pointless censorship

[Bryony H]

I have just noticed that some words or at least parts of words are being replaced with a star (*). Personnally I find this more offencive and patronising than the words themselves.

Since I joined this forum I have seen people who have shown religous intolerance, homophobia and zenophobia all of which have been challenged intelegently with debates. Looking back on many of those debates there are few posts that have included words which I have found offencive, however, the ideas shown have been horrific, more so because some have come from people who profess to have religous convictions which differ greatly from those in their holy books. Words in them selves do not hold that much shock for many of us, sometimes they are descriptive and have many different meanings.

Our languages (English and its close relative American) constantly change and words that mean one thing to one person mean different things to others. Wicked is a word that means evil or wrong to some people but its use in slang has been the opposite. An *** is a type of pack animal to some, and a part of anatomy to others, maybe both in different contexts.

I have no wish to see some of the more offencive words, those whose meaning cannot be missunderstood, and some of the more colourful words have no place at all on these boards. But there are many examples where some of the legitimate uses of these words form a basic bart of the debates here, for example, male arrousal, shaving and genital size (body size also).

Come on please administrators please dont insult us, perhaps there is a better way to show our displeasure at the language used than blocking out letters which we can easily work out anyway. This reminds me of the Victorian idea of putting fancy covers around the base of piano leg lest the viewer see the 'ankle' of the instrument and be offended.

I enjoy the debates here, they help me to understand others and to form my own ideas from those presented. This current censorship does nothing to promote these debates, rather it lessens the level at which we are expected to work by pandering to extremist views which do not reflect the world we live in.

Perhaps there is a good reason to start a debate on the language used here and to build an agreement on how we should talk to each other.

[Bryony H]

I have just noticed that some words or at least parts of words are being replaced with a star (*). Personnally I find this more offencive and patronising than the words themselves.

Since I joined this forum I have seen people who have shown religous intolerance, homophobia and zenophobia all of which have been challenged intelegently with debates. Looking back on many of those debates there are few posts that have included words which I have found offencive, however, the ideas shown have been horrific, more so because some have come from people who profess to have religous convictions which differ greatly from those in their holy books. Words in them selves do not hold that much shock for many of us, sometimes they are descriptive and have many different meanings.

Our languages (English and its close relative American) constantly change and words that mean one thing to one person mean different things to others. Wicked is a word that means evil or wrong to some people but its use in slang has been the opposite. An *** is a type of pack animal to some, and a part of anatomy to others, maybe both in different contexts.

I have no wish to see some of the more offencive words, those whose meaning cannot be missunderstood, and some of the more colourful words have no place at all on these boards. But there are many examples where some of the legitimate uses of these words form a basic bart of the debates here, for example, male arrousal, shaving and genital size (body size also).

Come on please administrators please dont insult us, perhaps there is a better way to show our displeasure at the language used than blocking out letters which we can easily work out anyway. This reminds me of the Victorian idea of putting fancy covers around the base of piano leg lest the viewer see the 'ankle' of the instrument and be offended.

I enjoy the debates here, they help me to understand others and to form my own ideas from those presented. This current censorship does nothing to promote these debates, rather it lessens the level at which we are expected to work by pandering to extremist views which do not reflect the world we live in.

Perhaps there is a good reason to start a debate on the language used here and to build an agreement on how we should talk to each other.

[luvnaturism]

I agree. How are we to ***imilate the discussions when the letters "***" are automatically removed, no matter the context or meaning. Isn't this an ***ault on the maturity of the people who come here?

Maybe we should ***emble ourselves and ***ay a way to stop these deprediations that are made on the language without our ***ent.

I wonder how they handle this in ***am? /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[Rik]

Bryony,

Try a few good old anglo saxon words. Most of them fool the INA bleep machine.

Let's see what happens:

bollocks - that's ok
balls - ok too
arse - yep
**** - oops!
bum - that's fine
fanny - much ruder in British than American. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Rik

[Rik]

...and I forgot "bugger".

