HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Hate Speech Okay, says the Supreme Court
Date: 28 Jul 92 16:23:16 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1992Jul27.164700.19910@eff.org>, mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:
> In article <1992Jul27.151442.23606@Princeton.EDU> egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:
> >This is because high-powered, high-paid
> >lobbyists for the tobacco companies were able to destroy a very
> >effective series of anti-smoking TV ads in return for the mild warning
> >label.
> 
> No doubt the national decline in smoking, as well as the change in
> national attitudes toward smoking, has been mere coincidence.
> 
> Mike Godwin,     |"Crime is contagious. If the Government becomes a law-

You don't suppose the law changed because of the change in social
attitudes about smoking, do you?

The social attitudes about drunk driving have changed dramatically
in the last 15 years.  So have the laws, not surprisingly.  But the
social attitudes brought about the change in law -- not the other
way around.

I know that liberals really love the idea that if we just pass a
law, we can change the way people think, so why don't we just pass
a law against immorality?  That should change the way people behave,
right? :-)
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
"Well, maybe the Holocaust was right *for that culture*." -- a moral relativist
with whom I work.
From: Joe.Francis@dartmouth.edu (Joe Francis)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Hate Speech Okay, says the Supreme Court
Date: 29 Jul 92 05:03:46 GMT
 <1992Jul27.151442.23606@Princeton.EDU>  <11436@optilink.UUCP>
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

In article <11436@optilink.UUCP>
cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:

> The warning label on cigarettes had been there for many years before
> the ban on TV ads.  There was no such trade-off.  The more detailed
> warning labels now on cigarette packages and on print advertising is
> considerably more recent than the ban on TV ads.

Yes.  As I understand it, this is correct.  There wasn't a trade-off of
"a very effective series of anti-smoking TV ads in return for the mild
warning label".  There was, though, a different trade-off. 

Essentially, both anti-smoking TV ads and the prospect of tougher
labelling laws were avoided by the acceptance (by the tobacco lobby) of
a complete ban on TV and radio cigarette advertising.
Xref: sparky misc.legal:15106 alt.censorship:6449 talk.politics.misc:36495
From: wb8foz@skybridge.SCL.CWRU.Edu (David Lesher)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.censorship,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Using killfiles is a form of censorship (was: Re: A Modest Request
Keywords: egnilges
Date: 28 Jul 92 03:18:07 GMT
Reply-To: wb8foz@skybridge.scl.cwru.edu (David Lesher)
Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews abusers - Beltway Annex

# >Using kill files IS a form of censorship.

I suppose, then, if I unsubscribe to this group, I go down in
history with Hannibal Lector? 

And if I stop paying the bills, and my feedsite cuts me off, the
the sysadm gets compared to John Gacy, and sent to Marion?

"Help!
 I've subscribed and can't logoff"........



--
A host is a host from coast to coast..wb8foz@skybridge.scl.cwru.edu
& no one will talk to a host that's close..........................
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: GA.CJJ@forsythe.stanford.edu (Clifford Johnson)
Subject: Re: Stare Decisis - ha ha ha
Organization: Stanford University, California, USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 16:26:37 GMT
From: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Stare Decisis
Date: 27 Jul 92 08:04:32 GMT
Reply-To: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation

In article <1992Jul25.122946.5484@athena.mit.edu>, wdstarr@athena.mit.edu 
(William December Starr) writes:

> Which brings me to a sort of trivia question: How many examples can
> anyone come up with of the U.S. Supreme Court _explicitly_ overruling
> a previous Supreme Court holding on a question of law?  (No, don't
> email me for the answers.  I don't know this one myself; I'm trying to
> harness the awesome power of the net to build a list of such cases.)

The one that jumps out for me is Gideon v. Wainright overruling Bets v. 
Brady: " Upon full reconsideration we conclude that  Betts  v. Brady should 
be overruled."  372 U.S. 335, 339 (1963). 

