From: Duncan Frissell <frissell@panix.com>
Date: Fri, 5 Jan 1996 19:55:46 +0800
To: Rudi Raith <cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Indecency Mathematics
Message-ID: <2.2.32.19960105113904.008ea92c@panix.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


At 02:26 PM 1/4/96 +0100, Rudi Raith wrote:
>2)
>
>I suppose that there is a predicate indecent_p(n), which is true if n
>represents something indecent, false otherwise. (Some implementation
>of such a predicate could be a police officer arresting you upon
>presentation of the number to him, yielding true. :-) ) Such numbers
>may be called "Indecent Numbers", their "posession", "transfer",
>etc. be banned.

Fortunately or unfortunately, "decency" and "indecency" are incapable of
exact mapping to words.  Location, context, tone of voice, year, time of
day, recipient of communication, etc. all affect "indecency."

"That girl is attractive."

"The bitch is in heat."

"Our President -- William Jefferson Blythe Clinton."

"Jesus Christ is the Son of God."

All of these statements are sometimes decent and sometimes
indecent/blasphemous.  It depends purely on a host of factors.  That is the
point of using the "indecency" standard.

Consider the similar problem of defining the crime of Blasphemy:

Christian:
"Jesus Christ, the Messiah is God"

Blasphemy because it claims that a man as God.

Jew:
"The Messiah has not yet come."

Blasphemy because it denies the divinity of Jesus.

We solved this problem in the US by legalizing all such speech.  That is the
only way to handle the similar decency/indecency definition problems.

DCF

"Government is not established for the benefit of the governed."