HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Joe.Francis@dartmouth.edu (Joe Francis)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Hate Speech Okay, says the Supreme Court
Date: 27 Jul 92 01:36:44 GMT
 <1992Jul24.183524.28213@eff.org> 
 <92Jul25.020745edt.47919@neat.cs.toronto.edu>  
 <1992Jul25.163348.11394@eff.org>
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

In article <1992Jul25.163348.11394@eff.org>
mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:

> >I did speculate,
> >somewhat caustically and cynically, it is true, as to what manoeuvre he
> >might employ to avoid the responsibility for his errors.
> 
> Why did you do this? I explicitly admitted that I made a mistake with
> regard to what I said in the CLS thread. Why did you think it was
> important, Calvin?

Why did you think a non-existent subject/verb disagreement was
important?  Who knows?  Who cares?  Now you are reaping what you've
sown, and giving the impression, by the way, that you can dish it out
but can't take it.

As Matt might say, good article, Mr. Ostrum!
Xref: sparky misc.legal:15023 talk.philosophy.misc:1475 rec.arts.books:13292 alt.postmodern:2216 sci.classics:584
From: zeleny@husc9.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,talk.philosophy.misc,rec.arts.books,alt.postmodern,sci.classics
Subject: The Writings of Socrates (Re: Hate Speech Okay, says the Supreme Court)
Keywords: pompous ignorance
Date: 28 Jul 92 22:56:17 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc3.1992Jul28.185618.14266
Followup-To: talk.philosophy.misc,rec.arts.books,misc.test,alt.postmodern,sci.classics
Organization: The Phallogocentric Cabal

In article <1992Jul28.151507.9098@Princeton.EDU>
egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:

>In article <1992Jul27.165744.20089@eff.org> 
>mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:

>>In article <1992Jul27.153952.25877@Princeton.EDU>
>>egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:


EN:
>>>The Socratic method of teaching law is
>>>another example.

MG:
>>What is your experience of the Socratic method of teaching law?

EN:
>My experience with the Socratic method of teaching law is limited,
>because I avoid bullies and toad-eaters.  I am of course experienced in
>teaching and have read the writings of Socrates.  

I interrupt this fascinating debate between my two favorite culture
mavens only to announce that the above pearl is hereby entering my
collection of exemplary samples of Edward G. Nilges' wit and wisdom.

EN:
>						  My own teaching style
>is permissive and ideologically non-abusive.  I am aware through reading
>of the provenance of modern-day legal education and I am aware of, and
>concerned-about, the widespread social tragedies that result from the
>way law is taught and practised in this country.  No, I am an
>inexperienced bully and an inexperienced victim.  This of course does
>not disqualify me from speaking out.

In light of the above evidence, your incomparable erudition is never
going to be questioned henceforth, Mr Ed.

cordially,
mikhail zeleny@husc.harvard.edu
Xref: sparky misc.legal:15291 alt.censorship:6539 talk.politics.misc:36774
From: mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.censorship,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Berkeley, Grey Flannel, 1965?
Date: 31 Jul 92 17:08:30 GMT
Organization: MIPS Computer Systems, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: gelato.mips.com

|> Ed Nilges) writes:
|> 
|> >In
|> >justified reaction to the transformation of the Berkeley campus of the
|> >University of California into a sort of factory for men in grey flannel
|> >suits and their helpmates in 1965, that same campus exploded with
|> >justified demands, documented in such out-of-print tomes as Jerry
|> >Farber's The Student as Nigger, for a real rather than an ersatz
|> >education.
|> 
Much more interested in the justification that UC transformed the campus
in 1965 to factory for men in grey flannel suits.  When I left there
in the summer of 1964, there was no clue this was about to happen.
Farber must have had a different campus in mind.
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: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 14:51:29 GMT

In article <1992Jul27.140918.17178@Princeton.EDU> egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:

>Neither.  I've taught at the university level and witnessed, in the
>period 1970-, a wide decline in writing and thinking ability.

