HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: hasn@midway.uchicago.edu (Sheheryar Hasnain)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.politics.correct,alt.censorship
Subject: Re: Nilges
Date: 25 Aug 92 15:08:27 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago

In the midst of this debate on free speech, I want to pose a question:  Does 
free speech exist in the US at all?  And if it is not consistent on all 
levels then it does not exist.  I will add that it is interesting how many 
people choose to defend the "racists" right to free speech when:

1.  Doctors cannot mention abortion as an alternative to patients.

2.  Corporate Whistleblowers generally lose their jobs after spilling the beans.

3.  Speech to overthrow the government is punnishable(sp).  

and so on.

Why defend speech that spreads a hatred when one can talk about cases like the 
above? Generally, all actions are pretty well screened in this country 
before being allowed, and racism should be no different.

Lets face it, there is no such thing as "free speech" in this country.  One 
cannot argue that "some" speech is free since freedom means all or nothing. 

Considering the above, is it worth defending the speech of the racist?  If the
government is allowed some subjective leeway as to what is free and what is 
not free speech, then consider this:  Does racist propoganda ultimately
stop at "speech" or does it have "physical" effects in the short/medium/long
run?  That should be a concern when deciding on what is "speech" and what is 
not.  

Using the above logic, I do not consider racist propoganda to be considered
as "speech."  Racist propoganda drives some people to physically, 
economically and emotionally hurt others (I'm also not an Al Sharpton or
Farakhan fan!).  Should it be punnished accordingly?
That ofcourse is a different issue.  
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.politics.correct,rec.arts.movies
From: kaufman@eecs.nwu.edu (Michael L. Kaufman)
Subject: Marx Brother's Names (Was Re: The return of vaudeville.)
Organization: EECS Department, Northwestern University
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 04:31:21 GMT

wkm1@nestor.uucp (24102-messer) writes:
>in reference to your article on the marx brothers....
>they were playing poker one night, and someone at the game decided
>to give them nicknames, ending in 'o'....groucho because of his demeanor,
>chicko, because he was always chasing girls, harpo for obvious reasons,
>zippo (changed to zeppo after they realized it was after a chimp act)..
>gummo was named because of the gum-soled shoes he used to wear.

There are so many errors here, I feel I have to correct them.

They were playing cards with Art Fisher in Rockford Il. At the time there was
a popular comic strip called "Knocko the Monk" and every vaudville show had a
few acts with "o" names. Art was dealing and as he passed out the cards he gave
each of them a knickname. Harpo, because he played the harp. Chicko, because he
chased the chicks. Groucho, because he carried his money in a "grouch-bag". 
Gummo, because he had a gumshoe way of prowling around and sneacking up on
people. Later Gummo quit the act and the youngest brother joined. He liked to
chin himself and practice acrobatics, so they called him Zippo after a famous
perfoming money. He felt that this was somewhat unflattering, and insisted
that they spell it Zeppo. Chicko became Chico when a typesetter left off the K
the first time they had their names printed up.

This is all from Harpo's autobiography, "Harpo Speaks"; a book I highly
recomend to anyone with an interest in the marx brothers, vaudville, the
20's, the 30's, the 40's, the movies, the stage, life in general ... well 
you get the idea. A very funny, interesting, touching read.

Michael

-- 
Michael Kaufman | I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on
 kaufman        | fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in
  @eecs.nwu.edu | the dark near the Tannhauser gate. All those moments will be
                | lost in time - like tears in rain. Time to die.     Roy Batty 
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: Hate Speech Okay, says the Supreme Court
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 03:36:15 GMT

In article <11919@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:

>Malcolm X was a racist.

Malcolm X admits, then later rejects, his own racism in THE AUTOBIOGRAPHY
OF MALCOLM X. Of course, you have to finish the book to know this.


--Mike




-- 
Mike Godwin,    |"The meeting of two personalities is like the contact 
mnemonic@eff.org| of two chemical substances: if there is any reaction, 
(617) 864-0665  | both are transformed."
EFF, Cambridge  |                           --Carl Jung 
Xref: sparky misc.legal:16639 alt.flame:12412
From: eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.flame
Subject: Re: The return of vaudeville. (was: Re: Nilges)
Date: 29 Aug 92 01:21:09 GMT
Followup-To: alt.flame
Organization: Superseding Information, Inc.

