HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: foy@aero.org (Richard Foy)
Subject: Graffiti Ordnance
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 04:01:33 GMT

My city is planning an ordnance that would require property owners to
remove graffiti from their property within 24 hours. Penalties for not
doing so can be $500 fine or 6 months in jail. I strongly object to this
type of action. It is penalizing a property owner for the failure of the
city. It seems to me that it is unconstitutional. I might want to keep the
graffiti as symbolic speech on what I think of my city management.

What do others think of this ordnance?

Richard Foy                       Standard Disclaimer

Xref: sparky alt.society.civil-liberty:5528 soc.culture.usa:6533
From: packer@amarna.gsfc.nasa.gov (Charles Packer)
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,soc.culture.usa
Subject: Note on NSA
Date: 13 Aug 92 02:56:00 GMT
Organization: Dept. of Independence
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1

The NSA might have been super-secret, not admitted to by the
U.S. govt., but as another posting said, things have changed.
Have they ever! My boss was invited to speak at NSA last year
about high-performance computing. They gave him a souvenir
coffee mug. It was black, of course, but the NSA seal was
emblazoned on the side. 
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,soc.culture.usa,talk.politics.misc
From: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Subject: [alt.drugs] Protest of Zero Tolerance Laws in Boulder, CO
Keywords: zero tolerance boulder
Reply-To: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 04:22:33 GMT

A repost from alt.drugs,cu.general:

From: lkriho@psych.colorado.edu (Lora Kriho)
Subject: Protest of Zero Tolerance Laws in Boulder, CO
Summary: Protest at Yello Sub Restaurant, Sat, Aug 15, 12noon to 5pm
Keywords: zero tolerance boulder
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 19:10:09 GMT

	On Thursday, July 30, 1992 the DEA seized the business account of the
owner of the Yello Sub restaurant on the Hill in Boulder.  The account was
seized under the Federal Forfeiture Act after an employee was arrested for
allegedly selling illegal drugs through the mail.  
	However, the DEA has not filed any charges against the owner of the
restaurant.  And they have no evidence linking the account with the alleged
drug mailings.
	Furthermore, the DEA never notified the owner that his account had been
seized.  He discovered it after his checks began to bounce.
	These seizures are happening all over the country.  If you, or someone
you live with, or even someone that works for you, is arrested on drug-related
charges, your home, your business, and your money can all be confiscated
without due process of the law.
	No longer are you innocent until proven guilty!  
	Citizens must fight back at these un-Constitutional laws.  The DEA is
obviously trying to test the waters in Boulder to see how much they can get
away with.  We need to stand up to them now and let them know that we will not
meekly stand by and let them violate our rights and destroy our neighbors'
lives.
	There will be a protest and eat-in at the restaurant:

		Take a Bite Out of Fascism
		Saturday, August 15
		12 noon - 5pm
		Yello Sub
		1215 13th Street
		On the Hill
		Boulder, Colorado

	Please spread the word! United, we can fight this flagrant disregard of
our Constitutional rights!		


Sponsored by the Boulder Hemp Initiative Group and the Boulder County
Libertarian Party.

Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,soc.culture.usa,talk.politics.misc
From: best@anasazi.com (Mike Best)
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,soc.culture.usa,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: [alt.individualism,alt.politics.marrou] Tyranny of the Majority...
Date: 13 Aug 92 00:42:16 GMT
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA

In article <1992Aug8.234531.8645@nntp.hut.fi> jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala) writes:
>A repost from alt.politics.marrou,alt.individualism:
>
>  Regarding 'society` vs individualism:
>
>     The problem with dealing with a concept of "societies" rather
>  than individuals is that some one`s rights are bound to get
>  stomped on. If laws are based upon the rights of the individual
>  rather than whomever the "prominent majority" is then everyone's
>  rights are protected, not just those of the resident majority.

Wonderful!  An enlightened position!
>
>      If the rights of the individual for choice are upheld then
>   the 'society` will take care of itself. Otherwise you end up
>  with a situation where Group A lobbies for a law that will
>  benefit them but will destroy the natural rights of Group B. If
>  Group A holds 50.5% of the population and Group B holds 49.5%
>  and Group A wins, then Group B - 49.5% of the population - gets
>  screwed.

