HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: tjc50@ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Conflicts Between Rights Guaranteed By State Constitution &
Date: 24 Jul 92 16:49:28 GMT
Reply-To: tjc50@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

Matthew Rosenblatt wrote, quoting me:

> >Here in California, a Proposition (which is a voted addition/amendment to
> >the State constitution) was overturned by the US Supreme Court as
> >violative
> >of the US Constitution.  Cite on request.   [Terry Carroll]
>
> Is Mr. Carroll referring to "Proposition 14," approved by the voters
> of California by a 3 to 2 margin in 1966?  That's the one that forbade
> the State, or any subdivision thereof, from enacting or keeping in force
> any "fair housing" act that forced landlords and sellers to stop
> discriminating.  Was it the U. S. Supreme Court that overturned
> Proposition 14, or was it a State court that overturned it on the
> basis that State courts, too, are obligated by the Supremacy Clause
> to enforce the Federal Constitution?  I don't remember.

Yes, that was the case.  Since my post, I looked it up: it was in the
U.S. Supreme Court (Reitman v. Mulkey, 387 US 369 (1967)).

> >I dunno about state constitution v. federal law, but my guess is the
> >Supremacy clause ("This constitution, and the laws of the United States
> >which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which
> >shall be made, under the authority of the United States shall be the
> >supreme
> >law of the land..."), which includes federal laws, would still allow the
> >federal law to take precedence over the state constitution.  But I've not
> >researched this.   [Terry Carroll]
>
> It's a pity that Mr. Carroll put in an ellipsis ("...") instead of
> continuing his quotation from the Supremacy Clause of Article VI
> of the Constitution, because the answer to the question in the
> "Subject:" line may be found in the very next words:
>
>    ". . . shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges
>     in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the
>     Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
>                  -- U.S. Const., Art. VI.

Damn!  If it was a reptile, it would have bitten me.  Thanks for the
augmented posting.
-- 
The above is my thoughts, not Amdahl's;   |  Terry Carroll  408/992-2152
The above is not legal advice;            |  Senior Computer Architect
Contents sold by weight, not by volume;   |  Amdahl Corporation
Your mileage may vary.                    |  tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com
From: matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Right To Not Support
Summary: Libertinism and the Common Law
Keywords: Studs'n'Sluts in Merrie Old England
Date: 29 Jul 92 21:14:37 GMT
Organization: U.S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory, APG, MD.

In article <1992Jul29.053426.29818@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org 
(Kevin Darcy) writes:

>Let her do what she wants with her body. But decide the liability issues
>according to established common law principles, please. No strange 
>statutory exceptions. No Big Brother interference in my sex life or
>reproductive decisions. Thanks.  [Kevin Darcy]

"Established common law principles," eh?

>Let her do what she wants with her body.   [Kevin Darcy]

This is an established common law principle?  Was prostitution, 
for example, allowed by the common law?  How about termination 
of pregnancy after quickening?  

>No Big Brother interference in my sex life . . .  [Kevin Darcy]

Another established common law principle, no doubt.  
Lessee . . . did adulterers get death without benefit of 
clergy, or could their lives be spared at the pleasure
of the offended party (i.e., the adulteress's husband),
or were they eligible for benefit of clergy -- meaning,
they weren't killed if they knew how to read.

>. . . or reproductive decisions.   [Kevin Darcy]

So, the common law allowed a man to get away with bastardy Scot-free
without having to pay anything to the mother of his child?  'Zat the
same common law that allowed a husband to beat his wife, provided he
didn't use a stick thicker than his thumb?

I guess the "Playboy Philosophy" and the whole '60's "Sexual Liberation
Movement" were necessary only because mean old Puritans had messed up
the wonderful sexually-liberated common law of the Good Old Days.,

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

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
TRUTH     JUSTICE     FREEDOM     YIDDISHKEIT     IVY     THE AMERICAN WAY
From: Joe.Francis@dartmouth.edu (Joe Francis)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Take an Exit, Get a Search!
Date: 27 Jul 92 01:14:42 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

On Friday, July 24, at 10PM, I heard a report on the NBC radio news
(the 5 minute, "top-o-the-hour" news) about how the police in some US
locale had put up a sign on a highway indicating that drug searches
were being carried out ahead.  Instead, the searching was occurring off
of the following exit.  I didn't quite catch the location (South
Dakota?), and when I listened again at 11PM, they had dropped the item
from their news.

