Fightin' Words! (standard:Editorials, 859 words)
Author: J P St. Jullian	Added: Aug 11 2002	Views/Reads: 3578/0	Story vote: 0.00 (0 votes)
A look at how the use of negative and abusive language affects good order and discipline

Fightin' Words! 

by J P St. Jullian 

I went into a local fried chicken take-out restaurant the other day and
as I was waiting for my order to finish cooking, I took a seat at the 
table next to three Caucasian fellows, seemingly in their late 
thirties, early forties.  I couldn't help overhearing their 
conversation. 

“Friggin queers,” said one man, “hope they all die of AIDS, ha, ha, ha.”
 He was joined in laughter by his two comrades.  I didn't get offended, 
but I thought they were very rude.  Afterall, every one has an opinion 
be it good of bad, right?  Then one of the others, a real hard looking 
case wearing dirty clothes with dirty longish hair and a cigarette in 
his mouth, leaned forward and said in a lower voice, “It'd be real nice 
if they could take all the niggers around here with ‘em when they go, 
ha, har, har, ha ha!!”  They all three rolled with laughter.  I got up 
and left without picking up my order. 

Ordinary name calling, offensive slurs, intentional bigotry.  Where
should we draw the line when people use racial epithets or demeaning 
language in public when it's directed at us or other groups?  What do 
we do about it?  What should we do about it? 

I remember reading about an incidence of slurring by a student at
Stanford University who used the term “FAGGOT” and several other 
obscenities when addressing a gay student.  Naturally, he was turned in 
to the office of the Dean.  Some time later, when confronted by the 
authorities, this student claimed to have been conducting his own 
experiment to test the limits of free speech at Stanford.  Others who 
knew him doubted that his use of offensive language was an experiment, 
for it closely coincided with opinions that he'd expressed in the 
school newspaper. 

When faced with people using abusive language with us, the natural
instinct for many is to lash out.  For others it is to legislate, pass 
an ordinance, enforce guidelines.  We think that if we could only ban 
the offensive language, expel the offender from our midst, or shut down 
that offensive magazine, we would be rid of the problem.  But would we? 


I remember when the schools in Amite County in the state of Mississippi
first integrated, there were instances of racial tension involving 
abusive and offensive language.  They came up with the idea of 
instituting “Fighting Words” rules.  It was the only thing they could 
do then to respond to the pain and anguish felt by the victims of 
racism, bigotry, and the like.  These rules made certain words 
inappropriate and unacceptable in the speech around and on the school 
campus.  Any student caught breaking the rules could be reprimanded or 
expelled.  But did these rules truly solve the problem?  No, they did 
not. 

Even some colleges have been in the news media in recent years for
students using abusive language regarding race, sex or homosexuals and 
gays.  And many colleges have tried the “Fighting Words” rules.  As is 
inevitable with any system that tells one what they cannot or must not 
do, there arose objections to the Fighting Words rules.  Such rules 
have what is referred to as a “chilling effect.”  That is, such rules 
seem to have a tendency to prevent people from the free expression of 
ideas for fear their words will be misconstrued.  Then more questions 
are asked.  Questions like, Where do we draw the line?  Who decides 
what is offensive, and to whom? 

It's not an easy thing to draw a line between what is offensive speech
and what is legitimate expression.  I mean, who can manufacture a set 
of rules that will stop a person from being personally offensive?  Even 
if you outlaw words, they can still use gestures, like a wink, a leer, 
a walk.  How would a speech code rule have applied to a speech by 
Malcolm X, who called white men white devils most of the time?  Even if 
you got together a petition that reads, “Exercise your right of free 
speech.  Tell these people what you think of their behavior and 
offensive language.  It may be legal, but it is not right.”  Ok, so you 
get a couple of thousand students to sign it.  You are still faced with 
the fact that those racists and bigots also have the right of free 
speech.  What they say may be offensive, and it may be wrong, but they 
have the right to say it.  The only equalizing factor is that we have 
the right to talk back to them.  See how it works? 

If you work so hard to take away the racists right to say “nigger,” or
the bigots right to shout “faggot!” then you may be taking away my 
right to turn to him and shout “Shut up, you creep!”  You may be taking 
away my right to call a religious fanatic a bigot or my gun toting, 
tobacco chewing neighbor a redneck.  Bad ideas and bad language cannot 
be legislated away.  They must be driven out by better ideas.  From 
either end of the spectrum, it all starts with people. 


Tweet