Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 04-19-2019, 04:01 PM
Hari Seldon is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Trantor
Posts: 12,709

NY Times crosses a line today (fucked).


Our local paper quoted Trump as having said he was f**ked. Not the Times. They used the fulbtw.l word in an editorial today and also in a news story. I wonder whether that was a special exception or will now be considered acceptable. The New Yorker crossed that line at least a decade ago. This was the print edition
  #2  
Old 04-19-2019, 04:22 PM
Spiderman's Avatar
Spiderman is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: somewhere East of there
Posts: 10,380
I'm presuming you're referring to the article about the Mueller probe. Therefore, it was a quote that 46-1 made; not their 'own' language.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NYTimes
When Attorney General Jeff Sessions told Mr. Trump that a special counsel had been appointed in May 2017, Mr. Trump grew angry: “I’m fucked,” he said, believing his presidency was ruined.
  #3  
Old 04-19-2019, 04:40 PM
Voyager's Avatar
Voyager is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 45,542
It is news. Trump and the report crossed the line, not the Times.
  #4  
Old 04-19-2019, 04:43 PM
Miller's Avatar
Miller is offline
Sith Mod
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Bear Flag Republic
Posts: 43,811
This isn't the first time that "fuck" has appeared in print in the Times. They did it in 2016, as well, once again while quoting the president.
  #5  
Old 04-19-2019, 04:53 PM
RadioWave is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 699
I was wondering something similar about last nights Twitter dump. Since RealDonaldTrump has been ruled an official venue of government communication, is this the first time the word "Bullshit" has been used by a President in an official capacity?

Quote:
...agreed to testify, it was not necessary for me to respond to statements made in the “Report” about me, some of which are total bullshit & only given to make the other person look good (or me to look bad). This was an Illegally Started Hoax that never should have happened, a...
  #6  
Old 04-19-2019, 05:15 PM
wolfpup's Avatar
wolfpup is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 10,328
Quote:
Originally Posted by RadioWave View Post
I was wondering something similar about last nights Twitter dump. Since RealDonaldTrump has been ruled an official venue of government communication, is this the first time the word "Bullshit" has been used by a President in an official capacity?
I'm pretty sure that it is. And IMHO the impact is substantial and speaks volumes about this presidency. On one hand language like that demeans the presidency and the gravitas of the office from which it gleans its moral authority, which is why no other president ever talked like that. On the other hand, for someone who couldn't care less about such things, it's an effective device for creating a kind of bond with the common man, a "just like me" persona long used by crooks and con-men to persuade their marks that they're just like them and have their interests in mind. It really works, because instead of coming across as a remote statesmanlike figure, he comes across as a working-class drinking buddy. Unfortunately, that's also how he comes across to world leaders who tend to be somewhat more astute.
  #7  
Old 04-19-2019, 05:21 PM
Colibri's Avatar
Colibri is offline
SD Curator of Critters
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Panama
Posts: 42,249
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfpup View Post
On one hand language like that demeans the presidency and the gravitas of the office from which it gleans its moral authority, which is why no other president ever talked like that.
Truman, Johnson, Nixon and others certainly talked like that. The difference is that they didn't put it in writing.
  #8  
Old 04-19-2019, 05:30 PM
nearwildheaven is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 12,432
CNN did not censor the word "shithole" after Da Dumpster used that word in reference to some countries.
  #9  
Old 04-19-2019, 05:47 PM
wolfpup's Avatar
wolfpup is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 10,328
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colibri View Post
Truman, Johnson, Nixon and others certainly talked like that. The difference is that they didn't put it in writing.
I don't think the "in writing" part is significant; what's unprecedented here is talking like that in the context of official public statements. Johnson and Nixon certainly had foul mouths in private. It should surprise no one that presidents are just people and many may talk that way in private. Talking that way in official public statements, however, changes the fundamental norms of national discourse. Trump's followers love it, of course, and it's another example of Trump putting self before country, which is pretty much his modus operandi.
  #10  
Old 04-20-2019, 12:42 AM
Lord Feldon's Avatar
Lord Feldon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Central Ohio
Posts: 6,330
The Times doesn't use asterisks to censor expletives. They have a high bar, but once they decide the word is newsworthy, they print the whole thing:

Quote:
The Times also forgoes offensive or coy hints. An article should not seem to be saying, “Look, I want to use this word, but they won’t let me.” Generally that principle rules out telltale strings of hyphens or dashes.

