HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart)
Subject: Re: Hate Speech Okay, says the Supreme Court
Keywords: (312)-E-B-O-N-Y--M-T
Organization: my opinions only
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 04:28:33 GMT

In article <1992Sep12.023131.2723@Princeton.EDU> egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:
>In article <1992Sep11.232400.10813@fid.morgan.com> sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart) writes:
>>

I would like to point out that the line immediately above this one
(yes, the blank one) is the only one I wrote in that entire posting.
Ed Nilges deleted all of my text, as well as my attribution line to
the original poster.  Matthew Rosenblatt wrote the stuff with >>>, and
I disagreed with him.

Seth		sethb@fid.morgan.com


>>>All of this may be true, but if Mr. Nilges or anyone else is *really*
>>>interested in fighting Racism, he will support the drive to honor 
>>>the men who have fought so valiantly against Racism:
>>>
>>>                             "EBONY MOUNTAIN
>>>
>>>    "A drive is underway to honor Black heroes by creating an
>>>     Ebony Mountain.  The mountain will represent a global tribute
>>>     to five distinctive great Black men:  Dr. Martin Luther King
>>>     Jr., Macolm X, Minister Louis Farrakhan, Marcus Garvey and
>>>     Nelson Mandela.
>
>Hmm, I'd rather support the effort of the black man who I met last
>August on Outward Bound's Sierra Challenge mountaineering expedition,
>Mr. Keith Ware.  Keith proposes to be the first African-American man to
>climb Everest (indeed, I understand, the first black man.)  His effort
>shows more respect for the environment than tearing up a mountain, does
>it not?  Furthermore, Louis Farrakhan is alive and my understanding is
>that you don't place a man on a mountain, or a stamp, until he is dead.
>
>>>What about that, readers?  Have you called (312)-E-B-O-N-Y--M-T 
>>>and pledged your generous contribution yet?  Or is all this talk
>>>about opposing Racism just that -- talk?
>
>I know that it is the fashion in America to dismiss political talk as
>"just talk", but it happens that human beings are creatures of LANGUAGE
>and as such much of real politics is...talk.  We have to talk about
>stuff in order to get the right things done, and it's the Nazis who
>dismissed the "talkers."  And with "talkers" like the poster who said
>that Jesse Jackson gave him the desire to "hate the fucking niggers"
>loose about the shop, it's high time people higher on the goddamn food
>chain started talking.  
Xref: sparky misc.legal:17221 alt.censorship:7508
From: ia4@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Imran Anwar)
Subject: Re: How do Copyrights effect satires/parodies?
Reply-To: ia4@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Imran Anwar)
Organization: Columbia University
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 11:09:45 GMT

In article <1992Sep9.224940.1@acad3.alaska.edu> fsars@acad3.alaska.edu (Allen R Sparks) writes:
>In article <1992Sep6.090117.26532@news.columbia.edu>, ia4@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Imran Anwar) writes:
>> A few days ago I read a news item that some music group had been told by
>> a judge to pay royalties to another group whose song or music it had
>> "parodied".  If I remember right the judge said that this music group had
>> gained financial benefit (income, sales, whatever) from the reproduction
>> of the original work so it should have to pay for it.
>> 
>Makes sense to me.  Wierd Al Yankovitch pays royalties to Michael
>Jackson for his song parady, _Beat It_.  === Al "I'm wierd too" Sparks


But that still does not answer the original question, what happens when
the parody is NOT for profit, or sale, or any kind of financial gain?

Imran
Xref: sparky misc.legal:17199 alt.politics.correct:5337 alt.censorship:7500 talk.politics.mideast:20064
From: eshneken@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu (Edward A Shnekendorf)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.politics.correct,alt.censorship,talk.politics.mideast
Subject: Re: Anti-Arab racism on the net
Date: 15 Sep 92 00:57:11 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana

ia4@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Imran Anwar) writes:

