Slashdot Log In
South Carolina Seeking To Outlaw Profanity
Posted by
samzenpus
on Wed Jan 14, 2009 06:07 PM
from the f@#k-those-f@#king-f@#kers dept.
from the f@#k-those-f@#king-f@#kers dept.
MBGMorden writes "It looks like in an act that defies common sense, 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.' I'm not sure if 'in writing' could be applied to the internet, but in any event this is scary stuff."
Related Stories
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Ouch (Score:5, Interesting)
Don't think it can't happen. The hysteria-over-liberty mode of thinking that pervades every level of our legal and court system has resulted in significant erosion of all manner of what would, to a sensible person, seem to be rock-solid and unmovable declarations of constitutional rights.
We have seen the right to remain silent turn into the right to be tortured until you say what they want to hear; we have seen the 4th amendment turned into an irrelevancy by nattering idiocy about your papers being in digital form; we have seen the commerce clause turned on its very head; we have seen the establishment of "free speech zones" and other 1984-ish/esque crushing of liberties; censorship is the accepted norm for "solving" disagreements about what we see, say and hear insofar as it might offend some poor, weak-willed moron; screams of "save the children", "terrorists" and "global warming" drive legislators to write, and pass, the most odious, anti-liberty and outright anti-American legislation on a daily basis.
There's no limit to this, either; we have seen the specific directive not to pass ex post facto laws ignored at the congressional level and then whistle right through the supreme court; we have seen the explicit directive of the 2nd amendment's operative clause turned into the most moronic and sophist idiocy about "what is a militia?", a non-issue mined blindly and moronically out of the prefatory clause.
Don't think it can't get worse. Ask yourself instead, why should you expect it to get any better?
Re:Ouch (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Ouch (Score:5, Insightful)
add to that:
fucking first amendment baby!
Parent
Re:Ouch (Score:5, Insightful)
Since this will soon be illegal, please allow me to say it: FUCK THIS STATE
Parent
Re:Ouch (Score:5, Insightful)
Write a letter to State Senator Ford and tell him to fuck off.
I'm not remotely kidding.
Parent
Re:Ouch (Score:5, Interesting)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Decency_Act [wikipedia.org]
They already tried it.
And while people defended voting for something clearly non-Constitutional by saying Congress doesn't determine what is Constitutional, I think the spirit of the 14th Amendment suggests the government should not pass bills that remove our basic rights.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution [wikipedia.org]
I will write him a letter and tell him to fuck off. Watch him attempt to prosecute me. I'll fight that all day long and expose him for the idiot that he is.
When you are an elected official in this country, perhaps you should be familiar with the Constitution. There is a growing trend of elected officials who apparently have never heard of the thing.
Parent
Re:Ouch (Score:5, Informative)
His name is listed as the sponsor of the Bill.
Parent
Re:Ouch (Score:5, Informative)
No, those are the US Senators FROM SC. Ford is a senator in the SC State Senate. Very different beast. At least pay some attention to the facts on the ground.
All that said...while I don't typically swear much, this guy's a moron and needs to be removed from office painfully.
Parent
Re:Ouch (Score:5, Funny)
The one article where the trolls and flamebait would be on-topic and you go and post a reasonable FP!
Parent
Re:Ouch (Score:5, Interesting)
It seems they're taking the "protect the children" route. That will probably help their odds of getting it passed. But one can only wonder how long it takes before something like this (if passed) would lead over into the virtual world, like how the protect act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PROTECT_Act_of_2003) was able to convict someone to 20 years in prison for having cartoons which depict underage-looking girls engaging in sexual acts (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hJ-ZPbjBP2nc1wF3JqIbElBYgKngD9563DJO0).
Parent
You know what they say (Score:5, Funny)
If you outlaw profanity, only outlaws will have profanity.
Parent
Re:Ouch (Score:5, Insightful)
Separation of church and state, don't forget that "under god" was added to the anthem and constitution in the 1950's unlawfully. This shit is getting out of fucking hand. Those mother fuckers.
Which amendment to the constitution added "under god"?
Parent
Re:Ouch (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
there are no words that everyone can agree are bad (Score:5, Informative)
I think you're wrong.
I think everyone can agree that this word is definitely bad [wiktionary.org].
Parent
Re:Ouch (Score:5, Insightful)
In 2000, I didn't vote because I thought the republicans would be just as bad as the democrats.
Boy did they exceed my expectations.
Let's hope we can return from jaw-droppingly awful to just mildly bought.
Parent
Re:Ouch (Score:5, Interesting)
in Michigan we have a "no swearing" law and from time to time it gets used. It hasn't ever got far enough thru courts to actually get overturned, but usually it gets far enough to punsish somebody because it's only $100 or 30 days in jail. They had to be very careful when it was written to include the protection of "women and children" .. because disallowing adult men to swear at each other would be a first amendment violation! I've though this would be a great way to make a woman-free, child-free club by having a "swearing club" where men could exercise their freedom of speech... either courts would have to allow discrimination or they'd have to overturn the swearing ordinance!
Parent
Re:Ouch (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Cancel my trip to Charleston (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Cancel my trip to Charleston (Score:5, Funny)
You are fined two credits for violations of the Verbal Morality Statute.
Parent
Re:Cancel my trip to Charleston (Score:5, Funny)
No need to repeat the fucking language or using any shells. You can use the law to wipe your ass instead.
Parent
Re:Cancel my trip to Charleston (Score:5, Funny)
Using only the words found in the Bible:
Shut the hell up, you damn ass whore!
-Bart Simpson
Parent
Re:Cancel my trip to Charleston (Score:5, Funny)
Depends on your translation/edition. So, it could be:
Shut the purgatory up, you condemned donkey harlot!
Still a strong statement of course...
Parent
Re:Cancel my trip to Charleston (Score:5, Funny)
God wrote the Bible in King James, it's the only "real" Bible. The Jews just got an early copy.
Parent
Re:Cancel my trip to Charleston (Score:5, Informative)
The word Purgatory doesn't exist in the Bible at all. Sheol (Hebrew) and Hades (Greek) do, though.
Parent
Wha... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Wha... (Score:5, Insightful)
Freedom of speech is alive and well! Freedom after speech now...
Parent
Definition (Score:5, Funny)
Well? What is it? You need to define profanity before you can outlaw it.
Frankly I find skinny good looking women who wear too much clothing to be vulgar. I find the number three pronounced as free offensive. I think puppies are indecent
However, I find skinny good looking women who wear next to no clothing - acceptable.
Well... (Score:5, Funny)
I checked the calendar and today is definitely not April 1st, so somewhere this story must ultimately lead back to an Onion.
What the fuck is wrong with South Carolina? (Score:5, Insightful)
I know a lot of these guys are hopelessly stuck in the past, but I think being stuck in 1630s Massachusetts is going a little overboard.
Re:What the fuck is wrong with South Carolina? (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think there is something anybody could say or write that is obscene as flying the Confederate battle flag of the army of North Virginia from the state house of state with a large black population.
Parent
Pah! (Score:5, Insightful)
It isn't scary, it's stupid. If it ever passes, it's going to get struck down. Tell me, South Carolina, did you elect a pack of retards, because that's the only rational explanation.
Re:Pah! (Score:5, Insightful)
It is a profoundly obscene waste of taxpayers money. Maybe the legislators can be fined the $5000 each, as mentioned in the proposal, to finance the judicial costs of striking it down.
Parent
Re:Pah! (Score:5, Insightful)
The quality of politicians often mirrors the majority of the voting population.
Parent
Bertrand Russell & Robert A. Heinlein weigh in (Score:5, Interesting)
"Of all the strange "crimes" that human beings have legislated of nothing, "blasphemy" is the most amazing - with "obscenity" and "indecent exposure" fighting it out for the second and third place." - Robert A. Heinlein
This was tried in Michigan and failed (Score:5, Interesting)
Michigan had an anti-profanity passed in 1897. It outlawed cursing in front of woment or children. In 1989 a canoeist was charged with violating the law after hitting a rock with his canoe and releasing a stream of profanities in front of a family.
He was actually found guilty the first time around. The court of appeals though threw out his case and the law. Here though if he had been convicted it would only have been a $75 fine and community service.
http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=15992 [freedomforum.org]
Unenforceable. (Score:5, Insightful)
Unless S.C. wants to outlaw all language altogether, they're looking at something that's not even enforceable. So they ban your standard fucks, shits, and cunts. Awesome. Are they thinking new euphemisms and curses aren't going to spring up to fill the void? Failing creation of new words, are they going to prosecute the intent behind words used? If I can't express my displeasure about my boss in South Carolina using traditional profanity, will they go after me if I call him a doody-head?
