Free speech is an incredibly delicate bloom, even in a society where it is supported by tradition and ostensibly guaranteed by the Constitution. There are, in fact, constant limits put on free expression in this country, and the sources of these assaults on our most fundamental freedom are manifold.
Government - or more generally, authority - immediately springs to mind. Those in power, whether it be in the political structure or in a university, simply do not enjoy having their affairs exposed to the light or indeed in being criticized at all. They understandably wish to avoid having any unpleasantness associated with themselves and their actions.
Now, no governing authority in this country, whether the American president or the UNM Board of Regents, will openly dare to stifle free speech. No, one must invoke some sort of crisis, such as the war on terrorism or the financial problems of the University. "Americans need to watch what they say," proclaimed President Bush's press secretary Ari Fleisher after Sept. 11, as if expressing your opinion might give aid and comfort to the enemy, especially fanatics. Given this tough economy, this is not the time to be criticizing the administration and creating disunity, said President David Schmidly and his people. Demanding only "constructive criticism" or "professionalism" and "proper respect" is no more than traditional code for "no criticism."
This of course is all old hat. More fascinating is America's creation of a vast network of self-censorship among its citizens, which has paved with a bogus good intention a broad road to limiting free speech. That intention, pioneered by liberal politicians and educators, is to avoid at all costs the heinous crime of offending someone. This has become so prevalent that a foreign visitor might believe there is actually a constitutional amendment guaranteeing the right to get through life without ever being offended.
This attitude naturally threatens free speech, serious debate and the expression of truth. Demonstrating that they are wrong is typically offensive to people, particularly the ignorant, and there are well-established truths that make many feel very uncomfortable. This has led to outright distortions, perpetrated, especially in academe and government, in the interest of social utility or political support. The result is imaginary history (the Egyptians were black and the Greeks stole all their ideas) and Lysenkoist science (there is no global warming). Suggest to a class that Muslims began the African slave trade and locals participated in it (or simply use the word "niggardly") and you could find yourself hauled before the Office of Equal Opportunity and charged with racism.
Consequently, we are loading up with euphemisms and code words, all of which undermine the precision of our language and thus our ability to communicate. Is a "special" student brilliant, or mentally deficient? This sort of thing has of course traditionally been associated with obscenities (seemingly any nonscientific word indicating sexual activity, natural functions and certain body parts), which are not to be expressed on TV or before children, who of course already know all these words. We seem to want to pretend that we do not actually talk this way, when of course we do, even presidents and professors.
Get content from The Daily Lobo delivered to your inbox
The height of silliness, however, is the appearance of the "x-word" code, most commonly the "f-word" and the "n-word." A word is a symbol, and negro, black, African-American and nigger all refer to the same thing. Now, inasmuch as the last term, because of its history, is extremely insulting to a great many people, one should perhaps avoid it and use another word. But referring, when necessary in a discussion, to the "n-word" or the "f-word" or "f-bomb," is simply using a code, which the mind of the listener will automatically translate into "nigger" or "fuck." So, what is the point of avoiding the actual words? This is akin to television bleeping out objectionable words, which will also be filled in by all but the most sheltered listener.
Particularly ridiculous is the practice of TV pixilating the hand of someone giving the finger. It is perfectly obvious what is being displayed, yet it is presumed to be somehow less offensive if one cannot actually see it, as if it were a breast or a penis. In fact, the finger is perhaps the most iconic symbol of America and has been exported around the world. I mean, Israelis and Palestinians flip each other off.
Well, we are a silly people. Let me just say: Any speech, no matter how offensive, that does not create an immediate danger is legitimate.
Richard M. Berthold is a retired professor of classical history at UNM. He is the author of Rhodes in the Hellenistic Age.
