From caf-talk Caf Jun 29 02:04:42 1992
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: gmartin@zia.aoc.nrao.edu (George Martin)
Subject: Re: alt.rush.limbaugh: censored or just dead?
Message-ID: <1992Jun29.052935.2441@zia.aoc.nrao.edu>
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 92 05:29:35 GMT
In article <1992Jun29.022123.19834@umbc3.umbc.edu> alex@umbc4.umbc.edu (Alex S. Crain) writes:
>In article <1992Jun28.225349.2211@zia.aoc.nrao.edu> gmartin@zia.aoc.nrao.edu (George Martin) writes:
>>Before everyone goes off the deep end, did James Douglas Del-Vecchio
>>do the most obvious and simplest thing and contact his local News
>>administrator or whoever is responsible for the local Usenet feed
>>and ask about alt.* groups in general and *.*rush in paticular?
^^^^^^^^^^
That should have been particular, I apologize
>
> I second this. I can't believe that anyone would "censor"
>alt.r-l, except maybe to conserve bandwidth, as is the right of any
>sysadmin. I will say that alt.r-l went away at this site for about a week,
>but it came back again, I didn't worry about it much. Of course, it
>might be that liberal breeding that goes on in universities: maybe
>the liberal leaders decided that Rush was getting too dangerous, and
>killed off the group, just a thought.
>
>>Ghad I hate to think I am suggesting this. I think that Rush is a
>>moronic demagougue and guess what I think about the ditto heads.
>>I find myself more interested in people's reactions to Rush than
>>I have interest in what Rush says or is said to say. But why not
>>move the Rush group(s?) into the mainstream heirarchy?.
>
> I think that alt.r-l (and alt.fan.r-l) is the quinticential
>alt group - more heat then light, random flame wars and not much
>constructive anything. Of course, I also think that about the radio
>show, too, so maybe there's a counter opinion out there somewhere.
>--
>Anybody who agrees with me deserves what they get.
>
> Alex Crain
> UMBC Academic Computing Services
I really do think that this group should be moved into the
"main" stream! Doing so would not inhibit the intensity of
the flames which go with this group. See talk.origins for
example!
--
George Martin
Systems Analyst NRAO/VLA Socorro NM
Internet: gmartin@something.aoc.nrao.edu
"Skating away on the thin ice of the new day." (Ian Anderson)
From caf-talk Caf Jun 29 13:13:34 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [talk.politics.misc, et al.] Re: What is "Silencing?" (was: Re: Hate speech okay ...)
Message-ID: <9206291713.AA13437@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 1992 07:13:20 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Jun 29 13:13:34 1992
From: egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges)
Subject: Re: What is "Silencing?" (was: Re: Hate speech okay ...)
Message-ID: <1992Jun29.142932.24587@Princeton.EDU>
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 1992 14:29:32 GMT
In article <1992Jun29.052608.13064@panix.com> pw@panix.com (Paul Wallich) writes:
>
>On the contrary, the "public figure" doctrine is an absolute necessity
>for political debate. Without it, people in the public eye, be they
>politicians or actors or enormously successful sellers of used cars,
>would be able to squelch any public criticism of their work simply by
>suing anyone who spoke or wrote ill of them (indeed, the history of the
>18th and 19th century is rife with same).
In the time of the Stalin purge trials, the victims of the purges often
opened up the newspaper to find their "errors" denounced as well as
articles decrying their personal character. I can well imagine the
"public figure" doctrine causing political life to become neoStalinist
by causing any PRIVATE person, who goes on record as criticising an
established PUBLIC figure, to be immediately classified as a PUBLIC
person, thereby opened-up to the most vile form of abuse. This would
close off the public sphere to all but the most hardened and desparate
characters, characters much like Stalin and his henchmen. Now, how has
freedom been served by this?
Gerry Spence points-out that this has already begun to happen. Kim
Pring was symbolically raped for challenging Penthouse's magazine's
abuse of her good name in a "fictional" story; Karen Silkwood's good
name was likewise challenged by Kerr-McGee. I see it on this net. Many
students are made physically ill by what they see in some of the alt.
groups, and would never dare post their views for fear of the abuse that
would ensue.
Larry Flynt characterized Falwell as having sex with his mother. Yet
this did not stop Falwell's, and Reagan's depredations on the body
politic in the slightest.
From caf-talk Caf Jun 29 16:47:13 1992
From: curt@vtucs.cc.vt.edu (Curt Tilmes)
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,news.future,news.groups
Subject: Re: would this be censorship?
Message-ID:
Date: 29 Jun 92 20:36:52 GMT
>Let's see how this might work, with an example scenario. Suppose group
>alt.lang.basic is selected for this experiment; alt.lang.basic.metadisc
>is then formed. Angela A, who wants to read all of alt.lang.basic anyway
>for her own reasons, decides to start metaposting as a public service.
This is a great idea. I have been wondering about how to implement
something like this for a while. It might be easier to create a whole
new hierarchy for the comments/keyword addendums. Create a definite
format (completely extensible) for the comments.
For example, the reviewed articles of 'alt.lang.basic' would be in the
reviewed.alt.lang.basic newsgroup, and a message might look like this:
(in the *body* of the posting)
>Message-ID: <1992Jun25.092338.8704@cadlab.sublink.org>
>Rating: 3/10
>Keywords: C64 Basic drivel
>Summary: Author explains how C64 Basic sucks.
>etc.
Since the reviewed.* is *not* under the current Usenet hierarchy, it
would not require any votes or special consideration, or anything.
Anyone who wanted to get started with experimenting with it could do
so immediately. Then all we need is some fool^H^H^H^Hfriendly
programmer to add support for this to newsreaders to make kill files/
selection files work.
Curt
From caf-talk Caf Jun 30 07:43:32 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.censorship,soc.college
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Abstract of CAF-News 02.25
Message-ID: <1992Jun30.114308.24712@eff.org>
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 1992 11:43:08 GMT
This is an abstract for the most recent "Computers and Academic
Freedom News" (CAF-News). Information about CAF-News follows the
abstract. The full CAF-News is available via anonymous ftp or by
email. For ftp access, do an anonymous ftp to ftp.eff.org
(192.88.144.4). Get file "pub/academic/news/cafv02n25".
The full CAF-News is also available via email. Send email to
archive-server@eff.org. Include the line:
send caf-news cafv02n25
--- begin abstract ---
[Week ending May 24, 1992.
========================== KEY ================================
The words after the numbers are a short PARAPHRASES of the
articles, NOT AN OBJECTIVE SUMMARY and not necessarily my opinion.
===============================================================
Notes 1-2 concern UPI stories on posting controversial signs at
universities in Wisconsin and Texas.
1. (From UPI:) "A banner depicting a swastika evolving into a Star of
David prompted a spontaneous fight between two men at the University
of Wisconsin-Milwaukee." A university official defended the First
Amendment right which allowed the banner to be hung.
<1992May20.180954.9736@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
2. (From UPI:) Conservative students at Stephen F. Austin State
University in Nacogdoches accuse University officials of violating
their First Amendment rights. Officials will not permit students to
post fliers using a quote by former Sen. Barry Goldwater, R-AZ. The
quote, ``SEX and politics are a lot alike. You don't have to be good
at them to enjoy them'', was deemed obscene by the officials. An ACLU
representative said students do not forfeit their rights at the
university gates.
<1992May20.180644.28931@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Note 3 concerns a faculty senate resolution at the University of Delaware.
3. The faculty senate at the University of Delaware has adopted a
'Policy for Responsible Computing.' "By adopting this policy, the
Faculty Senate recognizes that all members of the University are also
bound by local, state, and federal laws relating to copyrights,
security, and other statutes regarding electronic media. The policy
also recognizes the responsibility of faculty and system
administrators to take a leadership role in implementing the policy
and assuring that the University community honors the policy."
<199205201436.AA16818@eff.org>
Note 4 concerns an attempt by Sen Byrd, D-WVa4 to rescind a set of NSF
grants with funny names.
4. "In an attempt to embarrass the administration over its 'pork
barrel' rhetoric, Senator Byrd, West Virginia, is sponsoring a bill to
rescind a bunch of peer reviewed NSF grants that have funny names."
The attempt to rescind the grants "should be of great concern to us.
It greatly undermines the peer review process and, I can say from
experience, adds to the bureaucratic delays in grant processing."
<12215@borg.cs.unc.edu>
Note 5 concerns the decision of a Harvard Law School disciplinary
board not to punish the authors of a controversial parody.
5. "On May 21st, the Harvard Law School disciplinary board announced
that it would _not_ take action against the authors of the
now-infamous parody article 'Manifesto of Post-Mortem Legal
Feminism.' Although the board found the parody offensive, it found
no law school rules had been broken. The dean of the law school still
has the option of initiating disciplinary action.
<1992May24.124726.3824@athena.mit.edu>
Note 6 explains how to access the computers and academic freedom
mailing list through the EFF mailing list server.
6. You can subscribe or unsubscribe to mailing list by sending email
to "listserv@eff.org". A list of the commands understood by the
listserv program is included.
<199205220110.AA17058@eff.org>
Note 7 concerns the American Library Association's Intellectual
Freedom Committee recommended guidelines for setting policies on
patron behavior and library usage.
