HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: foy@aero.org (Richard Foy)
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty
Subject: Re: I Have Been Forbidden to Speak the Truth From THIS Account
Date: 16 Nov 1992 17:17:54 GMT
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: aerospace.aero.org

In article <BxBBpD.MDI@wrs.com> gak@wrs.com writes:
>It's irrelevant whether AT&T treats all their employees the way John is
>being treated.  AT&T is not the government.  Free speech doctrines do
>not apply to them.
>
>If they were to fire John over this issue, that would be different.  In
>that case, he could claim unfair treatment.
>
>Unless I've missed something in this thread, John is not being fired.
>He has only been asked not to post controversial (by AT&T's definition)
>material.  AT&T has every right to censor under these circumstances.
>
>---
>I guess there's some things          |      Seems like the more I think I know
>I'm not meant to understand          |                 The more I find I don't
>Ain't life a riot? Ain't love grand? | Every answer opens up so many questions
>Richard Stueven                 gak@wrs.com            ...!attmail!gakhaus!gak
>


The question, in my mind, is should AT&T have the right to censor postings.

They are a public corporation. AS such they receive certain benefits from
the government i.e., the corporation has the rights of a person, the
corporation's owners are protected from liability resulting from actions
of the corporation.

Thus in my view in exchange for these benefits they should not be allowed
to censor on the basis of content. 

Richard Foy  Redondo Beach, CA         Standard Disclaimer
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.activism,alt.politics.usa.constitution,soc.history,talk.politics.theory
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: [ACLU] Guardian of Liberty: American Civil Liberties Union
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 05:42:23 GMT

In article <1992Nov19.161920.27072@kadsma.kodak.com> pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek) writes:
>>However, the "scientific" view is _also_ a religion: It is based on
>>unproven (and unproveable) articles of faith. That the universe
>>and everything in it obeys physical laws; that these laws are
>>logical and understandable; that these laws are the same everywhere
>>in the universe; etc...

>Science doesn't rest on 'unprovable' articles of faith. It rests on
>*falsifiable propositions*. This is the crux of the difference between
>science and religion. Every truly scientific proposition can be
>tested and (quite likely) falsified.

However, this doesn't apply to the "articles of faith" I mentioned
above: That everything in the universe follows physical laws. This 
can not be demonstrated false, since any conflict between observed
behavior and known laws can simply be ascribed to yet-unknown laws.
That these laws are logical and understandable, is not falsifiable
by the same reasoning. That these laws are the same throughout the
universe, is (at the moment) not falsifiable due to a lack of
evidence (we can't go there, and all we know about the rest of
the universe is based on the application of this assumption. Therefore,
no data is available with which to test to assumption.) While
you might argue that these are not "truly scientific propositions"
(and might be correct in saying so), that doesn't alter their
fundamental connection to science.

>Note that no scientific hypothesis can be *proven*, but all scientific
>hypotheses can be *tested*.

Since the issue was science education in the public schools, I'd 
disagree on this. Science, as it appears in public schools, very
rarely adopts this character. Instead, students are presented
and expected to accept (with or without proof) "the laws
of science", which are essentially dictates from on high.

                                          Frank Crary
                                          CU Boulder
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution,talk.politics.theory
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: [ACLU] Guardian of Liberty: American Civil Liberties Union
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 04:25:31 GMT

In article <1992Nov20.194048.25848@beaver.cs.washington.edu> graham@cs.washington.edu (Stephen Graham) writes:
>>Your statement of the ACLU's position was incorrect (or, at least, 
>>misleading) and you claimed there were no relevant Supreme Court
>>rulings on the subject (which you apparently knew was not the case.)

>I said "definitive", not "relevant". Miller, while relevant, does not
>address the more recent spate of state gun control laws.

