"KØHB" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Dee Flint" wrote in message
...


Hans are you saying that Todd may say whatever he wants
whenever where he wants however he wants on the ham
bands?

No, Dee, I didn't say that (and of course you know that I didn't). The
hams bands aren't a right, but a regulated privilege.


Do you believe then that Part 97 is unconstitutional when
it prohibits commericial use and foul language?


No, I don't believe that (and of course you know that I don't). The
amateur bands aren't a right but a regulated privilege.

I do believe, however, that Todd has protections in the Constitution which
allow him to raise those issues here on rrap, just as Steve has
protections for his assertions that parts of the Constitution are not
appropriate to his political views. While I'm disgusted by Todds trashy
language here, I am more disgusted by the overt actions to deny him his
Constitutional protections.

73, de Hans, K0HB

The ability to express ideas is indeed protected (unless of course one is
advocating the VIOLENT overthrow of the government). However those ideas
can be expressed in trashy language or they can be expressed in non-trashy
language. I see no violation of freedom of speech in requiring the use of
non-trashy language in public forums. Internet news groups, since they are
open to all, would be a public forum.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE