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

[Sea Dangles]

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.

[fishbones]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

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.

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by fishbones

Well said. I swear as much as anyone, but not around my kid or anyone else's kids.

X2 Common courtesey shoud be just that, Common.

[fishbones]

Originally Posted by justplugit

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.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by fishbones

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.

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.

[fishbones]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

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."

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.

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

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.

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

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

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.

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.

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

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.

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

[fishbones]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

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

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.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

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

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".

Originally Posted by fishbones

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.

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.

[fishbones]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

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.

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.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by fishbones

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.

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.

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

[fishbones]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

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.

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.

[Sea Dangles]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

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.

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.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

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.

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.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

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.

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...