It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Nanny State Democrat From Massachusetts Attempting To Legislate Profanity

page: 1
10
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 23 2019 @ 01:34 AM
link   
In the past, there have been quite a few classic books that were "banned" or "challenged" because their content was considered too offensive, negative or racist. Books like "The Adventures of Tom Sawyer", "The Catcher in the Rye," “To Kill a Mockingbird,” “Of Mice and Men,” etc.

Now, there's a Democrat from Massachusetts, who introduced a bill that would make it illegal to call someone a “b!tch.” Yesterday, the bill, written by Rep. Democrat Daniel J. Hunt, went before the Joint Committee on the Judiciary at the State House.




The legislation titled “An Act regarding the use of offensive words,” states: “A person who uses the word ‘bitch’ directed at another person to accost, annoy, degrade or demean the other person shall be considered to be a disorderly person.” Penalties for a disorderly conduct conviction include a $150 fine for a first offense and $200 or 6 months in prison for subsequent offenses.

www.bostonherald.com...

As far as I know, there's no "obscenity" or "hate speech" exception in our First Amendment. Why would a politician even attempt this?


Rep. Daniel Hunt (D-Dorchester) told the Herald Monday that he filed the measure upon request from a constituent, who he did not identify.

www.bostonherald.com...

This guy is an idiot, but there are a lot of idiots in government. We already are seeing Democratic politicians trying to amend our 2nd Amendment because of their hostility towards gun ownership. Who's to say that there won't come a time when you can be ticketed for saying a "banned" word in public? Heck, even the co-chairwoman of the Massachusetts Gay and Lesbian Political Caucus is against this type of censorship....


“While I detest the use of the B-word and the N-word and the word fag, etc., I love the Constitution more and question the constitutionality of bills like this,” said Arline Isaacson, co-chairwoman of the Massachusetts Gay and Lesbian Political Caucus. “The concern is specifically about the right to free speech, including speech that I hate.”


Amen Arline!
edit on 10/23/2019 by shawmanfromny because: (no reason given)



+9 more 
posted on Oct, 23 2019 @ 01:42 AM
link   
This dude is a whiny bitch.



posted on Oct, 23 2019 @ 01:44 AM
link   
Bitch boy supreme seeks vengeance ehh?



posted on Oct, 23 2019 @ 01:44 AM
link   



posted on Oct, 23 2019 @ 02:05 AM
link   
What a soy-boy bitch.



posted on Oct, 23 2019 @ 03:55 AM
link   
Sadly, we already have that sort of crap in Australia..

Swearing is against the law



posted on Oct, 23 2019 @ 04:31 AM
link   



Who knew??



posted on Oct, 23 2019 @ 05:09 AM
link   
a reply to: shawmanfromny

Sounds like he is tired of being called a b!tch.



posted on Oct, 23 2019 @ 05:13 AM
link   
Looks like voldermorts younger brother, Harry will sort that pansy out.



posted on Oct, 23 2019 @ 06:06 AM
link   
Never got over his grade school years.
Actually , after considering further , never left his grade school years.

edit on 10/23/19 by Gothmog because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 23 2019 @ 06:45 AM
link   
COTUS, Amendment I says no.



posted on Oct, 23 2019 @ 07:02 AM
link   
a reply to: shawmanfromny

To Rep. Hunt:

Sorry, but offensive language is protected speech according to the first amendment of our constitution. This amendment protects any speech that does not cause public harm. Hurting someone's feelings by calling them names does not rise to the level of causing public harm. Yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded theater does.

Once you allow government to regulate what you can say, you also allow government to regulate what you can think. If you remove the ability to say a word, you will eventually remove the ability to think the word, and thus the concept the word describes. A very slippery slope, indeed.



posted on Oct, 23 2019 @ 07:56 AM
link   
People are okay with passing laws that infringe upon the Second Amendment.
See where that got us?
Now we have politicians openly trying to pass laws that infringe upon the First Amendment.



posted on Oct, 23 2019 @ 08:03 AM
link   
Consider that this is matter before the state legislature of Massachusetts, not the US Congress.

And that Dan really needs to have his name changed to Mike...



posted on Oct, 23 2019 @ 08:09 AM
link   
Bet Breaking Bad triggers this beeeyatch.

