Apparently, the old “you kids get off’a my lawn” strategy has stopped working in Middleborough, so city officials are looking for stronger stuff to deal with “crowds of unruly teenagers who gathered downtown at night.” Their solution: “give police the opportunity to hand out $20 tickets for using profanity in public.” Yeah, that’ll do it.
Reaction in Middleborough has ranged from the droll to the hilariously ironic. From the linked Globe story:
On the downtown drag of Centre Street the following afternoon, some of the youths who hang there, and who are a target of the ordinance, punctuated their feelings with vehement oaths. One thought it was [expletive]. Another thought it was [expletive expletive]. A car drove by and a young woman yelled out the window, “Is it illegal to say [expletive]?” It was a fair question, and one whose answer, according to freedom of speech specialists, is probably no….
[A] 21-year-old man with dreadlocks named Jeremy Haber pulled up in a beat-up Mazda Miata convertible. He had another question.
“A cop pulled me over and called me a [expletive] [expletive] and told me I’m going to do nothing with my life,” he said. “Do I get $40 for that?”
Mr. Haber’s amusing story points out the absurdity of this kind of law. Aside from being plainly unconstitutional on its face (any court worth its salt will quickly invalidate Middleborough’s new plan to manage its unruly teenagers), it’s also painfully obvious that laws like this are used simply to harass people who irritate the police – hardly a compelling state interest justifying the suppression of protected speech. I seriously doubt that any cop is going to ticket his colleague for calling Mr. Haber a [expletive] [expletive], but you can be sure that if Mr. Haber responded in kind, he’d get a ticket, and probably a lot worse.
On the flip, a non-work safe message from BMG regarding this kind of misguided thinking. Middleborough’s profanity squad can forward the ticket to my attention.
Image via Shutterstock.
tblade says
Granted, the payment issue becomes moot when this law is inevitably invalidated, but what mechanisms can the town employ to compel me to pay the f#&@ing fine?
Unpaid parking tickets are one thing, because towns use the leverage of the Registry preventing renewals and such. Do unpaid swear jar tickets go to collection, lol?
Bob Neer says
Because it is not a swear. So you’ll be off the hook. Now, if Middleborough decides to criminalize gestures, there will be a problem. It will be even worse if they change the name of their hamlet to [Expletive] borough.
kirth says
“if they change the name of their hamlet to Middlefingerborough.”
sabutai says
My fair burg — the state’s second largest in dirt — rejected a voter ID law.
So we’re not complete idiots, dammit.*
*This post was written in my home and is thus not subject to the fine.
** What if I swear in a foreign language? Is that fineable?
kirth says
If you cursed in Spanish, you’d have a wide choice, most all of which would be advantageous to you when compared to US dollars.
Yet another reason to pick up a second language.
Christopher says
…unless there is already case law on this of which I am not aware, as I’m not sold on the very generous freedom of expression standard that some use. The report on this I saw on last night on the news seemed to indicate this was going after loud verbal assaults that everyone within earshot can hear rather than private conversations on the sidewalk. It’s not the highest priority in the world certainly, but I don’t use this kind of language and others can be civil and do the same.
kirth says
There are already laws against loud verbal assaults. Basing a law on the content of speech is specifically what the First Amendment prohibits.
“I don’t use this kind of language and others can be civil and do the same” is not a Constitutional test.
David says
But is the law by its terms restricted in that way? Or is it up to the discretion of the cop whose job it is to enforce it to decide when swearing is “too loud” and can be heard by “too many people”? I’m pretty sure it’s the latter, which is why it’s almost certainly unconstitutional.
Also, obviously the number of people who can hear any given sound is, by definition, precisely equal to the number of people who are “within earshot.” But I know what you meant. 🙂
stomv says
When the kids get together and march in front of city hall, chanting:
“Hey, hey, ho, ho, fuck the city officials!”
–or–
“One, two, three, four, the anti-profanity bill is bullshit!”
–or–
“Gimmie an F! (F!) Gimmie a U! (U!) Gimmie a C! (C!) The fucking fuckity fuck fuckers in fucking city fucking hall pass bad laws!”
You really think the fines will pass constitutional muster?
Jasiu says
Next time I need some protest chants, you are my first contact, stomv!
