Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
This is nothing. It's going to get MUCH worse. The authoritarians are just getting warmed up.Who knew it would get to this...fined for profanity. We all warned about this stuff. Freedom of speech is Constitutional and just plain easier. Stop the censorship
Cursing could cost you $500 in Myrtle Beach
The story is confusing. On one hand they talk about profanity and then the police guy says it only applies if it can reasonably provoke a violent reaction, which sounds a great deal like the do not yell fire in the theater laws.
Will have to dig a little deeper
Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
No it's not the same as the "yell fire in theater", apples and oranges. Also based on first Amendment law a person can cuss someone out and call them names all day long, it's the person who throws the first punch that's guilty because any physical reaction is considered controllable under the law.The story is confusing. On one hand they talk about profanity and then the police guy says it only applies if it can reasonably provoke a violent reaction, which sounds a great deal like the do not yell fire in the theater laws.
Will have to dig a little deeper
Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
But sometimes the provocation is a threatening act and the reaction a defensive one, so the law might be to help the victim who is threatened by giving the Police the right to arrest the true aggressor or in a court of law giving the victim an excuse for reacting and defending, while fines acts as a preventative measure to keep fights and threats from trashing up their town in the first place.No it's not the same as the "yell fire in theater", apples and oranges. Also based on first Amendment law a person can cuss someone out and call them names all day long, it's the person who throws the first punch that's guilty because any physical reaction is considered controllable under the law.The story is confusing. On one hand they talk about profanity and then the police guy says it only applies if it can reasonably provoke a violent reaction, which sounds a great deal like the do not yell fire in the theater laws.
Will have to dig a little deeper
Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
A person would violate Ordinance 14-61 (b) 1 if he/she uses a language likely to provoke a violent reaction from another person. The ordinance lists several examples of the types of words which are unlawful. The penalty for conviction could include a fine and/or jail time. We encourage everyone to avoid violating this ordinance by speaking to others with the same respect and kindness he or she deserves.
Sounds to me like they just gave it an inaccurate headline to attract more attention.
I think it's great they've got that ordinance. Nothing wrong with some basic semblance of respect for others while in public.
The story is confusing. On one hand they talk about profanity and then the police guy says it only applies if it can reasonably provoke a violent reaction, which sounds a great deal like the do not yell fire in the theater laws.
Will have to dig a little deeper
Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
The law isn't about "threatening acts" it's about speech, two completely different things, one's physical and one's verbal. That said it's still the person who throws the "first punch" (initiates a physical contact) that is guilty under the law regardless as to what the instigation was. Now in court if the defendant can prove he/she was reacting in self defense to a threatening gesture or movement then the case might be dismissed, that's called extenuating circumstances.But sometimes the provocation is a threatening act and the reaction a defensive one, so the law might be to help the victim who is threatened by giving the Police the right to arrest the true aggressor or in a court of law giving the victim an excuse for reacting and defending, while fines acts as a preventative measure to keep fights and threats from trashing up their town in the first place.No it's not the same as the "yell fire in theater", apples and oranges. Also based on first Amendment law a person can cuss someone out and call them names all day long, it's the person who throws the first punch that's guilty because any physical reaction is considered controllable under the law.The story is confusing. On one hand they talk about profanity and then the police guy says it only applies if it can reasonably provoke a violent reaction, which sounds a great deal like the do not yell fire in the theater laws.
Will have to dig a little deeper
Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
It does have a list in the ordinanceThe article's title refers to "cursing". Then it starts talking about "profanity". Then it seems to describe "fighting words". That's three different things. Then it says there's a list of banned words in the ordinance, yet doesn't list any of them.
Seems like an incomplete story to me. I don't see how you can ban words when you won't say what they are.
Of course blasphemy laws have been around a long time with some still in place. That's a whole 'nother area.
who gets to decide what 'offensive' is.A person would violate Ordinance 14-61 (b) 1 if he/she uses a language likely to provoke a violent reaction from another person. The ordinance lists several examples of the types of words which are unlawful. The penalty for conviction could include a fine and/or jail time. We encourage everyone to avoid violating this ordinance by speaking to others with the same respect and kindness he or she deserves.
Sounds to me like they just gave it an inaccurate headline to attract more attention.
I think it's great they've got that ordinance. Nothing wrong with some basic semblance of respect for others while in public.
The fly in the ointment there is who gets to decide what 'offensive' is. It amounts to one person deciding how another person expresses themselves.
If they're trying to target verbal assault, that's fine but they already have Disorderly Conduct for that, which is itself vague.
The bigger problem is who comes up with a list and this is why it's bad.....It does have a list in the ordinanceThe article's title refers to "cursing". Then it starts talking about "profanity". Then it seems to describe "fighting words". That's three different things. Then it says there's a list of banned words in the ordinance, yet doesn't list any of them.
Seems like an incomplete story to me. I don't see how you can ban words when you won't say what they are.
Of course blasphemy laws have been around a long time with some still in place. That's a whole 'nother area.
A person would violate Ordinance 14-61 (b) 1 if he/she uses a language likely to provoke a violent reaction from another person. The ordinance lists several examples of the types of words which are unlawful
The bigger problem is who comes up with a list and this is why it's bad.....
I am utterly sick of you folks who are so damned protective of your right to spew bilge about others that even a totally sensible law like this causes you consternation and to run and hide behind the CONSTITUTION.
It can legislate behavior in public. That is what this ordinance does. People don't have to like it, anymore than they liked driving 55 mph on the highway. There is no problem.The government shouldn't be in the business of legislating sins of the heart.
That's a can of worms that we do not want to open. Nothing good can come from it.
Laws will not correct the basic problem, which is the morality of the people. Society has to fix its own moral problem and only then can a moral society dictate the law. It's the only way we're going to get moral laws.
When the morality of the people changes, it will reflect on the laws. It cannot be the other way around.
It can legislate behavior in public.
