Well, it's quite easy to make oneself feel self-righteous by declaring a form of speech fit only for the ignorant and weak, but it doesn't actually make it true. That's just preening.
Neither was I ever suggesting anything like accosting a family in the street and berating them with abusive language. That's already called simple assault, and is already illegal. Not to mention being beneath the dignity of a decent person. Please...I'm a family man and a professional.
Let's not trivialize the matter. The point is not to defend yelling "Fire!" in a crowded room, or to defend hateful and inciting language intended to do harm, but to point out that you may not like it, but the freedom to express oneself IS what freedom of speech is all about. And that includes a choice of words.
Like it or not, trying to dictate things like this (outside of the directly and intentionally harmful) is unacceptable to me.
It is unfortunate that a community feels the need for this, but for other reasons. What I say walking down the public street, to myself or a companion, is simply not anybody else's business. Even if I were overheard. Besides, I'm not talking about walking around uttering a never-ending stream of curses at the top of my lungs, either. That's disturbing the peace, and is also already legislated.
If it is OK to legislate language, then I want those blasted freak missionaries run out of town on a rail, and equally banned. The only reason they can accost me and my children, in my home, and against my will, is thanks to the protections we afford speech. I don't like it, and I don't want to be rousted every Sunday morning by these people, but they have the right to express themselves...apparently even to the point of inviting themselves to my front door and asking me intensely personal questions without a welcome. Now, I'm sure that would upset a bunch of folks who think this kind of thing is perfectly acceptable, but it's the same principle.
My interpretation is this is a manifestation of an overweening need to control other people, in order to foment someone's personal sense of 'proper' morality. It's always easy to accept when the idea fits your own personal worldview, but...there's more than one view, and I'm not willing to be forced to accept yours. The problem is that this is not legislation to prevent a directed verbal assault. That already exists. It's a sweeping, all-inclusive public prohibition that I believe is not the purvue of government. I just don't see some swearing as a sad testament to the state of our society. I think there's a couple-three items that are just a bit more significant.
When someone gets out of control, and becomes a public nuisance in the very real sense, I think every community has the needed regulations to put a halt to it. This however, is specifically targeted at regulating and defining acceptable speech in public places. It just don't sit right with me.
As for profanity legally justifying a beating...well, I'm sure that's true in some communities. Here, you go to jail for being the first one to lay hands on another. Words and deeds are not the same thing.
Anyway...we're each entitled to feel as we do. If the matter ever comes up in my neck of the woods...I'll be opposed.
