barry@n0atp.UUCP (Barry S. Berg) (06/09/88)
I know this should probably be posted in alt.flame, but I think that it is more appropriate here. If I am wrong, please accept my apologies. This was Re: HELP ME!! In article <581@picuxa.UUCP>, tgr@picuxa.UUCP (Dr. Emilio Lizardo) writes: > > Would the system administrator at cup.portal.com please remove this > stupid fucker's priveleges? I had hoped to put USENET onto packet radio. It is precisely the fact that posters like the above are too common that will not allow this. All the bemoaning that I have heard about precious bandwidth, the costs of the network, a wider distribution all go down the potty with remarks like the above. So what! You say. What do I care if you don't use packet radio. Well bunky, How about world wide telecommunications from designated gateways at no cost?? How about being free from the loss of critical paths because of a change in management policy which shuts down sites. [ That's ok killer was a rare occurance -- right?? :-( ] How about freeing the net from the tyranny of having to cost justify long distance charges. Packet Radio could provide a dependable (uses a modified X.25) protocol transfer of data FREE. Sure, its only 300 to 1200 baud at the lower frequencies, but we can connect all day long so who cares. So go ahead, feel free to use your favorite four letter words, use the NET for your commercial endevours, who cares if the network collapses of its own weight, so that you can have the freedom of speech to offend the world, or get free advertising. -- Barry S. Berg DOMAIN: barry@n0atp.N0ATP.MN.ORG N0ATP Packet Radio Gateway UUCP: {...}amdahl!bungia!n0atp!barry "Speech is civilization itself--it is silence which isolates." --Thomas Mann "Moderation in all things, most especially moderation." --Author as yet unknown.
mcb@tis.llnl.gov (Michael C. Berch) (06/10/88)
In article <13@n0atp.UUCP> barry@n0atp.UUCP (Barry S. Berg) writes: > In article <581@picuxa.UUCP>, tgr@picuxa.UUCP (Dr. Emilio Lizardo) writes: > > Would the system administrator at cup.portal.com please remove this > > stupid fucker's priveleges? > > I had hoped to put USENET onto packet radio. It is precisely the fact > that posters like the above are too common that will not allow this. [...] > [...] So go ahead, feel free to use your favorite four letter words, > use the NET for your commercial endevours, who cares if the network > collapses of its own weight, so that you can have the freedom of speech > to offend the world, or get free advertising. Would (possibly trivial) encryption of the carried data remove the potential FCC problems with four-letter words? How could Usenet over packet radio be organized as a set of common-carrier links so that pinheaded government content regulation does not apply? Personally, I'd rather have a network in which the content of ones' articles is a private matter between the poster and his/her/its site management (& local feeds, perhaps), and is privately funded, than something that is censored by the government. Michael C. Berch mcb@tis.llnl.gov / {ames,ihnp4,lll-crg,lll-lcc,mordor}!lll-tis!mcb
levy@ttrdc.UUCP (Daniel R. Levy) (06/10/88)
In article <13@n0atp.UUCP>, barry@n0atp.UUCP (Barry S. Berg) writes: > > > > Would the system administrator at cup.portal.com please remove this > > stupid fucker's priveleges? > > I had hoped to put USENET onto packet radio. It is precisely the fact > that posters like the above are too common that will not allow this. > N0ATP Packet Radio Gateway UUCP: {...}amdahl!bungia!n0atp!barry I apologize in advance for the net reply. Mail would probably have been better but I'm not sure how to reach "amdahl". Anyhow... is it the dirty language that keeps USENET off packet radio? Why not use software to automatically censor the incoming feed at each gateway? Offending articles could be dropped entirely, possibly with automatic mail to the sender. Or with a bit more hacking effort the dirty words could be substituted with clean words ("stupid ejaculator's ..."), or a generic indication of profanity ("stupid <BLEEP>'s ..."), or some kind of code, to be optionally restored on the receiving end by appropriate software ("stupid %%%003er's ..."). -- |------------Dan Levy------------| THE OPINIONS EXPRESSED HEREIN ARE MINE ONLY | AT&T Data Systems Group | Weinberg's Principle: An expert is a | Skokie, Illinois | person who avoids the small errors while |-----Path: att!ttbcad!levy-----| sweeping on to the grand fallacy.
