HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mgflax@ernie.Princeton.EDU (Marshall G. Flax)
Subject: Re: Hate Speech Okay, says the Supreme Court
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 18:55:01 GMT

In article <1992Aug22.021345.3095@Princeton.EDU> egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:
>This is a verbal quibble.  Given sufficient participation in the town
>councils of venues like St Paul, and agreements among citizens become
>"contracts" in this overbroad sense; a national election is a "contract"
>in this overbroad sense.  A classic contract is two people shaking hands
>in a private deal; although of course you can have more than two people,
>a contract in a ten man Outward Bound patrol would involve the Cartesian
>product of the patrol's members shaking hands (eg., each distinct pair
>of members.)  No, our conduct was lawlike in the sense that I acted as
>the legislature and proposed a law to a sort of referendum, where it
>passed unanimously (although I sensed that some team members were not
>completely happy with the idea, they did not choose to state their
>objections.)

1. The "Cartesian Product" of n people includes both
 a. People shaking hands with themselves, and,
 b. Each pair shaking hands *twice.

  Please use mathematical terms more appropriately next time, Mr. Nilges!

2. Mr. Nilges confuses the *appearance* of law and the *nature* of law.
Because he phrased his agreement with the other hikers as a "law" and
they used the mechanism of a "referendum" as a way of agreeing to it, he
thinks that it's a law.  But he obscures the police power of the state
in his (non)analysis.

3. Mr. Nilges confuses the *appearance* of contracts and the *nature* of
contracts.  Because people "agree", by voting, to a candidate, he thinks
that the electorial process is somehow a contract.

4. So I ask Mr. Nilges the following question: does he believe that
there is an essential difference between contracts and laws, or not?

marshall
-- 
---
------- (c) 1992, Marshall Gene Flax <mgflax@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> -------
----------- 5 Joyce Lane, Woodbury, NY 11797, 516-364-9331,9379  ----------
- c/o Jack Gelfand,Psychology Dept,Princeton U.,NJ 08544,609-258-6739 (w) -
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: chrisb@natinst.com (Chris Bartz)
Subject: Re: Hate Speech Okay, says the Supreme Court
Organization: National Instruments, Austin, TX
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 15:54:04 GMT

In article <1992Aug20.215056.4083@Princeton.EDU> egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:
>In article <1992Aug20.180717.29099@natinst.com> chrisb@natinst.com (Chris Bartz) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug20.161412.27423@Princeton.EDU> egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:
>>
>>.... [there is no] universal agreement as to what hate-speech is.
>>This is why the supreme court got involved.
>
>Chris, I just wish you could have heard Keith.  He's heard hate speech
>directed against African-Americans all his life and he knows it when he
>sees it, from Jersey cops who assume that a black man can afford a
>Porsche only by dealing drugs to nice, respectable white people who
>assume that black neighborhoods must be unsafe.

I have no doubt that Keith knows hate speech when he hears it.  The problem
is that I know hate speech when I hear it and I'm sure you know hate speech
when you hear it.  I doubt that even the three of us could agree in every
case.  Who gets to decide what hate speech is?


The 1st amendment to constitution garauntees freedom of speech.  St Paul, MN
being part of the U.S. is governed by this constitution.  If you think the
supreme court is going overboard or that the 1st amendment allows
unacceptable speech, change it.  Its the law of the land.  If you want to
change it than work to change it but St. Paul is not free to ignore it.



-- 
-chris bartz (chrisb@natinst.com)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: fsars@acad3.alaska.edu (Allen R Sparks)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Advice needed: Pregnancy and immigration problems
Date: 17 Aug 92 22:07:22 GMT
Organization: University of Alaska Fairbanks

In article <8300@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM>, mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
>>My wife, a German citizen, is five months pregnant.  Because
>>the US does not have a socialized health care system, her
>>German social insurance will not cover the pregnancy.  So we
>>went to apply for Medicade and foodstamps as we are both
>>graduate students and do not have enough money to cover the
>>costs of a pregnancy and rasing a child.  The Social and
>>-bob crane
> 
> Sorry to be crass in your times of trouble, but two questions.
> 
> 1)  Why didn't you check into all of this before you decided to
> have a baby.
> 
> 2)  If you can't aford the child yourself, why are you having it
> in the first place.
> 
> I've just had my asbestos underwear dry cleaned, so flame away.

