Massachusetts town going to vote on our rights.

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Not surprised this is coming out of Mass, I'm actually surprised it's not California. I dont see this law being upheld even if it passes a vote. It's a free speech violation.

Try being for the constitution, you ignorant fuck

You know.. that thing that upholds rights, prevents tyranny of the masses, and protects against an overpowering government by strictly limiting the specific powers it is granted..

Vote on or pass legislation on all the laws you won't that do not violate the rights given in the constitution.. Hell, if Mass wants to pass a law about dogs being required to wear muzzles when walked, or wants to pass a law fining people who wipe boogers on the seats of public buses, so be it.. but this is a direct violation of free speech and is a horrible precedent to set

Um, no. Obscenity isn’t protected speech. See: Roth v. United States (1957). The courts have allowed jurisdictions to ban obscene speech based upon ‘local standards,’ no potential harm need be present, and the state is not required to demonstrate a compelling reason to ban obscenity.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe Miller v. California supersedes Roth. In any case, the Miller standard is even stricter against profanity, allowing local authorities to ban expression based on local community standards. My understanding is that under the Miller standard municipalities could ban profanity in certain contexts but not in others. A few examples indicate that there are no guarantees that a first amendment challenge to obscenity laws will succeed (Curses! Blasphemy, profanity laws still on the books | First Amendment Center).

Correct. The Miller Test established the standard used to determine what is or is not obscene, based on local standards.

The city can do this and it does not violate the First Amendment which is a limitation on Congress, not on cities.

The 14th Amendment incorporates the First Amendment to all jurisdictions in the United States, including cities, concerning free speech issues. See: Gitlow v. New York (1925). The Constitution does not apply to Congress alone.

Local jurisdictions may regulate obscene expressions and material because it’s not considered protected speech.

It's about money. It's almost always about money.

I hear the "f word" at least 20 times a day. It's annoying, but I don't think people should be ticketed for being annoying.

And that would be up to your local community to determine. Otherwise the measure enacted in the OP is perfectly appropriate and Constitutional.

 

[J.E.D]

Wait, I thought "conservatives" were in favour of the public voting and passing any law.

Funny how that changes when it's something you don't like.

Try being for the constitution, you ignorant fuck

You know.. that thing that upholds rights, prevents tyranny of the masses, and protects against an overpowering government by strictly limiting the specific powers it is granted..

Vote on or pass legislation on all the laws you won't that do not violate the rights given in the constitution.. Hell, if Mass wants to pass a law about dogs being required to wear muzzles when walked, or wants to pass a law fining people who wipe boogers on the seats of public buses, so be it.. but this is a direct violation of free speech and is a horrible precedent to set

 

[Skull Pilot]

Add this to the list of reasons I'm glad i moved out of Assachusetts.

 

[zzzz]

Lots of stuff gets passed in the name of public decency.

Laws against fornicating in public.. yeah.. I can see that..

Laws because I am walking down the street and drop 3 f-bombs and a sonofabitch?? Nah, that is pretty clearly in violation of free speech if you ask me

Most people would not file suit because it is only a $20 fine. The ACLU might.

Middleborough, a town of 23,000 located about 40 miles south of Boston, actually already has an old public profanity law, passed in 1968, but it makes swearing a crime. Police long ago decided it wasn't worth their time to book cursers as criminals, said Chief Gates, who can't recall the law being enforced.

In the Monday vote, Middleborough citizens will be asked to make cursing a civil offense, which Chief Gates said will make it easily enforceable. Violators are defined as anyone who "accosts or addresses another person with profane or obscene language in a street."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...sing-in-public/#ixzz1xSv9NzTN?test=latestnews

 

[Seawytch]

Violators are defined as anyone who "accosts or addresses another person with profane or obscene language in a street."

So, mostly this will be used to fine crazy people who don't have $20 anyway.