HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: olson@acf9.nyu.edu (David Olson)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Does Original Intent Matter? (was: Does technology...)
Date: 7 Apr 92 18:54:35 GMT
Organization: New York University

wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr) writes:
>And now for something completely different... is the matter of the
>Framers' original intent relevant to anything at all?

>I know, it's taken as a given today that it is, but I have to ask
>whether it should be?  Why should the opinions of the forty or so
>men who jointly wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights be
>given any weight at all in interpreting the Constitution?  After
>all, they only _proposed_ the document -- it was the eligible white
>male voters of the thirteen States who actually made it law.
>Shouldn't it be _their_ interpretation of the words of the document
>that controls, not the interpretation or intent of the men who
>merely wrote it?

I recall one anti-federalist (Brutus of NY, I think) who wrote as if that
interpretation were commonly understood. The words were to be interpreted 
as ordinary people understood them.  The phrases were to be construed 
broadly, not in an arcane, legalistic fashion.  Madison hid his notes of
the Convention, in part, to keep the Constitution from having a clear
"legislative history."  

Unfortunately, Brutus failed to convince people that the unlimited power 
to borrow money would eventually lead to massive deficit spending.  
He tried, though.


david
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: jwoodman@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Jonathan A Woodman)
Subject: Re: Justices
Organization: The Ohio State University College of Law
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 04:26:18 GMT

In article <3014@cvbnetPrime.COM> jharring@lulu.UUCP (Joe Harrington) writes:

>Am I remembering correctly that Scalia dissented on Bostic[k] last
>year, the ruling that allows the police to initiate a warrantless
>search on a public trasportation vehicle?  

You forgot an important word. It was a *consensual* warrantless search
on a public transportation vehicle.

Remember: never consent to any search. Ever.




-- 
Jonathan Woodman                   \ "I mean, sex is one thing, but reading
jwoodman@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu /  to someone is *really* intimate." C. Duda
The Ohio State University          \ "Oh, you can slice that salami of 
   College of Law                  /  copyright any number of ways." S. Halpern
Newsgroups: alt.sex,misc.legal,rec.arts.tv
From: mvp@hsv3.uucp (Mike Van Pelt)
Subject: Re: Censoship of nudity (was Re: Photo of minor: is it illegal to possess?
Organization: Video 7 + G2 = Headland Technology
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 22:19:05 GMT

In article <1992Apr6.154404.13075@colorado.edu> fielden@spot.Colorado.EDU (fielden j.a.) writes:
[addition to list of full frontal male nudity in non-X/NC-17 films]

As long as we're making a list, add "Ghost Story", rated R, for the
scene where Richard Crenna fell naked out of a window on the umpteenth
floor.

On TV, there was a PBS story on one of those stone-age tribes in the
Amazonian rain forest that makes National Geographic so popular with
teenagers.  And there was one of those "amazing" network-TV fluff items
a few years ago on the tribe in New Guinea that invented bungee-
jumping.  Their one item of clothing covered just about nothing.

For those with a taste for the **REALLY** kinky, though, I was at a
friend's house while she was flipping around the dial, and stumbled
upon a Lifetime item on a transurethral resection of the prostate...
                 GAAK!!  BLEAH BLEAH BLEAH!!!
-- 
Mike Van Pelt            Paradimethylaminobenzaldehyde,
Headland Technology      Go soak your head in a good strong insecticide,
mvp@hsv3.lsil.com        Slosh it around and impregnate your brain
...ames!vsi1!hsv3!mvp    With dichlordiphenyltrichloroethane.
From: jheath@CERIS.Purdue.EDU (Jim Heath)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: 60 MINUTES PIECE ON O
Date: 13 Apr 92 18:03:09 GMT
Organization: Center for Environmental and Regulatory Information Systems, Purdue University

From article <3519.161.uupcb@yob.sccsi.com>, by gerald.mcdougall@yob.sccsi.com (Gerald Mcdougall):
> .EK>                                                                        .
> .EK>... But it's not in the best interests of the law enforcement groups to .
> .EK>let a case get to the Supreme Court. They will try to settle any dispute.
> .EK>that looks like its headed there. Is there any way to get the Court to  .
> .EK>decide on a case that's been settled in a lower court?                  .
> .............................................................................
> 
> I think the RICO siezure problem HAS been to the SpCt.  And - if
> settled you can't GET an appeal.
>

I think you can appeal any case all the way up, however, the
supreme court may refuse to hear your appeal.

