Abstract Most people go through life doing, saying, and thinking whatever they are told to do. Those who never push the boundaries of their freedom may never notice, or care, when the day comes that it no longer exists. Well, welcome to the ******!

n the 1950s, TV broadcasters had a list of “seven dirty words” that no one was allowed to say: ****, ****, ****, ****, **********, ************, and ****. Allegedly, there were also many writers and poets whose work suffered because of a widespread spirit of conformity. Today we think of ourselves as more enlightened, more sophisticated, more creative, and freer. Why, then, has the list of forbidden words gotten so much longer? Could it be that we are actually less free now than in the “oppressive” 1950s?

We're still allowed to say that we have freedom of speech. But ** *** *** *** ** *** ********* *****, ***'** ******** ****, in fact, *** ******* ** ******. Under President *****, the culture war has even escalated to violence ***** **** these five words:

• ******
• *****
• m*caque
• ****ardly
• ********

These days, we're ******** ** *** ***** **** ‘f**k,’ ‘shit,’ *** **** ‘bastard.’ ***** ***** *** not forbidden because they are harmless ** *** ******** power structure. *******, Bimi** Islands ***** **** ‘******,’ **** ** asterisks, ****** *********, *** (** ***** in Canada and Europe).

Serious proposals have been made to ban the word ‘midget,’ ‘chav,’ ‘b*tch,’ ‘*******,’ ‘*****,’ and literally hundreds of others. All in the name of eliminating “offensive speech.”

The oppressive atmosphere hasn't changed since the 1950s. Only the list of forbidden words has changed. By any criterion, we have become less enlightened, less sophisticated, and less free. Using the '*' character is already taken in some places as prima facie evidence of racism.

We now have to blank out the entire word when we quote someone who uses one of the five thousand and one forbidden words, leaving what the person said to the ***********. Otherwise, someone in HR will lie and accuse us of having actually said the nasty ****.

In America, we are at the point where even saying the phrase “the C-word,” “the F-word,” or “the *-word,” and not the actual *-word itself, can get you fired from your job and labeled as a troublemaker. Even worse, not knowing that an ordinary word has a hidden, si**ster mea**ng is not an excuse. What can be said about a society that treats words with strict liability—ignoring the principle of mens rea—in the same way that we treat possession of explosives? Why do we have so little confidence in our ability to defend ourselves against unpleasant ideas?

There is no difference between this and the insa**ty of our schoolchildren being pu**shed and even arrested for drawing pictures of firearms or carving bits of food into the shape of a handgun. These events prove the purpose is not safety, or equality, or “coexistence” but thought control: to produce fear at the concept of a firearm, and to use intimidation to prevent discussion of certain topics.

Of course, ***** like ‘antidisestablishmentaria**sm’ and ‘********************************************,’ ***** *** ridiculously long, *** *********. *** ****** ** **** don't threaten *** ***** *********. But when a *** calls h*m*sexuality a “belief,” his YouTube account is terminated for “hate speech“. As the list of ideas we are forbidden to express continues to expand, our ability to discuss important issues is impaired and our ability to imagine radical new ideas commensurately shrinks.

Worse than that: the only way to solve problems is by talking about them and discussing possible solutions. If we can't even acknowledge that there's a problem, it will never be solved. And just maybe that's the goal.

So far, in the USA, it is mainly the private sector that is oppressing our freedoms. Countries without a Bill of Rights aren't so lucky. One college student in England was arrested for calling a police officer's horse “gay.” Apparently, it was considered hatefully insensitive to the horse's feelings. Referring to another case in England where a lady was imprisoned and pilloried in the media as a racist for making an expletive-filled drunken anti-immigrant rant, one commentator in the Daily Telegraph wrote:

“Several people have been locked up recently for drunken outbursts and even stupid posts on Twitter. They call it 'Hate' crime. It doesn't mean a person has to be hurt but only that if you say something in general about lifestyles or origin it can be ineterpreted as 'Hate'. And that interpretation can and is being strtched to the point where it is dangerous to criticise anything you don't like in case it is a 'Hate' crime. They spy on much and want to spy on more. A careless private e-mail with a joke to a friend could soon have a political policeman knocking on your door.” [mzspellings in the original]

(c***inued at right)