Texas Mayor Singles Out N-Word for Ban

[ParanoiA]

I think it may just be time to move. My countrymen have lost their ****ing minds. Can America get any more stupid? Don't answer that...I already know it can...

 

 

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,246279,00.html

 

Texas Mayor Singles Out N-Word for Ban

 

It's one of the most reviled words in the English language, but if one Texas mayor gets his way, getting caught uttering the "N-word" will hit offenders where it hurts.

 

Mayor Ken Corley of Brazoria, Texas, has proposed a city ordinance that would make using the word in an offensive fashion a crime equal to disturbing the peace and punishable by a fine of up to $500.

 

"I would like to, if possible, ban all racial slurs," Corley told FOXNews.com. "We chose this word because it's the most controversial issue throughout the United States today."

 

Corley said the city would like to go after the use of other racial slurs, "but we want to take this one step at a time, depending on public opinion."

 

Speakout! What do you think of the N-word ordinance?

 

The 62-year-old mayor, who is a self-described "middle-class white boy," got the idea for the ordinance after watching Rev. Jesse Jackson and Rev. Al Sharpton discuss banning the N-word on TV after "Seinfeld" comedian Michael Richards used it in an act last November.

 

"The word is not used or abused in the streets of our town; it's more, amongst the black community, as a term of endearment, OK?" Corley said. "But it is a national issue, and I would like the city of Brazoria to take a leadership role throughout the nation in banning the use of this word."

 

Corley polled his constituents and found "overwhelming support" for the ordinance. Brazoria, with a population of around 2,800, is an industrial city nestled about 50 miles south of Houston near the Gulf of Mexico coast. About 10 percent of the population is black.

 

Under the proposed Brazoria ordinance, users of the N-word would be fined only if a complaint were filed against them, thus protecting those who think they are using the word as a term of endearment.

 

Bishop Ricky Jones, a black minister and the head of the Living Word Fellowship Christian Center in Brazoria, "wholeheartedly" supports the ordinance and the mayor, though he doesn't agree with the "term of endearment" loophole.

 

"It's trying to be made a term of endearment in the black community, the way it has been used so loosely, but I for one, when I look at that word and look at the history of it, it has been used to demonize, demoralize and degrade black people as a whole."

 

Jabari Asim, a deputy editor at the Washington Post and author of the forthcoming book "The N Word: Who Can Say It, Who Shouldn't and Why," has traced the American arrival of the word to 1619 when a Jamestown, Va., diarist, John Rolfe, noted: "We got 20 niggers today on a Dutch man-of-war."

 

"That's the first recorded instance of African captives arriving to British North America and that was the word used to describe them," Asim said.

 

Over the last 25 years, the hip-hop community has sprinkled the word throughout its anthems.

 

"It's really important for people to realize that the history of the word goes so far back that recent developments in the past 20 years [of] casual use," Asim said. "There is no god higher than history and I don't think recent developments are strong enough to overcome the centuries of hatred that are attached to the word."

 

Brazoria's proposed ordinance is the first time an American city has tried to ban the word, though groups such as Abolish the "N" Word have lobbied for its permanent retirement, Asim said.

 

"Calling for societal change is one thing, but calling for legislation against speech is quite another," he said. "That's practically anti-American to say that we're going to allow the government and Uncle Sam determine how we speak to one another. It's counterintuitive to me. It's best to lead by example than by legislation."

 

Judge Andrew Napolitano, a senior legal analyst for FOX News, agrees.

 

"This is government trying to take the easy way out," he said. "When people use words that are harmful, they lack civility and they lack education, but they don't lack the right to say it."

 

Napolitano doubts the ordinance will stand up in a court of law.

 

"You can't just pick a word because then you're granting more protection to the victims of that word than you are to victims of other words, so you really open up a Pandora's box," Napolitano said.

 

The ordinance is on shaky ground legally because of a 1992 U.S. Supreme Court decision, R.A.V. vs. the City of St. Paul, said David Hudson, a First Amendment scholar at the First Amendment Center in Nashville, Tenn.

 

"Fighting words are not protected by the First Amendment, and a lot of fighting words are face to face personal insults," Hudson said. "But in 1992, in this case, the court held that selective banning of fighting words, in other words, singly out, for instance, fighting words based on race and sex, that that constituted viewpoint discrimination and violated the First Amendment.

 

"It's a well-intentioned effort, but it's a well-intentioned unconstitutional effort," Hudson said.

 

Corley said that while he has "some concerns" about the law's legal standing, the city attorney is confident it will pass muster.

 

A public hearing will be held Thursday, before the five-member city council decides on whether to pursue the measure. Last year, it was the first city in Texas to pass a sex-offender ordinance.

[Sisyphus]

Surely they couldn't actually get away with actually outlawing a word? Isn't that a pretty straightforward first amendment issue? And how the hell would you enforce something like that, anyway?

[AL]

Surely they couldn't actually get away with actually outlawing a word? Isn't that a pretty straightforward first amendment issue? And how the hell would you enforce something like that, anyway?

They could get it past the first amendment through an obscenity or hate crime loophole.

[Pangloss]

That's interesting about the history going back to 1619. Didn't know that.

[Sisyphus]

They could get it past the first amendment through an obscenity or hate crime loophole.

 

But don't those things obviously depend on context? Screaming "nigger" at somebody on the street would already count as harrassment, and disturbing the peace, and fighting words. That being the case, this ordinance obviously goes beyond those things, and therefore beyond those loopholes into the realm of clear unconstitutionality.

[Phi for All]

Under the proposed Brazoria ordinance, users of the N-word would be fined only if a complaint were filed against them, thus protecting those who think they are using the word as a term of endearment.

And what happens when someone files a complaint because they overheard someone using it as a term of endearment? Not everyone who hears a conversation feels the same way about the words used.

[ParanoiA]

All of you make great points, but then aren't they rather easy to deduce?. So, how come this Texas town enjoys "overwhelming support" for this ordinance?

 

I don't even agree with the "fighting" words thing either. I agree, that screaming obscenities at someone on the street would constitute harrasment (even without the obscenities), so I see no need for a law here.

 

It just smells like white people overcompensating again trying to be liked or admired for being soooooooo not prejudice.

[Amos Schuman]

And what happens when someone files a complaint because they overheard someone using it as a term of endearment? Not everyone who hears a conversation feels the same way about the words used.

 

I'd just point out that there's no text of proposed ordinance available for anyone to look at. We can conceive an ordinance constructed in a way that the Fifth Circuit would find as tolerable as the Sixth Circuit did when it upheld the removal of an elected district attorney in North Carolina, Jerry L. Spivey, back in 1995. On the other hand, findings that the use of the word nigger amounts to fighting words simply on the basis that it leads to subsequent litigation is uneven. If it isn't sufficient in civil litigation to simply show offense (as simply filing suit indicates) then it's probably not sufficient evidence of risk of injury in a criminal setting.

[Amos Schuman]

All of you make great points, but then aren't they rather easy to deduce?. So, how come this Texas town enjoys "overwhelming support" for this ordinance?

 

Good question. Brazoria went heavily Republican in 2004. On the other hand, the ordinance isn't all that offensive and why would people feel compelled to stand up for the rights of dicks?

 

I don't even agree with the "fighting" words thing either.

 

Neither do I, but it is arguable and the case law is mixed. We'll see how the current judicial climate treats it.

[ParanoiA]

On the other hand, the ordinance isn't all that offensive and why would people feel compelled to stand up for the rights of dicks?

 

Well, hopefully they'll feel compelled to stand up for the rights of dicks because they fully appreciate the constitution and its timeless reverence. But I doubt it too....

[Amos Schuman]

Well, hopefully they'll feel compelled to stand up for the rights of dicks because they fully appreciate the constitution and its timeless reverence. But I doubt it too....

 

I'm sure the Constitution will survive this.

[bascule]

Well, hopefully they'll feel compelled to stand up for the rights of dicks because they fully appreciate the constitution and its timeless reverence. But I doubt it too....

 

Yes this is quite clearly a free speech issue and one of the areas where the PC crowd wants to whittle away our free speech rights

[Mokele]

To be brutally honest, this reeks of "publicity stunt". $5 says the bill is never introduced, or if it is and passes, is never used. Another $5 says this guy is running for a higher office next election cycle in a district that this would play well in.

 

Mokele

[ecoli]

I don't think I could go through life without saying the word "ninja."

 

 

Seriously though, we can't ban the "nigger" or we risk the slippery slope.

[Sisyphus]

You know, it occurs to me that this is being blown wildly out of proportion, and intentionally so. Yes, it would be a very stupid law. And it could be a dangerous precedent, if it actually survived the courts. But, as was pointed out, it's probably nothing more than a stunt, that nobody expects to stick. And it won't stick. And it's just one town in Texas. It just seems like Fox News' usual practice of finding small stories to blow way out of proportion so the viewers have something to feel outraged and superior about. The overall effect of lots of these stories is that we get the impression that there's some kind of big trend, when, in fact, it's just a few stupid things in isolated places, which in a big country are going to happen every day, no matter what.

[ParanoiA]

True, but it's still interesting. It's not like Fox tried to represent it as such. I believe it was buried amongst a bunch of other equally irrelevant stories. I have a tendency to dig up stuff like this because I like controversial subjects and race, sex, drugs - all good subject matter for that.