HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rboudrie@chpc.org (Rob Boudrie)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.politics.correct,soc.college,sci.econ
Subject: Re: the MIT anti-trust case
Date: 29 Sep 92 20:14:49 GMT
Organization: Center For High Perf. Computing of WPI; Marlboro Ma

>> There's financial aid, and there's financial aid.  Much of the financial
>> aid granted by the Overlap Group was faux financial aid that reduced
>> the monopoly price to a level closer to a competitive level.  
>

It reduced the monopoly price for selected students with academic, 
geographic, cultural or ethnic qualities the university wants and 
maintained an artifically higher price for other students.

Financial aid given by a university (as opposed to externally fundede aid 
the university helps administer) is a transfer payment from students
receiving less than the average amount of aid to students receiving
more.

Has anyone thought about the "middle income" student priced out of a 
first rate school because (s)he could not afford the "transfer payment
surcharge" added to the tuition required from highly qualified white suburban
students?

>consider.  The notion of "need-based" financial aid disappears with this
>decision.  Schools will simply now offer the most they can to the best

If so will the concept of "need based surcharges" on other student';s 
tuition also dissapear?  (now they tell students to go a bit deeper in 
dept to subsidize a "more deserving" student's tuition).

>students.  Since before the decision no money was going to rich students,
>and since now universities must compete for rich students too, a

Wow!! Scholarships based on ACADEMIC EXCELLENCE - what a radical 
concept.

>substantial portion of the money that used to go to poor students who
>couldn't afford to go to an Ivy, now will go to richer students, thus
>potentially eliminating a class of brilliant but poorer students from
>accessing the benefits of an Ivy.  Indeed, since poorer students often have
>lower SATs and no prep education, the problem of access is exacerbated.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ObTrivia:

A univeristy is the only business I know of where the customers paying $20K
each per year are relegated to the lease convenient parking spaces.  Most
businesses have premium spaces reserved just for customers.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rob Boudrie
rboudrie@chpc.org
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: srm@world.std.com (Stevens R Miller)
Subject: Re: Freedom of Speech = Not Responsible?
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 19:03:41 GMT

sampson@cod.nosc.mil (Charles H. Sampson) writes:

>     In a recent article, the Los Angeles Times reported on yet another
>"rappers made me do it" case.  

>My
>understanding of freedom of speech is that the government cannot prohibit
>anybody (well, almost anybody) from saying anything (well, almost any-
>thing), but that, in general, when a person says something he has to take
>responsibility for having said it.

There have been a couple of suits brought against "Soldier of Fortune"
magazine, by people injured by hired gunmen who advertised their services
in the magazine.  SOF lost at the Circuit level, but (I have this on hearsay
only) won at the SC.  The Circuit court agreed that responsibility meant 
paying the damages it held to have been foreseeable and caused by the
magazine's decision to run the ads.  The contrary view was that a court
ordering damages for an advertisement is effectivevly curtailing protected
speech.  Apparently, the SC agreed. (I can get the cite, if anyone needs it).
-- 
Stevens R. Miller, J.D.		Electronic Frontier Foundation Member 932
				Republican National Committee Member 90050367
				Amateur Radio Station WA4LDA
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: Fightin' Words
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 03:15:59 GMT

In article <smwRRB1w164w@depsych.Gwinnett.COM> rc@depsych.Gwinnett.COM (Richard Carlson) writes:

>Well, the e-mail route to the Electronic Frontier Foundation
>works.  (I don't have ftp capabilities.)  I got a nice little text
>on Fighting Words -- cohen-v-california.1, which looks to be the
>text of the court's decision but also contains some quotations
>from books on the subject.

It should be noted that the case that articulated the "fighting words"
doctrine is not Cohen v. California (the "Fuck the Draft" case), but
Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire.

>I didn't even know that the person who _says_ the fighting words
>was guilty of a crime.

That was the case in Chaplinsky. For the most part, however, it is
impossible to convict someone merely for saying mean things. See, e.g.,
City of Houston v. Hill.

>Suppose I call you a "dumb m*ther-f*cker."  What crime have I
>committed?

None.

>  What latitude do you have in hitting me?

None. 

>(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.

>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 "common sense" enter into it at all?

Yes. Justice Harlan's opinion for the majority in Cohen v. California is a
triumph of common sense.

>  Does
>it make a difference if I call you either of these terms in a
>school cafeteria, a country club (where you are a guest because no
>members of your ethnic group are admitted to membership) or your
>neighborhood where no members of my ethnic group reside and you
>are surrounded by your friends?

