M. Hortensia A. Tullae Scholasticae Omnibusque spd;
this is a chartered Nova Roma Sodalitas, Ap. Iulius Priscus,
who has a graduate degree and I and any other interested cives are
free to discuss, Martial, Catullus,Petronius, Juvenal - Literature as
well as Roman sexual mores which fall under Social History & are part
of the Sodalitas's charter.
Consul G. Fabius Buteo suggested this group to me & it makes
sense as we fit within the purview of the charter. Roman values are
our guide. Will the next offensive item be pics of naked statues on
the NRWiki, or will be mention & worship of the god Priapus be
verboten?
bene valete
M. Hortensia Maior


The correct address is http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ForTheMuses/ by

> the way. > For those interested, I will quote from the Sodalitas

Musarum Yahoo

> group home page: "The musarum is a sodalitas (that is, an

association)

> created to promote the arts and sciences within Nova Roma and
> internationally. We fully support the ancient and modern arts through
> the original contributions of our members and through the posting of
> original works by the ancient masters. We are Nova Roma's ambassadors
> of arts and science to the rest of the world."
>
>> > > Keep it to yourself. Discretion is the better part of valor.
> > >
>

Salve,

Thanks for the Correction. Just one more Ajdustment. :)


Vale!
Traianus
__________________________________________
Paterfamilias of familia Valeria Traiana
www.geocities.com/genstraiana



----- Original Message ----
From: Gnaeus Equitius Marinus <gawne@...>
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, November 8, 2006 12:51:55 PM
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] NAME ADJUSTMENT

Salve Marce Valeri,

Marcus Valerius Traianus <genstraiana@ yahoo.com> writes:

[...]

> With our Censor�s help I have corrected my name modification and am now
> Marcus Valerius Traianus, Paterfamilias of Gens Valeria Traiana.

Actually, you're paterfamilias of the familia Valeria Traiana. Gentes don't
have pater- or mater- anything.

CN�EQVIT�MARINVS





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I'm having the same problem for long time ago. Tried 3 or 4 times
to get a voter code, but nothing comes to my email from the Censors.

Anybody can help us?

Vale Bene

Gaivs Ivlivs Caesar Nasica



Lucius Cassius Cornutus escribió:

>
> Salvete omnes,
>
> I have been trying to get a voter code, but
> it is not being emailed to me.
>
> I clicked on the censors link, but I can't
> find the link to email directly.
>
> Any help?
>
> Thank You
>
> Valete,
>
> Lucius Cassius Cornutus
>
>
>
> __________ Información de NOD32, revisión 1.1859 (20061108) __________
>
> Este mensaje ha sido analizado con NOD32 antivirus system
> http://www.nod32.com

By queen Minerva, my personal devotion, by Ceres Almight, patroness of the
plebeians, and by the holy Vesta, lar of the State,

NR is on the verge of universalization. To fullfill its goal, we must assure
it shows all citizens we are not bounded in any country, nor region.

Nova Roma has never had a consul from the South Hemisphere. It is a clear
word to all potential new citizens NR is across all globe, NR hasn´t
boundaries, everywhere there will be NR citizens for seeding the roman path
and virtues.

This year we made a great advance, by having a woman as consul. Next year we
can do also a blow against another prejudice, we may have a Latin American
consul. We know sometimes in the past, some political ideologies full of
racial prejudices had been associating the roman symbols to them. Electing a
latin american as consul is showing NOVA ROMA HAS NO PREJUDICE INSIDE! NOVA
ROMA LOATHES PREJUDICE! OUR CITIZENS DON´T ALLOW PREJUDICE ON THIS REPUBLIC!

We are Romans like the old ones, with the compromise of universalization, to
get in the City what was the World. A culture that has not fallen, but
dissolved itself teaching its provinces to become countries and peoples, not
as subjects foreveR, but as citizens. So, the Dalmatian could drink the
water of the Tagus, and the gaul be safe in the Egypt, as the words of
Seneca.

1 - Voting on FAUSTUS is a compromise with the universalization of Nova
Roma... urbe et orbi.

2 - voting on FAUSTUS is a compromise with the roman way in Nova Roma...
Faustus means return to the roman roots, on this hard learning curve we are
following year after year.

For a more roman Nova Roma, Lucius Arminius Faustus for consul!
For a more universal Nova Roma, Lucius Arminius Faustus for consul!

Valete bene in pacem deorum,
L. Arminius Faustus

FAUSTUS FOR CONSUL!
FAUSTUS FOR CONSUL!
FAUSTUS FOR CONSUL!
FAUSTUS FOR CONSUL!
FAUSTUS FOR CONSUL!


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

> Scholastica Agricolae optimo suo quiritibus s.p.d.
>
>
>
> Agricola Scholasticae sal
>
> She published only the location of the Yahoo group homepage, not an
> e-mail address. Some groups are not well run, and are victims of spam,
> but that is not the case with this group. It is well-run and as far as
> I can tell, spam free.
>
> ATS: Thank you for the compliment on the running of Musarum. It¹s quite
> true that some lists are not properly moderated. However, most of the spam
> lands not on the list (though we do get moderation notices for that) but in
> the moderators¹ box, where we are encouraged to purchase fake Rolexes,
> nonexistent stocks and bonds, hot dates, assorted medications, cheap
> mortgages, etc.
>
> We often give links to other Nova Roma-related groups here, and
> believe me, it does no harm (as long as the group owners have taken
> care, as the owners of this group seem to have done).
>
> The correct address is http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ForTheMuses/ by
> the way. The previous version was missing some of the middle part.
> This is, of course, the same address that is available for all to see
> at http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Sodalitas_Musarum . Of course, the Yahoo
> groups index is a nice way for spammers to get group locations, and
> much quicker than scooping from this list, but again, well-run groups
> should have no fear. (I *do* know of NR groups that are not well-run,
> but I'm not going to mention which ones, even though the spammers
> already know about them.)
>
> ATS: Indeed, the spammers no doubt know about at least some of these
> groups, for they have posted to them. It is really quite foolish on their
> part to post to the moderators¹ box, however, as there are only a couple of
> moderators for most lists, and several of them are of the sex opposite to that
> which might conceivably require the likes of viagra...or be dumb enough to
> fall for any of the other assorted scams which arrive in the boxes. Yahoo
> catches a good many of these, and my own system does as well, so they are
> wasting their efforts.
>
> The unlisted Yahoo groups don¹t get spam unless their addresses are posted
> somewhere else, but open ones, like the sodalitates, unfortunately do, and do
> get spammers as members.
>
> For those interested, I will quote from the Sodalitas Musarum Yahoo
> group home page: "The musarum is a sodalitas (that is, an association)
> created to promote the arts and sciences within Nova Roma and
> internationally. We fully support the ancient and modern arts through
> the original contributions of our members and through the posting of
> original works by the ancient masters. We are Nova Roma's ambassadors
> of arts and science to the rest of the world."
>
> The proposed discussion would seem to fall under "...the posting of
> original works by the ancient masters", but you are the Coryphaea of
> the group, so you should know best what is permitted and what is not.
>
> ATS: We have a separate list for erotic material; it is entirely separate
> from the main Musarum list, and does not have any of the deshis as members,
> nor, to the best of my knowledge, any juveniles, though this might change in
> light of this public discussion. Some adolescents seem to have a compulsion
> to discuss sex; the difference is that most of them grow out of it when they
> grow up. Evidently some here haven¹t passed that stage. However, we don¹t
> want anyone to have access to this material when they are underage; it is
> inappropriate for them and violates Yahoo guidelines, as well as poses a
> possible threat to NR, which already has one strike against it in certain
> quarters due to the presence of the Religio. I would prefer not to change the
> listing of any of our collegia to adults-only; the better solution would be to
> have a separate list for this topic, one clearly marked adults-only, whose
> membership was limited to adults...but that takes a little more work on the
> part of the moderators. As I said, discretion is the better part of valor.
> optime vale!
>
> Et tu!
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com> , "A.
> Tullia Scholastica"
> <fororom@...> wrote:
>>> > > Secondly, one does not publish e-mail addresses in full form
> on a mailing
>>> > > list, especially to a large one like this; you may like spam, but
> we don¹t.
>>> > > Keep it to yourself. Discretion is the better part of valor.
>>> > >
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Salve!

I followed the instructions here:
http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Election_MMDCCLIX_(Nova_Roma)

which I will copy here.

1. Carefully check the schedule below for your correct voting times
and comitia.

2. Go to your Album Civium page.

3. Click on "get vote code...".

4. Make a note of your Voter Code. You will need it if there are
problems with your vote.

5. Click on the "go vote" button.

6. Cast your ballots.


The procedure worked correctly, with the added benefit that my voter
code was automatically inserted into the voting form.

optime vale

M. Lucr. Agricola


--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Lucius Cassius Cornutus"
<obiwan6797@...> wrote:

>
> Salvete omnes,
>
> I have been trying to get a voter code, but
> it is not being emailed to me.
>
> I clicked on the censors link, but I can't
> find the link to email directly.
>
> Any help?
>
> Thank You
>
> Valete,
>
> Lucius Cassius Cornutus
>

Salvete Omnes,

The Cista is now open for voting by all centuries of the Comitia Centuriata,
as well as all tribes in both Comitiae Populi.

Election information can be found at
http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Election_MMDCCLIX_%28Nova_Roma%29

The Cista (the place you actually vote) is found at
http://www.novaroma.org/cursus_honorum/voting/index.html

Voting will be allowed until 6:00 pm Central European Time (1700 GMT) on
Sunday, 12 November.

Please be sure to cast your ballots! Remember that if you do not cast a
ballot in these elections you will be moved to an urban tribe (or you will
remain in one) even if you pay taxes. Membership in the rural tribes
requires both voting and tax payment.

Valete,

CN•EQVIT•MARINVS

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "A. Tullia Scholastica"
<fororom@...> wrote:

>
> > Scholastica Agricolae optimo suo quiritibus s.p.d.
> >
> >
> >
> > Agricola Scholasticae sal
> >
> > She published only the location of the Yahoo group homepage, not an
> > e-mail address. Some groups are not well run, and are victims of spam,
> > but that is not the case with this group. It is well-run and as far as
> > I can tell, spam free.
> >
> > ATS: Thank you for the compliment on the running of Musarum.

It¹s quite

> > true that some lists are not properly moderated. However, most of

the spam

> > lands not on the list (though we do get moderation notices for

that) but in

> > the moderators¹ box, where we are encouraged to purchase fake Rolexes,
> > nonexistent stocks and bonds, hot dates, assorted medications, cheap
> > mortgages, etc.
> >

Agricola Scholasticae sal.

Ah, I see. In that case I would suggest that you select a slightly
more strict sign-up procedure. If you require approval for new members
to join you will cut that to zero. The reason is that the page that is
provided by Yahoo has an instrument in place to block automated sign-ups.


For the benefit of anyone running a Yahoo group, this is the best
procedure, in my opinion:

1. Require approval for new members. This blocks all automated spam
systems.

2. Set your group to moderate all new members.

3. After one or two on-topic posts, set the new member to "use group
settings". Do not set "never moderated".

It is true that this requires moderator attention, to approve new
members, to approve posts and to change moderation status, but it is
not a lot of work, much less than trying to catch spam from people
already in the system, and much more pleasant too.

The reason to prefer "use group settings" is that in the event a flame
war breaks out, just a single switch will set the whole group on
moderation, and again a single switch will return it to the previous
state.

Finally, I hope that all Nova Roma group owners will make sure that
there is always a backup moderator or two, so the group business might
proceed even if the owner is off-net for an extended period.

optime vale et valete!

I see the link is broken in my message.

Citizens can also go to the main page

http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Main_Page

and follow the YELLOW election links.

optime valete

Agricola

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "M. Lucretius Agricola"
<wm_hogue@...> wrote:

>
> Salve!
>
> I followed the instructions here:
> http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Election_MMDCCLIX_(Nova_Roma)
>
> which I will copy here.
>
> 1. Carefully check the schedule below for your correct voting times
> and comitia.
>
> 2. Go to your Album Civium page.
>
> 3. Click on "get vote code...".
>
> 4. Make a note of your Voter Code. You will need it if there are
> problems with your vote.
>
> 5. Click on the "go vote" button.
>
> 6. Cast your ballots.
>
>
> The procedure worked correctly, with the added benefit that my voter
> code was automatically inserted into the voting form.
>
> optime vale
>
> M. Lucr. Agricola
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Lucius Cassius Cornutus"
> <obiwan6797@> wrote:
> >
> > Salvete omnes,
> >
> > I have been trying to get a voter code, but
> > it is not being emailed to me.
> >
> > I clicked on the censors link, but I can't
> > find the link to email directly.
> >
> > Any help?
> >
> > Thank You
> >
> > Valete,
> >
> > Lucius Cassius Cornutus
> >
>

That's exactly the procedure i followed 3 times,and never received any
email in response. There's another procedure?

> I see the link is broken in my message.
>
> Citizens can also go to the main page
>
> http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Main_Page
> <http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Main_Page>
>
> and follow the YELLOW election links.
>
> optime valete
>
> Agricola
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>,
> "M. Lucretius Agricola"
> <wm_hogue@...> wrote:
> >
> > Salve!
> >
> > I followed the instructions here:
> > http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Election_MMDCCLIX_
> <http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Election_MMDCCLIX_>(Nova_Roma)
> >
> > which I will copy here.
> >
> > 1. Carefully check the schedule below for your correct voting times
> > and comitia.
> >
> > 2. Go to your Album Civium page.
> >
> > 3. Click on "get vote code...".
> >
> > 4. Make a note of your Voter Code. You will need it if there are
> > problems with your vote.
> >
> > 5. Click on the "go vote" button.
> >
> > 6. Cast your ballots.
> >
> >
> > The procedure worked correctly, with the added benefit that my voter
> > code was automatically inserted into the voting form.
> >
> > optime vale
> >
> > M. Lucr. Agricola
> >
> >
> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>, "Lucius Cassius Cornutus"
> > <obiwan6797@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Salvete omnes,
> > >
> > > I have been trying to get a voter code, but
> > > it is not being emailed to me.
> > >
> > > I clicked on the censors link, but I can't
> > > find the link to email directly.
> > >
> > > Any help?
> > >
> > > Thank You
> > >
> > > Valete,
> > >
> > > Lucius Cassius Cornutus
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> __________ Información de NOD32, revisión 1.1859 (20061108) __________
>
> Este mensaje ha sido analizado con NOD32 antivirus system
> http://www.nod32.com

Well, the procedure I outlined below doesn't involve any e-mail steps.

I have to stress that you should go to your Album Civium page AND be
logged in. You can see the login box on the right.

Please try logging in and following the "get vote code" link. I think
that should work.

optime vale

Agricola


--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Julio C. Cubillo E."
<juliocubillo@...> wrote:

>
> That's exactly the procedure i followed 3 times,and never received any
> email in response. There's another procedure?
>
> > I see the link is broken in my message.
> >
> > Citizens can also go to the main page
> >
> > http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Main_Page
> > <http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Main_Page>
> >
> > and follow the YELLOW election links.
> >
> > optime valete
> >
> > Agricola
> >
> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com

<mailto:Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>,

> > "M. Lucretius Agricola"
> > <wm_hogue@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Salve!
> > >
> > > I followed the instructions here:
> > > http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Election_MMDCCLIX_
> > <http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Election_MMDCCLIX_>(Nova_Roma)
> > >
> > > which I will copy here.
> > >
> > > 1. Carefully check the schedule below for your correct voting times
> > > and comitia.
> > >
> > > 2. Go to your Album Civium page.
> > >
> > > 3. Click on "get vote code...".
> > >
> > > 4. Make a note of your Voter Code. You will need it if there are
> > > problems with your vote.
> > >
> > > 5. Click on the "go vote" button.
> > >
> > > 6. Cast your ballots.
> > >
> > >
> > > The procedure worked correctly, with the added benefit that my voter
> > > code was automatically inserted into the voting form.
> > >
> > > optime vale
> > >
> > > M. Lucr. Agricola
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> > <mailto:Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>, "Lucius Cassius Cornutus"
> > > <obiwan6797@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Salvete omnes,
> > > >
> > > > I have been trying to get a voter code, but
> > > > it is not being emailed to me.
> > > >
> > > > I clicked on the censors link, but I can't
> > > > find the link to email directly.
> > > >
> > > > Any help?
> > > >
> > > > Thank You
> > > >
> > > > Valete,
> > > >
> > > > Lucius Cassius Cornutus
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > __________ Información de NOD32, revisión 1.1859 (20061108) __________
> >
> > Este mensaje ha sido analizado con NOD32 antivirus system
> > http://www.nod32.com
>

Hortensia Scholasticae sal;
I think this is a pretty sad discussion. I suggest you review
your charter; I am responsible for neither minors nor the ultra
sensitive Christians, Hindus, Muslims or Orthodox Jews. They have
plenty of places to go.
And in what way are you impugning the Religio? Who are
those 'certain quarters'?
M. Hortensia Maior


Some adolescents seem to have a compulsion

> > to discuss sex; the difference is that most of them grow out of it

when they

> > grow up. Evidently some here haven¹t passed that stage. as well

as poses a

> > possible threat to NR, which already has one strike against it in

certain

> > quarters due to the presence of the Religio. > > Et tu!
> >
> >>> > > Keep it to yourself. Discretion is the better part of valor.
> >>> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>

Salve L. Arminius Faustus who said in part

"Next year we can do also a blow against another prejudice,
we may have a Latin American consul"

Amice

There is no prejudice in Nova Roma.

The fact is no other Nova Roman from Latin America has ever stood
for Consul, you are the first to do so.

Our very good Senator Marcus Arminius Maior, also from Latin America,
is serving his second term as Tribune, he has been Praetor
as well as Aedilis Plebis. Unfortunately for Nova Roma he has never
stood for Consul. If he had I believe he would have won election.
Nova Romans can not vote for someone who does not stand.

I know you take pride in your heritage, you should , we all do
and I know you believe that Nova Roma should be free
from prejudices of any kind but please,

sometimes your rhetoric is over the top even for your friends.

Please remember you are standing for Consul of Nova Roma
not for the Latin American Consul of Nova Roma.

I have been a citizen of Nova Roma for almost five years and I have never
seen a candidate for any office appeal for votes based on regional,
macro-national identity or religious bigotry. We should not start now.

Nova Roma is already universal.

Please remember the virtues of Dignitas and Gravitas as you campaign for Consul.

Vale

Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
Mea gloria fideles

----- Original Message -----
From: Lucius Arminius Faustus<mailto:lafaustus@...>
To: nova-roma<mailto:nova-roma@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2006 5:20 PM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] FAUSTUS FOR CONSUL, the first consul antipoda!


By queen Minerva, my personal devotion, by Ceres Almight, patroness of the
plebeians, and by the holy Vesta, lar of the State,

NR is on the verge of universalization. To fullfill its goal, we must assure
it shows all citizens we are not bounded in any country, nor region.

Nova Roma has never had a consul from the South Hemisphere. It is a clear
word to all potential new citizens NR is across all globe, NR hasn´t
boundaries, everywhere there will be NR citizens for seeding the roman path
and virtues.

This year we made a great advance, by having a woman as consul. Next year we
can do also a blow against another prejudice, we may have a Latin American
consul. We know sometimes in the past, some political ideologies full of
racial prejudices had been associating the roman symbols to them. Electing a
latin american as consul is showing NOVA ROMA HAS NO PREJUDICE INSIDE! NOVA
ROMA LOATHES PREJUDICE! OUR CITIZENS DON´T ALLOW PREJUDICE ON THIS REPUBLIC!

