HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart)
Subject: Re: Anti-Arab racism on the net
Keywords: Equality, Fairness, Same Standards?
Organization: my opinions only
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 01:52:08 GMT

In article <1992Sep30.041018.25964@news.columbia.edu> ia4@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Imran Anwar) writes:
>In article <1992Sep29.224804.23138@fid.morgan.com> sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep27.231121.26653@news.columbia.edu>
>>ia4@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Imran Anwar) writes:

>>Rushdie has stated that he was not trying to be offensive.  Do you
>>have any evidence to the contrary?
>
>So if David Duke says he is not a racist bigot that is enough "evidence"
>Come on, did you expect Rushdie to say "Yes I intended this to be offensive" ?

There is evidence about David Duke (like him being a bigshot in the
KKK).  What is the evidence about Rushdie?

>>Did you learn telepathy from Ed Nilges?
>>
>>Seth		sethb@fid.morgan.com
>
>You MUST be telepathic to know that I am :-)  , do you hold classes.  
>Oh, actually, I dont even need to attend classes as lessons can be 
>transmitted to me telepathically :-)

Too bad it doesn't work for clues :-)

Seth		sethb@fid.morgan.com
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Subject: Re: need advice for simple will
Organization: Northeastern Law, Class of '93
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 00:26:57 GMT


(Repost... I don't think my first try at posting this article worked...)

In article <1992Sep28.130940.20269@mwhhlaw.uucp>,
mwhhlaw!tim (Timothy E. Hollingsworth) said:

> The original inquiry, I think, was addressed at the concept of
> holograph wills.  Even if accepted in a particular state (I have not
> reviewed each states's law) the usual requirment is that a
> holgraphic will be entirely handwritten.  Once typed (to be easier
> to read!) the will is no longer handwritten.  I guess I am saying
> that the less than $100 fee that might be charged by a local lawyer
> for this job could be a bargin in the long run.

and in article <e4qH02ld23N701@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com>, 
tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll) said:

> In most (all?) jurisdictions, if it is typewritten, rather than
> handwritten, it will not qualify as a holographic will, and will
> need to meet the higher level of formalities as an attested will
> (minimum number of qualified witnesses, etc.).

Okay, to clear up the confusion, what I was doing was presenting a
general set of measures which, if taken together, would tend to allow
a layman to draw up a personal will without having to involve a
lawyer... what I was recommending was that you type up the will _and_
look it over and sign it in front of enough disinterested (but not
uninterested :-) witnesses as an alternative to handwriting out a
holographic will.  The idea is that if you have witnesses, you don't
have to have the whole damn document in your handwriting just to prove
its authenticity.  If you have a very short will, or if you _like_
writer's cramp, well, I guess that unless your state has some quirk
about it you can go ahead with the holographic approach.  On the other
hand, if you're one of those people like me who lives and dies by the
word processor, well...

I'm not an expert in this field, and I'm _not_ giving Real Legal
Advice here, but I _think_ that it's at least as hard to go wrong with
the typed-document-and-witnesses route as with the handwritten-
document approach, and it'll save everybody the bother of having to
hire equal-and-opposing expert witnesses to hash out whether the
document was really written by you.

-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>
From: eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: need advice for simple will
Date: 4 Oct 92 16:41:15 GMT
Organization: Superseding Information, Inc.

In <1992Oct1.225102.10859@eff.org>, mnemonic@eff.org sez:
>In article <1992Oct1.134220.26227@panix.com> eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler) writes:
>
>>Just one more data point: such unwitnessed handwritten ("holographic")
>>wills are invalid in New York, except for extraordinary cases like
>>sailors at sea or soldiers in a combat theatre (and even those have a
>>statutorily limited period of validity).
>
>How about if I validly execute a holographic will in Texas, my domicile, and
>then move to NYC and die there?

I spoke imprecisely.  The rule is that a will executed in another
state is valid in New York if

	a) it meets New York's own criteria, which generally bar
holographic wills as described above; or

	b) it meets the standards of the state of execution; or

	c) it meets the standards of the state of the testator's
domicile.

So even if Mike executes his holographic will in, say, Delaware, and
then dies in New York, his will is valid by virtue of his Texas
domicile. 

-- 
		The sleep of reason begets Limbaughs.

	Mark Eckenwiler    eck@panix.com    ...!cmcl2!panix!eck
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.society.civil-liberty,talk.politics.drugs
Subject: Re: History of forfeiture laws
Date: 30 Sep 92 03:34:13 GMT
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences

In article <1992Sep28.215256.3366@island.COM> guido@island.COM (Guido Marx) writes:
}How long do you think it will be
}before the authorities start to confiscate the autos of people
}suspected of drunk driving ? 

They're already doing this to consumers of both hemp and prostitution in the
SF Bay Area, at least in Oakland and SF.  However, I forget which they're
doing in which city.  Oakland is doing it to hemp purchasers, and I seem to
recall that Sf is doing it to purchasers of prositution services in the
Tenderloin.


Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! - Think Universally, Act Selfishly
starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu

"True greatness consists in the use of a powerful understanding to enlighten
oneself and others." - Voltaire
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: srm@world.std.com (Stevens R Miller)
Subject: Re: Teaching Con Law (was: The FDA can't be criminal, can they?)
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 14:47:43 GMT

eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler) writes:

>In <1992Oct5.194557.28065@eff.org>, mnemonic@eff.org sez:
>>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.

>You could add to this list NYU, where I had the dubious pleasure of
>listening to Norman Dorsen -- a great ACLU president, but a lousy
>professor -- during my entire second year.

Add New York Law School, too.  But, I think it makes some pedagogical
sense.  Con Law is more advanced than, say, Civil Procedure, since it
includes issues of law as theory, not just as theorems.  One should,
IMHO, take a full year's worth, though.

BTW:  Nadine Strossen is a pretty good professor of Con Law, but I
think she is an inferior ACLU president.
-- 
Stevens R. Miller, J.D.		Electronic Frontier Foundation Member 932
				Republican National Committee Member 90050367
				Amateur Radio Station WA4LDA
Xref: sparky misc.legal:17830 alt.politics.correct:5544 soc.college:4000
From: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.politics.correct,soc.college
Subject: Re: the MIT anti-trust case
Date: 29 Sep 92 16:16:59 GMT
Reply-To: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation

In article <1992Sep25.150012.6455@Princeton.EDU>, 
egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Edward G. Nilges) writes:
> The antitrust laws were devised to enable TRADE to flourish and as such
> applying them to universities means you think universities are engaged
> in trade.  They're not.  Universities existed (in semblance of their
> current form) prior to commercial ventures and as such need to be
> treated as different from commercial ventures.

Universities are clearly engaged in trade.  They're not charitable 
organizations.  If they are capable of sustaining higher prices only via 
collusion, that's illegal.

You just happen to like their product (as do I), and use that as a 
justification for categorizing them as something other than trade (actually, 
I'd prefer to use "commerce").

Under your categorization, are hospitals exempt from antitrust (reality: 
they're not)?

Terry Carroll - tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com - 408/992-2152
The opinions presented above are not necessarily those of a sound mind.
From: ts@cup.portal.com (Tim W Smith)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Online Legal
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 92 13:58:59 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)

> Maybe, but it goes both ways, IMHO.  I can't begin to tell you how much
> public and personal e-bashing I've taken, just for posting the law, and
> attempting to explain it.  In a fashion all too common in cyberspace,
> what I have said is usually ignored, in favor of what I *haven't* said.

For a perfect example of this, consider the flaming over the acquital of
the four cops who beat Rodney King.  Anyone who pointed out that it was
*possible* that the evidence supported that verdict was called a racist.
I don't recall anyone being bold enough to actually say the verdict was
correct. 

I did see a newspaper article that reprinted an article from
some lawyer's magazine that went into great detail about the trial, written
by a trial lawyer who watched the whole thing, and guess what?  The verdict
was probably correct.  A few days later, the paper was full of letters from
people flaming the racist lawyer.  So it's not just in cyberspace that
this happens.

