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.


                   DISSENTING STATEMENT OF 

Re:  Infinity Broadcasting Operations Inc., licensee of 
WKRK-FM, Detroit Michigan, Notice of Apparent Liability for 

     In this case, WKRK-FM in Detroit aired some of the most 
vulgar and disgusting indecency that I have had the 
misfortune to examine since I joined the Commission. The 
station presented graphic descriptions of violent sexual 
acts against women as entertainment at a time when children 
likely composed a significant portion of the audience.  The 
extreme nature of this broadcast - among the worst we have 
faced in the Commission's history - and the fact that it was 
broadcast in the middle of the day, gives the FCC the 
responsibility to take serious action.  I dissent from the 
majority's decision because I believe that a financial slap 
on the wrist does not adequately reflect the seriousness of 
the station's actions.  To fulfill our duty under the law, 
we should initiate a hearing to determine whether the WKRK-
FM license should be revoked.

     I am deeply disappointed that the majority proposes a 
mere $27,500 fine against this station.  Such a fine will 
easily be absorbed by the station as a ``cost of doing 
business.''  While I am encouraged that the Commission has 
at least, and at last, found such programming to be 
indecent, I am discouraged that it does so little about it.  

     Would anyone who reads the transcript of this program 
argue that the United States should subsidize such material 
by giving WKRK-FM free spectrum through their broadcast 
license?  Can anyone read the indecency law that Congress 
has given us and conclude that any station could broadcast 
such material on the public's airwaves consistent with the 
law?  The majority admits that WKRK-FM appears to have 
violated egregiously and extensively the statutory ban on 
the broadcast of indecent material.  The majority presumably 
recognizes the seriousness of the offense.  And, 
importantly, this Commission has agreed for the first time 
that it may revoke the license of a station owner that 
broadcasts indecent material.  But the Commission does not 
take this step.

     Our tepid action today will not dissuade these types of 
broadcasts in the future.  The message to licensees is 
clear:  Even egregious violations will not result in 
revocation of a license.  The majority does warn Infinity 
that another similar action could result in a revocation 
hearing, but it fails to mention that this is not the first 
action against a station owned by Infinity.  Infinity 
stations were fined $1.7 million by a previous Commission in 
1995 to settle a series of indecency cases.  As part of that 
settlement, Infinity agreed to take steps to prevent further 
broadcast of indecent material.  But more complaints 
involving other broadcasts followed.  Last August, for 
example, another Infinity station aired the ``Opie & 
Anthony'' program allegedly involving sex acts performed in 
or near St. Patrick's Cathedral.  That investigation is 
still pending without action by the Commission. 

     The majority may say that this is the largest fine we 
are allowed to impose under our guidelines.  But fines are 
not the only tool Congress gave us to enforce the law.  The 
Commission would be more credible by moving immediately to a 
hearing to determine whether the station's license should be 
revoked.  We would be well within our statutory authority to 
do this under Section 312(a)(6) of the Communications Act, 
which specifically provides such a remedy.

     I wonder when this Commission will finally take a firm 
stand against broadcast's ``race to the bottom'' as the 
level of discourse on the public's airwaves gets 
progressively coarser and more violent.  The time has come 
for this Commission to send a message that it is serious 
about enforcing its indecency rules.  Our enforcement 
actions should convince broadcasters that they cannot ignore 
their responsibility to serve the public interest and to 
protect children.  The FCC's actions today fail to do so.