From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!ames!lll-winken!iggy.GW.Vitalink.COM!widener!eff!kadie Thu Apr 30 15:22:54 EDT 1992
Article 5280 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Xref: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca comp.ai.philosophy:5280 sci.logic:1235
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!ames!lll-winken!iggy.GW.Vitalink.COM!widener!eff!kadie
>From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: An apology to Mr. Krishnaprased (was re: Godel's Incompleteness Thm)
Message-ID: <1992Apr27.153942.27514@eff.org>
Date: 27 Apr 92 15:39:42 GMT
References: <1992Apr23.164131.15250@watdragon.waterloo.edu> <1992Apr24.015515.1500@midway.uchicago.edu>
Sender: usenet@eff.org (NNTP News Poster)
Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation
Lines: 114
Originator: kadie@eff.org
Nntp-Posting-Host: eff.org

trivedi@rabi.uchicago.edu (Anil Trivedi) writes:

[...]
>This guy, Michael Zeleny, is a completely immature idiot. I personally
>know a few friends who have considered suing him and Harvard for attacks on
>them (posted from a Harvard address using Harvard's computer resources) and
>stand ready to actually do so should that behavior repeat itself. Probably it
>will; if so, Mr Zeleny is about to become more famous than he possibly can
>with his intellectual achievements. 
[...]

Insults and verbal attacks are generally Constitutionally protected
speech. Your friends are very unlikely to have any grounds for a
lawsuit. The way to fight such bad speech is through more speech, not
through suppression by the authorities.

In addition, even if Mr. Zeleny's words are actionable, Harvard is
unlikely to be found liable.

Finally, Harvard (with the possible exception of Mr. Zeleny's
supervisor) generally has an excellent reputation for respecting the
academic freedom. It knows that freedom of expression is central to
academic freedom and that student and staff, in their public
expressions and demonstrations, speak only for themselves.

ANNOTATED REFERENCES

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

=================
law/hustler-magazine-v-falwell
=================
Summary from _The First Amendment Book_ by Robert J. Wagmam, p. 157.
The publisher of a cartoon parody, already found not to be libelous,
could not be punished for the emotional distress the cartoon may have
caused. The Court wrote: "in public debate our own citizens must
tolerate insulting, and even outrageous speech in order to provide
adequate breathing space to the freedoms protected by the First
Amendment."

=================
law/doe-v-u-of-michigan
=================
This is Doe v. University of Michigan. In this widely referenced
decision, the district judge down struck the University's rules
against discriminatory harassment because the rules were found to be too
broad and too vague.

=================
law/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."


=================
faq/netnews.liability
=================
q: Does a University reduce its likely liability by screening Netnews
for offensive articles and newsgroups?

=================
faq/netnews.writing
=================
q: Should my university allow students to post to Netnews?

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

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

To get these documents by email, send email to archive-server@eff.org.
Include the line(s) (be sure to include the space before the file
name):

send acad-freedom/law hustler-magazine-v-falwell
send acad-freedom/law doe-v-u-of-michigan
send acad-freedom/law uwm-post-v-u-of-wisconsin
send acad-freedom/faq netnews.liability
send acad-freedom/faq netnews.writing
send acad-freedom student.freedoms

The files are also available via anonymous ftp from ftp.eff.org
(192.88.144.4) as file(s):
  pub/academic/law/hustler-magazine-v-falwell
  pub/academic/law/doe-v-u-of-michigan
  pub/academic/law/uwm-post-v-u-of-wisconsin
  pub/academic/faq/netnews.liability
  pub/academic/faq/netnews.writing
  pub/academic/student.freedoms

-- 
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
 =kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =


