| |
    
|
Students, Staff, the U and the Web Policy
by Alyson-Kathleen Riley
An integral component of every technology is the human factor, the way humans think about, regulate and use their technologies No technology can exist without social or political implications, and recent University of Minnesota policy decisions illustrate the ways in which hard technology is tied to greater social issues. In response to recent government action and proposed legislation, the U recently adopted a WorldWideWeb (WWW) policy that outlined standards for individual and departmental pages supported by University servers. But the policy did not go unquestioned. As U staff and students reexamine their webpages, technology is once again forced into the spotlight of public discourse; issues of freedom of expression, academic responsibility and the role of government are discussed in conjunction with the development of this relatively new technology.
The University
"The initial WWW server was in prototype in December 1993," said Frank Grewe of Central Computing Services (CCS). "Over the course of the first several months, it became clear that the technology was one with a huge future potential for serving the University community." To begin integrating the WWW into campus computing services, Grewe organized the first meeting of the Twin Cities campus WWW Advisory Committee on May 4, 1995. "My motivation for that first meeting was to involve the experts at the University for the design of our Web structure and content," said Grewe.
In a lengthy collaborative effort, CCS technical experts, library personnel, and individuals from University Relations began to orchestrate webpage structure and style for the U. A little under a year later, the committee created system-wide homepages for the University of Minnesota, promoting use of the WWW on campus with the help of Distributed Computing Services (DCS). DCS was also to play an integral role in the next step with the WWW Advisory Committee: The creation of the University's WWW policy.
On September 27, 1995, The Minnesota Daily published the first article in a series that focused on the newly-created University Web policy. The article detailed a university student's negative response to the first version of the policy. The original policy included a clause that mandated placing disclaimers at the top of every individual and departmental homepage and a ban against webpage content that included material or links deemed "offensive" by University administrators. This section of the policy in particular sparked what would become a serious debate campus-wide over issues pertaining to policy semantics, freedom of expression and individual responsibility.
The most visible argument against this Web policy could be found in The Minnesota Daily, which featured a story on October 25 that focused on one professor's claim that the University Web policy at that time was unconstitutional and illegal. One month later, on November 27, the Daily announced that the WWW Advisory Committee had rewritten the University Web policy. The word "offensive" was omitted in favor of less politically volatile wording. Simply put, the new policy states that all University-supported homepages must comply with University policies and all federal, state, and local laws.
So what are the federal, state, and local governments saying about the legal issues connected to the WorldWideWeb? That remains to be seen. There are several proposed amendments to the Telecommuni-cations Bill facing the Senate that will have a profound effect on the University's Internet policies services.
In the summer of 1994, Senator Jim Exon (D-Nebraska) attempted unsuccessfully to pass a Communications Decency Act that would have allowed the federal government to censor online material. After this attempt failed, Exon reappeared the following February to tack his Communications Decency Amendment onto the Telecommunications Bill, equipped with a collection of "obscene" pictures and other materials he had collected through some extensive web-surfing on his own. During this time, Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont) offered counter-legislation that proposed implementing a joint study between the Department of Justice and the Department of Commerce that would research the ways in which users might be able to determine which materials they receive from the Internet, as well as determine to what extent laws are necessary to govern individual behavior in cyberspace. Leahy's proposals were unsuccessful.
On July 14, 1995, the Senate passed Exon's Communications Decency Amendment S.314 to the Telecommunications Bill, mandating fines of up to $100,000 and prison terms of up to two years for individuals found placing "obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy or indecent" material on the Internet. Content deemed "harassing" in nature was also prohibited. In addition, the Federal Communications Commis-sion (FCC) would be given broad powers to regulate the content of the Internet and hold Internet service providers responsible for illegal material posted by their clients.