brian@ucsd.EDU (Brian Kantor) (06/10/88)
Actually, it's the content of Usenet in general that keeps it off ham packet radio. Distribution of messages as Usenet does - i.e., broadcasting the contents to anyone who tunes in - is only permitted for bulletins and notices of relevance to amateur radio. By the way, encryption for the purpose of obscuring the content of the message is prohibited on ham radio also. Guess they're afraid we hams might be plotting the overthow of the government, or some other worthwhile idea. There is nothing in the FCC rules (that I know of) that prohibits using radio to distribute Usenet or any other similar bulletin board message system, but NOT ham radio. You might want to look into using unused SCA on FM stations or vertical-interval coding on TV signals - there is some possibility that under the new ECPA they'd be considered private communications and not subject to attack on broadcasting profanity or obscenity grounds as an open broadcast might have been. Consult a lawyer for an opinion - I don't think there've been any court decisions (nor cases filed) yet. Brian Kantor UC San Diego "Why don't I just go to law school for 4 years instead of paying you? At your rates versus the tuition, I'd come out ahead halfway through!" - Zippy
barry@n0atp.UUCP (Barry S. Berg) (06/13/88)
I have kept this posting strictly in news.admin, but if a wider discussion occurs, I think we should cross post to the packet group. I am also posting to the World distribution because I feel a) this is a netwide problem, and b) I do not know if other countries can even participate in this hairbrain scheme. If I have misappraised the importance of this subject please accept my appologies. (Flames to alt.flame and E-mail to me I will summarize them, thanks I generally don't read the alt group) I was very heartened by the mail just saying "thanks I appreciate that" and a few others that I will summarize here. One writer asked if I would explain Packet Radio and give some references. The American Radio Relay League (ARRL) publishes a book about packet and is a source if you are interested. It is called "Your Gateway to PACKET RADIO" and should be available at any HAM Radio Store, or can be ordered from ARRL, 225 Main Street, Newington, CT 06111 U.S.A. The price is (US) $10.00 and add $2.50 shipping for book rate or $3.50 for UPS. > umn-cs!rutgers!necis.nec.com!smv (Steve Valentine) writes > > Would anyone REALLY monitor packet radio transmissions of USENET scanning for > "four letter words"?? It seems silly to me that you would pull the plug for Yes...Besides official FCC Monitoring stations, Amateur Radio Stations monitor each other. We are self policing. The FCC trusts us for two reasons...first we do a relatively good job of policing ourselves, and second, they don't have the personnel to do that. > the horible crime of saying 'shit' or 'fuck'. If you're really worried about > the FCC blasting you for it, just put an "objectionable words" filter on the > front end, and rot13 all the words that will "rot your mind, curve your spine, ^^^^^^^^^ -- encryption is also a no, no. (see below) you can send binaries tho' and how they would know that this was an encrypted message and not a binary I haven't the foggiest notion. > and loose the war for the allies" (to quote George Carlin). > If broadcast radio > stations aren't getting shut down for playing songs that say 'shit' in them, > and you can say 'bitch' on LA Law, really doubt that a transmission much less > easily available would need to worry. > Actually they are getting pink slips, and a station in CA was told to clean up the content of a talk show or they would lose their license. Allow me to explain the regulations, these apply in the US. Each country regulates its HAMS differently, but for the most part the rules are consistant. European HAMS are regulated much more srtictly about message handling etc. The FCC derives its power to regulate from the U.S. Congress (Federal Communications Act of 1934 as ammended). Amateur Radio is governed by Part 97 of the Rules of the FCC. Subpart E is the one that explains the no-no's. There are only 15 of them which I will summarize the relevent three: 97.110 Business Communications Prohibited The transmission of