<-"Company Man" or "Wow, Claire's Life Sucks" |Main|Bleak Outlook->

"If You Have a Word Like 'Good,' What Need Is There for a Word Like 'Bad'?"

March 1, 2007 2:36 AM

s a general rule, I am hard to offend. That's not to say that I'm hard to upset or hurt--those are entirely different things. But I am very, very hard to offend. In fact, I can think of only one time in my life that I would consider myself to have been "very offended." It's not clear to me whether this is because I have thick skin or because I've been lucky. Hell, it might even be that I just haven't been paying attention. But, yes, I can think of only one time when I've been extremely offended. And when that offensive thing happened, I told everyone in the room to go fuck themselves and left. But it never occurred to me to make it so that they couldn't talk about the thing that offended me. As I've said before, you run the risk of being offended every time you leave your house. That's the price you pay for living in a free society.

Perhaps no word in the English language is as universally regarded as offensive as the word "nigger." Although (as with any offensive word) there are situations in which the word's offensiveness is mitigated, at least for some, it is also the only word that anyone I know has claimed to be offended by regardless of context. An acquaintance of mine told me that the word is so repugnant to her that it offends her regardless of whether it is aimed at her, whether it is used in a derogatory fashion, or used in rap lyrics. I can think of no word that has that effect on me. That's not to say that I think my acquaintance was being overly sensitive--I can understand why the word is as offensive to some as it is.

On a certain level, then, it is understandable why New York City has banned the use of the word. But just because some people don't like a certain word doesn't mean that the government should eliminate it. This kind of legislation entangles the government in the process of assigning value to some ideas while deeming other ideas worthless.

Freedom of speech and thought is imperative in a free, democratic system. A democracy depends on an informed electorate, it thrives when the populace is educated and engaged. A republic like ours is at its apogee when there is vigorous debate over all the issues that are important to the people at the time. And the people cannot hope to be informed, the debate cannot possibly be vigorous, the government cannot be healthy, when some ideas are summarily deemed unacceptable and excluded from the public discourse. No matter how well-settled a proposition might be, a system that hopes to continue to exist must allow even its most fundamental principles to be challenged.

This marketplace of ideas is, therefore, crucial to the kind of society we want to live in. In turn, an absolute right to free speech is crucial to this marketplace. It is not the place of the government, elected as it is by the majority, to decide which ideas, which words, are an important part of the political discourse and which are too insignificant, radical, or offensive to be considered. The marketplace of ideas is the only thing that can properly make that determination. Any infringment on that role threatens to bring about the collapse of the entire system. Therefore, the government must not mire itself in the process of assigning value to ideas.

It is, of course, possible to argue that if any word--and the idea attached to it--is worthless, it is the word nigger. Certainly, in the vast majority of instances and contexts, the word is completely worthless, objectively speaking. But that doesn't mean that the word is worthless when used by an author, a rapper, a painter, a historian, or a protester. In all of those instances, removing the word from the lexicon limits the ways in which the person can express his idea. It is not enough to say that the content of the idea may be offensive; in order for our society to work, we have to protect offensive ideas as vigorously as we protect our dearest values.

The New York law, then, is a direct threat to American society. Putting aside the fact that the city counsel disregarded a fundamental principle of the Constitution based primarily on the coke-induced rants of an ex-sitcom star, the law evinces a shocking disregard for freedom of thought and expression. Further, it sends the message that, if enough people don't like what you have to say, you can be enjoined from saying it. I can think of few things that are more repugnant to the First Amendment and general freedom.



11 Comments


jbob said:

I can't believe you dropped the "N" bomb on your web site. I shall never link here again.

March 1, 2007 8:46 AM



Utah said:

Wow...I can't believe that New York is pulling this. No division of government has any business telling us what we can or cannot say, regardless of whether or not they try to enforce it. The right to say unpopular shit is an essential part of our democracy and that constitutional principal should never be subject to majority rule. Essentially, New York is asking its citizens to never listen to "Golddigger" again, and that price is much too great.

March 1, 2007 9:05 AM



jbob said:

Utah - I think you meant to say "Wow...I'll never visit your site again because you dropped the n-bomb....and New York is stupid."

