HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: chrisb@natinst.com (Chris Bartz)
Subject: Re: Hate Speech Okay, says the Supreme Court
Organization: National Instruments, Austin, TX
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 18:07:17 GMT

In article <1992Aug20.161412.27423@Princeton.EDU> egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:

[description of outward bound trip deleted]

>
>When Keith finished talking, I proposed that our little group enact its
>OWN "hate speech" law, in spite of the Supreme Court, and for the rest
>of the trip we all avoided both racist and sexist talking or joking.
>This imporved the already high-quality communication of our patrol and
>we were proud to climb a couple of very difficult passes and peaks.
>
>Nobody prized his "freedom of speech" to such an extent that he was
>willing to continue to harass Keith or to downgrade women in our
>(all-male) patrol.  I propose that UNLESS one's alienation is already
>pathological (eg., one views all government as necessarily alienated
>from one's own interests and desires), one will see that the freedom of
>our small community to enact an informal hate speech law is exactly
>parallel to the freedom of St. Paul MN to improve ITS climate by doing
>the same.

I see a couple differences between your "law" and the St. Paul law.

1) Did everyone agree to your "law"?  Did EVERYONE agree to the St. Paul
   law.

2) What was the punishment for breaking your "law"?  Did it involved
   jail or fines or just dirty looks from the other members.  What is the
   punishment for breaking the St. Paul law.

If St. Paul would have passed a resolution saying it thought hate-speech
was bad and that people shouldn't do it the supreme court wouldn't have
cared.  If EVERY resident of St. Paul agreed to obstain from hate-speech
and EVERYONE did so voluntarily the supreme court would not have cared.

Its the fact that there is punishment involved and that there is not
universal agreement as to what hate-speech is.  This is why the supreme
court got involved.

-- 
-chris bartz (chrisb@natinst.com)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: hhll@milton.u.washington.edu (Steven Hodas)
Subject: INSLAW (Very strange case)
Organization: University of Washington
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 04:10:11 GMT

Two nights ago on CNN there was a report of one of the strangest cases I'd
ever heard in the mainstream media. It concerned a software company called
INSLAW. It seems that a few years ago the Justice Department stole
a program of theirs that CNN described as being used for tracking criminal
cases. When INSLAW complained the Justice Department systematically drove
them out of business. A special investigation determined that Attorneys
General Meese and Thornburgh may have been guilty of obstruction of
justice in connection with this case. The report also pointed to the
involvement of the CIA and foreign intelligence agencies and the
mysterious death of a reporter trying to look into the case.
 
What is this? If anyone can provide details I'd be grateful.
 
Please follow up to alt.conspiracy
 
 
Steven
From: ts@cup.portal.com (Tim W Smith)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: How To Really Annoy People
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 92 23:23:10 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)

There was an amusing article in the Seattle Times a couple days ago.
Some person had some trouble with a bank or mortgage company.  She
said she paid off her house, and they said she didn't.  They took
the house (actually, both her houses).

She thinks that the courts have not treated her fairly, and got pissed
off at them.  She went and got forms for filing a lien and put liens on
the houses of the Judges that have dealt with her, the lawyers, and the
sheriff who threw her out.  It only costs $7 to put a lien on someone,
and requires no proof that there is a good reason for said lien!

The party that you lien on has to go to court to get it removed.  The Judge
who will deal with that has scheduled a hearing in a couple of weeks.
Meanwhile, the people who have been liened on are quite annoyed: one was
in the midst of selling, and I think others were in the midst of refinancing
or trying to get loans.

Wow!  $7 buys a lot of fun.

--Tim Smith
Xref: sparky misc.legal:16006 sci.econ:6818
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,sci.econ
Subject: Predatory Pricing
Date: 14 Aug 92 03:02:42 GMT
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

The standard Chicago School/Bork argument about anti-competitive predatory
pricing is that it simply doesn't happen -- a price-setter would lose so
much money that they could never hope to recover the losses with later
monopoly profits and, therefore, no corporation acting in its self-interest
would ever engage in a strategy of predatory pricing.  (The Supreme Court
adopts a weak form of this position in Matsushita v Zenith, 475 US 574
(1986).)

This argument is far from universally accepted, but the counter-arguments
I've seen seem weak -- I'm reading an article by Rapp in 59 Antitrust L J
595 (1991) where he gives two cases as proof that "Predatory pricing does
happen, however."  But, in one of these cases, Kelco v Browning-Ferris,
845 F2d 404 (2d Cir 1988), the predator corporation, though it used the
colorful language "We'll squish 'em like bugs," only succeeded in driving
itself out of business by charging below-cost rates (and then suffered the
further indignity of being cited for antitrust violations).  (Caveat: I
haven't yet looked up the other case cited by Rapp, D&S Redi-Mix v Sierra
Redi-Mix, 692 F2d 1245 (9th Cir 1982).)

