HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: hess@boi.hp.com (Kevin C. Hess)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Question: police authority on the road
Date: 5 Oct 92 22:15:31 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Hewlett-Packard / Boise, Idaho
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1.3 PL5

barry.o.olson (press2@cbnewsd.cb.att.com) wrote:
: 
: Let's say you are driving in a 40mph zone doing 46. Cop radar detects
: infraction, proceeds to follow. Cop follows five miles through winding
: country road(which offender had turned on to). Cop turns on emergency
: lights to apprehend after five mile tail. Cop never mentions previous
: speed infraction, but comes up with something different as cause. Cop
: smells beer, proceeds to question and arrests for dui. 
: Question: Is this excessive or unreasonable use of police authority?
: And is there a law which defines excessive use of authority in vehicular
: cases?
: Thanks!
: 
: barry--

As someone who *in past* wanted to be a peace officer, here's what I learned
back in 1981.

By speeding, you have provided the officer with all the reason in the world
to stop you.  whether he actually does stop you or not is totally up to him
(it's called "officer's discretion").  Most officers will request information
on the owner of the vehicle (from your license plate), and the owner's
driver's license/driving record *before stopping you*, if at all possible.

This may require several minutes (1 or 2 to catch up to the vehicle and
get the license plate, 2 to 5 for the computer and dispatcher to process
the request).

This way, he knows who you are, and a rough physical description before
getting too far into it.  When he asks for your license/registration/
insurance certificate, he is checking you against the system, and giving 
you the opportunity to hang yourself with any lie you might want to.

As to the reason he gave after stopping you (it was you, wasn't it?), he
can give any reason he wants, as long as it will hold up in court.
(we're talking about the real world, on the street, not about the law)

I see no excessive use of authority.  Cops are not dumb.  If there was
alcohol consumption sufficient for an arrest, or not, will depend on the
results of the blood/breath/urine test.  An arrest is not a conviction (
as many a cop can tell you!).

Looks to me likehe was jst trying to give enought rope for someone to
hang themselves with.

--
This is not an official opinion of the Hewlett-Packard Company.  No warranty
is expressed or implied.
--
Kevin C. Hess                 The Hewlett-Packard Company
Network Printer Division      11311 Chinden Boulevard
Mail Stop 524                 Boise,, Idaho  83714-0015  USA
hess@hpbs907.boi.hp.com       (208) 323-3384

"There can be only one!" - Conner McLeod of the clan McLeod
"I will not be pushed, filed stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or
numbered - I am not a number, I am a free man!" - Number 6
Newsgroups: misc.legal,talk.environment,va.general,alt.activism
From: rc@depsych.Gwinnett.COM (Richard Carlson)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Fightin' Words
Date: 28 Sep 92 16:03:40 GMT

mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:

> In article <smwRRB1w164w@depsych.Gwinnett.COM> rc@depsych.Gwinnett.COM (Richa

> >Suppose I call you a "dumb m*ther-f*cker."  What crime have I
> >committed?
> 
> None.

I responded to this post an hour or so ago and I was just getting
ready to turn off the computer for the day and go into the office
when I realized that the question was:

OK. If it isn't a crime in the sense of a felony or a misdemeanor
or a violation, what is its legal status?  Perhaps it is no longer
current legal doctrine, but defendants have claimed that such an
act is a _provocation_ and mitigates their responsibility for
responding with violence, which would not otherwise be acceptable.

What is the legal status of a provocation which is not itself a
criminal or punishable act?

> >  What latitude do you have in hitting me?
> 
> None. 

But cases have been decided in the past, either being dismissed by
the judge or resulting in the person punching the person who says
the provocative phrase being found innocent of battery, on the
basis of some degree of latitude existing after having been
provoked by fighting words.

> >(I recently
> >talked to an attorney here in Georgia who says that both mutual
> >combat and non-ethnic fighting words have just about been thrown
> >out of the court system and if you hit me after I've said fighting
> >words the case will _not_ now be dismissed but will go on and be
> >decided by a judge and you will probably be found guilty of
> >battery.)
> 
> Right.

Has this been a gradual change in legal customs and mores?

