...only outlaws will speak freely
sean | 01 March, 2007 20:35From the news of 2/28/2007, three separate articles from separate news sources for consideration:
“That’s so Gay” Saying at Center of Court Fight
http://www.firstcoastnews.com:80/news/strange/news-article.aspx?storyid=76944
Suit filed in swearing casehttp://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/news/local/communities/costamesa_newport/article_1593951.php
City Council approves banning the “N-word”http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=local&id=5078270
In the first article, at issue is the phrase “that’s so gay”, which was used in a playground (!) altercation. The court case seeks to determine when regular insults “cross the line into hate speech that must be stamped out.”
In the second article, a Californian college student was arrested at the airport for using the word “fuck” when children were nearby.
The third article describes the efforts of none less than the New York City Council to pass a measure symbolically banning the use of the word “nigger”. The bill is a non-binding measure calling for New Yorkers to stop using the word. Of what use is a non-binding legal measure?
In all of these instances, don’t we as a people have better things (ending war, famine, for example) to be occupying our time, courts and resources with than language which might be deemed offensive? Do we really need to get the government involved in this?
Apparently the old adage “sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me” has been scientifically disproved. Of course, it now falls to the various local governments to stamp out this hateful speech. Where will this lead? Maybe we will need to enforce public mouth out-washings with soap? Perhaps the IRS can set up individual swear-jar funds to be added to our personal tax accounts? Of course this is absurd; there is no practical way to legislate the use of language.
In the second article, the author quotes an expert in constitutional law who states “freedom of speech does not cover obscenities”.
Oh really? Why shouldn’t it? What kind of “harm” does this “hate speech” do anyway? What sorts of studies have been published on the effects of obscene or offensive language? Imagine a child who is raised never hearing the words “fuck”, or “faggot”, or “nigger”. What advantage could this give them over a child who grows up hearing these words? Could such a child still grow up to be bigoted and filled with hate? Could the child who hears and understands these words still grow up to become tolerant and humane? Of course the answer to these questions is yes. So what are we so preoccupied with? Increasing the taboo associated with these words will only increase the force of their seemingly magical powers. Let’s grow up and stop worrying about the specific words of “hate speech”, and start looking at what the real problem is: the actual hatred such speech stems from.
Posted in
Legal .
Comment: (3).
Trackbacks:(0).
Permalink
«Next post |
Previous post»
1. ben | 03/02,2007 at 13:44
I love that the first article actually says "must be stamped out"...Stamped out - ummmm...yeah...America - the land of the free...as long as you agree with the vocal minority that is...
2. Ginger | 03/01,2007 at 21:59
Your responses to these articles echo my thoughts regarding the controvery that arose when one of the "Dixie Chicks" made a comment about George Bush while onstage. The storm that ensued from that event was astounding. I can't help but wonder if all the people who were so disturbed and so vocal use that energy for any more purposeful activities than complaining about a comment made during a concert.
The thing I find most amazing in the ongoing "free speech" debate is that the very same people who complain about something they have heard, fail to recognize that they themselves are exercising the same prerogative to speak freely. One person gets to express their thoughts/comments and the other gets to express their complaints. Why is it that the complainers think that somehow their rights have been violated, and they don't recognize they are enjoying the same privilege just by complaining?
My opinion is that we should ban the complainers. Oh wait...that would be limiting free speech.
Ok, then. Whine on!