I have a few questions about this.  Can anyone provide more detail or
point me at a fuller report?  Is this type of searching common?  Does
someone who takes the exit have the right to refuse the search?  If so,
are they informed of this right?  Would I be allowed to hold a big
placard at such a road stop that informed drivers that they need not
submit to a search?  Is anyone as annoyed as I at this type of
policing?  If you are searched despite refusing, will that alone
generate standing, or must you be charged?  I realize that some of
these questions are predicated on my flawed understanding of US law,
and I welcome corrections - especially those that go on to address what
my questions should have been, and their answers! 

Have we really reached the point where taking a particular exit
qualifies as "probable cause"?  Even if we could know that all exiters
had read the sign and exited because they preferred not to be searched,
have we really reached the point where a preference not to be searched
qualifies as "probable cause"?

NBC news reported that many guns and mucho drugs were seized.  (Gee, I
wonder if they seized any *cash*, as well.)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: marshall@watserv1.waterloo.edu (Jim Marshall - DCS)
Subject: Test
Keywords: Test
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 17:41:26 GMT


This is just a test please ignore
From: ghica@fig.citib.com (Renato Ghica)
Subject: Re: Self-Defense
Originator: ghica@duck
Organization: Citibank IBISM
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 16:07:34 GMT



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:
|> >In article <1992Jul22.104724.1@acad3.alaska.edu> fsars@acad3.alaska.edu (Allen R Sparks) writes:
|> >)You're worried about playing FAIR all of a sudden?  Murder is still
|> >)murder no matter how it's done.
|> >
|> >Self defense isn't murder.  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?
|> 
|> It's not as obvious as you seem to think.
|> 
|> Followups directed out of alt.discrimination.
|> -- 
|>                       ....................................
|>                       ted frank | thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
|>                       the university of chicago law school 
|>                       official member of the cultural elit




I have an idea:

	-find a handy solid objectg around the cell
		bed leg
		brick from a wall
		pen/pencil
		spoon/fork/knife from the cafeteria
		etc etc

	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
	   harm the brain.
	
	OR

	b) hit him over the head every 3 hours, so that you
	   can sleep while he is knocked out. Consider permanent
	   brain damage (to him) as a recourse.
	
	OR
	
	other [permanently] disabling tacticts, which would not be
       	construed as murder. 
-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"These views are my own. / Mail me or Flame me"

>@)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.censorship,talk.politics.misc,alt.flame
From: markr@mot.com (Mark)
Subject: Re: Using killfiles is a form of censorship (was: Re: A Modest Request
Reply-To: markr@mcil.comm.mot.com
Organization: MCIL
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 14:53:52 GMT

In article <1992Jul28.164618.14879@Princeton.EDU> egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:
>In article <1992Jul28.143312.21954@nocusuhs.nnmc.navy.mil> perez@mgr.hjf.org (Charles Perez) writes:
>>>
>>>All or most of language is metaphorical but there's a reason for
>>>metaphor.
>>
>>Yes, it's to give us the ability to express *new* concepts, not to
>>express old ones (at least, not outside of art).
>
>Oh?  Are you going to enforce the perimeter of "art?"  
>
>Among other things, unix is literature...art.  Its use of "kill" files
>is therefore open to psychoanalysis.  Among other things, programming is
>writing.  I know that certain parties would have us believe that
>programming is something else, perhaps the language of the gods.  But
>nope, programming is writing.  Written by human beings who sometimes
>have the urge to kill.  Indeed, much code for the network originated in
>war-making "defense" applications and is doubly freighted with a
>murderous purpose.

What is with this guy Nilges anyway ?  Unix is an OS, kill files are files which
filter huge volumes of news, programming is how we get computers to do useful
things, most programmers would prefer to code than to kill, and Usenet was
written by a group of non-defense workers in a plant which probably does no
defense work, and was probably written on a whim.

What a nut.

Mark
From: jcr@milton.u.washington.edu (Mr. EuStress)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Right To Not Support
Date: 28 Jul 92 23:11:40 GMT
Reply-To: jcr@milton.u.washington.edu (Mr. EuStress)
Organization: University of Washington

ken bell writes
> [kids] are dependent, 
> and as such have a right to depend on their parents 
                                              ^^^^^^^
                                              WRONG!
    Kids have a right to be supported -- but from their
    community -- NOT from their "genetic link".
       Individuals should have the right to NOT support
    any kid -- but the community has already decided
    that they want to support all kids.  Besides all
    kids SHOULD be supported by something that wants
    to support him -- otherwise he'll be abused.
       Prehistorically -- kids were NOT supported by
    the genetic father -- no one even knew who he was
    -- the community supported them.
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.censorship,talk.politics.misc
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: Using killfiles is a form of censorship (was: Re: A Modest Request
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 04:19:05 GMT

In article <rdippold.712118711@cancun> rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold) writes:
>
>So is not going out and buying "Backdoor Ball Buster Babes".  Suggest
>you buy immediately.  So is unsubscribing to alt.censorship.  Really,
>now you're asserting a right to force someone to listen to you?  Your
>gyrations and mutations of English get increasingly more amusing the
>more desperate you become to defend your nonexistent points.

