For Doug, definitions and legal concerns profanity noun: blasphemous or obscene language. irreligious or irreverent behaviour.
Legal: Irreverence towards sacred things; particularly, an irreverent or blasphemous use of the name of God (which one is not specified). Vulgar, irreverent, or coarse language. (This supposes that sacred things exist.) The word profane means: relating or devoted to that which is not sacred or biblical; secular rather than religious. Not respectful of orthodox religious practice; irreverent. Suppression of the profane violates the rights of non-believers, atheists, agnostics, secular humanists, and probably some Unitarians who prefer not to be bothered by this sort of activity, and not to be pestered by those whose imaginings of invisible, unprovable things they consider lunacy. obscenity noun: the state or quality of being obscene; obscene behaviour, language, or images. an extremely offensive word or expression. Also, indecency, immorality, impropriety, salaciousness, smuttiness, smut, lewdness, impurity, crudeness, vulgarity, dirtiness, dirt, filth, coarseness, crudity. Both these words, profanity and obscenity, are derived from religious thinking, that is, these concepts relate to a non-human imaginary standard of behaviour derived from an imaginary invisible force. This force is never seen, only spoken of by the supposed representatives thereof. 'The English adjective 'obscene' dates to the late 16th century. It's taken from the Middle French obscène and ultimately is from the Latin obscenus, meaning ill-omened, filthy, or disgusting.' 'According to U.S. law, obscene material or speech is not protected by the First Amendment and it may be prohibited outright by the government. 'What exactly constitutes obscenity? Unlike Stewart’s "I know it when I see it" doctrine, the definition of obscenity in U.S. law is fairly clear, albeit still open to some interpretation. The operating standard was penned by Chief Justice Warren Burger in his majority opinion in Miller v. California (1973). Burger proposed a three-pronged test for obscenity:' '"(a) whether 'the average person, applying contemporary community standards' would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest, (b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law; and (c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value."' 'What this means is that, at least as far as the law is concerned, individual words, phrases, or passages cannot be declared to be obscene. The work must be considered as a whole. Therefore, a novel that uses a certain four-letter word or contains some erotic passages, like D.H. Lawrence’s Lady Chatterley’s Lover to name one that is famous for having been censored for both these reasons, cannot be considered obscene.' It would appear that Yahoo's guidelines are not entirely clear in their relationship to United States law. A few passages here and there cannot be considered obscene and profanity is not necessarily obscene either. That these words and concepts continue in our society is a reflection of our continuing ascendency out of the dark ages of religious thought control. It appears to me that Edg (Duveyoung) foisted upon us a creative work, at least he considers it such. It is not sexually oriented to 'prurient interest'.
