Freedom of Speech and Moral Relativism

The New York City Council is considering banning the N-word inside of the metropolitan limits.

Strange, I thought we had freedom of speech in this country. Granted, speech detrimental to the public welfare has traditionally been regulated, but we have always recognized that people have the right to use language as they see fit. Certainly we hear enough M-F, F-U, B****, C*** S*****, etc. throughout America, yet nobody proposes outlawing this.

Profanity used to be regulated by cultural pressure; people who spoke profanely were dressed down by the gentlemen around them-especially if there were ladies present. Someone with a sewer mouth would be shunned by decent people. The Left has worked diligently to dismantle this system of societal discipline, to make any speech acceptable, any behavior fit in the eyes of America. Instead of the proprieties we now have non-judgementalism. Who are we to judge? We used to say that we had the right to judge bad behavior, but the Left has seen to it that those who try to maintain standards are the ones shamed and ostricized.

In fact, prayer is no longer tolerated in most public venue, yet here New York is debating banning a word which literally means black. It is not an insult unless taken as such. Granted, it was often used to insult black people, and polite society has done with it what had been done in the past with unseemly language. That is as it should be. But the Left does not want the old mechanisms to work, and so, as with most liberal policies, law is applied to force this change in behavior, rather than honor and custom. Law has been used to ban words such as God, Jesus, Savior, Yahweh, etc. from the public discourse as well; does it surprise anyone that speech has coarsened as prayer disappears? If Liberals hadn`t removed praise from our vocabulary would we now need a ban on the N-word?

I know; many of those using this word are black themselves, and they use it as a badge of honor. It`s bad insofar as it helps deepen the divide between the races in America, and it is a part of the general coarsening I`m speaking about. Still, if we are to be true to our principles we must accept the good with the bad, and use of some colorful invectives is a price that must be paid to maintain our right to free speech. What must be reasserted is our right to judge this speech as foul, and to punish it`s use in the old fashion. We cannot run to government to solve every problem.

It`s time we bring honor back to our land. Freedom does not mean the right to offend without consequences; those consequences used to come from the public at large. In fact, the Supreme Court has recognized that there are ``fighting words`` which excuse assault because the assailant was driven to it by the ``victim``. (I think flag burning certainly should fall under fighting words, for example.) People used to jealously guard their honor, lest they suffer the punishment of murmur, scandal, and ostricization. Sometimes loss of honor could be unfair, and sometimes it was harsh, but it worked. Now we maintain social stability through force alone in many instances, and force is a poor method, indeed. Law is often very unsure, especially American jurisprudence which emphasizes innocence over guilt and mercy over punishment. It also requires money, time, and can be easily circumvented. Trying to legally ban the N-word is a monumentally stupid idea.

Unfortunately, America has walked down this path, and it will not be easy to restore the old mores-if they can be restored at all. How long will it be before everyone realizes that government really doesn`t have such a firm grip, and everything falls apart?