Misspoken

I've been thinking a lot lately about the words we use. If any of you have read any amount of this blog, you'll notice that while I craft my words with a fair amount of care, I also swear profanely. Is it possible for me to make the same arguments without the language? Absolutely and ofttimes I can be just as effective without the so-called 'foul' language. This quite naturally begs the question, "Why use those words then?" The fairly simple answer to this question is: Because I can.




Now, that answer is going to require a little more in depth analysis. What precisely am I saying? I am saying that the law has given me the right to say what I please, but more than that, it has given me the right to say what I please, when I please and where I please. The only restriction on this is that the words I speak can not be the cause of someone getting injured or killed, such as yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater, which would result in people panicking and stampeding one another as they rushed towards the doors. Yes, I am well aware that is an over used example but I use it because it is most apt to describe what I am speaking about.

Now, there are admittedly people who would like to put greater restrictions on what is said, when, and even where. Morality as relates to language is a very, very insidious trap, especially when it involves the law. Now, your morals may say that you cannot use such language in the vicinity of a church, or perhaps a school. That your morals do not permit it is well and good as that is a personal choice, a personal decision that affects none but yourself and your actions. The problem comes in when someone tries to regulate others by the morals that one person has for themselves.

Ah! Yes. This is a conflict. We now have someone trying to set up laws that are in direct opposition to already established and upheld laws. While you, yourself, may find the language another person uses to be harsh, disrespectful, or otherwise deemed taboo, that is a completely personal choice and there is absolutely nothing in the world you can do to stop others from using those words you find most shocking. The intent of course is not the words used, but the emotions expressed by them. The content matters far more than the flowery wrapping. One could, should they choose, describe the most heinous, deplorable, and despicable acts and feelings with the most flowing of poetry if they chose and you would still be left feeling sullied and dirty, where as they could express love and joy in the most profane, vulgar terms imaginable while the emotions still come through.

We as humans are hardwired for tonality, for body language and for expressing and interpreting both. In text form, granted, this removes those other key indicators, but this makes the words one chooses when writing all the more important to put forth the emotion being expressed. The writer must do all they can to inject and infuse their writing with the tonality necessary for the reader to comprehend what is being said, which has also given rise to the various multitudes of smiley faces to depict this for those who are incapable of expressing themselves so adequately.

It is a fairly simple concept. Were it deduced that Messerschmidt were to become a 'taboo' word, then as surely as I breathe, someone would work the word into their dialog in order to express themselves more capably or to lend weight to the words they are speaking. Others would take the word and shout it as loudly as possible to shock people out of simple, mindless complacency or as a symbol of rebellion. Surely the word would be bleeped from broadcast television, which would put a damper on those old World War 2 documentaries and movies for sure.

Television, that brings up another wrinkle in my brow. The Federal Communications Commission also known as the FCC. These are the appointed czars in control of what you see and hear on television, cable and the radio. I do hope you read that last line correctly, I really do, because it is fairly important. Specifically the word 'appointed'. The members of the FCC, the people who decide what is 'decent', who decide what is qualified to be played on public radio and television, who make the rules as to who can say what, when and how are not elected officials. The people, collectively as a nation, have no say over what the members of the FCC decide to do and they remain secure in their jobs so long as they can continue to operate efficiently.

The text of the First Amendment reads "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Well, Congress has certainly made "no law..abridging the freedom of speech". Instead they've created a bureaucratic entity which does not make laws but uses "regulations" for which one can be fined, sometimes heavily. Granted, they don't deal with the average citizen, only with what the average citizen watches or listens to on a regular basis, but even a slight abridgment remains a breach in my eyes.

There are some who claim that the protections of the First Amendment are only afforded to political speech, and that vulgarities should not be included under the protected speech. I have few words to respond to such narrow minded thought. The sheer volume of ignorance in such a statement remains staggering so as to cause me to be speechless. I shall, however, endeavor to explain this as simply as possible, and possibly monosyllabically so as to not confuse these poor souls: Popular, common speech, needs no protection. It is common speech, popular and widely used speech for a reason.

Look, as fallacious as a slippery slope and line drawing argument may be to a logical debate, it still must be stated that the moment you give up the right to say the most hateful, disgusting, vile things, you may as well give up the right to speak at all. Once started on the path of deciding what people can say, human history has shown over and over, there is no limit to the amount of things that can be restricted.

You may very well decide for yourself that such speech is not something you wish to hear. That is well and good, and I am quite certain the country is large enough for you to be able to place a fair amount of distance twixt you and the person you wish to disassociate yourself with. If you do not like what someone is saying on the television, there are more than enough channels to go around to please everyone, and plenty of overlap in said channels. What you cannot do, is force your morals on others, ever. It simply does not work. Everyone has their own independent ideological standpoints, well thought out or not, and attempting to budge them with such a heavy cudgel as the law will only cause them to root themselves in deeper.

It is a fairly simple fact of life. Given the freedom to do so, people will say what they wish, how they wish, when they wish and I for one am grateful for this ability and freedom. For a small kick, and if you really enjoy messing with people though, I do encourage you to shout "Messerschmidt!" at schools and churches as you drive by. I'm quite certain the looks and confusion would be priceless.