> >Suppose I call you a [ethnic epithet].  Leaving aside specific laws
> >like the ones at issue in that cross-burning case, what crime have
> >I committed?
> 
> None.
> 
> >Are you more justified under any legal doctrine in punching me if
> >I call you a [ethnic epithet] than if I call you a "dumb
> >m*ther-f*cker"?
> 
> No.

Does the fact that calling a person an [ethnic epithet] is now a
violation of University regulations on some campuses, and is also
illegal in some cities, or was, doesn't that in practice further
excuse the provoked person if he hits the one calling him an
[ethnic epithet]?

Sorry to post again on the same point, but I just realized how to
phrase it so I can understand the reply.

--
Richard Carlson
Internet:              rc@depsych.gwinnett.COM
Bangpath:              {rutgers,ogicse,gatech}!emory!gwinnett!depsych!rc
CompuServe:            76605,470
Voice:                 (404) 881-6877
From: eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Teaching Con Law (was: The FDA can't be criminal, can they?)
Date: 5 Oct 92 23:24:40 GMT
Organization: Superseding Information, Inc.

In <1992Oct5.194557.28065@eff.org>, mnemonic@eff.org sez:
>In article <1992Oct5.042419.1992@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>
>>ObExtraDisclaimer: The University of Chicago didn't teach me this
>>opinion, though Professor Currie discusses this argument in his
>>history of the Constitution in the Supreme Court.  On request, I'll
>>update this opinion in a couple of weeks if I decide to take Con
>>Law this quarter instead of spring.
>
>Take Constitutional Law ASAP, Ted. It continues to dismay me that neither
>Harvard nor the University of Chicago require Constitutional Law as a
>first-year course.

You could add to this list NYU, where I had the dubious pleasure of
listening to Norman Dorsen -- a great ACLU president, but a lousy
professor -- during my entire second year.  At least the entire year
is compulsory; many schools make only one semester (basically,
institutional questions and equal protection, from what I understand)
compulsory.


-- 
			 Cash value 1/20 cent

	Mark Eckenwiler    eck@panix.com    ...!cmcl2!panix!eck
Xref: sparky misc.legal:18139 rec.arts.books:17704
Newsgroups: misc.legal,rec.arts.books
Subject: Re: Point of Technicality  
From: Hakki_Kocabas@kcbbs.gen.nz (Hakki Kocabas)
Date: 6 Oct 92 21:25:02 GMT
Organization: Kappa Crucis Unix BBS, Auckland, New Zealand

  
> It is to be hoped that Mr Rushdie, as well as some of his numerous Western  
> defenders, in this forum and elsewhere, will see fit to contribute towards  
> the elimination of the continued threat against his life, which also  
> constitutes a menace for the cardinal principle of Western culture, the  
> idea of freedom of expression.  I sincerely hope that all participants in  
          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^  
  
Hey Mikhail!  
you should very well know by now that the idea of "freedom of expression"  
is just another idea out of basketfull of ideas for us unless you reveal   
more about the machinary behind it. We need MORE REVELATIONS from YOUR BOOK   
of BOOKS Man! BRING YOUR BOOK ! so that we can compare it word to word,   
and see how far you can endure exercising your "freedom of expression"...  
Yes Mikhail, I am challenging you :->Don't forget to bring by the  
revelations of Rushdie with you.  
  
Here you are Mikhail, throw your artifacts like the magicians of Pharoah..  
Here is your once in a life time chance....don't miss it Man !  
  
> the current debate would agree that this action makes the situation more  
> fair and equitable.  
  
