TexasCHLforum.com

M9FAN wrote:Zacherl said the assistant fire marshal had no choice.

"When you're in uniform, you have to uphold the laws," the fire chief said. "It's like if he was on the way home and saw a drunk driver — he had to act."

If he saw a drunk driver he would HAVE TO perform a traffic stop? Really? What's the penalty if he doesn't? A class "F" misdemeanor?

Now I'm wondering if they can pass a law against Muslim prayer. Freedom of religion and Freedom of speech are both protected by the First Amendment.

I do believe that there are rare occasions when profanity might be called for - like if you smash your thumb with a hammer and a molten river of lava language is the only thing that will free your mind (and there's nobody around to be offended by it). But in everyday casual use, if you can't issue forth a declarative sentence without lacing it fore and aft and beam to beam with F-bombs, then you seriously lack imagination. Casual, unprovoked, and unimaginative profanity is the refuge of the small of mind.

bdickens wrote:There are adults wandering out in the world unsupervised and sometimes they use adult language.

First, I don't know enough about what actually happened to know whether the citation was justified. We all know how the media can be selective in how much of, or what parts of, a story they choose to write about. Personally, while I find offensive language to be, well, offensive, I do not think that it warrants a citation when used in a private conversation. The proper judgment of "appropriate" or "inappropriate" language should be up to one's peers, IMO, or to the people one wishes to consider as peers. ("you are known by the company you keep.") If enough of one's peers disapprove of certain language, it tends to be extinguished. Conversely, approval tends to increase its usage.

That being said, it always puzzles me how something can be called "adult" when it demonstrates a lack of self-control, or a lack of respect for others.

And yes, I'm guilty of using the occasional epithet as well.

boomerang wrote:

M9FAN wrote:Zacherl said the assistant fire marshal had no choice.

"When you're in uniform, you have to uphold the laws," the fire chief said. "It's like if he was on the way home and saw a drunk driver — he had to act."

If he saw a drunk driver he would HAVE TO perform a traffic stop? Really? What's the penalty if he doesn't? A class "F" misdemeanor?

Now I'm wondering if they can pass a law against Muslim prayer. Freedom of religion and Freedom of speech are both protected by the First Amendment.

Huh? Do you think a fireman is going to allow a drunk driver to proceed along his merry way? I've "had to act" to stop a drunk driver & I'm only a private citizen. My "act" was to call 911 and follow the car until the police showed up to take over.

It's a bit of a reach to bring prayer into a discussion on foul language.

wheres George Carlin when you need him

IMHO the Fire Marshall WAY overstepped what was necessary. Ever heard of a use of force policy. Even LEO's are restricted in what they can do in certain situations. A verbal chastisement after identifying himself to the ladies would have been sufficient. He created the "breach of the peace" by making them accompanying him to his car. A citation was totally undeserved. Handcuffing her was absolutely ludicrous. It is up to society to discipline these ladies. Keep in mind that it is the PEOPLE of the nation that ALLOW ourselves to be governed by police . Read the constitution. Nowhere does it say that police are a permanent fixture in society. That being said, this is coming from a Criminal Justice major at Northlake College . Also take into account the fact that a HURRICANE was on its way and the place that has everything is out. I mean c'mon people. A slip of the tongue should be the least of a fire marshalls worries. This is a classic case of the marshall superceding his authority. Common sense did not prevail here and ended badly when it did not have to.

The Annoyed Man wrote:I do believe that there are rare occasions when profanity might be called for - like if you smash your thumb with a hammer and a molten river of lava language is the only thing that will free your mind (and there's nobody around to be offended by it). But in everyday casual use, if you can't issue forth a declarative sentence without lacing it fore and aft and beam to beam with F-bombs, then you seriously lack imagination. Casual, unprovoked, and unimaginative profanity is the refuge of the small of mind.

WildBill wrote:

bdickens wrote:Ooh, someone said a naughty word! BIG DEAL! Some people need to grow thicker skin.

Good thing she didn't say "grease monkey."

FWIW WildBill I was not offended by the term I have called myself and fellow mechanics that all the time and none of them take offense to it.

Hmm, I wonder if this Fire Marshall had a duty sidearm? He had cuffs.

As far as the recipient of the citation goes, I think Ron White says it best:

"You just can't fix stupid."

SCone wrote:The noise word is just filling space, it's not needed. They do not add to the conversation in any way. So many people use foul language without any regard for the people around them. Whether they be adults or children. And even as an adult, I find foul language, without restraint, offensive.

