When riding in a canoe up the Rifle River, the last thing that anyone would expect would be heavy profanity blasting from a quarter-mile away. However, that was exactly the case for the young family of Michael Smith according to the article “I Swear, What’s the U.S. Coming To?” by Mike Downey, which appeared on page 2 of the Los Angeles Times. Timothy Boomer, after capsizing his canoe from a rock, bellowed obscenities which got him arrested and put to trial from breaking a state law passed in 1897 in Michigan. Though it was officially up the courts to decide if he should be arrested and fined, the correct ruling is obvious. Timothy Boomer should be arrested and punished under the law because his act of profanity is damaging to Michael Smith’s
…show more content…
However, the states have the power to limit what constitutes as free speech. Most people would agree that profanity at that scale, cursing that can still be heard a fourth of a mile away, would not constitute as speech protected by the 1st Amendment. The Michigan law from 1897 wasn't repealed; therefore, it is safe to assume that it seems reasonable if it lasted for a little more than a century. It would be unfair to totally disregard a law without a firm legal precedent. That is a concept of the rule of law. Everyone is subject to the law, there are no exclusions unless by due process of law. The rule of law is a summary of fairness. People have the same rights as everyone else. It would not be fair to others if Boomer would not get punished for his actions, as he has poses a social danger due to his actions to and around other people. Boomer has every right to say what he wants to, but he must also respect the rights of others. Most critical would be bystanders and the community like Michael Smith who can hear Boomer. The often well-known phrase “Your right to swing your arms ends just where the other man's nose begins,” holds true for this case. Boomer has his rights, but he must respect the rights of others. If Boomer does not respect the law and the rights of others, then he should be treated and fairly and consistently with the law for the consequences of his actions (fines and maybe
However, the states have the power to limit what constitutes as free speech. Most people would agree that profanity at that scale, cursing that can still be heard a fourth of a mile away, would not constitute as speech protected by the 1st Amendment. The Michigan law from 1897 wasn't repealed; therefore, it is safe to assume that it seems reasonable if it lasted for a little more than a century. It would be unfair to totally disregard a law without a firm legal precedent. That is a concept of the rule of law. Everyone is subject to the law, there are no exclusions unless by due process of law. The rule of law is a summary of fairness. People have the same rights as everyone else. It would not be fair to others if Boomer would not get punished for his actions, as he has poses a social danger due to his actions to and around other people. Boomer has every right to say what he wants to, but he must also respect the rights of others. Most critical would be bystanders and the community like Michael Smith who can hear Boomer. The often well-known phrase “Your right to swing your arms ends just where the other man's nose begins,” holds true for this case. Boomer has his rights, but he must respect the rights of others. If Boomer does not respect the law and the rights of others, then he should be treated and fairly and consistently with the law for the consequences of his actions (fines and maybe