Offensive Language: Quote or Redact?

“So the FCC won’t let me be or let me be me, so let me see.  They tried to shut me down on MTV, but it feels so empty without me.”[i] – Eminem, Without Me

A recent CNN article questioning whether media should print, in full, offensive words uttered by public figures or redact them[ii] got me thinking about what appellate practitioners should do when confronted with a record containing offensive language.[iii] Specifically, when a victim, witness, or party, uses profanity, racial slurs, or other inflammatory language, should you quote the language verbatim in the brief, sanitize it, or avoid repeating it altogether?

As with many questions in law, the answer is that it depends. An appellate lawyer’s job is to present the record accurately and persuasively. Sometimes that requires quoting ugly language exactly as it appears in the record. Sometimes it does not. The key is understanding when the words matter and when they distract.[iv]

When the Words Are the Point, Quote Them

In some cases, the precise words are legally significant.  Consider, for example:

• harassment or hostile work environment claims;
• defamation claims;
• prosecutions based on threats or intimidation;
• hate crimes; or
• disorderly conduct or harassment offenses

In those circumstances, sanitizing the language distorts the record. If the issue on appeal turns on what was said, the court needs to know the exact words that were used.  Accurate quotation is particularly important in legal analysis because lawyers and judges must grapple with the facts “as they have actually occurred.”[v]

Replacing a slur with “[racial epithet]” or changing profanity to “f***” may soften the emotional impact of the record in a way that undermines the court’s ability to assess the facts fully. When the words themselves are probative evidence, euphemism becomes imprecision.

Not All Offensive Language Serves the Same Function

That said, offensive language is not monolithic. There is a meaningful difference between profanity and slurs, and advocates should recognize that distinction.

Profanity often conveys anger, emphasis, or emotional intensity. A party’s repeated use of profanity may demonstrate hostility or belligerence, but the exact words used may matter less than the fact that the speaker was cursing.

Slurs are different. Slurs carry distinctive force because of their historical association with oppression, intimidation, and violence.[vi]  Thus, they often carry independent evidentiary significance because they can demonstrate discriminatory animus, bias, motive, or intent in ways that generic profanity does not. A racial or homophobic slur may be central not merely because it is offensive, but because it is probative. 

Redaction is Not Neutral

Advocates should also recognize that redaction is not a neutral editorial choice. Replacing language with “f***,” “[expletive],” or “[racial slur]” does not erase the original word from the reader’s mind. In many cases, the reader mentally supplies the missing term.[vii]

That matters because redaction can alter how the reader experiences the quoted material. Sometimes redaction softens the force of the language. But sometimes it does the opposite—drawing greater attention to the word by signaling that it is too offensive to reproduce. In that sense, redaction can heighten the rhetorical impact of the language even while obscuring the record itself.

Redaction may also create ambiguity. A generic notation such as “[racial slur]” obscures which slur was used, even though different terms carry different histories, connotations, and degrees of hostility. Similarly, replacing a word with “f*****” may leave the reader unsure which of multiple offensive f-words the speaker used.

For that reason, advocates should not assume that redaction is the safer or more neutral course. Redaction is itself a rhetorical choice, and like any rhetorical choice, it should be made deliberately.

If Exact Words Don’t Matter, Consider Restraint

Of course, not every profane or offensive remark in the record warrants quotation. If the only relevant point is that a witness or defendant was angry, agitated, or verbally abusive, the advocate may not need to reproduce every vulgarity. Sometimes it is enough to say that the person “used repeated profanity,” “made vulgar remarks,” or “responded with abusive language.”

Likewise, lengthy quotations of inflammatory language can become gratuitous when the exact wording adds little to the legal analysis. Thus, if the court does not need the exact words to resolve the dispute, then quoting them may inflame more than inform.

Audience Matters

Appellate advocates should also remember their audience. Judges are professional readers who routinely confront difficult facts and unpleasant records. But they are also human readers operating within institutional norms of professionalism and decorum. A brief that gratuitously repeats offensive language risks appearing sensationalistic, juvenile, or insensitive.

At the same time, excessive squeamishness can also undermine credibility. A lawyer who appears unwilling to quote the record accurately when accuracy matters may seem evasive or overly delicate.

Indeed, courts themselves routinely quote offensive language verbatim when necessary to address the issues before them.[viii]

Ultimately, offensive language in the record presents yet another reminder that appellate advocacy is an exercise in judgment. Good advocates neither sanitize the record reflexively nor revel in its ugliness. They recognize that whether to quote, summarize, or redact offensive language is itself a strategic choice—one that affects not only the accuracy of the record, but also how the reader perceives it.

[i] 18 U.S.C. § 1464 provides, “Whoever utters any obscene, indecent, or profane language by means of radio communication shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.”

[ii] Harmeet Kaur, What to do when the president uses the word “Fuckin,” CNN (Apr. 8, 2026), https://www.cnn.com/2026/04/08/us/word-of-week-fkin-cec.  

[iii] Offensive language is not a static category. “The English language is rife with creative ways of depicting sexual or excretory organs or activities,” and “new offensive and indecent words are invented every day.” Fox Television Stations, Inc. v. FCC, 613 F.3d 317, 330 (2d Cir. 2010), vacated and remanded, 567 U.S. 239 (2012).

[iv] “The legal system follows what philosophers of language call the ‘use-mention distinction’: a sharp divide between using a term to insult someone (which the legal system rightly condemns), and mentioning it, usually in quoting some person or document (which is routine in the legal system).”  Randall Kennedy & Eugene Volokh, The New Taboo: Quoting Epithets in the Classroom and Beyond, 49 Cap. U.L. Rev. 1, 10 (2021).

[v] Id. at 9-10.

[vi] Id. at 6-7.

[vii] Kaur, supra note i (quoting lexicographer Jesse Sheidlower who stated, “The paradox of putting the asterisks in is that you’re trying to erase the force of the word, but everybody who looks at it has to translate it into the word. . . . It’s convenient if you don’t think it’s right to swear publicly, to use a euphemism, but you’re really making other people swear in their minds. It’s like transferring the swearing responsibility to the reader instead of to the author, the publisher.”).

[viii] Kennedy & Volokh, supra note iv, at 12-15.