BF2S Forums So, apparently swearing is illegal.

paul386 wrote:

mikkel wrote:

Well, it's illegal to swear at police officers, around here, too. The thing is, you may be hauled in overnight for verbally assaulting patrolling officers unprovoked, which I feel is fine, but typically our officers are mature enough to let even the longest string of colourful insults tossed out during an arrest slide. Simply walking around spouting obscenities to people falls under the purview of public indecency, and I think most countries have laws against this in some form.

Some laws may sound scary in theory, but the ones letting officers assert their authority in cases like random verbal assault are important. If everyone could go around shouting whatever at officers without leaving them recourse, the respect for their authority would quickly wane with the wrong people.

You cannot legislate "respect". You cannot force someone to respect you. Perhaps fear you, but what have you achieved but tyranny?

i think what he's trying to convey is that if people were allowed to go around swearing at cops people would forget just what a cop is and what a cop does. they would forget that yes, that cop can throw them in prison and would be less respectful of the power of a police officer, which any intelligent person should respect. effectively, it could lead to physical assaults on officers just for being officers.


as well, most countries do have laws against verbal assault/harassment, public indecency and obscenity.


edit: @ diesel: you have a problem with cops don't you? you should respect everybody in world until they give you a real reason not to. and even then, show respect to cops in their presence. to not do this is equivalent to asking them to arrest you.

Last edited by Ender2309 (2008-06-30 22:58:33)

CommonSense wrote:

For such a horrible pay I would arrest any moron who curses at me.

Jesus, my man, you must understand. They serve the public. It's not about the pay. When you hire a maid, plumber, electrician, cable guy, you pay them, they call you sir/ma'am. They bend to your rules. We pay the police with our tax money. They should respect us. We don't need to fear them, we hired them.

As has been pointed out, that may have had to do with the ongoing custody disputes.


And it was in Canada, IIRC.

mikkel wrote:

When people verbally assault officers of the law, it is required that they enforce their authority.

Why?

mikkel wrote:

Having the authority to enforce the law inherently allows for abuse, and if you start dismissing any legislation that could be easily abused, you're going to miss out on a lot of very critical aspects.

Certainly, but the benefit of the law has to outweigh the risk of abuse.

mikkel wrote:

Here in Denmark, along with many other countries, we have legislation allowing officers to detain, fine and in some cases arrest people for verbally assaulting them, and it's simply not a problem.

Perhaps not, but the fact that it isn't functionally a problem isn't reason enough to have the law.

mikkel wrote:

Officers abusing the law they're hired to enforce is not a problem with the law - it's a problem with the officers.

So why bother with courts?

No, that's the point of fines, so they don't have to do paperwork.


Joy.

I remember reading this story about a guy who was white water rafting somewhere and flipped his kayak. He got his head above the water and screamed "FUCK!!". His voice then traveled down river which was heard by some kids who were camping with their parents. The parents called the cops on the guy and he was charged with whatever offense and ordered to pay a fine.

Stupid fucking cunts and their bullshit. I'd personally sue the police and force them to pay me for involving me in something as stupid as that. Then, I'd beat the shit out of those little whiny pussy kids.

pierro wrote:

Laws are a method of punishing those that have done something “wrong”. One such action would be disrespecting groups i.e. jews, blacks etc... If you are willing to put laws into place that will stop neonazi marches (whose purpose is to disrespect jewish people) then principally you should have no problem putting laws into place that will stop the disrespect of police officers through swearing (although it is nowhere near as severe).

There are two problems:

1)  Laws which stop neo-nazi rallies sit uneasy with me

2)  There's a harm principle.  Racist rallies have demonstrable harm (they often lead to racial violence).  There's little demonstrable harm in swearing at a police officer.

pierro wrote:

Of course, there also has to be a balance, if we were forced not say anything that disrespected or offended anyone it would infringe on free speech etc... and overall be a negative.

Any law restricting speech infringes on free speech.  The question is whether it's a reasonable infringement.

pierro wrote:

In this sense, a balance should be struck between the two and it should be noted that different people have very different standards of what causes disrespect, so some will want more controls and others will want less. That being said, it’s just swearing, if you actually feel offended by it on the same level that people are offended by racial and ethnic slurs…maybe you should go back to playing with dolls in pre-school.

But that's the issue: it shouldn't matter whether it offends people, it should matter whether there's a demonstrable harm.

