Slashdot Mirror
UCSD Vs. Free Speech, Round 2
Suburbanpride writes "Last year, as Slashdot readers may remember, the University of California, San Diego forced student website UCSDuncensored to change its name to SDuncensored, citing California education code that gives it exclusive rights to the name. This year, the target is youCSD, a student blog that has been critical of the administration. The university denies that the site's content had anything to do with the nastygram they received, which informed them that were in violation for not only the name, but for an image they took of the Geisel Library, which the university claims to hold a trademark on. There are dozens of sites that use UCSD in the name, not to mention the 1000+ members of the UCSD xanga blogring. What's next, campus police stopping people from taking pictures of the library?"
I think that the University should not be slamming these sites, and I think it has to do with bashing of said administration. Regardless of public or private, it is just plain stupid and is akin to many of the other stupid shit we see everyday from corporations. You would think that they would first try and listen to what their students have to say about their administration.
OTOH, it is NOT really a *public* university as you say, because we (the students) pay for nearly all of it. Since the Gubernator (who pledged to never cut education during his campaign) cut $372 million dollars from the UC system's budget, our fees continually rise. We were told that the fee raises will continue for the next four semesters AT LEAST. And if you will recall, until Reagan, the UC system was a true public system where our tuition was free. So we haven't been 'public' for a while now, only half-assed public.
All the provision says (see here) is that people may not use the UC.* abbreviations to promote things like business/financial enterprises. The code says:
Nothing in this section shall interfere with or restrict the right of any person to make a true and accurate statement of his or her present or former relationship or connection with, his or her employment by, or his or her enrollment in, the University of California...
So there's nothing preventing them from changing their name and just plastering all over the site that they're UCSD students, the site is about UCSD, for UCSD students, etc.
------------------
Rate free iPod offers: RateTheOffers.com
(Flat screens and Desktop PCs too)
I know a few members of the faculty, and from what I hear, the majority of the faculty is completely disgusted because of these actions, and some even fear their own websites may be taken away by force in the future...
Sec 120(a) of the Copyright Act of 1976 states, "The copyright in an architectural work that has been constructed does not include the right to prevent the making, distributing, or public display of pictures, paintings, photoghaphs or other pictorial representations of the work," if the building is in a public place.
UCSD could sue for copyright infringement if said photo was pulled directly off it's site, because they own the rights to that photo. If a student were to take their own photo and place it on the site there would be no grounds for suit.
no, the uc belongs to the the uc board of regeants - a trust.
this article hit a bit too close to home for me. back in college we used to run a website, terpidiots.com .. its gone now, thanks to the University of Maryland asserting its ownership over the word "Terp". after a nasty-gram from the head attorney for the university, we stopped running the site.
you can see the scattered pieces on google
come to think of it i think we went down without a fight. i was pretty caught up with trying to graduate and find a job. i tip my hat to these persistent young people, and i hope they keep running their site, and i hope their merit will keep the law on their side, and keep UCSD at bay!!
click here to incinerate homeless people
Drexel University in Philadelphia, PA did something similar a few years ago. There was a website named drexel.com which was used to promote the college community. Offering a place for students to post comments on message boards, and even had a system for students to share their viewpoints about professors. Drexel U threatened legal action, however, the drexel.com owners later settled with the university for an 'undisclosed amount.' Drexel University later that summer went on a buying spree of domain names that were related or combinations to drexel (ie: drexxxel.com, drexelshaft.com, etc) I'm surprised they haven't gone after duparties.com yet, since it promotes parties on or around the campus.
No, they mean trademarked. There are some things you can't photograph without permission because the image is a trademark - the "lone cypress" tree for instance. Copyright doesn't prevent making an original picture of a building. I'm not sure what the status of trademarking the appearance of a building is at present; I seem to recall cases involving the Rock&Roll Hall of Fame, and the Transamerica building, but I don't know how they turned out.
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power."
- Benito Mussolini
"Fascism is an extreme right-wing ideology which embraces nationalism as the transcendent value of society. The rise of Fascism relies upon the manipulation of populist sentiment in times of national crisis. Based on fundamentalist revolutionary ideas, Fascism defines itself through intense xenophobia, militarism, and supremacist ideals. Although secular in nature, Fascism's emphasis on mythic beliefs such as divine mandates, racial imperatives, and violent struggle places highly concentrated power in the hands of a self-selected elite from whom all authority flows to lesser elites, such as law enforcement, intellectuals, and the media."