Terry Carroll - tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com - 408/992-2152
The opinions presented above are not necessarily those of a sound mind.
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject:  Re: Hate Speech Okay, says the Supreme Court
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 14:41:00 GMT


In article <1992Jul27.135524.16022@Princeton.EDU> egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU
 (Ed Nilges) writes:

[I wrote:]
>>Freedom of speech means freedom of troubling, disturbing
>>speech of the sort described here. If it didn't, it would hardly be a
>>freedom at all.
>
>You interpret "troubling, disturbing" as troubling and disturbing the
>powerless....

Not at all. I interpret "troubling, disturbing" as meaning troubling
and disturbing to anyone.
             
Like many people, Ed, you are most concerned with restricting the speech
of those you disagree with. In this case, it's the people with money.

As for your reference to advertising of cigarettes, well, it's old news
to mention this, but cigarette advertising has been increasingly regulated
and restricted for the last two decades. For a discussion of the passage
of cigarette advertising, see THE DANCE OF LEGISLATION by (as I recall)
Eric Redman. 


--Mike




-- 
Mike Godwin,     |"Crime is contagious. If the Government becomes a law-
mnemonic@eff.org | breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every
(617) 864-0665   | man to become a law unto himself. It invites anarchy."
EFF, Cambridge   |         --Brandeis, J., dissenting in Olmstead v. U.S.  
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.censorship,talk.politics.misc,alt.flame
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Re: Self-Defense
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 00:58:21 GMT

In article <1992Jul29.184633.17814@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>In article <9956@sun13.scri.fsu.edu> pepke@ds1.scri.fsu.edu (Eric Pepke) writes:
>>In article <1992Jul23.035153.2572@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>>Situation: You're a prisoner in a cell.  Your prisonmate, who's five
>>>inches taller, and a hundred pounds heavier, whom you have no hope 
>>>of defending yourself against tells you one night: "When dawn comes,
>>>I'm going to kill you."  He then goes to sleep.  Assume that going to
>>>a guard for assistance has proven futile in the past, and that you have
>>>no reason to believe otherwise now.  What do you do?
>>
>>You have two choices: kill him or not.  Either way, you are making a decision
>>based on probabilities without immediate threat of death.
>
>Hold it.  You've notified the state of a credible threat.  While we
>agree that the state is not liable in general for protecting
>individuals, when the state interferes in self-protection measures a
>prudent person would take, that should have some effect on the
>liability protection.
>
>In this case, I think that the state should be liable.  The sentence
>was prison, not assault by some thug.  If the state can't imprison
>someone without sacrificing them, it has no biz running a prison.
>The only way to implement this is through liability.

Then why have self-defense exceptions at all?  Why not handle all
incipient attacks through liability suits?  Why not have a legal
regime whereby self-defense is forbidden, but someone can simply
sue for damages as a result of being attacked?

>In the case of the "burning bed" where there is an objective escape
>hatch, there are two cases to consider; was the state notified and
>was it not notified.  In the former case, if the state wants the
>abuser to live, it can protect him itself.  If it avoids the burden,
>there's no particular reason to place that burden on her or to
>penalize her for her actions to eliminate a threat that the state
>ignored.  The "no notice" case is more difficult.

Interesting analysis.
-- 
                      ....................................
                      ted frank | thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
                      the university of chicago law school 
                      official member of the cultural elit
From: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: a question regarding
Date: 27 Jul 92 07:28:40 GMT
Reply-To: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation

In article <199226.1297.14645@execnet>, hilary.miller@execnet.com (hilary 
miller) writes:
 
> Terry Carroll, in a message to All on 07-26-92 at 5:26am, said:
> 
> TC>|Now, a key is whether you were an "omitted child" or not.  That is, whe
>    |your father knew of your existence, or whether he intentionally did not
>    |you anything.
>    |_______________________________________________________________________
> 
>           Terry, California and most other states have special rules
>           governing how and under what circumstances *illegitimate*
>           children may inherit from their fathers.  See Cal. Prob. Code
>            255 and Civil Code  230. 