Besides....bitch is universal now. Almost like f bombs.



posted on Oct, 23 2019 @ 08:21 AM
link   
So here's the key legal phrase:

"to accost, annoy, degrade or demean"


Seriously, this intended legislation is the equivalent of bitching about using the word bitch - it's for harrassment (remember the mexican word of the day ("her ass meant nothing to the Dems after she testified against Kavanaugh?) and virtue signalling social justice pandering.

Let's see, according to the intent of the bill, "Yo, bitch! What's happening?!" would be perfectly acceptable speech because there's no stated intent or implication of prohibited intent behind the use of the word. Then there's that pesky dog situation, "I love my bitches but I wish they'd quit having puppies" - again, it's not specifically directed towards persons.

Therefore, using the word as an expletive should be okay too like when you're car while it's yelling (bitchin') at you car because it's acting out. Similarly, if you shout the word in response to some stimulus, like an awesome car or a run on the football, "Look at that bitch run", "Man that was a bitchin' ride!"

Obviously, using bitch as a verb is not prohibited:
"Quit your bitchin" or perhaps "Why does 'x' constantly bitch about 'y' "

My point is that there may be a few citations for harassment, but contextual prosecutions are totally ridiculous.
My neighbor got cited for profanity at a City Council AFTER the cops looked into the "official list" of profane words upon receiving a complaint because there's no intent clause for disturbing the peace here.

ganjoa



posted on Oct, 23 2019 @ 08:30 AM
link   



posted on Oct, 23 2019 @ 08:31 AM
link   
a reply to: shawmanfromny

Oh man, I heard about this yesterday on a Tim Poole video while waiting to clock out at work. I'm in a lot of trouble, because 10 minutes before I saw the video I texted my wife asking her "What's for dinner, b*tch!?", to which she replied with a bunch of winky clown faces.

I guess I'll be locked up for 6 months while she figures out what we're eating. lol



posted on Oct, 23 2019 @ 08:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: ganjoa
So here's the key legal phrase:

"to accost, annoy, degrade or demean"


Let's see, according to the intent of the bill, "Yo, bitch! What's happening?!" would be perfectly acceptable speech because there's no stated intent or implication of prohibited intent behind the use of the word.


You underestimate the power of the offended. All it would take is for someone around you to take offense to the use of the word, not necessarily the one it's directed at. The mere use of the world could "annoy" someone who hears it, or they could claim it's use is demeaning to women period.

This is a slippery slope and I honestly can't believe any single person is ok with it. It's only going to make things worse.
edit on 23-10-2019 by Necrobile because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-10-2019 by Necrobile because: My bitch spelling this morning is terrible. lol



posted on Oct, 23 2019 @ 10:53 AM
link   
a reply to: shawmanfromny

pretty much every ruling on freedom of speech will crush this plus the recent one on obscene messages/bumper stickers that were ruled protected speech en.wikipedia.org...

