Police arrest kid with "Fuck Bush" sign

[Menzo]

Here's the video - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=23QgunoRYxw

Here's the Supreme Court case that concluded that "[A]bsent a more particularized and compelling reason for its actions," it said, "the State may not, consistently with the First and Fourteenth Amendments, make the simple public display of this single four-letter expletive a criminal offense." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cohen_v._California

[Raife]

Apparently the charges were dropped, and the video is from last October.

http://stpeteforpeace.org/palmharbor.html

The last picture is awesome.

[fire]

They should have arrested the crazy hippy mother too.

[K0NY]

Yeah, how dare she speak her mind in public! What does she think this is, a free country?

[Destarius]

I don't think anyone is saying that it is wrong to display unhappiness with the government, but the issue is the use of an expletive.

In some countries, the public display of an obscenity is in itself an offence. The direction of abusive language of a police officer is usually a criminal act as well.

As an aside, I think at least some parents would most likely be quite unhappy to have their 4-year old kids ask them, "Daddy what does 'fuck' mean?"

Also, Cohen was a 5-4 decision. A revisit by a different panel could quite possibly result in a different decision (or not).

[quatoria]

I don't think anyone is saying that it is wrong to display unhappiness with the government, but the issue is the use of an expletive.

In some countries, the public display of an obscenity is in itself an offence. The direction of abusive language of a police officer is usually a criminal act as well.

As an aside, I think at least some parents would most likely be quite unhappy to have their 4-year old kids ask them, "Daddy what does 'fuck' mean?"

Also, Cohen was a 5-4 decision. A revisit by a different panel could quite possibly result in a different decision (or not).

We are fortunate, then, that our right to free speech in this country does not hinge upon how happy parents would be for their children to hear that speech.

[Lunch of Kong]

As an aside, I think at least some parents would most likely be quite unhappy to have their 4-year old kids ask them, "Daddy what does 'fuck' mean?"

If my 4-year old had the mental acuity to read political protest signs as we're driving by them at high speed, I think I'd owe it to her to explain what it means. I'd tell her it's one of the grown-up words used to express anger, but that there are usually better ways to express it.

Anyhoo, some people have forgotten what it's like to be 4 or 5 years old. When I was 4, I didn't always understand the words I heard people say, and I didn't always hear them correctly, either. If I couldn't figure out the meaning from the context, I'd just add it to my bank of words-to-use-when-I-want-to-show-off. I'd never ask what they meant.

For example, through context, I learned that "those mukkafukka things" was what you called the pinchy little crustaceans that lived under rocks in the creek. One day my mom asked me where my friends and I were going, and I cheerfully told her "We're going to catch some of those mukkafukka things." She smiled at me and said "Have fun.. Don't get your shoes dirty." No big drama. Probably because English was her second language, and she didn't know the true meaning of "motherfucker" either.

Another time, we were at the circus, and this woman stormed past us saying "Damn! Damn!" New word! So I tugged at my dad's hand and said "I learned a new word! DAMN!" And he hit me and made me cry without giving any reason. That was some piss poor parenting right there, IMHO. That was also the last time I ever shared what was on my mind with him for a looong time, cuz I didn't want to get hit.

[noun]

Regardless of what words the sign used or how unwise it is to protest Bush in a state where his brother happens to be the governor, the point is the cops arrested that kid after he complied with their demands to lower the sign. That's bullshit, especially since he wasn't being belligerent or violent. My guess is Deputy Roscoe P. Coltrane with his IQ of 85 thought that removing the kid from the scene would magically make things all better.

[tromik]

LOL at your trampled rights and freedoms.

[Theodore Rex DX]

I don't think anyone is saying that it is wrong to display unhappiness with the government, but the issue is the use of an expletive.

Nobody should ever be arrested for using an expletive. End of issue.

[SpoofyChop]

I think the Police were very clearly wrong to arrest the guy, but honestly is this really that much different from 10, 20, 30, 40 years ago? No. Is it significantly better than 70, 80, 90, or 100 years ago? Definitely.

Are there always going to be over-zealous police? Probably in any state there will be because the kind of people that want to be police are generally a little prone to small abuses of authority.

It's a continuum. You've got people on one end that are living saints that only want to serve and protect and at the other end you have the Rodney King beaters and the Abner Luima torturers. Most cops are probably somewhere in the middle.

[FIDGAF]

Where do you draw the line between free speech and obscene language?
That's a tough one.

OK, the child exposure thing bothers me. We have the right to free speech but that shouldn't interfere with my right to drive my kid across town without incident. He could have used a different word to get his point across like "Screw" without upsetting anyone. I might have been impressed if he was more imaginitive. He's guilty of using poor taste I guess.

