HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Newsgroups: misc.legal.computing
Subject: Netnews and Copyright
Date: 22 Jul 92 17:51:10 GMT
Organization: Amdahl Corp.
X-UserAgent: Nuntius v1.1

In article <14b4hcINNdub@agate.berkeley.edu> George William Herbert,
gwh@soda.berkeley.edu writes:
>And what precisely would you make of my .signature?  As far as everyone
>who actually knows anything about copyright law has ever told me,
>and what I've read in the law, it's perfectly valid and will hold up in
court
>if anyone breaks it.
>
>-george william herbert
>gwh@soda.berkeley.edu  gwh@lurnix.com  herbert@uchu.isu92.ac.jp until 28
aug
> ++ copyright (c)  george william herbert.  All rights except usenet ++
> ++ transmission and inclusion in followup/reply articles reserved.  ++


Well, the "copyright notice" is not a valid "copyright notice" for
purposes of the US Copyright law; It has only two of the three elements
spelled out in 17 USC 401 as a valid notice (it has "Copyright" and the
copyright owner's name, but lacks the date of first publication).  That
doesn't mean that your copyright is invalid (you don't _need_ a notice),
but it does limit your remedies to actual damages, at most.

More to the point isn't the notice, though, it's the terms of the
license.  The terms of the "license" are that other than usenet
transmission, etc. is reserved.  Are these valid terms?  Hard to say. 
The phrase "usenet transmission" is undefined, and the discussion here
indicates that a lot of reasonable minds differ on what that means.

Can you claim that the other party being charged in a copyright
infringement suit agreed to those terms?  A license is a form of
contract, and that requires the other party to accept your terms.  I
could argue either way on this one.

Finally, an argument could be made that the written terms are entirely
inconsistent with the actions of posting it, in a way that it would be
likely that the terms would not be noticed.  It's hard to predict how
this would come out if litigated.

The real truth of the matter here, of this whole discussion, really, is
that trying to decide what is and what is not an infringement by copying
usenet, is a matter of prediction, not one of identifying independent
truth.  It's like trying to call a ball or a strike when the pitch has
barely left the pitcher's hand.  There's no dispute as to what the facts
are, but until the ball reaches the plate, and until a case like this
reaches the courts, we have no way of knowing what the result will be. 
It might be fun guessing, but that's all it is: guessing.
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: AS.RFS@forsythe.stanford.edu (Russell Sole)
Subject: Arizona DUI Laws
Organization: Stanford University, California, USA
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 20:51:24 GMT

Hello,

A friend of mine was just arrested in Mesa, Arizona for Driving
while intoxicated.  I think in California there are mandatory
penalties involved with this.  Does anyone out there know whether
there are mandatory penalties involved with first time DWI
offenders??

Any knowledge of the Arizona laws regarding Drinking and Driving
would be most appreciated.  She is seeking counsel, but I just
thought I would ask.

Since I don't access this BB that often, I request that you reply to
me as author rather than (or addition to) replying to the newsgroup.

Thanks in advance.
Russ.
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges)
Subject: Re: Legal criticism (was: Re: Hate Speech Okay, says the Supreme Court
Originator: news@ernie.Princeton.EDU
Organization: Princeton University
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 14:15:42 GMT

In article <1992Jul20.224110.7264@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>In article <1992Jul20.142402.29351@Princeton.EDU> egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:
>>[diatribe about how Posner used the phrase "black miscegenator," and is
>>therefore a racist deleted]
>
>Ed, please, for the edification of the rest of the net, explain the
>politically correct non-racist way to convey the idea that race-mixing
>was not approved of, and, indeed, considered monstrous, in the fifteenth
>century, all while using only a few words.

Not until you get your centuries straight.

Posner reveals his racism in other ways.  For example, he describes
British repression of the 1916 Dublin rebellion as being conducted with
great "firmness."  I should have thought they conducted themselves with
savagery, but for me to say so would be to violate the language game in
which Britons and Americans conduct themselves with firmness whereas
people from Burkina Faso conduct themselves with "savagery" and are
indeed terrorists.
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Accuracy in media (was: Re: A Modest Request
Date: 23 Jul 92 16:51:02 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1992Jul22.224731.7930@Princeton.EDU>, egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:
> I have directed followups to alt.flame because this has nothing to do
> with the recent Supreme Court decision that effectively licenses high
> school dropouts to terrorise black people in the name of "free speech."

