Digital Trend Blog

After many appeals, the lawsuit between the Federal communications Commission (FCC) and Fox is somewhat over. In a 5-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court found in favor of the FCC, stating they have the right to fine broadcasters for broadcasting oefleeting expletives.

The old policy of allowing networks oea freebie is now over. Apparently, before this ruling the FCC let these so-called fleeting expletives, or one-off cusses slide. Due to public outcry about the Billboard Music Awards, where both Nicole Richie (Lionels daughter) and Cher broke rank and let a few choice words fly, the high court clamped down on the practice.

At one point the acceptability of swear words on television was likened to shouting oeFire! in a movie theatre. Shouting oeFire! on broadcast television and murmuring swears during a movie are both still acceptable forms of free speech.

For the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote, oeEven isolated utterances can be made in vulgar and shocking manners. It is surely rational, if not inescapable, to believe that a safe harbor for single words would likely lead to more widespread use of the offensive language.

The main scab the Justices kept picking at in the majority opinion was the classic, oeBut the children! argument. They are our future, you know.

As much as I enjoy a good, 1st-amendment-exploiting romp through swearword heaven, I agree with the Court. There are plenty of media outlets available to celebrities feeling the urge to swear that arent governed by the FCC. Plus, they have yet to ban obscene mental imagery, so Dustin Hoffman could go on Fox today and say oeBelching spoiled pudding chunks at a homeless man without fear. Which, to me is much more offensive than any classical swear and more satisfying as well.