An act regarding the use of offensive words

That right of free petition is... interesting. Is it just not well known? It seems like there's enough crazy and/or bored people out there that they could totally clog up the legislature.

I'd lead with the free petition bit. It's honestly more interesting (to me, and I'd guess other people in states that don't have that concept) and if people who don't read that far, the early part of the comment seems like a call for pitchforks. That's not necessary here; this won't pass in any event, and even if it were to be, would subsequently be struck down by the courts.

It was scheduled last month. This is the 11th month of the calendar year.

We've heard no results from that public hearing on Oct 22, but it would appear nothing will happen until an executive session which will make recommendations based on this public hearing.

We can consider it a good thing that regular people can submit bills, even if ones like this are likely to be rejected by the committee as unconstitutional.

Protected groups are a legal concept, while hate speech is not (in the US -- which seems most relevant, as TFA is in the context of a US state). So framing it in terms of a protected group doesn't really make much sense to me.

It's clear to me that in many contexts, "bitch" isn't used hatefully, so I'm not sure you'd have much success persuading any large group of people to think of it as hate speech (in a social, not legal, context).

I find American English weirdly puritanical in some respects.

For instance this use of <letter>-word as a signifier for a thing you find so offensive you can't say out loud or even write down in a discussion even though in this discussion we're not actually applying it to a person or hypothetical person.

(I've not used it here as I think I can make this point without using it or hopefully causing offence).

We have to careful of branding words themselves "hate speech" without reference to context.

The particular word I think you refer to is perfectly legitimate when used in the context of the animal it describes.

In fact as I understand it's not so much offensive because it compares a person to an animal as it is because it's also a slang name for the world's oldest profession and implies ownership and coercion with regard to that profession (both of which I'd say were dehumanising in a different and more offensive way).

Banning the use of an everyday word in all contexts comes across not as about hate speech but as a way of an in group asserting control on others.

I feel the same about the C-word. In my culture, whilst still a bit blue for everyday use, it's much less offensive than in yours. We apply it in all sorts of situations that are not dehumanising.

"B-word"? Are you serious?

Don't give words so much power.

Trying to bend laws to ban words and speech you don't personally like is really not a good idea, in case it isn't blatantly obvious as to why: it will only be a matter of time before your speech is the target.

> I think it's clear that the First Amendment protects its use.

I'm not so sure. The Second Amendment's "keep and bear arms" doesn't protect my ability to buy and keep any gun I want, regardless of how obvious a reading that seems, so I wouldn't count on the First's "the freedom of speech" to protect the use of any words.

In context, it's between the freedom of religion and the freedom of the press, of assembly, and of petitioning the government. It makes sense that it protects advocating any political viewpoint. It does not necessarily follow that it protects words in general.

The judicial history of the freedom of speech clause is mostly about political speech, speech critical of the government, etc. Advertising is heavily regulated. Copyright infringement is illegal. Lying to federal agents is illegal. Obscenity is still unprotected (though very few things are considered obscene today).

And if we look at what the framers intended, well, many of them went on to vote for the Alien and Sedition Acts (which are widely considered today to have been unconstitutional).

I think there is a lot of merit in a constitutional protection of the right to say any word. It's just not clear to me that a law preventing you from saying a single word (any word!) runs afoul of the freedom of speech clause, specifically.

There are some corkers in there.

For example, if you disturb someone in a library (Section 41) or drive quickly past a funeral procession (Section 42) you're going down for upto a month (Section 40)!

Amazing.

The rep forgot to tick a checkbox - https://www.wbur.org/news/2019/10/24/bitch-bill-massachusett...

> For those who want to offend, it's easy to substitute a different word.

Words by themselves aren't even the offensive part most of the time, it's the signal of intention that someone wants to offend you, that actually upsets us.

Friends call each other "bad" words all the time. Even online you can say all sorts of things in certain contexts without offending anyone. Meanwhile someone can convey their intent to upset you by just typing a "lol"

But apparently it's easier to just ban words than teaching people to not be dicks.

So in the UK we have a politician named Jeremy Hunt. He previously held the government role of Culture Secretary. The job includes things like protecting us from Rupert Murdock's attempt to monopolise all broadcast media.

One day a few years ago the presenter of the foremost UK political radio show, Radio 4's Today Show, referred to "Jeremy Hunt, the Culture Secretary, reviewing the Murdock bid for Sky TV"... or at least that's what he meant to say.

What he actually said was something else... and then followed it with silence.

Silence slowly followed by the sound of a "serious" man in his 60s practically crying in his desperately attempts to speak without laughing... for about 5 minutes.

No one else in the studio even tried to help him lest they also be caught trying not to laugh.

That on its own was funny enough for another serious presenter in his 60s on the same radio station, about an hour later, to make light of his colleague's failure to say "Jeremy Hunt, the Culture Secretary". Except that's not what he said either... More silence slowly followed stifled crying.

BBC management issued a formal apology but to this day I'm not sure anyone really knows why.

Yet another reminder that Massachusetts common law has all manner of archaic crap cluttering it up, going back to the Puritans. Take a gander at the current text that this bill is proposed to amend:

> Section 53. (a) Common night walkers, common street walkers, both male and female, persons who with offensive and disorderly acts or language accost or annoy another person, lewd, wanton and lascivious persons in speech or behavior, keepers of noisy and disorderly houses, and persons guilty of indecent exposure shall be punished by imprisonment in a jail or house of correction for not more than 6 months, or by a fine of not more than $200, or by both such fine and imprisonment.

> (b) Disorderly persons and disturbers of the peace shall, for a first offense, be punished by a fine of not more than $150. For a second or subsequent offense, disorderly persons and disturbers of the peace shall be punished by imprisonment in a jail or house of correction for not more than 6 months or by a fine of not more than $200 or by both such fine and imprisonment; provided, however, that an elementary or secondary school student shall not be adjudged a delinquent child for a violation of this subsection for such conduct within school buildings or on school grounds or in the course of school-related events.

https://malegislature.gov/laws/generallaws/partiv/titlei/cha...

CORRECTION : This is both the official Massachusetts legislature website _AND_ a joke.

This isn't the slippery slope or conspiracy theory you're making it out to be. Search some of the top-level comments for "free petition."

This isn't Federal congress, but I think you're basically right that through indirect mechanism (supremacy clause? I'm not a lawyer), the 1st amendment applies to states.