Author Topic: Public Profanity on the Rise? (Read 1782 times)

Shuckins · « **Reply #30 on:** March 31, 2006, 09:30:19 AM »

Natty, sure I flipped the argument on you. I did it because I assumed, from the tone of your first post, that you agreed with Astac.

You tried to trap me with a Catch 22 question...but that works both ways.

You DO agree with him don't you? Did you agree with his statement that we have no right to not be offended?

Personally, while I would publicly argue against abortion, I would not use such a graphic poster myself.

While you might find such a thing offensive, if you truly believe in the protections of the first amendment, as you claim, then you have no right to not be offended by it. That argument kind of stands on its head, doesn't it.

Regards, Shuckins

NattyIced · « **Reply #31 on:** March 31, 2006, 09:37:50 AM »

Just because you don't have a right to be offended, doesn't mean you can't be offended. I've seen those posters, and they are vulgar. One person posted up on a street weekly with a whole slew of those posters. I knew the street, I chose a different path. Eventually that person was removed since they did not have a protesting permit.

You can't say that you have a right granted by the laws of the land to be offended to bring leverage against offensive material to have it outlawed when you have an explicit right to say or present that offensive material.

SOB · « **Reply #32 on:** March 31, 2006, 09:44:45 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Shuckins
Conversely, Astac, if your statement is true, neither is there a right to offend.

What I'm arguing for here is a return to a sense of public civility. Do you really suppose that the First Amendment was crafted to allow verbal boorishness? It's true intent was to protect freedom of opinion as it pertained to political expression. Restraint of vulgarity in the presence of mixed company was expected as a matter of course and would not have been deemed a type of behavior which required the protection of a Constitutional amendment.

Regards, Shuckins

That's true, there isn't a right to offend. That doesn't mean that offensive language is therefor excluded from protection. If you choose to be offended by it, that's your issue. And whether it's "boorish" or not is entirely subjective, which is another reason why the protection exists. The government trying to restrict expression because they don't like it or agree with it...that is EXACTLY why the first amendment exists.

Grow a thicker skin, or stay in your house under the blankets with earplugs in. If I'm with someone who is offended by foul language, I edit myself, that's just common sense and courtesy. But that's certainly not something required by the constitution...if it were, that would really be sad.

Shuckins · « **Reply #33 on:** March 31, 2006, 09:51:32 AM »

There was something wrong with your last statement. Couldn't put my finger on what it was for a moment, but I think what you meant to say was;

"You can't say you have a right granted by the laws of the land to NOT be offended in order to bring leverage against offensive material to have it outlawed when you have an explicit right to say or present that offensive material."

If you return to my earlier post you will see that what I am arguing for is a return for personal civility. The law does not specifically grant a right to be offensive or to not be offended. That is a matter of personal choice and inclination... a concept the Founding Fathers understood perfectly well. The First Amendment was designed to prevent the citizens of this country from being imprisoned for commentary critical of the government.

As a matter of fact, private speech has always been controlled. Speech that inflames people to violence, or puts the public in danger has ever been restricted. So, as far as the law is concerned you cannot say "anything" you want to say.

Regards, Shuckins

SOB · « **Reply #34 on:** March 31, 2006, 12:13:35 PM »

"As a matter of fact, private speech has always been controlled. Speech that inflames people to violence, or puts the public in danger has ever been restricted. So, as far as the law is concerned you cannot say "anything" you want to say."

You'll also notice by reading my post that I didn't suggest that you could say "anything" you want to say.

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #35 on:** March 31, 2006, 12:19:14 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by NattyIced
Just because you don't have a right to be offended, doesn't mean you can't be offended.

Who says so? I have a right to be offended and I demand satisfaction!

I haven't been offended in a few weeks and its pissing me off!:mad:

SOB · « **Reply #36 on:** March 31, 2006, 12:20:23 PM »

Say, Holden, aren't you a Californian?

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #37 on:** March 31, 2006, 12:21:40 PM »

Thank you for your offensive question.

