Oklahoma University: Is this legal?...

17 Dec 2003

      No state law does or could prempt the 5th Amendment, the ECPA, or the
FERPA. Moreover, the one state FOIA (Illinois') I've read in detail
*doesn't* even try to do this.

I'm enclosing two FAQ's. The first is about email privacy. The second
is about student media.

I also suggest sending email to marsha-w@uiuc.edu (Marsha Woodbury)
she is an expert in the application of FOIA laws to universities
and a CPSR officer.

- Carl
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF or my employer; this is just me.
 =Email: kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
 =URL: <http://www.eff.org/CAF/>, <ftp://ftp.cs.uiuc.edu/pub/kadie/> =

=============== ftp://ftp.eff.org/pub/CAF/faq/email.privacy ===============
q: Can (should) my university monitor my email?

a: Ethically (and perhaps legally) email communications should have
the same privacy protection as telephone calls. It would be unwise for
any university employee to tap email communications without
authorization from the university president, university legal counsel,
and the academic freedom committee. 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 lawers. Also, the U.S.'s
Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act gives students at all public
and most private schools some privacy rights.

A U.S. government task force says that "[Email] monitoring [of
government employees] of actual communications and communicators may
impinge on the Constitutional rights of freedom of speech (1st
Amendment), against unreasonable search and seizure (4th Amendment),
and against self-incrimination (5th amendment), as well as on the
right to privacy, specifically as set forth in both the Privacy Act
and the ECPA."

In the context of libraries, the American Library Association's Policy
on Confidentiality of Library Records suggests this procedure to deal
with an official or police request for information about users:

'When drafting local policies, libraries should consult with their
legal counsel to insure these policies are based upon and
consistent with applicable federal, state, and local law
concerning the confidentiality of library records, the disclosure
of public records, and the protection of individual privacy.

Suggested procedures include the following:

     1.  The library staff member receiving the request to
         examine or obtain information relating to circulation or
         other records identifying the names of library users,
         will immediately refer the person making the request to
         the responsible officer of the institution, who shall
         explain the confidentiality policy.

     2.  The director, upon receipt of such process, order, or
         subpoena, shall consult with the appropriate legal
         officer assigned to the institution to determine if such
         process, order, or subpoena is in good form and if there
         is a showing of good cause for its issuance.

     3.  If the process, order, or subpoena is not in proper form
         or if good cause has not been shown, insistence shall be
         made that such defects be cured before any records are
         released. (The legal process requiring the production
         of circulation or other library records shall ordinarily
         be in the form of subpoena "duces tecum" [bring your
         records] requiring the responsible officer to attend
         court or the taking of his/her deposition and may
         require him/her to bring along certain designated
         circulation or other specified records.)

     4.  Any threats or unauthorized demands (i.e., those not
         supported by a process, order, or subpoena) concerning
         circulation and other records identifying the names of
         library users shall be reported to the appropriate legal
         officer of the institution.

     5.  Any problems relating to the privacy of circulation and
         other records identifying the names of library users
         which are not provided for above shall be referred to
         the responsible officer.'

- Carl M. Kadie

ANNOTATED REFERENCES

(All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.)

=================<a href="ftp://ftp.eff.org/pub/CAF/law/ecpa.1986.godwin">
law/ecpa.1986.godwin
=================</a>
* Privacy -- E-mail -- ECPA - University Site

Mike Godwin, legal services counsel for the Electronic Frontier
Foundation (EFF), says that the Electronic Communications Privacy Act
(ECPA) could be reasonably construed to protect university email.

=================<a href="ftp://ftp.eff.org/pub/CAF/law/ferpa.text">
law/ferpa.text
=================</a>
* Privacy -- Students -- FERPA (Buckley Ammendment)

The full text of the Family Educational Right to Privacy Act
(Buckley Amendment).

=================<a href="http://www.eff.org/CAF/faq/email.policies.html">
faq/email.policies
=================</a>
* Email -- Policies

q: Do any universities treat email and computer files as private?

a: Yes, many universities treat email and computer files as private.
...

=================<a href="ftp://ftp.eff.org/pub/CAF/library/confidentiality.1.ala">
library/confidentiality.1.ala
=================</a>
* Confidentiality -- 1 (ALA)

The American Library Association's "Policy on Confidentiality of
Library Records"

Suggests how to handle police or official requests for information
about a user.

