Howl

"I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by madness, starving hysterical naked, dragging themselves through the negro streets at dawn looking for an angry fix;
Angel-headed hipsters burning for the ancient heavenly connection
to the starry dynamo in the machinery of night...."
-- Allen Ginsberg, "Howl"

Yesterday was the 50th anniversary of the famous court case declaring that "Howl" by Allen Ginsberg could not be censored under existing obscenity rules because of its "redeeming social value." I put that phrase -- redeeming social value -- in quotes because it's a key legal term that explains a lot about the way freedom of expression is supposed to work.

In theory, anyway, speech is protected under the First Amendment -- and therefore, is not censorable obscenity -- if it contains some nugget of redeeming social value. Thus classic pornographic works like "Fanny Hill" (a story of a young Victorian girl who seeks her fortune in London and finds herself working as a prostitute) is not legally obscene because it contains a simple moral concept: Sex in a committed relationship is better than casual sex. Yes, the depictions of sex are graphic. Even titillating. But they can't be deemed "obscene" under the First Amendment because those scenes also contain the purpose of social commentary, and that's precisely what the First Amendment protects.

"Howl" drew fire when first published because of its content. There are a few lines with some fairly mild homosexual content, but the real shock in the poem is set up in those opening lines. Ginsberg seemed to be saying that the "best minds" belonged to drug addicts and other marginalized people. In Eisenhower's America, it was shocking, even revolutionary, to point a finger at the middle class and say in all candor, "yours are not the best minds." This bitter criticism of the norm and elevation of the marginalized was a big part of the reason this poem became the subject of obscenity litigation.

Flash forward fifty years.

We're so much more open-minded and tolerant now, right?

Well....

Yesterday, to celebrate the 50th anniversary of this landmark ruling, a New York radio station planned to air Ginsberg reading his poem. Nice idea, right?

Problem is, there are a couple of swear words sprinkled throughout the text. And the FCC has become rabid about enforcing fines for using naughty words. Because, you know, our ears will disintegrate if someone ever says damn over the airwaves. And oh, heavens to murgatroyd, don't even get me started on how corrupted our precious youth will be if they have to listen to that shit.

Since this poem was published, our society has weathered Vietnam, the sexual revolution, women in the workplace, divorce and single parenthood by choice, gay pride parades, -- the list goes on and on.

But Big Brother would rather fine a radio station out of existence than allow it to destroy our moral fabric with a handful of four letter words. ::eyeroll::

Others have noted the irony of the poem's social commentary being less offensive than a few swear words. This in itself is intriguing social commentary. In our current society, we seem to blow right past the things that melted the minds of our grandparents and made them weep for the future. We ignore the content, and get hung up on the presence of swear words. This is the ultimate expression of style over substance -- we don't care what you say, as long as you say it without any shits, damns, or fucks.

Er, okay.

I mean, maybe it's a good thing. Maybe we've finally come to understand that we must allow the free expression of ideas that might illuminate some point about our society.

Or maybe we've just become a bunch of prigs that can't see the forest for the naught words carved in the trees.

Thank God for the internet, which is beyond the reach of the puritans at the FCC. We can still listen to this poem here. And maybe we ought to all go over and have a listen just to show support for those that would give us the option of hearing something the FCC would condemn.