- Ben Tripp, paraphrasing Mussolini's diary
"By setting up special parastate agencies or "corporations" to replace failing or inadequate private enterprises, [Mussolini] was able to control the important economic sectors. Elitists everywhere found that laudable."
- Ernest Fitzgerald
please. remember the federal court ruling about [website]sucks.com? when you sue somebody in court (in the USA), the FIRST thing the judge establishes is whether you're suing the right person. go to a real court and observe the beginning of a civil suit.
I doubt it. The University is created for the public with public funds, and there are public funds paid for students who attend classes, but the fact is that a significant percentage of the money is paid by students and by donors. How many new buildings do you see showing up at any kind of school without a private grant? Unless bonds are sold to finance it, that's pretty much none. New schools, on the other hands, are occasionally built by municipalities.
Anyway the CSU's mission statement is encased in the Donahoe Higher Education Act of 1960, the meat of which can be found http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?sect ion=edc&group=66001-67000&file=66010.1-66010.8">he re.
You want 66010.4.b andAnyway it doesn't say anything about ownership but the fact is that you can't even be on the property without the permission of the state and Universities typically have their own police force in order to protect them, a clear sign that they are a governmental entity. Your government doesn't really belong to you and neither do the schools. :P
You could also try looking in the CSU Archives.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Their site is hosted in Germany, according to campus press coverage, which is how they've managed to remain anonymous.
It could be argued that as soon as the University permitted a partisan group to use its phone lines, it was moving beyond merely allowing free expression. It could be construed as directly supporting a partisan cause, which is something they're forbidden to do under other California law. (As the editorial writer notes, they cannot support partisan activities and retain their 501c3 nonprofit status.)
The University wouldn't have a leg to stand on if they were to interfere with a public protest, or a political rally, or students distributing pamphlets on campus. Making facilities available for partisan telemarketing...it's a very interesting legal question. The school would definitely be on the wrong side of the law if they let pamphleteers photocopy campaign material for free--is giving free use of the phones in the same category? Where is the line drawn with respect to what constitutes 'support' for partisan activities?
The students here shouldn't be protesting the University's decision. They should be protesting the California tax code. Or, possibly, they should be using their own telephones. As has been said on Slashdot so many times before, the First Amendment guarantees the right to free speech. It does not guarantee an audience, nor does it compel anyone else to pay for your soapbox.
The usual disclaimers apply to my post: I am not a lawyer; I am a Canadian; I have lived and worked in the United States (in Indiana--I was a Hoser Hoosier, if you will.)
~Idarubicin
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
Vectorian-
If you really are a UC student, you should educate yourself a little bit on how the University is funded.
Student fees (the stuff you pay) makes up about 10% of the University of California budget.
Since it is a public institution (no, your 10% does not make it private) they make their budget readily available to the public. In fact, you can view it here: UC Budget in PDF
Anyone who has seen the budget, and understands what students really pay, finds it pretty amusing when the students 'protest' on campus (whichever one you're on, it happens everywhere) the way their money is being spent. I'm not against the idea that the university should answer to the public, but students have an inflated sense of their (or their parents) financial contribution.
Why is it? Well, the University of California is not just an institution dedicated to teaching, but it also is an institution of research, outreach to the public, medicine for the state, etc. etc. When you walk through your science building, know that every faculty member there is trying desperately to get outside grants.
Go to your Ag department (if you are at Davis, Riverside, or Berkeley), and find out how much money comes from the USDA.
Find out how much money the Federal government gives your school before your friends protest the ROTC classes. We won't even talk about the Department of Energy- because that could be going away soon...
But list goes on, and on and on. Student fees are only a small part of the budget.
No reason to lie.
Sorry, go back and read your defense.
The Leonard Law protects you from "disciplinary action" should you violate a university policy that violates your free speech rights.
And you only get to file in court if there is a disciplinary action.
Being told to stop is not a disciplinary action.
I'm out of my mind right now, but feel free to leave a message.....
Starbucks has policies doing essentially that. You are not allowed to take photos, because one of your photos might include an image that is trademarked by Starbucks Inc.
I learned this when I tried taking a photo once (At a Beijing location), and have had that confirmed at two other locations (in LA)
-ex