You've "taught at the university level"? Does this mean you are a
professor? What subjects did you teach? How many years have you "taught
at the university level"? I'm asking because you make this the basis of
your generalization about "elite law schools." 

>You
>don't have to believe me; take a look at SATs.  The Urban Legend is that
>students from poor backgrounds are getting stupider, but the decline is
>across the board.

The claim that the decline in SAT scores signals a decline in the general
population is predicated on the assumption that the SAT-taking population
is representative of the population, and has been representative during
the history of the SAT. This assumption is highly questionable.

>I have also seen accounts of life at Stanford Law in
>which it is said that students don't feel they have to work hard, since
>admission to Stanford Law is admission to the elite.

Which accounts were these? How many of these accounts were there? Who
wrote them?

>After 20 years in computer science, I considered returning to law school
>because of an interest sparked by the critical legal studies movement
>(giving the lie to their reputation as academic hothouse flowers, just
>as the praise of the practicing attorney Gerry Spence for the CLS
>movement gives the lie to this reputation.)

Ah, the authority of Gerry Spence, famous jurisprudential theorist.  

>But the combination of
>toadying and bullying that goes on in law school is, to put it mildly,
>off-putting.

What toadying and bullying are you referring to?

>Glad to hear it, Mike, but this is disingenuous.  You probably are not
>about to send me money to buy slots on the Today show.

I don't think people pay to appear on the "Today" show. If they do pay,
and you can find me the rate schedule, I'd be glad to chip in.

>... but I
>must continue to maintain that our support for each others rights is
>ALWAYS combined with a desire to silence each other, inherent in
>language.

I hope you will allow me not to share this notion of language.


--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,alt.censorship,talk.politics.misc
From: michaels@m2xenix.psg.com (Michael Sandy)
Subject: Re: Using killfiles is a form of censorship (was: Re: A Modest Request
Organization: Pacific Systems Group, Portland Oregon US
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 03:47:21 GMT


Are kill files censorship?  I imagine that someone distributing information
about how to efficiently filter out certain people or topics might be
offensive to some people.

If kill files _are_ censorship, does that mean censorship is sometimes
beneficial?  Should people who disapprove of censorship force other
people to spend valuable time reading articles crossposted from
alt.revisionism, soc.motss, alt.ensign.wesley.die.die.die?

Estimating it to cost 3-6 seconds to control^N or 'n' past each article,
multiplied by 100 articles per _day_ per high volume newsgroup, an
easy 5-10 minutes per day per newsgroup dealing with essentially
junk mail!  Kill files enable us to share a newsgroup without getting
flooded.  Hyper-specific newsgroups, the alternative, do not have
sufficiently large audiences to sustain discussion.

Censorship would be if a node-administrator ran all the articles through
his or her own kill-file before it reached that node's users.  Technology
could allow something like that to work by simply imposing a 1 day delay
from administrator receipt of newsgroups and user receipt, (provided said
administrator spent 50 hours/day reading newsgroup...!)  Alternately,
busybody users could request the administrator to Kill topic-lines system
wide.

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


-- 
Michael Sandy
michaels@m2xenix.psg.com
From: peterson@CS.ColoState.EDU (james peterson)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Arizona DUI Laws
Date: 24 Jul 92 21:23:15 GMT
Organization: Colorado State University, Computer Science Department

In article <1992Jul24.205124.29784@morrow.stanford.edu> AS.RFS@forsythe.stanford.edu (Russell Sole) writes:
>Hello,
>
>A friend of mine was just arrested in Mesa, Arizona for Driving
>while intoxicated.  I think in California there are mandatory
>penalties involved with this.  Does anyone out there know whether
>there are mandatory penalties involved with first time DWI
>offenders??
>

Hmm.  Arizona.  If I'm not mistaken the mandtory sentence is to
be taken to the outskirts of Phoenix, stripped to the waist, and
bound hand and feet to stakes spread-eagled in the noon sun.  Or
was that New Mexico...?




