____
t.._
The Clackania^jPrint
inion
Wednesday, Ngjpenyer
Restricting e-mail: Censoring the ‘net’ and e-mail
whose job is it?
Brad Zimmerman
Staff Writer
Brendon Neal, Opinion Editor,
Brad Zimitnerman, Staff
Writer
Last week’s mass electronic-
mailing of the letter to the
Clackamas Print and much of
the school staff raised concerns
about the uncontrolled use of e-
mail.
We believe that regulations
should be based on set, pre-de
termined guidelines. Warnings
could then be issued, and repeat
offenders would lose their e-mail
rights.
The actual regulations
should be determined by a com
bination of administratorsand
ASG members. Students and
staff would then vote on the fi
nal draft. A two-thirds majority
should be required for each to
pass. Such a high vote would
weaken claims against the con
stitutionality of any regulations
passed and help insure that they
are fair. Each restriction would
be voted on and failed or passed
individually on its own merits.
Complaints would be fil
tered out by the Computer De-
partment Chair Baldwin
VanderBijl, or if it became too
time-consuming, hire an indi-
vidual to co ver e-mail and
Internet (when it becomes avail
able) problems or complaints.
If the complaints are deter
mined to be legitimate, they
could then be sent to a group of
individuals made up of a combi
nation of members of ASG stu
dent representatives and admin
istrators who would deal with the
situations.
One of the more common e-
mail problems is unwanted mass
mailing, especially e-mail bomb
ing. They waste the readers’
time, because they have to at
least read far enough into the
mail to decide whether to finish
it or not. E-mail bombing.is the
act of sending extremely large
amounts of mail or an extremely
high number of messages to
other account (s). It can also be
used to spread libel. Libel is
defined as a written statement
that dam ages by defamin g a
person’s character or reputation.
E-mail bombs could be
mostly prevented by putting a
limit on the number of copies
sent. Programs can be set up to
limit the number of copies sent
at one time. If someone needed
to mass-mail for a legitimate rea
son, they could get temporary
passwords from school officials
to get around the mass-mailing
block. The school is currently
asking users to limit their
sendings to 10 copies, but they
currently do not have any sys
tem running to stop mass-mail
ing.
The more difficult portion of
regulation would be content. We
are not encouraging censorship,
defined as the act of suppress
ing information deemed objec
tionable; however, if people do
find e-mail sent to them unac
ceptable they need an avenue of
complaint. This could not be
directly policed because the un
wanted action would have to be
done before administrators
would know it was occurring.
Receivers of the unacceptable e-
mail would need to contact the
regulators.
Correspondents using e-
mail need to have a consensus
of what they feel is acceptable.
If we agree that censorship is un
acceptable in the mass form then
users must censor their own mes
sages to each other in order to
keep misunderstandings from
occuring.
While censorship is unac
ceptable, regulation is necessary
to avoid misuse of e-mail. Cen
sorship stops the sending of spe
cific topics; regulations would
only affect e-mail that is com
plained about by the receiver.
Regulations wouldn’t stop mis
use of e-mail, but it would dis
courage senders from misusing
e-mail.
The Clackamas Print Staff
Editor-in-Chief: Chad Patteson (Ext. 2576)
Managing Editor;- Amy K. Hanson (Ext. 2576)
Feature Editor: Jon Roberts (Ext. 2578)
Sports Editor: Jesse Sowa (Ext. 2578)
Photography Editor: Josh Kehler (Ext. 2578)
Copy Editor: Vicki Welch (Ext. 2578)
Opinion Editor: Brendon Neal (Ext. 2576)
Business Manager: Cori Kargel (Ext. 2578)
♦ ♦♦♦
Staff Writers/Photographers:
Eric Eatherton, Dan Anderson, Tim Countryman, Megan
Friedow, Lora Wahrgren, Linda Barr Batdorf, Andrew Beck,
Pamela Sirianni, Ryan Humphris,
Paul Ulmen, Brad Zimmerman
Secretary: JoAnne Gale (Ext. 2309)
Advisor : Linda Vogt (Ext. 2310)
The Clackamas Print aims to report the news in an honest, unbiased,
:ssional manner. The opinions expressed in The Clackamas Print do not
ssarily reflect those of the student body, college administration, its faculty or
Clackamas Print's advertisers. Products and services advertised in The
Clackamas Print are not necessarily endorsed by anyone associated with The
Clackamas Print. The Clackamas Print is a weekly publication distributed
:very Wednesday except for finals week. The advertising rate is $4.50 per col-
All signed letters to the editor will be considered for publication and must
>e submitted by 1 p.m. the Friday prior to the next issue. We will not print letters
hat are libelous in nature.
Clackamas Community College, 19600 S. Molalla Avenue, Oregon City,
Oregon, 97045; Barlow 104; (503) 657-6958, ext. 2309.
E-mail: cccprint@clackamas.cc.or.us
America Online sells itself as
a “family service” - the common
person’s gateway to the wealth of
the Internet; using that image,
AOL has added many members
and made a great deal of money.
In order to keep that revenue com
ing, AOL strives to eliminate dis
cussion, ideas or materials that
interfere with its mission to pro
vide a service with a family envi
ronment.
AOL’s censorship
is based around its
“Terms
of
Service”(ToS), the con
tract that all AOL
members supposedly
agree to when they cre
ate their accounts.
