South Carolina Considers Law That Would Criminalize Profanity In Public Forums

from the well,-fuck dept

Thu, Jan 15th 2009 10:28am — Mike Masnick

Slashdot points us to an immensely troubling law being proposed by a state Senator in South Carolina that would make it a felony to use profanity in a public forum, whether written or spoken (so assume the internet is included). Punishment could include fines up to $5000 or prison sentences up to 5 years in length. One would hope that others in the South Carolina legislature would never let this get anywhere, but these days you never know. Of course, such a law is ridiculously unconstitutional, and if it somehow did get passed would certainly get tossed out by the courts. But just the fact that an elected representative thinks that such a law is reasonable is pretty scary. Someone want to send him a copy of the Constitution?

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: felony, free speech, profanities, south carolina

76 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 15 Jan 2009 @ 10:33am

Someone want to send him a copy of the Constitution?

Are you not making the unlikely assumption that the individual can read?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Lynne, 15 Jan 2009 @ 11:07pm
  
  Let's kiss the first amendment goodbye
  Because if this is passed, then what other rights will they decide to take away?
  
  First it will be language they disapprove of... next it will be opinions they disapprove of.
  
  Eventually it will end in government controlled-thinking.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Tony, 16 Jan 2009 @ 10:25am
    
    Re: Let's kiss the first amendment goodbye
    "First it will be language they disapprove of..."
    
    You mean, like the whole Don Imus debacle?
    
    "next it will be opinions they disapprove of."
    
    Take a good look around - we're already heading that direction.
    
    We get censored from both sides - left and right - while being told they want to protect our freedom.
    
    Yeah, right.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 8 Nov 2017 @ 2:48pm
  
  Re:
  fuck those southern pussy ass holes
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
pegr, 15 Jan 2009 @ 10:33am

Somebody is going to do it...
So it may as well be me.... (ahem)

F*ck that!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
bjc (profile), 15 Jan 2009 @ 10:39am

Damn!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Twinrova, 15 Jan 2009 @ 10:39am

copy sent.
I even bolded sections regarding free speech.

A lot of good it will do. I forwarded copyright laws to various entertainment industries and look what happened there.

Damn idiots! OH NO! I USED DAMN PROFANITY!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- some other guy, 15 Jan 2009 @ 11:00am
  
  Re: copy sent.
  Which bits mention freedom of speech? I have heard of the 1st amendment bit of your constitution, is that the only bit?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - some other guy, 15 Jan 2009 @ 11:05am
    
    Re: Re: copy sent.
    I also found section 2 of the declaration of rights of the South Carolina Constitution.
    
    http://www.scstatehouse.gov/scconstitution/a01.htm
    
    I guess that is relevant?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - A. L. Flanagan, 15 Jan 2009 @ 5:52pm
    
    Re: Re: copy sent.
    The First Amendment is the only "bit" that mentions free speech. It's all that's needed. It's widely considered the bedrock on which all other freedoms depend. A government which controls speech can violate any other rights it wants to -- no one will ever know.
    
    I think foreigners underestimate how seriously we take this Amendment. Any attempt to limit the speech of US citizens will be cheerfully ignored by most of them.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Tony, 16 Jan 2009 @ 10:26am
      
      Re: Re: Re: copy sent.
      Unless it's "hate speech", in which case it's OK to limit speech, right?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
:Lobo Santo, 15 Jan 2009 @ 10:44am

Well Shit,
Fuck, god-damn! Good thing I don't live there...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 15 Jan 2009 @ 12:41pm
  
  Re: Well Shit,
  Fuck, god-damn! Good thing I don't live there...
  Maybe not, but your comments can be read there. Ever hear of extradition?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Phillip, 15 Jan 2009 @ 10:44am

Not only does he need a copy of the Constitution, he clearly never paid attention in American history class between 1st and 12th grade.

Ridiculous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Jan 2009 @ 10:47am

Can we all agree that this Senator is a fucking cunt?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Silver, 15 Jan 2009 @ 10:48am

Reminds me of the movie 'Demolition Man'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Yakko Warner, 15 Jan 2009 @ 10:51am
  
  Re:
  *snicker* He probably doesn't know how to use the three seashells, either...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 16 Jan 2009 @ 9:42am
  
  Re:
  Mr Silver, you are fined 1 credit for violating the verbal profanity statute of 2029.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Chronno S. Trigger, 15 Jan 2009 @ 11:04am

Definition
Someone needs to define "public forum" and "Profanity".

