Public Swearing In Middleborough, Mass. Now Subject To Fine

[SLV^GLD]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...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?

[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.