This landmark case gave the FCC the "power to regulate radio .

             broadcasts that are indecent but not obscene." (Gunther, 1991) What .

             does that mean, exactly? According to the government it means that the .

             FCC can only regulate broadcasts. They can not censor broadcasts, that .

             is determine what is offensive in the matters of speech. Before this .

             case occurred there were certain laws already in place that prohibited .

             obscenity over radio. One of these laws was the "law of nuisance". .

             This law "generally speaks to channeling behavior more than actually .

             prohibiting it."(Simones, 1995) The law in essence meant that certain .

             words depicting a sexual nature were limited to certain times of the.

             day when children would not likely be exposed. Broadcasters were .

             trusted to regulate themselves and what they broadcast over the .

             airwaves. There were no specific laws or surveillance by regulatory .

             groups to assure that indecent and obscene material would not be .

             broadcast. Therefore, when the case of the FCC vs. Pacifica made its .

             way to the Supreme Court it was a dangerous decision for the Supreme .

             Court to make. Could the government regulate the freedom of speech? .

             That was the ultimate question. Carlin's monologue was speech .

             according to the first amendment.(Simones, 1995) Because of this .

             Pacifica argued that "the first amendment prohibits all governmental .

             regulation that depends on the content of speech."(Gunther, 1991) .

             "However there is no such absolute rule mandated by the constitution,".

             according to the Supreme Court.(Gunther, 1991) Therefore the question .

             is "whether a broadcast of patently offensive words dealing with sex .

             and excretion may be regulated because of its content. The fact that .

             society may find speech offensive is not a sufficient reason for .

             suppressing it."(Gunther, 1991) The Supreme Court deemed that these .

             words offend for the same reasons that obscenity offends. They also .

             state that "these words, even though they had no literary meaning or .