The Michigan State Court of Appeals ruled Monday that a law prohibiting obscenities in front of women and children was too vague and thus unconstitutional.

In 1999, Timothy Boomer, of Roseville was convicted for violating the law after shouting obscenities when he fell from a canoe into the Rifle River in Arenac County. There were families with children nearby.

The law, enacted in 1897, states that anyone using “indecent, immoral, obscene, vulgar or insulting language in the presence or hearing of any women or child shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.”

Elizabeth Foley, a law professor at MSU-Detroit College of Law, said she does not agree with the higher court’s ruling.

“The basis of the opinion is the law is too vague, so the ordinary person wouldn’t know what it meant,” she said. “It would render all obscenity statutes unconstitutional.”

Foley said it traditionally has been believed that the right to free speech is not absolute. She said if the government has a compelling interest in regulating speech it trumps a person’s right to free speech.

“This opinion and others like it are more broadly interpreting the First Amendment than the founding fathers would have thought possible,” she said. “I’m not sure if that is consistent with the framers (of the constitution) and most citizens in this country.”

But some MSU students think the fact that Boomer was charged under the law is ridiculous.

“I’d be pretty pissed off if I fell out of a canoe,” said Joe Leibson, an English senior. “People should be able to say what they want to say.”

Leibson also said he doesn’t think it is very bad to swear in front of children.

“I don’t think you should swear at children, but they hear that in school anyway,” he said. “I don’t think you can shield your kids from everything.”

But Foley said many people would be highly insulted if someone swore at a child.

“If someone went up to your little cousin or brother or sister and started yelling the most vulgar obscenities you can imagine, doesn’t part of you think, ‘Gosh that should be illegal,’” she said. “You can take free speech too far.”

John Toman, an English junior, said he is an advocate for free speech and Boomer shouldn’t have been taken to court in the first place.

“I think it’s ridiculous that the whole situation got brought up in the first place,” he said. “He probably shouldn’t have sworn in front of them, but who the f- - - cares.”

Staff writer Amy Bartner contributed to this story.