HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rwd4f@poe.acc.Virginia.EDU (Robert Williams Dobson)
Subject: Not the Holocaust or the KKK
Keywords: pornography, feminism
Organization: University of Virginia
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 15:32:38 GMT

  So, dont you a.c. people have anything to talk about besides the long-
dead (c. 50 yrs) issue of whether the holocaust happened, or the KKK?
There are certainly other, more relevant, issues pertaining to censorship.
The big one I can think of is the law now before a Senate committee (I
cant remember the name of the law, I think its something like Victims
of Pornography Compensation Act or something like that) which would give
women who are victims of sexual violence the right to sue publishers of
sexually explicit materials, providing they could prove that the material
led to or encouraged the violence.
   This has got to be one of the dumbest bills Ive ever heard of...and believe
me, the Senate has come up with some dumb ones. The only good part about it
is that no such cases would ever be won, because there is not a SHRED of
conclusive proof that sexually explicit materials lead to sexual violence.
Think about i; doesnt it seem that someone who would committ sexual violence
would be likely too whether or not he/she got his/her hands on some juicy
porn? And also, do we really believe that deep, abiding problems like sexual
violence can be solved so easily? (Well, Congress is known for trying half-
baked measures to solve deep problems, but thats a different story) When it
gets right down to it, a bill giving victims the right to sue alcohol 
producers would probably be better, because alcohol is known to precipitate
sexual violence...of course, I am not suggesting that such a bill, which would
effectively ban alcohol, is a good idea either....

Ok, hopefully this will start a new discussion on a newsgroup desperately in 
need of a new discussion. Dissenting opinions are of course welcome, but
flames and ad hominem attacks are not....

Rob
From: fnord@panix.com (Cliff Heller)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
Subject: Re: more b-cpu stuff
Date: 17 Apr 92 14:44:59 GMT
Organization: Right Bleedin' Church of Libertine Obfuscatology

In <9204161837.AA10658@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU> hymowitz@SERVER.CS.JHU.EDU writes:

>>The quote
>>does not end with " crushed", it reads- "crushed by the
>>betrayal".  What does he fear by quoting me accurately?

>uh-oh, alert the dogs.  the crime of the century has been committed.


Far be it from me to be an apologist for the revisionists, but I do think
that the misquote is notable.

If Pete did indeed say "crushed by the betrayal" then he is using crushed
in the sense of "crestfallen"

He has been oft quoted as saying "Many innocent Jews will be crushed" and
that has been used as an example of his "true leanings"

Misquoting him like that is employing the same kind of argumentative
tactics that the b-cpu gang uses and does not score many points.

I have yet to see anything come out of b-cpu that directly advocates or
encourages violence against jews or any other ethnic group.  Indirectly
perhaps.   Certainly their fundamental motivation is suspect.

Let's not employ such underhanded tactics as quoting out of context.  
That would make us as bad as... the news media!

-- 
     / \      Reverend fnord   	             | "King Kong died for your sins!"
    /   \     fnord@panix.com                | 
   / <0> \                                   | "Don't just eat a hamburger, 
  /_______\   Church of Obfuscatology, Inc.  |  eat the HELL out of it!"
Xref: sparky alt.censorship:3193 alt.discrimination:1388 soc.history:3509 alt.activism:7395 talk.politics.mideast:10453 talk.politics.misc:17404 misc.headlines:3235 alt.conspiracy:6168
From: hillel@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (hillel.e.markowitz)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.discrimination,soc.history,alt.activism,talk.politics.mideast,talk.politics.misc,misc.headlines,alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: IHR Scores Stunning Victory in $11 Million Mermelstein Trial!
Date: 8 Apr 92 21:23:07 GMT
Organization: AT&T Migration Systems


Just as a way of pointing out a few facts.

After the IHR lost the case which resulted in the original judicial
notice of the Holocaust, they filed a libel suit against
Mr. Mermelstein.  During the discovery phase, they withdrew the
suit.

Mr. Mermelstein then filed a malicious prosecution suit against the
IHR.  This is the suit that resulted in the Jan. 1991 reaffirmation
and strengthening of the judicial notice by Judge Oneill.

This is the suit that turns on the question as to whether or not
the IHR is liable for malicious prosecution for filing the
defamation of character suit against Mr. Mermelstein.  It has
nothing to do with the Holocaust at all.

This case is still ongoing and certain rulings from September
(trumpeted as a "victory" for the IHR) are in appeal.

The law firm that filed the defamation of character suit withdrew
at that time and reached a good faith settlement with
Mr. Mermelstein.

Far from a "victory", it seems like the IHR and its fellow nazis
are just falling in to deeper trouble.

_______________________________________________________________
| Hillel Markowitz        |    Im ain ani li mi li             |
| H_Markowitz@att.com     |    Veahavta Leraiecha Kamocha      |
|_________________________|____________________________________|
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,talk.politics.misc,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.sex,alt.sex.bondage
From: liz@kropotkin.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Liz Highleyman)
Subject: Re: "Images of Violence Against Women" at Northeastern 4-14-92
Organization: Free
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 19:40:11 GMT


In article <1992Apr11.140604.911@athena.mit.edu> wdstarr@athena.mit.edu 
(William December Starr) writes:

 >  TOPIC:  IMAGES OF VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN:  PORNOGRAPHY AND THE MEDIA

 >  I'm posting this primarily because I probably won't be able to show
 >  up at this event and lob the occasional intellectual hand grenade
 >  into the discussion ....  So I'm hoping that _somebody_ in the 
 >  Boston area who believes in freedom will see this and be able to 
 >  attend... my wet dream, of course, is that at least one woman into 
 >  SM and willing to admit it in public will show up...

Well, I've done it before and am willing to do it again (the battle
against censorship is a never-ending one), but unfortunately, I'm
sure it won't help.  Any women who is into things like viewing porn
or doing s/m is branded as `brainwashed by the patriarchy,' and
our opinions are given even less weight by the anti-porn faction
than the opinions of men themselves.

-Liz
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Liz A. Highleyman                     MIT Artificial Intelligence Lab
liz@ai.mit.edu                        Cambridge, MA  02139
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Loyalty Oaths
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 19:19:31 GMT

Comments from the ACLU Handbook _The Rights of _Teachers_, 2nd edition.

p.92:
---------begin quote---------

[Question:] May a teacher be required as a condition of employment
to subscribe to a loyalty oath?

[Answer:] It depends on the oath. Neither the federal nor state
government may condition employment on taking an oath that impinges on
rights guaranteed by the First and 14th Amendments, such as rights
relating to political beliefs. Nor may such employment be conditioned
on an oath that on has not engaged, nor will not engage, in protected
speech activities, such as criticizing institutions of government,
discussing political doctrines that approve the overthrow of certain
forms of government, or supporting candidates for political
office.{300} Public employment may not be conditioned upon an oath
denying past, or abjuring future, associational activities that are
constitutionally protected, including membership in organizations have
an illegal purpose, unless one knows of that purpose and has specific
intent to promote it.{301} Finally, an oath imposed as a condition of
public employment may not be so vague that "men of common intelligence
must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application,
(because such an oath) violates the first essential of due process of
law."{302}.

{300} Cole v. Richardson, supra; Keyishian v. Board of Regents, 385
U.S. 589 (1967); Baggett v. Bullitt, 377 U.S. 360 (1964); Cramp v.
Board of Public Instruction, 368 U.S. 278 (1961)

{301} Cole v. Richardson, supra; Whitehill v. Elkins, 389 U.S. 54
(1967); Law Students Civil Rights Research Council, Inc. V. Wadmond,
supra; Keyishian V. Board of Regents, supra; Elfbrandt v. Russell,
384 U.S. 11 (1966); Wieman v. Updegraff, 344 U.S. 183 (1954)

{302} Cole v. Richardson, supra; Cramp v. Board of Public Instruction
368 U.S. 278, 287 (1961)

