Posted on 06/28/2009 12:05:12 PM PDT by FromLori
Nowhere in the Constitution is there a guaranteed freedom from being offended. It is not a right that comes with American citizenship, like the right to vote. Just the opposite. If the Constitution had a warning label, it would read: Caution, your right to freedom of speech means others have a parallel right, which is highly likely to occasionally provoke anger, annoyance, disgust and offense.
This is a very small price to pay for the ability to speak our minds. But apparently it is too high for some. These people are the overly sensitive, easily wounded, walking eggshells among us who equate being offended with being a victim - a status from which they firmly believe the government should protect them. They want the state to determine taste and propriety (as long as it comports perfectly with their own) and enforce those standards in law. Pandering politicians are more than happy to oblige.
The danger is that their demand for the cleansing of public discourse gives the government the power to shut down some speakers and strip the emotive force from others, transforming "freedom of speech" into "speech at the government's leave."
Broadcasters, for example, have always served up programming under the threat of government sanctions for disapproval. This fact became more evident recently, when, after Janet Jackson's breast exposure at last year's Super Bowl, Congress rushed to hold hearings on broadcast indecency.
The swirl of controversy led to skyrocketing fines for profanity - with the result that 66 television stations refused to air the Oscar-winning war epic Saving Private Ryan on Veterans Day. Now the FCC is investigating the opening ceremonies of the summer Olympics in Greece. Apparently, the camera caught sight of a nude male statue.
Government-approved fare tends toward mush.
In 1978, when the U.S. Supreme Court in a 5-4 ruling said the FCC could police radio broadcasts for indecency despite the First Amendment, the justices emphasized that it was a narrow ruling, not applicable beyond the broadcast medium. But people don't appreciate this distinction. They say, understandably, that if government is permitted to clean up dirty language on television, then why not wherever it appears?
Which brings us to the brouhaha in Clearwater. In December, at an outdoor concert at Coachman Park billed as the Next Big Thing IV, 12,500 fans of alternative rock enjoyed 10 different bands. But because five people in the surrounding neighborhoods complained to police about the vulgar language and obscenities used by some of the musicians, the city plans on vetting future acts.
Kevin Dunbar, the city's director of Parks and Recreation, after being pushed to address the "problem" by the mayor and City Council, says that the city will be more particular about who is booked to perform. "(The city will) look to bring in the kind of groups that are more mainstream so we are not offending the people who live in the outlying areas," Dunbar says.
Maybe the next concert should be called the Next Banal Thing.
This is censorship just as if the city passed an ordinance flatly prohibiting profanity by musicians in the park. Just because it occurs behind the scenes doesn't make it any more palatable.
It is also a sadly predictable response. Last summer, the Mandeville City Council in Louisiana warned that any profanity used by musicians at the Mandeville Trailhead outdoor amphitheater would lead to their arrest. The facilities manager now has all musicians sign an agreement to self-censor before they go on.
Elected officials generally stand with clamoring constituents against the free speech rights of the profane or unpopular. Only the First Amendment acts as a bulwark against this censorious reflex, and courts must be counted on to man the ramparts.
In the past, they have.
The seminal case is the 1971 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Cohen vs. California. The facts involve a young Paul Robert Cohen who, in 1968 at the height of the Vietnam War, walked into the Los Angeles County Courthouse wearing a jacket with the words "F-- the Draft" emblazoned on the back. For wearing a profane jacket, Cohen was charged and convicted of disturbing the peace. He was sentenced to 30 days in jail.
The Supreme Court threw out his conviction on free-speech grounds. Justice John Harlan wrote in ringing eloquence of why society must tolerate bad language: "(W)hile the particular four-letter word being litigated here is perhaps more distasteful than most others of its genre, it is nevertheless often true that one man's vulgarity is another's lyric." (Could he have known that Eminem was coming?)
Harlan also noted that the use of curse words serves a "dual communicative function," not only as the expression of an idea but as an emotional vehicle. "Words," Harlan said, "are often chosen as much for their emotive as their cognitive force."
