Page 1
Court of Appeal:
Statutory Name-Change May Include the Word ‘Bimbo’
Word Is Not So Offensive as to Justify Judge’s Denial of Application, Justices Declare
By a MetNews Staff Writer
Div. Two of the First District Court of Appeal yesterday reversed an order denying a woman’s petition for a change of name, declaring that the name she has chosen—“Candi Bimbo Doll”—is not so offensive as to justify the rejection.
Then-San Francisco Superior Court Judge Gail Dekreon, in denying the name-change application by transgender adult film star Samantha Wood, said, in part:
“[N]o person has a statutory right to officially change their name to a name universally recognized as being offensive….
“Although the word ‘bimbo’ has sometimes been used to mean a prostitute, the Oxford English Dictionary says it’s used now as a derogatory term for ‘a young woman considered to be sexually attractive but of limited intelligence.’ The derogatory meaning of bimbo, universally, is an attractive but stupid young woman; a foolish, stupid, or inept person.”
She declared that the word “is perceived as offensive and seen as a step backward for women empowerment in our culture,” adding:
“The judiciary should not lend the Great Seal of the State of California to aid a person in a ‘social experiment’ who proposes to change their name to a word or phrase that is determined to be vulgar and offensive.”
1992 Decision
Dekreon two cited the 1992 Court of Appeal decision from this district’s Div. Six in Lee v. Superior Court. There, Justice Kenneth Yegan said:
“Approximately 10 years ago, the California Supreme Court publicly censured a superior Court judge for his use of racial epithets, including the word ‘nigger.’…Ironically, today, we are compelled to rule upon an African-American’s request for court authorization to change his name to ‘Misteri Nigger.’…[T]he judiciary should not lend the Great Seal of the State of California to aid appellant in his social experiment. The proposed surname is commonly considered to be a racial epithet and has the potential to be a ‘fighting word.’ Appellant has the common law right to use whatever name he chooses. He may conduct whatever social experiment he chooses. However, he has no statutory right to require the State of California to participate therein.”
In yesterday’s decision reversing Dekreon’s order, Justice James Richman observed:
“The word causing the rejection in Lee is perhaps the most inflammatory word in the English language, a word one author described as one that ‘wreaked symbolic violence, often accompanied by physical violence.’…It is hard to come up with an adjective adequate to describe a discussion of that word in the same breath as Bimbo”
“Bimbo,” he said, “is not a fighting word” and “is not vulgar.”
Business Entities
Richman wrote:
“A business search for Bimbo on the California Secretary of State website reveals that the Secretary lists 17 entities as including the name Bimbo, some of which are as simple as Bimbo, LLC and Bimbo, Inc., a list of which we take judicial notice….The Secretary of State has no issue with Bimbo.
“Nor does the California Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV). The DMV instructions state that it will not issue a personalized license plate that has ‘sexual connotation’ or a ‘vulgar term or a term of prejudice or hostility.’ We understand the DMV has issued so many personalized license plates in the name of ‘Bimbo,’ ‘Bimbo 1,’ ‘Bimbo 25’ etc., that new requests are met with the statement that ‘the license plate you selected is no longer available.’ ”
Richman noted that there are only five published cases in California, including Lee, upholding the denial of a name-change, each of which entails a need to avoid confusion. He said courts of appeal have affirmed rejection of the proposed names “Peter Lorie” (opposed by actor Peter Lorre); “III” (concluding that “usage of numbers for designating or describing persons might cause inherent confusion in public records”); “NJ weedman.com” (reasoning that “domain names were created for use on the Internet and should be limited to assisting a user in finding a desired Web site”; and “:Minko: Yona-Gvinge: El-Bey®” (sought by a man with outstanding warrants).
Richman commented:
“Confusion. Confusion. Confusion. Confusion. There is no confusion here.”
The case is Wood v. San Francisco County Superior Court, A168463.
Copyright 2024, Metropolitan News Company