"Unconstitutionally vague"

Picture this:

You're sitting on the couch with your 5 and 7 year old kids.  It's embarrassing enough to have to explain what incontinence means, or why someone would need to use Levitra.  Suddenly, someone says something that makes your face begin to burn.

With perfect innocence, your five-year old looks at you and asks, "What does that mean?"

Now you have to explain what a four letter word means that you would wash their mouth out for using. 

Today, a three-member panel has overturned the FCC's indecency policy, stating it is "unconstitutionally vague."

So in essence, three people have decided that it is no longer illegal for a network to broadcast obscene or indecent material.  And it doesn't matter if you agree or not.  It doesn't matter that the majority of Americans were in favor of the ban, and fines for networks that allowed inappropriate material.  And it doesn't matter that even the Supreme Court was in favor of the policy.  They didn't like it. 

It seems to me that calling something "unconstitutionally vague" goes back to the proverbial pot and kettle. 

Panel: "I don't agree with this."
You: "Why not?"
Panel: "Because...that's why."

As if the media hasn't been stretching the envelope for years anyway, they now have no fear of retribution for broadcasting anything and everything, at any time of the day.

God help us.