HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cmort@NCoast.ORG (Christopher Morton)
Subject: Re: Question for Charles Perez and Ted Frank
Reply-To: cmort@ncoast.org (Christopher Morton)
Organization: North Coast Public Access *NIX, Cleveland, OH
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 11:38:46 GMT
Followup-To: misc.legal

As quoted from <1992Aug29.231235.21910@ncsu.edu> by hes@unity.ncsu.edu (Henry E. Schaffer):

>   Wow - and Ed deduced all of this from a left parenthesis and
> an apostrophe.  His frantic evasions of the questions about his
> totalitarian views, and his substitution of insults for substance,
> are getting more and more amusing (in a depressing way.)

Don't forget his ability to deduce race via name.  Scurrilous racism should
always be credited....



-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------  

"Well whose opinions did you THINK these were...?" 
------------------------------------------------------------------
From: kadie@dante.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Hate Speech Okay, says the Supreme Court
Date: 25 Aug 92 18:03:18 GMT
Article-I.D.: m.1992Aug25.180318.20789
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL

egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:

> And in a true democracy, laws represent the fairest and most
>voluntary summation possible of a collective will.

In a true democracy, a racial majority can do anything it wants to a
racial minority. I'm glad I live in a constitutional democratic
republic rather than a pure democracy.

- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From: eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: ADL Dismayed by Ohio Court Decision Striking Down Hate Crimes Law
Date: 27 Aug 92 22:27:16 GMT
Organization: Superseding Information, Inc.

In <1992Aug27.191435.3387@Princeton.EDU>, egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU sez:
>
>The Supreme Court CLAIMED that the St Paul law could be interpreted to
>penalize pure speech and motives by a series of logical leaps, using a
>case in which several non-bias crimes were committed.  This is law on
>the order of Soviet law at the time of the purge trials, for there is a
>rule, is there not, that whatever decision is made has to be in some
>damn way relevant to the facts of the case.  The Supreme Court is NOT a
>legislature that is empowered to make law concerning cases that have not
>come before it.  It would be well within its rights if some bozo
>prosecutor in St Paul used the hate speech law to punish a Klansman with
>a laser printer, but the law cannot be interpreted that way, AND the
>Supreme Court must WAIT until a law, such as the St Paul law, is
>misused.  The SC is not a legislature.

In case there are still one or two misguided souls out there toying
with the notion that Ed knows the first thing about the Supreme Court,
free speech, or law in general, allow me to disabuse you.

1) There's a doctrine known as "overbreadth" in First Amendment
jurisprudence.  It allows someone like RAV -- whose conduct was
clearly sanctionable under other laws -- to attack the law under which
he *was* convicted on the grounds that the law *also* prohibits speech
clearly protected under the First Amendment.  To put it simply, the
Supreme Court has decided that First Amdt. rights are so important
that it should be easy to attack potentially infringing laws.

Without "overbreadth", Ed's theoretical Klansman (or someone else
afforded full speech rights in the American, if not the Nilgean,
system) would have to endure prosecution before the law in question
could be vetted in the courts.  Since prosecution (or even the threat
of it) chills free speech, it's better (in the Court's view) to get an
invalid statute struck down sooner rather than later.

Nilges fans will want to note that Ed thinks this doctrine is a
Stalinist subterfuge.  Followers of the legal scene will remind them
that it's a doctrine Justice Brennan fought hard for, and one which
Chief Justice Rehnquist has regularly assailed.  Draw your own
conclusions. 

2) I haven't read RAV, but my impression is that it was
(unfortunately) *not* decided on overbreadth grounds (as Justice White
(?) urged), but rather that Scalia & Friends cooked up a new doctrine
that's smells something like Equal Protection for Unprotected Speech.

If I have my facts right -- and I'm sure Mike and others will correct
me if I've strayed -- then Ed's rhapsodies are not only wrong but also
inapposite. 

Imagine my astonishment . . . .

-- 
		   I am of course experienced in teaching
		  and have read the writings of Dana Plato.

	   Mark Eckenwiler    eck@panix.com     ...!cmcl2!panix!eck
Xref: sparky misc.legal:16614 alt.censorship:7230
From: d9bertil@dtek.chalmers.se (Bertil Jonell)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.politics.correct,alt.censorship
Subject: Re: The return of vaudeville. (was: Re: Nilges)
Date: 29 Aug 92 14:52:53 GMT
Organization: Chalmers University of Technology

In article <1992Aug28.152715.24814@Princeton.EDU> egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:
>Sheheryar, a scan of names shows, unfortunately, that the net is
>composed of a preponderance of white, Northern European males.

