>>110472999 (OP)
Писать нормально научись, шкет.
>здохло
Сажи безграмотному выпердышу.

>>110474731
ролл

>>110474777

>>110474832
idi nah

>>110474777
На кого мне фапать то? Я не шарю в инглише

>>110474856
na mamku svoyu

>>110474877
Лучше на опа

>>110474897

>>110474941

>>110474957
Flatulist
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Le Pétomane was a professional flatulist around the start of the 20th century in France.
A flatulist, fartist, or professional farter is an entertainer (sometimes considered a comedian) whose routine consists solely or primarily of passing gas in a creative, musical, or amusing manner.[1]

Contents [hide]
1 History
2 Popular culture
3 Notable flatulists
4 References
4.1 Notes
4.2 Further reading
5 External links
History[edit]
There are a number of scattered references to ancient and medieval flatulists, who could produce various rhythms and pitches with their intestinal wind. Saint Augustine in City of God (De Civitate Dei) (14.24) mentions some performers who did have "such command of their bowels, that they can break wind continuously at will, so as to produce the effect of singing." Juan Luis Vives, in his 1522 commentary to Augustine's work, testifies to having himself witnessed such a feat,[citation needed] a remark referenced by Michel de Montaigne in an essay.Which?

The professional farters of medieval Ireland were called braigetoír. They are listed together with other performers and musicians in the 12th century Tech Midchúarda, a diagram of the banqueting hall of Tara. As entertainers, these braigetoir ranked at the lower end of a scale headed by bards, fili, and harpers.[2][3]

One late medieval flatulist is mentioned in an entry in the 13th-century English Liber Feodorum or Book of Fees. It lists one Roland the Farter, who held Hemingstone manor in the county of Suffolk, for which he was obliged to perform "Unum saltum et siffletum et unum bumbulum" (one jump, one whistle, and one fart) annually at the court of King Henry II every Christmas. But professional farting no longer seemed to be restricted to the aristocracy. The Activa Vita character in the 14th century allegorical poem Piers Plowman appears to number farting among the abilities desirable in a good entertainer in general, paralleling with storytelling, fiddling, or playing the harp.[4] This poem translates to "As for me, I can neither drum nor trumpet, nor tell jokes, nor fart amusingly at parties, nor play the harp."

In Japan, during the Edo period, flatulists were known as "heppiri otoko" (放屁男), lit. "farting men."[5]

Popular culture[edit]
Terrance and Phillip, from the animated series South Park, are fictional comedic flatulists.
Peräsmies, featured in the Pahkasika magazine, is a superhero whose only superpower is the ability to fart supernaturally hard, similar to Fartman (Howard Stern).
The characters Le Corbussier et Papin on The Smell of Reeves and Mortimer.
An episode of the sketch comedy series Mr. Show features two fictional flatulists named Fartin' Gary and Fartin' Rudy. In the sketch, Rudy steals a comedy show from professional Fartin' Gary, a professional comedic flatulist. Rudy then earns the title of "Crown Prince of Fartistry" and his talents win him a starring role in his own television sitcom entitled Second Wind.
The male lead Paulino in the Spanish play ¡Ay Carmela! by José Sanchis Sinisterra (1987), and in the movie of the same name based on it (1990), performs as a flatulist in the work.
In the 1999 film Mystery Men, Paul Reubens plays The Spleen. Cursed, The Spleen can aim his super-powered flatulence to take out his targets, but he smells terrible at all times.
On the 1977 comedy album Derek and Clive Come Again, Dudley Moore posed as a professional farter from Scotland called Ross McPharter on a mock Scottish radio show hosted by a character played by Peter Cook.
Radio shock jock Howard Stern appeared at the 1992 MTV Video Music Awards as Fartman, a fictional superhero who fights crime and can fly thanks to his super-powered flatulance. The Fartman character first appeared in the National Lampoon humor magazine series in the mid-1970s.
In the manga/anime series One Piece, there is a new character named "Kin'emon" who was introduced with his body cut into three segments, one of which being his lower-half which was the first to be encountered by the main protagonists. During that time he was able to communicate via the skills of a flatulist
Johnny Fartpants from Viz (comic) occasionally performs as a flatulist; however, he generally employs his rectal capacity as a superhero.
Notable flatulists[edit]
Mr. Methane, contemporary flatulist
Le Pétomane, performed in France from 1887 until 1914
Roland the Farter, flatulist in the court of King Henry II of England.
Will the Farter, flatulist who appears on Jackass 3D and The Howard Stern Show
References[edit]
Notes[edit]
Jump up ^ Le Pétomane:The Strange Life of a "Fartiste"
Jump up ^ Collinson, Francis M. (1975). The bagpipe: the history of a musical instrument. Routledge. p. 73. ISBN 0-7100-7913-3.
Jump up ^ Fletcher, Alan John (2001). Drama and the performing arts in pre-Cromwellian Ireland: a repertory of sources and documents from the earliest times until c. 1642. Boydell & Brewer. p. 468. ISBN 0-85991-573-5.
Jump up ^ Peter Meredith, "The professional travelling players of the fifteenth century: myth or reality?" European Medieval Drama 2 (1998) 21-34. DOI 10.1484/J.EMD.2.300900
Jump up ^ "放屁男". Nihon Kokugo Daijiten (日本国語大辞典). Shogakukan.
Further reading[edit]
Valerie J. Allen; Broken Air Exemplaria (2004). ([1] PDF version)
Jim Dawson; Who Cut the Cheese?: A Cultural History of the Fart (Ten Speed Press, 1999)
Steve Bryant; The Art Of The Fart
G. Ramsey; A Breath of Fresh Air: Rectal Music in Gaelic Ireland in Archaeology Ireland Vol. 16, No. 1, pp. 22-23 (2002)
External links[edit]
Mr Methane - The World's Only Performing Flatulist
Scene from the movie Hollywood Knights

Fart
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article is about the word fart itself. For information on the bodily function of passing intestinal gas (flatus) via the anus, see Flatulence. For other uses, see Fart (disambiguation).

German peasants greet the fire and brimstone from a papal bull of Pope Paul III in Martin Luther's 1545 Depictions of the Papacy
Fart is a word in the English language most commonly used in reference to flatulence. The word fart is often considered unsuitable in formal situations as it may be considered vulgar or offensive. Fart can be used as a noun or a verb.[1] The immediate roots are in the Middle English words ferten, feortan and farten, kin of the Old High German word ferzan. Cognates are found in old Norse, Slavic and also Greek and Sanskrit. The word fart has been incorporated into the colloquial and technical speech of a number of occupations, including computing.

Contents [hide]
1 Etymology
2 Vulgarity and offensiveness
2.1 Historical examples
2.2 Modern usage
3 See also
4 References
5 Further reading
6 External links
Etymology
The English word fart is one of the oldest words in the English lexicon. Its Indo-European origins are confirmed by the many cognate words in some other Indo-European languages: It is cognate with Greek πέρδομαι (perdomai), as well as the Latin pēdĕre, Sanskrit pardate, Avestan pərəδaiti, Italian fare un peto, French "péter", Russian пердеть (perdet') and Polish "pierd" << PIE perd [break wind loudly] or pezd [the same, softly], all of which mean the same thing. Like most Indo-European roots in the Germanic languages, it was altered under Grimm's law, so that Indo-European /p/ > /f/, and /d/ > /t/, as the German cognate furzen also manifests.[2][3][4][5]

Vulgarity and offensiveness

A humorous fart sign.
In certain circles the word is considered merely a common profanity with an often humorous connotation. For example, a person may be referred to as a 'fart', or an 'old fart', not necessarily depending on the person's age. This may convey the sense that a person is boring or unduly fussy and be intended as an insult, mainly when used in the second or third person. For example, '"he's a boring old fart!" However the word may be used as a colloquial term of endearment or in an attempt at humorous self-deprecation (e.g., in such phrases as "I know I'm just an old fart" or "you do like to fart about!"). 'Fart' is often only used as a term of endearment when the subject is personally well known to the user.

In both cases though, it tends to refer to personal habits or traits that the user considers to be a negative feature of the subject, even when it is a self-reference. For example, when concerned that a person is being overly methodical they might say 'I know I'm being an old fart', potentially to forestall negative thoughts and opinions in others. When used in an attempt to be offensive, the word is still considered vulgar, but it remains a mild example of such an insult. This usage dates back to the Medieval period, where the phrase 'not worth a fart' would be applied to an item held to be worthless.[6]

Historical examples

Treason!!! John Bull emits an explosive bout of flatulence at a poster of George III as an outraged William Pitt the Younger admonishes him. Newton's etching was probably a comment on Pitt's threat (realized the following month) to suspend habeas corpus.
The word fart in Middle English occurs in "Sumer Is Icumen In", where one sign of summer is "bucke uerteþ" (the buck farts). It appears in several of Geoffrey Chaucer's Canterbury Tales. In "The Miller's Tale", Absolon has already been tricked into kissing Alison's buttocks when he is expecting to kiss her face. Her boyfriend Nicholas hangs his buttocks out of a window, hoping to trick Absolon into kissing his buttocks in turn and then farts in the face of his rival. In "The Summoner's Tale", the friars in the story are to receive the smell of a fart through a twelve-spoked wheel.

In the early modern period, the word fart was not considered especially vulgar; it even surfaced in literary works. For example, Samuel Johnson's A Dictionary of the English Language, published in 1755, included the word. Johnson defined it with two poems, one by Jonathan Swift, the other by Sir John Suckling.[7][8]

Benjamin Franklin prepared an essay on the topic for the Royal Academy of Brussels in 1781 urging scientific study. In 1607, a group of Members of Parliament had written a ribald poem entitled The Parliament Fart, as a symbolic protest against the conservatism of the House of Lords and the king, James I.[9][10]

Modern usage
By the early twentieth century, the word "fart" had come to be considered vulgar in most English-speaking cultures. While not one of George Carlin's original seven dirty words, he noted in a later routine that the word fart, ought to be added to "the list" of words that were not acceptable (for broadcast) in any context (which have non-offensive meanings), and described television as (then) a "fart-free zone".[11] Thomas Wolfe had the phrase "a fizzing and sulphuric fart" cut out of his 1929 work Look Homeward, Angel by his publisher. Ernest Hemingway, who had the same publisher, accepted the principle that "fart" could be cut, on the grounds that words should not be used purely to shock.[12] The hippie movement in the 1970s saw a new definition develop, with the use of "fart" as a personal noun, to describe a "detestable person, or someone of small stature or limited mental capacity", gaining wider and more open usage as a result.[13]

Rhyming slang developed the alternative form "raspberry tart", later shortened to "raspberry", and occasionally abbreviated further to "razz". This was associated with the phrase "blowing a raspberry".[14] The word has become more prevalent, and now features in children's literature, such as the Walter the Farting Dog series of children's books, Robert Munsch's Good Families Don't and The Gas We Pass by Shinta Cho.

According to The Alphabet of Manliness, the assigning of blame for farting is part of a ritual of behaviour. This may involve deception and a back and forth rhyming game.[15] Derived terms include fanny fart (queef), brain fart (slang for a special kind of abnormal brain activity which results in human error while performing a repetitive task, or more generally denoting a degree of mental laxity or any task-related forgetfulness, such as forgetting how to hold a fork) and old fart.

The stand-up comic George Carlin added the word to his list of "Seven Words You Can Never Say on Television".[16]

See also
Flatulence humor
Le Pétomane
Queef

я оп

Feces
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Fecal Matter" redirects here. For the American grunge band, see Fecal Matter (band).
Not to be confused with facies or excretion.
"Body waste" redirects here. For other types of body waste, see metabolic waste.

This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (September 2013)
Elephant feces
Human feces
A comparison of elephant (left) and human feces (right)
Feces (US) or faeces (UK), also known by many other names, is a solid waste product from an animal digestive tract, discharged through the anus or cloaca during a process called defecation. Urine and feces together are called excreta.

Collected feces has various uses, namely as fertilizer or soil conditioner in agriculture, as a fuel source, or for medicinal purposes (fecal transplants or fecal bacteriotherapy, in the case of human feces).

Contents [hide]
1 Ecology
2 Characteristics
3 Human feces
4 Pets
5 Uses
5.1 Manure, fertilizer, and special products
5.2 Fuel
5.3 Fecal transplant, gut flora transplant
5.4 Coprolites and paleofeces
5.5 Other uses
6 Society and culture
6.1 Feelings of disgust
6.2 Etymology
6.3 Synonyms
7 See also
8 References
8.1 Bibliography
8.2 Further reading
9 External links
Ecology

The cassowary disperses plant seeds via its feces

Earthworm feces aid in provision of minerals and plant nutrients in an accessible form
After an animal has digested eaten material, the remains of that material are discharged from its body as waste. Although it is lower in energy than the food from which it is derived, feces may retain a large amount of energy, often 50% of that of the original food.[1] This means that of all food eaten, a significant amount of energy remains for the decomposers of ecosystems. Many organisms feed on feces, from bacteria to fungi to insects such as dung beetles, who can sense odors from long distances.[2] Some may specialize in feces, while others may eat other foods as well. Feces serve not only as a basic food, but also as a supplement to the usual diet of some animals. This is known as coprophagia, and occurs in various animal species such as young elephants eating the feces of their mothers in order to gain essential gut flora, or by other animals such as dogs, rabbits, and monkeys.

Feces and urine, which reflect ultraviolet light, are important to raptors such as kestrels, who can see the near ultraviolet and thus find their prey by their middens and territorial markers.[3]

Seeds also may be found in feces. Animals who eat fruit are known as frugivores. An advantage for a plant in having fruit is that animals will eat the fruit and unknowingly disperse the seed in doing so. This mode of seed dispersal is highly successful, as seeds dispersed around the base of a plant are unlikely to succeed and often are subject to heavy predation. Provided the seed can withstand the pathway through the digestive system, it is not only likely to be far away from the parent plant, but is even provided with its own fertilizer.

Organisms that subsist on dead organic matter or detritus are known as detritivores, and play an important role in ecosystems by recycling organic matter back into a simpler form that plants and other autotrophs may absorb once again. This cycling of matter is known as the biogeochemical cycle. To maintain nutrients in soil it is therefore important that feces return to the area from which they came, which is not always the case in human society where food may be transported from rural areas to urban populations and then feces disposed of into a river or sea.

Characteristics

Fresh bear scat showing a diet of apples

Bear scat showing consumption of bin bags in garbage
The distinctive odor of feces is due to bacterial action. Gut flora produce compounds such as indole, skatole, and thiols (sulfur-containing compounds), as well as the inorganic gas hydrogen sulfide. These are the same compounds that are responsible for the odor of flatulence. Consumption of foods prepared with spices may result in the spices being undigested and adding to the odor of feces.

The perceived bad odor of feces has been hypothesized to be a deterrent for humans, as consuming or touching it may result in sickness or infection.[4] Human perception of the odor may be contrasted by a non-human animal's perception of it; for example, an animal who eats feces may be attracted to its odor.

Human feces
Main article: Human feces
In humans and depending on the individual and the circumstances, defecation may occur from once every two or three days to several times a day. Extensive hardening of the feces may cause prolonged interruption in the routine and is called constipation.

Human fecal matter varies significantly in appearance, depending on diet and health.[5] Normally it is semisolid, with a mucus coating. The brown coloration comes from a combination of bile and bilirubin, which comes from dead red blood cells.

In newborn babies, initially fecal matter is yellow-green after the meconium. This coloration comes from the presence of bile alone. In time, as the body starts expelling bilirubin from dead red blood cells, it acquires its familiar brown appearance, unless the baby is breast feeding, in which case it remains soft, pale yellowish, and not completely malodorous, until the baby begins to eat significant amounts of other food.

Throughout the life of an ordinary human, one may experience many types of feces. A "green" stool is from rapid transit of feces through the intestines (or the consumption of certain blue or green food dyes in quantity), and "clay-like" appearance to the feces is the result of a lack of bilirubin.

Pets

Sign ordering owners to clean up after pets, Houston, Texas, 2011
Pets can be trained to use litter boxes or wait to be allowed outside to defecate. Training can be done in several ways, especially dependent on species. An example is crate training for dogs. Several companies market cleaning products for pet owners whose pets have soiled carpets in the home.

Uses
Manure, fertilizer, and special products
The feces of animals often are used as fertilizer; see manure and guano. In northern Thailand, elephants are used to digest coffee beans for Black Ivory coffee, which is among the world's most expensive coffees.[6] Human feces also may be used as fertilizer (reuse of excreta in agriculture), and has also been known as night soil.

Fuel
Dry animal dung is used as a fuel source in many countries around the world by burning it.

