[Tfug] Another CC* weighs in....

[Robert Hunter]

On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 1:11 AM, Jeff Coy <jcoy42 at gmail.com> wrote:
> The aup specifically prohibits "Foul language"  If you look here:
>   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foul_language
>  you'll see that "hell" is listed.

Indeed it is. The original citation is a single academic paper in a
psychology journal.  Not authoritative by any means.  It pays to check
your references.

On the other hand, here is the definition of profanity, as given by the FCC:

"Profane material is defined as including language that denotes
certain of those personally reviling epithets naturally tending to
provoke violent resentment or denoting language so grossly offensive
to members of the public who actually hear it as to amount to a
nuisance."

I would argue that the word 'hell' neither provokes violent
resentment, nor is grossly offensive, to the *general public*.  I
doubt you could get a court of law to rule otherwise.

Consider also that neither Merriam Webster, nor Oxford dictionaries
describe "hell" as vulgar or obscene.  Contrast this, for example,
with the f-word.

>
> the list aup also specifically prohibits "Referencing someone based on sex,
> race, religion, etc in a negative tone."  I would take calling religious
> folks as "nut jobs" as exactly that.

I did not call anyone, by name, a nut job.  Nor did I use that term in
reference to any specific religion, nor to people with religious
views, in general.  It was, however, meant to describe people with
extreme beliefs, such that they feel it is necessary to censor other
people from using the word 'hell' -- something which I am arguing is
irrational, i.e. "nutty" behavior.

>
> Now, again, is it really such a big deal to try to keep the subject line
> clean, considering the AUP?

See above, about legal definition of profanity.


--
RH