[spaxiaroorbes]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1587270.html

MIDDLEBOROUGH, Mass. — Residents in Middleborough voted Monday night to make the foul-mouthed pay fines for swearing in public.

At a town meeting, residents voted 183-50 to approve a proposal from the police chief to impose a $20 fine on public profanity.

Officials insist the proposal was not intended to censor casual or private conversations, but instead to crack down on loud, profanity-laden language used by teens and other young people in the downtown area and public parks.

I'm really happy about it," Mimi Duphily, a store owner and former town selectwoman, said after the vote. "I'm sure there's going to be some fallout, but I think what we did was necessary."

Duphily, who runs an auto parts store, is among the downtown merchants who wanted take a stand against the kind of swearing that can make customers uncomfortable.

"They'll sit on the bench and yell back and forth to each other with the foulest language. It's just so inappropriate," she said.

The measure could raise questions about First Amendment rights, but state law does allow towns to enforce local laws that give police the power to arrest anyone who "addresses another person with profane or obscene language" in a public place.

Matthew Segal, legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts, said the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the government cannot prohibit public speech just because it contains profanity.

The ordinance gives police discretion over whether to ticket someone if they believe the cursing ban has been violated.

Middleborough, a town of about 20,000 residents perhaps best known for its rich cranberry bogs, has had a bylaw against public profanity since 1968. But because that bylaw essentially makes cursing a crime, it has rarely if ever been enforced, officials said, because it simply would not merit the time and expense to pursue a case through the courts.

The ordinance would decriminalize public profanity, allowing police to write tickets as they would for a traffic violation. It would also decriminalize certain types of disorderly conduct, public drinking and marijuana use, and dumping snow on a roadway.

Segal praised Middleborough for reconsidering its bylaw against public profanity, but said fining people for it isn't much better.

"Police officers who never enforced the bylaw might be tempted to issue these fines, and people might end up getting fined for constitutionally protected speech," he said.

Another local merchant, Robert Saquet, described himself as "ambivalent" about the no-swearing proposal, likening it to try to enforce a ban on the seven dirty words of George Carlin, a nod to a famous sketch by the late comedian.

"In view of words commonly used in movies and cable TV, it's kind of hard to define exactly what is obscene," said Paquet, who owns a downtown furniture store.

But Duphily said, "I don't care what you do in private. It's in public what bothers me."

[BrandandGeneric]

At first glance this sounds ridiculous, but it's not as bad as it sounds. First, they are downgrading public profanity from a criminal offense (!) to a misdemeanor.

As Libertarians, we don't want to restrict individual rights, unless they impinge upon the rights of others, which is the intent here. The examples in the story are related to merchants who experience young people swearing profusely within earshot of customers within children. I think that is impinging upon others.

[Xcqjwarl]

So...
Who's going to bring GoD's bail money for the next Massachusetts GS-US get together?

[spaxiaroorbes]

At first glance this sounds ridiculous, but it's not as bad as it sounds. First, they are downgrading public profanity from a criminal offense (!) to a misdemeanor.

As Libertarians, we don't want to restrict individual rights, unless they impinge upon the rights of others, which is the intent here. The examples in the story are related to merchants who experience young people swearing profusely within earshot of customers within children. I think that is impinging upon others.

I think the "think of the children" rhetoric is the weakest load of shit ever but is surprisingly effective at rendering all rights nullified because of the emotional appeal. The problem with this particular load of shit is assigning the authority to deem what is and is not profane. Profanity is part of the speech we decided a long time ago we'd like to keep unabridged. I suppose if we pull enough emotional heartstrings we can repeal such a notion so that our tender children won't have to endure a free society.

[theonsushv]

I may not approve of what you say ......but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

Voltaire

[kristloken]

DEATH to the Individual!!!!

[MrGunjMan_]

Oh this one is a toss up.

On the topic of profanity in general (disregarding that the law was changed from a criminal offense to a misdemeanor) . . .

If enough people governed themselves accordingly in public, this would not be an issue.

If words were treated as WORDS, this would not be an issue. They're just words, after all. Why is one word more offensive than other words? In my opinion, "crap" is not a curse word, and I use it in place of "shit" in polite company. But "crap", to many people is a curse word. In my house growing up, "fart" was even considered a bad word. We had to say "toot". They both mean the same thing. Why would one be more offensive than the other? Because they said so, that's why!

[sStevenRitziI]

At first glance this sounds ridiculous, but it's not as bad as it sounds. First, they are downgrading public profanity from a criminal offense (!) to a misdemeanor.

As Libertarians, we don't want to restrict individual rights, unless they impinge upon the rights of others, which is the intent here. The examples in the story are related to merchants who experience young people swearing profusely within earshot of customers within children. I think that is impinging upon others.

I agree with you, but I disagree wholeheartedly with this law. The issue should be private property rights, not "social responsibility". If I own a shop and there are kids using profane words that negatively affect my business (property), I have the right to disallow them from being on my property. I don't need to use a third party (the state) to threaten and coerce them on my behalf.

