But while a jurisprudential pattern involving certain offensive utterances conveyed in different mediums has emerged, this case is veritably one of first impression, it being the first time that indecent speech communicated via television and the applicable norm for its regulation are, in this jurisdiction, made the focal point. Foremost of these relates to indecent speech without prurient appeal component coming under the category of protected speech depending on the context within which it was made, irresistibly suggesting that, within a particular context, such indecent speech may validly be categorized as unprotected, , seven of what were considered “filthy” words earlier recorded in a monologue by a satiric humorist later aired in the afternoon over a radio station owned by Pacifica Foundation.
Upon the complaint of a man who heard the pre-recorded monologue while driving with his son, FCC declared the language used as “patently offensive” and “indecent” under a prohibiting law, though not necessarily obscene.
They may be inquisitive as to why Sandoval is different from a female prostitute and the reasons for the dissimilarity.
And upon learning the meanings of the words used, young minds, without the guidance of an adult, may, from their end, view this kind of indecent speech as obscene, if they take these words literally and use them in their own speech or form their own ideas on the matter.
The US Court, however, hastened to add that the monologue would be protected speech in other contexts, albeit it did not expound and identify a compelling state interest in putting FCC’s content-based regulatory action under scrutiny.
The Court in  elucidated on the distinction between regulation or restriction of protected speech that is content-based and that which is content-neutral.
Prior restraint means official government restrictions on the press or other forms of expression in advance of actual publication or dissemination. The freedom of expression, as with the other freedoms encased in the Bill of Rights, is, however, not absolute.
Children could be motivated by curiosity and ask the meaning of what petitioner said, also without placing the phrase in context.
A content-based restraint is aimed at the contents or idea of the expression, whereas a content-neutral restraint intends to regulate the time, place, and manner of the expression under well-defined standards tailored to serve a compelling state interest, without restraint on the message of the expression.
Courts subject content-based restraint to strict scrutiny.
As has been held, the limits of the freedom of expression are reached when the expression touches upon matters of essentially private concern. In the oft-quoted expression of Justice Holmes, the constitutional guarantee “obviously was not intended to give immunity for every possible use of language.” From comes this line: “[T]he freedom to express one’s sentiments and belief does not grant one the license to vilify in public the honor and integrity of another.
Any sentiments must be expressed within the proper forum and with proper regard for the rights of others.” Indeed, as noted in has never been thought to raise any Constitutional problems.” In net effect, some forms of speech are not protected by the Constitution, meaning that restrictions on unprotected speech may be decreed without running afoul of the freedom of speech clause. A speech would fall under the unprotected type if the utterances involved are “no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step of truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality.” Being of little or no value, there is, in dealing with or regulating them, no imperative call for the application of the clear and present danger rule or the balancing-of-interest test, they being essentially modes of weighing competing values, or, with like effect, determining which of the clashing interests should be advanced.