« Justice O'Connor and the ERA | Main | Guest Post (Josh Douglas): Vote for US – The Organizations »

Tuesday, April 16, 2019

"profane past participle form of a well-known word of profanity"

Anyone else find absurd the Court's refusal to use or allow the use of profanity in a case that is all about profanity and the ridiculous (if clever) work-around the government's lawyer found? Melville Nimmer rolls over in his grave.

Posted by Howard Wasserman on April 16, 2019 at 05:44 PM in First Amendment, Howard Wasserman, Judicial Process, Law and Politics | Permalink

Comments

There is no such delicacy in the Australian courts. A judgment handed down this week by the New South Wales Court of Appeal offered the following interpretation of an expression used (with ellipsis) by a party in commercial negotiations. Porges v Adcock Private Equity Pty Ltd [2019] NSWCA 79:

[66] The primary judge said (Judgment [127]) that he understood the expression “clusterfuck” whether written elliptically or in full, to denote a perilous state of affairs, referring in this respect to Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Westpac Banking Corporation (No. 2) [2018] FCA 751 at [937]. Some sources suggest that the term is of military origin, indicating a chaotic situation where everything goes wrong. This is the second sense given to the word in the Oxford English Dictionary. Likewise, the Macquarie Dictionary describes the word as meaning “... an operation in which a number of things go wrong at the same time, or contributing to a disastrous situation.”

Posted by: Andrew Robertson | Apr 19, 2019 1:05:18 AM

Post a comment