HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: guido@island.COM (Guido Marx)
Subject: Re: Anti-Arab racism on the net
Keywords: Equality, Fairness, Same Standards?
Organization: Island Graphics Corp.  San Rafael, Ca.
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 23:10:56 GMT

In article <1992Sep30.040641.25843@news.columbia.edu> ia4@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Imran Anwar) writes:
>THAT is exactly the kind of attitude that we are discussing.  Your branding
>the entire spectrum of the Islamic world based upon the decision of the
>Iranians.  
>
>Face it: the Western world has some catching up to do about understanding Islam

Perhaps you could then supply us with the names of some major Islamic
organizations which denounced the Iranian call for Rushdie's execution ?

I seem to recall individual clerics saying that they were uncomfortable
with the "death sentence", but I don't recall any major Islamic organizations
publicly denouncing it.  In this case, many people might reasonably
conclude that silence implied agreement.

Guido

Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: whs70@dancer.uucp (22501-sohl)
Subject: Forced to pay for college, was....Re: What a Problem!!!
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 92 16:08:24 GMT

 a law that requires non custodial parents to put children through
 college while there is no such law affecting families where parents are
 still married to each other >

I missed the initial posts for this discussion.  Could someone please
post the essential details of this "law?"

Is this a law pending in one specific state?  
Federal law?
Is it already a law somewhere?

From my perspective I think the law (or proposed law) is bad
because it only applies to divorced/separated parents.  I'm
happily married with three kids (one now in college).  I'd hate to
have the government dictating to me that I MUST pay for each of
my kids to go to college.  The question then becomes what
college?  How much does it take to satisfy the requirement?
What if the child wants to go to an expensive school?  Who
makes those decisions?

Seems that a law like this could encourage some kids to 
cause the breakup of their parent's marriage as a means to
"quarantee" that the child will have someone pay for his/her
college education.  That may seem a bit Machiavellin to some,
but it wouldn't surprise me these days.

Standard Disclaimer- Any opinions, etc. are mine and NOT my employer's.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note - If email replying to me with an automatic addressing process
bounces, manually address the resend using one of the addresses below.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Sohl (K2UNK) BELLCORE (Bell Communications Research, Inc.)
Morristown, NJ             email via UUCP      bcr!dancer!whs70
201-829-2879 Weekdays      email via Internet  whs70@dancer.cc.bellcore.com
From: sbarber@panix.com (Steve Barber)
Subject: Re: Law School -- What's It Like? (was: UU patent (or lack thereof))
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 21:19:50 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC

In <34.I02eG23XJ01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll) writes:

[regarding law school:]

>Challenging, but I find it fun.  If you've had any experience programming, 
>the intellectual process is not too much different.  It consists of finding 
>the rules necessary to get a result you want.  Distinguishing two cases that 
>at first appear identical but that reach different results is a lot like 
>debugging.

As a former programmer (ouch, I still wince when I say that) and a 3L,
I just gotta disagree.  Law ain't nothin' like programming.  My technical
background is pretty darn useless in a legal setting.

All this reasoning from inconsistent premises by analogy and metaphor, and
having to wait 2 years to test out your new routines, er, briefs -- worse
than punch cards :-).  All this never having an answer to any problem, just
a pocket full of arguments.

And after a while, anything that's tedious and methodical is like debugging,
I guess that's true.

But I have certainly been able to touch more people's lives for the
better (I hope) in two years as a law student than I did as a
programmer.  Interesting trade-off.

-- 
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.

Xref: sparky misc.legal:18179 rec.arts.books:17771
From: fuller@athena.cs.uga.edu (James P. H. Fuller)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,rec.arts.books
Subject: Re: Point of Technicality
Keywords: permissible killing
Date: 6 Oct 92 20:41:43 GMT
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens

fjc@mips2.ma30.bull.com (Frank Casper) writes:

>ights? As for myself, Britain and it's allies should have responded swiftly
>and surely to the the ayatollas my informing them in no uncertain terms that 
>harming Mr. Rushdie would be considered an act of war because it would be a
>direct attack on a citizen of the United Kingdom and the institutions upon
>which it is founded. When we fail as a culture in this way it opens the door
>to vigilanteeism.

     Heh, heh.  Attacks on random ordinary citizens of western nations (that is,
attacks that don't threates any pressure group's economic interests) haven't
been considered acts of war by western nations for hundreds of years.  In the
U.S., not since the War of Jenkin's Ear (two points to anyone who remembers
when that was without looking.)  You had better say, *because* of this flaccid
failure of western cultures to preempt private violence the way is now wide
open for vigilanteeism.  Whoopee fo' de new day dawnin'.
              
