HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: chris@pigiron.engr.wisc.edu (Christian Rohrmeier)
Subject: Re: Looking for some witch boots
Organization: U of Wisconsin-Madison College of Engineering
Date: 9 Sep 92 19:05:42 CDT

In article <1992Sep7.045242.1@cmcvx1.claremont.edu> rwatkins@cmcvx1.claremont.edu writes:
>Ok...
>
>Anyone out there know where I might be able to pick up a pair or witch boots?
>You know, those black, leather boots with the neato-pointy toes.  A goth 
>friend of mine has a really cool pair, but he traded a friend for them, and 
>no-one I talk to can seem to refer me to a place to look, they all got them 
>years ago, or got them from someone who got em years ago.  I'm *this* close 
>to killing my friend for his pair, so alas, I have turned to the net in 
>search of suggestions.
>
>I want to be able to dance in them when I go to clubs, thus I'm not looking 
>from a pair with 6" heels, just a pair of nice, black, leather, witch boots.  
>If you can help, please email me personally, as I get sporadic access to 
>the net here, and I might miss it if ya post it.
>
>Thanx ahead of time.
>
>-------- Ryan

Well Ryan, there's a place in Passau, Germany that sells them (not very
cheaply though, a friend of mine spent DM245 on some high ones with
death-skull buckles, but they did look rather nice.

-Chris

Newsgroups: alt.gothic,alt.horror
From: reiners@iastate.edu ()
Subject: _Tales of the Good Woman, by a Doubtful Gentleman_
Summary: asking for info on book
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 22:38:37 GMT

Has anybody read _Tales of the Good Woman, by a Doubtful Gentleman_, by James 
Kirke Paulding?  I saw it listed in a book on gothic novels.  It has a rather 
intriguing title.  I'm going to see this evening if the university library 
here has it.  If anybody's read it, I'd like to hear your opinion.

Paul Reiners
<reiners@iastate.edu>

Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.activism,misc.legal
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Yelling "Theater!" in a crowded fire...
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 12:44:24 GMT


Some details ...

========= ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/law/schenck-v-united-states ========
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.censorship
From: russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto)
Subject: Re: Another censorship incident has just occurred
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 91 02:47:48 GMT
Organization: College of Engineering, Maryversity of Uniland, College Park

In article <1991Dec18.221806.3518@milton.u.washington.edu> taylorsm@milton.u.washington.edu (Allen TaylorSmith) writes:
>
>I think it would be germain to this discussion to look at where the principle
>espoused here, shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater, originated.  It was
>first used in the supporting opinion in a US Supreme Court case, Debs vs
>City of Chicago.  I do not remember which Justice wrote the opinion, but it
>was given as an example of why it was ok for the city of Chicago to arrest
>Eugene V. Debs _before_ he made a speech that the mayor of Chicago felt
>could lead to civil unrest.  I can't recall off the top of my head if this
>was during the Haymarket Riots or the Pullman Car Strike.
>
>My point being that this example was used specifically to allow a priori 
>arrest to prevent a speech from being made.  You judge whether that was
>censorship or not.

The first case was Schenck v. United States (249 US 47; 39 S. Ct 247; 63 L.
Ed 470 (1919)), decided a week before Debs.  The opinion was written by
Holmes.

"The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely
shouting fire in a theatre, and causing a panic.  It does not even protect a
man from an injunction against uttering words that may have all the effect
of force. The question in every case is whether the words used are used in
such circumstances and are of a nature as to create a clear and present
danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has
a right to prevent.  It is a question of proximity and degree."

I find it hard to believe that any article on Usenet (besides, perhaps, a
how-to manual on computer fraud) could satisfy the proximity requirement.
-- 
Matthew T. Russotto	russotto@eng.umd.edu	russotto@wam.umd.edu
Your superior intellect is no match for our puny weapons! -- The Simpsons
Just say NO to police searches and seizures.  Make them use force.
(not responsible for bodily harm resulting from following above advice)

--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
From: elee74l@rosie.uh.edu (X)
Subject: UH "Open Mike"  9/11/92
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: University of Houston
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 06:44:00 GMT

The University of Houston is having an "Open Mike" on 9/11/92.
If anyone is interested, please come and express your viewpoint
on ANY issue, such as the GOP, pro-choice, pro-life, gay rights, 
family value, environmental issues, etc, etc, etc...

It is going to be held in the University Center Saterlite from
noon to 1 p.m.  at University of Houston (central campus).
This program is sponsered by the Student Program Board (SPB) as part of
the membership drive.

If you have any question, e-mail to elee74l@jetson.uh.edu

-Ken N.


Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.society.civil-liberty,misc.legal
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: _Visions of Liberty: The Bill of Rights for All Americans_
Followup-To: alt.society.civil-liberty
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 15:49:49 GMT

(Follow up to alt.society.civil-liberty)

You may have noticed that many of my recent posts have included
excerpts from _Visions of Liberty_ by Ira Glasser and Bob Adelman.
I'm in the middle of reading a library copy of the book, but decided
to buy the book because I'm finding very useful as a reference. I
thought others might also be interested in the book, so I'm enclosing
ordering information. But first ...

Minireview: Great book on the history and state of civil liberties in
America. Very attractive, hardback, 288 pages, with chapters of text
interleaved with chapters of photos. It has a complete list of
references, but they are identified by key phrase rather than a
number. This makes the text more readable, but references less
convenient to find. The index is very good.

Score: 10 of 10

Disclaimer: I am ACLU member. I really have ordered the book.

You can probably find it or order through bookstores, but if you want
to order it from the ACLU:

Send $24.94 + $1.50/item, check or money order payable to ACLU, to

ACLU, Dept L.
P.O. Box 794
Medford, NY 11763

(you can also get a catalog of publications for free from the same
address.)

- Carl


--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [misc.consumers]  Re: Waldenbooks fires staff for refusing to sell racist book!
Followup-To: alt.censorship,misc.consumers
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 16:25:08 GMT

[A repost - Carl]

From: Rudy.Zalesak@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Rudy Zalesak)
Newsgroups: misc.consumers
Subject:  Re: Waldenbooks fires staff for refusing to sell racist book!
Date: 14 Sep 92 23:24:34 GMT

No one has yet said that both sides in this are right, so I'll do
the dirty work.

The employees were not being any more censorious than the *owners* of
WB, who also make judgements about what books/calendars etc. to
display. The owners of WB also seem within their legal rights to
fire the employees. 

On balance, WB's action seems pretty heavy-handed. If the employees
had refused to put a Hustler calendar in the kids' section,
I wonder how the Net opinions would have shifted
around?

	-- Rudy Zalesak

--
   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
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [misc.consumers, et al.]  Re: Waldenbooks fires staff for refusing to sell racist book!
Followup-To: alt.censorship,misc.consumers,misc.books.technical,alt.discrimination
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 18:41:30 GMT

[A repost - Carl]

From: johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us (John R. Levine)
Newsgroups: misc.consumers,misc.books.technical,alt.discrimination
Subject:  Re: Waldenbooks fires staff for refusing to sell racist book!
Date: 6 Sep 92 17:14:10 GMT

jsdph@acad3.alaska.edu (Dennis P. Harris) writes:
>..., Waldenbooks has fired the staff of its Georgetown store in Washington,
>DC for refusing to sell the "Joke-A-Date" appointment calendar, which
>contains racist and demeaning "jokes" for each day of 1993.  After hearing
>some examples ... of the "jokes", I agree with the former WB employees that
>the publication (from St. Martins Press, which should know better) would
>offend a large number of bookstore customers.
>
>I have already informed WB that I intend to boycott them ...
>The book's author is ... listed as "Blanche Knott"

Thanks for pointing this out, so I can patronize Waldenbooks, a place I
haven't gone to in the past.

There have been a bunch of books published in the past under the ``Blanche
Knott'' pseudonym, all full of offensive and sophmoric jokes, and none of
which were worth buying, based on 10 or 15 seconds spent flipping through
a few of them.  But I have no interest in patronizing a store where the
clerks decide what I can or cannot read because they think someone
wouldn't like it.

In case it's not obvious, this stupid calendar will probably sell three
times as many copies now as it would if the employees had ignored it.

-- 
John R. Levine, IECC, POB 349, Cambridge MA 02238, +1 617 492 3869
johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us, {ima|spdcc|world}!iecc!johnl
Re-elect Vice President Potatoe-Head !
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,talk.religion.misc
From: NETOPRWA@ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu (Wayne Aiken)
Subject: Re: Limiting Government's religious speech
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 22:44:04 GMT

In article <nzxn6rm.jamesh@netcom.com>
jamesh@netcom.com (James Hightower) writes:
>I think it took a bit too much of a stretch of the imagination for the
>Foundng Fathers (tm) to imagine a religon with more or less than one god, so
>"In God we trust" may have sounded non-denominational at the time.
 