So, what's the deal here?  Did Rapp unintentionally weaken his argument
by citing a case that supports Bork on closer inspection?  Or is this just
the best example anybody could come up with?  Are there any real predatory
pricing cases out there?  (I have the Burns paper on American Tobacco on
my reading list.)
-- 
             ......................................................
             ted frank | tfrank@uchicago.edu | standard disclaimers
             the university of chicago law skool, chicago, illinois
             you can't throw me to the lions -- i'm charlton heston
From: edwardk@cup.portal.com (edward chungfan kwok)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Advice on Career as Patent Attorney
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 92 13:10:10 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)

	I've been a patent attorney for three years, so may be I can help.


>What is the average starting salary for a patent attorney?
Varies from geographical area to geographical area, and from "art" to "art."
In the sf bay area where I am, last year's starting salary is believed to be 
around $70K.

>Is coming from a prestigious law school of major importance?
As almost always in the business of law, yes.

>Do you need to go to a law school which has extensive coursework
>	in patent law?
No.
>Do you even need to take any courses in patent law, or is it a 
>	profession that is picked up more on the job?
Compound question.  No, there is no apparent advantage taking a class
in law school.  As with all areas of law, the real learning starts
on your first day at work.
>Where and how do you get your first job?  That is, are there
>	firms that hire graduates as patent attorneys, or are you
>	on your own in terms of learning the trade and establishing
>	your own business.
Patent firms, like other law firms, hire from law school. You can even 
clerk for them during the summer.  In fact, because the U.S. Patent 
Office does not require a license to practice law to represent clients
before it, many people become patent agents while attending law school 
and finance law school that way.  Essentially starting a limited practice
from first year law school.  If you can handle law school and working at the
same time, check out the local firms, you'll probably find some from looking
through a legal directory call the Martindale-Hubble.

>What is the job outlook for patent attorneys? Good? Bad?
>Is the profession extremely competitive? i.e., do a few patent 
>	attorneys make it big while a lot of others wipe out?
Prospect for the profession looks good at least in the immediate 
future. My record day so far is 4 calls from legal recruiters.
As with all areas of lawthere is no gurantee.  All depends on 
the U.S.Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals (Federal Circuit), and 
Congress.  One slight change in the law can mean much change in 
the legal practice. Don't take anything for granted.
>
>Re: Quality of Life
>How many hours is a typical work week?
My boss says you have 168 hours a week, you sleep 56 of them, commutes
15 hours, eat 14 hours, the rest are billable.  I won't go as far,
I work about 10 hours a day on the average.  Bill about 7-8.
Works 2 saturdays a month. Approximately.

>For any readers who are actually patent attorneys (especially with
>	engineering backgrounds), do you enjoy your work? 
>	or perhaps more pertinent, if you had it to do over, 
>	would you still have become a patent attorney 
>	or would you have stuck with engineering?
As a patent attorney, you are also an engineer.  There is not an 
either/or there.
Xref: sparky misc.legal:15992 alt.society.civil-liberty:5539
From: fsars@acad3.alaska.edu (Allen R Sparks)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.society.civil-liberty
Subject: Re: allowable graduation requirements
Date: 13 Aug 92 19:22:00 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Alaska Fairbanks

In article <kaufman.713635554@Xenon.Stanford.EDU>, kaufman@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Marc T. Kaufman) writes:
>                                      I suspect the legal definition of
> "involuntary servitude" carries with it the connotation of a much stronger
> master-apprentice type of indenture, which has the apprentice bound to serve
> the master for (his) personal gain.  It was not uncommon in the 17th and 18th
> centuries for children to be bound to a trade by their parents.

The difference between requiring an education versus involuntary
servitude, which morally, not Constitutionally, but morally, includes
jury duty and and the draft, is that no labor is required of the
students for the gain of the school or its employees, or anyone else
but the student, without the consent of the student.

If a student, taking Auto Mechanics, is required to fix the
principal's car, then that is involuntary servitude, but then only if
Auto Mechanics is a required course (it's an elective in most HS's). 
This is assuming that the student is required to go to school, which
in all states (s)he is under a certain age.

If you are taking Algebra, you have to do some kind of labor, like
study, and do homework.  But what direct benefit does the instructor
or school get by accepting and grading that homework?

When one takes a Physical Education class, students are required to
play games such as football (which being non-varsity probably means
flag football), baseball, and wrestling.  But there is no public
admission to these games, so the school is not making money off of
these events.  They do off of some varsity sports, but all varsity
sports are voluntary.

