Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

South Carolina Seeking To Outlaw Profanity

samzenpus posted more than 5 years ago | from the f@#k-those-f@#king-f@#kers dept.

Government 849

MBGMorden writes "It looks like in an act that defies common sense, a bill has been introduced in the South Carolina State Senate that seeks to outlaw the use of profanity. According to the bill it would become a felony (punishable by a fine up to $5000 or up to 5 years in prison) to 'publish orally or in writing, exhibit, or otherwise make available material containing words, language, or actions of a profane, vulgar, lewd, lascivious, or indecent nature.' I'm not sure if 'in writing' could be applied to the internet, but in any event this is scary stuff."

cancel ×

849 comments

Ouch (5, Interesting)

fyngyrz (762201) | more than 5 years ago | (#26457427)

Don't think it can't happen. The hysteria-over-liberty mode of thinking that pervades every level of our legal and court system has resulted in significant erosion of all manner of what would, to a sensible person, seem to be rock-solid and unmovable declarations of constitutional rights.

We have seen the right to remain silent turn into the right to be tortured until you say what they want to hear; we have seen the 4th amendment turned into an irrelevancy by nattering idiocy about your papers being in digital form; we have seen the commerce clause turned on its very head; we have seen the establishment of "free speech zones" and other 1984-ish/esque crushing of liberties; censorship is the accepted norm for "solving" disagreements about what we see, say and hear insofar as it might offend some poor, weak-willed moron; screams of "save the children", "terrorists" and "global warming" drive legislators to write, and pass, the most odious, anti-liberty and outright anti-American legislation on a daily basis.

There's no limit to this, either; we have seen the specific directive not to pass ex post facto laws ignored at the congressional level and then whistle right through the supreme court; we have seen the explicit directive of the 2nd amendment's operative clause turned into the most moronic and sophist idiocy about "what is a militia?", a non-issue mined blindly and moronically out of the prefatory clause.

Don't think it can't get worse. Ask yourself instead, why should you expect it to get any better?

Re:Ouch (5, Funny)

reeeh2000 (1328037) | more than 5 years ago | (#26457557)

fuck, now i have to go to the fucking state house and tell Sanford and all the other asshole to gtfo. Who's with me! Imagine, a bunch of Slashdotters holding up signs that say Get the Fuck out. I hate living in this state with these fucking retards. Fuck!

Re:Ouch (5, Insightful)

networkBoy (774728) | more than 5 years ago | (#26457645)

add to that:
fucking first amendment baby!

Re:Ouch (1, Troll)

pieisgood (841871) | more than 5 years ago | (#26457689)

Separation of church and state, don't forget that "under god" was added to the anthem and constitution in the 1950's unlawfully. This shit is getting out of fucking hand. Those mother fuckers.

Re:Ouch (5, Insightful)

Kymermosst (33885) | more than 5 years ago | (#26458011)

Separation of church and state, don't forget that "under god" was added to the anthem and constitution in the 1950's unlawfully. This shit is getting out of fucking hand. Those mother fuckers.

Which amendment to the constitution added "under god"?

Re:Ouch (1, Offtopic)

pieisgood (841871) | more than 5 years ago | (#26458075)

Re:Ouch (4, Informative)

GuloGulo (959533) | more than 5 years ago | (#26458155)

Perhaps in your haste you failed to read what you were responding to, but he asked "which amendment" added it "to the constitution".

Your link has fuck all to do with that, as you totally missed the point that IT WASN'T ADDED TO THE CONSTITUTION.

So apart from being factually incorrect and oblivious to how the Constitution is changed, yours was a nice post.

Re:Ouch (4, Funny)

zobier (585066) | more than 5 years ago | (#26457701)

The one article where the trolls and flamebait would be on-topic and you go and post a reasonable FP!

Re:Ouch (4, Interesting)

timmyd (108567) | more than 5 years ago | (#26457835)

It seems they're taking the "protect the children" route. That will probably help their odds of getting it passed. But one can only wonder how long it takes before something like this (if passed) would lead over into the virtual world, like how the protect act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PROTECT_Act_of_2003) was able to convict someone to 20 years in prison for having cartoons which depict underage-looking girls engaging in sexual acts (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hJ-ZPbjBP2nc1wF3JqIbElBYgKngD9563DJO0).

Re:Ouch (1)

philspear (1142299) | more than 5 years ago | (#26457897)

Don't think it can't get worse. Ask yourself instead, why should you expect it to get any better?

Because I think Bush/Rove/Cheney politics have peaked for a while. I know plenty of people, especially 3rd party supporters and republicans will say Obama and the dems are just as bad*, but I don't and the question was why -I- expect things to get better.

* I'm not going to argue with you, and I assure you I've heard the reasons several times and still don't buy them, but you're free to restate them.

Re:Ouch (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26458231)

"I think Bush/Rove/Cheney politics have peaked for a while."

I think it's cute how you think they started the fascism. It's been building for the last sixty years. As long as politicians are in control of the country we're pretty much fucked. Obama's already showing signs of carrying on the grand tradition of increasing government control over our lives.

Re:Ouch (1)

kabloom (755503) | more than 5 years ago | (#26458115)

I think you're wrong. I think that what you've just cited is a long list of executive and legislative abuses that will never stand up to court challenges. Thank God the federal courts in this country are still sane.

Re:Ouch (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26458237)

Thank God the federal courts in this country are still sane.

Now that's fucking comedy.

Soap, Ballot, Jury, Ammo.

At best, this bill has just taken away the fucking Soap box.
At worst, we're already depending on the sanity of who's in the fucking Jury box.

You know what they say (5, Funny)

DesScorp (410532) | more than 5 years ago | (#26458141)

If you outlaw profanity, only outlaws will have profanity.

Mod Parent Up (was: Ouch) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26458257)

On general principal, this is very 1984-esque. Remove the words (start with ones everyone can agree is "bad") and remove the potential for thought.

On a side note, this attack on our freedoms is coming from someone from the far left this time (not republican).

Biography:FORD, Robert [D]--(Dist. No. 42, Charleston Co.)--Developer; residing at P.O. Box 21302, Charleston; b. Dec. 26, 1948 in New Orleans, La.; attended Grambling State Univ. and Wayne State Univ.; single; Charleston City Councilman, 1974-92; mem., SCLC Staff, 1966-72; arrested 73 times during civil rights movement; Harvey Gantt Triumphant Award, 1991; Legislator of the Year, S.C. Physical Therapy Assn., 1994; Charleston Co. Council, 1974-93; Who's Who Among Black Elected Officials; Who's Who Among Amer. Politicians and Statesmen; mem.: Sen. Corrections & Penology Com.; Jud. Com.; Labor, Commerce & Industry Com.; Banking & Ins. Com.; Rules Com.; S.C. Legis. Black Caucus; Chm., Civil Rights and Affirmative Action Com.; mem., United Methodist Church; prev. serv. in Sen. 1993-08.

Cancel my trip to Charleston (5, Funny)

Bemopolis (698691) | more than 5 years ago | (#26457431)

Fuck that shit.

Re:Cancel my trip to Charleston (2, Funny)

stonedcat (80201) | more than 5 years ago | (#26457539)

Right up their asses!

Re:Cancel my trip to Charleston (5, Funny)

HTH NE1 (675604) | more than 5 years ago | (#26457573)

You are fined two credits for violations of the Verbal Morality Statute.

Re:Cancel my trip to Charleston (4, Funny)

BSAtHome (455370) | more than 5 years ago | (#26457661)

No need to repeat the fucking language or using any shells. You can use the law to wipe your ass instead.

Re:Cancel my trip to Charleston (2, Insightful)

Duradin (1261418) | more than 5 years ago | (#26458151)

Only the politicians and the rich have that option. Their favorite though is our rights (which are different from their rights).

Re:Cancel my trip to Charleston (4, Funny)

melikamp (631205) | more than 5 years ago | (#26458035)

Using only the words found in the Bible:

Shut the hell up, you damn ass whore!

-Bart Simpson

Wha... (5, Insightful)

slugtastic (1437569) | more than 5 years ago | (#26457465)

What about Freedom of speech?

Re:Wha... (1)

Yaur (1069446) | more than 5 years ago | (#26457499)

and interstate commerce

Re:Wha... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26457563)

Fuck Freedom of Speech!

Re:Wha... (1)

slugtastic (1437569) | more than 5 years ago | (#26457587)

So that's what FFS stands for.

Re:Wha... (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 5 years ago | (#26457751)

Oh c'mon, is anyone still alive that can read the handwriting on that old paper? I'm sure it doesn't apply anymore...

Re:Wha... (4, Insightful)

Shadow Wrought (586631) | more than 5 years ago | (#26458069)

What about Freedom of speech?

Freedom of speech is alive and well! Freedom after speech now...

Re:Wha... (1)

WCMI92 (592436) | more than 5 years ago | (#26458195)

"What about Freedom of speech?"

Well, given that a wedge has ALREADY been driven into that by the so-called "campaign finance reform" law, and serious proposals to censor political opinion radio, TV, and the internet even via the so-called "fairness doctrine" which would be a sledgehammer driving that wedge all the way THROUGH, tell me why government types aren't thinking of this?

The "freedom" I'd like to see removed is that of treasonous legislators to make law they KNOW violates the Constitution.

What part of "shall make NO LAW" can't they understand?

At the very least, legislators who VOTE for crap like this, and executives who SIGN such flagrantly illegal things into law should have to REPAY all the frivilous legal expenses that will be incurred by the taxpayer when this crap gets shot down in court.

Re:Wha... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26458293)

"What about Freedom of speech?"

Well, given that a wedge has ALREADY been driven into that by the so-called "campaign finance reform" law.

Yeah, it's much better to allow money to equal speech since everyone has the same amount of money and so the same amount of speech.

Freedom of speech doesn't exist as long as some can shout down, literally or financially, others.

Great.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26457487)

... I live here. Damn. Ooops. I mean Darn.

Vague (2, Interesting)

BorgAssimilator (1167391) | more than 5 years ago | (#26457555)

According to the bill it would become a felony (punishable by a fine up to $5000 or up to 5 years in prison) to "publish orally or in writing, exhibit, or otherwise make available material containing words, language, or actions of a profane, vulgar, lewd, lascivious, or indecent nature"

Isn't that a little vague? Now, I don't really know that much about laws, but I did hear once that there's some kind of law in effect that keeps a bill from being passed unless it is specific enough. If a law like that exists, I wouldn't think this bill would meet that requirement.

Either way though, this certainly seems to violate that first amendment thing...

Re:Vague (1)

SoCalChris (573049) | more than 5 years ago | (#26457833)

Seriously. That sounds like allowing someone to use a computer with internet access would be a felony.

Re:Vague (1)

Gat0r30y (957941) | more than 5 years ago | (#26458129)

It is vague. I find stupid fucking bills about profanity both lewd and lascivious, but not particularly indecent. Would publishing the bill be illegal under itself?

Re:Vague (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26458203)

Recursion fault: If it specifically defined the acts, would not the law itself be illegal to print?

Re:Vague (1)

plus_M (1188595) | more than 5 years ago | (#26458279)

Yes, but how specific does the law have to be? You're going to have to be more specific.

No. (0)

kcbanner (929309) | more than 5 years ago | (#26457571)

FREE MOTHER FUCKING SPEECH FUCK! Now I have to offset all those caps with some intelligence lower-caps talking.

Definition (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26457589)

Well? What is it? You need to define profanity before you can outlaw it.

Frankly I find skinny good looking women who wear too much clothing to be vulgar. I find the number three pronounced as free offensive. I think puppies are indecent

However, I find skinny good looking women who wear next to no clothing - acceptable.

Re:Definition (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26458219)

Fuck that, let's make skinny good looking women who wear next to no clothing mandatory. Except in cold weather of course.

Well... (4, Funny)

Endo13 (1000782) | more than 5 years ago | (#26457591)

I checked the calendar and today is definitely not April 1st, so somewhere this story must ultimately lead back to an Onion.

Now THIS is obscene: (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26457597)

SECTION 3. Section 16-15-305(A)(3) of the 1976 Code is amended to read:

"(3) publishes orally or in writing, exhibits, or otherwise makes available anything obscene to any a group or individual; or"

This offends me. Go to jail legislators. Do not pass GO. Do not collect $200.

Re:Now THIS is obscene: (3, Insightful)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 5 years ago | (#26458249)

anything obscene to any a group or individual

That's completely insane. EVERYTHING is obscene to at least one individual, somewhere.

They just outlawed everything to make everyone (in their state) an outlaw.

Samuel Jackson said it best... (0, Redundant)

edwardd (127355) | more than 5 years ago | (#26457623)

This is some fucked up repugnant shit.

What the fuck is wrong with South Carolina? (4, Insightful)

eln (21727) | more than 5 years ago | (#26457635)

I know a lot of these guys are hopelessly stuck in the past, but I think being stuck in 1630s Massachusetts is going a little overboard.

