Published on
McClatchy Newspapers

Supreme Court Debates 'F-word' Without Using It

Michael Doyle

WASHINGTON - A clearly divided Supreme Court on Tuesday debated
indecent language for an hour without anyone using the words in

Circumlocutions like "the F-word" and "the S-word" sufficed as the
court considered the year's highest-profile free-speech controversy.
All signs now point to a tight decision over whether broadcasters can
be fined for allowing use of so-called "fleeting expletives," which are
swear words used in passing.

court's conservative justices showed sympathy for the Federal
Communications Commission members who want to punish broadcasters.
Associate Justice Antonin Scalia denounced the "coarsening" effect of
swearing, while Chief Justice John Roberts warned about "impressionable
children" being harmed by inherently dirty words.

do you think the F-word has shocking value?" Robert asked rhetorically.
"It's because it's associated with sexual or excretory activity; that's
what gives it its force."

Added Scalia, "that's what gives it its' zing."

other justices sounded more willing to tolerate the occasional swear
word, with Associate Justice John Paul Stevens, a Navy veteran, noting
that sometimes "you can't help but laugh" at how a swear word is
deployed. More pointedly, some justices suggested the FCC's stern new
swear words policy came about arbitrarily.

"There seems to be no
rhyme or reason with some of the changes the commission has made,"
Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said.

The dispute in the
case called FCC v. Fox Television Stations centers on two questions.
The broader one is whether regulators violate First Amendment free
speech rights by fining broadcasters for an occasional swear word. The
other question is narrower, and it might be the only one the court
actually decides: whether the FCC acted "arbitrarily and capriciously"
in changing its policy about indecent language in 2004.

"It was, at a minimum, a rational policy choice," Solicitor General Gregory Garre insisted.

Loosening indecency standards, Garre warned ominously, could lead to "Big Bird dropping the F-bomb on Sesame Street."

Carter Phillips, representing Fox Television Stations, retorted that
"there was no explanation" for the FCC's policy change.

policy change in question arose following a live 2003 broadcast of the
"Golden Globe Awards," when the lead singer Bono from the Irish rock
ban U-2 declared his award was "really, really, (blank)ing brilliant."
During the 2003 Billboard Music Award, quasi-celebrity Nicole Richie
declared "it's not so (blank)ing simple" to remove "cow (blank) out of
a Prada purse."

And during the 2002 Billboard Music Awards, Cher celebrated by denouncing her myriad doubters.

also had critics for the last 40 years saying that I was on my way out
every year. Right." the Fresno High School dropout originally known as
Cherilyn Sarkisian said. "So (blank) 'em. I still have a job and they

FCC career staffers initially considered such language
the kind of passing expletive, drained of sexual content, that's been
grudgingly accepted for the past three decades. This reasoning dates
back to a mid-1970s Supreme Court decision, involving comedian George
Carlin, in which the court determined that "isolated use of a
potentially offensive word" differs from the "verbal shock treatment"
of profane repetition

The politically appointed FCC, then
reversed the staff decision and declared that even a fleeting reference
to what the commission called "the F-word" could be deemed
unacceptable. The fines for broadcasters could potentially reach as
high as $325,000.

"It's one of the most vulgar, graphic and explicit words for sexual activity," Garre told the Court.

Countered Stevens, "that's a word that is often used with no reference to sexual connotations."

A court decision is expected by next June.

This is the world we live in. This is the world we cover.

Because of people like you, another world is possible. There are many battles to be won, but we will battle them together—all of us. Common Dreams is not your normal news site. We don't survive on clicks. We don't want advertising dollars. We want the world to be a better place. But we can't do it alone. It doesn't work that way. We need you. If you can help today—because every gift of every size matters—please do. Without Your Support We Simply Won't Exist.

Share This Article

More in: