HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Question concerning Airlines Antitrust
Date: 27 Jul 92 16:07:51 GMT
Organization: Princeton University
Originator: news@ernie.Princeton.EDU

Note: this post unrelated to hate speech, Derrida, legal criticism, or
any other of the fascinating issues raised in the "Hate Speech Okay"
thread.

Last Saturday, I received a strange mailing from an outfit calling
itself the Airlines Antitrust Administration which named me as part of a
class action lawsuit against the major carriers for their monopolistic
practices.  This notice said that, pending the outcome of a hearing to
be held Oct 19 1992 in Atlanta, I may be awarded free travel
certificates because I flew on United, one of the defendants, in the
period 1988-1991 during which anticompetitive practices were alleged.

I ordinarily trash "you may already be a winner" stuff from Publisher's
Clearing House but this looked interesting so I will fill out the
information return.  If the judge decides in favor of the traveling
public (and having read Gerry Spence on what happens when ordinary
people try to get redress in the courts, I am not going to hang by my
thumbs), I could stand to get a fair number of these certificates, for I
travelled heavily, paying for it myself, in the period indicated.

Question: anyone else get this?  Anybody aware of the likelihood that
any kind of awards will be made?
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.censorship,talk.politics.misc,alt.flame
From: egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges)
Subject: Re: Using killfiles is a form of censorship (was: Re: A Modest Request
Originator: news@ernie.Princeton.EDU
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 13:11:44 GMT

In article <Bs3v3v.9o7@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>In article <1992Jul28.143312.21954@nocusuhs.nnmc.navy.mil> perez@mgr.hjf.org (Charles Perez) writes:
>>In article <1992Jul27.221740.8240@Princeton.EDU> egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:
>>
>>>and surely the satisfaction one takes in a kill file is
>>>related to the satisfaction one feels in destructive behavior (there! I
>>>showed him, he's in my kill file.)
>
>  I would modify this a bit:  TELLING someone that they're in your kill
>  file might produce such emotions, but merely PUTTING them in a 
>  kill file is a simple convenience -- no longer having to endure
>  some poster's lunatic ravings.   I never tell people when I put
>  them in a kill file, why should I waste my time?

This is, however, exactly what William December Starr (whose actions I
submitted as an example of actions that undercut a professed dedicaiton
to free speech) did: he announced not only to me but also to the net
that he was "kill"ing me because he's "had it with" me.

Xref: sparky misc.legal:15281 soc.men:13990 soc.women:14419
From: perez@mgr.hjf.org (Charles Perez)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.censorship,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Using killfiles is a form of censorship (was: Re: A Modest Request
Date: 27 Jul 92 20:01:23 GMT
Organization: HJF AIDS Research Project, Washington DC

In article <1992Jul25.210834.29793@Princeton.EDU> egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:
>In article <1992Jul25.185646.17431@eff.org> mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:
>>In article <1992Jul25.180444.14954@Princeton.EDU> egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:
>>
>>>Using kill files IS a form of censorship.  At the very least, it
>>
>>Why is it that those who make this bizarre argument--that killfiles are
>>a form of censorship--are invariably those who are most likely to be 
>>selected for killfiles?
>
>I dunno.  Coupla guesses:
>
>
>     1.  Those folks have felt the shock and hurt of the metaphorical
>         murder of the "kill" file after attempting to join what they
>         thought was a dialogue (in this connection, Lyotard defines
>         terrorism, in The Postmodern Condition, as dialogue termina-
>         tion.)

Oh no ... oh no, I can't resist ... bwa ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!

Metaphorical murder??? The things that are being "killed" are
*messages*! Computer people use lots of animistic metaphors in the
course of their trades - that doesn't mean they think that computers
are living things. Go back to kindergarten and learn how to use
metaphors, Ed. You crack me up.

"Metaphorical murder"? What a clown!

