Everybody knows that certain words are not allowed on television or on radio. But what do you do when you have a live broadcast and somebody lets one of those words fly? The FCC has been working on fining these broadcasts and is so backed up, that only now are they getting to broadcasts that aired in 2002 and 2003.  Now the Supreme Court is stepping in.

A report released by the Associated Press on March 17, says that the Supreme Court is going to get involved in the prosecuting of live broadcasts. There are many people who are surprised that the highest court in the land is going to step in to a matter that has been under the FCC’s rule for so many decades. Others are looking forward to the ruling and hoping that it takes the FCC down a few pegs. Many people find the regulations set forth by the FCC to be extreme, overreaching, and vague.

The FCC states that anything that could relate to sexual activity, the sexual parts of the human anatomy, or any sort of excretory activity is “indecent” and subject to a huge fine that can be multiplied by the number of stations that aired the program in which the indecent act was contained.

The problem is the word “could.” With “could” in there, it leaves the rules up to some very loose interpretation.

Interestingly, there have not been fines yet for excessive violence, nor is violence, bloodshed, or the harm of living creatures considered “indecent.”

Another interesting note is that the FCC does allow for a bending of its rules for programs that air after ten PM. This is to protect “the children” from the language and circumstances that the FCC deems “indecent.”

The Supreme Court stepping in could help the FCC rules become more defined, and more definition probably will help speed things up when it comes to enforcing fines and rulings in an already too busy FCC.