{"id":3494,"date":"2019-10-30T01:16:59","date_gmt":"2019-10-30T05:16:59","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/cafe.nfshost.com\/?p=3494"},"modified":"2019-10-30T01:16:59","modified_gmt":"2019-10-30T05:16:59","slug":"massachusetts-bill-would-jail-people-for-using-the-word-bitch","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/cafe.nfshost.com\/?p=3494","title":{"rendered":"Massachusetts Bill Would Jail People for Using the Word \u2018Bitch\u2019"},"content":{"rendered":"

Massachusetts Bill Would Jail People for Using the Word \u2018Bitch\u2019<\/strong><\/span><\/h1>\n
\n
\n
By<\/span> Katherine Timpf<\/a><\/p>\n
\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n
\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

<\/div>\n
\n
\n
\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/header>\n
\n
\n
\"\"
Massachusetts State House in Boston (Pixabay)<\/cite><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

A sincere proposal to criminalize a word<\/i> was formally considered at the highest level of a state\u2019s government.<\/span>O<\/span>n Tuesday, Massachusetts legislators considered a bill that would criminalize certain uses of the word \u201cbitch\u201d \u2014 making it punishable by up to six months in jail or a fine up to $200.<\/p>\n

The bill, introduced a month ago by state Democratic representative Dan Hunt, states<\/a> that \u201ca person who uses the word \u2018bitch\u2019 directed at another person to accost, annoy, degrade or demean the other person shall be considered to be a disorderly person\u201d and would be guilty of a criminal offense punishable by \u201ca fine of not more than either $150 or $200, or jail time of up to six months.\u201d The offense could be reported not only by the person being called a bitch, but also a third-party witness.<\/p>\n

As many legal scholars have pointed out, the proposed law is blatantly unconstitutional. For example, Ari Cohn, the former director of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, told The Washington Examiner<\/em><\/a>:<\/p>\n

The First Amendment does not and cannot sanction prohibiting words simply because they are subjectively used to \u201cdegrade\u201d or \u201cdemean.\u201d If the word \u201cbitch\u201d can be outlawed when used to demean, why can\u2019t \u201cMAGA\u201d or \u201cliberal\u201d? Going down the road Rep. Hunt proposes would expose to prosecution nearly all of the speech that the First Amendment was meant to protect.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Jim Manley, an attorney with the Pacific Legal Foundation (which litigates free-speech issues), told Reason<\/em><\/a> something similar:<\/p>\n

As the Supreme Court has said there\u2019s no happy talk requirement in the First Amendment. You cannot ban a word when it\u2019s used to annoy someone but let them use the word when they are using the word in a positive way.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

\u201cLegislatures can\u2019t just pluck words out of the dictionary and ban them,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n

Basically, the consensus is clear that this would not \u2014 and could<\/em> not<\/em> \u2014 ever become law, but honestly, I still find myself disturbed by the fact that it was even discussed<\/em> in the legislature in the first place. After all, this means that the public servants in Massachusetts actually have so little knowledge of the Constitution (which the taxpayers are paying them to protect) that they spent their (taxpayer-funded) time earnestly considering it.<\/p>\n

Most of my columns at National Review<\/span> focus on PC culture, and sometimes, when I write about some idiotic, anti-free-speech idea presented by some idiotic, anti-free-speech student or professor, people will ask me why I wasted my time writing about it. After all, these critics allege, it was just a random opinion from some ultra-progressive fringe moron; it\u2019s not like it has any real<\/em> impact on society.<\/p>\n