HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.censorship,misc.headlines
Subject: Re: Sinead O'Connor's freedom of speech
Keywords: Those croppies who will not lie down
Date: 8 Oct 92 06:38:54 GMT
Article-I.D.: ke4zv.1992Oct8.063854.26511
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <1992Oct7.152137.23818@Princeton.EDU> egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Edward G. Nilges) writes:
>
>The incident was unrehearsed.  If Sinead had said to the director that
>she was going to speak out, she would have been forced not to speak out,
>perhaps by being disinvited from the show.  The fact that this one
>person, who enjoyed a limited amount of access and used it to speak out,
>had to transgress against a corporate policy in order to speak out only
>points up the fact that the networks are using airwaves declared to be
>public property to push an agenda that completely excludes messages such
>as Sinead's.

Wasn't it Justice Holmes who said that while the first amendment gives
you the right to free speech it in no way imposes an obligation on
others to buy you a printing press?

Gary
From: Timothy.P.Stammers@dartmouth.edu (Timothy P. Stammers)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Common Driveway - What are my rights???
Date: 16 Oct 92 16:46:22 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
X-Posted-From: InterNews1.0a5@newshost.dartmouth.edu

Here's something that I've been wondering about for a while now.  About
a year and  half ago, my wife and I bought a house in Enfield Ctr.,
N.H..  Shortly before we bought the house, the owner subdivided the
land and from there he put in the deed that the driveway is a common
drive so as they can use our driveway to get to the other driveway
which is on the other piece of land which is about 100 feet from our
driveway.  It also stated that they have a 50ft. wide right of way on
this.  

   So, my question to anyone that might know is, what are my rights as
far as me being the owner?  I wonder about things like, since they have
a 50 ft. right of way, does that give them the right to park cars along
side of our driveway? etc.  Please e-mail me if you can help in any way
on this.  I would really appreciate it.  Thanks in advance.        -
Tim

Tim.Stammers@Dartmouth.EDU
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: kckbxr@next01pg2.wam.umd.edu (Robin Hood)
Subject: Re: Carjacking as a federal offense
Organization: Workstations at Maryland, University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 20:19:37 GMT

In article <05CS03brabyx00@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> jsp@uts.amdahl.com  
(James Preston) writes:
>> }"2119.  Carjacking
> }  "(a) Whoever, by force and violence, or by intimidation, takes or
> }attempts to take a motor vehicle, that has been transported, shipped,  
or
> }received in interstate or foreign commerce, from the person or presence
> }of another,  shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned not more  
than
> }15 years, or both."

Does anybody else out there find it surprising that Congress could pass  
something so quickly.  This isn't demeaning the carjacking bill (hey, I'm  
from the Washington D.C. area!), but I find it somewhat ironic for them to  
actually have been able to introduce a bill so quickly and for to pass  
also!

bill
From: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,soc.history,alt.politics.usa.constitution
Subject: Re: Marbury v Madison (US 1803)
Date: 10 Oct 92 01:06:47 GMT
Reply-To: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation

In article <1992Oct8.015059.12826@pony.Ingres.COM>, garrett@Ingres.COM (THE 
REVOLUTION WILL NOT BE TELEVISED) writes:
> This is interesting. A couple of years ago I sat through a 
> Constitutional History Class and they said that Marbury vs. Madison
> was the first. Can you email me your evidence?
> They did overturn several state laws before this. Are you sure
> you aern't confusing those state laws with federal laws?

See United States v. Yale Todd, 13 How. 52 (Feb. 17, 1794).  "[T]he 
power to be proposed to be conferred on the Circuit Courts of the United 
States by the [U.S. Congressional] act of 1972 [1 Stat. 243] was not judicial 
power within the meaning of the Constitution, and was, therefore, 
unconstitutional, and could not lawfully be exercised by the courts."

