HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: "hilary miller" <hilary.miller@execnet.com>
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: topless in ny state?
Date: 26 Jul 92 08:42:40 EST
Reply-To: "hilary miller" <hilary.miller@execnet.com>
Distribution: misc
Organization: Executive Networks Information


Richard L. Carreiro, in a message to All on 07-25-92 at 8:23pm, said:

RL>|I was reading a newspaper article the other day about some protest on
   |the Peace Bridge between NY and Ontario.  In passing, it mentioned that
   |there is now a court order in NY state that says women can be topless
   |in public.  Having not heard anything at all about that case
   |_______________________________________________________________________

          The Court of Appeals has held that New York may not lawfully
          proscribe conduct to females that is permitted to males.  New
          York's law prohibiting the public exhibition of the female
          areola was declared unconstitutional.


   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,alt.censorship,talk.politics.misc
From: rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold)
Subject: Re: Using killfiles is a form of censorship (was: Re: A Modest Request
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 06:11:35 GMT

michaels@m2xenix.psg.com (Michael Sandy) writes:
>Are kill files censorship?

How?  If I place someone or something in my kill file I have not in
any way impacted their ability to post what they want or affected the
ability of anyone else to read their post.  I've just decided that
what they say isn't worth the time spent reading it.  Just as when I'm
in the store browsing books, I just zip on by any with the words
"Piers Anthony" on the cover. That's not censorship.  Now I may be
missing some rare gem, but I'm willing to take that chance.

Would it be censorship if instead of putting him in the kill file I
just never selected any article posted by him?  Same effect, but no
kill file.


>I imagine that someone distributing information
>about how to efficiently filter out certain people or topics might be
>offensive to some people.
-- 
If I cannot bend Heaven, I shall move Hell.
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: ADL/Hate Crime Laws
Date: 29 Jul 92 17:05:18 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <dfs.712330561@ro>, dfs@doe.carleton.ca (David F. Skoll) writes:
> In <1992Jul28.014100.885@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
> gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy) writes:
# #Oh really? And did you ever consider that maybe hate crime statues are
# #flawed? 
# 
# Of course I have.  But I bet that the vast majority of Americans have
# *never* imagined in their wildest dreams that their constitution could
# possibly be flawed.
# 
# David F. Skoll

The vast majority of Americans, including many of our elected officials,
have only the fuzziest, vaguest idea what a "constitution" is.  To
think they have any ideas about its state of perfection is pretty
absurd.

"How can this be unconstitutional?  The Constitution is about democracy,
and the people want this!" -- Brian Sobel, liberal Petaluma, CA, City 
Councilman, 989
-- 
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
From: eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler)
Subject: Re: Role of judiciary in Italy (was: assassination/judge)
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 13:41:10 GMT
Organization: Culturale Elit

In <1992Jul23.112054.3728@athena.mit.edu>, wdstarr@athena.mit.edu sez:
>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?

The latter, according to a Milanese friend whose husband is an
attorney. 


-- 
		  For a Big Lie, call 1-800-424-9090

	Mark Eckenwiler    eck@panix.com    ...!cmcl2!panix!eck
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: patter@dasher.uucp (24224-guthrie)
Subject: Re: Burglars and dogs and snakes, oh my!
Reply-To: patter@dasher.cc.bellcore.com
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 92 15:24:51 GMT

In article <1992Jul31.022057.2419@megatek.uucp> cjp@megatek.uucp (Chris "Systems Stud" Pikus) writes:

>	Is it capital punishment for burglary? NO! It's just the belief
>that anyone who is willing to rob a house while someone is there is also
>willing to do great harm to those occupants. Here it is an example of 
>the state pre-emptively giving legal sancion for self defense.

In fact, unless they've changed the law in the last 15 years or so, the
State of Tennessee does dictate capital punishment for breaking and
entering if (1) the intruder is armed, (2) the house is occupied, and
(3) the crime occurs after dark. The legal justification for the law was
exactly that stated above. If the man is armed, he would commit murder
if surprised, therefore he is the same as a murderer and is treated the
same way.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
                    |
George Patterson -  | If train stations are where trains stop, 
                    | what are work stations?
                    |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: Hate Speech Okay, says the Supreme Court
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 02:15:27 GMT

In article <1992Jul29.134733.8571@Princeton.EDU> egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:

>I really think the computer and other digital devices, with their savage
>and only apparent precision, has had a pernicious effect on you young
>fellows.

When you say "young fellows," what do you mean? Are you an ageist, Ed?

>I am aware that the Law 'n Economix gang want to convert to ATM-style
>computerized law, 'specially for poor folks.  I am also aware that the
>very author of Eliza, Joseph Weizenbaum, found people who ascribed
>semi-human characteristics to the first Eliza instance, and who hoped
>that this instance would replace psychology ('specially for poor folks)
>to be twits of the first water, and showed them to be such in Computer
>Power and Human Reason.  If you think that AI will work in either law or
>psychology, you are well-advised to read CPAHR as well as The
>Phenomenology of Mind (look under the parable of the master and the
>slave.)

This seems to be a non sequitur. No one here ever stated or implied:
a) that Eliza had human characteristics
b) that Eliza or something similar would replace psychology
or
c) that AI will work in either law or psychology.

In particular, I subscribe to none of these three notions. It sometimes
seems as if you are having a colloquy with a cast of characters in your
own mind, Ed, and you simply allow the dialogue from your part to spill
over into misc.legal and other newsgroups.



--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.
From: ald@clipper.ingr.com (Al Date)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: The Glorious Constitution (was: [UPI] Supreme Court strikes down...)
Keywords: Hocus, Locus, Jocus (to the landlord belong the doorknobs)
Date: 30 Jul 92 01:56:44 GMT
Organization: Intergraph Advanced Processor Division - Palo Alto, CA

In article <1992Jul21.144950.28096@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
>In article <18972@smoke.brl.mil> matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt) writes:
>>>>Yes, you simply stole it off the native Indians.  [Phillip Hallam-Baker]
>>You know, I'm sick of hearing that I "stole" my land, to which I have
>>lawful title going back all the way to Lord Baltimore.  I did not
>>steal anything, and neither did Lord Baltimore.  ...
>>In the time of Charlemagne, all the nations of the civilized world
>>got together and enacted the "Code of Discovery."  According to that
>>code -- a law -- if any man should discover a new land across the seas,
>>it would belong to him, unless he claimed it for his king.  
>>
>>Now, the English explorers who first visited Maryland did not claim
>>the new land for themselves.  They claimed it for the King of England,
>>and therefore, under the Code of Discovery, that land belonged to the
>>King of England.  As owner, he had the legal right to grant that land
>>to anyone he chose, ...
>
>So you got the land from the King of England, and _he_ stole it from the
>Indians.  Not much difference.
>--

Well, whatever land was stolen from the Indians was often previously
stolen from different Indians, back through time.  
What happened to the Indians wasnt right, but it was not
too much different than what they were doing to each other in many
cases.

If you could go back to 10,000 BC,
you might find some nomads who could lay claim to a first discovery of
 North America, and check their DNA down through time, but this is
even more ridiculous than using biblical tribes to proscribe current 
borders.

On the other hand, some Indian land was respected by treaty, such as
the Seneca's land, and the white man's Supreme Court recognized this
recently.  So, if the Indians can get their claims recognized by
this Court, then it at least shows that there is at least a semblance
of a rule of equal law
in effect, and not just a system based on what you can grab.


--Al Date
Xref: sparky misc.legal:15170 alt.censorship:6474 talk.politics.misc:36585
From: imcc@cs.strath.ac.uk (Iain McCord)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.censorship,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Using killfiles is a form of censorship (was: Re: A Modest Request
Date: 30 Jul 92 11:52:22 GMT
Organization: Comp. Sci. Dept., Strathclyde Univ., Scotland.
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:
: 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.
  Was this a unilateral decision, or did you bother to consult the owners of
the system, or employers of the workgroup.

  You may have the right to hold whatever belief you want.  You may also have
the right to say whatever you want.  You don't always have the right to act
upon those beliefs.  I don't have to listen to you.  I don't have to help you
promote your views.

-- 

		~~~~~/\~~~~~
Iain McCord	~~~~/()\~~~~	Thu Jul 30 12:52:18 WET DST 1992
		~~~~~~~~~~~~
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Re: Stare Decisis - ha ha ha
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 18:01:00 GMT

In article <1992Jul30.174621.6929@morrow.stanford.edu> GA.CJJ@forsythe.stanford.edu (Clifford Johnson) writes:
>>If your briefs are anything like the analyses you post on the net
>>(citing cases that haven't been good law in over fifty years, insisting
>>that non-binding international treaties control the U.S. Constitution,
>>etc.), I don't have excessive sympathy.
>
>So you think the maxim of jurisprudence, that substance weighs
>more than form, is junk?  

A brief is substantive.  No?  If you feel that briefs are only a
formality, that explains a lot...

>That if my pleading were lousy, that would
>justify ordering me to pay costs regaularly disallowed?

Well, that's what the FRCP says...

>Seriously, though: (1) my briefs are vastly better than my off-the-
>cuff postings to this bb; (2) the at issue question of pre-trial
>expert witness fees being disallowed as costs is universally known;
>(3) I cited solid (California) case law.  Now, what do you think
>about the decision?

I think I'll research a little on my own before relying on your
assertions, given your track record on legal issues.

>As for my citing old cases, such as Truax, you seem to have missed
>the fact that Mike's authorities actually proved my point that the
>fundamental cause of action for malicious defamation is unquestioned.

That wasn't your point.  At least, it wasn't your point when you first
started citing Corrigan.  You never did address my post on the subject.
Which doesn't surprise me.
-- 
                      ....................................
                      ted frank | thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
                      the university of chicago law school 
                      official member of the cultural elit
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.censorship,talk.politics.misc
From: ra@asuvax.eas.asu.edu (Starcap'n Ra)
Subject: Re: Using killfiles is a form of censorship
Followup-To: misc.lega
Keywords: egnilges
Organization: t.b
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 23:15:49 GMT


     Are you idiots still arguing about this?

     Look, censorship means denying someone
the opportunity to post to the net.  Examples
of censorship are taking away someone's
account or refusing to pass someone's postings
downline.

     Establishing a killfile means deciding not
to read someone's postings.  Deciding not to
read someone's postings has absolutely nothing
to do with censorship.  It might be a very
narrow-minded thing to do, but you are not
preventing anyone else from reading someone's
postings so it is not censorship.

     If you require an analogy to understand
this, then note that just because the First
Amendment might give you the right to get
up on a soapbox in the town square and preach
does not mean I have to interrupt my beeline
to the bar in order to stop and listen to
whatever you have to say.  If I ignore you
and proceed directly to the bar and have my
drink I am not censoring you.  If I force you
to quit speaking, then I am censoring you.

     This is a fairly simple concept.  If you
don't understand this you are very dense.
Please go away and quit bothering us.

--Starcap'n Ra       {ames,gatech,husc6,rutgers}!ncar!noao!asuvax!kennedy
                        {allegra,decvax,ihnp4,oddjob}--^
                                          ^---------------The Wrong Choice
                             internet: kennedy@asuvax.asu.edu
From: egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges)
Subject: Accuracy in media (was: Re: A Modest Request
Followup-To: alt.flame
Originator: news@ernie.Princeton.EDU
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 22:47:31 GMT

In article <1992Jul22.151442.6943@athena.mit.edu> wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr) writes:
>
>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

Because I was somewhat upset by BillyBoy Starr's pathological hostility, 
I misread his post  as saying that he wanted to hear retractions of what 
I might have to say.  Two correspondents have called me on this error.
I still maintain  that BillyBoy Starr couldn't take the heat, that's 
why he deposited me in his killfile, and that the man has an unhealthy interest
in me.  However, in fairness, he did not want to hear either
postings from me or from my opponents, and so do the man a favor and
make sure to do what he asks: 

>    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.

I erroneously claimed that he wanted to see retractions only.

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."

Thanks to Joe May for calling me on this error.  As I have said with
respect to Chuck Lavazzi's false claim that the Literary Digest falsely
predicted the 1948 election (it was the 1936 election) accuracy is
important on a self-policed net.  No, David Scharfe, I am not going to thank
you: try not to call me an "asshole" next time.  I have sent a cancel
request for the article in question.

Now, will somebody tell Billy Starr that it's rn, not RN?
From: Joe.Francis@dartmouth.edu (Joe Francis)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Males Doing it to Themselves
Date: 24 Jul 92 02:30:39 GMT
 <1992Jul16.212655.22990@u.washington.edu> <robert.711838032@labyrinth> 
  <18983@smoke.brl.mil>
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

In article <18983@smoke.brl.mil>
matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt) writes:

> I don't know what Mr. EuStress means, but let me point out the obvious:
> Anyone who has ever looked around at boys and girls, men and women, in
> the real world, knows that boys and men are more aggressive and more
> violent than girls and women.  This is true in every society on earth.
> There is neuro-endocrinological evidence to show that men's greater
> aggressiveness is *innate*, meaning we are *born that way*.  Some may
> *wish* that this were not true, that by changing "cultural conditioning" [...]

