Call them yellow-haired people#8217; By Jennipher Dickens 08/18/2007 There are many words in the English language which one might find offensive. Other words can be used in a context that’s also meant
Published 12:00 am Saturday, August 18, 2007
There are many words in the English language which one might find offensive. Other words can be used in a context that’s also meant in a derogatory manner.
Here in the good ol’ US of A, it’s always been a first amendment right to have freedom of speech. So long as you’re not making threats to kill the President, you can pretty much say what you want.
Enter New York City.
Email newsletter signup
The geniuses comprising their city council recently took it upon themselves to outlaw the &uot;n-word,&uot; stating that its racial connotations were not appropriate at any time.
Shortly after that law passed, a different council member introduced a resolution to ban the &uot;b-word,&uot; citing it was derogatory toward women. The word &uot;ho&uot; would also be outlawed, under the same measure.
Currently, that measure has garnered the support of 20 out of 51 council members. It is expected to be discussed at a September meeting.
If this resolution succeeds in passing, what’s next? Are all swear words going to be banned? Will other cities and states follow the example of the New York City council? If so, where will the line be drawn?
Taking into consideration that most words can be used negatively if people so choose to do so, how will the &uot;good&uot; words be differentiated from the &uot;bad?&uot;
I can see it now; we’ll have to refer to blondes as &uot;yellow-haired people.&uot; Fat guys will become &uot;that large-sized individual.&uot;
I know girls who get offended if guys refer to them as &uot;chicks&uot; or &uot;babes.&uot; In that case if those words were banned, would we also have to start referring to baby chickens as &uot;younger-aged poultry?&uot; Would a Babe Ruth candy bar become a &uot;He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named Ruth?&uot;
Seriously, though, regardless of how offensive a word may be, the last time I checked, this is still America. We DO have a constitutional right to freedom of speech, so the New York City council is way out of line in trying to limit what people can and can’t say.
No, I wouldn’t like being called a &uot;b,&uot; either, but if someone wants to say that to me then that is their choice.
If no one ever said anything offensive, we’d all be a bunch of blathering idiots walking around with fake cheesy smiles all the time, then yelling at the walls when we’re alone to vent all the bottled-up emotion.
New York City can call it a &uot;symbolic ban&uot; all they want, but the fact of the matter remains that they’re trying to censor American citizens.
To try and do that is a serious violation of the very basis this country was founded upon hundreds of years ago.
Did these guys even read the Bill of Rights?
&uot;Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances,&uot; reads the First Amendment.
It’s a shame that taxpayer dollars will be wasted carrying this measure all the way up to the Supreme Court, only to have them overturn it and things go back to the way they were meant to be anyway.
Wake up, New York.
Want to let me know what you think?
Have a suggestion for a future column?
Feel free send an email to: firstname.lastname@example.org.