South Carolina Bill Seeks to Outlaw Profanity

  • Thread starter FoolKiller
  • 30 comments
  • 2,260 views

FoolKiller

Don't be a fool.
Premium
24,553
United States
Frankfort, KY
GTP_FoolKiller
FoolKiller1979
The story from Game Politics, where I found it.
http://www.gamepolitics.com/2009/01/15/south-carolina-bill-would-outlaw-profanity

South Carolina Bill Would Outlaw Profanity
January 15, 2009

South Carolina State Senator Robert Ford (D) has introduced a bill that, essentially, seeks to outlaw profanity.

S.56 would prohibit the public utterance or publication of printed material containing profanity. It would also make it illegal to "exhibit or otherwise make available material containing words, language, or actions of a profane, vulgar, lewd, lascivious, or indecent nature."

On the video game front, presumably, this might encompass the F-bombs included not only in Grand Theft Auto IV's dialogue but in Band of Brothers: Hell's Highway and various other M-rated games. Movies, books, websites, magazines, music and cable TV, of course, would also be threatened.

The proposal would make the dissemination of such profanity a felony, punishable by five years in jail or a $5,000 fine. Or both.

The actual bill in question:
http://www.scstatehouse.gov/sess118_2009-2010/bills/56.htm

S. 56

STATUS INFORMATION

General Bill
Sponsors: Senator Ford
Document Path: l:\council\bills\ms\7049ahb09.docx

Introduced in the Senate on January 13, 2009
Currently residing in the Senate Committee on Judiciary

Summary: Profanity

HISTORY OF LEGISLATIVE ACTIONS


Date Body Action Description with journal page number
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
12/10/2008 Senate Prefiled
12/10/2008 Senate Referred to Committee on Judiciary
1/13/2009 Senate Introduced and read first time SJ-98
1/13/2009 Senate Referred to Committee on Judiciary SJ-98

View the latest legislative information at the LPITS web site

VERSIONS OF THIS BILL

12/10/2008



(Text matches printed bills. Document has been reformatted to meet World Wide Web specifications.)


A BILL
TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 16-15-370 SO AS TO MAKE IT UNLAWFUL TO COMMUNICATE PROFANITY IN A PUBLIC FORUM OR PLACE OF PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION; BY ADDING SECTION 16-15-430 SO AS TO CREATE THE OFFENSE OF DISSEMINATING PROFANITY TO A MINOR AND PROVIDE A PENALTY FOR THE OFFENSE; TO AMEND SECTION 16-15-305, RELATING TO DISSEMINATING OBSCENITY, SO AS TO SPECIFY BOTH ORAL AND WRITTEN PUBLICATIONS; AND TO AMEND SECTION 16-15-375, RELATING TO DEFINITIONS FOR PURPOSES OF MORALITY AND DECENCY OFFENSES AGAINST MINORS, SO AS TO INCLUDE THE OFFENSE OF DISSEMINATING PROFANITY TO A MINOR.

Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of South Carolina:

SECTION 1. Article 3, Chapter 15, Title 16 of the 1976 Code is amended by adding:

"Section 16-15-370. (A) It is unlawful for a person in a public forum or place of public accommodation wilfully and knowingly to publish orally or in writing, exhibit, or otherwise make available material containing words, language, or actions of a profane, vulgar, lewd, lascivious, or indecent nature.

(B) A person who violates the provisions of this section is guilty of a felony and, upon conviction, must be fined not more than five thousand dollars or imprisoned not more than five years, or both."

SECTION 2. Article 3, Chapter 15, Title 16 of the 1976 Code is amended by adding:

"Section 16-15-430. (A) It is unlawful for a person to disseminate profanity to a minor if he wilfully and knowingly publishes orally or in writing, exhibits, or otherwise makes available material containing words, language, or actions of profane, vulgar, lewd, lascivious, or indecent nature.

(B) A person who violates the provisions of this section is guilty of a felony and, upon conviction, must be fined not more than five thousand dollars or imprisoned not more than five years, or both."

SECTION 3. Section 16-15-305(A)(3) of the 1976 Code is amended to read:

"(3) publishes orally or in writing, exhibits, or otherwise makes available anything obscene to any a group or individual; or"

SECTION 4. The first undesignated paragraph of Section 16-15-375 of the 1976 Code is amended to read:

"The following definitions apply to Section 16-15-385, disseminating or exhibiting to minors harmful material or performances; Section 16-15-387, employing a person under the age of eighteen years to appear in a state of sexually explicit nudity in a public place; Section 16-15-395, first degree sexual exploitation of a minor; Section 16-15-405, second degree sexual exploitation of a minor; Section 16-15-410, third degree sexual exploitation of a minor; Section 16-15-415, promoting prostitution of a minor; and Section 16-15-425, participating in prostitution of a minor; and Section 16-15-430, disseminating profanity to a minor."

SECTION 5. The repeal or amendment by this act of any law, whether temporary or permanent or civil or criminal, does not affect pending actions, rights, duties, or liabilities founded thereon, or alter, discharge, release or extinguish any penalty, forfeiture, or liability incurred under the repealed or amended law, unless the repealed or amended provision shall so expressly provide. After the effective date of this act, all laws repealed or amended by this act must be taken and treated as remaining in full force and effect for the purpose of sustaining any pending or vested right, civil action, special proceeding, criminal prosecution, or appeal existing as of the effective date of this act, and for the enforcement of rights, duties, penalties, forfeitures, and liabilities as they stood under the repealed or amended laws.

