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).

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.

As for specific words??? Dunno, is there a list??

No.

Who makes the list then?

George Carlin, at last count.

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 K2ASP - Phil Kane

Phil Kane wrote:




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).

Well, today I heard the f word and the s word on an FM broadcast station
WLIR at about 12:50PM.
In a song. And it's not a RAP station. Oddly enough civilization did
not end at 1PM.....




Who makes the list then?



George Carlin, at last count.


Is it an urban legend, or is there a reference to George Carlin's
published work
that contains that list in FCC "case law" or in an FCC rule? That way,
the FCC
doesn't have to mention directly the bad words, but just refers to a
reference?

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

On 19 Nov 2003 02:41:17 GMT, N2EY wrote:

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?

Believe it or not, the comedy routine was aired as part of an academic
program series on how language affects civilization, not in an attempt
by the station to flaut "authority".

The FCC, in response to the listener's complaint, sent Pacifica
Foundation (the licensee) a letter in essence saying "take care not
to overstep the boundary of indecency". When the FCC declined to
define the boundary (almost the venerable "you'll know it when it
happens" stance so popular in that time), Pacifica, not the FCC,
took the matter to court to force the issue.

The "unintended consequences" are well known.....

The text of the routine, BTW, is printed out in full as an
attachment to the decision of the Supreme Court of the U.S.
(Pacifica v FCC).

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

The FCC, in response to the listener's complaint, sent Pacifica
Foundation (the licensee) a letter in essence saying "take care not
to overstep the boundary of indecency". When the FCC declined to
define the boundary (almost the venerable "you'll know it when it
happens" stance so popular in that time), Pacifica, not the FCC,
took the matter to court to force the issue.

That was kinda the intent of what I was speaking of. And of course, who
makes the decisions on that if it is not the FCC.



--
Ryan KC8PMX

"Give a person a fish and you feed them for a day; teach that
person to use The Internet and they won't bother you for weeks."