I think the first fella was talking about settling out of court.
If that were the case, presumably everyone is happy and there
will be no appeal.
-- 
"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 More)
From: n9020351@henson.cc.wwu.edu (James Douglas Del Vecchio)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Liability Questions in Fatal Accident
Date: 6 Apr 92 17:16:15 GMT
Article-I.D.: henson.1992Apr6.171615.18787
Organization: Western Washington University



If she was doing something wrong (as in turning left into oncoming 
traffic), then the death is her fault regardless of the other party
having a .09 bal (which isn't even intoxicated in most states btw)

If the car is hers per some agreement, then he can't have it pinned
on him, but he might end up paying more to his laywer to get it
straightened out.

All of the above is my opinion only.
	
Xref: sparky alt.sex:13528 misc.legal:8853 rec.arts.tv:9216
From: haynes@cats.ucsc.edu (Jim Haynes)
Newsgroups: alt.sex,misc.legal,rec.arts.tv
Subject: Re: Censoship of nudity (was Re: Photo of minor: is it illegal to possess?
Date: 6 Apr 92 07:17:23 GMT
Article-I.D.: darkstar.32145
Followup-To: alt.sex
Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz


In article <cee1.702457813@Isis.MsState.Edu> cee1@ra.msstate.edu (Charles Evans) writes:
>What about the front of _Nirvana_'s album with the naked boy baby swimming
>in the pool showing his little thing. Is that considered as pornography
>at all?
I noticed in one store there was a sticker placed over that portion of
the picture, reading something like "contains the hit single Smells Like
Teen Spirit"
-- 
haynes@cats.ucsc.edu
haynes@cats.bitnet

"Any clod can have the facts, but having opinions is an Art."
        Charles McCabe, San Francisco Chronicle
Xref: sparky alt.sex:14022 misc.legal:9113 rec.arts.tv:9415
From: conrad@brahms.udel.edu (Jon Conrad)
Newsgroups: alt.sex,misc.legal,rec.arts.tv
Subject: Re: Censoship of nudity (was Re: Photo of minor: is it illegal to possess?
Date: 10 Apr 92 13:29:30 GMT
Followup-To: alt.sex
Organization: University of Delaware

In article <1992Apr10.021800.7546@by-tor.Gwinnett.COM> terry-g@by-tor.Gwinnett.COM (Terry Gardner) writes:

>Didn't David Keith show some d**k while hanging in the shower in the
>original "An Officer and a Gentleman"?
 ^^^^^^^^

As opposed to which other "Officer and a Gentleman"?  :-)

Anyway, the answer to your question is "no."  (Though they stopped mere
millimeters short.)  Surprisingly, Mr. Gere also refrained on this
occasion.

Jon Alan Conrad
From: jharring@lulu.prime.com (Joe Harrington)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Justices
Date: 9 Apr 92 21:09:22 GMT
Reply-To: jharring@lulu.UUCP (Joe Harrington)
Organization: Prime Computervision, Bedford MA


ted chen wrote:
>o'connor is a moderate conservative, yes.  my vote for ultra right-wing
>goes to scalia, though rehnquist is a close second.

Am I remembering correctly that Scalia dissented on Bostic[k] last
year, the ruling that allows the police to initiate a warrantless
search on a public trasportation vehicle?  It seems to me that
Scalia has been unpredictable on a least one occasion in the past
two terms.
From: lee@wang.com (Lee Story)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Noriega Trial Implications
Date: 16 Apr 92 21:15:08 GMT
	<1992Apr14.020626.25502@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> <18482@smoke.brl.mil>
Distribution: na
Organization: Wang Laboratories, Inc.

(Matthew Rosenblatt) writes:

   "Right" and "wrong" exist independently of any particular system of
   positive law.  [...]

   Moses, according to #7 of Maimonides's 13 Principles, 

	   "was the father of the prophets -- both those who preceded
		him and those who followed him."

   This makes Moses a greater prophet than the Prophet Muhammad (Allah's
   blessing and peace be upon him and his companions!).

So absolute right and wrong are to be determined by the pronouncements
of the great Maimonides!

   Even if Mr. Rushdie had written and published his trash [...]

