HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: hymowitz@SERVER.CS.JHU.EDU
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
Subject: more b-cpu stuff
Date: 16 Apr 92 17:36:28 GMT
Organization: The Incredibly Huge Corporation

pfaust@b-cpu.UUCP (Pete Faust) writes:
>
>     THE GENTLEMAN from Brown University has misquoted me
>again, so I will post the $50,000.00 Offer again.

so then, you agree with the charge that, rather than respond to our
questions with answers, you just re-post the same old bullshit?

>The quote
>does not end with " crushed", it reads- "crushed by the
>betrayal".  What does he fear by quoting me accurately?

uh-oh, alert the dogs.  the crime of the century has been committed.

speaking of committed...

><                   $50,000.00 OFFER
> [and excessive nazi drivel by]
><                       Ralph Winston
> 
>He, she or they offering the $50,000 could, I believe, safely
>increase the amount to $1,000,000 or $1,000,000,000 and still
>not risk a dime.

you should star in one of those 'info-mercials':
''you too can offer $50,000 dollars without any fear of paying -
by not giving out your real name and address!''

>is hidden from our citizens by the (you know who) controlled
>media

apparantly, the media is controlled by the neo-nazis like you, since
i can't read about *censorship* without this garbage.

>At least one person, I have learned, tried to earn the
>$50,000.00.  After two weeks his attorney, looking into the
>facts and televising possibilities, informed him he had
>better forget about it.  The person was not Mermelstein.

is this like the old joke about two coins and 30c?

>Don't be fooled.  Mermelstein lost in his second court
 
here's an idea - why don't you post (or offer) a transcript of the court
case where mermelstein 'lost', the same way that others have posted the
transcript of the trial where he won.

>Don't continue to lie and call names.  Fulfill one of the
>requirements and you will receive the $50,000.00.  This is no
>idle offer.

sure.  send your proof to pete faust, po box a-32767-qx, denver, co
or call 1-800-nazi-cash

>Users of Banished CPU are solely responsible for their actions.

are you sure that 'users' should be plural?

get with it, guy(s).  either say something meaningful, or say it somewhere
else.  freedom of speech does not include freedom to stand outside my
apartment with a bullhorn.

--hymie
hymowitz@cs.jhu.edu                                         hymie@jhuvms.bitnet
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
God (and the EEOC) forbid that a 19th Century painting should create comments
in students.  Next thing you know, they'll be thinking for themselves.
--Playboy, on Penn State vs Goya
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky alt.censorship:3328 alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1625
From: bzs@ussr.std.com (Barry Shein)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: censored at UB.....NEED HELP...GOING TO LOSE VAX ACCT.
Date: 16 Apr 92 00:11:15 GMT
Article-I.D.: ussr.BZS.92Apr15191115
	<1992Apr04.003809.29084@anomaly.sbs.com>
	<1992Apr7.234423.16470@acsu.buffalo.edu>
Organization: The World


>Nor can I post an
>article which says "Let's kick the shit outta some fuckin' queers!"

hmm, apparently he can...

--
        -Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die    | bzs@world.std.com          | uunet!world!bzs
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202        | Login: 617-739-WRLD
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (J. S. Greenfield)
Subject: Re: censored at UB.....NEED HELP...GOING TO LOSE VAX ACCT.
Keywords: FUCK CENSORSHIP
Reply-To: greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (J. S. Greenfield)
Organization: CIS Dept., Syracuse University
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 92 17:13:36 EDT

In article <1992Apr04.003809.29084@anomaly.sbs.com> mpd@anomaly.sbs.com (Michael P. Deignan) writes:
>
>>I think you are on firm ground here.
>
>I think you're on shakey ground.
>
>First, you don't know what the post said (funny how that was "mysteriously"
>omitted from the cry of "censorship").

It was stated that the cause of problem was a subject-line that stated
something along the lines of "Fuck Censorship."

