Speech Codes

[OldLady]

It can legislate behavior in public.

Okay. How would they enforce the law against illegal bad words in public?

Ask the Myrtle Beach police how they use it.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Ask the Myrtle Beach police how they use it.

I already know how they'd enforce it.

Let's say I lived there and I said fuck on the beach

Me - Fuck

The government - Hey. That's a bad word. Here's a fine. 500 dollars

Me - I do not consent. I'm not paying.

Them - Okay, you didn't pay the fine, come to court, then.

Me- No. I do not consent.

Them - Okay we're sending men with guns from the government to come get you and put you in a cage.

Men sent with guns from the government - you will pay the fine, we're here to force you to go see the judge so that you may pay the fine. If not, in the cage you go.

Me - No. I do not consent.

Judge - You will pay the fine

Me - No. I do not consent.

Judge - Okay, take him to his cage.

Me - What the heck. Why am I in a cage? Why do I have to relinquish my Individual liberties in order to placate someone's feels? This is fucked up.

Them - Hey! That's 500 dollars, you said fuck again.

Me - Sigh. It figures it'd be something like that.

Then I look at the cage next to mine and there's my neighbor. I'm like, dang, what'd you do? He said, well, they got away with fining us for sying fuck, so they went ahead and started fining us for saying the word 'no', too. I did not consent so here I am. Wonder what's for supper here.


Then a week later the kids are saying fuck anyway because they heard dad say it in the kitchen.

Ho leee sht

 

[OldLady]

Ask the Myrtle Beach police how they use it.

I already know how they'd enforce it.

Let's say I lived there and I said fuck on the beach

Me - Fuck

The government - Hey. That's a bad word. Here's a fine. 500 dollars

Me - I do not consent. I'm not paying.

Them - Okay, you didn't pay the fine, come to court, then.

Me- No. I do not consent.

Them - Okay we're sending men with guns from the government to come get you and put you in a cage.

Men sent with guns from the government - you will pay the fine, we're here to force you to go see the judge so that you may pay the fine. If not, in the cage you go.

Me - No. I do not consent.

Judge - You will pay the fine

Me - No. I do not consent.

Judge - Okay, take him to his cage.

Me - What the heck. Why am I in a cage? Why do I have to relinquish my Individual liberties in order to placate someone's feels? This is fucked up.

Them - Hey! That's 500 dollars, you said fuck again.

Me - Sigh. It figures it'd be something like that.

Then I look at the cage next to mine and there's my neighbor. I'm like, dang, what'd you do? He said, well, they got away with fining us for sying fuck, so they went ahead and started fining us for saying the word 'no', too. I did not consent so here I am. Wonder what's for supper here.


Then a week later the kids are saying fuck anyway because they heard dad say it in the kitchen.

Ho leee sht

LOL
Of course, the article makes it clear you wouldn't get a fine for that, but it's cute.

 

[Pogo]

The 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.

It does have a list in the ordinance
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.....

The bigger problem is who comes up with a list and this is why it's bad.....
It's not a problem at all if a town wants people not to be screeching "Nigg*r" or "Faggot" at a drunken buddy on the beach while a bunch of 3 and 4 year olds build sand castles nearby. 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.

As we noted the other day, the speaking and spoken-to party would have to agree that the intent is offensive while a third party butting in may not have access to that intent. The other day on this board TNHarley posted "ni66a" (<< bowdlerized) in a response to me. It was clearly in good humor and I immediately took it as such, yet some while later the board censored his post, reading a meaning into a term that had never been there. I think it's safe to say neither Harley nor I saw the worth in that action.

 

[buckeye45_73]

The 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.

It does have a list in the ordinance
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.....

The bigger problem is who comes up with a list and this is why it's bad.....
It's not a problem at all if a town wants people not to be screeching "Nigg*r" or "Faggot" at a drunken buddy on the beach while a bunch of 3 and 4 year olds build sand castles nearby. 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.

