HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jheath@CERIS.Purdue.EDU (Jim Heath)
Newsgroups: alt.sex,misc.legal,rec.arts.tv
Subject: Re: Censoship of nudity -- babies in movies
Date: 6 Apr 92 17:51:54 GMT
Organization: Center for Environmental and Regulatory Information Systems, Purdue University

From article <ktv7eoINN1lv@skat.usc.edu>, by kflores@skat.usc.edu (Kelly Flores):
> In article <1992Apr5.163808.22155@news.iastate.edu> txap3@isuvax.iastate.edu writes:
>>>
>>
>>I can't imagine having a nude picture of a child being illegal.  Think of all
>>those "Bare Rug" pictures out there.  Or those many films where the child
>>decides to strip or at least refuses to be clothed.  Or maybe the child at the
>>beach swimming with nothing on.  The list goes on and on.
> 
> There's also the movie "Crossing Delancy" with Amy Irving and Peter 
> Rigert(sp?) Where Izzy attends the briss of her friend's son and not only do 
> they show the baby on the table, they also show the fact that he decides to 
> relieve himself 1/2 way through the rabbi's speech. 
> 
> Is there an official definiton of what's legal and what isn't? Or is this
> another one of those federal vs. state issues?
>

I don't remember particular dates, but I have seen posts that
indicated parents have been prosecuted or had their children
taken away from them because they had some nude pictures of their
kids processed and the processor decided they were committing
"child abuse" or their pictures were "child pornography" and
called the cops.  A local DA, in need of a reputation, would then
prosecute them or the child welfare would go after them or both.
Anyone remember these cases?

Of course, there was the photographer who was on 60 minutes some
time ago for having taken nude pictures of kids (with their
parents permission).  I understand that soon after that was
aired, the charges were dropped, but they kept some of his
negatives and damaged a lot of what they gave back.  He is also
out lots of money for lawyers.  I hope David Hamilton is in some
other jurisdiction if not country. 
-- 
"Land of song, said the warrior bard,           Jim Heath
Though all the world betrays thee.
One sword, at least, thy rights shall guard, (The Minstrel Boy)
One faithful harp will praise thee."         (Thomas More)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: john_newman@qmcc.curtin.edu.au (John Newman)
Subject: Re: Software Renting
Organization: Computing Centre, Curtin University, Perth, Western Australia
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 04:21:10 GMT


>In article <1992Apr8>lbr@holos0.uucp (Len Reed) 
writes:>>Why should there be a law against renting software?
>Because it's a disguised way of permitting infringement.

>> Is there such a law?
>Yes: 17 USC 109.

>>So what if it's copyrighted?  So are video tapes with movies and music on
>>compact discs.
>Renting compact disks is illegal by the same law.

>>If the renter copies the software/movie/music, the renter is committing
>>copyright infringement.

>So is the person renting it out.  There's a belief many people have that
>"copying" is the only right conveyed by copyright.  'tain't so.  Among
>other rights is the right of distribution, se 17 USC 106(3).


In Australia it has recently become legal (result of a court case)
to rent music CDs and cassettes simply because one can also rent
video and 16mm film.
 
As a software author I am concerned that we will soon 
have software and CDROMs for "hire".

Logically, how can I argue that software and CDROMs are any different
to music and video disks/tapes/cassettes.?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ 
\  John Newman               Internet:John_Newman@QMCC.curtin.edu.au     /
/  Computing Centre,         "There is less to this than meets the eye." \
\  Curtin University,                - Tallulah Bankhead                 /
/  Perth,  Western Australia                                             \
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: tedebear@leland.Stanford.EDU (Theodore Chen)
Subject: Re: Laser Speed Detectors (was Re: On the legality of
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 92 08:53:31 GMT

In article <1992Mar27.130902.1161@falcon.aamrl.wpafb.af.mil> bkottmann@falcon.aamrl.wpafb.af.mil (Brett Kottmann) writes:
>	Find out what color the locals are using (color of the laser, that is)
>and then have your car painted that color :).

what if it's an infrared laser?
Xref: sparky alt.sex:14313 misc.legal:9228 rec.arts.tv:9527
From: btwomey@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (william.tw0mey)
Newsgroups: alt.sex,misc.legal,rec.arts.tv
Subject: Re: Censoship of nudity (was Re: Photo of minor: is it illegal to possess?
Date: 13 Apr 92 15:29:23 GMT
Followup-To: rec.arts.tv
Organization: AT&T

In article <1992Apr10.110031.6147@engage.pko.dec.com> boyajian@ruby.enet.dec.com (The fox so cunning and free) writes:
>It doesn't matter. The statement that essentially started this thread was
>that any film that showed genitalia automatically got an "X" rating. No
>qualifier as to the state of arousal of said genitalia was included.

