NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #18/NN_1992_18.iso/spool/alt/comp/acadfre/talk/2668

Text File | 1992-08-22 | 29.3 KB | 776 lines

Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Path: sparky!uunet!usc!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!eff!eff-gate!usenet
From: [e-mail] (OU.PHRONTIZEI)
Subject: RE: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Originator: [e-mail]
Sender: [e-mail]
Nntp-Posting-Host: eff.org
Organization: EFF mail-news gateway
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 16:07:08 GMT
Approved: [e-mail]
Lines: 762

so far as I can tell academic computing @iubacs has
always been very respectful of freedoms...
e.g. the endless discussiions on how NOT to censor the VAXforum....


From:    PO1::"[e-mail]" 21-AUG-1992 15:45:21.65
To:    [e-mail]
CC:
Subj:    Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)


Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Fri Aug 21 16:33:10 EDT 1992

[For information on how to get a much smaller edited version of the
list, send email to [e-mail]. Include the line:
   send acad-freedom caf
- Billy ]

In this issue:

[e-mail] : Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
[e-mail] (Car : Re: Any info on Indiana U
[e-mail] (Jim : Limiting religious speech
[e-mail] (Car : Re: Limiting religious speech
[e-mail] : (news.admin.policy) Re: copyright == illegal 5312 send tal
[e-mail] : Re: Limiting religious speech
David O Hunt <dh4j : Re: Limiting religious speech
[e-mail] : Re: Limiting religious speech
saul [e-mail] : Re: Limiting religious speech
bernman@symphony.c : Re: Limiting religious speech
[e-mail] : Re: Limiting religious speech
CAROL%MDLIB.DECNET : RE: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch ed
[e-mail] : Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
[e-mail]. : Re: Limiting religious speech

The addresses for the list are:
    [e-mail]     - for contributions to the list
        or    [e-mail]
    [e-mail]    - for automated additions/deletions
                (send email with the line "help" for details.)
    [e-mail]    - for administrivia

-------------------

From: [e-mail] (Chris Lewis)
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 20 Aug 92 04:00:56 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <3kfyzf#@rpi.edu>
Followup-To: news.admin

In article <3kfyzf#@rpi.edu> [e-mail] (Jim Ault) writes:
|In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Peter da Silva) writes:
|   In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jennefer Anne Laidley) writes:
|   >And what kind of truth do you propose we counter lies with?  Who's
|   >truth? And who is to determine which truth is truly true?

|   The reader or listener. Everyone has to decide their own truth, and they
|   can only do that when there's nobody else filtering their information flow
|   for them.

|Except of course for the only moral absolute of Usenet:  Censorship is wrong.

I musta missed the vote.  On the other hand, is there a guideline
posting that shows how to vote on morals?
--
Chris Lewis; [e-mail]; Phone: Canada 613 832-0541
Psroff 3.0 info: [e-mail]
Ferret list: [e-mail]
-------------------

From: [e-mail] (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Any info on Indiana U Admin?
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (NNTP News Poster)
References: <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 14:17:20 GMT

[e-mail] (Greg Lindahl) writes:

>I hate to interrupt the flamewars, but UVa just hired Polley McClure,
>who was most recently the dean of academic computing at Indiana U.
>Anyone have any comments on her view on news, irc, and other such
>topics? Email would be fine.

One way to try to answer such questions is to do a full text search on
the CAF archive. (I did this. Polley McClure isn't mentioned. Not
incidents have been reported at Indiana U.)

Anyone who can ftp to eff.org can also do a fuzzy full text search on
the CAF archive using "wais".

If you already know what WAIS is, here is the comp-acad-freedom.src
record:

(:source
   :version  3
   :ip-address "192.88.144.4"
   :ip-name "wais.eff.org"
   :tcp-port 210
   :database-name "comp-acad-freedom"
   :cost 0.00
   :cost-unit :free
   :maintainer "[e-mail]"
   :description "Files relating to the Computers & Academic Freedom lists.

Includes computer usage policies, bibliographies, archives of old
discussion, and much more.
"
)

Some popular wais programs (clients) include "swais" and "xwais".
Your site may already have these installed. If not, you can
access a client at Thinking Machines via telnet. Just telnet
to quake.think.com. Login as "wais".