>
>     2.  Those folks know that free speech is neither the free discourse
>         of power (that's French for "shut up the boss is talkin")
>         nor the random speech which is ineffectual because it is
>         it is equated with all other forms of random speech, but
>         instead free speech has much to do with free EXCHANGE of
>         views.  Which of course kill files prevent.

Free exchange of views does not mean forced listening. You do not own
another's time or his life, despite your attempts to lay claim on same.

>
>
>Any roads, I distrust (and I've gone on record as distrusting) battlers
>for "free speech" who have more apparent care for the free speech of
>pornographers and punks in Minnesota than for their own.

Maybe those people you "distrust" see no difference between banning
the speech of "pornographers and punks" and having their own speech
controlled (same principles involved in each - just the details are
different)? Just a thought. :-)

>So I think
>good faith is on display when anyone who's been selected for
>metaphorical murder fights for her own free speech.
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
You got me again ... bwa ha ha ha ha!!!

Just to set you at ease, Ed. I wouldn't dream of murdering you
metaphorically, your posts are just too entertaining.

>
>>
>>Probably just coincidence.
>>
>
>Could be!

Naahhh!

.sig
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Re: Hate Speech Okay, says the Supreme Court
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 13:56:57 GMT

In article <1992Jul29.134733.8571@Princeton.EDU> egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:
>>Is Stanford the same as all elite law schools? What's your basis for
>>concluding that Stanford in 1992 is the same as Harvard in the early '70s
>>(when Turow wrote ONE L)?
>
>The same sort of students self-select for elite law schools, typically
>younger students without premature family responsibilities who are
>either willing to live penuriously or who have parental support (or who
>can both live penuriously, and know that a well-off parent is available
>to step in in emergencies such as illness.)  

Ed, you have no clue what you're talking about.

If students self-selected for elite law schools, their admission rates would
be higher than 7-15%.

More than a few students at Chicago are married, or have children, are
older, etc.  Financial aid does exist.  As someone who will work their
way through the University of Chicago with next to no financial parental
support, I resent your over-generalizations about this topic, and others
which you know nothing about.

>A different population
>self-selects for East Jerusalem College of Law, typically older students
>and students who have to work, whether out of penury or else a need for
>a safety net including health insurance.

Funny, the law schools I applied to, Harvard, Yale, and Chicago, *all*
require health insurance to enroll, and will provide it to students (and
their families) who don't have it.  Once again, Ed makes up a "fact."

>I am aware that the Law 'n Economix gang want to convert to ATM-style
>computerized law, 'specially for poor folks.  

He's lying.  Or fantasizing.  Not one has suggested this.  Once again,
Ed makes up a "fact."

I'm also amused by Ed's continuing references to law students' SAT scores,
given that the subset of law students taking SAT tests is different than
that of the general population, and has been changing.  It's quite plausible
that law students' SAT scores have gone *up*, especially given the fact the
law students' LSAT scores have indeed gone up.

As for "coasting," I assure you that a law student's definition of "coast"
is different than Ed's.  
-- 
                      ....................................
                      ted frank | thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
                      the university of chicago law school 
                      official member of the cultural elit
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: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 12:55:05 GMT

In article <92Jul26.044147edt.47521@neat.cs.toronto.edu> cbo@cs.toronto.edu (Calvin Bruce Ostrum) writes:

>I am aware that most everybody here thinks Mike is a great man, 
>so very few of them agree with what I will say.  I also know that Mike 
>is a great deal smarter than I am, and knows far more now about almost
>everything of importance than I will ever know in my lifetime.  
>His value as a person, all things considered, is immeasurably higher.  

I had thought I'd said everything in my first response to this posting,
but seeing this I feel compelled to add one footnote--I do not entertain
any of these notions of my "value as a person" in comparison to Calvin's.

Indeed, he seems to me to be a pretty smart guy, and there's some merit in
his criticisms of me. But I can't, for the life of me, figure out why 
he thought it was so important to focus on them here, although, as I sit
here Sunday morning and give the issue some thought, I can't help but
be flattered by the attention more than I am irritated by the criticism.


