South Carolina Considers Law That Would Criminalize Profanity In Public Forums
from the well,-fuck dept
Slashdot points us to an immensely troubling law being proposed by a state Senator in South Carolina that would make it a felony to use profanity in a public forum, whether written or spoken (so assume the internet is included). Punishment could include fines up to $5000 or prison sentences up to 5 years in length. One would hope that others in the South Carolina legislature would never let this get anywhere, but these days you never know. Of course, such a law is ridiculously unconstitutional, and if it somehow did get passed would certainly get tossed out by the courts. But just the fact that an elected representative thinks that such a law is reasonable is pretty scary. Someone want to send him a copy of the Constitution?






Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
Are you not making the unlikely assumption that the individual can read?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Let's kiss the first amendment goodbye
First it will be language they disapprove of... next it will be opinions they disapprove of.
Eventually it will end in government controlled-thinking.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Let's kiss the first amendment goodbye
You mean, like the whole Don Imus debacle?
"next it will be opinions they disapprove of."
Take a good look around - we're already heading that direction.
We get censored from both sides - left and right - while being told they want to protect our freedom.
Yeah, right.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Somebody is going to do it...
F*ck that!
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
copy sent.
A lot of good it will do. I forwarded copyright laws to various entertainment industries and look what happened there.
Damn idiots! OH NO! I USED DAMN PROFANITY!
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: copy sent.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: copy sent.
http://www.scstatehouse.gov/scconstitution/a01.htm
I guess that is relevant?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: copy sent.
I think foreigners underestimate how seriously we take this Amendment. Any attempt to limit the speech of US citizens will be cheerfully ignored by most of them.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: copy sent.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Well Shit,
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Well Shit,
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Ridiculous.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Definition
This blog is vary public, but douse my office count as public?
Will the profanity fallow the TV idea of profanity (can say "shit" but not "fuck", or will it be more the christian version (can't say pretty much anything)? And if it is the christian version than we can't overlook the other religions.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Definition
"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."
What would they do if a court proceeding requires the used of swear words? Wouldn't rape hearings be essentially banned under the above description? What about people otherwise legally protesting (e.g. if a book called "F**k George Bush" was banned from the state, protesting the ban would be banned also).
Yet another short-sighted set of rules that, if passed, would cause far more harm than they prevented.
(BTW, yes, I appreciate the irony of censoring myself in this post.)
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Definition
Can't even pronounce an asterisk in a word like that...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Definition
Not that hard really. Hewkid ahn fonix werkid fer mee.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Definition
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Definition
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Definition
PS: I love the face that he wants to use making available here. I hand you a book and get thrown in jail because that book said "indecent" things.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Second, this falls under the category of "protecting the children", which is just silly, especially in this context. From my experiences, I'd say that more minors actually use more profanity more often than adults. Furthermore, criminalising the use of profanity in public would be easier for adults to deal with than it would be for minors.
Thirdly, with respect to the Internet, where are the borders established? What if I post something on a site for a SC newspaper? What if a minor from SC reads a post of mine on a non-SC site? What if a minor from a state other than SC reads a post of mine (and I was from SC) on a non-SC site? What about domestic posters/sites versus foreign posters/sites? Clearly, SC jurisdiction would not apply in at least some (probably any) of these cases.
What about playing music in public? Do I have to listen to the censored version of music if I'm driving with my windows down?
Yeah, this one won't pass.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I just submitted a comment that my 12-year-old son was recently accused of a crime for cursing- per Leon Lott
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
what?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
fuck that shit
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Another thought
What's (actually only semi-) shocking is that constitutions don't seem to provide much room for change. Most provide means for amendment, but most are targeted at literal interpretation, not logical adaptation. (Also surprisingly, the SC constitution allows its people to change its form of government -- that's kind of cool.)
So as a spin-off of this thread, what are others' opinions here?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Karma
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Go fuck yourself
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
What a dumbass
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
*#@$
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Bullshit
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Follow-up article
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Follow-up article
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Five years!
That's so insane I would simply loose my mind if it passed...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
What a buncha' bullshit!
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Come to think of it....
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Come to think of it....
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Come to think of it....
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
He may be the next Dr. Evil! Because, this is one dastardly plan, better than Sharks with Lasers!
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Dont go to South Carolina
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Just because time has changed, doesn't mean we should re-consider our rights because of that. I think the constitution was made to be rigid for a good reason - if you leave 'rights' up to the power brokers of the time; they will surely take them away.
After all; why are they politicians? Why do they spend millions to get a job that pays a hundred thousand? Power - which will result in more Money - not provided directly through taxes, but by proxy. Laws that make certain stocks soar in value, projects that provide companies they have a vested 'interest in' with more lucrative work, etc.
Sure, technology offers an 'expedited' and more massive approach to something that had been around longer than man - communications, but other than being faster and more reaching - it's the same thing; just communication between people.
But, we should continue to have the same rights. It is well within someone's right to NOT go to a web page or tune in a TV or Radio station as much as it is someone's right to say what they want on that same medium.
