HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (J. S. Greenfield)
Newsgroups: soc.history,alt.society.civil-liberty
Subject: Re: First Amendment and Private Schools
Date: 18 Nov 92 04:21:02 GMT
Organization: Syracuse University, CIS Dept.

In article <1992Nov17.060241.24301@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:

>>I am not exactly sure but if I remember correctly from my Constitutional law
>>class, private institutions can censor the work of their student newspapers and
>>to a certain extent, lectures of professors, without violating the first amend-
>>ment of the U.S. Constitution.
>>I believe this is so because there is little to no state action and if you
>>cannot find state action, it is difficult-if not impossible-to raise the
>>issue of consitutional guarantees. Any response?
>
>Correct, for the most part: The First Amendment applies to the federal
>government and (by implication of the Fourteenth Amendment) to the 
>state governments. It has no direct relevance to private citizens or
>ogranizations. I _think_, however, that there are some exceptions for
>private organizations that receive government funds.

(Without respect to any local or state laws that may be floating around in
various jurisdictions...)

I don't think there is any federal law that mandates speech protection solely
on the basis of funding.  A few years back, there was a bill in Congress
that would have required all colleges receiving federal funding (which is
virtually all of them, since financial aid to students is included in this)
to protect expression using the same standards that are constitutionally
applied to governmental institutions.  It apparently died, because I've never
been able to find out anything about its disposition.

Now, a *private* institution can be found to be acting as an arm of the
state--but not generally on the sole basis of funding.  Usually there has
to be some formal relationship where the state (say, the legislature) has
direct control over the institution's policy or board of trustees, or
something like.  (Note, government officials holding ex officio appointments
to a school's board of trustees is *not* sufficient to establish this
relationship.)

A few private institutions have actually been found to be "public" in this
sense.  (I believe that Temple University is an example of this.)

But the standard is pretty tough.  About half of the colleges at Cornell
University are part of the SUNY system (the other half are privately endowed),
but Cornell was ruled (as a whole) to be a private institution.


-- 
J. S. Greenfield                                         greeny@top.cis.syr.edu
(I like to put 'greeny' here, 
but my d*mn system wants a 
*real* name!)                        "What's the difference between an orange?"
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: soc.history
Subject: Re: Founding Fathers
Date: 21 Nov 1992 00:57:55 GMT
Organization: sgi
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com

In article <1eg4tvINNg8h@transfer.stratus.com>, jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com (Jim Mann) writes:
|> In article <1eeb9cINN540@fido.asd.sgi.com>  
|> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
|> > In article <1edhpiINNd47@transfer.stratus.com>,  
|> jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com (Jim Mann) writes:
|> > |> The US, at the time of the Constitution, was very worried about
|> > |> the collapse of the country, and subsequent takeover by
|> > |> European powers.
|> > 
|> > I see, so in fact you are saying that the continuation of
|> > slavery was a cynical act of realpolitic?   "Agree to let A 
|> > enslave B, so that A will assist us."
|> 
|> Cynical, no. Realistic, yes.  The Founders realized they had
|> to compromise on the Constitution, that getting most of what they
|> wanted (though not all) is better than getting none of what
|> they wanted.

Please explain the difference here between cynical and realistic.


jon.
From: DXZ102@psuvm.psu.edu
Newsgroups: soc.history
Subject: Re: KILLing Sendar
Date: 18 Nov 92 16:56:52 GMT
Article-I.D.: psuvm.92323.115652DXZ102
Organization: Penn State University

Please do not even think of KILLing Sendar's articles. No one in this group has
the right to block the flow of information; you are not Popes. This is not a
monestary. I, too, tire of seeing SERA ZUMA SERA ZUMA SERA ZUMA all the time,
but I would never think of forbidding him the right the express his thoughts,
which do reflect an historical intelligence. Don't burn book as Adolph did.

If you don't like Sendar's stuff,  DONT READ IT!

Respectfully of others.....

