HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mitch@novavax.nova.edu (Mitch Silverman)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Some References to Studies Re: Is Pornography Harmful?
Date: 13 Aug 92 13:32:44 GMT
Organization: Nova University, Fort Lauderdale, Florida

In article <JGREELY.92Aug6140214@morganucodon.cis.ohio-state.edu>,
J Greely (jgreely@morganucodon.cis.ohio-state.edu) writes:
>In article <1992Aug6.162859.27637@icd.ab.com> adnan@icd.ab.com
> (Adnan C. Yaqub) writes:

>>I have no statistics on hand about the amount of child pornography in
>>the U.S.  I don't believe that the U.S. Customs Office "produces"
>>child pornography.  They probably buy it for their investigations.
>
>Nope.  They repackage it, advertise it, and send it out through the
>mail, in attempts to arrest buyers.  I'll dig up my references on this
>one.

Post them, please.  I know, for example, that the Broward County (Florida) 
Sheriff's Office, our local "people in green," prepares its own crack
cocaine from cocaine seized in other "operations," so that when an
officer sells someone a rock in a sting operation, the lab technician
that prepared the rock and sealed it in an envelope can testify that
the same rock is still sealed in the same envelope.  Chain of evidence,
that is.

Now if I find out that Customs is repackaging child porn with *my money*, 
I might just have to write my Congresscritter a letter.

Please pardon the mail-posting of this message, but for some reason rn
died (with a buffer overflow) every time I tried to post a follow-up
to J. Greely's message.

Mitchell L. Silverman
Student, New College of the University of South Florida
mitch@cfraix.cfr.usf.edu
mitch@novavax.nova.edu
 
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: double jeopardy (facist LA police)
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 21:11:46 GMT

In article <1992Aug10.221054.16357@panix.com> eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler) writes:

>Does anyone consider this troubling?  (Mike? W.D.Starr?  Any
>thoughts?)  Is it enough to say that public/official outrage will
>force the DA/AUSA not to do such things again?  What if the
>prosecutor's superiors are corrupt, or his neighbors bigots?

Mark raises a genuine issue about the potential for a prosecutor
to corrupt the process by allowing a defendant to plead guilty to
a ridiculously light charge. The possibility of a subsequent federal
civil-rights prosecution presumably tends to deter this kind of
prosecutor conduct, and, if it doesn't deter, it at least creates
the possibility that the defendant will get his just deserts.

I do find Mark's scenario troubling, but I also find troubling the
notion of allowing a person to be tried again and again for the same
conduct until a charge sticks. The Double Jeopardy Clause, as I read
it, was not intended to bar only vicious and persecuting subsequent
prosecutions--it was meant to bar principled and well-meaning ones as
well.

It is very painful to me to see the outcome of the Rodney King beating,
knowing as I do that there is an immense amount of police violence that
goes unreported. I think the officers should have been convicted. But
they weren't. If sticking with the Double Jeopardy Clause means forgoing
a subsequent federal prosecution for the same conduct, then I feel 
I have to grit my teeth and bear it.

I'm aware, of course, that technically this doesn't qualify as double
jeopardy. But I think this is a case where our intuitions tell us 
something different from what we're told by the Supreme Court. A
subsequent federal prosecution for conduct that failed to win a 
state conviction *feels* like double jeopardy, even if the charges
are technically different, and even if we admit that the separate
sovereigns involved are vindicating different interests in the welfare of
their citizens.


--Mike




-- 
Mike Godwin,    |"If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First
mnemonic@eff.org| Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit 
(617) 864-0665  | the expression of an idea simply because society finds 
EFF, Cambridge  | the idea itself offensive or disagreeable." --W. Brennan
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Advice for first year law student?
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 15:32:16 GMT
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

In article <1992Aug21.130727.22902@eff.org> mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:
>In article <1992Aug21.051223.19091@leland.Stanford.EDU> shedevil@gw.home.vix.com (Anne P. Mitchell, J.D.) writes:
>
>>About computers [darn, already deleted the discussion about "If you
>>buy a Mac, get "MORE", etc]:  If you don't already have a computer,
>>and you are going to buy a Mac - don't.  At least around here, DOS
>>machines are the standard in law firms.  I can't imagine it is that
>>different anywhere else in the country.
>
>My Mac, like all current Macs, reads and writes DOS disks and files.
>Anne's statement here is way out of date. Buy a Mac. It's a better
>outlining tool than any DOS machine. I'm extensively familiar with
>both platforms, and can speak from experience in training other law
>students.
>
>I'll gladly do a demo for anyone in the area, both as to outlining,
>and as to file and disk compatibility between Macs and DOS machines.
>As a sage once commented, it's not what you don't know that hurts
>you--it's what you know that ain't true.

