HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Men & elves
Keywords: Act xxi of 1850 [the 'Lex Loci Act']
Date: 5 Oct 92 16:14:05 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <3864@unisql.UUCP>, wrat@unisql.UUCP (wharfie) writes:
> In article <12581@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
# #describing particular incidents of the Holocaust.
# 
# 	These are evil acts, but don't help me understand your definition
# of evil.
# 
# 	What I'm driving at here is that if you're going to pass laws
# against things because they're "evil" you should be able to give a better
# definition than "I know it when I see it".  
# 
# #Now wharfie is a good liberal, and doesn't believe that evil exists
# 
# 	Now, now, Clayton, I *do* belive in evil, I do I do I do.. :-)
# It's just that many of the things that people tell me are evil and should
# be illegal and punished aren't things that I can see evil in.  For instance,
# selling someone the leaves of a plant containing addictive drugs and toxic
# substances that will destroy her internal organs while pretending that these
# leaves are not only harmless but _good_ for her is NOT evil, but selling 
# someone the leaves of a plant with a long history of medicinal use but which
# contain mildly psychoactive substances that do no lasting harm to the body
# is a great evil to which we should all Just Say No...  And then confiscate
# their houses and cars.

Hey, I'm no liberal.  Don't ask me to defend the government's
tobacco subsidy program, or the War on Drugs.

# 	My definition of evil is an act that causes unwanted harm and/or pain 
# to another for the sake of profit, pleasure, or amusement.  By my 

That qualifies as my definition as well.

# definition Ted Bundy was an evil man, but two guys giving each other oral sex
# aren't.

You know someone that does define it as evil?  I don't.  I know people
that define it as sin, I know people that define it as being repulsive.
(I define it as both, but that's not a good reason to pass laws 
against it).  But "evil"?  Sorry, I know no one who thinks that.
-- 
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.
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Edward G. Nilges)
Subject: Farewell to misc.legal discussion (was: Re: Hate speech okay
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Distribution: misc.legal
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 21:23:47 GMT

I will be changing jobs, leaving Princeton for a consulting firm; for
this reason, I have to terminate this brisk and informative hate speech
discussion.  I'd intended to do so last summer, but Mr. Keith Ware's
strong representations concerning coded racism in our society during my
Outward Bound expedition inspired me to continue the debate.  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.

I'd like to thank discussants, even highly critical discussants, for
helping me to clarify my thinking in this area.    I hope there's not a
lot of hurt feelings out there based on the briskness of the discussion.
I know that the net has helped me to cultivate a thick skin with respect
to the things people say when they are angry.

I retain an email address, egnilges@pucc, for folks who want to correspond.
After this is terminated, I'll be available on CompuServe.  I'll post my
CompuServe mail address before my Princeton address is terminated.

So long, misc.legal, and remember: there is no such thing as pure speech
divorced from action.  While "free speech" is a valid right, the
homeless man babbling incomprehensible gibberish in Grand Central is not
exercising speech, for speech entails a sender and a receiver.
From: rc@depsych.Gwinnett.COM (Richard Carlson)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: LaFave too broad?
Date: 6 Oct 92 09:46:58 GMT
Article-I.D.: depsych.ZoV8RB1w165w

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.

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?

Are there some legal scholars and theorists who, emphasizing the
pluralistic, multi-cultural nature of contemporary America,
believe that cultural mores should enter into legal decisions?  (I
remember an episode of _The Paper Chase_ where John Houseman
("Prof. Kingsfield") was discussing the contractual status of
verbal agreements and one of the students made the point that a
verbal agreement is more binding in the rural south than in New
York City because of the cultural expectation that a man's word is
his bond.)  What is the legal status of those social mores,
commonly held -- say by two African American males living in a
public housing ghetto neighborhood -- that if one male disses the
mother of another male that male _must_ respond with physical
violence or lose status in the community?

--
Richard Carlson
Internet:              rc@depsych.gwinnett.COM
Bangpath:              {rutgers,ogicse,gatech}!emory!gwinnett!depsych!rc
CompuServe:            76605,470
Voice:                 (404) 881-6877
From: davew@willow03.cray.com (Dave Wagner)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Presidential UL's
Date: 29 Sep 92 18:03:40 GMT
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
Originator: davew@willow03