[skedastic]

I am not sure we should arrest people for poor taste. The prisons would quickly overflow, for one thing.

I found it at least as interesting that the officer repeatedly ordered the guy with video camera to shut it off. Isn't that an illegal order? Don't cops, you know, get in trouble when they do illegal things on film?

[russellmz00]

http://www.angryflower.com/fuck.gif

[Midnight Son]

I don't blame them for arresting him. I mean, who would want to fuck Bush? Yeccchhhhhh!!!!

[Shmtur]

Where do you draw the line between free speech and obscene language?

You don't. Freedom of speech implies that you can say what you want, when you want. The one exception is the yelling "fire" in a crowded theater concept, because people can be physically hurt or worse.

There is no right to not be offended, and that's all the word fuck does. A parent may not like it, but as was stated earlier, with good parenting this isn't a problem.

There is no line, because obscene language is free speech, whether it's the KKK or the Christian bible nuts protesting at soldiers' funerals. I despise both of those, but if they want to look like idiots in front of people that's their choice to make.

[bigdruid]

OK, the child exposure thing bothers me. We have the right to free speech but that shouldn't interfere with my right to drive my kid across town without incident.

Hrm. I recall seeing something about free speech in the Bill of Rights, but can you refresh my memory where the whole "right to drive my kid across town without seeing four-letter-words" thing comes from?

Of course, I took *my* 4-year-old to Berkeley, where I had to explain why there was a weird hairy naked guy dancing on the corner, so I guess the monocle doesn't pop out of my eye quite so easily as it does for some people.

[Bill Dungsroman]

LOL at your trampled rights and freedoms.
LOL. When we're done with ours, yours and Mexico's are next, sucker.



Nobody should ever be arrested for using an expletive. End of issue.
Because you'd get the super-triple with bacon and cheese death penalty, if that were the case. And IMO it's the other word on that sign, in relation to the first, that was the real issue here.



You don't. Freedom of speech implies that you can say what you want, when you want. The one exception is the yelling "fire" in a crowded theater concept, because people can be physically hurt or worse.
Folks, keep this in mind during the Qt3 Field Trip! There are other exceptions to the rule, IIRC. Like, can't a black dude legally punch you in the face if you call him a nigger?



Of course, I took *my* 4-year-old to Berkeley, where I had to explain why there was a weird hairy naked guy dancing on the corner,
I needed the money!

[Jake Plane]

Okay... some kid had the words "Fuck Bush" on a sign and got hauled in.

Offensive? Sure, but on both side sides.

What's far more offensive in my opinion was that the Bush campaign wouldn't allow anyone other than Republicans who supported Bush into townhalls during the 2004 campaign. I had never seen anything like it. There were a few stories written about it, but there was never any general outcry, which I found bizzare.

[Squirrel Killer]

Okay... some kid had the words "Fuck Bush" on a sign and got hauled in.

Offensive? Sure, but on both side sides.
The only thing about incidents like these that keeps me from setting up a hyperbole riddled, poorly designed web site is that invariably, the charges are either dropped or never filed to begin with. If free speech means anything, "Fuck Bush" ought be the nation's motto.


What's far more offensive in my opinion was that the Bush campaign wouldn't allow anyone other than Republicans who supported Bush into townhalls during the 2004 campaign. I had never seen anything like it. There were a few stories written about it, but there was never any general outcry, which I found bizzare.
Hrm... Person X sets up an event. Person X only allows certain people into in. As long as they're not discriminating against a protected class, I don't see what the problem is.

[Jake Plane]

Hrm... Person X sets up an event. Person X only allows certain people into in. As long as they're not discriminating against a protected class, I don't see what the problem is.

Hey, if you wanna throw a private party and set the invite list, that's cool. Just don't pretend it's a block party.

And that's basically the problem I saw with the Bush staffers. They'd present these events as townhalls where the President would be talking to ordinary, average Americans, hearing their concerns and taking their questions.

But he wasn't. He was basically only talking to people who agree with him already. And that's not a very appealing quality in President or a political candidate.

[Crispus]

Arresting him was ridiculous, but I'd have no problem with the police confiscating obscenity-riddled signs.

[Met_K]

It's just a bloody, va te faire foutre, Scheisse, vaffunculo, foder, el vete a la mierda, faku, fucking word.

[Jake Plane]

It's just a bloody, va te faire foutre, Scheisse, vaffunculo, foder, el vete a la mierda, faku, fucking word.

And a cock is just a part of the body. I still wouldn't want some guy on a corner holding a Bush sign of any kind if kids were present though.

[Backov]

Arresting him was ridiculous, but I'd have no problem with the police confiscating obscenity-riddled signs.

How about obscenity riddled books, that's ok too right?