  Nope, the net is full of Americans, that is what it is, and my personal 
opinion of them is that they will never become northen Europeans no matter
how they look, until they become citizens in a northen European country.

  (And likewise that citizens of a northen European country obviously are
northen Europeans no matter how they look)

  You know what they call people who think that skincolor should be the
basis for citizenship?

-bertil-
--
"It can be shown that for any nutty theory, beyond-the-fringe political view or
 strange religion there exists a proponent on the Net. The proof is left as an
 exercise for your kill-file."
"This is the famous Hasan B Mutlu-trigger, insert it in your .sig file today!"
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: cates@cherokee.unx.sas.com (Claire Cates)
Subject:  Getting a custody case to court
Originator: cates@cherokee.unx.sas.com
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 13:40:39 GMT
Organization: SAS Institute Inc.




Does anyone have any suggestions on how to get a custody case to 
court?

I have been trying to get my case heard since Nov. 91.  Each time
it comes up, my ex2b's lawyers get a continuence or the judge just
decides that he doesn't want to hear the case.  I was suppossed to
be in court Sept. 8 and got the call yesterday that the judge didn't
want to hear it unless we would agree to finish the case in 3 days.
My lawyer agreed, my ex2b's said no they couldn't agree with that,
so another continuence.   This is not only a very nerver racking
process, but it is financially draining.   I know today my lawyers
will try to set a new date, his lawyers will say they have a superior
court date and can't make it.....   

Any suggestions or tatics would be greatly appreciated.


Thanks, 

Claire
Newsgroups: misc.legal,misc.consumers
From: josh@Happy-Man.com (Joshua_Putnam)
Subject: Re: Endorsing checks for deposit via ink stamp?
Reply-To: Joshua_Putnam@happy-man.com
Organization: Happy Man Corp., Vashon Island, WA 98070-7399
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 18:21:13 GMT

In <1992Aug26.144715.12568@twisto.eng.hou.compaq.com> parikh@sirocco.eng.hou.compaq.com (Vijay Parikh) writes:

>In article <1992Aug26.003400.13033@cs.ucla.edu> wales@cs.ucla.edu (Rich Wales) writes:
>>Is it permissible for an individual to endorse checks for deposit via
>>an ink stamp with his name, bank name and account number, and the words
>>"FOR DEPOSIT ONLY"?
>>
>>Businesses seem to do this all the time; but what about individuals?
>>
>>If individuals are in fact permitted to do this, why is it that banks
>>always tell customers to =sign= checks when depositing them?

Perhaps because most consumers don't care enough to have a
rubber stamp made up?  How many checks does the average
consumer deposit in a month?

In any case, my bank's written policies require that the
check be *endorsed* rather than *signed*, so I would
expect a proper stamp is technically acceptable.  They
never complained when I used one in the past.

>In conjunction to the previous query, I had wondered about this also.
>If a party issues a personal check to another party with "For Deposit Only"
>written on the back of the check, is it possible to cash the check by the
>second party?

When I endorse my checks "For Deposit Only," my bank won't
even give me partial cash back.  But since the endorsement
is my own, if I decide I need cash I just cross out the
restriction on the endorsement.

>If it is, is it necessary to write the message in the first place?

It should keep some other, third-party holder from cashing
the check, though obviously some bank tellers check these
things better than others, and some are simply confused.
-- 
 Joshua_Putnam@happy-man.com    Happy Man Corp.  206/463-9399 x102
 4410 SW Pt. Robinson Rd., Vashon Island, WA  98070-7399  fax x108
 We publish SOLID VALUE for the intelligent investor.  NextMail OK
Info free; sample $20: Send POSTAL addr: Solid-Value@happy-man.com
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Custody case question
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 16:10:48 GMT

In article <Btp658.Jr2@world.std.com> srm@world.std.com (Stevens R Miller) writes:
>My professor of Family Law (Ms. Kristian Miccio, a much-honored
>activist and very hard-core feminist) claims that the father has
>an advantage in custody disputes ...

Not surprisingly, she overestimates the power of men because her
goal is to reduce that power.  Take a look at Phyllis Chesler's,
"Mothers on Trial," if you'd like to see an even more radical position
about the legal system.