>Although expression of ideas are protected, some forms of "free speech" are
>not. For instance, I cannot yell "fire!" in a theatre. Nor can I post an
>article which says "Let's kick the shit outta some fuckin' queers!" which
>clearly advocates violence against another person or group of people.

Please write back after you have actually sat down and read (or read
reliable summaries of) the actual judicial opinions.  I'm sure that you
will find the law to be quite different from what your current understanding
appears to be.

Furthermore, neither of the "examples" that you give are relevant to the case
at hand, as it was described by the original poster.

>>(The end of this note includes extensive references to on-line
>>material in the Computers and Academic Freedom [CAF] archive.)
>
>So does just about everything you post.

And if *you* bothered to compile references to back up your comments, you
would have quickly found that your comments were not justified, in the
first place.

I suspect that Carl's annotated references are quite helpful to individuals
who are not familiar with the judicial precedents.  For those who already are,
there is always the "n" key.

You might be well-advised to check out a few of Carl's references, yourself.

--
J. S. Greenfield                                         greeny@top.cis.syr.edu
(I like to put 'greeny' here, 
but my d*mn system wants a 
*real* name!)                        "What's the difference between an orange?"
Xref: sparky alt.censorship:3185 alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1557
From: v115qha3@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Donald R Miller)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: censored at UB.....NEED HELP...GOING TO LOSE VAX ACCT.
Keywords: FUCK CENSORSHIP
Date: 8 Apr 92 00:43:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Apr04.003809.29084@anomaly.sbs.com>, mpd@anomaly.sbs.com (Michael P. Deignan) writes...
>kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
> 
>>I think you are on firm ground here.
> 
>I think you're on shakey ground.
> 
>First, you don't know what the post said (funny how that was "mysteriously"
>omitted from the cry of "censorship").
> 
>Although expression of ideas are protected, some forms of "free speech" are
>not. For instance, I cannot yell "fire!" in a theatre. Nor can I post an
>article which says "Let's kick the shit outta some fuckin' queers!" which
>clearly advocates violence against another person or group of people.
> 
>>(The end of this note includes extensive references to on-line
>>material in the Computers and Academic Freedom [CAF] archive.)
> 
>So does just about everything you post.
> 
>MD
>-- 
>--  Michael P. Deignan                      / 
>--  Domain: mpd@anomaly.sbs.com            /   I'm not a bigot,
>--    UUCP: ...!uunet!rayssd!anomaly!mpd  /    I hate everyone.
>-- Telebit: +1 401 455 0347              / 
The post is printed verbatim in alt.censorship.....
all it says is..........
 subject: fuck censorship

amendment 1

......thats it...........nothing more.....-Don at UB
From: rone@wezea.usc.edu (Ron A. Echeverri)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
Subject: Re: Not the Holocaust or the KKK
Date: 16 Apr 1992 06:39:50 -0700
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: wezea.usc.edu
Keywords: "erotic music" ????

What is this retarded bill that passed in Washington State that children may
not buy certain "erotic music"? What the hell IS erotic music? 




-- 
.signature: defunct due to sig virus
Reconstruction in process
From: allens@yang.earlham.edu (Allen Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
Subject: Re: "Images of Violence Against Women" at Northea
Date: 16 Apr 92 01:14:37 GMT
Article-I.D.: yang.1992Apr15.201437.17000
Followup-To: alt.censorship
Organization: Earlham College, Richmond, Indiana

In article <703008316@lear.cs.duke.edu>, gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) writes:
> In article <1992Apr11.140604.911@athena.mit.edu> wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr) writes:
>>             There will also be a discussion of the anti-pornography
>>         bill currently being considered in the Massachusetts
>>         legislature and copies of the bill will be available.
> 
> The first Amendment says:
> #Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
> #or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or obridging the freedom
> #of speech, or of the press, or the right of people peaceably to
> #assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
> 
> I know that Massachusetts liberals have a real problem understanding 
> the meaning of "Congress shall make no law" and "freedom of speech," but
> at least the Supreme Court has no liberals, so there is still a chance...

