HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gummitch@techbook.com (Jeff Frane)
Subject: Re: Sinead O'Connor's freedom of speech
Keywords: Those croppies who will not lie down
Organization: TECHbooks of Beaverton Oregon - Public Access Unix
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 23:40:32 GMT

sauron@femto.engr.mun.ca (Patrick Ryan) writes:

>gummitch@techbook.com (Jeff Frane) writes:

>>[...] seems to me she refused to do a previous SNL
>>because of the other guest (Andrew Dice Clay).  The great thing about
>>her is that she *truly* refuses to make the usual pop star compromises
>>on her integrity.

>Integrity?  You think integrity is taking a stand against another
>person, describing him as bigoted and racist, then turning around and
>condemning a person on the basis of religion?  She's just another
>double-standard wielding feminist - she's right to prejudge, I'm scum to
>do so.  (Especially when I'm prejudging her, right?)

It may surprise you, but it's possible to judge someone in power -- like
the Pope -- without condemning them purely on the basis of "religion".
One can, in fact, attack the entire Roman Catholic church *hierarchy*
without once entering into an attack on their religion -- unless, of
course, they use their "religion" to defend their actions.

Sinead O'Connor comes from Ireland, which country has a long history of
abuse of women couched in "religious" clothing.  She has good reason to
feel anger at the Church -- or at least those factions in the Church
that have oppressed people in Ireland and Latin America.

Saying that she "pre-judges" implies she knows nothing about the Pope
(who's been in power long enough to have a judgeable record) or Church
history.  This is clearly a ridiculous assumption.

Jeff Frane

-- 
gummitch@techbook.COM  Public Access UNIX at (503) 220-0636 (1200/2400) 


Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: markm@wri.com
Subject: auto insurance question
Reply-To: markm@wri.com
Organization: Wolfram Research, Inc.
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 20:18:18 GMT



I have a question I was hoping some of you might be able to help me with.  To  
set things up, the value of my car doesn't justify the cost of comprehensive  
and collision coverage on my policy.  As a result, I have liability only.  It's  
well above the miniscule limits required by the State, but it's still only  
liability coverage.  Now the question:

What happens if my car causes damage while I'm not operating it?

For example:  What if I park my car in a rented garage and a faulty electrical  
component under the hood causes the thing to ignite, destroying not only the  
car, but the garage it is in and any other contents of the garage. 

	Who pays?

Or:  I park the car on a hill, but it slips out of gear and rolls into another  
car, severely damaging the front grill and headlights.

	Who pays?

Or:  Some kids are playing by the car which is parked on the street.  One of  
them runs into the edge of the bumper, opening up a 4-inch gash in his leg  
which requires stitches, etc.

	Who pays?

Nothing like this has happened...I'm jsut curious.

--Mark

Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: gordon@sneaky.lonestar.org (Gordon Burditt)
Subject: Re: Carjacking as a federal offense
Organization: Gordon Burditt
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 09:42:39 GMT

>"2119.  Carjacking
>  "(a) Whoever, by force and violence, or by intimidation, takes or
>attempts to take a motor vehicle, that has been transported, shipped, or
>received in interstate or foreign commerce, from the person or presence
>of another,  shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned not more than
>15 years, or both."

My car is stolen.  I spot the thief driving the car.  I recognize
him as a local high-school student.  I confront him as he drives
the car to his home, and threaten to call the police and his father
if he doesn't give back my car.  He gives in.  I take the car.
I have committed carjacking.

It also seems like there is a lot of carjacking going on when there
are husband/wife, parent/teenager, or teenager/teenager disagreements
over who gets to use the car.

					Gordon L. Burditt
					sneaky.lonestar.org!gordon
(internet forwarder seems to be having trouble; You may have to
use sneaky.uucp!gordon).
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.folklore.urban
From: billmcc@seanews.akita.com (Bill McCormick)
Subject: Re: Presidential Succession History
Organization: SEANEWS - Seattle Public Access News & Mail
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 07:02:26 GMT

In article <fbRz02zH250w01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll) writes:
>In article <1992Oct14.051945.12035@PA.dec.com>, 
>Source: 3 USC 19. 

Wasn't the Congressional Record once 3-sided?

Bill
-- 
SEANEWS  []  Seattle News + Mail  []  Public Access  []  +1 206 937 9529
E-mail for PGP key.   MD5 (no sigs) is: 8e253e95133365a292261c7d0da58bcb
Newsgroups: misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,k12.teacher.chat
From: hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin)
Subject: Re: AFT Endorses Model Child Labor Law
Organization: Purdue University Statistics Department
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 14:25:19 GMT

In article <1992Oct15.235058.3071@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> ndallen@nyx.cs.du.edu (Nigel Allen) writes:

>Here is a press release from the American Federation of Teachers.

