HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: 1st amendment exceptions, was: U.S. Bill of Rights today
Reply-To: 70465.203@compuserve.com
Organization: SCN Research/Qic Laboratories of Tigard, Oregon.
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 04:53:06 GMT

kadie@dante.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:

>davidsen@ariel.crd.GE.COM (william E Davidsen) writes:


>>  People seem to have a hard time accepting that the right of free
>>speech does not guarantee access to listeners.
>[...]

>I haven't noticed people having any problem accepting this.

Oh?

Try being a sysop telling a user to take his ranting to the debate
section, rather than other areas of the board. Or (worse yet) telling
them that if they don't behave, you'll nuke their (free) account.

You'll hear cries of censorship. 

You get the same thing when other users tell them that they don't
want to hear about the subject anymore. They seem to think that
they have some right to *make* you listen.

You'll find the same mindset in some street corner preacher types.

-- 
Leonard Erickson		      leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com
CIS: [70465,203]			 70465.203@compuserve.com
FIDO:   1:105/51	 Leonard.Erickson@f51.n105.z1.fidonet.org
(The CIS & Fido addresses are preferred)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.politics.usa.misc
From: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Subject: [alt.society.civil-liberty et al] Re: Let's stuff his mailbox
Reply-To: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 21:56:38 GMT

A repost from talk.politics.drugs,alt.society.civil-liberty:

From: wcs@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (Bill Stewart 908-949-0705 erebus.att.com!wcs)
Subject: Re: Let's stuff his mailbox (Re: Fwd from CLINTON ...)
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs Random Organization Name Generator
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 20:52:12 GMT

In article <1992Sep2.113236.2261@linus.mitre.org> lewis@aera8700.mitre.org (Keith Lewis) writes:
]In article <1992Sep1.185336.27994@cbnewsh.cb.att.com>, wcs@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (Bill Stewart 908-949-0705 erebus.att.com!wcs) writes:
]>of Clinton ....  aarrgh.  I'd almost rather have Richard Nixon back -
]>at least you could call him what he was, in public, without being
]>tossed in jail.... 

]Are you saying you would be arrested for making negative statements about
]the president?  That is a very serious allegation -- if true, Freedom of
]Speech is history.  I say we challenge it right now.

Ok, so it was exxageration, but ...
President Bush was speaking here in New Jersey this past week in a
rally at a VFW hall.  The local newspaper reported that anybody
carrying non-pro-Bush signs from the parking lot to the hall had them
confiscated and/or ripped out of their hands.  I had to be at work,
so I missed the rally, but I'd been thinking about bringing a sign
saying something about "Iran-Contra - the Buck Stops Here!"

And I *have* had police threaten me for standing quietly with a
politically incorrect sign after the bombing of Iraqi civilians....

-- 

				Pray for peace;      Bill
#Bill Stewart 908-949-0705 wcs@anchor.ho.att.com AT&T Bell Labs 4M312 Holmdel NJ
# Any technology distinguishable from magic is not sufficiently advanced ...
From: n9020351@henson.cc.wwu.edu (James Douglas Del-Vecchio)
Newsgroups: alt.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution
Subject: Re: U.S. Bill of Rights today (was alt.activism et al: Who's free'er)
Date: 13 Sep 92 21:49:34 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Western Washington University

kenk@sdc.com (Ken Konecki) writes:

>Since the Constitution limits federal powers, Wasington DC and other
>cities are acting quite constitutionally by banning guns.

Since the Constitution limits federal powers, Wasington DC and other
cities are acting quite constitutionally by banning newspapers.
...banning tv.  ...banning books. etc.

This argument is wrong, because for the last 100 yrs or so the courts
have held the constitution to restrict all governments in the US, 
not merely the federal.

