Here's the bill, which would make it a felony "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." Likewise, it would be a felony "for a person to disseminate profanity to a minor if he wilfully and knowingly publishes orally or in writing, exhibits, or otherwise makes available material containing words, language, or actions of profane, vulgar, lewd, lascivious, or indecent nature."
To begin with, of course, this is unconstitutionally overbroad under Cohen v. California (the Fuck the Draft case), even if "profane" is read to mean "vulgar" rather than "characterized by irreverence or contempt for God or sacred principles or things." It may also be unconstitutionally vague; see Reno v. ACLU, which suggests that such terms are potentially vague when their scope isn't narrowed by other provisions of the statute (compare Hamling v. U.S.).
But beyond this, what's shocking is how ridiculously broad this proposal is, even to people who I take it would disagree with Cohen:
If you say "fuck" or, I suppose, "damn" or "shit" around your own teenager, you're a felon.
If you give, lend, or sell a book, newspaper, or movie to a minor that contains any such words, you're a felon.
If you give the King James Version of the Bible to a minor, knowing that it contains the word "piss," I expect you're a felon, too. (I set aside "damn" and "hell" on the theory that they might not be treated as "vulgar" when used in a religious sense rather than figuratively as insults or expressions of disgust.)
Two 16-year-olds can be sexually involved in South Carolina (as can an adult and a 16-year-old), but under this law they'd be felons if they talk lewdly to each other. (Why is teenage sex bad? Because it might lead to lewd talk.)
What is Senator Ford thinking?
Thanks to Bill Poser (Language Log) for the pointer.
Presumes facts not in evidence.
I always find it somewhat amusing that cohen is never just cohen it's "Cohen, the "fuck the draft case."
But maybe I'm just a little immature.
Heh-heh. He said "semin". That was pretty cool!
But a bit of a problem for yours truly. I was thinking of booking Liz Phair to play the SC State Fair. (Do you see the tie-in? "Phair at the Fair"? Or "The Only Fair with Phair"? Or something. Anyhoo, it's real clever, even if I do say so myself.)
But I can't think of a song that doesn't include the "F-bomb." Well, there is "Shitloads of Money." But that might cause a problem anyway. And "Flower" and "HWC" are totally out I guess.
Darn!
I wonder if Sonic Youth are available . . .
"Wonder how many rubes will fall for this one? I need the votes."
"Maybe this will divert attention from the bill I've porked up for my buddies."
"That'll show those pesky secular humanists!"
"Mencken was right. You can't underestimate!"
"Uh oh. April first isn't for two and a half months, and my idiot staff let this out early!"
ah... never mind.
wouldn't "porked up" be...
Ka-ZING!
it is not just professors. the great mel nimmer, who argued cohen, made it a point to say 'fuck' in his oral argument over chief justice burger's admonition not to do so.
it's a big part of the lore surrounding the case
Although this may be equally true in the rest of the country, throughout the South, Republican and Democrat don't necessarily mean the same thing in local politics that they mean in national politics. In many places, the local Democratic party has a virtual stranglehold on things, but the Democrats there would be to the right of Republicans in, e.g., Manhattan.
As too many laws, these are just 'feel good' expositions. They get written up and passed--what's with the governors, btw?--and then clutter the courts for years and at uncountable public and private expense before they're tossed out.
I propose a national bill to send the bill to congress critters who write laws so boneheadedly stupid, payable in cash and out of pocket. I think that's the only way these morons will grasp the seriousness of their jobs.
And no paying these bills with campaign funds!
GG
Ralph after googling: "Doh!"
The statute makes it a crime "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" or "for a person to disseminate profanity to a minor if he wilfully and knowingly publishes orally or in writing, exhibits, or otherwise makes available material containing words, language, or actions of profane, vulgar, lewd, lascivious, or indecent nature."
The words "publish," "disseminate," and "material" arguably indicate that the sort of thing that this statute was intended to address is giving a child a dirty book or reading a dirty book to a child. Without going beyond Eugene's post, I don't know if that was what Senator Ford was thinking, but, based upon the language of the statute, I doubt that he had in mind the mere uttering of a profane epithet.
That interpretation does not cure the overbreadth of the statute, but it does at least narrow it.
If Sonic Youth aren't ("isn't"?) available, I would recommend that you see if The Fugs are still together.
Perhaps, but I see that as a possible lack of understanding about Southern politics. A great many democrats in the south are very different from people who call themselves democrats and live in New York or California.
