HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mgflax@ernie.Princeton.EDU (Marshall G. Flax)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Hate Speech Okay, says the Supreme Court
Date: 22 Aug 92 19:03:38 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

In article <1992Aug22.023206.4129@Princeton.EDU> egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:
>...having lived a world-historical life, I submit that the Mahatma was
>free before being shot, and his religious tradition teaches that death
>itself is a liberation.

That his religion teaches that (death==liberation) doesn't make it so.

>>  Seriously, Ed, you sound like the
>>traditional Catholic "slavery to God's will is freedom".
>
>Horrors.  A fate worse than death, to be associated with the church of
>Dorothy Day, Matthew Fox, Thomas Aquinas, or Archbishop Romero.  Y'know,
>Marshall, William F. Buckley wrote that "anti-Catholicism is the
>anti-Semitism of the liberal."  So I'd be wary of dismissing something
>as mere traditional Catholicism.

Was Romero a good man because of the Church or despite it?  I don't
know.  I do know that the Church sponsored the Inquisition, and
brainwashed my fiancee into needlessly accepting years of suffering
and torture.  And the Israeli government has done offensive things too,
but I'm not going to shy away from saying that because you might label
me "anti-Semitic".

>Any roads, was Kant a Catholic?

Relevance?  Was he a bear?  (Obscure joke.)

>Was Hegel Catholic?  For most philosophers save the pseudophilosopher
>Rand, freedom has not been a primary good, and there is no freedom in
>doing wrong, for in doing wrong you enslave yourself (in nearly all
>philosophical traditions) to the passions.  In another post, I hope I
>have shown how this does not result in intolerance as long as one
>cultivates the virtue of tolerance.  And this tolerance is not tolerance
>for wrong, only humility and self-doubt (I could be wrong about
>Marshall's conduct; if the guy isn't obviously drowning kittens in the
>canal, best mind my own bizness.)

Ed, you should start capitalizing your words: you have "freedom" and
"Freedom", "tolerance" and "Tolerance", "humility" and "Humililty", and
so on.  It gets to be a bit predictable after a while.

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) -
From: mgflax@ernie.Princeton.EDU (Marshall G. Flax)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Hate Speech Okay, says the Supreme Court
Date: 22 Aug 92 18:39:41 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

In article <1992Aug22.014924.1789@Princeton.EDU> egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:
>Sally Frank '80's lawsuit against Princeton's all-male eating clubs

Which she ultimately dropped (for some cash) without setting any sort of
binding legal precedent.

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) -
From: lairdb@crash.cts.com (Laird P. Broadfield)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Abstract discussion of "civil rights" and "property rights"
Date: 18 Aug 92 19:32:08 GMT

In <1992Aug18.034537.17317@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy) writes:
>Clayton wrote:
>#Homosexuals aren't trying to get civil rights laws passed. There
>#are attempts being made, supported by many homosexual activists,
>#(and not supported by some other homosexuals,) to get laws passed
>#that would prohibit an employer or landlord from expressing his
>#disapproval of homosexuality by refusing to do business with a 
>#homosexual.

>Hmm, being able to eat, or rent a place to sleep are *NOT* civil
>rights? Interesting definition of civil rights you have. I obviously
>don't share your definition.

In an attempt to salvage this discussion (it may be too late, Godwin's 
Law has already been seen in effect) I'd like to hear discussion of what
people think "civil rights" really means.  Personally, I'm very confused
about what the government thinks it means, aside from (like RICO) 
"something we can indict anyone we want to under for anything we want."

What brings this up is Greg and Clayton's apparently quite separate 
positions on what I would term "propertarian rights", the right of the
owner of a property to do whatever he pleases.  My own position, which
I think is closer to Clayton's than Greg's, is that an _owner_, whether
it's Joe, of Joe's FlopHouse, or HiltonCorp should be able to do whatever
he wants with his property, whether it's refuse to do business with 
homosexuals, or refuse to business with readheads.  The distinction is
that *I* would say that "civil rights" laws would then exist to make it
clear that _*the government*_ (as "owner" of public-property-held-
in-trust) may not make any such distinctions (except perhaps between
citizens and non-citizens.)

