DOCSLIB.ORG

Diplomarbeit

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Diplomarbeit View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by OTHES DIPLOMARBEIT Titel der Diplomarbeit “Swearing across cultures: A lexical analysis of Pulp Fiction in English and German” Verfasserin Sonja Renate Astrid Pühringer angestrebter akademischer Grad: Magistra der Philosophie (Mag.phil.) Wien, im Oktober 2012 Studienkennzahl lt. Studienblatt: A 190 344 353 Studienrichtung lt. Studienblatt: Lehramtsstudium UF Englisch, UF Spanisch Betreuerin: o. Univ. Prof. em. Dr. habil. Barbara Kryk-Kastovsky Acknowledgements First and foremost I want to thank Prof. Barbara Kryk-Kastovsky for her helpful suggestions, stimulations and great anecdotes. I am grateful for many hours of delightful discussion and conversation. Furthermore, I want to express gratitude to my family who has supported me mentally and financially throughout my studies. Last but not least I dedicate this thesis to my grandfather, Ing. Winfried Albert, who has encouraged me my whole live and whom I will be forever thankful for. i Table of contents Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................i Table of contents .............................................................................................................. ii List of tables .....................................................................................................................iv 1. Introduction............................................................................................................ 1 I. Theoretical background: Swearing 2. Swearword evolution ............................................................................................. 3 2.1. Word magic .................................................................................................... 5 2.2. Taboo and censorship ................................................................................... 10 2.3. A history of swearing in English .................................................................. 16 3. Defining ‘bad’ language ...................................................................................... 29 3.1. The socio-linguistic approach ....................................................................... 30 3.2. The feminist approach .................................................................................. 32 3.3. The speech-act approach .............................................................................. 34 3.4. The Victorian idea ........................................................................................ 34 4. Modes and functions of swearing ........................................................................ 36 5. Major categories according to referents .............................................................. 43 5.1. Obscenity ...................................................................................................... 44 5.1.1. Sexuality ............................................................................................ 44 5.1.2. Scatology ........................................................................................... 46 5.2. Religion ........................................................................................................ 47 5.2.1. Profanity ............................................................................................ 48 5.2.2. Blasphemy ......................................................................................... 48 5.3. Social referents ............................................................................................. 49 5.3.1. Intelligence and intellect .................................................................... 49 5.3.2. Gender ............................................................................................... 51 5.3.3. Ethnicity ............................................................................................ 53 5.4. Animals ......................................................................................................... 57 6. Disguise mechanisms........................................................................................... 60 6.1. Euphemism ................................................................................................... 60 ii 6.2. Dysphemism ................................................................................................. 65 6.3. Spoken language ........................................................................................... 67 II. Empirical part: Swearing in Pulp Fiction 7. Material and Method ........................................................................................... 70 7.1. Audiovisual translation ................................................................................. 72 7.2. Pulp Fiction .................................................................................................. 74 7.2.1. The movie .......................................................................................... 74 7.2.2. Screenplay ......................................................................................... 75 7.2.3. Plot ..................................................................................................... 77 8. Analysis ............................................................................................................... 80 8.1. Original version ............................................................................................ 81 8.1.1. Obscenity ........................................................................................... 82 8.1.1.1. Fuck ........................................................................................ 83 8.1.1.2. Other sexual obscenities ......................................................... 94 8.1.1.3. Scatology ................................................................................ 96 8.1.2. Religion ........................................................................................... 103 8.1.2.1. Damn .................................................................................... 104 8.1.2.2. Hell ....................................................................................... 107 8.1.2.3. Jesus Christ .......................................................................... 108 8.1.3. Social swearwords ........................................................................... 109 8.1.4. Racism ............................................................................................. 