HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Subject: [alt.censorship et al] [Republicans] On Pornography
Reply-To: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 18:31:17 GMT

A repost from alt.censorship,alt.politics.elections,uiuc.civil-liberty,alt.sex,rec:

From: elf@halcyon.com (Elf Sternberg)
Subject: [Republicans] On Pornography
Organization: Pendor, UnLtd.
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 07:14:31 GMT

In article <1992Oct6.211740.30378@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
     kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:

[ Quoting the Republican Platform]

>But if hard- core pornography does not cheapen the human spirit, then
>neither does Shakespeare elevate it.

   But what is The Republican Party that it should feel the right to
dictate what someone does with their "spirit," a concept the United
States Government doesn't even recognize?

>especially since the Commission on Pornography, in 1986, found a
>direct link between pornography and violent crimes committed against
>women and children.

   The Commission found no such link.  In fact, their statement on the
matter concludes: "Even though no visible link between pornography and
violence was demonstrable in the material presented, COMMON SENSE
DICTATES that there is a link, yet to be found."  (Emphasis Mine).
"Common sense."  Horseshit.

   We must remember that the Commission on Pornography was the laughing
stock of ever major newspaper in the country, that it was given, in
numerical dollars, just 7% of what the 1972 Commission of Pornography
was given ($780,000 vs $11 million), and that the 1972 Comission on
Pornography recommended _the decriminialization of pornography_ because
no such link between pornography and violence could be demonstrated
then, either!  Of course, the Republicans through out that Comission's
work, too...

>However, no
>artist has an inherent right to claim taxpayer support for his or her
>private vision of art if that vision mocks the moral and spiritual
>basis on which our society is founded.

   "Art provides the people of the state with a moral guidance and
direction of purpose.  No artist should be allowed to exhibit his works
in our libraries, museums, and public squares, if they do not extoll
and support the virtues of The Fatherland."  - Adolph Hitler.

            Elf !!!

<> Only utopian liberals could be surprised that the Nazis were art
<> connoisseurs.  -- Camille Paglia

-- 
Elf Sternberg    __   |     I have looked into the abyss, and the abyss
elf@halcyon.com  \/   | has looked into me.  Neither liked what we saw.
elf@polari.online.com |                              - Brother Theodore
Xref: sparky alt.society.civil-liberty:6223 alt.politics.usa.constitution:631 misc.legal:18466
From: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution,misc.legal
Subject: Teaching Con Law (was: The FDA can't be criminal, can they?)
Date: 6 Oct 92 21:58:55 GMT
Reply-To: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Followup-To: misc.legal
Organization: Amdahl Corporation

In article <1992Oct5.194557.28065@eff.org>, mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) 
writes:
> Take Constitutional Law ASAP, Ted. It continues to dismay me that neither
> Harvard nor the University of Chicago require Constitutional Law as a
> first-year course.

Neither do either of the law schools I've attended (Cleveland-Marshall and 
Santa Clara).  I understand Case-Western does teach Con Law in first year.  
However, I think that (possibly following the Harvard lead) that such schools 
are increasingly in the minority.

For myself, I don't think that deferring Con Law has made any of the other 
courses particularly less easily or less deeply understandable.  A couple had 
some sticky points in a couple (Antitrust relying on the commerce clause, 
Copuright relying on the Supremacy clause).  However, Contracts, Torts, Civ 
Pro, Wills, Criminal Law, Evidence etc. seem easily severable.  Crim Pro, on 
the other hand, would probably be really hairy.

Followups to misc.legal.

Terry Carroll - tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com - 408/992-2152
The opinions presented above are not necessarily those of a sound mind.
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution,misc.legal
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: The FDA can't be criminal, can they?
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 10:04:08 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.032011.5788@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:

>Not at all: It takes a fairly loose interpertation to read "judicial
>power" as including "interpert the Constitution."

It is hardly a "fairly loose interpretation" to anyone familiar with
English courts and the common-law tradition. No person with such
familiarity is under the impression that the judicial branch could handle
cases "arising under" the laws and Constitution of the United States
*without* interpreting the laws and Constitution.


--Mike




-- 
Mike Godwin,    |"Liberty resides in the rights of that person
mnemonic@eff.org| whose views you find most odious."
(617) 864-0665  | 
EFF, Cambridge  |                           --John Stuart Mill
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution,misc.legal
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: The FDA can't be criminal, can they?
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 03:35:39 GMT

In article <1992Oct6.163321.16436@eff.org> mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:
>>It's different, but the conclusion isn't any different: The Constitution
>>mentions nothing about such a monopoly. In practice, the Supreme Court
>>_took_ this power, and the people generally go along with it. However,
>>there is nothing legal about it.

>Frank, you probably should do some reading about the origin and legitimacy
>of judicial review.

You mean like taking a course in constitutional law and reading, say,
Marbury v. Madison, Gibbson's dissent in Eakin v. Raub, Martin v.
Hunter's Lessee and Ex Parte McCardle? If you can suggest other
cases of relevance, I'd be interested. 

                                         Frank Crary
                                         CU Boulder
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.drugs,talk.politics.drugs,misc.legal
From: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Subject: Interpreting U.S. Constitution (was Re: The FDA can't be criminal, can they?)
Reply-To: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 03:33:27 GMT

In article <1992Oct6.164355.16715@eff.org>, mnemonic@eff (Mike Godwin) writes:
>In article <1992Oct6.053135.13139@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:
>
>>"The judicial power" does not explicitly include the power to make final
>>and binding interpertations of the Constitution.
>
>Well, the executive and legislative branches are given *no power at all*
>to make *any* interpretations of the Constitution. So, by your own
>reasoning, the interpretive power lies in the judicial branch.

I don't see how that would follow.  How about having each individual
in the executive and legislative branches interpret the Constitution as
they are required to take an oath to uphold it anyway?

//Jyrki
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution,misc.legal
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: The FDA can't be criminal, can they?
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 03:20:11 GMT

In article <1992Oct6.164355.16715@eff.org> mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:
>>"The judicial power" does not explicitly include the power to make final
>>and binding interpertations of the Constitution.

>Well, the executive and legislative branches are given *no power at all*
>to make *any* interpretations of the Constitution. So, by your own
>reasoning, the interpretive power lies in the judicial branch.

Not at all: It takes a fairly loose interpertation to read "judicial
power" as including "interpert the Constitution." By equally 
loose construction, the President's responsibility to "take care that
the laws be faithfully executed" (including the "supreme law of the
land", the Constitution) and Congress' power to make laws "in pursuance"
to the Constitution, both necessarily imply interperting the Constitution.

                                                  Frank Crary
                                                  CU Boulder

Xref: sparky alt.society.civil-liberty:6240 alt.politics.usa.constitution:653 soc.culture.usa:7738 alt.politics.usa.misc:157
From: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution,soc.culture.usa,alt.politics.usa.misc
Subject: U.S. supreme Court: Public nudity is evil the state seeks to prevent
Date: 12 Oct 92 09:44:36 GMT
Reply-To: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland

A repost from rec.nude,misc.legal:

From: brahm@cco.caltech.edu (David E. Brahm)
Subject: Beachfront U.S.A. Loses Los Angeles Lawsuit
Date: 10 Oct 1992 20:55:33 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Summary: 1974 anti-nudity ordinance upheld

Beachfront U.S.A. is a Southern CA "nudist activist organization" whose
primary purpose seems to be funding a lawsuit against the City of Los
Angeles, seeking an injunction against the City's 1974 anti-nudity
ordinance.  That ordinance not only had a direct effect on Venice Beach,
but also was copied by other local governments, incl. Los Angeles County.

From the "Free Beach News" (copied without permission):
   SAN FRANCISCO 14 Sep 92 -- The Ninth Circuit federal appellate court
today handed down its decision...  Declining to hear oral arguments, the
three-justice panel unanimously ruled against Beachfront... stating that
last year's United States Supreme Court decision in an Indiana case (Barnes
v.  Glen Theater) was "fatal" to the BFUSA lawsuit...
   When O'Brien (1968) was applied to the nude dancing girls who were the
target of the state government in Barnes, the U.S. Supreme Court found that
the makers of the Indiana statute banning public nudity did indeed have "a
substantial government interest in protecting order and morality."
Further, the Supreme Court found that the statute was "unrelated to the
suppression of free expression."  The Court specifically rejected the
notion that "restricting nudity on moral grounds [is] necessarily related
to expression."
   [The Ninth Circuit held,] "The [L.A. ordinance] is constitutionally
sound despite its 'incidental limitations' on plaintiffs' rights to free
expression and association."  ...quoting U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice
William Rehnquist: "Public nudity is the evil the state seeks to prevent,
whether or not it is combined with expressive activity."

   As Roxanne's father in _L.A._Law_ said, "This is the sad result of an
overly litigious society.  Naturally, we will appeal."

--
Staccato signals of constant information,  |  David Brahm, physicist
A loose affiliation of millionaires and    |  (brahm@cco.caltech.edu)
  billionaires and Baby ...                |---- Carpe Post Meridiem! --
These are the days of miracle and wonder,  |
And don't cry, Baby, don't cry, don't cry. |     Vote Libertarian!
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.censorship,comp.org.eff.talk,uiuc.civil-liberty
From: delisle@eskimo.celestial.com (Ben Delisle)
Subject: CFV: talk.politics.medicine
Organization: -> ESKIMO NORTH (206) For-Ever <-
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 05:42:06 GMT

	This is a CALL FOR VOTES for the creation of
	one new newsgroup : talk.politics.medicine  
 	The voting period will be 12-Oct-1992 through 2-Nov-1992  

  In order to vote for or against this newsgroup, you must send a mail
message to the address mail-server@pit-manager.mit.edu.  If your site
does not understand that address, you might try:

	mail-server@pit-manager.mit.edu@athena.mit.edu
	mit-athena!pit-manager.mit.edu!mail-server
	uunet!pit-manager.mit.edu!mail-server

If none of these addresses works, talk to someone at your site who can
help you address the mail properly.  Posted votes will not be counted.
Votes mailed to the poster of this message will not be counted.

  Your mail should contain one of the following three lines, either in
the Subject or body of the mail message:

	vote talk.politics.medicine yes
	vote talk.politics.medicine no
	vote talk.politics.medicine abstain

The first two lines register a vote either for or against the creation
of the newsgroup.  The third line cancels any previous vote for or
against the creation of the newsgroup.  Multiple voting messages from
the same person must be sent from the same address.  If multiple votes
are received from the same person, the last vote received is the only
one counted.

  You should receive a response to your vote, acknowledging its
receipt, within two days.  If you do not, or if you have some other
problem with voting, you can get help by sending mail to
postmaster@pit-manager.mit.edu.

news group:
 
     Proposed Title:  talk.politics.medicine  

Charter:
       talk.politics.medicine, unmoderated.
A newsgroup to discuss politics and ethics in medicine and related
sciences and fields. Topics may include discussions on whether:
medical care should be socialized; insurance be paid for by the
individual, the company, or the state; or if it is even mandatory.
They may also include discussions on ethics of cross-species transplants;
if fetal material should be used or not; government intervention  
into the health care choices of people (such as permitting (or not)
alternative medicine to coexist with mainstream medicine, nutritional
medicine, or preventive medicine); parental or individual (non)consent to
mandatory immunization or treatment that may violate ethical or religious
beliefs; euthanasia for terminal, vegetative, or severely crippled people,
be it voluntary or non voluntary; and the right to help or refuse care to
patients based on ability to pay, ability to help or care for them, or
based on any disease they may be carrying; or any other related topics.   
-- 
 delisle@eskimo.celestial.com | Nothing is fool-proof, fools are too ingenious.

Xref: sparky alt.society.civil-liberty:6209 alt.politics.usa.constitution:608 alt.drugs:16874
From: v129nlgw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (PAUL HOWARD)
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.drugs,talk.politics.
Subject: Re: The FDA can't be criminal, can they?
Date: 9 Oct 92 20:55:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <ASH.92Oct8090634@ulysses.mr.ams.com>, ash@ulysses.mr.ams.com (Alan Harder) writes...
>In article <a5m6RB3w165w@korova.uucp> susan@korova.uucp (Susan) writes:
> 
>   >What, exactly, is herbalim -- if I go over to my neighbor's house, borrow 
>   >some derb, use it according to her instructions and then sue for 
>   >malpractice.  
> 
>   >I suspect that it is illegal to practice herbalism as medicine, but as 
>   >far as I can see in 15 or so state, it's legal to sell herbs and 
>   >preperations as over-the-counter treatments along the lines of blistex 
>   >and Blue Star Ointment.  Seems reasonable to me.
> 
>Well, I've read that in England herbalists are licensed practitioners.
>At least that's what my herb book says.  I think they have to take
>some sort of training (and pass a test?) to become licensed.  Sounds
>kinda like a neat system.  I wonder how well it works.
> 
> 
>-Alan

