HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: freedman@bellman.lanl.gov (Keith S. Freedman)
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty
Subject: Re: Help stop the KKK
Date: 10 Apr 92 19:39:58 GMT
Reply-To: freedman@bellman.lanl.gov
Followup-To: alt.society.civil-liberty, alt.society.civil-liberties
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory

In article 21899@athena.mit.edu, wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr) writes:
>
>"Hi there... we're a group of citizens who are concerned about the
>Klan's negative attitudes towards the civil liberties of others, so
>in order to protest against their attitudes we're going to try to
>deprive them of their rights to freedom of speech."
>
>Bleah.
>
We MUST use caution when depriving people of their rights.  If it is acceptable for us
to take away one persons freedoms, then it is acceptable for someone to then take
ours.  We should not deny anyone the Freedom of Speech, but we SHOULD exercise
OUR freedom to "Find something more constructive to listen to."
Whenever Hate groups speak, we generally find "something better to do."  Then, we
listen to what they've said after they are gone and educate people as to the reality
of the situation and try to clear up the misconseptions that the hate-spokesperson
deliberately instilled in the audience.

Trying to deny their freedoms is nearly as bad an idea as throwing rocks at them.
It only gives them power makes them look like the "Good Guys."

---
Keith Freedman
United Coalition Against Prejudice
freedman@ilmen.lanl.gov
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.drugs
From: mike@gordian.com (Michael Thomas)
Subject: Re: Coerced Anti-Drug Commercials
Reply-To: mike@gordian.com (Michael Thomas)
Organization: Gordian; Costa Mesa, CA
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 17:43:49 GMT

In article <1992Apr10.000859.994@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu>, jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu writes:
|> The recent letter quoting from "The Unbearable Lightness of Being" brought
|> to mind a related situation involving political coersion that we see
|> today in the USA.
|> 
|> Of late, we see an increasing number of so-called 'celebrities' convicted
|> of minor crimes being sentenced to creating pro-"War-on-Drugs" TV spots.
|> Notables in this category include Paul (Pee-Wee Herman) Reubins and most
|> recently rocker Billy Idol. 

   I'm glad to hear that I am not the only one who has been viewing
this ugly spectacle with great unease...
   I think that the essence of the argument is whether the government
should have the ability to give out non traditional forms of punishment
when a person is convicted of a crime. Clearly, when convicted, coersion
is a necessary and desirable consequence. Prison is certainly a form of
coersion. It thus seems to follow that punishment which provides toward
restitution of the victims would be an even more optimal solution. In
cases where no direct form of restitution can be made (like murder or
rape) it seems to follow that public awareness service is not necessarily
bad. 
   On the other hand, you can easily see that the consequences of such
propoganda is pretty frightening. One wonders just _what_ is to be set 
up as the public good in the community services that one makes  "restitution"
with. Does the judge have arbitrary power to dispense punishments that
he sees fit? Does that include doing service to his local religious 
institutions if he feels like it? To his country club? 
   If you look carefully though, all of the examples which bother you
are punishments stemming from laws which are invalid in the first place.
What you (and I) have found is yet _another_ reason why illogical victimless
crimes need to be repeled though. My proposition is that with rational laws
(and proper guidelines on what constitutes restitution) you would not be
asking this question. What we have here is just another deadend of the 
victimless crime fallacy.
-- 


		Michael Thomas	(mike@gordian.com)
	"I don't think Bambi Eyes will get you that flame thrower..."  
		-- Hobbes to Calvin
		USnail: 20361 Irvine Ave Santa Ana Heights, Ca,	92707-5637
		PaBell: (714) 850-0205 (714) 850-0533 (fax)
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,misc.legal,talk.politics.drugs
From: zane@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Sameer Parekh)
Subject: Re: Perot
Organization: ddsw1.MCS.COM Contributor, Chicago, IL
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 23:20:45 GMT


	Maybe Perot should *name* his party, and call it "Fascist" or
similar--it sure as hell sounds like he is fascist to the utmost extreme.
(MUCH more extreme than the demopublicans--at least they CLAIM to promote
freedom.)
-- 
Sameer Parekh zane@ddsw1.MCS.COM zane@infopls.chi.il.us| 
ap.3684@layout.Berkeley.EDU ___________________________/
___________________________/ STOP The War on Rights
Restore liberty in the United States - Vote Libertarian 1992
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty
From: mlee@esd.dl.nec.com (Michael Lee)
Subject: Re: FW: news release: abolish IRS
Organization: NEC America, Engineering & Support
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 00:35:44 GMT