114 8.1.4.1. African-Americans ............................................................... 115 8.1.4.2. Asians ................................................................................... 120 8.1.5. Euphemisms .................................................................................... 122 8.2. German translation ..................................................................................... 124 8.3. Comparison ................................................................................................. 128 8.3.1. Similarities ....................................................................................... 130 8.3.1.1. Fuck, ficken and abgefuckt ................................................... 131 8.3.1.2. Shit, Scheiße and Scheiß ....................................................... 133 8.3.1.3. Ass and Arsch........................................................................ 135 8.3.1.4. Damn, verdammt and verflucht ............................................ 137 8.3.2. Differences....................................................................................... 138 iii 8.3.2.1. Alternatives to fuck ............................................................... 141 8.3.2.2. Ethnic slurs ........................................................................... 145 8.3.2.3. Animal terms ........................................................................ 148 8.3.2.4. Interjections .......................................................................... 150 8.3.2.5. Omissions, additions and other disguise mechanisms .......... 153 9. Discussion .......................................................................................................... 155 10. Conclusion ......................................................................................................... 157 11. References ......................................................................................................... 159 12. Appendix ........................................................................................................... 165 12.1. Exemplary extract from English Pulp Fiction script ................................ 165 12.2. Exemplary extract from German Pulp Fiction script ............................... 167 12.3. List of swearwords in English Pulp Fiction script ................................... 169 12.4. List of swearwords in German Pulp Fiction script .................................. 175 12.5. Abstract ..................................................................................................... 181 12.6. German summary ..................................................................................... 182 12.7. Curriculum vitae ....................................................................................... 184 iv List of tables: 8.1. Table 1: Summary of swearword categories in English movie script…...….....82 8.1.1. Table 2: Obscenities in English
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Full Article
    467 O'NEIL 2/28/2013 3:54 PM HATE SPEECH, FIGHTING WORDS, AND BEYOND—WHY AMERICAN LAW IS UNIQUE Robert M. O‘Neil* During the waning days of the turbulent presidential campaign of 2012, the issue of free speech was bound to emerge. President Barack Obama chose this moment to declare to the United Nations General Assembly his abiding commitment to the uniquely American value of unfettered expression.1 In a diverse society, he reaffirmed, ―efforts to restrict speech can become a tool to silence critics, or oppress minorities.‖2 The catalyst for this declaration was the appearance of ―a crude and disgusting video‖3 caricaturing the Prophet Muhammad which had triggered violent protests in more than twenty nations, mainly in the Middle East.4 President Obama made clear both his disdain for the video and his unswerving faith in the singularly American insistence on free expression.5 Curiously (or some would say paradoxically) the Obama Administration only weeks earlier had actively supported passage of a resolution in the United Nations Human Rights Council to create an international standard restricting some anti-religious speech; the Egyptian ambassador to the United Nations had lauded this measure by recognizing that ―‗freedom of expression has been sometimes misused‘ to insult religion.‖6 Secretary of State Hilary Clinton had added her view that speech or protest resulting in the destruction of religious sites was not, she noted, ―fair game.‖7 In a recent and expansive analysis of these contrasting events, * University of Virginia and Association of Governing Boards, Albany Law Review Symposium, September, 2012.
    [Show full text]
  • Free Speech Or Hate Speech? a Conversation Regarding State V
    Free Speech or Hate Speech? A Conversation Regarding State v. Liebenguth November 16, 2020 4:00 p.m. – 6:00 p.m. CT Bar Association Webinar CT Bar Institute, Inc. CT: 2.0 CLE Credits (1.0 General / 1.0 Ethics) NY:2.0 CLE Credits (1.0 AOP / 1.0 Ethics) No representation or warranty is made as to the accuracy of these materials. Readers should check primary sources where appropriate and use the traditional legal research techniques to make sure that the information has not been affected or changed by recent developments. Page 1 of 163 Table of Contents Lawyers’ Principles of Professionalism...................................................................................................................3 Agenda ....................................................................................................................................................................6 Faculty Biographies ................................................................................................................................................7 Hate Crime Laws ..................................................................................................................................................10 State v. Liebenguth ................................................................................................................................................26 State v. Liebenguth 181 Conn.App. 37 ..................................................................................................................49 State v. Baccala .....................................................................................................................................................67
    [Show full text]
  • Fighting Words in the Era of Texts, Ims and E-Mails: Can a Disparaged Doctrine Be Resuscitated to Punish Cyber-Bullies?
    DePaul Journal of Art, Technology & Intellectual Property Law Volume 21 Issue 1 Fall 2010 Article 2 Fighting Words in the Era of Texts, IMs and E-Mails: Can a Disparaged Doctrine Be Resuscitated to Punish Cyber-Bullies? Clay Calvert Follow this and additional works at: https://via.library.depaul.edu/jatip Recommended Citation Clay Calvert, Fighting Words in the Era of Texts, IMs and E-Mails: Can a Disparaged Doctrine Be Resuscitated to Punish Cyber-Bullies?, 21 DePaul J. Art, Tech. & Intell. Prop. L. 1 (2010) Available at: https://via.library.depaul.edu/jatip/vol21/iss1/2 This Lead Article is brought to you for free and open access by the College of Law at Via Sapientiae. It has been accepted for inclusion in DePaul Journal of Art, Technology & Intellectual Property Law by an authorized editor of Via Sapientiae. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Calvert: Fighting Words in the Era of Texts, IMs and E-Mails: Can a Dispar FIGHTING WORDS IN THE ERA OF TEXTS, IMS AND E-MAILS: CAN A DISPARAGED DOCTRINE BE RESUSCITATED TO PUNISH CYBER-BULLIES? Clay Calvert' One of the few traditional categories of expression falling outside the ambit of First Amendment2 protection - one of the so- called "categorical carve-outs"' - is the much-maligned 4 class of 1. Professor & Brechner Eminent Scholar in Mass Communication and Director of the Marion B. Brechner First Amendment Project at the University of Florida, Gainesville, Fla. B.A., 1987, Communication, Stanford University; J.D. (Order of the Coif), 1991, McGeorge School of Law, University of the Pacific; Ph.D., 1996, Communication, Stanford University.
    [Show full text]
  • MORSE V. FREDERICK
    (Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2006 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus MORSE ET AL. v. FREDERICK CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT No. 06–278. Argued March 19, 2007—Decided June 25, 2007 At a school-sanctioned and school-supervised event, petitioner Morse, the high school principal, saw students unfurl a banner stating “BONG HiTS 4 JESUS,” which she regarded as promoting illegal drug use. Consistent with established school policy prohibiting such messages at school events, Morse directed the students to take down the banner. When one of the students who had brought the banner to the event—respondent Frederick—refused, Morse confiscated the banner and later suspended him. The school superintendent upheld the suspension, explaining, inter alia, that Frederick was disciplined because his banner appeared to advocate illegal drug use in violation of school policy. Petitioner school board also upheld the suspension. Frederick filed suit under 42 U. S. C. §1983, alleging that the school board and Morse had violated his First Amendment rights. The Dis- trict Court granted petitioners summary judgment, ruling that they were entitled to qualified immunity and that they had not infringed Frederick’s speech rights.
    [Show full text]
  • Language Change: Identity Management and the Boundaries of Acceptable Verbal Conduct in School Settings
    LANGUAGE CHANGE: IDENTITY MANAGEMENT AND THE BOUNDARIES OF ACCEPTABLE VERBAL CONDUCT IN SCHOOL SETTINGS Lynn Downes BA primAry educAtion, BA pre-primary education, BTTC, Master of EducAtion, Inclusive EducAtion, QUT, Master of EducAtion, TESOL, QUT. CELTA, UQ Principal Supervisor: Associate Professor Margaret Kettle Associate Supervisor: Professor Gordon Tait Associate Supervisor: Dr Peter O’Brien Submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Office of Education Research Faculty of Education Queensland University of Technology May 2019. This page has been intentionally left blank “Fuck is a sacred word?” you ask. Fucking A right it is. It is a word that one should not utter because it is such a terrible word of epic proportions, a word whose mere utterance is a sin. A fucking sin, can you imagine? That’s how fucking important fuck is. And because it’s a sin, using it is so enticing to the young that when they hear it for the first time they are spellbound. And when they use it for the first time, that F and the U bang so deliciously against the hard K, ripping through the lips, it’s as if a caged animal has been unleashed. They feel that they have taken that first mighty step toward adulthood. Some of them may even repeat it over and over, testing to see if God will strike them down for saying it. It’s a word you don’t use in polite conversation or in front of your parents, which makes it even more glorious when chewed up and spit out in the schoolyard or in the bowels of the basement.