It's sure fortunate that Matt isn't an influential literary critic, or
we'd see a lot less of Rushdie's fantastic humor and elegant prose.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Lee Story (lee@wang.com) Wang Laboratories, Inc.
              (Merrimack Valley Paddlers)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky alt.sex:13741 misc.legal:9000 rec.arts.tv:9305
From: tkelsey@panix.com (Tom Kelsey)
Newsgroups: alt.sex,misc.legal,rec.arts.tv
Subject: Re: Censoship of nudity (was Re: Photo of minor: is it illegal to possess?
Date: 8 Apr 92 12:38:33 GMT
Organization: PANIX - Public Access Unix Systems of NY

In article <1992Apr3.170513.13193@athena.mit.edu> hrothgar@athena.mit.edu (Katie Hamill) writes:
>In article <1992Apr3.113057.22796@engage.pko.dec.com> boyajian@ruby.enet.dec.com (The fox so cunning and free) writes:
>>In article <1992Mar31.153759.12853@cbnewsj.cb.att.com>, btwomey@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (william.tw0mey) writes...
>>
>>} In the movies, a picture that shows genitalia gets a No_Children-under 17
>>} (NC-17 used to be an X).
>>
>>Not true. There are plenty of films showing genitalia that get only an "R"
>>rating.
>>
>>-- 
> 
>For example??  The only non-X-or-NC-17 film that shows a genital is
>"Superman," where they show Clark Kent (I forget his Kryptonian
>name... What was it again?  Kal-El?) naked at about age 3 and it
>wasn't in any sort of kiddie porn context.
>
>If you're thinking of full female frontal nudity, keep in mind that in
>such a state, a woman's genitals ordinarily don't show.
>
>ObTV: In an episode of "All in the Family," Archie changed Joey's
>diaper, and they showed a full shot of the naked baby.
>
>Katie

The opening credits of WORLD ACCORDING TO GARP shows a baby bouncing
higher and higher in "gravity context' until you actually see his penis.

There have been a few adult male full frontals that are R.. Room with a
View' and by the same company the recently shown on Cinemax MAURICE was
quite explicit in full frontal nudity and it was only an R..  

tk
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: Neil Hull <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: Suing over debasing o
X-To: TERRY CARROLL
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 16:22:00 GMT

TC>In article <3B39HB2w164w@gorilla.nbn.com> deej@gorilla.nbn.com (Donna Corner
TC>mes) writes:
TC>>
TC>>But maybe you could copyright your name?

TC>Names, like titles, can't be copyrighted, per 37 CFR 202.1, I think.

What about ee cummings?

As I have heard, he apparently obtained a copyright on his name (including
the fact that it is intentionally spelled entirely in lower case).

Or...is this "small exception" to the rule against copyrighting names,
based upon the fact that he copyrighted the name AND the *style*, or
is there another consideration that I may have overlooked?

W.

 * SLMR 2.1a *
From: rdj@adpgate.UUCP (Richard Johnson)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Noriega Trial Implications
Summary: Accessories before the fact?
Keywords: FEMINISMUS DELENDUS EST
Date: 16 Apr 92 22:40:16 GMT
Article-I.D.: curly.1284
Organization: ADP Dealer Services R&D, Portland, OR


	If Noriega was, as the jury found, engaged in poisoning American 
	kids with drugs, the fact that he was a head of state ought not 
	to have protected him from being brought to Justice.  [Matt Rosenblatt]

If Noriega was, as the jury found, engaged in poisioning Americans,
while in the employ of the CIA, and it's chairman Bush, then Bush is an
accessory before the fact and also criminally liable, right?  Is this
impeachable?

-- 
Richard Johnson             (adpgate!curly!rdj@mcspdx.pdx.csd.mot.com)
"Income Tax has made liars out of more Americans than gold has."
							 -- Will Rogers
From: hilary.miller@execnet.com (hilary miller)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: proving authenticity
Date: 9 Apr 92 03:48:12 GMT
Reply-To: "hilary miller" <hilary.miller@execnet.com>
Distribution: misc
Organization: Executive Networks Information


Ong Kenneth (dr, in a message to All on 04-07-92 at 6:08pm, said:

OK/3Question: How does one go about proving the authenticity of an
   3audio cassette tape recording of an interview?  That it hasn't been
   3been tampered with?
   TMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM>

               You testify under oath that the cassette is a true
               and accurate representation of what occurred dur-
               ing your interview, that it has been continuously
               in your possession, and that it has not been al-
               tered.