From article <1992Apr6.223315.22612@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu>, by ajl9@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Aaron J Lebovitz):
> In article <1992Apr6.204612.1031@cbfsb.cb.att.com> skrone@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (stuart.krone) writes:
> 
> For a political candidate, you sure have a poor understanding of history.
> The only justification for private discrimination in employment, housing
> and service comes from men like David Duke, et. al., who want to keep the
> "bad elements" (i.e. Blacks, Jews, Asians, etc.) out of mainstream society.
> Remember all white lunch counters, drinking fountains, bathrooms?  Do you
> want those back?  Are you prepared to answer this question?

The state legislatures/city councils passed statutes/ordinances REQUIRING
lunch counters to be segregated.  Some lunch counters wanted to
discriminate; most did not.  It was generally bad for business.

The state/city governments were the major oppressors.  Private
discrimination was minor and short-lived.

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

Do you want a doctor to work on you when he is being forced to?
Seems risky to me.  It might be safer to let an unlicensed good Samaritan
take care of you.

I have been at accident sites.  There is usually no shortage of people who
are ready, able, and willing to help.  Why do we need a statute to force
them to help?

People are not inherently bad.  They are not inherently good, either.
They mostly do the right thing well enough to keep our society going.

I believe:

1. You cannot legislate morality.
2. You cannot legislate ethics.

Otherwise, just pass a statute requiring politicians to be honest. :-)

---------------------------------------------------------
I prefer a small government which may permit some evil to
a large government which promotes evil at my expense.
---------------------------------------------------------

Michael Lee
mlee@esd.dl.nec.com
214-518-3807
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,misc.legal,talk.politics.drugs
From:  wrf@ecse.rpi.edu (Wm Randolph Franklin)
Subject: Re: Civil Forfeiture Metastasizes!
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy NY
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 19:22:46 GMT


A newspaper columnist in NY reported that game wardens don't need a
search warrent to look for suspected poachees.  Now, to quote the judge
in the Greta Garbo will case, "Newspaper reports are not synonymous with
the facts."  On the other hand, occasionally they're accurate.

It was reported last week that police are considering seizing apartment
buildings where 3 people have have been arrested for drugs, unless the
landlord acts aggressively to evict people.  Note that I said "arrested"
not "convicted".
-- 
						   Wm. Randolph Franklin
Internet: wrf@ecse.rpi.edu                     Bitnet: Wrfrankl@Rpitsmts
Telephone: (518) 276-6077;  Telex: 6716050 RPI TROU; Fax: (518) 276-6261
Paper: ECSE Dept., 6026 JEC, Rensselaer Polytechnic Inst, Troy NY, 12180
Xref: sparky alt.society.civil-liberty:3523 alt.drugs:7814 talk.politics.drugs:3004
From: mea@cbnewse.cb.att.com (mark.e.anderson)
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.drugs,talk.politics.drugs
Subject: Re: Bush Addicted to Invasions of Foreign Countries
Keywords: Costa Rica, secret U.S. military operations
Date: 17 Apr 92 02:58:00 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T

In article  frazier@oahu.cs.ucla.edu (Greg Frazier) writes:
>In feustel@netcom.com (David Feustel) writes:
 
>>The militarisation of Costa Rica shows that Bush is getting ready to
>>conduct another STORM operation on one or more South American
>>Countries.
 
>$10 on Peru.  Bet cancelled if STORM operation doesn't happen.
>Any takers? :-)

I'm putting my money on Libya.  From what we learned in Iraq is
that deserts are a great place to try all those new high tech toys.
Fly around the desert, blow up all of Libya's infrastructure, and
make sure CNN gets good pictures.

I'm sure there are elements in the CIA, however, that want to add
to Panama and try and form a monopoly in Latin America.  After all,
these could be very profitable countries for them.

Mark
mea@ihlpl.att.com
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty
From: rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold)
Subject: Re: Jacobsen v. United States
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 08:06:20 GMT

mzener@eagle.wesleyan.edu writes:

>convicted for purchasing child pornography after being sent brochures by the
>Government for over two years, the Supreme Court ruled that the plaintiff had
>been entrapped, and was pronounced innocent.
>   Furthermore, the decision was 5-4, but two of the five were Souter and
>Thomas.  The dissenters were O'Connor, who wrote the diisenting opinion,
>Scalia, who co-signed it, Rehnquist and Kennedy.

