HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.politics.correct,alt.censorship
Subject: Re: KNOW YOUR RIGHTS (was: Re; Nilges)
Date: 26 Aug 92 19:37:40 GMT
Reply-To: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation

In article <1992Aug26.174003.26552@eff.org>, mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) 
writes:
> >Gimme real freedom, hedged about with commonsense restrictions such as
> >Justive Brandeis' "no freedom to shout "fire" in a crowded theater" over
> >freedoms that are so formally overbroad that they are in practice
> >unattainable.
> 
> You're thinking of Justice Holmes, not Justice Brandeis.

No, Mike, he's thinking of Justice Brandeis.  He's just wrong again.  :-)

Terry Carroll - tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com - 408/992-2152
The opinions presented above are not necessarily those of a sound mind.
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.politics.correct,alt.censorship
From: egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges)
Subject: KNOW YOUR RIGHTS (was: Re; Nilges)
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 12:55:05 GMT

In article <1992Aug25.150827.11033@midway.uchicago.edu> hasn@midway.uchicago.edu (Sheheryar Hasnain) writes:
>In the midst of this debate on free speech, I want to pose a question:  Does 
>free speech exist in the US at all?  And if it is not consistent on all 

Damn, light dawns over the Midway.  That's what I've been asking: if
free speech is such an absolute good, then why is it "trumped"
(superseded) by anti-abortion forces and property rights?

>levels then it does not exist.  I will add that it is interesting how many 
>people choose to defend the "racists" right to free speech when:
>
>1.  Doctors cannot mention abortion as an alternative to patients.
>
>2.  Corporate Whistleblowers generally lose their jobs after spilling the beans.
>
>3.  Speech to overthrow the government is punnishable(sp).  
>
>and so on.
>
>Why defend speech that spreads a hatred when one can talk about cases like the 
>above? Generally, all actions are pretty well screened in this country 
>before being allowed, and racism should be no different.
>
>Lets face it, there is no such thing as "free speech" in this country.  One 
>cannot argue that "some" speech is free since freedom means all or nothing. 
>

Here's where we part company.  Freedom does NOT mean "all or nothing."
Gimme real freedom, hedged about with commonsense restrictions such as
Justive Brandeis' "no freedom to shout "fire" in a crowded theater" over
freedoms that are so formally overbroad that they are in practice
unattainable.  In particular, the Supreme Court provided Viktora with
the freedom to commit a tort and a crime (given the statements of many
posters on the other side of this debate, who said that his conduct was
ALREADY criminalized.)  Such an odd freedom: a freedom to get busted and
to get sued for violating laws against assault that are already on the
books, and a freedom, to screw up bad, of which libertarians seem
particularly fond (see, for example, "gun liberties" which criminalize
people by shoving guns in their hands.)

It is illogical to state that Viktora was free by virtue of the First
Amendment to commit a tort (no legal right to commit legal wrong,
children) but then again Justice Clarence "who put the pubic hair in my
Coke can" Thomas, at the bottom of much of this decision, ain't no giant
brain.


     THIS IS A PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT!  KNOW YOUR RIGHTS!
     NUMBER THREE: YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH.  AS LONG AS
     YOU'RE NOT DUMB ENOUGH TO ACTUALLY TRY IT!

                                 - The CLASH



Subject: Re: Hate Speech Okay, says the Supreme Court
Summary: 
Expires: 
Followup-To: 
Distribution: 
Organization: Princeton University
Keywords:
From: fsars@acad3.alaska.edu (Allen R Sparks)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Tort Reform (was: Number of Lawyers)
Date: 1 Sep 92 03:40:01 GMT
Organization: University of Alaska Fairbanks

In article <16uq02SN20=301@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com>, tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll) writes:
> In article <1992Aug31.175134.23190@nsisrv.gsfc.nasa.gov>, dsc@gemini.tmc.edu 
> (Doug S. Caprette Bldg. 28 W191 x3892) writes:
>> How about having punative damages acrue to the state, rather than to the 
>> plaintiff?  The successful plaintiff would still receive compensatory 
> damages, 
>> and thus would not be deprived of anything they have a clear right to, but,
>> much of the motivation for seeking punative damages would be lost.
> 
> Then no plaintiffs would seek punitive damages.  If that's the goal, why not 
> just eliminate punitive damages?

