Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty Digest™ News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty Digest™ 

Groups Argue That Massachusetts' Obscenity Law Violates Free-Speech Rights

November 2, 2010 by  

Groups argue that Massachusetts' obscenity law violates free-speech rightsInternet content providers and free-speech advocates are arguing that a new Massachusetts law violates the First Amendment.

The Associated Press reports that several organizations, including the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Massachusetts, filed a Federal lawsuit in July claiming that a law passed by legislators bans Internet material that adults have the right to view.

The law, which prohibits individuals from sending sexually explicit messages to minors through text messages, email and other electronic communications, was passed after the state's highest court overruled the conviction of a man who was accused of sending erotic messages to someone he believed was a 13 year old girl.

The plaintiff's attorney, Michael Bamberger, claimed that language in the law will prevent adults from speaking freely in chat rooms out of fear that minors will see it as well.

"You have a statute here that restricts protected speech," Bamberger said, as quoted by the news provider.

According to The National Journal, the ACLU released a report earlier this week that argued for network neutrality rules in order to protect First Amendment rights. The organization called for Federal Communication Commission (FCC) regulations that would bar broadband providers from discriminating against Internet content.

In order to do so, the FCC would have to reclassify broadband from an information service to a telecommunication service. 

Filed Under: Conservative Politics, Liberty News
Personal Liberty News Desk

Facebook Conversations

Join the Discussion:
View Comments to “Groups Argue That Massachusetts' Obscenity Law Violates Free-Speech Rights”

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

Is there news related to personal liberty happening in your area? Contact us at newstips@personalliberty.com

  • Jozie

    I do think that obscene language is mostly unnecessary, but I don’t beleive it is directly related to lack of intelligence, as someone stated above. I know many many very educated people (as I am a healthcare professional, and within my immediate experience, I would say that obscenity is related to level of frustration. Perhaps everyone just needs to learn to deal with their frustrations, and then less offensive language would be used.

  • JoMama

    Gunner689 – I don’t vote for those BOZOS!! Sometime I wonder if the Massachusetts elections are fixed. I hate this Democratic state of Massachusetts. I wanna go to Arizona where it’s warm & the Governor is fighting for ME – not the lawbreakers that could possibly vote for their cause. It’s a disgrace, I tell you. I’m really pissed that the elections turned out on the Democratic side AGAIN!! You’d figure that a visit from Barack Obama would be enough to scare EVERYONE to vote Republican – but I guess those asshats in Massachusetts here have no brains between any of them.
    Yes. Asshats.

  • JoMama

    I have no problem with any of the “forbidden words”. They actually make me more comfortable when it flies around. Too bad for you people that are hurt by words. There is NOTHING offensive about swear words. It’s just words.
    If there has to be someone out there monitoring every word that comes from my mouth – that, for sure, is really sad.
    So, what could be the punishment for swearing in Massachusetts??? I’m from Massachusetts & I’m offended that I cannot say what I want when I want to. This country is slowly becoming radical & misled by our leaders. There should be NO law that makes it a crime to say what we WANT to say.
    THAT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!
    WHY isn’t someone doing something about this??

  • http://personallibertydigest Betty

    with all this goverment junk people are afraid to correct their childen afraid they will be taken away. me i am 70 years old my mother rest her soul slapped my brother whom had come home on leave from the army we were in a store and he said the s— word she slapped in the face and told him never talk like that in front of her again he never did -respect. me i slappled my grandsone in the face for saying the f word and i told him you dont talk like that to me he is 20 years old i dont talk like that and i dont want it around me eather and they know it i will do all i can for my children and grandchildren but you can show respect for me or suffer for it your choice and i will not lie for then eather

  • http://gunner689 gunner689

    Mass. itself is an obsenity. Look at the garbage they elect and send to Washington.

  • coal miner

    Many members of the public mistakenly believe that the First Amendment’s “free speech” liberties cover everything that is written, spoken, or pictured. Not true. As the Supreme Court put it in Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476, 483 (1957): “[I]t is apparent that the unconditional phrasing of the First Amendment was not intended to protect every utterance.”

  • Bob Wire

    and on a different note

    Good news for every American today , the courts have ruled. Arizona got part of what they wanted. A tool to work with without compromising every Americans Constitutional rights.

    For all you people that was getting your panties in a bunch. Coping attitudes and expecting quick knee jerk legal action.