You can argue that what the students are doing is involuntary.  I
agree.  You can even argue that it's immoral, many libertarians do. 
But the students I am talking about, the one's in the Algebra class,
and the Physical Education class are not providing a SERVICE.  Quite
the opposite, a service is being provided them.  I agree that what's
being provided HAS to be accepted by them under the law, making, from
the student's viewpoint, an involuntary situation.

But it is not involuntary servitude, until the student is required to
provide a SERVICE to someone for their gain, whether we are talking
about the homeless, or a disabled senior citizen, or the principal of
the school.  === Al Sparks

p.s. Before I get flamed, I'll add that it's still wrong to require a
student to fix the principal's car, whether the course is elective or
not. === Al
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Hate Speech Okay, says the Supreme Court
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 16:23:06 GMT

"en>" is egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges)
"cmk> is kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)

cmk>Your love-it-or-leave-it stance can be turned around. Free speech is
cmk>guaranteed in the charter of U.S. (a large community). If you don't
cmk>like it, leave.

en>This just means that you accept that even so large an arganization as
en>the US is indeed (partially) voluntary, that the original distinction
en>between voluntary and involuntary association, critical though it may be
en>to the libertarian critique of law, is bogus.  I'm obliged to you for
en>this confession of incoherence.

As a matter of fact, I don't accept the "love-the-government-or-leave-it"
argument. I was just demonstrating that it doesn't support your argument.

So how about it? How can you hold that St. Paul city ordinance should
be binding while a U.S. constitutional amendment should not?


cmk>As for the argument that a unit of U.S. government should be able to
cmk>make any rule that a private organization can make, do you really
cmk>believe this? Many private organizations ban blacks, gays, Jews,
cmk>atheists, women, etc. Should a city thus be able to ban, say, blacks?
cmk>After all if some city residents don't like it, they can move.

en>Uh, it happens to be illegal in many cases, and immoral in all cases,
en>for those "private" organizations to ban the groups you mention.

As for legality:

Many religious groups exclude nonmembers, it is legal. The Boy Scouts
of Americas exclude gays and atheists, it is legal (at least in most
states). Many country clubs exclude women, and KKK excludes blacks, it
is legal, etc. etc.)

Moreoever, by your reasoning why shouldn't it be legal? You say that
if a group wants to impose restrictions on its members it should be
able to.

As for morality:

You think groups should only be allowed to impose *moral*
restrictions. Who is to decide what is moral and what is immoral?  You
can't let it be the group; many already choose immoral restrictions.
It can't be the authorities (by your reasoning) since they are just
agents of another group. It can't be me because I think speech
restrictions covering whole cities are immoral. I guess it has to be
you. No thanks.

[...]
en>The First Amendment is important,
en>but rights are for specific people; specific people (including Keith
en>Ware) should not be sacrificed on the altar of formal "rights."

The freedom of expression is an important individual right. It is
valuable for its own sake as part of being free. It is valuable as a
tool for moving toward are reinforcing truth. It is valuble a part of
self-government.

Bad speech should be out competed, not outlawed.

- Carl


--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From: donrm@hpnmdla.sr.hp.com (Don Montgomery)
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 17:01:09 GMT
Subject: Re: Graffiti Ordnance
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Santa Rosa, CA
Newsgroups: misc.legal

In misc.legal, foy@aero.org (Richard Foy) writes:

>     My city is planning an ordnance that would require property owners to
>     remove graffiti from their property within 24 hours. Penalties for not
                              [ text deleted]

Does this also pertain to private property, like a residence?  I can see it
now; some neighborhood kids don't like the old couple at the end of the block,
so they decorate their fence/house/whatever.  Should grandma and grandpa 
spend time in jail for this?

>     What do others think of this ordnance?

I think it sucks bigtime.  

...HP could care less about my opinions...
Don Montgomery, Santa Rosa, CA
donrm@hpnmdla.sr.hp.com
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: "hilary miller" <hilary.miller@execnet.com>
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: rights of exempt empl
Date: 22 Aug 92 07:18:05 EST
Reply-To: "hilary miller" <hilary.miller@execnet.com>
Distribution: misc
Organization: Executive Networks Information


Sh240031, in a message to All on 08-21-92 at 6:26pm, said:

S1>What, if any, law(s) protect indivduals form employer abuse of exepmt
S1>(salaried) employee's?  Is there a limit to how many hours per week
S1>one can be required to put in?  What sort of compensation is due for continual
S1>extended work weeks?

               "Exempt" employees are exempt from the provisions
               of the Fair Labor Standards Act.  That's why
               they're called "exempt."  Have another cup of cof-
               fee and get back to work.


