Our blog post helps you answer important questions about profanities in government content. Should you include them when writing for government? If so, should you censor those profanities? And what is the Style Manual's recommended censorship style?
Content warning: this article contains language that people may find offensive.
Introduction
What is ‘bad’ language? Most people define it as the use of profanities – language that is vulgar, coarse, obscene or blasphemous – commonly known as ‘swear words’.
Australia has a long history of the use of colourful swear words in everyday language.1 We certainly hear profanities on television and elsewhere these days. But it’s difficult to know if it’s ever acceptable to use them in the content we write at work.
This blog post aims to help government writers decide if, and when, they should publish and censor profanity. We hope our recommendations make this an easier decision.
Profanity in government content
This is our principal recommendation:
Recommendation
As a general rule, don’t use profanity unless you can show there is a good reason to include it.
Importantly, don’t use profanity simply to shock people. It will distract from your message.
Government content must be inclusive and credible. It should grab attention, communicate urgency or get a message across without alienating people. An ill-judged swear word risks doing exactly that.
Nevertheless, profanity has an important place in government content.
We all have a sense of what’s appropriate in an internal minute versus a public-facing government report. So, it’s an easy decision for most content – omit the swear words or paraphrase.
But sometimes it’s important not to.
Decide if you should publish profanity
To make an informed decision, you must understand:
- why you are writing
- who you are writing for
- who your stakeholders are
- the type of publication.
What you learn about each item in this list helps you decide whether to publish profanity or not. Take time to understand the context. It reduces the risk of publishing content that isn’t fit for purpose.
Put simply, informed respect for others should be your guide. For example, understanding your users through user research helps identify terms that are likely to offend. Some people find the casual use of religious oaths such as ‘Jesus Christ’ deeply offensive. Others find the inclusion of any swear word distasteful.
However, respecting others also means you must balance the risk of causing offence with the right of people to be heard.
Give people a voice: a case for profanity
Using direct quotations allows us to represent people and their views accurately and authentically. And quoting bad language may be the most respectful way to preserve the speaker’s feelings and intent.
Sometimes, swear words are an essential part of an individual’s personal expression – their ‘voice’. They use profanity to convey meaning, experiences and powerful emotion. To paraphrase or omit an individual’s profanities can diminish their agency.
Government publications do include profanity
Quoting individual voices is essential when publishing submissions to government inquiries or transcripts of evidence. Some will contain profanity. Two examples are the mild profanity in Bringing them home and the stronger language in documents of the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide.
Other types of government publications also include direct quotations containing profanity. For example, in 2024, the Office of the Guardian for Children and Young People in South Australia published From those who know. The introduction notes:
It is confronting and direct. It is not meant to cause offence, it is merely the truth as seen, felt and experienced by children and young people in that place. … There is swearing and some people may take offence to this. The quotes provided describe the confronting scenarios and experiences that are very much a part of these children and young people’s lives (Reid 2024).
Seek permission and respect confidentiality
Ask people’s permission to use their words before you publish. This statement appears in From those who know:
Report collated … on behalf of and with the expressed permission of children & young people at the Adelaide Youth Training Centre (Reid 2024).
It’s also important to respect the wishes of those who want to remain anonymous. For example, an appendix in Bringing them home lists the large number of confidential submissions and evidence received by the inquiry. In the body of the report, quotes from this material are cited as follows: Confidential evidence 265, Victoria or Confidential submission 110, Queensland (HREOC 1997).
What to censor based on corpus evidence
You’ve made an informed decision to publish profanity and have obtained permissions.
The next decision is: do you publish words in full or censor them?
Here’s advice based on our corpus research.
Three words to think about
Instinctively, we know that not all swear words are equal. Profanities all have a relative strength in common usage. Corpus evidence shows us that, in Australia, few swear words are considered so offensive that they need to be censored.
The f-word and c-word
For the most part, the strongest profanities are those we refer to euphemistically as the ‘f-word’ (or ‘f-bomb’) and the ‘c-word’. Corpus data shows that both are usually censored in Australian content.
Recommendation
As a general rule, censor the f- and c-words in government publications.
However, consider the context carefully and think about people’s right to be heard. These could provide a compelling reason to publish even our strongest profanities in full. This should be a document-by-document decision and an informed one.
The s-word
There is mixed corpus evidence about the censorship of ‘shit’. We note that the advertising industry’s regulator, Ad Standards, generally has no issue with its use (Ad Standards n.d.). In most content, you shouldn’t need to censor it.
