From: utzoo!decvax!ucbvax!poli-sci Newsgroups: fa.poli-sci Title: Poli-Sci Digest V2 #139 Article-I.D.: ucbvax.7507 Posted: Wed Jun 2 17:56:06 1982 Received: Fri Jun 4 03:45:46 1982 >From JoSH@RUTGERS Wed Jun 2 17:58:32 1982 Poli-Sci Digest Thu 3 Jun 82 Volume 2 Number 139 Contents: Leftist Violence Freedom of Information Act Information De Jure vs De Facto Laws ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 2 June 1982 0912-EDT (Wednesday) From: Robert.Frederking at CMU-10A (C410RF60) Subject: Leftist violence If you were replying to my note, read it again. I specifically mentioned an example of left-wing violence deserving of surveilance: the SDS during the campus riots. My question is still unanswered: has the Socialist Workers Party ever promoted violence, or other criminal activity (other than *being* socialists)? Has the government ever really harassed American Nazis (since WW II, at least)? To add to the list, please explain "any random month at Stanford between 68 and 72". Were these student riots, I assume? Which leftist groups were involved? The Socialist Workers? My whole point is that there *are* groups at both ends that deserve surveillance, but it appears to me that left-wing groups that don't deserve it get it (including, apparently, the Quakers (!)). I sincerely want to know whether these claims are true. Oh yes, and whether John Birch or similar right-wing, non-violent groups are being spied on. ------------------------------ Date: Wednesday, 2 June 1982 08:50-PDT From: KING at KESTREL Subject: Freedom of Information Act information Has anybody read a comprehensible (to nonlawyers) book on How to Use the Freedom of Information Act? Dick ------------------------------ Date: 2 Jun 1982 2029-EDT From: JoSHSubject: de jure vs de facto laws To fan a subject that may have something to do with political science, consider the difference between laws as they are written on the books, and as they are actually enforced (and obeyed). I claim that the laws as written have a lot less to do with what actually happens than many people (particularly legislators) think. For example, I'm given to understand that no major building has been constructed in New York for many years that actually complied with all the laws thereto pertaining: the rules are actually an enfranchisement of a certain set of inspectors, union officials, board members, etc, to receive bribes. Another example closer to the experience of most is speed limits. Even according to US DOT statistics, more than half the cars on the highways exceed the speed limit (the 55 national one). In my own experience, there is for each road a de facto limit which acts like what a reasonably set legal speed limit would. The conventional wisdom is that 5 miles over the posted limit is the "real" limit. this isn't strictly true. (a) I know one road (only one within 20 miles of here) where the posted limit is really the limit; you can get a ticket for exceeding it by one mph. There's another place 35 miles south of here like that, but they aren't too common. (b) in many rural areas (yes, NJ has rural areas) the rule is essentially "whatever is safe". Often posted limits on country roads are much more reasonable (ie, there are ungraded curves). (c) on most NJ main highways, (4-lane and up) the de facto limit is 65. You can drive around for years at 65 and not get a ticket (I have done so). A friend has, on the other hand, gotten a ticket for doing 67. Cops drive along the highways at 65 being "pacesetters". (The posted limit is of course everywhere 55.) (d) the de facto limit on the NJ turnpike is 70. I've driven it for years (though I don't know of anyone who has a ticket showing the upper bound on the limit so closely, but that's what the "pacesetters" do). I have generally assumed that that's because the Tpk is a toll road, and the higher limit is to give it a competitive advantage over 295, which parallels it, but has a de facto limit of 65. (e) The Connecticut Turnpike has a de facto limit of 65. I had assumed it was the same as the NJ Tpk and got a ticket for doing 68. How do I know it would have been OK to do 65? The officer giving the ticket *told me so* in as many words. --JoSH ------------------------------ End of POLI-SCI Digest - 30 - -------