I don't agree with what you said. (Sorry, just had to try out your civil discourse discussion opener as I see this from a totally different perspective!) I've been thinking about your post for the evening and will try to tackle it in as orderly a manner as I can muster.

If your government curbs your language and determines what labels are or are not appropriate then they are actually infringing on your First Amendment Right (free speech).

First off, I don't see this being relevant in this situation at all. This is not a law to criminalize or regulate how you personally speak about people with a criminal history. Most organizations, public or private, have certain terminologies and vocabulary standards that they adhere to. In this case these terms are being modified to this "softer, gentler" stance which I assume will be reflected on official documents, correspondence, and personal contact from officials. In the past they were probably mandated to use the words felon, parolee, addict, etc. so at all times the speech within an organization has been controlled. It has never been "free" and this is just a shift in tone.

As a private citizen you are in no way obligated to use those terms. You've already classified all these people as dregs, and you're free to continue doing so.

In its official capacity, I'd hope that this new vocabulary would serve a twofold purpose. First, to appear less hostile toward a parolee or addict who may be interacting with an official or reviewing their own paperwork and correspondence. Secondly, to perhaps serve as a subtle reminder to those working in the system that the convicts and felons they are working with each day are in fact people with individual stories, circumstances, and values.

(notice I did use the "old" terminology... although I'm playing devils advocate here and agree with the spirit of this vocabulary change... I don't really like it! The phrases are klunky and given enough time without a change in culture, they'll simply inherit the negative connotations of their predecessors, thereby making the changes ineffective!)

But San Francisco's language would have YOU on the same level as a FELON.
Are you okay with that?

Yes I am. First, I think we're just interpreting some of these words differently. Prior to learning about this issue, would you ever have described yourself as a "justice-involved person?" Probably not. That's not a natural phrase. You seem to be equating it with law abiding or moral; someone who cares about justice. I immediately read it as someone who is involved in the justice system. Still vague as that could refer to judges, lawyers, etc. but in context I understand the intent. Justice-involved = locked up! A pretty way of saying convict.

As far as the other clever turns of phrase they're employing.... despite what Hollywood action movies have shown me, I'm assuming the chances of running afoul of the path of an escaped convict are about on par with getting hit by a bolt of lightning. It's probably not going to happen. Therefore, you'll only ever need to interact with a convict or inmate through some form of voluntary choice.

All our possible interactions will be with people who have served their time and have rejoined society. All those "returning residents" and "history of substance abuse" folks. Now remember... you're free to call them whatever you want! When they get a letter in the mail about an upcoming counseling appointment, it will now read "as a person with a history of substance abuse you are required to complete 60 hours of blah, blah, blah" instead of "as an addict you are required..." but on the streets you can call them a crackhead piece of shit to their face and no one will bat an eye. Free speech for the win!

But I guess it comes down to our views on the entire justice and prison system and people in general. If you believe 1. a person can change or be rehabilitated, and 2. they are deserving of a second chance. If you don't believe either of these than stop worrying about vocab changes and start lobbying for all crimes to merit life in prison/execution! But if you believe in either of those two things, then what is the harm in treating a previous offender with respect until they give a new reason to have it taken away?

Again, we're not talking about people still in prison, and those with crimes so heinous that they'll never get out. We will never have to interact with those people.

I don't care if more positive language is used to describe people with felony convictions because lifting someone else up does not bring me down.

I agree with you that words have power, and I believe that if we keep telling people that they're shit then they'll stay shit! When these kinds of verbal tactics are most often used to dehumanize classes of people based on religion/race/country of origin/etc.; I have a difficult time taking offense at a use of language meant to uplift and motivate a class of people that may need the mental and societal support to get back on track. Again, keep them locked up forever, or treat them like humans again when they get out... that's the only two logical options in my book.

And don't forget, law and morality do not perfectly overlap. Throughout history there have been many instances where the law was immoral and doing the right thing was criminalized. You even end your post musing about these "thought police" type actions leading to civil unrest or more. In that scenario you could quickly become a felon, convict, and offender. You say you're against stereotyping but I don't see that much in this post. I'd hope that when arrested for protest and disobedience you'd want people to look at you as an individual, and not as a dreg.

You said it yourself in your opening statement...

Words can tear a person down and just as equally uplift them.

I don't think we should keep tearing these people down. Certainly we shouldn't glorify or accept their crimes, but positivity and self esteem for the people themselves is perhaps a cornerstone of preventing recidivism and future crime and violence. Particularly in the cases of juvenile delinquents or addicts. (I mean, justice-involved persons with a history of substance abuse!)