From Slashdot:
"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.'"
At first I thought this came from some podunk little town, but no, it's in the state legislature. Do I even have to explain why this is so ridiculous? I never would have thought I would, but apparently I do need to explain to some people in SC. I'm not sure what kind of process this must pass before becoming law, but section six states "This act takes effect upon approval by the Governor." I sure hope the governor isn't the only line of defense the state has against crap like this.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
People should be required to finish a high school education before going to church or reading the bible.
ReplyDeleteFuckin ignorant bastards.
For starters, this is retarded. It one of the bills that some state senator sponsors to curry favor with his base.
ReplyDeleteBut wouldn't we all agree there is merit in discouraging the use of profanity?
The confusing part is this: "publish orally or in writing, exhibit, or otherwise make available ..."
Ok, publish whatever you want, write whatever you wants... but exhibit?? Exhibit where? In public?
That needs to be clarified because I fully support law makers (on be half of their constituents) regulating "profanity" in public.
The funny part is that this is actually like our Christmas in public debate.
If they can pass a law banning a manger scene in public I sure as hell hope we can ban profanity in public.
I disagree fully with Michael. Kojiro had it right. There is no more slippery a slope than this.
ReplyDeleteThis has been covered by the Supreme Court (google "clear and present danger" but remove any results having to do with a movie by that title), and no amount of cro-magnon republican support in South Carolina or anywhere else is going to get such an inane piece of shit passed.
Fuck South Carolina. Fuck the legislation of morality. God bless motherfucking America, shitheads.
Also, I know of no laws banning manger scenes. Some people protest, sometimes they're taken down, out of respect to the offended.
ReplyDeleteSame thing with swearing. It may be rude to say "shit" loudly on the bus one morning, and one would hope you'd stop swearing out of respect, but you shouldn't be arrested for it.
And where does one draw the line on what constitutes profanity? The famous 7 words may be a good place to start. But what about "crap"? What about "damn"? What about the people who stand around with the "GOD HATES FAGS" signs at military funerals?
First of all, I agreed with everyone by saying this is retarded.
ReplyDeleteSecondly, I took issue with one piece of the retarded proposal that included "exhibits of profanity"
Jimmy are you trying to tell me you don't support public profanity laws?
I 100% support the ability of community to legislate what is and what is not considered profanity in public.
There are thousands of profanity laws on the books. I for one am glad that Hustler has the freedom to publish b00bs but that store owners are required to cover up the b00bs so children can't see them in the rack (no pun intended)
You consider that legislating morality?
That is legislating common sense. I have no issue with that.
And there are dozens of example of courts banning displays of manger scenes.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1GGLS_enUS291US303&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=laws+banning+manger+scenes"
Do some homework.
You know courts don't write laws, right? Do your own homework. Don't worry about mine.
ReplyDeleteAnd no, I do not support any law that disallows anyone from saying or displaying anything in public, short of something that presents a "clear and present danger," like yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre.
Courts up hold laws therefor there has to be a law to ban something ... err right?
ReplyDeleteSo pr0n in public, cool? I guess thats your opinion. It's my opinion that I have the right to vote to ban that.
Example from recent news: I would fully support laws/rules/guidelines banning "sexting" in high schools. I would also fully support someones right to vote for laws/rules/guidelines banning Christmas in high schools.
I'm agreeing that there is a slippery slope... and we are on it. Instead of retreating to one end of the slope I think we can navigate a common sense approach regardless of how slippery it is.
Dude, wtf. My last post didn't show up.
ReplyDeleteAnyways my main point was that I side with the lib douchebags on this one.
Stupid laws are gay.
Americans are also way to gay about sex. It's just P & Vagee.
I also don't like your repeated use of "common sense laws". You sound like Obama.
ReplyDeleteCommon sense to you might be totally ridiculous to others.
You can't ban swearing or sexting. How would you possibly enforce that? Daily audits of their cell phones? They would just start using password protected private email accounts from their cell phones.
Mike, your own google link came up with no results that actually involved laws. A lot of talk about the NYC school that banned nativity scenes, and a few battles concerning gov't buildings and the infamous "separation of church and state", but no laws. I gave up a few pages into the results when it started branching into European events.
ReplyDeleteWikipedia has a short list (again with no laws):
Nativity_scene#Controversies_and_lawsuits
In any case, this is just a bad idea and a waste of money, since it would be deemed a violation of the 1st amendment and struck down eventually. Where does the profanity begin and end? You can turn just about anything into something offensive; remember how Judge Scalia was railed in the press for brushing his chin? Felony! Slap the cuffs on him. All because America watched too much Sopranos.
On a side note, that Freedom From Religion Foundation campaign has come to Portland, with no controversy. But I did learn something interesting: a considerable number of our founding fathers were deists, a fact I find amusing considering how many people claim that America's success stems from our roots as a Christian nation with Christian values.
"Common sense to you might be totally ridiculous to others."
ReplyDeleteCompletely agree. I didn't say that those laws should be in place based on my version of common sense. I said we should all vote on it. Obviously it's not based on one persons view point. Democracy works.
"no results that actually involved laws"
ReplyDeleteIf a court is going to uphold a ban then there has to be a law that bans it.
