HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (J. S. Greenfield)
Subject: Re: U.S. Bill of Rights today (was alt.activism et al: Who's free'er)
Organization: Syracuse University, CIS Dept.
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 92 08:57:44 EDT

Since the other points have already been addressed, I address just this one.

In article <1992Sep9.185933.10418@gtech.com> smp@gtech.com (Sergio M. Pedro) writes:
> 
>	*note* drugs are illegal.
>
>>	Peyote use among the Native Americans: Banned.

It's not clear why drugs should be illegal in the first place.  But, in any
case, given that we are talking about a "victimless" crime (doesn't hurt
anyone else, at least), it's not clear that there is any justification for
interfering with a religious ritual.

Furthermore, this is inconsistent with at least one other case.  Rastafarians
(sp?) read the bible to command them to smoke marijuana--and their right to use
marijuana has been upheld in the past despite laws against pot.

Even in a few "non-victimless" situations, laws have been struck down due
to interference with the free exercise of religion.  For example, Amish
parents successfully fought a law requiring children to attend high school.

So the simple fact that something is against the law is not, in and of itself,
a reasonable argument.  I don't believe that the SC has required a "compelling"
state interest in order to override "free exercise" interests; however, they
do seem to require that a legitimate governmental interest significantly
outweigh the infringement upon an individual's free exercise of religion.

So, what is the legititmate governmental interest that significantly
outweighs an individual's interest in using peyote as part of a religious
ritual?

And how can this example be distinguished from the the Rastafarian example?


-- 
J. S. Greenfield                                         greeny@top.cis.syr.edu
(I like to put 'greeny' here, 
but my d*mn system wants a 
*real* name!)                        "What's the difference between an orange?"
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.drugs,misc.legal,talk.politics.drugs
From: feustel@netcom.com (David Feustel)
Subject: "Undercover, Police Surveillance in America"
Date: Mon, 07 Sep 92 02:46:25 GMT
Organization: DAFCO: OS/2 Software Support & Consulting

This book, written by Gary Marx, Professor of Sociology at MIT,
provides an interesting, if academic (no pun intended) view of
undercover police work in the U.S. The last chapter, "The New
Surveillance", complements the information presented in "Privacy for
Sale" by Jeffrey Rothfeder. These two books paint a bleak picture for
the future of individual privacy.

University of California Press, 1988, ISBN 0-520-06286-8
-- 
Dave Feustel N9MYI <feustel@netcom.com>
 
RE Drug Warriors who enjoy making a "good" bust: I'm sure the Salem
Witch Hunters enjoyed their law enforcement achievements too.
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Subject: Re: U.S. Bill of Rights today
Reply-To: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 12:03:28 GMT

>Speech != writing
>Speech != Art
>Speech != Music
>Speech != burning things in protest. 

>Perhaps the constitution should be changed to include Freedom of Expression, 
>however it does not say that now. 

"                                AMENDMENTS

     The Ten Original Amendments: The Bill of Rights.  Passed by
     Congress September 25, 1789.  Ratified December 15, 1791.

                                AMENDMENT I
   Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,
or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to
petition the Government for a redress of grievances."


How about "freedom of the press"?  Depends on what you think "press"
means, though.

In any case, it depends also on what you think "speech" means.  I
think "freedom of speech" pretty much means the same "freedom of
expression" in the U.S. Constitution, and thus think all your examples
you think are not speech actually are speech.

//Jyrki
From: mycroft7@phobos.unm.edu (Cliff Coy)
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty
Subject: Where to go, what to do (was RE: U.S. Bill of Rights today)
Date: 9 Sep 92 23:37:30 GMT
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque


Mel Walker replies to Jyrki Kuoppala:



>> 	Personally, I'm interested in seeing some direct responses to the
>> original thread - since if Bush wins my wife and I are giving serious
>> thought to emmigrating. Rights are too important to give away the way
>> Americans have been doing during the last decade.

>Two comments:
>1) It started a long time before the last decade.
>2) Where would you emigrate to? ie Where do you think things are better
>OVERALL?

>This is a legitimate, non-rabble-rousing question.

    Yes, government has been carving away our rights for a long time.  
However, I see a lot more people waking up to this fact (mostly in my age 
group of 20-30).  This may be seen as a positive sign if you believe this
age group has any influence on our political structure.  I don't believe
we have much influence compared to other groups like the senior citizen age group (a much larger voting block which votes almost a third of its population).  The three results I've seen to this knowledge are:

      1.) The do or die reaction.

            "I'm going to get everyone I know together and we're going to
            change the face of this nation!!!"

      2.) The "realist" reaction.

            "I'm going to get the hell out of here while I still can!!"
                Popular choices of emmigration being Europe and 
                Australia/New Zealand.

   And the largest reaction: "I doing what I can to get by and as long as I can
   get by I don't really give a shit."

   Just because the gov't has effectively nulled a lot of our rights doesn't
mean we should sit around and accept it as cast in stone.  Call me an idealist
but hey, if someone changed the law one way, someone else can change it back.


________________________________________________________________________________
George "If they're athiests they're not citizens" Bush? NEVER!!!
Bill "Boot camp to instill disipline" Clinton? Maybe...
None of the Above?  Hmmm...the least of all evils
-- 

 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Give anyone the power of fear and      | Cliff Coy
they'll be more than glad to           | 
to use it against you.                 | mycroft7@vesta.unm.edu
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Subject: Re: U.S. Bill of Rights today (was alt.activism et al: Who's free'er)
Reply-To: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 13:48:30 GMT

In article <1992Sep11.230653.27590@gtephx.UUCP>, forda@gtephx (Andrew Ford @ AGCS, Phoenix, Arizona) writes:
>Register as a Libertarian and vote Libertarian    Many states require a 
>    new party to have x% of the registered voters registered in that 
>    party to be automatically on the ballot for the next election.  
>    REGISTER LIBERTARIAN NOW.

How about people who don't like the Libertartian party's stand on
property/economic issues?

//Jyrki
Xref: sparky alt.society.civil-liberty:5796 alt.politics.usa.constitution:104
From: brian@pdx.csd.mot.com (Brian Vandewettering)
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution
Subject: Re: U.S. Bill of Rights today (was alt.activism et al: Who's free'er)
Date: 11 Sep 92 18:03:47 GMT
Reply-To: brian@pdx.csd.mot.com (Brian Vandewettering)
Followup-To: alt.society.civil-liberty
Organization: Motorola CSD, Beaverton, OR

In article <1992Sep9.032310.18048@nntp.hut.fi> jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala) writes:
>
>		AMENDMENT II:
>	A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free
>State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be
>infringed.
>
>		REALITY II:
>	This right exists.
>

BZZZT!  Wrong.

There are 22,000 Federal, State and local laws infringing on the right
to keep and bear arms.  Sure you can have a firearm, but wait 15 days,
don't carry it loaded and lock it in a case disassembled in your trunk.
However, if you live in Morton Grove, Ill., New York City or Washington 
D.C.  all bets are off.  Those weapons which are of use to a militia are
also off limits  (i.e. machine guns and in certain areas assault weapons.)

Perhaps you should look up the definition of 'infringe' and 'people'.

The rest of your post was accurate and informative.  Thank you.

Brian

-- 
"It cannot be presumed that any clause in the Constitution is intended to
be without effect..."

- Chief Justice John Marshall, Marbury v. Madison, 1803
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution
Subject: Re: U.S. Bill of Rights today
Date: 13 Sep 92 06:08:04 GMT
Reply-To: 70465.203@compuserve.com
Organization: SCN Research/Qic Laboratories of Tigard, Oregon.

cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter) writes:

>In article <1992Sep10.205716.15655@njitgw.njit.edu>, msh9848@hertz.njit.edu (Matthew) writes:

>> Freedom of Speech does not mean freedom of expression in any form. 
>> Therefore child pornography is not freedom of speech. 

>This is not the way to deal with it.  You want to make any prohibition
>of this based on violating the child's rights in some way...  This is
>the only real reason to can have for interfering.