Last edited by Lord Feldon; 04-20-2019 at 12:44 AM.
  #11  
Old 04-20-2019, 01:37 AM
Gatopescado is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: on your last raw nerve
Posts: 21,777
Quote:
Originally Posted by Voyager View Post
It is news. Trump and the report crossed the line, not the Times.
Crossed the line into 'Reality'?
  #12  
Old 04-20-2019, 01:58 AM
Guinastasia's Avatar
Guinastasia is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 52,486
Wow....you're horrified at the idea that the paper didn't censor the word "fucked"? Seriously?

Of all the crap that's going on in the world, of all the things I read in the paper, that's the LEAST thing I find offensive. (And like putting two astericks makes a difference?)

Seriously, no wonder other nations point and laugh at us.
  #13  
Old 04-20-2019, 02:34 AM
Smapti is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Olympia, WA
Posts: 15,892
You all seem to be forgetting that Obama once wore a tan suit.
  #14  
Old 04-20-2019, 09:17 AM
Nametag's Avatar
Nametag is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: California
Posts: 8,109
i haven't seen a word of criticism for the Times here -- where are you getting "horrified"?
  #15  
Old 04-20-2019, 09:38 AM
Defensive Indifference is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 6,850
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smapti View Post
You all seem to be forgetting that Obama once wore a tan suit.
Out of curiosity, did the Times report on Obama calling Kanye West a "jackass"?

Does the Times's rule on profanity extend to racial slurs? If/when we get Trump dropping an N bomb on tape, I wonder if the Times will print it.
  #16  
Old 04-20-2019, 10:14 AM
Thudlow Boink's Avatar
Thudlow Boink is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Lincoln, IL
Posts: 26,677
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guinastasia View Post
Wow....you're horrified at the idea that the paper didn't censor the word "fucked"? Seriously?
I'm not the OP, but it's certainly possible to be surprised without being horrified. I can remember when certain words were "unprintable," and a highly-respected mainstream newspaper would not have printed them—even if they were newsworthy quotes, they would be rendered as "f***" or "expletive deleted." And it's reasonable to wonder when that changed—when the line was crossed.
  #17  
Old 04-20-2019, 10:24 AM
JohnT's Avatar
JohnT is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 22,349
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smapti View Post
You all seem to be forgetting that Obama once wore a tan suit.
#NeverForget
  #18  
Old 04-20-2019, 11:17 AM
Defensive Indifference is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 6,850
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnT View Post
#NeverForget
To be fair, it was kind of an ugly suit and tie combo. And I think the jacket was a little big on him. I have a suit about that same color. I like it with a tie with more burgundy in it. He looked pretty awesome here though: https://pixel.nymag.com/imgs/daily/i....w700.h700.jpg

Last edited by Defensive Indifference; 04-20-2019 at 11:19 AM.
  #19  
Old 04-20-2019, 11:30 AM
FairyChatMom's Avatar
FairyChatMom is offline
I'm nice, dammit!
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Southern Merrylande
Posts: 41,141
Surely he was misquoted. After all, a good Christian man, chosen by God to be President couldn't possibly have such a potty mouth.




For the humor impaired - yes, that was sarcasm.
  #20  
Old 04-20-2019, 11:36 AM
Colibri's Avatar
Colibri is offline
SD Curator of Critters
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Panama
Posts: 42,249
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guinastasia View Post
Wow....you're horrified at the idea that the paper didn't censor the word "fucked"? Seriously?
What thread are you reading? No one has said that at all.

Some people have expressed objections to the President's use of language in an official capacity. As far as I can see, no one has objected to the Times printing the word, just remarked that it is notable for a newspaper of record.
  #21  
Old 04-20-2019, 11:46 AM
GreysonCarlisle's Avatar
GreysonCarlisle is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 1,038
Quote:
Originally Posted by Defensive Indifference View Post
If/when we get Trump dropping an N bomb on tape, I wonder if the Times will print it.
Why wouldn't they?
  #22  
Old 04-20-2019, 11:56 AM
GreysonCarlisle's Avatar
GreysonCarlisle is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 1,038
Missed the edit window.

