The AM Forum

High Court Upholds FCC Dirty Words Ruling
Source: United Press International
Publication date: 2009-04-28

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 along ideological lines Tuesday that federal law allows the banning of even the fleeting use of dirty words in live broadcasts.
The underlying case involves the use of what the high court called the "F-word" and the "S-word."
The policy of the Federal Communications Commission has evolved over the years. In 2004, the FCC declared for the first time that the use of the words could be "actionably indecent," even when used only once. The policy was announced after U2's Bono used the F-word on a Golden Globe Awards broadcast.
The case ruled on Tuesday involves two live broadcasts on Fox: Cher's use of the F-word on the 2002 Billboard Music Awards and Nicole Richie's use of both words on the same awards show in 2003.
The FCC received numerous complaints from parents whose children watched the broadcasts, and the agency issued an order finding both broadcasts patently offensive, though it did not impose sanctions.
A federal appeals court in New York said the order was flawed under federal law governing agencies, but the U.S. Supreme Court reversed.
The majority opinion was written by Justice Antonin Scalia, who was joined in the opinion in full or in part by the three other members of the court's conservative bloc, and by moderate Justice Anthony Kennedy.
Scalia said the FCC's action was not "arbitrary and capricious," and rejected dissent that said the policy might hurt smaller broadcasters who cannot afford time-delay equipment. "The fact that the agency believed that Fox (a large broadcaster that used suggestive scripting and a deficient delay system to air a prime-time awards show aimed at millions of children) "fail(ed) to exercise 'reasonable judgment, responsibility and sensitivity,'" Scalia wrote, citing court precedent, "says little about how the commission would treat smaller broadcasters who cannot afford screening equipment."
(FCC et al vs. Fox et al, No. 07-582)
A service of YellowBrix, Inc. Publication date: 2009-04-28

© 2009, YellowBrix, Inc.
By utilizing the content on this page, you agree to the legal terms.

I think that pretty well answers the question.  The court dodged the issue for now.




How many "children" (no, not talking about W8NoBalls) ever listen to 75m?

Oh Give it a break....Time Delay...Kaamon...

and just how much do we pay for that "Broadcast Sound" Equipment...

Cheap.....Try again...

73
Jack.

Well, I think it's a bunch of S by a bunch of F'in black robed gangstas.   ;D

Well, the delay part isn't really applicable to us since the "control" operator and the "actor" are one and the same. 

Perhaps we can bring the old justice of the peace system to radio enforcement where the JP's salary comes from a percentage of the fines levied.  Years ago when I was doing some consulting work with some former law enforcement types one related the story of one of the first arrests of his career in a mid-sized MS town.  He caught two teenagers drag racing and took them before the JP. The JP asked him if either of the kids had any money and he replied that one came from a pretty wealthy family-the response was, "well, I will try the guilty one first then".

Rodger WQ9E

Frankly, if you can't express your ideas and emotions with out using vulgarity, you lack either intelligence or education.  (Ok, yes I do swear when I hit my thumb with a hammer, that's not the sort of thing I mean).

It's all just part of our cultural devolution. It's currently "in" to use bad language, even though I find that it makes the user look ignorant at best (perhaps that's why I'm never really surprised when some Holllywood type does it?).  I find that even at work, people drop the "F" bomb and other words regularly, where in the past that was not only not acceptable, but bad manners and a sign of a lack of respect for yourself and the others you were communicating with. 

But then, even manners and common decency are no longer practiced today.

Any idiot can swear up a storm, especially when he doesn't have anything real to say.

Well,..well..what about the burping....Kamon... 8)


Naa I gota better Idea..Shut down 80/75 meters all together, take it off the List.. Think of all the complaints that would just disappear....this idea will rake nails on the chalkboard...I wonder if the young lady at the GOV Plant has given this any thought...Hmmm

They can't appreciate it,.. take it off of them....then make them Work for those contacts..

I Imagine Someone Has thought of this idea at some point....

73
Jack.

of course, the society has been under relentless pressure from Christian moral and 'family values' groups for the last 30 years as well. I don't see much evidence that the country is either more moral or has more 'family values' as a result.

