Supreme Court Reviews Case on the "Seven Dirty Words"; Cher and Bono's Coverage of F-Bombs in Court Today
The Supreme Court is set to deliver its decision on the case FCC v. Fox Television Stations, 10-1293, this summer. This decision comes amidst ongoing debates about the FCC's authority to regulate broadcasting content.
In the meantime, the FCC continues to enforce its regulations on broadcasting profanity and indecency. These regulations prohibit obscene material at all times and restrict indecent and profane content between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m., with the aim of protecting children from exposure.
The FCC's regulatory framework includes several key components. Broadcasters are forbidden from airing obscene content at any time, while indecent and profane content is restricted during the hours when children are likely to be in the audience. Enforcement of these rules can result in fines and consent decrees against broadcasters found airing prohibited content.
Many broadcasters and advertisers also impose additional internal restrictions on profanity. For instance, Comcast's guidelines limit profanity in ads to mild words like “hell” or “damn,” and require censoring or pixelation in other cases. Advanced monitoring technologies, such as real-time speech-to-text transcription with customizable profanity filters, also aid broadcasters in compliance.
The Supreme Court's 2021 decision emphasized the need for the FCC to provide clear standards on what counts as indecent or profane to satisfy due process. However, as of 2025, FCC rules on profanity and indecency remain largely intact and actively enforced under Section 73.3999 of their rules.
The debate surrounding the FCC's regulations is not limited to broadcasting. The pro-regulation side argues that the rules only apply between the hours of 6am and 10pm, when children are more likely to be watching, and the networks are free to be as indecent as they want outside of those hours. On the other hand, critics argue that these regulations are burdensome and unpredictable, and allowing the FCC to use its own artistic judgment instead of clear legal standards can be viewed as a form of censorship.
The issue of online privacy is also under scrutiny, as the Republican-led Congress has voted to repeal the online privacy rules imposed by the FCC last year. The repeal is expected to become final after the President signs it, potentially affecting services such as Facebook, Messenger, Twitter, Pinterest, Linkedin, Whatsapp, and email.
In a related development, the U.S. Supreme Court is currently hearing oral arguments regarding the "Seven Dirty Words" precedent, FCC v. Pacifica Foundation. Meanwhile, the New York Times has filed a lawsuit alleging that the FCC has unlawfully hidden data concerning its system for gathering public input about its plan to kill net neutrality amid signs of Russian manipulation of the comment procedure.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor is not taking part in the proceedings because she served on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals when that court considered some of the issues. Additionally, the law regarding California's toughest net neutrality law is currently on hold due to a deal between California attorney general Xavier Becerra and the DOJ to delay its implementation until a federal lawsuit over net neutrality is resolved.
In conclusion, the FCC's regulations on broadcast profanity and indecency continue to be a topic of debate. While the Supreme Court's decision in FCC v. Fox Television Stations is awaited, the FCC's regulations remain in place and are actively enforced. The issue of online privacy, meanwhile, is under scrutiny, with the repeal of the FCC's online privacy rules potentially affecting numerous digital services.
In the realm of social-media platforms and digital services like Facebook, Messenger, Twitter, Pinterest, Linkedin, Whatsapp, and email, the debate over online privacy is ongoing, with the potential repeal of the FCC's online privacy rules posing significant implications. On the other hand, celebrities and pop-culture figures are frequently subject to criticism or debate due to their activity on such platforms, often intersecting with discussions about entertainment and pop-culture norms.
