On 19 Nov 2003 02:41:17 GMT, N2EY wrote:

As for specific words??? Dunno, is there a list?? :)

No.

Who makes the list then?

George Carlin, at last count.

More like nobody. How did we all get to hear that routine?

Believe it or not, the comedy routine was aired as part of an academic
program series on how language affects civilization, not in an attempt
by the station to flaut "authority".

The FCC, in response to the listener's complaint, sent Pacifica
Foundation (the licensee) a letter in essence saying "take care not
to overstep the boundary of indecency". When the FCC declined to
define the boundary (almost the venerable "you'll know it when it
happens" stance so popular in that time), Pacifica, not the FCC,
took the matter to court to force the issue.

The "unintended consequences" are well known.....

The text of the routine, BTW, is printed out in full as an
attachment to the decision of the Supreme Court of the U.S.
(Pacifica v FCC).

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

"Phil Kane" wrote

On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 05:36:11 -0500, Ryan, KC8PMX wrote:

Alrighty then.... I am sick and tired and feel it is patently offensive
to
hear about old fart's bowel conditions, regardless if they cuss when
discussing those..... let's make that banned speech! After all it's good
amateur practice!

It's indecency only when it raises purient interest. Does
someone's bowel surgery raise purient interest in you ?? ggg

Dammit Phil, I wish I'd have said that! Good answer!

73, de Hans, K0HB

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , "Ryan, KC8PMX"
writes:

Jim.... of all the people here I thought for sure you would see where I
was
going with that.......

Of course.

I was hoping so.... you are, at least IMHO, one of the stable "anchors" of
this newsgroup.



it goes well beyond the "dirty words" and could
extend to any speech undesireable by others that could be deemed
offensive
and therefor punishable.

I still believe in common sense and good taste, old-fashioned as that may
seem.
Discussing one's gastrointestinal problems in detail on the air may be
legal
but that doesn't make it acceptable....

I would agree for the most part. Now..... can you cite specific rules that
state what might be "old fashioned" in exact examples not just speaking of
generalities??? :)



I never hear that sort of stuff in CW ragchews, btw.


Just had to get that CW jab in there eh? :) :)



Heck, we have organizations in the US already
trying that..... not a small step to extend to ham radio!

You mean like folks who say the press is "liberally biased" or "beholden
to big
business" when it reports things they don't like?

No, actually, the opposite. The right-wingers who want to control others
thoughts, what they read, what they believe in, what people should do to
their bodies and put in their bodies, and make it damn near a profession of
forcing this on others. Hmmm.... Rush Limbaugh, our nation's largest
hypocrite, is a prime example. (do as I say, not do as I do mentality)
Hmmm.... Pat Buchanan was a Republicrat, and also, if Hitler was alive and
well today, and living in the US, he most likely would have been a
Republican/Republicrat.



Like I said.... look beyond the cuss words, and there is a ton of things
that some radical freaks could oppose.

Sure. But limiting what can be said on the amateur bands is not an
incursion
into free speech, because the amateur bands are public property.

Actually, if one is truly a person that believes in the most of limiting
government intrusions of our lives etc., then that person should actually be
against all licensing of radio waves. Really, when you get to the point of
it, NO ONE actually OWNS the airwaves. But in reality, there is a need for
some type of regulation otherwise the chaos that would be there if it wasn't
would be tremendous. I personally believe, if the acronym is correct, the
ECPA should be deemed illegal. (refernce the ban on cell phone recption.)


--
Ryan KC8PMX

"Health is merely the slowest possible rate at which one can die."

Well Phil.... there are just some things I just don't need to hear about! I
am sure you can cite some examples exclusive to you as well. :) :) I have
even heard one old dude describing the quality and consistency of the
material moved within the bowel movements he was having...... some things
are just too gross.


--
Ryan KC8PMX

"Why is it one careless match can start a forest fire, but
it takes a whole box to start a barbecue?"


"Phil Kane" wrote in message
.net...
On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 05:36:11 -0500, Ryan, KC8PMX wrote:

Alrighty then.... I am sick and tired and feel it is patently offensive
to
hear about old fart's bowel conditions, regardless if they cuss when
discussing those..... let's make that banned speech! After all it's good
amateur practice!

It's indecency only when it raises purient interest. Does
someone's bowel surgery raise purient interest in you ?? ggg

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

The FCC, in response to the listener's complaint, sent Pacifica
Foundation (the licensee) a letter in essence saying "take care not
to overstep the boundary of indecency". When the FCC declined to
define the boundary (almost the venerable "you'll know it when it
happens" stance so popular in that time), Pacifica, not the FCC,
took the matter to court to force the issue.