I don't believe in 'bad words'. I do believe in bad people, and that one has nothing to do with the other.

Hollywood and others have successfully demonized the folks who have the temerity to think that morality and values should still be a part of life.

I'm not a christian by the modern definition, but why is it that anyone who talks about religion and having a sense of right and wrong gets attacked?  Have you noticed how religious groups are portrayed in the media, Christians, have the classic Southern Accent, and are bible beating born again non-evolution believing evangelists, Catholics are backwards child molesters, and  Moslems are either terrorists or wife beaters. We can't pick on Jews since thats not PC.  But anyone who professes faith in a higher power is being portrayed at best as ignorant or as some kind of deviant.

As we devolved into our Romanesque Hedonistic society, where anything that is pleasurable is OK,(look at the efforts to legalize drug use, as well as the acceptance of various sexual lifestyles, look at the people who walk down the street looking for all the world like they belong in some primitive tribe with more perforations & ink)  religions that require people to behave with discipline are marginalized as the masses seek the now acceptable pleasures of life that were before restricted.   

People are programmable, if you keep transmitting the same message, using all the formats you can, all the time they will believe what you say as the truth, especially when the message say's things that enable pleasures and behaviors that are appealing, though previously considered taboo.  Whcih message would you rather here :" You are behaving badly and need to clean up you're act!"  -or- "Hey, that's ok, we're all like that inside, just go with it, as long as you don't hurt anyone else."   The first requires that you acknowlegde you may not be as good a person as you think,  that you WORK to become better, and there may be some discomfort in doing the right thing. Allconcepts not very well received.  The second is nice to hear, requires no work or effort, and is the opposite of discomfort. 

"Make the Lie big, and tell it often enough and they will believe it."

Meanwhile, as the people are distracted by all this, Big Brother is watching and he likes what he sees... 

Good point. Name me the movie, music, TV show, etc putting society under any pressure (let alone relentless) of family values. Ain't happening.

Awesum....I'm Jewish by descent and Christian by Faith..Imagine That...and I'm programmed..Then I am in trouble,,,LOLOL.....MmmmNaaa..I Don't Buy it...

Choice My Good Men....the Greater part of this Country...I Choose..Not the Tube...My faith is my business I do Not have the right to force it on others...I do have the right to walk or talk another way... :)

73
Jack.

Ed,

You tell it like it is! Very well stated. 

I, personally believe that adult behavior is not too much to ask when on the air.  IMHO that doesn't include pushing the envelope with off-color language.  Sure, it is many times funny, and in the context of a bunch of guys conversing at a party or at the local pub...have at it!  Occasionally,  we all might mistakenly let a word or two out in anger or in an exclamatory remark, but, in the context of normal conversation and operating practice,  on the air is just not the place for it.  Have a little consideration for folks who might be offended by vile language or folks who have their young kids or grandkids in the shack.  Would you talk that way in front of your own kids?  Unfortunately, you can't control who all might be listening to your transmissions.  There was a time when the FCC wouldn't have tolerated that stuff and it would have earned the perpetrator a citation.  In these days of relaxed standards and very little real enforcement, it seems that anything goes.

In the context of discussing the FCC's view of propriety of certain language in broadcasting, perhaps some of the recent relaxed attitude in actual practice has led those operating in other services (such as amateur radio) to believe that they can get away with anything.

I am definitely not a prude or a preacher, and I enjoy a good story or funny remarks as much as anyone.  I just don't think that it belongs on the air or on amateur radio.  Anyway...certainly not my intent to offend anyone...one way or the other...just relaying the news.

73,  Jack, W9GT

OK so when someone says...Seamen u later ....you feel how....???

I was proud when i Passed Seamen to 3rd class in the Navy...

73
Jack.

Jack (and others) are right on base in my opinion.  Anything that should not be uttered loudly in a public place has no place on our bands because it does reflect poorly on Amateur Radio.  Our standards should be higher than that for typical broadcast because we don't have schedules or channels which someone could knowingly avoid.  Quite frankly, a lot of the juvenile humor on 75 meters sounds like it is coming from a group of junior high misfits.  I go to comedy clubs and I find most of the professional comedians to be hilarious but I don't think the Bob and Tom show scouts for new talent on 75 meters.

