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?"
If some punks were dragging my name thru the mud I'd threaten them too....
Yeah? Well I think you're overrated too.
And playing with the Universities bandwidth hurts who?
Not likely anyone who's responsible for the censorship.
Immaterial. The 1st Amendment applies here. This would be like George W. Bush trying to sue John Kerry for mentioning his name on his website or suing some random person for making the website "georgewbushsucks.com" (which probably does exist, haven't bothered to check).
Piss off your future alumni.
Universities should crave students to promote their name and images, even when it seems to be negative.
Universtities are starting to suck like the RIAA.
... and I recall pretty much automatically disliking anything and anybody in authority and I would have done what these students are doing in a heartbeat. It's part of growing up and learning. Now that I am an old fart of 46 I can also see the University's side of this as well. But, that whole process of growing up and learning helped me to see opposing points of view and to even come to respect them. This is an age old battle that will be enacted over and over again so long as we have young people and old institutions (and a few old farts like myself.) Hopefully the end results is that people learn and become increasingly more respectful of, and tolerant of, opposing points of view.
http://www.busyweather.com/
*right, but i'm sure their ostensible beef is that people would get confused and think this was somehow the official product of the university. Brand confusion, as it were.*
certainly there's very little chance of that.. and if they don't seem to have trouble with non-critical sites that argument goes out of the window..
they're just trying to shut down the critics the 'easy' way(i don't know the issues at hand, but this is hardly the right way to do it since a) you're not shutting up anybody and b) they just get mainstream attention - so, if the sites are dissing them for being stupid biggots then they could even be right!).
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
The people from the 60's are now in power and things are worse.
Why does everyone forget that?
I think they meant copyrighted, but whatever.
Assuming:
...then the school has nothing to stand on to ask them to remove the photograph of the library. Building owners (or architects, for that matter) have no control over images of their building captured from public property.
Can you imagine what a messed up world it would be if they could? What if you had to pay royalty fees for your vacation photos just because there are buildings in the background?
"I came here to kick ass and chew bubblegum. I'm all out of bubblegum." MSE USC APX AIA CSI CASp
Huh?
Oh wait, you're right. W, Karl Rove, and Dick Cheney are "people from the 60's". Ken Lay, Andy Fastow and Jeff Skilling were a bunch of freakin hippies. Why, Alan Greenspan cut off his mullet just last week, and can still be seen covertly head-bopping to the Dead on his walkman. I forgot. And you don't even wanna hear about Rupert Murdoch... Two words, my friend... *party ANIMAL!*
Um, in case you just woke up from a long, long sleep, Clinton hasn't been president for a while now. Oh, and since you bring up how excruciatingly horrible things were under those dreadful "people from the 60's", remember that he presided over the largest peacetime economic expansion in US history.
Exactly who's forgetting what here, Aldredge?
They will never stop until somebody makes the
Copyright, Trademarks, Corporate self interest and greed are the laws of the land.
/. posts an article such as this.
For those of you who didn't get the memo, Eisenhauer was a niave fool to whom no one listened. The common citizen is not in the interests of our Governments law making. It is the Corporations to who they attend.
Just how many laws have been enacted in the last 6 years that grant you additional rights and protections? And just how many laws have been enacted that create criminal prosecution of citizens for actions that lay against the best interest of Corporations?
Like those Bush tax cuts? Well, while you're cashing in a days pay check worth of tax cut, think about Microsoft. They pay no tax at all. Obviously placating MS and other mega-buck corps to the point of giving them a free ride means more than placating you and I. Funny how those that can least afford it pay the most while those that have bank accounts larger than developing nations pay the least.
Want to fight a corporation who tries to usurp your rights? Prepare to be driven to the gutter by legal fees and get nothing in return, even if you do win. Thank god for the ACLU and EFF, without them you'd have no hope in the world. Face it.. we no longer live in a true Democratic Republic. We live in a Plutocratic-Capitalist society, which functions by a wealthy elite using it's wealth to influence policy to their self interest.
Wake up people, seems everyday
And every day people will whine and bitch. But not many see the root of the problem.
Nader has "an" answer for it, but the problem is much bigger than he and without support in Congress and Senate (it's they who collect the check and enact law devised and written by Groups such as the RIAA/MPAA/MS), he stands a snow balls chance of accomplishing anything. But this is a real problem that effects each and every ordinary citizen. The question is, what will be done about it.
The people from the 60's are now in power and things are worse.
Why does everyone forget that?
Because the people who are in power are not the same people who were into free love and getting high smoking weed. The people in power are the relatives of those who were in power in the last generation.
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.
You can't trademark a building. This is a student paper, and it's likely that they confused trademark with copyright. The site probably took a photograph of the library from the UCSD website, which is property of UCSD.
WTF!
I have my little alumni "we're-begging-for-money" letter right in front of me. Maybe they won't be getting what they expect in the envelope.
If they have money to harrass web sites and store 20 year old sensitive data, they don't need my donation.
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
This is clearly just a case of university lawyers trying to stop criticism of the school by sending out threatening letters, with little case law to back them up. Notice they did not actually sue, and they wouldn't, because they would get their asses handed to them. Some lawyers are slow learners and haven't yet figured out that they can't have a website shut down just because it says something their client doesn't like. But from the university's perspective, it doesn't hurt to try to stifle criticism. If the website operator is easily intimidated, they might just shut down right away. Moral of the story: if you're running a website that is critical of someone or something, know the laws and know what your rights are. If you're going to cave at the first sign of a legal battle, save yourself the trouble and don't put up the site to begin with.
you wrote:
Whatever you say comrade.
What does it gain you to invoke labels?
First of all, you don't get it. There is no vast conspiracy of the powerful against the little man.
So? What makes you think there has to be? If I drop a $100 bill in front of 100 people in a row, I bet they almost all will reach down for it. Conspiracy, or self interest? The elite will use their power for their own best interests, and that should come as no surprise. But why on earth should we not control them with sanctions commensurate with the damage they can cause us, considering the power they wield? Why on earth do so many at the bottom of the hierarchy willing walk into the slaughterhouse?
It is true that the law can and has been abused by those in power to further agendas of their own (DMCA, Union labor laws in some areas), but that doesn't mean that these examples of corruption are indicative of the intent or the state of our laws in general.
I disagree.
eat shiat and bark at the moon
So you're saying the rich won't pocket the money they save, but sell their products cheaper in order to crush competitors?
I'm all for this if it means quality products and less harmful waste.
Why did GEAR crush RDP?