Public Swearing In Middleborough, Mass. Now Subject To Fine

[SLV^GLD]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/12/public-swearing-middleborough-fine_n_1587270.html

MIDDLEBOROUGH, Mass. — Residents in Middleborough voted Monday night to make the foul-mouthed pay fines for swearing in public.

At a town meeting, residents voted 183-50 to approve a proposal from the police chief to impose a $20 fine on public profanity.

Officials insist the proposal was not intended to censor casual or private conversations, but instead to crack down on loud, profanity-laden language used by teens and other young people in the downtown area and public parks.

I'm really happy about it," Mimi Duphily, a store owner and former town selectwoman, said after the vote. "I'm sure there's going to be some fallout, but I think what we did was necessary."

Duphily, who runs an auto parts store, is among the downtown merchants who wanted take a stand against the kind of swearing that can make customers uncomfortable.

"They'll sit on the bench and yell back and forth to each other with the foulest language. It's just so inappropriate," she said.

The measure could raise questions about First Amendment rights, but state law does allow towns to enforce local laws that give police the power to arrest anyone who "addresses another person with profane or obscene language" in a public place.

Matthew Segal, legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts, said the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the government cannot prohibit public speech just because it contains profanity.

The ordinance gives police discretion over whether to ticket someone if they believe the cursing ban has been violated.

Middleborough, a town of about 20,000 residents perhaps best known for its rich cranberry bogs, has had a bylaw against public profanity since 1968. But because that bylaw essentially makes cursing a crime, it has rarely if ever been enforced, officials said, because it simply would not merit the time and expense to pursue a case through the courts.

The ordinance would decriminalize public profanity, allowing police to write tickets as they would for a traffic violation. It would also decriminalize certain types of disorderly conduct, public drinking and marijuana use, and dumping snow on a roadway.

Segal praised Middleborough for reconsidering its bylaw against public profanity, but said fining people for it isn't much better.

"Police officers who never enforced the bylaw might be tempted to issue these fines, and people might end up getting fined for constitutionally protected speech," he said.

Another local merchant, Robert Saquet, described himself as "ambivalent" about the no-swearing proposal, likening it to try to enforce a ban on the seven dirty words of George Carlin, a nod to a famous sketch by the late comedian.

"In view of words commonly used in movies and cable TV, it's kind of hard to define exactly what is obscene," said Paquet, who owns a downtown furniture store.

But Duphily said, "I don't care what you do in private. It's in public what bothers me."

[Sparky]

At first glance this sounds ridiculous, but it's not as bad as it sounds. First, they are downgrading public profanity from a criminal offense (!) to a misdemeanor.

As Libertarians, we don't want to restrict individual rights, unless they impinge upon the rights of others, which is the intent here. The examples in the story are related to merchants who experience young people swearing profusely within earshot of customers within children. I think that is impinging upon others.

[Gaillo]

So...
Who's going to bring GoD's bail money for the next Massachusetts GS-US get together? ;D

[SLV^GLD]

At first glance this sounds ridiculous, but it's not as bad as it sounds. First, they are downgrading public profanity from a criminal offense (!) to a misdemeanor.

As Libertarians, we don't want to restrict individual rights, unless they impinge upon the rights of others, which is the intent here. The examples in the story are related to merchants who experience young people swearing profusely within earshot of customers within children. I think that is impinging upon others.

I think the "think of the children" rhetoric is the weakest load of shit ever but is surprisingly effective at rendering all rights nullified because of the emotional appeal. The problem with this particular load of shit is assigning the authority to deem what is and is not profane. Profanity is part of the speech we decided a long time ago we'd like to keep unabridged. I suppose if we pull enough emotional heartstrings we can repeal such a notion so that our tender children won't have to endure a free society.

[Twisted Titan]

I may not approve of what you say ......but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

Voltaire

[iOWNme]

DEATH to the Individual!!!!

[JJ.G0ldD0t]

lol...

so much for the people governing themselves.

catch 22 i say.

ETA

Isn't this what limited local government of by and for the people supposed to do?

The residents decided its what's best for them. They could have just as easily decided otherwise.

RE: free speech.

I'm sure the founders were just making sure that everyone was free to curse in the presence of women and children.

[k-os]

Oh this one is a toss up.

On the topic of profanity in general (disregarding that the law was changed from a criminal offense to a misdemeanor) . . .

If enough people governed themselves accordingly in public, this would not be an issue.

If words were treated as WORDS, this would not be an issue. They're just words, after all. Why is one word more offensive than other words? In my opinion, "crap" is not a curse word, and I use it in place of "shit" in polite company. But "crap", to many people is a curse word. In my house growing up, "fart" was even considered a bad word. We had to say "toot". They both mean the same thing. Why would one be more offensive than the other? Because they said so, that's why!

[madfranks]

At first glance this sounds ridiculous, but it's not as bad as it sounds. First, they are downgrading public profanity from a criminal offense (!) to a misdemeanor.

As Libertarians, we don't want to restrict individual rights, unless they impinge upon the rights of others, which is the intent here. The examples in the story are related to merchants who experience young people swearing profusely within earshot of customers within children. I think that is impinging upon others.

I agree with you, but I disagree wholeheartedly with this law. The issue should be private property rights, not "social responsibility". If I own a shop and there are kids using profane words that negatively affect my business (property), I have the right to disallow them from being on my property. I don't need to use a third party (the state) to threaten and coerce them on my behalf.

Alas, nowadays if you own a business it is considered more public property than private.

[Santa]

I think a $20 fine is despicable and disgusting.

But sweeping the streets for a few hours seems kinda reasonable.

You know, tough love, like the romantic old days.

I can just see the Sheriff sitting there on the porch, shotgun in his lap, spittin chaw on the planks,
seeing that the foul mouthed heathens payed their debt to society with honor
for besmirching the innocence of all the little children.

Me, I'm too mean to wanna live in that kind of Ponderosa bullshit, though. :)

[osoab]

Fuck that! ;D


http://gold-silver.us/forum/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Sparky http://gold-silver.us/forum/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://gold-silver.us/forum/showthread.php?p=548415#post548415)

At first glance this sounds ridiculous, but it's not as bad as it sounds. First, they are downgrading public profanity from a criminal offense (!) to a misdemeanor.

As Libertarians, we don't want to restrict individual rights, unless they impinge upon the rights of others, which is the intent here. The examples in the story are related to merchants who experience young people swearing profusely within earshot of customers within children. I think that is impinging upon others.


I think it would be better if business owners could remove unruly patrons without threat of legal actions. The business owners could "save the children" if they so choose.

[Uncle Salty]

Why not just charge them with disorderly conduct?

[Sparky]

So...
Who's going to bring GoD's bail money for the next Massachusetts GS-US get together? ;D

Too funny! I don't think we have enough!

[BrewTech]

Why not just charge them with disorderly conduct?

You forgot the .

I HOPE.

[Sparky]

I understand all of your arguments against it. But I don't really see them as determining which are "swear words", so much as whether someone is exhibiting a loud display of vulgarity that would interfere with customers (or their children), or someone trying to enjoy a public area. Like Uncle Salty said, this may be more of a "disorderly conduct" issue, so maybe they don't really need a special rule for swear words.

And I understand the hatred for the "it's for the children" argument in general, but I don't think this applies. Some things you really should do for the children. Like you should have the option of limiting exposure of a 5-year-old from a relentless stream of F-bombs.

This isn't about using swear-words in a public area. It's more like broadcasting them in a public area.

[BrewTech]

I understand all of your arguments against it. But I don't really see them as determining which are "swear words", so much as whether someone is exhibiting a loud display of vulgarity that would interfere with customers (or their children), or someone trying to enjoy a public area. Like Uncle Salty said, this may be more of a "disorderly conduct" issue, so maybe they don't really need a special rule for swear words.

And I understand the hatred for the "it's for the children" argument in general, but I don't think this applies. Some things you really should do for the children. Like you should have the option of limiting exposure of a 5-year-old from a relentless stream of F-bombs.

This isn't about using swear-words in a public area. It's more like broadcasting them in a public area.

Local areas have the right to make whatever rules they want. One could always leave a local area for something more to their liking. It's when states and FedGov start making comprehensive policy "the law", the is nowhere to run, nowhere to hide... that's when I start to get a little agitated.

[Sparky]

Local areas have the right to make whatever rules they want. One could always leave a local area for something more to their liking. It's when states and FedGov start making comprehensive policy "the law", the is nowhere to run, nowhere to hide... that's when I start to get a little agitated.

Yes, this is a local ruling, not state or Fed.

[Twisted Titan]

Oh this one is a toss up.

On the topic of profanity in general (disregarding that the law was changed from a criminal offense to a misdemeanor) . . .

If enough people governed themselves accordingly in public, this would not be an issue.

!


But we are not even afforded the chance.............. there is a old saying City Hall never met a Law it didnt like and this one is perfect: It is just vauge enough to give a trigger happy goons even more control.

You better beleive there will come a day when a Person is arrested for saying "Friggen Darn it"

[Mouse]

This is retarded. It allows local gov to determine what is an obscene word and fine you money for it. It is a tax. In the real world, we are perfectly fine with people either, ejecting customers from our shops if they make a scene, or with person to person interaction to disperse the "cursing" situation. There is no injury. There is no crime. The town and the community can shame the person that behaves in ways that do not meet with the community standards. That person will leave or change, or hide under a rock. No crime has been comitted that you were out with your children and they overheard reality. People curse, people are rude and sometimes violent. Your children should be exposed to reality, so that they can ask the questions and you can fibber/fudder trying to answer them.

This is bullshit, and I am sure it will be held unconstitutional to their state constitution whenever it comes up. If anyone can find standing to sue, since they are all federal employees and all.

Fun times.

[Book]

This is bullshit...



:o most on-topic comment to the title of this thread

[Santa]

When I was little I was protected from swear words.

Didn't seem to help.

[iOWNme]

Whats the difference between cussing in public and say loudly protesting criminal Government?

You take away the individuals right to free speech, and it effects ALL FREE SPEECH.

Another example of parents not wanting to actually teach their child a lesson when confronted with ignorant people. And guess what: You will ALWAYS find ignorant people. You are much better off teaching your child THE VALUE OF FREE SPEECH by explaining to them the reality of free speech, what it means, and why people have the right to do it.

[JJ.G0ldD0t]

I was in a public restaurant some time ago having a nice dinner with my wife and kids and my dad was there as well.


It was nice until a table of twenty something morons were seated at the booth adjacent my table. After putting up with about 15 minutes of profane commentary with regard to this guys sexual exploits and desires, I got up, got in the guys face and was just itching to make him bleed - alot- if he didn't do what I wanted. I conveyed to him in a conversational tone (that my kids could not hear) that I was trying to have a nice dinner with my family at the table 5 feet from him and that I would like to be the one to give them sex education at the time and manner that I felt appropriate and that I didn't appreciate him robbing me of the opportunity. I informed him if he didn't STFU right now he wouldn't be getting any pussy for a really really long time because his frat boy face would resemble bloody silly putty. ( something along those lines)
He was very happy to comply.

I didn't give a fuck about that guys rights. He was abusing them. He was irresponsible.

Rights are for a responsible people. We are losing them because we have become lax and irresponsible.

I secured MY right to peace and happiness by infringing on his by threat of force. That's just a fact.

So you see- it's NOT about the children. It's about me, my family and how I'm trying to foster a generation that won't be viewed as a bunch a fucking sheeple idiots that YOU MOTHERFUCKERS all COMPLAIN about.

How's that for free speech?
There's a time and a place for it. Common sense is lost.

[Sparky]

... I got up, got in the guys face and was just itching to make him bleed - alot- if he didn't do what I wanted.
...I informed him if he didn't STFU right now he wouldn't be getting any pussy for a really really long time because his frat boy face would resemble bloody silly putty. ( something along those lines)
...
What if you weren't there, and it was just your wife with the kids. Would she have taken the same action?

[JJ.G0ldD0t]

of course not. She would have just left because she was left with no defense.

[Awoke]

I think the "think of the children" rhetoric is the weakest load of shit ever but is surprisingly effective at rendering all rights nullified because of the emotional appeal. The problem with this particular load of shit is assigning the authority to deem what is and is not profane. Profanity is part of the speech we decided a long time ago we'd like to keep unabridged. I suppose if we pull enough emotional heartstrings we can repeal such a notion so that our tender children won't have to endure a free society.

HEY! WHAT IF MY KIDS READ THAT?

lol

[Awoke]

So...
Who's going to bring GoD's bail money for the next Massachusetts GS-US get together? ;D

I will contribute to your thanks count for this amusing post!

[VX1]

This "law" is bullshit, as the thousands before...

-BUT-

at least I can see the shop owner's perspective, based on today's "youths". The wife and I, and some other couples, were enjoying an evening out at one of the last areas of my current FL hometown that hasn't been encroached by the ghetto. A newer built area, with a nice theatre and upscale restaurants, shops. All was peaceful/serene as we had dinner together, and everybody around us quietly went about their business. Right before 11:00pm, we walked across the street, ordered ice cream at the Cold Stone, and all sat down and became engrossed in conversation, to the point that we really weren't paying attention outside our little group. By the time we were finished, the entire area had been transformed with hundreds of blacks screaming, hootin', hollerin', and humping each other all up and down the street. At that point, it looked like we were the only non-"youths" left, and we got out quickly. As mentioned, freedom/rights are for responsible people, not gangs of animals that only know how to take and destroy.

[jimswift]

voted 183-50....a town of about 20,000

something doesn't add up here.

[osoab]

something doesn't add up here.


There's the 1%'s for you. :D

[Sparky]

voted 183-50....a town of about 20,000


something doesn't add up here.

Most towns in Massachusetts are governed by a representative town meeting. Voting on laws and budgets is done by elected representatives from each part of town. On major issues, the town selectmen can recommend to put a vote before the entire town population. The town meeting representatives then vote or approve or reject the recommendation. It's almost always approved, since it usually involves a high impact and/or controversial issue that warrants full participation.

[goldleaf]

Maybe the feds should come in and deny them their 10th amendment rights. The biggest problem I have with these foul mouths is their limited vocabulary, and using their choice of words out of context. S$^t Some of these a-holes can practically form a sentence with nothing but cuss words, stupid f#$@s!

[iOWNme]

I was in a public restaurant some time ago having a nice dinner with my wife and kids and my dad was there as well.


It was nice until a table of twenty something morons were seated at the booth adjacent my table. After putting up with about 15 minutes of profane commentary with regard to this guys sexual exploits and desires, I got up, got in the guys face and was just itching to make him bleed - alot- if he didn't do what I wanted. I conveyed to him in a conversational tone (that my kids could not hear) that I was trying to have a nice dinner with my family at the table 5 feet from him and that I would like to be the one to give them sex education at the time and manner that I felt appropriate and that I didn't appreciate him robbing me of the opportunity. I informed him if he didn't STFU right now he wouldn't be getting any pussy for a really really long time because his frat boy face would resemble bloody silly putty. ( something along those lines)
He was very happy to comply.

I didn't give a fuck about that guys rights. He was abusing them. He was irresponsible.

Rights are for a responsible people. We are losing them because we have become lax and irresponsible.

I secured MY right to peace and happiness by infringing on his by threat of force. That's just a fact.

So you see- it's NOT about the children. It's about me, my family and how I'm trying to foster a generation that won't be viewed as a bunch a fucking sheeple idiots that YOU MOTHERFUCKERS all COMPLAIN about.

How's that for free speech?
There's a time and a place for it. Common sense is lost.


JJ,

Couldnt you have walked one of your children over to his table and politely explained to your child that people who use profanity do not have the intellect to express themsleves, that they lack a wide vocabulary and are incapable of crystalizing their thoughts using words. You could have explained that people like this have usually smaller and weaker minds, and that you dont want them to grow up like that. This could have been an incredible lesson for your children to learn, as well as influenced anyone else who saw or heard what happened.

Dont you see how INCREDIBLY SMALL you would have made him feel? 1000000% smaller than being the bully. Threatening the use of force is WRONG. Force is to be used to defend, NOT instigate.

This kid is not going to change from what you did, IMO. But using his ignorance as a lesson to your child in front of an entire resturant has a much better chance of having an effect on him.

This was NOT a bash on you, just vooicing my opinion on the matter.

[osoab]

JJ,

Couldnt you have walked one of your children over to his table and politely explained to your child that people who use profanity do not have the intellect to express themsleves, that they lack a wide vocabulary and are incapable of crystalizing their thoughts using words. You could have explained that people like this have usually smaller and weaker minds, and that you dont want them to grow up like that. This could have been an incredible lesson for your children to learn, as well as influenced anyone else who saw or heard what happened.

Dont you see how INCREDIBLY SMALL you would have made him feel? 1000000% smaller than being the bully. Threatening the use of force is WRONG. Force is to be used to defend, NOT instigate.

This kid is not going to change from what you did, IMO. But using his ignorance as a lesson to your child in front of an entire resturant has a much better chance of having an effect on him.

This was NOT a bash on you, just vooicing my opinion on the matter.

Disagree bringing the kid into the situation.

Wasn't the guys use of loud profanity the original force? JJ responded in kind.

Making the guy look inferior might have started a real fight. Idiots don't like being told they are idiots. They get rather huffy when that occurs.

[JJ.G0ldD0t]

SJ

I would never involve a child in an adult dispute. They can be taught without being involved. I had no way of knowing if this guy would be violent from the onset. Why put a kid in the middle of that? Further - I am quite capable and did capably teach the kids - later - what happened there and what was wrong with it.

As I said - I didn't care about fratboy's rights. I certainly wouldn't care to make him "feel" anything. I was PISSED - I wanted him to stop. Force gets results. I'm not the government. I was not threatening using a weapon. Obviously its wrong when the gov uses force of arms for coercion.

I think it's different for a dad protecting kids - and this WAS defense. BULLY? lol no. I'm 5'11" / 180. This guy looked like a meathead jock.
There wasn't much other recourse in my mind. Sometimes a good old ass whoopin is in order. So dont presume to impose you morals on me by telling me its wrong. It's wrong when the gov does it. Its not wrong when I'm covering my kids.