I don't live in South Carolina, but I live in another Southern state that has a Democratic majority in the legislature. But our democratic majority is substantially pro-life, substantially pro-gun (or at least against gun control), and generally pretty socially conservative.
It appears that Senator Ford is African American but that doesn't change things much. I have little doubt that a substantial part of his constituency is religious and more or less socially conservative even if they vote democrat.
The original seven words were shit, piss, $uck, $unt, $ocksucker, mother$ucker, and tits.
Three more words you could never say on television were fart, turd, and twat. Fart is harmless. It's like tits. Cutie word, no problem. Turd you can't say, but who wants to? But "twat" is interesting ... Twat!
Twat is interesting because it's the only word know applying to a part of the sexual anatomy that doesn't have another meaning. Snatch, box, and pussy all have other meanings. Even in a Walt Disney movie, you can say, 'We're gonna snatch that pussy, and put him in a box and put bring him on the airplane.' But twat stands alone.
(Incidentally, the US Supreme Court, by a majority, said that the Federal Communications Commission could stop radio stations broadcasting stuff like that, at times when children were likely to be listening, in spite of the First Amendment to the US Constitution.)
What about euphemistic or 'hidden' references to 'forbidden' words, such as the increasingly popular "X-word" form?
Forms such as "the f-word" ($uck), and so on, have now branched out into politically correct usage, i.e. to cover words not considered politically-correct in context. Other examples include "the D-word" ("dynamic", used as code for "male" in university teacher ads), or "the L-word" ("ladylike", as a counterpart in the same article. Dick is out, but penis is in as is Willie, Johnson, 3rd leg and Hairy. If it is not a medical or clinical sexual term it is banned in prime time, but can and maybe used in cable TV.
In prime time TV land friggin, frigging, freaking, F-ing, F-U, F You is used for the F-word. In court room and police melodrama TV show makers use sodomy to signify oral and or anal intercourse acts. There are obscene words referring to sexual intercourse, human waste, homosexuality. Body parts, off-color and one who practices the sin of Oedipus such as mother $ucker, an odd compound curse-word, the $hit oath or swear. Somewhat oddly, blasphemous oaths like (For Christ"s Sake!) are not on the taboo list.
Many of the words now considered most 'profane' are held to be so because they were created to insult and disparage a particular group - while they might not always be illegal to use in prime time TV land or in the courts, they are frowned up on in most places of worship, public places and places of business but can be used to appeal to base humor under certain conditions by some people as in the use of the n-word by Chris Rock, red neck and hill billy by C&W singers.
No DA will ever bring charges based on this law. No LEO could reasonably believe that the law is constitutional (contrast with, e.g. Krull). Passing this law will not burden anyone with anything.
Kingsley: I assume that "publish ... orally" is used in the sense of communicating, much as it's used in slander law, see, e.g., Pond Place Partners, Inc. v. Poole, 567 S.E.2d 881 (S.C. App. 2002).
I'm pretty sure that at least 6'1", Dead Shark, Uncle Alvarez, and Polyester Bride are all clean. (I was also going to mention Supernova, but then I remembered the line about cherubs.)
You forgot the ever classic "Cheese and Rice"!
Well, if this passes, I guess Gov Blago will only have 49 states to chose from when he decides to make his triumphant improbable political comeback.
I can't speak for all people who disagree with Cohen, but yes, this proposal is ridiculous to one such person.
Putting to one side the folly of criminalizing cussing at all, our legislators need to get a grip on what it means for a crime to be a felony. Felonies should be things like rape, robbery, burglary, and stealing large amounts of money. "Felon" should be a social stigma because it should be reserved for truly bad acts. The force of the criminal law is diluted by extending it to acts that most people don't consider to be moral turpitude.
The interesting discussion to be had is whether a better written law is constitutional or feasible (or desirable). Typically, I like this site because it has interesting discussions. Oh, well. You can't bat 1000.
Sk
As a person poisoned by vulgarity and lewd talk, I submit that most things are incomplete without a reference to moist vaginas.
There's a common vice on both extremes of the political spectrum, where laws are routinely passed to regulate behavior. I'm no libertarian (color me an old fashioned conservative), but there is just too much of this. If somebody has a potty mouth, stay away from them. And if you don't like my guns, stay away from me. We do not need an intrusive government regulating every aspect of our lives.
