Who's Afraid of Naughty Words? The Idiocy of NSFW

Who's afraid of naughty words? Not The New Yorker. After the spring-fling scandal about the use of the word "scrotum" in children's literature,  the NYer published a satire by Paul Rudnick, which revealed X-rated stories like "The Pretty Little Bunny," (Melissa Rabbit ponders her vagina) and "The Clattery Caboose." (Don't even ask about his prostate!)

I laughed my a** off -- but wondered what would happen if I, a simple blograt, ran the same darn thing. With nothing more than the inclusion of those naughty little words, my story would be labeled "NSFW" (Not Safe For Work) in many quarters. Spam filters would block out my sun; millions of readers would be effectively hindered.

The New Yorker runs clever, sexually sophisticated stories all the time without such censorship. They say "fuck." They publish critically acclaimed erotic and nude photography. They discuss and illustrate the lives of famous decadent and kinky artists (who can forget the Balthus story?). They deliver a steady diet of grown-up arts and politics which resonates with untold numbers of readers.

Nowhere, in all the internet, would you hear The New Yorker described as NSFW. Whether you brought their magazine to the office, or searched their web site online, the firewall/censorship/Dilbert Nightmare of NSFW would never crease a NYer reader's brow.

Why is that? Even though NSFW is assumed to have something to do with Sex, it is  much more finely tuned to Class -- as in whether material is considered respectable in its proper class-conscious milieu. In that vein, the most elite periodicals enjoy the greatest freedom, while further down the ladder, prudery reigns. Plebians, cover your eyes!

The NYer is an easy example to point to, but you could note the same thing about Vogue, a fashion magazine -- nudity in virtually every issue. Vanity Fair, a reader favorite, regularly publishes profane words, nudity, and explicit commentary on sexual controversies.

Elite newspapers belong to this daring group too. The New York Times reports with great gusto on every sexual debate. When it comes to art, they're no wilting flowers -- they just published a gorgeous slide show of naked women and their young children.

These photos were especially daring, because they violate the letter of U.S. Federal law, which stipulates that no nude photographs may be published or exhibited of minors, no matter what the context. Ever. Without exception.

This is why you hear stories about parents being dragged sobbing into court, their kids taken away, because their photos of their naked toddlers in the plastic play-pool were seized by do-gooders at a drugstore photo lab.

The law is wrong. It's unjust, it's anti-art, anti-kid, and purely phobic. I love that the Times, Vogue, The New Yorker -- and other high-status members of the  publishing world -- stick their neck out on this issue to prove a point.

Their embrace of the first amendment should extend to all, particularly the internet.

NSFW exists because of undefined and bigoted conceits. It's more outrageous, in its own DIY-Prude fashion, than the federal "child porn" law, the Hays Code, or the almost-irrelevant MPAA.

Why? Because it is unmandated, unlegislated, censorship.   

A casual observer may opine of NSFW, like the late Judge Potter said of hardcore pornography, that "I'll know it when I see it."

However, you may find yourself recanting, like the Judge did, when you compare your views to your friends and colleagues -- you can't find five people in a room who'll agree down the line what "NSFW" includes.

Because everyone is afraid of shaming or disciplinary action on this issue, self-censorship leads to absurd cautions, and institutionalized filtering that goes against basic self-interest. Remember when AOL banned the word "breast," causing their readers with breast cancer to go ballistic?