HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: feustel@netcom.com (David Feustel)
Subject: Car Insurance: No Comprehensive => NO THEFT INSURANCE!!!
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 92 17:38:54 GMT
Organization: DAFCO: OS/2 Software Support & Consulting
Summary: Read It While I Weep


My Car  was stolen  from Glenbrook  Shopping Center  here in
Fort Wayne  this Saturday Morning between 945 and 1030 AM. I
have just  been informed  by the  Allstate Insurance company
that  I   have  NO   theft  insurance   because  I  have  no
comprehensive collision  coverage on my 6-year-old car. That
is,  according  to  Allstate,  a  vehicle  owner  must  have
comprehensive collision  coverage in  order  to  be  insured
against car  theft. If you don't have comprehensive colision
coverage and  your car  is stolen,  you get nothing from the
Insurance company.

I wonder  how people have  been told this by their insurance
companies?

I wonder how many of the people who know this fact found out
AFTER their vehicles were stolen, as I have?

I wonder how many  people think  this is  fair or reasonable?
I certainly  don't.  At the  very  least, insurance companies
should  require a signed waiver of  theft  insurance coverage
from  any  policy  holder  who  doesn't  get  theft insurance
as part of his car insurance.

-- 
Dave Feustel N9MYI <feustel@netcom.com>
 
The current epidemic of violent crime in the U.S. arises not from drug
use, but as a consequence of government-sponsored oppression of
producers, distributors and consumers of popular drugs not produced by
(and hence threatening the market share of) the alcohol, tobacco or
pharmacutical industries (which industries, coincidentally, are the
largest contributors to the Bush Reelection Campaign and the biggest
underwriters of antidrug advertisements (which advertisements,
coincidentally, never mention tobacco or alcohol as dangerous drugs)).
From: adamsr@netcom.com (Rick Adams)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Roe v. Wade for Men!
Date: 6 Oct 92 19:02:05 GMT
Article-I.D.: netcom.1992Oct6.190205.25435
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

Thus spake uctlxpd@ucl.ac.uk (Peter Bartlett): 

>Both partners' lives, futures and wallets are at stake; only the woman's
>body is at stake.  Which seems to me to make a difference.
>
	Quite true.

	Otoh, only the woman has the right to custody of the child
currently.

	If a man is to share equal responsibility, then the law should
recognize that he has equal right to custody. Each paternity suit should,
therefore, include a custody hearing in which the man AND woman may provide
evidence as to their respective ability to raise a child (including
financial ability), and at which the judge will award permanent custody to
one or the other parent, with support payments required of the other.

	Either a man is a parent or he is not. If he is there is no
legitimacy in the woman automatically receiving custody - in MANY cases he
is better qualified. IF, otoh, he is NOT eligible for such rights, then
there is no justification for holding him liable for any financial
obligations either.

	A paternity action should not be solely a financial suit - it should
either permit the man to waive =all= parental rights (and obligations) or it
should oblige the woman to demonstrate to the court why she, rather than the
man, should receive custody of the child!

	Justify opposition to THAT one without taking a sexist position that
women make better parents (false - both sexes have equal capacity) or that
the "mother has a special relationship to the child." If the position that
the woman should automatically receive custody cannot be demonstrated on a
non-sexist basis then either the law needs to be changed, or the original
proposition that men should have the right to "terminate" their role in the
pregnancy must be considered as reasonable, since the arguments would by
necessity demonstrate a "superior" role in the pregnancy for the woman with
the effect of eliminating the male from the process of parenthood anyway!

>I'm sorry-- he was FORCED to have sex with her?  If not, he knew what
>he was getting into, and the risks involved.  He DID know, didn't he?
>If not, the fact that his parents never explained the birds and the bees
>to him hardly justifies an alteration of the law.
>
	But his lack of =equal= parental rights =does=!