   L A
 I    R        Hilary B. Miller of Greenwich, Connecticut
  H/\Y         CIS: 76040,1743
    
---
  DeLuxe 1.25 #11645  Old bankers never die; they just lose interest.
--
Executive Network Information System  (914) 667-4567
International ILink Host
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.censorship
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Hate Speech Okay, says the Supreme Court
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1992 14:07:49 GMT

In article <1992Aug22.031724.6759@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:

>Free speech rights belong to everyone. They are more important to
>outgroups than to ingroups.

egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:

>Izzatso?  I respectfully submit that allowing black youths to listen to
>Ice-T benefits them far less than giving them and their families a
>decent shot at education, health care, housing, etc.

Perhaps, but letting everyone listen to Martin Luther King was very
important. Many cities tried to shut him up by denying him parade
permits. I have no doubt that the St. Paul law would have been used
against Malcolm X if he was alive.

[...]
>Of course, Carl, it is hardly enough to enact a hate speech law and then
>sit back; if conservatives are in power they will, as you appear to
>believe, use such a law against minorities.
[...]

I don't think it is safe to enact speech restriction until the
outgroups are in power. But then, of course, speech restrictions are
not necessary.

- Carl

--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges)
Subject: Re: Hate Speech Okay, says the Supreme Court
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 02:02:17 GMT

In article <1992Aug21.170302.21193@natinst.com> chrisb@natinst.com (Chris Bartz) writes:
>>
>
>I don't think that I said "...only allow as laws those laws for which
>the people vote unanimously."  I asked a question, which I notice you
>did not answer.

Your view, that if a significant minority disagrees with a law it's a
bad law, is directly implied by what you posted.  I know that it's a
silly view and you are of course free to retract it.
>
>You claimed that your law made your group work together better and made
>the experience better for everyone.  You then claim that the St. Paul
>law would have a similar effect if the supreme court would not have
>got involved.  I was pointing out differences between your group and St.
>Paul which might explain why it worked fine for your group but would not
>work fine for St. Paul.
>
>What would have happened if one or more people in your group refused to
>go along with your "law" but were forced to by the threat of being left
>on a moutain or having to do 20 pushups or whatever other effective
>punishment you came up with.  Would your "law" have made the expierence
>better or worse.  Would you have been able to make more climbs or fewer.
>The fact that you had no objections to your "law" makes a big difference
>in how it affected your trip.

Yes, but it doesn't make it a bad law; the fact that we did not
seriously have to entertain the thought of punishing hate speech with 20
pushups shows how good, not how bad, the law is!  I'm certain that some
members of the patrol were not as enthusiastic about this "law" as I
was.  However, nobody was willing to object to it, or to disobey it.
Now, St. Paul had to have some sort of punishment for hate crimes to
show that it was serious for of course a large city is somewhat
different from a small group.  However, in many instances, the
punishment for bias crimes is reeducation on the order of driving school
for people who misuse their driving privilege, further lessening the
injustice, if any, of hate crime law.

In answer to your question, if there had been a thoroughgoing racist on
our patrol who insisted in the face of Keith's objection in making
biased statements, I am certain that either the instructors or the team
would have taken action, punitive action.  Hostility in the wilderness
is life-threatening.  And there would have been nothing unjust about
this.  Can you not see that cities with bias crimes view the civil
disturbances resulting from hate speech in the same light, eg., as
threatening the group's survival?
From: gerald.mcdougall@yob.sccsi.com (Gerald Mcdougall) 
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: CC&RS - HOW BINDING N
Date: 12 Aug 92 15:38:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Ye Olde Bailey BBS - Houston, TX - 713-520-1569
Reply-To: gerald.mcdougall@yob.sccsi.com (Gerald Mcdougall) 

.FL> of the covenants which are in place.  If you don't sign the document,  .
.FL> then property transfer _cannot_ take place, period.  One of the ways   .
.............................................................................

Since when - ONLY the grantor has to sign the deed.  The grantee
doesn't even need to be there so long as his money is.
---
 . MegaMail 2.10 #847:DOS:JH
                                                                                                                            
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: mgflax@ernie.Princeton.EDU (Marshall G. Flax)
Subject: Re: Hate Speech Okay, says the Supreme Court
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 18:46:35 GMT

In article <1992Aug22.022019.3472@Princeton.EDU> egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:
>The question is whether the First Amendment was applicable to Viktora.
>As I've discussed in this forum, I don't think it was.  The Constitution
>isn't a computer manual such that its rules have clear-cut application.

I forgot; the application of the 1st amendment is determined by what
Mr.  Nilges believes to be "moral", not by what the amendment says.
How much longer will he extend the privilege of 1st-amendment
protection to me, for instance?

marshall
-- 
---
------- (c) 1992, Marshall Gene Flax <mgflax@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> -------
----------- 5 Joyce Lane, Woodbury, NY 11797, 516-364-9331,9379  ----------
- c/o Jack Gelfand,Psychology Dept,Princeton U.,NJ 08544,609-258-6739 (w) -
Newsgroups: misc.legal