Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

UCSD Vs. Free Speech, Round 2

Posted by timothy on from the controlling-the-terms dept.

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?"

22 of 296 comments (clear)

  1. Why would this be a threat? by mind21_98 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It just seems fishy. The more popular sites (like SDuncensored) are the ones that get hammered by the administration, while sites like ucsdfacebook.com aren't touched. I have a feeling UCSD is planning on launching their own service, or otherwise have some reason other than vigorously defending their trademarks.

    --
    US businesses that currently accept chip and PIN/signature
    1. Re:Why would this be a threat? by avarame · · Score: 2, Interesting

      2) Since when can a corporation trademark a building? They can trademark their stylized rendering of it, certainly. But they have zero authority or rationale to prevent anyone from using their own photograph of a building.

      Why does a university need to protect its trademark? Is it afraid of losing business? Yeah, I'm going to write out my tuition check to ucsdfacebook.com because I confused the two. The intent of a trademark is to protect a corporation's identity and the branding symbols they do business under. A university doesn't do business in the same way a typical corporation does. UCSD doesn't have a 'brand' to protect, so why should they be allowed to enforce their trademarks against someone who's clearly not directly competing in business with them (youcsd)

      -a UCSD student

      --
      Save time now so you can waste it later
  2. it's tricky, really... by bechthros · · Score: 2, Interesting

    cuz sure, the university owns the name, and won't want their name being used to promote things they disagree with.

    OTOH, it's a *public* university, if it's in the UC system. So then if you're a taxpayer, doesn't that kinda give you some sort of ownership rights?

    Morally speaking, of course. I'm sure they'll win in court.

    --
    They will never stop until somebody makes the
    1. Re:it's tricky, really... by GoofyBoy · · Score: 4, Interesting

      They own their name, but how else are people suppose to critize them without using their name?

      The University with the acronym that begins with "U", ends with "D", and has the letters "C" and "S" in the middle in that order?

      --
      The surprise isn't how often we make bad choices; the surprise is how seldom they defeat us.
  3. legal system designed to control populace by Cryofan · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Our legal system is really designed to control our populace, the ordinary people. So the laws are aimed to the people in general. But we really need a entire legal system aimed at controlling those at the top of the hierarchy, the elite. They are the ones who really cause a lot of the trouble in life. Not just those who run the universities, but those in charge of institutions everywhere, in government and in commerce. They are the ones causing so many problems.

    Extraordinary power requires extraordinary controls. We need extra-strict laws and punishments aimed at those in charge of institutions.

    I am talking about civil law, but criminal law here.

    --
    eat shiat and bark at the moon
    1. Re:legal system designed to control populace by delirium+of+disorder · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Mod parrent up! In addition, we must realise that such laws will not be made by elites unless they have their lives or their wealth on the line. Its up to the rest of us to act. We need direct democracy that goes beyond voting. We need boycotts, strikes, protests, gurilla theater, piracy, and more. We must make our own media and our own economy outside of the realm of coporate America. A radical movement like that of the 30's or 60's would press the center to the left and make real progress finally happen.

      --
      ------ Take away the right to say fuck and you take away the right to say fuck the government.
    2. Re:legal system designed to control populace by UpLateDrinkingCoffee · · Score: 3, Interesting
      I think the legal system works when people's deeds come to light no matter what thier status... the problem is congress and the supreme court over time have created a superclass of citizen, the Corporation, whos rights supercede yours and mine. This creates a great opportunity for the elite that control the institution to hide behind that veil and get away with a lot more than they normally could. People controlling other types of entities (such as UCSD) have taken notice and now are acting as if their institutions are supercitizens too... and after a few court ruling s they very well may be!

      The legal system works fine... the problem is more with comfortable career politicians in corporate pockets giving them more and more priviledges while eroding our rights. If that isn't criminal, I don't know what is.

      Check out This if you want to know more.

    3. Re:legal system designed to control populace by ak3ldama · · Score: 2, Interesting

      This is only slightly related, but I'll run with it. Everyone seems to remember Thomas Jefferson saying that every ten or so years we need a revolution, maybe not a bloody one, but a revolution non-the-less. Why? To keep people involved and continunually thinking critically of the 'Government'. This keeps what is known as the 'Goverment' as being the people, not the beaurocracy. But when the southern states thought that they were no longer being represented fairly, they decided to get the fight the issue. The bloody war that ensued set an example, that the rights of the people and the states were to take back seat to the rules enforced by the central goverment. The central government is now so out of touch with the people that they believe that they are still in touch. They've told themselves their little lie for so long they believe it.

      Here's the bad part, for as much as the Democrats and Republicans can say they are different, they are both so authoritarian and elitist, that they see no problem with what is going on. Republicans can say that they are more fiscally responsible, that they try to lower taxes, that they support rights, but where are their examples? Bush increased spending during his term, and we all know that Democrats support larger government.

