Police Beat: Two women charged with shouting obscenities in public

We don't see people charged with shouting obscenities in public often enough. I know it's a violation that is rarely charged and because it usually necessitates the authorities directly witnessing the act, nonetheless it is refreshing to see malcontents being held responsible for breaking an all too often underutilized statute.

Is it disorderly conduct to shout using a wide vocabulary? If not, certain words should not be outlawed.

Are obscenities considered fighting words or words that incite panic? Otherwise it goes against my right to freedom of speech. I'm not sure how New York/Genesee County/Batavia define obscenities, but I don't agree with the charges...

There is a difference between the right to free expression and the belief that anyone should be able to excercise that right to verbally abuse a private citizen in public. It's apples and oranges.
A shouting match, especially when alcohol is involved (in the events noted in the police blotter, we don't know if it was), could easily escalate from name calling to violence.
In Utopia we would find that people are civil to each other and have the language skills capable of discussion without the name calling and the real or perceived threat of bodily harm. No local ordinances would be needed.
Until we reach a Utopian environment our citizens should be protected from those who can't control their anger. Shouting obscenities at another citizen is inappropriate behavior.
As far as taking that bull horn and stepping up to vent your opposition to government officials, I say go right ahead. You may need a permit to hold a public demonstration, but you would be able to say whatever you like without fear of arrest.

So bad mouthing an organization is fine but if it the target is a single person it's bad? That's just dumb.

Obscenities are part of life, deal with it. Arguments that violent have laws on the books already and we don't need speech police.

"As far as taking that bull horn and stepping up to vent your opposition to government officials, I say go right ahead. You may need a permit to hold a public demonstration, but you would be able to say whatever you like without fear of arrest."

That's not true. If he were to call for the death of the President or the City Council members, or if he were to admonish for an armed rebellion, he'd be arrested.

If the words are of a intimidating nature that should be the issue..

Not if there is no threat mentioned.

As hard as it may to believe, the government doesn't need to arrest its citizens to discourage trivial indecent behavior.

On that note, I mutter, say, and occasionally shout a variety of colorful obscenities daily. Sometimes, within earshot of the Genesee County police. Why aren't I being arrested?

Posted by Peter O'Brien on July 6, 2009 - 10:13am
Not if there is no threat mentioned.

A threat doesn't have to be mentioned. Body language can be just as telling.
An out of control person, who's only recourse is obscenities to make a point, may just as easy turn violent without uttering the threat!

Or may have turrets...

The point is, Language should not be outlawed.

As much as individuals have a right to free speech, other individuals have a right to freedom from the intrusion of offensive and disruptive outbursts.
When someone engages in public speech in a forum that is generally accepted as one in which public discourse is the norm (a church, stage, conference, bar, or any public forum where speech and discussion are expected) then say what you want and if it offends me, I can walk away. When someone intrudes into a public place or business uninvited and releases a diatribe of obscenities, that is not the practice of free speech, it is disorderly conduct and our laws rightfully support the punishment of it. I knew this would devolve into a debate of free speech but in an orderly society, there has to be a balance between the rights of ALL individuals.

Quite honestly, do you really believe that everyone who threatens another without stating that they are doing so is suffering for Turrette's Syndrome? I'm assuming that is what you meant and that they all aren't suffering from a disease that makes them feel that they are towering over others (but, may be connected!).
No one said language was being outlawed. The ordinance appears to be a caution to those who use language in an inappropriate manner in public.
Where did you get the idea that they were outlawing language?

Do you seriously believe that all obscene language is a veiled threat? That's the same (ill)logic you just used.

"Heard allegedly shouted obscenities while on the sidewalk on South Main St. "

Sounds like language is outlawed to me.

No one has the right to nto be offended. People are offended when I support Survival of the Fittest concepts and letting a child get pulled into an escalator to teach the parents a lesson thinking. I say those things in public, often, and loudly. Should I be arrested for that Jeff since the parents or other on lookers are offended at my speech?

Peter you should just flat out be arrested for your unjustified inflated opinion of yourself, your opinons in general, your false sense of self righteousness and your twisted view of the world in general.

Your assessment of me is flawed. If you think you know me based on my posting you are sadly mistaken.

Posted by Jeff Allen on July 6, 2009 - 12:50pm
As much as individuals have a right to free speech, other individuals have a right to freedom from the intrusion of offensive and disruptive outbursts.
When someone engages in public speech in a forum that is generally accepted as one in which public discourse is the norm (a church, stage, conference, bar, or any public forum where speech and discussion are expected) then say what you want and if it offends me, I can walk away. When someone intrudes into a public place or business uninvited and releases a diatribe of obscenities, that is not the practice of free speech, it is disorderly conduct and our laws rightfully support the punishment of it. I knew this would devolve into a debate of free speech but in an orderly society, there has to be a balance between the rights of ALL individuals.

Thank you Jeff.

Everyone can now go to Peter's house, stand out front (off his property) and call him anyting you want, any time of day.

You are more than welcome to, just stay off my property. Enjoy the sidewalk and we'll see if I can hear you over the traffic.

If I walk down the street I dont want to fuckin hear your dirty ass mouth and the obsenities ur fucking pie hole is spewing out. Your full of shit and if u did it in front of young kids I hope ur sorry ass will be arrested. (holding middle finger up).

Nice! That's hilarious.

now thats funny.

Posted by Peter O'Brien on July 6, 2009 - 2:03pm
Do you seriously believe that all obscene language is a veiled threat? That's the same (ill)logic you just used.

Yes, I believe that someone hurling invectives can be construed as possibly capable of doing bodily harm. Yes, that is an implied threat.

No one has the right to not be offended.

So, no one has the right NOT to be offended. What does that mean? Someone has the RICHT to offend, but the victim doesn't have the RIGHT to due process if they feel that they might be harmed?

People are offended when I support Survival of the Fittest concepts and letting a child get pulled into an escalator to teach the parents a lesson thinking. I say those things in public, often, and loudly. Should I be arrested for that Jeff since the parents or other on lookers are offended at my speech?

Jeff, I guess this last paragraph was added for shock value. Not worth the bandwidth to discuss it.

You aren't harmed if you are "offended" Bea. The word has no real meaning anymore just like racist.

You could be offended if I say Christ was an instrument of Satan. That doesn't entitle you to anything legally.

Gabor, this is a public place and that outburst deserves to be squelched because Bea thinks you are going to hurt someone.

I usually don't buy into "slippery slope" arguments, but the day we start arresting people for using profanities is the day that we're on one.

I think that there may be more to it than what the limited info the blotter provides. The government should not dictate what can and can't be said. It is up to YOU to live by example. There is a time and a place for everything, so what is OK at the game or at the bar is inappropriate walking in a neighborhood of kids, or outside a senior center! If we just used some common sense, and were weary of places and situations, we can police ourselves just fine, thanks. You hear a couple of guys swearing loudly at the grocery store near some kids, TELL THEM THEY SHOULD KNOW BETTER! (Don't worry, I don't think you'll hurt their feelings, just embarrass them a little)
And Howard, I may want to borrow that blow horn in the fall! :)

Posted by Peter O'Brien on July 6, 2009 - 2:18pm
You aren't harmed if you are "offended" Bea. The word has no real meaning anymore just like racist.

You could be offended if I say Christ was an instrument of Satan. That doesn't entitle you to anything legally.

Gabor, this is a public place and that outburst deserves to be squelched because Bea thinks you are going to hurt someone.

People who are unduly harrassed are harmed - if not physically then emotionally. It is a form of torture. A public outburst by someone out of control is different than you making an inane statement. You know that!
Being offended does have meaning. Only those who truly believe that they have the RIGHT to offend and not suffer the consequences would believe that. A drunk might believe that when he/she becomes obnoxious and argumentative, in a public setting, that their actions are appropriate. In reality, the person or people they victimize are well within their rights to have the person arrested if they feel their safety is in jeopardy.
It all comes down to language. If a person is capable of controlling their anger and their language, then they aren't about to get in trouble. People who don't have the intelligence to behave appropriately in a public setting and don't have the skills to manage their anger
are at risk of finding themselves in custody.
What Gabor said was hardly offensive to me. He made a statement in good humor. He knows me well enough to know that I would not consider him a threat to my well being.

So if I use big words to insult you when I am drunk instead of obscenities than its ok is what you are saying?

What if a guy is sitting on bench yelling at you but not moving are you threatened?

Posted by Peter O'Brien on July 6, 2009 - 2:02pm
Your assessment of me is flawed. If you think you know me based on my posting you are sadly mistaken.

..but then.
Also posted by Peter....

People are offended when I support Survival of the Fittest concepts and letting a child get pulled into an escalator to teach the parents a lesson thinking. I say those things in public, often, and loudly. Should I be arrested for that Jeff since the parents or other on lookers are offended at my speech?

How flawed is that assessment?

Ask Chelsea.