We are Romans like the old ones, with the compromise of universalization, to
get in the City what was the World. A culture that has not fallen, but
dissolved itself teaching its provinces to become countries and peoples, not
as subjects foreveR, but as citizens. So, the Dalmatian could drink the
water of the Tagus, and the gaul be safe in the Egypt, as the words of
Seneca.

1 - Voting on FAUSTUS is a compromise with the universalization of Nova
Roma... urbe et orbi.

2 - voting on FAUSTUS is a compromise with the roman way in Nova Roma...
Faustus means return to the roman roots, on this hard learning curve we are
following year after year.

For a more roman Nova Roma, Lucius Arminius Faustus for consul!
For a more universal Nova Roma, Lucius Arminius Faustus for consul!

Valete bene in pacem deorum,
L. Arminius Faustus

FAUSTUS FOR CONSUL!
FAUSTUS FOR CONSUL!
FAUSTUS FOR CONSUL!
FAUSTUS FOR CONSUL!
FAUSTUS FOR CONSUL!

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

> Scholastica Agricolae optimo suo quiritibus bonae voluntatis S.P.D.
>
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com> , "A.
> Tullia Scholastica"
> <fororom@...> wrote:
>> >
>>> > > Scholastica Agricolae optimo suo quiritibus s.p.d.
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > > Agricola Scholasticae sal
>>> > >
>>> > > She published only the location of the Yahoo group homepage, not an
>>> > > e-mail address. Some groups are not well run, and are victims of spam,
>>> > > but that is not the case with this group. It is well-run and as far as
>>> > > I can tell, spam free.
>>> > >
>>> > > ATS: Thank you for the compliment on the running of Musarum.
> It¹s quite
>>> > > true that some lists are not properly moderated. However, most of
> the spam
>>> > > lands not on the list (though we do get moderation notices for
> that) but in
>>> > > the moderators¹ box, where we are encouraged to purchase fake Rolexes,
>>> > > nonexistent stocks and bonds, hot dates, assorted medications, cheap
>>> > > mortgages, etc.
>>> > >
>
> Agricola Scholasticae sal.
>
> Ah, I see. In that case I would suggest that you select a slightly
> more strict sign-up procedure.
>
> ATS: Yes, but some of the sodalitates are prevented from that by their
> respective charters. In any case, any idiot can go to the main yahoo page and
> get the addresses of the moderators, etc., without joining. It¹s obvious from
> some of the cc¹d addresses that this is what was done.
>
>
> If you require approval for new members
> to join you will cut that to zero. The reason is that the page that is
> provided by Yahoo has an instrument in place to block automated sign-ups.
>
> ATS: That¹s interesting!
>
> For the benefit of anyone running a Yahoo group, this is the best
> procedure, in my opinion:
>
> 1. Require approval for new members. This blocks all automated spam
> systems.
>
> 2. Set your group to moderate all new members.
>
> ATS: Most of them are set up that way; certainly Musarum and Latinitas
> are...but one must have a moderator who understands that certain things are
> inappropriate to a given venue. Sometimes posts are perfectly fine, but not
> appropriate to the list in question; they are too far off topic.
>
> 3. After one or two on-topic posts, set the new member to "use group
> settings". Do not set "never moderated".
>
> ATS: We usually wait longer than that...some people go along perfectly
> well, then burst forth into something inappropriate. Some lurk for months or
> years, then rage like maniacs.
>
> It is true that this requires moderator attention, to approve new
> members, to approve posts and to change moderation status, but it is
> not a lot of work, much less than trying to catch spam from people
> already in the system, and much more pleasant too.
>
> ATS: Yes, it requires more effort, and that is why some would prefer to
> tag onto existing lists rather than set one up specifically devoted to some
> other topic.
>
> The reason to prefer "use group settings" is that in the event a flame
> war breaks out, just a single switch will set the whole group on
> moderation, and again a single switch will return it to the previous
> state.
>
> ATS: Absolutely. That¹s why we use group settings...
>
> Finally, I hope that all Nova Roma group owners will make sure that
> there is always a backup moderator or two, so the group business might
> proceed even if the owner is off-net for an extended period.
>
> ATS: Yes; all of the lists I moderate have multiple moderators. One
> should always have a backup.
>
> optime vale et valete!
>
> Et tu!
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

>
> A. Tullia Scholastica M. Hortensiae Maiori quiritibus S.D.
>
>
> Hortensia Scholasticae sal;
> I think this is a pretty sad discussion.
>
> ATS: Then why perpetuate it?
>
>
> I suggest you review
> your charter; I am responsible for neither minors nor the ultra
> sensitive Christians, Hindus, Muslims or Orthodox Jews. They have
> plenty of places to go.
>
> ATS: That¹s right; everybody else can always leave a group when someone
> else barges in and decides to change its entire culture...and in your opinion,
> that seems to be what people should do: they should leave a group they like
> merely because someone else wants to change it around. The sodalitas Musarum
> has a separate list for erotika; why don¹t you join that? (I happen to be on
> it...). You¹re already in the BA. Why do you insist on offending others?
> Why don¹t you understand that certain things are appropriate at certain times
> and places, and in certain groups, but not in others? Why don¹t you
> understand that if nothing else, Yahoo guidelines forbid this sort of thing to
> minors? Spero lucem mox adventuram.
>
>
> And in what way are you impugning the Religio? Who are
> those 'certain quarters'?
>
> ATS: Stating facts is not impugning anything. Some turn away from us for
> no other reason but the presence of non-monotheistic faiths here, and would
> turn away as much from Hinduism or any other polytheistic faith. Ask a
> certain prominent Latinist of our mutual acquaintance about the view of some
> people to elements of NR and AT. Ask why he had to double his work by
> teaching all of his AT courses via another means as well as the AT. That is
> reality, but it may have escaped some of us. One does, after all, have to be
> sensitive to such matters.
>
> M. Hortensia Maior
>
> Valete.
> ._,___

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

M.Hortensia Ti Galerio Paulins spd;
I remember very well when Apulus Caesar of Italia was standing
for Consul, was that 2003? how Q. Fabius Maximimus and other Boni
made fun of Apulus's English. It was crude, and indeed prejudiced. I
was disgusted at that kind of behavior.
Right now we're having serious issues of censorship &
bigotry, so kindly don't tell Senator L. Arminius Faustus how he
can campaign. He's a fine man, a fine Roman & yes a fine cultor of
the Religio and from Provincia Brasilia.
I admire him enormously & a vote for him will promote the
reform of the CP, which will permit ALL Nova Romans to participate
in taking auspices. Something you are against.
bene vale
M. Hortensia Maior

>
>
>
>
> I have been a citizen of Nova Roma for almost five years and I

have never

> seen a candidate for any office appeal for votes based on regional,
> macro-national identity or religious bigotry. We should not start

now.

>
> Nova Roma is already universal.
>
> Please remember the virtues of Dignitas and Gravitas as you

campaign for Consul.

>
> Vale
>
> Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
> Mea gloria fideles
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Lucius Arminius Faustus<mailto:lafaustus@...>
> To: nova-roma<mailto:nova-roma@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2006 5:20 PM
> Subject: [Nova-Roma] FAUSTUS FOR CONSUL, the first consul

antipoda!

>
>
> By queen Minerva, my personal devotion, by Ceres Almight,

patroness of the

> plebeians, and by the holy Vesta, lar of the State,
>
> NR is on the verge of universalization. To fullfill its goal, we

must assure

> it shows all citizens we are not bounded in any country, nor

region.

>
> Nova Roma has never had a consul from the South Hemisphere. It

is a clear

> word to all potential new citizens NR is across all globe, NR

hasn´t

> boundaries, everywhere there will be NR citizens for seeding the

roman path

> and virtues.
>
> This year we made a great advance, by having a woman as consul.

Next year we

> can do also a blow against another prejudice, we may have a

Latin American

> consul. We know sometimes in the past, some political ideologies

full of

> racial prejudices had been associating the roman symbols to

them. Electing a

> latin american as consul is showing NOVA ROMA HAS NO PREJUDICE

INSIDE! NOVA

> ROMA LOATHES PREJUDICE! OUR CITIZENS DON´T ALLOW PREJUDICE ON

THIS REPUBLIC!

>
> We are Romans like the old ones, with the compromise of

universalization, to

> get in the City what was the World. A culture that has not

fallen, but

> dissolved itself teaching its provinces to become countries and

peoples, not

> as subjects foreveR, but as citizens. So, the Dalmatian could

drink the

> water of the Tagus, and the gaul be safe in the Egypt, as the

words of

> Seneca.
>
> 1 - Voting on FAUSTUS is a compromise with the universalization

of Nova

> Roma... urbe et orbi.
>
> 2 - voting on FAUSTUS is a compromise with the roman way in Nova

Roma...

> Faustus means return to the roman roots, on this hard learning

curve we are

> following year after year.
>
> For a more roman Nova Roma, Lucius Arminius Faustus for consul!
> For a more universal Nova Roma, Lucius Arminius Faustus for

consul!

>
> Valete bene in pacem deorum,
> L. Arminius Faustus
>
> FAUSTUS FOR CONSUL!
> FAUSTUS FOR CONSUL!
> FAUSTUS FOR CONSUL!
> FAUSTUS FOR CONSUL!
> FAUSTUS FOR CONSUL!
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Cn. Iulius Caesar M. Hortensiae Maiori sal.

<<and from Provincia Brasilia>>

I don't see the relevance of this statement. What does it matter
where a Nova Roman citizen lives? I assume Faustus knows where he
lives, so isn't that all that matters?

<<I admire him enormously>>

I think I recall you describing the Pontifex Maximus in such terms –
one might even say with great affection and warmth, until that is he
voted in a way you disliked. Then he descended from the lofty
heights you had elevated him to, as the fount of all wisdom and
compassion. No longer is he praised and feted by you. He has been
demoted to just plain "Cassius".

I mention this just to put your comments into perspective for some
citizens who may not have fully followed the blazing trail of your
past endorsements and thus may attach some weight to them, when in
fact it appears that once someone exercises independent thought and
action, those endorsements blow away in the wind.

If you are prepared to endorse people, as you do, in such glowing
and passionate terms maybe, just maybe, you should trust their
judgment, which you previously lauded to the heights, and not cast
them aside so easily. It rather devalues the weight of any
subsequent endorsements you make, such as this one.

Let us hope Senator L. Arminius Faustus always votes and acts the
way you like, lest he becomes someone that you feel that you can
instruct in how to campaign, and thus just plain....Faustus.

It seems to be a very risky business to be endorsed by you.

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Maior" <rory12001@...> wrote:
>
> M.Hortensia Ti Galerio Paulins spd;
> I remember very well when Apulus Caesar of Italia was standing
>

F. Galerius Aurelianus SPD

I do not believe that Tb. Galerius Paulinus was telling Faustus how to run
merely that some things that were posted by Faustus were incorrect. As we
wind down to the end of the election, some tempers are running hot and people
are responding without thinking. Oops, sorry, that reaction is business as
usual here in Nova Roma.

M. Hortensia Maior--Anyone who was active remembers how Q. Fabius Maximus
made fun of Apulus Caesar's post. I hope you also remember that quite a few of
us, including Galerius Paulinus and myself, jumped down his throat for being
so blatantly chauvinistic. However, you have displayed a certain level of
intolerance yourself during this election by criticizing Galerius Paulinus'
choices and advisors without having a full knowledge of facts. You have also
posted certain opinions that you called facts and then refused to supply
documentation to support those opinions. You blatantly attacked the Gens Galeria
and our relations with one another without knowing how much of a family we
have become. Perhaps if you opened up the Gens Hortensia to others, you to
could know how comfortable it is to have other Nova Romans you can care for,
respect, and trust.

I know that you come from Ireland, domina, but you hot temper and quick
responses are not flattering to your character. Many of your comments could have
been avoided by questioning the candidates privately.

There are certain intolerances and prejudices in Nova Roma because it has
citizens representing so many cultures and nationalities. However, if you
would like to cite specific examples of the prejudice and censorship about which
you posted, it might enlighten others and cause them to look on these matters
in a new light.

Domina, all Nova Romans can currently take the auspices on private matters;
all provincial magistrates can take the auspices for provincial matters; all
Nova Roman magistrates can act as auspex and take the auspices if they are
invested with the ius auspicia and imperium.
This is not something that has to be determined by a decreta; it is an
historic right and practice..

I have the highest regard for Faustus, especially as he gives all due
respect and honor to Ceres Mater, the patroness of the Plebs and from whose aedes
the Tribunes historically derive their sancrosanctitas & the plebeian aediles
their authority. I would be pleased as punch if he were one of Nova Roma's
new consuls.

You should give credit where credit is due in regard to Galerius Paulinus'
past efforts. He restored the historic involvement and sponsorship of the
Ludi Apollonaires by the Praetores, in full cooperation with the aediles. The
aediles have posted that they worked well together on this event. He has
always kept his Oaths of Office about honoring & respecting the Religio and Dii
Immortales. He has never resigned from an elected magistracy. He supports
the viewpoint of many members of the CP that the Sacra et Religio should not
ever become a tool of a political agenda as it was during the Late Republic.

You are perfectly free to keep busting his chops publicly despite the fact
that some of what you say about him is not true. I do not appreciate it and I
am sure that there are others who feel the same way. I fully expect him to
be elected as Consul and it would be just loverly if you would allow him to
have a little time with his colleague to reach an accord and agreement so they
can work for Nova Roma.

Valete.

M.Hortensia Ti Galerio Paulins spd;
I remember very well when Apulus Caesar of Italia was standing
for Consul, was that 2003? how Q. Fabius Maximimus and other Boni
made fun of Apulus's English. It was crude, and indeed prejudiced. I
was disgusted at that kind of behavior.
Right now we're having serious issues of censorship &
bigotry, so kindly don't tell Senator L. Arminius Faustus how he
can campaign. He's a fine man, a fine Roman & yes a fine cultor of
the Religio and from Provincia Brasilia.
I admire him enormously & a vote for him will promote the
reform of the CP, which will permit ALL Nova Romans to participate
in taking auspices. Something you are against.
bene vale
M. Hortensia Maior



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Salvete omnes,

It dosen't matter to me which nationalities, races or cultures hold
offices including that of Consul. I am looking to vote for those who
are dedicated to Res Publica, are easy to contact, show up for their
work so to speak and demonstrate above all interest and reliability in
their jobs and the promotion of Nova Roma. I am confident that most of
our citizens share these views.

Regards,

QSP

> >
> > Hortensia Scholasticae sal;
> >
> >
> > ATS: Then why perpetuate it?
> >

HORTENSIA: because you tried to bully everyone at Vox Romana on
this very same subject which is protected by the U.S. Supreme Court.

> >
> >
> > ATS: That¹s right; everybody else can always leave a group

when someone

> > else barges in and decides to change its entire cultureWhy do

you insist on offending others?

> > Why don¹t you understand that certain things are appropriate at

certain times

> > and places, and in certain groups, but not in others? Why don¹t

you

> > understand that if nothing else, Yahoo guidelines forbid this

sort of thing to

> > minors? Spero lucem mox adventuram.
> >

HORTENSIA: You are the only one complaining & have complained
before when the majority in Vox Romana were for the Latin Classics.
Our culture the Polytheistic Roman one is the guide not yours. Deal
with it.
I told you the U.S Supreme Court protects literature &
history which our discussion is about. Yahoo cannot limit these
rights.

>> > ATS: Some turn away from us for
> > no other reason but the presence of non-monotheistic faiths

here, . One does, after all, have to be

> > sensitive to such matters.
> >
> > HORTENSIA: as Cordus put it, we don't want those people in Nova

Roma. Nova Roma is based on the Roman polytheistic culture &
supports its renaissance. You, after all, have to be sensitive in
such matters.
bene vale in lucem Solis
& yes I echo your Latin hope that
the "light" would come soon; Sol Invictus naturally....

> >
> > Valete.
> > ._,___
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Salve M. Hortensia Maior

How did I know you would comment first on a thread addressed to someone else.
What issues of censorship are on going?

L. Arminius Faustus and I are have a good discussion on issues as
we both campaign foe Consul and he is old enough and strong
enough to to except a little constructive criticism.
Last time I checked Apulus Caesar was elected Consul of Nova Roma
and with my support.

"I admire him enormously & a vote for him will promote the
reform of the CP, which will permit ALL Nova Romans to participate
in taking auspices. Something you are against."

I am beginning to wonder if you ever read the posts on this list
or if you just write to hear your yourself talk.

You may want to go back and check what I have already said on
the reform of the CP as you have, again not read or at least not
understood what has been written.

Lastly you should be aware that that a few of you posts
have come close to getting you placed on moderation. I recommended
against it because I said it Maior just being Maior and the republic would
survive your ongoing ad nauseam rants.

Vale

Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
The Sensible Choice for Consul.

----- Original Message -----
From: Maior<mailto:rory12001@...>
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com<mailto:Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2006 10:18 PM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Prejudice in Nova Roma


M.Hortensia Ti Galerio Paulins spd;
I remember very well when Apulus Caesar of Italia was standing
for Consul, was that 2003? how Q. Fabius Maximimus and other Boni
made fun of Apulus's English. It was crude, and indeed prejudiced. I
was disgusted at that kind of behavior.
Right now we're having serious issues of censorship &
bigotry, so kindly don't tell Senator L. Arminius Faustus how he
can campaign. He's a fine man, a fine Roman & yes a fine cultor of
the Religio and from Provincia Brasilia.
I admire him enormously & a vote for him will promote the
reform of the CP, which will permit ALL Nova Romans to participate
in taking auspices. Something you are against.
bene vale
M. Hortensia Maior
>
>
>
>
> I have been a citizen of Nova Roma for almost five years and I
have never
> seen a candidate for any office appeal for votes based on regional,
> macro-national identity or religious bigotry. We should not start
now.
>
> Nova Roma is already universal.
>
> Please remember the virtues of Dignitas and Gravitas as you
campaign for Consul.
>
> Vale
>
> Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
> Mea gloria fideles
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Lucius Arminius Faustus<mailto:lafaustus@...>
> To: nova-roma<mailto:nova-roma@yahoogroups.com<mailto:nova-roma%40yahoogroupscom>>
> Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2006 5:20 PM
> Subject: [Nova-Roma] FAUSTUS FOR CONSUL, the first consul
antipoda!
>
>
> By queen Minerva, my personal devotion, by Ceres Almight,
patroness of the
> plebeians, and by the holy Vesta, lar of the State,
>
> NR is on the verge of universalization. To fullfill its goal, we
must assure
> it shows all citizens we are not bounded in any country, nor
region.
>
> Nova Roma has never had a consul from the South Hemisphere. It
is a clear
> word to all potential new citizens NR is across all globe, NR
hasn´t
> boundaries, everywhere there will be NR citizens for seeding the
roman path
> and virtues.
>
> This year we made a great advance, by having a woman as consul.
Next year we
> can do also a blow against another prejudice, we may have a
Latin American
> consul. We know sometimes in the past, some political ideologies
full of
> racial prejudices had been associating the roman symbols to
them. Electing a
> latin american as consul is showing NOVA ROMA HAS NO PREJUDICE
INSIDE! NOVA
> ROMA LOATHES PREJUDICE! OUR CITIZENS DON´T ALLOW PREJUDICE ON
THIS REPUBLIC!
>
> We are Romans like the old ones, with the compromise of
universalization, to
> get in the City what was the World. A culture that has not
fallen, but
> dissolved itself teaching its provinces to become countries and
peoples, not
> as subjects foreveR, but as citizens. So, the Dalmatian could
drink the
> water of the Tagus, and the gaul be safe in the Egypt, as the
words of
> Seneca.
>
> 1 - Voting on FAUSTUS is a compromise with the universalization
of Nova
> Roma... urbe et orbi.
>
> 2 - voting on FAUSTUS is a compromise with the roman way in Nova
Roma...
> Faustus means return to the roman roots, on this hard learning
curve we are
> following year after year.
>
> For a more roman Nova Roma, Lucius Arminius Faustus for consul!
> For a more universal Nova Roma, Lucius Arminius Faustus for
consul!
>
> Valete bene in pacem deorum,
> L. Arminius Faustus
>
> FAUSTUS FOR CONSUL!
> FAUSTUS FOR CONSUL!
> FAUSTUS FOR CONSUL!
> FAUSTUS FOR CONSUL!
> FAUSTUS FOR CONSUL!
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

OSD C. Equitius Cato

Salvete omnes!