--Tim Smith
Newsgroups: misc.legal,rec.arts.books
From: dkeisen@leland.Stanford.EDU (Dave Eisen)
Subject: Re: Anti-Arab racism on the net
Keywords: Equality, Fairness, Same Standards?
Organization: Sequoia Peripherals, Inc.
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 92 04:27:19 GMT

In article <1992Oct2.033113.22751@news.columbia.edu> ia4@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Imran Anwar) writes:

>Oh, but Duke does say he was not really what he seemed to be, so doesn't
>that make him innocent just like Rushdie's claims make him "not offensive"

You're changing the subject here.

You originally said that Rushdie was trying to offend Islamic readers.
You were talking about his intent. While his denial of such intent
is not conclusive evidence, it sure has me convinced that that was
not why he wrote the Satanic Verses.

But here you are accusing Rushdie of being offensive. I think it's
pretty obvious that he was. After all, you for one were offended. The
Ayatollah was as well.

So if you are working this hard to prove that Satanic Verses was
offensive to many Muslims, don't bother. That much is obvious.

But you still haven't shown me that Rushdie was lying when he
said he did not intend to offend anyone.

Let alone show me that sentencing him to death for writing his
book was a reasonable response to it.



-- 
Dave Eisen    dkeisen@leland.Stanford.EDU   Sequoia Peripherals: (415) 967-5644
      There's something in my library to offend everybody.
        --- Washington Coalition Against Censorship
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: fjc@mips2.ma30.bull.com (Frank Casper)
Subject: Re: Point of Technicality
Reply-To: fjc@mips2.ma30.bull.com (Frank Casper)
Organization: Bull Worldwide Information Systems  (Billerica, MA)
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 17:15:10 GMT
Keywords: permissible killing


mikhail zeleny writes:

Now, in my capacity as a private citizen endowed with a moral sense, I am
hereby putting up a reward of US $100, NOT for the morally unexceptionable,
and indeed commendable action of killing the said ayatollas transgressing
against the Fundamental Law of Nature (cf. Locke, loc. cit.), but for
bringing an end to the fatwa BY WHATEVER MEANS NECESSARY.  Naturally, none
of the parties responsible for or connected with maintaining the fatwa are
eligible to receive the reward.  Furthermore, I call upon all like-minded
individuals to follow my example.  If the response should warrant it, I am
prepared to open a trust account for the reward funds.

Response:

	Are the moral principles and the institutions  that defend them well
served by behaving in ways equally inconsistent with them?  By inspiring people
to become hired killers it would seem that you're violating the same "Fundamental
Law Of Nature" you claim to be defending.  Aren't the "means"  equal in importance to 
the "end" you advocate when viewed from the moral perspective of an advocate
of human rights? As for myself, Britain and it's allies should have responded swiftly
and surely to the the ayatollas my informing them in no uncertain terms that 
harming Mr. Rushdie would be considered an act of war because it would be a
direct attack on a citizen of the United Kingdom and the institutions upon which
it is founded. When we fail as a culture in this way it opens the door to 
vigilanteeism.

fjc
Xref: sparky misc.legal:17901 alt.politics.correct:5570 soc.college:4035
From: gpriores@oracle.com (gordon prioreschi)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.politics.correct,soc.college
Subject: Re: the MIT anti-trust case
Date: 30 Sep 92 22:55:38 GMT
Article-I.D.: fish.GPRIORES.92Sep30145538
	<07cM02bT243G01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> <1992Sep30.023619.9718@panix.com>
Organization: Oracle Corp., Belmont CA
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by an unauthenticated user
              at Oracle Corporation.  The opinions expressed are those
              of the user and not necessarily those of Oracle.

In article <1992Sep30.023619.9718@panix.com> lkk@panix.com (Larry Kolodney) writes:
> In <07cM02bT243G01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll) writes:
> >Universities are clearly engaged in trade.  They're not charitable 
>>organizations.  If they are capable of sustaining higher prices only via 
>>collusion, that's illegal.
>  Under what criteria do you distinguish a university from a charity,
>such as the Red Cross?
> Universities are non-profit institutions (like the Red Cross). They
>sell their "product" at or below cost (like the Red Cross sells
>blood), and subsidize their product for less fortunate customers as a
>matter of policy (like the Red Cross).  

How would you feel about a large segment of the nation's most
reputable blood banks getting together to limit the amount of subsidy
any of them could give to poor people in need of blood?


