The Straight Dope

Go Back   Straight Dope Message Board > Main > The BBQ Pit

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 06-29-2008, 01:36 PM
Frustrated Wonderer Frustrated Wonderer is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Judge Rejects "Obscene" Name Change - wtf?

In New Mexico, a judge rejected a mans wish by denying him his desired name.

Granted, he wanted to be called "Fuck Censorship", but was not allowed to do so, as the judge was of the opinion that such a name change was "obscene, offensive and would not comport with common decency."

Sure, this name is...well, stupid, but I think this case here is interesting when reffering to freedoms in the USA.

I am one who thinks that many laws in the U.S that "protect your freedom", end up reducing them.

Sure, some people MAY find this name offensive, but I still think that it shows that freedom of speech in the US, is not always allowed.

Now living in Europe, for the time being, if such a person would choose to name themselves something like this, they would simply be ignored.

I think that people get offended way too easily in the US, compared to other countries.

Of course, this not to say that there are various other countries which are even MORE sensitive than the states when it comes to "offending other people".

Anyway, those are my thought on this issue, the actual link is here:

http://news.aol.com/story/_a/judge-r...074x1200217468


One interesting thing to note in this article is that the pole given shows 88% of the people agree with the judge. Way too much IMO.

What do you think about this issue?
Reply With Quote
Advertisements  
  #2  
Old 06-29-2008, 01:47 PM
Q.E.D. Q.E.D. is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 22,536
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheFury
One interesting thing to note in this article is that the pole given shows 88% of the people agree with the judge. Way too much IMO.
How is that "way too much?" That is, in fact, democracy at work. The government, as represented by the judge, is doing what the majority of people want. That's exactly how it's supposed to work. And, there is no such thing as absolute freedom--or rather, there is and it's called "anarchy" It doesn't work. Part of living in a society is giving up certain rights in certain situations for the common good. You are not allowed to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater to use a tired, but apt, example.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 06-29-2008, 01:52 PM
Baldwin Baldwin is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Atlanta, Georgia, USA
Posts: 6,376
Quote:
Originally Posted by Q.E.D.
The government, as represented by the judge, is doing what the majority of people want. That's exactly how it's supposed to work.
No, it isn't. Sometimes the majority of people are idiots. That's why questions of civil rights should be based on constitutional principles, not on current public opinion.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 06-29-2008, 01:53 PM
Carol Stream Carol Stream is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: IL
Posts: 1,776
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheFury
Now living in Europe, for the time being, if such a person would choose to name themselves something like this, they would simply be ignored.

I think that people get offended way too easily in the US, compared to other countries.
From your own link, Sweden wouldn't allow a baby to be named Metallica, Germany prohibits the names Adolf Hitler and Osama Bin Laden, and French parents must choose names from an approved list, to prevent teasing.

And it's the Americans who get offended way too easily?
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 06-29-2008, 01:56 PM
OtakuLoki OtakuLoki is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
I'd like to see some proof that such a name, in the local tongue, would be allowed in any European nation before I grant your claim that this is something that could only happen in the US. (compared to other so-called first world nations)

Considering that the French have an actual governmental arm that is devoted to ensuring the French is used by all businesses and institutions for any official communications - I think you've got a pretty high bar to prove that the US is unusually sensitive about language. (And for all this was an attempt to change someone's legal name, what it came down to was the judge exercising his discretion to prevent offensive language to be used as a name.)

I really would have to see proof that a court of law in a Western European nation has allowed someone to change their name to a an expression that would be considered as offensive.

Mind you, I'm not 100% certain that the judge did the right thing - as you say, Mr. would-be Censorship should properly have been ignored, not fed. Just like any other troll. (I mean, really, who protests censorship by trying to get their name changed to "Mr. Censorship"?) To be honest, the absolute worst thing that the judge could have done would have been to grant the petition.

And there's a very mean part of me that wishes he had.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 06-29-2008, 02:01 PM
Vinyl Turnip Vinyl Turnip is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: <--- <--- <---
Posts: 15,170
I agree with the judge.

