CMU speech, corrected (fwd)

[David Farber <farber () central cis upenn edu>]

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.