HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: merlyn@digibd.com (Merlyn LeRoy)
Subject: Re: U.S. Bill of Rights today
Organization: DigiBoard Incorporated, Eden Prairie, MN
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 17:58:09 GMT

symanzik@egr.msu.edu (PUT YOUR NAME HERE) writes:
>In article <1992Sep11.154055.30629@m.cs.uiuc.edu> kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:

>> and the only mention on religion is the ban on religious tests.

>Of course we all know the First Amendment.  But it's not part of the 
>original Constitution you say?

You don't know the constitution.  The ban on religious tests isn't part of
the first amendment, or anywhere in the bill of rights; it's in Article VI.

>> Moreover, while many of the founders were Christian, others were not.
>> Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, and Thomas Paine, for example,
>> were deists who believed that formal religion was superfluous.
>> Jefferson rewrote the New Testament removing all references to the
>> divinity of Jesus.

>I wasn't aware of that last point.  He must have been a very religious
>man to spend so much time reading and rewriting the Bible, don't
>you agree?

No; why would he rewrite the Bible to remove the miracles?

>Benjamin Franklin was a representative from Pennsylvania.  Here is 
>a requirement from that state:

>    Frame of Government, Section 10.  And each member, before he takes
>    his seat, shall make and subscribe the following declaration, viz:
>    "I do believe in one God, the Creator and Governour of the universe,
>    the rewarder of the good and the punisher of the wicked, and I do
>    acknowledge the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be
>    given by Divine Inspiration."

>Not the oath of an atheist, is it?

Not constitutional, either.  Besides, Carl clearly said Franklin was a *Deist*,
not atheist.  You don't seem to make any distinction between the two terms.

>This is a Christian nation founded by Christians.

No, it is a nation which guarantees freedom of religion, prohibits the
government from establishing a state religion, and prohibits any kind of
religious test for federal offices.

It is a nation founded by people, not all of whom were Christians.

>They could not have
>intended to supress Christianity.

They didn't; but neither did they intend for Christianity to have any kind
of special legal status.  No religion is given special treatment by the
constitution, and doing this is expressly forbidden by the constitution.

>> When the First Amendment was enacted _no_ state had an established
>> state church or supported one religion over another.

>Until 1786 the Church of England was Virginia's only legal church.
>Jefferson wrote the "Virginia Bill for Religious Liberty" to give other
>denominations equal recognition.  This is also what the First Amendment 
>was written to prevent, that one denomination be given preferential
>treatment.

Thank you for admitting, finally, that this is not a Christian nation,
as Christianity is not given preferential treatment, as you say.

---
Merlyn LeRoy
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Subject: Re: U.S. Bill of Rights today 
Reply-To: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 11:58:42 GMT

In article <1992Sep10.191834.14992@tamsun.tamu.edu>, rdubbs@cs (Roger B. Dubbs III) writes:
>I am not keeping quiet.  I am not accepting censorship.  I am attempting
>to come up with a Constitutional proposal to replace existing
>non-constitutional law.  If my proposals fail, I am sorry.  Please post
>a counter-proposal to deal with the same problem.  If you feel there is
>no problem, please tell why you believe that. (Though possibly the
>discussion should be moved to another group or e-mail.)

You were talking about constitutional ways to criminalize taking
pictures of naked children.  I said and still say I don't see any
reason to criminalize taking pictures of naked children, and see no
problem with people taking pictures of naked children any more than I
see a problem with people taking pictures of clothed children.  To be
frank, the idea of criminalizing taking such pictures seems insane and
absurd to me.

>>>My basic point is that justice can be done without
>>>violating the Constitution.
>>
>>Why do you then propose several alternatives which violate the
>>Constitution?
>
>Because I didn't think my proposals all the way through. 8)  Would you
>like to help improve them?

Perhaps - but not with this example, as I don't see any reason to
criminalize it at all, and besides think that people have a right to
take pictures of children no matter clothed or not, so all laws
criminalizing such would be unconstitutional.  But we could discuss
how to criminalize for example driving under influence of
incapacitating drugs within the bounds of the U.S. Constitution
(and/or without violating individual rights).