    PHOENIX — Gov. Jan Brewer of Arizona signed the nation’s toughest bill on illegal immigration into law on Friday. Its aim is to identify, prosecute and deport illegal immigrants.

    basically the ability to check immigration status when detained under “probable cause” of criminal activity, as I understand it.

    That could be a simple car stop or vagrant response.

    But a Hispanic mother going to the food store and not returning home shouldn’t be an issue created by this law.

    Or some back water hillbilly sheriff and his buddy the judge, has less to beat the average American over the head with if they happen through his town. ~ That’s a big problem here in America today, it’s not fictions for a movie script. It’s real and ongoing everyday.

    As a Mariner, I’ve driven, bussed, and flown in and out of all the southern coastal states. It’s a minefield of municipal corruption.

    They want your money!

  • Harold Olsen

    There is a lot of junk on the Internet that I’d like to see stopped, such as sending sexually explicit material to minors. However, once you start regulating one part of the Internet then everything gets regulated. Obama has plans to control the Internet so he can shut it down in an emergency. An emergency for him would be criticism of his Nazi agenda and he wants to silence us. I say, leave the Internet alone! It’s up to parents to regulate what their children do online, not the government. It’s time for parents to be parents and act like responsible adults, though I’m beginning to believe that that is asking too much these days.

  • Bob Wire

    I don’t think we could ever create and enforce enough laws to protect us from ourselves or each other.

    Somewhere down the road someone must take an accounting of self.

    • http://none Mike

      Thats a problem too Bob people out there that do not want any responsibility for their actions. They want rules and regulations to make them a protected class so they can bury their actions in retoric. I am opressed minority so I didnt have a choice in the matter is an excuse too many use to do nothing in their lives but mooch off the system. Mike L.

    • 45caliber

      For once you are right.

  • http://mauroytita@hotmail.com Mauro Pineda

    ACLU are a Bunch of COMMUNISTS they are there to protect THE CROOKS THE

    PEOPLE WITH LACK OF COMMON SENSE an the criminals,

    ACLU go back to RUSSIA where they are belong to. The Massachussets is

    law is to protect the Kids from Pedofiles

  • http://mauroytita@hotmail.com Mauro Pineda

    ACLU are a Bunch of COMMUNISTS they are there to protect THE CROOKS THE

    PEOPLE WITH LACK OF COMMON SENSE an the criminals,

    ACLU go back to RUSSIA where they are belong to.

    • Bob Wire

      Caps no less, should we be surprised at the message?

    • Harold Olsen

      What do you expect. The founder of the ACLU, whose name escapes me, was both an atheist and a socialist. The only constitution they defend with their “separation of church and state” is the Soviet Union’s constitution which is the only constitution in the world where that phrase ever appeared.

  • http://none Mike

    I think the law misses the point as well as most of you have. This is about a pedofile stalking his prey via the internet. He had to have made contact with this chiled some way before he could have sent sexually explicit text to her phone. That being said have any of you moniterd the popular music of today? I can tell you from experiance from listining to what my 17year old nephew looks up on his computer that its not good people.If they are learning all they need to know about how to treat a woman from this no wonder there are so many out of wedlock births.And no responsability for the chiled once made. If they learn their behavior from the music of the day then they belive its ok to go use a gun to settle the most minor of dissagrements. They have learned that drugs and thugs = money and power so we as adults have to step in and do a better job of steming some of this and teaching some form of moral self control. So that when they are exposed to this outside of our site they have the moral backbone to say this is wrong. Mike L.

    • Bob Wire

      if that be the case , there laws already on the books to address it.

      • http://none Mike

        Yea Bob that is what I was getting at. The very fact he was solicting a minor should have put him in jail. The words werent the problem it was the intent of thoes words to solicit. That is what gets me about Hate crime laws. If you hate someone enough to kill them then murder was the intent whoever race creed or color it was. Mike L.

      • 45caliber

        As far as I know, every person who might have been punished for “hate crimes” was punished more for the actual crime they committed than for what they might have gotten for committing a hate crime.

        Take the original case in Jasper, TX, for instance. They stated that the men who dragged the black man were guilty of hate crimes. But they were convicted of murder and sentenced to execution. I can’t think that any hate crime sentence could top execution. And we take that sentence seriously here in Texas.

  • Mac

    As for the internet, the internet does not need censoring. Parents must take responsibility for controlling their children. Filters are adequate for restricting what web sites and text can enter the home.

    It is impossible to control what children see outside the home, but proper parenting will inform the kids of the standards expected. When I was in 4th grade and up, dirty comics made their way around, but they were kept under the table. Every kid knew that what was seen and read in them was not something to be shouted within the hearing of mothers, grandmothers and other respected figures- or even fathers. Does anyone under 50 even know who “respected figures” are anymore?

  • Mac

    I am all for an amendment to the 1st Amendment to clarify that it has to do with political speech and expressing ideas, rather than filling the air with obscenities and hatred. The amendment does not need to be very specific, just basically what I said in my first sentence, above. I believe that defining “vile words and ideas,” “obscenities” and “hatred” should not be that hard to make clear.

  • marvin

    as for any rights your end where mine begins,sodomy was a criminal offence and still is in most states but some want to allow or legelize gays to marry,i am not one of them,a child is a blank slate you get out what you put in,bad in bad out,good in good out,your child is your responceabilty,if they see two loving people a man and a woman being good to one another thats what they will most likly be, if they see fighting and cussing,i thing you get the point the internet is like all good or bad things, you can find just about anything you want, like the tv if you don.t like it turn it of

    • Harold Olsen

      Everything you just said is basically why I think the Internet is so great. You can find anything you want–good an bad. As I’ve said before, there are things on the Internet I’d like to get rid of but once you start, where does it end. Leave the Internet alone!

      Several months ago, on the web site of our ABC affiliate here in Seattle, there was a discussion about the city council want to tax pornography. I really have no problem with that. Many people argued why this should not be done, giving various reason. My argument wasn’t that it should not be done but before they did tax pornography they needed to define clearly exactly what constitutes pornography. The dictionary meaning of it is words to the effect that it is anything which arouses the prurient interests in an individual. Well, that’s pretty vague. To different people, that means different things. Part of my argument was that some people might consider the JC Penney catalog as pornography since it depicts people in their underwear. Anyway, it was announced a few days later that the city council had dropped plans to tax pornography. I’d like to think that our online arguments were part of the reason it was dropped. I think that politicians have no desire to clearly define what pornography is because then they can just decide for themselves and tax anything they want.

      • 45caliber

        I agree with you.

  • Rick S

    Pretty soon you you will be labeled a criminal or terrorist if you even fart near an airport or the internet.
    How is it that church pushers know so much about internet content?
    Did their kids show them where to click?

    I think that people should use common sense when putting stuff on the net but it should be their right to do it if they want to.
    If you don’t like it don’t go there. Live and let live.

  • Santi

    The ACLU wants the internet service to fall under the telecummunication service because then the gov. can take control of the internet. This way they can turn it off at any time for or so called protection from terrorist.

    • 45caliber

      Keep in mind the HSD’s definintion of a “terrorist”. It isn’t some rag-head wanting to murder you. It is people who hang onto their Bible and guns and disagree with the President about abortion and other things he likes. And it includes all vets.

      Now, who does the government want to censor on internet?

  • Get real

    You don’t and shouldn”t protect any speech from an adult to a child. Get back to the basics, learn the Constitution, the courts have perverted it enough already! Prayer in public or at public meetings is OK, it’s NOT forming a religion.

    • 45caliber

      In other words, it is okay for an adult to talk about sex with a 13 year old to get them turned on so the adult can have sex with them? I’m afraid I don’t believe freedom of speach was meant for that.

      • Harold Olsen

        It should only be okay for parents to discuss sex with their children. The first time my father discussed sex with me was when I was 7 (1956). My older brother, 19 months older than me, and I saw a story the newspaper about a 7 year old girl in India having a baby. We couldn’t understand how a girl that young could have a baby. My father explained it to us. I didn’t understand a word he said.

        When I was in high school, in order for students to receive sex education from teachers you had to have permission from your parents.

        My, how things have changed. Parents no longer have any say in what their kids are taught. And yet, the authorities want parents held responsible, even criminally, for what their kids say and do. It’s now considered child abuse to teach your children religious values and morality but not perversion or immorality.

      • 45caliber

        I know what you mean. When I was in school there was no such thing as “sex education” except what you might learn in the locker room or the restrooms. Now, it is forced on the kids, whether we parents like it or not.

        And I’m fully convinced that part of the reason for this is that some character somewhere is in favor of it in the hope he can find some 13 year old and convince them to have sex with him.

