HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cmort@NCoast.ORG (Christopher Morton)
Subject: Re: Freedom of Speech (was: Mister Ed Nilges)
Reply-To: cmort@ncoast.org (Christopher Morton)
Organization: North Coast Public Access *NIX, Cleveland, OH
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 17:56:48 GMT
Followup-To: misc.legal

As quoted from <1992Aug27.143515.545@Princeton.EDU> by egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges):

> In article <1992Aug27.133400.13173@hubcap.clemson.edu> grimlok@hubcap.clemson.edu (Mike Percy) writes:
> >egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:
> >
> >Freedom of speech hardly is cause for others to enjoy what you have to
> >say.  It does prevent the government from punishing you (but not from
> >others punishing you in their own ways) for what you say.
> 
> Punishment is a form of force, and we give government a monopoly of
> force.  In societies other than The Moronic Inferno (the USA), job loss

The HELL we do.  Maybe YOU do, but then Stalinists ALWAYS do.  If you think
that the government has a monopoly of force, burst into my apartment tonight
wielding a machete.  I'll clearly demonstrate the spuriousness of your 
claim.

> will by any employer; it is difficult to fire people in such societies
> precisely because it is recognized that excluding people from jobs as
> "punishment" is a form of economic force majeure which should NOT be
> deregulated.

In other words it should be difficult to fire somebody for racial 
discrimination and sexual harrassment.  I kind of figured that the nomenklatura
would reserve a few priviliges to itself....

> Your phrase "others punishing you" is revealingly close to incoherence,
> for it portrays society as a kind of network of Punisher wannabes (using
> the name of a cartoon character who is equally revealing.)
> Unfortunately, a network of Punisher wannabes is nothing more than
> Hobbes war of all against all; you cannot punish me, I punish you, and
> so on.  Punishment is not many-many, its one-many, such that we give
> government the monopoly on punishment.

"We" WHO?  As much as it pains you to hear it, this isn't North Korea.

> Of course, none of this will make sense to the libertarian, normally an

Let me expand this to say that none of this will make sense to anyone sane and
lucid.  I'll leave it to you to demonstrate that you and your fellow Vyshinsky
clones possess those qualities.

> Perhaps this "telepathy" is nothing more than reading comprehension,

You've ruled that one out pretty effectively.


Your algorithm works out to:

if(!(totalitarian_system)
  {
    piss;
    moan;
    whine;
    cry;
   }

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------  

"Well whose opinions did you THINK these were...?" 
------------------------------------------------------------------  
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.politics.correct,alt.censorship
From: cedman@714-725-3165.nts.uci.edu (Carl Edman)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.politics.correct,alt.censorship
Subject: Re: Freedom of Speech (was: Mister Ed Nilges)
Date: 27 Aug 92 19:13:17 GMT
Article-I.D.: orion.2A9D294D.12325
Reply-To: cedman@golem.ps.uci.edu (Carl Edman)

Tapani Tarvainen writes
> Carl Edman writes:
> >If I may quote the 1st ammendment of the US constitution:
> 
> >"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
> > ^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^ ^^^^ ^^ ^^^
> >prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,
> >or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to 
> >petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
> 
> >Notice in particular the first five words. That is what Freedom of Speech  
> >means.
> 
> I take an exception to that.  Freedom of Speech is _not_ merely a
> feature of the US constitution.  The 1st amendment is only one
> way of protecting it.  Don't put the cart before the horse.

Of course you are right. Freedom of Speech is not a Good because it is  
mentioned in the Constitution, but it is the other way around. It just so  
happens that some of the authors of the Constitution were among the leading  
liberal intellectuals of their time and they managed put Freedom of Speech into  
their document in a clearer and stronger way than any other legal document I'm  
aware of. Satisfied ?

> (There is life and even some freedom of speech outside USA,
> you know.)

As I'm not an american and have lived most of my life in different european  
countries, I'm perfectly well aware of that fact.

	Carl Edman
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: ProMaleChoice
X-To: STEVEN L. KELLMEYER
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 13:32:00 GMT

UGH!  You got the attributions mixed up, Steven...

slkg9733@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Steven L. Kellmeyer) writes...
SLK> goid@zooid.guild.org (Will Steeves) writes:

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

SLK> >MR> >heath@athena.cs.uga.edu (Terrance Heath) writes:
SLK> >MR> >> Shouldn't there be some provision allowing a man the decision not t
SLK> >MR> >> be a father.   [Terrance Heath]

SLK> >MR> There is.  Becoming a father is a risk a man takes when he engages
SLK> >MR> in sexual intercourse.  If he makes the decision to take that risk,
SLK> >MR> and conceives a child, he *is* a father, and he has to accept
SLK> >MR> the responsibilities of being a father.

*mine, not Matt's...
SLK> Actually, the recent Tennessee court case involving eight frozen embryos
SLK> ruled in the man's favor, saying he had a "right not to be a father".
*end of block...

SLK> >And if a woman becomes pregnant, then would you similarly say that "She *i
SLK> >a mother, and has to accept the responsibilities of being a mother"?

SLK> Note that this only applies when the embryo is physically contained
SLK> in the uterus.  If the embryo is under the control of a third party,
SLK> EITHER parent apparently has the right to nix parenthood.  Which raises
SLK> an interesting question:  why didn't the *LABORATORY* get the right to
SLK> decide?  After all, if this had been a surrogate mother case, in which
SLK> both egg and sperm had been donated and the resulting embryo implanted
SLK> in a surrogate mother's body, one would assume that the surrogate would
SLK> have the right to abort if she so desired.  Does the "right to privacy"
SLK> apply to a piece of glassware in a private lab?

*this is mine, not Matt's...
SLK> >My view is, since women are not forced to be parents, then neither should
SLK> >but if women *are* forced to be parents, then so should men.  Since the fo
SLK> >statement is the legal norm nowadays, I am quite proud to say that I am Pr
SLK> >Male-Choice.
*end...

SLK> >---
SLK> >Will Steeves, goid@zooid.guild.org                    "Neil Hull is GOiD"
SLK> >ZOOiD BBS, Toronto, Ontario - The Zoo Of Ids
SLK> >(416) 322-7876
SLK> >---

SLK> Steve Kellmeyer
---
 * SLMR 2.1a * Windows: From the folks who brought you EDLIN!
From: regeorge@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Robert E George)
Subject: Jury Nullification??
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 17:27:03 GMT


Can somebody give me references on jury nullification: what precisely is
it, does  it exist in Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence? I would like some pro-
and con- references if possible, to try to sort out what it is.

Thanks in advance,
Robert George
From: edwardk@cup.portal.com (edward chungfan kwok)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Dismissed with prejudice?
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 92 11:00:52 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)

>Can someone explain what is meant by a "dismissed with prejudice" decesion
>from a judge?   Thanks!


Gladly. Cases can be dismissed and refiled voluntarily for various reasons.
A case dismissed with prejudice cannot be refiled.  
Xref: sparky misc.legal:16709 alt.politics.correct:5211 rec.arts.movies:26217
From: shedevil@vix.com (Anne P. Mitchell JD)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Order of the Coif?
Date: 25 Aug 1992 17:21:05 -0700
Organization: Fathers' Rights & Equality Exchange
NNTP-Posting-Host: gw.home.vix.com

In a recent missive tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll) tells us:
*Can anyone tell me what the Order of the Coif is?  I've seen it listed as a 
*qualification for some attorneys.  I'm not certain that it represents an 
*honor or degree associated with the legal profession, but the context seems 
*to indicate so.
*


It is not unlike an honour society for lawyers...one who graduates
Order of the Coif is in the top 10% of their graduating class.
From: kadie@dante.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Hate Speech Okay, says the Supreme Court
Date: 25 Aug 92 17:58:48 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL

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

>Local government is one form of community; and an Outward Bound patrol
>in the wilderness is a form of government.  The statement that the one
>is "voluntary" and the other is not "voluntary" is bogus; it is in point
>of fact necessary for even the most discontented member of an Outward
>Bound patrol to stick with the patrol in the wilderness, given the fact
>that such a member cannot survive on his own.
[...]

You make a good point; I now agree they are about the same.

Because of the isolated conditions of the patrol, continued
participation was not voluntary. In this, the Outward Bound patrol was
more like a government than like most nongovernmental groups.

So now the question is how far would the patrol have gone to enforce
its speech restrictions? (Maybe I should re-read _Lord of the Flies_.)

- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.censorship
From: hes@unity.ncsu.edu (Henry E. Schaffer)
Subject: Re: Question for Charles Perez and Ted Frank
Summary: Ed Nilges attempts censorship by insult.
Organization: NCSU Computing Center 
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 23:12:35 GMT

In article <1992Aug29.180929.27116@Princeton.EDU> egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:
>Anyway, guys, why is it okay for jackanapes like Henry Schaffer and
>Chris "Knucklehead" Morton to parade their inability to write C code but

  Why is it that the guy who gets really frantic when his name is
"played" with (such as when someone referred to him as "Egg Nilges")
is so quick to call other people names?  Why is this frantic guy
unable to understand the difference between "C code" and statements
about his own inability to deal with reality?

>not okay for yours truly to  lack quite the depth of knowledge of racist

   Here's the frantic slinging around of the "racist" accusation -
 
>trivia on tap in Ted Frank?  I've shown how the secret incapability on
                                                 ^^^^^^
   What ever was posted was seen by all - but only Ed Nilges has
access to the "secrets" - suuure.

>display in Schaffer and Knucklehead has a subtle relationship to
>technological decay, for the unemployment and underemployment of the
>nonwhite, the nonmale, and the aged is paralleled by the overemployment
>of the young white male.   ...

  Wow - and Ed deduced all of this from a left parenthesis and
an apostrophe.  His frantic evasions of the questions about his
totalitarian views, and his substitution of insults for substance,
are getting more and more amusing (in a depressing way.)
> ...

--henry schaffer  n c state univ
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.politics.correct,rec.arts.movies
From: gmark@cbnewse.cb.att.com (gilbert.m.stewart)
Subject: Re: The return of vaudeville. (was: Re: Nilges)
Organization: AT&T
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 15:48:58 GMT

In article <qumaqB2w165w@comtch.spk.wa.us> mhughes@comtch.spk.wa.us (Mark Hughes) writes:
>cedman@714-725-3165.nts.uci.edu (Carl Edman) writes:
>> Yes, indeed. Could you imagine a more telling condemnation of the racist natu
>> of this society ? Not only were immigrants riducled by the White Male Norther
>> European Heterosexual Conspiracy as sex-crazed, fashion unconcious , sneaky  
>> vicious and animal-like sub-humans, but the Imperialist propaganda machine  
>> actually managed to brain-wash immigrant-americans into doing it to themselve
>> ! How perfect ! White Male Heterosexual Northern Europeans don't even have to
>> get their own hands and tongues dirty for their oppression, but they can  
>> actually exploit the oppressed into furthering their own oppression. Certainl
>> you must recognize this as the extension of the southern plantation system in
>> the intellectual sphere.
>> 
>> It is truely fortunate that today there are many people at our universities w
>> have finally woken up to these facts and can expose them for the less  
>> sophisticated among us.
> 
>  You are, I hope, joking?  That has GOT to be one of the most bigoted, 
>hypocritical, stereotypical statements I have EVER heard.  The WMNHC is 
>hardly a conspiracy, and had nothing to do with the Marx brothers' names. 
>The trouble is, some people have built up such a guilt complex for the 
>sins of their forefathers, that they see racism EVERYWHERE.  I suppose I 
>could go into an extended flame, but I'll leave it at this: 
> 
>  GET A LIFE!
> 
> - Mark Hughes (Caves of Steel 509-624-2078)  mhughes@comtch.spk.wa.us

What?  I thought the WMNHC was an official club.  Are there any members
out there who could post meetings we could crash?  Do you get to wear
special hats?  Are there parades and "Pride" days?

GMS

Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Re: Sperm Donor Paternity (was Re: Right To Not Support)
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 00:34:45 GMT

In article <BtLqIC.Jv4@news.cso.uiuc.edu> slkg9733@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Steven L. Kellmeyer) writes:
>>I retained a paralegal to check this out. She found that because a doctor
>>transferred the donor's sperm, the donor isn't liable for child support.
>
>Bingo!  So what about those frozen embryos?  

What about those frozen embryos?  It's not like this case you keep citing
is binding precedent for forty-nine of the fifty states.  And it's not
all that clear that the Tennessee Supreme Court would come to the exact
same conclusion if they revisited the question.  The question of frozen
embryos is still very much unresolved and, at any rate, could just as
easily shift with the publication of a single law review article. 

