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."
Don't think it can't happen. The hysteria-over-liberty mode of thinking that pervades every level of our legal and court system has resulted in significant erosion of all manner of what would, to a sensible person, seem to be rock-solid and unmovable declarations of constitutional rights.
We have seen the right to remain silent turn into the right to be tortured until you say what they want to hear; we have seen the 4th amendment turned into an irrelevancy by nattering idiocy about your papers being in digital form; we have seen the commerce clause turned on its very head; we have seen the establishment of "free speech zones" and other 1984-ish/esque crushing of liberties; censorship is the accepted norm for "solving" disagreements about what we see, say and hear insofar as it might offend some poor, weak-willed moron; screams of "save the children", "terrorists" and "global warming" drive legislators to write, and pass, the most odious, anti-liberty and outright anti-American legislation on a daily basis.
There's no limit to this, either; we have seen the specific directive not to pass ex post facto laws ignored at the congressional level and then whistle right through the supreme court; we have seen the explicit directive of the 2nd amendment's operative clause turned into the most moronic and sophist idiocy about "what is a militia?", a non-issue mined blindly and moronically out of the prefatory clause.
Don't think it can't get worse. Ask yourself instead, why should you expect it to get any better?
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Fuck that shit.
"I guess the moral of the story is, don't paint your airship with rocket fuel." -- Addison Bain
What about Freedom of speech?
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"
Isn't that a little vague? Now, I don't really know that much about laws, but I did hear once that there's some kind of law in effect that keeps a bill from being passed unless it is specific enough. If a law like that exists, I wouldn't think this bill would meet that requirement.
Either way though, this certainly seems to violate that first amendment thing...
"Intelligence has nothing to do with politics!"
-Londo Mollari
Well? What is it? You need to define profanity before you can outlaw it.
Frankly I find skinny good looking women who wear too much clothing to be vulgar. I find the number three pronounced as free offensive. I think puppies are indecent
However, I find skinny good looking women who wear next to no clothing - acceptable.
I checked the calendar and today is definitely not April 1st, so somewhere this story must ultimately lead back to an Onion.
There is no -1 Disagree mod. Slashdot.org/faq defines mod options. USE IT.
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.
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.
"Obscenity is whatever happens to shock some elderly and ignorant magistrate." - Bertrand Russell
"Of all the strange "crimes" that human beings have legislated of nothing, "blasphemy" is the most amazing - with "obscenity" and "indecent exposure" fighting it out for the second and third place." - Robert A. Heinlein
Slashdot? Oh, I just read it for the articles.
Because I would break that law in the process.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Sons of bitches just want to oppress self-expression. What impact will this have on music and literature. Do have any idea how many fucking books have swear words?
Un-fucking-believable.
Pain is merely failure leaving the body
Michigan had an anti-profanity passed in 1897. It outlawed cursing in front of woment or children. In 1989 a canoeist was charged with violating the law after hitting a rock with his canoe and releasing a stream of profanities in front of a family.
He was actually found guilty the first time around. The court of appeals though threw out his case and the law. Here though if he had been convicted it would only have been a $75 fine and community service.
http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=15992
Don't anthropomorphize computers. They *hate* that.
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.
Slashdotters are courageously rebelling against this law by using a lot of swearwords.
Thanks Slashdot, the worlds takes nerds more seriously right now.
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power lost.
According to this here, that would be something that is:
1. (classical sense) Having to do with ordinary, common people.
2. Rude, uncouth, distasteful, obscene.
Looking up obscene results in:
1. Offensive to the current standards of decency or morality
2. Lewd or lustful
3. Disgusting or repulsive
4. Beyond all reason
5. Liable to deprave or corrupt
This law qualifies at least for 3 and 4. Depending on your point of view, for all of them.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
If you guys _still_ want to secede from the US, I think now we'd be willing to reconsider! Keep doing stuff like this, and it will be an easy decision. You're embarrassing all of us! Yours truly, A Yankee
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
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.
It is sponsored by ONE guy, and it was instantly referred to committee. Why is this even news? There is ALWAYS one guy that wants to stick his penis in the whole to see what happens... why should a group like a state's congress be any different?