LOL.
stomv says
those are the first [unfiltered] curse words I’ve ever posted to BMG. I almost always prefer that people not use curse words in their posts — to keep the audience as broad as possible. However, a blog post about a ban on swearing calls for some cussin’, seems to me.
Christopher says
You can still say you oppose the law without violating it in the process, unless you’re going for the civil disobedience angle to make your point. To kirth, I know my being civil is not a constitutional test per se, but my point is that if there are ways to express an opinion that are civil to restrict only offensive methods does not really infringe on your right to express your opinion on the merits.
jconway says
just put it on my list of reasons I’m never moving to Middleborough.
kirth says
Requiring that expressions of opinion be polite is most assuredly an infringement of my First Amendment rights.
David says
nt
centralmassdad says
Government may not require your expression to be polite; listeners may freely discount your expression if it is not.
Christopher says
…but then I’ve never bought the idea that strip joints are somehow protected “freedom of expression” either.
SomervilleTom says
Not.
Christopher says
The first amendment uses terms “speech” and “press” (not “expression”). Strip shows are neither the spoken nor written word, nor are they generally expressing an opinion, and therefore not IMO obviously protected. Then again, I am OK (legally anyway, not in terms of personal preference) with burning a flag because doing so is so clearly a political protest much of the time. Swearing is of course words so I can see where prohibitions might be subject to heightened scrutiny, but I don’t see a problem with a local community saying we have a certain baseline of standards among ourselves. The point of the first amendment is to make sure that no opinion or revelation of truth is quashed or discriminated against, but not IMO to guarantee someone’s right to be rude and offensive. We’re talking about being out in public where parents may not want to worry about having to cover their young children’s ears because some punk lets fly a string of explitives for everyone, regardless of propriety can hear it. Some adults may prefer not to be subject to that either. Like I said before, not the highest priority in my book, but not THAT unreasonable either.
SomervilleTom says
In my view, this question was asked and answered to my satisfaction when you were still a gleam in your parent’s eyes. I didn’t mean to offer a “substance-free driveby”. I do, however, have little patience for re-opening what is to me correctly settled law — especially when there are so many more important issues that are NOT settled.
I don’t think it is up to you or me to determine “the point of the first amendment” — that task falls to the Supreme Court. In my view, it extends well beyond political speech and certainly includes freedom of artistic and academic expression. If a strip show can be made illegal, can a videotape of the same strip show also be declared illegal? If I, as a consenting adult, want to pay for and watch a live sex performance by another consenting adult, are you suggesting that the government has a right to stop me? Would you allow the government to also make the sale and possession of videotapes of that performance be criminal? Can the government also criminalize a written description of the show? Is a biography (film or book) of a stripper vulnerable to your proposed standard? Where is the line, and who draws it?
I suggest that the current approach is, in fact, a reasonable compromise. Strip shows are a protected form of expression. Governments have a right to regulate those performances (through zoning, age restrictions, and so on) in order to accommodate the genuine concerns of abutters and residents.
Christopher says
I just reread the thread, both the original diary and the comments, and did not see any reference to a court case involving a local anti-profanity ordinance, and I am honestly not aware of one (cue Ryan or someone complaining that I didn’t spend a few minutes on Google before saying that).
It’s not a matter of whether I would criminalize a strip show or the fruits thereof. I’m only suggesting they don’t IMO get guaranteed protection, not that I would act against them myself. I do believe the government can regulate commerce in this area, but if there’s something that goes on privately in your own home that’s your business.
I’ve actually found zoning disingenuous since we all know the desired result. My town a few years ago passed a town meeting article zoning the least desirable land for this kind of business since we were told we had to technically allow it. I’d feel better if we could just be honest and say, “Look, we don’t want your business here – get lost!” At the most local level I’m more tolerant of standards being set in the name of community quality of life that I would not necessarily approve state and the federal government doing.
kirth says
COMMONWEALTH vs. A JUVENILE.
368 Mass. 580
Katie Wallace says
Has the town posted a list of the words that qualify for a fine? It would seem that they need to post them on their website or on their welcome signs as we enter the town so that we know which words are unacceptable. If they don’t inform the public of exactly which words they classify as the offending words, then how are we the public to know what we are or are not allowed to say or shout while visiting the town.
kirth says
/*
Jasiu says
courtesy George Carlin.