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 Radio License, Inc., Licensee of Station 
WLLD(FM), Holmes Beach, Florida, Memorandum Opinion and 

     In this decision, the majority upholds the Enforcement 
Bureau's decision to fine Infinity $7000 for airing graphic 
and explicit sexual content that clearly violates the 
statutory prohibition on broadcasting obscene, indecent, or 
profane language.    

     This decision highlights serious problems with way the 
Commission carries out its statutory enforcement 
responsibilities.  The timeline of this complaint 
demonstrates clearly why many consider the Commission's 
enforcement to be ineffective.  Many complaints languish for 
a year or more without any action.  But this case shows that 
even after the first Notice is issued, the delays are just 

  September 1999 -- the program aired.  

  December 2000 -- the Enforcement Bureau issues the 
   initial Notice of Apparent Liability fifteen months 

  March 2001 -- the Bureau releases its Forfeiture Order 
   three months later.

  September 2002 -- the Bureau takes another year and a 
   half to address Infinity's reconsideration petition.

  March 2004 -- a year and a half after that, the 
   Commission is finally addressing this case - four and a 
   half years after this program was broadcast.   

     And when this agency finally acts, the penalties it 
imposes are woefully inadequate.  The vulgar and explicit 
nature of the indecency and profanity that was broadcast 
gives the FCC the obligation to take serious action.  
Instead, the majority upholds a fine of $7000.  Such a fine 
does not even rise to a cost of doing business for this 
multi-billion dollar conglomerate.  

     It is small wonder that Americans across this country 
are dissatisfied with the Commission's enforcement of these 
statutes against obscenity, indecency, and profanity.   How 
do we change this situation?  First, we must begin to assess 
truly meaningful fines.  Second, the more outrageous cases 
should be sent to hearings for possible revocation of 
licenses.  Third, the Commissioners themselves, rather than 
the Bureau should be making these decisions.  Issues of 
indecency on the people's airwaves are important to millions 
of Americans.  I believe they merit, indeed compel, 
Commissioner-level action.  And finally, the Commission 
should set a deadline for action on all obscenity, 
indecency, and profanity complaints.  Congress has taken 
notice of this problem and is already moving forward to set 
such deadlines for the Commission.  The Energy and Commerce 
Committee of the United States House of Representatives 
voted just last week to require the Commission to act on 
complaints within 180 days and to issue forfeitures within 
270 days.  Although I applaud the decision to provide a 
deadline for Commission action, I urge my colleagues not to 
wait for legislation to get our indecency enforcement house 
in order.