In addition to the "comp-academic-freedom" server, there are servers
for recent Supreme Court decisions, for FAQ's, for EFF, for the bible,
etc, etc.

Here is some additional information from alt.wais.

- Carl

=====================================
>From: [e-mail] (Brewster Kahle)
>Newsgroups: comp.infosystems.wais,alt.wais
>Subject: Re: WAIS FAQ part 0 of n: getting started
>Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
>Date: 8 May 92 23:04:35 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Martti Tolvanen) writes:

   Path: think.com!ames!olivea!uunet!mcsun!news.funet.fi!hydra!klaava!tolvanen
   From: [e-mail] (Martti Tolvanen)
   Newsgroups: comp.infosystems.wais,alt.wais
   Date: 6 May 92 14:07:34 GMT
   References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
   Organization: University of Helsinki
   Lines: 6
   Xref: think.com comp.infosystems.wais:4 alt.wais:731

   Where does one find the WAIS client that runs under UNIX (related to GNU
   Emacs?)

   --
   Martti Tolvanen, Dept. Biochem., Univ. Helsinki, Finland
   [e-mail]


it is in the unix release:


       New Unix Internet Release (Beta 3 Release) Available
                September 16, 1991

Thank you for the interest in WAIS.  The servers on Quake (including the
directory of servers) has 70k requests from over 1100 different hosts all
over the world (18 countries) in a couple of months.  There are now 70
servers including one in Norway, one in Australia, poetry, recipies,
comp.sources, as well as a Connection Machine serving all sorts of things.

There are are a few mailing lists on this subject that you might want to be
on:
    wais-interest: only announcements like this (1 a month or so)
    wais-discussion: moderated mailings every 1 or 2 weeks.  Good
            stuff including all on wais-interest.
    wais-talk: unmoderated for implementors and interactive discussions.
Requests to wais-<foo>[e-mail].  Archives available from
wais server: wais-discussion or anonymous ftp from quake.think.com.

A bibliography of available written materials and resources is available
from /pub/wais/wais-discussion/[e-mail] (ftp) or
WAIS server wais-discussion-archive.src, or on request from [e-mail].

Jonathan Goldman pulled the most recent release together (with help from
developers all over the world, see below):
Highlights of modifications (see the release for the full report)
    Overall: make it more portable, and small enhancements
Thank you to all that have contributed bug reports and suggestions.  There
are no concrete plans for the next release.

Overview of components:
In this release is source code for:
 * Server code:  There is code to index text and picture files.
 * Protocol code: based on Z39.50-1988 using the internet.
 * Clients code: User interfaces for contacting servers
    * GNU emacs interface
    * simple shell interface
    * Mac interface (in separate WAIStation file)
    * tool kit for making your own interfaces
    * X interface
 * Directory of servers: This is be a network service that lists
    existing servers and how to contact them.
 * A Connection Machine server with some patent information, the CIA
    factbook, and some Biomedical abstracts, info-mac, risks, etc
    to serve as example servers.

Other components available elsewhere:
 NeXT release:     /wais/[e-mail]
 Telnet access: telnet quake.think.com login wais
 DOS:         /pub/wais/UNC/wais-dos*@samba.oit.unc.edu
 Motif:     /public/wais/[e-mail]
 IBM RS6000:    /pub/misc/[e-mail]
 SunView:     /pub/wais/sunsearch.src.*[e-mail]
 VMS:         pub/wais/UNC/vms-client

The public servers that are currently advertized are:

Biology:
 biology-journal-contents.src
 biosci.src             Molecular-biology.src

Usenet and internet archives:
 comp.graphics.src        comp.admin.src
 comp.db.src            comp.emacs.src
 comp.multi.src            comp.archives.src
 rec.pets.src            comp.sources.src
 usenet-science.src
 user-contrib-cookbook.src     usenet-cookbook.src
 homebrew.src
 info-mac.src             sun-spots.src

Frequently Asked Questions:
 NeXT.FAQ.src             unix.FAQ.src
 ibm.pc.FAQ.src            mac.FAQ.src