> Most importantly, both exist not because there is a natural market for
>their services, but because society at large nutures and protects the
>institution because of the vital NON-MARKET role that it plays.

If I need a blood transfusion, you can bet both that I _will_ be
charged for it, and that I _will_ be willing to pay. Would I not then
constitute a "natural market" for the services of a blood bank?

Similarly, I happen to know many people for whom going to college,
either college in general or a specific college, was expressly for the
purpose of making them more marketable in the workforce afterward.
There _is_ a market demand for the finished product of a top-caliber
college. Many businesses are willing to pay $38-40K/year or more for
such a product. Yes, some people go to college for knowledge for its
own sake, but many (I would venture to say "most", but that'd be a
completely unsupported assertion from my own discussions with various
people) go because it will make them more valuable to a potential
employer.


Experience has shown the free market to be, in general, the most
effective way to get better, cheaper products to the consumer. Some
leftists would disagree, but in favor of government control of the
market, certainly _not_ monopolistic collusion between private-sector
entities. The product could be cars, education, or blood, the motive
could be profit, knowledge, or human life, the free market still
encourages innovation, competition, and efficiency much more
effectively than monopolistic collusion. And isn't it our goal to
provide the best education, with the highest level of economic
accessibility, possible?

                                 Cordially,

                                       -g
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: Fightin' Words
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 11:40:32 GMT

In article <oF9uRB4w164w@depsych.Gwinnett.COM> rc@depsych.Gwinnett.COM (Richard Carlson) writes:

>1.) I will certainly look up the LaFave and Scott volume since it
>really seems to be what I'm looking for. But, apropos of the
>"giving law away" theme, is there a popular book intended for the
>layperson on this topic?

I don't think you'll find LaFave and Scott unreadable.

>Can legal provocation stem just from _being_, not from an actual
>overt act?

No.

>I guess we get close to first amendment issue with a question of
>whether wearing a button championing choice and abortion
>constitutes provocation to someone who believes that abortion is
>an abomination in the eyes of God.

It may constitute provocation in that person's eyes, but that has no legal
significance as a defense for assault.



--Mike




-- 
Mike Godwin,    |"The meeting of two personalities is like the contact 
mnemonic@eff.org| of two chemical substances: if there is any reaction, 
(617) 864-0665  | both are transformed."
EFF, Cambridge  |                           --Carl Jung
From: matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Men & elves
Summary: I know it when I see it.
Keywords: Act xxi of 1850 [the 'Lex Loci Act']
Date: 1 Oct 92 19:54:43 GMT
Organization: U.S. Army Ballistic Research Lab, APG MD.

In article <3824@unisql.UUCP> wrat@unisql.UUCP (wharfie) asks:

>	Would you please describe evil for me so that I can be sure
>and recognize it when I find it?   [Wharfie]

It's sort of like what one Supreme Court Justice said about obscenity:
"I can't define it, but I know it when I see it."

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

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
TRUTH     JUSTICE     FREEDOM     YIDDISHKEIT     IVY     THE AMERICAN WAY
From: rc@depsych.Gwinnett.COM (Richard Carlson)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Online Legal
Date: 1 Oct 92 11:05:09 GMT

tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll) writes:

> In article <RyDRRB1w164w@depsych.Gwinnett.COM>, rc@depsych.Gwinnett.COM 
> (Richard Carlson) writes:
> >  (Erik mentions Westlaw and LEXIS/NEXIS, the
> > commercial services.  Is that where the discussion is?)
> 
> Westlaw and Lexis/Nexis are commercial databases with legal resources 
> (statutes, cases, legal periodicals, etc) stored on them.  There's no BBS-
> like interaction among users.

I found that out talking to a law student.  He says Lexis/Nexis
costs $150.00/hour and no one, not even the highest priced lawyer
in the country, is going to pay one hundred and fifty dollars an
hour to chat!  So Lexis/Nexis is just a database service.

What that means is that what we see on the net -- and on
CompuServe or the PC networks' (like FidoNet) legal echoes is all
there is of online legal discourse.

