The dispute between the broadcast networks and the Federal Communications Commission is the court's first major broadcast indecency case in 30 years.

At issue is the FCC's policy, adopted in 2004, that even a one-time use of profanity on live television is indecent because some words are so offensive that they always evoke sexual or excretory images. So-called fleeting expletives were not treated as indecent before then.

The words in question begin with the letters "F" and "S." The Associated Press typically does not use them.

Chief Justice John Roberts, the only justice with young children at home, suggested that the commission's policy is reasonable. The use of either word, Roberts said, "is associated with sexual or excretory activity. That's what gives it its force."

Justice John Paul Stevens, who appeared skeptical of the policy, doubted that the f-word always conveys a sexual image.

The justices declined, without comment, to consider the constitutionality of a voluntary program passed by the Legislature and that took effect in 2004.

The program provides campaign money for state Supreme Court and Court of Appeals candidates if they agree to fundraising restrictions leading up to the general election. The decision came on the eve of an election in which all but two of the 13 candidates for those seats Tuesday participated in the program.

The decision leaves a federal lower court ruling in effect that upheld the law, which has been a model for other states, including New Mexico.

"This gives supporters of judicial public financing and public financing in general confidence and assurance that the long line of decisions (supporting) public financing ... are still the law of the land," said Paul Ryan, an attorney with the Washington-based Campaign Legal Center, whose group earlier filed a friend-of-the-court brief in support of the law.

Former Supreme Court candidate Rusty Duke and the North Carolina Right to Life Committee sued over the law in 2005, arguing it restricted free speech rights in cases where outside groups or nonparticipating candidates exceeded spending thresholds.

The qualifying candidates receive matching "rescue funds" to counter such injections of money.

But the arm pulling at the bowstring was amputated below the elbow — just like Diana Levine's — and the target was labeled the "Wyeth monster."

That's Wyeth as in Wyeth Pharmaceuticals, the company Levine blames for a botched injection of the Wyeth-made drug Phenergan that led doctors to amputate her right arm in 2000.

Levine, once a professional guitar player and pianist, now plays with one hand and sings. "It's about getting my glow back," she said recently as she was awaiting a hearing Monday before the U.S. Supreme Court, where Wyeth is appealing a $6.7 million verdict in her favor.

The outcome of Levine's case could have major ramifications for drug makers and consumers. The court is expected to decide whether people can sue under state law — or are pre-empted from doing so — for harm caused by a drug approved by the federal Food and Drug Administration.

The Iowa Court of Appeals said Officer Michael Mette's trial judge had no testimony on which to base her ruling that he could have walked away from a fight with another man — but didn't.

Mette had argued self-defense in the 2005 fight in Dubuque with Jake Gothard that left Gothard with a fractured nose, cheek and jaw.

In November 2006, First Judicial District Judge Monica Ackley found Mette guilty of assault causing serious injury and sentenced him to five years. She said Mette was not the initial aggressor but could have retreated.

The case prompted an outcry in Chicago, where prominent officials, including Chicago Mayor Richard Daley, Cook County State's Attorney Richard Devine and Chicago Police Superintendent Jody Weis, had called for Mette's release.

In its ruling, the appeals court found that there was no testimony to support Ackley's findings.

U.S. District Judge James Gwin in Cleveland issued a temporary restraining order forcing Madison County to follow Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner's instructions. The county had said that, one the advice of its county prosecutor, it was not going to allow same-day voting during the six-day window that runs through Oct. 6.

It was the first of three court decisions involving an early voting window that has become a highly partisan battle.

Both Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama's campaign and the Republican National Committee have urged supporters in Ohio to use the early voting. But there are Republican-backed lawsuits against it.

The state GOP has filed a statewide challenge to the voting window in federal court in Columbus. A hearing was scheduled for Monday.

Two GOP-backed voters also have filed a lawsuit in the Ohio Supreme Court, which could rule Monday.

The two lawsuits argue that Ohio law requires voters to be registered for at least 30 days before they cast an absentee ballot. Republicans have said Ohio law doesn't allow same-day registration and voting, and have accused Brunner, a Democrat, of reading a partisan interpretation into law to benefit her own party.

The disputed voting window results from an overlap between Tuesday's beginning of absentee voting 35 days before Election Day, and the Oct. 6 end of voter registration period.

The court unanimously agreed with Jeremy Jaynes' argument that the law violates the free-speech protections of the First Amendment because it does not just restrict commercial e-mails — it restricts other unsolicited messages as well. Most other states also have anti-spam laws, and there is a federal CAN-SPAM Act as well, but those laws apply only to commercial e-mail pitches.

The Virginia law "is unconstitutionally overbroad on its face because it prohibits the anonymous transmission of all unsolicited bulk e-mails, including those containing political, religious or other speech protected by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution," Justice G. Steven Agee wrote.

Agee wrote that "were the Federalist Papers just being published today via e-mail, that transmission by Publius would violate the statute." Publius was the pseudonym used by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay in essays urging ratification of the Constitution.

U.S. District Judge James Spencer denied a preliminary injunction sought by The Real Truth About Obama Inc. against the Federal Election Commission. The injunction would have barred the FEC from enforcing its fundraising and advertising regulations against the Richmond-based group, which was formed by anti-abortion activists.

The organization claimed in court papers that its "issue advocacy" amounts to constitutionally protected free speech that does not expressly advocate the election or defeat of a candidate.

In a brief order, Spencer said the constitutional claim lacked merit and that an injunction would harm the public. He did not elaborate but said a written explanation of his ruling will be issued later.

James Bopp Jr. of Terre Haute, Ind., attorney for The Real Truth About Obama, said he likely will ask the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for an expedited appeal of Spencer's ruling.

"The purpose of the First Amendment is to protect our ability to speak about issues and candidates and do so in a timely way," said Bopp.