I’m a big fan of Rex Stout’s Nero Wolfe/Archie Goodwin mysteries, which were written from the 1930s - 1970s.
In several stories, wisecracking narrator Archie will describe a telephone conversation wherein someone – a suspect, a client, a witness – uses “language that’s not supposed to be transmitted over the telephone wires” or similar text.
BTW, I’m pretty sure this “language” is straightforward profanity, not a death threat or anything that would be considered illegal today.
(Stout – through Archie as narrator – prefers to avoid profanity, where “balls!” is usually as rough as things ever get. He uses other gimmicks to skip obscenities, such as having Archie claim that he’s avoiding certain words because one of ‘his’ readers says she shares the books with her 12-year-old nephew.)
My point is, the fact that he uses this at least three or four times always makes me wonder: is this Stout using his literary license, or is it true that some governmental entity (and whom? the FCC?) tried to restrict the use of obscenities spoken over a telephone call? And if it’s true, how was this enforced, and when did the rule die?
Well, this is an utter WAG, but most postal administrations have (or had) rules about the carriage of obscene material in the mails. In the early decades of telephony, many countries’ telephone and telegraph services were run by the post office - so maybe that has something to do with it.
As for enforcement, well I guess there wasn’t any.
Wouldn’t it simply be a take on “words that should not be used in front of ladies’” or “words unfit to be printed”? Or as my Abuelita once said “words that I am quite sure I did not understand,” because, you see, Abuelita was a lady and there are certain words which a lady simply shall not understand.
It didn’t have to be illegal, but somehow and specially when people didn’t go through life with three cellphones, using foul language over the phone or in a letter sounds more deliberate and therefore worse than using it, dunnow, just as a falling hammer strikes your toe.
The Loaded Dog – hmm, that makes sense, although I’ve never heard of a link between the U.S. postal and telephone services. That’s an interesting correlation though!
Nava – well, Archie did use the “words unfit due to ladies present” construction too. But it’s not typical of his character to be that coy, especially not repeatedly, to the point of saying something false. And he definitely mentioned illegality at some point.
Darn. I’m rereading the books now, and I wish I’d waited to post until I had an exact quote.
My own WAG: I wonder if it has to do with the era where operators were used to place calls, rather than direct calls. IOW, perhaps the possibility of a third party overhearing an obscenity made the offense greater?
I seem to recall hearing that operators, back when all calls were completed manually at switchboards, would listen in and cut off any call that contained profanity. I don’t know if that was ever actually true, or if it was a widespread policy as opposed to a few Grundys taking it on themselves to clean up the utility.
One Wolfe short story has an operator listening in to calls she connected as a vital part of the plot.
It’s interesting that Archie and Nero never age, even though the surrounding technology does.
In the first book ‘Fer De Lance’, private planes are just coming in. By the time of ‘A Family Affair’ , about 40 years later the characters are still the same (and as well-drawn as ever).
I can recommend John McAleer’s biography as a dryish, thoroughly-researched scholarly work and Baring-Gould’s fictional biography as amusing.
Stout was a national treasure for creating Nero Wolfe. However, if you don’t already know, Goldsborough sucks. Avoid the new Nero Wolfe novels like the plague.
I know this is probably of no help whatsoever, but when I was a kid (in 1970’s Canada) it was a “well-known fact” that it was against the law to swear on the phone.
Whether this had any basis in reality whatsoever, I can’t say.
(Geeze, at times like this I really wish the SDMB would update their vBulletin software. We need multiquote, dammit!)
Thanks for the brainstorming, y’all. This topic has always made me curious whenever I come across the references in the books, but I never bothered trying to find out the truth behind the line.
That would make a lot of sense. I’ve done some more snooping around and I’ve come across some state laws (mostly in the south – NC, VA, TX – but also one in WA) that say it’s illegal to use ‘lewd, profane, threatening or indecent’ language over the telephone.
Does this sound likely for New York of those earlier times? This would mean Stout and ‘Archie’ may have been technically correct. Plus, his breezy and irreverent style would have made it a natural to exaggerate this point for effect.
I suppose the enforcement would only be possible if an operator or someone at the other end of the call (or a party line, as madmonk28 wisely notes) made an official complaint. As if the cops didn’t have enough to do. Then again, with Wolfe solving all these murders, they probably had some free time on their hands.
That’s “The Next Witness,” from the compilation Three Witnesses. It was a telephone answering service operator, back in the days when there were such things. (Actually I’m sure they still exist, probably described as a ‘virtual receptionist’ or such.)
We’ll probably get shunted off to Cafe Society, but I do agree! They are an ageless pair, and I loved seeing them go from working with the Army in WWII to Wolfe’s ‘attack’ on Hoover’s FBI abuses.
