Sorry, the FCC has been able to censor the radio for a long damn time.
As far back as Carlin's "7 Words You Can't Say on Radio" in 1978, the Supreme Court ruled that the FCC can control radio content. Obscenity has been a basis for censorship for a long time.
Section 29 of the Radio Act of 1927 provided:
"Nothing in this Act shall be understood or construed to give the licensing authority the power of censorship over the radio communications or signals transmitted by any radio station, and no regulation or condition shall be promulgated or fixed by the licensing authority which shall interfere with the right of free speech by means of radio communications. No person within the jurisdiction of the United States shall utter any obscene, indecent, or profane language by means of radio communication." 44 Stat. 1172.
And to quote from
FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, 438 U.S. 726 (the case about Carlin's monologue)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=438&invol=726 Obscene materials have been denied the protection of the First Amendment because their content is so offensive to contemporary moral standards. Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476
Their place in the hierarchy of First Amendment values was aptly sketched by Mr. Justice Murphy when he said: "uch utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality."
First, the broadcast media have established a uniquely pervasive presence in the lives of all Americans. Patently offensive, indecent material presented over the airwaves confronts the citizen, not only in public, but also in the privacy of the home, where the individual's right to be left alone plainly outweighs the First Amendment rights of an intruder. Rowan v. Post Office Dept., 397 U.S. 728 . Because the broadcast audience is constantly tuning in and out, prior warnings cannot completely protect the listener or viewer from unexpected program content. To say that one may avoid further offense by turning off the radio when he [438 U.S. 726, 749] hears indecent language is like saying that the remedy for an assault is to run away after the first blow. One may hang up on an indecent phone call, but that option does not give the caller a constitutional immunity or avoid a harm that has already taken place. 27
Second, broadcasting is uniquely accessible to children, even those too young to read. Although Cohen's written message might have been incomprehensible to a first grader, Pacifica's broadcast could have enlarged a child's vocabulary in an instant. Other forms of offensive expression may be withheld from the young without restricting the expression at its source. Bookstores and motion picture theaters, for example, may be prohibited from making indecent material available to children. We held in Ginsberg v. New York, 390 U.S. 629 , that the government's interest in the "well-being of its youth" and in supporting "parents' claim to authority in their own household" justified the regulation of otherwise protected expression. [438 U.S. 726, 750] Id., at 640 and 639. 28 The case with which children may obtain access to broadcast material, coupled with the concerns recognized in Ginsberg, amply justify special treatment of indecent broadcasting.
It is appropriate, in conclusion, to emphasize the narrowness of our holding. This case does not involve a two-way radio conversation between a cab driver and a dispatcher, or a telecast of an Elizabethan comedy. We have not decided that an occasional expletive in either setting would justify any sanction or, indeed, that this broadcast would justify a criminal prosecution. The Commission's decision rested entirely on a nuisance rationale under which context is all-important. The concept requires consideration of a host of variables. The time of day was emphasized by the Commission. The content of the program in which the language is used will also affect the composition of the audience, 29 and differences between radio, television, and perhaps closed-circuit transmissions, may also be relevant. As Mr. Justice Sutherland wrote, a "nuisance may be merely a right thing in the wrong place, - like a pig in the parlor instead of the barnyard." Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365, 388 . We simply hold that when the Commission finds that a pig has entered the parlor, the exercise [438 U.S. 726, 751] of its regulatory power does not depend on proof that the pig is obscene.
So first the Court determined that the FCC's requlations told it to censor for obscenity. Then the Court said that the words were obscene and finally that the FCC's censoring was Constitutional. This case was decided in 1978. Justices Stevens, Burger, Blackmun, Powell and Rhenquist concurred with the decision. (note that the majority of these justices would be considered on the liberial side of the aisle)
Anyways, the FCC regulating radio material content is about 22 years old. This is nothing new.
{PS, if you don't like my reasoning, blame the Supreme Court of 1978, not me)
------------------
Col Dune
C.O.
352nd Fighter Group"The Blue Nosed Bastards of Bodney" "Credo quia absurdum est." (I believe it because it is unreasonable)
- The motto of the Republic of Baja Arizona