-- 
james lee peterson				peterson@CS.ColoState.edu
dept. of computer science                       
colorado state university		"Some ignorance is invincible."
ft. collins, colorado  (voice:303/491-7137; fax:303/491-6639)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: Hate Speech Okay, says the Supreme Court
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Keywords: Excellence In Broadcasting
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 23:28:09 GMT

In article <19001@smoke.brl.mil> matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt) writes:

>No one bothers trying to suppress ineffective speech.

I think you misspeak here, Matthew. It's a matter of record that people
have tried to suppress all sorts of *ineffective* speech. The speech in
Schenck and Gitlow wasn't notably effective. Neither was the speech in 
Dennis or Brandenburg. I think what you mean to say is that that no one
tries to suppress *inoffensive* speech. This is certainly true.


--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: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Hate Speech Okay, says the Supreme Court
Date: 28 Jul 92 16:20:48 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1992Jul27.151442.23606@Princeton.EDU>, egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:
> In article <1992Jul27.144100.18135@eff.org> mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:
# #As for your reference to advertising of cigarettes, well, it's old news
# #to mention this, but cigarette advertising has been increasingly regulated
# #and restricted for the last two decades. For a discussion of the passage
# #of cigarette advertising, see THE DANCE OF LEGISLATION by (as I recall)
# #Eric Redman. 
# 
# It's a dance in which the elephants stomp the mice, a la Fantasia.  The
# passage of warning label legislation was not an increase in tobacco
# regulation; it was a wash.  This is because high-powered, high-paid
# lobbyists for the tobacco companies were able to destroy a very
# effective series of anti-smoking TV ads in return for the mild warning
# label.  To this day, there has been no legal recognition of the central

The warning label on cigarettes had been there for many years before
the ban on TV ads.  There was no such trade-off.  The more detailed
warning labels now on cigarette packages and on print advertising is
considerably more recent than the ban on TV ads.

# fact of smoking (that tobacco is an addictive drug probably as powerful
# as heroin) because the lobbyists, being smart, know that such a
# concession would open legal floodgates.
# 
# The Joe Camel campaign was one of the most irresponsible cigarette
# campaigns in history, appealing to children 10-18 when it is illegal for
# them to buy cigarettes and when they are at most risk for smoking.  It
# began in 1990 and so far it has not been regulated.  T shirts and other
# promotional chachkas have been marketed as a part of this campaign which
# do not bear a wanring label, yet the power of the tobacco companies is
# such that no legal challenges have been mounted.

I thought it was the power of the First Amendment that protected this
destestable marketing practice.  You see, I find the current propaganda
in favor of homosexuality pretty destestable also, but not being a
liberal, I know that the government has no right to suppress it, just
because it is morally reprehensible, and is aimed at recruiting kids.
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
"Well, maybe the Holocaust was right *for that culture*." -- a moral relativist
with whom I work.
From: bs@gauss.mitre.org (Robert D. Silverman)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Lawsuit to compel a fraud to run for President!
Date: 21 Jul 92 13:46:20 GMT
Article-I.D.: linus.1992Jul21.134620.29744
Organization: Research Computer Facility, MITRE Corporation, Bedford, MA

In article <jf.9@pacnet.wesleyan.edu> jf@pacnet.wesleyan.edu (JOHN FINN) writes:
:In article <1992Jul21.020754.10150@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> dpollard@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Dennis B Pollard) writes:
:
:>Yes, I forgot about Fed.R.Civ.P. 11.  The federal courts (S.D. Fl.) would make 
:>an example of the lawyer here.
:
:One hopes so, at least!  Does anyone know what remedy the suit asks for?  I 
:don't want to believe any lawyer would really ask for specific 
:performance... but if so, that raises constitutional issues, I would think.
 
WOuld someone please educate the non-lawyers about Fed.R.Civ.P. 11???

What is it???

