Kvetch: F-this and F-that

I was riding a crowded bus with my daughter and a friend when a shirtless, late-teen young man got on with a couple of friends. Because of the crowd, they took seats away from each other, the shirtless teen opting to stand just behind the seat where my daughter sat in my lap.

“Hey, we should go see f***in' Tony”, he said loudly across the distance to his pal. “I'm sure that f***er knows something about it.” This cuss-peppered communication continued for a few more sentences, so I looked up and asked if he could watch his language, what with the child sitting right there.

“Welcome to public, man. It's a free f***in' country. First amendment, I can say whatever the f*** I want.” He continued this for a moment before I could interject, “I'm not trying to impose on your rights, guy, I was asking a favor. Don't worry about it.” Despite his odd combination of righteousness, hostility for my request and indication of refusal, he did oblige through the rest of the tense ride, eventually moving away when a seat became available. Props to the ruffian for that.

What I wanted to say to him, but didn't because he didn't seem like a big fan of logic, is that the First Amendment is essentially wasted if the parameters of its coverage are limited to the right to say F-this and F-that.The actual text reads:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

As far as I know (and I admit, I'm no constitutional scholar), the First Amendment isn't a protection of words, it's a protection of ideas. It was written to ensure that criticizing the government or expressing unpopular ideas (for instance, racism) can not be punished or prosecuted. I”m all for the First Amendment, but I find it ridiculous when used to defend a phrase such as, “f***in' good ice cream.”

At its root, this incident annoyed me for the same reason that I ever get annoyed with the general public: Too many people are fond of exercising their rights while abdicating their responsibilities to participate in society. I'll use a simple example: A person has the right to walk as slowly through the crosswalk as they want. Absolutely, I will never deny them that right. But the world also exists outside that crosswalk, and there are cars trying to get through the intersection who are waiting for the walker, and sometimes, there are very few opportunities for those car to get into traffic. Thus, a person has a right to walk as slowly as they want, but the general flow of society will likely be improved if that person were to walk quickly through that crosswalk. That's not forfeiting your rights as an individual, it's working together to reduce the overall friction of daily life; it's noticing other people's circumstances and, without undue (or any) burden yourself, helping where you can help.

Of course, it's not just crosswalks. Four-way stop signs (a simple concept, yet it seems to perplex so many drivers and infuriate those whose turn isn't respected); holding the door for someone who is wrestling a large package (or even if they're not); watching your language when there's a five-year old child in direct line of your voice. In fact, I think there's already a word for what I'm trying to describe: courtesy.

I'm no cynic---there are a lot of courteous people, and I try to say thank you every chance I get, offering both positive reinforcement and simple gratitude. It's a shame the constitution doesn't guarantee the right to be courteous, as I like to imagine the encounter above if it were: "Don't tell me I can say anything I gosh darn please---I'll edit my vocabulary as much as I choose when I'm around a child, and there's not a darn thing you can do about it!"