C_Clayton_Jones
Diamond Member
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 isnt 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 its 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.