The "F bomb" certainly has no place on the bands and I hear more than enough of that every time I walk across campus.  Of course it is coming into such common usage that in time it will be fairly inoffensive and a new (properly shocking) term will have to come into the vernacular.  If you can avoid both the IQ challenged and the American equivalent of the Taliban you can have a very nice QSO (my own little view of Ham Heaven).

Rodger WQ9E

it's all just a passing breeze. remember when Tipper Gore was leading the moral crusade against evil and immoral music and demanding ratings on CD covers? Twisted Sister were, after all, deadly to their moral upbringing.

Any evidence to suggest her cutting edge moral leadership on this very important issue (insert "for the children" here) has made our culture more moral and have more "family values"?

The more we attempt to make morality enforceable by law, the less moral we get. We thought prohibition would make the country more moral, instead it gave birth to organized crime.

Morality is a INDIVIDUAL belief exercise that only you can control in your own life. To attempt to extend it to others using government force (attempting to instill religious tenets using non religious means)  beyond your family is, well...immoral. Besides that, it doesn't seem to work.

Where's the desired effect of the Moral Majority, Focus on the Family, 700 club, etc? I don't see it. I see the reverse.

back to radio. :P

Well you guys better watch out then....there's a New Sheriff in town man....and she's a Female... 8)

I can believe what I'm reading and I respect all the opinions...

I just got one thing to add....Gud Luck.....LOL........


Besides why is it that we can prohibit the imports of really good Cuban Cigars ...But Drugs,.. whom our GOV has a War against makes better paper and flows like water...Silly...No more GOV From Zed.L.R.'s view Please...


73
Jack.

It's just words.  It isn't a thrown shoe, a shot, a knife blade, a bomb, a terrorist act.  It's words.

The entire argument is absurd.

Our "children" (we use "the children" over and over and over as an excuse for our own "adult" psycho dramas) aren't stunned by these words -- and if you think so, you haven't hung around any elementary school in the last 50 years.  It's the anal retentive (and mostly hypocritical) parents that think "sweet little Johhnie" would dissolve at the very sound .... of the "F" or "S" words?  Good grief.  That's the least offensive of the vocabulary frequently used among their peers.

No it ain't neither...We are generating Participation on a GOV Bodies Decree up for Discussion... ;D

I are Opposed... :)


73
Jack.

[quote author=N3DRB The Derb link=topic=19513.msg138212#msg138212 date=1241018970
The more we attempt to make morality enforceable by law, the less moral we get. We thought prohibition would make the country more moral, instead it gave birth to organized crime.

Morality is a INDIVIDUAL belief exercise that only you can control in your own life. To attempt to extend it to others using government force (attempting to instill religious tenets using non religious means)  beyond your family is, well...immoral. Besides that, it doesn't seem to work.

Where's the desired effect of the Moral Majority, Focus on the Family, 700 club, etc? I don't see it. I see the reverse.

back to radio. :P
[/quote]

That's it. You can't legislate intelligence, morality or any other trait.  People pass laws to try and control behaviors that are better done through education and training.   

What I'm saying is that the continuous bombardment of the population begining at a young age is having an effect.  Kids shooting kids, the social acceptance of behaviours that even animals wouldn't participate in.

 It stems from people seeing and hearing the constant stream of CRAP comming from the Media.
Sports heros who break the law, are violent, or used drugs are an example they still get lots of media coverage and seem to be made heros even more so for being bad.
Presidents who say that Oral Sex isn't, depending on your definitiion of is...

The average child has witness > 35000 murders on TV by the age of 12!  Yes thats Thousands of violent crimes portrayed as entertainment. 

THey hear famous folks dressed in gowns and tuxes using profanity and being PC in the same breath.

IF they go to church, that's one hour a week, TV & Media on for like 20 or more hours per week, with a much more palatable message.  It's like trying to hear a bird song in the middle of the city. Good luck.

Yet if you try to regulate the media to keep things on a more mature level, the scum and villany of hollywood bark of the infringement of their Freedom of Speech. Funny as long as you agree with them they will argue for your freedom too, but if you don't agree, then you're rights aren't rights anymore. 

I was reading something written in 1799, the author was remarking how a ruling party had taken over control of the government, by overthrowing a corrupt monarchy, but was now, in the name of Freedom, hunting down everyone who didn't agree with them.  I guess things never change, we just get more efficient at destroying ourselves, physically, spiritually, and mentally.

Totally untrue. The idea that murder, theft, etc are illegal in our society come from moral positions. Any society has a set of standards/laws/morals. This had been true since the dawn of time. Trying to separate the two is where the liberterians lose their minds.

One can b moral without being religious. I don't believe for a second that morals come out of a good book to the exclusion of other sources and that all those who do not partake of teh good book are somehow less so than those that do. A persons deeds and what and how they live their life are what makes them moral people, not that they connect themselves with any specific religion.

I reject the notion that morality and religion are inseparable. Moral tenets are not locked to religion, one can and does find examples of moral and immoral behavior from outside the church.

libertarians lose their minds when they advocate for total anarchy, which is what drove me out of the party.

But theft, murder and rape are real crimes with real victims, and those victims have suffered real damage.  If there is no victim, what is the crime?  Who is the victim when a person smokes cannabis in the privacy of his/her own home, or engages in consensual sex acts with another, fully conscious and knowledgeable, adult?

I suppose people who are offended by profanity may feel like victims when they hear someone cuss over the air, so it may be argued that the government has a legitimate concern here.  Personally, if I heard or saw something I thought was offensive, I probably would just turn the dial or hit the "off" switch if I couldn't take the heat, but I'm not so thin-skinned, and I'm just voyeuristic enough that I would probably stay tuned out of curiosity, maybe contemplate afterwards how incredibly disgusting I thought it was.  But I would have no inclination to call the FCC.

My biggest concern about over-the-air antics on amateur radio would be whether or not the offender is giving serious ammunition to those who would be just as soon see amateur radio, or the AM aspect of amateur radio, go away.  I don't feel much personal shock value when I hear someone utter the s--- word or the f--- word, and I just  consider the source when I hear someone utter things like the n----- word.

Not to change the subject material, this is 2009....an weed still isn't legal... 8)..but by golly will bust our butts on actions of others, in our moral pursuits...a carton of smokes is how much..

Ya know Don now that I'm a Patient I had mentioned to the Oncologist about Medical weed..you know what he said to me..."you just behave damit...i'm tryin to fix you"..LOLOL... it was all in good office visit fun...


73
Jack.

The other day my daughter filled in some kind of federal form that would make her eligible for any kind of government assisted student loan.

One of the questions on the form asked if she ever had any "drug" convictions on her record, and if so, she would have had to supply a whole page of information in detail. 

But no mention of anything about murder, rape, child abuse, arson, assault, theft, etc.  She wouldn't even have had to disclose any of those.

Shows where some people's priorities are.  Unfortunately, they are the ones in charge of things.

Derb,
I agree, religion is not the sole source of morality, I mention it as an example of how the "New Morality" is attacking any form of the "old morality".  If your moral compass doesn't show the same north as the new order, your branded a heretic. Same as it ever was really. I guess I just prefered the old order to the new.

Don,

I bet there was a section on the form asking if the applicant was a convicted felon or something.

Usually I agree with most things you say, but this time no.   A user, who uses drugs in the privacy of their own home is perpetrating a crime, though the victims are not as direct as shooting them would be. We could argue I suppose, but there are victims of any crime, though you may not pity them.
   
I have spent a lot of time, Un-Educating my children about the problems associated with using Marijuana and alcohol.  I've seen first hand the effects of long term continuous pot use, all I can say is they are so right when they say wasted...  same is true of alcohol and cigarettes, but for now they are legal for adults, and I've done my best to teach my kids, now I have to hope they make good choices, and if they don't I'll be there to help them get back up.

