There will be a next time

Generally speaking, I'm not a fan of censorship in any form. There are a number of reasons for this, one of which is that it's generally not handled all that intelligently.

As I was driving around today, I noticed a fundamental flaw (something I've been doing a lot of lately) in the way that censorship is handled by the censors.

I was listening to that "Love the Way You Lie" song by Eminem with Rihanna, whom I just realized misspelled her own name, on Foxy 99 (the Big Stick).

In his last verse, Eminem raps, "Next time I'm pissed, I'll aim my fist at the drywall." The radio station, or perhaps it was the record company, censored the word "pissed" because that's one of those words you can't say over broadcast airwaves.

But then, like four lines later, Em raps "If she ever tries to fucking leave again, I'mma tie her to the bed and set this house on fire." Of course, "fucking" is censored, but the part about lighting a person on fire is evidently fine.

I've listened to this song a lot, though usually not on the radio, and I'll admit: that's the part that makes me squirm a little (possibly because I know he might actually do it). But the censors don't seem to mind because the words used aren't problematic.

The go-to argument for censorship enthusiasts is that the government (FCC) has a responsibility to protect children from material that is obscene, indecent, or profane. The logic, which does make some sense, is that children are impressionable, like Play-Doh or pennies that you flatten to put images on them at theme parks.

But if children are impressionable and will mimic the media, shouldn't the government protect them from bad ideas as much or even more than from bad language? Is foul language, as this censorship case seems to argue, more dangerous than terrible, terrible ideas?

As much I love language and respect the power it holds, I have to say no.

If a 12-year-old repeats some dirty language he hears on the radio, that might be a bit of a problem. But if a 12-year-old lights his sister on fire, that's definitely a bad thing.

Again, let me reiterate, I'm not a fan of censorship, but if it must exist, let's at least get it right.

Question of the Week:

Considering my schedule for this semester, I have a hunch that I'll be more likely to blog on Tuesdays and Thursdays than on Monday/Wednesday/Fridays. Besides, I rarely blog more than twice a week anyway.

But, I currently have three – count 'em, three – "of the Week" features: Event, Quote, Question. Assuming I drop down to two designated blogs per week (and maintain my own arbitrary rules about "of the Week" features), then I'll need to drop one of those features.

So here's the QotW: which feature should I drop?

1. Event of the Week
   
2. Quote of the Week
   
3. Question of the Week
   

My take: Event of the Week