Once Exon's Amendment reached Congress, however, Speaker Newt Gingrich declared the proposed legislation to be unconstitutional. On August 4, in a 420-4 vote, the House passed the "Internet Freedom and Family Empowerment Act," which barred the FCC from regulating the Internet (and other interactive media) and removed the responsibility from online service providers for Internet content as long as these providers had made "good-faith" efforts to restrict access for minors to indecent or obscene materials. But the House also passed the "Manager's Amendment." Of the 40 miscellaneous amendments contained in this legislation, one applied to Internet use, and made it punishable by law to "intentionally communicate by computer . . . to any person the communicator believes has not attained the age of 18 years, any material that, in context, depicts or describes, in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards, sexual or excretory activities or organs." The Amendment also made receiving such content a criminal act.
In response to this contradictory legislation, freshman Representative Rick White (R-Washington) proposed a new Amendment, "one that works for a global medium." White changed the wording of Exon's original amendment, omitting the word "indecent" and substituting it with "material harmful to children." This limited the law to content published for or accessible to minors. White also included the "good-faith" clause in his Amendment. Under White's proposal, online service providers would not be held legally responsible for violations occurring as a result of client activity provided they meet two requirements. First, the providers must make a "reasonable effort" to prevent minors from viewing harmful material and second, they must attempt to create "parental empowerment technologies" that would allow parents to regulate what material enters their homes via Internet connections.
On Wednesday, Dec. 6, 1995, the House conference committee on the Telecommunications Bill passed the White Amendment in a 20-13 vote, but with some important changes. It allowed for the original $100,000 fine limit and the two-year prison terms for offenders, and rewrote "harmful to children" to read "indecent." Now this metamorphosed White amendment is facing the Senate, awaiting a vote. According to Steve Pizzo of Web Review News, industry sources say that "the measure passed by the committee Wednesday, if signed into law, will create panic among Internet service providers and may cause Universities to restrict student access to the Internet."
"To put this into perspective," said Sharon Grimes, assistant director of University Relations, "you should know that these issues [writing policies] . . . are something that most other colleges and universities are struggling with right now." After having undergone some initial revisions, the U's policy now includes the following:
* All pages that are the electronic equivalent of a publication must
contain the University wordmark and contain the equal opportunity statement.
* All copyright laws apply to electronic pages.
* University-supported web pages may not be used for personal business
or personal gain.
* The following statement must appear on all personal pages and student
organization pages: "The views and opinions expressed in this page are
strictly those of the page author. The contents of this page have not been
reviewed or approved by the University of Minnesota."
It is the following section of the policy, however, that seems to be causing the greatest deal of concern among members of the University community: "Units may create electronic home pages . . . that . . . support . . . the University's mission. Contents of all electronic pages must be consistent with University of Minnesota policies and local, state, and federal laws. This includes links to other pages or computers. In other words, a page may be considered in violation if it contains links to a page that violates the policy."
University administrators have been quick to respond to the issues surrounding the recent implementation of the Web policy. A publicly-accessible University Web site outlines the policy in its entirety and explains the rationale behind policy decisions. The main goal of the policy is to protect the University of Minnesota legally and to set "minimal standards that are meant to ensure that information published electronically is visually appealing and well written and follows the same high standards as other forms of published information."
Administrators recognize that the quality and content of webpages supported by its servers reflect and represent the University as a whole. "I'm happy to see the Web viewed as simply another media for publication and as such subject to the same rules as traditional media," said Grewe. "This 'keeps it simple' for departments and other official groups in determining the approach they use for Web development."
According to Grimes, the University Policy Development Office followed several principles in the construction of the current Web policy. The end goal of the policy was to promote use of the WWW on campus that supports the mission of the University of Minnesota, that encourages freedom of expression and inquiry, that is consistent with all laws and applicable University policies, and that finds a balance between the above three principles.
The official University standpoint on electronic publishing is positive. The policy itself states that the "University of Minnesota recognizes the value and potential of publishing on the Internet, and so allows and encourages students, staff, and faculty to publish electronic information." The goal of the policy is not to prohibit, but to protect. Interim Chief Information Officer for the University of Minnesota, Don Riley, concurs. The U provides "E-mail and Internet services in support of . . . education," he says, but "ultimately, with privileges . . . come responsibilities."
