HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: Fightin' Words
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 18:30:48 GMT

In article <TsJTRB1w164w@depsych.Gwinnett.COM> rc@depsych.Gwinnett.COM (Richard Carlson) writes:

>OK. If it isn't a crime in the sense of a felony or a misdemeanor
>or a violation, what is its legal status?  Perhaps it is no longer
>current legal doctrine, but defendants have claimed that such an
>act is a _provocation_ and mitigates their responsibility for
>responding with violence, which would not otherwise be acceptable.

If you have run across a reference to "fighting words" in anything other
than a context in which someone is trying to ban certain speech, that
reference is, technically, a misuse of the term. You are correct that
provocation is sometimes used to frame defenses for battery, murder, and
so on, or to affect sentencing.

>What is the legal status of a provocation which is not itself a
>criminal or punishable act?

The special term for this in Constitutional Law is "speech."

>But cases have been decided in the past, either being dismissed by
>the judge or resulting in the person punching the person who says
>the provocative phrase being found innocent of battery, on the
>basis of some degree of latitude existing after having been
>provoked by fighting words.

If the court based its decision on the "fighting words" doctrine, it
misapplied the precedent. If the court simply *referred* to the "fighting
words" doctrine in the context of making a decision that a certain
response was somehow justified by *provocation*, it hasn't misapplied the
precedent, but it may seem to have done so to the lay reader of the
opinion.

>Does the fact that calling a person an [ethnic epithet] is now a
>violation of University regulations on some campuses, and is also
>illegal in some cities, or was, doesn't that in practice further
>excuse the provoked person if he hits the one calling him an
>[ethnic epithet]?

No.



--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 
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart)
Subject: Re: Skinhead speech protected, Supreme Court says (was: Re: Fuck You
Organization: my opinions only
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 21:58:18 GMT

In article <1992Sep27.212258.14848@Princeton.EDU>
egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Edward G. Nilges) writes:
>In article <1992Sep27.190020.26055@fid.morgan.com> sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart) writes:
>>
>>Ed, what is this fixation you have about "right-thinking white
>>guy[s]"?  I said (and you can see it right above, where you quote it)
>>"anybody"; that clearly includes non-whites and non-guys.  I also said
>>(ditto) "whatever"; that clearly includes non-right-thinking (whatever
>>that is) statements.
>
>I'm deconstructing the code.  Of course, the formal statement of rights
     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>applies to "anybody."  Because of power differentials, however, these
>rights (which in the code are to be applied with strict equality,
>avoiding any sort of "affirmative action") are unequally enjoyed.

Everybody has the "right" to run a 4-minute mile.  Few of us can
manage it; is this unfair?  Everybody has the right to speak; many
people can speak much louder than I can; I don't claim that's unfair.

>Women gain the freedom to enter the workforce; because they
>systematically accept lower wages for comparable work than men because
>of low self-esteem (itself a product of sexism),

References?  Every place I've worked, women and men were paid
according to the value of their contributions.  I don't know how to
properly define "comparable", but for "the same" work, women got paid
the same.

> American corporations
>of course prefer them for many jobs.  With the results, not totally
>happy, of displaced middle aged men and single parenthood.

So now you say women are being given an advantage in the workplace?

>The freedoms in themselves are extremely valuable; it's the formal
>equality of application (save in economic terms) that results in
>problems.  It's simply not the case, in many if not most hiring
>decisions, that a man and a woman are compared and the highest-merit
>individual is hired

I don't know how you make hiring decisions; in any that I've been
involved in, what you deny is most certainly the case.

> (and it's not the case that the women is
>systematically favored because of some mythologically universal
>Affirmative Action.)

Sometimes she is, sometimes not.

>  More and more the woman is hired because her
>per-hour or per-minute unit cost is lower; she'll work harder for less
>money, and she won't waste time in macho games.  Formal equality is a
>principled refusal to see how this works; it just blathers on about
>Affirmative Action's purported evils.

Around here, if a woman produces more (this requires working harder
and/or being better at the job) she'll make more money.

