HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: streeter@cs.unca.edu (Tom Streeter)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
Subject: Re: [misc.consumers, et al.]  Waldenbooks fires staff for refusing to sell racist book!
Date: 8 Sep 92 21:35:50 GMT
Organization: University of North Carolina at Asheville

In article <1992Sep8.184052.30911@m.cs.uiuc.edu> kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>[A repost - Carl]
>
>According to a story on today's NPR Morning Edition, Waldenbooks has fired the
>staff of its Georgetown store in Washington, DC for refusing to sell the
>"Joke-A-Date" appointment calendar, which contains racist and demeaning "jokes"
>for each day of 1993.  After hearing some examples in the story of some of the
>"jokes", I agree with the former WB employees that the publication (from St.
>Martins Press, which should know better) would offend a large number of
>bookstore customers.
>
>I have already informed WB that I intend to boycott them until they stop
>selling the book and reinstate the fired employees by posting a message to
>their user services folks in their Walden Computerbooks on-line store in the
>Compu$erve Mall (GO WB), and I urge others to join me.  I also intend to write
>St. Martins Press and tell them I'm boycotting them, too.  The book's author is
>apparently afraid to use his/her real name, since it's listed as "Blanche
>Knott" (ooh, bad pun!).
>

I'm going to write them to make sure they quit selling Swift's "A
Modest Proposal," since it's grossly insensitive to the families of
Irish children who've been victims of cannibalism.


-- 
Tom Streeter                                |   streeter@cs.unca.edu
Dept. of Mass Communication                 |   704-251-6227
University of North Carolina at Asheville   |   Opinions expressed here are
Asheville, NC 28804                         |   mine alone.
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
From: sethg@hal.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Seth Gordon)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.activism,misc.legal
Subject: Yelling "Theater!" in a crowded fire...
Date: 8 Sep 92 03:47:39 GMT
Article-I.D.: mintaka.1992Sep8.034739.22517
Organization: Masochists' Institute of Technology

In article <1992Sep4.125020.27141@gdstech.grumman.com>
 david@gdstech.UUCP (David Nettles) writes:
>We cannot yell "Fire!" in a movie theatre.  Even if fire is the symbol
>of our religious beliefs and we feel that the utterance of such a word
>brings great power, it is still illegal.

A few months ago, some MIT students performed Tom Stoppard's excellent
play _Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead._  One part of the
dialogue went something like this:

    "FIRE!"

    "What?"

    "I was just demonstrating the limits of free speech."

The actors who perpetrated this crime are still at large.

-- 
seth gordon  <sethg@silver.lcs.mit.edu>  the learning center for deaf children
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,talk.religion.misc
From: jamesh@netcom.com (James Hightower)
Subject: Re: Limiting Government's religious speech
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 92 00:58:32 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

NETOPRWA@ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu (Wayne Aiken) writes:

>"In God We Trust" on money was not legally mandated until the mid 1950s,
>although you will find it on some coins as early as the late 1800s.  This
>motto on money, "One Nation under God" in the pledge, and changing the
>national motto from "E Pluribus Unum" to "In God We Trust" are all legacies
>of the 1950s MacCarthy red-scare.  It was a deliberate attempt to
>christianize the entire country in reaction to what they perceived as an
>atheist threat.
> 
>I imagine that the founding fathers, champions of the separation of church
>and state, must have rolled over in their graves several times.
> 
That would be typical. I never looked into it, I just assumed it had been
around for a while. Not only did we get to keep the puritans, but they
mooved into government.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
James Hightower		jamesh@netcom.COM 	...Don't try this at home!
Xref: sparky alt.censorship:7369 soc.culture.african.american:9222 alt.activism:15977 misc.legal:16929
From: jamesh@netcom.com (James Hightower)
Subject: Re: [comp.org.eff.talk] Wanna See Something Really Scary?
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 92 21:27:17 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 


>From: farbrent!ajr3
>Subject: UPDATE: F*** You All UPDATE!
>Date: 14 Sep 92 02:08:50 GMT

>Over the last week, our boards have been attacked
>by messages from two "anonymous" people a/k/a Jeff Spandenberg
>and Hugo Gonzalez. The racist and divisive statements 

>contained in their forged messages created a wave of anger and  
>emotion that echoed throughout the Internet.