-- 

                       -=*=- -=*=- -=*=- -=*=- -=*=-
            The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised
      over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to
      prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is
      not a sufficient warrant.                         John Stuart Mill
                       -=*=- -=*=- -=*=- -=*=- -=*=-
          Rick Adams -=*=- adamsr@ais.org -=*=- adamsr@norwich.bitnet
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Citecheck Hell)
Subject: Re: Online Legal
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 05:10:10 GMT

In article <3aEn02UK24SV01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll) writes:
>In article <RyDRRB1w164w@depsych.Gwinnett.COM>, rc@depsych.Gwinnett.COM 
>(Richard Carlson) writes:
>> >        comp.patents ***[need description, focal point, archive info]
>> >        misc.legal ***[need description, focal point, archive info]
>> >        misc.legal.computing ***[need description, focal point, archive 
>info]
>> 
>> There are only _three_ Newsgroups dealing with legal matters on
>> the entire Usenet? (I have just seen the proposal for a family law
>> Newsgroup.  That would make four.)
>
>Other groups, some only tangentally related to law:
>
>alt.dicrimination
>alt.child-support
>alt.dads-rights
>alt.politics.correct (there's also alt.politics.clinton, alt.politics.bush, 
>etc.; I dunno if you want to count politics groups groups dealing with legal 
>matters).
>alt.politics.usa.constitution (discussions of constitutional law)
>alt.society.civil-liberty
>comp.software.licensing
>misc.int-property
>misc.taxes

alt.censorship
talk.rape
talk.abortion

soc.culture.jewish often has discussions of Talmudic law, which is taught
in many a top law school.

Legal issues pop up often in talk.politics.misc.

I doubt soc.history would take unkindly to a thread discussing
comparative legal history.  alt.folklore.urban is the first place
I saw the California statute banning gerbils.
-- 
           .. . . .  .  .   .    .     .     .    .   .  .  . . . ..
          ted frank | thf2@midway.uchicago.edu | standard disclaimers
         the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
Newsgroups: misc.legal,talk.politics.theory
From: gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
Subject: Re: Freedom of Speech according to Nilges
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 17:41:29 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: mydog in exile

      [ "dysfunction" and "codependency" thought meaningless ]

gf:
| |> I don't think they're meaningless, I think they're totalitarian.
| |> 

pcollac@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com (Paul Collacchi) writes:
| Expand on this.  I don't understand what you're getting at.  Do you mean
| "totalitarian" in the sense the Mr. Nilges simply asserts them without
| substantiating the claim, or do you feel that the terms have a connotation
| which is totalitarian?  In what way "totalitarian?"

In order to say that a family is dysfunctional, it's necessary
be able to define "family" in some coherent way and then state
how it's supposed to function.  In other words, to inject some
kind of external authority into people's private lives.  This
is done, generally, by a class of people who have advanced
degrees and access to the media and is simply a power play,
although not a very effective one.  If it were effective, it
would be totalitarian.  Its spirit is totalitarian.

The word _codependency_ is part of the apparatus of some of
these totalitarians.  Almost all human relationships, even
open conflict, contain some degree of complicity, simply
because we can't get away from one another.  This complicity
can be used to make people feel guilty or weak -- dependent
-- in situations where they have had to adjust to abuse or
oppression.  This adds to the power and the business of 
the therapist or whoever's exploiting the situation.  A
similar strategy can be found in Christian propagandists 
who insist that we are all miserable sinners, equally 
complicit in every crime through Original Sin.
-- 
 )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(
( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta.,  NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )
From: jlpicard@austin.ibm.com (Craig Becker)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Presidential UL's
Date: 29 Sep 92 16:40:51 GMT
Reply-To: craigb@ot.austin.ibm.com
Organization: IBM Object Technology Products
Originator: jlpicard@woofer.austin.ibm.com


tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll) writes:
...
> > This does bring up an interesting question, though.  In case of
> > nuclear attack or something that wipes out a large number of high
> > officials, what is the line of succession? 
> 
> The order is:
> 
> Vice-President
> Speaker of the House
> President pro tempore of the Senate
> Secretary of State
> Secretary of the Treasury
> Secretary of Defense
> Attorney General
> Secretary of the Interior
> Secretary of Agriculture
> Secretary of Commerce
> Secretary of Labor
> Secretary of Health and Human Services
> Secretary of Housing and Urban Development
> Secretary of Transportation
> Secretary of Energy
> Secretary of Education
> Secretary of Veterans Affairs
> 
> Source: 3 USC 19.  (followups to misc.legal)

Thanks, Terry! 

