From: kadie@hal.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M Kadie) Newsgroups: rec.pets.cats,news.admin.policy,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk Subject: Re: Proposed Charter - rec.pets.cats Date: 25 May 94 18:49:25 GMT Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana Lines: 99 Message-ID: References: <4789@frackit.UUCP> <2rvrahINNpml@scarecrow.mke.ab.com> dspalme@mke.ab.com (Diane Palme) writes: >This group will be an unmoderated forum for the discussion of domestic >felines. Topics of general interest to owners (past, present and future) >including, but not limited to, care, grooming, feeding, breeding, showing, >and diagnosis and treatment of illness are legitimate topics for this >group. Topics relating to the mistreatment and/or destruction of felines >(maiming, torture and in-humane euthanasia techniques) and otherwise >malicious posts are not welcome and should be directed elsewhere. I like it better than the other one. It tries to give the topic and then add comment about what is welcome and what is not. It doesn't, however, quite succeed. Read literally, it forbids people from posting information about a petition to stop in-humane medical experiments on cats. Also, I don't think the "what is welcome" part is enforceable via state university discipline. >Ok. That's it. Short, sweet, and to the point. Now, before Carl comes >sauntering in and starts yelling "free speech", I'd just like to say that >the implementation of a charter is the same thing as telling a person that >you no longer wish to receive phone calls from them. Not so. Phone calls are person to person, not many to many. This person-to-person is central to "harassment". >The telephone company is a "common carrier" (read: it's just like a >University) and if a person is receiving harassing phone calls it can >refuse service. Actually "common carrier" is defined by statute and there is no statute that defines the Usenet facilities at a university as a common carrier. In any case, the key to your example is not "common carrier" but the "harassment". If you could show that the posting you don't like are "harassment" or "substantially disruptive", I agree that a university (following a due process procedure) could displine the user. In the U.S., however, harassment is a person-to-person thing, not many-to-many thing. Showing "substantial disruption" is your best bet, but still hard. >Just remember, UseNet is NOT a right, it is a privledge. In most cases no. U.S. courts no longer recognize the wooden distinction between privileges and rights [Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 (1972)]. One need only look at the Constitution to see that "privilege" is often used to mean something different than its informal use. The 14th Amendment says "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;". The Constitution also refers to the "privilege of the writ of habeas corpus", "privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States", and "privileged from arrest during their attendance at the session of their respective houses". In _Goss v. Lopez_, the Supreme Court said a "student's legitimate entitlement to a public education is a property interest which is protected by the Due Process Clause and .. may not be taken away for misconduct without adherence to the minimum procedures required by that Clause." The Court went on to say that "the Due Process Clause also forbids arbitrary deprivations of liberty. 'Where a person's good name, reputation, honor or integrity is at stake because of what the government is doing to him,' the minimal requirements of the Clause must be satisfied." So what are a university student's property rights? "The Fourteenth Amendment requires due process before a governmental entity, such as a public institution, may deprive one of life, liberty, or property. In a college setting, a student's good name and reputation are considered a 'liberty' right, and a student's right to attend college is considered a 'property' right. Due process would be required before a student is deprived of either at a public institution." [_A Practical Guide to Legal Issues Affecting College Teachers_ by Partrica A. Hollander, D. Parker Young, and Donald D. Gehring. (College Administration Publication, 1985).] So is a student's computer access a property right? I'd say it depends. On one extreme, I'm confident a student has a property right in account financed via the student computer or engineering fee. On the other extreme, if a professor informally gave a student an account on that professor's personal workstation, the professor could probably remove that access without due process. >And, just like any other University SERVICE, access to it can be >removed if it is abused or misued. True, but only for legitimate reasons using a legitmate procedure. >This is NOT a public forum. This is a private consortuim. I won't opin on what Usenet-as-whole is, but I think that the Usenet facilities (as typically set up) at a University are limited public forums. [...] -- Carl Kadie -- I do not represent any organization; this is just me. = Email: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu = = URL: