🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <4q1aoe$qg6@acme.freenet.columbus.oh.us>,
Fred Moore <fmoore@freenet.columbus.oh.us> wrote:
> Thanks for your input, Bob; however, what you say below sounds to me like
> it substantiates what I said--or maybe I'm losing the fine points of the
> symantics.
> 
> "Obscenity" was not even at issue, as acknowledged by you and the NPR
> report. But calling a communication "obscene", "indescent", or "patently
> ofensive" is splitting hairs with a meat axe, distinctions without
> differences, or at best, arbitrary.
>
> It's all censorship to me.

Uhm, actually, my understanding is that obscenity actually has a legal
definition.  I'm quite certain "indecency" doesn't.  I'm not sure if
"patently offensive" does or not.

Since it has a legal definition, it's not a distinction without a
difference, nor is it really arbitrary (in that it's a known standard
against which we can measure forms of expression, in a legal sense).

	-Bill
-- 
William D Yang					YANG@freenet.columbus.oh.us

Look at the time on this message; it's got to be just *my* opinion,
not my organization's.  Really.  I mean it!