[Steel_Wind]

How about obscenity riddled books, that's ok too right?

Well...that about ends the discussion in one sentence. :D

[bago]

Because police overreach (http://kctv.com/Global/category.asp?C=79408) is just fine (http://www.youtube.com/comment_servlet?all_comments&v=Slaw1tYDPFc&fromurl=/watch%3Fv%3DSlaw1tYDPFc) as long nobody gets prosecuted (http://www.bluemassgroup.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=3209) in the end, right?

What's a few nights in a holding cell among honest people?

[Crispus]

Well...that about ends the discussion in one sentence. :D

It does? I thought it was a pretty stupid comparison, personally. They aren't similar situations at all. Obscenity-riddled books are something that the reader has chosen to find and view. Signs are something being thrust upon the general public with or without their consent. It seems to me like the purpose of anti-obscenity laws is to protect the public (particularly children) from exposure to things like that.

And I hope none of the people defending that sign are the same people who complain about signs used by pro-life protestors that show graphic detail of aborted fetuses. Debate all you want about the difference between imagery and a word, but it seems to me that all of these sorts of signs should be treated equivalently.

[Marcus]

Won't someone please think of the children? PLEASE!

[Backov]

Guess what - you have a right to free speech. You don't have a right to NOT BE OFFENDED. Suck it up.

[bigdruid]

It seems to me like the purpose of anti-obscenity laws is to protect the public (particularly children) from exposure to things like that.

Typically, anti-obscenity laws are there to protect the public from things like sodomy in our public parks. It's a bit of a stretch to say that it's intended to protect people from the F-word.

The supreme court has some guidelines for obscenity, which you can review here:

http://library.findlaw.com/2003/May/15/132747.html

It's quite clear that the court believes that "obscene" materials include things of a hardcore sexual/prurient nature, not common four-letter words.

[JPR]

That was interesting. I didn't realize this had ever been explicitly stated:


"[A]verage person" includes both sensitive and insensitive adult persons, but does not include children

Per our current discussion, I think that "whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious ... political ... value," ends the matter. I suppose it's arguable whether this work's content had "serious" value, but that would be a pretty dangerous line to walk down.

[FIDGAF]

I would imagine that, depending on the local laws, theoretically he could have been charged with something like corrupting the morals of a minor (if one drove by and could read the sign). It does seem that the Police overreacted a tad but on the other side of the coin they thought they were doing their job.

It can't be that bad of a word, there's a Villiage in Austria named "Fucking".
Really, I swear: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FUCK

That's just Fucked up.

[Flowers]

As a person who has been hassled by police officers while holding a politcal sign containing the word "fuck," I feel I may have something to add.

You can get away with holding up a sign telling people to fuck off if you tell the cops that, "I was told that this would be ok, as long as I didn't go near anyone or get in anyone's face." Don't tell them how you know, just say that.

I *did not* protest a strike by the Teaching Assistants' Union at UW-Madison in response to a $1 health care premium.

[invitroman]

Nobody should ever be arrested for using an expletive. End of issue.
(GyahahahahahaHARHARHAR. Stop it. You're killing me)

It requires effort to be this incredulous most of the time, doesn't it? I mean, do you ever make a REAL point or do you prefer to flame every dissenting view at random?

[arctangent]

If the sign had said "Fuck Hillary" would the cops have arrested the kid?

I want a bumpersticker that says "Fucking Austria".

[Theodore Rex DX]

(GyahahahahahaHARHARHAR. Stop it. You're killing me)

It requires effort to be this incredulous most of the time, doesn't it? I mean, do you ever make a REAL point or do you prefer to flame every dissenting view at random?

http://www.omg.uk.com/images/omg_logo_border.gif
http://www.omg.uk.com/images/contact.gif

[Flowers]

(GyahahahahahaHARHARHAR. Stop it. You're killing me)

It requires effort to be this incredulous most of the time, doesn't it? I mean, do you ever make a REAL point or do you prefer to flame every dissenting view at random?
This country was made for grownups, you fucking fruitcake. Go sit at home and watch Veggie Tales with that apple in your ass. Tell me why that word is magical destruction and you win, if you can't, you have to lie down in the shower and pee on yourself.



Ahh, it seems you already admit defeat.

[Flowers]

(GyahahahahahaHARHARHAR. Stop it. You're killing me)

It requires effort to be this incredulous most of the time, doesn't it? I mean, do you ever make a REAL point or do you prefer to flame every dissenting view at random?*
This country was made for grownups, you fucking fruitcake. Go sit at home and watch Veggie Tales with that apple in your ass.

*That would be semi-random, at best.

[Unicorn McGriddle]

Flowers has a twin brother!