It would make me sad that Clayton's Palatial Boarding House For Normal
Folks Only would have these rules, but IMO, it's his place, and he should
be able to do what he wants.  If that means that a group of people
who are often bright, fashion-forward, artistic, etc., move away, then
that's a loss for him and his community, and he will either change his
ways, or suffer the consequences.  That's how a "free-market" economy is
supposed to work (at least in theory, I've never lived in one.  Just
in the U.S.  :-)

So.  Comments?




-- 
Laird P. Broadfield     lairdb@crash.cts.com    ...{ucsd, nosc}!crash!lairdb
Hi!  I'm a shareware signature!  Send $5 if you use me, send $10 for manual!
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: proberts@informix.com (Paul Roberts)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,talk.politics.animals
Subject: Legality of dialing an 800 number many many times?
Date: 19 Aug 92 17:08:57 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Informix Software, Inc.

>>
>>However, I do recall an individual with a computerized dialer who
>>used this tactic against Jerry Falwell's "Moral Majority." Not only
>>was he told to cease and desist, he was ordered to pay $10s of thousands
>>of dollars to the "Moral Majorty."
>>
>
>Are you SURE about this? I remember reading that a court had decided that
>if you publish an 800 number, you are inviting people to phone you, period.
>And that the Moral Majority lost their case. Perhaps one court ruled one
>way, and a higher court ruler the other way, and we each heard only one
>ruling. Anyone know the facts?
>

I am hereby crossposting this to misc.legal, 
I am sure we will get an answer there.

Paul  
Newsgroups: misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.society.civil-liberty
From: fsars@acad3.alaska.edu (Allen R Sparks)
Subject: Re: How To Really Annoy People
Organization: University of Alaska Fairbanks
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 06:21:30 GMT

In article <1992Aug18.233346.27136@midway.uchicago.edu>, thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:
> In article <1992Aug18.110630.1@acad3.alaska.edu> fsars@acad3.alaska.edu (Allen R Sparks) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug18.022043.27422@panix.com>, lkk@panix.com (Larry Kolodney) writes:
>>> In <64160@cup.portal.com> ts@cup.portal.com (Tim W Smith) writes:
>>> 
>>>>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!
>>> 
>>> Yes, but if it turns out she had not good faith basis for liening the
>>> property in questions, she will probably be liable to these judges for
>>> "Abuse of Process" a tort in most states.
>>
>>A tort is usually a civil not a criminal charge.  If those judges
>>decide to go after her, will it be worth it?  She's already lost her
>>house or houses.  What else are they going to get from her?  Being
>>down and out also has its advantages.  You have nothing to lose.
> 
> Well, there's always contempt of court.  Which in this case is somewhat
> overt.

Wouldn't another Judge have to impose that?  If the Judge handling her
other case imposes sanctions for contempt on her, wouldn't that be
conflict of interest?   === Al Sparks
Newsgroups: misc.legal,sci.econ
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Re: Predatory Pricing
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 23:29:40 GMT

In article <52004@dime.cs.umass.edu> yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:
>See American Airlines recent win in the price war. Extensively covered
>in the business press.