                                                    -- jf
From: wb@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (werner.baumgartner)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Compensation ?
Date: 6 Oct 92 17:40:59 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: AT&T

Background:
Two adjacent buildings have no space between them, their exterior surfaces
actually touch each other. Building #1 is torn down leaving a portion of the
"common wall" standing. Permission is granted to an individual by the owner
of building #1 to remove a historic marker from the remaining structure.
Work proceeds but is stopped by the owner of building #2 who claims the
artifact as his since it is attached to his building. Agreement is reached
between the partys, in the presence of police officers, that the work be
completed and the artifact be held by the owner of building #2 until the
ownership issue is determined. Research determines that the remaining portion
of building #1 is in fact over the property line and an easement had been
granted years ago for this condition to exist.

Comments:
The owner of building #1 and the individual performing the removal acted
in good faith believing that the property line was at the interface of the
two structures. The owner of building #2 refuses to give up the artifact
and further refuses to compensate the people who removed it for their
time and materials used.

Question:
Now what ? The person holding the artifact received it for nothing, no expense
in time, effort, or materials. The people who performed the work have received
nothing for their efforts. Also, the threat of a charge of vadalism against
them is in the air. Could a judgement for the expenses be obtained against
the owner building #2 ? Could a counter charge of vandalism stick ?

			Comments Appreciated and Welcomed,
							Werner B.
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart)
Subject: Re: Skinhead speech protected, Supreme Court says
Keywords: In brightest day, in blackest night
Organization: my opinions only
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 21:47:46 GMT

In article <1992Sep23.194930.19840@Princeton.EDU>
egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:
>In article <19200@smoke.brl.mil> matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt) writes:
>
>>
>>>Only a liberal could think that criticism is equivalent to a cop
>>>throwing you in a jail cell.  What this is really all about is the
>>>liberal effort to get criticism abolished, so that they don't have
>>>to hear their fascist ideas knocked.  [Clayton E. Cramer]
>
>But in venues where the right is in power, it's fair to say that it has
>manifested LESS interest in freedom of speech than these "liberals" of
>whom you speak:

Which speakers are physically prevented from speaking at college
campuses?

>     *  Property owners are ready to trump speech rights with property
>        rights,

You can't use my balcony to give your speeches from, but you're
welcome to stand on any street corner and talk.  You can't use your
freedom of speech to violate my property rights (concerning who is
allowed onto my balcony).

>     *  The twelve years of ReaganBush have seen an increase in savage
>        verbal attacks on liberals,

My heart bleeds.

>        which I've shown

claimed

>        act as a barrier
>        to entry to sensitive souls (and it is macho and chauvinist to
>        restrict speech only to right wingers and the occasional 
>        brave, even foolhardy, liberal such as myself.)

Free speech is available to everybody.  Part of the price of freedom
is having to put up with stuff that pisses you off.  Do you propose we
outlaw any speech that is against liberals?

>     *  The campaign against Frug of Harvard Law has included an
>        offensive "humorous" sketch that hurt her family, character
>        assasination, misrepresentation here on the net (she was
>        killed by an unknown WHITE assailant, guys), and possibly
>        murder (it has not been demonstrated that her unknown assailant
>        was not a crazed right winger or in the pay of the right wing.)

Then again, it's equally likely that she was murdered by a left-winger
in order to create a martyr.  (I don't believe that's what happened,
but I can make ridiculous assertions almost as well as Ed; just not
with a straight face.)

>To find cases where "liberals" have opposed "free speech", the right
>points overseas to Communist countries.

And locally to college campuses.

>  Except insofar as liberals in
>this country verbally defend their views, they are not unfriendly to
>alternative views,

They've been known to "verbally defend their views" by shouting down
invited speakers.

> and it's the conservatives like Rush Limbaugh that
>descend to flamage.

Who makes all the nasty jokes about conservatives, then?

>Who invented "negative campaigning", a foprm of de facto prior restraint
>in that it discourages men and women from seeking office?

Discouraging is not preventing.

>  The
>Republicans.  

References?

Seth		sethb@fid.morgan.com


Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: Teaching Con Law (was: The FDA can't be criminal, can they?)
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 16:41:44 GMT

In article <1992Oct5.232440.21572@panix.com> eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler) writes:

>You could add to this list NYU, where I had the dubious pleasure of
>listening to Norman Dorsen -- a great ACLU president, but a lousy
>professor -- during my entire second year.  At least the entire year
>is compulsory; many schools make only one semester (basically,
>institutional questions and equal protection, from what I understand)
>compulsory.

