HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Hate Speech Okay, says the Supreme Court
Date: 27 Aug 92 16:00:33 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1992Aug27.033615.5283@eff.org>, mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:
> In article <11919@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
> >Malcolm X was a racist.
> 
> Malcolm X admits, then later rejects, his own racism in THE AUTOBIOGRAPHY
> OF MALCOLM X. Of course, you have to finish the book to know this.
> 
> Mike Godwin,    |"The meeting of two personalities is like the contact 

In the context of Ed Nilges' "argument" it doesn't matter that Malcolm
X later repudiated racism.  Nilges was arguing that Viktora had no
right to express his racist ideas, but that Malcolm X did have a right
because he wasn't a racist.  My point was that Malcolm X expressed
racist ideas, and if hate-speech laws had been present at the time
he made the remarks I quoted, he almost certainly would have been
prosecuted.
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Alcohol prohibition didn't work; drug prohibition doesn't work; gun
prohibition won't work.
Xref: sparky misc.legal:16499 rec.travel:12442 soc.culture.usa:6906 soc.culture.canada:6128 soc.culture.british:11920
From: fsars@acad3.alaska.edu (Allen R Sparks)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,rec.travel,soc.culture.usa,soc.culture.canada,soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: US dual citizenship info -- updated version available via FTP
Date: 27 Aug 92 03:33:13 GMT
Organization: University of Alaska Fairbanks

In article <1992Aug26.104757.22987@cas.org>, jac54@cas.org writes:
> 	The IRS published a useful and mildly entertaining leaflet for
> 	those whose lives were affected by Desert Shield/Storm.  You
> 	were able to claim losses as a result of military action or
> 	temporarily being held by the Iraqis.  I don't have a copy
> 	available and the person I know who does is on his hols.  I
> 	might be able to give more detail next week.
> 
> 	Taxation by your native country depends a lot on residence.
> 	If you are not normally resident in your home country for
> 	tax purposes, they can't tax you.
> 
> 	U.S. Forces in Europe and their civilian support and their
> 	dependants are considered resident in the U.S. for taxation
> 	purposes (Our postal address in Berlin was actually in New York.).
> 	In Vietnam, you were probably in a combat zone where even the
> 	IRS may concede that there are higher priorities than W-2's and
> 	1040 forms.

I think it was Congressional edict, not consideration given by the IRS.
                    === Al Sparks
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Right To Not Support
Keywords: Adultery
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 17:08:16 GMT

In article <19108@smoke.brl.mil> matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt) writes:
>In article <BtHpMv.Asx@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) 
>writes:
>
>>I have seen no state (nor country) that provides standing to a biological
>>father when the mother is married to someone else and does not agree.
>>[Don Beaver]
>
>The legal presumption is that a child born to a married mother is her
>husband's child.  In some jurisdictions, that presumption is rebuttable.
>In others, it is irrebuttable.

But nowhere can the biological father rebut it.


>To "provide standing to a biological father when the mother is married
>to someone else" is, not to put too fine a point on it, to reward a man
>for committing adultery with another man's wife.  

Traditionally, a man supposedly wanted to disprove paternity.
What a great way for deadbeats to dump children on cuckolded husbands!



>In some societies, a man who committed adultery with another man's wife
>was guilty of a crime and liable to heavy penalty.  In others, the
>wife's husband could *kill* the adulterer with impunity.  Being deprived
>of one's biological child is a serious punishment, all right, but it is
>punishment for a serious crime.

I have no problem accepting that this was the original motivation for
such laws.  What kinds of offenses can deny a parent their children?  
Murder, rape, assault, molestation.  Our society doesn't generally 
place adultery among these crimes any more.

There are those who suggest that the primary reason adultery was
forbidden was that it confused paternity.  Resolving paternity is 
a more exact science, now.

========================================================================

A less offensive situation would be:  husband and wife are separated.
Say wife becomes pregnant, not by her husband.  Now, bio-father has 
NO STANDING to claim paternity.  Is that appropriate?

(Extramarital sex during separation is irrelevant to custody decisions
in PA, at least.  I don't believe it is a crime here.)

Secondly, a pregnant woman +can+ accuse a married man of paternity;
isn't this unequal protection under the law?

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Xref: sparky misc.legal:16593 alt.dads-rights:2130
From: GCTHORNE@idbsu.idbsu.edu
Subject:      HP managers read my e-mail
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 92 10:56:56 MST
X-Received: by usenet.pa.dec.com; id AA11453; Thu, 27 Aug 92 10:01:12 -0700
X-Received: by inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com; id AA18554; Thu, 27 Aug 92 10:00:04 -0700
X-Received: from IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU by idbsu.idbsu.edu (IBM VM SMTP R1.2.2MX) with BSMTP id 9553; Thu, 27 Aug 92 10:59:34 MST
X-Received: from IDBSU (GCTHORNE) by IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU (Mailer R2.08) with BSMTP id 5229; Thu, 27 Aug 92 10:59:32 MST
X-To: misc.legal.usenet


     They also released confidential employee information about me to
   other workers.  I can document both charges.

    What should I do?

    And

    What CAN I do?
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: slkg9733@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Steven L. Kellmeyer)
Subject: Re: ProMaleChoice
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 17:32:49 GMT

Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org> writes:

>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> >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> >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.

All I can say is that none of the above statements (all labeled SLK) are mine.
I have no idea whose they are.  I am not pro male-choice.  I mean to point out
only that current legal doctrine should logically permit such a position.
I would like that legal doctrine to be changed so that it would no  longer
be logically permissable.  IN order to do that, however, abortion cannot
be supported as legal using the logic that currently obtains, since this 
logic also requires male-choice to be an option, if that logic is to be
consistent.

Steve Kellmeyer

>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: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Hate Speech Okay, says the Supreme Court
Date: 26 Aug 92 14:02:18 GMT
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

In article <1992Aug26.133825.2161@Princeton.EDU> egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:
>>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_.)
>>
>And your definition of government as its coercive (rather than its
>eleemosynary, say, or teaching) functions makes you focus unduly on this
>area, much in the way that cop shows on TV cause viewers to both
>overrate the frequency of crime and confuse law enforcement with law in
>general.  I propose to you that a law is much more than the question of
>what punishment shall be meted out to violators, that a law has in some
>significant ways failed when it has violators.  

Then what is a law?  A magical mystical device that changes the
innermost thoughts of a society?

"Ah," the bigot will say, "I used to hate this Albanian, but now the
city council has prohibited anti-Albanian speech, I suddenly feel a
deep love welling within me."

Do you have no doubt that tax evasion would be higher if the tax laws were
not enforced?  Drug use lower if we adopted a Bennettesque dungeon
system to deal with drug crimes?

>The members of the
>patrol who were most resistant to Keith's charges of subtle racism went
>along enthusiastically with the speech restrictions, so the question of
>enforcement never arose.  

Wait a second -- you said that some of the OB folks were silently against
the speech restrictions.  Make up your mind, Ed!  Or are you being
dishonest again, like you were with Posner?  We'll have to revoke your
Nilgean speech permit -- you know that in the Nilgean universe speech
rights only come with a three-part balancing test of literacy (such as
knowing about the "writings of Socrates"), honesty, and p.c. thought
(such as not praising notable sexists like Henry Miller, or failing
to condemn the anti-Semitism of those posts you praise).

>Less than one percent of Outward Bound's
>students are so resistant as to fail to go along with the patrol's
>decisions, and the "punishment" (if you must have a "punishment") meted
>out to these offenders is just removal from the patrol.

How many of the OB students didn't choose to be in OB, knowing in
advance that they'd be subject to the patrol's decisions?
-- 
             ......................................................
             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
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.politics.correct,alt.censorship
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Re: The return of vaudeville. (was: Re: Nilges)
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 15:32:36 GMT

In article <1992Aug28.144939.19461@samba.oit.unc.edu> Chuck.Lavazzi@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Chuck Lavazzi) writes:
>In article <1992Aug27.183148.27573@Princeton.EDU> egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:
>>Your racism is showing, for you have revived the 19th century vaudeville
>>portrayal of Irish names as intrinsically laff-producing in a disgusting
>
>	BTW, your ignorance is showing.  Mr Shean spoke with a noticeable
>Germanic accent. I've got some of the recordings.  Gallagher had no accent to
>speak of.  In any case, their act involved little in the way of ethnic
>humor, as far as I know.

In fact, Shean was Jewish, a pretty close relative of the Marx Brothers
(that's Julius, not Karl, though Karl was sometimes funnier.)
-- 
             ......................................................
             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
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: NO SUBJECT           (1)
X-To: ROSS RIDGE
Organization: GOiDS 'R We, Inc.
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 02:35:00 GMT

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

Here we go again...Translation please.

Thanks.

---
Will Steeves, goid@zooid.guild.org                      "Neil Hull is GOiD"
ZOOiD BBS, Toronto, Ontario - The Zoo Of Ids            "GOiDS Rule"
(416) 322-7876
---
 * SLMR 2.1a * Ghost:  No-body
From: bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us (Bob Kirkpatrick)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Custody case question
Date: 28 Aug 92 19:45:10 GMT
Organization: Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA

srm@world.std.com (Stevens R Miller) writes:

> My professor of Family Law (Ms. Kristian Miccio, a much-honored
> activist and very hard-core feminist) claims that the father has
> an advantage in custody disputes because he usually has the better
> income and, unlike the mother, is not socially assigned the duty of
> staying at home with the kids.  That is, a good mother will stay home
> with her children, according to our quaint notions of her role, but
> a good mother would also be able to provide for the financial needs
> of those children; a Catch-22.  A good father, on the other hand, is
> not expected to stay home; he just hires a nanny.  A counter to this
> is the possibility that the court can order support payments from the
> father, but these are not reliable, hard to enforce, and never equate
> to the quality of life that direct support (i.e., living in his
> bigger house, in his better neighborhood, etc) would provide.
> --
> Stevens R. Miller, J.D.

I'd be interested to see what she bases her opinion on. It's been my
experience, and my understanding that the exact opposite was true. If
you could ask her to provide her source I'd appreciate it. I think
that others may be interested in the material too.

Thanks!
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges)
Subject: Re: ADL Dismayed by Ohio Court Decision Striking Down Hate Crimes Law
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 19:14:35 GMT

In article <1992Aug27.162928.2146@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>
>>This is the key issue.  The Supreme Court's Viktora decision provided a
>>counterfactual "right" to Viktora to commit a tort and a crime, implying 
>>paradoxically that the guy had a legal right to commit a legal wrong.
>
>BS, Ed.  That wasn't what the Supreme Court decided.  The ADL was against
>the Minneapolis hate *speech* statute, by the way.  Their hate crimes
>statute merely ups the penalty for committing an existing crime for
>bias-related motives.  The Minneapolis statute penalized bias-related
>motives whether or not the underlying action was a crime.

Oh, now that's the story...talk about bullshit.  When it serves your
case to have RAV subject to pre-existing, non-bias-related statutes,
then the St Paul (not Minneapolis) law is "unnecessary."  When the fact
that this leads to a contradiction is demonstrated, you slide over to
claiming that the St Paul statute penalizes bias-related motives, which
it doesn't.  The dedication to logic of the "who put the pubic hair in
my Coke can" supreme court has already been demonstrated, so I suppose
that white guys are no longer subject to the law of contradiction.

The Supreme Court CLAIMED that the St Paul law could be interpreted to
penalize pure speech and motives by a series of logical leaps, using a
case in which several non-bias crimes were committed.  This is law on
the order of Soviet law at the time of the purge trials, for there is a
rule, is there not, that whatever decision is made has to be in some
damn way relevant to the facts of the case.  The Supreme Court is NOT a
legislature that is empowered to make law concerning cases that have not
come before it.  It would be well within its rights if some bozo
prosecutor in St Paul used the hate speech law to punish a Klansman with
a laser printer, but the law cannot be interpreted that way, AND the
Supreme Court must WAIT until a law, such as the St Paul law, is
misused.  The SC is not a legislature.

>
>>The ADL here points-out correctly that well-drafted laws against bias
>>come into play when a tort or a crime has already been committed, and
>>enhance the punishment for the tort or crime to the extent that
>>bias-related torts and crimes degrade community spirit.  In the absence
>>of hate crime laws, Viktora's antics may very well have been treated as
>>Halloween high-jinx and would likely have gone without any punishment at
>>all.  
>
>I doubt a cross-burning has ever been considered Halloween hi-jinx within
>the last twenty years.  Your continued lies on this issue are beginning
>to sink you even further below Henry Miller on your own test for freedom
>of speech.

"Shoot, they good ole boys.  It's Halloween.  Let 'em go home."


Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: srm@world.std.com (Stevens R Miller)
Subject: Re: double jeopardy (facist LA police)
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 21:21:46 GMT

In article <1992Aug18.021822.27242@panix.com> lkk@panix.com (Larry Kolodney) writes:
>In <1992Aug17.153015.16314@eff.org> mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:
>
>>No. Failure to report income is truly separate conduct from bootlegging
>>and extortion.
>
>Failure to report income from illegal activies!!?!?  Give me a break.
>I suppose you think the Marijuana Tax Act is a revenue measure.
>
I think Mike is right here:  My professor of Tax Law told us that to avoid
this prosecution, one must declare all the illegal income, then write,
"Fifth Amendment privilege" in the "Occupation" slot.
--
Stevens R. Miller J.D.
From: matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: illegal dredging
Summary: Was this a set-up?
Keywords: Donco
Date: 3 Sep 92 18:56:24 GMT
Distribution: misc
Organization: U.S. Army Ballistic Research Lab, APG MD.

