Mass. residents vote for gov't to regulate what words come out of their mouth

[signelect]

Don't they have anything better to do in MA than that. How about parents actually raising their kids and setting boundries and them teach them that actions have consequenses. If a teenage runs his month someone needs to shut it.

 

[Misty]

Fuck fuckity fuck fuck. I break as many non violent laws as I can every day. Cuz I'm free baby. Free.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

This law wasn't proposed to stop construction workers with broken legs from using profanity and complaining but to combat groups of teenagers who would confront people in public, surround them and scream profanities at them because it amused them to be able to do this. The teens know that no one is going to hit them, shove them out of the way, or even verbally abuse them back. As children they have special protections. Now the public has some special protections too.

The public has always had protection from speech they find offensive. Walk away. Go somewhere else if someone where you're at is saying shit you don't like. Just because your morals don't jive with the direction popular culture is taking common interactions doesn't mean you get to oppress 1st Amendment rights to preserve your moral environment.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Well, a majority of those who attended the town meeting did vote to approve the proposal.

The original intention doesn't mean the law can't be abused in MANY ways and tickets can't be written for situations that aren't remotely similar to the original intent.

So I guess it's just plain wrong to allow rights to be curtailed by popular vote.

(in this case the "majority" represented 0.008% of the population of the town)

You'll have to point out where I said they shouldn't have the right to vote for this kind of stuff, I dunno if they should or not I haven't looked into how it affects 1st amendment rights.

I wasn't getting into the legality of it, just the stupidity of it. Legal and illlegal things can be stupid.

 

[Emma]

Allowing the rights of a minority to be voted away by the majority ... hmmm.

Just doesn't seem ... constitutional, now does it?

 

[Emma]

You'll have to point out where I said they shouldn't have the right to vote for this kind of stuff, I dunno if they should or not I haven't looked into how it affects 1st amendment rights.

I wasn't getting into the legality of it, just the stupidity of it. Legal and illlegal things can be stupid.

Well, you'd think it was inalienable or something.

 

[Katzndogz]

Don't they have anything better to do in MA than that. How about parents actually raising their kids and setting boundries and them teach them that actions have consequenses. If a teenage runs his month someone needs to shut it.

Obviously someone needs to shut it.

What do you want to do when the parents won't control their overly special little angels?

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

Going to play devil's advocate here for a second: How is this any different than criminally punishing people who verbally threaten others?

Threatening someone is a planned thing with the intention of causing someone else harm, can't say that's always the case with swearing.

They are both just words unless something else occurs to back things up

Not necessarily. Threats have an automatic negative emotional effect that, depending on the health of the victim, actually has the potential to cause physical harm. I still feel that its arguable that laws against "terroristic threatening" are bogus, but to say that they line up with laws against profanity. One is an issue of force while the other is an issue of morality. Government regulating one citizen's use of force against another is, by nearly all philosophical schools of thought, an appropriate function of government. Government regulating morality is not nearly as universally accepted.

More important than any philosophy, in this case, is the 1st Amendment. It's entire purpose was to protect the peoples' right to say things that others may feel is inappropriate. If nobody has a problem with what you're saying, you really don't need legal protection to say it, now do you?

 

[Dr.Drock]

Don't they have anything better to do in MA than that. How about parents actually raising their kids and setting boundries and them teach them that actions have consequenses. If a teenage runs his month someone needs to shut it.

Obviously someone needs to shut it.

What do you want to do when the parents won't control their overly special little angels?

What do you want to happen if you cuss in public? A fine?

I used to think democrats were the hypsersensitive ones, now they're still hypersensitive but republicans are right there with them.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

Don't they have anything better to do in MA than that. How about parents actually raising their kids and setting boundries and them teach them that actions have consequenses. If a teenage runs his month someone needs to shut it.

Obviously someone needs to shut it.

What do you want to do when the parents won't control their overly special little angels?

You figure out how to deal with it. What you don't do is start selling off fundamental rights because you have a moral issue with how kids talk.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

Well, a majority of those who attended the town meeting did vote to approve the proposal.

The original intention doesn't mean the law can't be abused in MANY ways and tickets can't be written for situations that aren't remotely similar to the original intent.

