HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: misc.legal

	
	Olga writes:

	"BULL! you don't want the responsibilities, wear a condom next time!
	Not to wear one and depend on the woman to be responsible for
	birth control is *YOUR* choice.  Its also *YOUR* choice to sleep with
	her."

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

	Olga, you seem to have similar if not more severe misconceptions
	about the issue as Peter.

	Firstly, please don't pretend to tell me what I want.  I can't
	see how you are even remotely qualified to do so, especially
	since I have not indicated my desires in any way....  I simply
	outlined the issue, not my desires.

	This issue has nothing whatsoever to do with birth control.
	The issue BEGINS _after_ pregnancy.... regardless of how the
	event occurred... birth control failure, stupidity, or even
	a planned pregnancy.

	Men and women have birth control options.  Men and women can
	experience poor judgement.  Men and women can choose who they sleep
	with.  The same options, and the same responsibilities...

	So far so good.
	Now, if pregnancy occurs *** regardless of who's 'fault' it is ***
	is when things get one sided.....

	The issue is totally confined to options available to men and women
	after pregnancy occurs.  If the woman doesn't want the responsibility
	of this child, she has a number of options available (all of which
	are well known).  If she doesn't want the responsibility, she
	doesn't have to take it... even if the pregnancy was her fault!
	Must be nice!

	In contrast, if the man doesn't want the responsibility of this
	child, he has no legal options.... all he can do is run.
	Even if he WANTS the child, she can keep him from having the
	child.... she can abort it, she can have the child adopted, or
	she can keep it herself.

	Obviously, in this situation, women have all the legal options
	while men have NONE.  They must wait for the woman to decide
	what she want's to do.....  at which point he discovers what
	he's compelled to do.  Responsibilities, but no choices... 

	So while she's deciding "should I abort?" he gets to wait.  While
	she considers "should I keep it?" he gets to wait.  While she thinks
	"should I put it up for adoption?"  he gets to wait.... and find
	out what fate she has in store for him.

	Suddenly a lot of women don't seem to like the idea of equality....
	
	All we're asking for here is to have the same choices as women.
	And if we can't have the same choices, similar ones will do... because
	as it stands, we have NONE. (re: parental rights after pregnancy)

	-Mike-
From: dab@ism.isc.com (Dave Butterfield)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Attractive Nuisance
Date: 12 Oct 92 22:11:03 GMT
Organization: x
NNTP-Posting-Host: change

brunner@telebit.com (Eric Brunner) writes:
>>We were discussing views on what the law _should_ be, not what it is.
>
>Count me out, I don't have time for shoulds.

Not a voter, eh?  Too bad.

-- 
                     Vote for *anybody* but Quayle!
From: wrat@unisql.UUCP (wharfie)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Evil acts
Keywords: Act xxi of 1850 [the 'Lex Loci Act']
Date: 15 Oct 92 19:56:04 GMT
Article-I.D.: unisql.3972
Organization: UniSQL, Inc., Austin, Texas, USA

In article <19308@smoke.brl.mil> matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt) writes:
>How 'bout "failure to pay taxes"?  That's not "evil," nor even 
> [ abortion is evil ]

	So laws have no correlation with the inherent _evil_ of an
action.  Is there then some other quality, "wrongness", perhaps, that
require a distinction of "legal" vs. "illegal" ?  Or are laws completely 
arbitrary, in which case why should they be obeyed (disregarding the 
coercive power of the state) ?



	
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: Fightin' Words
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 17:02:31 GMT

In article <e2Pb02PV24ki01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll) writes:
>In article <1992Oct5.201150.29197@eff.org>, mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) 
>writes:
>> 
>> I find it unlikely that this decision would survive Supreme Court review.
>
>I agree with you.  That wasn't my point.  If you recall, I mentioned that, 
>while the US Supreme Court has not used the Fighting Words doctrine to uphold 
>convictions, regrettably, state and lower federal courts have and continue to 
>do so; the doctrine continues to have an effect on modern jurisprudence.  You 
>asked for a cite to back that up.  This is it.

Was I disputing something you said, Terry? My comment, quoted above,
seems pretty neutral to me.

I fully understood what you were doing by producing the citation. My
comment was about the case itself; I wasn't disputing your point, which
you proved just fine.


--Mike




-- 
Mike Godwin,    |"Liberty resides in the rights of that person
mnemonic@eff.org| whose views you find most odious."
(617) 864-0665  | 
EFF, Cambridge  |                           --John Stuart Mill
From: dab@ism.isc.com (Dave Butterfield)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Attractive Nuisance
Date: 13 Oct 1992 19:05:48 GMT
Organization: x
NNTP-Posting-Host: change

brunner@telebit.com (Eric Brunner) writes:
>>>>We were discussing views on what the law _should_ be, not what it is.
>>>Count me out, I don't have time for shoulds.
>>Not a voter, eh?  Too bad.
>
>Oh, goodness, you could have been writing tounge in check and refering to
>the November General election! The connection seems kind of tenuous, but

You made a general statement that you don't have time for "shoulds."
I applied your statement to the case of voting, where one expresses
which ballot measures one thinks "should" become part of our law, or
which persons one thinks "should" be in the next set of elected
officials.  Not all that tenuous; in fact I was surprised it took you
two tries to get it.  ;-)

>I intend to vote,

Oh, OK.  I guess your general statement wasn't quite all the way true.
"Nevermind."

Dave
-- 
	Family values are a family matter, not a government one.
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.censorship,misc.headlines
From: tait@cs.columbia.edu (Carl Tait)
Subject: When your Paycheck is Preposterously Late
Organization: Columbia University Department of Computer Science
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 21:10:42 GMT

If an employer issues a monthly paycheck two or three weeks late,
does the employee have any hope of recovering expenses incurred
as a direct result of the late payment?

Specifically, we Ph.D. students in the CS department at Columbia
have been waiting two weeks for our October stipends.  Most of us
will amass late payment charges on our credit cards and utilities.
Do we have any hope of forcing Columbia to reimburse us for these
expenses?  For most of us, the monthly stipend is our only source
of income, and we're getting angrier by the day.

Carl Tait

Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Subject: Re: Carjacking as a federal offense
Organization: Northeastern Law, Class of '93
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 00:09:14 GMT


In article <e1gg02Cw25AJ01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com>, 
tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll) said:

> Nah, the sweeping precedent was when they said that a farmer who
> grew wheat for consumption on the same farm on which he was growing
> it could be regulated in the name of interstate commerce, because if
> he was growing his own, he wasn't buying it, and that affected
> interstate commerce.

_Wickard v. Filburn_, 317 U.S. 111, 63 S.Ct. 82, 87 L.Ed. 122
(1942)... definitely one of the Court's all-time greatest fail-
the-giggle-test decisions.

> Interstate commerce is not a doctrine it's a mantra which, when
> applied to any federal law, makes it constitutional.

Lest anyone think that only Mr. Carroll feels this way, let me state
my agreement.  One of the highlights of my undergraduate days at
Northeastern was taking Robert Cord's Constitutional Law class.
Cord's version was nowhere near as deep, long or intense as the law
school class of the same name, of course, but it was harder and more
rewarding than any other class I took en route to my bachelor's
degree, and the highlight of the class was tracing the Commerce
Clause's path through history as it slowly but surely ate the entire
United States of America.

(Oh, and to whoever it was [Mike or Ted, I think] who asked, yes, I
was asking a pretty much rhetorical question about how the Congress
justified a federal carjacking law... I was about 95% certain that
they'd hung their hat on the Commerce Clause, but I wanted to see if I
could find out for sure.)

-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: guido@island.COM (Guido Marx)
Subject: Re: Term Limits are Constutional, Study Shows
Organization: Island Graphics Corp.  San Rafael, Ca.
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 00:01:52 GMT

In article <1992Oct5.103910.1518@cnsvax.uwec.edu> zempelkd@cnsvax.uwec.edu (Kurt Zempel - Computing and Networking Services) writes:
>What if the incumbent is "the best person for the job?" What right do we have
>to make a law that takes away the right of the voter to decide? Because it is
>truly up to them to decide who gets the office, and because anyone should have
>the right to run, state-imposed term limitations should fail.

Well, NOT anyone has the right to run.  There are age and residency
requirements on any person running for Congress.  What if the "best person
for the job" is 24 years old ?  Well, tough.  What if "the best person
for the job" lives in another state ?  Well, tough.  In my view, the skills
required to be a legislator are such that there are bound to 
be any number of very qualified people living in each and every congressional
district.  The fact that ON OCCASION we will lose out because the person
being retired is more competent than the person coming in is far
outweighed by the reduction in corruption that I believe term limits
will engender. 

It is instructive to realize that in recent years, the turnover in the
U.S. congress has been just a little bit higher than the turnover in
Britain's House of Lords.  Somehow, I don't think the House of Lords
is what the framers of the Constitution had in mind.  But this is the
problem we are facing, many members of congress view themselves as
members of the American aristocracy.

Guido


Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Citecheck Hell)
Subject: Re: LaFave too broad?
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 00:35:20 GMT

In article <ZoV8RB1w165w@depsych.Gwinnett.COM> rc@depsych.Gwinnett.COM (Richard Carlson) writes:
>Perhaps the LaFave and Scott volumes on criminal law are too broad
>for my purposes.  They cover all of criminal law.  I want to
>understand things relating to crimes against the person, mostly
>short of manslaugher or murder -- i.e., assault, battery and
>mayhem (assuming that something like knocking out someone's tooth
>constitutes mayhem).  And in particular I want to understand the
>_defenses_  a defendant can use when charged with one of these
>offenses.
>
>Self-defense, provocation, mutuual combat, "heat of passion,"
>temporary insanity, etc.

Then you should look up those subjects in the comprehensive index
to LaFave and Scott.  I, for one, have used LaFave and Scott to
find all of these issues discussed.  (For example, in their discussion
of mayhem, they discuss one of my favorite Texas cases, Sensobaugh v
State, where "provocation" [in this case, discovering one's wife in
bed with another man] was not a defense to a particularly nasty case
of mayhem.)

>What happens when a man finds his spouse in their marriage bed
>committing adultery with another man and punches that man in the
>nose and then orders the man out of his house?  Is witnessing
>adultery only good for reducing murder to manslaugher?  Can the
>wife's lover charge the husband with battery for puncning him in
>the nose?
>
>Is there a book dealing witht the interrelations of defenses and
>mitigating circumstances in battery?

LaFave and Scott.  There are other crim law books, of course, but
I don't think their treatment will much different than that L&S use.
-- 
ted frank | thf2@midway.uchicago.edu 
also at quibeaux@uchicago.edu | standard disclaimers
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
ajax crypto-analyzer -- warning! remove all chicken bones first
From: judson@watserv.ucr.edu (Michael Judson)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: School Vouchers: Constitutionality?
Date: 16 Oct 92 02:56:03 GMT

It would seem to me that if school vouchers were legal, then within a year
there would be a Supreme Court case in the works regarding its
constitutionality.
A similar question was raised in the case Everson v. Board of Education.
This case dealt with the constitutionality of refuding the transportation
costs that were incurred to parents by sending their kids to parochial
schools.  The Court found that it was in fact constitutional because it
didn't violate the Establishment clause.  However, in their decision, they
stated that it didn't violate the Establishment clause because the aid was
given to the parents, in a manner which was outside of the school itself,
i.e. transportation.  However, if the aid were given to the parents
which more than just got their children to school but got them through
the doors too, i.e. school vouchers, then on the basis of stare decisis
in the Court's Opinion I would tend to think that the Supreme Court would
strike down any "school voucher" laws.
Since many private schools are parochial, every private school would have
to be treated equally.  It wouldn't be just to say that, provided school
vouchers were legal, if it's parochial, you can't have a voucher, but if
it's a non-parochial private school, then vouchers are o.k.
Thus, the test derived in the case Lemon v. Kurtzman would have to be
used in any future Supreme Court case, whether or not the school was 
parochial.  And, in doing so, the "school voucher" law would not pass the
second prong of the test, of whether or not religion is advanced or 
inhibited.  This is because if parents were not given school vouchers,
then they would be relying on scholarships provided by the school.  But if
they were given vouchers, then schools would throw away scholarship
programs because they wouldn't be needed.  And this would indirectly
"advance" (so to speak) the parochial school, i.e. religion.

Furthermore, the idea of "school vouchers" is utterly ridiculous.  If it
is proposed because it will give the chance for parents to send their
children to good schools, then doesn't this send a message that our
public school system is not adequate?  Instead of worrying about giving
parents school vouchers, why doesn't the government put that money into
the public school system.

Any comments, criticisms?


--
"I drank what?" -- Socrates

judson@watserv.ucr.edu
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.politics.correct,soc.college
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: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 03:21:49 GMT

In article <GPRIORES.92Oct12150023@fish.oracle.com> gpriores@oracle.com (gordon prioreschi) writes:
>In article <1992Oct8.210059.18937@chpc.org> rboudrie@chpc.org (Rob Boudrie) writes:
>>What is illegal is for a manufacturer to inform
>>a dealer "you will not be permitted to buy any more merchandise from
>>us if we catch you selling at less than full list price".
>> Firms still engage in anti-competetive behaviour which borders on
>>price fixing - for example, prohibiting retailers from advertising prices
>>less than full retail (Heckler & Koch does this).
>> I recently recieved a $40 payment from an anti trust settlement against
>>Mitsibushi consumer electronics - they had been caught telling retailers
>>not to discount televisions below certain floor prices.  Not bad, since
>>I only paid about $350 for the 20" TV originally.
>
>Hm. I didn't know this. Just out of curiosity, why would a firm want
>to do it? 

By ensuring that no retailer will discount the price below "normal,"
the manufacturer in effect guarantees a retailer a minimum profit,
and might get superior cooperation from the retailer in exchange.

-- 
ted frank | thf2@midway.uchicago.edu 
also at quibeaux@uchicago.edu | standard disclaimers
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
ajax crypto-analyzer -- warning! remove all chicken bones first
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: sbrenner@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (scott.d.brenner)
Subject: How Can I Really Annoy Someone?
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 16:49:56 GMT

My apologies up front if this isn't the best group to post to.  I know
a lot of you know the law rather well, so I thought I'd post this here.

I'd like to get ideas on ways to annoy a neighbor of mine (he's not
directly next to my house, but a street or two away).  I don't want
to do anything even remotely illegal, nor do I want to do anything
physically damaging to him, his family, or his property.  I just want
him to go bonkers with my annoyances.  (I won't go into the reason
why I want to do this; let's just say it's payback time).

Short of actually going near his property, it seems I have two ways
of "getting into his life."  One is the telephone and the other is the
US Mail.  I know there are laws protecting people from harrassment via
the phone or mail; as I said, I do NOT want to break any laws.  Is 
there anything I can do legally, though, that would just be really
annoying?  I'm thinking about things like giving his name and number
to every telemarketer I can think of, calling him in the middle of
the night, and perhaps ordering a few "Civil War Chess Sets" or Elvis
dolls for him (although I have a feeling the last two ideas aren't
quite legal).

I know this sounds like a silly request, but if anyone can think of
anything I could do that's annoying by legal, please let me know.

a T d H v A a N n K c S e

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Scott D. Brenner
scott@cimu03.att.com  -or-  sbrenner@attmail.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: student loans
Keywords: loans, student loans
Date: 8 Oct 92 16:34:05 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <4154@novavax.UUCP>, vaccaro@novavax.UUCP (N. Trafford Vaccaro) writes:
> A friend of mine ows about 10,000 dollars plus interest on a 
> guaranteed student loan. He graduated and has a job, a condo, and
                                                       ^^^^^^^

> a year old baby, and can't afford the $140/month payment. He tried
> calling the people at Student Loan Services and he talked to them.

The implication is that he is buying a condo -- but can't afford to
pay back $140/month for an education that enabled him to buy a condo.  
What's wrong with this picture?

