HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (J. S. Greenfield)
Subject: Re: Limiting religious speech
Organization: Syracuse University, CIS Dept.
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 92 19:14:44 EDT

In article <AULTJ.92Sep1165812@caleb.rpi.edu> aultj@rpi.edu (Jim Ault) writes:
>
>   The case you cite is a lone example of an improper application of
>   the establishment clause (based on the facts as presented).
>   Furthermore, it says absolutely nothing to support your accusation
>   of hostility aimed, in particular, at a "Judeo-Christian God."
>
>I said "those who believe in the Judeo-Christian God".
>        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Come now.  Let's not play games.


>   >If you (plural) can't see that this is open hostility to Christianity,
>   >and only Christianity, then I am amazed and ashamed that we as a
>   >country have fallen this far. 
>
>   The charge that a country, in which the legislators, executives,
>   judges, and people of every state, and of the country as a whole
>   are, *overwhelmingly* Christian, and in which most politicians, and
>   even the President, openly refer to God on a frequent basis,
>   practices "open hostility to Christianity" is simply ludicrous--and
>   demonstrates just how extreme *your own* vision of what is
>   happening is.
>
>I did not say that every legislator, executive or judge practices open
>hostility toward Christianity.  I said that this _decision_ was an
>example of it. 

You just don't get it, do you.  What I said is that your suggestion that
the US, which is *overwhelmingly* Christian, practices "open hostility
to Christianity" is laughable.

Like I said, you might as well be claiming that Israel practices "open
hostility" to Judaism.


>I believe that the many people who want to remove every mention of God
>from our the face of government (and by extension, from everyone and
>everything that receives public funds, which lately is almost
>everyone) are denying the history of our country, and ignoring the
>wishes of the people that you yourself say are overwhelmingly
>Christian.  

The whole point of the Bill of Rights is to protect those in the minority
(say, non-Christians) from the tyranny of the majority, in certain areas
of fundamental rights.

One of those rights was the right not to have the government forcing any
religion down our throats.

Nobody denies that currently, and historically, this country is
overwhelmingly Christian.  We just deny that such a historical fact has
any bearing on the question of government involvement with religion.


I think Carl has quite eloquently addressed your other claims, so I'll
stop here.

-- 
J. S. Greenfield                                         greeny@top.cis.syr.edu
(I like to put 'greeny' here, 
but my d*mn system wants a 
*real* name!)                        "What's the difference between an orange?"
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
From: grimlok@hubcap.clemson.edu (Mike Percy)
Subject: Re: fuck
Organization: Clemson University
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1992 15:49:23 GMT

Jeff_R_Spangenberg@cup.portal.com spews forth drivel:

>Censorship is Censorshit.
>Fuck censorship.
>Let's see you fucking censor this message!!!
>Fuck you and all your nigger friends.
 
What a moron...what does opposing censorship (as he seems to be angrily
trying to do -- after all, I had a bumpersticker for awhile that said
pretty much the same thing [Fuck Censorship]) have to do with
race-baiting?

Mike Percy             | grimlok@hubcap.clemson.edu  | I don't know about
Sr. Systems Analyst    | mspercy@clemson.clemson.edu | your brain, but mine
Info. Sys. Development | mspercy@clemson.BITNET      | is really...bossy.
Clemson University     | (803) 656-3780              | (Laurie Anderson)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,soc.culture.african.american,alt.activism,misc.legal,soc.culture.
From: david@gdstech.grumman.com (David Nettles)
Subject: Re: [UPI] High court strikes down ethnic intimidation law
Reply-To: david@gdstech.UUCP (David Nettles)
Organization: Grumman Data Systems-Woodbury
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 12:50:20 GMT

