HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Subject: Huumausainelakiuudistus
Reply-To: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 17:19:06 GMT

I don't feel like translating this now (perhaps someone else does?),
so I'll just repost it.  It is about the proposed change of drug laws
in Finland.

Newsgroups: sfnet.keskustelu.huumeet,sfnet.keskustelu.laki
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 10:09:26 GMT

Huumausainelakia ollaan muuttamassa rikoslain 50 luvuksi.  Asiasta
j{tti ehdotuksen rikoslakiprojekti, joka esitti mm. huumausaineiden
k{yt|n rangaistavuuden lievent{mist{ ja korvausk{yt{nn|n uudistamista
kansainv{listen sopimuksien vaatiman rahanpesun kriminalisoinnin ja
muutenkin hieman laajemman kriminalisoinnin lis{ksi.

Oikeusministeri Hannele Pokka kuitenkin suhtautui kielteisesti k{yt|n
rangaistusten lievent{miseen.  Nyt on valmistumassa uusi esitys
rikoslain 50 luvuksi, josta rikostyyppi "liev{ huumausainerikos" on
pudotettu kokonaan pois ja k{ytt| on edelleen kriminalisoitu entiseen
tapaan.  Joitakin muitakin muutoksia on (esim. pakkokeinolain muutos
j{{ tarpeettomana pois).  Esitys on menossa parin viikon sis{ll{
hallituksen iltakouluun ja sitten eduskuntaan.

Lakimuutos liittyy rikoslain kokonaisuudistukseen, jonka mukana on
rikoslakiin tulossa paljon muitakin muutoksia.

Kun hallituksen esitys tulee valmiiksi, hankkinen sen t{nne n{ht{ville
kuten my|s asiaa eduskunnassa k{sittelevien ihmisten nimet.  T{ll{
hetkell{ minulla on k{ytett{viss{ni tuo rikoslakiprojektin ehdotus,
kyll{kin vain paperilla.

//Jyrki
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: hes@unity.ncsu.edu (Henry E. Schaffer)
Subject: Re: Skinhead speech protected, Supreme Court says (was: Re: Fuck You
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 04:28:12 GMT

In article <1992Sep12.021547.1223@Princeton.EDU> egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:
  Well, he crawled back out from under his rock - can't trust him
to stay away even after he promised.
> ...
>Adolf's racism has for me one saving grace. He's out there with it. ...

  Ed's racist tendencies show up again, now let's review some of
his name-calling, and his fascist leanings.

>But according to the arguments of Ted "Tedster" Frank, Charles "Goofus"
>Perez, Henry "Jackanapes" Schaffer, and Chris "Knucklehead" Morton, Adolf
>is a noble citizen exercising his right of free speech, is he not?
      ^^^^^
  No.

>Criticising poor Adolf creates a "chilling effect" on his freedom

  No.  (Or is *Nilges'* the one claiming this?  Strange considering
his desires to be a censor.)

>of speech and as such should not be done.  Booting him off the net would
                                            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
  Who proposed this other than Ed Nilges?  (See below.)

>violate, would it not, Adolf's First Amendment rights.
> ... [turgid account of Nilges' deconstruction deleted]
>
>Racism is contributing to the decay of American society.  The postings
>by Chris "Knucklehead" Morton and Henry "Jackanapes" Schaffer of
>incorrect C code shows that you cannot cordon off your racism, which is
>the acceptance of deep bullshit, from technology and culture; racist
>bozos can't program computers very well.   ...

  This sounds to me that Ed Nilges is directly stating that Morton
and Schaffer are racist bozos.  I wonder if that is actionable?
(I can just imagine Nilges' defense that he deconstructed some
pseudo-code, found one each of an unwanted parenthesis and apostrophe,
and therefore considered that racism was proven.  Naw - he'd claim
insanity, produce a copy of his postings as evidence, and the judge
would agree.)

>I am not defending Adolf; 

but you do discuss a "saving grace" of his racism

>he should be booted off the net.  

by the Nigles-for-Dictator-enforcement-division -dressed in black shirts?

>And I have a
>coherent set of reasons for denying him his "free speech" whereas the
>closet racists who encourage the Adolfs and Robert A. Viktoras do not.
>
> ...
  Nilges' "saving grace" is the closest I've seen to such encouragement
on the net.  The conclusion is that Nilges is providing the encouragement 
and attributing it to the closet racists manufactured by his fetid 
imagination.