	The whole world except for the U.S. and Canada allows the practice of 
medical herbalism.  In most of the world, herbalism is the most common
form of medicine.  Personally, I would much rather go to an herbalist than
a M.D.

peace,
Paul
From: dionf@ERE.UMontreal.CA (Dion Francois)
Newsgroups: alt.society.sovereign
Subject: Are we talking of Quebec here? 8)
Date: 14 Oct 92 03:58:20 GMT
Organization: Universite de Montreal

Seriously, it's the first time i read this, and there are no posts.

Est-ce l'endroit ideal pour y parler d'un Quebec souverain?
(Is it a real discussion group or a bogus one? Can we talk of Quebec
sovereinty?)

Ciao,
--
Francois Dion
    '  _   _   _
 CISM (_) (_)  _) FM       Montreal , Canada       Email: CISM@ERE.UMontreal.CA
      (_)  / . _)             10000 Watts          Telephone no: (514) 343-7511
_______________________________________________________________________________
There is no connection between CISM and this newsgroup. I speak for myself.
#include stddisclaimer.h
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberties
From: "paul bobbitt" <paul.bobbitt@canrem.com>
Subject: politically correct!
Reply-To: "paul bobbitt" <paul.bobbitt@canrem.com>
Organization: Canada Remote Systems
Distribution: alt
Date: 9 Oct 92 09:13:15 EST


UG>     Politically Correct Is Constitionally Incorrect!!!!!! 

Oh puhleeeeeze!  If you pay attention, you'll realize that it is not
against the law to be politically incorrect.  Everyone can say whatever
the hell they want to regardless of how offensive it might be.

However, that doesn't stop people from being affronted by some language,
and if they choose to make their objections known, you really shouldn't
be surprised.  In fact, these objections would seem to be very much in 
line with the free speech you're fighting for.

So, say what you want to.  But don't be surprised if people choose to 
object to what you are saying with every means at their disposal.  
Some examples of this objection may include letters to the editor, 
boycotts of your store, business, etc., and increased education to 
combat your opinions.  Or they could simply say "You're a jerk."

I think I'll opt for the latter.

Paul D. Bobbitt
---
  DeLuxe 1.25 #7722  Int: paul.bobbitt@canrem.com  GEnie: P.BOBBITT
--
Canada Remote Systems  - Toronto, Ontario
World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberties
Subject: Re: politically correct!
From: emiddlec@mora.gac.edu (Eric Middlecamp)
Date: 11 Oct 92 19:11:27 -0600
Distribution: alt

In article <19929.2545.5098@dosgate>  writes:
>
>UG>     Politically Correct Is Constitionally Incorrect!!!!!! 
>
>Oh puhleeeeeze!  If you pay attention, you'll realize that it is not
>against the law to be politically incorrect.  Everyone can say whatever
>the hell they want to regardless of how offensive it might be.

Duh. This was his point. Politically Correct=unlawful is like saying
			 Non-politically correct=lawful.
From: sej5g@curry.edschool.Virginia.EDU (Susie Juroff)
Newsgroups: alt.homosexual
Subject: Re: Homosexuality in the Classroom
Date: 16 Oct 92 03:19:08 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia


     I just wanted to clarify my topic a bit:  I am looking for
the previously mentioned information primarily as it concerns the
elementary and middle school levels.  If you should have
information concerning high school levels as well, it too might
be helpful, so please post.

Thanks much!

Susie Juroff
--
Newsgroups: alt.homosexual
From: "Shane A. Johns" <sjohns@kiwi.ucs.indiana.edu>
Subject: A BBS for Gays/Lesbians/Bisexuals
Organization: Computer Science, Indiana University
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 92 21:19:34 EST
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11]

Hello all, I am the System Operator of a BBS running here in Bloomington.
This BBS caters to the Gay/Lesbian/Bisexual community, and all you need
to access it is a modem and a computer.  The phone number is 812-857-0069,
and the supported baud rates ar 1200/2400 (we may go to 19,200 if we can
get the modem).

