There’s been a lot of discussion lately about censorship on blogs and such, ignited by the controversity of a firing at Gallaudet and a list-serv being forced to find a new host.
(Disclaimer: There could be more to the story than I know, but I am presenting what I *do* know at this point of time.)
The background of this situation for those who don’t know about it: GallyNet, a list-serv discussing issues relating to Gallaudet University was owned/moderated by Slemo W., an internal auditor who worked at Gallaudet. That list-serv happened to be hosted on one of John Yeh’s computers, without Yeh’s knowledge. John Yeh also happens to be a Trustee Emeritus of Gallaudet University.
Now, GallyNet was instrumental in the recent protests at Gallaudet, and its reputation grew even more infamous after the protests, because things would get very heated on there. Recently, it was reported that Dr. Davila became angry when subscribers of GallyNet began attacking him and the university - what the attacks entailed of, I don’t know, since I don’t subscribe to it - and confidential documents were being leaked there as well.
So, next thing we know, Slemo’s been fired. Gallaudet didn’t disclose the exact reason why Slemo was fired, and it was reported that Dr. Davila contacted Yeh, and told him that GallyNet was being hosted on one of his computers. Yeh was incensed at this, and had it shut down.
GallyNet subsequently found a new host - hopefully a legal host.
Now people are screaming about censorship. People are worried about blogs being shut down if they criticize Gallaudet University or Dr. Davila.
See, again, I don’t know the full story here… but from what I see, I don’t have a problem with Dr. Davila’s actions. GallyNet was being illegally hosted. I’m not an attorney, but I do know this much - you need someone’s permission to host something on their computer. It’s their property, after all. And if you are aware of illegal activity going on and do nothing about it, you also can get into trouble.
And if Slemo was in fact, leaking confidential documents, he would have to have a damn good reason to leak them, such as whistle-blowing. Whistle-blowing is protected under the law. Otherwise, your rear can become grass if you’re busted!
As for censoring independently and legally hosted blogs, I don’t think Dr. Davila can really censor them. As long bloggers tell the truth about what’s going on, and are responsible with what they’re saying, they’re pretty safe. But I also think there’s a line there, that sadly enough, many in the deaf community crosses with impunity.
What do I exactly mean? Check out this article I found about Internet harassment, and I think it’s very interesting… Woman fed up with Internet harassment
Was GallyNet a forum for harassment? Are some blogs out there a forum for harassment? I think that’s up to us as a community to decide - but I do know that there are some out there who think so.
June 21, 2007 at 1:12 pm
Sometimes things aren’t what they appear to be on the surface. To get the whole truth, some more digging will often be necessary. : /
June 21, 2007 at 1:31 pm
It’s very easy to go from opionated dissenter to harassing stalker. You have to watch that expressing your opinions doesn’t turn into harassment and defamation.
Dennis
June 21, 2007 at 1:35 pm
Here at my work, I am required to receive a copy of the Standards of Conduct policy and go through online compliance training or classroom training session. Also, I am required to sign the acknowledgement sheet and return it to Human Resource. The policy includes confidential/propriety information, electronic communications, messaging and Internet usage, and many more! By working for a company, I agree to abide by their policy. It’s simply a matter of respect to the business (or university).
June 21, 2007 at 4:17 pm
I agree that the case was made by unauthorized hosting, although it could be argued that the hosting without permission was an excuse for the termination.
June 21, 2007 at 4:20 pm
I think GallyNet should be shut down because what I have read those subjects were terrible and negative comments.. I think Dr Davila did the right thing about GallyNet and Slemo Warigon. However, they did not explain in specific what Slemo did doing wrong anyway. Gallaudet do have own website like Bob’s vlog and blog which are good and positive information and more professional and neutral! Yes, it is simply a matter of respect to the business or university.
June 21, 2007 at 4:32 pm
I don’t think GallyNet should be shut down as long it has a legal host and people there behave by not harassing others and making libelous statements.
Deaf Skeptic, I’m happy to dig, but I need direction of where to dig.
June 21, 2007 at 5:09 pm
(Copied, pasted, snipped, replaced some words to “your company” from an email)
Did you know….
1. Reading and forwarding jokes and non-work related video clips can be considered acts of harassment and create a work environment in which your colleagues feel uncomfortable… harassment is defined by the recipient.
2. Emails and Instant Messages (IM) with your name on it can end up getting you and your company in unintentional trouble.
3. Email, internet or Instant Message records can be reproduced even after you have deleted content from your system. You are not allowed to destroy an e-mail message that relates to a subpoena or to an existing or anticipated lawsuit or government investigation.
4. Excessive personal use of email, Instant Messaging and the internet is inappropriate.
5. Connecting unapproved computers or devices, such as personal laptops, to the network is prohibited.
6. Downloading of copyrighted material (Videos, Software, and Music) to which you do not have a license is prohibited and can end up getting you and your company in trouble.
June 21, 2007 at 5:34 pm
I did some poking around on RIT, to compare policies, and this is what I found regarding freedom of expression on computer equipment for students:
http://www.rit.edu/~301www/rr_computercodeofconduct.php3
D. Freedom of Expression
In general, all members of the RIT community - students and employees alike - enjoy freedom of expression in the normal course of their activity. This freedom is both assured by numerous Institute policies and constrained by specific provisions of certain RIT policies, such as those noted herein (C3.0, C6.0, C7.0 and C10.0 (”Guidelines Concerning Political and Legislative Activities on Campus”). as well as by specific provisions of this Code of Conduct. The constraints are, as in civil law, imposed only for the sake of the common good and the rights of individuals.
Consequently, members of the RIT community have the responsibility to use RIT’s electronic resources in ways that respect the rights of others and permit our common electronic resources to be equitably shared. Since free and civil discourse is at the heart of a university community, users should communicate in a manner that advances the cause of learning and mutual understanding.
RIT reserves the right to restrict or deny access to its computing resources to those whose use of them is not consonant with the mission of the university.
June 21, 2007 at 5:49 pm
But the thing is, Gally Net IS NOT on a Gallaudet server.
Gally Net has nothing to do with Gallaudet. It is privately owned. That’s the difference.
If it was hosted at Gallaudet, then that would be another story.
As long as it is legal, John Yeh is not allowed to discriminate. So, John broke the law by forcing Gally Net to shut down. Davila betrayed Deaf people’s trust by getting Yeh to agree to shut down Gally Net.
What we need– More Gally Nets-
Gally Net- N
Gally Net- O
Gally Net- C
Gally Net- E
Gally Net- N
Gally Net- S
Gally Net- O
Gally Net- R
Gally Net- S
Gally Net- H
Gally Net- I
Gally Net- P
Just my .02 cents…
June 21, 2007 at 5:53 pm
Erick,
You have to have permission of the owner of the system to host something. It doesn’t matter if that system was separate from Gallaudet. If John Yeh did not know and did not give permission for GallyNet to be hosted on his equipment, then that is not legal.
And if it was illegally hosted, and Gallaudet knew, yet did nothing, then THEY could get in trouble. So by telling Yeh about it, Davila was protecting Gallaudet from trouble.
A question does arise in my mind though. How did people find out that GallyNet was being illegally hosted? Was it common knowledge?
June 21, 2007 at 6:43 pm
Where is the proof that gallynet was ILLEGALLY hosted?
June 21, 2007 at 6:45 pm
C, people are in agreement that GallyNet was hosted on John Yeh’s servers, WITHOUT his knowledge. That is illegal.
June 21, 2007 at 6:54 pm
C above says: “Where is the proof that gallynet was ILLEGALLY hosted?”
Or that John Yeh did NOT know? It is entirely possible - there are degrees of computer savvy. For example, I only vaguely understand the idea of servers and hosts.
Regardless, thank you for giving us the straight story!
June 21, 2007 at 6:54 pm
Dang, I can’t edit my comment above. I wanted to clarify that by “you” I was referring to Deaf Pundit.
June 21, 2007 at 7:04 pm
FYI, C: “Unauthorized access” entails approaching, trespassing within, communicating with, storing data in, retrieving data from, or otherwise intercepting and changing computer resources without consent. These laws relate to either or both, or any other actions that interfere with computers, systems, programs or networks.
That is from: http://www.ncsl.org/programs/lis/CIP/hacklaw.htm
Belle, it is entirely possible that Yeh didn’t know about it. He’s an entrepreneur, so it’s credible that he doesn’t know the minutiae of what’s going on in his business. Check out this article about him: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1154/is_n2_v77/ai_7002442
June 21, 2007 at 8:23 pm
There is no law that requires web host companies to provide web hosting services to anyone who asks. Erick does not know what he is talking about.
June 21, 2007 at 8:44 pm
I wasn’t aware John Yeh owned a web hosting service. Is WebbyNation, INC a web hosting service? Because Viable Technologies is a real time transcription service.
I do find it interesting that WebbyNation doesn’t have their own website, so I don’t really know what it does, other than it owns DeafNation and http://www.deafbuy.com
June 21, 2007 at 9:42 pm
You’re correct. That means Erick is doubly wrong.
