Are there laws against profanity?
209472
No, not against "profanity."  You can say whatever you want.  However, there are a collection of laws and rules that tell you when, where, how loud, and in what company you can say it.  If you are on live TV, there are different rules.  If you are in a kindergarten, other laws may apply.  If you are screaming in public, other laws may apply.\n\nAdditionally, if the "profanity" becomes "obscenity" it can be subject to legislation.  And good luck finding out what "obscenity" is (basically:  lacking in artistic, scientific, political, or other value).
646193
There's no reason for one to curse (anyone or anything). (Cursing is to wish evil upon someone or something.)
673804
Liberals, The ACLU, The Rainbow/PUSH Coalition, and the rest of those groups will scream bloody murder if they think you have violated their right to free speech. \n\nThey will also scream bloody murder and try to censor you if you use your right to free speech to say something that they don't like.... Hypocrites....
34635
The Constitution of the United States of America provides protection of the speech acts of its citizens provided that:\n1. they are not putting anyone else in danger,\n2. the person involved in the speech act is not in the military or incarcerated,\n3. the speech act is not considered obscene by the judicial system.\n\nOther than that, free speech should not be curtailed under the law.
525
No, at least not in the US. It goes with the whole "freedom of speech" thing. The first amendment says:\n\n"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."\n\nIf someone is telling you how to speak in your own backyard, your first amendment rights are being violated.\n\nHowever if you're cursing loud enough to disturb your neighbours, then you're infringing on their rights, in which case you can be charged with a disorderly persons offence.
373020
I sure hope not.  There should never be any governmental interference in speech that is offensive or hate filled.  Only when there is clear evidence that the speech is a direct threat towards an individual should the law be able to take any action. If people could be jailed for offending, we all would be wearing prison uniforms.
362783
Profanity origniated out of religious obserance of words that were either considered blasphemy or abusive to either God or his followers. Most words are considered profane because of their abusive, or offensive nature.  Talking about hell, or damnation was considered abusive because it brought to light unplesant aspects of the afterlife.   This also applies to blasphemy or taking the Lord's name in vain, it is considered offensive by religous followers because it is a direct insulting use of their creator's name. Also sexual terms and phrases are often considered vular or taken out of context to produce an offense. Ah, who cares...here goes...I'll try to be polite...\nIt is usually their connotation that makes them profane:  \n"Taking a sh*t" is considered a vular expression because of it's content.  \n"Fu*k you" is also considered vulgar because the word "F*ck" implies sex because of it's origins and it's a no no to talk about sex in our Puritian society...Let alone use sex as an offensive remark.\nA$$hole is considered a rude word because, honestly who wants to be associated with being an anus?\nC*nt is a very taboo word because of it's vulgar reference to female genitalia, and feminist movement sees vulgar references as a means to demean and demoralize. Which is probably a very accurate ideal.\nD*ckhead also is a demeaning word.\nWell okay that's all I can think of..well actually I can think of a lot more, but I'll probably already be reported for this anyways...\nHave A Nice Day...
592489
Sexual content can get Yahoo in trouble with the law.  Racism is considered free speech, so Yahoo has no legal problem with it, unless they are advocating the commission of a crime.\n\nI don't mind the racist questions.  They just show the whole world how stupid and ignorant those people really are.
97228
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees, among other things, freedom of speech, but this right is not absolute.  Certain types of speech are not protected by the Constitution, which means that State goverments may promulgate laws to limit them.  Examples include "fighting words" (words meant to provoke a physical fight), "commercial speech" (claims made in advertising), "obscenity" (prurient language), etc.
311976
My family used to be (when my parents were still alive and us kids were closer to home) prone to getting into heated "discussions" about most any topic. Whatever the popular opinion, my dad would always play the devils advocate, and off we'd go, debating darned near anything. One Sunday, we got into it about cursing. Part of us took the stance that only the designated curse words were truly curse words, and who decided what they were anyway? And part of us took the side that ANY word would be a curse word if used with the right emotion. Ex: if you say darn and you really meant damn, or really WANTED to say damn, then you may as well have gone ahead and said damn! The others were no way! Only the word damn is a curse word, and darn and heck and shoot are all perfectly good alternatives...well, so it went in my house!\nPoint being, I personally think that it's the emotion behind the word used, and say, in the case of Tourette's, there is no emotion intended, just an uncontrollable outburst of words that just happen to be considered foul by society. Now, having said all that, the Bible does have something to say about not allowing a rotten saying to come out of our mouths, along with swearing (as in "I swear to God I didn't take your purse!" The Bible says to let our yes mean yes and our no mean no) You'll find those verses at Eph 4:29 and Matt 5:37.
37437
I don't know of any actual law, but most companies have it in their employee handbook. It can generate a lot of problems to have a spouse be your boss. \n\nAnd the use of all caps is rude because it is considered SHOUTING.
115080
I would just like to point out to you that cussing is not against any of the 10 commandments. Swearing is.\nCussing may be distasteful and inappropriate at times, but certainly no sin against God.\nMore often than not, it's a case of people not knowing how to express themselves with other words. Although, occasionally, a good expletive is exactly what's needed to emphasize a point.
452335
According to HR 6166 EH, the torture bill, no, freedom of speech no longer exists in this country if you are in the U.S.\n\nThere are a lot of puppet identities and a few packs that attack together. You may note some questions are insult free and others will have the same group throwing mud (with atrocious grammar, worse spelling and no manners) en mas.
522055
The only curse word the bible definitely says you shouldn't use is the word 'fools' \n \nMatthew 5:  5:22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire\n\nBut you can say 'fool' freely without being censored by the public. You can say 'fool' and not get fired. You can't say that other f-word though, because of old taboos, possibly Victorian in origin when polite society attempted to put sex in its place, to be used for reproductive purposes only.
447589
Although we have free speech in America if our speech incites a riot or if it is reasonable to assume that what you say could incite others to do harm or break the law then there can be legal repercussions.  The reason this so seldom happens though is because it has to be proved that the actions of others were the direct and sole result of the words or actions of another and this can be hard to do.
4077
EXTREMLY basic rundown on the traditional classic unprotected categories of speech:\n\nIncitement (Brandenberg): speech directed or intended to producing imminent lawless action, and is likely to product such action.\n\nFalse statements of fact (New York Times v. Sullivan): for matters of public concern that defame public officials, the statements are unprotected if they are known to be false or are recklessly made with regard to their falsity, called "actual malice." For matters of public concern that defame private citizens, the statements are unprotected if made negligently under a case called Gertz. On matters of private concern, they may be unprotected regardless, through a consideration of the whole record.\n\nTrue threats (Virginia v. Black): those statements where the speaker means to communicate a serious expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence to a particular individual or group of individuals.\n\nObscenity (Miller v. California): the average person, applying community standards, considering the work as a whole, finds that the speech appeals to the prurient interest; it is patently offensive depiction, applying community standards, of sexual conduct, as defined by statute; and as a whole, it lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.\n\nChild pornography (Ferber): the speech visually depicts minors engaged in sexual acts or lewdly exhibiting their genitals.\n\nFighting words (Chaplinsky): speech that tends to incite an immediate breach of the peace, or words that by their very utterance inflict injury, or an emotional distress tort.
128382
This is a real hot potato - your right to free speech is crucial\nBut there is also a responsibility to ensure others aren't offended and minors aren't corrupted\n\nSo maybe the answer is to have a safe area and an open area - in the open area anything goes but access is restricted to over 16's and people who are easily offended won't look there either??