Animals such as the giant panda [7] and zebra[8] possess gut bacteria capable of producing biofuel. The bacteria, Brocadia anammoxidans, can create the rocket fuel hydrazine from feces.[9][10]

Fecal transplant, gut flora transplant
In humans, fecal transplants (or stool transplant) is the process of transplantation of fecal bacteria from a healthy individual into a recipient who is suffering from a certain disease, such as irritable bowel syndrome. The resulting inoculation of healthy gut flora can sometimes improve the physiology of the recipient gut.

Fecal bacteriotherapy — also known as a fecal transplant — is a medical procedure wherein fecal bacteria are transplanted from a healthy individual into a patient.[11][12] Recent research indicates that this may be a valuable method to reestablish normal gut cultures that have been destroyed through the use of antibiotics or some other medical treatments.

Elephants, hippos, koalas and pandas are born with sterile intestines, and require bacteria obtained from eating the feces of their mothers to digest vegetation.

Coprolites and paleofeces
A coprolite is fossilized feces and is classified as a trace fossil. In paleontology they give evidence about the diet of an animal. They were first described by William Buckland in 1829. Prior to this they were known as "fossil fir cones" and "bezoar stones". They serve a valuable purpose in paleontology because they provide direct evidence of the predation and diet of extinct organisms.[13] Coprolites may range in size from a few millimetres to more than 60 centimetres.

Paleofeces are ancient human feces, often found as part of archaeological excavations or surveys. Intact feces of ancient people may be found in caves in arid climates and in other locations with suitable preservation conditions. These are studied to determine the diet and health of the people who produced them through the analysis of seeds, small bones, and parasite eggs found inside. These feces may contain information about the person excreting the material as well as information about the material. They also may be analyzed chemically for more in-depth information on the individual who excreted them, using lipid analysis and ancient DNA analysis. The success rate of usable DNA extraction is relatively high in paleofeces, making it more reliable than skeletal DNA retrieval.[14]

The reason this analysis is possible at all is due to the digestive system not being entirely efficient, in the sense that not everything that passes through the digestive system is destroyed. Not all of the surviving material is recognizable, but some of it is. Generally, this material is the best indicator archaeologists can use to determine ancient diets, as no other part of the archaeological record is so direct an indicator.[15]

A process that preserves feces in a way that they may be analyzed later is called the Maillard reaction. This reaction creates a casing of sugar that preserves the feces from the elements. To extract and analyze the information contained within, researchers generally have to freeze the feces and grind it up into powder for analysis.[16]

>>110475032
Scatology
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
For the Coil album, see Scatology (album).
Not to be confused with Eschatology.

[hide]This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page.
This article is incomplete. (January 2011)
This article needs additional citations for verification. (July 2009)
In medicine and biology, scatology or coprology is the study of feces.

Scatological studies allow one to determine a wide range of biological information about a creature, including its diet (and thus where it has been), health and diseases such as tapeworms. The word derives from the Greek σκώρ (genitive σκατός) meaning "feces".

A comprehensive study of scatology was documented by John Gregory Bourke under the title Scatalogic Rites of All Nations (1891). An abbreviated version of the work (with a foreword by Sigmund Freud), was published as The Portable Scatalog in 1994.[1]

Contents [hide]
1 Psychology
2 Sexual fetish
3 Literature
4 See also
5 Sources
6 Further reading
7 References
Psychology[edit]
In psychology, a scatology is an obsession with excretion or excrement, or the study of such obsessions. (See also coprophilia.)[citation needed]

Sexual fetish[edit]
In sexual fetishism, scatology (usually abbreviated scat) refers to coprophilia, when a person is sexually aroused by fecal matter, whether in the use of feces in various sexual acts, watching someone defecating, or simply seeing the feces. Entire subcultures in sexuality are devoted to this fetish.

Literature[edit]
In literature, "scatological" is a term to denote the literary trope of the grotesque body. It is used to describe works that make particular reference to excretion or excrement, as well as to toilet humor. A common example is John Dryden's MacFlecknoe, a poem that ridicules Dryden's contemporary, Thomas Shadwell. Dryden refers to him as "Thomas Sh--," deliberately evoking scatological imagery. In German literature in particular is a wealth of scatological texts and references, which includes such books as Collofino's Non Olet.[2] A case which has provoked an unusual amount of comment in the academic literature is Mozart's scatological humour.[citation needed] Smith, in his review of English literature's representations of scatology from the Middle Ages to the 18th century notes two attitudes towards scatology. One of these emphasises the merry and the carnivalesque. This is found in Chaucer and Shakespeare. The other attitudes is one of self-disgust and misanthropy. This is found in the works of the Earl of Rochester and Jonathan Swift.[3]

See also[edit]
Coprolite
Urolagnia – urination fetish


Sources[edit]
Bakhtin, Mikhail, Rabelais and His World.
Lewin, Ralph, Merde: excursions in scientific, cultural and socio-historical coprology. Random House, 1999. ISBN 0-375-50198-3.
Susan Gubar, "The Female Monster in Augustan Satire." Signs 3.2 (Winter, 1977): 380-394.
Jae Num Lee, Swift and Scatological Satire. U of New Mexico P, 1971. ISBN 0-8263-0196-7.
Smith, Peter J. (2012) Between Two Stools: Scatology and its Representation in English Literature, Chaucer to Swift, Manchester University Press[4]
Further reading[edit]
Henderson, Jeffrey (1991). The Maculate Muse: Obscene Language in Attic Comedy. Oxford UP. ISBN 0-19-506685-5.
References[edit]
Jump up ^ Kaplan, Louis P. (1994). The Portable Scatalog. New York: William Morrow and Company. ISBN 0-688-13206-5.
Jump up ^ Dundes, Alan; Carl R. Pagter (1992). Work hard and you shall be rewarded: urban folklore from the paperwork empire. Wayne State UP. pp. 75–80. ISBN 978-0-8143-2432-5.
Jump up ^ Smith (2012)
Jump up ^ David Palumbo, David (2012) Review of Between Two Stools: Scatology and its Representation in English Literature, Chaucer to Swift, by Peter J. Smith, Times Higher Education Oct 4, 2012 (Accessed Nov 2015)

Cum shot
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Cumshot)

Illustration of an oral cum shot, in which a man ejaculates onto a woman's tongue
A cum shot is the act—or the depiction of the act—of human ejaculation, especially onto another person. The term cum shot is usually applied to depictions occurring in pornographic films, photographs, and magazines. Cum shots have become the object of fetish genres like bukkake. Facial cum shots (or "facials") are currently regularly portrayed in pornographic films and videos, often as a way to close a scene.[1] Cum shots may also depict ejaculation onto another performer's body, such as on the genitals, buttocks or chest.

The term is typically used by the cinematographer within the narrative framework of a pornographic film, and, since the 1970s, it has become a leitmotif of the hardcore genre. Two exceptions are softcore pornography, in which penetration is not explicitly shown, and "couples erotica," which may involve penetration but is typically filmed in a more discreet manner intended to be romantic or educational rather than graphic. Softcore pornography that does not contain ejaculation sequences is produced both to respond to a demand by some consumers for less-explicit pornographic material and to comply with government regulations or cable company rules that may disallow depictions of ejaculation. Cum shots typically do not appear in "girl-girl" scenes (female ejaculation scenes exist, but are relatively rare); orgasm is instead implied by utterances, cinematic conventions, or body movement.

Contents [hide]
1 Terminology
2 Origin and features
3 Health risks
3.1 Transmission of disease
3.2 Allergic reactions
4 Criticisms and responses
4.1 Criticisms
4.2 Responses
5 See also
6 Notes
Terminology
A cum shot may also be called a cumshot, come shot,[2][3] cum blast, pop shot or money shot. While the term cum shot normally refers to filming of the ejaculation scene in a pornographic movie (the term shot in "cum shot" refers to the filming, or "shooting" of the scene), the term is also used more loosely to refer to the actual physiological event of male ejaculation.[4]

Originally, in general film-making usage the term money shot was a reference to the scene that cost the most money to produce;[5] in addition, the inclusion of this expensive special effect sequence is being counted on to become a selling point for the film. For example, in an action thriller, an expensive special effects sequence of a dam bursting might be called the "money shot" of the film. The use of money shot to denote the ejaculation scene in pornographic films is attributed to producers paying the male actors extra for it.[5][6] The meaning of the term money shot has sometimes been borrowed back from pornography by the film and TV industry with a meaning closer to that used in pornographic films. For example, in TV talk shows, the term, borrowed from pornography, denotes a highly emotional scene, expressed in visible bodily terms.[7]

Origin and features

Illustration for Christina Rossetti's Goblin Market and Other Poems (1862), by her brother Dante Gabriel Rossetti.
Facials were described in literature predating the modern age of pornography. In the metaphor-laden 19th century poem Goblin Market, villainous goblins try to cajole a young woman to eat their forbidden, alluring fruits and attendant juices:[8]

Lizzie uttered not a word;
Would not open lip from lip
Lest they should cram a mouthful in:
But laughed in heart to feel the drip
Of juice that syrupped all her face,
And lodged in dimples of her chin,
And streaked her neck which quaked like curd.

The Marquis de Sade wrote about performing facials in his work The 120 Days of Sodom, written in 1785; one passage of the novel reads: "I show them my prick, then what do you suppose I do? I squirt the fuck in their face . . . That's my passion my child, I have no other . . . and you're about to behold it."[9] Other published examples can be found in the private letters of James Joyce[10] and The Hite Report.[11]

Although earlier pornographic films occasionally contained footage of ejaculation, it was not until the advent of hard-core pornography in the 1970s that the stereotypical cum shot scene became a standard feature—displaying ejaculation with maximum visibility.[6][12] An oft quoted influential work of this era, Steven Ziplow's The Film Maker's Guide to Pornography (1977), states:

There are those who believe that the come shot, or, as some refer to it, the "money shot," is the most important element in the movie and that everything else (if necessary) should be sacrificed at its expense. Of course, this depends on the outlook of the producer, but the one thing is for sure: if you don't have the come shots, you don't have a porno picture.[6][5]

Cum shot scenes may involve the female actor calling for the shot to be directed at some specific part of her body.[13] Cultural analysis researcher Murat Aydemir[14] considers this one of the three quintessential aspects of the cum shot scene, alongside the emphasis on visible ejaculation and the timing of the cum shot, which usually concludes a hard-core scene.[12]

As a possible alternative explanation for the rise of the cum shot in hardcore pornography, Joseph Slade, professor at Ohio University[15] and author of Pornography and sexual representation: a reference guide notes that pornography actresses in the 1960s and 1970s did not trust birth control methods, and that more than one actress of the period told him that ejaculation inside her body was deemed inconsiderate if not rude.[16]

Health risks
Transmission of disease
Any sexual activity that involves contact with the bodily fluids of another person contains the risk of transmission of sexually transmitted diseases.[17] Semen is in itself generally harmless on the skin or if swallowed.[18][19] However, semen can be the vehicle for many sexually transmitted infections, such as HIV and hepatitis. The California Occupational Safety and Health Administration categorizes semen as "other potentially infectious material" or OPIM.[20]

Aside from other sexual activity that may have occurred prior to performing a facial the risks incurred by the giving and receiving partner are drastically different. For the ejaculating partner there is almost no risk of contracting an STD. For the receiving partner, the risk is higher.[21] Since potentially infected semen could come into contact with broken skin or sensitive mucous membranes (eyes, lips, mouth), there is a risk of contracting an infectious disease.

Allergic reactions
In rare cases, people have been known to experience allergic reactions to seminal fluids, known as human seminal plasma hypersensitivity.[22] Symptoms can be either localized or systemic, and may include itching, redness, swelling, or blisters within 30 minutes of contact. They may also include hives and even difficulty breathing.

Options for prevention of semen allergy include avoiding exposure to seminal fluid by use of condoms and attempting desensitization.[23] Treatment options include diphenhydramine and/or an injection of epinephrine.[24]

Criticisms and responses
Criticisms
There are a variety of views ranging from facials being an act of degradation and elicit humiliation to being grounded in mutual respect and elicit pleasure.[25] Sex therapist Ruth Westheimer believes facials are humiliating and not sexy. She advises the average person contemplating oral sex to not think that a facial is a necessary part of the act.[26] In response to an inquiry from a reader, sex columnist Dan Savage wrote: "Facials are degrading—and that's why they're so hot."[27] Daily Nexus columnist Nina Love Anthony views the practice of facials in a non-threatening light, feeling that it adds variety to the sexual experience. In one of her weekly articles she wrote "But let's give credit where credit is due: The money shot, by itself, is great for a number of reasons. Blowing it on someone's face is like a change-up pitch—if you've been throwing the heat for a while, maybe you should consider hooking the curve ball." She continues with "Also, being on the receiving end of the shot can satisfy the secret porn star in everyone and it's minor kink for beginners".[28]

Feminist views of the depiction of male-on-female facials are primarily critical. Sociologists Gail Dines, Robert Jensen and Russo echo these sentiments in the book Pornography: The Production and Consumption of Inequality it asserts "In pornography, ejaculating onto a woman is a primary method by which she is turned into a slut, something (not really someone) whose primary, if not only, purpose is to be sexual with men."[29] Radical feminist and noted critic of pornography Andrea Dworkin said "it is a convention of pornography that the sperm is on her not in her. It marks the spot, what he owns and how he owns it. The ejaculation on her is a way of saying (through showing) that she is contaminated with his dirt; that she is dirty."[21]

In Padraig McGrath's review of Laurence O'Toole's book Pornocopia – Porn, Sex, Technology and Desire, he rhetorically asks whether "...women enjoy having men ejaculate on their faces?" He suggests that the role of such a scene is to illustrate that "...it doesn’t matter what the woman likes – she’ll like whatever the man wants her to like because she has no inner life of her own, in turn because she’s not a real person". McGrath argues that there is a "power-aspect" to depictions such as cum shots. He suggests that the "...central theme [of pornography] is power...[,] implicitly violent...eroticized hatred."[30]

Gail Dines, writing in Pornland: How Porn Has Hijacked Our Sexuality, describes the money shot of a man ejaculating on the face or body of a woman as "one of the most degrading acts in porn".[31] To Dines, the ejaculate on the female performer's body "marks the woman as used goods", conveying a sense of ownership, and she quotes veteran porn actor and producer Bill Margold as saying, "I'd like to really show what I believe the men want to see: violence against women. I firmly believe that we serve a purpose by showing that. The most violent we can get is the cum shot in the face. Men get off behind that because they get even with the women they can't have."[31] She adds that at least for some posters on adult forums discussing such scenes, the pleasure is derived from watching a woman suffer.[31]

Another critic of "cum shot" scenes in heterosexual pornography is the US porn star-turned writer, director and producer Candida Royalle. She produced pornography films aimed at women and their partners that avoid the "misogynous predictability" and depiction of sex in "...as grotesque and graphic [a way] as possible." Royalle also criticizes the male-centredness of the typical pornography film, in which scenes end when the male actor ejaculates.[32]

Responses
Author Lisa Moore suggests that Dworkin's explanation does not take into account that it is the pleasure the actresses exhibit that the male partners enjoy, and that it is more accurate to think men want their semen to be wanted.[21]

Women's activist Beatrice Faust argued, "since ejaculating into blank space is not much fun, ejaculating over a person who responds with enjoyment sustains a lighthearted mood as well as a degree of realism. This occurs in both homosexual and hetrosexual [sic] pornography so that ejaculation cannot be interpreted as an expression of contempt for women only." [16][33] She goes on to say "Logically, if sex is natural and wholesome and semen is as healthy as sweat, there is no reason to interpret ejaculation as a hostile gesture."[16][33]

Joseph Slade, professor at Ohio University,[15] notes in his book Pornography and sexual representation: a reference guide that adult industry actresses in the 1960s and 1970s did not trust birth control methods, and that more than one actress of the period told him that ejaculation inside her body was deemed inconsiderate if not rude.[16]

Sexologist Peter Sándor Gardos argues that his research suggests that "... the men who get most turned on by watching cum shots are the ones who have positive attitudes toward women" (on the annual meeting of the Society for the Scientific Study of Sex in 1992).[34] Later, on The World Pornography Conference in 1998, he reported a similar conclusion, namely that "no pornographic image is interpretable outside of its historical and social context. Harm or degradation does not reside in the image itself".[35]

Cindy Patton, activist and scholar on human sexuality, claims that in western culture male sexual fulfillment is synonymous with orgasm and that the male orgasm is an essential punctuation of the sexual narrative. No orgasm, no sexual pleasure. No cum shot, no narrative closure. In other words, the cum shot is the period at the end of the sentence.[21] In her essay "Speaking Out: Teaching In", Patton reached the conclusion that critics have devoted too little space to discovering the meaning that viewers attach to specific acts such as cum shots.[16][36]

>>110475169
>>110475185
Le Pétomane
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Le Pétomane
Le Pétomane (/ləˈpɛtəmeɪn/, French pronunciation: ​[ləpetɔˈman]) was the stage name of the French flatulist (professional farter) and entertainer Joseph Pujol (June 1, 1857 – 1945). He was famous for his remarkable control of the abdominal muscles, which enabled him to seemingly fart at will. His stage name combines the French verb péter, "to fart" with the -mane, "-maniac" suffix, which translates to "fartomaniac". The profession is also referred to as "flatulist", "farteur", or "fartiste".[1]

It is a common misconception that Joseph Pujol actually passed intestinal gas as part of his stage performance. Rather, Pujol was able to "inhale" or move air into his rectum and then control the release of that air with his anal sphincter muscles. Evidence of his ability to control those muscles was seen in the early accounts of demonstrations of his abilities to fellow soldiers.

Contents [hide]
1 Biography
2 Legacy
3 See also
4 Notes and references
5 Further reading
6 External links
Biography[edit]

Le Pétomane ca. 1890
File:Le pétomane du Moulin Rouge (1900).webm
Le Pétomane du Moulin Rouge, 1900 (silent film clip)
Joseph Pujol was born in Marseilles, one of five children of stonemason/sculptor François Pujol and his wife Rose. Soon after Pujol left school, he had a strange experience while swimming in the sea. He put his head under the water and held his breath, whereupon he felt an icy cold penetrating his rear. He ran ashore in fright and was amazed to sense water pouring from his anus. A doctor assured him that there was nothing to worry about.[citation needed]

While serving in the army, he told his fellow soldiers about his special ability, and repeated it for their amusement, sucking up water from a pan into his rectum and then projecting it up to several yards. He found that he could suck in air as well. A baker, Pujol would sometimes entertain his customers by imitating musical instruments, and claim to be playing them behind the counter. Pujol decided to try the stage, and debuted in Marseilles in 1887. When his act was well received, he moved to Paris, where he appeared at the Moulin Rouge in 1892.[citation needed]

Some of the highlights of his stage act involved sound effects of cannon fire and thunderstorms, as well as playing "'O Sole Mio" and "La Marseillaise" on an ocarina through a rubber tube in his anus.[2] He could also blow out a candle from several yards away.[1] His audience included Edward, Prince of Wales; King Leopold II of the Belgians; and Sigmund Freud.[3]

In 1894, the managers of the Moulin Rouge sued Pujol for an impromptu exhibition he gave to aid a friend struggling with economic difficulties. Pujol was fined 3,000 francs, and the Moulin Rouge lost their star attraction as the disagreement led him to set up his own travelling show called the Theatre Pompadour.[citation needed]

In the following decade Pujol tried to 'refine' and make his acts 'gentler'; one of his favourite numbers became a rhyme about a farm which he himself composed, and which he punctuated with anal renditions of the animals' sounds.[citation needed]

With the outbreak of World War I, Pujol, horrified by the inhumanity of the conflict, retired from the stage and returned to his bakery in Marseilles.[citation needed] Later he opened a biscuit factory in Toulon. He died in 1945,[4] aged 88, and was buried in the cemetery of La Valette-du-Var, where his grave can still be seen today. The Sorbonne offered his family a large sum of money to study his body after his death, but they refused the offer.[citation needed]

Legacy[edit]
Le Pétomane left an enduring legacy and has inspired a number of artistic works. These include several musicals based on his life, such as The Fartiste (awarded Best Musical at the 2006 New York International Fringe Festival) and Seth Rozin's A Passing Wind which was premiered at the Philadelphia International Festival of the Arts in 2011. In addition, Le Pétomane was added to David Lee's 2007 reworked revival of the 1953 Broadway play Can-Can, which had originally been written by Abe Burroughs and Cole Porter. The updated play, staged at the Pasadena Playhouse, featured musical theatre actor Robert Yacko as the fartiste, with sound effects provided by the band's trombone and piccolo players. More recently, the re-released works of English toilet humour specialist Ivor Biggun include "Southern Breeze", a song about a "Famous French Farteur" who describes in rhyme a stroll through a farmyard, accompanied by appropriate farting noises.[citation needed]

Los Angeles-based Sherbourne Press published Jean Nohain and F. Caradec's Le Pétomane as a small hardcover English language edition in 1967. Due to its ‘sensitive’ nature, the usual national publicity venues shied away, some claiming that an author was needed for interviews (both elderly writers lived in France). However, ‘behind the curtain’ acceptance created a buzz within the national radio/TV promotional circuit and word-of-mouth discussion kept the book in stores for several years. Dorset Press, a division of Barnes & Noble, reissued the book in 1993.[citation needed]

The character has been portrayed several times in film. In 1979 Ian MacNaughton made a short humorous film, written by Galton and Simpson called Le Pétomane, based on Pujol's story and starring veteran comic actor Leonard Rossiter.[5] The 1983 Italian movie Il Petomane, directed by Pasquale Festa Campanile and starring Ugo Tognazzi, gives a poetic rendition of the character, contrasting his deep longing for normality with the condition of 'freak' to which his act relegated him. The 1998 documentary Le Pétomane by Igor Vamos examines Joseph Pujol's place in history through archival films (none of which actually include him), historical documents, photographs, recreations and fake or tongue-in-cheek interviews.[6] He briefly appears as one of the performers in Moulin Rouge!, played by Keith Robertson.

Le Petomane is also referenced in Blazing Saddles, a 1974 satirical Western comedy film directed by Mel Brooks. Brooks appears in multiple supporting roles, including the dim-witted Governor William J. Le Petomane, whose name suggests he is full of hot air.[citation needed]

Le Petomane is the name of the university in Up the Creek, a 1984 college movie starring Tim Matheson involving a whitewater rafting race.

See also[edit]
Toilet humour
Roland the Farter
Mr. Methane
Flatulence humor

Toilet humour
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Toilet humour, or scatological humour, is a type of off-colour humour dealing with defecation, urination, and flatulence, and to a lesser extent vomiting and other body functions. It sees substantial crossover with sexual humour, such as dick jokes.

Toilet humour is popular among a wide range of ages, but is especially popular with children and teenagers, for whom cultural taboos related to acknowledgement of waste excretion still have a degree of novelty. The humour comes from the rejection of such taboos, and is a part of modern culture.[1] Examples can also be found in earlier literature, including The Canterbury Tales by Geoffrey Chaucer.

Song[edit]
Toilet humor is also found in song and rhyme, particularly schoolboy songs. Examples of this are found in Mozart and scatology, and variants of the German folk schoolboys' song known as the "Scheiße"-Lied (English: Shit-Song)[2][3] which is indexed in the German Volksliederarchiv.[4]

See also[edit]
Bum trilogy
Dick joke
Flatulence humor
Grotesque body
Lighting farts
Scatology
Toilet tipping
Gross out
Portal icon Comedy portal
References[edit]
Jump up ^ Poop Culture: How America is Shaped by its Grossest National Product by Dave Praeger ISBN 1-932595-21-X]
Jump up ^ Helmut Fischer Kinderreime im Ruhrgebiet: Reime, Lieder, Spiellieder 1991 Page 121 "Scheiße auf der Kirchturmspitze Fällt demll Pastor auf die Mütze. 2. Scheiße in der Lampenschale Gibt gedämpftes Licht im Saale. 951 . Scheiße auf dem Autodach Liegt bei Hundertachtzig flach. 952
Jump up ^ Profil 1994 - Volume 25 - Page 58 "Immer, wenn es besonders ausgelasse zuging, stimmten meine Mitschüler in einem katholischen Internat das „Scheiße"-Lied an: „Scheiße auf dem Autodach, eladiladijo, liegt bei 180 flach. Und wie das Amen im Gebet kam dann auch jene ..."
Jump up ^ - Volksliederarchiv - Deutsches Volksliederarchiv
Henderson, Jeffrey The Maculate Muse: Obscene Language in Attic Comedy 1991 Oxford University Press ISBN 0-19-506685-5
Slater, W. J. review of The Maculate Muse: Obscene Language in Attic Comedy by Jeffrey Henderson. Phoenix, Vol. 30, No. 3 (Autumn, 1976), pp. 291–293 doi:10.2307/1087300


Stub icon This comedy or humor related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.
Categories: HumourToiletsVomitingEuphemismsComedy stubs
Navigation menu
Not logged inTalkContributionsCreate accountLog inArticleTalkReadEditView history

Search
Go
Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store
Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page
Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page
Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version
Languages
Català
Dansk
Español
Հայերեն
Italiano
עברית
Bahasa Melayu
Nederlands
Norsk bokmål
Русский
Suomi
ייִדיש
Edit links
This page was last modified on 14 December 2015, at 05:11.

>>110475251
Roland the Farter
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Roland the Farter (known in contemporary records as Roland le Fartere, Roulandus le Fartere or Roland le Petour) was a medieval flatulist who lived in 12th century England. He held Hemingstone manor in Suffolk and 30 acres (120,000 m2) of land in return for his services as a jester for King Henry II. Each year he was obliged to perform "Unum saltum et siffletum et unum bumbulum" (one jump, one whistle, and one fart) for the King's court at Christmas.[1]

Roland is listed in the 13th century English Liber Feodorum (Book of Fees).

See also[edit]
Le Pétomane
References[edit]
Jump up ^ Crick, Julia C.; Crick, Julia; van Houts, Elisabeth. A Social History of England, 900–1200. Cambridge UP. p. 405. ISBN 9781139500852. Retrieved 19 December 2013.
Bartlett, Robert (2000). England Under the Norman and Angevin Kings, 1075-1225. Oxford University Press. p. 236. ISBN 0-19-925101-0.
Beadle, Richard (1994). The Cambridge companion to medieval English theatre. Cambridge companions to literature. Cambridge University Press. p. 187. ISBN 0-521-45916-8.
The Language of Farting by Evan R. Goldstein, Chronicle of Higher Education. (Retrieved November 18, 2007. Subscription required)
External links[edit]
Damn Interesting » Professional Farters
Stub icon This English biographical article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.
Categories: English entertainersFlatulistsJesters12th-century English peopleChristmasEnglish people stubs
Navigation menu
Not logged inTalkContributionsCreate accountLog inArticleTalkReadEditView history

Search
Go
Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store
Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page
Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page
Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version
Languages
Deutsch
Ελληνικά
Edit links
This page was last modified on 22 November 2015, at 00:15.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.

Flatulence humor
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Farting in good cheer, 1798
Flatulence humour or flatulence humor refers to any type of joke, practical joke device, or other off-color humor related to flatulence.

Contents [hide]
1 History
2 Inculpatory pronouncements
3 Practical jokes
4 Popular culture
5 Fart humor and information books
6 See also
7 References
History[edit]
Although it is likely that flatulence humor has long been considered funny in cultures that consider the public passing of gas impolite, such jokes are rarely recorded. Two important early texts are the 5th century BC plays The Knights and The Clouds, both by Aristophanes, which contain numerous "fart" jokes.[1][2] Another example from classical times appeared in Apocolocyntosis or The Pumpkinification of Claudius, a satire attributed to Seneca on the late Roman emperor:

At once he bubbled up the ghost, and there was an end to that shadow of a life…The last words he was heard to speak in this world were these. When he had made a great noise with that end of him which talked easiest, he cried out, "Oh dear, oh dear! I think I have made a mess of myself."[3]

He later explains he got to the afterlife with a quote from Homer:

"Breezes wafted me from Ilion unto the Ciconian land."[3]


German peasants greet the fire and brimstone from a papal bull of Pope Paul III in Martin Luther's 1545 Depictions of the Papacy.
Archeologist Warwick Ball asserts that the Roman Emperor Elagabulus played practical jokes on his guests, employing a whoopee cushion-like device at dinner parties.[4]

In the translated version of Penguin's 1001 Arabian Nights Tales, a story entitled "The Historic Fart" tells of a man who flees his country from the sheer embarrassment of farting at his wedding, only to return ten years later to discover that his fart had become so famous, that people used the anniversary of its occurrence to date other events. Upon learning this he exclaimed, "Verily, my fart has become a date! It shall be remembered forever!" His embarrassment is so great he returns to exile in India. [5]

In a similar vein, John Aubrey's Brief Lives recounts of Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford that: "The Earle of Oxford, making his low obeisance to Queen Elizabeth, happened to let a Fart, at which he was so abashed and ashamed that he went to Travell, 7 yeares. On his return the Queen welcomed him home, and sayd My Lord, I had forgot the Fart."[6]

One of the most celebrated incidents of flatulence humor in early English literature is in The Miller's Tale by Geoffrey Chaucer, which dates from the 14th century; The Summoner's Tale has another. In the first, the character Nicholas sticks his buttocks out of a window at night and humiliates his rival Absolom by farting in his face. But Absolom gets revenge by thrusting a red-hot plough blade between Nicholas's cheeks ("ammyd the ers")

"Sing, sweet bird, I kneen nat where thou art!"
This Nicholas anon let fle a fart
As greet as it had been a thonder-dent
That with the strook he was almost yblent (blinded)
And he was ready with iron hoot
And Nicholas ammyd the ers he smoot.[7]

The medieval Latin joke book Facetiae includes six tales about farting.

François Rabelais' tales of Gargantua and Pantagruel are laden with acts of flatulence. In Chapter XXVII of the second book, the giant, Pantagruel, releases a fart that "made the earth shake for twenty-nine miles around, and the foul air he blew out created more than fifty-three thousand tiny men, dwarves and creatures of weird shapes, and then he emitted a fat wet fart that turned into just as many tiny stooping women."[8]

Benjamin Franklin, in his open letter "To the Royal Academy of Farting", satirically proposes that converting farts into a more agreeable form through science should be a milestone goal of the Royal Academy.[9]

In Mark Twain's 1601, properly named [ Date: 1601.] Conversation, as it was the Social Fireside, in the Time of the Tudors, a cupbearer at Court who's a Diarist reports:

In ye heat of ye talk it befel yt one did breake wind, yielding an exceding mightie and distresfull stink, whereat all did laugh full sore.[10]

The Queen inquires as to the source, and receives various replies. Lady Alice says:

Good your grace, an' I had room for such a thundergust within mine ancient bowels, 'tis not in reason I coulde discharge ye same and live to thank God for yt He did choose handmaid so humble whereby to shew his power. Nay, 'tis not I yt have broughte forth this rich o'ermastering fog, this fragrant gloom, so pray you seeke ye further."[10]

In the first chapter of Moby Dick, the narrator states:

...I always go to sea as a sailor, because of the wholesome exercise and pure air of the fore-castle deck. For as in this world, head winds are far more prevalent than winds from astern (that is, if you never violate the Pythagorean maxim)...[11]

The Pythagoreans led an ascetic lifestyle which included a prohibition against the consumption of beans.

In the 1940s a clandestine record called "The Crepitation Contest" [12] was produced, allegedly by Canadian Broadcast Corporation staff (narration by sportscaster Sidney S. Brown, who identifies himself in the closing seconds of the original unedited recording, and "sound effects" by his producer, Jules Lipton). The recording is in the manner of a seemingly real radio broadcast of a live sporting event, complete with pre-game interviews of the contestants (the “champion”, Lord Windesmear and the challenger, Paul Boomer), detailed descriptions of all aspects of the competition as it unfolds, including the rules and traditions associated with the sport, play-by-play reporting, and crowd sounds reacting to the drama. The listener also hears a game official on the field as he announces scores attributed to the flatulence sounds emitted by each contestant in the competition.

Australian comedy musician Kevin Bloody Wilson released his song "Mick the Master Farter" on his 1984 album Return of the Yobbo. The song contains references to his schoolfriend Mick's uncanny ability to fart, and how it solved various situations, e.g. helping his team win a school rugby match, playing the trombone at a Kamahl concert when the trombone player did not show up, and winning the America's Cup yacht race.

First Chorus from the song:

Mick, me mate the master farter
Brought the art back into farting with his custom-tailored farts
Mick, me mate the master farter
Broke new ground with breaking wind, with his double-jointed arse

The bawdy rugby song "Twas On The Good Ship Venus" includes a verse about a flatulent first-mate:

The first-mate's name was Carter
By Christ he was a farter
When the wind didn't blow
And the ship wouldn't go
They got Carter the Farter to start 'er

Inculpatory pronouncements[edit]
The sourcing of a fart involves a ritual of assignment that sometimes takes the form of a rhyming game. These are frequently used to discourage others from mentioning the fart or to turn the embarrassment of farting into a pleasurable subject matter.[13] The trick is to pin the blame on someone else, often by means of deception, or using a back and forth rhyming game that includes phrases such as the following.

Rhyming phrases:[14]
He/She who declared it blared it.
He/She who observed it served it.
He/She who detected it ejected it.
He/She who rejected it respected it.
He/She who said the rhyme did the crime.
Whoever spoke last set off the blast.
Whoever smelt it dealt it.
Whoever denied it supplied it.
The next person who speaks is the person who reeks.[15]
The smeller's the feller.
He/She who introduced it produced it.
He/She who inculpated promulgated.
The one who said the verse just made the atmosphere worse.
Whoever's poking fun is the smoking gun
He/She who accuses blew the fuses.
He/She who refuted it tooted it.
He/She who pointed the finger pulled the trigger.
He/She who articulated it particulated it.
He/She who deduced it produced it.
He/She who was a smart-ass has a fart-ass
He/She who sniffed it biffed it.
The slanderer made the gland error.
He/She who eulogized it aerosolized it.
Whoever makes the joke makes the ass smoke.
He/She who rapped it cracked it.
Whoever rebuts it cuts it.
Whoever said the rap did the crap.
Whoever spoke it broke it.
Whoever asked it gassed it.
Whoever started it farted it.
Whoever explained it ordained it.
Whoever described it supplied it.
Whoever thunk it stunk it.
Whoever whiffed it biffed it.
Whoever resented it, presented it.
Whoever accused it, effused it.
Whoever spoke the words is baking the turds.
He/She who did the verse made it worse.
He/She who painted fainted.
The one who smelled is the one who expelled.
The smeller's the feller that turned the propeller.
He/She who circulated it perpetrated it.
He/She who refuses it diffuses it.
Whoever is squealing is concealing.
He/She who enjoyed it deployed it.
Assigning blame to another can backfire : a joke about royalty has the Queen emitting flatulence, and then turning to a nearby page, exclaiming, "Arthur, stop that!" The page replies, "Yes, Your Majesty. Which way did it go?"

Practical jokes[edit]
A Dutch oven is a slang term for lying in bed with another person and pulling the covers over the person's head while flatulating, thereby creating an unpleasant situation in an enclosed space.[16] This is done as a prank or by accident to one's sleeping partner.[17] The book The Alphabet of Manliness discusses the Dutch oven and a phenomenon it refers to as the "Dutch oven surprise", that "happens if you force it too hard".[18] The Illustrated Dictionary of Sex refers to this as a Dutch treat.[19]

A connection between relationships and performing a Dutch oven has been discussed in two undergraduate student newspaper articles[20][21] and in actress Diane Farr's relationships/humor book The Girl Code.[22]

Popular culture[edit]
Terrance and Phillip from South Park - A fictional Canadian comedian duo who use farting.
Fart humor and information books[edit]
There are dozens of books about fart history, fart jokes, and fart culture. One of them (see Farts: A Spotter's Guide, below) even has its own electronic fart machine with 10 fart recordings. Walter the Farting Dog is a children's book that reached No. 1 on The New York Times's Bestseller list. Who Cut the Cheese? is probably the most comprehensive history of flatulence in literature, humor, religion, films, etc.

1990 Fart Proudly: Writings of Benjamin Franklin You Never Read in School (Enthea Press) edited by Carl Japikse, ISBN 0-89804-801-X
1994 Oh, Vulgar Wind: A Sympathetic Overview of the Common Fart (Culture Concepts, Toronto) by Munroe Scott, ISBN 0-921472-47-1
1998 Tailwinds: The Lore and Language of Fizzles, Farts and Toots (Michael O'Marra Books Ltd) by Peter Furze ISBN 1-85479-2911
1999 Who Cut the Cheese? A Cultural History of the Fart (Ten Speed Press) by Jim Dawson, ISBN 1-58008-011-1
2001 Walter the Farting Dog (Frog Ltd) by William Kotzwinkle and Glenn Murray; illustrated by Audrey Colman, ISBN 1-58394-053-7
2006 Blame It on the Dog: A Modern History of the Fart (Ten Speed Press) by Jim Dawson, ISBN 978-1-58008-751-3
2007 On Farting: Language and Laughter in the Middle Ages (Palgrave MacMillan) by Prof. Valerie Allen, ISBN 978-0-312-23493-5
2008 Farts: A Spotter's Guide (Chronicle Books) by Crai S. Bower; illustrated by Travis Millard, ISBN 978-0-8118-6609-5
2011 The Art of Fart (ebookpartnership.com) by Dougie Brimson, ASIN B006MISNFI
See also[edit]

>>110475317

Pull my finger
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (February 2012)
Look up pull my finger in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.
Pull my finger is a joke or prank regarding flatulence in which a mark is asked to pull the finger of the joker, who simultaneously expresses gas (aka farts) in an unsavoury fashion so as to suggest a causal relationship between the pulling of the finger and the subsequent expulsion of gas.

A comparable activity is attributed to a character in a short story by Mordecai Richler (collected in The Street, 1969):

“ He settled in sullenly at the kitchen table, his smile morose, and suddenly he would call out, "Pull my finger!" If you did he let out a tremendous burp. ”
A variation on this joke appears in Yasujiro Ozu's film Good Morning (1959). Schoolboys ask each other to push their foreheads, responding with an expulsion of gas.

In 2008, an iPhone app called Pull My Finger was one of the most popular apps in Apple's App Store, purchased over 50,000 times in less than one week. It allowed users to pull a virtual finger, activating the sound. The phrase is now the focus of a legal battle between Pull My Finger and iFlatulence over the use of the phrase.[1]

See also[edit]
List of practical joke topics
Vaginal flatulence, also known as a queef, or queefing. "Eat, Pray, Queef" - South Park episode from Season 13
References[edit]
Jump up ^ Chartier, David (2009-02-16). "Prior fart: legal stink-up over iPhone flatulence apps". Ars Technica. Retrieved 2014-06-24.
Stub icon This comedy or humor related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.
Categories: ComedyFlatulencePractical jokesEnglish phrasesComedy stubs

>>110475407
Shit
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article is about the word "shit". For the bodily waste, see feces. For the egestion of bodily wastes, see defecation. For the Lady Gaga song "Scheiße", see Scheiße (song). For other uses, see Shit (disambiguation).

[hide]This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page.
This article needs additional citations for verification. (February 2009)
This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. (June 2011)
Shit is an English word that is usually considered vulgar and profane in Modern English. As a noun it refers to fecal matter, and as a verb it means to defecate; in the plural ("the shits") it means diarrhea. Shite is also a common variant in British English and Irish English.[1] As a slang term, it has many meanings, including: nonsense, foolishness, something of little value or quality, trivial and usually boastful or inaccurate talk, or a contemptible person. It may also be used as an expression of annoyance, surprise, or anger.

Contents [hide]
1 Etymology
2 Usage
2.1 Vague noun
2.2 Surprise
2.3 Trouble
2.4 Displeasure
2.5 Dominance
2.6 Positive attitude
2.7 Shortening of bullshit
2.8 Emphasis
2.9 The verb "to shit"
2.10 Backronyms
3 Usage on television
3.1 USA
3.2 Canada
3.3 Japan
3.4 United Kingdom
4 Usage in radio
4.1 United States
5 Usage in campaigns
5.1 Sanitation promotion
6 See also
7 References
8 External links
Etymology
The word is likely derived from Old English, having the nouns scite (dung, attested only in place names) and scitte (diarrhoea), and the verb scītan (to defecate, attested only in bescītan, to cover with excrement); eventually it morphed into Middle English schītte (excrement), schyt (diarrhoea) and shiten (to defecate), and it is virtually certain that it was used in some form by preliterate Germanic tribes at the time of the Roman Empire. The word may be further traced to Proto-Germanic skit-, and ultimately to Proto-Indo-European skheid- "cut, separate", the same root believed to have become the word shed. The word has several cognates in modern Germanic languages, such as German Scheiße, Dutch schijt, Swedish skit, Icelandic skítur, Norwegian skitt etc. Ancient Greek had 'skōr' (gen. 'skatos' hence 'scato-'), from Proto-Indo-European *sker-, which is likely unrelated.[2]

Usage
The word shit (also shite in British and Hiberno-English) is usually avoided in formal speech. Minced oath substitutes for the word shit in English include shoot, shucks, and "sugar".

In the word's literal sense, it has a rather small range of common usages. An unspecified or collective occurrence of feces is generally shit or some shit; a single deposit of feces is sometimes a shit or a piece of shit; and to defecate is to shit or to take a shit. While it is common to speak of shit as existing in a pile, a load, a hunk, and other quantities and configurations, such expressions flourish most strongly in the figurative. For practical purposes, when actual defecation and excreta are spoken of, it is either through creative euphemism or with a vague and fairly rigid literalism.[original research?]

Piece of shit may also be used figuratively to describe a particularly loathsome individual.

Vague noun
Shit can be used as a generic mass noun similar to stuff; for instance, This show is funny shit or This test is hard shit, or That was stupid shit. These three usages (with funny, hard, and stupid or another synonym of stupid) are heard most commonly in the United States.

In the expression Get your shit together! the word shit may refer to some set of personal belongings or tools, or to one's wits, composure, or attention to the task at hand. He doesn't have his shit together suggests he is failing rather broadly, with the onus laid to multiple personal shortcomings, rather than bad luck or outside forces.

To shoot the shit is to have a friendly but pointless conversation, as in "Come by my place some time and we'll shoot the shit."

Surprise
To shit oneself, or to shit bricks can be used to refer to surprise or fear, often in the future. The latter form can be commonly seen in a form of Internet meme which goes by the phrase when you see it, you will shit bricks, used in connection with an image of a busy scene with an often unnoticed laughing face or disturbing object which is hard to see until you study the picture.[citation needed]

The word can also be used to represent anger, as in Jim is totally going to flip his shit when he sees that we wrecked his marriage.[citation needed]

Trouble
Shit can be used to denote trouble, by saying one is in a lot of shit or deep shit. It's common for someone to refer to an unpleasant thing as hard shit (You got a speeding ticket? Man, that's some hard shit), but the phrase tough shit is used as an unsympathetic way of saying too bad to whoever is having problems (You got arrested? Tough shit, man!) or as a way of expressing to someone that they need to stop complaining about something and cope with it instead (Billy: I got arrested because of you! Tommy: Tough shit, dude, you knew you might get arrested when you chose to come with me.) Note that in this case, as in many cases with the term, tough shit is often said as a way of pointing out someone's fault in his/her own current problem. It's also common to express annoyance by simply saying Shit.

When the shit hits the fan is usually used to refer to a specific time of confrontation or trouble, which requires decisive action. This is often used in reference to combat situations and the action scenes in movies, but can also be used for everyday instances that one might be apprehensive about. I don't want to be here when the shit hits the fan! indicates that the speaker is dreading this moment (which can be anything from an enemy attack to confronting an angry parent or friend). He's the one to turn to when the shit hits the fan is an indication that the person being talked about is dependable and will not run from trouble or abandon their allies in tough situations. The concept of this phrase is simple enough, as the actual substance striking the rotating blades of a fan would cause a messy and unpleasant situation (much like being in the presence of a manure spreader). Whether or not this has actually happened, or if the concept is simply feasible enough for most people to imagine the result without needing it to be demonstrated, is unknown. Another example might be the saying shit rolls downhill, a metaphor suggesting that trouble for a manager may be transferred to the subordinates. There are a number of anecdotes and jokes about such situations, as the imagery of these situations is considered to be funny. This is generally tied-in with the concept that disgusting and messy substances spilled onto someone else are humorous.

Displeasure
Shit can comfortably stand in for the terms bad and anything in many instances (Dinner was good, but the movie was shit. You're all mad at me, but I didn't do shit!). A comparison can also be used, as in Those pants look like shit, or This stuff tastes like shit. Many usages are idiomatic. I'm shit out of luck usually refers to someone who is at the end of their wits or who has no remaining viable options. That little shit shot me in the ass, suggests a mischievous or contemptuous person. Euphemisms such as crap are not usually used in this context.

The term piece of shit is generally used to classify a product or service as being sufficiently below the writer's understanding of generally accepted quality standards to be of negligible and perhaps even negative value. The term piece of shit has greater precision than shit or shitty in that piece of shit identifies the low quality of a specific component or output of a process without applying a derogatory slant to the entire process. For example, if one said "The inner city youth orchestra has been a remarkably successful initiative in that it has kept young people off the streets after school and exposed them to culture and discipline, thereby improving their self esteem and future prospects. The fact that the orchestra's recent rendition of Tchaikovsky's Manfred Symphony in B minor was pretty much a piece of shit should not in any way detract from this." The substitution of shit or shitty for pretty much a piece of shit would imply irony and would therefore undermine the strength of the statement.

The term "I don't/doesn't give a shit" can be used when one does not care about something, or has a passive attitude toward said thing, as it denotes indifference. In context, one can say: "You're offended? Well, I don't give a shit!"

Dominance
Shit can also be used to establish superiority over another being. The most common phrase is eat shit! expressing hatred of the addressee. Some other personal word may be added such as eat my shit implying truly personal connotations. As an aside, the above is actually a contraction of the phrase eat shit and die!.[citation needed] It is often said without commas as a curse; they command the other party to perform exactly those actions in that order. However, the term was originally Eat, Shit, and Die naming the three most basic things humans have to do, and it is common among soldiers.[citation needed]

The phrase You ain't shit, expresses an air of intimidation over the addressee, expressing that they mean nothing or are worthless.

Positive attitude
In North American slang, prefixing the article the to shit gives it a completely opposite definition, meaning the best, as in Altered Beast is the shit, or The Oregon Trail is the shit. Other slang words of the same meaning, such as crap, are not used in such locutions.

Shortening of bullshit
Main article: bullshit
The expression no shit? (a contraction of no bullshit?) is used in response to a statement that is extraordinary or hard to believe. Alternatively the maker of the hard-to-believe statement may add no shit to reinforce the sincerity or truthfulness of their statement, particularly in response to someone expressing disbelief at their statement. No shit is also used sarcastically in response to a statement of the obvious, as in no shit, Sherlock.

In this form the word can also be used in phrases such as don't give me that shit or you're full of shit. The term full of shit is often used as an exclamation to charge someone who is believed to be prone to dishonesty, exaggeration or is thought to be "phoney" with an accusation. For example:

"Oh, I'm sorry I forgot to invite you to the party, it was a complete accident... But you really didn't miss anything anyway."
"You're full of shit! You had dozens of opportunities to invite me. If you have a problem with me, why not just say it!"
The word bullshit also denotes false or insincere discourse. (Horseshit is roughly equivalent, while chickenshit means cowardly, batshit indicates a person is crazy, and going apeshit indicates a person is entering a state of high excitement or unbridled rage.) Are you shitting me?! is a question sometimes given in response to an incredible assertion. An answer that reasserts the veracity of the claim is, I shit you not.

Emphasis
Perhaps the only constant connotation that shit reliably carries is that its referent holds some degree of emotional intensity for the speaker. Whether offense is taken at hearing the word varies greatly according to listener and situation, and is related to age and social class: elderly speakers and those of (or aspiring to) higher socioeconomic strata tend to use it more privately and selectively than younger and more blue-collar speakers.

Like the word fuck, shit is often used to add emphasis more than to add meaning, for example, shit! I was so shit-scared of that shithead that I shit-talked him into dropping out of the karate match! The term to shit-talk connotes bragging or exaggeration (whereas to talk shit primarily means to gossip [about someone in a damaging way] or to talk in a boastful way about things which are erroneous in nature), but in such constructions as the above, the word shit often functions as an interjection.

Unlike the word fuck, shit is not used emphatically with -ing or as an infix. For example; I lost the shitting karate match would be replaced with ...the fucking karate match. Similarly, while in-fucking-credible is generally acceptable, in-shitting-credible is not.

The verb "to shit"
The preterite and past participle of shit are attested as shat, shit, or shitted, depending on dialect and, sometimes, the rhythm of the sentence. In the prologue of The Canterbury Tales, shitten is used as the past participle; however this form is very rare in modern English. In American English shit as a past participle is often correct, while shat is generally acceptable and shitted is uncommon and missing from the Random House and American Heritage dictionaries.[3]

Backronyms
The backronym form "S.H.I.T." often figures into jokes, like Special High Intensity Training (a well-known joke used in job applications), Special Hot Interdiction Team (a mockery on SWAT), Super Hackers Invitational Tournament, and any college name that begins with an S-H (like Sam Houston Institute of Technology or South Harmon Institute of Technology in the 2006 film Accepted or Store High In Transit in the 2006 film Kenny). South Hudson Institute of Technology has sometimes been used to describe the United States Military Academy at West Point.[4] The Simpsons' Apu was a graduate student at Springfield Heights Institute of Technology.

