Re: ACLU Comment on Carnegie Mellon Censorship

[David Farber <farber@central.cis.upenn.edu>]

From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)




According to CMU's own statements (emailed to anyone who asked and
posted alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk, comp.org.eff.talk, and
alt.censorship), the decision to ban the groups was made in secret
without participation of the university community and without
consulting legal experts. As soon as the decison was announced, the
university got participation and expert advice. The result: the ban on
the text groups was lifted and committee was formed to recommend
policy. I stand my by assertion that the original decision to ban was
made haphazardly.


How should such decisons be made at a university? Well if you believe
that the same intellectual freedom principles that apply to libraries
also apply to a universty's netnews services:


 The American Library Association's statement on "Challenged
   Materials" says:


  Freedom of expression is protected by the Constitution of the United
  States, but constitutionally protected expression is often separated
  from unprotected expression only by a dim and uncertain line. 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.


- 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/> =