   L A
 I    R        Hilary B. Miller of Greenwich, Connecticut
  H/\Y         CIS: 76040,1743
   s r
---
 ~ DeLuxe} 1.21 #11645 ~ ASCII stupid question - get a stupid ANSI
--
Executive Network Information System   (914) 667-4567
International ILink Host
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: jwoodman@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Jonathan A Woodman)
Subject: Re: Noriega Trial Implications
Organization: The Ohio State University College of Law
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 04:05:14 GMT

In article feustel@netcom.com (David Feustel) writes:

>1. The Iraqis can now kidnap President Bush and put him on trial in
>Baghdad  for mass murder.

>2. It's OK for IRAN to carry out its death sentence on Rushidie.

Hmmm. I wonder if the jurors at Noreiga's trial were told about jury
nullification. ("If for some reason you don't think it is right for the
US governemnt to kidnap foreign nationals in their own countries for
violations of US law, then you may choose not to convict, as you are the
final judges of both the facts and the law.")

*Snicker*

Yeah, right.


-- 
Jonathan Woodman                   \ "I mean, sex is one thing, but reading
jwoodman@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu /  to someone is *really* intimate." C. Duda
The Ohio State University          \ "Oh, you can slice that salami of 
   College of Law                  /  copyright any number of ways." S. Halpern
From: tucker@shiva.edsg.hac.com (George Tucker)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: jury nullification
Date: 10 Apr 92 17:55:30 GMT
Article-I.D.: hacgate.21199
Reply-To: tucker@shiva.hac.com (George Tucker)
Organization: Hughes Aircraft Co., El Segundo, CA

In article <1992Apr09.152612.16381@eng.umd.edu> russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) writes:
>
>(obviously, I am a believer in 'natural law'.  However, I think that
>some procedurally good laws can be shown to be substantially bad, even
>without that assumption.  For instance, a law as widely violated as
>speed limit 55 cannot be a good law.)

Didn't people once claim it was "God's will" or some similar synonym 
for "natural law" that people should not go faster than 15 mph?
I am a believer in 'natural law' too;  like you, I believe that my
opinions are Truth and the only rational basis for Law.

Anyway, the solution is very simple.  Mandatory execution of anyone
who drives over 55mph will reduce the number of violations substantially
and thereby render it a Good law.


	George Tucker        tucker@kali.hac.com
		Just say NO to incumbents.
Xref: sparky alt.sex:13742 misc.legal:9001 rec.arts.tv:9306
From: tkelsey@panix.com (Tom Kelsey)
Newsgroups: alt.sex,misc.legal,rec.arts.tv
Subject: Re: Censoship of nudity (was Re: Photo of minor: is it illegal to possess?
Date: 8 Apr 92 12:47:55 GMT
Organization: PANIX - Public Access Unix Systems of NY

In article <1992Apr3.152335.15524@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> wwarf@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (wayne john warf) writes:
>         {edited]>
>>You must not have seen quite as many movies as you think you have.
>>There's a movie with Patrick Dempsy (spelling probably wrong) in it
>>where he's shown fully nude, sitting (penis visible) and then standing
>>up for a short moment.  
>>
>>I'm not a real movie person, so I can't remember the exact name... 
>>
>>amy
>>--
>
>Leave it to Amy.
>
>If we're talking about nudity, how about on public TV.
>The German produced series "Berlin Alexanderplatz" had not only full
>frontal male nudity but 2 fully nude males embracing and "Heimat" showed
>teenage intercourse. The English produced "The Singing Detective" showed nudity
>and intercourse. "Heimat" and "The Singing Detective" were prime time.
>
You are now in the realm of PBS TV which bears no relation to regular
broadcast tv and the standards have NEVER been the same.  Whats yawned at
on PBS with sex and nudity, would cause a riot on NBC etc... yet even
some pbs stations have their own standards.  the aforementioned, in other
articles re ROOM WITH A VIEW, has been edited.  We have three PBS stations
here in NYC and they run what they choose to run on different schedules,
and have different 'local' stuff.. a more obscure one ran "ROOM" and
digitally edited.. thos 'blocky' out of focus computer generated effect,
to erase the male romp session.  the primary PBS outlet ran it in total
context with nothing edited.

