HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: hagerp@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (Paul Hager)
Newsgroups: alt.activism,alt.censorship,alt.drugs,misc.legal,talk.politics.drugs
Subject: TCI Affair: Sue the bastards ...
Date: 8 Apr 92 17:05:36 GMT
Organization: Computer Science, Indiana University

7-Apr-92 --

The ACLU of Bloomington (i.e., the BCLU) met last night.  One of
the matters that came before the screening committee was the
TCI Affair.  Prof. Alex Tanford presented a report on his
investigations regarding the possibility of challenging TCI on 1st
Amendment grounds.

Alex had consulted with Fred Cate, a communications law specialist
(guru, afficianado, maven, ...) who is with the Annenberg Project.
According to Cate, the specific issue of commercial access on a
government-sanctioned monopoly has never been litigated and that
the contract and exclusivity that it confers may mean that TCI's
actions constitute state action.  In other words, there is a legal
hook on which we can hang our arguments.  According to Alex, 
Cate found the issue "very interesting".

The recommendation of the BCLU screening committee was that I
contact Rich Waples, the ICLU litigation director, and bring
him into the loop.  The way things work, it is necessary for
the litigation director to make a determination whether or not
to pursue given cases and this happens at the state level.
Depending on the case, it can be handled directly by ICLU in
Indy or can be referred back to the local affiliate.

I called Rich Waples this morning and informed him of the
committee's recommendation.  I also gave him Fred Cate's
phone number.  Rich said that he would consult with the other
members of the litigation committee and would get back with
me next week.

Alex thought that this could be a very high profile case, turning
as it does on access to air time in the rapidly growing cable 
industry.  There is always the possibility that if we do sue
TCI that there might be a possibility of a negotiated settlement --
litigation is a crap shoot and either side could end up a big
loser.  Although it would appear that the current composition of
the courts would favor TCI, there is still a risk for them and
they might be willing to take a pass now rather than face a big,
public loss somewhere down the road.
-- 
paul hager		hagerp@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu

"The most formidable weapon against errors of every kind is reason."
			-- Thomas Paine, _The Age of Reason_
Newsgroups: alt.activism,alt.activism.d,soc.culture.jewish,soc.rights.human,alt.discrimination,alt.society.civil-liberties,alt.censorship
From: kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley)
Subject: Re: Help stop the KKK
Organization: Liebe Company
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 19:13:48 GMT

kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:

>All counter-protestors (not just "the good guys") have a legal right
>to speak. No counter-protestors (not even the "good guys") have a
>moral right substantially disrupt.

There are fine lines here you haven't mentioned.  If you disrupt a public
meeting at a library for example, you can be removed.  But if you vocally
shout down the opposition on public ground, outdoors, you have every right.

Kevin Brawley
Newsgroups: alt.activism
Subject: Re: RON DANIELS FOR PRESIDENT 1992
From: schar@ssdvax.mdcbbs.com
Date: 11 Apr 92 10:45:24 GMT
Organization: McDonnell Douglas - Space Station Division, Huntington Beach CA
Nntp-Posting-User: sandy

In article <1296500170@igc.org>, fscofi@igc.org (Frank Scofi) writes:
> 
>           RON DANIELS FOR PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
> 
>                         ***************
>                         INDEPENDENT '92
>                         ***************

According to the Orange County Register's voter guide, Ron Daniels is a
candidate of the Peace & Freedom Party.  P&F is the California branch/affiliate
of the New Alliance Party.  Alos according to the same voter guide, Howard
Phillips is the American Independent Party candidate for president.  Please
clarify whether Daniels is a New Alliance candidate, an AIP candidate, or a
true independent (like Perot :-)).
 
-- 
Brian Schar   |  schar@ssdvax.mdcbbs.com
McDonnell Douglas Space Systems Company, Huntington Beach, CA
Disclaimer:  Any opinions here are mine, not my employer's.  Any facts are in
the public domain.
____________________________
Andre Marrou & Nancy Lord: Vote Libertarian for President & VP in 1992! 