      The rest of the world can stop bitching and just wait, because our direction is heading right toward Socialism, there is no questioning that. And most of America is to complacent to even notice.

      --
      "but money is the God of Algiers & Mahomet their prophet." - Rich. O'Bryen June 8th 1786
    4. Re:legal system designed to control populace by bechthros · · Score: 4, Interesting

      "Here's the bad part, for as much as the Democrats and Republicans can say they are different, they are both so authoritarian and elitist,"

      i think the word you're looking for is "corporatist".

      "Republicans can say that they are more fiscally responsible, that they try to lower taxes, that they support rights, but where are their examples? Bush increased spending during his term,"

      As did King George the First, as did King Ronnie. My favorite republican quote is "Reagan proved deficits don't matter." Karl Rove, I think...

      "and we all know that Democrats support larger government."

      Do we? Bill Clinton did a lot of wrong shit, but he made a campign promise to end welfare as we know it, and damned if he didn't come within a hairs breadth of doing exactly that. And eliminated the federal defecit. How?

      By taxing most those whom taxes affect the least.

      "The rest of the world can stop bitching and just wait, because our direction is heading right toward Socialism, there is no questioning that."

      Wow. I wish I lived in the same America you do. No, my friend, the direction we are heading in is most definately *not* toward socialsm, unfortunely. I saw this cited in somebody's sig file here once, and kick myself daily for not bookmarking it, but the Italian Dictionary from 1936, written by and for the people who pretty much *invented* modern Fascism, defined Fascism as "a government by Corporations". Fascism is where we're headed, and we're uncomfortably close today. And beyond that lies only Corporate Feudalism (you eat, sleep and bathe at the workplace, have little to no rights thanks to a pre-employment EULA, and have a corporate surname... watch it happen)

      "And most of America is to complacent to even notice."

      Amen to that.

      You load sixteen tons. What do you get? Another day older and deeper in debt. St. Peter don't you call me, cuz I can't go - I owe my soul to the company store.

      Google it.

      --
      They will never stop until somebody makes the
    5. Re:legal system designed to control populace by Artifakt · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The Ancient Maya supposedly had a legal system where the penalties for various things increased as the person's social status increased. Drunk and disorderly in public? Farmers got a small fine. Merchants got locked away for a few days. Beurocrats got paddled publicly and fired. Priests were lashed and exiled, and Generals beheaded. This system hasn't been used too much. The opposite, in one form or another, is almost universal.

      --
      Who is John Cabal?
    6. Re:legal system designed to control populace by DAldredge · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Some of them are in places of power. You would be shocked if you check into the backgrounds of those who run the Fortune 500.

    7. Re:legal system designed to control populace by kraut · · Score: 3, Interesting

      In Germany, fines are calculated as day rates. So you might be ordered to pay 10 day rates as a fine - and if you make EUR 100 a day, you pay EUR 1000; if you make EUR 1000 a day, you have to pay EUR 10000.

      --
      no taxation without representation!
  4. Yeah, "rights" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  5. On censorship in CA by PunchSix · · Score: 3, Interesting

    For more on censorship in California public universities, view this excellent documentary:
    http://academicbias.com/bw101.html
    (download links on site)

  6. Not just UCSD -- Stanford Too by ortcutt · · Score: 4, Interesting
    The following is an editorial from The Stanford Daily by Kai Stinchcombe (not me).

    University Free Speech Restrictions Are Illegal

    Stanford is illegally restricting my constitutional rights. Yesterday they prevented me from engaging in a peaceful assembly on campus to exercise my freedom of speech. I won't let them stop me again.

    Last week two friends of mine invited students to get together for an hour to make phone calls on behalf of John Kerry. That's a classic First Amendment activity. When the British government banned Committees of Correspondence, constituted by the patriots to write letters opposed to King George, the men who eventually framed the Constitution vowed never to tolerate a government that restricted peacefully assembly or free expression. They wrote the First Amendment to protect events like the John Kerry Power Hour.

    In its wisdom, the California legislature passed the Leonard Law, section 94367 of the California Educational Code, to protect the First Amendment rights of California's students. The law protects on-campus activities that would be protected from governmental restriction by the First Amendment if performed off-campus.

    Cut to the present. Stanford's administration decided that the proposed John Kerry Power Hour constituted an event, and that University policy prohibits partisan political events on campus.

    This was a good-faith interpretation of a good-faith policy, intended to protect Stanford's not-for-profit status. As a 501c3 nonprofit, Stanford University cannot use its facilities or other resources in a way that advantages one candidate over another. Because of recent apparent violations of this policy, administators were intent on full enforcement. The administration decided that, rather than allow equal access to White Plaza for supporters of any candidate, the University would prohibit this sort of event altogether.

