There are lots of things we aren't free to say, such as shouting fire in a theatre, threatening others, etc. But they all come down to measurable harm. As the Wikipedia article you linked says, they are "directed to and likely to incite imminent lawless action." It's unquestionable that we as a society have a right to censor if the person's speech has no artistic value and causes physical harm to others, because in so doing, they violate other people's civil liberties, which is what the law is designed to protect. It's the same as murder, though to a lesser degree.
So for swearing on television to fall into the same category as shouting fire, it would have to be proven to harm others. There's no evidence that this is the case whatsoever, let alone proof, or even a rational argument. Thus there should be no FCC censorship.
There are lots of things we aren't free to say, such as shouting fire in a theatre, threatening others, etc. But they all come down to measurable harm. As the Wikipedia article you linked says, they are "directed to and likely to incite imminent lawless action." It's unquestionable that we as a society have a right to censor if the person's speech has no artistic value and causes physical harm to others, because in so doing, they violate other people's civil liberties, which is what the law is designed to protect. It's the same as murder, though to a lesser degree.
So for swearing on television to fall into the same category as shouting fire, it would have to be proven to harm others. There's no evidence that this is the case whatsoever, let alone proof, or even a rational argument. Thus there should be no FCC censorship.