Wow Iceland

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/...418_story.html

"Like a handful of other countries, including Germany and Denmark, Iceland has official rules about what a baby can be named. In a country comfortable with a firm state role, most people don’t question the Personal Names Register, a list of 1,712 male names and 1,853 female names that fit Icelandic grammar and pronunciation rules and that officials maintain will protect children from embarrassment. Parents can take from the list or apply to a special committee that has the power to say yea or nay."

And people are OK with this? If you don't have the freedom to name your child what you want then you know you've entered a totalitarian society.

I'm not happy to have a pre-prescribed list but I am happy to have veto powers somewhere over it in exceptional cases. If a parent decided to name their child Adolf Auschwitz Hitler then I've no problem with the state saying no.

There isn't a country in the world which views children like slaves solely owned by their parents to do with as they please. Equally like while many parents may use phrases like "I gave you life I can take it away" I'm happy if a parent actually does take it away to be tried for murder.

Seems bizarre and ridiculous.

The article seems to indicate that those that do choose to name themselves or their children not from the list or not approved by the committee effectively become persona non grata.

Not okay with it, no.

Seems like a way to enforce cultural norms. Must suck if you immigrate to Iceland and plan to have kids. (Why would you though) :)

Anything that cuts down on the number of children at risked of being named Nevaeh gets a :up: in my book.

Does anyone have a link to this list? Wiki gives a 404 and the post is displaying a paywall.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Timbuk2

Seems bizarre and ridiculous.

The article seems to indicate that those that do choose to name themselves or their children not from the list or not approved by the committee effectively become persona non grata.

Not okay with it, no.

---

Even in the UK there are limits on what you can name your child. The General Register Office is allowed to refuse to register names considered 'offensive', with little definition thereof. It's obviously not as bad as a whitelist (of which there are a number of countries which seem to follow it), but it's still a restriction.

Before you go ahead and say it's all right to use a common definition of offensive to avoid saddling kids with an awful name, I'd urge you consider that some names don't mean the same thing in every language. For example, I know some women with the unfortunate-sounding names of Dikla (meaning palm tree) and Osnat (pronounced 'oh-SNOT'), among many others. Their parents weren't being abusive or offensive, they just weren't giving their children an English name.

I think it's best to err on the side of freedom, which includes precluding any arbitrary 'offensiveness' litmus test. I would much prefer a blacklist with clearly defined rules.

A small blacklist, of course, that's to be expected. As Rand alluded to, Adolf Auschwitz Hitler should not be allowed.

Very, very different to a whitelist, big or small. That's on a whole different level, to these eyes.

And speaking of amusing names, I went to school with a Cypriot kid called Phanus, which was wrong on so many levels, and I once worked with a chap called John McBaggage, which made me giggle every time I heard it.

As I understand it, Tim, there actually isn't a blacklist in the UK; just an arbitrary litmus test. While I generally prefer no restrictions on such things, if a society believe it is appropriate, they should have an explicit blacklist. IMO. (Obviously a whitelist is a terrible idea.)

A blacklist is rather limited and useless, though -.change or add one lettervand you're not on it. I think I am more comfortable with a civil servent deciding it, and being able to appeal his decision.

BTW, Dick isn't a too uncommon name here :p Dick de Cock might very well exist!

A blacklist couldn't work and would even be counter productive: It'd invariably get on the Internet and people could use it as inspiration - and easily get around it with different spellings etc

Far better in this instance to just use some common sense (as unrestrictive as possible).

Personally, I'm more disturbed by laws in Kansas, that prohibit any household from having more than four cats. :bored:

The tight limitation of Iceland might also has something to do with the fact that you still inherit your fathers/mothers name as second name (with son or dottir added at the end), and that almost only first name are used in the country.

So if you call our child "Bitch" your grandchildren will be called for example Daniel Bitchson or Julia Bitchsdotter.

Not to mention that some names lead to (subconscious) prejudice against the name holder. Here in Germany we had a wave of a subset of certain people naming their children "Kevin" or "Jacqeline".

Which in turn led to the saying: "Kevin is not a name, it's a diagnosis."

It becomes even worse when the parents are not even able to pronounce the fancy names they've given their children. My own father once had to ask a mother to spell the name of her child because he couldn't figure out the child's name for the life of him.