>There are some investigators who believe these postings
>were not the results of pranks or impromptu behavior,
>but rather a highly-organized conspiracy to disrupt the community.
> [request for guv'mnt intervention deleted]

Sure it's a conspiracy. Gonzalez and co. are here to provide a reason for
the government to step in and regulate the net. Perhaps unknowingly, 
sweeney@husc3.harvard.edu is a part of the plan. Expect to see an attempted
regulation of the net soonly.
		-- JJH

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
James Hightower		jamesh@netcom.COM 	...Don't try this at home!

Newsgroups: alt.censorship
From: scottm@intime.intime.com (Scott Michel)
Subject: Hate Speech, et. al.
Organization: -- J/24 -- Racers Home for Programmers
Distribution: alt
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1992 03:17:21 GMT


I was going to reply to Joe's message, but do to its length, that'd
be close to impossible without compromising the net's bandwidth.

To respond to Joe's positions:

1) Should hate speech be protected by the constitution?

The Constitution protects the right (those privileges granted by the
social contract) to express political speech, no more, no less. Unless
all speech and expression is considered political speech, it is
possible to limit non-political speech. Freedom of speech as an absolute
cannot and will never exist. Neither is freedom of all expression related
to speech.

Besides, what defines hate speech as an absolute? (I agree with Joe here)

2. Should hate speech be a basis for more severe punishment during the 
commission of another crime?

Since when did speech commit crimes? People do. What people say while
committing a crime should be used as evidence to recreate the environment
in which the crime took place and establishes the intent of the criminal.
Thus, speech affects the outcome of a criminal trial, but is not the sole
basis of sentencing not should it be involved in the sentencing process.

In regards to the "hate speech" of burning a cross, where does the concept
of equating an action with verbal communication come from? (Give me solid
philosophical grounds on this one; I'm interested in replies. Emotive
flames will be shredded and exposed for what they are at the chagrin of
the responder. You were warned.)

3. Should hate expression in forms other than speech or print be protected
(cross-burning, flag-burning, et al).

Ibid. How is an expression equated to speech, albeit that from a classical
Aristotelean point of view, speech is a specific class of expression? Note
that in many instances, class relationships don't run in reverse, such
as a ball is indeed a shape, but a shape isn't a ball.

    Premise A)  All laws prohibiting specific behavior are applied by parties
                who perceive that the behavior exists.
    Premise B)  All hate speech is perceived as such by parties who are
                frightened or angered by the speaker's message.
    ---------------------------------------------------------
    Conclusion  All laws prohibiting hate speech will be applied by
                parties who are frightened or angered by a speaker's
                message.

Reductio ad absurdum?

-scottm
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,talk.religion.misc
From: adamsr@netcom.com (Rick Adams)
Subject: Re: Limiting Government's religious speech
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 92 01:34:48 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Keywords: Trusting God, or Caesar, or your money

Thus spake wcs@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (Bill Stewart 908-949-0705 erebus.att.com!wcs): 

>While the Soviet Union probably never printed it on their money, they did
>print it in their schoolbooks, and made it illegal to teach kids otherwise -
>even your own kids.  Probably not the sort of liberal tolerance you'd like.
>
	While here its against the law for a Mormon to teach a child that
polygamy is a part of their religion (in re Black, 350 US 923 (1955)), for a
teacher in a religious school to teach that as an aspect of the Mormon
religion (Davis vs Benson, 133 US 333 (1980)) or to teach a Native American
child that the use of peyote is a valid expression of religion.

	If I choose to teach my child to be a Satanist (which I would prefer
to his becoming a Christian if those were the only options), the CPS could
step in and place him in foster care.

