🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <4ps8nf$mlp@acme.freenet.columbus.oh.us>,
Fred Moore <fmoore@freenet.columbus.oh.us> wrote:
>I did _not_ mishear the NPR report. I know this because the "expert" being
>interviewed made a BIG point of saying that only _part_ of the censorship
>was declared invalid. 

I heard the NPR report too, and actually, I think you did
misunderstand it.
Yes, they made a point of saying that only part of it was challenged
and all, but they also said it was the "indecency" part that was at
issue, and that the "obscenity" part stands and was not challenged.

No need to complain to NPR....

>: NPR has either misinterpreted the finding or you misheard the NPR 
>: report.  It is precisely the "indecency" provision that was challenged 
>: and overturned, and the "patently offensive" provisions were thrown out 
>: for good measure.
>
>: Perhaps they were referring to "obscenity" and child pornography.  
>: Neither of these were challenged by the case because they are already 
>: illegal under existing law.  
-- 
------------- R o b  F u n k -------------|---------> funk+@osu.edu <---------
  "A slice of life isn't the whole cake   |rfunk@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu
  One tooth will never make a full grin"  |rfunk@freenet.columbus.oh.us
    -- Chris Mars, "Stuck in Rewind"  |http://er4www.eng.ohio-state.edu/~funkr