In article , "Phil Kane"
writes:

On 15 Nov 2003 20:16:48 GMT, N2EY wrote:

The broadcast arena has always been the barometer of what people are
allowed to say on the air, hasn't it?

Nope. FCC has completely different rules for different services. The
fact that somebody gets away with something in the broadcast services
doesn't mean it's OK in the ARS.

Quite a while back, there was a case against an amateur operator in
Los Angeles, and the ALJ ruled that the standards of broadcast
indecency articulated in the _Pacifica_ case (the "Seven Dirty Words"
case) also applied to the ARS because ARS transmissions are readily
available to the general public (i.e. are not protected by privacy
or secrecy statutes).

Sure - but as I read that, (insert standard "layman, not a lawyer" disclaimer
here) that means the ARS cannot go beyond what the BC services can do. IOW the
ARS "lower bound of decency" cannot be lower than that of the BC services.

Generally the terminology states soemething to the effect of "good amateur
practice." My ONLY PROBLEM with that is WHO gets to decide what the
benchmark is for good amateur practice...... If the FCC, who issues our
licenses are not going to do it, then who?

Amen, brother.

Yea, verily.

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?

Common sense and good taste used to be the guide. But I guess such
concepts are old-fashioned nowadays, from what some folks tell me when
I oppose the use of such language on the air and in newsgropups.....

Agreed.

73 de Jim, N2EY