  • http://ahalbert@smart-technology.net Allan Halbert

    Patriots understand that you have to defend freedom, because it doesn’t defend itself. In other words there is a responsibility. Progressives want freedoms without responsibility. Likewise, free speech goes with responsibility. It was intended as a vehicle to express ideas. Luring someone into illicit and dangerous circumstances is not the expression of ideas, it is a threat to public safety. Have the wisdom to see the difference. The Massachusetts law doesn’t diminish the right of free speech. It shows some character and serves the best interests of many rather than the selfish motives of the few.

    • Robert S

      When I grew up in the 50s it was rare to hear someone using cuss words. But there was no foul language on TV or the radio or even in the movies. We have no one but ourselves to blame for the culture that has taken over our country. Alot of parents today curse at home so it’s no wonder that the children do also. So some of you righteous bloggers should take a good look at yourselves and wonder why this has happened.

    • http://winniefinbar@juno.com Winnie Finbar

      Try talking against the wicked government that we now have and see how much freedom of speech we still have. Or, try to pray in school or any other public place and see how much freedom we have. Try preaching against homosexuality or Ialam and see how much freedom of speech we have. Look at the general that said something against Obama, he got fired. We have already lost our freedom of speech it’s just that the people haven’t been told that by the left media.

      • rich hutchins

        “Try talking against the wicked government that we now have and see how much freedom of speech we still have. ”

        i guess you’ve been rounded up for this anti-obama speech?

        “The ACLU wants the internet service to fall under the telecummunication service because then the gov. can take control of the internet. ”
        what? they fight to to keep the government from limited speech – thats what this article was about…

        come on people – this is how we loose our freedoms….. silliness…

      • Robert S

        There is now a bill in Congress to give the gov’t the right to blkackball anyone from using the internet. Can you feel them breathing down your neck?

  • http://MSA Kirby

    So what if a minor sees it, have you been around any minors and heard how they talk? There language is far from being perfect. The young girls use filthier language than most boys do. I’ve heard 13 and 14 year old girls who couldn’t say 10 words with out saying the “F” word at least 2 times. So why sensor the internet for their language when the everyday young peoples language is just about as bad or worse than grownups.

    • http://winniefinbar@juno.com Winnie Finbar

      And why is that. Could it be that they have access to porn and filthy language everywhere they go? Adults need to get their minds cleaned up and the children won’t be exposed to that filth. Children learn from adults.

      • 45caliber

        I agree. Adults should watch their language around children.

      • vicki

        Adults do. Adult age children do not.

      • 45caliber

        lol. I agree. In fact, I’ve said a couple of times that I have met adult 10-year-olds … and I’ve met people of 40+ who were still too immature to be trusted out alone at night.

      • meteorlady

        Winnie – you seem to want to blame society in general for all this. It’s not that – it’s the parents and how they were raised. If the parents teach respect and courtesy, then the children will be respectful.

    • Robin from Arcadia, IN

      Kirby… Kids will be kids. They will repeat what they hear, whether it be from adults, or older siblings. It doesn’t make it right! Not to mention, they also have a desire to grow up fast and knowing how cursing will upset adults, they do it. It’s a rebellion thing. I went through it, and I am sure 98% of the rest of the people in the world have went through it!

      • Mac

        “… Kids will be kids. They will repeat what they hear, whether it be from adults, or older siblings. It doesn’t make it right! … knowing how cursing will upset adults, they do it. It’s a rebellion thing.”

        The way I was brought up, “watching my language” was a sign of respect for my elders. Rebellion and upsetting adults is key; failure of adults to teach their children to respect their elders has brought this on. Flower Children of the 60s, do you feel any of your guilt in this?

      • 45caliber

        Children will repeat what they hear – so we should be careful of what we say around them. Further, they will hear everything whether we want them to or not – but we should also make it clear BY EXAMPLE that such language is not acceptable in public.

  • markpepper

    When did freedom of speech get translated into freedom of expression? I doubt one signer of the DoI or the Bill of Rights thought it would ever come to freedom of obscene expression.

    • http://winniefinbar@juno.com Winnie Finbar

      That’s the same as saying a woman has a 1st amendment right to kill her unborn child. I have a copy of the Constitution and The Bill of Rights and I can’t find that anywhere. Nor do I find a first amendment right to distribute porn. Years back anyone who did that would have been tared, fethered, and sent out of town. I don’t feel that anyone has a right to run an “adult” books and toys shop either. All this is the reason our beloved country is being judged by Almighty God. It’s just that people are too stupid to know what judgement looks like.

