HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: pwh@bradley.bradley.edu (Pete Hartman)
Subject: Re: Sexual Misconduct Laws
Organization: Bradley University
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 92 15:58:16 GMT

In <1992Jul23.010746.26406@panix.com> eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler) writes:
>In <archer.129@utkux1.utk.edu>, archer@utkux1.utk.edu sez:
>>Actually, homosexuality may be illegal in most of the US, on a jurisdiction 
>>by jurisdiction bases.
>I invite you to name a single jurisdiction that makes homosexuality a
>criminal offense.  
>If what you mean is that some states make homosexual conduct an
>offense, then say so.  Don't be so obtuse as to conflate status with
>conduct.

"It's legal to be a Jew, but illegal to go to Synagogue."

Tell me how your idea differs.
-- 
Pete Hartman		       Bradley University	pwh@bradley.bradley.edu
 Insofar as the laws of mathematics are certain, they do not refer to reality,
          and insofar as they refer to reality, they are not certain.
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.censorship,talk.politics.misc
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: Re: Using killfiles is a form of censorship (was: Re: A Modest Request
Organization: Mitre Corporation, McLean VA
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 16:36:32 GMT

In article <1992Jul25.180444.14954@Princeton.EDU> egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:
}>> What you want is the following:
}>> /egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU/a:=:j

No, what you REALLY want is:
/Nilges/a:=:j

Just in case somebody TALKS about it.

}Using kill files IS a form of censorship. 

Nah, I just exercise my right not to have to listen to your idioticy
without influencing your right to act the fool in the slightest.  I've
read what you write, and am not interested.

Ta ta.
From: jcr@milton.u.washington.edu (Mr. EuStress)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: "Stud'n'Sluts"
Date: 21 Jul 92 22:14:21 GMT
Article-I.D.: u.1992Jul21.221421.5623
Reply-To: jcr@milton.u.washington.edu (Mr. EuStress)
Organization: University of Washington

Do we condemn AIDs patients to death because
they enjoyed sex instead of church?
  People do have sex.  Yes, abstinence is better.
No matter which ideals Mathew wishes to cram 
down our throats -- some people will still have sex.
  ADDRESS REALITY.
  Forced contracts, forced relationships, forced
sex, forced slavery, forced fatherhood are all
right wing conservative ideas THAT MUST DIE!
  LEARN TOLERANCE AND COMPASSION!
From: gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Altered letters, after signature
Date: 24 Jul 92 20:05:04 GMT
Reply-To: gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Curious Goods (formerly Louis Vendredi Antiques)


This is a general question for information and discussion, not a
request for legal advice.

A friend is worried that she may be signing a letter that somebody
will alter after-the-fact.  This is because the "draft" copy that 
has been given to her for approval has an unequal space between one
pair of paragraphs and a larger indent for the paragraph.  She sent
the letter back with this noted among the corrections/changes.  Over
lunch, we were pondering the myriad possibilities that would happen,
if this passed through inspection and a letterhead copy was signed.
Hypothetical situations:

1. Letter is used in the course of a crime, e.g., defraud someone of
a shipment of walkmans or tennis shoes.  Besides theft, can any kind
of charges be added for using the letter?  Must my friend be party to
the prosecution, or be subpoenaed to confirm that a fraudulent line
was typed in after?  And if a third party typist were involved?

2. Letter is used for a personal reference, but the added line claims
the referred as having made an important discovery/contribution or
other major development that they did not do.  My friend is called
about this.  She balks.  Are there both criminal and civil recourses?

3. The letter is used for obtaining a visa from a third country.  My
friend is American, the letter is for a person from a second country,
and the destination can be Europe (EC), Canada or Singapore.  If this
person is allowed entry, and my friend learns of an alteration to the
letter made afterward, is she liable or must she report it or should
she just shrug it off?  Should she inform the bearer of the letter
that she knows of the deception?

That's all that I have from my notes; my goodness, this friend picks
up a lot from watching "L.A. Law", it seems! (-;  Anyways, I thought
that this might be fun for you readers to chew upon ...

gld
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Je me souviens ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gary L. Dare				Elections 1992-93:
> gld@cunixD.cc.columbia.EDU		* Jean Chretien (Canada)
> gld@cunixc.BITNET			* Perot^H^H^H^H^H Elvis! (USA)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.censorship,talk.politics.misc
From: chip@tct.com (Chip Salzenberg)
Subject: Re: Using killfiles is a form of censorship (was: Re: A Modest Request
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 19:31:24 GMT
Organization: TC Telemanagement, Clearwater, FL
Keywords: egnilges

According to egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges):
>Using kill files remains a form of (micro) censorship, which gives the
>lie to (undercuts) (deconstructs) (runs across the grain of) the loud
>adherence to "free speech" on the part of its "defenders."

I don't see the connection between "I ignore you" and "I silence you".
-- 
Chip Salzenberg at Teltronics/TCT  <chip@tct.com>, <73717.366@compuserve.com>
   "Do Rush place weird subliminal backmasked messages in their songs to
 compel unwilling geeks to commit evil .sig atrocities?"  -- Dean Engelhardt
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Re: Lawsuit to compel a fraud to run for President!
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 02:44:37 GMT

In article <1992Jul22.020140.25126@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> dpollard@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Dennis B Pollard) writes in response to Mark Eckenwiler:
>
>I wouldn't say that it's "obviously" an enforceable contract, that is argueably
>>a fact question.  Moreover, a federal court in the U.S. does not have the
>power/authority to enforce an injunction barring Perot from running for office
>in another country.  I concede that Perot could lose his citizenship, but he
>could still hold the office.
>
>
>>See 12 :) 2d at 305.
>
>Is the above cite 12 F.2d at 305?

No, no, it's Volume 12 of Ironic Law Reporter, 2d edition (previously
published by West; currently printed by the BNA).  Mark just made the
mistake of not using proper Uniform System of Citation ("Bluebook")
format, and failed to include the parallel cite to the Sarcastic
Supplement (or, indeed, note that cert was denied).  In the Bluebook,
that would read:

<italics on>Accord<italics off> Kibonia <italics on>ex rel.<italics off>
Parry v. Spot-Kibo Comm'l Cleaning Corp., 12 <lower upper-case letters on>
IRON. L. REP.<lower upper-case letters off> 2d 305, 78 <lower upper-case 
letters on> SARCAST. SUPP. 1137 (C.D. Kib. 1969) (<italics on>per curiam
<italics off>), <italics on>reh. denied<italics off> 12 <lower upper-case 
letters on>IRON. L. REP.<lower upper-case letters off> 2d 784, 79
<lower upper-case letters on> SARCAST. SUPP. 128, <italics on>noted in
<italics off> 37 <lower upper-case letters on> U.C.C. REP. SERV.
<lower upper-case letters off> (Callaghan) 2319 (C.D. Kib. 1970),
<italics on>cert. denied<italics off> Parry v. B.I.F.F. SERVICES INC.,
257 U.S. (27 Wall.) 312, 42 S. <lower upper-case letters on> CT.
<lower upper-case letters off> 666, 14 <lower upper-case letters on>
L. ED. <lower upper-case letters off>2d 12 (1970).

Yet another reason why all lawyers worth their salt should switch to the 
highly superior University of Chicago Manual of Legal Citation ("Maroonbook").
-- 
                      ....................................
                      ted frank | thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
                      the university of chicago law school 
                      official member of the cultural elit
Newsgroups: misc.legal,soc.men,soc.women,alt.child-support,alt.dads-rights
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Right to not support
Organization: Penn State Computer Science
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 17:49:25 GMT

In article <1992Jul31.060339.20438@colorado.edu> fedrick@tigger.cs.Colorado.EDU (Kelvin W. Fedrick) writes:
>In article <1992Jul31.052034.19261@colorado.edu> fedrick@tigger.cs.Colorado.EDU (Kelvin W. Fedrick) writes:
>>In article <7mFRoB1w164w@dogear.spk.wa.us> root@dogear.spk.wa.us (Bob Kirkpatrick   ) writes:
>>>
>>>I'm not sure of other locations, but here in Washington, paternity tests
>>>which were made after the 'dad' had begun his support, demonstrated that
>>>the putative father wasn't actually the dad.
>>>
>>>It is a wise thing to demand paternity testing. 
>>>
>> Yes indeed. I hazily recall a famous case in florida where it was determined
>> that the man wasn't the father after child-support had been ordered. Upon
>> trying to get this reversed, the judge essentially told him, tough luck,
>> the judgement has been made and you're going to pay.
>>
>> I think this demonstrates just how dangerous this 'doing things for the
>> welfare of the child' can get. It incourages courts to stick the bill
>> for raising the child on anybody they can get.
>>
>>-kelvin
>>
>
> Oops, I forgot to mention a couple of important details which makes this
> case even *more* grossly unfair. The two were married at the time with
> kids of their own. The father, I believe, had just been was stationed
> overseas with the military when the mother became pregnant while having
> an affair with some other guy. Her husband natually assumed that she
> had gotten pregnant just before he left and that the child was his,
> and only found out differently during or shortly after a divorce.
> Makes no difference says the judge. You accepted responsibility for the
> child as if he was your own. Tough luck.
>
> Does this mean that married men should insist on DNA testing before
> accepting responsibility for children born to their wives?
>
>-kelvin