Recommendation
But if you have doubts about any swear word – censor it.
Content warnings
If you do publish uncensored profanity, consider adding a content warning about the language in your content. Place the warning so that users will see it before they read the content. In digital content, some warnings appear on a pop-up page before the content opens. Agencies are likely to have a house style for content warnings.
We’ve included a content warning at the beginning of this blog post.
Recommendation
Consider adding a content warning to alert users that your content contains words that may offend.
We strongly recommend doing this for publicly-available content containing uncensored profanities.
Different styles for censored profanity
You’ve made an informed decision to censor.
The next decision is: what style of censorship should you use?
Our research shows there are several ways to censor swear words, including: f—k, f– –k, f‐‐k, f*ck, f‐ck, f–ck, f**k and f– – –.
Corpus data shows that the most common ways to censor the f- and c-words are to:
- keep the first and last letters of the word
- replace the middle letters with an asterisk (*), a hyphen (-), an em dash (—), or an en dash (–).
How did we decide which of these punctuation symbols to recommend?
Punctuation used to censor
An effective style rule is one that ensures content is scanned quickly and understood by users. We also want a style rule that writers can apply easily and consistently.
This meant we had to research and test the accessibility of each punctuation symbol. It also meant that the potential for confusion between hyphens, en dashes and em dashes became a factor.
Screen readers and browser applications
This screen reader information is for the factory default speech verbosity setting.
Research shows that most screen readers announce the symbol ‘*’ as ‘star’.
The treatment of hyphens and dashes is mixed:
- A hyphen can be called ‘dash’, ignored or indicated by a silent pause.
- An em dash can be called ‘em dash’, ignored or indicated by a silent pause.
- An en dash can be called ‘en dash’, ignored or indicated by a silent pause. However, the pause only occurs when the en dash is spaced (Ragas 2023).
We tested 3 browser text-to-speech applications (apps). Two apps announced ‘asterisk’ and one announced ‘star’. The apps ignored hyphens and dashes, or indicated them with a pause.
Even though the asterisk is sometimes announced as ‘star’, users of text-to-speech technology are likely to understand the connection. The surrounding text should help users differentiate between the word ‘star’ and the asterisk symbol.
Recommendation
Use asterisks to censor profanity.
There’s more to a censorship style than just the asterisk. A recommended style should also specify the number of letters to censor in a swear word.
Our recommendation for a censorship style
Our style recommendation comes from a review of:
- corpus data
- usability and accessibility tools
- style sources (ABC 2020; OUP 2020; Plain English Foundation 2020; University of Chicago 2024).
We recommend the following style for censoring profanity in government content.
Recommendation
To censor the f-word and c-word:
- write the first letter and fourth letter (the most commonly-used style)
- replace each middle letter with an asterisk
- write the other letters in longer words that include the f- and c-words
- avoid using the common euphemisms ‘f-word’ and ‘c-word’.
To censor ‘shit’: use ‘sh*t’. Corpus data shows that this is the most common form of censorship.
And yes, we use the f-word and c-word euphemisms in this blog. Without them, the text leading up to our recommended style would have been littered with uncensored profanity.
Example
- Triple J’s Hottest 100 of 2022 delivered 131 f**ks across 29 songs. (Triple J 2022)
- ‘What’s your f**king role here?’ (Fair Work Commission 2022)
- … ‘attention to detail, discipline and bullsh*t baffles brains’. (Indigenous Business Australia 2009)
Other profanities: 4 censorship options
We don’t have corpus data for every profanity. So, if you decide to censor other swear words, please exercise judgement and apply your chosen style consistently.
Here are 4 style options to help you:
- Use the recommended censorship style (for the f-word and c-word) – this works well for longer words based on 4-letter profanities.
- Write the first and last letters only and use an asterisk for all other letters – this provides a higher level of censorship.
- Replace 2 consecutive middle letters with an asterisk – this ensures visual consistency with our recommended censorship style.
- Replace one letter (usually a vowel) with an asterisk – this provides a lower level of censorship.
Record your preferred option in a style sheet. This helps you write the word in the same way in the future.
