HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jch+@cs.cmu.edu (Jonathan Hardwick)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Mellor: The establishment will again rush to protect their own
Date: 24 Jul 92 03:53:17 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.1992Jul24.035317.67721
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

livesey@solntze.esd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes
> hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phillip M. Hallam-Baker) writes:
> > Jon's just pissed off becasuse he knows the ecconomy is headed 
> > for the soup and theres no way Major and co can escape the blame.
> 
> Poor Phill.   So clueless.   The reality is that I bought Sterling
> futures after the election at around $1.75 and sold them a couple
> of weeks ago at around $1.88.

Remind me to add "Jon Livesey's portfolio value" to my list of
economic-indicators-to-watch.  It's always nice to have *one* line
going up when the rest of the chart is a solid downward trend, if only
for humor (sic) value.

Jonathan H., jch@cs.cmu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
From: stephen@def.bae.co.uk (Stephen Paynter)
Subject: Libel Laws
Reply-To: stephen@def.bae.co.uk
Organization: British Aerospace (Dynamics) Ltd
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 92 07:58:32 GMT


Hi, this is my first post.

	I have some questions concerning the burden of proof in Libel cases. 
I have heard that the UK and US laws are different: namely in the UK the burden
of proof is on the publisher to demonstrate the "truth" of what they have written,
while in the US the burden is on the offended party to demonstrate the falsity
of the article.

	Can anyone confirm that this is true?
	
	I have heard people argue that the UK system allows powerful (rich) people
to suppress what is written about them by threatening costly law suits. However it
does have the advantage of providing more protection for the private individual. 
They can sue the newspaper in question, and place the burden of proof upon them.

	What do people think? Is the UK approach too open to a form of censorship
by the powerful? Or does it give power to the `small man` against the powerful
newspapers? Is the price in curbing the power of the press worth paying for the
freedom from unwarrented libel?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
S.E. Paynter, BSc, AMIEE               | Software Engineer and PhD Student

Even if British Aerospace has any views, I am not authorised to pass them on
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: dave@bradley.bradley.edu (David Vessell)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
Subject: Re: Nea a need *2*
Date: 30 Jul 92 17:30:54 GMT
Organization: Bradley University

anton@gagme.chi.il.us (Andrzej Borowiec) writes:

>This is nothing personal, but does anyone knows what "Philistine" mean?
>
>Andrzej A. Borowiec

Yes, it means you're wrong.  I am an amateur musician, and a supporter of
the arts.  I just don't think it's the government's business.

-- 
=========*davE*.....making the world safe for intelligent dance music.=========
               Andre Marrou -- Libertarian for President 1992
--(David Vessell)--(Bradley University Computing Services)-(dave@bradley.edu)--
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
From: jch+@cs.cmu.edu (Jonathan Hardwick)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Mellor: The establishment will again rush to protect their own
Date: 24 Jul 92 12:10:12 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.1992Jul24.121012.260981
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

livesey@solntze.esd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes
> And I was pointing out that for people like Mellor to be "exposed",
> the press has to be intrusive.   It has to practice cheque-book 
> journalism and spend its time violating his private life, 

Which is what currently happens.  Top marks. 

> and
> make a public issue of what is otherwise a private matter between
> him and his wife.

Him, his wife, and the actress, shurely?

> |> I couldn't care less what he does in his private life, or
> |> anyone else's for that matter.
> 
> If you really don't, then you perhaps you think that the man's
> private life really is actually unconnected with his public life.

I wouldn't say unconnected.  "Has little bearing on" comes closer to
my opinion.

> |> I *do* care that someone as idiotic as him has some control, 
> |> however minimal, over government policy.
> 
> Oh, I get it.   His private life isn't important, except when
> he falls foul of an intrusive and prurient Press and Public,
> and then, because he ought to have known what they are like,
> he's a fool, and 'idiotic', and *then* you have something on
> him.

Exactly.  See, I knew you would get it eventually.