Is it even possible, legally, for a husband to insist on such a test?
(In particular, if he doesn't have custody.)  Could a negative result
make any difference?

My impression is that a married man is responsible 
for all children born to his wife, whether they are his or not.  
In Germany, I have been told -- and I don't know how the US law is --
this automatic responsibility extends to births occurring 
within a year of the divorce.

And on the other side, does a biological father have any
right to demand a test regarding a child he can reasonably
demonstrate might be his?  (I do doubt it, if the mother is married.)

Don

Xref: sparky misc.legal:15073 alt.censorship:6419 talk.politics.misc:36452 alt.flame:11484
From: milliken@athena.cs.uga.edu (Brewmeister)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.censorship,talk.politics.misc,alt.flame
Subject: Re: Using killfiles is a form of censorship (was: Re: A Modest Request
Date: 29 Jul 92 15:09:29 GMT
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens

In article <1992Jul29.131144.5934@Princeton.EDU> egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:
>In article <Bs3v3v.9o7@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>>In article <1992Jul28.143312.21954@nocusuhs.nnmc.navy.mil> perez@mgr.hjf.org (Charles Perez) writes:
>>>In article <1992Jul27.221740.8240@Princeton.EDU> egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:
>>>
>>>>and surely the satisfaction one takes in a kill file is
>>>>related to the satisfaction one feels in destructive behavior (there! I
>>>>showed him, he's in my kill file.)
>>
>>  I would modify this a bit:  TELLING someone that they're in your kill
>>  file might produce such emotions, but merely PUTTING them in a 
>>  kill file is a simple convenience -- no longer having to endure
>>  some poster's lunatic ravings.   I never tell people when I put
>>  them in a kill file, why should I waste my time?
>
>This is, however, exactly what William December Starr (whose actions I
>submitted as an example of actions that undercut a professed dedicaiton
>to free speech) did: he announced not only to me but also to the net
>that he was "kill"ing me because he's "had it with" me.

How does he "undercut" a professed dedicaition (sic) to free speech?  Announcingto the net that he is placing you in his killfile might be a bit obnoxious, but it in no way hinders your ability to express yourself on the net or elsewhere.
You may post just as freely as before, with the exception that, since you're
in his killfile, you and he may stop bickering sooner.  How 'bout that?  Each
of you place the other in your respective killfiles, and then stop posting
articles directed at one another since neither of you will be reading what the  other writes, and the whole net will be spared having to 'n' past your bickering

Seriously, what does a killfile have to do with censorship?  A killfile only 
censors material from the person who chose to use the killfile; hence, it is
not really censorship, but rather selection of what one will or will not read.
If his killfile prevented others from viewing your compositions, or prevented
you from posting them, THAT would be censorship.  See the difference?  

writes, 
-- 
Copy this .sig and just say noe to big-brother's monitoring of public bandwidth
*Bush Quayle conspriacy JFK cocaine LSD heroin marijuana AK-47 Iran Iraq Libya*
*Sandinista Contras Panama Noriega FBI CIA NSA Secret Service fixed-elections *
*Neil Bush S&L coverup potatoe wiretaps search & seizure bill of rights dead  *
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: Hate Speech Okay, says the Supreme Court
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 11:14:13 GMT

In article <11437@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:

>You don't suppose the law changed because of the change in social
>attitudes about smoking, do you?

I'm sure each affected the other. But the decline in smoking nationally is
strongly correlated to the passage of laws requiring warnings and
restricting advertising. 

