The Supreme Court discussed on Tuesday the problem of dirty words on television and, while justices shrouded their language in euphemisms and avoided uttering the words, they kept under wraps how they would rule in the dispute which will have an effect on such contents that are allowed on broadcast TV.

The difference of opinion between the broadcast networks and the Federal Communications Commission represents the court’s first major broadcast indecency case in three decades.

The FCC policy under consideration was adopted some four years ago and states that even a single use of profanity on live television is offensive, since words may suggest sexual or excretory ideas. The words under debate are the “F word” and the “S word.” The supposed fleeting expletives had not been considered indecent until then.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Antonin Scalia explained that the commission’s policy was rational and offered it their support. John Roberts said that either word hinted at “sexual or excretory activity.”

“That’s what gives it its force,” he added, as quoted by The Associated Press.

On the other hand, Justice John Paul Stevens, who seemed to disagree with the policy, said that the “F word” did not necessarily evoke sexual images.

Fox Television Stations and several other networks disputed the policy after the commission singled out employment of the words used by numerous celebrities during award programs, which ran in 2002 and 2003.

As the “F word” had no sexual connotation, a federal appeals court in New York rejected the ban, explaining that the FCC had not offered sufficient clarification with regard to its policy. Although it did not issue a ruling, the appeals court said that the policy might have been unconstitutional.

The government appealed to the Supreme Court, but its decision is uncertain, as three justices did not express their opinions openly.

In spite of the fact that most people have access to Internet, as well as cable and satellite television, the FCC’s policies can only affect broadcast television and radio.

However, Solicitor General Gregory Carre, the Bush administration’s top Supreme Court lawyer, claims that most information is offered by broadcast TV, despite the variety of alternatives Americans benefit from.

In addition, Gregory Carre said that authorization of indecency could generate a society in which everything would be permitted, as children would be able to see “Big Bird dropping the F-bomb on Sesame Street.”

Fox’s legal representative, Carter Phillips, explained that notwithstanding the court’s decision, a significant usage of bad language was improbable. Moreover, he said that broadcasters would not permit the use of offensive words on TV, with the exception of unscripted live moments, which is beyond their control. Carter Phillips asked the justices to rule the policy as an unconstitutional constraint on the network’s free speech privileges.