He's still free to call himself that, tell people that's his name, type the phase over and over again on his blog, or come up with another idiotic name that doesn't include profanity. It's a juvenile stunt, and he deserved to have it refused. I can't imagine they'd approve a name change to "Niggers Suck," for example, or any number of other phrases.

Whether there's a firm legal/Constitutional basis for my opinion, I don't know. Oh, and fuck (true) censorship.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 06-29-2008, 02:07 PM
JRDelirious JRDelirious is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: San Juan, PR
Posts: 10,551
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baldwin
No, it isn't. Sometimes the majority of people are idiots. That's why questions of civil rights should be based on constitutional principles, not on current public opinion.
True. However, renaming yourself in such a manner that in order to address you you'd be forcing other people to use obscene language, can be argued that has to be evaluated within the reasonable limits of time, place, and manner that apply to freedom of expression for the sake of maintaining civil order, which does have to take into account balancing interests of third parties.

Now, if the requested name change had been to "Censorship Sucks", I'd grant it, as neither word on its own is considered specially provocative.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 06-29-2008, 02:07 PM
Frylock Frylock is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carol Stream
From your own link, Sweden wouldn't allow a baby to be named Metallica, Germany prohibits the names Adolf Hitler and Osama Bin Laden, and French parents must choose names from an approved list, to prevent teasing.

And it's the Americans who get offended way too easily?
(Note added emphasis.)

Really?

(IOW: Cite? )

-FrL-
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 06-29-2008, 02:08 PM
Q.E.D. Q.E.D. is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 22,536
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baldwin
That's why questions of civil rights should be based on constitutional principles, not on current public opinion.
They are one and the same, fundamentally. The Constitution and its amendments were ultimately approved by the people they represent. And if you think government doesn't bend to the will of idiots, just look at the Patriot Act.

Last edited by Q.E.D.; 06-29-2008 at 02:08 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 06-29-2008, 02:19 PM
Carol Stream Carol Stream is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: IL
Posts: 1,776
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frylock
(Note added emphasis.)

Really?

(IOW: Cite? )

-FrL-
Photo #4 under "More Rejected Names" in the OP's cite.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 06-29-2008, 02:24 PM
Q.E.D. Q.E.D. is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 22,536
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carol Stream
Photo #4 under "More Rejected Names" in the OP's cite.
I wouldn't trust that as a cite too much, considering that the last two "rejected names" weren't.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 06-29-2008, 02:40 PM
Carol Stream Carol Stream is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: IL
Posts: 1,776
Quote:
Originally Posted by Q.E.D.
I wouldn't trust that as a cite too much, considering that the last two "rejected names" weren't.
It was the cite provided by the OP as the basis for his rant. You gotta a problem with the cite, bring it up with him.

And that was the point--the cite doesn't even support his own "argument".
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 06-29-2008, 03:23 PM
Bryan Ekers Bryan Ekers is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Heck, my girlfriend's sister wanted to call her son "Kananga" after the villain in Live and Let Die. The Norwegian government wouldn't buy that, though, so the kid has the compromise name "Kananga-Lars".

True story.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 06-29-2008, 03:56 PM
Boyo Jim Boyo Jim is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Madison, WI
Posts: 30,986
I'm curious, if new parents wanted to name their newborn "Fuck" -- in the US -- is there any agency that can stop it? Does the name become "official" upon the issue of a birth certificate? Or if not, when?
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 06-29-2008, 04:25 PM
aldiboronti aldiboronti is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Troynovant
Posts: 5,181
From LawProfessor.com (This is in reference to the US)

Quote:
If you want to change your name, there are a few restrictions that you should be aware of. Those limitations are:

* You may not legally change your name for fraud in order to get away with something or do something illegal such as avoiding debts, keeping from being sued or getting away with a crime of any kind.
* You can’t change your name to interfere with the rights of other people which usually means that you want to change your name to that of a famous person with the intent to mislead others. Most judges will not allow you to change your name to that of a famous person unless you can convince them you have reasons that are completely unrelated to the famous person and are reasonable in their own rights. Therefore, you can not change your name to “Brad Pitt” or “George W. Bush” without good cause and reasons.
* You can not change your name to one that would be deliberately confusing, such as punctuation or a number. You can not name yourself “9” or “VII” or even “!”.
* You can not change your name to one that is a racial slur.
* You can’t change your name to anything that could be measured as a fighting word, which includes obscenities and fighting words or any word or words that may incite violence.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 06-29-2008, 04:36 PM
mobo85 mobo85 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vinyl Turnip
I can't imagine they'd approve a name change to "Niggers Suck," for example, or any number of other phrases.
There was a black man who wanted to change his name to "Misteri Nigger" (pronounced "Mr. Nigger") in order to combat the offensiveness of the term, but he was denied, the official reason being that "no person has a statutory right to officially change his or her name to a name universally recognized as being offensive."
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 06-29-2008, 07:15 PM
lissener lissener is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Q.E.D.
How is that "way too much?" That is, in fact, democracy at work. The government, as represented by the judge, is doing what the majority of people want. That's exactly how it's supposed to work.
Wow. Once again you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 06-29-2008, 07:27 PM
Q.E.D. Q.E.D. is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 22,536
Quote:
Originally Posted by lissener
Wow. Once again you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.
Then why don't you explain it to me? Anyone can claim someone else doesn't know what they're talking about but unless you can demonstrate that, you're just full of hot air.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 06-29-2008, 07:40 PM
Two and a Half Inches of Fun Two and a Half Inches of Fun is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,857
Quote:
Originally Posted by Q.E.D.
The government, as represented by the judge, is doing what the majority of people want. That's exactly how it's supposed to work
There is a big problem with idea that our system in designed to help the majority get what they want on an issue. One of the main purposes of a representative democracy is to prevent the majority from getting what it wants on each issue. In a representative democracy both the preference and the intensity of preference that persons hold on an issue are expressed in our laws.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 06-29-2008, 07:42 PM
RickJay RickJay is offline
Charter Jays Fan
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oakville, Canada
Posts: 32,165
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheFury
Sure, this name is...well, stupid, but I think this case here is interesting when reffering to freedoms in the USA.

I am one who thinks that many laws in the U.S that "protect your freedom", end up reducing them.
What freedom is being denied here? A legal name change does not constitute a freedom. It's an individual requesting a specific service from the government.

As has been pointed out, the fact is that he's NOT being prevented from changing his name. He's being prevented from having the GOVERNMENT recognize hios name change. He's free to call himself anything he likes.

Everyone calls me "Rick." It's even on my business cards. But it's not my legal name.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 06-29-2008, 07:47 PM
Q.E.D. Q.E.D. is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 22,536
Quote:
Originally Posted by Two and a Half Inches of Fun
There is a big problem with idea that our system in designed to help the majority get what they want on an issue. One of the main purposes of a representative democracy is to prevent the majority from getting what it wants on each issue. In a representative democracy both the preference and the intensity of preference that persons hold on an issue are expressed in our laws.
Sure, absolutely. However, I trust it was clear I was speaking of the theory behind democracy in general, yes? This is the Pit, after all; my comment wasn't meant to be taken as a dissertation on the mechanics of American Democracy.

At least you weren't a pompous ass about it, like lissener.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 06-29-2008, 07:56 PM
Una Persson Una Persson is offline
Straight Dope Science Advisory Board
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: On the dance floor.
Posts: 14,946
Quote:
Originally Posted by Q.E.D.
Sure, absolutely. However, I trust it was clear I was speaking of the theory behind democracy in general, yes? This is the Pit, after all; my comment wasn't meant to be taken as a dissertation on the mechanics of American Democracy.
Well, *I* understood what you meant...
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 06-29-2008, 07:59 PM
Q.E.D. Q.E.D. is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 22,536
Quote:
Originally Posted by Una Persson
Well, *I* understood what you meant...
Thank you.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 06-29-2008, 08:35 PM
Santo Rugger Santo Rugger is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
This guy is from Santa Fe (well, Los Alamos, technically)? Why am I not surprised?
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 06-29-2008, 08:47 PM
clairobscur clairobscur is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Paris
Posts: 14,634
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frylock
(Note added emphasis.)

Really?