There's this from 2018:

Quote:
Trump Used Racial Slur During ‘Celebrity Apprentice,’ Former White House Aide Says

President Trump frequently used the word “nigger” while he was the host of the reality television show “Celebrity Apprentice,” and there are tapes that can confirm it, according to a new memoir by one of Mr. Trump’s former White House advisers, Omarosa Manigault Newman.
-NYT
  #23  
Old 04-20-2019, 12:55 PM
Defensive Indifference is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 6,850
Quote:
Originally Posted by GreysonCarlisle View Post
Missed the edit window.

There's this from 2018:



-NYT
Huh. Thanks.
  #24  
Old 04-20-2019, 01:14 PM
Guinastasia's Avatar
Guinastasia is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 52,486
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colibri View Post
What thread are you reading? No one has said that at all.

Some people have expressed objections to the President's use of language in an official capacity. As far as I can see, no one has objected to the Times printing the word, just remarked that it is notable for a newspaper of record.
The OP:

Quote:
Our local paper quoted Trump as having said he was f**ked. Not the Times. They used the fulbtw.l word in an editorial today and also in a news story. I wonder whether that was a special exception or will now be considered acceptable. The New Yorker crossed that line at least a decade ago. This was the print edition
The title of the thread was the NY Times crosses a line. Not Trump. And that they used the full word. I got the impression that the OP was angry that the newspapers didn't censor his words. Crossing a line usually means doing something that's unacceptable, or not appropriate.

If my impression was wrong, I apologize.

Last edited by Guinastasia; 04-20-2019 at 01:14 PM.
  #25  
Old 04-20-2019, 01:15 PM
Colibri's Avatar
Colibri is offline
SD Curator of Critters
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Panama
Posts: 42,249
Quote:
Originally Posted by GreysonCarlisle View Post
Missed the edit window.

There's this from 2018:



-NYT
Interestingly, the word "nigger" was an addition by the Times itself, rather than a quote (although it appears in quotes). Omarosa said she never heard Trump use it herself, and in her quotes she refers to it as the "N-word." They not only didn't hint at the word themselves, they explicitly used the word Omarosa was hinting at.

Last edited by Colibri; 04-20-2019 at 01:26 PM.
  #26  
Old 04-20-2019, 01:25 PM
Colibri's Avatar
Colibri is offline
SD Curator of Critters
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Panama
Posts: 42,249
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guinastasia View Post
The title of the thread was the NY Times crosses a line. Not Trump. And that they used the full word. I got the impression that the OP was angry that the newspapers didn't censor his words. Crossing a line usually means doing something that's unacceptable, or not appropriate.

If my impression was wrong, I apologize.
No, crossing a line doesn't necessarily mean something is wrong, just that it goes beyond what has previously been considered appropriate. (For example, Star Trek crossed a line on broadcast TV by showing an interracial kiss between Kirk and Uhura. Crossing that line was a good thing.) The OP actually didn't express an opinion about his personal feelings about this. Perhaps he does feel that this represents the decline of Western Civilization, but he hasn't said so.
  #27  
Old 04-20-2019, 01:29 PM
Colibri's Avatar
Colibri is offline
SD Curator of Critters
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Panama
Posts: 42,249
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thudlow Boink View Post
I can remember when certain words were "unprintable," and a highly-respected mainstream newspaper would not have printed them—even if they were newsworthy quotes, they would be rendered as "f***" or "expletive deleted."
I'm old enough to remember a time when even some dictionaries didn't include "fuck." (When I was in grade school it was very daring to look up dirty words in the dictionary. We were often disappointed.)

Last edited by Colibri; 04-20-2019 at 01:30 PM.
  #28  
Old 04-20-2019, 02:17 PM
Chefguy's Avatar
Chefguy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Portlandia
Posts: 41,628
It used to be that prominent Americans weren't used to being quoted verbatim, particularly if there were curse words involved. When I was posted in Lisbon, a new politically appointed ambassador arrived with her rich husband and bratty child in tow. The husband engaged in conversation with a member of the press at a cocktail party, not realizing that "off the record" really isn't a concept in Europe.