You were discussing the meaning of the Second Amendment in general, not
it's application to state governments. US v. Miller is quite definitive
on this subject: The right of private citizens to own militia-usefull
weapons is protected. If this protection applies to imfringement by
the federal government only, or also to the states, is unclear from
modern case law. At least in dicta, Presser v. Illinois says that
the states can not prohibit the right, although local regulation may
be acceptable.

                                            Frank Crary  
                                            CU Boulder

Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.politics.usa.misc,talk.politics.misc,alt.activism
From: graham@cs.washington.edu (Stephen Graham)
Subject: Re: [ACLU] Guardian of Liberty: American Civil Liberties Union
Organization: Computer Science & Engineering, U. of Washington, Seattle
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 92 01:02:22 GMT

In article <Bxwt89.79D@quake.sylmar.ca.us> brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder) writes:
>I noticed that in the list of constitutionally protected rights, the ACLU
>doesn't recognize the right to keep and bear arms, but that it DOES recognize
>the right to privacy which is not listed in the constitution (not that I
>disagree with the general idea of the government keeping out of private
>affairs, but it would have to follow under the 9th amendment or something).
>
>Isn't it a bit fraudulent to claim to support the bill of rights when you
>choose to ignore certain parts of it?

In order to defend the Bill of Rights, you have to establish a position on
its interpretation. Most of the rights granted are uncontroversial and
defending them is simple. A few, notably the right to keep and bear arms
and freedom of religion/separation of church and state, are interpreted
differently by various groups. 

In the case of the right to keep and bear arms, the two prevailing positions
are 1) that you have the right to keep and bear anything you damn well feel
like, or 2) the word militia is in the amendment for a reason, and you do
not have the unrestricted right to bear any arms, but rather those 
"reasonable" for militia service and hunting.

You have adopted position 1. The ACLU has adopted position 2. Either of you
may be right, as a definitive Supreme Court decision has not been made.
The presence of various gun control laws in the statute books is an
argument that the Supreme Court may decide in favor position 2. 

Whether you think this is a good or bad thing is a subject for
talk.politics. guns.

The ACLU's support of position 2 does not necessarily mean that they are
evil incarnate. They just differ from you. And that is covered by the
first amendment.
-- 
Stephen Graham
graham@cs.washington.edu	 uw-beaver!june!graham
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.activism,alt.politics.usa.constitution,soc.history,talk.politics.theory
From: graham@cs.washington.edu (Stephen Graham)
Subject: Re: [ACLU] Guardian of Liberty: American Civil Liberties Union
Organization: Computer Science & Engineering, U. of Washington, Seattle
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 92 00:31:25 GMT

In article <1992Nov20.221458.4878@news.eng.convex.com> cash@convex.com (Peter Cash) writes:
>In article <1992Nov19.214624.15573@beaver.cs.washington.edu> graham@cs.washington.edu (Stephen Graham) writes:
>>The scientific view claims that, as far as we can tell, the universe tends
>>to behave in such and such a fashion, which can be expressed in the 
>>following manner... It's merely observation, not faith.
>
>But why do you trust in observation? Why do you think your observations are
>trustworthy? Indeed, what makes you think that there _is_ an observable
>universe, that there are beings other than you who observe it, and that the
>universe continues to exist when you are _not_ observing it?  How do you
>know that the world as you experience it is not a dream, an extended
>hallucination, or some kind of mental slide-show that has no enduring
>reality behind it? How can you prove that the universe continues to exist
>when you close your eyes?

You're pushing this rather far, don't you think? The phrase "as far as we
can tell" should cover your objections. Proof of the reader's existence is
left as an exercise for the reader. If it's all a private delusion of
mine, then who cares?

>The standards of proof are not themselves amenable to proof--they have to
>be assumed. Thus, trust in empirical methods is just as much a "faith" as
>is trust in divine revelation. 

Er, nothing's being proven. It's merely a statement of what's worked in the
past, which may or may not prove helpful in your present situation. Feel
free to set forth any alternatives which also work.

>>Evolution merely states that based on the evidence we've found and current
>>behavoir, this is the best explanantion of how man and other flora and fauna
>>reached their present form. 
>
>Indeed, the doctrine of evolution "states" this. But by what standard is it
>"best"? 

I, personally, find that is explains the available data fairly well and is
more believable than other theories. Many people agree with me. Again,
feel free to propose alternatives. As long as they aren't dependent on
religious faith, feel free to teach them in the public schools.

One thing to keep in mind: Students spend less than 40 hours a week in
school. Parents and other groups therefore have the other 128+ hours a
week to counter-indoctrinate their kids. 

Sheesh.


-- 
Stephen Graham
graham@cs.washington.edu	 uw-beaver!june!graham
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.activism,alt.politics.usa.constitution,soc.history,talk.politics.theory
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: [ACLU] Guardian of Liberty: American Civil Liberties Union
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 22:57:33 GMT

In article <1992Nov23.143555.11534@porthos.cc.bellcore.com> bobh@troy.cc.bellcore.com (hettmansperger,robert) writes:
>>However, this personal judgement is advocated and taught by government
>>agents. The whole point of the First Amendment's religious protections
>>is to keep what "many people agree..." from being imposed on religious
>>minorities who disagree.

>Science isn't religion.  By simple definition.
>There is no supreme being.  There is no dogma.

You have just given two examples of scientific dogma: "Science isn't
religion" and "there is no supreme being."

>To say that teaching science violates the first amendment shows that you 
>either don't understand the constitution or that you don't understand the
>difference between scientific faith and religious faith.

The First Amendment does prohibit governmental restriction of the "free
exercise [of religion.]" To force everyone to learn (e.g. to attend 
public schools that teach) that a religious teaching is wrong (for
whatever reason) is such a restriction.

As to the difference between scientific and religious faith, the only
difference you point out is to claim science isn't dogmatic. This
ignores the nature of real, practiced science (the history of which
is _full_ of dogmatic scientists) and the wide range of religion (some
religions are extremely dogmatic, but others are not so at all.)

                                                   Frank Crary
                                                   CU Boulder

Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.politics.usa.misc,talk.politics.misc
From: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Subject: [talk.politics.drugs] District Headquarters for War on Drugs
Reply-To: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 03:48:30 GMT

A repost from talk.politics.drugs:

From: garrett@Ingres.COM (WE'RE ONLY HERE BECAUSE WE'RE NOT ALL HERE)
Subject: District Headquarters for War on Drugs
Organization: ASK Computer Systems, Ingres Product Division
Date: 17 Nov 92 04:11:00 GMT

	A couple years ago I witnessed a sight that many people never
get to see. To see it I had to be arrested. My crime? I committed the
heinous and unforgivable crime of camping in a picnic area of a national
park (no joke. I was actually arrested for this. Had to stand in front of
a judge handcuffed.)
	Although my crime was in a different part of the country they 
arrested me in San Francisco. They took me to the monolithic looking
Federal Building in downtown S.F., and up to the 22nd floor (ever saw
the movie 1984? It looks just like the Ministry of Justice, on the inside
as well as the outside. Even scarier on the inside.) 
	While I was being searched, and I.D.ed, I got to witness one of 
the main headquarters of the Drug Intervention Division. They were
coordinating a major drug raid at the time (I understood this from the
way they were talking). They seemed to be pretty incompitent actually.
BUT THE EQUIPTMENT! This could have been the NASA! That's just what it
looked like, NASA. BTW, it was harvest time so I guess they were arranging
a drug raid in Humbolt, or Santa Cruz county, becuase they were definantly
talking to helicoptors. 
	My point is that we are giving way too much money to the
drug enforcement agencies. They using millions of dollars of equiptment
to bust some guy growing a couple plants in a field. THIS IS CRAZY! 
(Not to mention spending good money to bust illegal campers.)