--henry schaffer
Xref: sparky misc.legal:17175 alt.politics.correct:5320 alt.censorship:7480 talk.politics.mideast:20023
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.politics.correct,alt.censorship,talk.politics.mideast
Subject: Re: Anti-Arab racism on the net
From: dany@kalanit.wisdom.weizmann.ac.il (Nabutovsky Dan)
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 11:16:31 GMT
Organization: Weizmann Institute of Science, Computation Center

In article <1992Sep12.214246.25974@news.columbia.edu> ia4@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Imran Anwar) writes:
>
>If an article is written about "A" and refers to them as "B" it is called "C"
>A		B			C
>BCCI		Muslim Bankers		Financial Reporting
>Palestinian	Arab Terrorist		Objective Journalism
>
>If something is written against Prophet Muhammad, it is literature;
>against the Japanese (like Jurrasaic Park) it is fiction;
>agsinst Blacks, it is free speech;
 ^^^^^^^
>against Christianity, it is an opinion
>but anything written against one Jewish person is anti-Semitism!!
>

If A writes B with C to D, everybody E at him.

A		B		C		D		  E
Imran Anwar	article		spell errors	3 inappropriate	  laugh
						newsgroups	
	Dan
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: ted@cs.brown.edu (Tony Davis)
Subject: Re: Jury Nullification (was: Killing in defense of possessions?)
Organization: Brown University Department of Computer Science
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 18:31:32 GMT

In article <BuKMFI.8n8@world.std.com> srm@world.std.com (Stevens R Miller) writes:
> The "right" to nullify is a side effect.  Whether it is a feature or a bug
> is uncertain.

I could read this in two ways:  either 'whether it is good or bad is
uncertain' or 'whether it was intended or not is uncertain'.  My
question is about the latter interpretation.  It is clear that the
founders intended nullification to be possible, yes?

> But, the characterization of a juror as a "nullification
> believer" is, respectfully, to gild the truth:  A juror who nullifies
> is, by definition, a juror who breaks her oath; a liar.

Such a juror is a liar only if they've taken an oath that conflicts with
the right to nullify.  Not all juries take such an oath.  Further, as I
understand it such oaths were often introduced specifically to prevent
nullification.  Doesn't this cause a conflict:  one needs to swear to give
away a right in order to be on a jury, but that right is one intended
to be guaranteed to juries?


Tony Davis
ted@cs.brown.edu
From: edwardk@cup.portal.com (edward chungfan kwok)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Tort Reform (was: Number of Lawyers)
Date: Fri,  4 Sep 92 14:45:15 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
  <16uq02SN20=301@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com>
  <1992Aug31.194001.1@acad3.alaska.edu> <65065@cup.portal.com>
  <8968@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM>

>In <65065@cup.portal.com> edwardk@cup.portal.com (edward chungfan kwok) writes
:
>
>Simple solution, make the offending activity illegal.  Then the offending
>party can be fined out the wazoo.  It seems to me that punishment in
>general properly belongs in the criminal law not civil law.
>
>>Think about sexual harassment at work.
>
>I believe in most states this is already illegal, under any number of
>statutes

There is no question about the legality of the activity we are discussing.

The question is one of remedy.  Hitting some one in the nose is illegal, 
whether the guy whose nose is hit should get compensated and whether the
guy who hits should pay the guy who got hit more than just the cost of a 
broken nose is the question.

Making everything criminal, i.e. subject to imprisonment or fine, involves
the state in things that really should be between the parties involved, and
perhaps in exceptional circumstances the courts.  What you propose would 
require building more jails and hiring many more DAs.  Is that wise?j

>>Of course you can say society should require people to tolerate certain
>>behavior, but is that fair?
>
>We already do that in a fair number of cases.  The guy several cubes down
>from me has just horrendous breath.  (He has been known to kill several
>small plants. ;^))  Should I be allowed to sue him for pain and sufferring.

You are not allowed now, unless he subjects you to his breath forcibly.  But
why would you want the DA's office to talk to him?
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: choy@skorpio.usask.ca (I am a terminator.)
Subject: Hey, Roy, is that the law?
Organization: University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Canada
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 20:01:27 GMT

What is the basis on which lawmakers anchor themselves? How do they
determine the justice or rightness of something?

