Return-Path: <nifl-povracelit@literacy.nifl.gov> Received: from literacy (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by literacy.nifl.gov (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id h63K33C00059; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 16:03:03 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2003 16:03:03 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <20030703.160146.6398.0.sophocles5@juno.com> Errors-To: listowner@literacy.nifl.gov Reply-To: nifl-povracelit@literacy.nifl.gov Originator: nifl-povracelit@literacy.nifl.gov Sender: nifl-povracelit@literacy.nifl.gov Precedence: bulk From: "George E. Demetrion" <sophocles5@juno.com> To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-povracelit@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-POVRACELIT:1161] : [NIFL-AALPD:497] NIFL discussion censorship X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas X-Mailer: Juno 1.49 Status: O Content-Length: 2965 Lines: 85 Apologies for cross-postings. This message is particularly relevant for this list in that messsages about the US Iraqi conflict were systematically eradicted from the archives. Perhaps they will be restored. That is certainly my hope. George Demetrion __________ We are writing to express our ongoing concern about lack of transparency at the National Institute for Literacy and lack of clarity about how NIFL will uphold and support the Constitutional rights of discussion participants, as demonstrated by secret filtering and removal of messages from discussion lists, and subsequent refusal to provide information about these practices. In a message posted to all NIFL discussion lists on Friday, May 23rd, Interim Director Sandra Baxter wrote: NIFL is working with the list facilitators to develop clear guidelines on discussion list policies. These guidelines will be posted to the NIFL discussion lists as soon as possible but no later than mid-June and will be implemented by NIFL staff and list facilitators. In a message posted to the NIFL-AALPD list May 24th, Eileen Eckert wrote: Sandra said: "In response to concerns raised about these messages, NIFL implemented automated filters to block advocacy messages as a temporary means of ensuring NIFL's compliance with federal law while continuing to maintain the discussion lists as a resource for the field." Who raised these concerns? Why did NIFL choose to implement "automated filters" as its response? Why were there no messages stating the concern that in order to comply with federal law, people should not post advocacy messages to the list? Why were list subscribers not informed that their messages were being "filtered"? What words trigger the filters? When will these "temporary" filters be removed? Who will decide? How? We have been told that the filters were removed, and that is all we have been told. Messages that were removed from the archives have not been restored, guidelines have not been posted, and questions have not been answered. We believe that a functioning democracy relies on respect for the Constitution, free and open communication, and transparency in government, and we urge those at NIFL to meet these requirements by taking the following steps: 1. Post discussion guidelines that ensure protection of participants' First Amendment rights. 2. Answer the above questions about the filtering and removal of messages from the discussion lists and archives. 3. Restore messages that were blocked or removed from the archives. Signed, Eileen Eckert Catherine B. King George Demetrion Steve Bender Janet Isserlis Elsa Auerbach Bonnie Odiorne Joshua Hayes Mary Lynn Carver Ujwala Samant Maureen Crowley Janice Sapp Andy Nash _________________________________________________________________ MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus --------- End forwarded message ----------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Mar 11 2004 - 12:18:08 EST