    In light of the Leonard Law, though, this interpretation seems illegal. Students' right to gather in public areas off-campus to advocate for John Kerry is constitutionally protected, and the Leonard Law extends that right onto campus.

    The Power Hour was scheduled for White Plaza, Stanford's designated open-to-the-public free speech zone. The students were told that they could not assemble in any location on campus, and would face the Judicial Panel if they continued. Accordingly, they decided to have the "John Kerry Power Hour" off-campus in a private residence.

    It seems the only legal, nonpartisan University policy would be to allow students of any opinion to peacefully assemble and exercise their free speech rights anywhere on campus where students are allowed to gather.

    The Leonard Law allows students to obtain court injunctions against illegal university policies. I checked with a handful of lawyers, and with folks from the Democratic Party, the ACLU, and People for the American Way, and they seemed to think that the case would be a slam dunk on our end if it came to that.

    I hope it won't come to that, because the administration's decision to push the event off campus wasn't just illegal, it's also a bad policy. Young people are increasingly alienated from the political process. If Stanford students are passionate about politics and eager to get involved, the University should put as few restrictions as possible in the way of their idealism.

    This coming Sunday at 1pm, I intend to peacefully assemble in White Plaza to express my opinion. As an individual I'll be advocating for John Kerry, but I hope students for Bush join me, because free speech is bigger than any political party. I hope the University also understands that, and lifts the restrictions before then.

    The political process only works if people get involved. The time is now: as George Bush declared in the debate the other night, freedom is on the march. Nobody's stopping our generation from weighing in.

  7. "rightwingnews.com", huh? by Cryofan · · Score: 2, Interesting

    One question we need to answer is whether the political Right and Left are diametrically opposed regarding authority. It seems to me that the Right is a "great respecter" of authority. In some regards, however, the Left sees authority as an oppressive force, in that it does not apply force to itself as it rightfully should.
    However, in order to implements Leftist policies, a strong state would seem necessary.

    But I think the ultimate issue is whether the status quo must be maintained with respect to transparency of government and whether the institutional elite should be held to a higher standard.

    --
    eat shiat and bark at the moon
  8. photos of public buildings...? by myowntrueself · · Score: 2, Interesting

    "What's next, campus police stopping people from taking pictures of the library?"

    I thought that taking photos of any public building in the USA these days could result in arrest by the actual police?

    --
    In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
  9. Re:Copyrightability of Architectural Works by DrHung · · Score: 3, Interesting
    California seems awfully possessive about their views. When I visited Monterey, I enjoyed the views along the coast, but I was forbidden from taking a picture of a certain tree because Pebble Beach Resorts had trademarked the image of that tree (see it at their website). There were signs up all around the pull-off in the road saying that photographing the tree was illegal!

    So, of course I had to take a picture...

    (Damn! Should have posted anonymously!)

  10. Ownership of UCSD images by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I worked for a company that printed stuff for some colleges. It turns out that most of these colleges and universities have trademarked lots of images, starting with the school mascot, emblem/coat of arms/logo/letterhead, on through many images of many of the buildings. They have turned the "management" of the trademarked images, that is, the collection of money for reproducing any part in any manner over to a company that specializes in doing this for colleges and, of course, makes its money by jealously guarding it all. We had to account for the distribution, sale or destruction of everything we printed for the college. Our company was responsible for paying the "Management" company. Whether the university ever got a penny back I have no idea. One possibility is that this company had the University's lawyers fire off the letter. The "trademark management" company might lose money if uppity students misuse some form of the university's trademarked stuff.

  11. Thanks by shon · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I just registered fuckucsd.com just to fuck with them. Free speech and all that... Censorship really pisses me off.

    Excercise your speech. www.fuckfrance.com

  12. library pictures? by Xpresso85 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Hey, but the cops do stop you from taking pictures of the library...
    (Rice, USCD... close enough) Rice University.

  13. What trademark? by Animats · · Score: 2, Interesting
    The only registered trademarks with "Geisel" in them relate to Ted Geisel of "Dr. Seuss" fame. They both are drawings, not word marks, and they're not pictures of that library.

    California also has state trademark registration, but that's narrow, only applies to "goods and services", and you have to register with the state. There's even a specific clause intended to prevent the use of trademarks to suppress publications, at Business and Professions Code 14320.

    • (3) Injunctive relief is not available to the owner of the right infringed with respect to an issue of a newspaper, magazine, or other similar periodical or electronic communication containing infringing matter if restraining the dissemination of the infringing matter in any particular issue of the periodical or in an electronic communication would delay the delivery of the issue or transmission of the electronic communication after the regular time for delivery and the delay would be due to the method by which publication and distribution of the periodical or transmission of the electronic communication is customarily conducted in accordance with sound business practice, and not to any method or device adopted for the evasion of this section or to prevent or delay the issuance of an injunction or restraining order with respect to the infringing matter.

    Also, California has a strong anti-SLAPP law.