HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,ca.politics
Subject: Re: Legal criticism (was: Re: Hate Speech Okay, says the Supreme Court
Keywords: egnilges
Date: 27 Jul 92 17:31:29 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1992Jul23.233908.29218@Princeton.EDU>, egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:
> In article <1992Jul23.222845.359@fid.morgan.com> sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart) writes:
> >Thereby causing more mischief [sic] in a never-ending cycle.
> 
> Doing nothing also causes mischief.  "Benign neglect" has resulted in
> health statistics for the Bronx at Third World levels, and black male
> life expectancy is in decline.

The Bronx isn't the result of "benign neglect" but the result of 
among the most activist governments in the world -- New York City
and New York State.

1. Welfare spending played a role in the destruction of the black
family, resulting in huge numbers of kids growing up without a 
positive male role model -- hence, the tremendous violence that
contributes heavily to murder, a major cause of death for black
teenagers.

2. Rent control laws that helped to destroy the housing supply in
the Bronx, driving out many decent people with good jobs.

3. Gun control laws, that insure that most decent people living
in NYC can't legally defend themselves from the violent thugs
created by #1, above.  (Note, however, that the laws haven't 
prevented the thugs from getting guns, or using bats, knives,
fists, feet, etc.)

4. The War on Drugs, by driving up drug prices and profits, encouraged
criminal gangs to form around drug trafficking, made clean needles
unavailable (thus helping to spread AIDS, a major cause of death
among blacks in NYC).

5. High taxation in NYC plays a major role in sucking out all the
money from poor neighborhoods.  An economic study of Bedford-
Stuyvesant some years ago found that more money was taken out of
the neighborhood by the government in fines, taxes, permits, and
licenses, than was put back in in services, welfare, and contracts.

There's no neglect in the Bronx -- there's an active effort on the
part of liberal government.  That it wasn't intentional, in no way
exonerates the government of its responsibility.


-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
"Well, maybe the Holocaust was right *for that culture*." -- a moral relativist
with whom I work.
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: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 18:58:57 GMT

In article <1992Jul25.182134.16155@Princeton.EDU> egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:

>Mike should also take a look in P. J. Plauger's article in this month's
>edition of the journal Computer Language in which Plauger decries the
>horrendous amount of time that male computer scientists waste, both on
>this network and in meetings, in scoring points off of each other.

That Ed Nilges cites this article, without any apparent trace of irony,
is perhaps the most hilarious thing I've seen on the Net this week.


--Mike



-- 
Mike Godwin,     |"Of the many definitions of poetry, the   
mnemonic@eff.org | simplest is still the best: 'memorable speech.'" 
(617) 864-0665   | 
EFF, Cambridge   |                     --W.H. Auden 
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler)
Subject: Re: Lawsuit to compel a fraud to run for President!
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 13:15:21 GMT
Organization: Culturale Elit

In <1992Jul20.224521.7564@midway.uchicago.edu>, thf2@midway.uchicago.edu sez:
>In article <1992Jul20.221619.14987@morrow.stanford.edu> GA.CJJ@forsythe.stanford.edu (Clifford Johnson) writes:
>>MIAMI (UPI) -- A campaign worker for former undeclared presidential
>>candidate Ross Perot filed a breach of promise lawsuit Monday asking
>>the federal courts to force the Texas billionaire to run for the
>>White House.
>
>Can you say "Rule 11 Sanctions"?

Nonono, Ted.  This is *obviously* an enforceable contract, and while
the courts won't order specific performance, the "lounge singer" cases
make clear the proper remedy: a negative injunction barring Perot from
running for president of any *other* country.

See 12 :) 2d at 305.

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

	Mark Eckenwiler    eck@panix.com    ...!cmcl2!panix!eck
Xref: sparky misc.legal:15152 alt.censorship:6467 talk.politics.misc:36550 alt.flame:11505
From: joemays@bsu-cs.bsu.edu (Joseph F. Mays)
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: 28 Jul 92 18:51:04 GMT
Organization: Dept of CS Ball State University Muncie In

In article <1992Jul28.164618.14879@Princeton.EDU> egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:
>
>What I am saying (once more: this is like pulling teeth) is that the
>defenders of "freedom" pose as nondestructive friends of free speech who
>would not harm speakers, and that this is a false posture that is belied
>by their use of kill files and other gambits that display intense
>hostility towards open dialog.

Much like the hostility you display towards open dialog when you refuse to
answer a simple question?  I have posted repeatedly about the shooting in
Indy last Tuesday.  I have not seen a response from you yet.

The situation is directly comparable to the Viktora cross-burning, except
that the groups are different.  Instead of blacks feeling threatened, cops
feel threatened.  Instead of the implied threat coming from a burning 
cross, it comes from playing Ice-T's song "Cop Killer."  I'm putting the
question to you directly, Ed.  Should Ice-T's song be banned?

I also sent you email about this this morning, but I am willing to consider
the possibility that you haven't received that yet...

Joe


Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.censorship,talk.politics.misc
From: hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phillip M. Hallam-Baker)
Subject: Re: Using killfiles is a form of censorship (was: Re: A Modest Request
Followup-To: misc.test,alt.censorship,talk.politics.misc
Reply-To: hallam@zeus02.desy.de
Organization: DESY ZEUS Central Data Acquisition
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 15:18:39 GMT

In article <1992Jul25.180444.14954@Princeton.EDU>,
egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:
|>In article <1992Jul25.162656.15672@athena.mit.edu>
|>wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr) writes:

|>Using kill files IS a form of censorship.  At the very least, it
|>contradicts the professed dedication of discussants in the "Hate Speech
|>Okay" thread like Mr. Starr to free and open debate.  Here's why.
|>
|>First of all, a metaphorical reference to murder is made in the
|>description "kill" file, showing a suppressed rage and desire to "kill"
|>one's opponent when one, like Starr, is bested in argument. 

You are arguing that kill files are a form of censorship, not that they
are a form of murder. Kindly stick to the subject on the card.

|>The very title of this thread, "A Modest
|>Request" is an (unconscious?) reference to Jonathan Swift's "Modest
|>Proposal" that the children of the 17th century Irish poor be fed to the
|>English.  Partially Irish, I assure Mr. Starr that he will have to catch
|>me and (non-metaphorically) kill me first.

You mean Swift as in the Irish satirist famous for his sarcastic articles?

Nope, I hardly think so, Starr would have titled his piece `a modest proposal'.

|>Now, "kill" files are a form of privatised censorship and they do not
|>use a government mechanism. 

Like many a looney your argument proceeds from a debasement of the form
of speech. I am not obliged to swim in the pool if you choose to piss in
it.


|> However, this is merely an example of the
|>libertarian illusion that if force (including the electronic,
|>metaphorical use of force implicit in a kill file) is deregulated and
|>privatised, it will disappear, and the libertarian amnesia re the social
|>contract that gave government a monopoly (with restrictions) on force.

Libertarians arn't the only people with kill files. In fact they tend to
be the people in kill files.


|>Anyway, I hope to have shown the the kill file is a form of censorship
|>that gives the lie to the professed dedication to "freedom" that we so
|>often  on usenet

Your hope is unfounded. Your freedoms exist so long as they do not
impinge on my freedoms. It is my right to decide that you are a
worthless cretin who I do not wish to read or to be informed of your
latest inanity.


|>     *  It's "Nilges", not "Nigles"                 

I think he was being sarcastic, Nigels.

|>     *  It's "rn", not "RN"

Not on a VMS system it ain't.


Phill Hallam-Baker
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: The Glorious Constitution (was: [UPI] Supreme Court strikes down...)
Date: 24 Jul 92 17:03:03 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1992Jul22.112439.1@acad3.alaska.edu>, fsars@acad3.alaska.edu (Allen R Sparks) writes:
> In article <18972@smoke.brl.mil>, matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt) writes:
> > In the time of Charlemagne, all the nations of the civilized world
> > got together and enacted the "Code of Discovery."  According to that
> > code -- a law -- if any man should discover a new land across the seas,
> > it would belong to him, unless he claimed it for his king.  
> 
> The flaw in your argument, is that the natives did not sign the "Code
> of Discovery".  My attitude is our ancestors conquered it, so today it's
> our land.  That doesn't sound fair, but that's the way it is.  === Al Sparks

A fallacy that no one has raised is that there were parts of the United
States that were purchased from the Indians.  And not just Manhattan
Island.  There were other parts that were unoccupied as well.  (Remember
that there were only 1-3 million Indians in what is now the conterminous
U.S. at the time of Columbus' arrival).

Now, the argument can be raised, and has been, successfully in 
federal courts, that some of the sales were made by chiefs who
purported to speak for much larger numbers of people than they
actually represented.  Also, some of the sales may not have been
clearly understood the transaction.  However, these are hardly
evidence of theft of land.

Alcohol also influenced some of the sale decisions, and when the
purveyor of the alcohol was also the buyer, it could certainly
be argued that the sellers were taken advantage of unfairly.

The broad brush used to hold that all land in the U.S. was "stolen," 
is unjustified.
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
"Well, maybe the Holocaust was right *for that culture*." -- a moral relativist
with whom I work.
From: wrat@unisql.UUCP (wharfie)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: shekers
Keywords: Excellence In Broadcasting
Date: 29 Jul 92 21:12:04 GMT
Reply-To: wrat@unisql.UUCP (wharfie)
Organization: UniSQL, Inc., Austin, Texas, USA

In article <19001@smoke.brl.mil> matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt) writes:
> Yet the whole magazine is based on and filled with _sheker_

	Aren't they that religous sect that died out 'cause they thought
it was ungodly to have sex?

Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Subject: Stare Decisis
Organization: Northeastern Law, Class of '93
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 12:29:46 GMT


In article <45ob021r1b7d01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com>, 
tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll) said:

> Literally, it means something like "the decision stands" (sorry, I
> can't remember exactly).  What is means is that once a principle has
> been set forth in one case, it should be decided the same way in the
> next: the doctrine of judicial precedent.

For any who might be interested, the following is from _Black's Law
Dictionary, Abridged Fifth Edition_ (West Publishing Co., St. Paul,
Minnesota, 1983):

    STARE DECISIS.  Lat.  To abide by, or adhere to, decided cases.

       Policy of courts to stand by precedent and not to disturb
    settled point.  Doctrine that, when a court has once laid down a
    principle of law as applicable to a certain state of facts, it
    will adhere to that principle, and apply it to all future cases,
    where facts are substantially the same; regardless of whether the
    parties and property are the same.  Under doctrine a deliberate or
    solemn decision of court made after argument on question of law
    fairly arising in the case, and necessary to its determination, is
    an authority, or binding precedent in the same court, or in other
    courts of equal or lower rank in subsequent cases where the very
    point is again in controversy.

(As you can see, when the folks at West Publishing say "abridged,"
they really mean it. :-)

After giving an excellent set of examples illustrating the concept,
Terry went on to say: 

> When they [the court] really don't like the prior rule, they do one
> of four things:
> 
>   [...]
> 
> 2) Overrule it.

Not surprisingly, courts really _hate_ to do this, since every time
they do so they help to undermine the whole idea of the law's majestic
authority by giving people reason to think "Well, if what you're
saying is that the long-standing rule of _Foo v. Bar_ was bad law all
along -- notwithstanding that it took you bozos fifty-three years to
admit it -- then why should we believe that any given ruling in effect
today is any better?"  

Which brings me to a sort of trivia question: How many examples can
anyone come up with of the U.S. Supreme Court _explicitly_ overruling
a previous Supreme Court holding on a question of law?  (No, don't
email me for the answers.  I don't know this one myself; I'm trying to
harness the awesome power of the net to build a list of such cases.)

-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: murthy@aslws01.asl.dl.nec.com (Vasudev Murthy)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: QUESTION: Child-Support Laws in Illinois
Date: 30 Jul 92 17:26:00 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: NEC America, Inc. Irving, Texas

I should perhaps have posted here to begin with, but I only
just discovered this newsgroup..
-------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
From: murthy@aslws01.asl.dl.nec.com (Vasudev Murthy)
Organization: NEC America, Inc. Irving, Texas
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 17:59:35 GMT

Hello,

This is an inquiry on behalf of a friend of a friend (let's call
her "X").  As such I am passing on an inquiry from my immediate friend.
I do not know X personally.

-------------------------------------------------------------
X is a physician as is her husband Y. They live in Illinois.
X has filed for divorce and the procedure has dragged on for
a year in a very messy way. The bone of contention is custody of
two boys ages 15 and 11. Lawyers have told X that if she moves out
to get away from her threatening and abusive husband she will
automatically lose the battle over custody on the grounds of
abandonment. At the same time, living in the same house has become
exceedingly hard so an escape is desirable.

What are the laws in Illinois concerning when a child can express
his/her preference in the custody battle? My own feeling is that
the lawyers on both sides have spotted two physicians with loads of
money (actually rapidly dwindling) and are prolonging the situation
at the cost of the mental health of X (and maybe Y, I don't know)
and the unfortunate children.  Seems to me that if a child of some
minimum age says: I would like to live with my mother/father, that
ought to have some impact and the matter could get swiftly resolved.
However, I have no knowledge about these legalities and invite correction.

May I request any knowledgable netters to e-mail relevant
information? Perhaps precedents/cases etc..?

Thank you in advance.

Vasudev
-- 
Vasudev Murthy               Any opinions expressed are strictly  
murthy@asl.dl.nec.com        my own  and have nothing to do with
(214) 518-3463             Advanced Switching Lab, NEC America, Inc.
1525 Walnut Hill Lane Irving TX 75038
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare)
Subject: Re: Why did they invent common law marriage?
Keywords: common law marriage
Reply-To: gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare)
Organization: Curious Goods (formerly Louis Vendredi Antiques)
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 16:46:10 GMT

peercy@dopey.crhc.uiuc.edu (Mike Peercy) writes:
>
>By the way, how old is statute law marriage?  For some reason 
>I think it only goes back to the mid-19th century in the US.

Maybe longer, that it was inherited from Britain.  The term "common
law marriage" is quite common in Canada (often when reporting on court
cases, crimes, etc. -- papers up north often go into intrusive detail)
and when talking to people from other British Commonwealth countries,
they nod to it.  (One couple from New Zealand, married under common
law there, almost lost their marrieds' apartment at Columbia when they
were told "there is no such thing" here -- they had to get legally re-
married under NYS law, and their re-housewarming party served as their
reception.)  This is the first time that I've read reference to such a
thing in the U.S.  (I do read the Times every day, but ... (-;)

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,alt.flame
From: veal@utkvm1.utk.edu (David L. Veal)
Subject: Re: Using killfiles is a form of censorship (was: Re: A Modest Request
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 16:30:49 GMT

In article <1992Jul29.131144.5934@Princeton.EDU> egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:

>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.

    Since we are still obviously having this "debate", I fail to see how
his actions have infringed in any way on your right to "free speech."

