Twelve years after he left the general counsel's post at the Federal Communications Commission, Julius Genachowski is back, and this time he's running the place.

President Obama's hand-picked FCC chairman -- the two are old pals from their Harvard Law School days -- is settling in to his new gig this week. Genachowski gave a lengthy pep talk to FCC staffers on Tuesday, his first full day on the job, that gave some insights into his policy priorities. It's also interesting to note what he didn't say -- no culture-vulture talk of policing the airwaves for the sake of children, just a mild reference to "protecting and empowering consumers and families."

He's clearly a tech-savvy guy with lofty ambitions. His resume by now is well known -- he chief counsel to FCC chairman Reed Hundt from 1994-97, then moved on to working for Barry Diller at InterActiveCorp and its predecessors. He clerked for Supreme Court justices David Souter and William Brennan, and way back when he worked for Sen. Charles Schumer (Rep. Schumer at the time) on the staff of the House committee investigating the Iran-Contra scandal. So he's got a few good Oliver North stories, no doubt.

Although he obviously wasn't making a big policy speech, the goals he outlined to the FCC staff are still telling. Job one is helping Obama fulfill a campaign promise to dramatically improve the nation's broadband infrastructure.

Or as Genachowski put it in bullet-point style in his address:

Supreme Court decisions are usually thick and dense, with lots of big words and page after page devoted to citings of precedent.

But there are always a few quotable turns of phrase, a few zingers and bits of nastiness between the majority and the dissent in every decision that make them worth slogging through. Tuesday's decision in the Fox vs. FCC indecency case -- which turned on the question of whether broadcasters should be liable for the random F-bomb and other curse words that slip through on live broadcasts -- is no exception.

(For a primer, read Variety's story on the ruling, and read Brian Lowry's spot-on analysis of why the idea of the FCC policing the broadcast airwaves is wrong-headed and anachronistic. If you're really game, read the decision yourself.)

There's the cheap thrill of reading the Supremes parse the question of whether Nicole Richie and Cher were invoking "literal or nonliteral" uses of the words fuck, fucking and shit. Richie's was definitely literal in her lament on the 2003 Billboard Music Awards telecast: "Have you ever tried to get cow shit out of a Prada purse? Not so fucking simple." Cher, on the other hand blurred the lines in the 2002 edition of the same kudocast: "So fuck 'em," she said of critics who have long predicted her professional demise.

There's also the purple prose that justices just can't seem to resist, especially when writing about a media-related decision that will be widely read -- and quoted -- by the media. And then there's the nyah-nyah-nyah my-opinion-is-better-than-yours justice-on-justice verbal violence. To wit:

From Justice Antonin Scalia's majority opinion:

"Cher's statement was patently offensive in part because she metaphorically suggested a sexual act as a means of expressing hostility to her critics." (Scalia pictured left)

From a footnote bashing the dissenting opinion by Justice Stephen Breyer:

"That strange and novel disposition would ... be better termed the doctrine of judicial arm-twisting or appellate review by the wagged finger."

Scalia says: Beware of future generations of swearing tykes:

It's a momentous day.

I've never waited in line for nearly an hour to cast a ballot, even in past presidential elections. The turnout in my neighborhood was very diverse, particularly in terms of age. Maybe this really will be the election that awakens the sleeping giant of the 18-34-year-old vote.

I'll be at the Century Plaza tonight to cover what sure looks like it'll be a Barack Obama-Joe Biden victory party, hosted by the California Democratic Party and Generation Obama Los Angeles.

Aside from all of this historic election business, it's also a big day for television policy wonks. The Supreme Court heard oral arguments this morning (crazy timing) in the indecency case pressed by Fox involving the use of "fleeting expletives," or the kind of colorful expressions that pop stars and celebutants use on live awards shows without really thinking about it.

The Federal Communications Commission wants to enforce a policy that any use of salty language during the 6 a.m.-10 p.m. hours is automatically indecent and deserving of a fine. Fox and other broadcasters have pressed the case by noting that for years the commission tread very lightly when it came to fining stations for fleeting expletives, and they've argued that the FCC didn't give adequate notice or explanation for its change in policy before it started passing out its fleeting fines.

It's the first time the Supremes have heard a broadcast indecency case since the landmark 1978 Pacifica case involving George Carlin's famed routine. The AP reports that the justices were fairly poker faced through the hourlong sesh, but that chief justice John Roberts indicated his support for the FCC's stance with his questions and observations. The AP smartly notes that Roberts is the only one of the nine justices with young kids at home.

I have a really high tolerance for legal briefs and wonky ruminations on First Amendment issues and broadcast indecency policy -- I love reading the raw legal rationale for justifying or barring government-imposed curbs on free speech.