[invitroman]

This country was made for grownups, you fucking fruitcake. Go sit at home and watch Veggie Tales with that apple in your ass.

*That would be semi-random, at best.
Fuck you, I turn into toiletmouth when I'm around friends and I have a way of rubbing people the wrong way when describing my favorite aspects about the female form (or particularly gruesome things I'd do to those on my own team).

So ok. Count me in guys. And show me the bulging wet snatch. Ginger, preferably.

[Flowers]

Flowers has a twin brother!

We're both from an evil dimension. Not that it would matter, we are one of those things like cat farts, that are unpleasant on any plane of existence.

In Russia, police arrest criminals! Also, stupid Michael J. Fox disease makes me hit the wrong stupid button.

[FIDGAF]

I want a bumpersticker that says "Fucking Austria".

That would be an interesting test in free speech. Imagine how many times you'd be pulled over? You'd have to carry a map to show the cops that it really exists.

[noun]

If the sign had said "Fuck Hillary" would the cops have arrested the kid?

Brilliant. That would have proved whether the word or the sentiment was the crime.

[Raife]

If the sign had said "Fuck Hillary" would the cops have arrested the kid?

I want a bumpersticker that says "Fucking Austria".
http://www.morsa.net/fflorida.jpg

[Jason McCullough]

Fuck you, I turn into toiletmouth when I'm around friends

Kitsune?

[Flowers]

Grats on 16,000.

[Shadarr]

Guess what - you have a right to free speech. You don't have a right to NOT BE OFFENDED. Suck it up.
Exactly. What a bunch of whiny bitches we have here. How dare you force me to teach my child about the real world? The world should order itself around me and my child.

[Flowers]

Doug Stanhope had a good routine about how much he hated today's childproof world.

[Robert Sharp]

I'm pretty sure a guy got arrested in Nashville for cussing at a lake where kids were present. He was yelling a lot of obscenities and got arrested for obscenity...I think. It may have been disturbing the peace, but I'm pretty sure the relevant issue was WHAT he was saying, not how.

[Shmtur]

Folks, keep this in mind during the Qt3 Field Trip! There are other exceptions to the rule, IIRC. Like, can't a black dude legally punch you in the face if you call him a nigger?


Yeah, I forgot about that one. My bad.

[invitroman]

Kitsune?
No, I am not one of those stupid gay furries from zhe Far East. Sorry to disappoint.

[Charles]

Where do you draw the line between free speech and obscene language?
That's a tough one.

OK, the child exposure thing bothers me. We have the right to free speech but that shouldn't interfere with my right to drive my kid across town without incident. He could have used a different word to get his point across like "Screw" without upsetting anyone. I might have been impressed if he was more imaginitive. He's guilty of using poor taste I guess.


Your freedom ends where another's freedom begins. You cannot use your 'freedom' to impose restrictions (aka take away freedom) on someone else.

Jesus Christ people. Just fucking make your whelp wear blinders and don't let him out of the house / watch tv / play games / talk with friends until he's 18.

[FIDGAF]

Charles, if your free speech hinders my right to raise a child without being exposed to Obscenity, you're hindering MY rights as a parent, no?



We can (and probably everyone will) go back and forth on this and the worst thing that I can forsee (aside from people trolling) is that we might all learn a little more.



Look at what I found:

http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/shield.htm#TOC2



So, wouldn't this apply if a child could be exposed to the sign? Just asking for argument's sake.



I scanned it quickly so maybe some of you legal types can peruse said document and give us lay folks the scoop.






A. The Communications Decency Act

In 1996, Congress passed the Communications Decency Act (CDA). Its most controversial provision -- the only one I will focus on here -- provided that


(d) Whoever


(1) in interstate or foreign communications knowingly . . .


(B) uses any interactive computer service to display in a manner available to a person under 18 years of age, any comment, request, suggestion, proposal, image, or other communication that, in context, depicts or describes, in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards, sexual or excretory activities or organs . . .


shall be fined under Title 18, or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.


Most places on the Internet are generally open to everyone, child or adult; there's no way to check readers' ages, short of the expensive (and imperfect) proxy of demanding and verifying their credit card numbers. Therefore, the CDA would have essentially banned material that "depicts or describes, in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards, sexual or excretory activities or organs" -- which I will call "indecent" material for short 6 -- from all parts of the Internet except those that charge people for access using credit cards. 7 Because most of the Internet is now available for free, and because this free access is widely considered one of the Internet's great strengths, this naturally struck many as a very broad restraint.


