Banning the R-word In analyzing two essay’s about banning the word retarded, “A Movie, a Word, and My Family’s Battle” by Patricia E. Bauer and “The Case against Banning the Word Retarded” by Christopher M. Fairman. While Bauer supports the banning of the R-word, Fairman states his case about not banning words. If you call people names that would dehumanize another community of individuals, you need to keep it to yourself, because ‘if you don’t have anything nice to say, don’t say anything.’ The word retarded is considered a derogatory word toward individuals with intellectual and physical disabilities. Bauer is a mother of a daughter that has Down Syndrome, who is wanting to ban the R-word. She is able to see how hurtful the R-word can be toward someone with a disability. In one instance, some kids point to her daughter, Margaret, and call her ‘retarded’, “Margaret wilted. Her chin trembled” (Bauer 443). This is one instance that will happen to her for the rest of her life. Individuals with disabilities are victims of bullying and abuse. Bauer uses the statistic from University of Massachusetts, which found that “Almost half of the young people surveyed wouldn’t want to sit next to a student like Margaret on a school bus” (Bauer 445). That statistic is appalling. Students wouldn’t even want to sit next to their classmate who has Down Syndrome or a different intellectual disability. Another shocking fact that Bauer uses is, “More than half of parent’s didn’t want such …show more content…
R-word.org: ‘I pledge and support the elimination of the derogatory use of the R-word’” (Fairman 446). He shows how many people are for banning the word, but then states how he is against banning the word. Fairman goes on to stating how the R-word is similar to other hurtful words that were once the ‘normal’ way to address
Summary of “The Case against Banning the Word ‘Retard’” In “The Case against Banning the Word ‘Retard’”, Christopher Fairman says that he believes that banning derogatory words is not a great decision. He says that banning the word is against the first amendments right of speech. He says that if we let the government start banning words that we are giving government control of our speech which he believes is taboo. We shouldn’t be overthrowing our freedom of speech just so we can all get along.
However, Jeshion maintains that “Upon learning why the speakers made the utterance (of a slur), a hearer may well, and indeed perhaps ought to have a less intense response than if the utterance was made by a bigot whose aim it was to express his bigoted attitudes.” While his example of a child not understanding the offensiveness of a term is understandable in this context, I am wary of the example of “a user (who) may entirely lack contempt for the group and understand that the word is conventionally used to convey attempt but use it nevertheless” (Jeshion 249). While this may be acceptable in the case of authors writing on the subject of slurs, I am not sure that it is acceptable generally speaking. I have to wonder if using the slurring term, even without contempt, is still perpetuating the usage of the word. It is here that camp’s explanation of slurs containing derogatory perspectives is relevant: if a slurring term contains a derogatory perspective, that perspective is there and expressed regardless of the speaker’s intent.
As Holmes had stated there are other forms that are not protected which are known as lewd, obscene, profane, libelous, and insulting words. The case Chaplinsky v New Hampshire in 1942 determined that fighting words and other forms of speech are not protected by the First Amendment. Chaplinsky had argued that the New Hampshire law violated his Fourteenth Amendment which prohibits states from infringing on citizens’ fundamental freedoms and as a result, kept him from exercising his First Amendment rights of free speech. While states are not allowed to inhibit expression of ideas, the Court did not convict him for the expression of his ideas but because his words (calling religion a ‘racket’ and a city marshal ‘damned racketeer’ and ‘damned fascist’)
In his open letter to Ann Coulter, John Franklin Stephens not only redefines the “R” word, and demonstrates the ways he has witnessed its usage, but while doing this Stephans also eliminates the excuses that Coulter could make about why she used the word. By defining the different ways that the “R” word could be used, Stephans is forcing Coulter, and other readers to reckon with their understanding of the “R” word. In doing this, Stephans is hoping that people won’t continue using the “R” word improperly. Before Stephens redefines the “R” word, he sets up the letter, and made some decisions that were crucial to making the letter as effective as it was.
Leaving people who have a disability out of things and forgetting about them hurts their feelings. For instance, in Mairs’ essay she says “…you might feel as though you don’t exist, in any meaningful social sense, at all” (14). No one wants to feel that way, but people who have a disability go through it all the time. The media’s influence may convince people who have a disability to feel as if they’re an outsider since they have a “shameful” part of
In Jonathan Rauch’s article In Defense of Prejudice, Rauch gives a compelling argument as to why people prejudicial talk should not be diminished. In agreement with Salman Rushdie: "without the freedom to offend, it ceases to exist,” Rauch believes society should not be seeking ways to end this type of speech. This is because taking it away would cause a regression in society’s development. Instead, all should come to terms with the idea that with freedom of speech; comes unwanted opinions. I strongly agree with the viewpoint Jonathan Rauch presented in his article; it is upon all of us to stop pointing fingers and calling each other bigots because they do not fit into our molds of right and wrong.
The “R” word was used to describe a medical condition like “asthma or pneumonia.” That’s a far cry from what we use the word for in present day, the word has morphed into something negative and offensive. It’s used to insult someone or something considered to be lesser in some
Other words are offensive to other races, sexualities, and even genders. Compared to the n-word other offensive meanings seem to not be a big deal. This shows how unfair it would be to others who are offended by other words to have only this one word banned that does not even apply to them. Words such as faggot, queer, bitch, slut, etc. are used everyday, however they have no recognition to be seen as offensive compared to the n-word. The use of the word “gay” is often used in a cruelly, such as using it to mean stupid or lame.
There’s an old saying that “sticks and stones may break your bones, but words will never hurt you.” In reality, that saying is wrong. Words hurt a person as much as punch or a kick can. It may not hurt someone physically, but it can scar someone mentally and emotionally. Due to the topics they are associated with, certain words or phrases can elicit strong reactions; some are positive, while others are negative but nonetheless, they all leave an impact on people.
It is important to maintain an environment for victims to feel safe in but I don’t think it’s right to be silenced to the point where even talking about it for educating and information purposes is looked down upon. Morally, it’s always important to not have your speech make anyone feel uncomfortable or unsafe but especially for educational purposes it’s important to not feel like you must walk on eggshells because someone might find it offensive. Kaminer uses another example in her essay where she was “quickly branded a racist” because she used “the n-word” while teaching Huckleberry
Using the N word is offensive and it racist for Africans and Americans and others, people can take stuff in a different way some might not get offended at the word but others might for example Bradley thinks that using the N word is racist and offensive and that is teaching students bad things “But ‘Nigger’ has to do with same. Nigger has to do with calling somebody something. ‘Nigger’ was what made slavery possible ” evidence. Bradley thinks that using the word nigger is wrong and it also teaches something bad future generations.
These “fighting words” are not protected under the first Amendment. Fighting words shouldn’t be a constitutional issue because people are allowed to speak, even is it will cause a flare in tempers. There is no society in which freedom of expression is absolute (Bangstad). In America, there are six different types of limitations on speech, and fighting words is one of them. The most confusing aspect of the Fighting Words Doctrine is that there is not a strict definition on what
Something the human species knows well. A person may seem like one thing but be completely different in reality, in fact based on a study done by Walden University pundit’s in varying social psychology fields; “When we’re in a group, we have a strong tendency to conform to the norms of that group…. By conforming, we demonstrate our willingness to be a part of the group,” (walden). There are three types of deception; instrumental, relational, and identity; and they are all active in the negative impact on people's mental health, especially people who are bullied and/or discriminated against because of disabilities. The way people with disabilities are treated is gut wrenching.
Things like queen, queer, fag, faggot, fairy, and dyke are all far too commonly used to insult and talk down to homosexuals. These words are very dehumanizing and has negative effects on people. I can relate to this as I spent a majority of my teen years hating myself for something that I can not even control. For growing up around so much negativity towards homosexuals and being told it is wrong and deviant. I began resenting myself at the age of 12 and still to this day I struggle sometimes with who I am.
The ability to speak freely is written in the bill of rights and has been preserved for decades, but when free speech turns into hate speech it brings up the widely deliberated issue about banning hate speech. There are many different perspectives on the issue of hate speech. Author of Hate Speech is Free Speech, Gov. Dean and Law professor, Glenn Harlan Reynolds, applies a strong historical perspective on the situation arguing that people are “constitutionally illiter[ate]” when they make the claim that hate speech is not part of the First Amendment. Believing that it is impossible to ban hate speech because everyone will always disagree with any idea, Reynolds focuses on the problems with banning hate speech and what might happen if hate