320 Nelson Street, P.O. Box 778, Tiffin, OH 44883
Phone (419) 448-3200 Fax (419) 447-3274
General E-Mail: adtrib@bright.net
Newsroom E-Mail: atnews@bright.net

Freedom from ugly behavior is the real issue

What qualifies as a constitutional issue, like so many other determinations, lies in the eye of the beholder.

The ultimate beholders in such an instance, are the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court.

Cases that litigants would like to go to the Supreme Court in many instances are weeded out along the way. Even then, the court does not hear all the cases that reach it, because the justices determine that some don't qualify and others need further hearing in a lower court.

A case that calls for quick and sure weeding is one involving a Michigan man, whose lawyer is claiming First Amendment protection for his client's outburst of profanity that could be heard a quarter mile away.

The Associated Press reports that Timothy Boomer, upon falling in a river from a canoe, let loose a three-minute outburst of cussing, loud enough to reach the estimated 440 yards. A woman and her two younsters were nearby.

A deputy cited Boomer under an 1897 Michigan law that prohibits cursing in front of women and chidren.

Boomer's lawyer this week was to ask the judge to declare the law unconstitutional and throw out the charge, asking, ''Are we now going to have language police?''

The law has its faults. Instead of protecting women and children, it should protect everyone.

If that's a problem, Boomer should be charged with disturbing the peace and disorderly conduct. Then there would be no constitutional questions.

Whatever the case, there is no freedom of speech issue here. The First Amendment does not guarantee freedom to vent without regard for others.

There are enough real First Amendment issues to be decided that courts should not be wasting time on case like this one.