Prudery and the FCC

I had written a few weeks back on the FCC decision not to censor a remark at the Golden Globe Awards and noted that the reasoning the FCC used was nonsensical because they insisted that the usage of an obscene word depict a "sexual or excretory activity or organs" rather than an insult.

During the Christmas break I had a chance to read a wonderful collection of articles written by C.S. Lewis collected in 1986 under the title Present Concerns. In an article titled "Prudery and Philology" first printed in The Spectator in January 1955 Lewis discusses the issue of obscenity in literature. He notes how the limitations of language force upon the writer or speaker an implicit comment on the thing being described in a way that a picture or a piece of art does not necessarily do. This is because a speaker or writer must choose descriptive words from a set of alternatives, each loaded with meaning.

"One of these limitations is that the common names (as distinct from the childish, archaic, or scientific names) for certain things are 'obscene' words. It is the words, not the things, that are obscene. That is, they are words long consecrated (or desecrated) to insult, derision, and buffoonery. You cannot use them without bringing in the whole atmosphere of the slum, barrack-room, and the public school."

In other words, the word chosen by the speaker (Bono) at the Golden Globes was obscene by definition since the word is so defined in the public mind. No other justification is required and certainly not one which says that words are only obscene when spoken in the context of bodily functions or organs. I still defend my previous point that their "guidelines" are hopelessly flawed. This simply points out another reason why.