Reminds me of this: http://www.bash.org/?178890
What a vague law like this does is two folds. It allows such scumbags to control what is and is not allowed in public. It is ok for the taxpayer to pay for the distribution of the ten commandants so a certain christian beliefs can be forced onto the public, or for the public to pay for teachers to sit there and do nothing while students are forced to pray, but not ok for libraries to carry Harry Potter because it is profane.
Second, it allows scum bags to target people they don't like. You don't like the color of your neighbor, turn him in for exposing your kid to profanity. It is simple enough to do.
Just to get an idea if this was the purpose of such laws, or if I was being paraniod,I took a look at the SPLC hate group map. South Carolina has the largest number of hate groups in that area, about one hate group per 100,000 persons. In comparison, the reletively conservative state of Texas has about 1 hate group per 350,000 persons. I am not sure if there is a state with a higher percentage of hate groups.
Really this is likely just another effect of the seating of the soon to be current US president. States like this, and thier white population, has been courted by the republicans for 40 years, rallied by the fear of the person who looks differnt. Times have changed, but the fear mongering has lasting effect.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
Didn't we just remove the Taliban from power in Afghanistan for pulling shit very similar to this?
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
If you outlaw profanity, only outlaws will have profanity.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
As my five-year-old son used to say when he was experimenting with profanity but hadn't gotten the hang of it yet, "Oh, for heaven's fuck."
I thought that my legislators were 'World Class' crazy (Utah).
It looks like we aren't even playing in the big leagues.
This level of crazy is a delicate balancing act. You have to be dumb enough to think that this is a good idea, but somehow manage to keep from drowning in the shower.
Is there any way to tell if the responsible parties have indoor plumbing? How do they avoid rain?
Miles
That's completely insane. EVERYTHING is obscene to at least one individual, somewhere.
They just outlawed everything to make everyone (in their state) an outlaw.
That is, for the lack of a better description, a fucking good joke!
...but what does that Perl do?
Creationism was already taken.
There are still many ways states can distinguish themselves, though. Try re-legalizing slavery. Have a governor declare himself the State Duke for life. Totally outlaw alcohol. Declare pi to be 3.0. Require residents to quarter soldiers.
"Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
Ok folks - I live in SC - So I can say with some certanty - CALM DOWN.
.
1) This is just a BILL introduced in the Senate. I don't see anything on the House calendar indicating that it was also filed there, and if there was a SERIOUS push to make this happen, you'd see a similar bill in the house.
2) He submitted this SAME BILL the last THREE sessions. Thats the last 6 years. See session 117, 116 and 115. Quite frankly I didn't go back any further but he may have introduced this same bill before that, too. EVERY TIME this bill has been introduced, it has died in committee.
3) This guy has a terrible clearance rate. ZERO general bills on which he's the primary sponsor have passed in the last few sessions
4) I bet if you look, you'll find this same type of legislation popping up in other state houses or county councils... and dying just as quickly. Someone's always going to try - doesn't mean they'll get anywhere and DOES NOT mean to freak out.
quis custodiet ipsos custodes - Juvenal
That's an interesting way to show support for a bill.
I think you're wrong.
I think everyone can agree that this word is definitely bad.
Kevin Smith on Prince
Who the fuck thought that shit was a reasonable punishment for such a minor fucking transgression? Lemme get this fucking straight -- you can drive 100 miles an hour down the god damn freeway, potentially putting fucking lives at risk, and probably get off with no more than a few days in jail, at worst, but if you fucking swear in the process, you're looking at five fucking years?
What the fuck?
Well, at least they had the foresight to clearly define a standard for determining what is and isn't profanity. And clearly outlined the ways in which this wouldn't constitute a violation of the first amendment.</sarcasm>
Check out the bible. "Piss" and "Bastard" and "Whore" - it'd be worth it just to see all the state-mandated bible-burnings, etc.
Kevin Smith on Prince
This is just another American political distraction. Like religion, abortion, guns, etc. . ., these distractions keep us from uniting on the really important issues like economic power. Move along. There's nothing new to see here.
(Although such an absurd statute would be really expensive to enforce . . . )
Wait - it's MUCH worse than that:
"...publishes orally or in writing, exhibits, or otherwise makes available anything obscene to any a group or individual;" ...so exhibiting anything obscene to any individual...is illegal? Doesn't that mean that I can't get naked with my g/f?
www.sjbaker.org
No, there's no law that says you can't pass bad laws. Courts can strike down laws that violate the Constitution, or laws (or more usually, parts of laws) that are too vague to be enforceable, but that's after the law gets passed, and usually not until somebody tries to enforce it.
But this law isn't "void for vagueness" - courts, including the US Supreme Court, have allowed obscenity laws that have "community standards" rather than explicit definitions, and Justice Potter Stewart famously said about obscenity "I know it when I see it". This law's sufficiently clear and way over-the-top about what it's trying to prohibit, it's just blatantly unconstitutional.
The real question is why the politician is trying to propose such a law when he should know better. Is he really ignorant enough not to know better (unlikely, but quite possible)? Is he trying to excite his base so they'll give him more money next election? Is he following a promise he made when he was running? Is he trying to get some other politicians to oppose the bill so he can accuse them of being in favor of profanity and obscenity? Or is he just being rude to the public?
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
* Robert Ford [D]
Developer
Dist. No. 42 - Charleston Co.
(H) P.O. Box 21302, Charleston, 29413
Bus. (843) 813-1777 Home (843) 852-0777
(C) 506 Gressette Bldg., Columbia, 29201
Bus. (803) 212-6124 Home (803) 798-9220
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
What happens if I say
"Fack you, you asz, gol dung motherflocker"
I mean come on, how can this be enforced? Can I curse in foreign languages?, What if an English word sounds like a curse in another language, and someone hears it?
Most of this seems to be aimed at prevention of the corruption of minors, and would rely on the subjective interpretation of the judge to determine if one is guilty or not.
..........FULL STOP.
Hey guys, let's completely ignore the discussion and talk about my pet issue instead!
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs
Seriously I call dibbs on www.fuck-south-carolina.com
He's a Democrat, he's Black and he's from Charleston.
http://www.scstatehouse.gov/members/bios/0606818109.html
"The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
I had always thought that it would be Alabama who would come up with a bill like that. And now this. I feel cheated.
Stupid Asshole me allows this shitty browser to lose what I typed in here, then I re-enter the message but instead of using an external program to store the comment until I could post it, I allow myself to be fucked-in-the-ass a second time and it loses my comment while I'm formatting it. I am typing this in a separate program, I won't get bit a third time.
Here's how the statute is unconstitutional:
There are far too many others to list, but even misdemeanor or fine-only charges have been struck down; a felony law wouldn't stand 30 seconds.
The lessons of history teach us - if they teach us anything - that nobody learns the lessons that history teaches us.
I wouldn't be surprised if either party introduced this bill but at least place the blame for this specific idiocy on in the correct place.
Then how about from the 14th:
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;"
This specifically addresses both making and enforcing a law. And no, they can't make any law they want.
Attention South Carolina Librarians:
In re "Section 16-15-370. (A) It is unlawful for a person in a public forum or place of public accommodation wilfully and knowingly 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.
Please remove the following material with Dewey Decimal numbers; 000-100, 100-200, 200-300, 400-500 ...
Hmmm. Maybe this would be easier if we said what could stay...
OK, 801-805 are OK ....
Well, there is that one, and that one... Never mind.
Hmmm....
Oh, GOOD, number 623.43 is definitely OK ... well, it would be if you ripped out page 46... and 58... and probably 124...
(aside) Look, just find something, OK, ya sure?
All right, number 234.98 is absolutely OK if you ignore chapter 12... and 43...
Fuck it. Shit, just torch the damn place...
He put his boots up on the table and made a face. "The sig," he smirked. "You can waste your life in search of the sig."
