The Honorable >name< U.S. Senate Washington, D.C., 20510 Dear Senator >name<: I write to express my concern over the likely effect of the amended Telecommunications Competition and Deregulation Act of 1995 on academic research and freedom. I am sure that you will receive similar letters discussing the First Amendment implications of the provisions that prohibit the posting of "indecent, lewd, lascivious, or filthy" messages to electronic communications media. That is not my subject here. My concern is rather with the effect of those same provisions on academic freedom and scientific research. I do not need to remind you that the original purpose of the internet was to facilitate electronic communication between academic researchers. Of course, many people now use it in ways that are indirectly related to the original mission, but the needs of the academic research community remain a major justification for government support to the internet. And I certainly do not need to remind you that it was the dizzying pace set by American scientific advance that was a major cause of the Soviet collapse and the end of the Cold War. I have 27 years of experience in computer system development. My internet experience dates back to 1988 when I was investigating the use of chaos theory to help understand the processes involved in the sudden collapse of advanced civilizations. Since this was only a free-time research project, being able to contact colleagues in California, Michigan, and the United Kingdom was invaluable in developing the paper I presented during December, 1990, at the Cambridge Conference on Dynamic Modelling and Human Systems. Later in 1992-1994, I served for a time as the news system administrator (a collateral duty) for an internet relay site and was exposed to some of the seamier aspects of netnews, but my work during that period also gave me an appreciation of the number of research groups that had become dependent on the internet for effective collaboration and the sharing of ideas. I am currently an Adjunct Instructor of Computer Science at George Mason University in Fairfax, Virginia, and am also a doctoral student in the Computational Science and Informatics Institute at the same school. My doctoral research is almost totally dependent on interaction via the internet. That involves discussions that are as lively and irreverent as any that take place within the walls of an academic department. Academic speech may seem innocuous, but it is often offensive to those whose cherished beliefs are challenged by the process of identifying truth. Lord Jenkins of Hillhead defines it as: "the freedom within the law to question and test received wisdom, and to put forward new ideas and controversial or unpopular opinions without placing themselves in jeopardy of losing their jobs and privileges they may have at their institutions.(1)" Since the time of Socrates, scholars have been called upon to give their lives for that academic ideal. The following examples of academic speech might well be regarded in some communities as "indecent, lewd, lascivious, or filthy," or at least sufficiently offensive that a local DA might be tempted to prosecute. Perhaps these will give some insight into why scholars believe academic speech involves an independent sphere of judgment into which the State should not meddle(2). 1. Linguists, to reconstruct the ancestral form and meaning of a word, must cite the descendent forms and their current meanings. The Proto-Indo-European verbal root 'PEUK' or 'PEUG,' meaning 'to prick,' has become the Latin forms pungere and punct- and a Germanic form meaning to penetrate ('prick') or strike ('bang') as well as the familiar four-letter word for sexual intercourse (3). A complete reconstruction of the evolution of this root would be actionable under the proposed law. 2. The current consensus of the New Testament research community is that the pre-Easter Church had its roots in the syncretic Graeco-Jewish communities of inter-testamental Galilee (4). John Dominic Crossan, in particular, places Jesus squarely in the Greek cynic tradition (5). The point that goes unsaid in this discussion is that Hellenistic Greeks believed that sexual intercourse between a teacher and a younger student was one method for passing on gnosis (knowledge). Consequently, it would not be totally surprising to historians if they encountered evidence for homosexual practices in the pre-Easter church. That evidence exists. In 1974, Morton Smith published an old manuscript he had photographed in 1958 at the ancient monastery of Mar Saba in the Judean wilderness, preserving a letter from Clement of Alexandria (150-215 CE) (6). That letter contains what appears to be an original sequence from the story of the rich young man in Mark that describes Jesus indulging in homosexual practices as part of a nude baptismal ritual. Clement regarded the material as belonging to an authentic version of MarkÕs gospel that had been enlarged by Mark for use by initiates. CrossanÕs position (7) is that it was more likely part of the first edition of Mark, possibly quickly excised by Mark but preserved for some reason after misuse by members of the community. My point here is not that this is a correct reading of the evidence (8), but rather that I once saw the introduction of this material into a discussion on the pre-Easter Church generate massive controversy. If that happens when scholars find their faith challenged, consider how outsiders are likely to react. And if that outsider was in a position to press charges, the poster could find himself or herself extradited to stand trial for indecent speech in a town 3000 miles away from his or her campus. 3. A comparative study of bonobo (Pan paniscus, the pigmy chimpanzee) and human sexual behavior might easily qualify as 'lewd' or 'lascivious.' Bonobos practice sperm competition (9). They mate promiscuously from an early age, and their testicles are enormous. They are also believed to be the closest living relatives of Homo sapiens and provide unsettling insight into human behavioral evolution. Academic discourse is often offensive, but it is also protected speech for very good reasons. The proposed bill trespasses into areas where the State has historically been incompetent. Sincerely, Harry Erwin 1. Quoted in Russell, C., Academic Freedom, Routledge, 1993, 1-2. 2. Russell (1993), page 3. 3. Claiborne, R., The Roots of English, Times Books, 1989, p. 195. 4. Funk, R., et al., The Five Gospels, Polebridge Press, 1993. 5. Crossan, J. D., The Historical Jesus, HarperSanFrancisco, 1992. 6. Smith, M., The Secret Gospel, Harper and Row, 1973, and Smith, M., Clement of Alexandria and a Secret Gospel of Mark, Harvard University Press, 1973. 7. Crossan, J. D., The Cross that Spoke, Harper and Row, 1988. 8. I suspect not, but there are inadequate data to support judgement. 9. See Baker, R., and Belis, M., Human Sperm Competition: Copulation, Masturbation and Infidelity, Chapman and Hall, 1994, for a discussion of sperm competition in H. sapiens.