waters@dover.sps.mot.com (Strawberry Jammer) (05/19/89)
In article <3302@tank.uchicago.edu> stel@tank.uchicago.edu (stelios valavanis) writes: >This censorship thing is really scary. I think everybody should be completely >against it. That's why I'd like to see what people for it have to say. I >want to see what makes them tick. So, how 'bout it. Anybody for censorship? >Let's see what you have to say! There still is free speech you know. How about DOING sometrhing about it. A donation to the Bational Coalition Against Censorship for example: NCAC 2 West 64th Street New York, NY 10023 212-724-1500 They are a non-profit foundation formed to deal with book burners of all types. Members/Advisors include a great many authors, Isaac Asimov, Judy Blume, Alice Childress, Shana Alexander and about 30 more of equal stature. -- *Mike Waters AA4MW/7 waters@dover.sps.mot.com OR waters@cad.Berkley.EDU* "His super power is to turn into a scotch terrier."
tcmaint@tekigm2.MEN.TEK.COM (Thomas A. Dowe) (05/20/89)
In article <1301@dover.sps.mot.com> waters@dover.UUCP (Strawberry Jammer) writes: >In article <3302@tank.uchicago.edu> stel@tank.uchicago.edu (stelios valavanis) writes: >>This censorship thing is really scary. I think everybody should be completely >>against it. That's why I'd like to see what people for it have to say. I >>want to see what makes them tick. So, how 'bout it. Anybody for censorship? >>Let's see what you have to say! There still is free speech you know. >How about DOING sometrhing about it. A donation to the Bational Coalition >Against Censorship for example: >NCAC >2 West 64th Street >New York, NY 10023 >212-724-1500 >They are a non-profit foundation formed to deal with book burners of all >types. Members/Advisors include a great many authors, Isaac Asimov, Judy >Blume, Alice Childress, Shana Alexander and about 30 more of equal stature. >*Mike Waters AA4MW/7 waters@dover.sps.mot.com OR waters@cad.Berkley.EDU* Bravo! Mike is right-on, here. I recommend "investment" in such organizat- ions which protect our basic Constitutional rights. Your best contribution, though, would be to assure yourself that such organizations also support ALL those Constitutional rights, as I am sure the NCAC does, right? Also, since the Principles expressed in the Constitution are still as valid today, as they were then, that the Supreme Court's efforts be directed to strict adherence to the intent expressed in those Principles. In that way, mere opinion, of whatever color, _cannot_ infringe on that application to _individual_ life under penalty of law (Sections 241, 242 U.S. Criminal Code.) If you, as citizens, wrote letters to the Grand Jury in your areas, perhaps these matters could be "tested" to a quick-and-speedy conclusion. Ultimately, though, it really depends on the smallest voting incorporation, so VOTE! (Right, Mike?) Tad tomd@pulsar.telcom.tek.com
waters@dover.sps.mot.com (Strawberry Jammer) (05/21/89)
In article <4765@tekigm2.MEN.TEK.COM> tcmaint@tekigm2.MEN.TEK.COM (Thomas A. Dowe) writes: >In article <1301@dover.sps.mot.com> waters@dover.UUCP (Strawberry Jammer) writes: >>In article <3302@tank.uchicago.edu> stel@tank.uchicago.edu (stelios valavanis) writes: >>>This censorship thing is really scary. I think everybody should be completely >>>against it. >>How about DOING sometrhing about it. A donation to the Bational Coalition >>Against Censorship for example: >>NCAC >>2 West 64th Street >>New York, NY 10023 >>212-724-1500 >>They are a non-profit foundation formed to deal with book burners of all >>types. Members/Advisors include a great many authors, Isaac Asimov, Judy >>Blume, Alice Childress, Shana Alexander and about 30 more of equal stature. >Bravo! Mike is right-on, here. I recommend "investment" in such organizat- >ions which protect our basic Constitutional rights. Your best contribution, >though, would be to assure yourself that such organizations also support ALL >those Constitutional rights, as I am sure the NCAC does, right? I suspect that they are as "focused" on the 1st Amendment as the NRA is on the 2nd. I don't see what the problem is with that. >Also, since the Principles expressed in the Constitution are still as valid >today, as they were then, that the Supreme Court's efforts be directed to >strict adherence to the intent expressed in those Principles. In that