In polite company, sometimes backronyms such as Sugar Honey in Tea or Sugar Honey Iced Tea are used.

>>110475425
Usage on television
USA
The word has become increasingly acceptable on American cable television and satellite radio, which are not subject to FCC regulation. In other English-speaking countries, such as Canada, the United Kingdom, the Republic of Ireland, Australia and New Zealand the word is allowed to be used in broadcast television by the regulative councils of each area, as long as it is used in late hours when young people are not expected to be watching. It has appeared on ABC News' 20/20.

"Shit" was one of the original "Seven Words You Can Never Say On TV", a comedy routine by the American comedian George Carlin. In the United States, although the use of the word is censored on broadcast network television (while its synonym crap is not usually subject to censorship), the FCC permitted some exceptions. For example:

The 14 October 1999 episode of Chicago Hope is believed to be the first show (excluding documentaries) on U.S. network television to contain the word shit in uncensored form.
The word also is used in a later ER episode "On the Beach" by Dr. Mark Greene, while experiencing the final stages of a deadly brain tumor. Although the episode was originally aired uncensored, the "shit" utterance has since been edited out in syndicated reruns.[citation needed]
An episode of South Park, "It Hits the Fan" (original airdate 20 June 2001), parodied the hype over the Chicago Hope episode. In it, "shit" is used 162 times, and a counter in the corner of the screen tallies the repetitions (excluding the 38 instances of the word's use in written forms, the raising the total to an even 200). South Park airs on American cable networks, which are outside the FCC's regulatory jurisdiction and whose censorship of vulgar dialogue is at the discretion of the cable operators.[5]
Since that episode, the word has become a mainstay of South Park, along with programming on other cable networks including FX and as of March 2014, Adult Swim. Episodes of Graceland on the USA Network also use "shit" regularly.

Canada
In Canada, "shit" is one of the words considered by the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council to be "coarse, offensive language intended for adults", acceptable for broadcast only after 9:00pm.[6]

On the Canadian Showcase television show characters Trailer Park Boys frequently use the term "shit". For example, the fictional trailer park supervisor James "Jim" Lahey employs many metaphors with the negative slang "shit" bizarrely worked in; in one episode,[which?] Mr. Lahey likens Ricky's growing ignorance to that of a "shit tsunami", while in another episode,[which?] Mr. Lahey tells Bubbles the "shit hawks are swooping in low" due to his deplorable behavior and company. The term "shit" is also used in the titles of that show's episodes, themselves, e.g., "The Winds of Shit",[7] "A Shit Leopard Can't Change Its Spots",[8] and "Never Cry Shitwolf".

Japan
On Japanese TV, such as anime, that is aired on American television the words "shit"and "bullshit" are uncensored. This is probably because of the ambiguity of the Japanese word "kuso", which may also mean milder swear words like "crap", "crud", "damn", or "darn". It appears in subtitles from inaccurate translations or unsureness of its meaning.[citation needed]

United Kingdom
It is believed that the first person to say "shit" on British TV was John Cleese of the Monty Python comedy troupe, in the late 1960s, as he, himself, says in his eulogy[9] for Graham Chapman.

Usage in radio

This section does not cite any references (sources). Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (July 2015)
United States
Unlike satellite radio, American terrestrial radio stations must abide by FCC guidelines on obscenity to avoid punitive fines. These guidelines do not define exactly what constitutes obscenity, but it has been interpreted by some commissioners as including any form of words like shit and fuck, for whatever use.[citation needed]

Despite this, the word has been featured in popular songs that have appeared on broadcast radio in cases where the usage of the word is not audibly clear to the casual listener, or on live television. For example:

In the song "Man in the Box" by Alice in Chains, the line "Buried in my shit" was played unedited over most rock radio stations.
The 1973 Pink Floyd song "Money" from the album The Dark Side of the Moon contains the line "Don't give me that do goody good bullshit," and has frequently been broadcast unedited on US radio.
The 1980 hit album Hi Infidelity by REO Speedwagon contained the song "Tough Guys" which had the line "she thinks they're full of shit," that was played on broadcast radio.
On 3 December 1994, Green Day performed "Geek Stink Breath", on Saturday Night Live, shit was not edited from tape delay live broadcast. The band did not appear on the show again until 9 April 2005.
Some notable instances of censorship of the word from broadcast television and radio include:

Steve Miller's "Jet Airliner." Although radio stations have sometimes played an unedited version containing the line "funky shit going down in the city." The songs was also released with a "radio edit" version, replacing the "funky shit" with "funky kicks". Another version of "Jet Airliner" exists in which the word "shit" is faded out.
Likewise, the Bob Dylan song "Hurricane" has a line about having no idea "what kind of shit was about to go down," and has a radio edit version without the word.
Gwen Stefani's "Hollaback Girl" video had the original album's use of the word censored in its video.
The music video title "...On the Radio (Remember the Days)" by Nelly Furtado replaced by the original title "Shit on the Radio (Remember the Days)."
This also happened to "That's That Shit" by Snoop Dogg featuring R. Kelly, which became "That's That".
In Avril Lavigne's song "My Happy Ending," the Radio Disney edit of the song replaces "all the shit that you do" with "all the stuff that you do."
Likewise, in the song "London Bridge" by the Black Eyed Peas member Fergie, the phrase "Oh Shit" is repeatedly used as a background line. A radio edit of this song replaced "Oh Shit" with "Oh Snap."
Usage in campaigns
Sanitation promotion
Using the term "shit" (or other locally used crude words) - rather than feces or excreta - during campaigns and triggering events is a deliberate aspect of the community-led total sanitation approach which aims to stop open defecation, a massive public health problem in developing countries.[10][11]

See also
Portal icon Language portal
Feces
Profanity
Seven dirty words
Shinola
Shit happens
References
Jump up ^ "Shite". Cambridge Dictionary Online. Retrieved 22 April 2010.
Jump up ^ Harper, Douglas. "shit". Online Etymology Dictionary. Retrieved 6 September 2008.
Jump up ^ "Shit". dictionary.reference.com.
Jump up ^ "The Origin of the S-Word". About.com. Retrieved 4 December 2010.
Jump up ^ "South Park Libertarians". Reason Magazine.
Jump up ^ "CBSC - Media Release". cbsc.ca.
Jump up ^ "Trailer Park Boys homepage". Retrieved 4 December 2010.
Jump up ^ Trailer Park Boys – Complete Third Season, Alliance Atlantis, 2003 TPB III Productions. Disc 2
Jump up ^ "Graham Chapman's funeral". YouTube.
Jump up ^ Galvin, M (2015). "Talking shit: is Community-Led Total Sanitation a radical and revolutionary approach to sanitation?". Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Water. doi:10.1002/wat2.1055.
Jump up ^ Kal, K and Chambers, R (2008) Handbook on Community-led Total Sanitation, Plan UK Accessed 2015-2-26

Seven dirty words
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A poster in a WBAI broadcast booth which warns radio broadcasters against using the Seven Dirty Words.
The seven dirty words (or "Filthy Words") are seven English-language words that American comedian George Carlin first listed in 1972 in his monologue "Seven Words You Can Never Say on Television".[1] The words are: shit, piss, fuck, cunt, cocksucker, motherfucker, and tits.[2]

At the time, the words were considered highly inappropriate and unsuitable for broadcast on the public airwaves in the United States, whether radio or television. As such, they were avoided in scripted material, and bleep censored in the rare cases in which they were used; broadcast standards differ in different parts of the world, then and now, although most of the words on Carlin's original list remain taboo on American broadcast television as of 2015. The list was not an official enumeration of forbidden words, but rather was compiled by Carlin. Nonetheless, a radio broadcast featuring these words led to a U.S. Supreme Court decision that helped establish the extent to which the federal government could regulate speech on broadcast television and radio in the United States.

Contents [hide]
1 Background
2 Federal Communications Commission v. Pacifica Foundation
3 The words
4 Availability
5 In popular culture
6 H.R. 3687
7 Subscription services
8 See also
9 References
10 Further reading
11 External links
Background[edit]
During one of Lenny Bruce's performances in 1966, he said he was arrested for saying nine words, and says them in alphabetical order: ass, balls, cocksucker, cunt, fuck, motherfucker, piss, shit, tits.[3] The last seven words are the same as George Carlin's.

In 1972, George Carlin released an album of stand-up comedy entitled Class Clown. One track on the album was "Seven Words You Can Never Say on Television", a monologue in which he identified these words, expressing amazement that these particular words could not be used, regardless of context. He was arrested for disturbing the peace when he performed the routine at a show at Summerfest in Milwaukee.

On his next album, 1973's Occupation: Foole, Carlin performed a similar routine titled "Filthy Words", dealing with the same list and many of the same themes. Pacifica station WBAI broadcast this version of the routine uncensored on October 30 that year.

Federal Communications Commission v. Pacifica Foundation[edit]
Main article: Federal Communications Commission v. Pacifica Foundation
John Douglas, an active member of Morality in Media, claimed that he heard the WBAI broadcast while driving with his then 15-year-old son and complained to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) that the material was inappropriate for the time of day.[4][5]

Following the lodging of the complaint, the FCC proceeded to ask Pacifica for a response, then issued a declaratory order upholding the complaint. No specific sanctions were included in the order, but WBAI was put on notice that "in the event subsequent complaints are received, the Commission will then decide whether it should utilize any of the available sanctions it has been granted by Congress." WBAI appealed this decision, which was overturned by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in a 2–1 decision on the grounds that the FCC's definition of "indecency" was overbroad and vague and thus violated the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech. The FCC in turn appealed to the Supreme Court. As an independent federal agency, the FCC filed the appeal in its own name. The United States Department of Justice intervened in the case, supporting Pacifica's argument that the FCC's declaratory ruling violated the First Amendment and that it also violated the Fifth Amendment in that the FCC's definition of "indecency" was too vague to support criminal penalties.

In 1978 the Supreme Court, in a 5–4 decision, ruled that the FCC's Declaratory Ruling did not violate either the First or Fifth Amendments, but in so ruling it limited the scope of its ruling to the specific broadcast that gave rise to the Declaratory Ruling and declined to consider whether the FCC's definition of indecency would survive a First Amendment challenge if applied to the broadcast of other material containing the same or similar words which had been cited in Pacifica's brief (e.g., works of Shakespeare – "pissing conduits", "bawdy hand of the dial on the prick of noon"; the Bible – "he who pisseth against the wall"; the Watergate Tapes). It noted that while the Declaratory Ruling pertained to the meaning of the term indecency as used in a criminal statute (18 USC 1464), since the FCC had not imposed any penalty on Pacifica for the broadcast of words that came within the FCC's definition of "indecent", it did not need to reach the question as to whether the definition was too vague to satisfy the due process requirements of the Fifth Amendment.[6]

This decision formally established indecency regulation in American broadcasting. In follow-up rulings, the Supreme Court established the safe harbor provision that grants broadcasters the right to broadcast indecent (but not obscene) material between the hours of 10 pm and 6 am, when it is presumed many children will be asleep.[7][8] The FCC has never maintained a specific list of words prohibited from the airwaves during the time period from 6 am to 10 pm, but it has alleged that its own internal guidelines are sufficient to determine what it considers obscene.[citation needed]

The seven dirty words have been assumed to be likely to elicit indecency-related action by the FCC if uttered on a TV or radio broadcast, and thus the broadcast networks generally censor themselves with regard to many of the seven dirty words. The FCC regulations regarding "fleeting" use of expletives were ruled unconstitutionally vague by a three-judge panel of the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals in New York on July 13, 2010, as they violated the First Amendment due to their possible effects regarding free speech.[9][10][11]

The words[edit]
The original seven words are:

Shit
Piss
Fuck
Cunt
Cocksucker
Motherfucker
Tits
In his comedy special Carlin commented that at one point, a man asked him to remove motherfucker because, as a derivative of fuck, it constituted a duplication:

"He says motherfucker is a duplication of the word fuck, technically, because fuck is the root form, motherfucker being derivative; therefore, it constitutes duplication. And I said, 'Hey, motherfucker, how did you get my phone number, anyway?'"[12]

He later added it back, claiming the bit's rhythm does not work without it.[12] In his comedy routine, Carlin would make fun of each word; for example, he would say that tits should not be on the list because it sounds like a nickname or a snack ("New Nabisco Tits! ...corn tits, cheese tits, tater tits!").

Availability[edit]
Carlin performed the routine many times and included it, in whole or in part on several of his records and HBO specials. Carlin noted in his 1983 speech at Cardinal Hayes High School, inducting Dean of Discipline Monsignor Stan Jablonski into the Hayes High Hall of Fame, that he was asked by the audience beforehand if he would be performing the seven dirty words skit at the ceremony. Parts or all of the performance appear on the following releases:

1972 - Class Clown - Audio recording - "Seven Words You Can Never Say on Television"
1973 - Occupation: Foole - Audio recording - "Filthy Words"
1977 - George Carlin at USC - HBO special - "Forbidden Words"
1978 - George Carlin: Again! - HBO special - "Dirty Words"
1983 - Carlin at Carnegie - HBO special - "Filthy Words"
The Carlin at Carnegie version can be heard as "An Incomplete List of Impolite Words" on the 1984 album Carlin on Campus (but not in the HBO special, Carlin on Campus). That version of the list features over 300 dirty words and phrases in an effort to stop people telling him that he left something off the list. Four days after Carlin's original Class Clown recording, the routine was performed again for students at University of California, Los Angeles. This would be months before its first official release. The recording was restored in December, 2013 and uploaded to YouTube by archivists at UCLA and can be accessed free of charge.[13]

The FCC ruling is referenced in "Offensive Language" from the album Parental Advisory: Explicit Lyrics and HBO special Doin' It Again, both 1990 recordings of the same performance; however, the routine that follows is entirely different.

The Class Clown version can also be heard on the vinyl/cassette only release Indecent Exposure (1978). The Occupation: Foole version can also be heard on Classic Gold (1992). Both versions were re-released again as part of The Little David Years (1971–1977).

In popular culture[edit]
American rock band Blink-182 released a thirty-five second song called "Family Reunion"; the lyrics contain all seven words from Carlin's list repeated four times.[14]

The 2008 installment of "Dead Letters", The Washington Post Style Invitational's annual collection of verse-form obituaries for persons who died in the previous year, included a Carlin obituary in whose text seven words were "blanked out" without explanation, leaving readers to use the poem's rhyme scheme, its meter, and their independent knowledge of the monologue and/or FCC v. Pacifica case to determine which words belonged where.[15]

The bit was featured in an episode of the fox network tv show That '70s Show.[16]

H.R. 3687[edit]
On December 8, 2003, Rep. Doug Ose (R-CA) introduced a bill in Congress to designate a derivative list of Carlin's offensive words as profane in the U.S. Code. The stated purpose of the bill was "To amend section 1464 of title 18, United States Code, to provide for the punishment of certain profane broadcasts." In the text of the bill, the following eight words are specifically mentioned: 'shit', 'piss', 'fuck', 'cunt', 'asshole', and the phrases 'cock sucker', 'mother fucker', and 'ass hole'.[17]

Subscription services[edit]
The FCC obscenity guidelines have never been applied to non-broadcast media such as cable television or satellite radio. It is widely held that the FCC's authorizing legislation (particularly the Communications Act of 1934 and the Telecommunications Act of 1996) does not enable the FCC to regulate content on subscription-based services, which include cable television, satellite television, and pay-per-view television. Whether the FCC or the Department of Justice could be empowered by the Congress to restrict indecent content on cable television without such legislation violating the Constitution has never been settled by a court of law. Since cable television must be subscribed to in order to receive it legally, it has long been thought that since subscribers who object to the content being delivered may cancel their subscription, an incentive is created for the cable operators to self-regulate (unlike broadcast television, cable television is not legally considered to be "pervasive", nor does it depend on a scarce, government-allocated electromagnetic spectrum; as such, neither of the arguments buttressing the case for broadcast regulation particularly apply to cable television).

Self-regulation by many basic cable networks is undertaken by Standards and Practices (S&P) departments that self-censor their programming because of the pressure put on them by advertisers – also meaning that any basic cable network willing to ignore such pressure could use any of the Seven Dirty Words.

In recent years, many or all of the words on Carlin's list have come into common usage in many made-for-cable series and film productions.

