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?
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.
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
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."
"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."
I'd like to point out that Robert Ford is a Democrat and he's black.
Linky: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Ford_(politician)
Download free e-books, lectures, and tutorials at bookgoldmine.com
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
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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
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.
The right to swing your fist extends to the tip of my nose.
It shouldn't be illegal specifically to say any particular thing. However, if it can be proved that you caused someone harm, then you adjudicate that harm.
It isn't that difficult of a concept. It isn't illegal to swing a hammer. It isn't illegal to swing a hammer into someone's face.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.