Judge Rejects "Obscene" Name Change - wtf?

The BBQ Pit
1

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:

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?

2

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.

3

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.

4

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?

5

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.

6

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.

7

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.

8

(Note added emphasis.)

Really? :confused: :eek:

(IOW: Cite? :confused: :eek: )

-FrL-

9

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.

10

Photo #4 under “More Rejected Names” in the OP’s cite.

11

I wouldn’t trust that as a cite too much, considering that the last two “rejected names” weren’t.

12

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”.

13

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.

14

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?

15

From LawProfessor.com (This is in reference to the US)

16

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.”

17

Wow. Once again you have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about.

18

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.

19

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.

20

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.