HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart)
Subject: Re: The Loss of Innocence
Keywords: Neither Finnish nor Urdu
Organization: my opinions only
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 21:36:47 GMT

In article <1992Sep23.144440.12849@Princeton.EDU>
egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:
>In article <19198@smoke.brl.mil> matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt) writes:
>>
>>Oh, so?  Listen: I can understand neither Finnish nor Urdu.  That
>>means I cannot make even a minimal commitment to LISTEN to someone
>>speaking Finnish or Urdu.  Does that mean that I don't support anyone's
>>"right" to speak Finnish or Urdu?
>
>In a word, yes.  You are not part of the Finnish or Urdu language
>community and as such you have no interest in their free speech, at
>least in the way you have an interest in the free speech of Americans.
>You're not actually opposed; you're just disinterested.

I may be disinterested, but I am not uninterested.  (This being
misc.legal, I expect people to understand the difference.)

Similarly, Ed, you are disinterested in apartheid in South Africa.

>> someone's
>>FREEDOM not to listen?
>>
>That's the freedom you're REALLY interested-in.  Admit it.

That's one of the many freedoms I'm really interested in.  Another is
the freedom to listen to someone, if he's willing to talk to me.

>That's not what the Constitution is about.  It's about freedoms that
>apply to all Americans, rich and poor.  Middle class white people have
>your reading, but the Constitution does not condition the freedoms in
>the Bill of Rights on property ownership or wealth.  It protects
>property, but persons do need to own property or have wealth in order to
>enjoy the freedoms enumerated in our Constitution.

How do you propose that a homeless man enjoy his freedom of the press?

>Hot air.  What do you want, a society in which rich people can do
>whatever they can afford to do (lie? kill?), serviced by a slave class
>whose ethics are not "puritan" enough?  My uncle died in Italy, but not
>for this.  My brother fought in Iraq and he despises vulgar little
>people who think America is a place where "you can do whatever you can
>afford to do."

No, you can do whatever is within your rights.  You have the right to
travel; if you want to go to Hawaii, you have to be able to afford it
(or be an incredibly good swimmer).  Does charging for airplane
tickets violate people's rights?

Seth		sethb@fid.morgan.com
From: ddfr@aol.com
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Add me
Date: 28 Sep 92 10:10:23 GMT

Please add me to this list. The list of lists I got your address from did not
specify an address for subscription messages, but since it said there was
some manual screening, I assume this can be filtered out.

David Friedman
Xref: sparky misc.legal:17837 alt.politics.correct:5546
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.politics.correct
Subject: Unions and anti-trust (was MIT anti-trust)
From: mzener@eagle.wesleyan.edu
Date: 28 Sep 92 11:49:16 EDT
 <9331@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM> <1992Sep26.234521.25006@Princeton.EDU>
Organization: Wesleyan University

>>EN:if it's universities today, it's unions tomorrow.

> Oh, that'll be great.  Powerless consumers and employees: a few giant,
> debt-burdened, monopolistic corporations.  I kin hardly wait.

   I think a fairly recent state court decision (perhaps Pennsylvania, but I'm
not sure) gave an interesting ruling in a case involving a closed-shop company.

   For those of you who don't know, a "closed shop" means that only union
employees may be employed.  The rationale behind this was that since every
employee benefits from union negotiations by getting higher pay and better
working conditions, every employee ought to pay union dues.

   What this arguement fails to consider is that modern unions are huge
political machines, paying many salaries, giving money to campaign funds, and
paying lobbyists to influence the legislature.  If an employee is of differing
political views, why should he pay to support the union's political efforts?

   To this end, the court ordered that if a union is to maintain a closed shop,
it must provide a breakdown of its funds;  workers who do not wish to pay union
dues can opt to pay only the portion of dues that go into supporting negotions
with management.  Those workers lose union membership, of course, but they can
keep their jobs.

   The unions would be depowered, certainly -- they'd lose money while being
forced to expend the extra time and money involved in making the breakdown
report.  However, the unions certainly wouldn't lose their main purpose of
protecting the worker.  Seems like a good solution to me.

