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:  Clear Channel Broadcasting Licenses, Inc., Notice of 
Apparent Liability for Forfeiture

     The Commission has a duty to enforce statutory and 
regulatory provisions restricting broadcast indecency.  The 
material broadcast by these four Clear Channel radio 
stations is undeniably graphic and explicit in its sexual 
content and clearly intended to shock listeners.  Clear 
Channel and, indeed, this particular ``Bubba the Love 
Sponge'' program have been the subject of repeated 
Commission indecency actions in the past.  Given the 
explicit nature of the broadcast material and the history of 
prior offenses, this is the type of serious repeated 
behavior that I believe would warrant initiation of license 
revocation hearings.  

     In fairness, however, this material was broadcast in 
2001.  The Commission clarified in an April 2003 order that 
it was broadening its range of enforcement approaches and 
tools to combat indecency on our nation's public airwaves.  
For this reason, I approve of today's Order as legally 
appropriate.  The egregious nature of the material clearly 
warrants the statutory maximum $27,500 fine per violation.  
While the Commission at all times has the authority to 
initiate license revocation hearings or sanction for 
multiple indecent utterances in a given program segment, it 
can be argued that the Commission was not employing these 
approaches at the time this material was broadcast.  
Nonetheless, as we made clear last year, broadcasters are 
now aware that the Commission will not hesitate to use its 
full range of enforcement sanctions for indecent material 
broadcast after April 2003.  

     I also acknowledge the importance of broadcasters 
adhering to the public inspection file rules.  Documents 
pertaining to an FCC investigation are clearly within the 
scope of the information that must be maintained in a manner 
accessible to the listening public.  In this case, each of 
the stations inexplicably failed to include complaints 
related to the airing of this material in their public 

     A broadcast license is a public privilege.  In return, 
broadcasters have a responsibility to serve the public.  
This public interest responsibility clearly encompasses 
protecting children from indecency on the airwaves and 
facilitating public access to documentation through which 
the station can remain accountable to its local community 
and listening public.  These stations exhibited a blatant 
disregard for both.