Russia Moves to Ban Swearing in Movies
Measure clears lower house of parliament
By John Johnson, Newser Staff
Posted Apr 24, 2014 9:51 AM CDT

(Newser) – Invasion of a neighboring country? Fine. Laws against "homosexual propaganda"? That's OK, too. But curse words in film? Intolerable. Russia's lower parliament has passed legislation that bans swearing in films, plays, concerts, and shows, reports the BBC. Scofflaws would face fines. If the upper house goes along and Vladimir Putin signs off, the law would take effect in July. But first, a special committee would have to draw up a list of no-no words.

That would apparently include "hrenovina," which the BBC describes as a "colorful expression for nonsense" that got bleeped out of a TVC broadcast of the popular Soviet movie, Garage. Its director called the censorship "an act of idiocy." Meanwhile, bloggers might have to rein in the urge to swear, too. A separate measure that cleared the lower house declares that all those who have 3,000 or more visitors per day must steer clear of obscene language and sign posts with their real names, reports RT.

More From Newser
My Take on This Story
To report an error on this story,
notify our editors.
Russia Moves to Ban Swearing in Movies is...
Show results without voting
You Might Like
Showing 3 of 45 comments
Apr 25, 2014 8:59 AM CDT
Newser does this too so $%^# y'all and the horse you rode in on
Apr 24, 2014 3:21 PM CDT
They should ban swearing in the United States.
Apr 24, 2014 3:17 PM CDT
In fact, swearing in all languages has certain defining qualities. That goes beyond branding it as cultural in nature and suggesting it may be more physiological. And, in fact, swearing also has characteristics that tie itit with animalistic vocalization, usually of the aggressive, provocative or violent kind. For the most part, swear terms are single syllable, an explosive type outburst. They are built around short vowels sounds, "a" as in "cat" father than as in "mate". Even the fraction of a second longer it takes to fully form a long vowel sound, as opposed to a short one, is too long for someone spewing the animal grunts that evidently constitute swearing. And the consonants are typical, sibilants like "s", "sh", resembling a snake's hiss; explosives like "p", "t", "k", "d", "d", "g", "j"; vowels that resemble a cat spitting, such as "h", hard "th" or "f"; and sounds resembling growling, such as "r". Soft wounds like long vowels and consonants like "l", "w", "m", "n" will never form the basis for a curse word. Yes, some curse words to have softer consonants letters in them, but never alone. They are always at the beginning and animalistic sounds are at the end of the syllable. And, if curse terms have more than one syllable, every syllable will, individually, have verbal qualities of animalistic aggression. Add, too, that curse words or terms are almost always based on the sex act or bathrom functions. Too, the fact that curses never give information. They do not indicate where something is. They do not inform you that someone is waiting for you. They never provide anything approaching a fine point of description. Their at least near constant use demonstrates someone who has nothing to say, and, so, they tend to appeal to those who don't have enough mental power to be able to absorb relatively significant statements. So, for any who condemn this, consider. Stifling "free expression" is questionable since curse words do not express full and founded thoughts. They are animalistic explosions using words of the argot that are similar in form to animal ourbursts. They do not provide information. They are a surrendering of the depth and subtlety of human sentiment for yelps and howls. They may "express" disasatisfaction with a situation, but they don't explain why. To ban them would require replacing all but mindless outbursts with thought through explication. It will not allow talentless hacks to fill up the screen and make money from drawing the dull-witted to watch something that cravenly appeals on a prurient level, but leaves the dullards often even more dull and unthinking. The "experiment" of allowing unfettered vulgarity and cursing in "entertainment" resulted in no movies of any quality whatsoever being made and the fraud that now constitutes "entertainment" becoming stocked with hacks and thugs who work against quality being produced for fear of it showing up their material as garbage. They had their chance to try to introduce coarse language as a form of discourse but, like the crooks theyt all were, they only proceeded to work to turn "entertainment" into a multimedia Mafia. And the gullible audiences were turned into insipids and morons. This is along the same lines as the states in the U.S. that have laws against sodomy. Constant or even regular sodomy gives license to the sociopath tendency not to be able to look another in the face, as well as subjects another to a sensation that is at best uncomfortable for some, painful and even severely physically damaging to others. It also works to control the kind of individual who has the self destructive bent that leads them to enjoy something hard being inserted in their rectum on a regular basis. True, quality of behavior should be controlled from within, by morals, conscience and ethics. In fact, law in an ideal society would be completely unnecessary since all would act decently. But the maggots revealed just how malignant they could be if only the slightest freedom of action is permitted! This doesn't justify posting laws like this, but it does show that the "free expression" dodge around them is just anothe filthy machination by the putrid and foul. Incidentally, too, Crimea asked for Russian intervention. Russia disn't post items recommending invasion. To even say this only displays the imbecility of the individual commenting on the matter. Those who did not realize this demonstrate their own insipidity. Also, if the article is going to parade calls for invasion as reprehensible, where does that leave the U.S., that invades openly and clandestinely, using Special Forces thugs to destabilize and foment violence, allowing the U.S. to move in for "humanitarian purposes"?