	Most authoritarian politicians (in which category I include most 
(not all, most) non-Libertarian ones) seem not to understand this 
provision. The Supreme Court has been regularly making unconstitutional 
rulings against this provision for quite some time now; some of the worst 
cases have been with a conservative Supreme Court.
	-Allen
From: lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
Subject: Re: Not the Holocaust or the KKK
Keywords: pornography, feminism
Date: 16 Apr 92 00:05:00 GMT
Distribution: usa,local
Organization: University of Arizona
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Apr14.153238.25638@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, rwd4f@poe.acc.Virginia.EDU (Robert Williams Dobson) writes...
> 
>  So, dont you a.c. people have anything to talk about besides the long-
>dead (c. 50 yrs) issue of whether the holocaust happened, or the KKK?
>There are certainly other, more relevant, issues pertaining to censorship.
>The big one I can think of is the law now before a Senate committee (I
>cant remember the name of the law, I think its something like Victims
>of Pornography Compensation Act or something like that) which would give
>women who are victims of sexual violence the right to sue publishers of
>sexually explicit materials, providing they could prove that the material
>led to or encouraged the violence.
>   This has got to be one of the dumbest bills Ive ever heard of...and believe
>me, the Senate has come up with some dumb ones. The only good part about it
>is that no such cases would ever be won, because there is not a SHRED of
>conclusive proof that sexually explicit materials lead to sexual violence.

You're right that there is no conclusive proof that sexually explicit
materials lead to sexual violence (there is, however, some (weak) evidence
for the claim).  But that is no reason at all to think that no such
cases would ever be won.  On the contrary, I suspect that many such
cases would be won, enough to put most sellers of pornography out of
business or drive them underground.  (Take a look at Peter Huber's
book _Galileo's Revenge: Junk Science in the Courtroom_.)

>Rob

Jim Lippard              Lippard@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Dept. of Philosophy      Lippard@ARIZVMS.BITNET
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: "Images of Violence Against Women" at Northeastern 4-14-92
Originator: news@ernie.Princeton.EDU
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 05:32:57 GMT

In article <703008316@lear.cs.duke.edu> gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel) writes:
>In article <1992Apr11.140604.911@athena.mit.edu> wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr) writes:

>>             There will also be a discussion of the anti-pornography
>>         bill currently being considered in the Massachusetts
>>         legislature and copies of the bill will be available.

>The first Amendment says:
>#Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
>#or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or obridging the freedom
>#of speech, or of the press, or the right of people peaceably to
>#assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

>I know that Massachusetts liberals have a real problem understanding 
>the meaning of "Congress shall make no law" and "freedom of speech," but
>at least the Supreme Court has no liberals, so there is still a chance...

This is (a) wrong and (b) completely uncalled for.
a) Blackmun is certainly a liberal, and he's on the Supreme Court.  
b) This is not a liberal-conservative issue.  Liberals do not favor this.  
Wacko feminists + the Religious Wrong (er, Right) favor this, while
liberals and libertarians oppose it.

-- 
David M. Nieporent              |ALEast 92: 1.Baltimore 2.Boston 3.Toronto
niepornt@phoenix.princeton.edu  |4. Detroit 5.Milwaukee 6.NY 8.Cleveland
"Baseball stathead, and card-carrying member of the ACLU.  And proud of it."
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
From: buckmr@vccsouth28.its.rpi.edu (Ron Buckmire)
Subject: Re: frightening law
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 20:14:40 GMT

entropy@yaya (Lawrence C Foard) writes:

>The following was recently sent to me after I requested more info about
>something appearing in alt.censorship, if I'm reading it right this would
>outlaw all pornography in Massachusetts. 

What is pornography? Is there really a cvhance in hell this thing will become
law?