Hodie est ante diem V Idus Novembris; haec dies comitialis est.


"Both consuls sent word to the senate that there were very slender
hopes of the Samnites remaining at peace. Publilius informed them that
2000 troops from Nola and 4000 Samnites had been admitted into
Palaeopolis, more under pressure from Nola than from any great desire
for their presence on the part of the Greeks; Cornelius sent the
additional information that orders for a general levy had been issued
throughout Samnium, and attempts were being openly made to induce the
neighbouring communities of Privernum, Fundi, and Formiae to rise.
Under these circumstances it was decided to send ambassadors to the
Samnites before actually commencing war. The Samnites sent an insolent
reply. They accused the Romans of wanton aggression, and absolutely
denied the charges made against themselves; they declared that the
assistance which the Greeks had received was not furnished by their
government, nor had they tampered with Fundi and Formiae, for they had
no reason to distrust their own strength if it came to war. Moreover,
it was impossible to disguise the deep irritation which the Samnite
nation felt at the conduct of the Roman people in restoring Fregellae
after they had taken it from the Volscians and destroyed it, and
placing a colony on Samnite territory which the colonists called
Fregellae. If this insult and injury were not removed by those
responsible for it, they would themselves exert all their strength to
get rid of it. The Roman ambassadors invited them to submit the
questions at issue to arbitration before their common friends, but the
Samnites replied: "Why should we beat about the bush? No diplomacy, no
arbitration can adjust our quarrel; arms and the fortune of war can
alone decide the issue. We must meet in Campania." To which the Roman
replied: "Roman soldiers will march not whither the enemy summons
them, but whither their commander leads them."

Publilius meantime had taken up a suitable position between
Palaeopolis and Neapolis in order to prevent them from rendering each
other the mutual assistance they had hitherto given. The time for the
elections was close at hand, and it would have been most inexpedient
for the public interest to recall Publilius, as he was ready to attack
the place and in daily expectation of effecting its capture. An
arrangement was accordingly made with the tribunes of the plebs to
propose to the people that at the expiration of his term of office
Publilius should continue to act as proconsul till the war with the
Greeks was brought to a close. The same step was taken with regard to
Cornelius, who had already entered Samnium, and written instructions
were sent to him to nominate a Dictator to hold the elections. He
nominated M. Claudius Marcellus, and Sp. Postumius was named by him
Master of the Horse. The elections, however, were not held by that
Dictator, doubts having been raised as to whether the proper
formalities had been observed in his nomination. The augurs, when
consulted, declared that they had not been duly observed. The tribunes
characterised their action as dishonest and iniquitous. "How," they
asked, "could they know that there was any irregularity? The consul
rose at midnight to nominate the Dictator; he had made no
communication to any one either officially or privately about the
matter; there was no one living who could say that he had seen or
heard anything which would vitiate the auspices; the augurs sitting
quietly in Rome could not possibly divine what difficulty the consul
may have met with in the camp. Who was there who could not see that
the irregularity which the augurs had discovered lay in the fact that
the Dictator was a plebeian?" These and other objections were raised
by the tribunes. Matters, however, reverted to an interregnum, and
owing to the repeated adjournment of the elections on one pretext
after another, there were no fewer than fourteen interregna. At last
L. Aemilius, the fourteenth interrex, declared C. Poetilius and L.
Papirius Mugilanus duly elected." - Livy, History of Rome 8.23



Today is Sadie Hawkins' Day. In A.D. 1288 the Scottish parliament
legislated that any woman could propose to a man in Leap Year. If
refused, the man had to compensate her by one pound. This law was
adopted in France, Switzerland and Italy, and the tradition was
carried to America, Australia and other countries. In the United
States, the idea made its debut in Al Capp's "Li'l Abner" comic strip
on November 15, 1937. Sadie Hawkins was "the homeliest gal in the
hills" who grew tired of waiting for the fellows to come a courtin'.
Her father, Hekzebiah Hawkins, a prominent resident of Dogpatch, was
even more worried about Sadie living at home for the rest of his life,
so he decreed the first annual Sadie Hawkins Day, a foot race in which
the unmarried gals pursued the town's bachelors, with matrimony the
consequence. By the late 1930's the event had swept the nation and had
a life of its own. Life magazine reported over 200 colleges holding
Sadie Hawkins Day events in 1939, only two years after its inception.
It became a woman empowering rite at high schools and college
campuses, long before the modern feminist movement gained prominence.
The basis of Sadie Hawkins Day is that women and girls take the
initiative in inviting the man or boy of their choice out on a date,
typically to a dance attended by other bachelors and their aggressive
dates. When Al Capp created the event, it was not his intention to
have the event occur annually on a specific date because it inhibited
his freewheeling plotting. However, due to its enormous popularity and
the numerous fan letters Capp received, the event became an annual
event in the strip during the month of November, lasting four decades.



"Originally the Lord Mayor of London was elected on the feast of St
Simon and St Jude (28 October), and although the election day was
altered, admittance to office continued to take place on that day
until 1751. From 1752, owing to the adoption of the Gregorian
calendar, Lord Mayor's Day became 9 November. In recent years the Lord
Mayor has been sworn in at Guildhall on the second Friday [now
Saturday] in November, being presented to the Lord Chief Justice on
the following day (Saturday)." - Brewer's Dictionary of Phrase and
Fable (Cassell, London, 1988)


Images of Gog and Magog depicted as giants are carried in a
traditional procession in the Lord Mayor's Show by the Lord Mayor of
the City of London. According to the Lord Mayor, the giants Gog and
Magog are traditional guardians of the City of London, and their
images have been carried in the Lord Mayor's Show since the days of
King Henry V. The Lord Mayor's account of Gog and Magog says that the
Roman Emperor Diocletian had thirty-three wicked daughters. He found
thirty three husbands for them to curb their wicked ways; they chafed
at this, and under the leadership of the eldest sister, Alba, they
murdered them. For this crime, they were set adrift at sea; they were
washed ashore on a windswept island, which after Alba was called
Albion. Here they coupled with demons, and gave birth to a race of
giants, among whose descendants were Gog and Magog.


Valete bene!

Cato



SOURCES

Livy, Wikipedia

M Moravius L Iunio salutem

I do not happen to be one who reads more into a person's words than
what he or she writes. You asked about our electorial system.
Errors can always occur as individuals try to do their jobs, and I
would not take such to be nefarius in any manner. They are just
errors. I use to be a land surveyor where we assumed that the
possibility of human error was ever present, and thus we followed
procedures that allowed us to discover such errors and make
adjustments. The same when I was an intelligence analyst, we
followed certain procedures. There is always a possibility that
someone could try to interfer with an election, but we have in place
a system and a process that would likely discover any irregularity,
and a means, through the Consules and Tribuni Plebis, to deal with
such situations.

The presiding magistrate over a comitia has very little direct
involvement with the election process. He or she calls a comitia,
setting a schedule that is in accordance with prevailing law and our
religious calendar. For these elections in the Comitia Centuriata
and CPT Consul Modianus consulted with his colleague, the Tribuni
Plebis and other magistrates on an appropriate schedule that would
conform to law and religious considerations. The other thing that a
presiding magistrate does is "certify" candidates, and this is done
in two parts. First the Censores are consulted to assure that a
candidate meets minimum requirements under the law as to age and
membership status. The presiding magistrate then looks to see if the
candidate met the requirements set in his or her call for
candidates. For example, in Plebeian elections, a call for
candidates requires that they announce their candidacies on the
Comitia Plebis Tributa list. Most also announce to other lists, but
the minimum requirement is that they announce on the CPT list. Then
the presiding magistrate also contacts those other magistrates who
handle details of election process. He would tell the Magister
Aranearius to set up a cista, informing him of the names of any
candidates and the wording of any proposed legislation. He would
contact the Censores as they would handle voter codes. He would
inform the Diribitores and Custodes to be prepared to perform their
duties. Then the last thing for which a presiding magistrate is
responsible is to announce the results of an election, and in
performing that responsibility he or she would remain in contact with
the Custodes and Diribitores on the progress of their report.
Continatio is not really a problem since the presiding magistrate in
any election is not directly involved in the voting process.

The only place where continatio could pose the suspicion of an
irregularity is with the actual vote count. In order to eliminate
such a suspicion Diribitores are not permitted under law to run for
any office. Thus this year Servilius Priscus resigned from the
office of Diribitor in order to run as candate for Tribunus Plebis.
He did so only after consulting with his colleagues and being assured
that his absence would not impair the Diribitores in their duties.
Over the Diribitores are placed the Custodes who review the vote
counts, assure that the Diribitors arrive at the same count, without
any discrepencies, and that these are for candidates who were earlier
certified. Here we have a number of Diribitores, and two Custodes,
checking and double checking one another to eliminate errors from
their count. As for an irregularity, you'd have to have all of the
Diribitores and then both Custodes complicent in such a thing, which
is highly doubtful, and all it would take is one to report such a
thing to the Consules and/or Tribuni Plebis to stop such a nefarius
act. In addition the Consules and/or Tribuni Plebis can review
procedures if there would arise a question on the electorial process.

The other part of our electorial system is the automated system that
assigns tracking ID's to any vote that is cast. A voter has to use a
valid voter code in order to vote and receive a tracking ID. The
Censores have access to voter codes since they assign these. They do
not know the tracking ID's. The Diribitores will receive the
tracking ID's, so they won't know how any voter code actually votes,
and they do not know which voter code is assigned to any civis. And
of course they therefore can't pass on any information on individual
voters. This part of the system secures anonimity and makes it very
difficult for anyone in the electorial process to tamper with
results. A webmaster could potentially enter the system to try to
match up individuals with voter codes and tracking numbers. I trust
they wouldn't, and if they attempted anything of the sort then any
one of those involved in the voting process might take notice.
Actually our webmasters are one of our best safeguards as they would
notice anyone who attempts entry into the system.

You could also include here that part of the voting method that has
us vote in tribes and centuries. An attempt to manipulate voting
would be a difficult irregularity to achieve. Apportionment to the
tribes and centuries is performed just prior to the election and this
is done through an automated means. So no one is going to know
before hand who will be in what centuries and tribes. In order to
manipulate a vote, you'd have to go through each tribe and/or
century, and could only do so as the election was already in
progress. The system and procedures do not much allow such a
possibility.

So errors are always possible and we have procedures to compensate
for these. The procedures do not entirely eliminate the possibility
of irregularities occuring, but the system has checks in it that
would allow for their discovery, and then the magistrates and our
legal system could deal with it. On top of everything else you'd
have to have an awfully dim view of our fellow Citizens to even
suspect someone would try something irregular. I know we sometimes
get over heated in our disputes, but we wouldn't hold such suspicions
of fellow Citizens. The only real danger to our electorial process
is someone from outside hacking into the system, and that would be
quickly noticed.

Now, does this address some of your concerns? And without any
unintended implications?

Vale optime


--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Lucius Iunius"
<iunius_verbosus@...> wrote:

>
> L. Iunius M. Moravio sal.
>
> Your observations serve as a very valid explanation of why the
> *hypothetical* situation that I posedâ€"a magistrate tampering with

an

> election over which he or she presides and in which he or she
> runsâ€"would likely not occur. I note however that you stress the
> errors in this election, and I fear (perhaps I am mistaken) that you
> may have been laboring under the impression that I had suggested
> nefarious behavior to have occurred *in this* election. I chose

what

> was perhaps an inopportune moment to pose an opinion concerning the
> potential that such a thing may occur with the practice of
> continuatio, but I never meant to imply anything other than future
> potential.
>
> I am very glad to hear that so many good people are concerned with

the

> integrity of our elections.
>
>
> Vale.
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "marcushoratius" <mhoratius@>

wrote:

> >
> > Salve Luci Iuni
> >
> > Errors happen, irregularities can occur, but we have a system in
> > place to deal with either. The senior consul was the presiding
> > magistrate for these elections and he has dealt with the errors.

The

> > junior consul perceived that some irregularities may have

occurred

> > and thought to issue an intercessio. The Tribuni Plebis are also
> > available to issue intercessio if they find errors or

irregularities

> > that pose to undermine the integrity of our electorial system.

The

> > fact is that the Tribuni have been observing the elections, have

been

> > in consultation with both Consules, and have been in consultation
> > among themselves on issues related to the current elections. In

spite

> > of the minor errors that occurred, our electorial system is

working

> > correctly.
> >
> > Vale optime
> > M Moravius Piscinus
> >
> >
> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Lucius Iunius"
> > <iunius_verbosus@> wrote:
> > >
> > > L. Iunius Cn. Marino Censori sal.
> > >
> > > Ah! Good old checks and balances�"a cornerstone of the Roman
> > system.
> > > I'd neglected to consider them.
> > >
> > > In answer to your question�"I've no idea what sort of
> > irregularities.
> > > I guess I just had a vague notion that the system might be

tampered

> > > with theoretically. �"�"just throwing things out there.
> > >
> > > Vale.
> > >
> > > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Gnaeus Equitius Marinus

<gawne@>

> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Salve Luci Iuni,
> > > >
> > > > Lucius Iunius wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > L. Iunius Cn. Marino Censori sal.
> > > > >
> > > > > Though, as was the case in this instance, Censor, doesn't a
> > presiding
> > > > > magistrate have authority to resolve irregularities in an
> > election?
> > > >
> > > > What do you mean by irregularities? In general the answer is
> > yes, but
> > > > the resolution would have to be reasonable or it could be

vetoed

> > by the
> > > > magistrate's colleague(s).
> > > >
> > > > > Correct me if I am wrong, but is it not conceivable that a
> > consul who
> > > > > is presiding over an election in which he or she is running

may

> > make
> > > > > an incorrect ruling for his or her own benefit in the event

of

> > some
> > > > > sort of controversy?
> > > >
> > > > Yes, it's possible. At which point I'd expect their

colleague to

> > > > immediately pronounce intercessio.
> > > >
> > > > Vale,
> > > >
> > > > -- Marinus
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

On Thu, 9 Nov 2006, gequitiuscato quoted the classics:

> Under these circumstances it was decided to send ambassadors to the
> Samnites before actually commencing war. The Samnites sent an insolent
> reply. They accused the Romans of wanton aggression, and absolutely
> denied the charges made against themselves; they declared that the
> assistance which the Greeks had received was not furnished by their
> government

They were freedom-loving volunteers who just happened to be wearing
uniforms. Ah, how it all comes back!

-- Publius Livius Triarius

REMINDER

You have three days to submit your race information for the Ludi
Circenses! Deadline is 12 November.

An entrant who wishes to participate in the Ludi Circenses must send a
subscription to C. Curius Saturninus at c.curius@.... Each
subscription must bear the subject header "Ludi Circenses" and include the
following information:

A. His/her name in Nova Roma;
B. The name of his/her driver;
C. The name of his/her chariot;
D. His/her tactics for the Quarter and Semifinals;
E. His/her tactics for the Finals;

F. The name of his/her "factio" or team (Albata, Praesina, Russata, or
Veneta);

G. Dirty actions against another factio in a specific round
(quarter-final, semi-final, or final) and amount of sestertii paid in
support of it (an entrant does not have to pay sesterces to commission a
dirty action, but doing so increases the chances of success);

H. Defence against dirty actions in a specific round (quarter-final,
semi-final, or final) and amount of sesterces paid in support of it (an
entrant does not have to pay sestertii to defend against a dirty action,
but doing so decreases the chances of success of the dirty action);

I. If sestertii from multiple entrants are pooled to take a dirty action
or defend against a dirty action, the subscription of each entrant of the
pool must so indicate.

Complete Rules Available Here:

http://www.insulaumbra.com/ludiplebeii/ludi_plebeii/ludi_ple_circenses.html#rule\
s

Want to learn more about the four great factiones of the Circus and join?
Visit
http://www.insulaumbra.com/aediles/ludicircenses/

-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0

Enjoy the Ludi Plebeii!

--
Julilla Sempronia Magna
Aedilis Plebis

Today we continue the Ludi Scaenici of the Ludi Plebeii with another scene
from Plautus' play, "Pseudolus." The following takes place between
Calliodorus and the slave Pseudolus on a street in Athens, just across
from the house of Ballio, whom we met yesterday.

PSEUDOLUS I see your mistress, Calidorus.

CALIDORUS Where is she, prithee?

PSEUDOLUS See, here she is at full length in the letter; she's lying upon
the wax.

CALIDORUS Now, may the Gods and Goddesses, inasmuch

PSEUDOLUS Preserve me from harm, to wit.

CALIDORUS For a short season have I been like a summer plant suddenly
have I sprung up, suddenly have I withered.

PSEUDOLUS Be silent, while I read the letter through.

CALIDORUS Why don't you read it then?

PSEUDOLUS (reading) "PhÂœnicium to her lover, Calidorus, by means of wax
and string and letters, her exponents, sends health, and safety (salus)
does she beg of you, weeping, and with palpitating feelings, heart, and
breast."

CALIDORUS I'm undone; I nowhere find, Pseudolus, this safety for me to
send her back.

PSEUDOLUS What safety?

CALIDORUS A silver one.

PSEUDOLUS And do you wish to send her back a silver safety for one on
wood? Consider what you're about.

CALIDORUS Read on now; I'll soon cause you to know from the letter how
suddenly there's need for me for one of silver to be found.

PSEUDOLUS (reading on) "The procurer has sold me, my love, for twenty
minæ, to a Macedonian officer from abroad. Before he departed hence, the
Captain paid him fifteen minœ; only five minæ now are remaining unpaid. On
that account the Captain left here a token--his own likeness impressed on
wax by his ring--that he who should bring hither a token like to that,
together with him the procurer might send me. The next day hence, on the
Festival of Bacchus, is the one fixed for this matter."

CALIDORUS Well, that's to-morrow; my ruin is near at hand, unless I have
some help in you.

PSEUDOLUS Let me read it through.

CALIDORUS I permit you; for I seem to myself to be talking to her. Read
on; the sweet and the bitter are you now mingling together for me.

PSEUDOLUS (reading on) "Now our loves, our tenderness, our intimacy, our
mirth, our dalliance, our talking, our sweet kisses, the close embrace of
us lovers equally fond, the soft, dear kisses impressed on our tender
lips, the delicious pressing of the swelling bosom; of all these delights,
I say, for me and for you as well, the severance, the destruction, and the
downfal is at hand, unless there is some rescue for me in you or for you
in me. I have taken care that you should know all these things that I have
written; now shall I make trial how far you love me, and how far you
pretend to do so."

