HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Citecheck Hell)
Subject: Re: the MIT anti-trust case
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 19:03:49 GMT

In article <1992Sep27.183939.25858@fid.morgan.com> sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart) writes:
>Despite anything that may have been agreed to, Harvard has a monopoly
>on Harvard degrees, and will continue to do so.  Likewise the rest of
>the Overlap group.

And General Motors has a monopoly on Cadillacs.  And so on.

However, if Ford, GM, and Chrysler got together and agreed to
keep the price of cars several thousand dollars higher than it
would be otherwise, I suspect many people would be upset.

Yes, a Harvard degree is unique.  There are many close substitutes,
though--the problem was is that the majority of these substitutes
formed a cartel that allowed them to overcharge students.  Now
students will have a choice.  Imagine that.

>I also conjecture that they will continue to raise fees at whatever
>rate they want, which will probably continue to exceed inflation.

They'll have a more difficult time with it though, if Yale and Penn
and Princeton act to keep costs under control.  But, as standard
economic theory predicts, a price-setter has no incentive to keep
costs under control.  Harvard can try to maintain their ways; as
soon as a couple of colleges break rank, however, Harvard's going to
have to figure out a way to get themselves back in line before they
price themselves out of the market.  

The Overlap Group was a way to keep its members from breaking ranks.

>Furthermore, I doubt that the consent agreement will change the total
>amount of financial aid that any school grants; rather, it will
>slightly change the distribution, in a semi-random manner.  

There's financial aid, and there's financial aid.  Much of the financial
aid granted by the Overlap Group was faux financial aid that reduced
the monopoly price to a level closer to a competitive level.  

If a monopolist was charging $10 for a widget that would be priced $5 under
competition, it's hardly generous of it to sell it for $7 and call the $3
"financial aid."

Furthermore you assume, that colleges will continue to let costs
run out of hand--now that they no longer have a cartel to protect themselves,
it's only a matter of time before a few break ranks to start pricing
themselves reasonably.  And when that happens, the rest will have to
do so also, or find that they've priced themselves out of the market.
-- 
           .. . . .  .  .   .    .     .     .    .   .  .  . . . ..
          ted frank | thf2@midway.uchicago.edu | standard disclaimers
         the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: MANEJWZA@ctrvax.vanderbilt.edu ()
Subject: Anti-Arab racism on the net?  How about Satanic Verses? Good then.
Organization: Vanderbilt University 
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 08:43:24 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.21


I have read All of the messages posted on this subject. So I am well aware
of much of the discussion.

	Now, I ask, why go to such an extent?  

	Art and literature are basically means by which someone expresses
his or her views regarding anything.  Mostly, thiese two forms of communcation
have been represented in very abstract manners.

	Now, is Salman Rushdie doubtful in Islam and its origins?

	Answer:  Well, there is some evidence.

	In Time Magazine, Rushdie is quoted:
		"I beleive there should be a way to follow SECULAR Islam
instead of actually beleiving in the theology."     This he said after 
'embracing Islam'.

	
	Huh?  I don't know what he was getting here but at any rate...

	As to whether Salman Rushdie meant harm in his book, Allah knows.

	But Muslims should not worry about convincing fellow non-Muslims
to agree that Salman Rudhdie should be killed or that the book should be
destroyed in the United States and England.

	Instead, it SHOULD be banned in Muslim countries because it is
about time the Islamic goverments do something profitable towards the
strengthening of Islam and reject the Western ways of wining and dining.

	But as to our discussions on people on this Net and everyone in the
Western world:

		we should talk about Islam.  

	All people!  If you want to know why the Iranians put a death
sentence, or do most Muslims agree with it, or what is wrong with
expression?-- then I must say that you already have your answer to
that question.  You already know how YOU feel about expression and
its freedom.  You RESPECT religious beleifs and reject anything that
goes against the freedom of expression.  

	So really there is no reason to continue arguing the latter.


	But if you want to know about Islam, well then, write me and I'll tell
you.
	If you want to know What is in the Satanic Verses that MUSLIMS
are so outraged about, then STUDY the Life of Muhammad (peace be upon him).
ANd study the devotion to his life and guidance that a billion people
around the world share.  None among Muslims mention his name but that it is
followed by a pronouncing of blessings and peace.

	Many Muslims have read The Satanic Verses and have discovered that
it insults the Prophet's family calling his beloved wife a prostitute and
himself a harrasser. Astaghfirullah Anaouzubillah!!!!!!!!! 
And there of course is much more or else there would not be such an outrage
among the Muslims on this matter.

	Yet again, I do not know of this for certain.

	Nevertheless, Islam is what Muslims want to talk about, not trying
to assure the Westerners that Western ideals and morals are being upheld
in the Islamic World.


									-Zafar
From: ts@cup.portal.com (Tim W Smith)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Apostilled: what it means, explained
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 92 21:27:39 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
Distribution: usa
  <1992Sep26.001145.18719@athena.mit.edu> <66666@cup.portal.com>

"Apostilled" is also not in the Oxford Encyclopedic English Dictionary.
Is it really a word, or did someone screw up?  Anyone with the full OED
care to take a look?  Is there a bigger law dictionary than Black's?

--Tim Smith
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: dan@cae.prds.cdx.mot.com (Dan Breslau)
Subject: Re: Farewell to misc.legal discussion (was: Re: Hate speech okay
Organization: none
Distribution: misc.legal
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 16:26:50 GMT

egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Edward G. Nilges) writes:

> I feel
>that unthinkingly absolutist views of free speech hold sway on the net
>and that feminist and critical alternatives deserve a better airing,
>which I've tried to give them.  I also, of course, believe the
>absolutist view to be wrong, and dangerously so, whereas the feminist
>and critical views have much of value.

Ed, before you go, a few thoughts from a lurker...

Does it at least occur to you that these views are "thinkingly absolutist"?
I thought not...

Let me try drawing a parallel with something I'm sure you believe in:
Abortion rights.  I'm not here to start a flame-fest on whether abortion
is right or wrong.  I'm personally pro-choice, and I don't believe that abortion
terminates the life of a human being.  But there is a large number of Americans
who believe that it does; and to them, abortion is evil, not to mention oppressive.

One of the primary arguments of the pro-choice crowd (including myself)
is that the right of a woman to control her destiny overrides any rights the
fetus may have.  This is, basically, an absolutist view of the right to
self-determination.  What the pro-choice crowd is saying to the anti-abortion
crowd is that the right to self-determination must be applied even when the
act it protects is evil and oppressive in the minds of some.  Otherwise, there
is no real right to self-determination.

Well, so it is with free speech and other basic rights.  Even when the right
to free speech protects acts that we find foul and offensive, we must protect
that right.  The proper response is not to use the rule of law to protect our
innocent ears from such garbage, but to use our own voices to speak out in return.

One of the major slogans of the pro-choice campaign is, "Who decides?"  Let's
not lose our right to free speech because someone is now deciding...

Dan Breslau
dan@codex.com
Disc claimer:  "Hey!  That's my floppy!"

Xref: sparky misc.legal:17731 alt.politics.correct:5493
From: egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Edward G. Nilges)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.politics.correct
Subject: Re: Once more into the breach, dear friends (was: Re: Ted babbles again
Date: 26 Sep 92 23:53:26 GMT
Organization: Princeton University
Originator: news@nimaster

In article <1992Sep25.212356.5867@island.COM> guido@island.COM (Guido Marx) writes:
>In article <1992Sep21.192659.6279@Princeton.EDU> egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:
>>Ridicule is not rebuttal, and ridicule precludes listening.  I am
>
>Ed, in article <1992Sep21.011441.5377@Princeton.EDU> you posted:
>>Marshall, fart in a bottle and paint it, will you?
>
>Now, can you tell me how that kind of a statement "constitutes healthy
>dialogue" ?  You have lectured us on how people don't post to the
>net because they are afraid of being flamed.  You then assert that
>because of this, somehow their free speech rights are being violated.
>
Guido:


     (1)  Strictly speaking, that was a request, not ridicule.  It did
          not hold Marshall's thoughts or feelings up to scorn, but
          requested that he perform an unnatural act.

