What The @*%$#?! Supreme Court Reviews Bleep-age

A glimmer of hope (sort of) if you're hoping to hear @*%$# during daylight hours: The nation's top court today revived the debate on the FCC's ban of "fleeting expletives" on live TV -- narrowly determining that, while the current bans suffice for now, they should be reviewed by a lower court for possible unconstitutionality. The current rules allow the FCC to keep television curse-word free from 6 a.m. to 10 p.m., and to heavily fine broadcasters that do not comply; the regulations became more strenuous during the Bush administration, after several celebrity personalities (Nicole Richie, Bono and Cher) used bawdy language on live television.

The issue sparked the interest -- and garrulous sides -- of The Nine, who generated, per the AP, "six separate opinions totaling 68 pages, [in which they] signaled serious concerns about the constitutionality" of the policy. In particular, Justice Clarence Thomas (who still voted in favor of keeping the status quo) branded the FCC's regulations as "unconvincing when they were issued... the passage of time has only increased doubt regarding their continued validity." Unsurprisingly, the vote to ultimately stand pat was divvied along ideological lines.

Perhaps my favorite part of this story is UPI's report that the justices used the terminology "the F-word" and "the S-word." I suppose this is to be expected, but isn't it sort of akin to them saying "S-E-X" during a rape case?