In the first place, the Supremes long ago set a line about community standards, which will undoubtedly be the determining factor in Fox's continued appeal. But you're ignoring a point i'd already made which is that what is "inhibited" in one venue is actually produced in another venue, both of them a part of the American television production system. As i've alreay pointed out, this is neither an inferior or a superior system, it's just a different system.
It may well be that "permissiveness" is greater in Gemany. But so what? That does not constitute evidence that there is no segment of the German television viewing population which does deplore the situation. And, once again, even it that were established, it would only be evidence that the two situations were different, not that one or the other is better or worse. About the only reasonable adjective would be preferable.
My overall complaint, though, is the constant niggling drum beat of criticisms, all of which seem to be predicated on a condescending attitude toward these differences. Maybe we just got the lion's share of religiously motivated people from the old world. Certainly, the Moravians, the Mennonites and several other religiously extremist groups found the North American colonies attractive from as early as the late 17th century. (In particular, Pennsylvania, which was arguably the most religiously tolerant place in the European world then, except perhaps for Holland, which nevertheless imposed heavy limitations on Catholics.)
Whatever the reasons may be, this kind of social conservatism finds a home in the United States. Without being able to show that this is harmful to society, it's silly to sneer at it simply because it's different. Beside that, it's the little things that rankle. When people from countries with Westminster-style parliamentary systems have a rant about the Electoral College, i don't get to terribly upset--many, perhaps most, Americans don't understand its origin, nor its function--and a function which i personally consider to be useful and am glad to see continuing. In fact, i rather laugh at comments about how "undemocratic" the EC is, from nations where the chief executive is elected by a few thousand people in a single electoral district. Leaving aside that nothing in the constitution guarantees a democratic system, how is the Westminster or any similar system more "democratic" when the chief executive is chosen by a method wihtout a shred of democratic credential to cover its nakedness? No, there's just times when the constant petty carping gets tedious enough to elicit a response, and this was one of those.