In the years since, Lofton (no longer with the Times) has been relegated to the fringe position where he hates both the neo-conservatives and the liberals. His viewpoints include the notion that women and non-christians should not hold public office. He is, for all intents, irrelevant.

And of course, Frank Zappa (whose views sounded very libertarian to me…which is pretty much where I fall in all this and that makes me happy) will always be known for his groundbreaking music and his extraordinary mind–so I’d say all is well.

Each position more stupid and indefendable than the other. The only point I give Zappa is for foretelling the future of the US.

And Novak and the other guy playing both Zappa & the glass-eyed man like bulldogs in an arena. And succeeding at it.

You can see Zappa’s distress/frustration at the whole conversation just as much or even more than the other guest’s.

RBG

To quote another American:
@#%*%, you %$#@*!!!! – 7 year old Timmy

Well said. In fact, I’m quite sure I know that kid. Not quite in the same league as Voltaire or Franklin, but damn, some of the stuff that comes out of his mouth.

59–Thats not speech, or “words” the theme of this thread.

56. I wonder if ordinary people from the ’40s, ’50′s & ’60′s knew they were neocons for disagreeing with Zappa’s premise?

58. Take away the right to say “fuck” and you take away the right to say “fuck the government.” ~ Lenny Bruce

No, it just means instead you have to back up your talk with reason instead of just intimidation.

To quote another American:
@#%*%, you %$#@*!!!! – 7 year old Timmy

RBG

The trouble with that is that coprophelia (like any other offensive thing) doesn’t cease to exist just because you censor it.

I’m with Frank Zappa (and George Carlin, et al) on this. Words (and ideas, or paintings) are just means of communication, but I guess we as a society prefer to communicate with missiles, bullets and bombs. It’s a little depressing. Our nation was built on the principles of freedom, including freedom of speech.

A few relevant quotes:

“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” ~ Voltaire

“None are so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free.” ~ Goethe

“So long as the people do not care to exercise their freedom, those who wish to tyrannize will do so; for tyrants are active and ardent, and will devote themselves in the name of any number of gods, religious and otherwise, to put shackles upon sleeping men.” ~ Voltaire

“Restriction of free thought and free speech is the most dangerous of all subversions. It is the one un-American act that could most easily defeat us.” ~ William O. Douglas

Take away the right to say “fuck” and you take away the right to say “fuck the government.” ~ Lenny Bruce

On the other hand, to say that neocons don’t believe in censorship and to say that they are liberals is both ridiculous and a lie. It also either displays one of the chief techniques neocons use – saying the opposite of what is true boldly and assertively, just like Machiavelli advocated – or is woefully ignorant of reality. So, either you are and simpleton who is in need of education or you are a neocon continuing the neocon lies.

Zappa identified one of the chief concerns we should all have paid attention to back then with his fascist theocracy line. Where he failed was that religion is just a tool and not really followed by the chief fascists in our government. But that is a small failure. If you look at Pinochet, Stalin, Hitler and many others, they all use some type of religion in a similar manner. With Stalin it was veneration of himself, as in a cult of personality, that worked very handily as a substitute for radical christianity. And he extended this in many ways. But it’s all really the same thing.

I never said that I desire the censorship of ideas. Let me try to rephrase what seems to have come across wrong:

I said that if there would have to be any censorship — if I had to choose something — then I’d prefer the censoring of [negative or damaging messages] rather than the [futile] attempt to ban [an arbitrary and variable list of "wordy dirties"].

I also said that the idea of censoring those negative or damaging messages is then an entirely separate discussion from whether to ban a list of words. Yesterday, and still today, I would refrain from having that discussion in this environment. I don’t think that either side can express a decent shot at their argument without starting a flame war, nor could either side likely do a good job explaining their view succinctly enough for blog comment standards (even this is getting lengthy). It simply would not go anywhere.

Having clarified that, I will answer your question anyway. If it were to come about that something had to be censored, there are certain messages that I would hope everyone could agree on. For example, the unprovoked killing of random strangers. However, just because that’s on my list and I hope everyone would agree, who is to say? This would bring about yet a third discussion in regard to who could be appointed to construct the list and be trusted not to let personal opinion, culture, and religion have influence? Also, would it mean that fiction writers would have to stop writing dark stories where the villains do or advocate the banned messages?

It’s important to treat separate discussion separately, even when there is a relation. You can’t say that the answer to one discussion being difficult or even impossible counts for or against another. It’s perfectly valid to come to a conclusion that something would be beneficial, even if another line of reason shows that it is impossible. It’s also valid to conclude that something would be detrimental or neutral in effect even if someone could do it.

So let me just rephrase my previous comment, in regard to the primary discussion (ban a list of words?), without the confusion of secondary or tertiary arguments sprouting out of it:
The big F word that everyone gets so crazy about can be used to provide encouragement, express awe, enhance sexual experience (come on, you know that some of you like that kind of talk), and a variety of other positive uses despite its social stigma.
The word “chair” can be used to express violence, and the word “hump” can be used to describe a variety of practices that most would find offensive regardless of their culture or religion.
The banning of a certain list of words would be futile, since the same harm can be done with any variety of “good words”, and now that I think about it, even with a carefully crafted dirty look.
Therefore, maybe the key is for each person to take a personal interest to watch what they say, not necessarily which words they use.

As an aside, my personal experience has shown that the concept of “bad words” seems to do little more than (1) vilify those who choose to use them (or even let them “slip out”) and (2) give people the impression that it’s OK to belittle someone or spread hate, just so long as they use the right vocabulary. (1) is not so bad but (2), I think (personally and without trying to insert it into mass adoption or advocating that it influence government or cultural guidelines) that it is a dangerous notion.

“Sticks and stones can break your bones, but only words can break your heart.” Say this in front of a mirror until you don’t laugh or smirk, and it will work with 90% of any divorcee you meet.