HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: Hate Speech Okay, says the Supreme Court
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 20:07:14 GMT

In article <1992Jul25.182134.16155@Princeton.EDU> egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:

>End of story.  End of network wastage in "who said what" flamewars.  I
>therefore suggest that Mike Godwin admit that substituting Iago for
>Othello was something more than a typo.  He does not have to admit that
>it resulted from a deep seated conflict concerning accepting Judge
>Posner's racist view of the world, only that it was an error that shows
>that, with respect to proofreading at least, St. Paul was perfectly
>right in saying "for all have sinned, and all have fallen short of the
>glory of God."

I admitted from the beginning that this was an error in proofreading.
How could you have missed this? Perhaps the same quality of reading that
allows you to mistake "Frontier" for "Freedom."

What I deny is the absurd attempt (by a nonpractitioner) of
psychoanalyzing it.


--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
From: Joe.Francis@dartmouth.edu (Joe Francis)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Take an Exit, Get a Search!
Date: 27 Jul 92 01:44:35 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

In article <1992Jul27.011442.29733@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Joe.Francis@dartmouth.edu (Joe Francis) writes:

> On Friday, July 24, at 10PM, I heard a report on the NBC radio news

I suppose I should add, for the sake of those also listening to the NBC
radio news on Friday evening and wondering why *they* didn't hear the
report, that it was 10PM, Eastern Standard Time.

Advance thanks for any info.
Newsgroups: misc.legal,sci.econ
From: Richard.Mathews@West.Sun.COM (Richard M. Mathews)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: topless in NY state?
Date: 23 Jul 1992 21:33:16 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: astro
Originator: richard@astro.West.Sun.COM

eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler) writes:
>COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW YORK writes:
>>Moreover, 
>>the People do not dispute that New York is one of only two states 
>>which criminalizes the mere exposure by a woman in a public place of 
>>a specific part of her breast.

Interesting.  Is this true?  Is there now only one state in which it is
illegal to expose a breast?  Which one?  This seems to be much bigger
news than just New York allowing women to go top free.

     Richard M. Mathews			G eorge
					 D epression
Richard.Mathews@West.Sun.COM		  B ush casts a
					   G loom on us all
From: fsars@acad3.alaska.edu (Allen R Sparks)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Roe v Wade (Latin)
Date: 25 Jul 92 00:42:43 GMT
Organization: University of Alaska Fairbanks

In article <1992Jul24.223447.2010@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>, Joe.Francis@dartmouth.edu (Joe Francis) writes:
> In article <1992Jul24.151429.20328@rchland.ibm.com>
> xzs0302@rchland.vnet.ibm.com (T.A. Gyorgak) writes:
> 
>>   I am not sure why someone would be read this BB without the basic terms of
>> law from what I remember to be 7th grade Civics.    I went to school in
>> Cleveland  so it wasn't anything special.  
> 
> Anyone who has access and is interested should read misc.legal.  Are
> you proposing that we all pass a "misc.legal bar"?
> 
> As for your education, I can only say that I wish my public high school
> had been as competent in civics as your middle school.  I doubt more
> than a handful of the staff at my school knew what "stare decisis"
> means.  I would bet many other readers find themselves in a similar
> position.

And in support of Joe Francis's assertion, let me point out that there
aren't any FAQ's published for misc.legal in general.  There is a FAQ
on social security numbers, and I remember seeing one for something
else (though "FAQ" isn't in the subject line for that one, or I'd have
found it by now) but not one for misc.legal as a whole.  Maybe T. A.
Gyorgak would like to write one up for us.  He can include "stare
decisis" in it, and then can hold us accountable for knowing it.
=== Al Sparks
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: dpollard@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Dennis B Pollard)
Subject: Re: Why did they invent common law marriage?
Keywords: common law marriage
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 01:31:50 GMT

In article <1992Jul24.232712.13995@cco.caltech.edu> grady@cco.caltech.edu (W. G
rady Campbell) writes:
>Why is there such a thing as common law marriage?
>
>Is it helpful today with so many people living together for extended periods?
>i.e., now that people often live together long enough to fall into a common
>law marriage, why should they have to turn married when they could get married
>if they want to?
>
>                                      Grady
>


I don't have answers; however, some state have started to abolish common law 
marriage.  E.g., Ohio did so recently.
Newsgroups: misc.legal,soc.men,soc.women
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Re: Self-Defense
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 01:05:45 GMT

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.
>
>[...]
>Logically,  in this situation,one would have to weigh the probability (high)
>of being caught and sentenced vs. the probability of actually being killed
>(hard to judge on the basis of the example).  One might also reconsider the
>allegedly hopeless option of self-defense when/if the attack comes.
>
>This is all a bit contrived, of course 

Not at all.  It's an actual case.

I know what the law is; I'm asking you what you think the law *should* be
in a situation like that.

>- as Nosy points out, the burning bed
>case did not take place in a prison.  This opens up a lot more alternatives.

Depends on the support services available to the battered victim, how
serious local police view the crime of domestic violence, whether he or
she really does have an opportunity to escape.

And then the issue arises that in most other circumstances, one isn't
required to flee his or her own home before using self-defense, even
if escape is readily available.
-- 
                      ....................................
                      ted frank | thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
                      the university of chicago law school 
                      official member of the cultural elit
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 06:43:32 GMT

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.)


Gideon v. Wainwright is a notable example of such a case. Lots of 
convicts were freed as a result of that case, which not only overruled
previous cases, but also nullified previous convictions in which the
right to counsel had been denied.



--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: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Subject: Rule 11 (was: Lawsuit to compel a fraud to run for President!)
Organization: Northeastern Law, Class of '93
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 14:10:55 GMT


In article <1992Jul21.134620.29744@linus.mitre.org>, 
bs@gauss.mitre.org (Robert D. Silverman) said:

> Would someone please educate the non-lawyers about Fed.R.Civ.P. 11???
> 
> What is it???

Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires a lawyer to
sign "Every pleading, motion, and other paper of a party represented
by [the] attorney," and specifies that:

    The signature of [the attorney] constitutes a certificate by the
    signer that the signer has read the pleading, motion, or other
    paper; that to the best of the signer's knowledge, information
    and belief formed after reasonable inquiry it is well grounded
    in fact ___and is warranted by existing law or a good faith
    argument for the extension, modification or reversal of existing
    law___, and that it is not interposed for any improper purpose,
    such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless
    increase in the cost of litigation.  [Emphasis added.]

and:

    If a pleading, motion or other paper is signed in violation of
    this rule, the court, upon motion or upon its own initiative,
    shall impose upon the person who signed it, a represented party,
    or both, an appropriate sanction, which may include an order to
    pay to the other party or parties the amount of the reasonable
    expenses incurred because of the filing of the pleading, motion,
    or other paper, including a reasonable attorney's fee.

Many states also have rules of civil procedure which include
something very much like Rule 11.

-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>
From: "hilary miller" <hilary.miller@execnet.com>
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: why did they invent c
Date: 28 Jul 92 12:55:17 EST
Reply-To: "hilary miller" <hilary.miller@execnet.com>
Distribution: misc
Organization: Executive Networks Information


W. Grady Campbell, in a message to All on 07-27-92 at 8:37am, said:

WG>|Why is there such a thing as common law marriage?
   |_________________________________________________

          The doctrine is fundamentally a principle of estoppel that
          arose out of fairness to women at a time when their economic
          and legal role in life was very different from that of today,
          and in a frontier society when access to clergy was not
          always practical.  Essentially the doctrine served to protect
          the inheritance rights in intestacy of a person who was, for
          all intents and purposes, performing the role of a wife. 
          Where the doctrine was recognized, more than merely living
          together was generally necessary for a marriage to be found:
          usually, the husband was required to hold out the wife as
          such and/or to engage in other conduct from which it could be
          demonstrated that the wife was more than a paramour.

          Common law marriage has now been abolished in a majority of
          states (New York in 1932).


   L A
 I    R        Hilary B. Miller of Greenwich, Connecticut
  H/\Y         CIS: 76040,1743
    
---
  DeLuxe 1.25 #11645  Old bankers never die; they just lose interest.
--
Executive Network Information System  (914) 667-4567
International ILink Host
From: akbloom@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu (Keith Bloom)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Stare Decisis
Date: 26 Jul 92 16:15:59 GMT
Article-I.D.: aplcen.1992Jul26.161559.2347
Organization: The Johns Hopkins University

mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) 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.

I think you're being overly picky.  Brown v. Board of Education:

-- Mentioned Plessy v. Ferguson by name in several places;
-- Specifically stated that the doctrine in Plessy was applicable to
   the present case, in contrast to several previous discrimination 
   cases in which the doctrine was not challenged;
-- Said, almost in so many words, that Plessy was no longer good law.

