HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: srm@world.std.com (Stevens R Miller)
Subject: Re: Online Legal
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 15:11:50 GMT

rc@depsych.Gwinnett.COM (Richard Carlson) writes:
>srm@world.std.com (Stevens R Miller) writes:
>> rc@depsych.Gwinnett.COM (Richard Carlson) writes:
>> >Does it mean that lawyers and people interested in legal matters aren't
>> >interested in online discussion of legal matters in public "cyberspace?"

>> Maybe, but it goes both ways, IMHO.  I can't begin to tell you how much
>> public and personal e-bashing I've taken, just for posting the law,

>Very interesting.  I do think, though, that some of the problem is
>with lawyers.
>Aside from the American Bar Association's _You and the Law_, there
>aren't many books by lawyers "giving away the law" to laypersons.

Too true, though we are working to change this.  One of the very first
books I was required to buy, in law school, was "Plain English for
Lawyers."  The push is on, hard, in law schools, to demystify the law.
The on-line environment offers a wonderful variation on what books can
do, and so we have lawyers like Mike Godwin and (I hope) me, trying to
exploit it to the public good.  I would suggest that we can all, lawyer
and layperson alike, do this best when we remain above the finger-pointing
and name-calling that often infects the cyberbody politic.  And, as I have
said, misc.legal is better than most, in my experience.

>However I can certainly sympathize with your experiences. [Omitted
>for sake of brevity.]  It seems silly for people who don't like
>lawyers because lawyers won't communicate in a form they can
>understand to get angry and take it out on any lawyer who _does_
>attempt to dialogue in a broader context.

Thank you for saying this.  A lot.

Whenever a court decision is rendered that causes confusion or upset,
I'll try to explain it, if I can.  My only hesitation before doing so
comes from the fear that my efforts will get me, the messenger, blamed
for the message.  You know, the sort of "oh yeah?  Well, by *your*
analysis then, murder would be legal and it's people like you that
are making the world such a..."  You get the idea.

And, again, it goes both ways.  I don't know everything, and I like to
learn what I can from misc.legal (among other exalted sources 8-)).  It
shouldn't be deemed unreasonable for me or anyone to be most receptive
to *courteous* debate.  And, you never know; I might remember something I
learned from someone here, when she and I are on opposite sides of the "v,"
someday.
-- 
Stevens R. Miller, J.D.		E-mail to srm@mw.sbi.com
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.activism,talk.politics.misc
From: Nigel.Allen@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Nigel Allen)
Subject: Former CIA Employee Pleads Guilty in $1.2 Million Fraud
Organization: NDA
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 08:26:05 GMT

Here is a press release from the U.S. Justice Department.

 Former CIA Employee Pleads Guilty in $1.2 Million Fraud
 To: National Desk
 Contact: U.S. Department of Justice, Public Affairs,
          202-514-2007

   WASHINGTON, Oct. 2   -- As a result of a joint investigation 
conducted by the CIA Inspector General, the FBI, and the
U.S. Department of Justice, a former CIA employee pleaded guilty
today in U.S. District Court in Alexandria to two felony counts for
his role in defrauding the agency and the U.S. Government of over
$1.2 million.
   As specified in papers filed with the court, Joseph P. Romello,
who worked as a CIA program manager, used his official position to
cause the CIA to enter into two contracts for goods and services
that were never received by the agency.
   Romello's share of the $1.2 million in contract payments was
over $750,000.
   According to Director of Central Intelligence Robert M. Gates,
the investigation of Romello's activities extended over nine
months.
   "This case demonstrates that the agency has the will and the
capability to pursue wrongdoing by employees aggressively,"
Director Gates said.  He expressed great appreciation for the
"excellent cooperation" the CIA Inspector General received from
the FBI, the Justice Department, and the Defense Contract Audit
Agency.
   Romello's agency employment was terminated by the director on
July 27.  He is due to be sentenced Dec. 4.  In addition, Romello
will be required to make restitution of all proceeds.
 -30-