For that matter, the University of Chicago Law School extensively uses
Macs, and I understand that Judge Easterbrook of the Seventh Circuit
is a Macintosh maniac.
-- 
             ......................................................
             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
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: Predatory Pricing
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 21:12:27 GMT

In article <52054@dime.cs.umass.edu> yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:
>In article <1992Aug18.232940.26847@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>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.
>
>Not according to the CEOs of Northeast and some other airlines.
>As I recall, some airline had the temerity to compete fairwise against
>AA on some lucrative route, and AA retaliated by dropping all fares 
>to a level which none of the airlines wanted. 

Predatory pricing - charging less than the competition.
Collusion	  - charging the same as the competition.
Gouging		  - charging more than the competition.

AA reacted to price competition by reducing prices, ie "predatory
pricing".  If it had left its prices unchanged, AA would have been
agreeing on prices and creating a multi-supplier monopoly with no
competition.  (Suppliers can agree to split a market without formal,
or even explicit, agreement.)  If it had raised its prices, or
the competition had gone lower and AA didn't follow, AA would have
been gouging.

What a deal!

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: lkk@panix.com (Larry Kolodney)
Subject: Re: Advice for first year law student?
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 04:30:15 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC

In <3732@cvbnetPrime.COM> jharring@banner.prime.com (Joe Harrington) writes:

>I'm starting first year of law school at Boston University next
>week.  Are there any law students or recent law grads that would
>care to share some advice for a first year?  Email please, 
>don't waste bandwidth and hundreds if not billions of dollars.

>Joe
>jharring@prime.com (till Wed 8/26)


My advice:  Take only courses that you are really interested in, not
ones that you think you "need" to get a job.  The actually job of
practicing law has virtually nothing to do with the substance of what
you learn in law school.  As long as you know how to do legal
research, you can always look it up, and legal recruiters are far more
interested in 1) your attitude, and 2) your analytic and writing
skills.


larry kolodney
HLS '90.

-- 
larry kolodney:(lkk@panix.com) 
_(*#&)#*&%)@(*^%_!*&%^!)*&#+!*&$+!?&%+!*&^_)*&#%)*&^%#+&
The past is not dead, it's not even past.   - Wm. Faulkner

Xref: sparky misc.legal:16036 alt.conspiracy:10011
From: wlamonac@handel.helios.nd.edu (william lamonaca)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: INSLAW (Very strange case)
Date: 14 Aug 92 18:14:17 GMT
Organization: University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame

In article <hhll.713765411@milton> hhll@milton.u.washington.edu (Steven Hodas) writes:
>Two nights ago on CNN there was a report of one of the strangest cases I'd
>ever heard in the mainstream media. It concerned a software company called
>INSLAW. It seems that a few years ago the Justice Department stole
>a program of theirs that CNN described as being used for tracking criminal
>cases. When INSLAW complained the Justice Department systematically drove
>them out of business. A special investigation determined that Attorneys
>General Meese and Thornburgh may have been guilty of obstruction of
>justice in connection with this case. The report also pointed to the
>involvement of the CIA and foreign intelligence agencies and the
>mysterious death of a reporter trying to look into the case.
> 
>What is this? If anyone can provide details I'd be grateful.
> 
>Please follow up to alt.conspiracy
> 
> 
>Steven

A few months ago, Mother JOnes ran a very good article on the case.  It's been
a while since I read it so I don't remember all the details.
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: I'm Pro-Male-Choice
X-To: MATTHEW ROSENBLATT
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1992 22:23:00 GMT

matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt) writes...
MR> TRUTH     JUSTICE     FREEDOM     YIDDISHKEIT     IVY     THE AMERICAN WAY
                                      ^^^^^^^^^^^

Here we go again...Translation please.

Thanks.
---
 * SLMR 2.1a * If it doesn't work, it's Physics.
-- 
Ross Ridge - The Great HTMU					     l/	 //
								    [OO][oo]
ross@zooid.guild.org						    /()\/()/
uunet.ca!zooid!ross						     db	 //
From: matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Right To Not Support
Keywords: Third party beneficiary
Date: 14 Aug 92 12:31:58 GMT
Organization: U.S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory, APG, MD.