      • Bleh

        You did not look to hard then.
        The 9nth Amendment: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people…

      • Bleh

        You must understand that the Constitution is not designed to limit freedom, it is designed to limit Government.

      • vicki

        If I were a Democrat I might feel that you do not have the right to run a shop where you have the audacity to sell conservative books. But you do. Your feelings and mine are not relevant to a republic where it is the rule of LAW not the rule of men nor the rule of the majority.

        The First Amendment specifically limits CONGRESS so free speech could easily be limited by any state government such as Massachusetts. However there is the matter of the 14th amendment which is purported to extend bill of rights limits on government power to the limit state and local power too.

        Remember PEOPLE have rights AND powers. Governments (local,state,federal) only have POWERS that we the PEOPLE have consented to allow them.

        Never forget governments have only powers not rights.

      • http://?? Joe H.

        vicki,
        A kiosk owner was told his permit to operate a kiosk in a simon mall would not be renewed because he stocked and displayed t-shirts with a picture of Nobama and a circle with a slash through it!!!
        Simon malls also stopped a TEA party gathering in Atlanta by going to city hall and telling them that it would be bad for their business to have that kind of gathering next to their mall!! I have not been back to our local mall since because it too, is a simon mall!!

      • meteorlady

        So when I protest that I don’t like religious stores would that be the same? I’m not saying I’m not religious, but the parity is there is it not? Where does it stop? What is offensive? I find war far more offensive than some stupid words that really can’t hurt me and which I can ignore or not visit the site.

  • alpha-lemming

    The NAMBLAs and like-minded pedophilliacs of the world will do to free-speech what thugs, criminals, and gang-bangers have done to the second amendment.

    How soon ’til ALL activities will have a regulated ceiling because of what the dumbest, most inept, least responsible, and pathologic among us MIGHT do (gotta install govenors on cars giving them a top-speed of 5mph because of drunk/inexperienced/distracted drivers)??

  • Roger Bedor

    It always amazes me that the minute that freedom of speech rights comes up, the only ones who are concerned are the twisted ones. Yes, you have freedom to say what you want and post whatever garbage you want, but you don’t consider those of us who are somewhat more normal. If you really feel that your twisted minds need to dwell on that garbage, then all of you gather together in a “room” somewhere at a landfill or such place and have at it. Not where it may or may not be seen by the rest of us. You fall under the same category as convicted criminals who feel that they have the same rights as the rest of us. WRONG!!

    • http://yahoo jowolo

      I dont go to those web-sites that have the so-called garbage on them. Guess you have more experience with them.

      • http://winniefinbar@juno.com Winnie Finbar

        I’m glad to hear that you don’t go to those web sites but kids do. There’s not enough supervision at home. “A child left to himself brings his mother to shame”.

      • TIME

        Winnie,
        Thats why computers have locks for parents to use with a password for such sights.

        On this issue I will agree with the ACLU 100%, as “any infringments on the 1st amendment” or any Amendment is a strike against your Freedom, so people please rethink your mind sets on this.

        A word is just that a word. Most have little meaning outside the modern applications.

        Freedom comes with great cost; that cost is to be able to allow persons to partake in endeavors that you may not like not partake in.
        Thats what Freedom means.

        Now as I said please rethink your mindsets people, as many of the post thus far are no better than what a Nazi would quote, nor a Marxist.

        Freedom means self control not appointed control from anyone nor any government.

      • 45caliber

        I believe that freedom of speech is a must. However, this law isn’t blocking freedom of speech. It is blocking any move to send the foul speech to children. I have no problem with that at all. If you want to curse, etc. do it where you don’t expect minors to be. I was brought up to do just that and so were everyone else I knew then.

      • Bleh

        Time I agree and I would only add that once you let them take a bite of your liberty here or there they will continue a little nibble at a time.
        Eventually you will have lost your liberty altogether as you let them restrict “Out of concern for the Children” or whatever floats their boat at the time.
        We have done it before.
        It is for the children they say, then quality of education declines and now generally speaking the last few generations lack any self responsibility, any respect for anyone and anything and take bullying to the point where kids break and kill people for it.

        It is for our elderly, then quality of health-care declines, we get an income tax and social security for Gov to swipe from, the Federal reserve, Waco, Ruby Ridge, Wars of Aggression. Apparently printing money was not enough.

        It is for the children again and now they want to ban inappropriate words. You will see people going to jail for saying or typing the wrong words. You will see the list of inappropriate words expanded and then you will see people who are afraid to say or type anything at all. That is when they will introduce the Thought Police publicly if they haven’t allready.