/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Rik

[Prometheus]

If there must be a language filter at all, it should be programmed to look for only whole words. As it is now, someone can't even tell you they're from M***achusetts without getting asterisked. And what about someone with a long Japanese name that just happens to contain an English curse word? I've seen on other sites where people couldn't even post hyperlinks because of that.

[Rik]

The UK House of Commons recently introduced a profanity filter to its email system which blocked whole emails to Members of Parliament if the computer detected a naughty word (or part of a word).

This was difficult enough if you wanted to email your MP about the Sexual Ofences Bill currently working its way through the parliamentary process, but if you lived in the town of S****horpe in the north east of England you'd have no hope of getting your message across. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Rik

Let's try that name again - Scu_nthorpe.

[missouriboy]

I agree with Byrony that mechanized censorship is insulting to mature adults, who may occasionally wish to use colorful language to emphasize a point, not to be vulgar for vulgarity's sake. The few who are vulgar can be dealt with at the individual level.

Even the attempt to censor physical threats is futile. Is the threat "I'll kick your *** !" any less violent than "I'll kick your kneecaps?" Of course not, but any attempt to censor the truly violent word would render everyone else unable to even mention the kickstand on their bicycle!

The whole endeavor is pointless. Please consider backing it off.

[Vin]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rik:
...and I forgot "bugger".

/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Rik <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>One of these days, I'm going to have to get a Brit to tell me what "bugger" actually means. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

As a former reporter, I despise censorship in any form, for any reason. Giving that the INA filter seems to be programmed at the idiot level, rather than intelligently masking target words, I am especially disturbed to see the chilling effect it will eventually have on conversations here. It's now officially ridiculously difficult to post here.

[shãybare]

As always you all have made some good points. I, too, agree that the auto-cencorship should be backed off. It is my belief, however, that we do need censorship on the site because otherwise it could very well turn into a porno site with all types of pictures being posted and stories of all types of sexual behavior in language so graphic it would or should make a sailor blush.
I strongly believe in individual freedom. I believe in freedom of speech but I also believe that one should use a certain amount of restraint and consider the audience being addressed. There are some people that would show no restraint in trying to be civil. There are those that could care less if children are reading these posts or not.
Some may disagree with me on this but they certainly have the freedom to be wrong. ha-ha

Forever Nude,
Shaybare /infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

[Rik]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Vin:
One of these days, I'm going to have to get a Brit to tell me what "bugger" actually means. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>It's a verb and a noun meaning 'to have anal sex' or 'one who practices anal sex' (usually in a male context) but it's not as rude as it might appear as it's a tad old fashioned these days and not often used in its true sense.

It's often used in phrases such as 'this machine's buggered' meaning it doesn't work any more and sometimes you'll hear it used affectionately when referring to someone (usually elderly and infirm but perhaps a bit lecherous) as in 'the old bugger'.

Rik

[Rik]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by shaybare:
.. I believe in freedom of speech but I also believe that one should use a certain amount of restraint and consider the audience being addressed. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>So you only believe in free speech when you approve of what's being said? What sort of freedom is that?

/infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif Rik (smartarse!!)

[Bryony H]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by shaybare:
It is my belief, however, that we do need censorship on the site because otherwise it could very well turn into a porno site with all types of pictures being posted and stories of all types of sexual behavior in language so graphic it would or should make a sailor blush. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>On this site we have some very sencible and responcable administrators who have on several occasions blocked posters who abuse the system. I come here to read and occasionally post to topics that interest me, the idea that this could turn into some kind of porn site is not one that worries me as the admins and some users would be crying foul long before that could happen. Each poster has to accept responcibility for the posts they place on this board and if they are not capable of the level of restraint that is expected then they can post elsewhere. Too many people respect what we have here to let the standards drop but there are still times when a bit of chalenging does need to be done. If a poster says something that is disagreeable to you, then challenge it in a post, if it is against the spirit of the site, report them for the admins to deal with.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by shaybare:
I strongly believe in individual freedom. I believe in freedom of speech but I also believe that one should use a certain amount of restraint and consider the audience being addressed. There are some people that would show no restraint in trying to be civil. There are those that could care less if children are reading these posts or not. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>This all come down to rights and responcibilities, too many people will claim it is their right to do something withour thought for taking responcibility for what they do. Its about time that the folly of the blame culture where other people are always at fault was exposed, it is that which leads to the back covering exersize about offence that we see here.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by shaybare:
Some may disagree with me on this but they certainly have the freedom to be wrong. ha-ha <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>If you dont like what Ive posted here, blame my parents for giving me a free mind and a computer... Oh Darn, its that blame culture again... Dont blame them, I posted this and I'm responcible for it...

