Potty-mouthed citizens of NSW, take note - swearing in public could soon cost you three times as much as it used to.
When the state government more than tripled the on-the-spot fine for swearing in public last week, critics were left asking "what the f---"?
As part of the raft of legislation to tackle alcohol-fuelled violence, police will soon be able to issue fines of up to $500 to anyone that displays offensive language, up from $150.
But there is no official list of the words you will pay to use.
Scott Webber, from the NSW Police Association, said deciding whether someone's language was offensive was a “nightmare” and relied on subjective judgment.
He said fines were usually issued after an initial warning and particularly when f--- and c--- were used aggressively and in a public space, such as near a school, a main street or in a park.
But he said the police force welcomed the greater fine.
“We see time and time again offensive language being used in the CBD and across NSW ... the increase in fine [will] act as a deterrent but on top of that we need to make sure people are aware of the increase ... that it is a lot better than taking them to court."
Critics like solicitor Jane Sanders, from free legal service The Shop Front Legal Youth Centre, said swearing was part of everyday vernacular and the laws unfairly targeted minority groups like Aboriginal people and young people.
“The offence should be done away with altogether,” she said. “Increasing the penalties is not going to deter people from behaving in this way”.
“[Police] just don't like people disrespecting their authority, they don't like being sworn at – not because they're offended by their words, it's language widely used among police officers themselves, widely used by the community.”
The new fine is the highest on-the-spot penalty for swearing in Australia.
Police in Victoria can fine you $240, while in Queensland it will cost just $100 if you let one drop in public.
The only other state where fines are issued on-the-spot is South Australia.
NSW Premier Barry O'Farrell said the increased fine was “a sufficient amount to act as a deterrent for this unacceptable behaviour".
The criminal offence of offensive language is often part of a "trifecta" of infringement notices - the original offence, resisting arrest and offensive language.
NSW courts have been reluctant to issue convictions over swearing – in 2010, Magistrate Pat O'Shane ruled that calling cops "f---ing pigs" was not offensive.
But the power that police have to fine offenders at the time of the offence means many incidences of swearing do not make it to court.
。
As part of the raft of legislation to tackle alcohol-fuelled violence, police will soon be able to issue fines of up to $500 to anyone that displays offensive language, up from $150.
But there is no official list of the words you will pay to use.
Scott Webber, from the NSW Police Association, said deciding whether someone's language was offensive was a “nightmare” and relied on subjective judgment.
He said fines were usually issued after an initial warning and particularly when f--- and c--- were used aggressively and in a public space, such as near a school, a main street or in a park.
But he said the police force welcomed the greater fine.
“We see time and time again offensive language being used in the CBD and across NSW ... the increase in fine [will] act as a deterrent but on top of that we need to make sure people are aware of the increase ... that it is a lot better than taking them to court."
Critics like solicitor Jane Sanders, from free legal service The Shop Front Legal Youth Centre, said swearing was part of everyday vernacular and the laws unfairly targeted minority groups like Aboriginal people and young people.
“The offence should be done away with altogether,” she said. “Increasing the penalties is not going to deter people from behaving in this way”.
“[Police] just don't like people disrespecting their authority, they don't like being sworn at – not because they're offended by their words, it's language widely used among police officers themselves, widely used by the community.”
The new fine is the highest on-the-spot penalty for swearing in Australia.
Police in Victoria can fine you $240, while in Queensland it will cost just $100 if you let one drop in public.
The only other state where fines are issued on-the-spot is South Australia.
NSW Premier Barry O'Farrell said the increased fine was “a sufficient amount to act as a deterrent for this unacceptable behaviour".
The criminal offence of offensive language is often part of a "trifecta" of infringement notices - the original offence, resisting arrest and offensive language.
NSW courts have been reluctant to issue convictions over swearing – in 2010, Magistrate Pat O'Shane ruled that calling cops "f---ing pigs" was not offensive.
But the power that police have to fine offenders at the time of the offence means many incidences of swearing do not make it to court.
。
In the 12 months to September 2013, 4,289 incidences of offensive language were recorded, according to the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research. That number was down 10 per cent on the previous 12-month period.
In 2012, the NSW Law Reform Commission was inclined to suggest abolishing offensive language offences because the test for what was considered offensive was “subjective and difficult for an enforcement officer to determine”, the conduct caused “relatively minimal harm" and the fines were inconsistent because they depended on where the offence took place.
It recommended the government investigate further before abolishing the offence.
The Shop Front Legal Youth Centre was a stakeholder in the commission's consultation process.
