Following are portions of a message I sent to Winthrop University administrators. They're considering a heinous new policy that says: "No information should be exchanged through E-mail that is not official University business. No personal or confidential information should be exchanged and all communications are subject to periodic and/or random audit by the Office of Information Technology to ensure compliance with this policy." -Declan ---------- Forwarded message begins here ---------- From: Declan McCullagh To: feldern@winthrop.edu, broachg@winthrop.edu, rosenj@winthrop.edu, moressiw@winthrop.edu, jonesr@winthrop.edu, cormierp@winthrop.edu cc: wellsj@winthrop.edu, harrisoc@lurch.winthrop.edu, browne@winthrop.edu, duboisp@winthrop.edu, margare946@aol.com, fight-censorship+@andrew.cmu.edu Subject: Censorship at Winthrop University February 12, 1996 Dear Winthrop University Administrators: I was disturbed to read a recent Associated Press article reporting that Winthrop University has censored the web pages of two of your students and suspended the students from classes after one of them placed nude photographs online. I was even more dimayed to read that your school's proposed computing policy allows university officials to snoop through your students' electronic mailboxes at will. For shame! The American Library Association's draft policy recommendation on electronic services and networks says, on student computer accounts: No user should be restricted or denied access for expressing or receiving constitutionally protected speech. No user's access should be changed without due process, including, but not limited to, notice and a means of appeal. The American Association of University Professors endorsed this statement on academic freedom, published in the July-August 1992 _Academe_, which says in part: On a campus that is free and open, no idea can be banned or forbidden... Free speech is not simply an aspect of the educational enterprise to be weighed against other desirable ends. It is the very precondition of the academic enterprise itself. Regarding your plans to look at student email, more information is available at ftp://ftp.eff.org/pub/CAF/faq/email.privacy, which says: According to Mike Godwin, legal services counsel for the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), the U.S.'s Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) could be reasonably construed to protect university email. This is also the reported opinion of the U. of Michigan's lawyers. Also, the U.S.'s Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act gives students at all public and most private schools some privacy rights. According to the AAUP statement and according to the fundamental principles of academic freedom, universities must protect controversial speech on their campuses. If Winthrop University does not, it is violating its historic commitments to free speech and turning its pledges to uphold academic freedom and freedom of expression into broken promises. I've copied this message to the fight-censorship mailing list, which has among its subscribers roughly 50 journalists interested in online censorship issues, including writers from TIME, Newsweek, The New York Times, The Washington Post, Internet World, WIRED, and many others. I invite you to clarify your university's position and respond directly to the mailing list. Cyberspace is developing quickly, and I feel confident that Winthrop University would not want to be known as an online leader in repression, censorship, and Orwellian thought-policing. I trust that a school such as Winthrop University, with such a distinguished College of Education, will not neglect the fundamental principles upon which your university was founded. I hope that you understand that voiceless speech and inkless press must receive the same protections as voiced speech and inked press. I urge you to reconsider your policies. I look forward to your reply. Very truly yours, Declan McCullagh PS: I'm attaching a file from Carl Kadie's Computers and Academic Freedom archive, at http://www.eff.org/CAF/. More information is also available at the Justice on Campus project, at http://joc.mit.edu/. --------------------------------------------------------------------- February 11, 1996 ROCK HILL, S.C. (AP) -- Winthrop students Brian Walker and Josh Campbell have had their university Internet accounts pulled after officials said they violated school policy. Walker created a web page soliciting money and Campbell created one including a nude woman. While the two admitted they crossed the line, the Feb. 2 suspension has risen free speech debates and computer policy review through the school. Both students deleted their web pages, and their two-week suspension was reduced to one. Nathaniel Felder, Winthrop's associate vice president for information technology, said work on amending the computer policy has been ongoing. School officials planned to submit the proposals Friday to Winthrop's board of trustees. But Internet users, particularly professors and students, thought the new policy included language that infringed on their rights and violated their freedom of speech. So, the policy will be forwarded to a computer committee for further review. Professors and students opposed language in the policy that said e-mail be used only for official university business. The policy also allows officials to randomly audit e-mail for compliance. ``It could be a violation of the principles of the free change of ideas at the university,'' political science professor Glen Broach said. But Bob Thompson, Winthrop's board chairman, said Internet policy is to protect the users and Winthrop from liability. =============== ftp://ftp.eff.org/pub/CAF/faq/computer-porn =============== q: Should universities create a rule banning "porn" on university computers? a: In my opinion, no. Such a rule would be unnecessary and too broad. [Disclaimers: I'm not a lawyer. This answer is based on the situation in the U.S.] A computer porn ban is too broad because "pornography" is not a