HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: First Amendment Stuff
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 12:14:55 GMT

In article <1993Jan7.012317.4170@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>In article <1993Jan6.195506.5605@eff.org> mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:
>>In article <1993Jan6.053934.21832@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>>Judge Learned Hand had proposed
>>>a test whereby only actual incitements could be punished, and any
>>>speech not containing explicit incitements was protected, context be
>>>damned--this test had been rejected as unenforceable, for any clever
>>>speaker worth her salt could achieve the same results without reciting
>>>the magic words to qualify under Hand's objective test.
>>
>>And yet, Ted, this is the law of the land after Brandenburg v. Ohio.
>
>Would you really call Brandenburg an adoption of _Masses_?  It strikes
>me that both would protect speech that the other wouldn't.

As I recall, Hand's actual-incitements test (although, thankfully, not his
balancing test) was used in formulating the Brandenburg test. It has been
some time since I read Hand's analysis, I confess.

If you look at the post-Brandenburg cases, it's fairly clear that speech
that does not contain an explicit incitement or, as a factual matter, was
not directly followed by lawless action, is deemed protected by the First
Amendment.


--Mike


-- 
Mike Godwin,    |"I'm waiting for the one-man revolution
mnemonic@eff.org| The only one that's coming."
(617) 864-0665  |                           
EFF, Cambridge  |                   --Robert Frost 
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.censorship,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: strom@Watson.Ibm.Com (Rob Strom)
Subject: Re: Shouting "Movie!" at a Fire Station (Schenck v US)
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 93 02:13:24 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: IBM Research

In article <1993Jan8.222320.20055@IRO.UMontreal.CA>, simon@matagami.iro.umontreal.ca (Daniel Simon) writes:
|> In article <1993Jan6.053934.21832@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
|> >The aphorism about shouting fire falsely in a crowded theater originated
|> >with Justice Holmes in the case of Schenck v United States during the WWI
|> >era.
|> >
|> >It was used as a justification to uphold the conviction of one Schenck,
|> >an anti-war socialist who had been passing out to conscriptees outside
|> >a recruitment center anti-draft leaflets comparing conscription to slavery.
|> >He was convicted under a federal law for attempting to obstruct the
|> >draft.
|> 
|> [......]
|> 
|> >Now, even today's Court would rule 9-0 in the other direction.  I'm
|> >curious where exactly it was that Holmes went wrong--or, if indeed, he 
|> >*did* go wrong.
|> 
|> I'm curious as to what one can possibly mean by "Holmes went wrong".
|> Rampant moral perversity?  Insufficient prescience in guessing what
|> the folks in black gowns would happen to be thinking this week?
|> Transgression in the eyes of Heaven?  Personal disagreement with Dan
|> Simon or Ted Frank?
|> 

I think what piques Daniel Simon's curiosity (and mine) is
why in the world Justice Holmes thought that handing out leaflets at
a recruiting center is anything like shouting "Fire" in a theatre.

I don't think anyone before or since Justice Holmes
(even the absolutists such as Douglas) actually would
have proposed giving 1st amendment protection to shouting "Fire"
in a theatre, had such a case actually come before the court.

It's not so much that Holmes interpreted the first
amendment in such an odd way; it's that he and the
rest of the court interpreted *leafletting* in such
an odd way.  It is so different from the way
leafletting is interpreted today that it boggles
the mind.  Short of imagining that either leafletting
or the human brain has so radically evolved, the
only sense I can make of the event is that the court
was intoxicated by war fever, didn't seriously
view the case as a 1st amendment case, and reasoned
backwards from the desired result.

