No Habitual Swearing Around Your Kids in New Jersey:

N.J. Stat. Ann. § 9-6-1 provides that, "Abuse of a child shall consist" of, among other things, "the habitual use by the parent or by a person having the custody and control of a child, in the hearing of such child, of profane, indecent or obscene language." § 9-6-3 makes such abuse a crime.

Bob_R (mail):
As I learned to say while growing up in Columbus, NJ, "Dey gotta be f#$%in' kiddin.'" P.S. Didn't learn it from my parents.
6.15.2009 7:03pm
FWB (mail):
Next they will make "abuse" include talking to your child and if you don't, you'll also be guilty of abuse. Here's the fix. People from NJ, pack up your stuff, and move. You can stay and fight but the effect will be felt more if you vote with your feet.

Is the punishment burning a hole in the blasphemer's tongue with a red hot poker?

DO NOT BRING THIS CRAP WITH YOU.

WHAT IS WRONG WITH PEOPLE?

Tiocfaidh ar la!
6.15.2009 7:10pm
Bob_R (mail):
I now live in Virginia.
6.15.2009 7:30pm
Fenster McManus (mail):
My kid is 7 months old. Is it okay to curse around her? She is non-verbal for ****'s sake.

- Hush-hush in Hoboken
6.15.2009 8:55pm
Allan Walstad (mail):
Ah, the totalitarianism of good intentions. (What's the quote I'm reaching for?)
6.15.2009 9:28pm
geokstr (mail):
Geez, they didn't even bother to criminalize "offensive speech" yet, going directly from "hate speech" to "abusive to your own d*mned kids" speech.

But, hey, it's all for the children. The Village has to start raising them sometime, and you might as well not let a good crisis go to waste.
6.15.2009 10:40pm
DNJ:
Eugene,

Is this constitutional?

To the extent that this occurs in the home, Stanley v. Georgia seems to me to be on point. If the state cannot crminalise the possession of obscenity (which is a 1st A exception) in one's home, a fortiori it cannot criminalise the uttering of offensive language in the home.

Under Cohen v. California, the state cannot criminalise the mere use of a swear word without more. Does the presence of a chld and the habitual use satisfy that requirement of "more" so that the speech may be proscribed? Do parent's have reduced free speech rights around their children? There seem to be some custody cases involving bans on a parent saying various things to a child that seem to take this view, but I agree with you that they seem rather dubious. The Supreme Court does not seem to have ever held that parents have reduced free speech rights when around their children.

This sort of situation does not seem to me to be a very strong case for a 1st A exception. I don't think the law could satisfy strict scrutiny as a content-based restriction.

Thus it seems to me that this law should be unconstitutional.
6.16.2009 12:06am
neurodoc:
Black's defines "profane" as "Irreverence toward God or holy things. Writing, speakng, or acting, in manifest or implied contempt of sacred things." So, might the NJ statute be unconstitutional because of it impermissibly abridges speech and it also would in effect establishes a religious orthodoxy, thus violating the First Amendment in two different ways?

Has anybody been prosecuted under this statute and challenged its constitutionality? How about defective as a criminal statute for lack of precision as to the exact meaning of "habitual"?
6.16.2009 12:26am
Jay:
I'm curious how old this law is. Since it's in NJ, people seem to be critiquing it as lefty PC stuff, but if it were an Alabama statute, I imagine a different set of commenters would be chalking it up to Christianism. It nicely allows everyone to indulge their favorite politico-cultural assumptions.
6.16.2009 12:28am
A. Zarkov (mail):
New Jersey, like California and New York, is simply nuts. My theory is that New Yorkers moved to NJ to get away from the high taxes and ruined the state. Now NJ has high taxes too from the influence of all the New Yorker than moved there. I know that sounds contradictory, but it's true.
6.16.2009 3:08am
dsss (mail):
6.16.2009 3:45am
Mr. Bingley (www):
Well, I guess that means you can't leave a tv on in the house anymore.
6.16.2009 7:44am
mortus:
Would this include Eminem and his genre as well?
6.16.2009 8:02am
David Schwartz (mail):
Laws prohibiting cursing around women and children go back centuries.
6.16.2009 9:07am
junyo:

Would this include Eminem and his genre as well?

If Eminem tries to raise his kids and Jersey and uses profanity around them. I'm pretty sure it would be on you if you plunked the kids down in front of the TV and let them watch Eminem for hours. As it should be; it's not Eminem's job to raise your kids.

The law however, is fucking retarded.
6.16.2009 9:08am
Sid the warmonger (mail) (www):
Can I still say "dang" and "fudge" in front of my kids?
6.16.2009 9:21am
neurodoc:
<blockquote><b>A. Zarkov</b>: Now NJ has high taxes too from the influence of all the New Yorker than moved there.
</blockquote>I don't know what evidence you have that more New Yorkers (city or state?) have migrated to NJ than people from other states, or that those who have done so have had a pernicious effect on the Garden State. But I believe the reason most often given for why NJ is such a high tax state is that the place is divided up into an incredible number of townships and other entities, with much duplication of services and other inefficiencies as a result. (At one time, taxes probably had to be higher to serve corruption, something like a Soprano effect. But if that were most of the explanation for high taxes, then Rhode Island would probably be way ahead of NJ in tax rates.)

To continue OT, Maryland raised its relatively high state income tax rate still higher and some are saying the result has been high income people moving out of Maryland or declaring second homes elsewhere (e.g., FL, where no state income tax) as their principal residences. The state disputes that claim, saying that the decrease in the number of people reporting $1M+ incomes does not reflect migration of those who had that much income moving, but rather substantial numbers of them still residing in Maryland and falling to lower income levels. Anyway, the higher taxes are something to swear about, though of course not in front of impressionable children even with no law against it (to my knowledge).

Anyone know of data to show effect of high state tax rates on choice of where to locate or re-locate? How often do those leaving CA for other parts cite state and local taxes as their reason for out-migration?
6.16.2009 9:27am
Paul A'Barge (mail):
Good, it's about time.
6.16.2009 10:33am
Paul A'Barge (mail):

My kid is 7 months old. Is it okay to curse around her?


No.
6.16.2009 10:34am
guest (mail):
is it okay to curse if the child is too young to understand it?
6.16.2009 12:32pm
NJ Resident:
"I believe the reason most often given for why NJ is such a high tax state is that the place is divided up into an incredible number of townships and other entities, with much duplication of services and other inefficiencies as a result."

Actually not so. Most taxes in NJ go to pay and benefits for state employees and teachers, both groups have a hammerlock on the state legislature. Town taxes are far less than either state or school taxes. For Pete's sake, a town can't even vote down a school budget anymore -- if they do, a state "arbiter" will override.
6.18.2009 1:18pm
Yankee Chick (mail):
People shouldn't be cursing in front of their kids. I don't allow that sort of thing in my home. I'm constantly having to warn visitors: "Knock off the goddamn cussing in front of the fucking kids. For fuck's sake."
6.18.2009 3:50pm
LittleCupcakes (mail):
I have excellent anecdotal evidence that cursing around one's kids (during normal conversation) leads to more closeness and much more honest expression of disagreements within the family, and much more so when the children are also allowed to respond in kind.

Kids learn that curse words are just words, and have no fetishistic or totemic power.

They learn by example the times and places when such free and open expression is inappropriate, and with whom.

Most importantly, kids learn that when no words are off limits, neither is any conversation on any topic off limits.

And there really isn't any harm that could come to these family members by such casual use of "naughty" words, so clearly it's up to the family to decide anyway.

I guess one negative might be that the parents also don't teach alternative words people can use to potently get a point across.

Of course, I completely ignore the bluenoses for whom any use of the diction in question is somehow destructive of the human spirit or an affront to the Language itself. They're just words, people.
6.18.2009 6:15pm

Post as: [Register] [Log In]

Account:
Password:
Remember info?

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.