If you are interested in adult .GIF or .JPG files for viewing on your
computer, our's is the place to visit.  We have hundreds upon hundreds
of adult pictures for your downloading, and once you are validated, you
can download without a credit-ratio as found on many other BBSs.

There are also some on-line games and text files for everyone, and of
course there is no fee to use this BBS -- only the phone call from
your modem.

--Shane
From: barnesm@vavau.Corp.Sun.COM (Mark Barnes - SMCC/CTE/OS)
Newsgroups: alt.homosexual
Subject: Re: First Homosexual experience
Date: 12 Oct 92 19:22:28 GMT
Reply-To: barnesm@vavau.Corp.Sun.COM
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: vavau.corp.sun.com

In article 1bc660INNr94@lester.appstate.edu, GRS00008@APPSTATE.EDU (*Stephanie Jane Yoder) writes:
>most women don't post because you guys are too busy running your mouths
>for us to get a word in edge-wise.  Or you ignore what we say.

Did you say something?  :-)
 
---Mark
From: GRS02948@APPSTATE.EDU (*Jamie Annette Lamkin)
Newsgroups: alt.homosexual
Subject: re:homoseuality in classroom
Date: 15 Oct 92 14:00:57 GMT
Organization: APPALACHIAN STATE UNIVERSITY
NNTP-Posting-Host: stat.appstate.edu
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.24

Susie- 
    The topic of your paper is one of great importance.  The issue is not one 
of a student or teacher being "out" but one of acceptance of all lifestyles.
I think that this is very important, especially in the classroom.  There are 
statistics that say that 1 in 4 youths attempt suicide.  Approximately 50% of
those who are attempting are doing so because the think that they are gay.  If
acceptance were being taught in the classroom these kids wouldn't have to feel
that they were "different".   Good luck- I'll be watching the posts.

                                    O O
                                    + +        jamie lamkin
From: sej5g@curry.edschool.Virginia.EDU (Susie Juroff)
Newsgroups: alt.homosexual
Subject: Re: First Homosexual experience
Date: 16 Oct 92 03:24:12 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia


> I have no sympathy for those who whine.  I read all posts and
> seldom reply to any of them...male or female.  I find your
> statement offensive, self-deprecating, and uncategorically
> false.  Thank You Maam!

--->or maybe just SARCASTIC?!
Yank moo tam.

Susie
--
From: jam8j@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (James A. Murray)
Newsgroups: alt.homosexual
Subject: Re: First Homosexual experience
Date: 15 Oct 92 04:09:35 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

GRS00008@APPSTATE.EDU  writes:
> not every one on the net is male, thank you very much.
> most women don't post because you guys are too busy running your mouths
> for us to get a word in edge-wise.  Or you ignore what we say.
> 
> this isn't ment to flame,
> it's just the facts (m'am)
> stef
> O+O+O+O+O+O+O+O+O+O+O+O+O+O+O+O+O+O+O+O+O+O+O+O+O+O+O+O+O+O+O+O+O+O+O+O+O+O+O+O+
> +   seen in ad....HELP RELOCATE          O      My opinons are due to          O
> O   MY PUSSY  The landlord doesn't       +      too much caffeine and pms      +
> +   want it. I'm gonna miss it.          O+O+O+O+O+O+O+O+O+O+O+O+O+O+O+O+O+O+O+O
> O   You can have it....                  +      GRS00008@alf.appstate.edu      +
> +O+O+O+O+O+O+O+O+O+O+O+O+O+O+O+O+O+O+O+O+O+O+O+O+O+O+O+O+O+O+O+O+O+O+O+O+O+O+O+O
>  

I have no sympathy for those who whine.  I read all posts and
seldom reply to any of them...male or female.  I find your
statement offensive, self-deprecating, and uncategorically
false.  Thank You Maam!
--
James A. Murray                    |  Certe, Toto, sentio nos in
University of Virginia             |  Kansate non iam adesse. 
jam8j@galen.med.Virginia.edu       |    		-Dorothea
Compuserve: 71022,1000             |  
Newsgroups: alt.homosexual