Posted on 05/01/2009 7:40:46 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
The Supreme Court of the United States is a redoubt of decorum in a casual-Friday world. The justices still wear robes. The assembled attorneys, journalists, and interested observers still rise when the robed ones enter the chamber. Lawyers still begin their oral-argument presentations by intoning the words, “May it please the court.”
But when the justices convened last November 4, they were hearing arguments about whether the “S-word” and the “F-word” can be legitimately regulated by the Federal Communications Commission. In a decision handed down last week, the Court ruled 5–4 on behalf of the FCC. But the fact that this sort of thing had to be decided by the Supreme Court reminded me of what a wise man once said, “It’s difficult to be too much better than the age in which you live.”
At issue was the Federal Communication Commission’s decision to levy fines on Fox Television after Cher and Nicole Ritchie used those offending words during a televised awards ceremony. The justices got into a major tussle over administrative law, and specifically over the question: Do the words in question have to be referring to “excretory” or “sexual” meanings in order to be forbidden on national television? The FCC had explained that “any strict dichotomy between expletives and descriptions of sexual or excretory functions is artificial” because “an expletive’s power to offend derives from its sexual or excretory meaning.” Justice John Paul Stevens denied that and presented his own anodyne interpretation:
-------------------------------------
"The customs of speech refute this claim: There is a critical distinction between the use of an expletive to describe a sexual or excretory function and the use of such a word for an entirely different purpose, such as to express an emotion. One rests at the core of indecency; the other stands miles apart. As any golfer who has watched his partner shank a short approach knows, it would be absurd to accept the suggestion that the resultant four-letter word uttered on the golf course describes sex or excrement and is therefore indecent. But that is the absurdity the FCC has embraced in its new approach to indecency. Even if the words that concern the Court in this case sometimes retain their sexual or excretory meaning, there are surely countless instances in which they are used in a manner unrelated to their origin. These words may not be polite, but that does not mean they are necessarily ‘indecent’ under §1464."
----------------------------------
I don’t know what it means to “shank a short approach” and am perhaps thereby disqualified from opining on this subject, but surely Justice Stevens cannot seriously be suggesting that uttering swear words is not indecent. Even a sorely tested golfer who let fly with such a word under the duress of seeing his partner (note that it’s apparently not the justice himself who commits these unpardonable errors on the links) shank a short approach could be expected to apologize immediately to all within hearing, and particularly to the hapless partner, for his bad manners. Americans even have a phrase for such situations: “Please excuse my French.”
Liberals are always on the ramparts attempting to kneecap tradition and standards. The New York Times was sure that expletive use on TV was no problem. “There is scant evidence that the public is up in arms about an occasional coarse word. The words the commission finds so offensive, and so in need of punishment, are the sort commonly heard in PG-rated movies and walking down the street.” Actually, the FCC had received many, many complaints about the language (and more) on television, which remains, despite technological advances, uniquely invasive into people’s lives. Besides, the fact that these words have been so aggressively foisted upon us by Hollywood does not mean that they have lost their power to offend. I heard a linguist recently lecturing on the effect that hearing profanity produces in the brain. All sorts of hormones and chemicals are activated, whether we say we’re offended or not.
This is not a new story of course. In 1971, the Supreme Court decided a case (Cohen v. California) that concerned a 19-year-old who had worn a T-shirt saying “F*** the Draft” in a Los Angeles courthouse. The Court held that Cohen’s conduct was protected by the First Amendment. “One man’s vulgarity is another’s lyric,” wrote Justice John Marshall Harlan.
By such steps we have arrived at where we are. Just a tip — practice up before taking to the golf course with Mr. Justice Stevens.
— Mona Charen is a nationally syndicated columnist.
related....
http://gunnyg.wordpress.com/2009/05/01/obama-received-aid-as-a-foreign-student-ref-rensecom/
Is it really true that the “F” word is an English acronym that was derived hundreds of years ago from commoners who used to ridicule the King’s libido — FORNICATION UNDER THE CONSENT OF THE KING ?
For those who want to know ( if you don’t, don’t click the link), there is actually a real town in Austria named for the 4 letter F word.
See here :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fucking,_Austria
And no, I don’t think Arnold has ever been there.
And worse yet, give the government the power to decide what is and is not offensive.
Exactly.
Do you also feel that way about the “N-word”?
I wonder what would happen if somebody were silly enough to invite Justice John Paul Stevens to “Go F**k himself” in a Court over which he was presiding.
I doubt he’d smile kindly and pretend nothing had happened.
The ‘S’ word = Stimulus.
The ‘F’ word = Freddie Mac (or Fannie Mae)....or Franken.
I love Mona Charen and was so fortunate to have the opportunity to not only meet her but talk with her at length. She is a classy and intelligent lady too.
Aah, the problem of social discourse in today’s world. I am regularly assailed by such vacuous speech as I traverse the halls and corridors of today’s college campus. I do not know why so many people cannot seem to articulate what they want to say without the frequent use of the “F” word and I do not know why “F” or “GD” are suddenly the most common adjectives available.
Frankly, there are so many better words to describe most anything, to me it smacks of a form of intellectual laziness, and other than the expletive uttered when one hits their thumb with the hammer, or some other painful experience, I think these vulgar words are always inappropriate.
Naughty? Disgusting is more like it.
I was told that it came from “fornicating under common knowledge,” and was from the middle ages and, very simply, was that there were people that were sleeping together, without the benefit of marriage, but it was common knowledge and so the term came from their. The consent of the King thing sounds way too hokey for me. How did the peasants go to get his consent?
He he. My first big chuckle of the day. It even sounds appropriate, ala “That Freddie-Mac’n president Obama, I can’t stand him.”
Good point. Words invoke passion and other strong emotions. Words are powerful. People who say things like, “I’m not going to get my knickers in a knot” make me wonder what else they don’t care about - like the unborn, the elderly, etc. I DO care. I care very much, thank you. I am a lover of our language and I would like to see a lot more use of the other hundreds of words in our dictionary. F, S, and the others have been overused ad nauseaum and, I mean, literally, it makes me sick.
> And worse yet, give the government the power to decide what is and is not offensive.
Quite unnecessary: everybody knows what words are swears and what ones are merely highly impolite. Everybody. Gummint needn’t decide it: it is knowledge well known to all.
Swearing loses all of its fun and impact when it falls into the common ergot. It therefore must always remain Tapu and its use must be severely sanctioned. Not everybody should be allowed to swear, and even those who are allowed to swear ought only be permitted to do so on rare occasions, as a Privilege not a Right.
Neither Cher nor Nicole Ritchie have done anything sufficiently worthwhile to earn the Privilege to swear.
In this case, the FCC should certainly have the power to fine broadcasters heavily if they transmit swears. It will make them think good and hard before having the likes of Cher and Nicole Ritchie back as guests. A win-win situation all ‘round.
I do not see a down-side to this. It is an excellent development.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.