>In article <1992Sep14.111631.15318@wisipc.weizmann.ac.il> dany@kalanit.wisdom.weizmann.ac.il (Nabutovsky Dan) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep12.214246.25974@news.columbia.edu> ia4@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Imran Anwar) writes:
>>>
>>>If an article is written about "A" and refers to them as "B" it is called "C"
>>>A		B			C
>>>BCCI		Muslim Bankers		Financial Reporting
>>>Palestinian	Arab Terrorist		Objective Journalism
>>>
>>>If something is written against Prophet Muhammad, it is literature;
>>>against the Japanese (like Jurrasaic Park) it is fiction;
>>>agsinst Blacks, it is free speech;
>> ^^^^^^^
>>>against Christianity, it is an opinion
>>>but anything written against one Jewish person is anti-Semitism!!
>>>
>>
>>If A writes B with C to D, everybody E at him.
>>
>>A		B		C		D		  E
>>Imran Anwar	article		spell errors	3 inappropriate	  laugh
>>						newsgroups	
>>	Dan


>Dan, I am impressed by your keen intellect, and ability to logically
>analyse my post, and post a counter argument that impressed everyone


>A
>No comment, as that is my name.  Dan obviously does not have the guts
>to write his last name.  Could it be Quayle :-)  [with an E at the end!]

>B
>I don't think a few lines of opinion are an "article"  ...unless your 
>obviously limited intelligence cannot handle anything more than a few lines
>without thinking (hard for you to do I am sure) it is an "article"

>C
>Oh, ONE spelling mistake, and even that a typo.   Boy, you sure tore
>apart my observations and comments with that MAJOR observation.  How do you
>do it, Dan.  [By the way, the correct word would be Spelling errors, NOT
>spell errors.

>D
>In case you did not notice, the post was in response to an earlier one,
>hence it went to all the same groups.  However, it is hard to understand
>why you think the posting was in the wrong groups.

>E
>I am sure a lot more people are laughing AT you Dan.

>Regards


>Imran Anwar

This particular debate has become oh-so intelligent.

Ed.
From: Joe.Francis@dartmouth.edu (Joe Francis)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Censorship is never safe
Date: 13 Sep 92 05:17:59 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
X-Posted-From: InterNews1.0a4@newshost.dartmouth.edu

In article <19157@smoke.brl.mil>
matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt) writes:

> (Why is it bilge tripe?  Because the _Gemara_
> in Yebamoth 76a quotes Rav Huna where it concludes that female
> homosexuality is a form of obscenity.  Also, the Rambam in his
> _Mishneh Torah, Hilchos Issurai Bi'ah_, chapter 21:8, states,
> "Women who practice homosexuality are committing a prohibition
> which was practiced in ancient Egypt and the Torah warns us
> about this: 'The practices of the land of Egypt thou shalt not 
> do.' . . . A husband should make sure his wife doesn't associate 
> with such people."

I am curious as to what you would do if you did not have moral
authorities to decide these issues for you.  (This pondering is done
with a straight face; no flame intended.)
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Wanted: Pennsylvania's Definition of "City of the First Class"
Date: 9 Sep 92 23:49:40 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA


I have a fairly urgent need to find out what section of Pennsylvania
law defines "city of the first class."  I have read that both 
Philadelphia and Pittsburgh are cities of the first class; other
places seem to indicate that only Philadelphia is; maybe it's just
Philly and Harrisburg.

Is there someone here in Pennsylvania who has easy access to a
Penn. law library?
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Alcohol prohibition didn't work; drug prohibition doesn't work; gun
prohibition won't work.
Newsgroups: alt.flame.spelling,misc.legal
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: Question for Charles Perez and Ted Frank
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 21:16:00 GMT

In article <exuptr.606.716584507@exu.ericsson.se> exuptr@exu.ericsson.se (exuptr@exu.ericsson.se) writes:
>In article <1992Sep15.153846.23943@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Citecheck Hell) writes:
>
>>Oh, and by the way, it would be "Goofus's."
>
>Sorry, leaving off the trailing "s" is permissible in contractions where
>the preceeding letter is also an "s", in proper names.  It is not ambiguous 
>since proper names cannot be plural.

Strunk and White disagree, and I think their "rule" is a better one.


--Mike




-- 
Mike Godwin,    |"The meeting of two personalities is like the contact 
mnemonic@eff.org| of two chemical substances: if there is any reaction, 
(617) 864-0665  | both are transformed."
EFF, Cambridge  |                           --Carl Jung
From: averti@well.sf.ca.us (averti)
Subject: Re: The Loss of Innocence 
Summary: Dangerous Assumptions
Keywords: averti sartre fuck you
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 03:05:31 GMT

Oh, all right. I can't stand it any more, right along about now when
there are so many REAL issues and dilemmas to worry about.