> Nicholas


-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Lesson learned from Gov. Wilson's signing of AB 2601: if you don't get 
your way, have a riot.  Next time, Gov. Wilson will cower appropriately.
From: guido@island.COM (Guido Marx)
Subject: Re: Question on new Federal Reserve Bank study in Boston
Organization: Island Graphics Corp.  San Rafael, Ca.
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 22:50:54 GMT

In article <ISBELL.92Oct10090326@panther.ai.mit.edu> isbell@ai.mit.edu (Charles L Isbell) writes:
>
>What are the legal remedies in a situation like this?
>
>-----
>info taken from the Boston Globe Friday October 9 1992:
>
>"Study shows racial bias in lending"
>
>A landmark study released Thursday shows that banks in Greater Boston
>discriminate against Black and Hispanic mortage applicants, offering
>the most damning evidence to date of racial hurdles facing minority
>homebuyers.

Can someone answer this question for me - how does the bank KNOW
the race of the applicant ?  Perhaps my own experience is atypical
but when I got my mortgage it was through a mortgage broker.  He
of course knew my race since we met to sign some papers (however,
I could have completed the entire transaction over the phone and
through the mails - we only met to expedite things).  Unless he
conveyed the information of my race to the bank which made the loan,
they would have no way of knowing.

Did this study only look at applicants applying directly to the bank ?

Guido
From: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Interesting Legal Cite for the Week
Date: 16 Oct 92 16:08:03 GMT
Reply-To: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation

Interesting legal citation for the weeek:

  "NOT!"  
   Noble v. Bedford Marine, 789 F.Supp. 395, 397 (1992).


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,talk.abortion
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: Roe v. Wade for Men!
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 00:18:25 GMT
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.14a by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center

In  <1964@sousa.ltn.dec.com>  pimentel@luner.enet.dec.com (John Pimentel) writes:
>
>In article <1992Oct13.003325.24835@cfctech.cfc.com>, kevin@cfctech.cfc.com (Kevin Darcy) writes...
>>In article <Bvx7Bo.DzG@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (kellmeyer steven l) writes:
>>>
>>>Ok.  But the delivery of the raw material HAD to be accepted by the
>>>receiver in order for child manufacture to take place.  The supplier is
>>>legally forbidden to have a legal voice in manufacturing decisions.
>>What the hell are you talking about? "Child manufacture"? "Raw materials"?
>>We're talking about HUMAN REPRODUCTION, fer crissakes, not heavy industry!!
>>
>>You, sir, are a babbling idiot with nothing but a pro-life agenda and some
>>cheap scare tactics. Please demanufacture yourself into raw materials, and
>>leave us alone...
>
>Actually the discussion had taken this twist by a Pro-Choice individual
>stating that the man's only "contribution" was the sperm or "99.9999% of
>the raw material and 100% of the labor was provided by the woman".

Nope, you're wrong.  That was stated by a "pro-lie" person who makes
up extremely stupid arguments and then attributes them to pro-choicers.

>if you wish to believe that the twist came from a Pro-Life that's alright,
>as I've never seen a Pro-Choice keep the facts straight. (no smilie, just
>the facts).

You probably *should* have included a smilie, as it would have made
you look like less of an idiot when it was pointed out that you
couldn't keep the facts straight.

--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
From: smb@ulysses.att.com (Steven Bellovin)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Presidential Succession History
Date: 15 Oct 92 15:12:11 GMT
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories

In article <93054@netnews.upenn.edu>, brewer@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (marmoset) writes:
> I was told by someone (and I want to say that it was Mr. Pennypacker (no lie) 
> my 7th and 8th grade social studies teacher) that the line of succession went
> clear down to the Postmaster General.  Was he just plain full o' it?

The order changes from time to time.  For example, the Postmaster-General
is no longer a cabinet member, I believe, ever since the Post Office was
semi-privatized.  On the other hand, new cabinet posts have been created,
the most recent being the Secretary of Veterans Affairs.
Newsgroups: misc.legal,talk.rape