It also means that overpaid, overeducated, but underwise liberals
are allowed to promote censorship, the police state, and other forms
of modern liberalism without fear of being thrown in prison.  Or
should the rules all change because YOU are that overpaid, overeducated
but underwise fool?
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
"Well, maybe the Holocaust was right *for that culture*." -- a moral relativist
with whom I work.
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Info please
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 00:45:00 -0400


        Not being involved in law, I have lost my way and need some
assistance.  I have heard the FCC (Federal Communications Commission) has a
rule/law/regulation that can be used to over turn a Home Owners' Association's
ban on antennas.
        I live in a town house and according to the Home Owners' Association,
we (the tenants) are not allowed to erect an antenna.  As I have just passed
the exams for my Technician Class license (amateur radio) and wish to become
involved with the local RACES (emergency communications in disasters) group I
need an out side antenna.

        If some one could point me in the right direction for what/where to
search or perhaps could provide some case cites that uphold the right of an
amateur radio operator to erect an antenna to be used in emergency
communications, I would greatly appreciate it.

                                                        Mike...


 * SLMR 2.1a * E.I.L.C.  Your source for Information. 407-676-2998
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: STARE DECISIS
From: z_maraiajj@ccsvax.sfasu.edu
Date: 29 Jul 92 10:32:21 CST
Organization: Stephen F. Austin State University

STARE IS LATIN FOR   TO STAND
DECISIS IS LATIN FOR   BY THE DECISION
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.censorship,talk.politics.misc
From: hes@unity.ncsu.edu (Henry E. Schaffer)
Subject: Re: Using killfiles is a form of censorship (was: Re: A Modest Request
Keywords: egnilges slippery dweeb
Organization: Computing Center, North Carolina State University
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 22:17:16 GMT

In article <1992Jul29.155129.20423@Princeton.EDU> egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:
> ...  Why is "the argument of the slippery slope" valid
>when applied to enable Viktora, but not when used to extrapolate from
>the concomitant use of a kill file and an announcement that one has "had
>it?"  

  Perhaps because the latter isn't a slippery slope, but merely a
poor attempt by Ed Nilges to confuse the issue.

>"First, I set up a kill file to exclude Ed Nilges.  Then, I
>excluded all people whose names begin with Ni: they seem to be dweebs,
>like Nilges and Nixon.  Then I added a sophisticated regular expression
>to exclude all Germanic names.  

  No slippery slope so far, just individual choice.  

>Then I became systems administrator for
>the Electronic Frontier Foundation and decided to make my workgroup
>adhere to my standards.  This was not so much anti-free speech as a
>desire to gain efficiency through consistency.   ...

  No slippery slope, just a clear cut change from individual choice
to censorship - restricting what others can read.

  It is amusing to see that Ed Nilges writes this story in which
he casts the EFF in the evil role, and has himself cast in a manner
in which we are supposed to identify him as an (innocent) victim.
However we can see that he gives himself away in a Freudian
manner (his coupling himself with Nixon betrays his subconcious
identification with the abuse of power) and in allowing us to see
that his story undercuts (deconstructs) his claims of victimhood
by mocking the free-speech concept.

--henry schaffer  n c state univ
From: eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Stare Decisis
Date: 27 Jul 92 13:58:12 GMT
Organization: Culturale Elit

In <1992Jul25.122946.5484@athena.mit.edu>, wdstarr@athena.mit.edu sez:
>Which brings me to a sort of trivia question: How many examples can
>anyone come up with of the U.S. Supreme Court _explicitly_ overruling
>a previous Supreme Court holding on a question of law?  (No, don't
>email me for the answers.  I don't know this one myself; I'm trying to
>harness the awesome power of the net to build a list of such cases.)