> mikhail zeleny@husc.harvard.edu  
Xref: sparky misc.legal:17948 rec.arts.books:17405
From: ia4@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Imran Anwar)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,rec.arts.books
Subject: Re: Anti-Arab racism on the net
Keywords: Equality, Fairness, Same Standards?
Date: 2 Oct 92 03:25:36 GMT
Reply-To: ia4@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Imran Anwar)
Organization: Columbia University

In article <1992Sep30.122020.26563@eff.org> mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:
>In article <1992Sep29.034703.29223@news.columbia.edu> ia4@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Imran Anwar) writes:
>>
>>All I am sayin gis that if I wrote a book (like Iron Dream) and did not
>>intend it to be satirical or humourous (I dont think many Jewish people
>>would appreciate the humour) it is obvious that the book would be
>>offensive and that I would have written it knowing that.
>
>Actually, I don't know of anyone, Jewish or otherwise, who found THE IRON
>DREAM offensive.
>
>--Mike
>

Since I never heard of nor saw the book Iron Dream I do not know what 
Jewish or other people's response was but if what I see THESE days is 
anything to go by I would have a hard time believing that.

Just a few days ago one of the New York Weeklies (maybe Voice) had 
people attack a writer for using the WORDS "Jewish American Princess"
(even though the article was NOT about such ladies as are referred to
as JAPs but about the author calling someone LIKE a JAP) andthe author
had to defend himself in the letters column.

Thatt is just one example and I can find other examples and others can too

So, the issue is still that if I write an article in wish a character
suggests things anti-Seimtic it would be attacked.

Again, the idea is NOT to defend anti-Semitism, the idea is just to say
that people's feelings are important, no matter what their religion
or color or creed.

Imran Anwar
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: mcnab@dinsdale.nas.nasa.gov (David McNab)
Subject: Need Help with Automatic Billing Problem
Organization: NAS Program, NASA/Ames Research Center
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 92 00:04:09 GMT
Distribution: usa

I'm hoping someone out there can help me with this.

On 5 October 1989 I signed up for a "six month membership" at
a local exercise club.  I signed a form authorizing them to withdraw
$39/month "facility fee" from my checking account.  At some time
before the six month period ended, I stopped using the club
facilities.

Several months ago I closed the checking account from which I had
authorized them to make automatic withdrawals.  On Friday (25 Sep.)
I received a letter warning that I owed four months worth of 
"facility fees", presumably because they could no longer make the
automatic withdrawal.

I called the club's corporate office and asked why I was being
billed for a membership that had expired several years ago and
was told that while I had signed up for a "six month membership"
it was actually a continuing membership that I had to explicitly
cancel by writing a letter expressing my wish to terminate it.
Also, I found that to my surprise I had been billed every month
since I joined for the facility fee.  (I checked my records, and
my account was billed every month, although I obviously didn't
pay enough attention to my bank statements.)

So not only have I paid on the order of $1000 in "facility fees"
to an exercise club I don't attend, but I'm now in the hole for
four months of payments plus a "late fee".

Granted, I was stupid not to pay attention to my bank statements.
But is there any legal recourse available to me to either have
my payments refunded or at the very least to cancel the current
outstanding charges?  I'm not looking for specific legal advice,
but I was hoping that someone wise in legal ways could give me an
idea whether it's worth my while to pursue this with an attorney
or just give up and pay.

I am a resident of California, by the way, if that matters.

Thanks in advance,
David McNab
mcnab@nas.nasa.gov
From: smb@ulysses.att.com (Steven Bellovin)
Subject: Re: Presidential Succession History (was: Presidential UL's)
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 13:09:39 GMT
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories

In article <8f=S02DR24U801@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com>, tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll) writes:
> (I think the Congressional Record was around from the 
> beginning in one form or another, but I'm not certain).  Certainly nothing as 
> formal as exists today.

Article I, Section 5 of the U.S. Constitution:

	3.  Each House  shall  keep  a  journal  of  its proceedings,
	and  from  time to time publish the same, excepting such parts
	as may in their judgement  require  secrecy;  and  the yeas
	and  nays  of the  members of either House on any question
	shall, at the desire of one-fifth of those present, be entered
	on the  journal.

Section 7 requires that votes for and against veto overrides be recorded
as well.
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Online Legal
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 17:26:47 GMT


alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk - Free forum on Computers and Academic Freedom
alt.comp.acad-freedom.news - Best of CAF-Talk

We often discuss legal protection (constitutional and contractual)
for academic freedom of speech, privacy, and due process. There is a
whole archive of legal information.

- Carl

ANNOTATED REFERENCES

(All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.)