--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From: nagle@netcom.com (John Nagle)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
Subject: Re: Censorship is our only defense against scumbags like you
Keywords: censorship
Date: 16 Apr 92 06:36:25 GMT
Article-I.D.: netcom.7szj=5b.nagle
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

firman@torment.ugcs.caltech.edu (timothy firman) writes:
>  In recent years, hippie liberals, homsexuals and satanists have turned
>our whole society upside down.  They have spinelessly hid behind the 
>first amendment and have allowed the evils of our society such as 
>pornography and the devil's music, rock and roll to ruin the lives of out
>defenseless children.  You are all sick and i hope you burn in hell.
>Rev. Timothy Firman

        This may be a hoax or a forged posting.  Postings from the same
source appear in alt.sex.bondage, but the ones there are pro-kinky-sex
and seemed designed to annoy people.  Whomever is doing this is probably
just trying to provoke a flame war.  So please ignore him.  Thank you.

					John Nagle
Xref: sparky alt.censorship:3189 alt.discrimination:1383 soc.history:3501 alt.activism:7371 talk.politics.mideast:10420 talk.politics.misc:17339 misc.headlines:3227 alt.conspiracy:6155
From: ts2a+@andrew.cmu.edu (Thomas Omar Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.discrimination,soc.history,alt.activism,talk.politics.mideast,talk.politics.misc,misc.headlines,alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: IHR Scores Stunning Victory in $11 Million Mermelstein Trial!
Date: 8 Apr 92 14:49:23 GMT
	<1992Apr7.165207.23234@cs.brown.edu>
Organization: Senior, Mathematics, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

Did you ever get the feeling that banished CPU is really just a program
designed to remail a set of articles every so often?

					Tom the non hacker
					Read my lips, no second term
					Buchanan in 92!
From: fischer@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (William T. Fischer)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
Subject: Loyalty Oaths
Date: 10 Apr 92 17:02:15 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana



I am trying to locate copies of loyalty oaths that state and local goverments,
especially libraries, force their new employees to sign.  The University of
Illinois Student Chapter of the American Library Association will be
presenting a resolution opposing loyalty oaths at the ALA meeting this summer.

I'd appreciate copies of actual current loyalty oaths and any discussion of
them in general.


Thanks.


Bill Fischer
Internet: fischer@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu

410 DKH
1407 W. Gregory Dr.
Urbana, IL 61801
--



--
This is a .signature file.
Xref: sparky alt.censorship:3385 alt.desert-storm:901
From: hennebry@plains.NoDak.edu (Michael J. Hennebry)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
Subject: Re: Wearing "legalize pot" buttons to school...
Date: 5 Apr 92 20:09:41 GMT
Organization: North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND

In article <1992Apr1.224936.7144@newstand.syr.edu> greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (J. S. Greenfield) writes:
>If school officials give them any trouble, the students should politely
>point out that they are within their constitutional rights, as established
>by Tinker.

Better yet respond to any complaints by handing the complainer a copy of
Tinker. A completely silent response pretty much eliminates any possible
complaints about one's volume or language. It's also likely to give one
a handle with which to delegitimize the complainer on the basis of his
inability or unwillingness to read. "You see, children, when your're
all grown up you can bully people and you don't have to read anything
you don't want to."  "So what if reading my button bothers him? He 
doesn't have to read anything he doesn't want to."


-- 
Mike   hennebry@plains.NoDak.edu
"To telephone Valhalla from the Taunton area one must go
through the operator, and the process can take a long time." -- Tom Holt
Xref: sparky alt.censorship:3251 alt.discrimination:1463 soc.history:3560 talk.politics.misc:17875 talk.politics.mideast:10637 soc.misc:475 misc.headlines:3329
From: rick@crick.ssctr.bcm.tmc.edu (Richard H. Miller)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.discrimination,soc.history,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.mideast,soc.misc,misc.headlines
Subject: Re: THE HOLOCAUST STORY:  HOW MUCH IS FALSE?  The Case for Open Debate
Date: 11 Apr 1992 22:20:35 GMT
Followup-To: alt.censorship,alt.discrimination,soc.history,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.mideast,soc.misc,misc.headlines

In article <x-vj0p+.mortal@netcom.com>, mortal@netcom.com (Phyllis Schlafley) writes:
> To put my .02 cents worth, why not create a Holocaust news group and let all these people slug it out there instead of waisting bandwidth by putting the same stuff in three or four news groups?
> 
> Any one like this?


