
What the F***? - Why We Curse - rms
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=246c0071-a9cd-46e2-a665-c6e61a45377e
======
mattmaroon
"Very, you would never hear the dialogue How brilliant was it? Fucking."

He obviously doesn't know my friends. Some would also say "Fuckingly."

~~~
sah
Yeah, mine too. I guess we're on the cutting edge of swearing.

------
tc
I realized after reading this (and 'Lies We Tell Kids') that we may not want
children to use profanity for the same reason that we don't want them to use
drugs or have sex: they're more likely to exercise bad judgment in how and
when to use it.

The downside consequences are much more limited, of course, but whereas George
Carlin will make us laugh while dropping 'fuck,' children are more likely to
use the word in ways that make us cringe.

------
noonespecial
_Don't use words too big for the subject. Don't say "infinitely" when you mean
"very"; otherwise you'll have no word left when you want to talk about
something really infinite._

\- C.S. Lewis

We don't want to keep kids from swearing really, we want to keep them from
swearing _at the wrong moment_ and making themselves (and us) look foolish.
Since this is impossible, we'd really just prefer if they didn't even know
those words until they've developed the judgment required to use them
correctly.

------
kajecounterhack
First of all, I hope we all understand that "free speech" in its purest sense
doesn't really exist. The proof is in "Falsely shouting fire in a theatre."
([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_thea...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater))

Point being: Some people do believe that there is a minimum amount of decency
required on the nation's airwaves to preserve ethical standards particularly
of children whose values are highly malleable. It is justified as not being a
violation of free speech with the same idea as that of the schenck ruling,
that there indeed are limits to what a person can say without punishment.

Personally I feel people have a right to their belief in something like this,
while others feel it infringes on our rights. But again, no matter what
society we live in our rights are always limited by boundaries anyway...and
boundaries serve a good purpose in shaping the morality of a nation.
Morality...is often useful. I'll leave it at that?

~~~
tc
Shouting fire in a crowded theater is wrong because you don't own the theater,
so you are violating the property rights of the theater owner. If you did own
the theater and shouted fire anyway, you'd be defrauding your patrons out of a
show they paid to see, and you'd be liable if anyone got trampled.

Nowhere is 'free speech' involved here. Free speech is the idea that the
government will not use force to prevent or punish you for speaking on your
own property or on the property of someone who is willing to have you.

If you break into an auditorium and give a speech with a stolen microphone,
your ultimate arrest has nothing to do with the 'limits of free speech.'
Likewise, if you use a pen or your mouth in the commission of a legitimate
crime (such as fraud, assault, or murder), then free speech is not the issue.

~~~
kajecounterhack
Heres a question for you then: Who owns the airwaves?

~~~
tc
That's a fascinating question, actually. There are a couple of well-regarded
approaches to including radio spectrum in a principled political framework.

The most historically congruent approach is to apply the principles of
homesteading and private property rights, and allow courts to develop a common
law framework for resolving disputes. Courts were beginning to do this
successfully in the 1920s until the FCC was foisted upon us, with the effect
of nationalizing the radio spectrum.

In practice today, this approach would mean privatizing the entire spectrum
and allowing market forces to work, just as they do with all other forms of
private property.

You can read Declan McCullagh's informed analysis of the modern harms the FCC
causes and his detailed rationale for a property-based market approach here:

<http://www.news.com/2010-1028-5226979.html> ('Why the FCC should die')

To better understand the importance of homesteading and property rights from a
'first-principles' analysis, I would recommend Murray Rothbard's _The Ethics
of Liberty_, which you can freely read or download here:

<http://mises.org/rothbard/Ethics/Ethics.asp>

In Rothbard's _For a New Liberty_, he addresses specifically the origins of
the FCC and how the market approach was thwarted and replaced with
bureaucracy:

<http://blog.mises.org/archives/002532.asp>

<http://www.mises.org/rothbard/newliberty.asp>

<http://mises.org/rothbard/foranewlb.pdf>

An alternative approach is to treat the radio spectrum as a non-scarce good
(like air), which perhaps is not that far from the truth in light of modern
radio technology. Under this view, radio spectrum need not and should not
receive recognition as property, nor should it be 'managed', regulated, or
conserved by government.

------
dkasper
If I could get one cent for every time I heard that....

oooo, sounds like a startup idea!

