SNL's Bowen Yang Advocates For Lifting The Ban On Cursing

Luna Greco

6 min read

Post on May 18, 2025

4.3

Share

Yang's Arguments Against Television Censorship

Bowen Yang's stance against the ban on cursing stems from its detrimental effects on creative expression and its disconnect from the reality of everyday language.

Stifling Creative Expression

The ban on cursing significantly limits comedic possibilities, forcing writers and performers to resort to awkward and often unconvincing workarounds. This creative constraint hinders the development of truly edgy and satirical humor.

• Examples: Think about the difficulty in portraying realistic arguments or conveying genuine frustration without the use of appropriate language. The need to constantly replace strong words with weaker alternatives diminishes the impact and authenticity of the joke.
• Artificiality of Euphemisms: The use of euphemisms often feels unnatural and can undermine the comedic effect. The audience can easily see through these substitutions, creating a disconnect between the performance and the intended message.
• Impact on Edgy, Satirical Humor: Many forms of satire rely on shock value and pushing boundaries. The ban on cursing severely limits the ability of comedians to tackle controversial topics effectively, hindering their ability to provide insightful social commentary. This stifles creative freedom and artistic expression. The censorship limits the comedic potential of shows like SNL.

Disconnect from Reality

Avoiding profanity in television creates an unrealistic portrayal of characters and situations, disconnecting the show from the audience's everyday language and experiences.

• Real-Life Conversations: Profanity is a common part of many people's everyday conversations. Avoiding it entirely creates a disconnect between the on-screen world and the audience's lived reality, impacting the audience connection and realism of the show.
• Unrealistic Portrayal of Characters: Characters who never swear, even in frustrating or intense situations, appear unrealistic and unconvincing. This lack of authenticity damages the believability of the narrative.
• Impact on Relatability: The use of realistic dialogue, including occasional profanity, makes characters and situations more relatable to the audience. Avoiding profanity creates a distance between the viewer and the show, reducing its emotional impact.

Hypocrisy of Selective Censorship

The ban on cursing is often inconsistently applied, highlighting the hypocrisy inherent in selective censorship. Certain words are allowed while others, equally or less offensive, are deemed unacceptable.

• Examples: The arbitrary nature of the rules is apparent when comparing the acceptable use of some words versus the outright ban of others. This inconsistent rules system often lacks transparency and consistency.
• Arbitrary Nature of Rules: The lack of clear criteria for what constitutes acceptable language points to the arbitrary and potentially biased nature of these restrictions.
• Potential for Biased Censorship: The selective application of the ban raises concerns about potential bias, with certain types of language being targeted more aggressively than others. This highlights the double standards and media hypocrisy in the current system of selective censorship.

Counterarguments and Rebuttals

While Yang's arguments are compelling, there are valid counterarguments to consider.

Concerns about Younger Viewers

Concerns about the impact of profanity on younger viewers are legitimate and require careful consideration.

• Parental Controls: The availability of parental controls allows parents to filter out content that they deem inappropriate for their children. This offers a solution to address concerns about age appropriateness without resorting to blanket bans.
• Exposure Elsewhere: Children are exposed to profanity in various settings outside of television, making a complete ban ineffective and unrealistic.
• Responsible Broadcasting: The focus should be on responsible broadcasting, using profanity thoughtfully and contextually, rather than imposing a complete ban that ignores the realities of modern language. This promotes responsible broadcasting and child protection while still acknowledging the importance of age appropriateness.

Maintaining a Certain Standard

Some argue that maintaining a certain level of decorum on television is necessary.

• Alternatives to Outright Bans: Instead of a complete ban, perhaps a more nuanced approach, focusing on context and intention, could be implemented. This emphasizes contextual considerations while still promoting responsible media.
• Role of Context and Intention: The impact of profanity depends heavily on context and intent. A well-placed curse word can add depth and realism to a scene, whereas gratuitous use could be deemed offensive.
• Finding a Balance: The goal is to find a balance between freedom of expression and responsible broadcasting, recognizing that the complete ban may be unnecessarily restrictive. This means finding a balance between broadcast standards and freedom of speech.

The Broader Impact of the Debate

The debate surrounding the ban on cursing has far-reaching implications.

The Evolution of Television Standards

Television standards have evolved significantly over time, reflecting broader social changes.

• Examples of Past Restrictions: Historically, television faced significant restrictions regarding content, reflecting societal norms of the time.
• Influence of Social Change: Social attitudes towards language and sexuality have shifted, influencing the ongoing debate about media regulations.
• Ongoing Debate about Freedom of Speech: The debate about the ban on cursing is part of a larger conversation regarding freedom of speech in media. The media evolution is a direct result of changing social change and reflects the ongoing debate around freedom of speech.

The Impact on Comedy

The ban on cursing has a significant impact on comedic innovation and the potential for a more inclusive media landscape.

• Impact on Diverse Voices: A more inclusive and representative media landscape demands the freedom to express a wider range of voices and experiences. This includes acknowledging the role of profanity in many comedic styles.
• Need for a Broader Range of Comedic Styles: The ban limits the variety of comedic styles and tones that can be explored, hindering the potential for creative innovation. This results in a less vibrant and diverse comedic landscape.
• Potential for Increased Creativity: Lifting the ban could lead to increased creativity and innovation in comedy, allowing for a broader range of comedic styles and voices. This will promote comedic innovation and diversity in comedy, ultimately leading to a more inclusive media and representative comedy.

Conclusion

Bowen Yang's advocacy for lifting the ban on cursing on television highlights the need for a more nuanced approach to television censorship. His arguments regarding the stifling of creative expression and the disconnect from reality resonate with many. While concerns about younger viewers and maintaining certain standards are valid, the current system of selective censorship presents inconsistencies and limitations. The ongoing debate underscores the need for responsible broadcasting, finding a balance between creative freedom and appropriate content.

Join the conversation about lifting the ban on cursing and support creatives like Bowen Yang who advocate for greater freedom of expression on television. Let's discuss how we can move towards a more authentic and representative media landscape that embraces realistic dialogue and allows for genuine comedic innovation without stifling artistic expression. Let's work towards responsible media that respects creative freedom and avoids the hypocrisy of selective censorship while still addressing concerns about age appropriateness and child protection. Let's foster comedic innovation and a more inclusive media environment.