Nice idea but it won't work. It will simply be one more news group for the 
dumpers to dump to. If you look at where the b-cpu crowd or mutlu(?sp) post,
they tend to shotgun around to many different groups. They will continue to
post to soc.history. [BTW there is an alt.revisionism (I think) and it doesn't
help.] Ignore them, but I do agree with someone in this thread that we can't
ignore their message so everytime they post some crap, post a standard article
refuting them but DO NOT respond to them personally, it's not worth the time.


-- 
Richard H. Miller                 Email: rick@bcm.tmc.edu
Asst. Dir. for Technical Support  Voice: (713)798-3532
Baylor College of Medicine        US Mail: One Baylor Plaza, 302H
                                           Houston, Texas 77030
From: greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (J. S. Greenfield)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
Subject: Re: Trademark Denial for Old Glory Condoms
Date: 15 Apr 92 01:26:09 GMT
Reply-To: greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (J. S. Greenfield)
Organization: CIS Dept., Syracuse University

In article <1992Apr11.135410.1530@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> pciszek@isis.cs.du.edu (Paul Ciszek) writes:
>I think the relevent question here should be whether the U.S. flag can be used
             ^^^^^^^^
>as a comercial trademark in the U.S.  I thought there were laws covering this;
>certain images such as the seal of the United States, local police insignia,
>etc. are just as proprietary as the "Coca-Cola" emblem and cannot be used
>without permission.
>
>Printing a flag ON something is a slightly different issue; if Haynes sells
>flag T-shirts, they are not trying to register the flag as a trademark, they
>are selling flags (sort of).  I gather that this company is not being
>prohibited from manufacturing red, white, and blue condoms, they are being
>denied the use of the U.S. flag as their trademark.  Consider the flag to
>be a logo that is already "taken".

Taking the original post at face value, I would say this is all totally
*irrelevant*.

That post specifically cited a *different* reason that the patent office
*itself* gave for refusing to issue the patent.  *That* reason was clearly
improper (under the US Constitution).

--
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?"
From: allens@yang.earlham.edu (Allen Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
Subject: Re: On the other hand (was: Stopping vehement hat
Date: 5 Apr 92 10:04:32 GMT
Organization: Earlham College, Richmond, Indiana

In article <31233@sdcc12.ucsd.edu>, revans@euclid.ucsd.edu (Ron Evans) writes:
>> bear@tigger.Colorado.EDU (Bear Giles) writes:
> 
>>Yep.  You said it yourself -- "purpose is to cause enough 
>>embarrassment to bring ... traffic to a virtual standstill."
> 
> 	"I'm for freedom of speech.  As long as the speech
> 	isn't meant to cause serious embarrassment, that is."
> 
>>Please explain how you got that from my response.  Let me quote
>>you again, eliminating all unnecessary clauses:
>>"purpose is to cause ... traffic to [stop]"
>>You said the purpose of the speech in your example was not to 
>>embarass the speakers by pointing out the numerous errors in their
>>beliefs, but to BRING TRAFFIC TO A VIRTUAL STANDSTILL.  If that
>>isn't censorship, what is? 
> 
> 
> 	Do you really feel that an attempt to halt traffic
> 	on alt.david.duke.supporters is irresponsible, no matter
> 	what the method?  Let us

	If it's by overloading it or whatever, then it is irresponsible. 
It's shutting off their freedom of speech. However, if it's simply by 
embarassment, then it is protected freedom of speech/press.

> 	assume my motivation is to halt traffic by convincing the
> 	posters that they are spreading worthless misinformation.
> 	Thus I politely point out errors in this newsgroup a dozen
> 	times a day.  Am I irresponsible?  If I succeed in causing
> 	the newsgroup to die, am I a censor?
> 	No, it strikes me it is not just
> 	stopping traffic that you complain about, but the method
> 	of stopping traffic.  I have no sympathy for your little
> 	campaign to restrict ridiculing speech.
> 
	I might point out to those who dislike harrasing/whatever postings 
on USENET that there are, on most newsreaders, such things as kill files. 
Admittedly, they don't always work as well as they should. But they are, 
ultimately, the best solution (IMNHO (In My Non-Humble Opinion))- no 
violation of true freedom of speech involved.
	-Allen
Xref: sparky alt.censorship:3206 alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1559
From: allens@yang.earlham.edu (Allen Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: censored at UB.....NEED HELP...GOING TO LOSE
Date: 8 Apr 92 16:46:13 GMT
Article-I.D.: yang.1992Apr8.114613.16815
Organization: Earlham College, Richmond, Indiana

In article <1992Apr04.003809.29084@anomaly.sbs.com>, mpd@anomaly.sbs.com (Michael P. Deignan) writes:
> kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
> 
>>I think you are on firm ground here.
> 
> I think you're on shakey ground.
> 
> First, you don't know what the post said (funny how that was "mysteriously"
> omitted from the cry of "censorship").
> 
> Although expression of ideas are protected, some forms of "free speech" are
> not. For instance, I cannot yell "fire!" in a theatre. Nor can I post an
> article which says "Let's kick the shit outta some fuckin' queers!" which
> clearly advocates violence against another person or group of people.
> 

	As I recall, the post in question was cited as:
> Fuck censorship
> 1st Amendment
	I doubt that this form of speech can have any legitimate 
objections made to it.
	-Allen
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
From: rwd4f@poe.acc.Virginia.EDU (Robert Williams Dobson)
Subject: Open letter to P. Faust and the b-cpu folks
Summary: cant e-mail them, gotta post this
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 15:14:03 GMT

Sorry to have to post this to a.s., but I cannot get mail through to
"pfaust@b-cpu.UUCP". Must be the Zionist Thought Police. Anyway, Pete,
is you have an email address at which we can respond to you directly,
please post it. As for the others of you, sorry if this bores you, but
calling these guys 'fascists' and 'neo-nazis' has only made them more
vociferous.

Pete, and everyone a b-cpu:

WWII ended almost 50 years ago. Whether or not the holocuast happened,
WWII DID happen. The Allies won, carved up Europe and commenced a new
conflict, the Cold War. Now even that is over. So why dont we stop 
arguing over something that may or may not have happened 50 years ago?

You folks claim to be Christian. I guess you feel that fighting the 
'Zionist conspiracy' is your way of helping others. Well, if this
conspiracy exists, it is too big for a few people with an email machine
to defeat. So why not put your Christianity where your mouth is? There
are people in your town (wherever that is--you wont say) who are suffering.
I know this b/c it is true of every town. So why  not go try to help the
poor to eat and have decent housing, perhaps through a Christian group
like Habitat for Humanity? Or volunteer to help the sick in a local
hopsital? Or, better yet, go help the East Germans who are suffering as a
result of post-cold war integration with the West?

You talk about Christian values being subverted. As the Easter story should
tell you, the Christian value is self-sacrifice. So go out there and help
someone who is suffering. You wont be able to help everyone, or end all
suffering, but if you have helped only one person, you have helped. And
remember, even if this person is a criminal, or worse yet part of the 
Zionist conspiracy, as a Christian you are to feel love and compassion for
this person, as I feel love and compassion for you.

Sorry to waste evryone elses time with such a religious message. I realize
this is not a soc.relgion newsgroup, but I feel that I needed to say
these things to b-cpu, and I had no other way to do it. So PFaust,
respond to me if you like; my email address (rwd4f@poe.acc.Virginia.EDU)
is valid. And to the rest of you, happy Easter, and peace.

Rob Dobson