Furthermore, I've yet to see any language from the Tennessee decision
to indicate that their reasoning is meant to be applicable beyond the
narrow facts of the case.  If such language does exist, I'd be happy
to reconsider this point, but until then, I suspect you're stretching
much too far.

(I'd also like to see this case of the male rape victim being forced
to pay child support....)
-- 
             ......................................................
             ted frank | thf2@midway.uchicago.edu | std disclaimers
             the university of chicago law skool, chicago, illinois
             it's log!  log!  log!  it's big, it's heavy, it's wood
From: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Hate Speech Okay, says the Supreme Court
Date: 26 Aug 92 19:34:19 GMT
Reply-To: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation

In article <1992Aug26.181147.2728@Princeton.EDU>, 
egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:
> In article <BtLHzB.B9H@NCoast.ORG> cmort@ncoast.org (Christopher Morton) 
writes:
> >> 
> >> A market is where I make contracts for mutual advantage; I do not make a
> >> contract with the author of a book to believe his ideas.
> >
> >You DO make an implied contract to RECEIVE his ideas in written form.  The
> 
> That's absurd.  For one thing, how do I make a contract with a deceased
> author?  

Okay, if not with the author, then with his publisher or other successor in 
interest.  That's a misdirecting and irrelevant nit-pick, and I suspect you 
realize it.

> For another, I "receive" the author's ideas for my own
> enlightenment and pleasure, NOT as an onerous task for which I must be
> renumerated.

Right.  What's your point?  The consideration you give is the price of the 
book, the consideration the author or s.i.i. gives is the book.  Is it your 
contention that in a contract both parties must be renumerated in cash?

> For yet another, the contract in book ownership happens
> PRIOR to reading and is with the book seller...not the author.

See discussion of misdirecting and irrelevant nit-picking, supra.

Terry Carroll - tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com - 408/992-2152
The opinions presented above are not necessarily those of a sound mind.
From: kingsley@hpwrce.mayfield.hp.com (Kingsley Morse)
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 21:39:23 GMT
Subject: Re: Sperm Donor Paternity (was Re: Right To Not Support)
Organization: HP Western Response Center
Newsgroups: misc.legal

In misc.legal, beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:

> That's +very+ interesting news -- so it is quite possible for a mother
> to sue the sperm donor successfully.  Can she force the clinic 
> to identify the donor (and does such identification make the clinic
> liable to reimburse the father for his "support" expenses)?

I retained a paralegal to check this out. She found that because a doctor
transferred the donor's sperm, the donor isn't liable for child support.
From: tucker@shiva.edsg.hac.com (George Tucker)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Maryland Law Brief
Keywords: JOCUNDITAS DELENDA EST
Date: 4 Sep 92 01:09:27 GMT
Reply-To: tucker@shiva.UUCP (George Tucker)
Organization: Hughes Aircraft Co., El Segundo, CA

In article <19142@smoke.brl.mil> matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt) writes:
>In article <23124@hacgate.SCG.HAC.COM> tucker@shiva.UUCP (George Tucker) 
>writes:
>
>>In article <BtwuM5.MBH@news.cso.uiuc.edu> gsbg9079@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu 
>>(G. Scott Braley) writes:
>
>>>kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>
>>>>The user, on the other hand, is looking to buy drugs solely for the
>>>>sheer pleasure of using them.
>
>Carl M. Kadie didn't write this.  I, Matt Rosenblatt, wrote this.

I thought so, but Scott Bradley wrote that Kadie said it so it would 
be incorrect for me to substitute your infamous name.
>
>>Speaking of penalties based on motives, is fun illegal now? [George Tucker]
>
>I wrote about the "user . . . for the sheer pleasure" because taxpayers
>like me are sick and tired of paying for the consequences of other
>people's "fun."  Most Marylanders don't enjoy the "sheer pleasure" 

Then you shouldn't be supporting the WOD.  The cost of prisons is
substantially higher than the cost of legalizing at least the natural
drugs, if indeed that cost is positive.  Civilization coexisted 
with psychoactive plants for a long time without this paranoia.
Taxpayers like me are sick and tired of paying for the consequences
of other people's sadistic idea of fun.

If you think you are going to save big bucks with a military solution
to addictions you are totally wacko.  It's about as productive as
ethnic cleansing.

