Speech Codes

[buckeye45_73]

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

 

[Harpy Eagle]

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

 

[Mac1958]

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

This is nothing. It's going to get MUCH worse. The authoritarians are just getting warmed up.
.

 

[HaShev]

So basically the Jersey Shore cast needs to have their check book open and ready if they ever shoot episodes in in Myrtle Beach.
BIDEN might as well stay away, I don't think he can cover his fines either.

 

[Polishprince]

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

If the cursing is provoking violent reactions, this give the police the ability to at least talk to the offender and interfere.

A lot of people don't mind cussing per se, but it crosses the line when someone's mother or wife or sister or children can hear the obscenity. Preventing this kind of atrocity in order to stop violence is an idea with merit.

 

[OldLady]

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.

 

[Ringel05]

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.

 

[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.

 

[HaShev]

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.

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.

 

[Pogo]

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.

 

[Pogo]

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 seems the report makes no effort to distinguish between "cursing", "profanity" and "fighting words" using them all interchangeably.

There's a world of difference between getting in somebody's grille going "HEY **** YOU' and muttering "goddam it, I cut my finger".

 

[Ringel05]

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.

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.

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.

 

[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.....

 

[OldLady]

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.

who gets to decide what 'offensive' is.
The ordinance lists several examples of types of words that are unlawful and a judge would decide on the others.
The ordinance appears to be working for them. Isn't that one of the areas where Spring Break looms large? Maybe it helps nip a few rowdy arguments in the bud.

 

[Natural Citizen]

It figures it'd be something like that.

 

[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 "******" 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.

 

[Natural Citizen]

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.

What's so bad about legalizing the Constitution?

 

[Natural Citizen]

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.

 

[OldLady]

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. 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.

 

[Natural Citizen]

It can legislate behavior in public.

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