Click here for Adobe Acrobat version
Click here for Microsoft Word version


This document was converted from Microsoft Word.

Content from the original version of the document such as
headers, footers, footnotes, endnotes, graphics, and page numbers
will not show up in this text version.

All text attributes such as bold, italic, underlining, etc. from the
original document will not show up in this text version.

Features of the original document layout such as
columns, tables, line and letter spacing, pagination, and margins
will not be preserved in the text version.

If you need the complete document, download the
Microsoft Word or Adobe Acrobat version.


                    SEPARATE STATEMENT OF

Re:  Infinity Broadcasting Operations, Inc., Notice of 
Apparent Liability for Forfeiture

     This Notice sends the unmistakable message to Infinity 
and other broadcasters who violate our indecency rules:  We 
are stepping up our enforcement.  Once again, we give fair 
warning that the Commission can and will avail itself of a 
range of enforcement sanctions, including the initiation of 
proceedings that could result in the revocation of these 
stations' licenses.  I will not hesitate to consider such 
revocation proceedings for serious violations that occur 
after the explicit notice we provided in April in WKRK-FM, 
another case involving Infinity.  Similarly, as broadcasters 
were explicitly notified in April, I will also support on a 
going-forward basis an approach that treats each indecent 
utterance, such as distinct conversations or program 
segments, as a separate violation under our rules.  This 
will substantially increase our fines, which by statute are 
capped at an inadequate level, so they will be more 
commensurate with the offenses.  

     The Commission reached the obvious conclusion in this 
case that the broadcast material was indecent and Infinity 
should be liable for the full statutory maximum forfeiture 
amount.  It took far too long for us to reach this 
conclusion, and I hope we will act more swiftly in the 
future to send a clear message.  

     Infinity's actions here were unquestionably willful and 
egregious.  Program hosts Opie & Anthony held numerous 
conversations on the air with station spotters describing 
and encouraging sexual activity.  Station and program 
employees participated actively in the ``Sex for Sam'' 
contest by planning the event, arranging the spotters, 
encouraging the most provocative locations like toy stores 
and churches likely to expose innocent children and 
worshippers to unwelcome sexual conduct, and instructing the 
contestants to go inside St. Patrick's Cathedral.  These 
callous actions show a high degree of culpability and a 
deliberate attempt to heighten the shock to listeners.  They 
clearly offended community standards.  

Unfortunately, the statutory constraints on our ability to 
level fines are currently inadequate, as the low fines can 
be considered by broadcasters as a cost of doing business 
and not a serious deterrent.  In this case, a fine below the 
statutory maximum would not accurately reflect the 
circumstances and Infinity's culpability.  I believe 
strongly that our fines, or other appropriate enforcement 
actions, should be sufficient to deter broadcasters from 
broadcasting indecent material on the public's airwaves at a 
time when children are listening.  Today's action, while an 
important step in that direction, must be followed by more 
stringent, swifter and stricter enforcement of our statutory 
obligation to prevent indecent broadcasts over the public