On 12/18/2010 11:50 PM, martin schiller wrote:
> http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/topten/topTenResults.cfm?groupingtype=2&groupingId=926394
>
>
> ALL TIME HITS (for all papers in SSRN eLibrary)
TOP 10 Papers for Humanities Research Network
January 2, 1997 to December 18, 2010
>
>
> Rank Downloads Paper Title
> 1 27575 Fuck
> Christopher M. Fairman,
> Ohio State University (OSU) - Michael E. Moritz College of Law,
> Date posted to database: April 17, 2006
> Last Revised: January 10, 2007
>
>
> I wondered whether the title was an expletive, or research into the words usage in language.
The answer:
> Abstract:
> This Article is as simple and provocative as its title suggests: it
> explores the legal implications of the word fuck. The intersection of
> the word fuck and the law is examined in four major areas: First
> Amendment, broadcast regulation, sexual harassment, and education. The
> legal implications from the use of fuck vary greatly with the context.
> To fully understand the legal power of fuck, the nonlegal sources of
> its power are tapped. Drawing upon the research of etymologists,
> linguists, lexicographers, psychoanalysts, and other social
> scientists, the visceral reaction to fuck can be explained by cultural
> taboo. Fuck is a taboo word. The taboo is so strong that it compels
> many to engage in self-censorship. This process of silence then
> enables small segments of the population to manipulate our rights
> under the guise of reflecting a greater community. Taboo is then
> institutionalized through law, yet at the same time is in tension with
> other identifiable legal rights. Understanding this relationship
> between law and taboo ultimately yields fuck jurisprudence.
SA