HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Subject: Re: U.S. Bill of Rights today 
Reply-To: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 23:46:25 GMT

In article <1992Sep9.225040.27403@tamsun.tamu.edu>, rdubbs@cs (Roger B. Dubbs III) writes:
>Arguably, taking nude pictures of children could be a crime.

Wiking your eye could be a crime, also.  I don't see any valid reason
to make either a crime, though, and doing that would be a violation of
people's rights.

>Perhaps the government could prosecute the publisher for taking the
>pictures.

Sure, as it can prosecute people for saying "fuck".  The question is
why should it be allowed to break the Constitution?

>If the publisher can
>prove that no conspiracy existed, only then would they be able to
>publish the pictures.  

So, you are saying that the published is guilty until she proves
herself innocent.  I don't see how this would make things any better.

>Sorry to ramble, but I didn't want anyone to think I condone child
>pornography. 8)

It seems to me that's what this is all about.  People don't want
anyone to think they condone drug use, so they keep silent even though
the War on Constitution is harming them.  People don't want anyone to
think they condone child pornography so they are willing to accept
censorship and other violations of their rights.  People don't want
anyone to think they condone crime, so they let Big Brother listen to
their phones.  And so on.

>My basic point is that justice can be done without
>violating the Constitution.

Why do you then propose several alternatives which violate the
Constitution?

//Jyrki
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,talk.religion.misc,uiuc.civil-liberty
From: jon@cyclone.MITRE.org (J. E. Shum)
Subject: Re: Chicago Tribune on "Religious Freedom Restoration Act"
Originator: jon@cyclone
Organization: The MITRE Corp. McLean Va.
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 21:54:11 GMT


In article <1992Sep12.161706.16995@m.cs.uiuc.edu>, kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
> On Sept. 8, 1992, the Chicago Tribune editoralized:
> 
> "[...] But any bright spots are blotted out by the _Smith_ decision, a
> sharp departure from the court's past soliciude for powerless
> religious minorities. By passing the religious freedom bill, Congress
> could do much to dispel that cloud."
> 
> - Carl


Whoa!  Hey Carl, did I miss something?  Unless the 1st Amendment has
been repealed, why would we need a "religious freedom bill?"  I'm
not suggesting that you agree with the editorial by the way.


-- 
<jon@mitre.org>|--------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------| Libertarian Party  
  Andre Marrou    Nancy Lord for  | 1528 Pennsylvania Avenue SE  (202)543-1988
  for President   Vice-President  | Washington, DC 20003         (800)682-1776  
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution,rec.nude
From: rdubbs@cs.tamu.edu (Roger B. Dubbs III)
Subject: Re: U.S. Bill of Rights today
Organization: Computer Science Department, Texas A&M University
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 23:53:28 GMT

In article <1992Sep11.130055.12321@ousrvr.oulu.fi> dfo@tko.vtt.fi (Foxvog Douglas) writes:
>For followups please check newsgroups.  Include rec.nude only if
>referring to bans on photos of naked children.
>

Roger Dubbs wrote:
>>>Obviously in your example, freedom of speech (Amendment I) is violated.
>>>I'm not so certain it is in my case.  The government can certainly prove
>>>that the publisher possesses the pictures.  Is he not then the most

>[generic photos of naked children] 

I had no intention of implying that nude depictions of children should
be banned.  I was attempting to address the subject of child pornography.
Unfortunately, I failed to give an adequate definition.

>[Assumption made by R.Dubbs is that the intent is publication]
>
>Sexual acts against children should certainly be illegal.  If
>photographs depict this they can be evidence about the crime, but they
>are not criminal themselves.  A photographer who conspires to have
>sexual acts against a child performed should be liable to conspiracy
>charges on the sexual assault.  

Also, I think that a publisher should be held liable if he published
such works.  In my opinion, the publisher is guilty of encouraging the
photographer, which should fit in as some sort of accomplice / conspiracy
/ incitement charge.

>There should be no bans on photgraphs of nude people.  Kids are often
>nude.  So are adults.  If one is in a situation with nude people it is
>polite to ask them (or guardians of a kid) before taking a picture, but
>there should be no law against it.  

I have no argument with this.  

/Roger

Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.censorship,uiuc.civil-liberty
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: FCC censorship (was Re: 1st amendment exceptions)
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 18:13:12 GMT

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

>This was the FCC "fairness doctrine" (equal time requirement) which
>was discarded by the FCC a few years ago
[...]