March 1, 2007 9:31 AM



Lauren said:

Just one step away from newspeak.

March 1, 2007 10:42 AM



Ismael Tapia II said:

jbob,
I thought about whether I should put the word up for a while. In the end, I decided that it would be hard to construe my words in a racist or offensive way. While I realize that the word might be offensive even as it appears above, I had to balance that against the fact that the post was meant as a defense of the right to use the word, even in the most offensive context. So it would have seemed hypocritical to me not to use it.

Utah,
Exactly! I honestly can't believe that New York would pass a law like this--it flies in the face of the First Amendment. The legislative body here completely disregarded a fundamental and hard-to-miss principle of our whole country. And that's just not cool.

Lauren,
I'm glad someone caught the reference. I was afraid no one would.

March 1, 2007 11:01 AM



Vice said:

Banning words now? What's next, banning every book that's ever used that word? Excellent. That means New Yorkers will never again be forced to read the atrocity that is "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn."

So what type of stupid shit is NYC going to ban next? First trans fat, then (at least an attempt at) listening to an I-Pod while on the sidewalks, now the N-bomb? Listen, I'm a big fan of facism and all but, ...oh, wait, FUCK NYC.

The article says rap artists use it as a term of endearment, which isn't correct. Well, a few might, but the vast majority use "nigga." If you think there's no difference, you're wrong. I'd say 80% of the music I listen to is rap, and I'm not talking the corny-ass MTV shit (usually); and in all the music I listen to, I never hear it pronounced with an 'r' when used colloquially. The only time I actually hear "nigger" is when the term itself is being discussed. So I guess that means it can't even be discussed anymore?

I never want to be so ashamed of something in my past that I can't discuss it, can't talk about it and understand it, and grow as a person due to my increased understanding. Otherwise, hell, let's ban the word "Holocaust." People rarely use it the other way. If we stop saying it, all of the negative effects that continue to impact the Jewish community will come to an end, right? That way we can all put that negative history behind us (ie "forget") and go on about our lives, feeling better about ourselves.

March 1, 2007 11:17 AM



Dangerous Mind said:

I agree with you. Nothing is more disconcerting than hearing that word come out of one's grandparent's mouth at dinner while complaining about the black waiter.

That said, I think this is just one more example at how ridiculous our society is becoming. I understand that yes - that word is offensive, and yes - we want to foster a culture of tolerance. But how is it "tolerant" to sit there and basically make it illegal to not be over-the-top PC?

I think people need to stop taking this stuff so seriously. I mean, with all the problems in the world, the ones we feel the need to speak up about are the use of racial slurs? Give me a friggin' break.

March 1, 2007 12:18 PM



Anonymous said:

"Nothing is more disconcerting than hearing that word come out of one's grandparent's mouth at dinner while complaining about the black waiter." --Must be one mean cracker.

Ismael - I'm just pulling your chain. One thing I can't stand is sanctimonious BS like banning words.


March 1, 2007 3:30 PM



Dee said:

i think this sort of citywide censorship is the epitome of doubleplusungood. cracking down of free speech is bad in gnereal, but i would argue that it's even worse when it's well intentioned as in this case. i mean, what new yorker is going to publicly defend anyone's right to use the N word?


and DAMN YOU ISMAEL. i was just comtemplating yesterday how i could work a Newspeak ref. into our blog, and now i can't! it is a freaky and annoying coincidence.

March 1, 2007 11:49 PM



Dangerous Mind said:

"--Must be one mean cracker."

Anonymous, you have no idea. My grandmother makes me look like Mother Theresa.

March 2, 2007 6:21 PM



TheExpat said:

If we're to believe Firefly, the whole world will soon be speaking a combination of English and Chinese.

The concept is interesting. I've often thought that, if one were to take the simplest way to concieve an idea from both languages and combine them, the whole process of communication could be streamlined. Chinese Chengyu, a series of poetic references to different human conditions, are an amazingly quick way to convey thought, though they are not often used in conversation and their meanings are all certainly debatable. In any case, I think the concept is cool, even if it meant we were all walking around talking like some Chinese Shakespere.

I'll get to work on this. In the meantime, let's not ban any words, 'kay?

March 2, 2007 6:36 PM



Leave a comment