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 --------------------------------