Only in the sense that you may be ejected by the proper authorities from
the cafeteria or the country club, but not from your neighborhood.

Rather than ask a list of questions, why not go to some sources on
freedom-of-speech jurisprudence? I recommend NIMMER ON FREEDOM OF SPEECH,
by Melville Nimmer.



--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
From: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Online Legal
Date: 30 Sep 92 19:20:24 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:
>  (Erik mentions Westlaw and LEXIS/NEXIS, the
> commercial services.  Is that where the discussion is?)

Westlaw and Lexis/Nexis are commercial databases with legal resources 
(statutes, cases, legal periodicals, etc) stored on them.  There's no BBS-
like interaction among users.

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:18067 rec.arts.books:17626
From: zeleny@husc9.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,rec.arts.books
Subject: Re: Point of Technicality
Keywords: permissible killing, more money
Date: 5 Oct 92 15:50:39 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc3.1992Oct5.115040.16092
Organization: The Phallogocentric Cabal

In article <1992Oct5.060544.13642@u.washington.edu>
sanelson@stein.u.washington.edu (Sunny Nelson) writes:

>You'd better get cracking on that fundraising, Michael. We'll need 
>a lot more than $100 to get started on our missile project!

My favorite missiles sell for $10 for a box of 20; this should suffice
for a very persuasive argument for the ayatollahs to withdraw the fatwa.

A point of truvia: the world record for the longest range confirmed
sniper kill now belongs to a U.S.M.C. sniper who shot an Iraqi tank
commander from a boat during an amphibious landing, at a distance of
over 1600 yards.  He was using a bolt-action .50 BMG sniper rifle,
whose cartriges range in cost from $1 to $3.

Disclaimer: the above information has been furnished for entertainment
purposes only, and should not be construed as an endorsement of
physical violence.

>*****************************************************************************
>S.A. Nelson			   * 6.51 Skeptizismus ist nich unwiederlich, 
>sanelson@u.washington.edu	   *  sondern offenbar unsinnig, wenn er 
>(winner of the Amazing Transparent *  bezweifeln will, wo nicht gefragt
>Man Scholarship)                   *  werden kann.	-L. Wittgenstein

cordially,
mikhail zeleny@husc.harvard.edu
"Nous donnons la mort, nous saurons la subir."
From: "hilary miller" <hilary.miller@execnet.com>
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: taking someone to cou
Date: 5 Oct 92 13:44:18 EST
Reply-To: "hilary miller" <hilary.miller@execnet.com>
Distribution: misc
Organization: Executive Networks Information


Robert P Chauvin, in a message to All on 10-03-92 at 8:15am, said:

RP>|My ex-girlfriend owes me a large amount of money ($10,000) that I lent 
   |the years.  She has signed a promissory note agreeing to pay this amoun
   |to also pay all lawyers/court costs. 
   |The only problem is that my ex
   |can declare bankruptcy even after I have been awarded judgment.  I woul
   |put this past her since she has very little assets.  I would then be ou
   |lawyers fees since I have to pay these up front.
   |I even considered filing
   |for a $1,500 judgment in small claims court since I can do this myself 
   |lawyer.  Would this make the rest of promissory note invalid?
   |_______________________________________________________________________

               The answer to the last question is no, but you
               would probably be barred from suing to collect the
               $8,500 remaining balance under the doctrine of res
               judicata.

               If you think the chances of collection are really
               low, why don't you offer her the opportunity to
               pay you, say, $2,500 in full settlement, in order
               to avoid bankruptcy?  It might be worth that much
               to a family member to keep her from filing for
               bankruptcy.

               Alternatively, or if that fails, you could proba-
               bly sue to collect on the promissory note without
               a lawyer.  It's not rocket science, and the down-
               side is low if you screw up -- you fail to collect
               on an uncollectible note.  Why not go and talk to
               the court clerk about filing pro se?


   L A
 I    R        Hilary B. Miller of Greenwich, Connecticut
  H/\Y         CIS: 76040,1743
    
---
  DeLuxe 1.25 #11645  Help!  I've fallen and I can't get up!
--
Executive Network Information System  (914) 667-4567
International ILink Host
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: gukal@cc.gatech.edu (Sreenivas Gukal)
Subject: Need Advice - Please Read
Reply-To: gukal@cc.gatech.edu (Sreenivas Gukal)
Organization: Georgia Tech College of Computing
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 12:40:15 GMT



Hi

One of our friends is going to be a destitute soon and desparately
needs your advice. I am giving the details below. If you think that 
there is even a remote chance of saving her, please take a couple
of minutes and email me. I appreciate any help.