    [Show full text]
  • The New Profanity Steven R
    ® THE LANGUAGE QUARTERLY Vol. XXV, No. 4 Autumn 2000 VERBATIM Editor: Erin McKean Founding Editor: Laurence Urdang The New Profanity Steven R. Finz The Sea Ranch, California nly a few decades ago, no person of culture battle began in the corridors of a California Owould use the f-word in polite company. municipal court, although it was inspired by a dif- Now, although even our courts have stopped ferent kind of battle that was taking place in Viet shrinking from public pronunciation of the word Nam. On April 26, 1968, Paul Robert Cohen fuck, all America heard O. J. Simpson’s defense walked through a Los Angeles County court- lawyer ask witness Mark Fuhrman if he had used house, in the presence of women and children, “the n-word” any time in the past ten years. wearing a jacket bearing the words “Fuck the Ironically, Fuhrman’s answer was “No. Never.” Draft” plainly emblazoned on its back. When Have ethnically offensive terms become the only Cohen entered a courtroom, he removed the dirty words left to our society? jacket and draped it over his arm. A court officer America holds a traditional belief in the ben- asked the judge to hold Cohen in contempt, but efits of free expression. United States Supreme the judge refused, since no offense had been Court Justice Felix Frankfurter wrote that one of committed in his presence. So the police were the prerogatives of American citizenship is the called. Cohen was arrested and convicted of vio- freedom to speak “foolishly and without modera- lating a California law that prohibited disturbing tion.”1 Our courts have a long history of protect- the peace.
    [Show full text]
  • Germanistische Studien
    Eine Zeitschrift des Vereins Deutsche Sprache (Georgien) GERMANISTISCHE STUDIEN N. 10 Jubiläumsausgabe Herausgegeben von Lali Kezba-Chundadse und Friederike Schmöe Begründet von Samson (Tengis) Karbelaschwili Tbilissi · Dortmund Verlag „Universal“ Germanistische Studien Herausgegeben von Prof. Dr. Lali Kezba-Chundadse und PD. Dr. Friederike Schmöe Begründet von Prof. Dr. Samson Karbelaschwili († 2009) Die Zeitschrift „Germanistische Studien“ des Vereins Deutsche Sprache (Abteilung Tbilissi) ist ein Forum für Forschungsbeiträge aus dem Bereich der deutschen Sprachwissenschaft, Literaturtheorie und Deutsch als Fremdsprache. Es ist interdisziplinär angelegt und offen für alle theoretischen Ansätze in oben genannten Teilbereichen der Germanistik. Die Zeitschrift erscheint seit 2000 einmal jährlich in gedruckter Form. Bis 2009 wurden Fallstudien in allen Teilbereichen der Germanistik veröffentlicht. Die letzten zwei Hefte (2009/10) der Zeitschrift, je einem Schwerpunktthema gewidmet, sind Tagungsberichte. Beiträge können nur in deutscher Sprache verfasst eingereicht werden. Die eingesandten Beiträge werden durch den international besetzten Beirat begutachtet. Die Druckausgabe wird unterstützt durch den Verein Deutsche Sprache. Allen Beiträgen wird ein kurzes 10- 15 Zeilen, (maximal ein halbseitiges englischsprachiges) Abstract vorangestellt. Die Inhaltsverzeichnisse der Print-Ausgaben, die Abstracts aller publizierten Beiträge und ausgewählte Artikel, nach den Namen der Autoren alphabetisch geordnet, sind im Volltext unter http://germstud.wordpress.com
    [Show full text]
  • Fighting Words and the First Amendment Thomas F
    Kentucky Law Journal Volume 63 | Issue 1 Article 2 1974 "Don't Bother to Smile When You Call Me That"-- Fighting Words and the First Amendment Thomas F. Shea St. John's University Follow this and additional works at: https://uknowledge.uky.edu/klj Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, and the First Amendment Commons Right click to open a feedback form in a new tab to let us know how this document benefits you. Recommended Citation Shea, Thomas F. (1974) ""Don't Bother to Smile When You Call Me That"--Fighting Words and the First Amendment," Kentucky Law Journal: Vol. 63 : Iss. 1 , Article 2. Available at: https://uknowledge.uky.edu/klj/vol63/iss1/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at UKnowledge. It has been accepted for inclusion in Kentucky Law Journal by an authorized editor of UKnowledge. For more information, please contact [email protected]. "Don't Bother to Smile When You Call Me That" -Fighting Words and the First Amendment By THOMAS F. SHEA* According to Owen Wister, certain words, at least when spoken without a disarming smile, are likely to provoke