HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dfo@tko.vtt.fi (Foxvog Douglas)
Subject: Re: U.S. Bill of Rights today
Organization: VTT
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 13:00:55 GMT

For followups please check newsgroups.  Include rec.nude only if
referring to bans on photos of naked children.

In article <1992Sep10.205716.15655@njitgw.njit.edu> msh9848@hertz.njit.edu (Matthew) writes:
>In article <1992Sep10.191834.14992@tamsun.tamu.edu> rdubbs@cs.tamu.edu (Roger B. Dubbs III) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep9.234625.10454@nntp.hut.fi> jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala) writes:
>>>In article <1992Sep9.225040.27403@tamsun.tamu.edu> rdubbs@cs.tamu.edu
>>(Roger Dubbs) wrote:
>>
>>Obviously in your example, freedom of speech (Amendment I) is violated.
>>I'm not so certain it is in my case.  The government can certainly prove
>>that the publisher possesses the pictures.  Is he not then the most
[generic photos of naked children] 
[Assumption made by R.Dubbs is that the intent is publication]


>The U.S. Constitution guarantees freedom of speech. This guarantee has 
>been stretched to the limit.  

>  As far as I see it, 

>Speech != writing

This is included in Freedom of the Press

>Speech != Art

This is arguably included in Freedom of the Press

>Speech != Music

This is arguably included in Freedom of the Press.  The content of the
music is protected by Freedom of Speech although the instrument may not
be.  Laws limiting volume in given locations are probably constitutional 
unless the intent is to limit political communication (i.e. speech).

>Speech != burning things in protest. 

Burning bans are perfectly constitutional.  Burning bans based on
political content are not because they are adressed against a form of
communication.  Speech is communication.  

>Speech means using the vocal chords to spread a message by sound. 

>Freedom of Speech does not mean freedom of expression in any form. 
>Therefore child pornography is not freedom of speech. 

Publishing is Press.  The First Amendment guarantees us freedom of the
press.  Taking pictures for press purposes is Press and should be
included under freedom of the press.  I would oppose any government ban
on photography (bans on flash and floodlights are valid because they are
imposing and may damage art...), but photography for the purpose of
publishing is certainly covered.

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.  

There should be no bans on photgraphs of nude people.  Kids are often
nude.  So are adults.  If one is in a situation with nude people it is
polite to ask them (or guardians of a kid) before taking a picture, but
there should be no law against it.  

>Perhaps the constitution should be changed to include Freedom of Expression, 
>however it does not say that now. 

I doubt we could pass any single one of the Amendments in the Bill of
Rights these days.  

>Matt 


-- 
doug foxvog     
dfo@tko.vtt.fi   
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: U.S. Bill of Rights today
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 22:59:55 GMT

In article <1992Sep13.055611.22600@qiclab.scn.rain.com> 70465.203@compuserve.com writes:
>What's worse is the frequency with which "that's not what the founding
>fathers intended" argument can be shown to be false

Honestly, I prefer such abuses to judicial activism: It puts the
debate into a factual (and somewhat objective) context. Biased use
of original intent can be countered, by presenting more accurate
historical interpertations of the framer's intent. This is much
better than arguments based on activist principles: Since such
arguments usually boil down to, "I think the Constituion _should_ say...",
they are very hard to contradict. Even if historic arguments can
be abused, this at least provides a framework with _some_ claim to
objectivity and political impartiality.