June 21, 2007 at 11:27 pm
Deaf Pundit,
“A question does arise in my mind though. How did people find out that GallyNet was being illegally hosted? Was it common knowledge?”
You don’t even know for sure if it’s illegal based on that statement you made above. Yet, you are making all your argument on the basis that it is illegal?
Unfortunately, that is what many people are doing right now, and that is hurting the cause.
Facts:
A server has so many different websites and so many different listservs that there is no way the owner can possibly know them all.
Gally Net was a PAID service for which Slemo and his team of moderators PAID for.
Therefore, it was not illegal. It never was. That’s just a rumor that’s being spread around because there are too many people that don’t really understand how a server works.
You cannot discriminate against a website owner because of religion, ethnicity, or because of content– Unless it was truly illegal.
Gally Net is NOT illegal and it never was. Gallaudet is simply following suit in what the Cochlear company is doing- making it sound illegal and unethical in order to oppress freedom of speech.
It is most unfortunate that Gallaudet is heading in that way. Jordan was a nincompoop, but he knew better than to mess with freedom of speech. I cannot say the same about Davila.
Just for the record, Jordan was a mistake. He should have never been president. Davila is just another mistake. When does it all end?
John didn’t “not give permission”- he is simply way up there on the top. People on the top do not pay attention to what is going on under them. That’s the job of people under him. That’s what he pays them for. And people under him apparently felt it was OK, because Gally Net lasted very long with the full knowledge of all of Yeh’s underlings, including his son.
“C, people are in agreement”… *Sigh*
“People in agreement” is a result of speculation. If you want credibility, then please post hard evidence.
I had proof in my own hands in the beginning. I submitted them to Deafread. They didn’t publish it “because of their love for Davila”. So, I put any destruction of Gallaudet as a result of not publishing that evidence on the hands of Deafread.
There are people that can vouch for this, including my wife. Unfortunately, I cannot reveal my sources but I can tell you they pretty much goes right to the horse’s mouth.
Deep Ears:
“There is no law that requires web host companies to provide web hosting services to anyone who asks. Erick does not know what he is talking about.”
By the way, I build computers, used to design webpages, used to host a couple of listservs for my local Deaf community way back when. I also dabbled in hacking from 1997 to 2002, so I know where the law begins and ends in the electronic world.
I didn’t say “required to provide for anyone that asks”
I said they cannot discriminate customers simply because they don’t like what the customers legally post on their machines.
It is equivalent to deny a legal abiding Arabic-American into a Denny’s because the manager didn’t like how Iraqis were acting in the Iraqi war. It is simply not germane to the situation.
But back to the point, this whole thing is about censorship.
What I do not understand is, the Deaf community did not allow the administrations at Gallaudet oppress them.
Why now? Why let it happen now? Why is the board “all of suddenly” certifiable?
This pertains to my “sheeple” theory. Certain people are like sheep, flocking to what seems to be attractive without actually checking what’s right in front of them.
Sincerely,
Erick
June 22, 2007 at 12:00 am
Erick:
1) I never said GallyNet itself was illegal. I said the HOSTING of it was illegal.
2) If John Yeh did not have a web host service, but GallyNet was hosted on his computers without his knowledge, then that is illegal.
His son knowing about GallyNet being hosted is complete news to me, and that was never reported on the other blogs covering this situation.
3) If you have proof of misdoings at Gallaudet, then just publish it. DeafRead be damned.
4) If you dabbled in hacking, then you shouldn’t really admit that you did, because you can get into trouble for admitting it in such a public forum. And you talk about credibility here? C’mon.
5) I am faaaaar from sheep. I abhor groupthink, and that is why I’m often at odds with the deaf community.
Now, if something is truly wrong at Gallaudet, and being covered up, then just present the facts, and let it speak for itself, without injecting personal attacks into it, which, unfortunately, the deaf community is famous for!
June 22, 2007 at 12:35 am
I can assure you, Erick, that Deaf Pundit is not a sheep.
June 22, 2007 at 12:51 am
#19,
John Weh has the perfect right to look at the content of people using his computer servers and make decisions on that basis (content) as to whether or not he wants to continue doing business with that person or group.
The First Amendment only limits the *government*, not private individuals or corporations. Got it? Go to law school, man.
You can’t cite a specific law to prove your point, because the law doesn’t exist.
June 22, 2007 at 4:45 am
Whistleblowing Act of 1989
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c101:S.20.ENR:
This link will tell you what you can do as a whisleblower.
June 22, 2007 at 2:39 pm
This garnered so much attention, that I got interviewed by another blogsite about my blog!
http://bloginterviewer.com/politics/the-deaf-edge-jeannette