Are "No Cursing" laws unconstitutional?

[Emsworth]

Yes, it is certainly unconstitutional. Blanket bans on profanity violate the First Amendment.

Obscene speech can be prohibited only if the Miller test is passed, which clearly does not apply here. (Using profanity does not appeal to the "prurient interest.")

[Emsworth]

If we're placing so much value on precedent, then the guiding case here is Cohen v. California. A man was punished for wearing a jacket bearing the words "F--- the draft" in a public courthouse; however, the Supreme Court overturned the conviction on First Amendment grounds.

"Absent a more particularized and compelling reason for its actions, the State may not, consistently with the First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment, make the simple public display of this single four-letter expletive a criminal offense."

If the public display of an expletive is constitutionally protected, then so too should be the public speaking of that expletive.

[Emsworth]

While you have freedom of speech, it doesn't mean you have freedom from being punished for what you say.  The classic shouting "fire" example is a perfect case.  While you are free to say it, you will be punished for saying it.

Well, that certainly is a novel argument. That's like saying, it would be unconstitutional to ban criticizing the government, but it would be constitutional to punish it.

Of course, shouting "fire" in a theater constitutes a breach of the peace. Simply using profane language (absent other factors) does not. Therefore, the latter cannot be subject to a blanket prohibition by the government.

[Emsworth]

The freedom of speech has its limitations. To take the words in a literal and unlimited sense would be such a metamorphosis of what the framers intended, it's something I would expect from the Supreme Court.

How would you define "freedom of speech", by the way?

There is a common-law definition of "freedom of the press"; however, I have not found a common-law definition of "freedom of speech."

[Emsworth]

I'm not going by the common law. I'm just trying to apply it reasonably... I would define it as expression, but I think it applies less on public property than it does on private property.

I see. That seems like a very reasonable view. For example, I hardly think that walking nude on government property is protected "speech."

I would say that the First Amendment prohibits the government from punishing or restricting any expression whatsoever on the basis of content. The government can certainly impose reasonable restrictions on the time, place, and manner of delivery; for example, it may prohibit a person from causing a public disturbance by blaring his message on loudspakers in the middle of the night. Or, to use your example, the government can prohibit the putting up of a political sign on government property. However, any time, place, and manner restrictions must be completely independent of content.

I think that the Supreme Court has not gone far enough in protecting the freedom of speech in some cases. In particular, I am rather appalled that anything that is "obscene" or does not conform to "community standards" can be banned. On the other hand, the court has expanded it too much in other instances. Most notable, I think, is New York Times v. Sullivan and the creation of an "actual malice" standard in libel cases. (The First Amendment absolutist Justice Black makes an interesting case that libel laws are unconstitutional, but I am not wholly convinced.)

[Emsworth]

Banning speech which appeals to the prurient interest is clearly a violation of the first amendment.

For once, I completely agree with opebo. (I was only stating the Supreme Court's position in my previous post, not my own.)

[Emsworth]

So how about bans on public nudity?

I think that the public property-private property distinction applies here. If someone owns a house, and wants to dance on his rooftop without clothing, his action is still protected, even if he is in the public view.