Alas, nowadays if you own a business it is considered more public property than private.

[jesyflowers]

I think a $20 fine is despicable and disgusting.

But sweeping the streets for a few hours seems kinda reasonable.

You know, tough love, like the romantic old days.

I can just see the Sheriff sitting there on the porch, shotgun in his lap, spittin chaw on the planks,
seeing that the foul mouthed heathens payed their debt to society with honor
for besmirching the innocence of all the little children.

Me, I'm too mean to wanna live in that kind of Ponderosa bullshit, though.

[Vegeinvalge]

Fuck that!

Originally Posted by Sparky

At first glance this sounds ridiculous, but it's not as bad as it sounds. First, they are downgrading public profanity from a criminal offense (!) to a misdemeanor.

As Libertarians, we don't want to restrict individual rights, unless they impinge upon the rights of others, which is the intent here. The examples in the story are related to merchants who experience young people swearing profusely within earshot of customers within children. I think that is impinging upon others. I think it would be better if business owners could remove unruly patrons without threat of legal actions. The business owners could "save the children" if they so choose.

[feannigvogten]

Why not just charge them with disorderly conduct?

[BrandandGeneric]

So...
Who's going to bring GoD's bail money for the next Massachusetts GS-US get together?

Too funny! I don't think we have enough!

[gvataler]

Why not just charge them with disorderly conduct?

You forgot the [sarc][/sarc].

I HOPE.

[BrandandGeneric]

I understand all of your arguments against it. But I don't really see them as determining which are "swear words", so much as whether someone is exhibiting a loud display of vulgarity that would interfere with customers (or their children), or someone trying to enjoy a public area. Like Uncle Salty said, this may be more of a "disorderly conduct" issue, so maybe they don't really need a special rule for swear words.

And I understand the hatred for the "it's for the children" argument in general, but I don't think this applies. Some things you really should do for the children. Like you should have the option of limiting exposure of a 5-year-old from a relentless stream of F-bombs.

This isn't about using swear-words in a public area. It's more like broadcasting them in a public area.

[gvataler]

I understand all of your arguments against it. But I don't really see them as determining which are "swear words", so much as whether someone is exhibiting a loud display of vulgarity that would interfere with customers (or their children), or someone trying to enjoy a public area. Like Uncle Salty said, this may be more of a "disorderly conduct" issue, so maybe they don't really need a special rule for swear words.

And I understand the hatred for the "it's for the children" argument in general, but I don't think this applies. Some things you really should do for the children. Like you should have the option of limiting exposure of a 5-year-old from a relentless stream of F-bombs.

This isn't about using swear-words in a public area. It's more like broadcasting them in a public area.

Local areas have the right to make whatever rules they want. One could always leave a local area for something more to their liking. It's when states and FedGov start making comprehensive policy "the law", the is nowhere to run, nowhere to hide... that's when I start to get a little agitated.

[BrandandGeneric]

Local areas have the right to make whatever rules they want. One could always leave a local area for something more to their liking. It's when states and FedGov start making comprehensive policy "the law", the is nowhere to run, nowhere to hide... that's when I start to get a little agitated.

Yes, this is a local ruling, not state or Fed.

[theonsushv]

Oh this one is a toss up.

On the topic of profanity in general (disregarding that the law was changed from a criminal offense to a misdemeanor) . . .

If enough people governed themselves accordingly in public, this would not be an issue.

!

But we are not even afforded the chance.............. there is a old saying City Hall never met a Law it didnt like and this one is perfect: It is just vauge enough to give a trigger happy goons even more control.

You better beleive there will come a day when a Person is arrested for saying "Friggen Darn it"

[CathBraunn]

This is retarded. It allows local gov to determine what is an obscene word and fine you money for it. It is a tax. In the real world, we are perfectly fine with people either, ejecting customers from our shops if they make a scene, or with person to person interaction to disperse the "cursing" situation. There is no injury. There is no crime. The town and the community can shame the person that behaves in ways that do not meet with the community standards. That person will leave or change, or hide under a rock. No crime has been comitted that you were out with your children and they overheard reality. People curse, people are rude and sometimes violent. Your children should be exposed to reality, so that they can ask the questions and you can fibber/fudder trying to answer them.

This is bullshit, and I am sure it will be held unconstitutional to their state constitution whenever it comes up. If anyone can find standing to sue, since they are all federal employees and all.

Fun times.

[toreesi]

When I was little I was protected from swear words.

Didn't seem to help.

[kristloken]

Whats the difference between cussing in public and say loudly protesting criminal Government?

You take away the individuals right to free speech, and it effects ALL FREE SPEECH.

Another example of parents not wanting to actually teach their child a lesson when confronted with ignorant people. And guess what: You will ALWAYS find ignorant people. You are much better off teaching your child THE VALUE OF FREE SPEECH by explaining to them the reality of free speech, what it means, and why people have the right to do it.