: I hardly think legeslation is the proper way of dealing with this. Perhaps the parents of these children should have a conversation with their young 'uns and let them know about curse words. In my post I didn't mean to have it sound like it must have been a traumatic experience for the kids who heard that guy curse. There is no doubt in my mind that those kids have heard curse words before. What kid hasn't? Probably every 5 yeaar old in every english speaking country has heard every curse word in the book, but that's not the point. Most kids know what sex is too (well, maybe not 5 year olds, but 10 year olds definately), but that doesn't mean everybody should be allowed to get freaky out in public whenever they want. Same thing with cursewords. Even though we all know what they are, they are not appropriate. Kids learn from example and I wouldn't want my kids to talk like some uneducated slob.
:Then maybe our society would feel less offended by them, and everyone would be happier. Alternatively they could have approached the man and requested him to change his language so as to respect their feelings. Nevertheless, I think whether he was shouting "fuck" or "darn" should not be the issue. He was upset. That's fair. Who are we to deny him that?
Of course it is his right to be upset. But does he have to shout curse words? Why can't he just scream? And talk about crying over spilled milk. So he fell out of a canoe, big deal he got wet. He has never gotten wet before? So go out in the sun for 20 minutes and dry off. The guy sounds like he has a temper problem anyway.
And besides, it doesn't make a difference why he decided to scream curses in public, whether he was upset or not. The fact is he broke the law.
--
McSpotlight: However, as we all know, the law is frequently an ass; how much did it cost the state to prosecute a man for something that caused no physical harm to anyone and was over in a minute?
If someone was prosecuted for doing no physical harm to anyone, why do persistent polluters get off scot free?