        The possibilities are endless once you open Pandora’s Box.

      • Dee

        Couldn’t agree more, you are right on. No one is going to tell me how I can talk, my ex tried that!!

      • vicki

        The laws about “hate speech” are the perfect example of Time’s warning. I agree with Time that I must side with the ACLU position on this law. It has a chilling effect on adults. I am tired of Uncle Sam telling me and my children what to eat, where to go and what to say and hear and think.

        Yes children will hear this stuff. One way or another. It is OUR job as parents to prepare them just as our parents prepared us. Because of that preparation you will notice I don’t bother with crass stuff. I am reasonably certain my children are (over 21 anyway :) ) doing just fine in spite of their possible contact with what we might consider to be vulgar.

      • meteorlady

        Thanks for the well thought out comment Time! People give up freedoms little by little because it really doesn’t affect them so they are OK with it. When you do that eventually it does affect you.

      • meteorlady

        45caliber – I visited Seattle awhile back. Was at an outdoor shopping mall when the high school and jr. high schoolers got out. The language that I heard was terrible. The taunts by boys to girls was terrible. I had a choice – say something or walk away. I choose to say something. They were somewhat contrite and left without comment….. but still parent don’t teach children anymore about common courtesy and how to act in public places.

    • Harold Olsen

      I’m 61 and when I was a kid a person could be arrested for using vulgarity in public. Also, you could have your telephone turned off if you used vulgar language during a telephone call.

      • http://?? Joe H.

        Harold,
        Party lines?? I remember one time my brother came home on leave and said a few choice words over the phone and all he heard was a gasp and a click. the nosey old lady down the street was listening in and got an earfull!!! Served her right!!

  • http://yahoo jowolo

    If the aclu is against it then I am for it.

    • http://winniefinbar@juno.com Winnie Finbar

      All I can say to that is AMEN!!!!

  • JimH

    Do people really need to use obscenity to express themselves? Maybe they need toworkon their vocabulary skills.

    • 45caliber

      I was always told that vulgarity is the sign of a lack of intelligence.

      • Bleh

        What you were told is based on Flawed Logic. It amounts to stereotyping and nothing more.

      • 45caliber

        No, it meant that the person didn’t have enough intelligence to think of (know) different words and be able to use them in an arguement.

      • Bob Wire

        words, expletives are used as paint to canvas. They “should be” considered “deliberate” and purposeful.

        But as we see in example; “When are these limp wrist liberals going to realize “Name Calling” will only get them so far.”

        That is a mindless statement by a poster here, who’s mind left the building shortly after he logged on.

        I enjoy “colorful language” , I don’t enjoy crass profanity.

        All laws are obstacles administrated by the courts and arms of government. They are restrictive in nature for some proposed greater good.

        Just more government actually.

        If you don’t appreciate something or someones don’t support it. Sometimes a little accidental elbow to the rib cage or across the bridge of the nose works wonders.

        You want to be heard ?~ whisper in their ear, stop it.

        and protect your children with all the power you can muster.

      • JimH

        45, My Dad says some people are offended when people use obscenity or profanity, but no one is offended if you don’t. Some times it’s just a matter of courtesy to others. He won’t use a word of profanity, but he CAN get the message across, with no doubt left in your mind.

      • 45caliber

        Jeff:

        I agree with your dad. He’s a wise man.

        When I was in the Army it was forbidden for Basic Training sergeants to use profanity. I still, to this day, have an admiration for their use of the English language. I never heard a single one say a profane word – but you could always tell when they were upset with you – and you certainly FELT like you’d been propery cussed out for an infraction!

      • http://?? Joe H.

        45caliber,
        Boy! When I was in basic in 1968, they sure could cuss then!!! I remember SSGT Stafford cussing for at least 5 minutes at a time!! They were pros at it!!!

      • Harold Olsen

        I agree with that. I find it amazing how many people are incapable of saying a complete sentence without inserting at least one four letter word.

      • http://YouTube.com/CanadaLarry Lawrence Edward Calcut

        Mom and dad told me the same thing. And its true.

      • http://YouTube.com/CanadaLarry Lawrence Edward Calcut

        Well spoken 45, well said. Only a stupid person with a 99er IQ has to use the f… word.

        By the way, use the word intercourse in a sentence some time and listen to the silence in the room for a few seconds.

blog comments powered by Disqus

All Categories

Bottom