COMPUTER SCIENCE DEPARTMENT
UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
This update will review recent events at a number of Canadian Universities including the Univerities of Waterloo, McGill, and Carleton and the Scarborough campus of the University of Toronto. For some reason, the last few months have witnessed a renewed interest in the issue of pornographic postings over the Internet. A possible reason to explain this situation will be proposed later in the paper. In an attempt to briefly characterize an approach to dealing with offensive material on the Internet, six basic principles, divided into two groups, were proposed in Rosenberg (1993, p. 287). These adhere strongly to the principle of free speech, as the hallmark of an open and democratic society:
Administrative Principles
(1) Do not treat electronic media differently than print media, or traditional bulletin boards, merely because they can be more easily controlled.
(2) Do not censor potentially offensive material on networks: Encourage the use of sexual harassment procedures, if appropriate.
(3) Be aware of your responsibility with respect to the uses and misuses of your facilities. However, do not use cost of services as an excuse to censor and limit access.
(4) Trust, and educate, people to be responsible.
Social Principles
(1) Issues will proliferate beyond the ability of organizations to control them by rigid policies.
(2) Occasional offensive postings do not detract from the benefits of electronic networks.
Arguments in support of these principles were presented and discussed at length. They ranged from in principle arguments about the importance of free speech to the practical impossibilities of limiting or preventing access to newsgroups containing offensive postings, even if such newsgroups could be identified. Also stressed was the importance of an ongoing program of education to remind users that they were members of a community with a shared set of values that included a concern for the feelings of others, especially in public places. And finally, if all else failed, sexual harassment procedures could be invoked to redress gross insensitivity or sheer malicious behaviour. It is believed that free speech is such an important right that it must be defended as vigorously as possible and other measures taken to deal with possible negative side effects. The report of the Task Force on the Appropriate Use of Information Technology at the University of British Columbia (the author's university), delivered in December 1992 (UBC Report, 1992), certainly makes a significant statement, consistent with this analysis (Rosenberg 1993, p. 325, fn. 12):
Among its specific recommendations, the committee said that the university should: ensure that its efforts to create an environment in which all members treat each other with respect extend to facilities and activities associated with information technology; provide access to all [italics added] newsgroups and more broadly, the Internet as a whole, for all members of the University community; should make it clear that the user bears the primary responsibility for the material he or she chooses to access, send, or display on the network and other computing systems; educate the University community about the benefits of access to the Internet and information technology, as well as the form of and need for responsible use of these resources; and establish Sexual Harassment and Human Rights policies in which victims need not bear the entire responsibility for initiating correction of offenses under those policies. The policies should attempt to deal with causes as well as symptoms.
In the sections to follow, recent events at some Canadian universities will be described, as will the concern with sexual harassment over the net and new developments in the unpleasant area of child pornography. Attempts to limit the abusive postings of certain well known Usenet regulars have been greeted with some concern but with considerable relief as well. Comments about the movement towards censorship in Canada in both the print and electronic media will complete this paper.
* In May 30, 1991, the report of the Advisory Committee on Network News was released by Dr. Johnny Wong, associate provost (computing and information systems). All banned newsgroups (referred to as newsgroups not currently supported) were restored and a designated liaison person was appointed to deal with complaints related to the contents of electronic mail and news articles. Among the recommendations made by the advisory group are the following (Kadie, 1992a):
The University of Waterloo adopt and widely publicize the principle that, in sending E-mail or in posting an article to a newsgroup, it is the user and not the University, who assumes responsibility.
The University adopt and widely publicize the principle that it is the user, not the University, who is responsible for his or her decision to read a mail message or an article posted to an electronic newsgroup.
The University's primary news-server continue to receive all newsgroups generated internally and all newsgroups which arrive over the networks to which the University is connected.
Thus the University of Waterloo adopted a rational set of principles with respect to a non-censorship policy. Further to the above, it also outlined procedures to deal with complaints about specific postings, but these seem to involve directing objections to the source of the postings. No mention is made of the possible invocation of sexual harassment procedures, although reference is made to the role that could be played by the ethics committee, the university computing committee, or the dean of a faculty.
Canada's best-known computer-science [sic] school has banned from its campus five electronic bulletin boards that deal with violent sex and pornography.
The University of Waterloo, which for six years resisted censoring the sometimes lurid discussion groups carried on the Internet system, said it made the move this week because of concerns that the contents contravened laws on pornography and obscenity.
The following people at the university were quoted: spokesman Martin Van Nierop, "The university is trying to protect freedom of expression as much as possible, [b]ut when it goes beyond what's in the Criminal Code then we have to draw the line;" Sally Gunz, a professor of business law and chairwoman of the six-member ethics committee that recommended that the five bulletin boards be dropped; "The issue is not for technological people to solve, it's for legal people to solve, it's for society to solve;" and Tammy Speers, a member of the Womyn's Centre Collective, that complained last year "that the newsgroups were blatantly violent and sexist," "We are talking about the worst child pornography you could imagine. These newsgroups were completely infringing on our right to a safe education."
If a personal comment may be permitted, I felt betrayed by the actions taken at the University of Waterloo. Its 1991 policy was reasonable, placed the responsibility on the user, and included a role for the ethics committee. Unfortunately, the ethics committee recommended that the five newsgroups be banned. Given that offensive material has been available for years and that the issue has been debated for years, why did Waterloo take this unexpected step that reversed an existing policy? The answer is related to the Canadian Criminal Code as the following letter from the President of the University of Waterloo, James Downey, to the deans, academic department chairs and directors of schools, and academic support department heads, dated January 31, 1994, reveals (Kadie 1994a):
Last fall I became aware that certain newsgroups on the Internet carried material which was almost certainly obscene [italics added] and therefore contrary to the Criminal Code. Advice from the University solicitor was unequivocal: under the Criminal Code it is an offence for anyone to publish or distribute obscene material, and the University is running a risk of prosecution if it knowingly receives and distributes obscene material. In these circumstances I felt the University had to act to protect itself.
The specific newsgroups banned were alt.sex.bondage, alt.sex.bestiality, alt.sex.stories, alt.sex.stories.d (discussion), and alt.tasteless ('Obscene' Newsgroups Dropped 1994). Note that all of these newsgroups consist of text and that none of the newsgroups carrying pornographic pictures were included in the ban. Furthermore, any regular alt.sex aficionado could name many more newsgroups that are equally as offensive and tasteless as the ones named above. President Downey announced the setting up of the following process related to newsgroups and concerned specifically with the issue of obscenity in electronic form (Kadie 1994a):
Complaints concerning newsgroups which contain material considered to be obscene are to be referred to the Ethics Committee. The Ethics Committee, with advice from legal counsel as appropriate, will make a recommendation to the Vice-President, Academic & Provost for the removal of any newsgroups it judges to be carrying obscene material. Requests to have a restricted newsgroup reinstated would also be handled by reference to the Ethics Committee. Any member of the University community requiring access to a restricted newsgroup for academic purposes [italics added] can make application to the Vice-President, Academic & Provost.
To be consistent, surely President Downey should have also invited suggestions about which books, magazines, and tapes " which contain material considered to be obscene are to be referred to the Ethics Committee." In fact, in November 1993, Dr. Jim Kalbfleisch, Vice-President, Academic and Provost, "issued an order to librarian Murray Shepherd to discontinue access to certain articles in foreign newspapers containing information about the Teale/Homulka trial, citing a publication ban imposed by Judge Francis Kovacs" (Shallit 1994b). Thus, whereas obscenity is to be rooted out on Usenet newsgroups, at Waterloo, it is not to be sought and controlled in libraries, but material that might violate a judicial ban is to be identified and removed. It will be seen later in this paper that even McGill University did not institute any kind of library censorship based on a legal opinion that it was impractical to do so.
The new process also neglects to mention any criteria for determining which newsgroups should be banned. Rosenberg (1993, p.311) suggests the difficulties inherent in this unwelcome task:
From both a practical and theoretical perspective, censorship is a bad idea and in a very real sense unenforceable, short of restricting all access to nonlocal networks. Deciding to restrict a certain class of newsgroups based on their supposed content may be easy for alt.binaries.picture. erotica or alt.sex.bondage but what about alt.censorship and talk.rape? What about discussions of pornography and the use of explicit references? How many newsgroups must be regularly monitored and how many instances of objectionable postings must be accumulated before a given offensive newsgroup is added to the delete list? What are the criteria for labeling a posting offensive? Who is to be responsible for applying them? Will there be a censorship board that reviews newsgroups, responds to complaints, sets standards, and evaluates qualifications? Will such a board hold open hearings, hear appeals, and regularly publish a list of banned newsgroups, or will it operate in secrecy? Under pressure, will the board extend its mandate to control and censor newsgroups that offend any narrow interests? In any case, as long as access to the network is in force, anyone can do a remote login to a site that has a more liberal policy, if an account can be obtained at such a site or a friend at such a site can E-mail choice postings. Networks connect people in a variety of ways.
President Downey concluded his statement with the following somewhat less than ringing defense of free speech:
I am mindful of concerns about the principles of free speech and expression in an academic environment. Universities, however, are not above the law and their policies and procedures should not be contrary to the law. It is important to note that, while the Charter of Rights and Freedoms provides for free speech, that freedom is subject to limitations that are deemed to be responsible in a free and democratic society. In February of last year, the Supreme Court of Canada upheld obscenity provisions of the Criminal Code as being a justifiable restrictions on freedom of expression in order to protect, in particular, women and children from the harm of violent, degrading, and dehumanizing pornography.
This letter has been extensively quoted because the decision and policy enunciated represent a dramatic change in a previous enlightened approach to the problem. Other events will be described before a more comprehensive overview is presented, but it should be noted that no other universities in Canada, as far as can be determined, have justified any actions they may have taken with respect to the removal of certain newsgroups, on these grounds. Does this mean that they have wilfully ignored legal opinion at Waterloo as if it is not relevant to their own situation? In any case, Waterloo's actions confirmed for American free speech advocates, on Internet, that Canada had once again "wimped out" and could not be counted on to seriously defend free speech. Postings appeared on a variety of newsgroups, offering resources so that deprived Canadians could access their favourite banned newsgroups. Two Canadian professors, Jeffrey Shallit at Waterloo and David Jones at McGill, announced the creation of a Electronic Frontier Canada (Shallit 1994a), an offshoot of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a United States organization dedicated to the defense of free speech and other social concerns, especially privacy, on electronic networks. Finally, questions were raised about the role played by the Ontario government's Framework Regarding Prevention of Harassment and Discrimination in Ontario Universities. Was this policy being used as a justification for the limitation of free speech?
Hi All:
I need some help. As most probably know much of the material about the Homulka/Teale case is being suppressed in Canada under court order. I have a few questions about how far this can go. The university (Carleton) has been deleting E-mail and files in directories which have (it seems) references to the case. The deletions are arbitrary and not restricted to banned material. For instance, I sent a copy of the court order (Kovacs) to a friend and it was immediately vapourized. . .
Yerxa also questioned the legal right of the university to unilaterally search through students' files and then to arbitrarily remove them.
A few days later, Kadie (1994b) reposted the following brief note:
The University of Guelph is now scanning all incoming mail for refernces [sic] to Paul Bernardo and Karla Homulka. THIS INCLUDES PRIVATE MAIL! Already, two subscrbers [sic] to my mailing list have asked me to scramble their mail.
- Abdul
Teale Tales Mailing List (an49117@anon.penet.fi)
"Abdul" is the anonymous name of a person who is providing information for a mailing list of subscribers who do not wish the name of their provider to be known. This message had been originally posted to the following newsgroups: alt.fan.karla-homulka, alt.pub-ban, alt.pub-ban.homulka, alt.censorship, alt.journalism. The first and third of these are not carried by most Canadian universities because clearly they do carry material that would violate the judicial publication ban, but what about the other newsgroups? Only a vigilant administrator, however, would discover possible illegal postings on the other newsgroups. And only extremely diligent system administrators would scan incoming e-mail messages to determine if they contained information about suspect topics. Is this what we want our system administrators or their employees to be doing? Of course, the very serious issue of right to privacy is central to the actions taken at Guelph and Carleton, but given that the focus of this paper is on free speech, no further mention will be made other than to note that the question of privacy protection on electronic networks is currently a very hot topic in the United States.
Note that the library analogy is instructive. Can anyone imagine that a committee could be appointed at a university to examine the library holdings to determine if they contained books, magazines, newspapers, or reports that might offend some person, group, organization, or even the courts. (Well administrators at the University of Waterloo could and they did require librarians to prevent public access to offensive articles in foreign newspapers and magazines, as noted above.) The library analogy has been championed for some time by Carl Kadie, the ubiquitous Usenet regular and indefatigable defender of free speech principles. Recently, he delivered a speech at the conference, Computers, Freedom, and Privacy '94 titled "Applying Library Intellectual Freedom Principles to Public and Academic Computers" (Kadie 1994c). Kadie quotes from the Library Bill of Rights: "Materials should not be proscribed or removed because of partisan or doctrinal disapproval," and provides this gloss, "In other words, don't remove something because it is offensive to many or even yourself. If you believe that the principles of intellectual freedom developed for libraries apply to public access computer sites, you should not remove the newsgroup." There is much more, but the point is clear, or should be, the recent contrary actions of some universities notwithstanding.
In a surprise move, a McGill Computing Centre staffer announced that all McGill Usenet newsgroups will be "audited." Newsgroups of "questionable value" will be deleted. The decision will be made solely by this one individual. Apparently, there are no guidelines, no committee, and no academics or librarians involved at all. (One hopes censorship within libraries is not similarly handled) An edict was simply sent out today. The audit will begin Jan. 24. Apparently it is a done deal.
Mr. Greenberg's response is quite lengthy but enough will be quoted to indicate the nature of the defense (Greenberg 1994):
- Our news partitions are filling up. We felt that it was better to focus on groups that were of interest instead of simply reducing retention periods (again). Clearly we will need to support the growing news volume in the long term, but it is not completely obvious that we can let it grow without some control.
- The proposal was to remove hierarchies and groups that were not of interest. The posting identified the hierarchies that we were questioning. Many were geographic groups that we felt might not be actively used at McGill. . .
- We made it clear that we have not decided on the exact method to determine which groups to carry, and we asked for suggestions and comments. . .
The argument that the limits on storage require that some (many?) newsgroups therefore must be deleted are not particularly novel nor convincing. Consider the view expressed in Rosenberg (1993, p. 289) with regard to this position:
In regard to the third principle [see above], a number of institutions, when confronted with the issue of offensive material on the network, have taken the position that given the expense of receiving, storing, and distributing network news, it is not possible to accommodate all the newsgroups. Thus they have reserved the right to withhold those groups that have generated the most controversy, namely the apparently sexually oriented ones. By adopting this position they hope to avoid any debate over the real issues. Managers of extensive and costly computer and communications facilities certainly have the right and indeed the responsibility to define conditions of use as well as standards of behaviour. They are rightly concerned about the possible use of university computers for profit by students and faculty. They are also justified in their concern about the copying of software or that students may be uncomfortable about the display of sexually-oriented images on public workstations. Many universities require users to sign a statement before receiving a computer account, affirming their awareness of and agreement with university computer use regulations. These regulations are usually posted in all public areas. All these measures seem to be an appropriate way to deal with the possible negative outcomes of the public display of sexually-oriented material.
The current situation at McGill is not known but the views of legal advisor Raynald Mercille are not encouraging. Mr. Mercille was asked two questions about legal opinions, that he gave late in 1993, with respect to the availability of information, about the Karla Homulka trial, which might fall under the judicial ban and the banning of certain Usenet newsgroups. The questioner's name is not given, but Kadie (1994d) carried both the questions and Mr. Mercille's response. It is noted in the question and confirmed by Mr. Mercille that,
According to your December 3 memo to Ms. Groen, you note that the following actions are specifically *not* prohibited:
* receipt of information
* possession of information
* providing access to information
* reading information on a computer screen
In addition, you pointed out that it is simply not practically possible to monitor all sources of information on campus to watch out for so-called "banned material". Because of all these reasons, you concluded that, for example, there is no legal concern associated with the McGill Libraries receiving and making available foreign news articles in the library. Thus, information that it might be wrong to "publish" is nonetheless readily accessible to any member of the McGill community and is in fact allowed, as a matter of policy.
In a related decision, except instead of print media it was electronic media, you recommended that a campus-wide "ban" on an electronic newsgroup be maintained. The key distinction, from my reading of your arguments, rests on this notion of "publication". By default, electronic news articles are propagated to neighbouring institutions using Usenet News software. It is this propagation that may be similar enough to publication that was the primary concern.
Mr. Mercille's concern was that the steps the university must take to prepare newsgroups for accessibility by other institutions would constitute an act of publishing and therefore would be in violation of the judicial ban on publication. But what about access by local users, the McGill community? Why are they also banned from receiving and viewing the suspect newsgroups? Simply put, the process for the McGill community is exactly the same as for connecting institutions and hence the ban must be applied to McGill as well. In support of his opinion, he first argued that to allow open access by McGill but not by other Quebec institutions would smack of elitism, special status, and "inter institutional censorship." The second supporting argument is worth considering:
Second, a decision to favour local users to the exclusion of non McGill users should have taken into consideration the factor of the public's perception. Some USENET users may take great pride in the fact that they can do what they want: this is a case where the lack of self restraint combined with the pride of their mission could prove to be their downfall. This is an area of fascinating freedom yet unregulated by government. Those who push that freedom to its limit may be inviting state regulatory intervention . . .
By pulling the plug on the newsgroup globally, although he was forced to, Vice-Principal Tavernas ironically preserved the very freedom you now enjoy. By contrast, an unbridled approach or a cunning evasion could possibly hasten the elimination of that freedom.
Let me apologize in advance for my lack of legal training, but are we to believe that freedom is best preserved by not exercising it or by exercising it so carefully as not to offend, or arouse the attention of, government? Raising prior restraint to a virtue is not only embarrassing it is also a losing strategy. A vigorous exercise and defense of all rights, including free speech, is vital in preserving an open and democratic society. To do anything less is to cower before the power of the state and to yield without challenge what is most important and to be valued in life. The McGill decision has elevated the print media above the new electronic ones with respect to free speech protection and given the comments about the practical difficulties of monitoring libraries, strongly suggests that because it is seemingly easy to censor newsgroups and not libraries, newsgroups are indeed censored.
It is both interesting and curious that officials at the University of Toronto have directed sharp criticism at the McGill search policy. This policy extends the putative right of university officials to search computer files to mail, closed briefcases, etc., under certain circumstances (Somar 1994):
U of T officials say McGill University's controversial right to access policy is extreme.
