Curse words in print

Someone might agree...

Seriously, though, in a newspaper there is no place for the word fuck.

Newspapers are used in classrooms and hopefully read by young readers. You want to sprinkle in some fucks, shits and cocksuckers? Well save everyone the trouble just stop printing the newspaper because you are hastening the demise.

 

Depends what you mean by "young readers".

I doubt eight year olds read the Globe & Mail.

I remember the first time the Globe used "fuck" and there was both internal and public debate. But that happened at least 15-20 years ago. Much ado about nothing in 2008

Now I'm sure there may be some readers who are offended by it but I don't think self censorship is some place you want to visit very often.

 

True.

I'm guessing the Wall Street Journal is not read by many fourth graders, but I would say 95% of all American newspapers are trying to be sold to elementary school teachers to use as classroom tools.

 

Oh my Lord. The dude hasn't been funny since 1988...right around the time he stopped cursing. Seriously? Daddy Day Care? Or the other tripe he's done? Goodness.

If you find profanity highly offensive, you must be a barrel of laughs at a party, or in a clubhouse, or in a press box.

 

BYH---I think if you met me, you'd find me less boring than you might expect. Not that I'm stand-up quality, but I contribute my fair share in boisterous exchanges with plenty of genuine laughter. But that's not the point.

Go back up and read what buck and forever wrote in response---as much as they offer a counterpoint, I can understand why they say what they say and wouldn't really argue with them. I used to be a fairly profane person, and I don't flinch when others use it around me even though I don't swear anymore (well, if I stub my toe really hard on something, that's a different story).

Over and out.

 

Oh, I didn't know they'd broken the "fuck" barrier that long ago.

If they're printing that word, are there any still off-limits?

 

I don't like the idea that a word should be verboten just because it's considered profane. If allowed, use the whole language, don't be afraid of certain words because they might have a negative connotation.

And with that, I just completed my first-ever SJ post that didn't contain the word "fuck". Shit! I blew it!

 

I'm still waiting for somebody to explain to me exactly what is wrong with the word "fuck." It's bad? Why? Explain it to me.

I understand being offended by G-d damn or Jesus Christ. For some people, that is a matter of faith. Jesus Christ may not be my lord and savior, but if he's yours, I can respect you enough not to take his name in vain.

I won't even type the N word. I don't like the C word, either, but that is a personal preference. Unfortunately, we do have to bend to what is acceptable in society, but we're writers. We should know better than to be afraid of words.

George Carlin explained just how stupid it is a hell of a lot better than I ever could a long time ago, but clutchcargo was probably too busy dismissing him as lazy or lacking creativity to hear it. Anybody who thinks those things of George Carlin is beyond help.

 

i know what he's saying and i've never seen where carlin's seven words were off limits for print.

 

Gotcha. The ?? came off as general confusion about what he was saying rather than a specific uncertainty.

 

A place I worked in the early 1980s, a mid-major that was arguably the best paper of its size for half a decade or so, intentionally used "fuck" in print. The reasoning was the profanity added to the realism of the piece, which concerned violent criminals. I can't remember the number of complaints, even in general terms. At the time I thought it was cool to work on a paper that was willing to flout convention in quite a few ways. Now I can see that there was self-indulgence in some of what the paper did -- some editors and reporters who were so full of themselves that they thought the paper was bulletproof. But beyond that, today I don't think it's easy for a newspaper to shock most people with tone (as opposed to incredible facts). So if newspapers no longer derive much benefit from shock value, what is the purpose? You're going to alienate a small portion of your audience for what purpose? What do you gain from it, except some weird satisfaction that you got to break one of the "rules?"

 

Fuck without a sexual connotation is just a crude word like douchebag, which is disgusting.

I'm all for using dashes and leaving the word recognizable to show the speaker's intent, lack of civility, anger, etc., in some situations.

If "f---" or "f---ing" has definite impact in the quote -- "That f---ing mayor promised me he would vote my way," said the irate council president. -- then I would argue to leave it instead of substituting the incredibly silly "bleeping." That or "bleep" is a psuedo-television word bastardized for print and looks stupid. It's not even a fucking word. TV (or radio) has an audible beep but the anchor doesn't say "bleep."

If someone tosses an F-bomb just because -- "We were fucking horrible out there tonight." -- then I would chop it like a bad weed in the tomato patch. In that case it's just gratuitous.