~Xref: utcsri tor.general:19337 Path: utcsri!utnut!torn!fonorola!inforamp.net!inforamp.net!not-for-mail ~From: bob@inforamp.net ~Newsgroups: tor.general ~Subject: Re: Affordable Internet Providers? ~Date: 26 Jan 1995 22:34:27 -0500 Organization: InfoRamp inc., Toronto, Ontario (416) 363-9100 ~Lines: 9 Message-ID: <3g9pk3$pug@inforamp.net> ~References: NNTP-Posting-Host: cliff.inforamp.net In article , Alan Switzer writes: >Just out of interest, what does InfoRamp charge for an account? 29.95 for 90 hours. No busy signals.no censorship. Bob Richards bob@inforamp.net @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ "Third Stone from the Sun " ~Xref: utcsri tor.general:19331 Path: utcsri!newsflash.concordia.ca!nstn.ns.ca!hookup!relay.tor.hookup.net!campusl!Bruce_Rolston ~From: Bruce_Rolston@UTCampusLife.org (Bruce Rolston) ~Reply-To: Bruce_Rolston@UTCampusLife.org ~Newsgroups: tor.general Distribution: world ~Subject: Net censorship at U of T ~Date: 27 Jan 1995 00:37:48 GMT Message-ID: <1094446879.364686@UTCampusLife.org> Organization: CampusLife - University of Toronto ~Lines: 129 Dear readers and friends, The Varsity, the University of Toronto's student newspaper, is trying something new, here. Due to popular demand, we are reprinting our editorial from the Jan. 19 issue on the net. While this is in response to specific requests for our thoughts on recent net censorship at U of T, we also hope to stimulate thought in people who may have never heard of us. We hope that printing a 900-word editorial here is not an inconvenience for other users. (However, if it's well-received, we could consider posting others to ut.general as they come out.) Non-public comments may be addressed to varsity@campuslife.utoronto.ca. Bruce Rolston Editor The Varsity DOWN THE MEMORY HOLE (The Varsity, Jan. 19/95) In the vast, wide world of communications, in the electronic ether that engulfs us all, there has come to be a place where irrationality is favoured, anarchy embraced, and McLuhan's dicta about media and messages make total, perfect sense. We are, of course, talking about the Internet. Regretfully, this paper has been a latecomer to the net, at once both a marvel of late-century technology and arguably the most significant socio-cultural development to emerge from universities since secular liberalism. But the net is now the form of media most favoured by intellectuals and radicals alike. Through that unique medium, the university ethic of establishing a "marketplace of ideas" has become an electronic project, dwarfing the original ivory towers. All who venture on the net leave it newly marvelling on the diversity of human thought, the value of talking, and the beauty of listening. There is so much good in the net, that even talking about its possible censorship leaves us feeling a little guilty. To take something so pure, so unbridled, as free thought, and then direct what can or cannot be discussed strikes those of us in the computer generation as an offense most foul. (Much like older professors feeling threatened by codes of harassment that limit excesses of lecturing, perhaps.) Still, the courts of this country and others are beginning to do just that. While the case law is still developing, the consensus emerging is clearly that the Internet is not a "cyberspace," or a New Frontier, where laws may not apply. To legalists, it remains a medium, like TV, or (gasp!) the Varsity. And media, unless properly controlled, the judiciary has always told us, can do great damage, to reputations, to respect for the courts, or to public morality. That is why those of us in the media must be mindful of libel laws, contempt laws, obscenity laws, regulations that the lawmakers are now attempting to apply, somewhat haphazardly, to this new medium. Universities, which have enough problems on their hands without challenging the courts too, have gone along. The unique beauty of the net is not their concern; they are just interested in keeping the majority of their cyberspace travellers happy, without spending too much. Thus we see the U of T's net guidelines, prohibiting hate literature, obscenity or other material that violates the law. Not that they go out hunting for it, as one systems operator told us this week, but if those in charge find it, they feel compelled to remove it. Free speech advocates may bridle; but U of T is only being pragmatic. Universities are institutions that benefit from the rule of law for the most part; it makes sense for them not to actively break it. In such a vein, the latest Internet server at U of T, Campuslife, which removed several long messages from (we kid you not) "Abdul the Electronic Gopher," about what the public doesn't know about the infamous Karla Homolka trial. One can make a very good case that banning Homolka details violates the public "right to know,"--a real right, despite what lawyers might say. But until that fight is won in the courts, anyone who abets such material's propagation is a law-breaker. And U of T, for reasons mentioned above, can and should not be. Still, these erstwhile censors could be a little classier about it. The Varsity benefits from an account on Campuslife, which let us see for the first time this week how little accountability there is for these cyber-Bowdlerizers. For, you see, the offending Karla stories weren't just locked, so that nobody but the systems operator could access them. No, they were deleted. Gone. Completely memory-holed. One day they were there; the next they were gone, without even a message stating what had been cut, and why. When we started checking, we found that this was actually the third wholesale deletion of files on Campuslife in the four months it's been operational. We just didn't hear about the first two. Actually, no one did. We would not object to the deletion of files, should a U of T sysop see it as in keeping with the university's official, agreed-upon guidelines on the matter. But we do object, most strenuously, to the utter absence of an explanation. If we are not entitled to judge whether materials are offending ourselves, we should at least know what we were banned from seeing. To do what's apparently being done now, to utterly delete any indication that that file once existed, is to descend into our own little Orwellian nightmare. The university's computer user guidelines "stress responsibility, not censorship." (The U of T Bulletin, Aug. 22). The user's responsibilities, breach of which can lead to serious punishment, are clearly outlined. But those same guidelines, drawn up by a team led by network operations director Eugene Siciunas, say nothing about the sys-op's responsibility to keep the user community informed of their actions, especially their decisions to censor. It is a telling omission. For not only are we judged unequipped to know the details of one sensational murder trial; apparently, we are equally unequipped to know if and when such details have been kept from us. What else has been censored, we wonder? Obscenity? Possibly libellous postings about our professors? Criticism of president Rob Prichard's haircut? Siciunas' guidelines state only hate lit and illegal material is being cut; but HOW DO WE KNOW? Those Rushton-defending eggheads at the Society for Academic Freedom and Scholarship and the Faculty Association have got it wrong. The greatest threat to freedom of expression on this campus isn't the Sexual Harassment or Women's officers. It's the Big Brother sitting on your modem.