NEWS
	Federal Communications Commission 445 12th Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20554	News media information 202 / 418-0500 Fax-On-Demand 202 / 418-2830 Internet: http://www.fcc.gov TTY: 202/418-2555
	This is an unofficial announcement of Commission action. Release of the full text of a Commission order constitutes official action. See MCI v. FCC. 515 F 2d 385 (D.C. Circ 1974).
	For Immediate Release April 9, 2001 Press Contact Bryan Tramont 202-418-2000
	FURCHTGOTT-ROTH REACTS TO VIACOM STAY
	I was heartened to learn Friday that the United States Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit had stayed the Commission's May 4 divestiture deadline for Viacom/CBS. The deadline was an outgrowth of the Commission's review of the license transfers associated with the Viacom/CBS merger. The stay reminded me once again that Commissioners at the Federal Communications Commission take a simple oath of office, the same as used by other federal officials. The oath is to defend the Constitution. Consequently, one might reasonably expect the Commission to be the champion of the Constitution. Parties before the Commission should expect a fair and precise interpretation of the law. Parties should not expect the Commission to limit anyone's constitutional rights. Indeed, parties before the Commission should expect it to go to extraordinary lengths to avoid circumscribing constitutional rights. Given the reasonable expectations of parties, the decisions of the FCC in recent months have been both baffling and disappointing. In two recent cases (regarding our EEO rules and the Time Warner decision addressing ownership caps), the DC Circuit Court found that the FCC unlawfully limited parties' constitutional rights. Last Friday's stay was based on similar concerns. Parties can and do challenge the Commission's decisions in court. It is the responsibility of the Commission to make lawful and constitutional decisions, and to defend those decisions in court. Where constitutional matters are at issue, the Commission should err on the side of defending the Constitution, not on circumscribing it. Prospectively, that means the Commission will have to make decisions that do not test the envelope of the Constitution. Retrospectively, the Commission should abandon precedents where prior Commissions went beyond the realm of constitutionally permissible conduct. I look forward to the day that the FCC can be looked upon as a champion of constitutional rights, rather than a threat to those rights.