Supreme Court case law Some limits on expression were contemplated by the framers and have been defined by the Supreme Court of the United States. In 1942, the issue of group defamation was first most explicitly brought up in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, which surrounded the issue of a Jehovah's Witness, Walter Chaplinsky, who verbally attacked a town marshal for restricting his use of a public sidewalk to protest organized religion by calling him a "damned fascist" and "racketeer."[3] Later, when the court heard Beauharnais v.Illinois[4], establishing the narrow traditional exception to the first amendment covering those words which by their very utterances tend to inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace.[5] About a decade later in 1952, in Beauharnais v. Illinois, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the state of Illinois's group libel law, which punished expression attacking the reputation of racial, ethnic, and religious groups.[6] The defendant was charged for distributing a leaflet that rallied white people in Chicago “to halt the further encroachment, harassment and invasion of white people, their property, neighborhoods and persons, by the Negro."[7] Going off Chaplinsky, the court ruled that since "libelous utterances [are not] within the area of constitutionally protected speech," it did not matter that the speech did not incite any direct harm.[3] After the Beauharnais case, the Supreme Court developed a free speech jurisprudence that loosened most aspects of the free speech doctrine.[7] Traditionally, however, if the speech did not fall within one of the categorical exceptions, it was protected speech. In 1969, the Supreme Court protected a Ku Klux Klan member's speech and created the "imminent danger" test to determine on what grounds speech can be limited. The court ruled in Brandenburg v. Ohio that: "The constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a state to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force, or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."[8] This test has been modified very little from its inception in 1969, though it was itself a modification from the earlier clear and present danger standard. Speech promoting violation of the law may still only be restricted when it poses an imminent danger of unlawful action, where the speaker has the intention to incite such action, and there is the likelihood that this will be the consequence of that speech. In 1992, in R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, the issue of targeting hate speech arose again when a group of white teenagers burned a cross in the front yard of an African-American family. The local ordinance in St. Paul, Minnesota, criminalized symbolic expressions tantamount to fighting words, arousing anger on the basis of race (among other protected classes). Associate Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the Supreme Court, held that the ordinance was unconstitutional as it contravened the First Amendment by focusing on particular groups about whom speech was restricted. Scalia explained that "The reason why fighting words are categorically excluded from the protection of the First Amendment is not that their content communicates any particular idea, but that their content embodies a particularly intolerable (and socially unnecessary) mode of expressing whatever idea the speaker wishes to convey."[9] Because the hate speech ordinance was not concerned with the mode of expression, but with the content of expression, it was a violation of the freedom of speech. Thus, the Supreme Court embraced the idea that speech in general is permissible unless it will lead to imminent violence.[a][citation needed] The opinion noted "This conduct, if proved, might well have violated various Minnesota laws against arson, criminal damage to property", among a number of others, none of which was charged, including threats to any person, not to only protected classes. In 2003, the Supreme Court decided Virginia v. Black.[10] In a 5-4 majority opinion written by Justice O'Connor, the court decided that a law which criminalized public cross-burning was unconstitutional. The court noted that the law would be constitutional if the law included an element of specific intent to inspire fear of bodily harm instead of concluding that cross-burning is prima facie evidence of intent to intimidate. The court's analysis was based upon the first amendment free speech clause.[11] In 2011, the Supreme Court issued their ruling on Snyder v. Phelps, which concerned the right of the Westboro Baptist Church to protest with signs found offensive by many Americans. Snyder, the father of a soldier whose funeral was protested by Phelps’ church, sued Phelps for intentional infliction of emotional distress. The issue presented was whether the First Amendment protected the expressions written on the signs from being the basis for civil liability. In an 8–1 decision the court sided with Fred Phelps, the head of Westboro Baptist Church, thereby confirming their historically strong protection of freedom of speech. The Court explained, "speech deals with matters of public concern when it can 'be fairly considered as relating to any matter of political, social, or other concern to the community' or when it 'is a subject of general interest and of value and concern to the public."[12] In June 2017, the Supreme Court affirmed in a unanimous decision on Matal v. Tam that the disparagement clause of the Lanham Act violates the First Amendment's free speech clause. The issue was about government prohibiting the registration of trademarks that are "racially disparaging". Justice Samuel Alito wrote: Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar ground is hateful; but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express "the thought that we hate". United States v. Schwimmer, 279 U. S. 644, 655 (1929) (Holmes, J., dissenting).[13] Justice Anthony Kennedy also wrote: A law that can be directed against speech found offensive to some portion of the public can be turned against minority and dissenting views to the detriment of all. The First Amendment does not entrust that power to the government's benevolence. Instead, our reliance must be on the substantial safeguards of free and open discussion in a democratic society.[13] Effectively, the Supreme Court unanimously reaffirmed that there is no 'hate speech' exception to the First Amendment.[13]
if burning crosses is protected speech calling some one a b**ch sure as hell is legal

www.thoughtco.com...

R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul (1992) In 1990, a St. Paul, Minn., teen burned a makeshift cross on the lawn of an African-American couple. He was subsequently arrested and charged under the city's Bias-Motivated Crime Ordinance, which banned symbols that "[arouses] anger, alarm or resentment in others on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender." After the Minnesota Supreme Court upheld the legality of the ordinance, the plaintiff appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that the city had overstepped its bounds with the breadth of the law. In a unanimous ruling written by Justice Antonin Scalia, the Court held that the ordinance was excessively broad. Scalia, citing the Terminiello case, wrote that "displays containing abusive invective, no matter how vicious or severe, are permissible unless they are addressed to one of the specified disfavored topics."



new topics

top topics



 
10
<<   2 >>

log in

join