So I guess it's just plain wrong to allow rights to be curtailed by popular vote.

(in this case the "majority" represented 0.008% of the population of the town)

Yes, it is wrong (at least by the laws of our nation) for rights to be curtailed by popular vote. This country is not a pure democracy. The whole idea of the Bill of Rights is guaranteeing certain rights beyond the will of any majority. If these rights were intended to be subject to a basic 50 percent + 1 vote, why would anyone have bothered with the Bill of Rights? Removing those requires a constitutional convention, not a majority of religious fanatics in one area.

 

[Katzndogz]

Where does this law have anything to do with religion?

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

Forgive my particular vocabulary, personally I equate all morality with religion, regardless of whether or not your dogma is topped by a deity. Sometimes I speak without acknowledging that most atheists and most believers in any particular religious sect vehemently disagree with that assessment. The reason I equate these things is because, like religion, no one's morality has any verifiable, physical, hard standard. It's all purely speculation and opinion on right and wrong. When an action has no victim, restricting that action is -purely- an enforcement of morality and, thus, an enforcement of unverifiable opinion. This law is a perfect example. Hearing someone swear doesn't actually do any physical harm to anyone, on top of which, as I said before, everyone has the freedom to walk away from areas where people are saying shit they don't approve of.

This sort of moral legislation is, in my opinion, very dangerous. You realize that, with this law, those folks in Mass are setting the precedent that any speech that enough people find inappropriate can be suppressed by the force of government. If this is allowable, why shouldn't say, California, put an initiative to the ballot that Rush Limbaugh is too hateful and shouldn't be allowed to broadcast his program in the state of California.

Maybe DC could pass a local statute that any verbal, public criticisms of the current president are too emotionally damaging to our political process, and thus treasonous. If a majority in that area agrees, would that not be as allowable as what was done in Mass?

 

[Emma]

The original intention doesn't mean the law can't be abused in MANY ways and tickets can't be written for situations that aren't remotely similar to the original intent.

So I guess it's just plain wrong to allow rights to be curtailed by popular vote.

(in this case the "majority" represented 0.008% of the population of the town)

Yes, it is wrong (at least by the laws of our nation) for rights to be curtailed by popular vote. This country is not a pure democracy. The whole idea of the Bill of Rights is guaranteeing certain rights beyond the will of any majority. If these rights were intended to be subject to a basic 50 percent + 1 vote, why would anyone have bothered with the Bill of Rights? Removing those requires a constitutional convention, not a majority of religious fanatics in one area.

 

[buckeye45_73]

They made a movie about a liberal paradise. NO swearing either!
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rVQGT01Kzg]Demolition man - Verbal morality Statute - YouTube[/ame]

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

You'll have to point out where I said they shouldn't have the right to vote for this kind of stuff, I dunno if they should or not I haven't looked into how it affects 1st amendment rights.

I wasn't getting into the legality of it, just the stupidity of it. Legal and illlegal things can be stupid.

It’s not a matter of having a right to vote on the issue or not, it’s simply a fact of law that obscenity is not protected speech.

That you consider the law ‘stupid’ is a matter of subjective opinion. It’s what’s right for that community, and consequently not ‘stupid.’

So I guess it's just plain wrong to allow rights to be curtailed by popular vote.

Yes, it is wrong. But one doesn’t have the ‘right’ to be obscene.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

What a bunch of idiots.

Town swears off swearing, passes $20 profanity fine - CSMonitor.com

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.

Same bunch of fucktwads that elected MIttens.

 

[buckeye45_73]

What a bunch of idiots.

Town swears off swearing, passes $20 profanity fine - CSMonitor.com

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.

Same bunch of fucktwads that elected MIttens.

no actually they elect Barney Fag, will you look up facts man. For once. So maybe they give "Swing" voter a whole new meaning (actually if they elect Barney, they're pretty liberal)

 

[Emma]

It’s not a matter of having a right to vote on the issue or not, it’s simply a fact of law that obscenity is not protected speech.

There's a difference between obscenity and profanity.

"One man’s vulgarity is another’s lyric."

 

[editec]

Stupidity like this can get a pass as long as it hides behind this kind of excuse

Locals say the decision for the town to swear off swearing was the result of public profanity hurting local businesses.