Swearing Should Be Illegal in Public Places

Taking legal action against swearing is too priceyWhen something such as swearing is made illegal, It is necessary to enforce such rules to deter deviance and to ensure that the rule does more than just 'window dress'. Enforcing such rules would involve the police, legal prosecutors and other law enforcement agencies that garners expenses collectively. These costs are too 'expensive' to execute let alone the time taken to gather documents to meet the requirements of a legal action.For example, in the UK, Courts have claimed that minor crimes are too expensive to prosecute (1.http://www.thetimes.co.uk...). Swearing are examples of such minor crimes, hence are too expensive to prosecute.Opponents would argue that the solution to this is to impose fines and penalties rather than having long legal proceedings. if we were to evaluate concepts such as swearing in public, you either done it or you don't which makes it reasonable to choose such an alternative . The error in this argument is that the concept of swearing is not as concrete as having Hydrogen and Oxygen as the main components of water. Swearing are different in some countries, depending on how they view such concept, If I say 'Fvck', it may offend conservative communities but it may have absolutely no effect on other communities. Moreover, there are also emotional factors to take into consideration. Someone may do it out of spite, to troll or just to piss off people to make themselves feel younger. Whatever the factors are, there are more than just one category of swearing. It comprises of numerous categories, that of which cannot be simplified by a thin line of 'whether you did it or you didn't '. Hence, it is more reasonable to take the case to court because of the categories involved in such cases.Once it is taken to court, It is then too expensive. The overall net benefit is worse, not better.Swearing as a social constructRobert Sharp, On Troll Law debate (2.http://tinyurl.com...) specified 2 distinctions of trolling between the 'actual credible threats' and remarks which are simply 'offensive'. Swearing would fall under the category of 'offensive'. It will never go into 'actual credible threats' that may involve the life of the victim threatened. For example, when we swear, words such as 'horses**t' and 'a**hole' are commonly used either to release tension or to incite tension between peers. Never will anyone say 'A**hole' and have someone's life threatened. Those fall under actual credible threats merely involves a retributive attitude that is ideologically motivated (I.E Terrorism). Swearing would only serve as a verbal supplement to intensify such acts. Swearing is not the source of the violence, the ideology of said violence is the source. Since swearing takes absolutely 0 role, it falls under 'offensive' category only.In addition to that, Simply being offensive is an inadequate and inadmissible extension for court cases, let alone imposing fines. This is because simply being 'offended' does not mean you have the right to prosecute. If I can prosecute anyone who offends me, there would be over a million cases that is linked to myself alone. It is neither a realistic nor a reasonable idealistic goal.The fact that it is a social construct serves absolutely no purpose to criminalize swearing.Thus, swearing should never be made illegal to begin with.That would be all. Back to you en-oy. :)