You think this senator's proposal is funny, sad, twisted, etc. check out what's already on their books. For people seemingly afraid of losing and wanting to protect their innocence they've certainly got quite a lascivious imagination...
Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once
most blacks are very conservative
Indeed they are. The equally insane Prop 8 in California won (sadly) by a relatively narrow margin. In the black community it had a huge margin. Just goes to show, the ex-smokers are the most fanatic anti-smokers. The ex-oppressed are the most fanatic oppressors.
Soon we will see an African American leader of the Ku Klux Klan.
John Stewart said something on the Daily Show about certain States in our country that should be required to where a helmet at all times.
Everything is lewd.
With apologies to Tom Lehrer.
And you can't define them in the law, because to do so would be made illegal by the very law banning them.
Oh recursion, how we love thee. I never thought I'd use it to defend my first amendment rights (not that swearing has anything to do with Free Speech, strictly speaking), but there you go.
How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
Ron Paul has a record trying to pass anti-liberty legislation.
Fixed that for you. Ron Paul is one of the Libertarians that believes that the federal government doesn't have the authority to enforce the Bill of Rights on state governments. He introduced the We the People Act, which would strip federal courts to hear cases over the first amendment, gay rights and abortion rights.
So in other words, say you live in a third world state like Georgia, and the state government passes a law mandating Southern Baptist led prayer in public schools. If you object, sad day for you.
I really wouldn't worry about this one because it would be found void for overbreadth because the definition of vulgarity might differ enough between races, religions, and creeds that it would cause gross mis-interpretations. If the overbreadth doctrine doesn't stop it, the first amendment certainly will. Yelling the words "fuck" and "shit" are not the same thing as yelling "fire" in a crowded movie theatre.
TAX IS THEFT.
Ok, I don't normally feed the AC trolls, but...
Without taxes to support the fire department, I guess we should just let your house burn down when it catches fire unless you've got a private fire squad. Or maybe the fire department should just send you a bill for their time?
Same goes for driving on public roads (they don't pave and clean themselves, you know), how about we make all roads into toll roads, that ok with you?
Been the victim of a rape/robbery/etc? Tough luck unless you've got a private security force.
Do you like using electricity and eating beef? You might not if you actually had to pay the FULL price.
Want your kids to learn basic literacy, math, science, and history? Better pony up for a tutor, taxes currently pay for that too. Not to mention the whole, "it's in your best interest for that other guy's kids to be educated" argument.
This one might not apply if you're a total anarchist, but wouldn't it be nice if the people making the laws and carrying out diplomatic relations with other countries had some source of income other than bribery or personal wealth? You think lobbyists and "campaign contributors" run shit now? Just wait until the Senators actually rely on them to pay for their next meal.
Unless you're living totally off the grid, growing your own food, using tools and equipment that you manufactured yourself from scratch (or acquired from someone else who did the same), never set foot in a public school, never drive on a public road (you would also need a car that you built from scratch and gasoline that you refined yourself), and are willing to defend yourself from robbers/foreign invading armies all by your lonesome, just STFU right now.
In fact, even if you do somehow miraculously meet the above criteria, just STFU anyway, because the rest of us don't want to live like that.
Ever hear of something called economy of scale? It's way cheaper for everyone to pool our resources.
P.S. Taxes paid for (at least part of) the copper that carried your post from your house to the rest of us. You shouldn't even be posting on slashdot if you truly believe tax is theft, or you're a thief and a hypocrite too.
Knowledge != Intelligence
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.
... well, native speakers of the English tongue, I propose setting aside at least $100,000,000 to teach law enforcement, children and parents the swear words of all other countries. If not, then it's obvious that this law is simply meant to persecute honest, god fearing, white folks while allowing foreigners to mock us in their inscrutable ways.
"Common sense will be the death of us all"
if i wore a shirt with
Siht,
P's,
Fcuk,
Cnut,
CokcSucekr,
MotehrFcuker
Teats
written on it?
These laws are fun.
or is this just a gimmick to popularize Battlestar galactica and its frak.
ARTICLE I.
DECLARATION OF RIGHTS
SECTION 1. Political power in people.
