Banning Words: Will Banning the Use of the N-Word Help?

What does freedom of speech mean and what does it mean when we propose banning the use of words?

(Asterisk and alternate word/spelling is used out of respect for the sensibilities of readers and to comply with AC content standards.)

As many know, there is a movement underway to ban the use of the word n*gger (the N-Word) and, in the Hip-Hop industry, to ban the use of the words b*tch and ho in lyrics. The primary focus of this article is on the proposed banning of the N-word.

What does this mean? It may possibly mean that the use of the words, in any of their forms, regardless of who says it, can lead to arrest and prosecution.

I am by no means a proponent of racism, as racial hatred based on the color of one's skin, or for any arbitrary reason (as racism is most often based on arbitrary reasons ) is a self-justifying excuse for directing hatred and discontent with one's own life outward.

But banning the use of words, in all of its definitions, appears to be a dangerous and slippery slope.

Using racial slurs in a hateful fashion, whether covered as a joke or not, can already be prosecuted under the form of a hate crime. And that is good. When people use words, as they are free to do so, they must also realize that there are consequences to attempting to spur hate and incite violence. There are many healthy avenues for dealing with frustrations with life and feelings related to race, and thereby trying to resolve any perceived problems in a manner beneficial to all, but trying to spur hatred is a harmful thing that does nothing to solve problems and most often just causes more.

However, most people can separate the comedian's use of a word and the person/comedian that is trying to hide behind humor. And even if they can't, the person's use of the word may have certain social consequences, such as being fired or sued, that have nothing to do with banning its use.

It seems to me that the banning of this word is aimed primarily at the entertainment industry, namely rap artists and black comedians. Most people that are not black do not use the N-word(at least in general social settings), as it usually has no other cultural significance to them other than a form of hatred. However, artists and social commentors-from writers to musicians to filmmakers-use the word, as well as a slew of others, to convey a sense of realism. If the characters and situations portrayed exist, to pretend that the words that they would use in real life don't exist would be ridiculous and obvious.

However, within the black community, the N-word and its spin-off n*gga seem to have been appropriated, in certain ways, and have various different meanings. Some say this is harmful, some believe it is not. However, most agree that it has a deep cultural significance and is a powerful word that can incite anger, show displeasure with another's behavior, or convey friendship within the African-American community.

There are those that argue that the definition of the word in its current form(s) means nothing, and that the usage is still something that has a negative impact on the black community. That may or may not be the case, but the word will not likely go out of usage simply because it has been banned. The most likely result will be harmful consequences to those that use it in a non-racist form. Both the racist and the non-racist usage will be put into the same category, with the same punishment attributed. And if a ban does successfully eliminate the usage of the N-word, what will be next?

On the topic of banning the non-violent usage of words and what it means to freedom of speech, let's take a look at the use of another word, one that has not been given any consideration of being banned, the term f*g or f*ggot.

F*g and f*ggot have long been used by the GLBT community. The community uses the terms descriptively, as a joke, as a term of endearment, etc. Again, those that are not GLBT do not use the word as it often has little remaining cultural significance to them, outside of being used by homophobes.

With that in mind, let's take a look at the little known meanings of those two words:

Taken from Webster's Dictionary:

F*g (also F*ggot in some of these definitions): v. 1. to drudge; to work hard and become very tired; 2. to act as a f*g, meaning to do drudgery for another; 3. to become weary, to fail in strength; 4. n. a drudge; specifically in certain English public schools, a boy who does menial work for another boy of a higher form or class; 5. n. slang, a cigarette; 6. a term of contempt for an old woman; 7. n. a bundle of sticks.

In it's current use today, f*g and f*ggot have been used as a term, derogatory (outside of the GLBT community) and as a reference term of various meaning inside the same community.

But if the current definition of a word is meaningless, and only its past usage is relevant, why could a person get in trouble for the use of the word f*g around someone that is homosexual? Because the popular usage has changed, and is rarely used in the harmless descriptive forms as presented in Webster's Dictionary by those outside of the GLBT community. Of course, the word itself is not banned and is not currently under consideration for banning, but if used in a homophobic manner it is seen by many as a "fighting word".

It seems that rather than ban the usage of words, there should be more emphasis on education and also a sense of at least cordiality to the sensibilities of others, because we as human beings don't live in a bubble. And we as human beings should be allowed to make educated choices in the use of our language, and not have it regulated by a law that leaves no oversight for the variations and tones of meanings. When it comes to behavior and meanings, all things are not the same, and should not be treated as such.

It's said that we communicate 90% of our meaning through body language. Different people can use the same words and convey different meanings without changing a syllable. Granted, it is difficult to argue how a person means what they say when the bearer of the words and the recipient respond differently to the possible impact.

But there has to be a better way. We already have solid laws against slander, libel, and hate speech meant to incite violence. Most companies will not allow any hate speech to be associated with them. Banning the word might work, and it might not, as to whether or not people will continue to use them. Still, it does not change the core of how human beings will react to and treat one another, and respect themselves as well as other people. I don't have the answers to the problem, but in my current opinion, shifting the focus to the way people interact with one another, and respect themselves and others, should be the primary goal.

Sources:
Webster's Dictionary
The United States Constitution
The First Amendment Explained (http://www.answers.com/topic/first-amendment-to-the-united-states-constitution)
The New York Post: Symbolic Ban on the N-Word in New York (http://www.nypost.com/seven/03012007/news/regionalnews/council_bans_n_word_regionalnews_frankie_edozien.htm)