--
Bob Silverman
These are my opinions and not MITRE's.
Mitre Corporation, Bedford, MA 01730
"You can lead a horse's ass to knowledge, but you can't make him think"
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.censorship,talk.politics.misc
From: Chuck.Lavazzi@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Chuck Lavazzi)
Subject: Re: Using killfiles is a form of censorship (was: Re: A Modest Request
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 03:35:59 GMT

In article <1683312525.PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu> PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu  (David L. Veal) writes:
>In article <1992Jul29.155129.20423@Princeton.EDU>
>egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:
>
>>
>>In article <1992Jul29.145349.25372@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> rwd4f@poe.acc.Virgnia.EDU (Rob Dobson) writes:
>>>/egnigles/h:j
>>>
>>>next, i move on to ban all books with the word "fuck" in them
>>>
>>>-.net nazi
>>
>>Trying to be funny?  Why is "the argument of the slippery slope" valid
>>when applied to enable Viktora, but not when used to extrapolate from
>>the concomitant use of a kill file and an announcement that one has "had
>>it?"
>
>     You really don't see the difference, do you?
>
	No, and it's not in his interest to do so.  Re-defining terms in ways
that suit his argument is one of Mr. Ns standard rhetorical tricks, and so
far it seems to be working, in that it has lots of folks here jumping
through hoops trying to argue with him.
	Like Mr. Starr, I recognized some time ago that discussion with
Nilges is pointless.  Unlike Starr, I didn't put Nilges' name in a kill file
because watching him work has been instructive.  I find his opinions
reprehensible and fundamentally at odds with most of what I believe in, but
he has put them forth with the aplomb of a skilled propagandist.  Reading his
posts, therefore, is an excellent primer in the techniques of propaganda and
persuasion.  Other devotees of extensive State control over the individual
attempt to make the same arguments with considerably less panache.
	If only he hand't been seduced by the dark side of The Force..>:-)>

Chuck
No .sig, no frills, no foolin'

--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
From: Joe.Francis@dartmouth.edu (Joe Francis)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Roe v. Wade upheld by
Date: 24 Jul 92 22:19:15 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

In article <1992Jul24.013713.28081@zooid.guild.org>
Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org> writes:

>> avoid the apearance of overturning Roe (abandoning stare decisis) that
>                                                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 
> Layperson alert!  Layperson alert!
> What does that Latin statement mean in English?  Thanks.

I am also a "layperson", and have little doubt that various net lawyers
will correct me and my grammar too, but nonetheless, a lay translation
of the above would read: 

"avoid the appearance of overturning Roe (abandoning precedent) that"
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Hate Speech Okay, says the Supreme Court
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 16:28:24 GMT

mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:

[...]
>I'm sure each affected the other. But the decline in smoking nationally is
>strongly correlated to the passage of laws requiring warnings and
>restricting advertising. 
[...]

As a side note, it wasn't the restrictions on advertising _per se_
that influenced smoking; it was the end of one-sided advertising.

According to Steven H. Shiffrin, Professor of Law at Cornell
University, "When cigarette counter advertising was used on national
television in the late 1960's [with roughly one counterad for every
three cigarette spots], the evidence showed substantial decline in the
consumption of cigarettes. In fact, cigarette companies lobbied to get
cigarette advertising off the air because they didn't want
counter advertising to stay on the air."  [_Media and Values_ #54/#55
Spring/Summer 1991, reprinted in current _Unte Reader_, p. 75.]

- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Xref: sparky misc.legal:15157 alt.censorship:6468 talk.politics.misc:36560
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.censorship,talk.politics.misc
From: dcriswel@oracle.uucp (David Criswell)
Subject: Re: Using killfiles is a form of censorship (was: Re: A Modest Request
Keywords: egnilges
Organization: Oracle Corporation, Redwood Shores CA
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 01:59:03 GMT
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.

From oracle!pyramid!gossip.pyramid.com!uunet!s5!sethb Wed Jul 29 18:50:51 PDT 1992

In article <1992Jul27.221740.8240@Princeton.EDU>
egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:

>...  It's well known that computers can become a substitute for
>real-life, ...

Ed, you're living proof of this.