--Mike




-- 
Mike Godwin,     |"Crime is contagious. If the Government becomes a law-
mnemonic@eff.org | breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every
(617) 864-0665   | man to become a law unto himself. It invites anarchy."
EFF, Cambridge   |         --Brandeis, J., dissenting in Olmstead v. U.S.  
Xref: sparky misc.legal:14983 talk.abortion:29285
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Re: Stare Decisis
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 01:32:52 GMT

In article <1992Jul27.163928.10705@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu> akbloom@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu (Keith Bloom) writes:
>That the Court grounded its opinion on sociological analysis is surely
>interesting, but I don't believe it refutes the assertion that it was
>overruling Plessy v. Ferguson.  

I think the difference is semantic, but an important distinction.

By *reversing* (not overruling) the result in Plessy, the court used
Plessy's language.  Instead of saying "separate is not equal" as a
matter of law (which would be an overruling), they said that in
educational situations [weak] sociological evidence demonstrated that
"separate" was not "equal" as a matter of fact, with the implicit
(though not necessarily realistic) idea that if later evidence demonstrated
that separate *was* equal, segregation could be constitutional.  Nowhere
do they explicitly reject the test that Plessy proposed.

FWIW, the people who decide this stuff for a living, Shepherd's Citations,
declared that Plessy wasn't overruled by Brown until about three or four
decades later.  My vote's with Mike on this one.

>When Chief Justice Warren held that, in the field of education at
>least, there was no such thing as separate but equal, he denied the
>factual basis of Plessy, and therefore the legitimacy of its legal
>doctrine.  

Your second clause doesn't follow from the first.  
-- 
                      ....................................
                      ted frank | thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
                      the university of chicago law school 
                      official member of the cultural elit
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: dpollard@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Dennis B Pollard)
Subject: Re: Sexual Misconduct Laws
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 01:57:18 GMT

Very true, I read a few cases in the West Military Reporter.
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.censorship,talk.politics.misc
From: sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart)
Subject: Re: Using killfiles is a form of censorship (was: Re: A Modest Request
Keywords: egnilges
Organization: my opinions only
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 00:34:11 GMT

In article <1992Jul27.221740.8240@Princeton.EDU>
egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:

>All or most of language is metaphorical but there's a reason for
>metaphor.  It's well known that computers can become a substitute for
>real-life, and surely the satisfaction one takes in a kill file is
>related to the satisfaction one feels in destructive behavior (there! I
>showed him, he's in my kill file.)  The true silliness is in denying
>this fact.

Then explain the 99.9% of the time someone is put in a killfile
without being notified.

>Oh?  Now if I speak at all, I lay claim on "owning" another's time.

No, go ahead an speak.  Those who want to listen, will.  Those who
don't want to listen, won't.

>Sounds like an excellent way to deprive people of free speech while
>granting formal, absolute free speech; for I have this wonderful free
>speech yet I cannot "force" (your word, nota bene) you to listen to me.

Right.  If you speak interestingly, many people will listen.  You have
the right to say whatever you want; that doesn't guarantee you an
audience.

>  I suggest that part of a vigorous support
>for freedom of speech is the willingness to listen and (although I
>confess that my own willingness stops when I am lied-to) this is what
>Starr did not display.

Nonsense.  I support free speech even of people I will never listen to
(even of people who live 2,000 miles from here who I've never heard of
and never will).

Seth		sethb@fid.morgan.com
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Re: Hate Speech Okay, says the Supreme Court
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 14:03:51 GMT

In article <1992Jul27.142810.18527@Princeton.EDU> egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:
>for wasting my time, at pompous racists like Posner for perpetuating a

Ed, for the n-th time, justify this accusation.  Or at least address the
refutations of it.
-- 
                      ....................................
                      ted frank | thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
                      the university of chicago law school 
                      official member of the cultural elit
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: akbloom@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu (Keith Bloom)
Subject: Re: Stare Decisis
Organization: The Johns Hopkins University
	<45ob021r1b7d01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> 
	<1992Jul25.122946.5484@athena.mit.edu>
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 92 17:32:05 GMT

wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr) writes:

>Which brings me to a sort of trivia question: How many examples can
>anyone come up with of the U.S. Supreme Court _explicitly_ overruling
>a previous Supreme Court holding on a question of law?  (No, don't
>email me for the answers.  I don't know this one myself; I'm trying to
>harness the awesome power of the net to build a list of such cases.)