In article <D0XJqB1w165w@bluemoon.rn.com> orson@bluemoon.rn.com (Craig Smith) writes:
>david@gdstech.grumman.com (David Nettles) writes:
>
>> In article <1992Aug27.194232.18207@m.cs.uiuc.edu> kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu
>> >Copyright 1992 by UPI.  Reposted with permission from the ClariNet
>> >Electronic Newspaper newsgroup clari.clari.local.ohio and
>> >clari.news.groups.jews.  For more info on ClariNet, write to
>> >info@clarinet.com or phone 1-800-USE-NETS.
>> >
>> >	COLUMBUS, Ohio (UPI) -- The Ohio Supreme Court has ruled the state's
>> >ethnic intimidation law is unconstitutional because it is an
>> >infringement of the right of free speech.
[Stuff deleted]
>> "What is the difference between manslaughter and murder?", I asked.
>> 
>> "I don't know?"
>> 
>> "Intent.  It is the intent that decides whether or not the accused
>> will spend ten years in prison or fifty or even further receive the
>> death penalty.  It is the intent that makes all the difference.  There
>> is a difference between scrawling ''Joanie loves Chachi'' on a
>> deli-owners wall and scrawling ''Niggers Go Home!''."
>
>Okay, but then the question comes down to, "what is the intent of
>a cross burner?" To intimidate, yes? Are their laws against intimidation?
>Yes, there are. Existing laws will suffice.
>
>It seems extremely odd to me that those who write and support these
>"hate crime" laws are the same people who say that you cannot 
>legislate morality.  Is not racism a moral question?
>
>Double standard, is it not?
>
>Craig E. Smith              "Life is a fulltime occupation."--Gene Kalman
>orson@bluemoon                    "It's just one .sig after another."--me


No.  It is not a double standard.

We have a right to free speech.  And it is legal to express our points
o view.

We cannot yell "Fire!" in a movie theatre.  Even if fire is the symbol
of our religious beliefs and we feel that the utterance of such a word
brings great power, it is still illegal.

Nothing is absolute.

To promote the better good in a society, there has to be laws created
to support that good.  For example, there are laws that exist to deal
with the crime of rape.  While rape can be broken down to being
assualt and kidnapping, there is a recognition of the harm done by
this specific form of "assualt and kidnapping".  As a result there are
laws specifically designed to protect women in this special case of
"assualt and kidnapping".  Example: laws that protect women from rape
by their spouses.

We do have the freedom to publish works if we have a printing press,
but if we print slanderous material, then the object of such slander
does have the legal right to defend themself.
-- 
****************************************************************************
   David E. Nettles
   Internet: david@gdstech.grumman.com
   Grumman Data Systems
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
From: aultj@rpi.edu (Jim Ault)
Subject: Re: Limiting religious speech
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
	<AULTJ.92Aug25131548@caleb.rpi.edu>
	<1992Aug30.185659.12102@newstand.syr.edu>
	<AULTJ.92Sep1165812@caleb.rpi.edu>
	<1992Sep2.001224.17725@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 23:01:34 GMT

In article <1992Sep2.001224.17725@m.cs.uiuc.edu> kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:

   aultj@rpi.edu (Jim Ault) writes:

   [...]
   >If you want another example of hostility toward Christianity, how
   >about a preacher who, two weeks ago, was arrested and put in jail for
   >six months without being accused or charged with a crime, and without
   >a jury trial, for preaching the gospel on a public sidewalk?  A judge
   >in Houston did this almost singlehandedly, and flatly refused to let
   >another judge be involved in the case.
   [...]

   Can you give us references, names, or less impartial accounts of this
   case? Could it be that the preacher was in contempt of court for
   violating an anti-harassment constraining order?

Yes, in fact this preacher was "in contempt of court" in Houston,
Texas.  

As another example, what about the case of the AIDS activists who
stormed St. Patrick's Cathedral in NYC, and caused much property
damage, as well as harassing the people inside during a church
service?  The church tried to get a court injunction against them to
prevent them from trespassing.  Was an injunction granted? No.  

Why is it that many other groups across the country are engaged in civil
disobedience of one form or another, and yet the only group against
which courts place injunctions are pro-life people?

In article <1992Sep3.191444.3527@newstand.syr.edu> greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (J. S. Greenfield) writes:

   You just don't get it, do you.  What I said is that your suggestion that
   the US, which is *overwhelmingly* Christian, practices "open hostility
   to Christianity" is laughable.

I never said that everyone in the US government or the government
itself was practicing open hostility to Christianity.  