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

SITUATION :
Couple - permanent residents of U.S.

Husband is about to die from cancer - is under sedation now.

In-laws ( husband's mother, sisters and brothers) are trying to cheat the wife 
of her property. They got a power of attorney signed ( by the husband ) a week
ago and took away registration documents ( the property is in the husband's
name) from the wife. In addition, money ( big sum - in traveller's cheques ) 
from a recent sale of property was taken away by the in-laws, and deposited
in the sister's account.

I dont think there is a will.

They moved recently ( about 2 months ago ) to California to the in-laws place,
where this took place. Before that they were in Georgia.

We have the following questions :

* Apparently the power of attorney was signed when he was semi-conscious.
  If this is correct, how does one go about disputing it ?

* Is the power of attorney valid even after the person dies ?

* By law , is the wife entitled to a minimum share of husband's property?
  Does this depend on the state ?

* Is there any chance of recovering the money which was deposited in
  the sister's account?

* What is the procedure for using a power of attorney ?
  If there is a delay before they can use it, we would like to wait till 
  the husband dies - the wife is in no position to think of this and we 
  would like to spare her the trouble now.
 
* Any other suggestions ?


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

The girl is alone in this country, with no relatives of her own.
She is still a student and just cant survive without their money.
Please let me know, how we should proceed? Would contacting an
attorney be of any help? Please send me email, if possible.

Thanks a bunch.
-Sreenivas

email: gukal@cc.gatech.edu

					
					-Sreenivas Gukal (gukal@cc.gatech.edu)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt-dads-rights,alt.child-support,soc.men,soc.couples
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: What a Problem!!!
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 19:48:55 GMT

In article <1992Oct5.050245.6494@cbnewsk.cb.att.com> noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer) writes:
>In article <1992Oct4.173315.28357@panix.com> eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler) writes:
>>
>>*Sniff*  I'm hurt.  Deeply.
>
>Here's a quarter - go call someone who cares.

Here's five bucks for some Preparation H. I understand that will help you
with your flaming-asshole problem.


--Mike



-- 
Mike Godwin,    |"Liberty resides in the rights of that person
mnemonic@eff.org| whose views you find most odious."
(617) 864-0665  | 
EFF, Cambridge  |                           --John Stuart Mill
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Fightin' Words
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 17:17:21 GMT

tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll) writes:

[...]
>I'll see if I can find it again.  I was browsing the Ohio Reporter a couple 
>of weeks ago, and noted in passing a case in which Chaplinsky was cited with 
>approval in the majority opinion.
[...]

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

=================
law/hate-crime.ohio
=================
A UPI story that starts: "The Ohio Supreme Court has ruled the state's
ethnic intimidation law is unconstitutional because it is an
infringement of the right of free speech."

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

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/hate-crime.ohio

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 hate-crime.ohio
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From: edwardk@cup.portal.com (edward chungfan kwok)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: re: Term Limits are Constutional, Study Shows
Date: Tue,  6 Oct 92 09:44:43 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)

>What right do we have
>to make a law that takes away the right of the voter to decide? Because it is
>truly up to them to decide who gets the office, and because anyone should have
>the right to run, state-imposed term limitations should fail.

The reason why I oppose to term limitation is simple.  The democratic process
provides for the will of the people being expressed in the ballot box.  If the
people thinks the incumbent should go, the people can go to the ballot box and
vote him down.  Any proposal that purports to fix the democratic process 
through an undemocratic means is suspect.
From: bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us (Bob Kirkpatrick)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Online Legal
Date: 28 Sep 92 16:56:33 GMT
Organization: Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA

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

> [...]
> Aside from the American Bar Association's _You and the Law_, there
> aren't many books by lawyers "giving away the law" to laypersons.

Indeed. Washington state has made some advances to bring people
'closer' to the law. As a result of it's own paperwork reduction
act (which, oddly enough, raised the amount of paper in many
cases) the state seeks to have people act on their own behalf to
a greater extent --specially in the areas of family law. The snag
appears when the state also requires people who represent them-
selves to have "a base of knowledge of the law and court procedure
equal to that of an attorney before the Bar." while failing to do
anything to help these people attain that knowledge.

