Mass. Town Imposes Fine for Public Profanity

By Jeralyn, Section Civil Liberties
Posted on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 01:17:26 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Using a profane word in public is now subject to a $20 fine in Middleborough, MA. The town's residents passed the law yesterday, at the urging of the police chief, by a vote of 183-50. The town has 20,000 residents.

How will it be enforced? At the discretion of the police.

The measure could raise questions about First Amendment rights, but state law does allow towns to enforce local laws that give police the power to arrest anyone who "addresses another person with profane or obscene language" in a public place.

Matthew Segal, legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts, said the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the government cannot prohibit public speech just because it contains profanity.

[More...]

The town is promoting this as "decriminalizing" the use of profanity, since there has been a bylaw since 1968 that criminalized the use of public profanity.

Other behavior affected:

The ordinance would decriminalize public profanity, allowing police to write tickets as they would for a traffic violation. It would also decriminalize certain types of disorderly conduct, public drinking and marijuana use, and dumping snow on a roadway.

Why didn't they just repeal the bylaw and leave profanity out all together?

Also interesting: The town notifies residents of the meeting by having the police chief issue a warrant "warning" them of the meeting. Scroll down to page 9 for the "decriminalization" ordinance. The proposed fines are all modest ($20 to $50) except one: the fine for marijuana use is $300.00.

A voter ID law was also on the agenda (page 13.)

< Tuesday Morning Open Thread | Shellie Zimmerman Arrested, Charged With Perjury >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Mass. Town Imposes Fine for Public Profanity | 64 comments (64 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Will it be considered profane (5.00 / 2) (#1)
by scribe on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 01:39:12 PM EST

to call one of the cops a pig? Or, to be subtle about it, "Chief Wiggum" or "Barney Fife"?

I suspect the "warrant" "warning" of the meeting is a holdover from old-timey New England, where they had funny names for a lot of things.

: Uh Oh, you think like me (none / 0) (#6)
by Militarytracy on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 01:50:42 PM EST

We might find out what sort of profane they could be compelled to jail you for :)

: Yes, it is (none / 0) (#37)
by gyrfalcon on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 04:16:49 PM EST

That's the way town meetings, in the many places in New England that still have them, are announced. They probably also, as here, refer to secret ballots as "Australian ballots."
This is, unfortunately, the kind of thing that gets passed in towns that are way too large to be governed by town meeting and yet persist in having them. Most people don't go, and folks who are all ginned up about something can easily end up as the majority and vote stuff in.
If they really know their tactics, they'll find a way to delay the vote on their pet issue until late in the meeting, when half the people have gone home in exhaustion and they're the only ones left. I don't know but I suspect that's what happened here, since that's a really small number of people voting.
That happened here in my tiny town of 1,200 a few years ago, when the selectboard wanted to give a property tax refund (imagine that!) of $100 or so to every resident as the result of a budget surplus, and a hard-core group of 18 -- 18 people! -- got it diverted instead into a pet project to rehabilitate a not very handsome old school building for which the town had no use in mind.
(Happily, the wretched $$-sucking building was struck by lightning in a bad storm two years later and burned to the ground.)

I was always curious what (5.00 / 1) (#4)
by Militarytracy on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 01:47:35 PM EST

I'd look like sporting tar and feathers

: Probably like ... (none / 0) (#53)
by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 05:48:40 PM EST

... the San Diego Chicken.

I knew "Demolition Man"... (5.00 / 1) (#9)
by kdog on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 02:02:13 PM EST

would prove as prophetic as "1984".

You are fined one credit for a violation of the Verbal Morality Statute

This calls for some Lebowski as well...

The Stranger: There's just one thing, Dude.
The Dude: And what's that?
The Stranger: Do you have to use so many cuss words?
The Dude: What the f*ck you talking about?
The Stranger: Okay, Dude. Have it your way.

Middleborough, listen to The Stranger.

: shomer f*cking shabbos.. (none / 0) (#35)
by jondee on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 04:01:41 PM EST

Seems as if enforcement (5.00 / 1) (#13)
by KeysDan on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 02:16:42 PM EST

runs the risk of charges of being selective. Unless, the police are prepared to climb up and get that roofer whose utterance after missing the nail and hitting his thumb has offended MIddleborough sensitivities.

It will be selective (5.00 / 1) (#36)
by rjarnold on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 04:02:31 PM EST

Middleborough Police chief Bruce Gates told The Wall Street Journal that he was not targeting ordinary swear words with the new provision, like an understandable expletive uttered after a Red Sox loss.