=================<a href="ftp://ftp.eff.org/pub/CAF/library/computer.draft.ala">
library/computer.draft.ala
=================</a>
* DRAFT: Access to Electronic ... Services and Networks ... (ALA)

A draft interpretation by the American Library Association of the
"Library Bill of Rights"

Says in part: "Libraries and librarians exist to facilitate [freedom
of speech and freedom to read] by providing access to, identifying,
retrieving, organizing, and preserving recorded expression regardless
of the formats or technologies in which that expression is recorded."

=================<a href="ftp://ftp.eff.org/pub/CAF/statements/bill-of-rights.aahe">
statements/bill-of-rights.aahe
=================</a>
* Bill of Rights ... for Electronic ... Learners

This is the "Bill of Rights and Responsibilities for the Electronic
Community of Learners". It could become the first widely endorsed
statement directly related to computers and academic freedom.

=================<a href="ftp://ftp.eff.org/pub/CAF/statements/caf-statement">
statements/caf-statement
=================</a>
* Computer and Academic Freedom Statement -- Draft

This is an attempt to codify the application of academic freedom to
academic computers. It reflects our seven months of on-line discussion
about computers and academic freedom. It covers free expression, due
process, privacy, and user participation.

Comments and suggestions are very welcome (especially when posted to
CAF-talk). All the documents referenced are available on-line.
(Critiqued).

=================<a href="ftp://ftp.eff.org/pub/CAF/statements/caf-statement.critique">
statements/caf-statement.critique
=================</a>
* Computer and Academic Freedom Statement -- Draft -- Critique

This is a critique of an attempt to codify the application of academic
freedom to academic computers. It reflects our seven months of on-line
discussion about computers and academic freedom. It covers free
expression, due process, privacy, and user participation.

Additional comments and suggestions are very welcome (especially when
posted to CAF-talk). All the documents referenced are available
on-line.

=================<a href="ftp://ftp.eff.org/pub/CAF/academic/student.freedoms.aaup">
academic/student.freedoms.aaup
=================</a>
* Student Freedoms (AAUP)

Joint Statement on Rights and Freedoms of Students -- This is the main
U.S. statement on student academic freedom.

=================<a href="ftp://ftp.eff.org/pub/CAF/academic/speech-codes.aaup">
academic/speech-codes.aaup
=================</a>
* Speech Codes (AAUP)

On Freedom of Expression and Campus Speech Codes Expression - An
official statement of the American Association of University
Professors (AAUP)

It says in part: "On a campus that is free and open, no idea can be
banned or forbidden.  No viewpoint or message may be deemed so hateful
or disturbing that it may not be expressed."

=================<a href="ftp://ftp.eff.org/pub/CAF/law/uwm-post-v-u-of-wisconsin">
law/uwm-post-v-u-of-wisconsin
=================</a>
* Expression -- Hate Speech -- UWM Post v. U Of Wisconsin

The full text of UWM POST v. U. of Wisconsin. This recent district
court ruling goes into detail about the difference between protected
offensive expression and illegal harassment. It even mentions email.

It concludes: "The founding fathers of this nation produced a
remarkable document in the Constitution but it was ratified only with
the promise of the Bill of Rights.  The First Amendment is central to
our concept of freedom.  The God-given "unalienable rights" that the
infant nation rallied to in the Declaration of Independence can be
preserved only if their application is rigorously analyzed.

The problems of bigotry and discrimination sought to be addressed here
are real and truly corrosive of the educational environment.  But
freedom of speech is almost absolute in our land and the only
restriction the fighting words doctrine can abide is that based on the
fear of violent reaction.  Content-based prohibitions such as that in
the UW Rule, however well intended, simply cannot survive the
screening which our Constitution demands."

=================<a href="ftp://ftp.eff.org/pub/CAF/law/gillard-v-schmidt">
law/gillard-v-schmidt
=================</a>
* Privacy -- School -- Staff Desk -- Gillard v. Schmidt

Description of an appellate court ruling that the school board could
not search the desk of a school counselor without a warrant.

