HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,talk.religion.misc,uiuc.civil-liberty
Subject: Re: Chicago Tribune on "Religious Freedom Restoration Act"
Date: 15 Sep 92 00:51:16 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL

jon@cyclone.MITRE.org (J. E. Shum) writes:

[...]
>Unless the 1st Amendment has
>been repealed, why would we need a "religious freedom bill?"
[...]

Our current Supreme Court has decided that the 1st Amendment does not
protect religious folk from laws that serve no compelling state
interest.

- Carl

--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: [comp.patents] Patent Secrecy Orders
Keywords: patent secrecy, Cold War, patents, PTO
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 07:04:49 GMT

In article <1992Sep11.131525.15100@nntp.hut.fi> jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala) writes:
>-	I'm a writer on assignment with Technology Review working on 
>a piece about Patent Secrecy Orders, a Cold War invention that allows 
>the DOD to block grants of patents to inventors whose inventions are 
>deemed inimicable to the national security for military rivals to know 
>about or aquire.

As I understand it, the DOD could classify (effectively conficate)
any patent they wanted. This resulted from one of Truman's exceutive
orders during the Korean War (like his abortive effort to sieze the
steal industry). The order was negated (as I recall) sometime in the
last ten years.

                                            Frank Crary
                                            CU Boulder

Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,misc.legal,alt.politics.elections
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [UPI] ACLU awaits voters' decision
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 22:08:14 GMT

[BTW: I've imposed on Clarinet's generosity by making so many repost
requests. I hope they have gotten some benefit from the increased
exposure. If seeing Clarinet reposts helped you decide to buy
Clarinet's service, please let them know. - Carl]

Copyright 1992 by UPI. Reposted with permission from the ClariNet
Electronic Newspaper newsgroup clari.news.election, et al. For more
info on ClariNet, write to info@clarinet.com or phone 1-800-USE-NETS.

	BEACHWOOD, Ohio (UPI) -- American Civil Liberties Union President
Nadine Strossen says voters are now faced with a decision whether to
support civil rights in the United States.
	Strossen spoke Wednesday at the fall meeting of the Cleveland chapter
of the National Council of Jewish Women. She noted the U.S. Supreme
Court is only a presidential nomination and senatorial confirmation
short of squelching many basic rights.
	Strossen said the court has voted 5-4 to allow abortion, flag-burning
and many other deeds the ACLU believes are constitutionally protected.
So Strossen urged her audience of about 250 people at Fairmount Temple
to vote for candidates and lobby for bills supportive of basic civil
liberties.
	``Ultimately, civil liberties are not going to be secure until you
have an informed public that will support them,'' Strossen told
reporters after her speech.
	Strossen, a professor at New York Law School, acknowledged the ACLU's
approximately 300,000 members face a tough fight since polls indicate
many Americans support civil liberties more in theory than in fact,
since they would ban censorship as well as ``dirty books'' alike.
	Strossen accused the Supreme Court of the same sort of schism, saying
the court pats reproductive choice, religious freedom and other rights
on the head while tightening the leash.
	``Only a shadow of Roe is still there,'' she said, referring to the
landmark case that resulted in the legalization of abortion. ``States
many not absolutely, criminally ban all abortions. Anything short of
that is up for grabs.''
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Xref: sparky alt.society.civil-liberty:5699 alt.politics.usa.constitution:8
From: williamt@athena.Eng.Sun.COM (Dances with Drums)
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,rec.nude
Subject: Re: U.S. Bill of Rights today
Date: 14 Sep 1992 14:15:32 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems Inc., Mountain View, CA
Reply-To: williamt@athena.Eng.sun.com (Dances with Drums)
NNTP-Posting-Host: athena

In article <1992Sep12.022708.29783@nntp.hut.fi> jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala) writes:
>>>Sexual acts against children should certainly be illegal.  If
>>>photographs depict this they can be evidence about the crime, but they
>>>are not criminal themselves.  A photographer who conspires to have
>>>sexual acts against a child performed should be liable to conspiracy
>>>charges on the sexual assault.  
>>
>>Also, I think that a publisher should be held liable if he published
>>such works.  In my opinion, the publisher is guilty of encouraging the
>>photographer, which should fit in as some sort of accomplice / conspiracy
>>/ incitement charge.
----

	Just curious here -- what's a 'child'?

