A new decision from a federal appeals court in New York has tossed out a rule by the Federal Communications Commission that cracked down on "fleeting expletives" on television airwaves, and a media monitor says it's another setback in the battle for clean entertainment.

"Vulgarity has literally exploded," Robert Peters, chief of Morality in Media, told WND. "What went on in 1978 is not what's going on today."

The court ruling was in a case brought by Fox, CBS, NBC and ABC, who went to court against the FCC after the agency cited the networks for allowing various objectionable words to hit the air – and ears of consumers.

The case was based on those words that television characters sometimes blurt out – whether intentional or not. But observers noted it could have ramifications for other speech on television or radio.

FCC chief Kevin Martin, who said he will consider whether an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court would be appropriate to try to re-activate the limits that the agency had imposed under instructions from the Bush Administration, concluded the court's reasoning was "divorced from reality."

The government needs a way to make sure the airwaves are relatively clean of such language, he said, or, "Hollywood will be able to say anything they want, whenever they want."

Peters, who has fought indecency for more than two decades and is a regular guest on television programs concerning the issue, told WND the case was narrowly decided but the "ramblings" of the judges could be a reason for concern.

The judges essentially included "pages" of an essay saying how they agreed with the networks, Peters said. "The case potentially could be very significant, particularly if the Supreme Court agrees with the 2nd Circuit on the broader issues."

"There is a role for government in all of this. It's not the whole answer," he said. "But the goodwill of the industry is not going to solve the problem."

The old rule effectively instructed that an "isolated" incident of an objectionable word would not generate an FCC fine. The Bush administration ordered that changed after a series of incidents developed, including an actor swearing at an awards show.

The networks were pleased with the ruling. "Viewers should be allowed to determine for themselves and their families … what is appropriate viewing for their home," said Scott Grogin, a spokesman from Fox.

The policy change that resulted in the citations originally was prompted by an incident when Bono, a U2 singer, cussed during the 2003 Golden Globes ceremony. "NYPD Blue" also was cited in the case.

The FCC's new rule, however, fell short of the judges' approval. "In recent times even the top leaders of our government have used variants of these expletives in a manner that no reasonable person would believe referenced sexual or excretory organs or activities," the decision said.

The court ruling, which essentially adopted the arguments provided by the networks, said both President Bush and Vice President Cheney have made statements that could have been targeted under the policy.

The court opinion also raised the potential that limits on cussing on television could be interpreted as a free speech violation. "We question whether the FCC's indecency test can survive First Amendment scrutiny," noted the opinion from Judges Rosemary Pooler and Peter Hall.

The third judge on the panel, Pierre Leval, would have affirmed the rule and the citations for the networks. "The commission's position is not irrational; it is not arbitrary and capricious," he said.

Peters told WND one of the FCC's options now is to have a series of public hearings on the issue, put together a record of the pervasiveness of the problem, and go back with another regulation. Another alternative would be an appeal to the Supreme Court.

A second case now pending before another federal court concerns the famous "wardrobe malfunction" during the halftime show of the 2004 Super Bowl in which one of singer Janet Jackson's breasts was exposed.

Morality in Media in headquartered in New York, and works to curb traffic in illegal obscenity. Its Obscenity Crimes website allows citizens to report possible violations.

reprinted from www.worldnetdaily.com