I take responsibility -- or "ownership" to use a current vernacular -- for my own conduct and behavior. That's where this all begins, and ends -- with individual accountability. We've got to put the onus back on the individual, and stop trying to think we can legislate responsibility.
They better get cozy.
Another David wins the thread
Well we now know that John Burgess is a lawyer.
I'm still giving the thread to Joey.
Just Dropping By
(I was also going to mention Supernova, but then I remembered the line about cherubs.)
I also call your attention to the line: "And you fuck like a volcano/and you're verything to me". The others I will grant you.
But "Do you really want to [hear] Ployester Bride"?
[Until I read the lyrics for Polyester Bride, I always heard "flap your wings" as something other than "flap your wings." But you are correct.]
Lighten up Kansas:
Hoosier, a Sonic Youth reference would be incomplete w/out the requisite "Moist Vagina" reference.
Wait. Moist WHAT?!!
Indeed!
Well, then, forget them. I'm going to have to look into these "Fugs" gentlemen.
BTW, if someone reads this blog comment out loud in South Carolina, would they be at risk under the proposed "legislation"? Would I and the VC be at risk if the comment came up on the screen of a computer in a public library?
property right to the public square?
I don't care who says what in private venues where it is pretty clear that anyone who enters the venue will likely hear these words. But what about in public? Doesn't the majority have some rights to decorum? Everyone almost certainly agrees they do. The government certainly could outlaw a "Jack off against the draft" movement which involved pulling one's pants down and masturbating in public as a form of protest. So why is ok to outlaw this form of expression and not public utterances of vulgarities.
Cohen was decided incorrectly. In venues where you are speaking to people who didn't agree to spoken to, the majority has the right (and frequently exercises it) to regulate the manner of speech.
It comes down to the seminal difference between speech and acts.
.
Godfrey Daniel!
.
This beslubbering clapper-clawed mammering lackwit should rescind his tickle-brained lickspittle proposal forthwith, nay, e'en though it be unseemly 'tis surely not risen to felony status to befoul the air with ringing curses upon stubbing a toe o'er such as this fen-sucked mounting block!
.
apologies to -
Elizabethan Insults
We'd all love to think that, but all it takes is one. And you know there's someone, somewhere, who will do it.
Well played, sir.
Void for vagueness.
Here I thought rape, theft, and murder were immoral.
Does the majority have some kind of collective
property right to the public square?
I should hope so, but I wonder if we're in the minority in that belief.
I thought, with all that talk about words with more than one meaning, you were getting around to telling us that you can prick your finger, but don't finger your prick.
Do you mean "known to you"? I bet you were never in a fraternity.
2. If Senator Ford proposed making it an infraction (non-arrestable, punishable by a fine) to use vulgar language in the presence of minors or in a public place, I think that is an entirely defensible statute, both as good public policy, and within the original meaning of the First Amendment. But since most of the commenters here are lawyers, or lawyers-to-be, the notion of learning restraint in the use of language may identify me as a hopeless fuddy-duddy.
3. When I was young, it was generally considered that the use of foul language was a sign that a person's vocabulary toolbox was a bit on the empty side. Now it seems to be considered evidence of being sophisticated or intellectual.
Can we stipulate that "moist" is the greatest adjective in the English language? No matter what noun it is applied to, it's just one heck of an adjective. And it is underutilized in academic book reviews.
Speaking is an act. It starts air moving, which impinges on others. (That's how we know that someone is speaking to us.) If you produce noise at 60 db, that's free speech. At 180 db, it's aggravated assault, if not murder.
I also like "greasy."
A spunky response, to be sure, but it doesn't come to the point I was actually making.
I like "viscous." It's often misread (or misspelled) as "viscious", yet when used to describe an intimate encouter either reading enhances the attributed prestige.
More like in defiance of those pesky U.S. Supreme Court justices who have *ucked over the citizenry with their *hitty interpretation of the First Amendment.
Um, yeah. It's terrible that states can't establish churches or ban offensive language. Things are really going to the dogs.
Since you probably aren't enough to remember when it was considered low class to use foul language in front of children, you have no idea how much things really are "going to the dogs."
I assume you meant to type the word "old" in your last sentence. I'm not really sure what my views on high v. low class ought to have to do with the constraints the First Amendment imposes on state governments, but no, I don't think it is classy to swear in front of children. I just think it's silly to give the state the power to ban such activity.