CALIDORUS 'Tis written, Pseudolus, in wretchedness.

PSEUDOLUS Alas! very wretchedly.

CALIDORUS Why don't you weep, then?

PSEUDOLUS I've eyes of pumice stone; I can't prevail upon them to squeeze
out one tear even.

CALIDORUS Why so?

PSEUDOLUS My family was always a dry-eyed one.

-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0

Enjoy the Ludi Plebeii!

--
Julilla Sempronia Magna
Aedilis Plebis

Salve!

Speak for yourself please...your use of 'we' means that everyone feels the same way as you. I am a citizen and I do not, and I doubt others do as well. Please dont tell people 'who we want' in Nova Roma...IMO a Christian, a Jew, etc...are more than welcome as long as they understand this is not a forum for expressing their belief. I am find with keeping thinks of a heavy sexual nature off a list that might be read by minors, this makes sense to me even if it doesnÂ’t to you and that has nothing to do with my religious beliefs. I am an agnostic...

I assume you do not welcome me either because I do not believe in the Roman Cult...I would say you should live with it or settle it once and for all and ride me out on a rail so I can stop seeing this inane ranting back and forth. I sometimes I think this is the biggest bunch of drama queens and egos I have ever seen and that’s saying a lot on the internet.

Appius Claudius

On Thu, 09 Nov 2006 08:00:59 -0000, Maior wrote

> > >
> > > Hortensia Scholasticae sal;
> > >
> > >
> > > ATS: Then why perpetuate it?
> > >
> HORTENSIA: because you tried to bully everyone at Vox Romana on
> this very same subject which is protected by the U.S. Supreme Court.
> > >
> > >
> > > ATS: That¹s right; everybody else can always leave a group
> when someone
> > > else barges in and decides to change its entire cultureWhy do
> you insist on offending others?
> > > Why don¹t you understand that certain things are appropriate at
> certain times
> > > and places, and in certain groups, but not in others? Why don¹t
> you
> > > understand that if nothing else, Yahoo guidelines forbid this
> sort of thing to
> > > minors? Spero lucem mox adventuram.
> > >
> HORTENSIA: You are the only one complaining & have complained
> before when the majority in Vox Romana were for the Latin Classics.
> Our culture the Polytheistic Roman one is the guide not yours. Deal
> with it.
> I told you the U.S Supreme Court protects literature &
> history which our discussion is about. Yahoo cannot limit these
> rights.
>
> >> > ATS: Some turn away from us for
> > > no other reason but the presence of non-monotheistic faiths
> here, . One does, after all, have to be
> > > sensitive to such matters.
> > >
> > > HORTENSIA: as Cordus put it, we don't want those people in Nova
> Roma. Nova Roma is based on the Roman polytheistic culture &
> supports its renaissance. You, after all, have to be sensitive in
> such matters.
> bene vale in lucem Solis
> & yes I echo your Latin hope that
> the "light" would come soon; Sol Invictus naturally....
>
> > >
> > > Valete.
> > > ._,___
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

In a message dated 11/8/2006 8:38:48 PM Pacific Standard Time,
PADRUIGTHEUNCLE@... writes:
Anyone who was active remembers how Q. Fabius Maximus
made fun of Apulus Caesar's post. I hope you also remember that quite a few
of us, including Galerius Paulinus and myself, jumped down his throat for being
so blatantly chauvinistic.
The problem with being here occasionally is that things like this leap into
print, and the disappear without a chance for the subject to rebut them. In
fact I would not have even heard of this if someone had not saw it and phoned me.

"Making fun" makes my criticism of Apulus mode of speech frivolous and mean
spirited. Neither was the case. Apulus wished to be Consul. Since the
business language of Nova Roma is English, and the previous Consuls are wrote
English well, it wasn't a problem until
Apulus attempted his writing. My concern was the chance of incorrect
elements entering
into edicts and other written Nova Roma business. I suggested an English
interpreter assigned to him to rewrite any problems. Now while this is prudent
in business, it is not in personality driven Nova Roma. I crossed some sort of
Politically Correct line. And I heard about it. It probably cost me the
election that year. However, my belief still is constant.

Q. Fabius Maximus


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

M. Hortensia Ti. Galerio spd;
about CP reform you said you would vote for it if the Majority
of the CP would, -they never vote. So that's a false promise. You
also never clearly explained why you, not the PM or Vedius, wants to
disenfranchise all the cives from taking auspices!

> Lastly you should be aware that that a few of you posts
> have come close to getting you placed on moderation.

Paulinus, you seem to have no sense;
here is the ruling of the U.S Supreme Court on obscenity with the
case reference. Martial, Catullus, Juvenal, Roman mores are all
taught in the finest universities.

Serious artistic, political, or scientific value, using a national
standard, is required for a finding that something is not obscene
and a finding of some artistic, political or scientific value does
not preclude a finding that a work is obscene. Pope vs. Illinois,481
U.S 497 (1987)
*********************************************************************
*********************************************************************
AND BELOW the US SUPREME COURT ON: OBSCENITY on the Internet &
MINORS. Only Child Porn, (rightly) is prohibited. Read below.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Syllabus

RENO, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES, et al. v. AMERICAN
CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION et al.
appeal from the united states district court for the eastern
district of pennsylvania
No. 96-511. Argued March 19, 1997 -- Decided June 26, 1997


Two provisions of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 (CDA or
Act) seek to protect minors from harmful material on the Internet,
an international network of interconnected computers that enables
millions of people to communicate with one another in "cyberspace"
and to access vast amounts of information from around the world.
Title 47 U. S. C. A. §223(a)(1)(B)(ii) (Supp. 1997) criminalizes
the "knowing" transmission of "obscene or indecent" messages to any
recipient under 18 years of age. Section 223(d) prohibits the "knowin
[g]" sending or displaying to a person under 18 of any
message "that, in context, depicts or describes, in terms patently
offensive as measured by contemporary community standards, sexual or
excretory activities or organs." Affirmative defenses are provided
for those who take "good faith, . . . effective . . . actions" to
restrict access by minors to the prohibited communications, §223(e)
(5)(A), and those who restrict such access by requiring certain
designated forms of age proof, such as a verified credit card or an
adult identification number, §223(e)(5)(B). A number of plaintiffs
filed suit challenging the constitutionality of §§223(a)(1) and 223
(d). After making extensive findings of fact, a three judge District
Court convened pursuant to the Act entered a preliminary injunction
against enforcement of both challenged provisions. The court's
judgment enjoins the Government from enforcing §223(a)(1)(B)'s
prohibitions insofar as they relate to "indecent" communications,
but expressly preserves the Government's right to investigate and
prosecute the obscenity or child pornography activities prohibited
therein. The injunction against enforcement of §223(d) is
unqualified because that section contains no separate reference to
obscenity or child pornography. The Government appealed to this
Court under the Act's special review provisions, arguing that the
District Court erred in holding that the CDA violated both the First
Amendment because it is overbroad and the Fifth Amendment because it
is vague.

Held: The CDA's "indecent transmission" and "patently offensive
display" provisions abridge "the freedom of speech" protected by the
First Amendment. Pp. 17-40.

(a) Although the CDA's vagueness is relevant to the First Amendment
overbreadth inquiry, the judgment should be affirmed without
reaching the Fifth Amendment issue. P. 17.

(b) A close look at the precedents relied on by the Government--
Ginsberg v. New York, 390 U.S. 629; FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, 438
U.S. 726; and Renton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc., 475 U.S. 41--
raises, rather than relieves, doubts about the CDA's
constitutionality. The CDA differs from the various laws and orders
upheld in those cases in many ways, including that it does not allow
parents to consent to their children's use of restricted materials;
is not limited to commercial transactions; fails to provide any
definition of "indecent" and omits any requirement that "patently
offensive" material lack socially redeeming value; neither limits
its broad categorical prohibitions to particular times nor bases
them on an evaluation by an agency familiar with the medium's unique
characteristics; is punitive; applies to a medium that, unlike
radio, receives full First Amendment protection; and cannot be
properly analyzed as a form of time, place, and manner regulation
because it is a content based blanket restriction on speech. These
precedents, then, do not require the Court to uphold the CDA and are
fully consistent with the application of the most stringent review
of its provisions. Pp. 17-21.

(c) The special factors recognized in some of the Court's cases as
justifying regulation of the broadcast media--the history of
extensive government regulation of broadcasting, see, e.g., Red Lion
Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 395 U.S. 367, 399-400; the scarcity of
available frequencies at its inception, see, e.g., Turner
Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC, 512 U.S. 622, 637-638; and
its "invasive" nature, see Sable Communications of Cal., Inc. v.
FCC, 492 U.S. 115, 128--are not present in cyberspace. Thus, these
cases provide no basis for qualifying the level of First Amendment
scrutiny that should be applied to the Internet. Pp. 22-24.

(d) Regardless of whether the CDA is so vague that it violates the
Fifth Amendment, the many ambiguities concerning the scope of its
coverage render it problematic for First Amendment purposes. For
instance, its use of the undefined terms "indecent" and "patently
offensive" will provoke uncertainty among speakers about how the two
standards relate to each other and just what they mean. The
vagueness of such a content based regulation, see, e.g., Gentile v.
State Bar of Nev., 501 U.S. 1030, coupled with its increased
deterrent effect as a criminal statute, see, e.g., Dombrowski v.
Pfister, 380 U.S. 479, raise special First Amendment concerns
because of its obvious chilling effect on free speech. Contrary to
the Government's argument, the CDA is not saved from vagueness by
the fact that its "patently offensive" standard repeats the second
part of the three prong obscenity test set forth in Miller v.
California, 413 U.S. 15, 24. The second Miller prong reduces the
inherent vagueness of its own "patently offensive" term by requiring
that the proscribed material be "specifically defined by the
applicable state law." In addition, the CDA applies only to "sexual
conduct," whereas, the CDA prohibition extends also to "excretory
activities" and "organs" of both a sexual and excretory nature. Each
of Miller's other two prongs also critically limits the uncertain
sweep of the obscenity definition. Just because a definition
including three limitations is not vague, it does not follow that
one of those limitations, standing alone, is not vague. The CDA's
vagueness undermines the likelihood that it has been carefully
tailored to the congressional goal of protecting minors from
potentially harmful materials. Pp. 24-28.

(e) The CDA lacks the precision that the First Amendment requires
when a statute regulates the content of speech. Although the
Government has an interest in protecting children from potentially
harmful materials, see, e.g., Ginsberg, 390 U. S., at 639, the CDA
pursues that interest by suppressing a large amount of speech that
adults have a constitutional right to send and receive, see, e.g.,
Sable, supra, at 126. Its breadth is wholly unprecedented. The CDA's
burden on adult speech is unacceptable if less restrictive
alternatives would be at least as effective in achieving the Act's
legitimate purposes. See, e.g., Sable, 492 U. S., at 126. The
Government has not proved otherwise. On the other hand, the District
Court found that currently available user based software suggests
that a reasonably effective method by which parents can prevent
their children from accessing material which the parents believe is
inappropriate will soon be widely available. Moreover, the arguments
in this Court referred to possible alternatives such as requiring
that indecent material be "tagged" to facilitate parental control,
making exceptions for messages with artistic or educational value,
providing some tolerance for parental choice, and regulating some
portions of the Internet differently than others. Particularly in
the light of the absence of any detailed congressional findings, or
even hearings addressing the CDA's special problems, the Court is
persuaded that the CDA is not narrowly tailored. Pp. 28-33.

(f) The Government's three additional arguments for sustaining the
CDA's affirmative prohibitions are rejected. First, the contention
that the Act is constitutional because it leaves open
ample "alternative channels" of communication is unpersuasive
because the CDA regulates speech on the basis of its content, so
that a "time, place, and manner" analysis is inapplicable. See,
e.g., Consolidated Edison Co. of N. Y. v. Public Serv. Comm'n of N.
Y., 447 U.S. 530, 536. Second, the assertion that the
CDA's "knowledge" and "specific person" requirements significantly
restrict its permissible application to communications to persons
the sender knows to be under 18 is untenable, given that most
Internet forums are open to all comers and that even the strongest
reading of the "specific person" requirement would confer broad
powers of censorship, in the form of a "heckler's veto," upon any
opponent of indecent speech. Finally, there is no textual support
for the submission that material having scientific, educational, or
other redeeming social value will necessarily fall outside the CDA's
prohibitions. Pp. 33-35.

(g) The §223(e)(5) defenses do not constitute the sort of "narrow
tailoring" that would save the CDA. The Government's argument that
transmitters may take protective "good faith actio[n]" by "tagging"
their indecent communications in a way that would indicate their
contents, thus permitting recipients to block their reception with
appropriate software, is illusory, given the requirement that such
action be "effective": The proposed screening software does not
currently exist, but, even if it did, there would be no way of
knowing whether a potential recipient would actually block the
encoded material. The Government also failed to prove that §223(b)
(5)'s verification defense would significantly reduce the CDA's
heavy burden on adult speech. Although such verification is actually
being used by some commercial providers of sexually explicit
material, the District Court's findings indicate that it is not
economically feasible for most noncommercial speakers. Pp. 35-37.

(h) The Government's argument that this Court should preserve the
CDA's constitutionality by honoring its severability clause, §608,
and by construing nonseverable terms narrowly, is acceptable in only
one respect. Because obscene speech may be banned totally, see
Miller, supra, at 18, and §223(a)'s restriction of "obscene"
material enjoys a textual manifestation separate from that
for "indecent" material, the Court can sever the term "or indecent"
from the statute, leaving the rest of §223(a) standing. Pp. 37-39.

(i) The Government's argument that its "significant" interest in
fostering the Internet's growth provides an independent basis for
upholding the CDA's constitutionality is singularly unpersuasive.
The dramatic expansion of this new forum contradicts the factual
basis underlying this contention: that the unregulated availability
of "indecent" and "patently offensive" material is driving people
away from the Internet. P. 40.

929 F. Supp. 824, affirmed.

Stevens, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Scalia,
Kennedy, Souter, Thomas, Ginsburg, and Breyer, JJ., joined.
O'Connor, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment in part
and dissenting in part, in which Rehnquist, C. J., joined.

So Pauline, you seem not to have even examined the law when I
mentioned it to help you.

If you try & moderate me for exercising freedom of speech &
religion. Or have you forgotten Nova Roma is a religious
organization? Believe me I shall take this case to the ACLU.
bene vale in voluptem priapeii
M. Hortensia Maior

>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Maior<mailto:rory12001@...>
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com<mailto:Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2006 10:18 PM
> Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Prejudice in Nova Roma
>
>
> M.Hortensia Ti Galerio Paulins spd;
> I remember very well when Apulus Caesar of Italia was standing
> for Consul, was that 2003? how Q. Fabius Maximimus and other

Boni

> made fun of Apulus's English. It was crude, and indeed

prejudiced. I

> was disgusted at that kind of behavior.
> Right now we're having serious issues of censorship &
> bigotry, so kindly don't tell Senator L. Arminius Faustus how he
> can campaign. He's a fine man, a fine Roman & yes a fine cultor

of

> the Religio and from Provincia Brasilia.
> I admire him enormously & a vote for him will promote the
> reform of the CP, which will permit ALL Nova Romans to

participate

> in taking auspices. Something you are against.
> bene vale
> M. Hortensia Maior
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I have been a citizen of Nova Roma for almost five years and I
> have never
> > seen a candidate for any office appeal for votes based on

regional,

> > macro-national identity or religious bigotry. We should not

start

> now.
> >
> > Nova Roma is already universal.
> >
> > Please remember the virtues of Dignitas and Gravitas as you
> campaign for Consul.
> >
> > Vale
> >
> > Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
> > Mea gloria fideles
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Lucius Arminius Faustus<mailto:lafaustus@>
> > To: nova-roma<mailto:nova-roma@yahoogroups.com<mailto:nova-

roma%40yahoogroupscom>>

> > Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2006 5:20 PM
> > Subject: [Nova-Roma] FAUSTUS FOR CONSUL, the first consul
> antipoda!
> >
> >
> > By queen Minerva, my personal devotion, by Ceres Almight,
> patroness of the
> > plebeians, and by the holy Vesta, lar of the State,
> >
> > NR is on the verge of universalization. To fullfill its goal,

we

> must assure
> > it shows all citizens we are not bounded in any country, nor
> region.
> >
> > Nova Roma has never had a consul from the South Hemisphere. It
> is a clear
> > word to all potential new citizens NR is across all globe, NR
> hasn´t
> > boundaries, everywhere there will be NR citizens for seeding

the

> roman path
> > and virtues.
> >
> > This year we made a great advance, by having a woman as

consul.

> Next year we
> > can do also a blow against another prejudice, we may have a
> Latin American
> > consul. We know sometimes in the past, some political

ideologies

> full of
> > racial prejudices had been associating the roman symbols to
> them. Electing a
> > latin american as consul is showing NOVA ROMA HAS NO PREJUDICE
> INSIDE! NOVA
> > ROMA LOATHES PREJUDICE! OUR CITIZENS DON´T ALLOW PREJUDICE ON
> THIS REPUBLIC!
> >
> > We are Romans like the old ones, with the compromise of
> universalization, to
> > get in the City what was the World. A culture that has not
> fallen, but
> > dissolved itself teaching its provinces to become countries

and

> peoples, not
> > as subjects foreveR, but as citizens. So, the Dalmatian could
> drink the
> > water of the Tagus, and the gaul be safe in the Egypt, as the
> words of
> > Seneca.
> >
> > 1 - Voting on FAUSTUS is a compromise with the

universalization

> of Nova
> > Roma... urbe et orbi.
> >
> > 2 - voting on FAUSTUS is a compromise with the roman way in

Nova

> Roma...
> > Faustus means return to the roman roots, on this hard learning
> curve we are
> > following year after year.
> >
> > For a more roman Nova Roma, Lucius Arminius Faustus for consul!
> > For a more universal Nova Roma, Lucius Arminius Faustus for
> consul!
> >
> > Valete bene in pacem deorum,
> > L. Arminius Faustus
> >
> > FAUSTUS FOR CONSUL!
> > FAUSTUS FOR CONSUL!
> > FAUSTUS FOR CONSUL!
> > FAUSTUS FOR CONSUL!
> > FAUSTUS FOR CONSUL!
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

L. Iunius M. Moravio bono sal.

Moravi, I shall have to go over this thread very soon to see what I have done to contribute
to a tone of hostility that I never intended. I must have communicated poorly. What I
meant in my last message was that you had already alleviated my concerns about the
possibility of fraud. I was concerned that you *may* have misread a hypothetical
discussion to have been intended as an indictment against the Consul--or that others may
have--but I did not intend to insist that you, or others, had misread it. I only wanted to
make sure that no one thought that I was accusing a good man of a crime that he surely
didn't commit.

Thank you for so thoroughly explaining the system to me. As a new citizen I will look over
your words carefully so that I may better understand the mechanics of our elections. I
sincerely apologize for having offended you. This was not the first time that I have been
careless in a post here. I will work on this.

Vale.

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "marcushoratius" <mhoratius@...> wrote:
>
> M Moravius L Iunio salutem
>
> I do not happen to be one who reads more into a person's words than
> what he or she writes. You asked about our electorial system.
> Errors can always occur as individuals try to do their jobs, and I
> would not take such to be nefarius in any manner. They are just
> errors. I use to be a land surveyor where we assumed that the
> possibility of human error was ever present, and thus we followed
> procedures that allowed us to discover such errors and make
> adjustments. The same when I was an intelligence analyst, we
> followed certain procedures. There is always a possibility that
> someone could try to interfer with an election, but we have in place
> a system and a process that would likely discover any irregularity,
> and a means, through the Consules and Tribuni Plebis, to deal with
> such situations.
>
> The presiding magistrate over a comitia has very little direct
> involvement with the election process. He or she calls a comitia,
> setting a schedule that is in accordance with prevailing law and our
> religious calendar. For these elections in the Comitia Centuriata
> and CPT Consul Modianus consulted with his colleague, the Tribuni
> Plebis and other magistrates on an appropriate schedule that would
> conform to law and religious considerations. The other thing that a
> presiding magistrate does is "certify" candidates, and this is done
> in two parts. First the Censores are consulted to assure that a
> candidate meets minimum requirements under the law as to age and
> membership status. The presiding magistrate then looks to see if the
> candidate met the requirements set in his or her call for
> candidates. For example, in Plebeian elections, a call for
> candidates requires that they announce their candidacies on the
> Comitia Plebis Tributa list. Most also announce to other lists, but
> the minimum requirement is that they announce on the CPT list. Then
> the presiding magistrate also contacts those other magistrates who
> handle details of election process. He would tell the Magister
> Aranearius to set up a cista, informing him of the names of any
> candidates and the wording of any proposed legislation. He would
> contact the Censores as they would handle voter codes. He would
> inform the Diribitores and Custodes to be prepared to perform their
> duties. Then the last thing for which a presiding magistrate is
> responsible is to announce the results of an election, and in
> performing that responsibility he or she would remain in contact with
> the Custodes and Diribitores on the progress of their report.
> Continatio is not really a problem since the presiding magistrate in
> any election is not directly involved in the voting process.
>
> The only place where continatio could pose the suspicion of an
> irregularity is with the actual vote count. In order to eliminate
> such a suspicion Diribitores are not permitted under law to run for
> any office. Thus this year Servilius Priscus resigned from the
> office of Diribitor in order to run as candate for Tribunus Plebis.
> He did so only after consulting with his colleagues and being assured
> that his absence would not impair the Diribitores in their duties.
> Over the Diribitores are placed the Custodes who review the vote
> counts, assure that the Diribitors arrive at the same count, without
> any discrepencies, and that these are for candidates who were earlier
> certified. Here we have a number of Diribitores, and two Custodes,
> checking and double checking one another to eliminate errors from
> their count. As for an irregularity, you'd have to have all of the
> Diribitores and then both Custodes complicent in such a thing, which
> is highly doubtful, and all it would take is one to report such a
> thing to the Consules and/or Tribuni Plebis to stop such a nefarius
> act. In addition the Consules and/or Tribuni Plebis can review
> procedures if there would arise a question on the electorial process.
>
> The other part of our electorial system is the automated system that
> assigns tracking ID's to any vote that is cast. A voter has to use a
> valid voter code in order to vote and receive a tracking ID. The
> Censores have access to voter codes since they assign these. They do
> not know the tracking ID's. The Diribitores will receive the
> tracking ID's, so they won't know how any voter code actually votes,
> and they do not know which voter code is assigned to any civis. And
> of course they therefore can't pass on any information on individual
> voters. This part of the system secures anonimity and makes it very
> difficult for anyone in the electorial process to tamper with
> results. A webmaster could potentially enter the system to try to
> match up individuals with voter codes and tracking numbers. I trust
> they wouldn't, and if they attempted anything of the sort then any
> one of those involved in the voting process might take notice.
> Actually our webmasters are one of our best safeguards as they would
> notice anyone who attempts entry into the system.
>
> You could also include here that part of the voting method that has
> us vote in tribes and centuries. An attempt to manipulate voting
> would be a difficult irregularity to achieve. Apportionment to the
> tribes and centuries is performed just prior to the election and this
> is done through an automated means. So no one is going to know
> before hand who will be in what centuries and tribes. In order to
> manipulate a vote, you'd have to go through each tribe and/or
> century, and could only do so as the election was already in
> progress. The system and procedures do not much allow such a
> possibility.
>
> So errors are always possible and we have procedures to compensate
> for these. The procedures do not entirely eliminate the possibility
> of irregularities occuring, but the system has checks in it that
> would allow for their discovery, and then the magistrates and our
> legal system could deal with it. On top of everything else you'd
> have to have an awfully dim view of our fellow Citizens to even
> suspect someone would try something irregular. I know we sometimes
> get over heated in our disputes, but we wouldn't hold such suspicions
> of fellow Citizens. The only real danger to our electorial process
> is someone from outside hacking into the system, and that would be
> quickly noticed.
>
> Now, does this address some of your concerns? And without any
> unintended implications?
>
> Vale optime
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Lucius Iunius"
> <iunius_verbosus@> wrote:
> >
> > L. Iunius M. Moravio sal.
> >
> > Your observations serve as a very valid explanation of why the
> > *hypothetical* situation that I posedâ€"a magistrate tampering with
> an
> > election over which he or she presides and in which he or she
> > runsâ€"would likely not occur. I note however that you stress the
> > errors in this election, and I fear (perhaps I am mistaken) that you
> > may have been laboring under the impression that I had suggested
> > nefarious behavior to have occurred *in this* election. I chose
> what
> > was perhaps an inopportune moment to pose an opinion concerning the
> > potential that such a thing may occur with the practice of
> > continuatio, but I never meant to imply anything other than future
> > potential.
> >
> > I am very glad to hear that so many good people are concerned with
> the
> > integrity of our elections.
> >
> >
> > Vale.
> >
> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "marcushoratius" <mhoratius@>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > Salve Luci Iuni
> > >
> > > Errors happen, irregularities can occur, but we have a system in
> > > place to deal with either. The senior consul was the presiding
> > > magistrate for these elections and he has dealt with the errors.
> The
> > > junior consul perceived that some irregularities may have
> occurred
> > > and thought to issue an intercessio. The Tribuni Plebis are also
> > > available to issue intercessio if they find errors or
> irregularities
> > > that pose to undermine the integrity of our electorial system.
> The
> > > fact is that the Tribuni have been observing the elections, have
> been
> > > in consultation with both Consules, and have been in consultation
> > > among themselves on issues related to the current elections. In
> spite
> > > of the minor errors that occurred, our electorial system is
> working
> > > correctly.
> > >
> > > Vale optime
> > > M Moravius Piscinus
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Lucius Iunius"
> > > <iunius_verbosus@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > L. Iunius Cn. Marino Censori sal.
> > > >
> > > > Ah! Good old checks and balances�"a cornerstone of the Roman
> > > system.
> > > > I'd neglected to consider them.
> > > >
> > > > In answer to your question�"I've no idea what sort of
> > > irregularities.
> > > > I guess I just had a vague notion that the system might be
> tampered
> > > > with theoretically. �"�"just throwing things out there.
> > > >
> > > > Vale.
> > > >
> > > > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Gnaeus Equitius Marinus
> <gawne@>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Salve Luci Iuni,
> > > > >
> > > > > Lucius Iunius wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > L. Iunius Cn. Marino Censori sal.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Though, as was the case in this instance, Censor, doesn't a
> > > presiding
> > > > > > magistrate have authority to resolve irregularities in an
> > > election?
> > > > >
> > > > > What do you mean by irregularities? In general the answer is
> > > yes, but
> > > > > the resolution would have to be reasonable or it could be
> vetoed
> > > by the
> > > > > magistrate's colleague(s).
> > > > >
> > > > > > Correct me if I am wrong, but is it not conceivable that a
> > > consul who
> > > > > > is presiding over an election in which he or she is running
> may
> > > make
> > > > > > an incorrect ruling for his or her own benefit in the event
> of
> > > some
> > > > > > sort of controversy?
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes, it's possible. At which point I'd expect their
> colleague to
> > > > > immediately pronounce intercessio.
> > > > >
> > > > > Vale,
> > > > >
> > > > > -- Marinus
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Is this a joke? Is this not a private list? I would think what the supreme court says has no relevance to this list and what is and isn’t allowed is governed solely by the list members.  Could be wrong but I doubt many of our members in other nation could care less what the US supreme court says.

Is this a religious organization only? It seems to me to have many facets of interest....If you take someone to the supreme court for censoring you from posting randy roman lit on an internet list...I think you wouldn’t get very far  :)

Take a deep breath, step away from the computer...and step outside into the sunshine. If this was a jokeÂ…you got meÂ…

Appius Claudius

On Thu, 09 Nov 2006 21:37:15 -0000, Maior wrote

> M. Hortensia Ti. Galerio spd;
> about CP reform you said you would vote for it if the Majority
> of the CP would, -they never vote. So that's a false promise. You
> also never clearly explained why you, not the PM or Vedius, wants to
> disenfranchise all the cives from taking auspices!
>
> > Lastly you should be aware that that a few of you posts
> > have come close to getting you placed on moderation.
>
> Paulinus, you seem to have no sense;
> here is the ruling of the U.S Supreme Court on obscenity with the
> case reference. Martial, Catullus, Juvenal, Roman mores are all
> taught in the finest universities.
>
> Serious artistic, political, or scientific value, using a national
> standard, is required for a finding that something is not obscene
> and a finding of some artistic, political or scientific value does
> not preclude a finding that a work is obscene. Pope vs. Illinois,481
> U.S 497 (1987)
> *********************************************************************
> *********************************************************************
> AND BELOW the US SUPREME COURT ON: OBSCENITY on the Internet &
> MINORS. Only Child Porn, (rightly) is prohibited. Read below.
> SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
>
> Syllabus
>
> RENO, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES, et al. v. AMERICAN
> CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION et al.
> appeal from the united states district court for the eastern
> district of pennsylvania
> No. 96-511. Argued March 19, 1997 -- Decided June 26, 1997
>
> Two provisions of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 (CDA or
> Act) seek to protect minors from harmful material on the Internet,
> an international network of interconnected computers that enables
> millions of people to communicate with one another in "cyberspace"
> and to access vast amounts of information from around the world.
> Title 47 U. S. C. A. §223(a)(1)(B)(ii) (Supp. 1997) criminalizes
> the "knowing" transmission of "obscene or indecent" messages to any
> recipient under 18 years of age. Section 223(d) prohibits the "knowin
> [g]" sending or displaying to a person under 18 of any
> message "that, in context, depicts or describes, in terms patently
> offensive as measured by contemporary community standards, sexual or
> excretory activities or organs." Affirmative defenses are provided
> for those who take "good faith, . . . effective . . . actions" to
> restrict access by minors to the prohibited communications, §223(e)
> (5)(A), and those who restrict such access by requiring certain
> designated forms of age proof, such as a verified credit card or an
> adult identification number, §223(e)(5)(B). A number of plaintiffs
> filed suit challenging the constitutionality of §§223(a)(1) and 223
> (d). After making extensive findings of fact, a three judge District
> Court convened pursuant to the Act entered a preliminary injunction
> against enforcement of both challenged provisions. The court's
> judgment enjoins the Government from enforcing §223(a)(1)(B)'s
> prohibitions insofar as they relate to "indecent" communications,
> but expressly preserves the Government's right to investigate and
> prosecute the obscenity or child pornography activities prohibited
> therein. The injunction against enforcement of §223(d) is
> unqualified because that section contains no separate reference to
> obscenity or child pornography. The Government appealed to this
> Court under the Act's special review provisions, arguing that the
> District Court erred in holding that the CDA violated both the First
> Amendment because it is overbroad and the Fifth Amendment because it
> is vague.
>
> Held: The CDA's "indecent transmission" and "patently offensive
> display" provisions abridge "the freedom of speech" protected by the
> First Amendment. Pp. 17-40.
>
> (a) Although the CDA's vagueness is relevant to the First Amendment
> overbreadth inquiry, the judgment should be affirmed without
> reaching the Fifth Amendment issue. P. 17.
>
> (b) A close look at the precedents relied on by the Government--
> Ginsberg v. New York, 390 U.S. 629; FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, 438
> U.S. 726; and Renton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc., 475 U.S. 41--
> raises, rather than relieves, doubts about the CDA's
> constitutionality. The CDA differs from the various laws and orders
> upheld in those cases in many ways, including that it does not allow
> parents to consent to their children's use of restricted materials;
> is not limited to commercial transactions; fails to provide any
> definition of "indecent" and omits any requirement that "patently
> offensive" material lack socially redeeming value; neither limits
> its broad categorical prohibitions to particular times nor bases
> them on an evaluation by an agency familiar with the medium's unique
> characteristics; is punitive; applies to a medium that, unlike
> radio, receives full First Amendment protection; and cannot be
> properly analyzed as a form of time, place, and manner regulation
> because it is a content based blanket restriction on speech. These
> precedents, then, do not require the Court to uphold the CDA and are
> fully consistent with the application of the most stringent review
> of its provisions. Pp. 17-21.
>
> (c) The special factors recognized in some of the Court's cases as
> justifying regulation of the broadcast media--the history of
> extensive government regulation of broadcasting, see, e.g., Red Lion
> Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 395 U.S. 367, 399-400; the scarcity of
> available frequencies at its inception, see, e.g., Turner
> Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC, 512 U.S. 622, 637-638; and
> its "invasive" nature, see Sable Communications of Cal., Inc. v.
> FCC, 492 U.S. 115, 128--are not present in cyberspace. Thus, these
> cases provide no basis for qualifying the level of First Amendment
> scrutiny that should be applied to the Internet. Pp. 22-24.
>
> (d) Regardless of whether the CDA is so vague that it violates the
> Fifth Amendment, the many ambiguities concerning the scope of its
> coverage render it problematic for First Amendment purposes. For
> instance, its use of the undefined terms "indecent" and "patently
> offensive" will provoke uncertainty among speakers about how the two
> standards relate to each other and just what they mean. The
> vagueness of such a content based regulation, see, e.g., Gentile v.
> State Bar of Nev., 501 U.S. 1030, coupled with its increased
> deterrent effect as a criminal statute, see, e.g., Dombrowski v.
> Pfister, 380 U.S. 479, raise special First Amendment concerns
> because of its obvious chilling effect on free speech. Contrary to
> the Government's argument, the CDA is not saved from vagueness by
> the fact that its "patently offensive" standard repeats the second
> part of the three prong obscenity test set forth in Miller v.
> California, 413 U.S. 15, 24. The second Miller prong reduces the
> inherent vagueness of its own "patently offensive" term by requiring
> that the proscribed material be "specifically defined by the
> applicable state law." In addition, the CDA applies only to "sexual
> conduct," whereas, the CDA prohibition extends also to "excretory
> activities" and "organs" of both a sexual and excretory nature. Each
> of Miller's other two prongs also critically limits the uncertain
> sweep of the obscenity definition. Just because a definition
> including three limitations is not vague, it does not follow that
> one of those limitations, standing alone, is not vague. The CDA's
> vagueness undermines the likelihood that it has been carefully
> tailored to the congressional goal of protecting minors from
> potentially harmful materials. Pp. 24-28.
>
> (e) The CDA lacks the precision that the First Amendment requires
> when a statute regulates the content of speech. Although the
> Government has an interest in protecting children from potentially
> harmful materials, see, e.g., Ginsberg, 390 U. S., at 639, the CDA
> pursues that interest by suppressing a large amount of speech that
> adults have a constitutional right to send and receive, see, e.g.,
> Sable, supra, at 126. Its breadth is wholly unprecedented. The CDA's
> burden on adult speech is unacceptable if less restrictive
> alternatives would be at least as effective in achieving the Act's
> legitimate purposes. See, e.g., Sable, 492 U. S., at 126. The
> Government has not proved otherwise. On the other hand, the District
> Court found that currently available user based software suggests
> that a reasonably effective method by which parents can prevent
> their children from accessing material which the parents believe is
> inappropriate will soon be widely available. Moreover, the arguments
> in this Court referred to possible alternatives such as requiring
> that indecent material be "tagged" to facilitate parental control,
> making exceptions for messages with artistic or educational value,
> providing some tolerance for parental choice, and regulating some
> portions of the Internet differently than others. Particularly in
> the light of the absence of any detailed congressional findings, or
> even hearings addressing the CDA's special problems, the Court is
> persuaded that the CDA is not narrowly tailored. Pp. 28-33.
>
> (f) The Government's three additional arguments for sustaining the
> CDA's affirmative prohibitions are rejected. First, the contention
> that the Act is constitutional because it leaves open
> ample "alternative channels" of communication is unpersuasive
> because the CDA regulates speech on the basis of its content, so
> that a "time, place, and manner" analysis is inapplicable. See,
> e.g., Consolidated Edison Co. of N. Y. v. Public Serv. Comm'n of N.
> Y., 447 U.S. 530, 536. Second, the assertion that the
> CDA's "knowledge" and "specific person" requirements significantly
> restrict its permissible application to communications to persons
> the sender knows to be under 18 is untenable, given that most
> Internet forums are open to all comers and that even the strongest
> reading of the "specific person" requirement would confer broad
> powers of censorship, in the form of a "heckler's veto," upon any
> opponent of indecent speech. Finally, there is no textual support
> for the submission that material having scientific, educational, or
> other redeeming social value will necessarily fall outside the CDA's
> prohibitions. Pp. 33-35.
>
> (g) The §223(e)(5) defenses do not constitute the sort of "narrow
> tailoring" that would save the CDA. The Government's argument that
> transmitters may take protective "good faith actio[n]" by "tagging"
> their indecent communications in a way that would indicate their
> contents, thus permitting recipients to block their reception with
> appropriate software, is illusory, given the requirement that such
> action be "effective": The proposed screening software does not
> currently exist, but, even if it did, there would be no way of
> knowing whether a potential recipient would actually block the
> encoded material. The Government also failed to prove that §223(b)
> (5)'s verification defense would significantly reduce the CDA's
> heavy burden on adult speech. Although such verification is actually
> being used by some commercial providers of sexually explicit
> material, the District Court's findings indicate that it is not
> economically feasible for most noncommercial speakers. Pp. 35-37.
>
> (h) The Government's argument that this Court should preserve the
> CDA's constitutionality by honoring its severability clause, §608,
> and by construing nonseverable terms narrowly, is acceptable in only
> one respect. Because obscene speech may be banned totally, see
> Miller, supra, at 18, and §223(a)'s restriction of "obscene"
> material enjoys a textual manifestation separate from that
> for "indecent" material, the Court can sever the term "or indecent"
> from the statute, leaving the rest of §223(a) standing. Pp. 37-39.
>
> (i) The Government's argument that its "significant" interest in
> fostering the Internet's growth provides an independent basis for
> upholding the CDA's constitutionality is singularly unpersuasive.
> The dramatic expansion of this new forum contradicts the factual
> basis underlying this contention: that the unregulated availability
> of "indecent" and "patently offensive" material is driving people
> away from the Internet. P. 40.
>
> 929 F. Supp. 824, affirmed.
>
> Stevens, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Scalia,
> Kennedy, Souter, Thomas, Ginsburg, and Breyer, JJ., joined.
> O'Connor, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment in part
> and dissenting in part, in which Rehnquist, C. J., joined.
>
> So Pauline, you seem not to have even examined the law when I
> mentioned it to help you.
>
> If you try & moderate me for exercising freedom of speech &
> religion. Or have you forgotten Nova Roma is a religious
> organization? Believe me I shall take this case to the ACLU.
> bene vale in voluptem priapeii
> M. Hortensia Maior
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Maior<mailto:rory12001@...>
> > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com<mailto:Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2006 10:18 PM
> > Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Prejudice in Nova Roma
> >
> >
> > M.Hortensia Ti Galerio Paulins spd;
> > I remember very well when Apulus Caesar of Italia was standing
> > for Consul, was that 2003? how Q. Fabius Maximimus and other
> Boni
> > made fun of Apulus's English. It was crude, and indeed
> prejudiced. I
> > was disgusted at that kind of behavior.
> > Right now we're having serious issues of censorship &
> > bigotry, so kindly don't tell Senator L. Arminius Faustus how he
> > can campaign. He's a fine man, a fine Roman & yes a fine cultor
> of
> > the Religio and from Provincia Brasilia.
> > I admire him enormously & a vote for him will promote the
> > reform of the CP, which will permit ALL Nova Romans to
> participate
> > in taking auspices. Something you are against.
> > bene vale
> > M. Hortensia Maior
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I have been a citizen of Nova Roma for almost five years and I
> > have never
> > > seen a candidate for any office appeal for votes based on
> regional,
> > > macro-national identity or religious bigotry. We should not
> start
> > now.
> > >
> > > Nova Roma is already universal.
> > >
> > > Please remember the virtues of Dignitas and Gravitas as you
> > campaign for Consul.
> > >
> > > Vale
> > >
> > > Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
> > > Mea gloria fideles
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: Lucius Arminius Faustus<mailto:lafaustus@>
> > > To: nova-roma<mailto:nova-roma@yahoogroups.com<mailto:nova-
> roma%40yahoogroupscom>>
> > > Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2006 5:20 PM
> > > Subject: [Nova-Roma] FAUSTUS FOR CONSUL, the first consul
> > antipoda!
> > >
> > >
> > > By queen Minerva, my personal devotion, by Ceres Almight,
> > patroness of the
> > > plebeians, and by the holy Vesta, lar of the State,
> > >
> > > NR is on the verge of universalization. To fullfill its goal,
> we
> > must assure
> > > it shows all citizens we are not bounded in any country, nor
> > region.
> > >
> > > Nova Roma has never had a consul from the South Hemisphere. It
> > is a clear
> > > word to all potential new citizens NR is across all globe, NR
> > hasn´t
> > > boundaries, everywhere there will be NR citizens for seeding
> the
> > roman path
> > > and virtues.
> > >
> > > This year we made a great advance, by having a woman as
> consul.
> > Next year we
> > > can do also a blow against another prejudice, we may have a
> > Latin American
> > > consul. We know sometimes in the past, some political
> ideologies
> > full of
> > > racial prejudices had been associating the roman symbols to
> > them. Electing a
> > > latin american as consul is showing NOVA ROMA HAS NO PREJUDICE
> > INSIDE! NOVA
> > > ROMA LOATHES PREJUDICE! OUR CITIZENS DON´T ALLOW PREJUDICE ON
> > THIS REPUBLIC!
> > >
> > > We are Romans like the old ones, with the compromise of
> > universalization, to
> > > get in the City what was the World. A culture that has not
> > fallen, but
> > > dissolved itself teaching its provinces to become countries
> and
> > peoples, not
> > > as subjects foreveR, but as citizens. So, the Dalmatian could
> > drink the
> > > water of the Tagus, and the gaul be safe in the Egypt, as the
> > words of
> > > Seneca.
> > >
> > > 1 - Voting on FAUSTUS is a compromise with the
> universalization
> > of Nova
> > > Roma... urbe et orbi.
> > >
> > > 2 - voting on FAUSTUS is a compromise with the roman way in
> Nova
> > Roma...
> > > Faustus means return to the roman roots, on this hard learning
> > curve we are
> > > following year after year.
> > >
> > > For a more roman Nova Roma, Lucius Arminius Faustus for consul!
> > > For a more universal Nova Roma, Lucius Arminius Faustus for
> > consul!
> > >
> > > Valete bene in pacem deorum,
> > > L. Arminius Faustus
> > >
> > > FAUSTUS FOR CONSUL!
> > > FAUSTUS FOR CONSUL!
> > > FAUSTUS FOR CONSUL!
> > > FAUSTUS FOR CONSUL!
> > > FAUSTUS FOR CONSUL!
> > >
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Iulius Crassus SPD :

I'm in ! I hope to represent again Rusata with honor.

Valete.
Iulius S. Crassus
Rusata.


--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Julilla Sempronia Magna"
<julilla@...> wrote:

>
> REMINDER
>
> You have three days to submit your race information for the Ludi
> Circenses! Deadline is 12 November.

Salve,

You are entirely correct, Appius Claudius; the First Amendment is often
misunderstood this way. What some people don't (or refuse to) understand
is that the First Amendment applies to restrictions on the freedom of
speech imposed by the _government_. Private means of communication;
newspapers, web sites, email lists, and (to a lesser extent because they
are deemed to use the "public airwaves") television and radio stations
are not compelled by the First Amendment or anything else to be
wide-open fora.

It's much the same thing when charges of "censorship" are leveled. It's
only censorship when the Government does it. Otherwise it's called
"editorial control."

Likewise the First Amendment. The Government cannot restrict most forms
of speech. Private individuals absolutely can.

To bring this into a Nova Roman context, I will point out that the
Constitution specifically states that the right to free speech in Nova
Roma applies only to "officialy sponsored fora." If one maintains a
private email list, blog, or some other form of comunication that is not
"official" (like this email list happens to be), then the owner of said
forum is free to impose whatever restrictions they see fit. And if one
does not like those restrictions, one is equally free to go someplace
else, or start their own.

Vale,

Flavius Vedius Germanicus
Pater Patriae
Consular
Senator, and...

Candidate for Consul:
http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Flavius_Vedius_Germanicus_(Election_MMDCCLIX)

drumax wrote:

>Is this a joke? Is this not a private list? I would think what the supreme court says has no relevance to this list and what is and isn’t allowed is governed solely by the list members. Could be wrong but I doubt many of our members in other nation could care less what the US supreme court says.
>
>Is this a religious organization only? It seems to me to have many facets of interest....If you take someone to the supreme court for censoring you from posting randy roman lit on an internet list...I think you wouldn’t get very far :)
>
>Take a deep breath, step away from the computer...and step outside into the sunshine. If this was a joke…you got me…
>
>Appius Claudius
>
>On Thu, 09 Nov 2006 21:37:15 -0000, Maior wrote
>
>
>>M. Hortensia Ti. Galerio spd;
>>about CP reform you said you would vote for it if the Majority
>>of the CP would, -they never vote. So that's a false promise. You
>>also never clearly explained why you, not the PM or Vedius, wants to
>>disenfranchise all the cives from taking auspices!
>>
>>
>>
>>>Lastly you should be aware that that a few of you posts
>>>have come close to getting you placed on moderation.
>>>
>>>
>>Paulinus, you seem to have no sense;
>>here is the ruling of the U.S Supreme Court on obscenity with the
>>case reference. Martial, Catullus, Juvenal, Roman mores are all
>>taught in the finest universities.
>>
>>Serious artistic, political, or scientific value, using a national
>>standard, is required for a finding that something is not obscene
>>and a finding of some artistic, political or scientific value does
>>not preclude a finding that a work is obscene. Pope vs. Illinois,481
>>U.S 497 (1987)
>>*********************************************************************
>>*********************************************************************
>>AND BELOW the US SUPREME COURT ON: OBSCENITY on the Internet &
>>MINORS. Only Child Porn, (rightly) is prohibited. Read below.
>>SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
>>
>>Syllabus
>>
>>RENO, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES, et al. v. AMERICAN
>>CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION et al.
>>appeal from the united states district court for the eastern
>>district of pennsylvania
>>No. 96-511. Argued March 19, 1997 -- Decided June 26, 1997
>>
>>Two provisions of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 (CDA or
>>Act) seek to protect minors from harmful material on the Internet,
>>an international network of interconnected computers that enables
>>millions of people to communicate with one another in "cyberspace"
>>and to access vast amounts of information from around the world.
>>Title 47 U. S. C. A. §223(a)(1)(B)(ii) (Supp. 1997) criminalizes
>>the "knowing" transmission of "obscene or indecent" messages to any
>>recipient under 18 years of age. Section 223(d) prohibits the "knowin
>>[g]" sending or displaying to a person under 18 of any
>>message "that, in context, depicts or describes, in terms patently
>>offensive as measured by contemporary community standards, sexual or
>>excretory activities or organs." Affirmative defenses are provided
>>for those who take "good faith, . . . effective . . . actions" to
>>restrict access by minors to the prohibited communications, §223(e)
>>(5)(A), and those who restrict such access by requiring certain
>>designated forms of age proof, such as a verified credit card or an
>>adult identification number, §223(e)(5)(B). A number of plaintiffs
>>filed suit challenging the constitutionality of §§223(a)(1) and 223
>>(d). After making extensive findings of fact, a three judge District
>>Court convened pursuant to the Act entered a preliminary injunction
>>against enforcement of both challenged provisions. The court's
>>judgment enjoins the Government from enforcing §223(a)(1)(B)'s
>>prohibitions insofar as they relate to "indecent" communications,
>>but expressly preserves the Government's right to investigate and
>>prosecute the obscenity or child pornography activities prohibited
>>therein. The injunction against enforcement of §223(d) is
>>unqualified because that section contains no separate reference to
>>obscenity or child pornography. The Government appealed to this
>>Court under the Act's special review provisions, arguing that the
>>District Court erred in holding that the CDA violated both the First
>>Amendment because it is overbroad and the Fifth Amendment because it
>>is vague.
>>
>>Held: The CDA's "indecent transmission" and "patently offensive
>>display" provisions abridge "the freedom of speech" protected by the
>>First Amendment. Pp. 17-40.
>>
>>(a) Although the CDA's vagueness is relevant to the First Amendment
>>overbreadth inquiry, the judgment should be affirmed without
>>reaching the Fifth Amendment issue. P. 17.
>>
>>(b) A close look at the precedents relied on by the Government--
>>Ginsberg v. New York, 390 U.S. 629; FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, 438
>>U.S. 726; and Renton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc., 475 U.S. 41--
>>raises, rather than relieves, doubts about the CDA's
>>constitutionality. The CDA differs from the various laws and orders
>>upheld in those cases in many ways, including that it does not allow
>>parents to consent to their children's use of restricted materials;
>>is not limited to commercial transactions; fails to provide any
>>definition of "indecent" and omits any requirement that "patently
>>offensive" material lack socially redeeming value; neither limits
>>its broad categorical prohibitions to particular times nor bases
>>them on an evaluation by an agency familiar with the medium's unique
>>characteristics; is punitive; applies to a medium that, unlike
>>radio, receives full First Amendment protection; and cannot be
>>properly analyzed as a form of time, place, and manner regulation
>>because it is a content based blanket restriction on speech. These
>>precedents, then, do not require the Court to uphold the CDA and are
>>fully consistent with the application of the most stringent review
>>of its provisions. Pp. 17-21.
>>
>>(c) The special factors recognized in some of the Court's cases as
>>justifying regulation of the broadcast media--the history of
>>extensive government regulation of broadcasting, see, e.g., Red Lion
>>Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 395 U.S. 367, 399-400; the scarcity of
>>available frequencies at its inception, see, e.g., Turner
>>Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC, 512 U.S. 622, 637-638; and
>>its "invasive" nature, see Sable Communications of Cal., Inc. v.
>>FCC, 492 U.S. 115, 128--are not present in cyberspace. Thus, these
>>cases provide no basis for qualifying the level of First Amendment
>>scrutiny that should be applied to the Internet. Pp. 22-24.
>>
>>(d) Regardless of whether the CDA is so vague that it violates the
>>Fifth Amendment, the many ambiguities concerning the scope of its
>>coverage render it problematic for First Amendment purposes. For
>>instance, its use of the undefined terms "indecent" and "patently
>>offensive" will provoke uncertainty among speakers about how the two
>>standards relate to each other and just what they mean. The
>>vagueness of such a content based regulation, see, e.g., Gentile v.
>>State Bar of Nev., 501 U.S. 1030, coupled with its increased
>>deterrent effect as a criminal statute, see, e.g., Dombrowski v.
>>Pfister, 380 U.S. 479, raise special First Amendment concerns
>>because of its obvious chilling effect on free speech. Contrary to
>>the Government's argument, the CDA is not saved from vagueness by
>>the fact that its "patently offensive" standard repeats the second
>>part of the three prong obscenity test set forth in Miller v.
>>California, 413 U.S. 15, 24. The second Miller prong reduces the
>>inherent vagueness of its own "patently offensive" term by requiring
>>that the proscribed material be "specifically defined by the
>>applicable state law." In addition, the CDA applies only to "sexual
>>conduct," whereas, the CDA prohibition extends also to "excretory
>>activities" and "organs" of both a sexual and excretory nature. Each
>>of Miller's other two prongs also critically limits the uncertain
>>sweep of the obscenity definition. Just because a definition
>>including three limitations is not vague, it does not follow that
>>one of those limitations, standing alone, is not vague. The CDA's
>>vagueness undermines the likelihood that it has been carefully
>>tailored to the congressional goal of protecting minors from
>>potentially harmful materials. Pp. 24-28.
>>
>>(e) The CDA lacks the precision that the First Amendment requires
>>when a statute regulates the content of speech. Although the
>>Government has an interest in protecting children from potentially
>>harmful materials, see, e.g., Ginsberg, 390 U. S., at 639, the CDA
>>pursues that interest by suppressing a large amount of speech that
>>adults have a constitutional right to send and receive, see, e.g.,
>>Sable, supra, at 126. Its breadth is wholly unprecedented. The CDA's
>>burden on adult speech is unacceptable if less restrictive
>>alternatives would be at least as effective in achieving the Act's
>>legitimate purposes. See, e.g., Sable, 492 U. S., at 126. The
>>Government has not proved otherwise. On the other hand, the District
>>Court found that currently available user based software suggests
>>that a reasonably effective method by which parents can prevent
>>their children from accessing material which the parents believe is
>>inappropriate will soon be widely available. Moreover, the arguments
>>in this Court referred to possible alternatives such as requiring
>>that indecent material be "tagged" to facilitate parental control,
>>making exceptions for messages with artistic or educational value,
>>providing some tolerance for parental choice, and regulating some
>>portions of the Internet differently than others. Particularly in
>>the light of the absence of any detailed congressional findings, or
>>even hearings addressing the CDA's special problems, the Court is
>>persuaded that the CDA is not narrowly tailored. Pp. 28-33.
>>
>>(f) The Government's three additional arguments for sustaining the
>>CDA's affirmative prohibitions are rejected. First, the contention
>>that the Act is constitutional because it leaves open
>>ample "alternative channels" of communication is unpersuasive
>>because the CDA regulates speech on the basis of its content, so
>>that a "time, place, and manner" analysis is inapplicable. See,
>>e.g., Consolidated Edison Co. of N. Y. v. Public Serv. Comm'n of N.
>>Y., 447 U.S. 530, 536. Second, the assertion that the
>>CDA's "knowledge" and "specific person" requirements significantly
>>restrict its permissible application to communications to persons
>>the sender knows to be under 18 is untenable, given that most
>>Internet forums are open to all comers and that even the strongest
>>reading of the "specific person" requirement would confer broad
>>powers of censorship, in the form of a "heckler's veto," upon any
>>opponent of indecent speech. Finally, there is no textual support
>>for the submission that material having scientific, educational, or
>>other redeeming social value will necessarily fall outside the CDA's
>>prohibitions. Pp. 33-35.
>>
>>(g) The §223(e)(5) defenses do not constitute the sort of "narrow
>>tailoring" that would save the CDA. The Government's argument that
>>transmitters may take protective "good faith actio[n]" by "tagging"
>>their indecent communications in a way that would indicate their
>>contents, thus permitting recipients to block their reception with
>>appropriate software, is illusory, given the requirement that such
>>action be "effective": The proposed screening software does not
>>currently exist, but, even if it did, there would be no way of
>>knowing whether a potential recipient would actually block the
>>encoded material. The Government also failed to prove that §223(b)
>>(5)'s verification defense would significantly reduce the CDA's
>>heavy burden on adult speech. Although such verification is actually
>>being used by some commercial providers of sexually explicit
>>material, the District Court's findings indicate that it is not
>>economically feasible for most noncommercial speakers. Pp. 35-37.
>>
>>(h) The Government's argument that this Court should preserve the
>>CDA's constitutionality by honoring its severability clause, §608,
>>and by construing nonseverable terms narrowly, is acceptable in only
>>one respect. Because obscene speech may be banned totally, see
>>Miller, supra, at 18, and §223(a)'s restriction of "obscene"
>>material enjoys a textual manifestation separate from that
>>for "indecent" material, the Court can sever the term "or indecent"
>>from the statute, leaving the rest of §223(a) standing. Pp. 37-39.
>>
>>(i) The Government's argument that its "significant" interest in
>>fostering the Internet's growth provides an independent basis for
>>upholding the CDA's constitutionality is singularly unpersuasive.
>>The dramatic expansion of this new forum contradicts the factual
>>basis underlying this contention: that the unregulated availability
>>of "indecent" and "patently offensive" material is driving people
>>away from the Internet. P. 40.
>>
>>929 F. Supp. 824, affirmed.
>>
>>Stevens, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Scalia,
>>Kennedy, Souter, Thomas, Ginsburg, and Breyer, JJ., joined.
>>O'Connor, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment in part
>>and dissenting in part, in which Rehnquist, C. J., joined.
>>
>>So Pauline, you seem not to have even examined the law when I
>>mentioned it to help you.
>>
>>If you try & moderate me for exercising freedom of speech &
>>religion. Or have you forgotten Nova Roma is a religious
>>organization? Believe me I shall take this case to the ACLU.
>>bene vale in voluptem priapeii
>>M. Hortensia Maior
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>----- Original Message -----
>>>From: Maior<mailto:rory12001@...>
>>>To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com<mailto:Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com>
>>>Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2006 10:18 PM
>>>Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Prejudice in Nova Roma
>>>
>>>
>>>M.Hortensia Ti Galerio Paulins spd;
>>>I remember very well when Apulus Caesar of Italia was standing
>>>for Consul, was that 2003? how Q. Fabius Maximimus and other
>>>
>>>
>>Boni
>>
>>
>>>made fun of Apulus's English. It was crude, and indeed
>>>
>>>
>>prejudiced. I
>>
>>
>>>was disgusted at that kind of behavior.
>>>Right now we're having serious issues of censorship &
>>>bigotry, so kindly don't tell Senator L. Arminius Faustus how he
>>>can campaign. He's a fine man, a fine Roman & yes a fine cultor
>>>
>>>
>>of
>>
>>
>>>the Religio and from Provincia Brasilia.
>>>I admire him enormously & a vote for him will promote the
>>>reform of the CP, which will permit ALL Nova Romans to
>>>
>>>
>>participate
>>
>>
>>>in taking auspices. Something you are against.
>>>bene vale
>>>M. Hortensia Maior
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I have been a citizen of Nova Roma for almost five years and I
>>>>
>>>>
>>>have never
>>>
>>>
>>>>seen a candidate for any office appeal for votes based on
>>>>
>>>>
>>regional,
>>
>>
>>>>macro-national identity or religious bigotry. We should not
>>>>
>>>>
>>start
>>
>>
>>>now.
>>>
>>>
>>>>Nova Roma is already universal.
>>>>
>>>>Please remember the virtues of Dignitas and Gravitas as you
>>>>
>>>>
>>>campaign for Consul.
>>>
>>>
>>>>Vale
>>>>
>>>>Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
>>>>Mea gloria fideles
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>----- Original Message -----
>>>>From: Lucius Arminius Faustus<mailto:lafaustus@>
>>>>To: nova-roma<mailto:nova-roma@yahoogroups.com<mailto:nova-
>>>>
>>>>
>>roma%40yahoogroupscom>>
>>
>>
>>>>Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2006 5:20 PM
>>>>Subject: [Nova-Roma] FAUSTUS FOR CONSUL, the first consul
>>>>
>>>>
>>>antipoda!
>>>
>>>
>>>>By queen Minerva, my personal devotion, by Ceres Almight,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>patroness of the
>>>
>>>
>>>>plebeians, and by the holy Vesta, lar of the State,
>>>>
>>>>NR is on the verge of universalization. To fullfill its goal,
>>>>
>>>>
>>we
>>
>>
>>>must assure
>>>
>>>
>>>>it shows all citizens we are not bounded in any country, nor
>>>>
>>>>
>>>region.
>>>
>>>
>>>>Nova Roma has never had a consul from the South Hemisphere. It
>>>>
>>>>
>>>is a clear
>>>
>>>
>>>>word to all potential new citizens NR is across all globe, NR
>>>>
>>>>
>>>hasn´t
>>>
>>>
>>>>boundaries, everywhere there will be NR citizens for seeding
>>>>
>>>>
>>the
>>
>>
>>>roman path
>>>
>>>
>>>>and virtues.
>>>>
>>>>This year we made a great advance, by having a woman as
>>>>
>>>>
>>consul.
>>
>>
>>>Next year we
>>>
>>>
>>>>can do also a blow against another prejudice, we may have a
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Latin American
>>>
>>>
>>>>consul. We know sometimes in the past, some political
>>>>
>>>>
>>ideologies
>>
>>
>>>full of
>>>
>>>
>>>>racial prejudices had been associating the roman symbols to
>>>>
>>>>
>>>them. Electing a
>>>
>>>
>>>>latin american as consul is showing NOVA ROMA HAS NO PREJUDICE
>>>>
>>>>
>>>INSIDE! NOVA
>>>
>>>
>>>>ROMA LOATHES PREJUDICE! OUR CITIZENS DON´T ALLOW PREJUDICE ON
>>>>
>>>>
>>>THIS REPUBLIC!
>>>
>>>
>>>>We are Romans like the old ones, with the compromise of
>>>>
>>>>
>>>universalization, to
>>>
>>>
>>>>get in the City what was the World. A culture that has not
>>>>
>>>>
>>>fallen, but
>>>
>>>
>>>>dissolved itself teaching its provinces to become countries
>>>>
>>>>
>>and
>>
>>
>>>peoples, not
>>>
>>>
>>>>as subjects foreveR, but as citizens. So, the Dalmatian could
>>>>
>>>>
>>>drink the
>>>
>>>
>>>>water of the Tagus, and the gaul be safe in the Egypt, as the
>>>>
>>>>
>>>words of
>>>
>>>
>>>>Seneca.
>>>>
>>>>1 - Voting on FAUSTUS is a compromise with the
>>>>
>>>>
>>universalization
>>
>>
>>>of Nova
>>>
>>>
>>>>Roma... urbe et orbi.
>>>>
>>>>2 - voting on FAUSTUS is a compromise with the roman way in
>>>>
>>>>
>>Nova
>>
>>
>>>Roma...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Faustus means return to the roman roots, on this hard learning
>>>>
>>>>
>>>curve we are
>>>
>>>
>>>>following year after year.
>>>>
>>>>For a more roman Nova Roma, Lucius Arminius Faustus for consul!
>>>>For a more universal Nova Roma, Lucius Arminius Faustus for
>>>>
>>>>
>>>consul!
>>>
>>>
>>>>Valete bene in pacem deorum,
>>>>L. Arminius Faustus
>>>>
>>>>FAUSTUS FOR CONSUL!
>>>>FAUSTUS FOR CONSUL!
>>>>FAUSTUS FOR CONSUL!
>>>>FAUSTUS FOR CONSUL!
>>>>FAUSTUS FOR CONSUL!
>>>>
>>>>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Salve, Pauline,

By Concordia, Pax et Salus,

Unfortunatetly, You have mistaken my arguments. I have in no time said there
was prejudice in NR. I said there were political systens that associated
roman things with its governments... like some on the 30 decade... So, it is
very good keep things clear. Between other benefits of Faustus consul, it
will be an out-door to assure ´new citizens´ there isn´t prejudice in NR.
And we know there is prejudice against Latin Americans, not here, but a bit
cultural on the macronational affairs. Unfortunately. (No examples, I dont
want to enter such discussion.)

And, there isn´t prejudice because we keep vigilant. We have recently issued
a nota to a neo-nazi that wanted to raise its warped ideas here.

And allowing citizens all the world to raise cursus honorum is a merit of
NR. Raising to the top, ie, the consulship, is other merit.

Unfortunately, I don´t agree with your comments, and I assure your
interpretation is completely different of my goals.

I´m sorry to say, but you have over-reacted.

And no, NR still hasn´t fullfilled its universal goal, just see the numbers
by country. It is just number, fact. Even the language we speak here is a
block to citizens worldwide (although I understand we cannot do more, other
than learning latin and trying to have more translators than never). And
country makes a difference as well. Cicero´s family wasn´t of Rome. Trajan
was spanish, every historian says it was a milestone in the
History. Everytime an institution can bring leaders from other places, it
gains in worldwide stature.

I keep Gravitas and Dignitas, more than never.
Not a question to be our not proud of heritages, but to make this, in fact,
the domus of all heritages.

Valete bene in pacem deorum,
L. Arminius Faustus
FAUSTUS FOR CONSUL!


2006/11/9, Stephen Gallagher <spqr753@...>:

>
> Salve L. Arminius Faustus who said in part
>
> "Next year we can do also a blow against another prejudice,
> we may have a Latin American consul"
>
> Amice
>
> There is no prejudice in Nova Roma.
>
> The fact is no other Nova Roman from Latin America has ever stood
> for Consul, you are the first to do so.
>
> Our very good Senator Marcus Arminius Maior, also from Latin America,
> is serving his second term as Tribune, he has been Praetor
> as well as Aedilis Plebis. Unfortunately for Nova Roma he has never
> stood for Consul. If he had I believe he would have won election.
> Nova Romans can not vote for someone who does not stand.
>
> I know you take pride in your heritage, you should , we all do
> and I know you believe that Nova Roma should be free
> from prejudices of any kind but please,
>
> sometimes your rhetoric is over the top even for your friends.
>
> Please remember you are standing for Consul of Nova Roma
> not for the Latin American Consul of Nova Roma.
>
> I have been a citizen of Nova Roma for almost five years and I have never
> seen a candidate for any office appeal for votes based on regional,
> macro-national identity or religious bigotry. We should not start now.
>
> Nova Roma is already universal.
>
> Please remember the virtues of Dignitas and Gravitas as you campaign for
> Consul.
>
> Vale
>
> Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
> Mea gloria fideles
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Lucius Arminius Faustus<mailto:lafaustus@...<lafaustus%40gmail.com>>
>
> To: nova-roma<mailto:nova-roma@yahoogroups.com<nova-roma%40yahoogroups.com>>
>
> Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2006 5:20 PM
> Subject: [Nova-Roma] FAUSTUS FOR CONSUL, the first consul antipoda!
>
> By queen Minerva, my personal devotion, by Ceres Almight, patroness of the
> plebeians, and by the holy Vesta, lar of the State,
>
> NR is on the verge of universalization. To fullfill its goal, we must
> assure
> it shows all citizens we are not bounded in any country, nor region.
>
> Nova Roma has never had a consul from the South Hemisphere. It is a clear
> word to all potential new citizens NR is across all globe, NR hasn´t
> boundaries, everywhere there will be NR citizens for seeding the roman
> path
> and virtues.
>
> This year we made a great advance, by having a woman as consul. Next year
> we
> can do also a blow against another prejudice, we may have a Latin American
> consul. We know sometimes in the past, some political ideologies full of
> racial prejudices had been associating the roman symbols to them. Electing
> a
> latin american as consul is showing NOVA ROMA HAS NO PREJUDICE INSIDE!
> NOVA
> ROMA LOATHES PREJUDICE! OUR CITIZENS DON´T ALLOW PREJUDICE ON THIS
> REPUBLIC!
>
> We are Romans like the old ones, with the compromise of universalization,
> to
> get in the City what was the World. A culture that has not fallen, but
> dissolved itself teaching its provinces to become countries and peoples,
> not
> as subjects foreveR, but as citizens. So, the Dalmatian could drink the
> water of the Tagus, and the gaul be safe in the Egypt, as the words of
> Seneca.
>
> 1 - Voting on FAUSTUS is a compromise with the universalization of Nova
> Roma... urbe et orbi.
>
> 2 - voting on FAUSTUS is a compromise with the roman way in Nova Roma...
> Faustus means return to the roman roots, on this hard learning curve we
> are
> following year after year.
>
> For a more roman Nova Roma, Lucius Arminius Faustus for consul!
> For a more universal Nova Roma, Lucius Arminius Faustus for consul!
>
> Valete bene in pacem deorum,
> L. Arminius Faustus
>
> FAUSTUS FOR CONSUL!
> FAUSTUS FOR CONSUL!
> FAUSTUS FOR CONSUL!
> FAUSTUS FOR CONSUL!
> FAUSTUS FOR CONSUL!
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "drumax" <drumax@...> wrote:

>
> Is this a joke? Is this not a private list? I would think what the

supreme court says has no relevance to this list and what is and isn't
allowed is governed solely by the list members. Could be wrong but I
doubt many of our members in other nation could care less what the US
supreme court says.

>

Salve!

What the US Supreme Court says *is* important in that it establishes
the legal framework under which Yahoo governs the terms and conditions
of these groups. (Yahoo is based in the USA.)

The post was pointing out that US laws cannot be used as a reason to
limit certain kinds of discussion here. In short, legitimate
discussion of classical authors (regardless of the subject matter
treated by those authors) would never violate the standards of
"decency" and therefore would not trigger action by Yahoo against the
owners of this group.

In short, in the matter of the discussion in question, Yahoo's terms
regarding adult content do not come into play and hence cannot be used
as a rationale for prohibiting the discussion.

This is the same protection I enjoy as a university instructor. If it
is part of my course, I can show Greek vase painting without worrying
about prosecution under obscenity laws. Museums likewise, as the
location in the museum establishes the context. (In other words, it is
reasonable to expect to see naked people in art in museums.)

In my view, we have a double shield. First, the nature of our group
indicates that this literature falls within the scope of things one
might reasonably expect (like a museum). Also, legitimate discussion
of the classics anywhere is protected.

So the point of all the legal stuff, as far as I understand it, was to
establish that US laws do not interfere with us, just as you have said
in the quote above. In our discussion of what is or os not permitted,
the threat of action under US law cannot be used as an arguement.

I am not a lawyer, so this is all just my take on it. This is not
legal advice.

optime vale

Agricola

Salvete, citizens,

Let me use this space to my deep satisfaction and show publicaly the
satisfaction and happyness this Republic has by having such excellent
citizens to program our Cista. From the time I have been a citizen of NR,
our voting on-line is really a thing to be proud. My deepest
congratulations.

Also, I must praise our Legislation current status of the Lex Centuriata. I
was reading Coulanges to read a bit (a bit of studying, no??? :) ) about the
religious duties of the consul, since I am applying this magistrature.

Coulanges says, apud Dionisius, the �people couldn�t vote in any name the
presiding magistrate had not said when calling them�. The explanation is
because the presiding magistrate had taken the auspices for these names, and
these names were dearly to the gods.

So, our Lex is very accurate when it doesn�t allow write-in votes. Because
they are auspiceless votes. Only the names the presiding magistrate says
when convening the Comitia are names with auspices.

Valete,
L. Arminius Faustus

Ps - Another thing the most interesting Coulanges says: When a consul was
�created� (this is the term) without due procedures, the Senate just ASKED
him to renounce. After the consul renouncing, new elections could proceed.
This have happened +- 3 times in Republic history...


2006/11/9, Lucius Iunius <iunius_verbosus@...>:

>
> L. Iunius M. Moravio bono sal.
>
> Moravi, I shall have to go over this thread very soon to see what I have
> done to contribute
> to a tone of hostility that I never intended. I must have communicated
> poorly. What I
> meant in my last message was that you had already alleviated my concerns
> about the
> possibility of fraud. I was concerned that you *may* have misread a
> hypothetical
> discussion to have been intended as an indictment against the Consul--or
> that others may
> have--but I did not intend to insist that you, or others, had misread it.
> I only wanted to
> make sure that no one thought that I was accusing a good man of a crime
> that he surely
> didn't commit.
>
> Thank you for so thoroughly explaining the system to me. As a new citizen
> I will look over
> your words carefully so that I may better understand the mechanics of our
> elections. I
> sincerely apologize for having offended you. This was not the first time
> that I have been
> careless in a post here. I will work on this.
>
> Vale.
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>,
> "marcushoratius" <mhoratius@...> wrote:
> >
> > M Moravius L Iunio salutem
> >
> > I do not happen to be one who reads more into a person's words than
> > what he or she writes. You asked about our electorial system.
> > Errors can always occur as individuals try to do their jobs, and I
> > would not take such to be nefarius in any manner. They are just
> > errors. I use to be a land surveyor where we assumed that the
> > possibility of human error was ever present, and thus we followed
> > procedures that allowed us to discover such errors and make
> > adjustments. The same when I was an intelligence analyst, we
> > followed certain procedures. There is always a possibility that
> > someone could try to interfer with an election, but we have in place
> > a system and a process that would likely discover any irregularity,
> > and a means, through the Consules and Tribuni Plebis, to deal with
> > such situations.
> >
> > The presiding magistrate over a comitia has very little direct
> > involvement with the election process. He or she calls a comitia,
> > setting a schedule that is in accordance with prevailing law and our
> > religious calendar. For these elections in the Comitia Centuriata
> > and CPT Consul Modianus consulted with his colleague, the Tribuni
> > Plebis and other magistrates on an appropriate schedule that would
> > conform to law and religious considerations. The other thing that a
> > presiding magistrate does is "certify" candidates, and this is done
> > in two parts. First the Censores are consulted to assure that a
> > candidate meets minimum requirements under the law as to age and
> > membership status. The presiding magistrate then looks to see if the
> > candidate met the requirements set in his or her call for
> > candidates. For example, in Plebeian elections, a call for
> > candidates requires that they announce their candidacies on the
> > Comitia Plebis Tributa list. Most also announce to other lists, but
> > the minimum requirement is that they announce on the CPT list. Then
> > the presiding magistrate also contacts those other magistrates who
> > handle details of election process. He would tell the Magister
> > Aranearius to set up a cista, informing him of the names of any
> > candidates and the wording of any proposed legislation. He would
> > contact the Censores as they would handle voter codes. He would
> > inform the Diribitores and Custodes to be prepared to perform their
> > duties. Then the last thing for which a presiding magistrate is
> > responsible is to announce the results of an election, and in
> > performing that responsibility he or she would remain in contact with
> > the Custodes and Diribitores on the progress of their report.
> > Continatio is not really a problem since the presiding magistrate in
> > any election is not directly involved in the voting process.
> >
> > The only place where continatio could pose the suspicion of an
> > irregularity is with the actual vote count. In order to eliminate
> > such a suspicion Diribitores are not permitted under law to run for
> > any office. Thus this year Servilius Priscus resigned from the
> > office of Diribitor in order to run as candate for Tribunus Plebis.
> > He did so only after consulting with his colleagues and being assured
> > that his absence would not impair the Diribitores in their duties.
> > Over the Diribitores are placed the Custodes who review the vote
> > counts, assure that the Diribitors arrive at the same count, without
> > any discrepencies, and that these are for candidates who were earlier
> > certified. Here we have a number of Diribitores, and two Custodes,
> > checking and double checking one another to eliminate errors from
> > their count. As for an irregularity, you'd have to have all of the
> > Diribitores and then both Custodes complicent in such a thing, which
> > is highly doubtful, and all it would take is one to report such a
> > thing to the Consules and/or Tribuni Plebis to stop such a nefarius
> > act. In addition the Consules and/or Tribuni Plebis can review
> > procedures if there would arise a question on the electorial process.
> >
> > The other part of our electorial system is the automated system that
> > assigns tracking ID's to any vote that is cast. A voter has to use a
> > valid voter code in order to vote and receive a tracking ID. The
> > Censores have access to voter codes since they assign these. They do
> > not know the tracking ID's. The Diribitores will receive the
> > tracking ID's, so they won't know how any voter code actually votes,
> > and they do not know which voter code is assigned to any civis. And
> > of course they therefore can't pass on any information on individual
> > voters. This part of the system secures anonimity and makes it very
> > difficult for anyone in the electorial process to tamper with
> > results. A webmaster could potentially enter the system to try to
> > match up individuals with voter codes and tracking numbers. I trust
> > they wouldn't, and if they attempted anything of the sort then any
> > one of those involved in the voting process might take notice.
> > Actually our webmasters are one of our best safeguards as they would
> > notice anyone who attempts entry into the system.
> >
> > You could also include here that part of the voting method that has
> > us vote in tribes and centuries. An attempt to manipulate voting
> > would be a difficult irregularity to achieve. Apportionment to the
> > tribes and centuries is performed just prior to the election and this
> > is done through an automated means. So no one is going to know
> > before hand who will be in what centuries and tribes. In order to
> > manipulate a vote, you'd have to go through each tribe and/or
> > century, and could only do so as the election was already in
> > progress. The system and procedures do not much allow such a
> > possibility.
> >
> > So errors are always possible and we have procedures to compensate
> > for these. The procedures do not entirely eliminate the possibility
> > of irregularities occuring, but the system has checks in it that
> > would allow for their discovery, and then the magistrates and our
> > legal system could deal with it. On top of everything else you'd
> > have to have an awfully dim view of our fellow Citizens to even
> > suspect someone would try something irregular. I know we sometimes
> > get over heated in our disputes, but we wouldn't hold such suspicions
> > of fellow Citizens. The only real danger to our electorial process
> > is someone from outside hacking into the system, and that would be
> > quickly noticed.
> >
> > Now, does this address some of your concerns? And without any
> > unintended implications?
> >
> > Vale optime
> >
> >
> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>, "Lucius
> Iunius"
> > <iunius_verbosus@> wrote:
> > >
> > > L. Iunius M. Moravio sal.
> > >
> > > Your observations serve as a very valid explanation of why the
> > > *hypothetical* situation that I posed��"a magistrate tampering with
> > an
> > > election over which he or she presides and in which he or she
> > > runs��"would likely not occur. I note however that you stress the
> > > errors in this election, and I fear (perhaps I am mistaken) that you
> > > may have been laboring under the impression that I had suggested
> > > nefarious behavior to have occurred *in this* election. I chose
> > what
> > > was perhaps an inopportune moment to pose an opinion concerning the
> > > potential that such a thing may occur with the practice of
> > > continuatio, but I never meant to imply anything other than future
> > > potential.
> > >
> > > I am very glad to hear that so many good people are concerned with
> > the
> > > integrity of our elections.
> > >
> > >
> > > Vale.
> > >
> > > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>,
> "marcushoratius" <mhoratius@>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Salve Luci Iuni
> > > >
> > > > Errors happen, irregularities can occur, but we have a system in
> > > > place to deal with either. The senior consul was the presiding
> > > > magistrate for these elections and he has dealt with the errors.
> > The
> > > > junior consul perceived that some irregularities may have
> > occurred
> > > > and thought to issue an intercessio. The Tribuni Plebis are also
> > > > available to issue intercessio if they find errors or
> > irregularities
> > > > that pose to undermine the integrity of our electorial system.
> > The
> > > > fact is that the Tribuni have been observing the elections, have
> > been
> > > > in consultation with both Consules, and have been in consultation
> > > > among themselves on issues related to the current elections. In
> > spite
> > > > of the minor errors that occurred, our electorial system is
> > working
> > > > correctly.
> > > >
> > > > Vale optime
> > > > M Moravius Piscinus
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>,
> "Lucius Iunius"
> > > > <iunius_verbosus@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > L. Iunius Cn. Marino Censori sal.
> > > > >
> > > > > Ah! Good old checks and balances���"a cornerstone of the Roman
> > > > system.
> > > > > I'd neglected to consider them.
> > > > >
> > > > > In answer to your question���"I've no idea what sort of
> > > > irregularities.
> > > > > I guess I just had a vague notion that the system might be
> > tampered
> > > > > with theoretically. ���"���"just throwing things out there.
> > > > >
> > > > > Vale.
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>,
> Gnaeus Equitius Marinus
> > <gawne@>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Salve Luci Iuni,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Lucius Iunius wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > L. Iunius Cn. Marino Censori sal.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Though, as was the case in this instance, Censor, doesn't a
> > > > presiding
> > > > > > > magistrate have authority to resolve irregularities in an
> > > > election?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What do you mean by irregularities? In general the answer is
> > > > yes, but
> > > > > > the resolution would have to be reasonable or it could be
> > vetoed
> > > > by the
> > > > > > magistrate's colleague(s).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Correct me if I am wrong, but is it not conceivable that a
> > > > consul who
> > > > > > > is presiding over an election in which he or she is running
> > may
> > > > make
> > > > > > > an incorrect ruling for his or her own benefit in the event
> > of
> > > > some
> > > > > > > sort of controversy?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yes, it's possible. At which point I'd expect their
> > colleague to
> > > > > > immediately pronounce intercessio.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Vale,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -- Marinus
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

M. Hortensia;
no joke. Nova Roma is incorporated as an U.S. educational
and religious organization. And has tax exempt status.

