Fine For Swearing

Nixie

Nixie

Resurrected
MBTI
ENTP
MIDDLEBOROUGH, Mass. -- Residents in Middleborough have voted to make the foul-mouthed among them pay fines for swearing in public.
At a town meeting Monday night, 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.



What are your opinions? Free speech being squashed? Morality being imposed on people? Is it a democratic process when 233 people out of a population of 20,000 make a decision?
 
Yah right.

Fuck that.

:m037:
 
So a handful of people are deciding the fate of all the rest? That's pretty much how 'democracy' works in the west!

The Bilderburg Club had their meeting recently at which a small number of bankers, politicans, industrialists and royals (less than 200!) decide the general direction of the neoliberal club of western countries and some say even appoint the next president of the US or Prime minister of the UK: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilderburg
 
Last edited:
In my city, if you curse on the boardwalk, they can fine you by law...but it clearly isn't heavily enforced lol.
 
As one who doesn't swear, and is uncomfortable when others around me swear (usually because of the anger being expressed and the ignorance of the language,) I'd be happy to have this enforced. I don't think it's something I would have voted for though, since I do support freedom of speech, even if I don't agree with it or if it's hateful. Honestly I don't really think it IS enforceable, other than if someone is causing a scene, in which case they can already be arrested for public disorderliness. A private conversation is just that...private, and a word overheard might be taken out of context. (I loved telling my elementary school bus driver, after getting in trouble for chanting "bitch bitch bitch," that I was just talking about a female dog.) So many words only mean anything based on the context they are used in, and the perception of the person using them. Personally I think there are plenty of adjectives to use in much more colorful ways to express the same extreme sentiments much more intellectually. I'll give examples if you want.
 
[MENTION=5145]AKM[/MENTION] I am now remembering a distinct incident that happened on a bus ride a long time ago when I was in middle school...someone was swearing because they were being provoked by a bully in the back and the bus driver was getting after them for swearing and I was defending them. I argued to her that words really only have the meaning that we as a culture assign to them. I told her I could just as easily call someone a cheese head or a snowboard and have it catch on as a swear, and then would she also stop us from saying those things? I proceeded to call one of the jerks in the back of the bus a "cheese headed snowboarder". Then I think she told me to shut up. Or something like that. :P
 
I think this law and all censorship is ridiculous. I really need not say more about it than that, but maaaaybe I will....Well sure, why not.

I think people will get offended by anything if they are in the mindset to be offended by it, so it seems a bit pointless to have a word ban. You would have to ban a lot more than certain "currently-defined-as-dirty" or "subjectively immoral" words to protect the general public from the offensiveness of others. Why not just ban speaking in public entirely and be forced to learn simple hand signals for the most basic communicative needs? I would rather not have to risk the possibility of being traumatized by inadvertently over hearing others stupid comments and verbal diarrhea. It wasn't MY fault I was eavesdropping! Why won't anyone DO something about this?? Think of my poor lost brain cells!

Not to mention the fact that being okay with or not caring that laws like this are being implemented is pretty much akin to saying "yes please, go ahead and take away more of my rights because The Man knows what is best for me better than I do!"
 
i really dislike the enforced morality. I find that grating. I agree with [MENTION=5145]AKM[/MENTION] in that if you are really being disruptive, there are disorderly laws in place. I just think it becomes another way/tool for police to run off people they don't want in their business areas. Loitering laws are designed to do that. If you interfere with commerce--this is aimed at the business area--you will be moved out/fined/arrested. The pretext being that they are defending a morally superior outlook, not their greedy business/capitalistic goal.
 
This is scary. I would be out a 100 dollars or more in a day. No thank you.
 
I keep reading the title as "Fine for Sweating" o.O
 
Also just read where England is toughing up their slander laws to force forums to hand over information on posters. The idea is to make it easier for companies to sue those who defame their companies and/or products. Sure it could apply to SuzieQ wanting to get back at that internet troll saying stuff about her but it is more aimed to protect big business. Say something bad about the company and product--we threaten to sue and you cave.
 
Stormy1 said:
i really dislike the enforced morality. I find that grating. I agree with @AKM in that if you are really being disruptive, there are disorderly laws in place. I just think it becomes another way/tool for police to run off people they don't want in their business areas. Loitering laws are designed to do that. If you interfere with commerce--this is aimed at the business area--you will be moved out/fined/arrested. The pretext being that they are defending a morally superior outlook, not their greedy business/capitalistic goal.
Click to expand...

I think you're totally right...the corporations are looking for new ways to impose controls

The corporations own the machinery of power and the police work for the machinery of power so a policeman could easily accuse you of having sweared if his/her corporate boss wanted you removed. If they started shoving someone its likely many people would swear out of reflex at being mishandled so then they get you again!

In the UK police can arrest someone for 'breach of the peace' which is basically a catch all statement which can include anything from swearing to waving a gun around!

The Uk equivalent of the occupy movement has been repeatedly moved off land in London because it is 'private land' owned by the corporations. The protests have begun to uncover just how much space that seemed like public space is actually owned by the corporations. There was an article in the news about it today: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jun/11/granary-square-privately-owned-public-space

Its not the policeman/woman who decides to move people on though they are getting their orders from above and their bosses are getting their orders from above them etc and i think that's the thing......all this is coming from the top

I don't want to sound all doom and gloom about this though because i think that all these controls the corporate mafia who run the country are trying to impose on the people will ultimately backfire on them and the people will assert themselves, their humanity and their freedoms.