Rather than collect this stuff piecemeal, I suggest you take a gander
at the amicus briefs submitted for _Webster_.  (A decent law library
should have these on fiche; I think they're also on Lexis.)  I read a
bunch of them once, and one provided an *exhaustive* listing of
Supreme Court self-reversals.  I don't recall for sure, but my
impression is that there was also a commentary indicating whether the
overruling was done expressly or sub silentio.

Of course, the Court has been on a mad kick to overrule precedent in
the last 2 terms, so you might miss a few recent ones (car trunk
search, victim's family testimony in sentencing phase of capital
cases).  Maybe the amici for _Casey_ reproduced the earlier feat with
updates.... 
-- 
O net, thou art sick.  The invisible newbie that lies in the night in
the howling subject header has found out thy bed of followup joy, and
his dark secret cross-posting doth thy life destroy.  (Film at 11.)
	Mark Eckenwiler    eck@panix.com    ...!cmcl2!panix!eck
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: markm@wri.com
Subject: Re: Physical Evidence
Reply-To: markm@wri.com
Organization: Wolfram Research, Inc.
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 1992 20:47:15 GMT

In article <1992Jul10.064839.16009@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU>  
dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott) writes:
> Is there such thing as a publication that lists the physical evidence
> of the jfk case that still exists today and where it is kept?
>
	[1-6 deleted]
 
> 7) Oswald's revolver
> 
> 
> Which physical things do we actually still have?? Where are they?
> What legal process would it take to subpeona it all?
> 
> Which are vanished?

I don't know about Oswald's revolver.  Do you mean Ruby's?  I seem to remember  
hearing something on CNN several months ago about the revolver Ruby used to  
shoot Oswald.  Apparently it was sold at an auction somewhere.  An agent of the  
man who purchased the weapon was stopped in Washington DC for an unrelated  
(non-weapons) offense.  The gun was found an confiscated since it was not  
registered.  Washington DC has an ordinance stating that all  
unregistered/illegal weapons confiscated by the police must be destroyed.

Last I heard, the gun's rightful owner was working feverishly to try and get a  
court injunction or something to stop the destruction of this weapon.

--Mark
Newsgroups: misc.legal,soc.culture.italy,soc.culture.italian
From: Nigel.Allen@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Nigel Allen)
Subject: Re: Role of judiciary in Italy (was: assassination/judge)
Organization: Echo Beach
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 21:03:51 GMT

In article <1992Jul23.112054.3728@athena.mit.edu> wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr) writes:
>
>I've been following the saga of the apparent war between the Mafia and
>the state in Italy in the popular press, and I've been unable to
>figure out exactly what is meant when the two recent victims are
>referred to as "anti-Mafia judges" and the like... does this refer to
>the fact that at least one of them (the bomb-under-the-road victim of
>about a month ago) had until very recently been a prosecutor rather
>than a judge, or is the Italian criminal justice system set up such
>that at least some judges are explicitly designated as being
>extensions of the law enforcement effort rather than neutral arbiters?

I don't know, but (from reading too many Maigret/Simenon detective novels
set in France), I remember references to the juge d'instruction
(examining magistrate), who seemed to have semi-prosecutorial functions.
Perhaps this is something shared by many latin countries.



--
   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
Xref: sparky misc.legal:15108 alt.censorship:6451 talk.politics.misc:36500
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: Hate Speech Okay, says the Supreme Court
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 16:57:44 GMT

In article <1992Jul27.153952.25877@Princeton.EDU> egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:

>But it's a safe bet that every law student took the SAT, and scores have
>declined.

Have SAT scores among law students declined? What's your source on this?
If they have declined, we may assume that that this represents a decline
in intellectual ability among law students only if:

a) SATs measure intellectual ability.
b) the representation of the general population among law students has
stayed the same during the history of the SAT.

Even if one assumes (a) (see Gould, THE MISMEASURE OF MAN, for criticisms
of intelligence testing), it is almost certainly the case that (b) is
not true. It's well-established that far more students, of far more
diverse backgrounds, apply and are admitted to law schools these days than
was the case 20 or 30 years ago. This casts doubt on the usefulness of the
SAT as a measure of law-student ability, since the tested population has
changed significantly over the decades.

>Scott Turow's One L describes frustration at a pressure level which is
>only high in the first year, and the "pressure" he describes is not the
>pressure of learning per se.