Don't give him the satisfaction.  I must admit this is better than the
post I saw in rec.arts.startrek after Gene Roddenberry died.  As a
matter of fact, they showed remarkable restraint in not flaming that
poster too.
                    === Al Sparks
Newsgroups: misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.society.civil-liberty
From: greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (J. S. Greenfield)
Subject: Re: double jeopardy (facist LA police)
Organization: Syracuse University, CIS Dept.
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 92 09:33:31 EDT

In article <1684513FCF.PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu> PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal) writes:

>     The Supreme Court is neither implicitly nor explicitly given the
                                   ^^^^^^^^^^
>power, authority, or responsibility to interpret the Constitution *in*
>the Constitution.  It's power of "Judicial Review" is not listed in
>the Constitution.
>     The Supreme Court was intended to be the highest court at the top
>of a system of courts established by Congress.  It's roll as Constitutional
>interpreter came later.

Well, given that Marbury v. Madison has stood for almost 200 years, and in
light of the particular sections of the constitution cited in my previous
post, I think you need to do a little more than just *state* this contention
(that it is not *implicit* in the constitution that the courts' should conduct
judicial review).

Please provide us with an argument in support of this statement.


-- 
J. S. Greenfield                                         greeny@top.cis.syr.edu
(I like to put 'greeny' here, 
but my d*mn system wants a 
*real* name!)                        "What's the difference between an orange?"
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges)
Subject: Re: Hate Speech Okay, says the Supreme Court
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 16:20:53 GMT

In article <HARKCOM.92Aug11085054@spinach.pa.yokogawa.co.jp> harkcom@spinach.pa.yokogawa.co.jp (Alton Harkcom) writes:
>In article <1992Jul30.142947.23811@Princeton.EDU>
>   egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:
>
> =}"opinions are like assholes, everyone's got one."  Which of course means
> =}that the opinions of a Jeffery Dahmer or of a Viktora are to be accorded
> =}equal time with the opinions of a Ghandi, or a Martin Luther King.
>
>   Dahmer and Viktora should be allowed to express themselves just as
>Ghandi and King.  Just as Nilges...  But the rest of are free to ignore
>Dahmer, Viktora, and Nilges when we determine that what they have to say
>isn't worth the time it takes to listen.  We have the freedom to choose
>to listen to Ghandi and King.  (we have the freedom to choose to the
>opposite also...)

How neat: how symmettrical.  Unfortunately, if you choose the opposite
of a Ghandi or a King you end up a slave to hatred and you destroy your
precious freedom.  The right-wing Hindu who shot Ghandi had less freedom
than the Mahatma for he was forced by his anger to kill.




Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Re: Too many lawyers?
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 00:53:09 GMT

Thanks for an interesting article; there's just one part I want to comment
on because Dan Quayle technically qualifies as a FOAF for me.

In article <1992Aug13.123127.1@acad3.alaska.edu> fsars@acad3.alaska.edu (Allen R Sparks) writes:
>took issue with Vice President Dan Quayle's figures which he quoted in
>a speech before the ABA.  Quayle said that the United States has 70
>percent of the world's lawyers.  

The staffer who supplied this figure for a Quayle speech is a buddy of 
mine.  He's admitted that he made the figure up out of whole cloth, though
he's since backtracked when teased about it and now claims that he *thought*
it was a real number, but just can't find the source where he got it from... 

>_The Economist_ said that the United
>States does have more lawyers than any other country, but said we had
>one-third of the world's lawyers.  

ObLegalFlameStarter:  There's no such thing as predatory pricing.
-- 
             ......................................................
             ted frank | tfrank@uchicago.edu | standard disclaimers
             the university of chicago law skool, chicago, illinois
             you can't throw me to the lions -- i'm charlton heston
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Subject: Re: Advice for first year law student?
Organization: Northeastern Law, Class of '93
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 16:38:02 GMT


Just thought I'd toss in my own two cents' worth...

In article <1992Aug20.172508.6702@panix.com>, 
sbarber@panix.com (Steve Barber) said:

> Don't get bogged down in figuring out who's hornbooks and outlines
> to use, ask some upperclasspeople in your school, and just do it.

Another important point: some people have made it a point of pride to
get through their undergraduate college life without ever resorting to
professional study aids of the sort sometimes frowned upon by
professors (e.g., Cliff Notes).  Some people even think of doing so as
being the moral equivalent of cheating.  My advice: check your pride
and ego at the door to law school and do whatever it takes -- without
violating explicit school rules, of course -- to _learn_ the damn
stuff -- after all, _that's_ what you came there for.  If a professor,
or even an administrator, makes it clear that he doesn't like his
students to use Gilbert's outlines or Casenotes briefs, well, avoid
shoving your copies of those things in his face, but use them anyway
if they help you.  (If it makes you feel any better, I've seen these
publications on the shelves of law libraries at real law firms.  Real
life is not a closed-book exam.)

-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: ra@asuvax.eas.asu.edu (Starcap'n Ra)
Subject: Re: double jeopardy (facist LA police)
Organization: misc.legal
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 20:49:34 GMT

eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler) writes:
> I'd like to pose a nonconfrontational but significant question to
> those who agree with Starcap'n Ra: how do you solve the problem of
> deliberate inter-sovereign pre-emption under this view of double
> jeopardy?
> 
> Scenario: X, who lives in Backwater State, commits an act arguably
> violative of both federal and state felony statutes.  The local DA is
> a friend of X, and doesn't want to charge him with anything, but is
> concerned about the possibility of subsequent federal prosecution.
> The DA allows X to plead to a single count of disorderly conduct.
> Presto change-o, X is immune from federal prosecution.

     First of all, one way or another the local
DA would soon find himself roasted -- out of
office if lucky, and prosecuted and convicted
of some sort of obstruction of justice if not.
I don't see what you describe as being very
likely, and if a DA pulled that I doubt he'd
get the chance to do it again.  And even so,
the rights of the defendant are paramount (ie.,
too bad).

> Does anyone consider this troubling? (Mike? W.D.Starr?  Any
> thoughts?)  Is it enough to say that public/official outrage will
> force the DA/AUSA not to do such things again?

     Yes, it is enough to say that.

> What if the prosecutor's superiors are corrupt, or his neighbors bigots?

     What if, what if, what if.  All your
questions are attempts to create unlikely
scenarios that threaten what you would seem
to consider the primary importance of making
sure the guilty go punished.

     That the guilty go punished is not the
primary consideration.  The primary consideration
is that the rights of the people remain sacrosanct.
Surely history has taught us that much by now.

--Starcap'n Ra       {ames,gatech,husc6,rutgers}!ncar!noao!asuvax!kennedy
                        {allegra,decvax,ihnp4,oddjob}--^
                                          ^---------------The Wrong Choice
                             internet: kennedy@asuvax.asu.edu
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.politics.correct
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Nilges
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 04:03:07 GMT

In article <1992Aug22.014924.1789@Princeton.EDU> egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:
>I think
>that the justices who interpreted freedom of speech to enable people to
>read Henry Miller were right, whereas I think that the justices who
>today apply the same protection to illiterate punks are wrong.

So literacy is to be the judge of who gets the protection of free speech?
Ironic that you mention Miller; Kate Millett singles him out as a quite
sexist novelist.  Why is Miller's sexism deserving of First A protections
if Viktora's racism isn't?  Because he wears funny glasses and hangs out in
Paris?  Kind of classist of you, isn't it, Ed?

>     THERE IS NEVER A RIGHT TO COMMIT A MORAL WRONG

And therefore it's wrong to censor Viktora, no?  
-- 
             ......................................................
             ted frank | thf2@midway.uchicago.edu | std disclaimers
             the university of chicago law skool, chicago, illinois
             you can't throw me to the lions -- i'm charlton heston
Xref: sparky misc.legal:15967 soc.women:15180
From: fsars@acad3.alaska.edu (Allen R Sparks)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,soc.women
Subject: Re: Equal Rights Amendment
Date: 13 Aug 92 01:10:59 GMT
Organization: University of Alaska Fairbanks

In article <1992Aug12.013408.12372@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu>, akbloom@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu (Keith Bloom) writes:
> Unless my memory is playing tricks, the ratification period for the
> ERA was not part of the text of the amendment, but was in a separate
> resolution which Congress passed at the same time it approved the ERA.
> That's why it was able to extend the period for an additional time.
> 
> 
> Keith

Perhaps, but the XVIII amendment (Prohibition) has the following
following tacked onto the end of it:

    This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been
    ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the Legislatures
    of the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within
    seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States
    by Congress.

The XIX amendment does not have this provision, the XX does, the XXI
does, as does XXII, but the XXIII, XXIV, XXV, and the XXVI do not.

For you purists, out there, for all the amendments that had that
provision, they weren't all worded exactly that way, but there were only
differences in two or three words, and to the best I could determine
these differences were syntactical only.
                    === Al Sparks
Xref: sparky misc.legal:16144 talk.politics.misc:40548
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: double jeopardy
Date: 19 Aug 92 06:50:46 GMT
Article-I.D.: desire.1992Aug19.015046.3591
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <PA146008.243.714182108@utkvm1.utk.edu>, PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal) writes:
> In article <1992Aug18.015503.3560@desire.wright.edu> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
> 
>>	Double jeopardy is being tried in the same court for the same crime
>>(with the same evidence) twice.
>>
>      The Constitution does not make this distinction.  It says simply
> that noone will be twice put in jeapardy of life and limb for the same
> offense.   Just because somebody comes up with new evidence after an
> acquital does not mean you have to have another trial.  Nor can you just
> switch jurisdictions and try again.

	You're not "switching jurisdictions".  There are two separate court
systems, and two separate law systems.

	If you go on an interstate killing spree, is it double jeopardy to be
tried for murder in more than one state?  I think we've made the case for
separate court systems.

	New evidence?  What if it is in the defendant's favor?  And of course
we can't have double standards.  So new evidence can mean a new trial.

>>	Federal courts and state courts are not the same court system.  A
>>suspect can be tried in both courts for the same act (e.g. bank robbery) and it
>>doesn't violate the double jeopardy standard.
> 
>      Bank Robbery is a state crime, and the federal government does not have
> the jurisdiction to try those cases.

	Rob a federal bank if you don't think so.  The Feds made it a federal
crime back in the 70s.

>>	Anyone not understanding that should do a little reading before
>>proceeding further.
> 
>      Where, exactly, did the fifth amendment make this distinction between
> jurisdictions?

	Interpretations.

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
From: gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: double jeopardy (facist LA police)
Date: 14 Aug 92 17:48:10 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <11734@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
#But I also cringe at the abuse potential of allowing
#a civil rights violation because the locals don't have any problem
#with civil rights violations.

This from a man who froths at the mouth when homosexuals try to get
civil rights laws passed.

--
-Greg Hennessy, University of Virginia
 USPS Mail:     Astronomy Department, Charlottesville, VA 22903-2475 USA
 Internet:      gsh7w@virginia.edu  
 UUCP:		...!uunet!virginia!gsh7w
From: egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Hate Speech Okay, says the Supreme Court
Date: 22 Aug 92 02:32:06 GMT
Organization: Princeton University
Originator: news@nimaster

In article <1992Aug22.014217.1184@Princeton.EDU> mgflax@ernie.Princeton.EDU (Marshall G. Flax) writes:
>In article <1992Aug20.162053.27915@Princeton.EDU> egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:
>>The right-wing Hindu who shot Ghandi had less freedom
>>than the Mahatma for he was forced by his anger to kill.
>
>Sorry, but he had (at that point) more freedom than Ghandi becuase the
>latter was *dead* (at that point).

...having lived a world-historical life, I submit that the Mahatma was
free before being shot, and his religious tradition teaches that death
itself is a liberation.

  Seriously, Ed, you sound like the
>traditional Catholic "slavery to God's will is freedom".

Horrors.  A fate worse than death, to be associated with the church of
Dorothy Day, Matthew Fox, Thomas Aquinas, or Archbishop Romero.  Y'know,
Marshall, William F. Buckley wrote that "anti-Catholicism is the
anti-Semitism of the liberal."  So I'd be wary of dismissing something
as mere traditional Catholicism.

Any roads, was Kant a Catholic?

  There's
>freedom to do what one chooses, and "freedom" from choosing the "wrong"
>thing -- it'd be better if you kept the two distinct in your mind.

Was Hegel Catholic?  For most philosophers save the pseudophilosopher
Rand, freedom has not been a primary good, and there is no freedom in
doing wrong, for in doing wrong you enslave yourself (in nearly all
philosophical traditions) to the passions.  In another post, I hope I
have shown how this does not result in intolerance as long as one
cultivates the virtue of tolerance.  And this tolerance is not tolerance
for wrong, only humility and self-doubt (I could be wrong about
Marshall's conduct; if the guy isn't obviously drowning kittens in the
canal, best mind my own bizness.)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Re: double jeopardy (facist LA police)
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 16:37:31 GMT

In article <1992Aug22.135949.6077@eff.org> mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:
>In article <1992Aug22.034726.8126@panix.com> lkk@panix.com (Larry Kolodney) writes:
>
>>Suppose I take a machine gun, and in a single sweep, I mow down 10
>>pedestrians walking down the street.
>
>I think that when you reach for this kind of analogy, it shows that
>you hope to reach a certain conclusion.

I think a better example for Larry is the Happyland fire.  The arsonist
commited one act, which resulted in several dozen counts of (murder?)

>>Most people would consider that
>>a single act.
>
>On the contrary, most people would consider that 10 murders, assuming that
>the victims all died. I think you'd find it very hard, Larry, to find
>anyone who considered it one murder.

The issue is how many acts?  No one's doubting that more than one
charge can result from a single act.  Which was exactly Larry's point.

>>So you tell me, how do you enforce a "community standards" obscenity
>>jurisprudence yet prevent prosecutions of the same offender in
>>seperate jurisdictions? Its analytically impossible. The problem is
>>that the crime of sending obscenity through the mails should be void
>>for vagueness.  Its impossible to know with any certainty (until
>>you've been convicted) that you've committed the offense.  The problem
>>is "community standards," not "double jeopardy."
>
>As I've said before, I don't see how the censorship issue excludes the
>double-jeopardy issue. It seems like both issues are present to me.
>
>Your notion of what is "analytically impossible" is mistaken, I think,
>but more importantly it misses the point: as I stated before, when 
>I say that these multiple prosecutions violate the interest protected
>by the Double Jeopardy Clause, I'm not relying on legal analysis. I'm
>relying on social consensus.

But with "community standards," what's obscene in Peoria may or may not
be obscene in Times Square.  And each community would have the right to
prosecute under their own standards.  
-- 
             ......................................................
             ted frank | thf2@midway.uchicago.edu | std disclaimers
             the university of chicago law skool, chicago, illinois
             you can't throw me to the lions -- i'm charlton heston