--- 
Bob Kirkpatrick <bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us>
Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA 
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Citecheck Hell)
Subject: Re: LaFave and Scott (was: Fightin' Words)
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 19:02:23 GMT

In article <10AX02bE24HR01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll) writes:
>In article <1992Sep28.182142.15720@eff.org>, mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) 
>writes:
>> What you're interested in is not the "fighting words" doctrine, but
>> the doctrine of provocation as a defense. For that, see LaFave and Scott's
>> two-volume treatise, SUBSTANTIVE CRIMINAL LAW.
>
>Two-volume?  Mine's only one.  Or did they publish more than one work on the 
>topic?

There's a practitioner's edition and a student edition.  The former,
I believe, is two volumes, because it will often give a state-by-state
breakdown (or citation) to the law in question.

But I haven't taken a close look at the student edition, so I could be
wrong about the differences.
-- 
           .. . . .  .  .   .    .     .     .    .   .  .  . . . ..
          ted frank | thf2@midway.uchicago.edu | standard disclaimers
         the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Fightin' Words
Date: 28 Sep 92 22:35:57 GMT
Article-I.D.: m.1992Sep28.223557.11546
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL

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

[...]
>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]?
[...]

Campus speech restrictions (at least a state schools) are pretty much
null and void because they went too far beyond fighting words and
because the Court has said that such restrictions cannot be selective.
(RAV v. St. Paul.)

- Carl

REFERENCES
     
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/law/rav-v-st-paul.1
=================
The Supreme Court's _R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul_ decision about hate crimes.

The Court overturned St. Paul's Bias-Motivated Crime Ordinance, which
prohibits the display of a symbol which one knows or has reason to
know "arouses anger, alarm or resentment in others on the basis of
race, color, creed, religion or gender."

Included: summary, majority opinion, 3 concurring opinions.

=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/law/uwm-post-v-u-of-wisconsin
=================
The full text of UWM POST v. U. of Wisconsin. This recent district
court ruling goes into detail about the difference between protected
offensive expression and illegal harassment. It even mentions email.

It concludes: "The founding fathers of this nation produced a
remarkable document in the Constitution but it was ratified only with
the promise of the Bill of Rights.  The First Amendment is central to
our concept of freedom.  The God-given "unalienable rights" that the
infant nation rallied to in the Declaration of Independence can be
preserved only if their application is rigorously analyzed.

The problems of bigotry and discrimination sought to be addressed here
are real and truly corrosive of the educational environment.  But
freedom of speech is almost absolute in our land and the only
restriction the fighting words doctrine can abide is that based on the
fear of violent reaction.  Content-based prohibitions such as that in
the UW Rule, however well intended, simply cannot survive the
screening which our Constitution demands."

=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/law/doe-v-u-of-michigan
=================
This is Doe v. University of Michigan. In this widely referenced
decision, the district judge down struck the University's rules
against discriminatory harassment because the rules were found to be too
broad and too vague.


--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From: matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Freedom of Speech according to Nilges
Summary: How one's reading affects one's postings.
Keywords: _ad hominem_; _ad ignorantiam_
Date: 30 Sep 92 16:02:37 GMT
Organization: U.S. Army Ballistic Research Lab, APG MD.

In article <1992Sep25.162829.16557@Princeton.EDU> 
egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Edward G. Nilges) writes:

>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.  [Ed Nilges]

I read a book, by Sir James Fitzjames Stephen, and quotations from the
book find their way into my postings for a few weeks.  Mr. Nilges has
read a book, by Anna Schaef, and it seems to have led him into making
_ad hominem_ attacks upon our net.readers.

>I do not know Gary's family situation but he strongly reminds me of
>. . .  [Ed Nilges]

First _ad hominem_, then _ad ignorantiam_.  Kent Paul Dolan's 
"bogosity meter" ought to be emitting an ear-splitting shriek by now.

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

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
"quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus"
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Farewell to misc.legal discussion (was: Re: Hate speech okay
Date: 29 Sep 92 16:35:29 GMT
Distribution: misc.legal
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1992Sep28.212347.7269@Princeton.EDU>, egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Edward G. Nilges) writes:
> So long, misc.legal, and remember: there is no such thing as pure speech
> divorced from action.  While "free speech" is a valid right, the
> homeless man babbling incomprehensible gibberish in Grand Central is not
> exercising speech, for speech entails a sender and a receiver.  

Hmmm.  Mr. Nilges appears to have come up with a splendid metaphor
for his own postings.

-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Bush: War on Drugs, tax cut->bigger deficit.  Clinton: War on Drugs, spending
increase->bigger deficit.  What a great choice.