B.Schuss wrote:

I don't know what the big deal is. If I am stupid enough to swear at a police officer, I fully expect to get arrested. Not for one word, but for sustained verbal abuse.

Except that this law allows it for a single word.

B.Schuss wrote:

But that would be the same if I sweared at any other person. Swearing at people is simply not the way to treat your fellow citizens, hence we have legislation against it.

I'd argue that cheating on a partner is no way to treat someone, yet there's no legislation against that.

B.Schuss wrote:

Wether that is right or wrong according to your definition of the terms, Bubs, is irrelevant.

You're right.  But I'm not the one imposing my views on others.

B.Schuss wrote:

Moreover, if you don't like the laws that elected officials put in place, go to the ballot and elect someone else next time. If the majority of your fellow citizens are with you, the laws will change, if they are not, they won't. That's democracy for 'ya

And if we democratically decided to exterminate blacks, you'd be cool with that?

B.Schuss wrote:

Moreover, the cops are not just people. As cops, they represent the nation, the rule of law. If we allow anyone to disrespect them without sanctions, we are putting the whole system in jeopardy. It's a matter of principle, really.

I disagree.  In fact, I'd argue that not only do we not need legislation to require respect, but that the right not to respect is important.  Obedience to the law is definitely required, but respect for it is optional.

B.Schuss wrote:

No one can be expected to know every cop personally, and maybe respect the person. Thus, if you want the system to work properly, it is necessary that cops are respected because of the authority they wield.

Actually, the authority they weild puts them in a position of power.  If anyone needs to be showing respect, it's the police officer.

B.Schuss wrote:

Not out of fear, mind you, but simply because I know that any authority that does not have the respect of the people is ultimately useless.
Respect for the authority is instrumental for the survival of the system, if you will. Without it, there would be no civilized societies.

Certainly, but that respect should be earned, not mandated.  Legislated respect is less useful anyway.

I don't quite follow what you wrote, i'm sorry

Vilham wrote:

HollisHurlbut wrote:

Vilham wrote:

Just like if you swear at me I can sue you for slander.

Really?  And have an actual chance of winning?

Jeses Fuck, let's hear it for Independence Day.

Fucking Brits.

File on that.

lol you do realise America has the largest number of sueings for slander in the world right?

Slander is the act of discrediting someone.  In order to win a suit, you need to prove:
1) The discrediting behavior was not truthful
2) That the act directly caused harm in terms of monetary, physical, or mental anguish (listed in order from high to low in terms of the likelihood the plaintiff will win.

And, in some cases, public figures are unable to sue for slander (or if they do the likelihood of the lawsuit succeeding is miniscule).  Specifically public figures make their living in the public's eye, so they have in a sense, opened themselves up to this behavior.

So if I call a cop a "pig fucker", then I have no hope in winning unless the cop fucks pigs and they had significant damages from it (fired from job, beat up, or some made-up mental problem).

As far as the OP, I think this law is about behavior deemed threatening or disruptive to public accord.  I think you'd have to do more than say "Hello Pig Fucker" when you walk by a cop on the street.  I think you'd have to have complete non-compliance when a cop is questioning you and have behavior threatening to them.  In a sense, before this law, you can be an ass to a cop and he'd drag you downtown for questioning before letting you go scot free.  Now I think if they have to drag you downtown and you're an ass, then you get fined.  I don't have a problem with that - by being an ass, you have essentially taken the cop of the street, which in turn costs taxpayer's money (more cops are needed if many of them are questioning assholes instead of criminals).

Vilham wrote:

Exactly. If you called me a motherfucker and I proved you wrong I could sue you for damages.

As to the OP, if you repeated swear or threaten a cop after being asked to stop and walk away then ofc your gunna get arrested, if your drunk you would be lucky and probably just end up in a cell for a night and be let off with a warning in the morning, it happens alot with the police in the UK where they are trying to deal with some kind of assault outside a night club and the persons mates start shouting and abusing the police officers.

Yes but you have to carry it one step further.

You're a motherfucker.

Now prove in a court of law that this caused monetary, physical, or mental anguish that resulted in monetary or physical harm.

Edit:  shoot sent too quick.

If the UK bar brawl resulted in a bunch of a-holes that shouldn't be in the clink, then they SHOULD have to pay a fine in my opinion.

Last edited by Pug (2008-07-02 11:11:58)

Absolutely agree, but the jails are funded by public money as the cops are...I'd like to see a fine to recoup the costs.