In article <1992Sep1.740.24541@dosgate> "nigel allen" 
<nigel.allen@canrem.com> writes:

>   The 15-count indictment charges that Manning, James and others
>were involved in a scheme to illegally dredge the marine railway
>tracks and the channel leading into Donco's 3.6 acre site at India
>Basin and to dump the dredged material into the San Francisco Bay off
>Hunters Point.  The indictment alleges that beginning in February
>1990, Donco obtained four separate contracts with the U.S. Navy for
>the repair and overhaul of small navy vessels, and thereafter
>employed various means to dredge underwater portions of their boat
>yard . . .   [Nigel Allen]

When Donco obtained these contracts, what did Donco tell the Navy
Contracting Officer supervising the contract about how and where
Donco was planning to repair and overhaul the vessels, and about
how Donco planned to get the vessels to wherever they were going
to be repaired and overhauled?  Didn't Donco have to certify that
it was able to perform the contracted-for tasks?  Did the Navy
C.O. *know* that the channel leading into Donco's 3.6-acre site
at India Basin would have to be dredged before the contract could
be performed?  (In other words, did the Navy "set up" Donco?)
Did the contract have to include an Environmental Impact Statement,
and were the costs of preparing such a statement and then complying
with the "Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899" and the "Clean Water Act
of 1972" included in the amount the Navy would be paying Donco?

>. . . without obtaining permits from the Army Corps of Engineers as
>required by the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 and the Clean Water
>Act of 1972.   
. . .
>. . . It is
>claimed that the mud and spoils removed by the clamshell dredge were
>placed on a mud scow, and at Manning's direction, were dumped off the
>southern portion of the former Hunters Point Naval Shipyard.  The
>second phase took place in August 1990 when divers and Donco
>employees used hydrualic pumps to suction pump mud and water on to
>the shore of Donco's property.  The final phase took place in
>September and October 1990, and involved the use of a "Pit Hog" or a
>floating horizontal auger dredge which also deposited mud and water
>on the shore of Donco's property.  [Nigel Allen]

Phew!  This whole case stinks to high heaven.  Either the Navy knew 
what it was doing all the time and the whole thing was a set-up, or 
else someone on the Navy side of this contract was being paid off not 
to notice that Donco would have to dredge the channel, or else someone
on the Navy side wasn't exercising the "due diligence" that we ought
to be able to expect from naval Contracting Officers.

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

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
TRUTH     JUSTICE     FREEDOM     YIDDISHKEIT     IVY     THE AMERICAN WAY
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: cates@cherokee.unx.sas.com (Claire Cates)
Subject: Re: Custody case question
Originator: cates@cherokee.unx.sas.com
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 13:57:56 GMT
Organization: SAS Institute Inc.


In article <1992Aug27.160442.1@acad3.alaska.edu>, fsars@acad3.alaska.edu (Allen R Sparks) writes:
|> In article <BtnsLH.9B0@unx.sas.com>, cates@cherokee.unx.sas.com (Claire Cates) writes:
|> > 
|> > I am supposed to go to trial Sept 8 (next date in a list of
|> > many that were supposed to happen) to determine the custody
|> > of my 2 girls.  I had a meeting with my lawyer today and
|> > he told me statistically if the case goes to court the man
|> > wins in 60% of the cases.   I had been led to believe from
|> > everything I have ever seen or heard that the women has the
|> > better chance of winning custody even if she is a total wreck.
|> > I would be interested in other peoples opinions on this statistic.
|> 
|> What state?  Every state is different.  === Al


North Carolina

Claire
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: ADL Dismayed by Ohio Court Decision Striking Down Hate Crimes Law
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 20:42:04 GMT

In article <1992Aug27.182922.27247@Princeton.EDU> egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:
>In article <1992Aug27.164739.13301@eff.org> mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug27.155606.9594@Princeton.EDU> egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:
>>
>>>This is the key issue.  The Supreme Court's Viktora decision provided a
>>>counterfactual "right" to Viktora to commit a tort and a crime, implying 
>>>paradoxically that the guy had a legal right to commit a legal wrong.
>>
>>The language in R.A.V. says no such thing.
>
>Mike, Mike, Mike, this is what the language IMPLIES.

Could you please quote the language from R.A.V. that "provided a
counterfactual 'right' to Viktora to commit a tort and a crime"?

Since your claim of what the language "IMPLIES" is grounded in
R.A.V's providing this "counterfactual 'right'", I would be interested
to know which language in R.A.V. "provided" such a right. 

It was not disputed in R.A.V. that the defendant had no right to
commit, say, trespass or assault (which are both torts and crimes).

>But if you think about it, 
>this is what RAV IMPLIES.  The fact that it implies nonsense, far from shoring
>it up, REFUTES it.  Logic 101.  Or has the Supreme Court repealed the
>law of the excluded middle?  

I'm sure the Supreme Court has done no such thing. I'm becoming sure
that you have not read the case.


--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 
Newsgroups: misc.legal