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.
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.
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. [...]
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.
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? "
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.
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)!
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.
> 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.
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.”
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.
Massachusetts has historically seen many questionable (and fantastic) things voted on because of it. For a better explanation of how it works, see here:
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.
"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.
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.
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) 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
43 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 101 ms ] thread> (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.
> 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...
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...
[1]: https://malegislature.gov/Bills/191/H3030 [2]: https://malegislature.gov/Bills/191/H3283
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.
https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartIV/TitleI/Cha...
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.
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.
I'd like to hear more from people who initiated this, what were their motives and goals.
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.
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.
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.”
https://massbar.org/advocacy/legislative-activities/the-legi...
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.
An old dusty document should settle that one quickly.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/incorporation_doctrine
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) 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.
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).
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.
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'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.
For example: That person is a real Hunt.
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.