Jim Del Vecchio
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Newsgroups: alt.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution
Subject: Re: 1st amendment exceptions, was: U.S. Bill of Rights today
Date: 12 Sep 92 20:23:27 GMT
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder

There seems to be some confusion here: The Bill of Rights protects
individual right from infringment _by_the_governemnt_. It says
absolutely nothing about infringment by private citizens. (There
are a number of statutory laws on this subject, but they aren't
part of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.)

                                             Frank Crary
                                             CU Boulder
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.politics.usa.misc
From: markc@eomer.hw.stratus.com (Mark Christensen)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution
Subject: Re: Seperation of Church & State
Date: 14 Sep 92 11:46:22 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

>Of course, the "activist court" has never forbidden a kid from praying in
>school, work, whatever. This is the kind of tripe that's usually found
>supporting the position that "kids" should be allowed to have organized
>prayer in schools led (or sponsored, or at least approved) by school (i.e.,
>government) officials. 
>
...Though the supreme court has upheld a lower court ruling in Denver that
a teacher may not silently read the Bible while his/her students are doing
seat work...
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution
Subject: Re: 27th Amendment
Date: 12 Sep 92 20:18:30 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder

In article <1992Sep11.164700.13603@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> symanzik@pigeon.egr.msu.edu (Edward Symanzik) writes:
>...The committee reviewed his nine
>articles and referred them to the House for full consideration.  In the House,
>additions were made that resulted in seventeen total articles.  Those seventeen 
>were passed to the Senate which, after consideration, reduced the number to twelve.

Rephrased would be more accurate than "additions" or "reduced": The
rights protected were the same, however some were seperated and/or
combined into single articles (i.e. freedom of speach and religion were
seperate articles at one point, etc...)

                                             Frank Crary
                                             CU Boulder
          
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Separation of Church & State
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 03:36:33 GMT

fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:

[...]
>The Court should overturn any law that is shown to violate a right,
>but establishing mechanisms to protect rights is equivilent to
>passing a law. [...] The only exception I could see, is if this were
>the _only_ mechanism to protect that right.
[...]

This is all very abstract. Perhaps you can give some examples of cases
in which separation was enforced but in which no one's rights were in
danger.

In any case, an alternative viewpoint (And I believe the viewpoint of
James Madison) is that the government is only authorized to make laws
in designated areas and that religion is not a designated area.

- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution
Subject: Re: U.S. Bill of Rights today
Date: 16 Sep 92 00:40:25 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <RJC.92Sep13152123@devo.unify.com>, rjc@devo.unify.com (Ronald Cole) writes:
> In article <1992Sep12.004220.12722@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:
>    Currently, every firearms sale through a dealer (anyone selling 5 or
>    more guns per year) requires making a record of sale (kept by the
>    dealer, but available to the police whenever they need) supported
>    by photo identification (like a driver's license) to verify the
>    details of the record of sale.
> 
> Please explain to me how buying a gun in this manner doesn't violate
> my Fifth Amendment right not to be compelled to be a witness against
> myself.

It's hard to explain.  I believe there HAVE been court cases in municipalities
where full gun registration is required, that resulted in rulings that felons
(more precisely, people who were felons BEFORE obtaining their guns and thus
could not legally own them) could not be prosecuted for failing to register 
their illegally-obtained weapons for this very reason.  Only (otherwise) 
law-abiding people could be subjected to the penalties.  Gun control works, eh?
-- 

cdt@pdp.sw.stratus.com      --If you believe that I speak for my company,
OR cdt@vos.stratus.com        write today for my special Investors' Packet...
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: gak@wrs.com (Richard Stueven)
Subject: Re: Is Civil Seizure/Forfeiture Constitutiona
Reply-To: gak@wrs.com
Organization: Wind River Systems, Inc.
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 21:13:32 GMT

In article 15189@anasazi.com, john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore) writes:
>In article <RJC.92Sep10123907@devo.unify.com> rjc@devo.unify.com (Ronald Cole) writes:
>]What is missing is the requirement that a probable cause seizure be
>]followed up by a timely filing of charges.
>
>What is also missing is a requirement that the seized assets be
>returned, intact, with COLA and interest added in, when the individual
>is found not guilty or when charges are not filed in a reasonable time.

