HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.censorship,misc.headlines
Subject: Re: Sinead O'Connor's freedom of speech
Keywords: Those croppies who will not lie down
Date: 8 Oct 92 20:20:16 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <1992Oct7.152137.23818@Princeton.EDU> egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Edward G. Nilges) writes:

>In article <1992Oct7.131302.4326@nntpd.lkg.dec.com> edp@math.zk3.dec.com (Eric Postpischil) writes:

>Nothing prevents people from having incoherent views.  Since
>libertarianism has been repeatedly been shown to be incoherent, indeed
>logically self-contradictory, it is to be expected that libertarians and
>their fellow-travelers will delude themselves into thinking they support
>Sinead's act.

Being called incoherent by Nilges, now that is a complement.  BTW, just
because you claim to have demonstrated that libertarianism is incoherent
and self-contradictory doesn't mean that others agree with you.

>However, whenever a decision procedure is needed to settle conflicting
>claims (such as the very real claim of NBC's stockholders versus
>Sinead's equally real claim to free speech), libertarians can only come
>up with economic decision procedures, based on private property.  This
>means that they must respect NBC's repeatedly asserted claim to control
>the content of Saturday Night Live, even if NBC decides on the basis of
>the Sinead incident to pull the "live" aspect.

Who do you want to control the content of SNL.  Somebody has to decide who 
goes on and who doesn't.  If everybody who wanted on, got on, the show 
would probably run till Wednesday.  Since NBC is putting up the money to
air the show, they are the most logical ones to make the editorial
decisions.

Let me ask you something Ed.  Do you own a car?  Do you have any
bumber stickers on your car?  I have some bumber stickers.  You
probably do not agree with the message on my stickers, but in truth, I
don't care.  Now Ed, in the interest of free speech, I demand that you
allow me to place my bumber stickers on your car.

-- 
Mark
My opinions are mine, all mine.  Unless someone else claims them first.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com

Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: bhayden@teal.csn.org (Bruce Hayden)
Subject: Re: copyright law
Organization: Colorado SuperNet, Inc.
Distribution: misc
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 01:27:51 GMT

hilary.miller@execnet.com (hilary miller) writes:


>Apoorva Koticha, in a message to All on 10-09-92 at 5:09am, said:


>AK>|I needed some advice.  I have done some work that I would like to
>   |copyright.  I would essentially like to pass it around to people, but
>   |if anybody does want to use it for profit motives, I would like a part
>   |of the loot :-).
>   |______________________________________________________________________

>          Your work is already copyrighted, and you own the copyright. 
>          Just write "Copyright (c) 1992 [author's name]" on it and
>          you're off to the races.
>   L A
> I    R        Hilary B. Miller of Greenwich, Connecticut
>  H/\Y         CIS: 76040,1743
>   s r

Hilary is correct that your work is already copyrighted. This has been the 
law since the 1976 Copyright Act. Since we joined the Berne Convention
in 1989, you could not lose your copyright protection by failing to mark.
(that is the "Copyright...") (Also note that (c) is worthless. The "c"
must be in a circle. Either the words "Copyright", the abbreviation
"copyr." or the C in a circle is required).

The most important thing though is to REGISTER THE COPYRIGHT. 
Early registration prior to infringement is essential for the award
of attorneys' fees, costs, and statutory damages. These are very 
helpful in finding an attorney to take your copyright infringement case.
The work should be registered as early as possible. Additionally,
registration is required before you can sue for copyright infringement.

Registration involves filing a two page form, along with $20.00 and
a copy of the work with the United States Copyright Office. With software,
only the first 25 and the last 25 pages of the work need be deposited.
Additionally, you can blank out a portion of the code.

Bruce E. Hayden, Esq.
Fields, Lewis, Pittenger & Rost
Denver, Colorado
(303) 758-8400

Xref: sparky misc.legal:18239 alt.censorship:7927 misc.headlines:6528
From: komarimf@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Mark 'Henry' Komarinski)
Subject: Re: Sinead O'Connor's freedom of speech
Organization: Clarkson University
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 00:01:19 GMT

isbell@ai.mit.edu (Charles L Isbell) writes:
>komarimf@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Mark 'Henry' Komarinski) writes:
>|True, but when will you get the chance to go on SNL and say that to millions
>|of people??  She's just turned into a loudmouthed @#^@#$% that can't sing 
>|anymore.  And yes..I have heard her earlier stuff and like it.

