For many years, I have questioned the constitutionality of criminalizing swearing (here and here and here and here). As many know on this blog, I do not like profanity and we delete such comments on this site. However, we are a private site. The issue changes dramatically when people are arrested for foul language and subject to penal sanctions. It is part of the criminalization of America where pet peeves of politicians are ramped up to criminal offenses to make a point. The latest such move is found in Brighton, Michigan (shown here on Main Street) where police will be charging people with disorderly conduct for swearing. They just will not say what will constitute criminally foul language.
The city has only roughly 7,500 people so you would think that mere familiarity and peer pressure could force people to conform their conduct. Yet, the town motto is “Where quality is a way of life” and that appears to include a police-enforced language code.
At the outset, I must say that I have confronted people for swearing in front of children. While some people do so without realizing that children are present, there are certainly some who were raised without such notions of personal restraint and maturity. So I am very sympathetic to the town of Brighton in wanting to crackdown. However, good motivations do not always make for good laws.
The arbitrary selection of certain words as criminally sanctions raises serious free speech issues and questions of vagueness in enforcement. Indeed, the police do not publish or warn about certain words. It seems to leave the matter in the discretion of the officers. That creates the obvious risk of arbitrary and even discriminatory enforcement.
In the case of Colin Andersen, he says that he swore to a friend after receiving a ticket and was overheard by a police officer who charged him with disorderly conduct. Brighton police Chief Tom Wightman says that he does not have a list of prohibited words but that citizens are on notice that swearing can be criminal.
The fine is $200.
Source: CBS
The theory of the English two-finger salute goes back to the wars with the French. Supposedly the French would cut off the two fingers used to draw back the bow on captured Englishmen. So, to taunt the French, the English bowmen would give them the two finger salute to let them know they had all their bow-drawing fingers.
Laser – according the Terence Stamp, historical adviser on the series Rome the single digit salute was used then.
David – saw a study that concluded that robots could not have feelings, although they could simulate them.
As is the history of the mid finger ..!…
For it came from the Frenchman (scared to death of accuracy of super arrows killing 250 yards away) who were then cutting off English long-bowman’s middle finger; and the Brit’s thumping back with
“see, I still have my bloody finger”….
KK;
I believe the writers meant to do exactly that;
(cracking up over the thought of all of us “picturing” how to scoop p–p)
Paul;
What do they title such a unit?
The nym of PP is so apropos!
david – everyone was very happy in the Stepford Wives, too. 😉
Paul wrote: “everyone was very happy in the Stepford Wives, too.”
LOL. Now you are causing me to think that somehow robotic = happy.
I still don’t understand the 3 sea shells. I’ve spent hours of my life thinking about the 3 sea shells. Its enough to make a man want to swear.
KK – Spot On (especially the solution of the 3 shells thereby).
david–;
May it never be – that we see – the bland world lacking of colorful metaphors
you wish the world to be….
Laser wrote: “May it never be – that we see – the bland world lacking of colorful metaphors.”
But your idea of colorful metaphor might be someone else’s idea of thoughtless and crude metaphor.
I think it is proper for people to urge decent speech, but I object to the idea of criminalizing it. Most people apologize for using foul language around me and I don’t even have to say a word. I kind of pity those who are unable to control their speech, but that’s what opening oneself up to vulgarity does to a person. Nevertheless, it is a spiritual problem, not a problem that government can handle effectively.
david – the decent speech you want was brought to England by French speaking Norsemen under William the Conqueror. The indecent speech are hardy Anglo-Saxon words that have been around for at least a 1000 years. That which is considered ‘vulgar’ is the language of the conquered peoples of Britain.
The Sylvester Stallone classic “Demolition Man” predicted this. Just saying.
Kevin Klein… maybe the people who run the city saw that movie and liked the concept. Just look at how peaceful and happy everyone was. 🙂
I am totally against criminalizing speech like this. Nevertheless, I did wonder the other day why our culture cares so much about racial speech and doesn’t seem to care a lick about foul language. So many will denigrate those who used a racial epithet 30 years ago when it wasn’t so taboo, but they seem completely okay with someone spewing hatred against someone through foul language.
In any case, I think the line of criminality should be drawn at physical contact. What happens in the mind, and expressions of that mind, should be free of criminal sanctions. Government should have sanctions against actions and not opinions.
Dredd,
I agree. I didn’t see how the elements of this code were met by someone uttering profanity to another person just in conversation, which is what I understand to be the gist of what constitued the cite of the man in this article.
So, do they have “prose” police?
How about “other” language?
You say idiota – I say fah fun gool!
Shhheessshhhh
(ARREST him)
Laser – we currently have no prose police here, but the British have them and they are very active.
Just an FYI this is Rep Mike Rogers Home. His popularity is waning except for the area of Brighton that is filled with a bunch of red necks. It’s claim to fame was also the home of the Grand Dragon for the KKK.
The state of Michigan also has on the books a statute about swearing in front of women and children. It’s been upheld by the MI Sct.
And then just over the last month we have gotten at least one study that show the theraputic effects of swearing, especially when injured.
Does anyone remember the case were the people were rafting down a river and were swearing and some off-duty cop with children with him arrested them? Cannot remember how that ended. Anyone?
Darren Smith
I believe the following is the city ordinance cited.
Source: http://qcode.us/codes/brighton/
Sec. 54-99. Language or gestures causing public disorder.
(a) It shall be unlawful for a person, with the purpose of causing public danger, alarm, disorder or nuisance, or if his conduct is likely to cause public danger, alarm, disorder or nuisance, willfully to use abusive or obscene language or to make an obscene gesture to any other person when such words or gestures by their very use inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace.
(b) Any person found to violate this chapter shall be guilty of a civil infraction and shall be punished by a fine(s) as set forth in section 1-16(b).
=================
That “with the purpose of causing public danger” reminds me of the impropriety of falsely yelling “fire” in a crowded theater.
People, especially children, could be trampled, so that is a valid restraint of free speech.
Some textual portions of that statute will have more problems than other portions will IMO.
“The seven dirty words (or “Filthy Words”) are seven English-language words that American comedian George Carlin first listed in 1972 in his monologue “Seven Words You Can Never Say on Television”. The words are: s**t, p**s, f**k, c**t, co****cker, mo********er, and t**s.
At the time, the words were considered highly inappropriate and unsuitable for broadcast on the public airwaves in the United States, whether radio or television. As such, they were avoided in scripted material, and bleep censored in the rare cases in which they were used; broadcast standards differ in different parts of the world, then and now, although most of the words on Carlin’s original list remain taboo on American broadcast television as of 2014. The list was not an official enumeration of forbidden words, but rather was compiled by Carlin. Nonetheless, a radio broadcast featuring these words led to a U.S. Supreme Court decision that helped establish the extent to which the federal government could regulate speech on broadcast television and radio in the United States.” (Seven Dirty Words).
Meanwhile, violence, mayhem, gore, is on the upswing, even in PG-13 rated movies: “The aestheticization of violence in high culture art or mass media is the depiction of or references to violence in what Indiana University film studies professor Margaret Bruder calls a “stylistically excessive,” “significant and sustained way.” When violence is depicted in this fashion in films, television shows, and other media, Bruder argues that audience members are able to connect references from the “play of images and signs” to artworks, genre conventions, cultural symbols, or concepts.” (Wikipedia, “The aestheticization of violence”).
Our culture is extreme in its fetish of open-arms-acceptance of violence, but puritanical in its fear of profanity and sex.
Reblogged this on Citizens, not serfs.
Talibanization of America. I would be willing to be that these same towns are screaming about Sharia law but they seem very comfortable setting up their own morality police!
I am not sympathetic. Children see and hear much worse on TV. A place in which an ambiguous “rule” limiting free speach is enforced by the police is not a place that deserves my sympathy.
Since we are on the topic of potentially unconstitutional laws of the City of Brighton, how about another:
Sec. 54-107. Picketing of dwellings.
(a) No person shall engage in picketing directed against the occupant of a residence or other dwelling where such picketing occurs in front of or about such residence or dwelling.
(b) Any person found to violate this chapter shall be guilty of a civil infraction and shall be punished by a fine(s) as set forth in section 1-16(b).
(Ord. No. 501, § I, 7-17-03)
Sec. 54-162. Obscene materials generally.
It shall be unlawful for any person in the city to publish, sell, offer for sale, give away, exhibit or possess for such purposes any obscene, indecent, or immoral book, pamphlet, paper, picture, statuary, image, or representation.
(Code 1981, § 121.2(20))
I believe the following is the city ordinance cited.
Source: http://qcode.us/codes/brighton/
Sec. 54-99. Language or gestures causing public disorder.
(a) It shall be unlawful for a person, with the purpose of causing public danger, alarm, disorder or nuisance, or if his conduct is likely to cause public danger, alarm, disorder or nuisance, willfully to use abusive or obscene language or to make an obscene gesture to any other person when such words or gestures by their very use inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace.
(b) Any person found to violate this chapter shall be guilty of a civil infraction and shall be punished by a fine(s) as set forth in section 1-16(b).
(Ord. No. 492, § I, 7-17-03)