Max Zener
From: eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: need advice for simple will
Date: 4 Oct 92 16:34:52 GMT
Organization: Superseding Information, Inc.

In <1992Sep27.140332.18022@athena.mit.edu>, wdstarr@athena.mit.edu sez:
>
>About witnessing: again, state laws vary, but I know from a bit of
>research that I did on one of my legal co-op jobs that the
>Massachusetts requirement is that the signing be witnessed by at least
>two people _who are not beneficiaries of your will_.  The case I was
>doing research for involved a will by which a man left his house to
>one of his daughters.  Since his signing was witnessed only by a
>neighbor and the daughter who was to inherit the house, it was invalid
>under Mass. laws.<*>

IMHO, New York handles this far more sensibly.  Under the "interested
witness" statute, the will is NOT invalidated; rather, the bequest to
the offending witness is voided, which effectively advances the policy
concerns underlying the Mass. rule.

There are a couple of cases where the bequest remains valid.  If the
witness is "supernumerary" -- that is, if you have three signatures
but only needed two -- then there's no penalty.  Also, if the witness
would receive part of the estate under intestacy rules or an earlier
will (whichever applies), the witness receives the *lesser* of a) the
bequest in the will she signed or b) her share under intestacy/prior
will.  (This second rule allows the witness to inherit under a will
that she witnessed against her own financial interest.  It would be
perverse to deny her *any* inheritance for signing a will that gave
her *less* than under the prior arrangement, since the policy concern
is to prevent witnesses from signing wills that give them *more*.)


-- 
		The sleep of reason begets Limbaughs.

	Mark Eckenwiler    eck@panix.com    ...!cmcl2!panix!eck
Newsgroups: misc.legal,rec.arts.books
From: afadel@nyx.cs.du.edu (Ayman Fadel)
Subject: Re: Point of Technicality (Was Re: Anti-Arab racism on the net)
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 92 02:08:15 GMT

In article <BvK181.HFn@world.std.com> srm@world.std.com (Stevens R Miller) writes:
>mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:
>
>>In article <1992Oct3.145702.26669@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> afadel@nyx.cs.du.edu (Ayman Fadel) writes:
>
>>>So actually what he said was that it was permissible to kill
>>>him.  He didn't say it was a good thing to kill him no matter
>>>what consequences resulted from such an action.  Nor did
>>>he say it was obligatory for Salman to be killed.
>
>>There is, of course, the minor matter that a price was put on Rushdie's
>>head after the fatwa was issued.
>
>But was it al-khomayni who ordered the bounty?
>
Not that I can recall.

>Actually, I would like to ask Ayman if this fatwa was comparable to the
>"planned colloquy" that sometimes precedes the passing of a bill into law?
>That is, in order to make a record that will guide efforts at discerning
>legislative intent, a congressional committee will sometimes call a
>witness (possibly another member of congress, even) and ask a series of
>preset questions for the purpose of directing the new legislation at a
>particular good or evil.  While its purpose is benevolent, it would be
>disingenuous to believe that the colloquy has no undeclared agenda.  So,
>I wonder if it is possible (and I ask this in detached curiousity) that
>this fatwa was known to be a component in the events that lead to a bounty
>on Rushdie's head?

I don't know.  To be honest, this whole thing wasn't such a big
deal to me, so I didn't follow it that closely.

>-- 
>Stevens R. Miller, J.D.		Electronic Frontier Foundation Member 932
>				Republican National Committee Member 90050367
>				Amateur Radio Station WA4LDA


Xref: sparky misc.legal:17965 rec.arts.books:17456
From: vks0@bunny.gte.com (Vijay Samalam)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,rec.arts.books
Subject: Re: Anti-Arab racism on the net
Date: 2 Oct 92 14:48:18 GMT
Followup-To: misc.legal
Distribution: world,local
Organization: GTEL

In article <1992Oct2.033113.22751@news.columbia.edu> 
ia4@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Imran Anwar) writes:
> Also, perhaps you have not read the book he wrote after the Satanic 
Vershit
> That also had chartacters and names and events that were quite
> anti-Islamic if one knew the characters in Islamic history.  of course
> I just read the excerpt inthe NY Times (some months ago) so obviously
> someonwill now say that the excerpts (about half a page in the Times if
> I remember) was "taken out of context"