	BTW, in case you were wondering, after spending a couple hours
in a windowless cell with a couple coke dealers, they handcuffed me and took
me down a secret elevator (that only runs for the top 5 floors, and has its
own cage) to a windowless court room where I stood handcuffed in front of
a judge and three armed guards (No other witnesses). They then found me
guilty and made me pay the $25 fine (I laughed the whole way home. What 
else could I do?).

-Garrett
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.activism,alt.politics.usa.constitution,soc.history,talk.politics.theory
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: [ACLU] Guardian of Liberty: American Civil Liberties Union
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 19:05:47 GMT

In article <JMC.92Nov20090453@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:
>There isn't time to give all theories equal weight, and like it or
>not evolution dominates scientific thought and also general
>intellectual thought.  However, there are a large number of people
>who adhere to creationist doctrines of one kind or another.

That is, the majority feels that evolution is correct, and certain
common religious views are wrong. Since public education is a
matter of indoctrination (in effect), the current policy is for
the government to indoctrinate all children that a particular
religion is wrong. That sounds quite clearly like a violation of
the First Amendment.

>...I
>would go this far to accomodate them.  Let there be an annual
>debate on creationism vs. evolution...

That doesn't really address the objection, since the students would
still be indoctrinated at government expense for the rest of the 
year.

                                                   Frank Crary
                                                   CU Boulder
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.activism,alt.politics.usa.constitution,soc.history,talk.politics.theory
From: brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder)
Subject: Re: [ACLU] Guardian of Liberty: American Civil Liberties Union
Organization: Quake Public Access
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 12:51:48 GMT

In article <1992Nov18.171739.27144@Princeton.EDU> niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
>In article <Bxwt89.79D@quake.sylmar.ca.us> brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder) writes:

>>I noticed that in the list of constitutionally protected rights, the ACLU
>>doesn't recognize the right to keep and bear arms, but that it DOES recognize
>>the right to privacy which is not listed in the constitution (not that I
>>disagree with the general idea of the government keeping out of private
>>affairs, but it would have to follow under the 9th amendment or something).

>>Isn't it a bit fraudulent to claim to support the bill of rights when you
>>choose to ignore certain parts of it?

>No; they don't ignore it.  They just don't interpret it the way you do.
>Maybe they're wrong, but they aren't ignoring it.

That's simply dishonesty.  The ACLU doesn't just interpret the second
amendment "differently".  They are opposed to the right to keep and bear
arms regardless of whether the constitution defends it or not.  The least
they could do is stop lying and admit that their right to bear arms position
is in disagreement with the constitution.

--Brian

Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,soc.history,alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: First Amendment and Private Schools
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 21:26:38 GMT

Martina Cartwright <MCARTWR@auvm.american.edu> writes:

>I am not exactly sure but if I remember correctly from my
>Constitutional law class, private institutions can censor the work of
>their student newspapers and to a certain extent, lectures of
>professors, without violating the first amendment of the U.S.
>Constitution.
[...]

I believe this is correct. Such censorship might, however, violate the
private school's contract with a professor or student. The contracts
typically guarantee some freedom of expression and academic freedom
rights.

- Carl

ANNOTATED REFERENCES

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

=================
law/constraints.contractual
=================
* Universities -- Contractual Constraints

Comments from _A Practical Guide to Legal Issues Affecting College
Teachers_. Explains that University Code is part of the contract
between the student and school. The University can be liable for a
breach of the contract (i.e. for not following its own rules).

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

If you have gopher, you can browse the CAF archive with the command
   gopher gopher.eff.org

These document(s) are also 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/constraints.contractual

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 constraints.contractual

-- 
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From: haynes@cats.ucsc.edu (Jim Haynes)
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty
Subject: Re: What is Social Darwinism?
Date: 16 Nov 1992 22:22:46 GMT
Organization: University of California; Santa Cruz
NNTP-Posting-Host: hobbes.ucsc.edu


In article <92321.133924IO92516@MAINE.MAINE.EDU> IO92516@MAINE.MAINE.EDU (scott borchelt) writes:
>   Some of the more notorious social darwinists are Hitler and the KKK.
>The way HItler addresses the Jews and non-Aryan people are demonstra-
>tions of social darwinism.