All political power is vested in and derived from the people only, therefore, they have the right at all times to modify their form of government.
SECTION 2. Religious freedom; freedom of speech; right of assembly and petition.
The General Assembly 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 or any department thereof for a redress of grievances.
Senator Robert Ford
District 42 - Charleston Co.
Contact Address:
(H) P.O. Box 21302, Charleston, 29413
Bus. (843) 813-1777 Home (843) 852-0777
(C) 506 Gressette Bldg., Columbia, 29201
Bus. (803) 212-6124 Home (803) 798-9220
It's 3 am here. I'm sure senator ford would like to hear from you about his bill. Feel free to call collect.
http://www.scstatehouse.gov/members/bios/0606818109.html looks like a badaas tho, don't ring his doorbell.
Sounds like you all need to go out and buy the latest copy of the Profanisaurus, subtitled "The Magna Farta". This is the "World's Sweariest Dictionary" compiled by Viz magazine with over 10,000 rude words and phrases.
Should give you plenty of new phrases to use in your protest letters - many of which will not be understood by those in power unless they too resort to looking them up!
Plus this is one of those books which is guaranteed to make you laugh out loud - much like this new law.
Moore's law is not a law. Theory, yes; Predictable trend, certainly; Law, no.
So, in essence, you want to eradicate masculinity in the English language completely. I'm guessing you're a feminist.
First problem: confusion. There are a plethora of unisex names in American society. Casey, Stacey, Aaron/Erin, Alex, just to name a few. The neutering of "he" and "his" when using those names as the subject of a sentence is only going to result in confusion when that name turns out to be masculine instead of feminine.
Second problem: identity. The presence of only one sex in a language never works. Hence the reason there are no languages that have only one sex. Russian, Spanish, English, Czech, and Slavic are all languages I know at least a few words in, and all of them have at least 2 sexes present, they have to. Sexuality is a major and important part of our identity, and is often how we personalize ourselves within our speech. You wouldn't appreciate it in the least if I referred to you as a handsome man (or handsome for that matter, it is a masculine adjective; whereas beautiful is unisex, and pretty is feminine), nor would I appreciate it if you referred to me as a pretty woman.
Third problem: sexuality. Sex is half of our identity. It drives our instincts and our demeanor. Masculinity in communication is just as important as neuter or femininity, for the simple reason that it needs to be communicated. Neutering the adjectives that describe men as men only alienates, and does not help facilitate communication. Women are vastly superior at communication on average than men, so it may not bother or hinder them as much, but men identify themselves in everything they do. From work, to play, to speech and even in nonverbal communication, they identify themselves as men. Taking away that ability to do so in speech serves absolutely no purpose, nor any service to a society as a whole.
On the other hand, I don't find any problem with simply eliminating the feminine form of most nouns, such as waitress or hostess or even actress, simply because the words that were feminized in the first place held no particular masculine form. The Marines did it in no distasteful fashion when they eliminated the term Woman Marine, because a Marine is a Marine, whether female or not. It's a great example of the seamless conversion from sexual centric speech to actual speech. A pilot is a pilot, a soldier a soldier, a man a man, and a woman a woman. Your job doesn't change because of your breasts, your sex does.
In conclusion, nothing will be served by neutering masculine adjectives in the English language, it will only make things stupid.
Of all the Universal Constants, here's one I know: Nice guys finish last
Robert Ford is a complete flake and is not taken seriously in the SC General Assembly. He introduces these sort of nutball bills all the time. He's also currently running for governor (the election isn't even until 2010), trying to bring back video poker, and probably trying to make contact with the aliens too.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
I like to believe that the intent of the 1st Amendment is that free speech is an absolute. The moment you cross that line for any reason, the absolute has no meaning.
Fahrenheit 451 is a perfect example. The majority wasn't censoring the minority on a large scale like we see in China. It was small groups offended by minute things. They suppressed minor items, a word at a time in the name of decency. Where do you draw the line, and who draws the line?
I know judges have made rulings that indecent material isn't protected, and that hate speech isn't protected. Frankly, I think those judges are wrong.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.