> Like I asked before, is this a special deal for politicians?
> If an actor or athlete, perhaps one who endorses breakfast
> cereal for little kids, is caught in bed with someone by a 
> journalist up a tree with a camera, does this make the athlete
> an 'idiot'?   Do we say s/he "should have known"?

Not really.  The actor or athlete probably wasn't telling the rest of
us what we should be doing, and is therefore relatively immune to
charges of hypocrisy.  Ability to avoid scandal is not a prerequisite
for either of the professions; indeed, a little scandal is often good
for an actor's career.

Jonathan H.
Xref: sparky alt.censorship:6251 soc.culture.british:10640
From: cam@castle.ed.ac.uk (Chris Malcolm)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Mellor: The establishment will again rush to protect their own
Date: 24 Jul 92 11:14:08 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University

Mellor's affair came to light because someone was recording phone
conversations between him and his mistress. This is a felony, unless a
Govt warrant permitting it in the interests of national security was
given to authorise it; but in practice MI5 ignores this requirement.
Technically it is in any case trivially easy.

So, who was listening to Mellor's phone, and why?

Mellor's mistress was lodged in a flat belonging to an electronics
expert. How convenient! Who is this man, what are his connections? Who
lives in his other flats? Why is nobody bothered about this illegal
phone tapping, including, it seems, Mellor himself? Does Mellor know
that he can't challenge the people who tapped his phone?

Note that it's not just the lady's phone which is tapped -- the stuff
about Mellor's in-laws came directly from Mellor's own phone. The
tapping is still going on.

Is someone simply trying to make money out of this, or is it being fed
by someone with an agenda? A left-wing gang trying to embarrass the
Tories? A right-wing gang who have decided that Mellor Must Go?

There is more to this than a sex scandal.
-- 
Chris Malcolm    cam@uk.ac.ed.aifh          +44 (0)31 650 3085
Department of Artificial Intelligence,    Edinburgh University
5 Forrest Hill, Edinburgh, EH1 2QL, UK                DoD #205
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 16:19:50 GMT

In article <1992Jul25.023333.10841@fid.morgan.com> sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart) writes:

>>Can a completely computer generated
>>image be child pornography?  Should it be?
>
>I believe that the laws state that such a thing is child pornography;
>I've added misc.legal to the newsgroup list to get a better opinion.

The relevant federal law specifies that children are actually used in
creating the depiction of sexual conduct. This would exclude a
computer-generated image of the sort described. See 18 USC 2251.


--Mike



-- 
Mike Godwin,     |"Of the many definitions of poetry, the   
mnemonic@eff.org | simplest is still the best: 'memorable speech.'" 
(617) 864-0665   | 
EFF, Cambridge   |                     --W.H. Auden 
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
From: john@rtfm.mlb.fl.us (John Blasik)
Subject: Re: Penn State CENSORS m
Organization: We don't need no stinkin' batches!
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 01:42:43 GMT

Larry.Mc.Donald@ofa123.Fidonet.org (Larry Mc Donald) writes:
>
>JB>  i) purchase a computer
>JB> ii) purchase a modem
>JB>iii) purchase (or acquire free) news software
>JB> iv) purchase (or acquire a free) news feed
>
>   Hello, John! Well, I've done i & ii & iii, but how does one
>find a feed here in So. Cal?

Get ahold "even" uucp maps for California.
You will find plenty of free and fee feeds.

-- john
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
Subject: Re: Tipper Gore and "Jazz From Hell"
From: lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard)
Date: 23 Jul 1992 09:36 MST  
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Arizona
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <1992Jul22.025422.19149@panix.com>, eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler) writes...
>In <hurd.711742180@sfu.ca>, hurd@fraser.sfu.ca sez:
>>eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler) writes:
>>>In <hurd.711658189@sfu.ca>, hurd@fraser.sfu.ca sez:
>>>>
>>>>Gee, they only sued the pants off people who didn't do it voluntarily.
>>
>>>Source, please, lest we begin to suspect that you possess only the
>>>most tenuous grip on reality.
>>
>>They brought charges against Jello Biafra, Greenworld distibution &c for
>>distributing harmful material to minors WRT the HR Giger poster inside
>>the LABELLED (but on the FRONT instead of the PMRC guidlined BACK of the
>>record) record FRANKENCHRIST.
> 
>Not responsive.  You were asked for a source, not for more unsupported
>assertions. 
> 
>While we're on the subject, though:
>Who "brought charges"?  Now you're using terms that describe a
>criminal prosecution, whereas your earlier post says they "sued" (in
>other words, brought a civil suit).  What court or jurisdiction?