A recent McGill memo states that university officials have the right to access all materials on its property including "mail, closed briefcases, or similar containers." It also stated that in certain cases, a professor's home could also be searched.
David Cook, U of T vice-provost, says the McGill policy is totally contrary to U of T's.
"Our policy protects the freedoms of the individual. Faculty members have some protection relating to personnel files just as students have."
It seems that in order to justify its right to search computer files for banned material, McGill sought to embed this right into a broad range of rights it took upon itself to enunciate. In spite of the outrage expressed by the University of Toronto, its Scarborough Campus proclaimed a computer policy not unlike McGill's.
WHAT DOES THIS MEAN?
1) You are allowed to use the computer systems to aid in the completion of all your courses.
2) You are allowed to use mail to correspond with associates around the university and around the world.
3) You are allowed to use the resources of the computer system to further your academic pursuits.
4) You are not allowed to talk, telnet, or ftp to computers not on Scarborough Campus. You are not allowed to possess pornography in any form, files which are unacademic, files which are to be used for subverting the system, files which may be deemed offensive by any one person, or one group. Needless to say, you are not allowed to use anyone else's account (anywhere in the world)!
5) If you have any files which are "unacademic" you must IMMEDIATELY remove them from the University's computer systems. (italics added)
Points 4) and 5) are of particular interest in the present context. Assuming that no definitions have been provided for such terms as "pornography," "unacademic," and "offensive," the burden is presumably on students to censor themselves. It is also not clear how system administrators will check for violations of the Guidelines. These guidelines deprive students of free speech and privacy protection and place upon them the burden of making very difficult judgments. Note that the university does not place similar restrictions on library materials, perhaps because there are no pornographic or offensive books or magazines in the libraries at the Scarborough Campus. Treating students as second class citizens adds precious little to their education. Monitoring their computer files diminishes the role of the University in fostering a collegial atmosphere of open and free inquiry. Scarborough's actions embarrass all Canadian universities.
Consider another censorship story that seems to belie yet again previous remarks about libraries being somewhat immune to restrictive actions (Syed 1994): ". . . In Ontario anyway, (where the court-ordered blackout occurred), subscribers to Infomart online searching services were warned at login that if they attempted to access stories about the trial, the lines would be dropped." Again, however, the censorship is applicable to electronic systems, not books. The comparable situation would be to require librarians to either censor library materials beforehand, either by whiting out or clipping offensive material, or refusing to provide help for requests for the material, and then breaking off any further interaction with the patron. Although there are reports of librarians actually whiting out stories in foreign newspapers, such actions are offensive to most librarians and presumably would be carried out only under extreme circumstances. It is easier just to terminate subscriptions to newspapers and magazines that have ever carried suspect material, even if such actions are generally disapproved.
One of the other factors in the assault on free speech is the creation of an atmosphere that instead of fostering open debate inhibits the expression of controversial opinions. In this regard, consider the following memorandum (SUBJECT: Computer Pornography) sent to the presidents of Ontario colleges and universities in September 1992, by Deputy Minister [presumably of Higher Education] Bernard Shapiro (Kadie 1992b):
It has recently come to my attention that computer systems at Ontario's colleges and universities, normally used for the exchange of information between academics and scientific researchers, may be providing access to pornographic and/or racist material through international computer networks.
It is the ministry's position that publicly-funded post secondary institutions in Ontario should have appropriate policies or procedures in place to discourage the use of their computing systems for purposes of accessing or sending racist or pornographic materials. Furthermore, offensive material should be removed when it is identified, and appropriate sanctions should be in place to deal with offenses.
I realize that private computer companies offer their subscribers access to international computer networks and that virtually anyone in Canada with a computer and a telephone link can gain access to this material. Nevertheless, I do not believe that publicly-funded institutions should be seen to support either access to, or distribution of offensive material.
It is my expectation that each institution will have policies and procedures in place to discourage the use of its computer systems for access to, or sending of, racist and/or pornographic material. Please write me at your earliest convenience indicating your institution's policies and plans in this regard.
Thank you for your early attention to this very serious issue.
Apparently, this document should be viewed as advisory because the ministry has no power to impose policy on autonomous colleges and universities, but the tone certainly suggests that they would be well advised to have procedures in place in the near future. What are the options for institutions to "discourage . . . accessing or sending racist or pornographic materials," for the removal of such material "when it is identified," and what "sanctions should be in place to deal with offences?" The obvious response by cautious administrations is simply to remove newsgroups that they believe carry occasional, a few, or frequent postings, that are or could be interpreted by one or more individuals or groups as being racist or pornographic. In addition there are to be sanctions in place to be used against individuals that access or send the offensive material. Are these two acts to be treated equally? Why should accessing pornography on Internet be punished? Why should reading racist postings be an act deserving sanctions? What if I repost a racist message to publicize the kinds of views currently in circulation? Should I be punished? What has happened to the free and open debate of controversial, even offensive ideas? What has happened to free and open inquiry if certain ideas cannot be accessed, saved, or transmitted to others?
Censorship is a bad policy; consider Rosenberg's (1993, p. 288) defense of the second principle:
The second principle is clear: No censorship. Free speech protection is not absolute and there are occasions when compromises must be made, but censorship of selected newsgroups by system managers does not warrant such a compromise. No one is required to read or view material on the network. A definite decision must be made to receive and a definite action must be taken to retrieve this material. No prior restraint should be initiated. However, the consequences of viewing certain material in public places may well be detrimental to the well-being of some people. Women who find it offensive and whose feelings are ignored in attempts to improve unpleasant situations can initiate sexual harassment procedures. Such actions may not be easy, however, and may further subject women to abuse. Furthermore, what constitutes sexual harassment in the workplace is still being defined and the burden placed on women to voice their displeasure may indeed be heavy. Use of public computing facilities does not license anyone to display material that others, not necessarily women, may find offensive. Ignoring the expressed discomfort of others may open one up to charges of harassment, sexual or otherwise. By the same token, private reading or viewing of material that some might find offensive is not sufficient cause to deny ready access to all.
Approximately a year later, the Ontario government announced "policy guidelines to prevent harassment and discrimination at colleges and universities . . . on all grounds covered by the Ontario Human Rights Code" (Calamai 1994). To quote from Calamai (1994):
What the original report didn't make clear is that the Ontario government has actually laid down detailed rules for what may be said in a university classroom, for what may be cited by professors, for what reading materials libraries may have on their shelves, for what art can be shown and taught.