Good idea.  I'm in favor of it too.  === Al Sparks
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: mwhhlaw!tim (Timothy E. Hollingsworth)
Subject: Number of Lawyers
Reply-To: uunet!mwhhlaw!tim
Organization: Martin Wade Hartley & Hollingsworth
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 22:35:40 GMT

 In the most recent issue of the ABA Journal, Ray August, an Assoicate  
Professor from Washington State University, provides myth cracking data about  
the number of lawyers in the various countries of the world.  Surprise! The US  
probably does not have 70% of the world's lawyers.  Actually, the percentage is  
something more like 9.4%.

Hum.... I always thought my former classmate, Dan Quayle, was lacking in the  
research department.

P.S.  Just the facts.  Mr. Quayle was in the class of 1974.  I was class of  
1975.  Mr. Quayle and I did share a class or two.  Mr. Quayle was not near the  
golfer that Kent Franson was (and is).  Kent won the Indiana State Open title  
his last year in law school.  Kent's dad was the dean who let Mr. Quayle into  
law school in spite of his grades.  Dean Franson also let me into law school in  
spite of my grades. 
--
Tim Hollingsworth
Xref: sparky misc.legal:16393 alt.politics.correct:5121 alt.censorship:7127
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.politics.correct,alt.censorship
Subject: Re: Nilges
Date: 25 Aug 92 15:17:14 GMT
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

In article <1992Aug25.150827.11033@midway.uchicago.edu> hasn@midway.uchicago.edu (Sheheryar Hasnain) writes:
>In the midst of this debate on free speech, I want to pose a question:  Does 
>free speech exist in the US at all?  And if it is not consistent on all 
>levels then it does not exist.  I will add that it is interesting how many 
>people choose to defend the "racists" right to free speech when:
>
>1.  Doctors cannot mention abortion as an alternative to patients.

Not true.

>2. Corporate Whistleblowers generally lose their jobs after spilling the beans.

Leaving aside the fact that many whistleblowers have brought successful
suits against employers who've fired them, this does not implicate free
speech.  I can't start calling my boss names to his face, either.  (Not
that I would -- Doug's my hero :)

>Lets face it, there is no such thing as "free speech" in this country.  One 
>cannot argue that "some" speech is free since freedom means all or nothing. 

Freedom certainly doesn't mean all or nothing.  I'm not free to firebomb an
annoying fraternity or take diapers from Night&Day Stores without paying -- 
does this mean I'm as oppressed as, say, someone in Saudi Arabia?

>Using the above logic, I do not consider racist propoganda to be considered
>as "speech."  Racist propoganda drives some people to physically, 
>economically and emotionally hurt others (I'm also not an Al Sharpton or
>Farakhan fan!).  Should it be punnished accordingly?
>That ofcourse is a different issue.  

But who is to determine what is "good" speech, and what isn't?  You?  Me?
Jesse Helms?  Better to have a blanket rule that all speech is protected.
-- 
             ......................................................
             ted frank | thf2@midway.uchicago.edu | std disclaimers
             the university of chicago law skool, chicago, illinois
             it's log!  log!  log!  it's big, it's heavy, it's wood
From: uctlxpd@ucl.ac.uk (Peter Bartlett)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Order of the Coif?
Date: 26 Aug 92 19:10:28 GMT
Organization: Bloomsbury Computing Consortium

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

>Can anyone tell me what the Order of the Coif is?  I've seen it listed as a 
>qualification for some attorneys.  I'm not certain that it represents an 
>honor or degree associated with the legal profession, but the context seems 
>to indicate so.

>Anyone?



Presumably it means that all applicants are expected to don Nancy Reagan
hair dos.  My theory is that it is a requirement of firms who do big
business in the cosmetics industry.

peter.
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Custody case question
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 03:14:29 GMT

In article <BtnsLH.9B0@unx.sas.com> cates@cherokee.unx.sas.com (Claire Cates) writes:
>... I had a meeting with my lawyer today and
>he told me statistically if the case goes to court the man
>wins in 60% of the cases.   I had been led to believe from
>everything I have ever seen or heard that the women has the
>better chance of winning custody even if she is a total wreck.

Many of the cases are filtered out because men are discouraged
from trying (by lawyers, by the media, by statistics, by themselves; 
probably not +wrongfully+, in the sense that their chances are slim).

Thus, those cases that do go to court tend to consist of the
fraction in which the father has an exceptionally good case.
Hence, IMHO, the "60%" statistic.

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.politics.correct,alt.censorship
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Employee Rights (was Re: Freedom of Speech
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 20:02:03 GMT

dkeisen@leland.Stanford.EDU (Dave Eisen) writes:

[...]
>Once an employer needs
>to show cause to fire someone, there will be an industry set
>up to prove people were fired unjustly. All more regulation will
>do is provide more avenues for someone who is fired to contest the
>firing. It will lead to more litigation, not less.
[...]

This is not how the folks in Montana saw it.

ACLU Policy Report _Liberty at Work_:

"The primary opposition in Montana was not business, but the trial
lawyers' association, which rasied some legitimate questions about the
limitations of the remedies in the bill, but mostly seemed worried
about limits on laywers' fees. On rare occasions in certian
justisdictions, the employee who finds a chink in the employmeht at
will doctrine and wins a cuase may win a large verdict, resulting in
hefty attorneys' fees.  ...  Montana's new law, as noted above,
restricts most awards to back wages. Business turned out to be a key
supporter of the Montana Bill.

ACLU Briefing Paper #12 "The Rights of Employees":

"The fact is that employers in most other Western industrialzied
nations, as well as in Japan, are required by law to respect the
rights of their employees. Nontheless, those employers' businesses
survice and prosper. Moreover, several American employers, including
some of the nations successful corporations, already guarantee their
employees' civil lbierties without effecting the bottom line of
profits. Those employers believe that respecting employees' rights
boost morale and thus, raises corporate performance."

- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From: bkottmann@falcon.aamrl.wpafb.af.mil (Brett Kottmann)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Can someone be fired after they've resigned?
Date: 3 Sep 92 16:55:50 EST
Organization: Logicon Technical Services, Inc.

In article <1992Sep1.103938.14535@cs.brown.edu>, ted@cs.brown.edu (Tony Davis) writes:
> In article <1992Aug31.164808.1628@falcon.aamrl.wpafb.af.mil> bkottmann@falcon.aamrl.wpafb.af.mil (Brett Kottmann) writes:
> | In article <1992Aug26.161338.8748@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov>, earle@poseur.JPL.NASA.GOV (Greg Earle - Sun JPL on-site Software Support) writes:
> | > Just curious:
> | > 
> | > Joe Blow walks into his Personnel office and hands in his resignation.[...]
> | > 2 days later his boss calls Joe into his office and says, "You're fired!".
> | > Can this happen?  [ ... ]
>  
> | 	The resignation letter is a notice of intent.  Specifically of your
> | intent to terminate the open-ended work agreement you signed upon being hired.
> | 
> | 	The employer can always decide that they don't really need that advance
> | notice :).
> 
> While the employer may decide that they don't need the advance notice,
> isn't it true that in most states that doesn't let them out of paying up
> to two weeks salary anyway?

	IMO no.  But then most people don't realize that job termination
settlements are negotiable, just like job hiring agreements.

	And there is the small print on your hiring contract...
:)

Brett--------------------------------------------------------------------------
	"Why the courts don't tell a husband who has been living off his wife
to go out and get a job is beyond my comprehension."--Joan Lunden
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.censorship
From: cmort@NCoast.ORG (Christopher Morton)
Subject: Re: The return of vaudeville. (was: Re: Nilges)
Reply-To: cmort@ncoast.org (Christopher Morton)
Organization: North Coast Public Access *NIX, Cleveland, OH
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 11:29:39 GMT
Followup-To: misc.legal

As quoted from <1992Aug28.185740.18890@Princeton.EDU> by egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges):

> In article <2513@bsu-cs.bsu.edu> joemays@bsu-cs.bsu.edu (Joseph F. Mays) writes:
> >In article <1992Aug28.152715.24814@Princeton.EDU> egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:
> >>Sheheryar, a scan of names shows, unfortunately, that the net is
> >>composed of a preponderance of white, Northern European males.  This
> >                                ^^^^^
> >
> >You can look at a name and tell if the bearer is white or black?  I
> >find that amusing.  No, I find it hilarious.  My last name is Mays,
> >Ed.  Am I white or black?
> 
> I presume that the frequency of blacks on the net is kind of low because
> of the racism of the people who hire computer types.  Andy Freeman over

How do you KNOW it's low?  Is this just wishful thinking on your part?  And of
course you invent the strawman that Blacks can ONLY use computers if they are
"computer types".  Is this an assertion that Blacks need special remedial
training in order to communicate via computer or merely the pathetic ignorance
of somebody who knows virtually NOTHING about the myriad of opportunities for
data communications?  Personally, I just think you're a despicable racist, but
that's just one man's opinion... oh yeah, I forgot.  When you want us to have
opinions, you'll give them to us.  Yowza massah Ed....

> at Stanford and yourself, probably, are black, and of course many blacks
> in our society retain names given them by whites.  This is completely
> irrevelant to my point, that the net is dominated by a white male
> perspective.  

It's also irrelevant to the facts.  You don't KNOW that Blacks don't post.  You
DO however certainly appear to HOPE that they don't.  Otherwise they might
speak for themselves, and that would NEVER do.

> judgement."  In short, Joe, try to SHOW me that I'm a fool, don't SAY 
> that I'm a fool.

In other words, you merely want him to repost all of your posts to you?

Hey Ed, I hear the LAPD is looking for a few good men.  You could be one of 
them....

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------  

"Well whose opinions did you THINK these were...?" 
------------------------------------------------------------------  
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.censorship
From: edwardk@cup.portal.com (edward chungfan kwok)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Tort Reform (was: Number of Lawyers)
Date: Tue,  1 Sep 92 09:57:16 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
  <16uq02SN20=301@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> <1992Aug31.194001.1@acad3.alaska.edu>

>> Then no plaintiffs would seek punitive damages.  If that's the goal, why not
 
>> just eliminate punitive damages?
>
>Good idea.  I'm in favor of it too.  === Al Sparks

So, as long as no criminal statute forbid a certain behavior, one can inflict
such behavior on another so long as one can afford the compensation.  Right?

Think about sexual harassment at work.  If your employer verbally harass
you in an unacceptable manner every day so that life is unbearable, but does 
not fire you, cause he/she wants to keep you around for the enjoyment of 
seeing you miserable.  What kind of damage should you get if you sue?

Of course you can say society should require people to tolerate certain
behavior, but is that fair?
From: v064lnev@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Avatar)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: QUESTION: Granting Police More Power (legality)
Date: 1 Sep 92 00:29:00 GMT
Organization: State University of New York at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41


	I am a student at the SUNY (State University of New York) campus at 
Buffalo.  I am concerned about a recommendation recently made by a SUNY task
force to be considered by the SUNY Central Administration.
	This task force, led by the Vice-President of Student Affairs of my
university, has recommended "that each campus president have the right to
decide wether to expand the powers of Campus Police."  In addition, this task
force also recommends that Campus Police be given the authority to "stop and 
frisk" potential weapon-carrying persons on campus.
	These recommendations concern me because with this expansion of power
also comes a great potential for abuse of that power.  I fear for the security
of my rights, and of those of my peers.  I presently plan to voice my concern
in our university newspaper, however, I lack any strong foundation to base my
argument against these recommendations.
	Would there be any questions of legality or constitutionality regarding
these recommendations?  

Thank you,
--Zerxes Bhagalia
From: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Tort Reform (was: Number of Lawyers)
Date: 31 Aug 92 23:59:17 GMT
Reply-To: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation

In article <1992Aug31.175134.23190@nsisrv.gsfc.nasa.gov>, dsc@gemini.tmc.edu 
(Doug S. Caprette Bldg. 28 W191 x3892) writes:
> How about having punative damages acrue to the state, rather than to the 
> plaintiff?  The successful plaintiff would still receive compensatory 
damages, 
> and thus would not be deprived of anything they have a clear right to, but,
> much of the motivation for seeking punative damages would be lost.

Then no plaintiffs would seek punitive damages.  If that's the goal, why not 
just eliminate punitive damages?

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
Subject: Re: Looking for hornbook recommendations and canned "macros" for
Date: 26 Aug 92 16:27:08 GMT

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

In article <1992Aug24.021324.19892@sco.com>, elil@sco.COM (Eli Liang) writes:
> Also, I don't want to start an argument over this, but do any of you
> have any recommendations on outlines/hornbooks/black-letter series for
> first year subjects such as torts, contracts, criminal law, property,
> civil procedure?  (I suspect that most of these are almost equally good,
> but since I only intend to purchase one for each subject, since this is not
> a trivial expense, and since I have have to choose from 5 apparently equally
> reputable series, Gilbert's, Emanuel's, West's, Smith's, and Legallines, I
> thought I would first look at any recommendations that people might offer
> me...)
 
I think it depeneds on the student (what learning style is best for him/her) 
and the professor (what material does he emphasize), so you won't get a 
concise rationale for choice.

I normally prefer Gilbert's, if for no other reason than the fine indexing 
and the sample questions.  I put Emanuael's more or less on par with G, but 
tend to use Gilbert's instead because I'm accustomed to its format.

West's I've never used.

Smith's I've used only when the Gilbert's, etc. didn't exist (for Patent 
Law).  I found it an excellent summary for familiarizing myself with the 
concepts prior to study (effectively an orientation aid), and I may be using 
it in the future.

Legallines are great and horrible, depending on how you use them.  As an 
outline, they're horrible, end of story.  What they're good at is a "Cliff's 
Notes" version of the casebook.  You can use them this way in one of two 
ways: 

1) Read the Legallines version of the assigned reading first.  Then you 
understand the topics being discussed, know the cases and their content, and 
can correlate the various ideas to one another.  Now, go read the casebook, 
and everything makes more sense.

2) Just like in high school, use it as a substitute for reading the text.  
Not recommended, but you will do it sooner or later (well, maybe not, but if 
you have a fulltime job in addition to law school, as I do, you find corner-
cutting is sometimes a requirement, and you can only cut the corners of sleep 
for so long).

As I mentioned in an earlier post, I also heartily recommend the Law-In-A-
Flash flash cards, not as a law summary, but as a supplemental study aid.

Terry Carroll - tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com - 408/992-2152
The opinions presented above are not necessarily those of a sound mind.
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Nilges
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 17:17:54 GMT

In article <1992Aug27.144832.1907@Princeton.EDU> egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU
(Ed Nilges) writes:
>>Of course, you use the exact same language as the Protocols of the
>>Elders, only without the word "Jew."
>
>A belief that the structures of economic and political life have a
>particular tendency, for example towards neo-colonialism, is distinct
>from conspiracy theories, whether those that picture a roomful of Elders
>of Zion or a roomful of specific capitalists.  On your account, ANY
>attempt whatsoever to form a coherent picture of international politics
>is a sort of Protocol of the Elders of Zion, and university departments
>of politics and economics are exactly equivalent to Nazi think-tanks.
>This is absurd.

No, your use of standard codewords for Jews, as well understood by
NAAWP, the Klan, the Liberty Lobby, and other anti-Semitic groups
is what constituted the anti-Semitism in your post.  And who are you
to tell me, a Jew, what is or isn't anti-Semitic?  I vaguely recall
a certain level of anger from you when others tried to define what
is or isn't offensive to minorities, especially in relation to
Posner's use of the word "miscegenator".  Why the double standard?  
Either you were wrong then or you're wrong now.  Or are Jews not
entitled to the same protection? 

But I tire of this.  I have to read crits all day at work, and I
have no desire to come home and listen to the same drivel, as illiterately
interpreted by Ed, who hasn't even read the works or Court decisions
he criticizes.  Furthermore, by Ed's own standard, Ed has no right
to free speech as an illiterate (cf. his comments on Shakespeare,
Socrates, Miller, R.A.V., and Posner) anti-Semitic lying punk.  Thus,
it's only fair to apply Ed's own standards to himself, and I'm creating,
much to my dismay, a kill-file whose only entry is "Nilges."  Goodbye,
Ed.  Take your anti-Semitism and illiteracy elsewhere.
-- 
             ......................................................
             ted frank | thf2@midway.uchicago.edu | std disclaimers
             the university of chicago law skool, chicago, illinois
             it's log!  log!  log!  it's big, it's heavy, it's wood
Newsgroups: misc.legal