>Not to get off the subject, but why do you think she suddenly can't
>sing anymore?

She sold out. :)  That "nothing compares.." drivel was awful.  The earlier
stuff was okay though.

--
- Mark Komarinski - komarimf@craft.camp.clarkson.edu
[MIME mail welcome]
Smile.  It makes people wonder what you're up to.
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Anti-Arab racism on the net
Keywords: Equality, Fairness, Same Standards?
Date: 13 Oct 92 16:36:42 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <19299@smoke.brl.mil>, matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt) writes:
> In article <1678@frackit.UUCP> dave@frackit.UUCP (Dave Ratcliffe) writes:
# #Is this the same Islam that believes Christians are the enemy and as
# #non-believers should be converted to Islam or destroyed?  [Dave Ratcliffe]
# 
# Christians, like Jews (l'havdil!), are People of the Book.  Which of
# the Ulama' ever ruled that People of the Book "should be converted to
# Islam or destroyed"?  On the contrary!  There is a place in the Dar
# al Islam for unconverted People of the Book, and there is no danger
# of their being destroyed, as long as they know their place, pay
# their taxes, and refrain from blasphemy.
# 
# In the over 1,400 years since the Hegira, there have now and then
# arisen a few wild-eyed African-based zealots, like the Berber Almohades 
# and the Almoravids from deeper in West Africa, with a "convert-or-die"
# policy, but their extremist view has been the exception.  
# 
# The idea that Islam forces Christians to "convert or die" is of a
# piece with the canard, seen recently even in the purportedly educated
# forum of misc.legal, that witches were burned at the stake in Boston.
# 
# All three Religions of the Book come in for a lot of criticism.  Could
# this be so because all three of them strongly condemn, in no uncertain
# terms, the sort of hedonistic living and sexual immorality toward which
# the Evil Urge is ever pulling us?
# 
# 					-- Matt Rosenblatt

While generally in agreement with Mr. Rosenblatt's posting, I
thought that Islamic law did recognize the validity of "battlefield
conversion" where the choice was accept Islam or die.  Was this
simply an ignorant view of groups such as Mr. Rosenblatt discusses
above, or is this really a general Islamic rule?
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Lesson learned from Gov. Wilson's signing of AB 2601: if you don't get 
your way, have a riot.  Next time, Gov. Wilson will cower appropriately.
From: SSIEGLER@LANDO.HNS.COM (Stuart Siegler)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: subscribe
Date: 15 Oct 92 20:46:00 GMT

Please add me to the list
-Stuart Siegler
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: gl1@cec1.wustl.edu (Greg Lyon)
Subject: Re: Presidential Succession History
Organization: Washington University, St. Louis MO
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 06:49:11 GMT

brewer@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (marmoset) writes:
>
>>> nuclear attack or something that wipes out a large number of high
>>> officials, what is the line of succession? 
>>
>Bunch of high officials deleted
>
>I was told by someone (and I want to say that it was Mr. Pennypacker (no lie) 
>my 7th and 8th grade social studies teacher) that the line of succession went
>clear down to the Postmaster General.  Was he just plain full o' it?
>
  That was true until the Post Office was changed from a government dept to a
quasi-public corporation sometime in the early 70s.

Greg
-- 
*******************************************************************************
Greg Lyon		             	         Student Union Attorney General
gl1@cec2.wustl.edu			                       Clinton/Gore '92 
Washington University in St. Louis - Site of the First 1992 Presidential Debate
Xref: sparky misc.legal:18576 alt.activism:17426
From: atfurman@cup.portal.com (A T Furman)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.activism
Subject: Re: U.S. funds "boot camp" prisons for teenage offenders
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 92 21:36:23 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)

Heil Clinton!


