Slashdot Mirror

Then why isn't the university protecting its trademark against sites like, say, UCSDguardian.org, sandiegoccc.org/UCSD, UCSDcycling.org, and so forth?

I don't think that, at least for UC San Diego, this is particularly a matter of censorship of critical opinions, or even obscene content. In my four years at UCSD, there were a number of "free speech" rights incidents, and the university seems to be more concerned with protecting trademark rather than silencing any voices. For example:

1. The Koala: An associated student funded organization which constantly used its funds to print obscene material, including an issue called "The Jizzlam" featuring women in burqas superimposed on porn images. The paper has been accused of racism and anti-semitism many times over, and yet the UCSD administration has not shut it down despite the fact it is printed with student funds.

2. The Che Cafe linking fiasco. Details here in an article I wrote at the time. This is actually a DeCSS case where the university invoked the principle that hyperlinking to terrorist groups was tantomount to supporting terrorism, but ultimately backed down once it was clear that the Che was only linking to other groups and not hosting any material. The douse of national media attention probably helped a bit as well.

3. The UCSD Livejournal community. Embarresingly enough, I actually precipitated this one with this article. Shortly after this was written, the university demanded that the LJ community change it's name to the "unofficial UCSD livejournal community."

The consistent tone among all of this is that the university is willing to tolerate both terrorist and obscene content, and even content highly critical of the university (as is shown in many AS-funded student newspapers, along with the LJ community). What they are not fine with is:

1. Bad publicity - which is probably why they won't censor things based on content.

2. Being associated with any media: critical of the administration or not, without big "UNOFFICIAL" and "INDEPENDENT OF THE UNIVERSITY" stickers slapped on it, especially on the internet. This is because they do not want their trademark diluted, which is entirely understandable, because if they don't enforce it, they lose it.

The short response: things aren't always as simple as they seem. Not every large institution thinks stilfing dissent is the path to peace. The record shows the university isn't trying to muzzle anyone; it just wants to protect itself and its assets.

I don't think that, at least for UC San Diego, this is particularly a matter of censorship of critical opinions, or even obscene content. In my four years at UCSD, there were a number of "free speech" rights incidents, and the university seems to be more concerned with protecting trademark rather than silencing any voices. For example:

1. The Koala: An associated student funded organization which constantly used its funds to print obscene material, including an issue called "The Jizzlam" featuring women in burqas superimposed on porn images. The paper has been accused of racism and anti-semitism many times over, and yet the UCSD administration has not shut it down despite the fact it is printed with student funds.

2. The Che Cafe linking fiasco. Details here in an article I wrote at the time. This is actually a DeCSS case where the university invoked the principle that hyperlinking to terrorist groups was tantomount to supporting terrorism, but ultimately backed down once it was clear that the Che was only linking to other groups and not hosting any material. The douse of national media attention probably helped a bit as well.

3. The UCSD Livejournal community. Embarresingly enough, I actually precipitated this one with this article. Shortly after this was written, the university demanded that the LJ community change it's name to the "unofficial UCSD livejournal community."

The consistent tone among all of this is that the university is willing to tolerate both terrorist and obscene content, and even content highly critical of the university (as is shown in many AS-funded student newspapers, along with the LJ community). What they are not fine with is:

1. Bad publicity - which is probably why they won't censor things based on content.

2. Being associated with any media: critical of the administration or not, without big "UNOFFICIAL" and "INDEPENDENT OF THE UNIVERSITY" stickers slapped on it, especially on the internet. This is because they do not want their trademark diluted, which is entirely understandable, because if they don't enforce it, they lose it.

The short response: things aren't always as simple as they seem. Not every large institution thinks stilfing dissent is the path to peace. The record shows the university isn't trying to muzzle anyone; it just wants to protect itself and its assets.

I care so much about protection of their name. Not after they kept mine and 38,000 others name, addresses, and social security numbers on an unsecure computer. W#hy they had my ss# 2 years after I declined to enroll I'll never know.
A source
This is a case of an institution that didn't care about my rights suddely crying foul when someone critques them.

You want a job? Vote Republican. I know that's hard for liberal slashdot to swallow, but it's the truth.

No, it isn't.

In fact, we're better with neither .

At least there is a growing sentiment against these things. Most recently, FOX News, AdAge, and college papers came to the rescue. What a waste of $4 million. One of the people in AdAge points out the irony of this running at the same time as so many pro-drinking ads.