Xref: utzoo sci.space.shuttle:2146 talk.politics.misc:18577 Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!clyde!att!cbnews!wbt From: wbt@cbnews.ATT.COM (William B. Thacker) Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle,talk.politics.misc Subject: Re: Do unto others... (Re: Internationalist posturings.) Message-ID: <2480@cbnews.ATT.COM> Date: 6 Dec 88 15:47:43 GMT References: <1969@garth.UUCP> <22411@watmath.waterloo.edu> <2044@garth.UUCP> <22488@watmath.waterloo.edu> <2104@garth.UUCP> <131@ubc-cs.UUCP> <796@dinl.mmc.UUCP> Reply-To: wbt@cbnews.ATT.COM (William B. Thacker) Distribution: na Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Lines: 23 In article <796@dinl.mmc.UUCP> holroyd@dinl.UUCP (kevin w. holroyd) writes: >Since it is illegal to use >profanity over the air waves because anyone can intercept it, does the same >apply to the computer nets? Since when has it been illegal to use profanity over the airwaves ? Do you watch Dallas ? Morton Downey Jr. ? The networks censor themselves to prevent public outrage, but I know of no "law" controlling broadcast of profanity. In fact, I don't know if there's even a law *defining* profanity. Seems like it'd be tough to write one. Of course, if the broadcast went too far, it could be considered obscene, and then the network could be prosecuted for pandering... ------------------------------ valuable coupon ------------------------------- Bill Thacker att!cbnews!wbt "C" combines the power of assembly language with the flexibility of assembly language. Disclaimer: Farg 'em if they can't take a joke ! ------------------------------- clip and save --------------------------------