HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Subject: [rec.radio.broadcasting]  Obscenity and indecency on tha air
Summary: 1st amendment
Reply-To: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 13:57:30 GMT

A repost from rec.radio.broadcasting:

From: WEOS-FM <BLACK%HWS1%HWS.bitnet@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU>
Subject:  Obscenity and indecency on tha air
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 21:20:56 GMT

A recent posting concerned a reply to a question on obscenity on the air.
While obscenity is prohibited, indecency in "safe harbored" to late hours
of the night, where children are not in the audience. I could be setting off
a whole bunch of discussions on this, but at least at the moment,
indecentlangua language is protected by the constituion, but regulated as to when it can be on the air.

This means "The Seven Words" plus any references to sexual or excretory organs
or functions in a patently offensive manner, must be restricted to after
10PM.

The FCC wanted to make it midnight, but that is when the court fights and co
congress started to try to make a 24 hour ban. Obscenity (check the properion
meaning) is always illegal. For example, the word F#*K is ok to say during the
safe harbor. However, it is still a good idea to play a disclaimer and it is
good policy to make sure that your staff announcers do not cross the line and
use indecency. It may be OK for George Carlin or Public Enemy to use indecent
language, but not local announcers. Just because you have the right to say
some thing does not mean you should.

Again, if you staty in the safe harbor, you will probably be ok. The FCC is
currently going after incidents outside that, including the recent Justice
Department action against WLUP. The fines have also increased.
Sorry for the soapbox. I wanted to correct a posting and also solicit
broadcast responsibility.

Mike Black
General Manager, WEOS(FM)
Geneva, NY 14456

Note, we are an NPR station but feature modern music, including rap, metal,
and alternative rock. We play the balancing act or try to between legal and
creative programming.

[eek eek]

--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.society.civil-liberty
From: feustel@netcom.com (David Feustel)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution
Subject: Re: Is Civil Seizure/Forfeiture Constitutional?
Date: 15 Sep 92 00:38:40 GMT
Organization: DAFCO: OS/2 Software Support & Consulting

Apparently the Supreme Court doesn't feel that civil suits are
included. If they did, civil forfeiture would never be permitted.
-- 
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.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.society.civil-liberty,talk.politics.drugs,alt.drugs
From: zane@ddsw1.mcs.com (Sameer Parekh)
Subject: Re: [alt.activism et al] Feedback to the Bill of Rights status report
Organization: ddsw1.MCS.COM Contributor, Chicago, IL
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 02:08:07 GMT

In article <1992Sep12.221345.1001@nntp.hut.fi> jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala) writes:
>	What is needed is a coalition position which supports the
>restoration of ALL rights. A united front by the right wing gun advocates
>and the left wing (and right, since many are there as well) anti WoD
>advocates might actually do SOMETHING to restore a bit of personal freedom
>in this country. 
	Sounds like the libertarians to me.  I heard somewhere that there
are 70 libertarian organizations worldwide.
-- 
Sameer_Parekh zane@ddsw1.MCS.COM zane@infopls.chi.il.us
PFA related mail to pfa@ddsw1.MCS.COM   | Specialization is for insects
Anonymous mail to ap.2363@cupid.sai.com |   - Robert A. Heinlein
Mon Sep 14 20:24:07 1992 US Debt: $4,058,959,835,457 Per capita: $15,893
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: rfb@CS.CMU.EDU (Rick Busdiecker)
Subject: Re: Seperation of Church & State
Originator: rfb@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University
	<athos-110992103505@athos.apple.com>
	<1992Sep11.203622.49283@watson.ibm.com> <6337@transfer.stratus.com>
	<RFB.92Sep14151027@H.cs.cmu.edu> <1992Sep14.233236.10008@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 17:23:49 GMT

In article <1992Sep14.233236.10008@m.cs.uiuc.edu> kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
   rfb@CS.CMU.EDU (Rick Busdiecker) writes:
   [...]
   >  (2) kids at school are not, in general, protected by the Bill of
   >      Rights.  Consider that unannounced searches without probabloy
   >      cause, warrants, or anything else have been upheld by various
   >      courts.
   [...]