I think there are a lot of professions and fields -- "discourse
communities" or whatever we should call them -- which have not yet
discovered "CyberSpace" (or whatever we should call this
electronic meeting place).  At the same time I started reading
misc.legal I also inquired on the net if anyone knew where actual
writers, especially writers of children's literature, hung out "in
CyberSpace."  I think the consensus is that the literary world,
writers and critics, still communicates largely by paper journals.
As for as the popular media -- the folks who write _Murphy Brown_
or _Home Improvement_ -- they are apparently a closed group who
communicate face-to-face in Hollywood. I don't even think that
amateurs who want to break into the business, or professors of
popular culture (the professors that Woody Allen has a quip about
in all his movies) discuss movies and TV online.  The online
community is still pretty techie.  When the computer really
becomes an appliance, like a telephone, then everyone will start
using it and the lawyers and writers found online will not be
substantially different form the lawyers and writers who are not
online.

--
Richard Carlson
Internet:              rc@depsych.gwinnett.COM
Bangpath:              {rutgers,ogicse,gatech}!emory!gwinnett!depsych!rc
CompuServe:            76605,470
Voice:                 (404) 881-6877
Xref: sparky misc.legal:17880 alt.politics.correct:5565 soc.college:4020
From: hasn@midway.uchicago.edu (Sheheryar Hasnain)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.politics.correct,soc.college
Subject: Re: Universities as a business (was: MIT anti-trust)
Date: 30 Sep 92 14:49:12 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago

> Max Zener:  Equating "student" with "customer" is a Bad Thing.  Reason?  The famed
> credo "the customer is always right" means that no student will be given a bad
> grade.  Again, utter nonsense.  Treating the student as a customer means that
> the universities will no longer tolerate bureaucratic ineptitude, poor food
> service, substandard housing and so on.  Of course, some college could decide
> to graduate everyone magna cum laude, but employers would know about it, so a
> degree from that school would be worth little in the job market, hence very few
> prospective students will go there. 

First, do we go to school for what employers desire of us or what we desire of ourselves?  
Where did you go to school Max?  Hopefully some prospective
students are reading this so as  not to go there!
From: rc@depsych.Gwinnett.COM (Richard Carlson)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Online Legal
Date: 29 Sep 92 12:52:29 GMT

mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:

> In article <Pe0sRB4w164w@depsych.Gwinnett.COM> rc@depsych.Gwinnett.COM (Richa
> 
> >Aside from the American Bar Association's _You and the Law_, there
> >aren't many books by lawyers "giving away the law" to laypersons.
> 
> This claim is false. It can easily be refuted by reference to the Subject
> volumes of Books in Print, or by a short browse at the nearest B.Dalton's
> or Barnes & Noble.

I've seen a few on obvious do-it-yourself topics like making a
will, things that you can buy software at Egghead Software for,
but there are no authoritative "home legal remedies" books similar
to the excellent "home medical remedies" books put out by the
A.M.A or other responsible sources.

Doctors have made it clear that they want the medical layperson to
know as much about medicine as reasonably possible, both "first
echelon maintenance" of your own body and also enough to
understand and comply with complex medical advice when you have a
real and serious illness.  Think back to the really negative image
doctors had about 20 years ago and how much better it is now, even
though the average person still thinks sh/e's paying too much for
medical service.

Where can I find books that tell me my rights, tell me what to do
if I am arrested (I remember seeing one like that, but I can't
recall who put it out), tell me what is likely to happen in a
divorce, etc.  How about a book that tells me my rights when
dealing with neighbors?  That book that discussed rights when
arrested didn't say anything about ways the law could actually be
_used_, only about ways to avoid its _abuse_ by the authorities. I
think people would like to know, and should know, what their
rights are when the next door neighbor comes onto their property
and shouts, "Next time you clip those raggedy hedges of yours and
let the stems drop in my yard I'm gonna come over hear and punch
you right in the nose!"

--
Richard Carlson
Internet:              rc@depsych.gwinnett.COM
Bangpath:              {rutgers,ogicse,gatech}!emory!gwinnett!depsych!rc
CompuServe:            76605,470
Voice:                 (404) 881-6877
Xref: sparky misc.legal:17895 soc.college:4030 alt.politics.correct:5567