>>Why do you keep harping on specific groups and types of thought?  I
>>allow freedom of speech to everybody.  Period.
>
>You don't have power to allow it or disallow it, and chances are you
>refuse to associate with people holding uncomfortable views.

Wrong.

Seth		sethb@fid.morgan.com
Newsgroups: misc.legal,rec.arts.books
From: ia4@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Imran Anwar)
Subject: Re: Anti-Arab racism on the net
Keywords: Equality, Fairness, Same Standards?
Reply-To: ia4@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Imran Anwar)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 03:31:13 GMT

In article <1992Oct1.015208.3507@fid.morgan.com> sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart) writes:

>There is evidence about David Duke (like him being a bigshot in the
>KKK).  What is the evidence about Rushdie?

Oh, but Duke does say he was not really what he seemed to be, so doesn't
that make him innocent just like Rushdie's claims make him "not offensive"

Also, perhaps you have not read the book he wrote after the Satanic Vershit
That also had chartacters and names and events that were quite
anti-Islamic if one knew the characters in Islamic history.  of course
I just read the excerpt inthe NY Times (some months ago) so obviously
someonwill now say that the excerpts (about half a page in the Times if
I remember) was "taken out of context"

>>>Did you learn telepathy from Ed Nilges?
>>>
>>You MUST be telepathic to know that I am :-)  , do you hold classes.  
>>Oh, actually, I dont even need to attend classes as lessons can be 
>>transmitted to me telepathically :-)
>
>Too bad it doesn't work for clues :-)
>

Oh, so you don't have a clue? :-)

Imran Anwar



Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.politics.correct,soc.college,sci.econ
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Citecheck Hell)
Subject: Re: the MIT anti-trust case
Followup-To: soc.college,sci.econ
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 20:39:15 GMT

Followups to sci.econ and soc.college.

In article <1992Sep28.192027.24969@Princeton.EDU> egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Edward G. Nilges) writes:
>In article <1992Sep28.170558.4199@island.COM> guido@island.COM (Guido Marx) writes:
>>Universities aren't engaged in trade ???  Unless I am mistaken, most
>>universities allow people to exchange money (aka tuition) for 
>>services (aka education).  That sounds like TRADE to me.  In fact,
>>I don't know how else you could describe what they do. 
>
>Try "education."  Putting universities in the same category (1)
>discourages the notion of giving scholarships to anyone and (2) places
>the student in the cutomer's position.  In real trade and real business,
>the customer is always right (and in cases of doubt refer back to the
>first rule.)  In education, the "customer" isn't always right.
>Universities are engaged in a separate and distinct category of activity
>from trade.

I'll tell my university that the next time they send me a bill.
-- 
           .. . . .  .  .   .    .     .     .    .   .  .  . . . ..
          ted frank | thf2@midway.uchicago.edu | standard disclaimers
         the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Fightin' Words
Date: 5 Oct 92 20:11:50 GMT
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org

In article <b2SG02qc24uQ01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll) writes:

>I found it, Mike.  State of Ohio v. Semple, 58 Ohio App. 3d 93;  568 N.E.2d 
>750 (1989), appeal to Ohio S.Ct. denied (I neglected to get the cite for the 
>table entry denying).  It's only a few pages long; the syllabus is "Telling a 
>police officer that he is 'probably on the take' constitutes fighting words 
>unprotected by the First Amendment and sufficient to support a conviction for 
>disorderly conduct under R.C. 2917.11(A)(2)."

I find it unlikely that this decision would survive Supreme Court review.


--Mike



-- 
Mike Godwin,    |"Liberty resides in the rights of that person
mnemonic@eff.org| whose views you find most odious."
(617) 864-0665  | 
EFF, Cambridge  |                           --John Stuart Mill
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.politics.correct,soc.college
From: rlcarr@athena.mit.edu (Richard L. Carreiro)
Subject: saving my disk from Niglistic idiocy
Summary: kill file entry needed
Organization: Digitopolitan Embassy to the US
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 19:05:34 GMT

Well, enough is enough.
I'm using rn.  Can someone send me the current canonical KILL
file entry for saving one's self from Ed's ridiculous garbage, as
well as all replies to it?