> AFT Endorses Model Child Labor Law
> To: National Desk
> Contact: Ellen Shearer of the American Federation of Teachers,
>          202-879-4458

>   WASHINGTON, Oct. 14  -- Gregory Humphrey, director of the 
>American Federation of Teachers' Legislation Department, said
>today the Child Labor Coalition's new model child labor law is a
>"beacon that points the way toward ensuring that those of our youth
>who must work don't forego educational opportunities."
>   Humphrey, speaking at a news conference announcing the new legal
>model for states, said, "The AFT has been active for years in pushing
>to end child labor abuses.  We believe the principal job of our
>nation's children should be their education.  But those who must work
>should be guaranteed conditions that further their education and are
>safe and healthful."

			....................

The AFT is one of the forces keeping all children from getting a 
reasonable education.  They, among with all others who advocate all
children of a given age learning the same thing, and not even seeing
that anybody learns it, are the problem, not the solution.

The only one of these groups I read regularly is misc.legal.

-- 
Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399
Phone: (317)494-6054
hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Internet, bitnet)  
{purdue,pur-ee}!pop.stat!hrubin(UUCP)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,bit.listserv.infonets
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: On-line Legal: ABA/net
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 20:18:39 GMT

In article <uX9ksB4w165w@depsych.Gwinnett.COM> rc@depsych.Gwinnett.COM (Richard Carlson) writes:

>What would cause some lawyers to like the service and others to
>not like it?

I disliked the user interface.


--Mike



-- 
Mike Godwin,    |"I can solve this Orient Express thing without
mnemonic@eff.org| breaking a sweat. It's that simple."
(617) 864-0665  | 
EFF, Cambridge  |                           --Hercule Perot
Xref: sparky misc.legal:18647 rec.arts.books:18290
From: hornpete@uctvax.uct.ac.za (Peter Horn)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,rec.arts.books
Subject: Re: Anti-Arab racism on the net
Date: 14 Oct 92 16:51:31 GMT
Article-I.D.: uctvax.1992Oct14.145131.203110
Organization: University of Cape Town

In article <1992Oct8.172754.26248@blaze.cs.jhu.edu>, ghouse@gauss.cs.jhu.edu (Mujtaba Ghouse) writes:
> dave@frackit.UUCP (Dave Ratcliffe) writes:
>> In article <1992Sep30.040641.25843@news.columbia.edu>, ia4@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Imran Anwar) writes:
> a) Someone asked why no Islamic organizations condemned the fatwa against
>    Rushdie: several did, such as ISNA (the Islamic Society of North America),
>    and a conference of 'ulema (Islamic scholars) that was held in Saudi 
>    around that time.  However, these opinions were not regarded as newsworthy
>    by the media in general (although I did see a representative of ISNA on
>    MacNeil/Lehrer) so most people remained unaware of them.
> 
> b) while it is impossible to know whether Rushdie intended TSV to be offensive,
>    there is at least one place in the text that implies he knew it would
>    be: the film of Gibreel's dream "hit every possible reef of religious 
>    opposition" (this may not be an exact quote as it's from memory), 
> 
> peace
> 
> -Mujtaba Ghouse
> "Somewhere else, the tea is getting cold."

a) If this indeed it not Islamic, as I always suspected, then I do not
see why the wide Islamic world has not protested much more vigorously.
b) The freedom of speech demands that even views offensive to mine
are given a free hearing. Threanting a person with death is not a free
hearing.
Anyone who supports this puts himself in the camp of rabid bigots.

Stop the war on writers!
Peter Horn
-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Horn 
German Department, UCT 
43 Trevor Road, Lansdowne 7764, Cape, Republic of  South Africa . 
Phone Home ZA-(021)696-1983		e-Mail: HORNPETE@UCTVAX.UCT.AC.ZA 
      Work ZA-(021)650-2936		Fax ZA-(021) 650-3726 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Horn, Walking through our sleep (Poems), Ravan Press 1974
Peter Horn, Poems 1964-1989, Ravan Press 1991
Peter Horn, An Axe in the Ice (Poems), COSAW Publishing House 
forthcoming September/October 1992
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ravan Press, P.O.Box 31134, Braamfontein 2017, Republic of South Africa
COSAW Publishing House, P.O.Box 421007, Fordsburg 2033, Republic of 
South Africa.
USA: Ohio University Press Fax (614) 593-4536
Britain: Central Books, Fax (71) 378-1811
Australia: New Era Books, Fax (02) 596-0045
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: gregb@netlink.cts.com (Greg Beron)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: JD != "lawyer" Question about the Bar
Date: 15 Oct 92 14:48:10 GMT
Organization: NetLink Online Communications, San Diego CA

markr@mot.com (Mark) writes:

> Question:
> 
> Can a person take the bar exam (or in which states can one do this) without
> having a JD ?  (i.e. without having attended law school)
> 
> Mark
> 