Re:What the fuck is wrong with South Carolina? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26458105)

I don't think there is something anybody could say or write that is obscene as flying the Confederate battle flag of the army of North Virginia from the state house of state with a large black population.

Pah! (4, Insightful)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 5 years ago | (#26457639)

It isn't scary, it's stupid. If it ever passes, it's going to get struck down. Tell me, South Carolina, did you elect a pack of retards, because that's the only rational explanation.

Re:Pah! (4, Insightful)

BSAtHome (455370) | more than 5 years ago | (#26457727)

It is a profoundly obscene waste of taxpayers money. Maybe the legislators can be fined the $5000 each, as mentioned in the proposal, to finance the judicial costs of striking it down.

Re:Pah! (5, Insightful)

Sponge Bath (413667) | more than 5 years ago | (#26457777)

...did you elect a pack of retards

The quality of politicians often mirrors the majority of the voting population.

Re:Pah! (1)

philspear (1142299) | more than 5 years ago | (#26458005)

I agree it's nothing to be concerned about. Consider some of the more ridiculous legislation that has faced state legislatures. There was a story on here a while ago about how Indiana tried to legislate the value of pi. And not to the correct value either. This is less dangerous than, say, the McArthy trials. This is less ridiculous than the ban on contraceptives. This is more rational and less dangerous than the attempts to ban the teaching of evolution that are still going on. Considering South Carolina's role in the Civil war, this is much much better (not saying much.) And as mighty martian said, if it does pass, it will be extremely short lived. This is a story for Idle, not real news.

Re:Pah! (3, Funny)

Scrameustache (459504) | more than 5 years ago | (#26458113)

South Carolina, did you elect a pack of retards

That's representative democracy for you!

Re:Pah! (1)

pavon (30274) | more than 5 years ago | (#26458125)

Yeah, I've often toyed with the idea of banning politicians for re-election if a bill they vote for is ruled unconstitutional. It would keep the idiots, traitors, and attention-whores out, and give the rest more incentive to actually read and understand the laws they are voting on (or at least hire an aid that understands the constitution, which wouldn't hurt). Of course it would shift power towards the judicial and could be abused to force politically motivated shakeups of the legislative.

Fuck south carolina. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26457653)

Once again as a resident of the 'south'. I'd like to apologize for south carolina. Again.

What needs to be done (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26457677)

I think we all need to mail them a letter telling them how fucking stupid this is.

Bertrand Russell & Robert A. Heinlein weigh in (5, Interesting)

terrahertz (911030) | more than 5 years ago | (#26457711)

"Obscenity is whatever happens to shock some elderly and ignorant magistrate." - Bertrand Russell

"Of all the strange "crimes" that human beings have legislated of nothing, "blasphemy" is the most amazing - with "obscenity" and "indecent exposure" fighting it out for the second and third place." - Robert A. Heinlein

Q: What's worse than obscenity? A: Statism! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26457823)

Nuff said.

TAX IS THEFT.

Felony (1)

HTH NE1 (675604) | more than 5 years ago | (#26457725)

According to the bill it would become a felony (punishable by a fine up to $5000 or up to 5 years in prison) to "publish orally or in writing, exhibit, or otherwise make available material containing words, language, or actions of a profane, vulgar, lewd, lascivious, or indecent nature".

I think the summary would be better served if the added tags used above were present there.

What?!?!? (1)

cbiltcliffe (186293) | more than 5 years ago | (#26457741)

Are you fucking kidding me?!?

Flag-waving and mouth-breathing. (1)

FatSean (18753) | more than 5 years ago | (#26457829)

The whole state is a drain on the national economy. Goddamn man.

Saelorn (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26457761)

So this would be pretty much the end of certain religions as we know it. It's kind of hard to tell people to be good when you can't threaten anyone with the D word or the H word.

I can't tell you what I think of that law. (2, Insightful)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 5 years ago | (#26457799)

Because I would break that law in the process.

...can't...stop...my...self... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26457807)

I for one, welcome or new Taleban^^^^^S.Carolinian overlords.

How fucked up is that! (3, Insightful)

haruchai (17472) | more than 5 years ago | (#26457827)

Sons of bitches just want to oppress self-expression. What impact will this have on music and literature. Do have any idea how many fucking books have swear words?
Un-fucking-believable.

