(Image via Getty)
Boston Democrat Dan Hunt has proposed a bill in the Massachusetts legislature to ban the word “bitch.” The law seems to take aim at using rhetoric to silence or demean women, though, given the state, it’s probably just designed to prevent everyone else from describing Tom Brady a little bitch.
The measure proposes adding two sentences to the section of state law that assigns fines and other penalties for various offenses, such as crimes for common night walkers, indecent exposure, and disturbers of the peace.
“A person who uses the word ‘bitch’ directed at another person to accost, annoy, degrade or demean the other person shall be considered to be a disorderly person in violation of this section,” the bill says.
This is, obviously, stupid. Using rhetoric to police women and enforce the patriarchy is a real thing and I shudder to watch the social media neanderthals respond to this law with “durr, it’s just words, snowflakes” in a collective, apotheosis of white male privilege. Why give these people more unwarranted self-satisfaction with their own insecurities? Sure, this is absolutely harassment, but this kind of targeted, blanket ban on a word isn’t the solution. Frankly, if you’re looking for patriarchal language to hurl at a woman, this isn’t even the most robust arrow in the lexigraphic quiver.
It’s also probably useless. “Bitch” would reasonably be covered in the law’s overly broad and vague prohibition on “disorderly acts or language [to] accost or annoy another person.” Maybe Hunt is trying to add some specificity to the provision — though notably by adding particular examples without narrowing the existing scope — but vagueness is the least of this law’s constitutional problems. There are so many better ways to address this kind of angry language without raising constitutional ire — like funding an anti-discrimination curriculum for Kindergartners or criminalizing telemarketing.
You know what? Put a pin in all the flowery free speech fundamentalism about the “grave threat to democracy” of arresting people for being jerks — this whole proposed change is somehow unironically getting shoehorned into a law designed to police women. General Law Section 53 is that sort of catch-all law designed to allow the cops to arrest sex workers — or, frankly, anyone that annoys them — for just being outside at night. If the state legislature wanted to strike a real blow against the patriarchy, they might start by gutting Section 53 instead of adding to it.
Also, note what word Massachusetts feels isn’t rushing to ban when used to “accost, annoy, degrade or demean the other person.” I’ll give you a hint, it starts with an “n.”
Shows you where these bitches put their priorities, doesn’t it?
Proposed law would make the ‘b-word’ illegal in Mass. [B News]
Joe Patrice is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. Feel free to email any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on Twitter if you’re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news. Joe also serves as a Managing Director at RPN Executive Search.