George Carlin warned us: When we ban words, we surrender freedom

Yahoo

03-05-2025

In 1972, comedian George Carlin delivered one of the most iconic bits in stand-up history: 'Seven Dirty Words You Can't Say on Television.' It was a profanity-laced masterclass in satire, pointing out the absurdity of a society obsessed with policing language. The words in question were crass, sure, and some people undoubtedly found them offensive — but they weren't dangerous, by any reasonable standard. Banning them from the airwaves, as Carlin observed, gave them power they wouldn't have had otherwise.
Fast-forward to today, and the list of forbidden words has changed, but the game hasn't. The U.S. government is once again policing language, this time on the websites of federal agencies. But the new 'dirty words' aren't profane. They're words like "diversity," "equity" and "inclusion." Words like 'women,' "LGBTQ," "immigrants" and "disability." They are basic, real-world terms used every single day by ordinary people, in everything from education to health care to workplace policy. Now, suddenly, they are deemed too controversial to say out loud.
According to recent reporting from The New York Times, federal departments under the current administration are being quietly instructed to remove or replace this language. There are no detailed press releases laying out these changes. There are no official bans. Just a slow erasure of the vocabulary that recognizes inequity, and those impacted by it.
But just as with Carlin's original list, banning these words doesn't make them go away. It only proves their power.
And that's exactly why they're being targeted.
These are the ones that make you laugh until you realize they're serious.
Women: That's right. Half the population. A basic demographic. Too controversial, apparently.
Disability: A term protected by law (thanks, ADA). Now also too edgy for a government webpage.
Immigrants: You mean the people most of us citizens descended from, and the group that built much of our country? Also out.
Sex: Not in the risqué, baby-making way, just the standard biological data point used in everything from medicine to surveys. Too messy, apparently.
Tribal: Try writing about Native sovereignty or federal treaty obligations without this one. Good luck.
These are the words that make it easier to name and fix what's broken. Which, of course, is why they're under attack.
Systemic Racism: If you can't name it, you don't have to address it. That's the whole point.
Equity: Not 'equality,' which is aspirational. Equity is about meeting people where they are. That scares people who benefit from the imbalance.
Underserved: It's hard to justify budget cuts to public health and education if you're forced to acknowledge that some communities lack access.
Inclusion: Heaven forbid we try to create cultures where everyone gets to participate and feels like they play an important role.
Justice: Perhaps this is the most revealing of all. If the word 'justice' is too political, ask yourself who benefits when it disappears.
And then there are the words they fear most: the ones that empower people, organize movements or point out the imbalance of power. These words aren't controversial because they're confusing or unclear — quite the opposite. They are controversial because they carry weight, demand change and acknowledge lived realities.
LGBTQ: It says 'you exist, and you matter' to a community of millions. And that is somehow too controversial.
Diversity: Once a word embraced by corporations and government alike, based on empirical evidence that more diverse teams make smarter decisions. Now labeled a threat.
Antiracism: If racism is bad, then antiracism must be… also bad? The logic doesn't hold, but the fearmongering works.
Cultural Competency: A foundational concept in health care, education and law enforcement. This term is meant to describe understanding and dealing with people from all kinds of different backgrounds — and that's a direct threat to willful ignorance.
Allyship: You don't have to fall within one of these groups to care about what happens to them and use your privilege to advocate for them. Perhaps it isn't surprising to learn that makes some people squirm.
History tells us that the first step toward controlling thought is controlling language. In totalitarian regimes, censored vocabularies create the illusion of consensus and the impossibility of dissent. No words, no resistance.
This isn't a conspiracy theory; it's a tactic.
If you remove the words that describe injustice, you are attempting to make injustice invisible. If you silence the terms used to advocate for equity, then the concept itself becomes suspect. If you erase identity from public policy, then the people who hold those identities lose visibility — and power.
Company leaders are watching this language shift closely. Many have already pulled back on inclusion efforts, often citing potentially real legal concerns. Some are clearly responding to genuine regulatory risk — especially those with federal contracts.
But let's be honest: Many such companies and their leaders are also reacting to noise, and reacting out of fear. In a society where many leaders are risk-averse, conservative and conflict-shy by nature, the temptation to 'just drop the language' is strong.
But such instincts have consequences. When we avoid speaking or writing certain words, it becomes much easier to avoid the work behind the words. And when institutions abandon shared vocabulary, they abandon shared purpose.
Some argue that the left has censored language too, by pushing too hard for 'woke' terms that are understood as more accurate, inclusive or respectful. And yes, language evolves. 'Handicapped' became 'people with disabilities.' 'Indian' shifted to 'Native American' or 'Indigenous.' These aren't bans; they're cultural corrections rooted in empathy and dignity. You are free to choose whether you use these terms or not, although you can't control how other people may view you for those choices.Here's the difference: Choosing kinder language isn't enforced by law. Use an older term and you may offend someone, or even be called out for it. But banning words that give voice to the marginalized from official language is an attempt to silence opposition and, literally, to control the narrative.
Let's not forget what this is really about. These aren't abstract concepts. These words represent real people, employees, clients, neighbors, citizens. When we erase the language of inclusion, we take a crucial step toward erasing the people that language is meant to protect. We're telling those people, in no uncertain terms, that they're not worth naming.
We can't let that slide. Not in public policy, not in the workplace, not in daily conversation.
Say the words. Say them loudly. Say them with clarity and care — not because they're fashionable or polite, but because they're real. Because they describe who we are, what we face and what we hope to build.
As Carlin reminded us: Words are all we have. Let's not let them disappear.