ReSent-Message-ID: <wiiKuWy00WB6NOPW9M@andrew.cmu.edu>
ReSent-Date: Thu,  3 Nov 1994 18:13:38 -0500 (EST)
ReSent-From: Crystal Linn Trexel <ct2f+@andrew.cmu.edu>
ReSent-To: Bulletin Board Administration
    <bb+graffiti.bboard-censorship@andrew.cmu.edu>
Path: andrew.cmu.edu!bb3.andrew.cmu.edu!andrew.cmu.edu!dr4h+
From: Donna M Riley <dr4h+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Newsgroups: cmu.student.out.opinion,cmu.student.womens-center.discussion
Subject: Petition Against New BB Policy
Date: Thu,  3 Nov 1994 14:31:56 -0500
Organization: Doctoral student, Engineering and Public Policy, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Lines: 54
Message-ID: <QiiHegy00iUyM7DnFG@andrew.cmu.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: andrew.cmu.edu
Xref: bb3.andrew.cmu.edu cmu.student.out.opinion:120 cmu.student.womens-center.discussion:378


--> Please remember to remove headers so that this is clearly from you
as an individual when you send it to Mehrabian. Please distribute. 
<-----


TO: Dr. Mehrabian


SUBJECT: Bulletin Board Policy Banning Sexually Explicit Material
=====================================================================


I object to the new bulletin board policy on the basis that the
development was flawed, the implementation process is intrinsically
arbitrary, and the results are therefore inappropriate for the community
you are presuming to serve.

The development process was flawed because it was closed. The campus
community was not only uninvited to the dialogue about the formation of
the policy, but also at least one offer to be part of this process was
refused. The application of the law to electronic forums is extremely
specialized, and it is clear from this decision that no one with such
specialized training was consulted. 

The implementation process is similarly flawed. Judgments of the value
of the various forums was made by administrative fiat. The decision to
remove bboards should not be made by one system administrator, or even
one department. Sexually explicit material may have cultural, artistic
or academic value.  Computing Services does not have the expertise to
judge the value of different forums along these three axes. Only a group
that represents the activists, artists, cultural theorists, and
electronic civil libertarians as well as the technically literate can
legitimately make decisions about the value of public forums. 

The announcement was inappropriate.  It~s implication that Carnegie
Mellon University has, in the past, knowingly transmitted pornography to
minors puts the entire University computer system at risk for forfeiture
under the Federal Child Pornography Law, USCS 18 Sec. 2251. 

In summary,  the decision, the decision-making process, and the
announcement all illustrate a most unsettling failure by the University
to make appropriate or even adequate policy.

We, by our signatures or by the knowledge of our passwords necessary to
send this to you via email, request that any decisions about the removal
of bboards be made by a body that represents the University community
and takes full advantage of local expertise.  We further demand that you
support the standards of academic freedom by delaying any action until
such a body is formed and can act.