Definition
Profanity, in its legal sense, refers to irreverent or blasphemous language directed at sacred things — particularly the name of God — as well as, in broader statutory usage, obscene or indecent language that disturbs public order or morals. Legal treatment of profanity has operated along two distinct tracks:
1. Blasphemous profanity: Irreverent use of the name of God or sacred subjects, historically treated as an offense against religion and public morality. At common law, public profane swearing was indictable on the theory that it tended to disturb the peace, corrupt community morals, and undermine Christianity as a foundation of civil order.
2. Disorderly profanity: Loud, repeated, or provocative use of profane language in public, treated as a breach of the peace or disorderly conduct. The common law distinguished a single utterance from a pattern of behavior — a solitary profane word spoken quietly was generally not indictable; repeated or loud profanity in public could be.
Modern statutory usage has largely displaced the blasphemy-centered definition. Contemporary profanity laws, where they survive, focus on offensive or indecent language in public spaces and intersect heavily with First Amendment doctrine.
Common Language
Modern common usage (Wiktionary): The quality of irreverence or treating sacred things with contempt; also, obscene, lewd, or abusive language generally.
Historical common usage (Webster's 1913): The quality or state of being profane; profaneness; irreverence; especially, the use of profane language or blasphemy.
The common usage of profanity has broadened over time to encompass virtually any offensive or vulgar language, regardless of religious content. The legal definitions in historical sources are considerably narrower — centering on irreverence toward the sacred, particularly toward God — and carry a religious dimension largely absent from the word's modern everyday use. A researcher who reads "profanity" in a 19th-century indictment should not assume the charge resembles modern disorderly conduct; it likely carried specific blasphemous or sacrilegious content.
Common Confusion
Profanity and blasphemy are closely related but not interchangeable in historical legal sources. Blasphemy typically denotes the more serious offense: defaming or denying God, Christ, or the Christian religion in a manner likely to shock believers or undermine public order. Profanity covers the broader category of irreverent or indecent language, including casual swearing, without necessarily rising to the level of a deliberate theological attack. Anderson's Dictionary explicitly cross-references blasphemy, signaling that practitioners and courts treated the two as related but distinct. In modern constitutional analysis, both have been largely subsumed into First Amendment frameworks, but the distinction remains important when reading historical indictments, pleadings, or statutory language.
Why It Matters in Research
Historical profanity prosecutions are poorly indexed in modern databases because the offense frequently appeared under disorderly conduct, breach of the peace, or blasphemy headings rather than a standalone "profanity" charge. Researchers working in 19th-century or early 20th-century materials should search across all three categories.
The religious dimension of early profanity law matters for constitutional history research. Pre-incorporation First Amendment doctrine allowed significant state regulation of blasphemous and profane speech; the shift away from that baseline is gradual and jurisdiction-dependent. Researchers tracing the arc of free speech protection for offensive language need to account for profanity's historical status as a common law offense, not merely a statutory one.
Modern profanity law intersects with broadcast regulation (FCC indecency standards), disorderly conduct statutes, and fighting words doctrine. A researcher moving from a historical source to a modern one will encounter dramatically different conceptual frameworks for what makes profanity legally actionable — the religious-irreverence model largely gives way to a public-order or listener-harm model.
Anderson's entry is notable for the qualifier that a single utterance of a profane word is not per se indictable if not spoken loudly or repeatedly — this element-based framing anticipates modern conduct-based analysis and is useful for understanding how 19th-century courts actually applied the offense in practice.
Historical Dictionary Support
The three source dictionaries agree on the core definition: profanity is irreverence toward sacred things, especially irreverent use of the name of God. Black's (both editions) is brief and descriptive, noting only that the offense is punishable by statute in some jurisdictions — a hedge that reflects the patchwork of state statutes even in the late 19th century.
Anderson's is the most practically useful of the three. It situates profanity within a common law framework, identifies the public harm theories (disturbance of the peace, corruption of morals, undermining Christianity) that historically justified criminal liability, and introduces a limiting principle — the single-utterance, quiet-speech exception — that the other dictionaries omit entirely. This limiting principle reflects actual case development and is not present in Black's, which speaks only in general terms.
None of the historical dictionaries address the First Amendment dimension, which is expected given their publication dates but creates a significant gap for any researcher trying to apply these definitions to 20th- or 21st-century questions. The historical sources also treat Christianity as the implicit reference point for "sacred things," a framing that would not survive modern Establishment Clause analysis.
Jurisdictional Note
State profanity statutes varied considerably in scope, with some covering only blasphemous use of the divine name and others reaching any indecent or offensive public language. Modern constitutional doctrine has placed heavy restrictions on profanity laws under the First Amendment, though context-specific regulation — in broadcasting, schools, or captive-audience settings — remains valid. Researchers should not assume that a historical state statute on profanity was ever enforced uniformly or survived into the modern period without significant judicial limitation or legislative revision.
Encyclopedia Cross-Reference
See Law Mind Encyclopedia: Blasphemy; Freedom of Speech (Historical Development); Disorderly Conduct