swift physical retaliation.' Kipling put it with characteristic clarity: "[Y]ou must not call a man a bastard unless you are prepared '2 to prove it on his front teeth." In order to forestall such violence-prone confrontations, it would seem desirable for society to prevent the insulting utter- ances which precipitate them in the first instance. Presumably laws effecting that result would advance society's undeniable interest in preserving the peace in two ways: by initially deter- ring the employment of abusive language and, where the speaker has not been deterred, by encouraging the recipient to seek redress through the judicial process rather than to rely on more immediate and more primitive means of obtaining satis- faction.
    [Show full text]
  • Volume 48 • Number 1 • January 2007
    BROADCAST EDUCATION BEA ASSOCIATION VOLUME 48 • NUMBER 1 • JANUARY 2007 Feedback [ FEEDBACK ] January 2007 (Vol. 48, No. 8) Feedback is an electronic journal scheduled for posting six times a year at www.beaweb.org by the Broadcast Education Association. As an electronic journal, Feedback publishes (1) articles or essays— especially those of pedagogical value—on any aspect of electronic media: (2) responsive essays—especially industry analysis and those reacting to issues and concerns raised by previous Feedback articles and essays; (3) scholarly papers: (4) reviews of books, video, audio, film and web resources and other instructional materials; and (5) official announcements of the BEA and news from BEA Districts and Interest Divisions. Feedback is not a peer-reviewed journal. All communication regarding business, membership questions, information about past issues of Feedback and changes of address should be sent to the Executive Director, 1771 N. Street NW, Washington D.C. 20036. SUBMISSION GUIDELINES 1. Submit an electronic version of the complete manuscript with references and charts in Microsoft Word along with graphs, audio/video and other graphic attachments to the editor. Retain a hard copy for refer- ence. 2. Please double-space the manuscript. Use the 5th edition of the American Psychological Association (APA) style manual. 3. Articles are limited to 3,000 words or less, and essays to 1,500 words or less. 4. All authors must provide the following information: name, employer, professional rank and/or title, complete mailing address, telephone and fax numbers, email address, and whether the writing has been presented at a prior venue. 5. If editorial suggestions are made and the author(s) agree to the changes, such changes should be submitted by email as a Microsoft Word document to the editor.
    [Show full text]
  • First Amendment in a Hostile Environment: a Primer on Free Speech and Sexual Harassment Jules B
    Notre Dame Law Review Volume 68 Issue 5 The Civil Rights Act of 1991: Theory and Article 4 Practice 6-1-1999 First Amendment in a Hostile Environment: A Primer on Free Speech and Sexual Harassment Jules B. Gerard Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.nd.edu/ndlr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Jules B. Gerard, First Amendment in a Hostile Environment: A Primer on Free Speech and Sexual Harassment, 68 Notre Dame L. Rev. 1003 (1993). Available at: http://scholarship.law.nd.edu/ndlr/vol68/iss5/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by NDLScholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Notre Dame Law Review by an authorized administrator of NDLScholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The First Amendment in a Hostile Environment: A Primer on Free Speech and Sexual Harassment Jules B. Gerard' Civil suits by women charging that sexual harassment in the workplace created such intolerably hostile environments that they were unable to perform effectively have multiplied in the past decade. In every case, incidents involving speech were alleged or found to have contributed to the hostile environment. Re- markably, however, defendants almost never claimed that the sin-' gled out speech was constitutionally protected. On those few occa- sions when they did raise that issue, their claims were rejected virtually out of hand.1 The United States Supreme Court might be partly to blame for this casual disregard of free speech interests. When the Court first interpreted and upheld the federal law that bans sexual dis- crimination in employment practices, it made no point of the fact that the law plainly implicates First Amendment values.