Gutenburg
Xref: sparky soc.history:9536 misc.legal:20147
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: soc.history,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Libertarians in WW2 -> antitrust
Date: 18 Nov 92 18:57:41 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <JMC.92Nov17223139@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>, jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy) writes:
> Ted Frank says, and Clayton Cramer replies as follows:
# # We'll even leave aside the argument that the Sherman Act had a positive
# # effect on the economy in its first forty years. 
# 
#      How could it?  Into the 1920s, corporations weren't subject
#      to the Sherman Act -- only unions were.  Remember how the
#      14th Amendment was perverted to find that corporations were
#      "persons", and therefore exempted?
# 
# The Encyclopedia Britannica 14th edition in its article _Petroleum_
# says:
# 
#      In 1900 the total net assets of the Standard organization
#      were listed as $209,408,449.09.  In 1911, as a result of
#      U.S. antitrust legislation, the organization was broken up
#      into more than 30 companies.  Rockefeller resigned as
#      president of the Standard Oil Company (New Jersey), which
#      had been incorporated in 1882 under a slightly different
#      title and which was the holding company for the group.
# 
# Besides that AT&T was prevented from completing its telephone
# monopoly and had to leave telegraphy to Western Union.
# There's more if you want to look for it.
# --
# John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305

But the Sherman Antitrust Act wasn't what was used.  There were
additional laws passed during the Progressive Era to create the
Federal Trade Commission and give them authority to regulate
mergers and combinations.
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
"Foxes prefer rabbits with short claws." -- Nadja Adolf
Newsgroups: soc.history,misc.legal,sci.econ
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Sherman Act
Followup-To: misc.legal,sci.econ
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 04:26:47 GMT

In article <13221@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>In article <1992Nov16.235843.2228@midway.uchicago.edu>, thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:
>> We'll even leave aside the argument that the Sherman Act had a positive
>> effect on the economy in its first forty years. 
>
>How could it?  Into the 1920s, corporations weren't subject to the
>Sherman Act -- only unions were.  

I suspect American Tobacco Corp. would be surprised by this characterization.

Ted "tie-ins backwards-R us" Frank
-- 
ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 
standard disclaimers          | void where prohibited
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: soc.history
Subject: Re: [ACLU] A History of the Bill of Rights
Date: 17 Nov 92 00:11:00 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1992Nov15.023237.4102@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>, fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:
> In article <lairdb.721620585@crash.cts.com> lairdb@crash.cts.com (Laird P. Broadfield) writes:
# ## Specifically, the Court asked if Jack Miller's ownership
# ##of a sawed-off shotgun had a "reasonable relationship to the 
# ##preservation or efficiency of the militia." If so, his right to 
# ##own it would be protected under the Second Amendment. Miller was clearly
# ##a member of the militia (e.g. physically capable of military service.)
# ##However, the Court found no evidence that a sawed-off shotgun was
# ##a usefull militia weapon. They based this on past laws regulating
# ##the militia and on the sort of weapons issued by the Army.
# 
# #...As I recall, the issue was not that "...the Court found no 
# #evidence..." but that no-one *brought* evidence before them (Miller
# #being dead by that time, and no-one else being particularly inclined
# #to press the issue.)  In fact, I thought I remembered the Opinion being
# #carefully worded to reflect this.
#   
# I'd heard Miller was already serving a _very_ long sentence for some
# other crime, and didn't feel paying for a lawyer if it wouldn't get
# him out of jail... He certainly wasn't represented before the
# Court.

He was released by the District Judge, who had ruled the National
Firearms Act of 1934 to be contrary to the Second Amendment.

# The Court did, however, make _some_ effort to determin on its own
# if a swaed-off shotgun was of militia use, by checking the weapons
# mentioned in various militia laws and those regularly issued by the
# Army. Their ruling used the phrase, "...in the absence of any evidence..."

If they did, it's not reflected in the opinion.  The Court held that
it was improper for the District Court to take it under judicial
notice that a sawed-off shotgun was a militia weapon -- expert
testimony was required.  The meaning of the Second Amendment was
not very clearly defined, though it seems clear that the Court
intended, by their opinion about judicial notice, that only militia
weapons were protected.