True, Warren said that the factual basis of Plessy was invalid.  I
suppose that even after Brown, someone could have cited it as a
precedent in a transportation case.  But legal principles usually 
have some kind of factual basis (I hope).  In Mapp v. Ohio, Justice
Clark talked about the "current validity of the *factual* grounds upon
which _Wolf_ was based."  (emphasis added).  Should we also throw out
Mapp, as not meeting Mr. Starr's requirements?  (What do you say, Mr.
Starr?)


Keith
Newsgroups: misc.legal,soc.men,soc.women,alt.discrimination
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Re: Self-Defense
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 00:51:30 GMT

In article <1992Jul24.160734.7694@fig.citib.com> ghica@fig.citib.com (Renato Ghica) writes:
>In article <1992Jul23.035153.2572@midway.uchicago.edu>, thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:
>|> In article <1992Jul22.225007.275@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com> bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris) writes:
>|> >However, killing someone in their sleep is
>|> >*obviously* not self defense.
>|> 
>|> 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?
>
>
>
>I have an idea:
>
>	-find a handy solid objectg around the cell
>	a) poke him in the eyes (w/o killing him), thus
>           making him incapable of harming you because he
>	   is blind. Beware of penetrating too deeply so as to
>	OR
>	
>	other [permanently] disabling tacticts, which would not be
>       	construed as murder. 

So as long as the victim's a vegetable, but not dead, it's justified
self-defense?  Is that where you'd draw the line?
-- 
                      ....................................
                      ted frank | thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
                      the university of chicago law school 
                      official member of the cultural elit
From: brnstnd@nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein)
Newsgroups: misc.legal.computing
Subject: Re: Copying and license (was: Facts about USENET distribution)
Date: 30 Jul 92 20:53:48 GMT
Organization: IR

In article <01ga02Lg1cZe01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll) writes:
> In article <14510.Jul2819.31.5692@virtualnews.nyu.edu>, brnstnd@nyu.edu (Dan 
> Bernstein) writes:
> > What about other non-automatic copying of an article to something other
> > than a machine? Unless the copying is fair use, this is illegal. The
> > author certainly didn't cause any copying of his article beyond the
> > automatic copying to USENET sites; and he was told only that his article
> > would be sent to thousands of machines. So I can't see any basis under
> > which a judge would declare the copying to be legal.
> I do: an implied license.

What reason is there to believe that such a license exists? The author
was notified that his posting would be transmitted to many machines. He
might or might not assume that his posting would be saved forever; this
doesn't matter here. What reason would he have to believe that he was
implicitly giving permission to people to engage in non-automatic,
non-fair copying of his work to, e.g., a newspaper?

---Dan
Newsgroups: misc.legal.computing
From: whs70@dancer.uucp (22501-sohl)
Subject: Re: NetNews/CD - USENET News Available
Reply-To: whs70@dancer.UUCP ()
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 92 14:15:57 GMT

In article <23272@alice.att.com> jj@alice.UUCP (jj@alice.att.com, curmudgeon) writes:
>Oh, really?  Copying an entire work without explicit permission,
>away from the medium it started in is "fair use".  Not by any
>scale that has EVER been proposed by anyone who wanted to
>stay in business.  

Public speeches by individuals are often reprinted in total and I
fail to see any copyright violation associated with such a 
complete reprint as the speech itself is (IMHO) a news event
in its entirety.

Likewise, such speeches have been taped, filmed, etc. and rebroadcast.
I don't see any copyright problem there also.  Yes, they are still the
speakers words, but the entire speech is the news event.

Just my opinion.

Standard Disclaimer- Any opinions, etc. are mine and NOT my employer's.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Sohl (K2UNK) BELLCORE (Bell Communications Research, Inc.)
Morristown, NJ             email via UUCP      bcr!dancer!whs70
201-829-2879 Weekdays      email via Internet  whs70@dancer.cc.bellcore.com
Newsgroups: misc.legal.computing,news.admin
From: brad@clarinet.com (Brad Templeton)
Subject: Re: The Great Floating USENET Copyright War (was: NetNews/CD - USENET News Available)
Organization: ClariNet Communications Corp.
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 06:24:44 GMT

In article <1992Jul26.024410.27395@wolves.uucp> news@wolves.uucp (The Wolfe of the Den) writes:
>Actually, it occurs to me that the portion "alice!jj" *may* not be a
>legally sufficient identification of the authorship of the work.  What
>effect might that have on the ability to recover damages?

You mean he might be jj@cup.portal.com?  :-)  :-)
-- 
Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Sunnyvale, CA 408/296-0366
Xref: sparky misc.legal.computing:1480 news.admin:6171
From: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Newsgroups: misc.legal.computing,news.admin
Subject: Re: The Great Floating USENET Copyright War (was: NetNews/CD -
Date: 25 Jul 92 00:53:35 GMT

Reply-To: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Followup-To: 
Distribution: world
Organization: Amdahl Corporation
Keywords: 

In article <23275@alice.att.com>, jj@alice.att.com (jj@alice.att.com, 
curmudgeon) writes:
> In article <e22202Am1a0g01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com 
> (Terry Carroll) writes:
> >Whether you are charging for the articles is irrelavant to whether the
> >copyright has been infringed.
> 
> Oh, goody, now somebody who KNOWS the Berne convention but hasn't
> read the license in question speaks up.  Yes, in the lack of any
> permission, charging is utterly irrelevant.  That isn't the case
> here.

One last thing I forgot in my other post: if both the copyright owner and the 
alleged infringer are US nationals, Berne doesn't apply.  Only US law does.

Terry Carroll - tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com - 408/992-2152
The opinions presented above are not necessarily those of a sound mind.
From: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Newsgroups: misc.legal.computing
Subject: Copying and license (was: Facts about USENET distribution)
Date: 30 Jul 92 04:49:20 GMT
Reply-To: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation

In article <14510.Jul2819.31.5692@virtualnews.nyu.edu>, brnstnd@nyu.edu (Dan 
Bernstein) writes:
> What about other non-automatic copying of an article to something other
> than a machine? Unless the copying is fair use, this is illegal. The
> author certainly didn't cause any copying of his article beyond the
> automatic copying to USENET sites; and he was told only that his article
> would be sent to thousands of machines. So I can't see any basis under
> which a judge would declare the copying to be legal.

I do: an implied license.  I don't assert that the argument would necessarily 
win, but it's got a pretty good chance.

The statement "Unless the copying is fair use, this is illegal." isn't really 
true.  There are a number of ways one can copy and have it be legal, without 
a finding of fair use:

 1) license (implied or express)
 2) reproduction by library or archive open to the public or at least to 
researchers in the same specialized field coverd by the library/archive.
 3) copying a computer program for backup or to use the program.

Of course, #3 isn't applicable to usenet.  I believe #1 clearly is.  #2 I 
haven't stopped to think about, but it might be.  Interesting question.

Terry Carroll - tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com - 408/992-2152
The opinions presented above are not necessarily those of a sound mind.
Xref: sparky misc.legal.computing:1610 news.admin:6360
From: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Newsgroups: misc.legal.computing,news.admin
Subject: Re: The Great Floating USENET Copyright War (was: NetNews/CD -
Date: 30 Jul 92 05:36:38 GMT

Reply-To: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Followup-To: 
Distribution: world
Organization: Amdahl Corporation
Keywords: 

In article <13628.Jul2615.12.2592@virtualnews.nyu.edu>, brnstnd@nyu.edu (Dan 
Bernstein) writes:
> It is legally sufficient. And while I'm picking nits about copyright
> details let me point out that the current registration fee is $20.00
> (somebody said it was half of that).
> 
> (What I'd like to hear a lawyer's opinion on is the Copyright Office
> policy which *seems* to imply that all published works must be
> registered with the Library of Congress within a certain amount of
> time.)

You mean, like is it a "taking without compensation" as prohibited by the 5th 
Amendment?

Terry Carroll - tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com - 408/992-2152
The opinions presented above are not necessarily those of a sound mind.
Xref: sparky misc.legal.computing:1498 news.admin:6201
From: brnstnd@nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein)
Newsgroups: misc.legal.computing,news.admin
Subject: Re: The Great Floating USENET Copyright War (was: NetNews/CD - USENET News Available)
Date: 26 Jul 92 15:12:25 GMT
Organization: IR

In article <1992Jul26.024410.27395@wolves.uucp> news@wolves.uucp (The Wolfe of the Den) writes:
> Actually, it occurs to me that the portion "alice!jj" *may* not be a
> legally sufficient identification of the authorship of the work.

It is legally sufficient. And while I'm picking nits about copyright
details let me point out that the current registration fee is $20.00
(somebody said it was half of that).

(What I'd like to hear a lawyer's opinion on is the Copyright Office
policy which *seems* to imply that all published works must be
registered with the Library of Congress within a certain amount of
time.)

---Dan
Xref: sparky misc.legal.computing:1423 news.admin:6041