Interesting People mailing list archives
CMU speech, corrected (fwd)
From: David Farber <farber () central cis upenn edu>
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 1994 18:37:59 -0500
Mike Godwin Speech at CMU My name is Mike Godwin, and I'm a lawyer with the Electronic Frontier Foundation. My organization, EFF, stands for the proposition that freedom of speech must be protected, not only in the traditional media of speech, print, and broadcasting, but also in the vital new medium of computer communications. We are not here merely because we are angry, but also because we are grieving over the imminent death of academic freedom at CMU. This fight is not over yet--they still want to review the alt.sex newsgroups and kill the ones they find most embarrassing. You see, this new medium is ultimately going to become the most important medium for citizens of the United States, and of the world. It is a medium far different from the telephone, which is only a one-to-one medium, ill-suited for reaching large numbers of people. It is a medium far different from the newspaper or TV station, which are one-to- many media, ill-suited for feedback from the audience. For the first time in history, we have a many-to-many medium, in which you don't have to be rich to have access, and in which you don't have to win the approval of an editor or publisher to speak your mind. Usenet and the Internet, as part of this new medium, hold the promise of guaranteeing, for the first time in history, that the First Amendment's protection of freedom of the press means as much to each individual as it does to Time Warner, or to Gannett, or to the New York Times. Of course, the Supreme Court has long held that, at least in theory, freedom of the press applies as much to "the lonely pamphleteer" as it does to the editors of a major urban daily newspaper. But the Net puts this theory into practice. And it is because the Net holds the promise of being the most democratizing communications medium in the history of the planet that it is vital that we prevent the fearful and the ignorant from attempting to control your access to it. That's precisely what is happening here at Carnegie-Mellon. There is a strong sense here that, merely because you are students, and because some of you are minors, CMU must protect you from yourselves. They claim that if they don't cut off all access to these newsgroups, for everyone on campus, they'll not only risk perverting you by exposing you to sexually oriented materials, but they'll also be legally liable. Their claims are wrong. First of all, it's not true that the *only* way to prevent minors from having access to this material is to deny *everyone* access to it. It is clear to me that the administrators haven't explored any alternatives other than the most expensive and infeasible. Secondly, there is little if any risk of legal liability for the University for carrying these newsgroups, since Usenet is so large that no one can be presumed to have knowledge of all the content of Net traffic, and without proof of that knowledge, says the Supreme Court, there can be no liability. And no university anywhere in the country has ever, at any time, been held liable to any degree for carrying the alt.sex newsgroups. Third, the risk that the 17-year-olds who enter this University as freshmen are unfamiliar with the materials that are carried in these newsgroups is exceedingly low. Remember, we're talking about high-school graduates here! I submit that if any entering freshmen haven't encountered material that deals with human sexuality before now, CMU has an affirmative duty to expose them to it. Some members of the University staff have been reluctant to hear these arguments. When I spoke yesterday with attorney Jackie Kastelnik of the University's legal office, she asked me how I got interested in this case. I told her that I had been contacted by several concerned CMU students. At that point she told me that she was not interested in debating me or being informed about the legal issues involved. But she did say this much to me: "So what if the risk is low! We don't want to be a test case!" To which my response is this: CMU, your lawyers have forgotten the meaning of the Constitution they have sworn to uphold. Indeed, it's ironic that an institution that focuses so much on memory--of our sciences, our knowledge, our traditions, our values--has displayed so much forgetfulness about the meaning of a University, and has been so inconsistent in deciding what they want you to remember. Remember, before you expressed your concerns, they were ready to kill any newsgroup that dealt with sexual material. They wanted you to remember the meaning of the Periodic Table, but they wanted you to forget that the chemistry between lovers is one of the most beautiful things we know. They wanted you to remember the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, but they hoped you forget that the fundamental fact of human sexuality shapes our entire existence. They wanted you to remember safety in the lab, but they wanted you to forget alt.sex.safe. They wanted you to remember the poetry of Dante and Shakespeare and Shelley, but they wanted you to forget that human sexuality, which often inspired these poets, is equally the inspiration of those who write stories and poems for rec.arts.erotica. It's very clear that this university is all-too- willing to seek a relationship with the Department of Defense, but all-too-unwilling to defend your online discussion of sexual relationships. This is ironic, since this university is ostensibly training you to function as adults in this society, yet it has insisted on treating you like children. I've talked about what CMU wants you to forget--now let's talk about what they have forgotten. They've forgotten that the Constitution presumptively protects speech and expression about sexual matters, even when that speech and expression may be offensive. They've forgotten that the Constitution does not allow governments to ban sexual expression for adults merely because there is some risk that children may see it. They've forgotten that, when it comes to the Bill of Rights, what you don't use, you lose. The First Amendment is a terrible thing to waste. As we can see from yesterday's election results, we're living in a conservative era. But the issue at stake here is not one that should divide liberals and conservatives, who have always shared a belief in the importance of individual liberty. In particular, conservatives should insist that CMU not alter its principles in the face of pressure from what may well be a paternalistic government. But of course it's worth remembering that there has been no such pressure yet. The University has been misleading you as to the risks of carrying this material. And it may be misleading you as to its motives. I strongly suspect that the real reason the Administration tried to yank these newsgroups is that it is embarrassed by them. I spoke with a member of the Administration this morning, and he told me that the University doesn't want to have to defend carrying sexually explicit materials--it's ironic that such a highly educated group is afraid that it won't find the words necessary to defend discourse about a central aspect of the human condition. If they lack courage, it's up to you to supply it. Tell the CMU Administration that you came here with the expectation that CMU would live up to the highest principles of academic freedom. Tell them that you expect them to fight as strongly for your freedom of speech and freedom of inquiry as the administrations of Harvard or MIT would. As Arsenio says, "It's time." Time to remind CMU about the meaning of freedom. And time to tell them once and for all: "No more censorship!" I urge you not to accept it when the authorities tell you that CMU, as a private institution, is not bound by the First Amendment, and therefore can do anything it likes. This is, of course, quite true, but the issue has never been what CMU is permitted to do--instead, it's been what CMU *should* do if they are to sustain a commitment to academic freedom. This morning I spoke with a member of the Administration who told me at least twice during our talk that he is a teacher and admirer of James Joyce's ULYSSES--also one of my very favorite books--so he understands the issues raised one someone tries to ban works based on their purported obscenity. When I heard this from him, I felt sad-- how could he possibly have missed the lessons we learned in this society when books like ULYSSES, TROPIC OF CANCER, and LOLITA were litigated in the courts? It's very easy, I think, to proclaim that you understand the issue of obscenity because you're willing to defend a book that was vindicated half a century ago. What he doesn't seem to realize is that *this* fight--the one about online freedom of speech--is the one that matters now.
Current thread:
- CMU speech, corrected (fwd) David Farber (Nov 11)