Jump to content

Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties

This is a good article. Click here for more information.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by GA bot (talk | contribs) at 22:30, 23 June 2013 (Adding Good Article icon). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties
Cover
Cover of 2009 edition
AuthorChristopher M. Fairman
Cover artistCyanotype Book Architects
LanguageEnglish
SubjectFreedom of speech
GenreLaw
PublisherSphinx Publishing
Publication date
2009
Publication placeUnited States
Media typePaperback
Pages272
ISBN978-1-57248-711-6
OCLC262433445
342.7308/53
LC ClassKF9444 .F35 2009
Preceded by"Fuck", Cardozo Law Review (2007) 

Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties is a book by law professor Christopher M. Fairman about freedom of speech, the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, censorship, and use of the word "fuck" in society. Fairman cites studies from academics in the fields of social science, psychoanalysis, and linguistics. He establishes that the majority of current usage of fuck have connotations completely separate from its meaning of sexual intercourse. The author discusses the efforts of conservatives in the United States to censor the word from common parlance in the country.

The book was first published in 2009 by Sphinx Publishing and elaborates on the article "Fuck" written by the author in 2006. After initial difficulty with publication including a rejection by the Kansas Law Review 25 minutes after submission, his article was published in 2007 by the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law in the Cardozo Law Review.

Fairman's 2006 paper received favorable reception from the Seattle Post-Intelligencer and The Horn Book Magazine. The book was positively reviewed by Publishers Weekly, Library Journal, and Choice: Current Reviews for Academic Libraries, which concluded, "Highly recommended. All readership levels."[1] Subsequent to the book's release, its author became consulted by media sources including CNN on issues surrounding word taboo in society.

Background

Professor Christopher M. Fairman of the Moritz College of Law at Ohio State University (2008)

Employed as a professor at Ohio State University's Moritz College of Law, Christopher M. Fairman specializes in research into freedom of speech and word taboo.[2] He is regarded as an expert on the subject of legal ethics.[3][4] Fairman held off on composing the article until he received tenure, as he was concerned its publication would adversely impact his professional reputation.[5] His supervisors at Ohio State University did not try to convince him to cease research into the topic.[5] Fairman acknowledged to Scripps Howard News Service that government spending helped finance his scholarship.[5]

Fairman's original 2006 article "Fuck" is an analysis of "the intersection of law and taboo language".[5] In addition, the article covers usage of the word in case studies related to sexual harassment and education.[6] The article is 74 pages long.[7] The word fuck is used over 560 times in the article.[8] According to author Jesse Sheidlower in his book The F-Word, Fairman's article is "the first scholarly paper to be titled 'Fuck' exclusively".[9]

Initially the author tried to get his article published by providing copies to multiple law reviews in the United States, but he was unsuccessful.[5] The Kansas Law Review rejected his article 25 minutes after receipt.[5] Finally the article was published by the Cardozo Law Review in 2007.[5]

Content summary

Fairman cites studies from academics in the fields of social science, psychoanalysis, lexicography, linguistics, and etymology.[1][10] Of the sixteen chapters in the book, eight use the word fuck in their titles.[8] He discusses usages of fuck as early as the 15th century.[10] Fairman establishes that the majority of current usage of fuck have connotations completely separate from its meaning of sexual intercourse.[11] He argues that its usage is most commonly associated with power rather than a sexual connotation.[8] He discusses the efforts of conservatives in the United States to censor the word from common parlance in the country, and characterizes these acts as diametrically opposed to the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.[12]

Fairman points out that legal precedent regarding use of the word is unclear because historically court decisions related to its usage have contradicted each other.[1] He presents case studies of such contradictory application of the law, and uses these examples to analyze public perceptions surrounding freedom of speech.[1] He provides examples of exceptions to the First Amendment, such as speech intended to cause violent acts, and explains the manner in which federal and state governments sanction these exceptions.[12] Fairman grounds the subject matter within a historical context, and examines the taboo nature of the word.[1][12]

Publication history

Fairman first published his article "Fuck" on the Social Science Research Network website in March 2006.[13] He updated this with a follow-up piece in April 2007 titled "Fuck and Law Faculty Rankings".[14] His original article "Fuck" was published in the Cardozo Law Review in 2007.[15][16]

Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties was first published in 2009 in paperback format by Sphinx Publishing.[17][18][19] It was additionally published in 2009 in an electronic format for the Kindle.[20]

Reception

Journalist Nick Eaton writing for the Seattle Post-Intelligencer called Fairman's 2006 paper "fascinating, and quite entertaining".[21] The Horn Book Magazine described the paper as "a long, thoughtful (but entertaining) academic article", and a "treasure".[10] Writing in the San Diego Law Review, Orly Lobel called Fairman's article "a provocative inquiry on how legal fields, including First Amendment, broadcast regulation, sexual harassment, and education law interact with cultural taboos pertaining to the use of sexual terms".[22] In a 2011 article for the Federal Communications Law Journal, W. Wat Hopkins was critical of Fairman's article and subsequent book, writing that "Each work seems to be more of an excuse to use the word than to treat the issue seriously."[8]

A review of the book in Publishers Weekly characterized it as "a spirited expansion on his law review article".[12] The review concluded, "Austere and informative, Fairman's social history is uncompromising in its vigilant defense of first amendment rights, both in spite of his subject's potential for offense, and because of it."[12] Choice: Current Reviews for Academic Libraries reviewed the book and called it "a provocative monograph".[1] The review concluded, "Highly recommended. All readership levels."[1]

Writing for Library Journal, Marianne Orme described the book as a "serious treatment" of "censorship of the expletive".[23] Orme wrote that the book was of a higher quality than The Complete Motherfucker: A History of the Mother of all Dirty Words by Jim Dawson.[23] Ian Crouch of The New Yorker commented on the cover design for the book. "In 'Fuck,' by the law professor Christopher Fairman, the word is in the process of being whited out, but still remains in all its glory, a judicious choice for a book that carries the subtitle, 'Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties.'"[24]

Impact

After the book's publication, Fairman was consulted by media sources such as CNN on issues involving word taboo, including stigmatization of use of the word "retard".[25][26] He commented to CNN, "By focusing on the word itself, you reinforce the negative connotation and actually strengthen the taboo. The focus should be on the acceptance and inclusion of people with intellectual disabilities. This breaks down the cultural taboo that creates word taboo in the first place."[26] Fairman was criticized by disability advocates for an article he wrote in The Washington Post in which he expressed concern about censorship of the word.[27] He argued for continued usage of the term by medical doctors in a clinical capacity.[28] He voiced concerns that backlash against use of the word would lead to undue censorship of speech.[28] Fairman cautioned against self-censorship related to the term and warned that curbing free speech in one area may have unintended consequences generally against freedom of expression.[29]

