March 2, 1995
Whether exchanging e-mail, surfing the Internet, posting on electronic bulletin boards or patching into the World Wide Web, more and more people are tuning out and logging on.
But as the fascination with cyberspace spreads into virtually all aspects of modern life, it's becoming apparent this latest system of communication will have complex effects on free speech and appropriate codes of conduct.
"Currently 7,000 students have e-mail accounts at this university (representing almost one-third of the total student body)," said Gerald Eisman, chair of the computer science department.
Cyberspace is the last frontier of true thinking, creativity and freedom of expression, Eisman said.
But what students say in cyberspace is another matter.
All students who post messages online are subject to some university restrictions. Besides some security rules designed for hackers, students may not send "obscene, threatening, or unwelcome electronic communication," according to computing services' ethics and security codes.
John True, executive director of computing services, said, there are two complaints about student messages currently under review by Bob Westwood, executive assistant vice president for student affairs.
Westwood did not respond to repeated phone calls concerning this report.
SF State currently treats speech on the Internet like it would any other kind of speech on campus, said Patricia Bartscher, SF State's legal council.
Bartscher pointed out that the computing codes mirror the official rules of conduct stated in the bulletin.
True said "flaming" is a regular occurrence on the Internet. "Flaming" is when one user disagrees with another and "flames" the person's message with put-downs, often using profanity.
In the past, it has been SF State's policy to punish students who violate the codes of conduct, True said. But recently, "We've been trying to turn this into a more informative process by encouraging appropriate behavior."
If there is a complaint, however, True said he "must take action."
The problem for this campus, this community and the world of cyberspace is defining what is lewd, indecent or obscene, said Joseph Tuman, professor of speech and communications and an attorney.
"Obscenity is defined by community standards," he said. "What may be considered obscene in some areas, in San Francisco it's probably not a big deal. It's pretty hard to offend people here. And then you have the question of 'how do you define a community on the Internet?'"
Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh, Pa., recently answered that question by eliminating access to the Internet because of the voluminous amounts of pornography available online.
SF State has no such plan in the works.
Eisman and others believe that censorship on the Internet should be kept to a bare minimum.
Eisman said there is a proposed bill in Congress aimed at eliminating pornography on federally funded equipment.
"We have to fight this kind of thing," he said. "There's a repressive movement going on right now.
"Any encroachment (on speech) will stifle creativity. We need to fight vehemently against rules prohibiting pornography -- not that I approve of objectionable materials. I think we must deal with these issues through open and frank discussions.
"Students just need to understand that whatever they post on a newsgroup is out there for everyone to see," Eisman said.
"It's very difficult to say 'what is pornography' these days," said Linda Dobb, assistant university librarian. "Quite frankly, I don't know what it is."
"In this library we have books on almost every topic, some of which some people may deem pornographic. It's the same thing with electronic communication," she said.
According to Bartscher, however, SF State does not allow the sale or distribution of pornography.
So, while SF State prohibits students from distributing or posting obscene materials, they can access virtually anything by plugging into the vast network of computers known as the Internet and gaining admission to almost every subject and discussion group possible.
The key difference is "access," Dobb said. "Access is a matter of choice."
Tuman said children will more likely take advantage of that access. Today's kids are more comfortable with computers than college students, he said.
"And unlike books, movies, TV or music, parents may not know what's on the Internet. They may just be happy their kids are using computers," Tuman said.
Herb Kaplan, professor of broadcast and electronic communication arts, sees pornography on the Internet as parallel with another form of mass media.
"The Internet is more like cable TV," he said. "It's all voluntary; you have to affirmatively seek it (pornography) out."
Kaplan, who is also an attorney and was once a censor for NBC-TV, said it will be up to the courts to decide where the Internet resides in the realm of mass communications.
"Under the First Amendment, certain speech is protected more than others, with writing and speaking usually being the most protected," he said.
"Broadcasting in its traditional sense is less protected and more open to regulation. The courts must decide where the Internet fits on the continuum between broadcasting and verbal communication."
So far, the courts have defined print, broadcast, and cable as the three major areas of mass media, he said. "Does the Internet correspond to one of those categories or will it become a fourth," he asked.
Tuman agreed, saying the issue of free speech in cyberspace is "the $64,000 question."
Regulation of broadcasting is based on two concepts: scarcity and pervasiveness.
The scarcity theory comes from the early 1920s when so many amateur radio buffs were broadcasting simultaneously on a limited number of airwaves, the federal government stepped in and began regulating the industry.
The pervasiveness theory is more recent and is based on the concept that television is so ubiquitous one cannot escape it and there is a captive audience upon whom it intrudes.
"Obviously the scarcity theory has jack to do with the Internet, and it's doubtful that any discussion on regulation will be based on it," said Tuman, who is author of an upcoming book on the history of free speech.
"But maybe you could make an argument for the pervasiveness theory that there is a captive audience, although certainly not more than radio or TV," he said.
Tuman thinks it's more likely that regulation of the Internet will come for reasons involving commerce, not for issues of free speech.
"As the Internet becomes more commercial, and business will enter in a big way, government regulations will follow," he said. "I think there's heavy potential down the road for regulation."
Kaplan thinks copyright law will be an area the courts will look at with an eye on sorting out some contradictions.
"Intellectual property is definitely an issue," he said. "There's the question of who owns the Internet. Theoretically it's the federal government. But, the federal government can't own a copyright."
Kaplan said it's inevitable that the courts will step in and allow regulation of the Internet, but it is unlikely they will do much to inhibit free speech.
"The courts are always five years behind and it's hard to look into the murky waters of the future," he said. "But, the courts are inherently conservative, especially on the side of the First Amendment."
Meanwhile, SF State administrators are struggling to keep up with the difficult issues this form of communications raises.
"The technology is advancing so fast, we don't know what the problems are yet," Bartscher said.
The current guidelines for computing services are labeled "interim," True said. If they tried to make them policy, the Policy Committee would have to meet every week to respond to the changing technology, he said.
As for cyberspace, Tuman said, "The Internet today is a wonderful embodiment of 'the marketplace of ideas.'"
Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes first wrote about the marketplace of ideas in a dissenting opinion in Abrams v. the United States in 1919. The Court upheld Abrams' conviction of espionage for passing out leaflets protesting America's military involvement against the Bolshevik revolution in Russia by advocating a munitions strike. Holmes wrote:
"...the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market, and that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes can be safely carried out."