Moreover, as Justice Stevens's majority opinion 8 pointed out, the restraint was made broader by its vagueness. "Could a speaker confidently assume," the opinion asked, "that a serious discussion about birth control practices, homosexuality, the First Amendment issues raised by the Appendix to [FCC v Pacifica Foundation, the `Seven Dirty Words' case], or the consequences of prison rape would not violate the CDA?" Justice Stevens was correct in thinking that the answer to this is "no"; while one might hope that prosecutors and juries wouldn't read the law this broadly, the text gives no such assurance. The statutory definition was potentially broad enough to cover such speech, with no safe harbor for speech that has substantial value, or for speech that doesn't appeal to prurient interests.


Thus, the Court faced a speech restriction that would have at least deterred, and quite possibly punished, a considerable amount of generally presumptively protected speech. At the same time, the restriction was said to be justified by a government interest to which the Court had paid considerable respect -- the interest in shielding children from offensive material. Either the right or the interest had to at least partly yield.







And how's this fit into the picture?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution



So as this meaning changes, so does your rights?



Obscenity
The federal government and the states have long been permitted to restrict obscene or pornographic speech. While obscene speech generally has no protection under the First Amendment, pornography is subject to little regulation. The exact definition of obscenity and pornography, however, has changed over time.

When it decided Rosen v. United States in 1896, the Supreme Court adopted the same obscenity standard as had been articulated in a famous British case, Regina v. Hicklin. The Hicklin standard defined material as obscene if it tended "to deprave or corrupt those whose minds are open to such immoral influences, and into whose hands a publication of this sort may fall". Thus, the standards of the most sensitive members of the community were the standards for obscenity. In 1957, the Court ruled in Roth v. United States that the Hicklin test was inappropriate. Instead, the Roth test for obscenity was "whether to the average person, applying contemporary community standards, the dominant theme of the material, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest."

In 1964 Justice Potter Stewart famously stated that although he could not precisely define pornography, "I know it when I see it."

The Roth test was expanded when the Court decided Miller v. California in 1973. Under the Miller test, a work is obscene if it would be found appealing to the prurient interest by an average person applying contemporary community standards, depicts sexual conduct in a patently offensive way and has no serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value. Note that "community" standards—not national standards—are applied as to whether the material appeals to the prurient interest; thus, material may be deemed obscene in one locality but not in another. National standards, however, are applied as to whether the material is of value. Child pornography is not subject to the Miller test, as the Supreme Court decided in 1982. The Court felt that the government's interest in protecting children from abuse was paramount.

Yet, personal possession of obscene material in the home may not be prohibited by law. In writing for the Court in the case of Stanley v. Georgia, Justice Thurgood Marshall wrote, "if the First Amendment means anything, it means that a State has no business telling a man sitting in his own house what books he may read or what films he may watch." It is not, however, unconstitutional for the government to prevent the mailing or sale of obscene items, though they may be viewed only in private. Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition (2002) further upholds these rights by invalidating the 1996 Child Pornography Prevention Act, holding that "banning the depiction of pornographic images of children, including computer-generated images, was overly broad and unconstitutional under the First Amendment". Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote: "First Amendment freedoms are most in danger when the government seeks to control thought or to justify its laws for that impermissible end. The right to think is the beginning of freedom, and speech must be protected from the government because speech is the beginning of thought."

U.S. courts have upheld certain regulation of pornographic speech. U.S. courts have found that regulation and banning pornography as a way of protecting children meets the strict scrutiny test. A zoning regulation which restricts where pornography can be viewed is valid if the purpose for the statute is based on secondary effects, the zoning is not related to the suppression of the pornographic content and the statute makes other ways of viewing the content.

[Stroker Ace]

Hey DILLIGAF, you forgot to mention that the indecency portions of CDA were immediately struck down, and eventually removed by Congress.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Decency_Act#Legal_Challenges

[shift6]

Charles, if your free speech hinders my right to raise a child without being exposed to Obscenity, you're hindering MY rights as a parent, no?
Which "right as a parent" are you referring to?

[Backov]

Hey DILLIGAF, you forgot to mention that the indecency portions of CDA were immediately struck down, and eventually removed by Congress.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Decency_Act#Legal_Challenges

Also forgot to mention that obscenity applies to hardcore pornography (and other things) and not profanity.

[Charles]

Charles, if your free speech hinders my right to raise a child without being exposed to Obscenity, you're hindering MY rights as a parent, no?


You have a right to keep your kid indoors, isolated from reality. You take him outside and you are putting him in public. Sadly, you do not get to impose your wanton wishes on the public.

[Cosmic Hippo]

See? This is why all the bumperstickers say Buck Fush..

[Winifred]

I dunno, maybe it was having hippies for parents, maybe it's that I spent a fair amount of time reporting on the music industry, maybe it's just that I'm not easily offended by verbs, but it's just Fuck, for fuck's sake.

[Peter Frazier]

It's good to see that the usual gang of childless people are happy to bring their opinions and expertise to the party.
Things change when you have one, folks.

