Enlarge By Kevork Djansezian, AP When Cher uttered an expletive at an awards show, it prompted federal regulators to label the outburst as indecent. Now, the Supreme Court is reviewing the issue. Here, the entertainer is seen at the Grammy Awards in Los Angeles in February. TIMELINE ON ISSUES TIMELINE ON ISSUES Key dates in dispute over broadcast indecency: • 1978 Supreme Court upholds a Federal Communications Commission penalty against Pacifica Foundation for its radio broadcast of comedian George Carlin's "Filthy Words" monologue. • 2002 Singer Cher utters a single expletive during her acceptance of a "lifetime achievement" trophy at the Billboard Music Awards broadcast on Fox Television Stations. • 2003 Bono, lead singer for U2, utters an expletive in his acceptance speech for a Golden Globes award show on NBC. The Parents Television Council files a complaint. • 2004 In action tied to the Bono incident, the FCC formally reverses long-standing policy on "fleeting expletives" and says variants of an expletive with sexual and excretory connotations can be deemed indecent. • 2006 In a sweeping order resolving numerous complaints, the FCC finds several incidents, including Cher's 2002 outburst, indecent under the new policy. The FCC does not fine the broadcasters because the material would have been permitted at the time it was aired. • 2007 Fox and NBC challenge the new FCC policy, saying it is arbitrary and a violation of the Constitution's First Amendment. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit sides with the broadcasters and rules the FCC policy is arbitrary, in violation of the Federal Administrative Procedure Act. The appeals court suggests but does not definitively rule that the policy also would violate the First Amendment. • Nov. 4, 2008 Oral arguments at the U.S. Supreme Court. By Joan Biskupic WASHINGTON  In the staid red velvet, white marble setting of the Supreme Court Tuesday the justices talked dirty words — without using any. Their case traced to a 2003 Golden Globes award show in which U2 lead singer Bono uttered an expletive in his acceptance speech televised on NBC. The incident led the Federal Communications Commission to reverse longstanding policy targeting only repeated expletives on the airwaves. It declared in a 2004 order that any one-time use of certain vulgarities associated with sexual or excretory functions could be sanctioned as indecent. In a sweeping subsequent order, the FCC found several incidents, including a 2002 outburst by Cher on a Fox Billboard Awards show, indecent under the new policy. Fox Television Stations and other broadcasters sued, saying the new limits on so-called "fleeting expletives" violated federal law and the Constitution's First Amendment. A lower federal court ruled that the FCC lacked sufficient grounds to suddenly target so-called "fleeting expletives." While not ruling directly on the First Amendment question, the court strongly suggested the policy would be unconstitutional. Hearing the government's appeal Tuesday, none of the justices, nor the lawyers who argued before them, invoked any of the four-letter words at issue. They instead employed euphemisms and the single first letters of particular bad words. In many ways, their questions were similarly ambiguous in revealing how they might rule in the case that could have great consequence for TV viewers. Some justices such as Ruth Bader Ginsburg appeared open to the networks' argument that the FCC policy was arbitrary in violation of federal law. "There seems to be no rhyme or reason," she said, for some of the decisions the FCC has made regarding challenged programs. She noted that it had found material in a Blues music documentary indecent but not expletives in the TV airing of the World War II movie Saving Private Ryan. Other justices, including Antonin Scalia, appeared strongly supportive of FCC efforts to curtail coarse words on TV, even when it was a single utterance. Yet other justices did not signal their positions, and Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas asked nothing. U.S. Solicitor General Gregory Garre defended the new FCC policy. He said that although regulators are now examining single instances of bad words, they look at them in context. He said the commission considers the explicitness of the description, as well as whether the material is used to titillate or for shock value. He used, as example, vulgarities uttered by celebrities at televised award shows. News programs, Garre said, would be treated differently because of their inherent First Amendment value. Justice John Paul Stevens asked whether certain vulgarities may be associated with sexual activities but invoked in a non-sexual way. Garre said that even in non-literal use a particular four-letter word would be coarse and indecent. Appearing to support Garre's position, Chief Justice John Roberts later added that such words are often used for emphasis simply because they are dirty words. "That's what gives (the word) its force," Roberts said. Ginsburg questioned whether, despite the lower court's ruling avoiding the constitutional question, the high court should take on "the big elephant in the room." Garre said the government would want the case returned to the lower court for a full hearing on the First Amendment issue. Carter Phillips, representing Fox Television Stations, urged the justices to keep in mind the free speech context even as it considered whether the FCC had failed to justify its policy under statutory procedures. Phillips said the FCC's new policy was having a "chilling effect" on broadcasters, particularly in their airing of live entertainment and sporting events. If the policy is not reversed, he told the justices, "It's going to just get worse." Guidelines: You share in the USA TODAY community, so please keep your comments smart and civil. Don't attack other readers personally, and keep your language decent. Use the "Report Abuse" button to make a difference. You share in the USA TODAY community, so please keep your comments smart and civil. Don't attack other readers personally, and keep your language decent. Use the "Report Abuse" button to make a difference. Read more