UPDATE: State Rep. Paul Heroux now says he made a mistake in supporting the bill and won’t vote for it if it makes it out of committee, which he says is unlikely. – MassLive

The Massachusetts State House will consider a bill this morning barring police officers from using inappropriate language. Going before the Joint Committee of Public Safety and Homeland Security, House Bill no. 2196 pulls the plug on police potty-mouths by threat of immediate “dismissal from further duties as a law officer.”

The Joint Committee will commence its session at 10 a.m. ET. but already the legislation is drawing a polarizing response from law enforcement officials throughout the sprawling Greater Boston area.

Showing his disdain for the bill and defending officers’ professionalism, Everett Police Chief Steven Mazzie, president of the Major City Chiefs told the Boston Herald this morning, “Take a model officer, a 10-year veteran. One arrest and he drops an ‘F’ bomb. And we’re going to fire him? I think that’s over the top. Police departments wouldn’t tolerate any of that behavior anyway. … But I think it’s extremely difficult to legislate civility.”

The resolution was proposed by state Rep. Benjamin Swan (D-Springfield) and is being co-sponsored by fellow Rep. Paul Heroux (D-Attleboro) and Rep. Gloria L. Fox (D-Roxbury) in an attempt to protect what the bill calls “a God-given inalienable right not to be insulted by public servants whose compensation is provided by tax.”

Heroux, in defense of the bill and noting its aim towards bolstering respectable procedure among the ranks, conversely told the Herald, “These folks, they’re public servants. It’s unprofessional and beneath the dignity of any public servant to use that language toward the people they’re representing. I think this bill is reinforcing good police practice.”

Swan, an African-American male, hopes to rid authorities of negative and deeply insulting racial slurs — among those of the gender, ethnic, origin or religion variety — noting “The ‘N’ word is common. I know it’s not every police officer. … I don’t know why anyone would have a problem thinking it’s all right that it shouldn’t be a requirement for an officer to uphold the law.”

The bill, while admittedly on the vague side, fails to constitute what exactly can be classified as “language which cast a negative reflection toward an individual’s race, color, ethnic origin, religion, economic status nor any other category” which is where some political opposition chimes in, despite the bill’s well-intent.

While it’s noble purpose is to defend the civil rights and liberties afforded to every person from some domineering law enforcement personnel, the bill could certainly be viewed as a reach on the Joint Committee’s part as well as a dangerous precedent that dictates what exactly those employed by the state can and cannot say.

Gone could be the days of rough-and-tumble, no-nonsense, skull-cracking beat cops, who while unpolished and unabashed gave the city and its inhabitants a reputation of the utmost fortitude.

Stay tuned to BostInno for the latest developments on Beacon Hill.