I think I covered that out, Hilary.  I said:

- First, if your dad died intestate (no will):
- 
- Under California law, the fact that your parents were not married is not 
- relevant: "Except as provided in subdivisions (b), (c) and (d), the 
- relationship of parent and child exists between a person and his or her 
- natural parents, regardless of the marital status of the natural parents." 
- Calif. Probate Code sec. 6408(a). (b) and (c) deal with adoption, (d) deals 
- with a parent inheriting from a child born out of wedlock (not the other 
- way 
- around, as in your case), so none of those are applicable here.

then followed with:

- If your father had a will, and left you nothing:
- 
- First off, your parent's marital status is still irrelevant: "'Child' means 
- any individual entitled to take as a child under this code by intestate 
- succession [that is, section 6408 as I quoted above] from the parent whose 
- relationship is involved." Calif. Probate Code s. 26.

I think Cal. Probate 6408 and 26 cover all the bases.  Cal. Civil 230, which 
related to the adoption of an illegitimate child, was repealed in 1975.  I'm 
not sure if there is a replacement statute.  Cal. Probate 255 deals with the 
status of good faith purchasers when the decedent was murdered, and I'm 
assuming that that's not applicable here!

>           As I think you correctly point
>           out, this matter does not turn on the law of copyright.

Yeah, that part was easy; maybe I better not stray from my element.. ;-)

Terry Carroll - tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com - 408/992-2152
The opinions presented above are not necessarily those of a sound mind.
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: Hate Speech Okay, says the Supreme Court
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 21:45:15 GMT

In article <1992Jul26.204757.19969@Princeton.EDU> egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:

>What has happened that an enormous,
>across-the-board decline in educational standards has entailed that even
>elite law schools have in reality given up on training their aliterate
>students in reading and thinking.

When you speak of what happens at "elite law schools," Ed, are you
speaking from experience? Or are you just making this up as you go along?

Is this another aspect of your religious faith? If so, I hurry to support
your right not only to evangelize, as you're doing here, but also to speak
in any and all public forums.

And I support everyone else's right to choose whether or not they
believe you. 

For would-be dictators like you, of course, this is not enough. You'd turn
freedom of speech into some kind of requirement that everyone listen to
you. But that would be no freedom at all.


--Mike



-- 
Mike Godwin,     |"Crime is contagious. If the Government becomes a law-
mnemonic@eff.org | breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every
(617) 864-0665   | man to become a law unto himself. It invites anarchy."
EFF, Cambridge   |         --Brandeis, J., dissenting in Olmstead v. U.S.
From: fsars@acad3.alaska.edu (Allen R Sparks)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: The Glorious Constitution (was: [UPI] Supreme Court strikes down...)
Date: 22 Jul 92 19:24:39 GMT
Organization: University of Alaska Fairbanks

In article <18972@smoke.brl.mil>, matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt) writes:
> In the time of Charlemagne, all the nations of the civilized world
> got together and enacted the "Code of Discovery."  According to that
> code -- a law -- if any man should discover a new land across the seas,
> it would belong to him, unless he claimed it for his king.  

The flaw in your argument, is that the natives did not sign the "Code
of Discovery".  My attitude is our ancestors conquered it, so today it's
our land.  That doesn't sound fair, but that's the way it is.  === Al Sparks
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges)
Subject: Re: Hate Speech Okay, says the Supreme Court
Originator: news@ernie.Princeton.EDU
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 15:17:38 GMT

In article <1992Jul29.050346.20281@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> Joe.Francis@dartmouth.edu (Joe Francis) writes:
>In article <11436@optilink.UUCP>
>cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>
>> The warning label on cigarettes had been there for many years before
>> the ban on TV ads.  There was no such trade-off.  The more detailed
>> warning labels now on cigarette packages and on print advertising is
>> considerably more recent than the ban on TV ads.
>
>Yes.  As I understand it, this is correct.  There wasn't a trade-off of

The 1966 warning label was very mild; it ran something like "may be
hazardous for your health."  In the early Seventies, the wording on the
label was strengthened and broadcast ads for cigarettes were prohibited,
in return for an end to the very effective anti-smoking ads AND a
presumption that the warning label could forestall both legal challenges
to the cigarette companies, AND local anti-smoking legislation.  


