HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mkj@world.std.com (Mahatma Kane-Jeeves)
Subject: Legal question re pseudonymity online
Followup-To: comp.org.eff.talk
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 23:51:03 GMT

Let me pose a hypothetical case.  On his way home from work one 
evening, John Q. Publius stops at a newsstand and buys the latest 
edition of his favorite quarterly journal, the Entire World 
Redux.  Inside, he finds an unobtrusive but inviting ad for an 
electronic conferencing system called The BELL.  

When he arrives home, he powers up his home PC and applies for an 
account on the BELL.  He informs the BELL's administrators that 
he would prefer to use a pseudonym, and not reveal any personal 
information about himself on-line.  But the administrators deny 
his request, stating: 

     "Since the BELL makes it clear that users are responsi-
     ble  for  what they post on the BELL, we  think  it  is 
     important that they be identifiable."

With a sigh, John proceeds to become a regular BELL user and 
contributor under his real name.

Some time later, John participates in a debate on the BELL, 
taking a clear stance on a very controversial issue.  A lurking 
rabid fanatic with emotional problems takes silent exception to 
John's comments, gets John's name from a message header, and 
somehow finds John's address and phone number.  He makes phone 
calls to John's answering machine, quoting from John's messages 
on the BELL and threatening retaliation; later he drops by John's 
house and lobs a molotov cocktail in through the window.  John's 
house is badly damaged, and John is injured, suffers great pain, 
loses income and requires expensive medical treatment.

Infuriated and in desperate need of financial help, John sues the 
BELL.  My question:  Does he have a case?

Suppose John can show that although the BELL management denied 
pseudonymity to most users, they granted it to certain people 
such as celebrities or others with special status.  Would this 
strengthen John's case?  Could he argue that if the BELL takes 
upon itself the authority to decide who may or may not protect 
themselves with a pseudonym, they must also accept at least 
partial responsibility for the consequences?

Suppose John can show that other BELL users have previously 
suffered defamation, harassment or other problems as a result of 
real-name exposure on the BELL, and that BELL management was 
aware, or should have been aware, of at least some of these 
problems.  Would this strengthen John's case?

I realize that these questions may not have clear answers at this 
time, but I am looking forward to informed speculation.

                                   ---  mkj
From: tleylan@pegasus.com (Tom Leylan)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Sorry, we don't accept cash... Huh?
Date: 8 Jan 93 06:54:58 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Pegasus,  Honolulu

linley@netcom.com (Bruce James Robrert Linley) writes:

>In a previous article tleylan@pegasus.com (Tom Leylan) spake...

>>Are you proposing that Fed.Ex. be forced to accept cash ?  Start your
>>own damn delivery service and demonstrate how stupid they are.

>(1) Yup.
>(2) Already been done. Look at other parcel services- UPS, DHL, Airborne, ...

You started UPS, DHL and Airborne ?  Congratulations.

>>Taxi drivers are mugged all the time and 7-11's are notorious for being
>>robbed would it bother you that much if a Fed.Ex. driver or the company
>>that hires him would rather not be shot for some cash ?

>Banks get robbed. So do Brinks' Trucks; people at ATM machines, pedestrians,
>the paper boy, gas stations, liquor stores, supermarkets, restaurants, ...
>I guess, by your 'logic', that cash should be abolished all together.
>Hey, look at that 'carjacking' trend. It's just too risky to have people
>driving out there on the roads. Let's get rid of the cars too.

You're probably reading the message but your interpretation mechanism is
on the fritz.  I'm not demanding that anyone who wants to get robbed should
be denied that right... you're demanding that Fed.Ex. drivers put their lives
at greater risk so that once or twice a year you can pay cash.

My logic (as you term it) is that you shouldn't be a party to the decision
if you don't take on the burden of risk.

>>They don't want to handle cash okay ?

>No. It's not. A universal monetary standard is necessary must be accepted by
>ALL to have a stable economy. (Why's Europe trying to unify their currency?)