way, >mere opinion, of whatever color, _cannot_ infringe on that application to >_individual_ life under penalty of law (Sections 241, 242 U.S. Criminal Code.) I am really not sure what you are getting at here, but there are enough flagrantly Unconstitutional Laws being passed that perhaps a criminal penalty would be in order for those who pass such laws. AFTER a judical review of course. There is a lot of talk about this or that being "Unconstitutional" with little or no evidence and nothing in the way of Judicial rulings. The "right to bear arms" by individuals is one example, it seems that the decisions so far at least imply an organized militia under the control of a government body of some sort. Obviously the NRA and supporters dispute this, but have been unable to cite any clearcut decision by the Supreme Court to back it up (so far at least). >If you, as citizens, wrote letters to the Grand Jury in your areas, perhaps >these matters could be "tested" to a quick-and-speedy conclusion. Ultimately, >though, it really depends on the smallest voting incorporation, so VOTE! >(Right, Mike?) Well when I was called to serve on the Grand Jury it was the state/U.S. attourney who determined just what issues were investigated. The Grand Jury does have broad poweres of investigation of those issues though. As I recall though quite extreme precautions are taken not to let things like a letter writing campaign influence them since they are not supposed to test the popularity of anything, just "reasonable cause for prosecution". You DO get all the "dirt" on the "ruch and famous" in your area though, you just can't talk about it. Voting is really just the start - pressure groups (NRA, "Right to Life", "Ban it and Burn it" etc.) get the power they do because people are not involved. One of the few good outcomes of our Gov. Meecham debacle was that almost everyone go involved to some extent. As far as I know he was the first official to be impeached, recalled and to face criminal indictment. The impeachment nulified the recall and he got off on the criminal charges though. -- *Mike Waters AA4MW/7 waters@dover.sps.mot.com OR waters@cad.Berkley.EDU* Polymer physicists are into chains.
fhg@mace.cc.purdue.edu (James F. Blake) (05/21/89)
From article <1320@dover.sps.mot.com>, by waters@dover.sps.mot.com (Strawberry Jammer): > > > The "right to bear arms" by individuals is one example, it > seems that the decisions so far at least imply an organized militia under > the control of a government body of some sort. Obviously the NRA and > supporters dispute this, but have been unable to cite any clearcut decision > by the Supreme Court to back it up (so far at least). > If you are going to bring up issues concerning the Second Amendment, then do so in the appropriate newsgroup (talk.politics.guns). --Jim Blake
bondc@silver.bacs.indiana.edu (Clay M. Bond) (05/22/89)
James F. Blake: > If you are going to bring up issues concerning the Second Amendment, >then do so in the appropriate newsgroup (talk.politics.guns). Touchy, touchy, touchy. The man was drawing an analogy, not discussing the above as a main topic -- and was fully within his rights to do so. Get over yourself. >Organization: Purdue University ^^^^^^ Of course. -- Lassen Sie sich allen das einen Warnung sein: Dummheit ist mir ein Greuel!
fhg@mace.cc.purdue.edu (James F. Blake) (05/22/89)
From article <4069@silver.bacs.indiana.edu>, by bondc@silver.bacs.indiana.edu (Clay M. Bond): > Touchy, touchy, touchy. The man was drawing an analogy, not > discussing the above as a main topic -- and was fully within > his rights to do so. Get over yourself. > >>Organization: Purdue University > ^^^^^^ > Of course. > Talk.politics.misc has been filled with firearms related talk recently and it should be moved to the appropriate group. What are you implying about Purdue? --Jim Blake
bae@auspex.auspex.com (Brian Ehrmantraut) (05/22/89)
In article <1320@dover.sps.mot.com>, waters@dover.sps.mot.com (Strawberry Jammer) writes:
< The "right to bear arms" by individuals is one example, it
< seems that the decisions so far at least imply an organized militia under
< the control of a government body of some sort. Obviously the NRA and
< supporters dispute this, but have been unable to cite any clearcut decision
< by the Supreme Court to back it up (so far at least).
