HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cla04@seq1.keele.ac.uk (A.T. Fear)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: The name of that Tory minister revealed! Was: Re: Mellor: The establishment will again rush to protect their own
Date: 23 Jul 92 08:46:46 GMT
Organization: University of Keele, England

From article <1992Jul22.192533.3981@dscomsf.desy.de>, by fred@shed:

> I wonder if Major rang up Hong Kong?
> Particularly consider just who was in charge of press relations during
> the election.

Now my feelings about a certain recent emigrant to Hong Kong were
similar. However I thought that what McKenzie said after the Central
Office denial that a cabinet member was involved was "we know who he is,
he knows who he is, and he's lying". If the official denial was referring
to the *present* cabinet this seems to rule out our prime suspect. The
cynical streak in me would love it to turn out to be David Mellor
himself, but life's rarely that good to me.

Andy Fear, cla04@uk.ac.Keele
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Subject: Re: Prayer at graduations
Organization: Northeastern Law, Class of '93
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 16:41:14 GMT


In article <nate.384@psygate.psych.indiana.edu>, 
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle) said:

> So maybe what we really need is for the SC to come out with a
> definition of what they mean by the term "school agent". I can't
> imagine by the most outrageous stretch of my fertile imagination how
> they could possibly include students as "agents" of the school.
> However, even if that's not what the SC intended, it's what some
> school administrators are doing. I guess the only way to deal with
> it (assuming that talking with the offending administrators doesn't
> help) is to go after them in the courts.

Yup.  My viewpoint may be a bit distorted by the fact that I'm a law
student, but I don't see any problem with this approach.  It's what we
have the courts for in the first place, after all.

> I just don't fancy the idea of explaining to parents how their kids
> won't be allowed to praise their gods until the completion of a
> class-action suit.

Actually, the act of explaining this to United States citizens is very
simple.  You just point them to Article VI of the Constitution of the
United States:

       This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which
    shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or
    which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States,
    shall be the Supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every
    State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or
    Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Then ask them from where they got the idea that their gods or the laws
thereof carried any legal authority in the United States...

-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [soc.rights.human] Re: ADL/Hate Crime Laws
Followup-To: soc.rights.human,misc.legal,alt.activism,alt.censorship
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 16:05:08 GMT




--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Xref: sparky alt.censorship:6160 talk.politics.misc:35416 soc.men:13590 soc.women:13966
From: ts2a+@andrew.cmu.edu (Thomas Omar Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,talk.politics.misc,soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Re: Hate speech okay, Supreme Court says
Date: 22 Jul 92 23:56:56 GMT
	<1992Jul22.155122.2986@Princeton.EDU>
Organization: Senior, Mathematics, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

Ed responds to me as follows:

>Well, Tom, as the man says in Thelma and Louise, armed robbery does not
>have to be an unpleasant experience.  I am not trying to incite a riot,
>only empty the cash drawer (warning to cop wannabes and those of a
>literal cast of mind: this talk of armed robbery is hypothetical, of
>course.)  This is done as a protest against our economic system (we'll
>say I am a rich playboy who robs as a lark, hypothetically.)
>
>And given that I am of course familiar with the incitement to riot
>exception, why is the shock and harm experienced by Viktora's victims
>unimportant, or less important than avoidance of a riot?

I didn't say they were unimportant, merely irrelevant in a criminal
sense.  Viktora was probably guilty of assault and some other crimes,
and is on trial for those offences.  He may still go to jail for the
actions.  All the SC said was that he couldn't be prosecuted based on
the political statement underlying his acts.  The acts themselves remain
criminal and will be prosectued.

					Tom the non hacker
					Kemp in 96!
					Ross Perot may indeed turn this
					country around.  However, his next act
					will probably be to bend it over.
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,talk.politics.misc
From: hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phillip M. Hallam-Baker)
Subject: Re: The Glorious Constitution (was: [UPI] Supreme Court strikes down...)
Reply-To: hallam@zeus02.desy.de
Organization: DESY ZEUS Central Data Acquisition
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 21:04:43 GMT

In article <viking.711785868@vincent1.iastate.edu>, viking@iastate.edu
(Dan Sorenson) writes:

|>>Tying the Bill of rights to the constitution was a good move when
|>>constitutions were more stable than governmental perceptions of the
|>>rights of man. However the effect has been to stagnate the constitution
|>>and prevent necessary reforms.
|>
|>	I still don't get the "stagnation" reference, and as a sort of
|>conservative person don't see where "stagnation" need be inherently wrong
|>when it comes to defining the rules of governing.  Perhaps you could
|>explain your reasoning here a bit more?

The problem is that the position of President was intended to be similar
to that of the British Monarch, in theory all powerful, but in effect
powerless. There was never the belief that the Federal government would
require a massive executive because the States would take care of almost
everything except foreign affairs which boiled down to not getting
invaded by the British, French and Spanish.

