EDIT: Profanity law questioned

Months after the town of Middleborough instituted a $20 fine for swearing in public at the recommendation of local merchants in June, Attorney General Martha Coakley suggested the town “change” or “repeal” the bylaw, according to The Boston Globe Tuesday.

While profanity in public is inappropriate, should people be prohibited from swearing? No. The rule is a clear violation of the First Amendment, and regardless residents are going to swear whether or not a bylaw is imposed.

A similar situation occurs in households where parents tell their children, “No cursing under this roof.” Children tend to consider the “no swearing” rule a suggestion, not a rule.

Now, there may be a case for profane language that is used to incite violence or threaten someone. However, the majority of the time, profane language is not being used to induce either.

Instead, Middleborough should focus its efforts on real crimes that are being committed. A resident dropping the F-bomb on the street is not as serious as robbery that is being committed farther down the street.

This also brings up the question of how the police even enforced the “no swearing” policy, if at all. Were they really fining people the $20, or were they letting them off with a warning? It seems unrealistic to think the police stiffly enforced this bylaw since swearing is not all that serious.

In an interview with Channel 7 News in June police said, “public profanity will be treated like public drinking or littering — a nuisance they’ll ticket — but not something that they’re targeting.”

But swearing should not be considered a nuisance that’s on par with public drinking.

It will be interesting to see whether or not the town amends the bylaw or erases it completely. While “no swearing” is a considerate statement to make, it is not something that can or should be enforced by law.