It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 6
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in


posted on Jan, 2 2007 @ 10:28 AM
^ The people in your story are only hanging out. They're not purchasing anything.
This reminds me of the Fiesta Mall in Tempe Arizona, where i used to shop and ran into a man in his late 50's dressed with only a diaper, and pacifier, and pretty sneakers. He was tossed out on his arrrsssss
by mall security.
I think he needed to be tossed out.
That's not all, then he had the (audacity) to try to hop on a bus, where he was also persona non grata.

I could go to the Cape Cod Mall wearing a Tshirt which promoted marijuana or bashed bush and i am certain i would be able to shop till i dropped, so long as i spent my money. As it happens, i dont own clothes like this, but i've seen worse. I truly believe the issue is swearing...ohhhh and spitting.

That's worse than cursing.

posted on Jan, 2 2007 @ 02:50 PM

The Social Construction of Deviance and Evolution of language

Deviance[1] is socially constructed. We as a society decide what is normal[2] but this differs between each Culture, Society and those within each of these cultures. However nobody has agreed to these norms, in contemporary society they are influenced by the Government; legislative and judiciary, Media and smaller groups. What is considered abnormal to one group is perfectly fine for another. Take for example Christians; many of them will think homosexuality is deviant behaviour.

In reality, as long as any behaviour I do does not physically (without consent) or financially (without consent) cause another individual harm – who has the right to stop me from doing it? You yourself said: “Society doesn't normally wait for surveys or studies before deeming something objective.” – so then how do we know if these actions are not acceptable by society? Again, homosexuality is a fantastic reference point. Up till the 1970’s/1980’s, homosexuality was deemed so deviant that it was actually illegal. People were placed in prison on sentences that matched that of rapists.

The reason I bring this up is for people to spend a moment and think what these teenagers are actually doing. All they are doing is standing and swearing – what harm has that done to you? Can you rationally sit there and think someone swearing is a problem? That in reality, society will change or be harmed by them standing their? In fact, there’s an interesting analogy between what happened in 1900’s Britain in shops. When women began to show more of themselves – skirts left the floor – people began to do the same. Such “harlots” were not allowed in stores, stores in fact banned them because their presence would cause so much harm. Did it? No.

Then you have to look at words themselves. You yourself place a whole in your own argument: Many homosexual males, will be offended by the use of the term “gay” as many black people will be offended by the term “'n-word'”. However, the intent behind the words is what results in people being offended. If two black men refer to themselves as “'n-word's” several of them will not be offended. Try referencing contemporary music like Ice Cube or N.W.A. which itself stood for “Niggas With Attitude”.

However, it’s the use of language and how it has evolved that has resulted in people being offended. The term “'n-word'” is a perfect example of this. If you trace the route of the word to the Latin all it refers to is the colour “black”. It is the intent behind the word that results in it being offensive – if you can’t realise this, go turn on a music channel after the water shed and watch the word being used by rap artists. The opposite is happening with youth now, words like “#” are not used to be offensive but they’re doing it to break down social barriers.

The problem is, the adults do not care.

You almost hit the nail on the head; adults do not care about these “badges of honour”. But you are mistaken if you think that children use them to impress adults. They do not – they use them to impress other people their own age. In fact, all ASBO’s did in the United Kingdom was create a subculture of deviance.

All that this idea will do is to create a sub-culture of Youths who have been banned from the Mall. They’ll use it to show off, just like they do already with drugs. Children smoke because it makes them cool, it doesn’t matter what the adults think. Furthermore your idea ” Let the parents pay a few hundred bucks in fines, and see how fast junior changes his tune.” is laughable. Do you honestly think this will stop children? Again I can reference a similar scheme in the United Kingdom. Last year (2006) the Government introduced legislation that punished the parents of truant[3] children. It didn’t work. It has resulted in three women being sent to prison and none of their children going to School.

Just think about what you are suggesting. The parents are expected to watch their children 24/7; they’re expected to monitor everywhere they go and to stop them from going to certain places. Now thing of this from a legal perspective, if the child tries to leave the parent is going to stop them how? With force? Is that even legal? Furthermore, is it right to stop a teenager from socializing with other people their own age?

Also, let us look at another thing you suggest: ”a (no) trespass order””. Now, to have this order placed, security guards will need to detain the “young person”. Then they will have to call the Police. Then they will have to take them to court. This means, Police officers will be removed from solving real crimes to stop young people swearing in a public place. Just think about that for a long moment. You’re suggesting, removing officers from the street, from solving real crimes such as assault, rape, burglary, where people are harmed because you get upset about people swearing. Then you want the Court to have its time wasted to place such orders on people. Then if they re-offend you want the Police to spend more time to re-arrest them, to then have them re-processed and then put them back through the legal system. This of course costing money and wasting Police and court time.