=================<a href="ftp://ftp.eff.org/pub/CAF/law/email.gov-employee">
law/email.gov-employee
=================</a>
* Privacy -- E-mail -- Government Employees

A U.S. government task force: "[Email] monitoring [of government
employees] of actual communications and communicators may impinge on
the Constitutional rights of freedom of speech (1st Amendment),
against unreasonable search and seizure (4th Amendment), and against
self-incrimination (5th amendment), as well as on the right to
privacy, specifically as set forth in both the Privacy Act and the
ECPA." Enclosed are guidelines for legitimate monitoring of government
employee email.

=================<a href="ftp://ftp.eff.org/pub/CAF/law/mass-student-searches">
law/mass-student-searches
=================</a>
* Privacy -- Mass Students Searches

An excerpt from The ACLU Handbook: _The Rights of Students_, stating that
"there must a reasonable suspicion directed specifically at each student
before a school official can search students."

=================<a href="ftp://ftp.eff.org/pub/CAF/law/constraints.constitutional">
law/constraints.constitutional
=================</a>
* Constitution -- Public University -- Constraints

Comments from _A Practical Guide to Legal Issues Affecting College
Teachers_ by Partrica A. Hollander, D. Parker Young, and Donald D.
Gehring.  (College Administration Publication, 1985).  Discusses the
constitutional constraints on public universities including the
requires for freedom of expression, freedom against unreasonable
searches and seizures, due process, specific rules.

=================<a href="ftp://ftp.eff.org/pub/CAF/law/ecpa.umich">
law/ecpa.umich
=================</a>
* Privacy -- E-mail -- ECPA - University Site

A summary of a newspaper report that the U. of Michigan's lawyers
believe(d) that the institution is barred under the federal Electronic
Communications Privacy Act from reading electronic mail.

=================<a href="ftp://ftp.eff.org/pub/CAF/law/privacy.email">
law/privacy.email
=================</a>
* Privacy -- E-mail -- Law -- Hernandez

"Computer Electronic Mail and Privacy", an edited version of a law
school seminar paper by Ruel T. Hernandez.

=================<a href="ftp://ftp.eff.org/pub/CAF/law/privacy.workplace">
law/privacy.workplace
=================</a>
* Privacy -- Workplace

Comments from and about _The new hazards of the high technology
workplace_ see (1991) 104 _Harvard Law Review_ 1898. Talks about email
and other electronic monitoring.

=================<a href="ftp://ftp.eff.org/pub/CAF/law/email.bib">
law/email.bib
=================</a>
* Privacy -- E-mail -- Bibliography

I have been having an e-mail conversation with Stacy Veeder for several 
days on the topic of e-mail privacy. She mailed me this bibliography
which she has compiled for two papers which she is currently writing.

I post it here with permission.

PS - She is interested in talking with anyone who has some views on the 
topic/information to share.

Mark N.

=================
=================

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/law
  get ecpa.1986.godwin
  cd  /pub/CAF/law
  get ferpa.text
  cd  /pub/CAF/faq
  get email.policies
  cd  /pub/CAF/library
  get confidentiality.1.ala
  cd  /pub/CAF/library
  get computer.draft.ala
  cd  /pub/CAF/statements
  get bill-of-rights.aahe
  cd  /pub/CAF/statements
  get caf-statement
  cd  /pub/CAF/statements
  get caf-statement.critique
  cd  /pub/CAF/academic
  get student.freedoms.aaup
  cd  /pub/CAF/academic
  get speech-codes.aaup
  cd  /pub/CAF/law
  get uwm-post-v-u-of-wisconsin
  cd  /pub/CAF/law
  get gillard-v-schmidt
  cd  /pub/CAF/law
  get email.gov-employee
  cd  /pub/CAF/law
  get mass-student-searches
  cd  /pub/CAF/law
  get constraints.constitutional
  cd  /pub/CAF/law
  get ecpa.umich
  cd  /pub/CAF/law
  get privacy.email
  cd  /pub/CAF/law
  get privacy.workplace
  cd  /pub/CAF/law
  get email.bib

