I love words. I love silly words. I love new words. And I LOVE dirty words. Call me a twelve year-old boy, but potty mouths make me laugh. However seems the Supreme Court is looking to crack down on cracking obscene jokes.

The justices agreed to give the Federal Communications Commission a chance to defend its decision to start punishing broadcasters for the isolated and fleeting on-air use of expletives, an abrupt change in the commission policy that a federal appeals court last year found procedurally improper.

It has been almost exactly 30 years since the Supreme Court ruled in the “seven dirty words” case that the First Amendment did not bar the government from regulating the broadcasting of speech that, while “indecent,” was not actually obscene. The broadcast at issue then was a 12-minute monologue by the comedian George Carlin, titled “Filthy Words,” that deliberately challenged federal regulators by highlighting “the words you couldn’t say” on the public airwaves. [New York Times]

I was going to embed that brilliant Carlin clip but alas it’s a bit too foul for Takepart.com so click here to view it. Warning it’s explicit… and awesome.

In its Supreme Court appeal, Federal Communications Commission v. Fox Television Stations, No. 07-582, the commission said the ruling placed it in an “untenable position” by leaving the commission “accountable for the coarsening of the airwaves while simultaneously denying it effective tools to address the problem.”

As cable television viewers are well aware, the commission’s authority to regulate indecency is limited to the broadcast medium; whether the indecency horse is out of the barn may become an issue as the case moves forward. That will be early in the court’s next term.

Kevin J. Martin, the F.C.C. chairman, said in a statement he was pleased the Supreme Court had accepted the appeal. “I continue to believe we have an obligation to enforce laws restricting indecent language on television and radio when children are in the audience,” Mr. Martin said. [NY Times]

Hold up there Kev. “Children in the audience?” Is it not a parents responsibility to monitor what the kiddies see and hear? Besides I’d think that the Internet is a scarier place fortikes to view and hear indecent language. Worse yet, the Internet allows for people to talk indecently to one another, isn’t that a larger threat than Cher saying“f**k ‘em” on FOX? Not that I think the Internet should be censored either, it’s just that I think we need to stop getting so bent out of shape over language and focus our energies over preventing more dangerous threats to our kids.(For a list of television reviews from the Parents Television Council click here .Thier reveiws help parents make their own choices as to what types of programs are okay for their own kids)

And while we’re on the subject, who decided what words were naughty and what words were nice in the first place? Really? Why is okay to say “ass” on TV but if you add a hole to the end of it, you’re bleeped out? And you can call a guy named Richard, Dick for short. But saying Richards nickname in any other context is a no-no. And of course there’s my favorite word, the F word. I know there are a few theories as to how this little gem came to be the mother of all fowl phrases however it doesn’t make sense to me why it’s such a faux paux. It’s just a word.

Then again I grew up in a home with European immigrants who, when i was eight years old, loved watching Benny Hill with me. When they use English swear words it sounds so sassy with their accents. When they use Italian swear words it sounds so sexy and glamorous. And when my Uncle brings my mother back Italian magazines, the pages are filled with shots of topless women.

Maybe a little ballzy Brit humor will cheer me up…

For more on FCC rules and regulations visit http://www.fcc.gov Disagree with the FCC? and check out http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/