Surely, you cannot be referring to "Haroun and the Sea of 
Stories". The book is a moral fable written under the guise
of a children's story describing what it must feel like for 
writers to be silenced. The setting of the story is very
clearly Bombay and Kashmir. Since nothing that Rushdie
writes is simple the book also expresses very strong and
clear sympathies for the Kashmiri Muslims who are  
being held in permanent siege by Indian security forces.
It takes an enormous stretch of the imagination to find anti-Islamic
messages in the book.

What is so exasperating is why can't you give him the
benefit of the doubt ? Long before SV Rushdie is on 
record as having spoken out clearly against racism and
discrimination against Moslems and Muslim culture
in the west. When Naipaul wrote a scathing attack on 
Moslems it was Rushdie who took him to task for 
being so ignorant about Muslim culture. Irrespective
of whether Rushdie meant or not meant to offend Moslems
I would have thought that given his previous actions one 
could give him the benefit of doubt.

Regards,
-Vijay

************************************
Vijay K. Samalam        fiat experimentum in    
GTE Laboratories          corpore vili                    
Waltham , MA 02254
e-mail vks0@gte.com INTERNET
************************************
Newsgroups: misc.legal,rec.arts.books
From: sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart)
Subject: Re: Anti-Arab racism on the net
Keywords: Equality, Fairness, Same Standards?
Organization: my opinions only
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 22:48:04 GMT

In article <1992Sep27.231121.26653@news.columbia.edu>
ia4@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Imran Anwar) writes:
>In response to Mike Godwin, I appreciate the information about Iron Dream
>but must beg to differ on the pont that Rushdie was not trying to be
>offensive.

Rushdie has stated that he was not trying to be offensive.  Do you
have any evidence to the contrary?

>As aatter of fact that is exactly the reason I do not like his book,

If you don't like his book because it offends you, that's fine.  I
don't like it because of Rushdie's writing style (as a result of
which, I've read only a few paragraphs of the book).

> it
>was a deliberate attempt to malign and upset Muslims.

Did you learn telepathy from Ed Nilges?

Seth		sethb@fid.morgan.com
Newsgroups: misc.legal,rec.arts.books
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: Anti-Arab racism on the net
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Keywords: Equality, Fairness, Same Standards?
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 03:21:35 GMT

In article <1992Sep27.231121.26653@news.columbia.edu> ia4@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Imran Anwar) writes:
>In response to Mike Godwin, I appreciate the information about Iron Dream
>but must beg to differ on the pont that Rushdie was not trying to be
>offensive.

Really? It seems to me that he was doing no more than countless other
Western authors do--using a Western form, drawing upon religious
traditions, and creating a work of art. I do not dispute that you were
offended (sometimes art is offensive); I *do* dispute that Rushdie was
"trying to be offensive" in the sense you mean. The book is clearly about
what happens when a person is caught between two cultures. To read it as
an attack on Islam is to misread it.

>As aatter of fact that is exactly the reason I do not like his book, it
>was a deliberate attempt to malign and upset Muslims.

This is certainly what you have been told to think about it, but this is a
misreading. If Rushdie had wanted to malign and upset Muslims, he could
have written a far more effective book for that purpose, and he could have
discarded all the stuff about his two protagonists.

Given that the disputed excerpts make up only a small part of the book, we
must conclude either that a) if Rushdie wanted to malign and upset
Muslims, he didn't choose a very efficient means of doing so, or b) the
book has a very different purpose from the one you say it has.


--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: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: need advice for simple will
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 22:51:02 GMT

In article <1992Oct1.134220.26227@panix.com> eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler) writes:

>Just one more data point: such unwitnessed handwritten ("holographic")
>wills are invalid in New York, except for extraordinary cases like
>sailors at sea or soldiers in a combat theatre (and even those have a
>statutorily limited period of validity).

How about if I validly execute a holographic will in Texas, my domicile, and
then move to NYC and die there?


