Thread by @page88

My piece on the great Lawrence Ferlinghetti and the dread...cancel culture.

latimes.com/opinion/story/…

I promise you the 1957 "Howl" obscenity case has lessons for how to adjudicate 2021 cancelations.

1. Words have no fixed meaning. California v. Ferlinghetti contains this fr/Oliver W Holmes:

"A word is not a crystal, transparent & unchanged, it is the skin of a living thought & may vary greatly in color & content acc. to the circumstances & the time in which it is used."

2. Who decides a word's meaning?

Neither “the young, the immature or the highly prudish” (today: the young "wokes") nor “the scientific or highly educated or the so-called worldly-wise & sophisticated” (the old "liberals").

2a. The more dangerous way to just meaning is the one where the "worldly-wise" decide the youngs are simply too easily offended or antagonized by language that rolls off sophisicates (they're easily "aroused," in 1957 language).

Too sensitive, snowflakes, etc.

3. Because it's the community — everyone in reach of a word or work who decides.

In other words, if your workplace or community, in general, believes your words are obscene or antagonistic, they are.

4. It is not *always* unjustified to use obscene language or hate speech, though.

But, in the case of "Howl," Ginsberg had to prove that his mention of child rape had “the slightest redeeming social importance.”

5. In California v Ferlinghetti, Judge Horn (a Sunday school teacher, no fan of beatniks), decided after testimony by poets and critics both for and against the work that "Howl" did have “the slightest redeeming social importance.” I love this:

On language-based "cancelations": If you use a word, neither you nor any one person gets to designate the meaning. The community in reach of the word (or work) decides what it means. If your coworkers believe a racial slur or sexually-violent phrase doesn't fly, it doesn't fly.

If the word is generally seen as obscenity or hate speech, the conversation turns to whether your use of it has any shred of redeeming social importance.

This is a judgment to be made NOT by the community, but by people who understand the state of play in the discourse involving this word. F

For example, journalists writing about "grab 'em by the pussy," might be justified in using a word they'd otherwise avoid.

But IF a relevant group of field experts—say, political journalists and ethicists—don't see redeeming social importance in your use of "p*ssy" or a racist slur, you can be disciplined for it.

Because THEN your use of the word is just antagonism, shock, mischief, spite.

In the words of the Cali v Ferlinghetti decision, it's just "dirt for dirt's sake"!

Shd I discipline someone for language?
1. Does the community think it's hate speech? If no, no discipline.
2. If yes, do area experts believe the use has a shred of redeeming social importance? If yes, no discipline.
3. If no, it's dirt for dirt's sake. Discipline.