     (2)  The context was Marshall's absurd statement that I had acted
          badly in refraining from telling Keith Ware, who proposes
          to be the first black man to climb Everest, that Everest
          was overburdened according to a recent article in the
          Economist.  Marshall's recommendations were so far from what
          I consider to be simple civility (racial considerations
          apart) that I felt that rational persuasion would not work
          and unnatural acts were in order.

     (3)  There is a world of difference between a humorous request
          and the humorless bile that passes for "flaming" on the net.
From: tzs@milton.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Online Legal
Date: 29 Sep 92 19:29:58 GMT
Article-I.D.: u.1992Sep29.192958.24338
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

rc@depsych.Gwinnett.COM (Richard Carlson) writes:
>
>Where can I find books that tell me my rights, tell me what to do
>if I am arrested (I remember seeing one like that, but I can't
>recall who put it out), tell me what is likely to happen in a
>divorce, etc.  How about a book that tells me my rights when
>dealing with neighbors?  That book that discussed rights when
>arrested didn't say anything about ways the law could actually be
>_used_, only about ways to avoid its _abuse_ by the authorities. I
>think people would like to know, and should know, what their
>rights are when the next door neighbor comes onto their property
>and shouts, "Next time you clip those raggedy hedges of yours and
>let the stems drop in my yard I'm gonna come over hear and punch
>you right in the nose!"
>

Nolo Press has books on neighbor law and landlord/tennent rights, which
cover many of the things you ask about above.  The ACLU has a series
of handbooks on various rights (privacy, to protest, etc.) that cover
some of the others.  West publishes "The Compact Guide to {Tort|Contract|
Property} Law" (all subtitled "A Civilized Approach to the Law"), if you
want something more theoretical yet still for the layperson.

--Tim Smith
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: Fightin' Words
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 03:03:23 GMT

In article <06Pq02p524jU01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll) writes:
>In article <1992Sep28.182142.15720@eff.org>, mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) 
>writes:
>> More or less. "Fighting words" is a vestigial Constitutional doctrine, for
>> the most part; Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire continues to be cited in
>> Supreme Court caes, but never to *uphold* a fighting-words conviction.
>
>Unfortunately, it continues to be cited in lower or state courts to uphold 
>such convictions.

Convictions based on speech alone? Or speech that actually gave rise to
violence (that is, "imminent and likely lawless action," a la
Brandenberg)? This is news to me--can you cite some
representative cases?


--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 
Xref: sparky misc.legal:18029 rec.arts.books:17564
From: dave@frackit.UUCP (Dave Ratcliffe)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,rec.arts.books
Subject: Re: Anti-Arab racism on the net
Keywords: Equality, Fairness, Same Standards?
Date: 3 Oct 92 16:29:59 GMT
Followup-To: misc.legal
Organization: Data Factory Services, Harrisburg, Pa.

In article <1992Sep27.231121.26653@news.columbia.edu>, ia4@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Imran Anwar) writes:
> In response to Mike Godwin, I appreciate the information about Iron Dream
> but must beg to differ on the pont that Rushdie was not trying to be
> offensive.
> 
> As aatter of fact that is exactly the reason I do not like his book, it
> was a deliberate attempt to malign and upset Muslims.

Has he told you this to your face or in a taped interview you have seen?
Or, more likely, did you hear/read this from the Muslim press? 

If the former then he apparently succeeded and those getting sooooo upset
probably satisfied him with their expected reactions. 

If the latter then consider the source and remember that such
information from a clearly biased source is highly suspect. Believing it
is playing into their plans for the future and putting you one step
closer to being a mindless tool. 

-- 
 ...uunet!wa3wbu!frackit!dave -or-                       |  Dave Ratcliffe  |
 frackit!dave@uunet.UU.NET -or- dave@frackit.uucp -or-   |  Sys. <*> Admin. |
 vogon1!compnect!frackit!dave@psuvax1.psu.edu            | Harrisburg,  Pa. |
From: matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: The Loss of Innocence
Summary: "Freedoms" at the expense of other people's freedom.
Keywords: Neither Finnish nor Urdu
Date: 30 Sep 92 16:39:30 GMT
Organization: U.S. Army Ballistic Research Lab, APG MD.