This was tried in Michigan and failed (5, Interesting)

techess (1322623) | more than 5 years ago | (#26457843)

Michigan had an anti-profanity passed in 1897. It outlawed cursing in front of woment or children. In 1989 a canoeist was charged with violating the law after hitting a rock with his canoe and releasing a stream of profanities in front of a family.

He was actually found guilty the first time around. The court of appeals though threw out his case and the law. Here though if he had been convicted it would only have been a $75 fine and community service.

http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=15992 [freedomforum.org]

Fuck Yes. (1)

BennyLava (1440059) | more than 5 years ago | (#26457859)

I am totally fucking for this bill.

Cashing in on Blago (1)

hwyhobo (1420503) | more than 5 years ago | (#26457861)

They just heard that Blagojevich was coming over on a State business, and they want to cash in.

Unenforceable. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26457867)

Unless S.C. wants to outlaw all language altogether, they're looking at something that's not even enforceable. So they ban your standard fucks, shits, and cunts. Awesome. Are they thinking new euphemisms and curses aren't going to spring up to fill the void? Failing creation of new words, are they going to prosecute the intent behind words used? If I can't express my displeasure about my boss in South Carolina using traditional profanity, will they go after me if I call him a doody-head?

Funny thing about language. It's creative and evolves. Even profanity is changing and twisting meaning - in some (usually male) teenagers today, 'fuck' is used like 'like' or 'um' might be used by certain other groups of people. There may not necessarily be any obscene intent behind the word, and may just be used as filler.

Libraries (1)

pete-classic (75983) | more than 5 years ago | (#26457873)

It is unlawful for a person in a public forum or place of public accommodation wilfully and knowingly to publish orally or in writing, exhibit, or otherwise make available material containing words, language, or actions of a profane, vulgar, lewd, lascivious, or indecent nature.

I guess these assholes are going to have to burn down their own fucking libraries.

-Peter

What I expected (3, Funny)

Daimanta (1140543) | more than 5 years ago | (#26457879)

Slashdotters are courageously rebelling against this law by using a lot of swearwords.

Thanks Slashdot, the worlds takes nerds more seriously right now.

Start with the oldest books first. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26457885)

You know, the two testaments and the koran.
Oh and good luck with that.

Maybe not so bad after all (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26457993)

You know, the two testaments and the koran. Oh and good luck with that.

You may have something there.

A self-defeating law (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26457895)

Personally, I hope to all that is holy that this law is passed, if only for its sheer comedic value.

The scene is right out of some zany kids' movie:

It is a dark and stormy night. The heroic legislators have finally passed a law outlawing all profanity! These heroes came up with a list of the specific words that will never again be used; but, of course, they had to write those words into the text of the law.

The vote passes unanimously. Society is saved! Never again will awful words be spoken! But wait... there is one source of those dirty words still! The law itself is now illegal, because it contains instances of those awful terrible swear words. Black-helmeted police commandos enter the legislature and arrest the legislators who wrote the law in the first place. After all, they printed that illegal profanity.

During the trial, the lawyers are arrested for saying the dirty words that the legislators wrote; the judge is removed from office for violating that law as well. Paralegals everywhere are arrested for preparing legal briefs that contain the dirty words those legislators wrote, and police themselves are arrested for repeating the reason the legislators were arrested in the first place. Newspapers are shut down for "making available" the text of the offending law.

I'll be sitting far, far away, watching the fireworks.

vulgar (3, Insightful)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 5 years ago | (#26457909)

According to this here [wiktionary.org] , that would be something that is:

      1. (classical sense) Having to do with ordinary, common people.
      2. Rude, uncouth, distasteful, obscene.

Looking up obscene [wiktionary.org] results in:

      1. Offensive to the current standards of decency or morality
      2. Lewd or lustful
      3. Disgusting or repulsive
      4. Beyond all reason
      5. Liable to deprave or corrupt

This law qualifies at least for 3 and 4. Depending on your point of view, for all of them.

Some Fucking Joke (1)

Gat0r30y (957941) | more than 5 years ago | (#26457919)

I'ts not even very funny.