I do however think that to get to that stage where people will crack and lash back at the corporations the situation will have to get worse before it gets better

Greece is a really interesting test of all this because they are under worse financial pressure then the US and UK is (at the moment) so its interesting to watch how they will react to all this. They have an election coming up and it is between the corporations who want the greek people to accept austerity measures so that they can pay for the errors of the banks and a leftist party who are saying they will reject the austerity measures.

The greek people have options such as returning to the drachma and even pegging it to silver but opposed against such ideas which would see power taken away from the bankers are the bankers, the corrupt politicians that the bankers have bought and the corporate media that the bankers own.

So the whole corporate media is currently trying to convince the greek people that what they need to do is accept austerity and impose financial slavery on themselves in order to enrich the bankers!

I really hope they kick the bankers overboard but the question remains over whether people are aware enough yet of what is going on to take the step of voting no to austerity after all it is not needed....the holders of bank bonds should simply be made to take a loss on those bonds so that the public don't need to face austerity.

The people that hold those bonds are billionaire and trillionaire global investors and so far the governments of europe are protecting them and screwing the people to pay the investors
 
First world probz
why can't we stop making laws and enforcing morality in this country?
Because nobody can take responsibility for their own feelings or beliefs "I'm upset and you better pay for it!"
 
The thing is that all this stuff is all connected so a 'first world' problem becomes the problem of the majority world as well as the 'first world' seek to exploit the majority world in order to pay for its own financial mistakes
 
Stormy1 said:
MIDDLEBOROUGH, Mass. -- Residents in Middleborough have voted to make the foul-mouthed among them pay fines for swearing in public.
At a town meeting Monday night, 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.



What are your opinions? Free speech being squashed? Morality being imposed on people? Is it a democratic process when 233 people out of a population of 20,000 make a decision?
Click to expand...

I thought this was a thread where cussing was fine as in Wanna swear? Fine to do it here. Oh, well.

Maybe swearing is a big problem in Middleborough, possibly? I have a friend from Massachusetts who taught me probably 90% of the new swear words I know, and she refers to Massachusetts as Assachusetts and herself as a Masshole. (proudly). Soooooo..... maybe it is just a big hobby there to cuss a lot. Honestly, I think it is about as effective as outlawing 32-ounce sodas (while making the purchase of two 16-ounce ones perfectly legal.) silly.
 
I think the underlying thing that becomes frightening to me is that it is all hidden beneath this veener of moral superiority.

I didn't post the whole article--my bad besides I don't know how to do that linky thing

But here is a quote
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.

I'm not rabid about conspiracy theories but I really have trouble when things are obfuscated. The law isn't designed to protect people from having to hear swear words--it is designed to keep undesirables away from commerce areas. Kind of like how the police can legally pull you over for being in a "drug" area without probable cause. It is the erosion of the idea that we are all equal. Cause if you can't buy sumtin, you don't belong here!
 
Stormy1 said:
I
I'm not rabid about conspiracy theories but I really have trouble when things are obfuscated. The law isn't designed to protect people from having to hear swear words--it is designed to keep undesirables away from commerce areas. Kind of like how the police can legally pull you over for being in a "drug" area without probable cause. It is the erosion of the idea that we are all equal. Cause if you can't buy sumtin, you don't belong here!
Click to expand...

I wouldn't like that either, but wasn't it the customers at the auto parts store who were actually doing the swearing? They were in there to buy something and cussing to entertain themselves? Or were they just hanging out and being undesirable?

It sounds as if they are trying to turn auto parts stores (which are -- well, pretty blue-collar places and not ivory towers of pristine perfection) into something prissier. Classist? maybe. Maybe the non-cussing people would just go in there to buy oil filters or something with their 5-year olds and then find themselves having to explain what a fucking douchebag is to a little child who will proceed to use that newfound term over and over and over and over and over again.... trust me, that sort of thing can be annoying.

Oh, I see it was also in public parks too. hm, yeah, I don't know. Knowing how people are, they'll just start cussing more to make a point.
 
No the article is talking about how the fine and law started because there were kids hanging around the downtown area who would swear. The local shop owners felt it was bad for business and viola! A law against swearing.
 
I guess I'm on the fence about this one -- people could still cuss quieter, right? I think it all depends on what you personally find offensive and I would think a law probably already exists about disorderly conduct or disturbing the peace would probably cover the really loud obnoxious behavior which I'm sure does happen and probably there is a legitimate argument that it can be disruptive? Probably. So why target the actual words? Really, I think it is a silly law. Besides, you could say No Officer, I just said Crack! or Fudge! That was not swearing. And then watch anyone try to prove it. See, it will never work. PLUS they'd have to define what are swear words and what are not. Like Poopyhead, or Fart or things like that which are routinely shouted out in preschool loudly by toddlers.

Remember? People had a fit when the word Damn was used for the first time in a movie, there were attempts to censor that. Same ol same ol. If most people want to cuss, they will, and no one is going to be able to stop it, though it might legitimately annoy some people when it gets over-the-top. Maybe the pendulum will swing in the other direction in a generation or so and all the teenagers will start talking like church ladies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top