The day they start banning words is the day I add them, as much as possible, to my regular vocabulary.

Big Brother, where art thou?

Watching you very closely, Zoo... Oh, damn, did I type that? Erm, nevermind...

The day they start banning words is the day I add them, as much as possible, to my regular vocabulary.

As a form of civil protest?

Sorry for replying so late, work and a sick child called.

What I thought that Jesse Jackson asked for, a voluntary ban on the use of an offensive word, is fine. Later on Jesse Jackson would write that, "The use of the hate word -- n----- -- has become too culturally acceptable. Some of this comes from black culture and the informal use of the word in teasing mode. In fact, this is hate language. It's a punch in the groin disguised as a word.

Our forefathers created the First Amendment to ensure a robust public debate and to prohibit the government from making laws to squelch political speech, even speech critical of our leaders. But obscenity has never enjoyed that protection, nor should it. Yelling ''fire'' in a crowded theater does not have protection. Similarly, hate speech -- like that wielded by Richards -- has and should be illegal."

That goes beyond what I originally thought Jackson asked for and beyond what I would support. But it is a matter of degree, not principle.

We have laws and rules governing obscenity, Jackson wants those rules extended to a particular racial epithet. (As Ted pointed out, Jackson did not mention his own use of a particular term.) These rules have always been extended to the private sector.

Everyone knows that Clearchannel was fined for Howard Stern's obscenities, right? ABC was fined for Janet Jackson's Superbowl "wardrobe malfunction." If it is okay to fine the company that carries a broadcast with the "f-word" why not one that includes the "n-word?"

We have laws and rules governing obscenity, Jackson wants those rules extended to a particular racial epithet. (As Ted pointed out, Jackson did not mention his own use of a particular term.) These rules have always been extended to the private sector.

We legislate the time and place, but not the use of the word. You can still let loose with a string of filth, just not in all places at all times. That is a big difference from banning a word.

I was accused of using this word once. Of course, being the person I am I don't, not ever, I have absolutely no use for it, but someone once thought that instead of me saying "Are you from Milwaukee or one of the bigger cities?" They had thought I replaced "bigger" with the racial slur.

I was just making conversation, trying to be friendly, cashiering pretty much as was my job. This was while I was working at a gas station, the reason I had asked was, I figured she to be from out of the Valley. This girl had come into pre-pay for gas. An accepted norm in the larger cities in Wisconsin and Illinois, but that we do not yet in the Valley do for whatever reason, certainly not because people always pay for their gas.

Anyway, It was a 10-14 year old girl. She didn't say much, never reacted, never said "What did you say?" never even gave me any indication she had been insulted. She just was pretty blank and quiet. I know she must have been shocked maybe didn't know how to react, but I'm pretty sure she was hurt more then anything else, maybe even so hurt she didn't tell her mother or father until later that night or even the next day.

I found out, the next day, that her father had called, and my boss, had the entire conversation on tape audio/video, and in fact the word I had used was specifically "bigger". It hurt me to think that she could just accept that I would say that, as if it were just "friendly conversation" coming from a cashier, talking about people like that. It hurt that either it is often enough or accepted enough, hurt that that behaviour is her world, her reality, it hurt that she kept quiet long enough about it that her father didn't come storming in to find out.

Her father didn't know me from anybody, neither did the girl, I offered to apologize and to make clear, that is was a misunderstanding, not a slip, casual, or certainly not a intentional racial slur delivery, but at my boss' word the man accepted that what had happened actually did.

Suffice it to say, I'm saddened by the world in which we live, and that some really cruel people live in it, but what I have learned is that there are a lot of good people, even those of us who don't consider ourselves "good" have good in us. That man, his daughter they were good people, I'm a good person, my boss is a good person, I am convinced that even if we did not have the audio/video evidence, that if I would have looked that man in the eye and he mine, that he would have believed me.

As to whether or not this world should be "banned" legally, that's probably going to far. There are other guys out there, good guys, and there are good people who get into misunderstandings. My situation could play out very differently in some place where there is no audio or video recording equipment, and it becomes one persons word vs another persons word. Someone could be fined, or arrested, for using words, is that really what we want? A Soviet type state where people are restricted in another way what they can say? If this word were to be illegal then good people could be harmed by that whether they said it or something else similar (I forget the word for that, it's been a long time since grade school lol) as in my case and though I support anything short of a legal ban, shameful as racial slurs are, people should have the option to say and write, express themselves.

People who have no control of themselves, or care for others, lack of empathy, in choosing to use racial slurs, knowing that some are deeply offended by them, make that choice and will continue to make it whether it is legal or not.

What would be more productive I think is taking the emphasis of hate and inferiority off the word and all racial slurs, and stop allowing other people to racially insult you with words. Anyone who would choose to use the words knowing it hurts people ought to be shamed and shunned by the rest of us. As is Richards, but they should also be embraced for apologizing if they make a mistake, because any of us could possibly do the same, they should also be forgiven.

Forgiveness is more valuable, that and releasing hate, to the world then any accumulation of wealth, and it should be more valuable to yourself too.

That's all I have to say, I hope that sharing my experience with this kinda thing lets you guys feel enlightened.

That's all I have to say, I hope that sharing my experience with this kinda thing lets you guys feel enlightened.

Thank you for sharing it. It is sad, but then I think all concerned were very reasonable in their actions, and the fact that the father accepted the truth indicated he was not out for revenge, but wanted to right a perceived wrong. All parties acted in an honorable matter. And that is what gives me hope for this country.

I agree, I still wish I could have had the opportunity to shake that man's hand, make sure there were no hard feeling either way, I don't know why I feel that way but I do. I have hope for our country as well, I wish the world was on board with that too a little more often then they seem to be.

Dr. Guy said "We legislate the time and place, but not the use of the word. You can still let loose with a string of filth, just not in all places at all times. That is a big difference from banning a word."

Agreed. I think that we agree on both points. Moreover, I would say that a night club is one of the places that you can.

"Moreover, I would say that a night club is one of the places that you can... let loose with a string of filth..."

Is this sorta what you mean? Or what exactly do you mean?