The "they" in this case is not the PMRC, it's the Los Angeles City
Attorney, who brought charges of "distribution of harmful matter to
a minor" against the Dead Kennedys and their distributor in June 1986.

Jim Lippard              Lippard@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Dept. of Philosophy      Lippard@ARIZVMS.BITNET
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
Xref: sparky alt.censorship:6239 soc.culture.british:10621
From: Adrian.Waterworth@newcastle.ac.uk (Adrian Waterworth)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Mellor: The establishment will again rush to protect their own
Date: 24 Jul 92 07:49:14 GMT
Organization: University of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, NE1 7RU

hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phillip M. Hallam-Baker) writes:

>In article <2397@bsu-cs.bsu.edu>, joemays@bsu-cs.bsu.edu (Joseph F.
>Mays) writes:

>|> People around the globe were (like) myself wondering who he is and
>|>what he's done.  I was not one of those five posters, but I read all of 
>|>them and kept expecting you to respond with a brief explanation.  You 
>|>never have.

>Thats because you are expecting there to be something more to this story
>than there is. The doings of Mellor are irrelevant except in the fact
>that they have produced the familiar knee jerk reaction of the
>establishment.

	Which, naturally, led to the subsequent, familiar knee-jerk
reaction of Phillip M. Hallam-Baker.

		Only kidding, Phill!
					Ade.

		\----------------------------------------/
		 |  Adrian.Waterworth@newcastle.ac.uk	|
		/ ---------------------------------------\
Xref: sparky alt.censorship:6142 soc.culture.british:10518
From: joemays@bsu-cs.bsu.edu (Joseph F. Mays)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Mellor: The establishment will again rush to protect their own
Date: 22 Jul 92 17:55:11 GMT
Organization: Dept of CS Ball State University Muncie In

In article <1992Jul21.200203.20658@dscomsf.desy.de> hallam@zeus02.desy.de writes:
>I note that the first five replies in this thread were not protesting
>about the threat to press freedom but wanting more salacious details.

It amazes me that you evidently read the first five replies and managed to
misunderstand all five.  Each of those replies asked what the hell you 
are talking about.  No one outside the UK has ever heard of this Mellor
guy.  People around the globe were (like) myself wondering who he is and
what he's done.  I was not one of those five posters, but I read all of 
them and kept expecting you to respond with a brief explanation.  You 
never have.

Who is Mellor?

Why is the fact that he has slept with some woman important?

How does this threaten the freedom of the press?

Joe


Newsgroups: alt.censorship
From: john@iastate.edu (John Hascall)
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, IA
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 14:24:08 GMT

jamie@cs.sfu.ca (Jamie Andrews) writes:
>     You miss my point.  My point was that everyone has a line
>to draw; you simply seem to draw it to include censoring
>material given to children, but not any given to adults.  I draw
>it to include censoring some material given to adults too.  Where
>to draw the line is debatable, but the lines exist for everyone.

scott@phlpa.pha.pa.us (Scott Scheingold) writes:
}OK when it comes to children I do have a line to draw. Being a gay person I
}am open to anything for adults except for child pornography. ( Not fiction
}only the real thing). I am courious what would you censor to adults? And yes I
}do agree with where to draw the line is debatable, and can be a VERY volitile 
}subject I'm sure.

IMHO the `crime' in child pornography is not the pictures themselves, but
the actual child abuse (i.e., a picture of a fire is not arson).  Now we
find ourselves on the threshold of computer technology to produce such
material without the use of minors.  Can a completely computer generated
image be child pornography?  Should it be?

