South Carolina Seeking To Outlaw Profanity 849
Posted
by
samzenpus
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."
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)
Re:Ouch (Score:5, Insightful)
add to that:
fucking first amendment baby!
Re:Ouch (Score:5, Insightful)
Since this will soon be illegal, please allow me to say it: FUCK THIS STATE
Re:Ouch (Score:5, Insightful)
Write a letter to State Senator Ford and tell him to fuck off.
I'm not remotely kidding.
Re:Ouch (Score:4, Interesting)
But like an AC said above, this is only on the senate's desk, and has not even gone through the process of being voted on yet, so there is still time and possibly a chance that we don't have to censor ourselves here. Trust me, if this gets passed and other states get interested, we'll soon see how escalation is not just for privileges.
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.
Re:Ouch (Score:5, Insightful)
Scarier is the citizens that don't know what it says. They don't even realize they are losing rights which is the way the elected officials want it.
Re:Ouch (Score:4, Insightful)
They already tried it
No kidding, if you pay any attention to history, a story like this pops up AT LEAST every other year. Go back in time a bit and you'll find areas that did successfully pass bans, at least for a while.
Makes me pissed off that congresscritters are doing it, but I support people going for legislative solutions over terrorist ones.
Re:Ouch (Score:5, Insightful)
It's scary how misguided you are. Here's the First Amendment.
Kindly point out where it states that only political speech is covered. Profanity is most definitely covered by the First Amendment. You are thinking of obscenity which is a different animal and one that has had a shifting definition. Saying you're a fucking nitwit is entirely within my rights.
Re:Free Speech is an Absolute (Score:5, Insightful)
As much as I'd like to agree with you, the Supreme Court has found that free speech is NOT an absolute. And it's not just "indecent material" and hate speech. You also can't yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater (to use the typical example). And you can't say untrue bad things about somebody else without being vulnerable to defamation law suits. There are exceptions.
With that said, this proposal is appalling. Who ever thought Demolition Man would become a reality.
"You are fined one credit for violation of the verbal morality statute."
Re:Free Speech is an Absolute (Score:4, Insightful)
The right to swing your fist extends to the tip of my nose.
It shouldn't be illegal specifically to say any particular thing. However, if it can be proved that you caused someone harm, then you adjudicate that harm.
It isn't that difficult of a concept. It isn't illegal to swing a hammer. It isn't illegal to swing a hammer into someone's face.
Re:Ouch (Score:5, Informative)
His name is listed as the sponsor of the Bill.
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.
Re:Ouch (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Ouch (Score:5, Insightful)
Sorry, I won't tolerate a slightly less inane censorship bill. It is still unenforceable and unconstitutional. Plus, we've been down this road in 1996.
Even if censorship weren't unconstitutional, the fact that it would be a felony to offend someone is ludicrous. This person should never hold an elected office again.
Re:Ouch (Score:5, Funny)
Hey, not all religion is bad. As a devout frisbeetarianist, let me be the first to say:
Shit piss fuck cunt cocksucker motherfucker tits.
Re:Ouch (Score:4, Insightful)
Take that crock of shit and shove it back up your ass. This Christian son of a bitch knows when to break out the motherfucking lexical arsenal.
Re:Ouch (Score:5, Funny)
So who is in your state government related to this chick anyway?
In South Carolina? Everybody?
Re:Ouch (Score:5, Funny)
Well, since you've already broken statute 16-15-250 [scstatehouse.gov], and are now subject to fines and up to three years of imprisonment, I'd suggest you stay home.
Oh, and Jesus loves you.
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!
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).
You know what they say (Score:5, Funny)
If you outlaw profanity, only outlaws will have profanity.
Re:Ouch (Score:5, Insightful)
censorship is the accepted norm for "solving" disagreements about what we see, say and hear
Censorship in America is largely self-imposed, by industries, not something handed down from the government.
why should you expect it to get any better?
Because this particular attempt is so much of a violation of the first amendment, it's laughable. It would go to the Supreme Court, and that law would be overturned, very likely with plenty of bad press all around.
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"?
Re:Ouch (Score:4, Informative)
Perhaps in your haste you failed to read what you were responding to, but he asked "which amendment" added it "to the constitution".
Your link has fuck all to do with that, as you totally missed the point that IT WASN'T ADDED TO THE CONSTITUTION.
So apart from being factually incorrect and oblivious to how the Constitution is changed, yours was a nice post.
Re:S/he (Score:5, Interesting)
So, in essence, you want to eradicate masculinity in the English language completely. I'm guessing you're a feminist.
