HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: tt@tarzan.jyu.fi (Tapani Tarvainen)
Subject: Re: Freedom of Speech (was: Mister Ed Nilges)
Originator: tt@tarzan.jyu.fi
Organization: University of Jyvaskyla
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 06:16:52 GMT

In article <2A9D294D.12325@orion.oac.uci.edu> cedman@714-725-3165.nts.uci.edu (Carl Edman) writes:

>Tapani Tarvainen writes

>> Freedom of Speech is _not_ merely a
>> feature of the US constitution.  The 1st amendment is only one
>> way of protecting it.  Don't put the cart before the horse.

>Of course you are right. Freedom of Speech is not a Good because it is  
>mentioned in the Constitution, but it is the other way around. It just so  
>happens that some of the authors of the Constitution were among the leading  
>liberal intellectuals of their time and they managed put Freedom of Speech into  
>their document in a clearer and stronger way than any other legal document I'm  
>aware of. Satisfied ?

Perfectly satisfactory, thank you.  For the record I might state here
that IMHO the 1st amendment and what it represents is the one thing I
most admire in USA, and I wish we had something equally strong here.

>> (There is life and even some freedom of speech outside USA,
>> you know.)

>As I'm not an american and have lived most of my life in different european  
>countries, I'm perfectly well aware of that fact.

Sorry about that remark.  I guess my envy got the better of me ...
--
Tapani Tarvainen    (tarvaine@jyu.fi, tarvainen@finjyu.bitnet)
Xref: sparky misc.legal:16681 alt.politics.correct:5200 rec.arts.movies:26175
From: mhughes@comtch.spk.wa.us (Mark Hughes)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.politics.correct,rec.arts.movies
Subject: Re: The return of vaudeville. (was: Re: Nilges)
Date: 30 Aug 92 00:21:37 GMT
Organization: Waffle BBS at CompuTech Spokane, Washington

cedman@714-725-3165.nts.uci.edu (Carl Edman) writes:
> Yes, indeed. Could you imagine a more telling condemnation of the racist natu
> of this society ? Not only were immigrants riducled by the White Male Norther
> European Heterosexual Conspiracy as sex-crazed, fashion unconcious , sneaky  
> vicious and animal-like sub-humans, but the Imperialist propaganda machine  
> actually managed to brain-wash immigrant-americans into doing it to themselve
> ! How perfect ! White Male Heterosexual Northern Europeans don't even have to
> get their own hands and tongues dirty for their oppression, but they can  
> actually exploit the oppressed into furthering their own oppression. Certainl
> you must recognize this as the extension of the southern plantation system in
> the intellectual sphere.
> 
> It is truely fortunate that today there are many people at our universities w
> have finally woken up to these facts and can expose them for the less  
> sophisticated among us.
 
  You are, I hope, joking?  That has GOT to be one of the most bigoted, 
hypocritical, stereotypical statements I have EVER heard.  The WMNHC is 
hardly a conspiracy, and had nothing to do with the Marx brothers' names. 
The trouble is, some people have built up such a guilt complex for the 
sins of their forefathers, that they see racism EVERYWHERE.  I suppose I 
could go into an extended flame, but I'll leave it at this: 
 
  GET A LIFE!
 
 - Mark Hughes (Caves of Steel 509-624-2078)  mhughes@comtch.spk.wa.us
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges)
Subject: "Property rights" in employees, and other laffs (was: Re: Nilges
Summary: Give me a break
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 18:41:58 GMT


In article <1992Aug28.153840.8054@nocusuhs.nnmc.navy.mil> perez@mgr.hjf.org (Charles Perez) writes:
>Also remember, folks, that the typical employer/employee relationship
>allows the employee to leave at will, for whatever reason. Not allowing
>the employer the same freedom strikes me as inequitable. Declaring that
>the employee has a right to her job while the employer has no
>corresponding right to a worker is an expropriation from the employer.

Oops, wrong on two counts:


     *  The company has NO "right" to a worker.  Slavery is illegal.

     *  There can for the same reason be no question of "expropriation"
        since only in SLAVE societies do employers have property
        rights in slaves.


Also, the powerless American worker, living typically from paycheck to
paycheck, confronts large and powerful employers whereas the "fire at
will" doctrine assumes rough equality.
From: dman@netcom.com (Dallman Ross)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: HP managers read my e-mail
Date: 28 Aug 92 02:51:49 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

GCTHORNE@idbsu.idbsu.edu writes:

:     What should I do?

Sue them.

:     What CAN I do?

Sue them, perhaps.  (Eeasier if you don't want to keep the job.)

--
 __D_a l_l m a_n  _ R o_s s _ |dman@netcom.com  /or/  |"You sound like a man|
 l  \\ l\\   /l  /\\  l\\   l |dross@well.sf.ca.us    |with a rubber nose." |
 l   >)l \\ /ll /  \\ l \\  l |vox/fax: 1.510.645.1883| -- One-Lung Bill    |
 l  // l  \X ll/--- \\l  \\ l |350 Perkins St., #108  |     Remmer (deceased)
_l//______________________\\l_|Oakland,_CA__94610-3422|_____________________|_
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: State Universities & First Amendment
Keywords: _McCollum v. Board of Education_, 333 U.S. 203 (1948).
Date: 2 Sep 92 18:43:01 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <BtwwC9.K0u@world.std.com>, srm@world.std.com (Stevens R Miller) writes:
> matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt) writes:
# ##matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt) writes:
# ##Whatever the special powers of the military might be, the court ruled,
# ##they did not include compelling religious belief and practice."
# 
# #That's a "free exercise" issue, not an "establishment" issue.
# 
# I dissent.  Establishment of religion occurs when religion is endorsed
# or encouraged, either one religion, or religion generally.  Compulsory

Could you provide some evidence that original intent was this broad?  I
have not put enormous energies into examining original intent on this
subject, but it is hard to buy the claim that endorsing religion
generally constitutes "establishment" of religion.  It certainly
would be a surprise to the First Congress, who hired a chaplain.
A recent decision by the Ninth Circus (not a typo) Court of Appeals
concerning the hiring of a Roman Catholic chaplain by a California
prison suggests quite the opposite.

# attendance would be in establishment of religion.  Free exercise is the
# balancing force (and hence the popular notion that separation means
# isolation is incorrect) that requires a government employee, volunteer
# or draftee, be at least able, but not required, to practice his or her
# faith.
# -- 
# Stevens R. Miller, J.D.		E-mail to srm@mw.sbi.com

Free exercise could be a counterbalance to establishment of religion,
or a counterbalance to the more typical tendency (in recent years)
of government to prohibit religious expression.
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Alcohol prohibition didn't work; drug prohibition doesn't work; gun
prohibition won't work.
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: wales@valeria.cs.ucla.edu (Rich Wales)
Subject: Re: help on citizenship law
Reply-To: wales@CS.UCLA.EDU (Rich Wales)
Organization: UCLA CS Department, Los Angeles
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 92 06:59:03 GMT

woonk@dhvx20.csudh.edu wrote:

	Can anyone tell me if there is a law in the United Nations
	saying that if you are born in that country, you are given
	automatic citizenship in that country?

To the best of my knowledge:  No, no such law exists; nor can it exist,
because the UN doesn't make laws in the sense this question implies.
Citizenship is a matter for each country to pass laws about for itself.

Most countries do have provisions in their citizenship laws that confer
citizenship automatically upon anyone born in the country.  But there
are still exceptions.  At the very least, children of foreign diplomats
(i.e., both parents having full diplomatic immunity), born in the coun-
try where the parents are posted, usually do not become citizens of the
country of birth.

And some countries' laws exclude children of non-citizens from having
citizenship.  For example, I understand there are families who have been
in Kuwait for several generations, but who are not eligible for citizen-
ship because their ancestors weren't in Kuwait back in the early years
of this century.  I've also heard of ethnic Korean families in Japan who
do/did not have Japanese citizenship, despite having lived there for
generations.

As for the UN, Article 15 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
(passed by the UN General Assembly in 1948) says the following:

    1.  Everyone has the right to a nationality.
    2.  No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality
	nor denied the right to change his nationality.

This isn't quite what woonk@dhvx20.csudh.edu was looking for, though.

If the UN (Security Council or General Assembly) ever passed any resolu-
tion calling on member countries to grant citizenship to everyone born
within their borders, I've never heard of it.  Even if they did, such an
action would not by itself have any legal effect; it would still be up
to each individual country to adopt such a provision in its own law, or
not, as it might choose.  The UN doesn't make laws in the sense of some-
one being able to go to court and force the officials of his/her country
to act in accordance with something the UN has said.