-- 
Rob Strom, strom@watson.ibm.com, (914) 784-7641
IBM Research, 30 Saw Mill River Road, P.O. Box 704, Yorktown Heights, NY  10598
Newsgroups: misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.president.clinton
From: jlpicard@austin.ibm.com (Craig Becker)
Subject: Re: Pardon stuff..Define please
Originator: jlpicard@woofer.austin.ibm.com
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 20:51:00 GMT
Reply-To: jlpicard@austin.ibm.com
Organization: IBM Object Technology Products


csmith@tortoise.cis.ohio-state.edu (craig edward smith) writes:
> In article <1993Jan11.154056.4660@ncsu.edu> storrs@eos.ncsu.edu (JERRY STORRS) writes:
> >
> >All this talk of pardon's, and I see that many of the replies are not related
> >anymore, I thought I'd ask a simple question to reinforce/teardown something
> >I was once told.
> >
> >I have been told that to receive a pardon, one must admit guilt.   OR is it 
> >truly a method of legally covering one's own tracks.....
> 
> Seems to me you are asking "If you get a pardon, can we assume that you are
> guilty?"
> 
> The answer is no. You need not admit guilt to receive a pardon. You need not
> be found guilty to receive a pardon. Pardons are often used to blot out a
> travesty of justice, as in the accessory to murder charge that was put on
> the doctor who treated John Wilkes Booth. Was he guilty? No, he was doing
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^     
> what any doctor would do. The pardon (I don't know if it has actually come
> through or not) in his case is to exonerate him.

Popular wisdom says that his name was Dr. Mudd.

Craig
-- 
-- "You will have the tallest,    Craig Becker, Object Technology Products --
--  darkest leading man in               Internet: jlpicard@austin.ibm.com --
--  Hollywood."                     IBM TR: jlpicard@woofer.austin.ibm.com --
--   - Merian C. Cooper to Fay Wray               VNET: JLPICARD at AUSVM1 --
From: judson@watserv.ucr.edu (Mike Judson)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: President pardons himself
Date: 11 Jan 93 05:53:28 GMT
Reply-To: judson@watserv.ucr.edu

Can the President of the United States pardon himself?


--
If you ever fall off the Sears Tower, just go real limp, because 
maybe you'll look like a dummy and people will try to catch you 
because, hey, free dummy.

judson@watserv.ucr.edu
Newsgroups: misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.president.clinton
From: fxars@camelot.alaska.edu (Allen R Sparks)
Subject: Re: Weinberger's Pardon
Organization: University of Alaska Fairbanks
	<C0GM5v.491@ns1.nodak.edu> <1993Jan8.180400.14005@cbnews.cb.att.com>
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 02:46:41 GMT

> Since Kennedy won by a much larger electoral margin than the number of
> votes Illinois had, I wonder what these folks are expert in. Not math!
> 
> This reality check brought to you by the Coalition Against Camelot Revisionism.

On the contrary, they were VERY expert at math.  === Al
Newsgroups: misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.president.clinton
From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: Weinberger's Pardon
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 05:12:05 GMT

In article <1993Jan1.113902.7371@pegasus.com> tleylan@pegasus.com (Tom Leylan) writes:
>mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen) writes:

><when I wrote>

>>|> Am I mistaken in recalling that the Kennedy administration admitted to
>>|> planning an assassination attempt on Castro ?

>>Ah.  You have discovered the whole point.  The Kennedy administration
>>admitted it.

>I just want to be sure I have this straight you wouldn't have any problem
>if Bush said he planned to assassinate anybody right ?

Well, it's currently not allowed; Kennedy ending up issuing an executive
order forbidding it.  But assuming Bush revoked it, I wouldn't have a
*legal* problem with him doing it.

I might have an *ethical* problem with it, of course.  But there's a big
difference between:
1) I disagree with this policy.  It's stupid & immoral.
&
2) I disagree with this policy.  It's stupid & immoral & illegal.

I can't expect a president to live up to the first two standards,
intelligence and morality, all the time.  For one thing, they're
subjective.  Legality, however, is not, and I expect a president to live
up to that at all times.