Xref: sparky misc.legal:15159 alt.censorship:6470 talk.politics.misc:36563
From: joemays@bsu-cs.bsu.edu (Joseph F. Mays)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.censorship,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Using killfiles is a form of censorship (was: Re: A Modest Request
Keywords: egnilges
Date: 29 Jul 92 18:02:00 GMT
Organization: Dept of CS Ball State University Muncie In

In article <1992Jul29.155129.20423@Princeton.EDU> egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:
>Trying to be funny?  Why is "the argument of the slippery slope" valid
>when applied to enable Viktora, but not when used to extrapolate from

The answer to this seems obvious to everyone here but you, so I'll try
to point out to you what the basic flaw in this lunatic example is...

>it?"  "First, I set up a kill file to exclude Ed Nilges.  Then, I
>excluded all people whose names begin with Ni: they seem to be dweebs,
>like Nilges and Nixon.  Then I added a sophisticated regular expression
>to exclude all Germanic names.  Then I became systems administrator for
                                 ^^^^^^^^^^^
Here is the flaw.  At this point you have stepped off on a totally 
different slope.  You are not longer making decisions about what you
yourself want to read.  You are usurping the decision for others.  Ed
why is it you seem unable to grasp the incredible, fundamental, and 
IMPORTANT difference between making choices for yourself and forcing
those choices on others?

>the Electronic Frontier Foundation and decided to make my workgroup
>adhere to my standards.  This was not so much anti-free speech as a
>desire to gain efficiency through consistency.  Then I got elected to
>the House of Representatives...."
>
>Now, I believe that one can use kill files as nano- or micro-censorship
>without getting on this slope, but the logic of the "free speech" forces
>is that we must avoid these slopes at all costs.
         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Damn right!  If people like you had your way it would be illegal to listen
to the song "Cop-killer" in Indianapolis.  The exact same law you wanted
to use to prevent Viktora from burning his cross would put duct tape 
over Ice-T's mouth.  You have consistently refused to respond to this
fact both here and through email.  I believe that you understand the 
slope better than you say, but believe that you can skirt it.

Ed, if you truly believe that racism is inherent in the structure of
society, then you should be adamantly opposed censhorship anywhere.  
Censhorship inevitably hands the power to control free expression to
the current power structure.  If you believe that the current power
structure favors whites, then you should realize that any censhorship
law will eventually be used by whites for whites.  Why do you want to
hand the white power structure another weapon?

Joe
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Defamation cause of action a federal right?
Date: 21 Jul 92 22:57:22 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org

In article <1992Jul21.175621.4486@morrow.stanford.edu> GA.CJJ@forsythe.stanford.edu (Clifford Johnson) writes:

>On the point at issue (whether repuational interest is a property
>right) Truax is not overturned either explicitly or implicity --
>it's a standard part of defemation law.

It's so standard that no one doing defamation law ever cites it or relies
on it.

I notice that Anthony Lewis disagrees with Clifford Johnson on the issue
of whether Gertz v. Robert Welch affected the law for private-figure
plaintiffs. See pages 194-195 of MAKE NO LAW. The change in libel law
wrought by Gertz eliminated many potential state-based libel actions by
private figures.


--Mike






-- 
Mike Godwin,     |"Of the many definitions of poetry, the   
mnemonic@eff.org | simplest is still the best: 'memorable speech.'" 
(617) 864-0665   | 
EFF, Cambridge   |                     --W.H. Auden 
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Subject: Re: SPEEDING TICKET
Date: 22 Jul 92 16:10:42 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: SPSS Inc.
Keywords: speed ticket law boat jetski

kirkpatr@sparky.serum.kodak.com (Dan Kirkpatrick (x37370)) writes:

>Heres my question:

>   Does the surcharge/fine go up on a speeding ticket if you plea not guilty
>   and are found quilty anyway than if you just paid it in the first place?
You can be assessed court costs if you contest the ticket.

>   I got a speeding ticket for allegedly riding my Jetski too fast too 
>   close to the pier.  What are my chances of contesting it?
It depends...did you?  How was the speed determined?  Where was the officer
in relation to you and the pier?  All the usual questions for a regular
speeding ticket.

>   How much are boat speeding fines anyway.
That all depends....you'll have to check locally.

 -Steve
--
 The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                        -------------------
     adams@spss.com                           Phone: (312) 329-3522
     Steve Adams                              Fax:   (312) 329-3558
From: Joe.Francis@dartmouth.edu (Joe Francis)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Roe v Wade (Latin)
Date: 24 Jul 92 22:34:47 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

In article <1992Jul24.151429.20328@rchland.ibm.com>
xzs0302@rchland.vnet.ibm.com (T.A. Gyorgak) writes:

>   I am not sure why someone would be read this BB without the basic terms of
> law from what I remember to be 7th grade Civics.    I went to school in
> Cleveland  so it wasn't anything special.  

Anyone who has access and is interested should read misc.legal.  Are
you proposing that we all pass a "misc.legal bar"?

As for your education, I can only say that I wish my public high school
had been as competent in civics as your middle school.  I doubt more
than a handful of the staff at my school knew what "stare decisis"
means.  I would bet many other readers find themselves in a similar
position.
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.censorship,talk.politics.misc
From: chip@tct.com (Chip Salzenberg)
Subject: Re: Using killfiles is a form of censorship (was: Re: A Modest Request
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 19:30:18 GMT
Organization: TC Telemanagement, Clearwater, FL

According to egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges):
>and surely the satisfaction one takes in a kill file is
>related to the satisfaction one feels in destructive behavior
>(there! I showed him, he's in my kill file.)

That depends on whether choosing one's information sources can
be construed as "destructive behavior."
-- 
Chip Salzenberg at Teltronics/TCT  <chip@tct.com>, <73717.366@compuserve.com>
   "Do Rush place weird subliminal backmasked messages in their songs to
 compel unwilling geeks to commit evil .sig atrocities?"  -- Dean Engelhardt
From: alex@netdev.comsys.com (Alex Huppenthal)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Boilerplate
Date: 21 Jul 92 18:47:09 GMT
Followup-To: poster
Organization: Communication Systems Research, Corp


   I've been asked to ask, Is there an archive with legal boilerplate ?

 -Alex

-- 
Alex Huppenthal			CSR Corp.
alex@netdev.comsys.com		Dallas, Texas 75252
texsun!netdev!alex
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: Roe v. Wade upheld by
X-To: RUSS ANDERSON
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 00:01:00 GMT

rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson) writes...
RA> avoid the apearance of overturning Roe (abandoning stare decisis) that
                                                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Layperson alert!  Layperson alert!

What does that Latin statement mean in English?  Thanks.

---
Will Steeves, goid@zooid.guild.org                    "Neil Hull is GOiD"
ZOOiD BBS, Toronto, Ontario - The Zoo Of Ids
(416) 322-7876
---
 * SLMR 2.1a * Vulcans have less fun.
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.censorship,talk.politics.misc
From: jon@leland.Stanford.EDU (Jon Corelis)
Subject: Re: Using killfiles is a form of censorship (was: Re: A Modest Request
Organization: Jon's Cafe Americain
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 19:28:47 GMT


   I just thought I'd let you all know that I'm putting this subject in
my kill file.  Bye.
-- 


Jon Corelis               jon@lindy.stanford.edu
Stanford University       BITNET:  BR.JGC@RLG.STANFORD.EDU 
Xref: sparky misc.legal:15204 alt.society.civil-liberty:5382
From: rlcarr@athena.mit.edu (Richard L. Carreiro)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.society.civil-liberty
Subject: allowable graduation requirements
Summary: bogon maryland
Date: 30 Jul 92 17:14:54 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Digitopolitan Embassy to the US

What is considered acceptable requirements for public school graduation?
I was reading the paper today and noticed that Maryland has just passed
a law that requires high-schoolers to "volunteer" for 75 hours of
community service, or else be denied their diplomas.

Personally, I think this is flat wrong and should be blown away.
However, there is also nothing anywhere guaranteeing one's right to
a high school diploma, so it is hard to see what (if anything) the state
is violating.

So, what says the net about Maryland's actions, and what are the currently
recognized cutoffs as to what conditions states can place on public
high school graduations.



--
Rich Carreiro                                    "My country, right or wrong,"
ARPA: rlcarr@athena.mit.edu                                is like
UUCP: ...!mit-eddie!mit-athena!rlcarr            "My driver, sober or drunk."
BITNET: rlcarr@athena.mit.edu
Xref: sparky misc.legal:14727 talk.politics.misc:35629 alt.censorship:6208