Editing Seven dirty words (section)

==''Federal Communications Commission v. Pacifica Foundation''==
{{main|FCC v. Pacifica Foundation}}
In 1973 John Douglas, an active member of [[Morality in Media]], claimed that he heard the WBAI broadcast while driving with his then 15-year-old son, Dean, and complained to the [[Federal Communications Commission]] (FCC) that the material was inappropriate for the time of day (approximately 2:00&nbsp;pm).<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.cbs12.com/news/douglas_4708282___article.html/one_radio.html |title=Boca Man Forever Linked To George Carlin |publisher=[[WPEC]] |date=June 23, 2008 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080628153847/http://www.cbs12.com/news/douglas_4708282___article.html/one_radio.html |archive-date=June 28, 2008 |access-date=February 18, 2014}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |last=Samaha |first=Adam |url=http://www.law.uchicago.edu/files/file/314-as-story.pdf |title=The Story of FCC v. Pacifica Foundation (and Its Second Life) |access-date=October 5, 2011 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110419133818/http://www.law.uchicago.edu/files/file/314-as-story.pdf |archive-date=April 19, 2011 }}</ref>

Following the lodging of the complaint, the FCC proceeded to ask Pacifica for a response, then issued a declaratory order upholding the complaint. No specific sanctions were included in the order, but WBAI was put on notice that "in the event subsequent complaints are received, the Commission will then decide whether it should utilize any of the available sanctions it has been granted by Congress". WBAI appealed against this [[declaratory ruling]], and the ruling was overturned by the [[United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit]] in a 2–1 decision on the grounds that the FCC's definition of "indecency" was overbroad and vague and thus violated the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech. The FCC in turn appealed to the [[Supreme Court of the United States|Supreme Court]]. As an independent federal agency, the FCC filed the appeal in its own name. The [[United States Department of Justice]] intervened in the case, supporting Pacifica's argument that the FCC's declaratory ruling violated the First Amendment and that it also violated the Fifth Amendment in that the FCC's definition of "indecency" was too vague to support criminal penalties.

In 1978, the Supreme Court, in a 5–4 decision, ruled that the FCC's declaratory ruling did not violate either the First or Fifth Amendments, but it limited the scope of its decision to the specific broadcast that caused the declaratory ruling and declined to consider whether the FCC's definition of indecency would survive a First Amendment challenge if applied to the broadcast of other material containing the same or similar words which had been cited in Pacifica's brief (e.g., works of Shakespeare&nbsp;– "pissing conduits", "bawdy hand of the dial on the prick of noon"; the Bible&nbsp;– "he who pisseth against the wall"; the [[Nixon White House tapes|Watergate Tapes]]). It noted that while the declaratory ruling pertained to the meaning of the term "indecency" as used in a criminal statute (18 USC 1464), since the FCC had not imposed any penalty on Pacifica, the Court did not need to reach the question as to whether the definition was too vague to satisfy the due process requirements of the Fifth Amendment.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/faclibrary/case.aspx?case=Federal_Communications_Commission_v_Pacifica |title=First Amendment Library entry on the case |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20040517031200/http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/faclibrary/case.aspx?case=Federal_Communications_Commission_v_Pacifica |archive-date=May 17, 2004 |access-date=February 18, 2014}}</ref>

This decision formally established indecency regulation in American broadcasting. In follow-up rulings, the Supreme Court established the [[Watershed (broadcasting)|safe harbor]] provision that grants broadcasters the right to broadcast [[decency|indecent]] (but not [[obscene]]) material between the hours of 10&nbsp;pm and 6&nbsp;am, when it is presumed few children would be watching.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.erenkrantz.com/Humor/SevenDirtyWords.shtml |title=Seven Dirty Words You Can't Say on TV – script |access-date=February 18, 2014}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://newsbuckit.blogspot.com/2007/02/seven-words-you-can-never-say-on.html |title=Seven words you can never say on television"... but which are said on the Internet. A lot. – A survey on the prevalence of the Seven Words in political blogs |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070303151722/http://newsbuckit.blogspot.com/2007/02/seven-words-you-can-never-say-on.html |archive-date=March 3, 2007 |access-date=February 18, 2014}}</ref> The FCC has never maintained a specific list of words prohibited from the airwaves during the time period from 6&nbsp;am to 10&nbsp;pm.

The seven dirty words have been assumed to be likely to elicit indecency-related action by the FCC if uttered on a TV or radio broadcast, and thus the broadcast networks generally censor themselves with regard to many of the seven dirty words. The FCC regulations regarding [[Fleeting expletive|"fleeting" use of expletives]] were ruled unconstitutionally vague by a three-judge panel of the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals in New York on July 13, 2010, as they violated the [[First Amendment]] due to their possible effects regarding free speech.<ref>{{cite web|last=Puzzanghera |first=Jim |url=http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/world/49922038-68/court-fcc-indecency-expletives.html.csp |title="FCC indecency rule struck down by appeals court", Los Angeles Times, July 13, 2010 |publisher=Sltrib.com |access-date=August 1, 2011}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-fcc-indecency-20100714,0,5995911.story |title=FCC indecency rule struck down by appeals court – Los Angeles Times |work=Los Angeles Times |date=July 14, 2010 |access-date=August 1, 2011 |first1=Jim |last1=Puzzanghera |first2=Meg |last2=James}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/14/business/media/14indecent.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=court%2520ruling%2520on%2520language&st=cse |date=July 13, 2010 |author=Edward Wyatt |title=F.C.C. Indecency Policy Rejected on Appeal |access-date=February 18, 2014 |work=The New York Times}}</ref>
<!-- NOTE: THIS IS NOT AN OBJECTIVE LIST OF DIRTY WORDS, IT IS AN ARTICLE ABOUT A ROUTINE BY THE COMEDIAN GEORGE CARLIN. PLEASE DO NOT ADD WORDS TO THE LIST BECAUSE YOU FEEL THEY BELONG, THAT IS NOT THE PURPOSE OF THIS LIST OR THIS ARTICLE. -->