Why are people so 'weak' that they need the Government to 'protect' them for horrible curse words? That 'idea' is far, far more obscene to me than a couple of four letter words, personally.
As we can see now - Government has an excuse to take away some rights... now they want more and more control. Give them an inch, they take a mile everytime.
Today; they jail people for cussing on a web page. Tomorrow they jail you for speaking out against the Government or being a political enemy.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Overcast
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Overcast
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Overcast
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=active&as_qdr=all&q=hell+site%3Ascsta tehouse.gov&btnG=Search
69 results for the word "hell" on scstatehouse.gov
And not all are in the Context of the Heaven/Hell concept.
"Yes, and that would be the worst mistake you have ever made in your life." You haven't been in state government now but about a year and a half and just about as long as this Governor, and neither one of you knows what the hell you are doing."
And this one, he even CONFIRMS it's a BAD word, OMG!
"Senator LOURIE wants to do it on merit, but, who in Hell, I'm sorry about that bad word"
So get a clue Senator Ford and figure out who in the HELL put that up on your own web page.
Here's another with 'bastard' in it: www.scstatehouse.gov/archives/citizensinterestPage/SanteeCooperScreeningReport/transcript5pubhearing sMay312005.doc
Two with 'Fuck' in them
www.scstatehouse.gov/sess108_1989-1990/hj90/19900328.htm
www.scstatehouse.gov/sess108_198 9-1990/sj90/19900328.htm
A. "SUSPECT NUMBER 1 IN THE PARKING LOT WITH HIS SHIRT TORE OPEN. HE WAS CUSSING AT SUSPECT NUMBER 2 SAYING COME ON, MOTHERFUCKER, COME ON BACK. SUSPECT NUMBER 2 WAS CUSSING AT SUSPECT NUMBER 1 SAYING FUCK YOU.
So does it matter what context it's in or not?
I guess the law doesn't apply to South Carolina's OWN page, eh??
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
I've heard cops say that and MUCH worse - since what they say is subject to 'record' - then they too can be held liable for putting profanity on 'exhibition'?
Why do I suspect that the law will only apply when and to who they WANT it to apply?
That's the problem with most of these laws - they won't apply to politicians, police, elite/rich "outstanding" members of the community, or friends of police or politicians - they will ONLY apply to people they desire to control.
If they ARE in fact 'profanity' - the day this law goes live, I suggest someone in South Carolina chat with a lawyer and/or police about the state breaking the law there..
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Visit South Carolina where it's still just like 1632! We haven't changed a bit!
Sponsored by the retards that voted for the knuckle draggers in South Carolina.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Waving hands wildly
Okay it's really to distract attention from the fact that I've got fuck-all else to do.
When they have no goals, no priorities and lots of idle time on their hands so they invent shit to distract everyone from the fact that they'd be sleeping at their desks and drooling on their taxpayer furnished furniture.
What an asshole.
At least the real crook politicians have some sort of goal or motivation, even if it is just money and power. Those are at least understandable pursuits even if unethical.
This clown has zero excuse.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Y arriba el culo cabrones
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Mike, please recind this article
This is not a smart. The Interwebs are always your friend. Don't ever involve censorship on the Interwebs.
Oh my. Remember what happened to Senator Stevens?
I don't see how this will end good. Please delete this news article. PLEASE?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
What is profane?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Sen. Ford
South Carolina State Senator Robert Ford (D-Charleston Co.) has introduced a bill that would make it a felony to use profanity, oral or written, in a public forum. You can learn the status of this bill and 76 other bills and resolutions that he has sponsored by checking his website.
Based on a sampling of his colleagues' websites, I'd say that Sen. Ford's bill sponsorship is on the high side. And I'll also say, with no fear of argument, that nobody has a worse legislative record than he does. In the 2007-2008 session, he was the primary sponsor of 66 bills, none of which passed. In the 2005-2006 session, he was 0-for-40. 2003-2004? 0-for-38.
My guess is that this bill's goin' nowhere.
Most interesting item in his biography: arrested 73 times during civil rights movement.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sen. Ford
For the record and in case anyone's interested, I'm registered independently with No Party Affiliation.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Sen. Ford
Because Democrats never try to stifle free speech?
"This sounds like the kind of bullshit .. that the Republicans usually put forth."
Which party is responsible for most hate-speech laws?
The Republicans are no better, but don't think for a second that the Democrats don't want to stifle your free speech. They're just better about selling it.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Shocking News
(Really, why are you surprised?)
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
track record
Passed Bills: 0
Unpassed Bills: 68
sauce: http://www.scstatehouse.gov/members/bios/0606818109.html
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
We have enough laws
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
End the stupidity.
With that out of the way, this will never in a million years pass. It's as stupid as trying to legally regulate ice cream sundaes.. again.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
the ratio frequency identification
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Leon Lott is Already Enforcing This in Richland County
MEANWHILE, PLEASE DON'T USE PROFANITY HERE!!!! It is already being enforced . . . and it hasn't been passed yet. Hopefully, it will not be.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Lawsuit?
Also, write a letter to the editor at the State newspaper with all the details.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
profanity
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
profanity
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
profanity
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
profanity
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Add Your Comment