Offensive speech. Issue me a breaking fuck (or fuck you, just to keep
current). By all means, let's call out the politically correct vigilante
squad and hunt down and exterminate this master criminal, this rein-
carnation of Hitler, this comic book super villain, the Fuck You guy.

Let's nail him to something. Can't be a cross, that's disrespectful to
liberal Xians. We could make him into a pinata, except that might hurt
the feelings of People of Color, beige through sienna.

I don't know about alt.sex and the other groups into which mr Fuck You
injected his mild stain, but I flatter me I have a pretty good sense of
the demographic of alt.sex.bondage. A lot of what goes on here has to
do with knowing when to fight and when to laugh. There is a great deal
of clueless, low-level evil around. It just does not do to rise up
snorting fire at something as silly as mr Fuck You, and then to further
distance potential adherents by larding in a bunch of stale, beside-the-
point, wall-slogan political rhetoric.

But then, preaching stridently to the converted and indifferent is part
of the political activist's aerobic exercises, no?

Please don't muddy our nice clean dirty pervert's party with your
tub thumping, sartre. This is self-indulgent space. We're here, we're
self-centered and libidinous. Get used to it.

averti, person of highly diluted color.

Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: titmas@chdasic.sps.mot.com (Eric Titmas)
Subject: Jury Nullification (was: Killing in defense of possessions?)
Organization: SPS
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 17:39:09 GMT

In article <1992Sep10.005114.10338@eff.org>, mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:

|> It's not that simple. Assuming that one of the jurors knows someone who
|> was a violent crime victim--don't forget that the jury is screened for
|> prejudice during voir dire--he or she will have been explicitly instructed
|> not to let his or her own knowledge shape the verdict, and to rely only on
|> the facts and law as presented in the trial. The jurors swear an oath to
|> abide by this restriction.
|> 
|> Note that this is a separate issue from that of jury nullification.
|> 
Jury nullification says the jury determines the facts and judges the law.  The
question of whether "to rely only on the facts and law as presented in the trial"
is the issue of jury nullification.

Or so I thought.  You're the lawyer Mike.  What did I miss?

-- 
Eric Titmas      Motorola ASIC       titmas@chdasic.sps.mot.com               

It is impossible to take in more money than Congress can spend.  - Thomas Sowell
From: jheath@CERIS.Purdue.EDU (Jim Heath)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Hey, Roy, is that the law?
Date: 15 Sep 92 14:24:21 GMT
Organization: Center for Environmental and Regulatory Information Systems, Purdue University

From article <1992Sep14.200127.5979@access.usask.ca>, by choy@skorpio.usask.ca (I am a terminator.):
> What is the basis on which lawmakers anchor themselves? How do they
> determine the justice or rightness of something?
>

They usually just say it is just or right ;-{).  The religious
say it is God's law, the rest usually say something that comes
down to "The greatest good for the greatest #".  

(Just my opinion, I don't even play a lawyer on the radio.) 
-- 
"Land of song, said the warrior bard,           Jim Heath
Though all the world betrays thee.
One sword, at least, thy rights shall guard, (The Minstrel Boy)
One faithful harp will praise thee."         (Thomas Moore)
From: amber@crhc.uiuc.edu (Amber Roy Chowdhury)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: a (legal?) problem after buying a used car
Date: 6 Sep 1992 14:23:14 -0500
Organization: Center for Reliable and High-Performance Computing, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
NNTP-Posting-Host: sirius.crhc.uiuc.edu


A couple of days after buying a used car, I noticed a small sticker inside the
driver's side door frame which said something to the effect that the odometer
had been turned to 0 on the car. The mileage from which it had been turned to 0
and the date had been washed out. There was also a warning on the sticker that
federal law prohibited its removal from the car. This would explain the low
miles (56K in 11 years) on the car.

I got a mechanic's opinion on the engine condition and according to him the engine
does not appear to have much more than 50K on it.

I would like to know how I could find out the actual miles on the car. 
(I don't know if the title deed would have this info since I got it from a dealer
and the dealer sent the deed to the credit union financing the car).I could, of
course, go to the credit union and take a look at the deed.