The reporter asked him what he did, since he didn't have an official job. The schmuck replied: "Well, I have a small office in the embassy, and the rest of the time I just fuck the ambassador." It was quoted verbatim in the local Lisbon paper, much to everyone's amusement.
  #29  
Old 04-20-2019, 02:25 PM
GreysonCarlisle's Avatar
GreysonCarlisle is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 1,038
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chefguy View Post
much to everyone's amusement.
Almost everyone's.
  #30  
Old 04-20-2019, 02:48 PM
Hari Seldon is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Trantor
Posts: 12,709
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colibri View Post
What thread are you reading? No one has said that at all.

Some people have expressed objections to the President's use of language in an official capacity. As far as I can see, no one has objected to the Times printing the word, just remarked that it is notable for a newspaper of record.
This. I was surprised, that's all. As I said, the Montreal Gazette quoted, "I'm f**ked." As I said, the New Yorker has been using "fuck" for decades.

My 80 year old etymological dictionary has two entries f**k and c**t for each of which it comments, "One of two SE [standard English] words that cannot appear in print anywhere in the English speaking world." This illustrates how much the world has changed in 80 years. I am mildly curious if there are any expletives that have replaced them, now that they are tame enough to appear in the newspaper of record. What do you do when you really have to be profane?
  #31  
Old 04-20-2019, 03:11 PM
not what you'd expect is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 4,666
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hari Seldon View Post
This. I was surprised, that's all. As I said, the Montreal Gazette quoted, "I'm f**ked." As I said, the New Yorker has been using "fuck" for decades.

My 80 year old etymological dictionary has two entries f**k and c**t for each of which it comments, "One of two SE [standard English] words that cannot appear in print anywhere in the English speaking world." This illustrates how much the world has changed in 80 years. I am mildly curious if there are any expletives that have replaced them, now that they are tame enough to appear in the newspaper of record. What do you do when you really have to be profane?
Trump?


Ok, maybe not quite yet, but soon!
  #32  
Old 04-20-2019, 04:16 PM
kayaker's Avatar
kayaker is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Western Pennsylvania
Posts: 31,541
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hari Seldon View Post
What do you do when you really have to be profane?
You don't listen to much rap, I take it.
  #33  
Old 04-20-2019, 04:31 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 17,256
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colibri View Post
Interestingly, the word "nigger" was an addition by the Times itself, rather than a quote (although it appears in quotes). Omarosa said she never heard Trump use it herself, and in her quotes she refers to it as the "N-word." They not only didn't hint at the word themselves, they explicitly used the word Omarosa was hinting at.
The word appears in quotes because that's standard practice when you are talking about the word rather than using it.
  #34  
Old 04-20-2019, 04:33 PM
nearwildheaven is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 12,432
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smapti View Post
You all seem to be forgetting that Obama once wore a tan suit.
And Biden once whispered a phrase including the big bad F word into his ear, not knowing his mike was on. We were discussing that the next day at a meetup, and I replied that had he done this a few weeks earlier, he would have had to deal with his mother, who had just died.
  #35  
Old 04-20-2019, 04:34 PM
nearwildheaven is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 12,432
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hari Seldon View Post
This. I was surprised, that's all. As I said, the Montreal Gazette quoted, "I'm f**ked." As I said, the New Yorker has been using "fuck" for decades.

My 80 year old etymological dictionary has two entries f**k and c**t for each of which it comments, "One of two SE [standard English] words that cannot appear in print anywhere in the English speaking world." This illustrates how much the world has changed in 80 years. I am mildly curious if there are any expletives that have replaced them, now that they are tame enough to appear in the newspaper of record. What do you do when you really have to be profane?
Kate Winslet flipped someone the old bird in "Titanic." I have since learned that yes, it did mean that back then.

The infamous child serial killer Albert Fish was also quoted as using that word in a police interview.

Last edited by nearwildheaven; 04-20-2019 at 04:34 PM.
  #36  
Old 04-20-2019, 05:14 PM
Colibri's Avatar
Colibri is offline
SD Curator of Critters
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Panama
Posts: 42,249
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hari Seldon View Post
This. I was surprised, that's all. As I said, the Montreal Gazette quoted, "I'm f**ked." As I said, the New Yorker has been using "fuck" for decades.