In article <1992Sep23.144440.12849@Princeton.EDU> 
egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:

>In article <19198@smoke.brl.mil> matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt) 
>writes:

>>If I cannot compel someone to listen to a speaker, and no one is
>>interested on his own in listening to that speaker, then indeed
>>that speaker's "right" to speech is but "formal."  But so what?
>>Is the value to X of having a more than "formal" right to speech
>>so important that we should be willing to infringe on someone's
>>FREEDOM not to listen?  [Matt Rosenblatt]

>That's the freedom you're REALLY interested-in.  Admit it.  [Ed Nilges]

I admit it cheerfully!  A glance at the ads in the paper for clothing,
cars, and real estate is enough to tell me that there are many, many
Americans who have far more wealth than I do, with the concomitant
ability to enjoy that wealth.  I do not waste my time or energy on
ENVY and RESENTMENT directed against those who have more than I do,
and even if I did, I would not want them to be compelled to listen 
to my envy.  In return, I should not be compelled to listen to the
rage, envy and resentment of those farther down the ladder than I am.

>>Many, many rights that we cherish as Americans are "formal" rights.
>>How many times do we say, "It's a free country!  You have the right
>>to do such-and-such"?  What we mean, of course, is that "you have
>>the right to do such-and-such *if you can afford to*."  If you 
>>[Matt Rosenblatt]

>That's not what the Constitution is about.  It's about freedoms that
>apply to all Americans, rich and poor.  Middle class white people have
>your reading, but the Constitution does not condition the freedoms in
>the Bill of Rights on property ownership or wealth.  It protects
>property, but persons do need to own property or have wealth in order to
>enjoy the freedoms enumerated in our Constitution.  [Ed Nilges]

Where does the Constitution enumerate the "freedom" to eat food
grown by someone else, or the "freedom" to live on someone else's
land, or the "freedom" to compel another citizen to sew clothing
for one to wear?

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

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
"Die Knechtschaft dauert nur noch kurze Zeit."
From: scott@bbx.basis.com (Scott Amspoker)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Fighting Words
Date: 28 Sep 92 16:30:34 GMT
Organization: BASIS International, Ltd., Albuquerque NM USA

In article <XiFRRB2w164w@depsych.Gwinnett.COM> rc@depsych.Gwinnett.COM (Richard Carlson) writes:
>[about "fighting words"...]
>I've looked but haven't found a good book or even a good article
>discussing this interesting doctrine.  Anybody know of one,
>especially as applied in juvenile law (one kid disses another --
>what are the legal rights and latitudes of the dissed kid to hit
>the one uttering the "fighting words?")?

We had a high-profile case in Albuquerque that hinged on fighting words.
A demonstrater at UNM was speaking out against the (in progress) 
gulf war.  He was ranting about how the government was using minorities
to fight their economic battle.  A war supporter walked up and punched
him in the face.  This whole scene was caught by local news cameras
so there was no dispute about what actually took place.

The attacker was prosecuted and dismissed because the jury felt that
the anti-war protester was out of line and inciting anger.  The
whole concept of "fighting words" was beaten to death in local newspapers'
editorial/letters columns.  I don't recall that anyone was able to
define "fighting words" as something other than "unpopular speech" (at
least in the context of this case).

-- 
Scott Amspoker                       |    
Basis International, Albuquerque, NM |  Too bad ignorance isn't really
                                     |  bliss.  Then it could be outlawed.
scott@bbx.basis.com                  |
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.dads-rights,alt.child-support
From: cs385110@ucs.usl.edu (Callaway Curtis J)
Subject: Child Support - Question
Organization: Univ. of Southwestern La., Lafayette
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 20:42:07 GMT

	I have ( what I think to be ) a simple question.  My current
girl friend is having a baby.  I've been told that I am the father.
She has sent papers over, to my apartment to sign.  The deal is that if I
give up pursuit of child custody, she would in return give up any
pursuit of child support.  My question is, "Is this legal in any
states, in the U.S.?"

