The F-word goes to the Supreme Court

At least one thing besides the election is scheduled to happen tomorrow: The Supreme Court will hear FCC vs. Fox Television Stations, as yesterday's New York TimesWeek in Review section pointed out. The crux of the case is whether ... I can write the word here, "fuck" falls afoul of indecency regulations because it necessarily refers to "sexual or excretory activities or organs."

I'd agree that "fuck" is indecent - but that's not why. The usages that the Supreme Court will be learnedly considering include Bono's remark in 2003 that winning a Golden Globe award was "really really fucking brilliant" and Nicole Richie's assertion that getting "cow shit out of a Prada purse" is "not so fucking simple." What's sexual about either of those? "Nudge nudge wink wink" is a lot more prurient than either of them. So are certain kinds of eyebrow-raising. So are many, many ways of expressing oneself.

In the instances in question and many others (say, 99 percent of the 10 zillion times "fuck" turned up in the conversation of Tony Soprano and his guys), the word is just an "intensifier," meant to establish the speaker as aggressive and contemptuous of ordinary social norms. Part of its purpose is to offend to decent folk, should they happen to be reading or listening.

So of course we shouldn't welcome such a word into everyday conversation. (If we did, it would lose its impact, and aggressive, contemptuous people would need to find a new word.)

Peter Chernin, the president of News Corporation, which owns Fox, has complained that forbidding people from swearing on network TV puts the networks at "an inexplicable competitive disadvantage." I don't see that. As things stand, viewers know the networks won't assault them with language that's offensive on purpose. This could just as easily be a competitive advantage, if the networks treat it as one.

To sum up: I'm not eager to hear "fuck" on network TV. What's usually objectionable with the word, though, isn't that it's sexual but that it's crude.

UPDATE: Forgot to note previously that The Atlantic published Steven Pinker's take on this subject in the November issue. 

Comments

This distinction between erotic/sexual uses/intentions in the the eyes of the law is an odd one, going back at least as far as The US v One Book Called Ulysses. I believe it was Justice Woolsey who first fabricated the legal doctrine of the 'intent to arouse'. The case has has had far reaching and long lasting effects...

Posted by Tony Comstock | November 3, 2008 4:18 PM

I'm not eager to hear Nicole Richie on network TV either; the entire Simple Life show is crude. That doesn't mean it should be banned, any more than the word "fuck" should be banned from your website.

Posted by Dan Miller | November 3, 2008 5:06 PM

"As things stand, viewers know the networks won't assault them with language that's offensive on purpose. This could just as easily be a competitive advantage, if the networks treat it as one."

So what's to keep a network from committing to avoiding swear words of its own free will in a regime that does not mandate the commitment? In fact, most cable channels right now do not allow "fuck" or "shit" to be said. I doubt that lifting the ban would encourage Len Goodman to announce that he'd just seen "a great fucking samba" as a matter of habit (although Simon Cowell might not prove so restrained).

Posted by Paul McLeod | November 3, 2008 5:08 PM

Also, and coming from someone who's access to markets is severely limited by my subject matter and the laws and regulations surrounding sexual language and images, one can as easily say that such laws slant things so as to put me competitive disadvantage.

In any case, Barbara, your assertion that the objectionable aspect of "fuck" is crudeness, not sexuality is not born out by what we see on tee vee or anywhere else. Crudeness in the media is tolerated, if not celebrated, so long as it is not explicitly sexual; where as explicit sexuality is suppressed, even when explored in the most poetic and humane manner.

Posted by Tony Comstock | November 3, 2008 9:20 PM

In Canada the CRTC (Canuck analog to FCC) allows the F-word. The CBC disallows it but I believe most other networks have no such policy. But it just isn't something you hear before 11 at night. That is, the networks are self-regulating because they have a strong incentive not to offend their daytime audiences.

The problem with FCC trying to regulate decency--at least with such a heavy hand--is that it leads to brinksmanship with the rules.

Remember the Janet Jackson wardrobe malfunction? Performers dancing in slutty clothes and grabbing their crotches suggestively was perfectly allowable--it was only that square inch of "accidental" flesh that triggered the fine. But was the fine really a serious deterrent? Would the networks really be flashing nipples all over football games if it wasn't for that financial penalty?

Or consider the term "douchebag". Quite a bit more vile than 90% of the occurrences of "fuck" but because the term was essentially introduced to audiences via TV, rather than the other way round, it has become a vehicle for slipping profanity by the sensors. If the FCC gets around to censoring "douchebag" the late night shows will find something else.

Incidentally the publicly funded CBC used to screen soft porn late at night, and our society survived.

Posted by Geoff | November 3, 2008 10:01 PM

*censors

Posted by Geoff | November 3, 2008 10:03 PM

"Douche bag" is vile indeed. From TNC's blog a few days ago:

http://ta-nehisicoates.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/10/bachmann_talks.php#comment-1154597

Posted by Tony Comstock | November 3, 2008 10:14 PM

It's a strange time in history to be arguing in favor of voluntary self-regulation by an American industry.

Posted by BARBARA WALLRAFF | November 4, 2008 9:08 AM

The more substantive argument in FCC v Fox is that during the Bush administration, FCC enforcement of indecency regulations has become capricious and politicized. For example, PBS was fined for language in the broadcast of the Martin Scorsese documentary "The Blues", while the same language was allowed in a network broadcast of the film "Saving Private Ryan."

But getting back to your beat, words and their meanings. Granted, to the average person "Fuck" may be offensive because it is crude, not because it is sexual. But crudeness is not where words (or images for that matter) run afoul of the law.

Posted by Tony Comstock | November 4, 2008 11:05 AM

I find the so-called swear words to be more annoying when they aren't used in a literal sense. For instance, 'fuck' as a word for sexual intercourse is merely descriptive. However, when it's used as a mindless 'intensifier' it becomes tiresome. Likewise, I have no problem with the word 'cunt' when used in an anatomically correct fashion, but it's grating when used as a term of abuse. Nonetheless, these words should be allowed on network television. If folks don't like hearing them they'll turn off the T.V. (not a bad thing). LET THE MARKET DECIDE.

Posted by ziggy | November 4, 2008 2:04 PM

I am a Christian. I took a stand against the "F-word" use. I had buttons (like campaign buttons) made that have the Christian symbol ( >

Posted by Michael Fulton | November 5, 2008 9:05 AM

To finish my above statement:
...Christian symbol ( >

Posted by Michael Fulton | November 5, 2008 9:10 AM

Apparently this doesn't like certain font characters.
My badges have the Christian fish symbol then under that it says Anti "F" Word and under that it says Please Refrain. I wear it where ever I go and pass them out to people who want to help support my cause.

Posted by Michael Fulton | November 5, 2008 9:15 AM

Michael--which is absolutely your right, just as my habit of cursing freely is mine. Cheers!

Posted by Dan Miller | November 5, 2008 3:50 PM

The subject here is taboo words, with the taboo based in our Platonic/puritanical assumptions about a soul/body or mind/body division and the inferiority of the body (it's NASTY).
I'd recommend a voluntary boycott of those 8 words you can't use on TV--George Carlin's revised count--and going over instead to real swearing, invective, and cursing.
E.g., how about a nice old-fashioned, blasphemous oath like, "By the tits of the Virgin!"? Or old-fashioned invective like calling someone, "Bastard whelp from the belly of a syphlitic whore!" Or a curse like, "Ein fliegsel dir benetzen," spelling approximate, and translation more so: "May you be raped by a fly!" Or one I've actually used, "May you suffer all the torments of age and still die young!"
That way we'd avoid the mindlessness of stringing together taboo words and substitute conscious, well-thought-out aggression, blasphemy, viciousness, and obscenity--and maybe occasional scatology and whatever the word would be for a curse like, "May you slip in the john at quarter-beer night and be drowned in a pool of urine ..."
Just say "No" to naughty words. Say "Yes" to keeping aggression verbal, and, when possible, witty.

Posted by Richard Erlich | November 7, 2008 9:41 PM

there is really nothing like arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

Posted by ellis glazier | November 9, 2008 8:03 AM

who the fuck cares

Posted by chuck gardner | November 9, 2008 9:55 AM