1.  Define the following words as used in the article:
-indecency (from para. 1)
-pervasive (para. 3)
-brief (para. 3)
-deliberations (para. 19)
-unpalatable (para. 21)

2.  In 1978 the Supreme Court ruled that the FCC could sanction a radio station for airing a comedian's profane monologue. The court found that the FCC was within constitutional boundaries to police radio and television airwaves during the times children would probably be listening, which was interpreted between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m.  The court said broadcast TV and radio had a "uniquely pervasive presence in the lives of all Americans" and were "uniquely accessible to children."  
Fox and ABC are asking the court to overturn that ruling (that lets the FCC regulate broadcast indecency while exempting cable and satellite TV and the internet).  What specifically do these networks want the court to decide?

3.  What argument have the networks used successfully in lower courts to win their case?

4.  What argument does the networks' lawyer use in his brief to the Supreme Court?

5.  How does the Obama administration defend the FCC to the Supreme Court?  

6.  In 2009, The Supreme Court ruled that the FCC was within its rights to change its policy (so that even one-time utterances of profanity could be penalized) to protect the public against indecency. But justices sent the case back to the U.S. Court of Appeals 2nd Circuit to determine whether there were constitutional problems with the FCC's actions. What ruling did the 2nd Circuit court make (which is the reason for this case to now come again before the Supreme Court)?

7.  Consider the following views.  Which view or idea do you think makes the most sense?  Explain your answer.

1. Parents Television Council President Tim Winter said that even though nearly nine of 10 households have cable, broadcast channels remain the most watched.  He says that with the right to the public airwaves come responsibilities.  “If they want to be indecent, as we’ve said in the past, they can wait until 10 o’clock and be as indecent as they want,” Winter said.
2. In the 2009 case, Justice Clarence Thomas voted with the majority but said the court should reexamine the [1978] Pacifica decision. “Traditional broadcast television and radio are no longer the ‘uniquely pervasive’ media forms they once were,” he wrote.
3. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, in dissent in the 2009 case said that when the court considers constitutional questions, “we should be mindful that words [offensive] to some may be commonplace for others.”
4. Carter G. Phillips, who represents Fox [Broadcasting] and other networks, told the court in a brief wrote: “Today, broadcasting is neither uniquely pervasive nor uniquely accessible to children, yet broadcasters are still denied the same basic First Amendment freedoms as other media. To the average American viewer, broadcasting is just one source among hundreds in a media-saturated environment, a mere press of a button on the remote control away from other [sources not regulated by the FCC]” he wrote.
5. Different from TV, but very interesting:  In an attempt to avoid federal regulation in response to public outcry, Hollywood decided to regulate itself in 1930.  Read about Hollywood's Motion Picture Code which was strictly enforced to monitor the moral content of movies from 1934 to 1968.  The Production Code spelled out what was morally acceptable and morally unacceptable content for motion pictures produced for a public audience in the United States.