--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
From: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Online Legal
Date: 30 Sep 92 19:18:01 GMT
Reply-To: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation

In article <RyDRRB1w164w@depsych.Gwinnett.COM>, rc@depsych.Gwinnett.COM 
(Richard Carlson) writes:
> >5.  USENET NEWSGROUPS
> >---------------------
> >
> >5.1  The following USENET newsgroups are of a legal nature:
> >
> >        comp.patents ***[need description, focal point, archive info]
> >
> >        misc.legal ***[need description, focal point, archive info]
> >
> >        misc.legal.computing ***[need description, focal point, archive 
info]
> 
> There are only _three_ Newsgroups dealing with legal matters on
> the entire Usenet? (I have just seen the proposal for a family law
> Newsgroup.  That would make four.)

 
Other groups, some only tangentally related to law:

alt.dicrimination
alt.child-support
alt.dads-rights
alt.politics.correct (there's also alt.politics.clinton, alt.politics.bush, 
etc.; I dunno if you want to count politics groups groups dealing with legal 
matters).
alt.politics.usa.constitution (discussions of constitutional law)
alt.society.civil-liberty
comp.software.licensing
misc.int-property
misc.taxes

Terry Carroll - tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com - 408/992-2152
The opinions presented above are not necessarily those of a sound mind.
From: rc@depsych.Gwinnett.COM (Richard Carlson)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Fighting Words
Date: 29 Sep 92 14:10:14 GMT

scott@bbx.basis.com (Scott Amspoker) writes:

> In article <XiFRRB2w164w@depsych.Gwinnett.COM> rc@depsych.Gwinnett.COM (Richa
> >[about "fighting words"...]
> >I've looked but haven't found a good book or even a good article
> >discussing this interesting doctrine.  Anybody know of one,
> >especially as applied in juvenile law (one kid disses another --
> >what are the legal rights and latitudes of the dissed kid to hit
> >the one uttering the "fighting words?")?
> 
> We had a high-profile case in Albuquerque that hinged on fighting words.
> A demonstrater at UNM was speaking out against the (in progress) 
> gulf war.  He was ranting about how the government was using minorities
> to fight their economic battle.  A war supporter walked up and punched
> him in the face.  This whole scene was caught by local news cameras
> so there was no dispute about what actually took place.
> 
> The attacker was prosecuted and dismissed because the jury felt that
> the anti-war protester was out of line and inciting anger.  The
> whole concept of "fighting words" was beaten to death in local newspapers'
> editorial/letters columns.  I don't recall that anyone was able to
> define "fighting words" as something other than "unpopular speech" (at
> least in the context of this case).

Do you think he would have, or should have, gotten off if the
anti-war protestor was saying the exact same thing -- same content
-- but in a quiet voice and with as few emotion-charged words as
possible.  "It should violate our collective conscience to
acquiesce in the instrumentalization of disempowered groups for
the purpose of preserving the privileges of hegemonic elites when
these very privileges are not only denied to the disempowered but
to a very real extent constructed on the exploitation of these
very people."  Is something like that fighting words?

What if instead of uttering propositions the person was just
dressed like a punk, with purple hair, etc., and drawled something
like, "Man, I don't dig that gulf war, man.  I mean like that is
such a _bogus_ war, man.  I mean it is really mega-bogus, man, you
know what I'm sayin.'"  Is something like that fighting words?

--
Richard Carlson
Internet:              rc@depsych.gwinnett.COM
Bangpath:              {rutgers,ogicse,gatech}!emory!gwinnett!depsych!rc
CompuServe:            76605,470
Voice:                 (404) 881-6877
Xref: sparky misc.legal:17847 alt.society.civil-liberty:6081 talk.politics.drugs:6504
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.society.civil-liberty,talk.politics.drugs
Subject: Re: History of forfeiture laws
Date: 29 Sep 92 21:31:24 GMT
Followup-To: misc.legal
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <1992Sep28.215256.3366@island.COM>, guido@island.COM (Guido Marx) writes:

> How long do you think it will be
> before the authorities start to confiscate the autos of people
> suspected of drunk driving ? 

I'm surprised they are not doing it already.  They are now doing it 
to suspected patrons of prostitutes, and automotive transportation 
isn't even a component of the alleged crime.
-- 

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...
Xref: sparky misc.legal:17838 alt.politics.correct:5548 soc.college:4003
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.politics.correct,soc.college
Subject: Universities as a business (was: MIT anti-trust)
From: mzener@eagle.wesleyan.edu
Date: 28 Sep 92 18:03:50 EDT
 <1992Sep28.170558.4199@island.COM> <1992Sep28.192027.24969@Princeton.EDU>
Organization: Wesleyan University

egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Edward G. Nilges) writes:

>>Universities aren't engaged in trade ???  Unless I am mistaken, most
>>universities allow people to exchange money (aka tuition) for 
>>services (aka education).  That sounds like TRADE to me.  In fact,
>>I don't know how else you could describe what they do. 
> 
> Try "education."  Putting universities in the same category (1)
> discourages the notion of giving scholarships to anyone and (2) places
> the student in the cutomer's position.  In real trade and real business,
> the customer is always right (and in cases of doubt refer back to the
> first rule.)  In education, the "customer" isn't always right.
> Universities are engaged in a separate and distinct category of activity
> from trade.

   Ed's beliefs:
   1) Calling a university a business and its education a service discourages
giving away scholarships.  This is so much hogwash.  It is equivalent to saying
that because of Honda, GM has no incentive to sell cars.

   2) Equating "student" with "customer" is a Bad Thing.  Reason?  The famed
credo "the customer is always right" means that no student will be given a bad
grade.  Again, utter nonsense.  Treating the student as a customer means that
the universities will no longer tolerate bureaucratic ineptitude, poor food
service, substandard housing and so on.  Of course, some college could decide
to graduate everyone magna cum laude, but employers would know about it, so a
degree from that school would be worth little in the job market, hence very few
prospective students will go there. 

   Allowing the true aspect of the business / consumer relationship of the
university and its students to flourish will create incentives for the
universities to provide more rigorous education, and for the students to choose
to attend those schools.

   Just like GM has incentive to build better cars, and the driver has an
incentive to buy the best car for him.

Max Zener
Xref: sparky misc.legal:18078 talk.politics.theory:4442
From: crawford@ben.dev.upenn.edu (Lauren L. Crawford)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,rec.arts.books
Subject: Re: Anti-Arab racism on the net
Keywords: Equality, Fairness, Same Standards?
Date: 2 Oct 92 13:52:03 GMT
Followup-To: misc.legal
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

In article <1992Oct2.033113.22751@news.columbia.edu> ia4@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Imran Anwar) writes:
>In article <1992Oct1.015208.3507@fid.morgan.com> sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart) writes:
>
>>There is evidence about David Duke (like him being a bigshot in the
>>KKK).  What is the evidence about Rushdie?
>
>Oh, but Duke does say he was not really what he seemed to be, so doesn't
>that make him innocent just like Rushdie's claims make him "not offensive"

[etc.]

It seems to me that the issue isn't whether or not Rushdie's book offended
Moslems, Christians, Jews, women, African-Americans, the elderly, whatever,
but
rather is it acceptable to issue death threats to an artist who offends
us?  It's very easy for me to see how Rushdie's book was offensive to
Moslems, particularly when I learned a bit more about Islamic tradition. 
But so what?  The list of authors raised in Jewish or Christian traditions
who later wrote books about their struggles to extract themselves from
their backgrounds is longer than my arm.  Detest those writers, hate their
books, rail about them to anyone who will listen -- but murder them? 
That's psychopathic.

  

-- 
Lauren Crawford  //  crawford@ben.dev.upenn.edu
From: srm@world.std.com (Stevens R Miller)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Online Legal
Date: 27 Sep 92 15:10:07 GMT
Article-I.D.: world.Bv8ssw.DrK
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

rc@depsych.Gwinnett.COM (Richard Carlson) writes:

>[documents small number of on-line legal groups]
>
>Does it mean that lawyers and people interested in legal matters aren't
>interested in online discussion of legal matters in public "cyberspace?"

Maybe, but it goes both ways, IMHO.  I can't begin to tell you how much
public and personal e-bashing I've taken, just for posting the law, and
attempting to explain it.  In a fashion all too common in cyberspace,
what I have said is usually ignored, in favor of what I *haven't* said.
That is, when I post a statute or case summary, I must usually state in
tedious categorical terms that I don't agree with it, or else it is
assumed that I do.  This is almost as often accompanied by some derisive
assertion that being a lawyer pollutes one's brain and makes one's words
inherently suspect.

I used to co-host the legal discussion group on Echo (a New York BBS that
may or may not still exist).  The abuse I took from people who didn't agree
with the law (and who rarely asked me my own position on any of it) was
ceaseless and cruel.  When I researched questions in the law library and
posted the answers with citations, I was criticized for being arrogant and
presumptuous.  When, after months of this became too much, I asked
the Sysop to enforce her own written rules about suspending chronically
abusive users, she refused to do so, stating that only a lawyer would want
the rule applied.

Quite a few of us are interested in on-line discussion.  Discussion, but
not abuse.  (For the record, misc.legal is pretty good about it; with a few
exceptions who know who they are).
-- 
Stevens R. Miller, J.D.		E-mail to srm@mw.sbi.com
Newsgroups: misc.legal,talk.politics.theory
From: gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
Subject: Re: Freedom of Speech according to Nilges
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 00:26:40 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: mydog in exile

In article <183703@pyramid.pyramid.com> pcollac@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com (Paul Collacchi) writes:
| In article <1992Oct1.042909.9477@panix.com>, gcf@panix.com (Gordon
| Fitch) writes:
| |> egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Edward G. Nilges):
| |> | ...
| |> | There is an astonishing amount of dysfunction and codependency on the
| |> | net, and the average poster appears to be a male from a household with a
| |> | strong female and a weak or absent father.  This is because of the
| |> | prelevance of divorce in the era of many posters' childhoods (1960-1980)
| |> | and the fact that even before 1960 "organization man" fathers were
| |> | excluded from meaningful family participation.  Since boys, especially,
|      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Attribution to me should have been removed since my brilliant
comments were....

| ...
| As far as "dysfunction" and "codependency".  They are the rage these
| days (pun intended :).  The words have become so fashionable that they
| have become meaningless.  

I don't think they're meaningless, I think they're totalitarian.

| ... 
| I would agree that the average net poster comes from a relatively
| homogenous subset of the population -- not too many homelesss persons
| posting these days, Or women.

I read a news story somewhere describing how a library
had installed terminals enabling access to a bulletin-board
system somewhere.  Free, for as long as you wanted; it was
some kind of experiment.  They ran into a problem: homeless
people came in the library and spent all day on the terminals
conversing with each other and non-homeless users.  

They were _getting_a_life_.

It wasn't Usenet, of course, but it could have been.  And 
probably will be, soon.  In the last few years I've seen 
fairly middle-class looking homeless types sometimes carrying 
what appeared to be electronic equipment.  Could have been
one of those notebook computers.  Public phone hookups,
a little blue-boxing or an 800 number, and -- voila`!
-- 
 )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(
( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta.,  NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: tzs@stein.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith)
Subject: Re: Law School -- What's It Like? (was: UU patent (or lack thereof))
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 01:12:25 GMT


tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll) writes:
>
>Challenging, but I find it fun.  If you've had any experience programming, 
>the intellectual process is not too much different.  It consists of finding 
>the rules necessary to get a result you want.  Distinguishing two cases that 
>at first appear identical but that reach different results is a lot like 
>debugging.

Consider torts.  I open the casebook, and read our first case, Roberson
v. Rochester Folding Box Company.  I read the decision, and think I
understand.  Then I read that it was a 4-3 decision, and that nearly
every other court faced with similar facts ruled the other way, and that
the legislature nearly immediately enacted a statute to cover this
because they didn't like the court's result.  Somehow, this does not
remind me of programming!

On to contracts.  First case is Hawkins v. McGee.  Read it.  Clearly, the
doctor was guilty of malpractice.  Yet, that was nonsuited, but the doctor
lost for breach of contract.  Say what?  Just when I finally think I
understand this, we read Sullivan v. O'Conner, which seems to say that
damages for this kind of case should be calculated the way that the court
in Hawkins said was wrong, yet they try to say that they are not repudiating
Hawkins.  Gack.  Even TECO made more sense then this!

(The prof said that one of the reasons for things like this might be that
torts tend to be all-or-nothing, unlike crimes, where there is, say, 1st
degree murder, 2nd degree murder, and so on.  In a case like Sullivan, by
finding a breach of contract but no malpractice, but awarding damages using
tort-like remedies rather than contract-breach-like remedies, the courts
can in effect create different degrees of tort)

I agree that it is fun and challenging, but if I survive this, it won't be
because of the intellectual skills I have from programming.  Instead, it will
be because I have flexible intellectual skills, that could be applied both
to programming and this.

--Tim Smith
From: zempelkd@cnsvax.uwec.edu (Kurt Zempel - Computing and Networking Services)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Literature Students/Small World
Date: 6 Oct 92 04:11:17 GMT
Followup-To: misc.legal
Organization: University of Wisconsin Eau Claire

In article <70032@hydra.gatech.EDU>, barclay@RAIL9000.gatech.edu (Barclay Blanchard) writes:

[ Incoherent message deleted]
> Barclay Elizabeth Blanchard    barclay@rail9000@gatech.edu
> "I've been laughed at by some of the funniest people."
> --Lissie, Alice Walker's _The Temple of My Familiar_

Ex-Squeeze me?
From: matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: U.S. Justice Department opens child development center
Keywords: Employer-provided child development centers.
Date: 30 Sep 92 16:25:48 GMT
Organization: U.S. Army Ballistic Research Lab, APG MD.

In article <1992Sep22.222624.29611@samba.oit.unc.edu> 
Nigel.Allen@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Nigel Allen) writes:

>The U.S. Justice Department has opened a child development center.
>Here is the department's press release.
. . .
>   "We view a department child development center as an essential
>part of the department's Worklife Program -- a program whose purpose
>is to provide assistance to employees struggling to balance work and
>family concerns.  Anything we can do to ease the burden on working
>parents here at the department is well worth it," said Barr.
>[quoted by Nigel Allen]

How much does it cost an employee per week to enroll his child
in this employer-provided child development center?  Or is it
an employer-provided benefit for parents?

>. . . "The department's goal is to provide the children
>of hardworking federal employees the opportunity to develop
>emotionally, socially and intellectually in a safe, nurturing
>environment."

This is a commendable goal.  Has the department thought of paying
those of its employees who are parents enough of a salary bonus
so that their spouses can afford to quit paid employment in order
to provide their children "the opportunity to develop emotionally, 
socially and intellectually" in the "safe, nurturing environment" 
of their own homes?  Shouldn't each employee be able to decide 
for himself what the best environment is for his own children?

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

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
TRUTH     JUSTICE     FREEDOM     YIDDISHKEIT     IVY     THE AMERICAN WAY
Xref: sparky misc.legal:17972 talk.politics.theory:4417