SECTION 6. This act takes effect upon approval by the Governor.


----XX----

This web page was last updated on January 14, 2009 at 11:00 AM

So, we know this bill will never pass, and if it did it would be struck down in court within minutes. I mean, the lawyer trying to strike it down merely needs to read the bill, followed by the First Amendment as his evidence.

The real question is: How can anyone who took an oath of public office ever write a bill like this? Did he even pay attention when he did it? I mean, what is Senator Ford smoking here?

And this rigt here is evidence enough in my mind that any bill should be co-signed by a second elected representative before it can ever be brought up. He is wasting time and money on either 1) a joke or 2) his total lack of understanding of his job.
 
My question would be how they ever would enforce it. It would be absolutely impossible, and to that end, I can't think of a single police officer or any other kind of lawman that would actually take the time out of their day to do so when there clearly are more important things to accomplish.
 
Why aren’t these kinds of legislators pelted with stones? Or at least suspended/impeached for being idiots.
 
Why aren’t these kinds of legislators pelted with stones? Or at least suspended/impeached for being idiots.

Because they represent podunk constituencies who want them to introduce the legislature.
 
My question would be how they ever would enforce it. It would be absolutely impossible, and to that end, I can't think of a single police officer or any other kind of lawman that would actually take the time out of their day to do so when there clearly are more important things to accomplish.
With a possible $5,000 fine on the line? You could bet cops would be encouraged to enforce this more than they are littering ($500 fine).
 
"Sir, you're under arrest."

"What for?"

"You said a naughty word! You should be ashamed, there might have been children around!"

"What word did I say that was bad?"

"You said 'crap', which is punishable by 3 months prison!"

:yuck:
 
It's funny, cause I bet most law enforcers are pretty guilty of it themselves.

But on a sad note, Die Hard movies (bar the sterilised 4) won't be half as entertaining.
 
I guess this is what their soprano episodes will look like.



thanks buickgnx88 for the vid ;)
 
Why aren’t these kinds of legislators pelted with stones? Or at least suspended/impeached for being idiots.

Because they represent podunk constituencies who want them to introduce the legislature.
Which is a bunch of crap. They're not representing who they're supposed to represent. I just cannot understand how they're allowed to do that! I feel that most people are comfortable with current language restrictions and ratings. They're reasonable. The majority of people I know wouldn't mind at all if they were even more lax than now, and they surely don't censor themselves around acquaintances!
 
If I were the judge having to decide that, here would be my dialogue.
"Uh, no. Bull:censored:. 🤬 off and have a nice day.
 
Do they really think they can drag movie producers and game and book publishers over to South Carolina and put 'em in a courtroom?

And what is profanity? Who keeps the list? I had an uncle who didn't use "foul" language, but he could say "birds!" in a manner that made it clear what he meant.

(His joke was: that was how he learned to deal with "fowl" language.)
 
It's funny, cause I bet most law enforcers are pretty guilty of it themselves.

But on a sad note, Die Hard movies (bar the sterilised 4) won't be half as entertaining.
I'd love to see them attempt to enforce this with people who watch these movies in their house. :lol:

Honestly, this guy just wasted his time. The First Amendment will throw this out before it's even taken half seriously.
 
Wow, talk about an unconstitutional bill. Where do they even get off?
 
It reminds me of that movie where the guy was unfrozen to kill this guy who he had been frozen with. The movie took place like a millennium from now and the only parts i remember was when the antagonist got frozen and the hero broke him into a million pieces.

the parts that really remind me of it was those automatic ticketers that would make you pay like $50 everytime you swore. instead of toilet paper there were these wierd shell things and one of the people around him was laughing that he "didn't know how to use the shell" and he just went to the ticketer and started saying random swear words.


The bill is totally absurd...
 
It reminds me of that movie where the guy was unfrozen to kill this guy who he had been frozen with. The movie took place like a millennium from now and the only parts i remember was when the antagonist got frozen and the hero broke him into a million pieces.

the parts that really remind me of it was those automatic ticketers that would make you pay like $50 everytime you swore. instead of toilet paper there were these wierd shell things and one of the people around him was laughing that he "didn't know how to use the shell" and he just went to the ticketer and started saying random swear words.
Be well, John Spartan and I will treat you at Taco Bell.
 
Only in the U.S. can this happen. :lol: Believe it or not,it really is a good place to live
🤬 South Carolina State Senator Robert Ford . OOOOPS , did I say that ? that statement probably bought me 10 to 20 in the IRON BAR HOTEL , but will be out in 5 , because of good behavior , maybe ? :lol:
 
It reminds me of that movie where the guy was unfrozen to kill this guy who he had been frozen with. The movie took place like a millennium from now and the only parts i remember was when the antagonist got frozen and the hero broke him into a million pieces.


Thats what posts 14 and 15 were about :)
 
Does "Would you like to have sex?" fall into the bill? Is propositioning considered profane? :)
 
This is South Carolina, where in some jurisdictions, stores are not permitted to sell items that are not food nor medicine on Sundays.

Buying a USB cable on a Sunday is the work of the devil.
 
Back