#                                                   Frank Crary
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
"Foxes prefer rabbits with short claws." -- Nadja Adolf
Xref: sparky soc.history:9449 alt.society.civil-liberty:6589
From: greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (J. S. Greenfield)
Newsgroups: soc.history,alt.society.civil-liberty
Subject: Re: [ACLU] A History of the Bill of Rights
Date: 16 Nov 92 16:09:37 GMT
Article-I.D.: newstand.1992Nov16.110937.5193
Organization: Syracuse University, CIS Dept.

In article <1992Nov16.040225.13733@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:

>>: >:                                           (By the way, it is
>>: >: also inaccurate for the ACLU to claim they defend the Bill of
>>: >: Rights: They defend the parts of it which their members find
>>: >: politically comfortable and make specious arguments to ignore 
>>: >: other parts...)
>
>>: >Could you give some examples of this?
>
>>: How about the 2nd Amendment?
>
>>Thanks, I'll check into this one.  Any others?
>
>I think the Tenth Amendment, the "free exercise" [of religion] clasue
>of the First Amendment, the property rights protections of the 
>Fifth Amendment and the Seventh Amendment, are all underemphasized
>by the ACLU.

While I'm certainly not one who's afraid to criticize the ACLU, I think you
have to be very careful when criticizing an organization for "underemphasis."
Certainly, an organization has a right to prioritize the problems to
which it will dedicate it's limited resources.

On the face, the most you can say is that their priorities are different
from yours.  I mean, there's a big difference between "underemphasis"
on, say, "free exercise" cases, and *opposing* the RKBA (assuming you
believe in a fundamental RKBA).  There's also a big difference between
emphasizing the rights of one group (say, the free exercise of Christianty)
but not emphasizing those of another (say, the free exercise of Islam).


-- 
J. S. Greenfield                                         greeny@top.cis.syr.edu
(I like to put 'greeny' here, 
but my d*mn system wants a 
*real* name!)                        "What's the difference between an orange?"
From: mjo@castle.ed.ac.uk (Martyn J O Clark)
Newsgroups: soc.history
Subject: Looking for name for octet!
Date: 19 Nov 92 13:44:21 GMT
Organization: Organization?

I'm trying to find a good (and original) name for a vocal octet I have
started. We sing mainly Renaissance works, hence the posting to (soc).history.

Ideally a latin-ish name (Italian?), but not TOO pretentious!

Replies preferably by email to mjo@uk.ac.ed.castle

thanks.

-- 
==============================================================================
I Have, even if I do say so myself, the BEST CHOCOLATE ICE-CREAM recipe in the 
world...Mail mjoc@uk.ac.ed with your request...no special equipment reqd.
Newsgroups: soc.history
Subject: Re: KILLING SENDAR REVISITED
From: kmcvay@oneb.almanac.bc.ca (Ken Mcvay)
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 92 01:24:01 GMT
Organization: The Old Frog's Almanac

In article <92325.141531DXZ102@psuvm.psu.edu> <DXZ102@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:

>I look forward to typing history with y'all.....even Sendar, if he ever stops
>ranting about......evil jewish, greek, ghetto anarchists who have proven them-
>selves to be detrimental to the great state of Turkey (?)

It is nearly time for the Sendar to clone himself, in order to flood
unsuspecting news spools with un-killed userid's... alas, your only hope is
to include soc.culture.turkish in your KILL file, which works against all
known clones, but which has the unhappy side effect of spoiling the learning
process for folks interested in Turkish culture, as opposed to rabid and
repetitive spool-clogging.

(On the other hand, it does save you from being subjected to a flood of
reports about how Native Americans participated in the genocidal destruction
of Turks, along with unemployed French comedians, Canadian Inuit, and beluga
whales of Greek descent...)