7. The ALA's IFC has developed a set of guidelines which can be used
to set policies on patron behavior and library usage. The policies
attempt to allow libraries to maintain a safe and healthy environment
for staff and patrons without violating patron's rights. The
guidelines are appropriate in CAFNEWS as they may be used as models by
institutions seeking to develop rules regarding patron behavior and
electronic access to information and resources.
<199205191804.AA04126@eff.org>
Note 8 concerns the use of a city ordinance to restrict the material
purchased by a city library.
8. (A user:) A city ordinance prohibiting the town from
"facilitating, encouraging, or promoting homosexuality,sadism,
masochism, and pedophilia" is being used to review books purchased by
the city library. City Council member Ralf Walters was quoted as
saying: "What we want to make sure of is that the head librarian is
complying with the law and community values,"
<1992May22.230825.21383@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
Note 9 discusses the distribution of "alt" groups in the UK.
9. Usenet relies on the goodwill of those operating the servers which
distribute the news. "In the UK, the great majority of these systems
are operated by academic institutions, who seem to have decided not to
forward the 'alt.*' hierarchy, in particular, and a number of other
groups which are either judged to be 'unsuitable', or clearly only
relevant to, say, the US."
<1992May19.093311.105@rdg.dec.com>
Note 10 concerns abusive users on "chat"-type teleconferencing
systems.
10. (A user:) BITNET RELAY, similar to IRC, supports the ability to
ignore all messages from a specified user. This eliminates the need
to deny such a user access because of abusive posting.
<1992May20.001222.18130@yang.earlham.edu>
- Paul]
--- end abstract ---
CAF-News is a weekly digest of notes from CAF-talk.
CAF-News is available as newsgroup alt.comp.acad-freedom.news or via
email. If you read newsgroups but your site doesn't get
alt.comp.acad-freedom.news, (politely) ask your sys admin to
subscribe. For info on email delivery, send email to
archive-server@eff.org. Include the line
send acad-freedom caf
Back issues of CAF-News are available via anonymous ftp or via email.
Ftp to ftp.eff.org. The directory is pub/academic/news. For
information about email access to the archive, send an email note to
archive-server@eff.org. Include the lines:
send acad-freedom README
help
index
Disclaimer: This CAF-News abstract was compiled by a guest editor or a
regular editor (Paul Joslin, Elizabeth M. Reid, Adam C. Gross, Mark C.
Sheehan or Carl M. Kadie). It is not an EFF publication. The views an
editor expresses and editorial decisions he or she makes are his or
her own.
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Jun 30 07:52:07 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [eff.mail.cosndisc] Re: more k-12 access questions
Message-ID: <199206301151.AA24838@eff.org>
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 1992 03:51:45 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Jun 30 07:52:07 1992
From: Janet.Murray@f23.n105.z1.fidonet.org (Janet Murray)
Subject: Re: more k-12 access questions
Message-ID: <199206301119.AA24410@eff.org>
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 1992 05:33:40 GMT
John Curran writes:
U>As I have said several times before, it is a matter of degree.
U>The same
U>risks exist in both cases, but the probabilities are different.
U> on the Inteschool (Champlain Valley Union High School) is
U> one of just
U> a hand full that is anywhere near being ready to use the
U> Internet.
More than 300 FidoNet-compatible systems have been using the
e-mail capacity of the Internet for two years as participants
in K12Net, a privately distributed group of conferences
dedicated to K-12 education which has been gated to Internet as
Usenet newsgroups in the hierarchy k12.* since April, 1991.
In August, 1991, someone using a stolen university account
transposted a series of messages from alt.sex to the K12
chat areas. The username was promptly (within 24 hours)
closed by the sysadmin at that university. Since then,
there have been two or three isolated incidents of
inappropriate postings in the K12Net conferences, which
redistribute more than 1700 messages per _week_ around the
world.
Based on this experience, I would suggest that the
probabilities are _not_ different. Juvenile behavior
is not age-specific; there must be quite a few "adults"
subscribing and posting to the alt newsgroups to produce
a March,'92 sampling of 40,600 articles totalling 160mb
vs. 6 in the K12 hierarchy. (_Internet Society News_,
Spring, 1992)
Those of us who live and work in the K-12 environment,
and are eager to promote Internet access for K-12 users,
need not apologize for our users, nor anticipate that
their behavior in an Internet environment will be
unacceptable.
--Janet Murray
K12Net Council of Coordinators
--
uucp: uunet!m2xenix!puddle!23!Janet.Murray
Internet: Janet.Murray@f23.n105.z1.fidonet.org
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Jun 30 17:10:51 1992
From: best@anasazi.com (Mike Best)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,misc.legal,alt.activism,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.correct,alt.discrimination
Subject: Re: [UPI] Supreme Court strikes down 'hate crime' statutes
Message-ID: <1992Jun30.162510.22754@anasazi.com>
Date: 30 Jun 92 16:25:10 GMT
>In article <1992Jun23.001708.6788@m.cs.uiuc.edu>, kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>[UPI text regarding the Supreme Court decision deleted]
>
>This all reminds me of a question I've been meaning to ask.
>
>The First Amendment is written suspiciously differently from the next eight.
>It says "Congress shall make no law. . . ." while the others say things like
>
>"the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
>
> ..... [List deleted]
>
>And the Tenth Amendment contains the clincher,
>
> "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."
>
Is this really the case today?
>
>Now here's my question-why is it that the First Amendment forbids *Congress* to
>make a certain kind of law, while the remainder of the Bill of Rights contains
>one general guarantee after another, without regard to *who* is infringing,
>violating, construing, and so on? Did the framers intend that the States could
>pass laws respecting the establishment of religion, abridging the freedom of
>speech, et cetera? I can't find anywhere that this power is prohibited to the
>States by the Constitution, so under the Tenth Amendment, they seem to have it.
>
First of all, the Bill of Rights does not contain guarantees and in fact the
entire Constitution only once uses the term "guarantee" (article IV, sec 4).
If you look closely at the 10 amendments then you should see that they are
really negations of government power. All are imperative and most contain
the words "no" and "shall". They are denials of powers to the government.
For example, the first amendment would be quite different if it were
affirmative as follows:
"Congress shall make laws" to guarantee freedom of speech and the press.
When you comprehend the subtle implications of the Bill of Rights negative
character then you will appreciate just how the Founders felt that our
rights were best protected. They believed in a strong yet limited central
government. The historical reason for the negative characteristic of the
Bill of rights is that the Anti-Federalists were challenging to call another
constitutional convention and Madison sought to avoid this. He deftly
undercut their move via the compromise of the amendments and he further
intended that they be inserted into the body of the original text. However,
the House defeated that proposal and they were appended as we have them
today. (By the way, all 10 we actually additions, not amendments - the only
amendment was defeated which involved the size of congressional districts).
On to the question of the powers delegated to the States. I do not believe
that the framers intended that the States should or would deny the rights
of man as expounded by the Founders. Madison was very suspicious of
States Bills of Rights though, such as the Massachusetts which authorized
the use of public funds for religion but limited such support for only
Christians and Protestants. Partly due to the nature of the time, each
State had concerns of it's own and each was more sovereign than today
(perhaps unfortunately so). They feared a standing army that could stomp
any State. Even more prescient was their now substantiated fear that
the Federal government, once given power to directly tax, would exert
power over the citizenry thus rendering the state and local governments
powerless.
Well, I don't believe I've fully answered your question but I will do
some more research and see what falls out. Hope this helps!!
Mike Best
{mcdphx|asuvax}!anasaz!best
From caf-talk Caf Jun 30 17:10:52 1992
From: best@anasazi.com (Mike Best)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,misc.legal,alt.activism,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.correct,alt.discrimination
Subject: Re: [UPI] Supreme Court strikes down 'hate crime' statutes
Message-ID: <1992Jun30.163422.23230@anasazi.com>
Date: 30 Jun 92 16:34:22 GMT
In article <1992Jun25.035547.20832@polari> mojo@polari.online.com writes:
>
>I am still amazed at the foresight and intellect posessed by the framers
>of the Constitution. There like has been seen rarely since.
This has _never_ been seen since and it is our great fortune to be
the caretakers of this legacy. What amazes me is that our liberal education
mechanism fails to pass on the true meaning of our Founder's intentions
in order to enact social-economic change. My question is, why is not
the Federalist Papers required reading? My answer is, because the correct
interpretation of the Constitution and the natural rights of man is
antithetical to big government and the liberal agenda which promotes
group rights instead of individual rights.
This policy is greedy and dangerous because, as we have seen the social
fabric of this society strain under the current liberal culture of rights
without obligations, the liberals reinterpretion of constitutional/natural
rights is INFERIOR to that which the Founders put forth.
Mike Best
{asuvax|mcdphx}!anasaz!best
From caf-talk Caf Jun 30 22:25:54 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.sex.pictures, et al.] Westmark is gone
Message-ID: <9207010224.AA00828@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 1992 16:24:52 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Jun 30 22:25:54 1992
Newsgroups: alt.sex.pictures,alt.sex.bondage,alt.sex.bestiality,alt.pictures.binaries.d
Subject: Westmark is gone
Message-ID: <1992Jun30.001233.12993@morrow.stanford.edu>
Date: 30 Jun 92 00:12:33 GMT
The server previously known as westmark is gone. Do not
attempt to contact it, or your address will be traced,
and your system administrator will be notified. The
owner of the system has been reprimanded, and is
currently on probation; the material on the server has
been confiscated and destroyed.
Let this be a warning to those who would grant
free access to filth such as that.
From caf-talk Caf Jun 30 22:36:58 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [can.politics, et al.] Re: U of Toronto reaction
Message-ID: <9207010236.AA00961@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 1992 16:36:29 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Jun 30 22:36:58 1992
From: grd4016@husky1.stmarys.ca
Subject: Re: U of Toronto reaction
Message-ID: <1992Jun30.213829.1@husky1.stmarys.ca>
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 1992 01:38:29 GMT
In article <92Jun16.115702edt.16792@ois.db.toronto.edu>, fche@db.toronto.edu ("Frank Ch. Eigler") writes:
>
> >> U of T is not planning to intercept or censor the international
>>computer network, Internet, that carries among its thousands of files
>>a couple that contain violent pornographic material.
>> [...]
>
>
> Way to go! I'm glad my school looks like it will continue to support
> a free exchange of information. Very refreshing!
>
Frank, U of T is not the school to congradulate for its protection of
freedom of speech. Obviously you have forgotten that 2 years ago
Rob Pritchard, pres. of UT allowed a small group of students at
Scarborough college to rob a professor of her right to freedom of
speech simply because they disagreed with what she said. Pritchard
took no actions to support this prof.'s freedom of speech, despite the fact
that the level of harassment by these students became so intense that
the her course was cancelled and the prof. took a medical leave of absence/
All this despite the fact that UT has a code governing students' behaviour
in the classroom. This incident and the recent decision on the porno news
group are typical of Pritchard's contradictory and vacilating behaviour
as President of the university.
> --
>
> -- Frank Ch. Eigler -- Comp Eng -- --
From caf-talk Caf Jun 30 22:51:37 1992
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Newsgroups: alt.sex.pictures,alt.sex.bondage,alt.sex.bestiality,alt.pictures.binaries.d,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.censorship
Subject: Re: Westmark is gone
Message-ID: <1992Jul1.023613.28915@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: 1 Jul 92 02:36:13 GMT
root@westmark.Stanford.EDU (Operator) writes:
>The server previously known as westmark is gone. Do not
>attempt to contact it, or your address will be traced,
>and your system administrator will be notified. The
>owner of the system has been reprimanded, and is
>currently on probation; the material on the server has
>been confiscated and destroyed.
>
>Let this be a warning to those who would grant
>free access to filth such as that.
Constrast this with a related, Stanford policy:
========================
>Office Memo, Stanford University Libraries
>date: April 12, 1989
>To: The Steering Committee of the Academic Senate via Arthur Coladarci
>From: Joan Krasner, Secretary, C-Lib
The following is an excerpt from the minutes of the April 10th meeting
of C-Lib which considered the matter of computer bulletin boards on
campus. The Preamble to the Statement on Academic Freedom (1974)
states that ``Expression of the widest range of viewpoints should be
encouraged, free from institutional orthodoxy and from internal or
external coercion.'' It is the view of the Academic Council Committee
on Libraries that this statement pertains to materials received on
computer bulletin boards on campus. Acquisition and access to
information in new forms should be subject only to financial limits
and other standard criteria of collection such as the useful life of
the materials, storage capacity, etc.
- approved by Academic Council Commmittee on Libraries, April 10, 1989.
XC: Gerald Gillespie
======================
ANNOTATED REFERENCES
(All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.)
=================
policies/stanford.edu
=================
"In 1989 rec.humor.funny was suppressed in some of the Stanford
University computers. After a campaign it was re-installed in those
computers."
This file contains
1) the "Statement of Protest about the AIR Censorship of rec.humor.funny"
2) a statement by the Stanford faculty committee on libraries
3) Notes from Professor John McCarthy on how censorship was fought at Stanford
(also see "jmcabstract")
=================
caf
=================
A description to the comp-academic-freedom-talk mailing list. It is a
free-forum for the discussion of questions such as: How should general
principles of academic freedom (such as freedom of expression, freedom
to read, due process, and privacy) be applied to university computers
and networks? How are these principles actually being applied? How can
the principles of academic freedom as applied to computers and
networks be defended?
=================
=================
These document(s) are available by anonymous ftp (the preferred
method) and by email. To get the file(s) via ftp, do an anonymous ftp
to ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4), and get file(s):
pub/academic/policies/stanford.edu
pub/academic/caf
To get the file(s) by email, send email to archive-server@eff.org.
Include the line(s) (be sure to include the space before the file
name):
send acad-freedom/policies stanford.edu
send acad-freedom caf
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Jun 30 22:53:21 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.sex.bondage] Re: Westmark is gone
Message-ID: <9207010252.AA01025@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 1992 16:52:51 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Jun 30 22:53:21 1992
Newsgroups: alt.sex.bondage
Subject: Re: Westmark is gone
Message-ID: <1992Jun30.020721.3899@cs.mcgill.ca>
Date: 30 Jun 92 02:07:21 GMT
In article <1992Jun30.001233.12993@morrow.stanford.edu> root@westmark.Stanford.EDU (Operator) writes:
>
>Let this be a warning to those who would grant
>free access to filth such as that.
Is this a forgery? Or is there really something happening at Stanford
University?
Did anybody ever catch the Mad Canceller?
From caf-talk Caf Jul 1 10:54:58 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [eff.mail.com-priv] Re: Well, World, and AUP
Message-ID: <199207011454.AA16728@eff.org>
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 1992 06:54:28 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Jul 1 10:54:58 1992
From: karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger)
Subject: Re: Well, World, and AUP
Message-ID:
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 1992 02:15:52 GMT
> What I find harder to accept is totally arbitrary non-enforcement to
> the point of NSF essentially providing free rides to direct
> competitors via government subsidy. *WHY* are people dialing Princeton
> University to pay for for-profit commercial access to the Internet???
> What in the hell is going on here? What's next?
The only solution to this problem is the deletion of the AUP from the
Internet in its entirety.
That will open up a world of competition, as the playing field will then
be level. Regardless of what ANS or MERIT does, AUPs and their equivalents
will no longer be an issue. Purpose will no longer be an issue. People
will charge for bandwidth (as does Alternet) or some other pricing mutually
agreed upon, without traffic restriction. This is, IMHO, a >good thing<.
The result of this would be the immediate destruction of any "monopoly"
position that ANS would have. If ANS then decided, for example, to impose
an AUP on their customers without the blessing of the NSF, how many current
customers would defect to other providers free of this restriction?
The other providers could band together when this occurred (through the CIX,
as an example) and make non-AUPness of a network a requirement for membership
in the CIX (or other interconnects).
ANS would have to choose between deleting their AUP or becoming an island
overnight. If they made the choice to become an island, they wouldn't live
long as everyone defected to other, more open carriers. Those carriers would
provide T-3 backbone service -- not because they had to, but because their
customers would >demand< it (assuming such demand actually exists -- this
has not been demonstrated to my satisfaction yet.)
I like this idea. Let's see if we can get it pushed through Congress.
Anyone got the appropriate people on the Hill to write to?
--
Karl Denninger (karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM, !ddsw1!karl)
Data Line: [+1 312 248-0900] Anon. arch. (nuucp) 00:00-06:00 C[SD]T
Request file: /u/public/sources/DIRECTORY/README for instructions
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Jul 1 10:55:07 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [eff.mail.com-priv] Re: Well, World, and AUP
Message-ID: <199207011454.AA16787@eff.org>
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 1992 06:54:36 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Jul 1 10:55:07 1992
From: mfidelma@diamond.bbn.com (Miles R. Fidelman)
Subject: Re: Well, World, and AUP
Message-ID: <9207011437.AA26039@feldspar.bbn.com>
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 1992 14:37:18 GMT
Just a thought:
The original justification of the AUP was that the Government only wanted to
subsidize academic and research use of the network -- a laudible goal in the
early days of the network.
An implicit component of the current debate on AUP is whether or not it is
appropriate for the Government to subsidize broader (i.e. commercial) uses of
the net.
Since the Government now seems to be adopting as a goal creation of a nation
network infrastructure, and since there are plenty of examples of the
Government subsidizing new infrastructure that does not have an AUP (e.g. the
Interstate Highways, early Airline Service), it seems perfectly appropriate for
the Government to get rid of the AUP.
Miles Fidelman
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Jul 1 12:32:50 1992
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,news.future,news.groups
From: tt@tarzan.jyu.fi (Tapani Tarvainen)
Subject: alternatives to moderation (was Re: would this be censorship?)
Message-ID:
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 1992 15:17:39 GMT
[Note: I've removed alt.censorship and alt.comp.acad-freedom from
followups, as they no longer seem relevant; please redirect
as you feel appropriate.]
In article <1992Jun25.092338.8704@cadlab.sublink.org> martelli@cadlab.sublink.org (Alex Martelli) writes:
>We could have MULTIPLE "selectors/critics/commentors/digestors"
>for a group, all self selected, each of whom, if he or she feels
>like it, could post a particular type of followup to any article,
>suggesting others to read, or not to read, it, or better still
>commenting on it with appropriate keywords so as to cathegorize
>the article and let potential readers select or kill it more
>easily.
[...]
>This will of course only help readers who are in no hurry to see
>posts, as it will take some time for metacommentors' feedback on
>various articles to propagate.
