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.
[sub]Well, I understood what you meant…[/sub]
Thank you. 
This guy is from Santa Fe (well, Los Alamos, technically)? Why am I not surprised?
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.
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.
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.
You misspelled "idiots’ there–it doesn’t start with a “p.”
“Pomme”? Was that it? Because I think that would have been a pretty name.
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.
I don’t know as I’d go so far as to call it child abuse, but yeesh; it’s certainly retarded.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.