Falls Church , Virginia ( CNN ) -- It 's a Tuesday night at Nell and Matt Dillard 's suburban Washington home , and the family of four is watching `` Glee , '' a scripted Fox television program . Ninety seconds into the comedy , one of the teenage female characters makes mention of Asian men and their sexual prowess . Nell Dillard immediately looks over at her 13- and 11-year-old boys watching next to her , but she sees no immediate reaction they have gotten the veiled sexually suggestive `` joke . '' `` What 's up with that , '' says father Matt Dillard , shaking his head at what he 's just heard . `` Why throw that in this show ? '' Such are challenges many families face when trying to control the video material their children receive from a range of content providers : TV , radio , Internet , mobile devices , and interactive video games . Now the Supreme Court is poised to take a fresh look at a key aspect of multimedia regulation -- `` indecent '' material aired on the broadcast networks during the supposedly `` family friendly '' prime-time hours of 8 to 10 p.m . Oral arguments in this key free-speech dispute will be held Tuesday . At issue is whether the Federal Communications Commission may constitutionally enforce its policies on `` fleeting expletives '' and scenes of nudity on prime-time television programs , both live and scripted . The agency had imposed hefty fines on broadcasters for separate incidents . An expected ruling by summer could establish important First Amendment guidelines over expressive content on the airwaves . A range of competing interests are at stake : Free speech versus censorship ; regulation versus responsibility ; art versus indecency . For the Dillards , the specific questions raised by this appeal are just the tip of digital iceberg . `` It 's not ( like ) when we were kids , when there was three networks and PBS , '' Matt Dillard told CNN one recent evening . `` We 've had to do the controlling over anything coming over a screen -- a TV screen , computer screen , telephone screen -- anything where there is video content or streaming . We lump all that together . ... `` It feels like the Wild West out there , where there is no rating system . We 're not asking for a clampdown on free speech . They ( media ) have every right to that . We 're just looking for the tools to help us make the best decisions for our kids . '' The Case . ABC , CBS , NBC and Fox are all parties in the case challenging the FCC regulations . A federal appeals court in 2010 for a second time struck down the government 's policies , concluding they were vague and inconsistently applied . Pending fines against the broadcasters were dismissed . The government then appealed to the high court . Controversial words and images have been aired in scripted and unscripted instances on all the major over-the-air networks during the past decade , when the FCC began considering a stronger , no-tolerance policy . The changes became known as the Golden Globes rule , for singer Bono 's 2003 acceptance speech at the live 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 live 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 scripted police drama , and the CBS complaint involved `` The Early Show , '' a news and interview program . The high court two years ago ruled in favor of the FCC on the issue of `` fleeting expletives , '' concluding federal regulators have the authority to clamp down on broadcast TV networks airing isolated cases of profanity . The court , however , refused at the time to decide whether the commission 's policy violated the First Amendment guarantee of free speech , ruling only on its enforcement power . The justices ordered the free-speech aspect to be reviewed again by a New York-based federal appeals court , which subsequently ruled in favor of the broadcasters . The nine-member bench is now ready to take a broader look at the questions presented . In fact , the government helpfully sent to each justice a DVD copy of the `` NYPD Blue '' nudity scene . There has been no word on whether they have watched it . The Justice Department , in its new appeal , lumped both the expletives and nudity cases together , saying the court should decide the free speech questions as one . Explicit 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 and images reach 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 formally reversed its policy in March 2004 to declare even a single use of an expletive could be illegal . In response , a voluntary rating system used by all television networks was revised to warn viewers when material that might be offensive will be aired . The Arguments . Family rights groups say the TV networks and their cable cousins need to be sent a strong message . `` You turn on television today , and the amount of bleeps of profane words , almost sounds like a Morse code signal . There hardly are any safe harbors today , on broadcast television , for children and families , '' said Tim Winter , president of the Parents Television Council , which helps families make `` informed television viewing decisions . '' `` How does more shock , more f-bombs , more indecency serve the public interest , especially when they know children are watching , '' he said . But the networks and their programming partners worry the FCC policies are `` chilling '' their speech , forcing them to make creative compromises , for fear of sanction . `` When preparing scripts or song lyrics , they now have to concern themselves with whether something can get airplay , whether their best lines can make it on the screen . That inhibits artistic creativity , '' said Andrew Jay Schwartzman , who heads the Media Access Project , a law firm representing actors , producers , writers and musicians . `` The FCC 's attempt to broaden its scope has created uncertainty , has created circumstances that force broadcasters to censor themselves needlessly and at the expense of the First Amendment . Time Warner -- the parent company of CNN -- filed a supporting amicus brief in the high court dispute two years ago . The company is part owner of the CW broadcast network and operates several cable networks . The Stakes . For families like the Dillards , there are no easy answers . Nell and Matt admit they sometimes disagree on what their boys should be watching . `` He , as a typical guy , may think it 's OK -- some of the potty humor and guy humor -- that I think they do n't need to be exposed to quite yet , '' Nell said about certain shows . Matt adds , `` We do have blockers in place that prevent the worst cases , but there are ways to get around that , from the kids ' perspective and by the content providers . '' The couple says parental controls and program ratings are not tools that are comfortably reliable and dependable . The Dillards say they maintain ultimate responsibility , but appreciate the fact the government maintains some regulatory control over broadcasts , supplementing their own monitoring . `` It 's a business and they ( broadcast networks ) want advertisers and viewers . They have these cable stations they 're competing with , so I think they 're are going to push it as far as they can , '' Nell said . `` If you expect a show is going to be rated TV-14 , you want to know there is an institution standing there to make sure the network will provide that kind of show , and if they do n't , then the FCC can come in and do what they do . '' But , she admits , `` It 's hard for us sometimes , and you find you 're sort of giving in a little bit with each time you let them ( the children ) watch something a little different . '' The case is Federal Communications Commission v. Fox Television Stations Inc. ( 10-1293 ) .
Parents face more challenges when trying to control what children see on TV . The Supreme Court is poised to look at ` ` indecent '' programs aired from 8 to 10 pm . Among the issues : Free speech versus censorship ; morality versus religion .