Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Are Queenslanders the red headed step children of Australia?

Experts fear swearing in public, with a fine of $100, will be a major money spinner for the state and could become the weapon of choice for frustrated officers on the beat.
.
.
.

She said the measures, targeting offences such as public urination, disorderly conduct and abusive language, would save the Government between $18 million and $30 million.

The power to issue on-the-spot fines of between $100 and $300 could result in public nuisance prosecutions soaring 20 per cent, based on figures from a 12-month trial in South Brisbane and Townsville.

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/cops-get-new-power-to-fine-for-public-nuisance-offences/story-e6freon6-1225879937252

Everyone in Australia is the redheaded stepchild of the Nanny state we have going here, sadly. The two major parties are populated by social conservatives, as are many of the minor parties.

Voting is mandatory, but they haven't sent me a fine yet!

Actually.. it's allready against the law in some states, in the USA, to use some swear words in the presence of children.

I think that's a good thing.

GG

generalgrog wrote:I think that's a good thing.

Why?

Why is it a good thing for it to be illegal to swear in front of a 17 years 364 days old teenager* but not illegal to swear in front of an 18 year old?

*substitute whatever just on the illegal side of the age limit is in this hypothetical

In fact, why is it bad to swear in front of kids at all? It seems something like the idea that teaching kids about how to have safe sex will make them want to have sex.

(If you don't understand why that argument is ridiculous I am happy to expand on it)

Ooh, bad words, so scary. Can't be corrupting the youth and whatnot.

generalgrog wrote:

I think that's a good thing.

GG

Sorry but regardless of whether its bad to swear around children or not, the state can feck right off it its thinks it has any business trying to force people not to do it.

Fining people for saying 'naughty' things is a gross violation of civil liberties. Besides who gets to decide whats on this list of 'banned' words?

Ohhhh BooHooo..... I can't use self control and keep my vulagrity to my self around children.......

sigh

GG

Being able to put a vulgarity label on punishable phrases and backing it with a moral high ground sets up a situation in which to take advantage of those without financial means to defend themselves. Plus, what is considered vulgar is mostly determined by fad, and curbing people's means of self expression via law that can only be deemed unconstitutional (in the USA) by spending mass amounts of cash. Which is a sad misalignment of priorities.
Anyone who is attempting to appropriate someones speech is definitely not doing for the benefit of children. Thus they should not gain backing by those with empathy for the minds being defended from the offending fad (ie the voters), since said legislation would undoubtedly diminish that child's quality of life in the future.
Also it sets a situation where an officer of the law can legally mug you in a way that is based completely on his word without backing of evidence. A situation that costs more in defense than in prosecution.

Anyway, I don't curse around kids out of respect for their parents. Most children don't care about cursing, they're concerned with hostility.
One does not indicate or necessitate the presence of the other.

Belphegor wrote:Being able to put a vulgarity label on punishable phrases and backing it with a moral high ground sets up a situation in which to take advantage of those without financial means to defend themselves. Plus, what is considered vulgar is mostly determined by fad, and curbing people's means of self expression via law that can only be deemed unconstitutional (in the USA) by spending mass amounts of cash. Which is a sad misalignment of priorities.
Anyone who is attempting to appropriate someones speech is definitely not doing for the benefit of children. Thus they should not gain backing by those with empathy for the minds being defended from the offending fad (ie the voters), since said legislation would undoubtedly diminish that child's quality of life in the future.
Also it sets a situation where an officer of the law can legally mug you in a way that is based completely on his word without backing of evidence. A situation that costs more in defense than in prosecution.

Anyway, I don't curse around kids out of respect for their parents. Most children don't care about cursing, they're concerned with hostility.
One does not indicate or necessitate the presence of the other.

There are so many things I disagree with in this post I'll just start with one thing. There is no such thing as TOTAL free speech. It is against the law to yell fire in a movie theatre, it is against the law to verbally insult someone, especially if there is a racial epitaph related with it.

Societal norms dictate what is and isn't acceptable language, and if you want to live in society, you will comply, or deal with the consequences.

GG

to: generalgrog
Societal norms develop and change based on the restrictions people find desirable or worthy of their complacency.
Enforcing artificed consequences only curbs development, not the understanding it takes to perpetuate a status quo that is worthy of continuing.