//Jyrki
Xref: sparky alt.society.civil-liberty:5836 alt.politics.usa.constitution:164
From: symanzik@egr.msu.edu (PUT YOUR NAME HERE)
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution
Subject: Re: U.S. Bill of Rights today
Date: 14 Sep 92 12:45:10 GMT
Reply-To: symanzik@egr.msu.edu (PUT YOUR NAME HERE)
Organization: Michigan State University
Originator: symanzik@frith.egr.msu.edu

In article <1992Sep13.062144.23068@qiclab.scn.rain.com> 70465.203@compuserve.com writes:
>symanzik@egr.msu.edu (Ed Symanzik) writes:
>
>This is a lovely bit of rhetoric. It also has *very* little to do with 
>fact. Polygamy is legal in a *lot* of civilized countries.

But this has nothing to do with my quote.  "Bigamy and polygamy are crimes
by the laws of all CIVILIZED AND CHRISTIAN countries."  The point is not 
only that bigamy is a crime but also that this is a Christian country.
Of course the Court would never [for the first 150 years of the Constitution]
have compared the U.S. with a non-Christian country.

>[lomg string of quotes suggesting that the US is based on Christianity
>deleted]

[long string of quotes suggesting otherwise but without references deleted]

Would you care to share your souces with us so we can check your work
and the context?

--
Ed Symanzik
Michigan State University
symanzik@egr.msu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.politics.libertarian
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: U.S. Bill of Rights today (was alt.activism et al: Who's free'er)
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 16:03:47 GMT

In article <1992Sep13.202203.642@nntp.hut.fi> jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala) writes:
>For example I'm not sure if I think property rights should
>extend to inheritance,

There's no way to keep them from extending to inheritance.  Parents
and grandparents will make sure that their children are taken care of.
They do the transfers before death when the obstacles to post-death
transfers are too high.  (In fact, most of the interesting transfers
already happen before death.)  The only way to stop that is to keep
them from knowing who their children are.

> and I do think property rights shouldn't be
>anywhere near absolute with regards to land, air or such, to the point
>where "property" would be a bad concept to use for it.

I note that collective owners don't take care of land, air, and so on.
Individual owners, even corps, do.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: rbp@netcom.com (Bob Pasker)
Subject: Re: U.S. Bill of Rights today 
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 92 15:15:34 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala) writes:


>>Sorry to ramble, but I didn't want anyone to think I condone child
>>pornography. 8)

>It seems to me that's what this is all about.  People don't want
>anyone to think they condone drug use, so they keep silent even though
>the War on Constitution is harming them.  People don't want anyone to
>think they condone child pornography so they are willing to accept
>censorship and other violations of their rights.  People don't want
>anyone to think they condone crime, so they let Big Brother listen to
>their phones.  And so on.

you miss the point then.  under the enlightenment ideal of government,
the people give up certain rights to the gov't as a means of bringing
order to society.  [i'm not saying i agree with this, i'm just pointing
out the historical basis for what "people's" motivation might be in 
accepting these infringements.]


-- 
--- bob pasker
---- rbp@netcom.com
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: gordon@sneaky.lonestar.org (Gordon Burditt)
Subject: Re: U.S. Bill of Rights today 
Organization: Gordon Burditt
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 21:00:04 GMT

>>>	Free Speech: Censorship of adult materials.
>>     * note *  Crimes against children, including child porn are not
>>	covered under freedom of speech.
>
>Crimes against children are certainly not included in freedom of speech.

But is child porn a crime against children if the creation of
the porn does not involve actual children in any way?  (Possibilities
include using adults and using high-tech editing to make them
look younger, use of cartoons (don't tell me that cartoon child 
porn harms actual cartoon children!), or other high-tech methods
of creating images of children from scratch.  These may not be
cost-effective yet, but they will be).  SHOULD making child porn 
without the use of children be criminal?  Why or why not?

