No Fleeting Expletives Uttered in Supreme Court Oral Arguments
Broadcast lawyer Carter Phillips reportedly used two four-letter words in oral arguments before a federal appeals court in the so-called fleeting expletives case, but he didn’t offer a repeat performance today before the U.S. Supreme Court.
SCOTUSblog and the Wall Street Journal Law Blog report that neither Phillips nor Solicitor General Gregory Garre used any profanities. Instead they used the euphemisms “F-word” and “S-word” to describe the unscripted words uttered by celebrities in live broadcasts that prompted the Federal Communications Commission to fine broadcasters.
The argument was in marked contrast to Phillips’ brief, which used the F-word—spelled out in full—30 times and used another expletive 23 times, the Dow Jones newswire reports.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Antonin Scalia both endorsed the FCC’s authority to ban the words, but other justices “wandered somewhat randomly through alternative legal principles,” according to the SCOTUSblog account. The blog suggests the court could issue a narrow ruling or decide it accepted the case prematurely, before the FCC had a chance to re-examine its policy banning fleeting expletives as ordered by the New York City-based 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Phillips urged the justices to consider the First Amendment implications of the case, while Garre said there was no need to address the constitutional questions at this point. He argued against invalidation of the FCC policy. He said such a ruling could allow use of the F-word at any time, perhaps with Big Bird dropping the “F-bomb” on Sesame Street or a Jeopardy contestant doing the same, SCOTUSblog reports.