=================
law
=================
CAF Law Archive
  [part of the Computers and Academic Freedom (CAF) Archive
     [part of the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) Archive]]

This is an on-line collection of law related to computers and academic
freedom. It includes both case law and legislation.

The archive is accessible via anonymous ftp and email. Ftp to
ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4). It is in directory "pub/academic/law".
For email access, send email to archive-server@eff.org. Include the
line:

send acad-freedom/law <filenames>

where <filenames> is a list of the files that you want. File README is
a detailed description of the items in the directory.

For more information or to make contributions, contact Carl Kadie
(kadie@eff.org).

=================
caf
=================
A description to the comp-academic-freedom-talk mailing list. It is a
free-forum for the discussion of questions such as: How should general
principles of academic freedom (such as freedom of expression, freedom
to read, due process, and privacy) be applied to university computers
and networks? How are these principles actually being applied? How can
the principles of academic freedom as applied to computers and
networks be defended?

=================
=================

These document(s) are available by anonymous ftp (the preferred
method) and by email. To get the file(s) via ftp, do an anonymous ftp
to ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4), and get file(s):

  pub/academic/law
  pub/academic/caf

To get the file(s) by email, send email to archive-server@eff.org.
Include the line(s) (be sure to include the space before the file
name):

send acad-freedom law
send acad-freedom caf


--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Xref: sparky misc.legal:17746 alt.politics.correct:5500 soc.college:3974
From: lkk@panix.com (Larry Kolodney)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.politics.correct,soc.college
Subject: Re: the MIT anti-trust case
Date: 27 Sep 92 13:43:37 GMT
Article-I.D.: panix.1992Sep27.134337.16154
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC


I seem to have missed the original articles in this thread.

I had been following with some interest the MIT anti-trust case.  The
last I had heard, all defendants except MIT had settled.

Has there been some recent development which I missed?

-- 
larry kolodney:(lkk@panix.com) 
_(*#&)#*&%)@(*^%_!*&%^!)*&#+!*&$+!?&%+!*&^_)*&#%)*&^%#+&
The past is not dead, it's not even past.   - Wm. Faulkner
Xref: sparky misc.legal:18017 alt.folklore.urban:24791
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Skinhead speech protected, Supreme Court says (was: Re: Fuck You
Keywords: Family wage
Date: 1 Oct 92 20:15:54 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <19230@smoke.brl.mil> matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt) writes:

MR:The entry of women into the workforce has made it possible for the
MR:capitalists to stop paying the "family wage" -- enough for one job
MR:to support a family of five.  The "family wage" is something that
MR:labor unions and women's groups strove for decades to make bosses 
MR:pay, so that children and their mothers would not have to work 
MR:in the sweatshops while the fathers worked in the mines and mills.
MR:By FDR's time, the unions and women's groups had succeeded, and
MR:their success endured through the '60's.  Then an unholy alliance
MR:of multinational corporations shipping high-paying jobs overseas,
MR:and hairy-legged Feminazis imposing Federal law to keep even *willing*
MR:bosses from paying a father of three more than a single worker, 
MR:killed the "family wage."  According to Allan C. Carlson, 

MR:   "By 1976, only 40 percent of American jobs paid enough to 
MR:  support a family of five in minimal comfort, not so long ago
MR:  the standard measure of a fair wage.  Today [1988], the figure
MR:  is close to 25 percent."  
MR:            -- _Family Questions_ (New Brunswick, NJ: 
MR:               Transaction Books, 1988), p. 135.

Don't forget taxes.  In the 1950's, the average family paid about 2 percent
of their income in federal income taxes.  By the 1990, that amount had
risen to 22 percent.  A effective 20 percent increase in the average wage
would allow a lot of SO's to stay home with the children.
NOTE:  All other taxes have also risen in step with the income tax.
The tax burden is a major reason why many couples are forced to become to
income families.  If you look at the taxes paid by an average two income
family, and compare it to the wages of the second income earner.  The second
income is used mainly to pay taxes.
Of course now the government wants to raise taxes even more so that they
can make life easier on all those two income families.  Ain't it ironic.

