Paternalism for Parents

According to the always insightful and often entertaining scholars at the Volokh Conspiracy, habitual swearing in the presence of a child is a crime under Title 9 of the New Jersey code.

9:6-1. Abuse, abandonment, cruelty and neglect of child; what constitutes...(d) the habitual use by the parent or by a person having the custody and control of a child, in the hearing of such child, of profane, indecent or obscene language...

Since the law considers this act a crime, Title 2A allows the removal of the child from the home should the "health and safety of the juvenile [be] seriously in danger." This provision is in addition to the standard penalties for a criminal infraction, including fines, jail time, etc.

While the adjacent provisions in Title 9 use a phrase along the lines of "endangering the morals of the child" to define a test for the application of the rule, the legislators do not give a similar hint in item (d). Thus, it is difficult to know why exactly this law of censorship was included.

Barring other leads, I speculate that the legislators feared children would also be corrupted by foul language, as well as the laundry list of acts listed in Title 9. Now, assuming that this fear can actually be substantiated with an independent, scientific study, how far should that state go to protect children from obscene acts and media, and when should it do so? Should children be banned from buying 50 Cent's new album? How about buying explicit or gory videogames? EDIT: Or rather, should parents be banned from interacting with those media while there are children in the vicinity?

A commentator at the Volokh Conspiracy points out that, luckily, these questions may never come up. The restriction on free speech endorsed by Title 9 may be in violation of the 1st Amendment (incorporated against the states by the 14th Amendment). In Cohen v. California the Supreme Court ruled that the display of expletives cannot be prosecuted without a reason beyond disturbing the peace. Furthermore, the majority opinion stated that it is not incumbent upon the states to fashion 'civil societies.' Wikipedia summarizes the decision:

Harlan’s arguments can be constructed in three major points: First, states (California) cannot censor their citizens in order to make a “civil” society. Second, knowing where to draw the line between harmless heightened emotion and vulgarity can be difficult. Thirdly, people bring passion to politics and vulgarity is simply a side effect of a free exchange of ideas—no matter how radical they may be.

Legislators would be required to balance the protections of the 1st Amendment against the state's (limited) obligation to advocate for minors.

Let it be noted that my dear friend Warren E. Burger dissented in Cohen v. California. Maybe he should have sent every American a pair of fuckcrapshit-proof earmuffs.

Valete,
Poplicola