Just outta curiousity, tho, is there any kind of reasoning that went
into this ordering? I mean, why is the Secretary of Commerce ordered
before, say, the Secretary of Transportation?

Craig
-- 
-- "You can expect virtually      Craig Becker, Object Technology Products --
--  anything from a people who had      Internet: craigb@ot.austin.ibm.com --
--  nuclear weapons in the early      IBM TR: craigb@woofer.austin.ibm.com --
--  seventeenth century."                           VNET: CRAIGB at AUSVM1 --
From: ald@clipper.ingr.com (Al Date)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Jury Nullification -- The Power is a Right
Date: 29 Sep 92 18:59:39 GMT
Organization: Intergraph Advanced Processor Division - Palo Alto, CA

In article <1992Sep23.224920.10978@eff.org> mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:
>In article <1992Sep22.220832.20569@clipper.ingr.com> ald@clipper.ingr.com (Al Date) writes:
>
>>But in the case of nullification, the jury claims not only a moral right,
>>but a legal power, with no ambiguity.
>
>The jury claims a moral right to nullify? I've never known a juror to make
>any such claim. It seems certain that in the great majority of instances
>of nullification, the jury did not think of its "moral right" to nullify
>at all. It simply acquitted someone it felt deserved acquittal, regardless
>of what the facts and law seemed to dictate.


...deserved acquittal on what grounds if not moral grounds??

You make it sound like a nullifying jury off-handedly decides to ignore
the law given to it by the judge and acquit someone.  In fact, 
nullification is usually accompanied by a moral conviction or
revelation that it would be
more unjust to uphold the law and to convict, than to nullify and acquit.

Nullifying juries are usually, if not unanimously driven by conscience.

This was the true in all the famous cases of nullification, and it was
the case in the recent trial in Redwood City, CA of needle-exchange
activists.  


--Al Date
Xref: sparky misc.legal:17873 rec.arts.books:17222
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,rec.arts.books
Subject: Re: Anti-Arab racism on the net
Keywords: Equality, Fairness, Same Standards?
Date: 30 Sep 92 12:20:20 GMT
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org

In article <1992Sep29.034703.29223@news.columbia.edu> ia4@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Imran Anwar) writes:
>
>Mike your argument is valid, but how can we place a %age content figure
>on a book's content to be considered MEANT to be offensive, as opposed to
>be CONSIDERED offensive.

I don't think anyone is proposing any kind of percentage-based method of
evaluating offensiveness. But the distinction between something that is
meant to be offend, and something that is not meant to offend but happens
to be offensive is a distinction we all use all the time.

Suppose I read somewhere the following quote:

'According to Imran, "... Mike Godwin is a child molester."'

I'd likely find this offensive. Now, suppose I later learn that you were
quoted out of context, and what you actually said was this:

'Only a particularly vicious or insane Usenet poster would try to win an
argument by claiming that Mike Godwin is a child molester.'

I might still be offended, since I'd hate to be linked to child
molestation even in the context of someone's denying I do it. But it
would be likely that, if you said this, you were not intending to be
offensive.

The disputed Rushdie passages are typically read out of context--they are
accounts of the dreams of a character who is going insane. It is a  
fallacy to suppose that these views necessarily represent those of
Rushdie, or were intended to offend anyone.

>All I am sayin gis that if I wrote a book (like Iron Dream) and did not
>intend it to be satirical or humourous (I dont think many Jewish people
>would appreciate the humour) it is obvious that the book would be
>offensive and that I would have written it knowing that.

Actually, I don't know of anyone, Jewish or otherwise, who found THE IRON
DREAM offensive.

>  It would not
>matter if there was ony one chapter in twenty that claimed that there
>was no holocaust or something like that.

Sure it would. Western novel readers are accustomed to distinguishing between
what a character says and what an author says, and they're accustomed to
distinguishing fictional narrative from statements of philosophy or fact.


--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 
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: sampson@cod.nosc.mil (Charles H. Sampson)
Subject: Freedom of Speech = Not Responsible?
Organization: Computer Sciences Corporation
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 16:49:25 GMT

     In a recent article, the Los Angeles Times reported on yet another
"rappers made me do it" case.  In this case a woman was suing a rapper
because a miscreant had shot her policeman husband shortly after listening
to a number by the rapper urging people to do just that.

     In the article, the Times said that all previous such cases had been
thrown out on grounds of freedom of speech.  I was surprised at this.  My
understanding of freedom of speech is that the government cannot prohibit
anybody (well, almost anybody) from saying anything (well, almost any-
thing), but that, in general, when a person says something he has to take
responsibility for having said it.  This is particularly true when the
person advocates an action, else what's incitement to riot for?

     Was the Times wrong in its summary of the previous cases, or does my
idea of freedom of speech need revision?

                              Charlie
Newsgroups: misc.legal,talk.politics.theory
From: dkeisen@leland.Stanford.EDU (Dave Eisen)
Subject: Re: Freedom of Speech according to Nilges
Organization: Sequoia Peripherals, Inc.
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 92 18:03:00 GMT

In article <183703@pyramid.pyramid.com> pcollac@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com (Paul Collacchi) writes:
>Fitch) writes:
>|> egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Edward G. Nilges):
>|> | prelevance of divorce in the era of many posters' childhoods (1960-1980)
>|> | and the fact that even before 1960 "organization man" fathers were
>|> | excluded from meaningful family participation.  Since boys, especially,
>     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>Just to pick a few nits here.....  "Were excluded from" suggests that
>men had no choice in their relationships with their family.  But who
>excluded them?  The Fatherly Exclusion Police.  You get the idea.  It is
>true that fathers excluded themselves, de facto, by choosing to assume
>the role of breadwinner in a way which took them out of the house.  

Yes, fathers chose to exclude themselves from their families. Nobody
forced them to do this.

But you have to look at what other options they had.

If a man did not want to leave his home to work, how was he to 
support himself? There weren't modems back then. Flex-time was 
not available. If he wanted to earn a living, he pretty much
*had* to work long hours whereever his job was.

What was he going to do? Starve? Who was going to support him if
he were not willing to assume the role of breadwinner in a way
which took him out of the house?

And we're talking about men who were fathers here. In that time,
even more than today, a man's suitability for marriage was based
on what kind of provider he would be. How much money he would
make. Doctors were great catches, garbage collectors weren't. So
maybe a man could have structured his life to be at home more. But
any man who did this would find it very difficult to find a wife.

So yes, men chose to exclude themselves from their families. But 
as I see it, the alternative was to live a life of poverty and
solitude. Not much of a choice really. 

We all make choices. We all choose how we live our life. But I wonder
something. Would you have focussed on the choice aspect if someone
had posted about how women in the 50s were forced into a gilded cage, 
were forced to stay home and raise their children instead of making 
their mark on the world? These women made their choices exactly as 
the men of that period did. 


-- 
Dave Eisen    dkeisen@leland.Stanford.EDU   Sequoia Peripherals: (415) 967-5644
      There's something in my library to offend everybody.
        --- Washington Coalition Against Censorship
From: ald@clipper.ingr.com (Al Date)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Jury Nullification -- The Power is a Right
Date: 2 Oct 92 18:46:21 GMT
Organization: Intergraph Advanced Processor Division - Palo Alto, CA

In article <1992Sep30.121742.26428@eff.org> mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:
>In article <1992Sep29.185939.21772@clipper.ingr.com> ald@clipper.ingr.com (Al Date) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep23.224920.10978@eff.org> mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:
>>>
>>>The jury claims a moral right to nullify? I've never known a juror to make
>>>any such claim. It seems certain that in the great majority of instances
>>>of nullification, the jury did not think of its "moral right" to nullify
>>>at all. It simply acquitted someone it felt deserved acquittal, regardless
>>>of what the facts and law seemed to dictate.
>>
>>...deserved acquittal on what grounds if not moral grounds??
>
>I said nothing about moral grounds.

So on what grounds do you suspect that juries decide to acquit people
in spite of the law and the facts?  Extraterrestrial intervention?

>
>>You make it sound like a nullifying jury off-handedly decides to ignore
>>the law given to it by the judge and acquit someone.
>
>Do I? I think it's rare that a jury "off-handedly" does anything.
>

Well at least we agree on that.


>>  In fact, 
>>nullification is usually accompanied by a moral conviction or
>>revelation that it would be
>>more unjust to uphold the law and to convict, than to nullify and acquit.
>
>I do not think you can support this statement.
> 

I think it is the case almost by definition. 

>>Nullifying juries are usually, if not unanimously driven by conscience.
>
>What is your source for this statistic?

Knowledge of history.

>
>>This was the true in all the famous cases of nullification, and it was
>>the case in the recent trial in Redwood City, CA of needle-exchange
>>activists.  
>
>How can you speak of the mental states of the jurors in "all the famous
>cases of nullification"?
>
In some cases, they asked them.  In Redwood City, 11 of the 12 felt that
there was a "higher purpose" than to uphold the law, when human life was
at stake (as it is with HIV).   In historical cases, such as the famous
trial of William Penn, the conclusion that the jurors
acted out of conscience is almost unmistakable.  


>Just to be clear on what I'm saying, let me repeat again what you seem to
>be disputing:
>
>>In article <1992Sep23.224920.10978@eff.org> mnemonic@eff.org (Mike
>Godwin) writes:
>>>
>>>The jury claims a moral right to nullify? I've never known a juror to make
>>>any such claim. It seems certain that in the great majority of instances
>>>of nullification, the jury did not think of its "moral right" to nullify
>>>at all. It simply acquitted someone it felt deserved acquittal, regardless
>>>of what the facts and law seemed to dictate.
>
>This is not exclusive of "moral grounds."
>
>What I was saying here was that I don't think the jury claims a "moral
>right to nullify." Again, I've never heard a juror refer to any such
>thing.

It is implicit in their actions, if not their words.

--Al Date
From: wrat@unisql.UUCP (wharfie)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Men & elves
Keywords: Act xxi of 1850 [the 'Lex Loci Act']
Date: 30 Sep 92 18:11:27 GMT
Reply-To: wrat@unisql.UUCP (wharfie)
Organization: UniSQL, Inc., Austin, Texas, USA

In article <19229@smoke.brl.mil> matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt) writes:
>Good and evil exist independently of what men say and think.  "Nor
>are they one thing among Men and another among Elves," as Tolkien
>puts it.

	Would you please describe evil for me so that I can be sure
and recognize it when I find it?
								wr
From: "tom betz" <tom.betz@execnet.com>
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: history of forfeiture law
Date: 5 Oct 92 04:44:34 EST
Reply-To: "tom betz" <tom.betz@execnet.com>
Distribution: misc
Organization: Executive Networks Information

Quoth C. D. Tavares regarding HISTORY OF FORFEITURE LAW on 10-01-92:

CD>In article <1992Sep28.215256.3366#island.COM>, guido@island.COM (Guido
CD>
CD>> How long do you think it will be
CD>> before the authorities start to confiscate the autos of people
CD>> suspected of drunk driving ?
CD>
CD>I'm surprised they are not doing it already.

They are around here.  I've seen 'em loaded on flatbed trailers at "safety 
check" roadblocks not two miles from my house.



---
  WinQwk 2.0 a#299  The War On Drugs is a War on the Constitution!
--
Executive Network Information System  (914) 667-4567
International ILink Host
From: ia4@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Imran Anwar)
Subject: Re: Anti-Arab racism on the net
Keywords: Equality, Fairness, Same Standards?
Reply-To: ia4@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Imran Anwar)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 03:47:03 GMT


Mike your argument is valid, but how can we place a %age content figure
on a book's content to be considered MEANT to be offensive, as opposed to
be CONSIDERED offensive.

All I am sayin gis that if I wrote a book (like Iron Dream) and did not
intend it to be satirical or humourous (I dont think many Jewish people
would appreciate the humour) it is obvious that the book would be
offensive and that I would have written it knowing that.  It would not
matter if there was ony one chapter in twenty that claimed that there
was no holocaust or something like that.

Regards

Imran