If a father is going to trial, it's not to his advantage to use 
overestimates of his power.

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: Hate Speech Okay, says the Supreme Court
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 10:32:35 GMT

In article <11924@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>
>In the context of Ed Nilges' "argument" it doesn't matter that Malcolm
>X later repudiated racism.  Nilges was arguing that Viktora had no
>right to express his racist ideas, but that Malcolm X did have a right
>because he wasn't a racist.  My point was that Malcolm X expressed
>racist ideas, and if hate-speech laws had been present at the time
>he made the remarks I quoted, he almost certainly would have been
>prosecuted.

I agree entirely. Indeed, Malcolm X would have been more likely to be the
target of hate-speech laws than, say, Sheriff Clark or Gov. Faubus.
Not because what he was saying was any worse than what they were saying,
but because criminal-law speech restrictions are invariably applied
disproportionately against minorities, the poor, and the politically
unpopular.


--Mike




-- 
Mike Godwin,    |"The meeting of two personalities is like the contact 
mnemonic@eff.org| of two chemical substances: if there is any reaction, 
(617) 864-0665  | both are transformed."
EFF, Cambridge  |                           --Carl Jung 
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.censorship
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Re: The return of vaudeville. (was: Re: Nilges)
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 23:25:50 GMT

In article <1992Aug28.221117.10458@Princeton.EDU> egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:
>Because it was
>insulting to the two men, whatever their race, and not specially funny,
>I ignored it.  I'm a bit older than many of the TV brains on the net,
>which regard knowledge of bad comedy routines and Gilligan's Island as
>on par with knowledge of the history of their own country, and as such I
>regard Trivia as, well, Trivial.  Not remembering the forgettable
>routine, I did see it, initially, as insulting to Irishmen, since
>"Shean" could have been the original poster's corruption of "Shaheen."

I'd be curious where and when you saw it (and how much older than the
TV brains on the net you are), given that the routine was from the turn
of the century, before World War I.

>Then we were
>informed that Shean was Jewish, and of course this shows anyone who
>finds the routine amusing to be an anti-Semite.  Jews were "funny" at
>roughly the same time Irish and Germans were "funny".

Is a Woody Allen fan an anti-Semite?  A Spike Lee fan a racist?

Who is it appropriate to laugh at, Ed?  Besides you, that is.
-- 
             ......................................................
             ted frank | thf2@midway.uchicago.edu | std disclaimers
             the university of chicago law skool, chicago, illinois
             it's log!  log!  log!  it's big, it's heavy, it's wood
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.politics.correct,alt.censorship
From: eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Cellular Frequencies
Date: 29 Aug 92 12:49:31 GMT
Organization: Superseding Information, Inc.

In <1992Aug28.175227.20760@nsisrv.gsfc.nasa.gov>, dsc@gemini.tmc.edu sez:
>In article <1992Aug26.140038.5761@panix.com> eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler) writes:
>>In <1992Aug26.081202.3527@tigger.jvnc.net>, keithd@bigguy.timeplex.com sez:
>>>
>>>Actualy I beg to differe.  There was a very public trial of a drug runner
>>>here in Florida where the Defendant (read as Convict now) claimed that
>>>the Feds had illeagaly tapped his cellular phone.  The courts not only slammed
>>>him so hard his cellular may pass in another year or so, but has condoned the
>>>Southern Bell Mobility activity of recording ALL cell conversations for use
>>>by law enforcement types need them.  The basis for the rooling being that
>>>Cellular is like CB or Ship-to-Shore.  This is an open broadcast on public
>>>airwaves and thus there was no reason for them to assume that it would be
>>>considdered "private".
>>
>>Wrong.  
>
>Which part?  Was he not convicted?  Was the tape disallowed?

The wrong part is the part that says the courts can authorize
unlimited cellular monitoring in advance on the grounds that cell
calls are open broadcasts.  This is demonstrably false, as
consultation of statutes I cited will reveal.

>>Once again, try looking at sections 2510 et seq. of Title 18, United
>>States Code.  Specifically, try 2510(1) [exempting cordless phone
>>portion of transmission], 2511(1) [the express prohibition], and
>>2511(2)(g)(ii) [exempting CB and ship-to-shore].