This blog is vary public, but douse my office count as public?

Will the profanity fallow the TV idea of profanity (can say "shit" but not "fuck", or will it be more the christian version (can't say pretty much anything)? And if it is the christian version than we can't overlook the other religions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- PaulT (profile), 15 Jan 2009 @ 11:15am
  
  Re: Definition
  Yeah, that's what would worry me here. What constitutes profanity? 'Damn' would have been considered a profanity 100 years ago while 'n***er' may not have been. Words change over time, so either this document would have to give an incredible amount of room to manoeuvre or it would be out of date within a short amount of time. Oh, I see from the linked site:
  
  "It is unlawful for a person in a public forum or place of public accommodation wilfully and knowingly 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."
  
  What would they do if a court proceeding requires the used of swear words? Wouldn't rape hearings be essentially banned under the above description? What about people otherwise legally protesting (e.g. if a book called "F**k George Bush" was banned from the state, protesting the ban would be banned also).
  
  Yet another short-sighted set of rules that, if passed, would cause far more harm than they prevented.
  
  (BTW, yes, I appreciate the irony of censoring myself in this post.)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - :Lobo Santo, 15 Jan 2009 @ 11:20am
    
    Re: Re: Definition
    I never say "n***er" out loud.
    Can't even pronounce an asterisk in a word like that...
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 15 Jan 2009 @ 12:45pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Definition
      Nasterisker.
      
      Not that hard really. Hewkid ahn fonix werkid fer mee.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 15 Jan 2009 @ 4:11pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Definition
        That looks like some sort of German word.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Your Gawd and Master, 15 Jan 2009 @ 11:16am
  
  Re: Definition
  Agreed. I'm a Discordian and for us it's all the OTHER words that are profane. I demand my religion's beliefs be honored by South Carolina!!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 16 Jan 2009 @ 9:50am
    
    Re: Re: Definition
    Seperation of church and state would have something to say about that.
    
    PS: I love the face that he wants to use making available here. I hand you a book and get thrown in jail because that book said "indecent" things.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Xiera, 15 Jan 2009 @ 11:12am

A couple things: first, state senator as in Columbia, SC, not Washington, D.C. I think most people realise this, but just in case.

Second, this falls under the category of "protecting the children", which is just silly, especially in this context. From my experiences, I'd say that more minors actually use more profanity more often than adults. Furthermore, criminalising the use of profanity in public would be easier for adults to deal with than it would be for minors.

Thirdly, with respect to the Internet, where are the borders established? What if I post something on a site for a SC newspaper? What if a minor from SC reads a post of mine on a non-SC site? What if a minor from a state other than SC reads a post of mine (and I was from SC) on a non-SC site? What about domestic posters/sites versus foreign posters/sites? Clearly, SC jurisdiction would not apply in at least some (probably any) of these cases.

What about playing music in public? Do I have to listen to the censored version of music if I'm driving with my windows down?

Yeah, this one won't pass.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Lisa, 5 Mar 2009 @ 12:39pm
  
  Re: I just submitted a comment that my 12-year-old son was recently accused of a crime for cursing- per Leon Lott
  Yep, he was suspended for OTHER UNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES FOR SAYING FUCK ON A BUS. When asked why profanity wasn't checked on the form, I was informed Richland County Sheriff Leon Lott had "Made this a law." Pass the word, this is psycho. Protecting the children? My child was just grouped with students involved in gang activities, drug possession, and liqour law violations for responding to a student who had harrassed him all year!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
thomas, 15 Jan 2009 @ 11:13am

what?
So south carolina state senators are not a brilliant bunch. Lots of luck to them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Jan 2009 @ 11:15am

Amazing, the penalties proposed exceed that for armed robbery. Stick a gun in someone's face, get 2 years. Call someone an Asshole, go to jail for 5 year. What a twit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fuck that shit, 15 Jan 2009 @ 11:17am

fuck that shit
Fuck That Shit
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Xiera, 15 Jan 2009 @ 11:18am

Another thought
I'd actually be interested to see what the people at Techdirt think about constitutions in general. Most people operate under the assumption that constitutions are "dead" documents -- that they were written as-are for a reason and should not be changed. Clearly, changing times calls for reconsideration of certain laws and precedents, especially when it comes to changes in technology.