Yes, and while this would not be too bad in some cases, it would not
work others, just as the delay caused by moderation is unacceptable in
some groups. Nonetheless it would be worth trying.
Another idea: This could be combined with the idea of
automatically maintained kill files, i.e., set up a mechanism
whereby I could allow someone to make automatic updates to my kill
file for a certain group. I could choose whom to trust and review
their deeds whenever I want. It might work. And it shouldn't be
too hard to implement without any changes in the news transport
mechanism, either ... hmmm ... let's say my newsreader looks for
messages from certain person and of certain form, uses them
to update my kill file ...
It still wouldn't help with the delays involved with kill files,
but that's mainly a technical problem (can any newsreader do the
killing offline?).
More important, as such it wouldn't help new users much, but perhaps
it could be made easy enough ... what I have in mind is that when you
subscribe to such a group you'll automatically get a list of selectors
that are being used by someone at your site, or something like that.
Perhaps it could show as separate newsgroups "talk.odd.unselected",
"talk.odd.sel-by-MrX", "talk.odd.sel-by-MsY" etc, with those articles
selected by both Mr X and Ms Y appearing as cross-posted (and
everything as cross-posted to .unselected).
It would be easier (and more efficient) if (some of) the selectors
would be "semi-official" in the sense that their selections would
be accessible without private kill files, and in that control
messages could be used to create .sel-by-X subgroups automatically
(whereas everybody would have to explicitly create one for
unofficial ones by themselves), selection done by voting as usual.
Or maybe so that whenever someone at your site creates such
a subgroup it becomes visible to everybody at your site ...
that might be easier to do (no need for global decisions).
This needs some more thought. But I'm beginning to think
it just might be possible to come up with something useful.
--
Tapani Tarvainen (tarvaine@jyu.fi, tarvainen@finjyu.bitnet)
From caf-talk Caf Jul 1 15:04:24 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.binaries.pictures.erotica, et al.] Re: Westmark is gone
Message-ID: <9207011903.AA05195@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 1992 09:03:50 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Jul 1 15:04:24 1992
Newsgroups: alt.binaries.pictures.erotica,alt.sex.bondage,alt.sex.bestiality,alt.pictures.binaries.d
Subject: Re: Westmark is gone
Message-ID: <1992Jul1.060455.27393@morrow.stanford.edu>
Date: 1 Jul 92 06:04:55 GMT
In article <1992Jun30.001233.12993@morrow.stanford.edu> root@westmark.Stanford.EDU (Operator) writes:
>
>The server previously known as westmark is gone. Do not
>attempt to contact it, or your address will be traced,
>and your system administrator will be notified. The
>owner of the system has been reprimanded, and is
>currently on probation; the material on the server has
>been confiscated and destroyed.
>
>Let this be a warning to those who would grant
>free access to filth such as that.
Oh dear.
I don't know who decided it was time to forge a posting,
but it seems that they weren't happy at the anonymous
ftp site being closed. This is not good.
Let me introduce myself. My name is Matthew Petach,
and I am the owner and operator of Westmark. I am
a true person; you may contact me at (415) 497-0561,
at least for a little while longer. I have just
graduated from Stanford, and will be in a state
of flux for some time to come. My server was using
Stanford resources, to a degree that would be
considered inappropriate, not to mention expensive,
especially after moving off campus. My machine
was temporarily shutdown to alleviate the entirely
non-academic load it was placing on the network.
At no time were the system administrators planning
to trace anyone who used the site; they have no
interest in being net.police; for that matter,
neither am I.
The actual details of the incident do not need
to be made public at this time. There may be
individuals who may feel that someone's rights
were being violated; that is definitely not the
case. While using Stanford's equipment as a
student, I should have been keeping better
track of how much of a load my personal material
was placing on the network. Because the amount
of personal material being transferred suddenly
grew to inordinate size due to certain sites doing
automated dumps of everything on my site on a nightly
basis, the site became a burden to the local gateways.
Stanford has no feelings either way as to the content
of the server; the material was deposited by other
network users, and was made available to other network
users. As far as they are concerned, so long as I
did not affect the network in a negative way, my
personal business, like my email and anything else
on my system was strictly my business. As soon as
it became a problem for other users, and for other
sites in this region, it became their business, and
only to the degree that the bottleneck had to be
alleviated.
Once again, please ignore the post claiming to have
come from the operator; I don't know why some
people feel it is necessary to incite angry
responses over what is otherwise a very
straightforward matter; any discussion of
this can surely be carried out in rational terms.
If particular individuals have questions regarding
the matter, they can call me at area code (415) 497-0561,
and discuss the issues with me personally.
Once again, my apologies for whatever furor
this may have caused.
Matt Petach
From caf-talk Caf Jul 1 15:06:36 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.sex.pictures, et al.] Re: Westmark is gone [Is the original fake or the new response?]
Message-ID: <9207011906.AA05239@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 1992 09:06:01 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Jul 1 15:06:36 1992
From: rsingh@goliath.Stanford.EDU ( raj)
Subject: Re: Westmark is gone [Is the original fake or the new response?]
Message-ID: <1992Jul1.072715.4375@leland.Stanford.EDU>
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 92 07:27:15 GMT
In article <1992Jul1.060455.27393@morrow.stanford.edu> Matthew Petach writes:
>>In article <1992Jun30.001233.12993@morrow.stanford.edu> root@westmark.Stanford.EDU (Operator) writes:
>>
>>The server previously known as westmark is gone. Do not attempt to
>>contact it, or your address will be traced, and your system
>>administrator will be notified. The owner of the system has been
>>reprimanded, and is currently on probation; the material on the server
>>has been confiscated and destroyed.
>>
>>Let this be a warning to those who would grant free access to filth
>>such as that.
>>
>
>Oh dear.
>
>I don't know who decided it was time to forge a posting, but it seems
>that they weren't happy at the anonymous ftp site being closed. This
>is not good.
>
>Let me introduce myself. My name is Matthew Petach, and I am the
>owner and operator of Westmark. I am a true person; you may contact
>me at (415) 497-0561, at least for a little while longer. I have just
>
>Once again, please ignore the post claiming to have come from the
>operator; I don't know why some people feel it is necessary to incite
>angry responses over what is otherwise a very straightforward matter;
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>any discussion of this can surely be carried out in rational terms.
>Matt Petach
Well Matt, if you claim that the original posting from root@westmark
was a forged one, how do you explain this following that you sent me
this morning, in reply to my email about the first post being
unsigned. Either your system is compromised in big ways, and people
can not only fake posts, but *THEY ARE ABLE TO READ MAILS SENT TO
ROOT* on westmark as well, or, obviously you are lying in one of the
two instances. Below is your response.
[And don't come and tell me that I should not post this email; hey you
just said it was forged, right? So why worry ;)]
From: buckaroo@westmark.Stanford.EDU (Matthew Nicholas Petach)
Message-Id: <9206301623.AA00505@westmark.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Re: Westmark is gone
To: rsingh@goliath.stanford.edu (raj)
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 92 9:23:06 PDT
In-Reply-To: <9206300037.AA03448@goliath.Stanford.EDU>; from "raj" at Jun 29, 92 5:37 pm
Anonymous login has been disabled, and the student's machine has been
impounded. It is now under university control, and will remain under
university control until such time as this situation is resolved. Any
usage of the NSF-Internet backbone by *any* machine directly or
indirectly connected to it binds the owner of said machines to certain
limitations and obligations. If you want to start your own network,
be our guest. While you are making use of DARPA/NSF Internet,
however, you are bound by their regulations.
Correction: it *was* his machine.
Because he is a student, his name is not being released to the public
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
at this time. If charges are pressed against him, then his name will
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
be released. Stanford and BARRNET do *not* look kindly upon the use
of university resources for activities such as this.
Hmm... so are you telling me that this email from your account was
faked? If not, do you acknowledge that the first post was made by you
and that after you got flamed, you tried to lie? If it's neither, are
you gonna the net.community know what is going on? If not, GO aWaY!
--raj
--
Rajesh Kumar Singh E-mail: rsingh@goliath.stanford.edu
Gauls! We have nothing to fear; except perhaps that the sky may fall
on our heads tomorrow. But as we all know, tomorrow never comes!!
-- Adventures of Asterix.
From caf-talk Caf Jul 1 15:07:22 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.d, et al.] Re: Westmark is gone [Is the original fake or the new response?]
Message-ID: <9207011906.AA05253@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 1992 09:06:22 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Jul 1 15:07:22 1992
From: horde@reed.edu (Mr. Heiji Horde)
Subject: Re: Westmark is gone [Is the original fake or the new response?]
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 1992 17:57:52 GMT
Message-ID: <1992Jul1.175752.14380@reed.edu>
rsingh@goliath.Stanford.EDU writes [on the security of westmark]:
> Either your system is compromised in big ways, and people
>can not only fake posts, but *THEY ARE ABLE TO READ MAILS SENT TO
>ROOT* on westmark as well,
Would you like a list of security holes on the NeXT machine?
There are quite a few that haven't been fixed yet. Not to mention
others that can't be fixed without doing a fair amount of work.
But at least the manual describes how you can fix some. And the
NeXT man pages also tell you how to break in.
Security on a NeXT machine just doesn't exist unless it is either in
the box or firewalled.
-Heijmeister
"You don't really think I'm going to tell you?"
From caf-talk Caf Jul 1 17:42:02 1992
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,misc.legal,alt.activism,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.correct,alt.discrimination
From: pfcouvar@amhux1.amherst.edu (Peter Couvares)
Subject: Re: [UPI] Supreme Court strikes down 'hate crime' statutes
Message-ID: <1992Jul1.211845.13410@amhux2.amherst.edu>
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 1992 21:18:45 GMT
best@anasazi.com (Mike Best) writes:
>mojo@polari.online.com writes:
>>
>>I am still amazed at the foresight and intellect posessed by the framers
>>of the Constitution. There like has been seen rarely since.
>
>This has _never_ been seen since and it is our great fortune to be
>the caretakers of this legacy. What amazes me is that our liberal education
>mechanism fails to pass on the true meaning of our Founder's intentions
>in order to enact social-economic change. My question is, why is not
>the Federalist Papers required reading? My answer is, because the correct
>interpretation of the Constitution and the natural rights of man is
>antithetical to big government and the liberal agenda which promotes
>group rights instead of individual rights.
I really disagree--there is no conspiracy by the government to
perpetuate itself by discouraging kids from reading the federalist papers. I'd
say the reason they're not more widely read is simply because they are fairly
complex, and high-school politics/history classes tend to lean towards very
simple and P.C. versions of history. The federalist papers would be a
nightmare to teach for any teacher who was not particularly dedicated or
happy at work, and many (most?) of them are not. It's much easier to assign
pages 342-356 of _US History: Our Wonderful Country_ and have a quiz on the
names of the founding fathers the next day than it is to try and explain a
long document that may bring up something controversial to some kids' parents.
I realize I'm being pretty harsh here, but I have few positive things
to say about your average public high school. Almost everything you're taught
there is either rote (sp?) memorization or oversimplified, uncontroversial,
P.C. thought.
-Peter
pfcouvar@amhux1.amherst.edu (Peter Couvares)
[I apologize for sending this out to all of the original newsgroups, but there
weren't any which seemed particularly appropriate--I hope most people who
don't want to read this thread have put it in their kill files long ago...]
From caf-talk Caf Jul 1 20:56:29 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [eff.mail.com-priv] A Bill by Senator Gore -- a bRIEF summary
Message-ID: <199207020055.AA29545@eff.org>
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 1992 16:55:56 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Jul 1 20:56:29 1992
From: farber@central.cis.upenn.edu (David J. Farber)
Subject: A Bill by Senator Gore -- a bRIEF summary
Message-ID: <9207012156.AA00183@pcpond.cis.upenn.edu>
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 1992 21:56:08 GMT
I have been told that Senator Gore has just put in the hopper a bill
that would:
Under the coordination of OSTP have a program to ensure the widest
possible application of high performance computing and networking.
it calls for:
- the NSF to fund projects to connect primary and secondary schools
to NSFNET and to develope educational software and provide teacher
training
- NIST to develope networking technology for manufacturing
- NIH in conjunction with the NSF and others to develope applications
of advanced computer and networking technology for health care. This
includes networking to link hospitals, doctor's offices and
universities so mediucal data and imagery can be shared. It also
charges the development of new software for manipulating medical
imery and data.
- provides funding to NSF and NASA to develope technology for
"digital libraries", hugh data bases that store tex, imery, video
sound etc. It also funds the development of prototype "digital
libraries" around the US.
The bill is 22 pages long which I have in fax form and NOT in digital
form :-)
The budget is like:
over 5 years
NSF
education 300 mill
libraries 150
NIST
manufacturing 250
NIH
health care 300
NASA librries 150 m
Total 1150 million
My guess is nothing will happen except hearings prior to the
election.
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Jul 2 06:11:31 1992
Newsgroups: news.admin,news.misc,alt.culture.usenet,comp.org.eff.talk,alt.censorship,alt.privacy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,news.future
From: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Subject: Re: talk.politics.* - charters of new groups, summary
Message-ID: <1992Jul2.093932.16039@nntp.hut.fi>
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 1992 09:39:32 GMT
Groups:
talk.politics.usenet
In article <1992Jul2.043958.10923@nntp.hut.fi>, jkp@cs (Jyrki Kuoppala) writes:
>This is a proposal for new groups to the talk.politics hierarchy to be
>created to ease the load on talk.politics.misc and make political
>discussions on geographical areas outside USA possible, and also make
>focused on-topic discussions possible without having to read through
>big volumes of disucssions not relevant to the topic you are
>interested in.
>
>All groups are to be unmoderated.
>The discussion has gone on for a month now (original RFD appeared on 2
>June 1992), so we should be proceeding to a CFV soon. However, I've
>been neglecting the charters too long and I need some input on them.
>
>I would appreciate input on the proposed charters and also possible
>better charters from people who know the topics better than I, perhaps
>preferably via email. At this point I don't think there will be much
>more change to the newsgroup names (except perhaps for the
>geographical/regional groups), though if there are serious problems
>they should be fixed.
Followups directed to news.groups. This article contains only those
of the proposed new groups relevant to the topics of the groups this
is posted on (with some redundancy), see the original article in
news.groups for all of the new groups.
There will be a vote for the groups in a short while - I'm not sure if
the CFV will be on all groups this article is posted on so you might
want to track news.announce.newgroups if you want to vote.
talk.politics.usenet Politics of Usenet
Politics of Usenet and connections of Usenet and the rest of the world
(what groups to carry on what basis, etc.) Both Usenet "domestic"
politics and "foreign" politics are suitable for discussion.
//Jyrki
From caf-talk Caf Jul 2 08:02:23 1992
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,misc.legal,alt.activism.d,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.correct,alt.discrimination
From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Subject: The Glorious Constitution (was: [UPI] Supreme Court strikes down...)
Message-ID: <1992Jul2.114549.13751@athena.mit.edu>
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 1992 11:45:49 GMT
In article <1992Jun30.163422.23230@anasazi.com>,
best@anasazi.com (Mike Best) said:
> > I am still amazed at the foresight and intellect posessed by the
> > framers of the Constitution. There like has been seen rarely
> > since.
> This has _never_ been seen since and it is our great fortune to be
> the caretakers of this legacy. What amazes me is that our liberal
> education mechanism fails to pass on the true meaning of our
> Founder's intentions in order to enact social-economic change. My
> question is, why is not the Federalist Papers required reading?
> My answer is, because the correct interpretation of the
> Constitution and the natural rights of man is antithetical to big
> government and the liberal agenda which promotes group rights
> instead of individual rights.
I'll point out in passing that a "correct interpretation of the
Constitution and the natural rights of man" as put forth by the
Framers is also antithetical to the Bill of Rights (which the
Framers had to be browbeaten into accepting), the banning of slavery
(didn't happen until 1865), the protection of persons from the
excesses of state governments as well as the federal government
(1868), voting rights for non-whites (1870) and voting rights for
women (1920).
Of all these, of course, the fact that the Framers were ready,
willing and able to accept slavery (but lacked the guts to actually
use the dreaded word anywhere in their document, preferring to use
euphemisms like "three-fifths of all other Persons," and "Person
held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof")
is the most damning to any portrayal of the Framers as far-sighted
saints.
-- William December Starr
From caf-talk Caf Jul 3 00:22:29 1992
From: mitch@coriolis.UUCP (Mitch)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,misc.legal,alt.activism,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.society.ci
Subject: Re: [UPI] Supreme Court strikes down 'hate crime' statutes
Message-ID:
Date: Thu, 02 Jul 92 20:34:04 PDT
pfcouvar@amhux1.amherst.edu (Peter Couvares) writes:
> best@anasazi.com (Mike Best) writes:
> >mojo@polari.online.com writes:
> >>
> >>I am still amazed at the foresight and intellect posessed by the framers
> >>of the Constitution. There like has been seen rarely since.
> >
> >This has _never_ been seen since and it is our great fortune to be
> >the caretakers of this legacy. What amazes me is that our liberal education
> >mechanism fails to pass on the true meaning of our Founder's intentions
> >in order to enact social-economic change. My question is, why is not
> >the Federalist Papers required reading? My answer is, because the correct
> >interpretation of the Constitution and the natural rights of man is
> >antithetical to big government and the liberal agenda which promotes
> >group rights instead of individual rights.
>
> I really disagree--there is no conspiracy by the government to
> perpetuate itself by discouraging kids from reading the federalist papers. I'
> say the reason they're not more widely read is simply because they are fairly
> complex, and high-school politics/history classes tend to lean towards very
> simple and P.C. versions of history. The federalist papers would be a
> nightmare to teach for any teacher who was not particularly dedicated or
> happy at work, and many (most?) of them are not. It's much easier to assign
> pages 342-356 of _US History: Our Wonderful Country_ and have a quiz on the
> names of the founding fathers the next day than it is to try and explain a
> long document that may bring up something controversial to some kids' parents
>
> I realize I'm being pretty harsh here, but I have few positive things
> to say about your average public high school. Almost everything you're taught
You know, I hate to point this out, but the Federalist Papers ain't
exactly the preamble to the Constitution. They're the disjointed
ramblings of a political clique which had some membership in and
influence on the thoughts of the people who wrote and ratified the
document. At best, they're Ringo Starr's comments on the Beatles' work;
at worst, they are the angry protestations of those left out of the real
writing. (Well, maybe Lennon, but you get the point.)
