Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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.
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.
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.
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
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?
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?
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)
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.
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.
So I guess it's just plain wrong to allow rights to be curtailed by popular vote.
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.
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.
There's a difference between obscenity and profanity.Its not a matter of having a right to vote on the issue or not, its simply a fact of law that obscenity is not protected speech.
Locals say the decision for the town to swear off swearing was the result of public profanity hurting local businesses.