I agree Hitler and the KKK are reprehensible, but are they social Darwinists?

I would have thought Social Darwinism is more along the lines of the rich
saying the poor deserve the hardships that befall them because they are
inferior; and you don't find Hitler or the KKK people among the really rich.
Although I have heard that idea traced all the way back to Calvinism,
the rich being predestined by God to be blessed and the poor being predestined
to damnation.  Then there are the 19th century ideas that the nonwhite
races are actually different species that are destined for extinction,
as evidenced by white peoples' greater prosperity and scientific progress.
It seems to me that social Darwinism is more compatible with Libertarianism
and traditional conservatism than with activist movements such as
Nazism and the KKK agenda.
-- 
haynes@cats.ucsc.edu
haynes@cats.bitnet

"Ya can argue all ya wanna, but it's dif'rent than it was!"
"No it aint!  But ya gotta know the territory!"
        Meredith Willson: "The Music Man"

Xref: sparky alt.society.civil-liberty:6625 alt.activism:18967 alt.politics.usa.constitution:1131 soc.history:9534 talk.politics.theory:4984
From: feustel@netcom.com (David Feustel)
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.activism,alt.politics.usa.constitution,soc.history,talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: [ACLU] Guardian of Liberty: American Civil Liberties Union
Date: 19 Nov 92 02:57:26 GMT
Article-I.D.: netcom.1992Nov19.025726.29276
Organization: DAFCO: OS/2 Software Support & Consulting

graham@cs.washington.edu (Stephen Graham) writes:

>In article <Bxwt89.79D@quake.sylmar.ca.us> brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder) writes:
>>I noticed that in the list of constitutionally protected rights, the ACLU
>>doesn't recognize the right to keep and bear arms, but that it DOES recognize
>>the right to privacy which is not listed in the constitution (not that I
>>disagree with the general idea of the government keeping out of private
>>affairs, but it would have to follow under the 9th amendment or something).
>>
>>Isn't it a bit fraudulent to claim to support the bill of rights when you
>>choose to ignore certain parts of it?

>In order to defend the Bill of Rights, you have to establish a position on
>its interpretation. Most of the rights granted are uncontroversial and
>defending them is simple. A few, notably the right to keep and bear arms
>and freedom of religion/separation of church and state, are interpreted
>differently by various groups. 

>In the case of the right to keep and bear arms, the two prevailing positions
>are 1) that you have the right to keep and bear anything you damn well feel
>like, or 2) the word militia is in the amendment for a reason, and you do
>not have the unrestricted right to bear any arms, but rather those 
>"reasonable" for militia service and hunting.

>You have adopted position 1. The ACLU has adopted position 2. Either of you
>may be right, as a definitive Supreme Court decision has not been made.
>The presence of various gun control laws in the statute books is an
>argument that the Supreme Court may decide in favor position 2. 

>Whether you think this is a good or bad thing is a subject for
>talk.politics. guns.

>The ACLU's support of position 2 does not necessarily mean that they are
>evil incarnate. They just differ from you. And that is covered by the
>first amendment.

The ACLU's position is not what you refer to as position 2. The ACLU's
position is that individuals do NOT have the right to keep and bear
arms PERIOD. I.E. the ACLU asserts (incorrectly) that the 2nd
amendment is a *collective*, not an individual, right. 
-- 
Dave Feustel N9MYI <feustel@netcom.com>
 
GE knew there was lots of money to be made in the diagnostic medical
machine field since it was only a matter of time before people started
getting sick from the effects of all of GE's toxic and radioactive
waste dumping. I expect GE to get into the Mortuary business next.
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution,talk.politics.theory