Posted on 04/14/2013 12:41:18 PM PDT by Mark
Doug McIntyre: There's nothing civil about censorship
Illegal immigration debate seeps into language
By Doug McIntyre
Censorship is not civility.
Yet that's the argument made in this newspaper last Sunday by columnist Tim Rutten. (Killing 'illegal' is about civility, not politics.)
Rutten made a spirited defense of The Associated Press' decision to prohibit their reporters from using the phrase "illegal immigrant" when referring to an individual.
I couldn't disagree more.
The last people on earth who should be telling journalists what words they can and can't use are fellow journalists. That's exactly what the AP has chosen to do.
"Illegal should describe only an action," explained AP Senior Vice President and Executive Editor Kathleen Carroll. "Our goal always is to use the most precise and accurate words so that the meaning is clear to any reader anywhere. "
Nonsense. This isn't about style; it's about setting the boundaries of debate.
George Orwell, author of "1984," in his essay "Politics and the English Language" said, "Never use a long word where a short one will do."
"Illegal immigrant" is the vernacular. This is how people speak. But the Associate Press has concluded the term is offensive, an ethnic slur, and therefore what are we left to conclude? If the AP isn't making a political statement, it is certainly making a moral judgment. The objective reporters of facts are now partisans.
While the Senate and House of Representatives struggle to hash out a resolution to an issue that has roiled the waters of domestic tranquility for decades, the principal news-gathering and reporting organization in the world has elected to disarm one side in the debate by denying to them not only the colloquial language, but the statutory language.
In his column, Tim Rutten argued that banishing "illegal immigrant" is the natural evolution of the English language, tossing the term onto the ash heap of hate speech alongside doozies like the "n-word" and the rest of the alphabet of racial and religious slurs.
But "illegal immigrant" is not a racial or ethnic designation; it matters not if the illegal immigrant is Irish or Mexican. A person either is or isn't in the country in accord with our sovereign laws.
USA Today immediately adopted the AP's standard and banished illegal immigrant and the Los Angles Times is currently "revaluating" its policy.
The Daily News abandoned "illegal immigrant" months ago, exempting opinion writers, which is why the term still appears in this column.
And while I greatly appreciate the platform the Daily News gives me - and this column is the only regularly published voice of dissent in Los Angeles on the immigration issue - I don't enjoy having permission to use words denied to my colleagues.
Rather than encourage debate, the AP's decision to hamstring opponents of illegal immigration by bowing to the sensitivities of the lawbreakers begs the question when will the AP banish the term "registered sex offender?"
I'm sure sex offenders find the phrase hurtful.
While I value civility as a private and public virtue, it's not the highest virtue. History teaches us one immutable fact: Freedom is never won through politeness. Our rough and tumble democracy demands plain, honest, unvarnished truths. The Associated Press and the newspaper, radio and television stations that have chosen or will choose to tie the hands of journalists on an important social issue have thrown in with the language police.
Even the most passionate advocate for a "pathway to citizenship" should object to censorship, especially in Los Angeles, ground zero for illegal immigration and a city world famous for free expression and the open exchange of ideas.
Doug McIntyre's column appears Wednesdays and Sundays.
You can reach him at Doug@KABC.com.
“But “illegal immigrant” is not a racial or ethnic designation; it matters not if the illegal immigrant is Irish or Mexican. A person either is or isn’t in the country in accord with our sovereign laws.”
BTT!
If they would be more accurate and call them “criminal foreign invaders” I’d have no problem with the switch.
How about Squatter?
A person who settles in or occupies property with no legal claim to the property. A squatter is one who resides on a property to which he or she has no title, right ...
no, because there’s no obvious distinction that the person is here illegally. a squatter could easily be a us citizen.
Said the Head Presstitute: “Illegal should describe only an action,”...
I agree - coming to America without papers is an action. An illegal action.
If teh action is immigrating to America, by definition/logic, a person so doing would be immigrating illegally = “illegal immigrant”.
Poor Presstitute is lying to America again.
I was being facetious.
California >>>>>>>>>>>>> Texas
Arsenal of weapons............Gun collection
Assault and battery...........Attitude adjustment
Taxes or Your fair share.......Coerced theft
Truants..........................Home schoolers
Heavily armed................Well-protected
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.