In article <BstyHr.4F5@news.cso.uiuc.edu> slkg9733@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu 
(Steven L. Kellmeyer) writes:

>matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt) writes:

>>           . . . If the joint venture consisting of a man and a girl
>                                                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>producing a child is a contract . . .   [Matt Rosenblatt]

>Am I being sexist, or am I right to believe that he should have said
>a man and a woman?  [Steve Kellmeyer]

No, Mr. Kellmeyer is not being sexist.  I wrote "a man and a girl"
because *I* am sexist.  If I were a feminist, then it would be 
right to say that I "shnould have said" "a man and a woman."  But
I am not a feminist, and therefore, why should I write like one?
When I write "girl," I mean any female human my age or younger.

					-- Matt Rosenblatt
                                        (matt@amsaa.brl.mil)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
TRUTH     JUSTICE     FREEDOM     YIDDISHKEIT     IVY     THE AMERICAN WAY
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: double jeopardy
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 23:55:08 GMT

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.

>	Federal courts and state courts are not the same court system.  A
>suspect can be tried in both courts for the same act (e.g. bank robbery) and it
>doesn't violate the double jeopardy standard.

     Bank Robbery is a state crime, and the federal government does not have
the jurisdiction to try those cases.

>	Anyone not understanding that should do a little reading before
>proceeding further.

     Where, exactly, did the fifth amendment make this distinction between
jurisdictions?


===========================================================================
|David Veal  PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu  University of Tennessee             |  
|                                     Division of Continuing Education    |
===========================================================================

Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: sbarber@panix.com (Steve Barber)
Subject: Re: Advice for first year law student?
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 17:25:08 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC

Mike Godwin and Ted Frank have given good advice.  I wish I had read Mike's
piece before I started law school.

Don't get bogged down in figuring out who's hornbooks and outlines to use,
ask some upperclasspeople in your school, and just do it.

Phenomenal intellectual prowess is not necessary to come out at the top
of your law school class; it may actually be a detriment, though this is
only a gut feeling.  Understanding the law school game is the most challenging
part, and after that comes the ability to handle a workload that deliberately
accelerates from Sept. to April.  Stamina is a key component to success here;
keep a steady pace so as not to burn out.

I found that the first year utterly consumed my existence, and it was best
not to fight this.  If you have an SO, set aside time for that person
and keep it holy.  It doesn't even have to be an enormous amount.  And
if the SO is of the type that won't abide diminished attention during the
first year, look out.

There is a belief that law school can break up relationships, and I saw
plenty go bad during (and slightly after) the first year.  But in no case
can I say that law school "caused" the breakup, it merely accelerated 
disintegration along fissures that had been there for a long time.  So
if you've got a good relationship, don't sweat it.

Joining a study groups are something that only the individual can decide.
Mine was useful to give me an extra incentive to keep up with the work,
and good as a social group to get plastered with and blow off steam once
in a while--find a good way to blow of steam.  Some people work out.

One final tip: most law students spend much of the first term searching for
the "right" answer to any given legal question.  This is a red herring.
There are no right answers.  There are only recognized issues, valid modes 
of analysis, and the ability to argue both sides of any question at the
drop of a hat.  These you will learn.  Trust me on this; you will thank me
later.

-- 
Steve Barber                                             sbarber@panix.com
"The direct deed is the most meaningful reflection." - Bill Evans
The above is not a legal advice. It is, at best, a discussion of
generalities. Consult your attorney before acting in a specific situation.
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: bz754@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Derek J. Wojciech)
Subject: Posting copyrighted material
Reply-To: bz754@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Derek J. Wojciech)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 92 23:08:30 GMT



I have seen material posted on news services, and articles available
by ftp, with copyright notices in them.  I am wondering if for example,
I wished to post an interview I saw in a music magazine, either to a newsgroup
or available for ftp.  Now the magazine has the typical 'Contents may not
be reprouduced in any manner, either whole or in part, without prior written
permission.'  Now this kinda seems straightforward.  But as I have seen
interviews, reviews etc., and these have included a copyright disclaimer(?)
available, would it be legal to post an interview, or review if I stated
the full copyright???   
				Thanx!
					Derek
					(email or post here)]
From: mgflax@ernie.Princeton.EDU (Marshall G. Flax)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Hate Speech Okay, says the Supreme Court
Date: 22 Aug 92 18:42:38 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

In article <1992Aug22.014427.1416@Princeton.EDU> egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:
>It's the libertarian who gives up on community by his denial that
>government can ever provide the basis for community!

