Happy Christmas. Fuck You.

Denham Springs, Louisiana resident Sarah Childs was in a dispute with her neighbors. So she exercised her First Amendment rights and created a special holiday message just for them.


The neighbors were not happy about this and complained. A lot. And Miss Sarah fought back. Source.

I’ve composed this Christmas poem just for her.

‘Twas the month before Christmas and all through the ‘hood
The neighbors all gossiped that Sarah’s no good.
Angry and tired her response did not linger
A Holiday light show comprised of a finger.

“Outrageous! Offensive! How dare she!” They whined
They called the cops and so she was fined.
She took down the show and felt quite dejected
Until the ACLU interjected.

The attack on free speech is a thing that’s quite shitty
So Sarah fought back and they sued the city.
The cops and the mayor remained so undaunted
that Miss Sarah’s steps from then on were haunted.

“I know what we’ll do!” Said the city with glee.
“We’ll make her sorry! You wait and see!”
A citation here and a ticket there
So much to the point that it’s hard not to care.

A wonderful plan was retaliation
Until they got nailed for a rights violation.
The lights went back up this time on the double
And this for poor Sarah was nothing but trouble.

The neighbors began to snivel and wail
This time they tried to throw her in jail!
The lights came down alas one more time,
It seemed all was lost- those fiends! That slime!

But the judge took her side and told the city to suck it
That First Amendment-ain’t no way you can duck it.
And all through the town her message rang true,
“Happy Christmas to all and to all a fuck you!”

25 Responses to Happy Christmas. Fuck You.

  1. If your language in the last paragraph wasn’t so crude, I’d post this on Twitter. Your poem is hilarious, but the cussing is pushes it overboard.

    • Josh B. says:

      The irony of your comment is killing me.

    • Beth Hutchens says:

      Awshucks, gosh golly!

      “[W]e cannot indulge the facile assumption that one can forbid particular words without also running a substantial risk of suppressing ideas in the process.” -Cohen v. California, 403 US 15 – Supreme Court 1971

      • Aren’t you insulting your intelligence by claiming that you cannot express yourself without using crude language? As I wrote before, your poem was excellent. I was just disgusted that you couldn’t write it without foul words. No, you should not be FORCED to suppress ideas. However, you should be able to discern what is and is not in good taste.

        • Beth Hutchens says:

          Go away, Heather. You’re too narrow-minded, self righteous, and judgmental to read this blog.

          • Beth! How dare you! I decide who is too narrow-minded, self righteous, and judgmental to read this blog. And, I do NOT think Heather meets that standard.

            She, however, is too much of a stupid fuckhead to read this blog. So, yes, Heather, go read something less offensive… like the instructions on a tube of vagasil.

            • Beth Hutchens says:

              Humblest apologies, fearless leader. I retract the narrow-minded, self righteous, and judgmental send off (yet retain my reasons for calling her thus) and concede the stupid fuckhead vagasil send off.

        • Jeff says:

          What is in good taste to you may disgust me, and quite clearly, vice versa. The writer’s choice of words is precisely the the type of ideas the Court wanted to avoid suppressing in Cohen.

          I don’t think Beth was unable to write the poem in a way that would appeal to you; she just didn’t want to. If you don’t like that, don’t read it. Or do, and get your panties in a wad — nobody cares what you think.

          Besides, there’s thing called context… it sort of matters in this case.

        • The Round Mound of Unbound says:

          Heather, if I may call you Heather, we use crude language because it’s fun!! And because we can; And because it is expressive for us profane types . . .

          If you don’t believe me, go watch ‘The King’s Speech’ — the king will tell you to fuck off as well. Sheesh . . .

        • Misunderstood says:

          What a fucking cunt!

    • Jack B. says:

      Yeah, I hate it when I’m reading an article celebrating a vulgar gesture universally understood to mean, “fuck you!” and the author has to ruin it by using the phrase, “fuck you!”

      • Mrs. Shim says:

        My thoughts exactly… The whole point of the poem is a celebration of someone’s rights to be offensive if they so desire… Let Beth celebrate it… and don’t insult her by assuming that she can’t write it without the language…

        Remember the old adage – Assuming makes an Ass of you and me… But I think in this case anyone who assumes that she couldn’t write without the language is like trying to call her the ass when really the only ass is the one complaining.

      • Beth Hutchens says:

        That, and “Happy Christmas to all and to all stinky poo” just didn’t quite have the same ring to it. If the light display had been in the shape of a pile of dookie, however…

    • G Thompson says:

      Crude ? Crude language? What part of this whole article make you think it’s about Oil.

      And a MCaHNY to all and may your god(s), or not, go with you.

    • the irony is the fact you’ll post a middle finger the sign language for “FUCK YOU”. but because it actually says “FUCK YOU” you wont typical everything has to be sugar coated.

    • The Round Mound of Unbound says:

      Yes, I tend to agree; ’twas rather lewd or lascivious. Now please kindly go fuck yourself . . .

  2. Miles McFann says:

    Total awesomeness!

  3. Mrs. Shim says:

    lol Beautiful!

  4. Ancel De Lambert says:

    Teach those twits to get offended over a rough abstraction of a portion of anatomy crudely rendered in a symbolic gesture.This is so far removed from action that you have to DIG to be insulted. Picasso didn’t abstract as much.

  5. andrews says:

    Rough abstraction? Maybe, but it was clear enough that the intended audience understood it as a middle finger, and also that the city (may their lawyer bill them enthusiastically) understood it.

    Based on what we I have read in the linked article, the city was offended and threatened to fine her if the message was not removed. They also cited her for singing an unclean song in her driveway (simple assault) and walking down the street (obstructing traffic). I’m not at all sure that a 1983 (a/k/a Klan Act) action would not lie.

  6. Tha Boss says:

    blah blah blah

%d bloggers like this: