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.

 

Boston Area Malls Implement No Swearing Policy

page: 3
7
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 21 2006 @ 04:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
You're right. Either you were brought up to express yourself without using profanity or you weren't.

I find it hard to think of an instance that would cause me to use profanity in a mall. Because they were out of my size of Birkenstocks?


Well hearing something like this "My cousin was that kid that got shot in the face while walking home from school" while having a conversation, might be a reason to curse. A simple stupid action from a friend, like him tossing his drink off the second floor so I curse him off telling him what a dumb move that was. I guess thats just a few reason why I have cursed in a mall the few times I have been in one. Usually something happens, or some conversation is started that gets heated/emotional, and a word slips out.

If this is the case, when I go into the mall I better be by myself, perfectly quiet, and watching every move I make so I dont stub my toe, let off a "son of a *****" and get kicked out of the mall.




posted on Dec, 21 2006 @ 04:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by WyrdeOne
Obvioulsy the policies of ATS don't change simply because I state my opinion on the subject.


Would it be your opinion (recognizing that your opinion does not effect a policy change) that ATS would be improved by, diminished, or unaffected by a removal of the requirements to prohibit profanity? Do you think that the use of profanity is a sign of a lack of respect for the people in your proximity?

I'd seriously like to know. I think that there are many things that we can intellectually and abstractly consider that in practice turn out to be not so good. Mannerly behavior, while it may seem irrelevant in the abstract, is what we use to recognize the rights of others to share a communal space.

IMHO.



posted on Dec, 21 2006 @ 04:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
This is true of most silly little rules like this.



I see nothing silly about the rule at all and think it is long overdue.



I don't know about you, but I've gotten mall security to back down with a stern voice, and proffesional tone, much like a barking dog.


Well that would explain a lot wouldn't it? Sounds like you might be a trouble maker to me other wise why wouold you try and get security to back down?

They are there for a purpose you know




[edit on 12/21/2006 by shots]



posted on Dec, 21 2006 @ 04:30 PM
link   
This is ridiculous, we've gone beyond the thought police now we're on to the speech police? What happened? The smokers have rolled over and now a new target is necessary?



posted on Dec, 21 2006 @ 04:30 PM
link   
I think we all forget how it was to be a teenager. Teens have been congregating at malls since the advent of, the mall. Decades ago teens would gather at the "Malt Shoppe", the Drive In, places that families sometimes patronized. Pure boredom and a lack of activities available in our own towns for youths result in the loitering we see so often. I am guilty myself as I am sure some of you are of having Mom drop you off, meeting the buddies, hit the arcade, and occasional heckling of shoppers. It is a part of life.

I do however think that the ban and disciplination of obscene language is a welcome remedy, and should be established within malls nationwide. A dress code should be enforced as well as every merchant has "the right to refuse service to anyone"- i.e. No Shoes, No Shirt, No Service. I would not submit that teenagers are the only individuals who speak profanely either. Everybody who enters into private property place should be held accountable for their demeanor.

Security has their work cut out for them though unless they will be utilizing listening devices installed throughout the mall interior. How would an incident of profanity be reported and responded to unless it was witnessed by the security personnel ? Begs some questions.



[edit on 21-12-2006 by _DISAVOWED_]

[edit on 21-12-2006 by _DISAVOWED_]



posted on Dec, 21 2006 @ 04:31 PM
link   
WyrdeOne you would def get a WATS if I could give you one. Excellent points made consecutively throughout the entire thread.



posted on Dec, 21 2006 @ 04:46 PM
link   
Everyone is going to be offended by something. And which words are the offensive ones? So we eliminate curse words in malls, but which ones?? Each "offensive" curse words has many other words which mean the same exact thing. Do we ban those to? Is "screw you" any less offense then F-You? There are hundreds of words for each "legitimate" curse word out there, all meaning the same thing, all just as offensive to someone.

As far as a dress code to go to the mall...you can not regulate "bad taste", which is exactly what you would be doing by way of a dress code. Personally I am offended and find it appalling when I am walking through a mall and see some muslim women covered from . to toe. I find teenagers whose underwear is sticking out of their pants much less offensive. I have severe asthma....should I start a protest against elderly women who drown themselves in some cheap $1 bottle of perfume they bought at the local dollar store?? Do I go to security because some overweight women in a white shirt refused to wear a bra?? When does it stop?



posted on Dec, 21 2006 @ 05:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by WyrdeOne
I don't have a problem with profanity. I use it extensively.
..
I couldn't care less about other people and their kids.
...
They're just words, they can't hurt you. What it boils down to is obscenity of thought, and controls on speech are just ways to control the public pronouncement of unpopular thoughts.
...
There's nothing inherently obscene about a collection of letters, or a sound made by the human vocal chords.
...
Point being, it ceases to become offensive if you're no longer offended by it, and then everyone wins


I didn't have the energy to make these points over and over again against the tide of shouts like "Yay for the Mall!" But I want to thank you for articulating some of my thoughts on this matter.