-wat-
--
"If your annual income today is $50,000, you have the same buying power as
the average coal miner did in 1949, adjusted for taxes and inflation," John
Sestina, nationally recognized Certified Financial Planner;  quoted in 1987.
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: forda@gtephx.UUCP (Andrew Ford @ AGCS, Phoenix, Arizona)
Subject: Re: U.S. Bill of Rights today (was alt.activism et al: Who's free'er)
Organization: gte
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 23:06:53 GMT

In article <1992Sep9.165856.15935@javelin.sim.es.com>, rpetty@mu.enet.dec.com (Rich Petty) writes:
> 
> |>Thus spake exukjb@exu.ericsson.se (ken bell): 
[..]
> Thanks to the "war on drugs", which the government has been battling
> forever and has
> no chance, or intention of winning, most of our so-called rights have
> become "privilages".
> So what is the answer?
> 

Vote primarily on the issue of personal freedom.

Find candidates with a good pf record, get 10 people to register and
    give you copies of their registration forms, then send those copies
    to the candidates to the candidates indicating that you are voting
    for them because of their position on personal freedom.

Do the above twice yearly, with a reminder that come next election
    you and a lot of other people will be voting for personal freedom.

Call your elected officials at least twice a month to find out what is
    going on and express your opinions (both in terms of vote yes or no
    for bill xxxx and I expect my personal freedom to be your top priority.

Write your elected officials at least once a month.

Talk to people about gov't and personal freedoms -- anybody -- everybody
    you know and everybody you meet.  I now make it a point to lean the
    conversation towards politics whenever I meet someone (if they are not
    interested, you'll find out quickly enough).  It is also helpful to
    carry the phone numbers for all elected officials from your state.
    Down here, I just call the state senate information officer and get
    two free books with all the names/numbers of all state/federal
    elected officials.  

Join the libertarian party:
    [email to Libertarian Party HQ asuvax!CompuServe.COM!76177.2310]

Register as a Libertarian and vote Libertarian    Many states require a 
    new party to have x% of the registered voters registered in that 
    party to be automatically on the ballot for the next election.  
    REGISTER LIBERTARIAN NOW.

Anyone care to add to this list?
-- 
"25 States allow anyone to buy a gun, strap it on, and walk down the street with
no permit of any kind: some say it's crazy.  However, 4 out of 5 US murders are 
committed in the other half of the country: so who is crazy?"   -  Andrew Ford
gtephx!forda@enuucp.eas.asu.edu  OR  !uunet!samsung!romed!enuucp!gtephx!forda
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,misc.legal
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: [UPI] ACLU awaits voters' decision
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 16:01:14 GMT

In article <37933@sdcc12.ucsd.edu> cote@cs.ucsd.edu (Brad Cote) writes:

>I'm still waiting for an ACLU member (or anyone) to explain to me why
>the ACLU does include the 2nd Amendment as one of the constitutional
>rights for which they fight.

Essentially because the ACLU accepts the argument, best articulated by
Professor Tribe in a long footnote in page 299 of his treatise, AMERICAN
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 2d, that the Second Amendment does not create an
individual right. I believe the ACLU is mistaken about this--Professor
Sanford Levinson in his article "The Embarrassing Second Amendment" in the
January 1990 issue of Yale Law Journal (forgive me for not including the
complete cite--I'm pulling this from memory) conclusively refutes, IMHO,
the view that the right to keep and bear arms is *not* an individual
right. (Levinson's argument was later publicized, and more or less
endorsed, by Michael Kinsley in THE NEW REPUBLIC.)

I don't let the ACLU's mistaken position on this issue prevent me from
giving that organization money, however. They're right on most
civil-liberties issues. I ended my membership in the National Rifle
Association, however--not because I disagree with their interpretation of
the Second Amendment, but because I disapprove of their lobbying and
campaign tactics and strategy. For example, the NRA will routinely endorse
and throw major money behind candidates who support the individual right
to keep and bear arms even when those candidates have terrible positions
on most other civil-liberties issues. In Texas, my home state, the NRA
supported Clayton Williams against Ann Richards in the 1990 gubernatorial
race--they ignored the fact that Richards is a gun-owner and hunter
because (as I recall) Richards supports some relatively modest
registration requirements.


--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 
Xref: sparky alt.society.civil-liberty:5882 alt.politics.usa.constitution:217
From: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution
Subject: Re: 1st amendment exceptions, was: U.S. Bill of Rights today
Date: 15 Sep 92 17:06:52 GMT
Reply-To: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation

In article <1992Sep12.143813.25683@m.cs.uiuc.edu>, 
kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
> In the U.S., the government *can* make broadcasters show such follow
> ups. The rational for this is:
>   1) broadcast bandwidth is scarce,
>   2) so it is best held in trust for the public,
>   3) and the trustees of the broadcast bandwidth (i.e. the government)
>      believe that the public interested is best served by overriding
>      broadcasters free expression rights so that people who are
>      criticized on TV and Radio (i.e. usually government officials)
>      can respond.

But they no longer do.  This was the FCC "fairness doctrine" (equal time 
requirement) which was discarded by the FCC a few years ago.  Sorry, no cite, 
but a review of the Federal Register should turn it up.

Terry Carroll - tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com - 408/992-2152
The opinions presented above are not necessarily those of a sound mind.
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: ckd@eff.org (Christopher Davis)
Subject: Re: U.S. Bill of Rights today
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation Tech Central
	<1992Sep9.032310.18048@nntp.hut.fi>
	<1992Sep11.123704.13602@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu>
	<1992Sep11.153513.17897@nntp.hut.fi>
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 16:57:10 GMT

jkp> == Jyrki Kuoppala <jkp@cs.HUT.FI> 

>>	Establishment: Statement by the President (who is sworn to uphold
>>		       the Constitution) that atheists aren't citizens or
>>		       patriots; this is a Christian nation.

 jkp> When George Bush said that, he was not yet the president of USA,
 jkp> so it wouldn't seem to me that he has broken his oath to uphold
 jkp> the Constitution with this statement, in any case.

He's proud of his service in the US Navy during WW II.  Note that as a
commissioned officer in the US armed forces, he would have sworn to
"defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic".

And was he yet the Vice-President when he said that?  The Veep has the
same oath (or affirmation ;) to take as the President, after all.
--
Christopher Davis   | ]CALL -151       
<ckd@eff.org>       | *300: 20 DD FB 60
System Administrator| *3D0G            
EFF +1 617 864 0665 | ]CALL 768        
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: U.S. Bill of Rights today (was alt.activism et al: Who's free'er)
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 20:37:58 GMT

In article <1992Sep11.150934.15112@sdc.com> kenk@sdc.com (Ken Konecki) writes:
>>         Washington DC forbids private ownership of handguns.
>>         Residents of Morton Grove, Ill. are forbidden to own
>>handguns.

>Since the Constitution limits federal powers, Wasington DC and other
>cities are acting quite constitutionally by banning guns.

The debates over the Fourteenth Amendment specifically mentioned the
right to own firearms: Southern states were passing gun control laws
to disarm freed slaves and leave them defenseless for the KKK and
similar groups. One of the purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment was
to prevent this.

>Seeing as how the 2nd amendment has failed in its purpose, it should be
>left to die a slow, lingering death.

It's fair to say the "purpose" of the Second Amendment is to allow the
people to overthrow a repressive government by force, when all 
peacefull means have failed. Since such a situation has not yet
occured, I don't see how you can call that a failure.

By the way, it takes more than a personal opinion to remove a Constitutionally
protected right: If you think it isn't appropriate, you have to get
a constitutional amendment ratified (and, in the process, prove the
overwelming majority of the people agree with you.)

                                           Frank Crary
                                           CU Boulder

Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,uiuc.civil-liberty
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Help get ACLU Briefing Papers On-line
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 09:26:56 GMT

I was told over the phone yesterday that I'll be getting written
permission to electronically distribute the ACLU's Briefing Papers. I
could use help converting them to on-line ASCII.

Each Paper has 4 (or 2) legal-size sides. If you are willing to type
or do OCR program, please contact me. I'll send you the Briefing Paper
by regular mail (you can keep it).

Please send me email with:

1) Your regular mail address (unless you have ready have a copy of the
   Briefing Papers)

2) Which Paper(s) you would like to do:
      "Guardian of Liberty: American Civil Liberties Union" (2 sides)
      "A History of the Bill of Rights" (4 sides)
      "Freedom of Expression" (4 sides)
      "Racial Justice" (4 sides)
      Any others, if you already have a copy of them.

Thanks,

- Carl


--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Xref: sparky alt.society.civil-liberty:5662 alt.privacy:1802 talk.politics.misc:43879 soc.culture.usa:7137
From: leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.privacy,talk.politics.misc,soc.culture.usa,news.admin.policy
Subject: Re: [comp.org.eff.talk] Latest FBI Wiretap Bill
Date: 5 Sep 92 03:31:56 GMT
Article-I.D.: qiclab.1992Sep5.033156.10322
Reply-To: 70465.203@compuserve.com
Organization: SCN Research/Qic Laboratories of Tigard, Oregon.

nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:

> Frankly I don't have any idea what the laws on encryption are, and I'm not
> sure I believe your dire predictions about lack of due process, and I think
> its ridiculous for the NSA or anyone else to think that amateurs would
> be familiar with such legal esoterica.   

Ever hear the phrase "ignorance of the law is no excuse"? It quite literally
DOES NOT MATTER that you don't know about the existence of a law. If you
are found in violation of it, you are subject to to the full penalties if
they choose to impose them. 

Nailing folks for violating obscure laws is a favorite harassing tactic.

-- 
Leonard Erickson		      leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com
CIS: [70465,203]			 70465.203@compuserve.com
FIDO:   1:105/51	 Leonard.Erickson@f51.n105.z1.fidonet.org
(The CIS & Fido addresses are preferred)
From: bc151@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Ken Fisler)
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty
Subject: List for the Discussion of the Presidential Campaign
Date: 12 Sep 1992 08:18:55 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc4.ins.cwru.edu



I thought this might be of interest to some members of this
newsgroup:

There is now on Bitnet a list for the discussion of the '92
presidential campaign. Discussion is unmoderated and focusses
primarily on important, current campaign issues, though, like the
campaign itself, some discussion occasionally degrades to
spurious non-issues. Threads sometimes lead into critical
analyses of political history, the media, and campaign
strategies. Many members of this list post exerpts from books,
magazines, journals, newspapers, television reportage, and
academic studies as well as the full text of position papers and
speeches given by the candidates. A meaningful number of list
members understand the inherent union of theory and praxis and,
given the nature of the discussions, the flame level is very
tolerably and surprisingly low. If all you've heard and read thus
far hasn't parted the sea of sound bites, if you're looking for
information and analysis of current issues or have something to
give or express yourself, this may be a viable group to join.

To subscribe, send to: LISTSERV@MARIST (from a Bitnet address)
or LISTSERV@MARIST.BITNET (from and Internet address) the
message: SUB CLINTON <your first name> <your last name>


	Internet:	bc151@cleveland.freenet.edu
	Bitnet: 	bc151%cleveland.freenet.edu@cunyvm
	Audio:		Ken Fisler
Xref: sparky alt.society.civil-liberty:5840 alt.politics.usa.constitution:167 rec.nude:4499 alt.sex:29348
From: rdubbs@cs.tamu.edu (Roger B. Dubbs III)
Subject: Re: U.S. Bill of Rights today
Organization: Computer Science Department, Texas A&M University
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 23:36:11 GMT

jkp> == Jyrki Kuoppala <jkp@cs.HUT.FI> 

>>	Establishment: Statement by the President (who is sworn to uphold
>>		       the Constitution) that atheists aren't citizens or
>>		       patriots; this is a Christian nation.

jkp> When George Bush said that, he was not yet the president of USA,
jkp> so it wouldn't seem to me that he has broken his oath to uphold
jkp> the Constitution with this statement, in any case.