						Gordon L. Burditt
						sneaky.lonestar.org!gordon
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: smp@gtech.com (Sergio M. Pedro)
Subject: Re: U.S. Bill of Rights today (was alt.activism et al: Who's free'er)
Organization: GTECH Corporation, West Greenwich, RI
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 18:59:33 GMT

In article <1992Sep9.032310.18048@nntp.hut.fi> jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala) writes:
>[followups directed to alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution]
>
>
>		AMENDMENT I:
>	Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
>or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
>speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble,
>and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
>
>		REALITY I:
>	Polygamy in the Mormon faith: Banned.
 
	*note* drugs are illegal.

>	Peyote use among the Native Americans: Banned.

         *note* murder (see human sacrafice) is illegal

>	Satanic worship: Subjects the participants to potential sanctions
>			 by the child protective services even if no laws
>			 are violated.

        *note* try reading the above amendment again.  The statement is
	that the government shall not prohibit religion not, that there shall be
	no religious influence.  Regardless of what you might believe 
        people _always_ take their belief system with them.  Also, if the 
	Amendment is read as written, it would also prohibit the government
	from saying that certain religious principles cannot spoken of in
	government buildings.  Bottom line, the Amendment stipulates that
	the government won't establish, prohibit or interfere (sp?) with
	religion - not the other way around.

>	Religious influence on political structures: See the Republican
>			 			     Platform.

        * ok * I'll agree somewhat with your statement here.  The USA is
	not "technically" (sp?- sorry) a "Christian" nation.  It is however,
	a nation who's many foundations are in the Judeo-Christian theology.

>	Establishment: Statement by the President (who is sworn to uphold
>		       the Constitution) that atheists aren't citizens or
>		       patriots; this is a Christian nation.


        * note *  Crimes against children, including child porn are not
	covered under freedom of speech.

>	Free Speech: Censorship of adult materials.


When I get the chance I'll discuss the other points.  Thanks for taking
time to formulate a well spoken opinion.   

Phillip (someday I will have my own account!!) Zannini
				^^^


Xref: sparky alt.society.civil-liberty:5759 misc.legal:17073 alt.politics.elections:12860
From: cote@cs.ucsd.edu (Brad Cote)
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,misc.legal,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: [UPI] ACLU awaits voters' decision
Date: 11 Sep 92 17:52:44 GMT
Followup-To: alt.society.civil-liberty

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

>	Strossen, a professor at New York Law School, acknowledged the ACLU's
>approximately 300,000 members face a tough fight since polls indicate
>many Americans support civil liberties more in theory than in fact,
>since they would ban censorship as well as ``dirty books'' alike.
>	Strossen accused the Supreme Court of the same sort of schism, saying
>the court pats reproductive choice, religious freedom and other rights
>on the head while tightening the leash.
>--
>Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

I'm still waiting for an ACLU member (or anyone) to explain to me why
the ACLU does include the 2nd Amendment as one of the constitutional
rights for which they fight.

				Brad Cote'
				University of California, San Diego
				STARE Project

Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.drugs,talk.politics.drugs
From: nomad@castle.org (Lee Damon)
Subject: Re: U.S. Bill of Rights today
Organization: The Castle, not-yet-Public Access Un*x Systems; Peekskill, NY
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 04:30:19 GMT

In article <1992Sep14.045939.19211@leela.cs.orst.edu> hollowr@atlantis.CS.ORST.EDU (R. Holloway) writes:
>In article <1992Sep12.102109.29897@tfs.com> ecsd@tfs.com (Eric C. S. Dynamic) writes:
>>My bet is we would
>>be far more sexual and far more psychologically healthy. 
>
>I doubt very much this premise.  Talk to the survivors of childhood sexual
>acts with adults (incest or whatever) & you'll find that this is not as healthy
>as you assume.

I have to wonder how much of that is because of society telling the child that
what s/he did was evil/wrong/nasty. Conditioning can play a very important
roll.

How many kids grow up screwed up because their parents caught them 
masturbating and glew off the handle? I know of several.

