🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <3s40oe$73d@worf.qntm.com>,
Wakko Warner <cook@rzdisk.enet.qntm.com> wrote:
>In article <3s0jjt$sru@crl2.crl.com>, ivler@crl.com (J.M. Ivler) writes:
>
>>hehehe... don't anyone tell him, but EVERY SINGLE REPUBLICAN in the 
>>United States Senate just voted YES on SB652... you know, the 
>>Telecommunications bill with the Exon Amendment in it... the one that 
>>censors (or attempts to take away all the first amendment protections) 
>>Internet traffic.
>
>	Don't care. One thing it will do is deregulate the monopoly the
>	cable companies have. I like that. Now I'll be able to choose
>	my company.
>
>	If you have something against banning smut on the Internet I
>	have to ask, why? Go to the combat zone. Banning bad
>	language? Good. Maybe it will clean up some of the filth
>	around here.

1) Nobody was talking about the Telecommunications Act as a whole,
just the abominable Exon amendment attached to it.

2) The word "ban" is the opposite of the word "freedom".

But hey, what the fuck? Whoops! Now this very article would be 
declared obscene (er, excuse me, "indecent") under the senate bill. 
So I have to say WTF?!  Now, you tell me: is that any more or any
less "filthy" than the first expression? How about "what the f***?"

The Exon amendment is not only abominable, it is unenforceable. 
If autobots are sent out to cleanse the net of "indecency", then
we will all be reduced to talking in code. Bleah.
-- 
----
Eric

"If anyone finds this offensive, I am prepared not only to retract my
words, but also to deny under oath that I ever said them." -- Tom Lehrer
----