Page 1 of 1

What's the consensus on profanity in law review articles

Posted: Fri Mar 13, 2015 11:30 pm
by Businesslady
This post is not a joke. I already searched the forums for various terms (but not individual obscenities). I am writing an excellent article (as Businesslady, of course) that I would like to publish in as prestigious a law review as possible, and am wondering how turnt up I can get.

TYIA

Re: What's the consensus on profanity in law review articles

Posted: Fri Mar 13, 2015 11:35 pm
by rpupkin
Businesslady wrote:This post is not a joke. I already searched the forums for various terms (but not individual obscenities). I am writing an excellent article (as Businesslady, of course) that I would like to publish in as prestigious a law review as possible, and am wondering how turnt up I can get.

TYIA
If you're an unknown author looking to get published in the most prestigious law review possible, you probably should keep the obscenities to a minimum.

However, once you reach the level of Cass Sunstein or Akhil Amar, let the f-bombs fly.

Re: What's the consensus on profanity in law review articles

Posted: Fri Mar 13, 2015 11:39 pm
by Businesslady
Which journals have blind selection

Re: What's the consensus on profanity in law review articles

Posted: Fri Mar 13, 2015 11:49 pm
by BearLaw
Businesslady wrote:Which journals have blind selection
I dont think there is any such thing. The process is very intensive and there is a lot of interaction. There are some instances where profanity fits (if you are writing about it, SCOUTS cases etc.). in general, I would avoid it. It wont help you, and could make someone making the choice remember you for a bad reason.

Re: What's the consensus on profanity in law review articles

Posted: Sat Mar 14, 2015 1:03 am
by Aeon
Avoid profanity, unless you are directly quoting it.

Re: What's the consensus on profanity in law review articles

Posted: Sat Mar 14, 2015 1:11 am
by Emma.
Aeon wrote:Avoid profanity, unless you are directly quoting it.
http://www.slu.edu/Documents/law/Law%20 ... rticle.pdf

Re: What's the consensus on profanity in law review articles

Posted: Sat Mar 14, 2015 1:22 am
by bearsfan23
I think Ohio State is cool with it.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm? ... _id=896790

Edit - I think this actually got published by Cardozo's Law Review

Re: What's the consensus on profanity in law review articles

Posted: Sat Mar 14, 2015 1:35 am
by twenty
Understanding this relationship between law and taboo ultimately yields fuck jurisprudence.
:D

Re: What's the consensus on profanity in law review articles

Posted: Sat Mar 14, 2015 3:29 am
by Businesslady
"Fuck" is actually a pretty important article, at least from a literary perspective. It's easily one of the most-read of all time in its genre, right?

Re: What's the consensus on profanity in law review articles

Posted: Sat Mar 14, 2015 4:11 am
by Mal Reynolds
Emma. wrote:
Aeon wrote:Avoid profanity, unless you are directly quoting it.
http://www.slu.edu/Documents/law/Law%20 ... rticle.pdf
Today I learned that the "bitch" in "99 problems, but a bitch ain't one," refers to the female dog from the k-9 unit that never sniffed Jay Z's car, and not a woman.

Re: What's the consensus on profanity in law review articles

Posted: Sat Mar 14, 2015 11:42 am
by BearLaw
Mal Reynolds wrote:
Emma. wrote:
Aeon wrote:Avoid profanity, unless you are directly quoting it.
http://www.slu.edu/Documents/law/Law%20 ... rticle.pdf
Today I learned that the "bitch" in "99 problems, but a bitch ain't one," refers to the female dog from the k-9 unit that never sniffed Jay Z's car, and not a woman.
adpc hip-hop law class?

Re: What's the consensus on profanity in law review articles

Posted: Sat Mar 14, 2015 2:16 pm
by rpupkin
Mal Reynolds wrote:
Emma. wrote:
Aeon wrote:Avoid profanity, unless you are directly quoting it.
http://www.slu.edu/Documents/law/Law%20 ... rticle.pdf
Today I learned that the "bitch" in "99 problems, but a bitch ain't one," refers to the female dog from the k-9 unit that never sniffed Jay Z's car, and not a woman.
And yet people still insist that legal scholarship is useless.

Re: What's the consensus on profanity in law review articles

Posted: Sat Mar 14, 2015 2:58 pm
by MKC
Leo Stone, On the Principal Obscene Word of the English Language, 35 INT’L J. OF PSYCHO-ANALYSIS 30 (1954). There are now commentators who would disagree with Dr. Stone’s title. In their eyes, [racist language redacted] or cunt have replaced fuck as our most offensive terms. RICHARD DOOLING, BLUE STREAK 18 (1996) (“For centuries, fuck was the most objectionable word in the English language, but now [racist language redacted] and cunt are probably tied for that distinction, and fuck has at long last stepped down.”). One British study recently ranked fuck in third place behind motherfucker (second) and cunt (first). See History of the Word “Fuck,” Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia,
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cf ... 90&mirid=1

This is the best footnote I've ever read.
One recent Internet search revealed that fuck “is a more commonly used word than mom, baseball, hot dogs, apple pie, and Chevrolet.

Re: What's the consensus on profanity in law review articles

Posted: Sat Mar 14, 2015 3:04 pm
by sublime
..

Re: What's the consensus on profanity in law review articles

Posted: Sat Mar 14, 2015 3:27 pm
by chuckbass
What are you writing about BL?