Profanity banned in Middleborough, Mass., no !%^@!#$%&*!!!!

By: Crimesider Staff
Topics: Daily Blotter

Downtown Middleborough, Mass.

/ AP Photo/Steven Senne, File

(CBS/AP) MIDDLEBOROUGH, Mass. The quiet town of Middleborough, Mass., just became a little quieter, as the residents voted on Monday night to impose a $20 fine on anyone who curses in public.

Tired of teenagers and some adults shouting obscenities in public areas, the town voted 183-50 to approve a proposal from the police chief to clamp down on public profanity.

Town officials insisted that it will only affect those who use profanity loudly and frequently, allowing officers to use their discretion about whether or not they should ticket people they believe are violating the ban.

The town of Middleborough has had a bylaw against public cursing since 1968, but it was rarely enforced.

"I'm really happy about it. I'm sure there's going to be some fallout, but I think what we did was necessary," said Mimi Duphily, a former town selectwoman, and an auto-shop owner.

"They'll sit on the bench and yell back and forth to each other with the foulest language. It's just so inappropriate," she said, referring to some of the downtown merchants' profanity.

But not everyone agrees.

Local merchant Robert Saquet said he was "ambivalent" about the ban, comparing it to trying to enforce a ban on the seven dirty words muttered by comedian George Carlin.

15 Comments +

Add a Comment See all 15 Comments


by vred85 June 13, 2012 8:41 AM EDT: Sounds like these people could use a f*cking life!; Reply to this comment


by democracy8 June 13, 2012 6:16 AM EDT: Sounds as if they could use laws already in existence, e.g., against disturbing the peace, for these incidents. A new law seems unnecessary.; Reply to this comment


by MagnoliaSouth June 13, 2012 3:10 AM EDT: Good for them! I'm not saying I don't curse, but I surely don't do it in public. It's about time people develop manners again.; Reply to this comment


by audreytn June 13, 2012 2:48 AM EDT: This will result in a lawsuit being filed for Violation of the First Amendment right to Freedom of Speech, and a Court of Appeals will overturn this easily. Supreme Court won't even get to hear this case. People are freakin' stupid nowadays, and they get dumber as each day passes.; Reply to this comment

by goldsummer June 12, 2012 7:53 PM EDT

First Amendment Rights or not, there is certain words I do not care to have my four year old grand daughter hear when I take her to the ice cream shop. Yes they are "just words" . But I am a firm believer that our youth could learn better language skills. Better use of our language may lead to better communication skills..... MAY lead to better choices down the road.

Reply to this comment


by knewsteerrrrr June 13, 2012 1:15 AM EDT: That's just too bad now isn't it, better teach the kids the words and tell her it's no big deal instead of making a big row of it, because it's guaranteed a suit will be filed.


by JimmyDn2000 June 13, 2012 3:05 AM EDT: I hate to have to point out the obvious, but since in pertains to your argument: the correct phrasing and grammar is as follows, "First Amendment Rights, or not, there ARE certain words I do not care to have my four year old GRANDAUGHTER hear when I take her to the ice cream shop."

You missed some important punctuation, misspelled a word, and misused a word. So before you argue communication skills of others, make sure you're not guilty of something yourself. You see, it's not the words that cause the problem, it's the way we react to them. This is a slippery slope, for, "When they came for the Jews, I said nothing, because I was not a Jew..."

When you start taking away freedoms it's not long before you're living in a military state. We've already been corroding freedom of speech, we've been taking away smoker's rights, and now you can't order a large soda in New York City because they've been banned - as some are trying to ban sugar. Well, I don't smoke, I don't typically cuss, and I, on occasion, enjoy a sugary beverage, but it's time we stood up and took responsibility for ourselves. You want your grandaughter to speak better? When she hears these people speak the way they do, then teach her better, educate her about how foolish they look by their limited vocabulary. Don't put on other's the responsibility to fill in the gaps on your shortcomings. How she understands language comes first and foremost from home and how you choose to teach her. If you ignore it and hide it, they you teach her nothing and she will still learn those words from somewhere.

by kdm3rw June 12, 2012 6:14 PM EDT

This is a violation of the 1st Ammendment which allows for free speech. No city should be able to tell anyone what they can or cannot say in public if it doesn't hurt anyone. So, excuse me but, b**** please. I'll say whatever the h-e- double hockeysticks I want, wherever I want; as long as children arent present.

Reply to this comment


by knewsteerrrrr June 13, 2012 1:13 AM EDT: Don't worry, very soon someone will file a lawsuit when their free speech civil rights are violated by receiving a ticket, and then the town will be forced to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars it doesn't have with lawyers and court costs to defend bullchit that never should have made it on the books in the first place.
The bill for the legal costs should be levied on the idiot police chief who proposed this in the first place- let HIM pay the cost.

by steeepe June 12, 2012 6:10 PM EDT

It's a tricky 1st amendment issue. Should we allow people to use the most rank profanities in public, maybe loudly? I can think of a few words I wouldn't want small children hearing and accepting as fine to use. Does free expression also mean that nude people can parade around in public? Is there really much difference between the offense of seeing nude people and hearing loud profanity in public? Does it matter if the nude people are attractive or ugly? What about photos of people in sexual situations shown in public? Isn't that free expression. Should we be protected from that, or not? Seems to me to be fair to draw some lines.

Reply to this comment


by retiredgustav June 13, 2012 12:51 AM EDT: Profanity is only in the ears of the beholder.


by Simbaji June 12, 2012 5:40 PM EDT: This is a constitutional violation of the 1st Amendment. Private property may be one thing, but public is public.; Reply to this comment

by caljack430 June 12, 2012 4:49 PM EDT

This is dumb in my opinion. Who has the ability to declare what words are 'obscene' anyway? Its all culture deciding that a word is insulting. I could probably start a trend that the word 'milk' is a bad word. If I cry enough that it hurts my feelings, eventually someone will start thinking they shouldn't say it. They're just words people. Get over it. I don't care how someone 'intends' to use them, they're still just words.

Reply to this comment


by retiredgustav June 13, 2012 12:52 AM EDT: How nice! Anyone who knows that story knows what I am talking about.


by knewsteerrrrr June 13, 2012 1:16 AM EDT: voted on Monday night to impose a $20 fine on anyone who curses in public. "

This is just the beginning of what ruling under the repubiCONS would be like, before you know they will vote in a $20 fine for failing to appear in CHURCH on sunday, and bringing back blue laws.