April 29, 2009
Why Scalia is Wrong About the F-Word
Or Maybe Just Lying
Look, I've boned a lot of fat chicks in my time, but as far as I can recall I've never fornicated anybody.
--Willie, from Bad Santa
So, the Supreme Court has voted (5-4) to protect the FCC's right to penalize networks for "fleeting" foul language. Scalia, summarizing the majority opinion, claimed that "even when used as an expletive, the F-word's power to insult and offend derives from its sexual meaning," A similar argument upheld the S-word's ability to offend, based on its "excretory roots".
This argument is just plain wrong. Numerous linguistic studies have shown that the F-word, especially, has a life of its own, one which is completely devoid of the verb's original meaning. McMillan 1980 (for example) attests to the ability of the word f--- to become an infix, adverb, and general modifier having nothing to do with sex.
That's why it's the freakin' FCC...
That's why it's such a versatile phrase, and can be used in places where the act of fornication makes no semantic sense whatsoever. E.g.: "abso-f***ing-lutely" or "It's a f***ing nightmare, man." There is not a single sexual act going on in these phrases. Really.
And why else is the meaningless joke form "frak" such a funny substitute? Nothing to do with the semantics, everything to do with the sound. Q.E.D.
Anyway, it's likely that the categorical terms "sexual and excretory" were created by the FCC as a way to find non-obscene terminology for the specific words it wanted to prohibit, and not because the FCC had a commitment to banning those catogories of expression outright. Othewise, as Justice Stevens pointed out, Viagra commercials would also have to be prohibited.
Now, that's not to say that the F-word isn't still offensive to a lot of people. But what offends me is that Scalia, who's no dummy, has made such a speciously hypocritical argument--one which he's far too intelligent to actually believe, I think. But he is an evil genius at denying any historical context or ambiguity, and reading the law to its letter in order to uphold his own beliefs.
Still, a good linguist could have rebutted that argument in a heartbeat. When are those left-wing, hippie advocates going to get a clue? They need to bring in some real expert witnesses instead of relying on that tired free-speech crap. C'mon, guys, when you're dealing with Scalia you need some actual thinking caps. And hey, this way those annoying PhD's could earn their keep. Don't even get me started on what a Classicist could tell you about he Second Amendment.
It's fine if the conservative judges don't want people saying the F-word on TV. But they really should just admit it, or at least use "community standards" instead of a demonstrably false linguistic premise.
Home
