Posted on 04/01/2002 11:41:10 AM PST by visagoth
Story Filed: Monday, April 01, 2002 1:03 PM EST
TRAVERSE CITY, Mich. (AP) -- A state appeals court Monday struck down Michigan's 105-year-old law against using vulgar language in front of women and children, throwing out the conviction of a canoeist who let loose a stream of curses after falling into the water.
The three-judge panel unanimously overturned the 1999 conviction of Timothy Joseph Boomer. A jury had found him guilty of violating the law by swearing repeatedly after tumbling into the Rifle River.
He was fined $75 and ordered to work four days in a child-care program, but the sentence was put on hold while the case was under appeal.
Enacted in 1897 and slightly reworded in 1931, the law says that anyone using ``indecent, immoral, obscene, vulgar or insulting language in the presence or hearing of any woman or child shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.''
The appeals court declared the law unconstitutional, saying it would be ``difficult to conceive of a statute that would be more vague.''
``Allowing a prosecution where one utters `insulting' language could possibly subject a vast percentage of the populace to a misdemeanor conviction,'' the court said.
Copyright © 2002 Associated Press Information Services, all rights reserved.
This appeals court showed some common sense, at least....
We are free to be vulgar but apparently not free to be moral. I am not at all suggesting the man is not free to use cuss words. However, I think it is reasonable that he show restraint around children and families.
Wanna bet that if you were before the appeals court and referred to them as a bunch of f-ing morons that they would find some way to penalize you more severely than a $75 fine?
He should have had you arrested and then sued your ass. I would have. (Actually, the suit would have been moot because I guarentee you would not have put me down) Mind your own buisness from now on! If you don't like someones language than I suggest you get the hell away from them!!!
This is what happens when juries are incorrectly told by the judge and prosecuters that they "have no choice but to follow the law" when rendering their decision. And the ignorant jury members actually believe that drivel and blindly convict on the letter of a dumb and unconstitutional law.
Part of the trouble with our society is the idea that a person may spout any filth they wish and the rest of us may do nothing but leave; I say let the vulgar, obnoxious ones leave!(Or watch their language).
I would be hard pressed to convict someone of assault for responding physically to repeated verbal abuse.
Huh? Now this makes sense -- not. We have someone accused of offending children with his language and we're going to send him to work with children? Under the circumstances, I'm glad that didn't happen.
However, as a parent, I do get tired of having to absent my children from public places due to the careless and pervasive use of "colorful language." I think we have become too tolerant of the abyssmal manners of others. Including forcing my car to shake because the clown in the next car can't figure out the idea of listening to music without the bass and the volume being maxed out. There have to be some sort of public peace and decency issues addressed somewhere.
Exactly. The old "your rights end where mine begin" concept. Children have the right to use public places as well -- without being exposed to offensive language or behavior.
I'm for free speech. But, having the right to speak doesn't and shouldn't take away my right to "not listen."
Now here's a helpful attitude.
You "rights" don't trump the rest of the world's. The rest of us have a right to peace and enjoyment as well.
Last night we went to a movie theater to watch Lord of the Rings (for the third time), and the people behind us were rude and loud. To use your logic, we would have had to leave, forfeiting the seats we paid for, rather than telling these jerks to knock it off.
Just out of curiousity, did you happen to be at the movies last night? Just wondering...
Define community standards.
It is very, very difficult to do so. The so-called "maggot" who expresses itself with possibly off color verbiage may, or may not, be aware that what he/she says is offensive to the tender ears of some who are within hearing range. Is "damn" vulgar? Perhaps, pronouncing the name of the Lord Jesus Christ during a fit of exasperation? How about directing someone to travel straight to Satans lair?
Vulgarity, as beauty, is in the eye (or ear) of the beholder.
If someone objected strongly to your saying Grace before eating in a restaurant, would you stop? If you didn't and the offended popped you one, what then?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.