                                           Frank Crary
                                           CU Boulder

Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.drugs,misc.legal
From: death@buhub.bradley.edu (Dustin Slater)
Subject: Re: [misc.legal] Drug dogs used in public schools
Organization: Bradley University
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 92 18:49:11 GMT

Well, this isn't entirely uncommon. I am a sophomore in college now, but
for 3 years of my highschool career they would have drug dogs running the
hall. They would make us close the classroom doors, and no one could go in
or out for anything. The police would then plant a few unused lockers with
drugs and then work the halls. I don't believe they ever found anything
except a couple of jakets that smelled like pot. One might think this was
a city school, but we weren't. my town was about 8,000, and 2 neighboring
towns also used our school of about 1600 students.
--
death@buhub.bradley.edu                              death@camelot.bradley.edu

           Feel your blood run cold as the face of Death stares at you.
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,talk.religion.misc,uiuc.civil-liberty
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Chicago Tribune on "Religious Freedom Restoration Act"
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 20:16:27 GMT

bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:

[...]
> What's the "Religious
>Freedom Restoration Act", what's the _Smith_ decision
[...]

Sorry, for the unclear excerpt.

Here is the case that set the old law:

_Sherbert v. Verner_ (1963): A Seventh-Day Adventist refused a job
offer that required working on a Saturday (the day she observed as the
Sabbath). The Supreme Court said she her refusal was not grounds for
the government to deny her unemployment benefits. It said that laws
that interfere with religious practice are only allowed if they are
based on "compelling state interest."

That was the law for 25 years, until 1990, when:

_Employment Division, Department of Human Resources v. Smith_ (1990):
Two members of the Native American Church used peyote during a
sacramental ceremony on the church. They were fired from their jobs,
and applied for unemployment benefits. Because use of peyote is
illegal in Oregon, the state denied their unemployment benefits. The
Supreme Court upheld the denial and created a new law: religious
beliefs can never excuse you from compliance with an otherwise valid
law, as long as the law as not intentionally designed to discriminate
against a particular religion. The Court said: "religious practices
that are not widely engagage in" would place religious minorities "at
a relative disadvantage" and subject them to the discretion of
legislative majorities. This, said the Court, is an "unavoidable
consequence of a democratic government."
         [Information from _Visions of Liberty_ p. 78
          and _American Constitutional Law_ by Rossum and Tarr, p. 464]

The _Religious Freedom Restoration Act_ would return the standard to
"compelling state interest".

- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Xref: sparky alt.society.civil-liberty:5761 alt.politics.usa.constitution:66
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution
Subject: Re: U.S. Bill of Rights today
Date: 11 Sep 92 21:07:21 GMT
Followup-To: alt.society.civil-liberty
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <1992Sep11.123704.13602@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu>, symanzik@egr.msu.edu (Ed Symanzik) writes:

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

> Here are a few quotes to support Bush's statement.  (I can produce more 
> if you aren't convinced).

> The Supreme Court of Mass.:
> 
>     [The First Amendment] embraces all who believe in the existence of
>     God, as well...as Christians of every denomination....THIS 
>     PROVISION DOES NOT EXTEND TO ATHEISTS, because they do not believe
>     in God or religion; and therefore...their sentiments and professions,
>     whatever they may be, cannot be called religious sentiments and 
>     professions.
> 	 Commonwealth v. Abner Kneeland; 37 Mass. (20 Pick) 206,233,234
> 	 (Sup.Ct.Mass. 1838)

Anyone who uses a citation from the State of Massachusetts as any example
of equitable or desirable treatment of people's religious rights needs to 
check the compression in all his cylinders.
-- 

cdt@pdp.sw.stratus.com      --If you believe that I speak for my company,
OR cdt@vos.stratus.com        write today for my special Investors' Packet...
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Subject: Re: U.S. Bill of Rights today (was alt.activism et al: Who's free'er)
Reply-To: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 20:54:34 GMT

In article <1992Sep9.185933.10418@gtech.com>, smp@gtech (Sergio M. Pedro) writes:
>In article <1992Sep9.032310.18048@nntp.hut.fi> jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala) writes:
>>[followups directed to alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution]

[ ... ]

>When I get the chance I'll discuss the other points.  Thanks for taking
>time to formulate a well spoken opinion.   