: Unless, of course (5.00 / 2) (#39)
by NYShooter on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 04:21:56 PM EST

it's a Yankee fan

To quote my late maternal grandfather: (5.00 / 3) (#18)
by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 02:28:13 PM EST

"Well, just pardon me all to Hell!"

Now, to whom do I make out my $20 check, and where do I send it?

I actually wanted to say WTF when I read the (5.00 / 2) (#31)
by Angel on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 03:06:36 PM EST

post. But I thought I might get fined.


Well, it looks like you just did. (none / 0) (#51)
by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 05:38:17 PM EST

So, where's that $20? Fork it over.


The check's in the mail. (none / 0) (#52)
by Angel on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 05:45:04 PM EST

Yeah, sure, ... (none / 0) (#54)
by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 05:59:07 PM EST

... just like tonight's date will still respect you in the morning.

;-D


Oh, Donald, he lost respect for me years ago. :) (none / 0) (#57)
by Angel on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 06:15:05 PM EST

I wonder if the $20 fine can be levied ... (none / 0) (#58)
by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 07:56:13 PM EST

... on double entendres?


No. (5.00 / 2) (#61)
by Peter G on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 08:52:36 PM EST

Those are $40.


: Oh, $Hi+! (none / 0) (#63)
by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Jun 13, 2012 at 12:18:59 AM EST

I mean, shoot!

To echo the ACLU director (5.00 / 1) (#62)
by Peter G on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 08:57:35 PM EST

It is not correct to say that "The measure could raise questions about First Amendment rights, ...." There is no question about it at all. This ordinance is simply unconstitutional.

in high school, (5.00 / 1) (#64)
by cpinva on Wed Jun 13, 2012 at 05:32:13 AM EST

i was witness to people being assaulted, by "patriots", for failing to stand for the playing of the national anthem at football games. the police in attendance did nothing. this was during vietnam, and i was offended by the response of the "patriots", since i was also part of the group who was subject to being drafted, to "fight for my country, and protect the rights enshrined in the constitution", or something like that. as it turned out, what i learned is not what i was supposed to: rights can be easily taken away, if the exercise of them offends the wrong rednecks and their police buddies. in the south, "patriotism" means whatever they want it to mean, at that moment.

now, we have a town that has made an obvious decision to pass a law that is void on its face. it will cost this town, and its taxpayers, lots of money to defend a law that is indefensible: there is no constitutional right to not be offended. well done gentlepersons! no doubt the townspeople, whose taxes will increase, to pay for your overt stupidity, will applaud your high morals.

or not.

This was supposedly (none / 0) (#2)
by jbindc on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 01:40:11 PM EST

After recurring problems with teenagers hanging out in front of storefronts screaming profanity half way down the block at each other, as just "a thing to do".

Couldn't they just forgo an ordinance, which I'm pretty sure runs afoul of the First Amendment, and do things like impose and enforce curfews, or use laws on the books against trespassing or being public nuisances? Is this a necessary ordinance?

Teenagers screaming profanity? (5.00 / 3) (#7)
by Militarytracy on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 01:52:37 PM EST

It's official, everything good in the world is dead. I've never heard such words before said with volume applied. I will shrivel up and die if I do.


It's not that (5.00 / 1) (#8)
by jbindc on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 01:54:40 PM EST

But seriously - do you want to be shopping on a street, or trying to eat outside with that? Why should everyone else have to put up with that? This is not political speech, they are not protesting anything, they are just being jacka$$es, and while they have a First Amendment right to do that, there are also ways (without this stupid fine) that the city could get them to stop.


: I would rather shop that street (5.00 / 1) (#17)
by Militarytracy on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 02:28:09 PM EST

Than the streets of Stepford. Seriously, if people screaming profanity disturbed me at all how could I be the spouse of ANYONE in the United States military? And it isn't that my husband cusses because he doesn't. He doesn't like swearing, but most everyone else he works with loves to swear and as I expressed before whenever they talking about anything technical I can't sometimes barely make out the facts from all the cussing. But as Jeff has also said, soldiers have a built in filter....and it magically filters out all the cuss words and only the expressed wishes, facts, or demands remain hanging in the air. I don't know how they do that, but they all do that.

: Speaking for me... (none / 0) (#10)
by kdog on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 02:04:55 PM EST

I can put up with all that a lot faster than watching some potty mouthed kid getting a ticket for dropping f-bombs.
The question is who can tolerate that mess? Middleborough MA apparently...shame on them.