Thanks!


--
Rich Carreiro
ARPA: rlcarr@athena.mit.edu
UUCP: ...!mit-eddie!mit-athena!rlcarr
BITNET: rlcarr@athena.mit.edu
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.politics.correct,talk.politics.theory
From: gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
Subject: Re: Freedom of Speech according to Nilges
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 04:29:09 GMT
Organization: mydog in exile

egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Edward G. Nilges):
| ...
| There is an astonishing amount of dysfunction and codependency on the
| net, and the average poster appears to be a male from a household with a
| strong female and a weak or absent father.  This is because of the
| prelevance of divorce in the era of many posters' childhoods (1960-1980)
| and the fact that even before 1960 "organization man" fathers were
| excluded from meaningful family participation.  Since boys, especially,
| have been shown to learn compassion, the ability to listen, and the
| ability to dialogue from strong and confident males, it no longer
| surprises me that so many posters manifest such high levels of rage, rage
| unalloyed by a sense of irony or even humor.  ...

Ed, I really have to take exception to this.

First, you must be aware that terms like "codependency" and
"dysfunction" are totalitarian symbols, to be used only with
extreme caution and not as throw-aways.

Second, your method of argument is reductionistic.  While
reductionism, like violence, is fun when you win, it really
degrades the atmosphere.  Either your opponents call you on
it, and you don't win after all, or they don't, which means
they were too stupid to argue with in the first place.

Finally, and most seriously, you use _dialogue_ as a verb.  
The inept, crippled language evidenced by so many authors 
here is a far worse problem than their possibly distorted
psyches.

It's up to those of us with insight to teach by example as 
well as precept.
-- 
 )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(
( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta.,  NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )
Xref: sparky misc.legal:18119 rec.arts.books:17686 talk.philosophy.misc:1881
From: kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (kellmeyer steven l)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Roe v. Wade for Men!
Date: 7 Oct 92 03:35:07 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana

uctlxpd@ucl.ac.uk (Peter Bartlett) writes:

>kingsley@hpwrce.mayfield.hp.com (Kingsley Morse) writes:

>>The National Center For Men is preparing to litigate the equivalent of Roe V. 
>>Wade for *men's reproductive rights*. Below are excerpts of a letter written by 
>>Joe Appelbaum, the litigation chairman for the National Center For Men.

>>	A man's life, future and wallet are currently in the hands of his 
>>female partner if she gets pregnant and decides to have the child contrary
>>to his wishes.  

>Both partners' lives, futures and wallets are at stake; only the woman's
>body is at stake.  Which seems to me to make a difference.

Yes.  It means she can choose to use her body any way she wants and stick
the man for the bill while the man cannot use HIS body any way he wants
and have a child.

>>If you haven't been (yet) [the "victim" of a paternaty lawsuit]
>>try to imagine a deceptive and uncaring woman taking you to 
>>court to force you to support a child, when you were never given a choice.

>I'm sorry-- he was FORCED to have sex with her?  If not, he knew what
            she                             him?          she
>he was getting into, and the risks involved.  He DID know, didn't he?
she                                           She                 she?
>If not, the fact that his parents never explained the birds and the bees
                       her
>to him hardly justifies an alteration of the law.
    her                                       ^abortion
 
>peter bartlett.

I told you this was going to happen months ago.  It doesn't take a rocket
scientist to read the logic of society and make a very simple linear 
prediction.  This HAD to happen.  It may not succeed now, but unless this
society's attitude towards reproduction changes radically, it *must*
eventually succeed.  Eventually, if you'll recall, was less than 20 years,
according to my earlier predictions.  Anyone care to make wagers on that
guesstimate?