Yes! Group Rights (the philosophy of the Left, like it or not you lefties)
does NOT promote equality under the law.  Individuals are regarded as
members of a group and receive the benefits AND the punishments associated
with being a member of that group.  This is the greatest threat to freedom
in American society today.

>
>      This is the scenario that Locke and Alexis de Tocqueville
>  termed "The Tyranny of The Majority" and is exactly what the
>  founding fathers attempted to avoid through the bill of rights.
>  This country was the first EVER to be founded specifically to
>  protect the rights of the individual. Somehow we have gotten away
>  from that premise. The Libertarians are simply tring to resurrect
>  the notion of a country based on freedom for all, not just a
>  majority.

Indeed, the Founders practically plagerized the work of Locke and would,
had the Declaration of Independence been a term paper, have been thrown
out of any respectable college in this country. 

The Constitution and the principled philosophy behind it is the greatest
acheivement in human history.  Yeah, I'm making a big noise yet the 
results of this grand experiment are right in front of you every day!

It is the notion of group rights which I find evil in those who prefer
the slavery of equality over freedom of individuality.  Individual rights
are the only long term hope which any of us have for liberty and freedom.
My first reason to dislike the democrats is for the very reason that they
prefer group rights over individual rights, an arguably unamerican position!


Mike Best
{mcdphx|asuvax}!anasaz!best
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,soc.culture.usa
From: mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen)
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty
Subject: Re: [misc.legal et al] Re: double jeopardy (facist LA police)
Date: 12 Aug 92 19:10:10 GMT
Organization: MIPS Computer Systems, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: gelato.mips.com

Conway Yee) writes:
|> jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala) writes:
|> >And no, it is no such thing as bullshit my friend. And don't think that
|> >this progressive interpretation of the fifth amendment will by any means
|> >establish a historical precedent. For the past fourty years we have
|> >often had to retry the same incident on the FEDERAL level 
|>               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|> 
|> This is by definition double jeopardy.
|> 
|> "nor shall any person be subject, for the same offense, to be twice
|> put in jeopardy of life or limb"
|> 
|> Notice that this does not specify what level of government.  In addition,
|> we note that the Bill of Rights has been seen to apply to local governments.
|> 
According to my local newpapers, TV, and Radio reports they are not being tried
for the same offense.  The statement "same incident" is not the same as
the same offense.  There are no state laws referring to depriving someone
of their civil rights, so they were not tried for this offense in a california
court.

The reason for allowing this constitutionality is to protect people from
community supported discrimination.  *IF* the policemen did violate the law
in the beating of Rodney King, and *IF* the Simi Valley jury turned their
back on the crime as an act of racial persecution, then this second trial
is society's way of dealing with local rot.  On the other hand, the federal
jury may vindicate LA, Simi Valley, and the LAPD.
From: ags@seaman.cc.purdue.edu (Dave Seaman)
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty
Subject: Re: Graffiti Ordnance
Date: 14 Aug 92 14:34:44 GMT

In article <1992Aug14.040133.27625@aero.org> foy@aero.org (Richard Foy)  
writes:
> It seems to me that it is unconstitutional. I might want to keep the
> graffiti as symbolic speech on what I think of my city management.
> 
> What do others think of this ordnance?

Ordnance seems like a plausible solution, but you might want to try less  
drastic methods first.

--
Dave Seaman
ags@seaman.cc.purdue.edu
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.activism,alt.drugs,talk.abortion,talk.politics.drugs,alt.discrimination,alt.politics.elections
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Just Plain LIES!! (was Re: The facts about Roe, Doe, and Colautti)
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 16:23:23 GMT
Distribution: na
Reply-To: margoli@watson.ibm.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <1992Aug18.132413.15841@ncsu.edu>  dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> In article <1992Aug18.041620.12712@watson.ibm.com>
> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>
> > I'm talking about the fact that you have earned a reputation in talk.abortion
> > for being deceitful, for quoting out of context, and for eliding (without
> > warning) material from quoted text.
>
> This statement is not correct.

Of course it is.  You asked what I was talking about, and I told you.