What I don't understand is how you can justify them taking anything at
all before a conviction.

---
Richard Stueven        gak@wrs.com         attmail!gakhaus!gak        107/H/3&4
          To sight it must ring clear as a bell, it must snap
          in the ear, feel pleasantly sticky between the fingers,
          smell fresh and tempting and taste heavenly.
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution
Subject: Re: Seperation of Church & State
Date: 15 Sep 92 10:49:28 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL

rickertj@athena.cas.vanderbilt.edu (John Rickert) writes:

[...]
>   Pray tell, how is reading the Bible (or the Qu`ran, or Confucius, etc.)
>_silently_ "speech directed at children who are compelled...to attend"?
[...]

(Sorry, I misunderstood your original article; I'll start over.)

Some random thoughts:

I assume that the Court allows reading the Bible in the Teacher's
lounge and that it would not forbid the reading of the Bible in front
of the students while allowing the reading of the "There-is-no-God
Times".

A question: Did the Appeals Court rule that teachers could never do
such reading or did they rule that school boards have the authority to
forbid teachers from such on-the-job reading?

All of the Court decisions about full "content neutrality" that I can
think of apply only to private property and traditional public forums.
Even in created public forums (e.g. a campus mail system) content can
be restricted by topic but not viewpoint.

- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Seperation of Church & State
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 06:14:40 GMT

In article <1992Sep14.015548.18192@leela.cs.orst.edu> hollowr@atlantis.CS.ORST.EDU (R. Holloway) writes:
>	"Congress shall make no law respecting an established religion..."
>The 14th amend. makes this prohibition applicable to the states.

It isn't at all clear that this is a "privilage or immunity" of 
citizens of the United States. Nor is it clear the framers of the
Fourteenth Amendment intended it to have this effect: Was there
any mention of the subject during the debates over the Amendment?

                                                      Frank Crary
                                                      CU Boulder

Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: kenk@sdc.com (Ken Konecki)
Subject: Re: U.S. Bill of Rights today (was alt.activism et al: Who's free'er)
Organization: Systems Development Corporation
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 14:51:14 GMT

In article <RFB.92Sep9165414@H.cs.cmu.edu> rfb@CS.CMU.EDU (Rick Busdiecker) writes:
>Despite being someone who is generally in favor of limiting the number
>of guns floating about in society, I have to agree with David on this.
>Despite the lead-in, it clearly states that ``the right of the people
>to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.''  In my mind, a
>Constitutional Amendment is required for gun control legislation to be
>legitimate.

Uh, not quite.  You'd be a little more accurate if you said "a Constitutional
Amendment is required for federal gun control legislation to be
legitimate".  The Constitution and its amendments only apply to the
federal government.  At least, they were only intended to.

In addition, Congress can (and has), through its powers to regulate commerce
and raise taxes, pass legislation that for all practical purposes, is gun
control legislation.  What makes them constitutional is that nobody's
rights are being infringed.  Making it hard to buy something is quite a
bit different (at least from a legal point of view) than prohibiting buying it.

Cheers,
    -Ken K
-- 
Ken Konecki
e-mail:kenk@sdc.com    -or-    ...!uunet!tellab5!sdc!kenk
"I just found out that the brain is like a computer.  If that's true,
then there really aren't any stupid people.  Just people running DOS."
From: trajan@cwis.unomaha.edu (Stephen McIntyre)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution
Subject: Re: Separation of Church & State
Date: 15 Sep 92 22:36:38 GMT
Organization: University of Nebraska at Omaha

fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU  writes:

> In article <1992Sep14.205232.29109@leland.Stanford.EDU> yergeau@leland.Stanford.EDU (Dan Yergeau) writes:

> >Separation of church and state is NOT a right(?).  The separation of
> >church and state is a mechanism to preserve the right (though not
> >specifically enumerated) of freedom of religion for individuals.