Harlan is saying that in protecting the crassest amongst us, we uphold the highest values of a free society. So the next time you're deeply offended, whether it is by a musician cursing at a neighboring outdoor concert or, as I am, by the inane rantings of Ann Coulter, smile - that just means you live in freedom.
Buck Ofama.
Freedom of Speech is not the right to use profanity, it is the right to say your opinion.
“The foolish and wicked practice of profane cursing and swearing is a vice so mean and low that every person of sense and character detests and despises it.”
- George Washington -
Hate Speech legislation is the camel-nose-under-the-tent meant to undermine, and eventually shut down, free speech. Political correctness' purpose is meant to be used to shut down anyone opposed to the left's agenda.
Freedom of speech is a danger only to the obozon & the RATS power.
If one can’t explain your ideas without the use of obscenities, then they generally don’t have the ability to make a reasoned defense of their ideas. Obscenities are not necessary to express meaningful ideas.
They pass this I suppose rappers will all be exempt?
The only free speech left in the USA is the hate speech practiced by the left against normal people.
It is the opinion that should not be censored....Foul and obscene, profane speech usually ends all civil discourse and should not be tolerated. If allowed, it only debases the language and adds nothing to the content.
You can not have discourse with the irrational left, who yell and call names or use foul language the minute you disagree with them....There can never be a marketplace of ideas with the left. They can not have debates because their ideas are so looney.
Ann Coulter, on the other hand, is articulate and I have never heard her use obscene language....people may think her ideas are obscene but that is protected speech. The left can only throw pies at her or try to get her banned because they know her ideas contain a lot of truth, which if heard enough times will register with all intelligent thinkers.
Ha! Ann Coulter is the perfect example. She can express an idea perfectly without one bad word.
That's not what the Supreme Court says. It guarantees me the right to express my opinion ... even profanely.
Yeah, the Supreme Court that murders the unborn, legalizes sodomy, porn, hate crimes and lets the government seize private property . . .
Banning words, any words, is a bad idea and one that should be fought against regardless of moral or religious feelings. Words, are after all, only words. What one can say with one word can be said by another the means the same but may not be consider profane. What most of us term profanity are nothing more than anglo/saxon words carried over to present day. I am not talking taking the lords name in vain even though I am not religious, I am talking about the short 4 letter words many people find offensive but in reality are simply descriptive.
To outlaw them would be the biggest mistake we could ever make.
True, the SC did. I just disagree with them, along with their silly "separate-but-equal" crap, their Commerce Clause interpretation, and other stupid "interpretations" over the years.
People can express themselves without being profane. And if they really want to influence people, instead of just attempting to shock them, they would avoid words that they know will turn people off.
Why can’t you say the F-word on the public airways?
The term Sexual Intercourse and the F-word bring up the exact same image in peoples minds when they hear them, but one is supposedly ok and the other isn't.
I stand by my statements, banning certain words opens the door to banning many of them.
To answer your question, the reason it is banned on the airwaves is because moralistic people wanted it banned when Radio first came out, besides that the FCC isn't congress. The first amendment says: Congress shall make no law. However, since the FCC was authorized by congress I actually feel they have no authority to ban words on radio, TV or the print media.
Take care.
I'll go with James Madison on this:
The sophistry of a distinction between the liberty and the licentiousness of the press is so forcibly exposed in a late memorial from our late envoys to the Minister of the French Republic, that we here present it to you in their own words:
James Madison, Address of the General Assembly to the People of the Commonwealth of Virginia, 23 Jan. 1799
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendI_speechs21.html
There is no constitutional right to not be offended. “Profane” is in the eyes and ears of the beholder. I will risk being offended if it means I can speak freely. My only concern is SELECTIVE censorship.
Agreed (see post #5). I just think if someone wants to really get a point across and influence people's thinking, they will do so without profanity, otherwise you just turn more people off and away.
At college I walk by black girls sitting on the benches along the walkways and they are saying "f$^% this" and "f$#% that", and they don't care who hears them or who is offended (they are not talking quietly!). But say the "N" word once, and those girls would be all over you for being "offensive".
Strange world we live in, huh?
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.