--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
From: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Fightin' Words
Date: 5 Oct 92 18:54:21 GMT
Reply-To: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation

In article <1992Oct3.171721.24616@m.cs.uiuc.edu>, kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu 
(Carl M. Kadie) writes:
> >I'll see if I can find it again.  I was browsing the Ohio Reporter a 
couple 
> >of weeks ago, and noted in passing a case in which Chaplinsky was cited 
with 
> >approval in the majority opinion.
> [...]
> 
> All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.
> 
> =================
> law/hate-crime.ohio
> =================
> A UPI story that starts: "The Ohio Supreme Court has ruled the state's
> ethnic intimidation law is unconstitutional because it is an
> infringement of the right of free speech."

That's a different case, Carl.  I'm talking about an Ohio appellate case that 
upheld a speech restriction based on "fighting words."


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: LaFave and Scott (was: Fightin' Words)
Date: 29 Sep 92 17:42:23 GMT
Article-I.D.: JUTS.10AX02bE24HR01
Reply-To: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation

In article <1992Sep28.182142.15720@eff.org>, mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) 
writes:
> What you're interested in is not the "fighting words" doctrine, but
> the doctrine of provocation as a defense. For that, see LaFave and Scott's
> two-volume treatise, SUBSTANTIVE CRIMINAL LAW.

Two-volume?  Mine's only one.  Or did they publish more than one work on the 
topic?

Terry Carroll - tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com - 408/992-2152
The opinions presented above are not necessarily those of a sound mind.
From: rkatos@hpunila.MSR.HP.COM (Ray Katos)
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 15:02:32 GMT
Subject: Re: Re: Presidential UL's
Organization: Hewlett Packard Sales, Naperville IL
Newsgroups: misc.legal

Just a note, while being no fan of the Regean administration, Al Haig's
widely misinterpreted "in control" statement referred to the White House
Staff, not the presidency.
Newsgroups: misc.legal,rec.arts.books,talk.philosophy.misc
From: cash@convex.com (Peter Cash)
Subject: Re: Right to Kill (was re: Anti-Arab racism on the net)
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 03:33:34 GMT
Organization: The Instrumentality
Keywords: Equality, Fairness, Same Standards?
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

In article <1992Oct5.224839.16108@husc3.harvard.edu> zeleny@husc9.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:
...
>>> Incidentally, should the
>>>charming fellows in the ex-East Germany happen to come up with an updated
>>>edition of "Mein Kampf", I would gladly put up another $100 towards the
>>>goal of conclusive and irreversible reeducation of its author.
...

> ...you could consult
>the classics of political philosophy (e.g. John Locke) who give well-known
>arguments to the effect that anyone has a right to destroy any individual
>presenting clear and imminent danger to his life and well-being, in virtue
>of his freely chosen, deliberative action.

Perhaps. But it is also commonplace to make a distinction between what is
said and what is done. People say all kinds of things. Some are
ill-considered, some are carefully thought out; some are meant in earnest,
some are only hot air. Sometimes people declare that they will do a thing
(or that others ought to do it), and then change their minds. You just
can't tell.

That's why it's not just to react to the spoken word in the same way as one
would react to an action. If someone says that he will kill you--or that
_someone_ should slit your throat--then you are right to watch that person
very carefully, and to make sure of your weapons. You are not right to kill
him for that mere utterance. On the other hand, if he meets you in the
night with bared blade, then you most certainly have a right to act.

It was humorous--the image of Ayatollah Zeleny putting out a contract on
those other mullahs. Don't ruin the joke by taking it too seriously.
-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
             |      Die Welt ist alles, was Zerfall ist.     |
Peter Cash   |       (apologies to Ludwig Wittgenstein)      |cash@convex.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: rpc@wpi.WPI.EDU (Robert P Chauvin)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Taking someone to court
Date: 1 Oct 92 15:45:39 GMT
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute
NNTP-Posting-Host: wpi.wpi.edu

Here is my scenerio:

My ex-girlfriend owes me a large amount of money ($10,000) that I lent her over
the years.  She has signed a promissory note agreeing to pay this amount and
to also pay all lawyers/court costs.  I saw a lawyer already and she said that
I should have no problem in receiving judgment.  The only problem is that my ex
can declare bankruptcy even after I have been awarded judgment.  I wouldn't
put this past her since she has very little assets.  I would then be out the
lawyers fees since I have to pay these up front.  Is there anything that I can
do to recover all or part of the money owed to me?  I even considered filing
for a $1,500 judgment in small claims court since I can do this myself with a
lawyer.  Would this make the rest of promissory note invalid?  At this point, 
it doesn't matter because I know I will never see any of it.  At least I can
try for the $1,500.  I don't think even she would file for bankruptcy over
$1,500.  

Any suggestions or ideas would be appreciated.  Thanks.
From: rc@depsych.Gwinnett.COM (Richard Carlson)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Fighting Words?
Date: 1 Oct 92 11:17:21 GMT

kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:

> RE: Fighting words
> 
> 
> rc@depsych.Gwinnett.COM (Richard Carlson) writes:
> 
> [..]
> >... in all the examples mentioned a speaker was ranting to a large
> >audience, not addressing a single person.
> [...]
> 
> In those examples, the speaker was not using fighting words.
> 
> - Carl

Now I'm even more confused.  Even that 1942 New Hampshire case
where the Jehovah's Witness, Chaplinsky, was convicted of uttering
"fighting words," he wasn't dissing anyone's mama, or even
addressing comments to particular individuals. He was just
badmouthing all other religions except his own and addressing his
remarks to all and sundry.  Or did I misunderstand the facts of
the case?

Is it possible that the "fighting words" doctrine has been
misnamed?

--
Richard Carlson
Internet:              rc@depsych.gwinnett.COM
Bangpath:              {rutgers,ogicse,gatech}!emory!gwinnett!depsych!rc
CompuServe:            76605,470
Voice:                 (404) 881-6877
Newsgroups: misc.legal,rec.arts.books
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: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 04:10:18 GMT

In article <1992Sep29.224804.23138@fid.morgan.com> sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart) writes:
>In article <1992Sep27.231121.26653@news.columbia.edu>
>ia4@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Imran Anwar) writes:
>>In response to Mike Godwin, I appreciate the information about Iron Dream
>
>Rushdie has stated that he was not trying to be offensive.  Do you
>have any evidence to the contrary?

So if David Duke says he is not a racist bigot that is enough "evidence"
Come on, did you expect Rushdie to say "Yes I intended this to be offensive" ?

>
>Did you learn telepathy from Ed Nilges?
>
>Seth		sethb@fid.morgan.com

You MUST be telepathic to know that I am :-)  , do you hold classes.  
Oh, actually, I dont even need to attend classes as lessons can be 
transmitted to me telepathically :-)

Imran

Xref: sparky misc.legal:18183 alt.activism.d:3573
From: kckbxr@next08csc.wam.umd.edu (Robin Hood)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: corporate/business crime?
Date: 6 Oct 92 00:35:58 GMT
Article-I.D.: wam.1992Oct6.003558.17686
Distribution: usa
Organization: Workstations at Maryland, University of Maryland, College Park

Recently, I received a letter to contact a Mr. ****** of a local health  
club regarding a question about my account there.  When I phoned the  
number provided with his name, I asked for this individual.  I was then  
informed that this person doesn't even exist and that I was instead  
talking to one of the "operators" representing the department in which  
this Mr. ***** was supposedly the director of.  This is the second time  
(two different companies and situations) in which this has taken place.
The other time, an operator gave me a false name (apparently it was  
company policy to give a false name to customers) which I wrote down in  
the event I had to have a contact name.  I was later informed that the  
name I wrote down was a false name and it was, indeed, company policy to  
do this. 

My question is whether or not this is legal?  Should I report this to the  
Better Business Bureau?  Are there any legal scholars out there who can  
offer some information about this?  I'm sure that this has occurred with  
other people as well.

Bill
 
Newsgroups: misc.legal,soc.culture.usa,talk.politics.drugs