Mike,
How about taking your "gun-control" postings to talk.politics.guns :-)
--
Brian A. Ehrmantraut
UUCP: {uunet, mips, sun, bridge2} !auspex!bae, bae@auspex.auspex.com
BELL: voice:(408) 970-8970 fax: (408) 970-8977 - I'm the NRA!
USnail: 2903 Bunker Hill Lane, Santa Clara, CA 95054 tcmaint@tekigm2.MEN.TEK.COM (Thomas A. Dowe) (05/22/89)
In article <1320@dover.sps.mot.com> waters@dover.sps.mot.com (Strawberry Jammer) writes: >In article <4765@tekigm2.MEN.TEK.COM> tcmaint@tekigm2.MEN.TEK.COM (Thomas A. Dowe) writes: >>In article <1301@dover.sps.mot.com> waters@dover.UUCP (Strawberry Jammer) writes: >>>In article <3302@tank.uchicago.edu> stel@tank.uchicago.edu (stelios valavanis) writes: >>>>This censorship thing is really scary. I think everybody should be completely >>>>against it. >>>How about DOING sometrhing about it. A donation to the Bational Coalition >>>Against Censorship for example: >>>NCAC >>>2 West 64th Street >>>New York, NY 10023 >>>212-724-1500 >>Bravo! Mike is right-on, here. I recommend "investment" in such organizat- >>ions which protect our basic Constitutional rights. Your best contribution, >>though, would be to assure yourself that such organizations also support ALL >>those Constitutional rights, as I am sure the NCAC does, right? >I suspect that they are as "focused" on the 1st Amendment as the NRA is on >the 2nd. I don't see what the problem is with that. I am sure that they are. >>Also, since the Principles expressed in the Constitution are still as valid >>today, as they were then, that the Supreme Court's efforts be directed to >>strict adherence to the intent expressed in those Principles. In that way, >>mere opinion, of whatever color, _cannot_ infringe on that application to >>_individual_ life under penalty of law (Sections 241, 242 U.S. Criminal Code.) >I am really not sure what you are getting at here, but there are enough >flagrantly Unconstitutional Laws being passed that perhaps a criminal >penalty would be in order for those who pass such laws. AFTER a judical >review of course. There is a lot of talk about this or that being >"Unconstitutional" with little or no evidence and nothing in the way of >Judicial rulings. Exactly my point. For example, the "definitive" tax case, U.S. vs. Sullivan is a case where Justice Holmes disallowed Sullivan's privelege against self- incrimination. This case is now used to bar examination of cases dealing with legitimate 4th and 5th Amendment violation(s), routinely committed by the IRS. And, this in the face of strict U.S. criminal laws against it... >The "right to bear arms" by individuals is one example, it >seems that the decisions so far at least imply an organized militia under >the control of a government body of some sort. Obviously the NRA and >supporters dispute this, but have been unable to cite any clearcut decision >by the Supreme Court to back it up (so far at least). Your right, again. The "militia" argument is a strong reason to keep the 2d's RKBA intact and continuing. Hopefully, if properly used, it could reduce the country's need for a large standing army; as our Founding Fathers hoped. However, again, this is an area which the Supreme Court "pretends" to support our Constitutional rights and those that they, too, swore to up- hold. The (several) cases, although disallowing "individual" claims against the use of the right, here too, are being used to stop hearing anything "new" along those same "lines". >>If you, as citizens, wrote letters to the Grand Jury in your areas, perhaps >>these matters could be "tested" to a quick-and-speedy conclusion. Ultimately, >>though, it really depends on the smallest voting incorporation, so VOTE! >>(Right, Mike?) >Well when I was called to serve on the Grand Jury it was the state/U.S. >attourney who determined just what issues were investigated. The Grand Jury >does have broad poweres of investigation of those issues though. As I >recall though quite extreme precautions are taken not to let things like a >letter writing campaign influence them since they are not supposed to test >the popularity of anything, just "reasonable cause for prosecution". Certainly, if you recognize a crime being committed, you report it. A Grand Jury member can ask the pertinent questions necessary to show "reasonable cause". If it appears that these prominent U.S. Criminal statutes are being broken, an indictment can be handed-down. If a few City and State legislators were so indicted, you can bet that the infringe- ment would soon disappear! Tad tomd@pulsar.telcom.tek.com