Example
- ‘Just being a d**khead, being me, just being sarcastic, being stupid.’ (Chapman 2025) [Style 1 – recommended censorship style]
- ‘It wasn’t a very pleasant time – the first time I heard words like … f*****t.’ (Leask 2025) [Style 2 – write first and final letter; use asterisks for other letters]
- ‘It’s bl**dy dry.’ (Younes 2018) [Style 3 – use asterisks for 2 consecutive middle letters]
- ‘They are looking for candidates – or some other dumb b*gger,’ one of the men tells the Journal. (Lucadou-Wells 2021) [Style 4 – use asterisks for one letter]
Thank you
Sincere thanks to the Style Manual user who first asked for advice about styling profanity in government content. We value user feedback greatly. It identifies user needs and informs the development of Australian style.
Note
1For example, we have a historical association with enthusiastic use of the ‘4 Bs’: bloody, bugger, bastard and bullshit. But we also have a history of making swearing in public an offence under the law. These laws are still in existence. And although they are sometimes applied unevenly, they are often used to police public areas. However, it is fair to say that many people feel uncomfortable with the use of certain profanities (Laugesen 2020).
Postscript
In this post, we don’t discuss hate speech or epithets that show contempt or aim to harm, vilify or demean others.
Developing guidance about the publication and censorship of these forms is beyond the Style Manual’s remit.
We can’t effectively convey the complexity and nuance around these terms, their reclamation by intended targets or the legality of their use.
References
Ad Standards (n.d.) Language, adstandards.com.au, accessed 19 March 2025.
ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (2020) ‘Swear words, coarse language, slurs’, , The ABC style guide, ABC website, accessed 23 June 2025.
Chapman S (26 April 2025) ‘Wasn’t looking good’ [paywall], The Advertiser, Advertiser Newspapers Pty Ltd, Adelaide.
Fair Work Commission (15 September 2022) ‘Prior penalties & declarations under industrial laws involving the CFMMEU or its representatives’, Matter D2022/10: Pasfield statement – Annexure PJP2 [PDF 20.41 MB], www.fwc.gov.au, p 265.
Fry C (25 January 2025) ‘Dig into the nitty gritty stats and trends of your Hottest 100 of 2024!’ triple j, abc.net.au, accessed 19 March 2025.
HREOC (Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission) (1997) ‘Appendix 11: evidence and submissions’, Bringing them home: report of the national inquiry into the separation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children from their families, HREOC, Australian Government, accessed 8 April 2025.
Indigenous Business Australia (April 2009) ‘A man called Blair’ [PDF 1.2 MB], Inspire, accessed 19 September 2025.
Laugesen A (2020) Rooted: an Australian history of bad language, NewSouth Publishing, UNSW, Sydney.
Leask A (20 September 2025) ‘A killer’s prison diary’ [paywall], New Zealand Herald, NZME, Auckland.
Lucadou-Wells C (28 June 2021) ‘Honey trap scam’ [paywall], Dandenong Star Journal, Australian Community Media, Victoria.
OUP (Oxford University Press) (2016) ‘4.11.1 En rule’, New Oxford style manual, OUP, Oxford.
OUP (2016) ‘4.15 Asterisk’, New Oxford style manual, OUP, Oxford.
Plain Language Foundation (2020) ‘Asterisks’, Australian Style Guide, Plain Language Foundation Pty Ltd, Sydney, accessed 23 June 2025.
Ragas S (2023) How screen readers read special characters: an update, elevenways.be, accessed 3 April 2025.
Reid S (2024) From those who know: minimum age of criminal responsibility, Office of the Guardian for Children and Young People, accessed 4 April 2025.
Senate Standing Committee on Environment, Communications and the Arts (2008) The effectiveness of the broadcasting codes of practice, Parliament of Australia, accessed 11 March 2025.
Triple J (2022) ‘Hottest 100 in numbers’, Triple J’s Hottest 100, abc.net.au, accessed 23 June 2025.
University of Chicago (2024) ‘6.99: 2-em dash for omissions’, Chicago manual of style, 18th edn, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Younes L (28 September 2018) ‘Farmers increasingly anxious after dry September’ [paywall], The Courier, Star News Group, Ballarat.
Written by Amanda Laugesen and Leanne Manthorpe
Associate Professor Amanda Laugesen is a historian and lexicographer based at the Australian National University. Amanda is chief editor of The Australian national dictionary: Australian words and their origins. She is the author of numerous books including Rooted: an Australian history of bad language (2020) and Australia in 100 words (2024).
Leanne Manthorpe is supervising editor of the Australian Government Style Manual and co-author of the Government writing handbook.