From caf-talk Caf Jul 3 13:05:25 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: USENET Readership report for Jun 92
Message-ID: <1992Jul3.164253.25896@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Fri, 3 Jul 1992 16:42:53 GMT
[Some excerpts - Carl]
In news.lists, reid@decwrl.DEC.COM (Brian Reid) writes:
>This is the full set of data from the USENET readership report for Jun 92.
>Explanations of the figures are in a companion posting.
>
> +-- Estimated total number of people who read the group, worldwide.
> | +-- Actual number of readers in sampled population
> | | +-- Propagation: how many sites receive this group at all
> | | | +-- Recent traffic (messages per month)
> | | | | +-- Recent traffic (kilobytes per month)
> | | | | | +-- Crossposting percentage
> | | | | | | +-- Cost ratio: $US/month/rdr
> | | | | | | | +-- Share: % of newsrders
> | | | | | | | | who read this group.
> V V V V V V V V
> 1 280000 4878 83% 825 1604.8 22% 0.01 12.2% misc.jobs.offered
> 2 250000 4224 83% 1577 1912.9 36% 0.01 10.5% misc.forsale
> 3 220000 3782 67% 1773 5783.7 23% 0.04 9.4% alt.sex
> 4 220000 3701 81% 64 148.0 0% 0.00 9.2% rec.humor.funny
> 5 180000 3087 82% 12 311.4 25% 0.00 7.7% news.answers
[...]
> 312 39000 679 77% 376 1055.0 19% 0.04 1.7% comp.org.eff.talk
[...]
> 519 27000 466 57% 169 612.3 14% 0.03 1.2% alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
[...]
> 636 23000 388 72% 3 42.1 100% 0.00 1.0% comp.org.eff.news
[...]
>1116 8600 148 50% 7 328.6 0% 0.04 0.4% alt.comp.acad-freedom.news
[...]
>1806 58 1 1% 191 448.4 0% 0.29 0.0% uiuc.wx-talk
>1807 58 1 1% 27 15.4 0% 0.01 0.0% ctdl.lang.c++
>1808 58 1 1% 13 51.9 0% 0.02 0.0% scruz.sysops
>1809 58 1 1% 10 11.9 0% 0.01 0.0% uiuc.cs.jobs
>1810 58 1 0% 8 9.5 100% 0.00 0.0% orst.forsale
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Jul 3 15:06:28 1992
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,misc.legal,alt.activism.d,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.correct,alt.discrimination
From: barrera@mtu.edu (Barrera)
Subject: Re: The Glorious Constitution (was: [UPI] Supreme Court strikes down...)
Message-ID: <1992Jul3.181236.970@mtu.edu>
Date: Fri, 3 Jul 1992 18:12:36 GMT
wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr) writes:
:
: I'll point out in passing that a "correct interpretation of the
: Constitution and the natural rights of man" as put forth by the
: Framers is also antithetical to the Bill of Rights (which the
: Framers had to be browbeaten into accepting), the banning of slavery
: (didn't happen until 1865), the protection of persons from the
: excesses of state governments as well as the federal government
: (1868), voting rights for non-whites (1870) and voting rights for
: women (1920).
:
Voting rights for women aside, there would probably still be slavery in
existance in many small little countries along the Atlantic coast today
if the founding fathers attemtped to outlaw slavery at the outset throught
the entire US. The fact that the North was free was enough to give hope
that the south would eventually be made to follow the same.
: Of all these, of course, the fact that the Framers were ready,
: willing and able to accept slavery (but lacked the guts to actually
So why didn't they? I doubt you can answer that without contradicting yourself.
: use the dreaded word anywhere in their document, preferring to use
: euphemisms like "three-fifths of all other Persons," and "Person
: held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof")
You forget your history. Indentured Servitude was still in use at the time.
You also forget the reason for the "3/5" rule was not any judgment on the
human worth of slaves. That was for purposes of representation in Congress.
Again, if slaves were equal to "1" person for that purpose, then the Southern
states would have had far greater political power and we still might have
slavery today, or 2 separate countries. The North wanted slaves to be worth
nothing for that purpose, which contrary to what you apparently believe, was
the best thing for the slaves, as the North would have had considerably more
power on congress with which they could stamp out slavery. Needless to say,
the South knew that, and a compromise needed to be made so that the constitution
could move forward.
: is the most damning to any portrayal of the Framers as far-sighted
: saints.
:
They were pragmatists. They got the job done. Who can say that under the
circumstances anything better could have resulted? Your opinion of the
founding fathers has some holes in its foundation.
: -- William December Starr
-chris barrera
barrera@mtu.edu
From caf-talk Caf Jul 3 16:56:27 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.culture.usenet] Re: Usenet leakage into the Real World
Message-ID: <9207032055.AA16741@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Fri, 3 Jul 1992 10:55:43 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Jul 3 16:56:27 1992
Newsgroups: alt.culture.usenet
Subject: Re: Usenet leakage into the Real World
Date: 2 Jul 1992 22:24:35 -0400
Message-ID: <130dp3INNeo@rodan.UU.NET>
In article <1305hlINNqac@network.ucsd.edu> mark@cs.ucsd.edu (Mark Anderson) writes:
>
>USENET is not as isolated as some people seem to
>think.
Surely. During the coup in Moscow, the information posted to USENET
was used by Voice of America and CNN and (indirectly) by some other
Western broadcasters and newspapers. In USSR, the USENET became one
of the major information channels -- the conventional phone and telex
channels are fairly clobbered. You even can write a e-mail message to
the Russian Supreme Council. Russian bureaus of UPI, Frans Press,
Associated Press and a dozen of others get news from Interfax, Agency
of Economical News (Russia) and Russian Information Agency (RIA) as
USENET feed: it works better than faxes. Finally, the current team
of the Russian government experts rely on USENET heavily in discussing
new legistlative proposals with experts and executives from financial
and regional groups. USENET works just fine for scientists; there is
no reason why it can't be used as fruitfully by governments, mass-media
and financial circles.
Vadim Antonov
Berkeley Software Design, Inc.
From caf-talk Caf Jul 3 17:22:20 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [misc.legal] Re: Major Re: Some thoughts regarding free speech
Message-ID: <9207032121.AA16884@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Fri, 3 Jul 1992 11:21:34 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Jul 3 17:22:20 1992
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Re: Major Re: Some thoughts regarding free speech
Message-ID: <1992Jul2.225949.17113@midway.uchicago.edu>
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 1992 22:59:49 GMT
In article <1992Jul2.212027.28071@m.cs.uiuc.edu> kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>Let me just second this. On one of my first trips to a law library, I
>looked up many articles about student speech restrictions at public
>universities (in the U.S.). Almost all said that student speech could
>be restricted just like employee speech. Then I found the recent
>federal district court decisions that outlawed such speech
>restrictions! My conclusion is that law journal articles advocate;
>they do not predict or explain the actual law.
Keep in mind that the district court decisions were regarding
public universities, rather than private ones.
--
....................................
ted frank | thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
the university of chicago law school
suffering from bozeman's syndrome
From caf-talk Caf Jul 3 17:22:24 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [misc.legal] Re: Major Re: Some thoughts regarding free speech
Message-ID: <9207032121.AA16893@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Fri, 3 Jul 1992 11:21:38 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Jul 3 17:22:24 1992
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Major Re: Some thoughts regarding free speech
Message-ID: <1992Jul3.041304.21964@eff.org>
Date: 3 Jul 92 04:13:04 GMT
In article <1992Jul2.225949.17113@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>Keep in mind that the district court decisions were regarding
>public universities, rather than private ones.
This is true, but as THE NEW REPUBLIC's editors cogently remarked this
week, in their commentary on the hate-speech case, private universities
are obligated by principle, if not by law, to be no more restrictive
of speech than public ones are. To do otherwise, for the great majority
of private universities, would be an embarrassment.
--Mike
--
Mike Godwin, |"Of the many definitions of poetry, the
mnemonic@eff.org | simplest is still the best: 'memorable speech.'"
(617) 864-0665 |
EFF, Cambridge | --W.H. Auden
From caf-talk Caf Jul 3 18:25:56 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: leb@theory.lcs.mit.edu (Lars Bader)
Subject: university speech codes in US
Message-ID: <1992Jul3.221144.20089@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu>
Date: Fri, 3 Jul 1992 22:11:44 GMT
In the US, people are trying to stamp out speech they find offensive.
So they label it "harassment", claim that it "discriminates", and ban
it from the workplace, schools, housing, etc. Questioning an
"affirmative action" program or asking someone out on a date can
constitute harassment, according to some schools. Pretty soon, these
codes will regulate nearly every aspect of life in America, unless the
recent Supreme Court ruling is held to cover what goes on in
institutions as well as in public. Since American politics revolve
around race, ethnicity, sex, and sexual orientation, attempts to
control their discussion are attempts to dictate the course of
society. I saw this article in the Wall Street Journal and I thought
it summed up the problem at universities pretty well, though it does
not deal with the potentially greater danger outside:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wall Street Journal
June 10, 1992.
Review & Outlook page (A14)
Reprinted with permission of the Wall Street Journal. Copyright 1992
by Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All rights reserved.
Speech Codes and Censors
The academic year ends as it began. Campus enforcers of political
conformity are still busy denying that any effort to restrict free
speech exists. The concern over "political correctness," they say, is
overstated. Such denials don't alter the clear evidence that freedom
of speech and scholarship is no longer assured at many colleges and
universities.
