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.



     Re: Capstar TX Limited Partnership, licensee of 
     Stations WAVW(FM)(formerly WZZR(FM)), Stuart, Florida, 
     and WCZR(FM), Vero Beach, Florida, Notice of Apparent 
     Liability for Forfeiture

     In this case, two Clear Channel radio stations aired 
what was purportedly a couple engaging in sex and then 
discussed sexual activities with them.  Clear Channel has 
been the subject of repeated indecency actions at the FCC, 
accounting for well over half the indecency fines since 
2000.  Yet, notwithstanding the repeated nature of Clear 
Channel's transgressions, the majority proposes a mere 
$27,500 fine for each incident -- a ``cost of doing 
business'' to a media giant like Clear Channel.  

     For repeat offenders as in this case, I believe the 
Commission should have designated these cases for license 
revocation hearings.  As I recognized in a prior case, Clear 
Channel has taken some steps in recent days to address 
indecency on its stations.  A hearing would have provided 
the Commission with the ability to consider what actions the 
stations took in response to these broadcasts and to decide 
on the appropriate penalty.

     I am discouraged that my colleagues would not join me 
in taking a firm stand here against indecency on the 
airwaves.  The time has come for the Commission to send a 
strong message that it is serious about enforcing the 
indecency laws of our country.      

Although I do not support this decision, I am pleased that 
the Commission is proceeding in this case without a tape or 
transcript.  The complainant provided us with a description 
of what was heard on the radio.  The Commission has decided 
that this description was sufficient for us to find that the 
licensee broadcast indecency.  I hope the Commission will 
expressly and publicly overturn its general policy that a 
complainant must provide a tape, transcript, or significant 
excerpt of the programming at issue to support an indecency 
complaint.  I have long expressed the view that this 
practice places an inordinate responsibility on the 
complaining citizen and that it is the Commission's 
responsibility to investigate complaints that the law has 
been violated, not the citizen's responsibility to prove the