business communications by an amateur radio station is prohibited except for emergency communications as defined in this part. [This means that all advertising, posting by professional head-hunters, newspaper publishers etc would be verbotten. I believe that the free adverstising users are going to lose this facility shortly anyway. ...bsb] 97.117 Codes and Ciphers Prohibited The transmission of messages in codes or ciphers or ciphers in domestic and international communications to or between amateur stations is prohibited. ...are permissable as are any abbreviations or signals where the intent is no to obscure the meaning but only to facilitate communications. [I read this to mean that compress is ok...but that crypt and/or rot13 is not. Rot13 may be debateable because it is easily decrypted, and therefore may be termed an abbreviation. The intent is to prevent the use of ham radio by espionage agents.] 97.119 Obscenity, indecency, profanity No licensed radio operator or other person shall transmit communications containing obscene, indecent, or profane words, language, or meaning. ^^^^^^^ > If you really want to pass USENET by radio, and it sounds like a good idea to > me, the "four letter word" problem should be pretty easy to overcome. A simple sed type filter is easy, how do you do a context oriented interpreter to derive obscene meanings from words that are not obscene in themselves. The only processor I know of to do that is the human brain set in common sense mode. > Remember: Good rules were made to be bent, bad ones were made to be folded, > spindled and mutilated! Right except that we are dealing with the U.S. Federal Government :-( > mcb@tis.llnl.gov (Michael C. Berch) writes: > Organization: Network XVI Thought Police ^^^^^^^^^^^ --- should it be Network XXIII :-) :-) [ my aritcle deleted....] > > Would (possibly trivial) encryption of the carried data remove the > potential FCC problems with four-letter words? How could Usenet over > packet radio be organized as a set of common-carrier links so that > pinheaded government content regulation does not apply? > It would take petitioning the FCC to assign a frequency to the net, and then setting up licensing of it. Not a hard process, but a time consuming and probably expensive one. The cheap fast easy way is to use ham radio, and the packet networks already in place. > Personally, I'd rather have a network in which the content of ones' > articles is a private matter between the poster and his/her/its site > management (& local feeds, perhaps), and is privately funded, than > something that is censored by the government. aggreed, but even that isn't always available. levy@ttrdc.UUCP (Daniel R. Levy) writes: [... apology for not mailing --its ok....] > Anyhow... is it the dirty language that keeps USENET off packet radio? Why > not use software to automatically censor the incoming feed at each gateway? again a simple filter is not the problem, perhaps the more technical types may have a good solution. > Offending articles could be dropped entirely, possibly with automatic mail > to the sender. Or with a bit more hacking effort the dirty words could be > substituted with clean words ("stupid ejaculator's ..."), or a generic > indication of profanity ("stupid <BLEEP>'s ..."), or some kind of code, to be > optionally restored on the receiving end by appropriate software > ("stupid %%%003er's ..."). I like the idea of mailing back a reply to the poster, saying that your posting didn't fly because you were being offensive and boorish. Nice touch. If anyone has any good ideas and/or code fragments I'm for inserting them whether or not we ever use packet radio. I also like the idea of standard abbreviations for dirty words. Then at least each site can choose to include them or not. However, for transmission I would guess that %%%003 would still be viewed as obscene because it is an established abbreviations. Also, what is considered obscenity...In the U.S. the Supreme Court has ruled on the concept of community standards. The Net is world wide, what is the community standard of the world? What about obscenity outside of the U.S. Is the use of four letter words currently violating some regulation in another country we are posting to?? brian@ucsd.EDU (Brian Kantor) writes: > Actually, it's the content of Usenet in general that keeps it off ham > packet radio. Distribution of messages as Usenet does - i.e., > broadcasting the contents to anyone who tunes in - is only permitted for > bulletins and notices of relevance to amateur radio. This would not be a broadcast (violation of 97.113) but a direct transmission of 3rd party traffic between two stations which is permitted. > By the way, encryption for the purpose of obscuring the content of the > message is prohibited on ham radio also. Guess they're afraid we hams > might be plotting the overthow of the government, or some other > worthwhile idea. [ ibid...obsid.... :-)] > There is nothing in the FCC rules (that I know of) that prohibits using > radio to distribute Usenet or any other similar bulletin board message > system, but NOT ham radio. There is nothing other than mentioned above in my opinion that would eliminate HAM Radio from being used as transport mechansim. With the addition of more public access sites I believe that it might even be part of our public service charter. > You might want to look into using unused SCA on FM stations or > vertical-interval coding on TV signals - there is some possibility that > under the new ECPA they'd be considered private communications and not > subject to attack on broadcasting profanity or obscenity grounds as an > open broadcast might have been. Consult a lawyer for an opinion - I > don't think there've been any court decisions (nor cases filed) yet. True but only one way communications, with no ack/nack capabilities. Also, you would need the compliance of a licensed broadcaster like WTBS for the stargate project, and I am not sure that the cost of SCA etc. would be less than current phone links. The inclusion below is exactly what I am talking about. How long before the entire net drops because of our dependencies on the short term thinking and commitments of corporations? In the group news.announce.important the following was posted: > Many of you know ihnp4 as one of the best connected machines on the > UUCP network. [... stuff deleted ...] This use of ihnp4 as a free mail > forwarder has reached the point where it is being unfairly overloaded. > This overload has to be rectified. Management has decided to > discontinue passing third party email through AT&T machines. > allow time for people time to find other paths. There are many > commercial mail services that will be happy to take on your load. We > recommend AT&T Mail, [...] > > This cutoff applies to ihnp4, cbosgd, and att. It will probably affect > other AT&T machines within a year. > > [....] cbosgd and ihnp4 will > go away soon anyway, as they are being replaced by official gateways. > Beginning July 1, 1988, all external links to cbosgd and ihnp4 will be > severed. [....] > Effective September 1, 1988, pass-through email will be returned to the > sender. The moving finger writes and moves on....this I fear is a view of the future. How long will the NET survive?? Will it exist only on DDN (ARPA) until Congress cuts back on that too? I think that it is time to consider alternatives, before we are faced with having to make hasty decisions because we are forced to. I believe that it is the administrators that should make these decisions. The point is the Net does not have to die, or even limit the groups. We can still have a freebe as long as HAMS are willing to act as the backbone. One Ham station per city acting as a gateway...all calls for subsequent feeds could be local calls. This can be done using a moderate sized micro as the news hub for an entire city. Point to point communications would occur between Ham sites and forwarded to a distribution hub if the Ham site chose not to be a distributor. Transmission speeds intercity could be slow (1200 baud) as the links never need be broken...(ie think of them as a 4 wire dedicated circuit) We first need to set some rules about content before we go much farther. Discussion?? -- Barry S. Berg DOMAIN: barry@n0atp.N0ATP.MN.ORG N0ATP Packet Radio Gateway UUCP: {...}amdahl!bungia!n0atp!barry "Speech is civilization itself--it is silence which isolates." --Thomas Mann "Moderation in all things, most especially moderation." --Author as yet unknown.
mark@cbnews.ATT.COM (Mark Horton) (06/13/88)
In article <974@ucsd.EDU> brian@ucsd.edu (Brian Kantor) writes: >You might want to look into using unused SCA on FM stations or >vertical-interval coding on TV signals Hmm, sounds like Stargate. Except that this medium is typically local, not nationwide, like Stargate. Mark
lyndon@ncc.Nexus.CA (Lyndon Nerenberg) (06/15/88)
In article <14@n0atp.UUCP> barry@n0atp.UUCP (Barry S. Berg) writes: > The point is the Net does not have to die, or even limit the groups. > We can still have a freebe as long as HAMS are willing to act as the > backbone. One Ham station per city acting as a gateway...all calls > for subsequent feeds could be local calls. This can be done using a > moderate sized micro as the news hub for an entire city. Point to > point communications would occur between Ham sites and forwarded to > a distribution hub if the Ham site chose not to be a distributor. > Transmission speeds intercity could be slow (1200 baud) as the links > never need be broken...(ie think of them as a 4 wire dedicated circuit) The discussion about content, distribution, etc., is not relevent. The one section of the rules governing amateur radio that wipes this entire concept out is this: Only an amateur radio operator may initiate any communication that takes place via amateur radio. This means that "every" article would have to be verified by a licensed amateur prior to it's transmission over the air. That same operator would also be liable in any subsequent legal dispute over the article. Ham radio is not a replacement for the telephone system, Telenet, or any common carrier. Sorry folks, but it's time everyone realized that if usenet is to continue, all the users will have to start sharing the costs. Period. --lyndon VE6BBM -- {alberta,utzoo,uunet}!ncc!lyndon lyndon@Nexus.CA
barry@n0atp.UUCP (Barry S. Berg) (06/17/88)
In article <10288@ncc.Nexus.CA> lyndon@ncc.UUCP (Lyndon Nerenberg) writes: [my stuff deleted....] >The discussion about content, distribution, etc., is not relevent. The >one section of the rules governing amateur radio that wipes this entire >concept out is this: > > Only an amateur radio operator may initiate any communication > that takes place via amateur radio. > >This means that "every" article would have to be verified by a licensed >amateur prior to it's transmission over the air. That same operator would >also be liable in any subsequent legal dispute over the article. >--lyndon VE6BBM ^^^^^^^ (Canadian Amateur Call Sign) I did not find that quote in Part 97 of FCC's rules... Noticed the VE Call.. If that is the case for Canada then true the net would not be able to use Amateur Radio in Canada. > >Sorry folks, but it's time everyone realized that if usenet is to >continue, all the users will have to start sharing the costs. Period. In any case whatever the transmission media, the initial point of this posting was that of obscenities. We don't need them, and you insult more than the person you are flaming with them. One advantage of having people use common sense and restraint is that there may be advantages as well for performing in a civil manner. Which was for example, low cost bandwidth. -- Barry S. Berg DOMAIN: barry@n0atp.N0ATP.MN.ORG N0ATP Packet Radio Gateway UUCP: {...}amdahl!bungia!n0atp!barry "Speech is civilization itself--it is silence which isolates." --Thomas Mann "Moderation in all things, most especially moderation." --Author as yet unknown.
tneff@dasys1.UUCP (Tom Neff) (06/17/88)
If carrying USENET on a putative ham radio backbone would mean imposing "broadcast standards" censorship on the entire pool of subscribers, then I submit it ain't worth it. If you want to broadcast email and newsgroups, then write a filter or hire someone who knows how. In the meantime, let's struggle onward with the existing, imperfect net where we can say what we want. I don't get any more of a charge out of reading unnecessary profanity than the next person, but I'll be damned if I'll give it up just to go on the radio (in however many years that takes to build). In short -- unworkable and antithetical to net.principles. -- Tom Neff UUCP: ...!cmcl2!phri!dasys1!tneff "None of your toys CIS: 76556,2536 MCI: TNEFF will function..." GEnie: TOMNEFF BIX: are you kidding?