	In Texas - the only state which purchases textbooks on a statewide
basis rather than district wide (and thus has enormous influence over the
entire publishing industry) members of the clergy serve on the selection
board and may refuse a text on religious reasons.

	Many areas are attempting to ban the teaching of evolution in
schools and others demand that the superstitious "creation science" (which
is about as close to being a science as bungee jumping is to being a health
fad) be taught as being equally valid as evolution.

	Off hand,  about the only difference I see is that the soviets were
more honest about THEIR bias.

>Besides, what do you *expect* them to print on the money?
>	"It's real - trust us!"
>	"We're the government, and we're here to help you!"
>So of course they printed something to make themselves sound better
>than they were, and it sure beat "Not Worth A Continental"......
>
	How about just "Lawful currency" and leave it at that?

-- 
    rick.adams on GEnie   /|\  Reliable and affordable public access to 
     adamsr@netcom.com  /  |  \  telecommunications services is the 
    adamsr@irie.ais.org \ /|\ /  first step toward a global community.
   adamsr@norwich.bitnet  \|/  Send Email for files on GEnie and Netcom.

Newsgroups: alt.censorship,misc.consumers,misc.books.technical,alt.discrimination
From: equnlivn@unix1.tcd.ie (Eoin P. O'Coindealbhain)
Subject: Re: [misc.consumers, et al.] Waldenbooks fires staff for refusing to sell racist book!
Organization: Trinity College, Dublin
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 12:29:07 GMT

In <1992Sep8.184052.30911@m.cs.uiuc.edu> kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:

>I have already informed WB that I intend to boycott them until they stop
>selling the book and reinstate the fired employees by posting a message to
>their user services folks in their Walden Computerbooks on-line store in the
>Compu$erve Mall (GO WB), and I urge others to join me.  I also intend to write
>St. Martins Press and tell them I'm boycotting them, too.  

		I suggest that if your interested in starting a boycott
	of WB you should first read a book writen by Tipper Gore a few
	years ago (name escapes me but I can get the name for you) in
	which she outlines the best ways to conduct such boycotts.She
	just like you was pro-censorship,but she was from the Right
	while you seem to be from the Left.
		To support censorship from the Left is just as bad as
	to support it on the Right,it's still inflicting your view and
	personal oppinions on others.
		The only censorship you have a right to is to decide 
	what YOU read and even this is narrow minded-read all the facts
	then form your own opinion.PRESENT your opinions to others,don't
	try to preach them.


_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 
  Eoin P.O'Coindealbhain |  D U B L I N |   
   equnlivn@unix1.tcd.ie |    \  D  /   |   "In the past it was easy to be 
  Trinity College Dublin |D     \ /    C|     a Real Man.All you had to do
- - - - - - - - - - - - -|E   D _?_ C  O|     was abuse women, steal lands
  **PARENTAL  WARNING**  |T     /|\    R|     from  the Indians and find a  
  This posting contains  |H   /  C  \  P|     place to dump the toxic waste"
   language that might   |    C I T Y   |  		-Bruce Feirstein
- - change your views - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
Subject: Re: Limiting religious speech
Date: 14 Sep 92 23:26:23 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL

aultj@rpi.edu (Jim Ault) writes:

[...]
>Why is it that many other groups across the country are engaged in civil
>disobedience of one form or another, and yet the only group against
>which courts place injunctions are pro-life people?
[...]

Because no other group currently tries to trespass and harass at the
same few locations week after week and week.

- Carl




--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From: smith@ctron.com (Larry Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
Subject: Re: Banned Books in Schools (was:_The Turing Option_)
Date: 11 Sep 92 17:53:41 GMT
Reply-To: smith@ctron.com
Organization: Cabletron Systems, Inc.

In article <4972@balrog.ctron.com>, mattb@ctron.com (Matt Brown) writes:

>"It is a plot by radical
>feminist trial lawyers to force women to kill their children, become lesbians,
>and practice witchcraft."  Like good little New Hampshire Republicans.

Pat Robertson lost in New Hampshire, Matt.  Hate to burst your bubble.

Larry Smith (smith@ctron.com)  No, I don't speak for Cabletron.  Need you ask?
-
How about we all do something reasonable?  I bet that'll confuse 'em!
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,rec.radio.noncomm,rec.arts.tv,misc.legal
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Will the PBS/NPR content restricts be upheld?
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 14:03:07 GMT

The recently passed funding for public broadcasting includes new
content restrictions. Will these restrictions be found to be
Constitutional? I'm enclosing pointers to the most relevent Supreme
Court decisions.

- Carl

ANNOTATED REFERENCES

(All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.)

=================
law/childrens-legal-foundation-v-fcc
=================
A newspaper story saying that the Supreme Court refuses to allow a
total ban on indecent TV and radio material.

=================
law/rust-v-sullivan
=================
The decision and decent for the so-called abortion information gag
rule case. The decision explicitly mentions universities as a place
where free expression is so important that gag rules would not be
allowed.

=================
=================

These document(s) are available by anonymous ftp (the preferred
method) and by email. To get the file(s) via ftp, do an anonymous ftp
to ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4), and get file(s):

  pub/academic/law/childrens-legal-foundation-v-fcc
  pub/academic/law/rust-v-sullivan

To get the file(s) by email, send email to archive-server@eff.org.
Include the line(s) (be sure to include the space before the file
name):

send acad-freedom/law childrens-legal-foundation-v-fcc
send acad-freedom/law rust-v-sullivan

--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From: michael@adriaan.bu.edu (Michael Chaplin)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
Subject: Re: Limiting religious speech
Date: 7 Sep 92 04:20:14 GMT
	<AULTJ.92Aug25131548@caleb.rpi.edu>
	<1992Aug30.185659.12102@newstand.syr.edu>
	<AULTJ.92Sep1165812@caleb.rpi.edu>
	<1992Sep2.001224.17725@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
	<AULTJ.92Sep2170524@caleb.rpi.edu>
Organization: Boston University
In-reply-to: aultj@rpi.edu's message of 2 Sep 92 22:05:24 GMT

In article <AULTJ.92Sep2170524@caleb.rpi.edu> aultj@rpi.edu (Jim Ault) writes:
   Madison also wrote:
   Why did the country exist for so long with such references to God
   throughout our government?  Why is it only now, over 200 years after
   the framing of the constitution that suddenly everyone wants to remove
   all these traditions (and references to God)?   

Perhaps it's because for the first time in 200 years there is a
significant number of people (though certainly a minority) who
aren't Christian?

  =I will be redundant to try to make my point.  The problems of our
  =society are caused by people turning away from God.  Our government
  =cannot handle that because:

  =" ... Our Constitution is
  =designed only for a moral and religious people.  It is wholly
  =inadequate for any other."   -John Adams

I would take that to mean that, having morals and religion, it would
be fruitless to dictate them via the government. 
As for religion, might I ask whose? Would you, as a government 
official, say, ask a Christian to listen to a Muslim prayer, a 
Muslim to a Jewish prayer, etc., etc.... The words of the founding
fathers may be interpreted as allowing each person the freedom
to find their own relation with god, without any interference
from the gov't whatsoever, whether positively or negatively.

God has no place in politics, and the gov't has no place in the
church. 

  ='Nuff said.