I would also like to know under what circumstances turning the odometer back is legal.
The car works just fine, but I bought it under the impression that it had 56K on it
and not 56K+some unknown quantity. Is the dealer responsible for letting the buyer 
know the actual miles on the car, or at least the fact that the odometer had been turned
back? In particular, can he be sued for fraud? 

Thanks for any comments.

Amber

-- 
	Amber Roy Chowdhury           	|  	"I believe that a college should
	5-114 CSL, Univ. of Illinois    |	 be concerned with ideas ... not
	Urbana IL 61801			|	 just your ideas, or my ideas... 
	(217)-244-7168			|        but all ideas" - James Thurber
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.politics.correct,rec.arts.movies
From: hampton@ais.org (Kevin Podsiadlik)
Subject: Re: The return of vaudeville. (was: Re: Nilges)
Organization: UMCC
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1992 00:57:25 GMT

In article <1992Sep4.195316.6296@cbnewse.cb.att.com> gmark@cbnewse.cb.att.com (gilbert.m.stewart) writes:
>In article <qumaqB2w165w@comtch.spk.wa.us> mhughes@comtch.spk.wa.us (Mark Hughes) writes:
>>cedman@714-725-3165.nts.uci.edu (Carl Edman) writes:

[ Something to the effect of, "Boy, weren't we Americans ever the *racists*
  back in the 30's, and boy, isn't it a good thing we aren't now?"  No
  comment on this, since I didn't live in the 30's, and neither, I fancy,
  did Mr. Edman. ]

>>  You are, I hope, joking?  That has GOT to be one of the most bigoted, 
>
>Why would you hope he was joking and then proceed as though you know
>he's not?  Isn't that a recipe for a bad day?

It is called "proof by absurdity".  In this case he is taking the
comments and deriving a (hopefully) absurd conclusion from them.
No one, then, could rationally believe the comments, and therefore, 
they must have been made in jest, QED.

>>hypocritical, stereotypical statements I have EVER heard.  The WMNHC is 
>>hardly a conspiracy, and had nothing to do with the Marx brothers' names. 
>
>Ah, but are you SURE?  You could be brainwashed YOURSELF!  And NOT
>EVEN KNOW IT!!  ALSO, this guy could be the very person to SAVE YOU
>FROM YOURSELF!!  Ironic, is it not?

Oh come on.  At that rate, I could say "pi is an irrational number",
and you could reply, "Ah, but are you SURE it isn't a conspiracy
among mathematicians to hide the rationality of pi?"  If you
want to see a conspiracy in everything, I cannot prove otherwise,
true, but we never get anywhere.

I know, I know, that, too, is probably a conspiracy...

>>The trouble is, some people have built up such a guilt complex for the 
>>sins of their forefathers, that they see racism EVERYWHERE.  I suppose I 
>
>Even right-thinking people?  People full of love?  People with the
>Common Sense we were all, without exception, blessed with at birth?
>(Except the Evil People, of course, but I digress.)

Huh?  He said "some" people.  I don't see how that includes your
listed groups.

>>could go into an extended flame, but I'll leave it at this: 
>> 
>>  GET A LIFE!
>
>Whew.
>
>GM("Taking Myself Too Seriously")S

I also noticed you made two followups to one article.  Safety in numbers?

-- 
Kevin J. Podsiadlik         | "A recent survey has revealed that, if the
Vaporware Engineer          | election were to be held tomorrow, a whopping
2nd class                   | 98% of those polled would be glad it came
E-mail: hampton@ais.org     | early this year." -- Thomas Sowell (paraphrased)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: titmas@chdasic.sps.mot.com (Eric Titmas)
Subject: Re: Jury Nullification (was: Killing in defense of possessions?)
Organization: SPS
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 18:08:06 GMT

In article <1992Sep10.232505.27107@eff.org>, mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:
|> In article <1992Sep10.173909.27856@newsgate.sps.mot.com> titmas@chdasic.sps.mot.com (Eric Titmas) writes:
|> >In article <1992Sep10.005114.10338@eff.org>, mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:
|> >
|> >|> It's not that simple. Assuming that one of the jurors knows someone who
|> >|> was a violent crime victim--don't forget that the jury is screened for
|> >|> prejudice during voir dire--he or she will have been explicitly instructed
|> >|> not to let his or her own knowledge shape the verdict, and to rely only on
|> >|> the facts and law as presented in the trial. The jurors swear an oath to
|> >|> abide by this restriction.
|> >|> 
|> >|> Note that this is a separate issue from that of jury nullification.
|> >|> 
|> >Jury nullification says the jury determines the facts and judges the law.  The
|> >question of whether "to rely only on the facts and law as presented in the trial"
|> >is the issue of jury nullification.
|> >
|> >Or so I thought.  You're the lawyer Mike.  What did I miss?
|> 
|> I'm not sure I understand the question. Could you be more specific
|> as to what about my posting confuses you, or as to how your question
|> relates to my posting?