John
-- 
John Hascall                                       ``Live with it pink-boy!''
Project Vincent                                                              
Iowa State University Computation Center                     john@iastate.edu
Ames, IA  50011                                      515/294-9551 [fax -1717]
From: jflint@libserv1.ic.sunysb.edu (Jesse Flint)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
Subject: Censorship? What's THAT?
Date: 28 Jul 1992 13:17:27 -0500
Organization: State University of New York at Stony Brook
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu

Oh, boy... I've been following this thread, and I've just got to
make a comment...

Ed Nilges (the One True Consciousness) writes:

>No, the same principles are NOT involved.  How dare you compare Martin
>Luther King to Viktora?  How dare you compare Bob Guccione to Thomas
>Jefferson?  Some of the entities enjoying "free speech" are only persons
>in the legal sense of the word, where legal personhood was introduced in
>19th century American law after the founders; it was not part of their
>intent.
>
>This is just nihilism in Constitutional robes.  I can make distinctions,
>I can see to it that the speech of pornographers and punks is allocated
>its due.  The value of money can be destroyed by running the printing
>presses at top speed, giving everybody the "freedom" of a million dollar
>income.  I suggest you nihilistically inflate the first amendment in the
>same way.

Ed, I've got something to tell you that should scare you. Censorship, even
of "pornographers and punks", is dead. Totally.

When it's possible for me to buy a Macintosh and a laser printer and publish
my own magazine from my basement, your stupid attempts at controlling what
others see and hear, "FOR THEIR OWN GOOD" (always the arguement of two-bit
Stalin-wanna-be's) is gone. I can churn out a thousand copies of whatever I
damn well want, pornography, anarchism, survivalist news, psychic dribble,
or enviromentalism, before you know what's happening. 

Remember what happened in Eastern Europe recently? It was, at least partially,
created by the free(er) flow of information. One day, people here in the U.S.
will wake up from their Fox-TV fantasies and realize it could happen here, too.

Then what? I wanna see the gov't use RICO against everyone "convicted" of
publishing porn then... they'll own half the property in the U.S. if they
try it... 

Of course, I'm sure you'd say that we'd be guilty of censorship anyway if we
didn't read EVERYTHING that EVERYONE published. Yeah, right. Remind me to
renew my subscription to Pravda (What, Ed? You don't READ Pravda? That's
microcensorship...)


-- 
############################################################################
#DISCLAIMER:    	     # "You should fully realize what society has  #
#	                     # made of you and take a terrible revenge.    #
#THE OPINIONS IN MY POSTINGS # Get weird. Get way weird. Get dangerously   #
#ARE MINE AND DO NOT REFLECT # weird. Get sophisticatedly, thoroughly      #
#HE VIEWS OF MY HOME SYSTEM  # weird and don't do it halfway.."            #
#OR THE OWNER OF THIS        #			                           #
#ACCOUNT.  		     #  Gary McCammon a.k.a. Tog                   #
#                            #  jflint%libserv1.ic.sunysb.edu@sunysb.edu   #
#			     #					           #
############################################################################
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
From: jeff@dirac.physics.sunysb.edu (Jeff Althoff)
Subject: Re: In defense of the Gores
Organization: Institute for Theoretical Physics, SUNY at Stony Brook
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 20:22:33 GMT

In article <1992Jul22.215006.18293@fid.morgan.com> sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart) writes:
>
> I have the right to crack your registrar's
>computer and flunk you out of school because I can do it?  I disagree.

  Wow, Seth. You can really do this? Cool.... next time I run
  into you, I've got a few questions :-) :-) :-)

  Jeff A.


-- 

------------------------------
Jeff Althoff
jeff@max.physics.sunysb.edu
Xref: sparky alt.censorship:6302 alt.sex:25116
From: mmh@cs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Mellor: The establishment will again rush to protect their own
Date: 30 Jul 92 15:42:10 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Dept, QMW, University of London, UK.