t
>
>-- 
> *  WWARF@ucs.indiana.edu**I speak for me,OK?**sic semper tyrannis    *
> *   NRA LIFE* *NRA Certified Instructor* *Penna. R&PA* *Ind. SR&PA   *
> * Department of Decision & Information Systems, Indiana University   *
> * Bloomington, IN 47405 USA* *Pennsylvania CCW Lic.*Indiana CCW Lic. *
Xref: sparky misc.legal:9149 alt.society.civil-liberty:3382
From: arg@huxley.bitstream.com (Adam R. Grossman)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.society.civil-liberty
Subject: Re: jury nullification
Date: 10 Apr 92 18:30:02 GMT
	<1992Apr7.232540.18978@esd.dl.nec.com>
	<ARG.92Apr8160924@huxley.bitstream.com>
	<1992Apr09.152612.16381@eng.umd.edu>
Reply-To: arg@bitstream.com
Organization: Bitstream, Inc. - Cambridge, MA
In-reply-to: russotto@eng.umd.edu's message of 9 Apr 92 15:26:12 GMT

russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) writes:
   Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.society.civil-liberty
   Date: 9 Apr 92 15:26:12 GMT

   arg@bitstream.com writes:
   > someone writes:
   >     [but what about the bad laws?]
   >
   > There are no such things as "bad" laws--strictly speaking... trying to
   > figure out which laws are bad only depends on whom you ask...  How can
   > you prove a law is good, or bad, or just, or  fair?  You  can't.  It's
   > only a matter of opinion.
   >
   > [However,] we can prove that it is  *procedurally* fair,  by requiring
   > that it is enactly properly, applied properly, and enforced properly.

   Provided, that is, you believe that form is more important than content.

Form is  very important--maybe even  more important--during the application
and execution of the laws, but this is only one part of the legal system.

Content is very  important  and it is central  to the  legislative  process
including elections (well, it ought to be!  -arg)  That  is why people like
to hear how the candidates  stand on "the issues",  etc.  However, once the
rules are made  according   to the  generally   accepted procedure  in  our
society, it is only fair that they be executed in a non-haphazard manner.
--
Adam R. Grossman
arg@bitstream.com
From: tt@romulus.jyu.fi (Tapani Tarvainen)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Noriega Trial Implications
Date: 15 Apr 92 12:39:53 GMT
	<18469@smoke.brl.mil>
	<1992Apr14.020251.25395@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>
	<18481@smoke.brl.mil>
Organization: University of Jyvaskyla
Originator: tt@romulus.jyu.fi

In article <18481@smoke.brl.mil> matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt) writes:

>Let some con man set up a "boiler room" in Florida, and sell nonexistent
>or underwater land over the 'phone to Maryland residents.  See how fast
>the Maryland Attorney General will sue the con man under the Maryland
>"long arm" statute.

How will the con man be brought to Maryland to face trial?
I presume there either is an agreement between Maryland and Florida
or a federal law to the effect that Florida police will arrest and
take him to Maryland, or one that allows Maryland police to arrest
him in Florida -- is that correct?  What if any are the requirements
for that to happen: in particular, does the act in question have to
be a crime under Florida or federal law, too?
--
Tapani Tarvainen    (tarvaine@jyu.fi, tarvainen@finjyu.bitnet)
From: feustel@netcom.com (David Feustel)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Noriega Trial Implications
Date: 10 Apr 92 00:10:31 GMT
Article-I.D.: netcom.khsjs9g.feustel
Organization: DAFCO: OS/2 Software Support & Consulting

1. The Iraqis can now kidnap President Bush and put him on trial in
Baghdad  for mass murder.

2. It's OK for IRAN to carry out its death sentence on Rushidie.
-- 
David Feustel N9MYI, 1930 Curdes Ave, Fort Wayne, IN 46805. (219)482-9631
= Candidate Bush wouldn't recognize principle if he were standing upon it =
From: gerald.mcdougall@yob.sccsi.com (Gerald Mcdougall) 
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: LOOKING FOR CD-ROM OF U.S
Date: 9 Apr 92 18:26:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Ye Olde Bailey BBS - Houston, TX - 713-520-1569
Reply-To: gerald.mcdougall@yob.sccsi.com (Gerald Mcdougall) 

.MW>                                                                        .
.MW>Does anybody know if this sort of thing is available for a              .
.MW>Mac or MS-DOS machine?                                                  .
.............................................................................

I have heard it is available, probably from West - but
EXPENSIVE!!!!!!!!!
---
 . MegaMail 2.10 #847.Democracy - the worship of jackals by jackasses