Posted by
ParallaxAdHoc on Wednesday, May 06, 2009 6:22:54 AM
“Besides, the fact that these words have been so aggressively foisted upon us by Hollywood does not mean that they have lost their power to offend . . . hearing profanity produces in the brain . . . all sorts of hormones and chemicals . . . whether we say we're offended or not.”
--Mona Charen at http://townhall.com/columnists/MonaCharen/2009/05/01/expletive_deleted__for_now
There is no doubt the prevalence of “colorful metaphors” [cf. Spock, in Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home] in the language represents an overall coarsening of the culture. For one thing, they do not augment the quality of discourse. To the contrary, lacing a sentence with colorful metaphors diminishes its power to communicate meaning.
Almost two generations ago, Herbert Marcuse in his One Dimensional Man decried as obscene the analgesic effect on the national culture, the practice of juxtaposing on national TV’s evening news, images of the ravages of battle in Vietnam with the seemingly balmy Ivory Soap Commercials. That we are talking whether or not profanity offends proves Marcuse’s point beyond doubt.
Eight years of the Clinton presidency officially ushered in the coarsening of the culture. It hardly needs counting the ways: Oral sex in the Oval Office, Presidential DNA on Monica’s blue dress, erectile dysfunction commercials accepted as normal on primetime TV, wardrobe malfunction at super bowl halftime entertainment. These are minor trivialities compared to what really should be construed as offensive: the practice of abortion on demand as acceptable form of birth control.
Deploying the Supreme Court to adjudicate on the dichotomy of meaning of profanities is a colossal waste of taxpayer money. The issue should be whether or not the FCC has the mandate to prohibit use of certain words and/or phrases from the airwaves. Attempting to legislate or adjudicate a question of taste is an exercise in futility. Taste is necessarily subjective. For this very reason alone the FCC’s list of prohibited words should be beyond question by anybody, the Supreme Court justices, included.
What the Supreme Court needs adjudicate on is whether or not Standards of Decency can be promulgated by law. My take is any attempt at doing so would only give the trial lawyers more opportunity to practice their profession, lucratively.
Asumen Acumen at http://parallaxadhoc.blogtownhall.com/