U.S. rights group sues to protect right to swear

DrunkenAsparagus said:

Then let society deal with it in a less coercive manner. May I get kicked out of an establishment, but I fail to see how semantics manage to harm others

Click to expand...

The law is by nature a coercive instrument. It upholds the standards by which civilized people live. It doesn't matter whether foul language "harms" others or not because decent, civilized people should be able to go out in public without being exposed to obscenity.

DrunkenAsparagus said:

How does cursing throw our culture into the garbage can?

Click to expand...

It isn't cursing. It is the erosion of civilized standards promoted by people who do not believe in those civilized standards.

Korimyr the Rat said:

The law is by nature a coercive instrument.

Click to expand...

I was referring to society outside of the law. People are more than welcome to conduct informal sanction on people who stupidly yell things obscenities in public.

Korimyr the Rat said:

It upholds the standards by which civilized people live. It doesn't matter whether foul language "harms" others or not because decent, civilized people should be able to go out in public without being exposed to obscenity.

Click to expand...

If it doesn't harm them, then why is it the government's business?

Korimyr the Rat said:

It isn't cursing. It is the erosion of civilized standards promoted by people who do not believe in those civilized standards.

Click to expand...

If our standards are so strict that they get caught up in semantics, then they should leave those words alone.

DrunkenAsparagus said:

If it doesn't harm them, then why is it the government's business?

Click to expand...

Because it is the government's business to uphold societal standards. This is as important, if not moreso, than its other functions.

DrunkenAsparagus said:

If our standards are so strict that they get caught up in semantics, then they should leave those words alone.

Click to expand...

It isn't semantics. It's an issue of having respect for the people around you.

Korimyr the Rat said:

The law is by nature a coercive instrument. It upholds the standards by which civilized people live. It doesn't matter whether foul language "harms" others or not because decent, civilized people should be able to go out in public without being exposed to obscenity.



It isn't cursing. It is the erosion of civilized standards promoted by people who do not believe in those civilized standards.

Click to expand...

A just government will treat all of its adult members as responsible moral agents. If the government denies this responsibility the government is insulting its own citizens. No majority or official has the right to withold an opinion from us for the reason that we are not fit to hear it.

drz-400 said:

A just government will treat all of its adult members as responsible moral agents. If the government denies this responsibility the government is insulting its own citizens.

Click to expand...

Citizens demonstrate that they are responsible moral agents by obeying the laws of a just government. If the citizens refuse to behave responsibly, it is the government's obligation to correct them.

I don't think there necessarily needs to be a statute against swearing in and of itself. Disorderly conduct laws should suffice to encompass situations that merit swearing that may have a detrimental impact on what is expected of people in public venues. Are you going to arrest everyone in the crowd at a Slayer concert at the local ampitheater? No, because its not distracting and is expected. Someone cussing loudly in a library? Yeah, they need to be disciplined.

I believe righteousness does not supersede form. By that I mean, just because you think you are right does not mean you can be a *** about it.

Times change - whats offensive today, could very well be a sign of respect tomorrow, and forgotten the next. The legislation of censorship only displays a limited mental flexibility of a given time. One example, The Catcher in the Rye was so "offensive" that it became the most censored book in America even though it was not more offensive than common teen-age slang at the time. Now, its just a bad porno crossed with stereotypical juvenile delinquent behavior that was required reading for me in High School.

A modern example of this would be the "Draw Mohammad Day" (YouTube - Draw Mohammad Day 20th May 2010) largely promoted by YouTube user thunderf00t. In thunderf00t's case his freedom of speech, some argue, crossed a ethical line. Although I'm an atheist, relating someone's prophet or god to a pedo-bear seems like a bit of a low blow - one could only imagine how angry Muslims around the world are. Maybe Mohammad was a man of his time, a similar justification for our Founding Father's slave ownership. Mohammad's actions could be further justified by the significantly shorter life span of humans in his day. But I digress. There are more reasonable ways to convey and opinion than rash insults. That being said, should YouTube have censored thunderf00t? Absolutely not.

I think a good community written/verbal spanking or protest is an adequate response to a poorly thought out statement offends you. Blocking or criminally prosecuting ideas or speech simply because it makes someone , or even a majority of people (as long as it isn't libel, slander, advocate malicious/illegal behavior), unhappy is simply bad form. Theres plenty of dictators committing genocide around the world, many times more offensive than a couple four letter words. Why complain with a temporary shock or offense that will fade over time, when theres serious permanent loss of human life in the world?

I generally don't approve of being a *******, but being a ***** isn't a proper response either.

Respectfully, HTTP

Korimyr the Rat said:

Citizens demonstrate that they are responsible moral agents by obeying the laws of a just government. If the citizens refuse to behave responsibly, it is the government's obligation to correct them.

Click to expand...

I disagree in this case. If a government demands political obedience from a person it cannot deny a person the moral responsibility to form their own convictions and express them to others as they see fit. If it does, the government looses its claim to legitimate power over that person. This is because by censoring speech you are essentially saying that persons convictions make them unworthy participants, it is no different than denying that person an equal vote.

Korimyr the Rat said:

Because it is the government's business to uphold societal standards. This is as important, if not moreso, than its other functions.

Click to expand...

People have been cursing without laws preventing them to for years. How has cursing adversely affected our standards?

Korimyr the Rat said:

It isn't semantics. It's an issue of having respect for the people around you.

Click to expand...

How is the word sh*t different than poop or cr*p from crud?

LaMidRighter said:

Profanity when used correctly is a proper tool, it shows frustration, can punctuate a comedic remark, allows people to know you are at that line where you just might kick the **** out of them......etc. etc. While I do believe in many of the tests against obscenity I do not consider profanity to be part of that test, one of my few breakings from that court decision. Besides all that though, profane words are pretty arbitrary anyway, what exactly makes **** different from caca, crap, etc. they all describe fecal matter. As well **** is the exact same thing as screw, plow, etc. so it really is a game of pure semantics anyway.

Click to expand...

LaMidRighter, I do agree, and also think that it is better to let off steam before it blows fuel in the form of a fist in the freaking face of someone or a foot up the back side ( a$$ ) of somebody's butt !!!
Some people are very talented in blowing the cool of another person with a word, look or gesture....So what is a good response or a perfect reply ???

I dont think anybody should be arrested for swearing. It should simply be treated in the way that any bad mannered behaviour is treated.