For my next trick, I will defend free speech without referring to the First Amendment.

The English language has over ten thousand words. It has so many words, because the connotative defitions of closely related words lead to unique meanings for each one. Our language is a collection of precision tools, and in courtrooms, it is wielded precisely.

When you take the stand as a witness in an American courtroom, you swear on a Bible (or the Quran, in rare cases) to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. This wording itself is chosen to drive home the gravity and inflexibility of that which is required of you. The penalties for failing to faithfully perform this task can include years of imprisonment.

To tell the whole truth, and tell it properly, we need our tools -- particularly the ones closely related to the subject matter at hand! If a witness says the word 'rape' in his or her testimony, the defense can easily demonstrate that this use of the word is not a legal term, and does not presuppose guilt, in cross-examination of that witness. They have tools and responsibilities, too.

To prevent us from using the words we otherwise would employ (else why bother?), right when we need them to fulfill a responsibility which can jail us should we fail in it, presents a paradox that would intimidate sensible witnesses from testifying at all.

Therefore, no judge has the right to ban words categorically, without regard to context, in any court.