Seriously, the words 'offended' and 'emotional threats' are jokes. Anyone who feels emotionally hurt, well my only advice to them is to get used to it. I think that this is something new in the last 150 years. As it's growing acceptance exponentially. It's a method used by liberals of reaching censorship. If they don't like the topic du jour, they call it offensive.

"What the world needs now, Is love sweet love, That's the only thing, That there's just, too little of."

Is that plagerism, or just projecting wishful thinking?

Posted by Tyler Hall on July 6, 2009 - 3:35pm
Seriously, the words 'offended' and 'emotional threats' are jokes. It's a method used by liberals of reaching censorship. If they don't like the topic du jour, they call it offensive.

The last thing a liberal wants is censorship. You have to be kidding! It isn't the liberals that advocate book burning; banning music; etc.
A person on a street, yelling obscenities, is inappropriate behavior. A person subject to that abuse has a right to protection.
How difficult is it to understand that this isn't a liberal/conservative political thing...it is common sense.
Why politicize it?
I can bet that the person yelling the obscenities wasn't thinking politics.
I can bet that the person subject to that wasn't thinking politics.
No matter how I turn this thing around, I can't defend a person who doesn't have the social skills to behave appropriately in public.
I can sympathize with someone who is bullied. Yes, that is offensive in society.
Tyler, you and your buddies can side with the bullies. You may find that behavior appropriate. So be it.
Quite possibly, you can even diminish the emotional state of those bullied. It would fall in line with those who believe they have the RIGHT to be obnoxious to others. While, in the same breath, saying that those who are the victims have no rights what so ever.

Fairness Doctrine....need I say more?

When did I say it was appropriate? It can be inappropriate and legal at the same time Bea.

Posted by Peter O'Brien on July 6, 2009 - 5:25pm
Fairness Doctrine....need I say more?

When did I say it was appropriate? It can be inappropriate and legal at the same time Bea.

The Fairness Doctrine was a policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission that required the holders of broadcast licenses both to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was honest, equitable and balanced.

Peter,
You twisted this to make it sound as if arresting people for inappropriate behavior was an attempt to censorship.
You have argued incessently that the person - who is out of control and hurling obscenities - has more rights than the person who is being verbally abused.
You have admitted to informing people loud and often that children should be injured to teach parents a lesson. That statement alone is frightening. School yard bullies grow up to become abusive adults.
You refuse to even consider the possibility that someone who is out of control and being verbally abusive is also capable of bodily harm. You have stated that people who are on the receiving end of such abuse have no right to be offended nor fear for their well being. You have mocked the premise that there is a possibility that someone who is already engaged in disruptive behavior can become violent.
So, in your opinion, your posts throughout this day have been honest, equitable, and balanced?
Sir, I think not.

LMAO!!! I love you Bea. Truly. You are an amazing woman and you're heart is in the right place. We just don't see eye to eye on some topics. Rather most topics. It's okay though.

And, Peter, you and I definitely need to go get some drinks sometime. I love your posts. I don't have enough time to keep up on this site, but I bequest you with the responsibility of defending conservatism. You do a great job and I honestly love coming to my computer at night and reading your posts. Keep up the good work Peter! 90 percent of the people on here just glorify their position on a topic and reassure their insecurities. anything that breaches this is perceived as offensive. It's okay though. Keep up the good work my man.

1. Yes people yelling can become violent but they usually don't. You seem to think it happens all the time and you want to suppress any form of outburst for any reason. You still haven't answer if its ok to scream and yell so long I call people feces-for-encephaloned corpulent torpid bovine instead of shit headed fat slow cow

2. I don't want to see any child get hurt but a parent who sucks at life and can't stop their child from doing something dangerous deserves to suffer. I also yell at parents who make no attempt to stop their child's temper tantrums in public places. Arrest me for that too please. If you think I was a school yard bully, try again I was one who was picked on.

3. The fairness doctrine is not fair. People don't want to hear liberals on the radio. That is why Air America and most every other liberal talk show fails. Liberals are pushing to bring it back instead of letting the market determine what people want. Rush makes millions because millions want to hear what he has to say and advertisers want to get a bit of air time during his show. The liberals are squelching conservative radio.

Tyler, thanks, when I am not working 7 days a week I will let you know and then we can stop out for a few.

That term public airwaves is wrong. Based on that the government should outlaw obscenities because the difference between radio and sound is the frequency and type of wave propagation.

Posted by Peter O'Brien on July 7, 2009 - 7:22am
1. Yes people yelling can become violent but they usually don't. You seem to think it happens all the time and you want to suppress any form of outburst for any reason. You still haven't answer if its ok to scream and yell so long I call people feces-for-encephaloned corpulent torpid bovine instead of shit headed fat slow cow

....
Please give a logical reason for disorderly conduct? Apparently there are reasons that I can't fathom.
Please give a logical reason for 'any form of outburst' that will threaten someone else?
Please give a logical reason to yell and scream obscenities in public?
These people were cited for disorderly conduct and
allegedly shouted obscenities in a public place, in one case and on the street in another. Please explain why you find this behavior appropriate.

2. I don't want to see any child get hurt but a parent who sucks at life and can't stop their child from doing something dangerous deserves to suffer.
You are still advocating hurting the child for the sins of the parents. What kind of person would even consider that sane?
I also yell at parents who make no attempt to stop their child's temper tantrums in public places. Arrest me for that too please.
Your degree is in child psychology? You have vast experience in stopping temper tantrums? Please give your background in raising children that makes you an expert. Do you honestly believe that tantrums are programmed to occur when you are present. They happen...it is part of raising a family. Trust me, parents don't like them either. Is it safe to assume that you NEVER, as a child, had a tantrum?
How pompous can you get?

If you think I was a school yard bully, try again I was one who was picked on.
So now, this is your chance to get even? You are doing a good job of it.

3. The fairness doctrine is not fair. People don't want to hear liberals on the radio. That is why Air America and most every other liberal talk show fails. Liberals are pushing to bring it back instead of letting the market determine what people want. Rush makes millions because millions want to hear what he has to say and advertisers want to get a bit of air time during his show. The liberals are squelching conservative radio.

(see Howard's response)

Who am I picking on and bullying? Once again being forceful in one views and convictions is not bullying. What am I doing to stop you from posting or making comments yourself? Nothing.

If a kid has a tantrum that's fine, its part of life, so long as the parent is dealing with it. The ones who just let them scream over and over while others are around need to do something. Should they be arrested? no but society has determined that they shouldn't say anything. I think that is wrong and I make sure that the parents and those around me hear me when I say something about it whether is something very sarcastic or I directly yell at the parent to do something about it.

For an outburst, you are at a restaurant and are served under cooked chicken which could lead to salmonella poisoning, yelling and swearing is acceptable.

Disorderly conduct is too vague.

Not once did I say it was appropriate. I said that language should not be outlawed. Yelling ASSHOLE at the top of my lungs on Main Street is my right thanks to the first amendment. Doing so thanks to social standards is frowned upon. That doesn't mean there should be a law against it. Another example is wrong and impolite to slam a door in someones face without hitting them with it, but its not against the law and shouldn't be.

When will you stop dodging my question about about the language used?

Is it ok to scream and yell so long I call people feces-for-encephaloned corpulent torpid bovine instead of shit-headed fat slow cow?

This is a discussion about about the use of obsenities not about threats, keep trying to twist it that way though.

They are a finite resource only because we limit the broadcast spectrum. Radio stations are also limited in range. Radio stations constantly are battling for the outlying areas. Try to get 1040AM in Batavia and you will hear two stations. Certain new stations are no allowed to compete with older stations. WHTK and WYSL are limited to 20,000W and most turn that down at night. WHAM is 50,000W and never has to adjust their signal because they are grandfathered in. It is inequitable but no one cares about that.

Licenses are fine just to spread the stations out over the spectrum, to regulate content on the spectrum is wrong and immoral.

My own son, a few years younger than Peter, thought he was exercising his right to free speech when he screamed obscenities at the doorman of a local club that he was refused admission to. He went home with a broken nose, black eyes, chipped teeth and a split ear. The police told him to move along or they would charge him, he moved along.

Screaming obscenities at a person outside of a club can be deemed "fighting words". The doorman then exercised his right to self defense.

Generally using obscenities in public, shouting them or not, when they are not aimed at a specific person or group of people, in my understanding are not fighting words. While there is not much detail on the actual situation, a warning and being told to cease and desist would probably have been a better solution. If those suggestions were not followed then maybe a fine, but arresting someone for using words that are not directed toward a specific person/persons is a type of censorship.

Screaming obscenities at a person outside of a club can be deemed "fighting words". The doorman then exercised his right to self defense.

WRONG AGAIN Chelsea

Thanks for helping to make the Batavian a place to exchange thoughts and ideas.

"What the FCC should do -- these are public airwaves, so licensing them is a privileged and not a right -- is require at least 50 percent of all air time be locally produced and locally oriented."

That is precisely the back-door method that is going to be used to put the Fairness Doctrine in place, likely within the year.