It’s bizarre to watch the Supreme Court’s decision in its fleeting obscenities case today get reported as some sort of victory for broadcasters. Yes, the court, in a decision written by Anthony Kennedy, voided three Federal Communications Commissions decisions against Fox and ABC, declaring that the FCC hadn’t given the networks proper prior notice that the things they broadcast—two incidences of expletives spoken, unscripted, by stars during awards broadcasts and seven seconds of female nudity from behind—could be considered obscene. It’s a nice reprieve for Fox and ABC, but the Court decided it didn’t need to address the First Amendment issues involved. The does nothing to change what networks can broadcast or the FCC’s general ability to determine what’s obscene. As the Parents Television Council pointed out in a statement on the ruling, there are 1.5 million pending indecency cases that the FCC, because it did give proper prior notice to those broadcasters, is now free to rule on.

But the decision does reveal how capriciously the FCC behaved during the period when these penalties were assessed.

“The Govern­ment argues instead that ABC had notice that the scene in NYPD Blue would be considered indecent in light of a 1960 decision where the Commission declared that the ‘televising of nudes might well raise a serious question of programming contrary to 18 U. S. C. §1464.’,” Kennedy explained. “An isolated and ambiguous statement from a 1960 Commission decision does not suffice for the fair notice required when the Government intends to impose over a $1 million fine for allegedly im­permissible speech.” Well, no kidding, but it’s amazing that the commission was brazen enough to think that would cut it. Particularly given, as Kennedy notes, “a Commission ruling prior to the airing
of the NYPD Blue episode had deemed 30 seconds of nude buttocks ‘very brief’ and not actionably indecent in the context of the broadcast.” That the Commission didn’t acknowledge that is testament to either sloppy work and ignorance of its own precedents, or a conviction that the FCC can dramatically change tack at will.

That isn’t to say that new commissioners won’t be more rigorous and less capricious. But Kennedy did insist that “There is no need, however, for an agency to provide de­tailed justifications for every change or to show that the reasons for the new policy are better than the reasons for the old one.” It’s a sentiment that should unnerve both decency advocates and those of us who’d like to see more creative freedom for television writers.

In the meantime, I’d love to see more shows do what Parks and Recreation and Southland do: write dialogue that reflects how adults actually speak to each other in times of stress and excitement and pain and love, and bleep as necessary. It’s a workaround that avoids the—oh, the horror—prospect of expanding a child’s vocabulary in an instant, while acknowledging the adulthood of the target audience—and it’s a nice little rebuke visual rebuke to the confused standards we have today, a reminder that the FCC thinks the sight of Leslie Knope uttering the occasional obscenity is a threat.

My dear colleague Alyssa said perhaps all that needs to be said about Adam Corolla’s pathetic excuse for a comedic mind, but his continued presence in the mainstream media this week — a bizarre phenomenon I’m convinced owes entirely to the fact that he is straight, white, male, and loud — unfortunately demands a bit of further discussion. In an appearance on CBS’s The Talk this week, Sara Gilbert (the Roseanne star who came out as a lesbian in 2010), confronted Corolla on the offensive way he talks about the LGBT community. He gave this illuminating response:

COROLLA: If somebody says to me, ‘What do you think of your mother-in-law,’ and I go, ‘Oh, she’s a delight, I love her dearly,’ nobody laughs. So if they say, ‘What do you think of Chaz Bono,’ I have to say something that’s horrible, so I can get a laugh. And everyone goes, ‘oh, that’s what you think?’ Nice doesn’t get laughs, especially on stage…When did we start holding comedians up to the level of politicians and teachers? We’re supposed to say these things…we make no policies. I don’t control anything. I just tell jokes.

Watch it:

It’s refreshing to hear Corolla confirm that the only way he knows how to get laughs is to be horrible, but his remarks are telling. (For the record, plenty of straight comedians — Louis CK, Dave Chapelle, Lewis Black, Jon Stewart, etc. — have no trouble getting laughs with LGBT-friendly bits.) The entire reason he believes he can say whatever he wants about women, LGBT people, or whoever is because in his understanding of the world, he bears no accountability for his words. Unfortunately, in this regard, he seems to be correct. He can’t lose an election like a politician, nor can he be fired like a teacher. In fact, the entertainment industry rewards him for his poor taste and outlandish remarks, as evidenced by this very interview.

The Adam Corollas (or Tracy Morgans) of the world don’t have to care about the trans kid whose parents reject her or the gay kid whose classmates bully him, because nothing in the entertainment industry compels them to. But they’re wrong if they think what they say doesn’t have a profound influence on society and public discourse. If Adam Corolla truly believes that the only impact of his “jokes” is the uncomfortable laughter he derives from his audiences, then he is as narrow-minded about the world as he is unfunny.