In <1992Aug28.223601.13313@Princeton.EDU>, egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU sez:
>>> In article <1992Aug28.153236.24131@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>> >
>>> >In fact, Shean was Jewish, a pretty close relative of the Marx Brothers
>>> >(that's Julius, not Karl, though Karl was sometimes funnier.)
>
>Hey Ted!  Who was Julius Marx?  Oh well, White Men Can't Proofread, huh?
>Did ya mean to say Groucho?

Ed, can you possibly be so Stoopid(sm) as not to know that Groucho's
real first name was Julius?  Or is it just that your preternatural
arrogance prevents you from comprehending that Ted knows this fact
too?

Go ahead, Ed, goad me too, just like you did Ted.  For starters, maybe
you could tattoo the words "I AM A MENTAL DEFECTIVE" across your
forehead in big block letters.  Boy, that'd sure show me . . . .


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

	   Mark Eckenwiler    eck@panix.com     ...!cmcl2!panix!eck
From: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Order of the Coif?
Date: 25 Aug 92 23:35:06 GMT
Article-I.D.: JUTS.67nZ02s41fUF01
Reply-To: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation

Can anyone tell me what the Order of the Coif is?  I've seen it listed as a 
qualification for some attorneys.  I'm not certain that it represents an 
honor or degree associated with the legal profession, but the context seems 
to indicate so.

Anyone?


Terry Carroll - tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com - 408/992-2152
The opinions presented above are not necessarily those of a sound mind.
Xref: sparky misc.legal:16538 alt.politics.correct:5166 alt.censorship:7194
From: cedman@714-725-3165.nts.uci.edu (Carl Edman)
Subject: Re: The return of vaudeville. (was: Re: Nilges)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.politics.correct,alt.censorship
Reply-To: cedman@golem.ps.uci.edu (Carl Edman)
Date: 27 Aug 92 20:36:48 GMT

Ed Nilges writes
> Chuck.Lavazzi@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Chuck Lavazzi) writes:
> >>> I suggest that discussants in this thread follow the lead of Israel and
> >>> inject some sense in the discussion.  The defense of Kuwait and the
> >>> abandonment of Bosnia-Herzegovina means that international politics is
> >>> under the control of a dollar elite, not the Elders of Zion.
> >>> Sherheryar, do you mean to say that Jews set our media's agenda, or an
> >>> amoral elite comprised of scum of all persuasions?
> >>> 
> >>Absolutely the latter!   I was not even going to reply to
> >>such a stupidly drawn conclusion.  Thanks for clearing my name.
> >	So I ask you, are these guys the Gallagher and Shean of the Politically
> >Correct, or what?  Who says vaudeville is dead?  It LIVES!
> >"Absolutely, Mr. Gallagher?"
> >"Positively Mr. Shean!"
> 
> Your racism is showing, for you have revived the 19th century vaudeville
> portrayal of Irish names as intrinsically laff-producing in a disgusting
> attempt to marginalize Sherheryar, who you, as a racist, found amusing
> and marginal because of an Arabic sounding name.  His dignity (for I
> assume that it is he who replied in the >> zone above, given your clumsy
> elision of needed information) puts you to shame.  

I think in at least one matter I believe we have done Mr Nilges an injustice.

He actually does have a sense of self irony.

	Carl Edman
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: larry@world.std.com (Larry Appleman)
Subject: Re: Endorsing checks for deposit via ink stamp?
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 22:05:35 GMT

In article <1992Aug27.124441.285@mwhhlaw.uucp> uunet!mwhhlaw!tim writes:
>The "for deposit only" language is a restrictive indorsement.  It means "I  
>really, really want the amount of this check put in my account."  Usually
>this comes up in the following kind of case.  Trusted Bookeeper (TB) takes
>the daily receipts from the business to the bank.  All the items are
>restrictively indorsed.  TB gets her old friend, the teller, to cash one of
>the checks.  The usual story is the business needs petty cash. TB takes off
>for the islands.  The bank is on the hook for failing to follow the
>restrictive indorsement.  Ah so, you say.  The business should always
>restrictively indorse.  Not necessary so.  If there had been no indorsement,
>the TB would not be a holder of the check and could not transfer (actually
>negotiate) it to the bank.  Since a thief can pass no title, the business
>can demand the check back from the bank.  Again, the bank loses, but the
>banks hate it and will fight you on this one.

Because the check was restrictively indorsed with instructions to the
bank, TB is never a holder of the check.  To make TB a holder, the
indorsement would have to be to TB or bearer (see the definition of
"holder" in U.C.C. 1-201).  And if there had been no indorsement, it
would be very easy to put a forged indorsement only the check.

>My rule--if you are giving a check to a TB to deposit, restrictively indorse.
>If you are going yourself, don't indorse at all.

I think the better rule is: any time you intend to deposit a check,
restrictively indorse it, even if you are going to the bank yourself.
This protects you and the bank in case you lose the check on the way
to the bank.  (It's a lot easier for a forger to add a fake indorsement
than to remove a "for deposit" indorsement.)
From: fsars@acad3.alaska.edu (Allen R Sparks)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Custody case question
Date: 28 Aug 92 00:04:42 GMT
Organization: University of Alaska Fairbanks

In article <BtnsLH.9B0@unx.sas.com>, cates@cherokee.unx.sas.com (Claire Cates) writes:
> 
> I am supposed to go to trial Sept 8 (next date in a list of
> many that were supposed to happen) to determine the custody
> of my 2 girls.  I had a meeting with my lawyer today and
> he told me statistically if the case goes to court the man
> wins in 60% of the cases.   I had been led to believe from
> everything I have ever seen or heard that the women has the
> better chance of winning custody even if she is a total wreck.
> I would be interested in other peoples opinions on this statistic.
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Claire S. Cates
> cates@unx.sas.com

What state?  Every state is different.  === Al
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: kadie@dante.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Graffiti Ordinance Ex Post Facto
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 19:37:09 GMT

foy@aero.org (Richard Foy) writes:

>My city is working on an ordinance to allow the city to take action of up
>to six months in jail if a person does not remove graffiti, or allow the
>city to remove it. The ordinance is directed at one specific individual.

> Is this not an ex post facto law if it is applied to her.

Not if they give her time to remove the graffitti after the bill
passes. Might it, however, be an unconstitutional bill of attainer
(because it is directed at one specific individual)? Also, it seems to
violate freedom of expression.

- Carl, not-a-lawyer


--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart)
Subject: Re: Graffiti Ordinance Ex Post Facto
Organization: my opinions only
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 18:00:38 GMT

In article <1992Aug26.043228.18452@panix.com> lkk@panix.com
(Larry Kolodney) writes:

>
>	[concerning an ordinance which allows the city to remove
>	graffitti from a building if the owner refuses]

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

Except that the building was built _before_ the zoning law was passed.

Seth		sethb@fid.morgan.com
Xref: sparky misc.legal:16836 talk.politics.misc:43303
From: art@world.std.com (Al Thompson)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Clair George's trial a mistrial!!
Date: 2 Sep 92 15:54:08 GMT
	<ART.92Aug30121858@world.std.com> <1992Aug31.185011.24978@panix.com>
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

In article <1992Aug31.185011.24978@panix.com> eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler) writes:

   In <ART.92Aug30121858@world.std.com>, art@world.std.com sez:

      [re Oliver North]

   >  Note too that he was only convicted on the "cheap" charges,
   >destruction of government documents and accepting the gift of a security
   >fence.  A gift he accepted in desperation because, even though he had
   >received numerous death threats, the government refused his request for
   >protections.  This is particularly shocking since he was performing his
   >activities on behalf of that government.


   Unfortunately for your position, this is a lie.  After North made this
   claim before the committee, the relevant military authorities
   submitted a declaration that North *never made a request for
   protection*.

How interesting, since North made this statement under oath.

   References, which can be had on line (if not in the committee majority
   report), available on request.