I favor laws extending basic rights *explictly* to children, rather than
merely assuming that the state has some sort of guardianship rights *over*
them with said rights over-riding the rights of the parents.

Current laws essentially treat children as property. And it can be shown that
most abuse of child is by people who indeed feel that children *don't* have
rights in and of themselves.

I think children should have the *full* set of rights accorded any citizen,
with any exceptions being a matter of judging the *comptence* of the child.
For those who fear that this will erode the rights of parents, please note
that most abusers *are* the parents or other close family members.

Parents *routinely* get away with things that would result in criminal
charges if the victim was an adult.

(I expect to get a *lot* of flack over this. So be it...)

-- 
Leonard Erickson		      leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com
CIS: [70465,203]			 70465.203@compuserve.com
FIDO:   1:105/51	 Leonard.Erickson@f51.n105.z1.fidonet.org
(The CIS & Fido addresses are preferred)
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution,rec.nude
From: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Subject: Re: Child Porn (was Re: U.S. Bill of Rights today)
Reply-To: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 09:30:01 GMT

>'Photographing nude children' is not the same as 'photographs depicting 
>sexual acts involving children.'  I have no problems with publishing the
>former.  I think publishing the latter should be criminalized as described.
>I hope this makes my position clear.

Thanks for the clarification - I misunderstood your earlier reference
to "sexual acts against children" to mean photographic them nude.  My
mistake.

//Jyrki
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Subject: Re: U.S. Bill of Rights today (was alt.activism et al: Who's free'er)
Reply-To: john@anasazi.com
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 23:32:14 GMT

Keywords: 

In article <1992Sep13.134830.12976@nntp.hut.fi> jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala) writes:
]In article <1992Sep11.230653.27590@gtephx.UUCP>, forda@gtephx (Andrew Ford @ AGCS, Phoenix, Arizona) writes:
]>Register as a Libertarian and vote Libertarian    Many states require a 
]>    new party to have x% of the registered voters registered in that 
]>    party to be automatically on the ballot for the next election.  
]>    REGISTER LIBERTARIAN NOW.
]
]How about people who don't like the Libertartian party's stand on
]property/economic issues?

The answer is obvious: Don't vote 1/2 ;-)


-- 
John Moore NJ7E, 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253  (602-951-9326)
john@anasazi.com ncar!noao!asuvax!anasaz!john anasaz!john@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
 - - Support ALL ...erk  glugh   mmpph.... Memory fault (core dumped)
Xref: sparky alt.society.civil-liberty:5858 alt.drugs:15774 misc.legal:17205
From: llama@pooh.cc.utexas.edu (sine nomine)
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.drugs,misc.legal
Subject: Re: [misc.legal] Drug dogs used in public schools
Date: 15 Sep 92 02:04:42 GMT
Followup-To: alt.society.civil-liberty
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5

in corpus christi in 1979-81 (when i was in high school there), drug
dogs were pretty common. they'd run a few of them through the school
sniffing lockers and they'd drop in some some classes unannounced and
let the dogs sniff students. i never heard of anyone being caught.

some teenage friends of mine have told me that the austin schools use
them on occasion, too. has anyone heard of any court cases involving
the possible illegality of these kinds of searches?

--
sine nomine
debbie martinson
after all, you can't make toast in a blender.
Xref: sparky alt.society.civil-liberty:5834 alt.politics.usa.constitution:162
From: ritter@claude.ma30.bull.com (Roger Ritter)
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution
Subject: Re: U.S. Bill of Rights today (was alt.activism et al: Who's free'er)
Date: 14 Sep 92 14:01:40 GMT
Organization: Bull HN Informations Systems Inc.

leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com (Leonard Erickson) writes:

>>>	Free Speech: Censorship of adult materials.

>Adult material covers a *lot* more ground than "child porn". Check into
>the research a few groups have done. The US government is the major supplier
>of "kiddie porn" and is probably responsible for much of the demand!

