(This article, written by Prabhakar Ragde, appeared in the UW Faculty of Mathematics Alumni Newsletter "Math Ties" in May 1994.)
In January, a memo from the President's office announced a procedure by which Internet computer newsgroups (electronic bulletin boards) containing material that might violate the Criminal Code could be examined by the Ethics Committee, with advice from legal counsel, and possibly removed. Unknown to the university community, such a process was already under way, and the next day, a memo from the Provost's office announced the removal of five newsgroups - alt.sex.stories, alt.sex.stories.d, alt.sex.bestiality, alt.sex.bondage, and alt.tasteless.
The removal means that any material posted to these five groups will not automatically arrive on UW computers, though it remains accessible by an individual making a point-to-point connection to a remote site.This action, and the reaction to it, raises a number of difficult issues which have not received adequate consideration.
It is easy to criticize this decision. First of all, it was made without any call for discussion within the community. The lack of control over the contents of most newsgroups means that illegal material could potentially show up anywhere. The decision is reactive - it was made in response to a complaint - and the history of past attempts to remove similar newsgroups raises the suspicion that possible illegality is merely a convenient excuse.
But if the decision is disturbing, so is the reaction to the decision, both on and off campus. Messages posted to general discussion newsgroups such as "uw.general" in the days following the ban seemed more like a mass howling at the moon than a real attempt to engage the issue. They were replete with cheap sarcasm, reductions to the absurd, ad hominem attacks and the indiscriminate use of "slippery slope" arguments. Phrases such as "censorship", "freedom of speech", and "academic freedom" were used without supporting context.
Even those postings that showed some signs of having been crafted with care tended to focus on legal or technical hairsplitting. Ironically, a newsgroup may not be the best place to conduct a discussion on newsgroup banning. Opinions tend to polarize rapidly, and research has shown that consensus, if it is possible at all, takes much longer to achieve through an electronic medium than by more conventional means.
I think it is a mistake to frame this situation (and many other situations where human beings are in conflict ) as a "clash of rights". If we act as if we all have absolute freedom within a box defined by our rights, and there is a dispute between us, then both of us may go away thinking that our rights have been violated. Basic human rights are a safety net, providing minimal inviolable guarantees. In most situations involving conflict, all parties involved have all their rights, and what is needed is some political resolution, some compromise acceptable to all involved.
One of the great dangers of new technologies is that they are often accepted without much critical scrutiny. Ursula Franklin, in her book "The Real World of Technology", writes: "Many of the political decisions related to the advancement of technology and the provision of appropriate infrastructures are made on a technical level, far away from public scrutiny. But these decisions do incorporate political biases and political priorities which, in a technical setting, need not be articulated. As far as the public is concerned, the nature of the decision, and its often hidden political agenda, becomes evident only when the plans and designs are executed and in use. Of course, at this point change becomes almost impossible." This is exactly what has happened with Internet.
In this case, the perceived inevitability of technological change is being used to justify evasion of responsibility and accountability. Internet can be used to violate obscenity laws, to violate publication bans, to promote racial hatred, to utter death threats, and to casually violate copyright - without any accountability on the part of the possibly anonymous poster, or any responsibility on the part of the passive reader. One hand-washing response seen on the net can be paraphrased as, "We can't do anything about these problems without shutting down Internet."
Ursula Franklin addresses this point in a general context: "Let me emphasize that technologies need not be used the way we use them today. It is not a question of either no technology or putting up with the current ones." There are other alternatives, and we need to find them before the courts, the legislatures, and the people of this country get sufficiently concerned to impose a perhaps imperfect solution.
If I were to try to explain the removal of newsgroups without using technical jargon, it might sound something like this. "Before, the information in question would come automatically onto the University's computers, under arrangement between the University and organizations in other cities. It would stay on file in University computers for a period of time ranging from days to weeks, whether or not anyone wanted to look at it, and then it would automatically be removed. Now, the information has to be brought to the University by an explicit command issued by an individual using a University computer."
Looked at in that light, it seems clearer how the administration, in removing certain groups, is trying to transfer responsibility. That might not hold in a court of law, but it might hold in the court of public opinion, which is what the administration is really concerned about.
Nevertheless, I think this decision is inadequate. There is nothing wrong with considering public opinion - much as we might want to live in cyberspace, we remain citizens of a community and a country, and we have responsibilities to others - but public opinion is but one in a complex set of factors, not all of which have been fully articulated.
I think that a broad-based task force should be set up to work out an acquisitions and review procedure for newsgroups, taking into account academic relevance, local standards, and the image that the University wishes to uphold. The lines should be drawn rather broadly, recognizing that recreation, amusement, and political discussion all have a place on campus. No newsgroup should be exempt from review; all must be justified. This task force, or another one, should initiate a complete review of Internet resources with a view to integrating them into the academic experiences we offer. Internet offers access to resources by means other than newsgroups, and these should also be examined for possible benefits.
UW has the local resources to work out general and long-term solutions to many of these problems. What remains to be seen is whether the will to tackle them exists, and whether constructive dialogue and serious consideration of the complexities of these issues are viable alternatives to a fractious debate over rights.