Rape is both illegal and immoral. But it isn't illegal because it's immoral. It's illegal because it violates the rights of the victim. Not all immoral acts violate rights.
He ha no business being elected dog catcher... much less a state legislator. He is an embarrassment to us.
Since you probably aren't enough to remember when it was considered low class to use foul language in front of children
You mean it isn't anymore? [He asks completely without sarcasm.]
David Schwartz,
What about gambling, prostitution, public nudity, suicide, and so on? There are all sorts of acts which are illegal on primarily moral grounds. We have always legislated morality, and we always will. People only recognize and complain about it when a particular law interferes with their own proclivities (typically of the sexual nature).
Pre-marital sex, sodomy, and adultery used to be illegal. Such laws were not unusual until about 1983. So you are under 45.
SECTION 16-15-80. "Fornication" defined.
"Fornication" is the living together and carnal intercourse with each other or habitual carnal intercourse with each other without living together of a man and woman, both being unmarried.
Agreed that an isolated (i.e. non-habitual) act is does not come under the law.
So then?
Quintus Horatius Flaccus, Satyrarum
nam fuit ante Helenam cunnus taeterrima belli
causa, sed ignotis perierunt mortibus illi,
Cunnus is today the c word
Hume quoting Horatius, in lines copied by Byron in don Juan ( without the 4 lettes words,btw):
as well as the common licentiousness and immodesty of their stile, Quicunque impudicus, adulter, ganeo, manu, ventre, pene, bona patria laceraverat, says SALLUST in one of the gravest and most moral passages of his history. *39Nam fuit ante Helenam Cunnus teterrima belli Causa, is an expression of HORACE, in tracing the origin of moral good and evil. *40 OVID and LUCRETIUS *41 are almost as licentious in their stile as Lord ROCHESTER; *42 though the former were fine gentlemen and delicate writers, and the latter, g from the corruptions of that court, in which he lived, seems to have thrown off all regard to shame and decency. JUVENAL *43 inculcates modesty with great zeal; but sets a very bad example of it, if we consider the impudence of his expressions
And not to mention Aristofanes or Catulus
Historical emblems and monuments are currently where the line is drawn, but if the law were clear that such monuments are perfectly acceptable, at least most of the time, there's no reason to think anyone who feels strongly about the issue will just pack up, go home, or at least find some other Amendment to think about. They'll just find some other Establishment Clause related issue to fight about.
Using ketchup on fries is also quite enjoyable and makes a fun activity (eating fries) even better. In contrast, mixing swear words with one's speech - oh never mind.
Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve offspring from our father." So they made their father drink wine that night. And the firstborn went in and lay with her father. He did not know when she lay down or when she arose.
The next day, the firstborn said to the younger, "Behold, I lay last night with my father. Let us make him drink wine tonight also. Then you go in and lie with him, that we may preserve offspring from our father." So they made their father drink wine that night also. And the younger arose and lay with him, and he did not know when she lay down or when she arose. Thus both the daughters of Lot became pregnant by their father.
That all aside, what counts as "knowingly" swearing? If "What the [expletive]" comes out of one's mouth accidentally, is that person a felon?
Whaaa?!? What about the C-word itself? I mean, the C-word can be used to mean jerk or idiot, but surely that is only a metaphorical application of the primary meaning. And anyway, twat can be used to mean jerk or idiot.
Also vagina.
No state legislator could reasonably believe the bill would be constitutional either. Given a sizable population, there's always someone stupid, crazy, or venal enough to do something thoroughly unreasonable. And that doesn't even take citizen's arrests into count.
Nick
GG
and:
I already did, above. Infraction, sure. But a felony? Dumb.
If you have a comment about spelling, typos, or format errors, please e-mail the poster directly rather than posting a comment.
Comment Policy: We reserve the right to edit or delete comments, and in extreme cases to ban commenters, at our discretion. Comments must be relevant and civil (and, especially, free of name-calling). We think of comment threads like dinner parties at our homes. If you make the party unpleasant for us or for others, we'd rather you went elsewhere. We're happy to see a wide range of viewpoints, but we want all of them to be expressed as politely as possible.
We realize that such a comment policy can never be evenly enforced, because we can't possibly monitor every comment equally well. Hundreds of comments are posted every day here, and we don't read them all. Those we read, we read with different degrees of attention, and in different moods. We try to be fair, but we make no promises.
And remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.