You've been fined 5 years for violating the verbal morality statute

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by DKSuddeth, Mar 26, 2004.

  1. DKSuddeth
    Offline

    DKSuddeth Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2003
    Messages:
    5,175
    Thanks Received:
    61
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    North Texas
    Ratings:
    +62
    http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2004141090,00.html

    Swearing ban for teen


    By PHILIP CARDY

    A FOUL-mouthed youth faces up to five years in jail if he swears — in his garden.

    Robert Alexiuk, 19, was hauled before a court after his constant abusive language at his family home infuriated neighbours.

    Now he has been hit with a five-year anti-social behaviour order by Manchester JPs.

    It is believed to be the first bad behaviour order on a culprit’s own property.

    Alexiuk, of Monsall, near Salford, can swear INSIDE his house — as long as nobody OUTSIDE can hear.

    The yob — already serving 15 months jail for theft — is also banned from meeting more than three people in his garden and from playing loud music.

    He is also barred from meeting ten pals or going in their gardens.

    A neighbour said: “His language was unbelievable — disgusting.”
     
  2. NewGuy
    Online

    NewGuy Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    I'm sorry, I went to a public school. Can anyone tell me where it says we have a freedom not to HEAR?
     
  3. tim_duncan2000
    Offline

    tim_duncan2000 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2004
    Messages:
    694
    Thanks Received:
    66
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Ratings:
    +66
    I don't think this happened in the US anyway.
     
  4. NewGuy
    Online

    NewGuy Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    Exactly.

    This is happening in a region where it is ASSUMED they have freedoms like ours.

    What is worse, is that the US is infringing on this right every chance they get as well.

    We are then still viewed as free because we are "better off than..."
     
  5. DKSuddeth
    Offline

    DKSuddeth Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2003
    Messages:
    5,175
    Thanks Received:
    61
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    North Texas
    Ratings:
    +62
    maybe I should have put this in the humor section, or movies, because I read it and thought of demolition man with sylvester stallone
     
  6. _dmp_
    Offline

    _dmp_ Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2003
    Messages:
    854
    Thanks Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +7
    awesome...I hope the little bastard goes to jail. :)
     
  7. 5stringJeff
    Offline

    5stringJeff Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2003
    Messages:
    9,990
    Thanks Received:
    536
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Puyallup, WA
    Ratings:
    +540
    This has got to be the stupidest thing I've ever heard. I'm all about alternate sentences, as they can be more effective than jail for non-violent offenders, but this is wrong.

    Stupid Brits...
     
  8. Avatar4321
    Online

    Avatar4321 Diamond Member Gold Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2004
    Messages:
    70,568
    Thanks Received:
    8,171
    Trophy Points:
    2,070
    Location:
    Minnesota
    Ratings:
    +12,207
    If you take the first ammendment literally word for word you will notice there is no proscription against state governments restricting speech...
     
  9. NewGuy
    Online

    NewGuy Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    Since I differ with your conclusion, could you show your evidence?
    :)
     
  10. Avatar4321
    Online

    Avatar4321 Diamond Member Gold Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2004
    Messages:
    70,568
    Thanks Received:
    8,171
    Trophy Points:
    2,070
    Location:
    Minnesota
    Ratings:
    +12,207
    Certainly

    As you can see it clearly states that only congress is prohibited from restricting speech. whicih means local institutions such as a city council could. This is how it was interpreted for the first hundred years and why Many cities had the power to destroy printing presses that were deemed a nuisance.

    Im not saying we should go back to those days. but if we are going to take a strict constitutional interpretation. thats what it says.
     

Share This Page