Obscene speech is always unprotected speech. When states ratified the First Amendment, many already criminalized obscene speech. They saw no conflict between the amendment's speech protection and bans on obscenity and profanity. Obscenity law, as intially defined in R. v. Hicklin, assumed that one bad word could render an entire work obscene. Over time, courts tempered obscenity bans by considering a work as a whole, and whether any questionable language was offset by the work's scientific, artistic, or social importance.We look at Hicklin; the obscenity trials in the UK of Henry Vizetelly for publishing translations of Emile Zola novels; the US Senate debates in 1929–30 on an obscenity clause in a new tariff bill; and the regulation of obscenity in film, and on radio and later, TV. Although the definition of obscene language remains difficult to pin down, courts assume "you'll know it when you see it." In practice, although obscenity remains outside the law, defining what counts as obscene has swept more and more language that was once considered obscene into the category of protected speech.

Chapter 8 explores the rise and fall of the FCC’s policy against broadcast indecency by following the exploits of anti-indecency crusader Brent Bozell, founder of the Parents Television Council (PTC).It traces the beginnings of the FCC’s policy in the early days of radio, and how it was transformed as courts began to develop First Amendment doctrine. It explains the birth of the FCC’s current indecency policy with its action against George Carlin’s “seven dirty words,” and how it was driven by political demands to get tough on broadcasters. This reached a crescendo because of the efforts of Bozell’s PTC and similar groups, who bombarded the FCC with spam email campaigns. Politicians responded by imposing skyrocketing fines based on an increasingly incoherent and confusing policy. The widespread chilling effect on broadcasters led courts to rein in the FCC’s authority in this area. Bozell and his fellow crusaders managed only to discredit themselves, to diminish the influence of their organizations, and to undermine FCC authority over broadcast content.