As we noted the other day, the speaking and spoken-to party would have to agree that the intent is offensive while a third party butting in may not have access to that intent. The other day on this board TNHarley posted "ni66a" (<< bowdlerized) in a response to me. It was clearly in good humor and I immediately took it as such, yet some while later the board censored his post, reading a meaning into a term that had never been there. I think it's safe to say neither Harley nor I saw the worth in that action.

That's the problem with labeling things as hate speech and such. I mean we shouldn't worry about words. Like this Monkeying it up. Because the opponent is black, it's being misconstrued as racist, but it just means don't mess it up.

 

[Pogo]

Ho leee sht

Presumably no relation to Ho Lee Fuk, the pilot of the Korean plane crash with his co-crew Bang Ding Ow and Sum Ting Wong.

 

[Pogo]

It can legislate behavior in public.

Okay. How would they enforce the law against illegal bad words in public?

Ask the Myrtle Beach police how they use it.

"Hey Ossifer, I have a question. What the fuck is this ordinance about?"

"That'll be five hundred bucks".

"But you haven't even told me what the goddam words are" .

"That's a thousand".

"Oh shit".

 

[Natural Citizen]

"Hey Ossifer, I have a question. What the fuck is this ordinance about?"

"That'll be five hundred bucks".

"But you haven't even told me what the goddam words are" .

"That's a thousand".

"Oh shit".

None specific in the actual ordinance. I finally did track down Ordinance 14-61 (b) 1

• ARTICLE IV. - OFFENSES AGAINST THE PUBLIC PEACE5) ---
  State Law reference— Offenses against the peace, S.C. Code 1976, § 16-7-10 et seq
  
  
  
• Sec. 14-61. - Disorderly conduct; breach of the peace.
  
  
  
  (b)
  
  It shall be unlawful for any person within the city limits to intentionally engage in any act or conduct inciting public disorder or a breach of the peace in light of the surrounding circumstances of time, place or nearness of other persons, including but not limited to acts or conduct characterized:
  
  (1)
  
  By making, uttering or directing toward another person any lewd, obscene or profane or libelous expletive or epithets or "fighting" words, which as a matter of common knowledge, when addressed to the ordinary citizen are inherently likely to provoke violent reactions, including but not limited to calls, threats and invitations to immediately engage in physical violence, fisticuffs, duel or personal combat;

 

[Unkotare]

That shit’s fucked up.

 

[Pogo]

"Hey Ossifer, I have a question. What the fuck is this ordinance about?"

"That'll be five hundred bucks".

"But you haven't even told me what the goddam words are" .

"That's a thousand".

"Oh shit".

None specific in the actual ordinance. I finally did track down Ordinance 14-61 (b) 1

• ARTICLE IV. - OFFENSES AGAINST THE PUBLIC PEACE5) ---
  State Law reference— Offenses against the peace, S.C. Code 1976, § 16-7-10 et seq
  
  
  
• Sec. 14-61. - Disorderly conduct; breach of the peace.
  
  
  
  (b)
  
  It shall be unlawful for any person within the city limits to intentionally engage in any act or conduct inciting public disorder or a breach of the peace in light of the surrounding circumstances of time, place or nearness of other persons, including but not limited to acts or conduct characterized:
  
  (1)
  
  By making, uttering or directing toward another person any lewd, obscene or profane or libelous expletive or epithets or "fighting" words, which as a matter of common knowledge, when addressed to the ordinary citizen are inherently likely to provoke violent reactions, including but not limited to calls, threats and invitations to immediately engage in physical violence, fisticuffs, duel or personal combat;

Yup, all under "Disorderly Conduct" as mentioned previously including loud noises ("and said sound shall include bass reverberation"), hooting, screaming, hornblowing, loud loading of packages, car exhausts, hawkers, drummers, pile drivers and my favorite hate, gas powered brooms sold under the name of "leaf blowers" although they only restrict those between 9pm and 7am (personally I think anybody operating a gas-powered broom at any time of day or night should be taken out and shot in the public square).

