The fight against censorship has so many good points. Who gave anyone the right to ban only certain words? Who gave them this right to “protect” children from things we all know they’re going to hear anyway? What makes it so bad in the first place? Would it be so bad if we didn’t give it that label? None of them hits the core of the movement as much as attitude.

When, as a young person, we inappropriately use a “swear” or “curse,” we are promptly taught to stop that behavior. I doubt a majority of us thought to ask why, because we already knew we’d misbehaved. For the sake of logical argument, one that doesn’t involve “because I said so” or “people don’t like that,” the reason we don’t say these words is because it’s mean.

Well, that’s a pretty shit reason. Is that really worse than a bad, horrendous, stupid, illogical, unpatriotic or even crappy reason?

There are plenty of reasons, in a society that frowns upon a select number of specified words, to refrain from saying them. All of them make a whole lot more sense than being mean. None of them are legally enforceable without slaughtering our rights.

Hell, there’s even a reason I can’t say a lot of these words here, and we all know that’s not because it’s mean. I can personally offend a whole group of people by reasoning away religion, bashing a political party, or . well, OK, there are so many ways to do just those two things that it never ends; but I can do it without profanity and people will still read this. It’s only when one brings in some unsophisticated words that we actually hesitate.

Take away the novelty of this column, and there’s an even better reason not to say them: logic and arguments are not proven by passionate words, but by facts. Vulgarity lacks the persuasive talents of a well-aimed and well-thought-out conversation. Trying to make a point by saying “F—k Bush” doesn’t make one look like the brightest crayon in the box. And who’s going to read that?

Maybe it’s because those two concepts sound so good together. Mean = stupid and vice versa.

C’mon, we all know that isn’t true. That nerd in biochemistry can be a real jerk, and the poor students he’s tutoring are the sweetest people you’ve ever met. Yet, we still associate one with the other – and, what’s worse, we believe it so deeply we enforce it as law.

Relatively, at least, in the sense that you can still be punished by people who aren’t law enforcement agents. That disrespect I mentioned? We equate this with stupidity. How dare we speak that way to someone in a position of authority because our ignorance and vulgarity offend their sensibilities. How dare we speak unmentionables in front of children because our stupidity may rub off on them, and, with it, our negativity and mean spirit. Without these words to express such thoughts and feelings, they would never exist.

What we end up with here, in the effort to shield people from being stupid and mean, is a reasoning that is, well . stupid. Not so much mean, though. These measures are taken in good conscience, granted, against something that happens to be human nature. What would we do without mean people?

Better yet, people actually have a right to be mean. Because of the limitation on physical altercations that we have, one of the only outlets we have is speech. Thankfully, that is still (not so dutifully) protected, so it’s only illegal to say some words on media that can be willfully accessed. Oh, also please refrain from saying any of them to a government official, because that is grounds for harassment and probably a number of other charges. Feel free to say them anywhere else, and to anyone else.

Clearly, our free speech has plenty of holes in it, and it all boils down to that one reason we might’ve learned when we were little. But it doesn’t make any sense, as I can still be as mean as I want to as long as I don’t let some choice words slip. That’s like saying I can rape someone as much as I want as long as I don’t get my money shot.

Teach your kids what you want, but the reasoning for public censorship is a joke. Funny how in this case those who want it stopped don’t have to prove why at a fundamental level, but instead, the rest of us have to prove why not.

– Luci Van Scoy is a junior in anthropology from Newton.