    Alan T. Furman         | VOTE LIBERTARIAN!!  Marrou/Lord in 92!!
---------------------------+----------------------------------------
  atfurman@cup.portal.com  |   (800)682-1776 for more information
From: Joe.Francis@dartmouth.edu (Joe Francis)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Carjacking as a federal offense
Date: 15 Oct 92 09:03:57 GMT
 <a0p402vw25py01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com>  
 <1992Oct14.230420.11032@wdl.loral.com>
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
X-Posted-From: InterNews1.0a5@newshost.dartmouth.edu

In article <1992Oct14.230420.11032@wdl.loral.com>
mab@wdl39.wdl.loral.com (Mark A Biggar) writes:

> Does this mean that if the car was built at the factory down the street and
> I never took it on a trip out of state the law doesn't apply?  I guess if
> any part of the car came from out of state, the law does apply.  Then why
> is steeling my Japanese TV not a federal crime for the same reason?

Never fear!  If theft of Japanese TV's becomes a problem during an
election year, then stealing them will become a federal crime.
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: brunner@telebit.com (Eric Brunner)
Subject: Re: Attractive Nuisance
Organization: Telebit Corporation; Sunnyvale, CA, USA
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 18:14:42 GMT

In article <1bct5nINNhfo@smaug.West.Sun.COM> dab@ism.isc.com (Dave Butterfield) writes:
>brunner@telebit.com (Eric Brunner) writes:
>>>We were discussing views on what the law _should_ be, not what it is.
>>
>>Count me out, I don't have time for shoulds.
>
>Not a voter, eh?  Too bad.

Newsgroups don't have authenticated voting, at least not in the sense we're
struggling with in the IETF and POISED mailing lists, let alone the really
hard issues like in the PEM list, so you can forge my vote if you are at
all concerned with voting in m.l. Whether you should or not is one of those
shoulds.

Oh, goodness, you could have been writing tounge in check and refering to
the November General election! The connection seems kind of tenuous, but
then one person's tenuous is another's patently obvious. I intend to vote,
assuming that I'm alive when I return a ballot, and that I haven't been
convicted of (or plead to) a felony by that date. I hope this makes you
feel better.

-- 
Eric Brunner Tule Network Services
uucp: uunet!practic!brunner
trying to understand multiprocessing is like having bees live inside your head.
From: wb8foz@skybridge.SCL.CWRU.Edu (David Lesher)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: need advice for simple will
Date: 11 Oct 1992 19:09:54 GMT
Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews abusers - Beltway Annex
Reply-To: wb8foz@skybridge.scl.cwru.edu (David Lesher)
NNTP-Posting-Host: skybridge.scl.cwru.edu

On the advice of my attorney, I have a very simple will.
Everything goes into a trust. 

1) Wills are public, trusts are not.
2) Wills thus get attacked, doing the same to a trust is much
much harder.

As for the cost, let me reiterate my previous advice: Find an
attorney who need computer advice & trade skills with him/her.
[Sh,H]he will need more advice in the future, and so will you.

I've found this to be a good trade.......

--
A host is a host from coast to coast..wb8foz@skybridge.scl.cwru.edu
& no one will talk to a host that's close..........................
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433
From: rc@depsych.Gwinnett.COM (Richard Carlson)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Fightin' Words
Date: 7 Oct 92 12:47:34 GMT

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

> In article <5epA02Yu24tq01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com>, tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com 
> (Terry Carroll) writes:
> > In article <1992Oct1.030323.19621@eff.org>, mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) 
> > writes:
> > > Convictions based on speech alone? Or speech that actually gave rise to
> > > violence (that is, "imminent and likely lawless action," a la
> > > Brandenberg)? This is news to me--can you cite some
> > > representative cases?
> > 
> > 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.  Unfortunately, I have some two years of 
> > Ohio Reporters scattered all over my home (and they all look alike!), so I 
> > don't know if I can find it again.  I'll take a look, and reread it with
> > more 
> > scrutiny if I can find it, and report back.
> 
> I found it, Mike.  State of Ohio v. Semple, 58 Ohio App. 3d 93;  568 N.E.2d 
> 750 (1989), appeal to Ohio S.Ct. denied (I neglected to get the cite for the 
> table entry denying).  It's only a few pages long; the syllabus is "Telling a
> police officer that he is 'probably on the take' constitutes fighting words 
> unprotected by the First Amendment and sufficient to support a conviction for
> disorderly conduct under R.C. 2917.11(A)(2)."