First problem: confusion. There are a plethora of unisex names in American society. Casey, Stacey, Aaron/Erin, Alex, just to name a few. The neutering of "he" and "his" when using those names as the subject of a sentence is only going to result in confusion when that name turns out to be masculine instead of feminine.
Second problem: identity. The presence of only one sex in a language never works. Hence the reason there are no languages that have only one sex. Russian, Spanish, English, Czech, and Slavic are all languages I know at least a few words in, and all of them have at least 2 sexes present, they have to. Sexuality is a major and important part of our identity, and is often how we personalize ourselves within our speech. You wouldn't appreciate it in the least if I referred to you as a handsome man (or handsome for that matter, it is a masculine adjective; whereas beautiful is unisex, and pretty is feminine), nor would I appreciate it if you referred to me as a pretty woman.
Third problem: sexuality. Sex is half of our identity. It drives our instincts and our demeanor. Masculinity in communication is just as important as neuter or femininity, for the simple reason that it needs to be communicated. Neutering the adjectives that describe men as men only alienates, and does not help facilitate communication. Women are vastly superior at communication on average than men, so it may not bother or hinder them as much, but men identify themselves in everything they do. From work, to play, to speech and even in nonverbal communication, they identify themselves as men. Taking away that ability to do so in speech serves absolutely no purpose, nor any service to a society as a whole.
On the other hand, I don't find any problem with simply eliminating the feminine form of most nouns, such as waitress or hostess or even actress, simply because the words that were feminized in the first place held no particular masculine form. The Marines did it in no distasteful fashion when they eliminated the term Woman Marine, because a Marine is a Marine, whether female or not. It's a great example of the seamless conversion from sexual centric speech to actual speech. A pilot is a pilot, a soldier a soldier, a man a man, and a woman a woman. Your job doesn't change because of your breasts, your sex does.
In conclusion, nothing will be served by neutering masculine adjectives in the English language, it will only make things stupid.
Re:Ouch (Score:4, Informative)
You are talking about President Eisenhower and he added it to the anthem. Now...if you are such a militant atheist that you will get your panties in a twist about "under god" in a damned song then I seriously doubt you will be bothered to actually go look at anything he said or did other than that. So here are some choice words from Ike
Don't join the book burners. Do not think you are going to conceal thoughts by concealing evidence that they ever existed.
Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.
Here in America we are descended in blood and in spirit from revolutionists and rebels - men and women who dare to dissent from accepted doctrine. As their heirs, may we never confuse honest dissent with disloyal subversion.
I despise people who go to the gutter on either the right or the left and hurl rocks at those in the center.
I hate war as only a soldier who has lived it can, only as one who has seen its brutality, its futility, its stupidity.
I like to believe that people in the long run are going to do more to promote peace than our governments. Indeed, I think that people want peace so much that one of these days governments had better get out of the way and let them have it.
If you want total security, go to prison. There you're fed, clothed, given medical care and so on. The only thing lacking... is freedom.
He also had a rather lengthy speach warning America of the Military Industrial complex and how allowing the privitization of the military will only lead to more conflict due to its profits (Halliburton?). So all of you out there who just rant and whine about "evil Republicans" I suggest you actually read up on some of them and realize that this new breed of psychotic right wing religious bastards don't even begin to resemble one of the greatest Republicans ever. By all means though, go on whining about "under god" in the damned anthem if you can't be bothered to actually look into anything. Oh and last time I checked "under God" was not the establishment of a state religion by a LONG LONG LONG damned stretch, so really...might wanna look up what that whole separation of church and state is actually about before blathering on about any of that being "illegally".
Re:Ouch (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The Constitution did not have "under God" added in the 1950s. It simply did not. No matter what you may have heard, it did not. Go back to Civics or Social Studies or Happy-Feel-Good-Hippies-R-Us or whatever your lackluster school calls it these days and kick your teacher in the ass if you were taught that anyone added "under God" to the Constitution.
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!
Re:Ouch (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Ouch (Score:4, Interesting)
Here in NY, my friend and I were threatened with arrest because my friend flipped off a neighbor who cut him off. The guy called the cops, cop shows up at my friends house and proceeds to tell us that making an "obscene gesture" is a crime.
I once related this anecdote before here on /., and had to deal with some morons calling me a liar, saying that such a thing couldn't possibly have happened.
Re:Ouch (Score:5, Interesting)
A while ago in Buffalo NY I had a cop tell me it was illegal to swear at a police officer. (I answered a question, "Fuck no.)