Let us be honest with ourselves

You have yet to demonstrate how these children swearing harms society.
You have yet to demonstrate how it harms you by them swearing.
You have yet to demonstrate how it will be enforced without reduction in security guards and police time.

This is nothing more than a waste of time. It’ll result in the Police’s time being wasted. The Courts. Tax payers money being spent (furthermore don’t suggest making the parents pay. That idea is without merit). Just because you can’t stand a few people swearing? Think about it and then realise you’re an adult – words should not offend you, especially when they’re not directed at you.

There are things so much worse that could happen. However, you worry about people swearing. You even support an idea which would involve wasting Police time from real criminals, from real crimes to save your ears. Well I hope, you can sleep easy if one of those Police officers can stop a child swearing but allow a real crime to go unsolved. A real crime that really hurts people.

[1] One that differs from a norm, especially a person whose behaviour and attitudes differ from accepted social standards.
[2] A standard or model or pattern regarded as typical
[2] A student who stays away from school without permission

posted on Jan, 2 2007 @ 04:54 PM
Maybe i'm old fashioned, but it bothers the heck out of me if i'm standing with a group, ie waiting for my food at the food court at the mall, and i'm surrounded by kids saying F** this and F** that. Perhaps its been drilled into me that such actions are not permissible in society. They are gross and vulgar.
Dont get me wrong, we're all entitled, and not a day goes by that i dont cuss somewhere over something, but i do it with people i know, and in private circumstances. I think its how you grow up.
If a see a person swearing in public, instantly
TRAILER PARK TRASH comes to mind.

Call me silly, but that's just me. I'm a lady and as such i would appreciate a little respect. Is that too much to ask?
There's a time and a place for everything, IMO.

posted on Jun, 3 2007 @ 10:03 PM
I live in Boston and i have not heard of such a thing at any mall.

posted on Jun, 3 2007 @ 10:42 PM

Originally posted by shots
they have the right to refuse service to anyone.

Actually they don't.

For example: what if this mall were to put up a "whites only" sign and deny entrance to any non-white customers?

I'm not sure which law it is, but I'm pretty sure something like that is illegal.

Customers do have rights and business owners can't just do whatever they please. Do they have the right to say the word #, or bitch, or #, or #? I don't know the judicial precedents on the matter, but it definately falls in a grey area. What if they banned Christians from talking about Jesus and trying to "save" people? What if they banned people from badmouthing the president?

Where does it stop and where do you draw the line?

I for one think it's incredibly stupid that the mall owners had to ban naughty words because some old people can't take hearing the word #.

# them.

posted on Jun, 4 2007 @ 10:25 AM
Oh and to newtron ( i cant send u2u's for another like 8 posts thats when i get the ability to ) i got your message and realized you guys meant the south shore plaza, etc. not neccessarily in Boston proper.

posted on Jun, 4 2007 @ 10:58 AM

Originally posted by Rahul Buttar
Customers do have rights and business owners can't just do whatever they please. Do they have the right to say the word #, or bitch, or #, or #? I don't know the judicial precedents on the matter, but it definately falls in a grey area. What if they banned Christians from talking about Jesus and trying to "save" people? What if they banned people from badmouthing the president?

You are right on one account: discrimination. It's illegal.

As for public behavior in a private business? In essence, you are a guest of the businesses that open their doors to your shopping. Like a bar, if they find that your behavior is taking away from their ability to make money, and in turn, to put food on their table for their kids (and don't start with the "rich bastards" argument...if you want to make the money, you can work for it too.), you can be thrown out. This is as old as Ye Olde Tavern and such. This is not new.

You obviously don't live in a society if you think dropping the "f-bomb" is your right as an American citizen. You can't yell "fire" in a crowded theatre. And although swearing is in a public place is a much less severe form of this abuse, it is still potentially impinging upon the rights to enjoyment of that public place for others.

In a mall, because the owners of those businesses have paid taxes, and earned the right to conduct their business there, their rights to maintain order so that they may remain profitable excede your right to swear, especially when it interferes with an environment that business has worked hard to make to sell goods and services.

Can you bad mouth the president? Yes. Can you do it whenever you want and wherever you want? No. If you want to legally protest the president, show some character and knowledge of your local laws and apply for a permit to do so.

Here's another idea: what if the population were comprised mostly of teenagers and very few elderly?

The aging America you live in pays the bulk of public municipal taxes that pave your streets you drive on to get to the mall, that pour the concrete sidewalks you walk on to get to the mall.

Taxes are powerful forces when shaping public behavior. When you start putting in your fair share, you can call the shots.

[edit on 4-6-2007 by newtron25]

mod ed, long quote

[edit on 4-6-2007 by DontTreadOnMe]

new topics

top topics

<< 3  4  5   >>

log in