What's (actually only semi-) shocking is that constitutions don't seem to provide much room for change. Most provide means for amendment, but most are targeted at literal interpretation, not logical adaptation. (Also surprisingly, the SC constitution allows its people to change its form of government -- that's kind of cool.)

So as a spin-off of this thread, what are others' opinions here?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Slite, 15 Jan 2009 @ 11:20am

Karma
Don't fuck with karma. Karma fucks back.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Jan 2009 @ 11:26am

Dear Senator Ford.

Go fuck yourself
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Jan 2009 @ 11:28am

What a dumbass
How are they going to decide what is profane, What is profane to one person means something completely different to another. This would be in clear vialation of the 1st amendment and this guy should get the boot from his senate seat immediately just for thinking of such a dumbass idea. I think that a petition needs to get started to get this moron on the streets where he can learn what profanity really is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Jan 2009 @ 11:51am

*#@$
Damned bastard definitely needs to read the motherfucking constitution
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
IT Dude, 15 Jan 2009 @ 12:18pm

Bullshit
That fucking infringes on my god damned freedom of fucking speech
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Xiera, 15 Jan 2009 @ 12:26pm

Follow-up article
And when asked why he was so adamant in his proposal, South Carolina state senator Ford referenced the following link.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Xiera, 15 Jan 2009 @ 12:27pm
  
  Re: Follow-up article
  Note: post #26 is fictional. (Guess I should mention that.)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
dave, 15 Jan 2009 @ 12:37pm

Five years!
seriously, FIVE YEARS in prison for saying a word some people don't like. Five yeeaarrss!! Like our prisons aren't full enough.

That's so insane I would simply loose my mind if it passed...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Overcast, 15 Jan 2009 @ 12:41pm

HAHAHA, we don't want no cussin' on the InternetZ, but if'n ya'll wanna fly a confederate flag, go right on ahead!

What a buncha' bullshit!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
dave, 15 Jan 2009 @ 12:42pm

Come to think of it....
I know of a guy who robbed a bank with a squirt gun and he only got 4 years. You telling me writing a word that offends some people would get you 5 years!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- ToySouljah, 15 Jan 2009 @ 7:05pm
  
  Re: Come to think of it....
  lol...what if he handed the teller a note that read "put the f**king money in the bag!"
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Thomas, 15 Jan 2009 @ 8:22pm
    
    Re: Re: Come to think of it....
    Then he gets 5 years for profanity, and 2 years for robbery. Go figure.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Monarch, 15 Jan 2009 @ 12:56pm

Maybe he's hoping just about every citizen will then get charged and convicted of a felony, so no one will be able to vote him out of office. Can't vote with a felony conviction.
He may be the next Dr. Evil! Because, this is one dastardly plan, better than Sharks with Lasers!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Butterfly, 15 Jan 2009 @ 1:22pm
  
  Re:
  Sharks with FRIGGIN' Lasers!!! Wait!, does that count or not?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dont go to South Carolina, 15 Jan 2009 @ 1:12pm

Dont go to South Carolina
Use your vacation money somewhere else. I lived in South Carolina for a few months and its a s h i i ty dump of a place. go to north carolina instead, much nicer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Overcast, 15 Jan 2009 @ 1:16pm

So as a spin-off of this thread, what are others' opinions here?

Just because time has changed, doesn't mean we should re-consider our rights because of that. I think the constitution was made to be rigid for a good reason - if you leave 'rights' up to the power brokers of the time; they will surely take them away.

After all; why are they politicians? Why do they spend millions to get a job that pays a hundred thousand? Power - which will result in more Money - not provided directly through taxes, but by proxy. Laws that make certain stocks soar in value, projects that provide companies they have a vested 'interest in' with more lucrative work, etc.

Sure, technology offers an 'expedited' and more massive approach to something that had been around longer than man - communications, but other than being faster and more reaching - it's the same thing; just communication between people.

But, we should continue to have the same rights. It is well within someone's right to NOT go to a web page or tune in a TV or Radio station as much as it is someone's right to say what they want on that same medium.

Why are people so 'weak' that they need the Government to 'protect' them for horrible curse words? That 'idea' is far, far more obscene to me than a couple of four letter words, personally.

As we can see now - Government has an excuse to take away some rights... now they want more and more control. Give them an inch, they take a mile everytime.

Today; they jail people for cussing on a web page. Tomorrow they jail you for speaking out against the Government or being a political enemy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mao, 15 Jan 2009 @ 1:35pm

Re: Overcast
All Men are created equal. And by men, white, land-owning, adult men. So we have changed the literal meaning to what fits for us today. The Founding Fathers didn't mean for non-whites, women, foreignors, and the poor to have a place in America. If they did, we wouldn't have to amendments for racial and gender equality, etc. It would have been granted from the beginning. So we have reconsidered our rights for the past two-hundred thirty-two and a half years. Read of the right to peaceably assemble. Peaceably assemble to address the government on grievances. NOT THE RIGHT TO PEACEABLY ASSEMBLE. They added to comma to mean that we can peaceably assemble to tell the government what we have arguements about with them(the government). That's what they meant; because to them, the British had banned that. Freedom of speech isn't to say whatever you want whenever you want. It is to say what you want whenever you want, as long is it is appropriate to society, in a place appropriate to society. Saying curse words in front of kids was offensive then as now, as was saying curse words in church, etc. The meanings have changed over time. Everything is twistedly complex, that to you and I point A(right to vote) is rigid, but point B(blacks then, versus now with voting) is open to interpretation. So we're getting screwed. Slowly but surely. Overcast is right. An inch equals a mile. Always has, always will. It's just on what issues are we as a society willing to change........
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Jason, 15 Jan 2009 @ 3:04pm
  
  Re: Re: Overcast
  Words have meaning. If we ingore the meaning and intent of words and activist judges can reinterpret the constitution to mean anything they want at the time the constitution becomes worthless. What's the point in having a procedure to change the constitution requiring super majorities of the population to agree to it if a few judges can change the constitution at will based on political ideology?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- John Doe, 16 Jan 2009 @ 4:21am
  
  Re: Re: Overcast
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Washington_and_slavery
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Overcast, 15 Jan 2009 @ 1:37pm

Oh and for the record - Hell, they should start with their own site.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=active&as_qdr=all&q=hell+site%3Ascsta tehouse.gov&btnG=Search

69 results for the word "hell" on scstatehouse.gov

And not all are in the Context of the Heaven/Hell concept.

"Yes, and that would be the worst mistake you have ever made in your life." You haven't been in state government now but about a year and a half and just about as long as this Governor, and neither one of you knows what the hell you are doing."

And this one, he even CONFIRMS it's a BAD word, OMG!

"Senator LOURIE wants to do it on merit, but, who in Hell, I'm sorry about that bad word"

So get a clue Senator Ford and figure out who in the HELL put that up on your own web page.

Here's another with 'bastard' in it: www.scstatehouse.gov/archives/citizensinterestPage/SanteeCooperScreeningReport/transcript5pubhearing sMay312005.doc

Two with 'Fuck' in them

www.scstatehouse.gov/sess108_1989-1990/hj90/19900328.htm

www.scstatehouse.gov/sess108_198 9-1990/sj90/19900328.htm

A. "SUSPECT NUMBER 1 IN THE PARKING LOT WITH HIS SHIRT TORE OPEN. HE WAS CUSSING AT SUSPECT NUMBER 2 SAYING COME ON, MOTHERFUCKER, COME ON BACK. SUSPECT NUMBER 2 WAS CUSSING AT SUSPECT NUMBER 1 SAYING FUCK YOU.

So does it matter what context it's in or not?

I guess the law doesn't apply to South Carolina's OWN page, eh??
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
CastorTroy-Libertarian, 15 Jan 2009 @ 1:43pm

Who decides what is profanity??? Thats just as troubling... does the law specify or just discrestionary??
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Overcast, 15 Jan 2009 @ 1:47pm

Well, obviously" Fuck, Motherfucker, Bastard, Hell - are NOT, since they are on the State's web page :)

I've heard cops say that and MUCH worse - since what they say is subject to 'record' - then they too can be held liable for putting profanity on 'exhibition'?

Why do I suspect that the law will only apply when and to who they WANT it to apply?

That's the problem with most of these laws - they won't apply to politicians, police, elite/rich "outstanding" members of the community, or friends of police or politicians - they will ONLY apply to people they desire to control.

