TheAgitator.com
There Oughta Be a Law
Thursday, March 6th, 2008No swearing in South Pasadena. No crotch-grabbing in Italy.
20 Responses to “There Oughta Be a Law”
Leave a Reply
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial NoDerivs 2.5 License.
There’s just no fuckin’ way I could stop cussing, especially if there was a crusade against it. Hell, knowing that it annoys people is half the motivation to do it.
From the swearing article:
> But what’s different about the latest push to stop saying in public the words that Jane Fonda and Diane Keaton recently discovered we still can’t say on television is that it was proposed by a 14-year-old boy.
Another law/rule proposed by a kid…why do so many people think such things are so great?!?
Fuck that and a can of beans.
What a fucking square that kid is.
When I was in high school my sister had this Jehova’s witness friend over at the house a few times, she’d always tell me not to swear around her, so I made a point of saying “fuck” every other sentence.
I object! Italian female supermodels can grab my crotch anytime!
However, I am concerned about such episodes winding up in N-Dex:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/05/AR2008030503656_pf.html
chsw
What the fuck is “Cuss”? Is that even a word? Why not use curse or swear?
My hope is that swear words become so commonplace that no one will care anymore.
If we give too much power to the letter of the law (freedom of speech means that we all have the freedom to act any way we want in public) rather than its intent (we have the right to peaceably speak in public against the government), then bad precedents can be set (federal laws overriding local laws that had nothing to do with some freedom), which results in an overall loss of freedom. Are you SURE you want to imply that precedent should be set?
fleem, I am not sure what you are getting at. Are you saying that my freedom to say “fuck” whenever I want to is not a real freedom? Or that if federal law protects such a right, we have somehow lost something?
I’m saying we need to keep as much local sovereignty as we can. For example, the people are not strong enough to keep the federal government in check (the party system and lobbyists easily override their measly voices); however, state governments ARE strong enough–like California defying the federal government on marijuana laws. When we complain about a locality making a law against some public act, we are strongly implying that there oughta be a federal law overriding that local law (in this case, a liberal interpretation of “freedom of speech”). But by doing so, we set precedents of giving the federal government the power to liberally interpret the Constitution (i.e. “freedom of speech” applies to all public behavior), which in the long run takes away our freedom to make local laws.
I don’t really buy the federalism = liberty line. While I do agree that the fed has far overreached itself, I am quite happy to have the federal constitution protect against bad local laws, even if that was not the original intent. It is the overreaching, freedom reducing, interpretation of the commerce clause that worries me. If federal courts want to give me more rights, I am very happy. And I do think that freedom of speech does mean I can do what I want in public as long as it does not hurt anyone.
In any case, the precedents you worry about have already been set, for better or worse.
Guys, I’m a resident of South Pasadena, and you are all way off base on what is going on here. How many of you get all hot and bothered over african american month? Not so many. This is the same thing. There is no law against cussing/swearing in South Pasadena. Period. There is no enforcement. Period. The whole idea is to remind us that swearing is usually inappropriate. No one is suggesting that there should be a law against cussing/swearing. Period.
Yeah, if you want to get annoyed with South Pasadena, complain about how they forced a low speed limit on the Gold Line commuter train in their city and have spent most of their budget fighting freeway extensions for the last 30 or so years.
Zeb: “…as long as it does not hurt anyone.”
On some things the Constitution is clear, and we can let it decide what hurts someone and what doesn’t. On other things (like cussing) there are only three entities that can decide whether it hurts someone:
1. The federal government
2. The local majority (assuming the local government is a democracy)
3. A local ruler.
You are saying that the framers felt it important to set a precedent that the federal government overrule, at gunpoint, the local majority so that the minority of cussers have their inalienable cussing right, against the will of that majority. Somehow I doubt the framers would agree with you.
j a higginbotham:
Heh. The speed limit on the Gold Line pretty much made it useless. I tried taking the Golde Line into downtown for a couple of weeks. It drove me crazy to see how slowly the train would go.
Re the freeway extension. We do not spend most of our budget on opposing the freeway. The opposition is largely privately financed/organized (of course, no one will ever be elected to the city council who is an advocate for the freeway). How would you like it if a freeway cut your town in half? No town wants to be cut in half. The only difference between South Pasadena and other towns that end up bisected by freeways is that South Pasadena had the organization and clout to effectively resist.
What better place to generate revenue for crotch-grabbing than Italy?
Just more Anti-Navy sentiment.
Golly, jee-whiz & shucks.
Uh oh, don’t tell these guys just 30 min away:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H4Nb7G-Rfpo
The ‘no cussing club’ in South Pasadena seems to be made up solely of normal residents, who are interested in using mere social pressure from those same normal residents to effect a change in behaviour.
What in the world is wrong with that?
Whatever happened to…”sticks and stones can break my bones but words can never hurt me.”
Oh what an overly-sensitive populace we have become. I have an idea…how about you go live your life and stop being so FUCKING concerned with how I live mine? Novel approach isn’t it? I just might make it my life’s ambition to be an obnoxious, filth spewing thorn in the side of all you “do-goodery for the rest of us” folks out there. I’ve pretty much had it with you so I think I’ll make it my life’s work that whenever you propose stupid, asshatted legislation that I am going to find a way to make it come back and bite you in your ass. I love when people try to legislate THEIR morality. ZappaCrappa now proposes legislation requiring everyone to smoke pot and listen to Frank Zappa. If you refuse, you are an unamerican asshat…and a law breaker.
I will also assume that churches will be given no break and will be forbidden from using the words, “hell, damn, or ass” in sermons. Can’t say “whore” either. You will be prosecuted to the fullest.
And just who gets to decide what constitutes a “curse word?” Damn? Does that qualify? What is I say “damn” but mean “dam” and some blue-haired, support hose wearing, can’t see over the steering wheel grandma gets offended? How about “crap?” If I use the legitimate words for what I am trying to express, will I STILL be prosecuted? i.e. Jesus H. Crist you are all a bunch of anal openings and female birth organism sexual intercoursers!!!!! Would I go to jail for that? Or…..You are the male offspring of a woman who has the traits of a female cannine.
Give me a break.
Can we just outlaw being so gormless as to think that “cursing” is itself a profanity? Fuck you all, busybody morons.