The University currently does not review the contents of webpages supported by its servers. It is a webpage author's responsibility to ensure that all contents meet the U's Web policy specifications. "There has been a lot of concern in the academic community about the impact of the proposed bills. But we don't want to have to worry about being put in the role of policemen," Riley observes. "The University has thrived on the concept of freedom of speech and academic discourse and we really don't want to have to be watchdogs."
The legalities of Internet use are the most ambiguous. "There are enormous liabilities potentially for [Internet] service providers," Riley notes. "To the extent that we provide an email account and Web URLs . . . for students and faculty, that allows us to potentially be considered a service provider and to be held legally responsible for the content of those pages."
Grimes agrees. "My understanding is that the online service [provider] that says it DOES review contents might be held liable if someone objects to the content of information . . . . One that does not review isn't."
And Grimes is right. A November 28, 1995, Wall Street Journal article reported that a federal judge recently ruled that Netcom Online Communication Services may be liable for copyright infringement because it failed to remove copyrighted material posted by a client. While Netcom lawyers argued that the service was merely "renting" space to clients, the judge ruled that "providing a service that allows for the automatic distribution (of postings) goes well beyond renting a premises" (Section B1).
For many critics of the U's WWW policy, the main concern is censorship. But Riley is convinced that is not the point. "You are free to speak or do whatever you want; you're just not free to speak or do whatever you want on publicly-funded facilities. We're not telling students they can or can't say or do things . . . . We reserve the right to set standards, not to censor," Riley asserts.
In the end, the issue will be resolved by federal legislation. "I don't know what impact future legislation will have on this," Grimes comments. "The University does have to comply with applicable laws." Until that time, the University of Minnesota's Web policy stands.
As might be anticipated, many students are nervous about the U's WWW policy. "The policy has merit," College of Human Ecology senior Andrew Jenkins says. "But I think they're missing the point."
For Jenkins and others like him, the idea of placing limits on the capabilities of Internet communication is frightening. They find that the free and public nature of the WWW communication forum is one of its strongest characteristics. To try to restrict the Internet would be a major loss of personal freedom of expression. As College of Liberal Arts senior Valéria Storch observed, "Once you start putting limits on some parts of the Web it's easy to start putting limits on other things."
One of students' main concerns with the U Web policy centers around the section that prohibits "links to other pages or computers" that themselves "violate the policy" (for example, linking to a page whose content is considered to violate the University sexual harassment policy is a violation of University policy). This could have a ripple effect. In a web-like, interconnected environment, it is not hard to accidentally link a page to another page that covertly violates the policy by containing another link to a page violating the University Web policy.
College of Liberal Arts senior Rogers George notes that "the policy can be recursively applied. If there exists a path involving any number of links from your pages to an offending page, then again, technically, your page is in violation. The policy, as it is currently written, effectively prohibits links to any outside pages. From a link to Yahoo [a search engine] you could go anywhere. I know that's not what they meant, but if the wording of the policy doesn't match intentions then the wording should be fixed."
"It doesn't stop," says Jenkins. "Sites are not self-contained or autonomous." And for these students, that's the beauty of the Web.
But there are other students who feel that the policy is necessary. "More and more cases are arising where the Internet or Web provider is being held accountable, legally, for the actions of the users . . . . With this in mind, I don't see how anyone can blame the U for setting up some policies. If they are to be held accountable by district judges for the content of the students' webpages, then they would be idiots not to establish some serious rules pertaining to that content," said Rhetoric student Joe Little.
Grewe observed that "placing the disclaimer on personal Web pages seems to me to be the proper balance between academic freedom, personal rights to speech and the need for the University to protect its public image."
"For my intent and purposes," observes College of Agriculture, Food, and Environmental Sciences senior and Board of Governors member Carlos A. Brooks, "it's okay. I'm using to being 'in congruence' with the University policies and mission. [The Web policy] is a natural progression of what already exists."
For more information, visit the U of M web page.
For further reading, see "How to Build Your Own Web Page" (November-December '97 Technolog).
