Writes Diane Ravich, "In my book 'The Language Police,' I gathered a list of more than 500 words that are routinely deleted from textbooks and tests by 'bias review committees' employed by publishing companies, state education departments and the federal government."

The list of forbidden words includes landlord, cowboy, brotherhood, yacht, cult and primitive.

One publisher's textbooks excise any photographs showing
– women with big hair or sleeveless blouses
– men with dreadlocks or medallions
– soles of shoes; anyone eating with the left hand (offensive to Muslims)
– an owner of a home computer (offensive to those who cannot afford one)
– any background that includes religious holiday decorations

The Education Department of New York State puts its taboo upon fireman, authoress, handyman and hostess; nothing new here. Also beyond the pale are addict, alumna and similar, American, cancer patient, city fathers, elderly, gentleman's agreement, grandfather clause, illegal alien, and illiterate,* as well as masterpiece, master, white collar, blue collar, pink collar, teenager, senior citizen, third world, uncivilized, underprivileged, unmarried, widow and widower.

Even penmanship is considered offensive!

------------------------------------------------
*The "proper" terms are 1) individual with a drug addiction, 2) graduate, 3) citizen of the United States, 4) a patient with cancer, 5) city leaders, 6) older person, 7) informal agreement, 8) retroactive coverage, 9) undocumented worker, and 10) individual unable to read or write.

It sounds like the 'bias review committees' are showing their own biases.

Tinman

Even the forum feminist disagrees with these being deleted, though I must say I have always hated "senior citizen." It almost makes one not want to get old. [I know, consider the alternative! ]

I checked this book out of the library tonight.. I'm aghast, astounded, but not astonished.. I've been in public school too long.. it has crept in.. "like little cat feet"... some schools no longer print an Honor Roll, for fear someone else will feel bad. Those that achieve good grades...? Well, let's not worry about them.. they'll do fine.. worry that someone else might have their feelings hurt... Aaarrrgghhhhhh!
It's impossible to level the playing field for all.. Has anyone looked at Cuba lately?

I was there a few years ago - but I can't quite see the connection between Cuba and polical correctness.

Richard English

Fun at the Los Angeles Times because of an attempt at a politically correct change that a sub-editor made to a review by its music critic, Mark Swed, of a performance last week of the Richard Strauss opera Die Frau Ohne Schatten. He wrote that it was “an incomparably glorious and goofy pro-life paean...”. The Times's sub-editor changed “pro-life” into “anti-abortion”. Since the opera has nothing to do with abortion, the reviewer was understandably furious and it has taken two tries at publishing a correction to mollify him. For more details, see http://www.laobserved.com/archive/001504.html

Wikipedia's list of language regulators.

Wow - so many!

Looking at the preponderance of minority and threatened languages, I suspect many were set up to try to save and popularise the language, rather than prescribe usage, although I expect that plays a part. Certainly I know that the bodies set up in the UK for Cornish and Welsh have that aim.

The fact that [American] English has no such named society, yet implements iron-handed "politically correct" censorship top-down to public and private schools via one or two mega-ed-testing corporations-- plus the Citizens' United decision-- tells all you need to know about our 'freedom of speech'.

The United States is still the acme of freedom of speech. For example, if I want to say the president is ***CENSORED***, I can do it with impunity. If I have grave concerns about the NSA doing ***CENSORED***, I can voice those thoughts. If I believe the Republicans ***CENSORED***, then who is to sop me from saying so.

No, I'm glad I live in such a free society where I can vilify corporations that ***CENSORED***POSSIBLE DEATH SENTENCE ***.

well, Proof, I can't argue with you there. After all, I can go to the board of ed meeting and squall a blue streak about the state DOE's enforcing prescribed curriculum & undercutting learning time by multiplying the # of stdzd tests & misusing results to fire teachers & close schools. I may get kicked out, but I won't get arrested. But on the other hand, my local vote has been co-opted by corporate 'freedom of speech'. So I will be expecting more, not less language policing despite the druthers of the locals.

quote:

well, Proof, I can't argue with you there.

I can. You could say whatever you want - you wouldn't go to jail. No "censureds" would be needed.

Now - as Bethree said, everyone might not agree with you, but that's another aspect of freedom of speech.

quote:

You could say whatever you want - you wouldn't go to jail

A man who cursed vehemently at his overturned canoe while in a national park was charged with using bad language within earshot of children.

An Oregon trucker who flashed his headlights to warn about a speed trap was ticketed for obstruction. A judge said it was speech and threw out the case, so you're right in that respect. But he still had to undergo the legal process.

Can you recall the Pentagon Papers?

There is still a law on the books which prohibits anti-war speech which was used to jail numerous people during the First World War.

While she's not in jail yet, an activist who protests fracking in Pennsylvania has been given an order to stay our of her home county because of her attempts to end fracking. The corporation sued her and, even though they only controlled underground rights, prevailed in keeping her off the ground above. This is due to her "freedom of speech" efforts. If she goes to church, the grocery store, or many other necessary sites for everyday living, she could go to jail.

There are probably others a bit of research could find.

So I think my bit was just a little overboard but not much.

Nothing new. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K..._Bituminous_Coal_Ass'n_v._DeBenedictis

Proof, on both sides there are mistakes or idiosyncrasies, but in general I do believe we maintain freedom of speech. Remember the Nazi march in Skokie? Maybe not, but I do. Skokie is a very Jewish suburb of Chicago, but because of freedom of speech, the march was defended by a Jewish ACLU attorney - ironic, but the right decision. The ACLU lost many members because of their defending the Nazis, but it was the right decision.

I think you'll find there are many assaults on free speech everywhere in the US. While I hate to bring it up since it touches on a taboo subject for this site, several state governments have instituted prohibitions on doctors counseling women seeking abortions. The doctors cannot discuss various procedures or other important aspects related to women's health issues. I'm waiting for a case to go to court to see the outcome.

A more recent infringement is the campaign to "#cancelcolbert" on Twitter. The organizer wants to shut down Colbert based on a perception that HE is engaged in racist speech for a joke he made in his persona as a rightwing commentator. His joke pointed toward the absurdity of comments by Redskin owners but the perpetrator of the Colbert campaign ignores the real racial slur to infringe on the rights of the person satirizing it.

A site that is devoted to free speech is Popehat.com. The lawyer who runs it often calls for other attorneys to aid in freedom of speech issues.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: <Proofreader>,

Well, I will agree that there are many assaults on freedom of speech in the U.S. Maybe where we disagree is that I think we do a better job than most to dialogue and debate about it - clearly that's the case in your post. However, yes, we could improve - as could other countries.