The FCC's so-called fairness doctrine is dead, the but its so-called
personal attack rule and other censorship rules live. I don't have a
copy of the full attack rule, but this FCC-publication excerpt gives
part of it:

From the FCC's "The FCC and Broadcasting", 8310-100, dated September 1991:
=====================

5(c). _Retention of Material Broadcast; Editorializing; Labeling of
Program Matter_. When a station broadcasts a personal attack or a
political editorial endorsing or opposing a candidate for public office
(see Section 7 of this pamphlet), it must provide a script or tape of
the attack or editorial. In the case of a personal attack, a tape,
script, or accurate summary of the attack must be provided to the
persons or group attacked. Regarding political editorials, when a
candidate is endorsed, a tape or script must be provided all opponents
of the endorsed candidate. When a candidate is editorially opposed,
only that candidate need be provided the tape or script. [...]
Commission policy encourages broadcast editorials and other commentary

[...]

7. _Broadcasts by Candidates for Public Office; Political Editorials._
When one qualified candidate for public office has been permitted to use
a station, Section 315 of the Communications Act provides that the
licensee of the station 'shall afford equal opportunities to all other
such candidates for that office' and that the 'licensee shall have no
power of censorship of the material broadcast' by the candidate.

If a licensee broadcasts an editorial in which it supports or opposes
a candidate for public office, the licensee must, within 24 hours
after the broadcast, transmit to the other qualified candidate(s) for
the same office, or the candidate opposed in the editorial; (a)
notification of the date and time of the editorial; (b) a script or
tape of the editorial; and (c) an offer of a reasonable opportunity
for the candidate or a spokesperson for the candidate to respond over the
licensee's facilities.

The preceding two paragraphs are only brief summaries of provisions of
law and regulatory policy on political broadcasts. Complete
information is provided in another FCC publication, 'The Law of
Political Broadcasting and Cablecasting,'[...]

===========

You can get the full document I'm quoting from for free from:

Complaints and Investigations Branch
Enforcement Division
Mass Media Bureau
FCC
Washington, DC 20554
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter)
Subject: Re: U.S. Bill of Rights today
Organization: Michigan Technological University
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 23:17:19 GMT

In article <1992Sep10.205716.15655@njitgw.njit.edu>, msh9848@hertz.njit.edu (Matthew) writes:

> The U.S. Constitution guarantees freedom of speech. This guarantee has 
> been stretched to the limit.  
> 
>   As far as I see it, 
> 
> Speech != writing
> Speech != Art
> Speech != Music
> Speech != burning things in protest. 
> 
> Speech means using the vocal chords to spread a message by sound. 

	Amendment I

	Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
	religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or
	abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the
	right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition
	the government for a redress of grievances.

The "freedom of press" contains the "writing" part.  Music falls
under either "writing" or "speaking".  Perhaps "burning things"
comes under "Art", which is not explicitly in the 1st.  Or perhaps
better "burning" and "Art" fall under "...petition the government...".

But you cannot forget:

	Amendment IX

	The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall
	not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

> Freedom of Speech does not mean freedom of expression in any form. 
> Therefore child pornography is not freedom of speech. 

This is not the way to deal with it.  You want to make any prohibition
of this based on violating the child's rights in some way...  This is
the only real reason to can have for interfering.

> Perhaps the constitution should be changed to include Freedom of Expression, 
> however it does not say that now. 

I think it does.  Read the 1st, 9th, and 10th Amendments. (read the
whole document, for that matter).

-- 
Charles Scripter   *   cescript@phy.mtu.edu
Dept of Physics, Michigan Technological University, Houghton, MI 49931
-------------------------------------------------------------------
With your one remaining eye, please do NOT look back into the laser
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: US Freedom of Religion today (was: U.S. Bill of Rights today)
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 10:33:33 GMT

RE: The Peyote Case (aka _Oregon vs. Smith_)

fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:

>Freedom of religion wasn't the decisive issue in this case, as I recall:
>The man's job was connected with a state drug rehabilitation program, and
>he was fired, not because of government objections to his religious
>practices, but because of job qualifiactions: The state felt that
>anyone who used drugs (legally or not) was not qualified to work in
>that field. 

The case was not about their being fired, it was about their
eligibility for unemployment compensation. I'm reposting an recent
article.

- Carl


=========================
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,talk.religion.misc,uiuc.civil-liberty
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Chicago Tribune on "Religious Freedom Restoration Act"
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 20:16:27 GMT

bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:

[...]
> What's the "Religious
>Freedom Restoration Act", what's the _Smith_ decision
[...]

Sorry, for the unclear excerpt.