> The requiring the seperation of church and state is a very questionable
> thing for the Court to do: The role of the judiciary is to apply
> the law (including the Constitution) to specific cases. The Court
> should overturn any law that is shown to violate a right, but
> establishing mechanisms to protect rights is equivilent to passing a
> law. This is the role of the legislature, not the Court.

To remark that the role of the Court "is to apply the law... to 
     specific cases" is an extremely narrow view concerning the 
     Court's function.  While individual cases are heard by the
     Court, and while the judgements brought forth usually only
     affect the individual cases heard, many are the decisions
     cast by the Court that will affect how businesses are run
     and laws are passed.  These cases may also in the future
     affect how the Court decides a case (legal precedent).
     
Secondly, /should/ the Court overturn *any* law that is shown to
     interfere with people's rights?  You should think about what
     I'm asking before you answer.
     
Maybe in your view the Court's establishment of protective legal
     mechanisms to safeguard rights is equivalent to passing a
     law (which I agree with), but you fail to point out that 
     the Court has *not* passed a law-- ever.  Instead, the Court
     announces, at times, guidelines with which the legislature
     may use when making a constitutionally "sound" law.  Of
     course, these guidelines are not foolproof, and may change
     over time (and with new justices), but they are not law.
     
Finally, I don't feel the same way you do about keeping the
     courts out of the fray over "separation of church and
     state."  For too long the church (yes, I do mean Christian)
     has held sway over how we're supposed to think and feel;
     it's about time someone with guts took a stand to defend
     those who perhaps don't believe in a Christian way of
     life.

Stephen @Trajan
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.society.civil-liberty
From: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Subject: [misc.legal] Re: Jury Nullification (was: Killing in defense of possessions?)
Reply-To: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 14:53:09 GMT

A repost from misc.legal:

From: ted@cs.brown.edu (Tony Davis)
Subject: Re: Jury Nullification (was: Killing in defense of possessions?)
Organization: Brown University Department of Computer Science
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 18:31:32 GMT

In article <BuKMFI.8n8@world.std.com> srm@world.std.com (Stevens R Miller) writes:
> The "right" to nullify is a side effect.  Whether it is a feature or a bug
> is uncertain.

I could read this in two ways:  either 'whether it is good or bad is
uncertain' or 'whether it was intended or not is uncertain'.  My
question is about the latter interpretation.  It is clear that the
founders intended nullification to be possible, yes?

> But, the characterization of a juror as a "nullification
> believer" is, respectfully, to gild the truth:  A juror who nullifies
> is, by definition, a juror who breaks her oath; a liar.

Such a juror is a liar only if they've taken an oath that conflicts with
the right to nullify.  Not all juries take such an oath.  Further, as I
understand it such oaths were often introduced specifically to prevent
nullification.  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?


Tony Davis
ted@cs.brown.edu

Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Seperation of Church & State
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 01:09:00 GMT

rickertj@athena.cas.vanderbilt.edu (John Rickert) writes:

[...]
>    On the other hand, the Supreme Court has held that speech, expression,
>and the like may not be banned for their _content_  per se.
[...]
>    Forbidding the reading of the Bible silently in class because of
>its content is inconsistent with the Court's other rulings.
[...]

The Court distinguishes between expression on private property (or in
a traditional public forum) and on-the-government-job speech directed
at childern who are compelled by law to attend.

- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: russo@amazon.chem.columbia.edu (Thomas Russo)
Subject: Re: Proposed new constitution.
Organization: Center for Biomolecular Simulation, Department of Chemistry,
	Columbia University
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 16:34:27 GMT

ACK!  NO!  Please don't post the Newstates constitution...

It was created by a TAX-EXEMPT private organization.  The "cost to the
taxpayers of $25M" means that the government was deprived of something
like $25M in tax, not that the government paid out $25M to this group.

