Profanity and Millian discussion

The second chapter of J.S. Mill's piece on Liberty made me feel somewhat guilty for the thoughts I don't put on the table. Almost everyone I know has experience in suppressing their speech, to some degree or another. I usually sound like a pseudointellectual hoodrat when I've got an opinion to share with a friend, peppering my language with noun, verb, adjective and figurative versions of the eff word. When the time comes for me to express my thoughts with superiors or people I don't know, I replace all my F-adverbs with “profoundly,” my BS-words with “deplorable,” and my A-words with “charlatan.”

I understand why I do this. We all know that sometimes you need to filter out some strong words or even entire thoughts from what you say, just because they could get in the way of something more important than your opinion of your professor's teaching methods or of the corporation you work for: Kant wrote about it.

Sometimes.

Many times, though, people need to watch what they say not only for the sake of being decent, but to avoid getting in trouble. Even in America, where people set off fireworks over the first amendment, some expression is just not okay. Radio DJ's all over the country have to watch the things they say in their shows, not just for fear of a livid public and embarrassed sponsors, but for fear of being sucked dry by the FCC. In high school, I had to censor even artful uses of certain swear words on creative projects and in passionate English class-type discussion, because school is an almost-unspoken swear-free zone. People have to watch their mouths.

Much as our democratic country should want to let all flavors of speech be spoken and heard when a citizen sees fit, we also seem to attribute some Millian “harm” priniciple to distasteful language. It is as if inflammatory or uncomfortable language might somehow be an object of harm to the person who hears it. This past summer, you probably heard the story of the congress house that banned a woman from speaking for her use of the word “vagina”:

I was almost tempted to call her "ballsy"

At the end of the video the speaker asks that people “respect the decorum of the house”. It was later reported that she may not necessarily have been banned simply for the use of the word “vagina”, but for offensive suggestions of rape in her closing line. This, to me, just complicates the situation instead of justifying it.

The subject of Sara Brown's “vagina” speech was an anti-abortion bill. Rape is not only an issue related to abortion, but one similarly as dark and troubling and apparent before a conscious public. Are we trying to avoid offensive statements in a debate about abortion? Are we not allowed to rouse uncomfortable emotions here, even when they seem to be directed straight at us?

Just to make it clear: I'm not talking about harassment or verbal abuse here. I'm talking about swearing, strong language, and uncomfortable subjects. This brings me back to chapter 2 of “On Liberty”. In a nutshell, J.S. Mill says that no (victimless) expression should be stifled. Even the most radical beliefs need to be heard, on even the most untouchable subjects. Mill's ethic is that all people can handle to have their minds challenged. What's a good set of beliefs if it hasn't stood the challenge of other opinions?

I mentioned high school earlier, and how students can never be caught swearing at school. What I find ironic is that some of the most controversial things I've read were assignments in public school. Books like Grendel, Slaughterhouse V, Chronicle of a Death Foretold, The Stranger, Song of Solomon, and Night all contained some combination of profanity, sexuality, and images of violent death (look them up if you haven't read them). I actually had a more conservative English teacher who had allegedly complained that the books he had to assign us were “pornographic”.

 Grendel's spread

Thanks to literature, a considerable amount of the free speech that has influenced society for the better is nothing but disturbing romps through uncomfortable subjects. There is an excerpt of John Gardner's Grendel where the narrating monster spreads a woman's legs apart and contemplates a violent attack on her genitals. I was only sixteen years old when I read this and the other aforementioned books. One wonders why a room full of adults can't handle a rape reference, even when it comes to issues of literary proportions. Where would we be without Elie Wiesel's Night, about the Jewish Holocaust, or Kurt Vonnegut's Slaughterhouse V, a sad, unorthodox commentary on the horrors of war?

Furthermore, how would the message of people like George Carlin be altered if all the dirty language were taken out? No matter your opinion on his views, George Carlin's exercise of free speech has an influence that outlives him. Profanity was integrated into most, if not all, of his acts. “Decorum” was not a restraint to the opinions he had to offer, nor the way he offered them. Some expression, whether it be stand-up comedy or literature, makes its argument through more than courthouse logic constrained to PG anecdotes. This type of discussion, when it's speaking directly to legislators rather than to a crowd of hip college professors, should belong in congress more than anywhere, shouldn't it?

Ultimately I want to state the idea that the price of Millian “discussion” by which one might “rectify” one's “mistakes” is to feel some hard emotions. I started writing this post by talking about profanity; no matter how you choose to express yourself, I believe that you can't hear what someone really has to say if you can't let them use even the most offensive words they are compelled to use. I do understand that compared to people in other countries, Americans get away with saying incredible things. I'm simply pointing out that a good amount of people have lost track of what free speech really entails. Check out this new local law in Middleborough Massachussetts or 2004's federal Defense of Decency Act, two recent damnations of profanity.

Can the simple presence of offensive language (when not used for harassment or abuse) be considered harm? I personally don't like to think so. If you're bothered by the sound of people swearing, there must be a reason. Hearing profane language can help you understand why you hate it, and challenge your reasoning. I think the gritty consequences of free speech can only turn us into better people. As I see it, as long as no one is raising their fists or pulling out guns, we should be able to have heated conversations about things like rape and abortions. We should even be able to have seemingly pointless conversations full of nasty words. At the end of the day, we're just talking.

If you're interested, I watched this episode of Penn & Teller: Bullshit! For inspiration on the subject. I don't always trust what they say on their show, but they're libertarians and the heated views they take on freedom are usually really insightful.