Cursing is officially legal in the city of Utica.
City council members voted at a meeting Tuesday to repeal a city ordinance that banned the use of obscene language in front of women and children. The vote came after a resident pointed out the possibly-unenforceable ordinance to the council last month.
“Personally I don't do such things,” said council member Brad O’Donnell, who sponsored the amendment to repeal the ordinance. “I don't think anybody should go to jail for it.”
O’Donnell questioned the constitutionality of the ordinance, and who it was meant to target.
“I don't think if a child curses in front of another child that they should go to juvie for it,” he said. “If a woman curses in front of another woman, what do we do then?”
Despite its contradictions, and possible unconstitutionality, not all council members were convinced that the ordinance should be tossed out.
“I'm old school, and I am not opposed to keeping this on the books,” said council member Faith Terenzi. “People are no longer kind, they are no longer nice, they are no longer respectful, and when profanity becomes a common way of life, then there's something wrong with this picture.”
The ordinance, listed under Section 46-199 in the city’s code of ordinances stated:
(a) Any person who shall use any indecent, immoral, obscene, vulgar or insulting language in a public place or in the presence or hearing of any woman or child shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
(b) It is a misdemeanor to use indecent or immoral language.
During Tuesday’s meeting, Utica mayor Gus Calandrino called the ordinance “archaic” and said the council only became aware the ordinance was on the books after a resident brought it up at a meeting in December.
“In my little light reading going through the town ordinances just for the fun of it, I find that we still have a prohibited language (ordinance) on the books,” said resident Ed Van Slambrouck at the meeting on December 12.
Van Slambrouck pointed out the U.S. Supreme Court has struck down such bans on public profanity, citing the case of Cohen v. California. The case was decided in 1971 after a man was charged for wearing a jacket that read “F— the Draft,” opposing the Vietnam War draft.
“(W)hile the particular four-letter word being litigated here is perhaps more distasteful than most others of its genre, it is nevertheless often true that one man's vulgarity is another's lyric,” wrote Justice John Marshall Harlan II in the majority opinion that decided the case.
"Yes, the state of Michigan has done away with this, but we have become so disrespectful of each other, of government, of our public servants, of our children, that profanity has just become commonplace."Faith Terenzi, Utica city council member
Despite that ruling, the state of Michigan maintained its own law banning profanity in front of women and children until 2015.
That legal history wasn’t enough to persuade two council members to ditch the local version.
“Yes, the state of Michigan has done away with this, but we have become so disrespectful of each other, of government, of our public servants, of our children, that profanity has just become commonplace,” said Terenzi, who voted against repealing the ordinance.
“I’m also old school,” agreed council member Kenneth Sikora, who voted with Terenzi, but said he was concerned about sexism in the language of the ordinance.
“Maybe it's the wording that it's only against women and children. Maybe it should say that it's anybody that uses that language, so you take the sexism out of it,” Sikora offered.
He said he worried what would happen if a person decided to approach a parent and their child and go on a profanity-laced tirade, unburdened by any ordinance prohibiting the language.
But other council members pushed back, saying the city still has laws against disorderly conduct and disturbing the peace.
“We can't regulate people's behavior through what they say a lot of the time, but we can regulate their actions,” said council member Thom Dionne.
Council members who voted for the repeal said they weren’t condoning public profanity, they simply didn’t believe the profanity ban was enforceable or constitutional within the city.
“I think there are many things that are legal that I don't agree with,” said O’Donnell, who added that he’d make clowns illegal “with a wave of my hand” if he could. “But yeah, I just don't ... I think it's not enforceable, I think it's a bad look to have it in our code of ordinances.”
In the end, the vote to repeal was 4-2. The amendment said it would take effect “upon adoption and publication.” “The First Amendment has to reign supreme,” said Mayor Calandrino. “As repulsive as some things are. As disgusting as it may be for somebody to swear in public, it can’t be illegal.”
This reporting was informed by the Minutes project at Michigan Public.
