NYC Bill to Consider Banning Swear Words

[U-238]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/07/nyregion/07bword.html?ei=5090&en=8bb9b60b7da0d2ed&ex=1344139200&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=print

Now I don't mean to dive in and defend the words "bitch" and "ho" as good, loving, non-hateful words. Indeed I believe they should not be used as widely as they are if at all. However I do believe that every person is entitled to Freedom of Speech and setting laws on what words can and cannot be used infringes upon that. Regardless of whether or not they're considered "swear words" or "indecent". If a person decides that they're going to use it then they should be able to use it.

I believe the NYCC has over stepped their bounds.

Discuss...

[Sauvastika]

From my understanding, it's not an outright ban on the word, but just basically a denunciation of the word. They're trying to encourage people to stop using "bitch" and "ho", but it's not a law and doesn't carry any legal weight. However, it does beg the question of whether or not such denunciations do, in fact, infringe on freedom of speech.

One may still be able to use "bitch" and "ho" freely, but there's the government there passing a resolution saying that the words are "bad" and people should stop using it.

My POV is that the NYCC hasn't overstepped their boundaries, yet. They've made no laws preventing the free exercise of those words.

[Icarus]

I saw this on cnn the other day.

Apparently it's only trying to raise awareness about "bad words" and such, because apparently not enough people know.

I don't understand why people waste time with things like this, and why they'd want to denounce "bad words" in the first place.

Any linguist will tell you that words are just symbols. Only a conveyance of an inherent emotion. Even if you were to ban those symbols, that accomplishes absolutely nothing, because those emotions are still felt.

If someone really wanted to end hate, they would attack the source. Not the outlets used to express it. That just makes no sense.

I think this whole war on words bullshit is cultural backlash of all the socially recognized "decencies" that hip hop culture ignores.

Also, it's not debatable whether or not it's a violation of freedom of speech.

[ecyor0]

"decencies"? Why the quotation marks? Hip hop does ignore social decencies, and trying to say otherwise is a little nonsensical. If you go out of your way to sling mud in someone's face, you should expect them to lash back at you. (Even if its their own mud to begin with.....)

The law itself seems laughable - the people who use swear words loosely and freely aren't generally the sort of people who care what the law says they can or can't say.

As for whether hip hop's ignoring social decencies is something to worry about..... at the time when it was popular, they said disco music would last forever.

[Tanis]

I believe that in this country, people should have the right to be wrong. Using curses is generally perceived as wrong, but that doesn't mean they should be abolished from use. The USA allows groups like the American National Socialist Workers Party (The American Nazi Party) to broadcast it's messages of hate against Jewish Americans, the Brotherhood of the Klans is allowed to broadcast it's messages of hate against African and Latino Americans. If said messages are permitted in state-wide demonstrations (Which do occur for both the KKK and the American Nazi Party), then I think that 'bitch' and 'ho' should be at the very bottom of words to be banned.

[TheDriver]

Teehehe. Not going to happen anytime soon. Free Speech anyone?
With that being said I admire there attempt at a better society free of derogatory terms but... Thats implausible,unlikely,unreal,unjustifiable,and improbable.

[Lazere]

Free speech issues aside, even "denouncing" these words without actually passing any laws is a complete waste of time. Aren't there more important things NYC can be doing besides "raising awareness" about these words? Besides, even if they do step all over the constitution and ban these words, other words will just come and replace them, and the war will continue, ending up in a long list of banned words, all pointless.

[SilverCrusader]

eh? Personally I think receiving a detention from school for using derogatory terms is against the constitution, but honestly, I don't care so much. Even if the words are punishable by death, people would just just come up with other words to replace them. I instead of saying "fuck" or "shit" say fudge. Does this mean if many people started using fudge would the word be banned? And I agree with the linguists point of view, taking away the vent won't solve anything. If you want to get the source take away emotion (Equilibrium ftw!), which won't stand, just like it didn't in that movie.
What I see as a problem is that people are offended by these acts, and often retaliate. Why not just brush them off? They obviously don't like something you did/are. So just ignore them and give them space.

[ScottieIWU]

Am I the only one that sees the absolute stupidity of making a law against swears? Or even to raise awareness and to reduce usage of swears.

Let's put it this way. If everybody said "shit" starting at age 2, it would lose its power. Ever hear somebody that swears like a sailor? His swears don't really mean much. On the contrary, what if you hear a christian who never swears say "shit" one day. You know he's pissed then. My point? Reducing the use of the word "bitch" or "ho" is only going to increase the power it has to insult or demean people.

[The_Maker]

True Scottie, however it doesn't change the fact that even IF everyone started using shit at the age of two, the word would still generally be supplemented for an alternative, negative adjective or phrase. Although I do see your point, the fact that it is considered a swear word adds to the slight if unnoticeable social reaction and effect that they're denying today's standard behavior by using the word thus giving them a slight sense of superiority. If it's just another word such as "shoot" or "crap" then it loses it's meaning when used in repetition. I don't think NYC has overstepped it's boundaries, but like Sauvastika said; it makes you wonder what COULD happen if such a bill were to be passed.

[uberfoop]

Meh. If old swear words became less used they would simply start to mean something. If they became illegal, people would simply come up with more words labeled as curses.

[Oblongato]

They'll get my swear words when they pry them from my cold, dead lips.

The government is overstepping its bounds by getting involved in any way with what is essentially a free speech issue. If you don't want to hear swear words, don't hang out with people who use them. Of if they are your friends, ask them to stop.

Free speech rights are only there to protect unpopular speech. If you say what everyone wants to hear, you need no protection. Unfortunately, this is not the only place where free speech rights are being challenged. (e.g. the reaction to the Danish Mohamed cartoons, curbs to "racially insensitive" speech etc.)

I'm not defending offending people, but I'll be damned if I'll give up my right to do so if I choose.

[LinkTheGameFreak]

this is the most god-damned stupid fucking thing I've ever heard.

That having been said, there are no such things as "bad" words. There are bad intentions, and as such, any word can become "bad" simply through the way that it is used. OK, certainly there are words with negative connotations attached to them but who is any government to place a restriction on what should and shouldn't be said? The first amendment guarantees that we are entitled to free speech, to say what we want when we want to. The problem they are neglecting is that it's not the words, it's the people. People will take umbrage to anything that is said and violence simply won't stop because "bitch" and "hoe" are excised from the common vernacular; soon, for all we know, the phrase "fruit loops" might be used in place of those words and soon people will be jailed for that, and to that end, WHERE will it end? The answer is with the people themselves. There is an old saying that I wish I remember who said it but the gist of it is that "your freedoms and liberties end where my nose begins" meaning that we are free to do as we please within a certain parameter. You can take a swing at someone with your fist if you like, but as soon as you come within a point where they feel they have to defend themselves then you have gone too far. The same goes for words. Once a person feels threatened enough by whatever words you choose to say, they will still retaliate to defend themselves, regardless if the words they chose were "ni**er" or "black" or "African-American" (for those who are politically correct, read this (http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=your_stupid_ideas))- The point is that depending on how those words are said, they can throw someone off kilter

[3dshocker]

I believe that we should be allowed to express our displeasure with others. Where you want to draw the line on what's acceptable is debatable...

[Kawagata]

good and bad are refrences.. Like said above, isn't this in breach with the bill of rights?