FCC v. Pacifica Foundation
1970s U.S. broadcast indecency case

Federal Communications Commission v. Pacifica Foundation, 438 U.S. 726 (1978), is a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court that upheld the ability of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to regulate indecent content sent over the broadcast airwaves.
Background
On the afternoon of October 30, 1973, radio station WBAI in New York City, owned by the nonprofit Pacifica Foundation, aired a program about societal attitudes toward language and included the monologue "Seven Words You Can Never Say on Television" by comedian George Carlin, from his 1972 album Class Clown. The broadcast included Carlin's recitation of the words "shit", "piss", "fuck", "cunt", "cocksucker", "motherfucker", and "tits".John Douglas, an active member of Morality in Media, filed a complaint with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) claiming that he had heard the broadcast on his car radio while driving with his young son, and that the content was inappropriate for minors per the FCC's rules on indecency over the public broadcast airwaves. Douglas also noted that the material should not have been broadcast during the daytime (it was approximately 2:00 pm) when minors were more likely to be listening, per the FCC's rule requiring adult-oriented programming to only be broadcast during late-night hours.
The FCC forwarded Douglas's complaint to Pacifica Foundation for comment. The foundation replied that the program was intended to be educational, addressing public attitudes toward language, and that Carlin was "a significant social satirist" who "like Twain and Sahl before him, examines the language of ordinary people... using words to satirize as harmless and essentially silly our attitudes towards those words." Pacifica also noted that it had received no other public complaints about the broadcast.
In February 1975, the FCC issued a declaratory order stating that Pacifica and WBAI "could have been the subject of administrative sanctions." While no such sanctions were imposed, the FCC recorded the incident in the station's file for later consideration if there were customer complaints about the station in the future or if its broadcasting license was up for renewal. The order noted that regulations on indecent broadcast content had indeed been violated by WBAI. The order also explained that the Carlin routine was "patently offensive" and "deliberately broadcast" at a time when minors could have been listening, which was forbidden by the Communications Act of 1934.
The public source identifies “FCC v. Pacifica Foundation” as 1970s U.S. broadcast indecency case. This brief keeps that definition visible, then builds a research path around Pacifica, Foundation and 1970s.
Why this record matters
A short description can identify a subject without explaining its stakes. For “FCC v. Pacifica Foundation”, the useful work is to connect “1970s U.S. broadcast indecency case” to the records capable of establishing context and consequence.
Vocabulary and entity names are the principal evidence signals here, because they determine the precision of every later search. The source revision retrieved here is dated Sep 13, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q5440074. None of the 1 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 1978, 1973, 1972 and 1975.
The absence of detail may reflect summary conventions rather than a lack of surviving documentation. The source lead contains qualifying language; that uncertainty should survive quotation, summary and reuse. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.
- Subject orientation
- Search vocabulary
- Locating named sources
The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “FCC v. Pacifica Foundation”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow FCC v. Pacifica Foundation primary sources, FCC v. Pacifica Foundation archive and Pacifica research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “FCC v. Pacifica Foundation”?
- What terminology or title could unlock a more precise catalogue search?
- Which institution is responsible for the underlying evidence?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “FCC v. Pacifica Foundation” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.