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:  Complaints by Parents Television Council against 
     Various Broadcast Licensees Regarding Their Airing of 
     Allegedly Indecent Material

     We continue to hear from citizens who are concerned 
about sexually explicit and profane programming on the 
airwaves and the potentially detrimental effects of this 
programming on our children.  As an initial matter, I would 
note that this Commission has a solemn obligation to respond 
to consumer complaints.  These complaints are increasing 
exponentially from a few hundred only a couple of years ago 
to over 1 million in 2004.    And in the last few years, 
complaints about television broadcasts have equaled or 
exceeded those about radio broadcasts.  Yet, although the 
Commission recently has begun to take action against 
indecency on television, some citizens remain concerned that 
the FCC summarily dismisses their complaints.  At the same 
time, some broadcasters contend that the Commission has not 
been adequately clear about how it determines whether a 
broadcast is indecent.  Today's rather cursory decisions do 
little to address any of these concerns.    

     In these two Orders, the Commission combines 36 
unrelated complaints with no apparent rhyme or reason other 
than that they concern television broadcasts.  The 
Commission then denies these complaints with hardly any 
analysis of each individual broadcast, relying instead on 
generalized pronouncements that none of these broadcasts 
violates the statutory prohibition against indecency on the 
airwaves.  I believe that some of these broadcasts present a 
much closer call.  Exemplary of the complaints that should 
not have been summarily denied is one concerning The Diary 
of Ellen Rimbauer, which I believe may very well violate the 
statutory prohibition against indecency. 

     Although it may never be possible to provide 100 
percent certainty because we must always take into account 
the specific context, developing guidance and establishing 
precedents are critically important Commission 
responsibilities.  We serve neither concerned consumers nor 
the broadcast industry with the approach adopted in today's