It was exciting to learn on Monday that the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals had vacated the FCC's decision to fine CBS $550,000 for the Boob Flash of Destiny by Janet Jackson during her duet with Justin Timberlake during the 2004 Super Bowl halftime show. The fine was voided and the case remanded back to the FCC for a new review in light of the appeals court's lengthy guidelines provided in Monday's ruling, as Variety's William Triplett reports. (It's gonna be a big year for indecency policy geeks. Another case will be heard at the Supreme Court during its 2008-09 sesh.)

The Jackson-Timberlake incident turbo-charged what was already a mounting crusade in Washington, at the FCC and from self-appointed media watchdogs (the Parents Television Council by any other name) that has been politically motivated. It's been a red herring to push the buttons of certain voting blocs and a way to distract from the more substantial media policy questions facing the FCC (ownership limits, anyone?).

But even I found the 102-page decision on the Jackson fine impenetrable. (Read it here for yourself.) The case for the legal precedent and factors considered in the appellate review of the FCC's ruling on Nipplegate were rendered in mind-numbing detail in the opinion penned by Chief Judge Anthony Scirica

The basic argument boiled down to the FCC being out of line ("arbitrary and capricious" in the court's words) for taking a major departure from its past policy on indecency cases involving a "fleeting" instance of something untoward being said or shown on screen. The FCC was free to make a major change in its indecency policy, but it had to give broadcasters plenty of advance warning that it was doing so, the court reasoned.

It seems weirdly coincidental that George Carlin died almost 30 years to the day that the Supreme Court issued its landmark decision on broadcast indecency involving his "Filthy Words" routine. (Click here to read that 1978 decision for yourself -- it's a good read, if you dig wonky First Amendment stuff.) It's also interesting that the Supremes have agreed to take up their first broadcast indecency case during the 2008-09 session since they weighed in on Carlin's risque radio riffage back in the Carter era.

In fact, the Pacifica case that has determined so much of broadcast indecency policy -- at least until the indecency crusaders Michael Powell and Kevin Martin got a hold of the Federal Communications Commission -- got its start in Nixon-era America. It was Oct. 30, 1973, about 2 p.m. in the afternoon. A New York man was driving with his young son in the car and over public radio station WBAI-FM came Carlin's "Filthy Words" rap (it's called "Filthy Words" in the Supreme Court decision but history seems to have dubbed it the "Seven Words" routine), about words so deemed so naughty they could not be uttered on the public airwaves. The bit set the man's hair on fire, leading him to lodge complaints with the station and eventually, the FCC.

By February 1975, the commish decided that Carlin's routine (excerpts posted after the jump) was "patently offensive." The FCC didn't try to levy a fine, but sought to but an official "order" in the station's file that would be considered if the station racked up additional complaints. Pacifica wasn't having any of that and a three-year court battle ensued. Certainly, Carlin was well on his way to comedy superstardom before his name became forever intertwined with heavy-duty legal precedent, but his association with the landmark case also gave him a level of stature and importance, in pop culture and among his comedian peers, that he might otherwise have achieved.

In the end, the Supreme Court decided that Carlin's routine was "patently offensive" and profane by any definition of the phrase, even if it wasn't specifically wallowing in the "sexually or excretory organs or activities" muck that had been (and continues to be) a litmus test for broadcast indecency cases. The biggest strike against Pacifica was the fact that it aired in the afternoon. As a lower court noted in one of its rulings, and as any parent would agree, "the broadcast media have established a uniquely pervasive presence in the lives of all Americans."

Here's an excerpt from Justice John Paul Stevens' majority opinion:

We certainly could've predicted this. The Parents Television Council-driven complaints about CBS' "Swingtown" are starting to roll in, as detailed in this post on Season Pass.

The most entertaining parts of FCC indecency rulings are often found in the fine print of footnotes.

Tuesday's decision upholding the $1.2 million in fines the Federal Communications Commission has levied against 45 ABC affiliate stations for a 2003 seg of "NYPD Blue" is no exception (click here to read it yourself).

The FCC works itself into a lather defending its decision regarding a roughly one-minute scene in the Feb. 25, 2003 seg "Nude Awakening" featuring a close-up and pan shot of actress Charlotte Ross' bare derriere and a more fleeting sideways shot of her breasts.

The context of the scene is the awkwardness of single parenthood, as the young son of Dennis Franz' long-suffering Det. Andy Sipowicz walks in on his paramour in the bathroom as she's about to take a shower.

Reasonable people can debate whether the dramatic moment demanded that the camera linger quite as long as it did on Ross' behind. (For the curious, clips of the scene in question are readily available on Internet vid sites.) But having a governmental body declare it "patently offensive" and "shocking and titillating," and then mete out punishment to stations that chose to air the seg is squirm-inducing for many of us on an entirely different level.