Nothing may now be spoken, read or displayed on a university campus in Ontario, for example, if it "creates a negative environment for individuals or groups" and is of a "significant nature."
Equally verboten are "gestures, remarks, jokes, taunting innuendo, display of offensive materials, offensive graffiti, threats, verbal or physical assault, imposition of academic penalties, hazing, stalking, shunning or exclusion."
It should be clear that the purpose of the principles given at the outset of this paper is to foster an open and equitable environment in which to pursue academic interests. Ostensibly, the purpose of this Ontario policy is the same, but the attempt to articulate a complete and comprehensive set of guidelines seems to have the appearance of stifling open inquiry and academic pursuits. It offers a ready target for those who wish to maintain dominance by males, by whites, in short by the traditional power structure. The attempt to eliminate inequity by instituting a policy of "zero tolerance" of a "negative environment" on campus (Graham 1994), which employs the dangerous tool of censorship (self and otherwise), can easily have the opposite effect. The cumulative effect of Ontario policies in this area may lead to, and some would say has already led to, a reliance on suppression and censorship and the creation of a fearful environment, the antithesis of open and free inquiry.
There are some legal issues involved in excessive flaming, that is, in outrageous criticism that may be seen as a public insult as compared with excessive e-mail that may be seen as private harassment. As Victor Cosentino, a Washington lawyer puts it (Cosentino 1994): ". . . flaming in private E-mail may be the equivalent of illegal telephone harassment, and flaming in a public news group or discussion board may be defamatory." He further notes that, "The relative anonymity and socially detached nature of on-line communications allow people to say things on-line that they would never think to say in person. . . . We can hurt and defame people and possibly become legally liable. We can have our privacy breached or our words taken out of context, twisted, or falsified. The solution is to treat the virtual world like the real world - because it is."
Personal experience may not be reliable but there is some indication that another form of harassment exists, that is, men taking over the discussion in newsgroups ostensibly created by and for women. For example, soc.feminism and alt.feminism have more than their fair share of men not only contributing to the discussion of women's issues but frequently dominating the discussion. Soc.feminism is a moderated newsgroup, which means that all postings must be filtered by a moderator, currently a women, who is criticized and berated on occasion for not acceding to the wishes of male participants. It is as if women cannot be permitted to deal with feminist issues without a continual confrontation with men with attitudes. The net culture is definitely dominated by men - they set the agenda and the style - and women who wish to participate must play by their rules. A subtle and sometimes not so subtle pressure exists to play the game by male rules. Does this situation constitute sexual harassment and if so should steps be taken to even the playing field? Maybe and probably not. The electronic frontier will be tamed and women will become more equal or else most will abandon this domain or be satisfied with a marginal role.
Dan Gannon has a mission: to post as many anti-holocaust messages as possible and to as many newsgroups as possible. For years, Gannon has been providing a forum for revisionists to spout their line that the holocaust did not happen. And for years, two or three hardy souls have responded with postings that dispute every claim made by Gannon. Gannon reprints papers from a "journal" specializing in revisionist history with pretensions of objective scholarship. He regularly reposts his own pieces and on occasion has posted more than five pieces a day. On March 10, Gannon (1994) posted a special diatribe on the occasion of a perceived restriction in his otherwise open access to the Internet. Part of this plea follows:
Administrators at Netcom have told me I cannot post any more messages about Holocaust Revisionism to any newsgroups except certain newsgroups they have specified. I have no choice but to comply.
There is a lobby which opposes any critical examination or questioning of the "Holocaust story" or of Israeli policy...
Following are the ONLY newsgroups Netcom says I am still allowed to post to:
alt.revisionism, talk.politics.misc, soc.culture.german, soc.culture.jewish, soc.rights.human, alt.discrimination, alt.conspiricy, alt.illuminati, alt.individualism, alt.mindcontrol, alt.politics.correct, alt.politics.reform, and alt.censorship.
Does this step taken by Netcom smack of censorship, a less serious restriction but still severe, a slap on the wrist, or a minor inconvenience? Gannon acts as if he has been mortally wounded and believes that he has been punished by those offended by his postings and furthermore, that the restriction to ten newsgroups will seriously impair his effectiveness. He subsequently argued that the Internet's legendary forbearance has broken down resulting in a limitation of his free speech. There was some disagreement in responses to the Netcom action, but the majority felt that Gannon deserved what he got and that he had not really been overly damaged by the ten newsgroup limitation. Note that one of the select newsgroups is soc.culture.jewish and that Gannon messages posted there will continue to cause considerable emotional pain and arouse a feverish response, exactly the purpose of his efforts. In this instance the Internet community seems to have acted with some resolve after a long period of inaction not to exclude a user but instead to mildly admonish him in response to complaints that his activities were too pervasive. In another case, however, the community seems to be paralyzed.
Serdar Argic purports to be a person of Turkish heritage, whose mission in life is to set the record straight with respect to Turkish historical events. He is primarily concerned with convincing the world that the Turkish massacre of Armenians, early in this century is historical fiction and that on the contrary, Armenians have been systematically murdering Turks. That they have managed to convince the world that they are the deeply injured party is to be seen as a triumph of their ingenuity and deviousness. Argic's method is to post vast quantities of material scanned in from the books of supposedly reputable historians accompanied by jargon-laden political polemics. He rarely responds to criticism or advice no matter how well intentioned and he regularly takes advantage of news events to establish the most tenuous connections with his primary concern. Argic has been asked politely to voluntarily restrict his postings to appropriate newsgroups, but to little effect. Argic greeted the recent massacre in Hebron not with sadness or concern but with yet another opportunity to abuse Armenians and their supposed hatred towards Islam. Many have believed that Serdar Argic is really a collective of individuals who have been able to develop tactics to defeat the Internet posting rules and thus render it almost impossible to discover the source of the messages. More recently, however, he has been identified as Mr. Ahmet Cosar, a graduate student at the University of Minnesota and a concerted effort has begun to direct complaints to the local system administrator, but difficulties are anticipated (Jones, Douglas 1994).
However unpleasant postings by Gannon and Argic may be, they pale in comparison with more recent, single shot examples, which raise the stakes in the free speech debate. Someone called Lane Wright, upset by a recent television show "60 Minutes," which offered a forum for revisionists, including the Canadian and German representative Peter Zundel, posted at least two quite virulent anti-Semitic messages, because he felt Jews had not been accurately portrayed and revisionists had not been allotted sufficient time to make their case. In the first posting, Wright (1994) asked the following questions:
Why no story about how Jews eventually have been despised by every society they entered since the beginning of time? Why no speculation as to a relationship between this and the Talmud and Torah teaching young Jews to lie to, steal from, cheat and even kill filthy gentiles?
His second posting followed up these questions with a number of supposed revelations, found in the Talmud, about how Jews view their gentile neighbours and how they are taught and even commanded to commit the actions mentioned above. In Canada, Wright would probably have been charged with a violation of the "Hate Laws;" in the U.S., Wright was more or less ignored on the Internet except for a few vigorous responses.
The last of these examples is the worst, in terms of the degree of extreme hatred and sheer ugliness expressed. It purports to represent the views of something called OEM, Organization for the Execution of Minorites [sic] and lists about a page of unbelievably crude, offensive, and racist so-called "nigger" jokes, followed by very violent, threatening doggerel, none of which will be reproduced here. A name is attached to the posting, Vincent Allen Krause at the University of Michigan (Krause 1994), but there is some question about whether or not any sane individual would actually attach his real name to such a posting. In fact Mr. Krause has denied his involvement and awaits an investigation at the University of Michigan to clear him. It appears that the violence expressed here goes beyond speech, as it talks about using a shotgun to inflict untold damage, burning, crushing, performing castration, and blasting with a 44 magnum. This posting was sent to several newsgroups including alt.censorship, the haven of choice for some of the worst products of the human imagination. However, upsetting this posting is, it must be considered speech and therefore protected, unless its call to commit violence can be proven to go beyond protected speech. U.S. law in this area currently rests on the Supreme Court 1969 decision in the Brandenberg case (Kadie 1994e):
In the 1969 case of Brandenberg v. Ohio, the Supreme Court struck down the conviction of a Ku Klux Klan member under a criminal syndicalism law and established a new standard: Speech may not be suppressed or punished unless it is intended to produce 'imminent lawless action' and it is 'likely to produce such action.' Otherwise, the First Amendment protects even speech that advocates violence.
The system administrators at the University of Michigan in responding to complaints, of which there will be many, may choose to remove or suspend the computer privileges of the named individual, given that he actually made the posting. It is interesting that many respondents have simply said that anyone can post anything they wish, whenever they wish, wherever they wish. Free speech, in their opinion, is unrestricted, an unrealistic position given that such a situation does not obtain in the real world, beyond the Internet. If devotees of electronic networks wish to have rights equal to other media, they cannot realistically demand more rights.
The new newsgroup "alt.recovery.catholicism" is illegal in many countries. Italy, Brazil, Spain, Ireland (Republic), Portugal, and several predominantly Catholic countries have demand [sic] its removal.
With respect to the benefits of the emerging "Global Village," Rosenberg (1993, p. 292) makes the following point:
One of the main virtues of networks like Internet is that they are international; transmissions are sent around the world as easily and quickly as next door. They have altered the way research is carried out, not fundamentally but sociologically. They appear to have reduced time and space and to have forced a confrontation of an aggressive culture with many previously isolated and inward-looking ones. What is open for discussion and debate in the United States is not necessarily fair game elsewhere. In the United States, one important consideration of decisions with respect to the judgment of pornography or obscenity, has been the determination of community standards. For international networks, community standards multiply rapidly to the point that no one can assume to know that what "plays in Peoria" will "play in Dublin." The concept of international standards of good taste begs description.
In this section a number of disparate issue will be discussed including the distribution of child pornography over networks and bulletin boards and a recent, interesting Canadian event.
[Re: Online obscenity] In short, you can't constitutionally be convicted merely for possessing obscene material or for distributing obscene material you didn't know about.
[Re: child pornography] For all practical purposes, the law of child pornography is wholly separate from the law of obscenity . . . child porn laws are not aimed at expression at all. Instead, they are designed to promote the protection of children by trying to destroy a market for materials, the production of which requires the sexual use of children. . . In sum, then, the child porn statutes create additional problems for the system administrator who wants to avoid criminal liability and minimize the risk of a disruptive search and seizure.
The Canadian law in this area is more stringent than in the U.S. In fact, the U.S. Supreme Court has "agreed today to decide whether the Federal law against child pornography requires the Government to prove that those who distribute or receive sexually explicit films or photographs of minors are aware that the performers are not adults" (Greenhouse 1994). In 1992, a Federal appeals court ruled "that because the Federal law does not require proof of such knowledge, the law violates the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech." Greenhouse further notes that "Under Supreme Court precedents the First Amendment bars obscenity convictions without proof that the defendant is aware of the character of the obscene material." Thus system administrators may be better off not trying to track down and expunge all "obscene' material. For this purpose, being considered a bookstore is better than being a newspaper or broadcasting company.
If the above issues are not troublesome enough, another one has created a deep concern in the public at large. On a regular basis, reports appear of the use of BBs by child molesters, who establish initial contact with unsuspecting children, typically boys, and then over time gain their confidence to the point that personal meetings follow. For example, the following story is illustrative (No Contest Plea . . . 1994):
A Santa Clara prosecutor says a Cupertino man pleaded no contest to charges he used a computer bulletin board to contact a 14-year-old boy with whom he later engaged in sadomasochistic sex. . . Santa Clara County Sheriff's Department investigators say Deatherage, a computer engineer, met the 14-year-old boy through a computer bulletin board and arranged to meet him.
How common such occurrences are is unknown, but they are frequent enough to create a sense of danger associated with BBs. Parents are sure to monitor their children's activities, because in addition to stories of lurking child molesters, stories of the ready availability of pornography are also prevalent. Given that parents are already concerned with books, magazines, television, and video, the extension to computer BBs is neither surprising nor a major burden. Note that another area of concern is video games for which both sex and violence have become highly publicized issues. Having children, usually boys, inflict various degrees of violent actions on scantily clad women, is disturbing to say the least. Finally, the emergence of pornography on interactive CD-ROMS is yet another indication of how intimate the relationship between sex and technology is (See Tierney 1994).
