HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart)
Subject: Re: Jury Nullification (was: Killing in defense of possessions?)
Organization: my opinions only
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 03:12:06 GMT

In article <1992Sep15.005040.25967@newsgate.sps.mot.com>
titmas@chdasic.sps.mot.com (Eric Titmas) writes:

>Colonial juries did practice jury nullification,  a fact well know by the
>writers and adopters of the U.S. Constitution.

In fact, the Zenger case (remember where "freedom of the press"
originated?) was an example of jury nullification.

Seth		sethb@fid.morgan.com
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: The Loss of Innocence (Was RE:  FUCK YOU)
Date: 14 Sep 92 02:01:54 GMT
Organization: Princeton University
Originator: news@nimaster

In article <1992Sep13.204734.721@eff.org> mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:
>
>How old are you, Ed?

I'm forty-two.
From: srm@world.std.com (Stevens R Miller)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Hornbooks -- Tax
Date: 10 Sep 92 13:34:37 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:
>In article <BuBDGJ.ILA@world.std.com> srm@world.std.com (Stevens R Miller) writes:
>>[Hornbooks] aren't considered very authoritative...
>I can think of a number of hornbooks that *are* considered very authoritative

Well, okay, perhaps I should create a macro that prefaces every sentence
with, "in general" 8-).  In general, hornbooks are weak authority.  In
general, they rank above commercial outlines, but below restatements.
In general, I wouldn't cite one in a brief unless I was pretty hungry
for authority.  In general.
-- 
Stevens R. Miller, J.D.		E-mail to srm@mw.sbi.com
From: ggw@wolves.uucp (Gregory G. Woodbury)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Defacing Money
Date: 7 Sep 92 05:40:41 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Wolves Den UNIX
X-Md4-Signature: 201251c91e827853745c28a0d18b2708

In article <1992Sep5.003453.15529@oracle.us.oracle.com> astallon@us.oracle.com (Anthony Stallone) writes:
>Question: What are the laws regarding the alteration of currency?
>          For example, I've seen coins turned in to jewlery, dollars
>          burned at protests, and bills marked up by various groups.
>          Is any of this illegal?

The statutory acts dealing with this subject are all acts that deal with
counterfiting and fradulent use of altered monetary material.

There is absolutely *no* illegality in burning a piece of paper
currency.

There is *probably* no illegality in adding words or symbols to a piece
of money that does not attempt to alter the value of the currency or
infringe on other laws.  I think there have been court cases that have,
in fact, ruled that adding a symbol or words for political messages or
protests is a protected act under the "free speech" provisions of the US
Constitution.

For quite a while, the Dept of the Treasury attempted to enforce the
rules/laws concerning the alteration of coinage when a coin was drilled
or turned into a piece of jewlery.  They are now limited to enforcement
if the altered coin  is attempted to be used as an item of legal tender.
That is, as long as you don't use the altered coin *as a coin*, but
merely as a piece of art, there is no problem.

This is worded terribly, but I think the idea is clear.

The simple answer to your question: no, it is not illegal as long as
there is no fraudulent intent.
-- 
Gregory G. Woodbury @ The Wolves Den UNIX, Durham NC
UUCP: ...dukcds!wolves!ggw   ...duke!wolves!ggw           [use the maps!]
Domain: ggw@wolves.Durham.NC.US  ggw@cds.duke.edu  ggw%wolves@duke.cs.duke.edu
[The line eater is a boojum snark! ]           <standard disclaimers apply>
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: srm@world.std.com (Stevens R Miller)
Subject: Re: Jury Nullification (was: Killing in defense of possessions?)
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 19:17:45 GMT

ted@cs.brown.edu (Tony Davis) writes:

>It is clear that the
>founders intended nullification to be possible, yes?

Again, this was a side effect.  The role of the jury is to be a
barrier between the accused and the state.  That barrier protects
the defendant from state-sponsored persecution.  To be effective,
a jury's acquittal must be beyond the power of the state to 
overturn.  The founders probably wanted jurors to be the ones
who would follow the law, when the state would not.  The option
to nullify (to ignore the law) was/is an unavoidable result of
the structure necessary to create the protective barrier.

>Doesn't this cause a conflict:  one needs to swear to give
>away a right in order to be on a jury, but that right is one intended
>to be guaranteed to juries?

