berkeley that noise

Grizz wrote:

dculberson wrote: Is that law even constitutional?

Says in the article that it is.

It doesn't, actually. I re-read it to make sure I didn't miss something. It quotes the ACLU saying "the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the government cannot prohibit public speech just because it contains profanity." It also quotes someone else saying "people might end up getting fined for constitutionally protected speech." But it doesn't address how this law is or is not constitutional. I think it probably isn't.

My wife is originally from the town in the story,and we have a member or two on here that live in that town(Silverfleet for sure). I live right next door,and it is an odd town to say the least. A nice town, but some odd people live there. Same as my town as well, but we are smaller. School system isn't very good if you ask my wife, but I don't know personally. My in-laws still ive there, and I am in that town a lot. Never really noticed a large amount of cussing, but then again I am not among the public there often, just family.

I wonder if it could be applied to those boomboxes where they yell 'muthafarkin nigg---' to the accompaniment of sounds that remind me of a cross between a whale birth and a very old dump truck crossing railroad tracks at high speed.

Hey! You kids get off my lawn!'

I wonder if they'll be swear traps instead of speed traps. They set out a dog turd or something, then you'll step in it and let the profanities fly.....busted!

So... you folks get pissed when people in one city have to buy 2 regular sodas instead of one jumbo, but it's okay to fine people because you are offended/bothered by what they're saying?

Sure, I dislike gratuitous public profanity too but... you shiny happy people can berkeley that E36 M3.

And lest people think this getting too serious:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJJL5dxgVaM

And George Carlin (obviously NSFW): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yd0FY1YGbnI

The_Jed wrote:

Salanis wrote: So... you folks get pissed when people in one city have to buy 2 regular sodas instead of one jumbo, but it's okay to fine people because you are offended/bothered by what they're saying?

Yeah I am trying to figure that out too.

Salanis wrote: So... you folks get pissed when people in one city have to buy 2 regular sodas instead of one jumbo, but it's okay to fine people because you are offended/bothered by what they're saying?....

Not that hard to figure really:

One negatively impacts the person doing the action, the other negatively impacts others (by their actions).

(not saying I support either one)

In reply to aircooled:

Except... that their actions don't really negatively effect others. They bother them or irritate them. They offend. But the offense happens almost entirely in the mind of the listener.

As long as they are not being so loud that it limits my ability to do other things (like strait-pipe Harleys waking me up), I do not want to limit someone else's ability to say something that offend me. That means someone else can limit my ability to say something just because it offends them.

I reserve the right to call them an obnoxious ass though.

Salanis wrote: As long as they are not being so loud that it limits my ability to do other things (like strait-pipe Harleys waking me up)....

So someone riding a strait-pipe Harley is fine as long as no one is sleeping?

In general, removing the sleeping issue (which will not be universal for all people anyway), a loud bike is not preventing anyone from doing anything or causing any physical harm, it's just unpleasant. So it is actually a good analogy to the offensive language.

Grizz wrote: Yes, you have the freedom to do whatever you want, but the second you start pissing people off they have the right to stop you.

I'm sorry, but this is completely incorrect.

Just being "pissed off" or offended is not an infringement of your rights. Think of all the people "pissed off" about interracial couples, homosexuals, etc etc etc.

Apparently my statement wasn't taken in the jest in which it was meant. I support no such law.

I was being facetious pointing out that people used to "handle things themselves" when someone acted outside of considered societal norms and nowadays people would sue for it.

Example of said adolescents, someone's friend is acting like a shiny happy person, he gets socked in the mouth, quits acting like a shiny happy person, everyone moves on.

aircooled wrote: So someone riding a strait-pipe Harley is fine as long as no one is sleeping? In general, removing the sleeping issue (which will not be universal for all people anyway), a loud bike is not preventing anyone from doing anything or causing any physical harm, it's just unpleasant. So it is actually a good analogy to the offensive language.

I'm going to assume for the moment that you're not just trolling.