In article <e6se02eW232C01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com>, tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll) writes:
> In article <Sep.24.15.54.33.1992.23162@math.rutgers.edu>, 
> cromar@math.rutgers.edu (Scott Cromar) writes:
> > The Speaker succeeds to the presidency if both the President and Vice
> > President are rendered incapable of filling the office.  That doesn't
> > mean that he takes over just because the VP is on a plane rather than
> > in the White House.  
> > 
> > This does bring up an interesting question, though.  In case of
> > nuclear attack or something that wipes out a large number of high
> > officials, what is the line of succession? 
> 
> The order is:
> 
> Vice-President
> Speaker of the House
> President pro tempore of the Senate
> Secretary of State
> Secretary of the Treasury
> Secretary of Defense
> Attorney General
> Secretary of the Interior
> Secretary of Agriculture
> Secretary of Commerce
> Secretary of Labor
> Secretary of Health and Human Services
> Secretary of Housing and Urban Development
> Secretary of Transportation
> Secretary of Energy
> Secretary of Education
> Secretary of Veterans Affairs
> 
> Source: 3 USC 19.  (followups to misc.legal)
> 
> Terry Carroll - tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com - 408/992-2152
> The opinions presented above are not necessarily those of a sound mind.
I believe the Secretary of xxxxx's are in order of the Cabinet position being
created.  (I'm assuming Atty General is also a Cabinet level posision).  This,
caused the Postmaster General (before it was removed from Cabinet level) to
be something like 5th in line since it was created very early.  This info is
all subject to just being a UL, I have no verifiable sources.
-- 
Dave Wagner                                     Cray Research, Inc
davew@cray.com , uunet!cray!davew               655F Lone Oak Drive
(612) 683-5393                                  Eagan, MN  55121
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Men & elves
Keywords: Act xxi of 1850 [the 'Lex Loci Act']
Date: 1 Oct 92 20:56:14 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <3824@unisql.UUCP>, wrat@unisql.UUCP (wharfie) writes:
> In article <19229@smoke.brl.mil> matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt) writes:
# #Good and evil exist independently of what men say and think.  "Nor
# #are they one thing among Men and another among Elves," as Tolkien
# #puts it.
# 
# 	Would you please describe evil for me so that I can be sure
# and recognize it when I find it?
# 								wr

You might start with the postings Ken McVay does in soc.history,
describing particular incidents of the Holocaust.

Many years ago, I received a copy of World Vision's magazine,
in which they described the Khmer Rouge mass murders in Cambodia.
Women were forced to watch their babies murdered with a special
collar that was slowly pulled tighter, until the baby was strangled.

Here's a posting that appeared in talk.politics.misc recently by
Phil Ronzone.  I would say it describes "evil" pretty well.

#In West Magazine in this Sundays SJMN, there was an article about all the
#little girls that have "disappeared" along I-80. So far, none of them
#have been found (there are abduction by strangers). As a father of a 3.5
#year old, articles like this bother me greatly.
#
#In the article, one detective, Harold Sagan, was so frustrated by the lack
#of evidence that he placed an ad on a 3x5 card in a porno store.
#
#("Seeking young fun; adolescently minded. Will exchange nubile photos").
#
#He got a contact from Harold Wayne Tomason, a current member of NAMBLA.
#Tomason had been convicted of sodomizing a 12-year-old girl in Oregon.
#The detective had a series of meetings with Tomason, posing as a fellow
#pedophile.
#
#After a series of meetings, Tomason was "open" enough to describe a young
#girl he was "casing" for abduction -- 8 years old. Tomason planned to use
#a stun gun to capture her. The detective repeatedly tried to get a location
#on the girl.
#
#Tomason then told the detective what he was going to do -- abduct her, take
#to a cabin where they could do anything they wanted, put clothes pins on
#her nipples, penetrate her everywhere. Then, when they were done --
#"we'll dig a 15-foot hole and off her". Tomason described her death as
#putting a piece of plastic over her face so he could see her as she died.
#
#Tomason then said "They're just as good when they're dead the first few days
#as when they're alive".
#
#The detective then realized that Tomason has done this before.

Now wharfie is a good liberal, and doesn't believe that evil exists
(except, of course, for anything done by white male Republicans).
But the rest of the world can figure out that evil exists.
-- 
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.
Newsgroups: misc.legal,soc.college,alt.politics.correct
From: lee@ace.npac.syr.edu (Lee C. Brink)
Subject: Re: the MIT anti-trust case
In-reply-to: gwangung@byron.u.washington.edu's message of 30 Sep 92 21:10:27 GMT
Organization: Northeast Parallel Architectures Center, Syracuse, NY
	<LEE.92Sep30090630@ace.npac.syr.edu>
	<1992Sep30.211027.25209@u.washington.edu>
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 92 10:12:14 EDT

>>>>> On 30 Sep 92 21:10:27 GMT, gwangung@byron.u.washington.edu (Roger Tang) said:

Roger> In article <LEE.92Sep30090630@ace.npac.syr.edu> lee@ace.npac.syr.edu (Lee C. Brink) writes:
>In <07cM02bT243G01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll) writes:
>Universities are non-profit institutions (like the Red Cross).
>    Universities are considered non-profit for tax purposes.  If a university
>    doesn't make a profit, pray tell how can it afford new equipment, 
>    renovations, new buildings, etc.?  Donations?  Not in that volume.

Roger> 	Depends.  But they do occur.


  Not here at least.  See below for elaboration.

>Both finance their activities partly out of donations, 
>    Donations are for specific causes: New wings, specific pieces of
>    equipment, and the like.  Unsolicited donations are rarely
>    generic.  Solicited donations are general donations, but at least
>    here at SU, the amount has dropped drastically.

Roger> 	I think you have that backwards.

  For the most part, I think not (At least here at SU.  There are exceptions.).
I see new buildings going up, new labs being put in, etc.  These people 
(Newhouse comes to mind) have given money to the university to commemorate
being an alumni of SU, and the appropriate building is built (Newhouse I & II,
buildings strictly for journalism).  Yet my parents and I get at least one
call a year to donate money to "Syracuse University."  Not SU Engineering,
not SU Computing Services, not SU graphics lab, but the university as a whole.
  I admit there are exceptions.  The engineering department, due to the 
asinine way the departments pay other departments for classes being taught,
has to beg, borrow, steal, and solicit donations from corporations for 
equipment.  But as I said, this is the exception & not the rule.
  Maybe I don't see the whole picture.  What I do see is a lot of alumni, out
of the goodness of their heart, donate money for specific items.  I do not
see Ted Koppel, Newhouse, or the rest of the affluent alumni giving money 
to the university as a whole.

      Lee

--
+---------------------------+----------------------------------------------+
| Lee C Brink	            | Office Support Co-ordinator at NPAC	   |
| lee@nova.npac.syr.edu     | Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY 13244-4100 |
|			    | 315-443-1722				   |
+---------------------------+----------------------------------------------+
From: rc@depsych.Gwinnett.COM (Richard Carlson)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Fighting Words?
Date: 2 Oct 92 11:51:27 GMT

tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll) writes:

> In article <mJqyRB1w164w@depsych.Gwinnett.COM>, rc@depsych.Gwinnett.COM 
> (Richard Carlson) writes:
> > Now I'm even more confused.  Even that 1942 New Hampshire case
> > where the Jehovah's Witness, Chaplinsky, was convicted of uttering
> > "fighting words," he wasn't dissing anyone's mama, or even
> > addressing comments to particular individuals. He was just
> > badmouthing all other religions except his own and addressing his
> > remarks to all and sundry.  Or did I misunderstand the facts of
> > the case?
> 
> I think you misunderstand the facts.  Chaplinsky called a policeman a "damned
> fascist", and said that the city government was composed of all fascists and 
> racketeers.  This is from memory, so these may not be exact quotes, but 
> that's the gist of it.

Were the "fighting words" the ones which were addressed to
specific individuals, like that policeman?  Does "one-on-one" mean
face-to-face _and_ specifically addressed?

If he called the members of the city government fascists (or dumb
motherf*ckers, or crackpots, or effete snobs, or closet queens, or
uppity [racial slur]s, or whatever), can these words constitute
fighting words for someone who is not h/erself a member of the
city government or related to a member of the city government?

What were the actual "fighting words" Chaplinsky was charged with
uttering?

--
Richard Carlson
Internet:              rc@depsych.gwinnett.COM
Bangpath:              {rutgers,ogicse,gatech}!emory!gwinnett!depsych!rc
CompuServe:            76605,470
Voice:                 (404) 881-6877
Newsgroups: misc.legal,rec.arts.books
From: baker@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Andrew Baker)
Subject: Re: Anti-Arab racism on the net
Keywords: Equality, Fairness, Same Standards?
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University.
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 07:24:16 GMT

In article <1992Sep29.034703.29223@news.columbia.edu> ia4@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Imran Anwar) writes:
>
>Mike your argument is valid, but how can we place a %age content figure
>on a book's content to be considered MEANT to be offensive, as opposed to
>be CONSIDERED offensive.
>
>All I am sayin gis that if I wrote a book (like Iron Dream) and did not
>intend it to be satirical or humourous (I dont think many Jewish people
>would appreciate the humour) it is obvious that the book would be
>offensive and that I would have written it knowing that. . . .

Nonreligious Jews write books all the time, both fiction and nonfiction.
By their very nature, many of these books contain ideas that are
(potentially) offensive to Orthodox Jews.

