HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris)
Subject: Re: Self-Defense
Organization: Motorola, CCR&D, CORP, Schaumburg, IL
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 17:10:50 GMT

In article <1992Jul30.010545.3795@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
)In article <1992Jul27.162636.7328@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com> bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris) writes:
)>In article <1992Jul23.035153.2572@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:

)>)Situation: You're a prisoner in a cell.  Your prisonmate, who's five
)>)inches taller, and a hundred pounds heavier, whom you have no hope 
)>)of defending yourself against tells you one night: "When dawn comes,
)>)I'm going to kill you."  He then goes to sleep.  Assume that going to
)>)a guard for assistance has proven futile in the past, and that you have
)>)no reason to believe otherwise now.  What do you do?  What should the
)>)law be?
)>)
)>)It's not as obvious as you seem to think.

There certainly would have to be a trial.  It would take a *really* good 
lawyer, IMO, to get a guy who killed his cellmate in his sleep off
scott free, though (IMO).  Plus a lot of evidence that there was a real
threat. (I do find the particular scenario you have describes as being
somewhat unconvicing, given the lack of detail.  Since you state it's based
on a real case, presumably there is more to it than what you've described.)

It'd take an even better laywer to get him off after he killed his cellmate
by burning him alive with gasoline.  (How do you get gasoline & a match
in jail, anyway?  If one can get gasoline, why not some other weapon with
which to defend onself?  And if one has some other way of defending oneself,
such as a weapon, is it still OK to kill the other person in his sleep?  Is
it really true that there was absolutely *no* hope of defending oneself in
this case - not even long enough for the guards to investigate the noise of
the struggle?)

And, if one's client  *wasn't* in jail, I think one could kiss one's chances
goodbye for getting him off scott free.

Juries do do strange things sometimes, though.

Xref: sparky misc.legal:14995 alt.censorship:6375 talk.politics.misc:36297 alt.flame:11434
From: artc@bacchus.epps.kodak.com (Art Campbell)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Photograhper
Date: 21 Jul 92 13:18:32 GMT
Article-I.D.: APS.1992Jul21.131832.24769
Reply-To: artc@bacchus.atex.kodak.com
Organization: Atex Publishing Systems, Inc.

In article <14eu1qINNkne@sixgun.East.Sun.COM>, tlr@penguins.East.Sun.COM (Tammy Roncadori - Administrator Sun Washington D.C.) writes:
|> Is is legal, in the Metro Washington, D.C. area for a professional photographer
|> use one of your wedding pictures to advertise their business without your
|> consent?
|> 

To use an image of another person for advertising, the subject of the photo
is supposed to sign a model release, which gives the photographer specific rights to
the photo(s).

Although I've never contracted with a wedding photographer for anything, I'd
expect it to be in the fine print of whatever contract you signed to arrange for
the shooting.

Look back over the agreement.... and if there isn't anything in it about use rights,
you've probably got a valid complaint.

-- 
Art Campbell          artc@atex.kodak.com            72227.1375@compuserve.com
   DoD 358                                  _Real_ BMWs have just two wheels.
    "... In my opinion, there's nothing in this world beats a '52 Vincent 
     and a redheaded girl." -- Richard Thompson
                      All the usual disclaimers apply.
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: tcubed@ddsw1.mcs.com (James Hanlon)
Subject: Arrested on bogus warrant--archives?
Organization: ddsw1.MCS.COM Contributor, Chicago, IL
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 05:00:27 GMT
X-Disclaimer:  Material posted in this article is the sole responsibility of
                the poster and does not represent MCSNet or the system owners.

Xref: sparky misc.legal:14691 talk.politics.misc:35415 alt.censorship:6159
From: "hilary miller" <hilary.miller@execnet.com>
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: photograhper
Date: 24 Jul 92 06:21:27 EST
Reply-To: "hilary miller" <hilary.miller@execnet.com>
Distribution: misc
Organization: Executive Networks Information


Tammy Roncadori - Adminis, in a message to All on 07-23-92 at 5:00am, said:

TR>|Is is legal, in the Metro Washington, D.C. area for a professional phot
   |use one of your wedding pictures to advertise their business without yo
   |consent?
   |_______________________________________________________________________

          The answer is: it depends.  The area you mention could be no
          fewer than three or four different legal jurisdictions with
          different interpretations on this subject.  However, in
          general, it is impermissable to use a person's name, like-
          ness, portrait or picture for trade or advertising purposes
          without consent.  Restatement (2d) of Torts  652C, which so
          provides, has been incorporated into the common law of many
          states.   If you are serious about pursuing this, ask the
          photographer to desist and initiate a small-claims court
          proceeding for damages.