well-defined term. For many people, "pornography" means any nude or sexually suggestive material. While you may intend only to stop computer-science students from looking at _Playboy_ centerfolds in your computer labs, your rule may also stop liberal-arts students from viewing the growing number of fine art collections on the Net. For example, 2,800 images are on-line at the Australian National University ANU. Among these images is a print of Manet's "Olympia" Olympia. When this now famous nude was unveiled in 1863, it caused an outrage because of its blatant sexuality. Hundreds of images are also available at the WebMuseum The WebMuseum. Among these images is Salvador Dali's shocking "Young Virgin Autosodomised by her own Chastity" <a href="http://www.emf.net/wm/paint/auth/dali/works/dali.virgin.jpg">Virgin </a>. Either of these images could be used to sexually harass someone, but so could many noncomputer images on your campus such as art on the University's walls and the _Playboy_ centerfolds that are likely in your university library. A rule banning computer porn is unnecessary because university computer facilities can (and should) be treated as ny other university facility. That means banning the act of harassment, not the materials that can be used to harass but that can also be used without harassing anyone. Similar reasoning was used by a federal district judge in June 1994. In the widely reported case, he said that "quiet reading" of a _Playboy_ magazine by a firefighter does not create a sexually harassing atmosphere. At least in the U.S., virtually every university has a sexual harassment policy that not only covers harassment via computers but that also dictates the exact procedure for handling sexual harassment complaints. (Having a procedure is important because the line between constitutionally protected expression and unprotected expression is dim and uncertain.) Computer sites should publicize the university's sexual harassment rules; they should not try to preempt them. See the referenced U. of Illinois report on the Status of Women for concrete suggestions on publicizing your existing sexual harassment rules. So what about material that may be illegal in your jurisdiction, for example libel, threats, obscenity-in-the-legal-sense, copyright violations, etc.? Many university computer policies include the "Law Law", that is, the rule that says that it is forbidden to violate the law. This is not quite as redundant as it may seem because it authorizes the University to handle infractions itself via its established due process procedure. - Carl Kadie ANNOTATED REFERENCES (All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.) =================<a href="http://www.eff.org/CAF/faq/censorship-and-harassment.html"> faq/censorship-and-harassment =================</a> * Censorship And Harassment q: Must/should universities ban material that some find offensive (from Netnews facilities, email, libraries, and student publications, etc) in order to comply with antiharassment laws? a: No. U.S. federal courts have said that harassing speech is ... =================<a href="ftp://ftp.eff.org/pub/CAF/law/quiet-reading"> law/quiet-reading =================</a> * Expression -- Harassment -- Quiet Reading of _Playboy_ Excerpts from a newspaper report that a federal district judge has said that "quiet reading" of a _Playboy_ magazine by a firefighter does not create a sexually harassing atmosphere. [Editorial comment: I think this supports the idea that rather banning "porn" from a general academic computer, it is more appropriate to ban harassment.] =================<a href="ftp://ftp.eff.org/pub/CAF/academic/women-in-eng.uiuc.txt"> academic/women-in-eng.uiuc.txt =================</a> ASCII (plain text version) of "Final Report of the Committee on the Status of Women Graduate Students and Faculty in the College of Engineering" at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. (Also available in TeX and Postscript form.) =================<a href="ftp://ftp.eff.org/pub/CAF/academic/artistic.freedom.aaup"> academic/artistic.freedom.aaup =================</a> * Artistic Freedom (AAUP) Academic Freedom and Artistic Expression - An official statement of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) It says in part: "In our judgment academic freedom in the creation and presentation of works in the visual and performing arts, by ensuring greater opportunity for imaginative exploration and expression, best serves the public and the academy." =================<a href="ftp://ftp.eff.org/pub/CAF/library/challenged-materials.ala"> library/challenged-materials.ala =================</a> * Challenged Materials (ALA) An interpretation by the American Library Association of the "Library Bill of Rights". It says in part "The Constitution requires a procedure designed to focus searchingly on challenged expression before it can be suppressed. An adversary hearing is a part of this procedure." =================<a href="ftp://ftp.eff.org/pub/CAF/law/miller"> law/miller =================</a> * Expression -- Obscenity -- Law -- Miller The Supreme Court's definition of obscenity (the so-called _Miller_ test) ================= ================= If you have gopher, you can browse the CAF archive with the command gopher gopher.eff.org These document(s) are also available by anonymous ftp (the preferred method) and by email. To get the file(s) via ftp, do an anonymous ftp to ftp.eff.org, and then: cd /pub/CAF/faq get censorship-and-harassment cd /pub/CAF/law get quiet-reading cd /pub/CAF/academic get women-in-eng.uiuc.txt cd /pub/CAF/academic get artistic.freedom.aaup cd /pub/CAF/library get challenged-materials.ala cd /pub/CAF/law get miller To get the file(s) by email, send email to ftpmail@decwrl.dec.com Include the line(s): connect ftp.eff.org cd /pub/CAF/faq get censorship-and-harassment cd /pub/CAF/law get quiet-reading cd /pub/CAF/academic get women-in-eng.uiuc.txt cd /pub/CAF/academic get artistic.freedom.aaup cd /pub/CAF/library get challenged-materials.ala cd /pub/CAF/law get miller