Getting the Power Back to You: Richard Boddie--U.S. Senate--California
Newsgroups: alt.activism,alt.individualism,talk.politics.misc
From: lae@unislc.uucp (Leslie Evans)
Subject: Re: Socialism Security Rides Again
Reply-To: lae@unislc.UUCP (Leslie Evans,B2C10,5383)
Organization: Unisys, Salt Lake City
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 92 16:30:17 GMT

In article <rdippold.702582849@cancun> rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold) writes:
>The things the newspaper brings.  A heroin addict was arrested with a
>bag of about $5000 in cash.  She claimed the police couldn't
>confisticate it because it wasn't drug money, it was what was left of
>a lump-sum $8000 check from Social Security.
>
>The police checked, and sure enough.  If you are an acoholic or a drug
>addict, Social Security classifies you as "disabled" and will support
>your drug habit to the tune of $625 dollars a month.
>

Hmmm, my mother is one of those "decrepit old people" you spoke about,
and she only receives a little over $400, and she worked almost 50
years of her life.  She should have stayed home and been an alkie
instead.

Leslie Evans
From: ddc1@jaguar.uofs.edu
Newsgroups: alt.activism
Subject: Re: States, Courts Clamor For Euthanasia Solution
Date: 12 Apr 92 09:09:51 GMT
Organization: University of Scranton

In article <1992Apr7.063705.521@cs.ucla.edu>, pierce@lanai.cs.ucla.edu (Brad Pierce) writes:
> For further information see:
> 
> Author:        King, Dennis.
> Title:         Lyndon LaRouche and the new American fascism / Dennis King. 1st
>                  ed. New York : Doubleday, 1989.
> Description:   xv, 415 p., [8] p. of plates : ill. ; 25 cm.

	To get this cheap write to:

	Edward R. Hamilton
	Bookseller
	Falls Village, CT 06031-5000

	Catalogue # 973262  Cost $3.95 (originally $19.95) S&H $3.00

	I'm a very satisfied ERH customer, he/they are a discount/discontinued
bookseller who deals in everything under the sun. Get on thier list.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dave D. Cawley		   |	Where a social revolution is pending and,
University Of Scranton	   |	for whatever reason, is not accomplished,
ddc1@jaguar.uofs.edu	   |	reaction is the alternative.
ddc1@SCRANTON		   |				-Daniel De Leon
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Newsgroups: alt.activism,misc.legal
From:  wrf@ecse.rpi.edu (Wm Randolph Franklin)
Subject: Re: worse than mailing lists
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy NY
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 19:31:32 GMT


Concerning junk mail w/o an addressee, or addressed to occupant:

In some Canadian neighborhoods, the mailboxes are grouped together some
distance from the houses.  A few years ago, some people asked that trash
cans be placed there so they wouldn't have to carry the junk mail back
to their houses to throw it out.  Poste Canada Post refused since that
would offend their customers.  Not the people, but the junk mailers.
-- 
						   Wm. Randolph Franklin
Internet: wrf@ecse.rpi.edu                     Bitnet: Wrfrankl@Rpitsmts
Telephone: (518) 276-6077;  Telex: 6716050 RPI TROU; Fax: (518) 276-6261
Paper: ECSE Dept., 6026 JEC, Rensselaer Polytechnic Inst, Troy NY, 12180
Newsgroups: alt.activism
Subject: Re: Help stop the KKK
From: ivler@mdcbbs.com (J.M. Ivler    ivler@mdcbbs.com)
Date: 14 Apr 92 07:39:42 GMT
Organization: M&E (Division of EDS), Cypress CA
Nntp-Posting-User: sam

Okay, let's see if I understand this "discussion".

1) One bunch of netters want to put together a group to go to the KKK rally 
   and shout it down. 

2) Another group wants to go to the rally and let them speak without shouting 
   them down (something about freedom of speech)

3) Yet another group doesn't think either of the two

4) A very small minority want to go to building tops near the rally and take 
   care of the problem with high powered rifles equipted with scopes.

Thowing out the minority opinions stated in 3 and 4, we have two groups that 
have basically the same agenda, with the exception being this "constitutional 
right" to let the KKK speak without being shouted down.

Here is the problem in group 2's thought process. The constitution forbids the 
government from stopping you in your right to freely and openly speak out. It 
says nothing at all about "other people" shouting you down. In this case, group 
1 can, and is perfectly within their constitutional rights, to have larger 
megaphones, a better sound system or whatever they want, and they can use it to 
drown out whomever they want, wether it be the KKK or George Bush.