Europe is trying to unify their currency because Fed.Ex. drivers don't
accept cash... well I think you deserve an 'A' for creativity.

I look forward to your proposal being defeated long before it reaches the
popular vote.

tom
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.censorship,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Re: First Amendment Stuff
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 15:13:02 GMT

In article <1993Jan7.121455.17475@eff.org> mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:
>If you look at the post-Brandenburg cases, it's fairly clear that speech
>that does not contain an explicit incitement or, as a factual matter, was
>not directly followed by lawless action, is deemed protected by the First
>Amendment.

Okay, I thought post-Brandenburg also removed protection from non-explicit,
but actual, incitement.

Hand would prosecute explicit incitement that didn't lead to lawless action,
but would always protect non-explicit incitement, regardless of context.
-- 
ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 
standard disclaimers          | void where prohibited
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
never shout movie in a crowded firestation
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: linley@netcom.com (Bruce James Robrert Linley)
Subject: Re: President pardons himself
Organization: Computer Science & Engineering, UCLA
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 18:14:55 GMT

In a previous article judson@watserv.ucr.edu spake...
>Can the President of the United States pardon himself?
>
There's nothing to say he can't, but I'd expect a constitutional convention
if it ever did.
-- 
Bruce James Robert Linley | "Any relationships established by marriage are not
Comp Sci & Engr, UCLA     |  treated as ended by divorce or death."
<linley@netcom.com>       |
<linley@seas.ucla.edu>    |  from page 18 of the 1992, 1040A tax booklet.
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: COMMON LAW
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 23:52:15 GMT

In article <5oX5wB1w164w@cellar.org> grace@cellar.org (Grace Kirkwood) writes:
>Does anyone have any information regarding "common law"?
>What does it really mean?
>What if children are involved?  
>Does a father have the same rights as a divorced father?
>
>What if the couple didn't have any intention of getting married and had a 
>child?  What are the father's rights then?

To judge from context, you're not asking about the common law generally,
but about "common-law marriage." Some states recognize what they call
a "common-law marriage" in cases where a couple has lived together and
(typically) have represented themselves, implicitly or explicitly, as man
and wife. The elements of a common-law marriage vary among the states that
have them; if you are concerned about the rights of parties in a
common-law marriage in your state, you need to ask a licensed attorney in
your state.

Of the jurisdictions to which I'm admitted, one (Texas) recognizes
common-law marriage.


--Mike




-- 
Mike Godwin,    |"I'm waiting for the one-man revolution
mnemonic@eff.org| The only one that's coming."
(617) 864-0665  |                           
EFF, Cambridge  |                   --Robert Frost 
Xref: sparky misc.legal:22123 talk.politics.misc:66517 alt.president.clinton:1380
From: randall@informix.com (Randall Rhea)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.president.clinton
Subject: Re: Weinberger's Pardon
Date: 6 Jan 93 20:08:38 GMT
Organization: Informix Software, Inc.

niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
>>Hmm.  Does the US president's power to pardon any limits at all: 
>>Could he pardon himself?
>Yes, I suppose, but could you imagine the outcry if a president did 
>this, though?

Read the Constitution.   Article II, Section 2: "He shall have the power
to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States,
except in cases of Impeachment."   He could not pardon himself if
he were impeached.

>>Could he pardon someone "for any and all crimes he may have committed"?
>Isn't this what a pardon does?

The Constitution does not say that someone must be convicted before
getting a pardon.   The first time a pardon was used before a conviction
was Ford's pardoning of Nixon, and it was not challenged in the courts.

>>For that matter, who could control it -- can the Supreme Court judge
>>such a pardon unconstitutional?  Could a presidential pardon be
>No; a pardon cannot be unconstitutional -- it doesn't make sense to say
>that.  Now, if the president tried to give an invalid pardon, such as
>for future crimes, the courts would be free to ignore it if a person
>later commits a crime and is prosecuted for it.

A pardon could be held unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.  Ford's
pardon could have been challenged in court, but it wasn't.   If the
court declared a pardon unconstitutional, it would cause a serious
Constitutional crisis.

