HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Citecheck Hell)
Subject: Re: Sinead O'Connor's freedom of speech
Keywords: Those croppies who will not lie down
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 13:44:03 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.054011.2337@Princeton.EDU> egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Edward G. Nilges) writes:
>As I get ready to leave Princeton and cease posting from this location,
>I won't refrain from (1) saying hip hip hurrah for Sinead's performance
>on Saturday Night Live

which would have been prosecuted under any hate speech law worth its
salt.  But for Ed to notice this would require an internal consistency
on his part that he's blissfully yet to show.

Wasn't it you who complained that Strunk and White were "anti-Catholic"
because they were against the use of Latin words?
-- 
ted frank | thf2@midway.uchicago.edu 
also at quibeaux@uchicago.edu | standard disclaimers
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
ajax crypto-analyzer -- warning! remove all chicken bones first
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: property/future interests formal syntax help
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 15:55:01 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.032754.25848@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:

>ObLegalTrivia: Which film noir has a crucial plot turn on a misapplication
>               of the Rule Against Perpetuities?

"Body Heat," with William Hurt and Kathleen Turner. Screenplay by Lawrence
Kasdan. Now ask me a hard one.


--Mike




-- 
Mike Godwin,    |"Liberty resides in the rights of that person
mnemonic@eff.org| whose views you find most odious."
(617) 864-0665  | 
EFF, Cambridge  |                           --John Stuart Mill
Xref: sparky misc.legal:18676 misc.kids:26058 alt.postmodern:2501 sci.psychology:4132
From: herman.diller@execnet.com (herman diller)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: taped conversations
Date: 10 Oct 92 02:58:42 GMT
Reply-To: "herman diller" <herman.diller@execnet.com>
Distribution: misc
Organization: Executive Networks Information


HM>Herman Diller, in a message to All on 10-06-92 at 6:40pm, said:

HD>|My question is can a conversation
HM>   |be taped by a person trained in the art of interrogation (i.e. police o
HM>   |and the questions are guiding the answers to a desired outcome?
HM>   |_______________________________________________________________________

HM>          Sounds like your problem is not with the taping but with the
HM>          nature of the questions.  If you choose to cooperate with
HM>          police, you are generally going to be on your own as to the
HM>          consequences.  That's why God made lawyers.


My question is still the same, I am a police officer (lt) and I was taped by
one of my men after referring him for disciplinary action.  The taped
conversation was made about 4 months after the initial disciplinary action,
I do not remember the conversation, and his lawyer is now accusing me of
perjury and being a political puppet.  My question is again can a person
tape a conversation with the intent to obtain desired answers to be used  at a
later date (7 months after the taping one year after the incident) even if
one person knows that the conversation is taped?

Herman Diller
---
 ~ DeLuxe}/386 1.12 #393s ~ Brentwood BBS!  Harrison, New York  (914) 835-7898
--
Executive Network Information System  (914) 667-4567
International ILink Host
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: Nigel.Allen@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Nigel Allen)
Subject: Re: Copyright Law
Organization: NDA
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 04:14:22 GMT

In article <30723@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU> akoticha@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Apoorva Koticha) writes:
>  I needed some advice.  I have done some work that I would like to
>copyright.  I would essentially like to pass it around to people, but
>if anybody does want to use it for profit motives, I would like a part
>of the loot :-).

You can obtain information about copyright by writing to the 
following address:


 Copyright Office
 Library of Congress
 Washington, D.C. 20559  U.S.A.
 telephone (202) 479-0700 for information
 telephone (202) 707-9100 to order forms and booklets
 (Publishers outside the U.S. should also contact their country's
copyright office for information on local copyright laws.)
 
You can certainly write Copyright (c) 1992 Apoorva Koticha on the
document if you wish. However, you should obtain and read the
information booklets from the Copyright Office. This information may also
be available at your local library.


--
   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,alt.censorship,misc.headlines
From: jfc@athena.mit.edu (John F Carr)
Subject: Re: And then again, some lawyers really *are* scum...
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 20:33:00 GMT

>   Wells, 32, could not be reached for comment.  Police said he would
>be "unavailable for arrest for several days.  He likely will be
>charged with assault on a female ...

Does this mean assualt on a female is a separate crime from assault on
a male?  Which has the greater penalty?  Has the North Carolina
legislature heard of the 14th ammendment?