	Please email response

Xref: sparky misc.legal:17855 soc.culture.jewish:16742
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Re: Minneapolis Hate Speech Ordinance
Date: 29 Sep 92 16:33:07 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1992Sep28.170613.22678@midway.uchicago.edu>, thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Citecheck Hell) writes:
# I know that, Ed.  You know that.  Now write a law that can ban one without
# resulting in the ban of the other.  Can't be done--we live in a world where
# there are more people offended by OBOB than Hustler.  Once you ban one,
# you remove the opportunity for protection of the other.

Exactly.  Mr. Nilges has this delusion that liberalism/fascism can
be used to only suppress "bad stuff" but won't be used to suppress
"good stuff" by his definitions.  It doesn't work that way.

# Your support of penalties for speech endanger the very groups you seek to
# protect.  You're a white male (as you've stated before); this isn't going
# to hurt you when it happens.  I'm a minority that's been squashed before
# by governments extending their powers as you wish them to.  The ordinance
# that bans swastikas today as offensive to Jews will eventually lead to
# the ordinance tomorrow that bans Jews as offensive to Christians.
# -- 
#            .. . . .  .  .   .    .     .     .    .   .  .  . . . ..
#           ted frank | thf2@midway.uchicago.edu | standard disclaimers

Or more likely in California, an ordinance that bans Christians as
offensive to liberals.



-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Bush: War on Drugs, tax cut->bigger deficit.  Clinton: War on Drugs, spending
increase->bigger deficit.  What a great choice.
From: "hilary miller" <hilary.miller@execnet.com>
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: need advice for simpl
Date: 5 Oct 92 13:44:18 EST
Reply-To: "hilary miller" <hilary.miller@execnet.com>
Distribution: misc
Organization: Executive Networks Information


Mike Godwin, in a message to All on 10-03-92 at 8:16am, said:

MG>|How about if I validly execute a holographic will in Texas, my domicile
   |then move to NYC and die there?
   |_______________________________________________________________________

               A will that is valid under the laws of the domi-
               cile of the testator and the time it is made is
               valid in New York.


   L A
 I    R        Hilary B. Miller of Greenwich, Connecticut
  H/\Y         CIS: 76040,1743
    
---
  DeLuxe 1.25 #11645  A seminar on time travel will be held 2 weeks ago
--
Executive Network Information System  (914) 667-4567
International ILink Host
Xref: sparky misc.legal:18037 alt.censorship:7833
From: greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (J. S. Greenfield)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.censorship
Subject: Re: [misc.legal] Freedom of Speech = Not Responsible?
Date: 4 Oct 92 15:35:48 GMT
Organization: Syracuse University, CIS Dept.

>     In a recent article, the Los Angeles Times reported on yet another
>"rappers made me do it" case.  In this case a woman was suing a rapper
>because a miscreant had shot her policeman husband shortly after listening
>to a number by the rapper urging people to do just that.
>
>     In the article, the Times said that all previous such cases had been
>thrown out on grounds of freedom of speech.  I was surprised at this.  My
>understanding of freedom of speech is that the government cannot prohibit
>anybody (well, almost anybody) from saying anything (well, almost any-
>thing), but that, in general, when a person says something he has to take
>responsibility for having said it.  This is particularly true when the
>person advocates an action, else what's incitement to riot for?
>
>     Was the Times wrong in its summary of the previous cases, or does my
>idea of freedom of speech need revision?

Well, common sense suggests to me that one could only be responsible for
*reasonably forseeable* results.

I don't know the song in question, but even if it does truly "urge"
people to shoot cops (something I have my doubts about), I would say that
while it may be reasonably forseeable that some criminal will *claim*
that "the song made me do it," it seems highly doubtful that it is
reasonably forseeable that the song *actually* would cause anyone to do
such a thing...

If we were to adopt a liability standard where a mere *claim* (that
some expression provoked a criminal act) were enough to establish
liability, then the effect upon expression would certainly be quite
chilling.


-- 
J. S. Greenfield                                         greeny@top.cis.syr.edu
(I like to put 'greeny' here, 
but my d*mn system wants a 
*real* name!)                        "What's the difference between an orange?"
Newsgroups: misc.legal