Disclaimer: My employer doesn't blatantly and maliciously take things out
of context, but I do.
From: fsars@acad3.alaska.edu (Allen R Sparks)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Sexual Misconduct Laws
Date: 27 Jul 92 21:57:37 GMT
Organization: University of Alaska Fairbanks

In article <92031@bu.edu>, kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:
> In article <1992Jul23.010746.26406@panix.com>
> eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler) writes:
> 
>>I invite you to name a single jurisdiction that makes homosexuality a
>>criminal offense.  
> 
> The US Military?
> 
> You can get court-marshalled just for saying you're gay. No proof or
> disproof of conduct necessary.
> 
> Brian.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> kane@{buast7,astro}.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) Astronomy Dept, Boston University,
> Boston, MA 02215.=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

When I was in the military, I never saw anything in the Uniform Code
of Military Justice (UCMJ) that made homosexuality illegal.  Sodomy
was, but not homosexuality.  Of course the UCMJ that I read was the
version that is distributed to all personnel.  I'm sure there is a
longer version.

In any case, if homosexuality is a court-martial offense, what are the
penalties (and I'm talking about the "being homosexual" not the acts
involved)?  If the only penalty is bad a conduct discharge (BCD) then
all that means is if you are a homosexual in the U.S. military, then
you can be fired.  === Al Sparks
From: fsars@acad3.alaska.edu (Allen R Sparks)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: ProMaleChoice
Date: 23 Jul 92 22:20:52 GMT
Organization: University of Alaska Fairbanks

In article <3317@unisql.UUCP>, wrat@unisql.UUCP (wharfie) writes:
> In article <18978@smoke.brl.mil> matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt) writes:
>>I maintain that any system where people know that an accidental
>>pregnancy will result in their having to get married will discourage
>>fornication.  That's the way it used to be
> 
> 	William the Conqueror was the bastard son of the King of France -
> one of the Phillips, I think.  Phillip *did* *not* marry William's mother.
> 
> 

That's right, provide an example that applies to everyday people.  A
King is generally able to get around the rules a lot easier than
commoners.  The system Matt Rosenblatt mentions, was in place for
French society as a whole at that time.  It's not fair that the King
gets around the rules, but who said life was.....  ==== Al Sparks
From: egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Hate Speech Okay, says the Supreme Court
Date: 27 Jul 92 14:09:18 GMT
Organization: Princeton University
Originator: news@ernie.Princeton.EDU

In article <1992Jul26.214515.9958@eff.org> mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:
>In article <1992Jul26.204757.19969@Princeton.EDU> egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:
>
>>What has happened that an enormous,
>>across-the-board decline in educational standards has entailed that even
>>elite law schools have in reality given up on training their aliterate
>>students in reading and thinking.
>
>When you speak of what happens at "elite law schools," Ed, are you
>speaking from experience? Or are you just making this up as you go along?


Neither.  I've taught at the university level and witnessed, in the
period 1970-, a wide decline in writing and thinking ability.  You
don't have to believe me; take a look at SATs.  The Urban Legend is that
students from poor backgrounds are getting stupider, but the decline is
across the board.  I have also seen accounts of life at Stanford Law in
which it is said that students don't feel they have to work hard, since
admission to Stanford Law is admission to the elite.  I'm sure that most
students at Stanford Law work hard.  I am also certain that students at
John Marshall (Chicago) work hard (and also work at paralegal jobs to
pay their tuition.)

After 20 years in computer science, I considered returning to law school
because of an interest sparked by the critical legal studies movement
(giving the lie to their reputation as academic hothouse flowers, just
as the praise of the practicing attorney Gerry Spence for the CLS
movement gives the lie to this reputation.)  But the combination of
toadying and bullying that goes on in law school is, to put it mildly,
off-putting.
>
>Is this another aspect of your religious faith? If so, I hurry to support
>your right not only to evangelize, as you're doing here, but also to speak
>in any and all public forums.

Glad to hear it, Mike, but this is disingenuous.  You probably are not
about to send me money to buy slots on the Today show.  I acknowledge
the presence of a real graciousness and liberality in Mike Godwin, but I
must continue to maintain that our support for each others rights is
ALWAYS combined with a desire to silence each other, inherent in
language.
Newsgroups: misc.legal