We have only to look at schools where nervously compliant
administrations have established "harassment" policies. These
behavioral codes, which more often than not bear a close resemblance
to a political sermon, would clearly restrict freedom of speech as
well as a few other freedoms. Laughing at the wrong kind of joke, for
instance, is sometimes listed among the punishable forms of
harassment.
Last month, at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst, protestors
demanding more minority control of the Collegian, a student newspaper,
twice invaded the paper's offices, destroyed property, and threatened
and attacked staff members. One protestor chased an editor and
threatened him with a baseball bat.
In the face of this violence, the administration took a loftily
evenhanded view. The whole thing was, U. Mass. Chancellor Richard
O'Brien told us, a struggle "between the ins and the outs," and that
he did not think the university should take sides. The chancellor did
not tell us what degree of mob rule and violence it would take for the
administration to decide it could venture an opinion on the matter.
He might, of course, have consulted his own university's harassment
policy, which includes in its definition of harassment physical attack
-- unless of course, editors of the school paper representing what the
chancellor calls "the status quo" aren't the sort of people eligible
for protection under the code.
On a lighter note, though no less telling, we have the case of Camille
Paglia and the Connecticut College summer reading list. Ms. Paglia,
who specializes in making hash of the wilder reaches of feminist
scholarship, is the author of a book titled "Sexual Personae." When
the book was included on the reading list, members of the Women's
Studies Committee and other centers of feminist theology, and their
campus allies, set about removing it.
Assistant professor of art history Robert Baldwin told the school's
student newpaper the book was "offensive to human beings, especially
women." Others complained that Ms. Paglia's book was hate literature,
like "Mein Kampf." The campaign to remove Ms. Paglia's book from the
list succeeded.
One undergraduate member of the committee described herself as shocked
at this act of censorship. This student -- like a lot of others -- is
getting the sort of political education the school catalogs don't
list. In the end, the powers that be decided that the Paglia book
could be read and discussed by students later in the term but only if
done in conjunction with Susan Faludi's feminist tome "Backlash" --
for balance. (A heavy summer reading load, to be sure.)
Anyone doubting that an unhealthy and repressive climate exists on
campuses today has only to look at the policies on harassment put in
place at -- to name just a few -- Stanford, the University of
Pennsylvania and Minnesota, Florida, and Brown.
At Brown, as at other institutions, the code says that harassment can
be defined as any behavior that produces "feelings of impotence" or
"anger" or "disenfranchisement." And the harassing speech or behavior
doesn't have to be deliberate. "It can be intentional or
unintentional."
Colby College's policy decrees that any behavior or speech that causes
someone to feel "loss of self-esteem," a "vague sense of danger," is
harassment. Emory -- like many other institutions -- says that
harassment is any behavior or language directed at others on account
of race, afe, gender, sexual orientation, handicap, etc., that has the
"reasonably forseeable effect" of creating a hostile environment for
those in the above identified categories.
We are clearly sunk here in a marshland of never-ending offenses,
where anything from a look to a laugh can be defined as harassment --
and has been. Harassment is punishable by all sorts of measures --
including "separation from the university."
The University of Minnesota includes in its faculty guidelines the
suggestion that the faculty "monitor" the classroom climate by having
the faculty "monitor" the classroom climate by having students
"comment anonymously -- in writing -- about... things they have seen
or heard that they want to acknowledge." All that is missing is the
suggestion that students be convened for mass confessions, or trials
where they can all come forward and repent of having laughed
inappropriately (an offense at the U. Conn.).
There are some exceptions to this dreary lineup, notably the policy of
the Yale College faculty, which specifically rejects any infringement
or monitoring of speech, for whatever reason. Perhaps more
universities will follow suit one day, but that day can come only when
college presidents and chancellors, deans, provosts, and the other
timid and politic souls running the universities today stop
accomodating the political ideologue and start to behave like
administrators.
In the 1950s -- the era of Senator Joe McCarthy and other zealots --
college students often sang a protest song called "Die Gedanken Sind
Frei" -- My Thoughts are Free. A song of leftist origins sung by Pete
Seeger, it nevertheless came to be the anthem for students of all
political persuasions who detested efforts to stifle dissent. "My
thoughts will not cater to duke or dictator," went one of the lines.
Who, then, could have believed that the nation's campuses would a few
decades later become the only place in American society where
censorship and intimidation rule, and where ideological dukes and
dictators flourish?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Lars Bader
From caf-talk Caf Jul 3 19:30:18 1992
From: barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,misc.legal,alt.activism,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.society.ci
Subject: Re: [UPI] Supreme Court strikes down 'hate crime' statutes
Message-ID:
Date: 3 Jul 92 22:51:03 GMT
In article mitch@coriolis.UUCP (Mitch) writes:
>You know, I hate to point this out, but the Federalist Papers ain't
>exactly the preamble to the Constitution. They're the disjointed
>ramblings of a political clique which had some membership in and
>influence on the thoughts of the people who wrote and ratified the
>document. At best, they're Ringo Starr's comments on the Beatles' work;
>at worst, they are the angry protestations of those left out of the real
>writing. (Well, maybe Lennon, but you get the point.)
Indeed? Perhaps you could explain to me then, why Supreme
Court justices not only study, but cite the Federalist Papers in
their decisions, esp. with reference to original intent?
Kayembee
From caf-talk Caf Jul 3 19:45:17 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: leb@theory.lcs.mit.edu (Lars Bader)
Subject: harassment laws and speech codes
Message-ID: <1992Jul3.232416.23672@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu>
Date: Fri, 3 Jul 1992 23:24:16 GMT
The point has been made to me that freedom of speech is just as
threatened in the American workplace as in the American schools. I
agree. And since virtually every place where people associate is a
workplace for someone, even if it's just the people who maintain the
establishment, prohibiting "offensive work environments" requires
suppressing free speech in almost any place people could gather to
discuss issues.
In response to the Wall Street Journal editorial which I just posted,
with the permission of the Journal, I wrote the following letter. I
don't think they ever had space to print it, so I reprint it here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To the Editor:
Although your editorial "Speech Codes and Censors" is timely and
courageous, it understates the menace that vague "harassment" rules
pose towards freedom of speech, both in universities and in society at
large.
Your editorial cites Emory's speech code forbidding any behavior which
has the "reasonably foreseeable effect" of creating a hostile
environment. But at MIT, where I am a student, speech need merely
have offended a "reasonable person" of any category defined by race,
gender, sexual orientation, and/or religion to bring punishment. This
standard is absurdly vague. How will administrators decide what is
"reasonable?" What if reasonable people disagree? Must all agree, or
can the views of one allegedly reasonable person out of a group of a
several million lead to punishment? MIT administrators can't tell me,
but they do confirm they might punish me if I violate the standard.
One official even told me that "if a person thinks he/she is being
harassed, then he/she is."
Regrettably, campuses are no longer the only places in society without
free speech. Thanks to the recent "civil rights" act, companies face
jackpot-sized damage awards if they permit their employees to exercise
their free speech rights. Most speech takes place in schools and
commercial establishments. If the courts fail to do their
first-amendment duty and strike down speech-restricting harassment
laws, free speech will disappear from our society.
The vagueness of the "reasonable person" standard, used by many
courts, and prohibitions against "hostile" or "offensive" workplaces
have frightened many companies and universities into restricting
speech more than required by law. And college administrators are able
to hide their restrictive speech codes behind EEOC guidelines and
harassment laws, allowing them to evade criticism from students
challenging censorship and ideological persecution.
Unconstitutionally, the government uses our schools and employers as
intermediaries in a war on free speech.
By their own definitions, many harassment policies constitute
harassment. Many reasonable people at MIT find that the vague and
arbitrary constraints on their speech create a hostile, offensive, and
intimidating environment. The sexual harassment policy is
additionally offensive because it is based on the work of Catherine
MacKinnon, an anti-male bigot who has called men "a group trained
towards woman-hating aggression," stated that "sexual harassment is
marriage is rape," and belittled the horror of rape by questioning
"whether the concept of consent is even meaningful" in sexual
relations. Its prohibition of "ogling" and "leering" violates bodily
integrity and raises images of the Old South, where black people who
failed to avert their eyes from whites were lynched.
Inoffensive speech needs no protection, since no one wants to ban it.
The first amendment exists to protect unpopular speech, including
speech now banned under the label "harassment." Free speech is the
safeguard of all our other freedoms. It must be upheld.
Sincerely,
Lars Bader
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Even though this particular letter didn't get printed, I strongly
encourage people to take their flames, make them into letters to the
editor for their local newspaper, print them out, and send them in.
99% of people don't read Usenet. But they vote and their
representatives control us. We have to reach them and teach them to
vote against censors, and writing letters to the editor is an easy way
to do so. Most of the times I've written letters, they have been
printed.
People in foreign countries: don't let your representatives and courts
buy this concept of "harassment". It's very vague and can easily be
perverted. It spreads so quickly there is barely time to combat it.
The US is currently in a frenzy about the whole concept of "sexual
harassment," which no one can define properly. Harassment cases are
driven by civil damages, which makes them much more enticing to bring
to court than cases of traditional government censorship. In this
respect, it's sort of like the persecutions for witchcraft in Medieval
Germany or the accusations of Albigensian heresy in southern France,
where the offer of part of the accused's property led to innocent
people being turned in for torture and execution. Make your
governments define specifically what they're regulating, or you'll
lose your speech too.
From caf-talk Caf Jul 4 12:14:19 1992
From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,misc.legal,alt.activism,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.society.ci
Subject: The Federalist Papers (was: [UPI] Supreme Court strikes down...)
Message-ID: <1992Jul4.160108.7904@athena.mit.edu>
Date: 4 Jul 92 16:01:08 GMT
<<< Please note the redirect(s) in the "Followup-To:" line. >>>
In article ,
barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry) said:
> > ...the Federalist Papers ain't exactly the preamble to the
> > Constitution. They're the disjointed ramblings of a political
> > clique which had some membership in and influence on the
> > thoughts of the people who wrote and ratified the document. At
> > best, they're Ringo Starr's comments on the Beatles' work; at
> > worst, they are the angry protestations of those left out of the
> > real writing. (Well, maybe Lennon, but you get the point.)
> > [mitch@coriolis.UUCP (Mitch)]
> Indeed? Perhaps you could explain to me then, why Supreme Court
> justices not only study, but cite the Federalist Papers in their
> decisions, esp. with reference to original intent?
Ob.Classic-Saturday-Night-Live-reference:
"It's a floor wax!"
"No, it's a dessert topping!"
"Wait! You're _both_ right!" :-)
Mitch is right in his description of the origin and content of the
Federalist Papers. Kenn is correct in his statement that the
courts, including the Supreme Court, sometimes treat the Federalist
Papers as if they were documents as sacred and as legally
controlling as the Constitution.
The contradiction vanishes when you jettison the assumption that the
Justices of the Supreme Court, and those below them in the judicial
pyramid, always play fair and honest in their desire to make their
sometimes arbitrary and unsupported holdings appear neutral, well
thought out and based on a strong foundation of precedent.
(And if you don't believe me, just go and read Rehnquist's
hysterical -- in at least two meanings of the word -- dissent in
_Texas v. Johnson_, 105 L.Ed.2d 342, 365 et seq (1989), in which he
tried to cite as support for the constitutionality of anti-flag-
burning laws Ralph Waldo Emerson's "Concord Hymn," Francis Scott
Key's "Star Spangled Banner" and, most weirdly, John Greenleaf
Whittier's Civil War poem "Barbara Fritchie ("'Shoot if you must,
this old grey head,/But spare your country's flag,' she said."...
and Rehnquist includes the _entire_ 60-plus-line poem in his
opinion). By the way, Rehnquist was joined in this opinion by White
and O'Connor... the fourth dissenting Justice, Stevens, wrote a
separate opinion which, while as legally spurious as Rehnquist's, at
least managed to stay out of the Twilight Zone.)
-- William December Starr
The law is like sausage -- if you want to
appreciate it, it's best not to know how it was made.
From caf-talk Caf Jul 4 19:53:00 1992
From: mitch@coriolis.UUCP (Mitch)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,misc.legal,alt.activism,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.society.ci
Subject: Re: [UPI] Supreme Court strikes down 'hate crime' statutes
Message-ID:
Date: Sat, 04 Jul 92 15:42:05 PDT
barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry) writes:
> In article mitch@coriolis.UUCP (Mitch) writes:
> >You know, I hate to point this out, but the Federalist Papers ain't
> >exactly the preamble to the Constitution. They're the disjointed
> >ramblings of a political clique which had some membership in and
> >influence on the thoughts of the people who wrote and ratified the
> >document. At best, they're Ringo Starr's comments on the Beatles' work;
> >at worst, they are the angry protestations of those left out of the real
> >writing. (Well, maybe Lennon, but you get the point.)
>
> Indeed? Perhaps you could explain to me then, why Supreme
> Court justices not only study, but cite the Federalist Papers in
> their decisions, esp. with reference to original intent?
>
> Kayembee
Simple, they are a *reference* to what some (influential and important)
thinkers were arguing at the time. That does not make them governing
precedent, just an insight into one side of the debate. They are an
excellent way to show, for example, that someone was considering the
possibility of XYZ. They are a lousy way of showing that the ABC clause
was approved with the expection that This would be covered but That
wouldn't.
The justices have also, for example, cited law review articels, and
nonlegal "modern thinkers" in economics, psychology, sociology on
occasion. Not because they knew the Truth that all American school
children should be taught, but because their efforts helped illuminate
the debate in some way.
Mitch
From caf-talk Caf Jul 5 09:19:02 1992
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,misc.legal,alt.activism.d,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.correct,alt.discrimination
From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Subject: Re: The Glorious Constitution
Message-ID: <1992Jul5.130801.1182@athena.mit.edu>
Date: Sun, 5 Jul 1992 13:08:01 GMT
<<< Please note the redirect(s) in the "Followup-To:" line... >>>
In article <1992Jul3.181236.970@mtu.edu>,
barrera@mtu.edu (Barrera) said:
> They were pragmatists. They got the job done. Who can say that
> under the circumstances anything better could have resulted? Your
> opinion of the founding fathers has some holes in its foundation.
You're attacking me for a position which I did not take. The
article to which I was responding had more or less portrayed the
founding fathers as, as I said, far-sighted saints, and it was out
of _that_ portrait of those men that I was trying to let some of the
air. I never denied that they were consummate pragmatists who got
the job done.
> : Of all these, of course, the fact that the Framers were ready,
> : willing and able to accept slavery
>
> So why didn't they? I doubt you can answer that without
> contradicting yourself.
Many of the Framers were slaveowners themselves. None of them held
out for a clause in the Constitution which would ban the practice of
slavery within the United States. I think that that constitutes
"accepting slavery."
> > : (but lacked the guts to actually : use the dreaded word
> > anywhere in their document, preferring to use : euphemisms like
> > "three-fifths of all other Persons," and "Person : held to
> > Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof")
> You forget your history. Indentured Servitude was still in use at
> the time. You also forget the reason for the "3/5" rule was not
> any judgment on the human worth of slaves.
No, I don't forget my history. My point was that slavery was a
major issue in the American colonies, economically and, to some
extent, politically, yet the Framers came up with a document that
didn't even make any explicit mention of the topic.
> Voting rights for women aside, there would probably still be
> slavery in existance in many small little countries along the
> Atlantic coast today if the founding fathers attemtped to outlaw
> slavery at the outset throughout the entire US. The fact that the
> North was free was enough to give hope that the south would
> eventually be made to follow the same.
I've heard this argument before, and it has some merit on the
surface -- we cannot know, after all, how history in general and the
slavery question in particular would have turned out if the
delegates to the Constitutional Convention hadn't been able to
hammer out their differences. Perhaps the results would have been
far worse than what did actually happen in our own timeline.
The flaw in this type of reasoning, I think, is that not only don't
we know that things wouldn't have turned out _better_ but, more
importantly, that the men making the "compromise with evil or stand
tough against it regardless of the cost" decision in 1789 themselves
couldn't possibly have know what the outcome of their decision would
be. Operating in a cloud of unknowability as to what the outcome of
their actions would be with regard to the long-term fate of slavery
-- which is to say that from a viewpoint of pure pragmatism any
decision would be as good as any other -- they chose to accept
slavery in the United States rather than decide that that would be
too high a price to pay for a Union which was born in a declaration
that all men are endowed with certain unalienable rights, including
life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I cannot respect them
for this act.
-- William December Starr
From caf-talk Caf Jul 5 16:28:12 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [wwu.general, et al.] Localy Censored Newsgroups - Who is the WWU Netnews Admin?
Message-ID: <9207052027.AA23012@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Sun, 5 Jul 1992 10:27:18 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Jul 5 16:28:12 1992
Newsgroups: wwu.general,news.admin
Subject: Localy Censored Newsgroups - Who is the WWU Netnews Admin?
Message-ID: <1992Jul5.193744.17963@henson.cc.wwu.edu>
Date: 5 Jul 92 19:37:44 GMT
There is a small handful of political news groups that show up at
henson, but are blocked internally:
alt.fan.dan-quayle, alt.politics.perot, alt.rush-limbaugh,
alt.fan-rush-limbaugh, alt.fan.dave_barry
The articles are placed into the junk directory on arrival and
cannot be accesed through our nn. Some of these groups were only recently
blocked, as I have seen the alt*rush-limbaugh groups here last year.
I have requested that the blocked groups be removed from the junk
directory, from 'pete', aka Peter Giffin, who is listed as the person to
contact re USENET, but both these requests and my request to know who the
real person to contact is, if not him, have been ignored.
I may emailing the wrong person, as the "USENET contact for all
hosts at WWU", listing in /usr/lib/news/sys, which I guess could be outdated,
is all I have to go on.
There is also a 'Netnews Admin' listed in finger, but this person has
not logged in in 30 days.
Could someone please help me out, as letting me know who the
real person to contact about this type of matter is?
Thanks.
Jim Del Vecchio
From caf-talk Caf Jul 5 20:10:40 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: sleeger@gaul.csd.uwo.ca (Richard Sleegers)
Subject: (none)
Message-ID: <9207060007.AA29549@asterix.gaul.csd.uwo.ca>
Date: Sun, 5 Jul 1992 16:07:24 GMT
help
send help
unsubscribe