I mentioned this particular court case as an example of a judge who
was doing so, and I could mention more, but I won't because I can tell
that most readers of this group (at least those who have responded to
my posts), don't care about pro-life people or Christians if they
happen to experience censorship or other infringement of their rights.
--
Jim Ault, ITS Systems Programmer, aultj@rpi.edu    <><
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [misc.consumers, et al.]  Waldenbooks fires staff for refusing to sell racist book!
Followup-To: alt.censorship,misc.consumers,misc.books.technical,alt.discrimination
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 18:40:52 GMT

[A repost - Carl]

From: jsdph@acad3.alaska.edu (Dennis P. Harris)
Newsgroups: misc.consumers,misc.books.technical,alt.discrimination
Subject:  Waldenbooks fires staff for refusing to sell racist book!
Date: 6 Sep 92 07:30:00 GMT

According to a story on today's NPR Morning Edition, Waldenbooks has fired the
staff of its Georgetown store in Washington, DC for refusing to sell the
"Joke-A-Date" appointment calendar, which contains racist and demeaning "jokes"
for each day of 1993.  After hearing some examples in the story of some of the
"jokes", I agree with the former WB employees that the publication (from St.
Martins Press, which should know better) would offend a large number of
bookstore customers.

I have already informed WB that I intend to boycott them until they stop
selling the book and reinstate the fired employees by posting a message to
their user services folks in their Walden Computerbooks on-line store in the
Compu$erve Mall (GO WB), and I urge others to join me.  I also intend to write
St. Martins Press and tell them I'm boycotting them, too.  The book's author is
apparently afraid to use his/her real name, since it's listed as "Blanche
Knott" (ooh, bad pun!).

There is no Waldenbooks store in my area, or I would have dropped in and told
the local staff that I'm boycotting them, but you can drop by your local mall
and let the local manager know how you feel.

================================================================================
dennis p. harris					bitnet: jsdph@alaska.edu

  "The nation that controls magnetism controls the Universe." --- Diet Smith
================================================================================
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Xref: sparky alt.censorship:7464 rec.arts.tv:17716
From: dh4j+@andrew.cmu.edu (David O Hunt)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,rec.arts.tv
Subject: Re: Banned in USA is now UNbanned in USA
Date: 13 Sep 92 10:15:44 GMT
	<BDmyqB1w164w@jab.tucson.az.us>
Organization: Masters student, Mechanical Engineering, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

If anyone knows when the program will be aired, please let me know.  And if
I happen to miss it, I'll pay for a video-taped copy!

David
From: greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (J. S. Greenfield)
Subject: Re: Limiting religious speech
Organization: Syracuse University, CIS Dept.
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 92 10:09:05 EDT

In article <AULTJ.92Sep14173724@caleb.rpi.edu> aultj@rpi.edu (Jim Ault) writes:
>
>No, I want the right to have my child removed from such classes.
>By the way, abstinence is still 100% effective.  Perhaps they could
>_mention_ that as one alternative among many?   If we have so many
>people campaigning to tell the kids "Just Say No to Drugs", why can't
>we even mention the _idea_ of "Just Say No to Sex"?

Come on.  You don't seriously believe this.  Abstinence is *always* discussed
in such classes.


-- 
J. S. Greenfield                                         greeny@top.cis.syr.edu
(I like to put 'greeny' here, 
but my d*mn system wants a 
*real* name!)                        "What's the difference between an orange?"
From: Ken.Cusick@iphase.UUCP (Ken Cusick)
Sender: FredGate@iphase.UUCP
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
Subject: Re: limiting religious sp
Date: 14 Sep 92  04:25:00 EST

-> Bible to support bigamy?  Or would you rather this teacher stick with
-> what (s)he is certified to teach?

Just put this in the back of your mind in case you ever think of moving to Florida.

In Florida, private school educators don't even have to know how to spell the name of the subjects they teach.

My 97 year old grandmother, who never went to school, is qualified to teach High School Trig, in a private school.

How is it in your state?


BTW,
My Basset is looking for work.
She would like to teach, possibly Latin. She has a penchant for Ovid, Horace, Dog Biscuits and back scratches.



Did you know there is a traffic in certain "private educators" between states?  ......but that's a different can of worms....