I assure you, that is *exactly* what I was referring to by my comment
to Mr. Greenfield.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,misc.legal
From: ckd@eff.org (Christopher Davis)
Subject: Re: Graffiti Ordnance
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation Tech Central
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 17:01:39 GMT

RF> == Richard Foy <foy@aero.org> 

 RF> My city is planning an ordnance that would require property owners
 RF> to remove graffiti from their property within 24 hours. Penalties
 RF> for not doing so can be $500 fine or 6 months in jail.

What is their legal definition of "graffiti"?  There's probably a good
point of attack there.
--
Christopher Davis * ckd@eff.org * System Administrator, EFF * +1 617 864 0665
            ``Ed Gruberman, you fail to grasp Ti Kwan Leep.
            Approach me that you might see.'' -- The Master
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty
From: fsars@acad3.alaska.edu (Allen R Sparks)
Subject: Re: abort a fetus for jesus!
Organization: University of Alaska Fairbanks
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 07:01:20 GMT
X-Posted-From: acad3.alaska.edu
X-Posted-Through: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <F58HPB9w165w@korova.uucp>, sludge@korova.uucp (Sludgefried) writes:
> I see Rodney King's beating being portrayed as a racial incident, when in 
> fact it is the collision of the ruling powers ("haves") and the 
> dis-empowered ("have-nots").  King charged a police officer (pig:  man 
> with little life who enjoys petty power plays) and got what police 
> officers everywhere dish out to those who violate their sense of power.  
> I honestly doubt it was his skin color as much as his stupidity - and 
> then continuing to fight?  Jesus H!  I hate cops with a passion but I 
> have more of a clue than Mr. King did.  He's an unwelcome hero - he was 
> guilty, and he got the unfair and brutal backlash to that.  I believe 
> those cops are guilty of brutality, but let's not canonize King.
> 
> Also, that's Los(t) Angeles:  Cram that many fools into that small of an 
> area, give half of them horrible jobs and expensive living and see what 
> happens.  Rioting, gunfire, beatings.

I'm not labeling or stereotyping all police officers with the term,
pig.  I would make one little change to your definition, however;
       pig: man with little life who enjoys power plays with petty people.

I agree, though, with your observations, if not your passion ("I hate
cops.....  ).  === Al Sparks
Xref: sparky alt.society.civil-liberty:5517 talk.politics.misc:39060 soc.culture.usa:6507
From: cass8806@elan.glassboro.edu (KYLE CASSIDY)
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,talk.politics.misc,soc.culture.usa
Subject: Re: [alt.drugs] Re: Gov.Wilson: "Smoke a Joint, Lose Y
Date: 12 Aug 92 13:59:13 GMT
Organization: Glassboro State College, Glassboro, NJ

In article <1992Aug10.123127.9719@nntp.hut.fi> jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala) writes:

>A repost from alt.drugs:

>From: 10563903@eng2.eng.monash.edu.au (DUNCAN HEARD)
>Subject: Re: Gov.Wilson: "Smoke a Joint, Lose Y
>Message-ID: <10563903.41.713421431@eng2.eng.monash.edu.au>
>Date: 10 Aug 92 04:37:11 GMT
>Organization: Faculty of Engineering, Monash University

>In article <1301300181@igc.org> canorml@igc.org (NORML California) writes:

>>WILSON  DEMANDS "SMOKE A JOINT, LOSE YOUR 
>>LICENSE" VETO IMPERILS STATE FUNDS 

i have an acquantience who is an ardent dope smoker, but who is also 
completely blind. this kind of penalty would have absolutely NO impact on 
him (because he doesn't even HAVE a drivers lisence in the first place). 
what kind of a penalty is this? it seems kind of arbitrary to me. i myself 
HAVE a drivers lisence, but i don't have a car and i havent driven one for 
about two years ... also, there are a lot of peope who live in inner cities 
who don't have cars and who don't need them. this bill seems to have a 
sort of blunderbus approach in its effectiveness.

kc
Xref: sparky alt.society.civil-liberty:5591 misc.legal:16166
From: foy@aero.org (Richard Foy)
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,misc.legal
Subject: Graffiti Ordinance Round 2
Date: 19 Aug 92 22:06:29 GMT
Article-I.D.: aero.1992Aug19.220629.29141
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA

Thanks to all who responded to my post about the Graffiti Ordinance. The
ordinance was up for final approval at the City Council meeting last night.
I spoke to the Council. The comments from the net were helpful in forming
my talk. In the discussion a Councilman said that the ordinance was drafted
because of one particular property owner who has not removed a lot of
graffiti from her property. After the discussion the Council decided to
ask the staff to remove part of the related to liens on the property.

After the meeting I met the owner of the property in question. We had a
long discussion. She is a woman probably in her eighties. She was injured
recently. She has a hard time walking. had reasonable objections to the way
the city wanted to remove the graffiti. She didn't say, but I presume that
she does not have a lot of money, and therefore can not just simply call up
a contractor and have the graffiti removed. It reminded me of the example
one person posted of kids applying graffiti to an old couples fence.

I plan to go back to the Council when they bring it back for discussion.

Thanks again for yor help.

Richard Foy           Standard Disclaimer
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,soc.culture.usa,talk.politics.misc
From: feustel@netcom.com (David Feustel)
Subject: Re: [alt.drugs] Protest of Zero Tolerance Laws in Boulder, CO
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 92 23:33:55 GMT
Organization: DAFCO: OS/2 Software Support & Consulting
Keywords: zero tolerance boulder

Why go to all the trouble of indicting, convicting and imprisoning
someone when you can simply take everything he owns with essentially
no legal effort?
-- 
Dave Feustel N9MYI <feustel@netcom.com>
---
Given Civil Seizure, from the DEA's point of view, winning the War on
Drugs would be killing the Goose that lays golden eggs.

The Drug War is a government-sponsored, taxpayer-financed,
full-employment program for psycho/socio-paths, wannabees and
gonnabees.
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.activism,alt.drugs,talk.abortion,talk.politics.drugs,alt.discrimination,alt.politics.elections
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Just Plain LIES!! (was Re: The facts about Roe, Doe, and Colautti)
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 13:24:13 GMT

In article <1992Aug18.041620.12712@watson.ibm.com> 
margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:

> I'm talking about the fact that you have earned a reputation in talk.abortion
> for being deceitful, for quoting out of context, and for eliding (without
> warning) material from quoted text.  

This statement is not correct.  Your attempts at character assassination 
won't win any arguments.  You'll have to read the quotes and sources that 
I have provided and respond in an intelligent fashion, instead of resorting 
to these cheap, meaningless accusations.  Thus far, you have not responded
to the arguments raised in this thread.  Quit sniping, get off your duff,
and start contributing to the thread. 

Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,misc.legal
From: foy@aero.org (Richard Foy)
Subject: Test
Bcc: foy,rgerardi
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 14:33:57 GMT

This is a test.
From: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Subject: Re: [alt.individualism,alt.politics.marrou] Tyranny of the Majority...
Reply-To: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 01:35:17 GMT

>The Constitution and the principled philosophy behind it is the greatest
>acheivement in human history.  Yeah, I'm making a big noise yet the 
>results of this grand experiment are right in front of you every day!

I find the first sentence tempting to believe and do agree it's a good
achievement at listing the principles, but I would be not so
pessimistic as you are in your second sentence.  I think humanity
still has hope!

//Jyrki
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.activism,alt.drugs,talk.abortion,talk.politics.drugs,alt.discrimination,alt.politics.elections
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Just Plain LIES!! (was Re: The facts about Roe, Doe, and Colautti)
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 00:40:52 GMT

In article <1992Aug17.230455.30194@watson.ibm.com> 
margoli@watson.ibm.com writes:

>(J. S. Greenfield) writes:

>> With absolutely no shame for *completely* misrepresenting quotes, Doug
>> Holtsinger writes:
>
>>   1) Mr. Holtsinger's entire argument is without merit,
>>
>>   and
>>
>>   2) Mr. Holtsinger is shamefully deceitful in citing
>>      quotes out of context--he just plain lies.
>> 
>> In sum, your last post proves that you cannot be trusted to honestly
>> represent facts, and as such, you have no credibility.

> I believe we did warn you about Doug at the beginning...

Mr. Margolis, what are you talking about?  Mr. Greenfield has ignored
three of my sources, and his entire argument rests upon the opinion
of an author who's held conflicting views on Roe v. Wade.  Now he's 
reduced to slinging insults and false allegations; he's no longer
able to engage in constructive debate.  When that happens, we usually
say that a person has lost the argument...

Would you care to address the issue?

>Larry Margolis


Doug Holtsinger

Xref: sparky alt.society.civil-liberty:5582 alt.activism:15014 alt.drugs:14797 talk.abortion:32307 talk.politics.drugs:5867 alt.discrimination:3902 alt.politics.elections:10814
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.activism,alt.drugs,talk.abortion,talk.politics.drugs,alt.discrimination,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Just Plain LIES!! (was Re: The facts about Roe, Doe, and Colautti)
Date: 18 Aug 92 17:24:52 GMT
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Distribution: na
Organization: North Carolina State University

In article <1992Aug18.162323.30924@watson.ibm.com> 
margoli@watson.ibm.com writes:

> Of course it is.  You asked what I was talking about, and I told you.

Try addressing the substance of my argument instead of resorting to
character assassination. 
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty
From: bobh@troy.uucp (22131-hettmansperger)
Subject: Re: Just Plain LIES!! (was Re: The facts about Roe, Doe, and Colautti)
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 92 19:18:30 GMT

In article <1992Aug18.041620.12712@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>I'm talking about the fact that you have earned a reputation in talk.abortion
>for being deceitful, for quoting out of context, and for eliding (without
>warning) material from quoted text.  A number of people mentioned this to
>Mr. Greenfield at the start of this thread.  *That* is what I'm talking
>about.

Speaking of talk.abortion, isn't that where this whole discussion belongs?  

Either that or just plain email, please.

Thank you,

-Dr. Bob (degree pending when I decide that I want to go back to school)
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,soc.culture.usa,talk.politics.misc
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Just Plain LIES!! (was Re: The facts about Roe, Doe, and Colautti)
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 04:16:20 GMT
Distribution: na
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <1992Aug18.004052.27608@ncsu.edu>  dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> In article <1992Aug17.230455.30194@watson.ibm.com>
> margoli@watson.ibm.com writes:
>
> >(J. S. Greenfield) writes:
>
> >> With absolutely no shame for *completely* misrepresenting quotes, Doug
> >> Holtsinger writes:
> >
> >>   1) Mr. Holtsinger's entire argument is without merit,
> >>
> >>   and
> >>
> >>   2) Mr. Holtsinger is shamefully deceitful in citing
> >>      quotes out of context--he just plain lies.
> >>
> >> In sum, your last post proves that you cannot be trusted to honestly
> >> represent facts, and as such, you have no credibility.
>
> > I believe we did warn you about Doug at the beginning...
>
> Mr. Margolis, what are you talking about?

I'm talking about the fact that you have earned a reputation in talk.abortion
for being deceitful, for quoting out of context, and for eliding (without
warning) material from quoted text.  A number of people mentioned this to
Mr. Greenfield at the start of this thread.  *That* is what I'm talking
about.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.activism,alt.drugs,talk.abortion,talk.politics.drugs,alt.discrimination,alt.politics.elections
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Just Plain LIES!! (was Re: The facts about Roe, Doe, and Colautti)
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 23:04:55 GMT
Distribution: na
Reply-To: margoli@watson.ibm.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <1992Aug17.131337.3354@newstand.syr.edu>  greeny@top.cis.syr.edu
(J. S. Greenfield) writes:
>
> With absolutely no shame for *completely* misrepresenting quotes, Doug
> Holtsinger writes:

..

>   1) Mr. Holtsinger's entire argument is without merit,
>
>   and
>
>   2) Mr. Holtsinger is shamefully deceitful in citing
>      quotes out of context--he just plain lies.

..

> In sum, your last post proves that you cannot be trusted to honestly
> represent facts, and as such, you have no credibility.

I believe we did warn you about Doug at the beginning...

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Xref: sparky alt.society.futures:238 talk.environment:3264 sci.environment:10683