You assume that government can be the only basis for community.

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: bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us (Bob Kirkpatrick)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Telephone Recording - I have the Answer
Date: 13 Aug 92 22:37:02 GMT
Organization: Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, Wa

annsera@mandolin.ctr.columbia.edu (Ann Sera) writes:

> Well I *did* try to look in the phone book before I posted
> but was unable to find any relevant information.  I just looked
> again and found it in the most obvious place (typical).  To
> anyone interested, here is the answer, VALID FOR NEW JERSEY ONLY
> (I've been told the answer varies from state to state):
> 
> 	A telephone conversation may be recorded if all parties
> 	participating in the call agree, if the recording party 
> 	notifies all parties at the beginning and as part of the
> 	call that they intend to record the conversation or if a 
> 	"beep" tone warning device is used.  If you hear a short 
> 	"beep" tone on your telephone aobut every 15 seconds, 
> 	it means that the person with whom you are talking is recording
> 	your conversation.

Most states are going to single party consent. That means that as long as
one party agrees to the recording, it's legitimate. 

As far as courts are concerned, many of them will accept that people
record calls for 'electronic journaling.' In essence, you take electronic
notes. That the journal uses the speaker themselves to make the entry for
you ( a recording ) is considered to be a moot issue.

I'd look to see if the information cited is still pertinent or obsolete,
or is superceded by changes in the law.

As to tht attorney guy, just have someone listen and witness on a second
extension. When he asks "are you recording?" you can say no. :-)


---
Bob Kirkpatrick, Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA
bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Hate Speech Okay, says the Supreme Court
Date: 22 Aug 92 22:50:32 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL

egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:

>>>     THERE IS NEVER A RIGHT TO COMMIT A MORAL WRONG

>Of course, in the above, I mean by "right", "morally correct."

Then I misunderstood you. I thought we were talking about "rights" in
the sense of what should be legally allowable, specifically I was
under the impression that the topic of this thread whether "hate
speech" should be legally allowed.

I was further confused by your phrasing. The phrasing I would have
expected for the meaning you (of course) meant was: "It is never right
to commit a moral wrong". I believe your phrasing is the first time
I've heard "right"-as-morally-correct used a noun and preceded by "a",
except in the idiom "two wrongs don't make a right."

I was also confused by the context of your reply. Recall that your
reply was in response to a paragraph of mine that started:

cmk> As for legality:
cmk> Many religious groups exclude nonmembers, it is legal.

I apologize for assuming that your reply, addressed my paragraph.

- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.abortion.inequity
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Re: Right To Not Support
Followup-To: alt.abortion.inequity
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 15:19:01 GMT

In article <Bt4stG.Az@news.cso.uiuc.edu> slkg9733@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Steven L. Kellmeyer) writes:
>My point is that according to today's legal environment, the basis for the
>child's enjoinment of the man is much, much weaker than it has ever been,
>simply because the idea of what it means to be a father is being destroyed
>by reproductive technology and legal abortion.

On the other hand, the argument is much stronger today than it ever was
before, because of the new technology that makes determining paternity
more accurate than ever.

>Precisely BECAUSE a man has absolutely no say in what a woman may do with
>the embryo, he is not a father in any real sense.  He is no more a father
>than the OB/GYN is a father.  IN fact, he is less of one, simply because
>the doctor has a legal duty to provide advice on carrying to term, while
>the putative father is legally silenced.

Quick, find the fallacy.

>The basis for enjoinment is causative action, but the only
>person who engages in causative action is the woman.  

Have someone tell you about the birds and bees sometime.

>The sperm donor is not liable for support.  As I understand it, he signs a
>document which shields him from child support enjoinment.  Explain that one
>oh mighty legal scholar.  How can the donor sign away the CHILD'S right?

It's not completely clear that he can.  At least, I'm not aware of any
laws or court decisions where the issue has arisen.  

>You get my point.  The concept of "parent" is mutating.  The old definitions
>do not hold.  The old basis for child support does not hold.  

The fourth sentence does not follow from the second and third.
-- 
             ......................................................
             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