-- 
David M. Nieporent   | Is it too early to start making predictions for 1993?
niepornt@phoenix.    | Probably, but that never stopped me before.
   princeton.edu     | ALE: Baltimore ALW: Chicago NLE: Montreal NLW: Atlanta
Baltimore Orioles 93 | AL MVP: Cal Ripken  AL Cy Young: Mike Mussina
From: jfw@neuro.duke.edu (John F. Whitehead)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Sorry, we don't accept cash... Huh?
Date: 4 Jan 93 22:58:31 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

In article <1992Dec31.081423.11613@netcom.com> linley@netcom.com 
	(Bruce James Robrert Linley) writes:

>And before anyone talks
>about how I pay the Credit bill, let me say that I do not send cash ONLY 
>because it is not a good idea to send cash through the mail. I would, however,
>expect any company (credit card/gas/phone/etc.) to take cash If I paid at
>their office in person.

This is the same reason why Federal Express doesn't want to take your
cash.  It's a risk to you (since you don't know if your money made it to
the COD sender), it's a risk to the sender (since the shipper could lose
the cash), and it's a risk to Fed Ex (since their deliverers would be
subject to robberies, and since cash is not traceable). 

>I would, however,
>expect any company (credit card/gas/phone/etc.) to take cash If I paid at
>their office in person.

Paying the guy who travels all over the city dropping off thousands of
dollars of packages is not the same as paying at an office.

-- 
 ________________________________________________________________________
|   John      jfw@neuro.duke.edu          Duke University Medical Center |
| Whitehead   jfw@well.sf.ca.us           Department of Neurobiology     |
|________________________________________ Durham, North Carolina ________|
From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: Weinberger's Pardon
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 04:16:21 GMT

In article <1993Jan6.204749.3692@cis.ohio-state.edu> csmith@anaconda.cis.ohio-state.edu (craig edward smith) writes:
>In <1993Jan6.193543.25647@cbnews.cb.att.com> (joseph.m.knapp) writes:
>>csmith@anaconda.cis.ohio-state.edu (craig edward smith) writes:
>>>jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp) writes:

>>>>Nixon resigned in disgrace because he made tape recordings of himself
>>>>committing felonies.

>>>OH! NOW I understand! His problem was getting CAUGHT! I see NOW!

>>The point (which you don't see) is that Nixon did not face impeachment
>>or resign because he or others "bugged" the DNC headquarters, but because
>>he committed OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE after the fact. The "smoking gun"
>>tape provided a prima facie case for this crime. Nixon thus exited,
>>stage right.

>>I'm reminded when a few years ago when it came out that FDR secretly
>>recorded people at the White House. Nixon apologists exclaimed, "SEE,
>>even FDR did it!!!" Oy vay! The problem isn't tape recordings, it's
>>tape recordings of the President committing felonies!

>And unauthorized survailence is not a felony? News to me.

Then maybe you should read a newspaper.  No, taping a conversation with
someone is not a felony.  You're thinking of laws against wiretapping,
which forbid taping *phone calls.*  In addition, most of these laws only
forbid third parties from taping phone calls.  As long as one of the two
participants consents to the taping, it is usually legal.

>And what was so feloneous about the "Iran-Contra" affair (as if one
>hand some direct connection with the other. NOT).

The first shipment of arms to Iran came before Reagan signed the finding
authorizing it.  That was illegal, because Iran was officially on the
terrorist nation list and sending weapons to them was illegal.

The money from the legal sales, moreover, belonged to the US government,
since it was government property that was being sold.  Sending this
money to the contras was illegal.  Furthermore, the Boland amendment
forbid all government departments or agencies from helping to fund the
contras.  The NSC, by any rational definition, was included in that ban.

And you don't think that when the same group of people sell arms to one
country, then use the proceeds for another purpose, that the two things
are related?

-- 
David M. Nieporent   | Is it too early to start making predictions for 1993?
niepornt@phoenix.    | Probably, but that never stopped me before.
   princeton.edu     | ALE: Baltimore ALW: Chicago NLE: Montreal NLW: Atlanta
Baltimore Orioles 93 | AL MVP: Cal Ripken  AL Cy Young: Mike Mussina
From: merlyn@digibd.digibd.com (Merlyn LeRoy)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Oppose the Religious Freedom Restoration Act
Keywords: no _kaffe klatsch_, no skinnin' and grinnin'
Date: 13 Jan 93 00:09:26 GMT
Article-I.D.: digibd.merlyn.726883766
Organization: DigiBoard, Incorporated, Eden Prairie,MN

matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt) writes:
>In this century, racist, Fascist Nazis worshipped force and enacted
>racist, Fascist laws.  They were the State, they were the supreme
>lawmakers, their Constitution was the supreme law of their land,
>and unless we can appeal to some sort of independently existing
>"Natural Law," by what standard are we to assert that the subjects
>of Nazi rule were "entitled" to more rights than their rulers granted
>them?

By the same token, plenty of rulers in this and many other centuries
asserted that "Natural Law" (or their god[s] or some other suitably
nebulous authority) was the supreme lawmaking standard, and many of
them were/are appalling.  Claims to divinity only make me cynical.

---
Merlyn LeRoy
Newsgroups: misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.president.clinton
From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Subject: Re: Weinberger's Pardon
Organization: Northeastern Law, Class of '93
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 17:18:54 GMT


In article <C0GM5v.491@ns1.nodak.edu>, 
green@plains.NoDak.edu (Brad Green) said:

> Or how about the Kennedy-Nixon election?  Most experts recognize
> that if Daley hadn't played his games in Illinois, Kennedy would
> have lost.  Where do you think the Chicago motto of "Vote early and
> vote often" came from?  Not Republicans.

I suspect that Chicago got it from Boston, which in recognition of the
electoral achievements of its de facto Mayor-for-Life, James Curley
(18-something - 1958; the central character in the novel _The Last
Hurrah_ is allegedly based heavily on him), developed the infamous but
nicely rhyming slogan "Vote often and early for James Michael Curley..."
:-)

-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>

Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: sbarber@panix.com (Steve Barber)
Subject: Re: Taxi Limitations (Was: Sorry, we don't accept cash... Huh?)
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 17:11:53 GMT

Tim Smith writes:
>If they are poor, would they be able to afford to take a taxi on a regular
>basis?

Oops, read that again.  It's not that the poor & unemployed will use them
regularly, it's that they could perhaps operate such services themselves
and use them when they need them, as all carless urbanites need to do at
times.

And BTW, it isn't just the poor & those that live in out of the way places
that suffer from the inadequately regulated oligopoly on taxi service.  There
are too few taxis, period, in Manhattan, and nowhere near enough in the outer
boros.  Some drivers will "cherry pick" fares and refuse to go on short drives
if they think the next guy will be going to the airport or all the way
downtown.  At the Port Authority Bus Terminal, and on the Upper East Side in
the morning rush hour, this practice is institutionalized, almost.

Of course, this is illegal, but practically riskless for the cabbie, as
enforcement is not as pervasive as it could be.


-- 
Steve Barber                                             sbarber@panix.com
"The direct deed is the most meaningful reflection." - Bill Evans
Nothing I say is legal advice.  It can't be.  I don't know anything.

Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.censorship
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: Trivia that would peeve Ed Nilges
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 12:08:53 GMT

In article <1993Jan6.190110.17667@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:

>Firm recommendation to U of C Law graduate Edward de Grazia's newish
>book "Girls Lean Back Everywhere," for its history of censorship, though
>it unfortunately oversimplifies the motivations of those who would
>censor.

I second the recommendation of this fine book, with the same caveat that
Ted gives here (a criticism that also appeared in the New Republic review
of the book).

Also worth reading: Nat Hentoff's FREE SPEECH FOR ME BUT NOT FOR THEE: How
the American Left and Right Relentlessly Censor Each Other.


--Mike



-- 
Mike Godwin,    |"I'm waiting for the one-man revolution
mnemonic@eff.org| The only one that's coming."
(617) 864-0665  |                           
EFF, Cambridge  |                   --Robert Frost 
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: titmas@chdasic.sps.mot.com (Eric Titmas)
Subject: Re: Oppose the Religious Freedom Restoration Act
Keywords: Ist Amendment; compelling interest
Organization: SPS
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 00:45:55 GMT

In article <19524@smoke.brl.mil>, matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt) writes:
|> the _Smith_ decision along the lines suggested by Merlyn LeRoy.  In
|> my opinion, the best thing the Court could do would be to discard
|> _Smith_ entirely and restore the old "compelling interest" standard
|> as a matter of Constitutional law.  Such a decision would render the
|> "Religious Freedom Restoration Act" unnecessary.