The problem is that such a system cannot possibly work today. The whole
system is built upon federal regulation. The problem is that there is no
way of properly bringing the executive to account. The President has
much too much power.

The other democratised countries developed a party system which
functions independently of the constitution and provides a lot of the
checks and balances. The US constitution has only scope for two parties
which  have both ended up on the same end of the political spectrum. The
introduction of a nation wide preferential voting system for the
President would be a start, then third candidates could run without the
problem of not getting votes because they arn't going to get in. This
sort of candidate would bring people into the political process, voting
for Jessie (Jackson/Helms) would bring people into the system, then they
could cast second preferences for Bush/Clinton.

There would also be less need for the primaries system which seems to be
designed to ensure that any person who makes it to the ballot paper will
have endured a sustained mudslinging campaign within his own party.


The system I would suggest is ATV, the ballot paper has several
candidates and you put a number next to as many as you want. The votes
are first counted according to the number of first preferences (number
1s). If anybody has 50% of the vote they get in. Otherwise the person
with the lowest number drops out and their votes goes to their next
preference (ie the one they put number 2 next to).


This way you could have a Perot campaign without his supporters knowing
that voting for him is going to help the person they don't want to
become President to do just that.

As a first step this could be tried as the system for electing the
Govenor in some state.


Phill Hallam-Baker
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
From: sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart)
Subject: Re: The Glorious Constitution (was: [UPI] Supreme Court strikes down...)
Organization: my opinions only
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 22:10:04 GMT

I think I see what the problem is here.  There are two different
definitions of "consent".

1. Consent is given by some action (such as saying "I agree to X",
signing a contract, etc.).  Under that definition, a slave cannot
truly consent, because actions may be required by the slave's master.

2. Consent is a state of mind.  Under that definition, a slave can
consent (as long as you agree that slaves are human). It might not be
possible for a third party to ascertain whether a slave actually
consented.

Seth		sethb@fid.morgan.com
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
From: dave@bradley.bradley.edu (David Vessell)
Subject: Re: Nea... a need
Organization: Bradley University
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 92 17:05:05 GMT

Mark.Sablow@iphase.UUCP (Mark Sablow) writes:

>     Mr. Dippold,
>
>     Government does need to participate in the arts.  To a small portion in regards of the amount of money, perhaps, but it does need to encourage freedom of expression.

Government can encourage expression by defending 1st Amendment rights.


>     Also, what about the educational value?  The NEA does much to encourage our youth to be involved in the arts. The arts gives them a feeling of self-esteem, & goes far in teaching how to go about problem solving.

If the NEA were not a government agency, I would have no problems with the
NEA doing such things.


>     Don't be fooled!  The fundamentalist right-wingers, also know the danger of free expression (to their my way or no way attitude).  They also realize that art is a key battleground. Just check your history, a German guy named Aldolf Hitler, who was a rejected art student, took control of Germany while it was going through economic hardships.   He took absolute control of art!  Destroyed that which he disliked & felt was threat to his way.  Used it greatly for propaganda.
>
>     On the positive side is America.  During our depression we used artists to decorate our government buildings. Photographer to document the plights of the time (i.e.; Dorthea Lange, Walker Evens, Ben Shan, etc.).  It helped keep government informed of the problems in a way that words could not.

You have a lot of faith in the system.  I don't share your faith, and I
don't see the road from where we are now to Germany 1941 to be that long.
If there were no government interference, we wouldn't have to worry about
something like that happening.  Our government should defend our rights,
but any more than that is backtracking.


>     So when I say the NEA must live so Americans can live!,
> I am not shoveling "theatrics" at you.
>     Besides I'm a photographer, not theater!
>
>     My grandfather left a Russia under tsarist control, he had to or be killed.  He came to country for these ideals, & I'll be damned if I will give them up.
>
>     Sure, the NEA for now, but you is next?  Pat Robertson, & others like him would love to have you believe that it is no big deal.... but we should all know better.

Sure it's a big deal.  If there were no NEA then there would be no way for
the right-wingers to manipulate art.  The ideals that we should have our
government uphold is defending freedom of speech and freedom of expression.
But that's doesn't mean the government owes you a podium.
-- 
=========*davE*.....making the world safe for intelligent dance music.=========
               Andre Marrou -- Libertarian for President 1992
--(David Vessell)--(Bradley University Computing Services)-(dave@bradley.edu)--
Organization: Art, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 09:23:34 -0400 
From: Jeff Gates <jg58+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Nea = education
	<1992Jul27.152908.4392@nocusuhs.nnmc.navy.mil>

Charles Perez writes:

>To get a grant from NEA or from any federal grant-awarding
>program requires skill in what is called "grantsmanship". Possession of
>this skill has little to do with how much good the grant would do if
>awarded. Much of grantsmanship is, of course, pull  (i.e. connections).

Tell me something, Charles, where do you get your information?  Do you
know first hand what the process at the NEA is about or are you forming
an opinion based primarily on what you hear and read in the papers?

Having observed the peer panel process, I can tell you that the
applications are scrutinized carefully, both fiscally (can this project
be carried out with the funds) and conceptually.

At point of clarification, there are two basic types of "grants" awarded
by the NEA, one to art organizations to carry on projects (exhibits,
performances, symposia, etc.) and one to individual artists (these are
called fellowships). The grant applications for fellowships are very
simple, no proposal is required. The money is awarded to continue making
art. "Grantsmanship" is not necessary and plays no part in whether you
get a fellowship.

For the most part, the dialog over federal funding of artists is sitting
under the political umbrella. Politics has a way of diffusing and
diverting reality. 

Best, Jeff
Organization: Art, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 09:43:33 -0400 
From: Jeff Gates <jg58+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Nea a need *2*
	<1992Jul28.155609.11566@hubcap.clemson.edu>

Mike Percy (Mike Percy@hubcap.clemso) writes on the NEA:

>Oh, please, not empowerment and self-esteem.  What empowerment and
>self-esteem will anyone have in a welfare state? 

The budget for the NEA is $175 million. Hardly the makings of a welfare
state. (By comparison, West Germany's yearly budget for culture (before
reunification) was $5 billion.)
 
>Of course art is important.  I'd never take such a position.  But your
>points are off.  When the government calls pays the bill, the
>government can call the tune.  

Just whom do you consider the government?  I believe that we citizens
can participate in the decision making process. I don't know about you,
but I am paying part of that bill. Your arguement hints that the
government is separate from its citizens.

Best, Jeff
Xref: sparky alt.censorship:6150 soc.culture.british:10528
From: livesey@solntze.esd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Mellor: The establishment will again rush to protect their own
Date: 22 Jul 92 21:51:13 GMT
Organization: sgi

In article <2397@bsu-cs.bsu.edu>, joemays@bsu-cs.bsu.edu (Joseph F. Mays) writes:
|> In article <1992Jul21.200203.20658@dscomsf.desy.de> hallam@zeus02.desy.de writes:
|> >I note that the first five replies in this thread were not protesting
|> >about the threat to press freedom but wanting more salacious details.
|> 
|> It amazes me that you evidently read the first five replies and managed to
|> misunderstand all five.  Each of those replies asked what the hell you 
|> are talking about.  No one outside the UK has ever heard of this Mellor
|> guy.  People around the globe were (like) myself wondering who he is and
|> what he's done.  I was not one of those five posters, but I read all of 
|> them and kept expecting you to respond with a brief explanation.  You 
|> never have.
|> 
|> Who is Mellor?

He's a person who naturally infuriates the supporters of the 
party that lost the last election so badly.

|> 
|> Why is the fact that he has slept with some woman important?

It's not, but since the next election may not be for nearly
another five years, the losers have to have something to
complain about.  If they can't beat the government on its
policies, they'll just have to attack it on its sex life.

|> 
|> How does this threaten the freedom of the press?

It probably doesn't, unless the sore losers can provoke the
press to behave so badly that the public turn against them.
Then they'll blame the Tories for giving them the excuse to
provoke the Press to the excesses that turned the public 
against it.

jon.
From: Mark.Sablow@iphase.UUCP (Mark Sablow)
Sender: FredGate@iphase.UUCP
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
Subject: Nea... a need!
Date: 22 Jul 92  02:40:00 EST

     Dear Mr. Vessell,

     You stated that even though the National Endowment for Arts (NEA) accounts for less than 1 percent of our taxes that it is still a waste of money.

     You are terribly wrong, the NEA is an incredible investment.  Conisdering the cost, it is even more impressive.

     You want to neatly spend each penny on a bare minimum concrete basic need, but (pardon the idealism) are failing to remember the need to build & sustain the human spirit.

     This is what a good culture does for its people.  Private funds should NOT be the only source.  Not because we merely need government to add to the volume of money but rather we need our governemnt to encourage the arts, free thinking, free expression, etc.

     The NEA does this so well for so little.  Why do you think the fundamentalist right-wingers want to control or kill the NEA???

     They know it is a great danger to them taking control of
 our lifes!!!

     The NEA must live, so that Americans can live!

     Boot out Anne-Imelda Radice (newly appointed Chair of the NEA, ordained by Bush), vote Clinton & save the NEA, & by doing so save your FREEDOMS!

                              Thank you for your time,

                              Mark Sablow
                              aka, Professor Atget

 * "Quick hide!  A liberal artist has escaped! *

 * Origin: Aether (1:112/2020)
20 

Newsgroups: alt.censorship,soc.culture.british
From: fred@shed
Subject: The name of that Tory minister revealed! Was: Re: Mellor: The establishment will again rush to protect their own
Reply-To: fred@shed
Organization: DESY ZEUS Central Data Acquisition
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 19:25:33 GMT

In article <3539@keele.keele.ac.uk>, cla04@seq1.keele.ac.uk (A.T. Fear) writes:

|>The interesting part
|>will be if McKenzie's allegations turn out to be true. Any one like to
|>speculate on which Cabinet minister?

I think we should run a bet on this one! Actualy there is no need,
provided everyone is telling the literal truth we can wvery easily find
out the culprit:

McKensie: TORY CABINET MINISTER IN FAKE SEX SCANDAL ALEGATIONS SHOCK -
Editor told.

Major: I have asked all the cabinet if they have been naughty and they
all said they didn't do it, nobody saw them and you can't prove anything
anyway, Oh yes.


So provided the two statments above are entirely true the person
concerned must have been a person who was in the cabinet at the time and
who is no longer.

I wonder if Major rang up Hong Kong?


Particularly consider just who was in charge of press relations during
the election. Paddys previous marital infidelity had made his poll
ratings go up, I don't think that the Cabinet go in for freelance smear
campaigns.

Consider also that Patten had previously been smearing the Labour party
with his `Kremlin Revelations' that labour ministers had had tea with
the Russian ambassador and hoped that there would not be a war between
our countries in the near future.


If there were no libel laws in the UK there would be no need to forge this.
Xref: sparky alt.censorship:6347 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:3873 alt.rush-limbaugh:3137
From: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Prayer at graduations
Date: 27 Jul 92 20:13:32 GMT
Organization: Psych Department, Indiana University

wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr) writes:
>nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle) said:
>> I just don't fancy the idea of explaining to parents how their kids
>> won't be allowed to praise their gods until the completion of a
>> class-action suit.

>Actually, the act of explaining this to United States citizens is very
>simple.  You just point them to Article VI of the Constitution of the
>United States:

>       This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which
>    shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or
>    which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States,
>    shall be the Supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every
>    State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or
>    Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

    I'm sorry, but I'm afraid that I'd be more uncomfortable trying to 
get people to read and understand that passage than I would trying to
explain to them why Johnny can't pray. I know that the Constitution is 
a great and respected document, but I can't help but feel sometimes that
the wording leaves a little to be desired.

--
Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
Psychology Department               Indiana University
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
From: pauld@cs.washington.edu (Paul Barton-Davis)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Mellor: The establishment will again rush to protect their own
Date: 28 Jul 92 19:11:07 GMT
Organization: Computer Science & Engineering, U. of Washington, Seattle


So I drop into soc.culture.british, and what do I find ? 

In article <nmbge9g@zola.esd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.esd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
>Oh, I get it.   His private life isn't important, except when
>he falls foul of an intrusive and prurient Press and Public,
>and then, because he ought to have known what they are like,
>he's a fool, and 'idiotic', and *then* you have something on
>him.
>
>Like I asked before, is this a special deal for politicians?
>If an actor or athlete, perhaps one who endorses breakfast
>cereal for little kids, is caught in bed with someone by a 
>journalist up a tree with a camera, does this make the athlete
>an 'idiot'?   Do we say s/he "should have known"?

Jon, are you are really as stupid as Mellor ? If I choose to make a
public "speech" (in US 1st Amendment terms) about "family values" and
various acts normally carried out in private, I should realize that I
expose myself to criticism. Since my "speech" concerns personal
matters, it is inevitable that part of that criticism may very likely
include the question "How well does this person meet their own
criteria ?" If it does not, how are we to evaluate the probably
success of the life portrayed so rosily the speaker ?

If I am even more stupid, and I specifically critique behaviour that
*I myself* engage in, without pointing out this fact so that I can
tell people all I have learnt from so doing, then I can't complain at
all. 

If Mellor, or any of the ragged bunch of fools left running the ship
on that septic isle, had any sense, they'd keep their mouths shut
about family values, sexuality and the like, and talk economics. There
are very few people in the world who can talk about such things
openly, honestly and with experience. We ask such things of our
economics "experts", why not of those self-appointed guardians of the
family ? Give me a lesbian single working mother with AIDS, and let
her talk about traditional family values, before Mellor and those
other pompous hypocrites, who still don't seem to learn from their own
experiences, or those of their colleagues.

-- paul (and, yeah, I'm going back for the first time in 2 years next week)
-- 
"Fun" is a word invented by advertising executives to sell soft drinks.
 The freedom of the highway beckons ... blue jeans, fast cars, young women
 Every man is an island
 And the tide is coming in"              Jah Wobble, "Every man is an island"
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,soc.culture.british