It might be powerful; but is it offensive? Unpacking judicial views on the c-word

Methven, E

It might be powerful; but is it offensive? Unpacking judicial views on the c-word

Methven, E

Permalink

Publisher:: ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
Publication Type:: Journal Article
Citation:: Current Issues in Criminal Justice, 2024, 36, (2), pp. 135-156
Issue Date:: 2024-01-01

Open Access

Copyright Clearance Process

Recently Added
In Progress
Open Access

This item is open access.

Adobe PDF

Download Published versionAdobe PDF (2.49 MB)

View on publisher's site

View statistics

Full metadata record

Field	Value	Language
dc.contributor.author	Methven, E https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3428-3905
dc.date.accessioned	2024-10-03T06:53:43Z
dc.date.available	2024-10-03T06:53:43Z
dc.date.issued	2024-01-01
dc.identifier.citation	Current Issues in Criminal Justice, 2024, 36, (2), pp. 135-156
dc.identifier.issn	1034-5329
dc.identifier.issn	2206-9542
dc.identifier.uri	http://hdl.handle.net/10453/181171
dc.description.abstract	The word cunt is the second most popular subject of offensive language charges and infringement notices in New South Wales, after fuck. While the latter word has been the subject of considered academic and judicial critique, the basis for any legal offensiveness ascribed to the former term has received inadequate scholarly and jurisprudential attention. Noting the power of judicial discourse to shape what is criminally offensive, in this article, I evaluate judicial views on the ‘c-word’ with reference to sociolinguistic literature on swearing. I find that many of the judicial representations do not withstand scrutiny. The article may aid lawyers attempting to demonstrate evolving views on the word cunt in courtroom advocacy.
dc.language	English
dc.publisher	ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
dc.relation.ispartof	Current Issues in Criminal Justice
dc.relation.isbasedon	10.1080/10345329.2024.2327742
dc.rights	info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
dc.subject	1602 Criminology, 1608 Sociology, 1801 Law
dc.subject.classification	4402 Criminology
dc.subject.classification	4804 Law in context
dc.subject.classification	4805 Legal systems
dc.title	It might be powerful; but is it offensive? Unpacking judicial views on the c-word
dc.type	Journal Article
utslib.citation.volume	36
utslib.for	1602 Criminology
utslib.for	1608 Sociology
utslib.for	1801 Law
pubs.organisational-group	University of Technology Sydney
pubs.organisational-group	University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Law
utslib.copyright.status	open_access	*
dc.rights.license	This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0). To view a copy of this license, visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
dc.date.updated	2024-10-03T06:53:40Z
pubs.issue	2
pubs.publication-status	Published
pubs.volume	36
utslib.citation.issue	2

Abstract:

The word cunt is the second most popular subject of offensive language charges and infringement notices in New South Wales, after fuck. While the latter word has been the subject of considered academic and judicial critique, the basis for any legal offensiveness ascribed to the former term has received inadequate scholarly and jurisprudential attention. Noting the power of judicial discourse to shape what is criminally offensive, in this article, I evaluate judicial views on the ‘c-word’ with reference to sociolinguistic literature on swearing. I find that many of the judicial representations do not withstand scrutiny. The article may aid lawyers attempting to demonstrate evolving views on the word cunt in courtroom advocacy.

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:

http://hdl.handle.net/10453/181171