Date: Thu, 25 Jul 1996 20:33:38 -0500 To: fight-censorship+@andrew.cmu.edu From: declan@well.com (Declan McCullagh) Subject: Princeton University muzzles students, from HotWired Sender: owner-fight-censorship@vorlon.mit.edu Kudos to Brock for writing about Princeton University's attempt to muzzle student online speech -- by citing IRS regulations. Sure, Princeton isn't bound by First Amendment strictures since it's not a state university and there is no state action. Nevertheless, it should abide by the fundamental and long-standing principles of academic freedom. Especially as a supposedly leading institution of higher education, Princeton should stand head and shoulders above the rest in fighting for free expression on its campus. To its shame, it didn't. The university attorneys should have at least read the two relevant IRS revenue rulings (they didn't) before announcing such a restrictive policy. And this isn't the first overbroad censorial policy that Princeton has on the books. Carl Kadie comments on another one at: gopher://gopher.eff.org:70/00/CAF/policies/princeton.edu.critique The Justice on Campus Project (http://joc.mit.edu/) has similar info. When Princeton administrators claimed they followed the letter of the law, in truth they used the law as an excuse to muzzle their students. -Declan ----------------- Read the full article at: http://www.netizen.com/netizen/96/30/campaign_dispatch3a.html HotWired The Netizen Poison Ivy Campaign Dispatch by Brock N. Meeks Washington, DC, 24 July Princeton University is apparently prohibiting students from exercising their First Amendment rights by going after folks who set up Web pages in support of presidential candidates, Dispatch has learned. Princeton launched its preemptory strike against free speech on 19 July in a statement issued by its general counsel's office, which warns that a violation of the school's policy against politicking "will result in appropriate disciplinary action." [...] Small problem: the IRS disagrees. Although there is no direct IRS ruling involving the use of a university's computer resources by its faculty, staff, or students to set up political Web pages, agency spokesman Wilson Fadely said there are two previous rulings "that may apply." The first deals with a student newspaper that directly endorsed one candidate for office over another. Despite the fact that the newspaper was published with university resources, "that was deemed not to be intervention," Fadely said. [...] So where does Princeton get off riding its tax-exempt hobby horse as a de facto means to trample free speech? "No comment at this time," said Howard Ende, a Princeton attorney and co-author of the 19 July statement. When informed of the IRS rulings, Ende's reply was an enigmatic, "Oh, really." [...] The one saving grace of the scenario is the perverse pleasure one can take in realizing that an elitist Ivy League school is so anal-retentive that it makes the IRS look reasonable. Go figure....