--
Rich Wales <wales@CS.UCLA.EDU> // UCLA Computer Science Department
3531 Boelter Hall // Los Angeles, CA 90024-1596 // +1 (310) 825-5683
Newsgroups: misc.legal,comp.lang.c
From: hes@unity.ncsu.edu (Henry E. Schaffer)
Subject: Re: Freedom of Speech (was: Mister Ed Nilges)
Followup-To: misc.legal
Organization: North Carolina State University Computing Center
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 00:22:32 GMT

In article <1992Aug27.212216.18631@Princeton.EDU> egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:
>In article <BtnLup.Irz@NCoast.ORG> cmort@ncoast.org (Christopher Morton) writes:
>>
>>Your algorithm works out to:
>>
>>if(!(totalitarian_system)
>>  {
>>    piss;
>>    moan;
>>    whine;
>>    cry;
>>   }
>
>Not only are none of your points worth replying to, Chris, there's a
>stupid blunder in the above pseudo-C code.   ...

  Even worse are the errors in content.  For example, rather than
totalitarian_system  it really should be

  totalitarian_system_following_Nilges'_biases

and Chris forgot to include

      deconstruct;

in the list of required politically correct actions.  (Although
it does seem to me that flaming about an extra parenthesis in
*pseudo*-code goes beyond the usual amount of Nigles-pissing-moaning.)

> ...

--henry schaffer
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: dsc@gemini.tmc.edu (Doug S. Caprette Bldg. 28 W191 x3892)
Subject: Re: Cellular Frequencies
Organization: NASA GSFC CDP VLBI
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 17:52:27 GMT

In article <1992Aug26.140038.5761@panix.com> eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler) writes:
>In <1992Aug26.081202.3527@tigger.jvnc.net>, keithd@bigguy.timeplex.com sez:
>>
>>Actualy I beg to differe.  There was a very public trial of a drug runner
>>here in Florida where the Defendant (read as Convict now) claimed that
>>the Feds had illeagaly tapped his cellular phone.  The courts not only slammed
>>him so hard his cellular may pass in another year or so, but has condoned the
>>Southern Bell Mobility activity of recording ALL cell conversations for use
>>by law enforcement types need them.  The basis for the rooling being that
>>Cellular is like CB or Ship-to-Shore.  This is an open broadcast on public
>>airwaves and thus there was no reason for them to assume that it would be
>>considdered "private".
>
>Wrong.  
>

Which part?  Was he not convicted?  Was the tape disallowed?

>
>Once again, try looking at sections 2510 et seq. of Title 18, United
>States Code.  Specifically, try 2510(1) [exempting cordless phone
>portion of transmission], 2511(1) [the express prohibition], and
>2511(2)(g)(ii) [exempting CB and ship-to-shore].
>
>Followups directed to misc.legal.
>
>-- 
>Morally and artistically, Henry Miller had MORE right to free speech than
>Walt Disney and [Father] Coughlin because Miller was an honest man whereas
>Disney and Coughlin were liars.   - Ed Nilges
>	   Mark Eckenwiler    eck@panix.com     ...!cmcl2!panix!eck


Xref: sparky misc.legal:16308 alt.censorship:7091
From: egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.censorship
Subject: Re: Hate Speech Okay, says the Supreme Court
Date: 23 Aug 92 22:58:12 GMT
Organization: Princeton University
Originator: news@nimaster

"The free marketplace of ideas?"  An interesting, and revealing,
metaphor.  For the market invades the sphere of ideas, but not in the
picture conjured up by this metaphor.  The picture of the metaphor is of
a bazaar of equal small businessmen hawking their ideas whereas the REAL
marketplace consists of giant media corporations mercilessly eliminating
competetition, not in the name of truth but in the name of a bottom
line.  At any rate, I decide that an idea is worthwhile not on the basis
I would make a decision in a real marketplace.  In a real market place,
I buy this chicken or that rug on the basis of my personal
self-interest, whereas I should hope to assent to an idea on the basis
of whether it is TRUE.  I am of course aware that the American
electorate has been making decisions in the marketplace of ideas based
on its comfort for twelve years, with disastrous results.

I have no "mechanism" because ultimately mechanisms, whether Marx's view
of history or the Invisible Hand of Adam Smith, become ideological fairy
tales that destroy.  But I would vastly increase subsidies for public
read/write access to media of all sorts, from the Internet to public
television.  This would do far more for the free exchange of ideas than
your fictional "marketplace."
Newsgroups: misc.legal,talk.politics.drugs
From: doctor1@cbnewse.cb.att.com (patrick.b.hailey)
Subject: Re: Fort Wayne: Landlords Must Evict Drug-Dealing Tenants
Organization: AT&T
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 08:02:34 GMT

In article <Btu2Bo.4A0@sneaky.lonestar.org> gordon@sneaky.lonestar.org (Gordon Burditt) writes:
>What happens if the eviction proceedings drag out for longer than 30
>days?  Have eviction proceedings *EVER* been completed within 30 days,
>ANYWHERE?

If eviction proceedings for people known to be evil drug users or sellers
"drag out" for more than an hour or two, it will be the fault of bleeding
heart liberal judges and leftist loony lawyers from pinko outfits like the
ACLU.  When this is revealed, the public will demand tougher laws, so judges
can no longer continue to force decent, honest landlords to house evil
druggies.  A good approach might be to send the police over to empty the
apartment immediately and forcefully, before the bleeding hearts get a
chance to cry for these scum.

>What happens when a competing landlord installs his mother in my
>building as a tenant, and her job is to suspect and report any and
>all tenants or prospective tenants except herself of dealing drugs,
>so his building will be full and mine will be empty?

What happens?  Why, they seize your building, of course.  After all, you keep 
renting to druggies.

>Not to mention such things as tenants "considered innocent until proven
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>guilty", "due process" and things like that.

NOW you've got it.  You're not to mention things like that.  Only guilty 
people are concerned about that crap.  If you're innocent, you have nothing 
to worry about.  They're doing this to protect decent people like us.  Oh,
yes: and our children too.

If you have any more questions, just let me know.  I think I'm getting
this new world order thing figured out pretty well.

   Thanks awfully,
             Patrick

Xref: sparky misc.legal:16623 alt.politics.correct:5186 alt.censorship:7237
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.politics.correct,alt.censorship
Subject: Re: The return of vaudeville. (was: Re: Nilges)
Date: 28 Aug 92 21:44:03 GMT
Followup-To: misc.legal
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <1992Aug28.183705.16502@Princeton.EDU>, egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:
> In article <1992Aug28.153236.24131@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
> >In article <1992Aug28.144939.19461@samba.oit.unc.edu> Chuck.Lavazzi@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Chuck Lavazzi) writes:
> >>
> >>	BTW, your ignorance is showing.  Mr Shean spoke with a noticeable
> >>Germanic accent. I've got some of the recordings.  Gallagher had no accent to
> >>speak of.  In any case, their act involved little in the way of ethnic
> >>humor, as far as I know.
> >
> >In fact, Shean was Jewish, a pretty close relative of the Marx Brothers
> >(that's Julius, not Karl, though Karl was sometimes funnier.)
> 
> Ah, so the humor was anti-Semitic (in the sense of anti-Jewish) and
> anti-Irish.  I rest my case re your disgusting racism, Chuck.  

Gee, Ed, my kid laughs when the characters on "Dinosaurs" do their skits.
I guess that makes him anti-Latex.
-- 

cdt@pdp.sw.stratus.com      --If you believe that I speak for my company,
OR cdt@vos.stratus.com        write today for my special Investors' Packet...
Newsgroups: misc.legal,misc.consumers
From: johana!tsw@apple.com (Tom Watson)
Subject: Re: Endorsing checks for deposit via ink stamp?
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 02:18:50 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: FBN/GRQ Ink.

In article <1992Aug26.003400.13033@cs.ucla.edu>, wales@cs.ucla.edu (Rich Wales) writes:
> 
> Is it permissible for an individual to endorse checks for deposit via
> an ink stamp with his name, bank name and account number, and the words
> "FOR DEPOSIT ONLY"?
> 
> Businesses seem to do this all the time; but what about individuals?
> 
> If individuals are in fact permitted to do this, why is it that banks
> always tell customers to =sign= checks when depositing them?
>

The answer is on the normal 'signature card' that you signed when you
opened up the account.  Usually it says something like "We can use
any signature on this card as an endorsement to deposit a check on
your account" (or words like that).  This can be very handy for
depositing checks made out to ex-wives to a joint account that was
opened in both names before the wife became "ex-".  Of course the
"ex-" can then take out the money, but it takes a lot of looking
and timing.

Yes, individuals are allowed to do this.  If you want to get cash
(pictures of dead presidents and other elder statesmen), the bank
will require you to sign something that says you got it (like a
receipt).  Sometimes this is the same signature.
-----
Tom Watson
johana!tsw@apple.com
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.politics.correct,alt.censorship
From: Chuck.Lavazzi@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Chuck Lavazzi)
Subject: Re: The return of vaudeville. (was: Re: Nilges)
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 14:49:39 GMT

In article <1992Aug27.183148.27573@Princeton.EDU> egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:
>In article <1992Aug27.170120.28442@samba.oit.unc.edu> Chuck.Lavazzi@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Chuck Lavazzi) writes:
]back and forth between Ed and Sheheryar deleted[

>>	So I ask you, are these guys the Gallagher and Shean of the Politically
>>Correct, or what?  Who says vaudeville is dead?  It LIVES!
>>"Absolutely, Mr. Gallagher?"
>>"Positively Mr. Shean!"
>
>Your racism is showing, for you have revived the 19th century vaudeville
>portrayal of Irish names as intrinsically laff-producing in a disgusting
>attempt to marginalize Sherheryar, who you, as a racist, found amusing
>and marginal because of an Arabic sounding name.  His dignity (for I
>assume that it is he who replied in the >> zone above, given your clumsy
>elision of needed information) puts you to shame.  

	So (stop reading, Ed..) am I the only one in this forum that found
this response rather hilarious?  He's right about the elision being clumsy,
though; my terminal emulator was so poor that at times I wasn't sure what 
line I was on.  Which is why I clumsily deleted attribution I *meant* to
leave in.
	BTW, your ignorance is showing.  Mr Shean spoke with a noticeable
Germanic accent. I've got some of the recordings.  Gallagher had no accent to
speak of.  In any case, their act involved little in the way of ethnic
humor, as far as I know.
	And now for the humor-impaired: the G&S reference was inspired by
the call-and-response nature of some posts between Ed and Sheheryar.

Chuck
No .sig, no frills, no foolin'


--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: ADL Dismayed by Ohio Court Decision Striking Down Hate Crimes Law
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 16:47:39 GMT

In article <1992Aug27.155606.9594@Princeton.EDU> egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:

>This is the key issue.  The Supreme Court's Viktora decision provided a
>counterfactual "right" to Viktora to commit a tort and a crime, implying 
>paradoxically that the guy had a legal right to commit a legal wrong.

The language in R.A.V. says no such thing.


--Mike




-- 
Mike Godwin,    |"The meeting of two personalities is like the contact 
mnemonic@eff.org| of two chemical substances: if there is any reaction, 
(617) 864-0665  | both are transformed."
EFF, Cambridge  |                           --Carl Jung 
Newsgroups: misc.legal,comp.lang.c
From: egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges)
Subject: Politically Correct C (was: Re: Freedom of Speech (was: Mister Ed Nilges)
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 15:00:40 GMT

In article <27AUG199222080334@zeus.tamu.edu> jle9162@zeus.tamu.edu (ECKHARDT, JASON LEE) writes:
>  I've been programming 'C' for nearly 7 years and I feel that 'overusing'
>  parentheses is not a sign of incompetent programming and definately not
>  stupid. Sure, learning (memorizing) precendence rules is important, but
>  there is nothing wrong with adding parens for clarity (ex. ++*pointer).
>  And I don't think this shows a 'refusal to learn operator precedence.'

In complicated expressions it is wise to have mercy on your program
reader and include extra parentheses to disambiguate code:


     if ( fanorkly_roo || ( grunkle && bugna ) )


but it is inexcusable to code


     if (!(farkle))


since it is obvious even to the tyro that the "scope" of the not
operator ! is "farkle" (what else COULD it be??)  

This nonsense got its start in a misreading of Gerald Weinberg's book
The Psychology of Computer Programming.  Incompetent programmers
interpreted Weinberg's call for a style that would show compassion for
readers of your code as a call excusing their OWN limitations and
failure to learn.