B

[Bartamus]

Vin: Originally we weren't going to respond to these accusations..but since yours goes straight
to the attack mode, we will.
Other long time contributors have commented that
unlike other bulletin boards, INA administrators
stay out of the fray as a rule. We pride ourselves in encouraging a free open discussion
in this forum. Unfortunately some people choose
to use foul language occasionally. Let me remind
you that kids as young as 10 or 11 sometimes
post here, so obviously they are reading what's
written right along with you. Perhaps those
harping the most about all this should consider
that. We certainly do and take our responsibility
here seriously.

[Vin]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rik:
It's a verb and a noun.... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Thanks! /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[Vin]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bartamus:
Vin: Originally we weren't going to respond to these accusations..but since yours goes straight
to the attack mode, we will....

Let me remind
you that kids as young as 10 or 11 sometimes
post here, so obviously they are reading what's
written right along with you. Perhaps those
harping the most about all this should consider
that. We certainly do and take our responsibility
here seriously. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Bart,

My post hardly amounts to "attack mode." It does, however, address a criticism to the silly filtering software being used here. If INA wants to censor the speech of people posting to this board, that obviously is their privilege. You've certainly been active in policing the boards and maintaining a certain atmosphere. But the new setup deletes certain strings of letters, no matter where they occur in a word. I fail to see how the common good is served by making it impossible to type words like "Massachussetts" or "mass" or "asset."

As for children reading here, I certainly hope that they do. I would, however, be far more concerned about the erection conversations and entire threads on body piercing and sex than on a few 4-letter words. Kids are smart. They can figure out what's been deleted just like adults can. It's the topic, and what's being said about it, that matters.

If your goal is truly to make a "kid-safe" environment, may I suggest forbidding all speech that might be suggestive or taken to have sexual meaning. That is the policy on almost all other nudist boards I post to, and it seems to work very well. It's far more effective than selectively deleting character strings.

[shãybare]

Everyone that has posted has proven my point about using restraint. Which, by the way, is a form of censorship. As far as the freedom of speech thing, yes I believe in freedom of speech and you can say anything you want to wheather I agree with you or not. You can post anything you want but it would not be right to use vulgarities in this forum in my opinion.

Forever Nude,
Shaybare /infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

[Bryony H]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Vin:
If your goal is truly to make a "kid-safe" environment, may I suggest forbidding all speech that might be suggestive or taken to have sexual meaning. That is the policy on almost all other nudist boards I post to, and it seems to work very well. It's far more effective than selectively deleting character strings. [/QB] <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I agree that sexually sugestive postings have no place here, but being kidsafe should not mean that there is a blanket ban on any topic relating to sex. Subjects such as erections, shaving pubic regions and body piercings are common. Some of these things may well even be started by young people in search of answers. It would be wrong to block these subjects if they are genuinely helping to foster understanding of the issues which face naturists. If a young person has the wit to ask about something (about naturism and nakedness) then they deserve proper factual answers, not put downs or spin or ignorance.

From my own reasent experience, i know that if a trusted adult had not answered several blunt questions, I would have not become a naturist, but would have been put at risk through nievity.

We all have a responcibility to protect the volnerable (includeing children) and while this is not the right place to answer many of the questions young people ask, to have taken the time to register probably means they know what the site is about and will ask ontopic questions.