Here in Holland at one time we had the bizarre situation that people who were holding double passports were sometimes being stopped from given their child a name because the country of their second passport (mostly Turkey and Morocco) would not approve of it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

I'm not happy to have a pre-prescribed list but I am happy to have veto powers somewhere over it in exceptional cases. If a parent decided to name their child Adolf Auschwitz Hitler then I've no problem with the state saying no.

There isn't a country in the world which views children like slaves solely owned by their parents to do with as they please. Equally like while many parents may use phrases like "I gave you life I can take it away" I'm happy if a parent actually does take it away to be tried for murder.

---

Ah so your OK if the government restricts offensive names as long as you personally agree that they are offensive. I'm sure that logic is flawless.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

Ah so your OK if the government restricts offensive names as long as you personally agree that they are offensive. I'm sure that logic is flawless.

---

That logic is the basis of our whole justice system.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

That logic is the basis of our whole justice system.

---

Yes laws against behavior are always just if the majority supports them. Do I understand your position correctly?

No. Laws frequently use vague concepts like the notion of the "reasonable man" while the jury system puts it to the test.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

No. Laws frequently use vague concepts like the notion of the "reasonable man" while the jury system puts it to the test.

---

So you would not be in favor of laws like Iceland where no jury trial is required to stop the name Adolf Hitler.

I've already said I oppose a predefined blacklist/whitelist system.

OTOH I wouldn't say a jury trial needs to be the next step either. Someone somewhere in the most extreme cases only saying "no I don't think that's a good idea because ..." followed if necessary by a right to appeal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

I've already said I oppose a predefined blacklist/whitelist system.

OTOH I wouldn't say a jury trial needs to be the next step either. Someone somewhere in the most extreme cases only saying "no I don't think that's a good idea because ..." followed if necessary by a right to appeal.

---

I guess your a product of your country. The idea that big brother gets to decide what you name your child is just completely foreign to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

I guess your a product of your country. The idea that big brother gets to decide what you name your child is just completely foreign to me.

---

That's not what I said at all. You get to name your child but if you abuse your child the state takes action.

EDIT: Turns out its the same in the USA too. If you wanted to name your child Fuck Liberals Lewkowski ... You couldn't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

That's not what I said at all. You get to name your child but if you abuse your child the state takes action.

EDIT: Turns out its the same in the USA too. If you wanted to name your child Fuck Liberals Lewkowski ... You couldn't.

---

Federal law or state (it matters). Different sections of government do different things - heck some cities ban water bottles and other cities ban the size of soft drinks.

Not got the answer bit seen a mumber of references to the word FUCK not being allowed as a baby name.

Heck it seems in New Mexico you can't even choose your own name: http://www.kansascity.com/450/story/682656.html

Link not working. But New Mexico is a crazy place. I imagine it wouldn't pass a constitutional test if anyone cared to challenge it.

Here's another link: http://madconomist.com/man-wants-to-...-judge-says-no

Man wanted his name to be legally changed from "Variable" (was previously "Snaphappy Fishsuit Mokligon") to "Fuck Censorship" - judges ruled no as obscenity isn't covered by Free Speech. Appeals Court further ruled no. Found a few other references saying other states would rule against Fuck being used as a name under obscenity rules, but can't find any other court cases besides this one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

I guess your a product of your country. The idea that big brother gets to decide what you name your child is just completely foreign to me.

---

I guess you fail at reading comprehension in addition to endorsing at-will child abuse and harmful neglect by parents. Is it a remnant of the American slavery thing or does it go back to Old Testament slavery?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

I guess your a product of your country. The idea that big brother gets to decide what you name your child is just completely foreign to me.

---

So you've already forgotten about the stories we've had on here about the state taking away children whoms names they dont find appropriate?

edit: i wonder what happened with little hitler...

I just remembered this one:
http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/exploits_of_a_mom.png
Fits here nicely.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

Here's another link: http://madconomist.com/man-wants-to-...-judge-says-no

Man wanted his name to be legally changed from "Variable" (was previously "Snaphappy Fishsuit Mokligon") to "Fuck Censorship" - judges ruled no as obscenity isn't covered by Free Speech. Appeals Court further ruled no. Found a few other references saying other states would rule against Fuck being used as a name under obscenity rules, but can't find any other court cases besides this one.

---

Depressing. :( Still not as bad as Iceland but ugh, so disappointed in humanity.

If a name is going to emotionally scar a child via his peers I think it's wise for us to say he can't be named that. If it's a clear case that the name will directly lead to that child's torment. It's a case of the parent right to name their children verses a child's right not to be intentionally put down a path of psychological trauma.

I do suspsect eventually the name Adolf will be lifted as a banned name, and maybe if the english language dies off then the name vagina head would be morally and legally allowable name.

All you have to do is ask yourselves these questions:

Should the state step in if parents are physically abusing their children?

Should the state step in if the parents are psychologically abusing their children?

If your answer is yes, now you understand the position of the posters above.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lebanese Dragon

If a name is going to emotionally scar a child via his peers I think it's wise for us to say he can't be named that. If it's a clear case that the name will directly lead to that child's torment. It's a case of the parent right to name their children verses a child's right not to be intentionally put down a path of psychological trauma.

---

This is not a persuasive argument to people who endorse child abuse whose names begin with L and end with Ewkowski.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

Depressing. :( Still not as bad as Iceland but ugh, so disappointed in humanity.

---

Really? So since a parent can even make up new surnames if a parent wanted to name their child Fukniggas Killjews you'd be perfectly OK with that? It's their "right" is it? And the teacher should at school read out "Killjews, Fukniggas" at rollcall?

Off topic: Heiniger (spocken "Hi nigger") is a common Swiss last name :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

Really? So since a parent can even make up new surnames if a parent wanted to name their child Fukniggas Killjews you'd be perfectly OK with that? It's their "right" is it? And the teacher should at school read out "Killjews, Fukniggas" at rollcall?

---

One of the conspiracies behind RFID tagging our students is so that parents stop bitching at teachers who bastardize the endless creation of those retarded urban names with their unique spellings.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

Really? So since a parent can even make up new surnames if a parent wanted to name their child Fukniggas Killjews you'd be perfectly OK with that? It's their "right" is it? And the teacher should at school read out "Killjews, Fukniggas" at rollcall?

---

You don't have the freedom to not be offended. If a rule is made that folks can't use a certain name in class the school can assign a new name or an abbreviation. I'd also argue that when the child reaches a certain age they can change their name without parental consent.

Ultimately I don't trust the government to decide what is offensive. Its far better not to allow the government to control something as basic as a name. Expanding from just naming a child what about adults who want to change their name? You would restrict someone's right to the name of their choosing? Simply because some bureaucrat decides its offensive? If you expect that to be OK then you have to prepare yourself that some names they find offensive would be names you won't find offensive. Would you still say the government is right?

I agree with Lewk, parents should be allowed to abuse their children or expose them to significant and unnecessary risk of abuse. It's the govt. that's dangerous and can't be trusted. Parents care about their children and always have their best interests at heart and always have the best approach to serving their children's best interests by definition :rolleyes: it's the bureaucrats we can't trust, the ones that arbitrarily and unilaterally decide in a complete vacuum that "Fukniggas Killjews" is probably not the most appropriate name for a kid. Because bureaucrats are stupid and it takes a frickin' genius to figure out that "Fukniggas Killjews" may be a problematic name to have in American society :rolleyes: They are dumb and need to read more bible

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

I agree with Lewk, parents should be allowed to abuse their children or expose them to significant and unnecessary risk of abuse. It's the govt. that's dangerous and can't be trusted. Parents care about their children and always have their best interests at heart and always have the best approach to serving their children's best interests by definition :rolleyes: it's the bureaucrats we can't trust, the ones that arbitrarily and unilaterally decide in a complete vacuum that "Fukniggas Killjews" is probably not the most appropriate name for a kid. Because bureaucrats are stupid and it takes a frickin' genius to figure out that "Fukniggas Killjews" may be a problematic name to have in American society :rolleyes: They are dumb and need to read more bible

---

Do you support the rights of the government to ban names you don't find offensive? Or are you only OK with them banning names you personally find offensive?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

Do you support the rights of the government to ban names you don't find offensive? Or are you only OK with them banning names you personally find offensive?

---

Give examples.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

Give examples.

---

Why would that matter? Its a simple question - are you OK with the government banning names that some people find offensive but you don't? I don't know what all you find offensive so throwing names out of a hat would be silly. But lets look at it from a religious angle. What if some people thought naming your kid Allah is offensive - should that name be banned? What about Jesus? Is that OK? I'm sure you find neither offensive but would you support the government banning it because some people find it offensive?