Steve Kellmeyer
-- 

Steve Kellmeyer 
kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu
Xref: sparky misc.legal:18022 rec.arts.books:17539
From: srm@world.std.com (Stevens R Miller)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,rec.arts.books
Subject: Re: Point of Technicality (Was Re: Anti-Arab racism on the net)
Date: 3 Oct 92 16:45:36 GMT
Article-I.D.: world.BvK181.HFn
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:

>In article <1992Oct3.145702.26669@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> afadel@nyx.cs.du.edu (Ayman Fadel) writes:

>>So actually what he said was that it was permissible to kill
>>him.  He didn't say it was a good thing to kill him no matter
>>what consequences resulted from such an action.  Nor did
>>he say it was obligatory for Salman to be killed.

>There is, of course, the minor matter that a price was put on Rushdie's
>head after the fatwa was issued.

But was it al-khomayni who ordered the bounty?

Actually, I would like to ask Ayman if this fatwa was comparable to the
"planned colloquy" that sometimes precedes the passing of a bill into law?
That is, in order to make a record that will guide efforts at discerning
legislative intent, a congressional committee will sometimes call a
witness (possibly another member of congress, even) and ask a series of
preset questions for the purpose of directing the new legislation at a
particular good or evil.  While its purpose is benevolent, it would be
disingenuous to believe that the colloquy has no undeclared agenda.  So,
I wonder if it is possible (and I ask this in detached curiousity) that
this fatwa was known to be a component in the events that lead to a bounty
on Rushdie's head?
-- 
Stevens R. Miller, J.D.		Electronic Frontier Foundation Member 932
				Republican National Committee Member 90050367
				Amateur Radio Station WA4LDA
Newsgroups: misc.legal,rec.arts.books
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: Anti-Arab racism on the net
Keywords: Equality, Fairness, Same Standards?
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 19:59:25 GMT

In article <1992Oct2.032536.22581@news.columbia.edu> ia4@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Imran Anwar) writes:
>So, the issue is still that if I write an article in wish a character
>suggests things anti-Seimtic it would be attacked.

Jews might not like such an article, but would not suggest that it be banned,
let alone offer money to kill the writer.
--
"the bogosity in a field equals the bogosity imported from related areas, plus
the bogosity generated internally, minus the bogosity expelled or otherwise
disposed of."  -- K. Eric Drexler

Ken Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
     INTERNET: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)
Xref: sparky misc.legal:18138 alt.folklore.urban:24944
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.folklore.urban
Subject: Re: Presidential Succession History (was: Presidential UL's)
From: derek@nezsdc.icl.co.nz (Derek Tearne)
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 92 23:21:54 GMT
Organization: Fujitsu New Zealand

In article <8f=S02DR24U801@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll) writes:
>In article <1992Sep29.164051.16126@awdprime.austin.ibm.com>, 
>jlpicard@austin.ibm.com (Craig Becker) writes:
>> tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll) writes:
>> ....
>> > > This does bring up an interesting question, though.  In case of
>> > > nuclear attack or something that wipes out a large number of high
>> > > officials, what is the line of succession? 
>> > 
>> > The order is:
>> > 
>> > Vice-President
>> > Speaker of the House
[rest of list deleted]
>> 
>> Just outta curiousity, tho, is there any kind of reasoning that went
>> into this ordering? I mean, why is the Secretary of Commerce ordered
>> before, say, the Secretary of Transportation?
>
>3/1/1792, c. 8, sec. 9 creates the first succession list: Vice-President, 
>President of the Senate, then Speaker of the House.
>
>1/19/1886, 24 Stat. 2 scraps the old list, and substitutes a new one: Vice-
>President, Secretary of State, Secretary of Treasury, Secretary of War[etc...]

You mean to tell me that in 1886 they already had contingency plans for a 
nuclear attack.  Now that's what I call planning ahead!