A thought just occurred to me:  If the above is true, could the RICO
laws be used to hoist the government by its own petard?  In other words,
could RICO be used to charge George Bush with heading up an organization
that makes and distributes child porn?  That would be an interesting
case!
-- 
Roger Ritter N1FZZ (R.Ritter@ma30.bull.com) PP-ASEL, AGI
1946 Luscombe 8A N71983 "Rocky"
Sheep do not so much fly as plummet!        NH CAP: Profile 49
Xref: sparky alt.society.civil-liberty:5848 alt.politics.usa.constitution:172 soc.culture.usa:7279
From: rfb@CS.CMU.EDU (Rick Busdiecker)
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution,soc.culture.usa
Subject: Re: U.S. Bill of Rights today (was alt.activism et al: Who's free'er)
Date: 14 Sep 92 19:40:43 GMT
	<exukjb.129.715967081@exu.ericsson.se> <33rnkq.adamsr@netcom.com>
	<1992Sep9.032310.18048@nntp.hut.fi>
	<1992Sep11.011505.22445@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu>
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University
Originator: rfb@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU

In article <1992Sep11.011505.22445@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> KAMCHAR@ibm.cl.msu.edu writes:
   >		AMENDMENT VIII:
   >	Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed,
   >nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
   >
   >		REALITY VIII:
   >	In MI, simple possession of over a given quantity of a controlled
   >substance REQUIRES a manditory sentence of life WITHOUT PAROLE.

	Again, overturned in the Michigan Supreme Court.  Thankfully not yet
   overturned by the WoD, but don't get your hopes up yet.

Do you have a reference for this?  I believe that your claim is false
and that mandatory sentencing laws are still in force in Michigan.

Just last week, I read an article about a 25 year old Michigan man who
has served 7 years so far of a mandatory life sentence without the
possibility of parole for a first-offense conspiracy to sell some
large quantity of cocaine although he was not present at the time of
the transaction.

I can't recall which publication I saw this in.  I'll try to find it
and post a citation when I get home this evening.
-- 
Rick Busdiecker <rfb+@cs.cmu.edu>
``Beware of programmers carrying screwdrivers''
				- Unknown
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution,soc.culture.usa
From: merlyn@digibd.com (Merlyn LeRoy)
Subject: Re: U.S. Bill of Rights today (was alt.activism et al: Who's free'er)
Organization: DigiBoard Incorporated, Eden Prairie, MN
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 15:21:45 GMT

KAMCHAR@ibm.cl.msu.edu writes:
>Jyrki Kuoppala writes:
>>		REALITY I:
>>	Peyote use among the Native Americans: Banned.

>     The ban was overturned by the Supreme Court (and this was probably
>overturned by the WoD, sadly enough)

No, the ban was UPHELD by the SC.  The Reagan court has made it much
easier for government to interfere with private religious practices.

---
Merlyn Leroy
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter)
Subject: Re: U.S. Bill of Rights today (was alt.activism et al: Who's free'er)
Organization: Michigan Technological University
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 23:52:19 GMT

In article <1992Sep13.214934.15962@henson.cc.wwu.edu>,
n9020351@henson.cc.wwu.edu (James Douglas Del-Vecchio) writes:

> kenk@sdc.com (Ken Konecki) writes:
> >Since the Constitution limits federal powers, Wasington DC and other
> >cities are acting quite constitutionally by banning guns.
> 
> Since the Constitution limits federal powers, Wasington DC and other
> cities are acting quite constitutionally by banning newspapers.
> ...banning tv.  ...banning books. etc.
> 
> This argument is wrong, because for the last 100 yrs or so the courts
> have held the constitution to restrict all governments in the US, 
> not merely the federal.

And in fact, the Constitution says that in Article 6; And under the
14th's "equal protection", everything not previously protected, is
extended to all persons (although Article 4, Section 2, paragraph 1
already provided an "equal protection" statement for all Citizens).

(this assumes that declaring "All persons born or naturalized in the
United States...." to be "...citizens of the United States...", does
not constitute a grant of "...Title of Nobility...", which is forbidden
under Article I, Section 9, paragraph 8.)

-- 
Charles Scripter   *   cescript@phy.mtu.edu
Dept of Physics, Michigan Technological University, Houghton, MI 49931
-------------------------------------------------------------------
With your one remaining eye, please do NOT look back into the laser
Xref: sparky alt.society.civil-liberty:5697 alt.politics.usa.constitution:6
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution
Subject: Re: U.S. Bill of Rights today (was alt.activism et al: Who's free'er)
Date: 9 Sep 92 15:59:49 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.guns
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <1992Sep9.032310.18048@nntp.hut.fi>, jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala) writes:
> A repost from alt.activism,alt.individualism,alt.pagan:
> From: adamsr@netcom.com (Rick Adams)

>       Really?

>               AMENDMENT II:
>       A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free
> State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be
> infringed.
>
>               REALITY II:
>       This right exists.

>  Rights are too important to give away the way
> Americans have been doing during the last decade.

Look in a mirror.  If you think the pale shadow of the right to keep
and bear arms that we have today is in any way comparable with what the
Second Amendment was written to guarantee, you have your head in the sand.

The Second was written to ensure that the people as individuals, and not
the government, army or police (there WERE no police in those days; they
used soldiers for that purpose) held the balance of power in terms of arms.

In my state, I must hold two different state-granted licenses to own a
pistol and be "approved" by my police chief, who can yank my licence at
any time for being an "unsuitable person" even if I have broken no law.

Ironically, my town's licensing criteria FORCED me to join the NRA,
a move I was not willing to make on my own; and to spend $200 to join
a "bona fide sporting club," a requirement maintained by the state
even though it was declared contrary to the state constitution by
courts in one district (and so is now void there).

I am required to have taken a gun safety course; yet I am told that the
one I took in 1988 is "too old."  (Have guns changed so much since then?)

I have the cleanest record possible, including past clearances for TS and
higher clearances; yet I have been waiting four months for the "right" to
buy a gun, and have two more to wait while the bureacracy grinds its wheels.

Of course, if I were a criminal, I could have gotten a gun from Vito
or Booker or Harley down on the corner in Roxbury, same day, no questions 
asked.

Go look up the word "infringed," and then tell me that Morton Grove,
Washington DC, NYC, California, or Massachusetts don't "infringe" on
the right of a clean adult citizen to keep and bear arms.

(followups to talk.politics.guns.)
-- 

cdt@pdp.sw.stratus.com      --If you believe that I speak for my company,
OR cdt@vos.stratus.com        write today for my special Investors' Packet...
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,talk.religion.misc,uiuc.civil-liberty
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Chicago Tribune on "Religious Freedom Restoration Act"
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 16:17:06 GMT

On Sept. 8, 1992, the Chicago Tribune editoralized:

"[...] But any bright spots are blotted out by the _Smith_ decision, a
sharp departure from the court's past soliciude for powerless
religious minorities. By passing the religious freedom bill, Congress
could do much to dispel that cloud."

- Carl


--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Subject: Re: 1st amendment exceptions, was: U.S. Bill of Rights today
Reply-To: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 15:39:28 GMT

>According to what I remember from _Freedom, Technology, and the First
>Amendment_ by Jonathan W. Emord (1991):
>
>As you would expect, involuntary follow ups are usually demanded by
>politicians.
>
>In the U.S., the government can't make newspapers print such follow
>ups because that would violate the newspaper owner's free expression
>rights. This is true even if the newspaper is the only major newspaper
>in the local market.

Hmm, that's a point of view.  I haven't really thought about it.

>In the U.S., the government *can* make broadcasters show such follow
>ups. The rational for this is:
>  1) broadcast bandwidth is scarce,
>  2) so it is best held in trust for the public,
>  3) and the trustees of the broadcast bandwidth (i.e. the government)
>     believe that the public interested is best served by overriding
>     broadcasters free expression rights so that people who are
>     criticized on TV and Radio (i.e. usually government officials)
>     can respond.
>
>(I personally disagree with all three points.)

The points seem bogus to me.

Should do more reading on the followup-right, haven't really decided
about that.

//Jyrki
Xref: sparky alt.society.civil-liberty:5672 alt.privacy:1813 talk.politics.misc:44039 soc.culture.usa:7150