'Fraid not.
  =--
  =Jim Ault, ITS Systems Programmer, aultj@rpi.edu    <><

Chaplin.
--
===========================================================================
Michael Chaplin                    Language is a virus from outer space.
michael@albert.bu.edu                     - William S. Burroughs

The Einstein Papers Project        The opinions contained herein reflect
Boston University                      neither those of the project, 
Boston, Massachusetts, U.S.A.          nor those of Albert Einstein.
Xref: sparky alt.censorship:7359 rec.humor:27900 soc.culture.polish:2372
From: lbs@madeira.phys.ufl.edu (Lech Borkowski)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,rec.humor,soc.culture.polish
Subject: Re: Polack joke
Date: 4 Sep 92 23:33:00 GMT
Followup-To: alt.censorship
Organization: University of Florida Physics Department - CMT Group

In article <gebiTAe00WC001aUUC@andrew.cmu.edu> ts2a+@andrew.cmu.edu (Thomas Omar Smith) writes:

>Mario Smarduch writes:
>>The problem with these polack jokes is stereotyping, I dont want to 
>>be associated with some negative perceptions that people might have
>>about Polish people because of idiots like Brett or this Andrew Ford
>>guy. How would you like me talking negativly behind your back ruining your
>>personality and spreading false perceptions where people have a completely
>>negative opinion of you. I understand ethnic jokes because I lived in
>>Europe, but there these jokes were said to laugh along with not to laugh
>>at someone or make fun of someone.

>Mario, you needn't worry on that account.  We won't assume you're stupid
>because of stereotyping about Polish people.  We will assume you're
>stupid because of your complete inability to behave in a civilized
>manner on the net.  We assume that this stupidity stems from your low
>IQ, not your ethnic background.


 Hear, hear! New scientific discovery! Everyone who refuses to accept 
ethnic insults politely has a low IQ! I hope that Thomas Smith will 
present results of his in-depth research into the subject in some 
influential scientific journals. 

 Lech

(Woof, woof, I am a mad Polish dog with an IQ < 0)


Newsgroups: alt.censorship
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [rec.arts.books]  Re: [UPI] Report: Book censorship, challenges in schools at 10-year high
Followup-To: alt.censorship,rec.arts.books
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 18:22:49 GMT

[A repost - Carl]

Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 10:01:04 -0400 
From: Lori Cole <lc1r+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject:  Re: [UPI] Report: Book censorship, challenges in schools at 10-year high

For an excellent discussion of how publishers and special interest
groups affect the teaching of history in American public schools see
Francis Fitzgerald's (who won the Pulitzer for _Fire in the Lake_)
_America Revised_, originally published as a series of articles in _The
New Yorker_.

Lori Cole
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Anybody else in trouble w/ FCC?
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 03:29:43 GMT

[A reply to an article on alt.censorship - Carl]

jara0040@nova.gmi.edu (jaramillo jamison) writes:

>	So the punks at the FCC caught me importing porno gif's on my
>school's network [...]

I find it very hard to believe that the FCC has any interest in your
communications on your school's network.

I find it more likely that your note is a prank. If am wrong, I'll apologize.

- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: Chuck.Lavazzi@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Chuck Lavazzi)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
Subject: Re: fuck
Date: 6 Sep 92 18:07:42 GMT
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service


[drivel deleted]
	Something similar showed up in a bunch of other news.groups recently
from the same source.  I would guess that Jeff Spangenberg is either:
1) a dweeb with the emotional maturity of a 5-year-old or
2) a very careless person who left his terminal unattended.
	In either case, let's ignore it, shall we?
Chuck
No .sig, no frills, no foolin'

--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
From: joemays@bsu-cs.bsu.edu (Joseph F. Mays)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
Subject: Re: Question for Charles Perez and Ted Frank
Date: 15 Sep 92 17:19:53 GMT
Organization: Dept. of CS Ball State University Muncie IN

I find it interesting that you left claiming that you refused to shoot it
out with Frank, Perez, et al anymore.  You said that you would respond to
my posting via mail.  You never did.  And now, here you are shooting it
out with them again.  Is there some reason you prefer this to an honest
debate?  Aside from the fact that you continually get your facts wrong
and people keep calling you on it, I mean.  I'm going to repost my last
posting on hate speech.  Let's see if you respond this time, Ed.

Joe


Newsgroups: alt.censorship,misc.consumers,alt.discrimination