From: [k--d--e] at [cs.uiuc.edu] (Carl M Kadie)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,misc.legal.computing,alt.censorship
Subject: Re: Hatch Act vs. USENET -- text wanted
Date: 25 Aug 93 02:01:33 GMT

[s--n--n] at [troll.gsfc.nasa.gov] (Chris Shenton) writes:

>My management has recently asked us to remove all newsgroups from our
>server dealing with the usual trinity: sex, politics, religion.
>
>The elimination of politics is justified because of the Hatch Act,
>which I understand proscribes government employees from engaging in
>politics on government time or with government equipment. I also heard
>mention that this document was being revised.
[...]

Here is a note I wrote a while back (in a different context) on the
Hatch Act.

======= ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/law/hatch.act =====
The Hatch Act applies only to federal civil service employees, not to
grantees and certainly not to students. I believe the States' "little
Hatch Acts" have similar scope. Moreover, the Hatch Act doesn't forbid
all political activity by covered employees [_United States Civil
Service Commission v. National Assocation of Letter Carriers, 413 U.S.
548 (1973)]. According to the ACLU Handbook _The Right to Protest_:

"Disallowed activities include serving on party or partisan campaign
committees or organziations, active campaigning in partisan election
campaigns, political fundraising, publically endorsing partisan
candidates, and running for partion office. Permitted activites
include wearing campaign buttons, displaying bumper stickers, working
with nonpartisan groups, contributing to political parties, attending
politcal fundions, and even extensive campaigning in nonpartisan
candidate or referendum election campaigns." [5 C.F.R. -- 733.111 and
733.121 and _Biller v. United States Merit System Protection Board_,
863 F.2d 1979 (2d Cir. 1988)]

At my school, in 1961, the Trustees added this to the rules on
visiting speakers:

   "2. Political Speakers. University building and grounds shall not be
used for political purposes except for candidates for nomination or
election to state-wide or national offices may appear in person to
make political address."

However, the current rules have no such restrictions. They say:

"2. Students should be allowed to invite and hear any person of their
own choosing. [...] The University's control of campus facilities
should not be used as a device of censorship. It should be made clear
to the academic and larger community that sponsorship of guest
speakers does not necessarily imply approval or endorsement of the
views expressed either by the sponsoring group or the institution."

I don't know the law in Iowa, but I'm confident that the ISU computer
speech restriction is overly broad.

- Carl

-- 
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
 =[k--d--e] at [eff.org], [k--d--e] at [cs.uiuc.edu] =

-- 
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent any organization; this is just me.
 = [k--d--e] at [cs.uiuc.edu] =