It is, as it were, a chicken/egg problem. 

nomad
-- 
play: castle!nomad or nomad@castle.org                                 \
work: nomad@watson.ibm.com                  - Lee "nomad" Damon -       \
Seneschal; The Castle, Public Access Un*x Systems.                     / \
  - Unashamed -                                                       /   \
Xref: sparky alt.society.civil-liberty:5844 alt.politics.usa.constitution:170 alt.politics.libertarian:78
From: buffalo@wam.umd.edu (Duncan D. Sterling)
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Request for the "Libertarian Manifesto", or it's equivalent
Date: 14 Sep 92 17:08:58 GMT
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park

I would be interested to see a list of the basic tenets of Libertarianism, and
the party's current platform--or, just the FAQ list if it's available.

Thanks,

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Duncan Sterling  buffalo@wam.umd.edu   GT750L, KH500A8, CA175K3, GL1100 I
University of Maryland    "Yeeehaaa!" - Slim Pickens in "Dr. Strangelove"   
College Park, Md.            "2 strokes do it twice as fast" - anonymous 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Duncan Sterling          buffalo@wam.umd.edu   GT750L, KH500A8, CA175K3
University of Maryland    "Yeeehaaa!" - Slim Pickens in "Dr. Strangelove"   
College Park, Md.         "2 strokes are quicker than 4" - anonymous 
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,uiuc.civil-liberty
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Chicago Tribune Editorial on ACLU lawsuits
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 16:12:51 GMT

The Friday, September 4th, 1992, Chicago Tribune editorializes on two
Illinois ACLU lawsuits.

The first suit, which the ACLU won in federal court, basically
resulted in the state being told that it must stop neglecting the
children that it's Department of Child and Family Services (DCFS) has
removed from their negligent families.

The second suit, which was just recently filed, ask that the state
stop neglecting the 3300 patients in state mental hospitals.

The editorial concludes: "All this [court action] is time-consuming and
expensive for the state, which spends money on protracted legal
wrangling that could be spend on schoolchildern, foster care and the
mentally ill. The problem doesn't rest with the ACLU, though. The
problem is that state government too frequently discovers courage and
ingenuity only with the rap of a gavel."

- Carl

--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty
From: kadie@dante.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: [UPI] ACLU awaits voters' decision
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 19:48:11 GMT

cote@cs.ucsd.edu (Brad Cote) writes:

[...]
>I'm still waiting for an ACLU member (or anyone) to explain to me why
>the ACLU does include the 2nd Amendment as one of the constitutional
>rights for which they fight.
[...]

Because 1) the ACLU is the American *Civil Liberties* Union, not the
American *Constitutional Rights* Union and 2) it doesn't (yet?)
consider gun rights part of civil liberties.

Point 1 is quite reasonable. It means that the ACLU would have opposed
slavery even when it was constitutional. Also that the ACLU would have
opposed flag desecration laws even if Bush's proposed amendment had
made such laws constitutional.

Point 2 is more controversial. Folks like Paul Hager (who you may see
on the net) are working on an official level to change it. (Paul is
working on a commitee of the Indiana CLU).

- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From: fvest@ducvax.auburn.edu
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty
Subject: Re: Who's free'er
Date: 10 Sep 92 04:08:05 GMT

exukjb@exu.ericsson.se (ken bell): 
 
>Yeah, take a look at the UN's Declaration on Human Rights to see a specific 
>application of exceptive clauses in the specification of rights as a matter 
>of policy -- "Such-and-such a right [freedom of speech, etc]", it reads, "
>shall not be abridged, UNLESS.." the government deems it necessary in 
>order to establish law, order, peace...". 

Perhaps you haven't read the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
lately, but this doesn't seem to equivocate to me:

>                            Article 19
>      Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression;
> this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference
> and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any
> media and regardless of frontiers.