That was kinda the intent of what I was speaking of. And of course, who
makes the decisions on that if it is not the FCC.



--
Ryan KC8PMX

"Give a person a fish and you feed them for a day; teach that
person to use The Internet and they won't bother you for weeks."

In article , "Ryan, KC8PMX"
writes:

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , "Ryan, KC8PMX"
writes:

Jim.... of all the people here I thought for sure you would see where I
was
going with that.......

Of course.

I was hoping so.... you are, at least IMHO, one of the stable "anchors" of
this newsgroup.

Thanks!

it goes well beyond the "dirty words" and could
extend to any speech undesireable by others that could be deemed
offensive and therefor punishable.

I still believe in common sense and good taste, old-fashioned as that may
seem.
Discussing one's gastrointestinal problems in detail on the air may be
legal but that doesn't make it acceptable....

Perhaps a better term would be "appropriate"

I would agree for the most part. Now..... can you cite specific rules that
state what might be "old fashioned" in exact examples not just speaking of
generalities??? :)

Specific rules? Not really, because the wording of the regulations is so vague.

But here's a general guideline:

Imagine that your transmissions are recorded and transcribed.

Would you be proud or embarrassed to have them replayedto, or read by, your
spouse/SO/person you'd like to have in that role? Children? Parents?
Employer/employees? Clergyperson? Neighbors? FCC? WRC committees? Enemies of
amateur radio?

Unless you can answer "proud" or at least "not embarrassed" in all cases,
there's something inappropriate going on. Because you never know who is
listening - or recording. Just my opinion.

I never hear that sort of stuff in CW ragchews, btw.

Just had to get that CW jab in there eh? :) :)

No jab, just fact.

Heck, we have organizations in the US already
trying that..... not a small step to extend to ham radio!

You mean like folks who say the press is "liberally biased" or "beholden
to big business" when it reports things they don't like?

No, actually, the opposite.

Those two *are* opposites! Some "conservatives" say the media has a liberal
bias, while some "liberals" say it is beholden to big business too much.

The right-wingers who want to control others
thoughts, what they read, what they believe in, what people should do to
their bodies and put in their bodies, and make it damn near a profession of
forcing this on others.

There are left wingers who do exactly the same things, too. Me, I try to stay
"middle of the bird" (Pat Paulsen said it first, though).

The terms "liberal" and "conservative" have been corrupted to the point that
they are almost useless today. Perhaps a better way to look at things in that
area is whether someone wants to restrict what an individual or small group can
do, vs. restricting what a large group/institution can do. Or has to do.

Hmmm.... Rush Limbaugh, our nation's largest
hypocrite, is a prime example. (do as I say, not do as I do mentality)

You mean about drug abuse?

Hmmm.... Pat Buchanan was a Republicrat, and also, if Hitler was alive and
well today, and living in the US, he most likely would have been a
Republican/Republicrat.

You're awful close to Godwin's Law there, Ryan!

Actually Hitler was neither "liberal" nor "conservative" in the American sense.
He was a fascist, wanting the state to have absolute power in all areas, with
no checks or balances, nor individual rights, nor institutional rights. Only
government power, and concentrated in a single leader.

Like I said.... look beyond the cuss words, and there is a ton of things
that some radical freaks could oppose.

Sure. But limiting what can be said on the amateur bands is not an
incursion
into free speech, because the amateur bands are public property.

Actually, if one is truly a person that believes in the most of limiting
government intrusions of our lives etc., then that person should actually be
against all licensing of radio waves.

Not at all!

Really, when you get to the point of
it, NO ONE actually OWNS the airwaves.

Just the opposite - Everyone owns them. They're public property. And as such,
government has the role of regulating and divvying up the spectrum so that the
owners (that's all of us) get the maximum benefit from a limited, shared
resource.

That's fundamental radio law, (insert standard I'm-not-a-lawyer disclaimer
here). The rest is details.

But in reality, there is a need for
some type of regulation otherwise the chaos that would be there if it wasn't
would be tremendous.

And the result would be that the resource would not be used for the public
benefit.

I personally believe, if the acronym is correct, the
ECPA should be deemed illegal. (refernce the ban on cell phone recption.)

Which ban? You mean the one where it's illegal to listen in, or the one where
private property owners can require that cell phones be turned off?

73 de Jim, N2EY

On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 02:07:53 -0500, Ryan, KC8PMX wrote:

Well Phil.... there are just some things I just don't need to hear about! I
am sure you can cite some examples exclusive to you as well. :) :) I have
even heard one old dude describing the quality and consistency of the
material moved within the bowel movements he was having...... some things
are just too gross.

If the law doesn;t make it illegal it's legal.

Is your receiver one-channel crystal-controlled with no off-switch?

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane