8 February, 1996
President John E. La Tourette
LH 301
NIU
Dear President La Tourette:
My name is Jim Thomas. I am a professor in sociology at NIU.  I
was tenured in 1986 and given an early promotion to full
professor five years later. I have devoted my life at NIU to
teaching, research, and service, and I believe my record
demonstrates that I have been reasonably successful.
Because of my dedication to my vocation, and because of the
oath I swore to uphold the U.S. Constitution when hired at NIU,
I am compelled to confess that I am not what I seem, and I seek
your assistance.
You see, I am a criminal, and I fear that I may be indicted and
prosecuted for my felonious acts by the Federal government. I
also confess to conspiring in my felonious activities with
other NIU faculty and staff, which compounds my crime.
In my own defense, I was not a criminal when I arose today,
Thursday, February 8. Yet, just a few hours later, I now find
myself at risk of discovery and apprehension. 
Today, at 11 a.m. (CST), President Clinton signed the
Telecommunications Act of 1996, which made me, and other NIU faculty 
and staff, criminals. Buried in the Act is an
amendment called the "Communications Decency Act" (CDA).  The
intent of this legislation is to ban "indecency" on the
Internet, the electronic communication network in which I work
as part of my professional teaching, service, and research
duties. The broad language of the Act prohibits actions that
most of us agree should be prohibited, and for which laws
already exist, such as banning obscenity and child pornography.
But, it prohibits much more.
As the leader of one of the largest Universities in the U.S.,
I'm certain that you have been following the CDA controversy
closely.  You likely read the following from the Chronical
of Higher Education:
COLLEGES WORRY ABOUT NEW LIABILITY FOR INTERNET CONTENT
The recent passage of the telecommunications reform bill has some
college administrators worried over new liability issues for
educational institutions that might unknowingly make "indecent"
material available to minors through their Internet access
operations.  In addition, they've expressed concern over
potential First Amendment violations if they censor the content
too heavily.  "We have programs on campus about date rape,
unwanted pregnancy, and reproductive-health options, so I don't
see how we'd tolerate censorship of that kind of information in
the electronic format," says the head of telecommunications at
Carnegie Mellon University.  (Chronicle of Higher Education 9 Feb
96 A23)
I'm certain that you know that the language of the
Act prohibits "indecency" from being collected  or stored
in, and transferred by, computer systems. As astonishing as it
may seem, the Act also limits discussion of abortion
information, criminalizes dissemination of certain types of
drug information, and allows local jurisdictions to determine
what constitutes "indecency." In short, the CDA criminalizes in
electronic media that which enjoys First Amendment protections
if in, for example, the NIU library or a class text. 
You have likely already consulted with NIU counsel, who have told you 
that "indecency" is a vague concept,
and what is considered valuable information in DeKalb,
Illinois, may be offensive to those in Memphis, Tennessee.
So, you are aware of the risk that the lowest threshhold of tolerance
for "indecency" may now become the national standard.
Reading material that we routinely assign to students or make
available to 17 year old freshmen in the library may now be
criminalized if made available on a World Wide Web homepage.
Works of art that we appreciate in exhibits cannot be safely
made available on the Net. Discussions that we have in Sandburg
Auditorium, NIU classrooms, or on the pages of the Northern
Star can be criminalized if conducted in an electronic discussion
group or stored in electronic archives.  Forms of expression
heard routinely on television now put authors at risk
if posted on the Net.  Lyrics from musicians ranging
from the Beatles to contemporary rap or "grunge" could be
restricted from the Net and subject those who participate in the
discussion of such lyrics to criminal sanctions.
The new law puts not only the publisher of "indecency' at risk.
It also makes the provider of the computer service on which
"indecency" occurs equally liable for criminal prosecution.
This makes me a criminal, and it
places at criminal risk all other NIU faculty and staff 
who are required,
as part of their duties, to maintain the computer systems on which 
possible transgressions might occur. In fact, some legal analysts suggest that,
because of a quirk in statutory wording, this letter places you at risk.
This letter makes you aware of criminal activity, and by failing to
address it, you may be complicit by knowingly providing the resources for
the crimes.
Here are a few ways in which the new law affects me:
I currently conduct a class in which 50 percent of the course
is conducted on the Internet by use of a discussion group,
homepages, and electronic mail. Some of my course material,
including reproductions of court cases,  put me in
non-compliance with the law if posted on the class homepage.
Any discussions in the class discussion group that violate the
new law will put me and the poster in non-compliance.  This
restricts course content and also restricts electronic
lecturing and making some class lecture notes electronically
available.
Any discussion of "indecent" material that occurs on, for
example, TOMPAINE--an NIU faculty/staff discussion list--will
put me at risk.
Any homepage material that a faculty member publishes that
violates the proscriptions in the law will put me at risk.
Why am I accountable for the actions of others? Because
I also maintain sun.soci, the sociology department's
Internet-connected computer system that encourages use of the
new technology for pedagogy, exploration of intellectual and
artistic issues, and discussion. The Act makes me liable for
what occurs on the system. 
I also publish an electronic newsletter/journal with over a
quarter of a million readers (Cu Digest). The newsletter is in
demonstrable non-compliance with the law, because it contains,
among other material,
"indecent" public documents and legal decisions available in any library.
The ACLU and other organizations have joined to file a
restraining order against the Act.  Senator Patrick Leahy will
soon introduce legislation to repeal the Act.  Representative Patricia 
Schroeder will be introducing legislation to repeal the restrictive language 
in the CDA. But, until and unless the Act is changed, it has created a
"criminal culture" at NIU. You can find
considerable information on the Act at
http://www.soci.niu.edu/~critcrim/cda/cda.html. I urge you and NIU legal
counsel to examine and respond to the issues.
I see two possible responses you could make:
First, you could order all "indecent" material to be removed
from NIU homepages, create a barrier that prohibits newsgroup
and Usenet access on campus, and create a monitoring system
that would assure that the content on all computer systems with
Internet access at NIU be approved. In short, you could
exercise prior restraint, restrict academic freedom, and
engage in censorship. Of course, you must first ascertain what
is "indecent," and in what jurisdictions such standards of "indecency"
might apply.
An alternative response would be to take a public stand against the
restrictive provisions of the CDA, support freedom of expression, and join
in opposition to the "chilling effect" that the current
legislation is producing.  
A few years ago, you wrote me a memo. You concluded that memo with
the quotation: "I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend
to the death your right to say it." Given such a commitment, I
am confident that you will select the second option.
Previous pleas to urge NIU administrators to act on these issues
have failed.  Given the urgency, I trust that you decisively will act where
others have not. 
Sincerely,
Jim Thomas, Professor
Sociology/Criminal Justice
Northern Illinois University
jthomas@sun.soci.niu.edu
cc: TOMPAINE@sun.soci.niu.edu
    Norden Gilbert, NIU Legal Counsel
    Gian Sarup, Chair, Sociology
    Frederick Kitterle, Dean, LA&S