A good analysis, Tony, but only if the option to nullify is deemed
a right.  Juries were popular in early America because they helped
protect "a system of laws, not of men."  Nullification turns that
ideal on its head.  What the jury has is a right to acquit.  If they
nullify in the process, they have used the right to acquit to do 
something more.  But there is no way to stop them, if the right to acquit
is to be preserved.
-- 
Stevens R. Miller, J.D.		E-mail to srm@mw.sbi.com
From: kron@ueshiba.Corp.Sun.COM (Kenneth Kron)
Newsgroups: misc.legal.computing
Subject: Re: Help defeat a slime. Proof of good power supply?
Date: 8 Sep 1992 21:41:36 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems Inc., Mountain View, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: ueshiba.corp.sun.com
Summary: Experimental proof in court


>
>Does anyone out there know how I can prove, absolutely prove, that
a power
>                                            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>supply is functioning normally?
>
What about an experiment, in court.
Build a box that can hold 3 power supplys and use Y splitters to
fixed
to the wall of the box.  Put in 2 known good and yours (preferably
all
of the same manufacturer/model)..

See if 3 out of 3 times (between tests you have the judge rearange
the
Y splitters) his analysis can determine which is the "bad" power
supply?

Before each test the judge takes a picture of the splitters before
rearanging them.

Have an expert certify to the reliablility of the experiment.

--
kron@mentor.sun.com
'Whatever you can do, or dream you can, begin it.  Boldness
has genius, power and magic in it.'  -  Goethe
From: swf@teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: misc.legal.computing
Subject: Re: "copyright" problem
Keywords: copyright
Date: 11 Sep 92 16:45:06 GMT
Reply-To: swf@tdat.teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Organization: NCR Teradata Database Business Unit

In article <21605@optima.cs.arizona.edu> azhao@cs.arizona.edu (Qiang Alex Zhao) writes:
|
|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.
|
Your changes count as creating a derived work.  The above copyright notice
gives you permission to do so as long as the original copyright notice is
retained.

I suggest that *adding* another copyright notice would be the appropriate
action.  Something like:


	changes Copyright 1992		My Name
					Where I am
	Any permissions and restrictions here
-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com
From: ca566@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Michael Holloway)
Newsgroups: misc.legal.computing
Subject: Help defeat a slime. Proof of good power supply?
Date: 6 Sep 1992 01:43:42 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: ca566@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Michael Holloway)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


Does anyone out there know how I can prove, absolutely prove, that a power
                                            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
supply is functioning normally?

In short: Some idiot sold me a motherboard over the phone.  Motherboard
doesn't work.  Idiot (still over the phone) insists that the power supply
is "non-standard" (he uses the term as though it was magic) and insists
that I give him more money to "fix" the problem.  I try to take him to
small claims court.  The slime hires a lawyer who seems to have specialized
in obfuscation in law school.

I have an analysis of the power supply from an impartial third party.  The
impartial third party says that the voltages and ripple voltage are all
good.  No spikes.  The idiot and his lawyer are certain to claim superior
knowledge and say that the numbers are too far off (or something).

The question then is this: Where do I find the ultimate authority on what
constitutes a bad (or a good) power supply?  Is there a reference book I
could get?  Someone I could get a letter from?  I need to nail this idiot
good in order to get my money back.  Any ideas?

Mike

-- 
E-mail: mhollowa@ccmail.sunysb.edu (mail to freenet is forwarded)
phone:  (516)444-3612
I would claim to speak for my university but no one is likely to
believe it.
Newsgroups: misc.legal.computing
From: plamoia@encore.com (Pete LaMoia)
Subject: citing
Organization: Encore Computer Corporation
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 20:52:54 GMT



Any suggestions on how to "cite" stuff on the net?  I'm doing a paper on
the legal aspects of email, networks, electronic publishing,... not for
profit, just a grade;-)  I was going to proceed in the following manner:
Contact the person via email, describe the quote I intended to use,
(probably including it in the mail) and ask permission.

Who's the "publisher?"  What's the "source."  I would guess that citing 
the "Internet" or "USENET" as the source, (specifying the newsgroup) 
including the date of the post, and of course the author's name, would be 
sufficient.  Although, I'm not sure how someone could check my accuracy
or my source a year down the road...?...