See also

References

  1. ^ a b c d e f g American Library Association (March 2010). "Book Review – Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties, by Christopher M. Fairman". Choice: Current Reviews for Academic Libraries. Chicago, Illinois: Association of College and Research Libraries.
  2. ^ Fairman, Christopher M. (February 14, 2010). "The case against banning the word 'retard'". The Washington Post. The Washington Post Company. p. B01. Retrieved April 2, 2013.
  3. ^ McCarty, James F. (March 26, 2010). "Comments linked to judge's e-mail discussed cases Saffold says she didn't post thoughts about attorneys and trials on Web site". The Plain Dealer. Cleveland, Ohio. p. A1.
  4. ^ Hansen, Ronald J. (November 15, 2005). "Cox hires justices' wives for staff". The Detroit News. Detroit, Michigan: Gannett Co., Inc. p. 1B.
  5. ^ a b c d e f g Harden, Mike (September 27, 2006). "In scholarly pursuit of the 'Queen Mother of dirty words'". Scripps Howard News Service. Washington, D.C.
  6. ^ "Law Review Digest: Universities and Other Institutions of Higher Learning". Journal of Law & Education. 36. Jefferson Law Book Company, Division of Anderson Publishing Co.: 567 October 2007.
  7. ^ The Columbus Dispatch staff (September 24, 2006). "Curses: Treatise on taboo word a tough sell". The Columbus Dispatch. Ohio.
  8. ^ a b c d Hopkins, W. Wat (December 2011). "When Does F*** Not Mean F***?: FCC v. Fox Television Stations and a Call for Protecting Emotive Speech". Federal Communications Law Journal. 64 (1). Federal Communications Bar Association.
  9. ^ Sheidlower, Jesse (2009). The F-Word. Oxford University Press, USA. p. xxviii. ISBN 0-19-539311-2.
  10. ^ a b c Campbell, Patty (May 1, 2007). "The Sand in the Oyster: The Pottymouth Paradox". The Horn Book Magazine. Boston, Massachusetts: Horn Book Inc. pp. 311–315. ISSN 0018-5078.
  11. ^ Jay, Timothy (2009). "Do offensive words harm people?". Psychology, Public Policy, and Law. 15 (2). American Psychological Association: 91–93. doi:10.1037/a0015646.
  12. ^ a b c d e Publishers Weekly staff (August 31, 2009). "Nonfiction Review: Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties". Publishers Weekly. PWxyz, LLC, new.publishersweekly.com. Retrieved March 22, 2013.
  13. ^ Fairman, Christopher M. (March 2006). "Fuck". Ohio State Public Law Working Paper No. 59; Center for Interdisciplinary Law and Policy Studies Working Paper Series No. 39. Social Science Research Network. doi:10.2139/ssrn.896790. Retrieved April 2, 2013. alternate link
  14. ^ Fairman, Christopher M. (April 2007). "Fuck and Law Faculty Rankings". Ohio State Public Law Working Paper No. 91. Social Science Research Network. doi:10.2139/ssrn.971103. Retrieved April 2, 2013.
  15. ^ Fairman, Christopher M. (2007). "Fuck" (PDF). Cardozo Law Review. 28 (4). Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law: 1711–1772. OCLC 123736997. Retrieved April 2, 2013.
  16. ^ OCLC (2007). "Fuck". WorldCat. www.worldcat.org. OCLC 123736997. Retrieved April 2, 2013.
  17. ^ Fairman, Christopher M. (2009). Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties. Sphinx Publishing. ISBN 978-1-57248-711-6.
  18. ^ Library of Congress (2009). "Fuck : word taboo and protecting our First Amendment liberties". Library of Congress Catalog Record. United States Congress. Retrieved June 11, 2013. LCCN 2009-16762
  19. ^ OCLC (2009). "Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties". WorldCat. www.worldcat.org. OCLC 262433445. Retrieved April 2, 2013.
  20. ^ Fairman, Christopher M. (2009). Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties. Sphinx Publishing; Seller: Amazon Digital Services, Inc.; ASIN: B00348UN8E; File size: 336 KB. ISBN 1-57248-711-9.
  21. ^ Eaton, Nick (July 29, 2011). "The F-word: Why can't we just effing say it whenever we effing want?". Seattle Post-Intelligencer. Seattle, Washington: Hearst Seattle Media, LLC. Retrieved April 2, 2013.
  22. ^ Lobel, Orly (Fall 2006). "Editor's Symposium: Reflections on Equality, Adjudication, and the Regulation of Sexuality at Work: A Response to Kim Yuracko". San Diego Law Review. 43. San Diego Law Review Association: 899.
  23. ^ a b Orme, Marianne (August 21, 2009). "Xpress Reviews – First Look at New Books". Library Journal. Media Source. ISSN 0363-0277. OCLC 36096783.
  24. ^ Crouch, Ian (September 2, 2010). "How Should We Put This?". The New Yorker. www.newyorker.com; Page-Turner; Conde Nast. Retrieved April 12, 2013.
  25. ^ Park, Madison (September 27, 2010). "Congress eliminates the R- word". CNN Wire. CNN. p. Section: Med. Retrieved June 11, 2013.
  26. ^ a b Grinberg, Emanuella (March 7, 2012). "Ending the R- word : Ban it or understand it?". CNN Wire. CNN. p. Section: Living. Retrieved June 11, 2013.
  27. ^ McDowell, Adam (March 6, 2010). "The r word". National Post. Canada: Postmedia Network Inc. p. A1. ISSN 1486-8008.
  28. ^ a b Price, Rita (March 4, 2010). "The R- word". The Columbus Dispatch. Columbus, Ohio: The Dispatch Printing Co. p. 1B.
  29. ^ "Rich or poor, women juggle family balance". St. Petersburg Times. Florida. February 21, 2010. p. 6P.

Further reading

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fuck:_Word_Taboo_and_Protecting_Our_First_Amendment_Liberties&oldid=561271745"