A Further Inquiry and into the History and Usage of the F-Word

http://www.co-freedom.com/2003/08/fword.html

A Further Inquiry into the History and Usage of the F-Word
by Ari Armstrong, August 7, 2003

A few scattered points didn't make my August 1 opinion piece in the Rocky Mountain News (reproduced below). To read Eric Vanatta's excellent legal document about the "f-word," see www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/fword1.html.

* Even though some reports claimed the student in question reach a plea agreement, actually it was a "deferred prosecution," according to Vanatta, which means the matter will not be prosecuted if the student completes 16 hours of community service and stays out of trouble.

* Could it be that the student who smoked in the bathroom and called his vice principal names would have a better time doing something other than sitting in boring classes all day? Children do not always wish to be confined to the activities we assign them.

* Most schools in the U.S. are run by the government. It seems that some people are losing the ability to distinguish between civil society and the government. For some, the solution to every problem is a political one, and the response to any conflict is to bring in the armed police of the state.

* I think we're witnessing the tragedy of false rebellion. That is, some students rebel against the sometimes stifling, mind-numbing routine of the government-run schools, but their rebellion is just another form of silliness. Instead of taking charge of their education, they resort to smoking, calling their principals names, wearing goofy clothes, etc., and they imagine their rebellion elevates them from the pettiness around them. That it doesn't leads to feelings of alienation.

* On August 1, Paul Ouranda sent in the following letter:

Hi Ari -

Just wanted to say that I really enjoyed your article in the Rocky Mountain News. I had one dissenting thought about it.

Wouldn't the fellow who stood up in a theater and shouted, "FUCK!!!" be escorted out because he was interfering with the enjoyment of services paid for by the other customers? I'm no lawyer, but that would seem to me to be the legally justifiable reason for taking that action.
I think Ouranda's comments are compatible with what I previously wrote. The theater owner wants to provide an environment suitable for watching films or plays, which precludes obnoxious, loud behavior. Paying customers have an expectation that the theater owner will maintain order, and so, yes, yelling in a theater interferes with the property rights of both the theater owner and the patrons.

People need to grow the fuck up. It's just a word. It has no power to hurt.