   I'd say the courts sometimes say the Bill of Rights protects
   schoolchildren and sometimes they say it doesn't. I don't think there
   is a general rule.

That is all that I meant to say by stating, that kids at school are
not, in general, protected.  I apologize if my meaning was not clear.

Furthermore, I meant that only in the practical sense.  Whether kids
at school *should* be protected is another issue entirely.
-- 
Rick Busdiecker <rfb+@cs.cmu.edu>
``Beware of programmers carrying screwdrivers''
				- Unknown
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.society.civil-liberty
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: [misc.legal] Re: Jury Nullification (was: Killing in defense of possessions?)
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 23:28:04 GMT

>> The "right" to nullify is a side effect.  Whether it is a feature or a bug
>> is uncertain.

>I could read this in two ways:  either 'whether it is good or bad is
>uncertain' or 'whether it was intended or not is uncertain'.  My
>question is about the latter interpretation.  It is clear that the
>founders intended nullification to be possible, yes?

It's fairly clear some of them (such as pro-government Federalists
like John Jay) specifically mentioned the concept and considered it
a protection against unjust laws.


>> But, the characterization of a juror as a "nullification
>> believer" is, respectfully, to gild the truth:  A juror who nullifies
>> is, by definition, a juror who breaks her oath; a liar.

Why? All a juror does, is state the accused is not guilty of a crime.
Clearly, if the juror does not consider the charge to be a crime, 
he cannot honestly consider the accused "guilty" of it.

                                                  Frank Crary
                                                  CU Boulder

Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: bcr@cernapo.cern.ch (Bill Riemers)
Subject: Re: Is Civil Seizure/Forfeiture Constitutional?
Organization: CERN, European Research Center for High Energy Physics
	<laqtaoINNme9@skat.usc.edu> <BuBJJz.4Br@rice.edu>
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 20:27:10 GMT

In article <BuBJJz.4Br@rice.edu> ervan@rice.edu (Ervan Darnell) writes:

>   On 60 Minutes a couple of weeks ago they had someone from the
>   DEA (I think that was the right organization) defending the
>   practice of seizing money of individuals who fit the following
>   profile:
>   1) purchase airline tickets with cash
>   2) do not check any bags
>   3) have short stays

I guess I have one more strike against me...  I frequently
travel to foriegn countries this way...
  1) If you can pay in cash great.  It is one less record to
     have to worry about finding if the IRS summons you sometime.
     (The average person should expect to be audited one out of
     every ten years regardless of how honest you are.)
  2) Packing is too much of a bother, and luggage usually gets
     lost.  So just grab a few things for carry-on
  3) You can only enjoy visiting the same place so long...
What is worse, I have no idea what the average person can
do to protest these type of things...  (That will actually make
a difference.)

                    Bill
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution
Subject: Re: 27th Amendment
Date: 12 Sep 92 20:28:29 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder

In article <1992Sep11.203855.29822@m.cs.uiuc.edu> kadie@dante.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>Many of the founders wanted the First Amendment to apply to the
>States. As originally written by Madison it read "No state shall
>violate the equal rights of conscience, or the freedom of the press,
>or the trail by jury in criminal cases." Madison called this "the most
>valuable amendment on the list" and it passed by the House (where he
>was a member) by the required two-thirds.

The wording was changed to "Congress shall..." in the House, at the
proposal of Mr. Livermore.

                                                  Frank Crary
                                                  CU Boulder
Newsgroups: alt.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: 1st amendment exceptions, was: U.S. Bill of Rights today
Reply-To: 70465.203@compuserve.com
Organization: SCN Research/Qic Laboratories of Tigard, Oregon.
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 04:48:40 GMT

davidsen@ariel.crd.GE.COM (william E Davidsen) writes:


>  People seem to have a hard time accepting that the right of free
>speech does not guarantee access to listeners.

