The Supreme Court appeared far from a consensus Tuesday on whether the Federal Communication Commission's crackdown on broadcasters who allow "fleeting expletives" to reach the airwaves should continue.

Following an hourlong argument in FCC v. Fox Television Stations in which no one actually uttered the expletives at issue, it seemed possible that the dispute will be sent back to the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for further study on administrative law or constitutional issues, or both.

It was an unusual hour, as justices debated the relative impact of barnyard epithets, and Solicitor General Gregory Garre warned the Court not to rule in a way that could lead to "Big Bird dropping the f-bomb on Sesame Street."

At one point, Justice John Paul Stevens sheepishly asked whether regulators should be able to consider as a factor whether an expletive is used in a "hilarious, very, very funny" way. "Some of these things," the 88-year-old justice confessed, "you can't help but laugh at."

Garre agreed that could weigh in the consideration of whether the usage was shocking or titillating.

Sarcastically, Justice Antonin Scalia interjected, "Oh, it's funny. I mean, bawdy jokes are OK if they are really good."

The 2nd Circuit ruled last year that the FCC had acted arbitrarily when it changed its long-standing policy of allowing the single, unscripted use of expletives over the air to go unpunished. A public outcry over several incidents on Hollywood award shows and reality programming preceded the change. During the Golden Globe awards show in 2003, for example, the singer Bono exclaimed that his award was "really fucking brilliant."

Broadcast networks were cited but not fined over the incidents, leading to what Carter Phillips said was a substantial "chilling effect" on broadcasters. As one example, Phillips, a Sidley Austin partner representing Fox, told the justices that a Vermont public TV station had refused to air a senatorial debate because one of the candidates had used expletives in public before, and the station did not want to risk being fined.

That was one of several First Amendment arguments that made cameo appearances during the high court session. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the First Amendment issue was "the big elephant in the room" because the 2nd Circuit had said that even if the FCC's policy change had been made according to administrative law requirements, there were grave doubts about its constitutionality.

But the justices seemed just as interested, if not more so, in administrative law issues -- such as the basic question of whether the commission had actually changed its policy or just adopted one where it had none before. How that issue is resolved could affect the level of justification the commission has to articulate for the policy to be deemed lawful.

The Court also delved into whether the fundamental rationale for government regulation of broadcast TV -- the scarcity of airwaves and the pervasiveness of the medium -- are still valid.

Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. asked whether the commission's crackdown on indecent language is "accomplishing very much" when so many other media -- such as cable TV and the Internet -- are outside the commission's reach.

Garre said the policy is still important because broadcasting remains "extremely accessible to children" and enters the home unbidden. "Broadcast TV is, as Congress designed it to be, the one place where Americans can turn on the TV at 8 o'clock and ... not be bombarded with indecent language, in an isolated basis or repeated basis."

Justice Anthony Kennedy also wondered whether community standards have changed since the Court decided FCC v. Pacifica Foundation 30 years ago, upholding the FCC's power to ban broadcast indecency.

"I believe that society is significantly more tolerant of these words today than it was 30 years ago," Phillips said.

Scalia shot back, "Do you think your clients have had anything to do with that?"

Phillips replied, "In the scheme of things, probably very, very little. ... Go to a baseball game, Justice Scalia. You hear these words every time you go to a ballgame."

Garre argued that the commission's policy change on fleeting expletives had been adequately justified, and also asserted that it was not unreasonable. Roberts asked if a news report on an awards show could broadcast the expletives, while the award show itself could not.

"Yes," Garre said. "And similarly, if there were a news report about the argument today in this Court and there were reports about the actual language used, that's right. The commission has exercised restraint in that area."

But as it happened, the argument Tuesday was expletive-free, with both Garre and Phillips using formulations like "f-bomb." Before the argument, Phillips said he would use the words unexpurgated "unless otherwise instructed" by the Court. Today he declined to comment on why he used euphemisms instead.