U.S. broadcast networks are urging the Supreme Court to throw out the Federal Communications Commission’s indecency rules, or at least keep intact an appellate court decision that overturned FCC sanctioning of Fox TV stations for airing “fleeting expletives.”

The networks’ filings came Friday as the high court readies to hear arguments Nov. 4 about an appellate court ruling reversing an FCC decision that labeled indecent comments by Cher and Nicole Richie during the live telecasts of the 2002 and 2004 Billboard Music Awards on Fox stations.

The case stems from the FCC’s actions in 2004, when it announced it would step up indecency enforcement. As part of the change, the agency said it would reverse a long history of overlooking “fleeting expletives” in live programming and would scrutinize the programming more carefully, looking more closely at the context in which vulgar words were used.

The FCC determined that Fox TV stations violated indecency limits in the Billboard Music Awards broadcasts. No Fox stations were fined, but Fox challenged the decision.

In June 2007, a divided appellate court in New York overturned the FCC action against Fox and questioned whether the FCC had adequately justified the course shift for fleeting expletives or ever could.

The government and its supporters filed their briefs last month; broadcasters and their supporters filed today.

Fox in its brief called the policy shift “draconian.”

“The FCC abruptly abandoned the restraint that previous commissions accepted as constitutionally required, embarking on a regime of draconian enforcement and multimillion-dollar fines,” Fox said in its brief. “This new regime unsettled broadcasters’ expectations, chilled spontaneous programming and threatened the viability of live television.”

It also said the FCC had abandoned its traditional restraint and cautiousness and now “willy-nilly punishes utterances.”

Fox said the FCC’s plan to look at the context of when words were uttered was “picking and choosing among a wide variety of mainstream programming with no discernable standards to guide its discretion or inform broadcasters.”

Fox also questioned whether the media market had changed enough that the FCC indecency regulation was nor longer justified. Originally the court justified FCC indecency enforcement because viewers get TV signals over public airwaves. Fox said now most Americans watch broadcast TV and cable together and questioned whether the regulation has much effect on what viewers see.

NBC Universal, CBS and ABC, in a separate joint filing, agreed with Fox, saying the FCC switch “created a regime of arbitrary, unjustified and whole unpredictable content-based restrictions.”

The called the policy “protean” and “demonstrably capricious.”

“They flip and flop only to flip back again and display a unique talent for drawing inexplicable lines,” said the filing.

They also said parents have V-chips and other ways to block content and contended the FCC engaged in a content-based restriction without any proof that a fleeting expletive is a threat to children’s wellbeing.

The Center for Creative Voices in Media, which represents Hollywood creatives, said the FCC’s action had caused a chilling effect on content, with some broadcast licensees refusing to air programs for fear of FCC fines. It also said the FCC standards are vague and confusing and “have created an environment where viewers and listeners are prevented from receiving protected expressions.”