The very fabric of our society is under attack from the state government's proposed anti-swearing push, with blue language at the footy, rude jokes at a live comedy show and rowdy banter at the bar all technically in breach of the Summary Offences Act 1966.
An amendment to the Act now before Parliament will enshrine police powers to issue on-the-spot fines of $238.90 to anyone deemed by an officer to have used indecent or offensive language in a public place.
[...]
Swearing in public was always an offence under the Act, but such cases had to be heard in court prior to a trial program, introduced by Labor in July 2008, that gave police the power to issue fines on the spot. The amendment will make those trial arrangements permanent from July 1.
In the 2009 and 2010 financial years, 793 people in Victoria were fined for indecent language under the trial program, according to figures released by the Attorney General’s office.
But the scope of the offence has libertarians concerned.
Under the definition of "public place" in the Act, swearing is illegal on any public highway, road, street or bridge, which is bad news for frazzled motorists unlucky enough to have a twitchy policeman as a passenger.
It is also illegal in any "race-course, cricket ground, football ground or other such place", which spells trouble for the Collingwood cheer squad but may come as welcome news for AFL match officials (aka "you f---ing idiot, umpire").
Also out of bounds is any "wharf, pier or jetty", which means fishermen may need to call upon some fresh words when dealing with tangled lines, lost hooks and the one that got away.
Swearing is also prohibited in "any public hall, theatre or room while members of the public are in attendance". Whoops. There goes the next Malthouse season.
Oh, and swearing is not permitted at "any licensed premises". Frankly, what's the point in even going out?
Professor Spencer Zifcak, president of Liberty Victoria, said the problem with the change to the legislation lies in the degree of discretion it gives to individual police officers.
"In practical terms, Policeman A may be offended and issue a fine on the spot, while Policeman B may not. Because the definition of offensive language is so wide and police discretion is so wide what will happen is you will get an arbitrary application of the law. We’re willing to sacrifice a bit of efficiency to ensure a fair hearing," he said.
There is little agreement even on what constitutes "offensive" language in 2011, as distinct from 1966. In a much-noted ruling in 2002, NSW magistrate David Heilpern observed of the F word "one would have to live an excessively cloistered existence not to come into regular contact with the word, and not to have become somewhat immune to its suggested previously legally offensive status".
Victorian Attorney-General Robert Clark acknowledged yesterday that community standards relating to profanity had changed, but said the government still wanted to send a message that bad behaviour in public would not be tolerated.
"Victorians ought to be able to go out at night, to be able to go out with their families and not be ... offended and have their trip made miserable by the obnoxious and offensive behaviour of louts," Mr Clark said. "We are going to give the police the power to issue infringement notices to send the message that this sort of obnoxious and antisocial behaviour will not be tolerated."
Read more:
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/so...anguage-law-20110531-1fepo.html#ixzz1NzAo6E6Y