As for a persons sexual activities, I don't care what you do in the privacy of your own home between consenting adults.  I do care that folks go prancing around in public making asses of themselves discussing things that are rightly private. I swear that most alternate lifestyle activists are out to rub it in the publics face. 

  I also worry about the "slippery slope"  where does it end.  Do we eventually become a hedonistic society that accepts all forms of pleasure?   There's the other side as well, do we slide into a totalitarian state that dictates what an individual can and can not do?   Balance the two and you will STILL tick someone off.

Tell you what, Don't try to sell me and mine any drugs. Don't parade around in front of us performing lewd acts, or using foul language, or if you do, don't expect me not to talk to my kids about it, and use you for an example of a bad human being.
Don't rob me to buy your drugs, or tax me to take care of the druggies.
Don't expect me to look at some hairy ape in heels and a dress and think he's normal, if you want a sex change Fine, have at it, just don't ask me to pay for it through my taxes or tell me about it, I really don't have to know.  If my kids get confused because your kid has two Dads or two Mommies, don't complain when I try and explain sometihng I don't understand.

Don't touch my kids, period. If your kid has "Anger Issues" and hits my kid, my kid will defend himself and teach your kid to manage his anger, which you should have done in the first place.
If my under-age daughter gets pregnant you had better tell me before you "treat" her. If she isn't old enough to drive she isn't old enough to decide who lives and who dies just because some weak minded damn-fool politicians think so, she has two parents who love her and will help her make that choice, and we'll help her live with the consequences of the outcome either way.

I swear I won't tell you how to live, I believe in freedom. I also believe in privacy, and I fought for both. Use them.  I don't care how you live, live any way you see fit, just keep it in your house, so I can keep mine as I see fit.  I'm a husband and a father, who has a Duty and Responsibility to try and provide a living for my family and raise decent hardworking human beings that can think and provide for themselves, despite the best efforts of a corrupt and decadent society that desperately wants them to become one of the ignorant masses, addicted, dependant and compliant.

Sorry, I guess I went off on a rant.  This'll be my last on this one.

Court Opinion .... we were discussing....

I do Have some good Xanax if anyone needs some... ;D

I love this country... 8)

73
Jack.

So I can't say Foxtrot and Sierra any more?

Please explain.  Just who are those "victims"?

If I drink an extra glass or two of wine with dinner and then go out on the road and have a collision, yes, there was a victim.  But if I grow a little weed, smoke some of it and ni-cad out on the floor, who has been victimised other than myself because it made me miss out on some good condx on 40m?

The "war on drugs" is self-perpetuating because so many people have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo.  Think of how many prison guards would become unemployed if all the people serving time for personal use or "simple possession" were suddenly released. Or how many police would get laid off if personal use were decriminalised.  Or how many profits the companies that provide the piss-tests would lose, etc, etc.

The real victims of drug use are people caught in the cross-fire of this so-called "war", that has been going on for over 30 years now, and yet has failed to make much of a dent in the demand for illicit drugs.

Kinda reminds me of some of these MioMocho Dads we run into at the boys Ball Games through the course of the season....

Man, they spout all this an that, an got their Nose up the Coaches ass, and heck their their boy is just as good as anybodies... and it's funny at first watching them pitch a Bitch with the Umpire when something they didn't like happened...an we all know the Umpire his or her word is law...

An these Cats go off well my kid is this..and your wrong ... ruff ruff ruff....before I got sick I was part of the "Trouble Team"..we put together when some ADULTS would show their better side....we had little things we did to Satisfy the Big Men who didn't work well with others..... I miss that...it was fun when we had to get the cops involved...Are we satisfied Mr. Mucho...LOL...

Closed Minds... :) An ya know something..I don't grow my own but i did once upon a time but I get what I need when I want it.. and If I want to sit at My bench and take up a good pipe full on My Time In My Residence..an I'm in no need at all for children or my wife...Then That's my business or should be...That's the problem with the program...ain't it....  but we'll grab demm beers damit...is OK...