	 George Tucker        tucker@tcville.hac.com
What is the world's largest government subsidy to agriculture,
terrorism, speedboat manufacturing, organized crime, and prison
construction?
From: hennebry@plains.NoDak.edu (Michael J. Hennebry)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Nilges
Date: 26 Aug 92 16:45:04 GMT
Article-I.D.: plains.19893
Organization: North Dakota Higher Education Computing Network

In article <MealnSe00VpJE5kEVI@andrew.cmu.edu> ts2a+@andrew.cmu.edu (Thomas Omar Smith) writes:
>Treason is specifically outlawed in the Constitution.  Those who
>practice it must face the consequences.

Actually it isn't. The language does seem to assume that treason is a
crime, but it doesn't actually say so.  This may turn out to be a
problem. The constitution does say that congress shall have the power
to declare the punishment for treason, but doesn't explicitly say
that punishing treason requires making it a crime. We may have
'civil' trials for treason followed by executions. A rather neat
workaround the two-witness rule, no? I realize that this is
unreasonable, but don't expect the same of the current judiciary.

-- 
Mike   hennebry@plains.NoDak.edu
"I still thing it's garbage, but beautifully cooked."   --  TP on TP
Xref: sparky misc.legal:16858 alt.politics.elections:12292
From: foy@aero.org (Richard Foy)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Graffiti Ordinace Rejected
Date: 3 Sep 1992 02:54:05 GMT
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: aerospace.aero.org

The Graffiti Ordinance was rejected.

Thanks again to all who responded to my earlier posts on this subject.

To recapitulate:

The Redondo Beach City Council had started the process of passing an
ordinance that would subject proper owners to a fine of $500 or six months
in jail if they refused to let the city remove graffiti.

The council voted two weeks ago to send the ordinance back to staff to
remove a section about liens.

During the two weeks between meetings I received lots of information about
Mrs. Lane the property owner at whom the ordinance was directed..

Last night the ordinance was on the agenda for approval. There were several
people who spoke against it. I presented a lot of strong arguments against
it based to a large extent on the information from the net. One man had
talked Mrs. Lane and voluntered to get a youth group to paint her wall
with paint donated from a paint dealer, all to her satisfaction.

With all of that the council rejected the ordinance.

It still raises questions in my mind. If it was so easy for the one
man to get her to agree to paint the wall, why couldn't the city have
done the same without all the fuss of writing an ordinance?

The Mayor, Brad Parton is running for the State Assembly. How much was
his support for rejection based on his concern that he might have seen
big signs in the neighborhood condemning him for not vetoing the
ordinance.

The whole thing, along with all the other grabs for power I read about
on the net, makes me feel very bad about what is happening to my
country.

Richard Foy
Redondo Beach CA       Standard Disclaimer




Newsgroups: misc.legal,misc.consumers
From: wales@valeria.cs.ucla.edu (Rich Wales)
Subject: Re: Endorsing checks for deposit via ink stamp?
Reply-To: wales@CS.UCLA.EDU (Rich Wales)
Organization: UCLA CS Department, Los Angeles
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 92 05:03:09 GMT

Tim W. Smith, describing his experience with Wells Fargo Bank's ATMs
in California, wrote:

	    Cash-back deposits were allowed from the ATM.

Technically, though, when you deposit a check at an ATM and get cash
back, you aren't taking cash for the check you deposit.  (Stated ano-
ther way, you aren't actually "cashing" the check.)  Rather, you are
depositing a check and then withdrawing cash that was already in your
account.

"Deposit with cash back" is simply a convenience to the ATM user, so
he/she can make a deposit and withdraw cash in one step instead of two.

So you can still do this even if you have endorsed the check(s) for
deposit only.  The cash withdrawal is a completely separate operation
on your account, no matter how many or how few buttons you push on the
ATM in order to accomplish it.

Banks which provide for a "deposit with cash back" on their ATMs will
usually not let you withdraw more money than the bank knew was already
in your account before you made the deposit.  This is the same as if
you did the withdrawal separately:  your deposit is not actually avail-
able for you to withdraw as cash until the bank has verified it and
posted it to your account.

Any check you deposit via an ATM should definitely be endorsed for
deposit only.

--
Rich Wales <wales@CS.UCLA.EDU> // UCLA Computer Science Department
3531 Boelter Hall // Los Angeles, CA 90024-1596 // +1 (310) 825-5683