The law doesn't say "YOU CAN'T HAVE A MANGER SCENE." Come on guys, duh.
Koj, are somehow trying to imply that Deists (in this case Unitarians) don't share an almost identical set of core religious beliefs as Christians? The deist beliefs are a slight offshoot from the Protestant reformation. These non-Christian religion can all be traced back to Martin Luther and the reformation.
ReplyDeleteSo while technically you are right in that much of our country was influenced by non-Christians, it is patently wrong to suggest that they don't share the same root. That root being the rejection of the Catholic Church and the Pope.
Side note to your side note from your wiki link:
"Elements of deist thought included: God wants human beings to behave morally"
"If a court is going to uphold a ban then there has to be a law that bans it."
ReplyDeleteNo law, simply school policy. It was taken to court because the Catholics felt discriminated against. The courts said no. Which, BTW, I don't agree with. Anyways, this is off topic.
I do take exception to the recurring "let them vote, democracy works" approach to these things. Democracy != Majority Rule. Democracy also must protect the rights of the minority, whether that minority be rude anti-social people on the street, ethnic or religious minorities, or gun owners. From Democracy in Brief at America.gov:
Majority Rule and Minority Rights
All democracies are systems in which citizens freely make political decisions by majority rule. In the words of American essayist E.B. White: “Democracy is the recurrent suspicion that more than half the people are right more than half the time.”
But majority rule, by itself, is not automatically democratic. No one, for example, would call a system fair or just that permitted 51 percent of the population to oppress the remaining 49 percent in the name of the majority. In a democratic society, majority rule must be coupled with guarantees of individual human rights that, in turn, serve to protect the rights of minorities and dissenters — whether ethnic, religious, or simply the losers in political debate. The rights of minorities do not depend upon the good will of the majority and cannot be eliminated by majority vote. The rights of minorities are protected because democratic laws and institutions protect the rights of all citizens.
How can you take objection to senators proposing legislation to be voted on democratically? Take objection to the legislation, but not the process.
ReplyDeleteThe point I'm making is that our democratic system lets us walk on the slippery slope. Let it work.
>>The rights of minorities are protected
Who are the minorities in your argument then? The profanity lovers? Are they being oppressed by our legal system?
This reminds me of a similar debate we had months ago... this law was not passed because of the all the reasons everyone has stated. But the senator has the right to propose it on behalf of his constituents.
We are splitting hairs now, but "US Supreme Court Okays Public School Ban on Nativity Scene"... ok ok ok while it may not be a law, it is legally being banned. Excuse the nuance. I think we get the point.
Four words: Tyranny of the Majority. Just because a majority of the people support some moronic law doesn't make it just. The sacred "process" can be misused and abused.
ReplyDeleteCheck out what noted deist James Madison had to say on the topic.
What I don't get here is why Koj and Jimmy are throwing around "Majority Rules" and Tyranny of the Majority in regards to a PROPOSED bill by a STATE Senator.
ReplyDeleteNo ones right have been violated, no process has been misused.
And for christs sake the minority that is probably in question here (Koj) is small group of, probably religious people, who feel offend by profanity. Shocking! And it is these people that the state senator is proposing bills for.
It is because they are the minority that this bill will never pass. So be careful how you guys approach this argument because either you are arguing both side or you are just wrong.
Have you seen MTV lately? Have you seen magazines in the store? Honestly guys, the minority here are people who think that "words, language, or actions of a profane, vulgar, lewd, lascivious, or indecent nature" have permeated way to far into our culture.
You all are totally right though, this is a slippery slope, one in which some people feel we have slid too far in one direction. Those people petitioned their congressman to do something about and he did. WTF is wrong with that?
Back to this "Legislating Morality" buzz word...
ReplyDeleteIts a 2-way street.
If you are against someone "legislating" their morality on you then they are against you "legislating" your morality on them.
That term makes no sense unless you claim to be the moral authority for an entire city, state, country.
Or its like saying because we can't agree on a moral compass there should be no compass, no morals. Well, no morals is a moral!
To paraphrase a favorite non-argument of yours: It's freedom OF speech, not freedom FROM speech.
ReplyDelete"If you are against someone "legislating" their morality on you then they are against you "legislating" your morality on them."
ReplyDeleteTheir legislated morality is arresting people for swearing in public. My legislated morality is the first amendment. To compare the two is an insult to free-thinking people everywhere.
Yes. In this very specific case on this very specific bill you are correct.
ReplyDeleteI was talking about the general concept of "legislating morality", not this specific bill, which I have twice said, was retarded.
And I'm saying, any bill, anywhere, at any time saying what anyone is or isn't allowed to say, is retarded.
ReplyDeleteAgain, I don't care if it's my right to swear at a ball game, or the "God Hates Fags" people to hold up their signs, or whatever. You admit we're on a slippery slope. I'd rather we get off it altogether.
But to say that Freedom of Speech is universal and absolute is also an insult to free-thinking people everywhere.
ReplyDeleteThe Harm Principle, Hate speech and Pornography are examples of valid exceptions to Freedom of Speech. Debate if you will, but here are some specifics:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freedom-speech/#HarPriFreSpe
To put it plainly: Our freedoms are only protected as long as they don't infringe on our neighbors freedoms. Would anyone claim that is not a core value of this country? If we are in agreement there we must also agree that our freedoms have limits (see slippery slope).
I'd also like to note that my "Harm Principle" argument is exactly the same the Separation of Church and State argument made in previous religion posts. Neither are in the Constitution though they are legally upheld doctrines that more or less are common place in our society, Both represent exceptions to our freedoms as laid out in the Bill of Rights. (there is also probably a gun control equivalent, but I'll let Jay find that)
ReplyDeleteChrist, Michael, I already addressed that when I talked about "clear and present danger." Of course the first amendment doesn't cover yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre, just like the second amendment doesn't extend to nuclear warheads. It's interesting though, because I thought you expressed a disdain for moral relativism at some point, on another topic... I may be remembering that wrong, though.
ReplyDeleteLet's get down to brass tacks. You've got a problem with boobies and swear words in public. I have much less of a problem with it. What constitutes "profane" is highly subjective at any given place or time, and just because something gets a certain group of peoples' panties in a wad doesn't mean we need to start throwing people in jail over it.
"Of course the first amendment doesn't cover yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre,"
ReplyDeleteRight, but that directly conflicts with your most recent statement that "any bill, anywhere, at any time saying what anyone is or isn't allowed to say, is retarded."
The point being, you have already placed your self on the slippery slope. You can't pick and chose your limits based on your definition.
Fire in a crowed theater, is no less an exception than hate speech and pornography. And we can find thousands of legal examples that uphold this as being accepted exceptions.
"expressed a disdain for moral relativism at some point"
ReplyDeleteThe difference is understanding vs disagreeing.
I can disagree with a certain point and use moral relativism as my argument. My personal feelings and values tend to disagree with moral relativism, yes.
However, I can understand where someone is coming from, respect their right to feel that way and support their fight for it even if I disagree. (this is the stance I often take on these religious debates, I've taken this position on a lot of the gun debates too)
Right, but that directly conflicts with your most recent statement that "any bill, anywhere, at any time saying what anyone is or isn't allowed to say, is retarded."
ReplyDeleteWe're getting buried in semantics again, but you really need to pay attention to the exact words I use. The first amendment is not a "bill." Supreme Court precedent is not a "bill."
The first amendment and the clear and present danger case, in my mind, cover it perfectly. There is a difference between yelling fire in that crowded theatre, or inciting people to riot VS. pictures of naked people or swear words.
Yelling fire in that theatre or personally whipping a crowd into committing riotous acts present a clear and present danger. Pictures of people fucking or swear words are only profane because our 21st century judeo-christian culture says they are.
At any point in time or culture, inciting violence with speech is criminal. At various times in various cultures, what you consider porn or bad language are perfectly acceptable.
You want to say that puts me on the slippery slope? Fine. But I'm standing in place on that slope wearing metal cleats.
"I'm standing in place on that slope wearing metal cleats"
ReplyDeleteSee laws that uphold the slippery slope in regards to the Harm Principle and Separation of Church and State for more. You may be locked down on your end of the slope, but reality has slid all over the place.
At any point in time or culture, inciting violence with speech is criminal. At various times in various cultures, what you consider porn or bad language are perfectly acceptable.
I know what you, personally, are getting at. But statements like that, while they do make sense to you at your end of the slope, are debatable. There are numerous examples of times where certain forms of violent speech have been non-criminal and perfectly acceptable. What about the Jim Crow era South? During that point in time you could incite violence by giving perfectly legal hate speeches.
Profanity laws, have also always been on the books in every culture, it has nothing to do with the 21st century or judeo-christian culture (odd that you blame religion for this). You don't think China has profanity laws? Atheist China just forced Google to block pr0n site from Chinese searches. Even pot smoking red light district Amsterdam has profanity laws. Its odd that when morality debates come up its religion that is thrown in as the culprit. I'll quote Koj by saying "we don't need some book to get morals" (paraphrase) and he is right, you don't need religion or book to tell you that certain forms of free speech should be limited, hate speech, crying fire in a theater and pr0n being some examples of which there are thousands.
So yeah, you personally can feel comfortable at your end of the slope. But please don't make the rest of the slope seem so alien and unprecedented.
Can we talk about Romulan's for the rest of the day?
I have no idea what the hell you're getting at. If my position isn't clear, I'm sorry you're not understanding.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I'm not "blaming" "religion" for anything. Didn't you have any western humanities classes in college? To refer to "judeo-christian thought" and mean "religion" is like referring to "wine" and mean "grapes."
But, to be fair, I'm not surprised you zeroed in on religion as my problem here. It's not, but I have made it clear many times that organized religion has caused much more strife in the world than it's prevented. But that's a whole other flamewar.
ReplyDeleteI think your position is perfectly clear. What I don't get is why my counter examples are being disregarded.
ReplyDeleteYou said "At any point in time..." and I gave you a point in time
You threw in judeo-christian culture and I threw out two alternate cultures.
My argument was how religion is a non-factor in this debate and I don't think I ever said it was your problem.