My 80 year old etymological dictionary has two entries f**k and c**t for each of which it comments, "One of two SE [standard English] words that cannot appear in print anywhere in the English speaking world." This illustrates how much the world has changed in 80 years.
From etymonline, "fuck" didn't appear in any English dictionary between 1795 and 1965, including the OED. It was actually outlawed to be used in print in the UK (1857) and US (1873). As the article says, the barriers began to be broken down in novels in Ulysses (1933) and Lady Chatterley's Love (1959). By the late 1960s it was no longer daring in adult literature. However, in 1969 Jefferson Airplane could sing "fuck" and "motherfucker" on We Can Be Together, but substituted "fred" for both words in the lyrics in the liner notes.
  #37  
Old 04-20-2019, 05:36 PM
pulykamell is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: SW Side, Chicago
Posts: 46,960
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hari Seldon View Post
My 80 year old etymological dictionary has two entries f**k and c**t for each of which it comments, "One of two SE [standard English] words that cannot appear in print anywhere in the English speaking world."
I find that delightfully paradoxical, if the entries are actually "fuck" and "cunt" and not "f**k" and "c**t."
  #38  
Old 04-20-2019, 05:44 PM
Colibri's Avatar
Colibri is offline
SD Curator of Critters
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Panama
Posts: 42,249
Quote:
Originally Posted by pulykamell View Post
I find that delightfully paradoxical, if the entries are actually "fuck" and "cunt" and not "f**k" and "c**t."
My understanding is that Hari is saying they appear with the asterisks.
  #39  
Old 04-20-2019, 05:52 PM
Colibri's Avatar
Colibri is offline
SD Curator of Critters
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Panama
Posts: 42,249
I just checked my Webster's New Twentieth Century Dictionary (Unabridged), published in 1979, and to my surprise it lacks fuck, cunt, and even shit. The definition for "crap" only includes the meanings for the dice game crap and a kind of buckwheat.
  #40  
Old 04-20-2019, 08:59 PM
nearwildheaven is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 12,432
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colibri View Post
I just checked my Webster's New Twentieth Century Dictionary (Unabridged), published in 1979, and to my surprise it lacks fuck, cunt, and even shit. The definition for "crap" only includes the meanings for the dice game crap and a kind of buckwheat.
That's around the time when one of my high school English teachers told us to never use a dictionary that doesn't include "those words", because they are a part of the language, like it or not.
  #41  
Old 04-21-2019, 01:42 AM
dtilque is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: My own private Nogero
Posts: 6,688
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colibri View Post
From etymonline, "fuck" didn't appear in any English dictionary between 1795 and 1965,
Merriam-Webster's Third Unabridged is kind of strange on these words. It was published in 1961 and didn't have any of them. But they periodically published supplements with new words. Those were initially published as an addendum at the back, but later (by the time it got up to 6,000 words) as a separate book too. Anyway after it became acceptable for dictionaries to include those taboo words, they put them to the addendum. So in the middle of all these recently coined words are a scattering of very old four-letter words.

Last edited by dtilque; 04-21-2019 at 01:46 AM.
  #42  
Old 04-21-2019, 03:39 PM
Hari Seldon is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Trantor
Posts: 12,709
Quote:
Originally Posted by pulykamell View Post
I find that delightfully paradoxical, if the entries are actually "fuck" and "cunt" and not "f**k" and "c**t."
No, I quoted it exactly. Why would I bowdlerize it in this thread?

Exactly how where the statutes Colibri mentioned worded? Did the use the forbidden words in the statute? If not how could they specify them?
  #43  
Old 04-21-2019, 03:57 PM
Colibri's Avatar
Colibri is offline
SD Curator of Critters
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Panama
Posts: 42,249
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hari Seldon View Post
Exactly how where the statutes Colibri mentioned worded? Did the use the forbidden words in the statute? If not how could they specify them?
The statutes in question were the Obscene Publications Act of 1857 in the UK and the Comstock Laws of 1873 in the US. They did not define what obscenity was, but made publishing it illegal. What words were included would have been on the basis of "I know it when I see it." Since everyone would agree that "fuck" and "cunt" were obscene words, in practice it made their publication illegal. Before that their publication would not have been a crime (although publishing obscene works was a misdemeanor in the UK from 1824).

Last edited by Colibri; 04-21-2019 at 04:00 PM.
  #44  
Old 04-22-2019, 12:37 PM
Guinastasia's Avatar
Guinastasia is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 52,486
Then I apologize for misunderstanding.

I also remember looking up "dirty words" in the dictionary, but we never looked up swears, since I don't think they had any in the dictionaries we had at our school. Mostly they were words that kids at that age thought were "dirty" like "sex", "penis", "buttocks" etc.

You know how easily amused kids are.
  #45  
Old 04-22-2019, 12:46 PM
scr4 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Alabama
Posts: 15,608
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miller View Post
This isn't the first time that "fuck" has appeared in print in the Times. They did it in 2016, as well, once again while quoting the president.
What was the quote?
  #46  
Old 04-22-2019, 01:33 PM
Hari Seldon is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Trantor
Posts: 12,709
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colibri View Post
The statutes in question were the Obscene Publications Act of 1857 in the UK and the Comstock Laws of 1873 in the US. They did not define what obscenity was, but made publishing it illegal. What words were included would have been on the basis of "I know it when I see it." Since everyone would agree that "fuck" and "cunt" were obscene words, in practice it made their publication illegal. Before that their publication would not have been a crime (although publishing obscene works was a misdemeanor in the UK from 1824).
Is it possible that such laws would have been considered unconstitutionally vague? Okay, "fuck" and "cunt" would have been obvious, but how about lesser expletives? Such as "shit", or even "mothah"? If the crime is left undefined, how can you be accused of committing it?

In Quebec, such words as "chalice" and "tabernacle" are perfectly acceptable in some contexts and vile obscenities in others (using sacred words profanely).
  #47  
Old 04-22-2019, 01:47 PM
Colibri's Avatar
Colibri is offline
SD Curator of Critters
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Panama
Posts: 42,249
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hari Seldon View Post
Is it possible that such laws would have been considered unconstitutionally vague? Okay, "fuck" and "cunt" would have been obvious, but how about lesser expletives? Such as "shit", or even "mothah"? If the crime is left undefined, how can you be accused of committing it?
Important Supreme Court decisions changed the definition of obscenity. Roth v. United States (1957) said that obscenity was material whose "dominant theme taken as a whole appeals to the prurient interest" of the "average person, applying contemporary community standards." Miller v California (1973) said that obscenity was material that lacks "serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value".

At this point, that standard would be so difficult to prove that in effect almost anything goes in the written word. Photos or videos are OK as long as they depict activities involving consenting adults. Whatever standards are applied are mainly imposed by the publisher or broadcaster rather than being legal ones.

Last edited by Colibri; 04-22-2019 at 01:49 PM.
  #48  
Old 04-22-2019, 03:49 PM
DPRK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 3,061
Quote:
Originally Posted by dtilque View Post
Merriam-Webster's Third Unabridged is kind of strange on these words. It was published in 1961 and didn't have any of them. But they periodically published supplements with new words. Those were initially published as an addendum at the back, but later (by the time it got up to 6,000 words) as a separate book too. Anyway after it became acceptable for dictionaries to include those taboo words, they put them to the addendum. So in the middle of all these recently coined words are a scattering of very old four-letter words.
I never trusted Noah Webster in the first place— IMO he wasn't a very nice character— if it was he who selectively censored words when initially compiling his dictionary it doesn't do much to redeem the picture.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wikipedia
Webster viewed language as a tool to control unruly thoughts. His American Dictionary emphasized the virtues of social control over human passions and individualism, submission to authority, and fear of God; they were necessary for the maintenance of the American social order.
  #49  
Old 04-22-2019, 05:32 PM
kaylasdad99 is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Anaheim, CA
Posts: 31,471
Quote:
Originally Posted by RadioWave View Post
I was wondering something similar about last nights Twitter dump. Since RealDonaldTrump has been ruled an official venue of government communication, is this the first time the word "Bullshit" has been used by a President in an official capacity?

Quote:
...agreed to testify, it was not necessary for me to respond to statements made in the “Report” about me, some of which are total bullshit & only given to make the other person look good (or me to look bad). This was an Illegally Started Hoax that never should have happened, a...
...but enough about the Presidential Easter Message to the nation...
  #50  
Old 04-23-2019, 12:43 PM
asterion is offline
Just Some Guy
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 11,716
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colibri View Post
Truman, Johnson, Nixon and others certainly talked like that. The difference is that they didn't put it in writing.
With Johnson we have tapes such as the one of him ordering pants and needing room for his bunghole.
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 02:25 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.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.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017