Slashdot Mirror


South Carolina Seeking To Outlaw Profanity

MBGMorden writes "It looks like in an act that defies common sense, a bill has been introduced in the South Carolina State Senate that seeks to outlaw the use of profanity. According to the bill it would become a felony (punishable by a fine up to $5000 or up to 5 years in prison) to 'publish orally or in writing, exhibit, or otherwise make available material containing words, language, or actions of a profane, vulgar, lewd, lascivious, or indecent nature.' I'm not sure if 'in writing' could be applied to the internet, but in any event this is scary stuff."

21 of 849 comments (clear)

  1. Wha... by slugtastic · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What about Freedom of speech?

    1. Re:Wha... by Shadow+Wrought · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What about Freedom of speech?

      Freedom of speech is alive and well! Freedom after speech now...

      --
      If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
  2. What the fuck is wrong with South Carolina? by eln · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I know a lot of these guys are hopelessly stuck in the past, but I think being stuck in 1630s Massachusetts is going a little overboard.

    1. Re:What the fuck is wrong with South Carolina? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I don't think there is something anybody could say or write that is obscene as flying the Confederate battle flag of the army of North Virginia from the state house of state with a large black population.

  3. Pah! by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It isn't scary, it's stupid. If it ever passes, it's going to get struck down. Tell me, South Carolina, did you elect a pack of retards, because that's the only rational explanation.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    1. Re:Pah! by BSAtHome · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It is a profoundly obscene waste of taxpayers money. Maybe the legislators can be fined the $5000 each, as mentioned in the proposal, to finance the judicial costs of striking it down.

    2. Re:Pah! by Sponge+Bath · · Score: 5, Insightful

      ...did you elect a pack of retards

      The quality of politicians often mirrors the majority of the voting population.

  4. Re:Ouch by networkBoy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    add to that:
    fucking first amendment baby!

    --
    whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
  5. Unenforceable. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Unless S.C. wants to outlaw all language altogether, they're looking at something that's not even enforceable. So they ban your standard fucks, shits, and cunts. Awesome. Are they thinking new euphemisms and curses aren't going to spring up to fill the void? Failing creation of new words, are they going to prosecute the intent behind words used? If I can't express my displeasure about my boss in South Carolina using traditional profanity, will they go after me if I call him a doody-head?

    Funny thing about language. It's creative and evolves. Even profanity is changing and twisting meaning - in some (usually male) teenagers today, 'fuck' is used like 'like' or 'um' might be used by certain other groups of people. There may not necessarily be any obscene intent behind the word, and may just be used as filler.

  6. Re:Ouch by Kymermosst · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Separation of church and state, don't forget that "under god" was added to the anthem and constitution in the 1950's unlawfully. This shit is getting out of fucking hand. Those mother fuckers.

    Which amendment to the constitution added "under god"?

    --
    "Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
  7. Note to North Carolinians by Locke2005 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Now might be a really good time to invest in adult bookstores located right on your southern border! Remember, every mind-bogglingly stupid, unenforceable law is also a business opportunity!

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
  8. Re:Ouch by Anthony_Cargile · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I live in South Carolina, and honestly this is one of the stupidest things I've seen my state do (did I mention we tried to secede from the union, still have a town named secessionville, AND re-enact a war we lost?)

    Since this will soon be illegal, please allow me to say it: FUCK THIS STATE

  9. Re:Ouch by cgenman · · Score: 4, Insightful

    In 2000, I didn't vote because I thought the republicans would be just as bad as the democrats.

    Boy did they exceed my expectations.

    Let's hope we can return from jaw-droppingly awful to just mildly bought.

  10. Re:Ouch by Enderandrew · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Write a letter to State Senator Ford and tell him to fuck off.

    I'm not remotely kidding.

    --
    http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
  11. Re:Ouch by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    censorship is the accepted norm for "solving" disagreements about what we see, say and hear

    Censorship in America is largely self-imposed, by industries, not something handed down from the government.

    why should you expect it to get any better?

    Because this particular attempt is so much of a violation of the first amendment, it's laughable. It would go to the Supreme Court, and that law would be overturned, very likely with plenty of bad press all around.

    --
    Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
  12. Re:Ouch by Enderandrew · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Sorry, I won't tolerate a slightly less inane censorship bill. It is still unenforceable and unconstitutional. Plus, we've been down this road in 1996.

    Even if censorship weren't unconstitutional, the fact that it would be a felony to offend someone is ludicrous. This person should never hold an elected office again.

    --
    http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
  13. Re:Ouch by penix1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    When you are an elected official in this country, perhaps you should be familiar with the Constitution. There is a growing trend of elected officials who apparently have never heard of the thing.

    Scarier is the citizens that don't know what it says. They don't even realize they are losing rights which is the way the elected officials want it.

    --
    This is a sig. This is only a sig. Had this been an actual sig you would have been informed where to tune for more sigs.
  14. Already illegal in NY by wiredlogic · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Everybody likes to make fun of the backwards southerners but expressing obscenity is already a violation in New York with wonderfully vague wording for the convenience of the jackboots and brown shirts.

    Section 240.20 Disorderly conduct

      A person is guilty of disorderly conduct when, with intent to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof:

    ...

      3. In a public place, he uses abusive or obscene language, or makes an obscene gesture; or

    ...

      Disorderly conduct is a violation.

    --
    I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
  15. Re:Ouch by Iamthecheese · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I was not worried about being arrested because there were about 30 witnesses.

    And in that statement is evidence just how far we have fallen.

    --
    If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
  16. Re:Ouch by El+Yanqui · · Score: 5, Insightful

    all you folks need to remeber that profanity is NOT covered in the first amendment, it protects political free speech, not calling each other names or the like.

    It's scary how misguided you are. Here's the First Amendment.

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

    Kindly point out where it states that only political speech is covered. Profanity is most definitely covered by the First Amendment. You are thinking of obscenity which is a different animal and one that has had a shifting definition. Saying you're a fucking nitwit is entirely within my rights.

    --
    Well, thanks to the Internet, I'm now bored with sex.
  17. Re:Free Speech is an Absolute by Perrin-GoldenEyes · · Score: 4, Insightful

    As much as I'd like to agree with you, the Supreme Court has found that free speech is NOT an absolute. And it's not just "indecent material" and hate speech. You also can't yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater (to use the typical example). And you can't say untrue bad things about somebody else without being vulnerable to defamation law suits. There are exceptions.

    With that said, this proposal is appalling. Who ever thought Demolition Man would become a reality.

    "You are fined one credit for violation of the verbal morality statute."

    --
    -Perrin.
    Now I want you to go in that bag and find my lightsaber. It's the one that says bad mother-fscker on it.