OT Mass Bitch hunt

[dash]

Eddie Murphy did a very funny skit on SNL back in the early 80's - The premise was that Abraham Lincoln never did sign the Emancipation Proclamation. The term "porch monkey" figured prominently in the skit.

 

[Vadered]

Is it racist if I have a monkey that I keep on my porch? It's conveniently screened in is all!

 

[elocomotive]

None of those examples apply...Yelling fire is prohibited because it presents a danger to others around you. Saying I'll kick your ass is a threat, not wearing pants isn't addressed by free speech rules, bull horns can be restricted because that's amplified speech, and leaflets are generally only banned in certain locations such as voting location and schools, where different rules apply.

I understand that freedom of speech is already limited in several ways but that is no excuse to ignore the first amendment any time it seems "good".

Incorrect, nudity is a form of free speech. Check out a decision in Oregon from just a few years back where a nude bicyclist was cleared of any wrongdoing by arguing freedom of speech. Just like wearing certain clothes or carrying around a sign is free speech, not allowing people to go without clothes is a limitation of free speech by imposing a certain morality. It is an excellent parallel to the discussion and definitely applies.

The government bans certain commercial speech in advertising - namely cigarette ads. Amendments to ban flag burning have been considered. Many places have obscenity laws that govern artwork, advertising, etc. of a sexual nature. And unlike Oregon, few places allow me to prance around nude either in public or in my own front yard. My point is that morality being executed in limitations on speech is nothing new and that there are certainly arguments that could be made as to why this law could pass Constitutional muster. And people often assume that we can't legislate morality or something because it's "good" or "bad," but we do it ALL the time and the defining of that morality is a constant evolution.

Based on what? The crime rate is actually lower now than 40 years ago so it's not that.

I'm not talking about crime, I'm talking about civility. Manners, basic decorum, etc. There have been numerous studies done on this - erosion of basic manners, people being more apathetic or scared to correct others for outlandish behavior, perceptions that the world is growing less civil, etc. Google "civility study" and check out the second link (its a PDF, I can't seem to get a link). This isn't just a "kids today" old guy thing because it's not just young people, it's a societal problem that breeds apathy. And apathy in a democracy is a dangerous cancer.

 

[Vadered]

Incorrect, nudity is a form of free speech. Check out a decision in Oregon from just a few years back where a nude bicyclist was cleared of any wrongdoing by arguing freedom of speech. Just like wearing certain clothes or carrying around a sign is free speech, not allowing people to go without clothes is a limitation of free speech by imposing a certain morality. It is an excellent parallel to the discussion and definitely applies.

The government bans certain commercial speech in advertising - namely cigarette ads. Amendments to ban flag burning have been considered. Many places have obscenity laws that govern artwork, advertising, etc. of a sexual nature. And unlike Oregon, few places allow me to prance around nude either in public or in my own front yard. My point is that morality being executed in limitations on speech is nothing new and that there are certainly arguments that could be made as to why this law could pass Constitutional muster. And people often assume that we can't legislate morality or something because it's "good" or "bad," but we do it ALL the time and the defining of that morality is a constant evolution.



I'm not talking about crime, I'm talking about civility. Manners, basic decorum, etc. There have been numerous studies done on this - erosion of basic manners, people being more apathetic or scared to correct others for outlandish behavior, perceptions that the world is growing less civil, etc. Google "civility study" and check out the second link (its a PDF, I can't seem to get a link). This isn't just a "kids today" old guy thing because it's not just young people, it's a societal problem that breeds apathy. And apathy in a democracy is a dangerous cancer.

I agree that society could use less swearing and more civility, but to my knowledge there is no modern (or historically relevant) precedent for government regulating civility. I'm going to break down your list of unprotected free speech and show why they don't apply to cursing. I know you weren't trying to show that they are linked, but I feel it's an important distinction to make.

Cigarette ads are banned because the government can constitutionally do so because of the Commerce Clause, so this argument doesn't apply to cursing.

Amendments to ban flag burning have been considered but never passed, which means it is still legal to burn flags. And the fact that they are AMENDMENTS as opposed to state or federal laws or bans means that if they did pass, then the first amendment wouldn't apply to them anyway, so this argument doesn't apply to cursing.

Many places have obscenity laws, but the definition of what is obscene and what is not has been debated in the federal and Supreme Courts for quite a long while. The accepted legal definition is: "The basic guidelines for the trier of fact must be: (a) whether 'the average person, applying contemporary community standards would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest, (b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law; and (c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value." While this does allow for local towns/states/etc. to define obscenity, I very much disagree that two kids yelling "fuck" at each other across the street would be considered obscene. They might or might not know what the word means depending on age and exposure, but most likely they are just using it to either "sound adult," or for shock value. If one of them says, "I'm going to crawl in your window tonight while you sleep and fucking r*pe you," that's obscene (and assault) and illegal. And it in no way, shape, or form covers pretty much any word that isn't explicitly obscene, which is most curses. "****," while being a horrible word that I would not direct at anyone in real life or even on the internet, is not considered obscene according to the law. It's a swear word for female genitalia, but since the word doesn't describe any sexual activity itself, just a body part, it's not obscene. For most of the curses out there, this argument doesn't apply to cursing, and for the ones it does apply to, it doesn't apply to most of their usage.

You mentioned nudity as a comparison to cursing, and here I wholeheartedly agree with you. Public nudity is banned, but I can't think of a good constitutional reason why. As long as people aren't screwing in public (which would be considered obscene and thus the government could regulate it as above), and as long as people are being sanitary, I'd argue that they should be allowed to wear whatever they want (or don't want). This argument DOES apply to cursing, but as the government has been inconsistent in how it regulates nudity versus free speech, I'd argue that this is more of a failure of the governments both local and federal to apply the First Amendment, and if you approach it from this angle it is actually an argument in my favor!


Basically, there are plenty of reasons to regulate, within limits, free speech. But none of the above are arguments to do so, and I would argue that civility is not one. Manners are important to me - I always try to say please and thank you, and I'm trying to break my cursing habit - but the government regulating them is A) too darned intrusive, and B) too hard to implement anyway. What, would you have the cops bust me just because I was in a hurry and didn't say thanks? Whether the crime rate is down or not, I think that the police have better things to do with their time than monitor people's language.