From: “Corey Minter” <cminter@mipos2.intel.com>
To: pp@pfawww.pp.se (Per Persson)
Message Hash: a61d293e88a9ad77d4dbc89a5063e39b4b270c8cd5b5f989177da4c238c8fd74
Message ID: <199602282112.NAA09059@zws388.sc.intel.com>
Reply To: <y3yivgzk3z6.fsf@ojnk.bahnhof.se>
UTC Datetime: 1996-02-28 22:59:22 UTC
Raw Date: Thu, 29 Feb 1996 06:59:22 +0800
From: "Corey Minter" <cminter@mipos2.intel.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Feb 1996 06:59:22 +0800
To: pp@pfawww.pp.se (Per Persson)
Subject: Re: new "obscenity" law on the net
In-Reply-To: <y3yivgzk3z6.fsf@ojnk.bahnhof.se>
Message-ID: <199602282112.NAA09059@zws388.sc.intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
> "Ben A. Mesander" <ben@gnu.ai.mit.edu> writes:
>
> >Just curious - will the new law outlawing obscenity on the net in the us
> >cause you to make changes to some of the comments in the emacs source code?
>
> Some weeks ago, Lars and Richard went through the Gnus source and
> removed 'fuck' two times and 'fucking' one time (if I didn't get it
> all wrong). I wonder if that's your fault.
what if I had written some code which doesn't function properly unless
certain indecent words were in the source code and then put the code
on the WWW :). Would that violate Congress' Despotic Action?
What if when you looked at the text on a 80 column screen and because
of line wrap it said something indecent otherwise it was
unintelligible? It seems that no reasonable person would go after a
person for that but then aren't we talking about selective
enforcement.
F T C U H D C E A K
Return to February 1996
Return to “pp@pfawww.pp.se (Per Persson)”