Sections 294A and 294B of the Indian Penal Code contain legal provisions to punish persons who publicly use inappropriate or obscene (spoken or written) malicious words to offend religious feelings or beliefs. [43] In February 2015, a local court in Mumbai ordered police to file an initial information report against 14 Bollywood celebrities who were part of the All India Bakchod show, a controversial comedy show known for its vulgar and obscene content. [44] In May 2019, during the election campaign, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi listed the insulting words used by the opposition Congress Party against him and his mother during his election campaign. [45] Section 175 of the Canadian Penal Code makes it a criminal offence to “disturb the peace or in the vicinity of a public place” by “harming […] or use offensive or obscene language.” Provinces and municipalities may also have their laws against public curses. For example, Toronto`s municipal code prohibits “profane or offensive language” in public parks. [41] In June 2016, a man was arrested in Halifax, Nova Scotia, for using profane language during a protest against Bill C-51. [42] In January 2016, a Mumbai-based communications agency launched a campaign against blasphemies and offensive language called “Gaali free India” (gaali is the Hindi word for obscenity). [46] With creative advertisements, she called on people to use (clean) language along the lines of the Swachh Bharat mission for national cleanliness. It has also influenced other news media that have raised more of the problem of abusive language in society, especially incest abuse against women, such as “Mother Fucker.” [47] Of course, depending on the circumstances of the case, an indictment may be defended on the basis that the alleged language was not actually used; or the language alleged was not “offensive” within the meaning of the criminal law; and/or the words were not spoken near or within earshot of a school or public place.

Obscenity is a socially offensive use of language,[1] which can also be called curse, reprimand, curse, blasphemy, or swearing. Accordingly, blasphemy is language that is sometimes considered rude, coarse, indecent, or culturally offensive; In some religions, it represents sin. It may show the humiliation of someone or something,[2] or be seen as an expression of a strong feeling towards something. Some words can also be used as amplifiers. Blasphemy is widely regarded as socially offensive and very rude; However, insults are both intentional and derogatory by definition, as they are intended to harm another person. Although blasphemy improves performance or relieves anxiety and anger and can be used lightly, this effect and effect cannot be observed with insults. [34] Although insults are considered obscenity by definition, both socially offensive and very rude, obscenity can be used in an untargeted manner where insults cannot. For example, in the sentence “If I don`t get an A on this exam, I`m fucked,” the word “fucked” is an obscenity; However, the way it is integrated is not intended to offend anyone, as the speaker is not making an offensive claim.

[35] Under section 4A of the Summary Offences Act, 1988, a person may not use offensive language during or near hearings in a public place or school. Detailed complaints are useful for analyzing the context of offensive language, images, or scenes and identifying potential rule violations. It is also helpful (but not mandatory) to include a recording or transcript of a shipment if possible, although any document you provide is part of the FCC`s records and cannot be returned. Desire per se is not normally a criminal offence in the UK, although it may be part of a criminal offence in the context. However, it may be an offence at Salford Quays under a Public Space Protection Order that prohibits the use of “foul and offensive language” without specifying any other element of the offence, although it is unclear whether all cases of swearing are covered. Salford City Council says the “reasonable excuses” defence allows all the circumstances to be considered. [54] In England and Wales, the oath of public when causing harassment, concern or distress may constitute an offence under sections 5(1) and (6) of the Public Order Act 1986. [55] In Scotland, a similar common law offence of breach of the peace involves matters of public interest. The profane content includes “grossly offensive” language that is considered a public nuisance.

In 2006, The Guardian reported that “36% of the 308 UK executives and managers who responded to a survey agree to swear as part of workplace culture”, but warned against some inappropriate uses of swearing, for example when they are discriminatory or part of bullying behaviour. The article concluded with a quote from Ben Wilmott (Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development): “Employers can ensure professional language in the workplace by having a well-designed bullying and harassment policy that emphasizes that bad language can cause harassment or bullying.” [58] Offensive language is the offence of using language that could offend a reasonable person in a public place or school, near, near or near or near the hearing or sight of a public place or school. This offence is a “related” offence and must be considered by the Court on a case-by-case basis, depending on the circumstances. The most important consideration in this type of question is whether the language used is “offensive” or not, specificity in the accompanying circumstances. While an offensive charge cannot lead to a prison sentence, a guilty verdict can still lead to a criminal conviction. It is therefore important to obtain competent legal advice when charged with this offence in order to determine the likelihood of being able to defend the charge in court. Pakistani political leaders have been repeatedly arrested for using blasphemous and offensive language. Although there was no legislation to punish perpetrators, the problem was exacerbated by the offensive language used in Parliament and even against women. [50] In the United States, courts have generally ruled that the government does not have the right to prosecute someone solely for using a swearword, which would violate their First Amendment right to freedom of expression.