From: pauld@cs.washington.edu (Paul Barton-Davis)
>If Mellor, or any of the ragged bunch of fools left running the ship
>on that septic isle, had any sense, they'd keep their mouths shut
>about family values, sexuality and the like, and talk economics.

They've sense enough to talk about anything but, given the
current state of the economy. In any case, even if the lot of
them lived  entirely heterosexually and monogamously, they'd still be
a bunch of hypocrites to talk about family values, given that
their policies on unemployment and homelessness have probably
done more to destroy family values than anything the wildest
libertines could manage.

They are still hunting for scapegoats for the poor state of the
economy. Given that it's thirteen years since the last non-Tory
government, blaming on it their predecessors looks a bit weak.
Given the state of the Trade Unions, blaming it on them looks
weak as well. They can hardly blame it on their paymasters in
the City, so the latest scapegoats are the local authorities, a
few of which dare to be other than Tory controlled. The problem
(according to their stooges in the press) is that these are
terribly nasty and "political" (read subject to democratic
election). So their powers must be taken away and given to
central government. Their latest White Paper effectively
nationalises the education system (previously under local
authority control). This is the biggest nationalisation since
the setting up of the NHS. The Tories stated aim of "rolling
back the frontiers of the state" looks a bit like the old
soviets aim of "the state withering away".

Matthew Huntbach
Xref: sparky alt.censorship:6456 rec.humor:24827 alt.best.of.internet:50
From: michael@marcel.bu.edu (Michael Chaplin)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,rec.humor,alt.best.of.internet
Subject: Re: Welcome to Hell
Date: 29 Jul 92 21:38:06 GMT
Followup-To: alt.censorship
Organization: Boston University
In-reply-to: satan@hell.gov's message of 29 Jul 92 20:28:10 GMT

In article <1992Jul29.202810.2871@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> satan@hell.gov (Satan) writes:

  =Welcome to Hell, readers of alt.censorship. Since your main offense on
  =earth was spending too much time reading the .net, we have special 
  =punishments for you. In fact, we are so nice, we will give you a 
  =choice of three rooms.

  =Room 1: Ed Nigles explains to you how racism is a system, the first
  =amendment doesnt cover hate speech, and how using killfiles is a form
  =of censorship that makes you a hypocrite. You are allowed to respond in
  =this one, but of course, you will never convince ed that he is wrong,
  =even on the slightest point.

  =Room 2: Maynard and Ralph Winston attempt to get you to join b-cpu, and
  =explain that Hitler wasnt that bad a guy, after all. Once again, you are
  =allowed to respond, but ralph will savage your arguments by pointing out
  =how all the 'evidence' you use is just an elaborate forgery on the part
  =of the zionist controlled media.

  =Room 3: Ed Nigles and Ralph Winston argue with each other for eternity. NO
  =audience participation is allowed.

  =Enjoy your stay in hell....

  =-Satan

Hot Damn....

chaplin.
--
===============================================================================
Michael Chaplin                    Language is a virus from outer space.
michael@albert.bu.edu                     - William S. Burroughs

The Einstein Papers Project        The opinions contained herein reflect
Boston University                      neither those of the project, 
Boston, Massachusetts, USA             nor those of Albert Einstein.
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,misc.legal
From: sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart)
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Organization: my opinions only
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 02:33:33 GMT

In article <1992Jul24.142408.385@news.iastate.edu> john@iastate.edu
(John Hascall) asks:

>IMHO the `crime' in child pornography is not the pictures themselves, but
>the actual child abuse (i.e., a picture of a fire is not arson).  Now we
>find ourselves on the threshold of computer technology to produce such
>material without the use of minors.  Can a completely computer generated
>image be child pornography?  Should it be?

I believe that the laws state that such a thing is child pornography;
I've added misc.legal to the newsgroup list to get a better opinion.

Of course, there should be no laws against child pornography per se
(against child _abuse_, yes).

Seth		sethb@fid.morgan.com
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,soc.culture.british