Henry Choy
choy@cs.usask.ca
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.politics.correct,rec.arts.movies
From: braca2@cspyr1.cs.adfa.oz.au (BRAY CHRISTOPHER)
Subject: Re: The return of vaudeville. (was: Re: Nilges)
Organization: Australian Defence Force Academy, Canberra, Australia
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 14:43:03 GMT

gmark@cbnewse.cb.att.com (gilbert.m.stewart) writes:

	[ lots of good stuff ]

>In article <qumaqB2w165w@comtch.spk.wa.us> mhughes@comtch.spk.wa.us (Mark Hughes) writes:

	[ a reply to this ]

>>cedman@714-725-3165.nts.uci.edu (Carl Edman) writes:

>What?  I thought the WMNHC was an official club.  Are there any members
>out there who could post meetings we could crash?  Do you get to wear
>special hats?  Are there parades and "Pride" days?

	I'm a member of my WMNHC, and it is a damn pleasent being one too.
Hell I have heaps of fun putting subliminals on records, and in magazines.
Although I believe that there are some of us in Parliment.

Next meeting is at your local church, have to give the secret handshake
tho.
From: matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Censorship is never safe
Date: 14 Sep 92 13:30:45 GMT
Organization: U.S. Army Ballistic Research Lab, APG MD.

In article <1992Sep13.051759.521@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> 
Joe.Francis@dartmouth.edu (Joe Francis) writes:

>I am curious as to what you would do if you did not have moral
>authorities to decide these issues for you.  (This pondering is done
>with a straight face; no flame intended.)   [Joe Francis]

What would any of us -- individual or legislator -- do if he did 
not have moral authorities to decide what is moral and what is not?  
Either some of us would decide what is moral and then try to impose
it either by law (criminal or civil) or social pressure on everyone
else, or we would let each man decide for himself what limits he
ought to put on his conduct.  And in this latter case, it is by no
means clear that each man would agree to John Stuart Mill's principle
that in pursuing his own ends he must respect the rights of other men
to pursue theirs.

Mr. Francis asks a question that has been pondered and debated for
centuries, if not millenia.  Surely we are not going to solve it 
here on the Net.

As for me, I've rented rooms on my third floor to couples both 
straight and homosexual, male and female.  In no way does the
occupancy of the third floor affect my estimation of the worth
of a publication.  The people up there may be fine fellows, they
may be rogues, but the magazines seized by the Canadian censors
were nonetheless "bilge tripe."

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

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
TRUTH     JUSTICE     FREEDOM     YIDDISHKEIT     IVY     THE AMERICAN WAY
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: leem@jpl-devvax.jpl.nasa.gov (Lee Mellinger)
Subject: Re: Drug dogs used in public schools
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory (NASA)
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 18:49:25 GMT

In article <1992Sep12.124348.6927@ms.uky.edu> morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
:O1EVERT@VM1.CC.UAKRON.EDU (Tom Evert) writes:
:I would think that a public school qualifies as "public space".  As such,
:I would say that it is not given the same legal protection as one's home.
:
:Now, some contents of a locker are owned by the student (some of the con-
:tents, such as textbooks, may be the property of the school).  I would sus-
:pect that a search warrant would be necessary before actually *opening*
:any lockers without the consent of the student(s).
:
:--Wes

My recollection is that no warrant is required to search school
lockers.  I know of some schools where unannounced inspection of
lockers is routine and done by school officials, and not law
enforcement personnel.

Lee


|Lee F. Mellinger                 Caltech/Jet Propulsion Laboratory - NASA
|4800 Oak Grove Drive, Pasadena, CA 91109 818/354-1163  FTS 792-1163     
|leem@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Fort Wayne: Landlords Must Evict Drug-Dealing Tenants
Date: 14 Sep 92 14:59:01 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <BuDDIM.KBL@world.std.com> srm@world.std.com (Stevens R Miller) writes:

>mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:

mw:I've heard that New York has come up with a program to solve this problem.
mw:They seize the abandonded buildings for back taxes.  Fix them up, at city
mw:expense, and then give them to various city approved charities to operate.
mw:BTW, these charities also don't have to pay taxes.  (Guess who's taxes
mw:get to go up to cover the shortfall.)

sm:New York says no one's do.  The city encourages charity operation
sm:over city run social services because the charities usually run
sm:more efficiently than the city does.  If the city took over these
sm:services itself, it would have to raise taxes to provide the same
sm:level of service.
-- 
sm:Stevens R. Miller, J.D.		E-mail to srm@mw.sbi.com

How about selling the properties to private investors.  That way the
city recoups some of the back taxes and the city benefits from future
taxes paid.

Part of my point was the assumption by that one leader that charities
were capable of running said units more economically than were private
investors.  Completely ignoring all of the subsidies that were given
to the charities.