Opinions?  Suggestions?

Cheers.
Xref: sparky misc.legal.computing:2129 alt.culture.usenet:854
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Newsgroups: misc.legal.computing,alt.culture.usenet
Subject: Re: citing
Keywords: citing
Date: 15 Sep 92 15:28:55 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL

S_TITZ@iravcl.ira.uka.de (Olaf Titz) writes:

>In <BuL608.I2M@encore.com> plamoia@encore.com writes:
>
[...]
>>  sufficient.  Although, I'm not sure how someone could check my accuracy
>>  or my source a year down the road...?...
>
>That's an important point: I do archive all the cited postings myself. 
>Citing a complete discussion could also be done, by giving complete
>reference to the original posting (which starts the thread) and giving
>a note like "and including answers" or similar.

Articles from at least the mainstream newsgroups are now archived
on to CD-ROM.

- Carl


--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From: vanhala@cc.helsinki.fi (Tomas Vanhala)
Newsgroups: misc.legal.computing
Subject: Re: Who owns it?
Date: 15 Sep 92 13:39:20 GMT
Organization: University of Helsinki

In <1992Sep14.211737.10341@access.usask.ca> choy@skorpio.usask.ca (I am a terminator.) writes:

Also if I copy someone's program
>and replace their name with mine, I own the thing. I mean I could
>have figured it all out just like hello world.

Well, the probability that your and somebody else's programs (more
complex ones than Hello World, of course) would be identical to the dot
is very small; you would have a hard time convincing a judge you're
innocent. 

But I suppose that if you changed the stolen source code beyond recognition
the original programmer would have to prove that the underlying code is
in fact his.
From: ballard@alc.com (Carl Ballard)
Newsgroups: misc.legal.computing
Subject: Re: Help defeat a slime. Proof of good power supply?
Date: 8 Sep 92 21:20:58 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Ascent Logic Corporation

In article <18bnoeINN3hk@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> ca566@cleveland.Freenet.Edu
(Michael Holloway) writes:
>
>Does anyone out there know how I can prove, absolutely prove, that a power
>                                            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>supply is functioning normally?
>
>In short: Some idiot sold me a motherboard over the phone.  Motherboard
>doesn't work.  Idiot (still over the phone) insists that the power supply
>is "non-standard" (he uses the term as though it was magic) and insists
>that I give him more money to "fix" the problem.  I try to take him to
>small claims court.  The slime hires a lawyer who seems to have specialized
>in obfuscation in law school.
>
>I have an analysis of the power supply from an impartial third party.  The
>impartial third party says that the voltages and ripple voltage are all
>good.  No spikes.  The idiot and his lawyer are certain to claim superior
>knowledge and say that the numbers are too far off (or something).
>
>The question then is this: Where do I find the ultimate authority on what
>constitutes a bad (or a good) power supply?  Is there a reference book I
>could get?  Someone I could get a letter from?  I need to nail this idiot
>good in order to get my money back.  Any ideas?
>
>Mike

HAVE you taken this guy to court?  If so, what happened?

If not, did the board come with a warranty or a written disclaimer of waranty? 
Do you know what warrantyrights you have?

Is the power supply "non-standard" in that it was supplied by someone other
then the manufacturere for which the motherboard was intended?  If so, how can
it be "non-standard"?  In any case, why not ask for the SPECIFICATIONS which
the power supply must meet to be "standard"?  If it meets them, QED.  If the
guy can't supply the specs, then ask how he can determine that YOUR power
supply is "non-standard."

Good Luck

Carl Ballard

The opinions expressed herein are my own and they do not necessarily represent
the opinions of my employer or anyone else.
Newsgroups: misc.legal.computing
From: choy@skorpio.usask.ca (I am a terminator.)
Subject: Who owns it?
Organization: University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Canada
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 21:17:37 GMT

My prof once said that when you write a program and put your
name on it, it's yours. No one else may copy it without permission.
But I can write a generic hello world program that anyone else can
write. It seems silly that I can say I own it when no one has to
copy it to get the same program. Also if I copy someone's program
and replace their name with mine, I own the thing. I mean I could
have figured it all out just like hello world.