    [Show full text]
  • Looking Back at Cohen V. California: a 40 Year Retrospective from Inside the Court
    William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal Volume 20 (2011-2012) Issue 3 Article 2 March 2012 Looking Back at Cohen v. California: A 40 Year Retrospective from Inside the Court Thomas G. Krattenmaker Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmborj Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, and the First Amendment Commons Repository Citation Thomas G. Krattenmaker, Looking Back at Cohen v. California: A 40 Year Retrospective from Inside the Court, 20 Wm. & Mary Bill Rts. J. 651 (2012), https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmborj/ vol20/iss3/2 Copyright c 2012 by the authors. This article is brought to you by the William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmborj LOOKING BACK AT COHEN V. CALIFORNIA: A 40-YEAR RETROSPECTIVE FROM INSIDE THE COURT Thomas G. Krattenmaker* This case may seem at first blush too inconsequential to find its way into our books, but the issue it presents is of no small constitu- tional significance.1 In April 1968, at the height of the Vietnam War, when campuses from Columbia to Berkeley were in upheaval and many cities in America were on fire due to racial discord as well as antiwar sentiment, a young man named Paul Robert Cohen en- gaged in a comparatively quiet act of protest. Summoned to appear as a witness, Cohen walked through a corridor of the Los Angeles County Courthouse wearing a jacket on which “Fuck the Draft” was written.2 For that act, Cohen was convicted of “maliciously and willfully disturb[ing] the peace or quiet .
    [Show full text]
  • Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C
    Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of ) ) Remand of Section III.B of the Commission’s ) DA 06-1739 March 15, 2006 Omnibus Order Resolving ) Numerous Broadcast Television Indecency ) Complaints ) JOINT COMMENTS OF FOX TELEVISION STATIONS, INC., CBS BROADCASTING INC., NBC UNIVERSAL, INC. AND NBC TELEMUNDO LICENSE CO. Ellen S. Agress Carter G. Phillips Maureen O’Connell R. Clark Wadlow FOX TELEVISION STATIONS, INC. James P. Young 1211 Avenue of the Americas Jennifer Tatel New York, NY 10036 David S. Petron (212) 252-7204 SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 1501 K St., N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 736-8000 Counsel for Fox Television Stations, Inc. Susanna Lowy Robert Corn-Revere Anne Lucey Ronald G. London CBS BROADCASTING, INC. Amber L. Husbands 51 West 52nd Street DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP New York, NY 10019 1500 K Street, N.W., Suite 450 (212) 975-3406 Washington, DC 20005 (202) 508-6600 Counsel for CBS Broadcasting Inc. Susan Weiner Miguel A. Estrada F. William LeBeau Andrew S. Tulumello NBC UNIVERSAL, INC. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 30 Rockefeller Plaza 1050 Connecticut Ave., N.W. New York, NY 10112 Washington, DC 20036-5306 (202) 995-8500 Counsel for NBC Universal, Inc. and NBC Telemundo License Co. September 21, 2006 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Table of Contents............................................................................................................................. i INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................................1 ARGUMENT...................................................................................................................................5 I. THE COMMISSION’S NEW INDECENCY ENFORCEMENT REGIME VIOLATES THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT. ...........................................5 II. THE CURRENT INDECENCY REGIME, AS IT RELATES TO POTENTIALLY OFFENSIVE WORDS, IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. ............................6 A. The Current Indecency Regime Is Unconstitutionally Vague And Impermissibly Chills Protected Speech.
    [Show full text]