HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sandee@Think.COM (Daan Sandee)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Mellor: The establishment will again rush to protect their own
Date: 21 Jul 1992 12:06:07 GMT
Organization: TMC
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: telecaster.think.com

In article <BrqIxs.398@brunel.ac.uk>, Christopher.Carne@brunel.ac.uk (Christopher J Carne) writes:
|> what is it about being a Tory minister that makes a young actress
|> want to screw with a fat middle-aged man like Mellor.

I can't tell you, because my keyboard doesn't have your currency symbol.
Maybe it comes out right when I spell it #### ?
Slightly more seriously : with a Tory minister (well, with any minister,
really) you have the additional chance of finding your name on Page 1 of
the Sun. Which may be more appealing to some than being featured on Page 3.

Daan Sandee                                           sandee@think.com
Thinking Machines Corporation
Cambridge, Mass 02142                                 (617) 234-5044
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
From: grimlok@hubcap.clemson.edu (Mike Percy)
Subject: Re: Nea a need *2*
Organization: Clemson University
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 12:58:54 GMT

Mark.Sablow@iphase.UUCP (Mark Sablow) writes:

>     The NEA is not seeking to control your life, only to enrich it.  If you choose not to participate, then do not be involved with art.'
>     Do I apologize that you pay 68 to 70 cents a year for such a vital program?

>     NO! I do not.  If you are bothered by excessive taxes then put the blame on waste in government.  The military spends more on its bands & parades.  We do not even want to guess what most politcians do with our money.

They point is that while the NEA may actually be a useful contribution
to society at a low cost to taxpayers, it should be clear that the NEA
should not exist.  The day we can pay fair taxes (please, no "taxes are
theft" arguments now) and have a surplus rather than a multi-billion
dollar deficit, then we can give thought to providing the niceties of
life.  Right now, our gvt cannot afford things like the NEA (there's
lots of other things it can't afford, but wastefully continues to spend
tons-o-bucks on, but that's another story in itself).
Especially considering that it's just a subsidy to people and activities
who's product is not fiscally appealing enough to fund itself, or that
some of the product can support themselves, so why do they need
subsidies?

Mike Percy             | grimlok@hubcap.clemson.edu  | I don't know about
Sr. Systems Analyst    | mspercy@clemson.clemson.edu | your brain, but mine
Info. Sys. Development | mspercy@clemson.BITNET      | is really...bossy.
Clemson University     | (803) 656-3780              | (Laurie Anderson)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,talk.politics.misc
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: The Glorious Constitution (was: [UPI] Supreme Court strikes down...)
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 12:44:17 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA
                             


In article <1992Jul22.210443.5472@dscomsf.desy.de> hallam@zeus02.desy.de writes:

> The President has much too much power.
>
>The other democratised countries developed a party system which
>functions independently of the constitution and provides a lot of the
>checks and balances. 

   This analysis is exactly the opposite of other analyses I've
   heard on this topic!     I have frequently heard Europeans and
   others living under parliamentary systems complain about the 
   LACK of checks and balances in their systems.  Their argument
   goes like this:  in a parliamentary system the Prime Minister 
   is drawn from the party which has the most seats in parliament.
   The result is that you effectively get a dictatorship of one 
   party.   (but see below)

>The US constitution has only scope for two parties
>which 

   What is it in the Constitution that Mr. Hallam-Baker sees as 
   requiring two parties?   The need for the president to be elected
   by a majority (at least of the electoral vote)?   Parliamentary
   systems require majorities also, or they have to go through a 
   cumbersome process of trying to form a coalition.  This is often,
   fractious and unstable (Italy, for instance has averaged over one
   government per year in the postwar period).

> have both ended up on the same end of the political spectrum.

   I don't see what the Constitution has to say about this.


>The system I would suggest is ATV, the ballot paper has several
>candidates and you put a number next to as many as you want. The votes
>are first counted according to the number of first preferences (number
>1s). If anybody has 50% of the vote they get in. Otherwise the person
>with the lowest number drops out and their votes goes to their next
>preference (ie the one they put number 2 next to).

   I do agree that a different voting system might be in order.
   But, although I hate to say this, most of the schemes such as
   that described above (which I like also) require a more sophisticated
   voter than we may actually have.  Also, before anyone gets too
   enthusiastic about something tlike this they should read the 
   Economist article I cited yesterday (July 4, pg 73) on how humans
   make choices.

    
>As a first step this could be tried as the system for electing the
>Govenor in some state.

   Has it been tried anywhere yet?


---peter




Newsgroups: alt.censorship,soc.culture.british
From: icensor@eff.org (Index on Censorship)
Subject: Index on Censorship
Originator: icensor@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 21:42:31 GMT

Xref: sparky alt.censorship:6180 soc.culture.british:10558
From: nickh@CS.CMU.EDU (Nick Haines)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Mellor: The establishment will again rush to protect their own
Date: 23 Jul 92 13:34:09 GMT
Article-I.D.: VOILA.NICKH.92Jul23083409
	<1992Jul20.150659.7736@dscomsf.desy.de> <ni0gnms@zola.esd.sgi.com>
	<1992Jul21.200203.20658@dscomsf.desy.de> <njegii4@zola.esd.sgi.com>
	<1992Jul22.190401.3694@dscomsf.desy.de>
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University
Originator: nickh@VOILA.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU

In article <1992Jul22.190401.3694@dscomsf.desy.de> hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phillip M. Hallam-Baker) writes:

   The spectacle of MPs flocking round demanding curbs?

Curb-crawling as well, eh? Someone call Private Eye.

Nick
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,talk.politics.misc
From: hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phillip M. Hallam-Baker)
Subject: Re: The Glorious Constitution (was: [UPI] Supreme Court strikes down...)
Reply-To: hallam@zeus02.desy.de
Organization: DESY ZEUS Central Data Acquisition
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 04:21:41 GMT

In article <Brv1Av.CIv@apollo.hp.com>, nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter
Nelson) writes:

|>In article <1992Jul23.200455.14655@dscomsf.desy.de>
|>hallam@zeus02.desy.de writes:
|>
|>>Actualy outside the UK single party rule is the exception. Most
|>>continental governments are coalitions.
|>
|>  But this is only because they can't get a majority, not because
|>  there's something of constitutional nature causing it.

No the voting system makes a single party government very unlikely. The
voting system is part of the constitution.


|>>The problem in the US is that the President is now drivinf the whole
|>>system, he introduces legislation and dominates the entire budget
|>>system.
|>
|>  All revenue bills originate in the House (Article 1, Section 7).  
|>  Actually, I'm not sure the President can even introduce legis-
|>  lation at all (he can get a Republican flunky to do it, though)
|>  (I don't have my Constitution handy)   The point is still that most
|>  legislation is introduced in the Congress.   Much of the recent
|>  power of the Presidency is not specifically spelled out in the Con-
|>  stitution (e.g., the powers to start little undeclared wars) but
|>  exists because recent Congresses have been weak, fractious, and
|>  indecisive -- something which speaks against the idea that Congress
|>  is ideologically monolithic.   Lots of little political parties
|>  would only make that worse.  

Yeah, like thanks for the lesson in constitutional theory. The whole
point is that the system dosen't match the theory. I know what should
happen and how it is avoided.

You need to have a system that admits that the President is going to
exercise substantial powers and provide checks and balances that work.
Dividing the responsibility between congress and the Pres is not really
enough.

Basicaly Consititutions have to adapt to plug up the abuses.

Note that I did not claim that changing the voting system would mean
that little parties would get into the govt. That is not the point. The
possibility that this will happen is enough to cause the system to
change.


|>>Despite apperances I don't think such a system is beyond the intelectual
|>>grasp of the average American.
|>
|>  How long have you been in this country?    8-)

1) I ain't in your country.

2) I would have appreciated it if your editing hadn't made the reply
look like a gratuitous attack.


Phill Hallam-Baker
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
Subject: SYSOP BUSTED FOR PORNO IN OHIO!\
From: mbaya@antioc.antioch.edu
Date: 23 Jul 92 09:11:36 EDT
Organization:  


Subject: Help, please forward this message
From: bx953@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (David R. Cohen)
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 92 14:09:03 GMT
Reply-To: bx953@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (David R. Cohen)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)


I have no idea where this message should be posted, I only know that it
**should** be posted.  I'm posting here only because I know this board 
is widely read and someone should be able to get this message 
to the right place.

In today's paper (Cleveland Plain Dealer) it was reported that a 22-year
old male got arrested for distributing pornography, and possibly for
contributing to the delinquency of a minor.  His "crime" was running a
bulletin board out of his home ... the cops found out that minors were able
to get ahold of pornographic gif files.  The arrestee had apparently set
things up so that "adult" files were supposed to be restricted, but either
the files weren't restricted after all, or someone else had "unrestricted"
them.  The paper reports that this type of arrest is one of the first of
its kind in the state.  The cops used a "cooperative" 15 year old -- after
the kid accessed the adult files, the cops grabbed the alleged criminal.

If any Ohio law enforcement types are reading this, I am an Ohio attorney,
and I think this sucks.

David
-- 
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= THIS MESSAGE IS FROM  =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
|             David R. Cohen or Tracey L. Ridgeway              |
|                  bx953@cleveland.freenet.edu                  |
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Xref: sparky alt.censorship:6136 soc.culture.british:10511
From: koumis@husc4.harvard.edu (Anthony Koumis)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Mellor: The establishment will again rush to
Date: 22 Jul 92 16:33:54 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc3.1992Jul22.123355.14064
Distribution: world
Organization: Harvard University Science Center

In article <1992Jul21.173547.8271@hemlock.cray.com> andyw@aspen32.cray.com (Andy Warner) writes:
>
>In article <1992Jul21.200203.20658@dscomsf.desy.de>, hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phillip M. Hallam-Baker) writes:
>> [...]
>> I note that the first five replies in this thread were not protesting
>> about the threat to press freedom but wanting more salacious details.
>> What do you guys want, a gif of them copulating in alt.dirty.pictures?
>
>No, just some concise info would have been nice. Between the VNS
>& the World Service I've got the official view. Maybe there are
>some subtleties that I'll never know.. it's hard work getting
>in-depth news on non-USA topics over here (I'm equally sure the
>reverse is true too.)
>
>My apologies for not going into a rant about press freedom before
>finding out what I'd be talking about - next time maybe...
>
>> Fat smarmy tory git gets laid with curvaceous cutey, big deal. Ministers
>> decide that this is proof that the press must be gagged is important
>> though.
>
>True.
>
>> [...]
>-- 
>andyw.	N0REN/G1XRL
>
>andyw@aspen.cray.com	Andy Warner, Cray Research, Inc.	(612) 683-5835



I agree, P H-B's original post mentioned like we all knew the ins and
outs of the issue.  I asked for more details especially since Mellor
is my husband's MP. (his account I am on).  But no full story was
forthcoming and then we are attacked  for wanting slalcious detail. We 
could have wanted salacious details and also have a reasonalbe
request to know the full story boefore commenting on the press issue.
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
From: dave@bradley.bradley.edu (David Vessell)
Subject: Re: Nea a need *2*
Organization: Bradley University
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 92 21:09:59 GMT

Jeff Gates <jg58+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:

>Mike Percy writes re the NEA:
>"Especially considering that it's just a subsidy to people and activities
>who's product is not fiscally appealing enough to fund itself, or that
>some of the product can support themselves, so why do they need
>subsidies?
>
>Instead of thinking of art as "product" (and therefore trying and fit it
>into a market system) lets think of the creation of art as "process"
>where how the artist creates is as important (if not more so) as the
>products he/she makes.

Sure, no problem.

No one underwrote Vincent Van Gogh, or Salvador Dali, or M. C. Escher.
Some masters were working as employees of the state, but most weren't.
The government need not subsidize art unless it plans on utilizing it.
Examples are everywhere.


>If art is to be considered important in this society, we should focus of
>how one can pass on creativity to others. Artists are in a prime
>position to do so. We do at least one thing where no one is telling us
>what to do (the making of our art). That is a very empowering
>experience. When we pass the ability to be creative on to children and
>others who, for various reasons have been marginalized, we are working
>to build self-esteem. (I don't think I need to diagram the ramifications
>low self-esteem has in our culture.)

Great.  Do that.  When you have kids, pass on to them the ability to be
creative.  I know I will.  But we don't need the government to do that.