He was getting ready to handcuff me when another officer asked him to talk. A minute later, the second officer told me to not be an ass, but let me go.
Fortunately most cops aren't dumb like that, but a few are.
Re:Ouch (Score:5, Interesting)
One of my ex-girlfriends was of Hispanic descent, and was born in New Mexico. While living in Rochester, NY, she was driving her mother's Ford Escort, which had New Mexico plates on it.
One evening, a Rochester police officer followed her home to our suburban apartment from her downtown office. In the parking lot, he proceeded to detain her and demand that she present her green card, since she was obviously a Mexican given the plates on her car. The fact that she had a valid New York driver's license, and plenty of other supporting identification documents, didn't override the damning evidence of the registration tags for this officer.
The ex-girlfriend, having relatives who were cops, politely objected. The officer apparently called his sergeant for backup. When the sergeant arrived, he educated the patrolman on the fact that New Mexico is part of the United States, and people from New Mexico are U.S. citizens who do not need green cards...
There are plenty of intelligent cops out there. There are also some astoundingly stupid ones. This is why we have laws and Constitutions that limit police power.
Re:Ouch (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Ouch (Score:5, Insightful)
And in that statement is evidence just how far we have fallen.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe the crazies standing by with the ammo boxes are right.
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].
Re:Mod Parent Up (was: Ouch) (Score:4, Funny)
And you can't define them in the law, because to do so would be made illegal by the very law banning them.
Oh recursion, how we love thee. I never thought I'd use it to defend my first amendment rights (not that swearing has anything to do with Free Speech, strictly speaking), but there you go.
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.
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.
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
(I was out of seashells.)
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
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...
Re:Cancel my trip to Charleston (Score:4, Insightful)
Purgatory is different than Hell, being a temporary state. "Hell" would stay in the original sentence, regardless of translation, unless you're reading a particularly Bowdlerized edition. (And even then, it would simply be incorrect rather than a difference in translation)
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.
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.
Re:Cancel my trip to Charleston (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Cancel my trip to Charleston (Score:4, Funny)
Wha... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Wha... (Score:5, Insightful)
Freedom of speech is alive and well! Freedom after speech now...
Vague (Score:3, Interesting)
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"
Isn't that a little vague? Now, I don't really know that much about laws, but I did hear once that there's some kind of law in effect that keeps a bill from being passed unless it is specific enough. If a law like that exists, I wouldn't think this bill would meet that requirement.
Either way though, this certainly seems to violate that first amendment thing...
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?
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.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Even worst, it's ammending a bill from 1976, which outlaws the following (among other things)
"Seduction under promise of marriage."
Fornication
"Communicating obscene messages to other persons without consent."
I know every state in the United States has laws that should probably be better defined or come off the books all together. I would think that if you are going to add to a bill, you would update that bill at the same time. That way prostitution wouldn't carry a fine of 200 dollars and thirty days in j
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.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Are there ever going to be enough laws? In 1000 years time will there be the need for a law which doesn't exist now? These fuckers aren't willingly going to just put down their pens and stop. We need to stop them.
Re:Pah! (Score:5, Insightful)
The quality of politicians often mirrors the majority of the voting population.
Re:Pah! (Score:4, Interesting)
Not to belabor the point but what about the state of:
Illinois (Blagojevich, current)
New York (Spitzer, 2008)
North Carolina (Edwards, 2008)
New Jersey (McGreevey, 2004)
Connecticut (Rowland, 2004)
Arizona (Mecham, 1998)
Etc...
It seems that the quality of politicians has little relationship to voting population, geographical region, or political affiliation...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You only need 1% of the smart side of the bell curve to go along with you to have a majority.
Re:Pah! (Score:4, Funny)
South Carolina, did you elect a pack of retards
That's representative democracy for you!
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
I can't tell you what I think of that law. (Score:3, Insightful)
Because I would break that law in the process.
How fucked up is that! (Score:4, Insightful)
Sons of bitches just want to oppress self-expression. What impact will this have on music and literature. Do have any idea how many fucking books have swear words?
Un-fucking-believable.
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.
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.
What I expected (Score:4, Funny)
Slashdotters are courageously rebelling against this law by using a lot of swearwords.
Thanks Slashdot, the worlds takes nerds more seriously right now.
Re:What I expected (Score:5, Funny)
Thanks Slashdot, the worlds takes nerds more seriously right now.
Yes, that's right, ALL of the worlds... Bow the motherfuck down, bitch!
vulgar (Score:4, Insightful)
According to this here [wiktionary.org], that would be something that is:
1. (classical sense) Having to do with ordinary, common people.
2. Rude, uncouth, distasteful, obscene.
Looking up obscene [wiktionary.org] results in:
1. Offensive to the current standards of decency or morality
2. Lewd or lustful
3. Disgusting or repulsive
4. Beyond all reason
5. Liable to deprave or corrupt
This law qualifies at least for 3 and 4. Depending on your point of view, for all of them.
Dear South Carolina (Score:4, Insightful)
Note to North Carolinians (Score:5, Insightful)
Not a big deal (Score:5, Informative)
the wet dream of every ultra fundementalist (Score:3, Interesting)
What a vague law like this does is two folds. It allows such scumbags to control what is and is not allowed in public. It is ok for the taxpayer to pay for the distribution of the ten commandants so a certain christian beliefs can be forced onto the public, or for the public to pay for teachers to sit there and do nothing while students are forced to pray, but not ok for libraries to carry Harry Potter because it is profane.
Second, it allows scum bags to target people they don't like. You don't like the color of your neighbor, turn him in for exposing your kid to profanity. It is simple enough to do.
Just to get an idea if this was the purpose of such laws, or if I was being paraniod,I took a look at the SPLC hate group map. South Carolina has the largest number of hate groups in that area, about one hate group per 100,000 persons. In comparison, the reletively conservative state of Texas has about 1 hate group per 350,000 persons. I am not sure if there is a state with a higher percentage of hate groups.
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.
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]
Do as I say, not as I do (Score:3, Interesting)
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)
Senator Robert Ford (Score:4, Informative)
He's a Democrat, he's Black and he's from Charleston.
http://www.scstatehouse.gov/members/bios/0606818109.html [scstatehouse.gov]
Two thoughts (Score:4, Funny)
Who the fuck thought that shit was a reasonable punishment for such a minor fucking transgression? Lemme get this fucking straight -- you can drive 100 miles an hour down the god damn freeway, potentially putting fucking lives at risk, and probably get off with no more than a few days in jail, at worst, but if you fucking swear in the process, you're looking at five fucking years?
What the fuck?
Well, at least they had the foresight to clearly define a standard for determining what is and isn't profanity. And clearly outlined the ways in which this wouldn't constitute a violation of the first amendment.</sarcasm>
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
Goddamn it, I am really fucking pissed off! (Score:5, Informative)
Stupid Asshole me allows this shitty browser to lose what I typed in here, then I re-enter the message but instead of using an external program to store the comment until I could post it, I allow myself to be fucked-in-the-ass a second time and it loses my comment while I'm formatting it. I am typing this in a separate program, I won't get bit a third time.
Here's how the statute is unconstitutional:
There are far too many others to list, but even misdemeanor or fine-only charges have been struck down; a felony law wouldn't stand 30 seconds.
Already illegal in NY (Score:5, Insightful)
Everybody likes to make fun of the backwards southerners but expressing obscenity is already a violation in New York with wonderfully vague wording for the convenience of the jackboots and brown shirts.
Section 240.20 Disorderly conduct
A person is guilty of disorderly conduct when, with intent to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof:
3. In a public place, he uses abusive or obscene language, or makes an obscene gesture; or
Disorderly conduct is a violation.
state constitution on topic (Score:4, Informative)
ARTICLE I.
DECLARATION OF RIGHTS
SECTION 1. Political power in people.
All political power is vested in and derived from the people only, therefore, they have the right at all times to modify their form of government.
SECTION 2. Religious freedom; freedom of speech; right of assembly and petition.
The General Assembly shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the government or any department thereof for a redress of grievances.
Senator Robert Ford
District 42 - Charleston Co.
Contact Address:
(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
It's 3 am here. I'm sure senator ford would like to hear from you about his bill. Feel free to call collect.
http://www.scstatehouse.gov/members/bios/0606818109.html [scstatehouse.gov] looks like a badaas tho, don't ring his doorbell.
Re:Saelorn (Score:5, Funny)
Reminds me of this: http://www.bash.org/?178890 [bash.org]
Re:Saelorn (Score:5, Funny)
That is, for the lack of a better description, a fucking good joke!
Re:Now THIS is obscene: (Score:4, Insightful)
That's completely insane. EVERYTHING is obscene to at least one individual, somewhere.
They just outlawed everything to make everyone (in their state) an outlaw.
Re:Quoting from the United States Constitution... (Score:4, Informative)
Then how about from the 14th:
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;"
This specifically addresses both making and enforcing a law. And no, they can't make any law they want.