ARRGGHH!  I hate myself for creating this thread!  Now don't you
misc.legal readers agree that I should?

When I started this thread, I wanted to address the disparity in what
could be shown on TV in Finland versus the U.S.  Jyrki observed
that there was an unwritten rule of censorship in Finland, that
no more than a 45 degree erection could be shown on TV.  In the US,
none will be shown.  (Is that angle above or below horizontal?)

Apparently, the standard of genitalia on screen yielding an X rating
has been relaxed somewhat.  Maybe now the ratings go by what the
natur of the scene, and how long/explicit is the shot.  Brief, and/or
non-sexual scenes seem to be ok.  Nude children will always be in
nonsexual scenes (sort of by definition).

I was thinking of _Scandal_, and how it had a scene cut.  I believe
the scene cut, was longer and closer up than say, the one in _Life of
Brian_.  In _Skin Deep_ you never saw anything, they could have been
waving around, err, prosthethic devices.  (Great way to avoid
`prosthesises' spelling debates.)

I have set the follow-ups, again.
Bill
bt@violin.att.com
-- 

bt@violin.att.com

"Sed is the assembly language of shell tools" - me
From: matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Fully Informed Jury Association (Pamphlet)
Date: 9 Apr 92 13:08:54 GMT
Organization: U.S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory, APG, MD.

In article <1992Apr6.074041.7105@eskimo.celestial.com> 
delisle@eskimo.celestial.com (Ben Delisle) writes:

>    ----> This is copied from a pamphlet that I was given. <----
>          Please forgive any bad typing.
>
>                  --   *   --
>      Fully Informed Jury Association
. . .
>In pursuit of a just verdict, jurors are free to judge
>the merits of the law itself, its use in the case at 
>hand, or the motives of the accused.   [Ben Delisle, quoting FIJA pamphlet]

The Maryland Declaration of Rights, part of the Maryland Constitution,
provides that in a criminal trial the jury shall be the judge of the law
as well as of the facts.  So I can't help feeling somewhat sympathetic
to what the "Fully Informed Jury Association" is after, even though 
juries' power to disregard the law can be and has been misused in order
to free hooded bigots accused of racist crimes.

Nevertheless, the following is nonsense:

>If jurors were supposed to judge "only the facts",
>their job could be done by a computer.  [Ben Delisle, quoting FIJA pamphlet]

Where is the computer that can listen to several witnesses, observe
their demeanor as they testify, and sort out the truth from their
conflicting testimony about what "the facts" of the case are?  Who
could write the program?

					-- Matt Rosenblatt
                                        (matt@amsaa.brl.mil)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
TRUTH     JUSTICE     FREEDOM     YIDDISHKEIT     IVY     THE AMERICAN WAY
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: olson@acf9.nyu.edu (David Olson)
Subject: Noriega Witness Deals
Organization: New York University
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 15:10:18 GMT

To further excite the Noriega feeding frenzy, here's a list of the deals
cut by the witnesses against Noriega.  Keep in mind that Noriega was only
charge with offenses that would put him away for 240 years, and half that
stuck.  I don't think that he was charged with anything that would put him
away for life---ALL of these witnesses could have been put in for life
(and not just a long term).

This information was published in the 13.April.92 edition of USA Today
on page 9A.  They attribute the information to the House Subcommitee
on Crime and Criminal Justice.

FORMAT:
Name, Job, Drug profits,  Maximum sentence before testifying,
	likely sentence after testifying, other stuff

The six really nasty fellows:


Jose Cabrera, Importer, $40-50 Million, Life + 200 years,
	under 15 years, keeps the money, 9 in Witness Protection Program.

