From: "Carl W. Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > It was like the US telecommunications act which set fines for transmitting > its set of proscribed words including in programs that were designed to > filter the words out of text.
Dos this list really exist? Seriously, there's no word that can be proscribed, because they are not themselves infamous. What is infmous or dangrour is their use to make propaganda or incite someones to perform illegal or criminal acts, or acts of war or terrorism, or to diffamate someone without legitimate proofs of his acts, or to deny forbid to someone his right to answer to such attacks. If such words are prohibited, it just forbids defenders to use that same words even when publishing laws listing them as illegal. Even the word pornography isn't abusive if used in a appropriate context. Let's just then forbid the words war or racism, I don't think it will solve the problem caused not by these words but what they represent, and it will just complicate the task of those that are usefully helping to fight against their existence in our real world. And finally this will never be effective to limit the communications of those that perform these infamous speeches or publications and communications, because they will always find some other rude words to bypass these limits. Can a law forbid some words in a language? May be yes, in a terrorist or dictatorial country that denies the right of peoples to name their own community or distinctive signs and symbols of recognitions; I call this oppression if this law applies to private mutual communications... (I include there similar issues during the McCartist period in US for those who claimed to be communist, with such stupid laws changing the words themselves into infamous qualificatives to designate people having unrelated opinions; or to the current Chinese opporession against the representation of Tibetan identity by its own language.)
