Well, isn't this retarded.

I try to avoid using the word in the 'popular' way because that's not what it means. It has always been a faulty usage, regardless of how popular it is. This at least is using it in the original intended way, although there might have been better and less offensive terms the filmmakers could have chosen. Regardless of that I think this is a big old fuss over nothing. I also don't go along with the increasingly common usage of "gay" to mean "bad or deserving of ridicule", but I can't say either of them actually bother me that much... I certainly wouldn't let the usage of either of those words in a derrogatory sense to stop me from going to see a movie, much less call for it to be banned.

Although I appreciate there are limits to freedom of expression, this shouldn't be one of them. Some entertainment is tasteless and offensive. I may or may not choose to partake of it, but I support the right to make it.

Most amazing jew boots

Originally Posted by Sassafrass

Out of curiosity, where do you think the limits lie?

There aren't many limits I really would approve of, to be honest. I believe in the right of organisations other than the government to limit freedom of speech and expression within their premises. I think that's perfectly fine, because it stops at their threshold and you can just walk out... or in the case of an internet site you can log out.

I also recognise the logic behind limiting freedom to shout 'fire' in a crowded theater, or threatening to kill (for example) the American president. It is of course arguable that these represent consequences for freedom of speech rather than limitations upon it.

I also recognise that freedom of artistic impression is necessarily limited by laws such as the prohibition on producing sexually explicit imagery of minors. It's a matter of protection in that case.

I can't say that I support unfettered freedom of expression, because if I say that someone is bound to bring up such an example, and they would have a sound argument to make. I don't think there should be limits to safeguard people's feelings enshrined in law though. I don't believe that the types of film we can make should be limited by who it might offend. We have laws against discrimination, but it's not discriminatory to use a nasty word. It's sometimes inappropriate, but it's not a matter for the law.

Additional Spam:

Originally Posted by Pangalin

The popular usage is the correct usage. That's how language works. The meanings of words are determinedly collectively by popular opinion. If reference books have failed to take these new definitions into account, the fault is theirs.

You have a point, certainly. I understand what you're saying, and I am aware of examples of precisely such a shift. I don't really have a good answer, becuse basically you're right in what you're saying. If the definition of the word has shifted, so that the new meaning is just 'bad, stupid and deserving of ridicule' then I'm wrong and outdated. However, if that usage is by a vocal minority, then it might still be considered incorrect. As you say, meaning is by consensus, but consensus is by majority is it not?

There's nowhere I can't reach.