|
|
Friday, September 03, 2004
|
|
ASK skippy, PART TWELVE
The lovely Sadie asks the first question that I needed several days to think through (oh, and I've been exceptionally busy as well.)
George Carlin gave us the archetypical Seven Dirty Words: Shit, Piss,
Fuck, Cunt, Cocksucker, Motherfucker and Tits. Without a doubt, Carlin
catalyzed a revolution for the free speech issue in America. This was in
1973 though, and consequently, I do believe that thirty-ish years
later, we need a proper revaluation of whether these seven words still serve
their purpose. If not, would you suggest any changes to Carlin's
original list? Please explain your rationale for any changes you think are
warranted.
Sadie, of course, refers to the infamous Carlin monologue "The Seven Words You Can't Say on Television." This may be one of the most brilliant stand-up routines in history and undoubtedly Carlin's high-water mark (although I'm in the minority in preferring his more current, and nihilistic work.) The social insight of Carlin generally, and the "Seven Dirty Words" specifically, is breathtaking. Carlin's insight on the use of words is the most concise argument against the establishment of "word police" and political correctness ever committed to tape.
Unfortunately, the Pacifica Foundation felt that the title of the monologue was literal and played it on their New York radio station during the late afternoon, the importance of which should be self-evident to anyone who has heard or read the routine. A father was in his car with his young son and heard the broadcast. He filed a complaint with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), and an administrative judgment was filed against Pacifica.
Pacifica appealed the FCC judgment in the courts, challenging their right to regulate content on free speech grounds. The case, Federal Communications Commission v. Pacifica Foundation et al.(1978) found for the FCC and the matter was largely settled.
My view is somewhat complicated on this. While I agree with Pacifica in that the FCC shouldn't be in the in the business of regulating non-obscene content (and no one contended that the Carlin routine met the legal definition of obscenity), they had every reason to believe that they did have that right, as granted by Congress and upheld by years of case law. Pacifica was spoiling for a First Amendment fight and went about in a blatantly inadvisable way.
While I'm a staunch believer in free speech, and would go even further than many of my compatriots in that I believe that most obscenity judgments are ridiculous, I do recognize the right of parents to regulate what their children hear and see. This is difficult at best to do during daytime hours and it is the foundation of the FFC's "safe harbor" rule. "Safe harbor" basically dictates that enforcement is much stricter between 6 AM and 10 PM, after which content can be more graphic, if only slightly.
Safe harbor is a universal concept in most Western countries, although the United States has the most conservative version of it. For example, the use of the word "fuck" is not unheard of in Canada after 10 PM on broadcast television. Until very recently, it has never been used on a broadcast network in the US without sanctions being levied. There is a distinction between broadcast and subscriber cable as the FCC does not regulate the latter.
With the background taken care of, let's move on to the meat of Sadie's question. If it were up to me, parents would actually step up and be parents. This would entail explaining words, their meaning and context and regulate their children's use of those words themselves. However, since parents cannot seem to stop their children from doing seemingly simple things, such as shooting one another in the head, I recognize how unrealistic this is. Accordingly, there will always be some level of regulation as long as the majority of Americans recieve their news and entertainment from the public airwaves.
However, as a practical matter, the use of the public airwaves is a privilge and not a right. Neither the United States government nor the FCC has said that you may not use the seven dirty words, but that you may not use the public airwaves to do so. In that spirit, I don't view these cases as strict First Amendment issues as there is no "censorship" per se. If you feel you must absolutely use these words, you are free to do so on cable, on film or in print. While I don't like government regulation of speech in any way, I cannot say that it is unreasonable.
On the other hand, at least three of the seven words are outdated and one of them is commonly used on broadcast television today. Let's explore each word individually.
-Shit: This word will probably someday be removed from the list as its common usage is almost never related to excretion. It has become a general use word, interchangeable with "things." As such, it meets the test for neither obscenity or indecency.
-Piss: As anyone who has seen prime-time police dramas or late night comedy/variety shows knows that this word is no longer subject to enforcement. It is this usage that I rest my argument for repealing the word "shit."
-Fuck: This is the hardest of the three so far. While its general usage is not ordinarily sexual in context, it often is and this makes the legal standard much harder to change. While I agree that it will eventually be phased out, I have no illusions that it will not be a good long time before it is.
-Cunt: Women almost universally hate this word. Chances are they always will. Slipping something that 52% of the population finds so objectionable is unlikely at best. Besides, given the definition and common usage of the word leaves little legal foundation for its repeal.
-Cocksucker: See: "cunt."
-Motherfucker: See: "cunt."
-Tits: Easily the most innocuous word on the list. As breasts are not sexual organs, the word never met the standard of indecency or obscenity. That the word was ever on the list is a perfect example of American puritanism.
I couldn't agree more with the basic premise of Carlin's monologue, that words are just that, words. Nothing more and nothing less. On the other hand, Carlin's case is predicated on the idea that most people are intelligent adults. Recent history has demonstrated the reverse. I trust everybody remembers the popular reaction to this....
Yeah, I thought you did. It's rare that I've ever seen an entire nation respond to a breast like 300 million third-graders. Watching a superpower cry, "Look! Boobies!" was one of the highlights of my otherwise deeply depressing life.
In my view, the whole Janet thing was underdone. If I were behind it, the entire display would have been more gynecoligically oriented, if only for educational reasons. I'm well aware that Miss Jackson has nice milkbags. But I've always been curious as to whether she shaves and how. The nipple cameo only lead to questions as to what other piercings she may or may not have as well. Enquiring minds need to know.
And there's nothing prurient about that.
Permalink
|
|
|
| |