-- 
Floyd Vest <fvest@ducvax.auburn.edu> <fvest@auducvax.bitnet>
Manager, Administrative Systems--Auburn University, Alabama USA
Voice: +1 205 844 4512  BBS: +1 205 745 3989  FIDO: 1:3613/3
Xref: sparky alt.society.civil-liberty:5835 alt.politics.usa.constitution:163
From: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Subject: Re: U.S. Bill of Rights today
Reply-To: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 02:27:08 GMT

In article <1992Sep11.235328.16586@tamsun.tamu.edu>, rdubbs@cs (Roger B. Dubbs III) writes:
>I had no intention of implying that nude depictions of children should
>be banned.  I was attempting to address the subject of child pornography.
>Unfortunately, I failed to give an adequate definition.
>
>>[Assumption made by R.Dubbs is that the intent is publication]
>>
>>Sexual acts against children should certainly be illegal.  If
>>photographs depict this they can be evidence about the crime, but they
>>are not criminal themselves.  A photographer who conspires to have
>>sexual acts against a child performed should be liable to conspiracy
>>charges on the sexual assault.  
>
>Also, I think that a publisher should be held liable if he published
>such works.  In my opinion, the publisher is guilty of encouraging the
>photographer, which should fit in as some sort of accomplice / conspiracy
>/ incitement charge.

Excuse me?  First you say that you don't think photographing nude
children should be banned. Then you say that publishing the pictures
should not be banned, but the publisher is guilty of encouraging the
photographer which should be criminalized.  What sense is there to
criminalize encouraging something when that something is not criminal
in the first place?  (I know it's not impossible - the Finnish law
does that, as encouraging someone to homosexuality is illegal while
homosexuality is not, I just fail to see the reasoning).

>>There should be no bans on photgraphs of nude people.  Kids are often
>>nude.  So are adults.  If one is in a situation with nude people it is
>>polite to ask them (or guardians of a kid) before taking a picture, but
>>there should be no law against it.  
>
>I have no argument with this.  

Could you then clarify why the publisher should be charged with something?

//Jyrki
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Subject: Re: Chicago Tribune on "Religious Freedom Restoration Act"
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 92 18:11:50 GMT
Organization: Starfleet Headquarters: San Francisco

kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) wrote (in article <1992Sep12.161706.16995@m.cs.uiuc.edu>):
>On Sept. 8, 1992, the Chicago Tribune editoralized:
>"[...] But any bright spots are blotted out by the _Smith_ decision, a
>sharp departure from the court's past soliciude for powerless
>religious minorities. By passing the religious freedom bill, Congress
>could do much to dispel that cloud."

I'll admit to not being really up on politics.  What's the "Religious
Freedom Restoration Act", what's the _Smith_ decision, and what
exactly does this snippet from the editorial mean?

     << Brian >>

-- 
_/_/_/       Brian Kendig  Macintosh Jedi           Live never to be ashamed
 _/_/   Starfleet Captain  Oracle Employee         if anything you do or say
  _/  Intrepid Adventurer  Saturn SL2 Owner    is published around the world
      bskendig@netcom.com  Wizard of Frobozz    -- even if what is published
    Princeton '92! BSE/CS  Writer/Actor/Singer                   is not true.
Xref: sparky alt.society.civil-liberty:5666 alt.privacy:1808 talk.politics.misc:43933 soc.culture.usa:7145
From: sybok@athena.mit.edu (The Rifleman)
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.privacy,talk.politics.misc,soc.culture.usa,news.admin.policy
Subject: Re: [comp.org.eff.talk] Latest FBI Wiretap Bill
Date: 6 Sep 92 01:20:46 GMT
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology

In article <1992Sep5.033156.10322@qiclab.scn.rain.com> 70465.203@compuserve.com writes:
>nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>
>> Frankly I don't have any idea what the laws on encryption are, and I'm not
>> sure I believe your dire predictions about lack of due process, and I think
>> its ridiculous for the NSA or anyone else to think that amateurs would
>> be familiar with such legal esoterica.   
>
>Ever hear the phrase "ignorance of the law is no excuse"? It quite literally
>DOES NOT MATTER that you don't know about the existence of a law. If you
>are found in violation of it, you are subject to to the full penalties if
>they choose to impose them. 

Well, while it's true that you're still screwed if you use the
defense, "I did act A, but I didn't know act A was illegal," you're safe
if you use the defense, "I didn't know I was doing act A!"  For example,
it's no defense to say you didn't know possessing drugs was illegal, but it
_is_ a defense to say that you didn't know you were in possession of drugs.
Xref: sparky alt.society.civil-liberty:5854 talk.religion.misc:16212 uiuc.civil-liberty:2