This is pretty standard stuff for any community. As you note there's no list of words at all. The closest it gets and its grayest area seems to be under public drunkenness: "By being grossly intoxicated or appearing so appreciably impaired while engaging in lewd, obscene, profane, boisterous, riotous, tumultuous or violent acts or conduct, as those terms are commonly defined and understood"

I'd like to have some laws like that here to shut up the barking dogs that go on all night. At least nobody's running gas-powered brooms which is why I left the city.


It would appear then that the OP article purportedly about outlawing either "profanity" or "cursing" is full of proverbial shit.

 

[buckeye45_73]

"Hey Ossifer, I have a question. What the fuck is this ordinance about?"

"That'll be five hundred bucks".

"But you haven't even told me what the goddam words are" .

"That's a thousand".

"Oh shit".

None specific in the actual ordinance. I finally did track down Ordinance 14-61 (b) 1

• ARTICLE IV. - OFFENSES AGAINST THE PUBLIC PEACE5) ---
  State Law reference— Offenses against the peace, S.C. Code 1976, § 16-7-10 et seq
  
  
  
• Sec. 14-61. - Disorderly conduct; breach of the peace.
  
  
  
  (b)
  
  It shall be unlawful for any person within the city limits to intentionally engage in any act or conduct inciting public disorder or a breach of the peace in light of the surrounding circumstances of time, place or nearness of other persons, including but not limited to acts or conduct characterized:
  
  (1)
  
  By making, uttering or directing toward another person any lewd, obscene or profane or libelous expletive or epithets or "fighting" words, which as a matter of common knowledge, when addressed to the ordinary citizen are inherently likely to provoke violent reactions, including but not limited to calls, threats and invitations to immediately engage in physical violence, fisticuffs, duel or personal combat;

Yup, all under "Disorderly Conduct" as mentioned previously including loud noises ("and said sound shall include bass reverberation"), hooting, screaming, hornblowing, loud loading of packages, car exhausts, hawkers, drummers, pile drivers and my favorite hate, gas powered brooms sold under the name of "leaf blowers" although they only restrict those between 9pm and 7am (personally I think anybody operating a gas-powered broom at any time of day or night should be taken out and shot in the public square).

This is pretty standard stuff for any community. As you note there's no list of words at all. The closest it gets and its grayest area seems to be under public drunkenness: "By being grossly intoxicated or appearing so appreciably impaired while engaging in lewd, obscene, profane, boisterous, riotous, tumultuous or violent acts or conduct, as those terms are commonly defined and understood"

I'd like to have some laws like that here to shut up the barking dogs that go on all night. At least nobody's running gas-powered brooms which is why I left the city.


It would appear then that the OP article purportedly about outlawing either "profanity" or "cursing" is full of proverbial shit.

So if it's about disorderly conduct, they already have that law. If you're being a nuisance, then sure, but why have this policy. Its like making it illegal to kill people with a gun. It's already illegal to kill people......

 

[OldLady]

The 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.

It does have a list in the ordinance
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.....

The bigger problem is who comes up with a list and this is why it's bad.....
It's not a problem at all if a town wants people not to be screeching "Nigg*r" or "Faggot" at a drunken buddy on the beach while a bunch of 3 and 4 year olds build sand castles nearby. 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.

As we noted the other day, the speaking and spoken-to party would have to agree that the intent is offensive while a third party butting in may not have access to that intent. The other day on this board TNHarley posted "ni66a" (<< bowdlerized) in a response to me. It was clearly in good humor and I immediately took it as such, yet some while later the board censored his post, reading a meaning into a term that had never been there. I think it's safe to say neither Harley nor I saw the worth in that action.

The way I read it, since the cop referred to "fighting words," I jumped to the assumption that this ordinance is used to nip a fight in the bud. It's not that hard to tell when one is about to break out.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

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.

Provocative speech should still be protected. Individuals are responsible for their own actions. All are expected to control their emotions and refrain from violence.

Yelling in a theater is limited because it creates a safety hazard where it is not unreasonable for people to want to flee a burning building. The action of fleeing a burning building is not, nor should it ever be, illegal. Unjustified violence is illegal.

 

[OldLady]

"Hey Ossifer, I have a question. What the fuck is this ordinance about?"

"That'll be five hundred bucks".

"But you haven't even told me what the goddam words are" .

"That's a thousand".

"Oh shit".

None specific in the actual ordinance. I finally did track down Ordinance 14-61 (b) 1

• ARTICLE IV. - OFFENSES AGAINST THE PUBLIC PEACE5) ---
  State Law reference— Offenses against the peace, S.C. Code 1976, § 16-7-10 et seq
  
  
  
• Sec. 14-61. - Disorderly conduct; breach of the peace.
  
  
  
  (b)
  
  It shall be unlawful for any person within the city limits to intentionally engage in any act or conduct inciting public disorder or a breach of the peace in light of the surrounding circumstances of time, place or nearness of other persons, including but not limited to acts or conduct characterized:
  
  (1)
  
  By making, uttering or directing toward another person any lewd, obscene or profane or libelous expletive or epithets or "fighting" words, which as a matter of common knowledge, when addressed to the ordinary citizen are inherently likely to provoke violent reactions, including but not limited to calls, threats and invitations to immediately engage in physical violence, fisticuffs, duel or personal combat;

Yup, all under "Disorderly Conduct" as mentioned previously including loud noises ("and said sound shall include bass reverberation"), hooting, screaming, hornblowing, loud loading of packages, car exhausts, hawkers, drummers, pile drivers and my favorite hate, gas powered brooms sold under the name of "leaf blowers" although they only restrict those between 9pm and 7am (personally I think anybody operating a gas-powered broom at any time of day or night should be taken out and shot in the public square).

This is pretty standard stuff for any community. As you note there's no list of words at all. The closest it gets and its grayest area seems to be under public drunkenness: "By being grossly intoxicated or appearing so appreciably impaired while engaging in lewd, obscene, profane, boisterous, riotous, tumultuous or violent acts or conduct, as those terms are commonly defined and understood"

I'd like to have some laws like that here to shut up the barking dogs that go on all night. At least nobody's running gas-powered brooms which is why I left the city.


It would appear then that the OP article purportedly about outlawing either "profanity" or "cursing" is full of proverbial shit.

So if it's about disorderly conduct, they already have that law. If you're being a nuisance, then sure, but why have this policy. Its like making it illegal to kill people with a gun. It's already illegal to kill people......

WHY are you all debating this and pulling it apart as if it mattered? This ordinance already exists, it apparently works, and I'd be very surprised if it is the only one in the country. If you can't possibly hold back from hurling offensive words at someone, don't go to Myrtle Beach on vacation.

 

[Pogo]

"Hey Ossifer, I have a question. What the fuck is this ordinance about?"

"That'll be five hundred bucks".

"But you haven't even told me what the goddam words are" .

"That's a thousand".

"Oh shit".

None specific in the actual ordinance. I finally did track down Ordinance 14-61 (b) 1

• ARTICLE IV. - OFFENSES AGAINST THE PUBLIC PEACE5) ---
  State Law reference— Offenses against the peace, S.C. Code 1976, § 16-7-10 et seq
  
  
  
• Sec. 14-61. - Disorderly conduct; breach of the peace.
  
  
  
  (b)
  
  It shall be unlawful for any person within the city limits to intentionally engage in any act or conduct inciting public disorder or a breach of the peace in light of the surrounding circumstances of time, place or nearness of other persons, including but not limited to acts or conduct characterized:
  
  (1)
  
  By making, uttering or directing toward another person any lewd, obscene or profane or libelous expletive or epithets or "fighting" words, which as a matter of common knowledge, when addressed to the ordinary citizen are inherently likely to provoke violent reactions, including but not limited to calls, threats and invitations to immediately engage in physical violence, fisticuffs, duel or personal combat;

Yup, all under "Disorderly Conduct" as mentioned previously including loud noises ("and said sound shall include bass reverberation"), hooting, screaming, hornblowing, loud loading of packages, car exhausts, hawkers, drummers, pile drivers and my favorite hate, gas powered brooms sold under the name of "leaf blowers" although they only restrict those between 9pm and 7am (personally I think anybody operating a gas-powered broom at any time of day or night should be taken out and shot in the public square).