[John Merva]

I think the best part of the video is how embarassed the kid looks when his mother starts shouting and screaming at the cops.

[FIDGAF]

Thanks, you got that right...
I guess you all missed the "For argument's sake" in my post...?


Hey DILLIGAF, you forgot to mention that the indecency portions of CDA were immediately struck down, and eventually removed by Congress.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Decency_Act#Legal_Challenges

That applies to the Internet only so you're wrong there. That actually might have some teeth though locally. Worth reading more about.


Also forgot to mention that obscenity applies to hardcore pornography (and other things) and not profanity.

Wrong, Obscenity in a public place is covered by my post. Read the DEFINITION in the post. Obscenity is NOT protected by the constitution directly and is defined by local ordinance, not federal. Free speech ends where Obscenity begins in most locales.


I dunno, maybe it was having hippies for parents, maybe it's that I spent a fair amount of time reporting on the music industry, maybe it's just that I'm not easily offended by verbs, but it's just Fuck, for fuck's sake.

Yup, agreed. My kid knew the word LONG before I knew that SHE knew what it was. No shocker to me the first time she cut herself and said "Fuck". She still would find a more innovative way to get the same message across. You folks forget songs like Big Balls from AC\DC. THAT was simply ingenious. Sometimes it's what you say without really saying it that hits home that makes an argument flawless.

Like I said: "For arguments sake". Do it without the Trolling. Obviously we all failed political science. You debate to win, not insult. Point out the flaws.

Let's debate it and tear it apart. I find the two pieces I posted to be really useless, counter to each other in some ways and asked arguments on their merits.

Surely we can have a debate without all the other bullshit...?

[Backov]

Sorry mate, you need to do some reading.

Obscenity!=Profanity. Period. In fact, the supremes even ruled at one point that Obscenity!=Nudity or simulated sex - it has to be hardcore.

Obscenity doesn't have as wide a definition as you apparently wish it does, and some redneck cops think it does.

Here's something from an authoritative source to edumucate you:

http://www.fcc.gov/eb/oip/FAQ.html

Scroll down to "What makes material obscene?"

[FIDGAF]

Got a link besides that one? Seriously, not trolling.



What makes material “profane?” “Profane language” includes those words that are so highly offensive that their mere utterance in the context presented may, in legal terms, amount to a “nuisance.” In its Golden Globe Awards Order the FCC warned broadcasters that, depending on the context, it would consider the “F-Word” and those words (or variants thereof) that are as highly offensive as the “F-Word” to be “profane language” that cannot be broadcast between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m.


That's my point. It seems that everything that relates to this is contrary to the previous law so it's REALLY hard to figure out what actually applies in this situation. One says that Obscenity shall be governed by the locale ordinance where as another if a federal guideline that seems to blanket and override local laws...?
Like WTF?

Personally I could care less if the kid had a sign that said "Your Mother sucks cock and so does Bush". My question is are there any laws on the books that makes this legal\illegal aside from the basic freedoms that the constitution grants us?

[Backov]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/obscenity

Scroll down to United States Obscenity Law.

Obscenity is governed by local "community standards" - profanity does not pass the Miller test and thus is not obscene.

The sucking cock sign would probably expose him to civil liability, and the cops would do what they always do and make something up to get it away. But it's not against the law.

[Flowers]

It's good to see that the usual gang of childless people are happy to bring their opinions and expertise to the party.
Things change when you have one, folks.
As a parent, As a parent, As a parent, As a parent, As a parent, As a parent,As a parent, As a parent, As a parent, As a parent, As a parent, As a parent, As a parent, As a parent, As a parent, As a parent, As a parent, As a parent, As a parent, As a parent, As a parent, As a parent, As a parent, As a parent, As a parent, As a parent, As a parent, As a parent, As a parent, As a parent,

Save my Baby! Save my Baby! Save my Baby! Save my Baby! Save my Baby! Save my Baby! Save my Baby! Save my Baby! Save my Baby! Save my Baby! Save my Baby! Save my Baby! Save my Baby! Save my Baby! Save my Baby! Save my Baby! Save my Baby! Save my Baby! Save my Baby! Save my Baby! Save my Baby! Save my Baby! Save my Baby! Save my Baby! Save my Baby! Save my Baby! Save my Baby! Save my Baby! Save my Baby! Save my Baby!

No one cares that your protection failed. Speaking of which, does anyone remember that study from about three years ago that said raising a child rots your brain? As in, areas of your brain that used to be more active are no longer?

You made babies, good for you. You get a medal. What you do not get is the ability to make the rest of us watch only Romper Room until your child is old enough to accidentally see something else without turning into a coked out child molestor or youth pastor. The world is made for grownups, in case you hadn't figured this out, Baby Geniuses is a work of fiction, not a documentary. I know that you probably don't get a lot of news outside the latest Baby Einstein films, but the word from Dora the Explorer is, "Backpack! Backpack! Backpack! Backpack!"

Babies don't speak English. Babies won't fight for our country. Babies never get you anything for Christmas. Babies don't support the troops. Babies don't pay taxes. Babies always drive drunk. Babies have see more tit on a daily basis than you. Babies won't save your life if your house is on fire. Babies don't tell telemarketers to put you on the no call list.

Your loyalty is misplaced.

Anyways, I can't wait until your teenager hates you.

[noun]

It's good to see that the usual gang of childless people are happy to bring their opinions and expertise to the party.
Things change when you have one, folks.

For what it's worth, I am a parent, and while I don't let my child watch cable TV unsupervised or play violent video games, I don't pretend the rest of the world outside my house needs to conform to what I consider kid-friendly. As a parent, it's my job to answer questions and explain things when the unexpected spectacle pops up.

[Peter Frazier]

Hey Flowers, up your meds intake.

And noun, I agree. I just get annoyed at the family hate that can come across in some of the threads here. Post a picture of your cat and people will fall over themselves to tell you how cute it is. Mention anything about bringing up kids and people drag out their scorn for soccer moms....

[Cosmic Hippo]

I know the word passed into common usage among all the kids at my school sometime between 4th and 5th grade, so... I probably learned it around then, at the age of around nine or ten.

[noun]

Peter, ah, I get your point now. Yeah, I hear you.

[Charles]

If I had a kid, the first thing I'd do is teach him every bad word I could think of, and then tell him not to use them around other people because people seem to think that words can kill, or something.

Education > Sheltering


Anyways, I can't wait until your teenager hates you.

Amen. Every friend I have who had controlling strict and sheltering parents grew up to immediately cut ties with their parents as soon as they were able. This just in: When kids experience the real world, they'll prefer it to whatever sunday morning farce they were forced to live in at home. I know this is true because I lived it. If you reach back and remember when you were a kid, you'd know it too.

[FIDGAF]

Backov, good read, thanks.

As for the non-parents here:
Nothing can replace good parenting. Unfortunately, people's views of what good parenting is vary. I look at the results to see if a parent has been effective in raising a well adjusted member of society.

I share a wonderful child with my ex wife that's straight A's and is graduating a year early. Communication and treating a child as a person rather than a slave\possession seems to work the most effectively. Answering the questions regardless of how much it makes you squirm is also something that needs to be done.

A punishment that doesn't give the child a chance to "Work it off" is useless too IMO. What's the point of grounding a kid that stayed home from school? Screw that, get up and help me get the yard work done and you're cleaning up from dinner by yourself for the next X weeks.

That's what worked for mine, that doesn't mean it will work for yours but I got excellent results. At this point she probably could teach ME a few new swear words but at least she knows how to use them and when it is appropriate. She learned that overuse makes people immune so hearing a curse from someone that doesn't normally usually indicates a serious condition or that a point is being emphasized.

Anyway, on topic: As this child's mother, would you have let him leave the house with that sign or stopped him?

[Charles]

Anyway, on topic: As this child's mother, would you have let him leave the house with that sign or stopped him?

I would hope all parents would encourage their children to be active politically and always back their political views in whichever way they deem necessary. A lot of the problems in North America right now, (Not just the US, Canada is suffering from it too) stem from complacency with regards to politics.

[bigdruid]

Mention anything about bringing up kids and people drag out their scorn for soccer moms....

I'm the father of two kids, and I haven't seen this attitude from anyone.

What I do see is disdain for parents who expect people to curb their fundamental freedoms (like freedom of speech) all in the name of "saving the children".

My personal opinion is that if your beliefs and attitudes change just because you had kids, then they weren't particularly well thought out to begin with.

[Winifred]

It's good to see that the usual gang of childless people are happy to bring their opinions and expertise to the party.
Things change when you have one, folks.

I have one. I still think Fuck only has as much power as you give it. It's just a word. Sticks and stones, and all that.

But, kid or no kid, I'm still a libertarian. Free speech trumps any discomfort I might have explaining anglo saxon terms to my preschooler. (And to be fair, my son is more likely to hear "Fuck!" at home before he hears it anywhere else. Although I do most of my really good swearing in another language, so even if he repeats it, the odds of anyone but my mother understanding it is pretty slim.)

Point being: Your kid is your responsibility...not mine, not theirs, not the world's, not the culture's. Yours and yours alone. Don't expect the world to stop spinning on it's cruel and vulgar axis just because you brought forth a precious bundle of dna.