If that happened to me while I was walking by (5.00 / 3) (#14)
by Angel on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 02:19:00 PM EST

I'd stop and tell them to quit acting like idiots. I was in an eatery a while back with one of my girlfriends, and some skinny teenage dude walked by with his jeans hanging down to his thighs with his boxers showing. It looked absolutely ridiculous. I hollered at him to pull up his pants - and he did! He had his girlfriend with him. My girlfriend still tells everyone about it. So, my point is to just tell people to quit acting like idiots and usually they will comply.


That would require... (5.00 / 0) (#16)
by kdog on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 02:22:41 PM EST

a widespread conquering of the fear we've developed of one another...not gonna happen Angel.

But kudos to you, you know how to handle a situation without dropping a dime or crying to the city council for a new stupid law. You're now a rare breed! :)


I still remember this priceless little old lady (5.00 / 2) (#21)
by Militarytracy on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 02:34:23 PM EST

when I first moved here. The whale tail was really big. And I'm not the clothing police but the whale tail was a bit much. I'm having lunch alone at the PX after getting some household items for the new move in. Two very young officer wives are having lunch in front of me, displaying their super terrific whale tails. This little old lady approaches me and whispers in my ear, "Is that that young woman's underwear exposed?" I nodded yes, and she tells me she's going to tell her. I told that I thought she already knew but our universal grandmother couldn't believe any of us would walk around like that. She went to the young woman and whispers in her ear that her underthings are showing and she just wanted her to know. I know...I know that woman must have turned beet red but I couldn't see her face. It is your sweet loving kind innocent NaNa telling you that your drawers are hanging out :)


I don't think it is wise to "correct" (5.00 / 3) (#23)
by oculus on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 02:37:45 PM EST

large groups of teenagers.


Get a big stick (none / 0) (#24)
by Militarytracy on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 02:40:12 PM EST

or a big dog :)


Or concealed carry. (5.00 / 1) (#25)
by oculus on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 02:41:23 PM EST

Works for some people (5.00 / 1) (#26)
by Militarytracy on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 02:42:59 PM EST

Not me. If these kids are that brand of dangerous though, no $20 fine is going to make them not dangerous anymore.


: Apparently, Mr. Stow, the SF Giants (none / 0) (#27)
by oculus on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 02:45:36 PM EST

fan who was severely beaten in Dodger Stadium parking lot, sd. something before he was beaten to a pulp and ended up in a coma for many months. Fortunately, CA doesn't have an SYG law. But I can't help wondering how the case would go if we did.

I think you have to know when to hold 'em and (none / 0) (#28)
by Angel on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 02:50:28 PM EST

when to fold 'em. I would never do something similar if I thought the kids were a dangerous group; but teenagers standing on the streets screaming profanities is just stupid and immature behaviour, and I do believe a lot of them will listen to an adult - it just takes someone to tell them. Sheesh. If they were really dangerous they wouldn't be on those particular streets, they'd be out doing something else. They're more than likely bored teenagers with nothing better to do.


My experience is groups of teenagers (5.00 / 1) (#29)
by oculus on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 02:58:48 PM EST

could give a flyin f*ck what I think.


You gotta know how to give 'em the evil eye. :) (none / 0) (#30)
by Angel on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 03:05:19 PM EST

Seriously, I think most of those kids just need some adult supervision and some boundaries set, and I provide a little push with my comments to them. That teenager with the falling-down pants just needed a mama figure to tell him to quit being stupid.


: We don`t go out (none / 0) (#33)
by NYShooter on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 03:39:24 PM EST

to the movies very much anymore so when we do, it's a big deal. A while back my wife & I went to see the premier of a Superman flick. As soon as we were seated a group of teenagers arrived and plopped themselves down right behind us. The minute the movie started we knew we were in for a preview of today's "young folks just having fun." Those kids had obviously seen the movie a half dozen times before and by their out-loud lip singing the actor's words in advance of the actors saying them, needless to say, watching the movie became intolerable.
As surprised as I was by the teen's boorish behavior I was equally surprised by the audience's strange, maybe reluctant, apparent acceptance of their incivility. Finally, I couldn't take it, so I turned around and calmly, yet firmly, asked them to be quiet as the rest of the audience hadn't seen the movie before and would like to enjoy it in peace. And, again (maybe I've just awoken from a coma but I continue to be surprised)I was surprised by their reaction. They looked at me with a sense of shock on their faces, not at being called out for their insolence, but shocked that I thought it important to speak to them and interfere with their "just having some fun."
There's no point in finishing this story because my point's been already made.
So, I ask, was my experience unique, or am I just out of touch with today's "theater scene?"

Well, they would if ... (none / 0) (#55)
by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 06:03:09 PM EST

... you bought them lunch.


I'm surprised (none / 0) (#42)
by jbindc on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 04:36:38 PM EST

They just didn't tell you to f*ck off.


sounds like you've experienced this (1.00 / 1) (#48)
by NYShooter on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 05:00:38 PM EST

So, tell me, how do you suck your thumb and cup your ears at the same time?


Uh, no (none / 0) (#49)
by jbindc on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 05:04:09 PM EST

I'm sorry - I actually expect people to show a little respect. What I WOULD like to do in a perfect world if and when a teenager does that would be to smack them silly.


: notice, I stated, (none / 0) (#59)
by NYShooter on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 08:01:13 PM EST

"There's no point in finishing this story"
How I finished it has no bearing on the question regarding today's teen anti-socialism.

Really? I think I would be more surprised if (none / 0) (#44)
by Angel on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 04:44:14 PM EST

someone had said that to me. I guess I just expect better of people.


You obviously (none / 0) (#46)
by jbindc on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 04:47:37 PM EST

Have some really well behaved teenagers in your area.


: Ah-HAH! So, THAT'S where ... (none / 0) (#56)
by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 06:05:09 PM EST

... my daughters are hanging out!

Every Precint in the Country Has... (5.00 / 1) (#20)
by ScottW714 on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 02:30:45 PM EST

...the all encompassing 'Disorderly Conduct' at their disposal.

Certainly these smart a$$ kids will not figure out screaming focker and fricken can be just as annoying, but perfectly legal. This is the thing kids and breathe for.


The Massachusetts Supreme Court (none / 0) (#3)
by CST on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 01:45:51 PM EST

has ruled youth curfews unconstitutional. Although I think they left the civil penalty (fine) option on the table.

IMO, this whole thing is rediculous.


Well (none / 0) (#5)
by jbindc on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 01:50:42 PM EST

If what the store owners and patrons are saying is true - these kids are being obnoxious, driving away customers, and completely out of hand, there has to be a measure already in place to be able to kick them out or get them to settle down.


Loitering? (none / 0) (#11)
by Rupe on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 02:11:50 PM EST

Isn't that legally enforceable? In England they responded to these kinds of behavior with anti-social behavior orders (ASBOs), loosely defined as orders restricting behavior in some way, by prohibiting a return to a certain area or shop, or by restricting public behavior such as swearing or drinking alcohol. But they don't have an absolute freedom of speech, of course.


I've heard... (none / 0) (#12)
by kdog on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 02:16:09 PM EST

piping in classical music works to drive unwanted youth from a public area.

Loitering...another non-crime clogging our law books. Our existence is permission to loiter in a public space, and cuss while we loiter if we want.


: Ha! (5.00 / 1) (#32)
by ZtoA on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 03:37:35 PM EST

would have to be Beethoven. I vote for The Tempest.
Or some seniors could be bussed in to join in the profane fun. I'm not quite officially a senior but apparently (according to my daughter) I dress a little dorky and if I showed up screaming profanities it might chill the cool factor.

: One place along... (none / 0) (#47)
by MileHi Hawkeye on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 04:57:14 PM EST

our ped mall downtown does that. The kids don't hang out there, but then there are plenty of other places to do so.
There are also high frequencies that only young ears can hear--probably works just as well.

disorderly conduct (none / 0) (#15)
by CST on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 02:21:16 PM EST

was good enough to arrest Henry Louis Gates.

I think the logic is it's easier to write a ticket than arrest someone, so they're more likely to actually enforce it. I think we agree that this is the wrong law. Where we disagree is whether or not this is the right problem.


Okay, so now I know where we went (5.00 / 3) (#19)
by Anne on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 02:29:59 PM EST

wrong wanting some formal accountability for the Bush/Cheney stuff, for the continuation of it by Obama, for the bad acts of the banksters and Wall Street: we should have just written some tickets!

At one ticket for each violation, pretty soon we're talking about real money.

Honestly, who knew it could be that simple?

[sorry, I will stop snarking now...but, really, there is just something so down-the-rabbit-hole about writing tickets for public profanity when we can't get the people who've made careers out of ravaging the economy and perverting the Constitution to be accountable or suffer any consequence for their actions.]


this whole thing is just embarrassing (5.00 / 2) (#22)
by CST on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 02:37:13 PM EST

although if we're being totally fair, the town of Middleborough doesn't have jurisdiction over Wall Street. Maybe they would've been the people to do it!

I don't know think I've ever been to Middleborough, at least not as an adult. If I do go I sure hope I don't stub my toe on a public street.


Middleboro is a small town founded in 1600's. (5.00 / 1) (#40)
by itscookin on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 04:27:30 PM EST

Population 22,000 or so and it's spread out. It's not a particularly conservative town, mostly blue collar and cranberry farmers. The problem must be significant or they wouldn't be bothering with this. I doubt that many people passing through will incur the wrath of the police for uttering a curse word. I think this is just a tool to curb the unpleasant behavior of a few kids whose parents haven't brought them up right. After a few tickets have been handed out and a few parents have had to get out their checkbooks or appear with their kid in court, the law will join all of those other quaint laws that are still on the books in MA. Better that the kids get a ticket than a full-blown arrest.


: I think it's significant (5.00 / 2) (#43)
by sj on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 04:40:07 PM EST

... to a few people.

The problem must be significant or they wouldn't be bothering with this.
Squeaky wheels and all that. I think it's better that sanity and a sense of proportion reign.

That's what I was thinking . . . (none / 0) (#34)
by nycstray on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 03:58:44 PM EST

If I do go I sure hope I don't stub my toe on a public street.

That would prob get me multiple tickets, lol!~


It's a very pleasant (none / 0) (#38)
by gyrfalcon on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 04:19:46 PM EST

semi-rural town in SE Mass. I actually have a friend who lives there, though I'm sure she hasn't kept up with this or ever gone to a town meeting.


: I'm sure (5.00 / 1) (#41)
by CST on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 04:34:48 PM EST

I've been to a lot of town meetings and public hearings around the state for work. The people who tend to show up are definitely those with an axe to grind, I wouldn't assume it was representative of much. So while I haven't actually been there I have a pretty good idea of what you're talking about. You should see what happens when you try to expand a school or fix an intersection.
Although you can get a decent feel for a place just by what's on the agenda. I've seen these meetings open with a wide range of discussions such as dealing with drug violence, replacing dingy flags on public buildings, suppport for a local jazz festival, and people complaining about someone's fence. From that I've concluded that some people have real problems, others make up problems when there aren't any real ones, and Northampton seems like a pretty cool town that likes jazz. From this, Middleborough strikes me as the type of town without too many real problems (sounds nice), but with a few bored residents. Maybe they should throw more jazz festivals.

Problem is (none / 0) (#45)
by jbindc on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 04:47:01 PM EST

And I know you are partially snarking, but with the old argument that keeps getting used around here - "Why are we going after __ when we don't go after Bush-Cheney"? leads to the next obvious question - "Then in your mind, we should never go after anyone else ever again who commits an offense or crime until we go after Bush and Cheney, right?"


: I don't read it that way (5.00 / 1) (#50)
by sj on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 05:37:19 PM EST

"Then in your mind, we should never go after anyone else ever again who commits an offense or crime until we go after Bush and Cheney, right?"
I read it as Anne saying something more along the line of "why are 'we' spending so much time and attention on this nonsense and forgetting about some really serious crimes at the same time." Except that Anne doesn't forget. For which I am profoundly grateful.
It doesn't mean that real criminals shouldn't be dealt with. Only that maybe it's time to stop creating new classes of criminals -- perpetrators of truly trivial "crimes" -- at the "lower and broader" levels of society at the same time that we're closing our eyes to the far-reaching crimes of rarified levels of society.

: If that had been in my mind, I can (5.00 / 1) (#60)
by Anne on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 08:17:51 PM EST

assure you that I would have expressed that, so no, that's not at all what I was saying.
The people of Middleborough get to decide what's important to them, and clearly they have decided that they want to effect consequences for public profanity; that's fine - if that improves the quality of life for them, splendid.
And sometimes, when things are going haywire in areas where people don't have the ability to do anything, they end up trying to control the things they can - also fine.
What bothers me - and you know this - is that those who do have the power and authority to hold people accountable at the highest levels are choosing not to - they are making excuses and looking the other way, or looking "forward," and enabling behavior and actions that continue to hurt the people as well as the democracy.
Middleborough and all the other cities and towns can enforce all the petty ordinances and laws they want; what will happen is the average person's life will become more constricted, less free, less private - meanwhile, those at the top will be doing what they want, to whom they want, and suffering no consequence at all.
Does that make sense to you? It doesn't to me.