Contact: Robert Peters, President, Morality in Media, 212-870-3210

NEW YORK, April 28 /Christian Newswire/ -- Earlier today, the Supreme Court ruled that the Federal Communications Commission had adequately justified its change in policy regarding "fleeting" expletives. No longer do "indecent" words have to be repeated to be actionable. Morality in Media submitted two amicus curiae briefs in this case in support of the FCC.

Robert Peters, President of Morality in Media, commented:

"Today's decision does not say that the FCC can or should punish the utterance of every expletive in broadcasting; it does uphold FCC authority to punish a broadcaster in appropriate cases.

"Historically, the FCC has applied a 'nuisance rationale' in determining whether content is 'indecent;' and as the Supreme Court observed in a 1978 case, the nuisance concept 'requires consideration of a host of variables,' including time of day, nature of the audience, program content, etc.

"It doesn't take much imagination to think what some broadcasters would do if they had an absolute 'right' to curse at least once in every program. Instead of it being Red Skelton signing off with, 'Good night and God bless, it would be someone saying, 'Good night and *$@#!&%.'

"The broadcast indecency law is intended in part to protect children, and a child does not need to hear an expletive repeated in order to begin using it. See, e.g., 'What a Chatterbox,' Talaris Institute (www.talaris.org), where we read: 'Sometime around the age of 18 months many children experience what researchers call a "word spurt"... Word spurt is an increase in the rate at which children learn to say new words... [M]ost children also begin using new words after hearing them only once.'

"Nor does a child have to understand the meaning of a curse word for harm to result. All the child has to do is repeat the word to other children his or her age or to a teacher.

"The Supreme Court has also recognized that the home is a special place for all Americans. In a 1978 broadcast indecency case, the Court said, 'in the privacy of the home... the individual's right to be left alone plainly outweighs the First Amendment rights of an intruder.'

"In a 1973 obscenity case, the Court also recognized that there is a 'right of the Nation... to maintain a decent society.' Properly understood, the First Amendment does not necessitate that broadcasting and other forms of mass communication become open sewers."