The ToS is a set of
documents that cover a
variety of subjects,
ranging from software
licensing to purchasing
products online to
online conduct. Much of this
agreement is written in legalese
which is not only difficult to un
derstand but also very vague. It
is quite clear, however, that un
der the agreement, AOL is the
sole judge of what is “acceptable”
and what is a “violation” of the
ToS.
The ToS bans many broad
forms of online expression. The
central contract states, “Member
is prohibited from posting on or
transmitting through the AOL
Service any unlawful, harmful,
threatening, abusive, harassing,
defamatory, vulgar, obscene, pro
fane, hateful, racially, ethnically
or otherwise objectional material
of any kind, including, but not
limited to, any material which
encourages conduct that would
constitute a criminal offense, give
rise to civil liability or otherwise
violate any applicable local, state,
national or international law.”
The determination as to what ex
actly fits any of these categories
is entirely up to AOL and its ad
ministrators.
AOL also maintains a list of
words that it considers vulgar.
This list has resulted in even fur-
ther restrictions, due to the fàct
that, besides restriction on sexual
slang, it also restricts words re
ferring to homosexuality.
The most affected by these
restrictive guidelines has been
AOL’s public messaging areas. If
a forum host finds a message un
acceptable, he or she can imme
diately delete the post without
notice. These deletions are sub
ject completely to the whims of
the forum host; objectional words
or conversations can be de
leted without notice. Words
tamer than the ones men
tioned in AOL’s “vulgarity
guidelines” have resulted in
he deletion of posts.
All of this AOL censor
ship should be kept in mind
as the college formulates its
own restrictions on e-mail.
The people who are draw
ing up e-mail guidelines
should keep in mind that
one can easily cross over
the line of “restriction” to
“censorship’’, which is actively
searching (and eradicating) that
which is deemed objectional. The
restriction of e-mail would result
in punishment for what has been
agreed upon as objectionable.
Such actions would not only be
detrimental to CCC’s learning
environment, but to free speech
itself.
Student has concerns
about newspaper pratices
To the Editor:
I am compelled as a student
of'political science and as some
one with eight years experience
editing a community newspaper
to address some of the problem
atic issues raised by your critique
of a recent letter to the editor (The
Clackamas Print, Nov. 8). As an
editor who faced weekly dead
lines, real community issues and
real consequences I am concerned
with the apparent lack of profes
sional quality of the “community”
owned publication. The leader
ship quality seems to be lacking
any true experiential knowledge.
The students operating this pub
lication deserve a clear under
standing of the penalties they face
by exercising faulty judgement in
executing their editorial deci
sions. This understanding will be
critical to their success. Criticism
comes not only from readers but
from publishers, advertisers and
public officials. Public officials
expect professionalism and if they
don’t get it they tend to keep the
journalist “out of the loop.” Fac
ulty advisors who ignore this are
woefully derelict in their respon
sibilities. This general complaint
is based on knowledge I earned
facing the real problems of
newspapering and dealing with
daily issues surrounding civic
government, elitist power back
ers, and the community welfare.
Specifically, I take issue with
the manner and message of your
editorial response. Personal re
sponses to readers are unwise at
best. It demonstrates immaturity
that obscures judgment and ulti
mately damages credibility. The
final judgment made by readers
and advertisers is based on the
credibility and actions of the pub
lication itself. That is, there is
no reason to take criticism per
sonally and there is absolutely no
reason
to
respond
by
deconstructing the reader’s letter.
If the criticism lacks merit, then
you will prove yourself through
your actions. By responding per
sonally, you prove yourself inse
cure and immature. Let reader’s
comments stand alone on their
own merit.
Secondly, if readers bring up
issues they consider important
and you are criticized for ignor
ing these issues, then you must
reevaluate whether or not your
coverage was complete and satis
factory in the first place. Any re
sponse should be made by either
covering the issues raised or not
covering them. By responding in
the manner that you did, you raise
questions rather than answer
them, and the appearance is then
created that you are indeed a
“lapdog” for the administration.
If not a lapdog press you certainly
would not rely on the administra
tion alone for your answers. Dig
ging beyond the pat answers and
locating the truth is the job of
journalists. The heart of any
“free” press is the role it plays as
watchdog.
Thirdly, be careful what you
level as a threat. Asking a legiti
mate question and then suggest
ing that the ACLU might be in
terested in the answer is not a
threat, unless of course, there is
something wrong with the an
swer. In this case, the so-called
threat comes from a citizen de
manding appropriate justification
for use of public funds. There is
nothing at all to fear or feel threat
ened by except your answer to the
question. As journalists, you
should be more concerned with
the answer»and not the questions.
Fourth, don’t bandy terms
like “libel” and “defamation”
around loosely. Above all, never
label or insinuate that a reader’s
criticism of you is libelous or
defamatory. If it was libelous or
defamatory you shouldn’t have
printed it in the first place. The
publication that prints the offend
ingpiece is culpable for any dam
age it causes. It would be argued
that you defamed yourselves.
Additionally, who cares if you
don’fappreciate being called “so-
called” journalists? That is ex
actly what you are until you earn
the respect the title carries. And
Finally, even if the letter was li
belous, you, the publication’s rep
resentatives, are public figures.
You are funded publicly and you
continued on page 3