The Religio is my religion & Tiberius Galerius Paulinus an officer &
Scholastica & Cato prospective ones of the religious & educational
organzation. This list is an official arm of Nova Roma.

So Ap. Claudius, wake up. It is a serious matter if speech about
Martial, Catullus, the god Priapus is censored. Its tax-exempt
status could be at stake. Private clubs can do what they like.

On a Roman legal level I'd have to discuss this with Cordus. What
was appropriate in the Forum or a private sodalitas.

I suggest you google the Supreme Court & Obscenity, Freedom of
Religion cases to see just how quickly they would take a case like
this.
bene vale
M. Hortensia Maior

> Is this a religious organization only? It seems to me to have many

facets of interest....If you take someone to the supreme court for
censoring you from posting randy roman lit on an internet list...I
think you wouldn't get very far  :)

>
> Take a deep breath, step away from the computer...and step outside

into the sunshine. If this was a jokeÂ…you got meÂ…

>
> Appius Claudius
>
> On Thu, 09 Nov 2006 21:37:15 -0000, Maior wrote
> > M. Hortensia Ti. Galerio spd;
> > about CP reform you said you would vote for it if the Majority
> > of the CP would, -they never vote. So that's a false promise.

You

> > also never clearly explained why you, not the PM or Vedius,

wants to

> > disenfranchise all the cives from taking auspices!
> >
> > > Lastly you should be aware that that a few of you posts
> > > have come close to getting you placed on moderation.
> >
> > Paulinus, you seem to have no sense;
> > here is the ruling of the U.S Supreme Court on obscenity with

the

> > case reference. Martial, Catullus, Juvenal, Roman mores are all
> > taught in the finest universities.
> >
> > Serious artistic, political, or scientific value, using a

national

> > standard, is required for a finding that something is not

obscene

> > and a finding of some artistic, political or scientific value

does

> > not preclude a finding that a work is obscene. Pope vs.

Illinois,481

> > U.S 497 (1987)
> >

*********************************************************************

> >

*********************************************************************

> > AND BELOW the US SUPREME COURT ON: OBSCENITY on the Internet &
> > MINORS. Only Child Porn, (rightly) is prohibited. Read below.
> > SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
> >
> > Syllabus
> >
> > RENO, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES, et al. v. AMERICAN
> > CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION et al.
> > appeal from the united states district court for the eastern
> > district of pennsylvania
> > No. 96-511. Argued March 19, 1997 -- Decided June 26, 1997
> >
> > Two provisions of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 (CDA or
> > Act) seek to protect minors from harmful material on the

Internet,

> > an international network of interconnected computers that

enables

> > millions of people to communicate with one another

in "cyberspace"

> > and to access vast amounts of information from around the world.
> > Title 47 U. S. C. A. §223(a)(1)(B)(ii) (Supp. 1997) criminalizes
> > the "knowing" transmission of "obscene or indecent" messages to

any

> > recipient under 18 years of age. Section 223(d) prohibits

the "knowin

> > [g]" sending or displaying to a person under 18 of any
> > message "that, in context, depicts or describes, in terms

patently

> > offensive as measured by contemporary community standards,

sexual or

> > excretory activities or organs." Affirmative defenses are

provided

> > for those who take "good faith, . . . effective . . . actions"

to

> > restrict access by minors to the prohibited communications, §223

(e)

> > (5)(A), and those who restrict such access by requiring certain
> > designated forms of age proof, such as a verified credit card or

an

> > adult identification number, §223(e)(5)(B). A number of

plaintiffs

> > filed suit challenging the constitutionality of §§223(a)(1) and

223

> > (d). After making extensive findings of fact, a three judge

District

> > Court convened pursuant to the Act entered a preliminary

injunction

> > against enforcement of both challenged provisions. The court's
> > judgment enjoins the Government from enforcing §223(a)(1)(B)'s
> > prohibitions insofar as they relate to "indecent"

communications,

> > but expressly preserves the Government's right to investigate

and

> > prosecute the obscenity or child pornography activities

prohibited

> > therein. The injunction against enforcement of §223(d) is
> > unqualified because that section contains no separate reference

to

> > obscenity or child pornography. The Government appealed to this
> > Court under the Act's special review provisions, arguing that

the

> > District Court erred in holding that the CDA violated both the

First

> > Amendment because it is overbroad and the Fifth Amendment

because it

> > is vague.
> >
> > Held: The CDA's "indecent transmission" and "patently offensive
> > display" provisions abridge "the freedom of speech" protected by

the

> > First Amendment. Pp. 17-40.
> >
> > (a) Although the CDA's vagueness is relevant to the First

Amendment

> > overbreadth inquiry, the judgment should be affirmed without
> > reaching the Fifth Amendment issue. P. 17.
> >
> > (b) A close look at the precedents relied on by the Government--
> > Ginsberg v. New York, 390 U.S. 629; FCC v. Pacifica Foundation,

438

> > U.S. 726; and Renton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc., 475 U.S. 41--
> > raises, rather than relieves, doubts about the CDA's
> > constitutionality. The CDA differs from the various laws and

orders

> > upheld in those cases in many ways, including that it does not

allow

> > parents to consent to their children's use of restricted

materials;

> > is not limited to commercial transactions; fails to provide any
> > definition of "indecent" and omits any requirement

that "patently

> > offensive" material lack socially redeeming value; neither

limits

> > its broad categorical prohibitions to particular times nor bases
> > them on an evaluation by an agency familiar with the medium's

unique

> > characteristics; is punitive; applies to a medium that, unlike
> > radio, receives full First Amendment protection; and cannot be
> > properly analyzed as a form of time, place, and manner

regulation

> > because it is a content based blanket restriction on speech.

These

> > precedents, then, do not require the Court to uphold the CDA and

are

> > fully consistent with the application of the most stringent

review

> > of its provisions. Pp. 17-21.
> >
> > (c) The special factors recognized in some of the Court's cases

as

> > justifying regulation of the broadcast media--the history of
> > extensive government regulation of broadcasting, see, e.g., Red

Lion

> > Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 395 U.S. 367, 399-400; the scarcity of
> > available frequencies at its inception, see, e.g., Turner
> > Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC, 512 U.S. 622, 637-638; and
> > its "invasive" nature, see Sable Communications of Cal., Inc. v.
> > FCC, 492 U.S. 115, 128--are not present in cyberspace. Thus,

these

> > cases provide no basis for qualifying the level of First

Amendment

> > scrutiny that should be applied to the Internet. Pp. 22-24.
> >
> > (d) Regardless of whether the CDA is so vague that it violates

the

> > Fifth Amendment, the many ambiguities concerning the scope of

its

> > coverage render it problematic for First Amendment purposes. For
> > instance, its use of the undefined terms "indecent"

and "patently

> > offensive" will provoke uncertainty among speakers about how the

two

> > standards relate to each other and just what they mean. The
> > vagueness of such a content based regulation, see, e.g., Gentile

v.

> > State Bar of Nev., 501 U.S. 1030, coupled with its increased
> > deterrent effect as a criminal statute, see, e.g., Dombrowski v.
> > Pfister, 380 U.S. 479, raise special First Amendment concerns
> > because of its obvious chilling effect on free speech. Contrary

to

> > the Government's argument, the CDA is not saved from vagueness

by

> > the fact that its "patently offensive" standard repeats the

second

> > part of the three prong obscenity test set forth in Miller v.
> > California, 413 U.S. 15, 24. The second Miller prong reduces the
> > inherent vagueness of its own "patently offensive" term by

requiring

> > that the proscribed material be "specifically defined by the
> > applicable state law." In addition, the CDA applies only

to "sexual

> > conduct," whereas, the CDA prohibition extends also

to "excretory

> > activities" and "organs" of both a sexual and excretory nature.

Each

> > of Miller's other two prongs also critically limits the

uncertain

> > sweep of the obscenity definition. Just because a definition
> > including three limitations is not vague, it does not follow

that

> > one of those limitations, standing alone, is not vague. The

CDA's

> > vagueness undermines the likelihood that it has been carefully
> > tailored to the congressional goal of protecting minors from
> > potentially harmful materials. Pp. 24-28.
> >
> > (e) The CDA lacks the precision that the First Amendment

requires

> > when a statute regulates the content of speech. Although the
> > Government has an interest in protecting children from

potentially

> > harmful materials, see, e.g., Ginsberg, 390 U. S., at 639, the

CDA

> > pursues that interest by suppressing a large amount of speech

that

> > adults have a constitutional right to send and receive, see,

e.g.,

> > Sable, supra, at 126. Its breadth is wholly unprecedented. The

CDA's

> > burden on adult speech is unacceptable if less restrictive
> > alternatives would be at least as effective in achieving the

Act's

> > legitimate purposes. See, e.g., Sable, 492 U. S., at 126. The
> > Government has not proved otherwise. On the other hand, the

District

> > Court found that currently available user based software

suggests

> > that a reasonably effective method by which parents can prevent
> > their children from accessing material which the parents believe

is

> > inappropriate will soon be widely available. Moreover, the

arguments

> > in this Court referred to possible alternatives such as

requiring

> > that indecent material be "tagged" to facilitate parental

control,

> > making exceptions for messages with artistic or educational

value,

> > providing some tolerance for parental choice, and regulating

some

> > portions of the Internet differently than others. Particularly

in

> > the light of the absence of any detailed congressional findings,

or

> > even hearings addressing the CDA's special problems, the Court

is

> > persuaded that the CDA is not narrowly tailored. Pp. 28-33.
> >
> > (f) The Government's three additional arguments for sustaining

the

> > CDA's affirmative prohibitions are rejected. First, the

contention

> > that the Act is constitutional because it leaves open
> > ample "alternative channels" of communication is unpersuasive
> > because the CDA regulates speech on the basis of its content, so
> > that a "time, place, and manner" analysis is inapplicable. See,
> > e.g., Consolidated Edison Co. of N. Y. v. Public Serv. Comm'n of

N.

> > Y., 447 U.S. 530, 536. Second, the assertion that the
> > CDA's "knowledge" and "specific person" requirements

significantly

> > restrict its permissible application to communications to

persons

> > the sender knows to be under 18 is untenable, given that most
> > Internet forums are open to all comers and that even the

strongest

> > reading of the "specific person" requirement would confer broad
> > powers of censorship, in the form of a "heckler's veto," upon

any

> > opponent of indecent speech. Finally, there is no textual

support

> > for the submission that material having scientific, educational,

or

> > other redeeming social value will necessarily fall outside the

CDA's

> > prohibitions. Pp. 33-35.
> >
> > (g) The §223(e)(5) defenses do not constitute the sort

of "narrow

> > tailoring" that would save the CDA. The Government's argument

that

> > transmitters may take protective "good faith actio[n]"

by "tagging"

> > their indecent communications in a way that would indicate their
> > contents, thus permitting recipients to block their reception

with

> > appropriate software, is illusory, given the requirement that

such

> > action be "effective": The proposed screening software does not
> > currently exist, but, even if it did, there would be no way of
> > knowing whether a potential recipient would actually block the
> > encoded material. The Government also failed to prove that §223

(b)

> > (5)'s verification defense would significantly reduce the CDA's
> > heavy burden on adult speech. Although such verification is

actually

> > being used by some commercial providers of sexually explicit
> > material, the District Court's findings indicate that it is not
> > economically feasible for most noncommercial speakers. Pp. 35-

37.

> >
> > (h) The Government's argument that this Court should preserve

the

> > CDA's constitutionality by honoring its severability clause,

§608,

> > and by construing nonseverable terms narrowly, is acceptable in

only

> > one respect. Because obscene speech may be banned totally, see
> > Miller, supra, at 18, and §223(a)'s restriction of "obscene"
> > material enjoys a textual manifestation separate from that
> > for "indecent" material, the Court can sever the term "or

indecent"

> > from the statute, leaving the rest of §223(a) standing. Pp. 37-

39.

> >
> > (i) The Government's argument that its "significant" interest in
> > fostering the Internet's growth provides an independent basis

for

> > upholding the CDA's constitutionality is singularly

unpersuasive.

> > The dramatic expansion of this new forum contradicts the factual
> > basis underlying this contention: that the unregulated

availability

> > of "indecent" and "patently offensive" material is driving

people

> > away from the Internet. P. 40.
> >
> > 929 F. Supp. 824, affirmed.
> >
> > Stevens, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which

Scalia,

> > Kennedy, Souter, Thomas, Ginsburg, and Breyer, JJ., joined.
> > O'Connor, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment in

part

> > and dissenting in part, in which Rehnquist, C. J., joined.
> >
> > So Pauline, you seem not to have even examined the law when I
> > mentioned it to help you.
> >
> > If you try & moderate me for exercising freedom of speech &
> > religion. Or have you forgotten Nova Roma is a religious
> > organization? Believe me I shall take this case to the ACLU.
> > bene vale in voluptem priapeii
> > M. Hortensia Maior
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: Maior<mailto:rory12001@>
> > > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com<mailto:Nova-

Roma@yahoogroups.com>

> > > Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2006 10:18 PM
> > > Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Prejudice in Nova Roma
> > >
> > >
> > > M.Hortensia Ti Galerio Paulins spd;
> > > I remember very well when Apulus Caesar of Italia was standing
> > > for Consul, was that 2003? how Q. Fabius Maximimus and other
> > Boni
> > > made fun of Apulus's English. It was crude, and indeed
> > prejudiced. I
> > > was disgusted at that kind of behavior.
> > > Right now we're having serious issues of censorship &
> > > bigotry, so kindly don't tell Senator L. Arminius Faustus how

he

> > > can campaign. He's a fine man, a fine Roman & yes a fine

cultor

> > of
> > > the Religio and from Provincia Brasilia.
> > > I admire him enormously & a vote for him will promote the
> > > reform of the CP, which will permit ALL Nova Romans to
> > participate
> > > in taking auspices. Something you are against.
> > > bene vale
> > > M. Hortensia Maior
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I have been a citizen of Nova Roma for almost five years and

I

> > > have never
> > > > seen a candidate for any office appeal for votes based on
> > regional,
> > > > macro-national identity or religious bigotry. We should not
> > start
> > > now.
> > > >
> > > > Nova Roma is already universal.
> > > >
> > > > Please remember the virtues of Dignitas and Gravitas as you
> > > campaign for Consul.
> > > >
> > > > Vale
> > > >
> > > > Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
> > > > Mea gloria fideles
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: Lucius Arminius Faustus<mailto:lafaustus@>
> > > > To: nova-roma<mailto:nova-roma@yahoogroups.com<mailto:nova-
> > roma%40yahoogroupscom>>
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2006 5:20 PM
> > > > Subject: [Nova-Roma] FAUSTUS FOR CONSUL, the first consul
> > > antipoda!
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > By queen Minerva, my personal devotion, by Ceres Almight,
> > > patroness of the
> > > > plebeians, and by the holy Vesta, lar of the State,
> > > >
> > > > NR is on the verge of universalization. To fullfill its

goal,

> > we
> > > must assure
> > > > it shows all citizens we are not bounded in any country, nor
> > > region.
> > > >
> > > > Nova Roma has never had a consul from the South Hemisphere.

It

> > > is a clear
> > > > word to all potential new citizens NR is across all globe,

NR

> > > hasn´t
> > > > boundaries, everywhere there will be NR citizens for seeding
> > the
> > > roman path
> > > > and virtues.
> > > >
> > > > This year we made a great advance, by having a woman as
> > consul.
> > > Next year we
> > > > can do also a blow against another prejudice, we may have a
> > > Latin American
> > > > consul. We know sometimes in the past, some political
> > ideologies
> > > full of
> > > > racial prejudices had been associating the roman symbols to
> > > them. Electing a
> > > > latin american as consul is showing NOVA ROMA HAS NO

PREJUDICE

> > > INSIDE! NOVA
> > > > ROMA LOATHES PREJUDICE! OUR CITIZENS DON´T ALLOW PREJUDICE

ON

> > > THIS REPUBLIC!
> > > >
> > > > We are Romans like the old ones, with the compromise of
> > > universalization, to
> > > > get in the City what was the World. A culture that has not
> > > fallen, but
> > > > dissolved itself teaching its provinces to become countries
> > and
> > > peoples, not
> > > > as subjects foreveR, but as citizens. So, the Dalmatian

could

> > > drink the
> > > > water of the Tagus, and the gaul be safe in the Egypt, as

the

> > > words of
> > > > Seneca.
> > > >
> > > > 1 - Voting on FAUSTUS is a compromise with the
> > universalization
> > > of Nova
> > > > Roma... urbe et orbi.
> > > >
> > > > 2 - voting on FAUSTUS is a compromise with the roman way in
> > Nova
> > > Roma...
> > > > Faustus means return to the roman roots, on this hard

learning

> > > curve we are
> > > > following year after year.
> > > >
> > > > For a more roman Nova Roma, Lucius Arminius Faustus for

consul!

> > > > For a more universal Nova Roma, Lucius Arminius Faustus for
> > > consul!
> > > >
> > > > Valete bene in pacem deorum,
> > > > L. Arminius Faustus
> > > >
> > > > FAUSTUS FOR CONSUL!
> > > > FAUSTUS FOR CONSUL!
> > > > FAUSTUS FOR CONSUL!
> > > > FAUSTUS FOR CONSUL!
> > > > FAUSTUS FOR CONSUL!
> > > >
> > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>