Really!  Thomas was in favor of throwing it out!  This would seem to
indicate that the person who railed about "Uncle Tom" voting for the
conviction jumped the gun a bit, if true.

I think it's a great decision.
-- 
Reality is just a crutch for people who can't handle science fiction.
Xref: sparky alt.society.civil-liberty:3436 talk.politics.misc:18109 talk.politics.drugs:2906 comp.society.futures:231
From: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.drugs,comp.society.futures
Subject: Ministry of Truth at work in USA (Re: Hempless history ..)
Date: 13 Apr 92 11:48:27 GMT
Reply-To: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland

A repost from alt.conspiracy.

From: hiramc@sco.COM (Hiram Clawson)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: Hempless history - Can you help me?
Date: 10 Apr 92 18:43:54 GMT

In article <15930004@hpdmd48.boi.hp.com> jeffw@hpdmd48.boi.hp.com (jeff waldeck) writes:
>A good reference for your project might be "the emporer's new clothes"
>by Jack somebody. It is slanted pro-legalization, but has oodles of
>sources and copies of old news articles. Even give you a place to buy
>the old war film "Hemp for Victory" (not kidding!).

There is an interesting story outlined in this book about that movie.
I can't remember how to spell Jack's last name, something like Herrah.
Anyway, as Jack was researching for this book he was trying to find
documentation for the movie.  The movie was well known in Hemp Advocacy
groups for a long time.  And since it was made by the U.S. government,
Jack figured there should be some reference in the Library of Congress.
As he searched the indexes there he found nothing.  He looked around
for a while, then one of the librarians had the idea to check the
older bound volumns of indexes rather than relying on the latest
computerized indexes, and sure enough they found a citation in a
library index of the early 50's.  The reference to the movie had
been deleted in later indexes of the Library of Congress.  Staff
at the Library said such disappearance of records was becoming
more common place as the computerized indexing took over and
the the computer files were at the mercy of various political
winds of cover ups.  So much for the veracity of one of the most
important libraries in the world.

Down the old memory hole, so to speak.

--Hiram

 [*~   Hiram Clawson - Member, Technical Staff, The Santa Cruz Operation    ~*]
 [*~   P.O. Box 1900, Santa Cruz, CA 95061 - tel. 408-427-7519              ~*]
 [*~ FAX: 408-429-1887, Electronic mail: uunet!sco!hiramc or hiramc@sco.COM ~*]
Xref: sparky alt.society.civil-liberty:3291 misc.legal:8985 talk.politics.drugs:2767
From: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,misc.legal,talk.politics.drugs
Subject: Re: Needed: Constitutional Amendment Abolishing Civil Forfeiture!
Date: 7 Apr 92 22:28:59 GMT
Reply-To: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland

In article <bjpjm0b.feustel@netcom.com>, feustel@netcom (David Feustel) writes:
>The Supreme Court has already ruled that civil forfeiture is
>constitutional. I propose another amendment that specifically abolishes
>the practice.

Methinks you're in a need of a change of the Court, then.  It doesn't
seem that an amendement would help - if an amendment sepcifically
forbids "civil forfeiture", they'll just call it something else (like
"temporary holding of assets" and pretend the amendment doesn't forbid
that like they're currently doing with the current amendments.

There's a need to use one or another of those checks and balances
designed into the system.  What of those are best applied as tools to
use against a corrupted Supreme Court?  Jury nullification would be
one in normal situations, but as there's no trial it's not possible
here.  Creative use of the second amendment would perhaps work, but I
suppose it's still a bit early to apply that.  There must be some
other ways.

//Jyrki
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty
From: sasafw@dobo.unx.sas.com (Fred Welden)
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,misc.legal,talk.politics.drugs
Subject: Re: Needed: Constitutional Amendment Abolishing Civil Forfeiture!
Date: 8 Apr 92 18:48:51 GMT
Article-I.D.: unx.1992Apr8.184851.3215
    <1992Apr4.171207.11954@eskimo.celestial.com> 
    <1992Apr6.133106.28934@unx.sas.com> 
    <1992Apr7.231046.3972@eskimo.celestial.com>
Organization: SAS Institute Inc.
Originator: sasafw@dobo.unx.sas.com
X-Bytes: 2136

In article <1992Apr7.231046.3972@eskimo.celestial.com>, kurt@eskimo.celestial.com (Kurt Cockrm 762-6417) writes:
|In article <1992Apr6.133106.28934@unx.sas.com> sasafw@dobo.unx.sas.com (Fred Welden) writes:
|>Well, gosh, Kurt!   Some folks said they wanted a new amendment to fix
|>a problem.  I said there are existing amendments that address the very
|>problem they're talking about, and the appropriate fix is to insist that
|>those amendments be respected.  Now you tell me that it's all simply
|>hopeless.   I guess the only sensible thing to do is draw a hot bath,
|>get in it, and slash our wrists.  Or did you have something constructive
|>to suggest?
|
[...]

|The point I was trying to make is that the Bill of Rights is only a travesty
|unless we take it *seriously*, and not just a scratching post for lawyers
|(love those mixed metaphors!).  This means that the arbiters, judges, etc.
|that society depends on to resolve the conundrums that arise in the course
|of human interaction, have to be big enough to rise above their own self-
|interests, and those of their profession.  Any evidence that any of the
|so-called Framers met this criterion is pretty patchy and inconsistent at best.
|Even that exemplar of democracy, Thomas Jefferson was a little dodgy in spots
|(although better than most).
|
|Liberty (and anarchy) means putting up with things you don't like.  Lawyers
|and other authoritarian types all want to have things their way, and they
|don't care how they do it.

In short, we are agreed.  We need to take the Constitution seriously,
and throw out any governmental official who violates his or her oath to
uphold it.  We don't have to hope that they'll be "big enough," because
we pay their salaries--we can tell them to be big enough, or lose their
jobs.

Of course, this is an attempt to bend these officials, who are not-I,
into conformity.  But it is conformity with a promise they made in
order to get some of our money, and I just can't feel bad about insisting
they live up to it.


-- 
--Fred, or another blind 8th-century BC  |  sasafw@dobo.unx.sas.com
        Hellenic poet of the same name.  |
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.drugs,talk.politics.drugs
From: drk20509@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (mighty odin)
Subject: Re: Bush Addicted to Invasions of Foreign Countries
Keywords: Costa Rica, secret U.S. military operations
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 19:05:42 GMT

>>$10 on Peru.  Bet cancelled if STORM operation doesn't happen.
>>Any takers? :-)

>Tempting.  I'll take Cuba.

I say its dESERT sTORM II : Back to the Front!
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty
From: farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Big Bri)
Subject: music cnesorship victory
Organization: Clarkson University
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 16:06:20 GMT

Happily, the NYCLU helped win a battle for the anti-censorship forces. In
Guilderland, NY (near Albany), town officials passed a law making it a felony
to sell records with EXPLICIT LYRICS stickers to minors. The NYCLU fought it
and got officials to revoke the law. Why? Because an explicit lyrics sticker
, as judged by the music industry, does not mean that it's necesarily obscene.
Only the courts can decide that.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
BRI FARENELL	CLARKSON '95		FARENEBT@CRAFT.CAMP.CLARKSON.EDU
A bleeding heart liberal card-carrying member of the ACLU.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The most violent element of society is ignorance."
	---Emma Goldman	(possibly refering to Jesse Helms)

"Political campaigns now are so simplistic and superficial. In the 20 seconds
 we have left, could you tell us why, Mr Candidate?" 
	---Political cartoon		

"Yassir Arafat had a terrible accident. He tried to fax a mail bomb...."
	---Johnny Carson
From: feustel@netcom.com (David Feustel)
Subject: Re: Needed: Constitutional Amendment Abolishing Civil Forfeiture!
Date: Tue, 07 Apr 92 00:29:15 GMT
Organization: DAFCO: OS/2 Software Support & Consulting

The Supreme Court has already ruled that civil forfeiture is
constitutional. I propose another amendment that specifically abolishes
the practice.
-- 
David Feustel N9MYI, 1930 Curdes Ave, Fort Wayne, IN 46805. (219)482-9631
= Candidate Bush wouldn't recognize principle if he were standing upon it =
From: wyoung@wdcis.enet.dec.com (Warren Ray Young)
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty
Subject: Need Libertarian contact in MD
Date: 10 Apr 92 18:00:04 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation


Hi. Could someone please email me the name, address, etc. of a 
Libertarian party contact in this area? I'm interested in doing
some work for them, if they're accepting volunteers. 



	wyoung@doggie.enet.dec.com
	Warren Ray Young	DEC Mid-Atlantic Southern States
        Lead Operator           Regional Data Center
                                Landover, MD
	Digital doesn't agree with me, which explains a lot.
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty
Subject: Jacobsen v. United States
From: mzener@eagle.wesleyan.edu
Date: 7 Apr 92 13:06:14 EST
Organization: Wesleyan University

   Three cheers for the Supreme Court!!!

