HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: fsars@acad3.alaska.edu (Allen R Sparks)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: California Laws
Date: 29 Jul 92 06:50:28 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Alaska Fairbanks

In article <1992Jul29.042659.5231@leland.Stanford.EDU>, underdog@leland.Stanford.EDU (Dwight Joe) writes:
> Is suicide illegal in California?
> 
> This might sound like a stupid question, but I happen to know of at least
> 1 state where suicide is illegal.  How about California?
> 
> Please reply by e-mail.  Thanks.
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Seikatsu no imi wa nan desu ka.            \|  |`      | Don't buy from Toyota;
> Shitte itara oshiete kuremasen ka.          | -+-      | especially, don't buy
>                                            /| / \      | from Capitol Toyota in
> Copyright 1992.                                        | San Jose, California.
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'd like to know of a state where suicide ISN'T illegal.  Also, what
is that illegality based on, at least in most states?  Is attempted
suicide actually attempted murder, or is it a crime in and of itself?

Don't reply by E-Mail, I actually read this group.  === Al Sparks
From: "nigel allen" <nigel.allen@canrem.com>
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: assassination/judge
Date: 22 Jul 92 21:47:21 EST
Reply-To: "nigel allen" <nigel.allen@canrem.com>
Distribution: misc
Organization: Canada Remote Systems

Press release from the Federal Bureau of Investigation

 FBI Director Statement on Assassination of Italian Judge Borsellino
 To: National Desk
 Contact: FBI Press Office, 202-324-3691

   WASHINGTON, July 21 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Following is a statement
of FBI Director William S. Sessions on the assassination of Italian
Judge Paolo Borsellino:

   The FBI is shocked and outraged at the cowardly assassination of
Judge Paolo Borsellino.  His brutal murder is a tremendous loss to
the Italian people and to law enforcement worldwide.  We have offered
the Italian government every assistance in their pursuit of those
responsible.  This unspeakable act of violence will only serve to
strengthen the close cooperation between our two countries in the
struggle against organized crime.
 -30-
--
Canada Remote Systems  - Toronto, Ontario/Detroit, MI
World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: pjs269@tijc02.uucp (Paul Schmidt)
Subject: Re: Lawsuit to compel a fraud to run for President!
Organization: Advocates for Self-Government - Davy Crockett Chapter
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 92 14:41:51 GMT

From article <DgyaoB4w165w@coriolis.UUCP>, by mitch@coriolis.UUCP (Mitch):
> 
> [Look, if the court were to find a contract, it would have been the well 
> documented one that required getting his name on every ballot, which 
> didn't happen, right?  

The ballot access is still continuing with the goal of getting all 50
states on the ballot.  I have not heard that they have missed the
deadline in any state.

-- 
Paul Schmidt: Advocates for Self-Government, Davy Crockett Chapter President
706 Judith Drive, Johnson City, TN 37604, (615)283-0084, uunet!tijc02!pjs269
"Freedom seems to have unleashed the  creative energies of the people -- and
leads to ever higher levels of income and social progress."  --  U.N. report
From: Joe.Francis@dartmouth.edu (Joe Francis)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Hate Speech Okay, says the Supreme Court
Date: 27 Jul 92 22:32:58 GMT
 <1992Jul27.041106.11854@eff.org>  
 <1992Jul27.064117.6025@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>   
 <1992Jul27.112704.14788@eff.org>
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

[Apologies to those seeing two versions of this article, I canceled the
original.]

In article <1992Jul27.112704.14788@eff.org>
mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:

> Oh, okay. I was charitably assuming that you had merely made a mistake.

Charitably assuming that others have made a mistake is certainly not a
courtesy to be found wanting in you.  But as you have apparently come
to realize, my remarks in this matter were accurate.
 
> Sorry to hear I was wrong.

Yes, I can see why.
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges)
Subject: Re: Hate Speech Okay, says the Supreme Court
Originator: news@ernie.Princeton.EDU
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 18:21:34 GMT

In article <92Jul25.020745edt.47919@neat.cs.toronto.edu> cbo@cs.toronto.edu (Calvin Bruce Ostrum) writes:
>In article <1992Jul24.183524.28213@eff.org>
>    mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:
>
>| If you have a lot of time on your hands, Calvin, and you feel a need
>| to criticize me, why criticize me for something I did not say
>| (specifically, I did not say that my error in this case was a "typo")?
>
>I did not criticise Mike for something he did not say.  I did speculate,
>somewhat caustically and cynically, it is true, as to what manoeuvre he
>might employ to avoid the responsibility for his errors.  To do this I 
>simply extrapolated from his earlier claim that substituting "Iago" for
>"Othello" was a "typo", and also pointed out that even this error (blamed 
>on his fingers: see below) could only be admitted to in a context 
>where some aspect of his superiority (his blinding typing speed) or some
>failing of someone else (Ed's "viciousness and willful stupidity") was

Hello, this is is the "vicious and willfully stupid" Edward G. Nilges,
monstrum horrendum.  Recently, I was so upset by William December
Starr's posting concerning his desire to (metaphorically, one hopes)
"kill" me that I misread his post to the effect that he wanted to avoid
posts from me and see only refutations contra Nilges.  Two
correspondents called me on this error and I of course posted a
retraction to this and other groups including the string "Accuracy in
Media."

End of story.  End of network wastage in "who said what" flamewars.  I
therefore suggest that Mike Godwin admit that substituting Iago for
Othello was something more than a typo.  He does not have to admit that
it resulted from a deep seated conflict concerning accepting Judge
Posner's racist view of the world, only that it was an error that shows
that, with respect to proofreading at least, St. Paul was perfectly
right in saying "for all have sinned, and all have fallen short of the
glory of God."

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.
Plauger remarks on how much more effective women in computing are at
getting things done because they don't have this need, which is NOT,
repeat NOT, to be confused with the old-fashioned male delight (justly
celebrated in Robert Bly's book Iron John) in vigorous philosophical and
political debate.  Of course, Mike Godwin may not be a computer
scientist; he may be a lawyer or law student, in which case I imagine
that what I say goes double, and with interest.


Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: underdog@leland.Stanford.EDU (Dwight Joe)
Subject: California Laws
Organization: Miners for a Heart of Gold
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 92 04:26:59 GMT

Is suicide illegal in California?

This might sound like a stupid question, but I happen to know of at least
1 state where suicide is illegal.  How about California?

Please reply by e-mail.  Thanks.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Seikatsu no imi wa nan desu ka.            \|  |`      | Don't buy from Toyota;
Shitte itara oshiete kuremasen ka.          | -+-      | especially, don't buy
                                           /| / \      | from Capitol Toyota in
Copyright 1992.                                        | San Jose, California.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Pornography/molestation
From: cse0947@desire.wright.edu
Date: 23 Jul 92 14:09:33 EST
Organization: Wright State University 

Can the exposure of children to pornography be considered as molestation? 

Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.censorship,talk.politics.misc
From: egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges)
Subject: Using killfiles is a form of censorship (was: Re: A Modest Request
Originator: news@ernie.Princeton.EDU
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 18:04:44 GMT

In article <1992Jul25.162656.15672@athena.mit.edu> wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr) writes:
>
>In article <1992Jul23.231011.12863@hsv3.lsil.com>, 
>mvp@hsv3.lsil.com (Mike Van Pelt) said:
>
>> What you want is the following:
>> /egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU/a:=:j
>> 
>
>By the way, apropos to alt.censorship, I posted my original "modest
>request" with motives that were about 90% utilitarian and 10%
>experimental -- in addition to wanting to cut down on the time that I
>spend manually skipping reply-to-Nigles articles, I also wanted to see
>whether I'd get any negative "using killfiles is a form of censorship"
>feedback... I'm gratified to report that I didn't.  Maybe things are
>getting a little more sane around here.
>
>-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>

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.  This
suppressed rage is confirmed by the intemperate language used by
discussants like Starr.  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.

Discussants in the "hate speech" thread have professed dedication to
free and to open debate, even when people from Viktora's victims to Kim
Pring (harmed by Hustler) to Anita Hill (decried as a lunatic for
bringing needed information re a Supreme Court nominee to the attention
of the Senate Judiciary Committee) are all harmed.  Yet discussants
including Starr themselves feel entitled to take refuge in "kill" files
rather than participate in debate.  I suggest that no such refuge was
open to Viktora's victims, Kim Pring, or Anita Hill.

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

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 see on boysnet.  And someone might want to pass the word to Mr.
Starr that:


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

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

Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold)
Subject: Re: Using killfiles is a form of censorship (was: Re: A Modest Request
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 02:45:11 GMT

egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:
>Using kill files IS a form of censorship. 

So is not going out and buying "Backdoor Ball Buster Babes".  Suggest
you buy immediately.  So is unsubscribing to alt.censorship.  Really,
now you're asserting a right to force someone to listen to you?  Your
gyrations and mutations of English get increasingly more amusing the
more desperate you become to defend your nonexistent points.


>First of all, a metaphorical reference to murder is made in the
>description "kill" file, showing a suppressed rage and desire to "kill"

Oh no!  Don't abort that process!


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

Either way it's self-serving.
-- 
You are going to have a new love affair (with a rock).
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: Self-Defense
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 18:46:33 GMT

In article <9956@sun13.scri.fsu.edu> pepke@ds1.scri.fsu.edu (Eric Pepke) writes:
>In article <1992Jul23.035153.2572@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>Situation: You're a prisoner in a cell.  Your prisonmate, who's five
>>inches taller, and a hundred pounds heavier, whom you have no hope 
>>of defending yourself against tells you one night: "When dawn comes,
>>I'm going to kill you."  He then goes to sleep.  Assume that going to
>>a guard for assistance has proven futile in the past, and that you have
>>no reason to believe otherwise now.  What do you do?
>
>You have two choices: kill him or not.  Either way, you are making a decision
>based on probabilities without immediate threat of death.

Hold it.  You've notified the state of a credible threat.  While we
agree that the state is not liable in general for protecting
individuals, when the state interferes in self-protection measures a
prudent person would take, that should have some effect on the
liability protection.

In this case, I think that the state should be liable.  The sentence
was prison, not assault by some thug.  If the state can't imprison
someone without sacrificing them, it has no biz running a prison.
The only way to implement this is through liability.

In the case of the "burning bed" where there is an objective escape
hatch, there are two cases to consider; was the state notified and
was it not notified.  In the former case, if the state wants the
abuser to live, it can protect him itself.  If it avoids the burden,
there's no particular reason to place that burden on her or to
penalize her for her actions to eliminate a threat that the state
ignored.  The "no notice" case is more difficult.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
From: barrett@gleep.cs.umass.edu (Daniel Barrett)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Can I make this a trademark?
Date: 29 Jul 92 00:45:30 GMT
Reply-To: barrett@gleep.cs.umass.edu (Daniel Barrett)
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst


	I have written several short stories about a product that
does not actually exist.  I would like to protect the name of the
product from use by other people.

	Can this be done with a trademark?  If not, then how?

	My intuition is that this is analogous to protecting the name of a
character in a work of fiction -- for example, "James Bond" -- so other
people cannot write stories about him.  Is my intuition correct?

	Please reply by e-mail, since I do not regularly read this
group.  Thank you very much!

                                                        Dan

 //////////////////////////////////////\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
| Dan Barrett -- Dept of Computer Science, Lederle Graduate Research Center |
| University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA  01003  --  barrett@cs.umass.edu |
 \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\/////////////////////////////////////
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: GA.CJJ@forsythe.stanford.edu (Clifford Johnson)
Subject: Re: Stare Decisis - ha ha ha
Organization: Stanford University, California, USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 22:11:44 GMT

GA.CJJ@forsythe.stanford.edu (Clifford Johnson) writes:
>>started citing Corrigan.  You never did address my post on the subject.
I don't recollect not responding to your post.  Care to restate
the point?  Apologies if you made a point I missed.
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: GA.CJJ@forsythe.stanford.edu (Clifford Johnson)
Subject: State cannot abolish defamation action?
Organization: Stanford University, California, USA
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 22:12:50 GMT
From: akbloom@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu (Keith Bloom)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Stare Decisis
Date: 26 Jul 92 16:27:17 GMT
	<1992Jul25.122946.5484@athena.mit.edu> 
	<1992Jul25.184414.6839@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu> 
	<1992Jul26.065148.3755@eff.org>
Organization: The Johns Hopkins University


A Maryland judge of my acquaintance mentioned another case in which
the Supreme Court explicitly overruled a previous decision:  _Benton
v. Maryland_, 395 US 784 (1969) overruled _Palko v. Connecticut_, 302
US 319 (1937).  My textbook (which is about 20 years old) doesn't go
into the case in any depth, but it quotes from Justice Marshall's
decision:

   "_Palko_ represented an approach to basic constitutional rights
    which this Court's recent decisions have rejected....Our recent
    cases have thoroughly rejected the notion that basic
    constitutional rights can be denied by the States as long as the
    totality of the circumstances do not disclose a denial of
    'fundamental fairness.'...._Palko_'s roots had thus been cut away
    many years ago.  We today only recognize the inevitable."

The case had to do with the Fifth Amendment's prohibition of double
jeopardy.


Keith
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: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 11:27:04 GMT

In article <1992Jul27.064117.6025@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> Joe.Francis@dartmouth.edu (Joe Francis) writes:
>In article <1992Jul27.041106.11854@eff.org>
>mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:
>
>> I normally don't think even existent ones are important, Joe. But you've
>> apparently forgotten what I was replying to. 
>
>Nope.  You are mistaken.

Oh, okay. I was charitably assuming that you had merely made a mistake.
Sorry to hear I was wrong.


--Mike




-- 
Mike Godwin,     |"Crime is contagious. If the Government becomes a law-
mnemonic@eff.org | breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every
(617) 864-0665   | man to become a law unto himself. It invites anarchy."
EFF, Cambridge   |         --Brandeis, J., dissenting in Olmstead v. U.S.  
From: Michael.Baumann@f60.n374.z1.fidonet.org (Michael Baumann)
Sender: postmaster@eilc.UUCP
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Help please!
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 00:21:00 -0400

        Not being involved in law, I have lost my way and need some
assistance.  I have heard the FCC (Federal Communications Commission) has a
rule/law/regulation that can be used to over turn a Home Owners' Association's
ban on antennas.
        I live in a town house and according to the Home Owners' Association,
we (the tenants) are not allowed to erect an antenna.  As I have just passed
the exams for my Technician Class license (amateur radio) and wish to become
involved with the local RACES (emergency communications in disasters) group I
need an out side antenna.

