There’s a lot of confusion about the anti-swearing laws that the Victorian Government is about to introduce, so here’s some clarification (from someone who isn’t a lawyer but spends a lot of time on the Internet):
It may surprise you to learn that swearing in public has been illegal in Victoria since the Summary Offences Act was passed in 1966. As wowserish as this state is, Queensland and NSW have since followed suit and all Australian states and territories that more or less covers this behaviour. The language in the Victorian legislation is deliberately broad and you are subject to it if you are using any language within earshot of a public place that could be deemed to be:
- obscene
- indecent
- insulting
- abusive
- threatening
The purpose is, nominally, to ensure that no one is exposed to your offensive behaviour. To fall afoul of this law, however, there doesn’t need to be anyone else within earshot other than a police officer. Furthermore, if you are within earshot of a public place then you can be charged while on private property.
Traditionally, this offence has not been strictly enforced when compared to other parts of the act (such as public urination, indecency, drunkenness) but more commonly is applied when someone is being disorderly or abusive towards the police. Or if they don’t like you. Whether your language is offensive enough is up to the discretion of the charging officer.
The Victorian government is about to change this offence so that police will not need to use the courts for this charge, but simply issue an on-the-spot fine. If the offender disputes the fine, then they may go to court and see a magistrate, though less than 1% of those booked during the trial did so.
So what’s wrong with this? Well, there are two great forces at work within the police force: quotas and paperwork. One presses them to write more citizens up for offences and the other punishes them if they do, making small offences not worth their while. In a system that is under considerable pressure from this and previous governments to show that they are tough on crime, it’s a risky balance to upset. This is a poorly-defined offence for an action which is so common in our society that most offenders will not realise they are committing it, enforced at the discretion of the police officers who no longer have any disincentive for booking people.
I don’t want to start quoting the Castle or anything, but I feel baudy language is tied to Australian culture. The fact that you can be booked for hanging shit on a mate – or even saying that phrase – regardless of whether they feel insulted is be a crime (morally) in itself. The Government has stated that the intention of the act is to curb recent anti-social behaviours but there is no protection to stop this legislation being deployed against whomever the police feel like booking.