>The Constitution explicitly states that a pardon doesn't extend to
>impeachment.  But impeachment isn't punishment -- it's simply removal
>from office.  Impeachment doesn't overrule a pardon; it's a separate issue. 

Impeachment is NOT removal from office.  It is essentially an indictment.
Andrew Johnson was impeached but not removed from office.

-- 

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Randall Rhea                                        Informix Software, Inc. 
Project Manager, MIS Sales/Marketing Systems    uunet!pyramid!infmx!randall
From: duanyang@cs.columbia.edu (Duanyang Guo)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: divorce procedure in the USA
Date: 11 Jan 93 04:12:19 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Columbia University Department of Computer Science

Hi, Does anyone out here know what procedure a F-1 Chinese student has to
go through to get divorced? The couple got married before they
came to US, and now both of them are in this country, and one is F-1
student and the other is on F-2 spouse status. 
 
This message is for one of my acquaintances, who has no net access. So, please
reply by email. Any information will be highly appreciated. 
 
Thanks a lot in advance, 

-Duanyang

-- 
Duanyang Guo	Computer Science Department, Columbia University
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: bhayden@teal.csn.org (Bruce Hayden)
Subject: Re: Movies in the public domain
Organization: Colorado SuperNet, Inc.
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 09:04:42 GMT

stachnik@hpcupt1.cup.hp.com (George Stachnik) writes:

>I'm interested in movies that have passed into the public
>domain.  Does anybody have a list?  I was told recently that
>nobody owns the copyright to "It's a Wonderful Life", which
>I found hard to believe.  Can anyone confirm or deny?  Are
>there any other films of note that are in the public domain?

According to the U.S. Constitituion, copyrights and patents are
protected for a finite period of time. Under the 1909 Copyright
Act, copyright protection was for a much shorter time. Additionally
the copyright registration had to be renewed at a specified time
during the term of the copyright, or the work entered the public
domain. 

So - the answer is that I don't know whether it has entered the
public domain, but I wouldn't be surprised.

Bruce E. Hayden
(303) 758-8400
bhayden@csn.org

Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.censorship,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: Shouting "Movie!" at a Fire Station (Schenck v US)
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1993 04:59:35 GMT

In article <1993Jan12.191928.17541@adobe.com> mmwang@adobe.com (Michael Wang) writes:

>Considering his rather rapid about face in Abrams v United States,
>Holmes himself seemed to think (perhaps influenced by Judge Learned
>Hand) that his "clear and present danger" test was too vague.

I think it's fairly well-established that Hand was the key critic
responsible for changing Holmes's mind. See the recent biography of
Holmes.



--Mike




-- 
Mike Godwin,    |"I'm waiting for the one-man revolution
mnemonic@eff.org| The only one that's coming."
(617) 864-0665  |                           
EFF, Cambridge  |                   --Robert Frost
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Re: First Amendment Stuff
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 21:01:48 GMT

In article <1993Jan7.161617.21338@eff.org> mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:
>In article <1993Jan7.151302.931@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>In article <1993Jan7.121455.17475@eff.org> mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:
>>>If you look at the post-Brandenburg cases, it's fairly clear that speech
>>>that does not contain an explicit incitement or, as a factual matter, was
>>>not directly followed by lawless action, is deemed protected by the First
>>>Amendment.
>>
>>Okay, I thought post-Brandenburg also removed protection from non-explicit,
>>but actual, incitement.
>
>Can you give me an example of non-explicit but actual incitement? I'm
>having trouble thinking of one.

The traditional example given by Chafee is Marc Anthony's funeral
oration.  I should be more precise: "indirect", rather than "non-explicit."

>>Hand would prosecute explicit incitement that didn't lead to lawless action,
>>but would always protect non-explicit incitement, regardless of context.
>
>I note that in practice, when the lawless action is something like a riot
>or other violent act, if the alleged incitement did not actually lead to
>lawless action, it was probably only mere advocacy.