"In God We Trust" on money was not legally mandated until the mid 1950s,
although you will find it on some coins as early as the late 1800s.  This
motto on money, "One Nation under God" in the pledge, and changing the
national motto from "E Pluribus Unum" to "In God We Trust" are all legacies
of the 1950s MacCarthy red-scare.  It was a deliberate attempt to
christianize the entire country in reaction to what they perceived as an
atheist threat.
 
I imagine that the founding fathers, champions of the separation of church
and state, must have rolled over in their graves several times.
 
 
Wayne Aiken                                            "You can BE what
PO Box 30904            slack@ncsu.edu                  you WON'T!!"
Raleigh, NC  27622                                       --"Bob"
(919) 782-8171          StarFleet BBS: (919) 782-3095
From: aultj@rpi.edu (Jim Ault)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
Subject: Re: Limiting religious speech
Date: 14 Sep 92 22:37:24 GMT
	<AULTJ.92Sep1173641@caleb.rpi.edu> <!4kny4c.adamsr@netcom.com>
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute

In article <!4kny4c.adamsr@netcom.com> adamsr@netcom.com (Rick Adams) writes:

	   The difference is, you want to muzzle speech - I want to permit it.

	   POINT: You claim that relaxation techniques are attempts to
   indoctrinate children with Eastern religious practices, when in fact they
   are very standard psychological tools with no relationship to Eastern
   religion whatever. Yet you demand their removal.

No, I want the right to have my child removed from such classes.

	   POINT: You want to eliminate programs of sex education which are
   PROVEN to reduce the spread of STDs (including AIDS) and to reduce the teen
   pregnancy rates and to replace these scientifically accurate programs with
   morality lessons based on your own religion.

No, I want the right to have my child removed from such classes.
By the way, abstinence is still 100% effective.  Perhaps they could
_mention_ that as one alternative among many?   If we have so many
people campaigning to tell the kids "Just Say No to Drugs", why can't
we even mention the _idea_ of "Just Say No to Sex"?

	   POINT: You insist that any teaching which does not support your own
   religious beliefs is wrong and should be removed - yet you snivel and whine
   if anyone wants to ban any reference to your superstitious nonsense from
   being used as a basis for teaching in our schools.

No, I want the right to have my child removed from such classes, and
that the school would inform me of any such classes, so I could know
ahead of time, instead of when my child comes home afterward.

(...enormous venting of hatred toward religious people deleted...)

   >I certainly have the right to participate in the political process to
   >affect public policy (voting for officials that share my beliefs, etc).
   >
   >Being an informed voter, and informing your own elected officials of
   >your views in order that they may represent you is not "dictating"
   >anything.

	   Quite true. But organizing boycotts of firms which sell materials
   you don't want to read, threatening politicians with organized actions to
   prevent their re-elections if they don't support your position,

I have seen many groups which do this, from Animal Rights groups, to
Environmental groups, to NOW.  Would like to go tell them to stop
doing this too?

   ...  it is manipulating the system to forward a private agenda!

Gee, that sounds like a lot of political action groups, including
ACT-UP, NOW, National Education Association and even People for the
American Way.  You had better tell them to stop that real quick...
--
Jim Ault, ITS Systems Programmer, aultj@rpi.edu    <><
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Limiting Government's religious speech
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 17:57:07 GMT

J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM writes:

>In <1686110778.NETOPRWA@ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu>, Wayne Aiken writes:
>
>>I imagine that the founding fathers, champions of the separation of church
>>and state, must have rolled over in their graves several times.
>
>I wonder how many times this needs to be stated.  The doctrine of "separation
>of church and state" is found *nowhere* in any of our founding documents.  The
>First Amendment merely states that Congress shall not establish an official
>religion.

That is not what it states. I quote: "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof;"

As to what it means, that is open to debate, but everyone seems to
agree that it meant that Feds were not allowed to give perference to
one sect or another and a good case can be made that it meant that
Feds were suppose to stay out of religion altogether. [This is a hot
topic in alt.politics.usa.constitution and alt.society.civil-liberty.]

>It never said that the *states* couldn't, but I'm glad no state has
>ever challenged this.
[...]
>"In a free government the security for civil rights must be the same as that
> of religious rights." -- James Madison, Federalist #51
[...]