A spokeswoman for Attorney-General Greg Smith, SC, said the government did not believe an inquiry into the offence was warranted.
“People have the right to use public places free from verbal abuse. The job of police is difficult enough without having to put up with offensive language by anyone, including people intoxicated by drugs and alcohol.”
Fines have also been increased for offensive behaviour (from $200 to $500), for intoxicated and disorderly behaviour following a direction to move-on (from $200 to $1100) and for continued intoxicated and disorderly behaviour (from $660 to $1,650).
In 2012, the NSW Law Reform Commission was inclined to suggest abolishing offensive language offences because the test for what was considered offensive was “subjective and difficult for an enforcement officer to determine”, the conduct caused “relatively minimal harm" and the fines were inconsistent because they depended on where the offence took place.
It recommended the government investigate further before abolishing the offence.
The Shop Front Legal Youth Centre was a stakeholder in the commission's consultation process.
A spokeswoman for Attorney-General Greg Smith, SC, said the government did not believe an inquiry into the offence was warranted.
“People have the right to use public places free from verbal abuse. The job of police is difficult enough without having to put up with offensive language by anyone, including people intoxicated by drugs and alcohol.”
Fines have also been increased for offensive behaviour (from $200 to $500), for intoxicated and disorderly behaviour following a direction to move-on (from $200 to $1100) and for continued intoxicated and disorderly behaviour (from $660 to $1,650).
(6.2.2014 Sydney Morning Herald)
看到這則新聞我不禁失笑？在新省公眾地方講粗口是犯法的，我3年前的再論他媽的一文粗畧講過。凖確一些講，不限於「炒媽拆蟹」的髒話（potty-mouthed），法律上的字眼是offensive language。怎樣才算offensive 呢？Offensive language在香港的法例裏譯作「咒罵」、「使人反感的語言」、「冒犯性的語言」及「使人厭惡的語言」等。怎樣介定這種語言並非易事，如果是粗口，當然容易判斷，粗鄙的話認受性就因人而異。我失笑的原因是老外常講的f...，在很多電影裏由頭「忽」到尾，在這裏的公眾地方講卻會犯法。香港去年的what the f...事件，講的人不犯法，卻惹了連串風波。想起來都算諷刺。
假如有兩個人在公眾地方交談，互相用大量粗口問候，講的人無冒犯的意思，聽的人不覺反感，其實對他們來講，這些詞語十分親切傳神，如果不是大聲朗誦，不影響他人，何需立法規管？
今天明報報導了這一則法庭新聞：
夫婦涉粗口辱醫生被控
攜幼女輪急症 稱被罵「發緊癲」
【明報專訊】夫婦帶出生不久的女兒到屯門醫院急症室求診，苦等兩小時仍未能見醫生，因而與在場醫護人員爭執，夫婦被指以粗口「問候」醫生，罵對方「讀屎片」及「無醫德」。事隔半年，夫婦被醫管局票控違反《醫院管理局附例》，案件昨開審，夫婦被裁定表證成立。女被告聲稱聽到涉事醫生說她「發緊癲」，兩人才與醫生理論，否認曾辱罵醫生。