 * Origin: Aether (1:112/2020)

Newsgroups: alt.censorship
From: greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (J. S. Greenfield)
Subject: Re: Limiting religious speech
Organization: Syracuse University, CIS Dept.
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 92 10:19:16 EDT

In article <AULTJ.92Sep14180134@caleb.rpi.edu> aultj@rpi.edu (Jim Ault) writes:
>
>   You just don't get it, do you.  What I said is that your suggestion that
>   the US, which is *overwhelmingly* Christian, practices "open hostility
>   to Christianity" is laughable.
>
>I never said that everyone in the US government or the government
>itself was practicing open hostility to Christianity.  
>
>I mentioned this particular court case as an example of a judge who
>was doing so, and I could mention more, but I won't because I can tell
>that most readers of this group (at least those who have responded to
>my posts), don't care about pro-life people or Christians if they
>happen to experience censorship or other infringement of their rights.

I think you are icredibly disingenuous Mr. Ault.  You have consistently
cited numerous examples of what you claim to be infringements of Christians'
rights (at least one example of which, the teacher reading the bible to
himself, most of us have agreed was an unreasonable infringement) and then
have explicitly generalized that the government practices "open hostility
to Christianity."

You now try to claim that you were just citing one case as such an example,
even though your very same post included your own citations of a few other
cases that you see as proof of this alleged "open hostility to Christianity."

Couple this with your last post's ridiculous claims that sex-education classes
*push* sex (based on your silly claim that such classes refuse to even
*mention* abstinence) and I think it is clear that, either consciously or
subconsciously, you have no problem with distorting facts to fit whatever
argument you find convenient at the moment.


-- 
J. S. Greenfield                                         greeny@top.cis.syr.edu
(I like to put 'greeny' here, 
but my d*mn system wants a 
*real* name!)                        "What's the difference between an orange?"
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
From: J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM
Subject: Re: Will the PBS/NPR content restricts be upheld?
Organization: Lockheed Missiles & Space Company, Inc.
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 92 15:23:43 GMT

In <1992Sep8.140307.22134@m.cs.uiuc.edu>, Carl M. Kadie writes:

>>The recently passed funding for public broadcasting includes new
>>content restrictions. Will these restrictions be found to be
>>Constitutional? I'm enclosing pointers to the most relevent Supreme
>>Court decisions.

Personally, I don't see how *any* Federal funding for such a purpose could
possibly be Constitutional.

Tim Irvin   j056600@lmsc5.is.lmsc.lockheed.com
*****************************************************************************
"In a free government the security for civil rights must be the same as that
 for religious rights." -- James Madison, Federalist #51
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [rec.arts.books]  Re: [UPI] Report: Book censorship, challenges in schools at 10-year high
Followup-To: alt.censorship,rec.arts.books
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 03:05:13 GMT

[A repost - Carl]

Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
From: francis@oas.stanford.edu (Francis Muir)
Subject:  Re: [UPI] Report: Book censorship, challenges in schools at 10-year high
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 02:12:11 GMT

Erik Timmerman writes:

	There is a new book on this topic: What Johnny Shouldn't Read
	by Joan DelFattore.  Reviewed within the last month in the
	NY Times Book Review.

This book appears to be a hoot. It is concerned with the influence
that loonies from the Left and Right control content in school texts
-- particularly loonies from Texas and California which States are
influential because of their population. It is, of course, the publishers
who are made to look bad, since their interest is frighteningly
unsavoury. Example. Texas would not allow the New Deal to be mentioned
in their books, since it sounded Commie and not Free Enterprise. Result.
There is a gap -- literally, a gap -- between Hoover and Pearl Harbor
where clearly something had been there. In Texas? Yes, no sweat. But also
in Connecticut! In other words, the Goddam publishers were so cheap
that they could not allow the change just to be made for Texas' benefit.
I admire lunatic political debate -- its one of the hallmarks of America,
but the sleaze associated with the education system is not a pleasant
thing to witness.

							Fido
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
From: jara0040@nova.gmi.edu (jaramillo jamison)
Subject: Anybody else in trouble w/ FCC?
Organization: GMI Engineering&Management Institute, Flint, MI
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 02:39:46 GMT

	So the punks at the FCC caught me importing porno gif's on my
school's network?  So what?  Well the fuckers threatend me with their
"soon to be passed" anti-obscenity laws for computer networks!  Plus they
"alerted" the authorities at my school to my actions.  So why didn't they
post some sort of _extremely_ legible warning to those who were planning 
to get some nasty gif's?  (By the way, I got mine from alt.sex.pictures, 
apparently the punks are monitoring that channel, as they probably are mon-
itoring me as I type this.)  What I think is that the FCC can take their
white-trash decency bullshit program-to-brainwash-all-of-america-into-thinking-
the-fucked-up-way-that-they-do and shove it up either their tiny-ass cunts,
or shove it up the little hole in their little penises.  How about you?
g
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [rec.arts.books]  Re: [UPI] Report: Book censorship, challenges in schools at 10-year high
Followup-To: alt.censorship,rec.arts.books
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 18:23:25 GMT

