A Thousand Words

Newspapers, through a sense of propriety (and in the case of Danish cartoons, cowardice), sometimes leave things out of a story. For example, if a politician reputedly tells a sexist, dirty joke, they will report he told a sexist, dirty joke. They may even describe the sexist, dirty joke. But they won't print the actual joke.

This is a mistake. A joke can't really be judged until you hear it. That's what I was thinking when I read the story about a man who was cited for making an "obscene" hand gesture while in traffic. Though the citation was dropped, the man is suing, claiming it was part of his free speech

Legally speaking, I think he's right. Regardless of the gesture, I don't see how it isn't protected as communication under the First Amendment. Nevertheless, others may disagree and the story simply doesn't carry the same meaning unless this anonymous gesture is fully described or, better yet, illustrated.

Sure, we all know what the gesture almost certainly is--that's the point. Why the cutesinesss surrounding it? The fully story isn't being told.

(And if it is illegal to use this particular gesture in traffic....)