Should broadcasters enforce morality or at least the morality of certain parents?  To enforce particular morality norms, the FCC employed third-party liability:  it sanctioned broadcasters for the conduct of others.  The efficiency of the method, the underlying morality, and the process of application were challenged.

January 19, 2003: At the Golden Globe Awards, U2 won the award for the Best Original Song in Motion Picture ("The Hands That Built America" from The Gangs of New York). After receiving the award, on a live broadcast, Bono, blurted out: "This is really, really fucking brilliant!" Concerned about the souls of American children, the Parents Television Council mobilized its members to send numerous complaints to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).

October 3, 2003: The Chief of the FCC Enforcement Bureau issues a Memorandum Opinion and Order responding to the complaints, concluding that the various broadcasters that aired the Golden Globe Awards did not violate any law.

The Parents Television Council sought to reverse this decision, filed application for review and encouraged its members to send more complaints.

March 18, 2004:  The FCC issues a Memorandum Opinion and Order addressing the 2003 Golden Globe Awards, concluding that "the live broadcast of the “Golden Globe Awards” included material in violation of the applicable indecency and profanity prohibitions." Specifically, the FCC held that "given the core meaning of the “F-Word,” any use of that word or a variation, in any context, inherently has a sexual connotation. . . . The “F-Word” is one of the most vulgar, graphic and explicit descriptions of sexual activity in the English language. Its use invariably invokes a coarse sexual image. The use of the “F-Word” here, on a nationally telecast awards ceremony, was shocking and gratuitous."  Broadcasting of the phrase, therefore, was "patently offensive under contemporary community standard."

June 4, 2007: Broadcasters challenged the FCC's decision. In Fox Television Stations v. FCC, 489 F.3d. 444 (2d Cir. 2007), the Second Circuit held that the FCC's decision was "arbitrary and capricious" under the Administrative Procedure Act, vacating the decision.

April 28, 2009: The FCC appealed.  In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court held that the FCC's order was neither "arbitrary" nor "capricious." 

July 13, 2010:  The case returned to the Second Circuit on remand and yet again the Second Circuit held that the FCC's indecency policy violated the First Amendment and was unconstitutionally vague, creating a chilling effect.