And you are entitled to respond to it and hopefully by so doing discourage it. You are NOT entitled to repress it, and neither is the government. They assume that power (i.e. the FCC can censor public broadcasts and the MPAA can administer the NC-17 kiss of death to a movie with excessively obscene content), but it is not right for them to do so. You've probably heard Voltaire's quote: "I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it". The First Amendment protects not only ideas, but your chosen form of expression of those ideas. I could make a noise like TV static every other word; it's how I choose to speak and you do not have to choose to speak to me if you cannot or will not stand to listen to me talk. What you cannot do is to require me to not make that noise, even if that noise serves no purpose; it is my chosen form of expression and as such is protected by the First Amendment. What's not protected are actions resulting from my words, or my malicious intention to provoke those actions.

The operative phrase here is "inciting disturbance of the peace". Any speech, gesture or other action on my part made with the intention of either offending large numbers of people around me, or worse, inciting a violent response, is disturbing the peace. That's what the law says; most of the provisions not involving outright violence itself specifically require intent to disturb or provoke disturbance. This woman absolutely did not have any such intent; she was expressing her frustration to no-one in particular that some item was out of stock. The fact that ONE PERSON heard her and was offended does not qualify as a disturbance of the peace. What WAS a disturbance of the peace was the officer's actions. You mutter the F-word under your breath and 99.9% of people will shake it off even if they don't think you should be saying that word in public. Pull out a pair of handcuffs and loudly order a woman to come back, and you have the undivided attention of anybody in earshot. The officer disturbed the peace infinitely more than the woman did, and any of the woman's further utterances can be laid squarely on this fire marshall's shoulders for turning one word into a public spectacle.

Liko81 wrote:

SCone wrote:The noise word is just filling space, it's not needed. They do not add to the conversation in any way. So many people use foul language without any regard for the people around them. Whether they be adults or children. And even as an adult, I find foul language, without restraint, offensive.

And you are entitled to respond to it and hopefully by so doing discourage it. You are NOT entitled to repress it, and neither is the government. They assume that power (i.e. the FCC can censor public broadcasts and the MPAA can administer the NC-17 kiss of death to a movie with excessively obscene content), but it is not right for them to do so. You've probably heard Voltaire's quote: "I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it". The First Amendment protects not only ideas, but your chosen form of expression of those ideas. I could make a noise like TV static every other word; it's how I choose to speak and you do not have to choose to speak to me if you cannot or will not stand to listen to me talk. What you cannot do is to require me to not make that noise, even if that noise serves no purpose; it is my chosen form of expression and as such is protected by the First Amendment. What's not protected are actions resulting from my words, or my malicious intention to provoke those actions.

The operative phrase here is "inciting disturbance of the peace". Any speech, gesture or other action on my part made with the intention of either offending large numbers of people around me, or worse, inciting a violent response, is disturbing the peace. That's what the law says; most of the provisions not involving outright violence itself specifically require intent to disturb or provoke disturbance. This woman absolutely did not have any such intent; she was expressing her frustration to no-one in particular that some item was out of stock. The fact that ONE PERSON heard her and was offended does not qualify as a disturbance of the peace. What WAS a disturbance of the peace was the officer's actions. You mutter the F-word under your breath and 99.9% of people will shake it off even if they don't think you should be saying that word in public. Pull out a pair of handcuffs and loudly order a woman to come back, and you have the undivided attention of anybody in earshot. The officer disturbed the peace infinitely more than the woman did, and any of the woman's further utterances can be laid squarely on this fire marshall's shoulders for turning one word into a public spectacle.

couldn't have said it better

mrvmax wrote:I can really care less about this. What bothers me in when a professing Christian cusses like a sailor as soon as they leave the Church. One of the many reasons why they call Christians hypocrites.

Are you going to let the hipocrisy of others cause you to stumble? When the blood from Calvary hit the mercy seat, the veil was torn in two. That gave you access to the Father and to forgiveness through Christ. Hypocrites have little or nothing to do with your communication with God. Personally, I'm not going to let a few wolves in sheep's clothing get between me and my Savior.

In an interview, the Chief says that she did more than just "said a dirty word"

http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=5579366

lunchbox wrote:wheres George Carlin when you need him

This may be your finest post to date!

Lumberjack98 wrote:

lunchbox wrote:wheres George Carlin when you need him

This may be your finest post to date!

whats wrong with my other points