While there are exemptions for cordless phone emissions, CB,
ship-to-shore, etc., there is no exception in the statute allowing
unauthorized cellular interception.  It's a felony, if a relatively
unenforceable one.

-- 
		   I am of course experienced in teaching
		  and have read the writings of Dana Plato.

	   Mark Eckenwiler    eck@panix.com     ...!cmcl2!panix!eck
Xref: sparky misc.legal:16883 misc.legal.computing:2069
From: azhao@cs.arizona.edu (Qiang Alex Zhao)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,misc.legal.computing
Subject: "copyright" problem
Keywords: copyright
Date: 4 Sep 92 04:48:02 GMT
Followup-To: misc.legal.computing
Organization: Computer Science Dept, Univ of Arizona, Tucson


There's a certain application which I'm modifying the code. The
original author said in the code:

       Copyright (C) 1988      Dr. X Y Z
                               Some Institution
                               Some email address
       Permission is granted to modify and re-distribute this code in
       any manner as long as this notice is preserved. All standard
       disclaimers apply.

At this point I want to "modify and re-distribute" the program (it's
like a complete rewrite). And I want to have my "copyright" without
violating copyright rules, although mine will be much similar to the
original one.

Could anybody tell me what would be appropriate to do? Thanks.

-- 
= Qiang Alex Zhao		   Computer Science Department
  azhao@cs.arizona.edu             University of Arizona
  (602) 621-1815                   Tucson, AZ 85721
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.censorship
From: hes@unity.ncsu.edu (Henry E. Schaffer)
Subject: Nilges spews and runs (Was Re: Question for  ...)
Summary:  Nilges raises his tail (skunklike) and then runs away.
Organization: NCSU Computing Center
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 19:56:19 GMT

In article <1992Aug31.145731.5839@Princeton.EDU> egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:
> ...
>I'm for one surprised that anyone with a pretense, such as Henry and
>Knucklehead have, to knowing C would have enough pride to proofread even
>his pseudo-code,  ...

  Once again Ed Nilges invents what he pretends are facts.  He 
can't show any indication that I pretend to know C - so he just 
states it with the same degree of certainty that backs all of his 
other claims.  It is true that I'm guilty of using an apostrophe 
(correctly) to denote a possessive.  (It isn't true that I was 
writing C at that time or trying to do so.)

  But inventing history doesn't quite satisfy him, so he has to
call names -

>I'm certain that not enough evidence exists to convince bozos like you,
>Ted Frank, Charles Perez, Jackanapes Schaffer or Knucklehead Morton.
> ...
>Of course, I was met by the usual shitstorm, to which I have become
>accustomed from many years of experience with boysnet.  Typical of the
>shitstorm was the display of the low priority freedom of speech really
>has in the minds of its friends, for those who defend the behavior of
>Viktora as "speech" are quick to try to silence real, written speech
>when it departs from the basket of mindless (and subtly racist)
>"libertarianism" that predominates on the net.  ...

  The reality is that he produced the shitstorm himself, and now he is
complaining about it.  Then he moves on to a number of other imagined
persecutions, and tries to accuse others of threatening him -

>This shows clearly that these fearless defenders of freedom of speech
>know very little about speech and dialogue, indeed that they confuse it
>with a physical confrontation.  ...

  However we see that they aren't the ones advocating physical 
confrontation - he is!

>Of course, dialog does not operate according to these "laws".  Now, if
>you clowns want a physical confrontation, you are welcome to come to my
>office at Princeton.   ...

  And then, having raised his own blinding "shitstorm" of threats,
insults, fabrications and omissions, he turns tail and runs away
from answering any of the items about his own racist and totalitarian
attitudes.

>All of
>these variously-named threads are closed as far as I am concerned. ...

--henry schaffer
From: lkk@panix.com (Larry Kolodney)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Graffiti Ordinance Ex Post Facto
Date: 26 Aug 92 04:32:28 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC

In <1992Aug26.014038.11822@panix.com> eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler) writes:

	[concerning an ordinance which allows the city to remove
	graffitti from a building if the owner refuses]
 
>If I were of a mind to attack this ordinance, I'd try a takings clause
>approach.  (Hoo boy -- and you thought the _Lucas_ debate was over.)
>Off the top of my pointy legal head, I question whether the state can
>invite itself onto your property (read: invade, as discussed in the
>celebrated _Loretto_ decision) on pain of incarceration.  (And please:
>let's keep this distinct from the never-ending forfeiture discussion.)

I think its easily distinguished from *Loretto*.  In Loretto, the
cable TV wire was a mandatory physical invasion.  In this case, the
state is merely regulating the use of your property, and only invades
(as in any other regulatory area), only if you fail to comply with the
regulation voluntarily.

I think this is more analogous to zoning cases where the state
destroys a building which was built in violation of a zoning
ordinance, after the owner refuses to modify to bring the structure
within the ordinance.



-- 
larry kolodney:(lkk@panix.com) 
_(*#&)#*&%)@(*^%_!*&%^!)*&#+!*&$+!?&%+!*&^_)*&#%)*&^%#+&
The past is not dead, it's not even past.   - Wm. Faulkner
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: dsc@gemini.tmc.edu (Doug S. Caprette Bldg. 28 W191 x3892)
Subject: Re: individual/company rights on the network
Organization: NASA GSFC CDP VLBI
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 22:05:03 GMT

In article <1992Aug24.214942.20568@m.cs.uiuc.edu> kadie@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>RE: Complaints about email
>
>clee@aslws01.asl.dl.nec.com (Christina Lee) writes:
>
>>QUESTIONS:
>>Can someone be fired for this?
>
>In most states you can be fired for any reason or no reason. Fairness
>is not required.
>

I have no doubt that this is true.  But, in most states (if not all) is 
disharge (firing) without justification not a tort?

Bear in mind that being laid off (reduction in force) is different from being
fired (discharged with cause) in a number of ways not the least of these being
eligibility for unemployment compensation.  

My personal experience was in Ohio, where someone discharged with justification
does not qualify for unemployment compensation, while someone discharged 
without justification (me) does (did).


Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: cfaks@ux1.cts.eiu.edu (Alice Sanders)
Subject: need good malpractice attorney in central Illinois
Date: Thu, 03 Sep 1992 03:51:28 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Eastern Illinois University

Can anyone recommend a good malpractice attorney in central Illinois?  I
might have to sue an orthodontist.

Thanks.

Alice
From: fsars@acad3.alaska.edu (Allen R Sparks)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Discrimination in employment on the basis of political belief
Date: 27 Aug 92 23:53:06 GMT
Organization: University of Alaska Fairbanks

In article <1992Aug27.145802.29568@porthos.cc.bellcore.com>, whs70@dancer.uucp (22501-sohl) writes:
> In terms of firing for political affiliation, watch the host of
> personnel changes that happens every time there is a political party
> change of the higher elected officials in all levels of government.
> When Jim Florio (democrat) replaced former Republican governor of NJ 
> Tom Kean, he wiped the slate clean in many areas and then
> appointed his own people.  True, many of the former governor's 
> appointed people submitted resignations that aided the process,
> but not all of them did and those that Florio didn't want any
> more were sacked and usually replaced with an individual
> that was a democrat.

The original question referred to a private company.  The answer by
Kadie was that the default was that an employer could fire you for any
reason, but that there were exceptions, not only in Federal Law, but
from State to State.  The most obvious exception in Federal Law, is
race.  No employer can fire someone on the basis of race.

You are referring to a change in administration in government, and in
that case, depending on the state and the position/department the
elected official has the authority to replace most high level
positions with people with his own choice.  These are commonly
referred to as political appointees.  The President not only gets to
do this with his Cabinet, but all the Assistant Secretaries, and
Deputy Secretaries, and even Ambassodorships.

There are some appointed positions that hold a certain term of office
(the members of the FCC come to mind) and a new President might
replace them when their term ends.

But in the lower level positions of government, the non-political
appointees, or civil service, you cannot be removed, unless it's for
cause.  One of the reasons that a reformist president or governor
cannot make changes as fast as he or she might like, is because of
these non-political appointees that lay low, and simply outlast the
governor or president who usually doesn't last more than 4-8 years.

BTW, there are elected positions where the people in the department
are all political appointees, with the possible exception of the
secretary.  I'm thinking of New Mexico, where I used to live.  A
county sherrif has the power to fire everyone anytime he wants to,
including his first day in office.  Worse, for the deputy sherriffs
at least, New Mexico has a two-term limit for all county sherrifs,
(might be an exception for Bernalillo County where Albuquerque is
located) and the term is for two years.

=== Al Sparks
Newsgroups: misc.legal