===========================================================================
|David Veal  PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu  University of Tennessee             |  
|                                     Division of Continuing Education    |
| Statistics are any data which can be twisted to support your posititon  | 
===========================================================================

Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: xzs0302@rchland.vnet.ibm.com (T.A. Gyorgak)
Subject: Roe v Wade (Latin)
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 15:14:29 GMT
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: IBM Rochester
Keywords: Education, Latin

>>..rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson) writes...
>>..RA> avoid the apearance of overturning Roe (abandoning stare decisis) that
                                                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>>Layperson alert!  Layperson alert!

>>What does that Latin statement mean in English?  Thanks.
stare decisis   . to hold the decision. 

  I am not sure why someone would be read this BB without the basic terms of
law from what I remember to be 7th grade Civics.    I went to school in
Cleveland  so it wasn't anything special.  
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Subject: Re: topless in ny state?
Organization: Northeastern Law, Class of '93
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 16:16:52 GMT


In article <1992Jul26.1297.14647@execnet>, 
"hilary miller" <hilary.miller@execnet.com> said:

> The Court of Appeals has held that New York may not lawfully
> proscribe conduct to females that is permitted to males.  New York's
> law prohibiting the public exhibition of the female areola was
> declared unconstitutional.

Having read the decision, I have to disagree with Ms Miller's
interpretation.  The six judges of the New York State Court of Appeals
all agreed that the charges against the topless women must be
dismissed, but there was a major split between a four-judge majority
and a two-judge concurring minority as to why.  

The majority held that the particular New York State law under which
the women were charged was intended by the legislature to apply only
to lewd and/or commercial display of breasts by women (e.g., topless
dancers, waitresses and the like) and that since the women in this
case had gone topless for other purposes (to make a political point),
they could not be charged under that law.

The minority (whose opinion was written by a judge named "Titone," for
those of you who are into ironic wordplay :-) felt that the majority
was distorting the legislative intent and that the legislature had
indeed meant to outlaw _all_ intentional breast display outside of a
small, enumerated list of exceptions (breastfeeding infants and
"entertaining or performing in a play, exhibition, show or
entertainment") and that therefore the female defendants _were_ liable
to criminal prosecution under the statute.  The minority then went on
to say that they would have held that the statute violated the equal
protection clauses of the federal and state constitutions and
therefore "Penal Law sec. 245.01 is unconstitutional and, for that
reason, the charges against appellants should have been dismissed."

(There also was an amusing amount of simultaneously dignified and
childish "did too!" "did not!" argument between the majority and the
minority over whether the majority was deliberately misreading the
legislative intent behind the statute in order to avoid having to deal
with the constitutional question.)

So what's the bottom line?  I think it's this: As things stand right
now, the current New York law against intentional breast display by
women applies only to lewd and/or commercial display, and not to
"casual" display... *but* only two of the six judges on the highest
court in the state have explicitly stated that if the state rewrote
the statute so that it _did_ apply to casual breast display, they
would hold it unconstitutional; the other four judges have carefully
refrained from saying where they would stand if that question came up.

-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>
From: "hilary miller" <hilary.miller@execnet.com>
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: a question regarding
Date: 26 Jul 92 08:42:39 EST
Reply-To: "hilary miller" <hilary.miller@execnet.com>
Distribution: misc
Organization: Executive Networks Information


Terry Carroll, in a message to All on 07-26-92 at 5:26am, said:

TC>|Now, a key is whether you were an "omitted child" or not.  That is, whe
   |your father knew of your existence, or whether he intentionally did not
   |you anything.
   |_______________________________________________________________________

          Terry, California and most other states have special rules
          governing how and under what circumstances *illegitimate*
          children may inherit from their fathers.  See Cal. Prob. Code
           255 and Civil Code  230.  As I think you correctly point
          out, this matter does not turn on the law of copyright.


   L A
 I    R        Hilary B. Miller of Greenwich, Connecticut
  H/\Y         CIS: 76040,1743
    
---
  DeLuxe 1.25 #11645  Old bankers never die; they just lose interest.
--
Executive Network Information System  (914) 667-4567
International ILink Host
Newsgroups: misc.legal