Here is the case that set the old law:

_Sherbert v. Verner_ (1963): A Seventh-Day Adventist refused a job
offer that required working on a Saturday (the day she observed as the
Sabbath). The Supreme Court said she her refusal was not grounds for
the government to deny her unemployment benefits. It said that laws
that interfere with religious practice are only allowed if they are
based on "compelling state interest."

That was the law for 25 years, until 1990, when:

_Employment Division, Department of Human Resources v. Smith_ (1990):
Two members of the Native American Church used peyote during a
sacramental ceremony on the church. They were fired from their jobs,
and applied for unemployment benefits. Because use of peyote is
illegal in Oregon, the state denied their unemployment benefits. The
Supreme Court upheld the denial and created a new law: religious
beliefs can never excuse you from compliance with an otherwise valid
law, as long as the law as not intentionally designed to discriminate
against a particular religion. The Court said: "religious practices
that are not widely engagage in" would place religious minorities "at
a relative disadvantage" and subject them to the discretion of
legislative majorities. This, said the Court, is an "unavoidable
consequence of a democratic government."
         [Information from _Visions of Liberty_ p. 78
          and _American Constitutional Law_ by Rossum and Tarr, p. 464]

The _Religious Freedom Restoration Act_ would return the standard to
"compelling state interest".
==================================
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution,rec.nude
From: rdubbs@cs.tamu.edu (Roger B. Dubbs III)
Subject: Child Porn (was Re: U.S. Bill of Rights today)
Organization: Computer Science Department, Texas A&M University
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 19:57:39 GMT

In article <1992Sep12.022708.29783@nntp.hut.fi> jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala) writes:
>In article <1992Sep11.235328.16586@tamsun.tamu.edu>, rdubbs@cs (Roger B. Dubbs III) writes:

>>>Sexual acts against children should certainly be illegal.  If
>>>photographs depict this they can be evidence about the crime, but they
>>>are not criminal themselves.  A photographer who conspires to have
>>>sexual acts against a child performed should be liable to conspiracy
>>>charges on the sexual assault.  

>>Also, I think that a publisher should be held liable if he published
>>such works.  In my opinion, the publisher is guilty of encouraging the
>>photographer, which should fit in as some sort of accomplice / conspiracy
>>/ incitement charge.

>Excuse me?  First you say that you don't think photographing nude
>children should be banned. Then you say that publishing the pictures
>should not be banned, but the publisher is guilty of encouraging the
>photographer which should be criminalized.  What sense is there to
>criminalize encouraging something when that something is not criminal
>in the first place?  (I know it's not impossible - the Finnish law
>does that, as encouraging someone to homosexuality is illegal while
>homosexuality is not, I just fail to see the reasoning).

'Photographing nude children' is not the same as 'photographs depicting 
sexual acts involving children.'  I have no problems with publishing the
former.  I think publishing the latter should be criminalized as described.
I hope this makes my position clear.

/Roger
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution,misc.int-property
From: strnlght@netcom.com (David Sternlight)
Subject: Re: Latest FBI Wiretap Bill
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 92 11:01:33 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)


David Hayes describes a U.S. firm which double-DES encrypted its overseas
traffic to protect it from Soviet snooping, and says they got a very
unpleasant visit from the NSA a few days later. What, exactly, is a
very unpleasant visit. What did the NSA folks say? What was the
outcome with respect to protecting the firm's traffic?

Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: dlb@fanny.wash.inmet.com (David Barton)
Subject: Re: U.S. Bill of Rights today (was alt.activism et al: Who's free'er)
Followup-To: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution
Organization: Intermetrics Inc., Washington Division, USA
	<exukjb.129.715967081@exu.ericsson.se> <33rnkq.adamsr@netcom.com>
	<1992Sep9.032310.18048@nntp.hut.fi>
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 14:42:05 GMT

In article <1992Sep9.032310.18048@nntp.hut.fi> jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki
Kuoppala) writes:

		   AMENDMENT II:
	   A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free
   State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be
   infringed.

		   REALITY II:
	   This right exists.

Say, what?  This right is one of the most abused on the list.  Gun
ownership is virtually prohibited in may areas of the country,
including Washington D.C. and New York City.

If this is based on a reading of the amendment that only protects the
right of states to form militias, I believe that reading to be flatly
incorrect; however, if this is the discussion, let's take it to
talk.politics.guns (where it is a Frequently Discussed Topic).  If
just due to ignorance, consider this a correction.

					Dave Barton
					dlb@hudson.wash.inmet.com
From: Ken.Fisler@iphase.UUCP (Ken Fisler)
Sender: FredGate@iphase.UUCP
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty
Subject: List for the Discussion of the Presidential Campaign
Date: 12 Sep 92  08:17:04 EST

Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)



I thought this might be of interest to some members of this
newsgroup:

There is now on Bitnet a list for the discussion of the '92
presidential campaign. Discussion is unmoderated and focusses
primarily on important, current campaign issues, though, like the
campaign itself, some discussion occasionally degrades to
spurious non-issues. Threads sometimes lead into critical
analyses of political history, the media, and campaign
strategies. Many members of this list post exerpts from books,
magazines, journals, newspapers, television reportage, and
academic studies as well as the full text of position papers and
speeches given by the candidates. A meaningful number of list
members understand the inherent union of theory and praxis and,
given the nature of the discussions, the flame level is very
tolerably and surprisingly low. If all you've heard and read thus
far hasn't parted the sea of sound bites, if you're looking for
information and analysis of current issues or have something to
give or express yourself, this may be a viable group to join.

To subscribe, send to: LISTSERV@MARIST (from a Bitnet address)
or LISTSERV@MARIST.BITNET (from and Internet address) the
message: SUB CLINTON <your first name> <your last name>


	Internet:	bc151@cleveland.freenet.edu
	Bitnet: 	bc151%cleveland.freenet.edu@cunyvm
	Audio:		Ken Fisler
 * Origin: Gated from uucp to Fidonet by FredGate (1:112/28.0)

Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Subject: Re: 1st amendment exceptions, was: U.S. Bill of Rights today
Reply-To: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 15:42:20 GMT

>>By the way, in Finland there's a "followup right" - ie. if a paper
>>says something about you, you have the right to "post a followup" on
>>an equal place.
>[...]
>
>According to what I remember from _Freedom, Technology, and the First
>Amendment_ by Jonathan W. Emord (1991):
>
>As you would expect, involuntary follow ups are usually demanded by
>politicians.
>
>In the U.S., the government can't make newspapers print such follow
>ups because that would violate the newspaper owner's free expression
>rights. This is true even if the newspaper is the only major newspaper
>in the local market.

By the way, if I am not mistaken the followup-right is implemented in
practice by support from a "publicity council" which I understand does
not have anything to do with the Finnish government - ie. the
government can't make people print followups.  Also, I don't think the
"publicity council" has any other sanctions to use than publish it's
result.  But this is shady, don't quote me and this should be checked.

//Jyrki
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: U.S. Bill of Rights today 
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 01:42:53 GMT

In article <+rtnx0l.rbp@netcom.com> rbp@netcom.com (Bob Pasker) writes:

>>It seems to me that's what this is all about.  People don't want
>>anyone to think they condone drug use, so they keep silent even though
>>the War on Constitution is harming them.  People don't want anyone to
>>think they condone child pornography so they are willing to accept
>>censorship and other violations of their rights.  People don't want
>>anyone to think they condone crime, so they let Big Brother listen to
>>their phones.  And so on.

>you miss the point then.  under the enlightenment ideal of government,
>the people give up certain rights to the gov't as a means of bringing
>order to society.  [i'm not saying i agree with this, i'm just pointing
>out the historical basis for what "people's" motivation might be in 
>accepting these infringements.]

At the same time, the purpose of a written Constitution is to specify
(in writing) which rights the people waive and which they retain. The
same ideas of government require that the people consent to their 
government and its powers. The Consitution specifies which governmental
powers the people have consented to, and which they have not. 
If the people really want the government to have additional powers, then
the Constitution can be amended to satisfy them. If the amendment 
isn't ratified, then the people (as a whole) do not consent

If you accept the government's assumption of addititonal powers, because
a majority of the people don't seem to object, you are fundamentally
giving up on the idea of a rule of law.

                                               Frank Crary
                                               CU Boulder

Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: feustel@netcom.com (David Feustel)
Subject: Re: U.S. Bill of Rights today (was alt.activism et al: Who's free'er)
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 92 15:21:50 GMT
Organization: DAFCO: OS/2 Software Support & Consulting

As much as I like the quote attributed to Washington, I don't think
it's verifyable. Please correct me if I'm wrong as I too would like to
use that quote.
-- 
Dave Feustel N9MYI <feustel@netcom.com>
 
RE Drug Warriors who enjoy making a "good" bust: I'm sure the Salem
Witch Hunters enjoyed their law enforcement achievements too.
Xref: sparky alt.society.civil-liberty:5885 alt.politics.usa.constitution:222