>There are many artists who are working in this manner in the communities
>they inhabit. As an art administration fellow at the NEA two years ago,
>I wrote a report on interaction between artists-run organizations and
>the communities they live in. The social programs that many of these
>artists are developing are in many ways superior to other social
>programs instituted by local, state and federal agencies. AND much of
>this is being done with money from the NEA.

Great.  Give them funding from social agencies.  Social programs are beyond
the scope of the NEA.

-- 
=========*davE*.....making the world safe for intelligent dance music.=========
               Andre Marrou -- Libertarian for President 1992
--(David Vessell)--(Bradley University Computing Services)-(dave@bradley.edu)--
From: Mark.Sablow@iphase.UUCP (Mark Sablow)
Sender: FredGate@iphase.UUCP
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
Subject: Nea a need *3*
Date: 29 Jul 92  01:41:00 EST

    Dear Mr. Percy,

    You are still mistaken in regards of NEA funding.  It plays a vital role in creating an environment that is much more open to learning.  It cost so little, to cut it is not the answer to balancing a budget.  It does not represent the waste of government that you mention.

    The arts are not just a "niceties" to have around.  They are a chance to reach out to a child, a moment to communicate a problem in society in a unique manner.....

    If you have ever seen the photographs of people with AIDS by a photographer named Nixon then you will have seen the problem in a way that words or other images could explain.

    The answer is not CUT CUT CUT blindly but rather elimate waste, & continnue those efforts that not only enrichs the economy of our society but the soul of our society.


                        Thank you for time,
                                             Mark Sablow
                                 aka, Professor Atget

     "One day this country will all be Liberals!"

 * Origin: Aether (1:112/2020)

Xref: sparky alt.censorship:6276 soc.culture.british:10664
From: wilcox@vax.oxford.ac.uk
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Mellor: The establishment will again rush to protect their own
Date: 24 Jul 92 12:37:45 GMT
Organization: Oxford University VAXcluster

In article <2397@bsu-cs.bsu.edu>, joemays@bsu-cs.bsu.edu (Joseph F. Mays) writes:
> In article <1992Jul21.200203.20658@dscomsf.desy.de> hallam@zeus02.desy.de writes:
>>I note that the first five replies in this thread were not protesting
>>about the threat to press freedom but wanting more salacious details.
> 
> It amazes me that you evidently read the first five replies and managed to
> misunderstand all five.  Each of those replies asked what the hell you 
> are talking about.  No one outside the UK has ever heard of this Mellor
> guy.  People around the globe were (like) myself wondering who he is and
> what he's done.  I was not one of those five posters, but I read all of 
> them and kept expecting you to respond with a brief explanation.  You 
> never have.
> 
> Who is Mellor?
> 
David Mellor, British Minister for National Heritage, supposed family man and
close friend of the Prime Minister.

> Why is the fact that he has slept with some woman important?
> 
He spent the recent election campaign portraying himself as a wonderful family
man and the Conservative Party as the party of Family Values (TM) while all the
time allegedly sleeping with a young nubile actress rather than his middle-aged
wife.

> How does this threaten the freedom of the press?
> 
Mellor is in charge of the Government department that deals with the press.
There is now an even better chance that the government will introduce a privacy
bill to curb the press reporting this sort of hypocritical indiscretion.

[apologies to soc.culture.british readers who know all this already: my
first follow-up on the issue didn't make it to alt.censorship.]
> Joe
-- 

Stephen Wilcox             |   Remember what happened to the dinosaurs!
wilcox@maths.oxford.ac.uk  |    I did---and look what happened to me.
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,soc.culture.british
From: andyw@aspen32.cray.com (Andy Warner)
Subject: Re: Mellor: The establishment will again rush to protect their own
Originator: andyw@aspen32
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
Date: 21 Jul 92 17:35:46 CDT


In article <1992Jul21.200203.20658@dscomsf.desy.de>, hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phillip M. Hallam-Baker) writes:
> [...]
> I note that the first five replies in this thread were not protesting
> about the threat to press freedom but wanting more salacious details.
> What do you guys want, a gif of them copulating in alt.dirty.pictures?

No, just some concise info would have been nice. Between the VNS
& the World Service I've got the official view. Maybe there are
some subtleties that I'll never know.. it's hard work getting
in-depth news on non-USA topics over here (I'm equally sure the
reverse is true too.)

