaying that picture on your own screen in a public lab" (the only kind of screen available to most of our users...). >You cannot harass me merely by setting file permissions such that >others can view material that I find offensive. Correct. That's why I started this whole thing by saying "a *combination* of university rules and state law". >Finally, I note that Ohio State subscribes to Playboy magazine. (They >really do; I checked). I know; I checked too, before I posted. I didn't have a chance to ask how they regulate access, although I note that it's currently recieved in the rare books room, which requires you to give your ID when requesting materials. >By collecting these pictures of nude people, the library harasses no >one. Allowing you to see the pictures, harasses no one. Leaving them in a conspicuous location (or putting it on top of your books in a study room) *might*. I note that they don't have it sitting next to "Newsweek". "It's the old problem, of course -- the one that makes life so tough for murderers -- what to do with the body." -- J Greely (jgreely@cis.ohio-state.edu; osu-cis!jgreely)
jgreely@morganucodon.cis.ohio-state.edu (J Greely) (06/09/91)
In article <1991Jun8.032151.18841@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes: >So the second question is how far can the freedom to read (or view) >be suppressed in the name of protecting youth? I don't see how this has a hell of a lot to do with the situation. It's interesting reading (I mostly approve of the ACLU, although they've got a few blind spots), but I think your analogy is a bit strained. I'm also not sure why you've split this discussion up, but I 'll go along with it. >"...A Georgia display law was invalidated because it prevented the >perusal by and limited the sale of constitutionally protected >material to adults..." Without the details of the law under question, I can't see any relevance. The same applies to the other cases cited. We don't prevent anyone from acquiring images, passing them around, or privately displaying them. Judging from the amount of stuff on our disks, we're *certainly* not "preventing the perusal" of the material. >Do resident advisors police dorm rooms, making sure >that no 17 year olds are allowed to R-rated movies on cable? Cable? You must have a different kind of dorm. I don't recall that option when I lived there. Not having been an RA, I can't say exactly what they're required to watch out for, but I do recall one who nearly had a nervous breakdown keeping an eye on the fifteen-year-old on her floor. "Give him some orange juice and a sugar cookie, ... maybe a tetanus shot. He'll be fine." -- J Greely (jgreely@cis.ohio-state.edu; osu-cis!jgreely)
jgreely@morganucodon.cis.ohio-state.edu (J Greely) (06/09/91)
Carl responded in e-mail (with permission to repost): |>Correct. That's why I started this whole thing by saying "a |>*combination* of university rules and state law". |Can you clarify this? At the moment, no. I've defended things about as far as I can based on my understanding of the situation. To put the whole thing to rest for good (on the net? hah!) I'll have to meet with the people who started this whole mess and read the relevant rules and laws for myself. Since I'll be away at Usenix next week (and, I believe, the chairman will be gone when I get back), I don't know when that will be. Maybe I'll get lucky and the whole thing will expire :-) |(You can post a reply to the net, quoting this note if you wish.) It |seems that the harassment rule might prohibit public display, but |would not require restrictive file permissions. I agree that "public access" to the files does not itself seem like it constitutes sexual harrassment, but I do not have the university rules to quote from. Hell, there's always the chance that my explanation of the reasons behind this is dead wrong. I don't *make* policy. I've been known to suggest it, and I'm occasionally forced to improvise, but I'm not on the computer committee. "But *sniff*, you will come back to play with us again, won't you?" "Of *course* I will! On the second Tuesday of next week." "Hooway! Hooway!" "Wait! The *second* Tuesday?" -- J Greely (jgreely@cis.ohio-state.edu; osu-cis!jgreely)
kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) (06/09/91)
fwp1@CC.MsState.Edu (Frank Peters) writes: [...] >A Doctor made issues of Playboy and Penthouse available to adult >patients in his waiting room (with precautions to prevent minors from >seeing them). A nurse in his employ noticed an upswing in the number >of offensive comments and the like from patients. When the doctor >refused to stop making the magazines available she filed suit claiming >that the distribution of the magazines in the office created an >environment in which she was much more likely to be sexually harrassed >even though the doctor did not in any way harrass her. She won the >suit and the doctor was forced to stop making them available. [...] The case you sight (site?) is certainly a tough one. [Anyone have a reference?] I think the key to the case is that the nurse was able to make a reasonable case that she was actually being harassed (by the some of the patients) and that, with the removal of the magazines, this harassment would likely stop. The explicitness of the material was not (directly) relevent; if the magazines in question had been Readers' Digest and Highlights, the case would have been settled the same. Also, the freedom to read in a doctor's office is not considered important. In contrast, the freedom to read at a university or library is of the highest importance. (In a perfect world, the harassing customers and no one else would be accountable for their actions.) - Carl -- Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- But I speak for myself.
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com (Leonard Erickson) (06/10/91)
Just a quick note here: It is my understanding that if someone was to complain to the authorities about "pornographic" material (which I dare say was present from the comment about the collie!) then the *owner* of the system it is "publicly available on" can get into a *world* of trouble. The porn laws are neither rational nor logical. But it's also a *real* poor bet to assume that a DA can't make whatever you are doing fit. Paranoia about publicly readable files is probably justifiable. Not right. Just justifiable... -- Leonard Erickson leonard@qiclab.uucp personal: CIS: [70465,203] 70465.203@compuserve.com business: CIS: [76376,1107] 76376.1107@compuserve.com
russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) (06/10/91)
In article <1991Jun8.215335.21240@eff.org> J Greely <jgreely@cis.ohio-state.edu> writes: > >Theoretically, I agree. I don't know if her job *required* her to >give special attention to that minor (are RA's legally considered to >be acting in loco parentis?), I just know that she did. It's similar >to keeping an eye on students who are underage for liquor (most of >them, these days...); I don't know what the legal basis for their >interest is, but I know they're interested. Of course, I thought that >the parents of this student were damn fools for putting her in a dorm >at fifteen. Why? Was she in some way unable to cope with dorm life, or is this merely paternalism on your and the RAs part? Did it make a difference that she was female? (I know I was in a dorm at 16, and nobody thought anything of it-- and there is no legal difference between 15, 16, and 17, except with respect to driving, in MD.) >>sure wouldn't want to go to that school! fascism just doesn't do it >>for me... > >Ooooh, he used the f-word. Gratuitously, IMHO. When I get back from >Usenix I'll contact the dorm folks and ask about the legal position of >their staff with respect to their charges. I suspect that "fascism" >has nothing to do with it. The 'f' word probably is a bit strong-- I'd use the word 'paternalistic'. The doctrine of in loco parentis was abandoned long ago, was it not? -- Matthew T. Russotto russotto@eng.umd.edu russotto@wam.umd.edu .sig under construction, like the rest of this campus.