>    Sec.2(e): It shall be sex discrimination to produce, sell,
>    exhibit, or distribute pornography, including through private
>    clubs.  This subsection applies only to pornography made using
>    live or dead human beings or animals...

>    City, state, and federally funded public libraries or private
>    and public university and college libraries in which pornography
>    is available for study, including on open shelves but excluding
>    special display presentations, shall not be construed to be
>    trafficking in pornography.

>    Any woman may bring a complaint hereunder as a woman acting
>    against the subordination of women.  Any man, child, or
>    transsexual who alleges injury by pornography in the way women
>    are injured by it may also complain.

>As a technical note, the use of the word "illegal" may be misleading
>-- sexual discrimination is a civil offense, not a criminal offense,
>in Massachusetts.  You can't go to prison or be fined for it, but
>you sure as hell can be sued for everything you own...

>-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>

-- 
RON BUCKMIRE, 11 Colvin Circle, Troy, NY 12180-3735. 
vox:(518)-276-8910 fax:(518)-276-6920 buckmr@rpi.edu buckmr@rpitsmts.bitnet
"I might be President by now if it weren't for this 'queer' thing" -Gore Vidal
From: greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (J. S. Greenfield)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
Subject: Re: "Images of Violence Against Women" at Northeastern 4-14-92
Date: 15 Apr 92 01:28:41 GMT
Reply-To: greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (J. S. Greenfield)
Organization: CIS Dept., Syracuse University

In article <703008316@lear.cs.duke.edu> gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel) writes:

>>             There will also be a discussion of the anti-pornography
>>         bill currently being considered in the Massachusetts
>>         legislature and copies of the bill will be available.
>
>The first Amendment says:
>#Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
>#or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or obridging the freedom
>#of speech, or of the press, or the right of people peaceably to
>#assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
>
>I know that Massachusetts liberals have a real problem understanding 
>the meaning of "Congress shall make no law" and "freedom of speech," but
>at least the Supreme Court has no liberals, so there is still a chance...

Last time I checked, the Massachusetts legislature was not Congress. :)

I think you'll need to add the fourteenth amendment to your argument...

--
J. S. Greenfield                                         greeny@top.cis.syr.edu
(I like to put 'greeny' here, 
but my d*mn system wants a 
*real* name!)                        "What's the difference between an orange?"
Xref: sparky alt.censorship:3174 alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1549
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: On the other hand (was: Stopping vehement hate posting)
Date: 2 Apr 92 03:25:14 GMT
Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation
Originator: kadie@eff.org

bear@tigger.Colorado.EDU (Bear Giles) writes:


[...]
>State universities are another area with anti-discrimination laws.
[...]

The courts have said that these laws and their goals do not justify
blanket prohibitions of "hate speech" on campus.

- Carl

ANNOTATED REFERENCES

(All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.)

=================
law/uwm-post-v-u-of-wisconsin
=================
The full text of UWM POST v. U. of Wisconsin. This recent district
court ruling goes into detail about the difference between protected
offensive expression and illegal harassment. It even mentions email.

It concludes: "The founding fathers of this nation produced a
remarkable document in the Constitution but it was ratified only with
the promise of the Bill of Rights.  The First Amendment is central to
our concept of freedom.  The God-given "unalienable rights" that the
infant nation rallied to in the Declaration of Independence can be
preserved only if their application is rigorously analyzed.

The problems of bigotry and discrimination sought to be addressed here
are real and truly corrosive of the educational environment.  But
freedom of speech is almost absolute in our land and the only
restriction the fighting words doctrine can abide is that based on the
fear of violent reaction.  Content-based prohibitions such as that in
the UW Rule, however well intended, simply cannot survive the
screening which our Constitution demands."


=================
law/doe-v-u-of-michigan
=================
This is Doe v. University of Michigan. In this widely referenced
decision, the district judge down struck the University's rules
against discriminatory harassment because the rules were found to be too
broad and too vague.

=================
=================

To get these documents by email, send email to archive-server@eff.org.
Include the line(s):

  send caf-law uwm-post-v-u-of-wisconsin
  send caf-law doe-v-u-of-michigan

The files are also available via anonymous ftp from ftp.eff.org
(192.88.144.4) as file(s):
  pub/academic/law/uwm-post-v-u-of-wisconsin
  pub/academic/law/doe-v-u-of-michigan

-- 
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
 =kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu, or (anonymous) ap.3619@layout.berkeley.edu=
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
From: rwd4f@poe.acc.Virginia.EDU (Robert Williams Dobson)
Subject: Those bp-cpu {or whatever, i forget} folks
Keywords: "zionist thought police", holocaust, revisionism
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 16:18:33 GMT

Ok, folks. Im new to this group, but it seems like there has been a long
running problem with people posting anti-semitic, pro-nazi stuff, and
then never really responding to flames/discussion. And many people have
wasted their time and our badwidth responding to these folks. Unfortunately,
you might as well go out and have a discussion with your keyboard; in fact,
the keyboard would probably have more interesting, enlightened things to say.

So, instead of trying to prove them wrong in open discussion (which is, of course,
the purpose of this or any newsgroup, but futile in this case), next time
we get one of these articles, why dont we all just send it straight back to
whoever sent it. In fact, each of us could send it back along its path dozens
of times, perhpas with commentary/insults appended. So if whoevers doing
this crap finds its spool clogged with hundreds of replies, which turn out
to be just their own text, perhaps it would discourage, or at least annoy,
it/them.

And please, LETS TALK ABOUT SOMETHING ELSE NOW. Or else ill just have to
hope for more intellectual conversation on alt.swedish.chef.bork.bork.bork.

Rob Dobson

Xref: sparky alt.censorship:3242 alt.discrimination:1455 soc.history:3556 alt.activism:7558 talk.politics.mideast:10625 talk.politics.misc:17841 misc.headlines:3319 alt.conspiracy:6269
From: robart@agora.uucp (Robert Barton)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.discrimination,soc.history,alt.activism,talk.politics.mideast,talk.politics.misc,misc.headlines,alt.conspiracy
Subject: Banished CPU
Date: 11 Apr 92 02:00:12 GMT
Article-I.D.: agora.1992Apr11.020012.14803
Organization: Organization

In article <odskTnG00Voi8CemR0@andrew.cmu.edu> ts2a+@andrew.cmu.edu (Thomas Omar Smith) writes:
>Did you ever get the feeling that banished CPU is really just a program
>designed to remail a set of articles every so often?


  That would be "John DiNardo".
From: dlu@wobble.uucp (Doug Urner)
Subject: Re: Stopping vehement hate postings (now cryptography)
Organization: dlu UNIX Consultants
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 20:10:42 GMT

allens@yang.earlham.edu (Allen Smith) writes:

>	I can (maybe) see classifying techniques to break codes, but not
>the codes themselves if the government isn't paying for the research
>(if they're paying for the research, then they have the right to say
>who gets the resulting information).

If the government is paying for the research, then you and I are
paying for the research.  So the results of the research should be
public unless the government can convince the rest of us that it is in
our best interest for the information to be kept from us.
-- 
Doug Urner, dlu@wobble   "They tear down our comrades like leaves from a tree,
dlu UNIX Consulting       leaves from a tree, leaves from a tree, but the
Bellingham, WA            tree still stands, its roots locked to the land."
206/676-5759                              -- Song of the Exile,  Barry Guilder
From: rmoore@tbag.UUCP (Robert Moore)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
Subject: BCCI Part 1
Date: 16 Apr 92 02:53:23 EST
Organization: Tampa Bay Amiga Group



Howdy. I somehow misplaced the first article from the London Financial Times
BCCI series. Could somebody be so kind as to either re-post it or (better yet)
EMail me a copy.

I shore would 'preciate it.


rmoore@tbag.tscs.com
Newsgroups: alt.censorship