   In the case of Jacobsen v. United States, in which a Nebraska farmer was
convicted for purchasing child pornography after being sent brochures by the
Government for over two years, the Supreme Court ruled that the plaintiff had
been entrapped, and was pronounced innocent.
   Furthermore, the decision was 5-4, but two of the five were Souter and
Thomas.  The dissenters were O'Connor, who wrote the diisenting opinion,
Scalia, who co-signed it, Rehnquist and Kennedy.

   I'd comment, but I'm late for my alloted time at my school's blood drive, so
I've got to boogie.  Comments/opinions, anyone?
From: guido@island.COM (Guido Marx)
Subject: Re: Needed: Constitutional Amendment Abolishing Civil Forfeiture!
Organization: Island Graphics Corp.  Marin County, Ca.
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 17:38:02 GMT

In article <1992Apr4.171207.11954@eskimo.celestial.com> kurt@eskimo.celestial.com (Kurt Cockrm 762-6417) writes:
>In article <1992Mar31.142837.13303@unx.sas.com> sasafw@dobo.unx.sas.com (Fred Welden) writes:
>An example of the problem is that civil forfeitures *are* considered
>"reasonable" seizures, by virtue of long-established common law.

I am not sure about this.  I was under the impression that RICO siezures
haven't been scrutinized by the Supreme Court.  

>All the Constitution does in cases where something is qualified by
>"reasonable", "lawful", "natural", "probable", etc., etc., ad nauseam, is
>leave the question up to the "prejudices" of a judge.  

I agree that the prejudices of a judge certainly enter into any legal
case.  Unless we are going to have trials presided over by automatons
there is no way around this.  What we need are judges who try to 
minimize the impact their prejudices have on their decisions.

>That's the whole
>purpose of all these caveats and qualifications -- to make it easier, by
>sophistic chains of legal reasoning, for the authorities to do what they
>damned well please without presenting onlookers with embarrassing
>contradictions which might tend to undermine "respect for the law".

I disagree.  Most of the caveats and qualifications are there to make the
intent of the passage clear.

>>Wait, make that two.  The 5th Amendment, in part:
>>
>>   . . . nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.
>
>Note qualifier "just" here, not that it's needed; it just cuts lawyers and
>judges some slack.  

Not at all.  If the passage read "without  compensation" then the local 
government could just come to you and say "We are taking your house.  We need
it for a park.  Oh, here's your 'compensation' - 2-cents".  They would in
fact be complying with the letter of the law.


Guido
From: gmw0622@zeus.tamu.edu (Mr. Grinch)
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty
Subject: Re: Taxation of electronic transmissions
Date: 7 Apr 92 18:28:00 GMT
Organization: GrinchCo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Apr7.160611.2266@newshost.lanl.gov>, freedman@bellman.lanl.gov writes...
> 
>I believe there has been some effort on behalf of the United States government
 to
 >try to tax electronic data transfers of any kind (i.e. modem use, etc.).  
 This has been
 >met with great resistance and they have not YET been successful.
 > 
 >---
 >Keith Freedman

Yes,  the proposed modem tax was shot down years ago,  but memories of it get
drdged up so often that in the "read before you post" file it specifically
mentions,  "this was shot down years ago."

Grinch
Xref: sparky alt.society.civil-liberty:3466 talk.politics.misc:18267 talk.politics.drugs:2943 comp.society.futures:236
From: feustel@netcom.com (David Feustel)
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.drugs,comp.society.futures
Subject: Re: Ministry of Truth at work in USA (Re: Hempless history ..)
Date: 14 Apr 92 23:53:58 GMT
Organization: DAFCO: OS/2 Software Support & Consulting

I saw a video tape on my local cable community access channel in which
Jack Herer claimed that Congress had passed a law making it treason to
advocate the legalization of pot. I called Jack several times to get
the number of the public law. I always got Jack's answering machine. I
left messages but he never returned my calls. I then sent him a letter
with an enclosed postcard containing a space for him to write the PL
number. I never got any response. 

I conclude that some of Jack's info results from a little too much pot.
-- 
David Feustel N9MYI, 1930 Curdes Ave, Fort Wayne, IN 46805. (219)482-9631
Republicans believe in the "carrot and stick" approach to social problems:
 	   - carrots for the rich and sticks for the poor -
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty