Speaking of SSRN, I just stumbled across "Fuck," a paper by Ohio State Law Professor Chris Fairman, which "explores the legal implications of the word fuck." The abstract:
This Article is as simple and provocative as its title suggests: it explores the legal implications of the word fuck. The intersection of the word fuck and the law is examined in four major areas: First Amendment, broadcast regulation, sexual harassment, and education. The legal implications from the use of fuck vary greatly with the context. To fully understand the legal power of fuck, the nonlegal sources of its power are tapped. Drawing upon the research of etymologists, linguists, lexicographers, psychoanalysts, and other social scientists, the visceral reaction to fuck can be explained by cultural taboo. Fuck is a taboo word. The taboo is so strong that it compels many to engage in self-censorship. This process of silence then enables small segments of the population to manipulate our rights under the guise of reflecting a greater community. Taboo is then institutionalized through law, yet at the same time is in tension with other identifiable legal rights. Understanding this relationship between law and taboo ultimately yields fuck jurisprudence.
Full paper here. Question: Is this post high-minded or low-minded? And before you answer, realize that I found this paper by wandering through the archives of the Social Science Research Network.
You need to be logged in to comment.
(If there's one thing we know about comment trolls, it's that they're lazy)