J_A_B · « **Reply #38 on:** March 31, 2006, 12:44:32 PM »

"If you return to my earlier post you will see that what I am arguing for is a return for personal civility.

That's the thing--there is no universal definition of civility. I can talk to a guy and we might be saying "F**K" every other word (exaggeration) but we'll both consider that perfectly civil and normal.

I don't think it's a matter of civility so much as a matter of a group of people who wish to ban any behavior they dislike.

J_A_B

Maverick · « **Reply #39 on:** March 31, 2006, 12:48:15 PM »

To say, much less believe, that there are no limits to speech based on the first amendment, is an exercise in futility. There are limits to the freedom of expression in the United States and always have been.

There are severe penalties in expressing yourself in some circumstances. Yelling fire in a crowded theater is a popular example. How about others. Distributing classified material as a means of expressing your distaste of the current state of affairs in the country's dealings with less than friendly nations. Distributing child pornography at all much less in areas that are accessible to children like schools for example.

Using the current thread topic, cursing. How many of you are fully able to use any word whatsoever in the workplace? What would happen if you started indiscriminately referring to women as "ho's" and b***hes, men as "bastards" or the "MF" combination while at work. The same for displaying the same on your clothing when dealing with co workers and the customers (or in the case of public servants) the general population?

How about another example. Religion. It used to be common practice to sacrifice people in religious observances. It was even codified in the bible as an Old Testament requirement of faith. It was also a key practice in several other religions. The same for multiple marriages (Mormonism) consuming the flesh of your family members (or enemies) after death as well as storage of body parts after death to maintain a relationship with the deceased.

If you think these practices will be allowed either under the free practice of religion or free speech I have a bridge for sale, very little used and conveniently located to a major population center. I might also have some Spanish prisoners remaining, please start the bidding soon before the selection runs low.

There is an old saying, your freedom to express yourself stops at the tip of my nose. There is no constitutional guarantee for the freedom to offend, harass, annoy, or endanger anyone else. If you think there is, try some of the examples I have listed above and see what happens.

NattyIced · « **Reply #40 on:** March 31, 2006, 12:58:20 PM »

You shouldn't use the workplace as an example of what you can and can not do.

On the road you can whistle at a pretty lady, or do cat calls. You'll be a giant sweetheart bag, but you can do it. You do that at work, and you get slapped with sexual harrasment and possibly fired.

You accepted the employer's terms of employment when you signed that contract. You CAN call anyone you want anything you want at work, but you'll get fired because of the aforementioned terms of employment. On the street you'll probably just get knocked the **** out.

Maverick · « **Reply #41 on:** March 31, 2006, 01:05:44 PM »

Natty,

For many the workplace is out in public and I don't recall anyone claiming the constitution was limited by employment or that employment conditions were not also included in their zeal at spewing foul language.

But thanks for another example on how freedom of speech is curtailed.

Timofei · « **Reply #42 on:** March 31, 2006, 01:07:46 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Skuzzy
..you will be eating the bigger end of a baseball bat.

Hospitality, Skuzzy style.

If this is not just smack talk, you realise you would be prosecuted, even in Texas ? Assault, manslaughter, etc, depending of the outcome. And that would be right. Baseball bat can be a deadly weapon. That is the correct response for bad language ?

NattyIced · « **Reply #43 on:** March 31, 2006, 01:09:43 PM »

At all of the places I have worked, vulgar language and sexual harrasment were two of the top three things mentioned in my contract. The third being computer usage.

Even if your workplace is in the public, you are hired by an employer and agreed to their terms of employment. A business typically operates on private property, and they can restrict your second amendment rights by not allowing you to bring your weapon onto their property.

BlckMgk · « **Reply #44 on:** March 31, 2006, 01:14:20 PM »

Next you'll be ticketed for talking to loud... or to low for that matter because you know everyone hates when people are wispering... OMG THEY"RE TALKING ABOUT ME!!!

Pssh..