The Newstates constitution made the rounds about usenet for several
months a little while ago and it finally ended when it was observed
that this was nothing more than one pathetic little ultra-liberal
group's wet-dream, not a serious proposal for a new US constitution
sanctioned by the government.

The Liberty Lobby was distributing this thing with the misleading claim
that it cost the taxpayers $25M --- note that they stop just short of
the lie that "the government paid this group $25M".

File your copy in the circular file and you'll live a happier life.


Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: mjones@fenway.aix.kingston.ibm.com (Mike Jones)
Subject:  U.S. Bill of Rights today
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 92 22:02:44 GMT
Organization: IBM Corp. Kingston NY

In article <DLB.92Sep9094205@fanny.wash.inmet.com> dlb@fanny.wash.inmet.com (David Barton) writes:
>   In article <1992Sep9.032310.18048@nntp.hut.fi> jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki
>   Kuoppala) writes:
>		      AMENDMENT II:
>	      A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free
>      State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be
>      infringed.
>		      REALITY II:
>	      This right exists.
>   Say, what?  This right is one of the most abused on the list.  Gun
>   ownership is virtually prohibited in may areas of the country,
>   including Washington D.C. and New York City.
>
>Despite being someone who is generally in favor of limiting the number
>of guns floating about in society, I have to agree with David on this.
>Despite the lead-in, it clearly states that ``the right of the people
>to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.''  In my mind, a
>Constitutional Amendment is required for gun control legislation to be
>legitimate.

Actually, I don't see the necessity of this any more than I believe that a
change to the First Amendment should have been required before passing libel
laws. There are some restrictions (like the libel laws) to our First
Amendment freedom that are almost universally accepted. I believe we should
apply the same thinking to the Second Amendment. Certain people, for
instance convicted felons and perhaps anyone who has been acquitted of a
crime for reason of insanity, should probably not be allowed to own guns. A
system of licensing and checking to enforce this seems within the intent of
the Second Amendment and common sense. "Gun control legislation" covers a
lot of ground. Some of it seems (to me) compatible with the Second; most of
it is a crock, and I'm *not* the NRA.

   Mike Jones  |  AIX/ESA Development  |  mjones@donald.aix.kingston.ibm.com

The moving cursor writes, and having written, blinks on.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: rickertj@athena.cas.vanderbilt.edu (John Rickert)
Subject: Re: Seperation of Church & State
Organization: Vanderbilt University Mathematics Department
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 00:27:35 GMT

In article <RFB.92Sep14151027@H.cs.cmu.edu> rfb@CS.CMU.EDU (Rick Busdiecker) writes:
>In article <6337@transfer.stratus.com> markc@eomer.hw.stratus.com (Mark Christensen) writes:
>
>  
>   ...Though the supreme court has upheld a lower court ruling in Denver that
>   a teacher may not silently read the Bible while his/her students are doing
>   seat work...
>
>Two points which I think are relevant here are:
>  (1) the teacher is on the job and might very well be prohibited from
>      reading anything that is not work-related while students are
>      working.  While the far-righteous might want the teacher to be
>      able to read the Christian Bible, they might be upset if the
>      teacher were reading _High_Times_ or _Hustler_.

    On the other hand, the Supreme Court has held that speech, expression,
and the like may not be banned for their _content_  per se.  The speech
code ordinance struck down this summer is but the latest instance of this.
Certain modes of expression, such as fighting words or incitation to riot,
do not fall within the protection of the amendment, but in the Court's
understanding at least, these are not proscribable because of their content,
but because of their manner.

    Forbidding the reading of the Bible silently in class because of
its content is inconsistent with the Court's other rulings.

    
>-- 
>Rick Busdiecker <rfb+@cs.cmu.edu>
>``Beware of programmers carrying screwdrivers''
>				- Unknown


John Rickert					...The cold neutrality
rickertj@athena.cas.vanderbilt.edu		of an impartial judge.
							-- Burke

Newsgroups: alt.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution