http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2009/04/28/ST2009042801819.htmlBy a 5-4 ruling (with a very special 'fuck you' to Justice Kennedy for joining Scalitomas in this abomination) the court has ruled that the FCC can in fact impose huge fines - up to $325,000 - for the use of one of Carlin's magic seven words on broadcast television. The majority held that the FCC's actions were "neither arbitrary nor capricious" despite the fact that the FCC had never imposed this level of regulation before, and despite the FCC admitting that it had in the past acted inconsistently.
If you've got a strong stomach you can read the whole thing here:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=07-582This decision is wrong on several grounds. First, it inverts the very meaning of arbitrary and capricious. The FCC's rule-making was arbitrary, and its decision to enforce that rule was inconsistent - in effect capricious. I have no love for Fox, nor for Howard Stern, but it's pretty obvious that the FCC picked targets against which to enforce this rule based on some perceived notion of popularity. Other passing epithets have gone unchallenged. What else could "arbitrary" mean? I can't glean that from this ruling.
Second, the statement "the F-Word's power to insult and offend derives from its sexual meaning" shows a grotesque ignorance of how people use language. I can assure you that children, including mine, use 'fuck' to shock and offend while having little or no concept of its sexual meaning. I can also say with a high degree of confidence that people who say "fuck this" or "fuck off" have not stopped to consider the idea of sexual intercourse with the person, object or situation that is their target. And, really, how does sex enter into the common use of injections such as "abso-fucking-lutely". It's an emphatic, long ago stripped of most of its sexual connotation.
Argh gargling marge, what the fuck is wrong with those people?