We now return you to your reguraly scheduled soap box.

-- 
Mark
My opinions are mine, all mine.  Unless someone else claims them first.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Fighting Words?
Date: 2 Oct 92 16:58:17 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <mJqyRB1w164w@depsych.Gwinnett.COM>, rc@depsych.Gwinnett.COM (Richard Carlson) writes:
# Now I'm even more confused.  Even that 1942 New Hampshire case
# where the Jehovah's Witness, Chaplinsky, was convicted of uttering
# "fighting words," he wasn't dissing anyone's mama, or even
# addressing comments to particular individuals. He was just
# badmouthing all other religions except his own and addressing his
# remarks to all and sundry.  Or did I misunderstand the facts of
# the case?
# --
# Richard Carlson

I think so.  My understanding was that he called a town police
official a "fascist" and "two-bit tinhorn dictator."  Perhaps
this tells us something about the loss of civility in America,
that there was a time when such language could be considered
"fighting words."
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Lesson learned from Gov. Wilson's signing of AB 2601: if you don't get 
your way, have a riot.  Next time, Gov. Wilson will cower appropriately.
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Citecheck Hell)
Subject: Re: the MIT anti-trust case
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 16:31:40 GMT

In article <1992Oct2.035543.24614@panix.com> lkk@panix.com (Larry Kolodney) writes:
>In <1992Sep30.053708.13964@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Citecheck Hell) writes:
>>The charitable aspects of the Red Cross would not be subject to
>>the Sherman Act.  If they were to collude with the Red Crescent or
>>something to price-fix the price of blood, that would be subject to
>>the Sherman Act.  
>
>So if the Red Cross has a policy of not permitting hospitals to resell
>their blood products to the highest bidder, they are in violation of
>the Sherman Act?

Why would you think that?

When American Airlines has a policy of not permitting customers to resell
their discount airline tickets to the highest bidder, are they in
violation of the Sherman Act?

Why do you think the Red Cross would be held to a different standard?
-- 
           .. . . .  .  .   .    .     .     .    .   .  .  . . . ..
          ted frank | thf2@midway.uchicago.edu | standard disclaimers
         the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
From: matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Once more into the breach, dear friends (was: Re: Ted babbles again
Keywords: . . . should have been born a boy.
Date: 30 Sep 92 17:04:38 GMT
Organization: U.S. Army Ballistic Research Lab, APG MD.

In article <1992Sep28.143813.21430@Princeton.EDU> 
egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Edward G. Nilges) writes:

>And the positions I am arguing for are not Nilgesian and they are
>unoriginal.  Feminists are the ones who are trying to demarcate an area
>of free speech that is less "speech" than systematic subordination of
>women, . . .   [Ed Nilges]

I would respect Mr. Nilges's positions more if they really were the
outcome of his originial, "Nilgesian" thinking.  The feminist, Andrea
Dworkin, has written:

   "Girls would become men if girls could, because it would 
  mean *freedom from*: freedom from . . . continuous petty
  insult . . ."
      -- _Pornography: Men Possessing Women_ (New York: 
          E. P. Dutton, 1981), p. 51.
   
It is sad that Mr. Nilges echoes the anti-free-speech sentiments
of ENVIOUS "[g]irls [who] would become men if girls could," and who 
would throw the Ist Amendment into the ash can in order to obtain 
"freedom from . . . petty insult."  Any girl who wants male privilege
should have been born a boy, and we're not going to abolish free speech
because she feels bad that she wasn't.

>. . . and blacks are trying to do the same with racially abusive
>speech.  [Ed Nilges]

Like the Saint Paul, Minnesota, law that made it a crime to put 
up a sign even on one's own property that was likely to arouse 
RESENTMENT?

>I believe that using my access to bring
>these non-Nilgesian views is a public service since it improves dialogue
>and may shed light on why the net is so abusive and disinformative.
>[Ed Nilges]

It is a public service, because it brings to the Net's attention the
lengths to which one branch of radicalism is willing to go in order
to satisfy the ENVY and RESENTMENT of the losers.

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

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
"quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus"
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.dads-rights,soc.men