This is pretty standard stuff for any community. As you note there's no list of words at all. The closest it gets and its grayest area seems to be under public drunkenness: "By being grossly intoxicated or appearing so appreciably impaired while engaging in lewd, obscene, profane, boisterous, riotous, tumultuous or violent acts or conduct, as those terms are commonly defined and understood"

I'd like to have some laws like that here to shut up the barking dogs that go on all night. At least nobody's running gas-powered brooms which is why I left the city.


It would appear then that the OP article purportedly about outlawing either "profanity" or "cursing" is full of proverbial shit.

So if it's about disorderly conduct, they already have that law. If you're being a nuisance, then sure, but why have this policy. Its like making it illegal to kill people with a gun. It's already illegal to kill people......

Exactly -- it's not a new policy at all. It's a headline full of made-up crap. First it cites "cursing" then it goes to "profanity" while neither of those are involved --- it's about "fighting words". And that's not new.

Oh that reminds me. Before I came here I was on a message board where there was a guy who insisted the word "crap" was obscene. No shit. So the concept "as those terms are commonly defined and understood" is pretty damned vague.

 

[Natural Citizen]

So if it's about disorderly conduct, they already have that law. If you're being a nuisance, then sure, but why have this policy. Its like making it illegal to kill people with a gun. It's already illegal to kill people......

There's some rather vague language in the ordinance in that it kind of insinuates any language that is likely to provoke a violent reaction from another person.

People get offended by the darndest things, though. That's really the only problem with, aside from the vagueness of the ''but not limited to'' language in the ordinance. It leaves it rather arbitrary and open-ended.

 

[Pogo]

So if it's about disorderly conduct, they already have that law. If you're being a nuisance, then sure, but why have this policy. Its like making it illegal to kill people with a gun. It's already illegal to kill people......

There's some rather vague language in the ordinance in that it kind of insinuates any language that is likely to provoke a violent reaction from another person.

People get offended by the darndest things, though. That's really the only problem with, aside from the vagueness of the ''but not limited to'' language in the ordinance.

Just for the record that's not my post.

I'm not offended though.

 

[Natural Citizen]

So if it's about disorderly conduct, they already have that law. If you're being a nuisance, then sure, but why have this policy. Its like making it illegal to kill people with a gun. It's already illegal to kill people......

There's some rather vague language in the ordinance in that it kind of insinuates any language that is likely to provoke a violent reaction from another person.

People get offended by the darndest things, though. That's really the only problem with, aside from the vagueness of the ''but not limited to'' language in the ordinance.

Just for the record that's not my post.

I'm not offended though.

Oh, sorry. It's a pain in the butt trying to filter through the multi-quotes.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

There's some rather vague language in the ordinance in that it kind of insinuates any language that is likely to provoke a violent reaction from another person.

That alone should render the ordinance facially unconstitutional, but you know as well as I do that the number of fucks governments give about liberty is equal to the number of supermodels I banged last week.

 

[Lysistrata]

This is what happens when a society abandons its basic social rules, which, in the past, did not have to be codified in black-letter law. We all used to know the basic rules of respect and the fundamental rule that one did not approach or discuss sex, religion, or politics with anyone that a person did not know well. Now we have in place the sicko code whereby anyone can accost an other and yell into another person's face. Thanks, right-wingers.

BTW: I have been approached, or even had people come to my door, asking about my religious views. The answer to this, as always, is "none of your fucking business." You don't get the details of my politics or my finances, either. This whole thing is disgusting. It is so much of a part of why our society is going down the drain.