Anyway, on topic: As this child's mother, would you have let him leave the house with that sign or stopped him?

Well, I think it would give me an opportunity to discuss memetics and semantic programming. I would explain that there were better ways to phrase it that would both carry the message, and keep people's knickers from getting all twisted up. If, however, after that discussion, he still wanted to roll with the "Fuck Bush" sign..well...roll on, dude.

Would I let my kid do something blatantly illegal? Probably not...at least in public. But carrying a sign with a "dirty" word isn't illegal, so I wouldn't force him to leave the sign at home, although I might express a strong preference for different wording.

But then, I don't want an obedient little stepford clone. I want a kid that when presented with the facts, and various alternatives and possible outcomes is capable of making a informed decision...and be man enough to live with the consequences, should there be any.

Would I bail him out of jail, if he did something I recommended against? Yeah. Would I probably use the Mother's "I Told You So" speech? More than likely. In a situation like the one linked above, would I have had a team of high powered attorneys involved before the cop could get the door closed on the patrol car? Oh...yeah.

[Stroker Ace]

Is his name Fauntleroy?

[Flowers]

Hey Flowers, up your meds intake.
There are no pills for me to take that would make you not a dipshit. On the other hand, sometimes, when I hit my head hard enough to pee my pants a little, your posts make a little sense.

[Flowers]

Also, Peter;
Judging from how often you use other people's insults, and what that says about a person, I have an inkling you may be raising other people's kids. God, I hope so.

For God's sake, I hope you're sterile.

[Charles]

There are no pills for me to take that would make you not a dipshit. On the other hand, sometimes, when I hit my head hard enough to pee my pants a little, your posts make a little sense.

<3 <3

(you get two hearts because the forum masters demanded it)

[FIDGAF]

I would definitly discuss the wording with my child and the ramifications of displaying a sign worded in that manner. If she insisted I'd get the bail money ready. I think we all go through a stage where we have to "Test The System". Being the stubborn goat that I am, if I actually talked her out of it I'd be disappointed with her lack of resolve.

[AlanT]

I know the word passed into common usage among all the kids at my school sometime between 4th and 5th grade, so... I probably learned it around then, at the age of around nine or ten.
Hm. Maybe I went to a rougher school, but I clearly remember learning the ultimate insult very soon after starting school at four and a half. It was "fucking bastard". Call someone that, and the fists would fly. We didn't have a clue what it meant, mind you, and didn't generalize the use of "fuck" in all its glory until much later.

[quatoria]

It's good to see that the usual gang of childless people are happy to bring their opinions and expertise to the party.
Things change when you have one, folks.

Fortunately, the protection of free speech is not one of the things that changes once you have a child. This isn't a conversation about childcare, it's a conversation about free speech, and whether the magical-but-entirely-unsupported-by-law right of parents not to have to explain what 'fuck' means to a child is more significant than the first ammendment. Are we really going to start heading down the slippery slope of "I'm all for free speech, but they shouldn't be allowed to say things like that," over the sensibilities of CHILDREN, for fucksake?

[FIDGAF]

From what I was reading, it's pretty clear that this is one of the grayest areas of free speech.
If you let everyone go hog-wild the evening news would have the newscasters saying things like "Those Fucking bastards attacked our troops again" or "There goes the Fucking weekend, it's going to rain".

Did the local papers report this as a child holding a sign with the word "Fuck" on it or did they substitute "an Obscenity" or "Obcene word"?

[Stroker Ace]

That "child" looked like he's probably old enough to DIE IN IRAQ :P

[bigdruid]

If you let everyone go hog-wild the evening news would have the newscasters saying things like "Those Fucking bastards attacked our troops again" or "There goes the Fucking weekend, it's going to rain".


...and no doubt the fall of Western Civilization would quickly ensue, unleashed by this torrent of obscenity.

Somehow, I'm failing to understand why the TV can report "25 soldiers killed in Iraq" and show pictures of bombing victims, I can tune into the history channel and get a long drawn out description of the horrors of the Holocaust, but the same TV shows can't use the word "Fuck" or show Janet Jackson's nipple.

What a weird system of ethics we have in place.

[FIDGAF]

You argue my point. There's the whole Obscenity thing, the Free Speech area and I would think in a public place Corrupting the Morals of a Minor would have to be looked into as well.

It all overlaps and we get..... TV! With news sterilized just for our Moral Approval!

Bring on the Nipples! I'm all for it!
Uh, as long as my kid isn't exposed to it...

Man, we are fucked up...
;)

[Bill Dungsroman]

It's good to see that the usual gang of childless people are happy to bring their opinions and expertise to the party.
Things change when you have one, folks.
If by "things" you mean "the world we live in" you're pretty much wrong, Peter.