What’s missing here? How about “Free Speech”?

The New York City Council may be on the verge of banning* the slur “bitch.” Councilwoman Darlene Mealy of Brooklyn, who introduced the measure, claims the word creates “a paradigm of shame and indignity” for all women.

The measure, which 19 of the 51 council members have signed onto, was prompted in part by the frequent use of the word in hip-hop music. Ten rappers were cited in the legislation, along with an excerpt from an 1811 dictionary that defined the word as “A she dog, or doggess; the most offensive appellation that can be given to an English woman.”

While the bill also bans the slang word “ho,” the b-word appears to have acquired more shades of meaning among various groups, ranging from a term of camaraderie to, in a gerund form, an expression of emphatic approval. Ms. Mealy acknowledged that the measure was unenforceable, but she argued that it would carry symbolic power against the pejorative uses of the word. Even so, a number of New Yorkers said they were taken aback by the idea of prohibiting a term that they not only use, but do so with relish and affection.

There’s plenty of discussion about whether such a ban would work (of course not), but there is virtually no conversation on whether such a ban is a restriction of free speech (yes) — or does that matter not deserve any attention? What possible justification could a city council have to ban a word, even symbolically? Surely someone would challenge such a law. The ACLU? Right? Right?

The Times reporter seems surprised that “bitch” has so many defenders in NYC. My favorite justification was forwarded by Darris James, an architect from Brooklyn, who claimed, “Hell, if I can’t say bitch, I wouldn’t be able to call half my friends.” Hell, you may not be able to say “hell” soon either.

(On a personal note, I don’t like the idea of being hampered by laws at home. As someone who has called his wife the B-Word, I would only support such a ban if her usage of, say the word ”prick,” a paradigm of shame and indignity for all men, were also banned to balance the “discussion.”)

You would expect, perhaps, that those who use “bitch” properly would be the word’s staunchest defenders. Not so. As far as shedogs are concerned, the host the Westminster Kennel Club dog show in New York believes that the show would be “grandfathered in”  though, the “reality is it’s in the realm of responsible conduct to not use that word anymore.”

Actually, the responsible conduct would be to use bitch. It’s the correct word.

(Cross-posted at Huffington Post.)

*UPDATE: Eugene Volokh has a post up about what he sees as overreaction to this story. Though I won’t, or rather can’t, argue the legal aspects of the case, I will post something later on about the corrosive effects of these kinds of “bans” — and the New York Times story did use the word “ban.”

Truly iNuts…

…and I mean nuts on many levels. In my column today, I speak with a seemingly normal guy named Sean Johnson. His wife proposes a trade: A vasectomy for an iPhone. Would he go for it? Of course he would.

“No. I’ll get it done. I keep joking that I sacrificed my future offspring for this phone but that, you know, it seems fair,” Johnson explains.

Yeah. Fair if you’re iLooney.

The more important question, I guess, would be: Is the phone worth it?

“It’s far from perfect, but it’s by far the most perfect phone I’ve used.”

Nice guy. Pithy quote.

Complete geek.

20-second movie clip = one year in jail

A 19-year-old Arlington Virginia woman is facing up to a year in jail and a fine up to $2,500 when she goes to trial this month on charges of illegally recording part of a motion picture.

Jhannet Sejas readily admits she used her digital camera last month in an Arlington theater to film about 20 seconds of the climax of the hit movie “Transformers.” She said she wanted to show the clip to her little brother and had no intention of selling it.

Arlington County police spokesman John Lisle doesn’t seem excited about the case, but the theatre wanted to prosecute: “They were the victim in this case, and they felt strongly enough about it,” Lisle said.

 I’m not sure I buy Sejas’ story completely, but as Wired News points out:

In other news today, a man who raped a 15-year-old girl got 15 months, a fraudster who bilked someone for $1,800 got 7 months, another child-abuser gets 9 months, and a woman who tried to have sex with a two-year-old boy sentenced to 12 weeks.

A little common sense, please.

