
An act regarding the use of offensive words - fortran77
https://malegislature.gov/Bills/191/H3719
======
kick
It's scheduled for a hearing on the 22nd of this month, so any of you in
Massachusetts who happen to be represented by him should feel free to use the
rights granted to you under the First Amendment to let him (his office) know
what his constituents think:

Electronic Mail: Daniel.Hunt@mahouse.gov

Actual Mail:

24 Beacon St.

Room 166

Boston, MA, 02133

Phone: (617) 722-2692

However, do realize that Massachusetts has the right to free petition, which
means that legislators are obligated to put forth proposed legislation from
their constituents, and that is what this falls under, apparently.

Per _The Washington Post_ :

 _In Massachusetts, unlike other states, citizens have what’s known as a
“right of free petition” allowing them to file proposed bills directly through
their legislators. That’s exactly what happened in this case, Hunt said: A
woman in his district came to him this year requesting legislation, and he, in
turn, filed it on her behalf. He didn’t think he’d get such a harsh reaction,
he said._

 _“It’s funny and ironic that the constitutional provision that allows this
constituent a conduit to free speech and proposing her idea has been so
viscerally pushed back on by people saying this is stifling free speech,” Hunt
told The Washington Post. “It’s important whether you agree or disagree with
the legislation being proposed that you honor the duty to represent your
constituents and have their voices heard.”_

~~~
Rebelgecko
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.

~~~
kick
Massachusetts has historically seen many questionable (and fantastic) things
voted on because of it. For a better explanation of how it works, see here:

[https://massbar.org/advocacy/legislative-activities/the-
legi...](https://massbar.org/advocacy/legislative-activities/the-legislative-
process)

------
jawns
I really dislike the B-word, but I think it's clear that the First Amendment
protects its use.

That said, I wonder if an argument could be made that the B-word is a form of
hate speech against a protected group (women) because it is dehumanizing
(compares them to an animal in a degrading way).

In the private sphere, Facebook says it treats such speech as Tier 1 hate
speech (see
[https://www.facebook.com/communitystandards/hate_speech](https://www.facebook.com/communitystandards/hate_speech))
although I don't know whether it treats the B-word as qualifying. (I would
argue it should, based on FB's own definition.)

Granted, hate speech is still protected by the First Amendment. So there are
no legal penalties in the U.S. for using it.

But I wonder whether treating the B-word as hate speech in terms of our
cultural attitude toward it might make its use less common.

~~~
geofft
> _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.

------
function_seven
Here's the chapter and section that would be amended:

[https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartIV/TitleI/Cha...](https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartIV/TitleI/Chapter272/Section53)

The first 2 subsections are broad and vague, relying on (I presume) some
"reasonable person" standard to evaluate them. This proposed section seems
oddly specific. It only seeks to add "bitch" as a specific violation of (a) or
(b).

Not sure why "whore", "cunt", or other vulgarities aren't also enumerated.

Also, I gotta be missing some backstory here. Did Daniel J. Hunt get his
feelings hurt one day outside the capital building?

EDIT: I _was_ missing something. See sibling comment on Massachusetts' Right
to Free Petition. My apologies to Mr. Hunt for assuming he was the impetus for
this.

~~~
lucozade
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.

------
psychometry
I believe MA legislators are required or at least encouraged by tradition to
file Acts given directly to them by constituents. This is what is happening
here. I don't think anyone in the state house has any interest in enacting
this.

~~~
philk10
The rep forgot to tick a checkbox -
[https://www.wbur.org/news/2019/10/24/bitch-bill-
massachusett...](https://www.wbur.org/news/2019/10/24/bitch-bill-
massachusetts-legislature)

------
imgabe
If this passes it's definitely going to end up on one of those "Can you
believe they made this stupid law?" lists.

------
darth_skywalker
This is the result of free petition in Massachusetts. If you like the 1st
Amendment, then I would expect you also like that citizens in Massachusetts
have the right to propose arbitrary laws (and the legislature is not required
to enact them).

------
thih9
This doesn't seem helpful. For those who want to offend, it's easy to
substitute a different word.

I'd like to hear more from people who initiated this, what were their motives
and goals.

