BITCH!

There.

I said it.

If you are offended then you had better stop reading now, because I am not willing to restrict my speech in order to try not to offend. This would be futile in any case, since I am certain that anything I can say, no matter how seemingly inoffensive, will offend someone. Go ahead, try to think of something you can say that will not offend anyone.

So perhaps I should restrict my speech so that I will not offend what the Supreme Court refers to as a “reasonable person,” which is itself a sort of legal definition used in order to not directly address a problem. I don’t think I know what a reasonable person is, and that is what is useful about this definition, it is meaningless. I know a lot of people who watch South Park, which is at one time or another offensive to just about everyone, so I have to wonder, are these reasonable persons? The point I am trying to make is that you can’t say something that won’t offend someone, and saying something that will not offend a reasonable person means limiting what you have to say to what is meaningless.

I am willing to play the game of not using certain words around certain people, so when I am around children I will, for the sake of the parents, not say those words you are not supposed to say around children. And what a strange game that is, because the children learn these words anyway, and restricting these words gives them power. I will also restrict my speech when I am around my younger sister, because for her the most offensive thing someone can do is to take The Lords name in vain. But this is a choice she has made, based on her religious beliefs, and if she were Muslim she would hold those beliefs just as tightly, that’s the way she is. The problem with both of these examples is that because I have restricted my speech, the range of topics we can discuss fully has been seriously diminished, and even though there are probably not many subjects I can discuss in depth with the children I encounter, I can definitely communicate more clearly with children whose parents do not place these restrictions on me.

And so it goes with all people, I think. To restrict what can be said makes the already difficult task of communicating all that more difficult, if not futile. So why do I feel it is important to be able to say “Bitch?” Because under certain circumstances, that is exactly the correct word, and no combination of words will ever be a sufficient substitute. And if the word “Bitch” bothers you, then you can, as I suggested, stop reading and go on to reading something else.

I also believe that there should be no restrictions of what can be said in music. If a song is offensive, don’t buy it, and if it is on the radio, change the station. Offensive language is, if I may, real. There is no way to express certain messages in art without using what is real. And besides, what is offensive today will look tame in a couple of decades. Is anyone offended by The Sex Pistols anymore?

As for Don Imus, I don’t think his speech should be restricted either. He may have used speech that some consider offensive, but he is just another big-mouthed bully with a radio show, and an audience that likes that kind of thing, I guess.

What I personally find highly offensive are pundits and politicians talking about regime change, which is a euphemism for war, death, and general suffering for the population of the changed regime. Iraq has lived through one of our regime changes, now Iran and Syria are candidates. However offensive I find this, I would not advocate banning this speech.


Imus Fired
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/04/12/national/main2675273.shtml

Sharpton demands record labels ban certain words
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-rap3may03,1,6177544.story?coll=la-headlines-business

William Kristol calls for regime change in Iran and Syria
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/433fwbvs.asp?pg=2