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: bs@gauss.mitre.org (Robert D. Silverman)
Subject: Re: student loans
Organization: Research Computer Facility, MITRE Corporation, Bedford, MA
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 12:29:48 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.182550.2277@nova.sarnoff.com> jms@vision.sarnoff.com writes:
:There is no way you can be a recent graduate, unless your parants paid
:your way.  Your too insensitive to realize how much damage Reaganomics
:did to the American standard of living. You better save up to bail out
:your own children. They will not be able to make it on their own.
 
Why is it that young people always think that their problems are unique?
That a prior gneration couldn't possibly have had similar problems?

I had to put myself through school, and piled up plenty of loans in
the process. I just finished paying them back two years ago. I did not
even think about buying my own condo or home until I could afford it
[which was when I was about 85% done with paying the loans].

*MY* generation had to face service in Vietnam. Opposed to that, a few
loans pale by comparison.

Your post and the prior post simply serve to illustrate what has been
labelled the "ME" generation. Stop blaming your problems on others and
learn to deal with them in a responsible way.
--
Bob Silverman
These are my opinions and not MITRE's.
Mitre Corporation, Bedford, MA 01730
"You can lead a horse's ass to knowledge, but you can't make him think"
From: MANEJWZA@ctrvax.vanderbilt.edu
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Anti-Arab racism on the net
Date: 10 Oct 92 04:48:55 GMT
Organization: Vanderbilt University
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.21

In <1678@frackit.UUCP> dave@frackit.UUCP writes:

> 
>  In article <1992Sep30.040641.25843@news.columbia.edu>, ia4@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Imran Anwar) writes:
>  > In article <1992Sep29.072416.19305@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> baker@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Andrew Baker) writes:
>  > >In article <1992Sep29.034703.29223@news.columbia.edu> ia4@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Imran Anwar) writes:
>  > >>
>  > >>Mike your argument is valid, but how can we place a %age content figure
>  > 
>  > DELETED
>  > 
>  > >Face it: the Islamic world has some catching up to do.
>  > >
>  > 
>  > THAT is exactly the kind of attitude that we are discussing.  Your branding
>  > the entire spectrum of the Islamic world based upon the decision of the
>  > Iranians.  
>  > 
>  > Face it: the Western world has some catching up to do about
>  > understanding Islam
> 
> Is this the same Islam that believes Christians are the enemy and as
> non-believers should be converted to Islam or destroyed? 
> 
> Or is there some other Islam to which you refer?


	Quran, Surah Al Baqara (The Cow)  Verse 253:
	"Let there be no compulsion in religion!"

	History accounts the treatment of Christians and Jews in Spain
and North Africa and in Jerusalem by the Muslims. They lived in peace among the
Muslims.  The Crusades was cutting a bit too deep in the Islamic Empire.  
Their fate was not surprising.

	This is the Islam indeed.

							-Zafar
From: matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Anti-Arab racism on the net
Summary: Western stereotypes of Islam
Keywords: Equality, Fairness, Same Standards?
Date: 9 Oct 92 12:49:28 GMT
Organization: U.S. Army Ballistic Research Lab, APG MD.

In article <1678@frackit.UUCP> dave@frackit.UUCP (Dave Ratcliffe) writes:

> In article <1992Sep30.040641.25843@news.columbia.edu>, 
> ia4@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Imran Anwar) writes:

> > Face it: the Western world has some catching up to do about
> > understanding Islam  [Imran Anwar]

>Is this the same Islam that believes Christians are the enemy and as
>non-believers should be converted to Islam or destroyed?  [Dave Ratcliffe]

Christians, like Jews (l'havdil!), are People of the Book.  Which of
the Ulama' ever ruled that People of the Book "should be converted to
Islam or destroyed"?  On the contrary!  There is a place in the Dar
al Islam for unconverted People of the Book, and there is no danger
of their being destroyed, as long as they know their place, pay
their taxes, and refrain from blasphemy.

In the over 1,400 years since the Hegira, there have now and then
arisen a few wild-eyed African-based zealots, like the Berber Almohades 
and the Almoravids from deeper in West Africa, with a "convert-or-die"
policy, but their extremist view has been the exception.  

The idea that Islam forces Christians to "convert or die" is of a
piece with the canard, seen recently even in the purportedly educated
forum of misc.legal, that witches were burned at the stake in Boston.

All three Religions of the Book come in for a lot of criticism.  Could
this be so because all three of them strongly condemn, in no uncertain
terms, the sort of hedonistic living and sexual immorality toward which
the Evil Urge is ever pulling us?

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

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
TRUTH     JUSTICE     FREEDOM     YIDDISHKEIT     IVY     THE AMERICAN WAY
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: How Can I Really Annoy Someone?
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 19:01:34 GMT

In article <1992Oct14.121316.24032@cbfsb.cb.att.com> sbrenner@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (scott.d.brenner) writes:

>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.

It may not be a criminal act. But you can still be sued for committing it.
Many torts involve acts for which there is no corresponding criminal penalty.

>I'm not looking to totally devastate this guy; I just want to _annoy_ him.

A desire for revenge is harmful to your spiritual health, even though
you may be able to get your revenge without risking criminal or civil
liability.

The fact that you won't get sued or prosecuted doesn't save you from
damage to your spirit. I'd advise you to devote your energy to other
pursuits.


--Mike



-- 
Mike Godwin,    |"I can solve this Orient Express thing without
mnemonic@eff.org| breaking a sweat. It's that simple."
(617) 864-0665  | 
EFF, Cambridge  |                           --Hercule Perot
Xref: sparky misc.legal:18363 alt.censorship:7982 misc.headlines:6557
From: mwhhlaw!tim (Timothy E. Hollingsworth)
Subject: Re: property/future interests formal syntax help
Reply-To: uunet!mwhhlaw!tim
Organization: Martin Wade Hartley & Hollingsworth
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 19:56:42 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.032754.25848@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu  
(Citecheck Hell) writes:
> ObLegalTrivia: Which film noir has a crucial plot turn on a misapplication
>                of the Rule Against Perpetuities?

One of the all time best - "Body Heat"

Which movie depends upon the application of M'Naughten?

--
Tim Hollngsworth
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: lairdb@crash.cts.com (Laird P. Broadfield)
Subject: Re: School Vouchers: Constitutionality?
Organization: "Well, a head on top, an arm on each side, two legs...."
Date: 16 Oct 92 15:54:10 GMT

In <23033@galaxy.ucr.edu> judson@watserv.ucr.edu (Michael Judson) writes:

>Furthermore, the idea of "school vouchers" is utterly ridiculous.  If it
>is proposed because it will give the chance for parents to send their
>children to good schools, then doesn't this send a message that our
>public school system is not adequate?  Instead of worrying about giving
>parents school vouchers, why doesn't the government put that money into
>the public school system.

Leaving the separation issue aside for the moment, much of the idea is to
"send a message" that the public school system is not adequate.  ("Not
adequate", IMO, being a very complimentary way to put it.)  These school
vouchers are a better idea than putting the money into the public school
system for two reasons:  1)it's been shown quite clearly that there is no
connection between putting more money in, and getting more quality out 
(what you get is not more quality, but more layers of bureaucracy in
most cases) and 2)education is none of the government's business anyway.

In concept, this would bring us much closer to a free enterprise system
in education.  If it turned out that every last student got sent to
private schools (and if the demand is there, someone will fill it)
and the public schools were left standing empty (except for the legions
of bureaucrats and incompetent "teachers") some of us couldn't be happier.


-- 
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!
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.folklore.urban
From: lasner@watsun.cc.columbia.edu (Charles Lasner)
Subject: Re: Presidential Succession History (was: Presidential UL's)
Reply-To: lasner@watsun.cc.columbia.edu (Charles Lasner)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 06:16:40 GMT

In article <1992Oct14.051945.12035@PA.dec.com> mikkelson%rwtms2.decnet@consrt.rockwell.com (snopes) 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? 