   L A
 I    R        Hilary B. Miller of Greenwich, Connecticut
  H/\Y         CIS: 76040,1743
    
---
  DeLuxe 1.25 #11645  Nietzche is pietzche, but Sartre is smartre.
--
Executive Network Information System  (914) 667-4567
International ILink Host
Xref: sparky misc.legal:15156 soc.history:6788
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,soc.history
Subject: Re: Free Blacks Protected By Southern Courts
Date: 29 Jul 92 17:14:21 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1992Jul28.214444.1@acad3.alaska.edu>, fsars@acad3.alaska.edu (Allen R Sparks) writes:
> In article <11434@optilink.UUCP>, cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
> >                       They were reluctant to specify how far those
> > protections went, but did find that a whipping of a free black
> > without jury trial was a violation of the Kentucky Constitution.
> > The case is Ely v. Thompson, 3 A.K. Marshall (Ky.) 70 (1820).
> 
> Was whipping a legal punishment for white men at that time? === Al Sparks

It wasn't mentioned in this decision, but I know that as late as 1960
Delaware courts upheld whipping as a punishment for some crimes.
-- 
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.
From: wrat@unisql.UUCP (wharfie)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: ProMaleChoice
Keywords: Shotgun Marriage
Date: 23 Jul 92 19:03:43 GMT
Reply-To: wrat@unisql.UUCP (wharfie)
Organization: UniSQL, Inc., Austin, Texas, USA

In article <18978@smoke.brl.mil> matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt) writes:
>I maintain that any system where people know that an accidental
>pregnancy will result in their having to get married will discourage
>fornication.  That's the way it used to be

	William the Conqueror was the bastard son of the King of France -
one of the Phillips, I think.  Phillip *did* *not* marry William's mother.
From: "hilary miller" <hilary.miller@execnet.com>
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: a question regarding
Date: 21 Jul 92 07:24:23 EST
Reply-To: "hilary miller" <hilary.miller@execnet.com>
Distribution: misc
Organization: Executive Networks Information


To: ccat@netcom.com (Chris Beaumont)

Chris Beaumont, in a message to All on 07-21-92 at 3:21am, said:

CB>|Since I was 20 or so, I've been aware that my father was a pretty
   |well known composer. (He's been dead for over 30 years..)
   |About seven years ago,I met my half-brother, and he's a very nice
   |sort..although he's a bit lazy.....
   |He lives off the royalties from my father's music, (I don't receive
   |any of these royalties because I'm an illigitimate child..)
   |I have always assumed that I have no right to these royalties,
   |because I'm an illigitimate child....(but I have felt I have a moral
   |right to at least some of this money...) My brother has acknowledg{d
   |this, but hyas said he "cant afford" to give me any of it..
   |____________________________________________________________________

          Chris, I am an entertainment lawyer in New York and have
          handled many similar matters.  I believe that this is a
          matter that can be dealt with to your benefit.  Please tele-
          phone me at (203) 622-6262 (rings at home and office - call
          at any reasonable hour) to discuss it.  I will apprise you of
          the relevant law and of your possible rights when you call.


   L A
 I    R        Hilary B. Miller of Greenwich, Connecticut
  H/\Y         CIS: 76040,1743
    
---
  DeLuxe 1.25 #11645  Hell hath no fury like the lawyer of woman scorned
--
Executive Network Information System  (914) 667-4567
International ILink Host
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: Stare Decisis
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 06:51:48 GMT

In article <1992Jul25.184414.6839@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu> akbloom@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu (Keith Bloom) writes:

>After citing some sociological evidence on the effects of
>discrimination on black children, Warren wrote:
>
>    "Whatever may have been the extent of psychological knowledge at
>     the time of _Plessy v. Ferguson_, this finding is amply supported
>     by modern authority.  Any language in _Plessy v. Ferguson_
>     contrary to this finding is rejected."
>
>This is probably good enough to be considered an explicit override of
>Plessy v. Ferguson, at least as it applied to education.

That's a misreading, I think. Warren's reference to Clark's sociological
data (see footnote 11) is designed to show that *as a matter of fact in
this case*, separate is not equal.

In order for Plessy to have been overruled, Warren would have had to argue
that *as a matter of law* separate cannot be equal. This legal conclusion
was not reached in Brown v. Board of Education.


--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
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: I'm Pro-Male-Choice
Keywords: RU 486
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 00:38:57 GMT

In article <18970@smoke.brl.mil> matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt) writes:
>In article <1992Jul18.004123.15973@cfctech.cfc.com> kevin@cfctech.cfc.com 
>(Kevin Darcy) writes:
>
>>In article <18962@smoke.brl.mil> matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt) 
>>writes:
>
>>>. . . He'll 
>>>be able to buy an RU-486 pill from his neighborhood dope pusher, 
>>>and sneak it into his girl friend's drink or salad while her head 
>>>is turned.    [Matt Rosenblatt]
>
>>He has no right, moral or legal, to modify her body chemistry without her 
>>consent, IMO.   [Kevin Darcy]
>
>This makes a mockery of the "Subject:" line, which is "I'm Pro-Male-Choice."
>She has a moral and legal right to bring into the world a child who will
>have only one parent, and he has nothing to say about it except, as I
>wrote earlier, to keep his pants zipped up.  Some "Male Choice"!