Here in California it is possible to take the bar exam without having
gone to law school.  However, I suspect that is part of the reason the
exam is so expensive ($500+) and the pass rate for applicants who didn't
attend law school is in the single-digit range.
-Greg (Waiting for results)

--                    
INTERNET:  gregb@netlink.cts.com (Greg Beron)
UUCP:   ...!ryptyde!netlink!gregb
NetLink Online Communications * Public Access in San Diego, CA (619) 453-1115
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: cthorne@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Charles E Thorne)
Subject: School vouchers
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 16:06:53 GMT

	School voucher questions

I tried to respond to the posting but my system rejected it, so I'm
sending this as a fresh posting.

Although the previous poster questions the legality of a federal voucher
system and apparently previous massive increases of federal school
funding, I'm not sure that will be a viable solution at the present time.

One of the Reagan administrations mandate from the people was to get the
Federal government out of areas where they were ineffective or unnecessary.
School funding is one of those.

One of the problems in public schools is that there are thousands of local
school districts with local funding and local ideas of how to solve their
problems.  The disparity of the local funding is very severe in many instances.
To a large extent, the teacher unions have been able to over power the local
systems and receive increases in pay, with little increase in success in
solving problems.

The states have increased school funding, but have done little to solve the
problem of increasing the output of the schools.  For the Federal government
to increase their funding would probably not solve the problem either.

The school voucher program is designed to put some market competitiveness into
the school system.  If someone could start a private school, which would 
receive funding via the voucher system, they would succeed if they provide a
better "product" than public education.  Parents would have the choice to
send their children to the better school, and the poor public schools should
improve or "dry up".

The problem of the church-state issue is a real one; but if the church run
schools provide at least the same minimum amount of education as the public
schools, I see no reason why they should not receive public funds for this
service.  If they, in addition, were providing religious education, at 
private expense and the parents didn't object, this is not a conflict in my
opinion.

We spend more on education than the Japanese, although their school day and
year are both longer and their productive capabilities are also allegedly
better.  In this day of continued global competition, our education systems
need to improve, and the voucher system is an attempt to do that without
increasing the costs and only increasing salaries without any improved
performance.

Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter)
Subject: Re: Term Limits are Constitutional, Study Shows
Organization: Michigan Technological University
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 23:20:47 GMT

In article <1992Oct9.143322.13896@midway.uchicago.edu>,
thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Citecheck Hell) writes:

> In article <1992Oct8.233116.8725@island.COM> guido@island.COM
> (Guido Marx) writes:
> >How about going to the horse's mouth and seeing what the Constitution
> >actually says?  
> >===========================
> >                                 ARTICLE I
> >...
> >1.  The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every
>[...]
> >============================
> >
> >Now, I'm not an attorney, but it appears to me that under our Constitution,
> >any state can enact term limits simply by imposing them on "the most numerous
> >branch of the State Legislature".  This assumes of course, that their own
> >State Constitution would allow such limits.  Am I missing something here ?
> 
> I'm not an attorney, either, but "electors" is referring to the voting
> population, not the candidates for election.  The only requirement for
> membership is a negative one -- no-one under 25, no-one not a citizen
> for at least seven years, no-one not an inhabitant of the state from which
> she was chosen.  This cuts either way.

Actually, Article I, Sec 5:

    "Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns, and
                             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
     Qualifications of its own Members, and a Majority of each
     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
     shall constitute a Quorum to do business; ...."

This seems to imply that Congress could set term limits on themselves.
Now the question is whether this is a power "delegated to the United
States." (as opposed to delegated to Congress...)

    "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution,
     nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States
     respectively, or to the people."

The power to limit terms is not mentioned in Article I, Sec 10 ("No
State shall..."), so it's seems perfectly reasonable to expect that
the individual States may also set term limits on *their* individual
Representatives and Senators in Congress.

> The Articles of Confederation aren't particularly useful in determining
> any of this -- as Terry posted, the role of representatives was more

Ummm... He posted a section from the Constitution, not the Articles of
Confederation.

> to be a caucus member than anything else.  Each state only had one vote.

-- 
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
Xref: sparky misc.legal:18283 rec.arts.books:17917
From: wojdylo@maths.uwa.oz.au (John Wojdylo)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,rec.arts.books
Subject: Re: Point of Technicality
Date: 8 Oct 1992 08:36:24 GMT
Organization: The University of Westrn Australia
NNTP-Posting-Host: madvax.maths.uwa.oz.au
Keywords: permissible killing

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


>mikhail 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.  Furthermore, I call upon all like-minded
>individuals to follow my example.  If the response should warrant it, I am
>prepared to open a trust account for the reward funds.