As for adults posting off topic and smutty stuff here, you will notice that there are several means of challenging them, not least the report icon around the edge of this (and all others) post.

B

[missouriboy]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by missouriboy:
...Please consider backing it off. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Thank you, thank you, thank you!

[Vin]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by missouriboy:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by missouriboy:
...Please consider backing it off. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Thank you, thank you, thank you! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I also appreciate that the filter appears to have been tweaked. Thanks.

Vin

[Corky]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Vin:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by missouriboy:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by missouriboy:
...Please consider backing it off. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Thank you, thank you, thank you! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I also appreciate that the filter appears to have been tweaked. Thanks.

Vin <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes, I tweaked it. Now you can say "I go to class in Massachussetts!" But it's not easy to call someone an *******.
Have fun!
Corky

[Bryony H]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Administrator:
Yes, I tweaked it. Now you can say "I go to class in Massachussetts!" But it's not easy to call someone an *******.
Have fun!
Corky [/QB] <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Thanks.

B

[Rik]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Administrator:
...But it's not easy to call someone an *******. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>No? You're an *******! There, it's easy. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Rik

[Gary Naturist]

I try not to send critical messages, but this bleeping out of "bad words" is silly and juvenile.

Some points:
1. We've had little problem in the past.
2. The members tend to get after anyone who strays beyond the bounds.
3. These words are used in everyday language by many people, including by kids.
4. It's censorship on a site that is supposed to be open-minded.
5. If these words are censored, which words will be next?
6. The words describe mostly body parts and bodily functions. Nudists are supposed to practice body acceptance.
7. It's forcing us to learn British slang.
8. If we have problems, it's not "bad" words. It's people who are prejudiced against other groups.
9. People will come up with creative ways of getting the words displayed as is done in spam. I once used the lawnmower to carve out the word "EUCK" in our lawn. Everybody got it.
10. It will actually encourage people to use "bad" words, because they know that the officially disapproved words will be bleeped out.

How annoying. Please stop the bleeping out.

Gary

I'm with you on this Gary....

some of the words being bleeped out are just not all that offensive.

On my board I only have two words blocked (f*** and c***)because I feel that mechanical moderation can't separate reasonable uses for words and that there is no replacement for actual human moderation.

I too have young ones visit my board but I feel that we can't dumb down the conversations because of that. If you play to the lowest denominator the thoughts are not able to be communicated and there is no sense in even having a messageboard. I feel that parents should know where their young ones are going online and should be telling them to stay out of my website if the topics are considered offensive or not age appropriate.

I've really not seen an abuse of language on this board that would warrant putting these new restrictions in place.

[missouriboy]

I vote with cyndiann and Gary on this. Adults don't need it, and to attempt to "perteck the chil'ren" is just futile... you can NOT be their Mommy. If they can't handle adult language they don't belong here, but it's their parents' responsibility to control that, not ours.

Someone should create a poll for this question, maybe?

[Corky]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by cyndiann:
I'm with you on this Gary....

some of the words being bleeped out are just not all that offensive.

On my board I only have two words blocked (f*** and c***)because I feel that mechanical moderation can't separate reasonable uses for words and that there is no replacement for actual human moderation.

I too have young ones visit my board but I feel that we can't dumb down the conversations because of that. If you play to the lowest denominator the thoughts are not able to be communicated and there is no sense in even having a messageboard. I feel that parents should know where their young ones are going online and should be telling them to stay out of my website if the topics are considered offensive or not age appropriate.

I've really not seen an abuse of language on this board that would warrant putting these new restrictions in place. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Thanks Cyndiann,

The restictions have always been in place on this board. I have taked a few more off. Now it is just 7 words and it will not be a slippery slope leading to more censoring. I, for one, hate censorship. The 7 words we blocked just keeps it cleaner in case I can't be around to stop someone who might be bad mouthing someone else.