Too loud to have a conversation, can't conduct business. Potential safety hazards. Potential hearing damage (although admittedly a very slim chance) Etc. As for sleeping, it won't be universal for all people at all times, but is common enough that overly loud vehicles will conflict with it often enough.

Also, operating a vehicle is a privilege, not a right. Free speech is a right.

I am fine with limits on noise issues. That is a universally applyable law that you can set an objective value to (you can't be making noise louder than XXdb measured from 50ft away).

Mazdax605 wrote: My wife is originally from the town in the story,and we have a member or two on here that live in that town(Silverfleet for sure). I live right next door,and it is an odd town to say the least. A nice town, but some odd people live there. Same as my town as well, but we are smaller. School system isn't very good if you ask my wife, but I don't know personally. My in-laws still ive there, and I am in that town a lot. Never really noticed a large amount of cussing, but then again I am not among the public there often, just family.

I'll act as GRM's "war on swears" correspondent.

I live here, and have for the past 2 years since moving from the much more affluent suburb of Hingham. I was lured here by the cheap home prices and the nice country. But yeah, it is a very strange town. Lots of nice areas, but some really strange and bad ones too. They have caused quite a stir with this swear fine. It's pretty much aimed at the center of town, where all the delinquents usually congregate. They pretty much travel in herds, dress like idiots, and cause trouble. It's gotten to the point where most residents don't like to even go down there anymore. It's kinda run down, and I think that's pretty much because no one but these kids hangs out down there.

Now is a fine on swears going to stop them? berkeley no!!! They held a town meeting that I nor anyone I know here even knew about where they made this decision. Predictably, it caused controversy. Will it solve anything? Probably not. What they SHOULD do is enforce the loitering and public disturbance laws and get these idiots out of here. There is definitely a problem, but this isn't the solution.

aircooled wrote:

Salanis wrote: So... you folks get pissed when people in one city have to buy 2 regular sodas instead of one jumbo, but it's okay to fine people because you are offended/bothered by what they're saying?....

Not that hard to figure really: One negatively impacts the person doing the action, the other negatively impacts others (by their actions). (not saying I support either one)

Public health is an issue that affects everyone just like noise and offensive language in public. I'm not saying the soda law is reasonable in the least, but it's on the same or even better footing than the swear law. At least the soda law is only regulating commerce and not restricting free expression.

I honestly can't think of a more clear cut restriction on the freedom of expression than this law. Say a word, break the law. That's pretty clear cut.

When we have to use the "three shells" to take a dump, berkeley that E36 M3, I'm out.

My parents both were raised in Mass. Not some happy place where the cranberries grow and nobody curses, though. They came from Lynn and Peabody. I'm guessing people in those places can still curse?

What a bunch of morons these fine people of Middleborough seem to be.

Appleseed wrote: When we have to use the "three shells" to take a dump, berkeley that E36 M3, I'm out.

Is it bad that I actually understood that.

dculberson wrote:

aircooled wrote:

Salanis wrote: So... you folks get pissed when people in one city have to buy 2 regular sodas instead of one jumbo, but it's okay to fine people because you are offended/bothered by what they're saying?....

Not that hard to figure really: One negatively impacts the person doing the action, the other negatively impacts others (by their actions). (not saying I support either one)

Public health is an issue that affects everyone just like noise and offensive language in public. I'm not saying the soda law is reasonable in the least, but it's on the same or even better footing than the swear law. At least the soda law is only regulating commerce and not restricting free expression. I honestly can't think of a more clear cut restriction on the freedom of expression than this law. Say a word, break the law. That's pretty clear cut.

My excessive weight is an expression of my freedom.

Toyman01 wrote:

Appleseed wrote: When we have to use the "three shells" to take a dump, berkeley that E36 M3, I'm out.

Is it bad that I actually understood that.

And every restaurant in Middleboro is going to be a Taco Bell.

In all seriousness, most of the town's restaurants are owned by the same guy, so it IS possible.