Connection Machine info:
 CM-applications.src
 CM-tech-summary.src
 CM-fortran-manual.src         CM-paris-manual.src
 CM-star-lisp-docs.src        CMFS-documentation.src

Books:
 jargon.src
 bible.src            koran.src
 sample-books.src
 MIT-algorithms-bug.src     MIT-algorithms-exercise.src
 MIT-algorithms-suggest.src

Libraries:
 online-libraries.src
 tmc-library.src

Misc:
 open_systems_calendar.src    matrix_news.src
 astro-images-gif.src         astro-images-fits.src
 nsf-bulletins.src
 midi.src
 unimelb-research.src (Australia!)
 supreme-ct.src
 NIH-Guide.src
 UNTComputerDoc.src
 US-Gov-Programs.src
 UiO_Publications.src (Norway!)
 cosmic-abstracts.src        cosmic-programs.src
 directory-of-servers.src
 eff-documents.src        eff-talk.src
 empire.src             empire20.src
 internet-documents.src        internet-drafts.src
 internet-resource-guide.src    internet-rfcs.src
 patent-sampler.src
 poetry.src
 risks-digest.src

 sample-pictures.src
 unix-manual.src
 wais-discussion-archives.src    wais-docs.src
 wall-street-journal-sample.src
 weather.src
 world-factbook.src


The first "Digital Librarians", I think it would be safe to say are the
maintainers of these servers:
    [e-mail]
    [e-mail]
    [e-mail]
    [e-mail]
    [e-mail]
    [e-mail]
    [e-mail]
    [e-mail]
    [e-mail]
    [e-mail]
    [e-mail]
    [e-mail]
    [e-mail]
    [e-mail]
    [e-mail]
    [e-mail]
    [e-mail]
    [e-mail]
    [e-mail]
    [e-mail]
    [e-mail]

The release is available from Think.com via anonymous FTP in
/public/wais/wais-8-b3.tar.Z and WAIStation-0-62.sit.hqx.

Bugs to [e-mail] or to me.

For the bug fixes, thanks to:
Garrett A. Wollman <[e-mail]>
Simon E Spero <[e-mail]>
<[e-mail]>
[e-mail],
Michael Haberler ([e-mail]) and to
[e-mail] for bug fixes to the last release.


-brewster and the wais crew

"Paper and flesh are fleeting media for the treasures that are ideas."

Brewster Kahle                    Thinking Machines Corporation
[e-mail]                1010 El Camino Real
Project Leader                    Menlo Park, CA 94025
Wide Area Information Servers            415-329-9300x228
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
 =[e-mail], [e-mail] =
-------------------

From: [e-mail] (Jim Ault)
Subject: Limiting religious speech
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Followup-To: alt.censorship
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 15:16:34 GMT


Ok, here's a question for anti-censorship people:

How many of you are dismayed at the recent Supreme Court ruling in
Lee v. Weisman, which held prayer at graduation ceremonies
unconstitutional?   If this isn't stifling free speech, what is?

Let's all raise our voices and demand that this be overturned.

Right?

Jim Ault, ITS Systems Programmer, [e-mail]    <><
-------------------

From: [e-mail] (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Limiting religious speech
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Followup-To: alt.censorship
Sender: [e-mail] (NNTP News Poster)
References: <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 15:51:40 GMT

Mr. Ault directed follows to alt.censorship (IMO, a good idea),
without mentioning it (IMO, a bad idea).

- Carl



--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
 =[e-mail], [e-mail] =
-------------------

From: [e-mail] (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [news.admin.policy]  Re: copyright == illegal ????
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 07:14:59 GMT


From: [e-mail] (Jurgen Botz)
Subject:  Re: copyright == illegal ????
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 16:37:29 GMT

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>[e-mail] (Jurgen Botz) writes:
>>Also true, but irrellevant.  I consider the trafficking of copyrighted
>>materials to be morally and legally "wrong" regardless of whether or not
>>someone is going to sue me.
>
>Wow, hold it, right there.
>
>Uptill now I though you were concerned about the legal implications of
>carrying (aledged) copyrighted material. And wether or not you would get
>into trouble with your superiors.
>Now you're saying you find it 'wrong', no matter what ??