Fair enough.  My point was that Hand's views do not correspond with
current doctrine, as you suggested they did -- Hand's test would not
have protected the speech in Watts, nor (probably) in Hess v Indiana.  
-- 
ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 
standard disclaimers          | void where prohibited
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
never shout movie in a crowded firestation
Newsgroups: misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.president.clinton
From: pecampbe@mtu.edu (Paul Campbell)
Subject: Re: Sorry, we don't accept cash... Huh? (long)
Organization: Michigan Technological University
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 15:15:23 GMT

In article <1i8ug1INNlij@shelley.u.washington.edu> tzs@stein.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith) writes:
>pecampbe@mtu.edu (Paul Campbell) writes:
>>The treasury does NOT print money. They are not even able to coin money.
>>
>>The treasury is an office of the executive branch. The constitution
>>specifically gave the CONGRESS the power to COIN money (*not* print paper
>>money), but gave it no power to delegate this authority.
>
>But surely they implicitly are granted the power to delegate this.  The
>Founding Fathers can't have meant for Congress itself to coin money, could
>they?

First off, they are not implicitly granted the power to delegate anything.
There is a difference between hiring someone to do it and delegating the
power (which would include changing the value). An example of delegating
authority, which is illegal even though it is occurring is the FCC's
regulation of any radio frequency emissions according to whatever arbitrary
policy they decide upon. My copy reads..

The Congress shall have the power...

To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the
standard of weights and measures;...

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into
execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this
constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department
or officer thereof.

Nope. No mention of delegation here. What happens if they have the power to
delegate? What's there to stop some unscrupulous members of Congress (we
don't have any of those, do we??) to arbitrarily hand the power over to the
currently collapsing banks in England?

Well, because there were limitations placed upon those powers.

Amendment 9:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not
be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment 10:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution,
nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States
respectively, or to the people.

No. As a citizen of Michigan, I retain that power.

Now, they have indeed set the value of the dollar through the coinage acts.

However, they have *never* delegated the power to coin money. It's just
amazing the things that Congress hasn't tried to get away with so far.
Newsgroups: misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.president.clinton
From: csmith@tortoise.cis.ohio-state.edu (craig edward smith)
Subject: Re: Weinberger's Pardon
Organization: The Ohio State University Dept. of Computer and Info. Science
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 04:07:53 GMT

In article <C0KLAr.D8y@dscomsa.desy.de> Hallam@zeus02.desy.de writes:

>|>Maybe selling arms to Iran was bad policy. But was it criminal? Did nothing
>|>good come from it?
>
>Plenty of evil came from it.
>
>For a start the weapons helped prolong a war that cost a million lives.

Prolonged the war? How long? Remember this was the Iran that sent children
to slaughter, who were not armed with American weapons. It might also be
argued that it helped shorten it.

>|>Maybe Congress did not want funds going to the Contras, but the Executive
>|>did. Who decides foreign policy, anyway?
>
>The Senate, try reading your constitution.

I HAVE read my constitution. The senate has the power to ratify treaties, but
not to sign or create them. They have the power to declare war, but not to
command the armed forces. The diplomatic corp is under the executive branch
and it is the diplomatic corp, under the direction of the president that
defines what foreign policy IS! YOU try reading your constitution!

>
>|>Americans did not find this incident nearly as scandalous as the liberal
>|>media
>|>did. The constant barrage of the media has shaped public opinion somewhat
>|>(just
>|>as it has made Anita Hill a martyr when the real martyr is Judge Thomas) but
>|>Americans still don't think it is that much of a scandal.
>
>In fact public opinion in the US was overwelmingly opposed to Iran and also
>opposed to the supply of arms to the Contra terrorists.

WRONG! They were in FAVOR of the contras! They knew the Sandanistas to be
Communists and apposed them.
--
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
|                (This sig intentionally left blank)                 |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
Craig Edward Smith (csmith@cis.ohio-state.edu)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: bhayden@teal.csn.org (Bruce Hayden)
Subject: Re: COMMON LAW
Organization: Colorado SuperNet, Inc.
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 06:17:26 GMT

grace@cellar.org (Grace Kirkwood) writes:

>Does anyone have any information regarding "common law"?
>What does it really mean?
>What if children are involved?  
>Does a father have the same rights as a divorced father?

