Later this year, the Supreme Court will announce a decision impacting the ability of the Federal Communications Commission to regulate single utterances of swear words on broadcast television. This case, Fox Television v. FCC, is ultimately a matter of administrative law, the body of law that provides a framework for the existence and operation of our federal agencies; consequently, the Court may well not need to reach the constitutional question lurking in the background. That said, the ability of the government to keep swearing off the air during peak viewing hours (6 a.m. – 10 p.m.) will reach the Court soon; beyond that, it certainly makes for a good debate.

Under the Federal Communications Act, the FCC can regulate “obscene” and “indecent” broadcasts. In a landmark decision — FCC v. Pacifica — the Court held that broadcasts during peak listening hours, which contained streams of swearing, counted as obscene and did not need constitutional protection. The basis of the holding was that individuals who did not want to hear swear words, or did not want their children to hear them, should not have to face the choice of never watching TV or risking exposure. Pacifica expressly left open the question of whether a single swear word could be treated the same way; today, the FCC argues that a single swear word can be treated the same way because it counts as indecent.

None of our rights, even the fundamental ones guaranteed by the Constitution, are absolute — for instance, your right to free speech does not contain a right to pick a fight with me, and you can be punished by the state for attempting to do so. But when it comes to swearing, arguments exist for and against protection. On the one hand, the arguments of Pacifica make sense: swearing is highly offensive to some, and there’s no reason they (or their kids) should have to suffer undue exposure. On the other hand, swear words can represent significant methods of expression — they can signify our most deeply felt anger, frustration, enthusiasm, confusion — and so, should be protected in this limited form.

This latter justification represents the real hardship that the FCC faces. If a swear word has some kind of importance to a speaker’s message beyond gratuitous shock value, it should not be banished beyond the peak viewing hour window; if it’s a matter of aging pop stars trying to be edgy, protection seems less justified. But beyond the easiest cases, how could anyone fairly draw the line? The FCC, trying to enforce this view, did not sanction an airing of “Saving Private Ryan” but did sanction an Martin Scorcese-directed documentary of American Blues legends. Say what you will about Pacific — and it is the law, so that streaming swearing is not up for debate — its rule is fairly easy to apply. In contrast, culling legitimate singular swear words from illegitimate is impossible to do on a principled basis.

This particular hardship is, to me, the reason that the Court might follow the FCC’s position. Swear words offend some, and the potential impact is at its highest in a national broadcast (as each of the swears giving rise to Fox Television were). Moreover, if Pacifica’s protection-oriented rationale is valid, broadcasting swear words once would seem to be just as problematic as broadcasting several — after all, it’s the words themselves that are the issue. Given the inevitable arbitrariness in sorting “good” swear words from “bad” ones, the easiest lines to draw would be that single swear words are protected by default, or not at all. Here, we should keep in mind that a complete bar is not on the table — only a bar on those hours considered “peak” viewing times. These various factors create an attractive compromise position — no swearing during peak hours — that is workable and, in some ways, sensible.

This take has the virtue of comfort; in this country, we take our taboos quite seriously, and a legal position that protects broadcast of swear words would force us to reexamine our view of them. I do not think the appropriate response is that swear words are “no big deal.” If I swear pointedly, I implicitly acknowledge the impact that swearing can have; if I swear casually, I am implying my rejection of the swearing-taboo, a rejection that requires acknowledging that the taboo exists. The better question, I think, is why we are so sensitive about swear words when we embrace violence and sex — it’s no secret that 24 is one of the most violent shows ever, or that Grey’s Anatomy routinely exhibits detailed lovemaking scenes, yet these are two of the most popular shows on broadcast television.

Some have suggested that swear words are different because they draw their power from human acts that we regard as private. I think this is unavailing for two reasons: First, we don’t seem to have a problem with broadcasted demonstrations of intercourse, and second, nobody would think that sex or going to the bathroom is on my mind if, when I receive a failing grade on a test, I let out a swear word. Except when used in specific (and obvious) contexts then, swear words are largely disassociated from their original meaning. They are now broad expressions of a variety of different feelings and thoughts; given the value they can bring, and because I prefer an open dialogue, I would support an inclusive rule. But, I cannot help but see the sense that a stricter, more conservative approach would make.