George Carlin’s legal legacy

June 24, 2008
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
George Carlin, 71, who died Sunday of heart failure, was a legend in the comedy world, but he also made his mark in the legal world. Carlin’s “seven words” routine is arguably what made him an icon and was the impetus for a case that made it all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, 438 U.S. 726 (1978).

The routine was played on several radio stations, and one New York father filed a complaint with the Federal Communications Commission in 1973 after hearing the act on a local radio station in the afternoon while driving with his son. The FCC characterized the language in the act as “patently offensive” and indecent and should be prohibited by 18 U.S.C. 1464.

The U.S. Supreme Court in a 5-4 split affirmed the government’s right to regulate indecent but not obscene broadcasts. In it, the court emphasized the narrowness of its holding and also noted it hadn’t decided whether an occasional expletive would justify a sanction. Fast-forward to 2004 and the Super Bowl halftime incident with Janet Jackson, Justin Timberlake, and an unfortunate wardrobe malfunction, where broadcasters found themselves more accountable for slipups deemed “indecent” by the FCC that before may have not garnered such large fines.

In an interesting note on the “seven words” case, the U.S. Supreme Court ruling contained an attachment from the FCC of a verbatim transcript of one of Carlin’s routines on the subject. Being a public record, savvy kids who were unable to get their hands on a recording of Carlin’s act could get a copy of this court case and read the words for themselves. Reading it certainly diminishes a lot of the comedy and shock of hearing them, but at least it would satisfy the curiosity of just what exactly those famous seven words were.

Of the seven original words, most are still banned by the FCC for broadcast on the radio and television – unless it’s a premium cable channel like HBO, but a few manage to find their way into TV shows and songs without any censorship. Do the “seven words you can never say on television” still have the power to shock? What do you think?
ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
  1. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  2. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

  3. wow is this a bunch of bs! i know the facts!

  4. MCBA .... time for a new release about your entire membership (or is it just the alter ego) being "saddened and disappointed" in the failure to lynch a police officer protecting himself in the line of duty. But this time against Eric Holder and the Federal Bureau of Investigation: "WASHINGTON — Justice Department lawyers will recommend that no civil rights charges be brought against the police officer who fatally shot an unarmed teenager in Ferguson, Mo., after an F.B.I. investigation found no evidence to support charges, law enforcement officials said Wednesday." http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/22/us/justice-department-ferguson-civil-rights-darren-wilson.html?ref=us&_r=0

  5. Dr wail asfour lives 3 hours from the hospital,where if he gets an emergency at least he needs three hours,while even if he is on call he should be in a location where it gives him max 10 minutes to be beside the patient,they get paid double on their on call days ,where look how they handle it,so if the death of the patient occurs on weekend and these doctors still repeat same pattern such issue should be raised,they should be closer to the patient.on other hand if all the death occured on the absence of the Dr and the nurses handle it,the nurses should get trained how to function appearntly they not that good,if the Dr lives 3 hours far from the hospital on his call days he should sleep in the hospital

ADVERTISEMENT