What The--?(The Talk of the Town)(swearing and explicit language)

Trickle-down behaviorists, beware: if George W. Bush can use a popular synonym for dung, as he did when talking to Tony Blair at last year's G-8 summit, and if Dick Cheney, on the floor of the U.S. Senate, can deploy a word usually meant to refer to sexual intercourse, then who are we to demonize the lowly entertainers and truck drivers who employ such language on a regular basis? This, essentially, was the argument of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals when, last month, it prohibited the F.C.C. from fining television networks for broadcasting what it called "fleeting expletives." (The phrase itself has the ring of a naughty euphemism.) Katie Couric, cuss away.

There are, predictably, dissenters. Daniel Henninger, a deputy editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page, wrote, "The slovenly, unrestrained ethos behind talking dirty on live TV devalues the idea of a more-or-less controlled life," and implied--zounds!--that national defense was potentially at stake. But even some blasphemers have found this seeming erosion of taboo an occasion for alarm. "Bit by bit, these terms are being neutered," Ed Conway, a London newspaper reporter, said the other day. "Swear words perform a useful function in conversation, to shock or engage. Once we lose that, where are we left?"

A few weeks ago, Conway launched a "Campaign to Devise a New Swear Word for the 21st Century," using Facebook, the social-networking site preferred by those who are too young to have heard "rear end," "friggin'," or "pshaw" used unironically. He included a decline-and-fall narrative of profanity ("14th century--swearing still a crime, with victims subjected to torture, stocks, tongue- or lip-piercing. . . . 19th century--use of the word 'damn' becomes acceptable. . . . 20th century--RIP 'wanker' "). As of late last week, the campaign had attracted ...