醫局：絕不容忍醫院暴力
看到這則新聞我不禁失笑？在新省公眾地方講粗口是犯法的，我3年前的再論他媽的一文粗畧講過。凖確一些講，不限於「炒媽拆蟹」的髒話（potty-mouthed），法律上的字眼是offensive language。怎樣才算offensive 呢？Offensive language在香港的法例裏譯作「咒罵」、「使人反感的語言」、「冒犯性的語言」及「使人厭惡的語言」等。怎樣介定這種語言並非易事，如果是粗口，當然容易判斷，粗鄙的話認受性就因人而異。我失笑的原因是老外常講的f...，在很多電影裏由頭「忽」到尾，在這裏的公眾地方講卻會犯法。香港去年的what the f...事件，講的人不犯法，卻惹了連串風波。想起來都算諷刺。
假如有兩個人在公眾地方交談，互相用大量粗口問候，講的人無冒犯的意思，聽的人不覺反感，其實對他們來講，這些詞語十分親切傳神，如果不是大聲朗誦，不影響他人，何需立法規管？
今天明報報導了這一則法庭新聞：
夫婦涉粗口辱醫生被控
攜幼女輪急症 稱被罵「發緊癲」
【明報專訊】夫婦帶出生不久的女兒到屯門醫院急症室求診，苦等兩小時仍未能見醫生，因而與在場醫護人員爭執，夫婦被指以粗口「問候」醫生，罵對方「讀屎片」及「無醫德」。事隔半年，夫婦被醫管局票控違反《醫院管理局附例》，案件昨開審，夫婦被裁定表證成立。女被告聲稱聽到涉事醫生說她「發緊癲」，兩人才與醫生理論，否認曾辱罵醫生。
醫局：絕不容忍醫院暴力
醫管局發言人表示，對醫院工作間的暴力「絕不容忍」，會確保醫護人員在不受干預及安全的情下照顧病人，並因應情報警或採取法律行動。
任職司機的男被告黃文迪（31歲）及現正懷孕的女被告鄒芷喬（21歲）昨沒律師代表，兩人帶同兩名分別2歲及9個月大的女兒到法庭應訊。暫委特委裁判官何極輝指法庭不容孩童進入，結果兩名女兒被帶到庭外走廊，由法庭女保安照顧。
等醫生兩小時與醫護爭執 否認爆粗
屯門急症室駐院醫生羅炳強供稱，案發去年4月18日，當日有大量病人輪候急症，亦有病人需立即搶救，但急症室只有兩名醫生，非常繁忙。女被告當日帶同初生女兒到急症室求醫，指懷疑女兒有黃疸問題，男被告稍後到達。至中午12時許，兩被告與在場醫護爭執，情緒愈趨激動，保安召警調停，並二人冷靜，惟男被告向保安說：「你班仆街，搞到我咁激動！你叫我冷靜？咁我打你一鑊，叫你冷靜得唔得？你搞到佢（女被告）咁激動，你要負責，佢青山醫院覆診！」男被告又向警員稱：「你警察最多得3萬人，我都可以call齊人，呢到唔X關你事！」
女被告亦「加入戰團」，指罵羅：「你做乜X醫生，讀乜X書。讀屎片啦，你無醫德，你學乜X醫呀」。羅形容兩被告「好大聲」，令他感到受威嚇，他明白被告因等候太久而不高興，「但唔係我搞到佢要等嘛」。
醫生：當日繁忙 「發癲」非指被告
被告一方指出，女被告輪候急症兩小時仍不果，遂向醫護查詢，其間聽到羅對護士說：「佢發緊癲，下個先啦。」男被告便與羅理論。兩被告均否認曾辱罵羅，又稱羅當時所坐位置視線受阻，沒可能看清楚誰在說話。男被告強調，從沒說妻子曾到青山醫院求醫，「你去青山醫院check有無record先啦」。
兩被告在庭外均表示，新年期間要上庭應訊非常無奈，批評局方「搵無謂告」。對於羅醫生曾於口供解釋，案發時所說的「發緊癲」並非指女被告，男被告回應說：「咁我都可以話（涉案的辱罵言辭）唔係講緊佢（醫生）啦。」男被告強調，假使他案發時真的說過粗口，亦不等於有辱罵羅醫生，「粗口可以係助語詞」。案件押後至本月17日裁決。
明報記者 黃建邦 陳倢朗 羅慧茵
【案件編號：TMS13680-81/13】
引用來作檢控的法例是《醫院管理局附例》
| 條： | 7 | 條文標題： | 禁止作出某些行為 | 版本日期： | 30/06/1997 |
- (a) 管有、保管或掌管任何動物、雀鳥或魚類；
(b) 有告示批准的地方以外吸煙或使用無罩的燈火；
(c) 使用可能令他人厭惡或煩擾的言語；
(d) 任出不雅或影響秩序的行為；
(e) 製造或引致產生令醫院內病人煩擾的噪音；
(f) 未經醫院內病人同意，拍攝照片、影片或錄像影片，把其容貌勾劃出來；或 (1991年第436號法律公告)
(g) 未經院方職員同意，拍攝照片、影片或錄像影片，把醫院病房勾劃出來，而除非拍攝工作對病人造成或有可能造成煩擾或打擾，或對病人的治療造成或有可能造成不良影響，否則院方職員不得拒絕讓該等拍攝工作進行。 (1991年第436號法律公告)
香港在這方面立法算很文明，不會過分立法，用這些冒犯言語，在公眾地方罵警察或其他人都不會犯法，不文明的是行使權利，聲大夾惡，肆意以語言暴力去「兇」人的人。
這件案審理容易，是極簡單的事實裁斷，聽罷證供立即就可以判，沒必要押後裁決，法官過分謹慎了。
很久以前有個出名粗口爛舌的大狀，上庭講粗口面不改容，我絕無誇張。我舉個例給你見識一下。大狀上庭，被告坐在他後面，他對我講：「佢條X樣，X佢老母，叫佢認佢就喺都要撐，一陣個官釘X死佢就抵佢仆街」。我第一次遇見他真的很錯愕，見得多就見怪不怪了。他沒有冒犯我，我當然不會理他，只當他發癲，他後來真的精神有問題。被告就算感到冒犯，也不敢吭聲。
我對講粗言穢語並不覺得有甚麽大不了，一切視乎是甚麽人講和在甚麽埸合講。有一次在茶餐廳見到個女人和兩個小孩，不鳴則矣，一鳴驚人：你兩條粉腸快啲食，唔好掛住玩。我托一托眼鏡，刮目相看。
Isn't that an infringement of the freedom of speech?