On Breastfeeding…

New York City announced recently that its 11 public hospitals will ban free baby formula samples from gift bags to new mothers. It will also ban formula promotion materials from labor and delivery units and will encourage “initiation of breastfeeding” in the baby’s first hour as part of a campaign to increase exclusive breastfeeding and improve infant health.

I have nothing against breastfeeding (ok, that’s untrue. I find public breastfeeding both unnerving and creepy — though it should be legal) but why would a city hospital try to make these decisions for parents? It’s not as if baby formula is particularly hazardous or unhealthy. It’s true, if the bits of information I’ve acquired through the happenstance of parenthood are right, that breast milk is healthier for a baby than the man-made substitute. But really, is the formula issue that pressing? What if the parent has no intention of breastfeeding because of work or physical issues? Isn’t that still a choice?   

The CDC actually has polling data on breastfeeding and “goals” — which have not been met — though I always wonder if these sorts of things can truly be quantified.

In February 2006, then-Governor Mitt Romney directed the Massachusetts Public Health Council to rescind the country’s first state regulation ban on distribution of formula in discharge bags. This was met with the typical howls of baby killer. Sometimes folks can really go overboard on this issue.

MAOITC (Mothers Against Overindulging In Train Cars)

So Amtrak comes up with a brilliant promotional scheme to generate more business by offering $100 in free alcohol to customers on some overnight trains – specifically, the promotion will be offered on a trial basis for certain sleeper car trips.

Mothers Against Drunk Driving has demanded assurances that Amtrak won’t “overserve” (a word, incidentally, which does not exist for a multitude of excellent reasons) passengers. “This sounds like a lot of credit toward possible overindulging,” said MADD spokeswoman Misty Moyse.

Possibly overindulging? To begin with, overindulgence is my God-given right. It makes life worth living.  Moreover, I can’t comprehend why MADD — mothers against drunk driving — would oppose a promotion that entices passengers to pass out in train cars?

Actually, I do know the answer. MADD has transformed itself from an organization that once targeted killers to a neo-prohibitionist pain in the ass.

No movies for you…

Lindsay Beyerstein points out yet another new paternalistic intrusion from Mike Bloomberg, this time banning certain kinds of photography in New York City without a permit and a million bucks in liability insurance.

The new rules, which were proposed by the Mayor’s Office of Film, Theater and Broadcasting, would require any group of two or more people who want to use a camera in a public place for more than 30 minutes to get a city permit and $1 million in liability insurance. The same requirements would apply to any group of five or more people who plan to use a tripod in a public location for more than 10 minutes, including the time it takes to set up the equipment. The permits would be free.

As Beyerstein states, photography is an established form of free speech. Asking the city  for permission — not to mention the prohibitive fee — for small-scale filming will surely be challenged in court. There was an interesting battle over the ban on NYC subway photography a couple of years ago. But in this instance, from what I can tell, neither public safety nor concerns over criminal or terrorist activity are behind the infringement, which would make it nearly impossible for amateurs to make films.

Anyway, it would take up half my day linking to the other Nanny State initiatives Bloomberg has foisted on my beloved hometown — most of which are laid out in my book.

Bloomberg’s Proletarian Commute

Today’s New York Times details Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s commute to work — which is not exactly your average working-class double transfer-to-the-E-line journey. 

On mornings that he takes the subway from home, Mr. Bloomberg is picked up at his Upper East Side town house by a pair of king-size Chevrolet Suburbans. The mayor is driven 22 blocks to the subway station at 59th Street and Lexington Avenue, where he can board an express train to City Hall. His drivers zip past his neighborhood station, a local subway stop a five-minute walk away.

That means Mr. Bloomberg — whose much-discussed subway rides have become an indelible component of his public image — spends a quarter of his ostensibly subterranean commute in an S.U.V.

Geez. Has he ever heard of global warming? Wasn’t this the guy who wanted to charge New Yorkers a “congestion” fee?  Wasn’t this the guy who launched a $700,000 ad campaign to promote tap water.

Bloomberg, in almost every public policy decision he’s made, seems to believe that the state (preferably run by billionaire health activists) are here to nurture the citizen like a child — drive them to work, provide them with self-defense and keep them healthy.