Forwarding e-mail is protected free speech

The list of "75 Reasons why women
(bitches) should not have freedom of speech" posted by four Cornell University students has become an ironic statement on freedom of speech on the Internet. While Internet users across the country were understandably appalled by the message, the subsequent threats of death, bodily harm and e-mail harrassment made against the four students and the entire Cornell network point toward a "free speech for me but not for thee" mentality among other Internet users.

The students initially sent the message to a group of friends, who proceeded to forward it across the country. In response to complaints, Cornell administrators correctly ruled that the students did not violate sexual harassment codes because the list was not aimed at anyone in particular. Nor, administrators decided, did the students violate any code of non-academic conduct, as the list was initially kept within a small circle.

However, the pressure from members of the Cornell community to discipline students was intense. While Cornell administrators have found no justification for formal discipline, the four men have committed to 50 hours of community service and a class at the school addressing rape issues. While this may be a reasonable apology from the students to their community, it is not clear how "voluntary" the students' admission of overstepping the bounds of decency was. The case sets a dangerous precendent in a communications network with no established sets of guidelines or laws.

Certain offensive messages must be tolerated in a nation that values the right of all to speak freely. If a message on the Internet is deemed offensive, then who is the guilty party -- the initial sender, or the person who forwarded the message? If a list demeaning women is to be considered "abuse," then what is to be done with Anarchist Cookbook recipes or the Ku Klux Klan web site available across the Internet? While some may consider e-mail privileged access, it is nonetheless a valid means of communication and must be protected under the same freedom of speech laws as other forms of expression. The problem with punishing people -- such as the Cornell students -- who distribute such messages over the Internet is that it holds them to different standards than other means of communication.

Fortunately for the University of Michigan, the Information Technology Divison's Conditions of Use Statement outlines the definition of harrassment, and, had the case occurred at the University, would not have interfered. Unlike the Jake Baker case -- in which threatening messages were posted on a bulletin board describing a possible attack on a specific student -- forwarding a message or list cannot be construed as harrassment on an individual level.

Though the prospect of instantly sending a threatening message across the world can be discomforting , it is no reason to hold the Internet or its users to a different set of standards of free speech. People reading e-mail have a "delete" key as well as a "forward" key -- if they read an offensive message, they should use it.