Henry Choy
choy@cs.usask.ca


Newsgroups: misc.legal.computing
From: spagiola@frinext.stanford.edu (Stefano Pagiola)
Subject: Re: Article on E-mail Privacy/Snooping
Reply-To: spagiola@frinext.stanford.edu
Organization: DSO, Stanford University
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 92 05:36:31 GMT

Mike O'Connor writes
> In article <1992Sep11.234228.25430@qiclab.scn.rain.com>
> 70465.203@compuserve.com writes:
> 
> :In fact as I had occasion to tell users who were worried about the  
fact that
> :I could read any file on the LAN "There are something like 4  
gigabytes of
> :files out there. *Thousands* of them. Even if I *wanted* to snoop,  
there's
> :too much to go thru!"
> 
> This isn't necessarily true, particularly if you want to "target" a
> few individuals with well-organized directories.  
> 

Also not too difficult to search for keywords.

--
-
Stefano Pagiola
Food Research Institute, Stanford University
spagiola@frinext.stanford.edu (NeXTMail encouraged)
Xref: sparky misc.legal.computing:2127 news.newusers.questions:3995 alt.culture.usenet:852
From: S_TITZ@iravcl.ira.uka.de (Olaf Titz)
Newsgroups: misc.legal.computing,news.newusers.questions,alt.culture.usenet
Subject: Re: citing
Summary: How to cite postings?
Keywords: citing
Date: 15 Sep 92 13:00:20 GMT
Followup-To: misc.legal.computing
Organization: Fachschaft Informatik, Uni Karlsruhe
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.23

In <BuL608.I2M@encore.com> plamoia@encore.com writes:

>  Any suggestions on how to "cite" stuff on the net?  I'm doing a paper on

This is surely becoming a FAQ... maybe one of the net.experts could
write a guide on that :-)

I have occasionally cited postings in the following way: (but I'm not
sure if this is completely OK)

>  Contact the person via email, describe the quote I intended to use,
>  (probably including it in the mail) and ask permission.

I have not done this, since I consider a posting published work

>  Who's the "publisher?"  What's the "source."  I would guess that citing 
>  the "Internet" or "USENET" as the source, (specifying the newsgroup) 

Usually I cite just the name of the newsgroup, if pedantic I could
assume the following: 
"publisher" = USENET (not Internet please!)
"source"= name of newsgroup. Maybe one could figure out an
algorithm for dealing with crosspostings, answers etc. ...

>  including the date of the post, and of course the author's name, would be 

And the Message-ID, as this is a way of unambiguously identifying the
posting. 

>  sufficient.  Although, I'm not sure how someone could check my accuracy
>  or my source a year down the road...?...

That's an important point: I do archive all the cited postings myself. 
Citing a complete discussion could also be done, by giving complete
reference to the original posting (which starts the thread) and giving
a note like "and including answers" or similar.

[followups to misc.legal.computing]


MfG,
        Olaf
-- 
    o     Olaf Titz - comp.sc.student - univ of karlsruhe - germany
 _ /<_    s_titz@iravcl.ira.uka.de - uknf@dkauni2.bitnet - praetorius@irc
(_)>(_)   +49-721-60439 - did i forget something?
L'exactitude est la politesse des rois. - Louis XVIII
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: titmas@chdasic.sps.mot.com (Eric Titmas)
Subject: Re: Killing in defense of possessions?
Organization: SPS
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 17:26:18 GMT

In article <BuBw90.J20@world.std.com>, srm@world.std.com (Stevens R Miller) writes:
|> pjs269@tijc02.uucp (Paul Schmidt) writes:

|> Not if you said something like that during voir dire.  The jury's duty at the
|> point of applying the law is not to substitute its own personal sense of
|> reasonableness, but to deliberate as to what reasonableness required of the
|> defendant.  Hence, I might say, if I were a juror, that I would hunt and
|> kill anyone who raped my sister, but that, objectively, that would not be
|> the action of a reasonable person.  I might truly believe that is what I would
|> do in such a situation, but as a juror I would be obliged to separate my
|> passion from my reason.