But since words alone (short of any informational value they may
have that make them substitutes for witnessing something directly)
can never justify fighting as a response there can never be, by
definition, "fighting words."  This paradox becomes stronger in
the case of a police officer, who is supposed to uphold the law in
a professional and impersonal manner.  The "reasonable and
rational man" wearing a police uniform and carrying a badge would
_not_ be expected to be provoked to physical hostility precisely
because he has _chosen_ to _become_ a policeman.  LaFave and Scott
mention this paradox in passing -- that the real, flesh and blood
"reasonable person" _doesn't_ respond to verbal abuse by killing
his abuser, so it isn't really clear what "test" is being applied.

--
Richard Carlson
Internet:              rc@depsych.gwinnett.COM
Bangpath:              {rutgers,ogicse,gatech}!emory!gwinnett!depsych!rc
CompuServe:            76605,470
Voice:                 (404) 881-6877
From: hrubin@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,soc.history,alt.politics.usa.constitution
Subject: Re: Marbury v Madison (US 1803)
Date: 15 Oct 92 00:42:15 GMT
Article-I.D.: mentor.Bw50MG.8zn
Organization: Purdue University Statistics Department

In article <1992Oct14.103645.1740@falcon.aamrl.wpafb.af.mil> bkottmann@falcon.aamrl.wpafb.af.mil (Brett Kottmann) writes:
>In article <1992Oct7.002923.2820@midway.uchicago.edu>, thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Citecheck Hell) writes:

			.............................

>	But isn't the main point of Marbury v. Madison that the government
>openly said "you win" to the court?  After all, the executive branch could
>have simply shrugged and said "so what, try to enforce it".

Marbury v. Madison was a case where this was impossible for the executive 
branch.  Marbury was asking for the court to order the executive to do
something, and the decision just stated that this particular case was
not in the original jurisdiction of the court.  All they said was that,
at the time, they could not order the executive!
-- 
Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399
Phone: (317)494-6054
hrubin@snap.stat.purdue.edu (Internet, bitnet)  
{purdue,pur-ee}!snap.stat!hrubin(UUCP)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,soc.history,alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: aankrom@nyx.cs.du.edu (Anthony Ankrom)
Subject: ACHTUNG! (Was Re: Marbury v Madison 1803)
Followup-To: misc.test
Summary: Keep alt.psychoactives free of politics!!!
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.
Keywords: L
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 92 00:57:56 GMT


 PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE! Only crosspost alt.drugs into alt.psychoactives.
Now alt.psychoactives is getting just as noisy as alt.drugs! Please don't
put alt.psychoactives in the newsgroups line if its going to more than
just alt.drugs. Does one REALLY need to crosspost to so many different
groups anyway? Wasting so much bandwidth... It i sespecially important
that politics stay out of alt.psychoactives. POLITICS IS NOT ITS PURPOSE!
!

St. Anthony


--
        CH3  O            CH(CH3)2        |      dadaMatrix
           >-P-S-CH2CH2-N<            VX  |                       
    CH3CH2O               CH(CH3)2        |     aankrom@nyx.cs.du.edu
                                          | A kinder gentler lobotomy...
From: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Fightin' Words
Date: 6 Oct 92 18:54:44 GMT
Reply-To: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation

In article <1992Oct5.201150.29197@eff.org>, mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) 
writes:
> In article <b2SG02qc24uQ01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com 
> (Terry Carroll) writes:
> 
> >I found it, Mike.  State of Ohio v. Semple, 58 Ohio App. 3d 93;  568 
> >N.E.2d 
> >750 (1989), appeal to Ohio S.Ct. denied (I neglected to get the cite for
> >the 
> >table entry denying).  It's only a few pages long; the syllabus is
> >"Telling a 
> >police officer that he is 'probably on the take' constitutes fighting
> >words 
> >unprotected by the First Amendment and sufficient to support a conviction 
> >for 
> >disorderly conduct under R.C. 2917.11(A)(2)."
> 
> I find it unlikely that this decision would survive Supreme Court review.

I agree with you.  That wasn't my point.  If you recall, I mentioned that, 
while the US Supreme Court has not used the Fighting Words doctrine to uphold 
convictions, regrettably, state and lower federal courts have and continue to 
do so; the doctrine continues to have an effect on modern jurisprudence.  You 
asked for a cite to back that up.  This is it.



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
From: mayer@sono.uucp (Ron Mayer)
Subject: Re: Carjacking as a federal offense
Organization: Acuson; Mountain View, California
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 18:48:29 GMT


tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll) <e1gg02Cw25AJ01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> writes:
>
>In article <05CS03brabyx00@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com>, jsp@uts.amdahl.com (James 
>> 
>> [commerce clause and car jacking discussion]
>
>Nah, the sweeping precedent was when they said that a farmer who grew wheat 
>for consumption on the same farm on which he was growing it could be 
>regulated in the name of interstate commerce, because if he was growing his 
>own, he wasn't buying it, and that affected interstate commerce.
>

Yipes.  "If the car jacker hadn't stolen the car he might have
purchaced one from another state?!?"

Is this enough to satisfy the commerce claues?  How do we know that
(or what criteria do we use to determine how likely it is that) the
wheat-farmer/carjacker would buy such wheat or cars.

(How does congress know that this self-sufficient farmer wouldn't grow
some other grain instead?)

    Ron Mayer

Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart)
Subject: Re: How Can I Really Annoy Someone?
Organization: my opinions only
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 22:38:12 GMT

In article <1992Oct15.011143.301@u.washington.edu>
tzs@stein.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith) writes:
>sbrenner@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (scott.d.brenner) writes:
>>I believe you missed a critical part of my initial posting.  I stated that
>>I *DO NOT* want to do anything even remotely illegal.  While I suppose I
>>could agree with you that perhaps I "have intent to commit intentional 
>>infliction of emotional distress," I don't believe that's against the law.
>
>Eric didn't misunderstand.  Example: I decide to juggle, on my property,
>flaming chainsaws, next to your property.  I'm trying to juggle 5 of them.
>I happen to be able to juggle 5 balls somewhat, but have never tried flaming
>chainsaws before.
>
>One of the chainsaws slips, and crosses the property line and damages your
>car.
>
>I've not done anything illegal.  However, you can sue me for the damages to
>your car.
>
>"Intentional inflictions of emotional distress" is like that.  You won't
>be breaking the law, but you will by subject to suit.

Suppose I learn that you really, really dislike public displays of
affection.  Since I want to annoy you, I walk along the sidewalk
across the street from your house and stop to kiss my wife
(affectionately, not lewdly) directly across from your house, where
you'll see us because you're sitting on your front lawn.

I have "intentionally inflicted emotional distress" (depending on just
how much you dislike public displays of affection).  Do you really
think a lawsuit against me for kissing my wife in public will
accomplish anything other than getting you laughed out of court (and
possibly your lawyer fined)?  (If you really want emotional distress,
let's assume my wife dumped you in order to marry me.  Now that kiss
can really distress you.)

Suppose that, in order to upset you, I take a posting of yours on
USENET and show how each line of it is wrong, illogical, or just plain
stupid.  Again, would your lawsuit stand a chance?  (I'm not claiming
that's the case, any more than I'm married; I'm just giving an
example.)  (Besides, ** ****** seems to have lost net access for now.)

It seems that whether you can sue me depends on just what I do in
order to inflict the emotional distress.

Seth		sethb@fid.morgan.com
From: mzimmers@netcom.com (Michael Zimmers)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Possibly Shady Car Repair
Date: 8 Oct 92 21:01:45 GMT
Article-I.D.: netcom.1992Oct8.210145.25942
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)


Earlier this week, I took a car to a particular mechanic for the
first time.  I was very distracted, so I wasn't as alert as I
should have been.  I didn't get an estimate (which I believe isn't
legal), and I'm starting to think that he may be a bit unprofessional,
and even a bit sleazy.

What are my rights should he come back with an outrageous bill?  Also,
am I on the hook for incorrect attempts at repairs?  I know that he's
already followed one incorrect path...

Please email any knowledge or advice.  Thanks...

-- 
Michael Zimmers                                    |  Home:  408 996 1984
SoftHelp                                           |  Work:  408 996 1965
Software Solutions for Open Systems                |  Data:  408 996 1974
Xref: sparky misc.legal:18631 alt.politics.usa.misc:181 alt.politics.usa.constitution:668
From: tzs@stein.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.politics.usa.constitution
Subject: Re: Term Limits are Constitutional, Study Shows
Date: 14 Oct 92 03:28:18 GMT
Article-I.D.: u.1992Oct14.032818.12717
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

Today's New York Times (October 13th) has a front page article on this
very topic.

--Tim Smith
Newsgroups: misc.legal