>I know that liberals really love the idea that if we just pass a
>law, we can change the way people think, so why don't we just pass
>a law against immorality?  That should change the way people behave,
>right? :-)

Laws actually do change the way people think, now and then. The laws
against insider trading (which is legal in many countries) affect how
people think about it.

I do not choose to blind myself to the fact that occasionally laws have
social impact. The chain of cause and effect is not unidirectional when
we're talking about the passage of laws.


--Mike



-- 
Mike Godwin,     |"Crime is contagious. If the Government becomes a law-
mnemonic@eff.org | breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every
(617) 864-0665   | man to become a law unto himself. It invites anarchy."
EFF, Cambridge   |         --Brandeis, J., dissenting in Olmstead v. U.S.  
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: foy@aero.org (Richard Foy)
Subject: Re: Corporations as Persons was Re: Whether you like Clinton or not,...
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 20:34:39 GMT

In article <1992Jul31.004638.26841@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>In article <1992Jul30.213518.13697@aero.org> foy@aero.org (Richard Foy) writes:
#
##What would happen if some overzealous district attorney charged a
##corporation with murder because that corporation hid information that
##resulted in the death of natural people? For example what would happen
##if someone filed murder or negligent manslaughter charges against Pan
##American Airways over the 107 crash?
#
#A corporation can be charged with the crimes of employees acting in
#the scope of their duties.  The result is usually a fine.  CEO's have
#gone to jail for the crimes of subordinates, though usually for things
#like food contamination rather than murder.
#
#In the case of Pan Am 107, I don't think that even the most zealous
#prosecutor believes that she could prove beyond a reasonable doubt
#the culpability needed for a conviction for negligent homicide, much
#less murder.  But other corporations have been prosecuted for
#manslaughter for, say, factory explosions and the like.  
#-- 
#                      ....................................
#                      ted frank | thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
#                      the university of chicago law school 
#                      official member of the cultural elit


I believe there was a case where an automobile manufacturer knew they had
an unsafe vehicle. I think it was shown that instead of recalling the cars 
they calculated the probable cost of damage awards which was less than the
cost of recall. 

Would not a similiar act by a natural person say shooting a gun into the air
and the bullet falls killing some one, be called murder. Thus  if a company
was tried and convicted of such an act should not it be executed or be given
a punishment the equivalent of imprisonment for a number of years.

Richard Foy           Standard Disclaimer
From: jcr@milton.u.washington.edu (Mr. EuStress)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: I'm Pro-Male-Choice
Date: 22 Jul 92 21:09:55 GMT
Article-I.D.: u.1992Jul22.210955.1653
Reply-To: jcr@milton.u.washington.edu (Mr. EuStress)
Organization: University of Washington

Kevin Darcy writes
> My suspicion at this juncture is that [Matthew is] just another 
> two-bit misogynist pro-lifer with a particularly cryptic way of 
> expressing your unpopular viewpoint...
> 			- Kevin

  Kevin is right -- very right.
From: jensen@tegan.jsc.nasa.gov (Linda Jensen)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Credit Cards - What are my rights?
Date: 22 Jul 92 15:32:13 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: NASA Johnson Space Center


Could someone tell me what my rights are?  I have a problem
with a business.  They charged to my VISA account $250 for
dog training.  Less than 2 days later, my dog died at their
kennel (or stolen and sold -but that's another story.)  I was
told that the dog died of a highly contagious canine disease.
And according to their vet (who treated my dog), there have
been many dogs that were brought in to his vet clinic by this
business before my dog.  One dog died just hours before my
dog was even at their kennel.

I think I shouldn't have to pay the $250 for dog training
since they never trained my dog.  And they should reimburse me
the cost of my dog.

Well, not only are they not willing to pay for my dog, they
won't credit my acct $250 for the training service that they
never had the opportunity to render.

I went to the bank and wrote a note to dispute the charges.  We
just disputed for the 3rd time this week.  The first time was in
April.  Here's what they said in notes to recharge my acct:

	1. (6/92) They lied that we had an agreement with them
	  and that they sent us a check for $250 - $83 (vet bills).  
	  We never had such a conversation with them let alone an
	  agreement.  In fact, they refuse to return our phone
	  calls.  Of course, we never received a check.

	2. (7/92) They changed the story, and blamed me for refusing
	  to settle.  How can I settle when no one will talk to me?
	  I have never spoken with the owner, he refuses to return
	  my many phone calls.  He has spoken with my husband, however.
	  Now their story is that my dog is the one that brought in
	  this disease and they want me to pay them $380 for dis-
	  infecting their kennel.  They claim that this was an isolated
	  incident, and that no dogs died of this disease before or
	  after my dog at their kennel.  That's a lie!  There are many
	  dog died before mine and after mine.  In fact, I have been
	  in contact with the person whose dog died just hours before
	  mine was even at the kennel.  Their vet told us that there 
	  were many before ours, (1) a day after mine, (2) in May, 
	  and (1) last week. All were brought in by this kennel/school.
	  He suggested checking with other vets in that area for more
	  sick/dead dogs brought to them by this kennel.

But this is not the point.  I want to know how many times can they
charge back to my acct. and what are my rights for not paying.  In
both of the notes that they wrote, neither one dresses the fact that
service was not rendered and they shouldn't get paid.  But in all my
notes, I state this fact.

Please help.  How many more times do I need to run to the bank to
dispute this one charge?


-- 
Linda Jensen				#include "disclaimer.h"
(713) 244-5283			
Intelligent Systems Branch		
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: sean@ms.uky.edu (Sean Casey)
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
    <1992Jul24.142408.385@news.iastate.edu> 
    <1992Jul25.023333.10841@fid.morgan.com> <1992Jul25.113338.2310@panix.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 06:50:05 GMT
Organization: University Of Kentucky, Dept. of Math Sciences

> Can a completely computer generated image be child pornography?
> Should it be?

And how about a non-pornographic image, altered to appear
pornographic? That image uses a real person, but nothing sexual was
done in the session.

The concept that certain pictures can be illegal seems very strange to
me. That this bitmap is okay, but that bitmap is "bad".

Sean
-- 
                  |``Wind, waves, etc. are breakdowns in the face of the
Sean Casey        | commitment to getting from here to there. But they are the
sean@s.ms.uky.edu | conditions for sailing -- not something to be gotten rid
U of KY, Lexington| of, but something to be danced with.''
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Re: Stare Decisis - ha ha ha
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 00:36:25 GMT

In article <1992Jul30.221144.17737@morrow.stanford.edu> GA.CJJ@forsythe.stanford.edu (Clifford Johnson) writes:
>GA.CJJ@forsythe.stanford.edu (Clifford Johnson) writes:
>>>started citing Corrigan.  You never did address my post on the subject.
>I don't recollect not responding to your post.  Care to restate
>the point?  Apologies if you made a point I missed.

Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Re: Truax v Corrigan -- The Rest of the Story
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 23:29:45 GMT

In article <1992Jul20.190455.17789@morrow.stanford.edu> GA.CJJ@forsythe.stanford.edu (Clifford Johnson) writes:
>thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:
>>More importantly, the decision was only 5-4.  And the four were three
>>separate dissents by Pitney, Clarke, and, you guessed it, Holmes and
>>Brandeis.  In fact, the Holmes and Brandeis *dissents* are cited by the
>>Supreme Court as good law much more often than the Taft opinion, which,
>>as far as I could tell, has *never* been cited for the contention that
>>Clifford claims Corrigan holds.
>
>None of the dissenters challenged the at issue finding re a general
>federal guarantee of a basic cause of action for defamation, nor are
>they cited against such a finding.  Indeed, it appears that at least
>in this particular, the decision reflected law that was not at all
>controversial.

The issue is whether defamation actions are protected by the 14th
Amendment, remember?  That was your claim.  And the dissent did
challenge the majority's finding: "Nor is a state obliged to protect
all property rights by injunction merely because it protects some...
Thus, course ordinarily refuse, perhaps in the interests of free
speech, to restrain actionable libel."

You're being increasingly dishonest about Corrigan, Clifford.  I thought
it was merely wrong-headedness, but your quoted passage below deliberately
omits important language that undercuts your case.  CJ makes it appear
that the court is talking about libel, and only libel, when in fact the
court was talking about picketing and abusive actions taken towards
potential customers.
-- 
                      ....................................
                      ted frank | thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
                      the university of chicago law school 
                      official member of the cultural elit
Newsgroups: misc.legal