73
Jack.

The proponents of the War on Drugs list "the public in general" as the victims.  Drug addiction and abuse hurts our society as a whole with higher costs in health care and lower productivity in what they see as a "hive" society.  While I can go along with those aspects of recreational drug use effects, it's obvious that prohibition adds way more detrimental effects to the equation.  Making criminals out of the casual user and the addict burdens our legal system, opens the door for corruption in law enforcement and creates a vast lucrative black market.  This creates a FAR WORSE problem for the "public in general".   The problem of drug abuse and addiction should be addressed with recovery and education programs, not with jack-booted thugs!

WTF does any of this have to do with the Supreme Court decision that started this thread?

I see a lot of people talking like this is an FCC policy. It's not. The definition of obscenity was enacted by Congress. It's coded into the USC, not the CFR.

The FCC doesn't "decide what is good and what is bad", the decision was made for them. Their only choice is to enforce or not to enforce. Given enough Congressional pressure, they don't even have that choice, like in this case.

At least they're going after the network and not the affiliates. Then again, I really don't think the FCC has any authority over the networks themselves, but the Supreme Court has ruled which means the case is closed.

Supreme Court Opinion is on the header, and some comparisons were made in Differing circumstances...by the members...an some anguish was released...

The problem is..?

73
Jack.

Yes, thank you, Jack. I can read, you know.

That's not what I meant Bro...Add something...you mean to tell me you don't have a Bitch about who's telling us how to act...if ya slip up an Burp yer on the List for immediate Chastisement...There will be No Color in Voice emissions...at all....

Awesum...

73
Jack.


 

If you think that's what I was writing, then I can't help you, Jack.

What I "mean to tell you" is what I wrote. I didn't say whether I like it or not, so please don't jump to conclusions about my opinion. My opinion is for me to state.

Besides, like I said at the beginning, this ruling has changed absolutely nothing. All it's done is uphold the exact same law we've been living under for decades.

So no, Jack, I'm not going to fall for the "they're all out to get us" mantra. This news is about as exciting to me as Barbie's birthday.

*** takes a hit and passes it to KA1ZGC *** 

Just kidding, I haven't touched the stuff in years, but hey hey, chill out man!  Yes threads do seem to evolve, devolve and metamorph.  Sorry for going with the flow on it. 

As far as "obscenities/cursing" on the air... I for one do not think cursing(cussing/whatever) necessarily equals obscenities.  Personally, I draw the line and wont say certain words on the air.  Not because I care if some kid hears them, but more because it's a reflection on MY character, because my peers will hear ME saying them and draw conclusions about MY character.  So for me it's an individual choice.  Belching and cursing are not very impressive IN MY PERSONAL OPINION.  Will I continue to have a QSO with someone who belches and puts out mild cuss words?  Probably, if there's a POINT to the cussing, as in emphasising a negative situation.  As far as belching, maybe the operator has some sort of chronic digestive issues.  For me it depends on the context and I would certainly draw the line at a point. 

Do I think the FCC should police cuss-words?  On broadcast stations, sure.  On amateur radio, HAH, they should first try policing more important things like intentional QRM!  But they don't have the resources and wont do it, so how the hell are they going to try policing a cuss word on 75 meters at 1 am?

It's up to each of us as individuals to follow a code of conduct.  If you don't like the way someone is conducting themselves, you can call them on it on the air (sure to bring immediate reprecussions) or sign off with them in silent protest.

Whatever happened to the Official Observer program that the ARRL used to conduct?  Not that I agree with it, I never really saw it in action.  I'm just wondering... when was the last time anyone got a notice from either a.) the OO program or b.) the FCC on operating pratices?  I'm curious to hear from you all on this.

Oh, I'm plenty chilled. I'm the one saying this hasn't changed anything in our lives.

Let's not forget that the FCC isn't out policing language because it wants to, it's out policing language because Congress has told it to. No point holding it against the FCC. They didn't even want to act on this, but the volume of complaints leading to Congressional pressure didn't leave them any choice.