>What if the couple didn't have any intention of getting married and had a 
>child?  What are the father's rights then?

I am not sure what you are talking about, unless it is common law
marriage. Common law itself is essentially the court made law that
we either inherited from England, or was created since then. Compare
this with statutury law - that made by the legislatures.

Common law marriage is a reminant of our frontier past. Most states
have abolished it. It still lives on in particular in some states
in the west. The justification was that it was too hard to find
a minister, etc. back then for formalizing a marriage.

We have common law marriages here in Colorado. The way it works is
that first the couple has to be legally capable of getting married
(not married to anyone else, different sexes, old enough, competent, etc.)
Then, you have to hold yourself out to the world as married. This 
doesn't require 7 years, 7 months, or even 7 days. More likely 7 minutes.
Unfortunately, often the question is fact intensive - did you 
both use the same last name? Did you file a joint tax return?
Did your friends think that you were married? 

Luckily (?), once you have qualified in Colorado, all other states
are constrained to recognize your maritial status. Thus, one night
in Denver could qualify you as married henceforth.

As for fatherhood, nothing changes. Married is married. Likewise
children. Remember - common law marriage is just another way
of getting (accidently?) married. Indeed, most common law marriages
anymore in Colorado start with legally defective formal marriages.
For example, the marriage license (good for 30 days?) may have 
expired. No problem - the couple holds themselves out as married
(and think that they are) - so they are married.

Now - if there were only common law divorces...

Bruce E. Hayden
(303) 758-8400
bhayden@csn.org
From: wb8foz@skybridge.SCL.CWRU.Edu (David Lesher)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: COMMON LAW
Date: 10 Jan 1993 04:25:27 GMT
Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews abusers - Beltway Annex
Reply-To: wb8foz@skybridge.scl.cwru.edu (David Lesher)
NNTP-Posting-Host: skybridge.scl.cwru.edu

Others said:
# Does anyone have any information regarding "common law"?
# What does it really mean?

I'm sure the law varies from state to state, and that an
attorney such as Mike will know the full answer, but some years
ago in Ohio my attorney friend told me the following was required:
	REPRESENT themselves as m&w
	common finances
	7 years duration.
but my memory suffers from a lack of CRC checking, so all the
above are suspect......

--
A host is a host from coast to coast..wb8foz@skybridge.scl.cwru.edu
& no one will talk to a host that's close..........................
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433
From: judson@watserv.ucr.edu (Mike Judson)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Pardon stuff..Define please
Date: 13 Jan 93 03:33:11 GMT
Reply-To: judson@watserv.ucr.edu

In article <C0rDx3.pq9@austin.ibm.com> jlpicard@austin.ibm.com (Craig Becker)  
writes:
> 
> csmith@tortoise.cis.ohio-state.edu (craig edward smith) writes:
> > In article <1993Jan11.154056.4660@ncsu.edu> storrs@eos.ncsu.edu (JERRY  
STORRS) writes:
> > >
> > >All this talk of pardon's, and I see that many of the replies are not
     related anymore, I thought I'd ask a simple question to reinforce/teardown 
     something I was once told.

> > >I have been told that to receive a pardon, one must admit guilt.
     OR is it truly a method of legally covering one's own tracks.....
 
> > Seems to me you are asking "If you get a pardon, can we assume that you are
> > guilty?"
> > 
> > The answer is no. You need not admit guilt to receive a pardon.

Exactly.  If you remember President Ford's pardon of Nixon, he said that
Nixon is pardoned from all past and _future_ charges of any crimes he may
have committed.  Thus, if no formal charge of a past crime ever existed,
how could Nixon have assumed guilt?

--
If you ever fall off the Sears Tower, just go real limp, because 
maybe you'll look like a dummy and people will try to catch you 
because, hey, free dummy.

judson@watserv.ucr.edu