California Supreme Court on Offensive Speech

[Baker, John]

        The California Supreme Court ruled today that the writers for
Friends did not harass a writers' assistant when they used vulgar
language and conduct around her,
http://files.findlaw.com/news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/ent/lylewb42006opn.
pdf.  Among the many interesting tidbits is this one from page 24 and
related footnote 9:

        <<Although plaintiff contends the writers
"sorely understated the actual climate" of the writers' room in her
interview, these
types of sexual discussions and jokes (especially those relating to the
writers'
personal experiences) did in fact provide material for actual scripts.9

                9 Of course, explicit sexual references typically were
replaced with
innuendos, imagery, similes, allusions, puns, or metaphors in order to
convey
sexual themes in a form suitable for broadcast on network television.
For
example, "motherfucker" was replaced with "mother kisser," "testicles"
with
"balls," and "anal sex" with "in the stern.">>


        Can this be right?  You can't say "testicles" on network TV, but
"balls" is acceptable as a euphemism?


John Baker





------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org