In response to:

The #@*&! Problem

Happy Jake Wrote: Jun 18, 2012 6:19 AM
But if all you have to say is "F--- Bush" or "F--- Obama" or "F--- Romney" are you saying anything at all? Does not "I hate Bush/Obama/Romney" convey the same message without the overestimated shock value? And, even then, what are you saying besides expressing your displeasure? Freedom is not license. Freedom implies responsibility. When you act irresponsibly with a freedom it can be taken away. That sort of thing has happened throughout history.
Donjindra Wrote: Jun 18, 2012 10:52 AM
"Does not 'I hate Bush/Obama/Romney' convey the same message without the overestimated shock value?"

If it did no one would be complaining. Besides, who is shocked by such language anymore?
tex1952 Wrote: Jun 18, 2012 7:52 AM
You got it right, Jake. You ARE resposible for what you say and DO !!!!
When and how we use certain words is each persons responsibilty. Constitutionally, no entity in this country can ban or fine one for using a particular word, no matter how distasteful it is.
However, maobama did an end run around the Constitution, with his executive order giving anyone under the protection of the SS the right to ban free speech and the right of assembly within a certain distance of that particular individual.
James761 Wrote: Jun 18, 2012 7:20 AM
That's the key to the whole concept of upholding the Right to Free Speech...If the consistently foul language were being used to incite a riot, or be spoken deliberately for the purposes of just being obnoxiously loud, then charges can be brought on "disturbing the peace" or "inciting a riot." Take mind that "disturbing the peace" means that there is actual violence involved.

No LAWFUL exercise of Rights can be converted into a crime (as ruled by the Supreme Court), and the actual definition of crime involves causing physical injury or actual damage to property. This is why the cliched example of falsely yelling "fire" in a crowded theater is NOT protected by the 1st Amendment; Actual injury is likely in a panic.

BY A VOTE of 183-50, town meeting members in Middleborough, Mass., last week approved a bylaw making public cursing a civil offense and authorizing police to enforce the ban by fining offenders $20.

Town Hall may find it hard to collect on those fines. Assuming Cohen v. California is still good law, the First Amendment's protection of free speech extends to using four-letter words in public, and as soon as the new ordinance is challenged it will almost certainly be struck down. Legally, town authorities don't have a leg to stand on. But their concern with enforcing public standards...

Related Tags: Paternalism