--
    John Carr (jfc@athena.mit.edu)
Xref: sparky misc.legal:18347 alt.censorship:7977 rec.arts.tv:19592
From: lightnin@bernoulli.WPI.EDU (Paraaaaaaaaade of Shoooooooooes)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.censorship,rec.arts.tv
Subject: Re: Sinead O'Connor's Freedom of Speech ( was Re: SNL - Oct 3, Latest on Sinead reaction
Date: 8 Oct 92 21:56:39 GMT
	<1992Oct7.162814.1220@Princeton.EDU>
	<1992Oct7.184806.2229@porthos.cc.bellcore.com> <ed.718526442@cwis>
Organization: DeityCo: Major and Minor Deities Placement Agency
NNTP-Posting-Host: bernoulli.wpi.edu
In-reply-to: ed@cwis.unomaha.edu's message of Thu, 8 Oct 1992 06:40:42 GMT

>>>>> On Thu, 8 Oct 1992 06:40:42 GMT, ed@cwis.unomaha.edu (Ed Stastny) said:

ed> whs70@dancer.uucp (22501-sohl) writes:

>Well, I don't know about Mr. J. Schwartz, but I Sure do....political
>correctness at its best:

>You are wrong of you are offensive to those Mr. Nilges defines as
>being people that "can't hit back."

>You are right/OK if you are offensive to the real oppressors (again
>as defined/selected by Mr. Nilges).

ed> That's what's called "an opinion", sound familiar?

ed> I happen to agree with Mr.Nilges.

This also appears to fall under the category of "an opinion"  Funny how 
people can recognize other opinions, but sometimes mislabel their own as
"fact."

-lightnin
 (This is an opinion)

Derek G Bacon        | "But his bosses didn't like him, so they shot him into 
lightnin@wpi.wpi.edu |  space."     - MST3K Love Theme
Gadaiyio Takeimienei |=========================================================
Writer of USFP       | "Oh Fluffy, I never knew." -Earth Girls Are Easy
Xref: sparky misc.legal:18648 alt.abortion.inequity:4444
From: pimentel@luner.enet.dec.com (John Pimentel)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Roe v. Wade for Men!
Date: 14 Oct 92 16:00:52 GMT
Followup-To: misc.legal
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation


In article <1992Oct13.005118.24990@cfctech.cfc.com>, kevin@cfctech.cfc.com (Kevin Darcy) writes...
> They actually make things WORSE than having no laws 
>at all, IMHO (since in the absence of statutes, I'd expect the woman could 
>still sue the man for support in the civil courts, where there would be ample 
>opportunity to make INTELLIGENT liability determinations).

Which is my point, give men the right to have their say on whether or not
they want to be the parent and if they don't want to be a parent, the 
woman can either choose for herself which way to go.  If the "abortion"
is taken then the cost can be undertaken by whomever is deemed to be
at greater fault.  If they do want to be a parent and the woman does
not then they should have the right to see the child born, the woman
can then go her separate way.  If the woman does want to be a parent
and the man does not then a simple court hearing can separate the man
financially from the child.  

Let's put the law on the books that a man can choose as well which way
he wants to go.  To be a parent or not.  Then we'll see just how long
the current law of "Abortion" is on the books.

For the record: Abortion is murder not matter how much it's watered down
(I would say no matter how you cut it, but I might offend some Pro-Choice.)
=============================================================================
-- John Pimentel

The opinions expressed are my own.  No rights are granted to take them out of
context nor do they represent the views of my employer, whomever it might be
for the moment.
=============================================================================
Xref: sparky misc.legal:18406 alt.politics.correct:5644 soc.college:4237
From: gpriores@oracle.com (gordon prioreschi)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.politics.correct,soc.college
Subject: Re: the MIT anti-trust case
Date: 8 Oct 92 22:29:09 GMT
	<1992Sep30.053708.13964@midway.uchicago.edu>
	<1992Oct2.035543.24614@panix.com>
	<1992Oct2.163140.18023@midway.uchicago.edu>
	<1992Oct4.065023.14844@panix.com>
	<GPRIORES.92Oct6151120@fish.oracle.com>
	<8eoazq_00YV7A_RrA
Organization: Oracle Corp., Belmont CA
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by an unauthenticated user
              at Oracle Corporation.  The opinions expressed are those
              of the user and not necessarily those of Oracle.