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/law
  get ecpa.1986.godwin
  cd  /pub/CAF/law
  get ferpa.text
  cd  /pub/CAF/faq
  get email.policies
  cd  /pub/CAF/library
  get confidentiality.1.ala
  cd  /pub/CAF/library
  get computer.draft.ala
  cd  /pub/CAF/statements
  get bill-of-rights.aahe
  cd  /pub/CAF/statements
  get caf-statement
  cd  /pub/CAF/statements
  get caf-statement.critique
  cd  /pub/CAF/academic
  get student.freedoms.aaup
  cd  /pub/CAF/academic
  get speech-codes.aaup
  cd  /pub/CAF/law
  get uwm-post-v-u-of-wisconsin
  cd  /pub/CAF/law
  get gillard-v-schmidt
  cd  /pub/CAF/law
  get email.gov-employee
  cd  /pub/CAF/law
  get mass-student-searches
  cd  /pub/CAF/law
  get constraints.constitutional
  cd  /pub/CAF/law
  get ecpa.umich
  cd  /pub/CAF/law
  get privacy.email
  cd  /pub/CAF/law
  get privacy.workplace
  cd  /pub/CAF/law
  get email.bib

=============== ftp://ftp.eff.org/pub/CAF/faq/netnews.writing ===============
q: Should my university allow students to post to Netnews or have Web pages?

a: Yes. Free inquiry and free expression are an important part of a
university's mission. Most universities encourage and support student
expression and publication. Most universities also seem to give full
network access to all users, even students. (This conclusion is based
on an informal survey posted to comp.admin.policy in October, 1991.
[cafv01n33])

There is probably no need to create special rules for student computer
media; your university likely already has rules for student media.
(Look in your Student Code.) In the U.S., most student publications
are free of university screening, censorship, and most retaliation.
(For state universities, this is a legal requirement.) At the same
time, most universities disclaim responsibility for student
publications, even when the university "owns the presses."

The American Library Association's draft policy recommendation
on electronic services and networks says (in part):

    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.

- Carl

ANNOTATED REFERENCES

(All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.)

=================<a href="ftp://ftp.eff.org/pub/CAF/library/computer.draft.ala">
library/computer.draft.ala
=================</a>
* DRAFT: Access to Electronic ... Services and Networks ... (ALA)

A draft interpretation by the American Library Association of the
"Library Bill of Rights"

Says in part: "Libraries and librarians exist to facilitate [freedom
of speech and freedom to read] by providing access to, identifying,
retrieving, organizing, and preserving recorded expression regardless
of the formats or technologies in which that expression is recorded."

=================<a href="ftp://ftp.eff.org/pub/CAF/statements/caf-statement">
statements/caf-statement
=================</a>
* Computer and Academic Freedom Statement -- Draft

This is an attempt to codify the application of academic freedom to
academic computers. It reflects our seven months of on-line discussion
about computers and academic freedom. It covers free expression, due
process, privacy, and user participation.

Comments and suggestions are very welcome (especially when posted to
CAF-talk). All the documents referenced are available on-line.
(Critiqued).

=================<a href="ftp://ftp.eff.org/pub/CAF/statements/caf-statement.critique">
statements/caf-statement.critique
=================</a>
* Computer and Academic Freedom Statement -- Draft -- Critique

This is a critique of an attempt to codify the application of academic
freedom to academic computers. It reflects our seven months of on-line
discussion about computers and academic freedom. It covers free
expression, due process, privacy, and user participation.

Additional comments and suggestions are very welcome (especially when
posted to CAF-talk). All the documents referenced are available
on-line.

=================<a href="ftp://ftp.eff.org/pub/CAF/statements/bill-of-rights.aahe">
statements/bill-of-rights.aahe
=================</a>
* Bill of Rights ... for Electronic ... Learners

This is the "Bill of Rights and Responsibilities for the Electronic
Community of Learners". It could become the first widely endorsed
statement directly related to computers and academic freedom.

=================<a href="ftp://ftp.eff.org/pub/CAF/academic/student.freedoms.aaup">
academic/student.freedoms.aaup
=================</a>
* Student Freedoms (AAUP)

Joint Statement on Rights and Freedoms of Students -- This is the main
U.S. statement on student academic freedom.

=================<a href="ftp://ftp.eff.org/pub/CAF/academic/speech-codes.aaup">
academic/speech-codes.aaup
=================</a>
* Speech Codes (AAUP)

On Freedom of Expression and Campus Speech Codes Expression - An
official statement of the American Association of University
Professors (AAUP)

It says in part: "On a campus that is free and open, no idea can be
banned or forbidden.  No viewpoint or message may be deemed so hateful
or disturbing that it may not be expressed."

=================<a href="ftp://ftp.eff.org/pub/CAF/academic/academic-freedom.wus">
academic/academic-freedom.wus
=================</a>
* Academic Freedom (WUS)

The Lima Declaration on Academic Freedom and Autonomy of Institutions
of Higher Education, an international declaration by the World
University Service.

Source: _World University Service Academic Freedom 1990: A Human
Rights Report_ by Laksiri Fernando, et al.

=================<a href="ftp://ftp.eff.org/pub/CAF/academic/academic-freedom.can">
academic/academic-freedom.can
=================</a>
* CAUT-ACPU Policy on Academic Freedom (Canada)

Policy statement on academic freedom for the Canadian Association
of University Teachers.

=================<a href="ftp://ftp.eff.org/pub/CAF/policies/netnews.uwm.edu">
policies/netnews.uwm.edu
=================</a>
* Edu -- U. of Wisconsin-Milwaukee -- Netnews

These are the network policy resolutions developed by the Computer
Policy Committee at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. The
resolutions were approved by the Committee and forwarded to the
Chancellor. They were given final approval by the Chancellor as campus
administrative policy (memo dated 02/23/93).

They say (to paraphrase) 1) Netnews is important 2) No restrictions
should be imposed without wide consultation 3) The principles of
intellectual freedom developed for university libraries apply to
Netnews material 4) The principles of intellectual freedom developed
for publication in traditional media apply to computer media.

=================<a href="ftp://ftp.eff.org/pub/CAF/policies/netnews.uwo.ca">
policies/netnews.uwo.ca
=================</a>
* U. of Western Ontario -- Netnews policy

It says in part: "In its publications regarding Usenet, CCS should
make it clear that the individual user bears the primary
responsibility for the material that he or she chooses to send or
display on the network or on the University's computer systems."  It
also specifies a procedure for dealing with challenges to material.

=================<a href="ftp://ftp.eff.org/pub/CAF/news/cafv01n33">
news/cafv01n33
=================</a>
[No annotation available.]

=================<a href="http://www.eff.org/CAF/faq/netnews.reading.html">
faq/netnews.reading
=================</a>
* Netnews -- Policies on What Users Read

q: Should my university remove (or restrict) Netnews newsgroups
because some people find them offensive? If it doesn't have the
resources to carry all newsgroups, how should newsgroups be selected?

a: Material should not be restricted just because it is offensive to
...

=================<a href="http://www.eff.org/CAF/faq/media.control.html">
faq/media.control
=================</a>
* University Control of Media

q: Since freedom of the press belongs to those who own presses, a
public university can do anything it wants with the media that it
owns, right?

a: No. Like any organization, the U.S. government must work within its
...

=================<a href="ftp://ftp.eff.org/pub/CAF/law/rosenberger_v_u_virginia">
law/rosenberger_v_u_virginia
=================</a>
* Expression -- Public Forum -- Rosenberger v. U. of Virginia

A 1995 U.S. Supreme Court decision that says that it is illegal for a
state univeristy to deny funds to a student newspaper on the grounds
that the newspaper is religious. The decision confirms that the
government cannot discriminate on the basis of viewpoint in
(government-owned)limited public forums.

=================<a href="ftp://ftp.eff.org/pub/CAF/law/san-diego-committee-v-gov-bd">
law/san-diego-committee-v-gov-bd
=================</a>
* Expression -- Public Forum -- Overview -- San Diego Committee v. Gov Bd

Excerpts from San Diego Committee v.  Governing Bd., 790 F.2d 1471.  A
decision by an appellate court that applied the Supreme Court's Public
Forum Doctrine (to a school newspaper).

=================<a href="ftp://ftp.eff.org/pub/CAF/law/stanley-v-magrath">
law/stanley-v-magrath
=================</a>
* Expression -- Public Forum -- Closing -- Stanley v. Magrath

Comments from _Public Schools Law: Teachers' and Students' Rights_ 2nd
Ed. by Martha M. McCarthy and Nelda H. Cambron-McCabe, published in
1987 by Allyn and Bacon, Inc. It says, in part, "[a]lthough school
boards are not obligated to support student papers, if a given
publication was originally created as a free speech forum, removal of
financial or other school board support can be construed as an
unlawful effort to stifle free expression." Also, "school
authorities cannot withdraw support from a student publication simply
because of displeasure with the content" and "the content of a
school-sponsored paper that is established as a medium for student
expression cannot be regulated more closely than a nonsponsored
paper". Also, it tells what to do about libel in student
publications.

=================<a href="ftp://ftp.eff.org/pub/CAF/law/student-publications.misc">
law/student-publications.misc
=================</a>
* Expression -- Offensive -- Student Publications -- Misc

Quotes from the book _Law of the Student Press_ by the Student Press
Law Center (1985,1988). They say that four-letter words are protected
speech, that public universities are not likely to be liable for
publications that they for which they do not control the contents, and
that the _Hazelwood_ decision does not apply to universities.

=================<a href="ftp://ftp.eff.org/pub/CAF/law/uwm-post-v-u-of-wisconsin">
law/uwm-post-v-u-of-wisconsin
=================</a>
* Expression -- Hate Speech -- UWM Post v. U Of Wisconsin

The full text of UWM POST v. U. of Wisconsin. This recent district
court ruling goes into detail about the difference between protected
offensive expression and illegal harassment. It even mentions email.

It concludes: "The founding fathers of this nation produced a
remarkable document in the Constitution but it was ratified only with
the promise of the Bill of Rights.  The First Amendment is central to
our concept of freedom.  The God-given "unalienable rights" that the
infant nation rallied to in the Declaration of Independence can be
preserved only if their application is rigorously analyzed.

The problems of bigotry and discrimination sought to be addressed here
are real and truly corrosive of the educational environment.  But
freedom of speech is almost absolute in our land and the only
restriction the fighting words doctrine can abide is that based on the
fear of violent reaction.  Content-based prohibitions such as that in
the UW Rule, however well intended, simply cannot survive the
screening which our Constitution demands."

=================<a href="ftp://ftp.eff.org/pub/CAF/law/rust-v-sullivan">
law/rust-v-sullivan
=================</a>
* Expression -- Gag Rule -- Rust v. Sullivan

The decision and decent for the so-called abortion information gag
rule case. The decision explicitly mentions universities as a place
where free expression is so important that gag rules would not be
allowed.

=================<a href="ftp://ftp.eff.org/pub/CAF/law/rav-v-st-paul.1">
law/rav-v-st-paul.1
=================</a>
* Expression -- Hate Speech -- RAV v. St Paul -- 1

The Supreme Court's _R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul_ decision about hate crimes.

The Court overturned St. Paul's Bias-Motivated Crime Ordinance, which
prohibits the display of a symbol which one knows or has reason to
know "arouses anger, alarm or resentment in others on the basis of
race, color, creed, religion or gender."

By 9-0, the Court said the law as overly broad. By 5-4, the Court said
that the law was also unfairly selective because it only tried to protect
some groups.

Included: summary, majority opinion, 3 concurring opinions.

=================<a href="ftp://ftp.eff.org/pub/CAF/law/perry-v-perry">
law/perry-v-perry
=================</a>
* Expression -- Public Forum -- Campus Mail -- Perry v. Perry

Comments from the ACLU Handbook _The Rights of _Teachers_. It says
that campus mail systems (and other school facilities) may or may not
be limited public forums depending on how they are managed. (Perry v.
Perry was about an interschool mail system that was managed as a
nonpublic forum. It was one of the cases that defined the Public Forum
Doctrine.)

Also, a paraphrase from an ACLU handbook _The Rights of Teachers_. It
says that generally, speech, if otherwise shielded from punishment by
the First Amendment, does not lose that protection because its tone is
sharp.

Also, from p. 92, it says that there are legal limits to the oaths a
(public) school can ask its teachers to sign. [Some of these same
limits might apply to what a school can ask a user to sign as a
condition of getting (or keeping) a computer account.]

=================<a href="ftp://ftp.eff.org/pub/CAF/law/broadrick-v-oklahoma">
law/broadrick-v-oklahoma
=================</a>
* Expression -- Vague Regulation -- Broadrick v. Oklahoma, et al.

Summary of case law on overly vague regulation of expression. It says
a statute is unconstitutionally vague when "men of common intelligence
must necessarily guess at its meaning."

=================<a href="ftp://ftp.eff.org/pub/CAF/law/naacp-v-button">
law/naacp-v-button
=================</a>
* Expression -- Overbroad Regulation -- NAACP v. Button, et al.

Summary of case law on overly broad regulation of expression. It says
"[b]ecause First Amendment freedoms need breathing space to survive,
government may regulate in the area only with narrow specificity."

=================<a href="ftp://ftp.eff.org/pub/CAF/law/pd-of-chicago-v-mosley">
law/pd-of-chicago-v-mosley
=================</a>
* Expression -- Content Regulation -- Police Department of Chicago v. Mosley

Summary of case law on content-based regulation of expression. It says
that "above all else, the First Amendment means that government has no
power to restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its
subject matter, or its content."

=================<a href="ftp://ftp.eff.org/pub/CAF/law/cohen-v-california.4">
law/cohen-v-california.4
=================</a>
* Expression -- Regulation of Tone -- Cohen v. California -- 4

A short quote from _Cohen v. California_: "We cannot sanction the view
that the constitution, while solicitous of the cognitive content of
individual speech, has little or no regard for that emotive function
which, practically speaking, may often be the more important element
of the overall message sought to be communicated."

=================
=================

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/library
  get computer.draft.ala
  cd  /pub/CAF/statements
  get caf-statement
  cd  /pub/CAF/statements
  get caf-statement.critique
  cd  /pub/CAF/statements
  get bill-of-rights.aahe
  cd  /pub/CAF/academic
  get student.freedoms.aaup
  cd  /pub/CAF/academic
  get speech-codes.aaup
  cd  /pub/CAF/academic
  get academic-freedom.wus
  cd  /pub/CAF/academic
  get academic-freedom.can
  cd  /pub/CAF/policies
  get netnews.uwm.edu
  cd  /pub/CAF/policies
  get netnews.uwo.ca
  cd  /pub/CAF/news
  get cafv01n33
  cd  /pub/CAF/faq
  get netnews.reading
  cd  /pub/CAF/faq
  get media.control
  cd  /pub/CAF/law
  get rosenberger_v_u_virginia
  cd  /pub/CAF/law
  get san-diego-committee-v-gov-bd
  cd  /pub/CAF/law
  get stanley-v-magrath
  cd  /pub/CAF/law
  get student-publications.misc
  cd  /pub/CAF/law
  get uwm-post-v-u-of-wisconsin
  cd  /pub/CAF/law
  get rust-v-sullivan
  cd  /pub/CAF/law
  get rav-v-st-paul.1
  cd  /pub/CAF/law
  get perry-v-perry
  cd  /pub/CAF/law
  get broadrick-v-oklahoma
  cd  /pub/CAF/law
  get naacp-v-button
  cd  /pub/CAF/law
  get pd-of-chicago-v-mosley
  cd  /pub/CAF/law
  get cohen-v-california.4

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/library
  get computer.draft.ala
  cd  /pub/CAF/statements
  get caf-statement
  cd  /pub/CAF/statements
  get caf-statement.critique
  cd  /pub/CAF/statements
  get bill-of-rights.aahe
  cd  /pub/CAF/academic
  get student.freedoms.aaup
  cd  /pub/CAF/academic
  get speech-codes.aaup
  cd  /pub/CAF/academic
  get academic-freedom.wus
  cd  /pub/CAF/academic
  get academic-freedom.can
  cd  /pub/CAF/policies
  get netnews.uwm.edu
  cd  /pub/CAF/policies
  get netnews.uwo.ca
  cd  /pub/CAF/news
  get cafv01n33
  cd  /pub/CAF/faq
  get netnews.reading
  cd  /pub/CAF/faq
  get media.control
  cd  /pub/CAF/law
  get rosenberger_v_u_virginia
  cd  /pub/CAF/law
  get san-diego-committee-v-gov-bd
  cd  /pub/CAF/law
  get stanley-v-magrath
  cd  /pub/CAF/law
  get student-publications.misc
  cd  /pub/CAF/law
  get uwm-post-v-u-of-wisconsin
  cd  /pub/CAF/law
  get rust-v-sullivan
  cd  /pub/CAF/law
  get rav-v-st-paul.1
  cd  /pub/CAF/law
  get perry-v-perry
  cd  /pub/CAF/law
  get broadrick-v-oklahoma
  cd  /pub/CAF/law
  get naacp-v-button
  cd  /pub/CAF/law
  get pd-of-chicago-v-mosley
  cd  /pub/CAF/law
  get cohen-v-california.4