November 17, 2008 6:26 AM

Much ado about nothing

WASHINGTON - A clearly divided Supreme Court on Tuesday debated indecent language for an hour without anyone using the words in question. Circumlocutions like "the F-word" and "the S-word" sufficed as the court considered the year's highest-profile free-speech controversy. All signs now point to a tight decision over whether broadcasters can be fined for allowing use of so-called "fleeting expletives," which are swear words used in passing. The court's conservative justices showed sympathy for the Federal Communications Commission members who want to punish broadcasters. Associate Justice Antonin Scalia denounced the "coarsening" effect of swearing, while Chief Justice John Roberts warned about "impressionable children" being harmed by inherently dirty words.... "Why do you think the F-word has shocking value?" Robert asked rhetorically. "It's because it's associated with sexual or excretory activity; that's what gives it its force.".... Added Scalia, "that's what gives it its' zing."

One of the things that got lost in the shuffle of the recent election was perhaps one of the most pointless yet amusing debates in the Supreme Court. I listened to portions of the debate on NPR while I was in Houston, and at one point I found myself laughing so hard I could barely keep my rental car on the road.

We have real issues in this country...and the Supremes are worrying about the "coarsening" effects of "fleeting expletives" on our "impressionable children"? Perhaps the most amusing parts of the debate were the verbal gymnastics the participants put themselves through to avoid saying "fuck". Don't get me wrong, I'm no big fan of the word, and it's word that's generally used in a crude manner or context. Does that mean the Supreme Court needs to be tying itself in moral and rhetorical knots as it decries the evil and depravity of it all?

"Fuck" is a word that has long since worked it's way into everyday American vernacular. Whether that's for good or ill is something I'll leave to an intellect more nimble than my own. My concern is with clueless, hypocritical White men pretending that they're the moral arbiters of all that is good, righteous, and holy in American culture. Since when is the role of the Supreme Court to be acting in loco parentis? Isn't the moral development of children in this country supposed to be the province of parents? Do we REALLY want John Roberts and Antonin Scalia acting as our self-appointed moral gatekeepers?

Surely I'm not the only one who thinks that this "debate" smacks of arguing over whether to shut the barn door long after the horse has departed the premises? I'm not going to argue that the Supremes have no role in setting standards of decency, but this debate is many, many years too late. Debating whether or not to punish broadcasters for the "fleeting" use of an expletive that has long since become an accepted part of the American vernacular seems a lot like debating the morality of dropping the atom bomb while Hiroshima and Nagasaki are still smoldering.

Antonin Scalia, who from what I can tell is Supreme Ruler of his own distant planet, and John Roberts, who seems to aspire to be Mayor of Pleasantville, seem to think that this debate is actually relevant. Of course, if you believe that debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin has merit, I suppose it might be. For those of us who don't live on Planet Reebok, however, "fuck" is a word most any American of any age will hear several times a day...unless they're living in a bubble. This is the simple, unalterable reality of the world we live in. If the Supremes want to do their imitation of the little Dutch boy, they'll soon find that the number of holes in the dike far outstrips the supply of available fingers.

Memo to the Supreme Court (and the officious bureaucratic handjobs at FCC): if you don't like trafficking in George Carlin's "Seven Dirty Words", there's no law stating that you have to use them. In this case, though, your efforts to legislate morality from the bench are as silly and insulting as they are pointless. Instead of pretending that you're debating a weighty manner, how about actually addressing an important issue? Isn't there a minority class of Americans whose rights you need to find a legal justification for denying?

In the meantime, get over yourselves already....

blog comments powered by Disqus

Technorati

Technorati search

» Blogs that link here

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Jack Cluth published on November 17, 2008 6:26 AM.

People unclear on the concept, #42 was the previous entry in this blog.

I'll choose door number three, Johnny.... is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Contact Me

Powered by Movable Type 5.12