Also, I made no indication of TOTAL free speech. Also threatening lives (yelling fire) or directing hostility (using slurs) does not line up with using non-creative and poorly articulate language for fornication, genitals and pooping. Also if feel you should have made mention the use of spoken heresy, since that makes many people sad as well but does not necessarily have the same malice as slurs.

We probably agree in the levels of language to use around minors.
I would like to understand how your interpreting my previous post, since I may have written it in a way that can be easily misinterpreted.
Which of the points in my previous post do you disagree with? Why and to what degree?

Belphegor wrote: Which of the points in my previous post do you disagree with? Why and to what degree?

I really wasn't wanting to but... I'll play.

Belphegor wrote:
Being able to put a vulgarity label on punishable phrases and backing it with a moral high ground sets up a situation in which to take advantage of those without financial means to defend themselves.

So only poor people cuss?

Belphegor wrote:
Plus, what is considered vulgar is mostly determined by fad,

If you are using the word fad as a synonym for societal norms then you are correct. I already addressed this....See my post above.

Belphegor wrote:
and curbing people's means of self expression via law that can only be deemed unconstitutional (in the USA) by spending mass amounts of cash. Which is a sad misalignment of priorities.

This is already done by things called decency laws. Try walking down the street with your wang hanging out and see what happens.

Belphegor wrote:
Anyone who is attempting to appropriate someones speech is definitely not doing for the benefit of children.

Vulgarity can be traumatizing to children that haven't been exposed to it. Plus it sets a poor example for them. Therefore, not cussing around children is certainly for their benefit.

Belphegor wrote:
Thus they should not gain backing by those with empathy for the minds being defended from the offending fad (ie the voters), since said legislation would undoubtedly diminish that child's quality of life in the future.

uhhhh have you been taking lessons from dogma? Way to not only speak in pschyo babble AND make a gross exageration. Wait... dogma could actually take lessons form you on that. :-)

Belphegor wrote:
Also it sets a situation where an officer of the law can legally mug you in a way that is based completely on his word without backing of evidence. A situation that costs more in defense than in prosecution.

And they can't do that now?

GG

generalgrog wrote:

Belphegor wrote:
Anyone who is attempting to appropriate someones speech is definitely not doing for the benefit of children.

Vulgarity can be traumatizing to children that haven't been exposed to it. Plus it sets a poor example for them. Therefore, not cussing around children is certainly for their benefit.

wouldn't this depend on what one considers to be vulgar? Not everyone has the same standards, and imposing one set of standards on the whole of society for something as trivial as vulgar language is ridiculous.

generalgrog wrote:

Belphegor wrote:
Thus they should not gain backing by those with empathy for the minds being defended from the offending fad (ie the voters), since said legislation would undoubtedly diminish that child's quality of life in the future.

uhhhh have you been taking lessons from dogma? Way to not only speak in pschyo babble AND make a gross exageration. Wait... dogma could actually take lessons form you on that. :-)

methinks your the one speaking in psycho babble.

dietrich wrote:Are Queenslanders the red headed step children of Australia?

No we are the awesomest children in the world.

The law will be used to crack down on the ratbags in the city.
Not only does it affect swearing, but there are provisions for fines for public urination.

Don't swear and there will be no problem.

I fear there are too many ferals (white trash/chavs) breeding too fast, to overtake the rest of society.

I got a real kick out of the public urination comment. I mean, is it that bad of a problem? People just walking around and peeing everywhere?

Hell, it's a problem here too. When I lived in Manchester city centre, I once awoke early in the morning to find a tramp pissing up my front fething DOOR!

Cheeky Bugger.

The end is upon us when Nanny State issues fines for swearing and peeing in public.

Why does anyone think that this behaviour is cool?

Please no, " This infringes on my right to behave like a 17th century guttersnipe!"
There is nothing civil about taking such liberties on other peoples' doorsteps.

Dietrich, it is a problem, usually after a belly full of beers.

In Texas you can be arrested for "disorderly conduct: Vulgar language". Yes, this happens, quite regularly. I fill out the arrest paperwork to let the officer put them in jail. All tht needs to happen is someone says something "vulgar' in public and someone else find it offensive. There are no restrictions on whether there are minors around or not.

dietrich wrote:I got a real kick out of the public urination comment. I mean, is it that bad of a problem? People just walking around and peeing everywhere?

I’m guessing you’ve never been wandering the back streets of the city at 3:00 on Saturday morning. You will see urination. That said, it’s pretty much illegal everywhere as it is, it was mentioned in the Queensland article because it’s been rolled into this new on the spot fines system.