The law is pretty ambiguous, anyway. It basically defines obscenity as language "describing or depicting a sexual or excretory act" that is "intended to shock, pander, or titillate" and has "no artisticly or socially redeeming value". I'm sure I mangled it somewhere, but that's the jist of it.

That's why the broadcast networks were given the green light to broadcast "Saving Private Ryan" in its unedited form. None of the "cuss-words" in that movie fit into that category.

That law was written by Congress, not the FCC. They were simply given orders to enforce that law.

...the exact same law that's been on the books for decades, and we've all been living under right along. So nothing has changed, therefore there's nothing new to worry about.

As far as the debate about The Issues is concerned, I'll simply wheigh in with this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5tmnBeNv18 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5tmnBeNv18)

For one thing, there is no official list that specifies exactly what is "obscene", "indecent" or "profane". The FCC claims there are differences in the meanings of those three terms, and that somehow makes a difference in how the rules will be applied, but I'll be damned if I have ever been able to figure out exactly what those subtle distinctions are supposed to be, let alone exactly what words the FCC considers off limits, since they don't publish a list in their rules.

The nature of language evolves over time.  When I was a kid, words like "fart" and "ass" (when referring to the human anatomy) were off  limits, and a kid in school would be punished if the teacher heard him utter them in the classroom.  You would never hear them uttered over the radio or TV.  Nowadays, they are no longer considered taboo.  When I used to teach high school, students and teachers openly used them in class discussions, and I hear them freely used on radio and TV, not only by the likes of Howard Stern, but from personalities more akin to Jay Leno and Garrison Keillor.  At the same time, the infamous "N" word was once used openly in polite company with little consequence, whereas to-day it would cause eyebrows to raise and jaws to drop, to say the least.

Some legitimate words have been frowned upon merely because they suggest something taboo.  One example is the word "ass", under the dictionary definition "a stupid, foolish, or stubborn person", as in calling someone a "silly ass".  I recall a story of a university professor who was fired from his job because he used the word "niggardly" in a lecture, even though this is a legitimate, valid English word of Scandinavian origin, that has existed in our language for centuries, long before the similar sounding racial slur ever entered our vocabulary, and has no similarity to its meaning.

But from what I read in the court decision, none of this is an issue.  They said that the FCC was exercising a reasonable expectation that a major corporation like a TV network would recognise that using the f-word during a prime time show that millions of viewers were watching was inappropriate, and would have been able to afford the technical capability of delaying a live broadcast to excise offensive content.

It would be stretching things to claim that this decision was intended to apply to a late night talk show host on AM radio, or some ham on 75m phone.  They didn't say that the latter have been given any kind of go-ahead; they dodged the issue altogether, leaving open the possibility of a later decision on a specific case.  So as far as ham radio is concerned, I would call the whole thing much ado about nothing.

We're talking about words, man (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ISil7IHzxc)

If there was a list, there would be an unending debate on what should or should not be on that list, who should oversee that list, what the mere existence of a list means about our society; you name it.

You just reminded me of a clause I forgot, which is that it has to be considered offensive by the standards of society at that time, essentially.

I also mis-wrote when I said "language", that word should actually be "content". A list of naughty words wouldn't restrain Janet Jackson's right hooter any better than her wardrobe did.  8)

If the Equal Rights Amendment hadn't just barely failed ratification in the 1970's, that FCC action would most likely be successfully challenged on the basis of sex discrimination, since bare male torsos on TV are not prohibited.

I understand that in several major U.S. cities, the letter of the law says that women are legally just as entitled to go topless in public as men, and cannot be prosecuted.

OTOH, in areas of Afghanistan and Pakistan under control of the Taliban, men may be severely punished for wearing short sleeved T-shirts in public.

When I lived in Rochester area until the early 80's there was a court case with "The Rochester Seven" where seven women were arrested in a park IIRC and challenged the law and eventually won, I think state wide. Down here in Ithaca the locals were holding "Topless Thursdays" in a park in the city for a number of years in support of that -  may still be going on. Hmmm, maybe lunch in the park is in order next week.... :o

He said    "titillate".

klc