Floyd Carlton-Caceras, Pilot, 6 Million, Life + 154 years,
	9 years, keeps his Panamanian properties, no tax penalties
		$211,000 expenses paid, family & babysitter in WPP.

Cesar Cura, Importer, $10 Million, Life + 145 years,
	up to 20 years, no forfeiture, plea covers 5 indictments,
		immunity from prosecution.

Steven Kalish, Smuggler, $20 Million, Life + 285, 
	up to 10 years, keeps $700G's profits, immune from other prosecution,
		he and wife in WPP.

Carlos Lehder, Co-founded Drug Cartel, $40 Million, Life + 510,
	a mere 135 years (likely parole), keeps $8 Million, no taxes,
		Family in WPP, he's a candidate (if paroled?).

Max Mermelstein, Shipper, $2.5 Million, Life + 90 years,
	2 years, $700,000 expenses paid, excused from tax penalties,
		17 friends and family members in WPP.


So, lessee.  That's 6 life sentences dropped, about 1,200 years in prison
dropped, about $70 Million in bribes paid, over 30 people into the Witness
Protection program...


david
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: gak@n5abi.hou.tx.us (Gene A. Kennedy)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.society.civil-liberty
Subject: Re: jury nullification
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 92 20:08:10 CDT
Organization: Ham Radio Operator, Houston Tex.

ald@clipper.ingr.com (Al Date) writes:

> First of all, no one should disregard or ignore the law.  Jury nullification
> is not about ignoring the law, but of declaring it to be unsuitable or
> inapplicable to the case at hand.  Jury nullification is about REJECTING
> the law, not ignoring it.

That depends on where the jury is. In Texas, the law *requires* 
the jury to be "bound" by the law as presented in the courts 
charge. Therefore, nullification would be "ignoring" the law.
> 
> 
> De facto, it is the jury who decides whether a law is just, and also
> the facts of the case.  If ALL juries were informed of this power, then
> there would be less likelihood of different juries coming to different
> verdicts given identical cases.  Why?  Because there is a quite remarkable 
> level of general agreement found when a dozen randomly selected people 
> are given certain instructions and are forced to gather in a room to 
> deliberate on "whether a certain 
> defendant should be punished for his actions."

The "remarkable level of general agreement" is, at least partly, 
due to the fact that those "instructions" tell them what the law 
is and what constitutes "violation" of that law.
> 
> 
> I dont see any way around that--community standards DO come into play,
> and perhaps this is an overall positive, because people can gravitate
> to areas where they find conscientious companionship.
> People who find themselves living among small minds may have to pull up roots

Sure, "community standards" come into play. Just look at the cases 
where the jury does apply "community standards" to the law rather 
than having a clearly defined law given to them. Like the 
"obscenity" laws. There have been cases here (and I suspect in 
many other places) where the same person who was aquitted by one 
jury is later found guilty by another jury for selling almost 
identical material. And yes, your "remarkable level of agreement" 
often vanishes when it's an obscenity case. 

Maybe some of the "jury nullification" proponents can answer two 
questions for me.
  1. Where does the Constitution grant any "right" of jury 
nullification?
  2. Where does the Constitution grant "legislative" power to 
juries? (Since nullification of laws is a legislative power).

Simple fact is, in Texas, jury nullification is *not* legal, and 
there's nothing unconstitutional about that.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
          Gene Kennedy - Ham Radio Operator, N5ABI - 
                      gak@n5abi.hou.tx.us
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
        Exculpatory, a nifty little word that meant confuse
           the hell out of the jurors. -- Stephen Coonts
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: kudzu@tfs.com (Michael Sierchio)
Subject: Re: Invoices VIA Email binding documents?
Organization: TRW Financial Systems
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 18:57:27 GMT

In article <1992Apr04.064152.2064@pavnet.pcn.org> 
	pep@pavnet.pcn.org (Phil Pavarini Jr.) writes:

>	I recently requested information from Clarinet about
>receiving a Clarinet newsfeed.  In their literature, they 
>mention a discount if you agree to allow them to invoice you
>VIA Email.  
>
>	My question is:  Is an invoice sent VIA Email
>a legally binding document, and do the general warrentees of
>merchantability, etc. apply?