回覆刪除Freedom of speech is not unfettered.
回覆刪除Hate speech I can understand, but it is hard to see how this regulation can pass the hurdle of ordre public.
回覆刪除I am not aware any case taking freedom of speech as defence for speaking foul language.
刪除https://www.aclu.org/free-speech/state-s-anti-profanity-law-unconstitutional-rules-superior-court-judge
刪除Thanks. I mean HK case.
刪除That I don't know. It is not illegal to sear in public in HK, is it?
刪除The distinction between the US case you cited and the HK scenario is swearing in public generally is not an offence no matter who you swear at. In the statues I cited, I see no wrong to impose some rational restrictions on certain behaviour in particular circumstances for the protection of some class of people. That is why I think in this regard HK has done better than many western countries. I think even if freedom of speech is taken to defend the case, its failure is obvious.
刪除Oh, I was talking about the NSW legislation. I do think that the HK by-law is quite reasonable.
刪除There is no Bill of Rights here in Australia.
刪除What? That's news to me. What instrument do they use instead?
刪除Haha, no surprise. They use their big mouth.
刪除粗口項多是助語詞，不是意見，跟言論自由拉上關係有點牽強，除非粗口是文學創作一部份，即沒有特定的對象。
刪除言論自由涵蓋廣闊，譬如山中舉的美國案例，用粗口罵警察也涉言論自由的考慮，引用的就是First Amendment, 美國的Bill of Rights。
刪除標少，
回覆刪除我有些意見，我估你所謂的「上庭講粗口」是開庭前在court room講粗口。我個人意見，court room未開庭是普通公眾地方，跟court room外走廊沒分別。開庭後，court room才是法庭。
我有此意見，是因為有一次休庭，我飲啖水，書記話法庭唔准飲水，叫我出庭外飲，我不打算為了這少許事爭拗。
不過，心中不同意，上面意見是原因之一。另一原因是審案時，裁判官也經常飲水(在他面前有杯水)，我只是休庭飲水，都要干涉，有點只許州官放火，不許百性點燈。
這書記rigid.。如果我是書記，我讓你飲。未開庭的法庭也不是普通公眾地方，小心言談。內庭開了電腦，就算未開庭，庭面對話接收如儀。
回覆刪除法庭真的不能喝水嗎？有次我坐在 counsel 後一行〈叫 back bench ？〉聽審，大刺刺的拎樽水出嚟飲，還因「濁親」，咳了幾聲，當場並冇人制止，大概是我時運高。
回覆刪除No hard and fast rule about drinking water in court. I will not call the bench behind rthe counsel back bench. Back bench has a specific meaning in the parliament. Counsel will not drink water to qench the thirst when the proceeding is in progress. What you did, especially the choking, was discourteous. Etiquette is not law. It is an attitude rather.
刪除標少，有空可否談談世界上主要的法律改革委員會, 那個地方最積極回應社會? 是因民智高還是精英主導,立法會效率因素多些? 謝謝. KKC
回覆刪除嘩！別開玩笑，我沒有這能力，這要學者去做。法律改革委員會，討論的議題通常都不是非常緊急的，所以過程緩慢。比之澳洲，香港的立法效率非常低，可能涉雙語立法，拖慢了效率。在澳洲，呢頭講果頭就成法例，因為這裏沒有人權法，立法上的顧忌似乎少一點，所以有時用香港的凖則，有些法例未必過到關。當然，我講的都只是印象。
回覆刪除香港的大律師公會和律師會對法律改革可做的有什麼不同? 提議/草擬/審議? KKC
刪除兩個律師公會都有代表成為法律改革委員會的成員，職能相同。你可以登入香港法律改革委員會網頁去看（hkrefom.gov.hk）。
刪除thanks, 都是個人身份被委任吧, 不須代表自己會的意見.?KKC
刪除他們是以個人身分被委任的，另外兩個律師會很多時都會對諮詢文件表達意見。
回覆刪除