>Examples:
> 1. An editor does not have to print a letter to the editor. A publisher
>does not have to publish your book, a TV station does not have to give
>you free air time. If they refuse to sell you access at the same rates
>as anyone else, that's censorship.

No. If they refuse to sell you space that's editorial privilege. It's
also freedom of the press. If *you* attempt to tell them that they 
*must* print it, *that* is violating their freedom of the press.

Likewise, if you attempt to tell them that they *cannot* publish someone
else's material, that is censorship.

But refusing to print your material isn't. This is a *very* important point.

-- 
Leonard Erickson		      leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com
CIS: [70465,203]			 70465.203@compuserve.com
FIDO:   1:105/51	 Leonard.Erickson@f51.n105.z1.fidonet.org
(The CIS & Fido addresses are preferred)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Seperation of Church & State
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 15:46:08 GMT


RE: "Congress shall make no law respecting an established religion..."

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

[...]
>It isn't at all clear that this is a "privilage or immunity" of 
>citizens of the United States. Nor is it clear the framers of the
>Fourteenth Amendment intended it to have this effect: Was there
>any mention of the subject during the debates over the Amendment?
[...]

Likewise, I wonder if they mentioned freedom of speech.

- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter)
Subject: Re: U.S. Bill of Rights today (was alt.activism et al: Who's free'er)
Organization: Michigan Technological University
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 23:40:31 GMT

In article <1992Sep12.002603.27825@nntp.hut.fi>, jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala) writes:

> Or I could argue that since the federal government has the power to
> raise taxes, it can set taxes at 150 percent and jail everyone who
> doesn't pay the taxes.

They're working on this...

> Or I could argue that since the federal government has control over
> highway money and some other money going to states, it could legally
> blackmail the states to pass any laws it wants them to pass.

I see you've heard about this...  Yes they have pulled this trick.
I think the States should refuse to allow federal gas taxes be laid
or collected, and fix the roads themselves.

> Or I could argue that since the constitution doesn't specifically
> prohibition the federal government from making laws against saying
> "Zaphod Beeblebrox", a law passing a death penalty for saying "Zaphod
> Beeblebrox" would be perfectly constitutional.

This is the real problem most folks have (not referring to you, Jyrki);
They haven't read the US Constitution, and noticed that:

	                    Amendment X [1791]

	     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.

Using this Amendment, I claim that EVERY law passed by the Federal
government, not directly in support of the ENUMERATED powers of
the Federal government, is unConstitutional.

-- 
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.politics.usa.constitution
From: rfb@CS.CMU.EDU (Rick Busdiecker)
Subject: Re: U.S. Bill of Rights today (was alt.activism et al: Who's free'er)
Originator: rfb@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University
	<DLB.92Sep9094205@fanny.wash.inmet.com> <RFB.92Sep9165414@H.cs.cmu.edu>
	<1992Sep11.145114.14433@sdc.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 15:57:29 GMT

In article <1992Sep11.145114.14433@sdc.com> kenk@sdc.com (Ken Konecki) writes:
   In article <RFB.92Sep9165414@H.cs.cmu.edu> rfb@CS.CMU.EDU (Rick Busdiecker) writes:
   >Despite being someone who is generally in favor of limiting the
   >number of guns floating about in society, I have to agree with
   >David on this.  Despite the lead-in, [the Second Amendment]
   >clearly states that ``the right of the people to keep and bear
   >arms, shall not be infringed.''  In my mind, a Constitutional
   >Amendment is required for gun control legislation to be
   >legitimate.

   Uh, not quite.  You'd be a little more accurate if you said "a
   Constitutional Amendment is required for federal gun control
   legislation to be legitimate".  The Constitution and its amendments
   only apply to the federal government.  At least, they were only
   intended to.

Not according to the Constitution.  Some of what the Constitution
speaks to is clearly limited to the federal government, and other
things are clearly intended to extend to all levels of government.
The Second Amendment is worded in more general terms than, for
example, the First Amendment.  It does not limit the scope to the
federal government.