Here's a request.
Xref: sparky misc.legal:16598 alt.dads-rights:2131
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.dads-rights
Subject: Re: Custody case question
Date: 28 Aug 92 16:06:13 GMT

In article <17lh1gINN1gp@gw.home.vix.com> shedevil@vix.com (Anne P. Mitchell JD) writes:

>For reference, look up Profs. Mnookin and Maccoby's recent
>Stanford Child Custody Study, a comprehensive study of nearly 1000
>divorcing couples in California, which revealed that while more than two-thirds
>of the fathers wanted some form of physical custody, nearly one third of
>them requested less custody then they actually wanted. By contrast,
>the mothers almost always asked for far more than they wanted, putting
>them in a superior bargaining position, and ensuring that even in the
>event of a compromise, the mothers would end up with at least as much
>custodial involvement as they wanted, while fathers in a compromise,
>having started out at their desired position, ended up with less than
>they really wanted.

>The researchers involved in the Stanford Child Custody Study
>hypothesize that it may simply be that fathers in some way feel less
>strongly about custody then do mothers.  


In fact, a lawyer may suggest to a man that he request less
custody than he wants, so that the man does not seem to attack
apple-pie values -- which could turn the case against him.

In other words, if you're the father, requesting full custody 
may cause the judge to give you nothing, since it is "unreasonable"
and makes you look selfish rather than concerned for the children.

If you're the mother, requesting less than full custody
may cause the judge to give you nothing (or to side against you,
or to force full custody on you), since you are not demonstrating 
apple-pie, "motherly" values.

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: srm@world.std.com (Stevens R Miller)
Subject: Re: State Universities & First Amendment
Keywords: _McCollum v. Board of Education_, 333 U.S. 203 (1948).
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 18:21:44 GMT

matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt) writes:
>>matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt) writes:
>>Whatever the special powers of the military might be, the court ruled,
>>they did not include compelling religious belief and practice."

>That's a "free exercise" issue, not an "establishment" issue.

I dissent.  Establishment of religion occurs when religion is endorsed
or encouraged, either one religion, or religion generally.  Compulsory
attendance would be in establishment of religion.  Free exercise is the
balancing force (and hence the popular notion that separation means
isolation is incorrect) that requires a government employee, volunteer
or draftee, be at least able, but not required, to practice his or her
faith.
-- 
Stevens R. Miller, J.D.		E-mail to srm@mw.sbi.com
From: "hilary miller" <hilary.miller@execnet.com>
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: endorsing checks for
Date: 2 Sep 92 06:25:27 EST
Reply-To: "hilary miller" <hilary.miller@execnet.com>
Distribution: misc
Organization: Executive Networks Information


Vijay Parikh, in a message to All on 09-01-92 at 3:06am, said:

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

               Once the check has been indorsed "For Deposit On-
               ly," according to the Uniform Commercial Code, it
               can only be negotiated by a bank.  Such an in-
               dorsement is the equivalent of "Pay Any Bank." 
               That means that an individual third party who co-
               mes into possession of the check would be unable
               to cash it by forging an indorsement in blank,
               which is the reason why people indorse their
               checks "For Deposit Only."  Once the check has
               been so indorsed, the *payee* can deposit it in
               his own account or cash it at a bank -- it makes
               no difference.


   L A
 I    R        Hilary B. Miller of Greenwich, Connecticut
  H/\Y         CIS: 76040,1743
    
---
  DeLuxe 1.25 #11645  Nietzche is pietzche, but Sartre is smartre.
--
Executive Network Information System  (914) 667-4567
International ILink Host
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: Clair George's trial a mistrial!!
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 19:03:46 GMT

In article <ART.92Aug30121858@world.std.com> art@world.std.com (Al Thompson) writes:

>   1) Walsh chose not to reprosecute because he couldn't get convictions
>   without the excluded evidence.
>
>Right.  He couldn't win his case without the use of illegally obtained
>evidence.

So far, Al, you're doing fine.

>No I'm not.  Factual information is only useful in the legal process if
>it is legally obtained.  Otherwise it's no better than gossip.

You are totally wrong here. So-called "illegal" evidence (evidence
gathered in a way that may have violated a defendant's rights) may be
*highly reliable*. It is not excluded because it's unreliable--it's
excluded because (the courts hope) that doing so will force
the government agents to act within the law in gathering evidence.