Where's the contradiction?  I _am_ concerned about the legal
implications.  I also happen to think that trafficking in pirated
material, be it software or other published materials such as images,
is wrong, i.e. unethical.  There is no contradiction between my being
_against_ piracy, and _for_ USENET being treated as a common carrier.

>[...] Legally you're in the clear, as many have pointed out.

Not quite correct... legally it hasn't been established whether or not
I'm in the clear, but it seems the better judgement to act as if I were
until it is established (hopefully in favor of USENET being a common
carrier).

>Morally, you should not be the one to judge. After all, news is for the
>readers, not just for the administrator. Any censorship would mean
>restricting the free access of your users to the net. I am very much
>against any form of censorship that is based on such subjective views.

Now you're confusing two separate issues... I have every right to let
my personal oppinion about the ethics of the issue be known.  It
seemed to me that the person I was replying to was saying "piracy is
ok so long as you don't get caught," and as I am of a differing
opinion I felt it to be my responsibility to say so.  This doesn't
mean that I feel I have the right or responsibility to _enforce_ my
personal viewpoint of the ethics involved, and if you go back and
re-read my article (<[e-mail]>), you will see that
wasn't suggesting that at all.
--
Jurgen Botz                  |   Internet: [e-mail]
Academic Systems Consultant  |     Bitnet: [e-mail]
Mount Holyoke College        |      Voice: (US) 413-538-2375 (daytime)
South Hadley, MA, USA        | Snail Mail: J. Botz, 01075-0629
-------------------

From: [e-mail] (Robert F Solon)
Subject: Re: Limiting religious speech
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 09:19:36 GMT

In reply to the mail from <[e-mail]>...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Ok, here's a question for anti-censorship people:
>
>How many of you are dismayed at the recent Supreme Court ruling in
>Lee v. Weisman, which held prayer at graduation ceremonies
>unconstitutional?   If this isn't stifling free speech, what is?
>
>Let's all raise our voices and demand that this be overturned.
>
>Right?
>
>Jim Ault, ITS Systems Programmer, [e-mail]    <><
>

Sorry, I'm not dismayed.  The First Amendment says that Congress shall make no
law infringing on the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the the free
exercise of religion, but it also prohibits the government from advocating any
particular religious pratices.  The "Wall of Seperation" between church and
State is a good idea.  Since the Framers didn't construct a hierarchy of
rights, merely an enumeration of some of them, sometimes rights will clash.

More specifically, what were the facts of the case?  I presume the Court
banned prayers at _public_ graduation ceremonies only.  In that case, it seems
there was a clear Establishement Clause violation.  However, let's assume for
a moment that there is a Free Speech issue.  What is it?  The right of the
minister to pray in public?  How does that balance with the right of listeners
to not listen id they so choose?

Without knowing either the specifics of the case, or the reasoning the Court
used to arrive at it's decision, or even the vote tally on the case, I must
lean by default toward saying it was O.K.

Cheers!

Bob



Bob Solon, DITSO-CO-B
Administrative Information Branch -- APCAPS

"We Code, You Explode!!"

-------------------

Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 15:25:38 -0400
From: David O Hunt <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Limiting religious speech
In-Reply-To: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>

> Ok, here's a question for anti-censorship people:
>
> How many of you are dismayed at the recent Supreme Court ruling in
> Lee v. Weisman, which held prayer at graduation ceremonies
> unconstitutional?   If this isn't stifling free speech, what is?
>
> Let's all raise our voices and demand that this be overturned.

If you want to pray at graduation, feel free.  Nobody's stopping it.  The
decision was to prevent _organized_ prayer.  e.g.  Valedictorian says
"Let us now thank the Lord who enabled us to graduate" type of thing.

Same thing with prayer in schools - nobody is saying you can't pray.
What they're saying is that prayer cannot be organized and sanctioned
(purposefully or by default).


