That's a good question and perhaps one worthy of exploration. However, its also pretty academic IMHO. Whether you think the F-bomb or other "obcenities" are indeed unacceptable or not, I think the majority of people in the US, FREX, would define those words as obcene.
So we're going to put things like basic rights up for a majority vote? I thought one of the points of the First Amendment was to insulate potentially unpopular ideas from being trampled by the majority. What if "the majority of people in the US" wanted to ban left-wing opinions from public expression? What if they wanted to impose Christianity as the state religion? Well, they can't, because of the First Amendment. Granted, there's a difference between expressing a controversial opinion and spouting bad language for the sake of appearing "daring" and "shocking." Still, I don't think delineating that difference from a legal point of view should be subject to what "the majority of people in the US" may happen to think at any one time.
Want to protect kids? Fine. But there are so many other ways in this country that we don't do a damn thing to really help kids that it strikes me as hypocritical to espouse censorship in order to protect children while millions of children have no access to basic healthcare (to point out just one example). It reminds me of the woman in The Simpsons (Helen Lovejoy, the minister's wife) who hysterically screams "Think about the children!" no matter the topic of discussion is. American kids face far more serious threats than hearing Howard Stern utter some smut on the radio.
Tom Beck
"I always knew I'd see the first man on the Moon. I never thought I'd see the last." - Dr. Jerry Pournelle
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