At Texas, a survey semester of Con Law the first year is compulsory, but
sections vary wildly as to quality. If you were unlucky enough to have Lino
Graglia, you never got much past the Commerce Clause, except to the extent
that you talked a lot about Equal Protection. (Graglia is an outspoken
conservative critic of Brown v. Board of Education, and is famous for his
barely concealed opinion that Marbury was decided the wrong way.)

I was lucky--I had Charles Alan Wright, author of the Federal Courts
hornbook and co-author of the authoritative Wright, Kane, and Miller
treatise on federal procedure. We read a lot of cases and stuck to the
syllabus, and the survey was comprehensive--the only significant section
left out was the Constitutionalization of libel law, which was handled in
the year-long torts class.

Students at Texas then must take at least one more semester of
Constitutional law, chosen from a selection of courses that focus on
particular areas. I chose the First Amendment section, but the Equal
Protection section was also reputed to be quite good.

It should be noted that criminal procedure--basically, the 4th, 5th, 6th,
and 8th Amendments are dealt with in a separate track, for good reason:
they're less tied to "mainstream" Constitutional law and more closely
associated with the range of procedural and administrative issues that
come up in the criminal-justice system. I took those courses too, of
course.



--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
From: rc@depsych.Gwinnett.COM (Richard Carlson)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Fighting Words
Date: 30 Sep 92 11:08:58 GMT

scott@bbx.basis.com (Scott Amspoker) writes:

> In article <R89uRB5w164w@depsych.Gwinnett.COM> rc@depsych.Gwinnett.COM (Richa
> >scott@bbx.basis.com (Scott Amspoker) writes:
> >> [...]
> >> The attacker was prosecuted and dismissed because the jury felt that
> >> the anti-war protester was out of line and inciting anger.  The
> >> whole concept of "fighting words" was beaten to death in local newspapers'
> >> editorial/letters columns.  I don't recall that anyone was able to
> >> define "fighting words" as something other than "unpopular speech" (at
> >> least in the context of this case).
> >
> >Do you think he would have, or should have, gotten off if the
> >anti-war protestor was saying the exact same thing -- same content
> >-- but in a quiet voice and with as few emotion-charged words as
> >possible...
> >[other scenarios deleted]
> 
> I don't think the attacker should have gotten off at all.  Also, for
> what it's worth, the speaker wasn't even addressing the attacker 
> personally.  The attacker was simply in the crowd.

That's been the case with all of the fighting words scenarios
being discussed. None of the attackers have been personally
addressed by what the layperson would think of as "fighting words"
(e.g., "You mama, she give good head!"), it's always been an
unpopular doctrine that was being expressed to a wider audience.
That's why I asked for a legal definition of "face to face."

I don't know if dissing someome's mama is protected speech.

--
Richard Carlson
Internet:              rc@depsych.gwinnett.COM
Bangpath:              {rutgers,ogicse,gatech}!emory!gwinnett!depsych!rc
CompuServe:            76605,470
Voice:                 (404) 881-6877
Newsgroups: misc.legal,rec.arts.books
From: sanelson@stein.u.washington.edu (Sunny Nelson)
Subject: Re: Point of Technicality
Keywords: permissible killing
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 02:23:50 GMT

But Michael, we'll need more than $100 to get started on our missile
project! Perhaps you can try to raise more funds somewhere?
*****************************************************************************
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
From: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Fightin' Words
Date: 5 Oct 92 18:58:28 GMT
Reply-To: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation

In article <5epA02Yu24tq01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com>, tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com 
(Terry Carroll) writes:
> In article <1992Oct1.030323.19621@eff.org>, mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) 
> writes:
> > Convictions based on speech alone? Or speech that actually gave rise to
> > violence (that is, "imminent and likely lawless action," a la
> > Brandenberg)? This is news to me--can you cite some
> > representative cases?
> 
> 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.  Unfortunately, I have some two years of 
> Ohio Reporters scattered all over my home (and they all look alike!), so I 
> don't know if I can find it again.  I'll take a look, and reread it with
> more 
> scrutiny if I can find it, and report back.

I found it, Mike.  State of Ohio v. Semple, 58 Ohio App. 3d 93;  568 N.E.2d 
750 (1989), appeal to Ohio S.Ct. denied (I neglected to get the cite for the 
table entry denying).  It's only a few pages long; the syllabus is "Telling a 
police officer that he is 'probably on the take' constitutes fighting words 
unprotected by the First Amendment and sufficient to support a conviction for 
disorderly conduct under R.C. 2917.11(A)(2)."