For discussions of the exclusionary rule--which should make absolutely
clear that excludable evidence is not by definition unreliable (or "no
better than gossip"), see McCormick's evidence treatise, or LaFave and
Israel on criminal procedure.

>The use of illegally obtained evidence deceives the jury.

Not necessarily. It is far more likely that the more relevant evidence
gets before the jury--whether obtained illegally or legally--the more
likely the jury is to come to an accurate picture of the facts.

>Well, when you consider that at his trial North was charge with twelve
>felonies and the jury acquited him on nine of them it seems that even
>when the jury was allowed to decide they still felt he was three fourths
>innocent.

Three-fourths innocent? That's like the woman who gets a positive on her
home-pregnancy test and tells herself "I'm three-fourths not pregnant."

>Note too that he was only convicted on the "cheap" charges,
>destruction of government documents and accepting the gift of a security
>fence.

The "cheap" charges were serious ones. You clearly have not read Toobin's
book on the prosecution and trial of North.

Mark Eckenweiler's statement about the significance of excludable or
illegally obtained evidence is entirely correct. This can be verified by
anyone who troubles himself to consult sources on evidence law or criminal
procedure.



--Mike




-- 
Mike Godwin,    |"The meeting of two personalities is like the contact 
mnemonic@eff.org| of two chemical substances: if there is any reaction, 
(617) 864-0665  | both are transformed."
EFF, Cambridge  |                           --Carl Jung 
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: dsc@gemini.tmc.edu (Doug S. Caprette Bldg. 28 W191 x3892)
Subject: Re: Right To Not Support
Keywords: Adultery
Organization: NASA GSFC CDP VLBI
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 14:37:25 GMT

In article <19108@smoke.brl.mil> matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt) writes:
>In article <BtHpMv.Asx@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) 
>writes:
>
>>I have seen no state (nor country) that provides standing to a biological
>>father when the mother is married to someone else and does not agree.
>>[Don Beaver]
>
>The legal presumption is that a child born to a married mother is her
>husband's child.  In some jurisdictions, that presumption is rebuttable.
>In others, it is irrebuttable.
>
>To "provide standing to a biological father when the mother is married
>to someone else" is, not to put too fine a point on it, to reward a man
>for committing adultery with another man's wife.  Depriving a man of any
>such standing is society's way of saying, "Don't mess with other men's
>wives."  And that's nothing but another enactment of the general principle,
>"Do not do to another what you would not want him to do to you."
>
>In some societies, a man who committed adultery with another man's wife
>was guilty of a crime and liable to heavy penalty.  In others, the
>wife's husband could *kill* the adulterer with impunity.  Being deprived
>of one's biological child is a serious punishment, all right, but it is
>punishment for a serious crime.
>

But, why should the child be punished for an offense committed by his/her 
father.

You see, the child is denied his/her biological father, as well as vica 
versa.  Whom do you suppose would make the batter father, the biological
father, or an unrelated man who has been cuckolded?
From: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: question on signature
Date: 2 Sep 92 15:52:47 GMT
Reply-To: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation

In article <1992Aug31.1297.16497@execnet>, hilary.miller@execnet.com (hilary 
miller) writes:

> 
> Andrew Chen, in a message to All on 08-27-92 at 9:19pm, said:
> 
> AC>|I have a simple question on legal signatures:  Can a Chinese "chop" mar
>    |be used for a signature in the U.S.?  The "chop" is just a stamper with
>    |a person's name in Chinese, so shouldn't it be equivalent to a
>    |"rubber stamp" signature?
>    |_______________________________________________________________________
> 
>           If you affix something to a document -- be it your manual or
>           facsimile signature, your thumbprint or just an "x" -- with
>           the intention of becoming bound by it, you are bound.  Under
>           the UCC, a "signature" can be rubber-stamped or even pre-
>           printed.

Just to expand on Hilary's answer, a "signature" is usually defined along the 
lines of "any marking intended to authenticate the writing".

Terry Carroll - tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com - 408/992-2152
The opinions presented above are not necessarily those of a sound mind.