Derek "Nostradamus would have been impressed." Tearne



-- 
Derek Tearne. -- derek@nezsdc.icl.co.nz --  Fujitsu/ICL New Zealand -- 
Some of the more aware dinosaurs were worried about the environmental
consequences of an accident with the new Iridium enriched fusion reactor.  
"If it goes off only the cockroaches and mammals will survive..." they said.
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: brians@atlastele.com (Brian Sheets)
Subject: Project Hermes
Organization: Atlas Telecom Inc.
Disclaimer: Views expressed do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 11:00:42 GMT

I was wondering if the Project Hermes is still around. I have sent mail
off a few times to recieve info on getting Supreme Ct. decisions.

Can anyone help me out.

Ps. I don't have ftp accesss.


brians
-- 
Brian Sheets				"TRUCK?! What truck?"
153 N. Hayden Bay Dr.			 
Portland, Or 97217			   -Raiders of the Lost Ark
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: mag1@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (michael.a.giden)
Subject: Re: Need Advice - Please Read
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 18:45:30 GMT



Have her RUN, NOT WALK to a lawyer.

Mike Giden
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: ericr@solbourne.com (Eric Robison)
Subject: Re: Men & elves
Organization: Solbourne Computer, Inc.
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 22:30:58 GMT

wharfie (wrat@unisql.UUCP) wrote:
: In article <19229@smoke.brl.mil> matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt) writes:
: >Good and evil exist independently of what men say and think.  "Nor
: >are they one thing among Men and another among Elves," as Tolkien
: >puts it.
: 
: 	Would you please describe evil for me so that I can be sure
: and recognize it when I find it?
: 								wr
:

Dan Quaylee running a spelling bee
Taking George Bush to a Japanese restarant
Corrupt pliticians who say "Trust me"
Ross Perot saying "No, really, I'll run for president."
Bill Clinton asking if chick with the big hooters is your wife. 
Asking Tipper Gore to guard the 1st Amendment.
Most of Congress
Letting Ted Kennedy drive your daughter home.


-- 
| Eric Robison                 |Disclaimer: These are not my opinions, they
| ericr@Solbourne.com          |are the opinions of my evil twin, Skippy
| GET ME OFFA THIS &*^*&%&^# PLANET!!   

Newsgroups: misc.legal,rec.arts.books
From: ia4@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Imran Anwar)
Subject: Re: Anti-Arab racism on the net
Keywords: Equality, Fairness, Same Standards?
Reply-To: ia4@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Imran Anwar)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 03:37:07 GMT

In article <1992Oct1.231056.9674@island.COM> guido@island.COM (Guido Marx) writes:
>In article <1992Sep30.040641.25843@news.columbia.edu> ia4@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Imran Anwar) writes:
>>THAT is exactly the kind of attitude that we are discussing.  Your branding
>>the entire spectrum of the Islamic world based upon the decision of the
>>Iranians.  
>>
>>Face it: the Western world has some catching up to do about understanding Islam
>
>Perhaps you could then supply us with the names of some major Islamic
>organizations which denounced the Iranian call for Rushdie's execution ?
>
>I seem to recall individual clerics saying that they were uncomfortable
>with the "death sentence", but I don't recall any major Islamic organizations
>publicly denouncing it.  In this case, many people might reasonably
>conclude that silence implied agreement.
>
>Guido
>

You will also recal that Islam is not that kind of "organized religion"
that there are specific organizations/authorities allowed to make
decisions, hence there were individuals and organizations that agreed and
disagreed with the Iranian government's decision.  You will not have found
"any major Islamic organizations" demanding it either.

This is interesting, when Rushdie or someone SAYS/WRITES something they
were "taken out of context" but when the Muslims do not say something
then "silence implied agreement"  Imran

Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: rcollins@encore.com (Roger Collins)
Subject: Gambling
Organization: Encore Computer Corporation
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 15:27:07 GMT

Can a gambling operation in a location where it is legal accept bets
over the phone from other areas of the country where it is not legal?
Are any laws broken if I, in Florida, call up Joe's Sports Betting in
Las Vegas and say put $50 on the Dolphins?  Assume I have already sent a
check > $50 to Joe's so Joe's could keep an account for me.
Know of any real-life cases?
Newsgroups: misc.legal