"Go %&#@ Yourself" - unless you live in Middleboro...
 

So in a vote of 183-50, the citizens in the town of Middleboro game police the authority to fine citizens $20 for using "offensive words" in public. Middleboro has a population of about 22,000, and had a turnout of 233 people or just over 1%.

I'm not sure which subject should be the bigger story:
- The blatant infringement on Free Speech
or
- A town of 22,000 having only 1% of the population show up to a town meeting and permitting that group to vote on ordinances like this.

That's prolly around right JD, in reality only about 1% prolly really care.
If it was about tax increases, or getting free cheese you can bet it would be closer to 60%. :D

they've been on NPR all day, it's friggin funny, no more cussin at Slips house.

Its been on the books for decades...they just basically decriminalized it so that all that it results in is a fine instead of a court appearance

nope, plenty of swearing here :hidin: nothing wrong with swearing in my own home, it is not a public place.
Although, I am proud to say that my 18 year old daughter has never in her life said one swear word.

TDF is correct
also, the punks up town can't shout their curse filled conversations across the street to each other in public if there is a police officer nearby.


No, I did not go to the meeting, but if I could have, I would have. I was busy getting a massage after killing myself at cutty all weekend and then finishing up an installation on Monday my back was junk.

free cheese -lol

Such a stupid friggin ordinance???? 1%???? At least the town is smart enough to know.....there are more important things to deal with!!!! #^&#^&#^&#^&in' moron selectmen!!!

true BF...so what's next a swear Jar @ S-B :uhuh:

Free speech was never and will never take the place of courtesy. When children or women are nearby there should not be a right to swear,it's just plain ignorance. Just as in Sharon you have no right to smoke in public. Laws such as these will seldom be enforced but may provide a wakeup call to youth who were raised by wolves,or adults who should be neutered.

Well said. I swear as much as anyone, but not around my kid or anyone else's kids. Having to explain to my 7 year old why he can't say certain words that a kid in his class says can be tough. The other kids dad has no filter whatsover and the kid is using the same language.

Constitutional infringements are unacceptable regardless of whether or not those infringements promote "courtesy" or not. Smoking isn't Constitutionally protected, so that's an apples to oranges comparison.

We don't need the government regulating what's socially acceptable and what is not. On the subject of "courtesy", there was a time when the government agreed it was "courteous" for black people to sit in the back of the bus.

X2 Common courtesey shoud be just that, Common.

Unless you're JohnnyD who believes that the Constitution is the be all, end all and common sense and common courtesy should take a back seat to it. If he ever has children, I'd be curious to know how he'd feel if I started saying things like #^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&, #^&#^&#^&#^&, #^&#^&#^&#^& and #^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^& in front of them.

And how did that get changed... did RIPTA decide it wasn't fair?

Sounds like a good law but should only be used in very few cases.

I don't think he gets it. Sitting on the back of the bus was never about courtesy. It was about the government being so stupid that they considered blacks to be second class citizens.

Since the Constitution isn't the be all, end all, why stop at restricting free speech? Let's get rid of independent news papers and replace them with strictly state-sponsored media, let's throw out due process and restrictions on illegal search and seizures.

I'm obviously being extreme but the point is all the same. Where exactly is the line? If the government is going to be allowed to ignore the Constitution and restrict speech based on "common sense" and "common courtesy", what else are they going to be allowed to restrict based on "common sense."

Give the government an inch and they end up taking a mile. I'm not willing to give the government any more inches because they have already taken miles that we'll never get back.

A civil-rights movement that included protests and speech that many considered offensive - protected by the same document that I feel *is* the "end all, be all".

No, I don't think you get it. Protections in the Constitution allowed the protests and rallies that help force the government into eliminating segregation. Yet, you want to allow the same "stupid government" that treated blacks as second-class citizens to ignore protections to free speech based on what some arbitrary definition of common sense.

I haven't seen anyone here saying that newspapers should be abolished. The comments are more about offensive speech around kids. A small child can't go into a convenience store and buy a magazine with pictures of hermaphrodites and big $%#&@ chicks getting 3 holes filled. I don't want my kid seeing that stuff and I also don't want him hearing people using offensive language when we're at the store or out in a restaurant. Frankly, I don't care if people swear around me. I don't think young kids should be subjected to it.

No, I get it fine. You said it was courtesy that led them to put blacks at the back of the bus. It wasn't. It was narrow mindedness and racism that did it. By calling it courtesy, you're really diminishing the injustices put upon minorities back then. But if it helps you make your point, go with it.

You're putting the cart before the horse. I never said courtesy led to forcing them to the back of the bus. I said it was perceived as courteous. That same stupid government felt that it was "common sense" that blacks should give up their seats for whites.

How is this even applicable? It has nothing related to free speech or any other protect freedom.

Umm, yeah you did say that. You never said it was perceived as courteous. Read your prior statements.

As for the magazines, how is it applicable? Have you been reading the thread? Those magazines are offensive to a lot of people (like swearing) but they're protected by free speech, so they're allowed to be sold. In your world, because they're protected by free speech, everyone should be able to buy them, no? By making it so that you have to be 18 years old, the government is infringing on your rights.

switch to whisper mode :)

Sorry Johnny, but this post proves you fall in the category of raised wrong. You swear in front of my kids and I will slap some sense into you. Which somebody should have done long ago.

Silly law. There are many things I find offensive but we dont need a law to "protect" us.
Your children will be subjected to a number of things. As a parent its my responsibility to address and discuss with them. I went to a father daughter dance a few months back with the girls from 7-10 yrs old. When they played LMFAO - Im sexy and I know it - every girl in the place screamed and sang every word. Is it offensive to hear 8 yr olds singing " I have a party in my pants and I aint afraid to show it" ? I could fight for the song to be banned or I can discuss with my daughter.
For those that think this is a good law - weigh this - The KKK and American NAZI party can hold a march in Middleboro and you can't stop them, but if you say "$hit" when you lose your credit card in a restaurant, you can be fined. Try explaining that to your kids.

JD, your sounding more and more like a conservative every day. :D

I'll let my mother know. You're welcome to do so yourself if you'd like.

With the way you talk to people, it's amusing that you criticize my upbringing. It's also amusing that your claim the law enforces courtesy, while demonstrating that you lack any.

Careful. If you keep making sense like this and being a responsible parent, Sea Dangles is going tell you were raised incorrectly because your opinion doesn't fall within his screwed up definition of thinking. He'll probably call you a bad parent too.

search the cupcake thread.

exactly, another silly rule.
punish everyone to protect fat kids.

- ban swearing - it offends people
- ban the pledge of allegiance, it offends atheists
- ban the rebel flag, it offends african americans
- ban the cross, it offends muslims/jews
- ban tag at recess, it offends out of shape kids
- ban large containers of soda - you're too dumb to make your own decisions

where does it end? I dont want a country like this. I prefer some chaos, some failure, some discourse, some uncomfort in order to live in a place where we are not governed by intrusive petty laws.
Freedom is not easy and not meant to make everyone comfortable.

Bingo!

I know I was raised incorrectly, but a common phrase in my house growing up was "Deal with it". Kids (and society as a whole) are being groomed into a thinking process of "if you don't like it, keep bitching until it's removed" instead of "if you don't like it, deal with it. The world isn't going to be catered to your every whim."

I think you guys might be reading some of the comments a little wrong. I don't think most of us who think swearing in public is offensive wouldn't necessarily vote on a law making it a crime. We're saying that there should be some deterrent to these #^&#^&#^&#^&wads using profanities loudly in public so everyone can hear how cool they think they are. If I was walking down the street with your mother on our way to a romantic dinner, I'd be offended if some #^&#^&#^&#^&stain started yelling profanities at his idiot friend across the street.

And JD, if you can ever find a woman who will let you impregnate her, I bet your view on what's acceptable in front of children will change.:)

Your combining two different things. Not once have I said swearing in front of children is acceptable. It's not. Hell, I typically don't swear in front of women. What I'm saying is that just because it's unacceptable, doesn't mean that Big Brother should be regulating it.

Legally acceptable and socially acceptable are two completely different things - Big Brother should be involved in the former and not at all in the latter.

It's also illegal to spit on the sidewalk


carry on

Sodomy is on the books as illegal in Rhode Island....
no comment that that's why "RI"Jimmy is moving to Texas....

"is moving" is one day away from "has moved"

and that law was something the URI girls were not to worried about back in my heyday.....:devil2:

I see slavery as comparable to this (in theory, not in magnitude). The laws said that blacks were not equal. Collectively, we evolved to a different (better) position, and thanks to our constitution, we changed (improved) those laws.

Things like this should be handled locally. If the citizens of this town decide this is best for their kids, let 'em vote on it. Democracy in action.

I would be curious to see if there's a free speech argument to be made. I have a right to free speech, but that doesn't mean I can go to the kindergarten bus stop and hang pornographjy on the telephone pole, right? I assume that's correct? if I don't want my kid exposed to porn, maybe I don't want him exposed to obscenity.

Anyway, if it's a violation of free speech, the ACLU will be all over it. If obscenity does not qualify as protected free speech, then the town has every right to regulate it.

I'm glad my town had no such law when I was in my late teens and I was an idiot...

Don't have a debate on Yom Kippur
Move Bunker Hill Day to not fall on Father's Day
Don't name your team RedMen

I just drove by a big sign banning loud motorcycles... town ordnance... I guess that infringes on my right to be a loud #^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&....

Really? they had strap-ons back then? good for you....