Is this really true?  I remember in high school witnessing at least 3
fist-fights between girls for every 1 between boys.  Could it not be
the case that men tend (universally) to be larger and that this tends
(universally) to cause "cultural conditioning"?  

I wonder if a colony of all women (who never grew up around men) would
show different characteristics of violent behavior.

These are intended as observations and musings.  I'm not convinced that
Matt is wrong here - I'm just not convinced that he's right, either.
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.censorship,talk.politics.misc
From: veal@utkvm1.utk.edu (David L. Veal)
Subject: Re: Using killfiles is a form of censorship 
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 16:29:00 GMT

In article <1992Jul29.130052.5110@Princeton.EDU> egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:

>In article <1992Jul28.031807.26821@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> wb8foz@skybridge.scl.cwru.edu (David Lesher) writes:
>># >Using kill files IS a form of censorship.
>>
>>I suppose, then, if I unsubscribe to this group, I go down in
>>history with Hannibal Lector? 

>Lack of perspective is not an argument.  The reduction to absurdity is
>within you.  Using kill files remains a form of (micro) censorship,
>which gives the lie to (undercuts) (deconstructs) (runs across the grain
>of) the loud adherence to "free speech" on the part of its "defenders."

     Your right to free speech does not translate into anybody else
being required to listen to you.  It is perfectly reasonable for me
to "censor" my own viewing, because I do so with the consent of the
audience.  (me)  The is, in fact, the very soul of Libertarianism, since
each person gets decide for himself/herself as to what they will
read, without obstructing others from doing the same.

     William Starr's actions (and since you are in his kill file there
is every possibility he is even now oblivious to this argument) do
nothing to restrict your freedom of speech.  You may shout to your heart's
content.  He has simply chosen to ignore you.


===========================================================================
|David Veal  PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu  University of Tennessee             |  
|                                     Division of Continuing Education    |
| Statistics are any data which can be twisted to support your posititon  | 
===========================================================================

Xref: sparky misc.legal:14592 sci.econ:6495
From: GA.CJJ@forsythe.stanford.edu (Clifford Johnson)
Subject: Re: Stare Decisis - ha ha ha
Organization: Stanford University, California, USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 21:32:26 GMT

thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:
>>So you think the maxim of jurisprudence, that substance weighs
>>more than form, is junk?
>
>A brief is substantive.  No?  If you feel that briefs are only a
>formality, that explains a lot...

Why do make such trite comments?  Are you trying to discover law
or prove that you're clever?  Either way, I don't see success.

What are you trying to say?  You haven't heard the maxim, that law
respects substance above form?  Do you understand, are you really so
ignorant that you think the maxim is talking of forms versus briefs?
In case you didn't know, it means that the law is supposed to pay
less attention to a clumsily worded/framed brief than to whether
the litigant's cause is just.   It appears you think that a cause
should be thrown out for poor form, regardless of correctness
of law.

>>That if my pleading were lousy, that would
>>justify ordering me to pay costs regaularly disallowed?
>
>Well, that's what the FRCP says...

Citation/quote?  I don't believe you on this, until you give me
the wording.

>I think I'll research a little on my own before relying on your
>assertions, given your track record on legal issues.

I would hope you would do that whoever was making the assertion,
you'd be a fool not to.  As for my track record, the courts have
been agreeing in my bank case (arguendo at least) that the courts
indeed did make a plethora a mistakes, they are just saying, so
what, tough luck, we're not going to correct them.

>>As for my citing old cases, such as Truax, you seem to have missed
>>the fact that Mike's authorities actually proved my point that the
>>fundamental cause of action for malicious defamation is unquestioned.
>
>That wasn't your point.  At least, it wasn't your point when you first
>started citing Corrigan.  You never did address my post on the subject.
>Which doesn't surprise me.

Oh yes it was my point!  I rememnber well my first remark, being
that a state could not abolish a cause of action for defamation,
and Mike replied by asking what made me think a state could not
abolish such a cause of action, and I replied with Truax, and he
replied with NY Times plus ridicule, and NY Times proved my
point in any case, as did its progeny (Gertz / MAKE NOW LAW / etc.)