The 14th Amendment says "No State shall make or enforce any law which
shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United
States;" If you believe that governement-free-religion is a privilege
or immunity of U.S. citizens (as the courts, do), then the states can
not longer interfere with religion as they once could.

In any case, at least two of the founders, Jefferson and Madison, did
believe in separation.

- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.activism]  Ohio Ethnic Intimidation Law
Followup-To: alt.censorship,alt.activism
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 10:55:41 GMT

[A repost - Carl]

Newsgroups: alt.activism
From: monstman@bluemoon.rn.com (Kevin A. Keefe)
Subject:  Ohio Ethnic Intimidation Law
Date: Wed, 09 Sep 92 22:29:35 EDT

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?
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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? 
 
>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.
 

Kevin A. Keefe                 Politically Correct, and damn proud of it!
monstman@bluemoon              "Only two things are infinite, the universe
monstman@bluemoon.uucp          and human stupidity, and I'm not sure
monstman%bluemoon@nstar.rn.com  about the former." - Albert Einstein
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.binaries.pictures, et al.]  Re: UPDATE: F*** You All UPDATE!
Followup-To: alt.censorship,alt.binaries.pictures,alt.drugs,alt.sex,misc.kids
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 14:14:11 GMT

[A repost - Carl]

Newsgroups: alt.binaries.pictures,alt.drugs,alt.sex,misc.kids
From: "Paul Hager" <hagerp@moose.cs.indiana.edu>
Subject:  Re: UPDATE: F*** You All UPDATE!
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 01:33:39 -0500

I disagree completely with the approach of asking the government
to take a hand in censoring particular viewpoints.  And the dangers
inherent in invoking government to deal with forgers should be
obvious.  In particular, given that this message was cross-posted
to alt.sex and alt.drugs, be assured that the first groups the
fundamentalist mullahs would in government would shut down would
be these self-same groups.

Did it ever occur to the poster that if there was a provocation and
conspiracy behind the postings of the several people mentioned, that
it might have been that of agent provocateurs -- that the real 
purpose was to whip up netters themselves to bring in the government 
censors?  In that case, the poster is playing into the hands of the 
provocateurs.

I personally don't buy into these kinds of conspiratorial excursions.
Let me just suggest that instead of getting all worked up about
some asinine posting, just kill it and put the poster in a kill file.
Believe me, you don't want to get government involved in this.
End of story.
-- 
paul hager		hagerp@moose.cs.indiana.edu

"I would give the Devil benefit of the law for my own safety's sake."
                       --from _A_Man_for_All_Seasons_ by Robert Bolt
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,talk.religion.misc,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Subject: Re: Limiting Government's religious speech
Keywords: Trusting God, or Caesar, or your money
Reply-To: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 21:31:39 GMT

>]>If the U.S. government has the legal authority to put "In God We
>]>Trust" on our money, then it also has the legal authority to put
>]>"There is no 'God'" on our money.
>]>I would prefer to live under a government without such authority.
>]
>]	So would I. But my second choice would be the one that prints "There
>]is no God" on the money!
>
>While the Soviet Union probably never printed it on their money, they did
>print it in their schoolbooks, and made it illegal to teach kids otherwise -
>even your own kids.  Probably not the sort of liberal tolerance you'd like.

You mean a bit like this?

A repost from rec.arts.books:

From: ncramer@bbn.com (Nichael Cramer)
Subject:  Re: [UPI] Report: Book censorship, challenges in schools at 10-year high
Date: 10 Sep 1992 16:21:12 GMT

francis@oas.stanford.edu (Francis Muir) writes:
>Erik Timmerman writes:
>>	There is a new book on this topic: What Johnny Shouldn't Read
>>	by Joan DelFattore.  Reviewed within the last month in the
> ... Example. Texas would not allow the New Deal to be mentioned
>in their books, since it sounded Commie and not Free Enterprise. Result.
>There is a gap -- literally, a gap -- between Hoover and Pearl Harbor
>where clearly something had been there.

Specifically: Texan schoolbooks are forbidden --by law-- from mentioning
any topic that might tend to show the free-enterprise system in a bad
light.  Since it it difficult to discuss the New Deal without bumping up
against the suggestion that it might have helped the US recover from the
Great Depression, the New Deal is inadmissible evidence.

[Source: "Fresh Air" Interview with DelFattore, broadcast on WBUR (Boston)
Tuesday evening.]

NICHAEL  
nichael@bbn.com  --                Bush/Gorbachev: One Down, One to Go


Newsgroups: alt.censorship