This was part of the storyline of the movie Panic in the Year Zero 1962
starring Ray Milland and Frankie Avalon (sans Annette).  I think the new
President became a female assistant Governor of a state who evaded the
bombing.

cjl

Xref: sparky misc.legal:18305 tor.general:1327 comp.org.eff.talk:6348
Newsgroups: misc.legal,tor.general,comp.org.eff.talk
From: veatch@cs.toronto.edu (Tim Veatch)
Subject: Re: Toronto Teenager Charged in 911 Case
Reply-To: veatch@cs.toronto.edu
Organization: University of Toronto
Distribution: na
Date: 8 Oct 92 17:39:18 GMT

>	Nigel.Allen@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Nigel Allen) writes:
> Teenage Computer Hacker Nabbed by Police

evan@telly.on.ca (Evan Leibovitch) writes:
>What is left to be determined is why "computer hacker" is related to the
>case.

I seemed to get the idea from the news on TV that he/she was
faking the emergency and attaching to the 911 computer at the same time.
I don't know if this is correct or even if it makes sense,
but that's the idea I got.

Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Subject: Re: Question on new Federal Reserve Bank study in Boston
Organization: Northeastern Law, Class of '93
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 23:41:59 GMT


In article <1992Oct14.225054.8022@island.COM>, 
guido@island.COM (Guido Marx) said:

> > A landmark study released Thursday shows that banks in Greater
> > Boston discriminate against Black and Hispanic mortage applicants,
> > offering the most damning evidence to date of racial hurdles
> > facing minority homebuyers.  [Boston Globe article, 10/9/92]
>
> Can someone answer this question for me - how does the bank KNOW the
> race of the applicant ? [ * * * ] Did this study only look at
> applicants applying directly to the bank ?

Loan application forms include the current address of the applicant.
I'd guess that the banks (allegedly) followed the old "redlining"
practice of making assumptions about applicants' color/ethnicity based
on where they lived, and then making lending decisions based on those
assumptions.  As a city, Boston is still fairly heterogeneous; there
are a lot of neighborhoods that are overwhelmingly African-American,
Italian-American, Irish-American, Chinese-American, etc.

(In addition, with regard to the specific issue of Hispanic-American
applicants I think I can safely say without fear of being labelled a
bigot that many Hispanic-Americans have family names which announce
their ethnicity fairly well, even on paper.)

-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>
From: lsg001@cck.coventry.ac.uk (Graham Wilson)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Presidential Succession History
Date: 15 Oct 92 15:35:08 GMT
Organization: Legal Department - Coventry University

In article <93054@netnews.upenn.edu> brewer@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (marmoset) writes:
>
>>> nuclear attack or something that wipes out a large number of high
>>> officials, what is the line of succession? 
>>
>
>Bunch of high officials deleted
>
>>Secretary of Education
>>Secretary of Veterans Affairs
>>
>
>I was told by someone (and I want to say that it was Mr. Pennypacker (no lie) 
>my 7th and 8th grade social studies teacher) that the line of succession went
>clear down to the Postmaster General.  Was he just plain full o' it?


** The Postmaster General ! I can just imagine the nuclear bomb would either
   be lost or would nuke Europe as a result of incorrect redirection.


   

-- 
          ****************************************************
          *      Graham Wilson      *  lsg001@uk.ac.cov.cck  *
          *     LL.B.  Law  III     *  Coventry  University  *
          ****************************************************
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Subject: Re: Teaching Con Law
Organization: Northeastern Law, Class of '93
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 16:36:05 GMT


In article <1992Oct5.232440.21572@panix.com>, 
eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler) said:

> > Take Constitutional Law ASAP, Ted. It continues to dismay me that
> > neither Harvard nor the University of Chicago require
> > Constitutional Law as a first-year course.

> You could add to this list NYU, where I had the dubious pleasure of
> listening to Norman Dorsen -- a great ACLU president, but a lousy
> professor -- during my entire second year.  At least the entire year
> is compulsory; many schools make only one semester (basically,
> institutional questions and equal protection, from what I
> understand) compulsory.