West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 US 624 (1943),
decision of Mr. Justice Jackson:

    "The decision of this court in _Minersville School Dist. v.
     Gobitis_ and the holdings of those few _per curiam_ decisions
     which preceded and foreshadowed it are overruled, and the
     judgment enjoining enforcement of the West Virginia Regulation is
     affirmed."


Keith
From: tcumming@netcom.com (Tom Cumming)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: topless in NY state?
Date: 24 Jul 92 22:48:19 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1992Jul23.172502.23127@panix.com> eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler) writes:
>In <1992Jul23.142551.11301@athena.mit.edu>, rlcarr@athena.mit.edu sez:
>           The People &c., Respondent, v. Ramona Santorelli and Mary
>                  Lou Schloss, Appellants, et al., Defendants.
> 
>                                    No. 115
> 
>                          COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW YORK
[ Much removed... ]
>United States -- where the exposure of female breasts on beaches and 
>in other recreational area is commonplace and is generally regarded 
>as unremarkable.
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^
[ Much removed... ]

    Hey, right on! We are finally getting through to people!

Tom C.
From: mitch@coriolis.UUCP (Mitch)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Lawsuit to compel a fraud to run for President!
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 92 00:25:00 PDT
Organization: Albedo Communications

dpollard@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Dennis B Pollard) writes:

> In article <1992Jul20.221619.14987@morrow.stanford.edu> GA.CJJ@forsythe.stanf
> d.edu (Clifford Johnson) writes:
> >MIAMI (UPI) -- A campaign worker for former undeclared presidential
> >candidate Ross Perot filed a breach of promise lawsuit Monday asking
> >the federal courts to force the Texas billionaire to run for the
> >White House.
> 
> Sounds like a breach of a contract for personal services; however, the campai
> worker wants for something better to do.  The promise, if any, was not made t
> the worker individually.  Moreover, did the worker tender consideration?

I think that all misses the point; the promise could be made collectively 
to many people, the worker probably DID have something better to do, 
which is at the least a source of promissory estoppel as a consideration 
substitute if not the intended consideration in the putative contract.

The point is that this is NOT going to happen, and it's unethical to take 
someone's money, and waste the court's time, on something like this.

[Look, if the court were to find a contract, it would have been the well 
documented one that required getting his name on every ballot, which 
didn't happen, right?  And at any rate, this is a classic case of 
involuntary servitude as an unnaccptable form of specific performance!
The most you could do is keep him from running for some other office...]
... Law Student Analysis Off ...
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: GA.CJJ@forsythe.stanford.edu (Clifford Johnson)
Subject: Re: Stare Decisis - ha ha ha
Organization: Stanford University, California, USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 17:46:21 GMT

thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:
>>That's how I got pre-trial expert witness fees awarded against me as
>>costs.  Me, the opposition, the trial court, and the court of appeal
>>all knew it was disallowed.
>>No-one cares and there's nothing can be done about it.
>
>If your briefs are anything like the analyses you post on the net
>(citing cases that haven't been good law in over fifty years, insisting
>that non-binding international treaties control the U.S. Constitution,
>etc.), I don't have excessive sympathy.

So you think the maxim of jurisprudence, that substance weighs
more than form, is junk?  That if my pleading were lousy, that would
justify ordering me to pay costs regaularly disallowed?

Hey, you'd make a typical judge!

Seriously, though: (1) my briefs are vastly better than my off-the-
cuff postings to this bb; (2) the at issue question of pre-trial
expert witness fees being disallowed as costs is universally known;
(3) I cited solid (California) case law.  Now, what do you think
about the decision?

More importantly, do you contend that the American Declaration isn't
binding, and if so, how do you counter Buergenthal's argument to
the contrary, that the enactment by Congress of the revised OAS
treaty in about 1978 made it binding?  Do you think that treaties
ratified by Congress are not binding?

As for my citing old cases, such as Truax, you seem to have missed
the fact that Mike's authorities actually proved my point that the
fundamental cause of action for malicious defamation is unquestioned.
Do you dispute this, or do you think the fact that I cited a case
less trendy than NY v. Sullivan disqualifies my argument from being
taken seriously, even though NY v. Sullivan confirmed my point in
any case?
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart)
Subject: Re: premature withdrawals
Organization: my opinions only
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 00:37:51 GMT

[I've changed the distribution to usa, since I don't think anyone else
cares.]

In article <1992Jul26.1297.14646@execnet> "hilary miller"
<hilary.miller@execnet.com> writes:

>Joseph F Baugher, in a message to All on 07-26-92 at 5:26am, said:
>
>JF>|Since I began withdrawing
>   |from TIAA/CREF in  1979,  long  before  this  10%  penalty  for  early
>   |withdrawal  was  even  a  gleam  in my congresscritter's eye, can this
>   |legally be classified by the IRS as a  "premature  distribution"?   If
>   |the IRS can really do this, it sounds like an ex post facto law to me.
>   |Is the IRS wrong about penalizing my TIAA/CREF "early withdrawal",  or
>   |does  the  IRS  get  to  make  up  its  own rules and am I out the ten
>   |percent?
>   |______________________________________________________________________
>
>               Tax legislation is, believe it or not, exempt from
>               the ex post facto law principle, thanks to the
>               16th Amendment.  Pay the 10% or roll over to an-
>               other qualified vehicle.

I believe that if the money is withdrawn in the form of an annuity,
there is no penalty for being under 59.5 years at the time of receipt.

Seth		sethb@fid.morgan.com
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.activism
From: jcr@milton.u.washington.edu (Mr. EuStress)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: I'm Pro-Male-Choice
Date: 21 Jul 92 22:18:48 GMT
Article-I.D.: u.1992Jul21.221848.5902
Reply-To: jcr@milton.u.washington.edu (Mr. EuStress)
Organization: University of Washington

Matthew Rosenblatt writes
> I would have no hesitation in getting 
> RU-486 and attempting to prevent the birth of an unwanted child,

   Yet another example of how Matthew wishes
   to force people ala 50's culture.
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Re: Lawsuit to compel a fraud to run for President!
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 16:13:44 GMT

In article <1992Jul21.134620.29744@linus.mitre.org> bs@gauss.mitre.org (Robert D. Silverman) writes:
>In article <jf.9@pacnet.wesleyan.edu> jf@pacnet.wesleyan.edu (JOHN FINN) writes:
>:In article <1992Jul21.020754.10150@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> dpollard@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Dennis B Pollard) writes:
>:
>:>Yes, I forgot about Fed.R.Civ.P. 11.  The federal courts (S.D. Fl.) would make 
>:>an example of the lawyer here.
>:
>:One hopes so, at least!  Does anyone know what remedy the suit asks for?  I 
>:don't want to believe any lawyer would really ask for specific 
>:performance... but if so, that raises constitutional issues, I would think.

Definitely violates the Thirteenth Amendment (though as Eck pointed out,
there might be the possibility of a negative injunction forbidding Perot
from running for president of a *different country*.  Three cheers to
Mark for making me laugh with this one.) 

>WOuld someone please educate the non-lawyers about Fed.R.Civ.P. 11???

Rule 11 allows the court to assess heavy penalties on lawyers 
for frivolous lawsuits.
-- 
                      ....................................
                      ted frank | thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
                      the university of chicago law school 
                      official member of the cultural elit
Newsgroups: misc.legal