chaney@ms.uky.edu (Dan Chaney) (05/24/89)
In article <1320@dover.sps.mot.com> waters@dover.sps.mot.com (Strawberry Jammer) writes: >In article <4765@tekigm2.MEN.TEK.COM> tcmaint@tekigm2.MEN.TEK.COM (Thomas A. Dowe) writes: > >I suspect that they are as "focused" on the 1st Amendment as the NRA is on >the 2nd. I don't see what the problem is with that. > The problem, most often, with focused SIGs is usually lack of comprehension. I do not mean that as a cut or flame. What I mean is that focusing in on one particular area or section of the Constitution often results in an interpretation that is out of context. By focusing, most of these groups narrow their sight to an exclusive point and in the process, lose some of the inherent meaning. The Constitution is blatantly vague in certain areas and that is not by accident. The document is not a list of rules that may be quoted wholly independent of one another. It is, instead (IMHO), a guideline to be applied, as a whole, in various and unprecendented ways. I am not saying specifically that is the case here, though I am inclined to believe it to a point. However, I do see a [potential] problem with -- Daniel Chaney Mail guy, archiver or Accidental Student..you decide. {uunet and the like}!ukma!chaney chaney@ms.uky.edu chaney@ukma.BITNET "No! nonono....This is Unix, you take out all the vowels!" - The Uhmmer
stel@tank.uchicago.edu (stelios valavanis) (05/25/89)
Look, let's quit this discussion about what the constitution really says or means. We should talk about what WE WANT it to say. If we disagree with it we'll ammend it. So everybody talk about what WE think. Should NJ be allowed to censor alt.sex or not? I say NO CENSORING! stel -- Bitnet: stel%tank.uchicago.edu@uchimvs1.bitnet | look for me again again Internet: stel@tank.uchicago.edu | in the dreary night uucp: ...!uunet!mimsy!oddjob!tank!stel | look for me again in paradise
shea@bnrmtv.UUCP (Ray Shea) (05/27/89)
In article <3425@tank.uchicago.edu>, stel@tank.uchicago.edu (stelios valavanis) writes: > Look, let's quit this discussion about what the constitution really says or > means. We should talk about what WE WANT it to say. If we disagree with > it we'll ammend it. So everybody talk about what WE think. Should NJ be > allowed to censor alt.sex or not? I say NO CENSORING! But if the Constitution as it currently stands is being ignored, what good will amendments do? Those will be ignored as well. We need to start demanding the rights we are already entitled to, before we start coming up with more. -- Ray Shea ...!amdahl!bnrmtv!shea (415) 940-2527 amdahl!bnrmtv!shea@ames.ARC.NASA.GOV "Revolution: It's not just for leftists anymore." -- Clayton Cramer
cmr@m-net.UUCP (Chuck Rader) (05/29/89)
I find it ironic that discussions of sex will outlawed in the same state (New Jersey) where teenage gang-rape lately is treated like a misdemeanor (small fine, probation, suspended sentence). [New Jersey residents flame away. Followups to talk & alt groups only.] -- Chuck Rader, Manager, Computer Technical Services, University of Detroit voice: 313-927-1349 I don't worry 'bout a thing 'cause fax: 313-927-1011 I know nuthin's gonna be all right e-mail: cmr@m-net.ann-arbor.mi.us
stel@tank.uchicago.edu (stelios valavanis) (05/30/89)
In article <5525@bnrmtv.UUCP> shea@bnrmtv.UUCP (Ray Shea) writes: >In article <3425@tank.uchicago.edu>, stel@tank.uchicago.edu (stelios valavanis) writes: >> Look, let's quit this discussion about what the constitution really says or >> means. We should talk about what WE WANT it to say. If we disagree with >> it we'll ammend it. So everybody talk about what WE think. Should NJ be >> allowed to censor alt.sex or not? I say NO CENSORING! > > >But if the Constitution as it currently stands is being ignored, what >good will amendments do? Those will be ignored as well. We need to >start demanding the rights we are already entitled to, before we start >coming up with more. > > This is not a matter of whether or not the constitution is being ignored. This is a matter of clarity. Whether this censorship is allowed is not clear. In addition, even if it were clear, and we don't agree with it, we still should decide what is legal and rewrite the law. On this censorship thing in particular, I think the law is unclear. Since this is the first such event, we should make it clear that, should the courts find this censorship legal, we then want to CHANGE it so that it very clearly OUTLAWS CENSORSHIP! We should not overlook this since it may set a very dangerous precedent. stel -- Bitnet: stel%tank.uchicago.edu@uchimvs1.bitnet | look for me again again Internet: stel@tank.uchicago.edu | in the dreary night uucp: ...!uunet!mimsy!oddjob!tank!stel | look for me again in paradise
heiby@mcdchg.chg.mcd.mot.com (Ron Heiby) (06/02/89)
I think that it is very sad that so many people on the net confuse the exercise of property rights with censorship. When a site decides not to devote its disk, comm, and cpu to messages in a particular newsgroup, they are exercising their property rights. They have the right to do with their property as they see fit. Anyone who does not believe that a "person" (including corporate entities) have the right to do with their property as they see fit should go at once and send $1,000 to the "Laser Printer for Ron Heiby" fund. (mailing address upon request) Since I intend to exercise my right to free press on said laser printer, you are trying to censor me if you don't send the money right away. Anyone who does believe that a person has the right to do as they see fit with their property can put their checkbook away. The rest of you, while you're at it, send $500 to the "Telebit Modem for Ron Heiby" fund. I plan to exercise my free speech/press rights with it, too. Some have moaned about how so many of the sites on the net are supported by public funds, directly or indirectly. I suppose a case could be made based on this vague connection. However, do you *really* want "alt.sex, alt.sex.bondage, and alt.drugs" to be your battle cry? I can just see the headlines now.... Anyone on a machine that has decided they will no longer carry some newsgroup(s) is *free* to buy their own machine, modem, and phone line and share those newsgroups with other "right-thinking" persons. -- Ron Heiby, heiby@chg.mcd.mot.com Moderator: comp.newprod "Life is indeed an inexplicable sequence of imponderable surprises."
cosell@bbn.com (Bernie Cosell) (06/02/89)
In article <21646@mcdchg.chg.mcd.mot.com> heiby@chg.mcd.mot.com (Ron Heiby) writes: }I think that it is very sad that so many people on the net confuse }the exercise of property rights with censorship. I don't think anyone is doing anything of the kind. The law in question _could_ make it *illegal* to carry alt.sex. No property rights, no choice on the part of the sysadmins or the folks that read news. ARREST for distributing obscene material if you send alt.sex to the next guy down the line. ARREST for distributing obscene material (and maybe corrupting the morals of a minor) if you allow your users to read alt.sex Of course a sysadmin can choose not to carry any newsgroup they please for any reason they please, and that's just too bad for the admin's users and the folks downstream. No problem there. The *problem* is when sysadmins are *coerced* not to carry a newsgroup because of threat of legal action. This thread, at it says clearly, is "...to become illegal...", NOT "... will not longer be distributed...". /Bernie\
shea@bnrmtv.UUCP (Ray Shea) (06/06/89)
In article <21646@mcdchg.chg.mcd.mot.com>, heiby@mcdchg.chg.mcd.mot.com (Ron Heiby) writes: > I think that it is very sad that so many people on the net confuse > the exercise of property rights with censorship. The issue, I thought, was with state laws infringing on the rights of a site to carry whatever newsgroups it wishes. So much for the exercise of property rights. Besides, just because someone is exercising their property rights doesn't mean they aren't doing something "wrong". I imagine a claim could be made that a restaurant putting up a "Whites Only" sign is only exercising their "property rights", but I'm definitely not going to stand up and praise them for their laissez-faire attitude. Sure, a company has a "right" to not carry a newsgroup based on its content, but if we disagree with their motives, we have a right to tell them so. -- Ray Shea ...!amdahl!bnrmtv!shea (415) 940-2527 amdahl!bnrmtv!shea@ames.ARC.NASA.GOV "Revolution: It's not just for leftists anymore." -- Clayton Cramer