>>110475475
rofanity
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Abusive language" redirects here. For the legal concept, see Abusive language (law).
Globe icon.
The examples and perspective in this article deal primarily with the English-speaking world and do not represent a worldwide view of the subject. Please improve this article and discuss the issue on the talk page. (February 2013)

In cartoons, profanity is often depicted by substituting symbols ("grawlixes") for words, as a form of non-specific censorship.
Profanity, as defined by Merriam-Webster, is "an offensive word" or "offensive language".[1] It is also called bad language, strong language, coarse language, foul language, bad words, vulgar language, lewd language, swearing, cursing, cussing, or using expletives. This use is a subset of a language's lexicon that is generally considered to be strongly impolite, rude or offensive. It can show a debasement of someone or something, or show intense emotion. Profanity in this sense takes the form of words or verbal expressions that fall into the category of formulaic language.

In its older, more literal sense, the term "profanity" refers to "offensive words, or religious words", used in a way that shows the user does not respect "God or holy things", or behaviour showing similar disrespect.[2]

Contents [hide]
1 Etymology
2 Research into swearing
2.1 Perceived severity
2.2 Types of swearing by purpose
3 Swearing in the United Kingdom
3.1 In public
3.2 In the workplace
4 Broadcasting
5 Minced oaths
6 Notable instances in popular culture
7 See also
8 References
9 External links
Etymology
The term "profane" originates from classical Latin "profanus", literally "before (outside) the temple". It carried the meaning of either "desecrating what is holy" or "with a secular purpose" as early as the 1450s CE.[3] Profanity represented secular indifference to religion or religious figures, while blasphemy was a more offensive attack on religion and religious figures, considered sinful, and a direct violation of The Ten Commandments. Moreover, many Bible verses speak against swearing.[4]

Profanities, in the original meaning of blasphemous profanity, are part of the ancient tradition of the comic cults, which laughed and scoffed at the deity or deities.[5][6] An example from Gargantua and Pantagruel is "Christ, look ye, its Mere de ... merde ... shit, Mother of God."[7][8][9]

In English, swear words and curse words tend to have Germanic, rather than Latin etymology. "Shit" has a Germanic root, as, probably, does "fuck".[10] The more technical alternatives are often Latin in origin, such as "defecate" or "excrete", and "fornicate" or "copulate".

Strong language is by no means a recent phenomenon. The Bible records instances, such as mention of men who "eat their own dung, and drink their own piss" in the Authorized King James Version of 1611's translation of Hebrew text of 2 Kings 18:27. Shakespeare is replete with vulgarisms, though many are no longer readily recognized.[citation needed]

Research into swearing
Analyses of recorded conversations reveal that an average of roughly 80–90 words that a person speaks each day – 0.5% to 0.7% of all words – are swear words, with usage varying from 0% to 3.4%. In comparison, first-person plural pronouns (we, us, our) make up 1% of spoken words.[11]

A three-country poll conducted by Angus Reid Public Opinion in July 2010 found that Canadians swear more often than Americans and British when talking to friends, while Britons are more likely than Canadians and Americans to hear strangers swear during a conversation.[12]

Swearing performs certain psychological functions, and uses particular linguistic and neurological mechanisms; all these are avenues of research. Functionally similar behavior can be observed in chimpanzees, and may contribute to our understanding, notes New York Times author Natalie Angier.[13] Angier also notes that swearing is a widespread but perhaps underappreciated anger management technique; that "Men generally curse more than women, unless said women are in a sorority, and that university provosts swear more than librarians or the staff members of the university day care center"[13]

Keele University researchers Stephens, Atkins, and Kingston found that swearing relieves the effects of physical pain.[14] Stephens said "I would advise people, if they hurt themselves, to swear".[15] However, the overuse of swear words tends to diminish this effect.[15] The Keele team won the Ig Nobel Peace Prize in 2010 for their research.

A team of neurologists and psychologists at the UCLA Easton Center for Alzheimer's Disease Research suggested that swearing may help differentiate Alzheimer's disease from frontotemporal dementia.[16]

Neurologist Antonio Damasio noted that despite loss of language due to damage to the language areas of the brain, patients were still often able to swear.[17]

A group of researchers from Kno.e.sis Research Center, Wright State University studied why people swear in the online world by collecting tweets posted on Twitter. They found that cursing is associated with negative emotions such as sadness (21.83%) and anger (16.79%) thus showing people in the online world mainly use curse words to express their sadness and anger towards others.[18][19]

Perceived severity
The relative severity of various British profanities, as perceived by the public, was studied on behalf of the British Broadcasting Standards Commission, the ITC, the BBC, and the Advertising Standards Authority; the results of this jointly commissioned research were published in December 2000 in a paper called "Delete expletives?".[20] It listed the profanities in order of decreasing severity.

A similar survey was carried out in 2009 by New Zealand's Broadcasting Standards Authority. The results were published in March 2010, in a report called "What Not to Swear".[21] According to the Authority, the findings "measured how acceptable the public finds the use of swear words, blasphemies, and other expletives in broadcasting".

Types of swearing by purpose
According to Steven Pinker[22] there are five possible functions of swearing:

Abusive swearing
Cathartic swearing
Dysphemistic swearing
Emphatic swearing
Idiomatic swearing
Swearing in the United Kingdom
Globe icon.
The examples and perspective in this article deal primarily with the United Kingdom and do not represent a worldwide view of the subject. Please improve this article and discuss the issue on the talk page. (August 2015)
In public
Swearing, in and of itself, is not a criminal offence in the United Kingdom although in context may constitute a component of a crime. In England and Wales, swearing in public where it is seen to cause harassment, alarm or distress may constitute an offence under section 5(1) and (6) of the Public Order Act 1986.[23] In Scotland, a similar common law offence of breach of the peace covers issues causing public alarm and distress.

In the workplace
In the United Kingdom, swearing in the workplace can be an act of gross misconduct under certain circumstances. In particular, this is the case when swearing accompanies insubordination against a superior or humiliation of a subordinate employee. However, in other cases it may not be grounds for instant dismissal.[24] According to a UK site on work etiquette, the "fact that swearing is a part of everyday life means that we need to navigate a way through a day in the office without offending anyone, while still appreciating that people do swear. Of course, there are different types of swearing and, without spelling it out, you really ought to avoid the 'worst words' regardless of who you’re talking to".[25] With respect to swearing between colleagues, the site explains that "although it may sound strange, the appropriateness [of] swearing [...] is influenced largely by the industry you are in and the individuals you work with". The site continues to explain that, even in a workplace in which swearing is the norm, there is no need to participate in it.[25] The site stresses that swearing is, in general, more problematic in asymmetric situations, such as in the presence of senior management or clients, but it also mentions that a "holier than thou" attitude towards clients may be problematic.[25]

The Guardian reported that "36% of the 308 UK senior managers and directors having responded to a survey accepted swearing as part of workplace culture", but warned about specific inappropriate uses of swearing such as when it is discriminatory or part of bullying behaviour. The article ends with a quotation from Ben Wilmott (Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development): "Employers can ensure professional language in the workplace by having a well drafted policy on bullying and harassment that emphasises how bad language has potential to amount to harassment or bullying."[26]

Broadcasting
In countries where it is illegal to broadcast profanity on radio or television, such as the United States,[citation needed] programs can be pre-recorded or a broadcast delay device can be used to screen for and delete profanity or other undesirable material before it is broadcast. Songs have to be cleared of profanity before they are broadcast on radio.

Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties
Fuck book cover with title partially obscured by correction liquid
Cover of 2009 edition
Author Christopher M. Fairman
Cover artist Cyanotype Book Architects
Country United States
Language English
Subject Freedom of speech
Publisher Sphinx Publishing
Publication date
2009
Pages 250
ISBN 978-1-57248-711-6
OCLC 262433445
Dewey Decimal
342.7308/53
LC Class KF9444 .F35 2009
Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties is a nonfiction 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. The book was first published in 2009 by Sphinx as a follow-up on the author's article "Fuck", published in 2007 in the Cardozo Law Review. It cites studies from academics in social science, psychoanalysis, and linguistics. Fairman establishes that most current usages of the word have connotations distinct from its meaning of sexual intercourse. The book discusses the efforts of conservatives in the United States to censor the word from common parlance. The author says that legal precedent regarding its use is unclear because of contradictory court decisions. Fairman argues that once citizens allow the government to restrict the use of specific words, this will lead to an encroachment upon freedom of thought.

The book received a mostly favorable reception from news sources and library trade publications. Library Journal described the book as a sincere analysis of the word and its history of censorship, Choice: Current Reviews for Academic Libraries called it stimulating, and the San Diego Law Review said it was thought-provoking. One reviewer said that the book, like the article, was a format for the author to repeatedly use "fuck", rather than actually analyze it from a rigorous perspective. After the book's release, Fairman was consulted by media sources including CNN and The New York Times, as well as the American Civil Liberties Union, on issues surrounding word taboo in society.

Contents [hide]
1 Background
2 Content summary
3 Reception
4 See also
5 References
6 External links
Background[edit]
Christopher M. Fairman graduated from the University of Texas at Austin. He taught high-school level history for nine years before returning to his alma mater where he ultimately received his Juris Doctor degree. He worked as a clerk on the Texas Court of Appeals for the Third District for Justice J. Woodfin Jones. Subsequently, he was a clerk on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit for Judge Fortunato P. Benavides, and worked for the law firm Weil Gotshal in their office in Dallas.[1] Fairman became a professor at Ohio State University's Moritz College of Law in 2000.[1] He specialized in areas of freedom of speech and word taboo,[2] and earned a reputation as an expert on the subject of legal ethics.[3][4]

Fairman was motivated to conduct research on "fuck" after learning of a Columbus, Ohio, man who was arrested for using the word in an email to a judge in 2004.[5] Fairman delayed writing the article until he received tenure because he was concerned its publication would adversely affect his professional reputation. Nevertheless, his supervisors did not try to convince him to cease research into the topic. Government funding helped finance Fairman's scholarship.[6]

His original 2006 article "Fuck" is an analysis of forbidden speech from linguistic and legal perspectives.[6] It covers use of the word in case studies about sexual harassment and education.[7] The article is 74 pages long,[8] and the word fuck appears over 560 times.[9] According to author Jesse Sheidlower in his book The F-Word, Fairman's work is the first academic article with the title of simply "Fuck".[10]

Man facing front wearing suit and necktie
Professor Christopher M. Fairman of the Moritz College of Law at Ohio State University (2008)
Fairman made his article available as a working paper on the Social Science Research Network website on April 17, 2006.[11] Initially the author unsuccessfully tried to have the article published by providing copies to multiple U.S. law reviews. The Kansas Law Review rejected his article 25 minutes after receipt.[6] It was published by the Cardozo Law Review in 2007.[12] The author wrote a follow-up piece in April 2007 titled "Fuck and Law Faculty Rankings".[13] Fairman died on July 22, 2015.[14] At the time of his death, Fairman's 2007 Cardozo Law Review article, "Fuck" was still classed with the 20 top downloaded works on the Social Science Research Network.[14]

Content summary[edit]
Fuck cites studies from academics in social science, psychoanalysis, and linguistics.[15][16] Of the sixteen chapters in the book, eight use the word "fuck" in their titles.[9] He discusses uses of the word from the 15th century onwards.[16] Fairman establishes that most current usages have connotations distinct from its denotation of sexual intercourse,[17] and asserts that rather than having sexual meaning, the word's use is most commonly associated with power.[9]

Fairman discusses the efforts of conservatives in the United States to censor the word from common parlance in the country, and says these acts are opposed to the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.[18] Fairman warns against a tendency toward self-censorship. He explains that those who choose to silence themselves tacitly encourage a process by which speech is forbidden through the legal process. He argues that this passivity has an impact of increasing the taboo nature of the word.[5]

Fairman writes that legal precedent regarding use of the word is unclear because of contradictory court decisions. He presents case studies of these contradictory applications of the law, and uses them to analyze public perceptions surrounding freedom of speech.[15] He provides examples of exceptions to the First Amendment, such as speech intended to cause violent acts, and discusses the manner in which federal and state governments sanction these exceptions.[15][18] Fairman draws parallels between protection of comedians' usage of taboo language to the ability of individuals in society to express ideas freely. He argues that once citizens allow the government to restrict specific words that can be used in speech, this will lead to an encroachment upon freedom of thought.[5]

Reception[edit]
Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties was first published in 2009 in paperback by Sphinx Publishing,[19] and in an electronic format for the Amazon Kindle the same year.[20] The Seattle Post-Intelligencer called Fairman's paper compelling and amusing.[21] The Horn Book Magazine described the paper as a contemplative scholarly work which was simultaneously an engaging read.[16] Writing in the San Diego Law Review, Orly Lobel called Fairman's article a thought-provoking analysis into how the law and the First Amendment address issues of sexual language.[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 both appeared to be formats for the author to repeatedly use the word "fuck", rather than actually analyze the subject from a rigorous perspective.[9]

A review of the book in Publishers Weekly called it a vibrant extension of his article, and described it as educational and assertive in its promotion of freedom of speech, particularly in the face of the controversial language discussed.[18] Choice: Current Reviews for Academic Libraries reviewed Fuck and called it a stimulating book. The review concluded, "[h]ighly recommended. All readership levels."[15]

Library Journal described the book as a sincere analysis of "fuck" and its history of censorship. The review characterized the book as of a higher quality than The Compleat Motherfucker: A History of the Mother of all Dirty Words (2009) by Jim Dawson.[23] Ian Crouch of The New Yorker praised the cover design for the book. Crouch observed that the word Fuck was shown partially obscured by correction fluid but was still clearly evident in full. He concluded this was an appropriate image for a book on free speech and word taboo.[24]

After the book's publication, Fairman was consulted by media sources, including CNN, on issues involving word taboo.[25][26][27] The American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio invited Fairman to host its forum "Word Taboos" in 2010; his presentation was titled "Putting the 'F' in Free Speech".[5] In a 2012 article on the word "fuck", The New York Times characterized Fairman as the foremost legal scholar in the United States on the word "fuck".[28]

See also[edit]
Censorship in the United States
Cohen v. California
Freedom of speech in the United States
Fuck (documentary about the word)
Seven dirty words
Political correctness

Censorship in the United States
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Part of a series on
Censorship by country
A censorship symbol
Countries
Algeria
Armenia
Australia
Azerbaijan
Bangladesh
Belarus
Bhutan
Brazil
Burma
Canada
China (PRC)
Cuba
Czech Republic
Denmark
Eritrea
Finland
France
Germany
Hong Kong
India
Iran
Iraq
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Japan
Malaysia
Maldives
Morocco
New Zealand
North Korea
Pakistan
Paraguay
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Russia
Samoa
Saudi Arabia
Singapore
Somalia
South Korea
Soviet Union
Sri Lanka
Sweden
Taiwan (ROC)
Thailand
Tunisia
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States
Uzbekistan
Venezuela
Zimbabwe
See also
Freedom of speech by country
Internet censorship by country
v t e
In general, censorship in the United States, which involves the suppression of speech or other public communication, raises issues of freedom of speech, which is constitutionally protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

This freedom, though fundamental, has also been accompanied since its enshrinement with contest and controversy. For instance, restraints increased during periods of widespread anti-communist sentiment, as exemplified by the hearings of the House Committee on Un-American Activities. According to Miller v. California (1973), the U. S. Supreme Court found that the First Amendment's freedom of speech does not apply to obscenity, which can, therefore, legally be censored. While it is legal to express certain forms of hate speech so long as one does not engage in the acts being discussed, or urge others to commit illegal acts, more severe forms have led to people or groups (such as the Ku Klux Klan) being denied certain marching permits or the Westboro Baptist Church being sued, though the initially adverse ruling against the latter was later overturned on appeal in the US Supreme Court.

The First Amendment protects against censorship imposed by laws, but does not give protection against corporate censorship, the sanctioning of speech by spokespersons, employees, and business associates by threat of monetary loss, loss of employment, or loss of access to the marketplace.[1][2] Legal expenses can sometimes be a significant unseen restraint where there may be fear of suit for libel. Many people in the United States are in favor of restrictions of corporate censorship, citing a slippery slope that if corporations do not follow the Bill of Rights the government will be influenced.[3]

Analysts from Reporters Without Borders rank the United States 46th in the world in terms in their Press Freedom Index, updated for 2014. Certain forms of speech, such as obscenity and defamation, are restricted in major media outlets by the government or by the industry on its own.