David Hunt - Graduate Slave | My mind is my own.          | Towards both a
Mechanical Engineering      | So are my ideas & opinions. | Palestinian and
Carnegie Mellon University  | <<<Use Golden Rule v2.0>>>  | Jewish homeland!
============================================================================
Email:  [e-mail]            Working towards my "Piled Higher and Deeper"

Democracy is based on the theory that the people know what they want...and
they deserve to get it - GOOD AND HARD!
-------------------

From: [e-mail] (Allen R Sparks)
Subject: Re: Limiting religious speech
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 20 Aug 92 22:37:00 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (USENET News System)

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (David O Hunt) writes:
> Same thing with prayer in schools - nobody is saying you can't pray.
> What they're saying is that prayer cannot be organized and sanctioned
> (purposefully or by default).

Hmm... doesn't freedom of speech include freedom of assembly,
organized or not?  Those are the grounds that they still allow the
Elk's Club not to admit women. === Al Sparks
-------------------

From: [e-mail] (Saul Tannenbaum)
Subject: Re: Limiting religious speech
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 21 Aug 92 00:38:41 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Allen R Sparks) writes:
> In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (David O Hunt) writes:
>> Same thing with prayer in schools - nobody is saying you can't pray.
>> What they're saying is that prayer cannot be organized and sanctioned
>> (purposefully or by default).
>
> Hmm... doesn't freedom of speech include freedom of assembly,
> organized or not?  Those are the grounds that they still allow the
> Elk's Club not to admit women. === Al Sparks

Yes. And if those at a graduation or at schoolwish to assemble themselves
and pray, let them.

The issue at hand is prayer, organized by school *authorities* payed for
by your and my tax dollar, and the inherent coerciveness of that situation.

Get it?

    - Saul
-------------------

From: [e-mail] (Bernie Hoefer)
Subject: Re: Limiting religious speech
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 21 Aug 92 02:35:35 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Followup-To: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(David O Hunt) writes:
---
>If you want to pray at graduation, feel free.  Nobody's stopping it.
>The
>decision was to prevent _organized_ prayer.  e.g.  Valedictorian says
>"Let us now thank the Lord who enabled us to graduate" type of thing.
>
>Same thing with prayer in schools - nobody is saying you can't pray.
>What they're saying is that prayer cannot be organized and sanctioned
>(purposefully or by default).
---

    I thought the decision prevents SCHOOL OFFICIALS from
promoting prayer.  A school official cannot ask that a prayer
be said.
    However, does this decision not work both ways?  If
a school official cannot promote a prayer, he or she cannot
discourage it, either.  Would a valedictorian, in his or her
speech, be allowed to say a prayer or give thanks to his or her
god?  Since the valedictorian is not a school official
(he or she not on the government's payroll) it would not be
a case of "government" promoting religion.  But if the school
official tried to prevent the valedictorian from saying anything
about god in his or her speech, would not this ruling be
in favor of the valedictorian?

--
                            /\/B E R N   M A N\/\

"The more I learn, the more I realize how much I do not know..."
-------------------

From: [e-mail] (Lewis)
Subject: Re: Limiting religious speech
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 21 Aug 92 03:56:56 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
    <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
In-Reply-To: [e-mail]'s message of 20 Aug 92 22: 37:00 GMT

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Allen R Sparks) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (David O Hunt) writes:
>> Same thing with prayer in schools - nobody is saying you can't pray.
>> What they're saying is that prayer cannot be organized and sanctioned
>> (purposefully or by default).
>Hmm... doesn't freedom of speech include freedom of assembly,
>organized or not?  Those are the grounds that they still allow the
>Elk's Club not to admit women. === Al Sparks

That's for private organizations.  The problem is the separation of church
and state, and that _PUBLIC_ schools are state-funded.  They're not allowed
to sanction any religion (or group of religions).  Private schools can do
whatever they want.
--
Lewis Tanzos - [e-mail] - [e-mail]
"Under heaven, all can see beauty only because there is ugliness.
 All can know good as good only because there is evil."
-------------------

From: [e-mail]
Subject: RE: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 10:59:00 GMT

     I have been trying for several weeks to get off the list but the listserv
no longer recognizes my e-mail address when I send in my cancellation - in
spite of the fact that it continues to send me mail.
     Please unsubscribe me
     Thanx,
          Carol


=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
%   Carol Fuchs-Halperin      %  BITNET%"CAROL%MDLIB.HUJI.AC.IL     %
%   Collections Development   %                                     %
%     & Systems Librarian     %  Tel: [phone]                %
%   National Medical Library  %  P.O. Box 1172                      %
%               Jerusalem, ISRAEL  91010                            %
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

-------------------

From: [e-mail] (Chris Lewis)
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 21 Aug 92 08:29:00 GMT
References: <3kfyzf#@rpi.edu> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Followup-To: news.admin

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (richard pocklington) writes:

>     Just in case anyone forgot, you should remember what kind
>of a "society" we live in.   The first sentence in the Canadian
>Charter of Rights and Freedoms says
>    "Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize
>     the *supremacy of God* and the rule of law:"

>How do you like them apples?

If you're in a comparing mood, the US Declaration of Independence natters on
about Creators and "natural gods".

And, does the "supremacy of god" have any real effect?  Naw, the
last provincial holdout on school prayers has just abandoned the idea.
Though, some states still have it.

>And to refresh your memories...

>"33. (1) Parliament or the legislature of a province may expressly declare i an Act of Parliament or of the legislature, as the case may be, that the Act or a provision thereof shall operate notwithstanding a provision included in section 2 ..."
>
>and section 2 says...
>
>"2. Everyone has the following freedoms:
>
> (a)freedom of conscience and religion;
>*(b)freedom of thought,belief,opinion and expression,includ-
> ing freedom of the press and other media of communication;*
> (c)freedom of peaceful assembly;and
> (d)freedom of association"

>Anyone want to move out?

Certainly not south.  The Americans have an unwritten "notwithstanding"
clause.  How else could Dr. Alvarez Machain, or violations of due process
in the anti-drug and anti-organized crime laws and other constitutional violations
be upheld?

Besides, if push comes to shove, I imagine that the Supreme Court of Canada
could overrule a "notwithstanding" clause if it was sufficiently silly.
Though, I suppose a difficulty could arise if the government refused to honour
the decision.  On the other hand, there's nothing preventing the US government
from trying the same thing.
--
Chris Lewis; [e-mail]; Phone: Canada 613 832-0541
Psroff 3.0 info: [e-mail]
Ferret list: [e-mail]
-------------------

From: [e-mail] (BRIAN MCBEE)
Subject: Re: Limiting religious speech
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 15:51:39 GMT


From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Limiting religious speech
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 21 Aug 92 08:51:30 PST
References: <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
News-Moderator: Approval required for posting to academic.freedom.talk

In article <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]> writes:
> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
> (David O Hunt) writes:
>>Same thing with prayer in schools - nobody is saying you can't pray.
>>What they're saying is that prayer cannot be organized and sanctioned
>>(purposefully or by default).
> ---
>
>     However, does this decision not work both ways?  If
> a school official cannot promote a prayer, he or she cannot
> discourage it, either.  Would a valedictorian, in his or her
> speech, be allowed to say a prayer or give thanks to his or her
> god?  Since the valedictorian is not a school official
> (he or she not on the government's payroll) it would not be
> a case of "government" promoting religion.  But if the school
> official tried to prevent the valedictorian from saying anything
> about god in his or her speech, would not this ruling be
> in favor of the valedictorian?
>
> --
>                             /\/B E R N   M A N\/\
>
> "The more I learn, the more I realize how much I do not know..."

I suspect that this is one of the basic contradictions in public funding of
schools.  SOMEONE has to decide what is or is not permissable. How do you
reconcile that with freedom of speech and academic freedom issues?  I suspect
that there is no non-contradictory way.  In private schools there is an easy
answer: those who pay the piper get to call the tune.  When we are all forced
to pay the piper through taxation, which of us calls the tune, and which is
forced to pay for something he finds abhorent? I sure don't have an answer.

--

----- Brian McBee ----- [phone] ----- [e-mail] -----
----- Oregon State Library, State Library Building, Salem, OR 97310 -----
Above opinions are mine only.  You can have them if you like.

--------------------
--
|  William W. Arnold | [e-mail] | [e-mail] |
|   Co-moderator: Computers and Academic Freedom Mailing list   |
|          I speak for myself, not {him, her, it, eff}.         |