WASHINGTON ( CNN ) -- The Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday federal regulators have the authority to clamp down on the broadcast TV networks that air isolated cases of profanity , known as `` fleeting expletives . '' The Supreme Court ruled federal regulators can stop TV networks from airing profanity . The 5-4 vote was a victory for Bush-era officials who pushed fines and sanctions when racy images and language reached the airwaves . Controversial words have been aired in scripted and unscripted instances on all the major over-the-air networks in the past six years -- dating back to when the Federal Communications Commission began considering a stronger , no-tolerance policy . `` It suffices the new policy is permissible under the statute , there are good reasons for it , and the agency believes it to be better , '' said Justice Antonin Scalia , writing for the conservative majority . The high court , however , refused to decide whether the commission 's policy violates the First Amendment guarantee of free speech , only the agency 's enforcement power . The justices ordered the free-speech aspect to be reviewed again by a federal appeals court . ABC , CBS , NBC and Fox were parties in the case . A federal appeals court in New York had ruled in their favor , calling the commission 's policy `` arbitrary and capricious . '' The commission then appealed to the Supreme Court , seeking restoration of its power to penalize the networks airing `` indecent '' speech , even if it is broadcast only one time , and even if it does not describe a specific sex act . The high court agreed to some extent . `` Even when used as an expletive , the F-word 's power to insult and offend derives from its sexual meaning , '' wrote Scalia . Such language is heard with greater , albeit varying frequency on cable television , the Internet , and satellite radio , which do not use public airwaves . But the federal government is charged with responding to viewer complaints when `` indecent '' language reaches broadcast television and radio , which is subject to greater regulation . That is especially relevant during daytime and early evening hours , when larger numbers of families and younger viewers may be watching . The FCC 's acting chairman , Michael Copps , called Tuesday 's ruling a `` a big win for America 's families . '' The commission formally reversed its policy in March 2004 to declare even a single use of an expletive could be illegal . The changes became known as the `` Golden Globes Rule , '' for singer Bono 's 2003 acceptance speech at the awards show on NBC , where he uttered the phrase `` really , really , f -- -ing brilliant . '' The commission specifically cited celebrities Cher and Nicole Richie for potty-mouth language in the 2002 and 2003 Billboard Music Awards , which aired on Fox . Richie , in an apparent scripted moment said , `` Have you ever tried to get cow s -- t out of a Prada purse ? It 's not so f -- -ing simple . '' The complaint against ABC involved `` NYPD Blue , '' a now-canceled scripted police drama , and the CBS ' complaint involved `` The Early Show , '' a news and interview program . Enforcement of the law had been put on hold while the case was being argued . In dissent , Justice John Paul Stevens said `` customs of speech '' and context made the Federal Communications Commission 's position unworkable . `` As any golfer who has watched his partner shank a short approach knows , it would be absurd to accept the suggestion that the resultant four-letter word uttered on the golf course describes sex or excrement and is therefore indecent , '' he wrote . `` But that is the absurdity the FCC has embraced in its new approach to indecency . '' And Stevens wondered why the agency was going after words that he said had a `` tenuous relationship '' to sex and bodily functions , while at the same time prime-time commercials `` frequently ask viewers whether they , too , are battling erectile dysfunction or are having trouble going to the bathroom . '' Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg made clear how she viewed the broader free speech questions the high court may be forced to confront in coming years . `` There is no way to hide the long shadow the First Amendment casts over what the commission has done , '' she wrote . The Supreme Court first ventured into the broadcast speech debate in 1978 , when it ruled as indecent a monologue by comedian George Carlin on society 's taboo surrounding `` seven dirty words . '' The bit had received some radio airplay . Stevens , 89 , was the author of that opinion . Justice Clarence Thomas sided with his fellow conservatives on the narrow question presented to the court , but noted the changing landscape of television since Stevens ' 31-year-old ruling . He said that and other high court precedents `` were unconvincing when they were issued , and the passage of time has only increased doubt regarding their continued validity . '' He questioned the communication commission 's underlying authority as a `` deep intrusion into the First Amendment rights of broadcasters . '' And he noted the four networks no longer have a virtual monopoly on television content . `` For most consumers , traditional broadcast media programming is now bundled with cable or satellite services , '' he said , but the Federal Communications Commission 's authority extends only to over-the-air television and radio content . Conservative and family groups called Tuesday 's ruling an `` incredible victory . '' `` We implore the broadcast networks to abide by today 's court 's ruling rather than to pursue a path of attempted obstruction with countless legal maneuverings , '' said Tim Winter , president of the Parents Television Council , which monitors content on the airwaves . `` And we encourage the FCC to use today 's opinion to break the indecency complaint logjam , and rule on the merits of the tens of thousands of indecency complaints currently awaiting review at the commission . '' There was no immediate reaction from the broadcast networks , but groups representing the artistic and creative community expressed displeasure . iReport.com : Share your thoughts on indecency on television . `` Today 's decision is extremely disappointing , '' said Andrew Jay Schwartzman , head of the Media Access Project . `` We remain hopeful that the FCC 's restrictive policies will ultimately be declared unconstitutional , but there will be several more years of uncertainty , and impaired artistic expression , while the lower courts address the First Amendment issues which the court chose not to confront today . '' Time Warner -- the parent company of CNN -- filed a friend of the court brief supporting the networks fined by the communications commission . The company is part owner of the CW broadcast network , and operates several cable networks . The case is FCC v. Fox Television Stations ( 07-582 ) .
NEW : FCC 's acting chairman calls ruling `` a big win for New York 's families '' NEW : Scalia sides with majority , but questions FCC 's `` underlying authority '' NEW : FCC head warns of `` impaired artistic expression '' FCC ruled only one -4 federal regulators can clamp down on `` fleeting expletives ''