(IOW: Cite? )

-FrL-

It indeed used to be true. More exactly, during the 19th century the only first names allowed were the saint's names appearing on the calendar and the name of famous people from the antiquity. IOW, only traditional French names were allowed (The names of famous people from the antiquity were included because some of these names were commonly used, like say, Cesar, or Jewish names). This was later extended to traditional names from other cultures, I don't know when.


In practice, it worked the following way until recently : when you declared the birth and the child's name at the town hall, the official in charge could refuse to register this name, either because it's wasn't an usual name, either because he deemed it to be potentially harmful to the kid for other reasons (for instance the combination first-name + last name could have led to teasing). Though it was implemented quite randomly. Some civil servants could be strict about it, while others wouldn't care as long as they didn't find the name inappropriate.


It's exactly what happened to my niece. Their parents wanted to call her the French equivalent of "Apple". The deputy mayor refused, indeed on the basis that this could lead to teasing. Knowing my brother, I suspect he irritated the hell out of the deputy mayor, because their second choice, a slight variation (one vowel changed) of a relatively usual name was refused too. I think this one would have been accepted almost universally otherwise.


If you disagreed with the decision of the local authority, you had to go to court, and you'd be tasked with providing evidences that the name you picked was indeed traditional (in your family, your culture of origin, whatever..) and even if you did the court could still reject your choice if it was deemed potentially harmful for the kid.


The idea was of course that the interest of the child had to prevail over the parent's wishes, something I completely agree with. And as for why it had to be a traditional name, it was intended to give the officials/courts some objective basis for their decision.


Some years ago (10 years, maybe, probably less) these laws were changed. Now, it's the town hall official who has to ask for a court ruling if he's opposed to your name of choice. And the courts, if I'm not mistaken, will only rule only on the basis of the interest of the kid, whether the name is traditional or not. This of course resulted in "made up names" becoming less unusual.



I would note that it's also very difficult to change your name in France, once you're an adult. A court has to allow it (and though I could be mistaken or it could have changed, I think only the highest court of appeal competent for administrative law can rule on this) and, AFAIK, there are only four cases when it's possible :

-If you want to change your foreign name for a "frenchized" (not a word, but I suppose you'll understand what I mean) name.

-If your name expose you to ridicule (say, you're called Mr Cunt)

-If your name has become infamous (say, there's a well-known serial killer going by the same name)

-If a branch of your family went extinct and you want to "revive" the name (That's what the family of the former French president Giscard d'Estaing did, after the d'Estaing family, mostly known for the admiral who commanded the French fleet during the American war of independence, went extinct).


It's also possible to get an half-official status for a pseudonym or another name you choose to use instead of your own, but I don't know how it works exactly.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 06-29-2008, 09:52 PM
fruitbat fruitbat is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2002
I really am uninterested in what European countries would do in this case. As silly as it may seem, I can't help believe that refusing to allow a person to change their name as a politcal statement violates their freedom of speech. It isn't obscene (despite the fuck) and it doesn't threaten the common good to a degree that would merit government intervention.

I would prefer that people retain the right to make fools of themselves.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 06-29-2008, 10:07 PM
Orual Orual is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Quote:
Originally Posted by fruitbat
I really am uninterested in what European countries would do in this case. As silly as it may seem, I can't help believe that refusing to allow a person to change their name as a politcal statement violates their freedom of speech. It isn't obscene (despite the fuck) and it doesn't threaten the common good to a degree that would merit government intervention.

I would prefer that people retain the right to make fools of themselves.
But as RickJay said, the government isn't stopping Mr. Censorship from going by whatever idiotic name he wants.

He just can't have it on his social security card/passport/tax forms/whatever.

If he really is such a person of Independent Spirit or what have you, I wouldn't think he'd be all that interested in getting proper governmental recognition.

Last edited by Orual; 06-29-2008 at 10:07 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 06-29-2008, 10:27 PM
CaerieD CaerieD is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boyo Jim
I'm curious, if new parents wanted to name their newborn "Fuck" -- in the US -- is there any agency that can stop it? Does the name become "official" upon the issue of a birth certificate? Or if not, when?
Well, several years ago there was an incident in which the Nevada health department gave a family a very hard time over the name of a newborn my mother had delivered. The parents disliked the surnames they had been born with, and decided to give their child a unique surname.

The name they put on the birth certificate?

Pumpkinhead.

It wasn't an obscenity, but the parents had to jump through some hoops before they were allowed to keep it, IIRC.

Last edited by CaerieD; 06-29-2008 at 10:28 PM.. Reason: Removed the baby's full name for privacy reasons!
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 06-29-2008, 10:29 PM
Q.E.D. Q.E.D. is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 22,536
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaerieD
It wasn't an obscenity, but the parents had to jump through some hoops before they were allowed to keep it, IIRC.
You misspelled "idiots' there--it doesn't start with a "p."
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 06-29-2008, 10:32 PM
brujaja brujaja is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
"Pomme"? Was that it? Because I think that would have been a pretty name.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 06-29-2008, 10:41 PM
CaerieD CaerieD is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by Q.E.D.
You misspelled "idiots' there--it doesn't start with a "p."
True enough.

I just checked with my mother (whose response was essentially, "Why in God's name were you thinking about that poor kid?") and, in fact, I'd remembered incorrectly. They had a much easier time naming him Pumpkinhead than I'd recalled. Everyone was aghast and begged them not to do it, saying it was child abuse, but beyond that there were no difficulties.

I can't say what the legal response would have been to naming him Fuckhead instead, though.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 06-29-2008, 10:44 PM
Q.E.D. Q.E.D. is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 22,536
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaerieD
Everyone was aghast and begged them not to do it, saying it was child abuse, but beyond that there were no difficulties.
I don't know as I'd go so far as to call it child abuse, but yeesh; it's certainly retarded.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 06-30-2008, 06:23 AM
Frustrated Wonderer Frustrated Wonderer is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
The only reason I started this thread in the pit was not because I was interested in blasting America in any way, shape or form. I justed wanted to write the word "fuck" without having to take crap from the mods

I am after all, American born and I have lived in the US for years.

I do think that it is an ifringement on freedom of speech what this judge has done.

Sure, he can call himself whatever he wants, anyone can do that, but if the government doesnt recongize the name, then you can't use it, say, in your job or other places in which some people may be resilient to recognize the name.

Yes the name is stupid, and it can be offensive to some (I don't give a shit, personaly), but I don't see this specific case being as severe as being called "nigger" or something to that extent, even though, from a pure philosophical and logical analysis of what free speech is, any name SHOULD be allowed.

And no, I don't agree with 88% of the people who agreed with the judge. Many times, the majority of people can be wrong. This may or may not be the case.

I shoud've made clear that there are many countries that are sensitive in diffrent issues. But from a personal perspective, I do tend to find "Americans" in general (with many exceptions, of course) to get easily offended with minor things.

Last edited by Frustrated Wonderer; 06-30-2008 at 06:24 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 06-30-2008, 07:16 AM
Harborwolf Harborwolf is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheFury
Sure, he can call himself whatever he wants, anyone can do that, but if the government doesnt recongize the name, then you can't use it, say, in your job or other places in which some people may be resilient to recognize the name.
I'm gonna guess that a guy who wants people to call him "Fuck" doesn't have to worry much about using it at a job.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 06-30-2008, 07:38 AM
Harmonious Discord Harmonious Discord is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
People are denied legal names all the time. You can go by what ever you want to be called in normal situations. Being able to do what you want without concern for other people or penalties puts you in the category of Anarchist. Anarchists are fine by themselves, but put them in a room together and watch the fighting begin. Those spoiled tantrum throwing kids in a store are a good example of an Anarchist.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 06-30-2008, 07:46 AM
Darth Nader Darth Nader is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Deep blue Tejas
Posts: 3,150
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheFury
I justed wanted to write the word "fuck" without having to take crap from the mods
Testing...
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 06-30-2008, 07:49 AM
Švejk Švejk is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheFury
Now living in Europe, for the time being, if such a person would choose to name themselves something like this, they would simply be ignored.
As some other people indicated upthread, I think you're wrong about the extent to which Europeans are actually permissive when it comes to naming. In fact, there's all sorts of names that are right out the window and that no parent could give their child. In the Netherlands, no one can be called Jesus, for one thing, and company and product names and the like are also not permitted. Also, changing you're name is a lengthy and expensive procedure. In other countries that I know off, parents can only name their children after the saints on the holy calender, effectively limiting the set of boys' and girls' names to about 350 each.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 06-30-2008, 07:52 AM
PaulParkhead PaulParkhead is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by fruitbat
I really am uninterested in what European countries would do in this case. As silly as it may seem, I can't help believe that refusing to allow a person to change their name as a politcal statement violates their freedom of speech. It isn't obscene (despite the fuck) and it doesn't threaten the common good to a degree that would merit government intervention.