I don’t think there’s a problem with making swearing in public a fineable offence. Vulgar behaviour of all kinds is penalised, whether it’s street drinking, lewd clothing or whatever. There is no basic element of human expression that requires the ability to say naughty words while they’re on the train.

It’s important that the ability to express one’s self in other contexts isn’t restricted, in film, television and theatre there’s an absolute right to use whatever language the creator feels best. But that’s a very different thing.

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:Why is it a good thing for it to be illegal to swear in front of a 17 years 364 days old teenager* but not illegal to swear in front of an 18 year old?

It’s a bit goofy that we have to put an arbitrary age into our laws, but it is unavoidable. Clearly a 25 year old should be able to decide for himself if he wants a beer, whereas clearly an 8 year old should not. We have to pick a day somewhere between those two points, and so we pick 18. This is an arbitrary age, as you rightly point out 17 and 364 days isn’t really any more mature than 18, but we have to pick some date.

That we have to pick some arbitrary point doesn’t mean there aren’t a real differences between someone who’s young and someone who’s old that need to be recognised in law.

generalgrog wrote:
If you are using the word fad as a synonym for societal norms then you are correct. I already addressed this....See my post above.

So, wait, are we now going to arrest angst ridden teenagers who don't wear skinny jeans?

generalgrog wrote:
Vulgarity can be traumatizing to children that haven't been exposed to it.

It can also be traumatizing for children to observe men in drag, or women wearing particularly short skirts. Shall we therefore enforce gender standards in dress, and hemline restrictions?

More to the point, I highly doubt that any given child is going to, years from now, point back to that one time some guy dropped the F-bomb in public as the single event which sent him spiraling downwards into a life of drug addiction.

generalgrog wrote:
Plus it sets a poor example for them. Therefore, not cussing around children is certainly for their benefit.

Who says it sets a poor example? I'm quite confident that everyone on this board curses actively, or has cursed in the past. Are we all lesser people, and therefore poor examples for children, for having cursed?

generalgrog wrote:
uhhhh have you been taking lessons from dogma? Way to not only speak in pschyo babble AND make a gross exageration. Wait... dogma could actually take lessons form you on that. :-)

You have very odd understanding of the term 'psychobabble' Belphegor didn't use technical, or esoteric terminology. Nor did he exaggerate anything, he assumed something; that's what it means when you use the word 'undoubtedly' in reference to the future.

I don't really enjoy hearing 'Shat' ten times and 'Frack' twelve on my way to class so honestly I think this is good thing.

Southpark did an insightful episode on this once upon a time too :(

dogma wrote:It can also be traumatizing for children to observe men in drag, or women wearing particularly short skirts. Shall we therefore enforce gender standards in dress, and hemline restrictions?

I think it's reasonable for society to say there are things we as a group don't want to hear/see, and so they we will not allow people to say/show those things in public unless there is a real issue of personal freedom that trumps society’s wishes.

A man being able to find his own gender identity and present that in public is such a freedom, and so should trump society’s preference. But does such a freedom extend to a woman wanting to show more leg, or a to guy wanting to say ‘feth’?

I don’t think so.

sebster wrote:But does such a freedom extend to a woman wanting to show more leg, or a to guy wanting to say ‘feth’?

I don’t think so.

Well, we are going to have to disagree here.

If a woman wants to walk around in a mini-skirt, I have no complaints. If a woman wants to walk around topless, many people could be offended, on reasonable grounds. I would consider extending this to the mothers who like to breast feed their baby, anywhere they damn please. Whatever, I am not a fan of seeing kids suck on their mothers boob, but I would not go far as saying they should be fined for doing so. In terms of what is, and isn't okay for people to do and not do, there are clear lines that can be presented, which many would agree upon.

People can be naked at a nude beach if they want, and people can simply find a non-nude beach if they want to avoid seeing excess amounts of skin. The difference between a woman in a bathing suit, and one without one these days... I mean really, I am not freaking blind. No one (hopefully) would seriously push to ban revealing bikinis at the beach.

If I drop the f-bomb, because I had a long day, and some kids parent feels like I should be fined for doing so... frankly, they can just bugger off. Overhearing a word, and being engaged in a conversation in which a person constantly uses specific words as a means of triggering an emotional response, you can simply walk away. If someone engages you, and eventually crosses into 'fighting words' territory, there should be a law in place to deal with that situation. Cussing teenagers on the subway, simply means you should think about taking an Ipod, or earplugs for your ride.