   In addition, Congress can (and has), through its powers to regulate
   commerce and raise taxes, pass legislation that for all practical
   purposes, is gun control legislation.  What makes them
   constitutional is that nobody's rights are being infringed.  Making
   it hard to buy something is quite a bit different (at least from a
   legal point of view) than prohibiting buying it.

But rights really are being infringed.  While I would not choose to do
so, by the Second Amendment, I should have the legal right to keep and
bear the arms necessary to, for example, defend the people of the
country against the government of the country should the need arise.
The Second Amendment does not merely state that people may not be
prohibited from buying some kinds of arms, it states that the right
of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.  Making
it hard to buy something is an infringment.
-- 
Rick Busdiecker <rfb+@cs.cmu.edu>
``Beware of programmers carrying screwdrivers''
				- Unknown
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: zane@ddsw1.mcs.com (Sameer Parekh)
Subject: Re: Is Civil Seizure/Forfeiture Constitutional?
Organization: ddsw1.MCS.COM Contributor, Chicago, IL
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 02:12:50 GMT

In article <b6rn=bj.feustel@netcom.com> feustel@netcom.com (David Feustel) writes:
>Is civil seizure as practiced by the DEA in drug-related cases
>constitutional? How about civil seizure when no charges are filed
>against people?
>-- 
>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.

	Let's have a poll.. what do you think Dave thinks? :-)
	Anyway, I say no. It is rather obvious. Nowhere in the 4th amendment
does it limit these protections only to "criminal" cases.

-- 
Sameer_Parekh zane@ddsw1.MCS.COM zane@infopls.chi.il.us
PFA related mail to pfa@ddsw1.MCS.COM   | Specialization is for insects
Anonymous mail to ap.2363@cupid.sai.com |   - Robert A. Heinlein
Thu Sep 10 20:26:59 1992 US Debt: $4,054,077,940,567 Per capita: $15,876
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: rjc@devo.unify.com (Ronald Cole)
Subject: Re: Seperation of Church & State
Organization: Unify Corporation, Sacramento, California
Distribution: usa
Date: 11 Sep 92 10:24:53

In article <RFB.92Sep10145449@H.cs.cmu.edu> rfb@CS.CMU.EDU (Rick Busdiecker) writes:
   In article <1992Sep9.230526.1014@qualcomm.com> Qualcomm.Com. (DROBINSON @QUALCOMM.COM) writes:

      I need some information please. Does anyone know the answer to this question?
      Is the term "seperation of church and state" found in the Constitution of the
      United States? Please advise as to where it is found!

   I used grep(1) on my on-line Constitution to determine that the word
   church does not appear in the Constitution, therefor it should be safe
   to assume that the phase `seperation of church and state' does not
   appear in the Constitution.

I believe this phrase reared it's ugly head in the court decision that
outlawed prayer in public schools.  I also believe this "doctrine" is
less than 50 years old and is a 180 degree about face from previous
decisions.  It's been a *long* while since I researched the cases.

--
Ronald Cole           +----------------------+  internet: rjc@unify.com
Software Engineer II  | This space for rent. |  uucp:     uunet!unify!rjc
Unify Corporation     +----------------------+  voice:    +1 916 928 6238
          "THE BILL OF RIGHTS --- Void where prohibited by law"
From: rickertj@athena.cas.vanderbilt.edu (John Rickert)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution
Subject: Re: Separation of church and state
Date: 11 Sep 92 01:51:14 GMT
Organization: Vanderbilt University Mathematics Department



    Please hold the flames if this post seems otiose -- I noticed that
someone posted the full text of the Constitution.  But for people who
are interested in this thread, a few comments.

    The phrase "separation of church and state" is not in the Constitution.
It is often cited, however, because it occurs in a private letter which
Thomas Jefferson wrote.  (For the record, Jefferson wasn't at the
Constitutional Convention, and he had no part in drafting the First
Amendment.)