I asked you about accounts of Stanford Law School. Turow went to Harvard.

You had said the following:

>>I have also seen accounts of life at Stanford Law in
>>which it is said that students don't feel they have to work hard, since
>>admission to Stanford Law is admission to the elite.

I repeat the question: Which accounts were these, and who wrote them?

>>What toadying and bullying are you referring to?
>
>You give a very good example.

I don't see how I give a good example of toadying and bullying in law
school. Even if we assume, for the sake of argument, that I'm toadying and
bullying, misc.legal hardly qualifies as law school. We're not in a law
school, Ed.

>The Socratic method of teaching law is
>another example.

What is your experience of the Socratic method of teaching law?


--Mike




-- 
Mike Godwin,     |"Crime is contagious. If the Government becomes a law-
mnemonic@eff.org | breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every
(617) 864-0665   | man to become a law unto himself. It invites anarchy."
EFF, Cambridge   |         --Brandeis, J., dissenting in Olmstead v. U.S.  
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.censorship,talk.politics.misc
From: grimlok@hubcap.clemson.edu (Mike Percy)
Subject: Re: Using killfiles is a form of censorship (was: Re: A Modest Request
Keywords: egnilges
Organization: Clemson University
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 16:05:23 GMT


If using a kill file is murder, then unsubscribing must be mass murder,
and missing a few days of netnews must be negligent homicide, and...

Thanks for the laugh Ed.  I'd love to see what your reality looks like.

Mike Percy             | grimlok@hubcap.clemson.edu  | I don't know about
Sr. Systems Analyst    | mspercy@clemson.clemson.edu | your brain, but mine
Info. Sys. Development | mspercy@clemson.BITNET      | is really...bossy.
Clemson University     | (803) 656-3780              | (Laurie Anderson)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Re: Stare Decisis
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 01:22:26 GMT

In article <1992Jul25.122946.5484@athena.mit.edu> wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr) writes:
>> 2) Overrule it.
>
>Not surprisingly, courts really _hate_ to do this, since every time
>they do so they help to undermine the whole idea of the law's majestic
>authority by giving people reason to think "Well, if what you're
>saying is that the long-standing rule of _Foo v. Bar_ was bad law all
>along -- notwithstanding that it took you bozos fifty-three years to
>admit it -- then why should we believe that any given ruling in effect
>today is any better?"  
>
>Which brings me to a sort of trivia question: How many examples can
>anyone come up with of the U.S. Supreme Court _explicitly_ overruling
>a previous Supreme Court holding on a question of law?  

The Wall Street Journal printed a list last summer.  Can't tell you how
accurate it was.

Another quick way to check would be in Westlaw's US database, doing a
search for HE(overruling +s (US or "U.S.")).
-- 
                      ....................................
                      ted frank | thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
                      the university of chicago law school 
                      official member of the cultural elit
From: matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Hate Speech Okay, says the Supreme Court
Summary: Who promulgated the "fighting words" exception, and when?
Keywords: Fighting Words; Louis Dembitz Brandeis
Date: 29 Jul 92 15:25:20 GMT
Organization: U.S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory, APG, MD.

In article <1992Jul27.230108.10941@Princeton.EDU> 
egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:

>In article <1992Jul27.190001.5960@nocusuhs.nnmc.navy.mil> perez@mgr.hjf.org 
>(Charles Perez) writes:

>>In article <1992Jul25.034520.17957@Princeton.EDU> 
>>egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:

>>>What they [Dworkin & MacKinnon] advocate is consistent with accepted
>>>legal doctrines concerning pornography and "fighting words",
>>>[Ed Nilges]

>>"Accepted"? By whom? You can always find someone who "accepts" what you
>>have to say.   [Charles Perez]

>How about Brandeis for starters, who in 1941 promulgated the "fighting
>words" exception to blanket free speech?  [Ed Nilges]

From what platform did Louis Dembitz Brandeis "promulgate" this exception?
Maybe I just don't know enough about his life and work, but I thought that
the "fighting words" exception came from a 1942 case in which Justice
Murphy delivered the opinion of the Court:

    "Allowing the broadest scope to the language and purpose
  of the Fourteenth Amendment, it is well understood that the
  right of free speech is not absolute at all times and under
  all circumstances.  There are certain well-defined and narrowly
  limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which 
  have been thought to raise any Constitutional problem.  These
  include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and
  the insulting or 'fighting' words -- those which by their very
  utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach
  of the peace."  _Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire_, 315 U.S. 568 (1942).