There are multiple ways in which this law could be abused, and it doesn't really address a serious issue.
Honestly, you might as well have a law in place, dealing with people that take the 'lord's name in vain".

Wrexasaur wrote:Well, we are going to have to disagree here.

If a woman wants to walk around in a mini-skirt, I have no complaints. If a woman wants to walk around topless, many people could be offended, on reasonable grounds. I would consider extending this to the mothers who like to breast feed their baby, anywhere they damn please. Whatever, I am not a fan of seeing kids suck on their mothers boob, but I would not go far as saying they should be fined for doing so. In terms of what is, and isn't okay for people to do and not do, there are clear lines that can be presented, which many would agree upon.

Sure, all I’m saying is there is a line where public decency is enforced. Whether it’s ‘no hem line above the knee’ or ‘everyone has to cover their genitals in public’ there is a line. There’s no objective measure of where that line should be drawn, it really comes down to each society finding its own standard, and adapting it as society changes.

So what I’m saying is that some things; like artistic expression, personal gender identity and like, are higher values than public decency, but as long as they’re not threatened I don’t see the problem. Swearing in public doesn’t seem like a fundamental right to me.

I wouldn’t vote for a ban on swearing in public (don’t policeman have bigger things to worry about?) but I’m not going to be outraged that a place puts such a law into action. That’s just them choosing their own social values.

sebster wrote:So what I’m saying is that some things; like artistic expression, personal gender identity and like, are higher values than public decency, but as long as they’re not threatened I don’t see the problem. Swearing in public doesn’t seem like a fundamental right to me.

So a comic walks into a park and starts swearing... on stage.

That was it... that was the joke.

Swearing is no different than using any other set of words, and I have most definitely been more offended by plain language, than I have ever been from colorful language. I see your point, but it doesn't really make a difference to me. In a park, on a bench, there is nothing keeping someone within earshot of curse words. If a guy want to stand next to a playground, and curse to himself, there are likely some laws already in place to deal with that situation.

Anyone could say you just swore, and you get pimp-slapped with a ticket, regardless of what you actually said. It is a free-ride for jerks, that have no problem using the cops as their personal task-force. Who knows what you said? Does it matter? Your word versus the accuser. What a lame ass law.

I would love to see the list of words... right next to that fancy list of banned internet sites.

sebster wrote:
A man being able to find his own gender identity and present that in public is such a freedom, and so should trump society’s preference. But does such a freedom extend to a woman wanting to show more leg, or a to guy wanting to say ‘feth’?

I think we also have to consider the degree to which society's preference necessitates action. Any given society will generally prefer that its members live in safety, and so assault tends to be considered a crime. There is a compelling reason for this measure, as a society threatened by danger from within is not likely to remain a society for long. The pertinent interest in this case is therefore derived from self-preservation, which is probably the most compelling force there is.

Contrast the issue of assault, which demands legislation due to its nature, with profanity. A society which tolerates profanity is not one which is endangered by that fact. When someone says 'feth' they aren't inviting a breakdown in the fundamental relationship between two people and the process, when executed en masse, isn't going to dissolve the social order.

This is all very simplistic, of course. Societies, in the modern sense, don't generally deal in explicit codes of conduct. The more compelling question is whether or not the state (or municipality) should be attempting to develop legislation in concert with an understanding of society based on supposition.

sebster wrote:Sure, all I’m saying is there is a line where public decency is enforced. Whether it’s ‘no hem line above the knee’ or ‘everyone has to cover their genitals in public’ there is a line. There’s no objective measure of where that line should be drawn, it really comes down to each society finding its own standard, and adapting it as society changes.

Then we have to disagree. I personally don't see it as a good thing that people are allowed to enforce their own moral values on other people.

If I'm not actually hurting anyone else, or behaving in such a way as I am going to hurt someone else, there is, so far as I can see, no reasonable argument* that can be made for making my behaviour fineable.

(of course, this is contingent on my obeying laws on trespassing and such.)

(*there are many and varied legal precedents on the matter for a legal argument, but that's not what I mean)

So, wait, are we now going to arrest angst ridden teenagers who don't wear skinny jeans?

Even as we speak, the camps are being constructed. The day is coming...

