Newsgroups: uw.grad,uw.general,ont.general,tor.general,can.general,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk From: broberts@kingcong.uwaterloo.ca (Brent Robertson) Subject: Re: UW Newsgroup Banning Petition Message-ID: Sender: news@watserv2.uwaterloo.ca Organization: University of Waterloo References: Date: Fri, 25 Feb 1994 23:08:06 GMT Lines: 42 In rdblack@barrow.uwaterloo.ca (Robert D. Black) wrote: >In article , >Brent Robertson wrote: >> >> ################################ >> NEWSGROUP BANNING PETITION >> ################################ >> >>We, the undersigned individuals, call upon the University of Waterloo to >>reinstate the five newsgroups that were banned on February 1, 1994. > >[snip to last paragraph:] > >> ... Banning newsgroups does >>not deal with the issue of harassment and has diverted attention from the >>original concern. > >Perhaps you should state on the petition exactly what the original >concern was (it's not clear to me at least, from the text). That's a good point. That wording has, however, gone through _numerous_ iterations and approvals. To put this in the proper context, UW administration banned alt.sex.bestiality, alt.sex.stories, alt.sex.stories.d, alt.sex.tasteless, and alt.sex.bondage following a complaint. The complaint was presumed to be from the UW Women's Centre. There is a concern about the public display of pornographic pictures on terminals and the harassment therein. It is interesting to note that they banned *text* newsgroups however.... Technical incompetence on the part of the Ethics Committee, which looked into these complaints??? You Betcha!!! Thankfully the "thought police" aren't competetent. You shouldn't be allowed to harass people, but you shouldn't be told what you can or cannot read/view. -- Brent :) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- broberts@kingcong.uwaterloo.ca University of Waterloo Electrical and Computer Engineering DC 3590A (519) 885-1211 ext. 5167 Newsgroups: can.general,ont.general,uw.general,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.org.eff.talk From: shallit@graceland.uwaterloo.ca (Jeffrey Shallit) Subject: Re: UW censorship - where does it end? Is Gopher to be censored? Message-ID: Sender: news@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca Organization: University of Waterloo References: <2k4k67$e5t@ghost.mcrcim.mcgill.edu> Date: Sat, 19 Feb 1994 15:45:46 GMT Lines: 22 In article , Roger Watt wrote: >from djones@CIM.McGill.CA (David Jones) : >>Since February 1, the newsgroup "alt.tasteless" has been banned >>from University of Waterloo campus computers... > >> [...] since the UW Ethics Committee has >> ruled "alt.tasteless" is criminally obscene? > >Your "since" is incorrectly worded. The UW Ethics Committee made its >recommendation for removal as a consequence of information presented to >it, including opinion from UW's legal counsel based on specific articles. However, if one reads the Ethics Committee memo (which has not been widely distributed), one discovers that, in fact, the "legal counsel" did NOT recommend the removal of the group alt.tasteless. The legal counsel's advice was limited to alt.sex.bondage and alt.sex.bestiality. The Committee apparently decided on its own that the other three groups, one of which was alt.tasteless, "may from time to time contain `obscene' material". Jeff Shallit From: djones@CIM.McGill.CA (David Jones) Newsgroups: can.general,ont.general,uw.general,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.org.eff.talk Subject: Re: UW censorship - where does it end? Is Gopher to be censored? Date: 19 Feb 1994 12:03:17 -0500 Organization: Centre for Intelligent Machines, McGill University Lines: 39 Message-ID: <2k5gol$ed6@ghost.McRCIM.McGill.EDU> References: <2k4k67$e5t@ghost.mcrcim.mcgill.edu> In article , Roger Watt wrote: >from djones@CIM.McGill.CA (David Jones) : > >> Are UW gopher administrators obligated to remove [the alt.tasteless FAQ] >> this from their gopher servers [...] ? > >If the newsgroup archive were being stored in an on-campus computer, I >believe action would be required. However, if you look at where that >gopher item points, you will see that it points outside UW. So, someone maintaining a UW gopher could make links directly to any or all of the following with complete impunity? Any takers? Any student-run gopher servers? gopher -p "nntp ls alt.tasteless" gopher.utdallas.edu 4320 gopher -p "nntp ls alt.tasteless" icsi.berkeley.edu 4320 gopher -p "nntp ls alt.tasteless" info.anu.edu.au 71 gopher -p "nntp ls alt.tasteless" usage.csd.unsw.OZ.AU 4320 So, a directory called: "Newsgroups removed because of Womyn's Centre complaints" could be established on a UW gopher right? I did not realize how hollowly symbolic this ban truly is! Is the Womyn's Centre satisfied with this state of affairs? Similarly, one would imagine that a link from a UW World-Wide-Web document (viewed using "mosaic") to the following URL would be unchallenged by the administration? http://cs.indiana.edu/hyplan/smiale/karla.html As has been stated in "uw.general", these access methods are "common knowledge", so I am not telling you anything new. Right? dj