This is supposed to be a website that supports liberty and the First Amendment, and yet so many people in the comments are triggered by 4-letter words and want to control people`s language. “And the N-word is much worse than `f**k.` Now there is a prioritization of swear words? Who came up with this criterion? “Police should focus on protecting public safety, not enforcing manners,” Marieke Tuthill, legal associate of the ACLU of Pennsylvania, said in the group`s press release. “It may not be polite to insult anyone, but it`s certainly not a crime.” I fully agree with your point of view. All words have meaning, but giving too much power to certain words can be detrimental. In many cases, a word only has the power you give it. The idea that there are “bad words” and “good words” is just superstition. Do not listen to these prudes, they are obviously too caught up in their old habits to enter the 21st century. Such a fine line between freedom of expression and obscenity on judicial signs. Google, “Obscenity signs in Dandridge Tennessee” You will see my street. The signs are filled with words F and B in the direction of the neighbor of 78 years, now they have signs addressed to everyone on our street.
It`s a dead end, an entry and exit direction, no way around it, including the school bus. 6 weeks now, and they add even more signs. I have contacted our Tn. State Representative, our U.S. Representative, and I intend to continue to climb the ladder until someone can find a way to help us. This puts emotional and financial pressure on our neighbourhood. They are now verbally threatening another neighbour and threatening to shoot her horse. The police are now on our street 2-3 times a week.
Such conduct should not be protected by any law. It may not be pleasant to hear, and it may not be acceptable or welcome to others, but freedom of speech is freedom of speech, even if it is someone who uses profanity to make a point. It`s also important to note that simply using offensive words doesn`t count as using fighting words. Freedom of expression protects reasonable expression. There is a legal concept called Miller`s test (refers to a 50-year-old court case Miller v. California (1973). The “F-word” is not protected if “the average person applying contemporary societal standards would find that the [subject or work in question] as a whole appeals to pruritic interest” – in other words, if the average person finds it disgusting/unacceptable, it is. The average and reasonable person is able to tell the difference between a single pronouncement of the f-word (disgust, anger or pain) and a 24/7 transmission in a character. Your example is not protected speech. There seems to be some confusion here: wouldn`t threats, incitement to illegal acts, or “fighting words” be a legal problem, whether blasphemy is used or not? “Fighting words” seems like a vague term: is it something like a gamble that implies that the other person will be exploited or humiliated if they don`t engage in a physical confrontation? “Obscenity” seems to be a concept deeply rooted in class differences. The words common among the economically less fortunate or disenfranchised seem to be considered almost a crime by the more privileged classes. Unfortunately, it almost seems that some of my privileged colleagues are using this cultural difference to justify a lack of compassion on their part.
I think obscenity should be protected under the First Amendment, because what you are talking about is a matter of taste, not law. F**k and s**t are just words. Bad taste should not be illegal. Well, if you`re planning to make your true feelings known and shouting swearing, then you`d better not do it in the presence of some Pennsylvania law enforcement officials. Ohio courts have defined “fighting words” as words that are likely to cause or inflict harm on a reasonable person. While obscenities directed specifically at a police officer are generally considered “fighting words,” profanity used to describe a situation or object is generally not fighting words. This is not someone who has thin skin, who is easily offended […] He is someone who can sit on some of the rawness of life. [The sign is] provocative and cheeky, but it is not offensive. Certain categories of speech are not eligible for First Amendment protection, including words of combat, genuine threats, and incitement to imminent unlawful acts. If a person uses profane fighting words or utters a real threat of profanity, those words may not be protected by language. A definition of desensitization: “To make (someone) less likely to feel shock or distress in scenes of cruelty, violence or suffering by being excessively exposed to such images.” The case then meandered through the courts. Two years later, Justice Jacqueline Milledge concluded that the law dealt with what would offend the “hypothetical reasonable person,” saying: If there are limits to words intended for “insight”; which, in my opinion, is the purpose of an “F-k Biden” flag on the shore of the nearest lake that all boaters must see; Shouldn`t we have the right to demand that it be deleted? No, insulting a police officer is not always considered a combative word.
You can use swear words in a discussion with a police officer without being guilty of using “fighting words.” Our founding fathers showed us that the people control the government, not the other way around. The small government they set up was charged with protecting and serving the people. Now it has evolved into a big government that invents its own laws, controls how people live, what they say, censorship on social media, violates constitutional rights, etc. The list goes on. If they violate our constitutional rights, it is up to us to call on them to do so. People who say they should just follow the laws and follow government orders are slaves. If our founding fathers had done that, America would not have become independent and we would have been controlled by Britain. They told the American people to educate themselves, and that`s exactly what we should be doing.
Too many people are brainwashed and try to control others based on what they think is right. People have the right to life/liberty and free will to make their own decisions. This agency is a God-given right that trumps any “law” of government. Because the first amendment is very clear? The right to express oneself freely is more important than someone who is offended. For the same reason, “hate speech” is protected. And the N-word is much worse than “f**k.” One thought I have is that if someone doesn`t want people to use profanity, why not eliminate the social conditions for the possibility of using words as obscaniums with a speaker, and then no one would have a reason to use words that way, and therefore words would probably disappear because they have no use. Do some people really like it when people use profanity to give themselves opportunities to be offended? Prude and Prigs. In 2016, the 4. The U.S. Court of Appeals has passed a law in South Carolina that prohibits blasphemies near a church or school. In Johnson v. Quattlebaum, the Court of Appeal concluded that the law was neither too broad nor too vague because it only prohibited unprotected words of combat and applied only to statements that were within earshot.
I agree. I don`t care if someone insults me. Everyone must be responsible for their own emotions and actions. I am not hurt by someone who insults or insults me! Sticks and stones. What happened to the Constitution that words could be illegal?!?!?!? This must be reversed. Ridiculous.
Comments are closed.