In the dream sequence in _Satanic Verses_, the Koran is partially
fraudulent.  This is no worse than most modern studies of the Torah,
which usually consider it to be a mishmash cobbled together from
some documents produced by various special-interest groups (the
priests, the house of David, the northern Levites, etc.).  This
is the same Torah that Orthodox Jews consider to be perfect with
every letter dictated by God, a blueprint for life and the universe,
the very reason for existence itself, and so on.  And yet people
write such heretical books without worrying about being assassinated.

A half-century ago, Freud wrote an essay/story in which Moses was
an Egyption who was murdered by the Jews, and nobody issued a death
sentence for him.  Even back in the 17th centery, Spinoza was only
excommunicated for something or another.

There was a movie in the US a few years ago called _The Last Temptation
of Christ_.  Some religious Christians protested it for a while, and
and then life went on.  I don't remember any death threats being
issued.

Face it: the Islamic world has some catching up to do.

Xref: sparky misc.legal:18180 alt.activism.d:3570
From:  (J Klein)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: the MIT anti-trust case
Date: 26 Sep 92 23:47:43 GMT
Followup-To: misc.legal,alt.politics.correct,soc.college
Organization: Public Macs, Academic Computing, Yale University

> >I am less concerned with absolutes, however, than with posting against
> >the grain of the commonly accepted view that decisions like this will
> >increase access to education.  I believe that they will decrease access.
> 
> You're entitled to hold that belief.  It might hold more sway with the
> rest of us were you to back it up with more than an assertion.
> 
> Keep in mind that Overlap universities, from the privilege of their monopoly,
> were able to increase costs at twice the rate of inflation during the
> 1980's.  

		However, Overlap Universities were by no means the only universities
increasing costs at that rate.  Most private universities were, regardless
of overlap.

		I think the idea of access could be applied to different groups of people
by the two above authors.  The first might argue, that without overlap,
need-based financial aid loses all meaning.  With equalized financial aid
packages, just about any student could attend an overlap university (albeit
with some hardship to be expected).  Now, things are different.  
		Indeed, since poorer students are usually the ones with the lower SATs,
more modest academic backgrounds, and fewer activities, those students will
lose out on the "market" to bidders from Exeter, etc. who have the 'top'
preparations.  The best students, by scores, etc., or by virtue of athletic
honor or other status, will financially squeeze out the middle and lower
classes (those without such preparation but still qualified), creating a
vast disparity within the university, too.
		The second person might alternatively argue that the most qualified
student should be able to bargain for a cheaper education.  The best
student in the nation should thus be able to market his/her ability between
schools and attend the best for the cheapest.

		Without the guaranteed financial aid of the pre-decision era, reality
strikes: 
in chopping prices by competing for many rich students, schools can no
longer afford to support (like they once did) the excellent students that
gain admission but are too poor to afford such education.  The decision
allocates aid money to rich students who never before would (or should)
have been able to attain it.
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Citecheck Hell)
Subject: Re: Fighting Words
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 20:41:44 GMT

In article <1457@bbx.basis.com> scott@bbx.basis.com (Scott Amspoker) writes:
>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.  

Isn't jury nullification great?  Not that you'll ever hear FIJA folks
talking about this case.
-- 
           .. . . .  .  .   .    .     .     .    .   .  .  . . . ..
          ted frank | thf2@midway.uchicago.edu | standard disclaimers
         the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
From: uctlxpd@ucl.ac.uk (Peter Bartlett)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Roe v. Wade for Men!
Date: 6 Oct 92 16:31:04 GMT
Organization: Bloomsbury Computing Consortium

kingsley@hpwrce.mayfield.hp.com (Kingsley Morse) writes:

>The National Center For Men is preparing to litigate the equivalent of Roe V. 
>Wade for *men's reproductive rights*. Below are excerpts of a letter written by 
>Joe Appelbaum, the litigation chairman for the National Center For Men.


[blah, blah, blah]

>	A man's life, future and wallet are currently in the hands of his 
>female partner if she gets pregnant and decides to have the child contrary
>to his wishes.  

Both partners' lives, futures and wallets are at stake; only the woman's
body is at stake.  Which seems to me to make a difference.

[more stuff omitted]

>If you haven't been (yet) [the "victim" of a paternaty lawsuit]
>try to imagine a deceptive and uncaring woman taking you to 
>court to force you to support a child, when you were never given a choice.

I'm sorry-- he was FORCED to have sex with her?  If not, he knew what
he was getting into, and the risks involved.  He DID know, didn't he?
If not, the fact that his parents never explained the birds and the bees
to him hardly justifies an alteration of the law.

peter bartlett.
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.politics.correct,soc.college