-- 
The Old Frog's Almanac - Public Access UseNet for Central Vancouver Island
     (604) 245-3205 (v32) (604) 245-4366 (2400x4) Waffle XENIX 1.64
 Ladysmith, British Columbia, CANADA. Just south of Tupperware Central...  
                      (Sssssssh.... Hard disk dying...)
Newsgroups: soc.history
From: cthorne@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Charles E Thorne)
Subject: Re: Founding Fathers
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 20:22:23 GMT

In article <1992Nov18.212008.21608@Princeton.EDU> glhewitt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Gary Livingston Hewitt) writes:
>In article <1edhpiINNd47@transfer.stratus.com> jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com writes:
>[regarding whether non/anti-slavery should have been a condition of
>entry into the US way back in 177-whenever]

>>The US, at the time of the Constitution, was very worried about
>>the collapse of the country, and subsequent takeover by
>>European powers.  Furthermore, the compromise was needed to get
>>several of the most important states into the fold.  Virginia
>>and the Carolinas were important to the new country. If, for 
>>example, only Georgia was holding out, the union may have gone
>>on without them. We couldn't have gone on without Virginia.  It
>>would have been a lot like France or Germany holding out from
>>the EC.  The EC would have much more trouble surviving without
>>one of those countries than they will in surviving without
>>Spain.

>If you think about it, the US *did* lose a few colonies -- East & West
>Florida, Nova Scotia, Canada, Quebec, not to mention the Caribbean.  In
>addition, slavery was legal in all of the 13 colonies in 1774 when the
>"United States" came into existence with the meeting of the Continental
>Congress and when these decisions would have had to have been made
>(don't you just love that syntax -- 5 helping verbs!).

>When slavery does become a condition of admission into the Union, it is
>a crisis every time (first time in 1820 w/ Missouri, 1854 w/ Kansas &
>Nebraska); and eventually it led to Civil War.  I don't think that
>anyone in 1774 thought that it would lead to Civil War, but certainly
>even by 1787 and the Constitutional Convention the delegates knew well
>what they would be tampering with.

>How to explain the Northwest Ordinance (which banned slavery in the
>process of organizing the Northwest Territories) in this context, I
>don't know.

I suspect that one reason this wasn't an issue at the time of the Northwest
Ordinance was that at that time the Northwest Territories were not particu-
larly heavily populated.  Ohio didn't become a State until 1803 and was
not particularly populous at that time.  At the time of the NW ordinance
(late 1780's), the South hadn't yet realized what was happening.  Also in
the NW territory slavery wasn't likely to be adopted, so there were no
pro slavery adherants (as there were later in Kansas).  The early settlers
in Ohio and Indiana were mostly small farmers and merchants and thus
slavery wasn't an issue.  Of course by the time of the Civil War, Ohio
became very abolutionist (possibly due to the large amount of New Englanders
who settled in NE Ohio.

Charlie

Newsgroups: soc.history
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: [ACLU] Guardian of Liberty: American Civil Liberties Union
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
	<1992Nov19.070028.27622@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>
	<1992Nov19.161920.27072@kadsma.kodak.com>
	<1992Nov20.054223.23623@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>
Distribution: usa
Date: 20 Nov 92 08:58:27

Not only school children but all scientists must accept almost all
science on authority.  Anyone who wanted to check out everything
himself before basing further work on it would never get around
to doing any scientific work of his own.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

Xref: sparky soc.history:9475 alt.politics.elections:24037 alt.politics.marrou:2318
From: bkottmann@falcon.aamrl.wpafb.af.mil (Brett Kottmann)
Newsgroups: soc.history,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.marrou
Subject: Re: Libertarians and 1930's
Date: 16 Nov 92 15:58:37 EST
Organization: Logicon Technical Services, Inc.

In article <1992Nov15.233547.19002@midway.uchicago.edu>, thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:
> In article <1992Nov15.201336.3107@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> dcosley@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Daniel R Cosley) writes:
>>ted frank claims that free markets would never have gotten the U.S. out of the
>>Great Depression.  
> 
> It's not a claim.  It's an empirical fact.  Hoover shrunk government
> spending from 1929 to 1933.  Other than the tariffs (which really wouldn't
> have made much difference unless Europe went Lib also), I don't see what
> Hoover did that was different from what the Libertarians would have done.

