berkeley that noise

http://www.wpri.com/dpp/rhode_show/the-buzz-town-bans-swearing

Residents in Middleborough have voted to make the foul-mouthed among them pay fines for swearing in public. At a town meeting Monday night, residents voted 183-50 to approve a proposal from the police chief to impose a $20 fine on public profanity. Officials insist the proposal was not intended to censor casual or private conversations, but instead to crack down on loud, profanity-laden language used by teens and other young people in the downtown area and public parks.

Can't say I blame them. I may swear a lot when I'm with friends and certain family members but I still have that instant filter instilled into my behaviour when I'm in public that cuts my cursing down to next to nothing or at least keeps me quieter. Not so much the younger folks than I. Nothing irritates me more than hearing berkeley and E36 M3 and worse shouted out in public and then seeing the fat little suburban zit ball it's coming from.

Granted, this reminds me entirely too much of demolition man, but stupid people need to be punished for being shiny happy people in public, and a 20 dollar fine seems just steep enough for it to work.

There was a day, a long time ago, when swearing in public would reward you a beating at the end of the day or soap in the mouth when your parents found out.

Now, its just the strong arm of the law.

I've gotten to the point where I understand people get frustrated with their cars etc and I will listen, allow them to vent. But when they start cussing at me I will first politely ask them to stop, if that does not work the conversation is ended until they can learn some self control.

What do you mean "No dancing"?

Eff that noise!

Drug prohibition works well. Why not this?

Its just a community swear jar.

Isn't this what disorderly conduct charges are for?

In reply to Fit_Is_Slo (ceasarromero): I dunno, I think you have to do more than just curse loudly a lot to get disorderly conduct.

Besides, which is going to hurt teens and college agers more, getting arrested or losing the weeks pizza/booze/nicotine funds? I like this more anyway, as it doesn't cost much of anything I'd imagine.

Didn't they get the memo that language evolves?

Wonder if this will affect a certain car magazine that has taken to pointlessly inserting profanity into various articles?

Will that magazine be banned from being read aloud now in that town?

foxtrapper wrote: Wonder if this will affect a certain car magazine that has taken to pointlessly inserting profanity into various articles? Will that magazine be banned from being read aloud now in that town?

If you are referring to Automobile, I dropped that rag many years ago for just the very same thing. They dropped the F-bomb right in the middle of a story on the new Beetle. Then Jean Lindamood Jennings laughed it off later when she was criticized in letters to the editor.

That and Jamie Kitman glorifying his pot smoking days.

spitfirebill wrote:

foxtrapper wrote: Wonder if this will affect a certain car magazine that has taken to pointlessly inserting profanity into various articles? Will that magazine be banned from being read aloud now in that town?

If you are referring to Automobile, I dropped that rag many years ago for just the very same thing. They dropped the F-bomb right in the middle of a story on the new Beetle. Then Jean Lindamood Jennings laughed it off later when she was criticized in letters to the editor. That and Jamie Kitman glorifying his pot smoking days.

For the same reason I don't go on Jalopnik any more. Journalists using F-bombs is just an indication that they are short on vocabulary AND creativity.

Derick Freese wrote: Didn't they get the memo that language evolves?

Maybe they got the memo that language is de-evolving.

Derick Freese wrote: Didn't they get the memo that language evolves?

And this is one tool to help stop it from evolving into a world where swearing is considered the norm and OK in polite company.

We wouldn't need laws like this if it was OK to pop a shiny happy person in their fat gullet.

You're not allowed to hit other peoples children.

No matter how much they deserve it.

In a forum full of people that gripe about helmet and seat belt laws, this is acceptable? Wow

I get annoyed when I hear people using foul language loudly in public, especially around children and families. But I would never support a law against it

OK, I'll be the first to say it.

berkeley !!!

Cone_Junky wrote: In a forum full of people that gripe about helmet and seat belt laws, this is acceptable? Wow I get annoyed when I hear people using foul language loudly in public, especially around children and families. But I would never support a law against it

It's not a new law, they're changing on that's been on the books since the 60s to just start fining people.

I don't gripe about helmet laws, because anyone who rides a motorcycle without a helmet is a berkeleying moron. Seatbelt laws I don't care about because I always put on my seatbelt.

Other than that, it's the same principle as laws banning music/cars over a certain volume. Yes, you have the freedom to do whatever you want, but the second you start pissing people off they have the right to stop you. Since, as mentioned, we're not allowed to physically "educate" the people who piss us off anymore, folks have to do crap like this.

Is that law even constitutional?

dculberson wrote: Is that law even constitutional?

Says in the article that it is.

You lousy corcksuckers you have violated my fargin rights. This suminabatching country was founded so that the libertys of common patriotic cidisens. Like me. Could not be taken away by a bunch of fargin iceholes like youselves.

-- Roman Moronie

The more I watch the way the world is working, and then watch Demolition Man, the more they're turning out the same. Me no likey!!

Conquest351 wrote: The more I watch the way the world is working, and then watch Demolition Man, the more they're turning out the same. Me no likey!!

Please God no!