Contents [hide]
1 History
1.1 Sedition
1.2 Anti-abolitionist censorship
1.3 Local censorship
1.4 Near v. Minnesota and prior restraint
1.5 Smith Act
1.6 Wartime censorship
1.6.1 Journalism in warzones
1.7 Wilhelm Reich
1.8 Second Red Scare
2 Film censorship
2.1 The Pawnbroker and the end of the Code
3 Weapons proliferation
4 Political censorship
5 Export of sensitive software
6 Broadcast censorship
7 Censorship of pornography
8 Ban on material support for foreign boycotts
9 Libel
10 Judicial orders
11 Copyright
11.1 Digital Millennium Copyright Act
12 War on Terrorism
13 Free speech zone
14 Corporate censorship
15 Internet & Internet-related censorship
15.1 WikiLeaks related censorship
15.2 PRISM and Edward Snowden's revelations about NSA activity
16 See also
16.1 Documentary films
16.2 Censorship in the past
16.3 Rating systems and industry self-regulation
16.4 Related techniques of suppression
16.5 Free speech advocates
16.6 Organizations advocating censorship
16.7 Surveillance by the United States government
17 References
18 External links
History[edit]
A celebrated legal case in 1734-1735 involved John Peter Zenger, a New York newspaper printer who regularly published material critical of corrupt then-Governor of New York, William Cosby. He was jailed eight months before being tried for seditious libel. Andrew Hamilton defended him and was made famous for his speech, ending in, "...nature and the laws of our country have given us a right to liberty of both exposing and opposing arbitrary power [...] by speaking and writing truth."[4] While the judge ruled against his arguments, Hamilton invoked the concept of jury nullification in the cause of liberty and won a not guilty verdict. The Zenger case paved the way for freedom of the press in the United States to be adopted in the constitution; as Founding Father Gouverneur Morris stated, "The trial of Zenger in 1735 was the germ of American freedom, the morning star of that liberty which subsequently revolutionized America."[4]

Sedition[edit]
There have been a number of attempts in the United States to forbid speech that has been deemed "seditious". In 1798, President John Adams signed into law the Alien and Sedition Acts, the fourth of which, the Sedition Act or "An Act for the Punishment of Certain Crimes against the United States" set out punishments of up to two years' imprisonment for "opposing or resisting any law of the United States" or writing or publishing "false, scandalous, and malicious writing" about the President or Congress (but specifically not the Vice-President). The act was allowed to expire in 1801 after the election of Thomas Jefferson, Vice President at the time of the Act's passage.

The Sedition Act of 1918, an extension of the Espionage Act of 1917 which had passed in connection with the United States joining the Allied Powers in the First World War, was a controversial law that led to imprisonment of many prominent individuals for opposing the war or the draft. State laws prohibiting "sedition" were also passed and used to prosecute and persecute alleged "seditionists" during this period, including many people guilty only of being "Wobblies", or members of the Industrial Workers of the World. In Schenck v. United States, the Supreme Court upheld the Espionage Act and banned speaking against the draft during World War I. This case led to the "clear and present danger" test. In 1969, Brandenburg v. Ohio established the "imminent lawless action" test. State sedition acts, if in place, are likely unconstitutional under the Brandenburg doctrine of "imminent lawless action" or the older doctrine of "clear and present danger."

Anti-abolitionist censorship[edit]
Beginning in the 1830s and until the American Civil War, the US Postmaster General refused to allow the mails to carry abolitionist pamphlets to the South.[5]

Local censorship[edit]
Until Gitlow v. New York in the early 20th century, the First Amendment was not held to apply to states and municipalities. Entities without any prohibition in their own charters were free to censor newspapers, magazines, books, plays, movies, comedy shows, and so on, as exemplified by the phrase "banned in Boston."

In New York, litigation on a local ban upon the book Ulysses by James Joyce in 1933 played a pivotal role in an eventual set of rules determining what is and is not obscene.[6] The standard of the effect upon "l'homme moyen sensuel" (the reasonable person), when reading or viewing of material, became the standard to look towards. The ruling instructed the Court to not consider the impression of the "little old lady" or most "pious member of the community" rather to the general community as a whole. The book's publisher, despite only receiving a ruling in New York, took the risk of publishing the book nationally despite local bans still being in place. The publisher reasoned the ruling in New York would be seen by local efforts to ban books as protection.[7]

The free speech decisions of the United States Supreme Court under Chief Justice Earl Warren, which served from 1953 to 1969, extended the protections of the First Amendment to local government, and brought much stricter standards of review for what government actions were acceptable.

The state of Maryland retained its movie ratings board an unusually long time, abandoning it in the 1980s in favor of the private MPAA's voluntary ratings scheme.

Near v. Minnesota and prior restraint[edit]
The 1931 Near v. Minnesota case was the first to establish the doctrine that prior restraint was in most cases unconstitutional. Prior restraint is censorship which prevents material from being published in the first place. The alternative form of censorship occurs as punishment for unlawful or harmful material already published, usually after having the opportunity to dispute the charge in court.

Further information: Prior restraint
Smith Act[edit]
Main article: Smith Act
The Alien Registration Act or Smith Act (18 U.S.C. § 2385) of 1940 is a United States federal statute that made it a criminal offense for anyone to

"knowingly or willfully advocate, abet, advise or teach the duty, necessity, desirability or propriety of overthrowing the Government of the United States or of any State by force or violence, or for anyone to organize any association which teaches, advises or encourages such an overthrow, or for anyone to become a member of or to affiliate with any such association."

It also required all non-citizen adult residents to register with the government; within four months, 4,741,971 aliens had registered under the Act's provisions.

The Act is best known for its use against political organizations and figures, mostly on the left. From 1941 to 1957, hundreds of socialists were prosecuted under the Smith Act. The first trial, in 1941, focused on Trotskyists, the second trial in 1944 prosecuted alleged fascists and, beginning in 1949, leaders and members of the Communist Party USA were targeted. Prosecutions continued until a series of Supreme Court decisions in 1957 threw out numerous convictions under the Smith Act as unconstitutional. The statute itself, often amended, has not been repealed.

Wartime censorship[edit]
During World War I, and to a greater extent during World War II, war correspondents accompanied military forces, and their reports were subject to advance censorship to preserve military secrets. The extent of such censorship was not generally challenged, and no major court case arose from this issue, and even the Supreme Court found it constitutional on the grounds that it "protected free speech from tyranny".[8]


WPA poster, 1943
The Office of Censorship, an emergency wartime agency, heavily censored reporting during World War II. On December 19, 1941 President Franklin Roosevelt signed Executive Order 8985, which established the Office of Censorship and conferred on its director the power to censor international communications in "his absolute discretion." Byron Price was selected as the Director of Censorship. However, censorship was not limited to reporting; postal censorship also took place. "Every letter that crossed international or U.S. territorial borders from December 1941 to August 1945 was subject to being opened and scoured for details."[9]

In later conflicts the degree to which war reporting was subject to censorship varied, and in some cases it has been alleged that the censorship was as much political as military in purpose. This was particularly true during the Vietnam War and the invasion of Grenada. The executive branch of the federal government attempted to prevent the New York Times from publishing the top-secret Pentagon Papers during the Vietnam War, warning that doing so would be considered an act of treason under the Espionage Act of 1917. The newspaper prevailed in the famous New York Times Co. v. United States case.

In 1991, during the Gulf War under the presidency of George H. W. Bush, The Pentagon placed restrictions on media coverage of the ground war to protect confidential military information.[10]

Such issues arose again during the 2003 Invasion of Iraq, when many embedded reporters accompanied soldiers as they made their way into the country. These reports were subject to censorship in that they were not allowed to reveal a unit's exact location.

Wartime censorship often involves forms of mass surveillance. For international communications, like those done by Western Union and ITT, this mass surveillance continued after the wars were over. The Black Chamber received the information after WWI. After WWII NSA's Project SHAMROCK performed a similar function.[11]

Journalism in warzones[edit]
Main article: Embedded journalism
Reporters are often obliged to "embed" themselves with a squad or unit of soldiers before being granted official access to fields of battle. Reporters are limited in what they may report by means of contracts, punishment or forced relocation, and the inherent nature of being tied to and reliant upon a military unit for protection and presence.

Wilhelm Reich[edit]
Main article: Wilhelm Reich § Book burning
Wilhelm Reich was an Austrian psychoanalyst. He moved to New York in 1939, in part to escape the Nazis, and shortly after arriving there coined the term "orgone" – derived from "orgasm" and "organism" – for a cosmic energy he said he had discovered, which he said others referred to as God. In 1940 he started building orgone accumulators, devices that his patients sat inside to harness the reputed health benefits, leading to newspaper stories about sex boxes that cured cancer.

Following two critical articles about him in The New Republic and Harper's, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration obtained an injunction against the interstate shipment of orgone accumulators and associated literature, believing they were dealing with a "fraud of the first magnitude." Charged with contempt in 1956 for having violated the injunction, Reich was sentenced to two years in prison, and that summer over six tons of his publications were burned by order of the court. He died in jail of heart failure just over a year later, days before he was due to apply for parole.

>>110475817
Second Red Scare[edit]
See also: Smith Act trials of communist party leaders
McCarthyism is the term describing a period of intense anti-Communist suspicion in the United States that lasted roughly from the late 1940s to the late 1950s.

The Alien Registration Act or Smith Act of 1940 made it a criminal offense for anyone to "knowingly or willfully advocate, abet, advise or teach the […] desirability or propriety of overthrowing the Government of the United States or of any State by force or violence, or for anyone to organize any association which teaches, advises or encourages such an overthrow, or for anyone to become a member of or to affiliate with any such association." Hundreds of Communists were prosecuted under this law between 1941 and 1957. Eleven leaders of the Communist Party were charged and convicted under the Smith Act in 1949. Ten defendants were given sentences of five years and the eleventh was sentenced to three years. All of the defense attorneys were cited for contempt of court and were also given prison sentences. In 1951, twenty-three other leaders of the party were indicted including Elizabeth Gurley Flynn, a founding member of the American Civil Liberties Union, who was removed from the board of the ACLU in 1940 for membership in a totalitarian political party. By 1957 over 140 leaders and members of the Communist Party had been charged under the law.[12]

In 1952, the Immigration and Nationality, or McCarran-Walter, Act was passed. This law allowed the government to deport immigrants or naturalized citizens engaged in subversive activities and also to bar suspected subversives from entering the country.

The Communist Control Act of 1954 was passed with overwhelming support in both houses of Congress after very little debate. Jointly drafted by Republican John Marshall Butler and Democrat Hubert Humphrey, the law was an extension of the Internal Security Act of 1950, and sought to outlaw the Communist Party by declaring that the party, as well as "Communist-Infiltrated Organizations" were "not entitled to any of the rights, privileges, and immunities attendant upon legal bodies."

Film censorship[edit]
See also: Production Code and Motion Picture Association of America film rating system
The first act of movie censorship in the United States was an 1897 statute of the State of Maine that prohibited the exhibition of prizefight films.[13] Maine enacted the statute to prevent the exhibition of the 1897 heavyweight championship between James J. Corbett and Robert Fitzsimmons. Some other states followed Maine.

In 1915, the US Supreme Court decided the case Mutual Film Corporation v. Industrial Commission of Ohio in which the court determined that motion pictures were purely commerce and not an art, and thus not covered by the First Amendment. This decision was not overturned until the Supreme Court case, Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson in 1952. Popularly referred to as the "Miracle Decision", the ruling involved the short film "The Miracle", part of Roberto Rossellini's anthology film L'Amore (1948).

Between the Mutual Film and the Joseph Burstyn decisions local, state, and city censorship boards had the power to edit or ban films. City and state censorship ordinances are nearly as old as the movies themselves, and such ordinances banning the public exhibition of "immoral" films proliferated.

Public outcry over perceived immorality in Hollywood and the movies, as well as the growing number of city and state censorship boards, led the movie studios to fear that federal regulations were not far off; so they created, in 1922, the Motion Pictures Producers and Distributors Association (which became the Motion Picture Association of America in 1945), an industry trade and lobby organization. The association was headed by Will H. Hays, a well-connected Republican lawyer who had previously been United States Postmaster General; and he derailed attempts to institute federal censorship over the movies.

In 1927 Hays compiled a list of subjects, culled from his experience with the various US censorship boards, which he felt Hollywood studios would be wise to avoid. He called this list "the formula" but it was popularly known as the "don'ts and be carefuls" list. In 1930, Hays created the Studio Relations Committee (SRC) to implement his censorship code, but the SRC lacked any real enforcement capability.

The advent of talking pictures in 1927 led to a perceived need for further enforcement. Martin Quigley, the publisher of a Chicago-based motion picture trade newspaper, began lobbying for a more extensive code that not only listed material that was inappropriate for the movies, but also contained a moral system that the movies could help to promote - specifically a system based on Catholic theology. He recruited Father Daniel Lord, a Jesuit priest and instructor at the Catholic St. Louis University, to write such a code and on March 31, 1930 the board of directors of the Motion Picture Producers and Distributors Association adopted it formally. This original version especially was once popularly known as the Hays Code, but it and its later revisions are now commonly called the Production Code.

However, Depression economics and changing social mores resulted in the studios producing racier fare that the Code, lacking an aggressive enforcement body, was unable to redress. This era is known as Pre-Code Hollywood.

An amendment to the Code, adopted on June 13, 1934, established the Production Code Administration (PCA), and required all films released on or after July 1, 1934 to obtain a certificate of approval before being released. For more than thirty years following, virtually all motion pictures produced in the United States and released by major studios adhered to the code. [1] The Production Code was not created or enforced by federal, state, or city government. In fact, the Hollywood studios adopted the code in large part in the hopes of avoiding government censorship, preferring self-regulation to government regulation.

The enforcement of the Production Code led to the dissolution of many local censorship boards. Meanwhile, the US Customs Department prohibited the importation of the Czech film Ecstasy (1933), starring an actress soon to be known as Hedy Lamarr, an action which was upheld on appeal.

In 1934, Joseph I. Breen (1888–1965) was appointed head of the new Production Code Administration (PCA). Under Breen's leadership of the PCA, which lasted until his retirement in 1954, enforcement of the Production Code became rigid and notorious. Breen's power to change scripts and scenes angered many writers, directors, and Hollywood moguls. The PCA had two offices, one in Hollywood, and the other in New York City. Films approved by the New York PCA office were issued certificate numbers that began with a zero.

The first major instance of censorship under the Production Code involved the 1934 film Tarzan and His Mate, in which brief nude scenes involving a body double for actress Maureen O'Sullivan were edited out of the master negative of the film. Another famous case of enforcement involved the 1943 western The Outlaw, produced by Howard Hughes. The Outlaw was denied a certificate of approval and kept out of theaters for years because the film's advertising focused particular attention on Jane Russell's breasts. Hughes eventually persuaded Breen that the breasts did not violate the code and the film could be shown.

Some films produced outside the mainstream studio system during this time did flout the conventions of the code, such as Child Bride (1938), which featured a nude scene involving 12-year-old actress Shirley Mills. Even cartoon sex symbol Betty Boop had to change from being a flapper, and began to wear an old-fashioned housewife skirt.

In 1952, in the case of Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously overruled its 1915 decision and held that motion pictures were entitled to First Amendment protection, so that the New York State Board of Regents could not ban "The Miracle", a short film that was one half of L'Amore (1948), an anthology film directed by Roberto Rossellini. Film distributor Joseph Burstyn released the film in the U.S. in 1950, and the case became known as the "Miracle Decision" due to its connection to Rossellini's film. That in turn reduced the threat of government regulation that justified the Production Code, and the PCA's powers over the Hollywood industry were greatly reduced.[14]

At the forefront of challenges to the code was director Otto Preminger, whose films violated the code repeatedly in the 1950s. His 1953 film The Moon is Blue, about a young woman who tries to play two suitors off against each other by claiming that she plans to keep her virginity until marriage, was the first film to use the words "virgin," "seduce," and "mistress," and it was released without a certificate of approval. He later made The Man with the Golden Arm (1955), which portrayed the prohibited subject of drug abuse, and Anatomy of a Murder (1959) which dealt with rape. Preminger's films were direct assaults on the authority of the Production Code and, since they were successful, hastened its abandonment.

In 1954, Joseph Breen retired and Geoffrey Shurlock was appointed as his successor. Variety noted "a decided tendency towards a broader, more casual approach" in the enforcement of the code.

Billy Wilder's Some Like It Hot (1959) and Alfred Hitchcock's Psycho (1960) were also released without a certificate of approval due to their themes and became box office hits, and as a result further weakened the authority of the code.