Is this really "predatory" pricing, though?  Or just competitive pricing
in a market with excess capacity?  AA was certainly pricing above marginal
cost -- I don't think they scheduled extra planes to make up for their
lower prices, they were just filling the planes they already had.
-- 
             ......................................................
             ted frank | thf2@midway.uchicago.edu | std disclaimers
             the university of chicago law skool, chicago, illinois
             you can't throw me to the lions -- i'm charlton heston
From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu  (David Veal)
Subject: Re: double jeopardy (facist LA police)
Organization: The University of Tennessee, Knoxville
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 03:44:24 GMT

In article <1992Aug14.220546.12113@vexcel.com>
tom@vexcel.com (Tom Baltzer) writes:

>
>In article <1992Aug13.152633.11126@newstand.syr.edu> greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (J.S. Greenfield) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug12.204722.13549@asuvax.eas.asu.edu> ra@asuvax.eas.asu.edu (tarcap'n Ra) writes:
>
>		[deletions]
>>>
>>>     Or anyone else's who can read plain English
>>>without rationalizing to suit expedient purposes.
>>
>>Read: If you don't agree with *my* interpretation then you are either
>>      a fool or a knave.
>
>	[Excellent analysis of multiple laws broken in a single incident
>	  removed]
>>
>>And I do not pretend that the matter is simple or obvious.
>>
>>The only apparent reason for you to consider the legal status of this situatio
>>to be so simple as to be obvious (to anyone who can read!!) is that you have
>>failed to seriously examine and consider the implications of the various
>>positions.
>
>  Hear hear Mr. Greenfield.  If the constitution is so damn simple to
>  understand, then why the heck did the founding fathers find it so
>  important to have a branch of the government who's sole responsibility
>  is to interpret that document?
>
     The Supreme Court is neither implicitly nor explicitly given the
power, authority, or responsibility to interpret the Constitution *in*
the Constitution.  It's power of "Judicial Review" is not listed in
the Constitution.
     The Supreme Court was intended to be the highest court at the top
of a system of courts established by Congress.  It's roll as Constitutional
interpreter came later.

========================================================================
| David Veal  PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu                                  |
|             University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education |
========================================================================
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: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 21:50:56 GMT

In article <1992Aug20.180717.29099@natinst.com> chrisb@natinst.com (Chris Bartz) writes:
>In article <1992Aug20.161412.27423@Princeton.EDU> egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:
>
>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.

Let's see, Chris Bartz will only allow as law those laws for which the
people vote unanimously.  This is utterly absurd.  What do you want?  A
Romanian (Ceaucescu era) plebiscite?

>
>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.

This was a highly challenged wilderness trip in which ostracism of any
member would have been a serious threat to life and limb.  Of course, we
did not set a penalty (although the "penalty" for stepping on ropes and
other equipment for rappelling and technical climbing WAS twenty
pushups.)  I suppose we could have set a penalty of twenty pushups for
each racist or sexist remark.  That, in and of itself, would not have
made the law "unfair" or "unconstitutional."

>
>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.

Bullshit.  The SC would have been held by its (racist) logic to trump
the rights of minorities with the right of (white people especially) to
freedom of speech.  It would therefore have had to decide the way it
did, and declare that the St. Paul law, even if unanimously accepted,
violated the constitutional rights of people thinking of living in St.
Paul.

>universal agreement as to what hate-speech is.  This is why the supreme
>court got involved.

Chris, I just wish you could have heard Keith.  He's heard hate speech
directed against African-Americans all his life and he knows it when he
sees it, from Jersey cops who assume that a black man can afford a
Porsche only by dealing drugs to nice, respectable white people who
assume that black neighborhoods must be unsafe.

Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Subject: Re: New LSAT scores for old
Organization: Northeastern Law, Class of '93
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 16:21:04 GMT


In article <1992Aug19.180231.15995@cco.caltech.edu>, 
manning@cco.caltech.edu (Evan Marshall Manning) said:

> Here is the scaling from "old" LSAT scores to new ones.  Several
> things must be noted:
> 
> 2) New LSAT tests soemwhat different things than old one.

Oh lord, are the geniuses of Princeton, NJ, still trying to fine-tune
their test into coherency?  Based on my experiences in taking it back
in the fall of 1989, their first step should be stop obsessing about
developing the perfect scoring curve (all that most people really
give a damn about is the percentile ranking, anyway) and hire some
competent question-writers.  I believe that the reading-comprehension
section of the test that I took had two (out of about thirty)
questions thrown out by the Educational Testing Service as "defective"
before they even started grading the results, and another one was
later jettisoned after a lot of people who'd answered it "wrong" (it
had two possible correct answers) complained.  Must be nice having an
effective monopoly on the field...

(If I sound a bit bitter, it's because I guessed wrong on that
question with two correct answers, with the result that I got a 44 on
the 10-48 scale; they [much] later sent me a letter saying that now
that that question had been tossed out, my score had been corrected
to a 45... this was long after all the schools to which I'd applied
had already made their decisions on me based on the 44, sigh.  Oh
well, I didn't _really_ want to get accepted by Harvard anyway...)

-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>
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: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 23:32:03 GMT


As far as I can tell your thesis is:

  Any group should be able to make rules against immoral behavior unless
  that rule would violate members rights, where rights and immoral behavior
  are ____.

It's the "____" that I don't understand. You tell us that they are not
determined by a free marketplace of ideas (aka "circus"). You tell us
that you are not the final arbiter. I'm going to make a guess here.
Is the answer "obvious"? That is

".... where rights and immoral behavior are _obvious_."

If so, please note that they do not seem obvious to us. If not, please
help fill in the blank.

- Carl






  
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From: fa@nws31.EBay.Sun.COM (Nads User Account)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: ** CITY BANK MISLEADING ADVERTISEMENT **
Keywords: COLLEGE STUDENT APPLICATION
Date: 18 Aug 92 18:33:10 GMT
Reply-To: fa@nws31.EBay.Sun.COM
Organization: Sun Microsystems
NNTP-Posting-Host: nws31.ebay.sun.com

Dear fellow netters,

Recently apllied for a City Bank Classic Master Card under the College Student Program
that offered  saving-benefits at NO ADDTIONAL costs to students like
  
   1. 25 dollar off airline ticket

   2. 24% off MCI long distance calls

..etc..


THe information above were printed in bold red ink on the student application.

However when i received the card, there was no info of how and what to do
to get that so called saving-benefits.
i telephoned City Bank customer service and found out 
in order to receive the 25 dollar discount on airline ticket ,
i have to call ISE ( International Student Exchange ??? )
and be registered with ISE. 

here is the catch: to be registered with ISE there is a $15 enrolled-annual fee.

also i found out there is a 70 cents connection charge every time you
make a call on City Bank calling card . you are better off using MCI 's own
calling card. 

	i wonder if any of you students out there experience this  with City Bank

i think City Bank has employed trickery in its advertisement to attract 
college students 



bob
Xref: sparky misc.legal:16156 talk.politics.misc:40608
From: mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: double jeopardy
Date: 19 Aug 92 18:45:17 GMT
Article-I.D.: spim.l955ltINN9gg
Distribution: world
Organization: MIPS Computer Systems, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: gelato.mips.com

In article <1992Aug19.015046.3591@desire.wright.edu>, demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
|> In article <PA146008.243.714182108@utkvm1.utk.edu>, PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal) writes:
|> > In article <1992Aug18.015503.3560@desire.wright.edu> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
|> > 
|> >>	Double jeopardy is being tried in the same court for the same crime
|> >>(with the same evidence) twice.
|> >>
|> >      The Constitution does not make this distinction.  It says simply
|> > that noone will be twice put in jeapardy of life and limb for the same
|> > offense.   Just because somebody comes up with new evidence after an
|> > acquital does not mean you have to have another trial.  Nor can you just
|> > switch jurisdictions and try again.
|> 
|> 	You're not "switching jurisdictions".  There are two separate court
|> systems, and two separate law systems.
|> 
Give it up guys.  The LA Cops are being tried on a new charge and a new
crime.  It's as if they committed a robbery and a murder at the same
time.  You can be tried on the two charges independantly.
Xref: sparky misc.legal:16029 talk.politics.misc:39828 alt.society.civil-liberty:5549
From: fsars@acad3.alaska.edu (Allen R Sparks)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.society.civil-liberty
Subject: Re: double jeopardy (facist LA police)
Date: 15 Aug 92 01:05:24 GMT
Organization: University of Alaska Fairbanks

In article <1992Aug14.220546.12113@vexcel.com>, tom@vexcel.com (Tom Baltzer) writes:
> 
>   Hear hear Mr. Greenfield.  If the constitution is so damn simple to
>   understand, then why the heck did the founding fathers find it so
>   important to have a branch of the government who's sole responsibility
>   is to interpret that document?

Well, I don't know what the Federalist Papers say, but keep in mind
that the role of the Supreme Court was never defined.  No where in the
Constitution does it say that the SC has the power to declare a law
Unconstitutional.

In fact when the government was first formed under our present
Constitution, the Justices rode around in circuit.  Individual
Justices conducted trials (the trial of Aaron Burr for treason was
conducted by Chief Justice John Marshall).

It was Marshall who got around to declaring a law unconstitutional for
the first time, and he was the third Chief Justice.

Your statement, "a branch of the government who's sole responsibility
is to interpret that document" is inaccurate.  The Judiciary Branch's
responsibility extends to interpreting all laws passed by Congress,
not just the Constitutionality of those laws.  Even if you were to
limit your statement to the SC, instead of the whole Judicial Branch,
the Supreme Court hears appeals all the time regarding laws passed by
Congress, without deciding on their Constitutionality, especially if
two different Courts of Appeals disagree.  === Al Sparks
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: National Guard Status was (Re: Equal Rights Amendment)
Date: 12 Aug 92 16:41:30 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1992Aug11.214147.13613@nsisrv.gsfc.nasa.gov>, dsc@gemini.tmc.edu (Doug S. Caprette Bldg. 28 W191 x3892) writes:
> In article <1992Aug11.105900.1@acad3.alaska.edu> fsars@acad3.alaska.edu (Allen R Sparks) writes:
> >For example, they do have an armed force (I'm referring to the
> >National Guard) and that armed force may have total gender equality in
> >all positions.  But the only way that armed force is going to war, is
> >at the direction of the President, and as soon as that happens, the
> >Pennsylvania NG is federalized and out go the women in combat positions.
> 
> Actually, my understanding is that the National Guard *IS* a federal armed
> force.  It is organized by states for administrative purposes, and so as
> to be available to the state governments as needed.  Apparently, the national
> guard is not a state militia.  I do know that over the years there have been
> differences between the various states regarding how the guard is regulated
> (such as if and how to issue ammunition), but I believe these regulations
> apply to the use of the guard by the state government, within the state.
> 
> In other words, the guard is federalised as a default condition, but may 
> (must?) be loaned to the state upon request.

Actually, you have it backward, but it's a confusing situation, you
have a right to be confused.  

              In  Perpich  v.  Department  of  Defense  (1990),  the
            U.S. Supreme  Court provided a history of the process by
            which the  National Guard  was "federalized" in 1916, so
            as  to  eliminate  questions  of  the  constitutionality  of
            sending National  Guard  units  abroad.57    National
            Guardsmen are  both members  of organized  militias of  the
            various states,  and members  of the  U. S. Army, though not
            members of both at the same time.  When the President orders
            a National  Guard unit into federal service, they are no
            longer members  of the organized militia, but members of the
            Regular Army.58

              57 Perpich v. Department of Defense, et. al., 110 S.Ct.
            2418, 2423 (1990).
              58 Perpich v. Department of Defense, et. al., 110 S.Ct.
            2418, 2424 (1990).


-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
When the government wins the War on Drugs, they are welcome to try their
gun control snake oil.
Xref: sparky misc.legal:16137 sci.econ:6912