I'm so sorry (0, Flamebait)

debatem1 (1087307) | more than 5 years ago | (#26457933)

On behalf of my state, I apologize to all the people who won't be offended because of this dastardly bill. As a result of a law whose level of stupidity will become unutterable upon its passage, the massed retards and mental midgets of the great state of South Carolina will now be forced to forgo the sudden torrents of profanity which have so long served as warnings for their people. Without vulgar language I, for one, can only believe that the subtle enjoinders of "hey y'all, watch this" or "ah can too, hold my beer" will eventually cease to grace the back woods of our beautiful state, lost to the inexorable pressure of natural selection. And for the loss of that unique and precious resource, our legislators should be ashamed.

Dear South Carolina (3, Insightful)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 5 years ago | (#26457959)

If you guys _still_ want to secede from the US, I think now we'd be willing to reconsider! Keep doing stuff like this, and it will be an easy decision. You're embarrassing all of us! Yours truly, A Yankee

If you can't say "fuck" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26457971)

you can't say "fuck the government."

Sponsored by Microsoft to kill Linux (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26457989)

Based on this page Linux F*** Count [durak.org] this must be a bid by Microsoft to F*** KILL LINUX!

Who want's to be famous? (1)

bionicpill (970942) | more than 5 years ago | (#26457997)

Pass the law and go straight to the supreme court. Do no pass Go. Do not collect $200. If you feel like being part of a landmark case you should head down to the court house and scream profanities until you're arrested. Then file suit and become part of history.

How will they define it? (1)

dalesc (66212) | more than 5 years ago | (#26458007)

Before you can outlaw it, you need to define it. This must surely require a list of banned words - but how will they publish it? Any attempt would produce a document in violation of itself.

Then there are expressions that contain no profane words but which might, as a whole, be regarded as profane.

Then, of course, people are inventive. If they can't use one word, a substitute will soon appear.

How do these morons get elected?

I can see dens of profanity opening up in dingy rooms where people gather to drink legal liquor and shout illegal vulgarities.

Re:How will they define it? (1)

Duradin (1261418) | more than 5 years ago | (#26458227)

Why would they have to define which words are profane? Just about any word can be vulgar or obscene to someone and all they need is that someone. You don't expect them to apply the law equally do you?

Note to North Carolinians (4, Insightful)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 5 years ago | (#26458015)

Now might be a really good time to invest in adult bookstores located right on your southern border! Remember, every mind-bogglingly stupid, unenforceable law is also a business opportunity!

First Amnedemnt (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26458021)

The Constitution supersedes any laws States establish, anybody arrested can simply invoke that it is non-constitutional and have the Feds force The State of South Carolina to set them free and erase the law.

Not a big deal (4, Informative)

javelinco (652113) | more than 5 years ago | (#26458079)

It is sponsored by ONE guy, and it was instantly referred to committee. Why is this even news? There is ALWAYS one guy that wants to stick his penis in the whole to see what happens... why should a group like a state's congress be any different?

A Clockwork Orange (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26458107)

For a person reading A Clockwork Orange for the first time, the language and slang might be a bit confusing. I will bet bills like this can get us closer to that point. If certain words are illegal to say, we'll come with new ones that mean just the same.

the wet dream of every ultra fundementalist (2, Interesting)

fermion (181285) | more than 5 years ago | (#26458111)

Every ultra fundementatlist wants to control every action of every other person to fit thier own limitations. Everyone has to eat meat, or cannot eat meat. Everyone has to dress in a suit, or not.

What a vague law like this does is two folds. It allows such scumbags to control what is and is not allowed in public. It is ok for the taxpayer to pay for the distribution of the ten commandants so a certain christian beliefs can be forced onto the public, or for the public to pay for teachers to sit there and do nothing while students are forced to pray, but not ok for libraries to carry Harry Potter because it is profane.

Second, it allows scum bags to target people they don't like. You don't like the color of your neighbor, turn him in for exposing your kid to profanity. It is simple enough to do.

Just to get an idea if this was the purpose of such laws, or if I was being paraniod,I took a look at the SPLC hate group map. South Carolina has the largest number of hate groups in that area, about one hate group per 100,000 persons. In comparison, the reletively conservative state of Texas has about 1 hate group per 350,000 persons. I am not sure if there is a state with a higher percentage of hate groups.

Really this is likely just another effect of the seating of the soon to be current US president. States like this, and thier white population, has been courted by the republicans for 40 years, rallied by the fear of the person who looks differnt. Times have changed, but the fear mongering has lasting effect.

Re:the wet dream of every ultra fundementalist (4, Informative)

Giometrix (932993) | more than 5 years ago | (#26458217)

"Really this is likely just another effect of the seating of the soon to be current US president. States like this, and thier white population, has been courted by the republicans for 40 years, rallied by the fear of the person who looks differnt. Times have changed, but the fear mongering has lasting effect."