President Barack Obama said on December 19, 2014 that Sony “made a mistake” in pulling its film The Interview from distribution following a cyber-attack that American officials may have linked to North Korea. “We cannot have a society where some dictator someplace can start imposing censorship here in the United States,” Obama said. [15] The film has since been released in limited distribution at select theaters.

The Pawnbroker and the end of the Code[edit]
In the early 1960s, British films such as Victim (1961), A Taste of Honey (1961), and The Leather Boys (1963) offered a daring social commentary about gender roles and homophobia that violated the Hollywood Production Code, yet the films were still released in America. The American gay rights, civil rights, and youth movements prompted a reevaluation of the depiction of themes of race, class, gender, and sexuality that had been restricted by the Code.

In 1964 The Pawnbroker, directed by Sidney Lumet and starring Rod Steiger, was initially rejected because of two scenes in which the actresses Linda Geiser and Thelma Oliver fully expose their breasts; and a sex scene between Oliver and Jaime Sánchez, which it described as "unacceptably sex suggestive and lustful." Despite the rejection, the film's producers arranged for Allied Artists to release the film without the Production Code seal and the New York censors licensed The Pawnbroker without the cuts demanded by Code administrators. The producers also appealed the rejection to the Motion Picture Association of America.[16]

On a 6-3 vote, the MPAA granted the film an "exception" conditional on "reduction in the length of the scenes which the Production Code Administration found unapprovable." The exception to the code was granted as a "special and unique case," and was described by The New York Times at the time as "an unprecedented move that will not, however, set a precedent."[17] The requested reductions of nudity were minimal, and the outcome was viewed in the media as a victory for the film's producers.[16] The Pawnbroker was the first film featuring bare breasts to receive Production Code approval. In his 2008 study of films during that era, Pictures at a Revolution, author Mark Harris wrote that the MPAA's action was "the first of a series of injuries to the Production Code that would prove fatal within three years."[17]

When Jack Valenti became President of the MPAA in 1966, he was immediately faced with a problem regarding language in the film version of Edward Albee's play Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? (1966). Valenti negotiated a compromise: The word "screw" was removed, but other language, including the phrase "hump the hostess", remained. The film received Production Code approval despite having language that was clearly prohibited. The British-produced, but American-financed film Blowup (1966) presented a different problem. After the film was denied Production Code approval, MGM released it anyway, the first instance of an MPAA member company distributing a film that didn't have an approval certificate. There was little the MPAA could do about it.

Enforcement had become impossible, and the Production Code was abandoned entirely.

Weapons proliferation[edit]
On March 15, 1950, Scientific American published an article by Hans Bethe about thermonuclear fusion, but the United States Atomic Energy Commission successfully ordered printed copies of the magazine destroyed, and a redacted version was published. The censorship was not disputed by Bethe.

Under the Invention Secrecy Act of 1951 and the Atomic Energy Act of 1956, patents may be withheld and kept secret on grounds of national security.

In 1979, the magazine The Progressive was sued by the U.S. government (United States v. The Progressive) and temporarily blocked from publishing an article that purported to reveal the "secret" of the hydrogen bomb. The article was eventually published after Fusion magazine, published by the Fusion Energy Foundation, published similar information and the government dropped the charges.

In 1997, Congress voted unanimously to add an amendment to a Department of Defense spending bill (known as the Feinstien amendment) forbidding the distribution of instructions that teach "the making or use of an explosive, a destructive device, or a weapon of mass destruction" if those instructions are intended to assist in the actual building and use of such a device.

Further information: Prior restraint
Political censorship[edit]
In 1987, an article appeared in The Scientist which alleged that the U.S. government improperly suppressed two science magazines put out by the Fusion Energy Foundation. The article quotes scientists Winston Bostick, who said that "the Department of Justice wants to crush the magazines before they publish information which could send quite a few officials of the department to jail," and former Department of Energy official Stephen Dean, who said that the government's actions were "a gross abuse of the legal system—a violation of due process." [18]

Export of sensitive software[edit]
The export of cryptography software is regulated as a munition under the International Traffic in Arms Regulations, although in recent years the regulations have relaxed, due in part to industry lobbying.

In 1995, Daniel J. Bernstein challenged the regulations (see Bernstein v. United States) on First Amendment grounds. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that software source code was speech protected by the First Amendment and that the government's regulations preventing its publication were unconstitutional.[19] However, some regulations remain.

Further information: export of cryptography
Broadcast censorship[edit]

This section does not cite any references (sources). Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (November 2010)
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulates "indecent" free-to-air broadcasting (both television and radio). Satellite, cable television, and Internet outlets are not subject to content-based FCC regulation. It can issue fines if, for example, the broadcaster employs certain profane words. The Supreme Court in 1978 in FCC v. Pacifica Foundation upheld the commission’s determination that George Carlin's classic “seven dirty words” monologue, with its deliberate, repetitive and creative use of vulgarities, was indecent. But the court at that time left open the question of whether the use of “an occasional expletive” could be punished. Radio personality Howard Stern has been a frequent target of fines. This led to his leaving broadcast radio and signing on with Sirius Satellite Radio in 2006. The Super Bowl XXXVIII halftime show controversy increased the political pressure on the FCC to vigorously police the airwaves. In addition, Congress increased the maximum fine the FCC may levy from US $268,500 to US $375,000 per incident.

The Supreme Court, in its 5-4 decision in FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc. (2009), said it did not find the FCC's policy on so-called fleeting expletives either "arbitrary or capricious", thus dealing a blow to the networks in their efforts to scuttle the policy. But the case brought by Fox to the high court was a narrow challenge on procedural grounds to the manner in which the FCC handled its decision to toughen up its policy on fleeting expletives. Fox, with the support of ABC, CBS and NBC, argued that the commission did not give enough notice of nor properly explain the reasons for clamping down on fleeting expletives after declining to issue penalties for them in decades past. The issue first arose in 2004, when the FCC sanctioned, but did not fine, NBC for Bono's use of the phrase "fucking brilliant" during the Golden Globes telecast. The present case arose from two appearances by celebrities on the Billboard Music Awards. The first involved Cher, who reflected on her career in accepting an award in 2002: “I’ve also had critics for the last forty years saying I was on my way out every year. Right. So fuck 'em.” The second passage came in an exchange between Paris Hilton and Nicole Richie in 2003 in which Ms. Richie discussed the difficulties involved in removing cow feces from a Prada purse with the quotation "Have you ever tried cleaning cow shit off a Prada purse? It's not so fucking simple." The majority decision, written by Justice Antonin Scalia, reversed the lower appellate court's decision that the FCC's move was "arbitrary and capricious." “The commission could reasonably conclude” he wrote “that the pervasiveness of foul language, and the coarsening of public entertainment in other media such as cable, justify more stringent regulation of broadcast programs so as to give conscientious parents a relatively safe haven for their children.” Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, dissenting, wrote that “there is no way to hide the long shadow the First Amendment casts over what the commission has done. Today’s decision does nothing to diminish that shadow.” Justice John Paul Stevens, dissenting, wrote that not every use of a swear word connoted the same thing: “As any golfer who has watched his partner shank a short approach knows,” Justice Stevens wrote, “it would be absurd to accept the suggestion that the resultant four-letter word uttered on the golf course describes sex or excrement and is therefore indecent... It is ironic, to say the least, that while the FCC patrols the airwaves for words that have a tenuous relationship with sex or excrement, commercials broadcast during prime-time hours frequently ask viewers whether they are battling erectile dysfunction or are having trouble going to the bathroom... The FCC’s shifting and impermissibly vague indecency policy only imperils these broadcasters and muddles the regulatory landscape.” For 30 years, the FCC has had the power to keep “indecent” material off the airwaves from 6 a.m. to 10 p.m., and those rules “have not proved unworkable” Stevens added. Justice Breyer, dissenting, wrote that the law “grants those in charge of independent administrative agencies broad authority to determine relevant policy,” he observed. “But it does not permit them to make policy choices for purely political reasons nor to rest them primarily upon unexplained policy preferences.” Scalia’s majority opinion was joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts and Justices Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. and (for the most part) by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy. Justices Stevens, Ginsburg, Souter, and Breyer dissented. Four justices wrote concurrences or dissents speaking only for themselves.

But the decision was limited to a narrow procedural issue and also sent the case back to the 2nd Court of Appeals in New York to directly address the constitutionality of the FCC's policy. The 2nd Court of Appeals is already on record in its 2007 ruling that it was "skeptical" that the policy could "pass constitutional muster." Scalia said that the looming First Amendment question “will be determined soon enough, perhaps in this very case.” The decision provided hints that the court might approach the constitutional question differently. Some dissenting justices and Justice Clarence Thomas, who was in the majority, indicated that they might be receptive to a First Amendment challenge. Thomas, in a concurrence, said he was “open to reconsideration” of the two cases that gave television broadcasters far less First Amendment protection than books, newspapers, cable programs and Web sites have.

The FCC is also responsible for permitting transmitters, to prevent interference between stations from obscuring each other's signals. Denial of the right to transmit could be considered censorship. Restrictions on low-power broadcasting stations have been particularly controversial, and the subject of legislation in the 1990s and 2000s (decade).

The Guardian reported U.S. censorship of U.S. media regarding a CIA employee implicated in murder in that "A number of US media outlets learned about Davis's CIA role but have kept it under wraps at the request of the Obama administration."[20] Colorado station KUSA censored an online report indicating Davis worked for the CIA when the station "removed the CIA reference from its website at the request of the US government."[20]

>>110476065
Censorship of pornography[edit]
Further information: Pornography in the United States
U.S. courts have ruled that the First Amendment protects "indecent" pornography from regulation, but not "obscene" pornography. People convicted of distributing obscene pornography face long prison terms and asset forfeiture. However, in State v. Henry (1987), the Oregon Supreme Court ruled that obscenity was an unconstitutional restriction of free speech under the free speech provision of the Oregon Constitution and abolished the offense of obscenity in that state, although it remains an offense on the federal level.[21]

In 1996, the Congress passed the Communications Decency Act, with the aim of restricting Internet pornography. However, court rulings later struck down many provisions of the law.

A widely publicized case of prosecuting alleged obscenity occurred in 1990, when the Cincinnati arts center agreed to hold an art show featuring the work of photographer Robert Mapplethorpe. His work included several artistic nude photographs of males and was deemed offensive by some people for this reason. This resulted in the prosecution of the center and its director, who were later acquitted.

In the early 1990s, Mike Diana became the first American artist to receive a conviction for obscenity for drawing cartoons that were judged legally obscene.

Child pornography is illegal in the United States. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that it is not protected by the First Amendment. And even if not obscene, it is not considered protected speech, according to New York v. Ferber.[22][23]

Ban on material support for foreign boycotts[edit]
A law passed by the U.S. Congress in 1977 prohibits all U.S. persons, defined to include individuals and companies located in the United States and their foreign affiliates, from supporting the boycott of Israel and provides penalties for those who willingly comply with the boycott. The B.I.S. website states:[24]

Conduct that may be penalized under the TRA and/or prohibited under the EAR includes:

Agreements to refuse or actual refusal to do business with or in Israel or with blacklisted companies.
Agreements to discriminate or actual discrimination against other persons based on race, religion, sex, national origin or nationality.
Agreements to furnish or actual furnishing of information about business relationships with or in Israel or with blacklisted companies.
Agreements to furnish or actual furnishing of information about the race, religion, sex, or national origin of another person.
Implementing letters of credit containing prohibited boycott terms or conditions.
The TRA does not "prohibit" conduct, but denies tax benefits ("penalizes") for certain types of boycott-related agreements.

On this basis, some American businesses have been punished for answering their customers' question about origin of their products.[25][26]

Some pro-Israeli activists have construed the law as forbidding speech and expression that supports any boycott of Israel (as opposed to actions taken to comply with the requests of foreign entities to boycott Israel) whether foreign in origin or domestic, and asked the US Anti-Boycott Office to prosecute divestment campaigners against Israel.[27]

However, the law only forbids material participation in or material support of a boycott originated by a foreign nation or organization, not with a domestic boycott campaign[citation needed], nor can the law be construed as forbidding speech that politically or morally (as opposed to materially) supports any boycott, whether foreign, or domestic[citation needed]. The law only prevents US organizations from being used by alien entities as agents of their foreign policy, when that foreign policy includes the pursuit of boycotting arrangements[citation needed]; it does not prevent US organizations or individuals from choosing how to spend or invest their money based on business or ethical considerations[citation needed]; it only forbids doing so as the result of a foreign entity's request[citation needed]. Material attempts to suppress speech through induction of state action under false pretenses, such as by claiming a domestic boycott campaign is foreign in origin may be unlawful, and may constitute conspiracy against civil rights, a federal crime, punishable by fine and imprisonment. (Such speech is considered to be core political speech under the US Constitution, and any state actions interfering with core political speech are subject to the strictest Constitutional scrutiny.)

Libel[edit]
Libel and slander are generally considered civil wrongs which can constitute the basis of a private lawsuit. Although some states still carry criminal libel laws on the books, these are very infrequently used.

Since the 1964 decision in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, public figures like entertainers and politicians must prove actual malice was intended as opposed to simple negligence to win a libel or slander suit. For instance, public officials cannot file a lawsuit if someone makes a caricature of them or insults them.

Although it is difficult to win a libel case in the United States, it can still be an effective means of intimidation and deterrence, since defending oneself against a lawsuit is expensive and time consuming.

Persons engaged in legislative debate in Congress are granted complete immunity from libel and slander suits so long as they are speaking from the floor of the Senate or House of Representatives.[citation needed]

Further information: Strategic lawsuit against public participation
Judicial orders[edit]
Individual judges have the power to order parties in their jurisdictions not to disclose certain information. A gag order might be issued to prevent someone from disclosing information that would interfere with an ongoing court case. Though court documents are generally public information, record sealing is sometimes used to prevent sensitive information (such as personal information, information about minors, or classified information) exposed by a court case from becoming public.

Such powers are subject to strict review by higher courts, and generally have been narrow compared to countries such as the United Kingdom and Canada.

The 1971 case Nebraska Press Assn. v. Stuart established a high standard that must be met for courts to prevent media organizations from publishing information about an ongoing trial to preserve the defendant's right to a fair trial.

On January 4, 2007, US District Court Judge Jack B. Weinstein issued a temporary restraining order forbidding a number of activists and their organizations in the psychiatric survivors movement, including MindFreedom International and the Alliance for Human Research Protection from disseminating ostensibly leaked documents purporting to show that Eli Lilly and Company knowingly concealed information on potentially lethal side-effects of Zyprexa for years.[2] The "Zyprexa documents" had been sealed by an earlier court order in a mass tort case; they were widely disseminated after Alaska attorney James Gottstein issued a subpoena for them in an unrelated case. The Electronic Frontier Foundation came to the defense of one of the parties silenced by the restraining order to defend the First Amendment right of Internet journalists to post links to relevant documents on wikis, blogs, and other web pages.[3] While Eli Lilly maintains that the documents were obtained unlawfully and should not be part of the public domain, critics cite the leaked Pentagon Papers as precedent for the right of individuals to report on the existence and contents of such documents, and in this particular case, maintain that court sealing of documents should never be allowed to protect individuals or corporations from criminal liability.[28]

Copyright[edit]
The United States has strong copyright laws, which result in the inability to republish copyrighted material without permission from the copyright owner, subject to criminal and civil penalties.

Digital Millennium Copyright Act[edit]
Main article: Digital Millennium Copyright Act
The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) is an extension to United States copyright law passed unanimously on May 14, 1998, which criminalizes the production and dissemination of technology that allows users to circumvent technical copy-restriction methods. Under the Act, circumvention of a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work is illegal if done with the primary intent of violating the rights of copyright holders.

Although the Act contains an exception for research,[29] the DMCA has had an impact on the worldwide cryptography research community, because many fear that their cryptanalytic research violates, or might be construed to violate the law. The arrest of Russian programmer Dmitry Sklyarov in 2001, for alleged infringement of the DMCA, was a highly publicized example of the law's use to prevent or penalize development of anti-digital rights management measures. Sklyarov was arrested in the United States after a presentation at DEF CON, and subsequently spent several months in jail. The DMCA has also been cited as chilling to non-criminal inclined users, such as students of cryptanalysis (including, in a well-known instance, Professor Felten and students at Princeton),[30] and security consultants such as the Netherlands-based Niels Ferguson, who has declined to publish information about vulnerabilities he discovered in an Intel secure-computing scheme because of his concern about being arrested under the DMCA when he travels to the United States.

Free speech lawsuits have resulted surrounding the publication of DeCSS and the AACS encryption key, both dealing with the "cracking" of copy-protected movies (on DVD and Blu-ray Disc/HD DVD, respectively).