>Response:

>	Are the moral principles and the institutions  that defend them well
>served by behaving in ways equally inconsistent with them?  By inspiring people
>to become hired killers it would seem that you're violating the same "Fundamental
>Law Of Nature" you claim to be defending.  Aren't the "means"  equal in importance to 
>the "end" you advocate when viewed from the moral perspective of an advocate
>of human rights? 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.


And your ridiculous decree invites any saboteur to wreak havoc for
petty gains.

Go back to your bathtub, Agent Philby, toy ships are awaiting the
descent of your pompous arse.


>fjc

I.


Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: mab@wdl39.wdl.loral.com (Mark A Biggar)
Subject: Re: Carjacking as a federal offense
Organization: Loral Western Development Labs
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 23:04:20 GMT

In article <a0p402vw25py01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll) writes:
>In article <1992Oct12.154231.8705@athena.mit.edu>, wdstarr@athena.mit.edu 
>(William December Starr) writes:
>> I'm just wondering if anyone knows what excuse the Congress
>> used for having the federal government move into this area.  Did they
>> rule that since some of the atoms that comprise a hijacked automobile
>> have probably crossed state lines sometime in the past, the Interstate
>> Commerce Clause granted federal authority in this area, or what?
>I was wondering the same thing.  Here's the proposed addition to Title 18:
>"2119.  Carjacking
>  "(a) Whoever, by force and violence, or by intimidation, takes or
>attempts to take a motor vehicle, that has been transported, shipped, or
>received in interstate or foreign commerce, from the person or presence
>of another,  shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned not more than
>15 years, or both."

Does this mean that if the car was built at the factory down the street and
I never took it on a trip out of state the law doesn't apply?  I guess if
any part of the car came from out of state, the law does apply.  Then why
is steeling my Japanese TV not a federal crime for the same reason?

--
Mark Biggar
mab@wdl1.wdl.loral.com
From: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Newsgroups: misc.legal.computing
Subject: Re: Who owns the goods????
Date: 13 Oct 92 21:43:37 GMT
Reply-To: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation

In article <1992Oct13.132150.10248@panix.com>, oppedahl@panix.com (Carl 
Oppedahl) writes:
> >Was that the jewelry photographer case?  Did you work with Fred Wilff on 
> >that one?
> 
> Uh ... no, Mercer v. MacLean was a software copyright case.  It is written 
> up at 952 F.2d 769.  I don't recognize the name Wilff in connection with
> that case.

Whoops, I was thinking of the Marco case (Marco v. Accent Publishing, 969 
F.2d 1547 (3rd Cir., 1992).  The name similarity (Marco, Mercer) made me 
merge the two mentally.

Marco dealt with a free-lance photographer who made catalog shots for a 
jewelry company.  Both claimed copyright, the company claiming that Marco was 
an employee.  The district court entered judgment for the jewelry company.  
Fred Wilf (I misspelled before), whom I know only from CompuServe dialogs, 
represented Marcus in the appeal, in which the 3rd Circuit vacated and 
remanded.

Fred's brief, which he sent me when I expressed interest, had a very nice 
discussion of the factors, comparing CCNV and the Restatement of Agency.  I 
think the listing made its way into the court opinion.

I'll look up Mercer, but until then, which side did you have, and did you win?

Terry Carroll - tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com - 408/992-2152
The opinions presented above are not necessarily those of a sound mind.
From: ibacon@uniwa.uwa.edu.au (Ian Bacon)
Newsgroups: misc.legal.computing
Subject: info on Australian Law ?
Date: 14 Oct 1992 17:37:36 +0800
Organization: The University of Westrn Australia
NNTP-Posting-Host: uniwa.uwa.edu.au
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5

Out of general interest and desire to know what the situation is I am
looking for some info on the legal situation in Australia for computer
crime. This includes virus authoring, cracking, phreaking, piracy etc.
Does anyone know of any good publications? Does anyone know of any info
available via AARNET.


Thanks in advance.
From: scjones@thor.sdrc.com (Larry Jones)
Newsgroups: misc.legal.computing
Subject: Re: Who owns the goods????
Date: 7 Oct 92 16:41:29 GMT
Distribution: usa

In article <ld4ijuINNqi5@cash.cs.utexas.edu>, bmich@cs.utexas.edu (Brian Keith Michalk) writes:
> This was strictly contract labor.  I was not an employee, but we did not sign
> a contract as to what would be provided, or who would own the source code.

Without an agreement to the contrary, this is a work-for-hire and they
own it.  You can ask for anything you want, but they have no legal
obligation to supply any additional compensation.
----
Larry Jones, SDRC, 2000 Eastman Dr., Milford, OH  45150-2789  513-576-2070
Domain: lawrence.jones@sdrc.com               IBMMAIL: USSDR7DR at IBMMAIL
Shut up and go get me some aniseptic. -- Calvin