-- 
--Mark
My opinions are mine, all mine.  Unless someone else claims them first.
From: ts@cup.portal.com (Tim W Smith)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: The Loss of Innocence (Was RE:  FUCK YOU)
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 92 20:12:33 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)

>      A few days ago I logged onto my account totally innocent.  How naive I
> was in believing that cyberspace was the one place in this world where
> physical attributes, such as the color of your skin, the texture of your
> hair, the way in which you speak, made no difference whatsoever.  I was
...
> with fear, rage and pain.  The reasonable thing to do would have been to
> print this filth to a file, download it to disk and ship it off to the
> local FBI office.  That scenario is still not out of the question given

Perhaps you should add the First Amendment to the list of things you hoped
made no difference in Cyberspace.

--Tim Smith
From: eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler)
Subject: Re: Killing in defense of possessions?
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 21:58:43 GMT
Organization: Superseding Information, Inc.

In <1992Sep9.151815.23492@tijc02.uucp>, pjs269@tijc02.uucp sez:
>  Since there are 12 people on a jury it is
>likely that at least one of them knows someone who was a victim of a
>violent crime.

Of course, this is precisely the type of information usually elicited
on voir dire and employed as a basis for striking members of the
venire.


-- 
And one of theym . . . cam in-to an hows and axed for mete; and specyally 
he axyd after eggys.  And the goode wyf answerde, that she coude speke no
frenshe.  And the marchaunt was angry, for he also coude speke no frenshe,
but wolde have hadde egges.         Mark Eckenwiler     eck@panix.com
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: cfaks@ux1.cts.eiu.edu (Alice Sanders)
Subject: Re: legality of a name change
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 03:25:37 GMT
Organization: Eastern Illinois University

In article <10SEP92.19084732@vax.clarku.edu> lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu writes:
>Some friends of mine, and I were wondering if it woukld be legal for someone 
>to change their first name to "Doctor", or if that constitutes some sort of 
>fraud.
>
>Anyone know?
>
>					Loren Finkelstein
>

I knew someone once who was actually named "Doctor".  I don't think it
would be any kind of fraud.  People are named things like "Princess".  I
knew OF a guy once named "Mister".  Maybe if you change your name so that
"M.D." or "Ph.D." appears at the end, then that might be fraud.
From: egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: The Loss of Innocence (Was RE:  FUCK YOU)
Date: 13 Sep 92 18:56:22 GMT
Organization: Princeton University
Originator: news@nimaster

Tamara, thanks, and please be advised that you probably will be flamed,
this being boysnet.  Please do not let this get you down.  I'm a white
male, perhaps older than many posters, still (painfully) in the middle 
class and my brushes with unemployment and family destruction have 
taught me that Sinead is right when she sings "if they hated me they 
will hate you to."  Please continue to post.
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: art@world.std.com (Al Thompson)
Subject: Re: Feasibility of small claims for unnecesary medical tests?
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 18:27:11 GMT

In article <bkln-7.elvis@netcom.com> elvis@netcom.com (kEvin A. Thornbury) writes:

   I recently went to see a doctor over a relatively minor problem.
   Following the office visit, he prescribed medication and took
   a sample on which to have lab work done. The office visit produced
   a reasonable charge, but the bill from the lab was outrageous.

   I now believe that the lab test was completely unnecessary. After
   speaking with the doctor over the phone about the results, I realized
   that the treatment for the condition would have been the same regardless
   of the results of that particular test; the results might have been
   "interesting" but would not have changed the doctor's advice or the
   prescription.

   The lab is independent of the doctor, and the bills are separate.
   Could I use small claims court to force the doctor to pay for the
   lab work?

Why?  You agreed to the lab work.  Why didn't you ask what it would cost
before you authorized the work?

Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: spagiola@frinext.stanford.edu (Stefano Pagiola)
Subject: Re: Defacing Money
Reply-To: spagiola@frinext.stanford.edu
Organization: DSO, Stanford University
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 92 05:30:53 GMT

Gregory G. Woodbury writes
> >Question: What are the laws regarding the alteration of currency?
> >        For example, I've seen coins turned in to jewlery, dollars
> >        burned at protests, and bills marked up by various groups.
> >        Is any of this illegal?
> 
> There is absolutely *no* illegality in burning a piece of paper
> currency.

But be careful abroad, especially in many African countries.  Most  
have laws against defacing any image of the president/king/head  
honcho.  And most have a picture of said ruler on each and every  
piece of currency.

--
-
Stefano Pagiola
Food Research Institute, Stanford University
spagiola@frinext.stanford.edu (NeXTMail encouraged)
From: hilary.miller@execnet.com (hilary miller)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: dismissed with prejud
Date: 5 Sep 92 11:59:53 GMT
Reply-To: "hilary miller" <hilary.miller@execnet.com>
Distribution: misc
Organization: Executive Networks Information


Tom Evert, in a message to All on 09-03-92 at 10:47pm, said:

TE>|Can someone explain what is meant by a "dismissed with prejudice" deces
   |from a judge?   Thanks!
   |_______________________________________________________________________

          Dismissal with prejudice means that the matter has been
          deemed to have been fully adjudicated and may not be reliti-
          gated later.  A subsequent lawsuit raising the same claims
          would be subject to dismissal on the ground of res judicata.


   L A
 I    R        Hilary B. Miller of Greenwich, Connecticut
  H/\Y         CIS: 76040,1743
   s r
---
 ~ DeLuxe} 1.25a #11645 ~ Nietzche is pietzche, but Sartre is smartre.
--
Executive Network Information System  (914) 667-4567
International ILink Host
From: edwardk@cup.portal.com (edward chungfan kwok)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Being a Lawyer: what's it like?
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 92 09:39:19 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)

>I need to know whether
>I'll like what comes AFTER the education. Also, how easy is it to
>practice the kind of law you like, and how lucrative are the various
>fields? (Yes, that is ONE consideration.)
>
To enjoy the practice of law, I think one must maintain a sense of 
purpose.  I think one must believe that one is bringing about justice, 
fairness and public good, regardless of whether one is practicing 
criminal law, personal injury, securities law or patent law.  Otherwise,
one can easily become a cynic.  That's no fun.

As to lucre, most practitioners make a good living, in the range of 60-150k
a year.  Personal injury lawyers can become rich or bankrupt because of the
contingency fee gamble.  Others just make a good living.  Listen to my 
esteemed opposing counsel: "One will have to marry a rich husband to afford 
Woodside."  Woodside is where the super-richs live in our part of California.
And I think he speaks the truth.
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: srm@world.std.com (Stevens R Miller)
Subject: Re: Jury Nullification
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 23:37:25 GMT

ted@cs.brown.edu (Tony Davis) writes:
>Didn't the founders have a second purpose?  The second role of the
>jury is to protect the people from bad laws; juries would refuse to
>convict those accused of unjust laws.

>I was hoping that
>someone could cite the particular Federalist paper or other document
>where the issue of nullification was explicitly discussed.

Well, I'll try to look it up.  I could be wrong.

>I just noticed the "J.D." so I probably shouldn't push the point.

Nonsense!  We're arguing history and political science here; push hard.
Anyway, I only add "J.D." to avoid accusations of duplicity (for that I
sometimes unleash my M.S.C.S., when we talk techno-law 8-) ).
-- 
Stevens R. Miller, J.D.		E-mail to srm@mw.sbi.com
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.politics.correct
From: "Jones M Murphy Jr" <p00098@mail.psi.net>
Subject: Re: Ed babbles again
Organization: NatWest Investment Bancorp,National Westminster Bank PLC
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 18:54:25 GMT
X-Mailer: PSILink (3.11)

FROM:   Citecheck Hell <thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu>

>>Powers That Be; Jesse Jackson in the past mounted a serious, credible
>>alternative to centrist politics, so credible that he was carefully
>>destroyed by (false) charges of anti-Semitism,
>
>If a Jewish candidate said "nigger" in reference to blacks, what
>would your reaction be, Ed?

It's not hypothetical. During a mayoral campaign a few years ago, then 
New York mayor Ed Koch referred to his opponent, Danny Farrell, as a 
"Watusi warrior". He has referred to other black opponents as 
"schwartzers", a Yiddish/German equivalent of "nigger". It was amusing 
as heck to see him blasting Jesse Jackson a short time afterwards for 
his "Hymietown" remark.

>It took Jackson eight years to get around to apologizing, and he
>still hasn't disavowed people like Farrakhan.
>
And CNN didn't disavow Pat Buchanan when he said, "When I was a boy 
there were no racial problems. The races were segregated".
I didn't care for Jesse's Hymietown remark. I thought it was shallow and 
racist. However, it's par for the course in the country that elected 
George "Willie Horton" Bush. You are a hypocrite to single that out and 
not to put it in it's sleazy context.
Jones