I would prefer that people retain the right to make fools of themselves.
I know you're uninterested, but the rules regarding name changes in England would not seem to prohibit this name. In general, a person can use any name they wish, and no legal formality is required to change it. Most people who change their name do, in fact, get a document from a court officially recognising the new name, but it isn't necessary.

The only restriction is that a person may not change their name for the purpose of fraud or deception.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 06-30-2008, 07:55 AM
Dead Badger Dead Badger is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by Orual
But as RickJay said, the government isn't stopping Mr. Censorship from going by whatever idiotic name he wants.

He just can't have it on his social security card/passport/tax forms/whatever.
Doesn't that make the prohibition all the more stupid, though? He can call himself Mr Cuntymints McFuckbaggins all he likes in the public sphere, where there are real people who might be offended. So who or what is protected by preventing him from using that name on forms?

I realise certain governmental types think the world revolves around forms; indeed, there was a recent suggestion here in the UK that local authorities with large immigrant populations should stop translating their forms into foreign languages, so as to "encourage" people to learn English (because obviously filling out forms is what all immigrants live for). But I really don't see that it's any business of the government's what people call themselves, nor do I really see that they achieve anything by censoring certain names. Hell, the only reason this guy is able to achieve any positive attention for this stunt is precisely because the government take an interest. If you were able to change your name to whatever you want, there would've been no point to his attempt in the first place, no-one would've noticed, and there would've been that much less chance of an innocent granny reading the f-word.

Incidentally, as of the end of this sentence there have been eleven "fucks", three "cunts" and five "niggers" in this thread, and yet no government agent has shown up to force us to comport with common decency. Why, then, do they care about one of the most personal bits of our identity?
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 06-30-2008, 08:16 AM
Darth Nader Darth Nader is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Deep blue Tejas
Posts: 3,150
Dead Badger, I'm very, very sorry. But-- somehow, I have linked your text to Tom Baker's voice in my head...

I wanna see that episode.
Reply With Quote
  #41  
Old 06-30-2008, 08:18 AM
Sage Rat Sage Rat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 14,859
I'll just note that Answers.com has this to say about the first amendment:

Quote:
Fighting Words

Fighting words are words that "by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace" or have a "direct tendency to cause acts of violence by the person to whom, individually, the remark is addressed" (Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568, 62 S. Ct. 766, 86 L. Ed. 1031 [1942]). Whereas subversive advocacy exhorts large numbers of people to engage in lawless conduct, fighting words are directed at provoking a specific individual. Generally, only the most inflammatory and derisive epithets will be characterized as fighting words.

Fighting words should also be distinguished from speech that is merely offensive. Crude or insensitive language may be heard in a variety of contexts — at work, on television, even at home. The Supreme Court has ruled that speech that merely offends, or hurts the feelings of, another person — without eliciting a more dramatic response — is protected by the First Amendment. The Supreme Court has also underscored the responsibility of receivers to ignore offensive speech. Receivers can move away or divert their eyes from an offensive speaker, program, image, or message. In one case, the Court ruled that a young man had the right to wear, in a state courthouse, a jacket with the aphorism Fuck the Draft emblazoned across the back, because persons at the courthouse could avert their eyes if offended (Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15, 91 S. Ct. 1780, 29 L. Ed. 2d 284 [1971]). "One man's vulgarity," the Court said, "is another's lyric," and the words chosen in this case conveyed a stronger message than would a sublimated variation such as Resist the Draft.
I think you could make a reasonable argument that, since it's his name and would be called out at all times on all occasions, possibly repeatedly, it makes it impossible for people around him to avoid or ignore the use of the word. So anyone who is offended, has perfect argument for getting angry and potentially getting into a fight.