If they ARE in fact 'profanity' - the day this law goes live, I suggest someone in South Carolina chat with a lawyer and/or police about the state breaking the law there..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I Said a Nasty Word, 15 Jan 2009 @ 1:58pm

I have a new ad for the South Carolina tourist board:

Visit South Carolina where it's still just like 1632! We haven't changed a bit!

Sponsored by the retards that voted for the knuckle draggers in South Carolina.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TheOldFart, 15 Jan 2009 @ 2:42pm

Waving hands wildly
But it's for the children! It's to prevent terrorism! I'm doing it to protect the sanctity of marriage! I'm trying to help the common man! It's for the benefit of small business!

Okay it's really to distract attention from the fact that I've got fuck-all else to do.

When they have no goals, no priorities and lots of idle time on their hands so they invent shit to distract everyone from the fact that they'd be sleeping at their desks and drooling on their taxpayer furnished furniture.

What an asshole.

At least the real crook politicians have some sort of goal or motivation, even if it is just money and power. Those are at least understandable pursuits even if unethical.

This clown has zero excuse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Jan 2009 @ 3:00pm

Pues se me chingan por pendejos, pinches conservadores de mierda.

Y arriba el culo cabrones
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Jan 2009 @ 3:03pm

Mike, please recind this article
Uh oh.
This is not a smart. The Interwebs are always your friend. Don't ever involve censorship on the Interwebs.

Oh my. Remember what happened to Senator Stevens?

I don't see how this will end good. Please delete this news article. PLEASE?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rose M. Welch, 15 Jan 2009 @ 3:46pm

This begs the larger question.

What is profane?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Paul Nelson, 15 Jan 2009 @ 3:53pm

Sen. Ford
From Retiring Guy's Digest.
South Carolina State Senator Robert Ford (D-Charleston Co.) has introduced a bill that would make it a felony to use profanity, oral or written, in a public forum. You can learn the status of this bill and 76 other bills and resolutions that he has sponsored by checking his website.

Based on a sampling of his colleagues' websites, I'd say that Sen. Ford's bill sponsorship is on the high side. And I'll also say, with no fear of argument, that nobody has a worse legislative record than he does. In the 2007-2008 session, he was the primary sponsor of 66 bills, none of which passed. In the 2005-2006 session, he was 0-for-40. 2003-2004? 0-for-38.

My guess is that this bill's goin' nowhere.

Most interesting item in his biography: arrested 73 times during civil rights movement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- unaffiliated, 16 Jan 2009 @ 7:43am
  
  Re: Sen. Ford
  I am shocked this effing guy (I was going to use the actual cuss word, but that's been done to death here already) is a Democrat. This sounds like the kind of bullshit (OK, I couldn't resist the temptation) that the Republicans usually put forth. Honorable guy, but he needs to get his ass out of politics.
  
  For the record and in case anyone's interested, I'm registered independently with No Party Affiliation.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Tony, 16 Jan 2009 @ 10:39am
    
    Re: Re: Sen. Ford
    "I am shocked this effing guy .. is a Democrat."
    
    Because Democrats never try to stifle free speech?
    
    "This sounds like the kind of bullshit .. that the Republicans usually put forth."
    
    Which party is responsible for most hate-speech laws?
    
    The Republicans are no better, but don't think for a second that the Democrats don't want to stifle your free speech. They're just better about selling it.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Jan 2009 @ 4:17pm

I hope this passes, just so I can see the protesters marching down Charleston streets yelling "FUCK THIS BILL" in time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A. L. Flanagan, 15 Jan 2009 @ 5:55pm

Shocking News
South Carolina has a state legislator who's a blithering idiot. Film at 11.

(Really, why are you surprised?)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
happyenduser, 16 Jan 2009 @ 1:36am

track record
impressive track record:
Passed Bills: 0
Unpassed Bills: 68

sauce: http://www.scstatehouse.gov/members/bios/0606818109.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
thomas, 16 Jan 2009 @ 6:32am

At least he's not calling for summary execution for blasphemy. BTW what's the difference between profane and blasphemy?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Question, 16 Jan 2009 @ 7:36am

Am I the only one that gets sick of people with such a minuscule vocabulary? I will admit that I get somewhat disgusted when I go in public and hear someone that can't speak without using profanity. Also, you can't exactly throw the "free speech" blanket over things like this. I have just as much right to not hear those things when I go in public as you do to say them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How To Start A Business In South Carolina, 18 Jan 2009 @ 7:31am

We have enough laws
A person can already be charged when they use profanity, Not a felony charge but it is already a law. We need to enforce the laws already on the books.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Kathryn, 19 Jan 2009 @ 1:44am

End the stupidity.
It's obvious what profane and what is not. People need to stop pretending people suddenly don't know anymore because someone else wants to stop it.

With that out of the way, this will never in a million years pass. It's as stupid as trying to legally regulate ice cream sundaes.. again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
derek grossheider, 27 Jan 2009 @ 8:57am

the ratio frequency identification
this is a closer step for the law makers to proceed on taking away our freedoms step by step, the rfid chips that they soon want to plant into us is key. its key for abuse in this country on our freedons
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lisa Blaney, 5 Mar 2009 @ 12:35pm

Leon Lott is Already Enforcing This in Richland County
In Richland County, SC Sheriff Leon Lott is already enforcing the yet to be passed "law." When my 12-year-old son recently used profanity in telling a student who was harrassing him on the bus -- shut the f*** up, the transportion office wrote it up as a Level II offense. This level includes liqour law violations, drug possession, assault, gang-related activities, etc. Yes, there was a profanity option to mark, but they decided it fell into the category of "other Unlawful Activities." My son has been admonished by me and his stepfather for a poor choice of words, but he was not inciting a riot or engaging in arson. He is just a young kid who lost his temper. The transportation office in Richland County District I was claiming the profanity law has passed. Not so! And, do you really want to throw the book at a 7th grade honors student in advanced classes who was chosen as a Duke Tip Scholar and took the SAT in January? I told my son that he might get lucky and share a cell with Michael Phelps. Meanwhile, I am wrangling with the school, district, and Sheriff's Department to try to get an answer.

MEANWHILE, PLEASE DON'T USE PROFANITY HERE!!!! It is already being enforced . . . and it hasn't been passed yet. Hopefully, it will not be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ahno Nymous, 7 Mar 2009 @ 7:00am

Lawsuit?
I'd be looking to sue Richland County. Find a lawyer to take the case on contingency fee. The only thing backward inbred Christian Taliban understand is pain, so make it hurt financially!
Also, write a letter to the editor at the State newspaper with all the details.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
maddog, 11 Mar 2009 @ 7:50pm

O.K., I'm no prude, but there are some people whose vocabulary consists only of profanity. I engage in the occasional bout of colorful vocabulary, but there is a limit. I believe in freedom of expression, but if there are laws against people taking off their clothes in public or having sex in public why can't there be laws in place to protect my children against excessive profanity? The men who wrote the Constitution would never have used such language in front of women or children and probably didn't have the foresight to predict that casual conversation would become such a cesspool. I do think this proposed law is a bit much, but I would like something in place to prevent verbal overkill. Frankly, having to listen to someone being a potty mouth in public fucking sucks!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jerry Myrick, 8 Apr 2010 @ 8:30am

profanity
Well, if parents can not teach children at home about the use of profanity and if they can not absorb what they hear in church ( and here is the root of the problem ) they probably dont attend. Sorry then mayby a law should be made mayby a misdemenaor. Oh, guess what,there are rules already made. Read the bible. Parents, are responsible to teach their children. Being, in the Finance and Banking and auto sales for 40 years, I have seen and heard it all. Wake up America. Jerry
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
richard clay, 18 Oct 2010 @ 2:39pm

profanity
I find that website like Facebook can not or will not control what is written in their forums and I believe it is time action was taken if for no other reason than to deleate our ugly American image !
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
richard clay, 18 Oct 2010 @ 2:42pm

profanity
I find that website like Facebook can not or will not control what is written in their forums and I believe it is time action was taken if for no other reason than to deleate our ugly American image !
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
richard clay, 18 Oct 2010 @ 2:48pm

profanity
I find that website like Facebook can not or will not control what is written in their forums and I believe it is time action was taken if for no other reason than to deleate our ugly American image ! An added note to what I have pointed out is that only those who lack the skills to communicate correctly would hide behind the first amendment ! Just because it shows some form of ego grunt, growl , I do hope you people have enough brain power to understand !
[ link to this | view in chronology ]