Terry Carroll - tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com - 408/992-2152
The opinions presented above are not necessarily those of a sound mind.
From: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Happy Birthday to C.J. Bill
Date: 1 Oct 92 17:21:10 GMT
Reply-To: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation

William Hubbs Rehnquist is 68 today.

Terry Carroll - tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com - 408/992-2152
The opinions presented above are not necessarily those of a sound mind.
From: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Fightin' Words
Date: 29 Sep 92 16:09:05 GMT
Reply-To: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation

In article <1992Sep28.182142.15720@eff.org>, mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) 
writes:
> More or less. "Fighting words" is a vestigial Constitutional doctrine, for
> the most part; Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire continues to be cited in
> Supreme Court caes, but never to *uphold* a fighting-words conviction.

Unfortunately, it continues to be cited in lower or state courts to uphold 
such convictions.

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:17800 alt.politics.correct:5532 soc.college:3987
From: egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Edward G. Nilges)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.politics.correct,soc.college
Subject: Re: the MIT anti-trust case
Date: 28 Sep 92 19:20:27 GMT
Organization: Princeton University
Originator: news@nimaster

In article <1992Sep28.170558.4199@island.COM> guido@island.COM (Guido Marx) writes:
>In article <1992Sep25.150012.6455@Princeton.EDU> egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Edward G. Nilges) writes:
>
>Universities aren't engaged in trade ???  Unless I am mistaken, most
>universities allow people to exchange money (aka tuition) for 
>services (aka education).  That sounds like TRADE to me.  In fact,
>I don't know how else you could describe what they do. 

Try "education."  Putting universities in the same category (1)
discourages the notion of giving scholarships to anyone and (2) places
the student in the cutomer's position.  In real trade and real business,
the customer is always right (and in cases of doubt refer back to the
first rule.)  In education, the "customer" isn't always right.
Universities are engaged in a separate and distinct category of activity
from trade.
Newsgroups: misc.legal,soc.college,alt.politics.correct
From: gwangung@byron.u.washington.edu (Roger Tang)
Subject: Re: the MIT anti-trust case
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 21:10:27 GMT

In article <LEE.92Sep30090630@ace.npac.syr.edu> lee@ace.npac.syr.edu (Lee C. Brink) writes:
>In <07cM02bT243G01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll) writes:
>Universities are non-profit institutions (like the Red Cross).
>    Universities are considered non-profit for tax purposes.  If a university
>    doesn't make a profit, pray tell how can it afford new equipment, 
>    renovations, new buildings, etc.?  Donations?  Not in that volume.

	Depends.  But they do occur.

>Both finance their activities partly out of donations, 
>    Donations are for specific causes: New wings, specific pieces of
>    equipment, and the like.  Unsolicited donations are rarely
>    generic.  Solicited donations are general donations, but at least
>    here at SU, the amount has dropped drastically.

	I think you have that backwards.
-- 
	"I got into theatre originally to pick up girls. Unfortunately, all I
found were women..."
e-mail:  gwangung@milton.u.washington.edu
Newsgroups: misc.legal,rec.arts.books
From: djdaneh@pbhyc.PacBell.COM (Dan'l DanehyOakes)
Subject: Re: Point of Technicality
Reply-To: djdaneh@PacBell.COM (Dan'l DanehyOakes)
Organization: Pacific * Bell, San Ramon, CA
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 19:04:18 GMT


ol' M. Zeleny writes:

>Now, in my capacity as a private citizen endowed with a moral sense, I am
>hereby putting up a reward of US $100, NOT for the morally unexceptionable,
>and indeed commendable action of killing the said ayatollas transgressing
>against the Fundamental Law of Nature (cf. Locke, loc. cit.), but for
>bringing an end to the fatwa BY WHATEVER MEANS NECESSARY.  Naturally, none
>of the parties responsible for or connected with maintaining the fatwa are
>eligible to receive the reward.

Ummm.  You might just want to modify this a bit more -- as it stands, some
good Shi'ite fanatic could off Rushdie, claim the bounty on him -- and then
claim *your* reward also, since killing Rushdie clearly ends the fatwa. . .


		Houston, Houston, do you read? I'd mortgage half my soul
		If I could see it one more time - Apollo, Ground Control
		The Devil take the men who killed the dream that died too soon
		For all my dreams are haunted by a fire on the Moon.
			-- Visual Purple

Dan'l Danehy-Oakes, Net.Roach
My opinions do NOT represent Pacific Bell,
Professional Development, or anyone else.
But I'm willing to share.
Newsgroups: misc.legal