Last edited by Sage Rat; 06-30-2008 at 08:21 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 06-30-2008, 08:23 AM
Dead Badger Dead Badger is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth Nader
Dead Badger, I'm very, very sorry. But-- somehow, I have linked your text to Tom Baker's voice in my head...
Don't apologise - my internal monologue will be in Tom Baker's voice all day now, and this can only be a good thing.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 06-30-2008, 09:02 AM
Baron Greenback Baron Greenback is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dead Badger
Mr Cuntymints McFuckbaggins
*chortle*

I guess in the UK it's pretty lax about what you can call yourself - some twat changed his name legally to Tarquin Fin-tim-lin-bin-whin-bim-lim-bus-stop-F'tang-F'tang-Olé-Biscuitbarrel.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 06-30-2008, 09:23 AM
PaulParkhead PaulParkhead is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Struan
*chortle*

I guess in the UK it's pretty lax about what you can call yourself - some twat changed his name legally to Tarquin Fin-tim-lin-bin-whin-bim-lim-bus-stop-F'tang-F'tang-Olé-Biscuitbarrel.
I have no hope of finding a cite for this, but wasn't there some guy who changed his name to something like NatWest Bank are Fascist Bastards just so the bank would have to print that on his cheques? IIRC, NatWest closed his account.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 06-30-2008, 09:31 AM
Vinyl Turnip Vinyl Turnip is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: <--- <--- <---
Posts: 15,170
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dead Badger
Incidentally, as of the end of this sentence there have been eleven "fucks", three "cunts" and five "niggers" in this thread,
Yeah, but what about the other ten posters? Don't their opinions count?
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 06-30-2008, 09:33 AM
Tapioca Dextrin Tapioca Dextrin is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Staring blankly at my GPS
Posts: 11,673
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulParkhead
I have no hope of finding a cite for this, but wasn't there some guy who changed his name to something like NatWest Bank are Fascist Bastards just so the bank would have to print that on his cheques? IIRC, NatWest closed his account.
It was the Yorkshire Bank, not the Nat West

Quote:
In 1995 Michael Howerd was charged Ł20 for a Ł10 overdraft on his bank account at Yorkshire Bank's Horsforth branch. The 30-year-old marketing consultant changed his name by deed poll to "Yorkshire Bank plc are Fascist Bastards", the name the bank had to use on a cheque repaying the residue of his account.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 06-30-2008, 09:39 AM
Larry Mudd Larry Mudd is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Quote:
Originally Posted by Q.E.D.
I don't know as I'd go so far as to call it child abuse, but yeesh; it's certainly retarded.
I think that's abusive. When you consider the direct consequences of hanging a name like that on someone, you have to lay the blame for it at the feet of the parents. Also, while it might be a term of endearment for an infant, it has other connotations for adults. That's pretty cruel.

I used to have some Deadhead friends that gave their eldest child the middle name "Sativa." Nice people, but jackasses.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 06-30-2008, 09:40 AM
VarlosZ VarlosZ is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Manhattan
Posts: 6,075
I don't have an opinion to share about the judge's ruling, but I did want to ask a favor. If I'm ever at a bar or a party, and you see me get trapped in a conversation with Fuck Censorship, just shoot me in the fuckin' face. Seriously.
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 06-30-2008, 09:50 AM
Dead Badger Dead Badger is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Just one more reason to allow it; you'll know to start plotting your escape as soon as you're introduced, giving you precious extra seconds to dive behind the punch bowl, or fake a coronary.
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 06-30-2008, 10:08 AM
PaulParkhead PaulParkhead is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tapioca Dextrin
It was the Yorkshire Bank, not the Nat West
Thanks. At least I know I didn't just dream that story. Though I also like the manure spreading farmer...

I dunno. Bank of America just charged me $70 for a $2 overdraft. My course of action seems clear...
Reply With Quote
Reply



Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:17 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@chicagoreader.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright © 2013 Sun-Times Media, LLC.