Sure,  but maybe if you just read it again it will be clear.  You state the jury
is "to rely only on the facts and law as presented in the trial" but you also
state that this is a separate issue from jury nullification.

I thought the issue of jury nullification was whether the jury should judge the law,
whether any oaths about judging the law were proper,  and whether a juror who
believes in jury nullification should lie in any oath about not judging the law
(otherwise the right of jury nullification is removed because any jury-nullifier
is not left on the jury).

Maybe your statement about judging the law was filler and the separate issue (you
meant) was the juror following the law about not allowing his experiences to shape
his verdict.  But wouldn't a believer in jury nullification want to judge the
law about what shapes his verdict?
-- 
Eric Titmas      Motorola ASIC       titmas@chdasic.sps.mot.com               

It is impossible to take in more money than Congress can spend.  - Thomas Sowell
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: jfc@athena.mit.edu (John F Carr)
Subject: Re: Fort Wayne: Landlords Must Evict Drug-Dealing Tenants
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 01:30:45 GMT

In article <1992Sep4.191418.13194@hsv3.lsil.com>
	richhg@hsv3.lsil.com (Rich Henderson-Gragg) writes:

>    The city council isn't completly out of the loop.  If landlords have
>no protection they will eventually leave and no longer collect rent or
>pay taxes ( both property and other ).

This isn't true in Cambridge, Massachusetts -- under local rent control laws
you need approval to stop renting.  I don't know what the penalty is, but I
expect continued refusal to rent will result in the city taking the building
to pay taxes or fines.  Then the city sells the building and the new owner
starts paying taxes.  Just leaving and abandoning the building is in effect
giving it to the city.

--
    John Carr (jfc@athena.mit.edu)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.politics.correct,alt.censorship
From: ia4@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Imran Anwar)
Subject: Re: Anti-Arab racism on the net (was: Re: The return of vaudeville. (was: Re: Nilges)
Reply-To: ia4@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Imran Anwar)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 21:42:46 GMT



If an article is written about "A" and refers to them as "B" it is called "C"

A		B			C

BCCI		Muslim Bankers		Financial Reporting
Palestinian	Arab Terrorist		Objective Journalism

If something is written against Prophet Muhammad, it is literature;
against the Japanese (like Jurrasaic Park) it is fiction;
agsinst Blacks, it is free speech;
against Christianity, it is an opinion

but anything written against one Jewish person is anti-Semitism!!

Xref: sparky misc.legal:17146 alt.politics.correct:5303
From: ia4@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Imran Anwar)
Subject: How do Copyrights effect satires/parodies?
Organization: Columbia University
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1992 09:01:17 GMT

A few days ago I read a news item that some music group had been told by
a judge to pay royalties to another group whose song or music it had
"parodied".  If I remember right the judge said that this music group had
gained financial benefit (income, sales, whatever) from the reproduction
of the original work so it should have to pay for it.

That raises a question in my mind.  If the group had NOT been selling their
own music, eg just giving out copies of their parody tapes, then they
obviously are  not earning from the exercise.  How would that effect the
legal situation?

A second question is, if someone writes, say, a bigoted article and another
person (just to prove apoint) just replaces the target of the slurs with
the name/nation/religion/color/profession/whatever of the original writer
and does NOT do so for selling or for profit or to claim it as original
work then what is the legal situation likely to be.  Surely the original
writer would want to prevent the dissemination of the "adapted" article
on the basis of "copyright" but probably more on the grounds of not wanting
to face that bigotry is pretty bad when one is on the receiving end.  But
could the "adapter" (or "parodier"!" get awaay with it because he/she did it
only to prove a point?

Opinions?


Imran

Newsgroups: misc.legal