Are we all lesser people, and therefore poor examples for children

.... must..resist....

Wrexasaur wrote:Swearing is no different than using any other set of words, and I have most definitely been more offended by plain language, than I have ever been from colorful language. I see your point, but it doesn't really make a difference to me. In a park, on a bench, there is nothing keeping someone within earshot of curse words. If a guy want to stand next to a playground, and curse to himself, there are likely some laws already in place to deal with that situation.

Sure, but there's nothing inherently wrong with any taboo. Taboos don't have to make sense. They just have to be something people are offended by.

Anyone could say you just swore, and you get pimp-slapped with a ticket, regardless of what you actually said. It is a free-ride for jerks, that have no problem using the cops as their personal task-force. Who knows what you said? Does it matter? Your word versus the accuser. What a lame ass law.

But that's making assumptions about the law in question, and about the burden of proof. I could just say that you shoved my to the ground and call an officer over to arrest you, but that isn't enough for conviction. I don't see why this law would be any different.

But I do agree this law will be unlikely to be enforced to any great effect. You'll probably see a handful of kids pinged each year for swearing at police officers, and a few more unlucky enough to be overheard by zealous cops.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:I think we also have to consider the degree to which society's preference necessitates action. Any given society will generally prefer that its members live in safety, and so assault tends to be considered a crime. There is a compelling reason for this measure, as a society threatened by danger from within is not likely to remain a society for long. The pertinent interest in this case is therefore derived from self-preservation, which is probably the most compelling force there is.

Contrast the issue of assault, which demands legislation due to its nature, with profanity. A society which tolerates profanity is not one which is endangered by that fact. When someone says 'feth' they aren't inviting a breakdown in the fundamental relationship between two people and the process, when executed en masse, isn't going to dissolve the social order.

No, but neither is heading out into public pants-free. I agree that the negative impact of the action is a factor, but so is the loss of freedom by the actor. Sure, there's little lost in hearing someone swear, but there's about as little lost in someone being unable to swear in public.

This is all very simplistic, of course. Societies, in the modern sense, don't generally deal in explicit codes of conduct. The more compelling question is whether or not the state (or municipality) should be attempting to develop legislation in concert with an understanding of society based on supposition.

There's also an issue of how much we should care. We're talking about a few kids a year being fined for swearing in public.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:Then we have to disagree. I personally don't see it as a good thing that people are allowed to enforce their own moral values on other people.

If I'm not actually hurting anyone else, or behaving in such a way as I am going to hurt someone else, there is, so far as I can see, no reasonable argument* that can be made for making my behaviour fineable.

So people should be able to walk around nude, if they want?

sebster wrote:But that's making assumptions about the law in question, and about the burden of proof. I could just say that you shoved my to the ground and call an officer over to arrest you, but that isn't enough for conviction. I don't see why this law would be any different.

But I do agree this law will be unlikely to be enforced to any great effect. You'll probably see a handful of kids pinged each year for swearing at police officers, and a few more unlucky enough to be overheard by zealous cops.

I would love to agree with you on this, I really would.

This law supposedly allows cops to give you a ticket, right on the spot. It is a means for the police departments to go fundraising for new cruisers. I have gotten plenty enough tickets to know when I am simply being forced to pay for a cops new mini-fridge. Matter of fact, I got one just yesterday... I wonder why there are 5 cop cars waiting on this street, with a motorcycle cop waiting at the stop light a block ahead of them... what could they possibly be doing? Instead of having a drunk stop, they just pull everyone over, and accuse you of whatever the hell they feel like. 5 cars lined up, all of them get tickets, and that happens every 20 minutes. I knew a guy that saw this happen weekly, from his window. It is a money-maker, it buys stuff for that department.

Something about a pedestrian... not sure how I could have seen that, as I was going through a green light, and there were dozens of flashing lights on the next block. Police go about doing things like this in various ways, and giving them more power in that respect, is an absolutely terrible idea. I would be surprised, very surprised, if this did not become the weapon of choice, for a large part of the police force in that area.

You got time to go work that ticket out in court? The cop probably isn't going to show up anyway... too bad it will take a whole day, just to make sure you can take care of everything... thus spending more money than the ticket would have cost. Be careful what you wish for... because the cops will clearly take advantage of the situation. Talk about this next year... I really hope that your police are held in high regard out there.

...are police departments allowed to keep the money they fine people for then ?