A proposed change to the city’s profane language ordinance has been criticized by the American Civil Liberties Union of Wisconsin, which also suggests striking Kenosha’s existing law.

The ACLU of Wisconsin issued a statement on Thursday urging the City Council to reject plans to amend the city’s obscene language ordinance to allow police and firefighters to issue warnings and, if necessary, tickets for profane, vile, filthy or obscene language that is observed by an officer or firefighter while they are in the line of duty.

The city already prohibits that language in public places, but Kenosha Municipal Court Judge John A. Neuenschwander has ruled that a third party, besides a police officer and the accused user of that profane language, would need to observe and sign a complaint regarding that use of language to prevent the citation from being dismissed.

Alderman Patrick Juliana sponsored the amendment, expressing concern after hearing language at crime and fire scenes heightening tensions.

“When other people at scenes are using this language they are inciting other people,” Juliana said. “It makes the law officer’s job much harder.

“This is about giving law enforcement officers and firemen the power to tone down a situation or ticket them.”

Juliana said he thinks the proposed change would assist officers and firefighters in the line of duty.

“We are losing our streets and enough is enough,” Juliana said.

A citation for violating the new obscene language ordinance could lead to a $118 ticket.

The city’s Public Safety and Welfare Committee recommended approving the change by a 3-1 vote and the City Council is scheduled to consider it at its Sept. 7 meeting.

Chris Ahmuty, executive director of the ACLU of Wisconsin, said the organization looked into Juliana’s proposal after it became aware of the matter.

“When our lawyers saw (the ordinance), it struck them right away that it had very serious problems,” Ahmuty said.

The ACLU release refers to Juliana’s amendment as “patently unconstitutional.”

“It is astonishing that Kenosha, after all the criticism of the arrest of Harvard Professor Henry Louis Gates for shouting at a police officer, would even consider enacting such an obviously unenforceable ordinance,” Ahmuty said in the release.

The release also cites the 1974 U.S. Supreme Court decision of Lewis vs. City of New Orleans, which rejected an ordinance to make it illegal to “curse or revile or to use obscene or opprobrious language toward or in reference to any member of the city police.”

Ahmuty said he believes enforcing such a standard could cause further problems in relations between citizens and law enforcement.

“If they do pass this, it could make the situation worse,” Ahmuty said. “This is just going to lead to litigation, not resolution of these problems, which would be better addressed by training and helping officers handle these situations.”

Matthew Knight, an assistant city attorney for Kenosha who drafted the proposed amendment, said Kenosha’s ordinance is not fully addressed by previous legal rulings.

“There is not a case specific on this point that would examine the language used in our ordinance,” Knight said. “We don’t believe that it is unconstitutional on face value based on case law. It’s a very broad subject and people have different opinions on it.”

Ahmuty said the Supreme Court decision may not have the exact same language as Kenosha’s proposal, but the New Orleans ordinance had similar wording.

“There is no attempt to narrow the ordinance to get beyond the content of the speech,” Ahmuty said.

Knight also said he did not feel the proposed ordinance is a radical change to the city’s current standards.

“To me this is a very small step, more of a sideways step in including an additional person protected against this language,” Knight said. “The ordinance change is not proposing additional words that are going to be offensive.”

The ACLU of Wisconsin also is asking the City Council to repeal the city’s existing profane language ordinance, based on the government not being able to prohibit public profanity.

“In America, we don’t have ‘speech police’ deciding what language is appropriate,” Larry Dupuis, legal director of the ACLU of Wisconsin, stated in the release.

Juliana said he questioned why the ACLU does not address the ability of judges to cite disorderly conduct for language and statements made in courtroom settings.

“There is a double standard between the judicial system and the people on the street,” Juliana said. “I want the ACLU to challenge the American judicial system about actions made in a court of law. If they are interrupting a law enforcement official from enforcing the law, there is no difference. And then we have a government of double standards.”

The ACLU release cites the 1971 U.S. Supreme Court decision of Cohen vs. California which dismissed the disorderly conduct violation of a man who wore a shirt with an obscene word on it.

Knight said he was not aware of the city’s current language in this ordinance being challenged previously, nor had the ACLU contacted the city about the ordinance prior to this proposed amendment. And, in the immediate sense, it will be up to the City Council to determine whether this issue moves forward.

“They’re the policy makers,” Knight said.