In article <8eoazq_00YV7A_RrAa@andrew.cmu.edu> gs32+@andrew.cmu.edu (Geoffrey Spear) writes:
>You aren't "buying" the software you mentioned, you are just
>licensing it's use.  

True. It was just the first example that popped into my head. Another
example: I can sell you a piece of property with the stipulation that
I have right-of-way through it; even though you own the property, you
can't do anything with it that would prevent my exercising my
right-of-way (of course, your mileage may vary from state to state).
I've sold you something, but retained some rights to it.


>If you actually bought it, no one else would be
>able to use it without your permission.  

That is the case. If I go out and buy a copy of a piece of software,
nobody else can use it without my permission (possibly even with my
permission, depending on the licensing agreement). Not that I see
myself denying someone permission to use my software, but I certainly
could if I wanted to, just as I could deny someone permission to read
my copy of a book.


>What this has to do with MIT's
>anti-trust case, however, I don't see.

I don't see it either; in my previous posting I denied the similarity
between the Red Cross and the Overlap Group, and at the same time
attempted to illustrate that the Red Cross' actions were hardly unique
to "non-profit" or "charitable" organizations; somebody had previously
asserted that organizations like the Red Cross and MIT were exempted
from certain laws because they were such.

                                   Cordially,

                                        -g
From: "hilary miller" <hilary.miller@execnet.com>
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: copyright law
Date: 10 Oct 92 12:25:25 EST
Reply-To: "hilary miller" <hilary.miller@execnet.com>
Distribution: misc
Organization: Executive Networks Information


Apoorva Koticha, in a message to All on 10-09-92 at 5:09am, said:


AK>|I needed some advice.  I have done some work that I would like to
   |copyright.  I would essentially like to pass it around to people, but
   |if anybody does want to use it for profit motives, I would like a part
   |of the loot :-).
   |______________________________________________________________________

          Your work is already copyrighted, and you own the copyright. 
          Just write "Copyright (c) 1992 [author's name]" on it and
          you're off to the races.


   L A
 I    R        Hilary B. Miller of Greenwich, Connecticut
  H/\Y         CIS: 76040,1743
    
---
  DeLuxe 1.25 #11645  Backup not found. (A)bort, (R)etry, (P)anic?
--
Executive Network Information System  (914) 667-4567
International ILink Host
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: lairdb@crash.cts.com (Laird P. Broadfield)
Subject: Re: JD != "lawyer" (was: What a Problem!!!)
Organization: "Well, a head on top, an arm on each side, two legs...."
Date: 12 Oct 92 04:26:13 GMT

In <BvvDnF.62H@world.std.com> srm@world.std.com (Stevens R Miller) writes:
>tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct8.030548.4916@cbnewsk.cb.att.com>, 

>>Nit-pick alert, but JD means only that the individual has obtained a law 
>>degree, not that the individual is a lawyer.

>Let's pick that nit some more.  Depending on the dictionary you use,
>a lawyer can be anyone involved in the study or profession of law,
>while one who is authorized to represent another is an attorney.

And speaking of the term "attorney", two casual questions (of the class
"things-I've-always-wondered-about-but-never-had-enough-energy-to-
actually-investigate"):

1.  There are a number of situations, generally due to either a)stupid
rules, or b)over-officious people, where a confidently delivered "I am
her/his attorney!" will get you past all sorts of barriers.  (Let's take as
an example hospital visitor restrictions.)  I'm guessing that my local
B&P code probably says something nasty about pretending to be a *lawyer*.
Has our protagonist done anything wrong or unlawful?

2.  Funny, I've always seen (legal concept X) referred to as "the attorney-
client privilege".  Surely this *only* refers to admitted lawyers, not
anyone with a power-of-attorney, or some amateur JP, or....  True?

No particular personal interest in these, but they've been bothering me
for a while.

-- 
Laird P. Broadfield     lairdb@crash.cts.com    ...{ucsd, nosc}!crash!lairdb
Hi!  I'm a shareware signature!  Send $5 if you use me, send $10 for manual!
Xref: sparky misc.legal:18387 alt.folklore.urban:25260
From: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.folklore.urban
Subject: Re: Presidential Succession History (was: Presidential UL's)
Date: 9 Oct 92 17:04:48 GMT
Reply-To: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation

In article <1992Oct5.232154.26267@nezsdc.icl.co.nz>, derek@nezsdc.icl.co.nz 
(Derek Tearne) writes:
> In article <8f=S02DR24U801@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com 
> (Terry Carroll) writes:
> >In article <1992Sep29.164051.16126@awdprime.austin.ibm.com>, 
> >jlpicard@austin.ibm.com (Craig Becker) writes:
> >> tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll) writes:
> >> ....
> >> > > This does bring up an interesting question, though.  In case of
> >> > > nuclear attack or something that wipes out a large number of high
> >> > > officials, what is the line of succession? 
> >> > 
> >> > The order is:
 * * *
> >
> >1/19/1886, 24 Stat. 2 scraps the old list, and substitutes a new one: Vice-
> >President, Secretary of State, Secretary of Treasury, Secretary of 
War[etc...]
> 
> You mean to tell me that in 1886 they already had contingency plans for a 
> nuclear attack.  Now that's what I call planning ahead!

No, just the "or something".  :-)

Terry Carroll - tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com - 408/992-2152
The opinions presented above are not necessarily those of a sound mind.
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Citecheck Hell)
Subject: Re: LaFave too broad?
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 18:17:59 GMT

In article <VDRBsB2w165w@depsych.Gwinnett.COM> rc@depsych.Gwinnett.COM (Richard Carlson) writes:
>I think that was in the one volume Hornbook I found.  But the
>discussion wasn't thorough.  If I remember correctly it was one of
>the reasons I wondered if finding your spouse in bed with someone
>else did _anything_ besides reduce murder to manslaughter.  (And
>it doesn't always do that.)

That's about the state of the law, as I understand it from my
perspective as a second-year law student who isn't a lawyer yet
and isn't practicing law so this isn't legal advice, etc.  It will
sometimes reduce murder to manslaughter.  And I don't believe anything
else.  It doesn't mitigate mayhem, and I doubt it would mitigate
other batteries.

>Possibly in the 2 volume version.  

I believe the two-volume version is substantially the same as the
one volume version, but I could be incorrect about this.
-- 
ted frank | thf2@midway.uchicago.edu 
also at quibeaux@uchicago.edu | standard disclaimers
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
ajax crypto-analyzer -- warning! remove all chicken bones first
Newsgroups: misc.legal,soc.women,alt.activism
From: pimentel@earrth.enet.dec.com (John Pimentel)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: How Can I Really Annoy Someone?
Date: 15 Oct 92 16:46:46 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation


In article <1992Oct15.011143.301@u.washington.edu>, tzs@stein.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith) writes...
>Eric didn't misunderstand.  Example: I decide to juggle, on my property,
>flaming chainsaws, next to your property.  I'm trying to juggle 5 of them.
>I happen to be able to juggle 5 balls somewhat, but have never tried flaming
>chainsaws before.
> 
>One of the chainsaws slips, and crosses the property line and damages your
>car.

But Scott, can juggle five chainsaws and has for many years, none of the 
chainsaws slip, even the occasional "pretend", and then Scott puts the
flaming chainsaws in his shed (inside he puts the flames out or has someone
weaiting inside put the flames out).  In the meantime he goes in to the 
house and comes out with a rifle which he proceeds to clean it, because it's
a nice day out.

Nothing illegal, but I'll bet the pressure is building.

>I've not done anything illegal.  However, you can sue me for the damages to
>your car.

In this case you have committed a crime: You've damaged someone elses 
property and can be taken to court on it or you can pay immediately.

>"Intentional inflictions of emotional distress" is like that.  You won't
>be breaking the law, but you will by subject to suit.

Don't believe it's that simple.  Emotional distress is very hard to prove,
because it can not be measured, weighed or calculated, etc.

=============================================================================
-- John Pimentel

The opinions expressed are my own.  No rights are granted to take them out of
context nor do they represent the views of my employer, whomever it might be
for the moment.
=============================================================================
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: sbrenner@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (scott.d.brenner)
Subject: Re: How Can I Really Annoy Someone?
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 12:13:16 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.173444.2631@telebit.com> brunner@telebit.com (Eric Brunner) writes:
>Well, sit down and figure out what you can afford to pay since you clearly
>have intent to commit intentional infliction of emotional distress. Take
>into account if you know your future plaintiff has a susceptibility presently,
>or during the course of your planned actions reasonably discoverable to you
>to the actions you are considering to see if you've even that defense.
>
>Now cost out the statuatory wrongs -- such as the use of the phone you
>mentioned, and determine whether each of the juridictions you plan to
>appear in award on average, greater damages and sentancing for each of
>your civil common-law and statuatory liabilities than the average for
>each liability, then make your cost estimate.
>
>Now you are prepared to proceede, having allowed for being able to meet the
>cost for the liabilities you intend to create, in terms of at least the
>recovery of your victim for the injuries you intend to commit, and have
>planned out your schedule for the next several years in terms of court
>time, payment plans, and potential vacations as a guest of the county.
>Of course, if your victim is uncooperative, or unappreacitive of your
>attentions, additional liabilities may arise, so periodically, or as events
>dictate, you will have to repeat this procedure. Significantly longer
>vacation planning may become necessary.
>
>You are likely to have an exciting and interesting time, may I suggest
>that you reconsider the attractions of new pursuits, and take up fly
>fishing and duck hunting instead?
>
>
>-- 
>Eric Brunner Tule Network Services
>uucp: uunet!practic!brunner
>trying to understand multiprocessing is like having bees live inside your head.
>

Eric:

I believe you missed a critical part of my initial posting.  I stated that
I *DO NOT* want to do anything even remotely illegal.  While I suppose I
could agree with you that perhaps I "have intent to commit intentional 
infliction of emotional distress," I don't believe that's against the law.
If it is, then I think I've got a pretty good case _AGAINST_ my neighbor
for his actions.  Unfortunately, the plaintiff has the burden of proof, and
proving the causality of emotional distress has got to be rather difficult.

I'm not looking to totally devastate this guy; I just want to _annoy_ him.
My dictionary says that 'annoy' "refers to [a] mild disturbance caused by 
an act that tries one's patience."  We all have little irritations in our
lives.  I want to become one in my neighbor's.

Scott


Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: waf9851@zeus.tamu.edu (FULLER, WALTER ANDREW III)
Subject: Re: Roe v. Wade for Men!
Followup-To: misc.legal
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: Texas A&M University, Academic Computing Services
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 01:54:00 GMT

In article <1967@sousa.ltn.dec.com>, pimentel@luner.enet.dec.com 
(John Pimentel) writes...

>For the record: Abortion is murder not matter how much it's watered down

Wrong, John. Murder is a legal term with a strict legal definition. And
elective abortion does not appear in that legal definition in any U.S.
state, territory, or even federal penal statutes.

It appears to me that you are offering a definition of murder that is
built either wholly or in part on a religious view.

------------
Walter Fuller
Bitnet:  WAF9851@tamzeus
Internet:  WAF9851@ZEUS.TAMU.EDU

Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: ask@cbnews.cb.att.com (Arthur S. Kamlet)
Subject: 27th amendment
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories,  Columbus, Ohio
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 20:54:44 GMT

I have an on-line copy of the US Constitution and  would like to
update it with the 27th amendment.

The text is

No law varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and
Representatives shall take effect, until an election of Representatives
shall have intervened.


The amendment was proposed March 4, 1989.

When was it proclaimed? (Adopted)


Please send email as I don't read this group often.  Thanks
-- 
Art Kamlet  a_s_kamlet@att.com  AT&T Bell Laboratories, Columbus
From: "hilary miller" <hilary.miller@execnet.com>
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: taped conversations
Date: 8 Oct 92 17:07:45 EST
Reply-To: "hilary miller" <hilary.miller@execnet.com>
Distribution: misc
Organization: Executive Networks Information


Herman Diller, in a message to All on 10-06-92 at 6:40pm, said:

HD>|My question is can a conversation
   |be taped by a person trained in the art of interrogation (i.e. police o
   |and the questions are guiding the answers to a desired outcome?
   |_______________________________________________________________________

          Sounds like your problem is not with the taping but with the
          nature of the questions.  If you choose to cooperate with
          police, you are generally going to be on your own as to the
          consequences.  That's why God made lawyers.


   L A
 I    R        Hilary B. Miller of Greenwich, Connecticut
  H/\Y         CIS: 76040,1743
    
---
  DeLuxe 1.25 #11645  As easy as 3.1415926535897932384626433832795028841
--
Executive Network Information System  (914) 667-4567
International ILink Host
Xref: sparky misc.legal:18571 soc.religion.islam:1719