I thought the purpose of a jury is to apply the common sense of 12 people to 
determine just what is reasonable and to decide on what happened.  Just whose
sense of reasonableness is a jury member supposed to apply?  A jury member can
easily apply his own sense of reanableness but you seem to be saying he should
apply some abstract sense of reasonableness.  How does a jury member acquire this?

|> >Since there are 12 people on a jury it is
|> >likely that at least one of them knows someone who was a victim of a
|> >violent crime.
|> 
|> And that is why, here in New York, every jury candidate is asked if
|> they are such a person.  If so, the judge invariably asks them if they
|> will be able to reach a verdict without letting that experience bias
|> their decision.  If the answer is "no," (and honest candidates give that
|> answer here every day) the candidate is excused from that case.

Of course,  the lack of such an experience biases their decision also.  Unless you are
saying there is something out there called "reasonableness" that can be
objectively determined but is outside of a person's experience and outside
of a personal sense of reasonableness.  If true and determinable, why doesn't
it then become the person's personal sense of reasonableness?
-- 
Eric Titmas      Motorola ASIC       titmas@chdasic.sps.mot.com               

It is impossible to take in more money than Congress can spend.  - Thomas Sowell
Xref: sparky misc.legal:17163 alt.sex.bondage:17371
From: taa2@po.CWRU.Edu (Tamara A. Adrine-Davis)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.sex.bondage
Subject: Re: The Loss of Innocence (Was RE:  FUCK YOU)
Date: 14 Sep 1992 06:55:17 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: taa2@po.CWRU.Edu (Tamara A. Adrine-Davis)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc5.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) says:

>Tamara, thanks, and please be advised that you probably will be flamed,
>this being boysnet.  Please do not let this get you down.

*Grin* I did, but ya know, I really don't mind.  Among the letters that
I received in response to the post were some pretty wonderful words of
encouragement and understanding.  The flames don't bother me because they
too are expressing beliefs.  There was one that I'll just paraphrase that
mentions that Usenet is a forum for free speech and that I can't expect
all of the readers to be of a like minds.  I've never said that we should
be.  I think that the few who flamed did so for two reasons:  1)  The whole
discussion of rascism here or anywhere else makes them exceedingly uncom-
fortable for a variety of reasons; 2) they miss the point entirely.

I wish that I had time to explore all of the reasons for 1), but I don't.
As for 2), my point is that there are those out there who may spout their
racist propoganda and many Usenet readers don't want to deal with that due
to apathy or 1).  However, racism is only the tip of the iceberg with these
people and those who don't want to deal with the racism may very well have
no choice but to deal with the other ideologies that these <insert favorite
expletive> espouse.

Thank you for your words of encouragement.  I will continue to post.

Sartre
-- 
*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*
* They appeared while sie slept, with white coats and restraints. Two of    *
* them there were, both with a slightly malevolent glint in their eyes. In  *
* they came to hover over her bed. Is it a dream, or a descent into reality?*
From: matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Yelling "Theater!" in a crowded fire...
Summary: The theater does not have to be crowded.
Keywords: _Schenck v. U. S._, 249 U.S. 47 (1919)
Date: 10 Sep 92 13:34:55 GMT
Organization: U.S. Army Ballistic Research Lab, APG MD.

In article <1992Sep8.124424.20653@m.cs.uiuc.edu> kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu 
(Carl M. Kadie) writes:

>In article <1991Dec18.221806.3518@milton.u.washington.edu> 
>taylorsm@milton.u.washington.edu (Allen TaylorSmith) writes:

>>I think it would be germain to this discussion to look at where the 
>>principle espoused here, shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater, originated.
>>. . .  [Allen TaylorSmith]

>The first case was Schenck v. United States (249 US 47; 39 S. Ct 247; 63 L.
>Ed 470 (1919)), decided a week before Debs.  The opinion was written by
>Holmes.   [Carl Kadie]

And notice, as I've said before, that the word "crowded" does not appear
in the material that Mr. Kadie quotes:

>"The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man
> falsely shouting fire in a theatre, and causing a panic. . . ."

Even if there are only a dozen people in the theater, the man who
falsely shouts "Fire!" and causes them to panic will be liable.
The theater does not have to be crowded.

					-- Matt Rosenblatt
                                        (matt@amsaa.brl.mil)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
TRUTH     JUSTICE     FREEDOM     YIDDISHKEIT     IVY     THE AMERICAN WAY
Xref: sparky misc.legal:17051 co.general:1258 talk.politics.misc:44719