Let me get this straight; you're ADVOCATING this "slip 'er a pill" gambit as a 
"solution" to the child-support crisis?!!?!?!

Get real.

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: underdog@leland.Stanford.EDU (Dwight Joe)
Subject: Laws Against Suicide?
Organization: Miners for a Heart of Gold
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 92 02:55:16 GMT

Would someone please humor me and answer the following question?
I've already posted this twice.

Is suicide illegal in California?
In other words, is there some statue making suicide illegal in the state of
California?

E-mail replies are sought.  Thanks in advance.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Seikatsu no imi wa nan desu ka.            \|  |`      | Don't buy from Toyota;
Shitte itara oshiete kuremasen ka.          | -+-      | especially, don't buy
                                           /| / \      | from Capitol Toyota in
Copyright 1992.                                        | San Jose, California.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.censorship,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Using killfiles is a form of censorship (was: Re: A Modest Request
Date: 27 Jul 92 14:51:32 GMT
Organization: Princeton University
Originator: news@ernie.Princeton.EDU

In article <1992Jul27.034721.23197@m2xenix.psg.com> michaels@m2xenix.psg.com (Michael Sandy) writes:
>
>Censorship would be if a node-administrator ran all the articles through

One form of "censorship" that would be highly beneficial to the net's
purpose of being an information (rather than disinformation) exchange
would be to increase the number of moderated groups and to decrease the
number of unmoderated groups.  

>
>Would you force people to read all their snail-mail Mail?

No.  But in saying that kill files are a form of censorship I did not
mean to decry them or "censorship" for I believe in beneficial
"censorship"" in two ways:


     *  I disbelieve in the existence of a hard and fast boundary
        between censorship and other forms of behavior, including
        using "kill" files.

     *  I believe that libertarians engage in "censorship" all the
        time; they don't admit it, but they do.


I just set up a kill file for Henry Schaffer, so try to keep in mind
that because kill files are a form of censorship I don't eschew them.
>
>
From: mvp@hsv3.lsil.com (Mike Van Pelt)
Subject: Re: A Modest Request
Organization: Video 7 + G2 = Headland Technology
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 23:10:11 GMT

In article <1992Jul22.151442.6943@athena.mit.edu> wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr) writes:
>(2) I have had it with Ed Nilges, and have put him into my killfiles
>    for these newsgroups by adding "/nilges/hj" to these killfiles.

What you want is the following:
/egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU/a:=:j

This will kill article with "In <1992Jul22.175330.12394@Princeton.EDU>,
egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU sez:" anywhere in the text.  The "="
will print the headers of the cancelled lines; I've found this useful,
since the more all-encompassing your KILL file line, the more likely
it's going to kill something you might want to read.

Disclaimer: I haven't noticed Ed one way or the other.  The only 
current residents of my KILL files are ARF and everyone on b-cpu.
-- 
Mike Van Pelt
Headland Technology/Video 7              Use a pun, go to jail.
sun!indetech!hsv3!mvp
mvp@hsv3.lsil.com
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges)
Subject: Re: Hate Speech Okay, says the Supreme Court
Originator: news@ernie.Princeton.EDU
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 21:30:24 GMT

In article <1992Jul26.153809.20257@ncsu.edu> hes@unity.ncsu.edu (Henry E. Schaffer) writes:
>perceive the difference between a) speech and b) passing/enforcing a
>law. 

Don't equivocate, Henry.  I said that law is a form of speech; eg., that
all legal speech is speech.  I did not make the claim that all speech is
a form of law, setting aside the quasilegal content of John Q. Citizen's
pronouncements ("there oughta be a law") for a bit.  What seems to
escape your notion that was lawmakers DO is talk and write quite a lot,
and the enmity for legalism I sense on the part of libertarian thinkers
undercuts their loud support of free speech.

We see an example of this in this thread.  Mike Godwin is beginning,
like William December Starr, to descend to threatening language in
preference to either remaining silent on the subject matter of this
thread, or engaging discussants in the substance of what the SC said in
re Viktora.  This undercuts Godwin and Starr's professed dedication
to free speech.

> It is equally hard to understand how Starr's decision not to
>participate in discussing a given thread, regardless of the 
>technology he uses, in any way conflicts with his dedication to free
>speech (in a deconstructive sense, of course.)  (For the nit-picker
>I state that I am assuming that Starr's choice of technology does
>not affect others' ability to participate.)  It appears that Nilges
>would defend Morris' release of the Internet Worm on a free speech
>basis.  