~~~
Scapeghost
> 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.

~~~
imglorp
Right, you can't legislate intent to make someone feel bad.

Any given word can be replaced by a paragraph with near infinite variations of
content but the same hurt. See /r/roastme for light examples.

If you need protection from ideas, you need to grow up instead.

------
RcouF1uZ4gsC
I wonder if this passes, will people substitute "Hunt" for the banned word in
honor of the sponsor of this legislation.

For example: That person is a real Hunt.

~~~
Lio
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.

------
droithomme
If passed, no doubt people will have to switch to beyotch and biyatch and
other such variants, just as every time a molecule is banned illicit new
molecules appear as if out of nowhere, often with more side effects than the
original. As with the internet, insults route around damage.

------
fortran77
This is no joke. This is the official Massachusetts legislature website.

> (c) A person who uses the word “bitch” directed at another person to accost,
> annoy, degrade or demean the other person shall be considered to be a
> disorderly person in violation of this section, and shall be subject to the
> penalties provided in subsections (a) and (b). A violation of this
> subsection may be reported by the person to whom the offensive language was
> directed at or by any witness to such incident.

~~~
thrower123
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...](https://malegislature.gov/laws/generallaws/partiv/titlei/chapter272/section53)

~~~
velosol
That reminds me of my favorite MA fine - $1 for the first few times you
jaywalk and $2 for the 4th and subsequent instances.

Interestingly there are 2 bills seeking to make it so the fine can go up or
otherwise limit jaywalking [1] & [2].

> [...] Whoever violates any provision of any such rule shall be punished by a
> fine of one dollar for the first, second or third such offense committed by
> such person within the jurisdiction of the district court in the particular
> calendar year, and by a fine of two dollars for the fourth or subsequent
> such offense so committed in such calendar year. [...]

[https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXIV/Ch...](https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXIV/Chapter90/Section18A)

[1]:
[https://malegislature.gov/Bills/191/H3030](https://malegislature.gov/Bills/191/H3030)
[2]:
[https://malegislature.gov/Bills/191/H3283](https://malegislature.gov/Bills/191/H3283)

~~~
dublinben
Those bills both appear to be free petitions submitted by constituents that
have been merely forwarded by their representatives. Notably they both come
from small towns far away from Boston whose opinions on "jaywalking" should
probably be disregarded.

------
arbitrage
Is 'dick' still ok?

------
rolph
there is a dangerous undercurrent here. the use of the word "bitch" "biatch"
"B hatch" is strongly associated with a particular sector of society. that
sector of society is very heavily marginalized already.

the problem is that a culture will normalize or marginalize interpretations of
words and develop a "Dialect" and a cultural lexicon.

The punch line is that one sector of society has certain words that are
offensive, while another uses those words in a daily vernaculum.

as in: " Yo i just ordered us Frings and Zah ! " replied to with, "Ohh, biatch
shut the front door! "

so this would reduce to:

...to ACCOST, ANNOY, degrade demean. and that seems to translate to intent to
harrass verbally. It would seem to be already covered by harrasment ordinance.

and it probably is a 1st amendment right to state that "Oh man that bitch has
the sweetest ride!"

why bitch made it over buddy, guy, dude, gentleman, etc. who knows, but this
concept of administratively marginalizing a culture, by making its defining
properties illegal, or subject to scrutiny is concerning.

How can we and should we even, police emotional overtones of a statement. we
eschew using all caps. we have emogis and emoticons to give our msgs some
context, bt what comes next?

"yo mang that bitch be aight !" " hey did you just insult that guy? "

...turn around hands behind your back.

~~~
loeg
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."

------
notadoc
" __Congress shall make no law __respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or __abridging the freedom of speech
__, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to
petition the Government for a redress of grievances. "

An old dusty document should settle that one quickly.

~~~
loeg
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.

~~~
notadoc
The 1st amendment applies to states

[https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/incorporation_doctrine](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/incorporation_doctrine)

~~~
loeg
We're in agreement. Thanks for the pointer to the specific law.

