Free speech be damned

The residents of Middleborough, Mass., have had enough. In a state with a storied history of Puritan-inspired prohibitions, they voted 183-50 in a town meeting last week to approve a proposal that would, among other things, impose a $20 fine on public profanity, First Amendment be damned.

In a town of roughly 20,000 people best known for its cranberry bogs, profanity was just one of several practices addressed in the recently passed bylaw.

This proposal toes an uncomfortable line, as do most attempts to restrict speech of any kind in public. Even if the goal is to foster respect among residents, its not the best idea to let officers start ticketing vulgar language they hear in public spaces like parks or downtown. In fact, its not even clear where the line is and just what, exactly, the officers would be ticketing. As a local sergeant recently told the Boston Globe: I think we all know, in our minds, what is inappropriate. Do we? And is that really something thats best for police to decide?

Its easy to sympathize with Middleborough residents who dont want to live in a perpetual rap song and encounter profanity everywhere they go. Its also easy to see why the towns Board of Selectmen would want to make their community a kinder, more genial place. Still, there are arguably bigger risks in imposing a law. If the Massachusetts attorney general approves it, the ordinance would encourage police to ticket speech that is, and likely will eventually be found to be, constitutionally protected. As it stands, the First Amendment protects profanity unless its coupled with true threats, fighting words or an incitement to imminent lawless action.

If not, as former Supreme Court Justice John Marshall Harlan II famously wrote in the courts Cohen v. California opinion: One mans vulgarity is another mans lyric.

Another mans lyric shouldnt have to cost him $20.

Read the original:
Free speech be damned