I think I love you!



posted on Dec, 21 2006 @ 06:18 PM
link   
When rules and laws are enacted in the name of decency and protection . . . more often than not is nothing more than for control of the population and their behavior and to dictate a new trend for society.

Using the reason that teens are a rowdy kind is just the door to the control of the masses as a whole, no just teens.

Remember that one, because . . . its for everybody.



posted on Dec, 21 2006 @ 06:39 PM
link   
Put them all in shock collars, uniforms and muzzles.

MHWAAHAHAHAHAHA

Seriously though, why is it Malls are the main place for teens to congregate. Something wrong with that picture.

There's lots of places for little kids. Glorified organized playgrounds, play-groups - parents are more involved in structuring activities.

Why aren't there more entertaining places available for teens? That would be a good business idea. A place for teens to swear, negotiate their hyperactive hormones, music etc...

Somewhere they're free to be themselves but there is still some innocuous authority so the rotten apples don't ruin it for the bunch.

A teen mall on IMAGINATION.

All they get is the lousy shopping mall geared to exacerbate and frustrate every guilt, fear and desire known to human psychology.

Course, there's organized sports - but thats not for hanging out.

With all the superficial pedestalizing of youth, there's very little real investment. Punishing or embarrassing their frustration and disappoinment will do little towards sublimating their creativity to higher grounds.

[edit on 21-12-2006 by clearwater]



posted on Dec, 21 2006 @ 06:40 PM
link   
Good rule. We can't do the same on ATS either. I don't see the problem.



posted on Dec, 21 2006 @ 06:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid
This is ridiculous, we've gone beyond the thought police now we're on to the speech police? What happened? The smokers have rolled over and now a new target is necessary?



This is a policy in which ATS uses, do you disagree with that with which you enforce? How is this any different then that?

If the government were to impose this on public property then I'd have a problem with it.

I think that some towns HAVE adopted anti-swearing bylaws btw. Those laws I believe have been since struck down but it still is a bit scary to think that such laws actually have some popular support.



posted on Dec, 21 2006 @ 07:12 PM
link   
I can swear on ATS. They just censor it. And if I didn't like that policy, I'd leave. I can be who I am and they can run their board the way they want.

Secondly, it's the way people are handling the problems today that I'm complaining about. A bunch of kids are causing trouble at a mall. Instead of directly addressing the issue, they put some stupid policy in effect essentially saying that people are not "allowed" to offend other people here.

Remember, the policy included yelling, offensive clothing and swearing. It's the cowardly way of indirectly dealing with a problem. If they were going to enforce it fairly and treat everyone equally, I wouldn't have so much of a problem, because it is private property. But they fully admit that it's their way of dealing with "rowdy teenagers". Why don't they just deal with the rowdy teenagers?

And what about the clothes??? I'm offended by "Jesus Saves" T-shirts, but you can bet your salary that those will be allowed whereas someone wearing a "Satan Rules" T-shirt will be kicked out. I have every confidence that an adult swearing will not be asked to leave, but they can USE this new policy to control the kids.

And people wonder what's wrong with kids these days... :shk:



posted on Dec, 21 2006 @ 07:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by sardion2000

Originally posted by intrepid
This is ridiculous, we've gone beyond the thought police now we're on to the speech police? What happened? The smokers have rolled over and now a new target is necessary?



This is a policy in which ATS uses, do you disagree with that with which you enforce? How is this any different then that?



That's easy. When I registered to be a member of ATS I agreed to the T&C. If I'm going to a mall, public place, where did I agree to any of the rules that they made, past, present or future?

I have a contract with ATS, I don't with Amalgamated Realty Inc. BTW, I made that up, so if there is a company by that name, apologies.



posted on Dec, 21 2006 @ 07:23 PM
link   
Vote with your feet then if you're so offended by policies such as this.

Oh and at least at the Etons Center in Toronto, in the 80s various religious groups used it as a recruiting area(inside the food court, just outside the doors, etc). They had to ban them due to complaints(and lower revenue from people "voting with their feet").

Businesses don't care about the "state of today's youth" all they care about is the "state of their bottom line". The same can be applied to everything from Workers rights to the Environment.



I have a contract with ATS, I don't with Amalgamated Realty Inc. BTW, I made that up, so if there is a company by that name, apologies.


Doesn't matter because only 2% of members actually read the thing and in court the defense of "clicking through = reading" has proven very difficult to prove. Ignorance of legal contracts IS a defense if the contract is ambiguous enough. Ever read Googles old EULA/Privacy Policy? Very interesting read.

ATS could still enforce the same rules without the contract as it's still private property. Don't get me started about EULAs unless you want to warn me for going offtopic.


[edit on 21-12-2006 by sardion2000]



posted on Dec, 21 2006 @ 07:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by sardion2000
Vote with your feet then if you're so offended by policies such as this.

Oh and at least at the Etons Center in Toronto, in the 80s various religious groups used it as a recruiting area(inside the food court, just outside the doors, etc). They had to ban them due to complaints(and lower revenue from people "voting with their feet").

Businesses don't care about the "state of today's youth" all they care about is the "state of their bottom line". The same can be applied to everything from Workers rights to the Environment.


Sorry, we posted close together. Was this aimed at me?



posted on Dec, 21 2006 @ 07:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid

Originally posted by sardion2000
Vote with your feet then if you're so offended by policies such as this.

Oh and at least at the Etons Center in Toronto, in the 80s various religious groups used it as a recruiting area(inside the food court, just outside the doors, etc). They had to ban them due to complaints(and lower revenue from people "voting with their feet").

Businesses don't care about the "state of today's youth" all they care about is the "state of their bottom line". The same can be applied to everything from Workers rights to the Environment.


Sorry, we posted close together. Was this aimed at me?


No it wasn't. It was aimed at Heretic. I edited that post with my reply when I saw your reply

[edit on 21-12-2006 by sardion2000]

[edit on 21-12-2006 by sardion2000]



posted on Dec, 21 2006 @ 07:38 PM
link   
yeahright


Would it be your opinion (recognizing that your opinion does not effect a policy change) that ATS would be improved by, diminished, or unaffected by a removal of the requirements to prohibit profanity? Do you think that the use of profanity is a sign of a lack of respect for the people in your proximity?


I believe ATS would be diminished by a lack of controls on personal attacks, and I know for a fact that ATS would be diminished if we were flagged as an adult site by search engines, which is what happens when your pages are cluttered with profanity.

That said, I think human societies would be better off without the notion of dirty words.

I dislike crude and thoughtless people as much as anyone (and more than most), but I think the way to change that is through education, not legislation.

I have no problem with people who get offended at crass behavior, I too am offended by the behavior of my fellow citizens (and particularly their children who often appear to be little more than wild beasts wearing shoes) but I don't see why we should all have to be afraid of expression that does no harm save the harm we allow it to do.



I'd seriously like to know. I think that there are many things that we can intellectually and abstractly consider that in practice turn out to be not so good. Mannerly behavior, while it may seem irrelevant in the abstract, is what we use to recognize the rights of others to share a communal space.


Hold on a second, because I think we agree more than we disagree. I pride myself on good manners, and acting in a fashion that speaks to the way I was raised by a couple of old-school parents. I say please and thank you, excuse me, and so on, I'm pleasant and helpful whenever possible.

I see a distinct line between that behavior (which is absolutely vital if you want to live and work in society with a minimum of hassle) and cursing. The only reason I don't curse in polite company is because I'm acutely aware of the societal stigma against so-called 'dirty' words, and I choose the path of least resistance.

If I had my choice, I would curse like a sailor while still maintaining my good manners. It's my opinion that cursing shouldn't be lumped in with bad manners, and that the only reason 'curses' are 'curses' is because we've abstractly labeled them as such.

If you say 'fecal matter' on television, nobody will give a 'flying fornication.' But if you replace either of those phrases with shorter, more emotionally charged words that mean exactly the same thing, you've got FCC fines to pay, and a whole lot of angry parents with nothing better to do than complain to the network.

It doesn't make sense to me, that's all.

I understand that people are offended by these words, I just don't think they have any logical reason to be - that's what I'm saying.

I also see a big difference between using curse words to attack someone, and using them in a general, un-targeted fashion to express emotion. The former is not acceptable in my eyes, because it inevitably leads to confrontation. The latter is not an attack of any sort, it's just an expression of one's ideas and feelings, and I don't see how that can be dangerous to any society that's not painfully puritanical.

grimreaper & Benevolent Heretic
Thank you both very much for your kind words.


df1

posted on Dec, 21 2006 @ 08:31 PM
link   
The argument that malls have a right to do this because they are private property doesn't wash. The malls generally get tax abatements from the local & state government, cost untold millions in public funds to develop the roads & other infrastructure to allow the public to conveniently reach the mall and the malls use the police to enforce the mall rules. This doesn't just doesn't sound like a private enterprise.

When a citizen takes money from government the money is given with certain governmental requirements. When the mall developers took government money, they implicitly entered into an agreement that makes these malls a defacto public square. I hope they get their butts sued off.



posted on Dec, 21 2006 @ 09:22 PM
link   
I believe that precedent has been set that puts the malls squarely out of the public square.

They appear to be public space, and I think we'd be better off if they were considered public space with private spaces (stores) adjoining, but that's not the way it works as far as the courts are concerned.

At least not yet...

The malls are like airports. They often seem to serve as defacto public spaces, but they are the property of private companies, and the companies have been granted the right to set their own administrative guidelines.

For example, you can hold a protest in a public space, but you can't hold a protest in a mall.

I don't necessarily agree with this mentality, but I do believe that's the system we're working under.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join