Just to point out that what I posted was not of my own writing but a
repost of an article by adamsr@netcom.com (Rick Adams), then on which
I commented with a repost of quotes from an article by
russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) and a repost of Eric
Postpischil's (edp@math.zko.dec.com or edp@jareth.enet.dec.com) 1990
status report on the US Bill of Rights (published also on the Whole
Earth Review, by the way).

//Jyrki
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: U.S. Bill of Rights today
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 07:14:29 GMT

In article <1992Sep11.123704.13602@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> symanzik@egr.msu.edu (Ed Symanzik) writes:
>    RELIGION.  Includes a belief in the being and perfections of God,
>    in the revelation of his will to man, and in man's obligation to
>    obey his commands, in a state of reward and punishment, and in man's
>    accountableness to God; and also true godliness or piety of life,
>    with the practice of all moral duties...THE PRACTICE OF MORAL DUTIES
>    WITHOUT A BELIEF IN A DIVINE LAWGIVER, AND WITHOUT REFERENCE TO 
>    HIS WILL OR COMMANDS, IS NOT RELIGION. [emphasis mine]
>      Noah Webster, American Dictionary of the English Language, 1828
>      definition of "religion."

Interesting: Then you would not consider daoism a religion? Most of
China would disagree.

                                                         Frank Crary
                                                         CU Boulder

Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: night@acm.rpi.edu (Trip Martin)
Subject: Re: U.S. Bill of Rights today (was alt.activism et al: Who's free'er)
Reply-To: night@acm.rpi.edu
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 19:39:30 GMT

In <1992Sep9.185933.10418@gtech.com> smp@gtech.com (Sergio M. Pedro) writes:

>In article <1992Sep9.032310.18048@nntp.hut.fi> jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala) writes:

>         *note* murder (see human sacrafice) is illegal

>>	Satanic worship: Subjects the participants to potential sanctions
>>			 by the child protective services even if no laws
>>			 are violated.

Note the phrase "even if no laws are violated".  How can their be murder
if no laws are violated?  Not all satanic cults are involved in murder
and other such mayhem.

>        *note* try reading the above amendment again.  The statement is
>	that the government shall not prohibit religion not, that there shall be
>	no religious influence.  Regardless of what you might believe 
>        people _always_ take their belief system with them.  Also, if the 
>	Amendment is read as written, it would also prohibit the government
>	from saying that certain religious principles cannot spoken of in
>	government buildings.  Bottom line, the Amendment stipulates that
>	the government won't establish, prohibit or interfere (sp?) with
>	religion - not the other way around.

>>	Religious influence on political structures: See the Republican
>>			 			     Platform.

Separation of church and state, while not explicit in the constitution, is
a longstanding principle based on Surpreme Court interpretation of the
first amendment.

>        * ok * I'll agree somewhat with your statement here.  The USA is
>	not "technically" (sp?- sorry) a "Christian" nation.  It is however,
>	a nation who's many foundations are in the Judeo-Christian theology.

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

Just because the roots of this country are within the Judeo-Christian culture
doesn't mean people of other religions should be treated like second-class
citizens.

>        * note *  Crimes against children, including child porn are not
>	covered under freedom of speech.

>>	Free Speech: Censorship of adult materials.

Child pornography is only a small segment of "adult materials".  You can't
use that argument as a basis for banning playboy/adult porn movies/etc.
-- 
Trip Martin
night@acm.rpi.edu
--
Trip Martin
night@acm.rpi.edu
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty
From: wcs@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (Bill Stewart 908-949-0705 erebus.att.com!wcs)
Subject: Re: [UPI] ACLU awaits voters' decision
Organization: Libertarian Politicians and Rabble-Rousers, Inc.
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 01:57:37 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.

[I assume you mean "doesn't include" ...]