The constitution doesn't say a whole lot about what people can do to other 
people, it does say a whole lot about what the relationship is between the 
government and the people it governs. So, why doesn't the second group just 
join the first and shout these hatemongers down!

jmi
ivler@mdcbbs.com
From: rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold)
Newsgroups: alt.activism
Subject: Re: Celebrating National Meatout Day
Date: 6 Apr 92 17:44:15 GMT
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA

ac@apmaths.uwo.ca (alka chandna) writes:
>I'm amused at your use of the phrase "self important"; after all, you 
>would sanction the killing of other *sentient* beings for the mere taste 

Sentient?  Someone's eating FUZZIES?!?  Get Jack Holloway on the phone...
-- 
It may be that our role on this planet is not to worship God but to create him.
   -- Arthur C. Clarke
Newsgroups: alt.activism,misc.activism.progressive,alt.activism.d
From: gunter@uniwa.uwa.edu.au (Gunter Ahrendt)
Subject: A Collection of Amazing Facts!
Followup-To: alt.activism.d
Originator: rich@pencil.cs.missouri.edu
Organization: University of Western Australia
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 18:07:02 GMT

Newsgroups: bit.listserv.biosph-l
Reply-To:     Tom Gray <tgray@IGC.ORG>
Subject:      Short Population Facts

/* Written  8:18 am  Apr  3, 1992 by tgray in cdp:population */
/* ---------- "Short Population Facts" ---------- */
[from Co-op America Quarterly, Spring, 1992]

MEAT FACTS

Human population of USA:  242,000,000

Number of human beings who could be fed by the grain and soybeans
eaten by U.S. livestock:  1,300,000,000

Percentage of protein wasted by cycling grain through livestock:  90

Pounds of grain and soybeans needed to produce 1 pound of feedlot
beef:  16

Number of children who starve to death every day:  40,000

Number of pure vegetarians who can be fed by the grain needed to
feed 1 meat-eating person:  20

Number of people who will starve to death this year:  60,000,000

Number of people who could be fed by the grain saved if Americans
reduced their intake of meat by 10%:  60,000,000

Risk of death from heart attack, average American man:  50%

Risk of death from heart attack, pure vegetarian American man:  4%

Pesticide residues in U.S. diet supplied by meat:  35%

Pesticide residues in U.S. diet supplied by dairy products:  23%

Pesticide residues in U.S. diet supplied by vegetables, fruits,
and grains:  11%

Percentage of tropical rainforest deforestation directly linked
with livestock raising:  More than 50%

Amount of forest lost for every hamburger produced from livestock
raised on what was Central America forest:  55 sq-ft (size of a
small kitchen)

For every pound of steak the amount of carbon released into the
environment has the same greenhouse warming effect as:  Driving
25 miles in a typical American car

Sources:  "Vegetarian Times", 4/90; _Diet for a New America_,
1987; "World Watch", 4-5/91.

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

Co-op America is a member-controlled and worker-managed nonprofit
organization promoting a sustainable economy and educating consumers
and businesses on how to align buying and investing habits with values
of peace, cooperation, and environmental protection.  By using our
collective buying power, we can begin to change the American economic
system to one that is just and sustainable.

Individual membership is open to all concerned people and is $20 per
year.  Businesses and organizations are welcome to apply for
membership ($60/year), pending screening for social responsibility
criteria.

Co-op America, 2100 M Street, NW, Suite 403, Washington, DC 20003,
(800) 424-2667 or (202) 872-5307
From: karna@pobox.upenn.edu (Animesh Karna)
Newsgroups: alt.activism
Subject: "Springtime for Hitler"
Date: 9 Apr 92 01:08:37 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

Okay, folks from B-CPU . . . I'm just curious . . . what did you think of
the Mel Brooks movie "The Producers", esp. the ending when they showed 
scenes from the play "Springtime for Hitler"?

-- 
Is the P.C. movement really Neo-McArthyism?  Perhaps that's true,
but that's just as true about the Anti-P.C. movement!
---------- Animesh Karna wuz here! --------------
Newsgroups: alt.activism
From: pds@analog.ingr.com (Peter Schachte)
Subject: Re: INFO: US-Made Pollution Killing Mexican Infants
Organization: DAZIX, San Ramon, CA
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 20:34:33 GMT

In article <1992Apr04.211839.4419@anomaly.sbs.com>, mpd@anomaly.sbs.com (Michael P. Deignan) writes:

[About wage levels]

> A free-market system will determine the price, if left alone. Unfortunately,
> labor unions, using a principle similar to that of oil cartels, unnaturally
> manipulates the price, resulting in a higher-priced car to the American
> public. As a result, the Japanese step in and capture some of the market
> with lower-priced automobiles.

Equally unfortunately, large corporations that employ a large proportion
of local populations (e.g., GM), may set an unnaturally low wage, and workers
will have little choice but to accept it.  This results in higher profits
for the stockholders, but not necessarily lower prices for the product.

Unions are needed to equalize the power of management.

The problem isn't the existance of unions, it's the inability of unions and
companies to work together toward the common purpose of producing the
highest quality product as cheaply as possible, while providing job
security and a high quality of life for workers.

If US workers are paid too much, US top management is paid WAY, WAY too much.

-- 
-Peter Schachte
pschachte@analog.ingr.com
Xref: sparky alt.activism:7490 alt.censorship:3224 alt.conspiracy:6224 talk.politics.misc:17658
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Subject: Re: Larry Agran IS *NOT* being denied "free speech"
Date: 14 Apr 92 15:26:26 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

fyl@fylz.wa.com (Phil Hughes) writes:

>In article <1992Apr12.210003.21826@anomaly.sbs.com> mpd@anomaly.sbs.com (Michael P. Deignan) writes:

>>USENET is hardly "uncensored". You don't see many people posting globs
>>of informational messages from the Buchanan or Bush campaigns. 

>That's because people for Buchanan don't know how to write and Bush's
>record as "the education president" shows that he doesn't want his
>supporters to learn to read.

And Agran's people don't know how to add.  If they did, they'd see that the
budget deficit would increase dramatically under his plan...

>>If you depend solely on TV, radio, or mainstream newspapers, then that
>>is *your* ignorance. You think that the state now has some responsibility
>>to force people to be aware of every candidate's platform. What next?

>How about a requirement that the mass media that makes money off of
>"my" airwaves (radio and TV stations) be required to make a certain
>amount of time available each day for each candidate to present his
>case. People wouldn't have to watch it/listen to it, but the
>information would be available on an equal basis.

Oh goody.  All 117 candidates for President get free airtime.  Does that
include Lyndon LaRouche?  From Federal Prison?  Or does he get a furlough?
For that matter, if this were the case, I'll run for President just so I
can shoot my mouth off on National TV instead of just the Net!

 -Steve
--
 The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                        -------------------
     adams@spss.com                           Phone: (312) 329-3522
     Steve Adams                              Fax:   (312) 329-3558
Newsgroups: alt.activism,alt.censorship,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.mideast
From: dwr34397@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (37000)
Subject: Re: More answers on Holocaust (G. Martin)
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 02:13:07 GMT

gmartin@b-cpu.UUCP (George Martin) writes:
> 
>In a recent post, you said that Prof. Chomsky of MIT agrees and
>supports a lot of what you say. NAZI LIARS. All Chomsky did was protect
>your right for free speech. I had an e-mail exchange with him
>on this matter. He does not deny any of the Holocaust facts, such
>as the gas chambers etc.
> 
>??????????????????????????????????????????????
>?I didn't quote Prof. Bauer, and I didn't say that Prof. Chomsky
>?positively agreed with what we say.  About 1 year or more ago, I said
>?that Chomsky signed with others supporting the right of Prof.
>?Faurisson to say what he wanted. And that this IMPLIED agreement with
>?what Faurisson said.  I think you are getting me mixed up with someone
>?else.  Just like you get your ideas of the Holocaust mixed up.
>?Now who is the LIAR?
>????????????????????????????????????????????????

	I don't know about the Prof. Bauer quotation, but your logic is
entirely wrong.  The fact that Prof. Chomsky defend Faurisson's right to
speak does not imply anything of the sort.  For instance, I support his
right to speak whatever he wants, but I do not believe a single word of what
he says.

	I still think you're the liar here, George.

> 
>?????????????????????????????????????????????????????
>?First of all, this information is sweeping Germany like wildfire.
>?Another thing is that how much credence would you disbelievers out
>?there give to something Germany said?  I can hear it now, "What else
>?would you expect them to say?"  I might eventually come from there
>?after all.  Stranger things have happened.
>????????????????????????????????????????????????????

	I've heard that neo-Nazism is sweeping Germany also, any connection?

					DAVE!!!
					suicide@uiuc.edu

Newsgroups: alt.activism,talk.politics.misc,misc.legal
From: sgrenander@nasamail.jpl.nasa.gov (Sven Grenander)
Subject: Re: Justice Thomas (was Socialism Security Rides
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 23:05:23 GMT

In article <11368@borg.cs.unc.edu>, bell@tigger.cs.unc.edu (Andrew Bell) writes:
> 
> >In article <1992Apr9.141507.1@hamp.hampshire.edu> jyanowitz@hamp.hampshire.edu writes:
> >>BTW, I don't like Thomas, and I think it's a disgrace that
> >>he (along with 7 others) upheld beatings of prisoners in jail, along
> >>with other heinous decisions.

He and Scalia were the only supporters of prisoner beatings.

> 
..
> condoned or even encouraged the beatings,  why should this matter?  If
> I shoot someone while working as a toll collector,  the state shouldn't
> be liable,  I should.  In the same vein,  in this case the beaters should
> be the ones liable for damages,  since they were acting outside the
> parameters of their job description.
> 

Your analogy is incomplete and misleading. You (the toll collector) used equipment
furnished by the state to restrain the motorist, equipment which has no other
purpose than restraining motorists in a defenceless position, against
their will. Furthermore, the motorist was placed on the freeway, against his will, 
with no chance of escape, at your mercy, by the state. Finally, you were hired
by the state to fill the position which would endanger motorists in general if
toll collector applicants were not properly screened and supervised by the state.

Thus the state placed the motorist in the position of danger. The state, and no
one else bears ultimate responsibility for ensuring the safety of any and all
motorists which it forces to use its freeways, against their will, at the mercy of
you and other sociopathic Toll Collectors. 

> Thomas and Scalia chose the right side but for the wrong reason,  from what

Read "Right", not Correct.

> I've heard on NPR and other reports.  The gist of their view,  I'm given
> to understand,  is that the beatings were not severe enough to be cruel
> and unusual punishment.  Hmm...
> 

I have also seen a number of excuses for Thomas' and Scalia's stand. This is yet
another which can result in nothing but incredulity and bewilderment on the
part of the reader. I prefer the one which says that the court should not have
heard this case in the first place, so therefore when we (T&S) vote against the 
prisoner we (T&S) are really voting against the court's decision to hear the case. 
Maybe many non-explanations will add up to one credible excuse ?

> Does anyone have any further (and I hope contradictory,  since these guys
> are going to be making important decisions for a long time to come)
> information about this case and the opinions?
> 
>    -Andrew Bell
> bell@cs.unc.edu
> 
> 

-Sven
Newsgroups: alt.activism,alt.individualism,talk.politics.misc,misc.legal
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Help stop the KKK
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 22:25:34 GMT

In article <1992Apr11.060353.101732@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:

[...]
>The Klan, like everyone else, has a right to free speech.  They
>do not have a right to be heard.  

The freedom speech and freedom to listen are to sides of the same
coin. If you reject one, you reject the other.

>The counter-protestors also have a right to free speech.  If,
>by exercising their right, they drown out the speech of the
>Klan, so be it.
[...]

All counter-protestors (not just "the good guys") have a legal right
to speak. No counter-protestors (not even the "good guys") have a
moral right substantially disrupt.

schectr@ucunix.san.uc.edu (ROBB SCHECTER) writes:
[...]
>I agree.  Freedom of speech has to do with a group's interaction with
>   the Federal Government (and states through the due process clause). 
[...]

I could not disagree more.

Freedom of speech is more than just a constitutional amendment that
restricts some government actions; support for freedom of speech is a
moral commitment to the truth.

Freedom of speech is the mechinism through which truth outcompetes
falsehood in a free market of ideas. It is through freedom of speech
(and the freedom to listen) that truth is discovered, reenforcement,
and defended. Although it may be legal to stop people for listening to
"the bad guys", it is neither necessary nor moral. By implying a
necessarily to suppress rather than compete you imply that that the
KKK might have a winning argument, a conclusion I reject. By saying
that it is moral for one group to suppress the speech of another you
set a precedent for suppression that will be used against each of us.

- Carl
Xref: sparky alt.activism:7255 alt.news-media:157