Fleeting Expletives
Thursday, May 7, 2009 at 9:49AM Late last month, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that TV networks are responsible for “fleeting expletives”—coarse, offensive language that briefly, often inadvertently, slips into their broadcasts, typically during interviews.
I am not a legal scholar and please don’t stop reading because you aren’t either. My interest is less in the law and the Federal Communications Commission, and more in what makes language offensive and how Christians might think about all this.
The Supreme Court decision dealt primarily with the so-called “F-word” which celebrities occasionally let fly during award show presentations. As I understand it, the dissenting justices argued that “offensive language” is such a fluid, arbitrary and capricious category as to make prohibiting it nearly impossible. Again, I’m no lawyer, no expert, but I think I tend to agree with the dissenting justices.
I remember when I was young and someone told me that to raise the middle finger was bad. My young mind just couldn’t figure out how one raised digit could possibly have the power to be bad. I concluded that the middle finger must have some sort of magical power, like the ability to cast spells. It is this memory that makes me sympathetic to justices who argued that offensive language is an arbitrary, contrived category. Why one finger but not another? Why this word but not another? Strangely the F-word has morphed into an almost ubiquitous term, the Swiss-army knife of modern English, able to be used in nearly any sentence, to convey both positive and negative sentiment. Its original and offensive sexual connotation seems far in the past.
I have long wondered why in the “hierarchy of swearing,” it is the "offensive language"--terms from the bedroom, bathroom and barnyard that have been considered “worse” than the theological, religious words—words that Christians might claim are irreverent, even blasphemous—hell, damn, Christ, etc. Eight-year-olds on family hour sitcoms routinely blurt out “Oh my god...” Yet the world and the FCC seem far more concerned about words that may be crude and boorish, but hardly sacrilegious.
I am afraid that this will all be misunderstood as championing coarse language. Instead, I am trying to point out that it is simply coarse, perhaps offensive, but not blasphemous. As a Christian, blasphemy, taking the Lord’s name in vain, are my concern and what I am more concerned to avoid.
I’ll let someone else tackle the issue of “swearing-lite”—gosh, heck, darn. I’m pretty sure it won’t be the FCC or the Supreme Court.
Reader Comments (5)
The ubiquitous nature of most swear words has actually rendered them less effective -- and thus, less shocking when we hear them. I recall my reaction to the movie "White Men Can't Jump", where the dialog included the f-word approximately every 2 minutes. It sounded stupid and boorish, rather than shocking. The more a swear word is used, the less it attains its intended purpose. It becomes an empty adjective or adverb.
The law, and the courts, can never keep up with the lexicon -- and shouldn't try. We have many more important social and economic issues on which to work.
David: To your comments of:
"The more a swear word is used, the less it attains its intended purpose. It becomes an empty adjective or adverb."
I believe the more one uses a swear word (in public) and the more others hear it, the more likely some will begin using the words, sharing the words....being themselves profane and encouraging others to be that as well. While social and economic issues are important, this one, honoring God with our speech certainly does contribute to our society, economy and God's glory.
I think the Bible says something about silly talk and focusing on language that builds up. I tend to fall on the "liberal" side of things most of the time, but this is one that I'd support. Mostly (and maybe this is to philisophical) because I think words should mean something. When words mean a lot of things, they don't mean anything at all and then it becomes more difficult to communicate. I'm sure it's difficult to legislate that kind of coarse language, but we could start be defining the words in question. As far as I'm concerned, starting with the original definition is a good place to start.
Besides all of that, I would like my children to be able to express themselves accurately and articulately. I think it helps in processing emotions and enhances relationships. If all you can say about how someone is treating you is that it's f---ed up, then you're unlikely to get them to stop. They might not have any idea what you mean or think you mean something entirely different than what you've intended. I just think language is important and we should be careful with it.
I was blessed to grow up in an extended family of Dutch descent where both profanity and invoking God's name in vain were rare enough to be responded to with an appropriate amount of shock and dismay. The worst I recall from my parents was the occasional use of some euphemisms or "swearing-lite", as Steve calls it. My grandmother was in my eyes 100% saint. However, I did puzzle over some of those Dutch expressions she used, and I sometimes wondered if I would get into trouble expressing the English version of whatever it is she said. I suspect they were "swearing lite" versions of Dutch expressions that were less acceptable in polite company.
I recall a sermon I heard in my teens where the Reverend used the expression "bathroom prose". Though I recall the phrase, I do not specifically recall if he said he was for it or "agin' it". I have no doubt he was "agin' it", and so am I, but I do find the rampant use of God's name in vain, even in a euphemistic manner, far more troubling than fleeting expletives.
I think George Carlin's commentaries on language has some good lessons in them.
However, in the paradoxical way of things, it is I think a cop-out to say that words don't matter. (Our recent presidential race commentaries also covered this topic for a good portion of the campaign; is Obama a persuasive speaker and master shaper of words and that's all, or is there more to him?)
Obviously revolutions are generated by well-chosen words, well-crafted statements and we all know that derogatory or abusive language hurt and demean others.
It would be a shame however to pass on or be denied experiencing word generated artistry, (a play, a book etc) because the author used a "fleeting expletive." They are in fact part of cultural expressions and used well, can make a point.
I think it depends on who is doing the using and in what context.
The truth is, using these words repeatedly can minimize the impact or inflame it.
As Christians, we don't need to hide from these words, but we also don't need to use them. (However, when one hits one's thumb with a hammer, I can't help but think that a 'swear-lite' term will not be the word of choice. Just sayin')