Because few have time to ponder the imponderables one encounters daily, your correspondent ponders in the public’s interest. Recently pondered was the increasingly pervasive use of “bad words” in broadcast and print media, and why they are considered “bad.”
Back in the day, saying “poop” could get you a mouth-washing. No more. Though bad words are often “bleeped” on-air and spelled with asterisks (*) in print, they proliferate. Parents know the day is coming when Baby asks, “Mommy, what the f**k does f**k mean?”
By the Victorian Era (1837-1901), f**k was a “bad word,” as society assigned intense shame to “physicality.” That said, Queen Vicki’s diaries indicate she and Prince Phillip got along . . . vigorously. By 1857, Parliament passed the Obscene Publications Act, banning the F-word in print. The U.S. followed with the Comstock Act of 1873.
Later, our FCC decided f**k is “bad” and can’t be said on-air, so it’s disguised with a bleep. When your five-year-old asks what the bleep means, you can respond with the following explanation:
In 1957, the Supreme Court Supremes said obscenity is not protected by the First Amendment; it “is not essential to the rational exchange of ideas” and “has no social value.” [Ed. Note: The f**k it doesn’t!].
But in 1968, they said printed f**k’s were OK, and government can’t censor “vulgar language” in text or print because:
1. The government cannot strip speech of its emotional power just because a specific word is crude.
2. To be legally “obscene” (and un-protected by the First Amendment), an expression must be erotic or appeal to a prurient sexual interest. “F**k” used as an exclamation or political protest does not fit this legal definition.
3. Nonetheless, f**k cannot be used as a personal insult intended to provoke physical violence.
In 1973, they created a three-part legal test to determine whether specific material is legally obscene and unprotected by the Constitution:
- A so-called average person, applying “contemporary community standards,” must find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest. “Prurient” means a shameful, morbid, or unhealthy interest in sex. It does not include normal, healthy sexual desire. “Prurient” is judged by local community standards; “obscenity” in one city might not be in another.
- The work must depict/describe, “in a patently offensive way,” sexual conduct specifically defined by applicable state law. The depiction must go “far beyond” what the public tolerates. State laws must define exactly what sexual acts cannot be shown.
- Taken as a whole, the work must lack Serious Literary, Artistic, Political or Scientific value. This is known as the SLAPS test. This is judged by a national standard of a reasonable person, not local community views. If a work has “serious merit” in any of these five areas, it cannot be legally obscene.
Material that fails all three prongs of the test is ‘obscene’ and not considered speech at all under the Constitution. It is completely illegal to produce, distribute, or sell.
Finally, in 1978, the Supremes said the FCC could ban “filthy words” on broadcasts because broadcast media is “uniquely pervasive” and accessible to children.
Bottom line: A word describing an act leading to the Creation of Life can be banned as “obscene,” but not words that describe the Taking of Life. Like “k*ll” and “m*rder.”
Apparently this accords with Biblical standards. Per John 2:13-17, when driving animals and money-changers from the temple, Jesus used a whip and violently overturned tables. He never yelled, “Get the f**k out!”
Be First to Comment