As expected, a tidal wave of postings flooded such newsgroups as alt.wired, alt.censorship, comp.org.eff.talk, and alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk. The majority condemned Canada for its apparent violations of free speech, compared its behaviour to the common acts of repressive countries, quoted unfavourable American newspaper articles about the ban, offered access to archives in the U.S. devoted to Teale/Homulka lore, and generally portrayed Canada as having betrayed the basic principles of a free and open democracy, to say nothing of its stupidity in attempting to enforce such a ban, given the pervasiveness and power of world wide electronic networks, especially the Internet. Although students at the University of British Columbia had reported purchasing copies of the April issue of Wired attempts by the author to do the same were futile. Reports appeared that copies were available in eastern Canada with the offending page torn out. Finally a copy was purchased on April 8, with a 2" diameter green sticker on the cover bearing the words: "Material in this Issue is BANNED in Canada." The article on page 28 appeared in its entirety except for a black sticker, with white text, that concealed about 5 lines. The text of the sticker is given as follows:
Information in this article has been removed to conform with a Canadian court ban. For a discussion of censor-ship issues, check out WIRED Online.
See page 115 for addresses.
22 words were censored. These will not be included here. Wired presumably incurred costs of about $50,000 in pulling the magazine and covering up the offending words. At the cost of spending too much space on this event, a few additional remarks will be offered. At almost the same as this story was being reported the following appeared in a local newspaper (Blackwell 1994): "Meanwhile, Niagara Region police say Karla Teale, expected to be a witness in her husband's case, will be kept in a special cell at police headquarters in St. Catherines during Paul Teale's preliminary hearing." As far back as December 2, 1993, the following information was available (Platiel 1993): "Ms. Homulka was convicted in July [1993] of two counts of manslaughter and sentenced to 12 years in prison." A number of facts could be inferred from this information that would be related to the censored material, but no more will be said in print.
Two fundamental principles, namely free speech and the right to a fair trial, have once again collided. The judiciary, with the Kovacs publication ban, has once again favoured the right to a fair trial, and has argued that the ban will be lifted shortly after the trial. Thus, free speech is not being banned merely postponed, although there is a perception that certain details will never be made public. Most Canadians are still in the dark about the details of Carla Homulka's trial because of the ban, but many thousands, with access to the Internet know the complete story, in spite of the best efforts at many universities to prevent access. Is there a lesson in all this? Perhaps, that it is and will continue to be impossible to control information. It is contradictory, in the same breath, to attempt to control information and to advertise the wonders to be brought by the "Information Superhighway." The issue is being forced, and rearguard actions notwithstanding, the global dissemination of information will render practical efforts to control information mute.
One last point: Wired is not unique; "The British edition of Elle Magazine is being pulled from Toronto store shelves beacuse of fears it ignored the ban on reporting details of Karla Homulka's manslaughter trial. R. M. Distribution which supplies Elle to stores in the Toronto area, is pulling the magazines on the advice of its wholesaler, said spokeswomen Melissa Boscariol" (Jones 1994b).
System administrators and BB sysops (pardon the cyberspeak) regularly face the need to make compromises between their responsibility to provide adequate services to their users and clients and their concern that their systems are carrying possibly offensive and even illegal information. In this regard, they share the ongoing concerns of broadcasting and print editors and publishers. However, there are differences in that while personal property, consisting of books and magazines, is normally not open for inspection, computer files can be examined at the discretion of system administrators. Another important factor, a social but not a legal one, is the frontier mentality of the Internet. This global culture, barely ten years old, originating in the U.S. and still infused with U.S. values, is adamant in its support of an absolute interpretation of U.S. civil rights - free speech, privacy, the right to purchase and own guns without government interference, and of course the unrestricted right to participate in the Internet and to make full use of the available resources.
Thus whenever a collision occurs between these and other rights and events anywhere in the world, the Internet culture springs into action, denouncing the violators and mobilizing opposition. Local, fairly narrow actions may be highlighted and their visibility so raised that minor, relatively harmless events assume temporary importance. Initiators may be embarrassed and victims castigated for their passivity and implicit compliance. Of course, there are situations for which this spotlight plays a beneficial and transforming role - witness the 1989 events in Tiananmen Square in Beijing, during which communications instantaneously appeared over the Internet. Short of cutting off world wide communication links, no event will go unreported. Local containment may be an option but even this choice will not go unnoticed. The conclusion is clear: information is almost impossible to control.
The implications for government, the legal system, educational institutions, and others is less clear. But for very practical reasons, any attempts to limit access to information will likely be doomed to failure and may have the side effect of bringing the "offending" institution into disrepute. An open information policy that in general eschews prior restraint and relies on the after the fact impact of the controversial information upon which to take action, may be the preferred policy. It is not without risk and should not be seen as a panacea. Thus, at universities, instead of restricting access to certain newsgroups or searching student files (and rarely those of professors) because of concern with pornographic material, a better approach, as advocated here and elsewhere, is to establish an atmosphere of collegiality and awareness, not through injunction, but through education and a demonstration of the benefits of an open and equitable environment. If unfortunate incidents do occur, and they will, sexual harassment procedures may be employed as well as other appropriate institutional and legal sanctions.
The concluding paragraph to Rosenberg (1993, p. 322) seems an appropriate way to conclude this paper as well:
We find ourselves at the beginning of an age of world-wide networks. Up to now, the operating rules have been largely self-imposed and behavior has been self-regulated. However, as financial opportunities are recognized by the major communications companies and information providers, the control of networks, or many of them, will be assumed by these private corporations. They will establish the rules and the costs, as have such companies as Prodigy and CompuServe. Whatever the future holds, it is necessary to defend free speech, open access, and a fair and equitable environment. This article has discussed a variety of issues associated with pornography, censorship, and free speech and a way has been proposed to deal with material that may be sexually offensive, namely sexual harassment procedures coupled with an ongoing educational program. How well this putative solution works remains to be seen but all of us in the network community must demonstrate an active interest in maintaining a real community of trusting and trusted users.
Calling itself the Citizens Coalition for Responsible Government, the group made the offer late last week through an international computer-network bulletin board. (Homulka information . . . 1994)
The Homulka - Bernardo Murders; The Government of Ontario in Canada does not want you to read this media release.
The Ontario socialist government of Premier Bob Rae has ordered a court publication ban on the trial proceedings of Karla Homulka and her husband Paul Bernardo who are accused of the most heinous murders in Canadian history. . .