        If some one could point me in the right direction for what/where to
search or perhaps could provide some case cites that uphold the right of an
amateur radio operator to erect an antenna to be used in emergency
communications, I would greatly appreciate it.

                                                        Mike...


 * SLMR 2.1a * E.I.L.C.  Your source for Information. 407-676-2998


Newsgroups: misc.legal,misc.taxes,alt.individualism
From: kkyoshim@cco.caltech.edu (Kenneth Yoshimoto)
Subject: Income tax voluntary?
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 21:04:03 GMT


Sorry if this is a recurring question, but I haven't seen it in a FAQ.oj
Someone told me that paying income tax is voluntary.  I read the little
blurb on the first page of the tax booklet which mentioned this, but
I didn't really believe it.  Are there really two classes of citizens:
federal and state, and is it correct that those people who are state
and not federal citizens, are not required to pay income tax?
N
From: matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: I'm Pro-Male-Choice
Summary: Don't play bridge if your opponents always hold all the trumps.
Keywords: RU 486
Date: 20 Jul 92 21:56:06 GMT
Organization: U.S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory, APG, MD.

In article <1992Jul18.004123.15973@cfctech.cfc.com> kevin@cfctech.cfc.com 
(Kevin Darcy) writes:

>In article <18962@smoke.brl.mil> matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt) 
>writes:

>>. . . He'll 
>>be able to buy an RU-486 pill from his neighborhood dope pusher, 
>>and sneak it into his girl friend's drink or salad while her head 
>>is turned.    [Matt Rosenblatt]

>He has no right, moral or legal, to modify her body chemistry without her 
>consent, IMO.   [Kevin Darcy]

This makes a mockery of the "Subject:" line, which is "I'm Pro-Male-Choice."
She has a moral and legal right to bring into the world a child who will
have only one parent, and he has nothing to say about it except, as I
wrote earlier, to keep his pants zipped up.  Some "Male Choice"!

>Straw man disposed of...   [Kevin Darcy]

Any pretense to being "Pro-Male-Choice" disposed of.  As I expected.

					-- Matt Rosenblatt
                                        (matt@amsaa.brl.mil)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
TRUTH     JUSTICE     FREEDOM     YIDDISHKEIT     IVY     THE AMERICAN WAY
From: tucker@shiva.edsg.hac.com (George Tucker)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Males Doing it to Themselves
Keywords: feminist wish-fantasies; mesomorphic thugs
Date: 24 Jul 92 21:18:30 GMT
Reply-To: tucker@shiva.UUCP (George Tucker)
Organization: Hughes Aircraft Co., El Segundo, CA

In article <18983@smoke.brl.mil> matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt) writes:
>But wait!  What about the evidence that women who commit violent crimes
>get off with lighter sentences than men who commit the very same crimes?
>Well, I believe that the majority of violent crimes -- robberies, murders,
>muggings, and the like -- are committed by men who are *repeat offenders*.
>These are men and boys who were previously convicted of violent crime,
>and whom the "justice" system released on the assumption that they had
>been "rehabilitated" in prison.  How many female repeat violent offenders
>are there, especially against strangers?

The Rosenblattesque "logic" here is apparently that males are more likely
to be guilty and more likely to become repeat offenders, therefore they
deserve harsher sentences for the same crimes.  This is of course how
the legal system works.  A man is more likely to be arrested/beaten/killed,
more likely to be convicted, and more likely to get a harsh sentence 
simply because he is male, although he may never have done anything to 
anyone in his life.  M.R. finds this appropriate based on probabilities.
Other men who are not on a first name basis with the local pigs and
judges may differ.

The logical conclusion is, as I proposed once before, that all males should
be imprisoned during early adulthood for a period based on their 
statistical probability of commiting a crime.  Some of you
math gurus should be able to prove this would be the optimal strategy
for reducing crimes actually committed.  Besides, they could provide
cheap labor for producing widgets to sell to China.

He still has not explained why men are presumed guilty in CA divorce 
courts.  No fair claiming it is no-fault since it isn't officially a
criminal case - anyone who has been there knows better.

	 George Tucker        tucker@tcville.hac.com
	"As a billionaire, Perot probably never paid a penalty to the
banks for early withdrawal.  Apparently he thinks the same of political
supporters." (Barrons, 7/17/92)  I wonder what his wife thinks.
Newsgroups: misc.legal,soc.men,soc.women