I'm looking forward to Ed Nilges's argument that, if you're using
rn, and you type 'n' after reading only one screen of an Ed Nilges
posting, you're opposed to freedom of speech.


--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: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Re: Stare Decisis
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 13:53:40 GMT

In article <1992Jul30.064350.27547@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu> akbloom@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu (Keith Bloom) writes:
>thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:
>>>When Chief Justice Warren held that, in the field of education at
>>>least, there was no such thing as separate but equal, he denied the
>>>factual basis of Plessy, and therefore the legitimacy of its legal
>>>doctrine.  
>
>>Your second clause doesn't follow from the first.  
>
>Then answer me this.  Suppose the Plessy court had believed that there
>were not, and as a matter of sociological fact, there *could not be*
>any situations in which racially separate facilities were equal.
>Would it still have formulated the doctrine that separate but equal
>facilities were permissible?

Not as such, but it wouldn't have rejected it out of hand, either.

Here's the difference: let's say that in 2017 a group of black
separatists sue to have the school district allow for an optional
Afrocentric curriculum in a segregated magnet school.  In support
of their contention, they have overwhelming and unanimous factual
evidence from every field of the social sciences that such a school
would be beneficial to black children.

If Brown had *overruled* Plessy, and declared that separate but equal
facilities were unconstitutional as a matter of law, then the court
could only allow such a suit by reinstating Plessy (or some form
of the separate but equal doctrine) explicitly.  Otherwise, as a
matter of law, they would follow the hypothetical Brown case, and
declare such facilities unconstitutional per se.

Under the actual Brown, which ruled only that "segregation ... has
a detrimental effect .... [T]his finding is amply supported by modern
authority."  The statement is clear that it's a factual ruling.  If
the facts change, a court following Brown (and, for the sake of
argument, Brown only) would allow the magnet school, or explicitly
overrule the separate but equal doctrine.

At the time Brown was released, people viewed it as a narrowing of
Plessy, not an overruling.  
-- 
                      ....................................
                      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: Hate Speech Okay, says the Supreme Court
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 22:11:25 GMT

In article <1992Jul26.213024.24427@Princeton.EDU> egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:

>We see an example of this in this thread.  Mike Godwin is beginning,
>like William December Starr, to descend to threatening language in
>preference to either remaining silent on the subject matter of this
>thread, or engaging discussants in the substance of what the SC said in
>re Viktora.  This undercuts Godwin and Starr's professed dedication
>to free speech.

Not only do I not recall having threatened Ed Nilges, but I am clueless
as to how I might meaningfully threaten Nilges with anything.

I do know that Nilges sent me e-mail that could be interpreted as a threat
to me--he threatened to give me a lot of trouble next time I fail to
proofread a posting--but even at my most uncharitable I can't really feel
threatened by this.

>Henry, I did not indulge myself in the fashion of Godwin and of Starr in
>ugly language and a deliberate announcement to the world that one has
>"killed" Nilges.

In which posting did I announce to the world that I would put you in a
killfile? Or are you just making this up as you go along?


--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: hes@unity.ncsu.edu (Henry E. Schaffer)
Subject: Re: Hate Speech Okay, says the Supreme Court
Keywords: Excellence In Broadcasting
Organization: Computing Center, North Carolina State University
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 22:26:39 GMT

In article <19001@smoke.brl.mil> matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt) writes:
> ...  such effective speech as Mr. Limbaugh's program that
>reaches over eleven million listeners daily with its anti-feminist,
>anti-affirmative-action, anti-victimology message.

  Lest anyone gain the wrong impression from this that Mr. Limbaugh
is anti-everything, I must mention that such would be a wrong
conclusion.  One day I accidently tuned him in on my car radio
(I didn't know anything about him) and found him in the middle
of a pro-rape discourse (perhaps tirade would be a better word.)
So I know that he isn't merely against everything!  
> ...

--henry schaffer  n c state univ
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: hes@unity.ncsu.edu (Henry E. Schaffer)
Subject: Re: Hate Speech Okay, says the Supreme Court
Organization: Computing Center, North Carolina State University
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 23:23:48 GMT

In article <1992Jul26.213024.24427@Princeton.EDU> egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:
>In article <1992Jul26.153809.20257@ncsu.edu> hes@unity.ncsu.edu (Henry E. Schaffer) writes:
>>perceive the difference between a) speech and b) passing/enforcing a
>>law. 
>
>Don't equivocate, Henry.  I said that law is a form of speech; eg., that
>all legal speech is speech.  