My apologies for not going into a rant about press freedom before
finding out what I'd be talking about - next time maybe...

> Fat smarmy tory git gets laid with curvaceous cutey, big deal. Ministers
> decide that this is proof that the press must be gagged is important
> though.

True.

> [...]
-- 
andyw.	N0REN/G1XRL

andyw@aspen.cray.com	Andy Warner, Cray Research, Inc.	(612) 683-5835
From: "tom betz" <tom.betz@execnet.com>
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
Subject: clinton/gore & the ne
Date: 28 Jul 92 17:03:50 EST
Reply-To: "tom betz" <tom.betz@execnet.com>
Distribution: alt
Organization: Executive Networks Information

DV>>Should there be public libraries, then, or a public school system?

DV>Well, how were things before public libraries and schools existed?  Aren't
DV>there private libraries in existence today?  Certainly there are private
DV>schools.  I don't think we need either.  If there's a need then someone
DV>will provide for it, and competition will assure quality of service.

"Are there no prisons?  Are there no workhouses?"

---
  OLX 2.2  Where are we going? And why am I in this handbasket?
--
Executive Network Information System  (914) 667-4567
International ILink Host
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
From: eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler)
Subject: Re: Tipper Gore and "Jazz From Hell"
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 02:54:22 GMT
Organization: Culturale Elit

In <hurd.711742180@sfu.ca>, hurd@fraser.sfu.ca sez:
>eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler) writes:
>>In <hurd.711658189@sfu.ca>, hurd@fraser.sfu.ca sez:
>>>
>>>Gee, they only sued the pants off people who didn't do it voluntarily.
>
>>Source, please, lest we begin to suspect that you possess only the
>>most tenuous grip on reality.
>
>They brought charges against Jello Biafra, Greenworld distibution &c for
>distributing harmful material to minors WRT the HR Giger poster inside
>the LABELLED (but on the FRONT instead of the PMRC guidlined BACK of the
>record) record FRANKENCHRIST.

Not responsive.  You were asked for a source, not for more unsupported
assertions. 

While we're on the subject, though:
Who "brought charges"?  Now you're using terms that describe a
criminal prosecution, whereas your earlier post says they "sued" (in
other words, brought a civil suit).  What court or jurisdiction?

-- 
	It may be a police state, but it's *our* police state.

	Mark Eckenwiler    eck@panix.com    ...!cmcl2!panix!eck
Xref: sparky alt.censorship:6368 soc.culture.british:10784
From: mmh@cs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Mellor: The establishment will again rush to protect their own
Date: 28 Jul 92 11:03:01 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Dept, QMW, University of London, UK.

From: livesey@solntze.esd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
>Catch 22.   If the Tories spend more, they're irresponsible.
>If they spend less, they're "reneging" on their election
>promises.

Their election promise was that the economy was fine under
their control, and their re-election would ensure an instant
improvement. They are showing that they are both irresponsible
and reneging on their election promises.

Matthew Huntbach
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
From: grimlok@hubcap.clemson.edu (Mike Percy)
Subject: CBS's "Grapevine" locally censored, replaced by "Mama's Family"
Organization: Clemson University
Distribution: alt
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 13:19:07 GMT

While on vacation in upstate New Your over the July 4th weekend, I
caught the opening episode of CBS's risque new adult commedy
"Grapevine."  I had heard of it in the TV sections of the newspaper, and
it got a few laughs from me at the time.  I tried to tune it in when I
got home to upstate South Carolina, only to find myself in the middle of
a "Mama's Family" rerun.  

Come to find out, the local CBS affilate, WSPA-TV (Spartanburg, SC., ch
7) and its management decided that "Grapevine" is too lewd or somesuch
to carry.

I'm sorry to have left the manager's name, address, and phone # at home,
but will be getting them shortly.  I plan on calling to get a statement
from him (might be a day or two).

Mike Percy             | grimlok@hubcap.clemson.edu  | I don't know about
Sr. Systems Analyst    | mspercy@clemson.clemson.edu | your brain, but mine
Info. Sys. Development | mspercy@clemson.BITNET      | is really...bossy.
Clemson University     | (803) 656-3780              | (Laurie Anderson)

Newsgroups: alt.censorship,soc.culture.british