I would not defend the Internet Worm on a free speech basis, I'd only
point to the hysterical overreaction to Morris on the part of managers
of unix systems that had been deliberately designed in an insecure
fashion as undercutting any devotion these managers might profess for
freedom in general.
>
>  However this is academic, Nilges' lack of reply to my post on his
>mis-statements regarding race shows a lack of dedication to free speech 
>in practice which belies (deconstructs) his defense in post-modern
>language.  Nonetheless, I am thankful that "reify" didn't appear even
>once in his entire post.

Gimme a shorter and more economical word for "make a thing out of" (and
if you say "object-oriented" I'll scream) and I'll use it.

Henry, I did not indulge myself in the fashion of Godwin and of Starr in
ugly language and a deliberate announcement to the world that one has
"killed" Nilges.  I did not even put you in my kill file.  I am anxious
not to waste network resources and as such when I have made point A in
reply to poster B, I am loth to repeat myself in a reply to poster C.





Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: gearson@jove.Colorado.EDU (James R. Gearson)
Subject: Info needed on DNA vs blood tests for paternity determination
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 02:54:51 GMT

I am involved in a paternity case in the Chicago area.  I would like
to know as soon as possible whether this child is mine.   (If it is,
my wife and I intend to pursue custody.)  I have heard of various blood 
tests and DNA tests.  Can the DNA tests be performed earlier than at six
months, as is the case for the blood tests?  Are these tests of the
same reliability?  What literature is there on these tests?

James Gearson
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: Using killfiles is a form of censorship (was: Re: A Modest Request
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 18:56:46 GMT

In article <1992Jul25.180444.14954@Princeton.EDU> egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:

>Using kill files IS a form of censorship.  At the very least, it
>contradicts the professed dedication of discussants in the "Hate Speech
>Okay" thread like Mr. Starr to free and open debate.  Here's why.

Why is it that those who make this bizarre argument--that killfiles are
a form of censorship--are invariably those who are most likely to be 
selected for killfiles?

Probably just coincidence.


--Mike



-- 
Mike Godwin,     |"Of the many definitions of poetry, the   
mnemonic@eff.org | simplest is still the best: 'memorable speech.'" 
(617) 864-0665   | 
EFF, Cambridge   |                     --W.H. Auden 
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: akbloom@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu (Keith Bloom)
Subject: Re: Stare Decisis
Organization: The Johns Hopkins University
	<45ob021r1b7d01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> 
	<1992Jul25.122946.5484@athena.mit.edu>
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 92 18:30:14 GMT

wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr) writes:

>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.)

_Mapp v. Ohio_, 367 US 643 (1961), explicitly overruled _Wolf v.
Colorado_, 338 US 25 (1949).  Justice Clark's language in _Mapp_ is
more mealy-mouthed than Justice Jackson's in _West Va. v. Barnette_
with regard to applicability of the previous decision.  Still, I think 
this case meets Mr. Starr's standards.


Keith
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: GA.CJJ@forsythe.stanford.edu (Clifford Johnson)
Subject: Re: Lawsuit to compel a fraud to run for President!
Organization: Stanford University, California, USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 18:01:55 GMT

thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:
>Can you say "Rule 11 Sanctions"?

Not necessarily,as the Plaintiff might be seeking the alternative
relief of monetary compensation for her induced spending of time
and money.  The fact that now she wouldn't vote for Perot anyway
does not throw out her injury.
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Subject: A Modest Request
Organization: Northeastern Law, Class of '93
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 15:14:42 GMT


Dear folks:

(1) I use RN to read my news.

(2) I have had it with Ed Nilges, and have put him into my killfiles
    for these newsgroups by adding "/nilges/hj" to these killfiles.
    In RN-language, this tells the system to check the header of each
    article for the character string "nilges" and to kill the
    article if it's found.

(3) The problem is that although this insulates me from articles
    posted by Nilges himself (since they all have "From: egnilges"
    in their headers), it doesn't save me from other people's well-
    intentioned attempts to reply to Nilges articles.

Accordingly, I humbly request that people who are posting direct
replies to Nilges posts modify their posting software, if possible, so
that the string "nilges" will appear somewhere in the header (e.g.,
"In-Reply-To: egnilges@...").  Thank you.

-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges)
Subject: Re: Using killfiles is a form of censorship (was: Re: A Modest Request
Originator: news@ernie.Princeton.EDU
Keywords: egnilges
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 15:51:29 GMT

In article <1992Jul29.145349.25372@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> rwd4f@poe.acc.Virginia.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?"  "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.  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.  Then I got elected to
the House of Representatives...."

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.