Is it illegal to speak profanity on your own property or home?
Full Question:
Answer:
Please note that laws dealing with this issue of profanity do not apply to Rules of private citizens or Associations that do not involve a "public function", which still may be held invalid.
Before providing some other law, one case we found addresses in part an Ordinance that deals with using profanity "near any dwelling house". The Ordinance provided as follows and was enacted by a City in Mass.
In the case above the Plaintiff sued the City and others for unlawful arrest claiming the Ordinance was unconstitutional. The Court refused to hold this Ordinance unconstitutional as applied to the facts of the case because the facts showed us of unprotected "fighting words".No person shall behave in a rude or disorderly manner, or use any indecent, profane or insulting language, in any public way, park, common or other public place in the city, or near any dwelling house or public building therein.
DiGiambattista v. Doherty, 897 F. Supp. 649 (D. Mass. 1995)
There have been ordinances enacted by various Cities regarding the use of profanity. For example, St. Louis enacted this Ordinance.
Ordinance No. 762.030 of the city of St. Louis provided:
"762.030. Public disturbance of the peace.No person shall disturb the peace of others by noisy, riotous or disorderly conduct, nor by violent, tumultuous, offensive or obstreperous conduct or carriage, nor by loud or unusual noises, nor by unseemly, profane, obscene, indecent, lewd or offensive language, calculated to provoke a breach of the peace, nor by assaulting, striking or fighting any other person in any park, street, alley, highway, thoroughfare, public place or public resort. (1948, C.46, s.20.)"
Under this Statute about the woman was convicted of disturbing the peace. There was a protest at City Hall and she was charged for using some language that it was contended violated the Ordinance. The question the Court addressed was whether the Ordinance as unconstitutional under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.
In upholding the Ordinance but reversing her conviction the Supreme Court of Missouri stated the following and reversed her conviction.
Ordinance No. 762.030, Rev.Code of the City of St. Louis 1960, is not facially unconstitutional as being vague or overbroad under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution.
Nevertheless, the conviction of appellant must be reversed. She was not charged with having said or done anything *520 "calculated to provoke a breach of the peace". It was merely charged that she did "disturb the peace by noisy, riotous and disorderly conduct in a public place. . .." Nor is there any finding that her verbal conduct was "calculated to provoke a breach of the peace" nor any finding that her verbal conduct was intended to and was reasonably probable to incite others to violence. This is in accord with Slupsky, supra, where this court reversed and remanded the peace disturbance conviction because the court's instructions to the jury ignored the requirement that the conduct of the defendant be "calculated to provoke a breach of the peace." The instant case was court-tried and therefore instructions were not utilized. When the charge of peace disturbance is based upon verbal conduct, there is always the risk that free speech will be suppressed. The risk in this sensitive area is minimized when it can be reliably determined that the fact finder actually found the verbal conduct of the defendant was intended and calculated to provoke immediate violence. In Kansas City v. Graham, 502 S.W.2d 411 (Mo.App.1973), a conviction of peace disturbance was reversed for failure of the information to charge that the language allegedly used by the defendant was "calculated to provoke a breach of the peace" because that is essential to peace disturbance by verbal act in Missouri. City of St. Louis v. Slupsky, supra, City of Kansas City v. Thorpe, supra.
City of St. Louis v. Tinker, 542 S.W.2d 512 (1976) read the case here.
The case has a lot of good content about when profane and similar words can be actionable.
The US Supreme Court has held that the following New Orleans ordinance was unconstitutional sayng, "It shall be unlawful and a breach of the peace for any person wantonly to curse or revile or to use obscene or opprobrious language toward or with reference to any member of the city police while in the actual performance of his duty." 415 U.S. at 132, 94 S. Ct. at 972."
City of St. Louis v. Tinker, 542 S.W.2d 512 (1976)
Missouri has enacted this Statute about profane language in a bus or bus terminal:
Until December 31, 2016--Vulgar or profane language--passenger under influence of alcohol or drugs, penalties, exceptions--driver may remove passenger from bus, when.
578.315. 1. It is unlawful, while on a bus, in the terminal or on property contiguous thereto for any person:
(1) To threaten a breach of the peace or use any obscene, profane or vulgar language;
(2) To be under the influence of alcohol or unlawfully under the influence of a controlled substance or to ingest or have in his possession any controlled substance unless properly prescribed by a physician or medical facility, or to drink intoxicating liquor of any kind in or upon any passenger bus except a chartered bus;
(3) To fail to obey a reasonable request or order of a bus driver or any duly authorized company representative.
2. If any person shall violate any provision of subsection 1, the driver of the bus or person in charge thereof may stop it at the place where the offense is committed, or at the next regular or convenient stopping place of the bus and require the person to leave the bus.
3. Any person violating any provision of subsection 1 is deemed guilty of a class C misdemeanor.
(L. 1982 S.B. 519 § 4)
Transferred 2014; now 577.709; Effective 1-01-17