Nadine Strossen spoke at the 1991 Libertarian Party National Convention,
as part of the opening panel on the Bill of Rights.  She said that a
substantial number of ACLU members support the individualist interpretation
of the 2nd (i.e. that it means what it says :-)), and that the ACLU
was beginning a study of the issues, to determine whether they should
revise their current position, which supports the collectivist positition.
I don't know if they've finished jawboning about it yet, but it was
quite a positive start, and it sounds like *she* now believes in the 2nd.
-- 

				Pray for peace;      Bill
#Bill Stewart 908-949-0705 wcs@anchor.ho.att.com AT&T Bell Labs 4M312 Holmdel NJ
# Any technology distinguishable from magic is not sufficiently advanced ...
Xref: sparky alt.society.civil-liberty:5880 talk.politics.guns:20967 talk.politics.misc:45554 talk.bizarre:30235
From: jack@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk (Jack Campin)
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,talk.politics.guns,talk.politics.misc,talk.bizarre
Subject: Re: JDs (was Re: Clinton in _Rolling Stone_ ...)
Date: 15 Sep 92 16:49:13 GMT
Reply-To: jack@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk (Jack Campin)
Followup-To: talk.politics.guns,talk.bizarre
Organization: COMANDOS Project, Glesga Yoonie

lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani) wrote, in talk.politics.drugs
                                and alt.drugs among other newsgroups:
> billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson) writes:
>> n9020351@henson.cc.wwu.edu (James Douglas Del-Vecchio) writes:
>>: rchilder@us.oracle.com (Richard Childers) writes:
>>:>There are .22 automatics, yes. Converting a semi to full is not impossible.
> Andy Freeman has $2000 for you if you can do it.
>>: I have never seen a .22 cal machine pistol or submachine gun, but one netter
>>: wrote me that Ruger 10-22s .22 LR rifles have been made (or remade?) in
>>: full auto and can be had in those states like Colorado which allow it.
> "Carbine" Williams, credited with inventing the M1 Carbine, also built a
> full-auto .22LR rifle which he hoped to sell to the military, but it never
> sold.  Then there all the 5.56 NATO (.22 on steroids) firearms ...
>> The federal government has prohibited the production of fully automatic
>> weapons for civilians. As such, no new such firearms may be legally produced.
> Recent circuit court rulings, i.e., U.S. v. Rock Island Armory and
> U.S. v.  Dalton, portend a change in this area.  In Rock Island Armory
> the court said that the National Firearms Act is constitutionally valid
> only under tax law (that's the reason for the "transfer tax" baloney),
> and if the government is not collecting the transfer tax on new machineguns
> it may not regulate manufacture of new machineguns.  In Dalton, the court
> ruled that possession of an unregistered machinegun cannot be prohibited
> for essentially the same reason.  These ruling only apply in the respective
> circuit courts, and even so, you'd have to be a masochist to tangle with
> the BATF on this.  Of course, the BATF disagrees with these circuit court
> rulings and will continue to prosecute anyone who violates BATF interpre-
> tation of the law.
>> The state may allow possession, with proper federal licensing, but they
>> cannot allow manufacture. Any such firearms would be illegally manufactured.

Wow.  I suppose that's relevant to the drugs newsgroups because the BATF is
involved?

That's really bizarre, so followups include talk.bizarre as well.

-- 
--  Jack Campin    room G092, Computing Science Department, Glasgow University,
17 Lilybank Gardens, Glasgow G12 8RZ, Scotland   TEL: 041 339 8855 x6854 (work)
INTERNET: jack@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk or via nsfnet-relay.ac.uk    FAX: 041 330 4913
BANG!net: via mcsun and uknet     BITNET: via UKACRL    UUCP: jack@glasgow.uucp
Xref: sparky alt.society.civil-liberty:5663 alt.privacy:1803 talk.politics.misc:43880 soc.culture.usa:7138
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 03:35:59 GMT
Article-I.D.: qiclab.1992Sep5.033559.10480
Reply-To: 70465.203@compuserve.com
Organization: SCN Research/Qic Laboratories of Tigard, Oregon.

olson@dstl86.gsfc.nasa.gov (Paul Olson) writes:

>In article <j6@byu.edu>, gritton@byu.edu writes...
>>jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala) writes:
>> 
>>> This is the Big Brother bill that's been circulating previously.  See
>>> the original article in comp.org.eff.talk for the bill itself.
>> 
>>This has no more to do with news administration policy than it it does
>>with American culture. Keep the garbage out.
>>--
>>James Gritton - gritton@byu.edu - I disclaim

>James,

>Who are you trying to kid?  Who runs the FBI and the NSA?  Not Congres.  Not
>you and me.  Guess what?  It's the ADMINISTRATION!!!

Excuse me. news.admin.policy has *nothing* to do with the administration
you are talking about. It is for discussing the administration of usenet
new and the policies relating to same. 


-- 
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)
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: U.S. Bill of Rights today (was alt.activism et al: Who's free'er)
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 17:44:52 GMT

In article <1992Sep11.144313.14322@sdc.com> kenk@sdc.com (Ken Konecki) writes:
>In article <1992Sep9.152540.698@jpl-devvax.jpl.nasa.gov> kandt@ai-titania.JPL.NASA.GOV (kirk kandt) writes:
>>Not only is it one of the most abused but a NY senator has proposed
>>legislation to repeal the 2nd amendment.
>
>Legislation can't repeal an amendment, so why is he wasting his time?

US Constitution - Article V

"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it
necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution ...."

Federal legislation is one of two ways to start the amendment process;
it is a necessary step for way used most often.  Amendments can be
repealed by subsequent amendments.  Konecki is wrong.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,talk.politics.guns,talk.politics.misc,talk.bizarre
From: John Austin <jea1@Cornell.edu>
Subject: Re: JDs (was Re: Clinton in _Rolling Stone_ ...)
X-Xxdate: Tue, 15 Sep 92 18: 58:11 GMT
Nntp-Posting-User: jea1@cornell.edu
Organization: BTI
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d9
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 17:51:04 GMT

In article <BuMpE2.CEI@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk> Jack Campin, jack@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk
writes:
>lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani) wrote, in talk.politics.drugs
>                                and alt.drugs among other newsgroups:
>> billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson) writes:
>>> n9020351@henson.cc.wwu.edu (James Douglas Del-Vecchio) writes:
>>>: rchilder@us.oracle.com (Richard Childers) writes:
>>>:>There are .22 automatics, yes. 

lots of low caliber drivel machine-gunned


>>a masochist to tangle with
>> the BATF on this.  Of course, the BATF disagrees with these circuit court
>> rulings and will continue to prosecute anyone who violates BATF interpre-
>> tation of the law.
>>> The state may allow possession, with proper federal licensing, but they
>>> cannot allow manufacture. Any such firearms would be illegally
manufactured.
>
>Wow.  I suppose that's relevant to the drugs newsgroups because the BATF is
>involved?
>
>That's really bizarre, so followups include talk.bizarre as well.
>
>-- 
>--  Jack Campin    room G092, Computing Science Department, Glasgow
University,
>17 Lilybank Gardens, Glasgow G12 8RZ, Scotland   TEL: 041 339 8855 x6854
(work)
>INTERNET: jack@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk or via nsfnet-relay.ac.uk    FAX: 041 330
4913
>BANG!net: via mcsun and uknet     BITNET: via UKACRL    UUCP:
jack@glasgow.uucp


No.  This is not bizarre at all. It is just incoherent, irrelevant, and
totally mis-cross-posted..


Keep this shit out of talk.bizarre.  Now, have a gneiss day.


(sorry if it's someone else's day to do this.  No, I'm not.




1234567891123456789212345678931234567894123456789512345678961234567897123456789
John Austin (jea1@cornell.edu)
Grafix 'R Us                                                  *Silverio in '92*
Boyce Thompson Institute for Plant Research    
123456789112345678921234.sig *still* under construction...961234567897123456789
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution