University Centers Director Gary Ratcliff thrust UCSD into the national spotlight last Wednesday when his letter to the Web site administrators of BURN! and the Che Cafe, their online host, made waves at http://www.news.com and online nerd watering hole http://www.slashdot.org.

According to burn.ucsd.edu, the letter states that “”the Che Cafe is in violation of UCSD policies and Federal law by maintaining the burn.ucsd.edu Web site and using UCSD computer network resources to provide access to a terrorist organization.”” Although the Che site itself has relatively mild anarchist propaganda, Mr. Ratcliff’s letter asserts that “”the burn.ucsd.edu Web site includes links supporting the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Columbia, an organization listed by the U.S. Department of State as a designated foreign terrorist organization.””

Apparently, under the newly enacted USA Patriot Act, providing “”communications equipment”” is tantamount to providing material support to terrorists. And by violating Federal law, Mr. Ratcliff argues, the Che is violating UCSD policy and the university has the prerogative to demand the removal of the hyperlink.

The Che, quite predictably, is resisting all attempts from the UCSD administration to stem the unstoppable tide of leftist activity on this campus (no doubt the administration fears an October revolution is at hand) and is refusing to comply. From the looks of a flyer published by the Che, its main defense seems to be that there is nothing criminal about a hyperlink. As sensible as this may seem, under U.S. legal precedent, unfortunately, it is wrong.

In 2001, longtime hacker magazine 2600 lost a long legal battle to major motion picture companies that wanted the publication to remove a link to a program, DeCSS, which could crack DVD encryption and thus was illegal under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. While 2600 had posted the original program before and had been nailed for it, the U.S. Second Court of Appeals decided that linking to other sites with the program was tantamount to committing the same crime. As a result, if the FARC Web site provides support to any “”terrorist”” (which it could in any number of ways; for example, disseminating the latest political tract against the Colombian government to FARC members overseas makes it a communication tool), then burn.ucsd.edu’s link is criminal as well.

While the Che has predictably been demonizing the administration and Mr. Ratcliff for their actions, perhaps it should be thanking them; it appears the university has followed current policy and Federal law. And by pressing the matter, they’ve given the Che a chance to actually effect useful change in court (as opposed to ranting mindlessly about university gardening sheds intruding upon the fertile grounds of the revolution).

The fact that hyperlinks and, for that matter, electronic data like computer programs and Web sites are not protected as free speech is an egregious flouting of the First Amendment. And the university’s actions have shown, much more clearly than the DeCSS case has, the consequences of a society in which different standards are applied to electronic as opposed to written communication.

For example, here is the text Ratcliff objected to, in its entirety:

<a href= “”http://www.farc-ep.org””>http://www.farc-ep.org</a>

Have I just committed a federal crime?

Or how about a couple more:

<a href=””http://cubicmetercrystal.com/decss/decss.zip””>DeCSS</a>

<a href=””http://www.pflp-pal.org””>The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine</a>

So do we dismiss the value of pointing UCSD students from UCSD Web servers to sites that are “”terrorist organizations””? Does the rhetoric that these organizations espouse have no redeeming academic value? Are students so blind as to be unable to analyze terrorist manifestos at an academic level to understand the motivations of their writers as opposed to taking them as complete pedagogy? And is electronic publication a “”tool for terrorism,”” above and beyond speech protected by the First Amendment, and thus criminal?

Mr. Ratcliff seems to believe so.

Ironically, it seems his actions have only given the opposition a shining example of a case where the current legal system fails to address the more complex issues at hand, and provides the impetus for change beyond the paltry constraints of Genesee and Torrey Pines Avenues.

In late-breaking developments, however, Director of Student Policy and Judicial Affairs Nick Aguilar now maintains that the original letter about the hyperlink is no longer valid. Rather, he now argues the Che is providing support to terrorists by hosting a Web page for FARC.

The page, found at http://burn.ucsd.edu/~farc-ep/, reads in totality, “”La pagina de las FARC ha cambiado.”” The page — nothing more than a link itself, essentially — persists for five seconds before loading http://www.farc-ep.org. This, Aguilar says, amounts to “”hosting terrorism.”” This is patently absurd; anyone who takes the time to look at the redirect page and the intent of the original letter will realize Mr. Aguilar is belatedly turning tail from a patently untenable position while trying to maintain some semblance of dignity.

Mr. Aguilar seems the likely candidate as the author of the letter, in light of his evasive answers as to who actually is the author. He now says an “”official”” second “”clarifying”” letter is on its way about the redirect page.

Ironically enough, Mr. Aguilar’s attempt to shield his uncovered rear has changed little, since the original argument remains legally valid. If the university has identified a violation of federal law — namely, the hyperlink — and refuses to shut it down, it is an accomplice in crime. Mr. Aguilar has but added one more misdeed to the administration’s list: censorship.