The Supreme Court seemed likely to uphold the government's regulation of broadcast indecency

The Supreme Court seemed likely to uphold the government's regulation of broadcast indecency, after Tuesday arguments where several justices disputed industry claims that it was too hard to distinguish artistic and cultural works from gratuitous nudity and coarse language.Under the George W. Bush administration, the Federal Communications Commission cracked down on broadcasts it considered indecent, including awards shows where celebrities uttered expletives and the police drama "NYPD Blue," Michael kors outlet, 66% off cheap Michael kors handbags sale where a seven-second shot depicted a woman's naked posterior.Broadcasters, complaining that the same word could air unsanctioned in "Saving Private Ryan" but expose them to fines if uttered in a documentary about blues musicians, challenged the regulations as a violation of their free-speech rights. A federal appeals court in New York agreed, ruling that the FCC regulations, which apply between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m. and are intended to protect children, were so vague as to chill protected speech.The Supreme Court sided with the FCC regulations in 2009 in a 5-4 ruling that addressed procedural issues. Nothing Tuesday suggested any of the five justices in that majority had changed their views. Their questions focused less on the regulations' chilling effect than their potential to create an island of propriety amid a rising sea of indecency on cable television, whose content is not under FCC regulation."The risk of the race to the bottom is real, 2012 cheap Michael kors watches on sale and I think history is showing it," said Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, defending the regulations. He traced the FCC's concerns to "the explosion of the shock jock phenomenon, Howard Stern and Bubba the Love Sponge and the rest of it... which was highly vile and lewd."Justice Anthony Kennedy suggested that the indecency rules were "an important symbol for our society, that we aspire to a culture that's not vulgar in a very small segment."Justice Antonin Scalia chimed in. "Sign me up as supporting Justice Kennedy's notion that this has a symbolic value, just as we require a certain modicum of dress for the people that attend this court," he said.Carter Phillips, representing broadcasters including Fox Television Stations, argued that it was unfair to hold broadcast TV to a tougher standard than pay channels, because most Americans receive both through the same cable or satellite box. Fox is a unit of News Corp., which also owns The Wall Street Journal."That cuts both ways," responded Chief Justice John Roberts. "People who want to...expose their children to broadcasts where these words are used, where there is nudity, there are 800 channels where they can go for that. All we are asking for, what the government is asking for, is a few channels where... they are not going to hear the S-word, the F-word. They are not going to see nudity."