Call it what you will, this is tyranny and not freedom. Giving the police the unilateral power to punish free speech is not freedom:
MIDDLEBOROUGH, Mass. (AP) – Residents in Middleborough have voted to make the foul-mouthed pay fines for swearing in public.
At a town meeting Monday night, residents voted 183-50 to approve a proposal from the police chief to impose a $20 fine on public profanity.
Supporters say the proposal isn’t meant to censor casual or private conversations, but instead crack down on loud profanity in downtown areas and public parks.
Middleborough has had a bylaw against public profanity since 1968. But it’s rarely, if ever, been enforced, because it essentially makes swearing a crime.
The new proposal would decriminalize profanity, allowing police to write tickets as they would for traffic violations’.
Ef you, Middleborough! It you don’t like my speech, don’t listen to it.
June 13th, 2012 at 1:18
This is one of those issues where I think you find “conservatives” get confused. A lot of people who think of themselves as conservatives tend to be very dignified, self-controlled, probably church-going, and want to see the world be a place where traditional norms are adhered to. Listening to the radio this afternoon on this topic, it was interesting to hear the variety of comments, especially those who like the idea of government enforcing some basic decency in society because society has become less thoughtful of others. This is the age old problem of “There ought’a be a law!” to control or curb behavior that we find inappropriate (multiply by 30 if there are children involved). The confusion is that having this attitude “feels” conservative (it’s “good” for government to promote my conservative values), but it lacks the basic foundations of liberty that we cherish.
The most telling thing about this problem was a comment that the talk show host made regarding his constraints on the radio… he and the station would be fined a significant amount of money if anything “vulgar” was said on the air. Although he condemned this situation in Massachusetts, he seemed to quietly accept the government’s interference in his own First Amendment rights as a broadcaster. While I would never condone the language (or other nastiness) being used on the air, I think it’s a mistake that the government fines this behavior. While the regulations have been in place for a long time, and stations would be wise to proscribe a high level of decorum, the power exercised by the government in this situation is wrong.
But then, how much of the power exercised by our governments is right? 🙂
June 13th, 2012 at 6:47
Two points. One, I am all for norms being publicly accepted. Two, I don’t object to a law against profane speech. Rather i object to giving a state official, to wit a police officer, the unilateral power declare you guilty, sans any due process.
June 17th, 2012 at 13:20
I wonder what the founders would have said? Remember, they held individual liberty above all. Yet, they held that the government should not interfere in the process between the individual and the surrounding culture.