The unique beauty of swears is that they're marvellously versatile while also being refreshingly unambiguous. Telling someone that their work is of an unacceptable standard may be accurate, sure; but advising them to euphemistically ram said work into their southernmost hole adds an undeniable thrill to the conversation.
And thus the ruling on Tuesday by Sydney magistrate Geoffrey Bradd is great to hear, since it has determined that the use of my beloved f-bomb is legitimate language of protest and not offensive in a legal sense, when deployed in context.
As this blog will no doubt act as a source of information and instruction for generations to come, we shall use genteel alternatives for said f-word throughout, but readers from our distant, future should take note.
The best part is that deploying verbal sludge-blasts is now a legally recognised riposte to certain despicable persons and anti-marriage equality arguments generally.
Most importantly, it recognises that abrasive language is useful, indeed valuable, and that the laws around its use have been used more often as a way to shut disagreeable people up than in recognition of delicate personal sensibilities - or, in the words of a solicitor "for too long been used as a social control applied disproportionately, marginalised and vulnerable people".
So now we know: swearing is a legitimate form of protest in Australia and language - and society - is the richer for it.
So let us f*** away with impunity, friends. However let's not waste 'the word' or use it frivolously. Its a word to be treated with reverence and used sparingly so that it doesn't loose its power.