The only thing that bugs about this decision is when Stout decided to bring back a character from an old case who managed to age significantly while Wolfe/Archie remained static. (Most notably, Paul Whipple from Too Many Cooks, who began as a 21-year-old college kid but returns decades later in A Right to Die as a middle-aged father of a twentysomething under arrest for murder. Suddenly we become all too aware of the passage of time, where Wolfe should be in his mid-seventies and ever-youthful Archie would be-- gulp!-- fiftysomething! Perish the thought! I wish Stout had avoided such attempts at continuity, or simply changed the murder suspect in ARtD to Whipple himself.)
I’m always on the lookout for a good copy of the McAleer bio! Thanks for the rec. I’ve read the Baring-Gould Nero Wolfe of 35th Street book, if that’s the one you mean. It is clever! Although other than a couple of the earlier chapters – where Baring-Gould maintains his humorous theory that Wolfe is the son of Sherlock Holmes & Irene Adler and Archie is Wolfe’s son – it’s mostly a rehash of quotes from the books.
jayjay, I’m with you on both counts. The Goldsborough attempts have a couple of interesting moments, but they’re pale and at times cheap imitiations of the real thing.
Back when it was the Bell System (at least while I was growing up in the 50s and 60s) it was well known that people would monitor phone calls listening for profanity. I don’t know of anyone who was caught and I sure didn’t talk like that then. And, of course, it could have just been an urban legend. Still, those were much different times and the telephone system was a monopoly. I suppose they could pretty much place any restrictions they wanted on people using their equipment and lines. It isn’t even likely that the courts would have gotten too upset with them.
I didn’t even know there were any laws against it until the one posted above (which seems to be extremely difficult to enforce).
This is an excellent point.
I can see why Stout decided to do it, since it meant the chemistry between the characters (including Saul Panzer and Inspector Cramer) would remain. Also the reader would have the comfortable feeling of familiarity with the world (like wearing comfy slippers!)
Yes, that’s the book.
To increase our chances of moving to Cafe Society: which is your favourite Wolfe book?!
I seem to recall from my class on “Broadcast Laws and Policies” that part of the US Code prohibited language that was “obscene, indecent or profane”. A quick google search for that phrase found this from the FCC .
That just covers broadcasting though. The relevant US Code is Title 18, Chapter 71. I thought that the US Code also covered telephone communication, but I can’t find the appropriate section.
That’s interesting, Ferd Burfel. Like you, I can’t find anything relating to phone ‘indecency’. Maybe it was only ever a state by state thing? How long has the FCC governed the telephones, anyway?
Ooh. I’d say it’s a very close race. Probably The Doorbell Rang (Wolfe vs. the FBI), because I just love Wolfe’s audacity in declaring war on J. Edgar Hoover. It’s closely followed by Prisoner’s Base and In the Best Families. What about you?
For the United Kingdom:
Here is a explanation of the 1984 telecommunications Act section 43.
Read 2a and 2b.
For the USA:
I find an interesting page from The Yale Law Journal Vol. 4 No. 6.
This is from 1895 and the relevant part is title The Law of the Telephone. The article starts discussing that the telephone subject to the same laws that were passed for the telegraph. I don’t have access to the site, but maybe some of the people that do will research this 7 page section further. This one interests me as does it led to obscenity laws on telephone communication written originaly for the telegraph? The Law of the Telephone on JSTOR Yale Law Journal Vol. 4 No. 6
The latest relevant federal law seems to be Telecommunications Act of 1996, which has had parts ruled unconstitutional. All the states have their own additional laws that define telephone obscenity.
At least it hasn’t been a problem since the late 80’s. State relay services for the deaf will gladly verbalize all manner of profanity and sexually charged language to the hearing party on the other end. Unfortunately they put NO feeling into it, so it comes out flat and uninteresting.
Wow, that is an interesting link! I love the line stating that the “‘Telephone’ comes from the genus ‘Telegraph’.” How very … biological!
That does appear to be the case. Thank you very much, all! This has been illuminating. The next time I come across an instance in the Wolfe canon where Archie uses this info, I’ll nod knowingly. (But only by inclining my head one-eighth of an inch. It’s the Wolfean way.)
I’m still hoping that somebody with access to the online archive will look into the matter. I believe it goes farther than it has ever been taking up on this board before.
With respect to your mention of the FCC, be aware that telephony is very different from broadcasting (always federally regulated) and the mails (run by the federal government). Most telephony has always been intrastate and regulated by the states. In the thirties and forties, a long distance (interstate) phone call was a rare and expensive novelty!
So state law and regulation will be your primary source for any anti-obscenity rules, and state PUC’s and state police would have done the enforcement. See choie’s post for some excellent examples–it sounds like those laws are still on the books, although I’m sure there not enforced unless you’re threatening or harassing.
More generally, regardless of the law, in an era of manual switching, administered by a female-dominated work force at a time when swearing in front of women wasn’t socially acceptable, and when there were more party lines (anyone could listen in) and frequent cross-talk, it made sense that a gentleman would be more discreet. Or at least, that he should have been!