An invoice is a demand for payment, so there's nothing "binding"
about it.  If you agree to accept invoices by e-mail, that's an
agreement.  If a dispute arises ("I never received the bill") it
might be more difficult to prove delivery of an invoice via e-mail.

But, you generally enter into relationships on a basis of trust, don't
you?
-- 
Michael Sierchio                               TRW Financial Systems
kudzu@tfs.com                                     1947 Center Street
                                             Berkeley, CA 94704-1105
(MKS2)                                                  510.704.3380
From: danr@pro-franklin.cts.com (Daniel Roberts)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Do you understand?
Date: 14 Apr 92 01:18:41 GMT
Article-I.D.: crash.1992Apr14.011841.7129
Organization: Crash TimeSharing, El Cajon, CA

The following hypo is merely for your thought and comment.


John Smith is a mentally retarded man with a drug problem. He is determined
to be competant to assist in his own defense at trial but not competant to
enter an knowing and voluntary plea of guilty to a lesser offense. 

How do we deal with this situation?

Dan

---------
danr@pro-franklin.cts.com
Sysop of pro-franklin 614-462-7458 at up to 2400 BPS.
Home of pro.apo pro.scout and 2nd home of pro.law and pro.security.
Xref: sparky misc.legal:9253 alt.society.civil-liberty:3434 alt.individualism:2437
From: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.individualism
Subject: Re: Jury Nullification (some thoughts)
Date: 13 Apr 92 11:10:44 GMT
Reply-To: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland

>This argument does not hold water when you realize that up to the beginning
>of this century, the jury was routinely told that they had the power to
>judge both the law and fact.

As I understand it that the problem (or one of them, at least) now is
that too few people know about this power.

Why not just have paid advertisements in the major newspapers,
television, radio and all other media to inform people about the
power?  When divided to many people, I don't think it'd add up to big
costs.  There would be no need for a big organizations - just a few
persons to design and produce the ads, a bank account to collect
contributions (could be listed on the ads to gain more support) and
local people to put the advertisements in the local media.

Is this already being done?

//Jyrki
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: guido@island.COM (Guido Marx)
Subject: Re: Noriega
Keywords: extraterritoriality, sham, trial
Organization: Island Graphics Corp.  Marin County, Ca.
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 22:23:11 GMT

In article <kubnfbINNk6j@news.bbn.com> rnewman@bbn.com (Ron Newman) writes:
>  - The King of Saudi Arabia, angry that someone has smuggled U.S. beer
>    into the country, sends a divison to invade and loot St. Louis, Missouri
>    while searching for the president of Anheuser-Busch Corporation.  
>    When this person is found, he is brought back to Saudi Arabia 
>    and charged with violating Islamic prohibitions on alcohol, 
>    and is put to death.
>
>Someone tell me the difference.

The difference, near as I can tell, is that the U.S. has a bigger army
than Saudi Arabia.  Thus, the Noriega Standard (tm) of conduct for 
foreign Heads of State seems to be that might makes right.  It would
also seem that if you are a ruthless foreign dictator, you better kiss
the ass of the U.S.A.

Guido




Xref: sparky alt.sex:13529 misc.legal:8855 rec.arts.tv:9217
From: dkrause@miami.acs.uci.edu (Doug Krause)
Subject: Re: Censoship of nudity (was Re: Photo of minor: is it illegal to possess?
Newsgroups: alt.sex,misc.legal,rec.arts.tv
Organization: University of California, Irvine
Date: 6 Apr 92 09:56:09 GMT

In article <jrljcn+.mmaston@netcom.com> mmaston@netcom.com (Michael Maston) writes:
#Just for the record, the film with John Ritter and the glowing condoms
#was called "Skin Deep".  C'mon now, that scene with the female bodybuilder
#wasn't *that* forgettable....

Raye Hollitt.  She plays Zap on American Gladiators.
From: jheath@CERIS.Purdue.EDU (Jim Heath)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: japanese maritime (sa
Date: 13 Apr 92 16:41:41 GMT
Distribution: misc
Organization: Center for Environmental and Regulatory Information Systems, Purdue University

From article <1992Apr10.1297.8604@execnet>, by hilary.miller@execnet.com (hilary miller):
> 
> Arl00sjb, in a message to All on 04-09-92 at 9:14pm, said:
> 
> AB/3I'm writing a short story in which someone finds gold ingots in the shall
>    3off the coast of Japan.  I need to know 1) how long would the Japanese
>    3government (or whoever) keep the property found before allowing the finde
>    3take possession of the gold and 2) how much in taxes would said governmen
>    3(or whoever) take from the finder?  I've asked several legal professional
>    3these questions, and no one knew.  They suggested others to ask, but stil
>    3luck.  Anybody have a suggestion who to ask, or even better, anybody *kno
>    TMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM>
> 
>           Can't help with Japan, but here's the law in the U.S.: find-
>           ers keepers.  Finding and taking possession of salvage is
>           gross income to the extent of the fair market value of the
>           itmes found, and is subject to deductible business expenses
>           of the salvors.
>

Does this vary from state to state?  I had the impression that
someone state/federal? latched onto salvaged treasure from the
Atocha (Mel Fisher et. al.) and some other treasure wrecks in
Florida.

Just for curiousity, what about "buried treasure" on government
land (ie "public" land)? 
-- 
"Land of song, said the warrior bard,           Jim Heath
Though all the world betrays thee.
One sword, at least, thy rights shall guard, (The Minstrel Boy)
One faithful harp will praise thee."         (Thomas More)
From: jkogan@eff.org (Julia Kogan)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re:  Supreme Court curbs police sting operations
Keywords: misinterpretation
Date: 14 Apr 92 03:53:14 GMT
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Originator: jkogan@eff.org

In article <18466@smoke.brl.mil> matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt) writes
[referring to recent kiddie porn entrapment case discussed by Carl Kadie]:
>
>[...]  One lawyer, Justice White, writes in plain
>English that if the pervert in this case had ordered child pornography
>the first time it was offered, it would not likely have been necessary
>even to instruct the jury about entrapment.  Justice White wrote that
>the key to letting this fellow off was the government's "repeated"
>actions to get him to commit the crime.  But then another lawyer
>gets her hands on his opinion, and reads it to mean what Justice White
>specifically said it does *not* mean:
>
>	O'Connor said that despite the majority's belief that the ruling will
>not halt ``run-of-the-mill sting operations,'' it very well could.
>
>	``After this case, every defendant will claim that something 
>the government agent did before soliciting the crime 'created' a
>predisposition that was not there before,'' O'Connor wrote for the
>dissent.
>
>[...]
>
>Didn't she read Justice White's words?  Doesn't she think that judges
>and jurors are capable of distinguishing the _Jacobson_ case from a
>run-of-the-mill sting operation?  Why does one lawyer so misinterpret
>what another lawyer says?  [Matt Rosenblatt] 

It's commonly known as the "slippery slope" argument, Matt.

-- 
Julia Kogan                     |  These opinions are not my employer's,
jkogan@eff.org                  |  nor are they legal advice.  Ask me _after_
Boston U., Law '92 -- May 27!   |  I pass the Bar, and I'll tell you the truth.
From: hilary.miller@execnet.com (hilary miller)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: update on credit card
Date: 9 Apr 92 03:48:13 GMT
Reply-To: "hilary miller" <hilary.miller@execnet.com>
Distribution: misc
Organization: Executive Networks Information


Mats Wichmann, in a message to All on 04-07-92 at 6:08pm, said:

MW/3z  Newsgroup: misc.legal
   3z Message-ID: <xfkjh6-.mats@netcom.com>
   3z    Subject: Update on Credit Card surcharges
   TMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM>

MW/3Of the three major credit cards, AmEx is the only one which allows the
   3merchant to add a surcharge for the use of the card.
   TMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM>

               Not true.  AmEx's standard merchant agreement re-
               quires any merchant who accepts the card to do so
               on the same terms it accepts for *cash* sales.


   L A
 I    R        Hilary B. Miller of Greenwich, Connecticut
  H/\Y         CIS: 76040,1743
   s r
---
 ~ DeLuxe} 1.21 #11645 ~ ASCII stupid question - get a stupid ANSI
--
Executive Network Information System   (914) 667-4567
International ILink Host
Xref: sparky alt.sex:13754 misc.legal:9010 rec.arts.tv:9313