lyndon@ncc.Nexus.CA (Lyndon Nerenberg) (06/18/88)
In article <21@n0atp.UUCP> barry@n0atp.UUCP (Barry S. Berg) writes: >In article <10288@ncc.Nexus.CA> lyndon@ncc.UUCP (Lyndon Nerenberg) writes: >> >> Only an amateur radio operator may initiate any communication >> that takes place via amateur radio. >> >>This means that "every" article would have to be verified by a licensed >>amateur prior to it's transmission over the air. That same operator would >>also be liable in any subsequent legal dispute over the article. >>--lyndon VE6BBM > ^^^^^^^ (Canadian Amateur Call Sign) > > > I did not find that quote in Part 97 of FCC's rules... Noticed the VE > Call.. If that is the case for Canada then true the net would not > be able to use Amateur Radio in Canada. It's not an exact quote. It IS in the amateur reg's of every country in the known world. Perhaps someone with a copy of Part 97 can quote the appropriate section. Actually, there are other reg's that would forbid this. Most fall under the third-party traffic [dis]agreements between various countries. Although there are over 300 "countries" I could potentially communicate with, the number of countries I can exchange third party traffic with is a *very* restricted subset (third party traffic being any message I pass on behalf of someone else). In the cases where third party traffic is allowed, you are required to keep a written (on paper) copy of the message for a period of one year. There are also reg's covering the "physical" transmission of third party traffic. By way of example, we have several repeaters in the city interfaced to the phone system. This facility allows me to call a non-amateur on the telephone. It does not allow the reverse, because the reg's explicitly forbid a non-amateur from initiating a transmission (read "pushing the mic button") unless there is a licensed ham physically present at the time maintaining control of the transmission. There are political reasons as well that will keep this from ever happening. If the commercial common carriers ever got wind of us doing this, we would probably see our band allocations vanish as the CC's started screaming "foul play." Check out the discussion about the UPS band raid in rec.ham-radio for more info on this. -- {alberta,utzoo,uunet}!ncc!lyndon lyndon@Nexus.CA
barry@n0atp.UUCP (Barry S. Berg) (06/20/88)
In article <10289@ncc.Nexus.CA> lyndon@ncc.UUCP (Lyndon Nerenberg) writes: >In article <21@n0atp.UUCP> barry@n0atp.UUCP (Barry S. Berg) writes: >>In article <10288@ncc.Nexus.CA> lyndon@ncc.UUCP (Lyndon Nerenberg) writes: >>The discussion about content, distribution, etc., is not relevent. The >>one section of the rules governing amateur radio that wipes this entire >>concept out is this: to which I replied and which he ignored.... > In any case whatever the transmission media, the initial point of this > posting was that of obscenities. We don't need them, and you insult > more than the person you are flaming with them. One advantage of > having people use common sense and restraint is that there may be > advantages as well for performing in a civil manner. Which was for > example, low cost bandwidth. [ boring discussion as to why ham radio won't work...] READ MY LIPS... from the parts you refused to quote the topic is on the foul and obscene language used which does not add to the content of the message in any way, form, or manner. The reason this was posted to news.admin and NOT the rec.ham* was to start a discussion as to what could be done about the foul language. READ the subject line ... it does not say ham radio is a neat thing.... I was trying to use an example of benefits...also hams have a very good record of for the most part of controling abuses by social pressure Just saying hey...we don't do that here! has been very effective. reality check time?....ok, back to the subject.... A couple of people mentioned the ability to scan for obscene language, and kick the posting back. I think this is could be a good idea, if not carried to far. One use of the f-word should not do it, but maybe some sort of word count and evaluative total like a diction reader (writer) level threshold to pass would not be too bad. We bounce postings if there are too many lines in the signature, and if the reply doesn't contain more reply than inclusion. (how do I know...I got caught that how !!! :-) ) Maybe we should bounce the posting because of bad language. I don't think that there is a technical solution. Maybe we as admins... just mail a pink slip to the offender's home machine admin, and if that administrator gets in their opinion enough of them, she/he has a talk with the offender. This would handle the no dirty words in the message, but the context was obscene problem. I know its a lot of trouble, but I think we need to set a level of community standards here. again...discussion?? -- Barry S. Berg DOMAIN: barry@n0atp.N0ATP.MN.ORG N0ATP Packet Radio Gateway UUCP: {...}amdahl!bungia!n0atp!barry "Speech is civilization itself--it is silence which isolates." --Thomas Mann "Moderation in all things, most especially moderation." --Author as yet unknown.