  And I'm saying that it is confused thinking to say that "passing/
enforcing a law" is simply "speech". 

>I did not make the claim that all speech is a form of law,  ...

  Sorry - I don't mean to say you think that.  I do think that you
are confused in thinking that all law (enactment and enforcement)
is a form of speech.

>  What seems to
>escape your notion that was lawmakers DO is talk and write quite a lot,

  Please do give me credit for noticeing this.

>and the enmity for legalism I sense on the part of libertarian thinkers
>undercuts their loud support of free speech.

  Hardly - again you are seriously confused.  Being against the
content of certain laws is so distinct from being against free speech 
that it makes me think that you are making some kind of obscure joke.  
Between this and your position that "knocking over a convenience store" 
is "symbolic speech" it is hard to give you any credit for having sense.
>
>We see an example of this in this thread.  Mike Godwin is beginning,
>like William December Starr, to descend to threatening language ...

  Do you *really* believe that someone saying that he would enter
you in his "kill file" is "threatening language"?
>
>I would not defend the Internet Worm on a free speech basis, I'd only

  Why not?  It appears to fit much better than "knocking over a
convenience store".

>point to the hysterical overreaction to Morris on the part of managers
>of unix systems that had been deliberately designed in an insecure
>fashion as undercutting any devotion these managers might profess for
>freedom in general.

  Is it the power of deconstructionism that allows you to have these
penetrating insights?  If the use of unix shows that one's devotion to
free speech is insincere, what can one deconstruct from such operating
systems as MVS, VMS, VM, MS/PC-DOS and CP/M?  Are we at the birth of
a new field of study - Post-Modern Operating System Architecture?
> ...

--henry schaffer  n c state univ
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: rlcarr@athena.mit.edu (Richard L. Carreiro)
Subject: topless in NY state?
Summary: summary?
Organization: Digitopolitan Embassy to the US
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 14:25:51 GMT

I was reading a newspaper article the other day about some protest on
the Peace Bridge between NY and Ontario.  In passing, it mentioned that
there is now a court order in NY state that says women can be topless
in public.  Having not heard anything at all about that case I was
wondering if anyone knows:
(1) the details of the case?
(2) what locations, behavior, etc. does the ruling apply to?
(3) is it a temporary court order or a final ruling?
(4) can the state appeal it or is it final?
(5) does it nullify all municipal ordinances on the matter?


--
Rich Carreiro                                    "My country, right or wrong,"
ARPA: rlcarr@athena.mit.edu                                is like
UUCP: ...!mit-eddie!mit-athena!rlcarr            "My driver, sober or drunk."
BITNET: rlcarr@athena.mit.edu
Newsgroups: misc.legal
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 01:01:13 GMT

In article <2541@uswnvg.uswnvg.com> dfpedro@uswnvg.com.UUCP (Donn F. Pedro) writes:
>In article <9956@sun13.scri.fsu.edu> pepke@ds1.scri.fsu.edu (Eric Pepke) 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?
>:
>:It should be the way it is now in most states.  This is not 
>:self-defense.  It's murder.
>
>Quite correct.

Depends on the state.  The one state that actually addressed this case
called it murder in a split decision.  Theoretically, a state using a
Model Penal Code definition of self-defense would call it a justifiable
homicide, but the result so differs from the common-law approach that
it's not completely clear a court would accept it.
-- 
                      ....................................
                      ted frank | thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
                      the university of chicago law school 
                      official member of the cultural elit
From: akbloom@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu (Keith Bloom)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Stare Decisis
Date: 26 Jul 92 15:58:18 GMT
Article-I.D.: aplcen.1992Jul26.155818.1123
	<1992Jul25.122946.5484@athena.mit.edu> 
	<1992Jul25.183014.5795@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu> 
	<1992Jul26.064632.3669@eff.org>
Organization: The Johns Hopkins University

mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:

>>Justice Clark's language in _Mapp_ is
>>more mealy-mouthed than Justice Jackson's in _West Va. v. Barnette_
>>with regard to applicability of the previous decision.

>Almost any other justice seems more mealy-mouthed than Justice Jackson was--
>especially if held to the standard of the "fixed-star-in-the-Constitutional-
>horizon" opinion of Barnette.

Jackson's rhetoric was pretty intoxicating.  I wish Dukakis had stolen
some of it in 1988.  Perhaps it wouldn't have gone over too well--but
considering how he handled the pledge of allegiance issue, it couldn't
have hurt.


Keith