US Constitution, Article VI, section 3.
      Section 3.  The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and
   the members of the several State legislatures, and all executive
   and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the
   several States, shall be bound, by oath or affirmation, to support
   this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as
   a qualification to any office or public trust under the United
   States.

I think this says it all.  Bush has been in verious offices for 20
years (or more).

/Roger
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty
From: poloughl@polisci.umn.edu (Paula O'Loughlin)
Subject: outing, arab-amers in gulf war
Keywords: outing, civil liberties, arab-amers in gulf war
Organization: Department of Political Science, University of Minnesota
Distribution: all
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 16:28:17 GMT


I'm teaching a class this fall on civil liberties. In my effort to make it 
more relevenat to issues of the moment, I'd like to assign students readings 
on "outing" and the treatment of arab-americans during the gulf war as well 
as stuff on hiv-testing and some of the wacko initatives  of the last 
several years.  Only problem is I don't know of any good articles on the 
first two particularly.  I'd appreciate any suggestions.
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.activism]  Re: Ohio Ethnic Intimidation Law
Followup-To: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.activism
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 21:17:34 GMT

[A repost - Carl]

From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Newsgroups: alt.activism
Subject:  Re: Ohio Ethnic Intimidation Law
Date: 15 Sep 92 18:50:51 GMT

In article <146uqB1w165w@bluemoon.rn.com>, monstman@bluemoon.rn.com (Kevin A. Keefe) writes:
> Ethnic Intimidation Law
> Post: 22881 of 22882
> orson@bluemoon.rn.com (Craig Smith) Thu, 03 Sep 92 21:06:24 EDT writes:
>>
>>Okay, but then the question comes down to, "what is the intent of
>>a cross burner?" To intimidate, yes? Are their laws against
>>intimidation? Yes, there are. Existing laws will suffice.
>>
>  
> Hey Craig - I thought your speciality was computers - now you are a
> legal expert as well???
>  
> What are these laws against imtimidation you speak of?

	Assualt, stalking laws, trespass, obscene phone calls, etc.

> The current laws in Ohio most definately DO NOT punish ethinic
> imtimidation, thus citizens ask for a tougher law. What's your
> problem with that?

	Nor should they punish *ethnic* anything.  They do, however, punish
intimidation.  When was the last time extortion was legal here? :)

> I'm not sure why the Supreme Court of Ohio struck down the current
> Ethnic Intimidation Law. I hope the legislature will try again to
> enact a law that the court can find agreement with.

	It struck it down because it was a law against what people were
supposedly *thinking*.  Thought crimes should be scary to everyone.

> I personally know of african-american citizens in Middletown Ohio
> who caught some local KKK burning a cross on their lawn. They
> videotaped this racist outrage on a camcorder.

	So had ample evidence of trespass and vandalism.

> Next day at the county prosecutor offices they were told the only
> law the perpetrators could be charged with was a violation of
> the State EPA laws against open burning without a permit.
> Is this what you consider adequate protection, sir? 

	Obviously the country prosecutor needs to bone up on vandalism and
trespass laws.

>>It seems extremely odd to me that those who write and support these
>>"hate crime" laws are the same people who say that you cannot 
>>legislate morality.  Is not racism a moral question?
>>
>>Double standard, is it not?
>>
> Not at all a double standard. Racism IS a moral question - but that
> is not why it is a legal question.

	It's a legal issue because the government wants that power.

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.privacy,talk.politics.misc,soc.culture.usa,news.admin.policy