For what it's worth, Con Law is a first-year requirement at
Northeastern, along with Torts, Property, Crim, Civil Procedure,
Contracts and Legal Practice.  (The first three last all year, Legal
Practice 2/3 of the year and CivPro and Contracts are crammed into
half a year each and taught at hyperspeed... fortunately, I had *good*
profs in both.)  The only other required course is, of curse,
Professional Responsibility.  ("Rule number one is, don't steal from
your clients.  Rule number two is that, basically, rule number one is
all you need to know." :-)  Having taken the class, I'm inclined
towards the view that Evidence should be required as well, but I guess
I can see the argument that non-litigators (the majority of practicing
lawyers) don't really need it.

Northeastern's Con Law focuses heavily on the Commerce Clause, Equal
Protection and Substantive and Procedural Due Process, with a lot of
emphasis on how inconsistent and arbitrary the Supreme Court can be.
The parts of the Constitution that deal with criminal matters (ex post
facto, much of the Bill of Rights) are covered in Crim.  Beyond that,
it's all optional 2d and 3d year courses, like "Bill of Rights"
(taught for so many years by Prof. Robert Hallgring that it's referred
to around the campus as "Bill of Bob") and "Conflict of Laws" (some of
time spent on the interface between federal and state laws, a lot of
time spent on how "Full Faith and Credit" affects interstate conflicts
of laws).

-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>
Newsgroups: misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.theory
From: titmas@chdasic.sps.mot.com (Eric Titmas)
Subject: Re: Jury Nullification -- The Power is a Right
Organization: SPS
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 00:01:20 GMT

In article <1992Oct9.113720.26467@eff.org>, mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:
|> In article <1992Oct9.012136.26384@newsgate.sps.mot.com> titmas@chdasic.sps.mot.com (Eric Titmas) writes:
|> 
|> >There are at least three careful readers here (Tony Davis, Al Date, & myself)
|> >who think that Mike has a problem with ambiguous and inaccurate postings.
|> 
|> Don't be silly. The three of you have had different objections. Lumping
|> yourself together with Tony Davis and Al Date may make you feel good, but
|> it doesn't support your point.
|> 
|> Even if you all *did* agree on your criticisms of me, it wouldn't have any
|> more weight than the fact that (far more than three) people share the same
|> belief that Lyndon LaRouche is the candidate of choice in 1992.
|> 
|> I deny having been "inaccurate" in any of the postings of mine you have
|> criticized. 
|> 
|> >Mike
|> >also has difficulty accepting criticism and admitting error.
|> 
|> The business about difficulty in admitting error seems to be projection on
|> your part. Like many people, you tend to see your own flaws in others.

Mike has difficulty accepting criticism and admitting error.
-- 
Eric Titmas      Motorola ASIC       titmas@chdasic.sps.mot.com               

It is impossible to take in more money than Congress can spend.  - Thomas Sowell
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: wb@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (werner.baumgartner)
Subject: Compensation ?
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 21:14:31 GMT

Background:
Two adjacent buildings have no space between them, their exterior surfaces
actually touch each other. Building #1 is torn down leaving a portion of the
"common wall" standing. Permission is granted to an individual by the owner
of building #1 to remove a historic marker from the remaining structure.
Work proceeds but is stopped by the owner of building #2 who claims the
artifact as his since it is attached to his building. Agreement is reached
between the partys, in the presence of police officers, that the work be
completed and the artifact be held by the owner of building #2 until the
ownership issue is determined. Research determines that the remaining portion
of building #1 is in fact over the property line and an easement had been
granted years ago for this condition to exist.

Comments:
The owner of building #1 and the individual performing the removal acted
in good faith believing that the property line was at the interface of the
two structures. The owner of building #2 refuses to give up the artifact
and further refuses to compensate the people who removed it for their
time and materials used.

Question:
Now what ? The person holding the artifact received it for nothing, no expense
in time, effort, or materials. The people who performed the work have received
nothing for their efforts. Also, the threat of a charge of vadalism against
them is in the air. Could a judgement for the expenses be obtained against
the owner of building #2 ? Could a counter charge of vandalism stick ?

			Comments Appreciated and Welcomed,
							Werner B.
From: mikep@hpmwtd.sr.hp.com (Mike Powell)
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 23:27:01 GMT
Subject: Re: Roe v. Wade for Men!
Organization: HP Santa Rosa Site (SRSD MWTD)