Chaucer and the U.S. Supreme Court: I know it when I hear it

George Carlin - 1978 - 7 Filthy Words

As one can guess, all references to Chaucer by the United States Supreme Court have concerned the issue of obscenity.

United States v. 12 200-ft. Reels of Super 8MM. Film, 413 US 123 (1973) - In this case, the Court considered the issue of whether a person could import obscene material for personal use.  The dissent makes reference to the ribald character of the Canterbury Tales.  The dissent explains that it is impossible to define "obscenity" because it is ever shifting and highly subjective.  For example, Chaucer was morally offensive to Victorian England, now it is required reading in US high schools... just don't let them read the "Miller's Tale."

FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, 438 US 726 (1978) -  This is the landmark case addressing George Carlin's "7 Filthy Words" monologue that was aired in 1973. The dissent cites to Chaucer's Canterbury Tales as an example of literature that could not be read, un-edited, on the radio under the current FCC rules concerning obscenity.

FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 129 S. Ct. 1800 (2009) - The case discusses the FCC fines for cussing on a live television broadcast.
"This case concerns utterances in two live broadcasts aired by Fox Television Stations, Inc., and its affiliates prior to the Commission's Golden Globes Order. The first occurred during the 2002 Billboard Music Awards, when the singer Cher exclaimed, "I've also had critics for the last 40 years saying that I was on my way out every year. Right. So f* * * `em." Brief for Petitioners 9. The second involved a segment of the 2003 Billboard Music Awards, during the presentation of an award by Nicole Richie and Paris Hilton, principals in a Fox television series called "The Simple Life." Ms. Hilton began their interchange by reminding Ms. Richie to "watch the bad language," but Ms. Richie proceeded to ask the audience, "Why do they even call it `The Simple Life?' Have you ever tried to get cow s* * * out of a Prada purse? It's not so f* * *ing simple." Id., at 9-10. Following each of these broadcasts, the Commission received numerous complaints from parents whose children were exposed to the language."
The Court goes on to explain that a case by case analysis is appropriate.  For example, what and when an expletive is said makes a difference.  Children would not be watching a live production of the Miller's Tale, and if they did, they would be cussing their parents for control of the remote control.  [Note: this my be an inaccurate interpretation of the opinion.]