	Raised taxes.
	Tariffs.
	Messed with both banking and securities markets.

>>Of course, we'll never know how it would have done, but is 
>>he trying to say that FDR's policies did any better?  
> 
> Yep.  He saved the country from revolution and demagoguery.  He stole
> the thunder from people far more radical than he. 

	I don't think so.  And "President for Life" is hardly a nice
alternative to "demagoguery".

        But then we agree on very little, don't we :).

Brett
"The opinions and views expressed here are strictly my own and do not 
necessarily reflect the official position of either the U.S. Air Force 
or its contractors."
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: soc.history
Subject: Re: [ACLU] Guardian of Liberty: American Civil Liberties Union
Date: 23 Nov 92 19:50:17 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <JMC.92Nov20085827@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>, jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy) writes:
> Not only school children but all scientists must accept almost all
> science on authority.  Anyone who wanted to check out everything
> himself before basing further work on it would never get around
> to doing any scientific work of his own.
> --
> John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305

Very true.  But part of why we bother with experiments, even at
the high school level, is to demonstrate that we don't fear checking
at least SOME of the stuff that we learn "on authority."  The problem
with evolution teaching (NOT with evolution) is that because it is
not experimental science, the distinction between learning "on 
authority" and a form of religion, is sometimes a little unclear --
especially the way that evolution is taught in the lower grades.


-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
We could say that Congress spends money like drunken sailors.  But that would
be unfair -- to the sailors.  They, at least, are spending their own money.
From: visser@convex.com (Lance Visser)
Newsgroups: soc.history
Subject: Pearl Harbor
Date: 15 Nov 92 20:05:14 GMT
Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

In <1992Nov15.133710.15@uoft02.utoledo.edu> jsteiner@anwsun.phya.utoledo.edu (jason 'Think!' steiner) writes:

+>> Yes, but England wouldn't have withstood as long as it did if the
+>> US hadn't taken sides long before Pearl Harbor.  Japan wouldn't
+>> have even bombed Pearl Harbor if it wasn't for the United States
+>> refusing to sell oil to it -- but that's "meddling" in the 
+>> Libertarian view of the world.

	A question about Japanese behavior that has always bothered 
me is why after the embargo went on Japan didn't just walk into
Indonesia in retaliation and dare the americans (or the british) to do 
anything about it.  Its true that the supply lines from Japan to Indonesia
would have been endangered by american and british forces in the region
potentially, but its hard to see anyone declaring war on Japan because
of it.
	It would have been difficult to "sell" a war over a Dutch colonial 
possession in the united states.
	Once in Indonesia, Japan would have had all the oil it would have
ever needed.

	The biggest irony of the war in regard to oil is probably that
the Italians and Germans, while being desperatly short of it, were in
control of huge (but then undiscovered) quantities of it in Libya.
Newsgroups: soc.history
From: allen@tessi.com (Allen Warren)
Subject: Re: KILLing Sendar
Organization: Test Systems Strategies, Inc., Beaverton, Oregon
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 23:44:13 GMT

DXZ102@psuvm.psu.edu writes:

>Please do not even think of KILLing Sendar's articles. No one in this group has
>the right to block the flow of information; you are not Popes. This is not a
>monestary. I, too, tire of seeing SERA ZUMA SERA ZUMA SERA ZUMA all the time,
>but I would never think of forbidding him the right the express his thoughts,
>which do reflect an historical intelligence. Don't burn book as Adolph did.

>If you don't like Sendar's stuff,  DONT READ IT!


Better yet, just use a kill file like I did.  No muss, no fuss and you won't
have to read what you don't want to, yet you won't be denying anyone else the
right to read his postings.  'Sorta like what you'd do in a motel with the TV
by telling the office you want the pay movies blocked.

allen
Xref: sparky soc.history:9624 talk.politics.theory:5053