Among the utterances for which Mr. Chaplinsky was prosecuted was calling
someone a "Fascist."  Just imagine what would have happened in the '60's
if every long-haired hippie Vietnik who called a college administrator
a "Fascist," or a police officer a "Fascist pig," had been prosecuted
for uttering "fighting words."

I still don't see where Brandeis comes into the picture.  He had retired
from the United States Supreme Court in 1939, so how could he have taken
part in the deliberations in the _Chaplinsky_ case?  Also, what was the
state of Brandeis's health in 1941, the year when, according to Mr. Nilges,
he "promulgated" the "fighting words" exception?  That was Brandeis's last
year, because he died in 1941, which explains why he was not the one who
promulgated the "fighting words" exception in the 1942 _Chaplinsky_ case.

Hope this helps.

					-- Matt Rosenblatt
                                        (matt@amsaa.brl.mil)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
TRUTH     JUSTICE     FREEDOM     YIDDISHKEIT     IVY     THE AMERICAN WAY
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.censorship,talk.politics.misc
From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu  (David L. Veal)
Subject: Re: Using killfiles is a form of censorship (was: Re: A Modest Request
Organization: The University of Tennessee, Knoxville
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 01:50:38 GMT

In article <1992Jul29.155129.20423@Princeton.EDU>
egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:

>
>In article <1992Jul29.145349.25372@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> rwd4f@poe.acc.Virgnia.EDU (Rob Dobson) writes:
>>/egnigles/h:j
>>
>>next, i move on to ban all books with the word "fuck" in them
>>
>>-.net nazi
>
>Trying to be funny?  Why is "the argument of the slippery slope" valid
>when applied to enable Viktora, but not when used to extrapolate from
>the concomitant use of a kill file and an announcement that one has "had
>it?"

     You really don't see the difference, do you?

     Try this:  A kill file affects only those people who have
accepted the censorship.  By your definition of censorship, anyone
who doesn't have a library full of KKK pamphlets has commited
censorship, because they have chosen to "suppress" that speech
by not reading it.

     In the case of Viktora you are dealing with the censorship of an
individual's words against his will.  That is, Viktora wished to "speak"
(if you can *gag* call it that) but the law said that he was not able to
make *that* speech.  (One can only assume that if he had burned, say, a
life-size cut-out of Phil Donahue that he would not have been charged with
a hate crime)  An outside force has decided that *that* speech will not
be made.
     A kill file is one person choosing not to listen to another person.

     It is no more censorship than it is when I turn of the TV when a
show I dislike comes on.

> "First, I set up a kill file to exclude Ed Nilges.  Then, I
>excluded all people whose names begin with Ni: they seem to be dweebs,
>like Nilges and Nixon.  Then I added a sophisticated regular expression
>to exclude all Germanic names.

     Weird, but ok...

>Then I became systems administrator for
>the Electronic Frontier Foundation and decided to make my workgroup
>adhere to my standards.

     It is *here* that the line has been crossed.  At this point the
person in question has forced another person to comply with his standards.
This is acceptable *only* if all individuals voluntarily accept those
standards.


> This was not so much anti-free speech as a
>desire to gain efficiency through consistency.  Then I got elected to
>the House of Representatives...."

     I really hope you can see the difference between personal selection
of reading material and forcing that selection on others.

>
>Now, I believe that one can use kill files as nano- or micro-censorship
>without getting on this slope, but the logic of the "free speech" forces
>is that we must avoid these slopes at all costs.
>
*One more time:*  How does placing *you* in someone's killfile infringe on
*your* freedom of speech?  You are obviously still just as capable of
sounding off as you have been.  You audience has simply been reduced by
one.  (He "left the room.")  Actually, by now your audience may have
decreased even more.



>