Talk Elections

Im asking because... I was recently in VA Beach visiting a friend stationed at the Naval base in Norfolk.  We made a couple trips to VA Beach and I saw numerous "No Cursing" signs.  He said that they actually enforce these laws.  Is this unconstitutional?

()

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.")

In a private place I would say they are unconstitutional. In a public place, I find no constitutional problem with them.

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.

The laws are unconstitutional if the speech does not cause any tangible harm to a person. If someone is offended by cursing, they are not tangibly harmed - you have no constitutional right to never be offended.

The issue here has nothing to do with a constitutional right to not be offended. Rather, it is about how broad free speech is. Your interpretation is incompatible with 200 years of constitutional law.

Evidence? I don't know if there's ever been a ruling or statement on cursing laws in regards to the first amendment.

Libel does not cause any tangible harm to a person. I assure you that has been illegal for some time.

Libel is written, slander is spoken. ;)

But, since that's besides the point, if Bob says Jim's restaraunt uses horse meat when it doesn't, and Jim's business goes down because of this rumor, there is tangible harm(maybe I should have been more specific, it's not just physical harm that applies, since speech can't hurt you at all). Further though, this is once again besides the point - a curse word isn't slander by any means, and as far as I know can't really cause any harm to another person.

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.

I was attacking the tangible harm premise. If opebo tells some three year old girl to suck his dick, that does her no tangible harm. I don't know too many people that would argue it's protected free speech under the first amendment.

Well, I guess that's just differences in what we mean by 'tangible harm'. Admittedly some things are more tangible than others.

Yes that would be unconstitutional. In places like schools though it's not though.

More reason I'm never going to Virginia Beach. Did Pat Robertson get that law passed?

Does this also mean if a band was playing live there they could be arrested if they had profanity in their lyrics?

dude, I think folks have been saying this to the Politically Correct crowd for years.  Of course you're right.  But sell it to the creators of South Park or something, since clearly the Dems just aren't buying it.

Don't know whether the signs are unconstitutional, but the law's clearly unenforcible. 

"hey, I gotta whip my main vein out and take a piss."

"what, you can't say piss.  You have to say urinate."

"What?  I can't say piss.  chingate bolillo.  pinche pendejo."

"What did he say??!  Oh, he probably just translated 'I can't say piss' for the other guy or something."

Hmmmmmm.

Actually, the other weird law is the one that says men can ride riding mowers topless but women can't. 

Where are those NOW lawyers when you really need them? 

bitches.

oops, can't say that.  I meant c**nts.  that's still okay, right?  ;)

If cursing were a crime, I'd be doing life. :)

I think it should be more a matter of public decency than law.  Cursing in private conversation with willing participants is fine, but people should not subject those who happen to be around them in a public place to loud cursing.

I always think it's a little bizarre to hear little kids say the nastiest things.  But you know, it's often the children of immigrants whose parents don't speak much english.  Seriously, I knew a bunch of 'em in high school that'd go around cussing like sailors.  They really didn't know any better.  Yeah, they'd eventually learn if they ever wanted to get a job, get laid by nice republican chicks, carry on a conversation with their teachers or parents of friends that they'd tone it down.  But seriously, when you're the 8 year old child of chinese parents who speak no english this is how you learn english:  watch TV.  I think there are some insular, sheltered folks in the world, but surely even they realize that this kind of law just won't work. 

Yeah, it's okay to correct someone's grammar.  Especially a foreigner's.  In fact, they usually appreciate.  I know I do when I'm speaking a foreign language and occassionally need to be corrected.  "You know, usually we don't call gay people Ass Pirate unless we're trying to be offensive."  "Gee thanks, I didn't realize that."

But this law is just unenforcible, probably unconstitutional, and a total waste of the resources of the people of Virginia.  But then that really doesn't distinguish it from many other laws, I suppose.

Get laid by nice Republican chicks? LOL

No, it's not unconstitutional.  Most of our laws have some sort of "unfairness" built into them.  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.  The same holds true with public television, where you are not allowed to swear.  In this case, if you swear within this town-limit, you face getting a ticket. 

Either this law is unconstitutional, or the constitution isn't worth pissing on. :)

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.

Once again, does this mean that if a band were to play there they could be arrested for profanity in their lyrics?

I need to tell any bands I know going on tour to avoid Virginia Beach.

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."

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.

For example, you may have the first amendment right to put up a sign on your front lawn supporting a candidate for some political office, but that doesn't mean you can put in on public property.

does that statement hold true for The Ten Commandments as well?

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.)

If it's constitutional for them to curse at me then it's constitutional for me to beat their a$$. lol

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.)

So how about bans on public nudity?

Good for you Emsworth.  yes the court is wrong on this one as in so many things.

As for bans on public nudity philip, of course they are unconstitutional.

The only thing that's clear if that you are completely ignorant of the history and text of the first amendment.

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.

What the devil does that have to do with it?

I agree. Private propoerty is owned by you, and you should be able to do almost anything you want on it.

Yes.

While I do believe that laws banning any type of free speech (other than that which causes tangible harm) are unconstitutional, I believe that there is more of an argument towards banning hate speech against women, minorities, etc. than towards banning cursing. That said, I would still oppose a ban on either.