Funny thing about language. It's creative and evolves. Even profanity is changing and twisting meaning - in some (usually male) teenagers today, 'fuck' is used like 'like' or 'um' might be used by certain other groups of people. There may not necessarily be any obscene intent behind the word, and may just be used as filler.
Note to North Carolinians (Score:5, Insightful)
Not a big deal (Score:5, Informative)
oy (Score:5, Funny)
As my five-year-old son used to say when he was experimenting with profanity but hadn't gotten the hang of it yet, "Oh, for heaven's fuck."
A miracle of stupidity. (Score:5, Funny)
I thought that my legislators were 'World Class' crazy (Utah).
It looks like we aren't even playing in the big leagues.
This level of crazy is a delicate balancing act. You have to be dumb enough to think that this is a good idea, but somehow manage to keep from drowning in the shower.
Is there any way to tell if the responsible parties have indoor plumbing? How do they avoid rain?
Miles
Nice category image... (Score:5, Funny)
Kansas envy (Score:5, Funny)
Creationism was already taken.
There are still many ways states can distinguish themselves, though. Try re-legalizing slavery. Have a governor declare himself the State Duke for life. Totally outlaw alcohol. Declare pi to be 3.0. Require residents to quarter soldiers.
CALM DOWN (Score:5, Informative)
1) This is just a BILL introduced in the Senate. I don't see anything on the House calendar indicating that it was also filed there, and if there was a SERIOUS push to make this happen, you'd see a similar bill in the house.
2) He submitted this SAME BILL the last THREE sessions. Thats the last 6 years. See session 117 [scstatehouse.gov], 116 [scstatehouse.gov] and 115 [scstatehouse.gov]. Quite frankly I didn't go back any further but he may have introduced this same bill before that, too. EVERY TIME this bill has been introduced, it has died in committee.
3) This guy has a terrible clearance rate. ZERO general bills on which he's the primary sponsor have passed in the last few sessions
4) I bet if you look, you'll find this same type of legislation popping up in other state houses or county councils... and dying just as quickly. Someone's always going to try - doesn't mean they'll get anywhere and DOES NOT mean to freak out.
Re:CALM DOWN (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Contact Senator Ford (Score:5, Informative)
* Robert Ford [D]
Developer
Dist. No. 42 - Charleston Co.
(H) P.O. Box 21302, Charleston, 29413
Bus. (843) 813-1777 Home (843) 852-0777
(C) 506 Gressette Bldg., Columbia, 29201
Bus. (803) 212-6124 Home (803) 798-9220
Re:Saelorn (Score:5, Funny)
Reminds me of this: http://www.bash.org/?178890 [bash.org]
Parent
Re:Saelorn (Score:5, Funny)
That is, for the lack of a better description, a fucking good joke!
Parent
Re:the wet dream of every ultra fundementalist (Score:5, Informative)
"Really this is likely just another effect of the seating of the soon to be current US president. States like this, and thier white population, has been courted by the republicans for 40 years, rallied by the fear of the person who looks differnt. Times have changed, but the fear mongering has lasting effect."
I'd like to point out that Robert Ford is a Democrat and he's black.
Linky: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Ford_(politician) [wikipedia.org]
Parent
Now we can get the Bible banned! Awesome! (Score:5, Informative)
Check out the bible. "Piss" and "Bastard" and "Whore" - it'd be worth it just to see all the state-mandated bible-burnings, etc.
Parent
Vagueness doesn't stop bills from passing (Score:5, Interesting)
No, there's no law that says you can't pass bad laws. Courts can strike down laws that violate the Constitution, or laws (or more usually, parts of laws) that are too vague to be enforceable, but that's after the law gets passed, and usually not until somebody tries to enforce it.
But this law isn't "void for vagueness" - courts, including the US Supreme Court, have allowed obscenity laws that have "community standards" rather than explicit definitions, and Justice Potter Stewart famously said about obscenity "I know it when I see it". This law's sufficiently clear and way over-the-top about what it's trying to prohibit, it's just blatantly unconstitutional.
The real question is why the politician is trying to propose such a law when he should know better. Is he really ignorant enough not to know better (unlikely, but quite possible)? Is he trying to excite his base so they'll give him more money next election? Is he following a promise he made when he was running? Is he trying to get some other politicians to oppose the bill so he can accuse them of being in favor of profanity and obscenity? Or is he just being rude to the public?
Parent