I value everyone's opinion and will make more changes if I see most people want it. This board is for all of you and I welcome suggestions. Thanks!!
Corky

[Snoboy]

Bravo. You are doing an excellent job of monitoring the boards and I for one, appreciate it. So much good has been obtained by means of the forum and INA, and I know much more good will be achieved.
Today, while watching my local news in Anchorage, Alaska, the anchor showed a film clip of nudist activities in the Business Report that demonstrated healthy naturism activities in the United States and that nudism is currently a multi-million dollar industry. I was so delighted to see nude people of all age groups portrayed in the news segment. Bare buns and backs were shown and more importantly, the joy in the eyes of the nude individuals, gave a positive message in the news segment. It went on to say that nude vacations are being promoted as a way to relieve the stresses of everyday life, in a wholesome, and fun setting.
My reason for sharing this is simple. We need to continue promoting the positive side of nudism. It is for the greater good of our lifestyle that we discourage conduct that is not wholesome to all our participants and our future participants. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

[Rik]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gary Naturist:
7. It's forcing us to learn British slang. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Surely that's a good thing! /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Cyndiann said that she bleeps out only f*** and c*** on her site. I don't know what it's like in the USA but here in the UK f*** (without asterisks) is seen regularly in print (except some of the less intelligent newspapers) and is certainly heard on mainsteam TV just about everyday. No-one takes much notice and it has virtually no shock value anymore.

Actually it's one of the most versatile words in English. Have a look at this web site (http://www.paxacidus.com/philo/views_****.html) to see what I mean. When you click on it you'll have to replace **** in the web address in your browser with the f-word as the INA bleep-o-meter even works on hidden URLs.

C*** on the other hand is probably the only taboo word left in British English. Perhaps we need to invent some more. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Rik

[gamblefish]

How 'bout "doody-head"? Or "poo-poo face"?

[shãybare]

how about cuck and funt? /infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

[Gary Naturist]

Bleeping out words is no solution. They can easily be decoded in context. While your eyes don't see the letters, the brain registers the word. Why protect the eyes if you can't protect the brain?

Better to say that people who use particularly offensive language will be suspended for a period of time and repeat offenders will be expelled permanently.

Gary

[shãybare]

You make a good point, Gary, and I think I like that idea. You can't say ****, but you can say "number 2". Doesn't that mean the same thing? It isn't the words themselves that are offensive but in the way they are used.

Forever Nude,
Shaybare /infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

[fred950]

The restictions have always been in place on this board. I have taked a few more off. Now it is just 7 words and it will not be a slippery slope leading to more censoring. I, for one, hate censorship. The 7 words we blocked just keeps it cleaner in case I can't be around to stop someone who might be bad mouthing someone else.

Thanks!!
Corky [/QB][/QUOTE]


Seven words? I thought that was George Carlin's bit. And if memory serves me right, he got busted for it.
In all seriousness, thanks for the Upgraded Upgrade.

[Trailscout]

Ever notice how most of our forbidden words are Anglo-Saxon? It was the speech of the common people. When the Norman French took over, our Saxon words were too uncouth for them.

I still do not apologize for my dislike of the worst of these words. I would rather see a string of four asterisks than the actual word.

It is still quite easy to insult people using the King's speech, but let's not!
Okay, I know I am guilty of this too.

N'cest pas?

[Naturist Mark]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by fred950:
Seven words? I thought that was George Carlin's bit. And if memory serves me right, he got busted for it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>No, it wasn't Carlin who got busted. It was a radio station who was fined by the FCC for playing his comedy bit about the '7 dirty words'. The case FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION v. PACIFICA FOUNDATION went all the way to the Supreme Court, and resulted in the firm establishment that the 1st Amendment does not apply to broadcasts.
Excerpt from Supreme Court decision (http://www.georgecarlin.com/georgecarlin/dirty/dirty3.html)

[Vin]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by naturistmark1:
No, it wasn't Carlin who got busted. It was a radio station who was fined by the FCC for playing his comedy bit about the '7 dirty words'. The case FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION v. PACIFICA FOUNDATION went all the way to the Supreme Court, and resulted in the firm establishment that the 1st Amendment does not apply to broadcasts.
Excerpt from Supreme Court decision (http://www.georgecarlin.com/georgecarlin/dirty/dirty3.html) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>This excerpt certainly doesn't support the suggestion that the 1st Amendment doesn't apply to broadcasts.

I was trained as a broadcast journalist that the 1st Amendment most certainly applies to broadcasts. The question in this case is "Is Carlin's speech protected under the Amendment?" and "Under what conditions can it be broadcast?" If the Court found Carlin's speech to be obscene, then it would clearly be unprotected. But that would apply only to this particular speech. The First Amendment very much applies to broadcasts in general.

[Naturist Mark]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Vin:
This excerpt certainly doesn't support the suggestion that the 1st Amendment doesn't apply to broadcasts.

I was trained as a broadcast journalist that the 1st Amendment most certainly applies to broadcasts. The question in this case is "Is Carlin's speech protected under the Amendment?" and "Under what conditions can it be broadcast?" If the Court found Carlin's speech to be obscene, then it would clearly be unprotected. But that would apply only to this particular speech. The First Amendment very much applies to broadcasts in general. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>The link shows the actual 'speech' which is now censored. The entire opinion is here. (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=438&invol=726) Carlin's speech was not judged 'obscene'. The whole point of the case was whether the government could limit speech which it considered 'indecent' but not 'obscene'. The Supreme Court ruled that it could: "language that describes, in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards for the broadcast medium, sexual or excretory activities or organs." This vague concept continues to baffle both the public and the courts.

Broadcasters have 'free speech' only up to a point. The airwaves over which they broadcast belong to the public, and the government as the guardian of the public's interests may limit that freedom for what it considers a compelling public interest.

Free speech as long as those in power agree is not free speech.

[Vin]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by naturistmark1:
Free speech as long as those in power agree is not free speech. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>On one hand, I couldn't agree more. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

On the other, no one -- individuals or broadcasters or artists -- enjoys an absolutely unabridged right to free speech. Slander and libel are actionable (and, frighteningly, there was even a SupCo ruling a few years ago that truth is not an absolute defense against these charges). So are indecent or obscene speech.

In fairness, I came away from my First Amendment law class (15 years ago) with the impression that the Court tries to regulate EXPRESSION rather than CONTENT, and that as little as possible to preserve civil society. While I personally would prefer to let the marketplace of ideas set those limits, I also do not want my child exposed to this particular monologue just yet (even though I think it's hilarious). If it turns up on a cable channel or website that I've let him access, then it's my problem. If the local PBS affiliate airs it in the middle of a children's programming block, then it's their problem, and I'll take appropriate action.

I had forgotten that this was the case that created the "community standards" test. You're quite right: no one has yet figured out exactly what that means -- including apparently the group who post regularly here. But we appear to be developing a concensus, thanks to the INA staff's handling of a potentially contentious situation.

Vin

[gamblefish]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by shaybare:
You make a good point, Gary, and I think I like that idea. You can't say ****, but you can say "number 2". Doesn't that mean the same thing? It isn't the words themselves that are offensive but in the way they are used.

Forever Nude,
Shaybare /infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yeah, for all you church people out there, when you say, "Aww heck!!", God knows you really mean "Awww HELL!!!!"...

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gary Naturist:
7. It's forcing us to learn British slang. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Surely that's a good thing! /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Cyndiann said that she bleeps out only f*** and c*** on her site. I don't know what it's like in the USA but here in the UK f*** (without asterisks) is seen regularly in print (except some of the less intelligent newspapers) and is certainly heard on mainsteam TV just about everyday. No-one takes much notice and it has virtually no shock value anymore.

Actually it's one of the most versatile words in English. Have a look at this web site (http://www.paxacidus.com/philo/views_****.html) to see what I mean. When you click on it you'll have to replace **** in the web address in your browser with the f-word as the INA bleep-o-meter even works on hidden URLs.

C*** on the other hand is probably the only taboo word left in British English. Perhaps we need to invent some more. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Rik <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Thanks for sharing that Rik... I love to learn new things, especially about other countries.