HOCKEY-L Archives

- Hockey-L - The College Hockey Discussion List

Hockey-L@LISTS.MAINE.EDU

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
John Whelan <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
John Whelan <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Fri, 18 Feb 2000 14:32:25 +0100
Content-Type:
TEXT/plain
Parts/Attachments:
TEXT/plain (54 lines)
> The first amendment reads "no law ...  abridging freedom of speech".
> Funny, I didn't see a clause about "except profanity".
 
I should point out that people have been using words loosely in this
discussion in contradiction with their technical meanings.  My
understanding of the types of offensive speech from College Radio
Training is:
 
1.  Profane:  Sincerely blasphemous.  We were told "The damnedest
thing happened" was not considered profanity, but "saying 'God damn'
and meaning it" was.
 
2.  Indecent:  Describing sexual or excretory body parts or functions
in a manner patently offensive according to community standards.
 
3.  Obscene:  Meeting the definition of indecent, but also 1)
appealing to prurient interests and 2) lacking any serious literary,
artistic or political value.
 
Obscene speech is not protected by the first amendment (I don't know
what the reasoning of the relevant court decisions was); speech which
is merely indecent is, although for example the FCC is allowed to
regulate indecency in radio because of the pervasive nature of the
medium.  I'm not sure about the status of profanity, but it was
verboten on the radio.
 
Returning to the BU question, "F*ck 'em up, f*ck 'em up, BC sucks" is
certainly not profane, nor it is it obscene, unless you apply a very
broad definition of "prurient interests".  It would therefore seem to
be unconstitutional for the *government* to arrest someone for saying
it, as long as the way in which they said it was not violating some
other law (e.g., harrassment, disturbing the peace, or a noise
ordinance).  However, as several people have pointed out,
constitutional questions are not relevant, since the hockey game is
not taking place in a public place, and the school is certainly
allowed to attach conditions to your admission to the event.
 
That said, I don't think that Cornell *should* be throwing people out
of the rink for using indecent language.  I think most of the time
cheers that don't use vulgarity are more clever, but I don't like the
idea (or the practice) of the usher wading into the crowd and ejecting
everyone who says a naughty word.  But then this is a discussion which
has come up numerous times on this list.
 
                                          John Whelan, Cornell '91
                                                 [log in to unmask]
                                     http://www.amurgsval.org/joe/
 
It's ECAC playoff possibilities time!
        http://www.slack.net/~whelan/cgi-bin/tbrw.cgi?ecac.cgi
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.

ATOM RSS1 RSS2