[36] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Example of how Federal control of Internet censors content
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (John Gilmore)
Sun Oct 28 22:10:32 1990
Date: Sun, 28 Oct 90 16:33:47 PST
From: gnu@toad.com (John Gilmore)
To: com-priv@psi.com
Today's example comes from Computer Underground Digest #2.08 and #2.09
(alt.society.cu-digest). In this example, the Washington University
staff, faculty, and administration are all strongly against censorship,
but their stand is undermined because their network access must be
"in support of research or education". So they are begging researchers
elsewhere on the net to write them letters showing how X-rated pictures in
their FTP-able archives are in support of research.
The details on that situation are followed by commentary that explains
how, since NSF owns the network, this is not censorship. The files are
gone, and people who want to read them cannot, but this is not
censorship. There is no other national collaborative network for
Washington U. to offer their archives to, but this is not censorship.
It's just a simple matter of control of resources.
==> Right! And I think we had better control our own resources, which
involves actively opposing NSF's tax-funded de-facto control of US
networking -- by refusing to be sucked in to their demands, and by
building alternatives where freedom is paramount instead of a secondary
concern. <==
++++(Begin post)++++
Ok users,
wuarchive.wustl.edu has also been forced to remove all their r,x-rated GIFS!
this is why:
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
README
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Questions have been raised regarding the appropriateness of maintaining
this material as part of a university archive and making the material
available over the NSF network. The material has been removed pending the
outcome of an investigation.
If your organization uses this material for academic or research purposes,
and would be willing to provide written evidence for our investigation,
please send e-mail to archive@wuarchive.wustl.edu.
Please read the file 'WHY' to get an unofficial explanation of what's going
on.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
WHY
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
This all started in February 1990 when the Washington University
Chancellor's Office received a letter from an irate individual who claimed
that Washington University was committing a grave offense by making
available a collection of GIF pictures which more-or-less explicitly
depicted sexual acts (as implied by the name of the directory). The claims
included things such as aiding and abetting sexual harassment, misuse of
resources, unprofessional conduct, and placing `obviously unethical'
individuals in a position of trust.
The reaction of the Chancellor's Office was "Please let us know what is
going on, this must be replied to..." The ball was passed on the the
Office of the Network Coordinator, which owns and operates wuarchive.
After a long series of "we don't want to be involved in censorship"
statements by everyone involved, an investigation was launched into the
legal ramifications of making such material available.
What it comes down to is this:
1) Making the material available is perfectly legal, according to the
University's legal counsel (they cited 1-900 numbers as an excellent
example).
2) These GIF pictures are hardly the highest priority material in the
archives, and resources would be devoted to them only as long as they
didn't interfere with the more valuable services.
3) University personnel were not involved in the maintenance of this section
of the archives. The GIF archives are entirely maintained by a student of
another University.
4) We can't make the material available unless we can show that it has some
academic or research value. All sites which join the Internet must sign
a contract which states, in part, that all use of the Internet will be in
support of research or education. It is the feeling that virtually all of
the material in the archives could be justified except the R_X_rated GIFs.
*ALL* of the people who work with the archives *EMPHATICALLY* do NOT
support censorship in any form. However, we are bound by the contracts our
employers have signed regarding this matter.
If you are a professor at an institution of higher learning, or a
legitimate researcher, and feel that this material would be useful for your
teaching or research, please send a letter ON UNIVERSITY OR CORPORATE
LETTERHEAD to this address:
Washington University
Office of the Network Coordinator
One Brookings Drive
Campus Box 1048
Saint Louis, MO 63130-4899
USA
If you are a student or individual in a non-academic or non-research
position, PLEASE don't waste our time... The archivers put a lot of
personal time into keeping wuarchive one of the best archives in the world
and we don't appreciate being called names or spending our time reading
junk mail.
Be aware that if you DO write a letter supporting this material, you may
one day be called upon to support your position. It is a very sensitive
issue and will undoubtedly some day be considered by highly-placed
government officials, and subjected to public scrutiny.
Signed,
The Maintainers of Wuarchive
++++(End Post)++++
We have not yet had the chance to look into the WU situation or to dig out
information on other systems that have had similar problems. The above
examples deal with x/r-rated material, which some may find an issue not
sufficiently important to worry about. There is, of course, a sticky area
in making freely available adult-oriented contents that are accessibility by
juveniles. But, the issue is *NOT* cyber-porn! Rather, it is one of how
e-space shall be controlled, if at all. Who determines what shall be
permitted and what shall not be? Can a few angry letters to a federal
bureaucrat invoke threats of fiscal blackmail? Should there be an appeals
process? Can an angry letter in one state be justification to censor
materials in another?
. . . The logic underlying intrusion into boards
that contain adult material can also be applied to other material as well.
The questions is not whether we support "pornography," but whether
cyber-space shall be free or whether it shall be regulated. A recent
article in the Federal Communications Law Journal (E. Jensen, "An
Electronic Soapbox: Computer Bulletin Boards and the First Amendment,"
Vol. 39: 217-258) raised the spectre of "licensing" BBSs. Although this is
not currently a realistic option, the potential risks of such an approach,
and others that restrict freedom of communication across the lines, should
be met head-on and not after restrictive laws or policies are in effect.
It seems that government controls over e-space are creeping slowly into <<<
electronic communications in ways that, if done in other media would invoke <<<
immediate public outrage. <<<
[emphasis mine -- gnu] <<<
In article <CuD #2.08 #3>, Karl Lehenbauer <karl@sugar.hackercorp.com> writes,
Censorship is when some organization says, "You may not say X.". Editing is
when some organization says, "You may not use _my property_ to say X." This
is an important distinction to make explicit; there is an increasing tendency
for people to believe that they have not only the right to say whatever they
want, but also the unlimited right to use the property of others to do so.
>From: portal!cup.portal.com!dan-hankins@SUN.COM
...IBM doesn't control electronic communications in this country; the Prodigy
subscriber is certainly free to go elsewhere to express his views. This is
what many of them are doing. BIX is getting a lot of former Prodigy users
these days. [But where can WU go? -- gnu]
It's not censorship.
In article <CuD #2.08 #4), the moderators write,
>In the MARS incident, the NSF flexed its fiscal muscles (according to those
>on the receiving end).
This is again not censorship. The NSF pays for the Internet, and has the
right to say how those monies are spent. Since MARS resided on an Internet
node, the NSF had the right to refuse to pay for those files to be transmitted
across its network. In fact, the NSF has the right to refuse to pay for
network connections for any site for any reason whatsoever, unless it has made
a contract to the contrary. If this is "flexing its fiscal muscles", then so
be it.
The quoted article quotes some other postings. I reproduce here the relevant
portions:
>I also don't like the idea of the university having to censor this board to
>suit the narrow-minded leanings of a few people...
>Again i am sorry that CENSORSHIP found its way into another democratic haven
>of society...
This is just more of the sort of illogic I referred to earlier. If these
folks want their X-rated pictures, then they can have them. They just can't
expect somebody else (the NSF or their University) to pay for them. They are
certainly free to start their own BBS or post the material on a private BBS or
Usenet mail server that allows such stuff.
>Can a few angry letters to a federal bureaucrat invoke threats of fiscal
>blackmail?
If I boycott your business because I find some of your activities
objectionable, am I threatening you with fiscal blackmail? Why should the
NSF or a university be any different? The NSF is just boycotting sites that
carry material it finds offensive, and the universities are just exercising
their right to control use of their property.
[Note that in this case the University is happy -- it's their NSF contract
that is causing them to have to censor because of 'one irate individual'.
Another in a long string of examples wherein everyone breaks the rules, so
you can apply pressure to anyone by simply accusing them publicly (or, in
the case of cops, by arresting them for something illegal that every
citizen does many times a year, like speeding or 'loitering'. -- gnu]