It is the government of Ontario's intention to hold Bernardo's trial after this falls [sic] elections and avoid any public electoral responsibility. The Citizens Coalition for Responsible Government accuses the government of Ontario of a cover-up, the details have been attached. (An87679 1994)
Blackwell, Tom. 1994, March 24. Defense, prosecution lawyers clash as Teale hearing slated. The Vancouver Sun , p. A4.
Calamai, Peter. 1994, Jan. 23. Universities Kowtow to Big Brother. Ottawa Citizen , Editorial page. (Also posted on alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk , January 26, 1994. Freedom in Ontario. Message-ID: <CK9295.82J@freenet.carleton.ca>.)
Cosentino, Victor J. 1994, March. Virtual Legality. Byte . p. 278.
Dulcey, M. 1994, March 24. Re: WiReD Magazine - Banned in Canada. As posted on alt.wired. Message-ID: <mdulcey.764536138@BIX.com>.
Godwin, Mike. 1994, March/April. The Law of the Net. Sex and the Single Sysadmin: The Risks of Carrying Graphic Sexual Materials. Internet World. pp. 56-62.
Gooderham, Mary. 1994, Feb. 5. College Drives Sex Titles off Info Highway. The Globe and Mail . p. A1.
Greenberg, Alan. 1994, Jan. 20. Re: Decision made to arbitrarily censor Usenet at McGill. As posted to alt.censorship, alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk , and can.general.. Message-ID: <16F44F572S85.ALAN@VM1.McGill.CA>.
Greenhouse, Linda. 1994, March 1. Supreme Court to Consider '77 Child Pornography Law. The New York Times. p. A8.
Holderness, Mike C. 1994, Jan. 10. SUMMARY: Harassment on the Net survey. As posted on comp.org.eff.talk . Message-ID: <2gscfj$p46@swan.doc.ic.ac.uk>.
Homulka information for sale. 1994, April 11, The Globe and Mail , p. A4.
Jones, David. 1994a, Jan. 18. U of Toronto (Scarborough) introduces drastic computer policy. As posted on alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk . Message-ID: <2hhrs5$3ne@ghost.McRCIM.McGill.EDU>.
________. 1994b, March 27. There's more! British edition of "Elle" banned in Canada. As posted on alt.censorship. Message-ID: <2n5go1$3nk@ghost.McRCIM.McGILL.EDU>.
Jones, Douglas W. 1994, April 7. Re: 'Serdar Argic': Racist remarks? Defamation? Supply info . . . As posted on alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk . Message-ID: <2o145r$br8@nexus.uiowa.edu>.
Kadie, Carl M. 1992a, June 5. Last year U. Waterloo restored as a.s.b. Posted on alt.sex. Message-ID: <1992Jun5.020530.12305@eff.org>.
________. 1992b, Oct. 20. Ontario does/doesn't ban material at universities. As posted on alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk , soc.culture.canada , and other newsgroups. Message-ID: <1992Oct20.181236.15507@eff.org>.
________.1994a, Feb. 3. Obscenity - Waterloo focused on medium rather than message. As posted to alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk . Message-ID: <2irpui$aga@eff.org>.
________. 1994b, Feb. 8. Guelph is scanning all incoming mail for Possible Ban Breaks. Posted to alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk . Message-ID: <CKwtwA.9BE@cs,uiuc.edu>.
________. 1994c, March 27. Applying library principles to computers. As posted to a number of newsgroups including alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk and alt.censorship . Message-ID: <2n4n15$d0@eff.org>.
________. 1994d, Feb. 12. McGill U. treating computer media differently than paper media. Posted to alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk . Message-ID: <2jj9rb$jsf$eff.org>.
________. 1994e, April 6. Re: What to do about this guy. As posted to alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk.. Message-ID: <Cnv360.3wF@cs.uiuc.edu>.
Krause, Vincent Allen. 1994, April 6. Nigger Jokes. As crossposted from alt. activism to alt.censorship. Message-ID: <2nt77d$pf2@lastactionhero.rs.itd.umich.edu>.
May, Timothy C. 1994, March 31. This newsgroup is illegal! As posted on comp.org.eff.talk. Message-ID: <tcmayCnJx0A.58A@netcom.com>.
No Contest Plea in Computer Bulletin Board Molestation. 1994, April 6. As posted on clari.tw.computers. Message-ID: <VdeatherageU4A6505pp@clarinet.com>.
'Obscene' Newsgroups Dropped. 1994, Feb. 19. University of Waterloo Gazette . p. 1.
Platiel, Rudy. 1993, Dec. 2. Lawyers argue over Homulka ban. The Globe and Mail . p. A2.
Rosenberg, Richard S. 1993, Oct.-Dec. Free Speech, Pornography, Sexual Harassment, and Electronic Networks. The Information Society 9(4):285-331.
Shallit, Jeffrey. 1994a, Feb. 6. Electronic Frontier of Canada press release. As posted to alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk . Message-ID: <CKtrwB.MKL@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca>.
________, 1994b, April 4. Text of a letter on the library and Canadian publication bans. Posted on the ALAOIF List server (American Library Association Office for Intellectual Freedom).
Somar, Annetta. 1994, March 31. Profs slam McGill search policy. The University of Toronto Varsity. (Also posted by David Jones to alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk on April 3, 1994. Message-ID: <2nnb9p$2cr@ghost.McRCIM.McGill.EDU>.
Syed, Chris. 1994, March 31. Re: Microfilm censored at McMaster University Library. As posted to alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk . Message-ID: <CnJJ82.B8H@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca>.
Tierney, John. 1994, Jan. 9. Porn, the Low-Slung Engine of Progress. The New York Times. Section 2, p. 1.
UBC Report, 1992, Dec. Report of the Task Force on the Appropriate Use of Information Technology, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada. (Copies of the report and appendices may be obtained by contacting Shirley Marcus: phone: (604) 822-6122; e-mail: marcus@unixg.ubc.ca).
Wright, Lane. 1994, March 21. Who Controls "60 Minutes"? As posted to alt.censorship . Message-ID: <9403212018.A6252wk@banished.com>.
Yerxa, Shawn W. 1994, Jan. 30. Canadian University Deleting files. Posted on alt.censorship. Message-ID: <CKGJtH.Azp@freenet.carleton.ca>.