|
|
| Author |
Message |
raven
|
|
Censorship at U of M?
| 
Feb 10 20:02 UTC 1995 |
* Censorship at UM: Jake Baker, who wrote a "sexually violent" story about
a female classmate, with clear disclaimers that it was just a story, and
a poor one at that, and posted it to the alt.sex.stories Usenet newsgroup,
apparently via University of Michigan computers, was summarily suspended
by the University President, James Duderstadt, without a hearing. Baker was
forcibly removed from the campus by police offers with only some clothing,
and forbidden re-entry, despite his being a campus resident.
A student coalition charges that the university seriously violated not
only its own procedures, but also Baker's rights in suspending him.
Duderstadt claimed that baker posed an immediate threat to the female
student, but the student opposition group, Students' Civil Liberties Watch,
noted that the university both claimed Baker was an imminent threat,
yet delayed for over a month before taking any action; when pressed agreed
to hold a (closed) hearing to consider reinstating him, yet also
maintains that he is too dangerous to walk on campus property.
According to a local press summary by Peter Swanson, university
spokespeson Lisa Baker stated, "It's not the policy of the university to
punish people for pornographic messages. There are other issues around
this that I can't discuss", while university law professor and
"constitutional scholar" Catharine Mackinnon has called the issue
one of violence against women rather than one of freedom of speech.
Following attention by the media, the university scheduled a hearing
for Thur., Feb. 9. The hearing will be closed and and Baker has been
denied representation by an attorney, by school policy. The
rammifications of this are particularly serious, since the standard of
proof to be used in the hearing is lower than that in the US justice
system, and any statements made by Baker can be used against him in a
real legal proceeding. According to local articles, Baker is also under
investigation by the FBI on the presumption that his Usenet posting
violated federal anti-obscenity law. [One article referred to a "new
computer-trafficking pornography law", but there is not such law. Cf. the
article on the Exon bill - there may be such a law shortly.]
Both the ACLU and Student's Civil Liberties Watch have criticized UM's
actions, and the ACLU has filed suit regarding the closed hearings and
denial of legal representation. In a previous case, the ACLU found that
the defendant in a hearing was subjected to open ridicule, and a single
university representative acted as prosecurity, mediator and sole
advisor to the jury. Participants in these closed hearings are also
denied transcripts of the proceedings, and even in one open hearing have
been forbidden to bring any kind of recording equipment to the hearing.
Local press have lablelled this system a "kangaroo kourt".
Student's Civil Liberties Watch can be contacted at ethank@umich.edu or
keenan@umich.edu
[Disclaimer: EFF is not in any way supportive of hate speech. However,
we believe that the solution for bad speech is more speech, not censorship.
Sacrificing one right to protect another usually costs the loss of both.]
|
| 139 responses total. |
raven
|
|
response 1 of 139:
|
Feb 10 20:09 UTC 1995 |
Does anyone know how that closedd hearing went yesterday. Other
depressing news in the EFF newsletter includeda new bill in the house
(Exon bill, S314) that would make service providers (ie Grex?)
responsible for the transmission of "obscene" materials.
|
anig
|
|
response 2 of 139:
|
Feb 10 21:35 UTC 1995 |
I don't know anything about policies at U of M except those which I
read here, but I believe arresting this man was totally wrong. What-
ever happened to free speech. This seems to be a direct violation
of his rights so I don't see why he was arrested in the first place.
He was just expressing himself. Needless to say...I don't know how
the hearing went but I would like to know if anyone would know.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 3 of 139:
|
Feb 10 21:39 UTC 1995 |
Did the posting of the article really contain "clear disclaimers that it
was just a story"? Were they of the form "any resemblence to persons
living or dead is entirely coincidental"? I would not think anyone would
post a story containing names without that declaration. It is also
relevant whether the woman named was specified to be the one in a
particular class at a particular time, since there are likely to be many
people in the world with the same name.
|
carson
|
|
response 4 of 139:
|
Feb 10 22:39 UTC 1995 |
power informs me that the article in question was scheduled for reposting
today.
|
helmke
|
|
response 5 of 139:
|
Feb 11 00:59 UTC 1995 |
According to news reports (from Compuserve today), there are some other
guys on the Internet who reported this guy was discussing actually doing
something like what he wrote... Specifically the story[s] involved an
accomplice...
??? interesting story.
|
lfrank
|
|
response 6 of 139:
|
Feb 11 01:39 UTC 1995 |
Ref #3. It really does not matter if it contained the disclaimer or not.
Speech is not equiv to action. Unless he was actually threatening someone
and not just talking about a violent act, I see no excuse for this action.
Sounds like a case of gross over reaction. By the way, "hate speech" is
still "speech" and covered by the first ammendment also. The first ammendment
does not say my speech should not offend, it says the government will not
abridge my right to speak.
|
kentn
|
|
response 7 of 139:
|
Feb 11 03:27 UTC 1995 |
Note also that Baker was arrested by the FBI prior to the UM hearing,
so he was unable to attend. According to today's Freep, the EFF
doesn't see the case as a problem, since they consider the charge as
"pretty much uncontroversial" (the Freep quoting Mike Godwin, a lawyer
for EFF). Doesn't look like Baker will get any help from EFF,
though the ACLU thinks the criminal charges are going too far and
liable to endanger free speech rights.
|
bmoran
|
|
response 8 of 139:
|
Feb 11 04:49 UTC 1995 |
Does anyone know Baker's REAL name?
If a photographer uses someone's image without their permission, isn't
that against the law? Hell, Kerouac had legal problems with his books
until he changed the names. Why should this guy get to flaunt the law?
|
ajarema
|
|
response 9 of 139:
|
Feb 11 06:00 UTC 1995 |
I think he should be cained and barred from being within 50 feet of a
computer. 15 lashes would be about right.
|
steve
|
|
response 10 of 139:
|
Feb 11 06:14 UTC 1995 |
The persons name is Jake Baker. I just fingered him at umich.edu.
While I most definately agree that this guy did a very bad thing,
namely posting a grusome story with a real poersons name attached to
it, I think that would be more of a cival case against him by the
woman who he wrote about, not these other charges.
|
kentn
|
|
response 11 of 139:
|
Feb 11 06:15 UTC 1995 |
Re 8: Jake A. Baker, (he changed his name from Abraham Jacob Alkhabaz,
according to the 2/10/95 Free Press article).
I think what bothers some people about this case is that the govt.
is inferring intent and action from a *fantasy* or fictional account.
The ACLU feels that the proper course of action is for the person
named in this published fantasy to file a civil suit against Baker.
That should be enought to take care of any "flaunting" if I read
the ACLU correctly.
|
kentn
|
|
response 12 of 139:
|
Feb 11 06:16 UTC 1995 |
(response 10 slipped in on my 11)
|
omni
|
|
response 13 of 139:
|
Feb 11 06:32 UTC 1995 |
The FBI says that he mailed a threat across state lines, hence the
arrest. I, for one think that the arrest was entirly appropriate. Free
speech is one thing, but that stuff that he wrote was pure garbage, and
should have stayed on his hard drive. He deserves all he gets.
|
kentn
|
|
response 14 of 139:
|
Feb 11 06:43 UTC 1995 |
Do you have a copy of what he wrote? Can we judge for ourselves?
|
srw
|
|
response 15 of 139:
|
Feb 11 07:06 UTC 1995 |
This is a very intereresting case. He has been charged with a federal
offense of communicating threats via interstate commerce.
Communicating a threat is not protected by the first amendment, so if they
can prove that that is what he did, he may have a problem.
This looks like a big "if" to me.
You definitely cannot prosecute someone for a crime that he describes in
fiction. This issue here is its "threat" value. Naming an individual
makes that a possibility. There appears to be evidence of conspiring,
which adds another dimension.
|
terrysl
|
|
response 16 of 139:
|
Feb 11 07:12 UTC 1995 |
Sounds like more control on the net to me? Whadda ya think eh?
|
rywfol
|
|
response 17 of 139:
|
Feb 11 07:20 UTC 1995 |
I think I'd need to see what he wrote 'exactly' before I even consider stating
an opinion on this. Is it possible for anyone to put it up here?
|
gerund
|
|
response 18 of 139:
|
Feb 11 08:04 UTC 1995 |
Gee, anyone can go read usenet any time of the day if they want 'trash'
like what this person is alledged to have written. If they want to
prosecute him then they probably should be prosecuting most of the
posters to the raunchier alt.sex groups.
|
chetly
|
|
response 19 of 139:
|
Feb 11 08:08 UTC 1995 |
There is a serious 4th amendment issue with respect to the alleged waiver
to
to inspect his computer files. I wonder how they got him to agree to
the search?
|
other
|
|
response 20 of 139:
|
Feb 11 08:30 UTC 1995 |
Bet they scared him silly with bogus threats and then bargained from that
position of strength. That is standard operating procedure of any police
organization. Threaten the penalties of worst possible scenario of full
prosecution. I had a similar tactic tried on me once when I was threatened
with prosecution for "criminal trespass" for standing in the lobby of the
police station. I backed down simply because I didn't want the hassle, even
though I have no doubt I could have had it thrown out of court without
bothering to hire an attorney.
|
mdw
|
|
response 21 of 139:
|
Feb 11 08:54 UTC 1995 |
I don't know the particulars of this case. But *COU, next to last
paragraph, does indeed appear to contain a waiver.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 22 of 139:
|
Feb 11 09:02 UTC 1995 |
I wonder what course this "story" would have followed if he had posted the
"literary work" through an anon service... Many/most people *do* use the
anon service if they wish to post anything that might be disapproved of by
someone they care about. But would they use someone's real name? Would they
dare make veiled threats? Would then the FBI be zealously seeking the
dismantling of anon services? No answers, just musings...
|
chelsea
|
|
response 23 of 139:
|
Feb 11 14:09 UTC 1995 |
There are broad issues of great importance involved here but I do have
concerns that this guy was asking for help for severe emotional problems
when he posted that story. And I fear his getting that help will be lost
in the debate.
|
steve
|
|
response 24 of 139:
|
Feb 11 17:47 UTC 1995 |
Thats a dangerous thought Jim: that because what he wrote was pure
trash, he deserved to get arrested and "deserves all he gets". Since
when is the act of publishing "garbage" itself an arrestable act? What
this twit did that was bad (very bad) was to use an actual persons name.
THAT is bad. But that is a civil matter, between the person vicimized
and Jake Baker.
If it is the case that he was truely engaging in plots to harm
other people, it is of course incredibly more serious. But that has
not been established yet. The fact that the FBI says that is so means
nothing. We need to see the actual email text to verify that.
|