Poll: Victoria police given permission to fine swearing

[necromanzer52]

I think I speak for all of us when I say, this law can go fuck itself.

 

[MisterDyslexo]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PwB9e0rOdMA

Edit: I fail at embedding.

 

[mjc0961]

"Swearing is bad" is an opinion. And I know this is true because I disagree with it; hence, it is an opinion and not fact. You cannot make and enforce a law which is based on an OPINION - that is bias. That is unbalanced, and that is unjust.

In fact, my opinion is that "swearing" isn't even swearing. This set of words are "swearing" because... Why, exactly? Nobody can answer that question. They're just "bad" simply because a lot of people decided to agree that they are with no reason or logic behind it. Fuck that. There's nothing wrong with those words and I'm not going to pretend that there is just because a bunch of other people want me to.

I'm reminded of a scene in some Slyvester Stalone (I think) movie where he's in the future and they don't have toilet paper, and he needs something to wipe with. And they ticket you for swearing, so he swears a whole bunch and takes the tickets to go wipe his ass with. That's basically what I think of this law.
EDIT: The video that the guy right above me linked is the movie I was talking about just now. Thanks, guy above me!

 

[KiKiweaky]

Glad I've already been to Victoria then... Is this just swearing in the vicinity of the police, doing that is generally a bad idea. Or swearing at the police which is just asking for trouble if you ask me.

 

[maninahat]

New laws are giving Victorian police in Australia to give people $240 on the spot for swearing. What do you think of this?

Personally I think it's a violation of free speech - we should be allowed to say what we want to say. There are laws prohibiting offensive language.

It may be a violation of "free speech", but using threatening language in general is considered a crime (and persecuting it not a "violation" of rights), so I don't have a problem with it. I love swearing, but I don't think people should be using it in front of kids or elderly folk or nuns or whatever. If people don't have the grace to be careful with their language, they should be punished for it. Like blowing smoke into a kids face, "second hand bad language" can only have a detrimental effect.

I don't think swearing is offensive. It's not directed at a particular ethnic or religious or any division of humanity, it is only universally offensive.

Oh, only UNIVERSALLY offensive, meaning everyone can find it offensive. That makes it fine then.

"Swearing is bad" is an opinion. And I know this is true because I disagree with it; hence, it is an opinion and not fact.

You can disagree with a fact and still be wrong. Yes, "swearing is bad" is an opinion, but I think that a reasonable person would opine that public swearing, without courtesy or regard to those present, should be castigated. If the police are penalizing you for swearing, you must be doing it in public. Which is exactly where you shouldn't be swearing. Swear or slur or make racist remarks in your own home all you like, but don't upset the grannies in the street with your careless profanity.

You cannot make and enforce a law which is based on an OPINION - that is bias. That is unbalanced, and that is unjust.

Is murder bad, or is that just opinion? Is racist language bad, or is that just opinion? To describe anything as "bad", you have to employ a personal view on the subject. I don't see any problem with a law based on an opinion if that opinion makes sense. Here, I think it does: foul language can be offensive, and it shouldn't be used in public around people who might take offense. Free speech wasn't introduced so that you can be rude or ignorant to strangers.

 

[maninahat]

I posted a thread about this yesterday, but everyone ignored me.

This act gives police powers to combat anti-social behaviour, such as abusive swearing, pissing in public, and doing a whole bunch of anti-social shit. They're not going to reel you in for a couple of swear words under your breathe, although it's left (intentionally) vague as to whether or not this law would apply to casually swearing in public.

Personally, I feel that the government is far overstepping its rights here, and that our premier is trying to turn us into a fucking nanny state. It's not just me who thinks that, either.

So you want people to be allowed to piss in public, swear at strangers and do a whole bunch of anti social shit? Because it seems to me that anything discouraging that sort of behavior can only be a good thing. If fining people will stop assholes being rude to old ladies or chavs pissing up my wall, then I am right behind that 100%. It isn't as if the cops are going to come into my home and listen in on my private ranting, is it?

What fucks me off more is how many people seem to prioritize "free speech" over common decency in front of strangers. This law came around because assholes don't know how to pipe it down whilst around members of the public. If people knew how to treat language responsibly, we wouldn't be seeing such a so-called draconian law.

 

[thingymuwatsit]

Laws exist to protect people from others or themselves, there is no reason for laws to be set in place because of opinion.

I'm of the opinion that I shouldn't hire anyone at my work if they're gay, yet there's laws against me doing that. What is your retort?

That law is put in place to protect the economical wellbeing of people who my be discriminated upon, it makes complete sense.

 

[Zykon TheLich]

This a

 

[AdamRBi]

Actually it's not that opinions shouldn't be enforced, it's that opinions have nothing to do with law at all. Someone could hold the opinion that robbing a bank is A-Ok. It's not a popular opinion nor is it just, but it is an opinion.

Though I agree, being fined for curse words and swears is a harsh way to enforce civility. I'm not saying some control would be bad, some people really must be taught that those shouldn't be the only words in their dictionary. Maybe some warning and hassle, but a fine on speech is going a tad far.

 

[Shoggoth2588]

America. Land of the free. And land of taking your freedom away.

This law is an Australian law. Please see your school's guidance counselor and request some remedial geography courses.

 

[cookyy2k]

as i said before in the other thread you can be asserted in Britain under section 5 of the public order act for swearing in public.

the words to note there are "can be"

there is a certain amount of discretion involved in the policing of such laws

This... It's a great way to give the police a way of removing those causing trouble.

E.g. The yobs sat out on a wall drinking steller may not nessesarily be braking any laws; but you can bet they'll be swearing like crazy since in yob "fuck" is like a full stop in English.
So then the police can remove them before they get to the fighting and smashing up cars stage.

I'm all for any power handed to the police aslong as the police excersise that power responcibly.

 

[Darknacht]

"Swearing is bad" is an opinion. And I know this is true because I disagree with it; hence, it is an opinion and not fact. You cannot make and enforce a law which is based on an OPINION - that is bias. That is unbalanced, and that is unjust.

Not only can you make laws based on opinions it is good to. Most laws are based on opinions, if you could only make laws that no one disagreed with it would be hard to make any laws.
Example:
Killing someone because of their ethnicity, nationality, sex, sexual orientation, age, ect. is illegal(at least where I live).
I think this is a good law, some people think that it is a bad law, so it is an opinion, that does not mean that it should not be a law.

 

[badgersprite]

I have never used the word "un-Australian" unironically before, but this really is un-Australian. Australians frequently swear in a non-abusive, non-insulting way. Is someone going to be fined when they say, "I'm fucking tired," or "I feel like shit" or "This is fucking amazing!"

I know the idea is to combat people who are behaving in an abusive or intimidating manner, but I can't help but think this is going to lead to the more dickheaded cops fining people because they happen to be inarticulate or in a state of mind where their vocabulary isn't good, or cops fining people because they're in a crappy mood, or because they need to raise revenue.

 

[DeathWyrmNexus]

And you think a Manners Police is the solution? A fine for rudeness, an entirely subjective thing depending on the person you are speaking with. Or in this case, overhears you.

Rigidly enforced manners and censorship are some of the most pivotal steps towards fascism. The common good is a phrase too often abused by governments. It also shows a waste of resources as it adds more to what a cop has to keep an eye out for.

Imagine the beat cop's position. On the look out for murderers, rapists, thieves, drunk drivers, drug pushers, pedophiles, lost children, reckless children and... people who have a potty mouth.

The idea of "WON'T SOMEBODY THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!!?" has been one of the biggest ethical shams I've ever seen. It's clever too. Either you agree and watch your rights to expression and thought be eroded or... You hate kids.

I know I said I wouldn't reply, but I can't help myself.

I love the way a law against anti-social conduct inluding abusive language reads as "manners police" to you. I mean, 1984 was a good book and all, but you gotta stop treating it like the Bible bro. (Brave New World was much more relevent anyway). Shocking, isn't it, that we'd want to be against anti-social behaviour. But I guess laws against public urination lead to facism, right?

Also seriously "beat cops" aren't on the look out for most those things, usually rapists, murderers, drug dealers and peadophiles are caught after investigation, not you average copper strolling down the street. And yeah, it must be so tough to have to use your ears that are always on while you're going about your day. I don't know how they'll cope, doing what they're already doing. /sarcasm

And show me where I said, at any point, "think of the children". But thanks for bringing it up anyway.

Haven't read 1984 but nice try. Extra points for strawman bible/1984 demagoguery argument too. It was wrong but eh, what can you do?

Urination is leaving a physical stain and stink on an area for long after you've left. It isn't comparable to, you know, invisible and ephemeral words. I find it mildly disturbing that you think urinating on something in view of others is the same as foul language. If I call somebody an asshole, that isn't as bad as whipping it out and using my stream of justice on their feet. Or if I am in a corner saying Fuck and then I wander off, that's it. However, if I urinate in that corner, it is going to smell like piss until the cleaning crew shows up. It's going to get on people's feet if they walk in it. It is a dumping of physical waste. It just isn't the same, period.

The list of criminals was simply a way to say that cops are looking for actual, you know, crimes. As in, have them concentrating on preventing actual problems instead of dividing their attention between "Oooooh money for fining a SWEAR!!!" and paying attention for when something actually damaging occurs. When they are arguing with somebody while issuing a fine for naughty words, they aren't keeping an eye out for actual crime.

Finally, while it is cute to assume that you are in charge of the law making processes, you aren't. However, those that are in charge do tend to wave the Children card. Let alone that a number of supporters in this thread alone have also mentioned the whole "protect the delicate young" schtick. That is what I was saying. Thanks for not getting the point though.

 

[Kryzantine]

So swearing has already been outlawed for a while now, this is just the first real enforcement measure. Either way, it reeks of disaster.

Everyone curses. It is human nature to curse. If other people tell us not to say something, there will undoubtedly be moments where we say that exact thing, mostly out of frustration. I live in NYC, the only kind of cursing I hear is either,

1. As a form of stress release
2. To emphasize a point
3. To make a statement more negative

This applies everywhere. At my chaotic home or my stable school. Students can curse in front of teachers, administrators, even the damned principal and get away with it; obviously to a point. I think a string of explicatives is honestly too much unless the situation really demands it. But singular or dual swears should be fine for casual use. And I know Australians like their swearing.

The problem, really, is that this law is too vague and leaves far too much to the local police officer. It doesn't define "swearing" at all. What really gets my ire is that this law is intentionally vague. Do they want cops to have the power to abuse their authority easily?

The passing of this law would be the equivalent of NYC passing a law fining jaywalkers. Absolutely nobody will pay the fine, and this kind of law is simply unenforceable. It's a joke.