Could some of the net lawyers please explain with some precision what
this term "compelling interest" means,  how it's different than the
class prejudices of judges,  and why it is that compelling interest
is not needed for all laws.

Scalia said in Smith that if a law is not aimed at religion you don't get
an exemption from it because of your religious beliefs.  
-- 
Eric Titmas      Motorola ASIC       titmas@chdasic.sps.mot.com               

It is impossible to take in more money than Congress can spend.  - Thomas Sowell
Xref: sparky misc.legal:22349 talk.politics.misc:67103 alt.president.clinton:1492
From: storrs@eos.ncsu.edu (JERRY STORRS)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.president.clinton
Subject: Pardon stuff..Define please
Date: 11 Jan 93 15:40:56 GMT
Reply-To: storrs@eos.ncsu.edu (JERRY STORRS)
Organization: North Carolina State University, Project Eos
Originator: storrs@c20002-121rd.che.ncsu.edu


All this talk of pardon's, and I see that many of the replies are not related
anymore, I thought I'd ask a simple question to reinforce/teardown something
I was once told.

I have been told that to receive a pardon, one must admit guilt.   OR is it 
truly a method of legally covering one's own tracks.....
-- 

===============================================================================
Jerry L. Storrs, System/Network Manager || "... I bring you good news of great
Dept of Chemical Engineering, NCSU      || joy that will be for all the people.
   storrs@che.ncsu.edu (preferred)      || Today in the town of David a Savior
   storrs@eos.ncsu.edu                  || has been born to you; he is Christ.
                                        || the Lord."         
                          <><           ||                Luke 2:..10-11
===============================================================================
Any statement made is the explicit belief of the writer and not the employer.
From: tzs@carson.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Movies in the public domain
Date: 8 Jan 1993 11:49:34 GMT
Organization: University of Washington School of Law, Class of '95
NNTP-Posting-Host: carson.u.washington.edu

stachnik@hpcupt1.cup.hp.com (George Stachnik) writes:
>I'm interested in movies that have passed into the public
>domain.  Does anybody have a list?  I was told recently that
>nobody owns the copyright to "It's a Wonderful Life", which
>I found hard to believe.  Can anyone confirm or deny?  Are

I think one of the wire services carried this story.  They said that some
lawyer at the studio forgot to file for the extension when the copyright
expired.

I bet that lawyer's boss was real annoyed...

--Tim Smith
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: why has statutory law been replacing common law?
Keywords: Alexander's British Statutes
Date: 5 Jan 93 17:00:55 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <19513@smoke.brl.mil>, matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt) writes:
> In article <1i2ncoINNa3k@shelley.u.washington.edu> tzs@stein.u.washington.edu 
> (Tim Smith) writes:
# #In addition to the U.S. Constitution, you have to look at your state
# #constitution and state laws to determined what English law is applicable.
# 
# #For example, Code section 1-10 of Virginia says that "The common law of
# #England, insofar as it is not repugnant to the principles of the Bill of
# #Rights and Constitution of this State, shall continue in full force within
# #the same, and be the rule of decision, except as altered by the General
# #Assembly."   [Tim Smith]
# 
# This is the pattern that Maryland followed until quite recently.
# English common law, as it stood on July 4, 1776, remained in force
# in Maryland unless superseded by an act of the General Assembly or
# modified by the Court of Appeals.  The same thing went for British
# statute law in force as of July 4, 1776.
# 
# 					-- Matt Rosenblatt

It's interesting to see how different colonies responded to the
rupture.  For example, North Carolina's legislature renounced the
statutory laws of England and Great Britain effective January 1, 1838.
[State v. Huntly, 3 Iredell 418, 423 (N.C. 1843)]
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
"When freedom destroys order, order will destroy freedom." -- Eric Hoffer
Not a goal, just a statement of reality.
Newsgroups: misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.president.clinton