    What _does_ occur in the Constitution is the clause, "Congress shall
make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the
free exercise thereof."

    This really seems different to me in language and intent from the
usual "separation of church and state" platitude.  For example, it says
_Congress_.  It doesn't say anything about what state legislatures may
or may not do.  And in light of the 10th Amendment, it seems to me that
religion was meant to be left to the states, the way that intra-state
commerce, marriage, and drinking laws are, for example.

    Now, a lot of people out there might not like the possibility of
a state established religion, but as far as I can tell, that question
is left Constitutionally open.  I guess my point is, it bothers me when
people re-interpret the Constitution if it allows for possibilities they
don't like.  (No, I'm not pointing fingers.  Not yet, anyway.  ;-) )



John Rickert				    Where laws are not sovereign,
rickertj@athena.cas.vanderbilt.edu	    demagogues arise.
						--Aristotle, Politics.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Is Civil Seizure/Forfeiture Constitutional?
Reply-To: 70465.203@compuserve.com
Organization: SCN Research/Qic Laboratories of Tigard, Oregon.
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 07:11:05 GMT

feustel@netcom.com (David Feustel) writes:

>The historical record of debate over the ratification makes clear that
>the top two issues concerning the federal governement were "no
>standing armies" and "trial by jury for both civil and criminal
>cases".
>"Trial by jury for civil cases didn't make it into the Constitution
>and now we see that they were only too right to be concerned about
>this omission.

I suggest that you take another look. The 7th amendment gives you
trial by jury for "suits at common law, where the value in controversy
shall exceed twenty dollars". 


-- 
Leonard Erickson		      leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com
CIS: [70465,203]			 70465.203@compuserve.com
FIDO:   1:105/51	 Leonard.Erickson@f51.n105.z1.fidonet.org
(The CIS & Fido addresses are preferred)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: delisle@eskimo.celestial.com (Ben Delisle)
Subject: Re: Constitutional Right to Wear Headphone?
Organization: -> ESKIMO NORTH (206) For-Ever <-
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 08:05:38 GMT

	Well the question is, was the work you were doing on your
own time or on their dime? Are you a government employee or contractor
and were you doing a job for them at the time they told you to remove
your headphones?

	An employer can dictate when he is paying you to do a job
for them what you may or may not wear.	
	Note - in this state it is illegal to drive on the roads with
headphones, a safety issue.

--
 +-(c)--------------------------+   Freedom is to the soul is what  
 | delisle@eskimo.celestial.com |   fresh air is to the lungs, and  
 +------------------------------+   knowledge is to the mind.  
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: rjc@devo.unify.com (Ronald Cole)
Subject: Re: Is Civil Seizure/Forfeiture Constitutiona
Organization: Unify Corporation, Sacramento, California
Date: 13 Sep 92 11:39:08

In article <BuFMyL.Kq3@wrs.com> gak@wrs.com (Richard Stueven) writes:
   In article 15189@anasazi.com, john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore) writes:
   >In article <RJC.92Sep10123907@devo.unify.com> rjc@devo.unify.com (Ronald Cole) writes:
   >]What is missing is the requirement that a probable cause seizure be
   >]followed up by a timely filing of charges.
   >
   >What is also missing is a requirement that the seized assets be
   >returned, intact, with COLA and interest added in, when the individual
   >is found not guilty or when charges are not filed in a reasonable time.

   What I don't understand is how you can justify them taking anything at
   all before a conviction.

See "Rules of Evidence".  I don't have a problem with seizing
evidence, provided charges are filed timely and the g-men don't forget
who still *owns* the seized evidence if a guilty verdict is not
returned by a jury.

--
Ronald Cole           +----------------------+  internet: rjc@unify.com
Software Engineer II  | This space for rent. |  uucp:     uunet!unify!rjc
Unify Corporation     +----------------------+  voice:    +1 916 928 6238
          "THE BILL OF RIGHTS --- Void where prohibited by law"