I'd like to point out that Robert Ford is a Democrat and he's black.

Linky: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Ford_(politician) [wikipedia.org]

Re:the wet dream of every ultra fundementalist (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26458221)

http://www.scstatehouse.gov/members/bios/0606818109.html

Here is your white christian republican fundamentalist who is sponsoring the bill.

Do as I say, not as I do (2, Interesting)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 5 years ago | (#26458119)

Didn't we just remove the Taliban from power in Afghanistan for pulling shit very similar to this?

So much for bookstores... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26458147)

"or otherwise make available"

Yeah, good luck putting forth a bill that would shut down every store in the entire state that sells books.

Boondock Saints (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26458161)

"from the f@#k-those-f@#king-f@#kers dept."

Ah, Boondock Saints, how I miss ye.

Rocco: Fuckin'- What the fuckin'. Fuck. Who the fuck fucked this fucking... How did you two fucking fucks...
[shouts]
Rocco: Fuck!
Connor: Well, that certainly illustrates the diversity of the word.

oy (5, Funny)

Ethanol (176321) | more than 5 years ago | (#26458163)

As my five-year-old son used to say when he was experimenting with profanity but hadn't gotten the hang of it yet, "Oh, for heaven's fuck."

Those who do not know history are doomed to repeat (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26458167)

Stupid f*cks in South Carolina. They need to read Cohen v. California. [cornell.edu] The U.S. Supreme Court (a more conservative Supreme Court at that) decided this 37 f*cking years ago.

What happened to free speech? (1)

gillbates (106458) | more than 5 years ago | (#26458171)

There's this little thing called the 'full faith and credit' clause in the Constitution. Basically, it says that one state has to honor another state's legal covenants - you know, things like driver's licenses, marriages, etc...

But one of the applications of it is that one state will now honor another state's arrest warrants. If you're wanted for robbery in Illinois, you can't avoid prosecution by merely hopping across the border to Indiana.

So, you combine the effects of the Internet and this bad law, and you get a really bad situation. You, posting to your blog in Illinois, can be arrested during a routine traffic stop and shipped to South Carolina, because someone there read your blog, thought it vulgar, and filed a complaint.

In a word: Laughable. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26458179)

South Carolina needs to be reminded there's this little thing called the "First Amendment".

Quoting from the United States Constitution... (1)

Doug52392 (1094585) | more than 5 years ago | (#26458189)

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Unconstitutional. Therefor, yet another fine example of where our tax money goes.

What is this costing the state? (1)

reeeh2000 (1328037) | more than 5 years ago | (#26458191)

My angry comment earlier asides, it does offend me that not only are some of the representatives of my state this conservative, but are foolish enough to attempt to pass a law that is blatantly unconstitutional. In the mean time my college which is a public school was just given a 22% budget cut. I ask how much time, effort, and energy has been spent on this maddening bill from Senator Ford that could have been spent in better ways such as making sure are public universities are fully funded.

Honestly, Officer (1)

camperdave (969942) | more than 5 years ago | (#26458211)

Honestly, Officer! I was saying "Hoar".

A miracle of stupidity. (5, Funny)

dweller_below (136040) | more than 5 years ago | (#26458247)

I thought that my legislators were 'World Class' crazy (Utah).

It looks like we aren't even playing in the big leagues.

This level of crazy is a delicate balancing act. You have to be dumb enough to think that this is a good idea, but somehow manage to keep from drowning in the shower.

Is there any way to tell if the responsible parties have indoor plumbing? How do they avoid rain?

Miles

Fighting Words, Harassment, & Disturbing the P (1)

mlund (1096699) | more than 5 years ago | (#26458265)

I think that between those three categories most instances of "profanity" that people are actually concerned about would already be punishable without having to actually ban words outright.

Using excessive vulgarity in public to the detriment of surrounding folks: Disturbing the peace

Continuous lewd or abusive comments towards another individual: Harassment

Insulting or berating other people to provoke an altercation or verbally assault them: Fighting words

I think that should cover almost all the bases of "public standards of decency" without having to actually make specific words felonious in any context.

Con Law I (1)

gpmanrpi (548447) | more than 5 years ago | (#26458273)

This law is unconstitutional, unless it is extremely narrowly tailored.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...