[A repost - Carl]

From: ncramer@bbn.com (Nichael Cramer)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
Subject:  Re: [UPI] Report: Book censorship, challenges in schools at 10-year high
Date: 10 Sep 1992 16:21:12 GMT

francis@oas.stanford.edu (Francis Muir) writes:
>Erik Timmerman writes:
>>	There is a new book on this topic: What Johnny Shouldn't Read
>>	by Joan DelFattore.  Reviewed within the last month in the
> ... Example. Texas would not allow the New Deal to be mentioned
>in their books, since it sounded Commie and not Free Enterprise. Result.
>There is a gap -- literally, a gap -- between Hoover and Pearl Harbor
>where clearly something had been there.

Specifically: Texan schoolbooks are forbidden --by law-- from mentioning
any topic that might tend to show the free-enterprise system in a bad
light.  Since it it difficult to discuss the New Deal without bumping up
against the suggestion that it might have helped the US recover from the
Great Depression, the New Deal is inadmissible evidence.

[Source: "Fresh Air" Interview with DelFattore, broadcast on WBUR (Boston)
Tuesday evening.]

NICHAEL  
nichael@bbn.com  --                Bush/Gorbachev: One Down, One to Go
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [misc.consumers, et al.]  Re: Waldenbooks fires staff for refusing to sell racist book!
Followup-To: alt.censorship,misc.consumers,alt.discrimination
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 18:42:26 GMT

[A repost - Carl]

From: jsp@uts.amdahl.com (James Preston)
Newsgroups: misc.consumers,alt.discrimination
Subject:  Re: Waldenbooks fires staff for refusing to sell racist book!
Date: 7 Sep 92 19:40:53 GMT

jsdph@acad3.alaska.edu (Dennis P. Harris) writes:

}I have already informed WB that I intend to boycott them until they stop
}selling the book and reinstate the fired employees . . .

I find your posting offensive.  I think everyone who agrees with me should
write to your system administrator and demand that your posting privileges
be revoked.

Just trying to make a point.  No one has the right to "censor" you by trying
to get your posting privileges revoked.  Neither do you nor the employees
of that bookstore have the right to censor book publishers.  Freedom of the
press is one of the most fundamental and cherished freedoms that we still
have left in this country.  Your kind sickens me.

}There is no Waldenbooks store in my area . . .

I found this amazingly laughable.  Let me make sure I've got this straight:
You are now boycotting a store that you couldn't even shop at in the first
place, right?  So the effect on their sales is going to be exactly nil.
Whatta schmuck.

--James Preston

--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,soc.college
From: bone@luciano.Stanford.EDU (Douglas J. Bone)
Subject: Re: U. of Wisconsin drops hate speech rule
Organization: DSO, Stanford University
Date: 15 Sep 92 03:47:01 GMT

After the UWM Post v. UWM Decision, I wrote a bill in the Student
Senate at Stanford calling for a review of our Grey Interpretation
of the Fundamental Standard.  Written a few years ago by Law Prof
Thomas Grey, this document is essentially a speech code modifying
the Fundamental Standard of Student COnduct, which basically says
be nice and don't cheat.  The Senate passed the bill (11-10).  A
referendum on the Spring ballot on the matter saw a plurality of
students agree that the Grey Interpretation should be rescinded.

Three students (I am one) were elected to three positions on the
relevant board that adopts such policies all running on anti-speech-code
platforms.  The RAV v St. Paul decision has obviously added impetus
to the movement to repeal the code, but I thought it interesting
that the Wisconsin decision basically started the effort by some of
us at Stanford to repeal our speech code.
--
Douglas Bone		Internet: bone@luciano.stanford.edu
Standard disclaimers	BITNET:   bone%luciano.stanford.edu@stanford
apply.			UUCP:   ..ucbvax!luciano!sierra.stanford.edu!bone