barry@eos.UUCP (Kenn Barry) (06/21/88)
I see potential for confusion here. Follow-uppers, watch out: Barry Berg is barry@n0atp; I am Kenn Barry, barry@eos.UUCP. Try not to get us backwards :-). >>In article <21@n0atp.UUCP> barry@n0atp.UUCP (Barry S. Berg) writes: >> In any case whatever the transmission media, the initial point of this >> posting was that of obscenities. We don't need them, and you insult >> more than the person you are flaming with them. I think this is the aspect of your suggestion that needs the most amplification. We don't need them? Well, most of the net would be hard to justify on a basis of "need". Can we agree that the word you should have chosen was "want"? If so, I suggest you're wrong. One of the best things about the net is the nearly-complete freedom of expression available here. In a time when silly, archaic rules about "obscenity" have nearly disappeared from print media, why do you feel having such rules on the net would be a good thing? In article <22@n0atp.UUCP> barry@n0atp.UUCP (Barry S. Berg) writes: >Maybe we should bounce the posting because of bad language. Why? I don't object to bad language. I do object to bad writing, but I'm even willing to put up with that, in return for the freedom the net gives to everyone to have their say. Your proposal looks to me like a solution in search of a problem. Unless/until some Meese-clone looks in on the net, and decides that unlicensed vulgarity is corrupting the moral fiber of our youth, and must be stopped, I fail to see in what way such language constitutes a problem. >I don't think that there is a technical solution. Maybe we as admins... >just mail a pink slip to the offender's home machine admin, and if that >administrator gets in their opinion enough of them, she/he has a talk with >the offender. This would handle the no dirty words in the message, but >the context was obscene problem. I know its a lot of trouble, but I think >we need to set a level of community standards here. I like the standards we have. They do exist. Net opinion has successfully controlled unjustifiably extreme and unprovoked outbursts of sheer hatred, as well as other inappropriate uses of this net, like outright advertising. What we have, now, is a comfortably loose system which only comes down on those who manage to seriously outrage the bulk of the people this net serves - those who read it. As a system of control, this verges on the ideal. Perhaps it will not continue to work indefinitely, as more and more sites and users join the net, but so far, so good. So-called obscenity has its uses. Even you concede as much, by admitting that a single use of "the f-word" should not provoke censorship. I see no evidence that the kind of standards you want in place are desired by the rank and file of the net, nor have I seen any arguments from you for their desirability. I see no reason we need to honor superstitious ideas of words as magical, mana-filled entities. I would be repelled by the installation of a net.police to oversee what I and others post. That's just an invitation to ideologues and Mrs. Grundys to coerce this refreshingly open forum into their personal vision of right-thinking purity. It is our good fortune that the lack of any central authority on the net makes such a thing presently impossible. Long live free speech. - From the Crow's Nest - Kenn Barry - QQQCLC - NASA-Ames Research Center ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ELECTRIC AVENUE: {most major sites}!ames!eos!barry ARPA: barry@eos
jwl@ernie.Berkeley.EDU (James Wilbur Lewis) (06/21/88)
In article <22@n0atp.UUCP> barry@n0atp.UUCP (Barry S. Berg) writes: > > [ concern about obscenity on the net making it difficult to use > packet radio... ] > I know its a lot of trouble, but I think >we need to set a level of community standards here. "We", kemosabe? Some of us are wont to express ourselves colorfully when the occasion warrants. "We" don't need no steenkin' censorship....many of us would be much happier if the FCC (and anyone else who objects to certain concatenations of characters) kept their nose out of the net. If you're offended...no one's forcing you to participate. You don't have to transmit any articles you don't like. But don't expect to hold the rest of the net to your standards! -- Jim Lewis U.C. Berkeley
weemba@garnet.berkeley.edu (Obnoxious Math Grad Student) (06/21/88)
In article <22@n0atp.UUCP>, barry@n0atp (Barry S. Berg) writes: > Guvf jbhyq unaqyr gur ab qvegl jbeqf va gur zrffntr, ohg >gur pbagrkg jnf bofprar ceboyrz. V xabj vgf n ybg bs gebhoyr, ohg V guvax >jr arrq gb frg n yriry bs pbzzhavgl fgnaqneqf urer. >ntnva...qvfphffvba?? Fher. Ernq zl yvcf: SHPX BSS. ucbvax!garnet!weemba Matthew P Wiener/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720